dative "direct object"
c stirling bartholomew
cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Fri Oct 18 00:09:11 EDT 2002
on 10/17/02 8:33 PM, Steven Lo Vullo wrote:
> I have always taken for granted the category "dative direct object."
> However, in the course of reading the GNT and thinking about the verbs
> that are commonly described as taking a dative "direct object," I have
> come to wonder why the dative in such cases is described in this way.
> Are there good reasons to think of this use of the dative as a true
> direct object, or is there a better way to explain the phenomenon?
One option is to scrap the whole subject-object-indirect_object approach and
adopt an semantic functional scheme instead. The main verb of a clause can
be thought of as having zero or more arguments. Each argument can be
classified as an agent, patient, recipient, goal . . . But there is no
universally accepted working set of semantic functions. One needs to remain
somewhat flexible to use this approach.
The subject-object scheme is clunky. The Mounce-Wallace types still make use
of it and the end up burying themselves in mountain of qualifications which
is self defeating.
clay
--
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list