RELATIVE CLAUSES DATA IN QUECHUA

Maria Juan -cha q ta n muna -n hamu na n ta. (L&M 1988: 4)

Juan DIM GEN ACC VAL want come NMZ 3SG ACC
Maria wants Juan to come

This is a case of case floating.

QUESTION: Can we have Maria Juanchaq hamunanta munan?

Qaynunchaw wasi ruwa sqa yki ta riku ni. (L&M 1988: 4)

yesterday house make NMZ 2SG.POS ACC see 1SG
I see the house that you built yesterday.
I see that you built a house yesterday.

This sentence is ambiguous.

QUESTION: Is this possible?:

Qaynunchaw qanpaq wasi ruwasqaykita rikuni.

Qaynunchaw qan wasi ruwasqaykita rikuni.
Qaynunchaw qan wasita ruwasqayki rikuni.
Qaynunchaw qan wasi ruwasqayki rikuni.
Qaynunchaw qan ruwasqayki wasita rikuni.

Warma riku sqa y ta, hamu nqa. (L&M 1988: 5)

girl see NMZ 1SG.POS ACC come 3SG.FUT
The girl I saw will come.

QUESTION: Is this possible:

Warmata rikusqay, hamunqa.
uqaq warmata rikusqay, hamunqa.

Important issue:
The possessive markers also go with adverbial subordinate clauses:

hamu qti y qa. (L&M 1988:11)

come SUB 1SG.POS TOP
If I come

Is this true? Is there nothing nominal in this construction? If this is so, then L&M (1988:
11) are right, and the subject marking in Q should be organized as those suffixes for
main tense (i.e. the possessives ni, etc.) and those for + main tense (i.e. the standard
subject agreement nii, etc.). What needs to be taken into account is that in Quechua this
kind of suffixes are also introducing a sentence in simultaneity with the main clause. If a
nominalization, this is a strange (very particular one).
Pidru hamu sqa n ta yacha ni. (L&M 1988:13)
Pedro come NMZ 3SG.POS ACC know 1SG
I know that Pedro came.

QUESTION: Doesn't this also means "I know the Pedro who came". Maybe Kay Pidruqa
hamusqanta yachani.

Is it OK to say: Pidruq hamusqanta yachani.

Pi hamu na n ta mana yacha ni chu. (L&M 1988:13)

who come NOM 3SG.POS ACC NEG know 1SG NEG
I don't know who will come.

Warmi hamu q ta riku ni. (L&M 1988:13)

woman come AG ACC see 1SG
I see the woman who is coming.

QUESTION: Can this also mean "I see that the woman is coming". For instance, in the
sentence like hampi (payman) quwanaypaq, warmi allinta mikhuqta uqa munani
"necesito que la mujer est comiendo bien para dar(le) la medicina" we need to use the
nominalization as a complement (the other possible meaning "I need the woman that eats
well" seems odd). Is this Q sentence possible.

Manuil pa Pidru man libru qu sqa n ta yacha ni. (L&M 1988:15)

Manuel GEN Pedro ILL book give NMZ 3SG.POS ACC know 1SG
I know that Manuel has given the book to Pedro

QUESTION: Can I have: Manuilpa Pidruman libruta qusqanta yachani? Does the
sentence Manuilpa Pidruman libruta qusqanta riqsini means "I know the book that
Manuel gave to Pedro"?

Juan mi willa wa ra n ima ta Pidru q apa mu sqa n ta. (L&M 1988: 17)
Juan EV tell 1OBJ PAST 3SG what ACC Pedro GEN take CIS NMZ 3SG.POS ACC
Juan told me what Pedro had brought.

QUESTION
Is Juanmi imata Pidruq apamusqanta willawaran possible?

QUESTION
What is the difference between

Juan hamunanta yachani

and
Juanpa hamunanta yachani
Juan papa ta mikhu -sqa n ta yacha ni. (L&M 1988: 21)
Juan potato ACC eat NMZ 3SG.POS ACC know 1SG
I know that Juan eats potatoes.

Papa mikhu y ta muna n. (L&M 1988: 21)

potato eat INF ACC want 3SG
He wants to eat potatoes.

QUESTION: Is it possible to have Juan papa mikhusqanta yachani or Juan papa

mikhunanta yachani? Do we know of any case that allows something like papata
mikhuyta munan or pay(kuna)ta mikhuyta munan (referring to papa)? I think it is very
important for me to determine the possibilities of case marking inside of this "reduced" or
IHRC clauses, since this could be evidence that we are dealing with a case of nominal
compound that can't be broken. If so, maybe this can explain why the evidential marking
can't modify the noun embedded in a IHRC. (And I need to check if reduced clauses with
infinitive also reject the use of the evidential markers in the same fashion).

