the syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification

144
(4.85) and (4.86) are examples of argument relativization in which the head
‘cow’ appears both externally and internally to the clause. The meaning in both
cases is ‘the cow that Juan bought’. However when we try the same thing with an
adjunct, the internal head turns out to be impossible. Therefore in (4.87), pen is
an acceptable external head in the expression ‘the pen I wrote with’, but cannot
appear internal to the clause either with or without its Case marker.
Under the analysis I have been developing here, these facts can be explained if
in Cuzco Quechua an internal head must always raise. This view was espoused in
Chapter 3. Assuming as in Section 3.3.3 that in both dialects the adjunct head must
be Case-marked within its clause, it follows that no internal adjunct heads will be
possible in Cuzco Quechua.
4.5.5 Does the head raise for Case reasons?
Given my proposal that argument heads may raise in IQ, it is natural to ask whether
this raising is Case-based as I have proposed it is in CQ. However, in IQ the evidence
on this question is not so clear as in CQ and in this section I tentatively conclude
that in fact raising is not Case-based in IQ.
As discussed in previous sections, argument heads in IQ can in some cases have
their Case-marker omitted but unlike in CQ this omission is optional and is limited
to heads in the immediately pre-verbal position. Examples are shown in (4.89) and
(4.90).
(4.89) Direct object head:
[[Wawa
child
rumi-(?ta)
stone-(acc)
shita-shka]]
throw-nm
‘the stone that the child threw’
(IQ)