blame · de schuld geven

Hierarchy

Same inventory as English blame, Spanish culpar, French blâmer, Italian incolpare, Japanese 責める, Mandarin 怪 / 责备, Polish obwiniać / winić, Bulgarian обвинявам / виня, Hungarian hibáztat / okol, and German beschuldigen. Not five-place. Not four sisters of one V. Surface count can name the board, the weather, the delay, and an outer cause — but the lexicon does not list four co-arguments of √ASCRIBE_FAULT.

No MeasureP. There is no verbal Amount+Denomination object. Degrees that sneak in (welk deel van de schuld, a partitive on the light noun) live on the Abney spine of that noun — Left Branch Condition for sell / pay_GIVE / charge_FEE / credit_FIN does not apply as a verbal diagnostic here. Polish GEN-neg rewrites MeasureP of FIN/deduct. Dutch has no genitive of negation, and this lemma has no genitive Charge case to begin with. niet does not rewrite the IO Target into a genitive, and it does not move Charge into a second accusative beside de schuld. The working-paper NegQ keeps the accusative on the light noun, parallel to ATT Charge staying accusative under niet on attribute-att-nl.html. That is packaging. It is not an elicited denial of a Slavic genitive Dutch does not have.

What Group D changes for Dutch blame is that Index 2 prints the light-noun cloth itself, not a verb whose accusative is the person. German beschuldigen has ACC = Target and keeps die Schuld geben as scout. Dutch has no such split to file: the accusative of the citation is de schuld, Target is IO or aan, Charge is van. waarvan resumes that Charge. What it does not change is the inventory. There is no Hungarian preverbal Focus host to rank, and no Bulgarian multiple-WH cluster to import. V2 and participle-final order are ordinary clause shape, the same shape the live Dutch ATT and MERIT NegQ strings already use. Weather still satisfies Target and fails Judge. Cause-true is still not entailed. Target and Charge still do not invert at Transfer cost. Treating blame as Agent > Theme > Goal, reading the person as an accusative Target because German beschuldigen works that way, collapsing the cloth with toeschrijven because both can sit in an IO+ACC frame, or collapsing it with XFER/FIN because an indirect object can also name an account under crediteren, predicts a DOC of person + delay, a HAVE entailment, a MeasureP LBC host, or a grammatical weather-as-Judge — none of those exist on blame.

Dutch frames · Case clothes

Group D packages ascribe-fault without a productive DOC of person + delay. Productive cloth: accusative = de schuld. Target is the IO/DAT-like slot (the order the twins already print: person before the noun) or aan. Charge is van on the printed string. voor is named as a blame preposition on the ATT page and is not ranked. om is not filed. Cheap NegQ association and cheap WH track the accusative noun, or the preposition that hosts Target or Charge. ATT and MERIT keep ACC on a free Charge and IO/aan on Target. There is no clitic doubling. Full NPs do not show case. hem replaces the Target DP. It does not write it twice, and it does not show accusative against dative.

