The first problem is that of the failure of NMG
analyses to describe the actual distribution of case morphemes,
since in almost any stage of the language that one might want
to examine there are a number of situations where case
morphemes are in fact replaced by postpositions, or there is
variation between the occurrence of one or another case ending,
and/or one or another of the morphemes usually called
postpositions. For example, NMG analyses fail to assign an
appropriate separate place in the system for instrumental and
sociative uses
of the so-called third
case (the third case in fact has separate suffixes for
instrumental and sociative uses, but is still regarded as one
case). NMG analyses also include an ablative case that is
clearly formed from a locative case-marker (-il) plus a
postposition (-iruntu). (In modern spoken Tamil, the system
breaks down even further, with postpositional morphs completely
replacing case suffixes in some instances, or combining with
case suffixes to form what seem to be as genuine a kind of
`case' suffix as is the ablative, which was long ago admitted
to membership, despite its clear construction using a locative
marker plus a postposition.)
NMG's also typically fail to provide an adequate explanation for the genitive, which often precedes other case markers (i.e. has other case markers suffixed to it) so that it is then relegated to the status of an `oblique' form, or is classified as an `adjectival' form, or a stem alternate; in any event it is demoted to something less than a `real' case marker, ostensibly because of some notion that a `true' case marker in Tamil could not have another genuine case marker affixed to it.
This ambiguity of the status of the genitive is not so much of a problem when it comes to nouns, but with pronouns, where the oblique stem may function as a genitive, e.g. en pustakam `my book' one might wonder why this oblique stem can be genitive when case markers can be added to it that also function as genitive, e.g. ennutaiya pustakam (spoken ennode pustakam).
In the modern spoken language various changes have also led
to some homonymy in the system, with the Literary Tamil
(henceforth LT) genitive form udaiya being pronounced in Spoken
Tamil (ST) sometimes as oode, in other dialects as
oodu, which
is homophonous with the `sociative' udan/oodu/oode in some
dialects; in others no such confusion may result, or some other
morpheme may be used for `association', such as a postposition,
e.g. kuuda, toneyle or some others. The instrumental case
marker itself (LT -aal, ST -aale) may also vary in ST, with
some dialects employing postpositions
instead of the official instrumental ending (LT kaiyaal).
Lest it appear that I am trying to build up suspense
about the origins of this confusing system, only to show my
great erudition when I reveal the true system, I should say
that it has always been obvious
that much of the case system
has been modeled on that of another language, and that the natural
system of Tamil has been forced into this other mold, with the
result that what are clearly two different cases are made to
fit into one because of some notion that the system had to have
seven and only seven cases.
To Indo-Aryanists it will be obvious that much of the above NMG system is modeled on the case system of Sanskrit, which has seven or eight cases (ablative and genitive are often subsumed under one, vocative and nominative under another, etc., depending on the paradigm of the declension in question). Even the order of Tamil cases is approximately the same as those given for Sanskrit. Since this system does not, as we have just seen, work very well, and is obviously a model imposed from another language, (just as Latin was once used as a grammatical model for modern European languages), it is obviously high time to abandon this foreign system. Since Tamil grammarians usually abjure any influence from or debt to `northern' grammatical models, there should be no difficulty in forsaking this inappropriate grammatical model in favor of one designed to fit the facts of the language.
In fact when we look at the history of grammatical
treatments of Tamil from the oldest records
onward for an idea
of what the case system was originally like, and how it has
changed, we see that there has often been disagreement about how
to analyze the system, and that there has also been a constant
history of substitution of new morphemes for case endings,
replacing older morphemes previously in use. What has not
happened is a reinterpretation of the system to include new
categories, or new cases, as well as the new morphemes. And of
course when we get to the modern language, there is very little
attempt by any grammarians to deal with the system at all, since the
Spoken language does not officially exist.