Case Survey

[Testyal]

It all seems rather germanic to me now.

It'd be more Germanic with nom-acc. But even if you did have that, then it still wouldn't sound Germanic.

[Ossicone]

Amjati is actually pretty germanic. Minus the abs-erg thing the case usage is much like German and the definite/indefinite thing is blatantly stolen from Swedish.

It does however sound massively cooler than any germanic lag. 8-)
Ainer ezemal amjatiejk zuri. Kor liat ko ak amja jen.

[Xing]

I've been thinking a bit about the PDL case system. At the moment, it looks like this:

Absolutive (unmarked)

Ergative (-ʧʰɑ)
-Also used for instrumental

Allative (ɲi)
-Also used for dative (recipients, but not purpose or benefactors)

Locative (-lɛ)
-Might also be used to express certain forms of possession.

Ablative (-kʰo)
-Might also be used for causative.

Purposive/benefactive (-ɲɑ)
-Complement to some low-transitivity verbs.

Evitative (-loxʷ)

Pegative (-zɛ)
-Some verbs may take different meanings, depending on whether the subject is in the ergative or in the pegative.


Maybe I'll add some more.

Locational nouns will be used to express more specified meanings. "Into the house" may be expressed as "House-ALL inside-ALL"

[Ear of the Sphinx]

What's the verbial case used for?

Verbial is used to make predicative from noun, adjective or participle. In Emyt every verb/predicate is interpreted as form of nomen:
ę, gatǫ, buntǫ, duzę <- et, gah, bun, duj
(be/exist, be good, be human, blow <- being, good, human, wind)

What's the difference between the Genitive and Possessive?

Nuance.
Genitive is used mostly in noun phrases and as an direct object. It's connected with the noun or verb:
Zuan-śek ropsąrav. Śek Zuan-dapųtov.
(John's dog is nice. Dog is biting John.)

Possessive is used as distinct adverbial, is present in possession construction, can be moved in the sentence.
Zuanto śek ętov. Saśek Zuanto ropsąrav. Zuanto saśek ropsąrav.
(John has got a dog. This dog is nice belonging to John. John has this dog /who/ is nice.)

You have 4 affixes in in the flective section.

There are more than one group of affixes because of different declension groups.
N. get rot bun gah moś duj
G. ge ro(t) bun ga(h) moś duj
V. gę rotǫ buntǫ gatǫ mośę duzę
P. ge roto bunto gato mośi duzi

[Omzinesý]

I really tried to avoid noun cases. So there are only 13 of them in Kácitxáli. (Nominative, accusative, oblique, ergative, genitive, possessive, locative, perlative, separative, lative, essive, associative, vocative). (Kind of split ergativity) Yes, there were all.
Then there are three numbers (singular, paucal, plural) and a generic deixis.
so there are 13 x 4 forms that have a different gruop of a prefix, an infix and an initial mutation.

[Micamo]

I really tried to avoid noun cases. So there are only 13 of them in Kácitxáli.

Uhh, 13 qualifies as a large inventory. Anything bigger than 8 in natlangs is unusual and 20 or so is the upper limit.

Then there are three numbers (singular, paucal, plural) and a generic deixis.

How does this deixis work? Spacial deixis? Personal deixis?

[Omzinesý]

Then there are three numbers (singular, paucal, plural) and a generic deixis.

How does this deixis work? Spacial deixis? Personal deixis?

I just mean the generic form, not any spesific creature, but the notion generally. Maybe deixis was a wrong term, again.

[Xing]

13 cases is a indeed a large inventory. There are very few natlangs with more cases than so, at least if you count cases that are regularly used and productive.

But it depends a little on how count, and what should be counted as a "case". Sometimes this or that language has been said to have scores of cases. Often this is due a very large number of local cases. Typically, however, one can analyse many of these cases as a combination of a "case proper" (allative, locative, ablative; sometimes also perlative or some other case), an an "orientation marker" ("inside", "the top of", "beneath", "behind", "in the vicinity of", etc). Combinations of "case proper" and orientation markers can yield a large array of specialised "cases" ("to the top of", "in the vicinity of", "from behind", "from underneath", "at the side of", etc).

It may be a matter of definition whether to call these "cases". If you only count "case proper", I'd guess that around 20 or so is the maximum. And I think in most languages with around 20 cases, some of them are quite rarely used.

[Micamo]

Ah, specificity you mean?

Bring me a melon (It can be any one) vs. Bring me the melon (I have a specific one in mind that I want)

(NB: Yes, I know English's articles don't indicate specificity.)

[Itsuki Kohaku]

I'm especially interested in the dative case. Those of you who have a dative case, how is it used?

I guess most of you use it for the recipient/indirect object to a ditransitive verb like "give". (Though not all natlangs with a case conventionally labelled "dative" do this...)

