the syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification

146
(4.93) [ñuka
I
wasi-*(pi)
house-loc
yanu-shka]
cook-nm
‘the food I cooked in the house’
mikuna
food
(IQ)
(4.94) [ñuka
I
wasi-(??pi)
house-loc
‘the house I lived in’
tiya-shka]
live-nm
(IQ)
Thus, although in IQ the nominalization of the verb may be responsible for the
optionality of an accusative marker in this case, such an explanation is not possible
for the absence of the locative marker on the head ‘town’ in (4.90) and ‘house’ in
(4.94). The absence of this object marker is only possible on the head of a relative
clause.
By contrast, in the case of adjunct relativization as in (4.95) and (4.96), internal
heads are acceptable but their Case markers are mandatory. In (4.95), the meaning
is ‘the pen that Juan wrote with’, and the instrumental marker on ‘pen’ is obligatory.
Similarly in (4.96), ‘the car Ana arrives in’, the locative marker on ‘car’ cannot be
omitted.
(4.95) [[Juan
Juan
lapiz-*(wan)
pen-instr
killka-shka]]-ka
write-nm-top
‘The pen that Juan wrote with is blue.’
azul-mi.
blue-evid
(IQ)
(4.96) [[Ana
Ana
karru-*(pi)
car-loc
‘the car Ana arrives in’
chayamu-k]]
arrive-nm
(IQ)
Although it is tempting, given this set of facts, to relate head-raising directly
to lack of Case-marking in IQ, the optionality of the Case-marker even in those
cases where, for example, a strong quantifier appears to be interpreted externally
to the clause, lead me to question this correlation. Also, the fact that the Casemarker
can only be dropped when the head is in the pre-verbal position again is not