Stephen Hughes wrote:
Are there verbs where object-affectedness is implied when a case other than the accusative is used with a verb? It seems that in most cases the accusative is used for situation involving object-affectedness. Is that a valid supposition.
N. Turner says quite much about this in his Syntax under ch. 17, "Case additions to the verb: without a preposition". To sum up the answer for your question: no. It's easy to see some logic and tendencies, but many verbs changed their object cases over time. For example: "Gen (class.) is still used with
desire, reach, obtain [...], but there is a tendency towards the accus. in Hell. Greek." "While the gen. with
to fill, be full of, is still apparent, the accus. is encroaching on the gen. already in LXX..."
On the other hand, you ask/say two different things: 1) "Are there verbs where object-affectedness is implied when a case other than the accusative is used with a verb?" and 2) "in most cases the accusative is used for situation involving object-affectedness". They are not necessary logically tied to each other. For example, if accusative is just a default case for all kinds of objects, it could be used in all situations, while the other cases would be more limited.
Also you have to define "object-affectedness": does it just replace subject with object but retain all the affectedness classes which can be found for subject-affectedness? For example, mediopassive can be used for situations where the subject does something for his own benefit. But if you define object-affectedness so that it includes doing something for the object's benefit, the answer to your first question is "yes", because there demonstrably are "object-affected" verbs which have other cases than accusative, for example δουλευω (dative).
It's possible that originally the accusative was used for prototypically transitive cases where the object (other than the subject) is directly, visibly and concretely affected and the other cases were used in other situations. I don't know.