| (50) |
|
ram ne teacher se PRO jaldi ghar jane ki
ram CM teacher CM PRO early home go+Nom CM
anumati permision magi + PAST
(Ram asked the teacher to be allowed to go home
early)
|
| |
|
|
| (51) |
|
un
admiyo ko PRO ek dusre ke bare
those
men CM PRO each other CM about
kahania
kharab lagi
stories
bad feel +PAST
(Stories
about each other upset those men)
|
| |
|
|
| (52)
|
|
ram
ke liye PRO apna kam samaya part
ram
CM PRO self 's work time CM
khatm
karna avashyak hai
finish
do+Nom important be
(Finishing
his work on time is important for Ram)
|
| |
|
|
| (53) |
|
ram ne mohan se PRO picnic par chalne ke liye
ram
CM Mohan CM PRO picnic CM go+NOM CM
kaha
say
+PAST
(Ram
asked Mohan to come for the picnic) |
| |
|
|
|
| |
As
pointed out earlier, (44) is ungrammatical because PRO
does not receive an antecedent. In (45) and (46), P
is the extraposed S in which PRO is antecedent-free
as predicted. 
is the root S. PRO, as pronominal, would receive the
non-mukhya as its antecedent in
In (45), then PRO can be assigned the non-mukhya
mohan as antecedent. However, PRO, as an anaphor
does not receive an antecedent within its P and cannot
search for an antecedent beyond the CP* (which in (45)
is effectively the P). That is, as anaphor it cannot
get an antecedent. Thus PRO remains uninterpreted which
is why (45) is ungrammatical. In (46), PRO as a pronoun
is to be free in P which is the constituent [PRO…
khilana], in
which is the constituent [maine.. mushki] hoga, there
is no non-mukhya for the PRO to choose as an
antecedent as a pronoun and beyond the ,
it can choose any argument as its antecedent. Thus,
it chooses the mukhya unhone as its antecedent.
However, as an anaphor PRO does not get an antecedent
within the P because the only possible antecedent within
the P is singular mai whereas the antecedent of ek dusre
must be plural. But in order to be interpreted an anaphor
must be assigned an antcedent maximally within the .
Since this condition is not fulfilled in (46), the sentence
is ungrammatical. In (47), P is [PRO ghar jana] in which
PRO as a pronoun is free as desired. P' is the root
S. As pronominal PRO could have choosen the non-mukhya
in P' as its antecedent. However, P' does not contain
a non-mukhya. But then a pronoun need not have
its antecedent within S; hence, nothing is lost hereby.
As anaphor, PRO can choose the mukhya in P',
us, as its antecedent and it does so. Therefore, the
sentence is grammatical. |
|
|
|
