the syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification

67
3.3.2 Explaining the Case-marking pattern
Now let us turn to some of the details of Cuzco Quechua. Consider the curious
pattern of Case-marking within subordinate clauses as opposed to main clauses.
Subordinate clause null-marking has traditionally been seen as simply a direct object
Case marker (e.g. [Lefebvre & Muysken 1988]), parallel to -ta in main clauses.
However, I noted in Section 3 that in (3.11) and (3.12), repeated here as (3.38)
and (3.39), we see that a non-direct object argument can also be null-marked in a
nominalized clause but cannot be -ta marked in a main clause.
(3.38) [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
(3.39) Nuqa
I
kay
this
llaqta-pi/*-ta/*-∅
town-loc/-acc/-∅
‘I live in this town.’
tiya-ni.
live-1sg
On the other hand, a non-head argument (other than the direct object) must be
marked with its regular Case-marker, as shown in (3.40).
(3.40) Juan
Juan
[[nuqa-q
I-gen
kay
this
llaqta-*(pi)
town-loc
tiya-sqa-y]]-ta
live-nm(past)-1sg-acc
‘Juan knows that I lived in this town.’
yacha-n.
know-3sg
How can we explain these different Case paradigms in Main and Subordinate
clauses? It could be that nominalized clauses offer a special option which is not
available in Main clauses: the null-marked Case. Or, it could be that the Main
clause offers a special option not available in nominalized clauses: the -ta-marked
Case. One version of the first possibility is that the accusative DP can incorporate
into the subordinate verb, and that this process is licensed by the nominalization.
this is correct for English, in Quechua we need determiner incorporation to explain
the ultimate scope of the strong quantifiers.