Agreement Have A Suffix

Also note that the existence or absence of pronomic overreducation in the clauses of interest is orthogonal to determine the agreement. As has already been mentioned, Itelmen allows free pro-drop (i.e. zero arguments); more precisely, the presence or absence of pronouns or NPs overt does not correlate in any way with the choice of arrangement device. This can already be seen in (18) and (19), where the thematic pronoun is omitted only in the first. Since this verb may in principle bear oblique similarities and has no immediate purpose, the presence of a datifment (or owner) seems to make this element the most important non-subject member of the clause. (Remember that the topicality of the topic played no role in the analysis of Section 3.1). Accordingly, a strictly hierarchical analysis (i.e. « the most important internal argument ») would lead to an agreement with the dative (or owner) in such cases, because without another argument, the dative would always be « the most important » internally. On the contrary, what such examples require is a report that the facts of the Oblique agreement are indicated as a benefit to the dative when it is important (in one sense or, for example, if it proves relevant), the « normal » agreement model receiving something else. Our interpretation of the facts that have just been discussed is that they arise from a combination of two considerations. First, we establish that the position of the suffix agreement (i.e. the object) is obligatory in the finite itelmen verbs. [13] Second, we assume that the direct objects of a third person do not have personal characteristics and are characterized only by a singular vs.

pluralistic distinction. [14] These two considerations lead to a conflict in transit clauses where the direct object is a third party. Due to the lack of personal features of the object (assuming), the first requirement must be met by features elsewhere. We suggest that this is exactly what the forms illustrate in (11) (13); the numerical characteristics of a pluralistic direct object search expression in the glottalized nose, but the characteristics of the person in (13) are given by the subject`s argument. [4] For some phonological asymmetries between the flexible prefixes and the suffixes see Bobaljik – Wurmbrand (2001). Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 1998. Pseudo-ergativity in Kamchatkan Chukotko contract systems. Lea Nash (.M.) Ergativivity: Linguistic Research of Vincennes 27.