between them there is this difference. Verbs like porto 'carry' denote actions that operate on one object, directly. Verbs like do 'give' denote actions that operate on two objects, on one directly, on the other indirectly. If I give, I not only must give some object, but I must give it to some other object. The sense is incomplete unless two objects are named after the verb 'give'. But these objects it is clear are operated on differently. If I give a book to a boy, I operate directly on the book: the action of giving passes over from me into it, causing it to move. But I do not operate directly on the boy; the action of giving operates round him instead of passing directly into him. Though affected by the action, he is not moved, but remains in the place in which he was before. We may judge, therefore, what will be the cases of the two nouns which follow do. The noun naming the book will be in the accusative, because the giving passes into the book and causes it to move. The noun naming the boy will be in the dative, because the giving operates round the boy without passing into him or causing him to move: as, Marcus dat librum puero, 'Marcus gives the book to the boy.' Indeed this, the proper, force of the dative is shown still more clearly by the original meaning of the verb do. For do meant ‘put,' as is shown by its compounds; and thus the sentence originally meant, 'Marcus puts the book at, or by the side of, the boy:' and this we saw to be the primary idea of the dative

case.

20 We find then that from the ideas of motion to,' and 'opera

tion at the two primary ideas of the accusative and dative cases are deduced the two following Laws, which are of most frequent use, and which hold whether a verb be followed by one noun or by two

Objects spoken of as operated on directly have their nouns in the Accusative case.

Objects spoken of as operated on indirectly have their nouns in the Dative case.

The broad distinction between the two being this—If an

object is operated on directly, the action passes into it and causes it to move: if an object is operated on indirectly, it is not moved, but only affected by the action, which operates round it.

21 If we were now to sum up the different functions which our three cases have to discharge, we should find them so far to be somewhat as follows:

The object from which motion is directed, and the object spoken of as possessing another object, have their nouns in the Genitive case.

The object to or through which motion is directed, and the object spoken of as operated on directly, have their nouns in the Accusative case.

The object at which the action is performed (this includes all the objects that can be considered as surrounding or accompanying the action), and the object spoken of as operated on indirectly, have their nouns in the Dative case.

22 But these clearly are not the exact functions discharged by the three cases in the Latin writings that have come down to us, as in such writings we find some of these functions discharged by another case, namely, the Ablative. How then did the Ablative arise? Apparently in something like the following way. The work of the genitive and dative was found too hard for them, and so a new case was introduced to relieve them of a portion of their burden. From the genitive the ablative took the whole of its primary idea of 'motion from;' leaving it only the secondary or derived idea of 'possession.' From the dative it took the primary idea of 'operation at,' and the included idea of 'surrounding or attendant circumstances,' leaving it only the derived idea of 'indirect action.' Thus for the Ablative in common use we have the following Laws

The object from which motion is directed, and the object in, on, or at which an action is performed (all objects being included that can be spoken of as accompanying or surrounding the action), have their nouns in the Ablative case.

23 But though for common use the genitive and dative have surrendered these functions to the ablative, there still survive traces of the original ownership. Thus many adjectives and verbs denoting 'motion from' are found with the genitive in old writers and the poets: as, orbus liberorum, 'bereft of children;' levare laborum, 'to relieve of troubles;' liberare culpa, 'to free from blame,' and the like. Moreover our own language shows the connexion between the two cases. We can say either to relieve of,' or 'to relieve from, troubles.' So in the Prayer Book we have 'to release him of his sins,' &c. We use 'out of' and 'off' (merely a lengthened form of 'of') in the sense of 'from.' It is vulgarly said, 'I took it off him;' and quite correctly, 'I bought it of him.' And the connexion is shown still more clearly in the French, where de means both of' and 'from.'

24 But in Latin the dative retains traces of its old original idea

much more vividly than the genitive does. And it is necessary to dwell for a moment on this point, as it involves a common grammatical rule. The Rule is this

Nouns naming the place in, on, or at which an action is performed are commonly in the ablative case (the ablative having taken this function from the dative according to clause 22). But if such nouns are the names of towns or small islands; or familiar nouns, as domus 'home,' rus 'country,' and the like; they are generally in the dative (the dative in this instance retaining its original idea of 'operation at').

