# Accusativus cum infinitivo



## Whodunit

In Latin you need a special form of the noun in an conjuctive clause (after 'that'), that is you have to decline it in the accusative case. Now I want to ask you if your language does the same. Or do you know some language that treats conjunctive clauses in a special way?

Sample sentence: My friend wrote that his girlfriend arrived in Rome.

Let me start with *Latin*:
Amicus meus amicam suam in Roma *advenisse* scribebat.
(literally: Friend my, girlfriend his in Rome has arrived, wrote.)

In the so-called "AcI" clause, you have to use the accusative (amicam suam) and the verb has to remain in the infinitive, but in the particular tense (advenisse).

... and I'll go on with *Arabic*:
.كتب صديقي أن *حبيبتهاً* وصلت إلى روما
(transcription: kataba sadiiqii 2anna 7abiibatahuan wasalat 2ila ruumaa)
(literally: Wrote friend my that girlfriend his arrived in Rome)

The interesting fact is that in a conjunctive clause the accusative is required. All the other facts (that the verb form has two be declined on the one hand, but not on the other side) is irrelevant for this topic. The ending ـاً indicates the accusative that always has to be written, but all the other cases don't have to.

Now my question again: How does your language treat such conjunctive clauses?


----------



## remosfan

Ancient Greek had 3 different ways of doing this, and two of them involved putting the subject of the clause in the accusative. Only the third way survived into modern Greek, though, where you just use the nominative, and introduce the clause with some word corresponding to "that".

And English also ses the "accusative" with certain verbs:

I consider him to be a great goalie.


----------



## Whodunit

remosfan said:
			
		

> And English also ses the "accusative" with certain verbs:
> 
> I consider him to be a great goalie.


 
Yes, that's right:

I want her to be sensitive.
I suggest us to search in the Internet.
...


----------



## Rayines

> In Latin you need a special form of the noun in an conjuctive clause (after 'that'), that is you have to decline it in the accusative case. Now I want to ask you if your language does the same. Or do you know some language that treats conjunctive clauses in a special way?


*Fortunately , I think we don't have it in Spanish! The only difficulty we have for Spanish learners in some of those clauses (subordinate for us) is Subjunctive!*


----------



## elroy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> ... and I'll go on with *Arabic*:
> .كتب صديقي أن *حبيبتهاً* وصلت إلى روما
> (transcription: kataba sadiiqii 2anna 7abiibatahuan wasalat 2ila ruumaa)
> (literally: Wrote friend my that girlfriend his arrived in Rome)


 
*حبيبتهاً* is not a word.

It should be *حبيبته* [habiibat*a*hu] and the fat7a (the "accusative" indicator) appears on the "ta," not on the last letter.  Case indicators never appear on "connected pronouns," which are not inflected.  Furthermore, your pronoun was incorrect because you used the feminine, instead of the masculine, pronoun.

The reason there is a fat7a (your so-called "accusative case") is the presence of the أن.  Every word that follows أن, whether noun or pronoun, takes that vowel.  It has nothing to do with the specifics of this particular structure.


----------



## Whodunit

elroy said:
			
		

> *حبيبتهاً* is not a word.
> 
> It should be *حبيبته* [habiibat*a*hu] and the fat7a (the "accusative" indicator) appears on the "ta," not on the last letter. Case indicators never appear on "connected pronouns," which are not inflected. Furthermore, your pronoun was incorrect because you used the feminine, instead of the masculine, pronoun.


 
Okay, I'll edit it. But you would still pronounce it "ahuan" or just lazily "ahu"? I wanted to use the accusative case *which is really pronounced*. In my grammar book, I saw it with muhammadan [معبداً], which surprised my eye a bit.



> The reason there is a fat7a (your so-called "accusative case") is the presence of the أن. Every word that follows أن, whether noun or pronoun, takes that vowel. It has nothing to do with the specifics of this particular structure.


 
For me, it has. It's interesting that there's a rule that you have to use the accusative after the English equivalent 'that' [أن].

In French and Spanisch, we have to use the subjunctive. In English sometimes, we have to use an object pronoun, in German appears a special word order (if that counts).


----------



## Agnès E.

Bonjour Whodunit 

When you say:



> In French and Spanisch, we have to use the subjunctive.


 
This is wrong in the example you use : 
_Mon ami m'a écrit que son amie était arrivée à Rome._ The second verb is conjugated with _plus-que-parfait_.
Same structure with verbs needing avoir: _Mon ami m'a écrit que son amie avait pris le train._

I hope this will help you to answer your question.


----------



## Whodunit

Agnès E. said:
			
		

> Bonjour Whodunit
> 
> When you say:
> 
> 
> 
> This is wrong in the example you use :
> _Mon ami m'a écrit que son amie était arrivée à Rome._ The second verb is conjugated with _plus-que-parfait_.
> Same structure with verbs needing avoir: _Mon ami m'a écrit que son amie avait pris le train._
> 
> I hope this will help you to answer your question.


