If in a language the same verbal meaning is expressible either through a construction where a complement of the verb is in the Accusative or through a construction where the same complement is in an adverbial case and there is a meaning difference between two constructions, this semantic contrast will be either a contrast between a definite and an indefinite object, or a contrast between an object that is fully involved in the event and one that is partially involved, or a contrast between affected and non-affected participant.
Standardized
IF the same verbal meaning is expressible either through a construction where a complement of the verb is in the Accusative or through a construction where the same complement is in an adverbial case and there is a meaning difference between two constructions, THEN this semantic contrast will be either a contrast between a definite and an indefinite object, or a contrast between an object that is fully involved in the event and one that is partially involved, or a contrast between affected and non-affected participant.
In other words:Marking alternations on (direct) objects, with an accusative alternating with an adverbial case, can only reflect three kinds of semantic contrasts: definite vs. indefinite, wholly vs. partially involved, or affected vs. non-affected.Individually or in combination, these three parameters have often been shown to govern object marking; the claim here is that there are no others. Have Anderson and Jespersen made THIS claim?
In other words:Marking alternations on (direct) objects, with an accusative alternating with an adverbial case, can only reflect three kinds of semantic contrasts: definite vs. indefinite, wholly vs. partially involved, or affected vs. non-affected.Individually or in combination, these three parameters have often been shown to govern object marking; the claim here is that there are no others. Have Anderson and Jespersen made THIS claim?