1. ✓ De commissie gaf de aannemer de schuld van de vertraging. printed on the ATT and MERIT pages · IO = Target · ACC = de schuld · van = Charge
2. ✓ De commissie heeft de aannemer de schuld van de vertraging gegeven. perfect · same root · gegeven is not a second lemma
3. ✓ Ze gaven hem de schuld van de vertraging. hem = IO Target · syncretic · not German ihn · ACC still the noun
4. ✓ De commissie gaf de schuld van de vertraging aan de aannemer. aan = Target · cloth already named on English blame · not ranked against the IO
5. ✓ Ze hebben de schuld van de vertraging aan hem gegeven. aan hem = Target · ACC = the noun
6. # Ze gaven hem de schuld voor de vertraging. voor · blame P the ATT page keeps off toeschrijven · not the printed string · not ranked against van
7. # Ze gaven hem er de schuld van dat de trein vertraging had. optional er … van dat · same Charge · not required · not a fourth argument · not elicited
8. ✓ Het rapport gaf de aannemer de schuld van de vertraging. document-metonymy Judge · fine
9. ✓ Ze gaven het slechte weer de schuld van de vertraging. weather = Target OK · IO
10. ✓ Ze gaven de schuld van de vertraging aan het slechte weer. weather = Target · aan
11. ✓ De schuld van de vertraging werd aan de aannemer gegeven. passive promotes the accusative noun · aan-Target stays
12. # De schuld van de vertraging werd de aannemer gegeven. IO retained under worden · not ranked · not German promotion of an accusative person
13. ✓ Men heeft de aannemer de schuld van de vertraging gegeven. men · named Judge suppressed · not a new argument
14. ✓ Hebben ze de aannemer de schuld van de vertraging niet gegeven? niet before the participle · accusative stays the noun · no GEN-neg
15. ✓ Hebben ze hem de schuld van de vertraging niet gegeven? hem = Target under niet · Charge stays van
16. # Light-noun scout: De beschuldiging van de aannemer werd betwist. van syncretic · accused or author · do not rank
17. # Light-noun scout: De beschuldiging van de vertraging werd betwist. van syncretic · content or not · do not rank
18. # Onto-geometry scout: Ze hebben de schuld op de aannemer geschoven. ACC = de schuld · op = Target · not geven · not elicited · not the Norwegian lemma, live at legge skylden på
19. ✓ ATT contrast (live): De raad heeft de aannemer de vertraging toegeschreven. ATT · ACC = Charge · IO = Target · attribute-att-nl
20. ✓ ATT contrast: De raad heeft de vertraging aan de aannemer toegeschreven. aan = Target of toeschrijven · accusative is the delay, not de schuld
21. ✓ MERIT contrast (live): De investeerders hebben de aannemer de verdienste toegeschreven. MERIT · same IO+ACC letters · verdienste · credit-merit-nl
22. ✓ FIN / XFER pointer only: De raad heeft elke rekening 0,3 ETH gecrediteerd. crediteren · do not deepen · not blame’s Target
23. * Het slechte weer gaf de aannemer de schuld van de vertraging. weather as Judge
24. * Ze hebben de aannemer de vertraging gegeven. no blame DOC of person + delay · bare geven is not this lemma
25. * Ze hebben de aannemer de vertraging toegeschreven. ACC Charge + IO Target is toeschrijven, not blame
26. * Ze hebben hem de schuld met de vertraging gegeven. no with-frame / met as productive blame
27. * Ze hebben de vertraging op de aannemer gegeven. op is not the Charge or Target P of de schuld geven
28. * Ze hebben hem de schuld om de vertraging gegeven. om is not a printed Charge P

A bare niet before the participle on the canonical NegQ most readily challenges the ascription event or the accusative noun de schuld. Challenging the person wants the IO or the aan-phrase already in the associate. Challenging the delay wants van already in the associate. Negation does not grow a double-object of person + delay, does not move Charge into a second accusative, does not turn the light noun into toeschrijven’s free Charge, and does not produce a genitive of negation. HOLD is not cause-true. Dutch has no preverbal Focus uniqueness of the Hungarian kind. V2, and niet before a clause-final participle, are the ordinary shapes already used on the live Dutch ATT and MERIT pages, not a Focus diagnostic. The Polish note “GEN-neg off on Charge unless Charge is a QP” names a host Dutch blame does not have. A measuring QP is a FIN object, not this verb’s Charge.

WH / NegQ diagnostics · no Focus host · no MeasureP LBC

Unlike sell / pay_GIVE / charge_FEE / bet / credit_FIN, blame has no verbal MeasureP. There is therefore no Left-Branch Condition of the Amount-from-Denomination type on √ASCRIBE_FAULT. Degrees that appear are DP-internal on the light noun schuld. niet does not rewrite the Target/Charge association. ATT’s parallel, on the live twin, is that Charge stays accusative under niet. There is no Group C multiple-WH cluster and no Hungarian Focus uniqueness to rank here. Dutch R-pronouns are one WH word. They do not strand the preposition, and they do not resume a bet Platform.

