cwconrad wrote: Isn't it the case that accusative-case forms always indicate the limitation in terms of which a verbal process, an adjectival description, or an adverbial qualification is to be understood?
Well, if you want to analyse things in a strictly rhematocentric manner, then all other elements become "ad-verbs" (ἐπιῤῥήματα). I understand where you are coming from, the classical grammars say that such and such an accusative is adverbial, while another is a case. I guess we are in agreement that giving the name "adverb" to one type of accusative is misleading not that it is wrong, but that it might suggest that others are not.
If all are taken as adverbs, then the nominative is able to add will or the power to execute / start both -μι/-ω and -μαι verb types and but is not marked in language as being affected by -μι/-ω verbs. The accusative case is in someway limiting the time, extent, or manner of an action. The genitive is not involved in the action and unaffected, but is used as a counterpoint. The dative is the direction in which an action is directed (clumsy!).
Stephen Carlson wrote:
cwconrad wrote:And also, I'm somewhat amused by the newly-coined noun that graces our topic-header: "Objecthood." Hmmm ... Is it Stephen Carlson that hath coined this word?
Well, I was the one who named the split-out topic, but I can't claim credit for coining the term. It seems to have some currency in philosophy.
The cartoon artist brushed up the corners of my mouth too, when I read that the posts that assert that direct object is an questionable category is called
Thread heading wrote:Direct Objecthood
In any case, I don't think the words direct and indirect (as a pair understood in opposition) are suitable. Those terms were perhaps borrowed from a binary system. Our system is not binary (stating the obvious, it has more than two cases). Even in the classical verb to reallocate property ("give"), only the situation "I give the ball to Peter" could we imagine the binary system. If we think about where the person got the ball from to give to Peter, then there are three parties involved. Actually each case expresses a particular relationship to the action, and that relationship can be further defined / clarified by prepositions as needed.
I wish to preach... that highest form of success which comes, not to the man who desires mere easy peace, but to the man who does not shrink from danger, from hardship, or from bitter toil, and who out of these wins the splendid ultimate triumph.(TR-1899)