[Lingtyp] terminological question about local cases/adpositions

[Christian Lehmann]

As regards rich local case systems, my original source  was:

    Austerlitz, Robert 1980, "Typology and universals on a Eurasian
    east-west continuum." Brettschneider, Gunter & Lehmann, Christian
    (eds.), /Wege zur Universalienforschung. Sprachwissenschaftliche
    Beiträge zum 60. Geburtstag von Hansjakob Seiler./ Tübingen: G. Narr
    (Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik, 145); 235-244.

Austerlitz says the richest case system "in the Eurasian belt" is the 
Permiak one. However, not being a specialist on this, I have no 
intention to argue about it.

Cabecar works like those languages which I mentioned in my original 
question, combining the NP with a form which specifies the spatial 
region and then leaves the specification of the  local relation to other 
components of the clause, including some elementary postpositions which 
may end the phrase. The form designating the spatial region may be a 
relational noun or a postposition (grammaticalized from a region noun). 
For the superior region, there are even two:

  * postposition /kí̱/ 'on', grammaticalized from a region noun meaning
    'surface'
  * region noun /tsá̱/ 'top', grammaticalized from body-part noun 'head'.

These two are essentially synonymous in the literal local sense. The 
former has many more abstract senses, too.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Am 27.03.21 um 15:30 schrieb Jussi Ylikoski:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I feel I ought to change the subject line, but won't do that since the 
> substance of my question is related to and inspired by the one 
> discussed in this thread.
>
> To shortly comment on Christian's original query, I'd like to point 
> out that there are actually not that many Uralic languages with a rich 
> local case systems - instead, they are found in Hungarian and the 
> Finnic branch of the family (including Finnish and Estonian), but 
> barely in the seven less know branches of Uralic (certain dialects of 
> Permic languages being the exception). Even then, only "external" and 
> "vicinal" (Gilles' superlocative and apudlocative) series exist, 
> whereas the "internal" local cases can be regarded as unmarked default 
> local cases. Instead, languages of Caucasus are those that display 
> truly rich local casesystems, as far as they can be regarded as case 
> systems (Comrie & Polinsky 1998).
>
> My own question today: While many "Super", "superlocative" or 'top' 
> cases can indeed be found in Uralic and in the languages of Caucasus 
> (Ossetic (Indo-European) included), are there any other corners of the 
> world with such specialized cases? In other words, I'm looking for 
> morphological case distinctions as seen in the following Finnish word 
> pairs:
>
> /lipasto-ssa/'in the drawer' vs. /lipasto-lla/ 'on the drawer'
>
> /tule-ssa/'in the fire' vs. /tule-lla/ 'on the fire'
>
> /mere-ssä/'in the sea' vs. /mere-llä/ 'on the sea'
>
> I'd be happy to locate similar morphological distinctions outside the 
> Uralic family and the Causasus region.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jussi
>

-- 

Prof. em. Dr. Christian Lehmann
Rudolfstr. 4
99092 Erfurt
Deutschland

Tel.: 	+49/361/2113417
E-Post: 	christianw_lehmann at arcor.de
Web: 	https://www.christianlehmann.eu

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20210327/685f62e3/attachment.htm>