Starting with what we know well: 1. Intransitive -> Transitive {yIt K} "K walks" {K yItmoH F} "F makes K walk" / "F walks K" 2. Transitive -> Ditransitive {X ghoj K} "K learns X" {KvaD X ghojmoH F} "F makes K learn X" / "F teaches X to K" And now the step to the unknown: 3. Ditransitive -> Tritransitive {ZvaD X nob K} "K gives X to Z" Goal: "F makes K give X to Z" 3.1. By the logic "expand 2. above," we start with "F makes K give X": {KvaD X nobmoH F} Then we need to insert Z somehow *{ZvaD KvaD X nobmoH F} is clearly ambiguous *{Z'e' KvaD X nobmoH F} "As for Z, F makes K give X" 3.2. By the logic "keep existing objects and make the original subject as close as possible," we start with *{Zvad X nobmoH F} and need to insert K somehow *{K'e' ZvaD X nobmoH F}? note that if this logic applies, then we cannot mechanically translate this "As for K, F makes Z give X" just as {KvaD X ghojmoH F} does not mean *"F makes X learn for K" but "F makes K learn X" 3.3. Lieven's suggestion *{X'e' ZvaD K nobmoH F} ...if would be so much easier if {KvaD X ghojmoH F} were *{X'e' K ghojmoH F}... but this does not exclude that the tritransitive construction, if any, works this way 3.4. Semantically, what about *{ZvaD Kvo' X noblu'moH F} or *{Kvo' ZvaD X noblu'moH F}? however, itdoes not seem so easy to use this approach with {'ang} or {cha'} 3.5. [rant] And now remove F, add {-wI'}, and consider using it as a heading. [/rant] P.S. To avoid confusion: {mayqel qunenoS} and I are different persons.