What if mikhu q hamuni (I've come to eat) comes from mikhuypaq hamuni? I have to
ask Cerrn about this.

Pay ta puri q ta uyari ni. (L&M 1988: 22)

he ACC walk AG ACC hear 1SG
I hear him walk.

Pay ta riku ni puri sha q ta

he ACC see 1SG walk PROG AG ACC
I see him walking.

I believe that in this reading there's no ambiguity, the one walking is the object pay.

QUESTION: Are these possible?

pay puriqta uyarini. / Pay purishaqta rikuni.
pay purispa uyarini. (does this mean that I am the one doing the walking?)
payta purispa uyarini.
pay purispata uyarini.

suwa sqa n ka ni (L&M 1988: 22)

rob NMZ 3SG.POS be 1SG
I has been robbed (by him)

suwa na n ka ni. (L&M 1988: 21)

rob NMZ 3SG.POS be 1SG
I am to be robbed (by him)

suwa q ka ni. (L&M 1988: 21)

rob AG be 1SG
I used to rob.

QUESTION: I think this forms are a little bit too generalized. I would need to see more
context, specially for the suwaq kani. What is the difference between suwaq kani and
suwa kani? Maybe it is the difference between "soy el que roba" y "soy ladrn" (if they
have any difference, of curse).
suwa sqa n runa (L&M 1988: 23)
the man that was robbed (by him)

suwa na n runa...
the man to be robbed (by him)

suwa q runa...
the man that robs

QUESTION: L&M 1988: 23 keep talking about "relative clauses through

nominalization" The nominalizing suffixes "relativize subjects and non subjects".
Relativization means that they have to have some kind of gap through extraction, a head
and a co-referring expression. What we have in the examples they give is EHRC, which
are the uncontroversial cases of apposition.

Qaynunchaw Pidru wiqchu ku sqa n rayku nana chi ku sha n. (L&M 1988: 23)
yesterday Pedro slip REFL NMZ 3SG.POS because pain CAUS REFL PROG 3SG
Because Pedro slipped yesterday he feels pain.

Chay papa kuna qa mana allin chu mikhu na paq. (L&M 1988: 23)
that potato PL TOP NEG good NEG eat NMZ DAT
Those potatoes are not good to eat.

QUESTION: Is it possible to find q forms as the subject of a clause (as in the case of
"free relatives"/ "Headless RCs" For instance, I have Urqupi yachaq runan llank'ashan
chakraypi (from Soto 146). What about Urqupi runa yachaq llank'ashan chakraypi (as an
IHRC)? Also, is it possible to have q as a complement of other than perception and
movement verbs? For instance, is this correct: uqa runa waka suwaqta maqarqani
("golpe al hombre que roba las vacas")?

L&M 1988: 24-) propose that Quechua has only three grm. categories: nominals, verbs,
and postpositions. Interestingly, the formal criteria to establish nominals is that they can
take the accusative marker ta: nouns, adjectives (which with ACC become adverbs),
queantifiers, numerals, WH-elements, pronouns, etc. That is an interesting suggestion.
What do I think? A formal criteria is always necessary to determine the behavior of an
element, but that doesn't explain anything about the reasons why those elements are
nominals. It could be very possible that adjectives don't use accusative to become
adverbials Does that make them less nominals? Are they, then, a class of their own? I
don't think that is a desirable conclusions (because it creates very specific classes, it goes
against generalization).
Allin ta rikun ni. (L&M 1988: 27)
a. I see well
b. I see the good one.

QUESTION: How do you say something like: Yo veo a bien a los estudiantes (Los
estudiantes estn bien y as lo veo), like uqa yachaqkunata allinta rikushani? The notion
of adverb is absent in Quechua as an independent category. To produce it the adjective is
considered a noun, but, following the idea in L&M (27) it is possible that there's an
empty noun present (or maybe not It depends on what I want to allow as "empty
categories", I would love to talk to Matt about it). The idea is that it should be something
akin to the Andean Spanish: ella come lo bien/lo bueno. This means that in this cases an
adjective is nominalized by marking it accusative (which is a very natural way to do this,
since Quechua has no article.). I need to ask Cerrn and check Escobar about this use in
Andean Spanish.

platanu ta mikhu sqa yki ta yacha ni (L&M 1988: 28)

banana ACC eat NMZ 2SG.POS ACC know 1.SG
I know that he has eaten a banana.

