The phrase "accusative case" is correct and usable in written English.
It is typically used in discussions about grammar, specifically when referring to the grammatical case that marks the direct object of a verb.
Example: "In the sentence 'She saw him,' 'him' is in the accusative case."
Alternatives: "objective case" or "direct object case".
If you do, you are the victim of a schoolteacher rule that insists that a pronoun serving as the complement of "be" must be in nominative case (I, he, she, we, they) rather than accusative case (me, him, her, us, them).
Nouns have no gender and are marked by the ending -o; the plural is indicated by -oj (pronounced -oy), and the objective (accusative) case by -on, plural ojn: amiko "friend," amikoj "friends," amikon "friend (accusative)," amikojn "friends (accusative)." There is only one definite article, la (e.g., la amiko "the friend"), and no indefinite article.
Such contrasts are present in Baltic-Finnic, Sami, and Ugric and within Samoyedic e.g., Finnish tulen 'of fire' and tuulen 'of wind,' tuleen 'into fire,' and tuuleen 'into wind'; Hungarian szel 'slice' and szél 'wind,' szelet 'wind' (accusative case), and szelét 'its wind' (accusative).
In languages of both groups, these verbs have characteristic affixes: either single consonants, which are known as consonantal augments (as when *bu- 'hit, kill' becomes *bu-m); case suffixes, such as the dative case marker *-ku and the accusative case marker *-n(a); and personal pronouns, such as first person singular *ŋay.
Turkish is a typical agglutinative language: compare Turkish evleri, "houses" (accusative case), in which ev is the root meaning "house," -ler marks plurality, and -i is the sign for accusative, with Latin domūs, in which -ūs combines the representation of accusative and plural without the possibility of assigning either category separately to one part of the word ending.
For example, in the older Indo-European languages the syntactic function of the nouns and noun phrases in a sentence was expressed primarily by means of case endings (the subject of the sentence being in the nominative case, the object in the accusative case, and so on); in most of the modern Indo-European languages these functions are expressed by means of word order and the use of prepositions.
The dative and accusative cases have merged in the masculine; the nominative and accusative cases have merged in the feminine and neuter.
The a-stems express the nominative and accusative cases in an identical manner (taking /u/ in the singular and /a/ in the plural).
As he knows, the nominative and accusative cases are the reason that we don't say gibberish like "Her gave it to he and then sat by we here!" No idea is more basic to English syntax and grammar.
Table 1 The definite articles in the German gender-case paradigm (singular only) for nominative, genitive, dative and accusative cases Case Gender category Masculine Feminine Neuter Nominative der die das Genitive des der des Dative dem der dem Accusative den die das.
One diachronic implication of the observed synchronic patterns is that the Middle Indo-Aryan (MIA) ancestor system must have transitioned to across-the-board contrastive postpositional marking for ergative and accusative (DOM) cases via a stage in which such a contrast failed to exist for the majority of the nominal paradigm.
