double accusative (was Re: passive of causatives)
thillaud at UNICE.FR
Sun Jul 12 06:06:13 UTC 1998
You're absolutely right, raamam is wrong. I'm the culprit. I've
mixed too quickly grammar and extra-linguistic considerations.
>I'm not sure who introduced these utterances into the discussion, but I
>have a simple question about the second one.
>* vAkyam uvaca rAmam
>* dAnaM dadau rAmam
>If the asterisks before these utterances do *not* mean that these are
>incorrect utterances, will somebody please direct me to a grammatical
>authority who sanctions the double accusative with daa?
>(I would expect only
>daanaM dadau raamaaya
>daanaM dadau raamasya)
>Thank you in advance.
>Elliot M. Stern
>552 South 48th Street
>Philadelphia, PA 19143-2029
>telephone: 215 747 6204
Universite' de Nice Sophia-Antipolis, France
More information about the INDOLOGY