Scrambling out of embedded clauses and coordinate structures.
Constructed metadata and inserted orth tier.
Transcoded IPA; corrected sixty typos in orth.
Annotation; fixed problems with tagging of pronouns and -ganliq.
Fixed tagging errors, updated to Uyghur Latin.
Updated doc tags and checked; fixed orth.
checked and corrected all misspelling!
spelling and glossing edits
In this context, 'who' asks an indirect question.
Who cannot be scrambled from the embedded clause in this case.
Both 'who' and 'what' form indirect questions in this context.
'What' cannot be scrambled from embedded clause in this case. Possibly because it is not marked with accusative case.
Is this grammatical? 'Kim' doesn't have case here, which typically is banned in -ganliq constructions. (TM, AD)
Check for grammaticality of 'kim' without case.
The wh-expressions 'who' and 'when' form indirect questions here.
Only ungrammatical if qachan is interpreted inside the embedded clause.
Indirect question.
Indirect question.
Neme cannot be scrambled from embedded clause without accusative case.
Indirect question.
Indirect question. Temporal adverbs can be adjacent to one another at the matrix/embedded clause boundaries.
It is permissible to prepose the entire embedded clause before the matrix subject. This is still an indirect question.
Relative clause with mismatching tenses between matrix and embedded clauses.
Some wh in-situ languages allow questions to be asked inside relative clauses. This question is not possible in English, and at least in this context is not permitted in Uyghur either.
In a context where the speaker knows that numerous people were hit yesterday and expects to see at least one of them today, this question is felicitous. A question can be asked of the head noun in a passivized relative clause.
This is expected, because the wh-question could not be asked in-situ inside the relative clause, but I checked just to be sure. The question cannot be formed in English.
This is grammatical as a tag question. The answer would be 'the man that you you hit yesterday'.
Base sentence: I inserted a locative adjunct into the relative clause.
The locative adjunct is given matrix scope, even though it is inside the relative clause.
Extremely unnatural and unlikely to occur in actual discourse. (AD)
The object wh-expression cannot be fronted here.
Pause preferred over conjunction in this sentence.
Wh-question can be asked in second conjunct.
WH-adjunct cannot be fronted and be interpreted with second conjunct.
Speaker says this construction is acceptable, but very rare in natural discourse. This question cannot be formed in English.
This question cannot be formed in English, but is acceptable in Uyghur.
Wh-expression cannot be scrambled without accusative case.
The question can be formed in either conjunct.
WH-expression cannot be extracted from second conjunct.
Two embedded clauses select for the same object.
Tag question - Answer is food.
Tag question - Answer is 'for the party'.