the syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification

164
(5.37) Llaqta-y-pi ka-q/*ka-sqa-n
llama-kuna-qa
town-1sg-loc be-nm(sbj)/*be-nm(non-subj)-3sg llama-pl-top
hacienda-lla-pi tiya-nku.
farm-delim-loc live-3pl
‘The llamas that are in my country live only on farms.’
The starred possibility in example (5.37) shows that the morphology which would
reflect the relativization of a non-subject is impossible when the head of a relative
clause is the associate in the subordinate existential. There remains, however, the
possibility that (5.37) with ‘kaq’ can mean ‘The llamas that there are in my country
live only on farms’. That is, is (5.37) ambiguous between the readings in (5.35)
and (5.36). I discussed with my consultants a context in which a hypothetical
interlocutor had asked me if there are vicuñas in my country. My answer was to
be: ‘yes, but the vicuñas that there are (in my country) live only on farms’. I was
unable to find a construction that consultants felt to have this meaning. 8 Rather,
the copula construction in the subordinate clause was suggested. A few options are
shown below.
(5.38) Llaqta-y-pi ka-q (wik’uña)-kuna
town-1sg-loc be-nm vicuña-pl
‘The vicuñas that are in my country’
(5.39) ??Ka-q
be-nm
wik’uña-kuna
vicuña-pl
‘The same vicuña’ (under a different reading of kaq)
8 One consultant did feel that (i) may have the desired meaning (‘those that there
are’, as opposed to ‘those that are (there)’), but stated that she could not find a
way to put wik’uña explicitly into the expression and maintain this meaning.
(i) ka-q-kuna
be-nm-pl
‘those that there are’ (Consultant comment: ‘vicuña’ can’t appear here.)