On a ``make-believe'' argument for Case Theory

I argue here that evidence from Icelandic challenges one argument for Case Theory given in Chomsky's seminal paper \textit{On Binding}. Chomsky suggested that a locality (adjacency) condition on structural case assignment explains the systematic absence of ditransitive ECM verbs. I argue here that Icelandic lacks this adjacency condition: structural Case in Icelandic is available to the second argument of a ditransitive in Icelandic. The Case-theoretic account would predict that Icelandic should therefore contrast with English and allow ditransitive ECM constructions. It does not. The absence of ditransitive ECM predicates is thus part of a broader generalization than Case Theory can explain.