QUESTION: Is it OK to say platanu mikhusqaykita yachani? I will assume that the scope
of the case marker in the nominalized verb reaches the whole clause.

pi man Juan sara ta qu sqa n ta yacha nki chu? (L&M 1988: 31)
who ILL Juan corn ACC give NMZ 3SG.POS ACC know 2SG INT
Do you know to whom Juan gave the corn?

This is the affirmative version (in 1st person):

Juan Pidruman sarata qusqanta yachani.

QUESTION: Can I say Juanpa Pidruman sarata qusqanta yachani? What is the
difference with the senence above? What about Juanpa Pidruman sara qusqanta
yachani?

Juan pa pi man sara qu sqa n ta yacha nki chu. (L&M 1988: 32)
Juan GEN who ILL corn give NMZ 3SG.POS ACC know 2SG INT
(Do you know) to whom Juan gave the corn?

QUESTION: What is the semantic difference between these two sentences. I might ask
Marita using another kind of contrast in Spanish. What is the difference between the "half
full glass" and the "half empty glass". L&M (32) suggest that the difference is that this
form, with GEN and no ACC inside the IHRC is "more nominal" (heads an NP), while
the other version heads a VP. Maybe it is just because the lack of marking in sara is
compensated with the marking of Juan in the genitive.
Is it possible to have the following?

(affirmative form 1sg) Juanpa Pidruman sara qusqanta yachani

Piman Juanpa sara qusqanta yachankichu.
Piman Juan sara qusqanta yachankichu.

pi qpa ta yacha nki papa mikhu sqa n ta (L&M 1988: 40)

who GEN ACC know 2SG potato eat NMZ 3SG.POS ACC
Who do you know has eaten the potatoes?

QUESTION: Why is it necessary to have piqpata marked in ACC? Is it possible to have

piqpa yachanki papa mikhusqanta? If this is not possible, then it means that L&M
haven't considered that case floating might be a reinforcing element that guides the
comprehension of the hearer regarding the element asked about. My impression is that in
English (or Spanish) the barrier is more like a result of who can control the element
extracted (or how much the integration of the element extracted and the phrase that
contains is).

In chapter 6 L&M will deal with the interesting fact that the morphology related to
subject "RCs" is very different from other "object RCs". In fact, their point is very
interesting and I must take a close look: the class of object relations is very wide in
Quechua, it is not clean cut as in Spanish, where object means "direct object". There's in
Quechua an asymmetry of subject/non-subject that governs person marking. For L&M
this is related basically to what falls in the domain of VP (different objects and adjuncts, I
believe), and what falls into the domain of AGR (S level, which would be the subject, I
think).

Ima ta muna nki apa mu na y ta? (L&M 1988: 54)

what ACC want 2SG take CIS NMZ INF ACC
What do you want me to bring?

maqa y ta muna wa n.
hit INF ACC want 1OBJ 3SG
He wants to hit me.

QUESTION: Is there a difference when the object is inside the matrix and when it is in
the infinitive? Quiero verla / la quiero ver. Maybe this is one of those cases in which
there are two ways to present information, and since there's no possible semantic
distinction associated between those two, they keep working. However: quiero primero
verla y luego / * la quiero primero ver y luego This means that quiero ver should be
considered a unit for the clitic to be used, while quiero ver is querer + ver where the
infinitive has certain independence. The problem is that I can't find any semantic
importance to this distinction.

Are these possible?

nuqata maqayta munan.
wallpata mikhuyta munan.

Hamu nqa chay ta yacha ni. (L&M 1988 58)

come 3SG.FUT that ACC know 1SG
I know that he will come.

QUESTION: What is the kind of intonation pattern that hamunqa chayta yachani
follows. My impression is that is a juxtaposition, and there's a pause between hamunqa
and chayta.

papa yki suwa q (L&M 1988: 67)

potato 2SG.POS rob AG
someone who robs your potatoes (different from: "the thief of your potatoes")

papa yki mikhu na (L&M 1988: 67)

potato 2SG.POS NOM
in order to eat your potatoes (different from: food of (constisting in) your potatoes).

QUESTION: L&M state that inflectional NMZ can have a DO, while derivational NMZ
can't. So, are these possible?

papaykita suwaq riqsini. ("Yo conozco al que roba tus papas")

runa papaykita suwanqta riqsini. ("Yo conozco al hombre que roba tus papas")
runata papaykita suwanqta riqsini.