 
Oh, sorry, I generalized too fast. I was referring to "vouloir", "falloir" etc., for instance.


----------



## Agnès E.

Then, you are right! *Mon ami m'a écrit qu'il fallait que son amie aille à Rome.*


----------



## Rayines

> in German appears a special word order (if that counts).


*In Dutch too: this is the "quid" for Spanish or English speaking people learning Dutch! (but without declinations, as far as I know  ).*


----------



## amikama

Whodunit said:
			
		

> In Latin you need a special form of the noun in an conjunctive clause (after 'that'), that is you have to decline it in the accusative case. Now I want to ask you if your language does the same. Or do you know some language that treats conjunctive clauses in a special way?


 
Hebrew lacks accusative case (and any other case, I think). You simply connect two sentences with שֶׁ (the Hebrew equivalent of 'that') leaving them unchanged.

My friend wrote *that* his girlfriend arrived in Rome.
החבר שלי כתב *ש*החברה שלו הגיעה לרומא


----------



## elroy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Okay, I'll edit it. But you would still pronounce it "ahuan" or just lazily "ahu"? I wanted to use the accusative case *which is really pronounced*. In my grammar book, I saw it with muhammadan [معبداً], which surprised my eye a bit.


 
I repeat - "connected pronouns" are* not inflected*.

"ahuan" is incorrect. The fat7a on the ta serves as the case marker, and the connected pronoun does *not* receive an inflection.

The example you give is different because there is no "connected pronoun." 



> For me, it has. It's interesting that there's a rule that you have to use the accusative after the English equivalent 'that' [أن].
> 
> In French and Spanisch, we have to use the subjunctive. In English sometimes, we have to use an object pronoun, in German appears a special word order (if that counts).


 
The problem is using Latin-based terminology to explain Arabic grammar. We have no such thing as "accusative." We have "isem mansuub." The particle أن "unsub"s the noun (or verb) that *directly* follows it. That's the rule. It really has nothing to do with reported speech or the fact that it means "that." 

French and Spanish do not *always* use the subjunctive after "that." It depends on the context. 

German word order is a completely unrelated topic.

I fear you're mixing up grammars from different languages and creating connections that don't exist!


----------



## Outsider

In Portuguese, nouns are not declined. They remain the same in all clauses.

His girlfriend arrived in Rome.
_A sua *namorada* chegou a/em Roma._

My friend wrote that his girlfriend arrived in Rome.
_O meu amigo escreveu que a sua *namorada* chegou a/em Roma._


----------



## Boet

remosfan said:
			
		

> Ancient Greek had 3 different ways of doing this, and two of them involved putting the subject of the clause in the accusative. Only the third way survived into modern Greek, though, where you just use the nominative, and introduce the clause with some word corresponding to "that".
> 
> And English also ses the "accusative" with certain verbs:
> 
> I consider him to be a great goalie.


 
Dutch uses a similar construction, but only with a small number of verbs (e.g. vinden/to find,to think - zien/to see - horen/to hear - voelen/to feel - doen/to make - laten/to make, to allow)

Ik vind hem slecht spelen = Ik vind dat hij slecht speelt - I find that he performs badly.
Ik hoor hem de deur dicht doen ~ Ik hoor dat hij de deur dicht doet - I hear him close the door.
Ik zie haar hard weglopen ~Ik zie dat zij hard weg loopt - I see her run away fast.
Kijk die honden eens tekeer gaan! Just see those dogs carrying on!
Ik laat hem twee keer terugkomen - I make him come back twice.
Het kind deed hem struikelen. The child tripped him up/caused him to stumble over.
De blinde voelde hen naderbij komen. The blind man sensed that they were closing in on him.

Cheers,
Boet


----------



## janecito

Rayines said:
			
		

> Fortunately , I think we don't have it in Spanish! The only difficulty we have for Spanish learners in some of those clauses (subordinate for us) is Subjunctive!


 You think so?

*Te* (acc.) veo *bailar* (inf.).
*Os* (acc.) oí *volver* (inf.) a casa anoche.

 In Slovene it works the same way: we do have this construction, but only with _verba sentiendi_ (see, hear, feel etc.) not with the rest of them that also require this structure in Latin (_verba dicendi, verba affectuum_ etc.).

 Vidim *očeta* *prihajati*. (I see my father coming.)
 Slišim *ptice* *peti*. (I hear the birds singing.)



			
				Whodunit said:
			
		

> I suggest us to search in the Internet....


 Are you sure in this case '*us*' is an accusative (direct object)? Looks like a dative (indirect object) to me. But I'm not sure...


