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

784RAJESH BHATTfound in Hindi-Urdu only in nominal environments and their presenceis a reliable indicator that what we have is a gerund. If we embedan infinitival/gerundive clause with a genitive subject in an environmentwhere LDA is otherwise possible, we find, as has been noted byDavison (1991) and Butt (1995), that Long Distance Agreement isblocked.(45)a. Embedded infinitival clause can have a genitive subject:?Firoz-ne [Shabnam-kaa rot:ii khaa-naa] chaah-aaFiroz-Erg Shabnam-Gen bread.F eat-Inf want-Pfv.MSg‘Firoz wanted Shabnam’s eating bread.’b. LDA not possible in presence of genitive subject ofinfinitival clause:*Firoz-ne [Shabnam-kaa rot:ii khaa-nii] chaah-iiFiroz-Erg Shabnam-Gen bread.F eat-Inf.F want-Pfv.FSgc. LDA possible if there is no subject:Firoz-ne [rot:ii khaa-nii] chaah-iiFiroz-Erg bread.F eat-Inf.F want-Pfv.FSg‘Firoz wanted to eat bread.’The blocking of Long Distance Agreement can be seen as aMinimality Effect on the application of AGREE. If a maximal projectionis of the kind that potentially has /-features, T 0 cannotAGREE with the /-features of a maximal projection inside it.(46) *X 0 [B] ... [ A ... B ...](Both A and B are the same kind of category)The clauses in (45a,b) are gerunds with intrinsic, though default,features. These features block matrix T 0 from participating inAGREE with an object inside the gerund. The clause in (45c) can bean infinitival and when analyzed as an infinitival clause has nointrinsic features of its own. Consequently LDA is not blocked.5. CROSSLINGUISTIC EXTENSIONS5.1. Long Distance Agreement in Kashmiri and a Dialectof Hindi-UrduAn important aspect of the Hindi-Urdu data under discussion hasbeen the parasitic nature of infinitival agreement. This is exemplifiedby the contrast between (47a) and (47b).