Can your datives also have other functions? Can it be used for the object of some mono-transitive verbs? Or for purposives or benefactives (if you don't have specialised cases for those functions)?

Makurungou uses the Dative case for the recipient/indirect object to a ditransitive verb like "give".

As for Possesive and Genitive, Possesive is used only for in possesion of in informal speech.
Genitive is used for possesion in Formal speech and writing. Genitive is still used for its other functions in both registers.

[Xing]

Makurungou uses the Dative case for the recipient/indirect object to a ditransitive verb like "give".

No other uses?

As for Possesive and Genitive, Possesive is used only for in possesion of in informal speech.
Genitive is used for possesion in Formal speech and writing. Genitive is still used for its other functions in both registers.

So, is the difference one in style or register (formal vs informal)?

(I know there are some natlangs with two genitives with slightly different usage; I don't know much about these languages and the exact differences between the two genitives.)

Does the genitive have other uses than encoding possessors?

[intermundi]

The gonadran cases:

Agentive: agent if an active verb.

Patientive: subject of inactive intransitive verb, patient of transitive verb.

<?????>: receiver, experiencer, beneficiary/maleficiary, possessor.

Instrumental: instrument, involuntary agent, performer.

Locative: place, time, state, relationship.

Allative: destination, goal, result, endpoint.

Ablative: source, cause, starting point.

Perlative: path, manner, duration.

[Testyal]

The gonadran cases:

Absolutive: agent of an active verb.

Ergative: subject of an intransitive verb, patient of transitive verb.

<?????>: receiver, experiencer, beneficiary/maleficiary, possessor.

Instrumental: instrument, involuntary agent, performer.

Locative: place, time, state, relationship.

Allative: destination, goal, result, endpoint.

Ablative: source, cause, starting point.

Perlative: path, manner, duration.

Fixed

[Ear of the Sphinx]

The gonadran cases:

Ergative: agent of an active verb.

Absolutive: subject of an intransitive verb, patient of transitive verb.

Dative (?): receiver, experiencer, beneficiary/maleficiary, possessor.

Instrumental: instrument, involuntary agent, performer.

Locative: place, time, state, relationship.

Allative: destination, goal, result, endpoint.

Ablative: source, cause, starting point.

Perlative: path, manner, duration.

Fixed

Thou wrongeth, me fixeth!

[eldin raigmore]

Do your conlangs have case? If not, what other methods are used to distinguish thematic roles? (Head-marking? Syntax?)

If so, how many cases do you tend to put in a lang? What kinds of cases do you like to have?

Adpihi and Reptigan are tri-partite languages as far as their intransitive-to-monotransitive alignment goes.
There's an S case for use with intransitive subjects (probably "absolutive" or "nominative" would be a good term);
an A case for transitive actors (probably "ergative" would be a good term);
a U case for transitive undergoers (probably "accusative" would be a good term);
and an E case for any other core argument (probably "dative" would be a good term).

I haven't decided, though, that they'll be thoroughgoingly dative rather than dechticaetiative, as far as monotransitive-to-ditransitive alignment goes. I think the Recipient will be Dative in "give" clauses, but the witness or audience will be Accusative in "show" and "tell" clauses. In "give" clauses I think the theme will be Accusative, but in "show" and "tell" clauses I think the exhibit and the tale will be Dative.

I expect adjuncts, and oblique arguments that aren't incorporated into the core of the clause, will (at least mostly) be in the E case (Dative); they'll just be governed by adpositions. (Some -- or maybe most? -- may be in the S case (absolutive/nominative?) instead. I haven't decided yet.)

Arpien won't have case-morphology on its nouns. Instead it will have a lot of postpositions.

About my fourth conlang, which I haven't even named yet, I have made no decision concerning cases.

[Micamo]

Fixed

Agentitive and Patientitive are perfectly valid descriptions for an active case system.

[SydneyFreedberg]

The language I’m working on with my wife has nine cases by the standards of Earth grammarians: nominative, accusative, instrumental, comitative, ablative, dative, possessive, possessed, and locative.

HOWEVER, classical grammarians in our conculture don’t distinguish cases from moods, because they inflect the same way, by changing word endings; the unmarked form of a word is actually the imperative. Instead, grammarians speak of “the sixteen forms,” which are organized in “the eight dyads” – the conculture counts in base eight. (And there are no markings for verb aspect or tense; those are expressed periphrastically).

Each dyad contains one “strong” inflection and one “weak” one, with the weak normally (not always) derived from the strong by changing a strong word ending to a weaker one, e.g. unvoiced consonants become voiced; an asterix (*) below indicates an artificial dyad, one where the two forms are actually unrelated and just forced together for grammatical symmetry. All eight dyads are furthered ordered according to strength, and all moods are considered stronger than any case. (For more on the concepts of “strong” and “weak” in this conlang and conculture, click here: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=460&start=30). The 4th dyad actually includes a mood and a case. So I’ll explain the moods as well. I’ll also beg for help on terminology, since I’m entirely self-taught over the last few months.

