Apparently there is some relevant book which claims, more or less:

Case marking particles and adpositions are not identical, one is a morphological, one a syntactic unit.

This claim was heard third hand via a student of Japanese. Does this claim have merit?

  • 1
    I agree that the question is ineptly put, but at its core it has merit. It asks about the distinction between case markers and adpositions. Concerning Japanese, Chomskian grammars usually treat case particles as postpositions, which is, however, technically incorrect. On the other hand, Japanese clearly possesses grammaticalized postpositions such as -ni tot-te 'for', or -ni tui-te 'about'. The issue is worth discussing. – Thomas Gross Oct 31 '14 at 6:08
  • Stack Exchange encourages us to rescue questions by editing them to fit SE standards. I also see the merit of this question. I think some questions very similar to it have been asked here before though. – hippietrail Oct 31 '14 at 14:24
  • @ThomasGross: Please elaborate on "technically incorrect". I find "technically" an extremely non-technical word that can mean anything, often something is not specified, and often something contestable by a different technical approach. – hippietrail Oct 31 '14 at 14:26
  • This question is probably unsalvageable, but someone could post a new, more coherent question on the topic of Japanese case markers versus postpositions (and possibly answer their own question). – snailplane Oct 31 '14 at 16:36
  • 1
    @hippietrail your first link looks like a good duplicate. I can't vote again to mark it as a duplicate but if I could I would. – curiousdannii Nov 1 '14 at 0:55

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.