164 A Conpirion on Quannirters 1w Loatcat Form Ignacio Bosque, Universidad Complutense de Madrid Juan-Carlos Moreno, Universidad Autonoma de Madrid SQUIBS AND Discussion Consider the following ungrammatical sentence: (1) $I do not know [s- who; [s ¢; to go to Paris]} In the Government-Binding framework this sentence would be automatically excluded. Im (1) who is in an A-position, to which it should have moved retaining the Case of its trace. But its trace has no Case, since there is no Infl or any other possible Case assigner. The ungrammaticality of (1) thus follows directly from Case theory. Sentence (1) is equaliy ungrammatical in Spanish, but it becomes perfectly grammatical if, instead of quién ‘who’, we use quiénes (plural of quién): @) *No sé quién ir a Parts. (=) @) Nosabemos quienes ir a Paris, we do not know whe (pl.) to go to Paris ‘We do not know who of us should go to Paris.’ We think that sentence (3} is particularly interesting, not only because it raises a probleta for Case assignment, but also be- cause there is no word for quiSnes in English, Italian, French, German, Russian, or perhaps many other languages. We will offer a possible explanation for these facts. Chomsky (1981, 22) :rgues that who is a “quasi quanti- fier"—in other words, thar there is a certain relation between who in Comp and a quantifter that binds a variable in its domain. We also believe that Spanish quién and quiénes behave. like quantifiers. Notice that caintos ‘how many’ works exactly like - quiénes in (3). Thus, (4) is a perfectly grammatical sentence: @) Nosabemos cuéntos ir a Paris, we do not know how many to go to Paris “We do not know how many of us should go to Paris.” Quantifiers are the heads of NPs and are restricted by other categories. Consequently, it is important to emphasize that quantifiers do not work like determiners: That is, they do not modify the noun, adjective, or adverb with which they are con- structed; instead, the situation is exactly the reverse. For in- stance, cudntos in (4) may te restricted by acommon noun such as jugadores ‘players’, which is not an NP in itself (cf. *7Cudn- 10s ellos? “How many they”). An important difference between cudntos *how many’ and guiénes is that the latter cannot be niodified by a common noun or an adjective: because it has the We would like to thank Luigi Rizzi and Esther Torrego for many useful observations, Needless to say, all errors are ours. ©SQUIBS AND DISCUSSION —_ status of a personal pronoun and cannot be restricted: (5) a. Nosabemos cudntos de los jugadores we do not know how many of the players ir a Parts. ; to go to Paris “We do not know how many of the players should go to Paris.’ b. No sabemos cudntos jugadores ir we do not know how many players to go a - Paris. ‘to Paris ‘We do not know how many players should go to Paris.” (© a. No sabemos quiénes de los jugadores ir we do not know who(pl.) of the players to go a Paris. to Paris “We do not know who of the players should go to Paris.” ‘b. *No sabemos —quiénes jugadores ir we do not know who(pl.) players . to go a Paris. - to Paris ‘We do not know who players should go to Paris.” From a logical point of view, nouns that modify quantifiers re- strict the. range of thé variables they bind, as in (5b). On the contrary, an NP introduced by de ‘of’ identifies the range of the variables that the quantifier binds, as in (Sa). We claim that the difference between (2) and (3) is, in essence, the same as the difference between such NPs as (7a) and (7b): @) a. *quién de mi who(sing,) of me b. quiénes de nosotros who(pl.) of us First of all, (7a) is ungrammatical, in our opinion, because de mi ‘of me’ identifies the range of the variables bound by the quantifier, and this set has only one element. Therefore, the identification is vacuous. We introduce the following condition on logical form to account for those facts: (8) *Q (de) NP, where NP refers to only one element. ‘This condition is simply a refinement of May's (1982, 64) con- dition on quantifiers. Our analysis of (2) and (3) according to (8) is as follows. Suppose that every Q has an NP modifier that identifies the range of the variabies that it binds. This NP is not assigned Case by Q, soa preposition is required. In (2) and (3) the quantifiers166 SQUIBS AND DISCUSSION quién and quiénes would be modified by an empty category [yp @] that identifies the range of the variables bound by those quantifiers. In these cases, [wp a] would be coindexed with the subject of the main verb: (9) NP;.....