Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Name that case

From:R A Brown <ray@...>
Date:Monday, November 12, 2007, 16:45
Mark J. Reed wrote:
> You are (as usual) correct. I was thinking of the dative of > separation, but that goes with verbs that have *merged* with ab-, > rather than instances of the actual preposition.
Right. Yes, personally I'm not convinced by the "dative of separation" label given by some grammarians. IMO it's nothing other an indirect object. A common construction with compound verbs in Latin is for the compound to take both accusative and dative arguments. The accusative depends on the 'verb' part of the compound, and the dative on the prefix, so to speak, irrespective of what case the prefix might govern (either accusative or ablative) when used as an independent preposition. It has long seemed to me that this is simply the compound treating its two arguments as direct and indirect objects. IMO the labeling of datives with different compound verbs as dative of this, that or the other is an unnecessary (and linguistically unwarranted) complication. Therefore..... ---------------------- Gregory Gadow wrote: > Take a look at these two sentences: > > A) I gave the book TO YOU. > B) I received the book FROM YOU. > > In sentence A, "to you" would take the dative case. In sentence B, "from > you" would take a different case (I know there is a proper name, but I > can't remember what it is.) As Mark said - it's the 'ablative'. > The conlang I am working on uses the same case in both sentences, > basically "the second party involved in an act of transferral, neither > the agent nor patient of the verb." Is there a proper name for this > case? This seems quite sensible to me. I'd just regard (TO/FROM) YOU in your examples sentences as indirect objects in your language and simply call the case 'dative.' Ray ================================== ================================== Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitudinem. -- Ray ================================== ================================== Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitudinem.