¹ Not infrequently the meaning of the term case wavers between case form and case relation, as, e.g., in Friedrich Müller's Grundriss d. Sprachwissenschaft, Wien, 1876-87, but I know of no instance in which a clear cut, thoroughgoing distinction between the two is made.

² The list of cases here posited has been checked by the study of case forms and relation words in a number of languages. Especially helpful has been the discussion of prepositional usage in Professor Curine's A Grammar of the German Language 356-86, New York, 1922. The fact that the examples illustrating the analysis are in English, must not be construed to mean that it applies to English more than to any other language.

³ They are, however, not always simply case signs; at times they imply additional ideas as well. For example English per in so much per pound means ‘in relation to’ (case sign) + the idea ‘each’. Cf. also such prepositions as German antwortlich, halbwegs, etc.

⁴ Cf. Blake, A Grammar of the Tagalog Language, 15, 16, 194,292-5, New Haven, 1925; Kainz, Praktische Grammatik der chinesischen Sprache 75 ff. (Hartleben); Seidel, Praktische Grammatik der malayischen Sprache 65 (Hartleben); Lange, A Text-Book of Colloquial Japanese 31 ff., 308 ff. Tokyo, 1903.

⁵ Notice that this and the following cases (including temporal and locative), each has corresponding to it a class of dependent clauses as well as a class of adverbial expressions.

⁶ Hungarian uses three different forms of the same postposition to indicate these three aspects, e.g., alatt ‘under’, alól ‘from under’, alá ‘(to) under’, cf. F. Görg, Praktisches Lehrbuch d. ungarischen Sprache 30 ff. (Hartleben).

⁷ Adnominal ablative and terminal cases are theoretically possible with all locatives, but are used ordinarily only with nouns denoting or implying action or motion.

⁸ Cases marked (?) are theoretically possible, but are not usual; cf. the corresponding adverbal cases below.

⁹ A better term does not at present suggest itself to me. Professor Leopold proposes ‘referential’.

¹⁰ It is a matter of some doubt whether there is any semantic difference between independent and subordinate subjectives. The relation between subordinate subjective and its predicative, which predicative is similar to the circumstantial appositive discussed below, is perhaps the same as that between independent subjective and independent predicative, but there seems to be a semantic difference in the relationship which independent and subordinate subjectives bear to the sentence as a whole. The subordinate subjective seems to have points of contact with the independent cases. Subordinate subjectives like those in the example are found in constructions like the Latin ablative absolute, the Greek genitive absolute, etc. Other types of subordinate subjective are represented in constructions like, e.g., I ordered him to go (Latin accusative and infinitive); it is best for you to go; he could not bear me hearing it. Perhaps even the subjectives of fully developed subordinate clauses (e.g., he gave orders that I should go) are to be classed here.

¹¹ The Semites seem to have recognized that all direct objects do not express the same relation. This is perhaps indicated by the fact that verbs that take an indirect affective accusative have the same form as verbs indicating state, e.g., Arabic sami'a ‘he heard’.

¹² It is questionable whether these cases are ever strictly adverbal. Normally they are certainly adnominal or adpronominal.

¹³ This case corresponds to adverbs of manner, and to dependent clauses introduced by a comparative conjunction like English as, e.g., he acted as he had been instructed.

¹⁴ The resultant is a division of what is usually called the accusative. The resultant case denotes something that results from, is created by the action of the verb, and not something already existing which is affected in some way by the verbal action. I have discussed this question in a paper on ‘Varieties of the Case of the Direct Object’, presented at the 1930 meeting of the American Oriental Society (cf. Proceedings).

¹⁵ Cases marked (?) are theoretically possible.

¹⁶ Cf. German—Er schreibt am schönsten von all den Knaben.

¹⁷ The fact that the circumstantial appositive is indicated in Arabic by an accusative case form even when referring to a nominative, e.g., jâ'a Zaidun bâkiă 'Zaid came weeping', cf. Socin, Arabische Grammatik⁸ 113, Berlin, 1918, is an indication that the circumstantial appositives are different from the ordinary or descriptive appositives. The use of the accusative form, moreover, indicates perhaps a realization of the kinship between appositive and predicative (cf. next note).

¹⁸ Closely related to these simple predicatives is the adjectival predicate, e.g., grass is green, and the participai predicates which are frequently used to make periphastic verbal forms, e.g., he is writing; the letter is written. The use of the accusative case form for these simple predicatives in Arabic (cf. Socin, op. cit. 114) indicates a feeling on the part of the Arabs that the predicate stands in a different case relation from the subject. For the use of the accusative in Arabic for certain appositives cf. preceding note.

¹⁹ Closely related to these predicates are adverbial predicatives such as, we are here, that was afterward, etc.

²⁰ Cf. my article on ‘The Study of Philippine Languages at Johns Hopkins University and its Bearing on Linguistic Science’, Johns Hopkins Alumni Magazine 14. 395 ft., Mar. 1926.