David Kiltz wrote, on the subject of assuming an indirect
patientive object for 'name', 'feed' and sundry:
>(1) Doing so would, IMHO, be the same as to argue that
>'to feed' takes an indirect object (dative) because
>it can be paraphrased as 'give food (to sb.) or 'to
>ask' as it may be paraphrased as 'to put a question to
>sb.' etc.. I think you get the point.
Well, in real-world languages of course a patient (that
which is given, be it name name, or food as in the case
of 'feed') will be expected to take a more privileged
syntactic position (sc. direct object) than the recipient.
However, applicative constructions and/or derivatives
(promoting peripheral arguments to core syntactic
positions) are not quite infrequent: for instance, Russian
_kormitj_ 'to feed' normally codes the one who is fed in
the accusative and the food with the instrumental.
However, its derivative _skarmlivatj_ (which means the
same, but also carries stylistic overtones) takes the food
as direct object and the one being fed as indirect object
in the dative.