|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 8:12 pm
Hello forum, I hope I was allowed to post? Or was I supposed to join first? Being able to post without request of joining is confusing me, so please have patience with me if I erred. redface I am studying Linguistics and have very few resources outside the internet realm, and can't seem to understand most of the links or descriptions on the internet. It seems more like descriptions for "advanced" students of Linguistics, or perhaps it is my dyslexia making it difficult... Well, anyway, sorry for that ramble. sweatdrop I wanted to ask for the simplest explanation or any explanation of cases along side prepositions. I am trying to learn a few languages, as well as create one, and am stuck at this point. And have been for a few months. Can't see to find anything! So what I would like to ask, if I may, is; what is Case and how does it work in languages/conlangs?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 9:02 pm
MagitekElite Hello forum, I hope I was allowed to post? Or was I supposed to join first? Being able to post without request of joining is confusing me, so please have patience with me if I erred. redface I am studying Linguistics and have very few resources outside the internet realm, and can't seem to understand most of the links or descriptions on the internet. It seems more like descriptions for "advanced" students of Linguistics, or perhaps it is my dyslexia making it difficult... Well, anyway, sorry for that ramble. sweatdrop I wanted to ask for the simplest explanation or any explanation of cases along side prepositions. I am trying to learn a few languages, as well as create one, and am stuck at this point. And have been for a few months. Can't see to find anything! So what I would like to ask, if I may, is; what is Case and how does it work in languages/conlangs?
A case is basically a certain form of a noun that identifies its grammatical function in a sentence. To put it more simply, I'll discuss the use of cases in English. Since you seem to speak that well enough, I hope you'll be able to understand.
In English, cases tend to be used only in rare occasions with the personal pronouns:
I, me, mine; you, yours; he, him, his; she, her, hers.
Notice that "I", "me" and "mine" all describe the speaker. The cases are what make the word change. "I" is called the "nominative" case. In other words, it's the subject. "Me" is called the "accusative" case, or it is the direct (or in English, the indirect as well [which is referred to as the "dative"]) object. "Mine" shows possession and is called the "genitive" case. To see the difference, use them in a sentence. "I am [name here]." That makes "I" the subject. "Tell me." Here, "I" am no longer the subject, but am now the object of "tell", so the pronoun's "case" changes to reflect its new grammatical position. I => me. "That is mine." Since I'm now possessing something, the case changes again to show this particular grammatical stand. I => mine.
The pronoun "you" happens to have the same nominative and accusative/dative form. "You are learning." You are the subject, but: "I will tell you." The cases happen to have the same form here. And: "That is yours." Genitive now.
"He is learning." "She is learning." Subjects.
"I'll tell him." "I'll tell her." Objects.
"That is his." "That is hers." Possessors.
The pronouns essentially describe the same person, but those people are, grammatically, doing something different in each sentence.
As far as English goes, that's about the only time the case system is in effect. In other languages, such as Latin, the case system is much more prominent:
Ego (I), me (me), mihi (to/for/at me), mei (of me/mine).
Tu (you), te (you [object]), tibi (to/for/at you), tui (of you/yours)
Not only do pronouns undergo case changes, but all nouns in Latin do, and Latin has several more cases than English does.
Ugh, I realize that I babble on quite a bit. I hope that, at the very least, you can take snippets of this ridiculously overdone explanation and be able to learn from it. And, of course, if you still have questions, please ask! I'm more than happy to answer them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tc Frorleivus Almus Ph Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 9:50 pm
Thank you so very much for the reply, Shizuka Mizu! 3nodding
No, please, I very much like your 'babbling' and would like more of it! It is very easy for me to understand, and is given in examples I know of and can understand. whee
You are actually the first of many people and many sources to actually put it in a way I can understand, especially as a new student. I have only dabbled in Russian and Welsh, and am near an "intermediate" level of Lakȟóta, so it is hard to understand all these Linguistic terms and whatnot.
I think I understand. So when I change the pronoun "I" in "I am [name here]" to "me" in "That is me", I am changing the pronoun's nominative case into the accusative case? And then I change the pronoun again to dative in "That is mine!" or "That is my sock"?
@ the part of your post where you said "The cases happen to have the same form here."
So it is like the plural and singular "you", as in you can't see the difference, but hear/know the difference by looking at the sentence or by the marker is has (in this case, outside of English)? Or did I just confuse it for another Linguistics term/thing? sweatdrop
*And I do have a few more questions concerning case (well, something alongside it), but I will try my hardest not to completely bother you with my questions. redface
Wóphila akhé!
