Timeline for Can any verb which means "to go (to somewhere)" be used in a double-accusative construction?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 26, 2017 at 2:01 | comment | added | brianpck | @Caoimhghin Take a look at #182 in the grammar I linked above: it explains the (very limited) cases where you can use the accusative alone in this way. Otherwise, Latin requires a preposition like ad or in. | |
| Apr 26, 2017 at 1:53 | comment | added | Caoimhghin | What you labelled as "Accusative of Motion" is very similar to what I am trying to render into Latin, which is a Sankrit phrase that uses the accusative case to denote the object towards which motion occurs. | |
| Apr 26, 2017 at 1:51 | vote | accept | Caoimhghin | ||
| Apr 26, 2017 at 0:13 | comment | added | brianpck | That is accusative of motion, used only with certain place names. I believe it's a residue of older forms | |
| Apr 25, 2017 at 23:59 | comment | added | Ben Kovitz | About ire being intransitive, how do sentences like I domum or Romam eunt accord with that? Are they just peculiar exceptions or part of a more general pattern? | |
| Apr 25, 2017 at 21:22 | history | edited | brianpck | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Apr 25, 2017 at 21:12 | history | answered | brianpck | CC BY-SA 3.0 |