15 Okt What The Meaning Of Agreement In Marathi
None, Stefan. 2013. On the role of the movement in the Hindi/Urdu distance agreement. In Stefan Keine & S. Sloggett (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 42, Vol. 1. 273–284. Amherst, MA: GLSA. In (3.a) the transitive verb “to read” takes the ergative subject and the verb coincides with the unmarked object “paper”. In (3.b) the subject of the intransitive verb is `go` in the nominative case and therefore the subject `Mira` controls the correspondence of the verb. In (3.c), however, the animated subject of the intransitive verb assumes an ergative case. Because there is no unmarked argument in this sentence, the verb indicates the default match.
Diercks, Michael. 2013. Indirect agreement in the Lubukusu Supplementary Agreement. Natural language and linguistic theory 31(2). 357–407. DOI: doi.org/10.1007/s11049-013-9187-7 One of the reasons for not adopting feature dispersion and cyclic correspondence analysis as they are is that it does not extend to other Marathi LDA instances, or even to the standard monoclesal correspondence of principal and auxiliary leases. Note that in (19), the embedded unfinished verb does not match its argument, while the matrix verb matches it, resulting in LDA. Also in (20), the form of the aspectal participle of the main sb does not coincide with the subject, while the excipient of the past does. I guess the PRO argument for an agreement is invisible (Davison 1991). Therefore, the built-in Mood0 cannot match the external pro argument and needs to be further investigated.
It locates the internal argument (optionally moved to the edge of vP) as a target. This is shown by the probe (1). In another case, this form occurs on two negative aids – nɑhi, which is a present negative form, and also the standard segation in Marathi, and nəko, which is the negative/desirative imperative (expresses the meaning “not wanting/needing”). The -s- attached to these negations also participates in the agreement. These negatives seem to be transformed into adjectives by the addition of -s-, especially the form nəko-s, as can be seen from (24.c). Unlike -s, the morpheme -t̪ in a subjunctive sentence does not match the verb to two arguments. However, it can still be shown that -t̪ deviated from the standard chord and comes from the second slot in the chord. See (9) below. Therefore, I gloat -t̪ separately. In a variety of Hindi Urdu discussed by Bhatt (2005), it is shown that LDA is optional and is characterized by a co-variation of matrix and embedded verb correspondence: either the two verbs correspond to the embedded object, or both do not match and show a standard match.
However, LDA on the subjunctive theorem in Marathi is not optional. There is also no dependence between the correspondence of the embedded verb and that of the matrix verb. As seen in (11), the verb embedded in the subjunctive corresponds to its own argument locally, whether LDA takes place or not. However, the correspondence of the matrix receptor varies with the presence of the -s- shape and its correspondence. The -s- form is required to match the embedded object. And in this case, the matrix reference must also match the embedded object. In (12.a), -s- is the embedded object, unlike the matrix reference. In (12.b), while the matrix receiver matches, -s- does not match. In (12.c), neither -s- nor the matrix reference match the embedded object. All these strings are unacceptable.