| To
summarize, the main points in the chapter are as follows: |
| (56) |
|
PRO can occur in any argument position provided
|
| |
|
(i)
|
it obeys PRO Filter and it receives a proper antecedent
her receiving a proper antecedent means the followings: |
| |
|
|
a)
|
|
PRO
being a pronominal anaphor, chooses both mukhya
and the non-mukhya as its antecedents where both
are present in the sentence. |
| |
|
|
b) |
|
PRO may lose one of its antecedents because of
semantic or pragmatic considerations. When it
retains both, it has split antecedents. |
|
|
Notes |
| 1. |
|
we owe this observaton to Geetha (1986) |
| 2.
|
|
See
Chomsky's notion of "optional government"
(in Chomsky ; 1982 b: 3) |
| 3.
|
|
a
better version of the sentence would be the following: |
| |
|
(i) |
|
un admiyo ko ek durse ke bare me kahania sunana
those
men CM each other CM about CM stories hear+NOM
kharab laga
bad
perceive+PAST
(Those
men felt bad at hearing stories about each other).
|
|
|
|
|