1. ✓ Wie heeft de aannemer de schuld van de vertraging gegeven? WH = Judge
2. ✓ Aan wie hebben ze de schuld van de vertraging gegeven? WH = Target · aan
3. # Wie hebben ze de schuld van de vertraging gegeven? WH = Target · IO surface · same scout cut as ATT’s wie vs aan wie · not ranked
4. ✓ Waarvan hebben ze de aannemer de schuld gegeven? R-pronoun = Charge · van · not a bet Platform
5. ✓ Waaraan hebben ze de schuld van de vertraging gegeven? R-pronoun = Target · aan · not Charge
6. # Waarvoor hebben ze de aannemer de schuld gegeven? R-pronoun of unranked voor · not a bare-voor default · not a Platform
7. ✓ Aan wie hebben ze de schuld van de vertraging niet gegeven? WH–Neg Target · association not flipped onto a second accusative
8. ✓ Waarvan hebben ze de aannemer de schuld niet gegeven? WH–Neg Charge · van
9. ✓ Wat werd aan de aannemer gegeven? passive · the noun, not the person
10. ✓ Aan wie heeft men de schuld van de vertraging gegeven? men · Target WH · named Judge absent
11. ✓ Welk deel van de schuld hebben ze het slechte weer gegeven? degree on light noun · Abney-side · not verbal MeasureP
12. * Hoeveel hebben ze de aannemer niet van de vertraging de schuld gegeven? no verbal MeasureP LBC host
13. * Wat hebben ze de aannemer van de vertraging gegeven? bare Charge WH · the accusative slot is the noun, not the delay
14. * Wat hebben ze de aannemer toegeschreven? as blame that WH is toeschrijven’s Charge, not blame’s
15. ✓ Ze gaven het slechte weer de schuld van de vertraging. weather = Target · fine
16. * Aan wie heeft het slechte weer de schuld van de vertraging gegeven? weather still not Judge

The shared hierarchy ranks Judge > Target > van-Charge > outer. The accusative is the light noun that packages the ascription, not a third participant. Dutch does not front a multiple-WH cluster of the Bulgarian or Polish kind, and it does not park one constituent in a Hungarian Focus position. There is no ranking of Target against a silent Purpose, Price, or Theme₂. Productive Target WH is aan wie / waaraan. IO wie is the same open cut the ATT page already flags against aan wie. Productive Charge WH is waarvan, not bare wat. waarvan does not strand van, and it does not resume a bet Platform.

Geometry · blame ≠ toeschrijven ATT ≠ toeschrijven MERIT ≠ attribute_XFER ≠ sell

In De commissie gaf de aannemer de schuld van de vertraging, the committee holds that the contractor is responsible for the delay. That is ascription of fault, not HAVE of goods and not ledger INCREMENT. The contractor is Target. The delay is Charge. de schuld is the light noun that carries the ascription. HOLD is an attitude; cause-true is not a presupposed fact.

• ≠ attribute_ATT · toeschrijven. Shared Index 2 line, different accusative. Blame’s accusative is the noun (gaf de aannemer de schuld van de vertraging; gaf de schuld van de vertraging aan de aannemer). Attribute’s accusative is Charge and its Target is IO or aan (heeft de aannemer de vertraging toegeschreven; heeft de vertraging aan de aannemer toegeschreven). Blame’s van is not a productive ATT frame. The ATT page already rejects voor, op, and met on toeschrijven. Collapsing the two because both can say de aannemer plus an accusative ignores what the accusative is: de schuld versus de vertraging.
• ≠ credit_MERIT · toeschrijven. Opposite polarity, same letters as ATT. MERIT ascribes merit (de aannemer de verdienste toeschrijven). Blame ascribes fault and stays on de schuld geven. Shared Voice filter; polarity of HOLD differs. Do not import verdienste as the blame cloth, and do not move blame onto toeschrijven because the Index 2 cell lists it second.
• ≠ German accusative Target copied onto this lemma. beschuldigen has ACC = Target, and die Schuld geben is scout on that page (accusative = the noun, dative = Target). Dutch Index 2 prints only the light-noun cloth. The person is not the accusative of de schuld geven. Full NPs do not show the case, and hem does not spell it. Do not file “ACC = Target” for this lemma.
• ≠ attribute_XFER / credit_FIN. Ledger MeasureP / Account is a different root. De raad heeft elke rekening 0,3 ETH gecrediteerd is a pointer, not an Index 2 Attitude citation. Blame has no MeasureP and no Account. Do not deepen FIN. XFER stays at attribute-xfer.html.
• ≠ English DOC / Transfer invert. There is no productive iemand de vertraging geven as blame. Negation does not rescue it. Bare iemand iets geven is transfer geven, a different use of the verb, not √ASCRIBE_FAULT. Transfer Themes invert under swap NegQ; blame Target and Charge do not. English for-frame (accusative Target) is not this cloth. English on-frame (accusative Charge) is not the Dutch verbal default. Onto-geometry, if it is real, lives on a different verb (de schuld schuiven op), scout only.
• ≠ Hungarian Focus and ≠ Slavic cluster / GEN-neg. Group C is closed and is not the Dutch cloth. niet does not sit in a unique preverbal Focus slot, and it does not rewrite an object into a genitive. Multiple-WH fronting is not a Dutch diagnostic. V2 is ordinary.
• ≠ sell / Appl_HAVE / allocate_GOAL. No Appl_HAVE, no Price MeasureP, no optional HAVE Goal. The accusative is a fault noun, not goods that change hands. Surface IO on the ATT twin is Target Case, not a Goal address. Surface van on blame is fault content, not Price.
• ≠ light-noun collapse. beschuldiging van de aannemer does not spell the accused apart from an author, and beschuldiging van de vertraging does not prove content. toeschrijven with de vertraging as accusative Charge is the ATT verb, not this page’s accusative. op is a scout cloth of the noun with another verb, not of geven.
• Missing defaults. Cause-true and settlement are not entailed. Hebben ze het slechte weer de schuld van de vertraging niet gegeven? is compatible with the weather not in fact causing the delay.

