consider renaming <sim> to <equ>

[jonorthwash]

Equative case may make more sense as a label for -DAй than similative case.

This applies to quite a few (mostly Kypchak) transducers, including kaz and kir.

Aside from the practicality issues (such a change would take some effort, but would be doable), what are people's feelings about the linguistic issues?

[mansayk]

Hi!

Currently in Tatar philology "-DAй" and "-ча/-чә" are mostly considered as suffixes creating adverbs. Some researchers consider them as case affixes. It is also worth to mention that words with -DAй can accept other case affixes: "баганадайның".

According to Khisamova's monography "Tatar morphology" "-DAй" and "-ча/-чә" create so called "Охшату-чагыштыру рәвешләре". It can be directly translated somehow as "making similar-comparing adverbs". I hope @Ilnar Salimzianov ilnar@selimcan.org will correct me.

With best wishes, Mansur

Am Do., 27. Sep. 2018 um 23:45 Uhr schrieb Jonathan Washington < notifications@github.com>:

Equative case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equative_case may make more sense as a label for -DAй than similative case https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/similative_case.

This applies to quite a few (mostly Kypchak) transducers, including kaz and kir.

Aside from the practicality issues (such a change would take some effort, but would be doable), what are people's feelings about the linguistic issues?

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/apertium/apertium-tat/issues/12, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ATLcQTq0fpq0gZgDOJycqpkvH7tV9Q6Hks5ufTj5gaJpZM4W9bYw .

[jonorthwash]

Currently in Tatar philology "-DAй" and "-ча/-чә" are mostly considered as suffixes creating adverbs.

This implies that it's derivational and not inflectional (like -лIк or -лA), which I believe it's possible to contradict.

It is also worth to mention that words with -DAй can accept other case affixes: "баганадайның".

Yeah, so the suffix doesn't create forms which are only adverbial. Your example is probably a substantivised (read: noun-like) use of the attributive (read: adjectival) reading. Attributive readings of -DAй aren't entirely uncommon (at least in Kazakh and Kyrgyz).

Some researchers consider them as case affixes.

-DAй forms are adverbial, as are forms created by suffixes always considered to be cases, such as -DAн and -GA. It may be best to consider some or all "case suffixes" cliticised postpositions instead (or even transitive adverbs, which perhaps isn't any different from postpositions in most Turkic languages). But Apertium has gone the direction of considering more noun morphology to be case morphology. I think the term "case" is probably misleading for Turkic, since it's not like a noun has a limited number of "forms" like in more fusional-type languages, but rather nouns are the base to a whole suite of morphemes and morpheme types that can attach to the noun stems in a particular order, some more productive than others, and some more "grammatically oriented" than others.