[Question_Assumptions]

Thanks for the reply and actually addressing the point that I raised. Yes, I understand why language simplication happens (e.g., the Danish influence on Anglo-Saxon reducing the importance of case markers, the Romance Languages being a sort of "Latin for Dummies", etc.) but, like you said, what baffles me is a stone age culture developing all of that complexity in the first place. All I can guess is that being verbal cultures without writing and a lot of recreation options, they did a lot of talking and thus had a motive for inventing the distinctions and the time and practice to learn and retain them.

[WoofDog123]

i thought about this some more. granted that I do not know what ancient structures other language families had which might resemble this insane complexity, and if this is in fact common in proto-language groups.

random thoughts - case markers would greatly word usage needed to communicate, but the practical value of gender in nouns, for example, eludes me. then i think about declining adjectives to match case, person, and gender of strong or weak nouns and i cannot fathom it.

the oddest thing is that this stuff evolved in the earliest stages of proto-I-E, given that case markers are similar or identical throughout pretty much all ancient branches of the family. apparently it was very important to help that stone age people communicate ideas effectively. I do wonder if they had what we would call prepositions at all or to any degree.

Would be interesting to know the thoughts of a native-tongue speaker of a language with most or all of its declensions still in use on this topic. All I can offer is that giving up the genitive in english would be a hassle and wordy as heck, romance-style.