English twin spells for-frame accusative Target / for-Charge, and on-frame accusative Charge / on-Target. Spanish twin: a-Target / de-Charge. French twin: accusative Target / pour-Charge. Italian twin: accusative Target / di-Charge. Japanese twin: accusative Target under 責める; ni Target under light-noun; de / no sei-de Charge. Mandarin twin: Target post-V or 把-fronted; Charge via 因为. Polish twin: morphological ACC Target; Charge za / o / za to, że. Bulgarian twin: direct-object Target; Charge за / в / bare че. Hungarian twin: ACC Target; Charge -ért; Focus+nem. German twin: ACC Target on beschuldigen; Charge genitive / wegen / dass; wofür resumes Charge; light-noun die Schuld geben is scout there. Dutch twin: accusative = de schuld; Target IO or aan; Charge van; waarvan resumes Charge; no DOC of person + delay and no Focus host. Weather OK as Target, not as Judge. Document-metonymy Judge OK.

Shells, ApplP, and Case

1. M1√ASCRIBE_FAULT merges with ACC de schuld
2. M2IO or aan merges with Target
3. M3van merges with Charge
4. M4Voice merges Judge
5. A5T ↔ Judge · NOM + φ
6. A6v ↔ the noun · ACC
7. V7Finite verb → V2 · participle final · not Focus
8. F8Voice filter · weather ≠ Judge
9. G9Gold negative · no verbal MeasureP · no GEN-neg · no om

productive cloth (iemand de schuld geven van):
VoiceP  [ JudgeNOM
  vP / √ASCRIBE_FAULT
    ACC               de schuld  ← the noun, not the person, not the delay
    IO / DAT-like     Target         ← de aannemer / hem
    PP_van           Charge ]       ← van de vertraging
                                       not a DOC of person + delay
                                       not ACC Charge

aan-Target (same lemma · named on English blame · not ranked exclusive):
    ACC               de schuld
    PP_aan           Target         ← aan de aannemer / waaraan

*voor (unranked · ATT page names it as a blame P · not the printed string):
    PP_voor          Charge         ← not filed as a second default

*om (not filed):
    PP_om            —              ← not on Index 2, not in the printed string

optional correlative (same Charge, not required):
    er … van dat                 ← waarvan resumes this Charge, not a Platform

*ATT / MERIT cloth (live on toeschrijven · unavailable as blame):
VoiceP  [ JudgeNOM
  vP / √ASCRIBE
    ACC               Charge         ← de vertraging / de verdienste
    IO / PP_aan      Target ]       ← iemand iets toeschrijven

Light-noun scout (not a second accusative of geven):
    N                 beschuldiging
    PP_van           accused or content   ← syncretic · do not rank
onto scout (not elicited · not this verb):
    ACC               de schuld
    PP_op            Target

passive (promotes the noun, not the person):
VoiceP  [ de schuldNOM
  vP / √ASCRIBE_FAULT
    PP_aan           Target
    PP_van           Charge ]

Dutch blame never assigns four structural Cases. The accusative is the light noun. Target wears IO/DAT-like order or aan. Charge wears van. No low Appl_HAVE. No low Appl_SWAP. No Appl_TASK. No MeasureP. High Appl / Affectee is extra when present and is not a listed argument of √ASCRIBE_FAULT. gegeven is not a second root. toeschrijven and crediteren are not on this tree. Index 2 does not add a companion verb whose accusative is the person.