Thanks again for answering my questions, Shizuka Mizu, I very much appreciate the help!
Magitek~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 4:29 pm
MagitekElite Thank you so very much for the reply, Shizuka Mizu! 3nodding No, please, I very much like your 'babbling' and would like more of it! It is very easy for me to understand, and is given in examples I know of and can understand. whee You are actually the first of many people and many sources to actually put it in a way I can understand, especially as a new student. I have only dabbled in Russian and Welsh, and am near an "intermediate" level of Lakȟóta, so it is hard to understand all these Linguistic terms and whatnot. I think I understand. So when I change the pronoun "I" in "I am [name here]" to "me" in "That is me", I am changing the pronoun's nominative case into the accusative case? And then I change the pronoun again to dative in "That is mine!" or "That is my sock"? @ the part of your post where you said "The cases happen to have the same form here." So it is like the plural and singular "you", as in you can't see the difference, but hear/know the difference by looking at the sentence or by the marker is has (in this case, outside of English)? Or did I just confuse it for another Linguistics term/thing? sweatdrop *And I do have a few more questions concerning case (well, something alongside it), but I will try my hardest not to completely bother you with my questions. redface Wóphila akhé! Thanks again for answering my questions, Shizuka Mizu, I very much appreciate the help! Magitek~
You're changing the pronoun to "genitive", since it's showing possession, but only when you use "mine". The word "my" is considered an adjective, which is describing "sock".
"So it is like the plural and singular "you", as in you can't see the difference, but hear/know the difference by looking at the sentence or by the marker is has (in this case, outside of English)?"
Yes, exactly!
If you have more questions, please ask. Completely bother me; I like to be bothered about this kind of thing. :B
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tc Frorleivus Almus Ph Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 6:59 pm
Philámayaye! (I say thanks to you!) Oops, yes, I meant "genitive". redface Aye, a few more questions, and it is related to cases still. I hope I am not making an idiotic mess out of what I'm trying to say. sweatdrop I am told that languages can have and don't have to have prepositions since cases can do what they do, but that in some instances, some languages have both case and preposition. I was told it was redundancy if a language had case and prepositions or rather, each case had a preposition for it. For instance, Latvian: gald s "table" (nominative case) gald ā "table" (locative case) uz gald a "on the table" (genitive case) uz gald u "onto the table" (accusative case) Pudele stāvēja gald ā or Pudele stāvēja uz gald a "The bottle stood on the table." underline = case ending bolded = preposition What is confusing me is what do they mean? Do they mean that, if I had 6 cases, there shouldn't be a preposition for each and every case because it would be redundant, but for further meaning, creating prepositions along side some cases can clear up the meaning? For example, and I hope it is okay to do, but I found something through google searching and came upon this (below) hoping it would help me. And I understand a bit of it, but I am very unsure. Quote: I think that what linguoboy is trying to say is that your language shouldn't have a different case for each and every single preposition, since that would make either cases or prepositions totally redundant. Look at Finnish, it has 6 locative cases that often replace prepositions and postpositions altogether, making it become like 'I am roomssa' instead of I am in (the) room" or 'I am roomlla' instead of "I am outside (the) room". Then you can do as in Latvian where you can use case only when it's clear from context what preposition it replaces, but for the most part you still need both. So you can have 'book is tableā' and it means '(the) book is on (the) table', or 'he is roomā' and it means 'he is in (the) room', but if the book is under, over, near or next to the table you need a preposition, the same goes for if the guy is outside, near or next to the room. And since using prepositions together with case is the default way in the language you can still use them too, it's just that it's a bit shorter and easier to use only case in some very common situations. Or you can go the English way and let prepositions and word order do all the work for you. Actually you can go one step further and take away the difference between 'I' and 'me', 'he' and 'him' etc, English only uses it for a few personal pronouns and doesn't really need it anyway, it's not like 'you see it' is any more ambiguous than 'you see me'. Thank you again, Shizuka Mizu! Magitek~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2012 9:21 am
