<%BANNER%>

Loss of Infinitival Complementation in Romanian Diachronic Syntax

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021326/00001

Material Information

Title: Loss of Infinitival Complementation in Romanian Diachronic Syntax
Physical Description: 1 online resource (282 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Jordan, Maria
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: clitics, complementizers, control, infinitive, mood, obviation, particles, romanian, subjunctive, syntax
Linguistics -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Linguistics thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: For the most part, my study is a descriptive analysis of infinitival complement clauses and the corresponding subjunctive clauses in Romanian, that is, obligatory control (OC) structures. OC is a relation of obligatory co-referentiality between a matrix argument (controller) and the null subject of the subordinate (controlee) of the same sentence. An OC sentence constructed with infinitive is given in (1) and its corresponding subjunctive sentence appears in (2). (1) Radu a incercat (de) a deveni doctor. Radu has tried Comp Inf become doctor 'Radu tried to become a doctor.' (2) Radu a incercat (ca) sa devina doctor. Radu has tried Comp Sbj become.3sg doctor 'Radu tried to become a doctor.' Between the sixteenth century and roughly mid-twentieth century OC structures were available in both variants (with infinitive and subjunctive) but infinitival complements were on the brink of disappearance, thus diachronic analysis is necessary. The two types of complements are analyzed in parallel and their components, the elements of control, are described in order to designate their syntactic status. It will be found that the infinitival particle de is a complementizer (C element) and the particle a is the infinitival mood marker (I element). The subjunctive particle sa is also an I element. The null subject (controlee) in these OC structures combines the characteristics of PRO in the classical approach of control, thus I assign this status to it. In addition, the history of infinitive, besides its documentation value, is required to provide compelling evidence for the status of the infinitival particles a and de. Once these components are defined, a theoretical framework is to be found to reflect the infinitival and subjunctive OC structures. The two (opposing) theoretical approaches of obligatory control considered are Movement Theory of Control (MTC) and Agreement Model of Obligatory Control. Due to case mismatch between the controller and PRO, and the presence of lexical complementizers, especially in infinitive clauses, the MTC is rather unattractive. The Agreement Model of OC seems to better reflect the Romanian OC-type constructions.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Maria Jordan.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Miller, D. Gary.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0021326:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021326/00001

Material Information

Title: Loss of Infinitival Complementation in Romanian Diachronic Syntax
Physical Description: 1 online resource (282 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Jordan, Maria
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: clitics, complementizers, control, infinitive, mood, obviation, particles, romanian, subjunctive, syntax
Linguistics -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Linguistics thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: For the most part, my study is a descriptive analysis of infinitival complement clauses and the corresponding subjunctive clauses in Romanian, that is, obligatory control (OC) structures. OC is a relation of obligatory co-referentiality between a matrix argument (controller) and the null subject of the subordinate (controlee) of the same sentence. An OC sentence constructed with infinitive is given in (1) and its corresponding subjunctive sentence appears in (2). (1) Radu a incercat (de) a deveni doctor. Radu has tried Comp Inf become doctor 'Radu tried to become a doctor.' (2) Radu a incercat (ca) sa devina doctor. Radu has tried Comp Sbj become.3sg doctor 'Radu tried to become a doctor.' Between the sixteenth century and roughly mid-twentieth century OC structures were available in both variants (with infinitive and subjunctive) but infinitival complements were on the brink of disappearance, thus diachronic analysis is necessary. The two types of complements are analyzed in parallel and their components, the elements of control, are described in order to designate their syntactic status. It will be found that the infinitival particle de is a complementizer (C element) and the particle a is the infinitival mood marker (I element). The subjunctive particle sa is also an I element. The null subject (controlee) in these OC structures combines the characteristics of PRO in the classical approach of control, thus I assign this status to it. In addition, the history of infinitive, besides its documentation value, is required to provide compelling evidence for the status of the infinitival particles a and de. Once these components are defined, a theoretical framework is to be found to reflect the infinitival and subjunctive OC structures. The two (opposing) theoretical approaches of obligatory control considered are Movement Theory of Control (MTC) and Agreement Model of Obligatory Control. Due to case mismatch between the controller and PRO, and the presence of lexical complementizers, especially in infinitive clauses, the MTC is rather unattractive. The Agreement Model of OC seems to better reflect the Romanian OC-type constructions.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Maria Jordan.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Miller, D. Gary.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0021326:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





LOSS OF INFINITIVAL COMPLEMENTATION IN ROMANIAN
DIACHRONIC SYNTAX




















By

MARIA JORDAN


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2009



































2009 Maria Jordan
































To my beloved sons Florin and Razvan









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my committee members, Gary Miller, Eric Potsdam, Ann Wehmeyer

and Robert Wagman for their constant support and encouragement. I am especially indebted to

my supervisor and committee chair, Gary Miller, for inspiring and encouraging me to take the

challenge of historical linguist and guided me in my journey down to history of discovering

faded fragments of language. I also thank him for his invaluable comments and suggestions, for

his patience when reading my numerous and voluminous drafts and for always finding the time

to discuss them with me, including his prompt answers via e-mail, often during weekend time.

I thank Eric Potsdam who turned every stone, making me realize that without his

questions, comments and suggestions, many of my analyses included in my dissertation would

have been stipulative. I thank him especially for taking the time during his sabbatical and helping

me with the organization and the content of Chapter 5. In general, his guidance led to more

clarity and better organization of my dissertation.

I am grateful to Ann Wehmeyer who always supported me and for her course on Writing

Systems, which, besides the excellence of all her courses I took, created the opportunity for me

to gather some of the oldest Romanian books and documents, very useful for my dissertation.

I very much appreciate Robert Wagman's effort for taking the time to join my Committee

in spite of his busy schedule and his frequent travels abroad.

I am indebted to Idan Landau who answered with promptitude and grace my questions

regarding various aspects of control and about his Agreement Model of Obligatory Control.

I am grateful to the numerous native speakers of Romanian, my fellow Romanians, who

contributed to my dissertation with their expertise, whether by providing invaluable data or by

backing my judgment about some of the sentences of my Romanian data. I thank them all: The

seniors whose Romanian still includes infinitival complement clauses, my old and new friends,









those I met serendipitously, those I never met in person but answered my questions via e-mail. I

mention just a few here: Nick Jordan, Carmen Pavel, the General, the Iowan team, the

Transylvanians and the "Regat" group. I am also indebted to Bogdana Velterean, who found the

respondents for my empirical study on obviation, distributed the tests and gathered the answers

for me. I thank Adriana Ion for the old Romanian books she provided for me and I am also

grateful to the people from the Romanian Academy Library (Bucharest) who guided me through

the treasures they guard and preserve, while I was reading Romanian language samples from

forgotten times.

I thank Gary Miller, Ann Wehmeyer, and Ratree Wayland for their letters of

recommendation written on my behalf, which helped me win a good number of awards. The

financial support from these awards, among other things, allowed me to travel to Romania and

buy old Romanian books, invaluable sources for my documented data. I also thank Caroline

Wiltshire who made possible a Teaching Assistant position for me when I needed it the most,

and for her help in getting the McLaughlin Dissertation Fellowship.

For the other rewards, I thank the Center for European Studies of University of Florida and

especially the Office of Graduate Minority Programs, Graduate School, University of Florida.

Ultimately, I thank God for seeing me through it all in spite of all the misfortunes, which

troubled my life while I was working on this dissertation.









TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A CK N O W LED G M EN T S ................................................................. ........... ............. .....

L IST O F T A B L E S ............................................................................... 10

LIST OF ABBREVIATION S ..................................................................................... 11

A B S T R A C T ............ ................... ............................................................ 12

CHAPTER

1 IN TRODU CTION ....................................................... ................ .. ... .... 14

1 .1 B a c k g ro u n d ............................................................................................................. 14
1 .2 C o n tro l ................... ........ ........................................1 6
1.3 G oals and Organization of the Study ....................................................... ... ........... 20

2 FROM INFINITIVE TO SUBJUNCTIVE.................. ........... .....................23

2.1 Introduction ............. ... ..................23...................
2 .2 Infinitive v s. Subjunctive ...................................................................... .................. 25
2.2.1 Infinitive/Subjunctive M ood Components................................ ... ..................25
2.2.2 Structures with Infinitive and Subjunctive............................................27
2.2.2.1 Com plex tenses ...... ... ................................................... ..27
2.2.2.2 Im operative ................... ..................................... .. ................... 28
2.2.2.3 Subject ................................. .......................................... 28
2.2.2.4 R raising ......................................... .............................................28
2.2.2.5 A djuncts ................................. ................................... 29
2.2.2.6 C om plem ents to nouns ....................................................... 30
2.2.2.7 Complements to adjectives ................................................................31
2.2.2.8 Im personal expressions ................................. ...... ............ 31
2.2.2.9 Com plem ents to verbs ................................ .. ........................ 31
2.3 History of Infinitive ........................... ....... .. ..................................35
2.3.1 First Reinforcement: The Addition of the Proclisis a.................. ............ 36
2.3.2 Second Reinforcement: The Emergence of de......................................... 42
2.3.2.1 When was de added to the a-infinitive? ..........................................42
2.3.2.2 Why was the addition of de necessary? .......................... ...........43
2.3.2.3 W hy de? .............. ..... .. ............. .. .. ........ .. .................. 46
2.3.3 Addition of Other Prepositional Complementizers............... .................49
2.3.4 The Romanian Infinitive vs. Infinitives of Other Languages .........................52
2.4 D distribution of the Particle a ........................................ ..... ................. ............... 53
2.4.1 The V erb a Vrea 'to W ant' ........................................................................ 55
2.4.2 The Verb aPutea 'Can' .................................................... ................... 58
2.4.3 The Verb a ~ti 'to Know' ...............................................................61
2.4.4 The Verb a Avea 'to H ave' .......................................................................64


6









2.5 Causes of Infinitive Loss.................................................... ................... .....................67
2.5.1 L oss of Infinitive in G reek .................................................................... ..... 68
2.5.2 Infinitive-Subjunctive Alternation ........................................ ............... 72
2 .5.3 Internal F actors........... ............................................................ .. .... ...... 75
2.5.4 G reek Influence ................................. ... ............. .. .. ... .. .. ............ 78
2.5.5 On the Spread of Loss of Infinitive Complementation...............................82
2 .6 C o n clu sio n s ...................................... ................................................. 84

3 SUBJUNCTIVE COMPLEMENT CLAUSES ........................................... ............... 86

3 .1 Introdu action ............... ........... ...... .. ........................... ................. 86
3.2 Distribution of the Subjunctive Complementizer ca............................................... 91
3.2.1 D distribution of ca in O SR ............ .......................................... ...................91
3.2.1.1 Ca in OC-subjunctive structures......................................... 92
3.2.1.2 Ca in F-subjunctive structures ............. ..............................................94
3.2.1.3 Ca and obviation....................................... .............................. 96
3.2.1.4 Purpose clauses ........ .............................. .... .......................... 100
3.2.1.5 R required ca vs. prohibited ca ..........................................................101
3.2.2 D distribution of ca in CR ............. ................................ ......... ................. 102
3.2.2.1 Ca in subjunctive complement clauses....................................... 102
3.2.2.2 Ca in topic and focus context ................................. ............... 103
3.2.2.3 Ca in purpose clauses ............................................ ............... 104
3.3 Obviation in Contem porary Rom anian (CR).............................................................106
3.3.1 Approaches to Obviation in CR ............................................. ...............106
3.3.2 E m pirical Study .................................................... .. ........ .............. .. 111
3.4 Status of the Subjunctive Particle sc ....................................................................114
3.4.1 Stc as an Inflectional Element .............................. 115
3.4.1.1 A djacency to the verb ............................................... ............... 115
3.4.1.2 A special subjunctive complementizer exists............................. 116
3.4.1.3 W h-w ords can co-occur w ith s .......................................................117
3.4.1.4 St! co-occurs with complementizers ............................................... 118
3.4.2 St as a Com plem entizer....................................................... ............... 119
3.4.2.1 St heads an embedded clause ............. ................. ....................120
3.4.2.2 Stc in surrogate imperative constructions...................... ...............121
3.4.2.3 Negation placement ..... ..................... .................124
3.4.2.4 Clitic placement ................. ............. .....................126
3.5 Tense in Romanian Subjunctive Complements .................................. ...............130
3.6 Subject of Subjunctive Com plem ent Clauses ......... .............................................133
3.6.1 The OC-Subjunctive Complements Have PRO Subject.............................. 134
3.6.1.1 Basic properties of PRO ........... .............................................. 134
3.6.1.2 PRO permits only a sloppy reading under ellipsis.........................135
3.6.1.3 PRO supports only a de se interpretation ......................................136
3.6.2 The Subject of F-Subjunctives........................................................ .......... 138
3.6.3 A rbitrary PR O ...................................................... ......................... 145
3.7 Subjunctive Clauses are IP or CP clauses? ...................................... ............... 150
3.7.1 Subjunctive Clauses Resist Restructuring......................................................151
3.7.2 Subjunctive Complement Clauses and Complementizers.............................. 151









3.7.2.1 Subjunctive complements are CP clauses......................................152
3.7.2.2 Subjunctive complements are IP clauses.......................... ..............153
3.8 Conclusions ............... ........ ...................................... ......... 156

4 INFINITIVE COM PLEM ENTATION ..................................................... ...... ......... 158

4 .1 Intro du action ................................................................................ 15 8
4 .2 T he E m pirical P picture ........................................................................ ...................160
4.2.1 O SR D ocum ented D ata ................. ...... ..... ..... ... ................ ..................... 161
4.2.2 Non-Control Infinitival Structures in Use in OSR and CR...........................164
4.2.3 Contemporary (Recent) Data of Infinitival Complements.............................165
4.2.4. Infinitive Complement Clauses Introduced by Prepositions.........................166
4.2.5 P partial C control .......................................... .......................... 168
4 .3 Statu s of de ................ ................................... .......................... 170
4.3.1 Background ......... ............................................170
4.3.2 Arguments for the Complementizer Status of de ................. ... ............... 174
4.4 Status of the Infinitive Particle a ................ .. ...... .. ..................... 177
4.4.1 The Infinitive Particle as an Inflectional Head ............................................ 178
4.4.1.1 A djacency to the verb ............ ... ............. ....... .... ....... ......... 178
4.4.1.2 A-Infinitives occur with complementizers and wh-words ..............179
4.4.2. Infinitive M arker as a Complementizer .................................. ... ................ 181
4.4.2.1 A dverb place ent....................................... .......................... 181
4.4.2.2 Negation distribution ..... .................... ...............183
4.4.2.3 Infinitives and case................................ ... ........................ 184
4.5 Exhaustive Control (EC) and Partial Control (PC)....................................................187
4.5.1. Background ................................... ................ ......................187
4 .5.2 E C and P C v s. N O C ............................................................................... ... 189
4.5.2.1 Arbitrary control is impossible in EC and PC, possible in NOC......189
4.5.2.2 LDC is not allowed in EC or PC, but possible in NOC .................... 190
4.5.2.3 Strict reading of PRO under ellipsis is impossible in EC/PC........... 192
4.5.2.4 De re reading is impossible in OC, possible in NOC .......................193
4.6 PC C characteristics ................................. ................. ........... ......... 194
4.6.1 PC w ith Collective Predicates...................................................................... 195
4.6.1.1 PC w ith collective (se) verbs ...........................................................195
4.6.1.2 Predicates w ith together ........................................ ............... 197
4.6.2 Semantic vs. Syntactic Plurality ....................................... ...............199
4.7 Tense of Infinitival Complement Clauses .............. ..........................................201
4.7.1 EC Complements Have Anaphoric Tense.................... ............................. 201
4.7.2 PC Complements Have Dependent Tense ............................................... 201
4.8 IP or CP? .................. ........ ......... .. ...... ..... ................ ............ 202
4.8.1 Infinitival Complements Resist Restructuring .................................. 202
4.8.2 Infinitival Complement Clauses Can be Introduced by Complementizers.....204
4 .9 C on clu sion s ................................................................................................. ..... 2 0 5










5 TH EORETICAL FRA M EW ORK ............................................................. .....................206

5.1 Introduction ......................................................... ...................206
5.2 The Movement Theory of Control (MTC).....................................................208
5.2.1 The Tenets and Mechanism of the MTC ............................ ..................208
5.2.2 The MTC and Case (The Case of Icelandic)............................212
5.2.3 Problems with the MTC and the Case of OC PRO .............. ............... 217
5.2.3.1 Quirky case ........................ .......... .... ........ .... .. ........ .... 217
5.2.3.2 Icelandic OC PRO and structural case.........................................220
5.2.3.3 The lexicalization problem .................................... ............... 222
5.3 The MTC and OC in Romanian ............. .. ......... ..................... 225
5.3.1 PR O H as Standard C ase....................................................... ............... 225
5.3.2 On Raising Structures in Rom anian..................................... ............... 227
5.3.3 Structural C ase .......................... ............ .............. ..... ....... 230
5.3 .4 D default C ase ............. ................. ................ .................... 236
5 .3 .5 Q u irk y C a se ............................................................................................... 2 4 0
5.3.6. PR O is not a Trace ............................................. ................ ............. 245
5.3.6.1 Se-reflexivization.................. ........ ......................... 245
5.3.6.2 Lexical complementizers ............ ............................................. 246
5.4 Agreem ent M odel of Obligatory Control ...................................................................249
5.4.1 Features Involved in Agreement Model of OC..............................................250
5 .4 .1.1 [T ]en se featu res ..................................................... ....................2 50
5.4 .1.2 [A gr] features........... ................................ ...... ........ .... ......... 250
5.4.1.3 [R ] features .............................................. ........ .... .. ...... .. 252
5.4.2 Landau's M echanism of Com putation...........................................................253
5.4.3 Subjunctive and Infinitive Complem ents................................... ..................254
5.4.3.1 F-subjunctive clauses: N OC .................................. ............... 254
5.4.3.2 F-subjunctive clauses: O C ..................................... ............... ..256
5.4.3.3 O C-subjunctive clauses ....................................... ............... 257
5.4.3.4 E C -infinitive clauses..................................... ......... ............... 258
5.4.3.5 PC-infinitive clauses ...................................................................... 259
5.4.4 M oving PRO to the Subject Position .............. ..... ................... ......... 261
5.5. Conclusions ..............................................................................................262

6 CONCLUSIONS ................... .......... ..... ........................ .. 264

6.1 Sum m ary and Findings ......... ......... ......... .......... ........................... ............... 264
6.2 Suggestions for Future Research .............................................................................266

P R IM A R Y SO U R C E S ................................................................................... ....................... 269

L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S .......... .................... .......................................... ...................................272

B IO G R A PH ICA L SK ETCH ........................................................................................ 282





9









LIST OF TABLES

Table page

5-1 Feature [Tense] on Co and 0 ..............................................................250

5-2 Features [Tense] and [Agr] on C and .............. ......................................................251

5-3 Features [T], [A gr] and [R ] ......... ................. .............. ..................................... 252









LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1 First person

2 Second person

3 Third person

Ace Accusative

cl clitic

CR Contemporary Romanian

Dat Dative

Fut Future

Gen Genitive

Ger Gerundial

Ind Indicative

Inf Infinitive

OSR Older Stages of Romanian

P Preposition

pl Plural

rflx Reflexive

Sbj Subjunctive

sing Singular









Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

LOSS OF INFINITIVAL COMPLEMENTATION IN ROMANIAN
DIACHRONIC SYNTAX
By

Maria Jordan

May 2009

Chair: Gary Miller
Major: Linguistics

For the most part, my study is a descriptive analysis of infinitival complement clauses and

the corresponding subjunctive clauses in Romanian, that is, obligatory control (OC) structures.

OC is a relation of obligatory coreferentiality between a matrix argument (controller) and the

null subject of the subordinate (controlee) of the same sentence. An OC sentence constructed

with infinitive is given in (1) and its corresponding subjunctive sentence appears in (2).

(1) Radu a incercat (de) [a deveni doctor].
Radu has tried Comp Inf become doctor
'Radu tried to become a doctor.'

(2) Radu a incercat (ca) [sa devind doctor].
Radu has tried Comp Sbj become.3sg doctor
'Radu tried to become a doctor.'

Between the sixteenth century and roughly the middle of the twentieth century, OC

structures were available in both variants (with infinitive and subjunctive) but infinitival

complements were on the brink of disappearance, thus diachronic analysis is necessary.

The two types of complements are analyzed in parallel and their components, the elements

of control, are described in order to designate their syntactic status. It will be found that the

infinitival particle de is a complementizer (C element) and the particle a is the infinitival mood

marker (I element). The subjunctive particle sac is also an I element. The null subject (controlee)









in these OC structures combines the characteristics of PRO in the classical approach of control,

thus I assign this status to it.

In addition, the history of the infinitive, besides its documentation value, provides valuable

information on the status of the infinitival particles a and de at different stages of development.

Finally, a theoretical framework is to be found to reflect the infinitival and subjunctive

OC structures. The two (opposing) theoretical approaches of obligatory control considered are

Movement Theory of Control (MTC) and Agreement Model of Obligatory Control. Due to case

mismatch between the controller and PRO, and the presence of lexical complementizers,

especially in infinitive clauses, the MTC is rather unattractive. The Agreement Model of OC

seems to better reflect the Romanian OC-type constructions.









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Cdci intreb, la ce-am incepe sd-ncercdm in luptd dreaptd
A turn in formal noud limba veche Si-nteleaptd?1
-Eminescu

1.1 Background

Romanian is genetically a Romance language. It is also a member of the Balkan

Sprachbund, along with Greek, Bulgarian, Macedonian, Albanian, southeastern dialect of

Serbian and some other languages. As usually the case, not all the features of a linguistic area are

shared by all the members. Among the areal features shared by Romanian are: postposed articles

(1), a merger of dative and genitive morphology (2), a periphrastic future tense (3), and total or

partial loss of the infinitive.

(1) carte 'book'; cartea 'the book'

(2) a. Dau Marei o carte.
give.1sg Mara.Dat a book
'I give Mara a book.'

b. Cartea Marei
book.the Mara.Gen
'Mara's book'

(3) a. Ei vor canta.
they will.3pl sing
'They will sing.'

b. Eu voi canta.
I will.lsg sing
'I will sing.'

While Modern Greek lost its infinitive entirely, Romanian lost its infinitive only in

complement clauses. It still has the category infinitives in adjunct clauses, relative clauses and


1But, I wonder, why would we fight for trying
To recast our old and sage language?









other structures, which will be presented in Chapter 4. Although rare instances of infinitive

complement clauses are still possible, mostly in written (literary) sources, these structures are

considered to be no longer in use in Contemporary Romanian. The only productive infinitival

complement is selected by the modal aputea 'can' as illustrated by the example in (4).

Alternatively and equally frequently the modal aputea takes a subjunctive complement (5).

(4) Pot pleca imediat.
can. 1 sg leave.Inf immediately
'I can leave immediately.'

(5) Pot sa plec imediat.
can. 1 sg Sbj leave. 1 sg immediately
'I can leave soon.'

Generally speaking the languages of the Balkans replaced their infinitival

complementation with subjunctive complementation. The donor of this particular trait is

considered to be Greek, which initiated and completed this change before the other languages.

Then, this feature diffused through contact to other languages. Definitely, the influence of the

Greek language led to the loss of infinitival complementation in southern dialects of Italian,

through the Greek population as Rosetti (1968) points out. As we shall see in Chapter 2, Greek

also had a clear and significant influence on the regression of the Romanian infinitive from

complement structures.

The subjunctives in the Balkan languages manifest some distinctive characteristics, not

shared by other European languages. They do not have specific subjunctive morphology but use

the indicative present paradigm. Romanian is different in the sense that a subjunctive verb has

distinctive morphology for third person, the same form for singular and plural. The Balkan

subjunctive also includes a subjunctive particle: na in Greek, da in Bulgarian, te in Albanian, sct

in Romanian, etc. In addition, Romanian and Albanian have special subjunctive









complementizers, ca and qe, respectively. The other languages use a general (indicative)

complementizer in subjunctive structures when necessary. Furthermore, unlike with Romance

subjunctive clauses, the Balkan subjunctive complement clauses display obligatory control and

do not manifest obviation as reflected by the Greek (6a,7a) and Romanian examples (6b, 7b).

(6) a. I Marial prospathise [el/*2 na diavasi].
Maria tried.3sg PRT read.3sg
'Maria tried to read.'

b. Maria1 a incercat [el/*2 sa citeasca]
Maria has tried.3sg PRT read.3sg
'Maria tried to read.'

(7) a. 0 Yiannisl theli [el/2 na diavasi].
John want.3sg PRT read.3sg
'John wants (him/her) to read.'

b. Ion1 vrea [el/2 sa citeasca]
John want.3sg PRT read.3sg
'John wants (him/her) to read.'

The embedded clauses in the Greek example (6a) and the Romanian one (6b) are

obligatory control complements. As the indices show, their null subjects must be coreferential

with the matrix subject (controller). In the next examples (7), the embedded subjects corefer

freely, with the matrix subjects or some other entity not mentioned in the sentence. Obviation

would have been manifested only if the embedded subject were disjoint in reference from the

matrix subject. (Obviation will be discussed in Chapter 3).

Since the term control will be the leitmotif of this dissertation, an overview of this

syntactic phenomenon is presented in the next section.

1.2 Control

The term control is used to refer to a relation of referential dependency between an

unexpressed subject (the controlled element) and an expressed or unexpressed constituent (the

controller). The referential properties of the controlled element ... are determined by those of the









controller. (Bresnan, 1982:372). Obligatory control (OC) is a relation holding between an

infinitive in-situ and a local controller (Landau 2000), i.e., the controller must be in the clause

immediately preceding the infinitive complement as the controller Mary in (8).

In Government and Binding2 (GB), (Chomsky 1981, 1986a, 1986b), the unpronounced

controller in control structures is analyzed as the null formative PRO. The obligatory control

construction (8) has the structure in (9). (9) shows that an OC structure, consisting of a matrix

and its infinitival complement clause, has two subjects, a lexical subject upstairs and a null

subject downstairs represented by PRO. Mary is the controller of PRO and the two arguments are

coreferential, a relation established through coindexation.

(8) Mary tried [to write a poem]
(9) [IP Maryi [VP tMary tried [cp [IP PRO1 to [vp tPRO write a poem]

In GB, postulating PRO is necessary to satisfy the Projection Principle, the Theta

Criterion and the Extended Projection Principle.

The Projection Principle (PP) requires that lexical information be syntactically

represented. Representations at each syntactic level (i.e., Deep Structure, Surface Structure, and

Logical Form) are projected from the lexicon, in that they observe the subcategorization

properties of lexical items (Chomsky 1981:29). The lexical information we are concerned with

here refers to the number and the types of arguments a predicate takes. The thematic structure

associated with lexical items is regulated by the Theta Criterion: Each argument A appears in a

chain3 containing a unique visible theta position P, and each theta position P is visible in a chain



2Government and Binding is made up of several modules: Case Theory, Binding Theory, Bounding Theory, Phrase
Structure (X-Bare Theory, Movement Theory, Control Theory, Theta Theory, and Trace Theory.

A chain is a sequence of coindexed positions, called traces, later copies, and each of them locally binds the next
position down. As the traces show, there are two chains in (9), one of PRO in the embedded clause, the other of
Mary in the matrix.









containing a unique argument A (Chomsky 1981:36). Finally, the Extended Projection Principle

(EPP) is the structural requirement that every sentence must have a subject. In other words, the

subject position, [Spec,IP] must be filled (Haegeman 1994: 68/255). Thus, PRO in (9) is needed

to serve as the external argument of the verb write. It originates in the predicate-internal subject

position where it satisfies the Projection Principle and the Theta Criterion. It then moves to the

subject position of the complement clause, [Spec,IP], to satisfy the EPP.

The distribution of PRO is restricted by the PRO Theorem: PRO must be ungoverned

with Government (Chomsky 1986a, Chomsky & Lasnik 1993) defined in (10).

(10) a governs p only if
a. a is a head
b. a c-commands beta and
c. there is no barrier (e.g., a CP) that intervenes between a and 0

The proposition that PRO must be ungoverned is not self-evident. It follows from the

Binding Theory in (11) and (12) if PRO is assigned the features anaphoror, pronominall].

(11) Principle A:
An NP with the feature anaphoror] must be bound in its governing category.

(12) Principle B:
An NP with the feature pronominalal] must not be bound in its governing
category.

Since PRO must obey two contradictory requirements, to be bound and free in its

governing category, the only way for this element to survive is not to have a governing category

at all (not to be governed). As a further consequence, since PRO cannot be governed, it also

cannot be assigned Case, since Case is assigned under government. It thus cannot occur in a

finite clause because I and Co are governors.









GB contained a Control module which determined the antecedent for PRO the NP with

which PRO was coindexed. In Obligatory Control (OC) structures like the one in (13), the

controller must be the closest NP that c-commands PRO (Rosenbaum 1967).

(13) Jack told John's sister, [PRO1 to behave herselfi/*himself].

This is stipulated in GB via the Minimal Distance Principle in (14).

(14) Minimal Distance Principle (Rosenbaum 1967)
An infinitive complement of a predicate P selects as its controller the minimal c-
commanding noun phrase in the functional complex of P.

As a consequence, only John's sister can control PRO in (13) and not Jack or John. Thus,

there is a configurational constraint on the obligatory control-relation.

OC structures display the additional properties listed in Williams' (1980:21 if)4.

(15) a. A lexical NP cannot replace PRO.
b. The controller must c-command the controlled structure
c. The controller must precede the controlled structure.
d. The controller must be thematically or grammatically unique
e. The controller must be overt.

In the more recent Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995 and others), Chomsky replaces

ungoverned PRO with a PRO that has a special null Case licensed by nonfinite I1 head (Chomsky

& Lasnik 1993).

Meanwhile, reports of PRO bearing standard Case in infinitive control contexts in

languages such as Icelandic, Russian, Latin, etc have shown that the distribution of PRO should

be dissociated from Case. In addition, Terzi's (1992) breakthrough analysis of subjunctive

clauses in the languages of the Balkan Sprachbund shows that obligatory control occurs in finite

structures, have PRO subjects, and must be handled in the same way as OC in infinitival


4 Many of these properties have been dismissed or challenged: a.PRO can be replaced by a lexical NP: I want PRO
to leave vs. I wantyou to leave. c.In back control this is the other way around. d. Koster & May's (1982)
counterexample John proposed to Mary to help each other. e. The sentence The general ordered el to PROI encircle
the enemy is considered a true OC structure.









contexts. Other languages that exhibit such finite control are Hebrew, Persian, Kannada,

(Landau, 2004).

Given these developments, the literature contains new theoretical approaches to control,

which try to include finite control and Case-marked PRO. Two of them will be presented in

Chapter 5.

Before ending this section, I am introducing the varieties of control analyzed in this

study. The terminology includes exhaustive control and partial control (PC) both considered to

be OC (Landau, 2000). Exhaustive control (EC) refers to obligatory control where PRO must be

identical to the controller (16). In Partial control (PC) PRO must include the controller, but the

two are not necessarily identical. In (17) PRO includes the controller, the director, and some

other persons as indicated by the plus sign. Both EC and PC are different from non-obligatory

control (NOC) where the controlee does not have to have a local controller (among other things).

As shown in (18), the controller Mary is far away from the controlee, the PRO subject of the

infinitive clause.

(16) Maryi managed PRO1 to read the whole article.
(17) The director1 decided PRO1+ to gather once a week.
(18) Maryi believes that it will be fun PROlto eat the whole pie herself.

1.3 Goals and Organization of the Study

The primary goals of this study are to document the history of the infinitive in Romanian

and to analyze infinitival and subjunctive complement clauses in this language. Two chapters

document the changes that these complement clauses underwent during the period between the

sixteenth century and around 1950, a period that I will call Older Stages of Romanian (OSR).

During this time, infinitival complement structures were replaced by subjunctive

complements. This study documents these developments using data from original written

sources. Chapter 2 is dedicated to the history of the Romanian infinitive. The first half deals with









the infinitive particle a and the linguistic changes that the infinitive underwent: phonological,

semantic, morphological, and syntactic changes. The second part discussed the factors that

caused the retirement of infinitives from complement clauses. Both internal and external factors

are considered. I argue that the mai cause was the overwhelming influence of Greek.

Chapter 3 offers a diachronic description of subjunctive clauses, with focus on

complementation. The only difference between OSR and CR is the distribution of the

subjunctive complementizer ca, which no longer introduces subjunctive complements in CR.

Subjunctive complement clauses are divided into OC-subjunctive structures and F-subjunctive

structures. These two types of complement clauses differ in regards to the semantic categories of

the predicates that select them, and the tense and subject options that they allow. The chapter

demonstrates that the subjunctive particle sct is an I element, leaving no room for mixed

properties of complementizer and inflectional element, as previously claimed.

Two further chapters provide syntactic analyses of subjunctive and infinitival

complement clauses.

Chapter 4 continues the analysis of infinitival complement clauses begun in Chapter 2.

The first part of this chapter discusses and establishes the status of the infinitival particles de and

a, demonstrating that the former is a complementizer and the latter an I element. In the second

part, infinitival complement (OC) clauses are divided into Exhaustive Control (EC) and Partial

control (PC). The properties of these two types of OC are contrasted with the properties of Non

Obligatory Control (NOC) complements. Finally, the specific properties of PC clauses and the

differences between EC and PC will be established.

Chapter 5 analyzes control structures in Romanian (OSR and CR). These structures are

important because both infinitival and subjunctive complements yield obligatory control (OC).









The chapter presents two opposing theories of obligatory control: Homstein's (1999, 2003)

Movement Theory of Control and Landau's (2000, 2004) Agreement Model of Obligatory

Control. Chapter 5 evaluates the extent to which each theory succeeds in accounting for the

Romanian facts. I argue that the embedded null subject in OC structures is Case-marked. This

fact favors Landau's theory of OC.

Chapter 6 includes a summary of the findings of this dissertation, points out the

similarities and differences between infinitive and subjunctive complementation, and emphasizes

some of the theoretical implications of the Romanian data. It ends with some topics for future

research. Some have not been solved in this study and others have not been addressed but are

related to the topics of this dissertation.









CHAPTER 2
FROM INFINITIVE TO SUBJUNCTIVE

Nu credeam sa-nvat a muri vreodata1
-Eminescu

2.1 Introduction

This chapter is about history: The history of the infinitive as a syntactic category and the

historical events that could possibly explain the loss of infinitival complementation in Romanian.

The history of the infinitive not only puts together the chronological events in the

development of the Romanian infinitive, but also presents the circumstances of each change, the

reasons for the emergence of new infinitival elements and their evolution, i.e., how they change,

whether loosing some initial functions, like the particle a, or expanding them as in the case of the

particle de. The history of the infinitive is especially important because it yields preliminary

evidence for determining the status of the particles a and de. The history of the changes

undergone by the infinitive will further show that they were not sufficiently significant to bring

about the infinitive-loss phenomenon.

Besides the linguistic changes of the infinitive, this chapter is also concerned with the

external factors, the shared Balkan areal feature of replacing infinitive structures with finite

(subjunctive) structures, and the influence of Greek resulting from language contact. These

factors eventually led to the demise of the infinitive from complement structures in Romanian.

Additionally, an infinitive-subjunctive comparison restricted to the type of structures

these moods are in is included in this chapter, primarily to introduce them since they are the

protagonists of this dissertation and secondly with the idea expressed in Faarlund (1990:48) that

"A change from one form F to another form G cannot take place unless F and G can coexist as



1 wouldn't believe that I will learn to die some day.









alternatives in a language." As discussed in Section 2.4, the loss of the infinitive began when the

subjunctive started to replace infinitive structures. Since so far only infinitive complement

clauses disappeared or are moribund, the question for future research is whether Romanian is

prone to lose all the other infinitival structures because parallel subjunctive structures exist.

The chapter is organized as follows: Since the loss of the infinitive in certain structures is

replaced by corresponding subjunctive structures, a comparison contrast between infinitive and

subjunctive is included, in Section 2.2.

The next section, 2.3, is dedicated to the history of the Romanian infinitive, that is, the

development of this mood and the morphological, semantic and syntactic changes it underwent:

loss of the specific infinitive suffix, the addition of the particle a, the emergence of the particle

de, and the early appearance of the prepositional complementizers in infinitival adjuncts.

The history of the infinitive continues in Section 2.4 with the distribution of the

infinitival particle a. The diachronic analysis shows that the absence of a is possible due to the

nature of some matrix verbs selecting infinitival complements. Although all infinitives are

homophonous with some indicative forms, the absence of a does not lead to infinitive -

indicative ambiguity when the verbs aputea 'can', (nondeontic) a avea 'to have' and to some

extent a yti 'to know' take infinitive complements.

The factors that caused the loss of infinitival complementation in Romanian are discussed

in Section 2.5. Since the Greek influence seems to be a crucial factor in the infinitive-loss

development in Romanian, the avenues of language contact with Greek will be discussed. The

internal factors, i.e., the changes undergone by infinitive, are also considered to have some role

in the infinitive-loss phenomenon.









2.2 Infinitive vs. Subjunctive

This section presents the similarities and differences between infinitive and subjunctive,

first regarding their elements, then the structures in which they are found. As we shall see,

infinitive and subjunctive include the same components and appear in almost the same structure

types.

2.2.1 Infinitive/Subjunctive Mood Components

Each of the two moods has its own special particle, a special complementizer, and allows

the same elements between the particle and the lexical verb. The subjunctive particle sca (passing

through the intermediate form se) comes from the Latin conjunction si 'if. The infinitive particle

a comes from the Latin preposition ad 'to/towards'.

There are three one-syllable elements between the particle and the subjunctive/infinitive

verb. As shown in the infinitive structure of (la) and the subjunctive structure of (lb), these

elements are: the negation nu, a pronominal clitic and an (adverbial) intensifier.

(1) a. A nu se mai lamenta ar fi de dorit
to not cl. more lament would be of desired
'To not complain anymore would be desirable.'

b. Incearcd sa nu te mai lamentezi.
try.Imp sa not cl. more lament.2sg
'Try not to lament any more.'

The subjunctive has its own (attested) complementizer ca whose etymology goes back to

the Latin conjunction qua (quia) 'as/because/for/since' (Graur et al (1969:290). Ca used to

introduce sc-subjunctive clauses of every kind in OSR but its presence is much reduced in

complement clauses in CR but still necessary in purpose clauses. A complete account of the

distribution of ca is given in 3.1.

Besides the particle a, the infinitive particle de precedes the a-infinitive. In Section 2.3

and Chapter 4, Section 4.3, there will be presented comprehensive evidence for the









complementizer status of de. Both ca and de are optional. The representation in (2) includes an

infinitival complement clause introduced by de, while ca introduces a subjunctive complement in

the next example (3)2.

(2) apucasera de-a fugire in Polonia
managed.3pl de-to escape in Poland
'They had managed to escape to Poland.'
Balcescu (1852:33)

(3) i-am dat voie ca sa o vdndd
he.Dat-have.lsg given permission that sa it sell
'I allowed him to sell it.'
Stefanelli (1915:124), 1777 document

As the next two examples reveal, an infinitival clause may be (rarely) introduced by the

subjunctive complementizer ca (4) and a subjunctive clause may be introduced by de (5).

(4) $i aSu avea toatd credinta ca muntii a muta
and would. sg have all faith that mountains to move
'And I would have all the faith to move (the) mountains.'
Coresi (1581:338)

(5) Nu vrea de sf-1 tie cineva
not want.3sg de sd-him know.3sg somebody
'He doesn't want anyone to know (something about) him.'
Coresi (1581:84)

The Romanian infinitive has only one form (it is a plain infinitive), its morphological

identity as a distinct mood being assumed by the particle a. Although a finite mood, subjunctive

borrowed the present indicative morphology for first and second person singular and plural. The

subjunctive has its separate morphology for third person singular/plural only. According to Graur

et al. (1969:97-8) in the Late Latin spoken in the Danube region there was a replacement of

present subjunctive forms first and second person with the corresponding present indicative




2 De followed by the a- infinitive may be written as separate words: de a or linked: de-a as in (2), as well as de 'a or
d-a/ d'a. The difference in the orthography has no bearing in the status/function of these two particles.









forms, a phenomenon inherited then by Romanian. Graur et al. notice that a similar phenomenon

is also found in Old French.

2.2.2 Structures with Infinitive and Subjunctive

With very few exceptions, infinitive and subjunctive appear in the same types of syntactic

structures.

2.2.2.1 Complex tenses

A bare infinitive (without the particle a) helps form the future tense and conditional. The

bare infinitive follows the future marker in (6) and the conditional marker in (7) to form future

and conditional respectively. A subjunctive verb and the particle (proclisis) o/or form what is

called viitorulpopular 'folk future', as shown in (8). The auxiliary a avea 'to have' and

subjunctive verbs also create future expressions. Two examples are included in (9). A avea and

infinitive combinations will be discussed in Section 2.4.

(6) Unde vei gisi cuvantul ce exprimd adevarul?
where will.2sg find word.the which expresses truth.the
'Where will you find the word that expresses the truth?'
Eminescu (1852-1889), Criticilor mei

(7) Ar face dintr-un lac o Marmara,
would.3sg make from-a lake a Marmara
'She would make a (sea of) Marmara from a lake.'
Minulescu (1881-1944), Romantti policromt

(8) Astea n-or sa ne aducA decat pierdere de vreme
these not-will sa us.Dat bring.3pl only waste of time
'These (things) will only waste our time.'
Alexandrescu (1810-1885), O profesiune de credintt

(9) De n-ai sA vii,
if not-have.2sg sa come.2sg,
am si-te-aStept Si maine
have. 1 sg sd-you.Acc-wait. 1 sg and tomorrow
'If you do not come (today), I will wait for you tomorrow.'
(Song)









2.2.2.2 Imperative

Constructions with imperative force, also called suppletive imperatives, are possible with

both infinitive and subjunctive. Suppletive forms with subjunctive have always been used with

significantly greater frequency than those with infinitive. Two examples with infinitive forms are

given in (10), one of which (10b) is an interdiction inscription used in trains not so long in the

past. An imperative suppletion constructed with subjunctive is given in (11).

(10) a. in toate Dumineci a se ceti (evenghelia)
in all Sundays to rflx read (liturgy.the)
'To be read every Sunday''/"Read every Sunday!"
Coresi (1581:1)

b. A nu se apleca pe fereastra vagonului!
to not rflx bend P window carriage.Gen
'Do not bend over the window of the (railway) carriage'

(11) Oricare-ar fi sfirSitul luptei,
whatever-would be end.the battle.Gen
SA stai luptAnd, caci eSti dator.
sd stay fighting because are.2sg dutiful
'Regardless of the outcome,
Keep fighting because it's your duty!'
CoSbuc (1866-1918), Lupta vietii

2.2.2.3 Subject

Unlike subjunctive, infinitive can be the subject of a clause or sentence. The infinitive

(in bold) is the subject of the sentence in the structure of (12).

(12) lar in lumea cea comund a visa e un pericul
and in world the common to dream is a danger
'And in the common world to dream is a danger.'
Eminescu (1852-1889), Scrisoarea II

2.2.2.4 Raising

Raising structures are possible with either infinitive or subjunctive. The OSR sources I

have studied so far do not seem to have noticeable examples of raising structures constructed

with subjunctive. However, raising structures with subjunctive are more abundant in CR. One









infinitive raising structure is given in (13a) and the corresponding subjunctive raising structure


(the bold part of (13a) appears in (13b).


oraSul cu
city.the with
trei zile,
three days


trei
three


sute de
hundred of


biserici,
churches


Pare- a fi pictat in dosul unui geam
seems- to be painted on back.the one.Gen glass
'And the city with three hundred churches,
For three days,
Seems to be painted on the back of a show window.'
Minulescu (1881-1944), In orasul cu trei sute de biserici


b. OraSul pare sa fie
city.the seems sa be.3sg
'The city seems to be painted.'


de panorama!
of panorama


pictat.
painted.


2.2.2.5 Adjuncts

Both infinitive and subjunctive are found in purpose clauses3 and in other adjuncts as

well. The representations (14) and (15) feature purpose clauses constructed with infinitive and

subjunctive respectively. The infinitival adjunct of (16) and the subjunctive adjunct of (17) are

introduced by the same prepositional complementizerfara 'without.


(14)


populatia
population


s-a strdns
rflx-has gathered


pentru a primi armata romind
for to receive army.the Romanian
'The people gathered to acclaim the Romanian army.'
Romdnia Liber&, June 3, 2006

(15) se indreptard spre BucureSti
rflx headed towards Bucharest
ca sa ducA lui Sinan vestea acestei nenorociri
that si bring to Sinan news.the this.Gen disaster
'They headed to Bucharest to inform Sinan about this disaster.'
Balcescu (1852:117)



3 A purpose clause is used to show the purpose or intention of the action of the main verb (in the independent
clause). This type of clause is meant to show intention not to state whether something actually happens or not. A
purpose clause answers the question Why? or For what reason? E.g., I went to the store to buy milk.


(13)


a. Si
and
De
for










(16)


2.2.2.6 Complements to nouns

Complements to nouns are mostly encountered with infinitive (comparing with sc-

subjunctive), usually introduced by the preposition/relative4 de. (18) includes a complement to

the noun teama 'the fear', while the noun mdngdiere 'consolation' takes a subjunctive

complement in (19).


Dar teama
but fear.the


de- a
of- to


rAmAne tot
remain still


ce sunt
what am


A sugrumat in mine orice- avant
has suppressed in me any- elan
'The fear of my unchanging self
Has chocked, inside me, any new desire'
Minulescu (1881-1944), Rdnduri pentru intregirea mea


Cdci mie mi-a dat soarta
because me.Dat cl.Dat-has given fate
O piatrA sa ador
A stone sa adore. 1 sg
'Because fate has offered me the bitter consolation
A slab of marble to adore.'
Eminescu (1852-1889), Amorul unei marmure


amara mangaiere
bitter consolation


4 One of the multiple functions of the preposition de is that of a relativizing element. Gramatica (1965) calls it an
invariable relative pronoun (since it has only one form). Depending on the context, this de may be translated in
English by which/who/that (i) or of(18), but the sense in Romanian is always which.


(i). Unde iaste Hristosu de sade d-a dereapta
where is Christ.the that stands at right.the
'Where is the Christ who/that stands at God's right side'
Coresi (1581:482)


lu Dumnezu
of God


Dacd adundri sau cameri pot vorbi f~r-a se teme
if assemblies or chambers can speak without-to rflx fear
'If assemblies or chambers (of a parliament) can speak without being afraid..'
Alexandrescu (1810-1885), O profesiune de credintdt

GingaSa copila ceti rdvaSul ...
dainty damsel read.3sg letter.the
firA sA verse micar o lacrimA
without sa shed even one tear
'The dainty damsel read the letter without even shedding a tear.'
Negruzzi (1808-1868) Scrierile lui ...


(17)


(18)


(19)










2.2.2.7 Complements to adjectives

Adjectives may take infinitival complements or subjunctive complements in OSR, but

those with infinitive are rather rare in CR. One example with infinitive is illustrated in (20), one

with subjunctive appears in (21).

(20) Dator eu insd sunt a vA spune
indebted I however am to you.pl.Dat tell
'It is my duty however to tell you this'
Alexandrescu (1810-1885), Ursul gi Lupul

(21) Sunt bucuros sa va cunosc.
am glad sa you.Acc meet.1sg
'I'm glad to meet you/to make your acquaintancee'

2.2.2.8 Impersonal expressions

Some verbs are impersonal by nature5 and appear in the third person only, e.g., se cade

and se cuvine both having the same meaning: 'it is proper/fitting'. Both verbs take either

infinitival or subjunctive complements. The examples of (22) are constructed with se cade, with

an infinitive complement in (22a) and a subjunctive complement in (22b).

(22) a. Se cade cu destonicie a se veseli
rflx fits with efficacy to rflx rejoice
'It is proper to rejoice lively.'
Coresi (1581:31)

b. Se cade sa se ungA cu milosteniia
rflx fits sa rflx anoint.3sg with grace
'It is proper to be anointed with grace.'
Coresi (1581:51)

2.2.2.9 Complements to verbs

The examples in (23), (24) are subject control complement structures constructed with

infinitive and with subjunctive respectively and both are selected by the same matrix predicate,

5 Other verbs are impersonal par excellence like a trebui 'need' but could be also used with various person forms.
Still some other verbs may have impersonal use although they are preeminently personal verbs. All of them may
take either infinitive or subjunctive complements.









the verb a (i//)i' eL 'to try'. The matching person and number, first person singular, of the

matrix verb and the embedded subjunctive verb (24) indicates that the two clauses share the

same subject. (Obligatory control structures constructed with subjunctive are discussed in

Chapter 3).

(23) dacd ar cerca stipiniii moSiilor el a le lua zMloge
if would.3pl try owners estates.Gen to cl take pawns
'If the owners of the estates would try to impose pawning...'
Stefanelli (1915:90), 1767 document

(24) Azi-noapte-am incercat el sa ma-ntregesc
last-night-have.lsg tried sa me-blend.lsg
Cu focurile globului ceresc!...
with fires.the globe.Gen celestial
'Last night I tried to blend
Into the fires of the celestial globe.'
Minulescu (1881-1944), Rdnduri pentru intregirea mea

The same semantic categories of verbs may select either infinitive complement clauses or

subjunctive complement clauses, with the difference that, in OSR, some verbs occur more with

infinitive (e.g., a indrazni/cuteza 'to dare') while other verbs occur mostly with subjunctive (e.g.,

a vrea 'to want'). Examples with every category of verbs selecting subjunctive clauses are given

in Chapter 3. Parallel examples with infinitive are found in Chapter 4.

Not only the same verb may select either infinitive or subjunctive complements, but

conjoined infinitival complements and subjunctive complements may alternate in the same

sentence. In (25), the subjunctive clause and the infinitive clause are conjoined by the connective

nici 'nor'. The connective gi 'and' unites the subjunctive complement clause and the infinitival

complement clause of the verb a vrea in (26).

(25) Nu vrurd in calea lui sa imble
not wanted.3pl in way his sa walk.3pl
nici a asculta legea lui
nor to listen law his
'They didn't want to follow him nor to listen to his rules.'
Coresi (1581:141)










(26) Vrdnd sA caftige favorul impdratului
wanting sa court.3sg favor.the emperor/Gen
Si a dobindi demnitatea de cardinal
and to acquire dignity.the of cardinal
'Wanting to court the emperor's favor and to obtain the rank of a cardinal,'
Balcescu (1852:262)

While an infinitival complement clause has always a non-lexical subject, always

coreferential with a matrix argument, subjunctive complement clauses selected by desiderative,

interrogative, factive/experiencer and propositional predicates may have a separate subject (not

coreferential with a matrix argument), and even a lexical subject. Thus, the verb a vrea 'to want'

may take a subject control (subjunctive) complement (27a) or a noncontrol (subjunctive)

complement with a lexical subject, different from the matrix subject, (27b). When the same

matrix verb, a vrea, takes infinitival control complements as in (28), there must always be

coreference between the subordinate subject and a matrix argument. A structure like (27b)

constructed with infinitive (with embedded lexical subject) does not exist.

(27) a. As vrea [e sA vAd acuma natala mea vilcioara]
would.lsg want [lsg sa see.lsg now native my glen]
'I would want to see my childhood glen now.'
Eminescu (1852-1889), Din strainitate

b. N-ai vrea [ca nime-n usa ta sa bati]
not-would.2sg want [that nobody.3sg-in door your sa knock.3sg]
'You wouldn't want anyone to knock at your door.'
Eminescu (1852-1889), Sonete

(28) $i parc-ai vrea [e a-mi spune ceva apoi suspini]
and likely-would.2sg want [2sg to-me say something then sigh.2sg]
'You would want to tell me something then you sigh.'
Eminescu (1852-1889), Departe sunt de tine

Having said that, it is necessary to clarify Mensching's (2000:37) statement on

Romanian: "Generally, it seems that whenever speakers accept an infinitive construction, they

also accept the fact that it may have a specified subject." To demonstrate that Romanian, like









other Romance languages, employs postverbal subjects in infinitival constructions, Mensching

illustrates his point with the examples (29), (30) and (31) (his 46a,b,c).

(29) E o absurdidate [a se bate cineva
is an absurdity [to rflx fight someone.Nom
pentru ochii unei actrite]
for eyes-the one.Gen actress]
'It is foolish for someone to fight (to get in trouble) for the eyes of an actress.'

(30) [Inainte de a veni zApada] a bdtut un vdnt putemic.
[before of to come snow-the] has blown a wind strong
'Before the snow came a strong wind was blowing.'

(31) Vine vremea [de a pricepe omul
comes time-the.Nom [de to perceive man-the.Nom
ce-i bine Si ce-i rdu]
what-is good and what-is bad]
'There comes a time for a man to understand what is good and what is bad.'

The bracketed infinitival clause, which includes the impersonal/generic cineva

'someone', represents the subject of the sentence (29). In other words, the infinitival clause by its

entirety represents the subject of the sentence (29).

The example in (30) contains an infinitival (temporal) adjunct, a structure-type found in

Romance in general called Personal Infinitive by Ledgeway (1998, 2000). Personal Infinitive is

distinguished from Inflected Infinitive in that the former does not have morphological agreement

but can take overt nominative (postverbal) subject, whereas the latter exhibits both

morphological agreement and can take overt nominative subjects.

Finally, the subordinate of (31) is a complement to the noun vremea 'the time" an

infinitival relative clause introduced by the invariable relative de. In any event, these three

examples have no bearing on the subject of infinitival (control) complement clauses, as they are

not control structures at all.









To wrap up this section, it has been shown that infinitive and subjunctive can appear in

the same structure-types, with basically one exception, that is, subjunctive may not be the subject

of a clause. Subjunctive and infinitive complement clauses can be selected by the same matrix

verb and conjoined subjunctive complements may alternate with infinitive complements in the

same sentences. The alternation infinitive -subjunctive in the same type of complement clauses

may actually have led to the increased use of subjunctive at the expense of the infinitive. (The

crucial point here is that the infinitive was the older structure and the subjunctive has been

gaining in productivity against it).

2.3 History of Infinitive

The history of Romanian infinitive, as far as it can be traced, indicates that this verbal

form endured a number of changes. The purpose of this section is to determine the phonological,

morphological and syntactic changes undergone by the Romanian infinitive. Following

Haspelmath's (1989) universal path of grammaticalization, I will explore the evolution and

changes of the infinitive and infinitival structures not only as historical events but also to gather

some preliminary evidence regarding the status of the infinitival particles a and de.

Haspelmath (1989) argues that infinitives in Indo-European languages (and beyond) are

inherently connected to purpose. Infinitives originate in purposive action nominals, which

become infinitives through grammaticalization6. Also, infinitives have their own morphological

form and a meaning of their own, which is non-factual or irrealis. Morphologically, infinitives

may be marked by a suffix like the Latin re or German en or by a particle, as the English to or





6Grmmaticalization (or grammaticization) is "the process whereby lexical material in highly constrained pragmatic
and morphosyntactic contexts is assigned grammatical function, and once grammatical,
is assigned increasingly grammatical, operator-like function" (Traugott 2003: 645).









German zu. Haspelmath points out that infinitival particles (in European languages) are allative

prepositions.

The term "allative" comes from allitus 'brought to', the past participle of the Latin verb

afferre 'to bring toward'. Generally, allative is a type of directional case used in a number of

languages (e.g., Finnish, Basque, Eskimo) expressing motion, i.e., to or toward a place/the

referent of the noun it marks.

Haspelmath (1989:290) argues that the diachronic change of infinitives is "a general

process that happens in language after language" independently. Thus, infinitival particles

(usually allative prepositions) begin as purpose-marking entities or marking the case of verbal

nouns, become complementizers and can further become the morphology of infinitive, "one-

member paradigm" as Haspelmath puts it. From purpose markers, these particles may go back to

direction markers and end up introducing complement clauses.

Infinitives may also undergo loss of integrity, which can be phonological and semantic.

The loss of phonological integrity, called erosion, happens to infinitival suffixes and to particles

as well. The loss of semantic integrity, or desemanticization, means that the original purposive

meaning is weakened or lost. When that happens, infinitives undergo some process of

reinforcement, to regain the function of purpose.

2.3.1 First Reinforcement: The Addition of the Proclisis a

Romanian inherited the Latin infinitive form with the suffix re: Latinfacere -

Romanianfacere 'to make'. Then, at some point in time, prior to the sixteenth century, the

Romanian infinitive underwent two morphological changes. It began to loose its re suffix

possibly (but not necessarily) through phonological erosion, in Haspelmath's (1989) terms, and

the proclisis a started to accompany the infinitive. However, it is not clear which change took









place first, the loss of the suffix -re or the addition of the proclisis a. The loss of the suffix -re

resulted in infinitive indicative homophony, e.g., (a) scrie 'to write', scrie 'writes'.

Losing the suffix, the infinitive lost its integrity: phonological and semantic integrity. The

addition of the preposition a, the phonologically eroded form of the Latin motion (allative)

preposition ad 'to/towards' was meant to supply the identity of the infinitive and to reinforce the

original meaning and function: purpose. In Latin, ad was used with gerund to express purpose,

e.g., ad amandum 'for the purpose of loving'.

Taking Portuguese, Romanian and Spanish as examples, Schulte (2004) also argues that

the preposition a was added to the infinitive in Romance to reinforce the purposive value. An

early purpose clause is included in (32) where the infinitive has the form a plus short infinitive or

a-infinitive.

(32) Ei impdrtira-se a manca e nu se sdturard
they shared-rflx to eat and not rflx sated
'They shared (the food) to eat but didn't have enough'
Coresi (1577:249/50)

The role of a in (32) is to introduce the adjunct (purpose) clause and its position in the

sentence is likely Co, thus it has complementizer status. The infinitival particle a in other

Romance languages has also been always considered a complementizer.

Sixteenth-century documents show that the a-infinitive had already spread to complement

clauses of verbs, adjectives and nouns. In Coresi (1581) a rather small number of adjectives and

nouns can take infinitival complement clauses. By contrast, the frequency of infinitival

complements to verbs is definitely great.

The following data feature infinitival complements to adjectives (33), infinitival

complements to nouns (34), and infinitival (control) complements to verbs (35). As can be seen,

all infinitives are preceded by the particle a 'to'.









(33) a. datori sdntemu a ne teame
obliged are.lpl to cl.us be afraid
'We are obliged to be afraid.'
Coresi (1581:19)

b. Nu sdntu destoinicu a md chema fiului tdu
not am worthy to cl.me call son yours
'I'm not worthy to be called your son.'
Coresi (1581:21)

(34) a. Are puteare a vitima si trupulu si sufletulu
has power to harm and body.the and soul.the
'He has the power to harm both the body and the soul.'
Coresi (1581:60)

b. Au volnicie a se intoarce
have.3pl liberty to rflx return
'They have the liberty to return/They are free to return'
Coresi (1581:99)

(35) a. Figiduia a bea si a se boteza
was promising to drink and to rflx baptize
'He was promising to drink and to be baptized.'
Coresi (1581:90)

b. Ne indeamnA cu nevointd a savdrSi
us urges with no will to succeed
'He urges us to succeed against our will.'
Coresi (1581:124)

b. Sa nu indrAznimu a rdbda
sd not dare to suffer
'Let us not dare to suffer'
Coresi (1581:199)

By the end of the sixteenth century, the particle a lost or was on the verge of losing its

original function of purpose. In Coresi (1577) the number of a-infinitival purpose clauses seems

satisfactory in order to consider this structure alive. However, in Coresi's (1581) book of 563

pages, where purpose (finite) structures are abundant, only (about) three are constructed with an

infinitive. One is given below in (36).









(36) $i neajunsei impardtiei lui pre noi va intdri a alerga
and unreachable empire his P us will.3sg strengthen to run
'He will strengthen us to hurry towards his unreachable empire.'
Coresi (1581:231)

Purpose clauses with a-infinitive are still present in Coresi (1581) after verbs of motion,

like the next two examples (37a,b).

(37) a. Thoma mearse a-i spune lui ce vrea
Thomas went to-cl say him.Dat what wants
'Thomas went to tell him what he wants'
Coresi (1581:131)

b. $i vine a spaii un ucenicu necredinciosu
and comes to repent a apprentice unfaithful
'And an unfaithful apprentice comes to repent'
Coresi (1581:131)

The particle a continues to introduce infinitival purpose clauses triggered by a few

motion verbs7 (especially a veni 'to come) as a result of its purposive value. Rosetti (1968:175)

points out the "final value" of the preposition a in certain constructions, i.e., with motion verbs.

In (38) the verb for 'go' and the preposition a are the ingredients of the purpose action. Thus, a

motion verb + a can express a goal even in the absence of an infinitive.

(38) mearsA in padure a leamne
went.3sg in forest at wood (for fire)
'He went to the forest for wood/to gather wood (for fire)'
Dosoftei (Vietile Sfintilor) from Rosetti (1968:175)

Although infinitival purpose structures to motion verbs continued to appear here and

there after 1600, the a-infinitive was no longer able to introduce purpose clauses, even after

motion verbs. Gramatica (1963) notes that purpose clauses formed only with a-infinitive are


7 It appears, as Haspelmath (1989) notices, that the action of a motion verb encodes directional and/or goal meaning.
It is not coincidental that there are examples of purpose clauses of motion verbs not introduced by subordinators.
Thus, in Biblical Greek from the New Testament, the infinitive of purpose triggered by verbs of motion appears with
or without the "subordinator" tou (a genitive neuter article), initially added to bare infinitives (Joseph, 1983). In
Miller (2002), there are Old English (OE) examples of infinitival purpose clauses triggered by motion verbs where
the infinitive appears with or without the particle to. Thus, it is plausible for a weak particle like a to introduce
infinitival purpose clauses of motion verbs, at least temporarily, before loosing its C status totally.









archaisms. Similarly, the German particle zu also lost its ability to introduce purpose clauses. By

contrast, English to has never lost this function completely (Langacker 1992, Miller 2002).

In Coresi (1581), the solution for expressing purpose using an infinitive is not found yet,

but the premises are somehow sketched. For instance, the infinitival purpose clause in (39a) and

the indicative purpose structure in (39b) express semantically the same purpose action triggered

by the verb a iei 'to go out'. Semctnare in (39b) has the long infinitive, in -re, and probably is

an infinitive (the noun has the same form). For the next step, the infinitival purpose of type (39a)

employs the preposition spre used in (39b), resulting in the infinitival purpose construction in

(39c) in conformity with (40). Infinitival purpose clauses introduced by the preposition spre

'towards' (like 39c,40) are still in use in CR.

(39) a. ESi semdndtoriului a semana sdmanta lui
went out.3sg sower.the to sow seed his
'The sower went out to sow his seed.'
Coresi (1581:354)

b. Iard Hristosu spre semdnare eSi
and Christ.the towards sowing went out.3sg
'And Christ went out for sowing.'
Coresi (1581:355)

c. Semdndtorul iesi spre a semana
sower.the went out.3sg towards to sow
'The sower went out to sow.'

(40) Sa meargd la fata locului spre a se afla fat,
sd go to face place.Gen towards to rflx be present
la alegerea moSii
at choosing estate.Gen
'Let him go to the spot in order to supervise the marking of the estate'
Alexiu (1939:76), 1795 document

Coresi actually produces one infinitival purpose clause introduced by spre, as shown in

(41a). Coresi's sentence has an unorthodox word order, as frequently happens in his books of

translation (following the original too closely). The natural word order is given in (41b).










Coresi's infinitival purpose clause of (41a) is the first introduced by the preposition spre

'towards'.

(41) a. Cei draci ce se batu cu ispita
those devils who rflx fight.3pl with temptation.the
spre noi a ne turbura
towards us to us perturb
'Those devils who compete in order to perturb us with temptation.'
Coresi (1581:279)

b. Cei draci ce se bat
those devils which rflx fight
spre a ne turbura pe noi cu ispita
towards to us perturb P us with temptation.the
'Those devils who compete in order to perturb us with temptation.'

By the end of the sixteenth century, the particle a not only was losing its ability to

introduce purpose clauses, but concurrently a was losing its ability to function as a preposition in

any context, especially locatival8. The only example I could find with a having locative meaning

is given in (42). A was being replaced by the preposition la 'to/at' for location and direction.

One example with the (replacing) locative la is included in (43).

(42) Ca ceaia ce zace a mijlocu
like that which lies at middle
'Like the one that lies in the middle.'
Coresi (1581:273)



8 At this time a still marks dative case (i), but it is being replaced by la (ii), or by the dative suffix (iii).
(i) A multi se pare
to.Dat many rflx seems
'It appears to many ...
Coresi (1581:242)

(ii) La multi se pare 'It appears to many'

(iii) Multora li se pare
many.Dat cl.Dat rflx seems
'It appears to many'

The preposition a also remained in a few frozen expressions, e.g., Miroase a mental. 'Smells like mint'. It also
combines with definite article forming genitive markers.









(43) La sfinta besearecd rugdciune sa facemu
at holy church prayer sa make. pi
'Let's pray at the holy church.'
Coresi (1581:123)

In summary, the infinitival particle a emerged to reinforce the value of purpose, to

introduce purpose clauses. Sixteenth-century sources show a great decrease in frequency of

purpose clauses of non-motion verbs constructed with the a-infinitive, which became residual by

the end of the sixteenth century. A-infinitive purpose clauses triggered by motion verbs are still

in use during the same period.

2.3.2 Second Reinforcement: The Emergence of de

The Romanian preposition de was inherited from the Latin preposition de 'about/from'.

De is a multifunctional syntactic element in Romanian, but our interest is related to its function

of introducing infinitival clauses. Three questions are to be answered regarding the emergence of

de as an infinitival element: a) When did de join the infinitive? b) Why was it necessary in the

first place? And c) Why did de and not some other preposition or syntactic element had to

accompany the infinitive?

2.3.2.1 When was de added to the a-infinitive?

The earliest evidence of de in an infinitival construction that I was able to find is attested

in Codicele Voronetean -CV- (The Deeds of the Apostles), a translation from Slavonic dated

approximately 1528/1532. The example in (44) is the only one I found in CV and before Coresi

(1581). Notice that de precedes the particle a. De without a is not possible in a Romanian

infinitive while in West Romance languages either a or de/di may precede the infinitive verb but

not both9.



These Italian examples show that the infinitive (lavorare) may be preceded by di or a, depending on the matrix
verb. Neither example is possible with both particles.
(i) Tenter6 di lavorare di piu.









(44) nu ma lepadu de a muri
not me disavow.Isg de to die
'I don't disavow death.'
CV (1528/1532:66)

There is no instance of the infinitival de in Coresi (1561) or Coresi (1577), but in Coresi

(1581) de is established as an infinitival particle, preceding the particle a. The difference in time

regarding the association of de with the infinitive may be explained by the regional difference.

CV (1532) is produced in Northern Transylvania, while Coresi's dialect belongs to the South,

Tara Romdneasca (The Romanian Country/Walachia). It seems that the association de -

infinitive is not older than the sixteenth century.

2.3.2.2 Why was the addition of de necessary?

The most important aspects of the emergence of de with the a-infinitive to be considered

are its function, position, and constituency.

In Coresi (1581), there is a significant number of infinitival constructions where the

infinitive has the original suffix -re, that is, the long infinitive, followed by the morpheme for

the definite article (enclisis) -a. This infinitive form is preceded by the particle a, which is in

turn preceded by the preposition de, e.g., de a cdntarea (cdnta-re-a) 'to sing', where cdnta is the

short infinitive, -re is the long infinitive affix, and a is the enclitic article.

As the contrast between (45) and (46) shows, de only appears where the infinitive is long

and has the definite article (46). (Short infinitives with article do not exist). The examples in

(45) have regular a-infinitives (without de). The infinitives in (46) are in fact nominalized

infinitives, as marked by the definite article a, thus they need a case assigned.

(45) a. noi avemu puteare a lepfda lucrulu cela intunecatulu

(ii) Prover6 a lavorare di piit.
'I will try to work more.'
(Rizzi, 1982:94)









we have power to repudiate thing.the that somber
'We have the power to repudiate that somber thing.'
Coresi (1581:45)

b. Iaste obiceaiulu a lisa li a se incepe al doilea
is custom to let and to rflx begin the second
'There is a custom to let others first and to be the second.'
Coresi (1581:507)

(46) a. Nu va fi folosu de-a ne cAi-re-a
not will be use de-to us repent.the
'There will be no use for us to repent'
Coresi (1581:480)

b. Ca acmu e vreamea de- a priimi-re-a buntatea
that now is time de-to receive.the goodness.the
'Because now is the time to receive goodness.'
Coresi (1581:480)

The particle a plus long infinitive is preceded by de not only in complements to nouns

(46) but whenever the infinitive has the definite article suffix as in the complement to the verb in

(47) or in the impersonal structure in (48).

(47) a Si gata vom putea fi de-a merge-re-a
and ready will.lpl can be de-to go.the
'We will be ready and able to go'
Coresi (1581:335)

b. Iard deacd incetd de-a grAi-re-a, zise cdtre Simonu:
and if ceased.3sg de-to preach, said.3sg to Simon
'And when he ceased to preach, said to Simon:'
Coresi (1581:330)

(48) lara de-a minca-re-a si de-a be-re-a si a ne imbrdca
but de-to eat.the and de-to drink.the and to us clothe
noao nu apard Domnului
us.Dat not helps Lord.Dat
'And to eat and to drink and to provide our clothes does not assist the Lord/does
not matter to the Lord'
Coresi (1581:222)









The nominalized infinitives (marked with definite article) in the examples (46,47,48)

need a case assigner, a function the particle a is not able to perform10. Then a and the infinitive

were reanalyzed as a constituent and de was required to assign case to nominalized infinitives.

Therefore, one reason for the emergence of de was to assign case to nominalized infinitives.

This implies that the status and position of the particle a in the sentence had changed, from a C

element/position to an I element/position. As Gramatica (1963) points out de and a do not form a

unit, i.e., a complex mood marker or a complex complementizer.

Next, de began to introduce infinitival complements with a plus the -re infinitive without

an article. As illustrated in (49),facere is not marked by the article a.

(49) a. Ci de a facere lege au fiagduit
And de to make law have promised
'They promised to make a law'
Ureche (1647:93)

As expected, since the usual form of the infinitive was without the suffix re (the

sixteenth century) de became established as an element whose function was to introduce a-

(short)infinitive clauses. One example is found as early as Coresi (1581). Notice that the same

matrix verb a sta 'to cease' takes a de a long infinitive complement (50a) and a de a-infinitive

complement (50b). De began to introduce a-infinitival control clauses.

(50) a. Cdndu sthtu de-a grAirea lui
when ceased.3sg de to say.the he.Dat/Gen
'When he ceased to preach./When he stopped from sermonizing '
Coresi (1581:461)

b. Ca statu de-a grAi, zise cdtre Simonu
that ceased.3g deto preach, said.3sg to Simon
'When he ceased to preach, said to Simon:'
Coresi (1581:329)



10 There seems to be no evidence that the particle a also used to assign case to nominalized infinitives and
subsequently lost this function.









Having made its debut in Coresi (1581), the de a-infinitive took some time to attain

productivity. The first Moldavian (preserved) chronicles of the next century include de a-

infinitive structures. The illustration of (51) includes an infinitival control clause; an adjective

triggers the infinitival clause in (52).

(51) lara alti imparati carii au urmat
but other emperors who have followed
lIsAm de a-i mai scrie
give up. lpl de to-them more write
'But we decline to write about other emperors who followed..'
Ureche (1647:75)

(52) n-a fost harnic de a lua tabdra cdzdceascd
not-has been able de to take camp.the Cossack
'He wasn't able to take the Cossack camp'
Costin (1675:61)

Aside from assigning case, de joined the infinitive in order to reinforce the purposive

value. In the next example (53), featuring an infinitival purpose clause (the only one with de in

Coresi, 1581), de has two functions: assigning case to the infinitive verbal noun and introducing

the purpose clause. The perception that the a-infinitive lost its capacity to form purpose clauses

is supported by this example (i.e., the need for a stronger subordinator).

(53) de-a raspunderea inaintea narodului pre acesta puse
de-to answer.the before people.the P this put
'He appointed this man in order to answer before the people"
Coresi (1581:268)

In sum, de was initially necessary to assign case to infinitival verbal nouns and to

introduce purpose clauses.

2.3.2.3 Why de?

The third question about the association of de with infinitive is why this particular

element was chosen to introduce infinitival clauses. According to the view expressed in

Gramatica I (1963:225) infinitival complements proceeded by the preposition de are Gallicisms.









However, since de/di also introduces infinitival complements in Romance languages in general, a

plausible explanation could be that parallel changes may have common causes and common

solutions, although the changes may take place independently in each language.

The diachronic evidence shows that this evolutionary similarity is independent in

Romanian. This particular element, de, had been employed in the C position in finite structures,

before its adoption by infinitive structures. In CV (1532) there are a few purpose structures

produced with indicative and introduced by the preposition de. In Coresi (1561, 1577) and

especially in Coresi (1581), these structures are quite abundant. Two instances of indicative

purpose clauses introduced by de are shown in (54).

(54) a. Si merSu de md spalai
and went.1sg de me.Acc washed. sg
'And I went to wash (myself)'
Coresi (1581:170)

b. Si se va intoarce de va face pdcatu
and rflx will.3sg return de will.3sg do sin
'And he will revert to sin.'
Coresi 1581:23

De even replaces the subjunctive complementizer ca. In the examples (55a) and (56a) the

subjunctive clauses (marked by stc) are introduced by de. The b. examples are the normal

counterparts introduced by the subjunctive complementizer ca. De must be a complementizer in

the finite purpose clauses constructed with indicative (54) or subjunctive (55a, 56a) so it

occupies the Co position. Thus, it is plausible to assume that de has been transplanted in

infinitival complement and purpose clauses with the same function in the same, Co, position.

(55) a. Se nevoiescu de sa o ajungd
rflx strive.3pl de sa her reach
'They strive to reach it.'
Coresi (1581:518)









b. Se nevoiescu ca sa o ajungd
rflx strive.3pl that sa it.Acc reach
'They strive to reach it.'

(56) a. lucrulu sfarsii ce-ai datu mie de sa facu
thing.the finished.lsg which-have.2sg given me.Dat de sa do.lsg
'I finished the thing you asked me to do.'
Coresi (1581:185)

b. lucrulu sfirsii ce-ai datu mie ca sa facu
thing.the finished.lsg which-have.2sg given me.Dat that sa do.lsg
'I finished the thing you asked me to do.'

The most interesting and unexpected constructions found in Coresi (1581) consist of

matrix implicative verbs taking indicative complement clauses introduced by de, as illustrated in

(57a, 58a). While indicative purpose clauses introduced by de have always existed and are still

in use in CR, it is unusual for implicative verbs (normally OC verbs) such as a indratzni 'to dare'

(57a) and a cauta 'to try' (58a) to take indicative complements.

By hypothesis, the indicative structures of (57a) and (58a) will become the infinitival

control complement clauses in (57b) and (58b). It is shown in Chapter 4, Section 4.3, that these

two verbs select de a-infinitive complements.

The examples in (57a) and (58a) may also suggest that the a-infinitive is becoming

weaker not only for creating adjunct clauses but even for complement control clauses.

(57) a. Indrazni de se apropia
dared.3sg de rflx approached.3sg
'He dared to come closer.'
Coresi (1581:547)

b. Radu indrazni de a se apropia.
Radu dared.3sg de to rflx approach
'Radu dared to come closer.'

(58) a. Va cauta de va vedea acelu Sarpe
will.3sg try de will.3sg see that snake
'He will try to see that snake'
Coresi (1581:463)










b. Radu va cduta de a vedea acel Sarpe
Radu will.3sg try de to see that snake
'Radu will try to see that snake'

Since de is obviously a complementizer introducing finite purpose clauses and finite

complement clauses, it is only natural to use the same complementizer with the same function to

introduce infinitival clauses. Thus, it is plausible to assume that the complementizer de has been

extended to infinitival complement clauses also as a complementizer. As a Co element, de was

the best candidate to perform the duties lost by the particle a. (In 4.3, crucial evidence establishes

the Co status of de).

2.3.3 Addition of Other Prepositional Complementizers

As shown above, a-infinitival purpose clauses were extinct or moribund by the end of the

sixteenth century. As also noted, the preposition de and the preposition spre 'towards' were

observed to introduce infinitival purpose clauses. The next two examples (59,60) feature

infinitival purpose constructions introduced by de. Recall that one purpose clause introduced by

de, in (53) above, appears even in Coresi (1581).

(59) A(u) fost chemat de a se afla fatal
has been called de to rflx be present
la deosebirea acelor stdnjeni
of differentiating those.Gen acres
'He was called to witness the marking of the boundary between two pieces of
land'
Alexiu (1939:76), 1795 document

(60) Sa fie legiuitd de a se vinde
sd be.3sg legalized de to rflx sell
'Let it be legalized in order to be sold.'
Alexiu (1939:128), 1815 document

However, infinitival purpose clauses introduced by de are not as productive as those

introduced by the preposition/prepositional complementizers spre 'towards' andpentru 'for/in

order to'. It has been noted above that purpose constructions with spre and finite verbs were the









precursors of infinitival purpose clauses introduced by this preposition. It is remarkable that, still

in the light of Haspelmath (1989), another allative preposition (spre) is employed to introduce

infinitival purpose clauses.

Infinitival purposives with spre are more frequent than those introduced by pentru, a

pattern reflected in Alexiu's (1939) collections of rural documents issued between 1608 -1841.

(61) with spre and (62) with pentru are from Alexiu's collection. No such constructions occur in

Ureche (1647) or Costin (1675). Both types are in use in CR.

(61) Nu-1 scoate fatal (hrisovul)
not-it.Acc show (charter)
spre a sa izbrdni judecata
towards to rflx conclude trial.the
'He doesn't show the charter in order to conclude the trial'
Alexiu (1939:44), 1777 document

(62) ordnduiti boeri pentru a sa hotdrd aceasta
designate.2pl boards for to rflx trace this
mai sus numita moSie
above mentioned estate
'Designate boards in order to mark the borderline of the estate in question.'
Alexiu (1939:54), 1778 document

Various prepositions will also begin to introduce other adjuncts around the middle of the

seventeenth century. A construction with an adjunct introduced by the complex preposition in loc

de 'instead of appears as early as Coresi (1581). This construction is cited in (63) and a more

recent example appears in (64).

(63) $i in locu de a sparge Si a risipi
and instead of to break and to waste
'And instead of breaking and wasting..'
Coresi (1581:404)

(64) In loc d' a porni asupra-le, el sta in nelucrare,..
instead of to embark against-them, he stood in inaction
'Instead of embarking against them, he stood doing nothing.'
Balcescu (1852:340)









Other adjuncts are introduced by the prepositions :pdnat 'till/until' (65), ftart/ftart de 'without'

(66), and inainte de 'before of (67)

(65) Au purces pina a se strange oastea
have.3pl left till to rflx gather army.the
'They left before the army was gathered.'
Ureche (1647:49)

(66) A(u) vandut partea ei far de a nu intreba la socrd-sdu
has sold part her without to not ask P father-in-law-her
'She sold her part without asking her father-in-law's approval'
Alexiu (1939:39), 1777 document

(67) Inainte de a se despdrti ... printul se invoi a
before of to rflx depart prince.the rflx agreed to..
'Before departing the prince agreed to..'
Balcescu (1852:141)

All these infinitival adjuncts have spread and increased in frequency, reaching their peaks

during the nineteenth century. None of the prepositional complementizers introducing infinitival

adjuncts form a complex preposition with the infinitival preposition a, thus a must have a

different status.

In sum, the Romanian infinitive underwent the following changes. It lost its initial

morpheme, the suffix -re, and the particle a was added for its purposive value and to stand for

the identity of infinitive. (It is also possible that a had already become an infinitival adjunct.

When it was subsequently reanalyzed as the infinitival mood marker, -re became vacuous and

dropped).

Bleached of its purposive value and unable to assign case, a and the infinitive verb were

reanalyzed as a constituent. The status and position of a is expected to change. Assuming that

prior to these events a was a CO element, now it is reanalyzed as generated in 1, leaving the CO

position for the emerging de. Thus, the particle de came into play to replace the functions the









particle a was not able (or not longer able) to fulfill. By the end of the sixteenth century, the

particle a was no longer a complementizer.

2.3.4 The Romanian Infinitive vs. Infinitives of Other Languages

A brief survey of the changes involving infinitives in other languages will reveal to what

extent the Romanian changes are normal or idiosyncratic, and what brought about the demise of

the Romanian infinitive in control complements.

Like Romanian, English lost its infinitive suffixes, -an and -enne, and like the a-

infinitive, the to-infinitive began as a purposive and spread as a complement (Miller 2002:187).

By contrast, the English to never completely lost its capacity to introduce purpose clauses. Also

to never lost its integrity as a preposition, whereas the Romanian particle a became confined to

the role of infinitive marker.

The German infinitive underwent two reinforcements, as reported by Haspelmath (1989).

Because the bare infinitive was less clearly marked as infinitive, the particle zi/zu had to be

added as the first reinforcement. Then um (with initial meaning 'about';'for') was added to

fulfill the function of purpose. In Modern German, zu is not able to express purpose.

Also, the Dutch particle te lost its semantic integrity, so it was no longer able to introduce

purpose clauses, and the particle om had to come into play. An infinitival purpose clause

requires om te (Miller 2002:236). Thus, the Romanian infinitive like the infinitives in German

and Dutch underwent two reinforcements regarding purpose clauses.

The Romanian infinitive and that in other Romance languages added the same particles

(of Latin origin) a and de/di, but unlike Romance, the Romanian infinitive lost its specific suffix.

In addition, the particle a becomes obligatory in Romanian (the mark of the infinitive), which

never happened in the rest of Romance. Finally, de must precede the a-infinitive in Romanian,

while a and de/di never coexist in the rest of Romance. Like Romanian, other Romance









languages employ specific prepositional complementizers for introducing purpose clauses, e.g.,

Spanish para 'for'.

Overall, the changes undergone by the Romanian infinitive are similar to those in other

languages. No extraordinary changes occurred in the Romanian infinitive, yet only Romanian

and none of the languages mentioned above lost infinitival complementation.

2.4 Distribution of the Particle a

The particle a became the mark of the infinitive after the infinitive distinguishing

morpheme (the suffix re) vanished making the infinitive verbal form indistinguishable from

indicative verbal forms. The presence of the particle a is always required in constructions with

infinitives, with very few exceptions however. Besides the complex tenses future and conditional

(shown in 2.2), the bare infinitive is possible after certain verbs. This section is concerned with

the contexts in which the bare infinitive occurs or used to occur.

From the sixteenth century, the time of the earliest documents, the Romanian infinitive is

established with the form a plus short infinitive, e.g., a face 'to make', or simply a-infinitive.

Long-form infinitives (with -re suffix) appear here and there as vestiges, mostly in Coresi (1581)

and Ureche (1650). Rarely, the long infinitive continues to appear from time to time and can be

found as late as Creangd (1879), but the last documented -re infinitive remains to be attested.

The infinitive in (68) represents one of the earliest attested a-infinitive forms. (69) shows

the original form of the infinitive with its specific re suffix and without the particle a. The

same matrix verb, a ti 'to know', that triggers the long infinitive in (69) triggers an a-infinitive

in (70). The long infinitive in (69) is really a relic, a rare attestation of older form of the

infinitive, before losing the suffix -re and adding the proclisis a. In the available sources, the

long infinitive is typically found preceded by the particle a (71).









(68) li se cade inraintiea ta se vie a grdi
they.Dat rflx fits before you Sbj come.3pl to speak
'They have the right to come before you in order to speak up'
CV (1528/1532:62)

(69) Fericati oameni ce Stiu strigare
happy.pi people who know.3pl scream.Inf
'Happy are the people who know how to invoke (God)'
Coresi (1577:376)

(70) Ftarnicilor, fata ceriului Stiti a judeca
hypocrites, face.the sky.Gen know.2pl to judge
'Hypocrits, you know how to judge Heaven.'
Coresi (1561:590)

(71) Imi era acum a scApare de ddnsul
me.Dat was now to escape of him
'I was anxious to get rid of him'
Creangd (1879:45), Amintiri din Copilirie

When the particle a was added to the infinitive, a small number of matrix verbs rejected

the particle when followed by infinitive verbs, a phenomenon not unique to Romanian. Vittorini

(1942) observes that potentially auxiliary verbs like to want, to be able to, to have, to be obliged

to do not select infinitives preceded by prepositions in Romance (Spanish, Italian, French).

Miller (2002) also points out that (pre-)modal verbs rejected the to-infinitive (in later Early Old

English) when it spread to various control structures. At that stage, Miller argues, to was not yet

in the M(ood) position (not an inflectional element yet).

In Romanian, four matrix verbs initially rejected a-infinitive complements: a vrea 'to

want', aputea 'can, a #ti 'to know' and a avea 'to have'. Passing through stages of selecting

either bare infinitives or a-infinitives, only two of them ended up selecting bare infinitives.

Regardless of the selection preferences, when the infinitive is proposed, the infinitival

particle a must be present, as the contrast in (72) indicates. In (72a) the nonfinite verb normally

follows the modal that selected it and the particle a is not necessary. If the infinitive can be









proposed like in (72b), the particle must be present. This constraint is evident from (72c) where

the absence of the particle a renders the derivation ungrammatical.

(72) a. Nu pot pleca devreme.
not can.lsg leave.Inf early
'I cannot leave early.'

b. A pleca devreme, nu pot.
to leave early, not can. 1 sg
'I cannot leave early.'

c. *pleca devreme, nu pot.

2.4.1 The Verb a Vrea 'to Want'

The future marker in Romanian developed from the verb a vrea (a Balkanesque feature).

Thus, although initially the verb a vrea selected bare infinitive complements, there was a split

between the future construction with the bare infinitive and the volitional structure with the a-

infinitive, possibly in order to avoid the ambiguity infinitive future indicative.

The data below include instances of a vrea followed by bare infinitive (73), examples of

early forms of future markers (74) and a vrea selecting a-infinitive complements (75).

In (73), a vrea takes verb complements, that is, bare infinitive complements. The past forms of a

vrea in all the examples of (73) exclude them as future markers.

(73) a. Toate cite vru Domnul feace in ceriu
all those wanted Lord.the do.Inf in Heaven
'All the things the Lord wanted to make in Heaven.'
Coresi (1577:553)

b. nimea n'au vrutu intreba nici dinioard
nobody.Acc not'have wanted ask.Inf nor before
'They never wanted to ask anyone (about that).'
Coresi (1581:273)

c. Au vrut fi apucat Si alte cetdti
have.3pl wanted be seized and other citadels
'They wanted to have seized other citadels too.'
Ureche (1647:45)









A vrea in (74), is the future marker. In (74a) the contexts indicates that vre is the future

marker. Also, the clitics -/ and -i in (74a) and (74d) respectively, which can precede the future

marker but not the lexical verb, indicate that the forms of vrea are not lexical verbs in these two

examples. The future marker for first person plural is already different from the form of the verb

a vrea for the same person. Compare vc~mu 'we will' and vremu 'we want' in (74b). At this stage

however both forms may indicate future. The two consecutive (indicative) lexical verbs are

impossible in (74c), showing that vrea is a future marker form.

(74) a. iard de-1 vre piarde (sufletul)
but if-cl.Acc will lose (the soul)
'But if he will lose it (his soul)'
Coresi (1560/1:127)

b. ca vamu totu avea de vremu bea
that will.lpl all have if want. pl drink.Inf
'That we will have everything if we want to drink,'
Coresi (1581:154)

c. Nu vrea putea fi
not will.3sg can be.Inf
'He will not be able to be...'
Ureche (1647:133)

d. Mai apoi, de-i vrea fi a domni mult,
then, if-cl.Dat will be to reign long
nu vrea putea fi sa nu urmeze frdtine-sdu
not will can be sa not follow brother-his.Acc
'Then, if it will be preordained for him to reign for a long time, he will not be
allowed not to follow his brother.'
Ureche (1647:118)

A vrea in all the examples in (75) is the lexical verb. In (75a) vrea is itself preceded by

the future marker, so it cannot be a future marker. The presence of the particle a in all three

examples of (75) excludes the verb a vrea as a future marker. The a-infinitive may directly

follow the matrix verb a vrea in (75b), while the subject is postverbal (after vrea) in (75a). Only









a-infinitives can be proposed (75c). The embedded clauses in (75) are infinitival control

complement clauses.

(75) a. cd de voru vrea pizmaSii ludeii a ocArA
that if will.3pl want embittered Jews to defame (Jesus)
'If the embittered Jews will want to defame (Jesus)'
Coresi (1581:349)

b. Cel ce ciudese facea vru a se ristigni
that which miracles made wanted to rflx crucify
'The one who was making miracles wanted to be crucified.'
Coresi 1581:519)

c. A veni nu vrura
to come not wanted.3pl
'To come, they didn't want.'
Coresi (1581:305)

In many cases, a vrea followed by bare infinitives is ambiguous, as in the following two

examples where the forms of a vrea in (76) could be either future marker or infinitive.

(76) a. si vremu lIcui acie intru anu, si vremu face negotu
and want.lpl live here in year and want.lpl make trade
'And we want to live here next year and want to do business'
'And we will live here next year and will do business'
CV (1528/1532:130)

b. De nu vrea iardsi cAuta (pre Hristosu)
if not wants again seek.Inf (P Christ.the)
'If he doesn't want to seek (the Lord) again'
'If he will not seek (Jesus) again'
Coresi (1581:268)

The future volition ambiguity and the confusion it may have created led to selection

reanalysis, so the verb a vrea eventually ended up selecting a-infinitive complements.

Unfortunately, the duality infinitive future auxiliary of a vrea that existed for a long period of

time led to its avoidance as a matrix verb taking infinitive complement clauses. Although a-

infinitive complements selected by a vrea appear in rural documents (77) and are also used by









illustrious writers (78), subjunctive complements to this verb spread at the expense of the

infinitive. A vrea was the first verb that lost its infinitival complementation.

(77) Toader nu vra a epi din cash
Tudor not wants to exit from house
'Tudor does not want to leave the house'
Stefanelli (1915:410), 1837 document

(78) Vru a cuprinde Modova si a-Si rdzbuna...
wanted.3sg to take Moldavia and to-rflx revenge ...
'He wanted to take Moldavia and to revenge ...'
Balcescu (1852:191)

In sum, the evidence shows that the verb a vrea initially selected bare infinitive but since

the future marker evolved from this verb, it had to change and select a-infinitives.

Infrequently used as a matrix verb taking infinitival complement clauses, a vrea ended

up selecting subjunctive complements and is often called a subjunctive verb.

2.4.2 The Verb a Putea 'Can'

The verb aputea rejected the a-infinitive in the oldest documents, e.g., CV 1528/32, but

change was already underway. For instance, when a clitic (or other element) precedes the

nonfinite verb a is required. When the word order does not follow the standard pattern (i.e.,

proposing the infinitive) the particle is also required. Diachronically, apart from these

restrictions, aputea freely takes a-infinitive or bare infinitive complements. In (79), aputea

selects bare infinitives, i.e., VP complements.

(79) a. cela ce poate mintui si piarde
that who can redeem.Inf and destroy.Inf
'The one who can redeem or destroy'
CV (1528/1532 :130)

b, Nedreptatea nu putui vedea
injustice.the not could. sg see.Inf
'I could not see that injustice.'
Coresi (1577:527)









In (80), aputea must take an a-infinitive when a clitic or adverb precedes the verb. A

pronominal clitic is present in (80a,b) and an intensifier in (80c) and the infinitival particle is

present.

(80) a. aSa vamu putea a ne chema oile
so will.lpl can to us.cl call.Inf sheep
'We will not be able to gather our sheep.'
Coresi (1581:490)

b. copila Mariei tale nu poate a-ti ascunde nimic.
damsel greatness your not can.3sg to-cl.2.Dat hide anything
'Your greatness' daughter cannot hide anything from you.'
Sadoveanu (1880-1961) Zodia Cancerului

c. nu putem a mai raspunde
not can.lpl a more answer
'We cannot be responsible anymore.'
Stefanelli (1915:189), 1790 document

Unlike the examples of (80), the clitics in (81) appear in the matrix (preceding the verb a

putea). In this environment, the infinitival particle is not allowed. The examples (81a,b) are said

to be the result of clitic climbing, i.e., from the infinitival (embedded) clause to the clitic position

of the matrix. (Restructuring and clitic climbing will be discussed in Chapter 4, Section 4.8).

Clitic climbing is disallowed when a is present (81c).

(81) a. Nu-1 poate imblanzi
not-he.cl.Acc can.3sg appease.Inf
'He cannot appease him.'
Ureche (1647:60)

b. Nu le putem afla numele
not they.cl.Acc can.lpl find out.Inf names.the
'We cannot find out their names.'
Ureche (1647:87)

c. *Nu le putem a afla numele.

In all examples of (82), aputea selects a-infinitive complement clauses, although nothing

imposes the presence of the infinitive marker. The position of the matrix subject oile 'the sheep',









between the matrix verb and the infinitive verb in (82d) or the connective of the conjoined

infinitival clauses in (82e) have no input in the presence ofa. Both (82d) and (82e) are possible

without the infinitival particle, diachronically. In CR, they are possible only without the particle.

(82) a. nu poate a mearge pre urma Domnului
not can.3sg to go P way Lord.Gen
'He is not able to follow God's way.'
Coresi (1581:416)

b. Nice imparatul nemtdscu au putut a agedza
nor emperor.the German has could to put
Ardealul in partea sa
Transylvania in part.the his
'Not even the German emperor was able to take Transylvania'
Costin (1675:16)

c. Sa putem a implini aceastd datorie
sa can.lpl to fulfill this duty
'So that we can fulfill this duty.'
Stefanelli (1915:281), 1800 document

d. nu potu oile a treace pren mijlocul lupilor
not can.3pl sheep to pass through middle wolves.Gen
'The sheep cannot pass through a pack of wolves.'
Coresi (1581:202)

e. putem canta Si a grAi
can.lpl sing.Inf and to speak
'We can sing and talk.'
Coresi (1581:108)

The verb aputea has become restricted to bare infinitive complements in CR. This means

that, without the particle a, no negation, clitics or adverbial intensifiers are possible immediately

preceding the bare nonfinite verb. These elements must occur in the matrix. In (83) the negation,

the clitic, and the intensifier are placed in the matrix. A putea is here reanalyzed as a member of

the category M(odal).

(83) Nu il mai pot vedea
Not cl.him more can see.Inf
'I cannot see him anymore.'









Nonetheless, there are cases where a is required. The construction in (84a) is identical in

OSR and CR. The negation must be both in the matrix and the subordinate clause and nu 'not'

before an infinitive is not possible when the mood marker is absent (84b).

(84) a. ca el nu putea a nu primi cu cuviinta un ambassador
that he not could to not receive with homage an ambassador
'That he couldn't receive an ambassador without homage'.
Balcescu (1852:303)

b. *cd el nu putea nu primi cu cuviinta un ambassador

Also, when aputea is used in its reflexive form, a clitic or an intensifier (mai) are not

allowed in the matrix, thus they must be in the embedded clause and the mood marker is required

(85). When the infinitive precedes aputea, the infinitive must have its marker (86).

(85) Nu se poate a-1 mai urca pe aici
not rflx can.3sg to-him more lift P here
'He cannot be lifted this way anymore.'
Popescu (1992:449)

(86) Voi a vA mfntui nu puteti
you.pl to rflx redeem not can.2pl
'You cannot redeem yourselves on your own.'
CV (1528/1532:92)

In the absence of any factor that requires a, aputea takes a bare infinitive complement,

simply because there is no infinitive indicative semantic ambiguity.

2.4.3 The Verb a yti 'to Know'

The verb a #ti followed by the infinitive is rather rare in the oldest documents. In Coresi

(1577) there is one instance of a #ti followed by the long infinitive, with no infinitival particle, as

illustrated above in (69). In Coresi (1581), there are two instances of a a #ti selecting an

infinitive. One is followed by the a-infinitive (87) the other by a bare infinitive (88).

(87) Mai multu nemica nu stie alta a intoarce cdtre Dumnezeu
more nothing not knows other to turn to God
'He knows nothing more than to turn to God.'
Coresi (1581:238)









(88) Sa ne invdtmu milostenie sa Stimu face
sa rlfx learn. pl charity sa know. pl make.Inf
'Let us learn to know how to be charitable'
Coresi (1581:449)

A #ti continues to select either a-infinitives (89) or bare infinitives (90), but the a-

infinitive is predominant.

(89) cati am stiut scrie
those have. lpl known write.Inf
'Those of us who knew how to write.'
Stefanelli (1915:290), 1801 document

(90) n-ai stiut a profit de ocazie
not-have.2sg known to profit of occasion
'You didn't know how to take advantage of this occasion.'
Potra et al (1972) 1848 letter

As expected, when one of the one-syllable elements allowed between the infinitival

particle and the infinitive verb is present, the particle is required. The examples (91) and (92)

have a-infinitives imposed by the presence of the reflexive pronouns. Both the negation and the

clitic in (93a) require the presence of the infinitival particle. Without the particle, the derivation

is ungrammatical (93b).

(91) martorii neStiind a sA iscili
witnesses-the not knowing to rflx sign
'The witnesses didn't know how to sign (were illiterate).'
Stefanelli (1915:409) 1836 document, Cdmplulung Moldova

(92) Nemtii stiu a se bate
germans.the know to rflx fight
'The Germans know how to fight.'
Balcescu (1852:66)

(93) a. Sa fie stiut a nu ma tagadui ...
sa be known to not me.cl deny
'Let it be known that I have an uncontestable right...'
Alexiu (1939:144), 1821 document, V.Teleajenului

b. *Sa fie stiut nu ma tigfdui









A #ti may also select infinitival question/interrogative complements where the infinitival

particle is present. One example is included below (94).

(94) nu stim de ce a ne minuna mai mult
not know. pl of what to us wonder more
'We don't know what more to wonder about.'
Balcescu (1852:95)

When the verb a #ti takes infinitival interrogative complements, the particle a may be

optional (95) or required (96a). The latter may be possible only as an indicative construction

(96b). In some cases, the absence of the particle a results in infinitive (97a) indicative (97b)

ambiguity.

(95) Nu stiu cu cine (a) md imprieteni
not know.lsg with who to rflx befriend
'I don't know with who to be friend.'

(96) a. Stie incotro/unde *(a) merge
knows where (to) go
'She knows where to go.'

b. Stie incotro/unde merge
knows where goes
'She knows where he goes.'

(97) a. Nu stiu ce face.
not know.1sg what do.Inf
'I don't know what to do.'

b. Nu stiu ce face.
not know.1sg what does.Ind
'I don't know what he does.'

Assuming that a is a complementizer when this particle is absent when following wh-

phrases11 in constructions with the verb a #ti plus interrogative complements is disproved by the





11 A wh-word and a complementizer do not coexist in Romanian (shown in Section 3.4). Therefore, a cannot be a
complementizer if it appears following wh-words.









fact that the infinitive following wh-phrases may or may not be accompanied by the particle a. In

addition, the particle is often required in such constructions.

Popescu (1992:307) believes that a #ti followed by bare infinitives is a regionalism.

Diachronically, some writers never use bare infinitives after the verb a #ti, while others use either

bare infinitives or a-infinitives when possible, but an a-infinitive when wh-words are present.

In general, the verb a #ti is rarely able to select infinitival complements if the infinitival

particle a is absent.

2.4.4 The Verb a Avea 'to Have'

Deontic a avea, which denotes obligation, permission and possibility, always selects a-

infinitives (98) or de a-infinitive complements (99). The contrast in (100) shows that the

infinitival particle is required when deontic a avea takes an infinitival complement. The example

(100a) is repeated in (100b) but without the particle and the derivation crashes.

