Another example of a potential Condition D violation in Copala Triqui:
This may be more evidence that the 'think' clause is syntactically subordinate, though semantically superordinate. ('Went to the river...' is thus an insubordinate clause..)
This may be more evidence that the 'think' clause is syntactically subordinate, though semantically superordinate. ('Went to the river...' is thus an insubordinate clause..)
1 comment:
You have /rá/ as 'think', but I always thought of it as a desiderative marker. At least this is how it seems to function in Itunyoso Trique.
It strikes me that one does not need to look very far afield to find violations of binding conditions. I remember several years ago when I took my last syntax course (focusing exclusively on pronouns) that we found all sorts of exceptions. A colleague of mine worked on condition B violations in PPs, e.g. He(i) put my clothes beside him(i).
Post a Comment