| (62) |
|
ram ne svayam mohan ko hari se milvaya
i i,j
j
ram
CM himself mohan CM hari CM introduce+PAST
(Ram
introduced Mohan himself to Hari.)
|
| |
|
|
| (63) |
|
ram
ne mohan ko svayam hari se milvaya
i i,j
j
ram
CM mohan CM himself hari CM introduce+PAST
(Ram
introduced mohan to Hari himself.)
|
| |
|
|
| (64) |
|
ram ne mohan ko hari se svayam milvaya
i i
ram
CM mohan CM hari CM himself introduce+PAST
(Ram
introduced Mohan to Hari himself.) |
| |
|
|
|
| (61) is different from (62) - (64) in that
whereas in the latter the predicate is a three-term one,
in the former it is a two-term one. (59) - (61) are ambiguous
in the way indicated by the coindexing. In one interpretation
svayam's antecedent is the agent. In the other,
it is the argument that svayam immediately procedes.
This shows why (64) is unambiguous. Svayam here
does not precede any argument; hence, it only chooses
the agent as its antecedent. Based on the above, we have
(65) expressing the antecedent choice of svayam: |
| |
| (65) |
|
(i)
svayam's antecedent is the agent.
(ii)
svayam's antecedent is the argument that it immediately
precedes.
The
dative subject construction (66) provides support
to (65) (ii):
|
| |
|
|
| (66) |
|
svayam ram ko mohan bahut pasand
hai
i i
himself ram CM mohan very much like be+PRES
(Ram himself likes Mohan very much.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
