Notice
that in either case the configuration violates
the sub-categorization features of the verb
lag. As noted in Geetha ( 1986), the
verbs in Indian languages must be subcategorized
for the subject they take (more specifically,
whether they take a dative or a non-dative
subject). Part of the sub-categorization requirement
of the verb lag in the sense of "perceive"
or "appear" is that it takes only
the dative subject. Consider (21) and (22): |
| (21) |
|
ram
ko bhukh lagi hai
ram
CM hunger perceive copula+PRES
(Ram
is feeling hungry).
|
| |
|
|
| (22) |
|
ram
ko laga ki mohan naraz hai
ram CM appear COMP mohan angry coupla
be+PRES
(Ram felt that Mohan is angry)
|
|
Notice
that the structures (19) and (20) violate
this property of the verb and as such cannot
be the S-structure (or D-structure) representation
of (16). |
| |
Furthermore,
lag takes only two arguments as illustrated
in (21) and (22). According to (19) however,
it would take three arguments, and thus the
construction fails to reflect the S-selectional
properly of leg. |
| |
(20)
cannot be the correct S-structure (or D-structure)
representation of (16) also because the configuration
indicates that khush is predicated of ek dusre
, whereas it is actually predicated of ve.
(20) fails to capture this relationship between
ve and khush and imposes an incorrect relationship
between ek dusre and khush. Therefore, it
is not a possible S-structure (or D-structure)
representation of (16). |
| |
Indeed,
(18) is the correct configuration for (16)
and ve is not the subject of the sentence.
Since ve is the antecedent of the anaphor
ek dusre, it cannot be the case that in Hindi
the subject is the antecedent of anaphors. |
| |
