the syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification

154
(5.9) Maria-q llama-n-kuna
Maria-gen llama-3sg-pl
‘Maria has llamas.’
ka-n.
be-3sg
Example (5.9) is a very natural way to express Maria’s ownership of llamas. For
completeness, I include in (5.10) an also frequent paraphrase.
(5.10) Maria-qa
Maria-top
llama-yuq.
llama-possessor
‘Maria has llamas.’ (’Maria is a llama-owner.’)
In (5.9) as in the other existential examples above, plural marking on the verb is
not possible without changing the meaning of the sentence to the declarative ‘They
are Maria’s llamas’, even though Mariaq llamankuna ‘Maria’s llamas’ is a plural
noun phrase. This is illustrated in (5.11).
(5.11) Maria-q llama-n-kuna
Maria-gen llama-3sg-pl
‘They are Maria’s llamas.’
*‘Maria has llamas.’
ka-n-ku.
be-3-pl
‘There was an apple orchard.’ (Jara & Moya p189)
As in CQ, the existential verb does not seem to show number agreement in its
existential use. Unlike CQ kay, however, it is not phonologically null in its (third
person present tense singular) non-existential use.
Possessive constructions are quite different in CQ and IQ. IQ has a lexical verb
charina meaning ‘to have’. The possessed nominal appears in accusative Case and
the possessor appears in nominal Case, making this verb also the apparent syntactic
equivalent of English ‘to have’. Two examples are given below.
(i) Ñuka-ka ishkay wawa-ta-mi chari-ni.
I-top two child-acc-evid have-1sg
‘I have two children’
(ii) ñucanchic jatun taitacunami chai rimai-ta-ca chari-shca:
we big fathers-evid dem speech-acc-top have-past
‘Our ancestors had this speech: ...’ (Jara & Moya p129)
Constructions like “Juan-gen book sit-3sg” as a way to express “Juan has a
book,” which would parallel (5.9) from Cuzco Quechua are not a regular part of
Imbabura Quechua grammar. Consultants judge them to be understandable but
strange.