Relative Clauses Data in Quechua

8/9/2019 Relative Clauses Data in Quechua

1/14

RELATIVE CLAUSES DATA IN QUECHUA

Maria Juan -cha q ta n muna -n hamu na n ta. (L&M 1988: 4)Juan DIM GEN ACC VAL want come NMZ 3SG ACCMaria wants Juan to come

This is a case of case floating.

QUESTION: Can we have Maria Juanchaq hamunanta munan?

Qaynunchaw wasi ruwa sqa yki ta riku ni. (L&M 1988: 4)yesterday house make NMZ 2SG.POS ACC see 1SGI see the house that you built yesterday.I see that you built a house yesterday.

This sentence is ambiguous.

QUESTION: Is this possible?:

Qaynunchaw qanpaq wasi ruwasqaykita rikuni.

Qaynunchaw qan wasi ruwasqaykita rikuni.Qaynunchaw qan wasita ruwasqayki rikuni.

Qaynunchaw qan wasi ruwasqayki rikuni.

Qaynunchaw qan ruwasqayki wasita rikuni.

Warma riku sqa y ta, hamu nqa. (L&M 1988: 5)girl see NMZ 1SG.POS ACC come 3SG.FUT

The girl I saw will come.QUESTION: Is this possible:Warmata rikusqay, hamunqa.uqaq warmata rikusqay, hamunqa.

Important issue:The possessive markers also go with adverbial subordinate clauses:

hamu qti y qa. (L&M 1988:11)come SUB 1SG.POS TOPIf I come

Is this true? Is there nothing nominal in this construction? If this is so, then L&M (1988:11) are right, and the subject marking in Q should be organized as those suffixes for main tense (i.e. the possessivesni, etc.) and those for + main tense (i.e. the standardsubject agreementnii, etc.). What needs to be taken into account is that in Quechua thiskind of suffixes are also introducing a sentence in simultaneity with the main clause. If anominalization, this is a strange (very particular one).


2/14

Pidru hamu sqa n ta yacha ni. (L&M 1988:13)Pedro come NMZ 3SG.POS ACC know 1SGI know that Pedro came.

QUESTION: Doesn't this also means "I know the Pedro who came". Maybe Kay Pidruqahamusqanta yachani.

Is it OK to say:Pidruq hamusqanta yachani.

Pi hamu na n ta mana yacha ni chu. (L&M 1988:13)who come NOM 3SG.POS ACC NEG know 1SG NEGI don't know who will come.

Warmi hamu q ta riku ni. (L&M 1988:13)woman come AG ACC see 1SG

I see the woman who is coming.QUESTION: Can this also mean "I see that the woman is coming". For instance, in thesentence like hampi (payman) quwanaypaq, warmi allinta mikhuqta uqa munani"necesito que la mujer est comiendo bien para dar(le) la medicina" we need to use thenominalization as a complement (the other possible meaning "I need the woman that eatswell" seems odd). Is this Q sentence possible.

Manuil pa Pidru man libru qu sqa n ta yacha ni. (L&M 1988:15)Manuel GEN Pedro ILL book give NMZ 3SG.POS ACC know 1SGI know that Manuel has given the book to Pedro

QUESTION: Can I have: Manuilpa Pidruman libruta qusqanta yachani? Does thesentence Manuilpa Pidruman libruta qusqanta riqsini means "I know the book thatManuel gave to Pedro"?

Juan mi willa wa ra n ima ta Pidru q apa mu sqa n ta. (L&M 1988: 17)Juan EV tell 1OBJ PAST 3SG what ACC Pedro GEN take CIS NMZ 3SG.POS ACCJuan told me what Pedro had brought.

QUESTIONIsJuanmi imata Pidruq apamusqanta willawaran possible?

QUESTIONWhat is the difference between

Juan hamunanta yachani

andJuanpa hamunanta yachani


3/14

Juan papa ta mikhu -sqa n ta yacha ni. (L&M 1988: 21)Juan potato ACC eat NMZ 3SG.POS ACC know 1SGI know that Juan eats potatoes.

Papa mikhu y ta muna n. (L&M 1988: 21)

potato eat INF ACC want 3SGHe wants to eat potatoes.

QUESTION: Is it possible to haveJuan papa mikhusqanta yachani orJuan papamikhunanta yachani? Do we know of any case that allows something likepapatamikhuyta munan orpay(kuna)ta mikhuyta munan (referring topapa)? I think it is veryimportant for me to determine the possibilities of case marking inside of this "reduced" orIHRC clauses, since this could be evidence that we are dealing with a case of nominalcompound that can't be broken. If so, maybe this can explain why the evidential markingcan't modify the noun embedded in a IHRC. (And I need to check if reduced clauses withinfinitive also reject the use of the evidential markers in the same fashion).

