the syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification

173
5.4.2 Some past approaches to unifying existentials with
possessives
While the particular CQ possessive construction illustrated in (5.52) is itself somewhat
mysterious, some sort of connection between possessive and existential constructions
has been posited for a variety of languages.. In this section I will briefly
summarize certain past approaches to a unified analysis of these constructions.
5.4.2.1 Freeze 1992
As part of a general theory in which existentials are viewed as locatives, Freeze
(1992) proposes that in English ‘have’ constructions, the subject is essentially a
locative and therefore (5.55) is parallel in structure to (5.56).
(5.55) [[ P ′ on [ DP the table] ] is [ PP [ DP a cat] t P ′]
(5.56) [[ P ′ [ I ]] have [ PP [ DP a cat] t P ′]
houses to my consultants. I asked them how they would ask me if those houses
(the one I had described) really exists. My consultants agree that under these
circumstances it would be quite normal to ask:
(i) chay wasi-kuna ka-n-(*ku)-chu?
that house-pl be-3sg-pl-q
‘Do those houses (really) exist?’
Furthermore, the example in (ii) indicates that there may in fact be an ambiguity
between an existential and non-existential version of the kan construction. This is
also part of the narrative of Gregorio Condori Mamani [1977], and is uttered by
individuals whose cows, unbeknownst to them, have been dyed a different color.
They seek their cows everywhere, saying “What has become of my cows?” followed
by (ii). They go on to comment that there are some other cows around but not of
the same color as their cows. The problem with this sentence is that the speaker
seems to be referring to some specific cows, which have (apparently) disappeared.
(ii) Mana waka-y-kuna ka-n-chu.
Not cow-1sg-pl be-3sg-NEG
‘My cows are gone.’ (GCM p58)
‘I don’t have any cows.’ (most natural reading out of context)