(98) lara de veri zice sa vie [ea are a veni]
but if will.2sg say sa comes she has to come
'But if you will tell her to come she has to come'
Coresi (1581:228)

(99) Au avut de a riscumpira (cincizeci stdnjeni)
have.3pl had de to buy back (fifty fathoms)
'They had to by back those fifty fathoms'
Alexiu (1939:62) 1786 document

(100) a. Veti avea a semana intru desertu
will.2pl have to sow into desert
'You will have to sow in the desert'
Coresi (1581:459)

b. Veti avea semana intru desertu

A avea followed by the a-infinitive could be also considered a future tense where a avea

is an auxiliary. This construction seems to be inherited from Vulgar Latin which had a future

formed with habere 'to have' and the infinitive. Structures with habere expressed initially









necessity, then future (Graur et al, 1965:82). Actually, it may be possible to consider are a veni

'has to come' in (98) a periphrastic structure expressing future: 'she will come'. However, there

are structures with a avea and infinitives where a avea itself may have future tense as in (100) or

past tense as in (99).

Apart from the constructions with deontic a avea and infinitival clauses, there are some

constructions with a avea plus expressions with wh-words and infinitives12. The infinitive in

these constructions is usually bare in OSR (102) but the particle a may be also present (101). In

CR, these constructions appear only with bare infinitives.


(101) a.


n-are cine a asculta, nici a
not-has who to listen, nor to
'There is no one to listen or to repent..'
Coresi (1581:254)


spafi,
repent


b. Si neavand de unde a plati
and not having from where to pay
'and they weren't able to pay the creditors'
Stefanelli (1915:412), 1837 document


datornicilor
creditors.Dat


N- avem de unde lua
not- have. lpl from where take.Inf
'There is nothing we can take from anywhere.'
Stefanelli (1915: 234), 1793 document


b. Nu avea de ce
not had.3sg of what
'He didn't have anything to
Costin (1675:105)


se apuca
rflx lean.Inf
lean on'


c. N'amu cu ce mA hrAni
not'have. 1sg with what rflx feed.Inf
'I don't have anything to feed myself
Coresi (1581:399)


12 Schulte (2i 14 161) calls structures like those in (101, 102) "coreferential indirect wh-questions complements".
However, they seem different from the structures with a 'ti and interrogative complements (94, 95, 97). The
segment that begins with the wh-word seems to be an NP, e.g., the chunk in bold in (101, 102).


(102) a.









By contrast, the same type of constructions but with the verb afi 'to be' plus wh-words

must always be followed by the a-infinitive, as illustrated by the examples in (103a,104a,105a).

The b. examples are the a. examples, but with bare infinitives. Without the particle a the verb

ascunde 'hide' in (103b) has the form of 3rd person singular, present indicative; the verb izb&ivi in

(104b) has the form of 3rd person singular simple perfect indicative; The example (104b) is

ungrammatical without the particle a.

(103) a. Ca nu e cine a ascunde cAldura sa
that not is who to hide warmth his
'Because there is no one to hide his warmth'
Coresi (1577:94) CP2, 1589 variant

b. Ca nu e cine ascunde cAldura sa
that not is who hide.3sg warmth his
'Because this is not the one who hides his warmth.'

(104) a. Prindeti-1 ca nu e cine a-1 izbivi
catch.Imp.2pl-him that not is who to-him redeem
'Catch him because there is no one to redeem him.'
Coresi (1577:294) CP2, 1589 variant

b. Prindeti-1 ca nu e cine -1 izbivi
catch.Imp.2pl-him that not is who -him redeemed
'Catch him because he is not the one who redeemed him

(105) a. nu era cum a sta impotriva ostilor
not was how to stay against armies.Gen
'It wasn't possible to confront those armies.'
Costin (1675:137)

b. *nu era cum sta impotriva ostilor

The question is what makes it possible for an infinitive to appear without the particle a?

Comparing the examples with a avea 'to have' (101-102) with those with afi 'to be' (103-105),

it appears that the particle a is required when its absence leads to ungrammaticality or to

ambiguity between infinitive and indicative readings.









Since nearly any bare infinitive form is homophonous with some indicative verbal form,

the occurrence of bare infinitive complements (with or without wh-words) is strictly attributed to

the nature of the respective matrix verb.

In the end, due to their nature, only two verbs are able to take bare infinitive

complements: aputea 'can' and, rarely, a #ti 'to know'. Apart from these exceptions, the

infinitive is always preceded by the particle a, in any infinitival structure. Without a, an

infinitival structure is rendered ungrammatical, e.g., (106b). Although write could be infinitive or

indicative, (106b) cannot be grammatical as an indicative structure because a C element is

always needed to introduce an embedded indicative clause (106c). Therefore, an infinitive-

indicative ambiguity is only possible when a subordinator, i.e., wh-phrases, precedes the

nonfinite verb in the absence of the infinitival particle a, as seen in the case of the verb a #ti.

(106) a. Radu spera a scrie o carte.
Radu hopes to write a book
'Radu hopes to write a book.'

b. *Radu spera scrie o carte.
Radu hopes write.Inf/3sg.Ind
*Radu hopes write/writes a book

c. Radu spera cA scrie o carte.
Radu hopes that write.3sg.Ind a book
'Radu hopes that she is writing a book.'

In sum, the particle a is the unique morphology of the infinitive: the "one-member

paradigm" of infinitive in Haspelmath's (1989) terms. Without the particle a, the infinitive has

no identity and infinitival structures are not possible (excepting the cases discussed above).

2.5 Causes of Infinitive Loss

This section is concerned with the factors that caused, contributed and ultimately led to

the loss of infinitival complementation in Romanian.









The theory of a single language influence that spread into the languages of the Balkans

seems to be true for Romanian. In Sandfeld's (1930) view, Greek influence was the source for

the loss of the infinitive in control complements. Sandfeld's approach is sustained by the

following arguments. Traces of infinitives do not exist in the southernmost languages, Greek and

Tosk Albanian, and the traces increase from South to North, with some traces in Bulgarian and

more in Romanian and Serbo-Croatian. This means that the change was propagated from the

South to the North of the Balkan region, a conclusion further sustained by the evidence of early

development in the Greek infinitive (i.e., loss of the infinitive). Subsequently, the predominant

influence of the Greek culture, which began early, can be observed in the whole Balkan region.

Lastly, the changes undergone by the Greek infinitive, which began at a very early date (just

before the AD era), imply that the infinitive-replacement phenomenon appears to be a natural

development in this language.

For Romanian, language contact with Greek was crucial for the loss of the infinitive. This

section discusses the avenues of the Greek influence, that is, the proof of language contact, the

origin of the infinitive-subjunctive alternation in the same structure types, and the possible

internal factors contribution. Since the influence exercised by the Greek language on Romanian

has been determinative, a summary of the events that caused the loss of the Greek infinitive is

also included. Also, the inventory of the numerous changes undergone by the Greek infinitive is

significant when comparing them with the few changes undergone by the Romanian infinitive,

suggesting that the internal changes in Greek but not in Romanian caused the loss of infinitival

complementation.

2.5.1 Loss of Infinitive in Greek

The regression of the infinitive and its replacement by a reflex of the subjunctive in

Greek was a long and gradual process. An outline of the changes undergone by the Greek









infinitive will be presented in this subsection. For a detailed account accompanied by a wealth of

illustrative data see Joseph (1983). The events gathered below are from Joseph's work on the

history of the Greek infinitive. A couple of comments and a number of footnotes will be also

added.

The beginning of the regression of the infinitive is placed in late Classical Greek at the

time of Thucydides13 (born approximately mid 460s BC). The phenomenon is marked by the

addition of the particle tou (a genitive neuter article) in places where the infinitive was strictly

bare. This infinitive is called articular infinitive and the particle is called subordinator.

Thucydides' writings include such examples. This "morphological renewal ", is believed to have

weakened the infinitive domain without changing its nonfinite status (Joseph, 1983).

In the next stage, of Post-Classical Greek, between circa the second century BC and the

sixth century AD, the infinitive appears with the conjunctions hina, hopo:s, and hoti in a number

of environments. In Classical Greek, these conjunctions were used only with finite forms. The

use of these conjunctions with infinitives is considered "performance" errors or "popular

confusion", but they brought about the "demise of the infinitive" (Joseph, 1983:51).

In Biblical or Hellenistic Greek, the infinitive is found as a sole form in a small number

of environments or, more frequently, in alternation with finite verb forms in other contexts, as

attested in early Christian writings.

The New Testament includes infinitives of purpose triggered by verbs of motion with or

without tou but mostly with tou. Its usage with tou appears to be greater than in Classical Greek.

Parallel, subjunctives with hina were possible in the New Testament but still optional. The




13 Thucydides Probable date of birth around mid 460s BC; elected Athenian general in 424 BC; The author of
Histories.









articular infinitive was common with the prepositions dia and para to indicate cause and with eis

and pros to indicate purpose.

It is interesting to notice that verbs like mello 'be about to', opheilo 'ought to', dunamai

'can', arkhomai 'begin, tolm'dare' and epithumo 'wish/desire' that are usually control verbs

occurred with infinitive complements. Thelo 'want' selected both infinitive clauses and finite

clause with hina (na in Modern Greek). Thelo took infinitive complements when the subject of

the matrix and that of the subordinate were identical (control) and took finite forms with hina in

noncontrol situations. Sometimes, an infinitive complement was conjoined with a hina

complement (as in Romanian: an infinitive clause can be conjoined with a subjunctive clause).

The result was that for almost every construction with the infinitive there was a finite

variant, and in general the examples with the infinitive only (e.g., object deletion and object

raising) are in small number in the Bible.

From the second century and into Medieval Greek (twelfth century) many changes took

place on the morphology of the infinitive: the perfect infinitive was lost; the middle ending was

replaced by the passive ending; the first aorist14 active ending underwent some changes that

made it more like the second aorist, etc.

The infinitive continued to appear in Greek during the early Byzantine period, but its

replacements were more frequently used. However, the use of the infinitive in nonliterary papiry

continued until the seventh century. The infinitive was also quite widely used in Malalas15 (sixth

century) and Moschos16 (seventh century).


14 Aorist (Greek meaning: without horizon, unbounded) is a verb tense which in infinitive and participle is purely
aspectual and devoid of any temporal meaning. In Greek (and Sanskrit) the aorist is marked by several
morphological devices.
15 Malalas author of C i i. ,g <1- ,1 chronicler of the sixth century.
16 Moschos a Desert Father, (D.619) author of the compilation of stories and sayings The Spiritual Meadow.









The final stages of the loss of the infinitive are perceived during the Medieval Greek (or

later stages of Byzantine Greek) from the eleventh century to the seventeenth century. The

alternation between infinitive and finite verbs can be noticed between earlier and later

manuscripts of the same text. The Paris manuscript of the fifteenth century of Chronicle of

Morea in many cases has a finite verb where the earlier manuscript, the fourteenth century

manuscript of Copenhagen, had an infinitive. The observation here is that these infinitival

complements in the manuscript of Copenhagen are triggered by control verbs, the same verbs

that were used in Biblical Greek.

The articular infinitive appears sporadically in this period, but these forms are "fixed

phrases or lexicalized forms used as simple nouns." (Joseph, 1983:59.) Some new uses of the

infinitive also appear in Medieval Greek. For instance, the temporal or circumstantial infinitive

that is an extension of the articular infinitive, now marked with to, (previously tou?) lengthened a

bit the duration of the infinitive in general. This temporal infinitive appeared during the tenth

century. It was not really used in the Byzantine times but it was quite common in the Medieval

Greek vernacular. It shows up in Chronicle ofMorea quite frequently. The temporal infinitive

lasted until the beginning of the fifteenth century. After that, it was replaced by a finite verb.

In the Medieval Greek vernacular texts, the infinitive occurs as complement to the verbs

for have and want, only to form future, conditional and irrealis moods. The loss of the infinitive

in Greek must have been over at a time subsequent to the medieval period. In Joseph (1999), the

replacement is considered to be over just before the1600s.

The changes undergone by the Greek infinitive were in much greater number than the

changes in other Indo-European languages, Romanian included. In Haspelmath's (1989)









counting, the Greek infinitive underwent thirteen reinforcements. This difference suggests that

the loss of the infinitive in Greek was caused by the numerous internal changes.

2.5.2 Infinitive-Subjunctive Alternation

The oldest Romanian records (sixteenth century) show that some syntactic structures are

constructed with either infinitive or subjunctive. These sources leave no indication about the

origin of this alternation or about when this phenomenon began, that is when structures

constructed with infinitive only began to be also constructed with subjunctive.

For instance, in one of the oldest Romanian sources CV (Codicele Voronetean) the

motion verb a veni 'to come' triggers purpose clauses with infinitive (107a) or subjunctive

(107b). The subjunctive-type of purpose clause is still rare at this time. The example below is the

only one in CV. Notice that the subjunctive particle is in its stage of se17.

(107) a. nime n'au veinritu a grAi de tinre ceva reu
nobody not'have.3sg come to speak of you something bad
'Nobody came to say something bad about you.'
CV (1528/1532:102)

b. E Alecsandru veinre se rdspundd gloateei
and Alexander came Sbj answer.3sg crowd.Gen
'And Alexander came to answer the crowd's questions'
CV (1528/1532:12)

Also a number of matrix predicates may select either infinitive or subjunctive

complement clauses: a se nevoi 'to try/strive', afi gata 'to be ready', a voi 'will', a ruga 'to

ask/beg', aputea 'can', a vrea 'to want', a dice (zice) 'to say'. For instance, the verb a se nevoi

'to try' takes an infinitival complement clause in (108a) and a subjunctive complement clause in

(108b). Both examples are subject control clauses.

(108) a. si se nevoiascd a intoarce rdtdcitii cdtrd dedevaru


1 The form of the subjunctive particle in Old Romanian has the form se, which is homophonous with the reflexive
pronoun se. Sometimes, this reflexive has the form sa, identical to the subjunctive particle in CR.









and Sbj try.3sg to return lost.pl towards truth
'And they are trying to guide the lost ones back to the truth.'
CV (1528/1532:109)

b. nevoitea-se se pomeneascd de ... invdtatori
tried-rflx Sbj mention. 3 sg of teachers
'They tried to remember the (spiritual) teachers'
CV (1528/1532:166)

Some opinions link the replacement of the infinitive with subjunctive complementation in

Romanian to some changes in Latin inherited then by Romanian. Joseph (1983) notes that some

scholars (Baric 1961, Iliescu 1968, Saltarelli 1981, Rozencvejg 1976) believe that the alternation

of the infinitive in Vulgar Latin with finite clauses in certain structures continued and extended

into Romanian and ultimately led to a full-scale replacement of the infinitive.

For instance, Baric (1961) argues that there was an inclination in Latin conditional

clauses constructed with the subjunctive and the conjunction si to undertake a goal or purpose

sense. This tendency permitted the association si- subjunctive to assume the role of infinitival

replacement. This argument may have some validity since the subjunctive particle sac comes from

the Latin si via Old Romanian se. Indeed, sac subjunctive may replace most infinitival clauses in

Romanian.

However, Joseph (1983) argues that despite an early East-West split within Vulgar Latin,

Romanian and the other Romance languages must have shared the same linguistic system at

some point. The fact that the loss of the infinitive is restricted to Romanian, the phenomenon

may have occurred within the development of Romanian proper. It is well known that in other

Romance languages complement to verb structures are constructed with the infinitive when the

matrix and the subordinate clauses share the same subject (control), and with the subjunctive









when the two clauses have separate subjects18. Romanian departs from Romance by allowing

control structures with the subjunctive, (108b) above, or the infinitive (108a).

Furthermore, Joseph (1983) points out that the connection with those fluctuations in Latin

could not be more than a starting point in the replacement of some infinitive functions with the

subjunctive in Romanian, since this phenomenon never happened in the rest of the Romance

languages. Besides, Megleno-Romanian19 and Aromanian20 whose speakers are deeply located

in the Balkans lost all their infinitives, whereas Istro-Romanian21 whose speakers are in Croatia,

at the border with Italy (their country in the past, before border redesign) retained most of

infinitive functions. The replacement of the infinitive in Romania, which is not a fully Balkan

country, was considerably slower.

Another source for the infinitive subjunctive alternation would be language contact.

The early contacts among Balkan languages are placed around 600 to 800 AD, according to

Klagstadt (1963) cited by Joseph (1983).

Joseph relates that there was a bilingual situation in which Macedonian, Bulgarian and

Albanian speakers also spoke Greek. Since the loss of the infinitive in Greek began early and the

process was in an advanced stage, it could have motivated the generalization of this phenomenon

in the languages of the region.


18 As the Spanish examples show, in (i) both verbs share the same subject, whereas in (ii) each verb/clause has its
own subject. The examples are borrowed from Joseph (1983).
(i) Quiero venir.
want. sg come.Inf
'I want to come'
(ii) Quiero que venga.
want.lsg that come.Sbj.2sg
'I want you to come'
19 Megleno-Romanian spoken in Macedonia and Bulgaria northeast of Thessaloniki.

20 Aromanian or Macedo-Romanian is spoken in parts of Greece, Albania, and Macedonia.
21 Istro-Romanian spoken by Romanians in Istria, the territory that used to be Italian, today Croatia.









For Romanian, Joseph argues that the contact with Bulgarian in the south would have

promoted the spread of the infinitive-loss. Rosetti (1968:292) mentions another situation of

bilingualism (in the region) used by Slavs and Romanians who lived together on the south

territory of today's Romania. Joseph assumes that the difference between Romanian and the

languages from the central Balkan region is a chronological one. The process of replacement,

which started at an earlier date and was more advanced in Greek than in Bulgarian, explains the

late influence of Bulgarian on Romanian. One way of this influence was through the translation

of religious books. All Romanian books (at least those preserved) printed during the sixteen

century were religious and church books translated from Slavonic/Old Bulgarian, which in turn

were translated from Greek

Regarding the old Slavic texts translated from Greek, Rosetti (1968:558) describes those

translations as "absolutely subservient and often very awkward'. Similarly, the Romanian texts

translated from Slavonic follow the Slavonic syntax too closely, resulting in obsequious

imitations of the original structures without consideration for the natural Romanian word order

and structures. This manner of translation may explain the small number of infinitival

complement clauses in the religious books of the sixteenth century.

Regardless of the initial source of the infinitive-subjunctive alternation in Romanian, the

possibility of expressing the same structure with two moods will have eventually led to the

preference of one of them (subjunctive) at the expensive of the other (infinitive). Nonetheless,

this alternation alone may not necessarily explain the high-scale retreat of the infinitive from

complement clauses in Romanian.

2.5.3 Internal Factors

As already known, the loss of the specific infinitive suffix -re caused the loss of the

infinitive morphological and semantic identity. One of the effects of this shortening is that the









new infinitive form is identical with 3rd person singular verbal form in indicative present,

imperfect, or simple perfect (examples included in the previous section, 2.4).

Some authors argue that the homophony between an infinitive verb and various finite

forms may have been a possibility for the interpretation of infinitive forms as being finite. Since

similar changes happened in other languages (e.g., Bulgarian, Macedonian), Togeby (1962)

argues that these morpho-phonetic developments are the actual explanation for the infinitive loss

in those languages. Joseph (1983) considers that although this homophony could have some

contribution, there is no evidence for any reanalysis of the infinitive as finite forms, but the

potential for such interpretation still exists.

Nevertheless, as evidenced in the previous section on the distribution of the particle a, a

short infinitive is not possible without this particle, with very few exceptions. For instance, it is

simply not possible for a structure like (109a) with a bare infinitive to be interpreted as (109b),

where the second clause has an indicative present verb and a subject distinct from the subject of

the matrix verb. Although the infinitive verb in (109a) and the third person present indicative

verb in (109b) have the same form, there is no infinitive-indicative ambiguity. When this kind of

ambiguity may arise, the particle a is required, as seen in the parallel examples with the verb afi

'to be' in (110). These kinds of examples are discussed in Section 2.4.

(109) a. Nu am ce face
not have.1sg what do.Inf
'I do not have (anything) to do.'

b. *Nu am ce face el/ea
not have.1sg what does he/she
*'I don't have anything him/her to do.'

(110) a. Ca nu e cine a ascunde caldura sa
that not is who to hide warmth his
'Because there is no one to hide his warmth'
Coresi (1577:94) CP2, 1589 variant










b. Ca nu e cine ascunde cAldura sa
that not is who hide.3sg warmth his
'Because this is not the one who hides his warmth.'

Besides, the loss of the infinitive suffix and the infinitive indicative homophony in

English have not led to the reanalysis of infinitive as finite forms or to the regression of the

infinitive in this language. Thus, the shortening of the infinitive verbal form may not explain the

infinitive-loss in Romanian.

The weakening of the particle a seemed to have a greater impact on the weakening of the

infinitive, however. Recall that by the end of the sixteenth century, a was not able to assign case

to nominalized infinitives and to introduce purpose clauses of non-motion verbs. The weakness

of the infinitive led to innovations like implicative verbs taking indicative complements (instead

of infinitival complements) introduced by the complementizer de. This complementizer replaced

the functions of the particle a and began to introduce a-infinitive clauses. The emergence of de

as an infinitival complementizer (evidenced in 2.3 and Chapter 4) may have actually

strengthened the infinitive.

Joseph (1983) believes that the infinitival particle de slowed the process of the

replacement so that infinitive complement structures survived for a longer time in Romanian

comparing with other languages of the Balkan Sprachbund.

Unfortunately, as any linguistic change, the process of establishing de as an infinitival

component was slow. Introduced in Coresi (1581), de actually began to appear in sources from

the middle of the next century only.

In conclusion, admitting that some of the changes undergone by the infinitive contributed

to the infinitive loss, they alone cannot explain this phenomenon since the infinitive in other

languages underwent similar changes (examples given in Section 2.3), but never lost their









infinitival complementation. Moreover, the infinitive of Southern dialects of Italian, e.g.,

Salentino of Brindisi22, never lost their original morphological form but still replaced their

infinitival complementation with subjunctive complementation under the influence of the Greek

language through the Greek population in the region.

2.5.4 Greek Influence

Between the fourteenth and eighteenth centuries, the Romanian Principalities of

Moldavia and Walachia (Tara Romdneasca) evolved as part of the Eastern Orthodox religious

and cultural world: their ecclesiastical allegiance was to the patriarchate of Constantinople; their

princes emulated the Byzantine emperors and drew their written law from Byzantine codes.

The spread of Greek culture in the Romanian principalities was part of the larger culture

of the Orthodox Christianity. Greek culture influenced Romanian culture through many avenues:

religion, politics, philosophy and education, all of them by means of Greek people and the Greek

language.

According to Balcescu's (1852:14-17) account, after the fall of Eastern Empire (1453),

many Greeks from Constantinople and Rumelia23 found refuge in the Romanian Principalities.

These Greeks began to practice commerce and industry, became rich, married Romanian women

and gained civic rights. Controlling the commerce and industry, the Greeks gained economical

and political power. In the 1600s, the presence of the Greeks, at least the wealthy and powerful

ones, was great, and perceived as a threat to the Romanian national character of the country.




22 For instance the infinitive cantare 'to sing' of Salentino still has the initial Latin form with the suffix -re, also the
original Romanian form, now cdnta.
23 Rumelia or Rumell (Turkish Rumeli 'Land of the Romans) a name used from the 15th century onwards for the
southernBalkan regions of the Ottoman Empire. Rumelia included ancient provinces of Constantinople,
Thessaloniki, Thrace, Macedonia and Moesia, today's central Greece and European Turkey. In Greece the name
Rumeli has been used since Ottoman times to refer to Central Greece.









Rosetti (1968:604) reminds us that the Greek influence, especially through the Orthodox

Church, was very powerful until the nineteenth century. Around 1702, Eduard Chisthull, an

English monk notes that in Tara Romdneascd "church services took place in Greek or Slavonic,

and not in Romanian." (cf. Panaitescu, 1965:225). Many Romanians today recall that many

churches still had Greek priests in the 1970s-1980s.

Books were a significant means of spreading Greek culture and language. As Panaitescu

(1965) reports, Romanian humanists who knew Greek believed that the most powerful source of

the church books and the books of laws was Greek literature and not Slavonic one. Panaitescu

points out that starting with the middle of the seventeenth century almost all religious books

written in Romanian were translated from Greek. The most important book printed by the

Romanian printing art of the time was Biblia de la Bucuregti (The Bible of Bucharest), printed at

the printing office of the Metropolitan Church of Bucharest in 1688. It was a translation from

Greek.

In addition, many of the printing presses belonging to various churches and monasteries

had Greek sections like the printing office of the Metropolitan Church of Bucharest. Another

Greek printing office functioned at the Cetdtuia Monastery in Moldavia. Other Greek printing

offices functioned in Snagov, Rdmnic, TdrgoviSte, IaSi, etc.24

The books of translations from Greek are not only religious, but secular as well. Greek

books in the original like chronicles and new editions, translations in Romanian of older books,

or new literary work produced by the Greek diaspora, began to spread in the Romanian

Principalities, beginning in the second half of the seventeenth century.




24 See for instance Papacostea-Danielopolu (1995) and BaltutA (1993), among others









On the other hand, 1566 volumes of Greek manuscripts that include records about the

entire spectrum of activities in medieval Romania have been written and preserved in the country

(Rotaru 1981).

Panaitescu (1965) relates that the followers of the Neo-Aristotelian philosophy defeated

in Constantinople find protection and understanding in the regal schools of Tara Romdneascd.

For instance, loan Cariofil accused of heresy by the Patriarchy of Constantinople comes to

Bucharest where he prints his Greek Manual about some confusions, regarding the church

dogmas.

Then, during the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth century, more

precisely between 1717-1821, the Greek political domination reaches its zenith in Romania. This

period is known in history as the Phanariot epoch. The Phanariots were Greeks from the

Orthodox section of Constantinople, Phanar, the residence of the privileged Greek families. The

Phanariot rulers in the Romanian Principalities belonged to eleven families, nine of which were

Greek and two Hellenized Romanians. Greek influence in church and the cultural life expanded,

despite opposition from native boyars (nobles) and churchmen.

Adamescu (2007) points out, that the Phanariot rulers created Greek schools, wrote laws

and issued decrees in Greek, and ruled using their native language. The Greek language is also

the language used by the Romanians belonging to the upper classes. Often, members of the great

families of Romanian boyars translated books from the Greek literature or wrote original works

directly in Greek. The schools conducted in Romanian were considered inferior and were just

superfluous additions to the Greek schools.

In Rotaru's (1981) account, schools in the Greek language (since the thirteenth century)

which, along with the presence of numerous libraries of Greek books, explain the diffusion of









Byzantine culture into Romania. Slavic professors in schools of higher education were replaced

by Greek professors prepared at Constantinople. The predominance of the Greek language and

Greek professors in higher education continued until 1821.

When the Phanariot political system was over, as a result of the 1821 revolution, most of

the Phanariot families continued to live in the Romanian Principalities where they had married

and accumulated wealth.

In sum, during the Phanariot era, Greek was used in most of the administrative domains

in the Romanian Principalities: government and its institutions, education, religion and churches,

printing presses and offices, commerce and more. In addition, Greek was the official language

and the language of the upper classes. The Greek population and the Romanians who spoke

Greek in addition to Romanian must have been numerically significant to make possible the use

of Greek in so many domains for so long a period of time.

Consequently, it can be surmised that there was Greek Romanian language contact,

close enough to permit contact-induced structural changes, most relevant for our purposes, the

regression and demise of the infinitive in control complement clauses in Romanian. In Greek, the

replacement of the infinitive with a subjunctive construction was completed just before the

1600s.

Although Greek influence was not solely responsible for the demise of the infinitive from

control complements, it must have contributed a great deal to this phenomenon. Rossetti

(1968:258) points out that the dialects of MaramureS and CriSana (Transylvania) still preferred

the use of the infinitive whereas in the Southeast the use of the subjunctive predominated at the

time of his book. He also emphasizes that the change also occurred in the dialects of south Italy

precisely because of the influence of the Greek population in the respective regions.









Overall, the replacement of infinitival complementation with subjunctive

complementation happened in stages and as a result of various contributing factors. The starting

point goes back to the beginning of the alternation of infinitive structures with finite structures,

mostly subjunctive clauses, whether inherited by Romanian from Latin, developed independently

in Romanian, or a Balkan feature that spread into Romanian. The effect is competition in control

structures between an infinitive and a subjunctive, with the latter increasing over time at the

expense of the former.

Next, the Romanian infinitive underwent some changes, which may have led to the

weakening of this category. Internal factors such as the loss of the infinitive suffix re, followed

by the weakening of the infinitival particle a, constitute the second stage of the change.

On these propitious conditions, the Greek influence during the seventeenth and

eighteenth centuries seems to have been the coup de grace, leading to the demise of infinitive in

control complement clauses. Following the influence of Greek, it was just a matter of time until

the complete disappearance of the infinitive from control structures in Romanian.

2.5.5 On the Spread of Loss of Infinitive Complementation

How this linguistic phenomenon spread over all Romanian regions is beyond the scope of

this dissertation. However, some preliminary observations are in order. Concerning the external

influence of Greek, it is hard to imagine that the large masses of native Romanians, many of

them illiterate, actually learned and spoke Greek.

The difference between literary writing and nonliterary writing indicates that the

regression of the infinitive and its replacement with the subjunctive took place first in urban

areas, initiated by highly educated people who learned foreign languages and lived in political

and cosmopolitan centers. This was also true for chroniclers like Grigore Ureche and Miron









Costin whose education included Latin, Polish, Old Slavonic and Greek. They consulted works

in these languages and Costin even wrote versions of his chronicle in Latin and Greek.

Comparing the Moldovan chronicles of Ureche and Costin on the one hand and

Stefanelli's collection of rural documents, also from Moldova, on the other hand, two differences

are apparent. First, although the peasants who signed the rural documents had a poor vocabulary,

they actually used more matrix verbs with infinitive complements than those found in the two

chronicles. For instance, while Ureche uses thirteen matrix verbs with infinitive complements,

the rural documents include thirty such verbs. Also, Ureche never uses the verb a vrea 'to want'

with infinitive complements (Costin uses it only once), but the rural documents have fourteen

such instances. As already mentioned, this verb disappeared first from infinitival complement

structures.

In accord with the findings of Labov (1972a), the variety of Romanian in which

subjunctive complementation is preferred to infinitival is the prestige dialect, most common at

the top of the social ladder. The upper classes, and upward mobility middle classes, constituted

the highest percentage of the prestige variety. "The regression line for the upper working class

shows the steepest slope, indicating the highest rate of change, while the middle working class is

just behind." (Labov, 2002). This statement accurately describes the situation in Romanian as

well. Then, as Labov (1972b) argues, the vernacular shows irregular influence from the prestige

dialect. All of these considerations explain why the loss of infinitival complementation in

Romanian occurred first in the speech of the wealthy and most educated people.

As for regional differences, as mentioned above, Rosetti (1968) observes that some

Transylvanian territories, CriSana and MaramureS, were amongst the last to undergo the loss of

the infinitive. From Rdmniceanu's (1800) Chronicle ofBlaj (city in Transylvania) a similar









observation could be made. The frequency of the infinitive in general and in complement clauses

is quite high in this chronicle. In short, the loss of the infinitive crossed the Carpathians later.

Summing up, the spread of the replacement of infinitival complementation with

subjunctive complementation took place from the more educated to the less educated, from urban

areas to rural areas, from Walachia and Moldova to Transylvania.

In Contemporary Romanian, infinitival complementation still persists to some extent,

mostly used by writers and older speakers.

2.6 Conclusions

This chapter has discussed some important details concerning infinitives, their history,

and the demise of certain infinitival constructions in Romanian. The history of the infinitive

reveals that the infinitival particle a was on the verge of losing its complementizer status by the

end of the sixteenth century. The addition of the particle de (to introduce purpose clauses of

motion verbs) suggests that this second particle actually replaced the status and the position of a.

The absence of the particle a from some infinitival complements is argued to be due to

the nature of a few matrix verbs selecting bare infinitives. The fact that the particle a can be

omitted in some interrogative complements (with wh-word) has nothing to do with the status of a

(i.e., being a complementizer). On the contrary, the particle a can coexist with wh-words, as

shown with illustrative examples.

The changes undergone by the Romanian infinitive are pretty much of the same kinds

undergone by other European languages (e.g., English, German, Romance). However, Romanian

and these languages underwent many fewer changes compared to Greek. The Romanian

infinitive underwent some relatively minor changes prior to the external influence of Greek,

suggesting that contact was the main motivating factor in its demise from complement clauses.









Future research is needed to determine the extent to which the infinitive has been reduced

or lost in other structures.









CHAPTER 3
SUBJUNCTIVE COMPLEMENT CLAUSES

Am apucat cdrarea-ngustd ca sa tree
Cdrdnd in spate muntele intreg.
-Tudor Arghezi

3.1 Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to present the clausal structure and the major properties of

Romanian subjunctives. The central task is to describe the constituents of subjunctive

complement clauses and to establish their status in conformity with their syntactic properties as

revealed by empirical data.

Following Landau's (2004) typology of the Balkan type of subjunctive complement

clauses, I divide the Romanian corresponding clauses into OC (Obligatory Control)-subjunctives

and F(ree)-subjunctives. An OC-subjunctive construction only permits strict coreference between

the null embedded subject and its antecedent, a matrix argument (la). A lexical subject is not

allowed in OC-subjunctives (lb). For reasons that will become apparent in Section 3.5, I place

the coreferential null subject in front of the particle sac (la) and the lexical or null subject not

coreferential with a matrix argument in the postverbal position (lb).

Obligatory control structures constructed with subjunctive in the languages of the

Balkans, Romanian included, is a phenomenon unanimously recognized in the literature, e.g.,

Terzi (1992), Varlokosta (1993), Dobrovie-Sorin (2001), Landau (2004, 2006) among others,

hence I will call them OC, but the proof will be presented in 3.5.

(1) a. Maral incearcd [el sa scrie eainsSili/*el insuSi2 o scrisoare]
Mara tries sa write.3sg herself/*himself a letter
'Mara is trying to write a letter.'



1I chose the narrowest of paths
And forged ahead with mountains on my back.









b. Maral incearcd [sa scrie *Radu2 o scrisoare]
Mara tries sa write.3sg Radu a letter
*Mara is trying to write Radu a letter

By contrast, the subject of an F-subjunctive clause corefers freely, i.e. the embedded

subject may be coreferent with the matrix subject (2a) or the embedded subject may be disjoint

in reference from the matrix subject (2b). Also, F-subjunctives may be ambiguous between

coreference and disjoint reference, as illustrated by the sentence (2c). Besides the referential

choice, the embedded subject of an F-subjunctive clause may be null as represented by e in (2a)

and the pro of (2b), or it may be lexical as appears in (2b) and (2c).

(2) a. Maral vrea [el sa plece ea insaSi/*el insuSi curdnd]
Mara wants sa leave.3sg herself/*himself soon
'Mara wants to leave.'

b. Maral vrea [sa plece Radu2/pro2 repede]
Mara wants sa come.3sg Radu/pro quickly
'Mara wants Radu/him to leave quickly'

c. Maral vrea [sa plece eal/2 repede]
Mara wants sa leave.3sg she quickly
'Mara wants her to leave quickly.'

While there is consensus in labeling subjunctive complements of the type included in the

example (la) as OC structures, previous accounts have different views regarding F-subjunctive

complement clauses. Some researchers as Terzi (1992) and Landau (2004, 2006) consider (2a)

an instance of OC structure and argue that F-subjunctives complements may be OC clauses or

NOC clauses. Krapova (2001) divides subjunctive clauses into Type I (our F-subjunctives) and

Type II (our OC-subjunctives) and distinguishes them by their subject. The subject of Type II is

PRO and the subject of Type I is pro because, the author concludes, there is no complementary

distribution between null subjects and lexical subjects, a behavior of pro but not of PRO.

Varlokosta and Homstein (1993) take F-subjunctive complements as a bulk and label them NOC.









Until F-subjunctive complements will be analyzed in 3.5.2, if it will be necessary to distinguish

between them, examples like (2a) will be referred to as structures with coreferential subjects or

just control (not obligatory control), in agreement with Bresnan's (1982) definition of control

included in 1.3. The rest of F-subjunctive complements will be clauses with subject disjoint

reference or ambiguous between coreference and disjoint reference.

The starting point for the subjunctive clause typology comes from the distinct semantic

classes of matrix verbs that trigger each type of clause. Guided by Stiebels et al (2003) and

Landau (2004), I have built an incomplete list of Romanian verbs for each relevant class.

(3) OC-subjunctives are introduced by the following classes of verbs:

a. Implicatives
a reusi 'to succeed ', a izbuti/izbdndi/ratzbi 'to manage', a
cuteza/indrtizni/incumeta 'dare', a risca 'to risk', a-ii aminti 'to remember', a
incerca/cauta 'to try', a uita 'to forget', a omite 'to omit', a neglija 'to neglect',
a sctpa din vedere 'to forget/overlook', a evita 'to avoid', a se eschiva 'to
eschew', a seferi 'to keep away from', a ajunge st 'to get to', a refuza 'to
refuse', a se abtine 'to abstain', a se lipsi 'to give up', a renunta 'to renounce', a
se infid, ilte ine \'tlr'ini 'to refrain from', a esua 'to fail.

b. Phasal/Aspectual (Some of these verbs may be raising verb in certain contexts)
a incepe 'to begin', a se apuca/se porni 'to start', a continue 'to continue', a
persist 'to persist', a starui 'to persevere', a inceta/conteni 'to cease', a se opri
'to stop'

c. Modal
aputea 'can, afi capabil 'be able', afi obligat 'be obliged', a avea 'to have to' a
trebui 'should/must' has also impersonal use.

(4) F-subjunctives are selected by the following classes of verbs:

a. Desiderative predicates
a vrea 'to want', a voi 'will', a dori 'to wish', a jindui to yearn', a-i fi dor 'to
long for', a spera 'to hope', a se astepta 'to expect', a astepta 'to wait', a se strddui
'to strive', a aranja 'to arrange', a agrea 'to agree', a fi de acord 'agree', a
consimti 'to consent', a alege 'to choose', a oferi 'to offer', a cere 'to demand', a
avea nevoie 'need', a fi gata' to be ready', a decide 'to decide', a hotdrd 'to
decide'.









b.Interrogative predicates. The verbs that follow are F-subjunctive verbs that occur with
wh-phrases or with the complementizer: dacc 'whether/if
a afla 'to find out', a #ti 'to know', a se prinde 'to grasp', a intreba 'to ask
(question)', a se mira 'to wonder', a delibera 'to deliberate', a ghici 'to guess', a
intelege 'to understand', afi neclar 'to be unclear

c. Factives experiencee)
a regreta 'to regret', a urd 'to hate', a detesta 'to detest', a avea oroare 'to hate',
a iubi st 'to love to', a fi surprins 'to be surprised', a se amuza 'to amuse', a se
distra 'to entertain', a se destinde 'to relax', a se tulbura/emotiona 'to disturb/get
emotional', a se infiora 'to thrill', a (se) inveseli 'to cheer', a satisface 'satisfy', a
se intrista 'to sadden', a se mdhni/necdji/amrtrd/indispune 'to distress', a (se)
dezgusta 'to disgust', a ingrozi 'to be scared', a-i repugna 'to be repugnant', a-i
fi groazt 'be afraid', a-i displace 'to dislike', a-i place 'to enjoy/like, a-ifi drag
'to like to', a-ifi \iltd '/,it i 'to loath'

d. Propositional
a (se) gdndi 'to think', a nu crede 'not to believe', a sugera 'to suggest'

The chapter is organized as follows: I will begin with a diachronic distribution of the

subjunctive complementizer ca, in Section 3.2. This section reveals that in OSR ca is optionally

present in OC-subjunctives, F-subjunctives, and subjunctive purpose clauses. In CR, ca is no

longer present in subjunctive complement clauses. Both in OSR and CR, the complementizer ca

is mandatory or disallowed in the same environments. A discussion about the complementizer ca

and obviation reveals that this phenomenon is not manifested in OSR, regardless of the presence

of ca.

The next section, 3.3, continues the discussion about obviation but in CR at this time.

This section has two parts. First, I present previous approaches to this phenomenon in CR,

resulting three different conclusions: Obviation is not manifested in Romanian at all; Obviation

is possible and is triggered by the complementizer ca; Obviation is very limited as a combination

of two or all of three factors: the presence of the complementizer, the presence of a lexical

pronoun, and the semantics of some matrix verbs. In the second part, I describe and report the

findings of an empirical study I recently conducted, to see whether obviation is triggered by any









of the three factors mentioned above. The study shows that obviation is not manifested in CR in

general, not even triggered by certain factors.

Section 3.4 is concerned with the syntactic properties of the subjunctive particle sc and

its relationship vis-a-vis complementizers. From the presented arguments regarding the status of

sa as a complementizer or as an inflectional element, I draw the conclusion that this particle is an

I1 element and not a complementizer.

Subsequently, I will discuss the tense of subjunctive clauses in Section 3.5. Both types of

clauses have semantic tense: OC-subjunctives have anaphoric tense, whereas the tense of F-

subjunctives is dependent. Furthermore, OC-subjunctives are endowed with the feature [-T],

whereas F-subjunctives have the feature [+T]. The locus of the uninterpretable [-T]/[+T] is C.

Next, I will switch gears, in Section 3.6, to establish what kind of subjects are possible in

subjunctive complement clauses. The null subject of OC clauses displays all the characteristics

associated with PRO in obligatory control context, thus I conclude that their subject is indeed

PRO. F-subjunctive structures where the matrix subject is a first or second person DP parallel the

English structures with predicates like prefer, want etc. in the sense that these predicates take

either OC or NOC complements. When the matrix subject is a third person entity, the embedded

complements are like those in example (2). However, there are some characteristics that

distinguish one from the other. In the last part of the section I argue, based on Rizzi (1986), that

arbitrary PRO is possible in subjunctive clauses.

Section 3.7 investigates whether subjunctive complements are IP or CP clauses. In

regards to the presence of a lexical complementizer, I present two points of view. According to

one view, all subjunctive clauses are CP clauses, while for the other view subjunctive clauses are

CP clauses only when a lexical complementizer is present. To remain neutral, I agree with both









points of view. In the end, since subjunctive complement clauses have uninterpretable [T]

features located in C0, these clauses must be CP clauses. The major conclusions of this chapter

and suggestions for further research will be gathered in Section 3.8.

3.2 Distribution of the Subjunctive Complementizer ca

As already mentioned, Romanian subjunctive mood has its own complementizer, ca,

distinguished from the indicative complementizer ca. The oldest Romanian documents attest

these two complementizers, each for its own mood. The goal of this section is to determine the

diachronic distribution of the complementizer ca in the various environments it appears and to

give an idea about the dramatic change in its distribution from OSR to CR. Although this section

is included mostly for documentation value, and because ca is part of subjunctive clauses

described in this chapter, it will also furnish some significant inferences. They will be gathered at

the end of the section.

3.2.1 Distribution of ca in OSR

Old Romanian documents include stc subjunctives and ca sct subjunctives, often in the

same environment (e.g., clauses selected by the same matrix verb), in the same document, on the

same page.

In Stefanelli's collection of 308 documents issued between 1611 and 1848 in Campulung

Moldavia, the subjunctive complementizer is obligatory in purposive clauses, which are

frequently encountered. Rarely, an exception appears but only after the 1800s. Often ca

introduces F-subjunctive subordinate clauses with or without a subject disjoint reference. Ca also

appears in OC-subjunctives clauses, slightly less frequently than in the two types of clauses

mentioned first.

This description closely matches Alexiu's (1939) collection consisting of similar

documents spanning 1608-1841 from Valea Teleajenului. The same patterns of ca distribution









are observed in Ureche's (1647) chronicle, only somewhat reduced in frequency2. Although the

majority of the data in this section is from these three sources, other sources will be also used.

In what follows, I will substantiate each pattern of distribution with illustrative data.

Although frequently encountered, ca may be optional for (almost) each pattern, so some

examples lacking ca will be also included. Grosu & Horvath (1984) point out this difference

between the subjunctive complementizer ca, which may be optional, lexicallyy unfilled", and the

indicative complementizer ca, which is always overt.

3.2.1.1 Ca in OC-subjunctive structures

The examples in (5-8) feature subject (obligatory) control clauses introduced by the

complementizer ca. Notice that the empty embedded subject corefers with the matrix subject.

Each class of OC-subjunctive verbs is represented: implicative (5,6), aspectual (7), and modal

(8). The pair of (8) shows that the same matrix verb can take an OC-subjunctive complement

whose complementizer can be present (8a) or absent (8b).

(5) pro1 am cercat ca el sa putem afla...
we have tried that sa can. lpl find out
'We tried to find out (something)'
Ureche 1647 (Simion Dascalu variant)

(6) proi Indrdznesc ca el sa rosteascd pdn'Si numele tdu tardy!
they dare that sa utter.3pl even name.the your country
'They even dare to evoke your name, my country!'
Eminescu (1852-1889), Scrisoarea III

(7) Mi-am apucat ca el sa dau de tot anul
me-have begun that sa give all year
cite o oca de ceard
every a Kg of wax
'I began to give away one kilogram of wax every year (to the church).'
Stefanelli (1915:96), 1768 document



2 The difference in the frequency of ca may be the difference between rural documents (Stefanelli and Alexiu's
collections) and literary work like Ureche's chronicle.









(8) a. proi este bolnav Si nu poate ca el sa mearg ...
he is sick and not can.3sg that sa walk.3sg
'He is sick and cannot walk.'
Alexiu (1939:76), 1795 document

b. pro1 putem sa el zicem ca toate pe izvod
we can sa say.lpl that all P ledger
le-au tinut
them-have.3pl kept
'We can say that they recorded all the transactions in the ledger.'
Ureche (1647:179)

Object control clauses may be also introduced by the complementizer ca. The empty

subjects of the embedded clauses (9-11) corefer with the accusative object of the matrix. The pair

in (11) indicates that the same matrix predicate may take an OC complement with ca (1 la) or

without it (1 Ib).

(9) au poftit pe domnul controlorl ca el sa mearga
have.3pl invited P Mr. controller.Acc that sa go.3sg
'They invited the inspector (government official) to go'
Stefanelli (1915:235), 1793 document

(10) 11- au rugat ca el sa facd
they.Acc-have.3pl begged that sa make.3sg
pace cu craiul leSesc
peace with prince Polish
'They begged him to make peace with the Polish prince.'
Ureche (1647:51)

11) a. Ill sfatuia boerii ca ei sa
he.Acc advised.3pl boards that sa
se dea la loc strdm
rflx get to spot narrow
'The boards advised him to move to a narrow (battle) position.'
Ureche (1647:41)

b. proi Au sfftuit craiul2 e2 sa-i3 tocmeasca
they have advised prince.Acc sd-them hire.3sg
'They advised the prince to hire them.'
Ureche (1647:22)









The representations (12) and (13) below are instances of dative control subjunctives. As

the indices show, the dative object of the matrix corefers with the embedded null subject. Again,

the complementizer ca may be present (12, 13a) or absent (13b) in these structures.

(12) m- am rugat milostivuluil Dumnezeu ca el sa
me-have. 1sg begged merciful.Dat God that sa
md luminezd
me enlighten.3sg
'I begged the merciful God to enlighten me'
Stefanelli (1915:363), 1816 document

(13) a. Se porunceqte cdpitanilori ca el sa privigheze...
rflx order.3sg/pl captains.Dat that sa watch.3pl
'An order was given to the captains to watch and guard...'
Stefanelli (1915:268), 1796 document

b. Vai poruncim sa ei faceti strdnsoare numitului pdrit
you.Dat order. pl sa make.2pl pressure to the said defendant
'We order you to force the said defendant ...'
Alexiu (1939: 44), 1777 document

The data presented in this subsection show that OC-subjunctive clauses (subject, object

and dative control) are indeed introduced by the subjunctive complementizer ca, which may be

optionally present or absent.

3.2.1.2 Ca in F-subjunctive structures

Ca may be found when the subject of the matrix and that of the embedded clause are

coreferential in F-subjunctives. Either the context/semantic in (15, 16, 17, 18) or the verbal

morphology in (14) ensures the coreference between the embedded subject and a matrix

argument in these sentences.

(14) prol om vre ca el sd-12 scoatem de pe moSie
we will want that sd-him pull out. lpl from estate
'We will want to put him out from the estate....'
Stefanelli (1915:148), 1784 document

(15) Dechivall au hotarat ca ei sa se inchiza
Decebal has decided that sa rflx close in.3sg
cu ostaSii sai in cetatea sa









with soldiers-the his in fortress-the his
'Decebal decided to lock himself, together with his soldiers, in his fortress'
Rdmniceanu (1802:80)

(16) prol au giurat ca el s f nu mai taie de acum
they have sworn that sa not more cut.3pl from now
domnu de Moldova.
prince of Moldova
'And they swore not to kill again a Moldavian prince.'
Neculce (1672-1745/6), O samc7 de cuvinte

(17) pro1 Gdndi ca el sd-12 scoatd din domnie
he thought that sd-him remove.3sg from throne
'He thought about how to remove him (the ruler) from the throne.'
Ureche (1647:134)

In (18b) the complementizer is absent, showing that the presence of ca is also optional in

F-subjunctive structures with embedded subject coreferential with the matrix subject, selected by

the same verb (18a vs. 18b).

(18) a. cat va voi dumnealuil ca el s-l tie...
how will.3sg want he.polite that sd-it hold.3sg
'as long as he will want to hold it....'
Alexiu (1939:160), 1833 document

b. Cdmpulungeniii au voit sa el cumpere
Campulung people have wanted sa buy.3pl
aceastd bucatd de finat
this piece of pasture
'The people from Campulung wanted to by this piece of pasture.'
Stefanelli (1915:141), 1783 document

Ca also introduces subjunctive complement clauses when there is subject disjoint

reference between the matrix and the embedded clause. The embedded subject in (19) is an

impersonal/arbitrary entity, thus it is different from the matrix subject. In the rest of the examples

(20-22) the embedded subject is a lexical DP, different from the matrix subject. (Examples of F-

subjunctives with subject disjoint reference where the embedded subject is null are given below

in (28) and (29)). As usually, ca may be present (19-22a) or absent (22b).









(19) eii au rdspunsu ca voesc ca sa fie impartald
they have answered that want.3pl that sa be.3sg allotment
'They answered that they want there to be equitable allotment'
Stefanelli (1915:126), 1778 document

(20) Nel-am invoit ca sa dea nepotu-mieu Vlad2 alt loc
we-have agreed that sa give.3sg nephew-my Vlad other lot
'We decided that my nephew Vlad should give away some piece of land..'
Alexiu (1939:98), 1833 document

(21) proi Au hotdrdt dum-lorl ca sa meargd
have.3pl decided they that sa go.3sg
mumbaSir2 ..
tax collector
'They decided for the tax collector to go ...'
Alexiu (1939:33), 1766 document, V. Teleajenului

(22) a. Sel temu ca sa nu-1 pdraseascd (oastea2)
rflx was afraid that sa not-him abandon.3sg (his army)
'He was afraid that his army will abandon him
Ureche (1647:41)

b. Temdndu- sei sa nu-i vicleneascd Moldovenii2
being afraid rflx.3pl sa not-them deceive.3pl Moldovans
'They were afraid that the Moldovans will
Ureche (1647:168)

Summing up, ca introduces F-subjunctive clauses whose subjects are coreferential with

the respective matrix subject and F-subjunctive clauses whose subjects are disjoint in reference

from the matrix subject. As expected, ca may be optional in these structures.

3.2.1.3 Ca and obviation

Obviation is the requirement that the subject of a subjunctive complement clause be

disjointing in reference from the matrix subject. "General obviation" occurs when the subject of

a subjunctive clause is always different from the matrix subject, like in Romance languages. In

some languages, obviation is triggered by a certain factor, as in Serbo-Croatian, where obviation

occurs only when the embedded subject is a lexical pronoun that matches the phi-features of the









matrix subject. The embedded pronoun is necessarily disjoint in reference from the matrix

subject (Farkas, 1992). This kind of obviation could be called "reduced obviation".

Subject obviation is supposed to distinguish two (or more) third person subjects, one of

which will become obviative. (The matrix subject cannot be obviative). Subject obviation is a

phenomenon characteristic to subjunctive clauses in most Romance languages and many Slavic

languages, but apparently not manifested in the languages of the Balkan Sprachbund. The

presence of a complementizer is considered the most likely factor to trigger obviation. (Terzi,

1992, Avrutin & Babyonishev 1997, Landau, 2004).

In Romance languages, the subject of a subjunctive complement clause is automatically

disjoint in reference (some exceptions apply) from the matrix subject, as in Spanish: (23).

(23) Juan1 quiere que e*1/2 venga.
Juan want.Ind.3sg that go.Sbj.3sg
'Juan wants him/her to eat.'

By contrast, in F-subjunctive complement clauses, where the matrix verb and the

embedded verb show third person inflection, the empty embedded subject is referentially free

and the sentence may be ambiguous. Without their contexts, the examples (24) with ca and (25)

lacking ca are both ambiguous. Only the context shows that the matrix subject corefers with the

embedded subject in both sentences. Since the complementizer ca is optional it cannot trigger

obviation (its presence does not impose subject disjoint reference in (24)).

(24) De n- a vrea ca sa vie.
If not-would.3sg want that sa come.3sg
'If she wouldn't want to come.'
Alecsandri (1821-1890) Opere Complete. Poesii.

(25) fimeia lui nu vra sa plateascd...
woman-the his not wants sa pay.3sg
'his woman doesn't want to pay....'
Stefanelli (1915:112), 1784 document









In (26), the third line (in bold) includes a F-subjunctive clause whose subject is different

from that of the matrix. The disjoint reference is not triggered by the complementizer because

with or without ca the subject of the subjunctive clause is semantically restricted. Also, the

context only helps narrow down the possible subject of the embedded clause. The sentence in

boldface by itself needs the subject of the second clause to be disjointing in reference from the

matrix subject. Clearly, the country could only be subdued by an entity different from the one

that is afraid this may happen.

(26) ci Turcull, dupa putina vreme, intelegdnd ca LeSii2
but Turk.the after little while, understanding that Poles.the
se ridica cu tarie mare asupra lui Petru Voda, ...
rflx rise.3pl with force great against Dat. Petru Voda...
i temindu- se, ca sa nu ia e2 tara...
and fear.Ger-cl refl.3sg that sa not takes country.the
'And the Turk, after a while, understanding that the Poles are rising with force
against Petru Voda, and being afraid that they will subdue the country...'
Ureche (1647:101)

By contrast, the subject of the subjunctive clause in (27), with or without ca, is

referentially free. Semantically, it may be possible that, both the person filled with fear (the

matrix subject) or somebody else (e.g., a loved one), could contract influenza. As it appears, the

meaning of the subjunctive verb determines disjoint reference in (28) and free reference in (29).

(27) temdndu-sel (ca) sa nu ia ei/2 gripa
fear.Ger-rflx (that) sa not contract.3sg influenza-the
'fearing that she will get the flu'

The matrix pronoun el 'he' in (28) is the subject of the subjunctive clause. Considering

only the boldface part, the matrix verb and its subjunctive complement, it is very unlikely for the

embedded subject to corefer with the matrix subject (ei). Usually, we do not want anybody else

(not ourselves) to suspect anything, probably bad. Again, it is the meaning of the embedded verb

that imposes disjoint reference. The presence of ca does not make any difference.









(28) sheik ) Tinea la el2 1i n-ar fi vrut
(she) cared for him and not-would be wanted
ca sa e2 bAnuiascA ceva
that sa suspect.3sg a thing
'She was fond of him and wouldn't have wanted him to suspect anything'
Slavici (1848-1925), Opere (1952:247)

It appears that OSR subjunctives do not manifest subject obviation. This phenomenon is

very limited and happens only for semantic reasons. The complementizer ca definitely does not

trigger subject obviation effect in OSR because its presence is optional and may occur with any

subjunctive complement, regardless of the referential choices of the embedded subject.

A sentence with subject disjoint reference implied by the context, in the absence of the

complementizer, would probably further support the idea that ca does not trigger obviation in

OSR. (29) reflects this assumption. The second line (in bold) of this sentence by itself is

ambiguous in the sense that the subject of the second clause is capable of free reference.

However, the first line reveals that the mother did not want her son to do the "thing", thus only

craiu 'the prince' could be the subject of the embedded clause.

(29) ci bdtranal, muma lui craiu2,
but old woman.the, mother.the of prince
pro, n- au vrut acesta lucru sf-1 e*1/2 facA,
not-have.3sg wanted this thing sd-it.Acc do.3sg
'The mother of the prince didn't want him to do such thing'
Ureche (1647:82)

I conclude that obviation is not an attribute of subjunctives in OSR. This phenomenon is

not general, since complements whose subject is coreferential with the matrix subject are

possible (control), nor triggered by a certain factor. Clearly, the subjunctive complementizer

does not trigger obviation.









3.2.1.4 Purpose clauses

In the following examples, the second (adjunct) clause shows the purpose or intention of

the action of the matrix verb, without indicating whether the action was accomplished or not.

These purpose clauses may be ca sta clauses (30,31,33b) or sta clauses (32, 33a).

Although the complementizer ca is optional in subjunctive purpose clauses in OSR, it is

actually almost always present. Ca may usually be absent when the purpose clause is triggered

by motion verbs: a veni 'to come', a merge 'to go', a trimite 'to send'. Recall that there was an

inclination in Latin conditional clauses constructed with subjunctive and the conjunction si to

undertake a goal or purpose sense (Chapter 2/2.5.2). Since this conjunction has been inherited

by Romanian as the subjunctive particle sca (via se), it is plausible to assume that this particle also

encodes purpose (See also fn5, Chapter 2). Ca-less purpose clauses are rather found in

Transylvania, like the example in (32).

(30) Te facem vechil ca sa stai
you.Acc make. lpl bailiff that sa stay.2sg
la hotardtul moSiilor noastre
at boundary land.pl our.pl
'We name you the bailiff of our estates in order to guard their boundaries.'
Stefanelli (1915:445), 1813 document

(31) se naste ca sa fie rob
cl.3sg born that sa be.3sg bondman
si sa traiascd ca dobitoc.
and sa live.3sg like animal
'One is born just to be a bondman and to live like an animal.'
Potra et al (1972:47), 1839 letter

(32) multe jertfe au adus
many sacrifices have.3pl brought
sa inbldnzeascd pre d[umne]zi[i] mdniei.
sa calm down.3pl P gods-the wrath.Dat
'They offered many sacrifices in order to calm down the angry gods'
S.Micu (1789:30)









(33) a. Si n- au venitu sa cheame dereptii, ce pdcdtoSii
and not-have.3pl come sa call.3pl right.pl-the, but sinners
'And he didn't come to call on the righteous people, but on the sinners'
Coresi (1581:419)

b. Veniserd la Califar ca sA-i procopseasca.
came.3pl to Califar that sd-them endow.3sg
'They had come to Califar to be endowed by him'
Galaction (1879-1961) Opere

The general picture of subjunctive purpose clauses in OSR is the following: Normally,

they are ca sat clauses, that is, the complementizer ca is rarely absent. When ca is absent from

purpose clauses, it happens after verbs of motion or as regional dialect.

3.2.1.5 Required ca vs. prohibited ca

The presence of ca is a must when some lexical material belonging to the subjunctive

clause (topicalized material) appears between the matrix and the subjunctive clause (preceding

the particle sn). In (34a), the chunkpeste ddngii 'over them' is normally placed after the

subjunctive verb, like in (34b). Although ca may be present in (34b), it is not necessary as

shown. However, once peste dduiinii is moved in front of sa (for rhetorical effects or, in this case,

for metrical /rhyme reasons), ca must show up (34a).

(34) a. Am jurat [ca peste dinsii sa tree falnic
have. 1sg sworn that over them sa pass. 1sg glorious
fara pas]
without care
'I swore to gloriously trample them without care.'
Eminescu (1852-1889), Scrisoarea III

b. Am jurat [sa tree peste dfinii falnic, fara pas]

In OSR as well as in CR, the complementizer ca is disallowed in raising constructions,

according to the contrast in (35). Ca renders the raising in (35a) ungrammatical conform (35b).

(35) a. Radu pare sa fie trist
Radu seems sa be.3sg sad
'Radu seems to be sad.'









b. *Radu pare ca sa fie trist.
Radu seems that sa be.3sg sad
'Radu seems to be sad.'

Finally, both in OSR and CR, ca does not appear in temporal subjunctive clauses, or

other adjuncts introduced by prepositions because the respective prepositions are

complementizers in those contexts, e.g., (36). As a rule, two complementizers are not allowed to

head a clause in Romanian, as illustrated by (37) where the complementizers cc 'that' and dac~

'if/whether'cannot coexist in the same structure.

(36) Am plecat *ca/ pinA sa ajungd mama.
have. Isg left that/ before sa arrive.3sg mother
'I left before mother arrived.'

(37) *Mara nu stie cA/dacA Radu vine maine.
Mara not knows that/whether Radu comes tomorrow
*Mara does not know that/whether Radu comes tomorrow

As the presented data indicate, the complementizer ca used to appear in any type of

subjunctive complement clauses and in purpose clauses. In all these types of clauses, although

frequent, ca may be optional. The presence of ca in purpose clauses may not be a strong rule, but

definitely the norm. As a rule, ca must be absent in raising constructions and when accompanied

by another complementizer. Ca is mandatory when lexical material belonging to the subjunctive

is topicalized. Finally, ca is not able to trigger obviation effect in OSR.

3.2.2 Distribution of ca in CR

3.2.2.1 Ca in subjunctive complement clauses

Slowly, the subjunctive complementizer has disappeared both from OC-subjunctive

clauses and from F-subjunctive constructions. When ca ceased to appear in subjunctive clauses is

not easy to ascertain. It certainly has survived longer in speech than in written sources. Despite

some exceptions, ca is no longer present in OC-subjunctives (38). A recent exception is given in

(39). A quite old speaker from a village between Bucharest and TdrgoviSte produced this









sentence in July 2005. Both verbs have archaic forms: poci forpot 'I can' and vtaz for vtd 'I see'.

Examples like (39) are considered idiolects or specific to older speakers from rural areas.

Nonetheless, (39) does not pose any parsing problems to a standard dialect speaker.

(38) *Am reuSit ca sa plec devreme.
have.lsg managed that sa leave.Isg early
'I managed to leave early.'

(39) Nu poci ca s-1l mai vaz.
not can. sg that sa-him more seel.sg
'I cannot see him anymore.(I'm angry with him)'

Farkas (1984) notices that ca may introduce subjunctive complements after the verb a

vrea 'to want' (our F-subjunctives) in non-standard Romanian, as reflected by her example (7),

repeated here under (40). Even today, ca may appear here and there in F-subjunctive

complement clauses.

(40) Vreau ca sd-i spun ceva.
want. sg that sa-him tell. Isg something
'I want to tell him something.'

Although people do not use ca sa F-subjunctive complements in their speech, do not

reject such structures in reading or listening. However, ca is no longer used in the standard

dialect of Romanian in F-subjunctive constructions with normal word order (i.e., without

topic/focus).

3.2.2.2 Ca in topic and focus context

Ca has been always required when lexical material such as topic or focus (lexical

subjects, adverbs, etc.) is placed in front of the embedded sc verb, in order to mark the

boundaries between the matrix and the subordinate. In this context, ca is still obligatory. The

representation of (41a) is a normal word order sentence, with postverbal embedded subject.

When the subject, Radu, is proposed, the complementizer ca shows up (41b), as happened above









in the OSR example (34). Like in (34), complementizer deletion will render the sentence (41b)

ungrammatical as evinced by (41c).

(41) a. Vreau [sa vina Radu maine]
want. sg sa come3.sg Radu tomorrow
'I want Radu to come tomorrow

b. Vreau [ca Radu sa vina maine]

c. *Vreau [Radu sa vina maine]

The examples in (42) depict the same situation, with the difference that the proposed item

is an adverb here. These data demonstrate that the topicalized items must be preceded by the

complementizer. (This kind of data will be further discussed in Section 3.7).

(42) a. Vreau [sa vina Radu maine]
want. sg sa come3.sg Radu tomorrow
'I want Radu to come tomorrow.'

c. Vreau [ca maine sa vina Radu]

b. *Vreau [maine sa vina Radu]

Definitely, ca in CR, as in OSR, is required to mark the boundary between the matrix and

its sentential clause when some lexical elements belonging to the latter occur before the particle

sa.

3.2.2.3 Ca in purpose clauses

Some speakers say that ca is a must in the purpose clauses (43, 44, 45), while other say

that both variants, with or without ca, are good. Most speakers say that (46) is better without ca

(as shown). In conclusion, ca is optional in purpose clauses and absent after motion verbs (46).

(43) Cumpdr (ca) sa vdnd.
buy.lsg that sa sell.lsg
'I buy (things) in order to resell (them)./I buy to sell'

(44) Ti- am spus (ca) sa Stii.
you.Dat have.1sg told that sa know.2sg
'I told you (that) in order for you to be warned.'










(45) Mdndnci (ca) sa trdieSti.
eat.2sg that sa live.2sg
'You eat in order to support yourself.'

(46) Am venit sa te vdd.
have.lsg come sa you see.lsg
'I came to see you.'

To summarize the distribution of ca in CR, this complementizer is no longer employed in

OC-subjunctives, and it is drastically reduced in F-subjunctives and only appears in non-standard

dialects. In F-subjunctives, ca is required in topic situations. As always, as discussed above, ca is

not allowed in raising structures, and cannot coexist with another complementizer. The presence

of ca in subjunctive purpose clauses seems to be optional.

To conclude this section, it has been shown that, in OSR ca may be present in all kinds of

subjunctive complements and in subjunctive purpose clauses, but it is optional in most

environments. In CR, the presence of ca has been dramatically decreased over time. It actually

disappeared from OC and F-subjunctive complements and remained optional in purpose clauses.

Ca definitely has consistently been absent in raising structures, and consistently present

when some lexical material of the subjunctive clause is topicalized. Finally, ca does not trigger

obviation effects in OSR.

Beside diachronic documentation, the distribution of ca yields some interesting

consequences. First, Farkas' (1992:95) view that "subjunctive clauses will be obviative only in

contexts in which an infinitive is also possible" is challenged since obviation is not manifested in

OSR, although infinitival complement clauses are alive and well3.






3 Examples with OSR infinitive complement clause are included in Chapter 2, Chapter 4, and in the next Section 3.3.









In OSR, ca was mandatory in topic context and remained mandatory in the same context

in CR although it disappeared from complement clauses, with this exception. This behavior

supports Rizzi's (1997) and Rizzi &Shlonsky's (2007) conclusion that

complementizer deletion is illegal when topic/focus of the complement clause is activated.

Finally, the distribution of ca in OSR and CR reveals that obligatory control is possible

with overt complementizers but raising is not. These observations will be further discussed in

this chapter and other chapters.

3.3 Obviation in Contemporary Romanian (CR)

The purpose of this section is to present an outline of previous analyses of obviation in

CR and to report the findings of an empirical study I conducted recently. This study shows that

Romanian subjunctive structures do no manifest subject obviation. We already know that

obviation is not manifested in OSR.

3.3.1 Approaches to Obviation in CR

Comorovski (1986) presents two scenarios of obviation in Romanian subjunctives. First,

she points out that if the embedded subject of a subjunctive complement of an "optional control"

verb (our F-subjunctives) is a lexical pronoun, there is a high preference for obviative

interpretation. The author attributes this interpretation to the Avoid Pronoun Principle. As a pro-

drop language, Romanian disfavors an overt pronoun subject since its antecedent has been

already pronounced in the matrix (or discourse). This contrast is illustrated by (47a,b) below

(Comorovski's examples (12a,b)). While the embedded subject of (47a) can corefer freely, most

speakers indicate disjoint reference interpretation for (47b).

(47) a. Ion1 a propus el/2 sa nu ne mai telefoneze.
John has proposed sa not us.Dat more phone.3sg/pl
'John suggested not to call us anymore.'









b. Ion1 a propus ca el2 sa nu ne mai telefoneze
Ion has proposed that he sa not us.Dat more phone.3sg
'John suggested that he should not call us anymore.'

The author further indicates that the presence of the complementizer in (47b) is also

responsible for the obviation effect. In her view, the complementizer is not necessary when the

embedded subject corefers with its antecedent for reasons of "simplicity and economy" (p.52).

Comorovski also suggests that semantics may play a role, in the sense that some verbs like a

spune 'to say' are more likely to trigger obviation. This author argues that Principle B of

Binding Theory fails to predict obviation in Romanian. This phenomenon would result from the

lexical properties of the matrix verbs.

Farkas (1985, 1992) takes a trenchant approach to obviation. She argues that a language

exhibits subject obviation effect in subjunctive structures only if the language also includes

infinitive complement clauses, where coreference between the subject of the matrix and that of

the subordinate is obligatory. In her view, subject obviation is expected in Romance languages,

which have both infinitive and subjunctive complements at their disposal, but not in the

languages of the Balkans (Romanian included), which lack infinitive complements.

In Romance languages, when the matrix subject corefers with the embedded subject of a

complement clause (obligatory control), the complement clause is constructed with infinitive,

like the Spanish example (48a). When the embedded subject is disjoint in reference from the

matrix subject, the embedded clause is constructed with subjunctive as seen in (48b), and

obviation is required. Recall from the previous section that obviation in Romance is a general

phenomenon.

(48) a. Juan1 quiere el comer.
Juan wants to eat.Inf
'Juan wants to eat.'









b. Juan1 quiere que e*1/2 coma.
Juan want.Ind.3sg that eat.Sbj.3sg
'Juan wants him/her to eat.'

In OSR, infinitive complements and nonobviative subjunctive complements are

contemporaneous, contrary to Farkas' view. The representations in (49) are instances of control

constructed with infinitive (49a) and with subjunctive (49b), selected by the same verb a voi 'to

will'. Since control is possible in (49b), obviation is not.

(49) a. proi VoeSte el a rdspunde banii ...
she wants to answer money ...
'She wants to pay the money ...'
Alexiu (1939 :155), 1832 document

b. prol au voit el sa cumpere aceastd bucatd de ffanat
they have wanted sa buy.3pl this piece of pasture
'They wanted to buy this piece of pasture.'
Stefanelli (1915:141) 1783 document

The control complements of (50) are selected by the verb a hotird 'to decide' and

constructed with infinitive (50a) and subjunctive (50b), the example (15) in the previous section.

The example (21), repeated below under (51), displaying subject disjoint reference only shows

that F-subjunctive complements had free reference in OSR (as already known). Therefore, OSR

subjunctives do not manifest obviation despite the existence of parallel infinitive structures.

The pair type (50b) with obligatorily controlled subject and (51) with subject disjoint

reference have remained the same in CR, but the parallel infinitive structures, like (50a) have

disappeared. The difference between Spanish (Romance) and Romanian vis-a-vis subjunctive is

that obviation is anti control in the former but control is anti obviation in the latter.

(50) a. Dnul controlorl (s)'a hotdrdt el a executa poruncile
Mr. inspector rflx'has decided to execute orders.the
'Mr inspector decided to execute the orders (given to him)'
Stefanelli (1915:241), 1794 document









b. Dechivall a(u) hotarat ca el sa sei inchiza
Decebal has decided that sa rflx close in.3sg
cu ostaSii sai in cetatea sa
with soldiers-the his in fortress-the his
'Decebal decided to lock himself, together with his soldiers, in his fortress'
Rdmniceanu (1802:80)

(51) Au hotarat dum-lorl ca sa meargd mumbaSir2 ..
have.3pl decided they that sa goes tax collector
'They decided for the tax collector to go ...'
Alexiu (1939:33), 1766 document

Also, Martineau (1994:51) demonstrates with illustrative data that in the infinitive-

subjunctive rivalry cannot be extended to Older French because OC infinitive complements and

subjunctive complements with obligatorily control subject freely alternate4. It seems that the

absence of obviation cannot be attributed to the concurrent lack of infinitival structures,

neutralizing Farkas' claims.

For Greek, Miller (2008) observes that constructions with both "the infinitive and the

hina (the precursor of na) + subjunctive" are frequent in the New Testament. He also mentions

that Homer already knew this competition between infinitives and hina subjunctives. Miller

includes illustrative examples from the New Testament, e.g coordination of infinitive control and

subjunctive control clauses.

Dobrovie-Sorin (2001:54) argues that obviation is not available in the languages of the

Balkans because their subjunctives OC structures are reduced to anaphoric binding, complying

with the principle "Use an anaphor instead of a pronoun whenever possible". This principle is

viewed as a special case of the Avoid Pronoun Principle.

4 In addition, San Martin (2008) notices the following facts about Greek: Classical Greek displayed subjunctive
obviation and had infinitive structures, reflecting Farkas' view. However, the switch from obviation to free reference
occurred around the 2nd century AD, but infinitives of volitional verbs were in use until the 10th century.
Interestingly, Classical Greek subjunctive had its own verbal morphology, but during the Hellenistic Greek the
subjunctive verbal morphology became indistinctive from the indicative morphology and the particle na became the
subjunctive mood marker. The loss of obviation and the loss of subjunctive morphology/addition of na are
synchronous.









Terzi (1992) shows that tense dependency, which is generally considered to be the

mechanism behind the obviation effect in Romance subjunctives (Picallo 1985, Meireles &

Raposo 1983), is also found in the Balkan type of subjunctive (tense dependency in Romanian it

will be shown in Section 3.5). Furthermore, volitional predicates of Romance and Balkans are

expected to display similar behavior, that is, to yield obviation. Terzi (1992) predicts that

languages which do not manifest obviation are not associated with dependent tense.

In addition, Terzi argues that Romanian and Albanian subjunctives yield subject disjoint

reference in the presence of the lexical subjunctive complementizer, thus she considers that the

Romanian example represented in (52a) has obviative interpretation.

(52) a. Ion1 vrea ca e* 1 2 s plece.
Ion wants that sa leave.3sg
'Ion wants him/her/they to leave.'

b. Ion1 vrea ca Maria2 sa plece
Ion wants that Maria sa leave.3sg
'Ion wants Maria to leave.'

Terzi then explains that since Romanian is a pro-drop language, the position occupied by

the empty subject in (52a), preceded by the complementizer, must be pro. The empty category

cannot be PRO because in Terzi's system PRO is incompatible with overt complementizers. That

a lexical subject (Maria) can appear in exactly the same position in (52b) further supports this

assumption: pro in (52a) is the subject of the embedded clause which is different from Ion. The

obviation effect in this scenario is caused by the presence of the complementizer.

Terzi (1992) concludes that obviation is expected in Romanian and Albanian whenever

the subjunctive complementizer is lexical in F-subjunctives. She believes that a lexical

complementizer is a determinant factor, although not the only one, for the obviation to occur.









Landau (2004) integrates Terzi's (1992) two core ingredients, tense and complementizer,

into his framework. For him, the properties of Co are critical, but unlike Terzi (1992), they do not

refer to its conditions of being lexical or governor. The difference between obviative and

nonobviative clauses is to be found in Co. Obviative clauses have the feature [+T] in Co, whereas

nonobviative clauses have the features [+T, +AGR] on their C.

To recapitulate, previous approaches to obviation in CR yield three findings: Obviation is

not possible in Romanian (Farkas 1985, 1992) and Dobrovie-Sorin (2001); Obviation is possible

and triggered by the presence of the complementizer ca (Terzi 1992, Landau 2004); Obviation is

limited to a combination of three factors: overt complementizer, a lexical pronoun in the

subjunctive clause, and semantics (Comorovski, 1986). "General obviation" is not manifested in

Romanian, a very well established fact. Farkas (and Dobrovie-Sorin) is right about the lack of

obviation in Romanian, only her argument does not explain it. The debate is about "reduced

obviation", triggered by certain factors.

3.3.2 Empirical Study

To shed some light on the obviation nonobviation debate in Romanian, I have

conducted a rather small-scale study, involving 15 native speakers. The participants were born

and raised in Romania, attended Romanian schools (at least high school) in Romania and did not

leave the country before the age of twenty. The parents of the participants were also native

speakers of Romanian. No participant began to learn a foreign language before the age of twelve.

Most participants had college degrees obtained in Romania.

There were 13 sentences making three sets. Considering the suggestions discussed above,

the following factors were included in some sentences: the complementizer ca, an overt pronoun

in the embedded clause, and the matrix verb a zice 'to say'. Two sets of sentences have identical

embedded clauses, but the matrix verb is different. The first set shown in (53) is constructed with









the verb a vrea 'to want'. The second set mirrors the first one with a different matrix verb a zice

'to say'.

(53) a. Radu vrea sa piece.
Radu wants sa leave.3sg
'Radu wants to leave.'

b. Radu vrea sa piece el.
Radu wants sa leave.3sg he
'Radu wants to leave/Radu wants him to leave.'

c. Radu vrea ca sa piece.
Radu wants that sa leave.3sg
'Radu wants to leave.'

d. Radu vrea ca sa piece el.
Radu wants that sa leave.3sg he
'Radu wants to leave.'

The third set, given in (54) includes F-subjunctive complements taken by four matrix

verbs, with or without ca. An adverb appears in each example.

(54) a. Radu spera sa piece curand.
Radu hopes sa leave.3sg soon
'Radu hopes to leave soon.'

b. Radu vrea sa piece cat mai repede.
Radu wants sa leave.3sg as soon as possible
'Radu wants to leave as soon as possible'.

c. Radu zice ca sa piece imediat.
Radu says that sa leave.3sg immediately
'Radu says that he/she should leave immediately.'

d. Radu vrea ca sa piece cat mai curand.
Radu wants that sa leave.3sg as soon as possible
'Radu wants to leave as soon as possible.'

e. Radu doreSte ca sa piece repede.
Radu desires that sa leave.3sg fast
'Radu wants to leave right away.'









The participants were asked to indicate the subject of the second (subjunctive) verb. In

order to obtain spontaneous (natural) answers, no other instructions were given. Asking the

participants to give all the possible answers for each sentence, it will have led to a very high

percentage (if not hundred percent) of free reference, missing the point that some factors could

possibly cause disjoint reference.

The obtained answers, i.e. the indication of the embedded subject, were of three kinds:

Radu (showing subject coreference/control); Somebody else (showing disjoint reference); and

Either -Radu or somebody else- (showing free reference). The results are gathered in (55). The

respondent in (d) was the only one who commented about the presence of ca as being

unnecessary. (For the rest of the respondents ca may be present in F-subjunctive complements).

(55) a. 4 respondents Radu for all sentences

b. 3 respondents Either for all sentences

c. 1 respondent Somebody else for all sentences

d. 1 respondent Somebody else when the pronoun was present; Radu for the
rest

e. 2 respondents Somebody else for the instances with the verb a zice; Radu for
the other two verbs.

f. The last 4 respondents found three patterns of disjoint reference caused by three
factors: the presence of ca, the presence of the pronoun, and the verb a zice.
However, none of these respondents gave the answer "Somebody else" for all the
instances of each pattern. Their answers were Radu when none of these factors
were present. The adverbs did not have any impact in choosing the answers.

The conclusions that can be drawn from this study are the following:

(56) a. The variety of answers suggests that, in real-life conversation, the speakers
mostly rely on discourse to figure out the embedded subject.

b. The presence of the complementizer ca is still accepted in F-subjunctives,
since only one respondent considered its presence unnecessary.









c. Although the three factors may be seen as causing disjoint reference, it happens
for such a small number of respondents, so that it could be considered less than an
inclination, and definitely not a rule.

d. Thus, the factor mostly associated with obviation, the complementizer, does not
trigger this phenomenon.

e. The answer Radu appeared 11 times, suggesting that F-subjunctive complements
with obligatorily controlled subject occur much more frequently than those with
subject disjoint reference.

f. F-subjunctives do not manifest obviation as known; definitely, it is not the clear,
automatic, systematic and general phenomenon manifested in Romance. Also,
none of the three factors clearly trigger obviation. Instances of disjoint reference
are individual variation/preference.

To conclude this section, it has been found out that no specific factor triggers obviation in

Romanian. The reason behind the lack of obviation in F-subjunctives in Romanian (and the

Balkan type of languages) still remains a question for future research.

3.4 Status of the Subjunctive Particle s6

As mentioned earlier, Romanian and the Balkan group of languages have a special

particle, unparalleled within the Indo-European languages, which introduces subjunctive clauses.

At least for Romanian, this particle is generally considered to be a mood marker, that is, an I

element that heads its own projection M(ood)P according to Kempchinsky (1987), Terzi (1992)

for Greek, Romanian, Albanian and in general for the languages of the Balkans. Terzi (1992)

also cites Motapanyane (1991) for Romanian.

Regardless of this generally accepted explanation, the Romanian subjunctive particle sa

has been the subject of some debate, specifically regarding its status as either a complementizer

(Dobrovie-Sorin 1991,1994) or an inflectional element (Terzi 1992). Dobrovie-Sorin (1994)

claims that sa is a complementizer, although she does attribute some inflectional properties to

this particle. Dobrovie-Sorin (2001) attributes equal status to sca as complementizer and

inflectional element, but its designated position is still C.









I do not believe that the subjunctive particle has ambiguous status and I agree with those

researchers who argue for the inflectional status of this particle. I will include here the most

relevant arguments that support the I status of sa. Subsequently, I will discuss and dismiss the

arguments considered to favor the complementizer condition of sa and try to establish a definite

status for this particle, that is, an inflectional entity.

3.4.1 Sa as an Inflectional Element

3.4.1.1 Adjacency to the verb

That the adjacency of the subjunctive particle to the verb reflects its inflectional status is

widely recognized for Romanian (including by Dobrovie-Sorin 1994) and the languages of the

Balkans in general. As we already know, the only elements allowed between sca and the verb, in

strict order, are: a negation, a pronominal clitic, and one of the few one-syllable manner

adverbs/intensifiers that could be incorporated into the verb. Sometimes, the clitic could be also

incorporated with the negation, as in (57) below.

(57) Mara incearcd sa nu-l mai vadd pe Radu.
Mara tries sa not-him more see.3sg P Radu
'Mara is trying to not see Radu anymore.'

Moreover, an overt subject may not occur between sca and the verb (58a), whereas an

overt subject may occur between the complementizer and the verb, both in subjunctive

constructions (58b) and indicative constructions (59).

(58) a. *Mara vrea sa Radu vina mai repede.
Mara wants sa Radu come.3sg more quick
'Mara wants Radu to come sooner.'

b. Mara vrea ca Radu sa vina mai repede.
Mara wants that Radu sa come.3sg more quick
'Mara wants Radu to come sooner.'

(59) Mara crede ca Radu vine tdrziu.
Mara believes that Radu come.3sg late
'Mara believes that Radu will be late.'










The contrasts between (58a) and (58b, 59) demonstrates that the particle sa does not

behave like a complementizer behaves; hence, this supports the argument that sa is inflectional

by nature.

3.4.1.2 A special subjunctive complementizer exists

While Dobrovie-Sorin (1994) relegates the status of the subjunctive complementizer ca

as a complementizer-like element, Terzi (1992) takes the existence of ca as proof against the

complementizer status of s. The next two examples show that a subordinate subjunctive clause

cannot be introduced by the indicative complementizer ca (60); and a subordinate indicative

clause cannot be introduced by the subjunctive complementizer ca (61). These examples,

therefore, confirm ca as representing the subjunctive complementizer.

(60) *Mara spera [ca Radu sa facd cumparaturi]
Mara hopes that Radu sa do.3sg shopping
'Mara hopes that Radu will do the shopping.'

(61) *Mara spera [ca Radu face cumparaturi]
Mara hopes that Radu do.3sg shopping
'Mara hopes that Radu will do the shopping.'

In addition, when topicalized lexical material precedes sa, the presence of the subjunctive

complementizer ca is a required, as already emphasized in Section 3.2. A new example is

included below in (62). Clearly, sa is not the complementizer that introduces the embedded

sentence in (62b).

(62) a. Mara prefer [sa scrie scrisoarea maine]
Mara prefers sa write.3sg letter-the tomorrow
'Mara prefers to write that letter tomorrow.'

b. Mara prefer [ca maine sa scrie scrisoarea]
Mara prefers that tomorrow sa write.3 sg letter-the
'Mara prefers to write that letter tomorrow.'









Since the complementizer ca used to precede sa very often in all types of subjunctive

clauses, like the object control construction of (63) and still continues to appear in subjunctive

adjunct clauses in CR (64), it has not died out.

(63) s-1l roage [ca s-o primeasca pe ea in casa lui]
sd-him beg.3sg that sd-her take.3sg P her in house his
'that they beg him to let her stay in his house.'
Slavici, 1848-1925

(64) Te- am avertizat
you.Acc-have. 1 sg warned
ca sa stii ce ai de facut.
that sa know.2sg what have.2sg of done
'I warned you so you will know what to do.'

In addition, two complementizers cannot head a clause in Romanian, hence the existence

of a specific subjunctive complementizer proves that the particle sa is not a complementizer.

3.4.1.3 Wh-words can co-occur with s6

In Romanian, wh-words cannot co-occur with complementizers. Thus, (65a) is

ungrammatical because unde 'where' and either complementizer dactd 'if/whether' or cc 'that'

cannot coexist. The sentence becomes grammatical with unde only (65b) or with any of the two

complementizers only (65c).

(65) a. *Radu nu stie unde daca/ca pleaca Mara.
Radu not knows where if/that leaves Mara
*Radu does not know where if/that Mara leaves

b. Radu nu stie unde pleaca Mara.
Radu not knows where leaves Mara
'Radu does not know where is Mara leaving for.'

c. Radu nu stie dacd/ca pleaca Mara.
Radu not knows if/that leaves Mara
'Radu does not know if/that Mara is leaving.'









Unlike the complementizers daca and ca, the particle sca is able to co-occur with wh-

words, therefore this particle is not a complementizer. To illustrate the point, the sentences of

(66) include subjunctive clauses introduced by wh-words.

(66) a. Mara nu are ce sa facd in vacant.
Mara not has what sa do.3sg in vacation
'Mara has nothing to do during her vacation'.

b. Radu nu a decis unde sa plece de Crdciun
Radu not has decided where sa leave.3sg for Christmas
'Radu hasn't decided where to go for Christmas.'

3.4.1.4 Sa co-occurs with complementizers

Another indication that sc is an inflectional element follows from its capacity to occur

with a real complementizer (besides the complementizer ca). As can be seen in examples (67a,b)

sa subjunctive clauses may be introduced by the complementizer daca, 'whether'.

(67) a. Mara se intreabd daca sa plece azi sau maine.
Mara rflx asks whether sa leave.3sg today or tomorrow
'Mara asks herself whether to leave today or tomorrow.'

b. Ce nu Stii daca sa pui in pldcintd?
what not know.2sg whether sa put.2sg in pie
'What don't you know whether to put in the pie?'

Terzi (1992) claims that the Greek particle na and Romanian sc cannot co-occur with

other complementizers because, from their position in Co, they incur a PRO theorem violation,

that is, they can govern PRO which must be ungoverned. Stc and na can only co-occur with wh-

elements which occupy [Spec CP], a position from which they would not govern PRO. This

analysis, however, at least in regards to the Romanian subjunctive particle, is not correct. The

diachronic evidence shows that the complementizer ca immediately preceded the subjunctive

particle sca in both obligatory control and free control subjunctives. Many illustrative examples

are given in Section 3.2.









As for Contemporary Romanian (CR), Terzi (1992) bases her assumption on her example

included here in (68).

(68) ?/*Maria nu stie daca sa plece.
Maria not knows whether sa leave.3sg
'Maria doesn't know whether to go.'
Terzi (1992:116)

I would say that (68) is only marginal and not totally ungrammatical. Some speakers

consider it grammatical or acceptable. Besides, the examples (67a,b) are perfectly grammatical

with the complementizer dacc.

Sct may also co-occur with prepositional complementizers, as reflected by the subjunctive

temporal adjunct of (69).

(69) Mara a plecat pina sa se intoarcd Radu
Mara has left till sa rflx returns Radu
'Mara left before Radu returned.'

To recapitulate, sca is an inflectional element rather than a complementizer for the

following reasons: sca is adjacent to the verb, and unlike the complementizers ca and cc (also

daca) a subject is not allowed to follow this particle. Since a special subjunctive complementizer

exists and may coocurr with sa, it is not possible for this particle to be a second subjunctive

complementizer. Most importantly, sca is able to co-occur with wh-words and complementizers, a

behavior not manifested by attested complementizers.

3.4.2 Sa as a Complementizer

Dobrovie-Sorin (1991) includes a number of arguments for the complementizer status of

the subjunctive particle in Romanian, some discredited by Terzi (1992). Dobrovie-Sorin (1994)

reiterates many of the arguments from Dobrovie-Sorin (1991). Since the matter is not settled at

this point, I will discuss Dobrovie-Sorin's (1994) reasons in favor of the complementizer status









of si. In my account, I will go beyond Terzi's (1992) discussion providing new information and

unexplored data. I will also tackle issues Terzi (1992) left aside for future research.

3.4.2.1 Sa heads an embedded clause

We already know that a subjunctive clause may begin with sa or with ca sa. The two

subjunctive embedded clauses of (70) begin with the particle sa, while the subjunctive clause of

(71) starts with ca sd. (Both example types are currently in use.).

(70) M-a rugat [s-o las [sa intre in odaie]]
me.Acc-has begged.3sg [sd-her let.lsg [sa enter.3sg in room
'She asked me to let her enter my room.'
Minulescu (1881-1944), Cu toamna in odaie

(71) Ca sa-ajung pind la tine, i-am zis calului:
that sd-reach. 1sg to you, cl.Dat-have.1sg said horse.Dat
-GribeSte...
hurry.Imp
'To reach you, I asked my horse to hurry.'
Minulescu (1881-1944), Romantdt ftrdt muzicd

Dobrovie-Sorin (1994) claims that the complementizer status of sa may follow from its

capacity to head an embedded clause. In Dobrovie-Sorin (2001:55) this view is adjusted to: sca

"may head embedded clauses in the absence of any other Comp elements." "Other Comp

elements" could only be wh-words or the complementizer ca, or other complementizer. If sa can

co-occur with a complementizer (showed above), sc cannot be a complementizer. Recall that

two complementizers are not allowed to introduce a clause in Romanian.

If heading a clause means that sca could be the first word in a clause, this is true but

irrelevant for the complementizer status of this particle. By that reasoning, the English infinitival

particle to would also be a C0, contrary to the fact.

If sa is considered the head of a subjunctive clause in the sense that it is located in C,

this fact is not guaranteed either. Actually, there are at least equal chances that a null

complementizer heads a subjunctive complement clause since a subjunctive complementizer









exists. Recall that Grosu & Horvath (1984) consider ca to be optionally lexical or nonlexical, a

point of view shared by Comorovski (1986).

Both (24) and (25) repeated under (72) and (73) are representations of subjunctive

complement clauses from old documents. They show that ca may be overt or nonovert in exactly

the same environment. Both subjunctive clauses are selected by the same matrix predicate, a

vrea 'to want', but (72) is introduced by the complementizer ca followed by sa, while the other,

(73), begins with sA. Thus, it is plausible to assume that (73) is introduced by a nonovert

complementizer.

(72) De n- a vrea ca sa vie.
If not-would.3sg want that sa come.3sg
'If she wouldn't want to come.'
Alecsandri (1821-1890) Opere

(73) fimeia lui nu vra sa plateascd...
woman-the his not wants sa pay.3sg
'his woman doesn't want to pay....'
Stefanelli (1915:112), 1784 document

Furthermore, placing sa under Co is to say that ca sA complement clauses in OSR, like

(72), and ca sa purpose clauses in CR and OSR (e.g., 64, 71) are headed by two

complementizers, which is a very improbable conclusion.

Therefore, the ability of sa to head an embedded clause or a sentence, whatever this may

mean, does not confer a complementizer status on it.

3.4.2.2 Sa in surrogate imperative constructions

Romanian has true imperative forms for second person singular and plural only: e.g., Du-

te! 'Go! (2sg)' Duceti-va! 'Go! (2pl). Recall that sa subjunctives can have imperative force,

constructions usually called surrogate imperatives or suppletive imperatives. Subjunctive

suppletives are possible for all three persons singular and plural. However, since subjunctive has

distinct morphology only for third person (same form for singular and plural), a subjunctive









suppletive must be accompanied by the particle sc in order to be distinguished from present

indicative or true imperative. The examples in (74a,b) are impersonal surrogate imperatives of

the type Let it happen! or So be it!

Another reason for the complementizer status of sa proposed by Dobrovie-Sorin (1994)

follows from the impossibility of sa to head a third person subjunctive surrogate imperative,

when the clitic follows the verb (74c). In (74a) the particle sta is followed by the clitic and the

subjunctive verb, i.e., the normal word order. In (74b) sca is omitted and the clitic follows the

verb. The postverbal position of the clitic in (74b) is not possible in the presence of sa, as

illustrated by (74c).

(74) a. Sa se intample ce s- o intampla.
sa cl.3sg happen.3sg what cl.3sg-Fut happen.3sg
'Let happen what will happen./So be it!'

b. Intample- se ce s- o intampla.
happen.Sbj.3sg- rflx.3sg what rflx.3sg- Fut happen.3sg

c. *sa intample- se ce s- o intampla
sa happen.3sg- rflx.3sg what rflx.3sg-Fut happen.3sg
Dobrovie-Sorin (1994:96)

The question to answer is why (74c) is ruled out. (Terzi 1992 leaves this question for

further research). In Dobrovie-Sorin (1994), in which the examples in (74) were analyzed, a rule

that moves the verb to C, leaving no position for sc in (74c), is considered proof for the

complementizer status of sa.

Now compare the third person subjunctive suppletives of (75) with the second person

suppletive of 76). The examples of (75) display the same patterns in (74) with a different verb (I

do not use the verb a se intdmpla 'to happen', because it is impersonal). (76) includes one

example of true imperative (76b). Observe that a postverbal clitic is possible for a third person









suppletive (75b), but not for a second person suppletive (76c). The real question is what is

responsible for this difference?

(75) a. Sa se duca acolo imediat!
sa cl.3sg/pl go.3sg/pl there immediately
'Let them go there immediately!'

b. Duca- se!
go.Sbj.3sg/pl- cl.3sg/pl
go them

c. *sd ducd-se
sa go-cl.3
let go them

(76) a. Sa va duceti acolo imediat!
sa cl.2pl go.2pl there immediately
'Go there immediately!'

b. Duceti- va!
go.Imp.2pl- 2pl
'Go there!'

c. *Duceti- va!
go.Sbj.2pl- cl.2pl

d. *sd duceti- va
sa go.2pl- cl.2pl

Obviously, the existence of a true imperative form (76b) precludes the surrogate

imperative with the exact same form (76c). As for (75b), two conditions allow it: First, there is

no true imperative form for the third person to compete with the subjunctive, and second, the

subjunctive exhibits distinct third person morphology. Only under these conditions a subjunctive

verb may mimic an imperative by having a postverbal clitic for third person (75b).

Constructions like (74b,75b) are said to complete the paradigm of imperative (for third

person) as Graur et al. (1969:98) suggest. Since a postverbal clitic is specific to imperative (at

least in contrast with subjunctive) sai is prohibited in this context because this structure stands for










a true imperative. This is exactly why (75c) and (74c) are ruled out. (76d) is even worse: the

subjunctive marker appears with imperative verbal morphology and imperative clitic position.

The solution proposed in Dobrovie-Sorin (1994) may possibly account for (74c), (75c) but not

for (76c).

In sum, the subjunctive marker is not possible with imperative verbal morphology or/and

imperative clitic position, hence the impossibility of (74c) is due to the morphological

competition between true imperatives and subjunctive suppletives5.

3.4.2.3 Negation placement

To consider an argument involving the negation nu 'not', at least some basic

characteristics of this entity need to be presented. First, the sequence verb nu (regardless of the

type of the verb: lexical, auxiliary, or modal) has never existed in Romanian, e.g., Nu #tiu (not

know) vs. *#tiu nu (know not) 'I don't know'6.

Furthermore, the negation nu may immediately follow the indicative complementizer cc

(77), but cannot immediately follow the subjunctive complementizer ca (78a). In the subjunctive

structure of (78b), nu illicitly appears between the complementizer ca and the particle sa,





Related to this topic, in French a sentence beginning with que followed by the subjunctive is used for third person
commands, wishes, concessions, etc, like (i). The subjunctive Romanian version is given in (ii).
(i) Que les masques tombent! Let the masks fall!
(ii) SA cadA mstile!
Then there are set expressions without que like (iii). The Romanian version (iv) also lacks sa (optionally).
(iii) Vive la France! Long live France!
(iv) TriiascA Franta!
Dobrovie-Sorin (1994) compares the French expressions with the Romanian counterparts and concludes
that sa in (ii) must be a complementizer like the French que (i).
Furthermore, Dobrovie-Sorin (2001:55) takes subjunctive suppletive constructions as instances where sa is
"sentence initial', thus it is a complementizer. Notice that by this reasoning to in To be continued! should be also a
complementizer, in contradiction with the reality.
6 Unlike Romanian, English used to employ not after a main verb: I lovedyou not. (From Shakespeare's Hamlet) In
Contemporary English, not still appears after models, and auxiliaries, e.g I cannot (and even We think not).









showing that it cannot follow the complementizer or precede the particle. It only can be between

sa and the subjunctive verb.

(77) Mara Stie [ca nu a facut Radu asta]
Mara knows that not has done Radu this
'Mara knows that Radu didn' do this.'

(78) a. Ma ingrijesc [ca sa nu am problem la batranete]
Isg care.lsg that sa not have.lsg problems P old age
'I take care of my self in order to avoid health problems at older age.'

b. *Ma ingrijesc [ca nu sa am problem la batranete]

Dobrovie-Sorin (1994) claims that (79b) is ungrammatical because the Neg head (nu

'not') should subcategorize for IP complements (according to Zanuttini 1989), but it selects a CP

instead, that is, headed by the subjunctive particle sa. Assuming that sa is under C, the author

expects the ungrammaticality of (79b) to be on a par with the indicative structure of (80a). In

other words, nu cannot cross a complementizer: the indicative complementizer ca in (80a) and

the "complementizer" sa in (79b). The sentence from which (80a) was derived is given in (80b).

(79) a. Vreau [sa nu-1 mai intalnesti]
want. 1 sg [sa not-him more meet.2sg]
'I don't want you to see him again.'

b. *vreau nu [s-1l mai intalnesti]
want. sg not [sd-him more meet.2sg]

(80) a. *Stiu nu [ca a scris Ion poezia asta]
know. sg not [that has written Ion poem this]
*I know not that Ion wrote this poem
Dobrovie-Sorin (1994:95-96)

b. Stiu [ca nu a scris Ion poezia asta]
know. sg [that not has written Ion poem this
'I know that Ion didn't write this poem.'

Observe that the negation in (79b) and (80a) reached the main clause crossing the

subjunctive particle sa and the indicative complementizer ca, respectively. The prohibited









sequence verb-nu resulted in the matrix renders these derivations ungrammatical, thus nu is not

able to cross the complementizer or the subjunctive particle. This does not necessarily mean that

sa is a complementizer. If one concludes that sc is a complementizer, one has to explain (78b)

above, where nu landed between sa and the complementizer ca, indicating that ca and not sa is

in Co. Therefore, the placement of the negation nu does not constitute evidence for the

complementizer status of sa.

3.4.2.4 Clitic placement

Like the negation nu, a pronominal clitic cannot cross a complementizer in Romanian.

The clitic -1 'him' in (81a) crosses the complementizer ca, reaching the clitic position of the

matrix and the sentence becomes ungrammatical (81b).

(81) a. Mara crede [cd-l va vedea pe Radu maine]
Mara believes that-cl.him will.3sg see P Radu tomorrow
'Mara believes that she will see Radu in the evening.'

b. *Mara il crede ca va vedea pe Radu maine.

In Dobrovie-Sorin (1994) the ungrammaticality of(82b) is explained by the impossibility

of the clitic 1/il to cross a CP boundary whose head (Co) would be occupied by the subjunctive

particle sA.

(82) a. Vreau sd-l mai intalnesti.
want.lsg sd-cl.him more meet.2sg
'I want you to see him again.'

b. *vreau il sa mai intalnesti
want.lsg cl.him sa more meet.2sg
Dobrovie-Sorin (1994:95)

Terzi (1992) points out citing Zanuttini (1990) that functional heads, not only Co, are

capable of interfering with clitic movement. Indeed, the clitic cannot skip over nu in (83b).

Notice that the ungrammaticality of (83c) may be attributed to the impossibility of the clitic to

cross either nu or sa, or both of the two heads.









