Ditransitive Constructions: The Verb ‘Give’
by Martin Haspelmath http://wals.info/feature/105
-
Recent Comments
- Neele Müller on Datapoint for feature 65A and language wals_code_wch
- Neele Müller on Datapoint for feature 65A and language wals_code_tuc
- Alexandra Kajdi on Datapoint for feature 68A and language wals_code_hun
- Henry Davis on Order of Subject, Object and Verb
- Matthew Dryer on Datapoint for feature 51A and language wals_code_bsq
Categories
Meta
Archives
- February 2012 (7)
- January 2012 (28)
- December 2011 (29)
- November 2011 (24)
- October 2011 (19)
- September 2011 (15)
- August 2011 (24)
- July 2011 (14)
- June 2011 (18)
- May 2011 (45)
- April 2011 (244)
- March 2011 (227)
- February 2011 (180)
- January 2011 (228)
- December 2010 (191)
- November 2010 (244)
- October 2010 (225)
- September 2010 (158)
- August 2010 (122)
- July 2010 (104)
- June 2010 (133)
- May 2010 (216)
- April 2010 (202)
- March 2010 (230)
- February 2010 (198)
- January 2010 (167)
- December 2009 (232)
- November 2009 (283)
- October 2009 (272)
- September 2009 (212)
- August 2009 (148)
- July 2009 (172)
- June 2009 (257)
- May 2009 (338)
- April 2009 (271)
- March 2009 (309)
- February 2009 (373)
- January 2009 (171)
- December 2008 (2)
- November 2008 (5)
- October 2008 (6)
- September 2008 (4)
- August 2008 (2)
- July 2008 (5)
- June 2008 (2)
- May 2008 (1)
- April 2008 (146)
- October 2007 (1)
November 19th, 2008 at 7:50 am
Panyjima appears as an example of “double-object construction”, since both objects are marked with accusative case. But in the description of the language, and in the map, it appears as a “secondary-object construction”. So, are there another characteristics in the language that make it more a “secondary-object” type than a “double-object” one, despite of case marking?
Thank you very much
Teresa Torres
ling.rutgers.edu
November 20th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Yes, that’s correct. This is an error that will be corrected in the 2009 edition of WALS Online.