Re: Primary/secondary object systems

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.

Postposed adpositioned in brackets because they're semantically "there"
but not usually marked in the language in question.

What's key about the distinction is what can be left out of the sentence,
or used in anaphor, and what the semantic implications of that gap are.

For example:

I write      the letter      the pen, then put it in the draw.
S V              DO     with     IO           (DO)
S V     THUS     SO              PO           (PO)

In "dative" (normal) languages, "it" refers fairly unambiguously to the
letter (given the sentence in isolation), whereas in dechticaetiative
languages it refers just as unambiguously to the pen.




Paul

Replies