What if mikhu q hamuni (I've come to eat) comes from mikhuypaq hamuni? I have toask Cerrn about this.

Pay ta puri q ta uyari ni. (L&M 1988: 22)he ACC walk AG ACC hear 1SGI hear him walk.

Pay ta riku ni puri sha q tahe ACC see 1SG walk PROG AG ACCI see him walking.

I believe that in this reading there's no ambiguity, the one walking is the objectpay.

QUESTION: Are these possible?pay puriqta uyarini. / Pay purishaqta rikuni.

pay purispa uyarini. (does this mean that I am the one doing the walking?)payta purispa uyarini.pay purispata uyarini.

suwa sqa n ka ni (L&M 1988: 22)rob NMZ 3SG.POS be 1SGI has been robbed (by him)

suwa na n ka ni. (L&M 1988: 21)rob NMZ 3SG.POS be 1SGI am to be robbed (by him)

suwa q ka ni. (L&M 1988: 21)rob AG be 1SG


4/14

I used to rob.

QUESTION: I think this forms are a little bit too generalized. I would need to see morecontext, specially for thesuwaq kani. What is the difference betweensuwaq kani andsuwa kani? Maybe it is the difference between "soy el que roba" y "soy ladrn" (if they

have any difference, of curse).suwa sqa n runa (L&M 1988: 23)the man that was robbed (by him)

suwa na n runa...the man to be robbed (by him)

suwa q runa...the man that robs

QUESTION: L&M 1988: 23 keep talking about "relative clauses through

nominalization" The nominalizing suffixes "relativize subjects and non subjects".Relativization means that they have to have some kind of gap through extraction, a headand a co-referring expression. What we have in the examples they give is EHRC, whichare the uncontroversial cases of apposition.

Qaynunchaw Pidru wiqchu ku sqa n rayku nana chi ku sha n. (L&M 1988: 23)yesterday Pedro slip REFL NMZ 3SG.POS because pain CAUS REFL PROG 3SGBecause Pedro slipped yesterday he feels pain.

Chay papa kuna qa mana allin chu mikhu na paq. (L&M 1988: 23)that potato PL TOP NEG good NEG eat NMZ DATThose potatoes are not good to eat.

QUESTION: Is it possible to findq forms as the subject of a clause (as in the case of"free relatives"/ "Headless RCs" For instance, I have Urqupi yachaq runan llank'ashanchakraypi (from Soto 146). What about Urqupi runa yachaq llank'ashan chakraypi (as anIHRC)? Also, is it possible to haveq as a complement of other than perception andmovement verbs? For instance, is this correct: uqa runa waka suwaqta maqarqani("golpe al hombre que roba las vacas")?

L&M 1988: 24-) propose that Quechua has only three grm. categories: nominals, verbs,and postpositions. Interestingly, the formal criteria to establish nominals is that they cantake the accusative markerta: nouns, adjectives (which with ACC become adverbs),queantifiers, numerals, WH-elements, pronouns, etc. That is an interesting suggestion.What do I think? A formal criteria is always necessary to determine the behavior of anelement, but that doesn't explain anything about the reasons why those elements arenominals. It could be very possible that adjectives don't use accusative to becomeadverbials Does that make them less nominals? Are they, then, a class of their own? Idon't think that is a desirable conclusions (because it creates very specific classes, it goesagainst generalization).


5/14

Allin ta rikun ni. (L&M 1988: 27)a. I see wellb. I see the good one.

QUESTION: How do you say something like: Yo veo a bien a los estudiantes (Losestudiantes estn bien y as lo veo), like uqa yachaqkunata allinta rikushani? The notionof adverb is absent in Quechua as an independent category. To produce it the adjective isconsidered a noun, but, following the idea in L&M (27) it is possible that there's anempty noun present (or maybe not It depends on what I want to allow as "emptycategories", I would love to talk to Matt about it). The idea is that it should be somethingakin to the Andean Spanish: ella come lo bien/lo bueno. This means that in this cases anadjective is nominalized by marking it accusative (which is a very natural way to do this,since Quechua has no article.). I need to ask Cerrn and check Escobar about this use inAndean Spanish.

platanu ta mikhu sqa yki ta yacha ni (L&M 1988: 28)banana ACC eat NMZ 2SG.POS ACC know 1.SGI know that he has eaten a banana.

