| In (46), the ne phrase is the agent
and is the antecedent of paraspar. In (47), un
dono is again the agent and the antecedent of paraspar.
In (48) and (49), which are the so-called dative subject
constructions and in which ram aur shyam bears
the perceiver theta-role, paraspar cannot choose
ram aur shyam as its antecedent. As a result, in
these sentences paraspar remains uninterpreted,
which is why they are ungrammatical. If we want to extent
(15) to cover N.A-anaphors, we have counter-examples in
(48) and (49). Compare the following now. In each there
is a me phrase and there is an occurrence of paraspar.
Why then is (51) ungrammatical? |
| |
|
| In the ungrammatical sentences the predicate
is one expressing feeling and in the grammatical ones,
it is one that expresses some activity . Thus in (50)
un dono is agentive whereas in (51) it is non-agentive.
From this we conclude (52) below: |
| |
| (52)
|
|
paraspar
chooses the agent alone as its antecedent.
Now
consider:
|
| |
|
|
| (53) |
|
*[ram
aur mohan] ne paraspar sita aur
i
i
ram and mohan CM among themselves sita and
gita ko pasand kiya
gita CM choose do+PAST
|
|
|
|
|
