the syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification

98
Despite the similarity in (3.83) and (3.84), however, only in the subjunctive
example in (3.84) can the embedded subject become the head of a relative clause.
This contrast is illustrated in (3.85) and (3.86).
(3.85) [[[e ripu-na-n] muna-sqa-y]
leave-nm-3sg want-nm-1sg
‘the man I want to leave’
runa]
person
(3.86) *[[[e ripu-na-n] yacha-sqa-y]
leave-nm-3sg know-nm-1sg
‘the man I know will leave’
runa]
person
A similar contrast can be seen when the relativization is from the object position
of the embedded clause. Here too it is only in the case of an embedded subjunctive
that relativization is possible, as illustrated in the contrast between (3.87) and (3.88).
(3.87) [[[Juan-pa
Juan-gen
e yanapa-na-n]-ta
help-nm-3sg-acc
ripu-sqa.
leave-past/surprise
‘The man I wanted Juan to help left.’
muna-sqa-y]
want-nm-1sg
runa]
person
(3.88) *[[[Juan-pa
Juan-gen
e yanapa-na-n]
help-nm-3sg
yacha-sqa-y]
know-nm-1sg
‘The man I know Juan will help left.’
runa]
person
ripu-sqa.
leave-past/surprise
I leave to future research the question of the exact structure of subjunctive clauses
in Quechua, but note simply that embedded clauses with the -na nominalizer that
are the true equivalent of the -sqa embedded clauses do in fact behave as expected
under my analysis.
3.4.4 Variation
I have alluded to further dialect variation in head-marking and head identification.
In particular, the “Case-float” phenomenon studied in [Lefebvre & Muysken 1988],