What I don't get about movement verbs taking the
dative is that, in German and even English, such
verbs take accusative or direct objects that are
"being moved" while *also* taking dative or
indirect objects "to which or from which" is
being moved:


--- keth@... wrote:

> Ek kasta steininum - I throw the stone
> In contrast, I think the following sentence is
> correct German:
>
> Ich werfe den stein

English I throw the stone

BUT in German and English you can add an object
very easily:

Ich werfe IHM den stein
I throw HIM the stone

(whereby IHM has dative declination in German,
while HIM is the indirect object because there is
another object immediately following it which
"pushes" the first object "back" into the dative
(called indirect object in English).

The verb "throw" makes clear that the stone is
being thrown TO the indirect person. In English I
don't think any verb specifies that someting is
being moved FROM the indirect object, but in
German there are examples:

Ich nehme IHM den Stein ab
Ich take the stone FROM HIM

(where "ab" is actually the last part of the verb
that comes at the end of the sentence for reasons
unrelated to this discussion).

But how do you insert an indirect (dat) object
which receives or gives the direct (acc) object
in an Old Norse sentence if the verb already
takes a dative object as the thing being moved?

I can only think of a few solutions:

1. The dative verbs in Old Norse do not take
indirect objects, unlike the equivalent verbs in
English or German. This is satisfying, though it
makes me think there must be some word that
basically means the same thing as "throw" in Old
Norse which *does* take accusative objects, and
*can* take dative objects as the receiving or
giving entity. The word just seems too usefull
not to exist.

2. You can stick prepositional phrases on
sentences with dative verbs in Old Norse to make
clear who is receiving or giving. This is
particularly unsatisfying, because it seems
unnecessarily wording for a declined language -
what's the sense in having cases if you have to
muck about with prepositions for all your words
which theoretically could be indirect objects/
take dative case?

You can do prepositional phrases with any verbs
in English and German, of course, but you usually
only have to go to the trouble in unusual cases
where verbs do not normally take an indirect
object.

For instance, the following use of indirect
object with "to shoot" is very unusual:

I shoot HIM a bullet.
Ich schiesse IHM eine Kugel.

(note, this sounds like the beginning of a
sentence where I would continue to say what part
of him I shot "Ich schiesse IHM in den Schulter",
"I shoot HIM in the shoulder" - but in this case
the dative has more to do with the prepositional
phrase "in the shoulder" than with the verb as
such).

"Shoot" does not typically take a receiving
object, because the object cannot "receive" the
direct object (the bullet) so much as to be shot
by it. So I would say that the verb "shoot"
simply does not take indirect (dat) objects. If
you put another object behind the "him" in "I
shoot him", the word "him" *sticks* in the
accusative case/direct object and doesn't want to
surrender it to the next object in line and be
pushed back to the dative case/indirect object.

Neverthelesss, while it may sound funny, it is
nevertheless grammatically correct to stick a
prepositional phrase with "to" on the "shooting"
sentence:

I shoot a bullet TO HIM
Ich schiesse eine Kugel ZU IHM

Here the addition of the unusual prepositional
phrase actually implies a modified meaning for
"to shoot", which in informal English means "to
throw very quickly with no arc in the throw, to
slide it rapidly across a surface, or to send it
in some abstract way very quickly" ("I shoot an
email to him"). I get the image of a cowboy at an
old western bar taking a bullet, putting in on
the bar, and saying "catch this, partner" and
giving the bullet a sudden shove such that is
slides down the highly polished bar to the
Sherrif, who is out of bullets (though the
villain slams his palm on the bullet half way to
the Sherrif and then Clint Eastwood has to whip
open the swinging doors to the saloon - that's
just my take on the verb).

So, "shoot" as in from a gun takes no indirect
objects, while "shoot" as in "send quickly" takes
them in prepositional phrases.

As one uses "shoot" relatively rarely in this
sense in English (and only very informally in
German), it is not very inconvenient to require
the speaker to use a preposition when he wants to
use the verb in this sense. The verb "throw",
however, seems much more common, and I wonder
whether there isn't a verb in Old Norse that
basically means "throw" that takes accusative and
dative objects in the same way "throw" does in
English/German.

- DS

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
http://photos.yahoo.com/