Explores crossover effects with genitives and quantifier scope. Then investigates conjunctions compared to simultaneous and sequential events. Briefly looks at some additional embedded clauses.
Inserted metadata and orth tier.
checked orth.
Annotated and added comments for first 30 lines.
Finished annotating document.
Rechecked document.
look over and correct mistakes.
Changed to gender-neutral pronouns; edited English and ilg
Ürümchi from Urumchi
Fixed gender neutrality, some translations, and spelling.
Updated tags/orth.
Updated tags/orth.
checked and corrected all mistakes.
The direct object 'tamaq' can be possessed by subject wh-expression or it can be another person's food.
The subject wh-expression cannot possess the object 'tamaq'.
The subject wh-expression may possess 'brother'.
The brother may not be possessed by 'qaysi ademni'.
Interpreted as: for each boy, he has a mother that loves him.
Each boy has the same mother and she loves all of them.
In the adjunct, simultaneous construction, objects from either clause can be fronted. In the case of the conjunction, only the object from the first conjunct can be fronted.
The wh-expression cannot be fronted from the second conjunct.
Interpreted as eating polu on the book.
A pause can take the place of a conjunction.
Like with over conjuncts, an individual conjunct may not be fronted.
I am uncertain why this construction is ungrammatical, based on other ki clauses.
A ki clause cannot stand on its own.
Hichkim and u cannot be same person, meaning there there is obligatory coindexation between the object of the matrix clause and the subject of the ki clause.
Most naturally,both where the discovery and where the birth took place need to be answered.
Answer only contains the birthplace of the grandmother.
Even when wh-expression is fronted, question is still interpreted as an indirect question.
Eger is not obligatorily sentence-initial.
It is slightly less acceptable to have both subjects preceding eger.