double accusative (was Re: passive of causatives)
jacob.baltuch at EURONET.BE
Thu Jul 9 21:44:12 UTC 1998
Dominique Thillaud wrote:
>Sandra van der Geer wrote
>>I agree with you in considering one accusative the direct object, and the
>>other accusative the indirect object, or the dative. As we all know, one
>>and the same function or kAraka can be denoted by several cases.
> I can't agree: to take one of both accusatives as a dative is an
>anchronism, projecting ancient syntax to our own and above all forgiving
>the pragmatical shift of some verbs. I believe that, in ancient time, to
>give, to spell and some other ones were direct actions on the receiver,
>constraining him strongly.
We were talking about an example with the verb 'darzayati' I believe in the
meaning of 'show'.
That the 2nd accusative of the (theoretical) double accusative construction
of darzayati was considered an indirect object by the users of the language
themselves is made plain by the fact that that accusative is much more commonly
replaced by a dative or a genitive.
More information about the INDOLOGY