Differential subject marking in Polish: The case of Genitive vs ...

In the beginning of the paper (recall footnote 8), while discussing the puzzling facts about the
Polish examples in (3), I pointed out that while the subject of bywac cannot be marked for GEN,
the subject of byc may sometimes (but not always, see below) appear in NOM; cf. (29) vs. (30):
(29) a. Jan nie bywal na przyjeciach.
JohnNOM NEG BE3.SG.M.PAST.HABIT at parties
‘John didn’t use to come to parties.’
(Lit.: ‘John was not from time to time at parties.’)
b. * Jana nie bywalo na przyjeciach.
JohnGEN NEG BE3.SG.N.PAST.HABIT at parties
(30) a. Jan nie byl na przyjeciu.
JohnNOM NEG BE3.SG.M.PAST at party
‘John was not at the party.’
b. Jana nie bylo na przyjeciu.
JohnGEN NEG BE3.SG.N.PAST at party
‘John was not at the party.’ (Lit.: ‘There was no John at the party.’)
Not every subject may appear in NOM in negated locative byc-clauses. On the contrary, the
NOM-marked subjects in negated locative byc-clauses are subject to the following restriction:
they must obligatorily be definite, preferably [+human]; in the case of indefinite, [-human]
“subjects” only GEN is possible, as the following contrast in (31) vs. (32) shows (Dziwirek
1994:152; see also Klebanowska 1974).
(31) a. Jana nie bylo w sklepie. (Dziwirek 1994:152)
JohnGEN NEG BE3.SG.N.PAST in store
‘John wasn’t in the store.’
(Lit.: ‘There was not John in the store.’)
b. Jan nie byl w sklepie.
JohnNOM NEG BE3.SG.M.PAST in store
‘John wasn’t in the store.’
26