LINGUIST List 13.2093

Thu Aug 15 2002

Qs: Farsi "se", Nested Restructuring

Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <karenlinguistlist.org>


We'd like to remind readers that the responses to queries are usually best posted to the individual asking the question. That individual is then strongly encouraged to post a summary to the list. This policy was instituted to help control the huge volume of mail on LINGUIST; so we would appreciate your cooperating with it whenever it seems appropriate. In addition to posting a summary, we'd like to remind people that it is usually a good idea to personally thank those individuals who have taken the trouble to respond to the query.

Directory

  1. Keith Briggs, Origin of Farsi 'se' for 3?
  2. Eva-Maria Remberger, Nested Restructuring

Message 1: Origin of Farsi 'se' for 3?

Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 07:47:13 +0000
From: Keith Briggs <Keith.Briggsbt.com>
Subject: Origin of Farsi 'se' for 3?

Can anyone explain the origin of Farsi 'se' for 3? The standard IE
texts seem to omit this. Is it related to 'tri'?

Language-Family: Indo-European; Code: IE
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

Message 2: Nested Restructuring

Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 06:35:29 +0000
From: Eva-Maria Remberger <erembergspinfo.uni-koeln.de>
Subject: Nested Restructuring

Dear linguists,

studying the well-known restructuring phenomenon with modal and
aspectual verbs and verbs of motions in Italian (Rizzi, 1982, Burzio
1986) I encountered a problem especially due to the widely
contradictory or inconsistent judgements given to me by my informants.
The following examples are the ones commonly quoted to demonstrate how
nested restructuring constructions work in Italian.

(1) Maria li avrebbe voluti andare a prendere lei stessa.
(2) *Maria li sarebbe voluti andare a prendere lei stessa.

Example (1) is quoted as grammatical by Burzio (1986:367/8) and by the
Grande Grammatica di Consultazione by Renzi/Salvi
(vol.II,519). Nevertheless my informants deny its grammaticality
whereas they find (2) (almost) acceptable, which Burzio (1986) does
not. These examples are also the ones quoted to demonstrate that, in
a restructured context of nested restructuring verbs with clitic
climbing, auxiliary selection is dependent on the deepest embedded
verb. I would be very glad if somebody could give me a clearing hint
as to this data. Besides this, I would be especially interested in
the question as to whether there is any example which allows
restructuring in a sequence of verbs which select AVERE-ESSERE-ESSERE
where the clitic climbs from the deepest embedded clause to the matrix
clause while the auxiliary selection will be ESSERE. I would be
grateful for any bibliographic hints as well as personal opinions
facing this problem.

Of course, I will be sending a summary to the list.
	
Thanks a lot,
Eva-Maria Remberger
									

Subject-Language: Italian; Code: ITN 
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue