Geoffrey King skrev:
> I can't disagree with a word of that. I think this discussion suffered 
> from a confusion between the two concepts of "case" as shown by 
> Webster. Now that we've grasped that we should get on better.
> Going back to my original point, the second definition would have us 
> talking about locative, instrumentals etc. in English, which would not 
> be very meaningful. Perhaps we should refine the terminology and talk 
> about "inflectional case" (e.g. accusative in Esperanto, genitive in 
> English, etc) and some other term (syntactic case?) for the relation 
> expressed by prepositions or by word order. This would of course vary 
> from language to language. For example, it would kill the notion of 
> Ido "not expressing" the accusative, when it would be more accurate to 
> say that the accusative is always shown, mostly by syntax but 
> occasionally by inflection.
> I'd imagine many of the "cases" in the second definition will turn out 
> to be universals, e.g. subject (nominative) vs. object (accusative) 
> though  different languages may express this in very different ways.
In one of the first, if not the first dictionary of Swedish for speakers 
of Latin, it said that Latin ablative was expressed through the 
preposition från (from).

Is somebody were to study Esperanto and learnt it from an informant, 
ignorant of grammar, when would then the observer realize that "hejme" 
is not the locative of "hejmo" or that "hejmen" is an accusative of 

Or "mi laboras tage kaj dormas nokte", don't we have cases there. When 
would our imaginary explorer understand that -e is an adverb ending? He 
might think that "bone" is a kind of elips for "in a good way", thus 

Hoping you get my point.

Kjell R