108 On the Connection of the Dative and Accusative cases. [No. 2. 



accusative, no explanation can be given of its being transferred to the 

 dative. Indeed such a transference would be contrary to all analogy.* 



But on the converse hypothesis we can explain how the dative came 

 to be used in an objective sense. 



The action of a verb may be direct or indirect. Some verbs 

 denote an action which operates immediately upon an object, implying 

 a transmission of power from the agent upon it, (e. g. striking, burn- 

 ing, teaching, &c.) In all these the objective is employed. But there 

 are other verbs where the action is not direct or immediate, which, in 

 fact, imply little more than that the subject and object are connected 

 or occupy a certain relation to each other : (e. g. pleasing, consenting, 

 trusting, &c.) In this latter case the dative might easily come to be 

 thought the more appropriate for designating the object.f Such is, ac- 

 tually the case in Latin, Greek, Anglo-Saxon, German, French, and 

 Turkish. The usage once introduced would have a tendency to spread, 

 wherever the object of the verb was to be brought prominently into 

 notice, not merely as an object, but as a recipient ; until at last the 

 dative in some languages might come to be looked upon as an actual 

 form of the accusative. 



This explanation agrees with what, we have seen, prevails very ex- 

 tensively in the languages above-cited, viz. that the nouns to which 

 the dative sign is attached in the accusative sense are chiefly personal 

 nouns ; for things are simply objects of an action rather than recipi- 

 ents of influence, persons are recipients rather than simply objects. 



And there is another point to be noted. In languages like the 

 Hindustani and Bengali where both the nominative and the objective 

 precede the verb, some expedient would be found necessary to pre- 

 vent confusion as to which was the agent and which the object. But 



* The only instance that occurs to me, as possibly furnishing an exception, is 

 that of the French pronouns me, te, se. e. g. II me donne. But I believe that 

 in such examples the me is only a shortened form of the dative moi, when de- 

 prived of the accent. At any rate when the accent returns the longer form recurs ; 

 as in Donnez-moi. 



We may remark that this very moi furnishes an example of the dative used to 

 give strong objectivity to the personal idea : as in " Voudriez-vous me perdre, 

 moi, votre allie?" 



f ' Thanking' or ' praising,' &c. being = ' giving thanks' and ' bestowing praise,' 

 &c. 



