Re: THEORY: Can Ditransitive Verbs Agree With More Than Two Core Arguments?

--- In conlang@yahoogroups.com, Henrik Theiling <theiling@A...> wrote:

<...snip...>

> indirect object agreement.  First of all, here's a verb marked for
> indirect object:
>
>    Toi, tu m'la dis pas, l'histoire.
>    SUBJ \__VERB___/ NEG  \__OBJECT_/
>
> You could probably also say:
>
>    A moi, tu m'la dis pas, l'histoire.
>
> There you have indirect object agreement.
>
<...snip...>

Yeah, I thought it might be something like that when I was writing
about Cross-Reference vs Agreement.  I don't know what the difference
between Cross-Referance and Agreement is exactly, but I'm pretty sure
someone who does would say "dis" *agrees with* "tu", but "la" *cross-
references* "l'histoire".  The "m'" also "cross-references" the First
Person Singular Indirect Object, which is not explicitly in the
clause as it appears on the surface.

This is indeed a counter-example, since it cross-references both
objects, and I asked for agreement OR cross-reference.  I just have
trouble remembering things like this "m'la" when thinking of this
question; that is to say, when I am the one stuck with coming up with
examples, I have an easier time recognizing agreement as agreement
than recognizing cross-reference as cross-reference.

Thanks.
(Thanks also for the rest of your reply, which was informative,
interesting, and gave me sources to look further.

---Tom H.C. in MI