This article is ratedStub-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

LinguisticsLow‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage oflinguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics Low This article has been rated asLow-importance on theproject's importance scale.

Is there any evidence but those two books? If not this seems to be a misunderstanding. "Final case" in those books refers to all case endings in these languages consisting of a word's final vowel.— Precedingunsigned comment added by84.154.32.146 (talk •contribs) 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The two mentioned references do not say say anything about a final case. I have been reading for a long time in Semitic linguistics and I have never read anything about a "final case" being lost in Semitic. I think the one who wrote that could have misunderstood the suffixation of-is to nouns in Akkadian, which has been called by many names (terminative case, adverbial case, etc.) and maybe somebody has called it a "final case" too. In any case, if this were to be classified as a case marking, then it definitely should go under the dative case. The actual final case is marked in Arabic by the accusative, and there is no reason to believe it was marked differently in Proto-Semitic.

Of course, an even more stupid possibility would be that the one who wrote that statement misunderstood the "loss of final case endings" as a "loss of a final case."— Precedingunsigned comment added by213.178.224.175 (talk •contribs) 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Stub-Class Linguistics articles
• Low-importance Linguistics articles
• WikiProject Linguistics articles