| (31)
|
|
ram
ne shyam se [PRO khana khane ke liye] kaha
j
j
Ram CM Shyam CM PRO food eat+CM say+PAST
(Ram asked Shyam to dine the food.)
Our analysis of (29) is as follows:
|
|
| |
| apna chooses the agentive PRO as its
antecedent and PRO, chooses both ram and shyam as its
antecedents. Thus, apna refers to both ram and
shyam indirectly. However, the interpretation in which
apna refers to shyam and PRO refers to ram
is ruled out on the basis of the semantics of the matrix
verb bula, which imposes strict non-identity between
its agent and the agent of the embedded NP, PRO in this
case, and of the "togetherness" noun sath,
which imposes strict non-identity between the agent of
the embedded NP and the NP in its specifier position.
Notice that if apna referred to shyam in
(29), the sentence would have had the following anomalous
interpretation: |
| |
| X called Y for Y to eat with Y |
| |
| Similarly, if PRO referred to ram, the sentence
would have the following interpretation: |
| |
| X called Y for X to eat with X |
| But this is bizzare. |
| Turning to (30), the embedded constitutent
here contains the verb-based noun chalna. Chalna,
as used here, has the sense of "togetherness"
just as the head noun sath has in (29). Given below
is another instance in which chalna has the sense
of "together". The anaphor apna which
occurs in (30) does not occur here, but this is really
of no significance for showing that chalna expresses
"togetherness" in certain instances of its occurrence. |
| |
| (32) |
|
ram ne shyam se [PRO picnic par chalne
j
j
ram CM shyam CM PRO picnic CM accompany
ke liye] kaha
CM invite+PAST
(Ram
invited Shyam to accompany him to the picnic.)
|
|
| |
| The meaning of (32) is not that shyam
goes to the picnic alone; it is an invitation or request
to shyam to accompany ram to the picnic.
If shyam were to go alone, then, ja (go),
not chalna (accompany), would have been used in
the sentence. |
