The distribution of the Standard Dutch possessive dative construction is quite restricted and normally requires the possessee to be embedded in a complementive locational PP, as in (367); if the locational PP has an adverbial function, as in (370), the possessive dative is excluded. This does not hold for the corresponding possessive bij-phrase or the NP-internal possessor, which are perfectly acceptable in such cases.

Double object constructions such as (371a), in which the indirect object functions as the possessor of a direct object, are normally excluded in Standard Dutch as well; since the same thing holds for the possessive bij-phrase in (371b), the normal way of expressing the intended meaning is by using an NP-internal possessor, as in (371c). The percentage sign in (371a) is used to indicate that this state of affairs does not hold for all varieties of Dutch–possessive dative constructions such as (371a) are common in many southern and eastern dialects of Dutch; we refer the reader to Van Bree (1981) and Cornips (1994) for a description of the dialect data and also to Barbiers et al. (2005:78) who describe the distribution of this possessive construction with a reflexive indirect object. The number sign in example (371b) indicates that it is marginally acceptable if the bij-phrase functions as an adverbial locational phrase (under this reading, the example is fully acceptable with the direct object zijn handen'his hands'); see Subsection II for a discussion of this adverbial use of the bij-phrase.

There are exceptions to the general rule that an indirect object cannot function as the inalienable possessor of a direct object; the examples in (372), for instance, show that possessive constructions of the type in (371a) are possible in certain idiomatic expressions. Possessive datives in examples of this type normally do not alternate with a possessive bij-PP.

In other cases, the possessive relation between the indirect and the direct object may be triggered by our knowledge of the world. In (373a), the dative phrase functions as the syntactically encoded possessor of the nominal part of the predicative locational PP op de rug, but the fact that the dative phrase is also construed as the possessor of the direct object de handen is related to our knowledge of the world; see also Schermer-Vermeer (1991:205ff) for a more general discussion. Knowledge of the world may also be relevant for example (373b) with an optional adverbial PP; this example is given as a case of (inalienable) possession in Janssen (1976:43), but we believe that the hotel context evoked by the noun piccolo'bellhop' simply favors the interpretation that the room in question is the room rented by Karel.

Standard Dutch possessive datives are associated with entities that are inalienably possessed, like body parts or certain pieces of clothing (provided they are actually worn during the event time); the primeless examples in (374) illustrate that the use of possessive datives results in degraded sentences if the possessee is not inalienably possessed. The primed and doubly-primed examples show that possessive datives crucially differ in this respect from periphrastic bij-PPs and NP-internal possessors. The percentage signs in the primeless examples again indicate that these examples are fully acceptable in some southern and eastern varieties of Dutch; cf. Cornips (1994:153).

Some Standard Dutch examples that may be on the borderline between alienable and inalienable possession are given in (375), in which the possessed entity is a location that is in a sense inherently associated with the possessor.