-.Q twee) Condition (8) accounts for the ungrammaticality of (2), since « would be coindexed with yo ‘I’. Our analysis explains why quiénés in (3) cannot mean quiénes de vosotros ‘who(pl.) of you(pl.)’ or quiénes de ellos ‘who(pl.) of them’. It also explains very simply the grammaticality of (10a) in the sense of (10b), (10) a. No sabemos quién ir a Paris, ‘We do not know who(sing,) (of us) should go to Paris.” “b. No sabemos quién de nosotros ir a Paris. “We do not kuow who(sing.) of us should go to Paris." since the subject of sabemos in (10a) is coindexed with the. empty category (EC) that follows quién. Our proposal also accounts for sentences such as (11), in which the EC after quiénes is coindexed with yo ‘I’. (1) *Yo no sé quiénes ir. ‘I do not know who(pl.) should go.’ (8) automatically rules out (11) as ungrammatical. ‘The prohiem raised by. sentence (3) can be related to a very interesting fact about Spanish that traditional grammarians have repeatedly pointed out: plural NPs may agree in person with the verb in Spanish. That is, contrary to English, Spanish (ap- parently) does not require apposition in these structures: (12) a. Los jugadores queremos ir a Paris. “We the players want to go to Paris.” b. Los jugadores queréis ir a Paris. *You the players want to go to Paris," ¢. Los jugadores quieren ir a Paris, “The players want to go to Paris. One way to relate (3) and (12) is to say that (3) involves a Q modified by an EC and (12) an EC with an appositive. (We are indebted to Luigi Rizzi for this observation.) We believe, too, that ECs can also have relative clauses, as in (13):! : (13) a. quienes estamos aquf ‘those of us who are here’ Plann (1978, ch. Ill) offers some arguments for leaving the head of free relative clauses with quien empty.Apstract SYMMETRY an Cuinese VERSE Matthew Y.Chen, University of California, San Diego - Plann, S. (1978) Relat SQUIBS AND DISCUSSION 167 b. quienes estéis aquf “those of you who are here’ ~ ¢. quienes estén aqui ‘those (of them) who are here" ‘The fact that this EC cannot be filled in (13) ("los jugadores quienes queremos ir the players who(pl.) want(2nd pl.) to £0") is independently explained by Kayne’s (1976, 272) well-sup- ported relative deletion rule for French and subsequent sub- Stitution by a’ complementizer. Kayne’s analysis can,be auto- matically extended to Spanish. Two-important questions remain to be answered. First, must sentence (1) be excluded in English grammar at the S- ‘structure level (that is, prior to LF)? We think not, since, as we have shown, sentence (2) is only properly excluded at LF. ‘We believe that the problem sentence (1) poses for Case theory must be related to Kayre’s proposal for exceptional Case as signment in Comp (see Chomsky (1981, 174, 295)). Second. ¢x- actly which of the available ECs appear in (9), (12), and (13)? Both questions require further investigation. References e Chomsky, N. (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht. Kayne, R. (1976) “Freach Relative que,” in M. Lujén and F. Hensey, eds., Current Studies in Romance Linguis- tics, Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC., 259-299. May, R.C. (1982) The Grammar of Quantification, Indiana Uni- versity Linguistics Club, Bloomington, Indiana. Clauses in Spanish without Overt An- jecedents and Related Constructions, University of Cali- fornia Press, Los Angeles, California. Details aside, the basic rhyming scheme in modern Chinese verse requires that the rhyming words match in the second half bf the syllable starting from the syllabic nucleus. Thus, lexical ftems like [pan, tian, k’uan, téyan] and (kag, siag, huag} con- Mlitute two legitimate rhyming sets, ending in (-an] and (-a], respectively. Similarly [mai] rhymes with {kuai] and (tau with {niau]. On the other hand, none of the following pairs are Fon sidered rhyming partners: (kag, kop], {suan, suon], (lau, oul, [huai, huei). The necessary and sufficient common denominato® of a rhyming set can then be defined as the shared -VX, where ¥ = syllabic nucleus and X = coda, which consists of an op- tional nasal (n.0) of offglide (iu). Curiously, however, syllables Tike (mon, lin, suan, tS'yn] are allowed to rhyme with each other,