From: "Matt Pearson"
> I'm not sure what your motivation is for giving these examples,
> since you provide no commentary. They're not really relevant to
> the example I gave, since they're not double-object constructions.
> A double-object construction is one in which both the direct
> and indirect object are unmarked for case, or are marked with
> the same case. In your Géarthnuns examples, the indirect object
> is marked with dative case and the direct object with accusative
> case. The direct object is clearly not a chomeur in this type of
A misunderstanding on my part.
> Now, what would *really* prove my case would be if
> Géarthnuns had an alternate ditransitive construction
> like this:
> John-NOM AUX Bill-ACC höi book-ACC give
> --in which there is no way to make "book-ACC" the subject of
> a passive sentence. But I don't suppose there is any such
You'd be correct here.
> >> The direct objects of nouns and gerunds are clearly chomeurs
> >> as well, since it's not possible to passivise nouns and gerunds.
> >The eating of the ice cream was seen by me?
> >The ice cream's being eaten was seen by me?
> Can you form passive nominalisations in Géarthnuns? If
> not, then these examples are irrelevant: Direct objects of
> nominalised verbs weould be chomeurs in Géarthnuns but not
> in English. (My guess is that you cannot form passivised
> nominalisations in Géarthnuns, since the passivisation
> operation is linked to the AUX system, and nominalisations
> don't include an auxiliary. Am I right?)
At the risk of misunderstanding you again, I think so? Gerunds are formed by
taking the verb, reversing the auxiliary, and adding a suffix.
la glozh (eat) => glozh + al + örs => glozhalörs eating
lat glozh (be eaten) => glozh + tal + örs => glozhtalörs being eaten
Chau glozhtalörs cha fusumbansas lét sín tel.
the being.eaten-nom the ice.cream-gen past/pass I-instr see
The ice cream's being eaten was seen by me.
In theory, any aux+verb combo could be gerundized, though some forms are
obviously more commonly used than others.