the syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification

109
original analysis of Quechua that is compatible with the LCA. In Kayne’s analysis
both internal and external heads are raised at some point in the derivation.
4.2.2 Four morphosyntactic differences between the dialects
In this section I point to differences in agreement paradigms, Case marking, restrictions
on the head and nominalizing morphology between CQ and IQ. In the next
section I propose a structure of IQ nominalized clauses which reflect these differences.
I will suggest that the differences seen here add up to essentially a more
nominal relative clause in Cuzco Quechua, and in particular a nominal C dominating
the relative clause which probes for the head within the clause. By contrast IQ
relative clauses are more sentence-like and their C head is not (necessarily) a probe.
4.2.2.1 Agreement
In CQ, -sqa and -na nominalized verbs agree with their subjects. In IQ, they do not.
This conforms to a broader distinction between the two languages which has to do
with genitive constructions: CQ possessed nouns agree with their possessors, while
IQ possessed nouns do not. Simple possessives are illustrated in (4.5) and (4.6) for
Cuzco Quechua and Imbabura Quechua respectively.
(4.5) Juan-pa
Juan-gen
‘Juan’s house’
wasi-n
house-3sg
(CQ)
(4.6) Juan-pak
Juan-gen
‘Juan’s house’
wasi
house
(IQ)
Relative clause constructions (internally headed) are illustrated in (4.7) and
(4.8). Note that in (4.7) (from CQ) but not (4.8) (IQ) the verb agrees with the
subject ‘boy’.