Hello.
As you may already know, two-case prepositions sometimes take the accusative and sometimes the dative. This has to do with what I am expressing. If a movement, a change, a displacement is expressed, then the accusative is used. But otherwise, when a fixed place is maintained, the dative is used. I think you understand what I mean.
I am trying to come up with a linguistic explanation for this phenomenon. Is there a linguistic reason for this that displacement is equivalent to accusative and not displacement is equivalent to dative? Perhaps a diachronic, historical explanation. I really don't understand why, when there is a displacement, a direct object is provided (ACCUSATIV). And when not, an indirect object is provided (DATIV).
In addition, it is very difficult for me to come up with a mnemonic rule that allows me to reason quickly enough, so that I can decline while I speak. (Currently I study a B1 course in German.)
Many many thanks, in advance, to anyone who can help me.
As you may already know, two-case prepositions sometimes take the accusative and sometimes the dative. This has to do with what I am expressing. If a movement, a change, a displacement is expressed, then the accusative is used. But otherwise, when a fixed place is maintained, the dative is used. I think you understand what I mean.
I am trying to come up with a linguistic explanation for this phenomenon. Is there a linguistic reason for this that displacement is equivalent to accusative and not displacement is equivalent to dative? Perhaps a diachronic, historical explanation. I really don't understand why, when there is a displacement, a direct object is provided (ACCUSATIV). And when not, an indirect object is provided (DATIV).
In addition, it is very difficult for me to come up with a mnemonic rule that allows me to reason quickly enough, so that I can decline while I speak. (Currently I study a B1 course in German.)
Many many thanks, in advance, to anyone who can help me.