the syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification

153
The above examples contain individual-level predicates. Since stage-level predicates
are usually accompanied by the progressive form of the verb kay, which bears
the progressive suffix -sha, the copular here is overt even with a present tense third
person singular subject as shown in (5.6). Furthermore, in tenses other than present,
the copular use of kay is overt even in third person singular as seen in (5.7).
(5.6) Maria urqu-pi ka-sha-n.
Maria mountain-loc be-prog-3sg
‘Maria is in the mountains.’
(5.7) Maria
Maria
yachachiq
teacher
ka-rqa-n.
be-past-3sg
‘Maria was a teacher.’
Note that the above generalizations predict that (5.6) will be bad with overt
kan since Maria is a definite description incompatible with existential contexts, and
indeed this is the case as seen in (5.8). 4
(5.8) *?Maria
Maria
urqu-pi
mountain-loc
ka-n.
be-3sg
However, the distribution of kan is not entirely governed by the above generalizations
and the definiteness effect in existential constructions. The details will be
discussed further in Section 5.4, but one very frequent use of existential ka-n is in
‘have’ constructions such as that in (5.9). This use of the existential is not found in
all Quechua dialects, and in particular is not allowed in Imbabura Quechua. 5
4 Contra Cusihuamán’s generalization, some Cuzco Quechua consultants will accept
an overt copula kan as an apparent emphatic. I take this to be a nonstandard
spellout of the usually null kan, and in my analysis nonetheless distinguish between
the copular null kan and the overt existential kan. This corresponds to most consultants’
judgments of sentences like (5.8).
5 Ecuadorian Quechua existential sentences contain the verb tiyana ‘to sit’ instead
of kay ‘to be’. An example from a folktale is given in (i).
(i) shuc manzana tarpushca tiya-shca
one apple orchard sit-past