(83) a. Vreau sa nu-1 mai intalnesti.
Want. 1 sg sa not-him more meet
'I want you not to see him anymore/again.'

b. *Vreau sa il nu mai intalnesti

c. *Vreau il sa nu mai intalnesti

Terzi (1992) argues that clitics are heads, and, as such, they cannot skip over functional

heads such as Nego or I/Mo (which, she maintains, is occupied by the subjunctive particle)

because it results in ECP violation. Interestingly, no clitic can precede the negation nu--in any

structure--or the subjunctive particle in Romanian. Since the particle sa is always present in its I1

position, no clitic is able to cross it.

So far, it has been found that a clitic cannot cross the complementizer ca, the negation nu,

and the subjunctive particle sd. It only remains to find out the behavior of clitics vis-a-vis the

subjunctive complementizer ca. Three different structures will be used to accomplish this test.

For instance, the sentence (43), labeled idolect in Section 3.2 (also an OC-subjunctive

structure in OSR), repeated here under (84a) includes a pronominal clitic in the embedded

clause. Placing the clitic 1/ il in front of sa, it appears now between ca and sa (84b) and the

derivation crashes. Since ca is the complementizer, sa cannot be one. Moving the clitic further,

over ca, the derivation remains ungrammatical.

(84) a. Nu poci [ca sa-1 mai vaz].
not can. 1sg [that sa-cl.him more seel.sg]
'I cannot see him anymore.'
(Consultant, 2006)

b. *Nu poci [ ca ii sa mai vaz]
not can. 1sg [that cl.him sa more seel.sg]

c. Nu *il poci *il [ca sa mai vaz].
not cl.him can.lsg cl.him [that sa more seel.sg]









Same results obtain in the standard subjunctive structures of CR. The embedded

(purpose) clause of (85a) includes a clitic (in bold). Placing the clitic in front of sa (85b) renders

the sentence ungrammatical. Moving the clitic one step more, over the complementizer ca, in

(85c), the derivation crashes again. Therefore, a clitic cannot follow or cross the subjunctive

complementizer ca; it cannot cross sa and ca in sequence or both in one movement.

(85) a. Fac bani azi [ca sa -i cheltui maine]
make. sg money today [that sd-cl.them spend. sg tomorrow]
'I make money today to spend it tomorrow.'

b. *Fac bani azi [ca ii sa cheltui maine]

c. *Fac bani azi ii [ca sa cheltui maine]

Similarly, the clitic cannot cross sa and ca in the subjunctive complement construction of

(86), whose proposed subject is between ca and sa in (86a). Moving the clitic in front of sa or

over the subject, the sentence is ruled out (86b). Moving the clitic further to the matrix, the

sentence remains ungrammatical (86c).

(86) a. Mara vrea [ca Radu s- -1 intalneasca pe Ion]
Mara wants [that Radu sd-cl.him meet.3sg P Ion]
'Mara wants Radu to meet Ion.'

b. Mara vrea [ca *il Radu *il sa intalneasca pe Ion]

c. Mara *il vrea *il [ca Radu sa intalneasca pe Ion]

All three examples (84, 85, 86) demonstrate that the clitic that normally occurs between

sa and the subjunctive verb cannot cross either sa or ca, or both. Crossing sa, the clitic may land

between the complementizer ca and the subjunctive particle (84b, 85b, 86b). Definitely, the

attested complementizer ca is the dweller of Co and not sa, contrary to Dobrovie-Sorin's (1994)

claim. The b. examples are ruled out because the clitic crossed a functional head, sa, which









occupies 1. The c. examples are ruled out because the clitic crossed two functional heads: sa in

I1 and ca in Co

The real position/status of sa in rapport to clitic placement/movement is given in (87)

below:

(87) a. In Romanian, no clitic precedes/crosses an attested complementizer,
the negation nu, or the subjunctive particle, i.e. a functional head.

b. If a clitic is not able to cross sa, one can safely say that the respective
clitic cannot cross a functional head; there is no proof that this functional
head is in the Co position.

c. If a clitic illicitly crossed sa in sentences where the complementizer ca is
present, the clitic is placed between the subjunctive complementizer and the
subjunctive particle. The Co position is occupied by the complementizer ca.
Therefore, sa is not in C.

All the arguments for the complementizer status of sa (discussed above) have been

dismissed. At best, these arguments had no saying regarding the status of sd. In addition, the

discussion about some of them (neg and clitic placements) furnished evidence against the

complementizer status of sd. Most of the arguments for the complementizer status of sa were

proposed as a result of overlooked empirical data.

Yet, recently, Dobrovie-Sorin (2001:55-6) maintains that sa has both inflectional-like

elements and complementizer-like elements. The complementizer-like elements listed in

Dobrovie-Sorin (2001) are: "Subjunctive particles are sentence initial, preceding negation as well

as clitics, and may head embedded clauses in the absence of any other Comp element;" (all of

them discussed in this section). In order to arrange the parts, the complementizer ca and the

particle sa, the author postulates two C positions: one for ca, one for sd.

To conclude this section, as demonstrated above, Dobrovie-Sorin's (1994, 2001)

arguments do not support the complementizer status of the subjunctive particle sd. To my









knowledge, no argument for the complementizer status of sa remains standing. On the contrary,

there are solid arguments in favor of the I/M(ood) status of the subjunctive particle sa, such as its

co-occurrence with complementizers and wh-words. Naturally, the complementizer ca, be it

overt or nonovert, occupies the Co position, while the mood marker sa heads the maximal

projection of Mood Phrase (MP) or IP.

The lack of specific subjunctive inflection on the verb for the first and second person

singular or plural, makes sa to solely stands for the subjunctive morphological identity.

Therefore, it is appropriate to say that sa is the relevant morphology of subjunctive.

3.5 Tense in Romanian Subjunctive Complements

This section highlights the type of tense of Romanian subjunctive complement clauses. In

Landau (2004), Balkan subjunctive complements are analyzed, using Greek and Bulgarian data,

as having semantic tense: OC-subjunctive complements display anaphoric tense and F-

subjunctive ones display independent tense.

Semantic tense as defined in Polinsky and Potsdam (2006:188) is basically a "referential

expression" which determines the temporal boundaries of an event. Such an expression indicates

whether a proposition is specified by present, past or future interpretation. The respective heads

that carry the tense make the crucial difference between morphological and semantic tense.

Morphological tense assigns tense openly on some constituent of a clause that may be different

from the head of the clause. Semantic tense is an attribute of the clausal head and defines the

tense domain of an event. The morphological tense may or may not correspond to the semantic

tense.

Following Landau's (2004. 2006) tense analysis, I will show that Romanian subjunctives

display the same patterns of tense characteristic to the Balkan type of subjunctive: anaphoric

tense for OC-subjunctives and dependent tense for F-subjunctives.









Anaphoric tense is a semantic tense that does not have its own tense domain, thus it is

fully dependent on another tense domain for reference. Therefore, anaphoric tense does not have

its own tense operator and its clause is not allowed to have temporal modifiers incompatible with

the matrix. Dependent tense is a semantic tense that has its own tense domain/tense operator,

independent of the matrix domain but constrained by it. A clause with dependent tense may

employ temporal modifiers distinct from those of the matrix, but limited by it.

Landau (2004) takes the temporal expressions mismatch between matrix and its

complement clause as a reliable diagnostic for semantic tense. As we shall see, conflicting

temporal adverbs are possible to some extent in F-subjunctive structures, but totally disallowed

in OC-subjunctive structures.

In the example of (88), the event of the matrix and that of the F-subjunctive complement

are temporarily independent, as evidenced by the possibility of conflicting temporal adverbs:

acum 'now in the matrix and mine 'tomorrow' in the subordinate clause. Thus, the subjunctive

clause describes an event temporarily located in the future in spite of the present tense

morphology on the subjunctive verb.

(88) Acum Mara sperd/vrea sa plece maine.
now Mara hopes/wants sa leave.3sg tomorrow
'Now, Mara hopes/wants to leave tomorrow.'

The representation in (88) shows that an F-subjunctive complement has a tense domain of

its own apart from the matrix tense domain resulting from the future interpretation (as opposed

to the present tense of the matrix) and its ability to employ conflicting temporal modifiers. We

could also say that F-subjunctives include a tense operator. This tense operator is "distinct from

the matrix tense operator although constrained by it" (Landau 2004:831). Notice that maine









'tomorrow' in (88) cannot be replaced by ieri 'yesterday' (89). We then can conclude that F-

subjunctive complement clauses display dependent semantic tense.

(89) Acum Mara sperd/vrea sa plece maine/ *ieri.
now, Mara hopes/wants sa leave.3sg tomorrow/ *yesterday
*Now Mara hopes to leave yesterday.

By contrast, conflicting temporal adverbs are prohibited in the OC-subjunctive example

of (90), for a sole event takes place in this construction. Lacking its own tense domain (and tense

operator), without the possibility of employing temporal adverbs incompatible with the matrix,

an OC-subjunctive falls "within the matrix tense domain" (Landau 2004:831). Thus, OC-

subjunctives display anaphoric semantic tense, again despite the present tense morphology on the

subjunctive verb.

(90) *Acum Mara incearcd/incepe sa inoate maine.
now Mara tries/begins sa swim.3sg tomorrow
*Now, Mara tries/begins to swim tomorrow.

Furthermore, Landau (2004, 2006:161) argues that when complements have semantic

tense, dependent or anaphoric, the matrix predicates select the respective tense. Since selection is

local, the tense dependence of the embedded I on the matrix predicate is mediated by Comp, the

head of the complement clause7. Thus, Co bears a [T] feature, the uninterpretable [T] feature

because tense is interpreted only once on 1, so it hosts the interpretable [T] feature. The author

mentions that it is typical for infinitival and subjunctive complements to have their tense

specified by the matrix predicate. In case of independent embedded tense, there is no [T]

specification on Comp. Furthermore, dependent tense has the feature [+T] since it has its own

tense operator and anaphoric tense has the feature [-T] due to the lack of distinct tense operator.

7 The relationship between tense and Comp can be traced back to Stowell (1982) who argues that the tense domain
of a clause is represented in Co. For Kempchinsky (1986), the tense of F-subjunctives is defined by the
interdependence between I and C. Terzi (1992) argues that the subjunctives have a [TENSE] operator in CO or it may
be a set of tense features. Varlokosta (1993) derives the dependent tense of F-subjunctives through the V-to-T-to-C
movement.









Following Landau (2004), Polinsky & Potsdam (2006) also confirm that many

complement clauses have dependent or anaphoric tense imposed by the selectional restrictions of

the matrix verb and consequently the value of the uninterpretable [T] feature is represented on

the embedded Co head. Thus, independent tense has no [T] feature on Co, dependent tense has

[+T] feature on Co and anaphoric tense has [-T] feature on C.

Unlike Landau, Polynsky & Potsdam further argue that the feature [T], whether positive

or negative, is associated with an optional EPP feature, which makes possible for Co to take an

A-specifier. Under these circumstances, the embedded subject can move to the [Spec,CP] of the

respective complement clause in order to check its EPP feature. The subject then moves to the

subject (or object) position of the matrix. In other words, movement out of complement (OC)

clauses displaying dependent or anaphoric tense is possible. In sum, anaphoric semantic tense is

transparent for movement, dependent semantic tense is possibly transparent, but independent

tense is opaque to movement.

Strictly concerning the purpose of this section, I conclude that OC-subjunctive

complements display anaphoric semantic tense endowed with the [-T] feature and F-subjunctive

complements display dependent semantic tense endowed with the [+T] feature. The

uninterpretable [+T]/[-T] features are located on Co, the head of the embedded CP projection.

3.6 Subject of Subjunctive Complement Clauses

Some researchers argue that the empty subject of all subjunctive complement clauses in

the languages of the Balkans is pro: Dobrovie-Sorin (1991, 1994, 2001) for Romanian (and the

Balkans), Calabrese (1992) for Salentino, Turano (1994) for Albanian, among others.

Other researchers argue for PRO subject in OC-subjunctives: Kempchinsky (1986) for

Romanian, Terzi (1992, 1997) for Greek, Romanian, Albanian, (and the Balkans). Also, Krapova

(2001) adopts Terzi's analysis for Greek and Bulgarian and reaffirms that the subject of OC-









subjunctives is PRO. Landau (2004, 2006) analyses the control in languages of the Balkans

within the larger context of control in general. He maintains that the embedded controlled subject

of OC-subjunctives is PRO. These researchers also say that the null subject of F-subjunctives

may be pro or PRO. Lexical subjects are also possible in F-subjunctives.

Both groups of researchers agree that subjunctive clauses in the languages of the Balkans

involve obligatory control.

The main goal of this section is to determine the null subject of OC-subjunctive clauses

and the subject of F-subjunctive clauses. I will show that OC-subjunctive complements have a

PRO subject and that F-subjunctive are ambiguous between two structures, one associated with a

PRO subject, the other with lexical DP orpro subjects. The last part of the section explores the

possibility of arbitrary PRO in subjunctive clauses.

3.6.1 The OC-Subjunctive Complements Have PRO Subject

3.6.1.1 Basic properties of PRO

OC-subjunctive complements display the all the basic properties of obligatory control

structures associated with PRO subject, as shown in Varlokosta & Homstein (1993), Varlokosta

(1993), Hornstein (1999), Krapova (2001) and Landau (2000, 2004).

Thus, the subject of OC-subjunctive clauses must be null (91a). Lexical subjects are

excluded from the same position (91b) or from postverbal position (91c). A null pronominal

subject, pro, is also excluded (91bc).

(91) a. Maral a incercat el sa scrie o scrisoare
Mara has tried sa write.3sg a letter
'Mara tried to write a letter.'

b. *Maral a incercat Ana/pro sa scrie o scrisoare
Mara has tried Ana sa write.3sg a letter
*Mara tried Ana to write a letter









c. *Maral a incercat sa scrii tu2/pro2 o scrisoare.
Mara has tried sa write.2sg you/pro a letter
*Mara tried you to write a letter

The null subject lacks independent reference. Most importantly, it must be correferential

with a local matrix antecedent (the controller) and c-commanded by it (92a). As can be seen the

empty subject (e) is the antecedent of the reflexive/emphatic pronoun and that the coindexation

of e with Mara entails the coindexation of the reflexive with Mara. Control by a long-distant

antecedent is not possible (92b). Only the reflexive that is coreferential with e is possible in

(92b), implying that the long-distance antecedent Radu cannot control the empty subject.

(92) a. Mara, a incercat el sa scrie eainsfiil o scrisoare
Mara has tried sa write.3sg herself a letter
'Mara tried to write a letter.'

b. Radul stie ca Mara2 a incercat e2 s scrie
Radu knows that Mara has tried sa write.3sg
ea insfSi2/*el insuSil o scrisoare
herself/himself a letter
'Radu knows that Mara tried to write a letter herself/*himself.'

According to the properties of the null subject of OC-subjunctive complements discussed

so far, the null subject in (91a) and (92a,b) must be PRO.

Furthermore, PRO will always manifest sloppy reading under ellipsis and de se

interpretation, conform Varlokosta & Homstein (1993), Varlokosta (1993), Krapova (2001) and

Landau (2004), for the languages of the Balkans.

3.6.1.2 PRO permits only a sloppy reading under ellipsis

The only interpretation of the verb ellipsis construction of (93a) is that that Ana (and not

somebody else or Mara) tried (herself) to leave early. The meaning of the ellipsis is the full-

conjoined clause in (93b), that is, Ana controls the embedded subject (PRO) of the second

conjunct. This is sloppy reading. The idea is that, according to Bouchard (1985) and followed by

Landau (2000:35) among others, PRO behaves like an anaphor in OC contexts and like a









pronoun in NOC (i.e., long-distance control: LDC) contexts. Consequently, PRO in OC-

subjunctive complements will always have sloppy reading under verbal ellipsis.

(93) a. Maral incearca [PRO1 sa plece devreme]
Mara try.3sg sa leave.3sg early
si Ana -- de asemenea
and Ana too.
'Mara is trying to leave early and Ana is too.'

b. Maral incearca [PRO1 sa plece devreme] si
Mara tries sa leave.3sg early and
Ana2 incearca sa plece ea insfii2 devreme.
Ana tries sa leave.3sg herself early
'Mara is trying to leave early and Ana is trying (herself) to leave early.'

3.6.1.3 PRO supports only a de se interpretation

De se is Latin for 'of oneself' and, in philosophy, it is a phrase used to mark off what

some believe to be a category of ascription distinct from de re 'of the thing' (and from de

dicto 'of the word').

Varlokosta and Hornstein (1993) notice that in the recent literature PRO is to be

distinguished from pronominals in the sense that it patterns semantically not with personal

pronoun forms like he, but rather with emphatic or reflexive forms like himself This

peculiarity is revealed under circumstances where a subject of an attitude verb is confused

about his (her) identity.

In the classical example (Higginbotham, 1989), "The Unfortunate", a war veteran

suffering from amnesia, is watching a TV show (or is reading a book) dedicated to his own

heroic deeds. Since the Unfortunate does not remember anything bout his wartime

experience, admires the man depicted in the show, without knowing that man is himself.

While the Unfortunate is watching the show, he may have beliefs about himself (the man









watching the show), that is the de se interpretation, or he may also have beliefs about the

hero in the story (who happens to be him), that is the de re Ide dicto interpretation.

The de se de re contrast is reflected in the following representations borrowed from

Varlokosta and Horsntein (1993:508). (94) and (95) are true if The Unfortunate believes that

someone is coming to him to give him a medal -the de se interpretation. These two

sentences cannot be true if The Unfortunate believes that war hero depicted in the show (not

himself) gets the medal the de re interpretation. The representation of (96) is ambiguous

between the two interpretations. In (97) only the de se reading is possible. (97) is true only if

the man has a belief that himself will get a medal. This reinforces the belief that PRO is an

anaphor.

(94) The Unfortunate expects that he himself will get a medal.
(95) The Unfortunate expects himself to get a medal.
(96) The Unfortunate expects that he will get a medal.
(97) The Unfortunate1 expects [PRO1 to get a medal].

For Romanian, the verbs for e\xei /t hiqe cannot be used to show the de se de re contrast

because this verb is an F-subjunctive verb. The mental de se attitude verbs a uita 'to forget' or

a-si aminti 'to remember' can be used instead for this purpose.

So, the sentence of (98a), constructed with indicative, has both the de re interpretation

and de se interpretation in the sense that the forgetful man himself (de se) or somebody else (de

re) remembers to take the train. By contrast, only the forgetful man (himself) could actually

remember to take the train in the OC-subjunctive structure of (98b). Thus, (98b) has only a de se

interpretation, the belief about the self.

(98) a. Uitucul1 Si- a amintit [cd (el 1/2) ia trenul]
forgetful-the cl- has remembered that (he) takes train-the
'The forgetful man remembered that he takes the train.'









b. Uitucull Si-a amintit [el sa ia *e2 trenul]
forgetful-the cl -has remembered sa take.3sg train-the
'The forgetful man remembered to take the train.'

We can then conclude that the null subject of an OC-subjunctive complement manifests

the de se interpretation, conform (98b), therefore it is PRO.

3.6.2 The Subject of F-Subjunctives

F-subjunctive predicates are structurally ambiguous between two representations, one of

which is associated with a PRO subject. Terzi (1992) was the first to make this assessment.

Later, Landau (2004:845) notices: "F-subjunctives whose null subject is coindexed with a matrix

argument are systematically ambiguous between apro-structure with accidental coreference and

a PRO-structure with OC." Landau argues that OC-subjunctives are a subclass of F-subjunctives

and that the PRO-interpretation is a special case of the pro-interpretation. In his Agreement

Model of OC (which will be presented in Chapter 5) an F-subjunctive structure with embedded

PRO subject does not compete with the parallel one with apro subject8.

An F-subjunctive complement may have a lexical DP subject (pronoun or noun) in the

basic/postverbal position as in (99a), or this subject may be null (99b). This null subject is

referentially independent (different from the matrix subject) and it actually replaces a lexical DP,

thus it is pro.

(99) a. (Eul) vreau [sa plece el/Radu2].
(I) want sa leave.3sg he/Radu
'I want Radu to leave.'

b. (Eul) vreau [sa plece pro2/*eu].
(I) want sa leave3sg
'I want him to leave.'





1I am not aware of any analysis that clearly demonstrates that OC is not possible in F-subjunctive complements









The embedded lexical DP subject can be preposed/topicalized, and in this case, as we

know, the complementizer ca must be present (100a). Without ca, a lexical DP is not possible in

the subject position of (100a), thus apro subject is also excluded there (100b). Since a lexical DP

and a (referentially) null pro cannot alternatively occupy the subject position of (100b), the null

subject must be PRO as shown in (101). Furthermore, only the reflexive that doubles and is

coreferent with the null subject and with its matrix controller is possible in (101). Therefore, the

matrix subject of (101) must control the embedded null subject and be coreferent with it,

hindering a non-coreferent subject. Miller (2002:101) also notices that where a disj oint pro

subject is excluded, the null subject must be PRO: "Since pro otherwise occurs freely where

lexical subjects occur, the ungrammaticality of" an examples like (100b) "makes sense only if

the null subject (of (101)) is PRO in need of a controller."

(100) a. (Eul) vreau [ca Radu2 sa plece].
(I) want that Radu sa leave.3sg
'I want Radu to leave.'

b. *(Eul) vreau [Radu/pro2 sa plece].
(I) want Radu sa leave.3sg
'I want Radu to leave.'

(101) (Eul) vreau [PRO1 sa plec eu insumil/*tu insuti2] curdnd]
(I) want sa leave. sg myself/ *yourself soon
'I want to leave (myself).'

Terzi (1992) argues that although Agr is present in sentences such as (101), it is not

actually able to govern the subject position and license apro subject. In Terzi's analysis, along

the lines of PRO theorem, PRO is possible in (101) because the position it occupies,

[Spec,M(ood)P], is ungoverned and (subsequently) uncased. Most recently, Landau's (2005)

mechanism (Chapter 5) of moving PRO from its initial position VP-internally to [Spec,IP/MP]

does not involve case (or EPP). Thus, the position of PRO in (101) may not be occupied by pro.









Before going further, it is necessary to be noted that OC complements are not confined to

inherently OC predicates, i.e. that invariably trigger OC (e.g., implicatives). Huang (1989)

argues that certain matrix verbs have OC complements induced by structure/configuration not by

lexical properties. Huang refers to verbs like prefer, want, hate, hope etc (our F-subjunctive

verbs) which can take complements with free subject like (102) but they also can take OC

complements with PRO subject, like his example (7) included below under (103)9. Therefore,

obligatory control is not a lexical feature and cannot be reduced to the lexical properties of

certain verbs. I adopt this view here, that a structural OC is possible with inherently OC verbs

and with verbs that are able to take OC complements or NOC complements.

(102) John1 prefers her2 to leave early.
(103) John1 prefers PRO1 to behave himselfi/*oneself2

Now, the difference between the Romanian subjunctive constructions (104) and (105) is

that the former has a control complement of a semantically OC predicate, while the latter has a

control complement of a semantically free-control predicate, that is a predicate that can take an

OC complement (105) or a NOC complement (106).

(104) (Eul) incerc [PRO1 sa plec eu insumii/*tu insuti2 curand]
(I) try s leave. sg myself/*yourself soon
'I am trying to leave (myself/*yourself) soon.'

(105) (Eul) vreau [PRO1 sa plec eu insumil/*tu insuti2 curand]
(I) want sa leave. 1 sg myself/yourself soon
'I want to leave (myself/*yourself) soon.'

(106) (Eul) vreau [sa pleci tu2/tu insuti2/pro2/ *eu insumi curand]
(I) want sa leave.2sg you/yourself/pro/ *myself soon
'I want you to leave (yourself/*myself) soon.'





9 Also, Landau (2000), San Martin (2008), among others, consider English examples such as (103) to be OC
structures.









Apart from this lexical/semantic difference regarding their matrix predicates (104) and

(105) are configurationally/structurally identical. First, both (104) and (105) have a null subject

coreferential with the matrix subject, obligatorily controlled by the matrix subject. The matrix

subject is the antecedent and the local c-commanding controller of the embedded subject, which

can only be PRO. The reflexive/emphatic pronouns cannot be different from its antecedent, i.e.,

the embedded subject PRO, and from the controller/antecedent of PRO, thus the control in both

sentences is not long-distance control (LDC). It follows that both complements of (104) and

(105) must be OC complements with PRO subjects10.

By contrast, the NOC complement of (106) may have a lexical DP subject or a

referentially null pro subject. The reflexives show that the embedded subject must be

referentially different from the matrix subject.

It appears that the existence of the English NOC representation of (102) does not

challenge the existence of the OC structure with PRO subject (103). Similarly, the existence of

the NOC representation of (106) with DP/pro subject does not prevent the existence of the

obligatory control representation of (105) with a PRO subject.

The examples (105) and (106) where the matrix subject is a first person DP actually show

no ambiguity between OC and NOC, respectively. (There cannot be both OC and NOC possible

in either example). The embedded clauses of (105) and (106) are distinct complements of the

same matrix verb. This is also true when the matrix subject is a second person entity. Thus, the




10 The examples (104) and (105) also reflect Landau's (2000:99) OC generalization:
"In a configuration [...DP1 ... Pred ... [s PRO.......] where DP controls PRO: If, at LF, S occupies a
complement/specifier position in the VP-shell of Pred, then the DP (or its trace) also occupies a
complement/specifier position in that VP-shell". Landau further asserts that this generalization merely fixes the
domain within which such a controller must be found and makes no claims as to the particular choice of controller
within the domain of OC. VP- shell is understood as ranging over all arguments of a predicate including the external
one.









subjunctive complement of (107) is an OC complement with PRO subject, uniquely coreferential

with its controller, distinct from the NOC complement of (108).

(107) Tul vrei [PRO1 sa pleci tu insutii/*el insuSi2 devreme]
you want sa leave.2sg yourself/*himself early
'You want to leave early (yourself/*himself).'

(108) Tul vrei [sa plece el/el insuSi2/*tu insutil devreme]
you want sa leave.3sg him/himself/*yourself early
'You want him to leave early.'

When the matrix subject and the embedded subjects are both third person entities, the

subjunctive complement clause is indeed ambiguous between OC and NOC. Thus, a

representation such as (109) has two interpretations, as the English versions reveal. The two

variants of (109) are given in (110), where (110a) has an obligatory control reading with PRO

subject, and (1 10b) is a non-control structure with pro subject.

(109) Mara spera [sa plece maine].
Mara hopes sa leave.3sg tomorrow
'Mara hopes to leave tomorrow.'
'Mara hopes him/her to leave tomorrow.'

(110) a. Maral spera [PRO1 sa plece eainsSili/*elinsuSi2
Mara hopes sa leave.3sg herself/himself
maine].
tomorrow
'Mara wants to leave tomorrow (herself).'

b. Maral spera [sa plece pro2 maine].
Mara hopes sa leave.3sg tomorrow
'Mara wants him/her to leave tomorrow.'

If the null subjects of (110a) and (1 10b) were both pro, obviation would have been at

work (i.e. (110) should not exist), contrary to the fact. The possibility of obligatory control

reading in (109) prevents obviation, that is, OC is anti-obviation (and vice-versa, obviation is

anti-control in Spanish for instance, as mentioned in Section 3.3).









Since, naturally, any interpretive property of OC is included as one of the options in

NOC, it is not easy to isolate OC from NOC when the matrix subject of an F-subjunctive verb

and the embedded subject are third person entities. However, consider the following data as:

(111) an OC structure with PRO subject; (112a) an instance of a complement with subject

disjoint reference expressed by lexical DPs. (112b) shows that the embedded lexical DPs of

(112a) cannot be replaced by reflexives. When the embedded subject is a personal pronoun

matching the gender and number of the matrix subject as in (113), the embedded subject is

ambiguous. Adding a matching reflexive in (113), it only can be coreferent with the matrix

subject (Radu).

(111) Radul vrea [PRO1 sa scrie el insuilm / *ea insfii
Radu wants sa write.3sg himself/herself
acel articol].
that article
'Radu wants to write that article (himself).'

(112) a. Radul vrea [sa scrie Mara/ea2 /e3 acel articol]
Radu wants sa write.3sg/3pl Mara/she/they that article
'Radu wants Mara/her/them to write that article.'

b. *Radui vrea [sa scrie ea insai2/ei in iSi3 acel articol]
Radu wants sa write.3sg/3pl herself/themselves that article

(113) Radul vrea [sa scrie ell/2 (el insusil) acel articol].
Radu wants sa write.3sg he (himself) that article].
'Radu wants to write that article.'
'Radu wants him to write that article.'

A few observations could describe these data. (111) and (112) show that the reflexive

pronoun can double here a nonreferentially null antecedent only, the PRO of (111). Thus the

coindexation of the reflexive with PRO entails the coindexation of the reflexive with the matrix

subject (the controller of PRO). Actually, (112b) is an OC environment where PRO is not

possible due to the number/gender mismatch between the reflexives and their antecedent, PRO,









that is. (112b) also suggests thatpro cannot bind a reflexive in this environment. The conclusion

is that a reflexive in an F-subjunctive complement is possible only where its antecedent is

nonreferential. Therefore, PRO cannot be pro in (111). Equivalently, we can say that (111) has a

de se reading, (112) a non-de se (a de re) reading, and (113) has both.

Since both a pronoun (lexical DP) and its reflexive counterpart are possible in the NOC

structures of (106) and (108), it is quite puzzling why a reflexive pronoun is not possible in

(112). For instance, why a feminine DP (totally different from the masculine DP subject of the

matrix) cannot be replaced/doubled by its reflexive pronoun in (112)?

I consider that the possibility of the reflexive (and the de se reading) of (1 11) vs. the

impossibility of the reflexive (and the de re reading) of (112) represents the means of

distinguishing between PRO and lexical DPs/pro respectively, thus between OC and NOC.

According to Chierchia's (1989) analysis, in OC the subject of the matrix controls the

complement and this relation is "self-ascriptive". Self-ascriptive relation is simply the semantic

aspect of control. Consequently, PRO is one of the ways in which languages single out a de se

relation. Chierchia also argues that de se is systematically and unambiguously associated with

the interpretation of PRO, the null subject of OC structures. Thus, OC is possible in F-

subjunctive structures where both the controller and the controlled element are third person DPs,

as in the example (111) whose subject, PRO, manifests the de se interpretation.

An emphatic/reflexive is still possible in a noncontrol complement, but it has to be

accompanied by a noun (the emphatic is in fact an adjective). The emphatic in (114) is different

from Radu, the matrix subject, although has the same gender and number, showing that there is

no control in this sentence.









(114) Radul vrea [sa scrie insu0i2 redactorul2 acel articol].
Radu wants sa write.3sg himself editor.the that article
'Radu wants the editor himself to write that article.'

In sum, F-subjunctive complements have only a null subject PRO in OC environment and

lexical DP or pro subjects in NOC environment for first and second person. When the matrix

subject and the embedded subject are both third person entities and these entities are not

coreferential, the embedded subject is a lexical DP. If these entities are coreferential and the

embedded subject is null, and an agreeing reflexive is possible, that subject is PRO. A referential

null subject (pro) is not possible in this context. Generally, F-subjunctive complements may have

a null nonreferential subject or a referential subject (lexical or null).

3.6.3 Arbitrary PRO

In this subsection I argue that arbitrary PRO is possible in subjunctive clauses and has the

characteristics in the approach developed by Rizzi (1986a).

Chomsky (1981) regards arbitrary PRO as an instance of PRO, which is not controlled

and has arbitrary reference, like in (115).

(115) PROarb To just sit there should be forbidden.

Truly arbitrary PRO in Landau's (2000:6) definition "need not be linked to any

grammatical antecedent", as illustrated in his example (6a) repeated below under (116). He also

specifies that no overt or implicit argument in the sentence may be assumed the controller of

PRO11.

(116) John1 thought that it was wrong [PROarb to introduce him1 to the dean].



11 The overt DP John is not the controller of PRO in (116).
An example of implicit controller is the empty argument of (i). It is implied that the general ordered someone, a
subaltern, to carry on the respective order.

(i) The general ordered el PRo1 to attack the enemy.









Although no previous investigation regarding the existence of arbitrary PRO in

subjunctive context (Romanian or the Balkans) has been ever conducted, Comorovski

(1985:47/51) is the first to notice the existence of arbitrary PRO in her Romanian example (2),

repeated below in (117). She considers (117) the counterpart of the English version, and holds

that the empty category in the Romanian version "meets the characterizations of PRO"

(117) E uSor [earb sd ajungi acolo cu trenul]
is easy sa arrive.2sg there with train.the
'It is easy to get there by train.'

In Romanian, one way of expressing an arbitrary subject is through second person

singular subjunctive. Although the morphology of the subjunctive verb in (117) would lead to

the conclusion that the subject of the embedded clause is a second person singular DP, in reality

this subject is generic and arbitrary.

Now consider the representation in (118). Despite the second person morphology on the

subjunctive verb, it is hardly conceivable that the embedded null subject refers to a certain

person. The embedded subject is generic and arbitrary and refers to any human being,

transcending nations and boundaries.

(118) E greu [earb sa traiesti in communism].
is hard sa live.2sg in communism
'It is hard to live under communism.'

It is quite evident that some features are purely formal agreement features, which do not

carry any semantic significance of their own. Recall that, in spite of the morphological

subjunctive tense, subjunctive complement clauses lack independent tense. Also, it has been

established above that the null subject in OC subjunctive clauses is PRO, again although the

subjunctive verb displays person morphology. In Chomsky (2000 and subsequent work) such

features enter an Agree relation, like in (118) between the verb and its subject, then they are









transferred to the phonological interface but deleted before being transferred to the semantic

interface. Consequently, they get no semantic interpretation, yet the respective derivation does

not crash.

In the light of this reasoning, I propose that the null subject in (118) is PROarb, an

uncontrolled PRO not able to bind or corefer with a real person, but it bears this generic and

arbitrary second person, no person, actually.

The infinitival construction of (119a) clearly includes PROarb. In the second line, the

inflection on the verb ai 'you have' indicates that PROarb is second person singular. The first

line of (119a) is repeated in (119b) with subjunctive instead of infinitive, while the second line is

maintained with infinitive. Actually, whether the first line is constructed with subjunctive or

infinitive (119c), the second line can be equally constructed with subjunctive, infinitive, or

supine.

(119) a. E uSor [PROarb a scrie versuri]
is easy to write verses
Cand nimic nu ai a spune
when nothing not have.2sg to say
'It is easy PROarb to write poetry}
When you don't have anything to say.'
Eminescu (1852-1889), Criticilor mei

b. E usor [PROarb SA scrii versuri]
is easy sa write.2sg verses
Cand nimic nu ai a spune
when nothing not have.2sg to say
'It is easy to write poetry
When you don't have anything to say.'

c. E usor [PROarb sa scrii/a scrie versuri]
is easy sa write.2sg/to write verses
Cand nimic nu ai a spune/ sa spui/de spus
when nothing not have.2sg to say/ sa say.2sg/of saying.Sup
'It is easy to write poetry
When you don't have anything to say.'









The subjunctive verb is inflected for second person singular, in the embedded clause of

the first line in (119b), but there is no lexical (e.g., someone) or implicit controller in the matrix

in any variant of (119). Since it does not refer to anyone in particular, the subject cannot be a

pro2sg. Thus both variants, with infinitive and subjunctive, should have the same kind of subject,

PROarb, that is. To posit PROarb in (119a) butpro2sg in (119b) takes more then the verbal

morphology.

Following Rizzi (1986a), I will determine the characteristics of PROarb in Romanian. In

Rizzi's (1986a) example (15), included here under (120a), the PROarb must be masculine and

plural in Italian, as indicated by the inflection on the adjective allegri. The Romanian version,

constructed with subjunctive, (120b) is one of the choices, the first choice of a native speaker to

translate the Italian version (119a). (120c) is the infinitive variant used in OSR, but still used and

considered appropriate in CR. Fericit 'happy' is singular and masculine in both Romanian

examples.

(120) a. E difficile [PROarb essere sempre allegri].
is difficult to be always happy.masc.pl

b. E greu [PROarb sa fii mereu fericit].
is hard sa be.2sg always happy.masc.sg

c. E greu [PROarb a fi mereu fericit].
is hard to be always happy.masc.sg
'It is difficult to be happy always.'

Rizzi (1986a) shows that when the arbitrary interpretation of PRO must be the primary

interpretation, a potential implicit controller in the main clause is not allowed (his fn 3). He

contrasts PRO in (122), where it is arbitrary, and (121), where it is not. Genuine arbitrary PRO

in Italian is intrinsically plural and masculine, as in (122) and (120a). PRO in (121) can be

understood as pragmatically singular, referring to the speaker or the hearer.









(121) In una situazione di questo genere, e difficile [PRO essere sempre allegro]
in a situation of this kind, (it)is difficult to be always happy.sg

(122) Lucia ha detto a Maria [come [PROarb essere sempre allegri/*allegro]]
Lucia told Maria how to be always happy (masc, pl)/(masc, sg)

The basic properties ofarb according to Rizzi (1986a) are: [+human, +generic,

+singular/plural]. The number varies across languages. In Italian, arb is plural. The phi-features

of PROarb in Italian are given in (123). (The person feature of PROarb in Italian is not clear to

me).

(123) [+human, +generic, +plural, +masculine] Italian

The properties of PROarb in Romanian (subjunctive and infinitive) are summarized in:

(124) [+human, +generic, +singular, + masculine, +2nd person]

The embedded subject in (120bc) can also be understood as pragmatically masculine,

referring to the speaker or the hearer (as Rizzi points that out for Italian).

In conclusion, I assume that structures (118), (119b), (120b) represent the way of

expressing PROarb with subjunctive, despite the inflectional agreement on the subjunctive verb.

This assumption is further supported by the lack of any lexical or implicit controller in the main

clause of these examples.

It is important to point out that this analysis, concerning PROarb, should be kept apart

from Sufier's (1983) "arbitrary pro". Her Spanish examples feature a generic reading induced by

third person plural verbs (125) and the impersonal clitic pronoun se (126). The corresponding

Romanian se construction is given in (127).

(125) pro Dicen que pro va a nevar.
say.3pl that go.3sg. to snow
'They/people say that it is going to snow.'









(126) pro Se dice que va a nevar.
se say.3sg that go.3sg to snow
'One says that it is going to snow.'

(127) pro Se zice ca va ninge.
se say.3sg that Fut.3sg snow
'One says that it will snow.'

Chierchia (1984:411-2) regards se constructions of this kind having "overt generic

subjects". He concludes that apart from "the obscurity of their interpretation",

si/(se) and PROarb have nothing in common12

In this section, it has been showed that the null subject of OC-subjunctives is PRO, as

sustained by the standard properties displayed by this entity. Also, it has been argued that F-

subjunctives may have OC complements with nonreferential/PRO subject or NOC complements

with independent reference as pro or lexical DPs. In the last part of the section, I presented

arguments for that arbitrary PRO in subjunctive context and its characteristics.

3.7 Subjunctive Clauses are IP or CP clauses?

This section deals with the options of subjunctive complements as being IP or CP type of

clauses. First, it is shown that subjunctive clauses do not manifest the phenomenon of

restructuring, thus they are full clauses, separate from their matrix clause. In regards to the

presence of a complemetizer, two opposing views will be presented: All subjunctive clauses are

CP clauses vs. only when a lexical complementizer is present is a clause of the CP type.






12 Although an analysis of se is beyond the scope of this paper, I mention in passing that it is of the kind of
nominative impersonal, as opposed to impersonal passive, in Reinhardt & Siloni (2005) terms, where it is shown
that arbitrarization applies in both types. Also, an expletive pro satisfies the EPP in both types of constructions.
Chierchia (21" '14 states, in regards to arbitrarization in impersonals with si (se), that the agent role is existentially
closed and restricted to groups of humans.shown that arbitrarization applies in both types. Also, an expletive pro
satisfies the EPP in both types of constructions. Chierchia (21" 14) states, in regards to arbitrarization in impersonals
with si (se), that the agent role is existentially closed and restricted to groups of humans.









3.7.1 Subjunctive Clauses Resist Restructuring

That Balkan subjunctive clauses are full clauses and do not undergo restructuring is an

uncontroversial fact13. Terzi (1992) is the best place to find undeniable evidence for the lack of

restructuring in Balkan subjunctive. Landau (2004) also points that out.

In Rizzi's (1982) concept of restructuring, an underlying biclausal sentence is

transformed into a simple (monoclause) sentence, resulting in a verbal complex, which

incorporates the matrix verb and the embedded verb.

The key argument for restructuring, clitic climbing, is simply ruled out in Romanian (and

Balkan) subjunctives, as determined in Section 3.4 and illustrated by the examples in (128). As

can be seen, the clitic 1f 'him' (128a) cannot cross over sa to reach the matrix (128b).

(128) a. Mara vrea sa il vada pe Radu curand.
Mara wants sa him see.3sg P R.Acc soon
'Mara wants to see Radu soon.'

b. *Mara vrea il sa vada pe Radu curand.

Recall that the particle sa has been analyzed as the subjunctive mood marker, an I

element heading its own projection IP or MP, therefore subjunctive complement clauses are at

least IP clauses. Rizzi (1982) actually takes the lack of clitic climbing as indicating that the

respective clause is a CP clause.

3.7.2 Subjunctive Complement Clauses and Complementizers

It has been already established that in OSR each subjunctive complement clause may have

two variants, one with the complementizer ca, one without it. In CR, ca only appears in case of

topicalization.Topicalization is the only environment when ca is mandatory (in OSR and CR).


13 Terzi (1992:172-3) citing Guasti (1991) reports that restructuring and clitic climbing happens with some causative
verbs in the Albanian-related dialect of Arberesh of San-Nicola, Southern Italy, in the presence of the subjunctive
particle. This, of course, is an exception from the familiar nonrestructuring subjunctive clauses of the Balkan
Sprachbund.









Complements of interrogative predicates are introduced by the complementizer dacct 'whether',

as already seen in Section 3.4.

Two opposing views in regards to the type of clause in relation to the presence or absence

of a complementizer will be discussed below. According to one view all subjunctive clausese are

CP clauses regardless of the presence or absence of a lexical complementizer, while for the other

view all subjunctive clauses are IP clauses excepting the situation when a lexical complementizer

is present.

3.7.2.1 Subjunctive complements are CP clauses

Terzi (1992) argues not only for the capability of the Romanian (and Albanian)

subjunctive complementizer to be optionally overt or covert, but she also maintains that Greek

has a nonlexical subjunctive complementizer, although there is no instance of it being ever

phonetically realized. As already mentioned, the subjunctive complementizer ca is lexical or

nonlexical according to Grosu & Horvath's (1984) assessment. Rivero (1987) also supports the

idea of a null complementizer in Greek subjunctive clauses. In the same spirit, Giorgi and

Pianesi (2004:203), analyzing complementizer deletion in Italian subjunctive clauses, support the

idea that "complementizer deletion is no deletion at all". For Picallo (1985), Kempchinsky

(1986) and Landau (2000, 2004) the tense of subjunctives is licensed in the embedded C. In other

words, subjunctive clauses must have a C position.

Furthermore, Pesetsky & Torrego (2001) argue that an empty C does not determine de

distribution of CP. Kishimoto (2006), based on "complementizerless" clauses in Japanese, argues

against Bogkovic's (1997) view according to which a phonetically unrealized complementizer

involves the absence of the respective CP projection.

Consequently, according to these researchers, two conclusions emerge: that subjunctive

clauses are CP clauses, irrespective of the (lexical) presence of a complementizer, and that an









embedded clause lacking a lexical complementizer does not necessarily mean that the clause is a

CP-less clause.

3.7.2.2 Subjunctive complements are IP clauses

Apparently, an instance of topicalization from a subjunctive clause leads to an illegal

adjunction to IP. Consider the following examples from Terzi (1992).

(129) a. *vreau maine sa vina Ion
want. sg tomorrow sa come.3sg John
'I want John to come tomorrow'

b. vreau ca maine sa vina Ion
want. sg that tomorrow sa come.3sg John
'I want that John comes) tomorrow'
Terzi (1992:109)

Terzi suggests that the presence of the complementizer in (129b) is necessary in order for

the topicalized material (NPs or adverbs) to be lexically governed. Thus, the ungrammaticality of

(129a) is explained by the failure of the adverb maine 'tomorrow' to be properly governed. She

also suggests that the contrast of these two sentences is reminiscent of a similar contrast evinced

in English: (130a,b).

(130) a. I know (that) Mary was angry at him yesterday.
b. I know *(that) yesterday Mary was angry at him.

Boskovic (1997) takes these examples from Terzi (1992) along with the information that

the presence of the subjunctive marker sct is always required but the presence of the subjunctive

complementizer ca is optional. Contrasting these two sentences, now adjusted with brackets

(13 la,b), Boskovic (1997) concludes that whenever the complementizer is present, the respective

clause is CP, rather than IP.

(131) a. *vreau [IP maine [IP s vina Ion]]
want. sg tomorrow sa come.3sg John
'I want John to come tomorrow'









b. vreau [cp ca [ip maine [IP sa vina Ion]]
want.lsg that tomorrow sa come.3sg John
'I want that John comes) tomorrow'


Boskovic parallels the Romanian examples (129) to the English examples of (132). Thus,

the embedded clause of(129a) should be an IP on a par with the second clause of (132a) as

opposed to the second clause of (132b), which is CP. (We may notice in passing that (132a) is

not possible in Romanian with indicative simply because the complementizer cct is always

present, nor with subjunctive since ca is required in front of the embedded subject)14


(132) a. John believes Peter left.
b. John believes that Peter left.


Boskovic (1997) argues that, since adjunction to IP is a necessary feature/consequence of

topicalization, only when there is a CP projection over the IP projection is topicalization

possible. Thus, (13 la) is ungrammatical because the complement is an IP, so that the adjunction

is banned. (13 Ib), on the other hand, is grammatical because the topicalized material is adjoined

to an IP within CP.

Boskovic's view goes back to Grimshaw (1977) who states that: "when the complement

is a CP, then adjunction to the IP is possible, whereas when the complement is an IP, then

adjunction to IP is ruled out. Hence, only when there is a CP projection over the IP projection

will the IP projection be a possible adjunction site".




14 Doherty (1993, 1997) analyzes English (finite) clauses without that as being always IP clauses and only when the
complementizer is present they are CPs. The English data used by Doherty to develop and test his analysis are not
possible with subjunctive structures in Romanian, excepting nonsentential adverbs fronted as topics. (The Romanian
indicative complementizer ca is always obligatory).
On the other hand, Pesetsky and Torrego (2001) using the principles of minimalism, determine the distribution of
CP through the T-to-C movement. They reach the conclusion that the English C is phonologically null in declarative
clauses and the morphemes pronounced in C are a consequence of movement. The authors conclude that this pattern
is not expected to be found in all languages so it is necessary to establish it for any given language. Their ultimate
conclusion is that there is no general correlation between the emptiness of C and acceptability of CP. To develop
and test a similar approach for Romanian is not a trivial task and that is beyond the scope of this study.









Notice that this generalization does not tell anything about overt or nonovert

complementizers. It implies however that a matrix verb does not select a Top phrase.

On the other hand, in Rizzi's (1997) analysis, a lexical complementizer is mandatory

when adverbials appear in Top position. Later, Rizzi & Shlonsky (2007) maintain that C deletion

is not compatible with the activation of topic and/or focus of the complement clause. Clearly, the

activation of topic in subjunctive complement clauses is not compatible with nonovert/lack of

complementizers in Romanian. Recall that although ca may be optional in some environments, it

has been emphasized a few times already that its presence is mandatory in topic situations.

In the end we are facing two explanations for the ungrammaticality of (129a): (i)

Topicalization to an argument of the matrix or (ii) Topicalization to the IP of a CP clause, whose

complementizer has been illegally deleted with the result of the addition of a wrong adverb to the

matrix1. This raises the question of how would one ensure which position is right or superior?

Now, regarding the debate the presence of a complementizer means CP clause vs. the

absence of a complementizer means CP-less clause, in order to be neutral, I leave this matter

unsettled, a good topic for further research. So, a subjunctive clause in OSR is a CP clause when

ca is present, like (133a) and an IP clause when ca is absent (133b,134) according to one view,

but both examples of (133) and the representation of (134) are CP clauses in agreement with the

other view.

(133) a. Si nu voi ca sa ma laud...
and not will.lsg that sa me flatter.lsg
'And I don't want to flatter myself...'
Eminescu (1852-1889), Scrisoarea III

b. Si nu voi sa ma laud...

15 Since complementizers are included amongst null elements and it has not been demonstrated otherwise, it may be
also possible that the complementizer is null (dormant) and surfaces only when necessary. i.e., in case of
topicalization.










(134) Laurii voiau sd-i smulgd de pe fruntea ta de fier
laurels wanted.3pl sd-it snatch.3pl from forehead your of iron
'The laurels, they wanted to snatch from your iron forehead'
Eminescu (1852-1889), Scrisoarea III

In CR, where the complementizer ca is mostly absent, as in (133b) and (134), all

subjunctive clauses are CP clauses according to one view or all of them are IP clauses, including

presumably the (ca-less) second conjunct of (135), in agreement with the other view16.

Naturally, for the IP view, structures with topicalization (where ca is obligatory) and when the

complementizer dacd is present the respective types of clauses must be CPs.

(135) Vreau ca Radu sa plece Si Mara sa ramana.
want.lsg that Radu sa leave.3sg and Mara sa stay.3sg
'I want Radu to leave and Mara to stay.'

Concerning strictly the presence or absence of a (lexical) complementizer in subjunctive

complement clauses, supposedly the only consequence is that a theory of control is expected to

apply to both situations.

3.8 Conclusions

In this chapter I described the two subjunctive types of clauses, OC-subjunctives and F-

subjunctives, and their components: the particle sa, the subject of each of the two types of

clauses, their respective type of tense, and whether these clauses are IP or CP clauses. The

distribution of the complementizer ca and a discussion about obviation are also included.

While all subjunctive clauses must appear with the subjunctive particle sa, whose status I

have demonstrated to be an I element, the relevant subjunctive inflection, OC-subjunctive and F-

subjunctive complement clauses differ in regards to other elements or properties. First, they are



16 For Doherty (1997) coordination of CP and IP is "unsurprising" because IP and CP "denote the same semantic
entity Proposition", and because "IP and CP are categorically non-distinct members of the extended (verbal)
projection".









selected by separate semantic classes of predicates. Then, although both types of clauses have

semantic tense, the tense of OC-subjunctives is anaphoric and the tense of F-subjunctives is

dependent. Also, OC-subjunctive clauses are always OC clauses with PRO subject, whereas F-

subjunctives could be OC clauses with PRO subject or NOC clauses with referential DP subjects.

Concerning obviation, F-subjunctives did not manifest this phenomenon in OSR and is

still unavailable in CR regardless of the presence or absence of the complementizer ca. For

further research, it remains to investigate why Romanian (and Balkan) subjunctives do not

manifest obviation.









CHAPTER 4
INFINITIVE COMPLEMENTATION

Ca sa mor linistit, pe mine,
Mie redd-ma!1
-Eminescu

4.1 Introduction

In this chapter, I explore the structure of infinitival OC complement clauses used in older

stages of Romanian (OSR). I assume that all infinitives in OSR have the same structure and I use

data from non-complement infinitives to support my claims; however, the focus of this chapter

remains obligatory control structures. As mentioned in Chapter 2, the infinitive has endured in a

large number of constructions, but scarcely in complement clauses. The latter are mostly

outdated in Contemporary Romanian (CR).

The chapter is organized as follows: Given the almost complete loss of infinitival

complementation, Section 4.2 starts with a description of the data sources used in this chapter.

These include written sources and older native speaker consultants.

Sections 4.3 and 4.4 analyze the internal structure of infinitival clauses. The first element

to be discussed is the particle de, in de plus a-infinitive clauses. De is the Romanian counterpart

of Romance de/di, which is generally considered to be a complementizer (Kayne 1981, 2000,

Rizzi 1982). I present a number of properties of Romanian de that parallel those of de/di and

argue that Romanian de is also a complementizer.

Section 4.4, establishes the categorical status of the infinitival particle a. Again, as in

regards to the subjunctive particle s&, there are two possible analyses for this particle: as an

inflectional element (mood marker) or as a complementizer. I argue for the inflectional status of




1 To die in peace, restore me first!/ Return me to myself, so I can die in peace!









this particle primarily because it co-occurs with complementizers. A number of

counterarguments from the literature are dismissed.

In the next two sections, I discuss infinitive complements in terms of the familiar

obligatory control (OC) versus non-obligatory control (NOC) distinction and Landau's (2000)

exhaustive control (EC) and partial control (PC) distinction. Section 4.5 shows that infinitival

complements characteristics are typical of obligatory control in contrast with NOC (non-

obligatory control) structures, which do not have these characteristics. This section also shows

that OC infinitival complements exist in both EC and PC types.

Following Landau (2000), the particular properties of PC are illustrated in Section 4.6.

While in both types of complements (EC and PC) the syntactic number of PRO is inherited from

the controller and must match, PRO in PC complements can differ in semantic number from its

controller: PRO can be semantically plural when the controller is singular. Such structures are

constructed with collective predicates e.g., to convene, to reunite, etc. or with the collectivizer

together.

Section 4.7 considers the tense properties of EC and PC complements. It shows, based on

the discussion of semantic tense in Chapter 3, Section 3.5, that EC complements have anaphoric

tense and PC complements have dependent tense, on a par with OC subjunctives and F-

subjunctives, respectively.

Section 4.8 contains a brief discussion of the syntactic category of infinitival

complements. I show that they are not reduced restructuring complements but full clauses

optionally introduced by the complementizer de. Whether infinitival complements are all CP

clauses or only when the complementizer is present remains an open question. Section 4.9

gathers the main conclusions of this chapter.









4.2 The Empirical Picture

Infinitival complements existed widely in OSR and were all documented. These

constructions began to diminish greatly in frequency, especially during the Phanariot political

regime, as a result of Greek influence (Chapter 2) and continued to diminish after 1821, when

this epoch was over.

In the 1950s -1960s the number of verbs that takes infinitival complements decreased

dramatically. Gramatica I (1963:227) provides an incomplete list of verbs that select for

complement clauses: a apuca 'to grab/to begin', a avea 'to have', a se grabi 'to hurry', a izbuti

(reusi) to manage', a incepe 'to begin', a incerca 'to try', a indrazni 'to dare', a invata 'to

learn/teach', aporni 'to start', aprimi 'to agree', aputea 'can', a #ti 'to know', imi vine a 'I'm

inclined to', se cade (cuvine) 'to be proper'. Since that time, infinitival complement clauses have

further declined.

Schulte (2004) includes contemporary data of infinitival complement clauses selected by

at least six matrix verbs, collected from magazines like Romdnia Literardt and Convietuirea,

mostly from 1997- 1998 and as recent as 2003. For example, the June 6, 2006 issue of Romdnia

Liberty, a leading national newspaper hosts an account of the turbulent World War II years and

post-war era in Romania, narrated by a war veteran. There are twenty instances of infinitival

constructions in this narrative: two are complements to verbs, five complements to nouns, and

the rest adjuncts, mostly purpose clauses. An impersonal construction with an infinitival

complement clause is given in (1).

(1) Se cuvine de a face o analiza sine ira et studio
rflx fits de to make an analysis sine ira et studio
'It is proper to do an analysis sine ira et studio.'
Romdnia Libert, 03 June 2006









While these infinitive complements may seem anachronistic to some speakers, they in

fact conform that this particular construction is still alive for other, perhaps older, speakers. Not

so old speakers also use infinitive complements when selected by verbs such as a indritzni 'to

dare', a incepe 'to begin' and a opri 'to stop'. Since language cannot exist independent of its

speakers, it must be conceded that infinitival complement constructions are, to some (reduced)

extent, part of the contemporary speech. The purpose of the following subsections is to present

the available diachronic and synchronic data used in this chapter.

4.2.1 OSR Documented Data

The data below feature infinitive control structures from literature between 1581 and

1981. (Whether 1981 is OSR or CR is not really important). Infinitive control examples are not

found in these sources only, nor is the analysis of infinitive complementation in this dissertation

based on these sources only.

The examples (2) through (17) are subject control structures constructed with various

categories of matrix verbs: implicative (2, 3, 4), aspectual (5, 6), modal (7, 8, 9), desiderative

(10, 11, 12), active (13, 14), interrogative (15) and propositional (16, 17). Accusative object

control examples are given in (18, 19) and dative object control examples in (20, 21). One

example for each empty controller type is also included: accusative empty controller (22) and

empty dative controller (23).

Subject control
(2) De-abia indrdznesc a mdrturisi ca am avut cutezarea
hardly dare. 1 sg to confess that have. 1 sg had boldness
'I hardly dare to confess that I had the boldness ...'
Sadoveanu (1880-1961) Opere

(3) Turcii izbutird d'a preface tara in paSalic
Turks.the succeeded de to turn country.the in pashalic
'The Turks managed to turn the country into a pashalic.'
Balcescu (1852 :100)









(4) au cdutat iards a se intoarce
have.3pl tried again to rflx return
'They tried to return again.'
Ureche (1647:93)

(5) Si el nu se poate opri d'a simti durere amara..
and he not rflx can stop de to feel pain bitter
'And he couldn't stop to feel bitter pain ..'
Balcescu (1852:101)

(6) Si incepu a grdi inaintea a totu narodului
and began.3sg to speak before of all people
'And he began to
Coresi (1581:348)

(7) Au a plati numai 3 lei
have.3pl to pay only 3 lei
'They have to pay 3 lei only.'
Stefanelli (1915:269), 1796 document

(8) Ca sa aibd a-Si stdpdni partea dumisale
that sa have.3sg to-rflx own part.the his
'So that he has ownership permission of his part'
Alexiu (1939:56), 1781 document

(9) Trebuird a se invoi de a aStepta sosirea duSmanului
had.3pl to rflx agree de to wait arrival.the enemy.Gen
'They had to agree to wait for the enemy's arrival.'
Balcescu (1852:86)

(10) Daca iubeSti fiar sa speri de- a fi iubit vreodatd
if love.2sg without sa hope.2sg de- to be loved ever
'If you love without hoping to be ever loved'
Eminescu (1852-1889) Dact iubeti ...

(11) n- au vrut a veni
not-have.3pl wanted to come
'They didn't want to come.'
Stefanelli (1915:192), 1790 document

(12) VoeSte a rdspunde ...
will.3sg to answer
'He wants to answer ...'
Alexiu (1939:155), 1832 document









(13) Se temu d'a nu pierde folosul moral ...
rflx was afraid de to not loose advantage.the moral
'He was afraid not to lose the moral advantage ...'
Balcescu (1852:96)

(14) sa ingrozise boierii a mai merge cu ddnsul la plimbari
rflx scared boards to more go with him for walks
'The boards were too scared to go with him again for a walk'
Neculce (1738:26) O samct de cuvinte

(15) aSa se poate inSela omul dacd nu Stie a judeca bine
so rflx can.3sg deceive man if not knows to judge well
'A man can deceive himself if he doesn't know to judge well...'
Creangd (1879:47) Amintiri din Copiltrie

(16) Mihai... se gdndi a dobdndi ajutor Si din alte pirti
Mihai rflx thought to gain help and from other parties
'Mihai thought of getting help from another parties too.'
Balcescu (1852:36)

(17) Hasdeu credea a-1 putea data cam prin 1654
Hasdeu believed to-it.Acc can date around 1654
'Hasdeu believed of being able to date it around 1654'
Rotaru (1981:40)

Accusative object control
(18) Va rugam a nu fuma.
you.pl.Acc ask.lpl to not smoke
'We ask you not to smoke./No smoking!
(Used in public places)

(19) poftim stdpdnirea locului a o iscli
invite. lpl authority-the place.Gen to it sign
'We invite the local authorities to sign it.'
Stefanelli (1915:395), 1827 document

Dative object control
(20) sa- i permiteti a o recomanda invdtatorilor
sd-cl.Dat permit.2pl to it recommend teachers.Dat
din circumscriptiunea sa
from district his
'allow him to recommend it to the teachers of his district'
Monitorul Oficia a Romdniei, Mai 1877. Eminescu's 1876 letter









(21) Noaptea ajutd Turcilor a se dezmetici
night.the helps Turks.Dat to rflx recover
'The night helped the Turks to recover'
Balcescu (1852 :95)

Empty accusative object controller
(22) O scrisoare a patriarchului ecumen recomandd fidelitate
a letter of patriarch.Gen ecumenical reccomends fidelity
cdtre Sultanul Si invitA a sustine pe guvernul otoman
to sultan.the and invites to sustain P government.the ottoman
'The ecumenical patriarch's letter recommends fidelity to the Sultan and invites to
sustain the Ottoman government'.
Monitorul Oficial al Romdniei, Mai 1877

Empty dative controller
(23) unde porunci de a forma un trup de 1.000 oameni
where ordered.3sg de to form a body of 1.000 men
'where he ordered to form a body of soldiers of 1.000 men'
Balcescu (1852:64)

I conclude from these data that Romanian infinitive complementation displays control in

all the expected/standard contexts, and subject control with all categories of matrix verbs. The

examples above represent a small sample of the "prototypical" control structures constructed

with infinitives attested in OSR.

4.2.2 Non-Control Infinitival Structures in Use in OSR and CR

Some non-control infinitival structures still in use in CR will contribute to the

conclusions in this chapter. Although raising structures are mostly constructed with subjunctives

in CR, infinitival raising structures are still in use. The raising example (24a) is as grammatical

now as it was when its author created it in 1936. (24b) is a contemporary raising example. (25)

shows infinitives used as subjects, structures still in use in CR. (26, 27) are infinitival adjuncts

very productive in CR. Infinitival complements to impersonal predicates, like the one in (28), are

still in use to some extent. Complements to nouns, usually introduced by de, are quite productive

in CR (29).









Nu sunt ce par a fi
not am what seem.lsg to be
'I am not what I seem to be.'
Minulescu (1881-1944) Nu sunt ce par afi


b. Cdteva proiecte par a se indrepta
few projects seem.3pl to rflx head
'A few projects seem to move towards completion.'
Astromax, 2008


spre success
towards success


A cunoaste inseamnd iarnd
to know means winter
A iubi e primavara.
To love is spring
'To have knowledge means winter
To love means spring.'
Blaga (1895-1961) Primivarat


Apoi s-a intors pentru a reinnoda firul
then rflx-has returned for to reprise path
'Then he came back to reprise the path of his destiny.'
Romdnia Liberti, March 14, 2007


DumSmnit vei fi de toate, far-a
detested will.2sg be by all, without to
chiar de veste;
even of news
'You will be detested by all, without even realizing it.'
Eminescu (1850-1889), Scrisoarea III


E mai uSor a da vina
Is more easy to give fault
'It is easier to blame others.'


cu speranta de a nu- Si
with hope.the de to not-rflx
'with the hope of not loosing his throne'
Romdnia Liberd, June 3 2006


unui destin.
a.Gen destiny


prinde
realize


pe altii.
P others


pierde tronul
loose throne.the


4.2.3 Contemporary (Recent) Data of Infinitival Complements

As already mentioned, Schulte (2004) includes examples of infinitival control structures

collected from magazines after 1990. They are constructed with the following matrix verbs: a

dori 'to wish', a indrazni 'to dare', a opri 'to stop', a-i place 'to please', a obliga 'to oblige', a


(24) a.


(25)


(26)


(27)


(28)


(29)









sfatui 'to advise', a crede 'to believe'. The examples (30, 31) are from Schulte (2004). A more

recent example (32) is from Romdnia Libera. Two native speakers produced (33) and (34)2.

(30) Nu doreSte a se auzi pe sine.
Not wishes to rflx hear P self
'He does not wish to hear himself.'
Romdnia Literard 31, 5.8.1998

(31) Autorul crede a putea ataca ...
author.the believes to can attack
controversata tezd maioresciand
controversial thesis Maiorescian
'The author believes himself to be able to attack Maiorescu's controversial
thesis.'
Corina Popescu, 2000. Verismul Italian gi literature romdnd

(32) sa renunte de a mai crea "mitul Antonescu".
sa give up.3sg de to more create myth-the Antonescu
'They should give up creating the myth Antonescu'
Romdnia Liberd, June 3, 2006

(33) A indrdznit de a veni la uSa mea nechemat.
has dared de to come to door my uninvited
'He dared to come to my place uninvited.'
Consultant, age 32, October 2006

(34) Capitanul a ordonat locotenentului
captain.the has ordered lieutenant.Dat
a se dispersa pentru a incercui inamicul
to rflx disperse for to encircle enemy.the
'The captain ordered the lieutenant to disperse in order to encircle the enemy.'
Consultant, age 70, December 2007

The data above (30-34) and the list of the verbs taking infinitival complement clauses

show that infinitival complement clauses are still found in Contemporary Romanian.

4.2.4. Infinitive Complement Clauses Introduced by Prepositions

Apart from the complementizer de (to be discussed in Section 4.3) five prepositions may

introduce a-infinitive clauses. They are: prin 'by', cu 'with', in 'in', la 'at/to', and pe 'on'.

2 This speaker prefers a sentence like (33) with a indrtizni 'to dare' and infinitive than with subjunctive.









These five elements are shown in (35) through (39). Only three of them, prin (35a), cu (36a), and

in (37a) were found in texts. The other elements were used by my consultants (I use these types

of examples myself).

(35) examples with prin
a. Nu cumva Si ei vor fi inceput prin a se imprumuta?
not somehow and they will be started by to rflx borrow
'Isn't it possible that they would have started to borrow (money)'
Delavrancea (1858-1918) Parazitii

b. Incepe prin a spune adevarul
begins by to tell truth.the
'S/he begins by telling the truth.'

c. Incepe a spune adevarul
begins to tell truth.the
'S/he begins to tell the truth.'

(36) examples with cu
a. Se multdmi cu a prinde acele dobitoace
rflx satisfied.3sg with to catch those animals
'It pleased him to corral those animals.'
Alexiu (1939:67), 1792 document

b. Se multumeste (cu) a trdi de azi pe maine.
rflx pleases with to live of today till tomorrow
'It pleases her/him to live from day to day.'

(37) examples with in
a. Nerdbddtor (in) a afla.
impatient.masc.sg in to find out
'He is impatient to find out (the truth)'
Gramatica I (1963:363) "old structure"

b. Persists *(in) a face mereu aceeaSi greSeala.
persists in to make always same mistake
'S/he persists in making always the same mistake.'

(38) example with la
Se rezumd (la) a da din umeri.
rflx restricts at to move from shoulders
'One confines (restrict) oneself to shrug (with indifference).'









(39) Conteazd *(pe) a fi onest.
(s/he) counts on to be honest
'S/he counts on being honest.'

In some cases, the preposition is optional: prin (35b,c); cu (36b), in (37a) and la (38).

This seems to be lexically determined. For example, cu is optional in (36), in is optional with

'impatient' (37a) but there is a difference betweenprin and lack of it, between begin what (35b)

and begin how (35c), which suggests that these prepositions or some of them are not always

optional. For instance, the prepositions in (37b) andpe (39) are required with the matrix verbs a

conta 'to count' and apersista 'to persist', respectively, and followed by the a-infinitive.

The examples of infinitive structures introduced by various preposition are mostly

important for their documentation value and for comparison with the infinitival complementizer

de. One characteristic of these prepositions is that they are usually limited to appearing with one

matrix verb (and its synonyms). De plus a-infinitives, by contrast, occur after all categories of

matrix verbs. Such constructions will be analyzed below, in Section 4.3.

4.2.5 Partial Control

I have not found yet an example of partial control (PC) in the sources I have studied so

far but there is a wealth of sources that remained to be studied.

The only spontaneous example of a PC structure I have ever encountered was produced

by an old speaker whose preferred topic of discussion seemed to be military actions. I had

asked him to give me a sentence with the verb a ordona 'to order' plus an infinitive. I actually

wanted to know whether his sentence would have an empty or an overt dative controller. The

unexpected discovery is given in (34) above repeated below under (40b).

The particular characteristics of partial control will be defined in Section 4.6. One

obvious difference between (40a) and (40b) gives some sense of what PC is. A collective verb, a

se dispersa 'to disperse' is involved in the infinitival complement clause [in brackets] in both









sentences. The difference between (40a) and (40b) is the syntactic number of the controller (in

bold), which is plural (soldiers) in the former, but singular (lieutenant) in the latter. The null

subject of the complement clause is plural in both cases however. The null subject is identical

with the controller soldaitilor 'soldiers' in (40a), while in the PC clause of (40b), the null subject

refers to the controller, locotenentului 'lieutenant', plus other individuals. The sign [+] indicates

that other entities are also part of the controlee.

(40) a. Capitanull a ordonat soldatilor2 [EC2
captain.the has ordered soldiers.Dat
a se dispersa] pentru a incercui inamicul
to rflx disperse for to encircle enemy.the
'The captain ordered the soldiers to disperse in order to encircle the enemy.'

b. Capitanull a ordonat locotenentului2 [EC2+
captain.the has ordered lieutenant.Dat
a se dispersa] pentru a incercui inamicul
to rflx disperse for to encircle enemy.the
'The captain ordered the lieutenant to disperse in order to encircle the enemy.'

In conclusion, the old data presented in 4.2.1 and the recent data included in 4.2.3, feature

infinitival complement clauses, which constitute patterns of (obligatory) control. There are

examples with all seven categories of matrix verbs selecting subject control complements in

4.2.1. Each context (category of matrix verb) represents a pattern, which allows the researcher to

create similar sentences following the respective pattern.

Also, recall that almost every infinitival structure, definitely complement clauses, can be

also constructed with subjunctive, as shown in Chapter 2 (Section 2.2). In addition, infinitival

complement clauses and subjunctive complement clauses can be conjoined in the same sentence,

implying that they can replace each other.









For instance, the infinitival PC structure of (40a), repeated under (41a) is mirrored by the

subjunctive version of (41b). That is, as long as a subjunctive complement clause is possible, its

infinitival version is also possible.

(41) a. Capitanul a ordonat locotenentului
captain.the has ordered lieutenant.Dat
a se dispersa] pentru a incercui inamicul.
to rflx disperse for to encircle enemy.the
'The captain ordered the lieutenant to disperse in order to encircle the enemy.'

b. Capitanul a ordonat locotenentului
captain.the has ordered lieutenant.Dat
sa se disperseze pentru a incercui inamicul
sa rflx disperse.3sg/pl for to encircle enemy.the
'The captain ordered the lieutenant to disperse in order to encircle the enemy.'

4.3 Status of de

The history of the preposition de 'of vis-a-vis the infinitive has been presented in

Chapter 2. The purpose of this section is to establish the syntactic status of this infinitival

particle, which I argue to be a complementizer.

4.3.1 Background

Quite a large number of Romanian predicates take de a-infinitive complements. The

construction has counterparts in Romance de/di shown in (42a) for French and (42b) for Italian

(Kayne 2000). The Romanian version is given in (42c). Unlike French and Italian, the Romanian

infinitive also includes the proclitic a.

(42) a. Jean a essay de chanter.
Jean has tried de sing-inf
'John tried to sing.'

b. Gianni ha tentato di cantare.
Gianni has tried di sing-inf
'John tried to sing.'

c. Ion a incercat de a c&nta.
Jon has tried de to sing
'John tried to sing.'










Some of the more frequent Romanian verbs that used to occur with the preposition de are

listed in (43). Many of the corresponding Italian verbs also take di infinitives.

(43) a incerca 'to try', a cuta 'to look for/try', a indratzni/cuteza 'dare', a uita 'to
forget', a inceta 'to cease', a incepe/apuca 'to begin', a spera/ nadtjdui 'to hope',
a impiedica 'to preclude/impede', a opri 'to stop, a ,fil ,i a terminal 'to finish', a
fi gata 'to be ready', a hotard 'to decide', aporunci 'to order', a renunta 'to give
up', a regreta 'to regret', a interzice 'forbid/interdict, a reusi/izbuti/apuca
'manage/succeed' a agrea/a se invoi/afi de accord 'to agree', ajura 'swear', a
refuza 'to refuse', a ruga 'to beg', afagddui 'to promise', a indupleca 'to
convince', a ameninta 'to threat', a cere 'to ask', a sluji 'to serve', a avea
(deontic) 'to have', afi (deontic) 'to be', a lasa 'to let', aftigddui/promite 'to
promise', apropune 'to propose', a dori 'to wish', a recomanda 'to
recommend', a se indatora 'to be grateful'

A few original constructions with de plus a-infinitives are given below. The following

examples feature de plus a-infinitive complements with subject control selected by all categories

of matrix verbs, except interrogative verbs: implicative (44a); aspectual (45); modal (46);

desiderative (47); active (48); and propositional (49). An object control complement introduced

by de is also included (50). (Other examples have been presented earlier). Although I have

included a variant without de just for one of the examples (44b), it appears that de is optional in

most cases3

(44) a. sa nu indrazneasca de a mai face supdrare...
sa not dare.3sg de to more do trouble
'He shouldn't dare to cause anymore trouble.'
Stefanelli (1915:377), 1821 document

b. sa nu indrazneasca cineva a- i supra
sa not dare.3sg someone to- them disturb
'They shouldn't dare disturb them'
Stefanelli (1915:93), 1767 document



3 Some matrix verbs seem to always take de a-infinitive complements. One such verb is a renunta 'to give up'. One
(contemporary) example is found under (31). A very old one, where the matrix verb is a synonym for a renunta
appears in Chapter 2 under (51). In general, I have not found examples without de for all the verbs that takes de a-
infinitive complements. I still assume that de is optional.









(45) Inceteazd... de a md nedrept4ti
cease.Imp de to me misjudge
'Stop misjudging me'
Potra et. al (1972:385) -1823 letter

(46) Au avut de a rdspunde
have.3pl had de to answer
'They had to answer (for something)/to account for something'
Alexiu (1939:62), 1786 document

(47) dorind foarte d' a-1 ajunge la timp
wanting very de to-him reach on time
'Wanting very much to reach him on time'
Balcescu (1852:364)

(48) Si cati blesteamd de a nu te fi putut uita
and how many regret.3pl de to not you be could forget
'And who knows how many regret of not being able to forget you.'
Minulescu (1881-1944)

(49) el iSi inchipuise d' a aduce rdsturndri in Ardeal
he rflx imagined de to bring upheavals in Ardeal
'He had imagined himself bringing big changes in Transylvania.'
Balcescu (1852:328)

(50) Rugard pe Mihai d'a amana pornirea lor
begged.3pl P Mihai de to postpone departure their
'They begged Mihai to postpone their departure'
Balcescu (1852:292)

Rarely, other prepositions (besides de) may also introduce a-infinitive complements, e.g.,

in, la, cu as shown in 4.2.4. Rizzi (1982) also reports that other prepositions besides di may

sporadically introduce infinitive complements in Italian.

Cases such as (51) are excluded from consideration. De in (51) is a subcategorized

preposition, a true preposition that heads a PP and takes an infinitival complement. This

preposition may also take an NP complement, as in a acuza de crimct 'to accuse of murder'.

Unlike the infinitival particle de, the subcategorized preposition de is never optional, whether it

takes an NP complement (52a) or an infinitival complement (52b).









(51) Poate fi invinovtit de a nu cugeta
can.3sg be charged de to not think
intocmai ca un om civilizat.
right like a man civilized
'He can be accused of not thinking exactly like a civilized man.'
Odobescu (1834-1895) Scrieri ...

(52) a. Este acuzat *(de) trddare.
is accused of treason
'S/he is accused of treason.'

b. Este acuzat *(de) a incalca legea
is accused of to break law.the
'S/he is accused of breaking the law.'

Kayne (2000) observes that French de is restricted to occurring with infinitive only. In

contrast, Romanian de also occurs in finite clauses as a complementizer as illustrated in (53).

Other examples will be given below.

(53) Apoi merse de ocoli cetatea ...
then went.3sg de round fortress
'Then, he went to make the tour of the fortress ...'
Gramatica 11963:408

De plus the infinitive is prohibited after a subcategorized preposition. As can be seen, the

example (54a) becomes ungrammatical with de. Since the sequencepe de exists as inpe de o

parte 'on the one side/hand' the ungrammaticality of (54b) cannot be blamed on an

ungrammatical sequencepe de. These examples raise the question about the status of the

preposition pe (and other required prepositions) in infinitival structures, which remains to be

determined by further research.

(54) a. Contez pe a fi onest.
Count. sg on to be honest
'I count on being honest.'

c. *Contez pe de a fi onest.
Count. sg on de to be honest
*I count on of being honest









To recapitulate, de optionally introduces a-infinitival complement clauses and occurs

with a quite large number of matrix verbs. Occasionally, other prepositions (cu, la, in) may also

introduce a-infinitival complements. Unlike French de, Romanian de may occur in finite

contexts.

4.3.2 Arguments for the Complementizer Status of de

The history of the infinitive presented in Chapter 2 (Section 2.3) leads to the conclusion

that a lost its complementizer status by the end of the sixteenth century and the addition of de

was necessary to fulfill this function4

Schulte (2004:168) suggests that de and also din are infinitival complementizers. This

must be so, he argues, because any infinitival complementizer is followed by the a-infinitive.

Schulte maintains that a is the infinitive mood marker.

Here I present a number of arguments for the complementizer status of de based on its

parallel behavior with Romance de/di and other complementizers.

The first argument comes from raising verbs. I assume that the complement of a raising

verb is obligatorily smaller than CP. Thus, complementizers are excluded following raising

verbs. The fact that de is not allowed to appear in raising constructions is compatible with it

being a complementizer. The raising structure in (55a) is well formed with the a-infinitive, but

ungrammatical with a de a-infinitive, as (55b) demonstrates. Similarly, in French and Italian

de/di are not compatible with subject-to-subject raising, as the Italian example (56) shows.

(55) a. Copiii par a fi bolnavi.
children.the seem to be sick.pl
'The children seem to be sick.'

b. *Copiii par de a fi bolnavi.

4 For Italian, Rizzi (1982:94) considers that "the Comp hypothesis represents the minimal assumption" for di. Other
assumptions, in his opinion, "would require postulating a position which is not independently justified, and/or
complications of the mechanism of subcategorization."










(56) Gianni sembra (*di) essere felice.
Gianni seems di to be happy
'Gianni seems to be happy.'
Kayne (2000:300)

Another argument that suggests that de is a complementizer comes from its impossibility

in infinitival subjects. In Romance, the complementizer de/di cannot appear in infinitival

subjects, as illustrated by the Italian example (57).

(57) *Di cercarlo comporta dei rischi
di look for.Inf+him implies risks
'To look for him/looking for him implies risks.'
Kayne (2000:289)

This is also true of Romanian de. The a-infinitive (in bold) in the examples (58a, 59a) is

the subject of the sentence. Adding de to the a-infinitive renders the sentence ungrammatical

(58b, 59b). Notice that the infinitive in an example like (60a) is not the subject of the sentence. It

is the proposed complement clause of the sentence (60b).

(58) a. A-i cauta implica riscuri.
to-him seek implies risks
'Looking/to look for him implies risks.'

b. *De a- 1 cauta implica riscuri.
de to- him seek implies risks

(59) a. Iar in lumea cea comuna a visa e un pericul
but in world.the that common to dream is a danger
'But in the ordinary world to dream is a danger.'
Eminescu (1852-1889) ScrisoareaII

b. *Iar in lumea cea comuna de a visa e un pericul

(60) a. De a intelege, am incercat adesea.
de to understand have. 1sg tried sometimes
'To understand, I tried sometimes.'

b. Am incercat adesea de a intelege
have. sg tried sometimes de to understand
'I tried sometimes to understand.'









A clear piece of evidence for the complementizer status of de is the impossibility of de

co-occurring with another complementizer. For instance, a hottrd 'to decide' can take the

complementizer dacc 'whether' plus a-infinitive complements (61a) or de plus a-infinitive

complements (61b) but not both (61c). The ungrammaticality of (61c) is explained by the

impossibility of putting two elements in C.

(61) a. Mara nu s- a hotarat inca daca a pleca
Mara not rflx-has decided yet whether to leave
sau a mai sta cdteva zile.
or to more stay few days
'Mara has not decided yet whether to leave or to stay a few more days.'

b. Mara s- a hotarat de a pleca cu avionul.
Mara rflx- has decided de to leave with plane.the
'Mara decided to leave by plane.'

c. *Mara nu s- a hotarat dacA de a pleca cu avionul.
Mara not rflx-has decided whether de to leave with plane.the

The adoption of de as an infinitival complementizer was a natural choice because this

entity was already acting as a complementizer in finite structures, e.g., (53) above. The indicative

purpose structure in (62a) introduced by the complementizer de becomes the infinitival purpose

structure in (62b). Both structures are possible in CR, but the infinitival version is predominant.

Also, the indicative structure (63a) becomes the infinitival complement introduced by the

complementizer de in (63b).

(62) a. aduse-i de- i sadi ei in codrulu
brought-cl.pl.Acc that-cl.pl planted they in woods
'He brought them to plant (them) in the woods'
Coresi (1581:)

b. Ii aduse de/pentru a-i sadi in codru
cl.pl.Acc brought.3sg de/for to-it.pl plant in woods
'He brought them to plant (them) in the woods'









(63) a. Indrazni de ispiti pre elu
dared.3sg de allured.3sg P him
'He dared to allure him.'
Coresi (1581:389)

b. Indrazni de a-1 ispiti.
dared de to-him allure
'He dared to allure him.'

De can also replace the subjunctive complementizer ca as illustrated in the purpose

clause of (64a). The usual and natural way of saying (64a) is (64b) with the subjunctive

complementizer ca.

(64) a. Luati usa ceriului de sa intre imparatul slavei
take.2pl door.the sky.Gen that sa enter.3sg king.the glory.Gen
'Open the door of Heaven for the king of glory to enter'
Coresi (1581:)

b. Luati usa ceriului ca sa intre imparatul slavei
take.2pl door.the sky.Gen that sa enter.3sg king.the glory.Gen
'Open the door of Heaven for the king of glory to enter'

In sum, de in infinitival structures is a complementizer because it behaves like the

Romance complementizer de/di in not occurring in raising structures, and not accompanying

infinitive verbs in subject position. Further, de has an independently-motivated complementizer

use in finite clauses and cannot co-occur with other complementizers.

4.4 Status of the Infinitive Particle a

Chapter 2 discussed the origin, history, and distribution of the infinitival particle a. It has

been concluded that the particle a is the unique morphology that stands for the identity of the

infinitive. Also, It has been concluded that, by the end of the sixteenth century, its status changed

from a C element to an I element. Although bare infinitives were employed in the complex future

and conditional, and following some modal verbs, a-infinitives have been always the norm for

infinitival structures. With the very few exceptions discussed in Chapter 2, Section 2.4, no

constructions with the infinitive are possible without the particle a. The example in (65a)









includes two infinitival complement clauses whose infinitive verb is preceded by the particle a.

The same example lacking the particle a is ungrammatical (65b).

(65) a. preferind a incerca cu binele a-si trage
preferring to try with good.the to-rflx attract
inimile nobililor
hearts.the nobles.Gen
'Preferring to try, in good terms, to win the hearts of the noblemen'
Balcescu (1852:289)

b. *preferind incerca cu binele Si trage
preferring try with good.the rflx attract

In this section, I investigate the syntactic category and position of the infinitival particle

a, i.e., to confirm its inflectional status. In Schulte's (2004) assessment, a began as a preposition,

underwent complete grammaticalization, and finally became a "complementizer/mood marker".

He then concludes that a is the infinitive marker because it co-occurs with a number of

complementizers.

I propose that a is a mood marker, an I/Mo element that heads its own maximal

projection IP/MP on a par with the subjunctive particle sct (Section 3.4). I argue against the

claim discussed in Dobrovie-Sorin (1994) that a is a complementizer located in C.

4.4.1 The Infinitive Particle as an Inflectional Head

4.4.1.1 Adjacency to the verb

One piece of empirical evidence to support the view that the infinitival marker is not a

complementizer comes from its adjacency with the verb. Although Dobrovie-Sorin (1994:84)

considers the Romanian infinitival particle to be a CO element, she points out the "strong

coherence between a and the verb" and concedes that this evidence supports the I1 status of a.

As shown in Chapter 2, Section 2.2, and in Dobrovie-Sorin's example (6), repeated here

as (66), only a few one-syllable items may occur between a and the lexical verb: negation, a

pronominal object clitic, and an adverbial intensifier. Recall that exactly the same elements









appear between the subjunctive marker sa and the lexical verb in subjunctive clauses. Full

adverbs are not allowed between sa and the verb (67), nor between a and the verb, (68).

(66) A nu il mai ajuta ar fi o prostie.
to not cl.Acc more help would be a mistake
'It would be wrong not to help him any more.'

(67) a. Vreau sa plec curind.
want.lsg sa leave.lsg soon
'I want to leave soon.'

b. *Vreau sa curind plec

(68) a. A zambi mereu e greu.
to smile always is hard
'It is hard to always smile.'

b. *A mereu zambi e greu.

On the other hand, a full adverb may occur between a complementizer and the verb, as

shown in the indicative clause in (69). A does not behave like a complementizer in this regards.5

(69) Stiu ca niciodatA nu intdrzie.
know. sg that never not is late
'I know that s/he is never late.'

4.4.1.2 A-Infinitives occur with complementizers and wh-words

The most compelling evidence against the complementizer status of a lies in its ability to

occur with complementizers. Much of this kind of evidence has been already used in relation to

the complementizer status of de in the previous section. For convenience, new relevant

examples are included here. Apart from occurring with the complementizer de (70), a coexists

with a number of complementizers introducing infinitival adjuncts, like the purpose clause in





5 On the other hand, no lexical material is allowed between the complementizer de (or other infinitival
complementizer) and the mood marker a. By contrast, it is possible to have an adverb between the English to and the
infinitival verb.









(71) introduced by the complementizerpentru 'for'. A may also co-occur with the

complementizer dacct 'if/whether' as illustrated in (72) below.

(70) fiagduieSte d'a face mai multe izbanzi.
promise.3sg de to make more deeds
'He promises to accomplish more things.'
Balcescu (1852:306) Romdnii sub Mihai...

(71) s- a purces astdzi pentru a nu tdrdgdna afacerea
cl- has begun today for to not delay business.the
'They started today not to delay the business.'
Stefanelli (1915:137) 1785 document

(72) Mara nu s- a hotdrdt inca daca a pleca
Mara not rflx-has decided yet whether to leave
sau a mai sta cdteva zile.
or to more stay few days
'Mara has not decided yet whether to leave or to stay a few more days.'

Section 3.4 (Chapter 3) claimed that both Co and [Spec,CP] could not be filled in

Romanian; however, the particle a may co-occur with wh-words, as illustrated in (73). Although

Dobrovie-Sorin (1994) finds (74) to be ungrammatical, I accept it. As already mention (Section

2.4), Popescu (1992) considers examples such as (73) and (74) to be grammatical (standard) and

the variants without a are regionalisms in her view6

(73) nu stim de ce a ne minuna mai mult
not know. pl of what to us wonder more
'We don't know what more to wonder about.'
Balcescu (1852:95)

(74) Nu stiu unde a pleca.
Not know.lsg where to leave
'I/they do not know where to go.'

6The problem with (74) is its ambiguity between infinitive (i) and indicative (ii) if the particle a is absent:

(i) Nu stiu unde pleca.
Not know.lsg where leave.Inf
'I/they do not know where to go.

(ii) Nu stiu unde pleca.
Not know.lsg where leave.Imp.3sg
'I/they do not know where s/he was leaving.'










A may also co-occur with the relativizing preposition de (or invariable relative pronoun,

fn. 3, Chapter 2) as in (75) and (76). Assuming that wh-phrases and de occupy [Spec,CP], a

cannot be a complementizer.

(75) Nu era femeia de a se lIsa inSelata.
not was woman.the which to rflx let cheated
'She wasn't the woman to let herself be cheated on.'

(76) Nu-mi place ideea de a pleca la miezul noptii.
not-mi.Dat like idea.the de to leave at midnight
'I don't like the idea of leaving at midnight.'

I take the evidence to support my claim that a is an inflectional element located in I1 on a

par with the English to and with the Romanian subjunctive mood marker sa. I take such

examples to support an analysis of a in which it is not a complementizer.

4.4.2. Infinitive Marker as a Complementizer

4.4.2.1 Adverb placement

It has been mentioned that only a fixed number of one-syllable lexical items are allowed

between the infinitival particle a and the verb. As illustrated above in (68) and by the contrast in

(77), adverbs are disallowed between a and the infinitive verb.

(77) a. a gandi vreodati
to think sometimes

b. *a vreodata gandi
to sometimes think

Dobrovie-Sorin uses this contrast to support the complementizer status of a. Her account

of this contrast relies on verb movement. Verb raising to 1 takes place in Romanian, thus in

(77a), the verb obligatorily raises from Vo to 1, crossing the adverb, which is adjoined to VP.

(77b) is ungrammatical because this verb raising has not taken place. This explanation excludes









the possibility that a is in 1. If a were in 1, (77a) should be ungrammatical because there would

be no empty landing site for the verb.

I propose an alternative analysis of the contrast in (77) that permits a to occur in 1. It is

based on Pollock's (1989) analysis of French infinitives. In French, infinitive verbs can appear to

the right or the left of an adverb:

(78) A peine parler l'italien apres cinq ans d'etudes denote
hardly to speak Italian after five years of study indicates
un manque de don pour les langues
a lack of gift for the languages
'To hardly speak Italian after five years of study indicates a lack of gift for
languages.' (Pollock 1989)

(79) Parler a peine l'italien apres cinq ans d'etudes denote
to speak hardly Italian after five years of study indicates
un manque de don pour les langues
a lack of gift for the languages
'To hardly speak Italian after five years of study indicates a lack of gift for
languages.' (Pollock 1989)

Pollock's analysis is that IP is really two projections, TP and AgrP, with TP dominating

AgrP. French infinitival verbs optionally raise from Vo to Agro, a head position above VP but

still below To. The order in (79) is obtained without raising the verb all the way to 1. For

Romanian, I assume that there is also a split Infl. IP is replaced by MP and TP (and AgrP),

following Terzi (1992, 1997), Schitze (1997), and Miller (2002).

The infinitival marker a resides in Mo and the infinitive verb obligatorily raises to To but

not to Mo, which is filled. This accounts for the contrast in (77). In (77a), a is in Mo and the verb

raises to To. (77b) is ungrammatical because the verb has not raised. Unlike in Dobrovie-Sorin's

account there is no conflict, as the verb is moving to an empty head position, To. A need not be in

Co under this analysis.









4.4.2.2 Negation distribution

Dobrovie-Sorin (1994) claims that the distribution of the negation in infinitives, (80),

reflects the complementizer status of the infinitival particle a. As can be seen, nu is not able to

precede a, nu can only follow.

(80) a. a nu vorbi
to not speak

b. *nu a vorbi
not to speak

Dobrovie-Sorin (1994:85) builds her argument on the claim that nu follows

complementizers. This is seen in (81) for the indicative complementizer ca. Because the

sequence a -nu in the infinitival structure (80a) mimics the sequence ca nu in the indicative

structure (81b), her example (8), a must be a complementizer as well.

(81) a. Stiu nu ca a plecat
know. sg not that has left
I don't know that s/he left

b. Stiu ca nu a plecat
know. 1sg that not has left
'I know that s/he didn't leave.'

The problem with this reasoning can be seen by looking at other clause types. In

subjunctive clauses, nu occurs to the right of the complementizer ca but also the subjunctive

marker sa:

(82) a. Te- am sunat ca sa nu uiti sa pleci.
you have.1sg called that sa not forget.2sg sa leave.2sg
'I called you in order for you to not forget to leave.'

b. *Te- am sunat ca nu sa uiti sa pleci.
you have.lsg called that not sa forget.2sg sa leave.2sg

I have already argued that sc is not a complementizer. Thus the parallel between a nu

and ca nu breaks down. Nu follows complementizers but it actually appears much lower.









A second problem arises in infinitival purpose clauses with the complementizerpentru

(83). Seemingly, nu cannot follow the complementizer in the infinitival purposive of (83). Again,

nu must follow both the complementizer and a.

(83) a. Te- am sunat pentru a nu uita sa pleci.
you have.lsg called for to not forget sa leave.2sg
'I called you in order for you to not forget to leave.'

b. *Te- am sunat pentru nu a uita sa pleci.
you have.lsg called for not to forget sa leave.2sg

The data suggest that nu follows both complementizers and inflectional heads. The data

in (80) is thus compatible with a being in Co or 1. Specifically, it does not rule out analyzing a as

an inflectional head, as I am doing. The data in (83) however suggest that a is not in Co. As

suggested above, a cannot be a complementizer ifpentru is also a complementizer, on the

assumption that an embedded clause does not have two complementizers.

4.4.2.3 Infinitives and case

In Romanian, a gerundial cannot follow a preposition or complementizer as the contrast

in (84) shows. Thus, a construction like the English translation of (84b) is not possible in

Romanian. The English example (85b) with a gerund following the complementizer itilnut can

be constructed only with the infinitive in Romanian (85a).

(84) a. A plecat spunand ceva.
has left saying.Ger something
'S/he left saying something.'

b. *A plecat firA spunand ceva.
has left without saying.Ger something
'S/he left without saying anything,'

(85) a. A plecat firA a spune o vorba.
has left without to say a word
*S/he left without to say a word

b. 'S/he left without saying a word.'









Dobrovie-Sorin (1994:85-86) suggests that the difference between the Romanian

infinitival adjunct, (85a), and the English version constructed with a gerund, (85b), is the

difference between to-infinitives and a-infinitives in relation to case: "to infinitives are IP

constituents which are verbal in nature and as such cannot show up in a position to which Case is

assigned (by the preposition)". Thus, the English translation of (85a) is not possible with the

infinitive because the to-infinitive appears in a case position. By contrast, "the Romanian

example can be understood if we assume a infinitives to be CP constituents, which as such are

allowed to take on a nominal status". From this, Dobrovie-Sorin (1994) concludes that, since a-

infinitives are CPs (in her view), a must reside in C.

There are a number of problems with this argument. First, English infinitives can appear

in case positions. They can be subjects, as in To read is pleasure, and they can be direct

objects, I like to read. However, the to-infinitive can receive subject or object case but not

prepositional case, which requires a gerundial (Miller 2002). Romanian does not have that

constraints: an a-infinitive can occur as a complement to a preposition/prepositional

complemetizer.

Second, it is not clear why the English infinitival complement in (86a) would be an IP

and its Romanian counterpart (86b) a CP (by Dobrovie-Sorin's assumption). They should be

both the same type of clause.

(86) a. Mara tried to write a poem.

b. Mara a incercat a scrie un poem.
Mara has tried to write a poem
'Mara tried to write a poem.'

Lastly, the infinitival adjunct in (85a) is a CP simply because of the complementizer fldr

'without'. Admitting that the infinitive in (85a) needs case, the licenser is the complementizer









ftirt 'without'. There is no reason to consider the infinitive marker a complementizer here. (In

addition, a complex preposition fara a does not exist).

I conclude that the counterarguments discussed above can be equally well analyzed under

the assumption that a is an inflectional head and not a complementizer. These combine with

earlier arguments which supported the inflectional head status of a, on a par with sA. I will

assume that a heads its own inflectional projection, which I label Mo. The structure of the

Romanian infinitive (87a) is the configuration (87b), where only the infinitival clause is

included: de is in Co, a in Mo, nu occupies the head Nego. The clitic me cliticizes on the verb and

move to To. PRO starts out in [Spec,vP] then moves to [Spec,MP].

(87) a. Radul incercd (de) PRO1 a nu ma dezamagi.
Radu tries de to not cl.me disappoint
'Radu is trying not to disappoint me.'

b. [cp CO de [MP PRO [Mo a [Nego nu [TP TO ma dezamagi [vP tPRO VP tma dezamagi]]]]]]

Before concluding this section, I would like to present an observation which is potentially

problematic for my analysis. When de and a occur together, they must be strictly adjacent. No

lexical material can occur between the two. Recall that an adverb is allowed following the

infinitive verb, (68a), (88a) but not between a and the infinitive verb (68b). In addition, no

adverb is allowed between de and a (88b).

(88) a. Radu spera de a pleca curind in vacanO .
Radu hopes de to leave soon in vacation
'Radu hopes to leave for a vacation soon.'

b. *Radu spera de curind a pleca in vacan Od.
Radu hopes de soon to leave in vacation

De and a can even be pronounced together, as a monosyllabic word. This is reflected in

the orthography: de a can be written de-a or d'a/d-a (See also fn 2, Chapter 2). This is somewhat

surprising given that I have analyzed de and a as two distinct heads, occupying C and M,









respectively. I assume that this adjacency requirement is due to the clitic-like behavior of de.

Rizzi (1982) also points out this clitic-like behavior of Italian di7.

4.5 Exhaustive Control (EC) and Partial Control (PC)

In the next two sections of this chapter, I will describe infinitive complements in

Landau's (2000) terms of exhaustive control (EC) and partial control (PC). In this section I

discuss the properties of obligatory control shared by EC and PC in contrast to non-obligatory

control (NOC). The following section, 4.6, will deal with the specific properties of PC

complements.

4.5.1. Background

In Landau's (2000) typology, obligatory control (OC) complement constructions are

divided into EC and PC. In EC, the referent of the embedded subject, which I represent with

PRO, is identical to the referent of the controller (89). In PC, the referent of PRO includes the

referent of the controller, but the two references are not necessarily identical (90).

(89) Radul a indrdznit PRO1 a fluiera in biserica.
Radu has dared to whistle in church
'Radu dared to whistle in the church.'

(90) Directorull sperd PRO1+ a se intruni in biserica.
director.the hopes to rflx gather in church
'The boss hopes to gather in the church.'







SIt seems that prepositional complementizers in general manifest this behavior. Thus, an adverb is not possible
between the complementizerpentru 'for' and the infinitival particle a, as the contrast in (i) shows:

(i) a. A venit doar pentru a pleca repede inapoi
has come only for to leave quickly back
'S/he just came to quickly leave again.'

b. *a venit doar pentru repede a pleca inapoi
has come only for quickly to leave back









In most contexts, one cannot tell whether a predicate selects an EC or a PC complement.

Aside from the different semantic category of the matrix verbs, (89) and (91) are seemingly

identical OC constructions.

(91) Radul sper, PRO1 a merge la petrecere.
Radu hopes to go to party
'Radu hopes to go to the party.'

However, (92) shows that the implicative a indratzni 'to dare' is an EC verb and cannot

replace a spera 'to hope, which is a PC verb. EC and PC infinitives are selected by separate

semantic groups of predicates.

(92) *Directorull a indrdznit PRO1+ a lucra impreuna.
director.the has dared to work together.
'The boss dared to gather in the church.'

It is remarkable that EC-infinitives and OC-subjunctives are selected by the same classes

of matrix verbs and PC-infinitives and F-subjunctives are also selected by the same matrix verbs.

A short list for each semantic group of verbs is given below:

(93) EC predicates. The predicates that select EC complement clauses are divided into the
following classes:

a.Implicatives
a indrtazni/cuteza 'dare', incerca/cauta 'to try', a reusi/izbuti 'to manage' a-si
aminti 'remember', a uita 'to forget', a omite 'to omit', aforta 'to force', a risca
'to risk', a neglija 'to neglect', a renunta 'to renounce/give up', a refuza 'to
refuse'.

b. Aspectual8
a incepe 'to begin', a continue 'to continue', a terminal 'to finish', a (se) opri 'to
stop', a inceta 'to cease', apersista 'to persist', a starui/persevera 'to persevere'




8 Most of the aspectual verbs may select de a-infinitive complements, thus they cannot be taken as raising verbs in
constructions of the type:

(i) Mara a-nceput (de) a scrie o scrisoare.
Mara has began (de) to write a letter
'Mara began to write a letter.'









c.Modal
deontic a avea 'to have', deontic afi 'to be', afi capabil/afi in stare 'to be able'
A putea 'can' is out because is a restructuring verb.

(94) PC predicates. PC complement clauses are selected by the four classes of verbs given
below:
a.Desideratives
a dori 'to wish', a voi 'will', aprefera 'to prefer, a aranja 'to arrange', a spera
'to hope', a agrea/fi de acord 'to agree', a hottrd/decide 'to decide', a consimti
'to consent'.

b.Factives
a regreta, 'to regret', a urd 'to hate', a ingrozi 'to be scared', a se teme 'to be
afraid' a dezgusta 'to disgust' a satisface 'to satisfyy, afi surprins 'to be
surprised', a amuza 'to amuse', afi bucuros 'to be glad'.

c.Interrogatives
a yti 'to know', a intelege 'to understand' a afla 'to find out'. At this time, this
class is reduced to these verbs only. Further research is needed to find out more
about this class of verbs vis-a-vis infinitive.

d.Propositional
a (se) gdndi 'to think', a(si) inchipui 'to imagine', a declara 'to declare', a afirma
'to affirm', a nega 'to deny', a sugera 'to suggest', a crede 'believe'.

