Embedded questions and their extraction properties.
final edits
Created metadata and inserted orth tier.
Edited metadata, transcoded IPA, and corrected 35 typos in orth.
Annotated and added comments for each line in document.
Fixed tagging of pronouns and ganliq-
Updated and checked doc.
checked all and corrected misspelling and mistegging
MD edits, spelling corrections
Nominalized embedded clause with 'why'-type adjunct.
Neme uchun takes matrix scope inside this embedded clause.
Speaker also offered neme seweptin as an alternative to neme uchun.
This construction is rare according to the speaker, but is acceptable if placing emphasis on the matrix subject.
Kimning takes matrix scope in this construction.
When a question is present, this construction becomes marginally acceptable. The interpretation still places focus on the matrix subject, but is difficult to comprehend when it coincides with a question.
This question must be answered in pair-list format, but is pragmatically strange because of the first person singular subject.
Extraction of wh-object is acceptable even out of a nominalized embedded clause, as long as accusative case-marking is present. This focuses the wh-object. Still requires a pair-list answer.
This is an affirmative construction, and should not end in question mark.
The adjunct wh-expression cannot be extracted from the embedded clause. This is potentially because case-marking cannot assist in interpreting this construction, unlike the case with accusative-marked objects.
This question cannot be asked in English, but it is acceptable in Uyghur. The translation below appears to be a tag question, but this is not actually the case. A closer translation would be 'Who will you see tomorrow that hit the man yesterday?' | kor- should be kör- in orth, kør- in ipa.
Interesting that the head noun maqala 'article' receives genitive case.
In English, questions cannot be asked where the wh-expression originates inside an embedded clause, but this is acceptable in Uyghur. When corresponds with the time that Tursun wrote the article here.
Also a question that cannot be asked in English, because the wh-adjunct corresponds to the event in the embedded clause.