Talk:Comitative case

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Possible Turkish comitative[edit]

I don't imagine that this is a standard interpretation among Turkologists, but it seems to me that this case is exactly the same as an agglutination made in Turkish and possibly other Turkic languages as well, as many share the same noun declination system. I don't know what difference there is, if one exists, between simply agglutinating a noun and more specifically declining it among the six standard noun cases (in Turkish, the nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, ablative, and locative), but there is another suffix -le2 with the basic meaning of "with". Thus:

Köpeğimle yürüyorum, I am walking with my dog

köpek (nominative, dog) -> köpeğim (genitive [irregular], my dog) -> köpeğimle (with my dog)

However, this suffix is actually a compound of a noun with the word ile, which may or may not be of Turkish origin and is sometimes, though I am unaware how often, spoken separately from the noun and may not always be compoundable, depending on its position in a sentence. Is this what constitutes a noun case, and if so, would it be called the comitative? Dextrose (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Japanese "cases"[edit]

The mentions of Japanese should be removed, as Japanese doesn't have noun cases to begin with. End even if it did, "to" is a simple particle, not very unlike the English "with", so there's no reason to treat it as somehow specifically forming a case. mathrick (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Spanish comigo, contigo, consigo[edit]

Though the Romance languages other than Romanian have lost all case distinction and only preserve the Latin nominative, accusative, dative and genitive cases for pronouns, I think the case could be made for these three words being secondary comitative forms. These are used in place of con mí, con ti and con él/ella—“with me”, “with you” (fam.) and “with himself/herself/oneself” respectively. These three forms come from Latin mecum, tecum and secum, where the preposition cum “with, and” becomes a suffix. (See also [1].)

Of course, Spanish should not be considered to have a true comitative case any more than it would have an instrumental because of the preposition por. LudwigVan (talk) 05:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

English Examples—"and me"[edit]

The English phrase "and me" is grammatically incorrect. Instead, me should be replaced by the direct pronoun I. Shouldn't we change this in the English examples? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuajohnson555 (talkcontribs) 06:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

It's grammatically correct, in many registers of English. The use of me rather than I is suggested to be what makes it a comitative case, while the reference to 'higher registers' indicates that more formal (actually middle-class hyper-corrective) styles of English frown on the usage. Personally, I think Johannessen's 1998 book Coordination explains it better as asymmetric coordination that doesn't require agreement for all conjuncts, but its not worth arguing whether English has fragments of a comitative case in its pronouns or not. Cheers (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

English Definition Vs English Examples[edit]

Sorry, I'm a little confused. The introduction says that the comitative case in English is similar to the instrumental case because it typically uses the preposition 'with' but denotes companionship instead of usage. I understand companionship to be something like 'I went to France with my family.' Yet the examples given further down do not show companionship, they seem to reflect an action being carried out by two people. Is this the same thing? My wife and my favourite dish might be mackerel, but that doesn't mean we do it together.

In fact neither example seems to reflect companionship. the first sentence could be turned round I haven't ever really been close to my dad. My dad hasn't ever really been close to me.

Am I missing something in the explaination? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Sorry I'm not very good at this, I forgot to sign it. (talk) 10:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Redundant citations[edit]

Hi there. This page has some great citations, and most everything appears to be well-cited. However, it was cited too-well.

References were mentioned in-line, such as "(Stolz 2006:19–23)", with a note to an almost complete citation in a "Notes" section, which then refers the reader to the full reference in the "references" section. This lead to the "Notes" section to be full of almost identical sources, making it quite long, and redundant since it was all in the "references" section anyway.

I've removed the in-text citations, since they are most redundant. I then created named references and used those for sources that were cited multiple times, reducing the "Notes" section to just one citation per source. By doing this, I used the {{rp|19–13}} syntax to denote page numbers, if they differed. Also put the full citation in with the named reference, rendering the "References" section useless. I then deleted that section and renamed the "notes" "references."

This gives the page a better feel in the footnotes sections, and makes things easier to see. Joeystanley (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)