We expect pronouns to accept short-type fall markers based on marked noun forms. However, this expectation is not being met. The agreement (51) reflects the agreement between the place and the pronominal motive. In other words, this agreement "belongs" to the PP. On the other hand, in (52), the agreement reflects an internal relationship to ownership. The variation of the order of morpheme is therefore epiphenomenal: the concordance in (51) and (52) has different functions and belongs to different substantives (which belongs in (51) instead, while in (52) to the, the noun that projects the soil. A proposal on case interaction, agreement, tension and licensing for subjects, based on data from both adult language and language learning. PPs and possessive constructions have much in common between languages. The adpositional elements that show a correspondence of possession with the ground are also present in several ural languages such as Khanty (Nikolaeva 1999:36), Mansi (Giant 2001:35) and Tundra Nenets (Nikolaeva 2014:ch. 8). Some Tzeltal (Maya) Ps is preceded by possessive markers (Svenonius 2006), and Welsh prepositions take possessive climates (a cross pattern, cf. Borsley et al.

2007). In many languages, Ground NP is marked in the same way as owners (see dekény 2011:139). The discussion of these languages does not go into the scope of this document. It is important that Hungarian PPS, beyond the morphological similarities, also have syntactic parallels with possessive structures, and that variation in the order of the case and ownership agreement must also be addressed. The result of the proposed analysis is that the suffixes of the agreement in (51) and (52) reflect two different possessive relationships. In Hungarian, the possessum agreement on the characteristics φ of the pronominal owners (the owners of lexical nouns do not trigger an agreement on the possessum). The agreement we find on bizarre pronouns is the same as the agreement on ordinary possessums. Compare the pronominal agreement in (10) with possessive agreement (11). Footnote 7 The most important thing is that Asbury does not adopt a possessive syntax for PPs. It takes the Ground DP for the object of the P (see p.

Share