Ormazabal and Romero (2012) take issue with the arguments in Bruening 2010b that certain instances of prepositional dative constructions are really double object constructions. I show that their criticisms, when examined closely, actually support this claim. I also show that their alternative explanation for the facts is not successful. I also expand on the arguments from Bruening 2010b, and further argue that double object constructions must be distinct syntactically and semantically from prepositional dative constructions. The two cannot be derived from the same source.