argument structure k'u etc.

["Alfred W. Tüting"]

 >> 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'<<


Thanks for this explanation.
So I grasp that there are different markings to (somewhat generically)
indicate that there's an indirect object (which also covers dative). In
Dakota, the ki-verbs also express more than just dative - even in the
sense of "back again", e.g. (wa)ki'ni - (I) revive; Kini Anpetu -
Resurrection/Easter Day; kiska' to fade, lit. to return to an original
white color; kiche'pa to become fat again, e.g. waki'chepa-wi June, moon
of things getting fat again.

As for _k'u_ in Dakota, I'd tend to see it as a - special form of a -
ki-verb or a dative-verb sui generis. So I'm very reluctant to call the
recipient of _k'u_ (e.g. the horses in sunkawakan kin mni wicak'u) a
direct/accusative participant. (???) (BTW, would it make any difference
to give it as "Wicasa kin mazaska eya wicak'u"?)


Alfred