the syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification

29
with third person singular subjects, so there is no ambiguity.) A syntactic analysis
of this construction is the topic of Chapter 5. Sentences (2.26) and (2.27) show that
ashka ‘a lot’ is compatible with the existential construction while tukuy ‘all’ is not. 9
(2.26) Ashka
many
llama-kuna
llama-pl
chacra-pi
field-loc
ka-n.
be-3sg
‘There are many llamas in the field.’
(2.27) *?Tukuy
all
llama-kuna
llama-pl
chacra-pi
field-loc
‘There are all llamas in the field.’
ka-n.
be-3sg
Similar examples with other quantifiers are shown in (2.28).
(2.28) *?Llipin/*?Wakin/Kinsa/Pisi
every/some/three/a few
llama-kuna
llama-pl
chakra-pi
field-loc
‘There is (are) every/some/three/a few llamas in the field.’
ka-n.
be-3sg
Table 2.1 below lists the Cuzco Quechua quantifiers mentioned in this chapter,
with English gloss and classification as strong or weak according to the above criterion.
10 Note that I have not identified cases in which a determiner may be either
strong or weak depending on context, although such cases certainly occur in other
languages and may also exist in Quechua.
9 Some consultants take the intended reading of (2.27) to involve a copula reading
of the verb, but suggest that the correct verbal form would involve progressive
marking. Thus the same sentence with ka-sha-n (’be-prog-3sg’) means ‘All the
llamas are in the field.’ Existential constructions are studied further in Chapter 5.
10 I note in passing that for some consultants sapa is, in fact, compatible with the
test sentence, but in this environment takes on the meaning ‘only’, and thus can
appear, for instance, before a proper noun as well as before llama. This use of sapa,
however, often triggers person/number agreement of sapa with the following noun.
A study of other non-agreeing uses of sapa can be found in Chapter 6.