the syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification

59
the direct object of a nominalized clause (for instance, waka ‘cow’ in (3.9)) has no
overt Case-marker. 4 Furthermore, other subordinate arguments of the verb 5 have
no overt Case-marking when they are the internal head of a relative clause as illustrated
in (3.11). Note that in a Main clause these Case-markers are not optional,
as illustrated in (3.12). A similar pair of examples is shown in (3.13) and (3.14).
(3.11) [Nuqa-q llaqta-*pi/*-ta/-∅
I-gen town-loc/-acc/-∅
‘The town I live in is big.’
tiya-sqa-y]]-qa
live-nm(past/nonsubj)-1sg-top
hatun.
big
(3.12) Nuqa
I
kay
this
llaqta-pi/*ta/*∅
town-loc/-acc/-∅
‘I live in this town.’
tiya-ni.
live-1sg
(3.13) [[Kama-*pi/*ta/∅] puñu-sqa-y]-qa
bed-loc/sleep-nm-1sg-top big-evid
‘The bed that I slept in is big.’
hatun-mi.
(3.14) Nuqa
I
puñu-ni
sleep-1sg
huk
one
‘I sleep in a big bed.’
hatun
big
kama-pi/*ta/*∅.
bed-loc/-acc-∅
It is important to emphasize at this point that while the -ta marker may be
missing on any direct object of a nominalized clause, other markers like -pi above
are only dropped on the head of a relative clause.
3.2.2 What can be a head
In general, and in keeping with the preceding discussion, only DPs with no overt
Case marker can be internal heads. This fact is illustrated in the following examples,
4 Again see Section 3.4.2 for discussion of data, reflecting different judgments, in
which the -ta marker is allowed under some circumstances.
5 I use the expression “argument” to refer to DPs which have a semantically close
relationship to the verb, and which can appear as the head of an IHR in Cuzco
Quechua.