MagitekElite Philámayaye! (I say thanks to you!) Oops, yes, I meant "genitive". redface Aye, a few more questions, and it is related to cases still. I hope I am not making an idiotic mess out of what I'm trying to say. sweatdrop I am told that languages can have and don't have to have prepositions since cases can do what they do, but that in some instances, some languages have both case and preposition. I was told it was redundancy if a language had case and prepositions or rather, each case had a preposition for it. For instance, Latvian: gald s "table" (nominative case) gald ā "table" (locative case) uz gald a "on the table" (genitive case) uz gald u "onto the table" (accusative case) Pudele stāvēja gald ā or Pudele stāvēja uz gald a "The bottle stood on the table." underline = case ending bolded = preposition What is confusing me is what do they mean? Do they mean that, if I had 6 cases, there shouldn't be a preposition for each and every case because it would be redundant, but for further meaning, creating prepositions along side some cases can clear up the meaning? For example, and I hope it is okay to do, but I found something through google searching and came upon this (below) hoping it would help me. And I understand a bit of it, but I am very unsure. Quote: I think that what linguoboy is trying to say is that your language shouldn't have a different case for each and every single preposition, since that would make either cases or prepositions totally redundant. Look at Finnish, it has 6 locative cases that often replace prepositions and postpositions altogether, making it become like 'I am roomssa' instead of I am in (the) room" or 'I am roomlla' instead of "I am outside (the) room". Then you can do as in Latvian where you can use case only when it's clear from context what preposition it replaces, but for the most part you still need both. So you can have 'book is tableā' and it means '(the) book is on (the) table', or 'he is roomā' and it means 'he is in (the) room', but if the book is under, over, near or next to the table you need a preposition, the same goes for if the guy is outside, near or next to the room. And since using prepositions together with case is the default way in the language you can still use them too, it's just that it's a bit shorter and easier to use only case in some very common situations. Or you can go the English way and let prepositions and word order do all the work for you. Actually you can go one step further and take away the difference between 'I' and 'me', 'he' and 'him' etc, English only uses it for a few personal pronouns and doesn't really need it anyway, it's not like 'you see it' is any more ambiguous than 'you see me'. Thank you again, Shizuka Mizu! Magitek~
So, essentially, yes, prepositions are often given for "further meaning" and are not considered redundant, but as far as I know, only in those languages with six or so cases. I have never studied Finnish and don't know anything about its many locative cases, so it may be considered redundant; further research is required before I answer that one.
In the case of Latin, most often, you need the preposition, and some prepositions' meanings change subtly depending on what case you use with it:
Puella in quadrato rubro stat. "The girl stands in a red square." (The preposition 'in' is used with the ablative case.)
Puella in quadratum rubrum ambulat. "The girl walks into a red square." (The same preposition is now used with the accusative case and gives a feeling of continuous motion as opposed to the static feeling of the ablative.)
So in summary, I think what we're trying to get at here is that if a language has several cases, prepositions are still required for further meaning, though if there are enough cases (you'd need quite a large number of cases, however) you might not need as many. The many locative cases in Finnish often (implying not every single time) replace prepositions, but in theory you'd still need to use one every now and then.
Of course it's okay to Google things, by the way. I hope that I didn't just confuse you more, and no, you're not making a fool of yourself, certainly not. If you have more questions or are further confused by my attempted explanation, then by all means.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tc Frorleivus Almus Ph Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2012 1:00 pm
Oh! So its the fact that the cases often times cover the need of prepositions, but there are times in some languages were some cases could use prepositions to further define the meaning of the sentence alongside the case?
This certainly makes a lot more sense to me! lol
If I have properly understood case and the use of prepositions alongside it, may I ask about Agreement? For instance, is this agreement on numbers (it is in English): would be the changes of "that" to "those" (etc etc) in the sentence "That sock is mine!" > "Those socks are mine!",
*By the way, was 'um' and 'o' the case endings in those Latin sentences?*
Thank you again! smile
Magitek~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2012 8:31 pm
MagitekElite Oh! So its the fact that the cases often times cover the need of prepositions, but there are times in some languages were some cases could use prepositions to further define the meaning of the sentence alongside the case? This certainly makes a lot more sense to me! lol If I have properly understood case and the use of prepositions alongside it, may I ask about Agreement? For instance, is this agreement on numbers (it is in English): would be the changes of "that" to "those" (etc etc) in the sentence " That sock is mine!" > " Those socks are mine!", *By the way, was 'um' and 'o' the case endings in those Latin sentences?*Thank you again! smile Magitek~
As for agreement, I'm not sure if you mean agreement of prepositions or agreement of adjectives, so I'll address both. In the case of prepositions, they don't usually have numbers, genders or cases, so they don't have to agree with anything. "That" and "those" are called "demonstrative adjectives", and they do have to agree with the noun they describe (the rare occasion that this happens in English :'p). In most other cases, English adjectives don't have to agree: The red sock is mine; The red socks are mine. Note that "red" stays the same in both sentences.
