the syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification

68
This is the analysis given in [Cole 1985] for Imbabura Quechua. However, at least
in the case of Cuzco Quechua there are some problems with this idea (the case of
Imbabura Quechua will be discussed in Chapter 4). The null-marked DP does not
need to be a bare noun but can have a specifier and complement. An example of
this is shown in (3.41).
(3.41) [Chay [hatun wawa-kuna riqsi-sqa-y]]-qa futbalista-kuna
dem tall child-pl know-nm-1sg-top football player-pl
‘Those tall children that I know are football players.’
ka-nku.
be-3pl
Furthermore, even when scrambling occurs in the subordinate clause, the direct
object is null-marked, making it unlikely that it was ever incorporated into the
nominalized verb. An example of a scrambled internal direct object head is given
in (3.42).
(3.42) [[Juan-pa regalo Mariya-man qu-sqa-n]]-ta
Juan-gen gift Maria-dat give-nm-3sg
‘I like the gift that Juan gave Maria.’
muna-ni.
like-1sg
Let us instead pursue the second possibility: that an option available in the Main
clause is unavailable in the subordinate clause. This option has the immediate
advantage of adhering to Ross’s [1973] “Penthouse Principle” which states that
any Subordinate clause structural possibilities are also available in Main clauses.
Furthermore, recent work on transitivity by [Koizumi 1995], [Collins 2001, 2003] and
[Bowers 2002] suggests that transitivity can be associated to a clausal projection
of a transitivity head. Under this view, we can say that the Transitivity Phrase
responsible for assigning -ta-marked Case is unavailable in subordinate clauses.
The TrP I am referring to here is that suggested in [Bowers 2002]. The transitivity
phrase discussed in [Collins 2003] is somewhat different (associated to the
presence of an additional argument) and in fact I will argue below that this phrase,