the syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification

184
(5.82) Nuqa
I
[Gabriela-q
Gabriela-gen
ashka
much
‘I drank Gabriela’s (lot of) cornbeer.’
‘? I drank a lot of Gabriela’s cornbeer.’
aqha-n-ta]
cornbeer-3sg-acc
ukya-ra-ni.
drink-past-1sg
Furthermore, a Bolivian consultant provides the following strong evidence from
Bolivian Quechua (very closely related to Cuzco Quechua) that extraction is associated
with non-specificity. Comparing sentences (5.83) and (5.84) we find it is only
with an extracted possessor that the nonspecific reading of uj wawa-n ‘a/one child’
is available.
(5.83) Sapa
each
uj
one
riqsi-nchis.
know-2plincl
(nuqanchiq-manta)
(2plincl-abl)
Maria-q
Maria-gen
uj
one
wawa-n-ta
child-3sg-acc
‘Each one of us knows Maria’s child.’ (same child for each person)
(5.84) Sapa
each
uj
one
riqsi-nchis.
know-2plincl
(nuqanchiq-manta)
(2plincl-abl)
[e
e
uj
one
wawa-n-ta]
child-3sg-acc
Maria-q-ta
Maria-gen-acc
‘Each one of us knows a child of Maria’s.’ (could be different child each time)
The equivalent sentences in Cuzco Quechua are a bit different since in this dialect
the distributive suffix -nka is available, 16 while the expression sapa uj ‘each one’ is
not. Nonetheless, a similar generalization can be made (possessor extraction is
associated with the non-specificity of the noun phrase) based on the data shown in
(5.85) and (5.86). Similar examples with the distributive suffix -nka are shown in
(5.87) and (5.88).
16 The distributive or group-forming version of this suffix is discussed by Faller
[2001]. This suffix was also discussed in Chapter 2, Section 2.5. In Chapter 6 I look
at the version of -nka which appears on sapa ‘each’, and is here glossed simply as
-nka.