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. Oct 31, 2014 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. Oct 31, 2014 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. Oct 31, 2014 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).
    – user2081
    Oct 31, 2014 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, 2014 at 0:55


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.