the syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification

117
With this background let us turn to the question of what determines Casemarking
on a subject in CQ and in IQ. In Table 4.2 I summarize the relevant facts.
Table 4.2: Case-marking on subjects
Cuzco Quechua
Imbabura Quechua
Case Assigner n/v Agr? Case Assigner n/v Agr?
DP w/poss. Gen D n N-Agr Gen D n —
subj-head RC none T(defect.) n — Nom T n null
obj-head RC Gen T n N-Agr Nom T n null
Cmp. Clause Gen T n N-Agr Nom T n null
Main Clause Nom T v V-Agr Nom T v V-Agr
For each of Cuzco Quechua and Imbabura Quechua, and each construction type
(relative clauses, main clause, complement clause and DP with possessor) I have
indicated the Case-marking on the subject/possessor, the Case assigner (D or T), the
presence of n or v (recall that this is correlated with the presence or absence of Casemarking
on the constituent in question) and the presence or absence of agreement
with the verb. As mentioned earlier, and reflected in Table 4.2, I am assuming that
IQ subordinate clauses have null agreement with the subject, presumably associated
with the loss of nominal agreement morphology in this language. The justification
for this assumption is the idea that nominative Case assignment is associated with
(overt or null) subject-verb agreement.
Examination of the table reveals that in Cuzco Quechua, genitive Case marking
is correlated with nominal agreement on the verb. In Imbabura Quechua, however,
genitive Case-marking correlates with Case-assignment by D and not by T. Thus,
the simplest model attributes the particular reflex of structural Case of a subject