I have been the bad guy. I hated the bad guy.. (Nominative vs Accusative)

[theagx]

Hi,

< ... >

But I am curious as to why sein/to be uses the nominative (right??) in the following:

"I have been/was the bad guy (in every film I acted in)" = NOM
"I hated the bad guy (in every film I've seen)" = AKK

Why is it that "be" doesn't "do the same" as any other verb?

 

[Frieder]

< ... >

"I hated the bad guy (in every film I've seen)" = AKK
Why is it that "be" doesn't "do the same" as any other verb?

I can't find any instance of "to be" in this sentence.

And what do other verbs "do" that "be" doesn't?

 

[bearded]

Why is it that "be" doesn't "do the same" as any other verb?

Hello
English has almost completely lost declensions. These were (and still are in many languages, including German) a way to show the function of nouns, adjectives and pronouns in a sentence. Now, nominative is the 'case' of the subject, accusative the one of the direct object.
After ''to be'', nouns, pronouns and adjectives - as predicates - still refer to the subject, and must be in the nominative, whereas after transitive verbs you find the object, which must be in the accusative.
An example in English (with pronouns): Who is it that hates me? vs. whom do I hate?
I hope that my explanation is comprehensible to you.

< ... >