QUESTION: Is it OK to sayplatanu mikhusqaykita yachani? I will assume that the scopeof the case marker in the nominalized verb reaches the whole clause.

pi man Juan sara ta qu sqa n ta yacha nki chu? (L&M 1988: 31)who ILL Juan corn ACC give NMZ 3SG.POS ACC know 2SG INTDo you know to whom Juan gave the corn?

This is the affirmative version (in 1stperson):

Juan Pidruman sarata qusqanta yachani.

QUESTION: Can I sayJuanpa Pidruman sarata qusqanta yachani? What is thedifference with the senence above? What aboutJuanpa Pidruman sara qusqantayachani?

Juan pa pi man sara qu sqa n ta yacha nki chu. (L&M 1988: 32)Juan GEN who ILL corn give NMZ 3SG.POS ACC know 2SG INT(Do you know) to whom Juan gave the corn?

QUESTION: What is the semantic difference between these two sentences. I might askMarita using another kind of contrast in Spanish. What is the difference between the "halffull glass" and the "half empty glass". L&M (32) suggest that the difference is that thisform, with GEN and no ACC inside the IHRC is "more nominal" (heads an NP), whilethe other version heads a VP. Maybe it is just because the lack of marking in sara iscompensated with the marking ofJuan in the genitive.


6/14

Is it possible to have the following?

(affirmative form 1sg) Juanpa Pidruman sara qusqanta yachaniPiman Juanpa sara qusqanta yachankichu.Piman Juan sara qusqanta yachankichu.

pi qpa ta yacha nki papa mikhu sqa n ta (L&M 1988: 40)who GEN ACC know 2SG potato eat NMZ 3SG.POS ACCWho do you know has eaten the potatoes?

QUESTION: Why is it necessary to have piqpata marked in ACC? Is it possible to havepiqpa yachanki papa mikhusqanta? If this is not possible, then it means that L&Mhaven't considered that case floating might be a reinforcing element that guides thecomprehension of the hearer regarding the element asked about. My impression is that inEnglish (or Spanish) the barrier is more like a result of who can control the elementextracted (or how much the integration of the element extracted and the phrase that

contains is).In chapter 6 L&M will deal with the interesting fact that the morphology related tosubject "RCs" is very different from other "object RCs". In fact, their point is veryinteresting and I must take a close look: the class of object relations is very wide inQuechua, it is not clean cut as in Spanish, where object means "direct object". There's inQuechua an asymmetry of subject/non-subject that governs person marking. For L&Mthis is related basically to what falls in the domain of VP (different objects and adjuncts, Ibelieve), and what falls into the domain of AGR (S level, which would be the subject, Ithink).

Ima ta muna nki apa mu na y ta? (L&M 1988: 54)what ACC want 2SG take CIS NMZ INF ACCWhat do you want me to bring?

maqa y ta muna wa n.hit INF ACC want 1OBJ 3SGHe wants to hit me.

QUESTION: Is there a difference when the object is inside the matrix and when it is inthe infinitive? Quiero verla / la quiero ver. Maybe this is one of those cases in whichthere are two ways to present information, and since there's no possible semanticdistinction associated between those two, they keep working. However: quiero primeroverla y luego / * la quiero primero ver y luego This means that quiero vershould beconsidered a unit for the clitic to be used, while quiero veris querer + ver where theinfinitive has certain independence. The problem is that I can't find any semanticimportance to this distinction.

Are these possible?nuqata maqayta munan.


7/14

wallpata mikhuyta munan.

Hamu nqa chay ta yacha ni. (L&M 1988 58)come 3SG.FUT that ACC know 1SGI know that he will come.

QUESTION: What is the kind of intonation pattern that hamunqa chayta yachanifollows. My impression is that is a juxtaposition, and there's a pause between hamunqaand chayta.

papa yki suwa q (L&M 1988: 67)potato 2SG.POS rob AGsomeone who robs your potatoes (different from: "the thief of your potatoes")

papa yki mikhu na (L&M 1988: 67)potato 2SG.POS NOM

in order to eat your potatoes (different from: food of (constisting in) your potatoes).QUESTION: L&M state that inflectional NMZ can have a DO, while derivational NMZcan't. So, are these possible?

papaykita suwaq riqsini. ("Yo conozco al que roba tus papas")runa papaykita suwanqta riqsini. ("Yo conozco al hombre que roba tus papas")runata papaykita suwanqta riqsini.

