the syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification

112
Furthermore, like CQ, IQ allows adjunct external heads in all of the above examples,
in which cases the head does not receive its subordinate clause case-marking.
Examples are given in (4.14) and (4.15).
(4.14) [[ñuka
I
shamu-shka]
arrive-nm
‘The bus I arrived in’
bus]
bus
(IQ)
(4.15) [[Chay
that
ñuka
I
chaya-shka]
arrive-nm
‘That day that I arrived’
punlla]
day
(IQ)
4.2.2.4 Nominalizing morphology
We have seen that CQ distinguishes by means of nominalization morphology on the
verb of a relative clause whether it is the subject or a non-subject of the clause which
is the head. In general, IQ does not make this distinction. Rather, the nominalizers
-shka, -k and -na relate to the tense of the subordinate clause as compared to
the matrix clause. Roughly, they correspond to past, present and future tense of
the subordinate clause compared with the main clause. 5 However, it appears that
5 The discussion in [Cole 1985 p.185] of this point implies that for his consultants,
in the present tense of an IHR the choice of suffix can in fact determine the identity
of the head (that is, -shka indicates a non-subject head while -k indicates a subject
head. This results in a situation in which IQ IHRs and EHRs can employ different
nominalizers even if they are identical in every other way except for the position of
the head. From the description in Cole [1985], this occurs in the case of presenttense,
non-subject relativization. Cole’s descriptions imply that (ii) should also have
the present tense reading.
(i) [ñuka ∅ kawsa-j] wayku
I live-nm(pres) mountain gap
‘the mountain gap where I live’ (C184b)
(ii) ñuka wayku-pi kawa-shka
I mountain gap-loc live-nm(past,pres/non-subj)
‘the mountain gap where I lived’ (C188b)
‘the mountain gap where I live’ (predicted by Cole’s description)
Note that in (i) the nominalizer is -j while in (ii) it is -shka.
(IQ)
(IQ)