The main question is: when is it fine for a NMZ with q to use nominal agreement
(possessive suffixes)? I don't recall having those examples, and that might be related to
what Calvo said: generative linguists tend to put q in a different category.

Riqsi nki a chu [tiya ku na yki] wasi ta (1988: 74)

know 2SG already INT live REFL NOM 2SG.POS house ACC
Do you know already the house that you will live in?

QUESTION: Is it possible riqsikniachu qanpa / qan tiyakunayki wasita? What is the

difference between the form with genitive and that without genitive?

T'anta [qu wa sqa yki] mana allin hina chu ka sqa (74)
bread give 1OBJ NMZ 2SG.POS NEG good like NEG be PLUQ
The bread you gave me turned out not so good.

QUESTION: What about t'antata quwasqayki mana allin hinachu kasqa?

Mikhu naya wa y ta qallari ni. (74)

eat DESI 1OBJ INF ACC begin 3SG
I begin to get hungry (It begins to give me hunger).
awpaq [chaya mu q man mi] qulqi ta qu saq. (74)
first arrive CIS AG ILL EV money ACC give 1FUT
I will give the money to whoever arrives first.

QUESTION: Is chayamuq awpaqmanmi qulqita qusaq good? What about

awpaqmanmi chayamuq qulqita qusaq? My impression is that the last one won't be
possible. Maybe the main idea in the organization of case marking in CQ is based on the
"core sentence gram. rel" and, after that, the case marking relative to the matrix is
applied. However, this is not consistently supported by the data. The question is,
therefore, when is double case possible (it seems that it is with -sqa, les with na, and not
possible with q).

llamk'a q ku (74)
work AG PL
They used to work

QUESTION: This form is particularly odd! I haven't run into this meaning for the AG
before. Is Chay runakuna llamk'aqku (Those men used to work) possible? This is the
habitual past use of q (which uses the verb kay in ever person, except the third one). I
need to research more about it.

The use of a possessive marker in a nominalized NP with q points not to the subject, but
to the object. However, when the suffix is sqa, then the subject seems to be pointed out.
In fact, there's a passive construction, and with sqa the object has been promoted to
subject, so NOMZ with q and sqa still pick the (logical) object. If this is true, there's a
problem with for instance, Spanish "mi salida", where mi points to the doer of the salida
and no passive form is conceivable. Maybe the use of participle forms is restricted to
those verbs that have an unacussative (dynamic intransitives) meaning.

QUESTION:

How do you say in Quechua: T, que comes mucha carne, debes ver al medico: "qan,
ancha aychata mikhuq, hampiqman rikunan kashan"? What about "ancha aychata
mikhuniykiq hampiqman rikunan kashan"? (the last one should be bad, meaning
something like "The one that ate a lot of meat from me must see the doctor").

Use of ta as adverbial suffix:

allin manta (87)

good ABL
slowly

Allin lla taki nki (87)

good LIM sing 2SG
you sing well.
allin ta taki nki
good ACC sing 2SG
You sing well

QUESTION: L&M say that the comparision between ta and lla makes the first almost
a derivational marker. In fact, they say that not only ta, but man, -wan, and manta
participate in these kind of combinations. The important exception for this argumentation
is qpa (genitive). They argue (successfully) that the genitive is a clitic, and not a suffix
in Quechua. to me, it is interesting that these kind of uses for case suffixes is available in
Quechua, since this could be an explanation to those weird uses of ta in positions that
are not expected.

Pay wasi ta ruwa sqa n ta yacha -ni. (104)

He house ACC make NMZ 3SG.POS ACC know 1SG
I know that he built a house

QUESTION: How can I say "I know him, who built a house" Payta wasita ruwasqanta
yachani? This doesn't sound right to me, because riqsini would be used. Then, which one
is possible:

payta wasita ruwasqanta riqsini.

pay wasita ruwasqanta riqsini.
paypa wasita ruwasqanta riqsini.
paypa wasi ruwasqanta riqsini.

Runa hamu q ta riqsi ni (105)

person come AG ACC know 1SG
I know the man who is coming.

QUESTION: It is important to notice that this sentence is given as evidence that in

Quechua the case marker goes always at the end of the NP, and not attached to the head
of the NP. This seems interesting, since L&M proposed that ta is a case suffix (while
only the genitive is a case clitic). I think that in this case, it makes no sense to have
runata hamuqta riqsini since the case inside of the sentence is given as NOM for runa.
The case marking in the IHRC depends on the matrix verb. The solution L&M propose
for the problem of ta acting like a clitic, when it is really a suffix is given in terms of
"percolation".

