the syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification

181
the verb. This is shown in (5.74), which is considered to be degraded. In fact, these
judgments are similar to those in (5.75) and (5.76) where Ana-q alqunkuna is a true
subject, shown continuously and discontinuously.
(5.73) Ana-q alqu-n-kuna
Ana-gen dog-3sg-pl
‘Ana has dogs.’
ka-n-mi.
be-3sg-evid
(5.74) ??Alqu-n-kuna
dog-3sg-pl
‘Ana has dogs.’
ka-n
be-3sg
Ana-q.
Ana-gen
(5.75) Ana-q alqu-n-kuna kani-sha-n.
Ana-gen dog-3sg-pl bark-prog-3sg
‘Ana’s dogs are barking.’
(5.76) ??Alqu-n-kuna kani-sha-n
dog-3sg-pl bark-prog-3sg
‘Ana’s dogs are barking.’
Ana-q.
Ana-gen
However, it is not the case that Ana-q and llaman must obligatorily appear in
adjacent positions in a possessive sentence. In fact, very frequently consultants
suggest variants on the basic order in (5.73) to express this meaning. The following
examples have all been offered by consultants presented with a drawing in which
an individual is shown as the owner of a number of animals, and I ask how to
express ‘Maria has three dogs’, etc. In the examples (5.77), (5.78) and (5.79),
an evidential marker appears on the possessor, and in the second two of these the
possessor is actually not contiguous with the rest of the DP. In (5.80) a topic marker
appears on the possessor. The syntax of evidentially marked constituents is not well
understood, 13 but these constructions can be seen as evidence that the subject has
been extracted. A concrete reason for this is that evidentially-marked elements
13 [Faller 2002] is an in-depth study of the semantics and pragmatics of evidentiality
in Cuzco Quechua.