Investigates passivization of nominalized embedded clauses and matrix clauses, and various causative matrix verbs.
Inserted metadata and orth tier.
checked spellings.
I have annotated and provided comments for all 54 lines of this text.
Fixed glossing of pronouns.
checked, corrected and changed all seg tiers according to orth tiers
md edits; corrected usual gen, acc PN tagging errors; added/adjusted engsubstituted pauses for tildes.
Quotative inversion is acceptable.
Genitive case on the possessor is optional here.
Genitive case is obligatory on the possessor.
Genitive case is optional on possessor.
Genitive case is optional on possessor.
Even without a specific city, the possessor does not need genitive case.
Genitive case is optional on possessor in this construction.
The judgment without genitive case on possessor here was marginal. The speaker finds this construction slightly awkward.
Speaker says extraction of EC subject is permitted iff focus is placed on matrix subject.
The object can be fronted without any problems, as long as it carries accusative case-marking.
When fronting an adjunct PP, it may only be interpreted in the matrix clause, so this is ruled ungrammatical because it is pragmatically unacceptable to 'believe with meat'.
Unlike -ganliq phrases, EC subjects may be fronted without problems from dep phrases.
The object may also be fronted without any problems.
Ungrammatical because the PP adjunct cannot be interpreted with the matrix verb, and because the agreement on the embedded verb should be 3rd person singular.
Marginally acceptable if placing emphasis on Tursun.
The object can be scrambled from embedded clause.
The adjunct PP cannot be fronted and still be interpreted inside the embedded clause.
Dep is not permitted when the matrix verb is de- 'say'.
Subject may be fronted without problem from inside embedded clause.
EC object is fronted to left edge of sentence.
Adjunct PP cannot be interpreted inside EC.
The RC subject cannot be extracted across the matrix subject.
The head noun cannot precede the relative clause.
The DO of the RC cannot be fronted.
this sentence was starred as ungrammatical in the original elicitation by TM; GE says it is perfectly grammatical.
This is an attempt to embed 47.
This is a correction of 48 offered by the speaker.
Tursun cannot be fronted from within gerundival -maq phrase.
Nominative embedded subject cannot be fronted from within ki clause.
The direct object can be fronted from within a ki clause if it has accusative case.