--- Trebor Jung <treborjung@...> wrote:
> Verbs like 'to throw' are not inherently
> ditransitive; 'to give', on the other hand, is.
How so? If give implies both a thing given and a
recipient; so must throw - a thing thrown and a
catcher. The problem might be assuming "inherent"
ditransitivity?
> With 'to throw' (f'rinstance), you can have 'I
> throw the ball' and 'I throw the ball (to
> him)', where 'to him' is oblique, not
> mandatory.
Same with give: "I give at the office"; "I gave a
nice bracelet"; "I gave £20 nine and sixpence".
> I consider ditransitives to be those
> verbs where you absolutely need an indirect
> object for the sentence to be grammatical - as
> well as a subject and object - and not where
> they can, but don't absolutely need, an
> indirect object.
Then you can leave give out! You can probably
leave out all the verbs on that ditransitive list
I replied to a moment ago. I recall words like
"bung" and "write" and "scribble" and "cook" etc.
None of those require an IO.
Padraic.
=====
blaženi ništii duxomь ěko těxъ estъ cěsarьstvo
nebesьskoe!
-- Mt.5:3
--
Ill Bethisad --
<http://www.geocities.com/elemtilas/ill_bethisad>
Come visit The World! --
<http://www.geocities.com/hawessos/>
.