The main question is: when is it fine for a NMZ withq to use nominal agreement(possessive suffixes)? I don't recall having those examples, and that might be related towhat Calvo said: generative linguists tend to putq in a different category.

Riqsi nki a chu [tiya ku na yki] wasi ta (1988: 74)know 2SG already INT live REFL NOM 2SG.POS house ACCDo you know already the house that you will live in?

QUESTION: Is it possible riqsikniachu qanpa / qan tiyakunayki wasita? What is thedifference between the form with genitive and that without genitive?

T'anta [qu wa sqa yki] mana allin hina chu ka sqa (74)bread give 1OBJ NMZ 2SG.POS NEG good like NEG be PLUQThe bread you gave me turned out not so good.

QUESTION: What about t'antata quwasqayki mana allin hinachu kasqa?

Mikhu naya wa y ta qallari ni. (74)eat DESI 1OBJ INF ACC begin 3SGI begin to get hungry (It begins to give me hunger).


8/14

awpaq [chaya mu q man mi] qulqi ta qu saq. (74)first arrive CIS AG ILL EV money ACC give 1FUTI will give the money to whoever arrives first.

QUESTION: Is chayamuq awpaqmanmi qulqita qusaq good? What about

awpaqmanmi chayamuq qulqita qusaq? My impression is that the last one won't bepossible. Maybe the main idea in the organization of case marking in CQ is based on the"core sentence gram. rel" and, after that, the case marking relative to the matrix isapplied. However, this is not consistently supported by the data. The question is,therefore, when is double case possible (it seems that it is with -sqa, les withna, and notpossible withq).

llamk'a q ku (74)work AG PLThey used to work

QUESTION: This form is particularly odd! I haven't run into this meaning for the AGbefore. Is Chay runakunallamk'aqku (Those men used to work) possible? This is thehabitual past use ofq (which uses the verb kay in ever person, except the third one). Ineed to research more about it.

The use of a possessive marker in a nominalized NP withq points not to the subject, butto the object. However, when the suffix issqa, then the subject seems to be pointed out.In fact, there's a passive construction, and withsqa the object has been promoted tosubject, so NOMZ withq andsqa still pick the (logical) object. If this is true, there's aproblem with for instance, Spanish "mi salida", where mipoints to the doer of thesalidaand no passive form is conceivable. Maybe the use of participle forms is restricted tothose verbs that have an unacussative (dynamic intransitives) meaning.

QUESTION:

How do you say in Quechua: T, que comes mucha carne, debes ver al medico: "qan,ancha aychata mikhuq, hampiqman rikunan kashan"? What about "ancha aychatamikhuniykiq hampiqman rikunan kashan"? (the last one should be bad, meaningsomething like "The one that ate a lot of meat from me must see the doctor").

Use ofta as adverbial suffix:

allin manta (87)good ABLslowly

Allin lla taki nki (87)good LIM sing 2SGyou sing well.


9/14

allin ta taki nkigood ACC sing 2SGYou sing well

QUESTION: L&M say that the comparision betweenta andlla makes the first almost

a derivational marker. In fact, they say that not onlyta, butman, -wan, andmantaparticipate in these kind of combinations. The important exception for this argumentationisqpa (genitive). They argue (successfully) that the genitive is a clitic, and not a suffixin Quechua. to me, it is interesting that these kind of uses for case suffixes is available inQuechua, since this could be an explanation to those weird uses ofta in positions thatare not expected.

Pay wasi ta ruwa sqa n ta yacha -ni. (104)He house ACC make NMZ 3SG.POS ACC know 1SGI know that he built a house

QUESTION: How can I say "I know him, who built a house"Payta wasita ruwasqantayachani? This doesn't sound right to me, because riqsini would be used. Then, which oneis possible:

payta wasita ruwasqanta riqsini.pay wasita ruwasqanta riqsini.

paypa wasita ruwasqanta riqsini.

paypa wasi ruwasqanta riqsini.

Runa hamu q ta riqsi ni (105)person come AG ACC know 1SGI know the man who is coming.

QUESTION: It is important to notice that this sentence is given as evidence that inQuechua the case marker goes always at the end of the NP, and not attached to the headof the NP. This seems interesting, since L&M proposed thatta is a case suffix (whileonly the genitive is a case clitic). I think that in this case, it makes no sense to haverunata hamuqta riqsini since the case inside of the sentence is given as NOM forruna.The case marking in the IHRC depends on the matrix verb. The solution L&M proposefor the problem ofta acting like a clitic, when it is really a suffix is given in terms of"percolation".

