the casus loci a termination (־ָה) is employed, in which (according to § 90 c) the old accusatival ending is preserved; and finally from the consistency with which classical Arabic puts these nearer definitions in the accusative (which may be recognized by its form) even under circumstances in which one would be rather inclined to expect a nominative in apposition.
[c] The relation subsisting between the circumstantial accusative and the accusative of the object is especially apparent when the former (as e.g. in a statement of the goal after a verb of motion) is immediately connected with its verb. But even the more loosely connected circumstantial definitions are certainly to be regarded as originally objects of a governing word habitually omitted, only that the consciousness of this closer government was at length lost, and the accusative more and more acquired an independent value as a casus adverbialis.
[d] 2. The accusative serves to define more precisely the place (accus. loci), either (a) in answer to the question whither? after verbs of motion,[1] or (b) in answer to the question where? after verbs of being, dwelling, resting, &c. (but also after transitive verbs, see the examples), or finally (c) to define more precisely the extent in space, in answer to the question how far? how high? how much?, &c.
[e] Instead of the simple accusative, the locative (see above, § 90 c) [2] is frequently found in the cases mentioned under f (sometimes also in those under g) or the preposition אֶל־,[3] especially before persons as the aim of the movement, or בְּ, usually, to express being at a place.
[f] Examples of (a): נֵצֵא הַשָּׂדֶה let us go out into the field, 1 S 2011; cf. Gn 273, 314, Jb 297; לָלֶ֫כֶת תַּרְשִׁישׁ to go to Tarshish, 2 Ch 2036; cf. Gn 1011, 139, 2427, 2623, 3121, Ex 49, 1710, Ju 126, 2 K 1119, Na 18 (?), ψ 1342; with לָקַח Nu 2314; with נָתַן Jos 624; with the accus. loci emphatically preceding (cf. Driver on 1 S 58), 1 K 226, Is 2312, Jer 210, 206, 325; with בּוֹא (in the sense of aggredi, equivalent to עַל־ בּוֹא, cf. § 117 a, note 2) the personal aim also is poetically added in the accusative, Ez 3211, 3811, Pr 1024, 2822, Jb 1521, 2022; but in the last passage it is better taken as an accusative of the object (cf. the German einen ankommen, überkommen). See also Nu 1036 (where שׁוּב can hardly be transitive); Ju 1129, 1 S 1320 (where, however, אֶל־ has probably fallen out after ישראל; so Strack).—Finally, cf. also the use of אֲשֶׁר for אֲשֶׁר ... שָׁ֫מָּה whither, Nu 1327.—The accus. loci occurs after a passive, e.g. Gn 1215.
[g] Examples of (b): Gn 3811 remain a widow בֵּית אָבִיךְ in thy father’s house; cf. Gn 2423, 1 S 1715, 2 S 232, Is 36, Hos 125, Mi 610, 2 Ch 3320; פֶּ֫תַח הָאֹ֫הֶל in the tent door, Gn 181, 10, 19:11, and frequently. As observed by Driver on 1 S 229, accusatives of this kind are almost without exception (but cf. 1 K 832, Is 162, 287, 2 Ch 3320) connected with a noun in the genitive. In all the above examples, however, the accusative may have been preferred to the natural construction with בְּ (which is not rare even with בֵּית and פֶ֫תַח) for euphonic reasons, in order to avoid the combination of such sounds as בְּב׳ and בְּפ׳; cf., moreover, Gn 214, 416, Ex 185, Lv 68 (הַמִּזְבֵּחַ instead of the usual הַמִּזְבֵּ֫חָה
