argument structure k'u etc.

[ROOD DAVID S]

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': 'give' is syntactically transitive, not ditransitive; only
two participants are indexed in the verb, and one of them is the
recipient.  The so-called accusative or direct object is not an argument.
I would not call 'horses' in your example an indirect object in Lakhota --
it's clearly the direct object, from the point of view of the grammar of
that language.  Lakhota has unambiguous datives marked with -ki-, but this
verb doesn't make use of them.

David S. Rood
Dept. of Linguistics
Univ. of Colorado
295 UCB
Boulder, CO 80309-0295
USA
rood at colorado.edu

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, [ISO-8859-1] "Alfred W. Tüting" wrote:

> As far as I had understood this issue, it's the dative structure, i.e.
> the personal affix pointing to the "receiver":
> sunkawankan kin mni wicak'u (he gave water to the horses) - right?
>
>
> Alfred
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>