From: connolly@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Cases vs. Adverbs (was: -ze and -the in Attic Greek)
Date: 8 Apr 92 19:54:38 GMT
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <1992Apr7.182853.19191@cis.ohio-state.edu>, schuyler@violin.cis.ohio-state.edu (Carlton Schuyler) writes:
> In article <p9pjg7c@lynx.unm.edu> lgorbet@carina.unm.edu (Larry P Gorbet ANTHROPOLOGY) writes:
>>Leo Connolly writes:
>>> I suggest another distinction (which I'm sure isn't original but can't
>>> attribute at the moment).  Only morphemes which apply to most or all nouns
>>> (not NPs) may be called case.  Those which apply only to a very limited
>>> subset of nouns (e.g. only to certain place names) should be called
>>> adverbs.
>>
>>A problem for this characterization is that there are morphemes which 
>>don't fall into either category -- they attach to NP's (not N's) but are 
>>not at all restricted to any subset.
>>
>>The example I know best is Dieguen~o (or 'Iipay Aa), a Yuman language of
>>southern California and Baja California, but the same things applies to
>>Yuman generally and, I believe, to some languages of unrelated families in
>>South America, Oceania, and maybe W. Africa.
>>
>>In Dieguen~o, there are six morphological case suffixes:
>>  Nominative    -c [...hachek -- i.e. vl. alveopalatal affricate)
>>  Accusative    -[zero]
>>  Comitative    -m
>>  Ablative      -k
>>  Locative      -i
>>  Inessive/Ill. -Ly [vl. alveopalatal lateral]
>>
>>In relative clause constructions, for example, the suffix attaches not to
>>the head noun but to the verb of the relative clause (the language is
>>verb final and relatives are so-called "internally-headed"). Similarly, 
>>NP's which are conjunctions of N's have only the final N suffixed with 
>>the case marker indicating the role of the NP. I don't see what's odd
>>about this at all -- it *is* the NP which is semantically filling an
>>argument role, not an N. But maybe I missed something...

If I understand you right (I'm not sure I do), I would agree that Dieguen~o
has case, since the morphemes are general, applying to all categories
of nouns and/or NPs.  At least, they couldn't be called adverbs, even if
they must be said to apply to the NP rather than to the noun.

English _'s_ is a peculiar fish anyway.  What do you think of this one:
that it changes an NP into a determiner-pronoun equivalent to _this_
or _that_.  Like other such pronouns, it can serve as an NP but cannot
be modified by an adjective or (with lexically restricted exceptions)
be preceded by a determiner.

	that book : Charlie's book
	That's awful : Charlie's is awful

	But: a children's game : *a children's piano

> 
> I wonder what the Hungarian "case" suffixes are, then?  They can all
> be attached to any noun or adjective used as a noun, but occur only with
> the last noun of a string of adjectives/nouns.

I'll accept that they are case: exempt nouns are exempt because of
syntax and/or position, not because they constitute a discrete category.
I would compare the failure of nouns to use a plural morpheme in some
languages when used with a cardinal number.  Does that make the plural
marker of e.g. Turkish somehow different from that of English?  I think
not.

But please don't read too much into my distinction: it was meant to
work for ancient Greek but otherwise to be only a guideline on how
to categorize certain morphological categories.

--Leo Connolly
Newsgroups: sci.lang