ellisje wrote:Is the preposition assumed in the context or does the accusative case contain the meaning of the preposition "to"?
ellisje wrote:"Romam" cannot be the direct object, despite its case.
ellisje wrote:It seems like "caelum" and "cubiculum" are objects of prepositions ("at" and "into" would be implicit), not verbs. Is this true? If so, what aspect of the accusative case allows for this?
ellisje wrote:Here is a sentence from Lingua Latina that uses the accusative and the ablative with what I can only assume are implied prepositions:
Medus (nom) via Latina (abl) Tusculo (abl) Romam (acc) ambulat.
"Romam" cannot be the direct object, despite its case. "Tusculo" also assumes a preposition, correct? Is the preposition assumed in the context or does the accusative case contain the meaning of the preposition "to"? This is essentially what I was getting at with the original post - how to explain the nature of the accusative case beyond the direct object function?
Thank you for all the input so far.
Essorant wrote:But why do you think the direct object is no longer a direct object if it may have a prepositional sense to it? Even though they are different mannerisms, I tend to consider both "Romam ambulat" and "caelum spectat" as having direct objects. What you may be having difficulty with is that the "motion towards" direct object is not something we are very familiar with in our English, except in the saying "I go home", where "home" is in the accusative case as well.
Thank you, your post is very helpful. After some reflection I think that my confusion has to do with the fact that the ablative case has fairly well-defined subcategories that describe the various modes of the case (ablative of means, price, attendant circumstance, etc.) but in my text, at least (Lingua Latina), similar denominations don't exist for the accusative case (like accusative of extent or direction, as distinct from the DO function).
I think you are right though - I'll leave it alone. My wife has already left me over this and I have fallen behind on my bills because I haven't been able to work.
I disagree that Romam is the direct object of ambulat.
Essorant wrote:I never said it was the direct object of the verb ambulat itself. But I think it is is a direct object of a sense of motion. I am not sure how else to reconcile it being the same case as the (normal) "direct object".
American Heritage Dictionary wrote:[A direct object is a] word or phrase in a sentence referring to the person or thing receiving the action of a transitive verb.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 80 guests