the syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification

171
consultants’ intuitions indicate that (cross-linguistically typical) weak quantifiers
in existentials are perfectly acceptable while strong quantifiers are degraded. For
example we have the following contrast:
(5.49) Ashka llama-kuna urqu-pi ka-n.
many llamas-pl mountain-loc be-3sg
‘There are many llamas in the mountains.’
‘Many llamas are in the mountains.’
(5.50) ?*Llipin/Tukuy
every/all
llama-kuna
llama-pl
urqu-pi
mountain-loc
‘There are all the llamas in the mountains.’
ka-n.
be-3sg
Furthermore, just as in English it is generally considered to be ungrammatical
to put other types of definite noun phrases into the existential context such as the
demonstrative expression in (5.51).
(5.51) Chay
dem
llama
llama
kurral-pi
corral-loc
*’There is that llama in the corral.’
‘That llama is in the corral.’
*ka-n/ka-sha-n.
be-3sg/be-prog-3sg
However, there is a very common class of existential-like sentences which may
seem to constitute a set of counterexamples to this generalization. In the possessive
sentence shown in (5.52) the noun phrase which plays the role of the associate
appears to be the possessive expression Mariaq wawankuna ‘Maria’s children’. Although
such possessive noun phrases in English share properties of both definites
and indefinites (cf. [Barker 1995]), they at least cannot appear in existential contexts
in English (*There are Maria’s children).
(5.52) Maria-q wawa-n-kuna
Maria-gen child-3-pl
‘Maria has children.’
ka-n.
be-3sg