Pay pa ta riku ni (105)

I see his (one)

Wasi hunt'a ta riku ni. (112)

house full ACC see 1SG
I see a full house

Allin ta rura sqa nki

good ACC do PLUQ 2SG
you have done well.

QUESTION: Does this also mean: "you have done the god one"?

Juan ta puri q ta riku ni. (114)

Juan ACC walk AG ACC see 1SG
I see Juan walking

QUESTION: Why is it that with perception verbs it seems to be mandatory to have

double ACC? Can we have Juan puriqta / puriqninta rikuni? Is this some kind of double
object? I suppose this can only be investigated under raising and control

misa qipa ta hamu saq (115)

mass back ACC come 1FUT
I'll come after mass.

wawki y ranti y ta hamu ni.

brother 1POS exchange INF ACC come 1SG
I've come instead of my brother.

QUESTION: Here I have more examples of the use of ta in adverbials. In fact, it is

interesting that rantiy, a verb, can be expressed also as an adverb (using a case marker).

paqarin ta allin ta chay ta ruwa nki. (117)

tomorrow ACC good ACC that ACC do 2SG
Tomorrow you will do that well.

CASE IN NOMINALIZED CLAUSES

QUESTION: According to L&M 118, the combination q (GEN) and -ta (ACC) is
ungrammatical inside of a nominalized clause. This means that

Juwanpa t'antata mikhusqan yachani is impossible.

The following combinations are possible (but it always depends on the kind of
nominalization used) (121):

SUBJECT OBJ
-q 0
0 -ta
0 0

1. Uses of sqa

a. Relative clause
Juan cha q runa riku sqa n wasi ta rura n. (118)
Juan DIM GEN person see NMZ 3SG.POS house ACC do 3SG
The man that Juan saw builds a house.

Runa qulqi ta qu sqa n warmi man chay ta ni rqa ni. (118)

person money ACC give NMZ 3SG.POS woman ILL that ACC say PAST 1SG
I said that to the woman to whom the person gave the money.

QUESTION
Is it possible to say: Runa qulqi qusqan warmiman chayta nirqani? What about a clearer
IHRC form like Runa warmiman qulqita qusqanta nirqani?

Is it possible to have SUBJ 0 and OBJ 0 with sqa? Something like:

Juancha runa rikusqan wasita ruran.

Runa papa mikhusqanta riqsini.

QUESTION: The combination 0 / -ta in relative clause is possible, but marginal.

b. Complement clause

-q / 0
kay warmi q qusa n maqa sqa n ta yacha ra nki chu? (119)
this woman GEN husband 3SG.POS hit NMZ 3SG.POS ACC know PAST 2SG INT
Did you know that this woman hit her husband?

0/0
kay warmi qusa n maqa sqa n ta yacha ra nki chu? (119)
this woman GEN husband 3SG.POS hit NMZ 3SG.POS ACC know PAST 2SG INT
Did you know that this woman hit her husband?

0 / -ta
Kay warmi qusa n ta maqa sqa n ta yacha ra nki chu.
this woman husband 3SG.POS ACC hit NMZ 3SG.POS ACC know PAST 2SG INT
Did you know that this woman hit her husband?

QUESTION: The combination 0 / -ta in complement clauses is possible, but marginal.

There's a tendency in having 0 subjects with nominalized intransitive verbs.

2. Uses of na

a. Relative clauses
GEN / 0
Qan pa runa riku na yki man rima sha ni. (119)
you GEN person see NMZ 2SG.POS ILL speak PROG 1SG
I speak to the man that you will see.

b. Complement clauses:

GEN / 0
Mariya q platanu ranti mu na ta yacha ni. (119)
Maria GEN banana buy CIS NMZ ACC know 1SG
I know that Maria will buy bananas.

0/-ta
Mariya platanu -ta ranti mu na ta yacha ni. (119)
Maria GEN banana buy CIS NMZ ACC know 1SG
I know that Maria will buy bananas.

c. Obligational clauses

GEN / 0
Qan pa ima pas ruwa na yki ka sha n. (119)
you GEN what ADD do NMZ 2SG.POS be PROG 3SG
you have to do something

- / -ta
ruwa sha na yki ima lla ta pas. (119)
do PROG NMZ 2SG.POS what LIM ACC ADD
You have to do something.