In Latin, however, *all* adjectives must match any noun they describe in number, gender and case; not just the demonstrative ones: Illud rubrum impilium est meum. ("That red sock is mine."); Illa rubra impilia sunt mea. ("Those red socks are mine.") Note that "red" (ruber, rubra, rubrum) goes from rubrum => rubra when the sock goes from singular to plural as well as when "that" (ille, illa, illud) goes from illud => illa simultaneously. Subsequently, most of the modern Romance languages follow this general rule of thumb in that most adjectives have a masculine and a feminine form, as well as a singular and a plural (though since the case system has been largely done away with in most of them, there are very few case changes). As for other languages with cases (such as Hellenistic Greek and Old Norse), the same rule of having adjectives agree with nouns in all three aspects applies as it does in Latin.
*Yes. The ending -um marks the nominative/accusative singular of neutral green nouns while the -o marks the dative/ablative singular.
I'm more than happy to help!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tc Frorleivus Almus Ph Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2012 8:57 pm
My apologies. I had meant Agreement in numbers, gender, etc etc. whee But yes, I think that answered my question quite well. So if I wanted agreement on adjectives, would it be like this ('ja' is the marker in this instance): That catja is very redja!"
I very much like the idea of Agreement with Adjectives. heart
Hmm, this does not concern cases, but I was wondering about Syntax, if I may? Wikipedia lists each Syntax and tells you "subject object verb/verb object subject", but i can't seem to find anything that can tell me where the rest of the sentence goes.
For example, in SOV, where do adjectives, prepositions, adverbs etc etc go? Does it have to follow a preset template of whatever Syntax, or can the person writing in that template choose where it goes? xp
Thank you again! xD
Magitek~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2012 9:34 pm
MagitekElite My apologies. I had meant Agreement in numbers, gender, etc etc. whee But yes, I think that answered my question quite well. So if I wanted agreement on adjectives, would it be like this ('ja' is the marker in this instance): That cat ja is very red ja!" I very much like the idea of Agreement with Adjectives. heart Hmm, this does not concern cases, but I was wondering about Syntax, if I may? Wikipedia lists each Syntax and tells you "subject object verb/verb object subject", but i can't seem to find anything that can tell me where the rest of the sentence goes. For example, in SOV, where do adjectives, prepositions, adverbs etc etc go? Does it have to follow a preset template of whatever Syntax, or can the person writing in that template choose where it goes? xp Thank you again! xD Magitek~
As for syntax, that is a very good question and I'm glad you asked!
The syntax depends on the language. In the case of English, the syntax (or word order) is very strict. Since we don't have cases, we have to subscribe to a very specific syntax in order to be properly understood.
In the case of a language that has lots of cases, however, the syntax isn't that important. Usually there is a rule of thumb, a sort of "suggested" syntax, and changing this template doesn't have any impact on the meaning, but rather changes the emphasis of the sentence. For example, in Latin, the general rule is:
Subject - Object - Verb.
Adjectives, since they have to agree with the noun they describe, may be placed anywhere; we'll know what they describe because of the agreement.
"I will go to the forum today to buy some red socks." =in Latin=> Hodie ad foro aliqua rubra impilia ibo venditum. Literally worded: "Today to forum some red socks I will go to buy." We could change it up and move "red" to whatever position we wanted to because we can see that it matches "socks" in all three aspects, so we won't lose what is supposed to be red.
As for prepositions, they'll usually come right before the noun they are modifying. As in the previous example, "ad" comes right before "foro". To forum. They don't usually move away from the nouns, since they don't agree; we might get confused if it moves too far away.
Adverbs also have no genders, numbers or cases, so they usually have to stick close to the words they modify as well. Let's see... an example using an adverb... Oh! Let's *not* go to the forum today to buy some red socks.
Hodie ad foro aliqua rubra impilia non ibo venditum. "I will not go to the forum today to buy some red socks."
If we moved non (the adverb, "not") away from ibo ("I will go") and, say, put it in front of "rubra", that makes it sound like the socks aren't red. Since it has no agreement, it usually modifies what it's sitting right in front of. So:
Hodie ad foro aliqua non rubra impilia ibo venditum
sounds like:
"I will go to the forum today to buy some not red socks."
So, after all my babble, I think in summary the best overall answer I can give is that it depends a bit on the language. With languages that utilize a heavy case system like Latin, this tends to happen (at least, with Hellenistic Greek and Old Norse). The general rule is that there is no specific word order. If the word can agree with something, it can move around; if it cannot agree, then it has to stick with the word it modifies. I hope this helps!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tc Frorleivus Almus Ph Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2012 9:52 pm
So the more case and agreement, the less needed the syntax is? What if a word does not modify, or am I wrong in that fact and everything modifies something?