Composition is V(DP) on the accusative noun. The P on Target and the P on Charge are clothing the DP wears (K on the Abney spine, or a selected relational P that does not add a fourth verbal argument). V(van(DP)) and V(aan(DP)) are the wrong composition — same wrapper-K cut as English for and German wegen. A clause under dat, when hosted by er … van, is that same Charge, not a new theta role. waarvan is the WH of that host. There is no accusative clitic that doubles the DP the way Bulgarian го does. hem replaces the Target DP, and it is still one Target. Because full NPs have lost the accusative/dative distinction, the IO cut is the double-object order already printed (person before de schuld) and the aan alternate, not an ihn/ihm pair.

Pronoun height: hem / haar / hun resume Target; they do not resume the delay. die / het can resume the noun. Inanimate Target is fine. Inanimate subject as Judge is not generated — that is the Voice filter, not a Case accident. Passive promotes the noun (werd gegeven) and leaves Target under aan. It does not promote the person the way German wurde beschuldigt promotes an accusative Target. men can suppress a named Judge; it does not add an argument. Reflexive zichzelf on zichzelf de schuld geven corefers Judge and Target. It is not the passive and not a demoted external Judge.

Outer cause wraps Voice. The causee, not the weather, is the Judge. Weather still fails as inner Judge under the wrap. There is no Neg-raising out of Charge.

Omission does not demote Charge to a pure adjunct. The van layer is optional in the numeration; it is still an argument when present. The diagnostic is participanthood under Case, binding, and WH — not omitability. Charge clauses are islands in a way rationale adjuncts are not.

Underivables (Dutch blame)

1. * Het slechte weer gaf de aannemer de schuld van de vertraging. weather / inanimate as Judge
2. * Heeft het slechte weer de aannemer de schuld van de vertraging niet gegeven? Voice filter survives Neg
3. * Hebben ze het slechte weer de aannemer de schuld van de vertraging niet laten geven? cause wrap does not wash Voice filter
4. * Ze hebben de aannemer de vertraging gegeven. no blame DOC of person + delay
5. * Wat hebben ze de aannemer van de vertraging gegeven? as a Charge object accusative slot is the noun
6. * Ze hebben de aannemer de vertraging toegeschreven. ACC Charge + IO Target is toeschrijven
7. * Ze hebben de vertraging aan de aannemer toegeschreven. as blame that aan is ATT’s Target, and the accusative is the delay
8. * Ze hebben hem de schuld met de vertraging gegeven. no with-frame
9. * Ze hebben de vertraging op de aannemer gegeven. op ≠ cloth of geven
10. * Ze hebben hem de schuld om de vertraging gegeven. om is not filed
11. * Hoeveel hebben ze de aannemer niet van de vertraging de schuld gegeven? no verbal MeasureP LBC host
12. * De commissie heeft de aannemer tegen de vertraging geruild. as ascribe-fault SWAP cloth ≠ ascribe-fault
13. * De vertraging werd de aannemer gegeven. passive does not promote Charge
14. ✓ weather as Target: Ze gaven het slechte weer de schuld van de vertraging. inanimate Target fine
15. ✓ document Judge: Het rapport gaf de aannemer de schuld van de vertraging. metonymy Judge fine

Groups A–D packaging · this tick Dutch only

Same hierarchy as English blame. This tick is Dutch only and continues Group D blame after German. Group C is already closed.

• Group A. Japanese 責める live at blame-ja.html; ni Target under light-noun, de / no sei-de Charge; Double-o unused. Mandarin 怪 / 责备 live at blame-zh.html. Navajo: scout — classificatory stem for weather as Target, not as Judge. Sell·Navajo stays deferred; this page does not touch NV.
• Group B. Spanish live at blame-es.html; French live at blame-fr.html; Italian live at blame-it.html. Charge letter there is de / pour / di. Dutch van is the Group D spelling of the same Charge on a light noun, not a Romance clitic paradigm, and not an accusative Target.
• Group C. Closed. Polish is live at blame-pl.html (ACC Target; za/o; GEN-neg does not rewrite the association). Bulgarian is live at blame-bg.html (direct-object Target; за/в/bare че; clitic го). Hungarian is live at blame-hu.html (ACC Target; -ért; Focus+nem) and closed the group. None of those clothes is copied onto de schuld geven.
• Group D. German is live at blame-de.html (ACC = Target on beschuldigen; zuschreiben stays ATT/MERIT; light-noun die Schuld geven is scout there). Dutch is now live on this page: accusative = de schuld, Target IO or aan, Charge van, waarvan resumes Charge, voor unranked, om not filed, light-noun beschuldiging scout, toeschrijven kept on the live ATT and MERIT pages. Norwegian is live at blame-no.html (legge skylden på; accusative = skylden; Target på; tilskrive stays ATT/MERIT). Group D blame closes on NO.

