Re: Primary/secondary object systems

Trebor Jung wrote at 2004-04-04 19:22:08 (-0400)
 > 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?
 >

I think you may have direct and indirect object confused.  O here is
the object (patient) of a monotransitive sentence, which may be united
with the theme role of a ditransitive (here DO) and called a direct
object, in contrast to the recipient role (here IO) called indirect
object; or O may be united with the recipient, and called a primary
object, in opposition to the theme, which is called a secondary
object.

See section 2.3 of
http://linguistics.buffalo.edu/people/faculty/dryer/dryer/DryerClausetypes.pdf

(Google version is

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:neBOkbNZlRsJ:linguistics.buffalo.edu/people/faculty/dryer/dryer/DryerClausetypes.pdf+dryer+%22clause+types%22+shopen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

if your reader can't cope with the pdf.  You won't be able to see the
diagrams, of course, but the text should be sufficient.)