the syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification

169
Partitive Case, based on data from Finnish. In her view this Case is an inherent
Case assigned by the copular verb. This idea was later taken up by Lasnik [1995,
1996]. Under this analysis, the impossibility of the associate being a relative clause
head must then be equated with the impossibility of certain other non-argument
DPs taking on this role. As we saw in Chapter 3, licensing of an external head can
take place either by raising (if the head is an argument of the subordinate verb)
or by a pragmatically reconstructable relationship between the subordinate clause
and the matrix clause. The latter case was illustrated by examples such as (3.66),
repeated here as (5.45).
(5.45) [[naranja
orange
ch’arwa-sqa-y]
squeeze-nm-1sg
jugo]
juice
‘the juice that I made by squeezing oranges’
In this case, the relationship between juice and orange-squeezing is apparent.
However, in examples like (5.46), the relationship between working hard and children
is not clear enough to license this construction, despite the existence of a
corresponding matrix sentence as in (5.47).
(5.46) *[[pro ancha-ta llank’a-sqa-n] wawa-kuna
() a.lot-ta(adv) work-nm-3sg child-pl
‘The children he worked hard on account of’
(5.47) Ancha-ta llank’a-rqa-n wawa-n–kuna-rayku.
a.lot-acc work-past-3sg child-3sg–pl-on account of
‘He worked hard on account of his children.’
Thus I conclude that the relative clause in (5.31), like (5.46), is not grammatical
because the pragmatic connection between the head and the clause is not sufficiently
reconstructable to license this sort of head, just as is the case with the proposed
head wawakuna ‘children’ in (5.46).