Pay pa ta riku ni (105)I see his (one)

Wasi hunt'a ta riku ni. (112)house full ACC see 1SGI see a full house

Allin ta rura sqa nki


10/14

good ACC do PLUQ 2SGyou have done well.

QUESTION: Does this also mean: "you have done the god one"?

Juan ta puri q ta riku ni. (114)Juan ACC walk AG ACC see 1SGI see Juan walking

QUESTION: Why is it that with perception verbs it seems to be mandatory to havedouble ACC? Can we haveJuan puriqta / puriqninta rikuni?Is this some kind of doubleobject? I suppose this can only be investigated under raising and control

misa qipa ta hamu saq (115)mass back ACC come 1FUTI'll come after mass.

wawki y ranti y ta hamu ni.brother 1POS exchange INF ACC come 1SGI've come instead of my brother.

QUESTION: Here I have more examples of the use of ta in adverbials. In fact, it isinteresting that rantiy, a verb, can be expressed also as an adverb (using a case marker).

paqarin ta allin ta chay ta ruwa nki. (117)tomorrow ACC good ACC that ACC do 2SGTomorrow you will do that well.

CASE IN NOMINALIZED CLAUSES

QUESTION: According to L&M 118, the combinationq (GEN) and -ta (ACC) isungrammatical inside of a nominalized clause. This means that

Juwanpa t'antata mikhusqan yachani is impossible.

The following combinations are possible (but it always depends on the kind ofnominalization used) (121):

SUBJECT OBJ-q 00 -ta0 0

1. Uses of sqa

a. Relative clause


11/14

Juan cha q runa riku sqa n wasi ta rura n. (118)Juan DIM GEN person see NMZ 3SG.POS house ACC do 3SGThe man that Juan saw builds a house.

Runa qulqi ta qu sqa n warmi man chay ta ni rqa ni. (118)

person money ACC give NMZ 3SG.POS woman ILL that ACC say PAST 1SGI said that to the woman to whom the person gave the money.

QUESTIONIs it possible to say:Runa qulqi qusqan warmiman chayta nirqani? What about a clearerIHRC form likeRuna warmiman qulqita qusqanta nirqani?

Is it possible to have SUBJ 0 and OBJ 0 withsqa? Something like:

Juancha runa rikusqan wasita ruran.Runa papa mikhusqanta riqsini.

QUESTION: The combination 0 / -ta in relative clause is possible, but marginal.

b. Complement clause

-q / 0kay warmi q qusa n maqa sqa n ta yacha ra nki chu? (119)this woman GEN husband 3SG.POS hit NMZ 3SG.POS ACC know PAST 2SG INTDid you know that this woman hit her husband?

0 / 0kay warmi qusa n maqa sqa n ta yacha ra nki chu? (119)this woman GEN husband 3SG.POS hit NMZ 3SG.POS ACC know PAST 2SG INTDid you know that this woman hit her husband?

0 / -taKay warmi qusa n ta maqa sqa n ta yacha ra nki chu.this woman husband 3SG.POS ACC hit NMZ 3SG.POS ACC know PAST 2SG INTDid you know that this woman hit her husband?

QUESTION: The combination 0 / -ta in complement clauses is possible, but marginal.There's a tendency in having 0 subjects with nominalized intransitive verbs.

2. Uses of na

a. Relative clausesGEN / 0Qan pa runa riku na yki man rima sha ni. (119)you GEN person see NMZ 2SG.POS ILL speak PROG 1SG


12/14

I speak to the man that you will see.

b. Complement clauses:

GEN / 0

Mariya q platanu ranti mu na ta yacha ni. (119)Maria GEN banana buy CIS NMZ ACC know 1SGI know that Maria will buy bananas.

0/-taMariya platanu -ta ranti mu na ta yacha ni. (119)Maria GEN banana buy CIS NMZ ACC know 1SGI know that Maria will buy bananas.

c. Obligational clauses

GEN / 0Qan pa ima pas ruwa na yki ka sha n. (119)you GEN what ADD do NMZ 2SG.POS be PROG 3SGyou have to do something

- / -taruwa sha na yki ima lla ta pas. (119)do PROG NMZ 2SG.POS what LIM ACC ADDYou have to do something.

