Inge Genee wrote:
> I checked for examples of VN complements with do-gni in my thesis. My
> data was limited but in OI and MiI do-gni is almost exclusively
> causative and takes finite complements.
I am a bit surprised because it was my - strictly unsystematic -
impression that in MidIr. periphrastic "do·gní" was not so uncommon.
Are you aware of any study particularly of this question, apart from
> The earliest example I have of
> (causative, not periphrastic) do-gni + VN is from Gaelic Maundeville
> (1475): doníat na hIdail a clann do baisted 'the Jews had their
> children baptized'. (MA094.04).
It is clear that logically the Jews cannot baptise their own
children, so logically - or inherently - the action is causative. The
question is, however, if the sentence must be regarded as
grammatically causative. If I say, for example, "the government will
build new roads", this is also functionally causative, but the
causativity of the sentence is an extra-linguistic property that must
be supplied by the pragmatic knowledge of the listener, it is not
grammatically encoded. Couldn't the same apply to the Maundeville