I believe there are no exceptions to this rule. That's what I have always read, and I have never encountered any, neither in Greek nor in Latin, nor even in German.
There is an hypothesis about the cause of this phenomenon. Neuter words were historically limited to inanimate objects or things that cannot act. In a basic sentence, it was rarely or never the ...
Languages are full of redundancy. So I think the premise of this question—that the accusative case is "needed"—is problematic. For example, there isn't a need for English speakers to use the plural in contexts like "three plates": the word "three" already tells the listener how many plates there are. But the use of the plural in this context is nevertheless ...
To answer your second question, this rule is completely exceptionless, not only in Latin but in all Indo-European languages (that is, those that have a neuter gender at all).
neuter gender always had identical nominative, accusative and vocative forms in all three numbers
Archaic Syntax in Indo-European
Yes, a deponent verb can have an accusative object just like non-deponent verbs do.
If I threaten someone with something in Latin, then alicui aliquid minor.
The person (or other entity) being threatened is in dative, but the threat (death, punishment, fine, ...) is in accusative.
Since minari is a deponent verb, the seemingly passive form can be used as if ...
History of Italian is not my forte - I am not going to pretend to know Italian grammar or its history. Obviously, it takes years and decades to become an expert in such matters, so I can only summarize some relevant research I've been able to find recently. Let's wait what our Italian experts might say - I know we have them here.
Professor Martin Maiden (...
To expand a little on Joonas's answer, the nominative singular ending in Latin was originally /os/ for all masculine nouns of the second declension, which developed to /us/ as part of a more general sound change of /o/ to /u/ in certain positions. (Somewhat confusingly, Latin /u/ in turn corresponds to /o/ in a number of Romance languages. It's thought that ...
It is servŏs in both instances, not servōs.
The old form of the nominative has the ending -os instead of the later -us.
What you see is indeed the singular nominative, but not in the form you are used to.
Since the word comes from male dico, it traditionally took the dative for the same reason that dico takes it. The dative expresses to whom something is spoken or for whom the speech is beneficial (or, in this case, harmful).
According to Lewis and Short, the dative was normally used in the classical period, but later the accusative came into usage:
It looks like a comparative (cf. facilius, melius, and many others) but it is in fact a genitive.
Thus unius libri is "of one book".
The word unus has an unusual declension:
nom: unus, una, unum
acc: unum, unam, unum
abl: uno, una, uno
The same genitive in -ius is used by a couple of pronouns.
There is no comparative form of ...
Saying that Italian noun and adjective forms are derived from Latin accusative forms is a simplification. The nominative is also a source in some cases, such as for the singular form of the noun uomo. In other cases, neither the Classical Latin nominative nor the Classical Latin accusative seems to be sufficient to explain the form of an Italian word (...
Actually, your quote from the Vulgate isn't an example of audire + dative! Though auditis is spelled the same as the present 2nd person plural ("You [pl.] hear"), it is actually an ablative perfect participle. A clue to this is that there would be an unexplained shift from tu to vos.
In your sentence, auditis sermonibus is an ablative absolute forming a ...
The vocative is the case used for addressing someone. If you said to your friend Mike, "Hey, Mike, I think your sister is swell," "Mike" would be in the vocative case. Or if you found someone in your seat at a bar and said, "Hey, buddy, do you want to move?" "buddy" would be in the vocative case. That's why mater is in the vocative case in O mater, es ...
Tibi Anglige respondeo, quo facilior responsus meus sit lectu ceteris.
Latin has an ablativus respectus construction.
An example is given my Latin sentence above: there 'lectu' means "from the point of view of reading".
Greek has essentially the same construction, but it uses accusative instead (there is no ablative in Greek).
This construction often goes ...
In all Indo-European languages that I know, copulae are intransitive and normally take the nominative. So everything below will apply to other Indo-European languages, too.
It is important to distinguish between objects and other complements. A direct object, which you mean, is always a kind of complement, accompanying a transitive verb; but there are other ...
I'm not sure there is a "why", but it probably happened under the influence of contemporary vernacular languages and/or Vulgar Latin, since French, Italian, and Spanish also use more prepositions than Latin. This is probably also what steered Latin towards using quod instead of the accusative with infinitive.
Around the same time, I believe cases began to ...
