LONG DISTANCE AGREEMENT IN HINDI-URDUw This paper ...

770RAJESH BHATTinfinitival head Inf 0 because Inf 0 is the closest head with visiblethough unvalued / features (cf. 21).(21) T 0 [uF] [Subj-Erg V 0 [Inf 0 [uF] .... OBJ[/F]]]Then, when it finds an argument with visible and interpretable/-features, it uses those features to value its own unvalued featuresand covaluate the /-features of the infinitival head. Alternatively,if both Inf 0 and finite T 0 function as probes, they both independentlyuse the features of the object to value their features. Asin (18), Inf 0 does not constitute an intervener for the AGREErelationship between finite T 0 and the object because Inf 0 is not/-complete.The proposal as it stands is able to explain the paradigm in (22).(22)a. LDA but no infinitival agreement:*Ram-ne [rot:ii khaa-naa] chaah-ii thiiRam-Erg bread.F eat-Inf.MSg want-Pfv.F be.Pst.FSg‘Ram had wanted to eat (the) bread.’b. Infinitival agreement but no LDA:*Ram-ne [rot:ii khaa-nii] chaah-aa thaaRam-Erg bread.F eat-Inf.F want-Pfv.MSg be.Pst.MSg‘Ram had wanted to eat (the) bread.’Under the assumption that only finite T 0 functions as a Probe, theungrammaticality of (22a,b) receives a common explanation. Inf 0cannot value its uninterpretable features by itself. Only finite T 0 cando this. So for Inf 0 ’s uninterpretable features to be covaluated, T 0 ’suninterpretable features must also get valued. To value its own features,T 0 must covaluate the features of the intervening Inf 0 . Onecannot happen without the other. The facts of (22) also follow if bothInf 0 and finite T 0 are Probes – they both locate the same Goal andindependently enter into AGREE with it. Given the structure of(22a,b), if Inf 0 locates a Goal, then T 0 will also locate the same Goaland vice versa.The choice between the two options – (i) finite T 0 as the only Probeand (ii) both finite T 0 and Inf 0 as Probes – is made by the factsconcerning the parasitic nature of LDA. These facts show that theinfinitival verb cannot agree with the embedded object if the embeddedobject does not agree with the matrix finite T 0 . In the structures in(23), the matrix T 0 identifies the matrix subject as its Goal and does