Ahhh ok so you ' re saying this picture is what Vettel sent ? <| sep |> Honestly , I ' m glad it didn ' t get a second season <| sep |> I know but im sick of being ' tough '<| sep |> Find me an example of an Esperanto partofspeech marker that isn ' t marking case or TAM or being used for derivation . Sure , you can analyze the noun endings as case markers . But we both know that it ' s really not the best way to analyze them . Just ask yourself why you took so long to come up with that analysis . I understand that you want to do so because you are an Esperantist , but it really is intellectually dishonest af . There are a couple of red flags . First , what we both recognized to be the same phenomenon appearing across POSs , you qualify both as derivational and inflectional . Second , because the morphological structure of Esperanto is very regular like you said earlier , the simplest paradigmatic pattern to find is that every suffixal morpheme corresponds to a single phoneme , and we can posit a separate meaning for each of these phonemes . Fusional analyses of morphology are better left to morphological systems where you have inflectional classes , allomorphy etc . and such systematic soundgram correspondence is not available . Again , I think it ' s pretty selfexplanatory because morphemes are supposed to be the SMALLEST meaningful units , and it ' s very delusional to say Esperanto nominal o , for example , weren ' t the exponent of a word class marker with nominative having a zero marker . You don ' t also seem to understand what derivation is . An obligatory , systematic morpheme like e that marks all adverbs is not an instance of derivation , and you really have to understand this .