QUESTION: Is it possible to say Qan imatapas ruwanayki kashan (I think it is)? Whatabout Qan ruwashanayki imallatapas?L&M say that 0/-ta in compl. clauses is marginal (as it was the case for sqa), while thepresence ofta in obligative constructions is also marginal (although that is not whatAroz & Salas have in their examples, nor something I had learned). Finally, veryimportant, -ta is impossible in relative clauses withna. So, I have to ask if somethinglikeMariyaqrunata rikunanta riqsiniQan pa runa ta riku na yki man rima sha niQan runa -ta riku na yki man rima sha ni.

3. Uses of q

a. Relative clause 0/0

runa Mariya riku q (120)person Maria see AGThe person that sees Maria


13/14

b. Rel Cl - / -ta

ua n kuna ta amacha q puma qa (120)cub 3SG.POS PL ACC protect AG puma TOPThe puma which protects his little ones.

QUESTION: According to L&M the presence ofta is marginal inq nmzed clauses.

c. Perception clauseJuan cha ta [e ima pas ni q ta] riku ni. (121)Juan DIM ACC what ADD say AG ACC see 1SGI see juan say something

Juan cha tai [ei ima ta pas ni q ta] riku ni. (121)Juan DIM ACC what ACC ADD say AG ACC see 1SGI see Juan say something

QUESTION: The difference between those two previous sentences is not very clear inL&M. They say that the second one has a verb with raised subject. I have copied thenotation for empty categories they use. As far as I can understand, the very notion of"raising" as happening in the second sentence involves that Juancha was a subject toimatapas niq, where it was marked 0 (NOM). We know that aq nominalization canhave a subject present in the IHRC/EHRC. This means that the extraction makesJuanchathe DO ofrikuni. But this doesn't say anything about the previous sentence, in whichJuanchata was also ACC, but it was not considered to have been extracted from thenominalized clause. My only guess for the structure of that sentence, with no extractionbut ACC marking, is that it should be considered an apposition of the kind: "I see[JuanDO], [the one that says something]DO. The lack of ACC in imapas (which is normallyexpressed imatapas, 'something') has to be explained as the common absence of ACC in a"free relative" withq. (Although, L&M say thatta objects are possible, but marginal).Still this means that there's a systematic absence ofta inq clauses unless extraction,which means that the following must be possible and most common:Juancha imapasniqta rikuni, which is NOT likeJuanchata imapas niqta rikuni, whileJuancha imatapasniqta rikuni should be possible, but marginal.

Also, perception clauses, comp. movement verb, and past habitualq clauses alwayshave an empty subject.

d. Complement of movement verb: e / 0

e ima ruwa q mi Pidru ri n (121)what do AG EV Pedro go 3SG

Pedro goes to do what?

QUESTION: L&M assume that theq clause has an e subject, but they don't sayanything about how it gets interpreted. It seems that theq clause is a complement that


14/14

can't take an object withta. How can this be? This implies reviewing the literature about"reduced clauses", and, of course, control and raising (since the question is: does the qclause has a logical subject that is the same as that of the matrix? If not then I should lookfor the answer in a comparison between the goal expressed with q and all the otherpossible goals in quechua).

Is it possible to havePedro papata rantiq rishan. Aroz & Salas don't have ACC for thisgoal withq constructions. If this is tru, then WHY???

e. Habitual past clause: e / 0

papa mikhu q ka ra ni (121)potato eat AG be PAST 1SGI used to eat potatoes.

e / -ta (Restructured verb (?))

Papa ta mikhu q ka ra ni. (121)potato ACC eat AG be PAST 1SGI used to eat potatoes. (I was a potato eater)

QUESTION: Again, L&M assume that theq clausehas no subject. In other words, theyare presented as nominalized forms, but their syntax, as those authors stated (121) "isdifferent". The subject in the previous sentence is clear fro the matrix (-ni), however, intheq clause we have that no subject is present, and maybe not even possible (that's whyL&M said that in this kind of sentences the subject position is ALWAYS empty). Again,this is a very interesting kind of complement and, as such, it should be considered (notthe kind of complement of verba dicendi, verba cogitandi or a relative clause.

QUESTION: The notion of "restructured verb" is not clear at all to me. Maybe it is a leftdislocation? Or maybe this suggests that the clausepapata mikhun becamepapatamikhuq, so the ta was already there whent the restructuration took place. Not clear! Idon't think L&M are using restructuring in the sense of Rizzi's "restructuring verbs" (voya verlo / lo voy a ver).

Relative Clauses Data in Quechua

Documents

Transcript of Relative Clauses Data in Quechua