the syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification

110
(4.7) [wayna-q
boy-gen
waka
cow
‘the cow which the boy bought’
ranti-sqa-n]
buy-nm(past/nonsubj)-3sg
(CQ)
(4.8) [[wambra
boy
wagra-(ta)
cow-acc
randi-shka]]
buy-nm(past)
‘the cow which the boy bought’ (C162)
(IQ)
4.2.2.2 Case-marking
The last examples illustrate two other differences between CQ and IQ morphology.
One first difference that can be observed in (4.7) and (4.8) is that in CQ
the subject of a verb that is nominalized with -sqa or -na (nm(past/nonsubj)
and nm(fut/nonsubj) respectively) is marked genitive 4 while in IQ a nominalized
clause’s subject has no overt Case marker, apparently corresponding to the
nominative Case.
A second difference between the two dialects is that in CQ, the direct object
of a nominalized clause (here, waka ‘cow’) has no overt Case-marker. In IQ, it is
reported in [Cole 1985] that the accusative Case-marker -ta is obligatory unless the
direct object immediately precedes a nominalized verb, in which case it is optional
(as in (4.8)). (In both CQ and IQ, main clause direct objects are obligatorily
marked -ta.) I have found that my consultants’ intuitions are basically in line with
this generalization. However, the dropping of -ta on a direct object immediately
preceding the verb seems to be more acceptable in the case of a relative clause
head than in a complement clause. Furthermore, in certain apparently rare cases
of a locative argument relative clause head directly preceding the verb, a locative
marker may also be dropped, as in (4.9) where in fact the presence of the locative
4 As discussed in the previous chapter, [Lefebvre & Muysken 1988] found that the
genitive marking is optional in some cases. My Cuzco Quechua consultants felt the
genitive marking was necessary, however, and here I continue to just consider the
genitive-subject Cases.