the syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification

82
the feature sets of each D are complementary in the sense that there is no feature
clash between them.
Under this analysis, what distinguishes Quechua from a language like Lakhota
which obeys the indefiniteness restriction on an internal head is the presence in
Quechua of a Caseless determiner which allows incorporation of an overt determiner
from an internal head after head-raising has taken place. What distinguishes
Quechua from Japanese is the probe C which allows for head-raising in the first
place, as well as the Caseless determiner. And what distinguishes Quechua from
English is (at least) the option of post-Spellout head-raising, which perhaps can be
attributed to a strong/weak feature distinction on C.
3.4 Extending the analysis
3.4.1 Subject-headed RCs, and explaining the nominalizing
morphology
Recall that in Cuzco Quechua, the nominalization pattern is quite straight-forward:
the nominalizer -q appears when the subject is the (internal or external) head of a
relative clause. The nominalizers -sqa/-na tell us that the subordinate clause action
occured before/after the main clause action. These last two are used in both relative
clauses and complement clauses. (Simultaneous subordinate/main action seems also
to be compatible with -sqa.)
Recall further that while -sqa and -na are accompanied by overt subject agreement
morphology, -q-marked subject relativizations do not show subject/verb agreement.
Lefebvre and Muysken [1988] propose that while -sqa and -na are parts of the
Cuzco Quechua system of Tense, -q is an agreement morpheme. Contrary to this
analysis, under the analysis I am developing here, the lack of overt agreement with