4.5.2 EC and PC vs. NOC

The properties in (95a-d) are characteristics of NOC constructions. They are thus not

allowed in EC and PC constructions, which are OC. Below, I confirm that Romaninan infinitival

complements display OC behavior (i.e. (95) is not possible).

(95) a. Arbitrary Control
b. Long-distance Control (LDC)
c. Strict reading of PRO under ellipsis
d. De re reading of PRO

4.5.2.1 Arbitrary control is impossible in EC and PC, possible in NOC

Arbitrary control constructions are constructions in which PRO is not controlled by any

argument, overt or implied. PRO is interpreted as an arbitrary person or persons, represented as

PROarb. Arbitrary control is not possible in (96a) which features an EC construction with

implicative, aspectual, and modal matrix verbs. Since a controller is present in the matrix clause,









PRO cannot be interpreted as PROarb. The examples in (96b) show that PROarb is also

disallowed in a PC construction selected by desiderative, active, propositional predicates. By

contrast, PROarb is well behaved in the NOC constructions of (97) and (98), translated from

Kawasaki (1993) and Lebeux (1984) respectively, both via Landau (2000).

(96) a. *Radui indrdzneSte/ continue capabil [PROarbl a fi obraznic].
Radu dares/continues/is able to be naughty
'Radu dares/continues/is able to be naughty.'
*"Radu dares/continues/is able for someone to be naughty.'

b. *Radui preferd/urdSte/pretinde/ [PROarbl a fi obraznic].
Radu prefers/hates/pretends to be naughty
'Radu prefers/hates/pretends to be naughty.'

(97) E periculos pentru copii [PROarb a fuma lIngd ei]
is dangerous for children to smoke by them
'It is dangerous for children to smoke around them.'

(98) [PROarb a face profit mare] implicA/inseamnd
to make profit big implies/means
[PROarb a exploata muncitorii]
to exploit workers.the
'Making large profit implies/means to exploit the workers.'

Therefore, EC and PC structures reject PROarb subjects, in conformity with standard

behavior of OC structures.

4.5.2.2 LDC is not allowed in EC or PC, but possible in NOC

In an OC environment, it is necessary that the controller be structurally local to the

controlee. The controller must c-command the controlee and be in the immediately dominating

clause. There cannot be more than one clause boundary between the controller and controlee.

The examples in (99) illustrate this restriction in Romanian and English. The reflexive in the

complement clause requires a local antecedent, which must be the subject PRO. PRO cannot be

controlled by the intended feminine antecedent Mara, the matrix subject, however, because it is









too far away. The intended antecedent is two clauses away. And thus the examples are

ungrammatical.

(99) a. *Marai stia [ca Radu2 a reuSit [PRO1
Mara knew that Radu has managed
a sofa ea insfiim tot drumul]]
to drive herself all way
*Mara knew that Radu managed to drive herself all the way

b. *Marai stia [ca Radu2 a incetat [PRO1
Mara knew that Radu has ceased
a se calomnia ea insfii]]
to rflx perjure herself
*Mara knew that Radu ceased to perjure herself.

c. *Marai stia [ca Radu2 e capabil [PRO1
Mara knew that Radu is capable
a se invinovati ea insfii]]
to rflx accuse herself
*Mara knew that Radu is capable of perjuring herself.

Long-distance control is also prohibited in the examples of (100) constructed with PC

predicates: volitional (100a), active (100b), and propositional (100c). Again, PRO is coindexed

with a non-local antecedent (Mara) and the sentences are ungrammatical.

(100) a. *Maral stie [ca Radu2 a decis a se calomnia eainsfil]
Mara knows that Radu has decided to rflx accuse her self
*Mara knew that Radu decided to perjure herself.

b. *Marai stie [ca Radu2 uraSte a se invinovati ea insiii]
Mara knows [that Radu hates to rflx accuse her self
*Mara knows that Radu hates to perjure herself.

c. *Maral stia [ca Radu2 se gdndeSte a sofa
Mara knew [that Radu rflx thinks to drive
ea insifil tot drumul]
her self all way
*Mara knew that Radu hates to drive herself all the way.

While LDC is prohibited in OC, it is allowed in NOC constructions as shown in (101a)

(adapted from Richardson, 1986, via Landau, 2000) and (101b).









(101) a. [PRO1 pdrasind camera ca o furtund dupd ce a pierdut
leaving room like a storm after what has lost
jocul] a convins pe oricine ca Radul e imatur
game.the has convinced everyone that Radui is immature.
'Storming out of the room after losing the game convinced everyone that Radu is
immature.'

b. Maral crede ca ar fi amuzant [PRO1 a cdnta
Mara believes that would be amusing to sing
toatd aria de una singurdi].
all aria by herself
'Mara believes that it would be fun to sing the whole aria by herself.'

In sum, LDC is disallowed in EC and PC structures, a characteristic of obligatory control.

4.5.2.3 Strict reading of PRO under ellipsis is impossible in EC/PC

The interpretation of (102a) is (102b). In the second conjunct, Ana, and notMara is

leaving. This is an instance of a sloppy reading in which the interpretation of PRO changes

across the two clauses. The strict reading in which the interpretation of PRO in both clauses

would beMara is impossible. EC verbs allow only a sloppy interpretation under ellipsis, a

characteristic of obligatory control.

(102) a. Maral a incercat PRO1 a pleca devreme
Mara has tried to leave early
si Ana2 de asemenea.
and Ana of same
'Mara tried to leave early and Ana too.'

b. Marai a incercat RPO1 a pleca devreme
Mara has tried to leave early
si Ana2 a incercat PRO2 a pleca devreme.
and Ana has tried to leave early
'Mara tried to leave early and Ana tried to leave early.'

Strict readings are also not permitted with PC. The example (103) has only the sloppy

interpretation "Mara hopes to gather in the church and the priest hopes to gather in the church".

It does not have the strict interpretation "Mara hopes to gather in the church and the priest hopes

that Mara will gather in the church".









(103) Maral spera PRO1 a se intruni in biserica
Mara hopes to rflx gather in church
si preotul2 PRO2 de asemenea.
and priest.the of same
'Mara hopes to gather in the church and the priest too.'

By contrast, both strict and sloppy readings are possible in NOC structures. The

interpretation of (104) (translated from Bouchard, 1985, via Landau, 2000) is: Both Ion and Bill

believe the same thing: that it would be difficult for Ion to feed himself. This strict reading is

possible because (104) is an NOC structure. The sloppy reading is also easily available.

(104) Ion1 crede ca [PRO1 a se hrani el insuSil]
Ion thinks that to rflx feed himself
va fi greu si Radu de asemenea (crede acelaSi lucru)
will be hard and Radu of same (believes the same thing)
'John1 thinks that [PRO1 feeding himself] will be difficult, and Bill2 does, too.'

As expected, the subject of EC and PC structures (PRO) only yields a sloppy reading

under ellipsis as opposed to NOC structures, which allow both strict and sloppy readings under

ellipsis.

4.5.2.4 De re reading is impossible in OC, possible in NOC

To illustrate de se and de re readings, I am using again the classical example from the old

story about a war hero, "the unfortunate", who suffers from amnesia and is confused about his

identity (the details of the story appear in Section 3.6). The indicative construction of (105a) has

both de se and de re interpretations. It is true if 'the unfortunate' expects someone to come and

give him a medal, the de se interpretation, about the self. IfNefericitul "the unfortunate" believes

that the war hero depicted in a TV show, which is actually himself although he does not know it,

will get the medal, the statement is the de re belief but not the de se one. By contrast, the OC

infinitive clause of (105b) selected by a PC verb has only the de se interpretation, the belief

about the self. A de re reading is not possible in OC.









(105) a. Nefericitul spera ca va primi o medalie
unfortunate.the hopes that will receive a medal
'The unfortunate hopes that he will get a medal.'

b. Nefericitull spera [PRO1 a primi o medalie].
unfortunate.the hopes to receive a medal
'The unfortunate hopes to get a medal.'

The same contrast is seen with the EC (implicative) attitude verbs a uita 'to forget' and a-

si aminti 'to remember'. The example used in Section 3.6 to illustrate the de se interpretation of

PRO in OC subjunctives will also illustrate it with an infinitive. While (106a) features an

indicative construction with de re and de se interpretations, the de se interpretation is possible in

the infinitival construction in (104b). The data of (105) and (106) show that OC infinitives with

PC matrix verbs (hope) and EC matrix verbs (remember) exhibit de se readings only.

(106) a. Uitucul isi aminteste ca ia trenul
forgetful.the rflx remembers that takes train.the
'The forgetful man remembers that he takes the train.'

b. Uitucul isi aminteste PRO1 a lua trenul.
forgetful.the rflx remembers to take train.the
'The forgetful man remembers to take the train.'

In conclusion, EC and PC infinitives contrast in regards to the semantic categories of

predicates that select them and to the referent of PRO. PRO and its controller are not necessarily

identical in PC but they must overlap. As OC constructions, EC and PC infinitives, unlike NOC

constructions, disallow PROarb subjects, disallow LDC, manifest only sloppy readings under

ellipsis, and are restricted to the de se interpretation.

4.6 PC Characteristics

As already seen, the referent of the controller in PC is a subset of the referent of PRO

while the referent of the controller in EC is identical with the referent of PRO. Another property

of PC that differentiates it from EC is that PC "permits an embedded collective predicate to

occur with a controller in the singular" (Landau 2000:45) resulting a semantically plural PRO.









The purpose of this section is to show that this distinction also applies to Romanian OC

infinitives.

4.6.1 PC with Collective Predicates

Landau (2000) points out that there are some differences across languages concerning the

collective predicates involved in PC. For instance, French se-verbs are not possible with PC

complements, unlike their Italian or Spanish counterparts. He also mentions that, in general, PC

complements with active predicates are not as common and natural as PC complements with

desiderative (and interrogative) predicates.

4.6.1.1 PC with collective (se) verbs

Unlike French, partial control is possible with se verbs in Romanian. The examples

below in (107a-110a) feature PC complements selected by verbs from all four semantic groups:

desiderative (107a), active (108a), propositional (109a) and interrogative (110a). The predicates

in the complement clauses are lexically collective and all of them are se verbs. (107b-1 10b)

represent the F-subjunctive versions of the respective infinitive constructions. Recall that most

infinitive structures can be also constructed with subjunctive9

In (107a), directorul is the matrix controller and is part of the PRO in the infinitive

clause. The sign for plus represents the people with whom the director will discuss during those

biweekly meetings. The controller is syntactically and semantically singular, but PRO is

semantically plural, the effect of the collective verb a se intruni 'to convene'.

(107) a. Directorul a hotdrit [PRO1+ a se intruni
director.the has decided to rflx convene
de doud ori pe sdptdmmin]*
of two times per week
'The director decided to convene twice a week.'


9 Since no PC construction has been found in the literature, the examples created here will bear the symbol at the
end.










b. Directorull a hotardt [PRO 1 sa se intruneasca
director.the has decided sa rflx convene.3sg
de doua ori pe saptamdna]
of two times per week
'The director decided to convene twice a week.'

In the PC-structures (108a-1 10a), Radu, the subject of the higher clause, represents the

prominent member of the group reference of PRO. The controller, Mara, is semantically singular

while PRO is semantically plural due to the embedded verb that is semantically collective.

(108) a. Radul stie [ca Mara2 uraste PRO2+ a se intdlni pe furiS]*
Radu knows [that Mara hates to rflx meet furtively]
'Radu knows that Mara hates to meet furtively.'

b. Radu stie [ca Mara uraste sa se intdlneasca pe furiS]
Radu knows [that Mara hates sa rflx meet.3sg/pl furtively]
'Radu knows that Mara hates to meet furtively.'

(109) a. Radul stie [ca Mara2 nu crede PRO2+
Radu knows [that Mara not believes
a se reuni fiar emotii mari]*
to rflx reunite without emotions great.pl]
'Radu knows that Mara doesn't believe they will reunite without great emotions.'

b. Radul stie [ca Mara2 nu crede
Radu knows [that Mara not believes
sa se reuneasca fara emotii mari]
sa rflx reunite.3sg/pl without emotions great.pl]
'Radu knows that Mara doesn't believe they will reunite without great emotions.'

(110) a. Radul stie [ca Mara2 se intreaba daca PRO2+
Radu knows [that Mara rflx wonders whether
a se reuni e o idee buna]*
to rflx reunite is a idea good]
'Radu knows that Mara wonders if to reunite is a good idea.'

b. Radul stie [ca Mara2 se intreaba daca
Radu knows [that Mara rflx wonders whether
sa se reuneasca e o idee buna]
sa rflx reunite.3sg/pl is a idea good]
'Radu knows that Mara wonders if to reunite is a good idea.'









As expected, similar constructions with EC predicates cannot yield partial control. The

attempt to build partial control with matrix implicative (11la) or aspectual predicates (112a) and

a collective verb in the embedded clause fails. (However, it may be possible that some of the EC

verbs may have a double nature). The b. examples with subjunctive are also ungrammatical.

(111) a. *Radu i- a spus Marei [ca a uitat/indraznit/
Radu her- has told M.Dat [that has forgotten/dared/
a se desparti]
to rflx separate]
*Radu told Mara that he forgot/dared to separate.

b. *Radu i- a spus Marei [ca a uitat/ indraznit
Radu her- has told M.Dat [that has forgotten/dared
sa se desparta]
sa rflx separate.3sg/pl]
*Radu told Mara that he forgot/dared to separate.

(112) a. *Radu i- a spus Marei [ca incepe a se reuni]
Radu her-has told M.Dat [that begins to rflx reunite]
*Radu told Mara that he begins to reunite.'

b. *Radu i- a spus Marei [ca incepe sa se reuneasca]
Radu her-has told M.Dat [that begins sa rflx reunite.3sg/pl]
*Radu told Mara that he begins to reunite.

4.6.1.2 Predicates with together

The examples (113a 116a) are PC constructions formed with the collectivizer together,

which (like se verbs) requires PRO to be semantically plural. In (113b-116b) the infinitive is

replaced by a subjunctive verb. The PC structures are selected by PC verbs: desiderative (113a),

active (114a), interrogative (115a) and propositional (116a). The controller Mara, from (113a-

115a), is semantically singular, while PRO is semantically plural due to the collective modifier

together. Radu is the prominent member of the group reference of PRO.

(113) a. Radul crede [ca Mara2 spera PRO2+
Radu believes [that Mara hopes
a rezolva problema impreuna]*
to solve problem.the together]
'Radu believes that Mara hopes to solve the problem together.'










b. Radul crede [ca Mara2 sperd
Radu believes [that Mara hopes
sa rezolve problema impreuna]
sa solve.3sg/pl problem.the together]
'Radu believes that Mara hopes to solve the problem together.'

(114) a. Radul stie [ca Mara2 uraste PRO2+
Radu knows [that Mara hates
a lucra impreuna la project]*
to work together at project]
'Radu knows that Mara hates to work together at the project.'

b. Radui stie [ca Mara2 uraste
Radu knows [that Mara hates
sa lucreze impreuna la project]
sa work.3sg/pl together at project]
'Radu knows that Mara hates to work together at the project.'

(115) a. Radul stie [ca Mara2 se intreaba daca PRO2+
Radu knows [that Mara rflx wonders whether
a lucra impreuna (sau nu)]*
to work together (or not)]
'Radu knows that Mara wonders whether to work together (or not).'

b. Radui stie [ca Mara2 se intreaba daca
Radu knows [that Mara rflx wonders whether
sa lucreze impreuna (or nu)]
sa work.3sg/pl together (or not)]
'Radu knows that Mara wonders whether to work together (or not).'

(116) a. Radul i- a spus Marei2 [ca nu crede PROi
Radu her-has told M.Dat [that not believes
a merge impreuna la petrecere]*
to go together at party]
'Radu told Mara that he doesn't believe they will go together at the party.'

b. Radul i- a spus Marei2 [ca nu crede
Radu her-has told M.Dat [that not believes
sa meargd impreuna la petrecere]
sa go.3sg/pl together at party]
'Radu told Mara that she doesn't believe they will go together at the party.'

In (116a), Radu is the controller and Mara is part of PRO. The controller, the null

subject of crede 'believes', is semantically singular, but PRO is semantically plural.









Partial control is not possible if the matrix verbs are EC verbs with a controller in the

singular and in the presence of the collectivizer impreunt 'together'. Both, the infinitive (117a)

and subjunctive (117b) examples are ungrammatical.

(117) a. *Radu crede [ca Mara a indraznit/inceput
Radu believes [that Mara has dared/began
a rezolva problema impreuna]
to solve problem.the together]
*Radu knows that Mara dared/began to solve the problem together.

b. *Radu crede [ca Mara a indraznit/inceput
Radu believes [that Mara has dared/began
sa rezolve problema impreuna]
sa solve.3sg/pl problem.the together]
*Radu knows that Mara dared/began to solve the problem together.

The two sets of data, with collective verbs and with the collectivizer impreunt, clearly

show the difference between EC verbs and PC verbs. Only PC verbs allow a controller in the

singular to occur with a collective embedded predicate. In the PC examples above, the controller

is semantically singular and PRO semantically plural.

4.6.2 Semantic vs. Syntactic Plurality

Another characteristic of PC complement clauses is the requirement that they cannot

contain a plural anaphor or a plural floating quantifier. In Landau's (2000:48) view: "In a PC

construction with a controller in the singular, the embedded predicate can be lexically collective

or contain together, but cannot be inflected for plural, or contain a non-singular anaphor/floating

quantifier."

In Landau's (2000) system, in all PC constructions with a controller in the singular and a

collective verb (or together), PRO represents a group name, which is semantically plural but

syntactically singular. A mismatch in syntactic number with the controller is not allowed.

Consequently, predicates inflected for plural or those that include plural anaphors or plural

floating quantifiers are not admitted in PC with a singular controller.









Landau, citing Munn (1999), points out that the choice of a morpheme to agree with

syntactic or semantic plurality is language/dialect specific and may even vary among speakers.

The PRO in PC is a group name and, as such, is expected to behave like committee and

government. (118) and (119) indicate that these two words cannot be represented as themselves,

each other or all in Romanian and American English.

(118) *Comitetul s- a consultant unul pe altul/ unii pe altii
committee.the rflx-has consulted each other.sg/ each other.pl
inainte de vot
before of vote
*The committee consulted each other before the vote.

(119) *Guvernul Si- a declinat ei inSiqi/toti raspunderea
government.the rflx-has declined themselves/all responsibility.the
The government cleared themselves/all of any responsibility.

Bearing this in mind, consider the examples in (120). The meaning of (120a) is that the

secretary is supposed to carry out the director's decision and to gather the board of trustees twice

a week so that the director would also convene in order to discuss current issues etc. Whether the

secretary would participate or not is irrelevant. Thus, while el insusi 'himself correctly refers to

directorul (120a), ei insigi 'themselves' is illegal (120b). Therefore, a plural emphatic (or other

element) is disallowed when the controller is syntactically singular.

(120) a. Directorull a anuntat-o pe secretary2 [ca a hotarat
director.the has informed-her P secretary.fem [that has decided
PRO1+ a se intruni el insupil de doua ori pe saptamana]*
to rflx convene himself twice per week
'The director informed his secretary that he decided to convene (himself) twice a
week.'

b. *Directorull a anuntat-o pe secretary2 [ca a hotarat
director.the has informed-her P secretary.fem [that has decided
PRO1+ a se intruni ei ingivi de doua ori pe saptamana]*
to rflx convene themselves twice per week
'The director informed his secretary that he decided to convene (*themselves)
twice a week.'









In sum, Romanian PC structures allow a syntactically/semantically singular controller to

occur with collective predicates in the subordinate and a semantically plural PRO. In a PC

clause, the verb must not have plural morphology and plural elements when the controller is

singular.

4.7 Tense of Infinitival Complement Clauses

The discussion about tense in Chapter 3, Section, 3.5, has already introduced the terms

anaphoric tense and dependent tense. I show that EC complements are expected to have

anaphoric tense, whereas PC clauses show dependent tense, on a par with OC-subjunctives and

F-subjunctives, respectively.

4.7.1 EC Complements Have Anaphoric Tense

The claim that EC complements contain anaphoric tense means that EC complements do

not allow temporal modifiers that are distinct from those in the matrix clause, (121,122). This

restriction implies that the event of the controlled clause is the same as that of the matrix or that

the two events are simultaneous. I take these data to show that EC infinitives lack a tense

operator. Therefore, EC infinitives have anaphoric tense.

(121) *Azi Radu indrdzneSte a-Si pdrasi maine slujba.
today Radu dares to-rflx quit tomorrow job-the
*'Today Radu dares to quit his job tomorrow.'

(122) *Ieri Radu a reuSit a ajunge la Paris maine.
yesterday Radu has managed to reach to Paris tomorrow
*'Yesterday, Radu managed to reach Paris tomorrow.'

4.7.2 PC Complements Have Dependent Tense

In contrast, conflicting temporal modifiers are possible in PC constructions. A temporal

adverb denoting future tense in the PC complement of (123) is allowed although the adverb in

the matrix clause encodes past tense. Like an F-subjunctive, a PC infinitive has its own tense

operator. The embedded tense is nonetheless constrained by the matrix tense operator: mine









'tomorrow' cannot be replaced by ieri 'yesterday' in (124). In other words, PC complements

may have different time adverbs from those of the matrix clause, but the two are not completely

independent.

(123) Ieri, Mara a sperat a pleca la Paris azi/maine.
yesterday Mara has hoped to leave to Paris today/tomorrow
'Yesterday, Mara hoped to leave for Paris today/tomorrow.'

(124) Acum Mara sperd a pleca maine / *ieri.
now Mara hopes to leave tomorrow/ yesterday
'Now, Mara hopes/wants to leave tomorrow/*yesterday.'

In conclusion, parallel to OC and F-subjunctives, respectively, EC complements have

anaphoric tense and PC infinitives have dependent tense. Thus, their tense is selected by the

matrix verb.

4.8 IP or CP?

This section discusses the phrasal category of infinitival clauses. Are they IPs or CPs I

am unable to answer this question conclusively and leave the matter for future research. I do

however eliminate the possibility that these structures are restructuring contexts.

4.8.1 Infinitival Complements Resist Restructuring

Recall from Chapter 2, Section 2.4 that the verbs aputea 'can' and a #ti 'to know' may

take a-infinitive complements (125) or bare infinitive complements (126) in OSR. In CR, aputea

can only take a bare infinitive while a #ti can have both a bare infinitive and an a-infinitive.

(125) a. Radu poate a canta acest cantec. OSR
Radu can to sing this song.
'Radu can sing this song.'

b. Mara Stie a canta acest cantec OSR and CR
Radu can to sing this song
'Mara knows (how) to sing this song.'

(126) a. Radu poate canta acest cantec. OSR and CR
Radu can sing.Inf this song
'Radu can sing this song.'










b. Mara stie cdnta acest cdntec. OSR and CR
Mara knows sing.Inf this song
'Mara knows (how) to sing this song.'

Restructuring is a phenomenon in which the clausal complement of a verb is reduced in

size, i.e., a biclausal sentence is transformed into a monoclause sentence (Rizzi 1982, also

Chapter 3, Section 3.7). In Rizzi (1982), a key diagnostic of restructuring is clitic climbing: a

clitic associated with the embedded predicate can climb into the higher clause and cliticize to the

matrix verb. Clitic climbing shows that restructuring was optional in OSR with aputea, (127a)

but is obligatory in CR, (127b). Notice that the non-restructuring example (127a) includes the

mood marker a and a clitic. Clitic climbing is impossible in this context, (127c). In the

restructuring case, (127b), the mood marker is absent and the clitic climbs.

(127) a. Poate a le cumpara maine. OSR and CR
Can.3sg to cl.them buy tomorrow
'S/he can buy them tomorrow.'

b. Le poate cumpara maine. CR only
cl.them can.3sg buy.Inf tomorrow
'S/he can buy them tomorrow.'

c. *Le poate a cumpara maine.
cl.them can.3sg to buy tomorrow

The contrast in (128a) versus (129b) shows that restructuring with clitic climbing has

never been possible with the verb a #ti. All verbs (except aputea) behave like (128). One

example, with the verb a spera 'to hope' is given in (129), where clitic climbing fails (129b).

Examples like (128, 129) are representative of other verbs as well.

(128) a. Radu stie a le pune la loc. OSR and CR
Radu knows to cl.them put in place
'Radu knows how to put them back in place.'

b. *Radu le stie pune la loc. OSR and CR
Radu cl.them knows put.Inf in place









(129) a. Mara spera a le terminal la timp.
Mara hopes to cl.them finish on time
'Mara hopes to finish (those things) on time.'

b. *Mara le spera terminal la timp.
Mara cl.them hopes finish.Inf on time

If we accept clitic climbing as a diagnostic for restructuring, the data illustrate that

restructuring occurred only with aputea but not elsewhere in Romanian. It follows that infinitive

complements are full clauses and not bare VPs lacking Tense projections.

4.8.2 Infinitival Complement Clauses Can be Introduced by Complementizers

An incomplete list of verbs that take de a-infinitive complements and a number of

original examples of infinitival complements introduced by the complementizer de are included

in Section 4.3. As the examples show, all semantic categories of verbs (excepting interrogative

verbs) may have infinitival complement clauses introduced by the complementizer de.

Interrogative verbs like a #ti 'to know' can take infinitival complements introduced by the

complementizer dacct 'whether'. One example is given in (130).

(130) Radu nu stie daca a se intdlni cu Mara
Radu not knows whether to rflx meet with Mara
sau cu Ana.
or with Ana
'Radu doesn't know whether to meet Mara or Ana.'

Such examples suggest that control complements can be CPs given the presence of an

overt C. Recall that the complementizer de is optional however. For example, a matrix predicate

like a indrtzni 'to dare' may have an a-infinitive complement with or without de:

(131) a. Radu a indraznit de a fluiera in biserica.
Radu has dared de to whistle in church
'Radu dared to whistle in the church.'

b. Radu a indraznit a fluiera in biserica.
Radu has dared to whistle in church
'Radu dared to whistle in the church.'









The question is whether control complements in examples like (13 lb) are also CPs.

Unfortunately, these data do not inform the categorical status of the infinitival complement. The

data are compatible with two positions: One position is that, in both cases, the complements are

CPs and (130b) has a null complementizer. The second position is that (13 la) contains a CP

complement while (130b) has only an IP complement. This issue, however, remains a topic for

future research.

4.9 Conclusions

In this chapter I described infinitival complement clauses as OC structures, subdivided

into EC and PC complements. While both EC and PC have standard obligatory control

properties, PC complements have unique characteristics. A PC complement with a syntactically

singular controller and a collective predicate must not have a predicate inflected for plural or

other plural elements (e.g., emphatic pronouns). Furthermore, EC and PC are different vis-a-vis

Tense. EC complements have anaphoric tense whereas PC complements have dependent tense

There are some similarities between infinitival complements and subjunctive

complements. EC and OC-subjunctives complements are selected by the same classes of verbs

and the same is true for PC and F-subjunctive complements. Also ECs and OC-subjunctives have

anaphoric tense and PCs and F-subjunctives have dependent tense.

Further research is necessary in order to find documented examples with PC structures.

Concerning the two infinitival particles, a was found to be an inflectional element that heads its

own projection Mo/I0, while de a complementizer in C.









CHAPTER 5
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

C-ajung pe mine insumi a nu md mai cunoaste1
-Eminescu

5.1 Introduction

Having described the subjunctive complement clauses and the infinitive complement

clauses of Romanian and the elements of control, it only remains to determine the syntactic

theory that best fits the properties of these structures.

The theoretical framework is expected to accommodate the types of OC and F-

subjunctive clauses and EC and PC infinitive clauses, as they have been categorized in the

previous chapters. For convenience, one example of each is also given below.

The example in (1) is an obligatory control structure constructed with an OC-subjunctive

verb. Recall that F-subjunctive structures are of two kinds. They could be obligatory control

structures having a PRO subjunctive like (2a) or they may be NOC structures having apro or

lexical subject, as represented in (2b). Infinitival OC complements are divided into EC-infinitive

clauses as illustrated in (3) and PC-infinitive clauses as the one in (4). While both OC-

subjunctives and EC-infinitives are actually exhaustive control structures, the difference in label

is considered useful for distinguishing subjunctive clauses from infinitival clauses.

(1) Maral a reusit PRO1 sa doarmd putin.
Mara has managed sa sleep.3sg little
'Mara managed to sleep a little.'

(2) a. Radul spera PRO1 sa plece el insuSil/*ei inSiSi2 devreme.
Radu hopes sa leave.3sg himself/themselves early
'Radu hopes to return early.'

b. Radul spera sa plece Mara2/pro2 devreme.
Radu hopes sa plece.3sg Mara early
'Radu hopes that Mara will return early.'

1 So that I cannot, any longer, recognize myself.










(3) Radul a indrdznit PRO1 a sta gol pe plajd.
Radu has dared to stay nude on beach
'Radu dared to stay naked on the beach.'

(4) Maral Stie ca Radu2 detesta PRO1+ a dansa
Mara knows that Radu hates to dance
impreund la nunta.
together to wedding
'Mara knows that Radu hates to dance together at the wedding.'

The two theories considered for Romanian OC structures are the Movement Theory of

Control and the Agreement Model of Obligatory Control, both based on the Minimalism

Program.

Section 5.2 is dedicated to the Movement Theory of Control (MTC). First, the tenets and

the mechanism of this theory will be presented. How the MTC applies to languages reported to

have OC PRO case active like Icelandic OC structures will be the topic of the next subsection.

Finally, problems concerning case encountered when applying the MTC to Icelandic will be the

goal of the last part of this section.

Based on the discussions of how the MTC may apply to Icelandic, Section 5.3 is an

attempt to apply the MTC to Romanian OC structures. This section will actually continue the

descriptive analysis of Romanian OC structures regarding the case of PRO. The analysis of

structural case, default case and quirky case, along with the evidence that PRO is not a

trace/copy in an A-movement chain concludes that the MTC is not attractive to Romanian OC

constructions. Additionally, this section contains significant findings about case in Romanian OC

and raising structures, and differences between them.

In Section 5.4, I describe Landau's (2000, 2004 et seq.) Agreement Model of Obligatory

Control. I present the features involved in this theoretical framework e.g., [Tense], [Agr], etc,

and the mechanism of computation, which falls under the operation Agree (Chomsky, 2000,









2001) involving feature matching, checking, and deletion. Then, it will be shown, in detail, how

this theory applies to each type of the Romanian OC structures. I will describe and show in

diagrams the Agree operation involved in the process of licensing PRO. The main conclusions of

this chapter will be gathered in Section 5.5

5.2 The Movement Theory of Control (MTC)

This section presents the Movement Theory of Control (MTC), an alternative approach of

control proposed by Hornstein (1999, 2000, 2001 et seq.) First, the main assumption and the

mechanism of the MTC will be presented, followed by Boeckx & Hornstein's (2006) assessment

of case in Icelandic OC structures and their approach of applying the MTC to this language.

Finally, the problems faced by the MTC vis-a-vis the case of OC PRO will be brought up, as

observed in Bobaljik & Landau (2007)

5.2.1 The Tenets and Mechanism of the MTC

Hornstein reduces control to movement so that raising and control are unified as one type

of syntactic construction. In his view, OC is a consequence of A-movement and the controlled

empty subject exhibits the characteristics of an NP trace/copy. He separates control into

obligatory control (OC) and Non-obligatory control (NOC) and interprets obligatory control as a

result of movement parallel to raising structures. Under this approach, OC PRO is a trace of the

moved argument, the matrix controller, while the NOC PRO is a small pro.

In Government and Binding Chomsky (1981, 1986a, 1986b) and early minimalist

approach of OC Chomsky, 1993, 1995 (the classical account of OC) the mechanism includes the

following components (See also the review of control in Chapter 1):

(5) a. An argument chain supports only one theta-role; Theta roles are not
checkable features; No movement to a theta position is possible

b. PRO exists and PRO and trace are distinct









c. PRO has null case

d. Control is greed

e. Control is not movement; control and raising are different; control involves two
argument chains, whereas raising involves just one.

In the classical approach, the OC sentence (6) has the configuration in (7), where the

embedded clause hosts the chain of PRO, while the controller has its own chain in the matrix.

(6) [Lisa tried [to upset Roy]]
(7) [IP Lisa1 [vP tLisa tried [IP PRO1 to [vP tPRO upset Roy]]]]

The tenets of the MTC listed in (8) are the major departures from the PRO tradition:

(8) a. Theta-roles are checkable features on verbs, and can trigger movement.

b. There is no upper bound on the number of theta-roles a chain can have

c. PRO and trace are indistinguishable, so PRO does not exist

d. There is no null case; the subject of infinitives (OC) is caseless

e. Greed is Enlightened Self-Interest

f Control is movement subjected to the Minimal Link Condition (MLC)

A movement theory of control is not possible as the effect of the Theta Criterion (defined

in Chapter 1). Since a DP must have only one theta role, and the position of PRO is a theta

position, movement to a theta position is prohibited.

Hornstein (1999) turns theta roles into checkable features pretty much like person,

gender, number features. As checkable features, theta roles can drive movement. Moreover, a DP

could have an unlimited number of theta features, thus movement to a theta position becomes

possible even when the respective DP has been already assigned a theta role.

Another restriction to movement is greed. Movement is a last resort operation, so that this

operation happens for a reason, to check a feature. Chomsky & Lasnik (1993) assume that PRO









has a case, i.e. null case, that must be checked. Since PRO is believed to originate VP internally,

it moves to embedded [Spec,IP] to check its case. Since PRO has both theta role and case, it

cannot move further, to the [Spec,IP] of the matrix because it would incur a greed violation.

Later, in Lasnik (1995) Greed may be interpreted as "enlightened self interest" whereby

an element moves to check a feature of its own or a feature of the target. Within the MTC,

treating theta-roles as features on the verb/predicate allows a DP to move to a theta position and

complies with Greed by checking that feature.

In GB traces and PRO are fundamentally distinguished. The distribution of PRO is

accredited to the PRO Theorem. PRO must not be governed and heads its own chain. Traces are

necessary for the Empty Category Principle (ECP), must be governed and cannot head their own

chains. In GB as in the Minimalist Program A-chains are constrained to one theta role and that

theta position coincides with the foot of a chain.

The main difference between PRO and traces comes from the sources of their indices.

Traces derive from movement; the existence of PRO is due to theta-theory.

In Hornstein's framework, once theta-roles may be accrued in the process of a derivation,

a chain may also bear more than one theta-role. Without the theta-role restrictions, Hornstein

believes that PRO like NP- trace is residue of movement. Thus, PRO does not exist. It is simply

a trace or a copy in A-movement.

The Minimal Distance Principle (MDP) becomes MLC Minimal Link Condition in the

MTC. The MDP formulated first in Rosenbaum (1967) selects the closest c-commanding

antecedent as the controller of PRO. Thus, x is the controller of PRO iffx c-commands PRO. In

the examples below, the MDP correctly picks the controller (the subject in (9), the object in (10),

and the subject in (11).









(9) John1 hopes/expects/wants [PRO1 to leave]
(10) John1 persuaded Bill2 [PRo2/*1 to leave]
(11) John1 promised Bill2 [PRO1/*2 to leave]

In Hornstein 's (1999) approach, the MLC is treated as a markedness condition and verbs

like persuade become unmarked andpromise highly marked, i.e., exceptions. Thus, the MLC

restricts A-movement.

Concerning case, Hornstein expects to find OC PRO/copy in positions from which

movement is licit, roughly a non-case marked position, e.g., in a nonfinite clause.

In Hornstein's (1999) account, the mechanism of OC as a reflex of movement follows the

steps shown in (12). First John merges with leave, thereby checking the verb's theta-role. Then

John moves to the embedded [Spec,IP] to check the D-features of the IP. This IP is not a case

position, so John further moves to [Spec,VP] of hope and checks the external theta-feature of

this verb. Each time John/the moved NP checks a theta-feature of a predicate it assumes that

theta-role. John has two theta roles here (the minimum in OC movement). Finally John raises to

the [Spec,IP] of the matrix to check the D-feature of the IP and nominative case.

The author points out that this is the only place where John checks case. Case is required

for phonetic visibility.

(12) a. John hopes to leave.
b. [IP John [VP John [hopes [IP John to [VP leave]]]]

In sum, PRO, now a copy, emerges in a non-case position, then moves for case to the

case position of the matrix and once its case is checked, the respective copy becomes

phonetically realized. In the process, the copy gets two theta roles: one from the embedded verb,

the other from the matrix verb.









5.2.2 The MTC and Case (The Case of Icelandic)

Recently, the MTC has been expanded to incorporate case. Boekcx & Hornstein (2006),

henceforth B&H, claim that A-movement is possible in a control environment in Icelandic, a

language known to be, as Sigur6sson (2008) puts it, "a moderately rich case language" with "an

unusually rich case agreement" and where PRO is also case active, a subject explored in depth

by Andrews (1990) and Sigur6sson (1989,1991, 2003).

The purpose of this subsection is to present B&H's solutions intended to show that the

case of PRO is not a problem in Icelandic OC structures for the MTC.

The configuration in (13) represents the generalization of case pattern in Icelandic OC

structures from the available data in the literature (e.g., Sigurdsson, 1991) as interpreted by

B&H, where the NP represents the matrix controller and embedded PRO matches its case with

the case of floating quantifiers (QF) or with secondary predicates (SP). In B&H's view, PRO

does not exist and case clash between the controller and the embedded null subject is not

possible.

(13) ...NP case ... [...PROlpcase floating Q/secondary predicate pease ...]

The authors consider first some basic facts about Icelandic. They argue that overt

morphological agreement on finite verbs (person, number) and passive past participles (case,

number, gender) is only possible with elements bearing structural case. By contrast, all elements

whether bearing structural or quirky case can agree (in case, number, gender) with SPs and FQs.

Since these elements overtly display the case of the NP they relate to, B&H believe that

Sigur6sson (1991) assumes (incorrectly) that their case reveals the case of PRO. As a result, in

Sigur6sson's interpretation OC PRO can bear either structural or quirky case.

B&H include two examples from Sigur6sson (1991), where the SP for alone has

structural accusative (14) or quirky dative case (15).









(14) J6n ba6 Bjama a6 koma einan.
Jon.NOM asked Bjarni.Acc to come alone.ACC
'Jon asked Bjarni to come alone.'

(15) J6n ba6 Bjarna a6 lei6ast ekki einum.
Jon.NOM asked Bjarni.ACC to be.bored not alone.DAT
'Jon asked Bjami not to be bored alone.'

With these basic facts about Icelandic in mind and from the available data in the

literature, B&H find the following case patterns in Icelandic OC infinitival structures, where NP

represents the matrix controller and the case on the embedded clause appear only on floating

quantifiers (QF) and secondary predicates (SP).

(16) a. nominative NP... [nominative FQ/SP ...]
b. accusative NP ... [accusative FQ/SP/(marginally ) default nominative FQ/SP]

(17) a. nominative NP ... [quirky FQ/SP ...]
b. accusative NP ... [quirky FQ/SP ...]

(18) quirky NP ... [default nominative FQ/SP ...]

(19) quirky NP ... [quirky FQ/SP ...]

The patterns (16a) and (16b) are illustrated by the sentences (20) and (21) respectively.

B&H (2006:595) notice that when the antecedent is nominative (20) the SP is also nominative. If

the antecedent is accusative (21) the SP is either accusative or marginally nominative. They

actually conclude that accusative is strongly preferred and take this "to indicate that in such

situations, nominative is really a marked default case realization." They also say that default

nominative case in nonfinite contexts is "quite common in Icelandic".

(20) J6n vonast til [a6 koma einn/*einan].
Jon.NOM hopes to to come alone.NoM/ACC
'Jon hopes to come alone.'

(21) J6n ba6 Bjama a6 koma einan/??einn.
Jon.NOM asked Bjamri.ACC to come alone.ACC/NOM
'Jon asked Bjarni to come alone.'









The sentences (22) and (23) reflect the patterns in (17) where the controller is an

accusative object (22) or nominative subject (23) both bearing structural case, while the case of

the SP is a quirky dative.

(22) J6n ba6 Bjarna a6 lei6ast ekki einum/*einan/*einn
Jon.NOM asked Bjarni.Acc to be.bored not alone.DAT/ACC/NOM
'Jon asked Bjarni not to be bored alone.'

(23) J6n vonast til [a6 lei6ast ekki einum/*einan/*einn].
Jon.NOM hopes to to be.bored not alone.DAT/ACC/NOM
'Jon hopes not to be bored alone.'

The matrix quirky case in the pattern (18) may be accusative (24a) or dative (24b) while

the embedded case is limited to nominative. For this situation the nominative on the SP is also

considered default case "as there is no source for structural nominative in the embedded clause."

p.596.

(24) a. Bjarna langa6i ekki til a6 hlaupa einn/*?einan.
Bjamri.ACC wanted not to to run alone.NoM/ACC
'Bjarni wanted not to run alone.'

b. Bjarna leiddist a6 hlaupa einn/*?einum.
Bjamri.DAT was.bored to run alone.NOM/Acc
'Bjarni was bored to be running alone.'

The representations in (25) illustrate the pattern (19) with the observation that the matrix

quirky case and the embedded quirky case are never the same. As can be seen, the antecedent in

(25a) is quirky accusative and the SP for 'alone' is dative. In (25b), the antecedent is quirky

dative while the SP is accusative.

(25) a. Bjarna langa6i ekki til a6 lei6ast einum/*einan/*einn
Bjamri.ACC wanted not to to be.bored alone.DAT/ACC/NOM
'Bjarni wanted not to be bored alone.'

b. Bjarna leiddist a6 vanta einan/*einum/*einn
Bjarnami.DAT was.bored to be.missing alone.ACC/DAT/NOM
i veisluna.
from the.party
'Bjarni was bored not to be alone at the party.'










From these data, B&H reach the conclusion that structural nominative is not available in

OC structures in Icelandic either because it is default by virtue of being marked or because there

is no source for structural nominative in infinitival clauses. And when "it comes to structural

Case values, Icelandic control is just like English control." Multiple case-assignments appear

only where multiple quirky case values are assigned and since quirky case "is a kind of inherent

Case2, as conventionally assumed (i.e., a Case that is tightly connected to theta-role assignment

as opposed to agreement as Chomsky (1986) argued)". Icelandic is again just like English.

In applying the MTC to OC structures in Icelandic, B&H (2006) assume certain rules.

Following Nunes (1999, 2004) B&H assume that the case value that surfaces on a moving

element in a chain is always the highest case value, where the moving element is pronounced

(Case is required for phonetic visibility). In B&H's opinion, "Case is morphologically realized

only once" (p.600). In order for the embedded null subject (OC PRO) to move to the matrix case

position to get structural case, it must not get structural case locally in the embedded clause.

Since no structural case is possible in an Icelandic OC and the MTC requires multiple

theta-role-assignment to a single chain, the copy of the controller moves from the embedded

clause where it gets a theta role to the matrix to get the second theta role and structural case.

Once the structural case is assigned, the highest copy gets pronounced.

Multiple inherent/quirky case in control structures "simply follow from the connection

between theta-role and inherent case", p.597.




2 Schiitze (1993) in his fnl includes that Levin & Simpson's (1981) definition of quirky case as "the displacement of
structural case by non-NOM marking on subjects ... and non-ACC markings on objects", then Schiitze concludes:
"thus quirky is not a synonym for inherent, which refers to a case that is assigned in conjunction with a theta-role."
He also adds that not all quirky cases are inherent cases. Zaenen et al. (1985) characterize quirky case as having
mixed properties showing distribution like structural case and case preservation.









Technically, the pattern in (17a)/sentences (22) with nominative NP and quirky FQ/SP is

realized as in (26). The embedded quirky case equals the assignment of a theta-role to the

moving element (controller), but the FQ is assigned quirky case in Step 1. Then the moved NP is

attracted by the matrix verb and receives a second theta-role (Step 2). Finally, the NP gets

structural case in To and moves further to check EPP.

(26) NPi TO ... t'i Vo ... [Tinf ... Vo [ti FQ]]
Step 1: embedded VO assigns a theta-role/quirky Case to NP and quirky Case to FQ
Step 2: matrix Vo attracts NP and assigns a theta role to it
Step 3: matrix To assigns structural Case to NP, which moves to check EPP.

For the pattern (19)/sentences (25a,b) with quirky case upstairs and quirky case

downstairs, the first two stops are those in (26). Since there is no structural case in the matrix, the

NP raises (Step 3) only to check EPP. The embedded quirky case on the NP is always

overridden.

When either nominative or accusative appears both in the matrix and the subordinate, the

NP gets its theta-role downstairs and the second theta-role and structural case upstairs. The

embedded FQ/SP gets structural case by multiple Agree. The configuration in (27) illustrates the

pattern nominative NP (default) nominative FQ/SP.

(27) NPi TO ... t'i Vo ... [Tinf ... Vo [ti FQ]]
Step 1:embedded VO assign a theta-role to NP
Step2: matrix Vo attracts NP and assigns a theta-role to it
Step 3:matrix To assigns structural nominative to NP and FQ by multiple Agree

B&H (2006:602) "proposed a possible implementation of Case stacking in control." To

implement this proposal, the authors made two assumptions: "(a) Case is valued as soon as

possible, and (b) Case values are fixed morphologically in the PF component." They also

assume that inherent/quirky case cannot be assigned long distance. Finally they point out that "It

is important to note that such assumptions are not specific to control."









5.2.3 Problems with the MTC and the Case of OC PRO

B&H's (2006) presentation of the Icelandic facts prompted criticism from Bobaljik &

Landau (2007), henceforth B&L, and Sigur6sson (2008). B&L who use the same available data

in the literature before B&H (2006) observe that B&H although cite these works, they

"systematically neglect to mention the behavior of MP (adjectives, nouns or past participle) in

infinitives" and from Sigur6sson's (1991) paper they "selectively mention only his examples of

agreement with FQ/SP."

Sigur6sson's (2008) reply is very detailed adding new supportive evidence (to the old one

including his own) and characterizes B&H's account as: "their presentation of the Icelandic facts

is inadequate and misleading."

I will only present the problems with B&H's solutions for Icelandic as observed by B&L,

but I will also include Sigur6sson's (2008) general patterns of case in this language.

5.2.3.1 Quirky case

The most prominent characteristic of quirky case appears to be preservation, a

phenomenon very well established due to quite numerous studies on this subject, and almost all

of them included Icelandic. Case preservation means that the lower case of a DP in a chain

percolates upwards to the topmost position.

Schitze (1993) dedicates a comprehensive study to the quirky case in Icelandic. He

concludes that dative and genitive quirky cases are always preserved under passivization. "The

most striking fact about quirky objects is that they retain their quirky case marking under

passivization", p.353. As for quirky subjects, the author notes that "quirky subject verbs

embedded under an ECM verb show no change of subject case even under subsequent passive in

the matrix clause because their inherent case overrides the structural case of the higher clause",

p.367.









Also, Bejar & Massam (1999:68) confirm that in Icelandic passive sentences, when both

a quirky and a structural case are assigned, the quirky case must win.

More generally, Halle & Marantz (1993) argue that the more highly specified case

(quirky case) is realized, i.e., in case of a DP with a quirky case and a structural case the quirky

case will be phonologically realized. Also, Miller (2002:20-27) points out that structural case

yields to quirky case and this is true in every language that permits only one morphological case

on a word.

Based on these facts about quirky case in general and Icelandic in particular, B&L (2007)

point out the problem faced by the MTC in handling Icelandic OC structures of the type included

in B&H's patterns of (22a,b), where the embedded subject is marked quirky case and the

controller is marked nominative or accusative.

B&L cite Andrews (1990:189-190) who calls the phenomenon of case preservation of

quirky case-marked NPs in Icelandic a "striking peculiarity"3. B&L reproduce Andrew's

illustration of case preservation under passive, in ECM/Raising-to-object, and passive of ECM.

The example included below (28b) shows case preservation in subject-to-subject raising across

vir6ist 'seem'. (B&L indicate that the embedded predicate batna 'recover from' takes a dative

subject and nominative object).

(28) a. Baminu batna6i veikin.
the.child.DAT recovered.from the.disease.NoM
'The child recovered from the disease.'

b. Baminu vir6ist hafa batna6 veikin.
the.child.DAT seems to.have recovered.from the.disease.NoM
'The child seems to have recovered from the disease.'





3 As Sigur6sson (2008) puts it quirky case actually "repels" structural case.









Furthermore, B&L conclude that the sum of all the evidence shows that the distribution

of quirky case DPs behave like structural case DPs and that the case value that surfaces on the

moved DP is always the lowest case value, the one determined by the theta-assigning predicate.

Following Andrews (1976, 1982, 1990), Thrainsson (1979) and Sigur6sson (1989, 1991),

B&L argue that in OC structures the case of the controller is determined locally, case

preservation being ungrammatical. Their illustrative example (from Andrews, 1990) is included

below. In the OC example of (29b) the lower default dative cannot reach the topmost case

position thus the case of the controller is licensed locally in the matrix. Compare (29b) with the

case percolation/preservation in (29a).

(29) a. Honum var bjarga6 fra fjallinu.
him.DAT was rescued.DFLT from the.mountain
'He was rescued from the mountain.'

b. Hann/*Honnum vonasttil a6 vera bjarga6 fra fjallinu.
he.NOM/*DAT hopes to be rescued.DFLT from the.mountain
'He hopes to be rescued from the mountain.'

B&L stress that the failure of case preservation in control structures "is the result of there

being two distinct nominal elements involved": the controller and PRO, each with its own case

and its own theta-role. Consequently, if control is A-movement quirky case should be retained on

the moved DP, contrary to the facts.

B&L also notice that B&H fail to consider data where both the controller and the

controlee bear the same quirky case. B&H's pattern (24) only shows that those quirky cases have

a different value (e.g., accusative and dative). B&L include four examples with quirky case

transmission in Icelandic implying that quirky/inherent case is not different from structural in

respect to case transmission and it cannot be reducible to a theta role. Thus, the matrix quirky









case is transmitted to PRO but the theta role is not due to unattested long-distance theta role

transmission.

5.2.3.2 Icelandic OC PRO and structural case

As discussed above, B&H conclude that no structural case is possible in OC clauses in

Icelandic on the grounds that nominative is considered default by virtue of markedness or

because there is no source for structural case in infinitival clauses.

For B&H's pattern (21b), accusative object control, where the embedded agreeing

elements show case variation between nominative and accusative, and where accusative is

considered the basic form, B&L notice two flaws. First, accusative is not always available on

agreeing elements in infinitives as can be seen from the example (30a) from Thrainsson (1979),

where nominative is obligatory.

(30) Eg ba6 Mariu a6 vera tekin/*tekna af logreglunni
I.NOM asked Maria.ACC to be taken.NoM/Acc by the.police
'I asked Maria to be taken by the police.'

Second, nominative is not marginally possible on the floating quantifier and accusative

strongly preferred. Rather, the nominative is strongly preferred or exclusively possible.

Preference for nominative over accusative case transmission is clear when the agreeing element

is not a SP, the only type illustrated by B&H, but an MP, a past participle as in (30).

B&L point out that although B&H cite Andrews (1982) in their fn.8 "they fail to mention

that Andrews ... was struck by the predominance of NOM in OC infinitives, not its

marginality." In fact, Andrews considers the case matching with the controller (accusative) as

"performance". B&L also include Sigur6sson's (2002:712) observation that "as a matter of fact,

case-copying down into the infinitive is marked or questionable for many speakers and even out









for some"4. Obviously, B&L conclude that nominative in Icelandic OC infinitives is not marked,

nor default as a result of markedness. Recall that B&H also claim that nominative is default

because there is no source for structural nominative in infinitival clauses, that is, due to lack of

gender, number and case agreement with MPs.

B&L reply that the passive participle obligatorily exhibits gender, number and case

agreement with the null subject of infinitival clauses showing evidence with illustrative examples

like the one in (30) above. The default non-agreeing form of the participle in (30) would have

been tekid. The default form is mandatory when the subject does not have structural case.

B&L include the pair in (31) taken from Sigur6sson (1991) along with his explanation.

Where the embedded infinitive predicate is a structural nominative case assigner (3 la) the

participle must have agreeing nominative agreement. Where the embedded predicate is a quirky

case assigner (3 Ib) 'to be helped' assigns dative then the participle is obligatorily in the

default/non-agreeing form.

(31) a. Strakarnir vonast til a6 vera a6sto6a6ir/*a6sto6a6.
the.boys.NOM hoped to be aided.NOM.pd*DFLT
'The boys hope to be aided.'

b. Strakarnir vonast til a6 ver6a hjalpa6/*hjalpa6ir/*hjalpa6um.
the.boys.NOM hoped to be helped.DFLT/*NOM-.J*DAT.PL
'The boys hope to be helped.'

In fact, the nominative on PRO does not behave like any known instances of default

nominative in Icelandic, i.e. dislocated DPs and vocative DPs. The example of (32) features a

true default nominative DP (in bold), which fail to trigger agreement on participles.

(32) Strakurinn, vi6 hann var ekki dansa6/*dansa6ur.
the.boy.NOM with him.ACC was not dansed.DFLT/*NOM.SG.M
'The boy, nobody danced with him.'


4 B&H's claim that the nominative morphology is rather marked is labeled "untrue" by Sigur6sson, 2008.









To finish this subsection and for more clarity (assuming it is necessary), I add

Sigur6sson's (2008) conclusions regarding the pattern of agreement in Icelandic. He maintains

that in Icelandic PRO infinitives there are elements displaying morphological reflections of case:

adjectival and participial (primary) predicates (MPs); floating quantifiers; other case-agreement

elements (indefinite pronouns, secondary predicates,...).

Furthermore, Sigur6sson states: "PRO usually triggers case agreement in infinitives in the

same fashion as overt subjects do in finite clauses." The general pattern is given in (33,34). It is

obvious that there is no difference between finite and infinitive contexts in this respect.

(33) a. [cp ...NP.NOM ........ VFINITE ... XNOM ...]
b. [CP ...PRO.NOM ...... VINF ...... XNOM ...]

(34) a. [CP .. NP.QUIRKY ......VFINITE ... XQUIRKY/DFT ...]
b. [CP .. PRO.QUIRKY ... VINF ..... XQUIRKY/DFT ...]

The author illustrates these generalizations with a wealth of examples, showing that PRO

in OC infinitive clauses indeed triggers exactly the same agreement (including with MPs) as any

lexical subjects in finite contexts. He demonstrates that only those predicative adjectives and past

participles that agree in finite clauses can show agreement in PRO infinitives. He concludes that

these "generalizations are exceptionless" and "they are accounted for if Icelandic PRO is

assigned structural or quirky case in the same fashion as overt subject NPs in finite clauses."

Sigur6sson points out that B&H do not discuss these patterns.

B&L reach the same conclusion using Icelandic data available in the literature prior to

B&H (2006). That is, OC PRO in Icelandic bears structural nominative or quirky case, which is

not overridden by a matrix structural case.

5.2.3.3 The lexicalization problem

In Icelandic (and most languages) the DP subject/PRO of infinitival OC complement

clauses must always be nonlexical as generally assumed. If OC in Icelandic is a reflex of A-









movement, then the MTC runs into the "lexicalization problem" according to B&L (2007) or

Sigur6sson's (2008)' "silence problem", that is, PRO will become phonologically realized.

B&L find that the application of the MTC to Icelandic overgenerates such OC clauses,

i.e., with overt subjects5. They argue that since the controller and the controlee/PRO bear distinct

cases and since lack of case at the base of the chain is a requirement for A-movement, than OC is

not a reflex of A-movement.

They present three instances of PRO being lexicalized if control is reduced to A-

movement: When PRO bears structural nominative, when PRO bears structural accusative, and

when PRO bears inherent/quirky case.

Since the MTC relies on Nunes' (1995) theory of copy deletion according to which a

single copy will be spelled out in an A-chain, the one in the case position, and since it has been

established that PRO bears structural (nominative) case in Icelandic, the OC chain is structurally

marked twice, at the tail (PRO) and at the head (controller). Once the tail position is structurally

marked nominative, that position is able to host a lexical DP, thus the embedded DP subject gets

its theta-role and structural nominative and the matrix DP gets its theta-role and case in the

matrix clause.

Consequently, the MTC predicts representations like (35a) from J6nsson (1996), B&L's

Overgeneration I, where the embedded null subject is lexicalized. Two separate chains (one in

the matrix, one in the embedded clause) will avoid the lexicalization problem.

(35) *J6n vonast til [hann/Eirikur a6 ver6a ra6inn]
Jon.NOM hopes he/Eric.NOM to be hired.NOM.M.SG
'Jon hopes for him(self)/Eric to be hired.'




5 B&L add that if it may be possible to have a lexical PRO subject in an OC structure (in some languages) to have
both the controller and the controlee lexicalized remains a problem.









Overgeneration II, occurs when an accusative PRO become a lexical subject. In case of

structural accusative case transmission, B&H's (16b) pattern, B&L argue that this environment

gives rise to a lexical accusative subject under object control, if control is movement. As a result,

sentences like (36) from Thrainsson (1979:301) will be overgenerated.

(36) Eg ba6 Mariu [a6 (*hana/*Bjarna) fara Ianga6]
I asked Maria.Acc to he/Bjarni.ACC go there
'I asked Maria for him/Bjarna) to go there.'

Overgeneration III, lexicalizing a quirky PRO would be possible when the controlee

bears quirky case and the controller is nominative, an instance of multiple case assignment

accepted by B&H (2006). An example, after Zaenen et al (1985:109), is given in (37).

(37) Eg vonast til [a6 (*mer/*J6ni) vera hj alpad].
I.NOM hope for to me/Jon.DAT be helped
'I hoped (for myself/Jon) to be helped.'

B&L indicate that there are two possibilities here. Either a quirky case is sufficient to

license a lexical DP (as in B&H's examples (24,25) in which situation the lexicalization of PRO

is imminent (37), or a quirky case is not sufficient to license a lexical DP and the case

preservation problem arises, thus (22) should not exist.

B&L (2006) conclude that B&H's article is not a challenge to the 30 year mainstay of the

basic contrast between raising and control in Icelandic case preservation in the former and case

independence in the latter, "as attesting to the fundamentally different nature of the two

processes".

"They offer a case overwriting mechanism that appears to simply fail in raising (or any
other A-movement) contexts. Likewise, their discussion of NOM case in control
infinitives is inconsistent with the facts as reported in all previous studies of the topic.
This NOM exhibits the hallmark of standard structural case it triggers full agreement on
MPs. Not only is it not marked (as B&H claim) it is often the only option available.
B&H's exclusive focus on the case marking of SPs/FQs, as opposed to MPs, is a crucial
oversight; it renders their data irrelevant to their defaultness claim."









Ultimately, B&L state that the previous literature on Icelandic only led to one firm

conclusion that PRO bear case and "case cannot distinguish the distribution of lexical DPs from

that of PRO".

5.3 The MTC and OC in Romanian

This section presents evidence from case, similar to that in Icelandic, that renders the

Movement Theory of Control problematic for Romanian obligatory control. The idea is that PRO

in OC structures has standard case and cannot be reduced to a copy in an A-movement chain.

Assuming that B&H's (2006) solutions for Icelandic are meant to work across languages, at least

to languages that display similar case agreement, like Romanian, this section is an attempt to

apply the MTC to the OC structures in this language. This analysis is based on both B&H's

solution for Icelandic and the problems with these solutions as discussed by B&L (presented in

the previous section).

5.3.1 PRO Has Standard Case

Reports of PRO bearing standard case in infinitive control contexts in languages such as

Icelandic, Russian, Latin, etc and in subjunctive control Romanian and Greek, etc., have

suggested that the distribution of PRO can be dissociated from case.

Comorovski (1986) was the first to notice that the emphatic pronoun pronounced in the

embedded clause has the same case as the clause subject PRO in Romanian subjunctive clauses.

In her view, PRO represents the antecedents (a kind of copy) for these emphatic pronouns.

The case of PRO is the case reflected on various elements marked for case: floating

quantifiers, emphatic pronouns and epithets. The case of PRO is also reflected on secondary and

main predicates. To avoid the repetition of similar data, examples with case agreement with MPs

and SPs will be included in 5.2.3.









In (la,b) the case of PRO is nominative, the case reflected on the agreeing floating

quantifier, epithet, and the emphatic pronoun ei inmigi/chiar ei/ei 'themselves'. (38a) is an OC-

subjunctive structure and (38b) is its infinitive counterpart. Most of the illustrative examples

used in this section will have two variants: one for subjunctive, one for infinitive.

(38) a. Baietiil incearca [PRO.Nomi sa inoate
boys.the.Nom try3.pl sa swim.3pl
toti/ idiotii/ ei insisi/ chiar eil fair vestal]
all/ idiots.the/ themselves/ even they.Nom without vest
'The boys are trying to swim without a life jacket, the idiots!'

b. Baietiil incearca [PRO.Nomi a inota
boys.the.Nom try3.pl to swim
toti/ idiotii/ ei insisi/ chiar ei1 fair vestal]
all/ idiots.the/ themselves/ even they.Nom without vest
'The boys are trying to swim without a life jacket, the idiots!'

The case of PRO and the case of the controller may be identical (nominative) as in (38)

or distinct according to the examples (39), where the case of the DP controller is nominative and

that of PRO is quirky dative. Thus, when the structural nominative is not assigned in the

embedded clause, the case of PRO may be a dative quirky case, the case any lexical DP would

have in the same position.

(39) a. Maral incearca [PRO.Dati sa nu ii
M.Nom tries sa not cl.Dat
se facd ei insisi1 dor de copii]

rflx make.3sg herself.Dat longing of children
'Mara is trying not to miss her children herself.'

b. Maral incearca [PRO.Dati a nu ii
M.Nom tries to not cl.Dat
se face ei insisi1 dor de copii]
rlfx make herself.Dat longing of children
'Mara is trying not to miss her children herself.'









The following indicative constructions show that the embedded lexical subject Mara may

be nominative (40) or quirky dative (41) confirming that the case pattern of subjects is the same

for lexical DPs and for PRO.

(40) Radul spera [ca va ajunge Mara2
R,Nom hopes that will.3sg reach M.Nom
la timp la aeroport]
on time to airport
'Radu hopes that Mara will reach the airport on time.'

(41) Radul nu crede [ca i se va face
R.Nom not believes that cl.Dat rflx will.3sg make
Marei2 dor de families .
M.Dat longing of family
'Radu does not believe that Mara will miss her family.'

OC structures where the controller bears non-nominative case will be discussed in the

following subsections.

5.3.2 On Raising Structures in Romanian

Since raising structures are a reflex of A-movement and OC structures are also viewed as

a reflex of A-movement within the MTC framework, a background of raising structures in

Romanian is provided below6. The importance of raising structures in this study is to contrast

them with corresponding OC structures, in order to determine whether control is also an instance

of A-movement.

The usual raising verb in Romanian is aptprea 'to seem'. The reflexive/se verbs a se

nimeri and a se intdmpla 'to happen' are mostly impersonal verbs and excluded here. Although

raising structures usually appear in subjunctive constructions, their infinitive counterparts are

still in use. To avoid situations where aptprea has impersonal use whose form matches the third



6 Although a number of raising sentences are used as A-movement to contrast corresponding OC sentences, a
thorough analysis of raising in Romanian is neither intended nor accomplished. For other aspects/analyses of raising
structures in Romanian see Motapanyane (1995) and Rivero & Geber (2005).









person singular, the subject of this verb will have other person morphology or third person plural

in the illustrative examples.

The example (42a) features an infinitival raising structure and its corresponding

configuration is given in (42b). As in ordinary infinitival raising structures, the subject raises to

satisfy the EPP and get case.

(42) a. Noi parem a fi primii.
we seem to be first.the
'We seem to be the first ones.'

b. [ipNoi ... [vP parem ... [ipnoi a ... [vP noi fi primii]]]]

The subjunctive counterpart of (42a) appears in (43a). Motapanyane (1995) argues that in

such instances the subject raises not for case but for the EPP only. On the other hand Rivero

(1989) believe that the subject of a subjunctive raising structure raises for case. Without arguing

for one or the other, I will treat all raising structures the same, i.e. their subject moves for case

and EPP. The sentence of (43a) has the configuration in (44b).

(43) a. Noi parem sa fim primii.
we seem sa be. pl first.the
'We seem to be the first ones.'

b. [ipNoi ... [vP parem ... [ipnoi s ... [vP noi fi primii]]]]

It is important to note that raising verbs may have a double nature. Park & Park (2004)

argue that raising verbs are of two types: They select for the raising type infinitival complement

or for the OC-type complement. The latter type occurs in Spanish and Italian and when a dative

experience argument is involved. Crosslinguistic variation is expected and can be seen even

between Spanish and Italian. (Italian sembrare 'seem' may selectively take a dative experience

subject in an OC structure (Park & Park, 2004)).









In Romanian, aparea can take an OC complement when the infinitival/subjunctive

subject (PRO) is a dative experience (44a,b). The example (44) seems to be an instance of

obligatory control for the following reason. PRO must be dative case, which should be preserved

in A-movement. Since it is not, (44) should not involve A-movement. (A raising structure with

case mismatch has never been attested). In 5.2.5 it will be shown that apFtrea is not able to have

an inherent/quirky (non-expletive) subject.

(44) a. Noil parem [PRO1 a nel fi (noua insinei)
we,Nom seem to cl.Dat be (ourselves.Dat)
team de ceva]
fear of something
'We seem to be (ourselves) afraid of something.'

b. Noil parem [PRO1 sa nel fie (noua insinei)
we,Nom seem sa cl.Dat be (ourselves.Dat)
team de ceva]
fear of something
'We seem to be (ourselves) afraid of something.'

In (45) the verb apFirea selects an indicative complement, whose subject is a dative

experience marked on the clitic, hence apFtrea does not appear in raising structures only.

(45) Noi parem [cd ne e team de ceva].
we.Nom seem that cl.Dat is fear of something
'We seem to be afraid of something.'

The standard configuration of an OC structure, e.g., of (44a) repeated in (46a), is given in

(46b) where there is a chain in the matrix (of the subject noi 'we') and one in the embedded

clause, of PRO. In agreement with the MTC, there should be just one chain in (46b) as shown in

(47). Notice that the copies have two forms in (47).

(46) a. Noil parem [PRO.Dati a nel fi (noua insinei)
we,Nom seem to cl.Dat be (ourselves.Dat)
team de ceva]
fear of something
'We seem to be (ourselves) afraid of something.'









b. [ipNoi.Nomi ... [vp noi.Noml parem ... [IpPRO.Dati a ... [vp PRO.Datl
ne.Dat fi team de ceva]]]]

(47) [IPNoil ... [vP ni1 pdrem ... [Ip nt~ a ... [vp tnel1 ne fi team
de ceva]]]]

Even ignoring that a copy has two different forms in the same chain (47) and deleting

them leaving the topmost (nominative) copy to be spelled out, the dative clitic ne (in bold), the

mandatory double of the copy noua, serves as evidence that a case have been assigned (to PRO)

in the subordinate. (Again, the dative clitic ne is the double of noud 'to us'. Only the clitic is

required. Noud is optional but excluded in OC clauses simply because PRO is never lexical). It is

not clear how the MTC would operate in this context. Quirky case in OC and raising will be

discussed in 5.2.5.

5.3.3 Structural Case

The cardinal claim in B&H (2006) is that nominative case in infinitive contexts and

nominative case in finite contexts are distinct species. Thus, nominative case in OC clauses

would not be structural in Icelandic, and for that matter in Romanian, because of lack of

agreement in the infinitive and because nominative would be marginal/marked and consequently

a default case.

B&H (2006:592) state: "Overt morphological agreement on finite verbs (person, number)

and passive past participle (case, number, gender) can only take place with elements bearing

structural case". Furthermore, the agreement must be shown on MP elements: passive participles

and predicate nominals as opposed to floating quantifiers, emphatic pronouns, and SPs like the

adjective singura 'alone' in (49a,b and 50a,b). (By the quoted statement, the MTC is

automatically excluded from subjunctive obligatory control).









As already seen, B&L (2007) and Sigur6sson (2008) demonstrate that infinitives trigger

the same agreement as in finite clauses, including that with main predicates. Consequently,

regular structural nominative morphology is manifested in infinitive control clauses in Icelandic.

In Romanian (as in many languages), these two main predicate elements, passive

participles, adjectives and predicate nominals are always nominative both in infinitive and finite

(i.e., indicative, subjunctive, etc) contexts according to Sigur6sson's (1989:308) and Schtitze's

(1997:370) generalization:

(48) Passive participles agree only with nominative arguments, or ECM accusative
arguments.

In Romanian, MPs have different forms for gender and number only, while their case is

invariably nominative. Romanian lacks ECM structures.

Our task here is to show that indeed infinitive structures trigger the same agreement as

in finite structures in order to establish that by B&H's account the embedded nominative subject

in an OC clause, the only possible structural case of a subject in Romanian, is a structural

nominative.

The illustrative examples that follow feature OC sentences whose controllers bear non-

nominative case. This will eliminate the possibility of nominative case transmission to PRO. It

will be demonstrated that the agreeing elements in the embedded clauses bear nominative case

only, and no case variation is possible.

The examples in (49), (50), (51) are OC structures (subjunctive and infinitive) whose

PRO subjects are nominative and the controllers are accusative object (49), dative object (50)

and quirky dative subject (51). All the a. and b. examples show agreement with

emphatic/reflexive pronouns. (49a,b) and (50a,b) also show agreement with an SP (singurct

'alone'). The rest of the examples show agreement with MPs: passive participles (c,d) and










predicate nominals (e,f). Both subjunctive and infinitive examples trigger the same kinds of


agreement with SP and MP elements.


Accusative object controller nominative PRO
a. Radul a convins- 02 pe Mara2 PRO2
R.Nom has convinced- her P Mara.Acc
sa se2 intoarcd ea insai2 singura2
sa rflx return3.sg herself.Nom/*Acc alone.fem.Nom/*Acc
'Radu convinced Mara to return home alone (by herself).'

b. Radui a convins- 02 pe Mara2 PRO2
R.Nom has convinced- her P Mara.Acc
a se2 intoarce ea ins8si2 singura2'
to rflx return herself.Nom/*Acc alone.fem.Nom/*Acc
'Radu convinced Mara to return home alone (by herself).'


c. Radui a convins-02 pe Mara2 PRO2 sa
R.Nom has convinced-her P M.Acc sa
tratatd2 la spital.
treated.fem.Nom/*Acc at hospital
'Radu has convinced Mara to be treated at the hospital.'


d. Radui a convins-o2 pe Mara2
R.Nom has convinced-her P M.Acc
tratatd2 la spital.
treated.fem.Nom/*Acc at hospital
'Radu convinced Mara to be treated at the hospital.'


acasa.
home




acasa.
home


fie
be.3sg


PRO2 a
to


e. Li- am sfatuit PRO1 sa
cl.Acc- have.lsg advised sa
'I advised him to be a good man.'

f. L1- am sfatuit PROi
cl.Acc- have. sg advised
'I advised him to be a good man.'


fie omi buni.
be.3sg man.Nom/*Acc good


a fi
to be


omi buni.
man.Nom/*Acc good


Dative object controller nominative PRO
a. Radui i2- a cerut Marei2
R.Nom cl.Dat- has asked M.Dat
sa stea singura2 a
sa stay.3sg alone.fem.Nom/*Dat h
'Radu asked Mara to stay home alone.'


PRO2


casa
ome


b. Radui
R.Nom
a sta


i2- a
cl.Dat- has
singura2


cerut Marei2 PRO2
asked M.Dat
acasa


(49)


(50)









to stay alone.fem.Nom/*Dat home
'Radu asked Mara to stay home alone.'


c. Radul i2- a cerut Marei2 PRO2
R.Nom cl.Dat- has asked M.Dat
sd fie pregdtitd2 pentru
to be.3sg prepared.fem.Nom/*Dat for
'Radu asked Mara to be prepared for the party.'


d. Radul i2- a cerut Marei2
R.Nom cl.Dat- has asked M.Dat
a fi pregdtitd2 pentru
to be prepared.fem.Nom/*Dat for
'Radu asked Mara to be prepared for the party.'


petrecere
party


PRO2


petrecere
party


e. Maral i2- a cerut lui2 Radu2 PRO2
M.Nom cl.Dat has asked cl.Dat Radu
sa fie politicos2
sa be.3sg polite.masc.Nom/*Dat
'Mara asked Radu to be polite.'

f. Maral i2- a cerut lui2 Radu2 PRO2
M.Nom cl.Dat has asked cl.Dat Radu
a fi politicos2
to be polite.masc.Nom/*Dat
'Mara asked Radu to be polite.'

Quirky subject (dative) controller nominative PRO
a. Marei1 iil e ruSine PRO1 sa inoate goalSi.
M.Dat cl.Dat is shame sa swim.3sg naked.Nom/*Dat
'Mara is ashamed to swim naked.'

b. Luil Radul iil e fricd PROi
cl.Dat Radu cl.Dat is fear
a sei rade el insuSil
to rflx shave himself.Nom/*Dat
'Radu is afraid to shave with a knife.'


c. Marei1 ii, e dor
M.Dat cl.Dat is longing


PRO1


sa fie dansatd1 toatd noaptea.
sa be danced.Nom/*Dat all night
'Mara longs to have someone take her dancing all night.'


(51)









d. Luil Radui iii e frica PRO1 a fi ras
cl.Dat Radu cl.Dat is fear to be shaved.Nom/*Dat
cu cutitul.
with knife,the
'Radu is afraid to be shaved with a knife.'

e. Lui Radui iii e ruine PRO1 sa fie mincinos
cl.Dat Radu cl.Dat is shame sa be.3sg liar.Nom/*Dat
'Radu is ashamed to be a liar.'

f. Luil Radul iii e jena PRO1 a fi mincinos.
cl.Dat Radu cl.Dat is shame to be liar.Nom/*Dat
'Radu is ashamed to be a liar.'

Any of the examples above can be replicated with PRO displaying any person or number,

not only third person singular. The PRO in the next two examples is first person (52) and second

person (53) and the agreeing elements are MPs. Example (54) shows that the nominal predicate

in an indicative embedded clause bears exactly the same gender, number, and case agreement as

in the infinitive OC structure of (53).

(52) Mil- ai cerut PRO1 (Isg.Nom) displays
cl.lsg.Dat- have.2sg asked
a fi pregatita1 pentru petrecere
to be prepared.fem.Nom/*Dat for party
'You asked me to be prepared for the party.'

(53) Nu stiam [ca vaB e rusine PRO1 (2sg.Nom)
not knew.lsg that you.pl.Dat-is shame
a fi sfraci]
to be poor.pl.masc.Nom/*Dat
'I didn't know that you are ashamed to be poor.'

(54) Nu stiam [ca val e rusine PROi(2sg.Nom)
not knew. 1sg that you.pl.Dat-is shame
ca sunteti siraci]
to are.2pl poor.pl.masc.Nom/*Dat
'I didn't know that you are ashamed to be poor.'

B&H's (2006) claim that no structural case is possible in an infinitival clause is extended

to the overt subject of the infinitival adjunct clause of (55). While it is plain that the nominative









case of subjects in adjuncts and complements is the same (structural), the difference in

lexicalization must be traced to some other (non-case) factors. (55) actually shows that if a

lexical subject marked nominative is possible in infinitive constructions case is not necessarily

associated with verbal agreement7. (55) also demonstrates that there are sources for structural

nominative in infinitive clauses, contrary to B&H'S (2006:601) claim in reference to Icelandic

infinitival clauses "as there is no source for structural nominative in the embedded clause".

(55) Radu a plecat inainte de a veni Mara.
R.Nom has left before de to come Mara.Nom
'Radu left before Mara arrived'

In addition, there is considerable support for the existence of non-finite case assigners as

revealed in various studies like Babby (1991), Schitze (1997), Petter (1998), and especially

Harbert & Toribio's (1991) crosslinguistic evidence that non-finite Infl can assign nominative.

Consequently, the attempt to show by B&H's assumptions that the OC PRO does not

have structural case when nominative fails for Romanian in exactly the same ways it fails for

Icelandic. Their claim that agreement is what sets apart default nominative from structural

nominative does not hold, as also pointed out by Sigur6sson (2008): "However, if the notion of

'default nominative' is to make sense as a different notion than 'structural nominative', one

would expect it to differ from the latter precisely in being an elsewhere case, invisible to

agreement."

One can only conclude that the infinitive triggers the same agreement as in finite clauses

and the subject of an infinitive, lexical (55) or not, has the same structural nominative as any

subject marked nominative in finite contexts. Thus, these nominative PROs are instances of "true

structural nominative" in B&H's (2006:595) own words. In sum, the facts illustrate the


7 Bejar & Massam (1999:77) observe that nominative case and agreement are not "crucially intertwined".









existence of an independent source for structural nominative in infinitive and OC clauses in

general in Romanian.

Once PRO bears structural case it is frozen for purposes of A-movement. Chomsky

(1995, 2001) rules out raising from a case-marked position to another case-marked position by

his claim that case on a noun is deleted or erased once checked. B&H (2006) also abide by this

principle. They mention that the embedded null subject must not get structural case locally in

order to be able to move to the matrix case position.

If the MTC applies to the OC sentences included in this subsection, we will get into

B&L's 'lexicalization problem' or Sigur6sson's (2008) 'silence problem', hence a sentence like

(56) will be wrongly predicted (where the silent embedded subject gets lexicalized).

(56) *Maral i2- a cerut lui2 Radu2 PRO2
M.Nom cl.Dat has asked cl.Dat Radu
a fi Ion politicos2
to be Ion polite.masc.Nom/*Dat
*Mara asked Radu to John be polite

In the end, B&H (2006) would probably admit that the OC structures discussed in this

subsection might not be suitable for the MTC.

5.3.4 Default Case

Recall that B&H's second argument to sustain the non-structural nature of OC PRO case

in Icelandic is the idea that an SP could be marked either nominative or accusative and the

nominative is the marked case. Based on this markedness, they further conclude that this

nominative is also a default case and as such is also nonstructural. As already discussed, the

markedness of nominative and the idea that it is default and consequently nonstructural has been

disproved for Icelandic.









In Romanian case variation hardly ever occurs. For instance, there is no case variation in

the embedded clause on any of the examples of (57, 58, 59). In fact, case variation may only

occur with certain verbs, specifically, the three verbs meaning to accuse.

The verb a acusa 'to accuse' (and synonyms a blama/a invinovati 'to blame/to accuse')

when used reflexively can trigger either nominative or accusative agreement on emphatic

pronouns. If case alternation occurs in this particular environment it is possible in any structure,

finite or nonfinite, as reflected by the following examples: indicative (57); subjunctive object

control (58a); infinitive object control (58b).

(57) Radu crede cd Mara se acuza
R.Nom believes that M.Nom rflx acuses
ea ins8si/ pe ea insai de ceva.
herself.Nom/ herself.Acc of something
'Radu believes that Mara accuses herself of something.'

(58) a. Radu a rugat-o pe Mara
Radu has asked-her P Mara.Acc
sa nu se acuze ea ins8si/ pe ea insai de ceva.
sa not rflx accuse.3sg herself.Nom/ herself.Acc of something
'Radu asked Mara not to accuse herself of something.'

b. Radu a rugat-o pe Mara
Radu has asked-her P Mara.Acc
a nu se acuza ea ins8si/ pe ea insai de ceva.
to not rflx accuse herself.Nom/ herself.Acc of something
'Radu asked Mara not to accuse herself of something.'

The embedded accusative is not necessarily transmitted as implied by the examples of

(58). The controller in the next example is nominative, but the nominative-accusative alternation

is still possible (59).

(59) (Eu) incerc sa nu md acuz
(I).Nom try sa not rflx accuse. sg
eu insdmi/ pe mine insdmi de ceva
myself.Nom/ myself.Acc of something
'I am trying not to accuse myself of anything.'









As expected, a possible main predicate remains nominative shown on the past participle

of the indicative sentence of (60) and the OC structure of (61). More important is the

unavailability of accusative in these sentences, suggesting that nominative is the winner. Indeed,

nominative is the norm or strongly preferred (or out for some speakers) in the above examples.

(60) a. Radu a fost acuzat el insusi /*pe el insusi
R.Nom has been accused.masc.Nom himself.Nom/*Acc
de ceva
of something
'Radu has been accused (himself) of something.'

(61) (Eu)i am reuSit PRO1 a nu fi blamati
I have managed to not be blamed.masc.Nom
eu insumi/*pe mine insumil pentru accident.
myself.Nom/*Acc for accident
'I managed not to be blamed for the accident.'

Since B&H assume that the more marked option is the default, then accusative would

have to be the default in this instance, as it is for the language as a whole (as also indicated in

Dobrovie-Sorin (1994:209, fn 26). The fact that nominative is the preferred form means it cannot

be the default case. As argued above, it behaves in all ways like a structural case.

Consequently, the nominative in these examples is not marked or default, and is

therefore structural by B&H's own assumptions8.

The idea that nominative on a DP would not be structural because it does not trigger

agreement with MPs or because it may be marked/default does not stand, as demonstrated.

Since it has been made clear that PRO bears structural case when marked nominative and

it cannot be default since accusative is the default case, the case of PRO in (62) must be

structural nominative, either as independently assigned locally or transmitted from the matrix

subject (controller). The nominative form of the nominal predicate further indicates that the case


8 This objectionable formulation of structural nominative and default case is exclusively that of B&H (2006).









of PRO in (62) is structural nominative. (The default case is not possible here since the

accusative form of the reflexive is not permitted).

(62) Radul a incercat PRO1 a fi
R.Nom has tried to be
el insuSi/*pe el insuSil sot, bun.
himself.Nom/*Acc husband.Nom good
'Radu tried to be a good husband.'

Case transmission occurs from a higher position to a lower position, e.g., from the matrix

controller to PRO, in the opposite direction of case preservation, that is. Case transmission is

subject to crosslinguistic variation and it is not easy to account for case transmission vs. internal

nominative case marking, as there is no universal test that works across languages (Landau,

2007). According to the standard analysis of case transmission and Landau (2007), the most

favorable conditions for obligatory9 case transmission to occur are: OC structures with subject

control and no lexical complementizer (and in purpose clauses without lexical complementizer).

However, as Landau argues, the combination of these conditions does not necessarily result in

case transmission.

If nominative case transmission in (62) were possible, it would occur in the manners

described in Sigur6sson (2008), either in syntax or post syntax. The author argues that if case is

decided in syntax, before the transfer to the interfaces, case transmission would have semantic

correlates and it would also involve backtracking, thereby violating cyclicity (Chomsky 2005)

which forbids acyclic insertion. In this situation, basic nominative case would be assigned in the

infinitive to the MP and to the PRO since its case is considered concord. When a nominative

controller is merged later in the derivation the computation needs to go back down into the

infinitive to overwrite the original infinitive case with the case of the controller.

9 Optional case transmission may happen in object OC structure. In Icelandic the controller's structural accusative
case is optionally transmitted to PRO.









In the post-syntax approach "case may markedly drip down from the controller to the

non-quirky PRO and further to the infinitival predicate". Sigur6sson (2008) concludes: "More

commonly PRO and hence its predicate gets independent nominative case."

Whether there is room for the MTC to apply in such contexts, is for B&H (2006) to

decide.

5.3.5 Quirky Case

This subsection highlights the differences between OC structures and raising structures in

regard to quirky/inherent dative subjects. (I use the term quirky/inherent as also used by B&H,

2006, and B&L, 2007). Recall that quirky case manifests preservation in A-movement, but is

independent in control. Recall also that, for examples like (63), B&L (2007) see two possible

scenarios if the MTC were to be applied. If quirky/inherent case can be assigned to a DP, then

the null controlled element will become lexicalized and the sentences will crash. (The higher

subject in (64) below is assigned quirky/inherent case). If quirky/inherent case cannot be

assigned, then case preservation of the quirky case should take place and the matrix subject

should be also marked quirky dative, hence (63) should not be possible.

(63) a. (Eu)i am incercat PRO1 sd-mi inving teama.
I.Nom have tried sd -cl.Dat overcome. sg fear.the
'I tried to overcome my fear.'

b. (Eu)i am incercat PRO1 a-mi invinge teama.
I.Nom have tried to-cl.Dat overcome fear.the
'I tried to overcome my fear.'

Let's see what happens when the matrix subject is a quirky dative DP. In the OC

examples of (64) the matrix subject is a (quirky) dative experience accompanied by its

(doubling) clitic whose presence is mandatory.

(64) a. Noua1 nel e ruSine PRO1 sa inotdm goii.
we.Dat cl.Dat is shame sa swim.3sg naked.
'We are ashamed to swim naked.'











b. Noud1 nel e fricd PRO1 a ne f rade cu cutitul.
we.Dat cl.Dat is fear to rflx shave with knife
'We are afraid to shave with a knife.'

Any attempt to construct the corresponding raising sentences of (64) fails. The examples

of (65a,b) are ungrammatical, despite the use of the verb in the impersonal form pare 'it seems'

or the form that agrees with the DP nout 'to us' in person and number, patrem 'we seem'. As

B&L (2007) observe, although the matrix case assigners under the MTC assumptions must

assign structural case to an OC controller, the same assigners are not able to assign quirky DP to

the subject of a raising verb in an A-movement configuration like (65a,b).

(65) a *Noua1 ne1 pare/parem sa inotdm bine.
we.Dat cl.Dat seems/seem. pl sa swim.lpl well
'We seem to swim well.'

b. *Noui1 ne, pare/parem a inota bine.
we.Dat cl.Dat seems/seem.lpl to swim well
'We seem to swim well.'

In addition, if (65) were grammatical, they would have been instances of obligatory

control. The structure-type of (65) is available in Spanish (66) and Italian (67) as obligatory

control structures. Park & Park (2004) explain that in (66,67) the embedded nominative DP

cannot undergo Move over the dative experience, the matrix subject that is5, thus these






10 In Italian, the embedded nominative may move across a dative experience to the nominative subject in the
matrix, when the dative experience is an oblique. The dative DP (clitic) is not part of the A-chain with nominative
traces/copies. The Romanian version is shown in (ii).

(i) Giannil gli2 sembra [TP tl essere stanco]
G.Nom them.Dat seems to-be tired
'To them, Gianni seems to be tired.'

(ii) Radul imi2 pare [tl a fi obosit.
R.Nom cl.Dat seems to be tired
'To me, Radu seems to be tired./It seems to me that Radu is tired.'









representations are OC6. (Note in passing the presence of the Italian infinitival complementizer

di in (67), which never occurs in real raising structures).

(66) A Emiliol lei parece ti [cp PRO1 haber jugado bien]
Emilio.Dat cl.he.Dat seems have.Inf played well
'Emilio seems to himself to have played well.'
Park &Park (2004:218)

(67) Mil sembra tl [cp di PRO1 avere dormito bene]
I.Dat seems Comp have.Inf slept well
'I feel that I have slept well.'
Park &Park (2004:219)

The meaning in (66,67) can be conveyed with the indicative in Romanian. The Romanian

version of the Italian example (67) is constructed with indicative (68).

(68) Imi pare [ca am dormit bine]
me.Dat seems that have slept well
'I feel that I slept well.'

In sum, whenpare takes a subjunctive or infinitive complement, this verb is not able to

have an experience subject marked with quirky dative. If that were possible, as in Spanish and

Italian, the respective structures would have been instances of obligatory control (on a par with

the Spanish and Italian counterparts).

It follows that the MTC plays no role in the OC structures of (64). For one thing, in such

examples the embedded nominative is structural, as demonstrated in '5.2.3', and raising is not

allowed from a (structural) case position, as also assumed by B&H (2006). Moreover, the

ungrammatical raising examples of (65) constitute evidence that A-movement is not possible

when the embedded subject is nominative and the matrix subject position is a quirky dative.





11 Interestingly, Park & Park (I" 14) never considered the embedded nominative in (66) and (67) as nonstructural or
that these sentences are a reflex of movement. On the contrary, A-movement is not an option for these examples
simply by being OC structures.









Taking into account examples like (63) with embedded quirky dative and matrix

nominative DP and the examples like (64) where the cases are inverted (the embedded subject

position is nominative and the matrix subject position is quirky dative), we can further conclude

that in an OC structure if one subject position is marked quirky dative, A-movement is not an

option. If raising is A-movement and control is A-movement, it is mysterious that only control

permits case mismatches.'

Quirky DPs appear in constructions with aptprea, but since they could be subjects as well

as obliques (as also pointed out by Zaenen et al, 1985, and Schtitze, 1993) it is important to

distinguish between them. For instance, the dative DP is a subject in (64) but a goal in (69)

below. Copiilor 'to the children' may be misinterpreted as the subject in (69a). However,

changing the number on the verb aptprea renders the sentence ungrammatical (69b). Replacing

dulciurile 'the sweets' with a singular noun (and keeping the plural verbal agreement) the

derivation crashes (69c). This shows that the matrix verb agrees with toate dulciurile 'all

sweets', which is the subject. The dative argument does not trigger number agreement on the

verb. This is clearer in (69d).

(69) a. Copiilor par s le placa toate dulciurile.
children.Dat seem.3pl sa cl.3pl.Dat like.3pl all sweets.the.Nom
'All sweets seem to please the children.'/It's the children all sweets seem to
please.'

b. *Copiilor pare s le placa toate dulciurile.
children.Dat seem.3sg sa cl.Dat like.3sg/pl all sweets.the.Nom

c *Copiilor par s le placa filmul.
children.Dat seem.3pl sa cl.Dat like.3pl movie.the,Nom
'The movie seems to please the children.'

d. Toate dulciurile par s le placa copiilor.
all sweets.Nom seem.3pl sa cl.Dat like.3pl children.Dat
'All sweets seem to please the children.'









We have seen that (64) contains a quirky subject, but (69) in no way involves quirky case

subject. Copiilor appears to be in a subject position, but in reality it is inherent case associated

with the experience role ofaplitcea 'to please' in a focus position.

The representations of (70) are OC structures where the upstairs and the downstairs

subject positions are both marked inherent/quirky dative. The impossibility of the corresponding

raising structures (71) is quite significant. It shows that even if both dative clitics have the same

form/case the derivations are still ruled out. This suggests that an A-chain with two case

positions is not allowed in raising. The occurrence of two clitics in the same sentence does not

affect (70) because it involves two separate A-chains, one in the embedded clause, one in the

matrix.

(70) a. Fetelorl lei e jena PRO1 sa lei fie rau la petrecere
girls.Dat cl.Dat is shame sa cl.Dat be.3sg sick at party
'The girls are ashamed of getting sick at the party.'

b. Fetelorl lei e jena PRO1 a lei fi rau la petrecere
girls.Dat cl.Dat is shame to cl.Dat be sick at party
'The girls are ashamed of getting sick at the party.'

(71) a. *Fetelori lei pare sa lei fie rau la petrecere
girls.Dat cl.Dat seems sa cl.Dat be.3sg sick at party
to the girls seems shameful to get sick at the party

b. *Fetelori lei pare a lei fi rau la petrecere
girls.Dat cl.Dat seems to cl.Dat be sick at party
to the girls seems shameful to get sick at the party

Again, the MTC cannot be applied to OC structures of the type represented in (70)

despite the idea that multiple inherent/quirky case represents "the connection between theta-role

and inherent case" in OC (B&H, 2006:597).

The sentences in (70) may also be instances of inherent/quirky case transmission,

implying that case transmission does not distinguish between structural and inherent case. B&L









observe that if inherent/quirky case manifests case transmission, inherent/quirky case is not

identical/reducible to a theta role. The matrix quirky case is transmitted to PRO but the theta role

is not.

In this subsection it has been shown that if an inherent/quirky case marks one or both of

the subject positions in an OC structure, A-movement is not possible, thus the MTC is not an

option for such structures. Romanian data confirm the crucial difference between raising and

control, that a case mismatch is possible in the latter but not in the former. Even in (subject) case

matching contexts with clitic doubling, like (70) above, raising is not possible because the clitics

are case marked indicating a separate A-chain for each clitic (71).

5.3.6. PRO is not a Trace

All the examples of OC configurations presented above that are not compatible with the

MTC show that PRO is not a trace/copy. PRO is not a copy of the controller, merged in

[Spec,vP] and then moved to the subject position of the matrix. PRO is a separate entity

belonging only to the embedded clause. Next, I consider two more constructions that also argue

against the property of PRO being a trace.

5.3.6.1 Se-reflexivization

The examples in (72) and (73) from Rizzi (1986b) via Landau (2003) are translated and

adapted for Romanian. (72a,b) feature raising constructs in subjunctive and infinitive contexts

and their OC corresponding constructs are given in (73a,b). In (72), the reflexive iyi is the dative

form of se meaning 'to each other'. The subject 'the two candidates' is a nominative DP.

(72) a. *Cei doi candidatil ifi 1 par ti sa poat, invinge
the two candidates rflx.Dat seem sa be-able win.Inf
'The two candidates appear to each other to be able to win.'

b. *Cei doi candidatil ifil par ti a putea invinge
the two candidates rflx.Dat seem to be-able win.Inf
'The two candidates appear to each other to be able to win.'









Apparently, the ungrammaticality in (72) is caused by candidate 'candidates' moving

over or skipping the reciprocal position coindexed with it. The OC examples (73) are

grammatical because without movement, which is not necessary, no chain is formed to include

the reflexive.

(73) a. Cei doi candidatil sil- au promise PRO1 sa fie leali.
The two candidates rflx.Dat have promised sa be loyal.pl
'The two candidates promised each other to be loyal.'

b. Cei doi candidatil il- au promise PRO1 a fi leali.
The two candidates rflx.Dat have promised to be loyal.pl
'The two candidates promised each other to be loyal.'

As Landau observes, the question here is why the MLC is violated in (72) but not in (73).

Evidently because the moved NP in A-movement (72a,b) cannot skip a position coindexed with

it. In Landau's view, the contrast (72a,b) (73a,b) diagnoses NP-movement in raising but not in

control. Therefore, PRO is not a trace.

5.3.6.2 Lexical complementizers

Recall that the infinitival complementizer de may be present or absent in infinitival

complements (74), a phenomenon in effect throughout the existence of these structures.

The occurrence of subjunctive obligatory control clauses with the lexical complementizer ca is

possible in OSR (76). In raising structures with either infinitive or subjunctive the respective

complementizer is disallowed as the contrasts in (75) and (77) indicate.

Finally, the fact that lexical complementizers preclude raising but not obligatory control

implies that there are two chains in the latter (and case is assigned separately in the matrix and

the embedded clause), whereas the chain in raising cannot cross over C to get case and the

derivations crash, as in (75a) and (77a).

(74) a. Radul indrdzneSte de PRO1 a md deranja.
Radu dares de to me.Acc disturb
'Radu dares to disturb me.'










(75) a. *Radu pare de a citi.
Radu seems de to read

c. Radu pare a citi
Radu seems to read
'Radu seems to read.'

(76) Maral indrdzneSte ca PRO1 sa md supere.
Mara dares that sa me.Acc bother.3sg
'Mara dares to bother me.'

(77) a. *Mara pare ca sa citeasca.
Mara seems that sa read.3sg

b. Mara pare sa citeasca.
Mara seems sa read.3sg
'Mara seems to read.'

In summary, the presence of an overt complementizer, along with the remainder of the

evidence, indicates that obligatory control and raising are different structures, and that A-

movement applies only to raising. Ultimately, then, in Romanian, as in Icelandic, PRO cannot be

reduced to a trace or a copy in an A-movement chain.

To conclude this section, it has been shown that, when PRO in obligatory control does

not bear dative case, it bears regular structural nominative. By B&H's (2006) assumptions, it has

been shown that the infinitive triggers the same agreement manifested in finite contexts. In

addition, there is evidence for structural nominative in infinitive structures in Romanian (and

across languages). The claim that nominative may be a default case has been also dismissed on

the grounds that accusative is the default case in this language. Thus, nominative is a

standard/structural nominative on PRO and there is no rationale for movement to the matrix

subject position to get structural case. In addition, the MTC applies only if the moving element

(controlee/PRO) is not in a case position (B&H, 2006) otherwise lexicalization problems arise

(B&L, 2007b).









Regarding inherent/quirky subjects, there are OC configurations that cannot be replicated

by raising configurations showing that OC and raising are not reflexes of the same (A-

movement) operation.

Also, lexical complementizers and se-reflexivization disrupt the A-chain in raising, but

have no effect on OC because no movement is involved in the latter.

The OC configurations found to be incompatible with A-movement are:

(78) a. Nominative PRO under accusative object controller (49)
b. Nomintive PRO under dative object controller (50)
c. Nominative PRO under quirky/inherent dative subject controller (51,64)
d. Quirky/inherent dative PRO under nominative controller (63)
e. Quirky/inherent dative PRO under quirky/inherent dative controller (70)
f. Se-reflexivization (73)
g. Any infinitive OC when introduced by the complementizer de (74)
h. Any subjunctive OC when introduced by ca in OSR (76)

Technically, it may be possible to apply the MTC to a sentence like (62) repeated in

(79a), where both the controller and controlee bear nominative case. However, since (79b)

cannot involve raising over the overt complementizer de, any attempt to apply the MTC in (79a),

e.g., by ignoring or overriding the structural nominative of PRO, would be quite unattractive.

(79) a. Radul a incercat PRO1 a fi
R.Nom has tried to be
el insuSi/*pe el insuSil sot, bun.
himself.Nom/*Acc husband.Nom good
'Radu tried to be a good husband.'

b. Radul a incercat de PRO1 a fi sot, bun.
R.Nom has tried to be husband.Nom good
'Radu tried to be a good husband.'

Consequently, as it appears, PRO is not a trace/copy and obligatory control is not A-

movement. PRO has its own standard case, the case any lexical DP would have in the same

position. The controller is not selected by the embedded verb, does not belong to the embedded

clause, is not c-commanded by the embedded verb and does not receive case from it.









5.4 Agreement Model of Obligatory Control

Landau (2000, 2004, 2006 and subsequent work) uses tense, phi-features and the domain

of C to explain the properties of OC and NOC. As the tense domain of a clause, C contains tense

information that needs to be matched with the I head of the (embedded) clause. As already

mentioned (in 3.4), following Pesetsky & Torrego (2000, 2001), Landau assumes that C is the

place for the uninterpretable [Tense] features and the matching interpretable [Tense] features are

on I.

Landau designs "The Agreement Model of Obligatory Control (OC)" where OC is a

reflex of an Agree relation between the matrix functional head that licenses the controller and an

[Agr] bearing element, the embedded C, or PRO. Thus, OC "exploits two routes": a direct Agree

relation with PRO or mediated by C (Landau, 2007).

Landau's main assumptions about obligatory control are listed in (80),

(80) a. PRO, the silent subject of an OC complement, exists and is not
a trace/copy in an A-chain;

b. PRO has standard case, thus the distribution of PRO should be divorced
from case;

c. OC is not a reflex of A-movement; OC cannot be reduced to raising;

d. Lexical complementizers are possible in OC structures

In this section I recapitulate the salient features of the Agreement Model of OC with

stress on its technicality, the "calculus of control". I put together an inventory of all the features

(interpretable and uninterpretable) for each of the involved heads. For clarity, all the

uninterpretable features will bear the label u and the interpretable ones the label i. For each

diagram of the five Romanian complement types, I will show each Agree operation, the features

involved and the outcome of the respective Agree operation.









5.4.1 Features Involved in Agreement Model of OC

5.4.1.1 [T]ense features

In Landau's framework, tense and agreement have essential roles and the relevant

features are [T] and [Agr] on both Co and 1. [T] is always interpretable on I1 and uninterpretable

on Co and is checked between I1 and Co. Recall that OC-subjunctive and EC-infinitives have

anaphoric tense whose feature is [-T] and F-subjunctive and PC-infinitives have dependent tense,

represented by the feature [+T]. Both anaphoric tensed and dependent tensed complements have

a [T] feature on Co, showing that their tense is selected. The selecting head is the matrix

predicate. Thus, a feature [T] is on Co when selected by the matrix predicate only.

