the syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification

145
(4.90) Locative argument head:
[[kan
you
llakta-(??pi)
town-loc
‘the town you live in’
kausa-shka]]
live-nm
(IQ)
In [Cole 1985] the optionality of Case-marking such as (4.89) is explained by
suggesting that the object can incorporate into the verb. One piece of evidence
for this is that the optionality is seen just in case the direct object is found in the
immediate pre-verbal position. Furthermore, the Case-marker drop can occur in
complement clauses as well as relative clauses. This is illustrated in (4.91) to (4.92).
(4.91) [wagra-(ta)
cow-acc
randi-shka]
buy-nm
warmi
woman
‘the woman who bought the cow’ (Cole 1985 (159) p.49)
(IQ)
(4.92) Juzi-ka
Jose-top
[ñuka
I
kaya
yesterday
llama-(ta)
sheep-acc
randi-na]-ta
buy-nm-acc
‘Jose believes I will buy a sheep tomorrow.’ (Cole 1985 (118))
kri-n.
believe-3sg
(IQ)
Juzi-ka
Jose-top
[ñuka
I
llama-*(ta)
sheep-acc
kaya
yesterday
randi-na]-ta
buy-nm-acc
kri-n.
believe-3sg
‘Jose believes I will buy a sheep tomorrow.’ (Cole 1985 (119))
(IQ)
Cole notes, and I have found in my research also that consultants more often
accept or suggest null-marked objects in relative clauses like (4.91) than in complement
clauses like (4.92). Interestingly, this asymmetry is repeated in a much sharper
way in the case of a locative object. Here, the locative marker may not be omitted
in a complement clause (regardless of the position of the object) or on a non-head of
a relative clause, but must almost obligatorily be omitted in the case of the head of
a relative clause. These facts are illustrated in (4.93) and (4.94). However, examples
of this phenomenon are hard to find in IQ.