Accusative + Subjective Infinitive seems to be grammatical
Longmans' Latin Course: part III. Elementary Latin Prose, by
W. Horton Spragge, says that a subjective infinitive takes an accusative subject, and gives an example using "esse":
That you are happy is agreeable to me
Te beātum esse mihi est gratum
("Te" is the subject, ...
Among Bennett (§180), Allen & Greenough (§397b), and Gildersleeve & Lodge (§338), the last provides the most detail on this construction.
Two varieties are identified:
Definite: The Accusative of the part affected
Indefinite: cētera, alia, reliqua, omnia, plēraque, cūncta; in other respects, in all respects, in most respects.
The first ...
Ephesians 1:16: οὐ παύομαι εὐχαριστῶν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν μνείαν (ὑμῶν) ποιούμενος ἐπὶ τῶν προσευχῶν μου. (The second ὑμῶν is missing in the best Mss.)
The Vulgata has: non cesso gratias agens pro vobis, memoriam vestri faciens in orationibus meis.
KJV: [I] cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers (continuing the first-person ...
First of all I have to point out that the word “quod” in book II, line 141 of Vergil's Aeneid is not an adverbial accusative, but simply a causal conjunction introducing the causal clause with the verb “oro”, as you can read in the literal translation at the foot of my answer.
Your notes describe “quod” as an 'adverbial accusative' because the causal ...
The L&S entry is pretty clear, in my opinion. Per takes the accusative, but it has mistakenly been used with the ablative. It cites two examples from later inscriptions:
Inscr. Miseni Repert. ex a. p. Chr. n. 159
Inscr. Orell. 3300
After some tracking down, I found it in Campania tardoantica (284-604 d.C.). Here is a relevant image from pg. 283:
There aren't any special uses involved here; your incorrect assumption is that embolum (navis) aeneum is accusative -- in fact it's the nominative subject of finiebat. Literally, "one part of which a sort of (quasi) bronze beak of a ship completed". The Latin idiom is different here from how we'd say it in English, which is what makes this clause confusing, ...
It's the accusative of time, answering the question “how long?” (And not “when?” or “during which time?” – that would call for the ablative.)
“I thought myself the happiest of people for so many years.”
One might consider the ablative defensible here, which would then answer the question “within which time,” although that would strike me as an unusal choice, ...
This is called a nominativus cum infinitivo, which is possible with intellegitur because the finite verb is passive. Debeo normally has a mere infinitive with it, so there is no indirect statement there either. There is no indirect speech, no accusativus cum infinitivo.
An a.c.i. cuts through the sentence, separating main clause from indirect statement, such ...
My suggestion is that both phrases are most properly set in the accusative:
Hominem esse me delectat.
Finnum esse est canere.
I will break my argument into two steps:
The accusativus cum infinitivo (AcI) can be used as a subject: this proves that the accusative case is not an "accidental" consequence of the fact that it is the object of such ...
I think the accusative of exclamation is the best choice here.
Its use can often be viewed as an elliptic sentence.
When I write a birthday card in Latin, I often write iucundum diem natalem tibi exopto or iucundum diem natalem tibi exoptat Ionas.
I could abbreviate that to iucundum diem natalem (or felicem) but I prefer whole sentences.
As Joel Derfner ...
Traupman drives me crazy, because some of the stuff in that book is well attested, and some of it I believe he just made up, and he doesn't tell you which is which. ARGH. (That said, he also presents a lot of very valuable stuff.)
"Nātālis," with an understood "diēs," is the Latin way to say "birthday." Since "your" is also often understood when you're ...
The answers given by Tony, Kingshorsey, and Joonas are correct and should be enough for learners of Latin. However, it is true (and interesting!) that, from a linguistic/philological point of view, the apparently innocent question raised above by Imc ("If liber is a direct object, then why not put it in accusative?") is more complex if one considers, for ...
As L&S put it, in their classic textwall style (entry for in, II.C.2):
Of the object or end in view, regarded also as the motive of action or effect: “non te in me illiberalem, sed me in se neglegentem putabit,” Cic. Fam. 13, 1, 16: “neglegentior in patrem,” Just. 32, 3, 1: “in quem omnes intenderat curas,” Curt. 3, 1, 21: “quos ardere in proelia vidi,...
You've indeed stumbled upon an interesting construction. The Lewis & Short entry for induo mentions several ways of using induo:
me in vestem induo
me veste induo
The second construction, which you are interested in, employs a so-called Greek accusative, though Gildersleeve's Latin Grammar remarks that it is "different" from ...