Landau points out that Tense is semantic not morphological, thus OC-subjunctives are [-

T] although their verbs are morphologically marked, whereas PC-infinitives are [+T]. (For

independent (free) tense, unselected, the feature [+T] appears only on I1 e.g., indicative). The

feature [T] for all five clause-types is given in Table 5-1.

Table 5-1 Feature [Tense] on Co and IO
Co 1o
OC-subjunctive u[-T] i[-T]
EC infinitive u[-T] i[-T]
PC-infinitive u[+T] i[+T]
F-subjunctive+NOC u[+T] i[+T]
F-subjunctive+OC u[+T] i[+T]

5.4.1.2 [Agr] features

[Agr] feature is simply morphological, a bundle ofphi-features, thus OC and F-

subjunctive complements are endowed with the feature [+Agr] on I1 because of the verbal

morphology (overt agreement). It follows that the I1 head of infinitive complements bears an

abstract [-Agr] feature with no morphological realization. So, [+Agr] and [-Agr] can match in

their values of phi-features and enter an agree relation. PRO has no inherent phi-features, but it

has slots for number, gender and person to be valued under agreement with the controller. In









other words, PRO's phi-features are initially unvalued. As a DP, PRO has an interpretable

[+Agr] feature. Recall that PRO has its own structural case, which is clause bound, so it can be

different from the case of the controller, that is, case is not included in [Agr].

Landau (2004) argues that Agr on Co is not morphologically visible (except perhaps in

cases of inflectional complementizers). He assumes that any kind of agreement on Co visible or

not is [+Agr]. He also assumes that [+Agr] is parasitic on [+T]. Thus, [-T] or lack of [T] on Co

entails lack of [Agr] on this head the case for OC-subjunctives and EC-infinitives. Since F-

subjunctives and PC-infinitives have [+T] on 1, they will also have [+Agr] on Co. [Agr] is

uninterpretable on both heads. OC and EC clauses have no [Agr] on Co. The difference between

[-Agr] and [+Agr] on I1 represents that difference in morphological realization. As abstract phi

values, they are the same.

The table 5-2 shows that the combination [+T], [+Agr] on I1 stands for no control in F-

subjunctive+NOC. The subject of this clause is a lexical DP orpro, thus having an interpretable

[+Agr] feature.

Table 5-2 Features [Tense] and [Agr] on Co and I1
Co PRO I1
OC-subjunctive u[-T] i[+Agr] i[-T] u[+Agr]
EC infinitive u[-T] i[+Agr] i[-T] u[-Agr]
PC-infinitive u[+T] u[+Agr] i[+Agr] i[+T] u[-Agr]
F-subjunctive+NOC u[+T] u[+Agr] i[+T] u[+Agr]
F-subjunctive+OC u[+T] u[+Agr] i[+Agr] i[+T] u[+Agr]

The table 5-2 shows that the combination [+T], [+Agr] on I1 stands for no control in F-

subjunctive+NOC. The subject of this clause is a lexical DP orpro, thus having an interpretable

[+Agr] feature.









5.4.1.3 [R] features

Landau "exploits" the referential distinction between PRO and lexical DPs and encodes

this distinction as an interpretable feature [R]. Thus, lexical DPs andpro are encoded [+R], and

(nonreferential) PRO [-R], which requires an antecedent for identification.

Consequently, the empty subject (PRO) of EC and PC-infinitives and OC subjunctives is

[- R], while the subject of F-subjunctive clauses is [+R] for NOC contexts and [-R] for OC

contexts. Both values of [R] are interpretable on nominals (DP, pro, and PRO) and

uninterpretable on functional heads: 1 and CO (Landau 2004:841).

The "interface" between the clause type features and the DP features is stated in an R-

assignment Rule (Landau 2004:842). According to this rule, if Io or CO are specified for [+T,

+Agr], the respective head will bear [+R]; any other combination, containing a negative value,

leads to [-R]. For instance, F-subjunctives have [+T,+Agr] on both CO and 1, due to their

dependent tense and overt morphology on the verb. All the features and their loci involved in the

respective embedded clauses are given in Table 5-3.

Table 5-3 Features [T], [Agr] and [R]
CO PRO 10 DP/pro
OC-subj. u[-T] i[-R,+Agr] i[-T] u[+Agr] u[-R]
EC inf. u[-T] i[-R,+Agr] i[-T] u[-Agr] u[-R]
PC-inf. u[+T] u[+Agr] u[+R] i[-R,+Agr] i[+T] u[-Agr] u[-R]
F-subj.Noc u[+T] u[+Agr] u[+R] i[+T] u[+Agr] u[+R] i[+R]
F-subj.Ctrl u[+T] u[+Agr] u[+R] i[-R, +Agr] i[+T] u[+Agr] u[+R]
DP/pro also have i[+Agr]

As can be seen, only the combination [+T,+Agr] results in [+R] on CO and 1, according

to the R-assignment rule. What is important in Landau's framework is that any negative

specification of [T] or [Agr] on I1 licenses PRO. He points out that the syntactic environments

that require a lexical subject form a natural class. "PRO is the elsewhere case of lexical









subjects". PRO does not belong to its own natural class (Landau, 2006:8). This is the distribution

of PRO.

The matrix controller, as a DP, has the features i[+R,+Agr]. The controller is represented

by the functional head (F) that licenses the controller. F inherits the features [+/-R] from the

controller (Landau, 2006:11). The matrix F has uninterpretable phi-features (Landau, 2000:65).

The feature [R] on F, a functional head, is also uninterpretable. In case of subject control, the

value of [R] on F is positive when F is the T head. The value of [R] is negative in case the

controller is a PRO. F in object control is little v, in which case there is no [R] value; The F head

would have only u[+Agr] feature.

5.4.2 Landau's Mechanism of Computation

Following Chomsky (2000, 2001) obligatory control falls under the operation Agree,

involving feature matching, checking, and deletion.

It is assumed that the checked features persist to the end of their phase so that the DP

controller does not consume the features of the functional (matrix) head completely. Thus, the

features can enter another checking relation before being erased.

The goal of the operation Agree in OC is either PRO (yielding EC) or embedded Agr

(yielding PC). Agr is a potential goal because of its uninterpretable features that need to be

erased. PRO is a potential goal because of its anaphoric feature [-R]. This [-R] gives the

direction to coindex the phi-features of PRO with those of an antecedent. Thus, PRO establishes

an Agree relation with the matrix antecedent.

The probe of the operation Agree is the matrix functional head F. F enters an agree

relation with the controller DP from which it inherits the features [Agr] and [R]. F then enters a

second agree relation with PRO, either directly, or through Co. Agree delivers thephi features

that F inherited from the matrix argument (controller) to PRO. This way, the features of PRO are









valued by the controller, via F, which explains why PRO and the matrix controller have the same

identity.

Licensing of the subject (PRO) means checking off whatever uninterpretable features I1

and Co may bear. The features of PRO are interpretable and never erased.

5.4.3 Subjunctive and Infinitive Complements

For each of the five structures in the tables above, I will include one illustrative sentence,

a tree diagram of the embedded clause, and a diagram with all the involved elements with their

respective features, all the agree operations, and the erasure of the uninterpretable features. The

shaded features show that they enter a second agree relation.

The sentences have a lexical complementizer in parentheses to show that ca is possible in

all subjunctive complements in OSR and that de is possible in infinitive complements.

For Romanian, the domain of I needs to be split into Mo from (M)oodP headed by sct (for

subjunctive complements) or a (for infinitival complements) replacing 1, and T, in order to

provide a landing site for the moved verb, subjunctive or infinitive.

5.4.3.1 F-subjunctive clauses: NOC

As established, in F-subjunctive contexts (81) there are an interpretable [+T] feature on

M (1) and a uninterpetable [+T] feature on Co. Also [+Agr] appears on both heads, which

makes them both to be associated with [+R], according to the R-assignment Rule.

The difference between OC-subjunctive clauses and F-subjunctive clauses is the lack of

feature [Agr] on C and the negative [Tense] feature on the former. OC-subjunctives and F-

subjunctives yielding obligatory control are similar in that they have PRO subject with its

interpretable features [-R], [+Agr].

(81) a. Radul vrea (ca) sa gateascd Mara2.
Radu wants (that) sa cook.3sg Mara
'Radu wants Mara to cook.'









b.
DP... F....C

C
(ca)


M
sa gateasca v

Mara v

v


tgateasca
C.
DP... F C Mo (I0) vpDP/pro
i[+Agr] u[4AgE] u-+T] i[+T] i[+R]
i[+R] *+R] u[+Agr], u[+R] i[+R], i[+Agr] i[+Agr]
I------Agree [+Agr, +R] ------

i[+T]


Agree3 [+Agr,+R] Agree2 [+T, +Agr, +R]

For the first agree operation in the F-subjunctive NOC of (80), the lexical DP orpro (the

embedded subject) checks the features [+Agr], [+R] on Mo under Agree 1. The same features on

M (shaded) are still available to check their counterparts on Co, so M enters a second agree

relation with Co. It is assumed that the checked features are still accessible (for another checking)

and only at the end of the phase become inaccessible (Chomsky 2000, 2001). So, Mo and Co

enter an agree relation and the uninterpretable features on both heads get erased Agree 2.

Finally, Agree 3 between the matrix DP and F leads to the erasing of the uninterpretable

features ofF.









5.4.3.2 F-subjunctive clauses: OC

Co and Mo have the same features in both F-subjunctive with no control and with OC. In

an F-subjunctive with OC like (82) however, there is PRO with the interpretable feature [-R] and

[+Agr].

(82) a. Maral sperd (ca) PRO1 sd plece (ea insSii) curdnd.


Mara hopes sd leave.3sg (herself)
'Mara hopes (for herself) to leave soon.'


soon


DP... F....C

C
(ca) /
PRO

M
sa












c.


\TP


plece v/

tPRO V

v
tplece
V AdvP
tplece

curdnd


o o


DP... F C PRO M(I") tpRO
i[+Agr] u+Agr] {+t] i[-R] i[+T]
if+R] u-+-R] u+Age] i[+Agr] u-+Ag]
Agree3 [+Agr,+R] ttfR ttf
Agree2 [+T,+Agr,+R] Agreel [+Agr]

Agree4 [+Agr]

In (82), PRO enters an agree relation with Mo with the feature [+Agr] under Agree 1.

Through Agree 2, the identical features u[+R] on Mo and Co check and cancel each other

off. The feature u[+Agr] of Mo enters a second agree relation, at this time with Co. Also, the

interpretable [+T] feature of Mo checks off its uninterpretable counterpart on C.









Agree 3 occurs between the matrix (controller) DP and the functional head F which

enters an agree relation to evaluate de features u[+Agr, +R] on F. These features are not erased

right away, but remain accessible for another agree relation.

The anaphoric nature of PRO requires identification with an antecedent. This is mediated

by C in Agree 4. The [+Agr] on Co is still accessible for a second relation with F to ensure the

control relation. (F agrees with C0, which is coindexed with PRO via Mo). This is possible

because C is the head of the phase, so its features are deleted at the next phase up. The

uninterpretable features being erased, and PRO is licensed.

5.4.3.3 OC-subjunctive clauses

An OC-subjunctive clause (83) has an interpretable [-T] on I1 and uninterpretable [-T]

feature on C0, which leads to no [Agr] feature on this node. A feature [+Agr] appears only on IO.

Under the R-assignment rule, I1 is associated with [-R]. There is no [R] value on CO because of

lack of [Agr]. PRO has the interpretable features [-R], [+Agr].

(83) a. Radul incearcd (ca) PRO1 sa doarmi.
Radu tries (that) sa sleep.3sg
'Radu is trying to sleep.'

b.
DP... F....C

C
(ca) /
PRO P

M
sa doarma vP

tPRO

v V
tdoarm A
V
tdoarma










PRO
i[-R]
i[+Agr]

Agree2 r-Tn


M (1) tPRO
i[-T]
u[ Agr]ee +Ar

_r~~2


I Agree4 [-R,+Agr

In the context of (82), first PRO checks the features [-R] and [+Agr] on Mo. So, the

eraser of [-R] on I1 is PRO: Agree 1. Then, Mo and Co enter an agree relation and the

uninterpretable [-T] feature on C is erased under the operation Agree 2. Under Agree 3, the DP

controller values the features ofF. The features on F are not used up, so they can enter another

Agree relation (with PRO). As the anaphoric nature of PRO (being [-R]) requires an antecedent,

PRO enters another agree relation with F to value its features: Agree 4.

5.4.3.4 EC-infinitive clauses

Like OC-subjunctives, an EC clause (84) has the feature [-T] on CO and I1 and [-Agr] on

1. Then [-T], [-Agr] on I1 leads to [-R] on this node. There is no [-R] value on C.

(84) a. Radul incearcd (de) PRO1 a dormi.
Radu tries (de) to sleep
'Radu is trying to sleep.'


DP... F....C

C
(de) /
PRO TP

M
a dormi v

tPRO

v 7
tdormi
V
tdormi


c.
DP....
i[+Agr]
i[+R]


F
u[+Agf]
nr+t}
u n1^


Co
utl-f










c.
DP...... F CO PRO I/Mo tpRo i[+Agr]
tu[Agr] u{-T] i[-R] i[-T]
i[+R] ut+R} i[+Agr] u[-Ag]


Agree3 [+R, +Agr] Agree2 [-T] Agree l [-R, -Agr]


Agree4 [+Agr]


Agree 1 takes place between Mo and PRO. Since there is no [R] feature on Co, the only

eraser ofu[-R] on M is PRO. [+Agr] of PRO can also erase u[-Agr] on M.

Under Agree 2, between Mo and Co, the interpretable feature [-T] of Mo erases the

uninterpretable feature [-T] of Co.

Agree 3, between the matrix DP and F evaluate, the uninterpretable features ofF, but they

remain accessible for a new agree relation.

Agree 4. PRO enters an Agree relation with F for valuation/identification. PRO uses its

feature [+Agr]. After that, the features of F are erased.

5.4.3.5 PC-infinitive clauses

The example (85) features a PC infinitive complement. Recall that PRO in PC structures

includes the controller and some members of the group.

The tables above show that in PC-infinitives, CO bears the features [+T], [+Agr], a

combination associated with [+R] in conformity with the R-assignment Rule. The value of [R]

on Mo is negative due to the negative [-Agr].

(85) a. Maral Stie cd
Mara knows that
Radu2 nu sperd (de) PRO2+ a se reuni curdnd.
Radu not hopes (de) to rflx reunite soon
'Mara knows that Radu does not hope to reunite soon.'
(i.e. 'Mara knows that Radu does not hope that they will reunite soon.')









b.
DP... F....C

C
(de) /
PRO TP

M
a se reuni v

tPRO V

v -P
tse reuni
V AdvP
tse reuni

curdnd

C.
DP F C PRO I /M tpRo
i[+R] tt-+R] utt+T] i[-R] i[+T]
i[+Agr] i+ =Age] i[+Agr] ]
1re -+t] tiE-i]

Agree [+Agr,+R] Agree2 [+/-Agr, +T] Agree [-Agr,-R]

Agree [+Agr, +R]

MO enters two Agree relations: with PRO and Co. [-Agr] of Mo takes place in both as

allowed by Phase Theory. Thus, Agree 1 between PRO and Mo takes place with the participation

of u[-Agr]. This feature remains accessible for a second agree relation (with Co).

Co having the feature [+Agr] enters an agree relation with [-Agr] on Mo under Agree 2.

([+Agr] on C and [-Agr] on I constitute a match (in their values ofphi-features) and enter an

agreement relation (Landau 2004:839)). [-Agr] on Co remains accessible for a second agree

relation (with F).

Through Agree 3, between the matrix DP and F, the features ofF are valuated but remain

accessible for a second agree relation.









Finally, CO enters a second agree relation with the matrix head F (which inherits [+R]

from the matrix DP) to get rid of its uninterpretable [+R], allowing PRO to be licensed: Agree 4.

Thus, PC infinitives are mediated by Co, the second route in Landau's Agreement Model of OC.

5.4.4 Moving PRO to the Subject Position

Chomsky (1972) defines EPP, Extended Projection Principle, as: "Every clause must

have a subject". Then Chomsky (1995) redefines EPP as a strong D feature on T that triggers

subject raising or expletive insertion in [Spec,TP]. That is, the subject position must be filled.

According to this principle, moving PRO to the [Spec,TP] of a controlled clause would not be a

problem for a language like English considered to have a strong D feature on T. Since the subject

in Romanian can remain in situ, where it is merged, the EPP is not a solution for moving PRO.

Landau (2007a) argues that PRO, as an element with no phonological realization, cannot

satisfy the EPP, hence control clauses lack the EPP property, or the [P] feature, in Landau's

terms. The licensing feature of PRO, [-R], is considered by Landau to be a selectional feature of

T. Being a selectional feature, it can only be satisfied locally. As the [P] of EPP drives the raising

of an overt subject to [Spec,TP], [-R] drives the raising of PRO to [Spec,TP].

Agreement alone cannot drive movement and p(honological)-selection does not apply to

PRO so, by elimination, s- selection by the T head is responsible for PRO in [Spec,TP]. In this

configuration, the EPP is not involved. Landau (2007a) considers the EPP divorced from control

because the EPP effects are restricted to P(honological F(orms).

This section has presented a detailed description of how Landau's Agreement Model of

OC can be applied to all instances of obligatory control in Romanian: EC and PC infinitives,

OC-subjunctive, and OC in F-subjunctive. This framework, as illustrated in Landau (2004, 2006)

can also accommodate the NOC variety of F-subjunctives.









However, one minor adjustment was necessary. What is the I head in Landau's

configuration becomes the M head of MoodP for Romanian, for the mood markers sct and a.

This way, IP is split into MP and TP. The T projection is considered the landing site for the

moved verb.

A mechanism for moving PRO to the subject position, [Spec, MP] in Romanian, is

provided by Landau (2007a), in which the feature [-R] triggers the raising of PRO to this

position.

5.5. Conclusions

The task of this chapter was to provide a theoretical framework for the subjunctive and

infinitival obligatory control structures in Romanian, in order to account for the characteristics of

these structures as described in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4.

Based on B&H's (2006) and B&L (2007) I showed that the MTC is not the best choice

for OC clauses in Romanian, especially because of the case of PRO. Contrary to B&H's

assumptions, a nominative PRO bears a standard/structural case, as proven by the fact that an

infinitive triggers the same agreement manifested in finite contexts, and by the availability of

structural nominative in infinitive clauses. These facts are difficult to explain if case is assigned

only once (in the matrix subject position) and PRO is a trace in an A-chain.

Since OC and raising have been shown to have different properties in Romanian, it is not

surprising that a case mismatch, e.g., when the controller or controlee bears inherent or quirky

case, is possible only with an OC structure, not with a raising structure. Moreover, Matching

inherent or quirky case upstairs and downstairs is not possible because the dative clitics can be

shown to belong to separate chains. Finally, the fact that lexical complementizers can occur in

OC but not in raising also demonstrates the absence of a chain in OC. If there were such a chain,

a filled C should cause the derivation to crash, as it does with raising structures.









On many recent accounts, PRO has standard case, entailing that its distribution must be

accounted for in some other manner. In this regards, the Agreement Model fits the Romanian

data better than the MTC does. To demonstrate this, I have applied the Agreement Model to all

of the relevant Romanian data, illustrating in detail the Agree operations involved in the

licensing of PRO and the erasing of the intersecting uninterpretable features.









CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS

A ceti Si a nu intelege iaste a vdntura vdntul1
-Miron Costin

6.1 Summary and Findings

One of the major contributions of this study is the history of the Romanian infinitive, with

a detailed account of its phonological, semantic, morphological and syntactic changes. This

account differs from previous philological studies in including data from original written sources

never before investigated.

My history of the infinitive documents the stages of development of this syntactic

category and, additionally, provides valuable information about infinitival complement clauses in

general. Finally, the wealth of data from the written sources used for my analysis of infinitival

complement clauses has great value for future research on these constructions, which have all but

disappeared from Contemporary Romanian.

The parallel analyses of subjunctive complement and infinitival complement clauses

revealed a number of similarities between the two. First, OC-subjunctive clauses and EC-

infinitival clauses are selected by the same semantic classes of verbs, and F-subjunctives and PC

infinitives are also selected by their own types of matrix verbs. Furthermore, OC-subjunctives

and EC-infinitives display anaphoric tense and F-subjunctives and PC-infinitives have dependent

tense. While OC-subjunctives, EC-infinitives and PC-infinitives are obligatory control structures,

F-subjunctives may be OC or NOC clauses, similar to the complements of English verbs prefer,

want, etc which may either take OC or NOC complements.





1 To read and not to understand is to winnow the wind.









In this study, it has been finally demonstrated that the subjunctive particle sct and the

infinitival particle a are, without any doubt, mood markers, I/M elements, heading their own

projection MP. It has also been argued that the infinitival particle de, never analyzed before, is a

complementizer in general and an infinitival complementizer in particular in conformity to the

presented evidence. In Romance in general, de/di is also an infinitival complementizer, as argued

by Rizzi (1982), Kayne (1981, 2000) and others.

In spite of the subjunctive verbal morphology, the tense of subjunctive complement clauses

is semantic, anaphoric for OC-subjunctives and dependent for F-subjunctives. And in spite of the

person morphology, the null subject of subjunctive OC structures is PRO, resulting from the

characteristics associated with this entity. This raises the question whether there is any evidence

of the obligatory agreement beginning to disappear when the subject is PRO (and not lexical).

It is a general fact about Romanian that a clitic cannot climb over sentential functional

heads, such as negation, M0, or Co. Moreover, a negation cannot cross over a complementizer or

an M head.

Obviation, dubbed "general obviation" as in Romance when the embedded subject of a

subjunctive complement is always disjoint in reference from the matrix subject does not occur in

Romanian. Also, "reduced obviation" which occurs in the presence of certain elements, such as

a complementizer is also absent from Romanian subjunctive complements.

Of great significance is the evidence that PRO has standard structural nominative, as

demonstrated, or inherent or quirky dative when nominative is not assigned. PRO is indeed

assigned the same case a lexical subject is assigned. Having its own standard case, PRO is not a

trace in an A-movement chain, a fact further substantiated by the presence of lexical

complementizers, which disallow movement across them. Inherent or quirky case in either of the









two subject positions of an OC sentence, or in both, proved to be fatal for movement. Clitic

doubling acts as palpable evidence that a case has been assigned in the respective clause, thus

indicating a separate chain for each clause.

Case is the main reason why the MTC is not appealing for Romanian OC structures. Since

the Agreement Model of OC divorces case from the distribution of PRO, and OC is not a reflex

of A-movement, this theory is better equipped for the OC in Romanian.

6.2 Suggestions for Future Research

It remains unclear why obviation does not occur in F-subjunctive complements. The

subjunctive particle sct and the visibility of the MoodP headed by the particle may be the cause,

although how this would work to prevent obviation needs to be determined. One idea can be

found in Martineau (1994) who suggests that the lack of obviation in Older French would be the

result of the visible MoodP, which restricts the binding domain to the embedded subjunctive

clause.

There is still a debate about the CP/IP type of these clauses resulting from the presence or

absence of a complementizer. Some researchers argue that a clause is a CP clause only when a

lexical complementizer introduces it, while other researchers argue that the presence of a

complementizer is not the sine qua non condition for a clause to be of the CP type. The latter

group also argues that subjunctive clauses should be CP clauses. Thus, it is necessary to find a

common ground of how to establish the type of clause in general and for Romanian and Balkan

subjunctives in particular.

Concerning the Romanian infinitive, many topics remain in need of analysis. First, the

elements of obligatory control in infinitival adjunct clauses are to be described and a theoretical

approach to account for such structures is to be established. An example of adjunct OC with

infinitive is given in (1).









(1) Radu a plecat fiar a spune la revedere
Radu has left without to say good buy'
'Radu left without saying good -bye.'

The temporal adjuncts of the type (2) are included with their Romance counterparts in the

larger category called Personal Infinitives (Ledgeway, 1998, 2000). They also need to be

analyzed and compared with other Romance corresponding structures.

(2) Mara a terminal articolul inainte de a sosi Radu.
Mara has finished article before de to arrive Radu
'Mara finished the article before Radu arrived.'

The list of predicates that can select de a-infinitive complements (Section 4.3) must be

completed. In addition, the preposition de and other prepositions that appear to be different from

the complementizer de found in infinitival complements must be analyzed.

Attention must also be paid to the relative function of de, which is moribund in indicative

constructions as in (3).

(3) Acei copaci de se vdd in depdrtare.
those trees which rflx see in the distance
'Those trees which can be seen in the distance.'

Raising structures, particularly those constructed with subjunctive need to be thoroughly

analyzed. For instance, a list of the raising predicates needs to be provided, and whether the

subject raises for case or other reasons must also be established. Most importantly, the

differences between raising and OC structures must be highlighted to avoid confusion between

the two. In other words, some raising verbs may have double nature, i.e., they are able to take

OC complements in addition to raising complements.

Finally, a comprehensive and precise account of case patterns in Romanian would be

very useful, especially in situations where inherent or quirky case is assigned. This case can

mark both subjects and objects and it seems hard to distinguish the two. Case transmission may









or may not occur in Romanian, but to determine this a language specific test is required (Landau,


2007).









PRIMARY SOURCES

Alecsandri, Vasile (1821-1890). Opere complete. Poesii. Bucuresti, 1875: Editura librdriei Socec
& Comp.

Alexandrescu, Grigore (1810-1885). Poezii. Bucuresti, 1970: Editura Minerva.

Alexiu, Eleonara. 1939. Documente de pe Valea Teleajenului din Arhiva Domnului Gh. L
Ceresanu. Bucuresti: Editura Bucovina.

Astromax. 2008. http://astromax.eva.ro/horoscop_2008/horoscopul-dragostei-2008-leu.html

Balcescu, Nicolae. 1852. Romdnii sub Mihai-Voddt Viteazul. Bucuresti 1908: Institutul de Arte
Grafice Carol Gobl/ Tipografia si Legdtoria Gr. Iliescu

Blaga, Lucian (1895-1961). Poezii. Bucuresti, 1982: Editura Cartea Romineascd.

Codicele Voronetean. (Aprox) 1528/1532. Editor Ion al lui G. Sbiera. Editiunea Academiei
Romane, Cerndut 1885.

Coresi. 1561. Tetraevanghelul. Editie alcatuitd de Florica Dimitrescu. Bucuresti 1963: Editura
Academiei Republicii Populare Romane, Institutul de Lingvisticd.

Coresi. 1577. Psaltirea Slavo-Romdnt. Editor Stela Toma Bucuresti 1976: Editura Academiei
Republicii Socialiste Romania.

Coresi 1581. Carte cu InvdttFturd. Publicata de Sextil Puscariu si Alexie Procopovici. Bucuresti
1914: Atelierele Grafice Socec & CO., Societate Anonima.

Costin, Miron. 1675. Letopisetul Ttrii Moldovei dela Aron Voddt incoace. Editor P.P. Panaitescu.
Fundatia Regald pentru Literaturd si Artn, Bucuresti 1944

CoSbuc, George. (1866-1918). Poezii Alese. Bucuresti, 1970; Editura Minerva.

Creanga, Ion. 1883. Amintiri din Copildrie. In, Opere, ed. George Calinescu. Bucuresti 1954:
Editura de Stat pentru Literatura si Artn.

Delavrancea, Barbu (1858-1918). Parazitii. Bucuresti, 1893: Editura Ig. Haimann.

Dosoftei. 1682/1686. Vietile Sfintilor. In, Alexandru Rosetti. 1968. Istoria Limbii Romdne de la
origin pdndt in secolul al XVII-lea. Bucuresti: Editura Pentru Literatura.

Eminescu, Mihai (1852-1889). Poezii. Bucuresti 1980: Editura Eminescu.

Eminescu, Mihai (1852-1889). Poezii/Podsies. Bucuresti, 1982. Editura Libra.









Galaction, Gala (1879-1961). Opere. Bucuresti, 1949: Editura pentru literature si arta a Societdtii
scriitorilor din R.P.R.

Gramatica Limbii Romdne.1963. Bucuresti: Academia Republicii Populare Romane.

Hasdeu, Bogdan Petriceicu (1838-1907). loan-voddt eel Cumplit. Bucuresti, 1865: Imprimeria
Ministerului de rezbel.

Micu, Samuel. 1789. Istoria Bisericeasct. Sfanta Mdndstire Bistrita, Eparhia Rdmnicului 1993.

Minulescu, Ion. (1881-1944). Versuri. Bucuresti, 1977. Editura Minerva.

Monitorul Oficial al Romdniei, Mai 1877. Mihai Eminescu's 1876 letter.

Neculce, Ion. (1672-1745/6). Letopisetul Tarii Moldovei si O samd de cuvinte. Editie de Iorgu
lordan. Bucuresti 1959: Editura de Stat pentru Literatura si Arta.

Negruzzi, Costantin (1808-1868). Scrierile lui Constantin Negruzzi. Bucuresti, 1872: Librdria
Socec & Comp.

Odobescu, Octavian (1834-1895). Scrieri literare gi istorice. Bucureqti, 1887: Editura Librdriei
Socec & Comp.

Popescu, Corina. 2000. Verismul Italian gi literature romdnt: Teatrul Italian in Romania 1871-
1911. Editura Universitdtii din Bucureqti.

Popescu, Stefania. 1992. Gramaticapractica a limbii romdne cu o culegere de exercitii.
BucureSti: Editura Didacticd Si Pedagogicd R.A.

Potra, George et. al. 1972. Ion Heliade Rdtdulescu, Scrisori i Acte. Bucuresti: Editura Minerva.

Rdmniceanu, Naum. 1802. Cronica dela Blaj. In, Cronica Ineditt dela Blaj a Protosinghelului
Naum Rdmniceanu. Editia St. Bezdechi, Universitatea Sibiu. Cluj-Sibiu, 1944.
Tipografia Cartea Romdneascd.

Romdnia Liberd, June 3, 2006. Bucuresti, Societatea "R" S. A. http://www.romanialibera.ro/

Romdnia Liberti, March 14, 2007. Bucuresti, Societatea "R" S. A. http://www.romanialibera.ro/

Romdnia Literard 31, 5.8.1998. Fundatia "Romania Literara", Bucuresti, 1995-2001:
http://www.romlit.ro/

Rotaru, Ion. 1981. Literature Romdnt Veche. Bucuresti: Editura Didactica si Pedagogica.

Sadoveanu, Mihail (1880-1961). Opere. Bucuresti, 1954-1960: Editura de Stat pentru Literatura
si Artn.










Slavici, Ion (1848-1925). Opere. (Nuvele, Mara). Bucureqti, 1952: Editura de Stat pentru
Literature i Artn.

Stefanelli, T. V. 1915. Documente din vechiul ocol al Cdmpulungului Moldovenesc. Bucureqti
1915: Editiunea Academiei Romdne.

Ureche, Grigore. 1647. Letopisetul Tarii Moldovei pdn la Aron Vodd (1359-1595). Editor
Constantin C. Giurescu. Craiova, 1916: Editura Scrisul Romdnesc S. A.









LIST OF REFERENCES


Adamescu, Gheorghe. 2007. Istoria literaturii Romdne. http://biblior.net/istoria-literaturii-
romane.html

Andrews, Avery. 1976. The VP-Complement Analysis in Modern Icelandic. In Proceedings of
the 6th Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society.

Andrews, Avery. 1982. The Representation of Case in Modem Icelandic. In The Mental
Representation of Grammatical Relations, ed. Joan Bresnan, 424-503. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Andrews, Avery. 1990. Case structure and control in Modern Icelandic. In Modern Icelandic
Syntax, ed. Joan Maling and Annie Zaenen, 187-234. Sand Diego: Academic Press.

Avrutin, Sergey and Maria Babyonishev. 1997. Obviation in Subjunctive Clauses and Evidence
from Russian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15, 229-262.

Babby, Leonard H. 1991. Noncanonical Configurational Case Assignment Strategies. Cornell
Working Papers in Linguistics 9, 1-55.

Baric, Henrik. 1961. La perte de l'infinitif dans les langues balkaniques. GodiSnjak BalkanoloSki
InstitutII: 1-11, Sarajevo: Naucno Dru2tvo NR Bosne I Hercegovine.

Bdard, Doru. 1998. Tiparul I, iminue. la \fa ii,i/l secolului alXVII-lea gi inceputul secolului al
XVIII-lea (L 'imprimerie roumaine a lafin du XVIIe siecle et le debut du XVIIIe).
Brdila: Editura Istros.

Balcescu, Nicolae. 1852. Romdnii Sub Mihai -Vodd Viteazul. BucureSti 1908: Institutul de Arte
Grafice Carol Gobl.

Bdltutd, Mitrofan. 1993. Tipografia greceasct de la mtndstirea Cetdttuia (L 'imprimerie grecque
du monastere de Cetttuia). TV 3(69), No. 11-12: 58-64.

Bejar, Susana and Diane Massam. 1999. Multiple Case Checking. Syntax 2, 65-79.

Bobalijk, Jonathan David and Idan Landau. 2007. Fact and Fiction in Icelandic Control.
Manuscrpit forthcoming in Linguistic Inquiry.

Boeckx, Cedric and Norbert Hornstein. 2006. Control in Icelandic and Theories of Control.
Linguistic Inquiry 37:4, 591-606.

BoSkovic, Zeljko 1997. The Syntax ofNonfinite Complementation. An Economy Approach.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bresnan, Joan. 1982. Control and complementation. Linguistic Inquiry 13, 3, 343-434.









Bouchard, Denis. 1985. PRO, Pronominal or Anaphor. Linguistic Inquiry 16, 471-477.

Calabrese, Andrea. 1992. The Lack of Infinitival Clauses in Salentino: A Synchronic Analysis.
In Theoretical Analyses in Romance Linguistics, ed. Christiane Laeufer and Morgan
Terrel A. 267-294. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Chierchia, Gennaro. 1984. Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Infinitives and Gerunds.
Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts.

Chierchia, Gennaro. 1989. Anaphora and Attitudes De Se. In Semantics and Contextual
Expression, ed. R. Bartsch, J. van Nenthen and P. Van Emde Boas. Dodrecht: Foris
Publication.

Chierchia, Gennaro 2004. A Semantics for Unaccusatives and its syntactic consequences. In The
unaccusativity puzzle, ed. Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopolou and Martin
Everaert, 22-59. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dodrecht: Mouton de Gruyter.

Chomsky, Noam. 1986a. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 1986b. Knowledge ofLanguage. New York: Praeger.

Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In Step by Step, ed. Roger Martin
and David Michales and Juan Uriagereka, 89-155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Michael
Kenstowicz. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 2005 On Phases. Manuscript forthcoming in Foundational Issues in Linguistic
Theory, ed. C.P.Otero et al. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Chomsky, Noam and Howard Lasnik. 1993. Principles and Parameters Theory. In Syntax: An
International Handbook of Contemporary Research, ed. Joachim Jacobs, Arnim v.
Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld and Theo Vennemann, 506-569. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Comorovski, Ileana. 1986. Control and Obviation in Romanian. In Preceedings of the Second
Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. Buffalo, New York: The State Univeristy of
New York at Buffalo.

Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 1991. The Syntax ofRomanian, Comparative Studies in Romance.
Book manuscript.









Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 1994. The Syntax ofRomanian, Comparative Studies in Romance.
Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 2001. Head-to-Head Merge in Balkan Subjunctive and Locality. In
Comparative Syntax ofBalkan Languages, ed. Maria Luisa Rivero and Angela Ralli.
Oxford University Press.

Doherty, Cathal. 1993. Clauses without that: The case for bare sentential complementation in
English. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.

Doherty, Cathal. 1997. Clauses without complementizers: Finite IP-complementation in English.
The Linguistic Review 14, 197-220.

Farkas, Donca F. 1984. Subjunctive Complements in Romanian. In Papers from the XIIth
Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, 335-72.

Farkas, Donca F. 1985. Obligatorily Controlled Subjects in Romanian. In Proceedings of the
21st Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, ed. William H. Eilfort, Paul D.
Kroeber, and Karen L. Peterson, 90-100, Chicago: University of Chicago.

Farkas, Donca F. 1992. On Obviation. In Lexical matters, ed. Ivan A. Sag and Anna Szabolcsi.
CSLI Leland Stanford Junior University.

Faarlund, Jan Terje. 1990. Syntactic Change: Toward a Theory of Historical Syntax. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.

Giorgi, Alessandri and Fabio Pianesi. 2004. Complementizer Deletion in Italian. In The Structure
ofCP and IP; The Cartography of Syntactic Structures. Vol.2, ed. Luigi Rizzi. Oxford
University Press. (Series: Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax)

Gramatica Limbii Romane. 1963. Bucuresti: Academia Republicii Populare Romane.

Graur, Alexandru et al. 1969. Istoria Limbii Romdne. Bucuresti, Editura Academiei Republicii
Popular Romane.

Grimshaw, Jane. 1977. Argument Structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press

Grosu, Alexander and Julia Horvath. 1984. The GB Theory and Raising in Romanian. Linguistic
Inquiry 15, 2.

Guasti, Maria Teresa 1991. Incorporation, Excorporation and Lexical Properties of Causative
Heads. Linguistic Review 8, 209-232.

Halle, Morris and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In
The view from building 20; Essays in honor ofSylvain Bromberger, ed. Kenneth Hale
and Samuel Jay Keyser, 111-176. Cambridge, Mass.:MIT Press.










Harbert, Wayne E. and Almeida J. Toribio. 1991. Nominative Objects. Cornell Working Papers
in Linguistics 9, 127-92.

Haegeman, Liliane. 1994. Introduction to Government & Binding Theory. Oxford UK &
Cambridge USA: Blackwell.

Haspelmath, Martin. 1989. From Purposive To Infinitive A Universal Path Of
Grammaticization. Folia Linguistica Historica, X/1-2:287-310.

Higginbotham 1989 In The Null Subject parameter, ed. Osvaldo Jaeggli and Kenneth J. Safir.
Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Hornstein, Norbert. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry, 30:69-96.

Hornstein Norbert. 2001. Move! A Minimalist Theory of Construal. Oxford: Blackwell

Hornstein Norbert. 2003. On control. In Minimalist Syntax, ed. Randall Hendrick, 6-81. Oxford:
Blackwell.

Huang, James C.T. 1989. PRO-Drop in Chinese: A Generalized Control Theory. In The Null
Subject parameter, ed. Osvaldo Jaeggli and Kenneth J. Safir, 185-214.
Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Iliescu, Maria. 1968. Encore sur le perte de l'infinitif en roumain. In Actes du premier congress
international des etudes balkaniques et sud-est europdennes VI (Linguistique), pp. 115-
118. Sofia: Academie Bulgare des Sciences.Geneva-Paris.

J6nsson, J6hannes Gisly. 1996. Clausal architecture and case in Icelandic, University of
Massachussets.

Joseph, Brian D. 1983. The Synchrony and diachrony of the Balkan infinitive. A study in areal,
general, and historical linguistics. Cambridge University Press.

Joseph, Brian D. 1999. Processes of Spread for Syntactic Constructions in the Balkans, in
Synchrony andDiachrony, ed. C. Tzitzilis. Balkan Linguistics: University of
Thessaloniki, Greece.

Kayne, Richard S. 1981. On certain differences between English and French. Linguistic Inquiry,
12, 3.

Kayne, Richard S. 1984. Connectedness andBinary Branching. Dodrecht: Foris Publications.

Kayne, Richard S. 1999. Prepositional complementizers as attractors. Probus, 11:39-73.

Kayne, Richard S. 2000. Parameters and Universals. Oxford: University Press.










Kawasaki, Noriko. 1993. Control and Arbitrary Interpretation in English. Doctoral, dissertation.
UMASS.

Kempchinsky, Paula Marie. 1986. Romance Subjunctive Clause and Logical Form. Doctoral
Dissertation, UCLA.

Kempchinsky, Paula Marie. 1987. The Subjunctive Disjoint Reference Effect. In Studies in
Romace Languages, ed. C. Neidle and R.A. Nufiez Cedefio, Dordrecht, Providence:
Foris

Kishimoto, Hideki. 2006. On the Existence of Null Complementizers in Syntax. Linguistic
Inquiry, 37:339-345.

Klagstadt, H. 1963. Toward a morpho-syntactic treatment of the Balkan linguistic group.
American Contributions to the Fifth International Congress of Slavists, I, 179-189. The
Hague: Mouton.

Koster, Jan and Robert May. 1982. On the constituency of infinitives. Language 58, 116-143.

Krapova, Iliyana. 2001. Subjunctives in Bulgarian and Modern Greek. In Comparative Syntax of
Balkan Languages, ed. Maria Luisa Rivero and Angela Ralli. Oxford University Press.

Labov, William. 1972a. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Labov, William. 1972b. Some principles of linguistic methodology. Language in Society, 1, 97-
120.

Labov, William. 2002. Driving Forces in Linguistic Change. International Conference on
Korean Linguistics. Seoul National University.

Landau, Idan. 2000. Elements of Control, Structure and Meaning in Infinitival Constructions.
Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Landau, Idan. 2003. Movement out of Control. Linguistic Inquiry 34, 471-498.


Landau, Idan. 2004. The Scale of Finiteness and the Calculus of Control. Natural Language and
Linguistic Theory, 22:811-877.

Landau, Idan. 2006. Severing the Distribution of PRO from Case. Syntax, 9:153-170.

Landau, Idan. 2007a. EPP Extensions. Linguistic Inquiry 38, 485-523.

Landau, Idan. 2007b. Two Routes of Control: Evidence from Case Transmission in Russian.
Manuscript Ben Gurion University, Israel.









Langacker, Ronald W. 1992. Prepositions as Grammatical(izing) Elements. Leuvense Bijdragen
81, 287-309.

Lasnik, Howard. 1995. Case and expletives revisited. Linguistic Inquiry 26, 615-633.

Lebeux, David. 1984. Anaphoric Binding and the Definition of PRO. In NELS ed. Charles Jones
and Peter Sells, 14, 253-274. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications, UMASS.

Ledgeway, Adam. 1998. Variation in the Romance infinitive: the case of the southern Calabrian
inflected infinitive. Transactions of the Philological Society, 96, 1-61.

Ledgeway, Adam. 2000. A comparative Syntax of the Dialects of S.Nlhe ii Italy: A Minimalist
Approach. Oxford and Boston: Publications of The Philological Society.

Levin, Lori and Jane Simpson. 1981.Quirky case and lexical representations of Icelandic verbs.
Chicago Linguistics Society 17, 185-196.

Martineau, France. 1994. The expression of the subjunctive in Old French. Catalan working
papers in linguistics 3, 45-69. Department de Filologia Catalana, Bellaterra, Espagne.

Meireles, Jose and Eduardo Raposo. 1983. Subjunctives and Disjoint Reference in Portuguese:
Some Implications for Binding Theory. Paper presented at the Colloqui International
de Linguistica Teorica i Llengues Romanicas, Barcelona.

Mensching, Guido. 2000. Infinitive Constructions in ith Specified Subjects. A Syntactic Analysis
of the Romance Languages. Oxford: University Press.

Miller, D. Gary. 2002. Nonfinite Structures in Theory and Change. Oxford: University Press.

Miller, D. Gary. 2008. Where do Conjugated Infinitives Come from? Manuscript, University of
Florida.

Motapanyane, Virginia. 1991. Theoretical implications of complementation in Romanian.
Doctoral dissertation, University of Geneva.

Motapanyane, Virginia. 1995. NP-Movement from Finite Clauses in Romanian. In Advances in
Roumanian Linguistics, ed. Guglielmo Cinque and Giuliana Giusti, 161-171.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Munn, Alan. 1999. First Conjunct Agreement: Against a Clausal Analysis. Linguistic Inquiry 30,
643-668.

Nunes, Jairo. 1995. The Copy Theory of Movement and Linearization of Chains in the
Minimalist Program. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.









Nunes, Jairo. 1999. Linearization of chains and phonetic realization of chain links. In Working
Minimalism, ed. Samuel David Epstein and Norbert, 217-249. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press

Nunes, Jairo. 2004. Linearization of chains and sideward movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.

Panaitescu, P.P. 1965. Inceputurile gi Biruinta Scrisului in Limba Romdn&. Bucuresti: Editura
Academiei Republicii Populare Romane.

Papacostea-Danielopolu, Cornelia. 1995. L 'imprimerie grecque des pays Roumains et la defense
de I'Orthodoxie au XVIIe et XVIII sicles. RRH 34, 1-2:11-16.

Park, Jong-Un and Myung-Kwan Park. 2004. Intervention effects in Experiencer Constructions
and Their Implications for the Theory of Move and Agree. Studies in Generative
Grammar 14, 199-224.

Pesetsky, David and Esther Torrego. 2001. T-to-C Movement: Cause and Consequences. In, Ken
Hale: A Life in Language, ed. Michael Kenstowics, 355-426. Cambridge MA: MIT
Press.

Petter, Marga. 1998. Getting PRO under Control: A Syntactic Analysis of the Nature and
Distribution of Unexpressed Subjects in Non-Finite and Verbless Clauses. The Hague:
Holland Academic Graphics.

Picallo, M. C. 1985. Opaque Domains. Doctoral dissertation, City University of New York.

Polinsky, Maria and Eric Potsdam. 2006. Expanding the Scope of Control and Raising. Syntax 9,
2, 171-192.

Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb Movement, Universal Grammar, and the Structure of IP.
Linguistic Inquiry 20, 3, 365-424.

Popescu, Stefania. 1992. Gramaticapractica a limbii romdne cu o culegere de exercitii.
Bucuresti: Editura Didacticd si Pedagogicd R.A.

Reinhart, Tanya and Tal Siloni. 2005. The Lexicon-Syntax Parameter: Reflexivization and Other
Arity Operations. Linguistic Inquiry, 36/3, 389.

Richardson, John F. 1986. Super-Equi and Anaphoric Control. CLS 22, 248-261.

Rivero, Maria Luisa. 1987. Barriers and the Null Subject Parameter in Modern Greek.
Proceedings ofNELS 18, 412-25.

Rivero, Maria Luisa. 1989. Barriers and Romanian. In Studies in Romance Linguistics, ed. C.
Kirschner and J .DeCesaris, 289-312. Amsterdam: Benjamins.










Rivero, Maria Luisa and Dana Geber. 2005. Raising in Romanian: Move and Agree. Linguistic
Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL) 34. Salt Lake City, Utah.

Rizzi, Luigi. 1982. Issues in Italian Syntax. Dodrecht: Foris Publications.

Rizzi, Luigi.1986a. Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry 17, 3. 501-
557.

Rizzi, Luigi. 1986b. On chain formation. In The syntax ofpronominal critics, ed. Hagit Borer,
65-95. New York: Academic Press.

Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar, ed. Liliane
Haegeman, Dodrecht: Kluwer. 281-3377.

Rizzi, Luigi and Ur Shlonsky. 2007. Strategies of Subject Extraction. In Interfaces + Recursion
+ Language? Chomsky 's Minimalism and the View from Syntax-Semantics, ed. H. M.
Gartner and U. Sauerland, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Rosenbaum, Peter. 1967. The Grammar of English Predicate Complement Constructions.
Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

Rosetti, Alexandru. 1968. Istoria Limbii Romdne de la origin pdnd in secolul al XVII-lea.
Bucuresti: Editura Pentru Literatura.

Rotaru, Ion. 1981. Literature Romdndt Veche. Bucuresti: Editura Didacticd si Pedagogicd.

Rozencvej g, V. 1976. Linguistic Interference and Convergent Change. The Hague: Mouton
(Janus Linguarum).

Saltarelli, Mario. 1981. The Loss of the Infinitive in the Balkan Languages. Conference on
.Srlilhbet' t Europe (American Association of .S,,iribelh t European Studies), Columbus,
Ohio.

San Martin, Itziar. 2008. Byeond the Infinitive vs, Subjunctive rivalry: surviving changes in
Mood. University of the Basque Country/HiTT.
http://www.uam.es/otros/16cgg/sanmartin.pdf

Sandfeld, Kristian. 1930. Linguistique balkanique. Problemes et resultats. Paris: Librarie
ancienne Honore Champion.

Schulte, Kim 2004. Pragmatic Causation in the Rise of the Romance Prepositional Infinitive; A
statistically-based study with special reference to Spanish, Portuguese and Romanian.
Doctoral Dissertation, Trinity College University of Cambridge.









Schutze, Carson. 1997. INFL in Child and Adult Language: Agreement, Case and Licensing.
Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.

Schutze, Carson T. 1993. Towards a Minimalist Account of Quirky Case and Licensing in
Icelandic. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 19, 321-375.

Schutze, Carson T. 1997. INFL in Child and Adult Language Agreement, Case and Licensing.
Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.

Sigur6sson, Halld6r Armann. 1989. Verbal Syntax and Case in Icelandic. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Lund, Sweden.

Sigur6sson, Halld6r Armann. 1991. Icelandic Case-marked PRO and the licensing of lexical
arguments. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 9, 327-363.

Sigur6sson, Halld6r Armann. 2002. To be an oblique subject: Russian vs. Icelandic. Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 20, 691-724.

Sigur6sson, Halld6r Armann. 2003. Case: Abstract vs. Morphological. In New Perspectives on
Case Theory, ed. Ellen Brandner and Heike Zinsmeister, 223-268. Stanford: CSLI
Publications.

Sigur6sson, Halld6r Armann. 2008. The Case of PRO. Manuscript, Lund University, Sweden.
http://ling.aufnet/lingBuzz/000395

Sitaridou, loanna. 2002. The Synchrony and Dyachroniy of Romance Infinitives with
Nominative Subjects. Doctoral dissertation, University of Manchester.

Stiebels, Barbara, Szymon Slodowicz and Yi-Chun Yang. 2003. Questionnaire for control verbs.
Manuscript, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
http://lingweb.eva.mpg.de/fieldtools/pdf/Barbara-
Stiebels/control_questionnaire_stiebels.pdf

Stowell, Tim. 1982. The Tense of Infinitives. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 561-70.

Sufier, Margarita. 1983. proarb. Linguistics Inquiry 14, 1, 188-191.

Terzi, Arhonto, 1992. PRO in Finite Clauses: A study of the Inflectional Heads of the Balkan
Languages. Doctoral dissertation, CUNY Graduate Center, NY.

Terzi, Arhonto, 1997. PRO and null Case in finite clauses. The Linguistic Review 14, 335-360.

Thrainsson, Hoskuldur. 1979. On Complementation in Icelandic. New York: Garland.

Togeby, Knud. 1962. L'infinitif dans les langues balkaniques. Romance Philology 15, 221-233.









Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Constructions in grammaticalization. In A Handbook of
Historical Linguistics, ed. Brian D. Joseph and Richard D. Janda, Oxford: Blackwell,
624-647.

Turano, Giuseppina. 1994. Syntactic Dependencies in Albanian. Doctoral dissertation, University
of Florence, Florence.

Varlokosta, Spyridoula. 1993. Control in Modern Greek. In Working Papers in Linguistics, ed.
Carol A. Mason, Susan M. Powers and Cristina Schmidt, University of Maryland
Working Papers in Linguistics 1, 144-163

Varlokosta, Spyridoula and Norbert Hornstein. 1993. Control Complements in Modern Greek.
Proceedings ofNELS 23.507-521.

Vittorini, D. 1942. Use of Prepositions before the Infinitive Mood in the Romance Languages.
The Modern Language Journal 26, 6, 439-441.

Williams, Edwin. 1980. Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 15, 203-238.

Zaenen, Annie, Maling, Joan & Thrainsson, Hoskuldur. 1985. Case and Grammatical Functions:
The Icelandic Passive. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3, 441-483.

Zanuttini, Raffaella. 1989. The structure of negative clauses in Romance, NELS 20, 517-530.

Zanuttini, Raffaella. 1990. On the Relevance of Tense for Sentential Negation. Paper presented
at the MIT Conference on Time in Language.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Born and raised in Romania, Maria Jordan moved to the United States in 1995. In 2001,

she graduated from the University of Hawaii at Manoa, Liberal Studies. She earned a BA degree

in sociology and linguistics. Still at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, she earned her MA

degree in linguistics in 2002.

Accepted by a number of universities for her doctoral studies, she chose the Department of

Linguistics at the University of Florida. She passed the qualifying exams in June 2005. During

her study, she taught English grammar to international students at the English Language Institute

of the University of Florida and general linguistics for the Department of Linguistics.

She was awarded a European Travel Grant for Graduate Students Spring & Summer 2004

- Center for European Studies of University of Florida (its first annual Student Travel Grant

Competition). For Spring 2006, she received McLaughlin Dissertation Fellowship. She also was

awarded Supplemental Retention Award, for Spring 2008, and University of Florida Delores

Auzenne Dissertation Award, for Summer 2008.





PAGE 1

1 LOSS OF INFINITIVAL COMPLEMENTATION IN ROMANIAN DIACHRONIC SYNTAX By MARIA JORDAN A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009

PAGE 2

2 2009 Maria Jordan

PAGE 3

3 To my beloved sons Florin and R zvan

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank m y committee members, Gary Miller, Eric Potsdam, Ann Wehmeyer and Robert Wagman for their cons tant support and encouragement. I am especially indebted to my supervisor and committee chair, Gary Miller, for inspiring and encouraging me to take the challenge of historical linguist and guided me in my journey down to history of discovering faded fragments of language. I al so thank him for his invaluable comments and suggestions, for his patience when reading my nu merous and voluminous drafts a nd for always finding the time to discuss them with me, incl uding his prompt answers via email, often during weekend time. I thank Eric Potsdam who turned every st one, making me realize that without his questions, comments and suggestions, many of my analyses included in my dissertation would have been stipulative. I thank him especially fo r taking the time during his sabbatical and helping me with the organization and the content of Ch apter 5. In general, his guidance led to more clarity and better organiza tion of my dissertation. I am grateful to Ann Wehmeyer who always supported me and for her course on Writing Systems, which, besides the excellence of all he r courses I took, create d the opportunity for me to gather some of the oldest Romanian books and documents, very useful for my dissertation. I very much appreciate Robert Wagmans effort for taking the time to join my Committee in spite of his busy schedule a nd his frequent travels abroad. I am indebted to Idan Landau who answered with promptitude and grace my questions regarding various aspects of c ontrol and about his Agreement Model of Obligatory Control. I am grateful to the numerous native speak ers of Romanian, my fellow Romanians, who contributed to my dissertation with their expert ise, whether by providing invaluable data or by backing my judgment about some of the sentence s of my Romanian data. I thank them all: The seniors whose Romanian still includes infinitival complement clauses, my old and new friends,

PAGE 5

5 those I met serendipitously, those I never met in person but answered my questions via e-mail. I mention just a few here: Nick Jordan, Carmen Pavel, the General, the Iowan team, the Transylvanians and the Regat group. I am also indebted to Bogdana Velterean, who found the respondents for my empirical study on obviation, di stributed the tests and gathered the answers for me. I thank Adriana Ion for the old Romanian books she provided for me and I am also grateful to the people from the Romanian Academy Library (B ucharest) who guided me through the treasures they guard and preserve, while I was reading Romanian language samples from forgotten times. I thank Gary Miller, Ann Wehmeyer, a nd Ratree Wayland for their letters of recommendation written on my behalf, which helped me win a good number of awards. The financial support from these awards, among other th ings, allowed me to travel to Romania and buy old Romanian books, invaluable sources for my documented data. I also thank Caroline Wiltshire who made possible a Teaching Assistant position for me when I needed it the most, and for her help in getting the Mc Laughlin Dissertation Fellowship. For the other rewards, I thank the Center for Eu ropean Studies of University of Florida and especially the Office of Gradua te Minority Programs, Graduate School, University of Florida. Ultimately, I thank God for seeing me through it all in spite of all th e misfortunes, which troubled my life while I was wo rking on this dissertation.

PAGE 6

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................... 4LIST OF TABLES .........................................................................................................................10LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................ 11ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... .............12 CHAP TER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 141.1 Background ................................................................................................................... 141.2 Control ....................................................................................................................... ...161.3 Goals and Organization of the Study ............................................................................ 202 FROM INFINITIVE TO SUBJUNCTIVE ............................................................................. 232.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. .232.2 Infinitive vs. Subjunctive .............................................................................................. 252.2.1 Infinitive/Subjunctive Mood Components ........................................................ 252.2.2 Structures with Infinitive and Subjunctive ........................................................272.2.2.1 Complex tenses ................................................................................... 272.2.2.2 Imperative ........................................................................................... 282.2.2.3 Subject ................................................................................................282.2.2.4 Raising ................................................................................................ 282.2.2.5 Adjuncts .............................................................................................. 292.2.2.6 Complements to nouns ....................................................................... 302.2.2.7 Complements to adjectives ................................................................. 312.2.2.8 Impersonal expressions ....................................................................... 312.2.2.9 Complements to verbs ........................................................................ 312.3 History of Infinitive ......................................................................................................352.3.1 First Reinforcement: The Addition of the Proclisis a .......................................362.3.2 Second Reinforcement: The Emergence of de ..................................................422.3.2.1 When was de added to the a-infinitive? ............................................. 422.3.2.2 Why was the addition of de necessary? ..............................................432.3.2.3Why de ? .............................................................................................. 462.3.3 Addition of Other Prepositional Complementizers ........................................... 492.3.4 The Romanian Infinitive vs. In finitives of Other Languages ...........................522.4Distribution of the Particle a .........................................................................................532.4.1The Verb a Vrea to Want ...............................................................................552.4.2The Verb a Putea Can .................................................................................... 582.4.3 The Verb a ti to Know ..................................................................................612.4.4 The Verb a Avea to Have .............................................................................. 64

PAGE 7

7 2.5 Causes of Infinitive Loss ............................................................................................... 672.5.1 Loss of Infinitive in Greek ................................................................................ 682.5.2 Infinitive-Subjunctive Alternation .................................................................... 722.5.3 Internal Factors..................................................................................................752.5.4 Greek Influence .................................................................................................782.5.5 On the Spread of Loss of Infinitive Complementation ..................................... 822.6 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................843 SUBJUNCTIVE COMPLEMENT CLAUSES ......................................................................863.1Introduction .................................................................................................................. .863.2 Distribution of the Subjunctive Complementizer ca .....................................................913.2.1 Distribution of ca in OSR .................................................................................913.2.1.1 Ca in OC-subjunctive structures .........................................................923.2.1.2 Ca in F-subjunctive structures ............................................................943.2.1.3 Ca and obviation .................................................................................963.2.1.4 Purpose clauses .................................................................................1003.2.1.5 Required ca vs. prohibited ca ...........................................................1013.2.2 Distribution of ca in CR ..................................................................................1023.2.2.1 Ca in subjunctive complement clauses ............................................. 1023.2.2.2 Ca in topic and focus context ........................................................... 1033.2.2.3 Ca in purpose clauses .......................................................................1043.3 Obviation in Contemporary Romanian (CR) .............................................................. 1063.3.1 Approaches to Obviation in CR ...................................................................... 1063.3.2 Empirical Study ............................................................................................... 1113.4 Status of the Subjunctive Particle s ..............................................................................1143.4.1 S as an Inflectional Element ..........................................................................1153.4.1.1 Adjacency to the verb ....................................................................... 1153.4.1.2 A special subjunctive complementizer exists ................................... 1163.4.1.3 Wh -words can co-occur with s ........................................................1173.4.1.4 S co-occurs with complementizers .................................................1183.4.2 S as a Complementizer .................................................................................. 1193.4.2.1 S heads an embedded clause ........................................................... 1203.4.2.2 S in surrogate imperative constructions .......................................... 1213.4.2.3 Negation placement .......................................................................... 1243.4.2.4 Clitic placement ................................................................................1263.5 Tense in Romanian Subjunctive Complements .......................................................... 1303.6 Subject of Subjunctive Complement Clauses ............................................................. 1333.6.1 The OC-Subjunctive Comple ments Have PRO Subject ................................. 1343.6.1.1 Basic properties of PRO ...................................................................1343.6.1.2 PRO permits only a sloppy reading under ellipsis ...........................1353.6.1.3 PRO supports only a de se interpretation ......................................... 1363.6.2 The Subject of F-Subjunctives ........................................................................ 1383.6.3 Arbitrary PRO ................................................................................................. 1453.7 Subjunctive Clauses are IP or CP clauses? ................................................................. 1503.7.1 Subjunctive Clauses Resi st Restructuring ....................................................... 1513.7.2 Subjunctive Complement Clau ses and Complementizers............................... 151

PAGE 8

8 3.7.2.1 Subjunctive complements are CP clauses ......................................... 1523.7.2.2 Subjunctive complements are IP clauses .......................................... 1533.8 Conclusions .................................................................................................................1564 INFINITIVE COMPLEMENTATION ................................................................................1584.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1584.2 The Empirical Picture ................................................................................................. 1604.2.1 OSR Documented Data ...................................................................................1614.2.2 Non-Control Infinitival Structures in Use in OSR and CR ............................. 1644.2.3 Contemporary (Recent) Data of Infinitival Complements .............................. 1654.2.4. Infinitive Complement Clause s Introduced by Prepositions ...........................1664.2.5 Partial Control .................................................................................................1684.3 Status of de ..................................................................................................................1704.3.1 Background ..................................................................................................... 1704.3.2 Arguments for the Complementizer Status of de ............................................1744.4 Status of the Infinitive Particle a .................................................................................1774.4.1 The Infinitive Particle as an Inflectional Head ............................................... 1784.4.1.1 Adjacency to the verb ....................................................................... 1784.4.1.2 AInfinitives occur with complementizers and wh -words. ............... 1794.4.2. Infinitive Marker as a Complementizer .......................................................... 1814.4.2.1 Adverb placement .............................................................................1814.4.2.2 Negation distribution ........................................................................ 1834.4.2.3 Infinitives and case .............................................................................. 1844.5 Exhaustive Control (EC) and Partial Control (PC) ..................................................... 1874.5.1.Background ..................................................................................................... 1874.5.2 EC and PC vs. NOC ........................................................................................ 1894.5.2.1 Arbitrary control is impossible in EC and PC, possible in NOC ...... 1894.5.2.2 LDC is not allowed in EC or PC, but possible in NOC .................... 1904.5.2.3 Strict reading of PRO under el lipsis is impossible in EC/PC ...........1924.5.2.4 De re reading is impossible in OC, possible in NOC ....................... 1934.6 PC Characteristics .......................................................................................................1944.6.1 PC with Collective Predicates .........................................................................1954.6.1.1 PC with collective ( se ) verbs ............................................................ 1954.6.1.2 Predicates with together ...................................................................1974.6.2 Semantic vs. Syntactic Plurality ...................................................................... 1994.7 Tense of Infinitival Complement Clauses ...................................................................2014.7.1 EC Complements Have Anaphoric Tense....................................................... 2014.7.2 PC Complements Have Dependent Tense ...................................................... 2014.8 IP or CP? .....................................................................................................................2024.8.1 Infinitival Complements Resist Restructuring ................................................ 2024.8.2 Infinitival Complement Clauses Can be Introduced by Complementizers ..... 2044.9 Conclusions .................................................................................................................205

PAGE 9

9 5 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ........................................................................................2065.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 2065.2 The Movement Theory of Control (MTC) ..................................................................2085.2.1 The Tenets and Mechanism of the MTC.........................................................2085.2.2 The MTC and Case (The Case of Icelandic) ...................................................2125.2.3 Problems with the MTC and the Case of OC PRO ......................................... 2175.2.3.1 Quirky case .......................................................................................2175.2.3.2 Icelandic OC PRO and structural case .............................................. 2205.2.3.3 The lexicalization problem ...............................................................2225.3 The MTC and OC in Romanian .................................................................................. 2255.3.1 PRO Has Standard Case .................................................................................. 2255.3.2 On Raising Structur es in Romanian ................................................................ 2275.3.3 Structural Case ................................................................................................2305.3.4 Default Case ....................................................................................................2365.3.5 Quirky Case .....................................................................................................2405.3.6. PRO is not a Trace ..........................................................................................2455.3.6.1 Se-reflexivization ..............................................................................2455.3.6.2 Lexical complementizers .................................................................. 2465.4 Agreement Model of Obligatory Control .................................................................... 2495.4.1 Features Involved in Agreement Model of OC ............................................... 2505.4.1.1 [T]ense features ................................................................................2505.4.1.2 [Agr] features .................................................................................... 2505.4.1.3 [R] features ....................................................................................... 2525.4.2 Landaus Mechanism of Computation ............................................................ 2535.4.3 Subjunctive and Infinitive Complements ........................................................2545.4.3.1 F-subjunctive clauses: NOC ............................................................. 2545.4.3.2 F-subjunctive clauses: OC ................................................................ 2565.4.3.3 OC-subjunctive clauses ....................................................................2575.4.3.4 EC-infinitive clauses ......................................................................... 2585.4.3.5 PC-infinitive clauses ......................................................................... 2595.4.4 Moving PRO to the Subject Position ..............................................................2615.5.Conclusions .................................................................................................................2626 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................. 2646.1 Summary and Findings ...................................................................................................2646.2 Suggestions for Future Research ....................................................................................266PRIMARY SOURCES ............................................................................................................... .269LIST OF REFERENCES .............................................................................................................272BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................282

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF TABLES Table page 5-1 Feature [Tense] on C0 and I0 ............................................................................................250 5-2 Features [Tense] and [Agr] on C0 and I0 ..........................................................................251 5-3 Features [T], [Agr] and [R] .............................................................................................. 252

PAGE 11

11 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 1 First person 2 Second person 3 Third person Acc Accusative cl clitic CR Contemporary Romanian Dat Dative Fut Future Gen Genitive Ger Gerundial Ind Indicative Inf Infinitive OSR Older Stages of Romanian P Preposition pl Plural rflx Reflexive Sbj Subjunctive sing Singular

PAGE 12

12 Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy LOSS OF INFINITIVAL COMPLEMENTATION IN ROMANIAN DIACHRONIC SYNTAX By Maria Jordan May 2009 Chair: Gary Miller Major: Linguistics For the most part, my study is a descriptive an alysis of infinitival complement clauses and the corresponding subjunctive clauses in Romania n, that is, obligatory c ontrol (OC) structures. OC is a relation of obligatory coreferentiality between a matrix argument (controller) and the null subject of the subordinate (controlee) of the same senten ce. An OC sentence constructed with infinitive is given in (1) and its co rresponding subjunctive sent ence appears in (2). (1) Radu a ncercat (de) [ a deveni doctor]. Radu has tried Co mp Inf become doctor Radu tried to become a doctor. (2) Radu a ncercat (ca) [ s devin doctor]. Radu has tried Comp Sbj become.3sg doctor Radu tried to become a doctor. Between the sixteenth century and roughly the middle of the twentieth century, OC structures were available in both variants (w ith infinitive and subjunctive) but infinitival complements were on the brink of disappearan ce, thus diachronic analysis is necessary. The two types of complements are analyzed in parallel and their components, the elements of control, are described in order to designate their syntactic st atus. It will be found that the infinitival particle de is a complementizer (C element) and the particle a is the infinitival mood marker (I element). The subjunctive particle s is also an I element. The null subject (controlee)

PAGE 13

13 in these OC structures combines the characteristic s of PRO in the classical approach of control, thus I assign this status to it. In addition, the history of the infinitive, besi des its documentation value, provides valuable information on the status of the infinitival particles a and de at different stages of development. Finally, a theoretical framework is to be f ound to reflect the infi nitival and subjunctive OC structures. The two (opposing) theoretical approaches of obligatory control considered are Movement Theory of Control (MTC) and Agreemen t Model of Obligatory Control. Due to case mismatch between the controller and PRO, a nd the presence of lexical complementizers, especially in infinitive clauses, the MTC is rather unattractive. The Agreement Model of OC seems to better reflect the Ro manian OC-type constructions.

PAGE 14

14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION C ci ntreb, la ce-am ncepe s -ncerc m n lupt dreapt A turna n form nou limba veche i-n eleapt ?1 -Eminescu 1.1 Background Romanian is genetically a Romance language It is also a member of the Balkan Sprachbund, along with Greek, Bulgarian, Macedoni an, Albanian, southeastern dialect of Serbian and some other languages. As usually the cas e, not all the features of a linguistic area are shared by all the members. Among the areal features shared by Romanian are: postposed articles (1), a merger of dative and genitive morphology (2), a periphrastic future tense (3), and total or partial loss of the infinitive. (1) carte book; carte a the book (2) a. Dau Mar ei o carte. give.1sg Mara.Dat a book I give Mara a book. b. Cartea Mar ei book.the Mara.Gen Maras book (3) a. Ei vor cnta. they will.3pl sing They will sing. b. Eu voi cnta. I will.1sg sing I will sing. While Modern Greek lost its infinitive enti rely, Romanian lost its infinitive only in complement clauses. It still ha s the category infinitives in adjunct clauses, relative clauses and 1 But, I wonder, why would we fight for trying To recast our old and sage language?

PAGE 15

15 other structures, which will be presented in Chapter 4. Although rare instances of infinitive complement clauses are still possible, mostly in written (literary ) sources, these structures are considered to be no longer in use in Contem porary Romanian. The only productive infinitival complement is selected by the modal a putea can as illustrated by the example in (4). Alternatively and equally frequently the modal a putea takes a subjunctive complement (5). (4) Pot pleca imediat. can.1sg leave.Inf immediately I can leave immediately. (5) Pot s plec imediat. can.1sg Sbj leave.1sg immediately I can leave soon. Generally speaking the languages of th e Balkans replaced their infinitival complementation with subjunctive complementa tion. The donor of this particular trait is considered to be Greek, which initiated and comp leted this change before the other languages. Then, this feature diffused through contact to ot her languages. Definitel y, the influence of the Greek language led to the loss of infinitival comp lementation in southern dialects of Italian, through the Greek population as Rosetti (1968) poin ts out. As we shall see in Chapter 2, Greek also had a clear and significant influence on the regression of the Romanian infinitive from complement structures. The subjunctives in the Balkan languages manifest some distinctive characteristics, not shared by other European languages. They do not have specific subjunctive morphology but use the indicative present paradigm. Romanian is diffe rent in the sense that a subjunctive verb has distinctive morphology for third person, the same form for singular and plural. The Balkan subjunctive also includes a subjunctive particle: na in Greek, da in Bulgarian, t in Albanian, s in Romanian, etc. In addition, Romanian and Albanian have special subjunctive

PAGE 16

16 complementizers, ca and q, respectively. The other languag es use a general (indicative) complementizer in subjunctive structures when necessary. Furthermore, unlike with Romance subjunctive clauses, the Balkan subjunctive comp lement clauses display obligatory control and do not manifest obviation as reflected by the Gr eek (6a,7a) and Romanian examples (6b, 7b). (6) a. I Maria1 prospathise [e1/*2 na diavasi]. Maria tried.3sg PRT read.3sg Maria tried to read. b. Maria1 a ncercat [e1/*2 s citeasc ] Maria has tried.3sg PRT read.3sg Maria tried to read. (7) a. O Yiannis1 theli [e1/2 na diavasi]. John want.3sg PRT read.3sg John wants (him/her) to read. b. Ion1 vrea [e1/2 s citeasc ] John want.3sg PRT read.3sg John wants (him/her) to read. The embedded clauses in the Greek example (6a) and the Romanian one (6b) are obligatory control complements. As the indices show, their null subjects must be coreferential with the matrix subject (controller). In the next examples (7), the embedded subjects corefer freely, with the matrix subjects or some other entity not mentioned in the sentence. Obviation would have been manifested only if the embedde d subject were disjoint in reference from the matrix subject. (Obviation will be discussed in Chapter 3). Since the term control will be the leitmotif of this di ssertation, an overview of this syntactic phenomenon is presen ted in the next section. 1.2 Control The term control is used to refer to a re lation of referential dependency between an unexpressed subject (the controlled element) and an expressed or unexpressed constituent (the controller). The referential proper ties of the controlled element are determined by those of the

PAGE 17

17 controller. (Bresnan, 1982:372). Obligatory control (OC) is a relation holding between an infinitive in-situ and a local controller (Landau 2000), i.e ., the controller must be in the clause immediately preceding the infinitive complement as the controller Mary in (8). In Government and Binding2 (GB), (Chomsky 1981, 1986a, 1986b), the unpronounced controller in control structures is analyzed as the null formative PRO. The obligatory control construction (8) has the structure in (9). (9) show s that an OC structure, consisting of a matrix and its infinitival complement clause, has two subjects, a lexical subject upstairs and a null subject downstairs represented by PRO. Mary is the controller of PRO and the two arguments are coreferential, a relation esta blished through coindexation. (8) Mary tried [to write a poem] (9) [IP Mary1 [VP tMary tried [CP [IP PRO1 to [VP tPRO write a poem] In GB, postulating PRO is necessary to sa tisfy the Projection Principle, the Theta Criterion and the Extended Projection Principle. The Projection Principle (PP) requires that lexical information be syntactically represented. Representations at each syntactic le vel (i.e., Deep Structure, Surface Structure, and Logical Form) are projected from the lexicon, in that they observe the subcategorization properties of lexical items (Chomsky 1981:29). Th e lexical information we are concerned with here refers to the number and the types of argum ents a predicate takes. The thematic structure associated with lexical items is regulated by the Theta Criterion: Each ar gument A appears in a chain3 containing a unique visible theta position P, and each theta position P is visible in a chain 2 Government and Binding is made up of several modules: Case Theory, Binding Theory, Bounding Theory, Phrase Structure (X-Bare Theory, Movement Theory, Control Theory, Theta Theory, and Trace Theory. 3 A chain is a sequence of coindexed positions, called traces, later copies, and each of them locally binds the next position down. As the traces show, there ar e two chains in (9), one of PRO in the embedded clause, the other of Mary in the matrix.

PAGE 18

18 containing a unique argument A (Chomsky 1981:36). Finally, the Extended Projection Principle (EPP) is the structural requirement that every sentence must have a subject. In other words, the subject position, [Spec,IP] must be filled (Haegem an 1994: 68/255). Thus, PRO in (9) is needed to serve as the external argument of the verb write It originates in the predicate-internal subject position where it satisfies the Projection Principle and the Theta Criterion. It then moves to the subject position of the complement clause, [Spec,IP], to satisfy the EPP. The distribution of PRO is restricted by the PRO Theorem: PRO must be ungoverned with Government (Chomsky 1986a, Choms ky & Lasnik 1993) defined in (10). (10) governs only if a. is a head b. c-commands beta and c. there is no barrier (e.g., a CP) that intervenes between and The proposition that PRO must be ungoverned is not self-evident. It follows from the Binding Theory in (11) and (12) if PRO is assigned the features [+anaphor, +pronominal]. (11) Principle A : An NP with the feature [+anaphor] mu st be bound in its governing category. (12) Principle B : An NP with the feature [+pronominal ] must not be bound in its governing category. Since PRO must obey two contradictory re quirements, to be bound and free in its governing category, the only way for this element to survive is not to have a governing category at all (not to be governed). As a further c onsequence, since PRO cannot be governed, it also cannot be assigned Case, since Ca se is assigned under government It thus cannot occur in a finite clause because I0 and C0 are governors.

PAGE 19

19 GB contained a Control module which determined the antecedent for PRO the NP with which PRO was coindexed. In Oblig atory Control (OC) structures like the one in (13), the controller must be the closest NP that c-commands PRO (Rosenbaum 1967). (13) Jack told Johns sister1 [PRO1 to behave herself1/*himself]. This is stipulated in GB via the Minimal Distance Principle in (14). (14) Minimal Distance Principle (Rosenbaum 1967) An infinitive complement of a predicate P selects as its controller the minimal ccommanding noun phrase in the functional complex of P. As a consequence, only Johns sister can control PRO in (13) and not Jack or John. Thus, there is a configurational constraint on the obligatory control-relation. OC structures display the additional pr operties listed in Williams (1980:211f)4. (15) a. A lexical NP cannot replace PRO. b. The controller must c-co mmand the controlled structure c. The controller must preced e the controlled structure. d. The controller must be thema tically or grammatically unique e. The controller must be overt. In the more recent Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995 and others), Chomsky replaces ungoverned PRO with a PRO that has a sp ecial null Case licensed by nonfinite I0 head (Chomsky & Lasnik 1993). Meanwhile, reports of PRO bearing standard Case in infinitive control contexts in languages such as Icelandic, Russian, Latin, etc have shown that the di stribution of PRO should be dissociated from Case. In addition, Terzi s (1992) breakthrough analysis of subjunctive clauses in the languages of the Balkan Sprachbund shows that ob ligatory control occurs in finite structures, have PRO subjects, and must be handled in the sa me way as OC in infinitival 4 Many of these properties have been dismissed or challenged: a.PRO can be replaced by a lexical NP: I want PRO to leave vs. I want you to leave c.In back control this is the other way around. d. Koster & Mays (1982) counterexample John proposed to Mary to help each other e. The sentence The general ordered e1 to PRO1 encircle the enemy is considered a true OC structure.

PAGE 20

20 contexts. Other languages that exhibit such finite control are Hebr ew, Persian, Kannada, (Landau, 2004). Given these developments, the literature contai ns new theoretical approaches to control, which try to include finite control and Case-m arked PRO. Two of them will be presented in Chapter 5. Before ending this section, I am introducing th e varieties of contro l analyzed in this study. The terminology includes exhaustive control a nd partial control (PC) both considered to be OC (Landau, 2000). Exhaustive control (EC) refers to obligato ry control where PRO must be identical to the controller (16). In Partial contro l (PC) PRO must include the controller, but the two are not necessarily identical In (17) PRO includes the cont roller, the director, and some other persons as indicated by the plus sign. Both EC and PC are different from non-obligatory control (NOC) where the controlee does not have to have a local controller (among other things). As shown in (18), the controller Mary is far aw ay from the controlee, the PRO subject of the infinitive clause. (16) Mary1 managed PRO1 to read the whole article. (17) The director1 decided PRO1+ to gather once a week. (18) Mary1 believes that it will be fun PRO1to eat the whole pie herself. 1.3 Goals and Organization of the Study The prim ary goals of this study are to documen t the history of the infinitive in Romanian and to analyze infinitival and subjunctive comple ment clauses in this language. Two chapters document the changes that these complement clauses underwent during the period between the sixteenth century and around 1950, a period that I will call Older Stages of Romanian (OSR). During this time, infinitival complement structures were replaced by subjunctive complements. This study documents these deve lopments using data fr om original written sources. Chapter 2 is dedicated to the history of th e Romanian infinitive. Th e first half deals with

PAGE 21

21 the infinitive particle a and the linguistic changes that the infinitive underwent: phonological, semantic, morphological, and syntactic changes. The second part discussed the factors that caused the retirement of infiniti ves from complement clauses. Both internal and external factors are considered. I argue that the mai cause was the overwhelming influence of Greek. Chapter 3 offers a diachronic description of subjunctive clauses, with focus on complementation. The only difference between OSR and CR is the distribution of the subjunctive complementizer ca which no longer introduces subj unctive complements in CR. Subjunctive complement clauses are divided into OC-subjunctive struct ures and F-subjunctive structures. These two types of complement clauses differ in regards to the semantic categories of the predicates that select them, and the tense an d subject options that th ey allow. The chapter demonstrates that the subjunctive particle s is an I element, leaving no room for mixed properties of complementizer and inflectio nal element, as previously claimed. Two further chapters provide syntactic analyses of subjunctive and infinitival complement clauses. Chapter 4 continues the analysis of infinitiv al complement clauses begun in Chapter 2. The first part of this chapter discusses and establishes the status of the infinitival particles de and a, demonstrating that the former is a complementiz er and the latter an I element. In the second part, infinitival complement (OC) clauses are divided into Exha ustive Control (EC) and Partial control (PC). The properties of th ese two types of OC are contrast ed with the properties of Non Obligatory Control (NOC) complements. Finally, the spec ific properties of PC clauses and the differences between EC and PC will be established. Chapter 5 analyzes control structures in Ro manian (OSR and CR). These structures are important because both infinitival and subjuncti ve complements yield obligatory control (OC).

PAGE 22

22 The chapter presents two opposing theories of obligatory control: Hornsteins (1999, 2003) Movement Theory of Control and Landaus (2000, 2004) Agreement Model of Obligatory Control. Chapter 5 evaluates the extent to which each theory succeeds in accounting for the Romanian facts. I argue that th e embedded null subject in OC st ructures is Case-marked. This fact favors Landaus theory of OC. Chapter 6 includes a summary of the findi ngs of this dissertation, points out the similarities and differences be tween infinitive and subjunctive complementation, and emphasizes some of the theoretical implications of the Romani an data. It ends with some topics for future research. Some have not been solved in this st udy and others have not been addressed but are related to the topics of this dissertation.

PAGE 23

23 CHAPTER 2 FROM INFINITIVE TO SUBJUNCTIVE Nu credeam s -nv a muri vreodat 1 -Eminescu 2.1 Introduction This chapter is about h istory: The history of the infinitive as a syntactic category and the historical events that could po ssibly explain the loss of infiniti val complementation in Romanian. The history of the infinitive not only puts together the chronological events in the development of the Romanian infinitive, but also presents the circumstances of each change, the reasons for the emergence of new infinitival elem ents and their evolution, i.e., how they change, whether loosing some initial functions, like the particle a, or expanding them as in the case of the particle de The history of the infinitive is especially important be cause it yields preliminary evidence for determining the status of the particles a and de The history of the changes undergone by the infinitive will further show that they were not sufficiently significant to bring about the infinitive-loss phenomenon. Besides the linguistic changes of the infinitive, this chapter is also concerned with the external factors, the shared Balkan areal featur e of replacing infinitive structures with finite (subjunctive) structures, and the influence of Greek resulting from language contact. These factors eventually led to the demise of the infi nitive from complement structures in Romanian. Additionally, an infinitive-subjunctive comparison restricted to the type of structures these moods are in is included in this chapter, primarily to introduce them since they are the protagonists of this di ssertation and secondly with the idea expressed in Faarl und (1990:48) that A change from one form F to another form G cannot take place unless F and G can coexist as 1 I wouldnt believe that I will learn to die some day.

PAGE 24

24 alternatives in a language. As discussed in Section 2.4, the loss of the infinitive began when the subjunctive started to replace in finitive structures. Since so far only infinitive complement clauses disappeared or are moribund, the question fo r future research is whether Romanian is prone to lose all the other infinitival structures because parallel subjunctive structures exist. The chapter is organized as follows: Since the lo ss of the infinitive in certain structures is replaced by corresponding subjunctive structures, a comparison contrast between infinitive and subjunctive is included, in Section 2.2. The next section, 2.3, is dedicated to the history of the Romanian infinitive, that is, the development of this mood and the morphological, semantic and syntactic changes it underwent: loss of the specific infinitive suffix, the addition of the particle a, the emergence of the particle de and the early appearance of the prepositiona l complementizers in infinitival adjuncts. The history of the infinitive continues in Section 2.4 with the distribution of the infinitival particle a. The diachronic analysis shows that the absence of a is possible due to the nature of some matrix verbs selecting infinitival complement s. Although all infinitives are homophonous with some indicative forms, the absence of a does not lead to infinitive indicative ambiguity when the verbs a putea can, (nondeontic) a avea to have and to some extent a ti to know take infini tive complements. The factors that caused the loss of infinitival complementation in Romanian are discussed in Section 2.5. Since the Greek influence seems to be a crucial factor in the infinitive-loss development in Romanian, the avenues of langua ge contact with Greek will be discussed. The internal factors, i.e., the change s undergone by infinitive, are also considered to have some role in the infinitive-loss phenomenon.

PAGE 25

25 2.2 Infinitive vs. Subjunctive This section presents the sim ilarities and di fferences between infinitive and subjunctive, first regarding their elements, then the structures in which they are found. As we shall see, infinitive and subjunctive includ e the same components and appear in almost the same structure types. 2.2.1 Infinitive/Subjuncti ve Mood Components Each of the two m oods has its own special pa rticle, a special complementizer, and allows the same elements between the particle and the lexical verb. The subjunctive particle s (passing through the intermediate form se) comes from the Latin conjunction si if. The infinitive particle a comes from the Latin preposition ad to/towards. There are three one-syllable elements between the particle and the s ubjunctive/infinitive verb. As shown in the infinitive structure of (1 a) and the subjunctive st ructure of (1b), these elements are: the negation nu, a pronominal clitic and an (adverbial) intensifier. (1) a. A nu se mai lamenta ar fi de dorit to not cl. more lament would be of desired To not complain anymore would be desirable. b. ncearc s nu te mai lamentezi. try.Imp s not cl. more lament.2sg Try not to lament any more. The subjunctive has its own (attested) complementizer ca whose etymology goes back to the Latin conjunction qua (quia) as/because/for/since (Graur et al (1969:290). Ca used to introduce s -subjunctive clauses of every kind in OSR but its presence is much reduced in complement clauses in CR but still necessary in purpose clauses. A complete account of the distribution of ca is given in 3.1. Besides the particle a, the infinitive particle de precedes the a -infinitive. In Section 2.3 and Chapter 4, Section 4.3, there will be pr esented comprehensive evidence for the

PAGE 26

26 complementizer status of de Both ca and de are optional. The representation in (2) includes an infinitival complement clause introduced by de while ca introduces a subjunctive complement in the next example (3)2. (2) apucaser de -a fugire n Polonia managed.3pl de-to escape in Poland They had managed to escape to Poland. B lcescu (1852:33) (3) i-am dat voie ca s o vnd he.Dat-have.1sg given permission that s it sell I allowed him to sell it. Stefanelli (1915:124), 1777 document As the next two examples reveal, an infinitival clause may be (rarely) introduced by the subjunctive complementizer ca (4) and a subjunctive clause may be introduced by de (5). (4) i a u avea toat credin a ca mun ii a muta and would.1sg have all faith that mountains to move And I would have all the faith to move (the) mountains. Coresi (1581:338) (5) Nu vrea de s -l tie cineva not want.3sg de s -him know.3sg somebody He doesnt want anyone to know (something about) him. Coresi (1581:84) The Romanian infinitive has only one form (it is a plain infinitive), its morphological identity as a distinct mood being assumed by the particle a. Although a finite mood, subjunctive borrowed the present indicative morphology for first and second person singular and plural. The subjunctive has its separate mo rphology for third person singular/plural only. According to Graur et al. (1969:97-8) in the Late Latin spoken in the Danube region there was a replacement of present subjunctive forms first and second person with the corresponding present indicative 2 De followed by the a infinitive may be written as separate words: de a or linked: de-a as in (2), as well as dea or d-a/ da. The difference in the orthography has no bearin g in the status/function of these two particles.

PAGE 27

27 forms, a phenomenon inherited then by Romanian. Graur et al. notice that a similar phenomenon is also found in Old French. 2.2.2 Structures with In finitive and Subjunctive W ith very few exceptions, infinitive and subjunc tive appear in the same types of syntactic structures. 2.2.2.1 Complex tenses A bare inf initive (without the particle a) helps form the future tense and conditional. The bare infinitive follows the future marker in (6) and the conditional marker in (7) to form future and conditional respectively. A subjunctive verb and the particle (proclisis) o/or form what is called viitorul popular folk future, as shown in (8). The auxiliary a avea to have and subjunctive verbs also create future expressi ons. Two examples are included in (9). A avea and infinitive combinations will be discussed in Section 2.4. (6) Unde vei gsi cuvntul ce exprim adev rul? where will.2sg find word.the which expresses truth.the Where will you find the word that expresses the truth? Eminescu (1852-1889), Criticilor mei (7) Ar face dintr-un lac o Marmara, would.3sg make from-a lake a Marmara She would make a (sea of) Marmara from a lake. Minulescu (1881-1944), Roman policrom (8) Astea nor s ne aduc dect pierdere de vreme these not-will s us.Dat bring.3pl only waste of time These (things) will only waste our time. Alexandrescu (1810-1885), O profesiune de credin (9) De nai s vii if not-have.2sg s come.2sg, am s -te-a tept i mine have.1sg s -you.Acc-wait.1sg and tomorrow If you do not come (today), I will wait for you tomorrow. (Song)

PAGE 28

28 2.2.2.2 Imperative Constructions with im perative force, also called suppletive imperatives, are possible with both infinitive and subjunctive. Suppletive form s with subjunctive have always been used with significantly greater frequency than those with infi nitive. Two examples with infinitive forms are given in (10), one of which (10b) is an interdictio n inscription used in trains not so long in the past. An imperative suppletion constructe d with subjunctive is given in (11). (10) a. n toate Dumineci a se ceti (evenghelia) in all Sundays to rflx read (liturgy.the) To be read every Sunda y/Read every Sunday! Coresi (1581:1) b. A nu se apleca pe fereastra vagonului! to not rflx bend P window carriage.Gen Do not bend over the window of the (railway) carriage (11) Oricare-ar fi sfr itul luptei, whatever-would be end.the battle.Gen S stai luptnd c ci e ti dator. s stay fighting because are.2sg dutiful Regardless of the outcome, Keep fighting because its your duty! Co buc (1866-1918), Lupta vie ii 2.2.2.3 Subject Unlike subjunctive, inf initive can be the subject of a clause or sentence. The infinitive (in bold) is the subject of the sentence in the structure of (12). (12) Iar n lumea cea comun a visa e un pericul and in world the common to dream is a danger And in the common world to dream is a danger. Eminescu (1852-1889), Scrisoarea II 2.2.2.4 Raising Raising stru ctures are possible with either infinitive or subjunctive. The OSR sources I have studied so far do not seem to have noticeab le examples of raising structures constructed with subjunctive. However, rais ing structures with subjunctive are more abundant in CR. One

PAGE 29

29 infinitive raising structure is given in (13a) and the correspondi ng subjunctive raising structure (the bold part of (13a) appears in (13b). (13) a. i ora ul cu trei sute de biserici, and city.the with three hundred of churches De trei zile, for three days Parea fi pictat n dosul unui geam de panoram seemsto be painted on back.the one.Gen glass of panorama And the city with three hundred churches, For three days, Seems to be painted on the back of a show window. Minulescu (1881-1944), n ora ul cu trei sute de biserici b. Ora ul pare s fie pictat city.the seems s be.3sg painted. The city seems to be painted. 2.2.2.5 Adjuncts Both infinitive and subjunctiv e are found in purpose clauses3 and in other adjuncts as well. The representations (14) a nd (15) feature purpos e clauses constructed with infinitive and subjunctive respectively. The infi nitival adjunct of (16) and the subjunctive adjunct of (17) are introduced by the same prepositional complementizer f r without. (14) popula ia s-a strns population rflx-h as gathered pentru a primi armata romn for to receive army.the Romanian The people gathered to accl aim the Romanian army. Romnia Liber June 3, 2006 (15) se ndreptar spre Bucure ti rflx headed towards Bucharest ca s duc lui Sinan vestea acestei nenorociri that s bring to Sinan news.the this.Gen disaster They headed to Bucharest to inform Sinan about this disaster. B lcescu (1852:117) 3 A purpose clause is used to show the purpose or intention of the action of the main verb (in the independent clause). This type of clause is meant to show intentio n not to state whether something actually happens or not. A purpose clause answers the question Why? or For what reason? E.g., I went to the store to buy milk

PAGE 30

30 (16) Dac adun ri sau cameri pot vorbi f r a se teme if assemblies or chambers can speak without-to rflx fear If assemblies or chambers (of a parlia ment) can speak without being afraid.. Alexandrescu (1810-1885), O profesiune de credin (17) Ginga a copil ceti r va ul dainty damsel read.3sg letter.the f r s verse m car o lacrim without s shed even one tear The dainty damsel read the lette r without even shedding a tear. Negruzzi (1808-1868) Scrierile lui 2.2.2.6 Complements to nouns Com plements to nouns are mostly encountered with infinitive (comparing with s subjunctive), usually introduced by the preposition/relative4 de (18) includes a complement to the noun teama the fear, while the noun mngiere consolation takes a subjunctive complement in (19). (18) Dar teama dea r mne tot ce sunt but fear.the ofto remain still what am A sugrumat n mine oriceavnt has suppressed in me anylan The fear of my unchanging self Has chocked, inside me, any new desire Minulescu (1881-1944), Rnduri pentru ntregirea mea (19) C ci mie mi-a dat soarta amara mngiere because me.Dat cl.Dat-has given fate bitter consolation O piatr s ador A stone s adore.1sg Because fate has offered me the bitter consolation A slab of marble to adore. Eminescu (1852-1889), Amorul unei marmure 4 One of the multiple functions of the preposition de is that of a relativizing element. Gramatica (1965) calls it an invariable relative pronoun (since it has only one form). Depending on the context, this de may be translated in English by which/who/that (i) or of (18), but the sense in Romanian is always which (i). Unde iaste Hristosu de ade d-a dereapta lu Dumnezu where is Christ.the that stands at right.the of God Where is the Christ who/that stands at Gods right side Coresi (1581:482)

PAGE 31

31 2.2.2.7 Complements to adjectives Adjectiv es may take infinitival complement s or subjunctive complements in OSR, but those with infinitive are rather rare in CR. One ex ample with infinitive is illustrated in (20), one with subjunctive appears in (21). (20) Dator eu ns sunt a v spune indebted I however am to you.pl.Dat tell It is my duty however to tell you this Alexandrescu (1810-1885), Ursul i Lupul (21) Sunt bucuros s v cunosc am glad s you.Acc meet.1sg Im glad to meet you/to make your acquaiantance. 2.2.2.8 Impersonal expressions Some verbs are impersonal by nature5 and appear in the third person only, e.g., se cade and se cuvine both having the same meaning: it is proper/fitting. Both verbs take either infinitival or subjunctive complements. Th e examples of (22) are constructed with se cade, with an infinitive complement in (22a) an d a subjunctive complement in (22b). (22) a. Se cade cu destonicie a se veseli rflx fits with efficacy to rflx rejoice It is proper to rejoice lively. Coresi (1581:31) b. Se cade s se ung cu milosteniia rflx fits s rflx anoint.3sg with grace It is proper to be anointed with grace. Coresi (1581:51) 2.2.2.9 Complements to verbs The exam ples in (23), (24) are subject cont rol complement structures constructed with infinitive and with subjunctive respectively and both are selected by the same matrix predicate, 5 Other verbs are impersonal par excellence like a trebui need but could be also used with various person forms. Still some other verbs may have impersonal use although they are preeminently personal verbs. All of them may take either infinitive or subjunctive complements.

PAGE 32

32 the verb a (n)cerca to try. The matching person and number, first person singular, of the matrix verb and the embedded subjunctive verb (24) indicates that the two clauses share the same subject. (Obligatory contro l structures constructed with subjunctive are discussed in Chapter 3). (23) dac ar cerca st pnii1 mo iilor e1 a le lua z loge if would.3pl try owners estates.Gen to cl take pawns If the owners of the estates would try to impose pawning Stefanelli (1915:90), 1767 document (24) Azi-noapte-am ncercat e1 s m -ntregesc last-night-have. 1sg tried s me-blend. 1sg Cu focurile globului ceresc!... with fires.the globe.Gen celestial Last night I tried to blend Into the fires of the celestial globe. Minulescu (1881-1944), Rnduri pentru ntregirea mea The same semantic categories of verbs may sel ect either infinitive complement clauses or subjunctive complement clauses, with the differe nce that, in OSR, some verbs occur more with infinitive (e.g., a ndr zni/cuteza to dare) while other verbs o ccur mostly with subjunctive (e.g., a vrea to want). Examples with ev ery category of verbs selecting subjunctive clauses are given in Chapter 3. Parallel examples with infinitive are found in Chapter 4. Not only the same verb may select either infinitive or subjunctive complements, but conjoined infinitival complements and subjunc tive complements may alternate in the same sentence. In (25), the subjunctive clause and th e infinitive clause are conjoined by the connective nici nor. The connective i and unites the subjunctive complement clause and the infinitival complement clause of the verb a vrea in (26). (25) Nu vrur n calea lui s mble not wanted.3pl in way his s walk.3pl nici a asculta legea lui nor to listen law his They didnt want to follow hi m nor to listen to his rules. Coresi (1581:141)

PAGE 33

33 (26) Vrnd s c tige favorul mp ratului wanting s court.3sg favor.the emperor/Gen i a dobndi demnitatea de cardinal and to acquire dignity.the of cardinal Wanting to court the emperors favor a nd to obtain the rank of a cardinal, B lcescu (1852:262) While an infinitival complement clause has always a non-lexical subject, always coreferential with a matrix argument, subjunctive complement clauses selected by desiderative, interrogative, factive/expe riencer and propositional predicates may have a separate subject (not coreferential with a matrix argument), and even a lexical subject. Thus, the verb a vrea to want may take a subject control (subjunctive) co mplement (27a) or a noncontrol (subjunctive) complement with a lexical subject, different fr om the matrix subject, (27b). When the same matrix verb, a vrea takes infinitival control complements as in (28), there must always be coreference between the subordi nate subject and a matrix ar gument. A structure like (27b) constructed with infiniti ve (with embedded lexical subject) does not exist. (27) a. A vrea [ e s vd acuma natala mea vlcioar ] would.1sg want [ 1sg s see. 1sg now native my glen] I would want to see my childhood glen now. Eminescu (1852-1889), Din str in tate b. N-ai vrea [ca nime -n u a ta s bat ] not-would.2sg want [that nobody. 3sg-in door your s knock. 3sg] You wouldnt want anyone to knock at your door. Em inescu (1852-1889), Sonete (28) i parc-ai vrea [ e a-mi spune ceva apoi suspini] and likely-would. 2sg want [ 2sg to-me say something then sigh.2sg] You would want to tell me something then you sigh. Eminescu (1852-1889), Departe sunt de tine Having said that, it is necessary to cl arify Menschings (2000:37) statement on Romanian: Generally, it seems that whenever speakers accept an infinitive construction, they also accept the fact that it may have a specifi ed subject. To demonstrate that Romanian, like

PAGE 34

34 other Romance languages, employs postverbal subj ects in infinitival constructions, Mensching illustrates his point with the examples (29), (30) and (31) (his 46a,b,c). (29) E o absurdidate [ a se bate cineva is an absurdity [to rflx fight someone.Nom pentru ochii unei actri e] for eyes-the one.Gen actress] It is foolish for someone to fight (to get in trouble) for the eyes of an actress. (30) [ nainte de a veni z pada ] a b tut un vnt puternic. [before of to come snow-the] has blown a wind strong Before the snow came a strong wind was blowing. (31) Vine vremea [ de a pricepe omul comes time-the.Nom [de to perceive man-the.Nom ce-i bine i ce-i r u] what-is good and what-is bad] There comes a time for a man to unde rstand what is good and what is bad. The bracketed infinitival clause, which includes the impersonal/generic cineva someone, represents the subject of the sentence (29). In other wo rds, the infinitival clause by its entirety represents the subj ect of the sentence (29). The example in (30) contains an infinitival (temporal) adjunct, a structure-type found in Romance in general called Personal Infinitive by Ledgeway (1998, 2000). Pers onal Infinitive is distinguished from Inflected Infinitive in that the former does not have morphological agreement but can take overt nominative (postverbal) s ubject, whereas the latter exhibits both morphological agreement and can ta ke overt nominative subjects. Finally, the subordinate of (31) is a complement to the noun vremea the time, an infinitival relative clause introduced by the invariable relative de In any event, these three examples have no bearing on the subject of infinitiv al (control) complement clauses, as they are not control structures at all.

PAGE 35

35 To wrap up this section, it has been shown th at infinitive and subjunctive can appear in the same structure-types, with basically one exce ption, that is, subjunctive may not be the subject of a clause. Subjunctive and infinitive complement clauses can be selected by the same matrix verb and conjoined subjunctive complements may a lternate with infinitive complements in the same sentences. The alternation infinitive subjunc tive in the same type of complement clauses may actually have led to the increased use of subj unctive at the expense of the infinitive. (The crucial point here is that the infinitive was the older structure and the subjunctive has been gaining in productiv ity against it). 2.3 History of Infinitive The histo ry of Romanian infiniti ve, as far as it can be traced indicates that this verbal form endured a number of changes. The purpose of this section is to determine the phonological, morphological and syntactic ch anges undergone by the Romani an infinitive. Following Haspelmaths (1989) universal path of gramma ticalization, I will explore the evolution and changes of the infinitive and infini tival structures not onl y as historical events but also to gather some preliminary evidence regarding the status of the infinitival particles a and de Haspelmath (1989) argues that infinitives in Indo-European la nguages (and beyond) are inherently connected to purpose. Infinitives originate in purposive action nominals, which become infinitives through grammaticalization6. Also, infinitives have their own morphological form and a meaning of their own, which is non-factual or irrealis. Mor phologically, infinitives may be marked by a suffix like the Latin re or German en or by a particle, as the English to or 6 Grmmaticalization (or grammaticization) is the process whereby lexical material in highly constrained pragmatic and morphosyntactic contexts is assigned gr ammatical function, and once grammatical, is assigned increasingly grammatical, opera tor-like function (Traugott 2003: 645).