In order from strongest dyad to weakest, the 16 forms and 8 dyads are

1) Jussive moods: imperative (strong), implorative (weak)
The imperative is used with inferiors and/or in urgent situations. The implorative (can anyone recommend a better name?) is used with superiors. In theory, it should always be possible to tell if someone’s your superior or inferior, so there is no form to be used with equals, because equality don’t exist. Members of the lower classes sometimes do use the implorative with near-equals to be polite, but grammarians consider this sloppy and a mark of a poor education: It’s rather like an English speaker saying “it happened to him and I.”

2) Realis moods: emphatic (strong), tentative (weak)
Emphatic is used when the speaker is certain something has happened/is happening; tentative is used to indicate some degree of uncertainty – or simply to try to distance oneself from responsibility for an unpleasant event. To totally disavow responsibility, you also use the passive voice, which is formed simply by not including a subject in the sentence (doable because this is NOT a pronoun-dropping language).

3*) Irrealis “moods”: hypothetical (strong), negative (weak)
Hypothetical is used for counterfactuals, conditionals, and subjunctives. The negative is not actually a mood at all, but a circumposition similar to French “ne [verb] pas,” and the enclosed verb has to be in one of the other six moods (i.e. the ones that are actually moods). Grammarians just threw the negative in to make an even 16 forms. The hypothetical and the negative aren’t formed from each other at all; instead, the hypothetical is derived by weakening the tentative mood, which is in turn a weaker form of the emphatic mood.

4*) [any ideas for a name for this dyad?]: stative mood (strong); locative case (weak)
The language has no verb “to be,” so to say that the subject of a sentence is possesses Quality X, you (normally) put X in the stative. Basically words in the stative are acting as adjectives. (I’m not sure this is even a mood; what IS it?).
The locative case is used for both location in space and location in time. Temporal location is actually the most common usage because the language has no verb tenses: Instead of saying “yesterday I stabbed a hobo,” you have to say “in yesterday, I stab a hobo.” Physical location is still pretty important because the ablative and dative cases (see below) no longer carry any meaning of physical direction, so “from,” “to,” “in,” “on,” etc. etc. are all expressed by the locative plus a postposition.
Just to make things more fun, although “I am humanoid” would inflect the root “human” into the stative, “I am a human” inflects it into the locative, i.e. literally “I am in [the class of] humans.” (Words don’t inflect to indicate pluralization, by the way).
The stative and locative don’t derive from each other, and historically the two forms have no relation – again the grammarians are just forcing things into dyads.

5) [any ideas for a name for this dyad?]: nominative case (strong), accusative case (weak)
One’s the subject of a verb, the other’s an object: This is a straightforward nominative-accusative language. The accusative even derives logically from the nominative by weakening the ending of the word.

6) [any ideas for a name for this dyad?]: instrumental case (strong), comitative case (weak)
Besides expressing the means by which something is done, words in the instrumental case often act as adverbs, particularly when the adverb describes a quality deemed essential to the action. Likewise, the comitative case not only expresses that something is present during the action, it also expresses adverbs when they’re describing a quality deemed incidental. Which case to use is almost entirely up to the speaker and conveys nuances that can only be expressed periphrastically in English.

7) [any ideas for a name for this dyad?]: ablative of authority (strong), dative (weak)
Both cases have lost any meaning of physical movement from or towards something. The dative is used for indirect objects. The ablative is only used to express the person, institution, or rule on whose authority something is being done.

8) Genitive cases: possessive (strong), possessed (weak)
Simple: Possessive case marks a noun which possess another noun in the sentence, possessed marks a noun which is itself possessed.

Advice on whether I'm using the terminology right would be helpful. Advice on whether this grammar is completely unnatural and impossible for a human brain to come up with would be extremely helpful.

[Xing]

8) Genitive cases: possessive (strong), possessed (weak)
Simple: Possessive case marks a noun which possess another noun in the sentence, possessed marks a noun which is itself possessed.

Is the "possessed case" similar to the status constructus in Semitic languages?

[Micamo]

Modality marking on nouns? How does that work?

[eldin raigmore]

The language I’m working on with my wife has nine cases by the
...
grammar is completely unnatural and impossible for a human brain to come up with would be extremely helpful.

Obviously a human brain (or two) could come up with it. You and your wife are proof of that.

What you probably want to know is whether a group of humans could learn it well enough to converse fluently in it; and whether children brought up in such a group could acquire it as their natural or native mother-tongue or first language.

I don't know the answer. I just know that, so far, I have doubts that I could learn it.

Modality marking on nouns? How does that work?

Maybe something like "Senator-CONATIVE" for someone who's trying to be Senator, or "President-IRREALIS" for Donald Trump?