----------



## Rayines

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rayines*
> _Fortunately , I think we don't have it in Spanish! The only difficulty we have for Spanish learners in some of those clauses (subordinate for us) is Subjunctive!_
> 
> 
> You think so?
> 
> *Te* (acc.) veo *bailar* (inf.).
> *Os* (acc.) oí *volver* (inf.) a casa anoche.


...........Ooops!


----------



## Whodunit

Thanks for your contributions again! I didn't know someone would dig up this old thread. 



			
				janecito said:
			
		

> Are you sure in this case '*us*' is an accusative (direct object)? Looks like a dative (indirect object) to me. But I'm not sure...


 
Although it would be the accusative, I have to apologize that I was wrong when I posted that. Almost no one would say "I suggest us to ...", but rather "I suggest that we ..."


----------



## JLanguage

amikama said:
			
		

> Hebrew lacks accusative case (and any other case, I think). You simply connect two sentences with שֶׁ (the Hebrew equivalent of 'that') leaving them unchanged.
> 
> My friend wrote *that* his girlfriend arrived in Rome.
> החבר שלי כתב *ש*החברה שלו הגיעה לרומא


'

I might add that in pre-Biblical Hebrew (prior to 13th cent. BCE) had a case system very similiar to the one found in Modern Standard Arabic today. By the time even the earliest passages from the Tanakh were written (12th-13th cent. BCE), the case system had almost completely disappeared.


----------



## linguist786

English: My friend wrote that his girlfriend arrived in Rome
Gujarati: Maaraa dost-e lakhyu hatu ke eni girfriend Rome maa avyi hati.

To be honest, it's hard for me to judge since Gujarati is my mother tongue and i never really think about structures/grammar. 
But anyway, i'd in the example above, nothing really changes. It stays the same on both sides, and the normal past tense is used. Also, "his girfriend" doesn't change.. it's the same as if it'd have been at the beginning of a sentence. (As the subject)

Having thought about it, i don't think there even _is _a accusative case in Gujarati.


----------



## Flaminius

remosfan said:
			
		

> Ancient Greek had 3 different ways of doing this, and two of them involved putting the subject of the clause in the accusative. Only the third way survived into modern Greek, though, where you just use the nominative, and introduce the clause with some word corresponding to "that".
> 
> And English also ses the "accusative" with certain verbs:
> 
> I consider him to be a great goalie.



This seems to me an example of Subject-to-Object raising.


----------



## vince

AFAIK, Chinese languages do not inflect, so there would be no change in the accusative case. There might be some weird exceptional language among Chinese languages, but I'm pretty sure Mandarin and Cantonese do not ever inflect for case.


----------



## Flaminius

Classical and Ancient Chinese marked object nouns by preceding 於, 于 and several other characters.  I think they qualify as accusative markers.  I am wondering if our fellow Chinese-speaking posters could inform if those markers were governed by special conditions for subordinate clauses, sensory verbs or both; and if they are cogent in any of the today's variaties.

Flam


----------



## Brioche

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Yes, that's right:
> 
> I want her to be sensitive.
> I suggest us to search in the Internet.
> ...


 
The second sentence is not English.

_I suggest [that] we search on the internet._ cannot be turned into an accusative + infinitive.


----------



## Whodunit

Brioche said:
			
		

> The second sentence is not English.
> 
> _I suggest [that] we search on the internet._ cannot be turned into an accusative + infinitive.


 
I corrected myself in post #17. However, speaking about it now: Are there more of such constructions (as "to want sb. to do sth.") in English?


----------



## linguist786

Whodunit said:
			
		

> I corrected myself in post #17. However, speaking about it now: Are there more of such constructions (as "to want sb. to do sth.") in English?


Yes this construction is the most common.

Having thought about the Gujarati a bit more, if you want to say "I want you to do it", it'd be:

"Manay joyech, ke tu (e) kare"

the normal present tense would be "kare che" (= is doing). But because the "che" at the end is missed out in the above sentence, i think it's the subjunctive (like french)


----------



## janecito

Brioche said:
			
		

> The second sentence is not English.
> _I suggest [that] we search on the internet._ cannot be turned into an accusative + infinitive.


How about saying *'I suggest you to do that'*? Does that sound wrong too? It sounds kind of OK to me, but my English learning days are far over and I+m not sure anymore.  To me both of these sound OK:

*I suggest you to do that.
I suggest that you do that.*


----------



## linguist786

janecito said:
			
		

> How about saying *'I suggest you to do that'*? Does that sound wrong too? It sounds kind of OK to me, but my English learning days are far over and I+m not sure anymore.  To me both of these sound OK:
> 
> *I suggest you to do that.*
> *I suggest that you do that.*


The first one sounds ..funny.. and a bit stilted. The second one sounds much more natural.


----------

