NPPobl: The recipient is obligatorily marked by the explicit use of the noun or an independent pronoun, but other strategies also exist.
Agr: The recipient is marked by morphosyntactic verb agreement.
(1) ānťe-l ńāwrem-al-a ńāń ma-l.
mother-3sg child-3sg-lat bread give-prs.3sg
‘The mother is giving bread to her child.’ (S. O.)
(2) luw manem ńāń ma-l.
(s)he I.dat bread give-prs.3sg
‘(S)he is giving me bread.’ (S. O.)
(3) mā naŋen ńāń ma-l-ǝm.
I you.dat bread give-prs-1sg
‘I’m giving you bread.’ (S. O.)
(4) mā naŋen ńāń-ǝn ma-l-em.
I you.acc bread-loc give-prs-obj.1sg
‘I’m giving you bread.’ (S. O.)
(5) mā ńāwrem ńāń-ǝn ma-l-em.
I child bread-loc give-prs-obj.1sg
‘I’m giving bread to the child.’ (S. O.)
(6) ānťe-l-n ńāwrem ńāń-ǝn ma-l-a.
mother-3sg-loc child bread-loc give-prs-pass.3sg
‘The mother is giving bread to the child.’ (S. O.)
There are two ditransitive constructions in Synja Khanty (cf. Honti 1984: 88, 93‒96, Nikolaeva 1999a: 30‒34, 38‒39, Solovar 2009: 61‒81, 2010). In the first construction, the theme is in the nominative case, while a nominal recipient takes a lative case (1), but a pronominal recipient is marked with the accusative-dative ending (2)–(3). In the other construction (4), the theme takes the locative case ending, a pronominal recipient is marked with the accusative-dative case, while a nominal recipient appears as an unmarked object in the construction (5). Thus, as far as its form is considered, the pronominal recipient is not different in the two constructions. In the first construction, the verb is conjugated according to the indeterminate paradigm, while in the second one, the determinate conjugation is used which refers to the number of the recipient. In the passive voice (6), the indirect object takes the nominative case, and the direct object is marked with the locative suffix which serves the instrumental function in the construction.
