| (34) |
|
uska ghar jana thik nahi hai he
CM home go+Nom proper NEG be+PRES
(His
going home is not proper)
|
| |
|
|
|
us
occurs in the same position in the ka-na construction
in (34) in which PRO occurs in (24). If the position
were ungoverned then us should not have got case
and (34) should have been ungrammatical. But it is not
so. Thus, the position in which PRO occurs in (24) may
be best treated as a governed position, governed by
the CM ka. The phrase then is of the category
CP and not NP. Now, since PRO is in a governed position
in (24) and this occurrence of PRO is legitimate, one
would have to take recourse to special devices such
as the following: The CM ka of the ka-na
construction optionally governs its complement position,
or ka is a "weak" governor (Geetha;
1985) or PRO gets inherent case in a special way (Chomsky;
1986). Each of these is clearly ad hoc. In short, we
cannot find a satisfactory account of the occurrence
of PRO in (24) in the GB framework. |
We
have treated (CM=) C as a governor and the NP to which
it is attached is its complement. This is in complete
conformity with the theory of GB. Now, the position
in which PRO occurs in (25) - (27), (29) and (32) is
governed by the CM ko, se, dwara, ko and ka
respectively. Hence, these occurrences of PRO are illicit,
and the traditional theory of PRO correctly accounts
for the ungrammaticality of the relevant sentences. |
In
(28), PRO occurs in the subject position of a small
clause. This position is assigned the nominative case
as shown in (35): |
| (35) |
|
 |
| |
|
him
(He
appeas to be intelligent to Ram)
|
| |
|
|
|
voh
here is in the subject position of the small clause
voh akalmand and it is in the nominative case.
According to the traditional theory this would be an
instance of "Exceptional Case Marking", where
the verb assigns Case to the NP in the subject position
of the small clause. However, the verb cannot assign
Case to voh in (35) because the verb can assign
only the oblique case and not the nominative case. |
Nominative
case can be assigned by INFL (AGR in INFL). One way
to account for the assignment of nominative case to
voh in (35) would be to lower the INFL (there
being no INFL in small clause): |
