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

790RAJESH BHATTenvironments where Butt’s analysis predicts it to be possible. 9 Thedifference between Hindi-Urdu and Kashmiri was reduced to thenature of infinitival agreement in the two languages. In Kashmiriinfinitival agreement is obligatory while in Hindi-Urdu it isparasitic on Long Distance Agreement. Regardless of the language,agreement is only possible with an XP that has its own/-features and not one that has itself acquired its /-features byagreement.5.2. Long Distance Agreement in TsezPolinsky and Potsdam (2001) discuss a case of Long DistanceAgreement found in the Nakh-Daghestanian language Tsez. LongDistance Agreement in Tsez has properties that are significantlydifferent from Hindi-Urdu Long Distance Agreement. However, theoperation AGREE used to derive agreement in Hindi-Urdu is able toderive Long Distance Agreement in Tsez also.Long Distance Agreement in Tsez differs from the Hindi-Urdupattern in two important ways. The embedded clause is a finite clauseand the NP that triggers Long Distance Agreement can be either anembedded subject or an embedded object.(54) (ex. 48 from Polinsky and Potsdam (2001))a. Embedded object triggers agreement:eni-r [už-a Magalu b-ac’-ru-łi]mother-Dat boy-Erg bread.III.Abs III-eat-PSTPRT-NMLZb-iy-xoIII-know-Prs‘The mother knows the boy ate the bread.’b. Embedded subject triggers agreement:eni-r [uži /-ay-ru-łi] /-iy-xomother-Dat boy.I.Abs I-arrive-PSTPRT-NMLZ I-know-Prs‘The mother knows the boy arrived.’In addition, Polinsky and Potsdam (2001) demonstrate that theagreement trigger in Tsez has to be an embedded topic, whichundergoes covert movement to the edge of a Topic Phrase as shownin (55).9 Because the facts for the data corresponding to the crucial Kashmiri facts in (53)in the relevant Hindi-Urdu dialect are not available to me, the scope of my conclusionis limited to Kashmiri.