QUESTION: Is it possible to say Qan imatapas ruwanayki kashan (I think it is)? What
about Qan ruwashanayki imallatapas?
L&M say that 0/-ta in compl. clauses is marginal (as it was the case for sqa), while the
presence of ta in obligative constructions is also marginal (although that is not what
Aroz & Salas have in their examples, nor something I had learned). Finally, very
important, -ta is impossible in relative clauses with na. So, I have to ask if something
like
Mariyaq runata rikunanta riqsini
Qan pa runa ta riku na yki man rima sha ni
Qan runa -ta riku na yki man rima sha ni.

3. Uses of q

a. Relative clause 0/0

runa Mariya riku q (120)

person Maria see AG
The person that sees Maria
b. Rel Cl - / -ta

ua n kuna ta amacha q puma qa (120)

cub 3SG.POS PL ACC protect AG puma TOP
The puma which protects his little ones.

QUESTION: According to L&M the presence of ta is marginal in q nmzed clauses.

c. Perception clause
Juan cha ta [e ima pas ni q ta] riku ni. (121)
Juan DIM ACC what ADD say AG ACC see 1SG
I see juan say something

Juan cha tai [ei ima ta pas ni q ta] riku ni. (121)
Juan DIM ACC what ACC ADD say AG ACC see 1SG
I see Juan say something

QUESTION: The difference between those two previous sentences is not very clear in
L&M. They say that the second one has a verb with raised subject. I have copied the
notation for empty categories they use. As far as I can understand, the very notion of
"raising" as happening in the second sentence involves that Juancha was a subject to
imatapas niq, where it was marked 0 (NOM). We know that a q nominalization can
have a subject present in the IHRC/EHRC. This means that the extraction makes Juancha
the DO of rikuni. But this doesn't say anything about the previous sentence, in which
Juanchata was also ACC, but it was not considered to have been extracted from the
nominalized clause. My only guess for the structure of that sentence, with no extraction
but ACC marking, is that it should be considered an apposition of the kind: "I see
[JuanDO], [the one that says something]DO. The lack of ACC in imapas (which is normally
expressed imatapas, 'something') has to be explained as the common absence of ACC in a
"free relative" with q. (Although, L&M say that ta objects are possible, but marginal).
Still this means that there's a systematic absence of ta in q clauses unless extraction,
which means that the following must be possible and most common: Juancha imapas
niqta rikuni, which is NOT like Juanchata imapas niqta rikuni, while Juancha imatapas
niqta rikuni should be possible, but marginal.

Also, perception clauses, comp. movement verb, and past habitual q clauses always
have an empty subject.

d. Complement of movement verb: e / 0

e ima ruwa q mi Pidru ri n (121)

what do AG EV Pedro go 3SG
Pedro goes to do what?

QUESTION: L&M assume that the q clause has an e subject, but they don't say
anything about how it gets interpreted. It seems that the q clause is a complement that
can't take an object with ta. How can this be? This implies reviewing the literature about
"reduced clauses", and, of course, control and raising (since the question is: does the q
clause has a logical subject that is the same as that of the matrix? If not then I should look
for the answer in a comparison between the goal expressed with q and all the other
possible goals in quechua).

Is it possible to have Pedro papata rantiq rishan. Aroz & Salas don't have ACC for this
goal with q constructions. If this is tru, then WHY???

e. Habitual past clause: e / 0

papa mikhu q ka ra ni (121)

potato eat AG be PAST 1SG
I used to eat potatoes.

e / -ta (Restructured verb (?))

Papa ta mikhu q ka ra ni. (121)
potato ACC eat AG be PAST 1SG
I used to eat potatoes. (I was a potato eater)

QUESTION: Again, L&M assume that the q clause has no subject. In other words, they
are presented as nominalized forms, but their syntax, as those authors stated (121) "is
different". The subject in the previous sentence is clear fro the matrix (-ni), however, in
the q clause we have that no subject is present, and maybe not even possible (that's why
L&M said that in this kind of sentences the subject position is ALWAYS empty). Again,
this is a very interesting kind of complement and, as such, it should be considered (not
the kind of complement of verba dicendi, verba cogitandi or a relative clause.

QUESTION: The notion of "restructured verb" is not clear at all to me. Maybe it is a left
dislocation? Or maybe this suggests that the clause papata mikhun became papata
mikhuq, so the ta was already there whent the restructuration took place. Not clear! I
don't think L&M are using restructuring in the sense of Rizzi's "restructuring verbs" (voy
a verlo / lo voy a ver).