PAGE 36

36 German zu Haspelmath points out that infinitival pa rticles (in European languages) are allative prepositions. The term allative comes from all tus brought to, the past part iciple of the Latin verb afferre to bring toward. Generally, allative is a type of directional case used in a number of languages (e.g., Finnish, Basque, Es kimo) expressing motion, i.e., to or toward a place/the referent of the noun it marks. Haspelmath (1989:290) argues th at the diachronic change of infinitives is a general process that happens in language after language independently. Thus, infinitival particles (usually allative prepositions) begin as purpose-ma rking entities or marking the case of verbal nouns, become complementizers and can further become the morphology of infinitive, onemember paradigm as Haspelmath puts it. From purpose markers, these particles may go back to direction markers and end up in troducing complement clauses. Infinitives may also undergo loss of integrity, which can be phonological and semantic. The loss of phonological integrity, ca lled erosion, happens to infiniti val suffixes and to particles as well. The loss of semantic integrity, or dese manticization, means that the original purposive meaning is weakened or lost. When that ha ppens, infinitives undergo some process of reinforcement, to regain the function of purpose. 2.3.1 First Reinforcement: The A ddition of the Proclisis a Rom anian inherited the Latin infinitive form with the suffix re : Latin facere Romanian facere to make. Then, at some point in tim e, prior to the sixteenth century, the Romanian infinitive underwent two morphological changes. It began to loose its re suffix possibly (but not necessarily) th rough phonological erosion, in Hasp elmaths (1989) terms, and the proclisis a started to accompany the infinitive. However, it is not clear which change took

PAGE 37

37 place first, the loss of the suffix re or the addition of the proclisis a. The loss of the suffix re resulted in infinitive indicative homophony, e.g., ( a) scrie to write, scrie writes. Losing the suffix, the infinitive lost its inte grity: phonological and se mantic integrity. The addition of the preposition a, the phonologically eroded form of the Latin motion (allative) preposition ad to/towards was meant to supply the identi ty of the infinitive and to reinforce the original meaning and function: purpose. In Latin, ad was used with gerund to express purpose, e.g., ad amandum for the purpose of loving. Taking Portuguese, Romanian and Spanish as ex amples, Schulte (2004) also argues that the preposition a was added to the infinitive in Roman ce to reinforce the purposive value. An early purpose clause is included in ( 32) where the infinitive has the form a plus short infinitive or a-infinitive. (32) Ei mp r ir -se a mnca e nu se s turar they shared-rflx to eat and not rflx sated They shared (the food) to eat but didnt have enough Coresi (1577:249/50) The role of a in (32) is to introduce the adjunct ( purpose) clause and its position in the sentence is likely C0, thus it has complementizer status. The infinitival particle a in other Romance languages has also been alwa ys considered a complementizer. Sixteenth-century documents show that the a -infinitive had already spread to complement clauses of verbs, adjectives and nouns. In Coresi (1581) a rather small number of adjectives and nouns can take infinitival complement clauses. By contrast, the frequency of infinitival complements to verbs is definitely great. The following data feature infinitival comp lements to adjectives (33), infinitival complements to nouns (34), and infinitival (control) complements to verbs (35). As can be seen, all infinitives are preceded by the particle a to.

PAGE 38

38 (33) a. datori sntemu a ne teame obliged are.1pl to cl.us be afraid We are obliged to be afraid. Coresi (1581:19) b. Nu sntu destoinicu a m chema fiului t u not am worthy to cl.me call son yours Im not worthy to be called your son. Coresi (1581:21) (34) a. Are puteare a v t ma i trupulu i sufletulu has power to harm and body.the and soul.the He has the power to harm both the body and the soul. Coresi (1581:60) b. Au volnicie a se ntoarce have.3pl liberty to rflx return They have the liberty to re turn/They are free to return Coresi (1581:99) (35) a. F gduia a bea i a se boteza was promising to drink and to rflx baptize He was promising to drink and to be baptized. Coresi (1581:90) b. Ne ndeamn cu nevoin a s vr i us urges with no will to succeed He urges us to succeed against our will. Coresi (1581:124) b. S nu ndr znimu a r bda s not dare to suffer Let us not dare to suffer Coresi (1581:199) By the end of the sixteenth century, the particle a lost or was on the verge of losing its original function of purpose. In Coresi (1577) the number of a-infinitival purpose clauses seems satisfactory in order to consider this structure alive. However, in Coresis (1581) book of 563 pages, where purpose (finite) structures are abun dant, only (about) three ar e constructed with an infinitive. One is given below in (36).

PAGE 39

39 (36) i neajunsei mp r iei lui pre noi va nt ri a alerga and unreachable empire his P us will.3sg strengthen to run He will strengthen us to hurry towards his unreachable empire. Coresi (1581:231) Purpose clauses with a-infinitive are still pres ent in Coresi (1581) after verbs of motion, like the next two examples (37a,b). (37) a. Thoma mearse a-i spune lui ce vrea Thomas went to-cl say him.Dat what wants Thomas went to tell him what he wants Coresi (1581:131) b. i vine a sp i un ucenicu necredinciosu and comes to repent a apprentice unfaithful And an unfaithful apprentice comes to repent Coresi (1581:131) The particle a continues to introduce infinitival purpose clauses triggered by a few motion verbs7 (especially a veni to come) as a result of its purposive value. Rosetti (1968:175) points out the final value of the preposition a in certain constructions, i.e., with motion verbs. In (38) the verb for go and the preposition a are the ingredients of th e purpose action. Thus, a motion verb + a can express a goal even in the absence of an infinitive. (38) mears n p dure a leamne went.3sg in forest at wood (for fire) He went to the forest for w ood/to gather wood (for fire) Dosoftei ( Vie ile Sfin ilor ) from Rosetti (1968:175) Although infinitival purpose structures to motion verbs continued to appear here and there after 1600, the a-infinitive was no longer able to in troduce purpose clauses, even after motion verbs. Gramatica (1963) notes th at purpose clauses formed only with a-infinitive are 7 It appears, as Haspelmath (1989) noti ces, that the action of a motion verb encodes directional and/or goal meaning. It is not coincidental that there are examples of purpose clauses of motion verbs not introduced by subordinators. Thus, in Biblical Greek from the New Testament, the infinitive of purpose triggered by verbs of motion appears with or without the subordinator tou (a genitive neuter article), initially adde d to bare infinitives (Joseph, 1983). In Miller (2002), there are Old English (OE) examples of in finitival purpose clauses triggered by motion verbs where the infinitive appears with or without the particle to Thus, it is plausible for a weak particle like a to introduce infinitival purpose clauses of motion verbs, at least temporarily, before loosing its C status totally.

PAGE 40

40 archaisms. Similarly, the German particle zu also lost its ability to introduce purpose clauses. By contrast, English to has never lost this function comple tely (Langacker 1992, Miller 2002). In Coresi (1581), the solution fo r expressing purpose using an infinitive is not found yet, but the premises are somehow sketched. For instan ce, the infinitival purpose clause in (39a) and the indicative purpose structure in (39b) express semantically the same purpose action triggered by the verb a ie i to go out. Sem nare in (39b) has the l ong infinitive, in re, and probably is an infinitive (the noun has the same form). For the next step, the infiniti val purpose of type (39a) employs the preposition spre used in (39b), resulting in the infinitival purpose construction in (39c) in conformity with (40). Infinitival purpose clauses introduced by the preposition spre towards (like 39c,40) are still in use in CR. (39) a. E i sem n toriului a sem na s man a lui went out.3sg sower.the to sow seed his The sower went out to sow his seed. Coresi (1581:354) b. Iar Hristosu spre sem nare e i and Christ.the towards sowing went out.3sg And Christ went out for sowing. Coresi (1581:355) c. Sem n torul ie i spre a sem na sower.the went out.3sg towards to sow The sower went out to sow. (40) S mearg la fa a locului spre a se afla fa s go to face place.Ge n towards to rflx be present la alegerea mo ii at choosing estate.Gen Let him go to the spot in order to supervise the marking of the estate Alexiu (1939:76), 1795 document Coresi actually produces one infini tival purpose clause introduced by sp re as shown in (41a). Coresis sentence has an unorthodox word or der, as frequently happens in his books of translation (following the original too closely). The natural wo rd order is given in (41b).

PAGE 41

41 Coresis infinitival purpose clause of (41a) is the first introduced by the preposition spre towards. (41) a. Cei draci ce se batu cu ispita those devils who rflx fight.3pl with temptation.the spre noi a ne turbura towards us to us perturb Those devils who compete in orde r to perturb us with temptation. Coresi (1581:279) b. Cei draci ce se bat those devils which rflx fight spre a ne turbura pe noi cu ispita towards to us perturb P us with temptation.the Those devils who compete in order to perturb us with temptation. By the end of the sixteenth century, the particle a not only was losing its ability to introduce purpose clause s, but concurrently a was losing its ability to function as a preposition in any context, especially locatival8. The only example I could find with a having locative meaning is given in (42). A was being replaced by the preposition la to/at for location and direction. One example with the (replacing) locative la is included in (43). (42) Ca ceaia ce zace a mijlocu like that which lies at middle Like the one that lies in the middle. Coresi (1581:273) 8 At this time a still marks dative case (i), but it is being replaced by la (ii), or by the dative suffix (iii). (i) A mul i se pare to.Dat many rflx seems It appears to many Coresi (1581:242) (ii) La mul i se pare It appears to many (iii) Mult ora li se pare many.Dat cl.Dat rflx seems It appears to many The preposition a also remained in a few frozen expressions, e.g., Miroase a ment Smells like mint. It also combines with definite article forming genitive markers.

PAGE 42

42 (43) La sfnta besearec rug ciune s f cemu at holy church prayer s make.1pl Lets pray at the holy church. Coresi (1581:123) In summary, the infinitival particle a emerged to reinforce th e value of purpose, to introduce purpose clauses. Sixteenth-century sour ces show a great decrease in frequency of purpose clauses of non-motion ve rbs constructed with the a -infinitive, which became residual by the end of the sixteenth century. A -infinitive purpose clauses triggered by motion verbs are still in use during the same period. 2.3.2 Second Reinforcement: The Emergence of de The Rom anian preposition de was inherited from the Latin preposition de about/from. De is a multifunctional syntactic element in Romania n, but our interest is related to its function of introducing infinitival clauses. Three questions are to be answ ered regarding the emergence of de as an infinitival element: a) When did de join the infinitive? b) Why was it necessary in the first place? And c) Why did de and not some other prepositi on or syntactic element had to accompany the infinitive? 2.3.2.1 When was de a dded to the a-infinitive? The earliest evidence of de in an infinitival construction that I was able to find is attested in Codicele Vorone ean CV (The Deeds of the Apostles), a translation from Slavonic dated approximately 1528/1532. The example in (44) is the only one I found in CV and before Coresi (1581). Notice that de precedes the particle a. De without a is not possible in a Romanian infinitive while in West Romance languages either a or de/di may precede the infinitive verb but not both9. 9 These Italian examples show that the infinitive ( lavorare ) may be preceded by di or a depending on the matrix verb. Neither example is possible with both particles. (i) Tenter di lavorare di pi.

PAGE 43

43 (44) nu m lep du de a muri not me disavow.1sg de to die I dont disavow death. CV (1528/1532:66) There is no instance of the infinitival de in Coresi (1561) or Core si (1577), but in Coresi (1581) de is established as an infinitival particle, preceding the particle a. The difference in time regarding the a ssociation of de with the infinitive may be expl ained by the regional difference. CV (1532) is produced in Northern Transylvania while Coresis dialect belongs to the South, ara Romneasc (The Romanian Country/Walachia). It seems that the association de infinitive is not older th an the sixteenth century. 2.3.2.2 Why was the addition of de necessary ? The most important aspects of the emergence of de with the a-infinitive to be considered are its function, position, and constituency. In Coresi (1581), there is a significant num ber of infinitival constructions where the infinitive has the original suffix -re, that is, the long infinitive followed by the morpheme for the definite article (enclisis) -a This infinitive form is preceded by the particle a, which is in turn preceded by the preposition de e.g., de a cntarea (cnta-re-a) to sing, where cnta is the short infinitive, -re is the long infinitive affix, and a is the enclitic article. As the contrast between (45) and (46) shows, de only appears where the infinitive is long and has the definite article (46). (Short infinitiv es with article do not exist). The examples in (45) have regular a-infinitives (without de ). The infinitives in (46) are in fact nominalized infinitives, as marked by the definite article a, thus they need a case assigner. (45) a. noi avemu puteare a lep da lucrulu cela ntunecatulu (ii) Prover a lavorare di pi. I will try to work more. (Rizzi, 1982:94)

PAGE 44

44 we have power to repudiate thing.the that somber We have the power to repudiate that somber thing. Coresi (1581:45) b. Iaste obiceaiulu a l sa i a se ncepe al doilea is custom to let and to rflx begin the second There is a custom to let others first and to be the second. Coresi (1581:507) (46) a. Nu va fi folosu de a ne c i-re-a not will be use de-to us repent.the There will be no use for us to repent Coresi (1581:480) b. C acmu e vreamea de a priimi-re-a buntatea that now is time de-to receive.the goodness.the Because now is the time to receive goodness. Coresi (1581:480) The particle a plus long infinitive is preceded by de not only in complements to nouns (46) but whenever the infinitive has the definite article suffix as in the complement to the verb in (47) or in the impersona l structure in (48). (47) a i gata vom putea fi de-a merge re-a and ready will.1pl can be de-to go.the We will be ready and able to go Coresi (1581:335) b. Iar deac ncet de-a gr i-re-a zise c tre Simonu: and if ceased.3sg de-to preach, said.3sg to Simon And when he ceased to preach, said to Simon: Coresi (1581:330) (48) Iar de-a mnca-re-a i de-a be-re-a i a ne mbr ca but de-to eat.the and de-to drink.the and to us clothe noao nu apar Domnului us.Dat not helps Lord.Dat And to eat and to drink and to provide our clothes does not a ssist the Lo rd/does not matter to the Lord Coresi (1581:222)

PAGE 45

45 The nominalized infinitives (marked with de finite article) in the examples (46,47,48) need a case assigner, a function the particle a is not able to perform10. Then a and the infinitive were reanalyzed as a constituent and de was required to assign case to nominalized infinitives. Therefore, one reason for the emergence of de was to assign case to nominalized infinitives. This implies that the status and position of the particle a in the sentence had changed, from a C element/position to an I element/pos ition. As Gramatica (1963) points out de and a do not form a unit, i.e., a complex mood marker or a complex complementizer. Next, de began to introduce infinitival complements with a plus the re infinitive without an article. As illustrated in (49), facere is not marked by the article a. (49) a. Ci de a facere lege au f g duit And de to make law have promised They promised to make a law Ureche (1647:93) As expected, since the usual form of the infinitive was without the suffix re (the sixteenth century) de became established as an elemen t whose function was to introduce a(short) infinitive clauses. One example is found as ear ly as Coresi (1581). Notice that the same matrix verb a sta to cease takes a de a long infinitive complement (50a) and a de a-infinitive complement (50b). De began to introduce a-infinitival control clauses. (50) a. Cndu st tu de-a gr irea lui when ceased.3sg de to say.the he.Dat/Gen When he ceased to preach./When he stopped from sermonizing Coresi (1581:461) b. C st tu de-a gr i zise c tre Simonu that ceased.3g de to preach, said.3sg to Simon When he ceased to preach, said to Simon: Coresi (1581:329) 10 There seems to be no evidence that the particle a also used to assign case to nominalized infinitives and subsequently lost this function.

PAGE 46

46 Having made its debut in Coresi (1581), the de a -infinitive took some time to attain productivity. The first Moldavian (preserved) chronicles of the next century include de ainfinitive structures. The illustration of (51) includes an infinitival control clause; an adjective triggers the infinitival clause in (52). (51) Iar al i mp ra i carii au urmat but other emperors who have followed l s m de a-i mai scrie give up.1pl de to-them more write But we decline to write about other emperors who followed.. Ureche (1647:75) (52) n-a fost harnic de a lua tab ra c z ceasc not-has been able de to take camp.the Cossack He wasnt able to take the Cossack camp Costin (1675:61) Aside from assigning case, de joined the infinitive in order to reinforce the purposive value. In the next example (53), featuring an infinitival purpose clause (the only one with de in Coresi, 1581), de has two functions: assigning case to the infinitive verbal noun and introducing the purpose clause. The perception that the a -infinitive lost its capacity to form purpose clauses is supported by this example (i.e., the need for a stronger subordinator). (53) de-a r spunderea naintea n rodului pre acesta puse de-to answer.the before people.the P this put He appointed this man in order to answer before the people Coresi (1581:268) In sum, de was initially necessary to assign case to infinitival verbal nouns and to introduce purpose clauses. 2.3.2.3 Why de ? The third question about the association of de with infinitive is why this particular elem ent was chosen to introduce infinitival cl auses. According to the view expressed in Gramatica I (1963:225) infinitival comp lements proceeded by the preposition de are Gallicisms.

PAGE 47

47 However, since de/di also introduces infinitival complement s in Romance languages in general, a plausible explanation could be that parallel changes may have common causes and common solutions, although the changes may take place independently in each language. The diachronic evidence shows that this evolutionary similarity is independent in Romanian. This particular element, de had been employed in the C pos ition in finite structures, before its adoption by infinitive structures. In CV (1532) there are a few purpose structures produced with indicative and introduced by the preposition de In Coresi (1561, 1577) and especially in Coresi (1581), th ese structures are quite abundan t. Two instances of indicative purpose clauses introduced by de are shown in (54). (54) a. i mer u de m sp lai and went.1sg de me.Acc washed.1sg And I went to wash (myself) Coresi (1581:170) b. i se va ntoarce de va face p catu and rflx will.3sg return de will.3sg do sin And he will revert to sin. Coresi 1581:23 De even replaces the subjunctive complementizer ca. In the examples (55a) and (56a) the subjunctive clauses (marked by s ) are introduced by de The b. examples are the normal counterparts introduced by the subjunctive complementizer ca De must be a complementizer in the finite purpose clauses constructed with i ndicative (54) or subjunc tive (55a, 56a) so it occupies the C0 position. Thus, it is plausible to assume that de has been transplanted in infinitival complement and purpose clauses with the same function in the same, C0, position. (55) a. Se nevoiescu de s o ajung rflx strive.3pl de s her reach They strive to reach it. Coresi (1581:518)

PAGE 48

48 b. Se nevoiescu ca s o ajung rflx strive.3pl that s it.Acc reach They strive to reach it. (56) a. lucrulu sfr ii ce-ai datu mie de s facu thing.the finished.1sg which-have.2sg given me.Dat de s do.1sg I finished the thing you asked me to do. Coresi (1581:185) b. lucrulu sfr ii ce-ai datu mie ca s facu thing.the finished.1sg which-have.2sg give n me.Dat that s do.1sg I finished the thing you asked me to do. The most interesting and unexpected constr uctions found in Coresi (1581) consist of matrix implicative verbs taking indica tive complement clauses introduced by de as illustrated in (57a, 58a). While indicative purpose clauses introduced by de have always existed and are still in use in CR, it is unusual for implicative verbs (normally OC verbs) such as a ndr zni to dare (57a) and a c uta to try (58a) to take indicative complements. By hypothesis, the indicative structures of ( 57a) and (58a) will become the infinitival control complement clauses in (57b) and (58b). It is shown in Chapter 4, Section 4.3, that these two verbs select de a -infinitive complements. The examples in (57a) and ( 58a) may also suggest that the a -infinitive is becoming weaker not only for creating ad junct clauses but even for complement control clauses. (57) a. ndr zni de se apropia dared.3sg de rflx approached.3sg He dared to come closer. Coresi (1581:547) b. Radu ndr zni de a se apropia. Radu dared.3sg de to rflx approach Radu dared to come closer. (58) a. Va c uta de va vedea acelu arpe will.3sg try de will.3sg see that snake He will try to see that snake Coresi (1581:463)

PAGE 49

49 b. Radu va c uta de a vedea acel arpe Radu will.3sg try de to see that snake Radu will try to see that snake Since de is obviously a complementizer introduc ing finite purpose clauses and finite complement clauses, it is only na tural to use the same complementizer with the same function to introduce infinitival clauses. Thus, it is plausible to assume that the complementizer de has been extended to infinitival complement clau ses also as a complementizer. As a C0 element, de was the best candidate to perform the duties lost by the particle a. (In 4.3, crucial ev idence establishes the C0 status of de ). 2.3.3 Addition of Other Prep ositional Complemen tizers As shown above, a-infinitival purpose clauses were extinct or moribund by the end of the sixteenth century. As also noted, the preposition de and the preposition spre towards were observed to introduce infinitival purpose clause s. The next two examples (59,60) feature infinitival purpose constructions introduced by de Recall that one purpose clause introduced by de, in (53) above, appears even in Coresi (1581). (59) A(u) fost chemat de a se afla fa has been called de to rflx be present la deosebirea acelor stnjeni of differentiating those.Gen acres He was called to witness the marking of the boundary between two pieces of land Alexiu (1939:76), 1795 document (60) S fie legiuit de a se vinde s be.3sg legalized de to rflx sell Let it be legalized in order to be sold. Alexiu (1939:128), 1815 document However, infinitival purpose clauses introduced by de are not as productive as those introduced by the preposition/prepositional complementizers spre towards and pentru for/in order to. It has been noted a bove that purpose constructions with spre and finite verbs were the

PAGE 50

50 precursors of infinitival purpose clauses introduced by this preposition It is remarkable that, still in the light of Haspelmath (1989) another allativ e preposition (spre ) is employed to introduce infinitival purpose clauses. Infinitival purposives with spre are more frequent th an those introduced by pentru a pattern reflected in Alexius (1939) collections of rural docu ments issued between 1608 -1841. (61) with spre and (62) with pentru are from Alexius collection. No such constructions occur in Ureche (1647) or Costin (1675). Both types are in use in CR. (61) Nu-l scoate fa (hrisovul) not-it.Acc show (charter) spre a s izbr ni judecata towards to rflx conclude trial.the He doesnt show the charter in order to conclude the trial Alexiu (1939:44), 1777 document (62) orndui i boeri pentru a s hot r aceasta designate.2pl boyards for to rflx trace this mai sus numita mo ie above mentioned estate Designate boyards in order to mark th e borderline of the estate in question. Alexiu (1939:54), 1778 document Various prepositions will also begin to intr oduce other adjuncts around the middle of the seventeenth century. A construction with an adjunct introduced by the complex preposition n loc de instead of appears as early as Coresi (1581). This constructi on is cited in (63) and a more recent example appears in (64). (63) i n locu de a sparge i a risipi and instead of to break and to waste And instead of breaking and wasting.. Coresi (1581:404) (64) n loc d a porni asupr -le, el sta n nelucrare,.. instead of to embark against-th em, he stood in inaction Instead of embarking agains t them, he stood doing nothing. B lcescu (1852:340)

PAGE 51

51 Other adjuncts are introduced by the prepositions : pn till/until (65), f r /f r de without (66), and nainte de before of (67) (65) Au purces pn a se strnge oastea have.3pl left till to rflx gather army.the They left before the army was gathered. Ureche (1647:49) (66) A(u) vndut partea ei f r de a nu ntreba la socr -s u has sold part her without to not ask P father-in-law-her She sold her part without aski ng her father-in-laws approval Alexiu (1939:39), 1777 document (67) nainte de a se desp r i prin ul se nvoi a before of to rflx depart prince.the rflx agreed to .. Before departing the prince agreed to.. B lcescu (1852:141) All these infinitival adjuncts have spread a nd increased in frequency, reaching their peaks during the nineteenth century. None of the pre positional complementizers introducing infinitival adjuncts form a complex preposition with the infinitival preposition a thus a must have a different status. In sum, the Romanian infinitive underwent the following changes. It lost its initial morpheme, the suffix re, and the particle a was added for its purposive value and to stand for the identity of infinitive. (It is also possible that a had already become an infinitival adjunct. When it was subsequently reanalyzed as the infinitival mood marker, re became vacuous and dropped). Bleached of its purposive value and unable to assign case, a and the infinitive verb were reanalyzed as a constituent. The status and position of a is expected to change. Assuming that prior to these events a was a C0 element, now it is reanalyzed as generated in I0, leaving the C0 position for the emerging de Thus, the particle de came into play to replace the functions the

PAGE 52

52 particle a was not able (or not longer able) to fulfill. By the end of the sixteenth century, the particle a was no longer a complementizer. 2.3.4 The Romanian Infinitive vs. Infinitives of Other Languages A brief survey of the changes involving infinitives in other languages will reveal to what extent the R omanian changes are normal or idios yncratic, and what brought about the demise of the Romanian infinitive in control complements. Like Romanian, English lost its infinitive suffixes, an and enne and like the ainfinitive, the to -infinitive began as a pur posive and spread as a complement (Miller 2002:187). By contrast, the English to never completely lost its capacity to introduce purpose clauses. Also to never lost its integrity as a preposition, whereas the Romanian particle a became confined to the role of infinitive marker. The German infinitive underwent two reinforcements, as reported by Haspelmath (1989). Because the bare infinitive was less clea rly marked as infinitive, the particle zi/zu had to be added as the first reinforcement. Then um (with initial meaning about;for) was added to fulfill the function of purpose. In Modern German, zu is not able to express purpose. Also, the Dutch particle te lost its semantic integrity, so it was no longer able to introduce purpose clauses, and the particle om had to come into play. An infinitival purpose clause requires om te (Miller 2002:236). Thus, the Romanian infi nitive like the infinitives in German and Dutch underwent two reinforcements regarding purpose clauses. The Romanian infinitive and that in other Romance language s added the same particles (of Latin origin) a and de/di but unlike Romance, the Romanian infinitive lost its specific suffix. In addition, the particle a becomes obligatory in Romanian (the mark of the infinitive), which never happened in the rest of Romance. Finally, de must precede the a -infinitive in Romanian, while a and de/di never coexist in the rest of Roma nce. Like Romanian, other Romance

PAGE 53

53 languages employ specific prepositional compleme ntizers for introducing purpose clauses, e.g., Spanish para for. Overall, the changes undergone by the Romanian infinitive are similar to those in other languages. No extraordinary changes occurred in the Romanian infinitive, yet only Romanian and none of the languages mentioned above lost infinitival complementation. 2.4 Distribution of the Particle a The particle a becam e the mark of the infinitive after the infinitive distinguishing morpheme (the suffix re ) vanished making the infinitive verbal form indistinguishable from indicative verbal forms. The presence of the particle a is always required in constructions with infinitives, with very few exceptions however. Be sides the complex tenses future and conditional (shown in 2.2), the bare infinitive is possible afte r certain verbs. This section is concerned with the contexts in which the bare infinitive occurs or used to occur. From the sixteenth century, the time of the ear liest documents, the Romanian infinitive is established with the form a plus short infinitive, e.g., a face to make, or simply a-infinitive. Long-form infinitives (with re suffix) appear here and there as vestiges, mostly in Coresi (1581) and Ureche (1650). Rarely, the long in finitive continues to appear fr om time to time and can be found as late as Creang (1879), but the la st documented re infinitive remains to be attested. The infinitive in (68) represen ts one of the earliest attested a-infinitive forms. (69) shows the original form of the infinitive with its specific re suffix and without the particle a The same matrix verb, a ti to know, that triggers the long infinitive in (69) triggers an a -infinitive in (70). The long infinitive in ( 69) is really a relic, a rare at testation of older form of the infinitive, before losing the suffix re and adding the proclisis a. In the available sources, the long infinitive is typically found preceded by the particle a (71).

PAGE 54

54 (68) li se cade nraintiea ta se vie a gr i they.Dat rflx fits before you Sbj come.3pl to speak They have the right to come before you in order to speak up CV (1528/1532:62) (69) Ferica i oameni ce tiu strigare happy.pl people who know.3pl scream.Inf Happy are the people who know how to invoke (God) Coresi (1577:376) (70) F arnicilor, fa a ceriului ti i a judeca hypocrites, face.the sky.Gen know.2pl to judge Hypocrits, you know how to judge Heaven. Coresi (1561:590) (71) mi era acum a sc pare de dnsul me.Dat was now to escape of him I was anxious to get rid of him Creang (1879:45), Amintiri din Copil rie When the particle a was added to the infinitive, a small number of matrix verbs rejected the particle when followed by infinitive verbs, a phenomenon not unique to Romanian. Vittorini (1942) observes that potentially auxiliary verbs like to want to be able to, to have, to be obliged to do not select infinitives preceded by prepositions in Romance (Spanish, Italian, French). Miller (2002) also poin ts out that (pre-)modal verbs rejected the to -infinitive (in later Early Old English) when it spread to va rious control structures. At that stage, Miller argues, to was not yet in the M(ood) position (not an inflectional element yet). In Romanian, four matrix verbs initially rejected a-infinitive complements: a vrea to want a putea can, a ti to know and a avea to have. Passing through stages of selecting either bare infinitives or a-infinitives, only two of them ended up selecting bare infinitives. Regardless of the selection preferences, when the infinitive is pre posed, the infinitival particle a must be present, as the contrast in (72) indicates. In (72a) the nonfinite verb normally follows the modal that selected it and the particle a is not necessary. If the infinitive can be

PAGE 55

55 preposed like in (72b), the partic le must be present. This constr aint is evident from (72c) where the absence of the particle a renders the derivation ungrammatical. (72) a. Nu pot pleca devreme. not can.1sg leave.Inf early I cannot leave early. b. A pleca devreme, nu pot. to leave early, not can.1sg I cannot leave early. c. pleca devreme, nu pot. 2.4.1 The Verb a Vrea to W ant The future marker in Romanian developed from the verb a vrea (a Balkanesque feature). Thus, although initially the verb a vrea selected bare infinitive complements, there was a split between the future construction with the bare infinitive and the voliti onal structure with the ainfinitive, possibly in order to avoid the am biguity infinitive future indicative. The data below include instances of a vrea followed by bare infinitive (73), examples of early forms of future markers (74) and a vrea selecting a -infinitive complements (75). In (73), a vrea takes verb complements, that is, bare infinitive complements. The past forms of a vrea in all the examples of (73) ex clude them as future markers. (73) a. Toate cte vru Domnul feace n ceriu all those wanted Lord.the do.Inf in Heaven All the things the Lord wanted to make in Heaven. Coresi (1577:553) b. nimea nau vrutu ntreba nici dinioar nobody.Acc nothave wanted ask.Inf nor before They never wanted to ask anyone (about that). Coresi (1581:273) c. Au vrut fi apucat i alte cet i have.3pl wanted be seized and other citadels They wanted to have seized other citadels too. Ureche (1647:45)

PAGE 56

56 A vrea in (74), is the future marker. In (74a) the contexts indicates that vre is the future marker. Also, the clitics -l and -i in (74a) and (74d) respectivel y, which can precede the future marker but not the lexical verb, indicate that the forms of vrea are not lexical verbs in these two examples. The future marker for first person plural is already different from the form of the verb a vrea for the same person. Compare v mu we will and vremu we want in (74b). At this stage however both forms may indicate future. The tw o consecutive (indicative) lexical verbs are impossible in (74c), showing that vrea is a future marker form. (74) a. iar de-l vre piarde (sufletul) but if-cl.Acc will lose (the soul) But if he will lose it (his soul) Coresi (1560/1:127) b. c vmu totu avea de vremu bea that will.1pl all have if want.1pl drink.Inf That we will have everythi ng if we want to drink, Coresi (1581:154) c. Nu vrea putea fi not will.3sg can be.Inf He will not be able to be Ureche (1647:133) d. Mai apoi, de-i vrea fi a domni mult, then, if-cl.Dat will be to reign long nu vrea putea fi s nu urmeze fr ine-s u not will can be s not follow brother-his.Acc Then, if it will be preordained for him to reign for a long time, he will not be allowed not to follow his brother. Ureche (1647:118) A vrea in all the examples in (75) is the lexical verb. In (75a) vrea is itself preceded by the future marker, so it cannot be a futu re marker. The presence of the particle a in all three exam ples of (75) excludes the verb a vrea as a future marker. The a-infinitive may directly follow the matrix verb a vrea in (75b), while the subj ect is postverbal (after vrea ) in (75a). Only

PAGE 57

57 a-infinitives can be preposed (75c). The embedded clauses in (75) are infinitival control complement clauses. (75) a. c de voru vrea pizma ii Iudeii a oc r that if will.3pl want embittered Jews to defame (Jesus) If the embittered Jews will want to defame (Jesus) Coresi (1581:349) b. Cel ce ciudese f cea vru a se r stigni that which miracles made wanted to rflx crucify The one who was making miracles wanted to be crucified. Coresi 1581:519) c. A veni nu vrur to come not wanted.3pl To come, they didnt want Coresi (1581:305) In many cases, a vrea followed by bare infinitives is ambiguous, as in the following two examples where the forms of a vrea in (76) could be either future marker or infinitive. (76) a. i vremu l cui acie ntru anu, i vremu face nego u and want.1pl live here in year and wa nt.1pl make trade And we want to live here next year and want to do business And we will live here next year and will do business CV (1528/1532:130) b. De nu vrea iar si c uta (pre Hristosu) if not wants again seek.Inf (P Christ.the) If he doesnt want to seek (the Lord) again If he will not seek (Jesus) again Coresi (1581:268) The future volition ambiguity and the conf usion it may have created led to selection reanalysis, so the verb a vrea eventually ended up selecting a -infinitive complements. Unfortunately, the duality infinitive future auxiliary of a vrea that existed for a long period of time led to its avoidance as a matrix verb taking infinitive complement clauses. Although ainfinitive complements selected by a vrea appear in rural documents (77) and are also used by

PAGE 58

58 illustrious writers (78), subjunctive complements to this verb spread at the expense of the infinitive. A vrea was the first verb that lost its infinitival complementation. (77) Toader nu vra a e i din cas Tudor not wants to exit from house Tudor does not want to leave the house Stefanelli (1915:410), 1837 document (78) Vru a cuprinde Modova i ai r zbuna wanted.3sg to take Moldavia and to-rflx revenge He wanted to take Mold avia and to revenge B lcescu (1852:191) In sum, the evidence shows that the verb a vrea initially selected bare infinitive but since the future marker evolved from this verb, it had to change and select a-infinitives. Infrequently used as a matrix verb taking infinitival complement clauses, a vrea ended up selecting subjunctive complements a nd is often called a subjunctive verb. 2.4.2 The Verb a Putea Can The verb a putea r ejected the a-infinitive in the oldest documents, e.g., CV 1528/32, but change was already underway. For instance, wh en a clitic (or other element) precedes the nonfinite verb a is required. When the word order does not follow the standard pattern (i.e., preposing the infinitive) the particle is also required. Di achronically, apart from these restrictions, a putea freely takes a-infinitive or bare infinitive complements. In (79), a putea selects bare infinitives, i.e., VP complements. (79) a. cela ce poate mntui i piarde that who can re deem.Inf and destroy.Inf The one who can redeem or destroy CV (1528/1532 :130) b, Nedreptatea nu putui vedea injustice.the not could.1sg see.Inf I could not see that injustice. Coresi (1577:527)

PAGE 59

59 In (80), a putea must take an a-infinitive when a clitic or adverb precedes the verb. A pronominal clitic is present in (80a,b) and an inte nsifier in (80c) and the infinitival particle is present. (80) a. a a v mu putea a ne chema oile so will.1pl can to us.cl call.Inf sheep We will not be able to gather our sheep. Coresi (1581:490) b. copila M riei tale nu poate ai ascunde nimic. damsel greatness your not can.3sg to-cl.2.Dat hide anything Your greatness daughter ca nnot hide anything from you. Sadoveanu (1880-1961) Zodia Cancerului c. nu putem a mai r spunde not can.1pl a more answer We cannot be responsible anymore. Stefanelli (1915:189), 1790 document Unlike the examples of (80), the clitics in (8 1) appear in the matrix (preceding the verb a putea ). In this environment, the infinitival particle is not allowed. The examples (81a,b) are said to be the result of clitic climbing, i.e., from the infinitival (embedde d) clause to the clitic position of the matrix. (Restructuring and clitic climbi ng will be discussed in Chapter 4, Section 4.8). Clitic climbing is disallowed when a is present (81c). (81) a. Nu-l poate mblnzi not-he.cl.Acc can.3sg appease.Inf He cannot appease him. Ureche (1647:60) b. Nu le putem afla numele not they.cl.Acc can.1pl find out.Inf names.the We cannot find out their names. Ureche (1647:87) c. *Nu le putem a afla numele. In all examples of (82), a putea selects a-infinitive complement clauses, although nothing imposes the presence of the infinitive marker. The position of the matrix subject oile the sheep,

PAGE 60

60 between the matrix verb and the infinitive verb in (82d) or the connective of the conjoined infinitival clauses in (82e) have no input in the presence of a. Both (82d) and (82e) are possible without the infinitival particle, diachronically. In CR, they are possible only without the particle. (82) a. nu poate a mearge pre urma Domnului not can.3sg to go P way Lord.Gen He is not able to follow Gods way. Coresi (1581:416) b. Nice mp ratul nem scu au putut a a edza nor emperor.the German has could to put Ardealul n partea sa Transylvania in part.the his Not even the German emperor wa s able to take Transylvania Costin (1675:16) c. S putem a mplini aceast datorie s can.1pl to fulfill this duty So that we can fulfill this duty. Stefanelli (1915:281), 1800 document d. nu potu oile a treace pren mijlocul lupilor not can.3pl sheep to pass through middle wolves.Gen The sheep cannot pass through a pack of wolves. Coresi (1581:202) e. putem cnta i a gr i can.1pl sing.Inf and to speak We can sing and talk. Coresi (1581:108) The verb a putea has become restricted to bare infinitive complements in CR. This means that, without the particle a, no negation, clitics or adverbial in tensifiers are possible immediately preceding the bare nonfinite verb. These elements must occur in the matrix. In (83) the negation, the clitic, and the intensifier are placed in the matrix. A putea is here reanalyzed as a member of the category M(odal). (83) Nu l mai pot vedea Not cl.him more can see.Inf I cannot see him anymore.

PAGE 61

61 Nonetheless, there are cases where a is required. The constructi on in (84a) is identical in OSR and CR. The negation must be both in th e matrix and the subordinate clause and nu not before an infinitive is not possible wh en the mood marker is absent (84b). (84) a. c el nu putea a nu primi cu cuviin un ambasador that he not could to not receive with homage an ambassador That he couldnt receive an ambassador without homage. B lcescu (1852:303) b. *c el nu putea nu primi cu cuviin un ambasador Also, when a putea is used in its reflexive form, a clitic or an intensifier ( mai ) are not allowed in the matrix, thus they must be in th e embedded clause and the mood marker is required (85). When the infinitive precedes a putea, the infinitive must have its marker (86). (85) Nu se poate a-l mai urca pe aici not rflx can.3sg to-him more lift P here He cannot be lifted this way anymore. Popescu (1992:449) (86) Voi a v mntui nu pute i you.pl to rflx redeem not can.2pl You cannot redeem yourselves on your own. CV (1528/1532:92) In the absence of any factor that requires a, a putea takes a bare infinitive complement, simply because there is no infiniti ve indicative semantic ambiguity. 2.4.3 The Verb a ti to Kno w The verb a ti followed by the infinitive is rather ra re in the oldest documents. In Coresi (1577) there is one instance of a ti followed by the long infinitive, w ith no infinitival particle, as illustrated above in (69). In Coresi (1581), there are two instances of a a ti selecting an infinitive. One is followed by the a-infinitive (87) the other by a bare infinitive (88). (87) Mai multu nemica nu tie alta a ntoarce c tre Dumnezeu more nothing not knows other to turn to God He knows nothing more than to turn to God. Coresi (1581:238)

PAGE 62

62 (88) S ne nv mu milostenie s timu face s rlfx learn.1pl charity s know.1pl make.Inf Let us learn to know how to be charitable Coresi (1581:449) A ti continues to select either a-infinitives (89) or bare infinitives (90), but the ainfinitive is predominant. (89) c i am tiut scrie those have.1pl known write.Inf Those of us who knew how to write. Stefanelli (1915:290), 1801 document (90) n-ai tiut a profita de ocazie not-have.2sg known to profit of occasion You didnt know how to take a dvantage of this occasion. Potra et al (1972) 1848 letter As expected, when one of the one-syllable elements allowed between the infinitival particle and the infinitive verb is present, the particle is required. The examples (91) and (92) have a-infinitives imposed by the presence of the reflexive pronouns. Both the negation and the clitic in (93a) require the presen ce of the infinitival particle. Without the pa rticle, the derivation is ungrammatical (93b). (91) martorii ne tiind a s isc li witnesses-the not knowing to rflx sign The witnesses didnt know how to sign (were illiterate). Stefanelli (1915:409) 1836 doc ument, Cmplulung Moldova (92) Nem ii tiu a se bate germans.the know to rflx fight The Germans know how to fight. B lcescu (1852:66) (93) a. S fie tiut a nu m t g dui s be known to not me.cl deny Let it be known that I have an uncontestable right Alexiu (1939:144), 1821 document, V.Teleajenului b. *S fie tiut nu m t gdui

PAGE 63

63 A ti may also select infinitival question/interrogative complements where the infinitival particle is present. One ex ample is included below (94). (94) nu tim de ce a ne minuna mai mult not know.1pl of what to us wonder more We dont know what more to wonder about. B lcescu (1852:95) When the verb a ti takes infinitival interrogative complements, the particle a may be optional (95) or required (96a). The latter may be possible only as an indicative construction (96b). In some cases, the absence of the particle a results in infinitive (97a) indicative (97b) ambiguity. (95) Nu tiu cu cine (a) m mprieteni not know.1sg with who to rflx befriend I dont know with who to be friend. (96) a. tie ncotro/unde *(a) merge knows where (to) go She knows where to go. b. tie ncotro/unde merge knows where goes She knows where he goes. (97) a. Nu tiu ce face. not know.1sg what do.Inf I dont know what to do. b. Nu tiu ce face. not know.1sg what does.Ind I dont know what he does. Assuming that a is a complementizer when this partic le is absent when following wh phrases11 in constructions with the verb a ti plus interrogative complements is disproved by the 11 A wh -word and a complementizer do not coexist in Romanian (shown in S ection 3.4). Therefore, a cannot be a complementizer if it appears following wh -words.

PAGE 64

64 fact that the infinitive following wh -phrases may or may not be accompanied by the particle a. In addition, the particle is often re quired in such constructions. Popescu (1992:307) believes that a ti followed by bare infinitives is a regionalism. Diachronically, some writers never use bare infinitives after the verb a ti, while others use either bare infinitives or a-infinitives when possible, but an a-infinitive when wh -words are present. In general, the verb a ti is rarely able to select infinitival complements if the infinitival particle a is absent. 2.4.4 The Verb a Avea to Have Deontic a avea which denotes obligation, perm issi on and possibility, always selects a infinitives (98) or de a-infinitive complements (99). The contrast in (100) shows that the infinitival particle is required when deontic a avea takes an infinitival complement. The example (100a) is repeated in (100b) but without the particle a nd the derivation crashes. (98) Iar de veri zice s vie [ea are a veni] but if will.2sg say s comes she has to come But if you will tell her to come she has to come Coresi (1581:228) (99) Au avut de a r scump ra ( cincizeci stnjeni) have.3pl had de to buy back (fifty fathoms) They had to by back those fifty fathoms Alexiu (1939:62) 1786 document (100) a. Ve i avea a sem na ntru de ertu will.2pl have to sow into desert You will have to sow in the desert Coresi (1581:459) b. Ve i avea sem na ntru de ertu A avea followed by the a-infinitive could be also considered a future tense where a avea is an auxiliary. This construction seems to be inherited from Vulgar Latin which had a future formed with habere to have and the infinitive. Structures with habere expressed initially

PAGE 65

65 necessity, then future (Graur et al, 1965:82). Actually, it may be possible to consider are a veni has to come in (98) a periphrastic structure expressing future: she wi ll come. However, there are structures with a avea and infinitives where a avea itself may have future tense as in (100) or past tense as in (99). Apart from the constructions with deontic a avea and infinitival clauses, there are some constructions with a avea plus expressions with wh -words and infinitives12. The infinitive in these constructions is usually bare in OSR (102) but the particle a may be also present (101). In CR, these constructions appear onl y with bare infinitives. (101) a. n-are cine a asculta nici a sp i not-has who to listen, nor to repent There is no one to list en or to repent .. Coresi (1581:254) b. i neavnd de unde a pl ti datornicilor and not having from wh ere to pay creditors.Dat and they werent able to pay the creditors Stefanelli (1915:412), 1837 document (102) a. Navem de unde lua nothave.1pl from where take.Inf There is nothing we can take from anywhere. Stefanelli (1915: 234), 1793 document b. Nu avea de ce se apuca not had.3sg of what rflx lean.Inf He didnt have anything to lean on Costin (1675:105) c. Namu cu ce m hr ni nothave.1sg with what rflx feed.Inf I dont have anything to feed myself Coresi (1581:399) 12 Schulte (2004:161) calls structures like those in (101, 102) coreferential indirect wh-questions complements. However, they seem different from the structures with a ti and interrogative comple ments (94, 95, 97). The segment that begins with the wh-word seems to be an NP, e.g., the chunk in bold in (101, 102).

PAGE 66

66 By contrast, the same type of constructions but with the verb a fi to be plus wh -words must always be followed by the a-infinitive, as illustrated by the examples in (103a,104a,105a). The b. examples are the a. examples, but with bare infinitives. Without the particle a the verb ascunde hide in (103b) has the form of 3rd person singular, present indicative; the verb izb vi in (104b) has the form of 3rd person singular simple perfect indicative; The example (104b) is ungrammatical without the particle a (103) a. C nu e cine a ascunde c ldura sa that not is who to hide warmth his Because there is no one to hide his warmth Coresi (1577:94) CP2, 1589 variant b. C nu e cine ascunde c ldura sa that not is who hide.3sg warmth his Because this is not the one who hides his warmth. (104) a. Prinde i-l c nu e cine a-l izb vi catch.Imp.2pl-him that not is who to-him redeem Catch him because there is no one to redeem him. Coresi (1577:294) CP2, 1589 variant b. Prinde i-l c nu e cine -l izb vi catch.Imp.2pl-him that not is who -him redeemed Catch him because he is not the one who redeemed him (105) a. nu era cum a sta mpotriva o tilor not was how to stay against armies.Gen It wasnt possible to co nfront those armies. Costin (1675:137) b. *nu era cum sta mpotriva o tilor The question is what makes it possible for an infinitive to appear without the particle a ? Comparing the examples with a avea to have (101-102) with those with a fi to be (103-105), it appears that the particle a is required when its absence leads to ungrammaticality or to ambiguity between infinitive and indicative readings.

PAGE 67

67 Since nearly any bare infinitive form is homophonous with some indicative verbal form, the occurrence of bare infinitive complements (with or without wh -words) is strictly attributed to the nature of the respective matrix verb. In the end, due to their nature, only two verbs are able to take bare infinitive complements: a putea can and, rarely, a ti to know. Apart from these exceptions, the infinitive is always preceded by the particle a, in any infinitival structure. Without a, an infinitival structure is rendered ungrammatical, e.g., (106b). Although write could be infinitive or indicative, (106b) cannot be grammatical as an indicative structure because a C element is always needed to introduce an embedded indicative clause (106c). Therefore, an infinitiveindicative ambiguity is only possibl e when a subordinator, i.e., wh -phrases, precedes the nonfinite verb in the absence of the infinitival particle a, as seen in the case of the verb a ti. (106) a. Radu sper a scrie o carte. Radu hopes to write a book Radu hopes to write a book. b. *Radu sper scrie o carte. Radu hopes write.Inf/3sg.Ind *Radu hopes write/writes a book c. Radu sper c scrie o carte. Radu hopes that write.3sg.Ind a book Radu hopes that she is writing a book. In sum, the particle a is the unique morphology of th e infinitive: the one-member paradigm of infinitive in Haspelmaths (1989) terms. Wit hout the particle a, the infinitive has no identity and infinitival structures are not possible (excepting the cases discussed above). 2.5 Causes of Infinitive Loss This section is concerned with the factors th at caused, contributed and ultim ately led to the loss of infinitival complementation in Romanian.

PAGE 68

68 The theory of a single language influence that spread into the languages of the Balkans seems to be true for Romanian. In Sandfelds (1930) view, Greek influe nce was the source for the loss of the infinitive in control compleme nts. Sandfelds approach is sustained by the following arguments. Traces of infinitives do not exist in the southernmost languages, Greek and Tosk Albanian, and the traces incr ease from South to North, with some traces in Bulgarian and more in Romanian and Serbo-Croatian. This means that the change was propagated from the South to the North of the Balkan region, a conclu sion further sustained by the evidence of early development in the Greek infinitive (i.e., loss of the infinitive). Subsequently, the predominant influence of the Greek culture, which began early can be observed in the whole Balkan region. Lastly, the changes undergone by the Greek infinitiv e, which began at a very early date (just before the AD era), imply that the infinitive -replacement phenomenon appears to be a natural development in this language. For Romanian, language contact with Greek was crucial for the loss of the infinitive. This section discusses the avenues of the Greek influence, that is, th e proof of language contact, the origin of the infinitive-subjunctive alternation in the same structure types, and the possible internal factors contribution. Si nce the influence exercised by the Greek language on Romanian has been determinative, a summary of the events that caused the loss of the Greek infinitive is also included. Also, the inventory of the numerous changes undergone by the Greek infinitive is significant when comparing them with the few changes undergone by the Romanian infinitive, suggesting that the internal changes in Greek but not in Romanian caused the loss of infinitival complementation. 2.5.1 Loss of Infinitive in Greek The regression of the infinitive and its replacem ent by a reflex of the subjunctive in Greek was a long and gradual process. An outline of the changes undergone by the Greek

PAGE 69

69 infinitive will be presented in this subsection. For a detailed account accompanied by a wealth of illustrative data see Joseph (1983). The events gathered below are from Josephs work on the history of the Greek infinitive. A couple of comments and a number of footnotes will be also added. The beginning of the regression of the infinitive is placed in late Classical Greek at the time of Thucydides13 (born approximately mid 460s BC). The phenomenon is marked by the addition of the particle tou (a genitive neuter article) in plac es where the infinitive was strictly bare. This infinitive is called articular infini tive and the particle is called subordinator. Thucydides writings include such ex amples. This morphological renewal is believed to have weakened the infinitive domain without changing its nonfinite status (Joseph, 1983). In the next stage, of Post-Classical Gree k, between circa the second century BC and the sixth century AD, the infinitive appears with the conjunctions hina, hopo:s and hoti in a number of environments. In Classical Gr eek, these conjunctions were used only with finite forms. The use of these conjunctions with infinitives is considered performance errors or popular confusion, but they brought about the d emise of the infinitive (Joseph, 1983:51). In Biblical or Hellenistic Greek, the infinitiv e is found as a sole form in a small number of environments or, more frequently, in alternation with finite verb form s in other contexts, as attested in early Christian writings. The New Testament includes infinitives of pur pose triggered by verbs of motion with or without tou but mostly with tou Its usage with tou appears to be greater than in Classical Greek. Parallel, subjunctives with hina were possible in the New Testament but still optional. The 13 Thucydides Probable date of birth around mid 460s BC; elected Athenian general in 424 BC; The author of Histories.

PAGE 70

70 articular infinitive was common with the prepositions dia and para to indicate cause and with eis and pros to indicate purpose. It is interesting to notice that verbs like mello be about to, opheilo ought to, dunamai can, arkhomai begin, tolm dare and epithumo wish/desire that are usually control verbs occurred with infinitive complements. Thelo want selected both infinitive clauses and finite clause with hina ( na in Modern Greek). Thelo took infinitive complements when the subject of the matrix and that of the subordinate were identical (control) and took finite forms with hina in noncontrol situations. Sometimes, an infini tive complement was conjoined with a hina complement (as in Romanian: an infinitive clause can be conjoined with a subjunctive clause). The result was that for almost every constr uction with the infinitive there was a finite variant, and in general the examples with the infinitive only (e.g., object deletion and object raising) are in small number in the Bible. From the second century and into Medieval Greek (twelfth century) many changes took place on the morphology of the infi nitive: the perfect infinitive was lost; the middle ending was replaced by the passive ending; the first aorist14 active ending underwent some changes that made it more like the second aorist, etc. The infinitive continued to appear in Greek during the early Byzantine period, but its replacements were more frequently used. However, the use of the infinitive in nonliterary papiry continued until the seventh century. The infiniti ve was also quite widely used in Malalas15 (sixth century) and Moschos16 (seventh century). 14 Aorist (Greek meaning: without horizon, unbounded) is a verb tense which in infinitive and participle is purely aspectual and devoid of any temporal meaning. In Gr eek (and Sanskrit) the aorist is marked by several morphological devices. 15 Malalas author of Chronographia ; chronicler of the sixth century. 16 Moschos a Desert Father, (D.619) author of the compilation of stories and sayings The Spiritual Meadow.

PAGE 71

71 The final stages of the loss of the infinitive are perceived during the Medieval Greek (or later stages of Byzantine Greek) from the elev enth century to the seventeenth century. The alternation between infinitive and finite verb s can be noticed between earlier and later manuscripts of the same text. The Paris manuscript of the fifteenth century of Chronicle of Morea in many cases has a finite verb where the earlier manuscript, the fourteenth century manuscript of Copenhagen, had an infinitive. The observation here is that these infinitival complements in the manuscript of Copenhagen ar e triggered by control ve rbs, the same verbs that were used in Biblical Greek. The articular infinitive appears sporadically in this period, but these forms are fixed phrases or lexicalized forms used as simple nouns. (Joseph, 1983:59.) Some new uses of the infinitive also appear in Mediev al Greek. For instance, the tempor al or circumstantial infinitive that is an extension of the articular infinitive, now marked with to (previously tou ?) lengthened a bit the duration of the infinitive in general. This temporal infinitive appeared during the tenth century. It was not really used in the Byzantine times but it wa s quite common in the Medieval Greek vernacular. It shows up in Chronicle of Morea quite frequently. The temporal infinitive lasted until the beginning of the fifteenth centu ry. After that, it was replaced by a finite verb. In the Medieval Greek vernacular texts, the in finitive occurs as complement to the verbs for have and want, only to form future, conditional and irre alis moods. The loss of the infinitive in Greek must have been over at a time subseque nt to the medieval period. In Joseph (1999), the replacement is considered to be over just before the1600s. The changes undergone by the Greek infinitive were in much greater number than the changes in other Indo-European languages, Ro manian included. In Haspelmaths (1989)

PAGE 72

72 counting, the Greek infinitive underwent thirteen reinforcements. This difference suggests that the loss of the infinitive in Greek was caused by the numerous internal changes. 2.5.2 Infinitive-Subjunctive Alternation The oldest R omanian records (sixteenth century ) show that some syntactic structures are constructed with either infinitive or subjuncti ve. These sources leave no indication about the origin of this alternation or about when th is phenomenon began, that is when structures constructed with infinitive only began to be also cons tructed with subjunctive. For instance, in one of the oldest Romanian sources CV (Codicele Vorone ean) the motion verb a veni to come triggers purpose clauses w ith infinitive (107a) or subjunctive (107b). The subjunctive-type of purpos e clause is still rare at this time. The example below is the only one in CV. Notice that the subjun ctive particle is in its stage of se17. (107) a. nime nau veinritu a gr i de tinre ceva reu nobody nothave.3sg come to speak of you something bad Nobody came to say something bad about you. CV (1528/1532:102) b. E Alecsandru veinre se r spund gloateei and Alexander came Sbj answer.3sg crowd.Gen And Alexander came to answer the crowds questions CV (1528/1532:12) Also a number of matrix predicates may select either infinitive or subjunctive complement clauses: a se nevoi to try/strive, a fi gata to be ready, a voi will, a ruga to ask/beg, a putea can, a vrea to want, a dice (zice) to say. For instance, the verb a se nevoi to try takes an infinitival comp lement clause in (108a) and a s ubjunctive complement clause in (108b). Both examples are subject control clauses. (108) a. si se nevoiasc a ntoarce r t ci ii c tr dedev ru 17 The form of the subjunctive particle in Old Romanian has the form se which is homophonous with the reflexive pronoun se Sometimes, this reflexive has the form s identical to the subjunctive particle in CR.

PAGE 73

73 and Sbj try.3sg to return lost.pl towards truth And they are trying to guide the lost ones back to the truth. CV (1528/1532:109) b. nevoitea-se se pomeneasc de nv tori tried-rflx Sbj mention.3sg of teachers They tried to remember the (spiritual) teachers CV (1528/1532:166) Some opinions link the replacement of the infini tive with subjunctive complementation in Romanian to some changes in Latin inherited then by Romanian. Joseph (1983) notes that some scholars (Bari 1961, Iliescu 1968, Saltarelli 1981, Rozencvej g 1976) believe that the alternation of the infinitive in Vulgar Latin with finite clauses in certain structur es continued and extended into Romanian and ultimately led to a full-scale replacement of the infinitive. For instance, Bari (1961) argues that there was an inclination in Latin conditional clauses constructed with the subjunctive and the conjunction si to undertake a goal or purpose sense. This tendency permitted the association si subjunctive to assume the role of infinitival replacement. This argument may have some validity since the subjunctive particle s comes from the Latin si via Old Romanian se. Indeed, s subjunctive may replace most infinitival clauses in Romanian. However, Joseph (1983) argues that despite an early East-West split within Vulgar Latin, Romanian and the other Romance languages must have shared the same linguistic system at some point. The fact that the loss of the infini tive is restricted to Romanian, the phenomenon may have occurred within the development of Roma nian proper. It is we ll known that in other Romance languages complement to verb structures are constructed with the infinitive when the matrix and the subordinate clauses share the same subject (control), and with the subjunctive

PAGE 74

74 when the two clauses have separate subjects18. Romanian departs from Romance by allowing control structures with the subjunctive, (108b) above, or the infinitive (108a). Furthermore, Joseph (1983) points out that the connection with those fluctuations in Latin could not be more than a starting point in the re placement of some infinitive functions with the subjunctive in Romanian, since this phenomenon never happened in the rest of the Romance languages. Besides, Megleno-Romanian19 and Aromanian20 whose speakers are deeply located in the Balkans lost all their infinitives, whereas Istro-Romanian21 whose speakers are in Croatia, at the border with Italy (their country in the past, before bor der redesign) retained most of infinitive functions. The replacement of the infi nitive in Romania, which is not a fully Balkan country, was considerably slower. Another source for the infinitive subjunctive alternation would be language contact. The early contacts among Balkan languages are placed around 600 to 800 AD, according to Klagstadt (1963) cited by Joseph (1983). Joseph relates that there was a bilingual si tuation in which Macedonian, Bulgarian and Albanian speakers also spoke Greek. Since the loss of the infinitive in Greek began early and the process was in an advanced stage, it could have motivated the generalization of this phenomenon in the languages of the region. 18 As the Spanish examples show, in (i) both verbs share the same subject, whereas in (ii) each verb/clause has its own subject. The examples are borrowed from Joseph (1983). (i) Quiero venir. want.1sg come.Inf I want to come (ii) Quiero que venga. want.1sg that come.Sbj.2sg I want you to come 19 Megleno-Romanian spoken in Macedonia and Bulgaria northeast of Thessaloniki. 20 Aromanian or Macedo-Romanian is spoken in parts of Greece, Al bania, and Macedonia. 21 Istro-Romanian spoken by Romanians in Istria, the territory that used to be Italian, today Croatia.

PAGE 75

75 For Romanian, Joseph argues that the contact with Bulgarian in the south would have promoted the spread of the infinitive-loss. Rosetti (1968:292) mentions another situation of bilingualism (in the region) used by Slavs and Romanians who lived together on the south territory of todays Romania. Joseph assumes that the difference between Romanian and the languages from the central Balkan region is a ch ronological one. The process of replacement, which started at an earlier date and was more a dvanced in Greek than in Bulgarian, explains the late influence of Bulgarian on Romanian. One way of this infl uence was through the translation of religious books. All Romanian books (at least those preserved) prin ted during the sixteen century were religious and church books translated from Slavoni c/Old Bulgarian, which in turn were translated from Greek Regarding the old Slavic texts translated from Greek, Rosetti ( 1968:558) describes those translations as absolutely subservient and often very awkward Similarly, the Romanian texts translated from Slavonic follow the Slavonic syntax too closely, re sulting in obsequious imitations of the original structures without c onsideration for the natural Romanian word order and structures. This manner of translation may explain the small number of infinitival complement clauses in the religious books of the sixteenth century. Regardless of the initial source of the infini tivesubjunctive alternat ion in Romanian, the possibility of expressing the same structure wi th two moods will have eventually led to the preference of one of them (subjunctive) at the ex pensive of the other (infinitive). Nonetheless, this alternation alone may not necessarily explai n the high-scale retreat of the infinitive from complement clauses in Romanian. 2.5.3 Internal Factors As already known, the loss of th e specific infinitive suffix re caused th e loss of the infinitive morphological and semantic identity. One of the effects of this shortening is that the

PAGE 76

76 new infinitive form is identical with 3rd person singular verbal form in indicative present, imperfect, or simple perfect (examples included in the previous section, 2.4). Some authors argue that the homophony between an infinitive verb and various finite forms may have been a possibility for the interpre tation of infinitive forms as being finite. Since similar changes happened in other languages (e.g., Bulgarian, Macedonian), Togeby (1962) argues that these morpho-phonetic developments ar e the actual explanation for the infinitive loss in those languages. Joseph (1983) considers that although this ho mophony could have some contribution, there is no evidence for any reanalysis of the infinitive as finite forms, but the potential for such interpretation still exists. Nevertheless, as evidenced in the previous section on the distribut ion of the particle a a short infinitive is not possible without this partic le, with very few exceptions. For instance, it is simply not possible for a structure like (109a) with a bare infinitive to be interpreted as (109b), where the second clause has an indicative present ve rb and a subject distinct from the subject of the matrix verb. Although the infinitive verb in (109a) and the third pe rson present indicative verb in (109b) have the same form, there is no infinitive-indicative ambiguity. When this kind of ambiguity may arise, the particle a is required, as seen in the pa rallel examples with the verb a fi to be in (110). These kinds of exam ples are discussed in Section 2.4. (109) a. Nu am ce face not have.1sg what do.Inf I do not have (anything) to do. b. *Nu am ce face el/ea not have.1sg what does he/she *I dont have anything him/her to do. (110) a. C nu e cine a ascunde c ldura sa that not is who to hide warmth his Because there is no one to hide his warmth Coresi (1577:94) CP2, 1589 variant

PAGE 77

77 b. C nu e cine ascunde c ldura sa that not is who hide.3sg warmth his Because this is not the one who hides his warmth. Besides, the loss of the infinitive suffix and the infinitive indicative homophony in English have not led to the reanalysis of infinitive as finite forms or to the regression of the infinitive in this language. Thus the shortening of the infinitive verbal form may not explain the infinitive-loss in Romanian. The weakening of the particle a seemed to have a greater im pact on the weakening of the infinitive, however. Recall that by the end of the sixteenth century, a was not able to assign case to nominalized infinitives and to introduce purpose clauses of non-motion verbs. The weakness of the infinitive led to innovati ons like implicative verbs taking indicative complements (instead of infinitival complements) introduced by the complementizer de This complementizer replaced the functions of the particle a and began to introduce a-infinitive clauses. The emergence of de as an infinitival complementizer (evidenced in 2.3 and Chapter 4) may have actually strengthened the infinitive. Joseph (1983) believes that the infinitival particle de slowed the process of the replacement so that infinitive complement stru ctures survived for a longer time in Romanian comparing with other language s of the Balkan Sprachbund. Unfortunately, as any linguistic change, the process of establishing de as an infinitival component was slow. Introdu ced in Coresi (1581), de actually began to appear in sources from the middle of the next century only. In conclusion, admitting that some of the changes undergone by the infinitive contributed to the infinitive loss, they alone cannot explai n this phenomenon since the infinitive in other languages underwent similar changes (examples gi ven in Section 2.3), but never lost their

PAGE 78

78 infinitival complementation. Moreover, the infin itive of Southern dialects of Italian, e.g., Salentino of Brindisi22, never lost their original morphologi cal form but still replaced their infinitival complementation with subjunctive complementation unde r the influence of the Greek language through the Greek population in the region. 2.5.4 Greek Influence Between the fourteenth and eighteenth centu ries, the Rom anian Principalities of Moldavia and Walachia ( ara Rom neasc ) evolved as part of the Eastern Orthodox religious and cultural world: their ecclesiastical allegiance wa s to the patriarchate of Constantinople; their princes emulated the Byzantine emperors and dr ew their written law from Byzantine codes. The spread of Greek culture in the Romanian pr incipalities was part of the larger culture of the Orthodox Christianity. Greek culture infl uenced Romanian culture through many avenues: religion, politics, philosophy and education, all of them by means of Greek people and the Greek language. According to B lcescus (1852:14-17) account, after th e fall of Eastern Empire (1453), many Greeks from Constantinople and Rumelia23 found refuge in the Romanian Principalities. These Greeks began to practice commerce and i ndustry, became rich, married Romanian women and gained civic rights. Controlling the comm erce and industry, the Greeks gained economical and political power. In the 1600s, th e presence of the Greeks, at least the wealthy and powerful ones, was great, and perceived as a threat to the Romanian nati onal character of the country. 22 For instance the infinitive cantare to sing of Salentino still has the initial Latin form with the suffix re also the original Romanian form, now cnta. 23 Rumelia or Rumell (Turkish Rumeli Land of the Romans) a name used from the 15th century onwards for the southernBalkan regions of the Ottoman Empire. Rumelia included ancient provinces of Constantinople, Thessaloniki, Thrace, Macedonia and Moesia, todays central Greece and European Turkey. In Greece the name Rumeli has been used since Ottoman times to refer to Central Greece.

PAGE 79

79 Rosetti (1968:604) reminds us that the Greek influence, especially through the Orthodox Church, was very powerful until the nineteen th century. Around 1702, Eduard Chisthull, an English monk notes that in ara Romneasc church services took pl ace in Greek or Slavonic, and not in Romanian. (cf. Panaitescu, 1965: 225). Many Romanians today recall that many churches still had Greek priests in the 1970s-1980s. Books were a significant means of spreadi ng Greek culture and language. As Panaitescu (1965) reports, Romanian humani sts who knew Greek believed that the most powerful source of the church books and the books of laws was Gr eek literature and not Slavonic one. Panaitescu points out that starting with th e middle of the seventeenth centu ry almost all religious books written in Romanian were translated from Greek. The most important book printed by the Romanian printing art of the time was Biblia de la Bucure ti (The Bible of Bucharest), printed at the printing office of the Metropo litan Church of Buch arest in 1688. It was a translation from Greek. In addition, many of the printing presses bel onging to various chur ches and monasteries had Greek sections like the prin ting office of the Metropolitan Church of Bucharest. Another Greek printing office fu nctioned at the Cetuia Monastery in Moldavia. Other Greek printing offices functioned in Snagov, Rmnic, Trgovi te, Ia i, etc.24 The books of translations from Greek are not only religious, but secular as well. Greek books in the original like chronicles and new editions, translations in Romanian of older books, or new literary work produced by the Greek diaspora, began to spread in the Romanian Principalities, beginning in the seco nd half of the seventeenth century. 24 See for instance Papacostea-Danielopolu (1995) and B ltu (1993), among others

PAGE 80

80 On the other hand, 1566 volumes of Greek manu scripts that include records about the entire spectrum of activ ities in medieval Romania have been written and preserved in the country (Rotaru 1981). Panaitescu (1965) relates that the followers of the Neo-Aristotelian philosophy defeated in Constantinople find protection and understanding in the regal schools of ara Romneasc For instance, Ioan Cariofil accused of heresy by the Patriarchy of Constantinople comes to Bucharest where he prints his Greek Manual about some confusions, regarding the church dogmas. Then, during the eighteenth cen tury and the beginning of th e nineteenth century, more precisely between 1717-1821, the Greek political domi nation reaches its zenith in Romania. This period is known in history as the Phanariot epoch. The Phanariots were Greeks from the Orthodox section of Constantinople, Phanar, the residence of the privileged Greek families. The Phanariot rulers in the Romanian Principalities belonged to eleven families, nine of which were Greek and two Hellenized Romanians. Greek influence in church and the cultural life expanded, despite opposition from native boyars (nobles) and churchmen. Adamescu (2007) points out, that the Phanariot rulers created Greek schools, wrote laws and issued decrees in Greek, and ruled using their native langua ge. The Greek language is also the language used by the Romanian s belonging to the upper classes. Often, members of the great families of Romanian boyars translated books from the Greek literature or wrote original works directly in Greek. The schools conducted in Romani an were considered in ferior and were just superfluous additions to the Greek schools. In Rotarus (1981) account, schools in the Gr eek language (since the thirteenth century) which, along with the presence of numerous lib raries of Greek books, explain the diffusion of

PAGE 81

81 Byzantine culture into Romania. Slavic professors in schools of higher education were replaced by Greek professors prepared at Constantinople. The predominance of th e Greek language and Greek professors in higher education continued until 1821. When the Phanariot political system was over, as a result of the 1821 revolution, most of the Phanariot families continued to live in the Romanian Principalities where they had married and accumulated wealth. In sum, during the Phanariot era, Greek was used in most of the administrative domains in the Romanian Principalities: government and its institutions, education, religion and churches, printing presses and offices, commerce and more. In addition, Greek was the official language and the language of the upper classes. The Greek population and the Romanians who spoke Greek in addition to Romanian must have been numerically signi ficant to make possible the use of Greek in so many domains for so long a period of time. Consequently, it can be surmised that th ere was Greek Romani an language contact, close enough to permit contact-indu ced structural changes, most relevant for our purposes, the regression and demise of the infinitive in contro l complement clauses in Romanian. In Greek, the replacement of the infinitive with a subjunctiv e construction was completed just before the 1600s. Although Greek influence was not solely responsib le for the demise of the infinitive from control complements, it must have contributed a great deal to this phenomenon. Rossetti (1968:258) points out that the dialects of Maramure and Cri ana (Transylvania) still preferred the use of the infinitive whereas in the Southeas t the use of the subjunctive predominated at the time of his book. He also emphasizes that the change also occurred in the di alects of south Italy precisely because of the influence of the Greek population in th e respective regions.

PAGE 82

82 Overall, the replacement of infinitiv al complementation with subjunctive complementation happened in stages and as a re sult of various contributing factors. The starting point goes back to the beginning of the alternation of infinitive structures with finite structures, mostly subjunctive clauses, whether inherited by Romanian from Latin, developed independently in Romanian, or a Balkan feature that spread in to Romanian. The effect is competition in control structures between an infinitive and a subjuncti ve, with the latter increasing over time at the expense of the former. Next, the Romanian infinitive underwent some changes, which may have led to the weakening of this category. Internal factor s such as the loss of the infinitive suffix re followed by the weakening of the infinitival particle a, constitute the second stage of the change. On these propitious conditions, the Greek influence during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries seems to have been the coup de grace, leading to the demise of infinitive in control complement clauses. Following the influence of Greek, it was just a matter of time until the complete disappearance of the infinitive from control structures in Romanian. 2.5.5 On the Spread of Loss of Infinitive Complementation How this linguistic phenom enon spread over all Romanian regions is beyond the scope of this dissertation. However, some preliminary obser vations are in order. Concerning the external influence of Greek, it is hard to imagine that the large masses of native Romanians, many of them illiterate, actually learned and spoke Greek. The difference between literary writing and nonliterary writing indicates that the regression of the infinitive and its replacement w ith the subjunctive took place first in urban areas, initiated by highly educated people who le arned foreign languages and lived in political and cosmopolitan centers. This was also true for chroniclers like Gr igore Ureche and Miron

PAGE 83

83 Costin whose education included Latin, Polish, Old Slavonic and Greek. They consulted works in these languages and Costin even wrote ve rsions of his chronicle in Latin and Greek. Comparing the Moldovan chr onicles of Ureche and Costin on the one hand and Stefanellis collection of rural documents, also from Moldova, on the other hand, two differences are apparent. First, although th e peasants who signed the rural documents had a poor vocabulary, they actually used more matrix verbs with infinitive compleme nts than those found in the two chronicles. For instance, while Ureche uses thirteen matrix verb s with infinitive complements, the rural documents include thirty such verbs. Also, Ureche never uses the verb a vrea to want with infinitive complements (Cos tin uses it only once), but the rural documents have fourteen such instances. As already mentioned, this verb disappeared first from infinitival complement structures. In accord with the findings of Labov (1972a), the vari ety of Romanian in which subjunctive complementation is pr eferred to infinitival is the prestige dialect, most common at the top of the social ladder. The upper classes, and upward mobility middle classes, constituted the highest percentage of the prestige variety. The regression line for the upper working class shows the steepest slope, indicating the highest rate of change, while the middle working class is just behind. (Labov, 2002). This statement accurately describes the situation in Romanian as well. Then, as Labov (1972b) argues the vernacular shows irregula r influence from the prestige dialect. All of these considerations explain why the loss of infinitival complementation in Romanian occurred first in the speech of the wealthy and most educated people. As for regional differences, as mentione d above, Rosetti (1968) observes that some Transylvanian territories, Cri ana and Maramure were amongst the last to undergo the loss of the infinitive. From Rmniceanus (1800) Chronicle of Blaj (city in Transylvania) a similar

PAGE 84

84 observation could be made. The frequency of the in finitive in general and in complement clauses is quite high in this chronicle. In short, the loss of the infinitive crossed the Carpathians later. Summing up, the spread of the replacement of infinitival complementation with subjunctive complementation took place from the more educated to the less educated, from urban areas to rural areas, from Walach ia and Moldova to Transylvania. In Contemporary Romanian, infinitival comp lementation still persists to some extent, mostly used by writers and older speakers. 2.6 Conclusions This chapter has discussed som e important de tails concerning infinitives, their history, and the demise of certain infinitival constructio ns in Romanian. The history of the infinitive reveals that the infinitival particle a was on the verge of losing its complementizer status by the end of the sixteenth century. The addition of the particle de (to introduce pur pose clauses of motion verbs) suggests that this second particle ac tually replaced the status and the position of a. The absence of the particle a from some infinitival complements is argued to be due to the nature of a few matrix verbs selecting bare infinitives. The fact that the particle a can be omitted in some interrogative complements (with wh -word) has nothing to do with the status of a (i.e., being a complementizer). On the contrary, the particle a can coexist with wh -words, as shown with illustrative examples. The changes undergone by the Romanian infiniti ve are pretty much of the same kinds undergone by other European languages (e.g., Eng lish, German, Romance). However, Romanian and these languages underwent many fewer ch anges compared to Greek. The Romanian infinitive underwent some relatively minor cha nges prior to the external influence of Greek, suggesting that contact was the main motivating f actor in its demise from complement clauses.

PAGE 85

85 Future research is needed to determine the ex tent to which the infinitive has been reduced or lost in other structures.

PAGE 86

86 CHAPTER 3 SUBJUNCTIVE COMPLEMENT CLAUSES Am apucat c rarea-ngust ca s trec C rnd n spate muntele ntreg.1 -Tudor Arghezi 3.1 Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to present the clausal structure and the major properties of Romanian subjunctives. The central task is to describe the constituents of subjunctive complement clauses and to establish their status in conformity with their syntactic properties as revealed by empirical data. Following Landaus (2004) typology of the Balkan type of subjunctive complement clauses, I divide the Romanian corresponding clau ses into OC (Obligator y Control)-subjunctives and F(ree)-subjunctives. An OC-s ubjunctive construction only permits strict coreference between the null embedded subject and its antecedent, a ma trix argument (1a). A lexical subject is not allowed in OC-subjunctives (1b). For reasons that will become apparent in Section 3.5, I place the coreferential null subject in front of the particle s (1a) and the lexical or null subject not coreferential with a matrix argument in the postverbal position (1b). Obligatory control structures constructed with subjunctive in the languages of the Balkans, Romanian included, is a phenomenon un animously recognized in the literature, e.g., Terzi (1992), Varlokosta (1993), Dobrovie-Sori n (2001), Landau (2004, 2006) among others, hence I will call them OC, but the proof will be presented in 3.5. (1) a. Mara1 ncearc [e1 s scrie ea ns i1/*el nsu i2 o scrisoare] Mara tries s write.3sg herself/*himself a letter Mara is trying to write a letter. 1 I chose the narrowest of paths And forged ahead with mountains on my back.

PAGE 87

87 b. Mara1 ncearc [s scrie *Radu2 o scrisoare] Mara tries s write.3sg Radu a letter *Mara is trying to write Radu a letter By contrast, the subject of an F-subjunctiv e clause corefers freely, i.e. the embedded subject may be coreferent with the matrix subjec t (2a) or the embedded s ubject may be disjoint in reference from the matrix subject (2b). Also, F-subjunctives may be ambiguous between coreference and disjoint reference, as illustrate d by the sentence (2c). Besides the referential choice, the embedded subject of an F-subjunctive clause may be null as represented by e in (2a) and the pro of (2b), or it may be lexical as appears in (2b) and (2c). (2) a. Mara1 vrea [e1 s plece ea nsa i/*el nsu i curnd] Mara wants s leave.3sg herself/*himself soon Mara wants to leave. b. Mara1 vrea [s plece Radu2/pro2 repede] Mara wants s come.3sg Radu/pro quickly Mara wants Radu/him to leave quickly c. Mara1 vrea [s plece ea1/2 repede] Mara wants s leave.3sg she quickly Mara wants her to leave quickly. While there is consensus in labeling subjuncti ve complements of the type included in the example (1a) as OC structures, previous account s have different views regarding F-subjunctive complement clauses. Some researchers as Te rzi (1992) and Landau (200 4, 2006) consider (2a) an instance of OC structure and argue that Fsubjunctives complements may be OC clauses or NOC clauses. Krapova (2001) divi des subjunctive clauses into T ype I (our F-subjunctives) and Type II (our OC-subjunctives) and di stinguishes them by their subject. The subject of Type II is PRO and the subject of Type I is pro because, the author concludes, there is no complementary distribution between null subjects and lexical subjects, a behavior of pro but not of PRO Varlokosta and Hornstein (1993) ta ke F-subjunctive complements as a bulk and label them NOC.

PAGE 88

88 Until F-subjunctive complements will be analyzed in 3.5.2, if it will be necessary to distinguish between them, examples like (2a) wi ll be referred to as structures with coreferential subjects or just control (not obligatory control), in agreem ent with Bresnans (1982) definition of control included in 1.3. The rest of F-subjunctive comple ments will be clauses with subject disjoint reference or ambiguous between coreference and disjoint reference. The starting point for the subj unctive clause typology comes from the distinct semantic classes of matrix verbs that tri gger each type of clause. Guided by Stiebels et al (2003) and Landau (2004), I have built an incomplete list of Romanian verbs for each relevant class. (3) OC-subjunctives are introduced by the following classes of verbs: a. Implicatives a reu i to succeed a izbuti/izbndi/r zbi to manage, a cuteza/indr zni/incumeta dare, a risca to risk, ai aminti to remember, a incerca/cauta to try, a uita to forget, a omite to omit, a neglija to neglect, a sc pa din vedere to forget/overlook, a evita to avoid, a se eschiva to eschew, a se feri to keep away from, a ajunge s to get to, a refuza to refuse, a se ab ine to abstain, a se lipsi to give up, a renun a to renounce, a se infrna/re ine/st pni to refrain from, a e ua to fail. b. Phasal/Aspectual (Some of these verbs ma y be raising verb in certain contexts) a ncepe to begin, a se apuca/se porni to start, a continua to continue, a persista to persist, a st rui to persevere, a nc eta/conteni to cease, a se opri to stop c. Modal a putea can, a fi capabil be able, a fi obligat be obliged, a avea to have to a trebui should/must has also impersonal use. (4) F-subjunctives are selected by the following classes of verbs: a. Desiderative predicates a vrea to want, a voi will, a dori to wish, a jindui to year n, a-i fi dor to long for, a spera to hope, a se a tepta to expect, a a tepta to wait, a se str dui to strive, a aranja to arrange, a ag rea to agree, a fi de acord agree, a consim i to consent, a alege to choose, a oferi to offer, a cere to demand, a avea nevoie need, a fi gata to be ready, a decide to decide, a hot r to decide.

PAGE 89

89 b.Interrogative predicates. The verbs that fo llow are F-subjunctive ve rbs that occur with wh-phrases or with the complementizer: dac whether/if a afla to find out, a ti to know, a se prinde to grasp, a ntreba to ask (question), a se mira to wonder, a delibera to deliberate, a ghici to guess, a n elege to understand, a fi neclar to be unclear c. Factives (experiencer) a regreta to regret, a ur to hate, a detesta to detest, a avea oroare to hate, a iubi s to love to, a fi surp rins to be surprised, a se amuza to amuse, a se distra to entertain, a se destinde to relax, a se tulbura/emo iona to disturb/get emotional, a se nfiora to thrill, a (se) nveseli to cheer, a satisface satisfy, a se ntrista to sadden, a se mhni/nec ji/am r/indispune to distress, a (se) dezgusta to disgust, a ngrozi to be scared, a-i repugna to be repugnant, a-i fi groaz be afraid, a-i displace to dislike, a-i place to enjoy/like, a-i fi drag to like to, a-i fi sil /scrb to loath d. Propositional a (se ) gndi to think, a nu crede not to believe, a sugera to suggest The chapter is organized as follows: I will begin with a diachronic distribution of the subjunctive complementizer ca in Section 3.2. This sec tion reveals that in OSR ca is optionally present in OC-subjunctives, F-subjunctives, and subjunctive purpose clauses. In CR, ca is no longer present in subjunctive complement clause s. Both in OSR and CR, the complementizer ca is mandatory or disallowed in the same environments. A discussion about the complementizer ca and obviation reveals that this phenomenon is not manifested in OSR, regardless of the presence of ca The next section, 3.3, continues the discussion about obviation but in CR at this time. This section has two parts. First, I present previous approaches to this phenomenon in CR, resulting three different conclusi ons: Obviation is not manifested in Romanian at all; Obviation is possible and is triggered by the complementizer ca ; Obviation is very limited as a combination of two or all of three factors: the presence of the complementizer, the presence of a lexical pronoun, and the semantics of some matrix verbs. In the second part, I de scribe and report the findings of an empirical study I recently conducte d, to see whether obviati on is triggered by any

PAGE 90

90 of the three factors mentioned above. The study show s that obviation is not manifested in CR in general, not even trigge red by certain factors. Section 3.4 is concerned with the syntactic properties of the su bjunctive particle s and its relationship vis--vis complementizers. From the presented arguments re garding the status of s as a complementizer or as an inflectional el ement, I draw the conclu sion that this particle is an I0 element and not a complementizer. Subsequently, I will discuss the tense of subjunc tive clauses in Section 3.5. Both types of clauses have semantic tense: OC-subjunctives have anaphoric tense, whereas the tense of Fsubjunctives is dependent. Furthermore, OC-subj unctives are endowed with the feature [-T], whereas F-subjunctives have the feature [+T]. Th e locus of the uninterpretable [-T]/[+T] is C0. Next, I will switch gears, in S ection 3.6, to establish what kind of subjects are possible in subjunctive complement clauses. The null subject of OC clauses displays all the characteristics associated with PRO in obligatory control context, thus I conclude that their subject is indeed PRO. F-subjunctive structures where the matrix subj ect is a first or second person DP parallel the English structures wi th predicates like prefer want etc. in the sense that these predicates take either OC or NOC complements. When the matrix subject is a third person entity, the embedded complements are like those in example (2). However, there are some characteristics that distinguish one from the other. In the last part of the section I argue, based on Rizzi (1986), that arbitrary PRO is possible in subjunctive clauses. Section 3.7 investigates whethe r subjunctive complements ar e IP or CP clauses. In regards to the presence of a lexical complementi zer, I present two points of view. According to one view, all subjunctive clauses are CP clauses, while for the other view subjunctive clauses are CP clauses only when a lexical complementizer is present. To remain neutral, I agree with both

PAGE 91

91 points of view. In the end, si nce subjunctive complement clau ses have uninterpretable [T] features located in C0, these clauses must be CP clauses. The major conclusions of this chapter and suggestions for further research will be gathered in Section 3.8. 3.2 Distribution of the Subjunctive Complementizer ca As already m entioned, Romanian subjunc tive mood has its own complementizer, ca distinguished from the i ndicative complementizer c The oldest Romanian documents attest these two complementizers, each for its own mood. The goal of this section is to determine the diachronic distribution of the complementizer ca in the various environm ents it appears and to give an idea about the dramatic change in its distribution from OSR to CR. Although this section is included mostly for documentation value, and because ca is part of subjunctive clauses described in this chapter, it will also furnish some significant inferences. They will be gathered at the end of the section. 3.2.1 Distribution of ca in OSR Old Rom anian documents include s subjunctives and ca s subjunctives, often in the same environment (e.g., clauses selected by the same matrix verb), in the same document, on the same page. In Stefanellis collection of 308 documents issued between 1611 and 1848 in Cmpulung Moldavia, the subjunctive complementizer is obligatory in purposive clauses, which are frequently encountered. Rarely, an excepti on appears but only af ter the 1800s. Often ca introduces F-subjunctive subordinate clauses with or without a subject disjoint reference. Ca also appears in OC-subjunctives clauses, slightly less frequently than in the two types of clauses mentioned first. This description closely matches Alexius (1939) collection consisting of similar documents spanning 1608-1841 from Valea Teleajenului. The same patterns of ca distribution

PAGE 92

92 are observed in Ureches (1647) chronicle, only somewhat reduced in frequency2. Although the majority of the data in this section is from th ese three sources, other sources will be also used. In what follows, I will substantiate each pattern of distribution with illustrative data. Although frequently encountered, ca may be optional for (almost) each pattern, so some examples lacking ca will be also included. Grosu & Horv ath (1984) point out this difference between the subjunctive complementizer ca which may be optional, lexically unfilled, and the indicative complementizer c which is always overt. 3.2.1.1 Ca in OC-subjunctive structures The exam ples in (5-8) feature subject (ob ligatory) control clau ses introduced by the complementizer ca Notice that the empty embedded subjec t corefers with the matrix subject. Each class of OC-subjunctive verbs is represente d: implicative (5,6), as pectual (7), and modal (8). The pair of (8) shows that the same matrix verb can ta ke an OC-subjunctive complement whose complementizer can be present (8a) or absent (8b). (5) pro1 am cercat ca e1 s putem afla we have tried that s can.1pl find out We tried to find out (something) Ureche 1647 (Simion Dasc lu variant) (6) pro1 ndr znesc ca e1 s rosteasc pn i numele t u ar they dare that s utter.3pl even name.the your country They even dare to evok e your name, my country! Eminescu (1852-1889), Scrisoarea III (7) M1-am apucat ca e1 s dau de tot anul me-have begun that s give all year cte o oca de cear every a Kg of wax I began to give away one kilogram of wax every year (to the church). Stefanelli (1915:96), 1768 document 2 The difference in the frequency of ca may be the difference between rural documents (Stefanelli and Alexius collections) and literary work like Ureches chronicle.

PAGE 93

93 (8) a. pro1 este bolnav i nu poate ca e1 s mearg he is sick and not can.3sg that s walk.3sg He is sick and cannot walk. Alexiu (1939:76), 1795 document b. pro1 putem s e1 zicem c toate pe izvod we can s say.1pl that all P ledger le-au inut them-have.3pl kept We can say that they recorded all the transactions in the ledger. Ureche (1647:179) Object control clauses may be also introduced by the complementizer ca. The empty subjects of the embedded clauses (9-11) corefer w ith the accusative object of the matrix. The pair in (11) indicates that the same matrix pr edicate may take an OC complement with ca (11a) or without it (11b). (9) au poftit pe domnul controlor1 ca e1 s mearg have.3pl invited P Mr. controller.Acc that s go.3sg They invited the inspector (government official) to go Stefanelli (1915:235), 1793 document (10) l1au rugat ca e1 s fac they.Acc-have.3pl begged that s make.3sg pace cu craiul le esc peace with prince Polish They begged him to make peace with the Polish prince. Ureche (1647:51) 11) a. l1 sf tuia boerii ca e1 s he.Acc advised.3pl boyards that s se dea la loc strm rflx get to spot narrow The boyards advised him to move to a narrow (battle) position. Ureche (1647:41) b. pro1 Au sf tuit craiul2 e2 s -i3 tocmeasc they have advised prince.Acc s -them hire.3sg They advised the prince to hire them. Ureche (1647:22)

PAGE 94

94 The representations (12) and (13) below are instances of dative control subjunctives. As the indices show, the dative object of the matrix corefers with the embedded null subject. Again, the complementizer ca may be present (12, 13a) or abse nt (13b) in these structures. (12) mam rugat milostivului1 Dumnezeu ca e1 s me-have.1sg begged merciful.Dat God that s m luminez me enlighten.3sg I begged the merciful God to enlighten me Stefanelli (1915:363), 1816 document (13) a. Se porunce te c pitanilor1 ca e1 s privigheze rflx order.3sg/pl captains.Dat that s watch.3pl An order was given to the captains to watch and guard... Stefanelli (1915:268), 1796 document b. V 1 poruncim s e1 faceti str nsoare numitului prt you.Dat order.1pl s make.2pl pressure to the said defendent We order you to force the said defendant Alexiu (1939: 44), 1777 document The data presented in this subsection show that OC-subjunctive clauses (subject, object and dative control) are indeed introdu ced by the subjunctive complementizer ca which may be optionally present or absent. 3.2.1.2 Ca in F-subjunctive structures Ca m ay be found when the subject of the matr ix and that of the embedded clause are coreferential in F-subjunctives. Either the co ntext/semantic in (15, 16, 17, 18) or the verbal morphology in (14) ensures the coreference between the embedded subject and a matrix argument in these sentences. (14) pro1 om vre ca e1 s -l2 scoatem de pe mo ie we will want that s -him pull out.1pl from estate We will want to put him out from the estate. Stefanelli (1915:148), 1784 document (15) Dechival1 au hotarat ca e1 s se nchiz Decebal has decided that s rflx close in.3sg cu osta ii s i in cetatea sa

PAGE 95

95 with soldiers-the his in fortress-the his Decebal decided to lock himself, togeth er with his soldiers, in his fortress Rmniceanu (1802:80) (16) pro1 au giurat ca e1 s nu mai taie de acum they have sworn that s not more cut.3pl from now domnu de Moldova. prince of Moldova And they swore not to kill again a Moldavian prince. Neculce (1672-1745/6), O sam de cuvinte (17) pro1 Gndi ca e1 s -l2 scoat din domnie he thought that s -him remove.3sg from throne He thought about how to remove hi m (the ruler) from the throne. Ureche (1647:134) In (18b) the complementizer is ab sent, showing that the presence of ca is also optional in F-subjunctive structures with embe dded subject coreferential with the matrix subject, selected by the same verb (18a vs. 18b). (18) a. ct va voi dumnealui1 ca e1 s -l ie how will.3sg want he .polite that s -it hold.3sg as long as he will want to hold it. Alexiu (1939:160), 1833 document b. Cmpulungenii1 au voit s e1 cumpere Campulung people have wanted s buy.3pl aceast bucat de fna this piece of pasture The people from Campulung wanted to by this piece of pasture. Stefanelli (1915:141), 1783 document Ca also introduces subjunctive complement cl auses when there is subject disjoint reference between the matrix and the embedded clause. The embedded subject in (19) is an impersonal/arbitrary entity, thus it is different from the matrix subject. In the rest of the examples (20-22) the embedded subject is a lexical DP, different from the matrix subject. (Examples of Fsubjunctives with subject disjoi nt reference where the embedded subject is null are given below in (28) and (29)). As usually, ca may be present (19-22a ) or absent (22b).

PAGE 96

96 (19) ei1 au r spunsu c voesc ca s fie mp r al they have answered that want.3pl that s be.3sg allotment They answered that they want there to be equitable allotment Stefanelli (1915:126), 1778 document (20) Ne1-am nvoit ca s dea nepotu-mieu Vlad2 alt loc we-have agreed that s give.3sg nephew-my Vlad other lot We decided that my nephew Vlad should give away some piece of land.. Alexiu (1939:98), 1833 document (21) pro1 Au hot rt dum-lor1 ca s mearg have.3pl decided they that s go.3sg mumba ir2 .. tax collector They decided for the tax collector to go Alexiu (1939:33), 1766 docum ent, V. Teleajenului (22) a. Se1 temu ca s nu-l p r seasc (oastea2) rflx was afraid that s not-him abandon.3sg (his army) He was afraid that his army will abandon him Ureche (1647:41) b. Temnduse1 s nu-i vicleneasc Moldovenii2 being afraid rflx.3pl s not-them deceive.3pl Moldovans They were afraid that the Moldovans will Ureche (1647:168) Summing up, ca introduces F-subjunctive clauses w hose subjects are coreferential with the respective matrix subject and F-subjunctive clauses whose subjec ts are disjoint in reference from the matrix subject. As expected, ca may be optional in these structures. 3.2.1.3 Ca and obviation Obviation is the requirement that the subj ect of a subjunctive co mplement clause be disjointing in reference from the matrix subject. General obviation occurs when the subject of a subjunctive clause is always different from the matrix subject, like in Romance languages. In some languages, obviation is triggered by a certain factor, as in Serbo-Croatian, where obviation occurs only when the embedded subject is a lexi cal pronoun that matches th e phi-features of the

PAGE 97

97 matrix subject. The embedded pronoun is necessari ly disjoint in reference from the matrix subject (Farkas, 1992). This kind of obviation could be ca lled reduced obviation. Subject obviation is supposed to distinguish two (or more) third person subjects, one of which will become obviative. (The matrix subject cannot be obviative). Subject obviation is a phenomenon characteristic to s ubjunctive clauses in most Ro mance languages and many Slavic languages, but apparently not manifested in the languages of the Balkan Sprachbund. The presence of a complementizer is considered th e most likely factor to trigger obviation. (Terzi, 1992, Avrutin & Babyonishev 1997, Landau, 2004). In Romance languages, the subject of a subj unctive complement clause is automatically disjoint in reference (some excep tions apply) from the matrix subject, as in Spanish: (23). (23) Juan1 quiere que e*1/2 venga. Juan want.Ind.3sg that go.Sbj.3sg Juan wants him/her to eat. By contrast, in F-subjunctive complement clauses, where the matrix verb and the embedded verb show third person inflection, the empty embedded subject is referentially free and the sentence may be ambiguous. Without their contexts, the examples (24) with ca and (25) lacking ca are both ambiguous. Only the context shows th at the matrix subject corefers with the embedded subject in both sentence s. Since the complementizer ca is optional it cannot trigger obviation (its presence does not impose subject disjoint reference in (24)). (24) De na vrea ca s vie. If not-would.3sg want that s come.3sg If she wouldnt want to come. Alecsandri (1821-1890) Opere Complete. Poesii (25) fimeia lui nu vra s pl teasc woman-the his not wants s pay.3sg his woman doesnt want to pay. Stefanelli (1915:112), 1784 document

PAGE 98

98 In (26), the third line (in bold) includes a F-subjunctive clau se whose subject is different from that of the matrix. The disjoint referen ce is not triggered by the complementizer because with or without ca the subject of the subjunctive clause is semantica lly restricted. Also, the context only helps narrow down the possible subject of the em bedded clause. The sentence in boldface by itself needs the subject of the second clause to be disj ointing in reference from the matrix subject. Clearly, the c ountry could only be subdued by an entity different from the one that is afraid this may happen. (26) ci Turcul1, dup pu in vreme, n elegnd c Le ii2 but Turk.the after little while, understanding that Poles.the se ridic cu t rie mare asupra lui Petru Vod rflx rise.3pl with force great against Dat. Petru Voda i temnduse1 ca s nu ia e2 ara and fear.Ger-cl refl.3sg that s not takes country.the And the Turk, after a while, understanding that the Poles are rising with force against Petru Vod and being afraid that they will subdue the country Ureche (1647:101) By contrast, the subject of the subjunc tive clause in (27), with or without ca is referentially free. Semantica lly, it may be possible that, both the person filled with fear (the matrix subject) or somebody else (e.g., a loved one), could contract influenza. As it appears, the meaning of the subjunctive verb determines disjoint reference in (28) a nd free reference in (29). (27) temndu-se1 (ca) s nu ia e1/2 gripa fear.Ger-rflx (that) s not contract.3sg influenza-the fearing that she will get the flu The matrix pronoun el he in (28) is the subject of the subjunctive clause. Considering only the boldface part, the matrix verb and its subjunctive complement, it is very unlikely for the embedded subject to corefer with the matrix subject (e1). Usually, we do not want anybody else (not ourselves) to suspect anything, probably bad. Again, it is the meaning of the embedded verb that imposes disjoint refe rence. The presence of ca does not make any difference.

PAGE 99

99 (28) (she1) inea la el2 i n-ar fi vrut (she) cared for him and not-would be wanted ca s e2 b nuiasc ceva that s suspect.3sg a thing She was fond of him and wouldnt ha ve wanted him to suspect anything Slavici (1848-1925), Opere (1952:247) It appears that OSR subjunctives do not mani fest subject obviation. This phenomenon is very limited and happens only for semantic reasons. The complementizer ca definitely does not trigger subject obviation effect in OSR because its presence is optional and may occur with any subjunctive complement, regardless of the re ferential choices of the embedded subject. A sentence with subject disjoi nt reference implied by the context, in the absence of the complementizer, would probably further support the idea that ca does not trigger obviation in OSR. (29) reflects this assumption. The second li ne (in bold) of this sentence by itself is ambiguous in the sense that the subject of the second clause is capable of free reference. However, the first line reveals that the mother di d not want her son to do the thing, thus only craiu the prince could be the su bject of the embedded clause. (29) ci b trana1, muma lui craiu2, but old woman.the, mo ther.the of prince pro1 nau vrut acesta lucru s -l e*1/2 fac not-have.3sg wanted this thing s -it.Acc do.3sg The mother of the prince didnt want him to do such thing Ureche (1647:82) I conclude that obviation is not an attribute of subjunctives in OSR. This phenomenon is not general, since complements whose subject is coreferential with the matrix subject are possible (control), nor triggere d by a certain factor. Clearly, th e subjunctive complementizer does not trigger obviation.

