Johnson 2004 - CDLI - UCLA

But Landau then draws a comparison with a construction in which the dative
prepositional phrase is not the actual possessor, but rather a person who is negatively
affected by the event described in the clause.
(24) Gil ßavar le-Rina et ha-mißkafayim ßel Sigal
PN broke to-Rina Acc the-glasses of PN 2
Gil broke Sigal’s glasses on Rina, i.e. Rina was negatively affected by event
Here in (24), the possessor of the glasses is indicated by ßel Sigal “of Sigal,” whereas the
phrase that includes the dative preposition refers to Rina as the person negatively
affected by the breaking of the glasses. The negative affect attributed to the referent of
a noun in the dative case or a prepositional phrase should be familiar as one of the
hallmarks of the low source applicative described above. The problem arises with a
seemingly arbitrary restriction that would seem to contradict a low source applicative
interpretation of verbs of direct perception. Landau notes that the possessor dative
construction does not felicitously occur with verbs of perception such as ra’a “to see.”
Landau offers the following example of an ungrammatical sentence in which the verb
is ra’a “to see” in contrast with a similar clause in (26) where the verb means “to look
at” (Landau 1999, 25-26, ex. 49a and 49b).
(25) *Gil ra’a le-Rina et ha-bayit
PN saw to-Rina Acc the-house
Gil saw Rina’s house
52