fokidocs.blogg.se - Noazu notsu

At the level of the vP, the mutual configuration of v, dative, and absolutive in psych-verbs but not in motion verbs is as for applicative transitives, and so the PCC arises only in psych-verbs.ĦCross-linguistically, dative > absolutive/nominative unaccusatives do indeed seem to show the PCC if and only if the dative c-commands the absolutive/nominative at the point where the latter Agrees with its Case licenser, v ABS/T NOM. Rezac (2008a) proposes that the distinction between verbs with and without 1/2 :nor-nori forms, like natzaio, is one between psych-verbs with a dative experiencer base-generated in an applicative structure above the theme, (8)a and motion verbs with a dative animate goal of motion originating in a prepositional structure below the theme, (8)b. Since the nor-nori agreement paradigm is otherwise identical for all the verbs above, the PCC cannot be construed as a problem with agreement morphology (Boeckx 2000), at least here (cf.

(MD, Hazparne)ĥAlbizu proposes to relate this restriction to the PCC. Igandetan joaiten nako bisita baten egitera. (Albizu 1997 : 21)Ī Ni Kepari etortzen / *gustatzen nakoī. */ ? ?Ni Mireni baldarra iruditu natzaio.

2 The contrasts can be inferred from literature such as Axular's Gero or Elizen Arteko Biblia (cited (.)ĤAlbizu (1997) observes that some unaccusatives with an agreeing dative, that is the nor-nori agreement paradigm, also do not tolerate 1 st/2 nd person absolutives, while others do.

Number agreement is unaffected, for example because the dative’s is invisible or has been moved out of the v-DP path. The blocking itself is proposed to arise because the dative is a locality intervener for Agree on the v-ABS/ACC path (Anagnostopoulou 2003), because it occupies and a spec-head configuration is needed for Agree (Baker 2008), or because both the dative and the DP compete for Agree with the same head to be licensed (Adger and Harbour 2007). * Se  la recomendaron a él  b) Me *le  recomendaron a él.ĢSeveral syntactic approaches to the PCC build on the following common core : the dative blocks a syntactic dependency for, that is Agree, between a DP and a functional head, say v or T. Vous me *lui  avez présenté à elle .Ī. Zuk poliziari ni eraman *n(a)iozu / %nauzu.

1 Bonet (1991) demonstrates that relevantly identical patterns are found cross-linguistically, as in French (2) and Spanish (3), and names the restriction the Person Case Constraint or PCC.Ī. By contrast, dative agreement, while normally obligatory in most dialects, can be suspended in precisely this context, for many speakers. Since absolutives must agree in finite clauses, 1 st/2 nd person absolutives are banned here entirely. As (.)ġBasque transitives are subject to the restriction that 1 st/2 nd person absolutive object agreement cannot co-occur with dative agreement (1).