PAGE 100

100 3.2.1.4 Purpose clauses In the following examples, th e second (adjunct) clause show s the purpose or intention of the action of the matrix verb, without indicating whether the action was accomplished or not. These purpose clauses may be ca s clauses (30,31,33b) or s clauses (32, 33a). Although the complementizer ca is optional in subjunctive purpose clauses in OSR, it is actually almost always present. Ca may usually be absent when th e purpose clause is triggered by motion verbs: a veni to come, a merge to go, a trimite to send. Recall that there was an inclination in Latin conditional clauses cons tructed with subjunctive and the conjunction si to undertake a goal or purpose sense (Chapter 2/2.5.2). Since this conjunction has been inherited by Romanian as the subjunctive particle s (via se ), it is plausible to assume that this particle also encodes purpose (See also fn5, Chapter 2). Ca -less purpose clauses are rather found in Transylvania, like the example in (32). (30) Te facem vechil ca s stai you.Acc make.1pl bailiff that s stay.2sg la hotartul mo iilor noastre at boundary land.pl our.pl We name you the bailiff of our estates in order to guard their boundaries. Stefanelli (1915:445), 1813 document (31) se na te ca s fie rob cl.3sg born that s be.3sg bondman i s tr iasc ca dobitoc. and s live.3sg like animal One is born just to be a bondman and to live like an animal. Potra et al (1972:47), 1839 letter (32) multe jertfe au adus many sacrifices have.3pl brought s nblnzeasc pre d[umne]zi[i] mniei. s calm down.3pl P gods-the wrath.Dat They offered many sacrifices in order to calm down the angry gods S.Micu (1789:30)

PAGE 101

101 (33) a. i nau venitu s cheame derep ii, ce p c to ii and not-have.3pl come s call.3pl right.pl-the, but sinners And he didnt come to call on the righteous people, but on the sinners Coresi (1581:419) b. Veniser la C lifar ca s -i procopseasc came.3pl to C lifar that s -them endow.3sg They had come to Califar to be endowed by him Galaction (1879-1961) Opere The general picture of subjunctive purpose clauses in OSR is the following: Normally, they are ca s clauses, that is, the complementizer ca is rarely absent. When ca is absent from purpose clauses, it happens after verbs of motion or as regional dialect. 3.2.1.5 Required ca vs. prohibited ca The presence of ca is a must when som e lexical ma terial belonging to the subjunctive clause (topicalized material) a ppears between the matrix and the subjunctive clause (preceding the particle s ). In (34a), the chunk peste dn ii over them is normally placed after the subjunctive verb, like in (34b). Although ca may be present in (34b), it is not necessary as shown. However, once peste dn ii is moved in front of s (for rhetorical effects or, in this case, for metrical /rhyme reasons), ca must show up (34a). (34) a. Am jurat [ca peste dn ii s trec falnic have.1sg sworn that over them s pass.1sg glorious f r p s] without care I swore to gloriously tr ample them without care. Eminescu (1852-1889), Scrisoarea III b. Am jurat [s trec peste dn ii falnic, f r p s] In OSR as well as in CR, the complementizer ca is disallowed in ra ising constructions, according to the contrast in (35). Ca renders the raising in (35a ) ungrammatical conform (35b). (35) a. Radu pare s fie trist Radu seems s be.3sg sad Radu seems to be sad.

PAGE 102

102 b. *Radu pare ca s fie trist. Radu seems that s be.3sg sad Radu seems to be sad. Finally, both in OSR and CR, ca does not appear in temporal subjunctive clauses, or other adjuncts introduced by prepositions because the respective prepositions are complementizers in those contexts, e.g., (36). As a rule, two complementizers are not allowed to head a clause in Romanian, as illustrated by (37) where the complementizers c that and dac if/whethercannot coexist in the same structure. (36) Am plecat ca / pn s ajung mama. have.1sg left that/ before s arrive.3sg mother I left before mother arrived. (37) *Mara nu tie c /dac Radu vine mine. Mara not knows that/wheth er Radu comes tomorrow *Mara does not know that/whe ther Radu comes tomorrow As the presented data indicate, the complementizer ca used to appear in any type of subjunctive complement clauses and in purpose cl auses. In all these types of clauses, although frequent, ca may be optional. The presence of ca in purpose clauses may not be a strong rule, but definitely the norm. As a rule, ca must be absent in raising co nstructions and when accompanied by another complementizer. Ca is mandatory when lexical material belonging to the subjunctive is topicalized. Finally, ca is not able to trigger obviation effect in OSR. 3.2.2 Distribution of ca in CR 3.2.2.1 Ca in subjunctive complement clauses Slowly, the subjunctive com plementizer ha s disappeared both from OC-subjunctive clauses and from F-subjunctive constructions. When ca ceased to appear in subjunctive clauses is not easy to ascertain. It certainly has survived longer in speech than in written sources. Despite some exceptions, ca is no longer present in OC-subjunctives (38). A recent exception is given in (39). A quite old speaker from a village between Bucharest and Trgovi te produced this

PAGE 103

103 sentence in July 2005. Both verbs have archaic forms: poci for pot I can and v z for v d I see. Examples like (39) are considered idiolects or specific to older speakers from rural areas. Nonetheless, (39) does not pose any parsing problems to a standard dialect speaker. (38) *Am reu it ca s plec devreme. have.1sg managed that s leave.1sg early I managed to leave early. (39) Nu poci ca s -l mai v z. not can.1sg that s -him more see1.sg I cannot see him anymore.(Im angry with him) Farkas (1984) notices that ca may introduce subjunctive complements after the verb a vrea to want (our F-subjunctives) in non-standard Romanian, as reflected by her example (7), repeated here under (40). Even today, ca may appear here and there in F-subjunctive complement clauses. (40) Vreau ca s -i spun ceva. want.1sg that s -him tell.1sg something I want to tell him something. Although people do not use ca s F-subjunctive complements in their speech, do not reject such structures in reading or listening. However, ca is no longer used in the standard dialect of Romanian in F-subj unctive constructions with normal word order (i.e., without topic/focus). 3.2.2.2 Ca in topic and focus context Ca has been always required when lexical ma terial such as topic or focus (lexical subjects, adverbs, etc.) is pl aced in front of the embedded s verb, in order to mark the boundaries between the matrix and th e subordinate. In this context, ca is still obligatory. The representation of (41a) is a normal word order sentence, with postverbal embedded subject. When the subject, Radu, is preposed, the complementizer ca shows up (41b), as happened above

PAGE 104

104 in the OSR example (34). Like in (34), comple mentizer deletion will render the sentence (41b) ungrammatical as evinced by (41c). (41) a. Vreau [s vin Radu mine] want.1sg s come3.sg Radu tomorrow I want Radu to come tomorrow b. Vreau [ ca Radu s vin mine] c. *Vreau [ Radu s vin mine] The examples in (42) depict the same situa tion, with the difference that the preposed item is an adverb here. These data demonstrate that the topicalized items must be preceded by the complementizer. (This kind of data will be further discussed in Section 3.7). (42) a. Vreau [s vin Radu mine] want.1sg s come3.sg Radu tomorrow I want Radu to come tomorrow. c. Vreau [ ca mine s vin Radu] b. *Vreau [ mine s vin Radu] Definitely, ca in CR, as in OSR, is required to mark the boundary between the matrix and its sentential clause when some lexical elements belonging to the la tter occur before the particle s 3.2.2.3 Ca in purpose clauses Som e speakers say that ca is a must in the purpose clauses (43, 44, 45), while other say that both variants, with or without ca are good. Most speakers say that (46) is better without ca (as shown). In conclusion, ca is optional in purpose clauses a nd absent after motion verbs (46). (43) Cump r ( ca) s vnd. buy.1sg that s sell.1sg I buy (things) in order to resell (them)./I buy to sell (44) iam spus ( ca) s tii. you.Dat have.1sg told that s know.2sg I told you (that) in order for you to be warned.

PAGE 105

105 (45) M nnci (ca) s tr ie ti. eat.2sg that s live.2sg You eat in order to support yourself. (46) Am venit s te v d. have.1sg come s you see.1sg I came to see you. To summarize the distribution of ca in CR, this complementizer is no longer employed in OC-subjunctives, and it is drastica lly reduced in F-subjunctives a nd only appears in non-standard dialects. In F-subjunctives, ca is required in topic situations As always, as discussed above, ca is not allowed in raising structur es, and cannot coexist with anot her complementizer. The presence of ca in subjunctive purpose clau ses seems to be optional. To conclude this section, it has been shown that, in OSR ca may be present in all kinds of subjunctive complements and in subjunctive pu rpose clauses, but it is optional in most environments. In CR, the presence of ca has been dramatically decr eased over time. It actually disappeared from OC and F-subjunctive compleme nts and remained optional in purpose clauses. Ca definitely has consistently been absent in raising structures, and consistently present when some lexical material of the subjunctive clause is topicalized. Finally, ca does not trigger obviation effects in OSR. Beside diachronic documentation, the distribution of ca yields some interesting consequences. First, Farkas (1992:95) view th at subjunctive clauses will be obviative only in contexts in which an infinitive is also possible is challenged si nce obviation is not manifested in OSR, although infinitival complement clauses are alive and well3. 3 Examples with OSR infinitive complement clause are included in Chapter 2, Chapter 4, and in the next Section 3.3.

PAGE 106

106 In OSR, ca was mandatory in topic context and re mained mandatory in the same context in CR although it disappeared from complement clauses, with this ex ception. This behavior supports Rizzis (1997) and Rizzi &Shlonskys (2007) conclusion that complementizer deletion is illegal when topic/fo cus of the complement clause is activated. Finally, the distribution of ca in OSR and CR reveals that obligatory control is possible with overt complementizers but raising is not. These observations will be further discussed in this chapter and other chapters. 3.3 Obviation in Contemporary Romanian (CR) The purpose of this section is to present an outline of previous anal yses of obviation in CR and to report the findings of an empirical study I conducted recently. This study shows that Rom anian subjunctive structur es do no manifest subject obviation. We already know that obviation is not manifested in OSR. 3.3.1 Approaches to Obviation in CR Com orovski (1986) presents two scenarios of obviation in Romanian subjunctives. First, she points out that if the embedded subject of a s ubjunctive complement of an optional control verb (our F-subjunctives) is a lexical pronoun, there is a high preference for obviative interpretation. The author attributes this inte rpretation to the Avoid Pr onoun Principle. As a prodrop language, Romanian disfavors an overt pronoun subject since its antecedent has been already pronounced in the matrix (or discourse). This contrast is illustrated by (47a,b) below (Comorovskis examples (12a,b)). While the embe dded subject of (47a) can corefer freely, most speakers indicate disjoint reference interpretation for (47b). (47) a. Ion1 a propus e1/2 s nu ne mai telefoneze. John has proposed s not us.Dat more phone.3sg/pl John suggested not to call us anymore.

PAGE 107

107 b. Ion1 a propus ca el2 s nu ne mai telefoneze Ion has proposed that he s not us.Dat more phone.3sg John suggested that he should not call us anymore. The author further indicates that the presence of the complementizer in (47b) is also responsible for the obviation effect. In her view, the complementizer is not necessary when the embedded subject corefers with its antecedent for reasons of simplicity and economy (p.52). Comorovski also suggests that semantics may pl ay a role, in the sense that some verbs like a spune to say are more likely to trigger obviation. This author argues th at Principle B of Binding Theory fails to predict obviation in Ro manian. This phenomenon would result from the lexical properties of the matrix verbs. Farkas (1985, 1992) takes a trenchant approach to obviation. She ar gues that a language exhibits subject obviation effect in subjunctive structures only if the language also includes infinitive complement clauses, where coreference between the subject of the matrix and that of the subordinate is obligatory. In her view, subj ect obviation is expected in Romance languages, which have both infinitive and subjunctive co mplements at their dis posal, but not in the languages of the Balkans (Romanian included), which lack infinitive complements. In Romance languages, when the matrix subjec t corefers with the embedded subject of a complement clause (obligatory co ntrol), the complement clause is constructed with infinitive, like the Spanish example (48a). When the embedde d subject is disjoint in reference from the matrix subject, the embedded clause is constr ucted with subjunctive as seen in (48b), and obviation is required. Recall from the previous se ction that obviation in Romance is a general phenomenon. (48) a. Juan1 quiere e1 comer. Juan wants to eat.Inf Juan wants to eat.

PAGE 108

108 b. Juan1 quiere que e*1/2 coma. Juan want.Ind.3sg that eat.Sbj.3sg Juan wants him/her to eat. In OSR, infinitive complements and nonobviative subjunctive complements are contemporaneous, contrary to Farkas view. The representations in (49) ar e instances of control constructed with infinitive ( 49a) and with subjunctive (49b) selected by the same verb a voi to will. Since control is possibl e in (49b), obviation is not. (49) a. pro1 Voe te e1 a r spunde banii she wants to answer money She wants to pay the money Alexiu (1939 :155), 1832 document b. pro1 au voit e1 s cumpere aceast bucat de fna they have wanted s buy.3pl this piece of pasture They wanted to buy this piece of pasture. Stefanelli (1915:141) 1783 document The control complements of (50) are selected by the verb a hot r to decide and constructed with infinitive (50a ) and subjunctive (50b), the exampl e (15) in the previous section. The example (21), repeated below under (51), di splaying subject disjoint reference only shows that F-subjunctive complements had free referenc e in OSR (as already known). Therefore, OSR subjunctives do not manifest obviation despite the existence of parallel infinitive structures. The pair type (50b) with ob ligatorily controlled subject and (51) with subject disjoint reference have remained the same in CR, but the parallel infinitive structures, like (50a) have disappeared. The difference between Spanish (Rom ance) and Romanian vis-vis subjunctive is that obviation is anti control in the former but control is anti obviation in the latter. (50) a. Dnul controlor1 (s)a hot rt e1 a executa poruncile Mr. inspector rflxhas decided to execute orders.the Mr inspector decided to execute the orders (given to him) Stefanelli (1915:241), 1794 document

PAGE 109

109 b. Dechival1 a(u) hot rt ca e1 s se1 nchiz Decebal has decided that s rflx close in.3sg cu osta ii s i n cetatea sa with soldiers-the his in fortress-the his Decebal decided to lock himself, togeth er with his soldiers, in his fortress Rmniceanu (1802:80) (51) Au hot rt dum-lor1 ca s mearg mumba ir2 .. have.3pl decided they that s goes tax collector They decided for the tax collector to go Alexiu (1939:33), 1766 document Also, Martineau (1994:51) demonstrates with illustrative data that in the infinitivesubjunctive rivalry cannot be extended to Olde r French because OC infinitive complements and subjunctive complements with obligator ily control subject freely alternate4. It seems that the absence of obviation cannot be at tributed to the concurrent lack of infinitival structures, neutralizing Farkas claims. For Greek, Miller (2008) observe s that constructions with both the infinitive and the hina (the precursor of na ) + subjunctive are frequent in the New Testament. He also mentions that Homer already knew this comp etition between infinitives and hina subjunctives. Miller includes illustrative examples from the New Testam ent, e.g coordination of infinitive control and subjunctive control clauses. Dobrovie-Sorin (2001:54) argues that obviation is not availa ble in the languages of the Balkans because their subjunctives OC structur es are reduced to anaphoric binding, complying with the principle Use an an aphor instead of a pronoun whenever possible. This principle is viewed as a special case of the Avoid Pronoun Principle. 4 In addition, San Martin (2008) notices the following facts about Greek: Classical Greek displayed subjunctive obviation and had infinitive structures reflecting Farkas view. However, th e switch from obviation to free reference occured around the 2nd century AD, but infinitives of volitional verbs were in use until the 10th century. Interestingly, Classical Greek subjunctive had its own verbal morphology, but during the Hellenistic Greek the subjunctive verbal morphology becam e indistinctive from the indicativ e morphology and the particle na became the subjunctive mood marker. The loss of obviation and the loss of subjunctive morphology/addition of na are synchronous.

PAGE 110

110 Terzi (1992) shows that tense dependency, wh ich is generally considered to be the mechanism behind the obviation effect in Roma nce subjunctives (Pic allo 1985, Meireles & Raposo 1983), is also found in the Balkan type of subjunctive (tense depe ndency in Romanian it will be shown in Section 3.5). Furthermore, voli tional predicates of Romance and Balkans are expected to display similar beha vior, that is, to yield obviatio n. Terzi (1992) predicts that languages which do not manifest obviation are not associat ed with dependent tense. In addition, Terzi argues that Romanian and Al banian subjunctives yi eld subject disjoint reference in the presence of the lexical subjunct ive complementizer, thus she considers that the Romanian example represented in (52a) has obviative interpretation. (52) a. Ion1 vrea ca e*1/2 s plece. Ion wants that s leave.3sg Ion wants him/her/they to leave. b. Ion1 vrea ca Maria2 s plece Ion wants that Maria s leave.3sg Ion wants Maria to leave. Terzi then explains that since Romanian is a pro-drop language, the position occupied by the empty subject in (52a), preced ed by the complementizer, must be pro. The empty category cannot be PRO because in Terzis system PRO is incompatible with overt complementizers. That a lexical subject (Maria) can appear in exactly the same position in (52b) further supports this assumption: pro in (52a) is the subject of the embe dded clause which is different from Ion The obviation effect in this scenario is cause d by the presence of the complementizer. Terzi (1992) concludes that obvi ation is expected in Romanian and Albanian whenever the subjunctive complementizer is lexical in F-subjunctives. She be lieves that a lexical complementizer is a determinan t factor, although not the only one for the obviation to occur.

PAGE 111

111 Landau (2004) integrates Terzis (1992) two core ingredients, tense and complementizer, into his framework. For him, the properties of C0 are critical, but unlike Terzi (1992), they do not refer to its conditions of being lexical or governor. The difference between obviative and nonobviative clauses is to be found in C0. Obviative clauses have the feature [+T] in C0, whereas nonobviative clauses have the feat ures [+T, +AGR] on their C0. To recapitulate, previous approaches to obvia tion in CR yield three findings: Obviation is not possible in Romanian (Farkas 1985, 1992) an d Dobrovie-Sorin (2001); Obviation is possible and triggered by the presence of the complementizer ca (Terzi 1992, Landau 2004); Obviation is limited to a combination of three factors: overt complementizer, a lexical pronoun in the subjunctive clause, and semantics (Comorovski, 1986) General obviation is not manifested in Romanian, a very well established fact. Farkas (and Dobrovie-Sorin) is right about the lack of obviation in Romanian, only her ar gument does not explain it. Th e debate is about reduced obviation, triggered by certain factors. 3.3.2 Empirical Study To shed some light on the obviation nonobviation debate in Rom anian, I have conducted a rather small-scale study, involving 15 native speakers The participants were born and raised in Romania, attended Romanian schoo ls (at least high school) in Romania and did not leave the country before the age of twenty. The parents of the particip ants were also native speakers of Romanian. No particip ant began to learn a foreign language before the age of twelve. Most participants had college degrees obtained in Romania. There were 13 sentences making three sets. C onsidering the suggestions discussed above, the following factors were included in some sentences: the complementizer ca an overt pronoun in the embedded clause, and the matrix verb a zice to say. Two sets of sentences have identical embedded clauses, but the matrix verb is different. The first set shown in ( 53) is constructed with

PAGE 112

112 the verb a vrea to want. The second set mirrors the fi rst one with a different matrix verb a zice to say. (53) a. Radu vrea s plece. Radu wants s leave.3sg Radu wants to leave. b. Radu vrea s plece el Radu wants s leave.3sg he Radu wants to leave/Radu wants him to leave. c. Radu vrea ca s plece. Radu wants that s leave.3sg Radu wants to leave. d. Radu vrea ca s plece el Radu wants that s leave.3sg he Radu wants to leave. The third set, given in (54) includes F-s ubjunctive complements taken by four matrix verbs, with or without ca An adverb appears in each example. (54) a. Radu sper s plece curnd. Radu hopes s leave.3sg soon Radu hopes to leave soon. b. Radu vrea s plece ct mai repede. Radu wants s leave.3sg as soon as possible Radu wants to leave as soon as possible. c. Radu zice ca s plece imediat. Radu says that s leave.3sg immediately Radu says that he/she should leave immediately. d. Radu vrea ca s plece ct mai curnd. Radu wants that s leave.3sg as soon as possible Radu wants to leave as soon as possible. e. Radu dore te ca s plece repede. Radu desires that s leave.3sg fast Radu wants to leave right away.

PAGE 113

113 The participants were asked to indicate the subject of the second (subjunctive) verb. In order to obtain spontaneous (n atural) answers, no other instru ctions were given. Asking the participants to give all the po ssible answers for each sentence, it will have led to a very high percentage (if not hundred percent) of free reference, missing the point that some factors could possibly cause disjoi nt reference. The obtained answers, i.e. the indication of the embedded subject, were of three kinds: Radu (showing subject coreference/control); Somebody else (showing disjoint reference); and Either -Radu or somebody else(showing free reference). The result s are gathered in (55). The respondent in (d) was the only one w ho commented about the presence of ca as being unnecessary. (For the re st of the respondents ca may be present in F-subjunctive complements). (55) a. 4 respondents Radu for all sentences b. 3 respondents Either for all sentences c. 1 respondent Somebody el se for all sentences d. 1 respondent Somebody else when the pronoun was present; Radu for the rest e. 2 respondents Somebody else for the instances with the verb a zice ; Radu for the other two verbs. f. The last 4 respondents f ound three patterns of disjoint reference caused by three factors: the presence of ca, the presence of the pronoun, and the verb a zice However, none of these respondents gave the answer Somebody else for all the instances of each pattern. Their answers were Radu when none of these factors were present. The adverbs did not have any impact in choosing the answers. The conclusions that can be drawn fr om this study are the following: (56) a. The variety of answers suggests that in real-life conversation, the speakers mostly rely on discourse to fi gure out the embedded subject. b. The presence of the complementizer ca is still accepted in F-subjunctives, since only one respondent considered its presence unnecessary.

PAGE 114

114 c. Although the three factors may be seen as causing disjoint reference, it happens for such a small number of respondents, so that it could be considered less than an inclination, and definitely not a rule. d. Thus, the factor mostly associated with obviation, the complementizer, does not trigger this phenomenon. e. The answer Radu appeared 11 times, s uggesting that F-subjunctive complements with obligatorily controlled subject occur much more frequently than those with subject disjoint reference. f. F-subjunctives do not manifest obviation as known; defini tely, it is not the clear, automatic, systematic and general phe nomenon manifested in Romance. Also, none of the three factors clearly trigger obvi ation. Instances of disjoint reference are individual variation/preference. To conclude this section, it ha s been found out that no specific factor triggers obviation in Romanian. The reason behind the lack of obviation in F-subjunctives in Romanian (and the Balkan type of languages) still rema ins a question for future research. 3.4 Status of the Subjunctive Particle s As m entioned earlier, Romanian and the Balkan group of languages have a special particle, unparalleled within th e Indo-European languages, which introduces subjunctive clauses. At least for Romanian, this particle is generally considered to be a mood marker, that is, an I element that heads its own projection M(ood)P a ccording to Kempchinsky (1987), Terzi (1992) for Greek, Romanian, Albanian a nd in general for the languages of the Balkans. Terzi (1992) also cites Motapanyane (1991) for Romanian. Regardless of this generally accepted explan ation, the Romanian subjunctive particle s has been the subject of some deba te, specifically regarding its stat us as either a complementizer (Dobrovie-Sorin 1991,1994) or an inflectional element (Terzi 1992). Dobrovie-Sorin (1994) claims that s is a complementizer, although she does attr ibute some inflectional properties to this particle. Dobrovie-Sorin (2001 ) attributes equal status to s as complementizer and inflectional element, but its de signated position is still C.

PAGE 115

115 I do not believe that the subjunctive particle has ambiguous status and I agree with those researchers who argue for the inflectional status of this particle. I will include here the most relevant arguments that support the I status of s Subsequently, I will discuss and dismiss the arguments considered to favor the complementizer condition of s and try to establish a definite status for this particle, that is, an inflectional entity. 3.4.1 S as an Inflectional Element 3.4.1.1 Adjacency to the verb That the ad jacency of the subjunctive particle to the verb reflects its inflectional status is widely recognized for Romanian (including by Dobrovie-Sorin 1994) and the languages of the Balkans in general. As we already know, the only elements allowed between s and the verb, in strict order, are: a negation, a pronominal clitic, and one of the few one-syllable manner adverbs/intensifiers that could be incorporated into th e verb. Sometimes, the cl itic could be also incorporated with the nega tion, as in (57) below. (57) Mara ncearc s nu-l mai vad pe Radu. Mara tries s not-him more see.3sg P Radu Mara is trying to not see Radu anymore. Moreover, an overt subject may not occur between s and the verb (58a), whereas an overt subject may occur between the compleme ntizer and the verb, both in subjunctive constructions (58b) and indi cative constructions (59). (58) a. *Mara vrea s Radu vin mai repede. Mara wants s Radu come.3sg more quick Mara wants Radu to come sooner. b. Mara vrea ca Radu s vin mai repede. Mara wants that Radu s come.3sg more quick Mara wants Radu to come sooner. (59) Mara crede c Radu vine trziu. Mara believes that Radu come.3sg late Mara believes that Radu will be late.

PAGE 116

116 The contrasts between (58a ) and (58b, 59) demonstrat es that the particle s does not behave like a complementizer behaves; hence, this supports the argument that s is inflectional by nature. 3.4.1.2 A special subjunctive complemen tizer exists While Dobrovie-Sorin (1994) relegates the st atus of the subjunctive complementizer ca as a complementizer-like element, Terzi (1992) takes the existence of ca as proof against the complementizer status of s The next two examples show that a subordinate subjunctive clause cannot be introduced by the indicative complementizer c (60); and a subor dinate indicative clause cannot be introduced by th e subjunctive complementizer ca (61). These examples, therefore, confirm ca as representing the subjunctive complementizer. (60) *Mara sper [ c Radu s fac cump r turi] Mara hopes that Radu s do.3sg shoppings Mara hopes that Radu will do the shopping. (61) *Mara sper [ ca Radu face cump r turi] Mara hopes that Radu do.3sg shoppings Mara hopes that Radu will do the shopping. In addition, when topicalized lexical material precedes s the presence of the subjunctive complementizer ca is a required, as already emphasi zed in Section 3.2. A new example is included below in (62). Clearly, s is not the complementizer that introduces the embedded sentence in (62b). (62) a. Mara prefer [s scrie scrisoarea mine] Mara prefers s write.3sg lett er-the tomorrow Mara prefers to write that letter tomorrow. b. Mara prefer [ ca mine s scrie scrisoarea] Mara prefers that tomorrow s write.3sg letter-the Mara prefers to write that letter tomorrow.

PAGE 117

117 Since the complementizer ca used to precede s very often in all types of subjunctive clauses, like the object control c onstruction of (63) and still con tinues to appear in subjunctive adjunct clauses in CR (64), it has not died out. (63) s -l roage [ca s-o primeasc pe ea n casa lui] s -him beg.3sg that s -her take.3sg P her in house his that they beg him to let her stay in his house. Slavici, 1848-1925 (64) Team avertizat you.Acc-have.1sg warned ca s tii ce ai de facut. that s know.2sg what have.2sg of done I warned you so you will know what to do. In addition, two complementizers cannot head a clause in Romanian, hence the existence of a specific subjunctive compleme ntizer proves that the particle s is not a complementizer. 3.4.1.3 Wh -w ords can co-occur with s In Romanian, wh -words cannot co-occur with complementizers. Thus, (65a) is ungrammatical because unde where and either complementizer dac if/whether or c that cannot coexist. The sentence becomes grammatical with unde only (65b) or with any of the two complementizers only (65c). (65) a. *Radu nu tie unde dac /c pleac Mara. Radu not knows where if/that leaves Mara *Radu does not know where if/that Mara leaves b. Radu nu tie unde pleac Mara. Radu not knows where leaves Mara Radu does not know where is Mara leaving for. c. Radu nu tie dac /c pleac Mara. Radu not knows if/that leaves Mara Radu does not know if/th at Mara is leaving.

PAGE 118

118 Unlike the complementizers dac and c the particle s is able to co-occur with wh words, therefore this particle is not a compleme ntizer. To illustrate the point, the sentences of (66) include subjunctive clauses introduced by wh -words. (66) a. Mara nu are ce s fac n vacan Mara not has what s do.3sg in vacation Mara has nothing to do during her vacation. b. Radu nu a decis unde s plece de Cr ciun Radu not has decided where s leave.3sg for Christmas Radu hasnt decided where to go for Christmas. 3.4.1.4 S co-occurs w ith complementizers Another indication that s is an inflectional element follows from its capacity to occur with a real complementizer (besides the complementizer ca ). As can be seen in examples (67a,b) s subjunctive clauses may be introduced by the complementizer dac whether. (67) a. Mara se ntreab dac s plece azi sau mine. Mara rflx asks whether s leave.3sg today or tomorrow Mara asks herself whether to leave today or tomorrow. b. Ce nu tii dac s pui n pl cint ? what not know.2sg whether s put.2sg in pie What dont you know whether to put in the pie? Terzi (1992) claims that the Greek particle na and Romanian s cannot co-occur with other complementizers because, from their position in C0, they incur a PRO theorem violation, that is, they can govern PR O which must be ungoverned. S and na can only co-occur with wh elements which occupy [Spec CP], a position from which they would not govern PRO. This analysis, however, at least in regards to the Ro manian subjunctive particle, is not correct. The diachronic evidence shows that the complementizer ca immediately precede d the subjunctive particle s in both obligatory control and free control subjunctives. Many illustrative examples are given in Section 3.2.

PAGE 119

119 As for Contemporary Romanian (CR), Terzi (1992) bases her assumption on her example included here in (68). (68) ?/*Maria nu tie dac s plece. Maria not knows whether s leave.3sg Maria doesnt know whether to go. Terzi (1992:116) I would say that (68) is only marginal and not totally ungrammatical. Some speakers consider it grammatical or acceptable. Besides, the examples (67a,b) are perfectly grammatical with the complementizer dac S may also co-occur with prepositional compleme ntizers, as reflected by the subjunctive temporal adjunct of (69). (69) Mara a plecat p n s se ntoarc Radu Mara has left till s rflx returns Radu Mara left before Radu returned. To recapitulate, s is an inflectional element rather than a complementizer for the following reasons: s is adjacent to the verb, and unlike the complementizers ca and c (also dac ) a subject is not allowed to follow this particle. Since a special subjunctive complementizer exists and may coocurr with s it is not possible for this particle to be a second subjunctive complementizer. Most importantly, s is able to co-occur with wh -words and complementizers, a behavior not manifested by attested complementizers. 3.4.2 S as a Complemen tizer Dobrovie-Sorin (1991) includes a number of arguments for the complementizer status of the subjunctive particle in Ro manian, some discredited by Terzi (1992). Dobrovie-Sorin (1994) reiterates many of the arguments from Dobrovie-Sorin (1991). Sin ce the matter is not settled at this point, I will discuss Dobrovie-Sorins (1994) reasons in favor of the complementizer status

PAGE 120

120 of s In my account, I will go beyond Terzis (1992) discussion providing new information and unexplored data. I will also tackle issues Te rzi (1992) left aside for future research. 3.4.2.1 S heads an embedded clause We already know that a subjunc tive clause m ay begin with s or with ca s The two subjunctive embedded clauses of (70) begin with the particle s while the subjunctive clause of (71) starts with ca s (Both example types ar e currently in use.). (70) M-a rugat [ s -o las [ s intre n odaie]] me.Acc-has begged.3sg [s -her let.1sg [s enter.3sg in room She asked me to let her enter my room. Minulescu (1881-1944), Cu toamna n odaie (71) Ca s -ajung pn la tine, i-am zis calului: that s -reach.1sg to you, cl.Dat-have.1sg said horse.Dat Gr be te... hurry.Imp To reach you, I asked my horse to hurry. Minulescu (1881-1944), Roman f r muzic Dobrovie-Sorin (1994) claims that the complementizer status of s may follow from its capacity to head an embedded clause. In Dobrovi e-Sorin (2001:55) this view is adjusted to: s may head embedded clauses in the absence of any other Comp elements. Other Comp elements could only be wh -words or the complementizer ca or other complementizer. If s can co-occur with a complementizer (showed above), s cannot be a complementizer. Recall that two complementizers are not allowed to introduce a clause in Romanian. If heading a clause means that s could be the first word in a clause, this is true but irrelevant for the complementizer status of this particle. By that reasoning, the English infinitival particle to would also be a C0, contrary to the fact. If s is considered the head of a subjunctive cl ause in the sense that it is located in C0, this fact is not guaranteed either. Actually, there are at least equal chances that a null complementizer heads a subjunctive complement clause since a subjunctive complementizer

PAGE 121

121 exists. Recall that Grosu & Horvath (1984) consider ca to be optionally lexical or nonlexical, a point of view shared by Comorovski (1986). Both (24) and (25) repeated under (72) a nd (73) are representations of subjunctive complement clauses from old documents. They show that ca may be overt or nonovert in exactly the same environment. Both subjunctive clause s are selected by the same matrix predicate, a vrea to want, but (72) is in troduced by the complementizer ca followed by s while the other, (73), begins with s Thus, it is plausible to assume that (73) is introduced by a nonovert complementizer. (72) De na vrea ca s vie. If not-would.3sg want that s come.3sg If she wouldnt want to come. Alecsandri (1821-1890) Opere (73) fimeia lui nu vra s pl teasc woman-the his not wants s pay.3sg his woman doesnt want to pay. Stefanelli (1915:112), 1784 document Furthermore, placing s under C0 is to say that ca s complement clauses in OSR, like (72), and ca s purpose clauses in CR and OSR (e.g., 64, 71) are headed by two complementizers, which is a very improbable conclusion. Therefore, the ability of s to head an embedded clause or a sentence, whatever this may mean, does not confer a complementizer status on it. 3.4.2.2 S in surrogate imperative constructions Rom anian has true imperative forms for second person singular and plural only: e.g., Dute! Go! (2sg) Duceti-va Go! (2pl). Recall that s subjunctives can have imperative force, constructions usually called surrogate imperatives or suppletive imperatives Subjunctive suppletives are possible for all th ree persons singular and plural. However, since subjunctive has distinct morphology only for third person (same form for singular and plural), a subjunctive

PAGE 122

122 suppletive must be accom panied by the particle s in order to be distinguished from present indicative or true imperative. The examples in (74a,b) are impersonal surrogate imperatives of the type Let it happen! or So be it! Another reason for the complementizer status of s proposed by Dobrovie-Sorin (1994) follows from the impossibility of s to head a third person subjunctive surrogate imperative, when the clitic follows the verb (74c). In (74a) the particle s is followed by the clitic and the subjunctive verb, i.e., the nor mal word order. In (74b) s is omitted and the clitic follows the verb. The postverbal position of the clitic in (74b) is not possible in the presence of s as illustrated by (74c). (74) a. S se ntmple ce so ntmpla. s cl.3sg happen.3sg what cl.3sg-Fut happen.3sg Let happen what will happen./So be it! b. ntmplese ce so ntmpla. happen.Sbj.3sgrflx.3sg what rflx.3sgFut happen.3sg c. *s ntmplese ce so ntmpla s happen.3sgrflx.3sg what rflx.3sg-Fut happen.3sg Dobrovie-Sorin (1994:96) The question to answer is why (74c) is rule d out. (Terzi 1992 leav es this question for further research). In Dobrovie-Sorin (1994), in whic h the examples in (74) were analyzed, a rule that moves the verb to C, leaving no position for s in (74c), is considered proof for the complementizer status of s Now compare the third person subjunctive s uppletives of (75) with the second person suppletive of 76). The examples of (75) display th e same patterns in (74) with a different verb (I do not use the verb a se ntmpla to happen, because it is impersonal). (76) includes one example of true imperative (76b). Observe that a postverbal clitic is po ssible for a third person

PAGE 123

123 suppletive (75b), but not for a second person supp letive (76c). The real question is what is responsible for this difference? (75) a. S se duc acolo imediat! s cl.3sg/pl go.3sg/pl there immediately Let them go there immediately! b. Duc se! go.Sbj.3sg/plcl.3sg/pl go them c. *s duc -se s go-cl.3 let go them (76) a. S v duceti acolo imediat! s cl.2pl go.2pl there immediately Go there immediately! b. Ducetiv go.Imp.2pl2pl Go there! c. *Ducetiv go.Sbj.2plcl.2pl d. *s ducetiv s go.2plcl.2pl Obviously, the existence of a true impera tive form (76b) prec ludes the surrogate imperative with the exact same form (76c). As fo r (75b), two conditions allow it: First, there is no true imperative form for the third person to compete with the subjunctive, and second, the subjunctive exhibits distinct third person morphology. Only under these conditions a subjunctive verb may mimic an imperative by having a postverbal clitic for third person (75b). Constructions like (74b,75b) are said to comple te the paradigm of imperative (for third person) as Graur et al. (1969:98) suggest. Since a postverbal clitic is specific to imperative (at least in contrast with subjunctive) s is prohibited in this context b ecause this structure stands for

PAGE 124

124 a true imperative. This is exactly why (75c) a nd (74c) are ruled out. (76d ) is even worse: the subjunctive marker appears with imperative verbal morphology and imperative clitic position. The solution proposed in Dobrovie-Sorin (1994) may possibly account for (74c), (75c) but not for (76c). In sum, the subjunctive marker is not po ssible with imperative verbal morphology or/and imperative clitic position, hence the impossibi lity of (74c) is due to the morphological competition between true imperatives and subjunctive suppletives5. 3.4.2.3 Negation placement To consider an argum ent involving the negation nu not, at least some basic characteristics of this entity need to be presented. First, the sequence verb nu (regardless of the type of the verb: lexical, auxiliary, or modal) has never existed in Romanian, e.g., Nu tiu (not know) vs. tiu nu (know not) I dont know6. Furthermore, the negation nu may immediately follow the indicative complementizer c (77), but cannot immediately follo w the subjunctive complementizer ca (78a). In the subjunctive structure of (78b), nu illicitly appears between the complementizer ca and the particle s 5 Related to this topic, in French a sentence beginning with que followed by the subjunctive is used for third person commands, wishes, concessions, etc, like (i). The subjunctive Romanian version is given in (ii). (i) Que les masques tombent! Let the masks fall! (ii) S cad m tile! Then there are set expressions without que like (iii). The Romanian version (iv) also lacks s (optionally). (iii) Vive la France! Long live France! (iv) Tr iasc Fran a! Dobrovie-Sorin (1994) compares th e French expressions with the Roma nian counterparts and concludes that s in (ii) must be a compleme ntizer like the French que (i). Furthermore, Dobrovie-Sorin (2001:55) takes subjunctive suppletive constructions as instances where s is sentence initial thus it is a complementizer. Notice that by this reasoning t o in To be continued! should be also a complementizer, in contradiction with the reality. 6 Unlike Romanian, English used to employ not after a main verb: I loved you not. (From Shakespeares Hamlet) In Contemporary English, not still appears after modals, and auxiliaries, e.g I cannot (and even We think not ).

PAGE 125

125 showing that it cannot follow the complementizer or precede the particle. It only can be between s and the subjunctive verb. (77) Mara tie [c nu a facut Radu asta] Mara knows that not has done Radu this Mara knows that Radu didn do this. (78) a. M ngrijesc [ca s nu am probleme la b trne e] 1sg care.1sg that s not have.1sg problems P old age I take care of my self in order to avoid health problems at older age. b. *M ngrijesc [ca nu s am probleme la b trne e] Dobrovie-Sorin (1994) claims that (79b) is ungrammatical because the Neg head ( nu not) should subcategorize for IP complements (according to Zanuttini 1989), but it selects a CP instead, that is, headed by the subjunctive particle s Assuming that s is under C, the author expects the ungrammaticality of (79b) to be on a pa r with the indicative st ructure of (80a). In other words, nu cannot cross a complementizer: the indicative complementizer c in (80a) and the complementizer s in (79b). The sentence from which ( 80a) was derived is given in (80b). (79) a. Vreau [s nu-l mai ntlne ti] want.1sg [s not-him more meet.2sg] I dont want you to see him again. b. *vreau nu [s -l mai ntlne ti] want.1sg not [s -him more meet.2sg] (80) a. tiu nu [c a scris Ion poezia asta] know.1sg not [that has written Ion poem this] *I know not that Ion wrote this poem Dobrovie-S orin (1994:95-96) b. Stiu [c nu a scris Ion poezia asta] know.1sg [that not has written Ion poem this I know that Ion didnt write this poem. Observe that the negation in (79b) and ( 80a) reached the main clause crossing the subjunctive particle s and the indicative complementizer c respectively. The prohibited

PAGE 126

126 sequence verb-nu resulted in the matrix renders these derivations ungrammatical, thus nu is not able to cross the complementizer or the subjuncti ve particle. This does no t necessarily mean that s is a complementizer. If one concludes that s is a complementizer, one has to explain (78b) above, where nu landed between s and the complementizer ca indicating that ca and not s is in C0. Therefore, the placement of the negation nu does not constitute evidence for the complementizer status of s 3.4.2.4 Clitic placement Like the negation nu, a pronom inal clitic cannot cross a complementizer in Romanian. The clitic l him in (81a) crosses the complementizer c reaching the cliti c position of the matrix and the sentence b ecomes ungrammatical (81b). (81) a. Mara crede [c l va vedea pe Radu mine] Mara believes that-cl.him will.3sg see P Radu tomorrow Mara believes that she will see Radu in the evening. b. *Mara l crede c va vedea pe Radu mine. In Dobrovie-Sorin (1994) the ungrammaticality of (82b) is explained by the impossibility of the clitic l/l to cross a CP boundary whose head (C0) would be occupied by the subjunctive particle s (82) a. Vreau s l mai ntlne ti. want.1sg s -cl.him more meet.2sg I want you to see him again. b. *vreau l s mai ntlne ti want.1sg cl.him s more meet.2sg Dobrovie-Sorin (1994:95) Terzi (1992) points out citing Zanuttini ( 1990) that functional heads, not only C0, are capable of interfering with clitic move ment. Indeed, the clitic cannot skip over nu in (83b). Notice that the ungrammaticality of (83c) may be attr ibuted to the impossibili ty of the clitic to cross either nu or s or both of the two heads.

PAGE 127

127 (83) a. Vreau s nul mai ntlne ti. Want.1sg s not-him more meet I want you not to see him anymore/again. b. *Vreau s l nu mai ntlne ti c. *Vreau l s nu mai ntlne ti Terzi (1992) argues that clitics are heads, and, as such, they cannot skip over functional heads such as Neg0 or I/M0 (which, she maintains, is occupied by the subjunctive particle) because it results in ECP violation. Intere stingly, no clitic can precede the negation nu --in any structure--or the subjunct ive particle in Romanian. Since the particle s is always present in its I0 position, no clitic is able to cross it. So far, it has been found that a clit ic cannot cross the complementizer c the negation nu, and the subjunctive particle s It only remains to find out the behavior of clitics vis--vis the subjunctive complementizer ca Three different structures will be used to accomplish this test. For instance, the sentence (43), labeled i dolect in Section 3.2 (also an OC-subjunctive structure in OSR), repeated he re under (84a) includes a prono minal clitic in the embedded clause. Placing the clitic l / l in front of s it appears now between ca and s (84b) and the derivation crashes. Since ca is the complementizer, s cannot be one. Moving the clitic further, over ca the derivation remains ungrammatical. (84) a. Nu poci [ca s l mai v z]. not can.1sg [that s -cl.him more see1.sg] I cannot see him anymore. (Consultant, 2006) b. *Nu poci [ ca l s mai v z] not can.1sg [that cl.him s more see1.sg] c. Nu l poci l [ca s mai v z]. not cl.him can.1sg cl.him [that s more see1.sg]

PAGE 128

128 Same results obtain in the standard subj unctive structures of CR. The embedded (purpose) clause of (85a) includes a clitic (in bold). Placing the clitic in front of s (85b) renders the sentence ungrammatical. Moving the clitic one step more, over the complementizer ca in (85c), the derivation crashes ag ain. Therefore, a clitic cannot follow or cross the subjunctive complementizer ca ; it cannot cross s and ca in sequence or both in one movement. (85) a. Fac bani azi [ca s i cheltui mine] make.1sg money today [that s -cl.them spend.1sg tomorrow] I make money today to spend it tomorrow. b. *Fac bani azi [ca i s cheltui mine] c. *Fac bani azi i [ca s cheltui mine] Similarly, the clitic cannot cross s and ca in the subjunctive comp lement construction of (86), whose preposed subject is between ca and s in (86a). Moving the clitic in front of s or over the subject, the sentence is ruled out (86b). Moving the clitic further to the matrix, the sentence remains ungrammatical (86c). (86) a. Mara vrea [ca Radu s l ntlneasc pe Ion] Mara wants [that Radu s -cl.him meet.3sg P Ion] Mara wants Radu to meet Ion. b. Mara vrea [ca l Radu l s ntlneasc pe Ion] c. Mara *l vrea l [ca Radu s ntlneasc pe Ion] All three examples (84, 85, 86) demonstrate that the clitic that normally occurs between s and the subjunctive verb cannot cross either s or ca, or both. Crossing s the c litic may land between the complementizer ca and the subjunctive particle (84b, 85b, 86b). Definitely, the attested complementizer ca is the dweller of C0 and not s contrary to Dobrovie-Sorins (1994) claim. The b. examples are ruled out becau se the clitic crossed a functional head, s which

PAGE 129

129 occupies I0. The c. examples are ruled out because the clitic crossed tw o functional heads: s in I0 and ca in C0. The real position/status of s in rapport to clitic placemen t/movement is given in (87) below: (87) a. In Romanian, no clitic precedes /crosses an attested complementizer, the negation nu, or the subjunctive particle, i.e. a functional head. b. If a clitic is not able to cross s one can safely say that the respective clitic cannot cross a functi onal head; there is no proof that this functional head is in the C0 position. c. If a clitic illicitly crossed s in sentences where the complementizer ca is present, the clitic is placed between the subjunctive complementizer and the subjunctive particle. The C0 position is occupied by the complementizer ca. Therefore, s is not in C0. All the arguments for the complementizer status of s (discussed above) have been dismissed. At best, these arguments ha d no saying regarding the status of s In addition, the discussion about some of them ( neg and clitic placements) furnished evidence against the complementizer status of s Most of the arguments for the complementizer status of s were proposed as a result of overlooked empirical data. Yet, recently, Dobrovie-Sorin (2001:55-6) maintains that s has both inflectional-like elements and complementizer-like elements. The complementizer-like elements listed in Dobrovie-Sorin (2001) are: Subjunctive particles are sentence initial, preceding negation as well as clitics, and may head embedded clauses in the absence of any other Comp element; (all of them discussed in this section). In order to arrange the parts, the complementizer ca and the particle s the author postulates two C positions: one for ca one for s To conclude this section, as demonstrated above, Dobrovie-Sorins (1994, 2001) arguments do not support the complementizer status of the subjunctive particle s To my

PAGE 130

130 knowledge, no argument for the complementizer status of s remains standing. On the contrary, there are solid arguments in favor of the I/M(ood) status of th e subjunctive particle s such as its co-occurrence with complementizers and wh -words Naturally, the complementizer ca be it overt or nonovert, occupies the C0 position, while the mood marker s heads the maximal projection of Mood Phrase (MP) or IP. The lack of specific subjunctive inflection on the verb for the first and second person singular or plural, makes s to solely stands for the s ubjunctive morphological identity. Therefore, it is appropriate to say that s is the relevant mo rphology of subjunctive. 3.5 Tense in Romanian Subjunctive Complements This section highlights the type of tense of Rom anian subjunctive complement clauses. In Landau (2004), Balkan subjunctive complements are analyzed, us ing Greek and Bulgarian data, as having semantic tense: OC-subjunctive complements display anaphoric tense and Fsubjunctive ones displa y independent tense. Semantic tense as defined in Polinsky and Potsdam (2006:188) is basically a referential expression which determines the temporal boundaries of an event. Such an expression indicates whether a proposition is specified by present, past or future interpretation. The respective heads that carry the tense make the crucial differe nce between morphological and semantic tense. Morphological tense assigns tense openly on some constituent of a clause that may be different from the head of the clause. Semantic tense is an attribute of the clau sal head and defines the tense domain of an event. The morphological te nse may or may not correspond to the semantic tense. Following Landaus (2004. 2006) tense analysis, I will show that Romanian subjunctives display the same patterns of tense characteristic to the Balkan type of subjunctive: anaphoric tense for OC-subjunctives and dependent tense for F-subjunctives.

PAGE 131

131 Anaphoric tense is a semantic tense that doe s not have its own tense domain, thus it is fully dependent on another tense domain for refere nce. Therefore, anaphoric tense does not have its own tense operator and its clause is not allowed to have tempor al modifiers incompatible with the matrix. Dependent tense is a semantic tens e that has its own tens e domain/tense operator, independent of the matrix domain but constrai ned by it. A clause with dependent tense may employ temporal modifiers distinct from those of the matrix, but limited by it. Landau (2004) takes the temporal expre ssions mismatch between matrix and its complement clause as a reliable diagnostic for se mantic tense. As we shall see, conflicting temporal adverbs are possible to some extent in F-subjunctive stru ctures, but totally disallowed in OC-subjunctive structures. In the example of (88), the event of the matr ix and that of the F-subjunctive complement are temporarily independent, as evidenced by th e possibility of conflicting temporal adverbs: acum now in the matrix and mine tomorrow in the subordinate clause. Thus, the subjunctive clause describes an event temporarily located in the future in spite of the present tense morphology on the subjunctive verb. (88) Acum Mara sper /vrea s plece mine. now Mara hopes/wants s leave.3sg tomorrow Now, Mara hopes/wants to leave tomorrow. The representation in (88) shows that an Fsubjunctive complement has a tense domain of its own apart from the matrix tense domain resu lting from the future interpretation (as opposed to the present tense of the matrix) and its ability to employ conflicting temporal modifiers. We could also say that F-subjunctives include a tense operator. This tense operator is distinct from the matrix tense operator although constrai ned by it (Landau 2004:831). Notice that mine

PAGE 132

132 tomorrow in (88) cannot be replaced by ieri yesterday (89). We then can conclude that Fsubjunctive complement clauses di splay dependent semantic tense. (89) Acum Mara sper /vrea s plece mine / *ieri. now, Mara hopes/wants s leave.3sg to morrow/ *yesterday *Now Mara hopes to leave yesterday. By contrast, conflicting temporal adverbs ar e prohibited in the OC-subjunctive example of (90), for a sole event takes place in this construction. Lacking its ow n tense domain (and tense operator), without the po ssibility of employing temporal adve rbs incompatible with the matrix, an OC-subjunctive falls within the matrix tense domain (Landau 2004:831). Thus, OCsubjunctives display anaphoric semantic tense, again despite the present tense morphology on the subjunctive verb. (90) *Acum Mara ncearc /ncepe s noate mine. now Mara tries/begins s swim.3sg tomorrow *Now, Mara tries/begins to swim tomorrow. Furthermore, Landau (2004, 2006:161) argues th at when complements have semantic tense, dependent or anaphoric, the matrix predicates select the respective tense. Since selection is local, the tense dependence of th e embedded I on the matrix predic ate is mediated by Comp, the head of the complement clause7. Thus, C0 bears a [T] feature, the uninterpretable [T] feature because tense is interpreted only once on I0, so it hosts the interpreta ble [T] feature. The author mentions that it is typical for infinitival and subjunctive complements to have their tense specified by the matrix predicat e. In case of independent embe dded tense, there is no [T] specification on Comp. Furthermore, dependent tense has the feat ure [+T] since it has its own tense operator and anaphoric tense has the feature [T] due to the lack of distinct tens e operator. 7 The relationship between tense and Comp can be traced back to Stowell (1982) who argues that the tense domain of a clause is represented in C0. For Kempchinsky (1986), the tense of F-subjunctives is defined by the interdependence between I and C. Terzi (1992) argues that the subjunctives have a [TENSE] operator in C0 or it may be a set of tense features. Varlokosta (1993) derives the dependent tense of F-subjunctives through the V-to-T-to-C movement.

PAGE 133

133 Following Landau (2004), Polinsky & Pots dam (2006) also confirm that many complement clauses have dependent or anaphoric tense imposed by the selec tional restrictions of the matrix verb and consequently the value of the uninterpretable [T] f eature is represented on the embedded C0 head. Thus, independent tense has no [T] feature on C0, dependent tense has [+T] feature on C0 and anaphoric tense has [-T] feature on C0. Unlike Landau, Polynsky & Potsdam further argue that the feature [T], whether positive or negative, is associated with an opti onal EPP feature, which makes possible for C0 to take an A-specifier. Under these circumstances, the embe dded subject can move to the [Spec,CP] of the respective complement clause in order to check its EPP feature. The subject then moves to the subject (or object) position of the matrix. In ot her words, movement out of complement (OC) clauses displaying dependent or an aphoric tense is possible. In su m, anaphoric semantic tense is transparent for movement, dependent semantic te nse is possibly transparent, but independent tense is opaque to movement. Strictly concerning the purpose of this section, I conclude that OC-subjunctive complements display anaphoric semantic tense e ndowed with the [-T] feature and F-subjunctive complements display dependent semantic te nse endowed with the [+T] feature. The uninterpretable [+T]/[-T] features are located on C0, the head of the embedded CP projection. 3.6 Subject of Subjunctive Complement Clauses Som e researchers argue that the empty subjec t of all subjunctive complement clauses in the languages of the Balkans is pro : DobrovieSorin (1991, 1994, 2001) for Romanian (and the Balkans), Calabrese (1992) for Salentino, Turano (1994) for Albanian, among others. Other researchers argue for PRO subject in OC-subjuncti ves: Kempchinsky (1986) for Romanian, Terzi (1992, 1997) for Greek, Romania n, Albanian, (and the Balkans). Also, Krapova (2001) adopts Terzis analysis for Greek and Bulgarian and rea ffirms that the subject of OC-

PAGE 134

134 subjunctives is PRO. Landau ( 2004, 2006) analyses the control in languages of the Balkans within the larger context of control in general. He maintains that the embedded controlled subject of OC-subjunctives is PRO. These researchers also say that the null subject of F-subjunctives may be pro or PRO. Lexical subjects are also possible in F-subjunctives. Both groups of researchers agree that subjunc tive clauses in the la nguages of the Balkans involve obligatory control. The main goal of this section is to dete rmine the null subject of OC-subjunctive clauses and the subject of F-subjunctive clauses. I will show that OC-subjunctive complements have a PRO subject and that F-subjunctive are ambiguous between two structures, one associated with a PRO subject, the other with lexical DP or pro subjects. The last part of the section explores the possibility of arbitrary PRO in subjunctive clauses. 3.6.1 The OC-Subjunctive Complements Have PRO Subject 3.6.1.1 Basic properties of PRO OC-subjunctive com plements display the all the basic properties of obligatory control structures associated with PR O subject, as shown in Varlokosta & Hornstein (1993), Varlokosta (1993), Hornstein (1999), Krapova (2001) and Landau (2000, 2004). Thus, the subject of OC-subjunctive clauses must be null (91a). Lexical subjects are excluded from the same position (91b) or from postverbal position (91c). A null pronominal subject, pro, is also excluded (91bc). (91) a. Mara1 a ncercat e1 s scrie o scrisoare Mara has tried s write.3sg a letter Mara tried to write a letter. b. *Mara1 a ncercat Ana/pro s scrie o scrisoare Mara has tried Ana s write.3sg a letter *Mara tried Ana to write a letter

PAGE 135

135 c. *Mara1 a ncercat s scrii tu2/pro2 o scrisoare. Mara has tried s write.2sg you/pro a letter *Mara tried you to write a letter The null subject lacks independent reference. Most importantly, it must be correferential with a local matrix antecedent (the controller) and c-commanded by it (92a). As can be seen the empty subject (e) is the antecedent of the re flexive/emphatic pronoun and that the coindexation of e with Mara entails the coinde xation of the reflexive with Mara. Control by a long-distant antecedent is not possible (92b). Only the reflexive that is coreferential with e is possible in (92b), implying that the long-distance ant ecedent Radu cannot control the empty subject. (92) a. Mara1 a ncercat e1 s scrie ea ns i1 o scrisoare Mara has tried s write.3sg herself a letter Mara tried to write a letter. b. Radu1 stie c Mara2 a ncercat e2 s scrie Radu knows that Mara has tried s write.3sg ea ns i2/*el nsu i1 o scrisoare herself/himself a letter Radu knows that Mara tried to wr ite a letter herself/*himself. According to the properties of the null subj ect of OC-subjunctive complements discussed so far, the null subject in ( 91a) and (92a,b) must be PRO. Furthermore, PRO will always manife st sloppy reading under ellipsis and de se interpretation, conform Varlokos ta & Hornstein (1993), Varlokosta (1993), Krapova (2001) and Landau (2004), for the languages of the Balkans. 3.6.1.2 PRO permits only a sloppy reading under ellipsis The only interpretation of the verb ellipsis co nstruction of (93a) is that that Ana (and not som ebody else or Mara) tried (herself) to leave early. The meaning of the ellipsis is the fullconjoined clause in (93b), that is, Ana cont rols the embedded subjec t (PRO) of the second conjunct. This is sloppy reading. The idea is that, according to Bouchard (1985) and followed by Landau (2000:35) among others, PRO behaves like an anaphor in OC contexts and like a

PAGE 136

136 pronoun in NOC (i.e., long-distance control: LD C) contexts. Consequently, PRO in OCsubjunctive complements will always have sloppy reading under verbal ellipsis. (93) a. Mara1 ncearc [PRO1 s plece devreme] Mara try.3sg s leave.3sg early i Ana -de asemenea and Ana too. Mara is trying to leave early and Ana is too. b. Mara1 ncearc [PRO1 s plece devreme] i Mara tries s leave.3sg early and Ana2 ncearc s plece ea ns i2 devreme. Ana tries s leave.3sg he rself early Mara is trying to leave early and Ana is trying (herself) to leave early. 3.6.1.3 PRO supports only a de se interpretation De se is Latin for of oneself and, in philos ophy, it is a phrase used to mark off what some believe to be a categor y of ascription distinct from de re of the thing (and from de dicto of the word). Varlokosta and Hornstein (1993) notice that in the recent literature PRO is to be distinguished from pronominals in the sense that it patterns semantically not with personal pronoun forms like he but rather with emphatic or reflexive forms like himself. This peculiarity is revealed under ci rcumstances where a subject of an attitude verb is confused about his (her) identity. In the classical example (Higginbotham, 1989), The Unfortunate, a war veteran suffering from amnesia, is watching a TV show (or is reading a book) dedicated to his own heroic deeds. Since the Un fortunate does not remember anything bout his wartime experience, admires the man depicted in the show, without knowing that man is himself. While the Unfortunate is watching the show, he may have beliefs about himself (the man

PAGE 137

137 watching the show), that is the de se interpretation, or he may al so have beliefs about the hero in the story (who happens to be him), that is the de re / de dicto interpretation. The de se de re contrast is reflected in the fo llowing representations borrowed from Varlokosta and Horsntein (1993:508) (94) and (95) are true if The Unfortunate believes that someone is coming to him to give him a medal the de se interpretation. These two sentences cannot be true if The Unfortunate believes that war hero depicted in the show (not himself) gets the medal the de re interpretation. The represen tation of (96) is ambiguous between the two interpreta tions. In (97) only the de se reading is possible. (97) is true only if the man has a belief that himself will get a medal. This reinforc es the belief that PRO is an anaphor. (94) The Unfortunate expects th at he himself will get a medal. (95) The Unfortunate expects himself to get a medal. (96) The Unfortunate expect s that he will get a medal. (97) The Unfortunate1 expects [PRO1 to get a medal]. For Romanian, the verbs for expect/hope cannot be used to show the de se de re contrast because this verb is an F-s ubjunctive verb. The mental de se attitude verbs a uita to forget or ai aminti to remember can be used instead for this purpose. So, the sentence of (98a), construc ted with indicative, has both the de re interpretation and de se interpretation in the sense that the forgetful man himself ( de se ) or somebody else ( de re) remembers to take the train. By contrast, only the forgetful man (himself) could actually remember to take the train in the OC-subjunctive structure of (98b). Thus, (98b) has only a de se interpretation, the beli ef about the self. (98) a. Uitucul1 ia amintit [c (el1/2) ia trenul] forgetful-the clhas remembered that (he) takes train-the The forgetful man remembered that he takes the train.

PAGE 138

138 b. Uitucul1 i-a amintit [e1 s ia *e2 trenul] forgetful-the cl -has remembered s take.3sg train-the The forgetful man remembered to take the train. We can then conclude that the null subject of an OC-subj unctive complement manifests the de se interpretation, conform ( 98b), therefore it is PRO. 3.6.2 The Subject of F-Subjunctives F-subjunctive predicates are structurally am biguous between two representations, one of which is associated with a PRO subject. Terzi (1992) was the first to make this assessment. Later, Landau (2004:845) notices: F -subjunctives whose null subject is coindexed with a matrix argument are systematically ambiguous between a pro-structure with accidental coreference and a PRO-structure with OC. Landau argues that OC-subjunctives are a subclass of F-subjunctives and that the PRO-interpretation is a special case of the pro-interpretation. In his Agreement Model of OC (which will be presented in Chapte r 5) an F-subjunctive structure with embedded PRO subject does not compete w ith the parallel one with a pro subject8. An F-subjunctive complement may have a le xical DP subject (pronoun or noun) in the basic/postverbal position as in (99a), or this subject may be null (99b). This null subject is referentially independent (different from the matr ix subject) and it actually replaces a lexical DP, thus it is pro (99) a. (Eu1) vreau [s plece el/Radu2]. (I) want s leave.3sg he/Radu I want Radu to leave. b. (Eu1) vreau [s plece pro2/*eu1]. (I) want s leave3sg I want him to leave. 8 I am not aware of any analysis that clearly demonstrat es that OC is not possible in F-subjunctive complements

PAGE 139

139 The embedded lexical DP subject can be pre posed/topicalized, and in this case, as we know, the complementizer ca must be present (100a). Without ca, a lexical DP is not possible in the subject position of (100a), thus a pro subject is also excluded th ere (100b). Since a lexical DP and a (referentially) null pro cannot alternatively occupy the s ubject position of (100b), the null subject must be PRO as shown in (101). Furthe rmore, only the reflexive that doubles and is coreferent with the null subject and with its matrix controller is possible in (101). Therefore, the matrix subject of (101) must control the embe dded null subject and be coreferent with it, hindering a non-coreferent subjec t. Miller (2002:101) also no tices that where a disjoint pro subject is excluded, the null s ubject must be PRO: Since pro otherwise occurs freely where lexical subjects occur, the ungrammaticality of an examples like (100b) makes sense only if the null subject (of (101)) is PRO in need of a controller. (100) a. (Eu1) vreau [ ca Radu2 s plece]. (I) want that Radu s leave.3sg I want Radu to leave. b. *(Eu1) vreau [Radu/pro2 s plece]. (I) want Radu s leave.3sg I want Radu to leave. (101) (Eu1) vreau [PRO1 s plec eu nsumi1/*tu nsu i2] curnd] (I) want s leave.1sg myself/ *yourself soon I want to leave (myself). Terzi (1992) argues that although Agr is present in sentences such as (101), it is not actually able to govern the subject position and license a pro subject. In Terzis analysis, along the lines of PRO theorem, PRO is possible in (101) because the position it occupies, [Spec,M(ood)P], is ungoverned and (subsequently ) uncased. Most recently, Landaus (2005) mechanism (Chapter 5) of moving PRO from its initial position VPinternally to [Spec,IP/MP] does not involve case (or EPP). Thus, the posi tion of PRO in (101) may not be occupied by pro.

PAGE 140

140 Before going further, it is necessary to be not ed that OC complements are not confined to inherently OC predicates, i.e. that invariably trigger OC (e.g., implicatives). Huang (1989) argues that certain matrix verbs have OC complements induced by structure/configuration not by lexical properties. Huang refers to verbs like prefer, want, hate, hope etc (our F-subjunctive verbs) which can take complements with free su bject like (102) but they also can take OC complements with PRO subject, like hi s example (7) included below under (103)9. Therefore, obligatory control is not a lexical feature and cannot be reduced to the lexical properties of certain verbs. I adopt this view here, that a structural OC is po ssible with inherently OC verbs and with verbs that are able to take OC complements or NOC complements. (102) John1 prefers her2 to leave early. (103) John1 prefers PRO1 to behave himself1/*oneself2 Now, the difference between the Romanian s ubjunctive constructions (104) and (105) is that the former has a control complement of a se mantically OC predicate, while the latter has a control complement of a semantically free-control pr edicate, that is a predicate that can take an OC complement (105) or a NOC complement (106). (104) (Eu1) ncerc [PRO1 s plec eu nsumi1/*tu nsu i2 curnd] (I) try s leave.1sg myself/*yourself soon I am trying to leav e (myself/*yourself) soon. (105) (Eu1) vreau [PRO1 s plec eu nsumi1/*tu nsu i2 curnd] (I) want s leave.1sg myself/yourself soon I want to leave (myself/*yourself) soon. (106) (Eu1) vreau [s pleci tu2/tu nsu i2/pro2/ *eu nsumi1 curnd] (I) want s leave.2sg you/yourself/p ro/ *myself soon I want you to leave (yourself/*myself) soon. 9 Also, Landau (2000), San Martin (2008), among others, consider English examples such as (103) to be OC structures.

PAGE 141

141 Apart from this lexical/semantic difference regarding their matrix predicates (104) and (105) are configurationally /structurally identical. First, both (104) and (105) have a null subject coreferential with the matrix subject, obligatoril y controlled by the matrix subject. The matrix subject is the antecedent and the local c-comm anding controller of the embedded subject, which can only be PRO. The reflexive/emphatic pronouns cannot be different from its antecedent, i.e., the embedded subject PRO, and from the controll er/antecedent of PRO, thus the control in both sentences is not long-distance control (LDC). It follows that both complements of (104) and (105) must be OC complements with PRO subjects10. By contrast, the NOC complement of (106) may have a lexical DP subject or a referentially null pro subject. The reflexives show th at the embedded subject must be referentially different fr om the matrix subject. It appears that the existence of the English NOC re presentation of (102) does not challenge the existence of the OC structure with PRO subject ( 103). Similarly, the existence of the NOC representation of (106) with DP/ pro subject does not prevent the existence of the obligatory control representation of (105) with a PRO subject. The examples (105) and (106) where the matrix subject is a first pe rson DP actually show no ambiguity between OC and NOC, respectively. (There cannot be both OC and NOC possible in either example). The embedded clauses of ( 105) and (106) are distin ct complements of the same matrix verb. This is also true when the matrix subject is a second person entity. Thus, the 10 The examples (104) and (105) also reflect Landaus (2000:99) OC generalization: In a configuration [DP1 Pred [S PRO1]] where DP controls PRO: If, at LF, S occupies a complement/specifier pos ition in the VP-shell of Pred, then th e DP (or its trace) also occupies a complement/specifier position in that VP-shell. Landau further asserts that this generalization merely fixes the domain within which such a controller must be found and makes no claims as to the particular choice of controller within the domain of OC. VPshell is understood as ranging over all arguments of a pred icate including the external one.

PAGE 142

142 subjunctive complement of (107) is an OC comp lement with PRO subject, uniquely coreferential with its controller, distinct from the NOC complement of (108). (107) Tu1 vrei [PRO1 s pleci tu nsu i1/*el nsu i2 devreme] you want s leave.2sg yourself/*himself early You want to leave earl y (yourself/*himself). (108) Tu1 vrei [s plece el/el nsu i2/*tu nsu i1 devreme] you want s leave.3sg him/himself/*yourself early You want him to leave early. When the matrix subject and the embedded s ubjects are both third person entities, the subjunctive complement clause is indeed ambiguous between OC and NOC. Thus, a representation such as (109) ha s two interpretations, as the E nglish versions reveal. The two variants of (109) are given in (110), where ( 110a) has an obligatory control reading with PRO subject, and (110b) is a n on-control structure with pro subject. (109) Mara sper [s plece mine]. Mara hopes s leave.3sg tomorrow Mara hopes to leave tomorrow. Mara hopes him/her to leave tomorrow. (110) a. Mara1 sper [PRO1 s plece ea ns i1/*el nsu i2 Mara hopes s leave.3sg herself/himself mine]. tomorrow Mara wants to leave tomorrow (herself). b. Mara1 sper [s plece pro2 mine]. Mara hopes s leave.3sg tomorrow Mara wants him/her to leave tomorrow. If the null subjects of ( 110a) and (110b) were both pro, obviation would have been at work (i.e. (110) should not exist) contrary to the fact. The po ssibility of obligatory control reading in (109) prevents obviat ion, that is, OC is anti-obviat ion (and vice-versa, obviation is anti-control in Spanish for instan ce, as mentioned in Section 3.3).

PAGE 143

143 Since, naturally, any interpretiv e property of OC is included as one of the options in NOC, it is not easy to isolate OC from NOC when the matrix subject of an F-subjunctive verb and the embedded subject are third person entiti es. However, consider the following data as: (111) an OC structure with PRO subject; (112a ) an instance of a comp lement with subject disjoint reference expressed by lexical DPs. ( 112b) shows that the embedded lexical DPs of (112a) cannot be replaced by reflexives. Wh en the embedded subject is a personal pronoun matching the gender and number of the matrix subject as in (113), the embedded subject is ambiguous. Adding a matching reflexiv e in (113), it only can be coreferent with the matrix subject (Radu). (111) Radu1 vrea [PRO1 s scrie el nsu i1 / *ea ns i Radu wants s write.3sg himself /herself acel articol]. that article Radu wants to write that article (himself). (112) a. Radu1 vrea [s scrie Mara / ea2 /ei3 acel articol] Radu wants s write.3sg/3pl Mara/she/they that article Radu wants Mara/her/them to write that article. b. *Radu1 vrea [s scrie ea ns i2/ei n i i3 acel articol] Radu wants s write.3sg/3pl herself/them selves that article (113) Radu1 vrea [s scrie el1/2 (el insusi1) acel articol]. Radu wants s write.3sg he (himself) that article]. Radu wants to write that article. Radu wants him to write that article. A few observations could descri be these data. (111) and (112) show that the reflexive pronoun can double here a nonreferentially null ant ecedent only, the PRO of (111). Thus the coindexation of the reflexive with PRO entails th e coindexation of the reflexive with the matrix subject (the controller of PRO). Actually, (112b) is an OC environment where PRO is not possible due to the number/gender mismatch betw een the reflexives and their antecedent, PRO,

PAGE 144

144 that is. (112b) also suggests that pro cannot bind a reflexive in this environment. The conclusion is that a reflexive in an F-subjunctive complement is possible only where its antecedent is nonreferential. Therefore, PRO cannot be pro in (111). Equivalently, we can say that (111) has a de se reading, (112) a non-de se (a de re) reading, and (113) has both. Since both a pronoun (lexical DP) and its reflexive counterpart are possible in the NOC structures of (106) and (108), it is quite puz zling why a reflexive pr onoun is not possible in (112). For instance, why a feminine DP (totally different from the masculine DP subject of the matrix) cannot be replaced/doubled by its reflexive pronoun in (112)? I consider that the possibility of the reflexive (and the de se reading) of (111) vs. the impossibility of the reflexive (and the de re reading) of (112) represents the means of distinguishing between PRO and lexical DPs/ pro respectively, thus between OC and NOC. According to Chierchias (1989) analysis, in OC the subject of the matrix controls the complement and this relation is self-ascriptive. Self-ascriptive relation is simply the semantic aspect of control. Consequently, PRO is one of the ways in which languages single out a de se relation. Chierchia also argues that de se is systematically and una mbiguously associated with the interpretation of PRO, the null subject of OC structures Thus, OC is possible in Fsubjunctive structures where both the controller and the controlled element are third person DPs, as in the example (111) whose subject, PRO, manifests the de se interpretation. An emphatic/reflexive is still possible in a noncontrol complement, but it has to be accompanied by a noun (the emphatic is in fact an adjective). The emphatic in (114) is different from Radu, the matrix subject, although has the sa me gender and number, showing that there is no control in this sentence.

PAGE 145

145 (114) Radu1 vrea [s scrie nsu i2 redactorul2 acel articol]. Radu wants s write.3sg himself editor.the that article Radu wants the editor himself to write that article. In sum, F-subjunctive complements have onl y a null subject PRO in OC environment and lexical DP or pro subjects in NOC environment for first and second person. When the matrix subject and the embedded subject are both thir d person entities and these entities are not coreferential, the embedded subject is a lexical DP. If these entities are coreferential and the embedded subject is null, and an agreeing reflexive is possible, that subject is PRO. A referential null subject ( pro) is not possible in this context. Gene rally, F-subjunctive complements may have a null nonreferential subject or a refe rential subject (lexical or null). 3.6.3 Arbitrary PRO In this subsection I argue that arbitrary PRO is possible in subjunctive clauses and has the characteristics in the appro ach developed by Rizzi (1986a). Chom sky (1981) regards arbitrary PRO as an instance of PRO, which is not controlled and has arbitrary reference, like in (115). (115) PROarb To just sit there should be forbidden. Truly arbitrary PRO in Landaus (2000:6) definition need not be linked to any grammatical antecedent, as illust rated in his example (6a) repeat ed below under (116). He also specifies that no overt or implic it argument in the sentence may be assumed the controller of PRO11. (116) John1 thought that it was wrong [PROarb to introduce him1 to the dean]. 11 The overt DP John is not the controller of PRO in (116). An example of implicit controller is the empty argument of (i). It is implied that the general ordered someone, a subaltern, to carry on the respective order. (i) The general ordered e1 PRo1 to attack the enemy.

PAGE 146

146 Although no previous investigation regardi ng the existence of arbitrary PRO in subjunctive context (Romanian or the Balk ans) has been ever conducted, Comorovski (1985:47/51) is the first to notice the existence of arbitrary PRO in her Romanian example (2), repeated below in (117). She c onsiders (117) the counterpart of the English version, and holds that the empty category in the Romanian vers ion meets the characterizations of PRO (117) E u or [earb s ajungi acolo cu trenul] is easy s arrive.2sg there with train.the It is easy to get there by train. In Romanian, one way of expressing an ar bitrary subject is through second person singular subjunctive. Although the morphology of the subjunctive verb in (117) would lead to the conclusion that the subject of the embedded cl ause is a second person singular DP, in reality this subject is generic and arbitrary. Now consider the representation in (118). Despite the second person morphology on the subjunctive verb, it is hardly conceivable that the embedded nu ll subject refers to a certain person. The embedded subject is generic and arbitrary and refers to any human being, transcending nations and boundaries. (118) E greu [earb s traiesti n communism]. is hard s live.2sg n communism It is hard to live under communism. It is quite evident that some features are purely formal ag reement features, which do not carry any semantic significance of their own. Recall that, in spite of the morphological subjunctive tense, subjunctive complement clau ses lack independent tense. Also, it has been established above that the null subject in OC subjunctive clauses is PRO, again although the subjunctive verb displays person morphology. In Chomsky (2000 and subsequent work) such features enter an Agree relation, like in (118) between the verb and its subject, then they are

PAGE 147

147 transferred to the phonological inte rface but deleted before being transferred to the semantic interface. Consequently, they get no semantic interpretation, yet the respective derivation does not crash. In the light of this reasoning, I propose th at the null subject in (118) is PROarb, an uncontrolled PRO not able to bind or corefer with a real person, but it bears this generic and arbitrary second person, no person, actually. The infinitival construction of (119a) clearl y includes PROarb. In the second line, the inflection on the verb ai you have indicates that PROarb is second person singular. The first line of (119a) is repeated in (119b) with subjunc tive instead of infinitive while the second line is maintained with infinitive. Actually, whether th e first line is constructed with subjunctive or infinitive (119c), the second line can be equally constructed with subjun ctive, infinitive, or supine. (119) a. E u or [PROarb a scrie versuri] is easy to write verses Cnd nimic nu ai a spune when nothing not have.2sg to say It is easy PROarb to write poetry} When you dont have anything to say. Eminescu (1852-1889), Criticilor mei b. E u or [PROarb s scrii versuri] is easy s write.2sg verses Cnd nimic nu ai a spune when nothing not have.2sg to say It is easy to write poetry When you dont have anything to say. c. E u or [PROarb s scrii/a scrie versuri] is easy s write.2sg/to write verses Cnd nimic nu ai a spune/ s spui/de spus when nothing not have.2sg to say/ s say.2sg/of saying.Sup It is easy to write poetry When you dont have anything to say.

PAGE 148

148 The subjunctive verb is inflected for second person singular, in the embedded clause of the first line in (119b), but there is no lexical (e .g., someone) or implicit controller in the matrix in any variant of (119). Since it does not refer to anyone in part icular, the subject cannot be a pro2sg. Thus both variants, with infinitive and subjunctive, should have the same kind of subject, PROarb, that is. To posit PROarb in (119a) but pro 2sg in (119b) takes more then the verbal morphology. Following Rizzi (1986a), I will determine the ch aracteristics of PROarb in Romanian. In Rizzis (1986a) example (15), included here under (120a), the PROarb must be masculine and plural in Italian, as indicated by the inflection on the adjective allegri The Romanian version, constructed with subjunctive, (120b) is one of the choices, the firs t choice of a native speaker to translate the Italian version (119a). (120c) is the infinitive vari ant used in OSR, but still used and considered appropriate in CR. Fericit happy is singular and ma sculine in both Romanian examples. (120) a. E difficile [PROarb essere sempre allegri]. is difficult to be always happy.masc.pl b. E greu [PROarb s fii mereu fericit]. is hard s be.2sg always happy.masc.sg c. E greu [PROarb a fi mereu fericit]. is hard to be always happy.masc.sg It is difficult to be happy always. Rizzi (1986a) shows that when the arbitrary interpretation of PRO must be the primary interpretation, a potential implicit controller in the main clause is not allowed (his fn 3). He contrasts PRO in (122), where it is arbitrary, and (121), where it is not. Genuine arbitrary PRO in Italian is intrinsically plur al and masculine, as in (122) and (120a). PRO in (121) can be understood as pragmatically singular, refe rring to the speaker or the hearer.

PAGE 149

149 (121) In una situazione di questo genere, e difficile [PRO essere sempre allegro] in a situation of this kind, (it)is difficult to be always happy.sg (122) Lucia ha detto a Maria [come [P ROarb essere sempre allegri/*allegro]] Lucia told Maria how to be al ways happy (masc, pl)/(masc, sg) The basic properties of arb according to Rizzi (1986a) are: [+human, +generic, +singular/plural]. The number vari es across languages. In Italian, arb is plural. The phi-features of PROarb in Italian are given in (123). (The person feature of PR Oarb in Italian is not clear to me). (123) [+human, +generic, +plural, +masculine] Italian The properties of PROarb in Romanian (subjunctive and infinitive) are summarized in: (124) [+human, +generic, +singular, + masculine, +2nd person] The embedded subject in (120bc) can also be understood as pragmatically masculine, referring to the speaker or the hearer (as Rizzi points that out for Italian). In conclusion, I assume that structures (118), (1 19b), (120b) represent the way of expressing PROarb with subjunctive, despite the inflectional agreement on the subjunctive verb. This assumption is further supported by the lack of any lexical or implicit controller in the main clause of these examples. It is important to point out that this anal ysis, concerning PROarb, should be kept apart from Suers (1983) arbitrary pro. Her Spanish examples feature a generic reading induced by third person plural verbs (125) and the impersonal clitic pronoun se (126). The corresponding Romanian se construction is given in (127). (125) pro Dicen que pro va a nevar. say.3pl that go.3sg. to snow They/people say that it is going to snow.

PAGE 150

150 (126) pro Se dice que va a nevar. se say.3sg that go.3sg to snow One says that it is going to snow. (127) pro Se zice c va ninge. se say.3sg that Fut.3sg snow One says that it will snow. Chierchia (1984:411-2) regards se constructions of this ki nd having overt generic subjects. He concludes that apart from t he obscurity of thei r interpretation, si /( se) and PROarb have nothing in common12. In this section, it has been showed that the null subject of OC-subj unctives is PRO, as sustained by the standard properties displayed by this entity. Also, it has been argued that Fsubjunctives may have OC complements with non referential/PRO subject or NOC complements with independent reference as pro or lexical DPs. In the last part of the section, I presented arguments for that arbitrary PRO in subj unctive context and its characteristics. 3.7 Subjunctive Clauses are IP or CP clauses? This sec tion deals with the opti ons of subjunctive complements as being IP or CP type of clauses. First, it is shown that subjunctiv e clauses do not manifest the phenomenon of restructuring, thus they are full clauses, separa te from their matrix clause. In regards to the presence of a complemetizer, two opposing views will be presented: All subjunctive clauses are CP clauses vs. only when a lexical complementizer is present is a clause of the CP type. 12 Although an analysis of se is beyond the scope of this paper, I mention in passing that it is of the kind of nominative impersonal, as opposed to impersonal passive, in Reinhardt & Siloni (2005) terms, where it is shown that arbitrarization applies in both types. Also, an expletive pro satisfies the EPP in both types of constructions. Chierchia (2004) states, in regards to arbitrarization in impersonals with si ( se ), that the agent role is existentially closed and restricted to groups of humans.shown that arbitrarization applies in both types. Also, an expletive pro satisfies the EPP in both types of constructions. Chierchia (2004) states, in regards to arbitrarization in impersonals with si ( se ), that the agent role is existentially cl osed and restricted to groups of humans.

PAGE 151

151 3.7.1 Subjunctive Clauses Resist Restructuring That Balkan subjunctive clauses are f ull cl auses and do not undergo restructuring is an uncontroversial fact13. Terzi (1992) is the best place to find undeniable evidence for the lack of restructuring in Balkan subjunctive. La ndau (2004) also points that out. In Rizzis (1982) concept of restructuring, an underlying biclausal sentence is transformed into a simple (monoclause) sent ence, resulting in a verbal complex, which incorporates the matrix verb and the embedded verb. The key argument for restructur ing, clitic climbing, is simply ruled out in Romanian (and Balkan) subjunctives, as determined in Section 3. 4 and illustrated by the examples in (128). As can be seen, the clitic l him (128a) cannot cross over s to reach the matrix (128b). (128) a. Mara vrea s l vad pe Radu curnd. Mara wants s him see.3sg P R.Acc soon Mara wants to see Radu soon. b. *Mara vrea l s vad pe Radu curnd. Recall that the particle s has been analyzed as the subjunctive mood marker, an I element heading its own projection IP or MP, th erefore subjunctive complement clauses are at least IP clauses. Rizzi (1982) actually takes the l ack of clitic climbing as indicating that the respective clause is a CP clause. 3.7.2 Subjunctive Complement Clauses and Complementizers It has been already established that in OS R each subjunctive complement clause may have two variants, one with the complementizer ca one without it. In CR, ca only appears in case of topicalization.Topicaliz ation is the only environment when ca is mandatory (in OSR and CR). 13 Terzi (1992:172-3) citing Guasti (1991) reports that re structuring and clitic climbing happens with some causative verbs in the Albanian-related dialect of Arbresh of SanNicola, Southern Italy, in th e presence of the subjunctive particle. This, of course, is an exception from the fami liar nonrestructuring subjun ctive clauses of the Balkan Sprachbund.

PAGE 152

152 Complements of interrogative predicates are introduced by the complementizer dac whether, as already seen in Section 3.4. Two opposing views in regards to the type of clause in rela tion to the presence or absence of a complementizer will be discussed below. According to one view all subjunctive clausese are CP clauses regardless of the presence or absence of a lexical complementizer, while for the other view all subjunctive clauses are IP clauses excepting the situation when a lexical complementizer is present. 3.7.2.1 Subjunctive complements are CP clauses Terzi (1992) argues not only for the capab ility of the Romanian (and Albanian) subjunctive complementizer to be optionally overt or covert, but she also maintains that Greek has a nonlexical subjunctive complementizer, although there is no instance of it being ever phonetically realized. As al ready mentioned, the subjunctive complementizer ca is lexical or nonlexical according to Grosu & Horvaths (1984) assessment. Ri vero (1987) also supports the idea of a null complementizer in Greek subjuncti ve clauses. In the same spirit, Giorgi and Pianesi (2004:203), analyzing complementizer dele tion in Italian subjunctiv e clauses, support the idea that complementizer deletion is no deletio n at all. For Picallo (1985), Kempchinsky (1986) and Landau (2000, 2004) the tense of subjunctiv es is licensed in the embedded C. In other words, subjunctive clauses must have a C position. Furthermore, Pesetsky & Torrego (2001) argue that an empty C does not determine de distribution of CP. Kishimoto (2006), based on complementizerless clauses in Japanese, argues against Bokovi s (1997) view according to which a phonetically unrealized complementizer involves the absence of the respective CP projection. Consequently, according to these researchers, two conclusions emerge: that subjunctive clauses are CP clauses, irrespec tive of the (lexical) presence of a complementizer, and that an

PAGE 153

153 embedded clause lacking a lexical complementizer does not necessarily mean that the clause is a CP-less clause. 3.7.2.2 Subjunctive complements are IP clauses Apparently, an instance of topi calization from a subjunctive clause leads to an illegal adjunction to IP. Consider the foll owing examples from Terzi (1992). (129) a. *vreau mine s vin Ion want.1sg tomorrow s come.3sg John I want John to come tomorrow b. vreau ca mine s vin Ion want.1sg that tomorrow s come.3sg John I want that John come(s) tomorrow Terzi (1992:109) Terzi suggests that the presence of the compleme ntizer in (129b) is necessary in order for the topicalized material (NPs or adverbs) to be lexically governed. Thus, the ungrammaticality of (129a) is explained by the failure of the adverb maine tomorrow to be properly governed. She also suggests that the contrast of these two sentences is reminiscen t of a similar contrast evinced in English: (130a,b). (130) a. I know (that) Mary was angry at him yesterday. b. I know *(that) yesterda y Mary was angry at him. Bokovi (1997) takes these examples from Terzi (1992) along with the information that the presence of the subjunctive marker s is always required but the presence of the subjunctive complementizer ca is optional. Contrasti ng these two sentences, now adjusted with brackets (131a,b), Bokovi (1997) concludes that whenever the co mplementizer is present, the respective clause is CP, rather than IP. (131) a. *vreau [IP mine [IP s vin Ion]] want.1sg tomorrow s come.3sg John I want John to come tomorrow

PAGE 154

154 b. vreau [CP ca [IP mine [IP s vin Ion]] want.1sg that tomorrow s come.3sg John I want that John come(s) tomorrow Bokovi parallels the Romanian examples (129) to the English examples of (132). Thus, the embedded clause of (129a) should be an IP on a par with the second clause of (132a) as opposed to the second clause of (132b), which is CP. (We may notice in passing that (132a) is not possible in Romanian with indicativ e simply because the complementizer c is always present, nor with subjunctive since ca is required in front of the embedded subject)14. (132) a. John believes Peter left. b. John believes that Peter left. Bokovi (1997) argues that, since adjunction to IP is a necessary feature/consequence of topicalization, only when there is a CP projection over the IP projection is topicalization possible. Thus, (131a) is ungrammatical because the complement is an IP, so that the adjunction is banned. (131b), on the other hand, is grammatical because the topicalized material is adjoined to an IP within CP. Bokovi s view goes back to Grimshaw (1977) who states that: when the complement is a CP, then adjunction to the IP is possible, whereas when the complement is an IP, then adjunction to IP is ruled out. Hence, only when there is a CP projection over the IP projection will the IP projection be a possible adjunction site 14 Doherty (1993, 1997) analyzes English (finite) clauses without that as being always IP clauses and only when the complementizer is present they are CPs. The English data used by Doherty to develop and test his analysis are not possible with subjunctive structures in Romanian, excepting nonsentential adverbs fronted as topics. (The Romanian indicative complementizer c is always obligatory). On the other hand, Pesetsky and Torrego (2001) using the principles of minimalism, determine the distribution of CP through the T-to-C movement. They reach the conclusion that the English C is phonologically null in declarative clauses and the morphemes pronounced in C are a consequence of movement. The authors conclude that this pattern is not expected to be found in all languages so it is necessary to establish it for any given language. Their ultimate conclusion is that there is no general correlation betw een the emptiness of C and accep tability of CP. To develop and test a similar approach for Romanian is not a trivial task and that is beyond the scope of this study.

PAGE 155

155 Notice that this generalization does not tell anything about overt or nonovert complementizers. It implies however that a matrix verb does not select a Top phrase. On the other hand, in Rizzis (1997) analysis a lexical complementizer is mandatory when adverbials appear in Top position. Later, Rizzi & Shlonsky (2007) maintain that C deletion is not compatible with the activat ion of topic and/or focus of th e complement clause. Clearly, the activation of topic in subjunctive complement clauses is not compatib le with nonovert/lack of complementizers in Romanian. Recall that although ca may be optional in some environments, it has been emphasized a few times already that it s presence is mandatory in topic situations. In the end we are facing two explanations for the ungrammaticality of (129a): (i) Topicalization to an argument of the matrix or (ii) Topicalization to the IP of a CP clause, whose complementizer has been illegally deleted with th e result of the addition of a wrong adverb to the matrix15. This raises the question of how would one ensure which pos ition is right or superior? Now, regarding the debate the presence of a complementizer means CP clause vs. the absence of a complementizer means CP-less clause in order to be neutra l, I leave this matter unsettled, a good topic for further re search. So, a subjunctive clause in OSR is a CP clause when ca is present, like (133a) and an IP clause when ca is absent (133b,134) according to one view, but both examples of (133) and th e representation of (134) are CP clauses in agre ement with the other view. (133) a. i nu voi ca s m laud and not will.1sg that s me flatter.1sg And I dont want to flatter myself Eminescu (1852-1889), Scrisoarea III b. i nu voi s m laud 15 Since complementizers are included amongst null elements and it has not been demonstrated otherwise, it may be also possible that the complementizer is null (dormant) and surfaces only when necessary. i.e., in case of topicalization.

PAGE 156

156 (134) Laurii voiau s -i smulg de pe fruntea ta de fier laurels wanted.3pl s -it snatch.3pl from forehead your of iron The laurels, they wanted to snatch from your iron forehead Eminescu (1852-1889), Scrisoarea III In CR, where the complementizer ca is mostly absent, as in (133b) and (134), all subjunctive clauses are CP clauses according to one view or all of them are IP clauses, including presumably the ( ca -less) second conjunct of (135), in agreement with the other view16. Naturally, for the IP view, struct ures with topical ization (where ca is obligatory) and when the complementizer dac is present the respective type s of clauses must be CPs. (135) Vreau ca Radu s plece i Mara s r mn want.1sg that Radu s leave.3sg and Mara s stay.3sg I want Radu to leave and Mara to stay. Concerning strictly the presence or absence of a (lexical) compleme ntizer in subjunctive complement clauses, supposedly th e only consequence is that a theo ry of control is expected to apply to both situations. 3.8 Conclusions In this chapter I described the two subjuncti ve types of clauses, OC-subjunctives and Fsubjunctives, and their co m ponents: the particle s the subject of each of the two types of clauses, their respective type of tense, and whether these clau ses are IP or CP clauses. The distribution of the complementizer ca and a discussion about obviation are also included. While all subjunctive clauses must a ppear with the subjunctive particle s whose status I have demonstrated to be an I element, the re levant subjunctive inflection, OC-subjunctive and Fsubjunctive complement clauses differ in regards to other elements or properties. First, they are 16 For Doherty (1997) coordination of CP and IP is unsurprising because IP and CP denote the same semantic entity Proposition and because IP and CP are categorically nondistinct members of the extended (verbal) projection.

PAGE 157

157 selected by separate semantic classes of pred icates. Then, although both types of clauses have semantic tense, the tense of OC-subjunctives is anaphoric and the tens e of F-subjunctives is dependent. Also, OC-subjunctive clauses are al ways OC clauses with PRO subject, whereas Fsubjunctives could be OC clauses with PRO subject or NOC clauses with referential DP subjects. Concerning obviation, F-subjunctives did not ma nifest this phenomenon in OSR and is still unavailable in CR regardless of the pr esence or absence of the complementizer ca For further research, it remains to investigate why Romanian (and Balkan) subjunctives do not manifest obviation.

PAGE 158

158 CHAPTER 4 INFINITIVE COMPLEMENTATION Ca s m or lini tit, pe mine, Mie red -m !1 -Eminescu 4.1 Introduction In this chapter, I exp lore the structure of in finitival OC complement clauses used in older stages of Romanian (OSR). I assume that all infinitives in OSR have the same structure and I use data from non-complement infinitives to support my claims; however, the focus of this chapter remains obligatory control structures. As mentioned in Chapter 2, the infinitive has endured in a large number of constructions, but scarcely in complement clau ses. The latter are mostly outdated in Contemporar y Romanian (CR). The chapter is organized as follows: Given the almost complete loss of infinitival complementation, Section 4.2 starts with a description of the data sources used in this chapter. These include written sources and older native speaker consultants. Sections 4.3 and 4.4 analyze the internal struct ure of infinitival clauses. The first element to be discussed is the particle de in de plus a-infinitive clauses. De is the Romanian counterpart of Romance de/di, which is generally considered to be a complementizer (Kayne 1981, 2000, Rizzi 1982). I present a number of properties of Romanian de that parallel those of de/di and argue that Romanian de is also a complementizer. Section 4.4, establishes the categorical status of the infinitival particle a. Again, as in regards to the subjunctive particle s there are two possible analyses for this particle: as an inflectional element (mood marker) or as a comple mentizer. I argue for the inflectional status of 1 To die in peace, restore me first!/ Retu rn me to myself, so I can die in peace!

PAGE 159

159 this particle primarily because it co-o ccurs with complementizers. A number of counterarguments from the li terature are dismissed. In the next two sections, I discuss infinitive complements in terms of the familiar obligatory control (OC) versus non-obligatory control (NOC) distinc tion and Landaus (2000) exhaustive control (EC) and part ial control (PC) distinction. S ection 4.5 shows that infinitival complements characteristics are typical of ob ligatory control in contrast with NOC (nonobligatory control) structures, which do not have these characteristics. This section also shows that OC infinitival complements exist in both EC and PC types. Following Landau (2000), the particular properties of PC are illust rated in Section 4.6. While in both types of complements (EC and PC) the syntactic number of PRO is inherited from the controller and must match, PRO in PC complements can differ in semantic number from its controller: PRO can be semantically plural when the controller is singular. Such structures are constructed with collective predicates e.g., to convene, to reunite etc. or with the collectivizer together Section 4.7 considers the tense pr operties of EC and PC complements. It shows, based on the discussion of semantic tense in Chapter 3, Section 3.5, that EC complements have anaphoric tense and PC complements have dependent te nse, on a par with OC subjunctives and Fsubjunctives, respectively. Section 4.8 contains a brief discussion of the syntactic category of infinitival complements. I show that they are not reduc ed restructuring comple ments but full clauses optionally introduced by the complementizer de Whether infinitival complements are all CP clauses or only when the complementizer is present remains an open question. Section 4.9 gathers the main conclusions of this chapter.

PAGE 160

160 4.2 The Empirical Picture Infinitival com plements existed widely in OSR and were all documented. These constructions began to diminish greatly in fre quency, especially during the Phanariot political regime, as a result of Greek influence (Chapter 2) and continued to diminish after 1821, when this epoch was over. In the 1950s -1960s the number of verbs that takes infinitival complements decreased dramatically. Gramatica I (1963:227) provides an incomplete list of verbs that select for complement clauses: a apuca to grab/to begin, a avea to have, a se gr bi to hurry, a izbuti (reu i) to manage, a ncepe to begin, a ncerca to try, a ndr zni to dare, a nv a to learn/teach, a porni to start, a primi to agree, a putea can, a ti to know, imi vine a Im inclined to, se cade (cuvine) to be proper. Since that time, infinitival complement clauses have further declined. Schulte (2004) includes contemporary data of infinitival complement clauses selected by at least six matrix verbs, collected from magazines like Romnia Literar and Convie uirea, mostly from 19971998 and as recent as 2003. For example, the June 6, 2006 issue of Romnia Liber, a leading national newspaper hosts an acc ount of the turbulent World War II years and post-war era in Romania, narrated by a war veteran. There are twenty instances of infinitival constructions in this narrative: two are comple ments to verbs, five complements to nouns, and the rest adjuncts, mostly purpose clauses. An impersonal construction with an infinitival complement clause is given in (1). (1) Se cuvine de a face o analiz sine ira et studio rflx fits de to make an analysis sine ira et studio It is proper to do an analys is sine ira et studio. Romnia Liber 03 June 2006

PAGE 161

161 While these infinitive complements may seem anachronistic to some speakers, they in fact conform that this particular construction is still alive for ot her, perhaps older, speakers. Not so old speakers also use infinitive comp lements when selected by verbs such as a ndrzni to dare, a ncepe to begin and a opri to stop. Since language cannot exist independent of its speakers, it must be conceded that infinitival complement constructions are, to some (reduced) extent, part of the contemporary speech. The pur pose of the following subsections is to present the available diachronic and synchronic data used in this chapter. 4.2.1 OSR Documented Data The data below feature infinitive con trol structures from literature between 1581 and 1981. (Whether 1981 is OSR or CR is not really im portant). Infinitive control examples are not found in these sources only, nor is the analysis of infinitive comp lementation in this dissertation based on these sources only. The examples (2) through (17) are subject c ontrol structures cons tructed with various categories of matrix verbs: implicative (2, 3, 4) aspectual (5, 6), modal (7, 8, 9), desiderative (10, 11, 12), factive (13, 14), interrogative (15) and propositional (16, 17). Accusative object control examples are given in (18, 19) and dati ve object control examples in (20, 21). One example for each empty controller type is also included: accusative empty controller (22) and empty dative controller (23). Subject control (2) De-abia ndr znesc a m rturisi c am avut cutezarea hardly dare.1sg to confess that have.1sg had boldness I hardly dare to confess that I had the boldness Sadoveanu (1880-1961) Opere (3) Turcii izbutir da preface ara n pa alc Turks.the succeeded de to turn country.the in pashalic The Turks managed to turn th e country into a pashalic. B lcescu (1852 :100)

PAGE 162

162 (4) au c utat iar a se ntoarce have.3pl tried again to rflx return They tried to return again. Ureche (1647:93) (5) i el nu se poate opri da sim i durere amar .. and he not rflx can stop de to feel pain bitter And he couldnt stop to feel bitter pain .. B lcescu (1852:101) (6) i ncepu a gr i naintea a totu n rodului and began.3sg to speak before of all people And he began to Coresi (1581:348) (7) Au a pl ti numai 3 lei have.3pl to pay only 3 lei They have to pay 3 lei only. Stefanelli (1915:269), 1796 document (8) Ca s aib ai st pni partea dumisale that s have.3sg to-rflx own part.the his So that he has ownership permission of his part Alexiu (1939:56), 1781 document (9) Trebuir a se nvoi de a a tepta sosirea du manului had.3pl to rflx agree de to wait arrival.the enemy.Gen They had to agree to wait for the enemys arrival. B lcescu (1852:86) (10) Dac iube ti f r s speri de a fi iubit vreodat if love.2sg without s hope.2sg deto be loved ever If you love without hoping to be ever loved Eminescu (1852-1889) Dac iube ti (11) nau vr ut a veni not-have.3pl wanted to come They didnt want to come. Stefanelli (1915:192), 1790 document (12) Voe te a r spunde will.3sg to answer He wants to answer Alexiu (1939:155), 1832 document

PAGE 163

163 (13) Se temu da nu pierde folosul moral rflx was afraid de to not loose advantage.the moral He was afraid not to lose the moral advantage B lcescu (1852:96) (14) s ngrozise boierii a mai merge cu dnsul la plimb ri rflx scared boyards to more go with him for walks The boyards were too scared to go with him again for a walk Neculce (1738:26) O sam de cuvinte (15) a a se poate n ela omul dac nu tie a judeca bine so rflx can.3sg deceive man if not knows to judge well A man can deceive himself if he doesnt know to judge well Creang (1879:47) Amintiri din Copil rie (16) Mihaise gndi a dobndi ajutor i din alte p r i Mihai rflx thought to ga in help and from other parties Mihai thought of getting help from another parties too. B lcescu (1852:36) (17) Hasdeu credea a-l putea data cam prin 1654 Hasdeu believed to-it.Acc can date around 1654 Hasdeu believed of being able to date it around 1654 Rotaru (1981:40) Accusative object control (18) V rug m a nu fuma. you.pl.Acc ask.1pl to not smoke We ask you not to smoke./No smoking! (Used in public places) (19) poftim st pnirea locului a o isc li invite.1pl authority-the place.Gen to it sign We invite the local authorities to sign it. Stefanelli (1915:395), 1827 document Dative object control (20) s i permite i a o recomanda nv torilor s -cl.Dat permit.2pl to it recommend teachers.Dat din circumscrip iunea sa from district his allow him to recommend it to the teachers of his district Monitorul Oficia a Romniei Mai 1877. Eminescus 1876 letter

PAGE 164

164 (21) Noaptea ajut Turcilor a se dezmetici night.the helps Turks.Dat to rflx recover The night helped the Turks to recover B lcescu (1852 :95) Empty accusative object controller (22) O scrisoare a patriarchului ecumen recomand fidelitate a letter of patriarch.Gen ecumenical reccomends fidelity c tre Sultanul i invit a sus ine pe guvernul otoman to sultan.the and invites to sustain P gove rnment.the ottoman The ecumenical patriarchs letter recommends fidelity to the Sultan and invites to sustain the Ottoman government. Monitorul Oficial al Romniei Mai 1877 Empty dative controller (23) unde porunci de a forma un trup de 1.000 oameni where ordered.3sg de to form a body of 1.000 men where he ordered to form a body of soldiers of 1.000 men B lcescu (1852:64) I conclude from these data that Romanian in finitive complementation displays control in all the expected/standard contexts and subject control with all cat egories of matrix verbs. The examples above represent a small sample of the prototypical control structures constructed with infinitives attested in OSR. 4.2.2 Non-Control Infinitival Stru ctures in Use in OSR and CR Som e non-control infinitival structures st ill in use in CR will contribute to the conclusions in this chapter. A lthough raising structures are mostly construc ted with subjunctives in CR, infinitival raising structures are still in use. The raising example (24a) is as grammatical now as it was when its author created it in 1936. (24b) is a contemporary raising example. (25) shows infinitives used as subjects, structures st ill in use in CR. (26, 27) are infinitival adjuncts very productive in CR. Infinitival complements to impersonal predicates, like the one in (28), are still in use to some extent. Complements to nouns, usually introduced by de, are quite productive in CR (29).