Open items

• Light-noun schuld / beschuldiging. de schuld is the Index 2 accusative, not a scout beside a second verb. beschuldiging is scout. van on beschuldiging does not spell the accused apart from the content or from an author. Do not rank. op with schuiven is not a frame of geven and is not elicited.
• van vs voor vs om. van is the Charge P of the string the ATT and MERIT pages already print. voor is the blame preposition those pages keep off toeschrijven; it is not ranked against van and it is not a fourth argument. om is not on the Index 2 line, not in the printed string, and not in that refusal list. It is not filed. A reason adjunct is not Charge.
• IO vs aan. Both are Target. The IO order is the printed string. aan is the cloth English blame already names. Overlap is not ranked as exclusive. IO wie against aan wie stays the scout cut already flagged for ATT.
• No accusative person. Checked against the printed string and against German beschuldigen. This lemma does not put Target in the accusative. A verb that did is not Index 2 Dutch Attitude and is not deepened.
• No case morphology on the full NP. de aannemer does not show accusative against dative. hem is syncretic. The cut is order and aan, not German ihn / ihm.
• No GEN-neg. niet does not rewrite the noun or the IO and does not put the delay in the accusative slot. Polish GEN-neg on a FIN/deduct MeasureP is a different language’s host.
• No Focus host. Dutch is not Hungarian. V2 and niet before the participle are the ordinary shapes of the live Dutch ATT and MERIT NegQ strings. Do not import Focus uniqueness, and do not rank a contrastive fronting as a new argument. Split er … van, if used, is not elicited as a paradigm.
• waarvan / waaraan. waarvan resumes Charge. waaraan resumes Target. Neither is a bet Platform. Neither strands its preposition. Neither is a fourth theta role. waarvoor belongs only with unranked voor.
• toeschrijven. Stays on attribute-att-nl.html and credit-merit-nl.html. Not the blame lemma.
• Reflexive zichzelf. Hij gaf zichzelf de schuld van de vertraging corefers Judge and Target. Not the passive werd gegeven, and not elicited as a paradigm.
• No aspect pair. gaf and heeft gegeven are the same root. Do not file a second lemma for the participle.
• Passive. werden promotes the noun. Promoting the person, the way German promotes the accusative Target, is not this cloth. IO retention under worden is open, not ranked.
• MERIT · BG/PL. Dutch MERIT is live. No credit-merit-bg.html and no credit-merit-pl.html. Do not invent those links.
• XFER / FIN. Pointer crediteren / bijschrijven only. Not a Dutch FIN micro-entry. Do not deepen FIN.
• Norwegian. Live at blame-no.html. Index 2 prints legge skylden på only. ATT NO and MERIT NO stay on tilskrive.
• Navajo. Deferred. Do not touch NV. Sell·Navajo stays deferred.

Corpus filenames

Primary extract for this micro-entry is Lexical_Entry_Blame_Argument_Structure (√ASCRIBE_FAULT; for/on clothes; Voice filter; Groups A–D, including Dutch de schuld geven aan and the note that a Group D R-pronoun resumes Charge, not Platform). NegQ association maps from Negative_Questions_Blame. Light-noun contrast from Assign_Blame_Comparison. The Case split against ATT is the live page attribute-att-nl.html (ACC Charge + IO/aan Target; contrast string De commissie gaf de aannemer de schuld van de vertraging; voor / op / met refused on toeschrijven). The same contrast string is on credit-merit-nl.html (same toeschrijven letters; verdienste). aan-Target is the cloth the English Group D line already names. voor, the er … van dat host, and beschuldiging are not that printed string; they are labeled open or scout here. om was checked against Index 2 and against those twins and is not filed. There is no Focus plate for Dutch, and none is added. Chat packaging: Tritransitive chats 13 (assign vs blame Case / NegQ) and 22 (blame in negative questions · no fourth theta). Index 2 Dutch Attitude cites de schuld geven, toeschrijven. This page deepens de schuld geven only. Constructed NL frames diagnose packaging; they are not new elicitation.