даёшь

[Martin Votruba]

> Or are they perceived as set expressions in which the use of the accusative no longer has any particular grammatical logic?

Although it may often not be obvious to a native speaker what verb/predicate to supply, the accusatives do convey a sense of a "goal, target," in instances from what may appear as almost set phrases (dobru noc) through their more spontaneous uses.

E.g., Slovaks chanted "Slobodu, slobodu!" in the 1968 and 1989 pro-democracy demonstrations (the missing phrase could have been "we want xy" or "give us xy" or "we demand xy" or something else without it necessarily being clear what).

On the other hand, a (sad) Slovak joke circulating under communism had a geographically confused East German jump in the Danube in Bratislava thinking the other bank was Austria, swim the river, climb out on the opposite bank (still in Bratislava) and dance and shout "Sloboda, sloboda!" (in the Slovak rendition). It would not have made sense to use the accusative here -- he was not expressing a desire for freedom any more, he thought he was already in Austria and free, he merely celebrated the existence, presence of freedom.

Both the accusative and the nominative are "alive," communicative, in the two situations, switching them would kill the meaning of such cries, make them puzzling as would saying dobra noc ("what do you mean, is the night good?") instead of dobru noc ("I see, that's the intended goal [for me]").


Martin

votruba "at" pitt "dot" edu

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Use your web browser to search the archives, control your subscription
  options, and more.  Visit and bookmark the SEELANGS Web Interface at:
                        http://seelangs.wix.com/seelangs
-------------------------------------------------------------------------