Re: Primary/secondary object systems

Paul Bennett wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 19:22:08 -0400, Trebor Jung <treborjung@...> wrote:
>
>> Paul B. wrote:
>>
>> "You mean systems that treat IO and O the same, and DO differently, as
>> opposed to the vast majority of languages that treat DO and O the same
>> and
>> IO differently?"
>>
>> I'm confused. Isn't this the case?:
>> O=(in)direct object
>> DO=direct object
>> IO=indirect object
>> Could someone please explain?
>
> Yes. As I understand it, ordinarily, languages treat the Object of a
> transitive sentence the same as the Direct Object of a ditransitive
> sentence, and use another mechanism (often prepositions or oblique cases)
> for the Indirect Object.
>
> I see Bill
> S V   (D)O
>
> I give the ball to Bill
> S V        DO      IO
>
> I write the letter with the pen
> S V         DO              IO
>
> Dechticaetiative languages (which AFAIK only exist in Africa) to this
>
> I see Bill
> S V   (P)O
>
> I give(-to) Bill with the ball
> S V         PO            SO
>
> I write(-with) the pen THUS the letter
> S V                PO           SO
>
> THUS in caps because I can't think of an equivalent English preposition.
Ah, dechticaetiative. That's the word I was looking for. Thanks!

IIRC, some folks on this list have claimed that English has such a system.