argument structure k'u etc.

[David Costa]

>> (David) That's the way it works in languages that have datives for
>> recipients. Many languages, like Lakhota, do not use datives for the
>> recipient of the verb 'give': (...) <<

> I'd be interested in examples of other languages.

In all Algonquian languages, whenever an object is marked on the verb
'give', it always represents the recipient. There's no way to mark the verb
'give' for the actual thing being given.

So for example, in Miami, which is completely typical, /-ita/ is an ending
marking a third person subject acting on a first person object:

waapamita 'he looks at me'
miilita 'he gives (it) to me'

Likewise, for /-aka/, an ending marking a first person subject acting on a
third person object:

waapamaka 'I look at him'
miilaka 'I give (it) to him'

If you want to force a meaning like 'I give him to you', with an overt
animate object, you have to mark the animate entity being given by using an
inalienably-possessed noun that means 'body, self'. Thus, 'I give him to
you' would literally be 'I give you his body/himself'. You can see how
semantically this wouldn't be common.

David C.