the syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification

93
(3.71) *?[[pro qilqa-sqa-y] pisi lapiz]-qa azul-mi.
write-nm-1sg a.few pen-top blue-evid
Intended reading: ‘I wrote with a few pens and they were blue.’
In fact, (3.71) is judged to be quite odd by consultants. One suggested meaning
was roughly ‘I wrote with a small piece of blue pen’ but this was considered strange.
This is presumably due to the fact that the weakly quantified expression pisi lapiz
cannot be reconstructed clause-internally (since it was never in this position), nor
can it be modified externally by a clause (in the complex NP analysis), since pisi
would not have scope over that clause.
Another pair of examples involving a locative adjunct is shown in (3.72) and
(3.73).
(3.72) Ashka
many
manka-pi
pot-loc
wayk’u-ni.
cook-1sg
‘I cook in many pots.’
(3.73) *[[pro wayk’u-sqa-y] ashka manka] hatun-mi.
cook-nm-1sg a.lot pot big-evid
Intended reading: ’I cooked in many pots and they are big.’
The preceding examples show that the relationship between an external adjunct
head to the relative clause is in fact quite different from that of an argument external
head to its relative clause.
Going back to the genitive construction (3.62), I propose that the agreement
marker on uña ‘calf’ indicates that there is a small pro within the embedded clause
which is construed as co-referential with the head waka, ‘cow’. The structure of this
example would be as follows: