There are other differences between LT and ST case
systems, and as it may already be obvious, the seven-case format
adopted from Sanskrit is even less appropriate for ST than it is
for LT. To place it temporarily in a format similar to the LT
one, however, for the purposes of comparison, let us consider the
schema in Table 2:
This systematization is rather oversimplified since it does not take into account social or regional dialect variation, nor does it deal with a number of other issues we have mentioned, in particular the problem of what is in effect a continuum that begins with the case markers (by which is traditionally meant bound morphemes not occurring elsewhere) and merges gradually with the set of morphemes known as postpositions, which have independent syntactic status (being derived from nouns or verbs). These postpositions now occasionally or regularly replace certain of the case markers, which is what all the fuss is about. Some of these forms are found only in certain phonological or syntactic environments.
This schema also does not deal with variation in the system above and beyond the variation already mentioned involving deference. This variation is probably to be characterized as a kind of syntactic problem, because it does not involve any new morphemes, but rather involves use of a different case than the one specified by the grammars in collocation with certain verbs. This, of course, is what is involved in the variation already mentioned with the dative and the animate locative (kitte ).
Let us now examine a number of syntactic and semantic problems involved in case variation of this and other sorts. According to the general rules of uses of the dative, grammars usually state that the modal verb mudiyum `can, be able' requires the dative case, as in enakku mudiyum `to-me is-able' or `I can, am able (to do s.t.)'. In fact, however, the instrumental suffix -aale also occurs often with this modal verb, but the meaning is different: ennaale mudiyum `I am able' implies that the subject is not only able but willing to undertake some action. In other words, a sentence like idu ungalaale mudiyumaa? means not `Are you able to do this?' but actually `Are you willing and able to undertake to do this; are you willing to make an effort (on my behalf)?' ( `Can you give this a go? Can you take on this task/effort? Can you put yourself out for me in this matter?' are some other possible ways of interpreting this kind of construction). As can be seen, unless such syntactic factors are taken into account in describing the Tamil case system, a mere listing of case morphemes and their approximate meanings is not an adequate kind of description.