What if, for example, someone writes with more than one article? Using generated words, would it function much the same in English to that regard, like so:
[VSO syntax example]
Tuu ru goyish ru hinib (Read the teach the book)
The teacher read the book.
Or would you stack like this: Tuu ru ru goish hinib.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:11 pm
MagitekElite So the more case and agreement, the less needed the syntax is? What if a word does not modify, or am I wrong in that fact and everything modifies something? What if, for example, someone writes with more than one article? Using generated words, would it function much the same in English to that regard, like so: [VSO syntax example] Tuu ru goyish ru hinib (Read the teach the book) The teacher read the book.Or would you stack like this: Tuu ru ru goish hinib.
As for the articles, you could do that. That happens on some occasions in Hellenistic Greek, where the articles come one right after the other like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tc Frorleivus Almus Ph Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:22 pm
Hmm...so, like you said with the prepositions coming before the noun they modify, what would you do with "is" and "very" in my earlier sentence? "is" comes after cat...err, I hope I'm making sense. xp
Is it possible one could could predefine a syntax themselves, or maybe decide where to put the the other components of the sentence?
For example: (VERB) prepositions+etcetc(SUBJECT) articles+etcetc(OBJECT)
Last year I asked about syntax and the above, and I was told so many mixed answers; "yes, you could make your own syntax up or define it like that", and "no, it wouldn't make sense etc etc".
Bah, sorry if I'm being an idiot here. emo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 7:07 pm
MagitekElite Hmm...so, like you said with the prepositions coming before the noun they modify, what would you do with "is" and "very" in my earlier sentence? "is" comes after cat...err, I hope I'm making sense. xp Is it possible one could could predefine a syntax themselves, or maybe decide where to put the the other components of the sentence? For example: (VERB) prepositions+etcetc(SUBJECT) articles+etcetc(OBJECT) Last year I asked about syntax and the above, and I was told so many mixed answers; "yes, you could make your own syntax up or define it like that", and "no, it wouldn't make sense etc etc". Bah, sorry if I'm being an idiot here. emo
So let me try to answer this in the clearest way I can.
In languages that have a large array of cases to work with, the syntax may be defined to a certain degree by the speaker. Like I said before, there is usually an implied "rule of thumb" that most people follow, and deviating from this rule of thumb isn't wrong, but instead changes things in (sometimes) a subtle way. In the case of Latin, the implied rule of thumb word order would be:
(Adverb) subject (adjectives to describe the subject here), (preposition, adverb) indirect object (any adjectives that might describe it here), (another preposition or adverb) direct object (any other adjectives here), (adverb that describes a verb) verb.
For example:
"The evil teacher assigns us work daily and expects it on his desk the next morning!"
Doctor malus nobis opera quotidie assignat et in analogio suo mox mane exspectat!
Literally: "Teacher evil to us work daily assigns and on desk his next morning expects!"
Changing this structure doesn't change the meaning, but changes the patterns of emphasis. For example, if I flipped "doctor" and "malus" around to say "malus doctor", that really emphasizes that he's an *evil* teacher. Doesn't change the meaning, just adds stress. If I placed "work" at the beginning and it was the first thing I say, then it emphasizes that he gives us work. Work! The evil teacher assigns it. You could even take the verb (like in the sentence involving "is" and "cat") and put it first, if you wanted. That would really stress the verb quite a bit; in this case, with the teacher, it would sound a bit weird. What else does a teacher do with work, after all? He doesn't throw it at you, right? So stressing the verb in this case is strange.
While we can move things around and get away with it, we don't want to get too crazy and pull things apart. Like adverbs and prepositions, they should stick close to what we need to describe. Adjectives, while they can move away, shouldn't move whole clauses apart from what they describe. Things like that.
So, in a way, both answers are right; you can define your own syntax to change the patterns of emphasis, but you don't want to go overboard and splice up your sentence too badly.
I hope that helps!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tc Frorleivus Almus Ph Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 7:42 pm
I believe that helps, yes! heart
So sometimes it is possible to "freely" change some parts of the syntax, but certain elements should remain for the sake of clarity or to avoid some redundancy? Is there someplace I can go on the internet, or maybe some book to buy/rent, that can further define the various syntax and their (complete) orders? Like for SVO, VOS, SVO etc etc?
This seems the hardest thing thus far in my process of learning Linguistics. I see so many conlangers and other langers write in a syntax that nearly all the sites give just a basic formation for. xp
Thanks again for the replies and patience,
Magitek~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply