passive of causatives (moving IO to SU in Skt)

[Jacob Baltuch]

Sandra van der Geer wrote:

>>indraayudhaM na kasya cid darzayati
>>              '(he) does not show the rainbow to anyone'
>>indraayudhaM na kaz cid darzyate
>>              as 'no one is shown the rainbow'?
>
>>aabharaNaM suutasyaa \rpayati
>>              '(he) hands over his insignia to his driver'
>>aabharaNaM suuta arpyate
>>              as 'the driver is handed over the insignia'?
>
>Both passive examples sound good to me, but I am not a sa.msk.rtabhA.savAdinI,
>so I'm curious if how more versatile Sanskrit speakers understand these pairs.

Another pair which ought to be good (as it is given as an example in
a course),

 raamaM veedam adhyaapayati   '(he) teaches the V. to R.'
 raamo vedam adhyaapyate      'R. is taught the V.'

I hope there is no problem taking the accusative 'raamaM' as an *indirect*
objet of 'adhyaapayati'. The same could apply to the first pair since (as
far as I know) a construction with double accusative is in principle
possible for 'darzayati' and it becomes a matter of whether you wish to
see the passive sentence as the passive counterpart of the double accusative
construction or of the accusative and dative construction like I do above.
(Note: indirect object in the genitive also possible)

Btw, why Rama and Nala? Isn't it supposed to be Rama and Krishna? :-)

Also why John and Mary in the Japanese example???