Re: Ditransitivity (again!)

Trebor Jung wrote:

> Merhaba!
>
> Joe wrote:
>
> "But I don't quite understand what you want...do you mean a case that
> contains all the meanings of 'to' and 'for'?"
>
> Well, how meanings of 'to' and 'for' are there to need to deal with?
> (Probly lots, considering English's (hated-by-me)
> idiosyncracies/-ness...) All I want is a easy/logical way of
> expressing dativeness without messing up anything else...
>

'to' - a benefactive, but expressing some kind of movement
'to' - non-benefactive, signifying 'to which something is done'
'to'- allative, signifying direction of movement(completely unrelated)
'for', as far as I know, has only the one meaning.

Now, as far as I remember, the first two meanings of 'to' and 'for' were
expressed in the dative in Latin.  The third meaning of 'to' was
expressed in the accusative, with a preposition, I think, but it could
have bean the ablative(damn my memory).  You could also combine the
first meaning of 'to' and 'for' as one case, as in English currently, is
done with indirect objects.  Or you could mark them all differently.

So, you have two to four cases.  Or, alternatively, you could have on
big post-prepositional case.

Reply