There is a slight difficulty connected with this rule. The dative of dominus is domino; whereas 'at Miletus' is Mileti: 'at Tarentum' is Tarenti. This difficulty is however readily explained in the following manner. In Latin, as in Greek, the caseending for the dative is i. Thus we have reg-i; rosa-i contracted into rosa (compare povoa, musæ, &c); avi-i contracted into avi; gradu-i; facie-i. But in the second (or o) declension, domino-i is contracted into domino, just as in Greek olko- is contracted into oko. There is however no reason

6

why domino-i should not be contracted into dominoi, just as in Greek očko- is also contracted into oikot. And then dominoi would pass by Latin usage into domini, as σopoì would in Latin be written sophi, and divo-inus becomes divinus. Accordingly this double dative seems always to have existed in the language. The dative for common purposes was domino, just as in Greek the common dative was οἴκῳ, λόγῳ. But that special use, wherein the Latin kept its original idea of 'operation at,' required that it should also exhibit its original letter i. And thus we have Mileti for 'at Miletus,' domi for at home;' just as in Greek oko, not oko, means ' at home.' To go through therefore the different declensions, we have Romæ, 'at Rome;' Mileti, at Miletus;' Carthagini, 'at Carthage' (the ablative Carthagine is allowed in poetry); Athenis, 'at Athens;' Veiis, 'at Veii;' Sardibus, at Sardis.' All these are datives; and to these we may add the familiar words militiæ, 'in the field;' domi, ‘at home;' humi, 'on the ground;' ruri, 'in the country,' and one or two others. Compare too such old datives as hic, ‘here;' illic, 'there;' ibi (from i, like tibi); ubi, alibi, and the like. 25 There now remains to be considered a most important casethe Nominative. But it seems that this case took its rise somewhat differently from the others. The other cases; that is, the Genitive, Dative, and Accusative, with their auxiliary the Ablative, were constructed to mark objects as they exist in nature: whereas the nominative seems to have been constructed to mark an object as it is regarded in a sentence. This distinction between nature and words, between the physical and the logical, occurs elsewhere in the Latin language; namely, in the use of the Demonstrative, as explained in ch. xv. Rem. e. And the distinction is further shown by the language in use with respect to the Nominative. It is always called the case of the subject, whereas the other cases are said to define objects. Now the origin of these two words 'object' and 'subject' shows the difference of which we are speaking.

1

Objectum 'object' comes from objicio, 'lay before,' and means anything laid before the mind,' menti being understood after objectum.

Subjectum 'subject' comes from subjicio, 'lay under,' and means anything 'laid under the sentence,' not the mind; sententiæ, not menti, being understood after subjectum. An object therefore is anything whatever that can be brought before the mind, whether by the senses or not, whether person or thing, whether concrete or abstract-anything in short that I can think of. But the subject is that particular object which I select as the one on which I mean to make my sentence. I lay it under as a foundation, and build up my sentence upon it. And I shew which object I select as my subject by putting the noun which names it, and which therefore may be called the Subject-word, in the Nominative case. Every sentence therefore will have a noun in the nominative, understood if not expressed, to name the object about which I make my sentence; and the Law for the nominative will be

The object selected as the Subject of the sentence has its noun in the Nominative case.

26 The only remaining case, the Vocative, is used in addressing an object. It is always the same in form as the nominative in the plural number, and almost always in the singular. The only exception is in nouns of the second, or o, declension, which take the final s in the nominative: and these use the stem for the vocative; only the final o by a good-humoured shortening becomes e: as domino, 'lord;' V. domine, 'o lord.' The Law then for the Vocative is

The object addressed has its noun in the Vocative case. 27 We may now sum up our Laws for the Cases as follows: a. The object selected as the subject of the sentence has its noun in the Nominative case.

b. The object spoken of as possessing another object has its noun in the Genitive case. This case also retains traces of its original idea of 'motion from.'