Comparative Syntax of the Balkan Languages (Oxford ... - Cryptm.org

218 MARIA LUISA RIVEROThe equivalent of (25) is deviant in MGrk; it is significant for my proposal thatthis order is also deviant in some modern varieties that preserve Tobler-Mussafiaeffects. As to imperatives, MedGrk is similar not only to Big but also to earlyRomance; for instance, Old Spanish (OSp) clitics may precede imperative Vs, asin (26) from Rivero (1997):(26) Muchovery'Request it(Zifar 280)orgullosamente ge-loproudlyto.him-itfrom him very proudly.'demandat.ask-lMP.2OSpExtending to MedGrk a by now familiar analysis, I assume that imperatives neednot raise to C for formal feature checking or to comply with Last Resort and socan follow clitic pronouns. V raising past clitics fails to distinguish imperativesfrom ordinary finite Vs in this period. Thus, when the imperative or the finiteverb precedes a clitic, V has raised to satisfy an external requirement of the clitic,not to check a formal feature, just like in Blg in section 2. In conclusion, thisstage retains the PF-driven process that under appropriate circumstances allowsany V to raise to C, and imperative raising does not yet have the characteristicsthat we gave to the process in MGrk.We just saw that the relevant properties of AGrk remain stable for manycenturies in the history of the language but, crucially, these properties are absentin some present varieties that have retained clitics that impose PF conditionsreminiscent of those found in the earlier stages. Some present varieties offer apicture where imperatives are distinguished from other Vs in syntax, irrespectiveof the PF requirements of the clitics. In the standard, imperatives must precedeclitic pronouns, which impose no PF requirement and can be first. It could thenbe assumed that earlier stages and the present differ due to the loss of PF interfaceconditions, which triggers two changes: imperative raising is reinterpretedas a rule checking the formal feature that V matches with C, while indicativeraising to C cannot be so reinterpreted and is lost. These two changes occurred;evolution in imperatives, however, is not due to loss of interface conditions,since some varieties have preserved those conditions and still changed imperatives.Present varieties with restrictions on clitics include Cappadocian (Capp)and Cypriot Greek (CGrk). Based on Dawkins (1916), Janse (1994) shows thatCappadocian complement clitics display the MedGrk restrictions given byMackridge, which leads him to suggest that both systems are identical. Forexample, CL is always adjacent to V but in main clauses the order is V + CL ininitial position, as in (27a), and CL + V with a focused constituent or whphrase,as in (27b):(27) a.b.Katevaseii do.took down him'He took him down.'Cis to epken?who it did'Who did it?'Capp