Universal 
Grammar. 
The Dative. 
412 
portunity of stating a circumstance which might other- 
wise appear an anticipation of our observations on the 
verb: to wit, that some verbs which are completely sy- 
nonymous in the ideas which they express, are totally dif- 
ferent in the transitions of ideas which they are intend- 
ed to create in the min‘ of the a ive verbs <* to 
ak,” and “ to say; signify precisely the same act. 
Their difference ee inchisy that the verb “to speak” 
does not intimate an intention to state what was spoken, 
but the verb “say” always does. When we say “Cicero 
spoke,”? we may probably rest satisfied with mention- 
ing the act in connection with the agent. Our hearer 
may, if prompted by curiosity, ask what Cicero said 
when he spoke? But, if we use the phrase “ Cicero 
said,” we pledge ourselves to give some account of 
what he said, or to subjoin the accusative of some 
noun, such as the word “ nothing.” If we do not pro- 
ceed further than the words “ Cicero said,” the person 
who hears us asks the question now mentioned in a 
different tone: he reminds us that we have stopped 
short in our discourse, and have not fulfilled the’ pro- 
mise implied in the use of the verb ‘‘ to say.” : 
The Dative case might easily receive a plausible 
explanation in a large proportion of the phrases in 
which it is employed. But a difficulty has arisen, 
in consequence of the approximation which some of 
its uses seem to make to that of the accusative. Some 
verbs which govern the accusative are synonymous 
with others which govern the dative. An example of 
this exists in the verbs ledere and nocere. Antonius 
nocuit Ciceroni is equivalent to Antonius lesit Cicero- 
nem, But though these phrases are synonymous, it is 
possible that the words of which they respectively con- 
sist are not equivalent. It is possible that in one of 
the phrases a greater share of the meaning may be con- 
tained in the verb, and less of it in the governed. noun. 
. This is rendered probable from one circumstance, that 
Words go- 
verning the 
accusative 
with the 
dative. 
there are no verbs which admit of either case indis- 
criminately, so as to form with them two synonymous 
phrases. 
We ought first to attend to those phrases in which 
a verb governs one noun in the accusative, and another 
in the dative. This may be a verb of giving, as in De- 
dit mihi dextram, or a verb of declaring, as in Narras fa- 
bulam surdo. One difference seems here to take place, 
that there is a more ready and rapid transition to the ~ 
idea expressed in the accusative, than to that expressed 
in the dative; and the idea which is expressed in the 
accusative is more necessary to the completion of a sig- 
nificant phrase than the other. Dedit dextram and nar- 
ras fabulam, though both evidently incomplete sen- 
tences, are not quite so deficient as dedit mihi, or nar- 
ras surdo. The verb is so contrived in the arbitrary 
application of words, as to lead the hearer to expect 
with greater rapidity and impatience the idea which is 
subjoined in the accusative, than that which is in the 
datwe. When the dative is placed first in order, as in 
the phrase dedit mihi dextram, we are sensible of a de- 
gree of inversion, or a short suspension of the governed 
word most nearly connected with the verb. This mode 
of speech is contrived for the sake of variety and ele 
gance, or for the convenience of dwelling on the idea 
expressed in the accusative, by attaching to the noun 
some additional of speech; as, Narras mihi fabulas 
gigantum incredibiles. 
Tn the use of verbs of giving and. declaring, a differ- 
ence in the actual relations of the object mentioned in 
the accusative and that in the dative case is evident; 
but in verbs of comparing no difference of this sort is 
GRAMMAR. 
‘the other, and the transition made to the two may be 
a verb which is originally not used transitively, may 
necessarily implied. The sentences, C Virgilium Univ 
Homero, and Comparo Homerum Virgilio, may be used Gt 
for conveying the same meaning in exactly the same 
manner astothought. The interest taken in one ofthe’ 
objects compared may not be greater than that taken in 
e in its degree of rapidity and deliberateness.- At 
sscoted time, if eieeatang such difference of interest, 
it seems natural to put that object to the description of 
which the comparison is principally subordinate in the 
accusative, and the other in the dative. “< : 
These facts may furnish some illustrationof those phra- Wor 
ses in which a verb governs the dative case alone, for vern 
example, the verbs nocere, favere, placere, and resistere, 4%iv 
The English verbs into which these are translated are “"* 
equally transitive, and govern the same form of the 
noun, with those which to Latin verbs 
governing the accusative. But in the Latin lan~ 
guage it is probable that they are not so com 
transitive, and resemble in their genius those Engli 
verbs to which nouns are subjoined through the me 
dium of the preposition to, as the verbs « yield,” 
and “ submit.”” Thus the translation of obedire by 
the verb “submit” would be more accurate than 
“obey” in so far as regimen is concerned, al 
the former of these English verbs, as applied to | 
expression of ideas, may be less nearly co-exten- 
sive with the Latin word. It is conceivable, that 
be more easily made to govern the dative than the 
accusative, whether it is employed in its simple state, 
or in composition. The verb resistere, for example, 
is derived from sistere, which signifies to stop er re- 
main fixed, and does not prepare the hearer to ex- 
at the mention of any other object affected. This state, 
owever, admits of being also mentioned as an impedi- 
ment to the progress of another. The name of this other 
may be subjoined with a slight degree of ceremony ; 
and a semi-transitive verb may be formed signifyi 
that fixed state, te ow ee intention of mention~ 
ing the object im . The machinery of preposi- 
pr or pa oe words, for the inte 
of the latter object, are dispensed with ; yet the verb is 
made to govern a case which implies some slight de- 
gree of ceremony in the mental transition intended. 
We have heard it suggested that a verb which go- anal 
verns a single noun in the dative implies in itself the },, gy 
force of a noun governed in the accusative ; that. rests: and it 
tere, for example, has the force of the obstaculum vernin 
opponere. Whether this suggestion has any trath in an verbs. 
etymological point of view, or is in any degree to be 
considered as a probable account of the sentiments ori« 
ginally attached to such verbs, we shall not stop to in- 
quire. But a translation of some phrases, on this prin- 
ciple, into the English language, will afford us a clear 
analysis of these two cases, as well as of the verbs which ~ 
respectively govern them, and yet are otherwise synony-~ 
mous. The English language expresses the dative by 
means of the preposition fo prefixed to the same form 
of the word which constitutes the accusative ; just as if, 
in Latin, the dative case were wanting, and the mean- 
ing of it always expressed by the preposition ad with the 
accusative. This would certainly shew a more leisure- 
ly and ceremonious transition than the accusative with- 
out a preposition. Both these sentences, Nocuit Ciceroni, 
and Lasit Ciceronem, may be translated, “ He did harm 
to Cicero ;” but, in the first, the force of the —_ 
tion “to” is contained in the dative Ciceroni, , in: 7 
the last, it is contained in the verb /esit, , 