PAGE 165

165 (24) a. Nu sunt ce par a fi not am what seem.1sg to be I am not what I seem to be. Minulescu (1881-1944) Nu sunt ce par a fi b. Cteva proiecte par a se ndrepta spre succes few projects seem.3pl to rflx head towards success A few projects seem to move towards completion. Astromax, 2008 (25) A cunoa te nseamn iarn to know means winter A iubi e prim var To love is spring To have knowledge means winter To love means spring. Blaga (1895-1961) Prim var (26) Apoi s-a ntors pentru a rennoda firul unui destin. then rflx-has returned for to reprise path a.Gen destiny Then he came back to repris e the path of his destiny. Romnia Liber March 14, 2007 (27) Du m nit vei fi de toate, f r-a prinde detested will.2sg be by all, without to realize chiar de veste; even of news You will be detested by all, without even realizing it. Eminescu (1850-1889), Scrisoarea III (28) E mai u or a da vina pe al ii. Is more easy to give fault P others It is easier to blame others. (29) cu speran a de a nui pierde tronul with hope.the de to not-rflx loose throne.the with the hope of not loosing his throne Romnia Liber June 3 2006 4.2.3 Contemporary (Recent) Data of Infinitival Complements As already m entioned, Schulte (2004) includes examples of infinitival control structures collected from magazines after 1990. They are constructed with the following matrix verbs: a dori to wish, a ndr zni to dare, a opri to stop a-i place to please, a obliga to oblige, a

PAGE 166

166 sf tui to advise, a crede to believe. The examples (30, 31 ) are from Schulte (2004). A more recent example (32) is from Romnia Liber. Two native speakers pr oduced (33) and (34)2. (30) Nu dore te a se auzi pe sine. Not wishes to rflx hear P self He does not wish to hear himself. Romnia Literar 31, 5.8.1998 (31) Autorul crede a putea ataca author.the believes to can attack controversata tez maiorescian controversial thesis Maiorescian The author believes himself to be able to attack Maiorescus controversial thesis. Corina Popescu, 2000. Verismul Italian i literatura romn (32) s renun e de a mai crea "mitul Antonescu". s give up.3sg de to more create myth-the Antonescu They should give up creating the myth Antonescu Romnia Liber June 3, 2006 (33) A ndr znit de a veni la u a mea nechemat. has dared de to come to door my uninvited He dared to come to my place uninvited. Consultant, age 32, October 2006 (34) C pitanul a ordo nat locotenentului captain.the has or dered lieutenant.Dat a se dispersa pentru a ncercui inamicul to rflx disperse for to encircle enemy.the The captain ordered the lieut enant to disperse in orde r to encircle the enemy. Consultant, age 70, December 2007 The data above (30-34) and the list of the verbs taking infinitival complement clauses show that infinitival complement clauses are still found in Contemporary Romanian. 4.2.4. Infinitive Complement Clauses Introduced by Prepositions Apart from the complementizer de (to be discussed in Sectio n 4.3) five prepositions may introduce a-infinitive clauses. They are: prin by, cu with, n in, la at/to, and pe on. 2 This speaker prefers a sentence like (33) with a ndr zni to dare and infinitive than with subjunctive.

PAGE 167

167 These five elements are shown in (3 5) through (39). Only three of them, prin (35a), cu (36a), and n (37a) were found in texts. The other elements were used by my consultants (I use these types of examples myself). (35) examples with prin a. Nu cumva i ei vor fi nceput prin a se mprumuta? not somehow and they will be started by to rflx borrow Isnt it possible that they woul d have started to borrow (money) Delavrancea (1858-1918) Parazi ii b. ncepe prin a spune adevarul begins by to tell truth.the S/he begins by telling the truth. c. ncepe a spune adevarul begins to tell truth.the S/he begins to tell the truth. (36) examples with cu a. Se mul mi cu a prinde acele dobitoace rflx satisfied.3sg with to catch those animals It pleased him to corral those animals. Alexiu (1939:67), 1792 document b. Se mul ume te (cu) a tr i de azi pe mine. rflx pleases with to live of today till tomorrow It pleases her/him to live from day to day. (37) examples with n a. Ner bd tor ( n) a afla impatient.masc.sg in to find out He is impatient to find out (the truth) Gramatica I (1963:363) old structure b. Persist *(n) a face mereu aceea i gre eal persists in to make always same mistake S/he persists in making always the same mistake. (38) example with la Se rezum (la) a da din umeri. rflx restricts at to move from shoulders One confines (restrict) oneself to shrug (with indifference).

PAGE 168

168 (39) Conteaz *(pe) a fi onest. (s/he) counts on to be honest S/he counts on being honest. In some cases, the preposition is optional: prin (35b,c); cu (36b), n (37a) and la (38). This seems to be lexically determined. For example, cu is optional in (36), n is optional with impatient (37a) but there is a difference between prin and lack of it, between begin what (35b) and begin how (35c), which suggests that these preposi tions or some of them are not always optional. For instance, the prepositions in (37b) and pe (39) are required with the matrix verbs a conta to count and a persista to persist, respectively, and followed by the a-infinitive. The examples of infinitive structures in troduced by various preposition are mostly important for their documentation value and for co mparison with the infinitival complementizer de One characteristic of these pre positions is that they are usually limited to appearing with one matrix verb (and its synonyms). De plus a-infinitives, by contrast, occu r after all categories of matrix verbs. Such constructions will be analyzed below, in Section 4.3. 4.2.5 Partial Control I have not found yet an exam ple of partial cont rol (PC) in the sources I have studied so far but there is a wealth of sources that remained to be studied. The only spontaneous example of a PC struct ure I have ever enc ountered was produced by an old speaker whose preferred topic of discussion seemed to be military actions. I had asked him to give me a sentence with the verb a ordona to order plus an infinitive. I actually wanted to know whether his sentence would have an empty or an overt dative controller. The unexpected discovery is given in (34) above repeated below under (40b). The particular characteristics of partial c ontrol will be defined in Section 4.6. One obvious difference between (40a) and (40b) gives so me sense of what PC is. A collective verb, a se dispersa to disperse is involved in the infinitiva l complement clause [in brackets] in both

PAGE 169

169 sentences. The difference between (40a) and (40b ) is the syntactic number of the controller (in bold), which is plural (s oldiers) in the former, but singular (lieutenant) in the latter. The null subject of the complement clause is plural in both cases however. The nu ll subject is identical with the controller solda ilor soldiers in (40a), while in the PC clause of (40b), the null subject refers to the controller, locotenentului lieutenant, plus other individuals. The sign [+] indicates that other entities are also part of the controlee. (40) a. C pitanul1 a ordonat solda ilor2 [EC2 captain.the has ordered soldiers.Dat a se dispersa] pentru a ncercui inamicul to rflx disperse for to encircle enemy.the The captain ordered the soldiers to disp erse in order to encircle the enemy. b. C pitanul1 a ordonat locotenentului2 [EC2+ captain.the has ordered lieutenant.Dat a se dispersa] pent ru a ncercui inamicul to rflx disperse for to encircle enemy.the The captain ordered the lieut enant to disperse in orde r to encircle the enemy. In conclusion, the old data presented in 4.2.1 and the recent data included in 4.2.3, feature infinitival complement clauses, which constitute patterns of ( obligatory) control. There are examples with all seven categories of matrix verbs selecting subject control complements in 4.2.1. Each context (category of matrix verb) repres ents a pattern, which allo ws the researcher to create similar sentences following the respective pattern. Also, recall that almost every in finitival structure, definitely complement clauses, can be also constructed with subjunctive, as shown in Chapter 2 (Section 2.2). In addition, infinitival complement clauses and subjunctive complement cl auses can be conjoined in the same sentence, implying that they can replace each other.

PAGE 170

170 For instance, the infinitival PC structure of (40a), repeated under (41a) is mirrored by the subjunctive version of (41b). That is, as long as a subjunctive comp lement clause is possible, its infinitival version is also possible. (41) a. C pitanul a or donat locotenentului captain.the has ordered lieutenant.Dat a se dispersa] pentru a ncercui inamicul. to rflx disperse for to encircle enemy.the The captain ordered the lieut enant to disperse in orde r to encircle the enemy. b. C pitanul a ordonat locotenentului captain.the has ordered lieutenant.Dat s se disperseze pentru a ncercui inamicul s rflx disperse.3sg/pl for to encircle enemy.the The captain ordered the lieut enant to disperse in orde r to encircle the enemy. 4.3 Status of de The history of the preposition de of vis--vis the infinitive has been presented in Chapter 2. The purpose of this section is to establish the syntactic status of this infinitival particle, which I argue to be a complementizer. 4.3.1 Background Quite a large num ber of Romanian predicates take de ainfinitive complements. The construction has counterparts in Romance de/di shown in (42a) for French and (42b) for Italian (Kayne 2000). The Romanian version is given in (42c). Unlike Fr ench and Italian, the Romanian infinitive also includes the proclitic a. (42) a. Jean a essay de chanter. Jean has tried de sing-inf John tried to sing. b. Gianni ha tentato di cantare. Gianni has tried di sing-inf John tried to sing. c. Ion a ncercat de a cnta. Jon has tried de to sing John tried to sing.

PAGE 171

171 Some of the more frequent Romanian verbs that used to occur with the preposition de are listed in (43). Many of the corres ponding Italian verbs also take di infinitives. (43) a ncerca to try, a c uta to look for/try, a ndr zni/cuteza dare, a uita to forget, a nceta to cease, a ncepe/apuca to begin, a spera/ ndjdui to hope, a mpiedica to preclude/impede, a opri to stop, a sfr i/a termina to finish, a fi gata to be ready, a hot r to decide, a porunci to order, a renun a to give up, a regreta to regret, a interzice forbid/interdict, a reu i/izbuti/apuca manage/succeed a agrea/a se nvoi/a fi de accord to agree, a jura swear, a refuza to refuse, a ruga to beg, a f gdui to promise, a ndupleca to convince, a amenin a to threat, a cere to ask, a sluji to serve, a avea (deontic) to have, a fi (deontic) to be, a l sa to let, a f g dui/promite to promise, a propune to propose, a dori to wish, a recomanda to recommend, a se ndatora to be grateful A few original constructions with de plus a-infinitives are given below. The following examples feature de plus a-infinitive complements with subjec t control selected by all categories of matrix verbs, except interrogative verbs: implicative (44a); aspectual (45); modal (46); desiderative (47); factive (48); and propositional (49). An object control complement introduced by de is also included (50). (Other examples ha ve been presented earlier). Although I have included a variant without de just for one of the examples (44b), it appears that de is optional in most cases3. (44) a. s nu ndr zneasc de a mai face sup rare s not dare.3sg de to more do trouble He shouldnt dare to cause anymore trouble. Stefanelli (1915:377), 1821 document b. s nu ndr zneasc cineva ai sup ra s not dare.3sg someone to them disturb They shouldnt dare disturb them Stefanelli (1915:93), 1767 document 3 Some matrix verbs seem to always take de a -infinitive complements. One such verb is a renun a to give up. One (contemporary) example is found under (31). A very old one, where the matrix verb is a synonym for a renun a appears in Chapter 2 under (51). In general, I have not found examples without de for all the verbs that takes de a infinitive complements. I still assume that de is optional.

PAGE 172

172 (45) nceteaz de a m nedrept i cease.Imp de to me misjudge Stop misjudging me Potra et. al (1972:385) -1823 letter (46) Au avut de a r spunde have.3pl had de to answer They had to answer (for some thing)/to account for something Alexiu (1939:62), 1786 document (47) dorind foarte d a-l ajunge la timp wanting very de to-him reach on time Wanting very much to reach him on time B lcescu (1852:364) (48) i c i blesteam de a nu te fi putut uita and how many regret.3pl de to not you be could forget And who knows how many regret of not being able to forget you. Minulescu (1881-1944) (49) el i nchipuise d a aduce r sturn ri n Ardeal he rflx imagined de to bring upheavals in Ardeal He had imagined himself bringing big changes in Transylvania. B lcescu (1852:328) (50) Rugar pe Mihai d a amna pornirea lor begged.3pl P Mihai de to postpone departure their They begged Mihai to po stpone their departure B lcescu (1852:292) Rarely, other prepositions (besides de ) may also introduce ainfinitive complements, e.g., n la cu as shown in 4.2.4. Rizzi (1982) also repor ts that other prepositions besides di may sporadically introduce infinitive complements in Italian. Cases such as (51) are ex cluded from consideration. De in (51) is a subcategorized preposition, a true preposition that heads a PP and takes an infinitival complement. This preposition may also take an NP complement, as in a acuza de crim to accuse of murder. Unlike the infinitival particle de the subcategorized preposition de is never optional, whether it takes an NP complement (52a) or an infinitival complement (52b).

PAGE 173

173 (51) Poate fi nvinov it de a nu cugeta can.3sg be charged de to not think ntocmai ca un om civilizat. right like a man civilized He can be accused of not thinking exactly like a civilized man. Odobescu (1834-1895) Scrieri (52) a. Este acuzat *(de) tr dare. is accused of treason S/he is accused of treason. b. Este acuzat *(de) a nc lca legea is accused of to break law.the S/he is accused of breaking the law. Kayne (2000) observes that French de is restricted to occurrin g with infinitive only. In contrast, Romanian de also occurs in finite clauses as a complementizer as illustrated in (53). Other examples will be given below. (53) Apoi merse de ocoli cetatea then went.3sg de round fortress Then, he went to make the tour of the fortress Gramatica I 1963:408 De plus the infinitive is prohibited after a s ubcategorized preposition. As can be seen, the example (54a) becomes ungrammatical with de Since the sequence pe de exists as in pe de o parte on the one side/hand th e ungrammaticality of (54b) cannot be blamed on an ungrammatical sequence pe de These examples raise the question about the status of the preposition pe (and other required prepositions) in infini tival structures, which remaines to be determined by further research. (54) a. Contez pe a fi onest. Count.1sg on to be honest I count on being honest. c. *Contez pe de a fi onest. Count.1sg on de to be honest *I count on of being honest

PAGE 174

174 To recapitulate, de optionally introduces a-infinitival complement clauses and occurs with a quite large number of matrix ve rbs. Occasionally, other prepositions ( cu, la, in ) may also introduce a-infinitival complements. Unlike French de Romanian de may occur in finite contexts. 4.3.2 Arguments for the Co mplemen tizer Status of de The history of the infinitive presented in Chapter 2 (Section 2.3) leads to the conclusion that a lost its complementizer status by the end of the sixteenth century and the addition of de was necessary to fulfill this function4. Schulte (2004:168) suggests that de and also din are infinitival complementizers. This must be so, he argues, because any infinitival complementizer is followed by the a-infinitive. Schulte maintains that a is the infinitive mood marker. Here I present a number of arguments for the complementizer status of de based on its parallel behavior with Romance de/di and other complementizers. The first argument comes from raising verbs. I assume that the complement of a raising verb is obligatorily smaller than CP. Thus, complementizers are excluded following raising verbs. The fact that de is not allowed to appear in raising constructions is compatible with it being a complementizer. The raising struct ure in (55a) is well formed with the a-infinitive, but ungrammatical with a de a-infinitive, as (55b) demonstrates Similarly, in French and Italian de/di are not compatible with subject-to-subject raising, as the Italian example (56) shows. (55) a. Copiii par a fi bolnavi. children.the seem to be sick.pl The children seem to be sick. b. *Copiii par de a fi bolnavi. 4 For Italian, Rizzi (1982:94) considers that the Comp hypothesis represents the minimal assumption for di Other assumptions, in his opinion, would require postulating a position which is not independently justified, and/or complications of the mechan ism of subcategorization.

PAGE 175

175 (56) Gianni sembra (*di) essere felice. Gianni seems di to be happy Gianni seems to be happy. Kayne (2000:300) Another argument that suggests that de is a complementizer comes from its impossibility in infinitival subjects. In Romance, the complementizer de/di cannot appear in infinitival subjects, as illust rated by the Italian example (57). (57) *Di cercarlo comporta dei rischi di look for.Inf+him implies risks To look for him/looking for him implies risks. Kayne (2000:289) This is also true of Romanian de The a-infinitive (in bold) in th e examples (58a, 59a) is the subject of the sentence. Adding de to the a -infinitive renders the sentence ungrammatical (58b, 59b). Notice that the infinitive in an example like (60a) is not the subject of the sentence. It is the preposed complement clause of the sentence (60b). (58) a. A-l c uta implic riscuri. to-him seek implies risks Looking/to look for him implies risks. b. *De al c uta implic riscuri. de tohim seek implies risks (59) a. Iar n lumea cea comun a visa e un pericul but in world.the that common to dream is a danger But in the ordinary world to dream is a danger. Eminescu (1852-1889) Scrisoarea II b. *Iar n lumea cea comun de a visa e un pericul (60) a. De a n elege, am ncercat adesea. de to understand have.1s g tried sometimes To understand, I tried sometimes. b. Am ncercat adesea de a n elege have.1sg tried sometimes de to understand I tried sometimes to understand.

PAGE 176

176 A clear piece of evidence for the complementizer status of de is the impossibility of de co-occurring with another comp lementizer. For instance, a hot r to decide can take the complementizer dac whether plus a-infinitive complements (61a) or de plus a-infinitive complements (61b) but not both (61c). The ungr ammaticality of (61c) is explained by the impossibility of putting two elements in C0. (61) a. Mara nu sa hot rt nc dac a pleca Mara not rflx-has decided yet whether to leave sau a mai sta cteva zile. or to more stay few days Mara has not decided yet whether to leave or to stay a few more days. b. Mara sa hot rt de a pleca cu avionul. Mara rflxhas decided de to leave with plane.the Mara decided to leave by plane. c. *Mara nu sa hot rt dac de a pleca cu avionul. Mara not rflx-has decided whet her de to leave with plane.the The adoption of de as an infinitival complementizer was a natural choice because this entity was already acting as a complementizer in finite structures, e.g., ( 53) above. The indicative purpose structure in (62a) intr oduced by the complementizer de becomes the infinitival purpose structure in (62b). Both structures are possible in CR, but the infi nitival version is predominant. Also, the indicative structure (63a) becomes the infinitival complement introduced by the complementizer de in (63b). (62) a. aduse-i de i s di ei n codrulu brought-cl.pl.Acc that-cl.pl plan ted they in woods He brought them to plant (them) in the woods Coresi (1581:) b. i aduse de /pentru a-i s di n codru cl.pl.Acc brought.3sg de/for to-it.pl plant in woods He brought them to plant (them) in the woods

PAGE 177

177 (63) a. ndr zni de ispiti pre elu dared.3sg de allured.3sg P him He dared to allure him. Coresi (1581:389) b. ndr zni de a-l ispiti. dared de to-him allure He dared to allure him. De can also replace the s ubjunctive complementizer ca as illustrated in the purpose clause of (64a). The usual and natural way of saying (64a) is (64b) with the subjunctive complementizer ca (64) a. Lua i u a ceriului de s intre mp ratul slavei take.2pl door.the sky.Gen that s enter.3sg king.the glory.Gen Open the door of Heaven for the king of glory to enter Coresi (1581:) b. Lua i u a ceriului ca s intre mp ratul slavei take.2pl door.the sky.Gen that s enter.3sg king.the glory.Gen Open the door of Heaven for the king of glory to enter In sum, de in infinitival structures is a comp lementizer because it behaves like the Romance complementizer de/di in not occurring in raising structures, and not accompanying infinitive verbs in subject position. Further, de has an independently-motivated complementizer use in finite clauses and cannot co-o ccur with other complementizers. 4.4 Status of the Infinitive Particle a Chapter 2 discussed the origin, history, and distribution of the infinitival particle a. It has been concluded that the particle a is the unique morphology that st ands f or the identity of the infinitive. Also, It has been conc luded that, by the end of the sixteenth centur y, its status changed from a C element to an I element. Although bare infinitives were employed in the complex future and conditional, and following some modal verbs, a-infinitives have been always the norm for infinitival structures. With the very few exceptions discussed in Chapter 2, Section 2.4, no constructions with the infinitive are possible without the particle a. The example in (65a)

PAGE 178

178 includes two infinitival complement clauses whos e infinitive verb is preceded by the particle a. The same example lacking the particle a is ungrammatical (65b). (65) a. preferind a ncerca cu binele ai trage preferring to try with good.the to-rflx attract inimile nobililor hearts.the nobles.Gen Preferring to try, in good terms, to win the hearts of the noblemen B lcescu (1852:289) b. *preferind ncerca cu binele i trage preferring try with good.the rflx attract In this section, I investigate the syntactic cat egory and position of the infinitival particle a, i.e., to confirm its inflectional st atus. In Schultes (2004) assessment, a began as a preposition, underwent complete grammaticalization, and fi nally became a complementizer/mood marker. He then concludes that a is the infinitive marker because it co-occurs with a number of complementizers. I propose that a is a mood marker, an I0/M0 element that heads its own maximal projection IP/MP on a par with the subjunctive particle s (Section 3.4). I argue against the claim discussed in Dobrovie-Sorin (1994) that a is a complementizer located in C0. 4.4.1 The Infinitive Particle as an Inflectional Head 4.4.1.1 Adjacency to the verb One piece of em pirical evidence to support the vi ew that the infinitival marker is not a complementizer comes from its adjacency w ith the verb. Although D obrovie-Sorin (1994:84) considers the Romanian infinitival particle to be a C0 element, she points out the strong coherence between a and the verb and concedes that this evidence supports the I0 status of a. As shown in Chapter 2, Section 2.2, and in D obrovie-Sorins example (6), repeated here as (66), only a few one-syllable items may occur between a and the lexical verb: negation, a pronominal object clitic, and an adverbial intensifier. Recall that exactly the same elements

PAGE 179

179 appear between the subjunctive marker s and the lexical verb in subjunctive clauses. Full adverbs are not allowed between s and the verb (67), nor between a and the verb, (68). (66) A nu l mai ajuta ar fi o prostie. to not cl.Acc more help would be a mistake It would be wrong not to help him any more. (67) a. Vreau s plec curnd. want.1sg s leave.1sg soon I want to leave soon. b. *Vreau s curnd plec (68) a. A zmbi mereu e greu. to smile always is hard It is hard to always smile. b. *A mereu zmbi e greu. On the other hand, a full adverb may occur be tween a complementizer and the verb, as shown in the indicative clause in (69). A does not behave like a comp lementizer in this regards.5 (69) tiu c niciodat nu ntrzie. know.1sg that never not is late I know that s/he is never late. 4.4.1.2 AInfinitives o ccur with complementizers and wh -words The most compelling evidence against the complementizer status of a lies in its ability to occur with complementizers. Much of this kind of evidence has been alrea dy used in relation to the complementizer status of de in the previous section. For convenience, new relevant examples are included here. Apart from occurring with the complementizer de (70), a coexists with a number of complementizers introducing infi nitival adjuncts, like the purpose clause in 5 On the other hand, no lexical material is allowed between the complementizer de (or other infinitival complementizer) and the mood marker a By contrast, it is possible to have an adverb between the English to and the infinitival verb.

PAGE 180

180 (71) introduced by the complementizer pentru for. A may also co-occur with the complementizer dac if/whether as illustrated in (72) below. (70) f g duie te d a face mai multe izbnzi. promise.3sg de to make more deeds He promises to accomplish more things. B lcescu (1852:306) Romnii sub Mihai (71) sa purces ast zi pentru a nu t r g na afacerea clhas begun today for to not delay business.the They started today not to delay the business. Stefanelli (1915:137) 1785 document (72) Mara nu sa hot rt nc dac a pleca Mara not rflx-has decided yet whether to leave sau a mai sta cteva zile. or to more stay few days Mara has not decided yet whether to leave or to stay a few more days. Section 3.4 (Chapter 3) claimed that both C0 and [Spec,CP] could not be filled in Romanian; however, the particle a may co-occur with wh -words, as illustrated in (73). Although Dobrovie-Sorin (1994) finds (74) to be ungrammatical, I accept it. As already mention (Section 2.4), Popescu (1992) considers examples such as ( 73) and (74) to be grammatical (standard) and the variants without a are regionalisms in her view6. (73) nu tim de ce a ne minuna mai mult not know.1pl of what to us wonder more We dont know what more to wonder about. B lcescu (1852:95) (74) Nu tiu unde a pleca. Not know.1sg where to leave I/they do not know where to go. 6 The problem with (74) is its ambiguity between infinitive (i) and indicative (ii) if the particle a is absent: (i) Nu tiu unde pleca. Not know.1sg where leave.Inf I/they do not know where to go. (ii) Nu tiu unde pleca. Not know.1sg where leave.Imp.3sg I/they do not know where s/he was leaving.

PAGE 181

181 A may also co-occur with th e relativizing preposition de (or invariable relative pronoun, fn. 3, Chapter 2) as in (7 5) and (76). Assuming that wh -phrases and de occupy [Spec,CP], a cannot be a complementizer. (75) Nu era femeia de a se l sa n elat not was woman.the which to rflx let cheated She wasnt the woman to let herself be cheated on. (76) Nu-mi place ideea de a pleca la miezul nop ii. not-mi.Dat like idea.the de to leave at midnight I dont like the idea of leaving at midnight. I take the evidence to support my claim that a is an inflectional element located in I0 on a par with the English to and with the Romanian subjunctive mood marker s I take such examples to support an analysis of a in which it is not a complementizer. 4.4.2. Infinitive Marker as a Complementiz er 4.4.2.1 Adverb placement It has been m entioned that only a fixed numbe r of one-syllable lexi cal items are allowed between the infinitival particle a and the verb. As illustrated above in (68) and by the contrast in (77), adverbs are disallowed between a and the infinitive verb. (77) a. a gndi vreodat to think sometimes b. *a vreodat gndi to sometimes think Dobrovie-Sorin uses this contrast to support the co mplementizer status of a. Her account of this contrast relies on verb movement. Verb raising to I0 takes place in Romanian, thus in (77a), the verb obligat orily raises from V0 to I0, crossing the adverb, whic h is adjoined to VP. (77b) is ungrammatical because this verb raisi ng has not taken place. This explanation excludes

PAGE 182

182 the possibility that a is in I0. If a were in I0, (77a) should be ungramma tical because there would be no empty landing site for the verb. I propose an alternative an alysis of the contrast in (77) that permits a to occur in I0. It is based on Pollocks (1989) analysis of French infinitives. In French, infinitive verbs can appear to the right or the left of an adverb: (78) A peine parler litalien aprs cinq ans detudes denote hardly to speak Italian afte r five years of study indicates un manqu de don pour les langues a lack of gift for the languages To hardly speak Italian after five year s of study indicates a lack of gift for languages. (Pollock 1989) (79) Parler a peine litalien aprs cinq ans detudes denote to speak hardly Italian after five years of study indicates un manqu de don pour les langues a lack of gift for the languages To hardly speak Italian after five years of study indicates a l ack of gift for languages. (Pollock 1989) Pollocks analysis is that IP is really tw o projections, TP and AgrP, with TP dominating AgrP. French infinitival ve rbs optionally raise from V0 to Agr0, a head position above VP but still below T0. The order in (79) is obtained without raising the verb all the way to I0. For Romanian, I assume that there is also a split Infl. IP is replaced by MP and TP (and AgrP), following Terzi (1992, 1997), Schtze (1997), and Miller (2002). The infinitival marker a resides in M0 and the infinitive verb obligatorily raises to T0 but not to M0, which is filled. This accounts for the contrast in (77). In (77a), a is in M0 and the verb raises to T0. (77b) is ungrammatical because the verb has not raised. Unlike in Dobrovie-Sorins account there is no conflict, as the verb is moving to an empty head position, T0. A need not be in C0 under this analysis.

PAGE 183

183 4.4.2.2 Negation distribution Dobrovie-S orin (1994) claims that the distribu tion of the negation in infinitives, (80), reflects the complementizer status of the infinitival particle a. As can be seen, nu is not able to precede a, nu can only follow. (80) a. a nu vorbi to not speak b. *nu a vorbi not to speak Dobrovie-Sorin (1994:85) builds her argument on the claim that nu follows complementizers. This is seen in (81) for the indicative complementizer c Because the sequence a nu in the infinitival structure (80a) mimics the sequence c nu in the indicative structure (81b), her example (8), a must be a complementizer as well. (81) a. tiu nu c a plecat know.1sg not that has left I dont know that s/he left b. tiu c nu a plecat know.1sg that not has left I know that s/he didnt leave. The problem with this reasoning can be seen by looking at other clause types. In subjunctive clauses, nu occurs to the right of the complementizer ca but also the subjunctive marker s : (82) a. Team sunat ca s nu ui i s pleci. you have.1sg called that s not forget.2sg s leave.2sg I called you in order for you to not forget to leave. b. *Team sunat ca nu s ui i s pleci. you have.1sg called that not s forget.2sg s leave.2sg I have already argued that s is no t a complementizer. Thus the parallel between a nu and c nu breaks down. Nu follows complementizers but it actually appears much lower.

PAGE 184

184 A second problem arises in infinitival purpose clauses with the complementizer pentru (83). Seemingly, nu cannot follow the complementizer in th e infinitival purposive of (83). Again, nu must follow both the complementizer and a. (83) a. Team sunat pentru a nu uita s pleci. you have.1sg called for to not forget s leave.2sg I called you in order for you to not forget to leave. b. *Team sunat pentru nu a uita s pleci. you have.1sg called for not to forget s leave.2sg The data suggest that nu follows both complementizers and inflectional heads. The data in (80) is thus compatible with a being in C0 or I0. Specifically, it does not rule out analyzing a as an inflectional head, as I am doing. The data in (83) however suggest that a is not in C0. As suggested above, a cannot be a complementizer if pentru is also a complementizer, on the assumption that an embedded clause does not have two complementizers. 4.4.2.3 Infinitives and case In Rom anian, a gerundial cannot follow a pre position or complementizer as the contrast in (84) shows. Thus, a construction like the E nglish translation of (84b) is not possible in Romanian. The English example (85b) with a gerund following the complementizer without can be constructed only with the in finitive in Romanian (85a). (84) a. A plecat spunand ceva. has left saying.Ger something S/he left saying something. b. *A plecat f r spunnd ceva. has left wit hout saying.Ger something S/he left without saying anything, (85) a. A plecat f r a spune o vorb has left without to say a word *S/he left without to say a word b. S/he left without saying a word.

PAGE 185

185 Dobrovie-Sorin (1994:85-86) suggests that the difference between the Romanian infinitival adjunct, (85a), and the English ve rsion constructed with a gerund, (85b), is the difference between to -infinitives and a-infinitives in relation to case: to infinitives are IP constituents which are verbal in nature and as such cannot show up in a position to which Case is assigned (by the preposition). T hus, the English translation of (85a) is not possible with the infinitive because the to -infinitive appears in a case position. By contrast, the Romanian example can be understood if we assume a infinitives to be CP constituents, which as such are allowed to take on a nominal status. From th is, Dobrovie-Sorin (1994) concludes that, since ainfinitives are CPs (in her view), a must reside in C0. There are a number of problems with this argum ent. First, English infinitives can appear in case positions. They can be subjects, as in To read is a pleasure, and they can be direct objects, I like to read However, the to -infinitive can receive subject or object case but not prepositional case, which requires a gerundial (Miller 2002). Romanian does not have that constraints: an a-infinitive can occur as a complement to a preposition/prepositional complemetizer. Second, it is not clear why the English infini tival complement in (86a) would be an IP and its Romanian counterpart ( 86b) a CP (by Dobrovie-Sorins assumption). They should be both the same type of clause. (86) a. Mara tried to write a poem. b. Mara a ncercat a scrie un poem. Mara has tried to write a poem Mara tried to write a poem. Lastly, the infinitival adjunct in (85a) is a CP simply because of the complementizer f r without. Admitting that the infi nitive in (85a) needs case, the licenser is the complementizer

PAGE 186

186 f r without. There is no reason to consider th e infinitive marker a complementizer here. (In addition, a complex preposition f r a does not exist). I conclude that the counterarguments discus sed above can be equally well analyzed under the assumption that a is an inflectional head and not a complementizer. These combine with earlier arguments which supported th e inflectional head status of a, on a par with s I will assume that a heads its own inflectional projection, which I label M0. The structure of the Romanian infinitive (87a) is the configuration (87b), where only the infinitival clause is included: de is in C0, a in M0, nu occupies the head Neg0. The clitic me cliticizes on the verb and move to T0. PRO starts out in [Spec,vP] then moves to [Spec,MP]. (87) a. Radu1 ncerc (de) PRO1 a nu m dezam gi. Radu tries de to not cl.me disappoint Radu is trying not to disappoint me. b. [CP C0 de [MP PRO [M0 a [Neg0 nu [TP T0 m dezam gi [vP tPRO VP tm dezam gi]]]]]] Before concluding this section, I would like to present an obse rvation which is potentially problematic for my analysis. When de and a occur together, they must be strictly adjacent. No lexical material can occur between the two. R ecall that an adverb is allowed following the infinitive verb, (68a), (88a) but not between a and the infinitive verb (68b). In addition, no adverb is allowed between de and a (88b). (88) a. Radu sper de a pleca curnd n vacan Radu hopes de to leave soon in vacation Radu hopes to leave for a vacation soon. b. *Radu sper de curnd a pleca n vacan Radu hopes de soon to leave in vacation De and a can even be pronounced toge ther, as a monosyllabic wor d. This is reflected in the orthography: de a can be written de-a or da/d-a (See also fn 2, Chapter 2). This is somewhat surprinsing given that I have analyzed de and a as two distinct head s, occupying C and M,

PAGE 187

187 respectively. I assume that this adjacency requ irement is due to the clitic-like behavior of de Rizzi (1982) also points out this clitic-like behavior of Italian di7. 4.5 Exhaustive Control (EC) and Partial Control (PC) In the next two sections of this chapter, I will describe infinitive com plements in Landaus (2000) terms of exhaustiv e control (EC) and partial cont rol (PC). In this section I discuss the properties of obligator y control shared by EC and PC in contrast to non-obligatory control (NOC). The following section, 4.6, will d eal with the specific properties of PC complements. 4.5.1. Background In Landaus (2000) typology, obligatory cont rol (OC) com plement constructions are divided into EC and PC. In EC the referent of the embedded s ubject, which I represent with PRO, is identical to the referent of the contro ller (89). In PC, the refe rent of PRO includes the referent of the controller, but the two references are not necessari ly identical (90). (89) Radu1 a ndr znit PRO1 a fluiera n biseric Radu has dared to whistle in church Radu dared to whistle in the church. (90) Directorul1 sper PRO1+ a se ntruni n biseric director.the hopes to rflx gather in church The boss hopes to gath er in the church. 7 It seems that prepositional complementizers in general manifest this behavior. Thus, an adverb is not possible between the complementizer pentru for and the infinitival particle a as the contrast in (i) shows: (i) a. A venit doar pentru a pleca repede napoi has come only for to leave quickly back S/he just came to quickly leave again. b. *a venit doar pentru repede a pleca napoi has come only for quickly to leave back

PAGE 188

188 In most contexts, one cannot tell whether a predicate selects an EC or a PC complement. Aside from the different semantic category of th e matrix verbs, (89) and (91) are seemingly identical OC constructions. (91) Radu1 sper PRO1 a merge la petrecere. Radu hopes to go to party Radu hopes to go to the party. However, (92) shows that the implicative a ndr zni to dare is an EC verb and cannot replace a spera to hope, which is a PC verb. EC and PC infinitives are selected by separate semantic groups of predicates. (92) *Directorul1 a ndr znit PRO1+ a lucra mpreun director.the has dared to work together. The boss dared to gather in the church. It is remarkable that EC-infinitives and OC -subjunctives are selected by the same classes of matrix verbs and PC-infinitives and F-subjunctive s are also selected by the same matrix verbs. A short list for each semantic group of verbs is given below: (93) EC predicates. The predicates that sel ect EC complement clauses are divided into the following classes: a.Implicatives a ndr zni/cuteza dare, ncerca/c uta to try, a reu i/izbuti to manage ai aminti remember, a uita to forget, a omite to omit, a for a to force, a risca to risk, a neglija to neglect, a renun a to renounce/give up, a refuza to refuse. b. Aspectual8 a ncepe to begin, a continua to continue, a termina to finish, a (se) opri to stop, a nceta to cease, a persista to persist, a st rui/persevera to persevere 8 Most of the aspectual verbs may select de a -infinitive complements, thus they cannot be taken as raising verbs in constructions of the type: (i) Mara a-nceput (de) a scrie o scrisoare. Mara has began (de) to write a letter Mara began to write a letter.

PAGE 189

189 c.Modal deontic a avea to have, deontic a fi to be, a fi capabil/a fi n stare to be able A putea can is out because is a restructuring verb. (94) PC predicates. PC complement clauses are selected by the four classes of verbs given below: a.Desideratives a dori to wish, a voi will, a prefera to prefer, a aranja to arrange, a spera to hope, a agrea/fi de acord to agree, a hot r/decide to decide, a consim i to consent. b.Factives a regreta, to regret, a ur to hate, a ngrozi to be scared, a se teme to be afraid a dezgusta to disgust a satisface to satisfay, a fi surprins to be surprised, a amuza to amuse a fi bucuros to be glad. c.Interrogatives a ti to know, a n elege to understand a afla to find out. At this time, this class is reduced to these ve rbs only. Further research is needed to find out more about this class of verbs vis-a-vis infinitive. d.Propositional a (se) gndi to think, a( i) nchipui to imagine, a declara to declare, a afirma to affirm, a nega to deny, a sugera to suggest, a cr ede believe. 4.5.2 EC and PC vs. NOC The properties in (95a-d) are characteristic s of NOC constructions. They are thus not allowed in E C and PC constructions, which are OC Below, I confirm that Romaninan infinitival complements display OC behavior (i.e. (95) is not possible). (95) a. Arbitrary Control b. Long-distance Control (LDC) c. Strict reading of PRO under ellipsis d. De re reading of PRO 4.5.2.1 Arbitrary control is impossibl e in EC and PC, possible in NOC Arbitrary control constructions are constructions in which PRO is not controlled by any argum ent, overt or implied. PRO is interpreted as an arbitrary person or persons, represented as PROarb. Arbitrary control is not possible in (96a) which features an EC construction with implicative, aspectual, and modal matrix verbs. Si nce a controller is present in the matrix clause,

PAGE 190

190 PRO cannot be interpreted as PROarb. The exam ples in (96b) show that PROarb is also disallowed in a PC construction selected by desiderative, factive, propositional predicates. By contrast, PROarb is well behaved in the NOC c onstructions of (97) and (98), translated from Kawasaki (1993) and Lebeux (1984) re spectively, both via Landau (2000). (96) a. *Radu1 ndr zne te/ continu /e capabil [PROarb1 a fi obraznic]. Radu dares/continues/is able to be naughty Radu dares/continues/is able to be naughty. *Radu dares/continues/is able for someone to be naughty. b. *Radu1 prefer /ur te/pretinde/ [PROarb1 a fi obraznic]. Radu prefers/hates/pretends to be naughty Radu prefers/hates/pretends to be naughty. (97) E periculos pentru copii [PROarb a fuma lng ei] is dangerous for children to smoke by them It is dangerous for child ren to smoke around them. (98) [PROarb a face profit mare] implic /nseamn to make profit big implies/means [PROarb a exploata muncitorii] to exploit workers.the Making large profit implies/means to exploit the workers. Therefore, EC and PC structures reject PROa rb subjects, in conformity with standard behavior of OC structures. 4.5.2.2 LDC is not allowed in EC or PC, but possible in NOC In an OC environm ent, it is necessary that the controller be structurally local to the controlee. The controller must c-command the c ontrolee and be in the immediately dominating clause. There cannot be more than one clause boundary between the cont roller and controlee. The examples in (99) illustrate this restricti on in Romanian and English. The reflexive in the complement clause requires a local antecedent, which must be the subject PRO. PRO cannot be controlled by the intended feminine antecedent Ma ra, the matrix subject, however, because it is

PAGE 191

191 too far away. The intended antecedent is tw o clauses away. And thus the examples are ungrammatical. (99) a. *Mara1 tia [c Radu2 a reu it [PRO1 Mara knew that Radu has managed a ofa ea ns i1 tot drumul]] to drive herself all way *Mara knew that Radu managed to drive herself all the way b. *Mara1 tia [c Radu2 a ncetat [PRO1 Mara knew that Radu has ceased a se calomnia ea ns i1]] to rflx perjure herself *Mara knew that Radu ceased to perjure herself. c. Mara1 tia [c Radu2 e capabil [PRO1 Mara knew that Radu is capable a se nvinov i ea ns i1]] to rflx accuse herself *Mara knew that Radu is capab le of perjuring herself. Long-distance control is also pr ohibited in the examples of (100) constructed with PC predicates: volitional (100a), f active (100b), and propositional ( 100c). Again, PRO is coindexed with a non-local antecedent ( Mara ) and the sentences are ungrammatical. (100) a. *Mara1 tie [c Radu2 a decis a se calomnia ea ns i1] Mara knows that Radu has decided to rflx accuse her self *Mara knew that Radu decided to perjure herself. b. *Mara1 tie [c Radu2 ur te a se nvinov i ea ns i1] Mara knows [that Radu hates to rflx accuse her self *Mara knows that Radu hate s to perjure herself. c. Mara1 tia [c Radu2 se gnde te a ofa Mara knew [that Radu rflx thinks to drive ea ns i1 tot drumul] her self all way *Mara knew that Radu hates to drive herself all the way. While LDC is prohibited in OC, it is allowe d in NOC constructions as shown in (101a) (adapted from Richardson, 1986, via Landau, 2000) and (101b).

PAGE 192

192 (101) a. [PRO1 p r sind camera ca o furtun dup ce a pierdut leaving room like a storm after what has lost jocul] a convins pe oricine c Radu1 e imatur game.the has convinced everyone that Radu1 is immature. Storming out of the room after losing the game convinced everyone that Radu is immature. b. Mara1 crede c ar fi amuzant [PRO1 a cnta Mara believes that would be amusing to sing toat aria de una singur 1]. all aria by herself Mara believes that it would be fun to sing the whole aria by herself. In sum, LDC is disallowed in EC and PC structures, a characteristic of obligatory control. 4.5.2.3 Strict reading of PRO under ellipsis is impossible in EC/PC The interpretation of (102a) is (102b). In the second conjunct, Ana, and not Mara is leaving. This is an instance of a sloppy readi ng in which the interpretation of PRO changes across the two clauses. The stri ct reading in which the interp retation of PRO in both clauses would be Mara is impossible. EC verbs allow only a sloppy interpretation under ellipsis, a characteristic of obligatory control. (102) a. Mara1 a ncercat PRO1 a pleca devreme Mara has tried to leave early i Ana2 de asemenea. and Ana of same Mara tried to leave early and Ana too. b. Mara1 a ncercat RPO1 a pleca devreme Mara has tried to leave early i Ana2 a ncercat PRO2 a pleca devreme. and Ana has tried to leave early Mara tried to leave early and Ana tried to leave early. Strict readings are also not permitted with PC. The example (103) has only the sloppy interpretation Mara hopes to gath er in the church and the priest hopes to gather in the church. It does not have the strict interpretation Mara hopes to gather in the church and the priest hopes that Mara will gather in the church.

PAGE 193

193 (103) Mara1 sper PRO1 a se ntruni n biseric Mara hopes to rflx gather in church i preotul2 PRO2 de asemenea. and priest.the of same Mara hopes to gather in the church and the priest too. By contrast, both strict and sloppy readings are possible in NOC structures. The interpretation of (104) (translated fr om Bouchard, 1985, via Landau, 2000) is: Both Ion and Bill believe the same thing: that it would be difficult for Ion to feed himself. This strict reading is possible because (104) is an NOC structure. The sloppy reading is also easily available. (104) Ion1 crede c [PRO1 a se hr ni el nsu i1] Ion thinks that to rflx feed himself va fi greu i Radu de asemenea (crede acela i lucru) will be hard and Radu of same (believes the same thing) John1 thinks that [PRO1 feeding himself1] will be difficult, and Bill2 does, too. As expected, the subject of EC and PC st ructures (PRO) only yi elds a sloppy reading under ellipsis as opposed to NOC structures, which allow both strict and sloppy readings under ellipsis. 4.5.2.4 De re reading is impos sible in OC, possible in NOC To illustrate de se and de re readings, I am using again the classical example from the old story about a war hero, the unfor tunate, who suffers from amnesia and is confused about his identity (the details of the story appear in Se ction 3.6). The indicative co nstruction of (105a) has both de se and de re interpretations. It is true if the unfortunate expects so meone to come and give him a medal, the de se interpretation, a bout the self. If Nefericitul the unfortunate believes that the war hero depicted in a TV show, whic h is actually himself although he does not know it, will get the medal, the statement is the de re belief but not the de se one. By contrast, the OC infinitive clause of (105b) sele cted by a PC verb has only the de se interpretation, the belief about the self. A de re reading is not possible in OC.

PAGE 194

194 (105) a. Nefericitul sper c va primi o medalie unfortunate.the hopes that will receive a medal The unfortunate hopes that he will get a medal. b. Nefericitul1 sper [PRO1 a primi o medalie]. unfortunate.the hopes to receive a medal The unfortunate hopes to get a medal. The same contrast is seen with th e EC (implicative) attitude verbs a uita to forget and ai aminti to remember. The example used in Section 3.6 to illustrate the de se interpretation of PRO in OC subjunctives will also illustrate it with an infinitive. While (106a) features an indicative construction with de re and de se interpretations, the de se interpretation is possible in the infinitival construction in (104b). The data of (105) and (106) show that OC infinitives with PC matrix verbs (hope) and EC matrix verbs (remember) exhibit de se readings only. (106) a. Uitucul i aminte te c ia trenul forgetful.the rflx remembers that takes train.the The forgetful man remembers that he takes the train. b. Uitucul1 i aminte te PRO1 a lua trenul. forgetful.the rflx remembers to take train.the The forgetful man remembers to take the train. In conclusion, EC and PC infinitives contrast in regards to the semantic categories of predicates that select them and to the referent of PRO. PRO and its controller are not necessarily identical in PC but they must overlap. As OC constructions, EC and PC infinitives, unlike NOC constructions, disallow PROarb subjects, disa llow LDC, manifest onl y sloppy readings under ellipsis, and are restricted to the de se interpretation. 4.6 PC Characteristics As already seen, the referent of the controller in PC is a subset of the referent of PRO while the ref erent of the controller in EC is iden tical with the referent of PRO. Another property of PC that differentiates it from EC is that PC permits an embedded collective predicate to occur with a controller in the singular (Landa u 2000:45) resulting a semantically plural PRO.

PAGE 195

195 The purpose of this section is to show that th is distinction also applies to Romanian OC infinitives. 4.6.1 PC with Collective Predicates Landau (2000) points out that there are som e differences across languages concerning the collective predicates involved in PC. For instance, French se -verbs are not possible with PC complements, unlike their Italian or Spanish counte rparts. He also mentions that, in general, PC complements with factive predi cates are not as common and natu ral as PC complements with desiderative (and interr ogative) predicates. 4.6.1.1 PC with collective ( se ) ver bs Unlike French, partial cont rol is possible with se verbs in Romanian. The examples below in (107a-110a) feature PC complements selected by verbs from all four semantic groups: desiderative (107a), factive ( 108a), propositional (109a) and interro gative (110a). The predicates in the complement clauses are lexica lly collective and all of them are se verbs. (107b-110b) represent the F-subjunctive versions of the respective infiniti ve constructions. Recall that most infinitive structures can be al so constructed with subjunctive9. In (107a), directorul is the matrix controller and is part of the PRO in the infinitive clause. The sign for plus represents the people wi th whom the director will discuss during those biweekly meetings. The controller is syntactically and semantically singular, but PRO is semantically plural, the effect of the collective verb a se ntruni to convene (107) a. Directorul1 a hot rt [PRO1+ a se ntruni director.the has decided to rflx convene de dou ori pe s pt mn ]* of two times per week The director decided to convene twice a week. 9 Since no PC construction has been found in the literature, the examples created here will bear the symbol at the end.

PAGE 196

196 b. Directorul1 a hot rt [PRO1+ s se ntruneasc director.the has decided s rflx convene.3sg de dou ori pe s pt mn ] of two times per week The director decided to convene twice a week. In the PC-structures (108a-110a), Radu, the subject of the higher clause, represents the prominent member of the group reference of PRO. The controller, Mara is semantically singular while PRO is semantically plural due to the em bedded verb that is se mantically collective. (108) a. Radu1 tie [c Mara2 ur te PRO2+ a se ntlni pe furi ]* Radu knows [that Mara hates to rflx meet furtively] Radu knows that Mara hates to meet furtively. b. Radu tie [c Mara urte s se ntlneasc pe furi ] Radu knows [that Mara hates s rflx meet.3sg/pl furtively] Radu knows that Mara hates to meet furtively. (109) a. Radu1 tie [c Mara2 nu crede PRO2+ Radu knows [that Mara not believes a se reuni f r emo ii mari]* to rflx reunite without emotions great.pl] Radu knows that Mara doesnt believe they will reunite without great emotions. b. Radu1 tie [c Mara2 nu crede Radu knows [that Mara not believes s se reuneasc f r emo ii mari] s rflx reunite.3sg/pl w ithout emotions great.pl] Radu knows that Mara doesnt believe they will reunite without great emotions. (110) a. Radu1 tie [c Mara2 se ntreab dac PRO2+ Radu knows [that Mara rflx wonders whether a se reuni e o idee bun ]* to rflx reunite is a idea good] Radu knows that Mara wonders if to reunite is a good idea. b. Radu1 tie [c Mara2 se ntreab dac Radu knows [that Mara rflx wonders whether s se reuneasc e o idee bun ] s rflx reunite.3sg/pl is a idea good] Radu knows that Mara wonders if to reunite is a good idea.

PAGE 197

197 As expected, similar constructions with EC predicates cannot yield partial control. The attempt to build partial control with matrix imp licative (111a) or aspectua l predicates (112a) and a collective verb in the embedded clause fails. (H owever, it may be possible that some of the EC verbs may have a double nature). The b. examples with subjunctive are also ungrammatical. (111) a. *Radu ia spus Marei [c a uitat/ndr znit/ Radu herhas told M.Dat [that has forgotten/dared/ a se desp r i] to rflx separate] *Radu told Mara that he forgot/dared to separate. b. *Radu ia spus Marei [c a uitat/ ndr znit Radu herhas told M.Dat [that has forgotten/dared s se despart ] s rflx separate.3sg/pl] *Radu told Mara that he forgot/dared to separate. (112) a. *Radu ia spus Marei [c ncepe a se reuni] Radu her-has told M.Dat [tha t begins to rflx reunite] *Radu told Mara that he begins to reunite. b. *Radu ia spus Marei [c ncepe s se reuneasc ] Radu her-has told M.Dat [that begins s rflx reunite.3sg/pl] *Radu told Mara that he begins to reunite. 4.6.1.2 Predicates with together The examples (113a 116a) are PC constr uctions formed with the collectivizer together, which (like se verbs) requires PRO to be semantically plural. In (113b-116b) the infinitive is replaced by a subjunctive verb. The PC structures are selected by PC verbs: desiderative (113a), factive (114a), interrogativ e (115a) and propositional (116a). The controller Mara from (113a115a), is semantically singular, while PRO is seman tically plural due to th e collective modifier together Radu is the prominent member of the group reference of PRO. (113) a. Radu1 crede [c Mara2 sper PRO2+ Radu believes [that Mara hopes a rezolva problema mpreun ]* to solve problem.the together] Radu believes that Mara hopes to solve the problem together.

PAGE 198

198 b. Radu1 crede [c Mara2 sper Radu believes [that Mara hopes s rezolve problema mpreun ] s solve.3sg/pl problem.the together] Radu believes that Mara hopes to solve the problem together. (114) a. Radu1 tie [c Mara2 ur te PRO2+ Radu knows [that Mara hates a lucra mpreun la proiect]* to work together at project] Radu knows that Mara hates to work together at the project. b. Radu1 tie [c Mara2 ur te Radu knows [that Mara hates s lucreze mpreun la proiect] s work.3sg/pl togeth er at project] Radu knows that Mara hates to work together at the project. (115) a. Radu1 tie [c Mara2 se ntreab dac PRO2+ Radu knows [that Mara rflx wonders whether a lucra mpreun (sau nu)]* to work together (or not)] Radu knows that Mara wonders whet her to work together (or not). b. Radu1 tie [c Mara2 se ntreab dac Radu knows [that Mara rflx wonders whether s lucreze mpreun (or nu)] s work.3sg/pl toge ther (or not)] Radu knows that Mara wonders whet her to work together (or not). (116) a. Radu1 ia spus Marei2 [c nu crede PRO1+ Radu her-has told M.Dat [that not believes a merge mpreun la petrecere]* to go together at party] Radu told Mara that he doesnt believe they will go together at the party. b. Radu1 ia spus Marei2 [c nu crede Radu her-has told M.Dat [that not believes s mearg mpreun la petrecere] s go.3sg/pl together at party] Radu told Mara that she doesnt believ e they will go together at the party. In (116a), Radu is the controller and Mara is part of PRO. Th e controller, the null subjecte of crede believes, is semantically singular, but PRO is semantically plural.

PAGE 199

199 Partial control is not possible if the matrix verbs are EC verbs with a controller in the singular and in the presence of the collectivizer mpreun together. Both, the infinitive (117a) and subjunctive (117b) ex amples are ungrammatical. (117) a. *Radu crede [c Mara a ndr znit/nceput Radu believes [that Mara has dared/began a rezolva problema mpreun ] to solve problem.the together] *Radu knows that Mara dared/began to solve the problem together. b. *Radu crede [c Mara a ndr znit/nceput Radu believes [that Mara has dared/began s rezolve problema mpreun ] s solve.3sg/pl problem.the together] *Radu knows that Mara dared/began to solve the problem together. The two sets of data, with collective verbs and with the collectivizer mpreun, clearly show the difference between EC verbs and PC verb s. Only PC verbs allow a controller in the singular to occur with a collective embedded predicate. In th e PC examples above, the controller is semantically singular and PRO semantically plural. 4.6.2 Semantic vs. Syntactic Plurality Another characteristic of PC com plement cl auses is the requirement that they cannot contain a plural anaphor or a plural floating quantifier. In Land aus (2000:48) view: In a PC construction with a controller in the singular, th e embedded predicate can be lexically collective or contain together but cannot be inflected for plural, or contain a non-singul ar anaphor/floating quantifier. In Landaus (2000) system, in all PC constructio ns with a controller in the singular and a collective verb (or together ), PRO represents a group name, wh ich is semantically plural but syntactically singular. A mismatch in syntactic number w ith the controller is not allowed. Consequently, predicates inflected for plural or those that include plur al anaphors or plural floating quantifiers are not admitted in PC with a singular controller.

PAGE 200

200 Landau, citing Munn (1999), points out that th e choice of a morpheme to agree with syntactic or semantic plurality is language/dia lect specific and may even vary among speakers. The PRO in PC is a group name and, as such, is expected to behave like committee and government (118) and (119) indicate that thes e two words cannot be represented as themselves each other or all in Romanian and American English. (118) *Comitetul sa consultat unul pe altul/ unii pe al ii committee.the rflx-has consulted each other.sg/ each other.pl nainte de vot before of vote *The committee consulted each other before the vote. (119) *Guvernul ia declinat ei n i i/to i r spunderea government.the rflx-has declined themselves/all responsibility.the The government cleared themselves/all of any responsibility. Bearing this in mind, consider the examples in (120). The meaning of (120a) is that the secretary is supposed to carry out the directors decision and to gath er the board of trustees twice a week so that the director would also convene in order to discuss current issues etc. Whether the secretary would participate or not is irrelevant. Thus, while el nsu i himself correctly refers to directorul (120a), ei n i i themselves is illegal (120b). Ther efore, a plural emphatic (or other element) is disallowed when the co ntroller is syntactically singular. (120) a. Directorul1 a anun at-o pe secretar 2 [c a hot rt director.the has informed-her P secretary.fem [that has decided PRO1+ a se ntruni el nsu i1 de dou ori pe s pt mn ]* to rflx convene himsel f twice per week The director informed his secretary that he decided to convene (himself) twice a week. b. *Directorul1 a anun at-o pe secretar 2 [c a hot rt director.the has informed-her P secretary.fem [that has decided PRO1+ a se ntruni ei n i i de dou ori pe s pt mn ]* to rflx convene themselves twice per week The director informed his secretary that he decided to convene (*themselves) twice a week.

PAGE 201

201 In sum, Romanian PC structures allow a s yntactically/semantically singular controller to occur with collective predicates in the subordinate and a semantically plural PRO. In a PC clause, the verb must not have plural morphology and pl ural elements when the controller is singular. 4.7 Tense of Infinitival Complement Clauses The discussion about tense in Chapter 3, S ection, 3.5, has already introduced the term s anaphoric tense and dependent tense. I show that EC complements are expected to have anaphoric tense, whereas PC clauses show depe ndent tense, on a par with OC-subjunctives and F-subjunctives, respectively. 4.7.1 EC Complements Have Anaphoric Tense The claim that EC complements contain anaphoric tense means that EC complements do not allow temporal modifiers that are distinct from those in the matrix clause, (121,122). This restriction implies that the event of the controlled clause is the same as that of the matrix or that the two events are simultaneous. I take these data to show that EC in finitives lack a tense operator. Therefore, EC infini tives have anaphoric tense. (121) *Azi Radu ndr zne te ai p r si mine slujba. today Radu dares to-rflx quit tomorrow job-the *Today Radu dares to quit his job tomorrow. (122) *Ieri Radu a reu it a ajunge la Paris mine. yesterday Radu has managed to reach to Paris tomorrow *Yesterday, Radu managed to reach Paris tomorrow. 4.7.2 PC Complements Have Dependent Tense In contrast, conflicting tem poral modifiers are possible in PC constructions. A temporal adverb denoting future tense in the PC compleme nt of (123) is allowed although the adverb in the matrix clause encodes past tense. Like an F-subjunctive, a PC infinitive has its own tense operator. The embedded tense is nonetheless constrained by the matrix tense operator: mine

PAGE 202

202 tomorrow cannot be replaced by ieri yesterday in (124). In other words, PC complements may have different time adverbs from those of th e matrix clause, but the two are not completely independent. (123) Ieri, Mara a sperat a pleca la Paris azi/mine. yesterday Mara has hoped to leave to Pa ris today/tomorrow Yesterday, Mara hoped to leav e for Paris today/tomorrow. (124) Acum Mara sper a pleca mine / *ieri. now Mara hopes to l eave tomorrow/ yesterday Now, Mara hopes/wants to leave tomorrow/*yesterday. In conclusion, parallel to OC and F-subjunctives, respec tively, EC complements have anaphoric tense and PC infinitives have dependent tense. Thus, their tense is selected by the matrix verb. 4.8 IP or CP? This sec tion discusses the phrasal category of infinitival clauses. Are they IPs or CPs I am unable to answer this question conclusively and leave the matter for future research. I do however eliminate the possibility that thes e structures are rest ructuring contexts. 4.8.1 Infinitival Complement s Resist R estructuring Recall from Chapter 2, Section 2.4 that the verbs a putea can and a ti to know may take a-infinitive complements (125) or bare infinitive complements (126) in OSR. In CR, a putea can only take a bare infinitive while a ti can have both a bare infinitive and an a-infinitive. (125) a. Radu poate a cnta ace st cntec. OSR Radu can to sing this song. Radu can sing this song. b. Mara tie a cnta acest cntec OSR and CR Radu can to sing this song Mara knows (how) to sing this song. (126) a. Radu poate cnta acest cntec. OSR and CR Radu can sing.Inf this song Radu can sing this song.

PAGE 203

203 b. Mara tie cnta acest cntec. OSR and CR Mara knows sing.Inf this song Mara knows (how) to sing this song. Restructuring is a phenomenon in which the clau sal complement of a verb is reduced in size, i.e., a biclausal senten ce is transformed into a monoc lause sentence (Rizzi 1982, also Chapter 3, Section 3.7). In Rizzi (1982), a key di agnostic of restructuring is clitic climbing: a clitic associated with the embedde d predicate can climb into the higher clause and cliticize to the matrix verb. Clitic climbing shows that restructuring was optional in OSR with a putea (127a) but is obligatory in CR, (127b). Notice that the non-restructuring example (127a) includes the mood marker a and a clitic. Clitic climbing is impossi ble in this context, (127c). In the restructuring case, (127b), the mood marker is absent and th e clitic climbs. (127) a. Poate a le cump ra mine. OSR and CR Can.3sg to cl.them buy tomorrow S/he can buy them tomorrow. b. Le poate cump ra mine. CR only cl.them can.3sg buy.Inf tomorrow S/he can buy them tomorrow. c. Le poate a cump ra mine. cl.them can.3sg to buy tomorrow The contrast in (128a) versus (129b) shows that restructur ing with clitic climbing has never been possible with the verb a ti All verbs (except a putea) behave like (128). One example, with the verb a spera to hope is given in (129), wh ere clitic climbing fails (129b). Examples like (128, 129) are represen tative of other verbs as well. (128) a. Radu tie a le pune la loc. OSR and CR Radu knows to cl.them put in place Radu knows how to put them back in place. b. *Radu le tie pune la loc. OSR and CR Radu cl.them knows put.Inf in place

PAGE 204

204 (129) a. Mara sper a le termina la timp. Mara hopes to cl.them finish on time Mara hopes to finish (those things) on time. b. *Mara le sper termina la timp. Mara cl.them hopes finish.Inf on time If we accept clitic climbing as a diagnostic for restructuring, the data illustrate that restructuring occurred only with a putea but not elsewhere in Romania n. It follows that infinitive complements are full clauses and not bare VPs lacking Tense projections. 4.8.2 Infinitival Complement Clauses Can be Introduced by Complementiz ers An incomplete list of verbs that take de a-infinitive complements and a number of original examples of infinitival comp lements introduced by the complementizer de are included in Section 4.3. As the examples show, all seman tic categories of verb s (excepting interrogative verbs) may have infinitival complement clauses introduced by the complementizer de Interrogative verbs like a ti to know can take infinitiva l complements introduced by the complementizer dac whether. One example is given in (130). (130) Radu nu tie dac a se ntlni cu Mara Radu not knows whether to rflx meet with Mara sau cu Ana. or with Ana Radu doesnt know whether to meet Mara or Ana. Such examples suggest that control compleme nts can be CPs given the presence of an overt C Recall that the complementizer de is optional however. For ex ample, a matrix predicate like a ndr zni to dare may have an a-infinitive complement with or without de : (131) a. Radu a ndr znit de a fluiera n biseric Radu has dared de to whistle in church Radu dared to whistle in the church. b. Radu a ndr znit a fluiera n biseric Radu has dared to whistle in church Radu dared to whistle in the church.

PAGE 205

205 The question is whether control complement s in examples like (131b) are also CPs. Unfortunately, these data do not inform the categor ical status of the infinitival complement. The data are compatible with two positions: One posi tion is that, in both cases, the complements are CPs and (130b) has a null complementizer. The s econd position is that (131a) contains a CP complement while (130b) has only an IP compleme nt. This issue, however, remains a topic for future research. 4.9 Conclusions In this chapter I described infinitival com p lement clauses as OC structures, subdivided into EC and PC complements. While both EC and PC have standard obligatory control properties, PC complements have unique characteristics. A PC complement with a syntactically singular controller and a collectiv e predicate must not have a pred icate inflected for plural or other plural elements (e.g., em phatic pronouns). Furthermore, EC and PC are different vis--vis Tense. EC complements have anaphoric tense whereas PC complements have dependent tense There are some similarities between in finitival complements and subjunctive complements. EC and OC-subjunctives complements are selected by the same classes of verbs and the same is true for PC and F-subjunctive complements. Also ECs and OC-subjunctives have anaphoric tense and PCs and F-subjunctives have dependent tense. Further research is necessary in order to find documented examples with PC structures. Concerning the two infinitival particles, a was found to be an inflecti onal element that heads its own projection M0/I0, while de a complementizer in C0.

PAGE 206

206 CHAPTER 5 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK C-ajung pe m ine nsumi a nu m mai cunoa te1 -Eminescu 5.1 Introduction Having described the subjunctive complem ent clauses and the infinitive complement clauses of Romanian and the elements of cont rol, it only remains to determine the syntactic theory that best fits the pr operties of these structures. The theoretical framework is expected to accommodate the types of OC and Fsubjunctive clauses and EC and PC infinitive clau ses, as they have been categorized in the previous chapters. For convenience, one example of each is also given below. The example in (1) is an obligatory control structure constructed w ith an OC-subjunctive verb. Recall that F-subjunctive structures are of two kinds. Th ey could be obligatory control structures having a PRO subjunctive like (2a) or they may be NOC structures having a pro or lexical subject, as represented in (2b). Infinitival OC complement s are divided into EC-infinitive clauses as illustrated in (3) and PC-infinitive clauses as the one in (4). While both OCsubjunctives and EC-infinitives are actually exhaustive control structures, the difference in label is considered useful for distinguishing subjunctive clauses from infinitival clauses. (1) Mara1 a reusit PRO1 s doarm putin. Mara has managed s sleep.3sg little Mara managed to sleep a little. (2) a. Radu1 sper PRO1 s plece el nsu i1/*ei n i i2 devreme. Radu hopes s leave.3sg himself/themselves early Radu hopes to return early. b. Radu1 sper s plece Mara2/pro2 devreme. Radu hopes s plece.3sg Mara early Radu hopes that Mara will return early. 1 So that I cannot, any longer, recognize myself.

PAGE 207

207 (3) Radu1 a ndr znit PRO1 a sta gol pe plaj Radu has dared to stay nude on beach Radu dared to stay naked on the beach. (4) Mara1 tie c Radu2 detesta PRO1+ a dansa Mara knows that Radu ha tes to dance mpreun la nunt together to wedding Mara knows that Radu hates to da nce together at the wedding. The two theories considered for Romanian OC structures are the Movement Theory of Control and the Agreement Model of Obligat ory Control, both based on the Minimalism Program. Section 5.2 is dedicated to the Movement Theory of Control (MTC). Fi rst, the tenets and the mechanism of this theory will be presente d. How the MTC applies to languages reported to have OC PRO case active like Icel andic OC structures will be th e topic of the next subsection. Finally, problems concerning case encountered wh en applying the MTC to Icelandic will be the goal of the last part of this section. Based on the discussions of how the MTC ma y apply to Icelandic, Section 5.3 is an attempt to apply the MTC to Romanian OC struct ures. This section will actually continue the descriptive analysis of Romanian OC structures regarding the case of PRO. The analysis of structural case, default case and quirky case, along with the evidence that PRO is not a trace/copy in an A-movement chain concludes th at the MTC is not attractive to Romanian OC constructions. Additionally, this section contains significant findi ngs about case in Romanian OC and raising structures, and differences between them. In Section 5.4, I describe Landaus (2000, 2004 et seq.) Agreement Model of Obligatory Control. I present the features involved in this theoretical fram ework e.g., [Tense], [Agr], etc, and the mechanism of computation, wh ich falls under the operation Agree (Chomsky, 2000,

PAGE 208

208 2001) involving feature matching, checking, and dele tion. Then, it will be shown, in detail, how this theory applies to each type of the Romanian OC structures I will describe and show in diagrams the Agree operation involved in the pro cess of licensing PRO. The main conclusions of this chapter will be ga thered in Section 5.5 5.2 The Movement Theory of Control (MTC) This section presents the Movem ent Theory of Control (MTC), an al ternative approach of control proposed by Hornstein (1999, 2000, 2001 et seq.) First, the main assumption and the mechanism of the MTC will be presented, follo wed by Boeckx & Hornsteins (2006) assessment of case in Icelandic OC structur es and their approach of appl ying the MTC to this language. Finally, the problems faced by the MTC vis--vi s the case of OC PRO will be brought up, as observed in Bobaljik & Landau (2007) 5.2.1 The Tenets and Mechanism of the MTC Hornstein reduces control to m ovement so that raising and control ar e unified as one type of syntactic construction. In his view, OC is a consequence of A-movement and the controlled empty subject exhibits the characteristics of an NP trace/copy. He separates control into obligatory control (OC) and Nonobligatory control (NOC) and inte rprets obligatory control as a result of movement parallel to raising structures Under this approach, OC PRO is a trace of the moved argument, the matrix controll er, while the NOC PRO is a small pro In Government and Binding Chomsky (1981, 1986a, 1986b) and early minimalist approach of OC Chomsky, 1993, 1995 (the classical account of OC) the mechanism includes the following components (See also the review of control in Chapter 1): (5) a. An argument chain supports onl y one theta-role; Theta roles are not checkable features; No moveme nt to a theta position is possible b. PRO exists and PRO and trace are distinct

PAGE 209

209 c. PRO has null case d. Control is greed e. Control is not movement; control and raising are different; control involves two argument chains, whereas raising involves just one. In the classical approach, the OC sentence (6 ) has the configuration in (7), where the embedded clause hosts the chain of PRO, while the controller has its own chain in the matrix. (6) [Lisa tried [to upset Roy]] (7) [IP Lisa1 [vP tLisa tried [IP PRO1 to [vP tPRO upset Roy]]]] The tenets of the MTC listed in (8) are the major departures from the PRO tradition: (8) a. Theta-roles are checkable featur es on verbs, and can trigger movement. b. There is no upper bound on the number of theta-roles a chain can have c. PRO and trace are indistinguishable, so PRO does not exist d. There is no null case; the subject of infinitives (OC) is caseless e. Greed is Enlightened Self-Interest f. Control is movement subjected to the Minimal Link Condition (MLC) A movement theory of control is not possible as the effect of the Theta Criterion (defined in Chapter 1). Since a DP must have only one theta role, and the position of PRO is a theta position, movement to a theta position is prohibited. Hornstein (1999) turns theta roles into checkable featur es pretty much like person, gender, number features. As checkable features, theta roles can drive movement. Moreover, a DP could have an unlimited number of theta featur es, thus movement to a theta position becomes possible even when the respective DP has been already assigned a theta role. Another restriction to movement is greed. Moveme nt is a last resort operation, so that this operation happens for a reason, to check a feature. Chomsky & Lasnik (1993) assume that PRO

PAGE 210

210 has a case, i.e. null case, that must be checked. Since PRO is believed to originate VP internally, it moves to embedded [Spec,IP] to check its case. Since PRO has both theta role and case, it cannot move further, to the [Spec,IP] of the ma trix because it would incur a greed violation. Later, in Lasnik (1995) Greed may be interp reted as enlightened se lf interest whereby an element moves to check a feature of its own or a feature of the target. Within the MTC, treating theta-roles as features on the verb/predicate allows a DP to move to a theta position and complies with Greed by checking that feature. In GB traces and PRO are fundamentally di stinguished. The distribution of PRO is accredited to the PRO Theorem. PRO must not be governed and heads its own chain. Traces are necessary for the Empty Category Principle (ECP), must be governed and cannot head their own chains. In GB as in the Minimalist Program A-chai ns are constrained to one theta role and that theta position coincides w ith the foot of a chain. The main difference between PRO and traces comes from the sources of their indices. Traces derive from movement; the existe nce of PRO is due to theta-theory. In Hornsteins framework, once theta-roles ma y be accrued in the process of a derivation, a chain may also bear more than one theta-role Without the theta-role restrictions, Hornstein believes that PRO like NPtrace is residue of mo vement. Thus, PRO does not exist. It is simply a trace or a copy in A-movement. The Minimal Distance Principle (MDP) beco mes MLC Minimal Link Condition in the MTC. The MDP formulated first in Rosenba um (1967) selects the closest c-commanding antecedent as the controller of PRO. Thus, x is the controller of PRO iff x c-commands PRO. In the examples below, the MDP correctly picks the cont roller (the subject in (9 ), the object in (10), and the subject in (11).

PAGE 211

211 (9) John1 hopes/expects/wants [PRO1 to leave] (10) John1 persuaded Bill2 [PRo2/*1 to leave] (11) John1 promised Bill2 [PRO1/*2 to leave] In Hornstein s (1999) approach, the MLC is treated as a markedness condition and verbs like persuade become unmarked and promise highly marked, i.e., exceptions. Thus, the MLC restricts A-movement. Concerning case, Hornstein expects to fi nd OC PRO/copy in positions from which movement is licit, roughly a non-case marked position, e.g., in a nonfinite clause. In Hornsteins (1999) account, the mechanism of OC as a reflex of movement follows the steps shown in (12). First John merges with leave thereby checking the ve rbs theta-role. Then John moves to the embedded [Spec,IP] to check the D-features of the IP. This IP is not a case position, so John further moves to [Spec,VP] of hope and checks the external theta-feature of this verb. Each time John/the moved NP checks a theta-featur e of a predicate it assumes that theta-role. John has two theta roles here (the minimum in OC movement). Finally John raises to the [Spec,IP] of the matrix to check the D-feature of the IP and nominative case. The author points out that this is the only place where John checks case. Case is required for phonetic visibility. (12) a. John hopes to leave. b. [IP John [VP John [hopes [IP John to [VP leave]]]] In sum, PRO, now a copy, emerges in a non-case position, then moves for case to the case position of the matrix and once its ca se is checked, the respective copy becomes phonetically realized. In th e process, the copy gets two theta roles: one from the embedded verb, the other from the matrix verb.

PAGE 212

212 5.2.2 The MTC and Case (The Case of Icelandic) Recently, th e MTC has been expanded to inco rporate case. Boekcx & Hornstein (2006), henceforth B&H, claim that A-movement is possi ble in a control enviro nment in Icelandic, a language known to be, as Sigursson (2008) puts it, a moderately rich case language with an unusually rich case agreement a nd where PRO is also case active, a subject explored in depth by Andrews (1990) and Sigursson (1989,1991, 2003). The purpose of this subsection is to present B&Hs solutions intended to show that the case of PRO is not a problem in Icelandic OC structures for the MTC. The configuration in (13) represents the generalization of case patt ern in Icelandic OC structures from the available data in the l iterature (e.g., Sigurdsson, 1991) as interpreted by B&H, where the NP represents the matrix cont roller and embedded PRO matches its case with the case of floating quantifiers (QF) or with secondary predic ates (SP). In B&Hs view, PRO does not exist and case clash between the cont roller and the embedde d null subject is not possible. (13) NP1 Case [PRO1 Case floating Q/secondary predicate Case ] The authors consider first some basic fact s about Icelandic. Th ey argue that overt morphological agreement on finite verbs (person, number) and passive past participles (case, number, gender) is only possible with elements bearing structural case. By contrast, all elements whether bearing structural or quirky case can agree (in case, nu mber, gender) with SPs and FQs. Since these elements overtly display the case of the NP they relate to, B&H believe that Sigursson (1991) assumes (incorrectly) that their case reveals the case of PRO. As a result, in Sigurssons interpretation OC PRO can bear either structural or quirky case. B&H include two examples from Sigursson (1991), where the SP for alone has structural accusative (14) or quirky dative case (15).

PAGE 213

213 (14) Jn ba Bjarna a koma einan. Jon.NOM asked Bjarni.ACC to come alone.ACC Jon asked Bjarni to come alone. (15) Jn ba Bjarna a leiast ekki einum. Jon.NOM asked Bjarni.ACC to be.bored not alone.DAT Jon asked Bjarni not to be bored alone. With these basic facts about Icelandic in mind and from the available data in the literature, B&H find the following case patterns in Icelandic OC infinitival structures, where NP represents the matrix controller and the cas e on the embedded clause appear only on floating quantifiers (QF) and secondary predicates (SP). (16) a. nominative NP[nominative FQ/SP ] b. accusative NP [accusative FQ/SP/(margi nally ) default nominative FQ/SP] (17) a. nominative NP [quirky FQ/SP ] b. accusative NP [ quirky FQ/SP ] (18) quirky NP [default nominative FQ/SP ] (19) quirky NP [quirky FQ/SP ] The patterns (16a) and (16b) ar e illustrated by the sentences (20) and (21) respectively. B&H (2006:595) notice that when the antecedent is nominative (20) the SP is also nominative. If the antecedent is accusative ( 21) the SP is either accusative or marginally nominative. They actually conclude that accusative is strongly preferred and take this to indicate that in such situations, nominative is really a marked defau lt case realization. They also say that default nominative case in nonfinite contexts is quite common in Icelandic. (20) Jn vonast til [a koma einn/*einan]. Jon.NOM hopes to to come alone.NOM/ACC Jon hopes to come alone. (21) Jn ba Bjarna a koma einan/??einn. Jon.NOM asked Bjarni.ACC to come alone.ACC/NOM Jon asked Bjarni to come alone.

PAGE 214

214 The sentences (22) and (23) reflect the patt erns in (17) where the controller is an accusative object (22) or nominative subject (23) both bearing structural case, while the case of the SP is a quirky dative. (22) Jn ba Bjarna a leiast ekki einum/*einan/*einn Jon.NOM asked Bjarni.ACC to be.bored not alone.DAT/ACC/NOM Jon asked Bjarni not to be bored alone. (23) Jn vonast til [a leiast ekki einum/*einan/*einn]. Jon.NOM hopes to to be.bored not alone.DAT/ACC/NOM Jon hopes not to be bored alone. The matrix quirky case in the pattern (18) may be accusative (24a) or dative (24b) while the embedded case is limited to nominative. For this situation the nominative on the SP is also considered default case as there is no source fo r structural nominative in the embedded clause. p.596. (24) a. Bjarna la ngai ekki til a hlaupa einn/*?einan. Bjarni.ACC wanted not to to run alone.NOM/ACC Bjarni wanted not to run alone. b. Bjarna leiddist a hlaupa einn/*?einum. Bjarni.DAT was.bored to run alone.NOM/ACC Bjarni was bored to be running alone. The representations in (25) illustrate the patt ern (19) with the observation that the matrix quirky case and the embedded quirky case are never th e same. As can be seen, the antecedent in (25a) is quirky accusative and the SP for alone is dative. In (25b), the antecedent is quirky dative while the SP is accusative. (25) a. Bjarna langai ekki til a leiast einum/*einan/*einn Bjarni.ACC wanted not to to be.bored alone.DAT/ACC/NOM Bjarni wanted not to be bored alone. b. Bjarna leiddist a vanta einan/*einum/*einn Bjarni.DAT was.bored to be.missing alone.ACC/DAT/NOM veisluna. from the.party Bjarni was bored not to be alone at the party.

PAGE 215

215 From these data, B&H reach the conclusion that structural nominative is not available in OC structures in Icelandic either because it is default by virtue of being marked or because there is no source for structural nominative in infinitiv al clauses. And when it comes to structural Case values, Icelandic control is just like E nglish control. Multiple case-assignments appear only where multiple quirky case values are assigned and since quirky case is a kind of inherent Case2, as conventionally assumed (i.e ., a Case that is tightly connected to thetarole assignment as opposed to agreement as Chomsky (1986) argued ). Icelandic is again just like English. In applying the MTC to OC structures in Ic elandic, B&H (2006) assume certain rules. Following Nunes (1999, 2004) B&H assume that the case value that surfaces on a moving element in a chain is always the highest case value, where the moving element is pronounced (Case is required for phonetic visibility). In B&Hs opinion, Case is morphologically realized only once (p.600). In order for the embedded null s ubject (OC PRO) to move to the matrix case position to get structural case, it must not get structural case locally in the embedded clause. Since no structural case is possible in an Icelandic OC and the MTC requires multiple theta-role-assignment to a si ngle chain, the copy of the cont roller moves from the embedded clause where it gets a theta role to the matrix to get the second theta role and structural case. Once the structural case is assigned, the highest copy gets pronounced. Multiple inherent/quirky case in control structures simply follow from the connection between theta-role and inherent case, p.597. 2 Schtze (1993) in his fn1 includes th at Levin & Simpsons (1981) definition of quirky case as the displacement of structural case by non-NOM marking on subjects and non-ACC markings on objects, then Schtze concludes: thus quirky is not a synonym for inherent which refers to a case that is assigne d in conjunction with a theta-role. He also adds that not all quirky cases are inherent cases. Zaenen et al. (1985) charact erize quirky case as having mixed properties showing distribution like structural case and case preservation.

PAGE 216

216 Technically, the pattern in (17a)/sentences (2 2) with nominative NP and quirky FQ/SP is realized as in (26). The embedded quirky case e quals the assignment of a theta-role to the moving element (controller), but th e FQ is assigned quirky case in Step 1. Then the moved NP is attracted by the matrix verb and receives a second theta-role (Step 2). Finally, the NP gets structural case in T0 and moves further to check EPP. (26) NPi T0 ti V0 [Tinf V0 [ti FQ]] Step 1: embedded V0 assigns a theta-role/ quirky Case to NP and quirky Case to FQ Step 2: matrix V0 attracts NP and assigns a theta role to it Step 3: matrix T0 assigns structural Case to NP, which moves to check EPP. For the pattern (19)/sentences (25a,b) with quirky case upstairs and quirky case downstairs, the first two stops are those in (26). Si nce there is no structural case in the matrix, the NP raises (Step 3) only to check EPP. The embedded quirky case on the NP is always overridden. When either nominative or accusative appears both in the matrix and the subordinate, the NP gets its theta-role downstairs and the sec ond theta-role and structur al case upstairs. The embedded FQ/SP gets structural case by multiple Agr ee. The configuration in (27) illustrates the pattern nominative NP (def ault) nominative FQ/SP. (27) NPi T0 ti V0 [Tinf V0 [ti FQ]] Step 1:embedded V0 assign a theta-role to NP Step2: matrix V0 attracts NP and assigns a theta-role to it Step 3:matrix T0 assigns structural nominative to NP and FQ by multiple Agree B&H (2006:602) proposed a possible implementa tion of Case stacking in control. To implement this proposal, the authors made two assumptions: (a) Case is valued as soon as possible, and (b) Case values are fixed morphologically in the PF comp onent. They also assume that inherent/quirky case cannot be assigned long distance. Finally th ey point out that It is important to note that such assu mptions are not specific to control.

PAGE 217

217 5.2.3 Problems with the MTC and the Case of OC PRO B&Hs (200 6) presentation of the Icelandic facts prompted criticism from Bobaljik & Landau (2007), henceforth B&L, and Sigursson (2008). B&L who use the same available data in the literature before B&H (2006) observe that B&H although cite these works, they systematically neglect to mention the behavior of MP (adjectives, nouns or past participle) in infinitives and from Sigursson s (1991) paper they selectively mention only his examples of agreement with FQ/SP. Sigurssons (2008) reply is very detailed adding new supportive evidence (to the old one including his own) and characterizes B&Hs account as: their presentation of the Icelandic facts is inadequate and misleading. I will only present the problems with B&Hs solutions for Icelandic as observed by B&L, but I will also include Sigurssons (2008) general patterns of case in this language. 5.2.3.1 Quirky case The m ost prominent characteristic of qui rky case appears to be preservation, a phenomenon very well established due to quite numerous studies on this subject, and almost all of them included Icelandic. Case preservation means that the lower case of a DP in a chain percolates upwards to the topmost position. Schtze (1993) dedicates a comprehensive study to the quirky case in Icelandic. He concludes that dative and geni tive quirky cases are always preserved under passivization. The most striking fact about quir ky objects is that they retain their quirky case marking under passivization, p.353. As for quirky subjects, the author notes that quirky subject verbs embedded under an ECM verb show no change of s ubject case even under subsequent passive in the matrix clause because their inherent case ove rrides the structural case of the higher clause, p.367.

PAGE 218

218 Also, Bejar & Massam (1999:68) confirm that in Icelandic passive sentences, when both a quirky and a structural case are assigned, the quirky case must win. More generally, Halle & Mara ntz (1993) argue that the more highly specified case (quirky case) is realized, i.e., in case of a DP with a quirky case and a structural case the quirky case will be phonologically reali zed. Also, Miller (2002:20-27) poi nts out that structural case yields to quirky case and this is true in every language that permits only one morphological case on a word. Based on these facts about quirky case in gene ral and Icelandic in particular, B&L (2007) point out the problem faced by the MTC in handling Icelandic OC structures of the type included in B&Hs patterns of (22a,b), where the embe dded subject is marked quirky case and the controller is marked nominative or accusative. B&L cite Andrews (1990:189-190) who calls the phenomenon of cas e preservation of quirky case-marked NPs in Icel andic a striking peculiarity3. B&L reproduce Andrews illustration of case preservation under passive, in ECM/Raising-to-object, and passive of ECM. The example included below (28b) shows case preservation in subject-to-subject raising across virist seem. (B&L indicate that the embedded predicate batna recover from takes a dative subject and nominative object). (28) a. Barninu batnai veikin. the.child.DAT recovered.from the.disease.NOM The child recovered from the disease. b. Barninu virist hafa batna veikin. the.child.DAT seems to.have recovered.from the.disease.NOM The child seems to have r ecovered from the disease. 3 As Sigursson (2008) puts it quirky cas e actually repels structural case.

PAGE 219

219 Furthermore, B&L conclude that the sum of all the evidence shows that the distribution of quirky case DPs behave like structural case DP s and that the case value that surfaces on the moved DP is always the lowest case value, the one determined by the thetaassigning predicate. Following Andrews (1976, 1982, 1990), Thrin sson (1979) and Sigursson (1989, 1991), B&L argue that in OC structures the case of the controller is determined locally, case preservation being ungrammatical Their illustrative example (f rom Andrews, 1990) is included below. In the OC example of (29b) the lowe r default dative cannot reach the topmost case position thus the case of the contro ller is licensed locally in the matrix. Compare (29b) with the case percolation/preservation in (29a). (29) a. Honum var bjarga fr fjallinu. him.DAT was rescued.DFLT from the.mountain He was rescued from the mountain. b. Hann/*Honnum vonast til a vera bjar ga fr fjallinu. he.NOM/*DAT hopes to be rescued.DFLT from the.mountain He hopes to be rescued from the mountain. B&L stress that the failure of case preservation in control structures i s the result of there being two distinct nominal elements involved: the controller and PRO, each with its own case and its own theta-role. Consequent ly, if control is A-movement quirky case should be retained on the moved DP, contrary to the facts. B&L also notice that B&H fail to consider data where both the controller and the controlee bear the same quirky cas e. B&Hs pattern (24) only show s that those quirky cases have a different value (e.g., accusative and dative). B&L include four examples with quirky case transmission in Icelandic implying that quirky/inherent case is not different from structural in respect to case transmission and it cannot be redu cible to a theta role. Thus, the matrix quirky

PAGE 220

220 case is transmitted to PRO but the theta role is not due to unattested long-distance theta role transmission. 5.2.3.2 Icelandic OC PRO and structural case As discussed above, B&H conclude that no stru ctural case is possibl e in OC clauses in Icelandic on the grounds that nominative is considered default by virtue of m arkedness or because there is no source for struct ural case in infinitival clauses. For B&Hs pattern (21b), accusative object control, where the embedded agreeing elements show case variation between nomina tive and accusative, and where accusative is considered the basic form, B&L notice two flaws. First, accusative is not always available on agreeing elements in infinitives as can be s een from the example (30a) from Thrinsson (1979), where nominative is obligatory. (30) g ba Maru a vera tekin/*tekna af lgreglunni I.NOM asked Maria.ACC to be taken.NOM/ACC by the.police I asked Maria to be taken by the police. Second, nominative is not marginally possible on the floating quantifier and accusative strongly preferred. Rather, the nominative is strongly preferred or exclusively possible. Preference for nominative over accusative case tran smission is clear when the agreeing element is not a SP, the only type illustrated by B&H, but an MP, a past participle as in (30). B&L point out that although B&H cite Andrew s (1982) in their fn.8 they fail to mention that Andrews was struck by the predominance of NOM in OC infinitives, not its marginality. In fact, Andrews considers the case matching with the controller (accusative) as performance. B&L also include Sigurssons (2002:712) observation that as a matter of fact, case-copying down into the infinitive is marked or questionable for many speakers and even out

PAGE 221

221 for some4. Obviously, B&L conclude that nominative in Icelandic OC infinitives is not marked, nor default as a result of markedness. Recall th at B&H also claim that nominative is default because there is no source for structural nominative in infinitival clauses, th at is, due to lack of gender, number and case agreement with MPs. B&L reply that the passive participle ob ligatorily exhibits gender, number and case agreement with the null subject of infinitival cl auses showing evidence with illustrative examples like the one in (30) above. The default non-agreei ng form of the participle in (30) would have been teki The default form is mandatory when th e subject does not have structural case. B&L include the pair in (31) taken from Sigursson (1991) along with his explanation. Where the embedded infinitive predicate is a structural nominative case assigner (31a) the participle must have agreeing nom inative agreement. Where the embedded predicate is a quirky case assigner (31b) to be helped assigns dative then the participle is obligatorily in the default/non-agreeing form. (31) a. Strkarnir vonast til a vera astoair/*astoa. the.boys.NOM hoped to be aided.NOM.PL/*DFLT The boys hope to be aided. b. Strkarnir vonast til a vera hjlpa/*hjlpair/*hjlpaum. the.boys.NOM hoped to be helped.DFLT/*NOM.PL/*DAT.PL The boys hope to be helped. In fact, the nominative on PRO does not beha ve like any known instances of default nominative in Icelandic, i.e. di slocated DPs and vocative DPs. The example of (32) features a true default nominative DP (in bold), which fail to trigger agreement on participles. (32) Strkurinn, vi hann var ekki dansa /*dansaur. the.boy.NOM with him.ACC was not dansed.DFLT/*NOM.SG.M The boy, nobody danced with him. 4 B&Hs claim that the nominative morp hology is rather marked is labeled untrue by Sigursson, 2008.

PAGE 222

222 To finish this subsection and for more clarity (assuming it is necessary), I add Sigurssons (2008) conclusions re garding the pattern of agreemen t in Icelandic. He maintains that in Icelandic PRO infinitives there are elemen ts displaying morphological reflections of case: adjectival and participial (primary) predicates (MPs); floating quantifie rs; other case-agreement elements (indefinite pronouns, secondary predicates,). Furthermore, Sigursson states: PRO usually tr iggers case agreement in infinitives in the same fashion as overt subjects do in finite clauses. The general pa ttern is given in (33,34). It is obvious that there is no differen ce between finite and infinitive contexts in this respect. (33) a. [CP NP.NOM .. VFINITE XNOM ] b. [CP PRO.NOM VINF XNOM ] (34) a. [CP NP.QUIRKY ...VFINITE XQUIRKY/DFT ] b. [CP PRO.QUIRKY VINF .. XQUIRKY/DFT ] The author illustrates these generalizations wi th a wealth of examples, showing that PRO in OC infinitive clauses indeed triggers exactly the same agreem ent (including with MPs) as any lexical subjects in finite contex ts. He demonstrates that only thos e predicative adjectives and past participles that agree in finite clauses can show agreement in PRO infinitives. He concludes that these generalizations are exceptionless and they are accounted for if Icelandic PRO is assigned structural or quirky case in the same fashion as overt s ubject NPs in finite clauses. Sigursson points out that B&H do not discuss these patterns. B&L reach the same conclusion using Icelandic data available in the literature prior to B&H (2006). That is, OC PRO in Icelandic bears structural nominative or quirky case, which is not overridden by a matrix structural case. 5.2.3.3 The lexicalization problem In Icelandic (and m ost languages) the DP s ubject/PRO of infinitival OC complement clauses must always be nonlexic al as generally assumed. If OC in Icelandic is a reflex of A-

PAGE 223

223 movement, then the MTC runs into the lexi calization problem according to B&L (2007) or Sigurssons (2008) silence problem, that is, PRO will become phonologically realized. B&L find that the application of the MTC to Icelandic overgenerates such OC clauses, i.e., with overt subjects5. They argue that since the controller and the controlee/PRO bear distinct cases and since lack of case at the base of the chain is a requirement for A-movement, than OC is not a reflex of A-movement. They present three instances of PRO being lexicalized if control is reduced to Amovement: When PRO bears structural nominative, when PRO bears structural accusative, and when PRO bears inherent/quirky case. Since the MTC relies on Nunes (1995) theory of copy deletion according to which a single copy will be spelled out in an A-chain, the one in the case position, and since it has been established that PRO bears structural (nominative) case in Icelandic, the OC chain is structurally marked twice, at the tail (PRO) a nd at the head (controller). Once the tail position is structurally marked nominative, that position is able to host a lexical DP, thus the embedded DP subject gets its theta-role and struct ural nominative and the matrix DP gets its theta-role and case in the matrix clause. Consequently, the MTC predicts representati ons like (35a) from Jnsson (1996), B&Ls Overgeneration I, where the embedded null subject is lexicalized. Two sepa rate chains (one in the matrix, one in the embedded clause) will avoid the lexicalization problem. (35) *Jn vonast til [hann/Ei rkur a vera rinn] Jon.NOM hopes he/Eric.NOM to be hired.NOM.M.SG Jon hopes for him(self)/Eric to be hired. 5 B&L add that if it may be possible to have a lexical PRO subject in an OC structure (in some languages) to have both the controller and the control ee lexicalized remains a problem.

PAGE 224

224 Overgeneration II, occurs when an accusative PRO become a lexical subject. In case of structural accusative case transmission, B&Hs ( 16b) pattern, B&L argue that this environment gives rise to a lexical accusative subject under object cont rol, if control is m ovement. As a result, sentences like (36) from Thrinss on (1979:301) will be overgenerated. (36) g ba Maru [a (*hana/*Bjarna) fara anga] I asked Maria.ACC to he/Bjarni.ACC go there I asked Maria for him/Bjarna) to go there. Overgeneration III, lexicalizing a quirky PR O would be possible when the controlee bears quirky case and the controller is nominative, an instance of multiple case assignment accepted by B&H (2006). An example, after Zaen en et al (1985:109), is given in (37). (37) g vonast til [a (*mr/*Jni) vera hjlpad]. I.NOM hope for to me/Jon.DAT be helped I hoped (for myself/Jon) to be helped. B&L indicate that there are tw o possibilities here. Either a quirky case is sufficient to license a lexical DP (as in B&H s examples (24,25) in which situ ation the lexica lization of PRO is imminent (37), or a quirky case is not suffi cient to license a lexical DP and the case preservation problem arises, thus (22) should not exist. B&L (2006) conclude that B&H s article is not a challenge to the 30 year mainstay of the basic contrast between raising a nd control in Icelandic case pres ervation in the former and case independence in the latter, as attesting to the fundamentally different nature of the two processes. They offer a case overwriting mechanism that appears to simply fail in raising (or any other A-movement) contexts. Likewise, th eir discussion of NOM case in control infinitives is inconsistent with the facts as reported in all previous studies of the topic. This NOM exhibits the hallmark of standard structural case it triggers full agreement on MPs. Not only is it not marked (as B&H clai m) it is often the only option available. B&Hs exclusive focus on the cas e marking of SPs/FQs, as opposed to MPs, is a crucial oversight; it renders their da ta irrelevant to their defaultness claim.

PAGE 225

225 Ultimately, B&L state that the previous lit erature on Icelandic only led to one firm conclusion that PRO bear case and case cannot di stinguish the distributi on of lexical DPs from that of PRO. 5.3 The MTC and OC in Romanian This section presents evidence from case, sim ilar to that in Icelandic, that renders the Movement Theory of Control problematic for Roma nian obligatory control. The idea is that PRO in OC structures has standard case and cannot be reduced to a copy in an A-movement chain. Assuming that B&Hs (2006) solutions for Icelandi c are meant to work across languages, at least to languages that display similar case agreement, like Romanian, this section is an attempt to apply the MTC to the OC structures in this language. This analysis is based on both B&Hs solution for Icelandic and the prob lems with these solutions as discussed by B&L (presented in the previous section). 5.3.1 PRO Has Standard Case Reports of PRO bearing standard case in infini tiv e control contexts in languages such as Icelandic, Russian, Latin, etc and in subjunctive control Ro manian and Greek, etc., have suggested that the distribution of PRO can be dissociated from case. Comorovski (1986) was the first to notice that the emphatic pr onoun pronounced in the embedded clause has the same case as the clause subject PRO in Romanian subjunctive clauses. In her view, PRO represents the antecedents (a kind of copy) for these emphatic pronouns. The case of PRO is the case reflected on various elements marked for case: floating quantifiers, emphatic pronouns and epithets. The cas e of PRO is also reflected on secondary and main predicates. To avoid the repetition of simila r data, examples with ca se agreement with MPs and SPs will be included in 5.2.3.

PAGE 226

226 In (1a,b) the case of PRO is nominative, the case reflected on the agreeing floating quantifier, epithet, and the emphatic pronoun ei n i i/chiar ei / ei themselves. (38a) is an OCsubjunctive structure and (38b) is its infinitive counterpart. Most of the illustrative examples used in this section will have two varian ts: one for subjunctive, one for infinitive. (38) a. B ie ii1 ncearc [PRO.Nom1 s noate boys.the.Nom try3.pl s swim.3pl toti/ idiotii/ ei n i i/ chiar ei1 f r vest ] all/ idiots.the/ themselves/ ev en they.Nom without vest The boys are trying to swim wit hout a life jacket the idiots! b. B ie ii1 ncearc [PRO.Nom1 a nota boys.the.Nom try3.pl to swim toti/ idiotii/ ei n i i/ chiar ei1 f r vest ] all/ idiots.the/ themselves/ even they.Nom without vest The boys are trying to swim wit hout a life jacket the idiots! The case of PRO and the case of the controller may be identical (nominative) as in (38) or distinct according to the examples (39), wher e the case of the DP cont roller is nominative and that of PRO is quirky dative. Thus, when the structural nominative is not assigned in the embedded clause, the case of PRO may be a dative quirky case, the case any lexical DP would have in the same position. (39) a. Mara1 ncearc [PRO.Dat1 s nu i1 M.Nom tries s not cl.Dat se fac ei n i i1 dor de copii] rflx make.3sg herself.Dat longing of children Mara is trying not to miss her children herself. b. Mara1 ncearc [PRO.Dat1 a nu i1 M.Nom tries to not cl.Dat se face ei n i i1 dor de copii] rlfx make herself.Dat longing of children Mara is trying not to mi ss her children herself.

PAGE 227

227 The following indicative constructions show that the embedded lexical subject Mara may be nominative (40) or quirky dative (41) confirming that the case pattern of subjects is the same for lexical DPs and for PRO. (40) Radu1 sper [c va ajunge Mara2 R,Nom hopes that will.3sg reach M.Nom la timp la aeroport] on time to airport Radu hopes that Mara will reach the airport on time. (41) Radu1 nu crede [c i se va face R.Nom not believes that cl.Dat rflx will.3sg make Marei2 dor de familie]. M.Dat longing of family Radu does not believe that Ma ra will miss her family. OC structures where the controller bears nonnominative case will be discussed in the following subsections. 5.3.2 On Raising Structures in Romanian Since raisin g structures are a reflex of A-move ment and OC structures are also viewed as a reflex of A-movement within the MTC framework, a background of raising structures in Romanian is provided below6. The importance of raising structur es in this study is to contrast them with corresponding OC structur es, in order to determine whethe r control is also an instance of A-movement. The usual raising verb in Romanian is a prea to seem. The reflexive/ se verbs a se nimeri and a se ntmpla to happen are mostly impersona l verbs and excluded here. Although raising structures usually appear in subjunctive constructions, th eir infinitive counterparts are still in use. To avoid situations where a prea has impersonal use whose form matches the third 6 Although a number of raising sent ences are used as A-movement to co ntrast corresponding OC sentences, a thorough analysis of raising in Romani an is neither intended nor accomplished. For other asp ects/analyses of raising structures in Romanian see Motapanyane (1995) and Rivero & Geber (2005).

PAGE 228

228 person singular, the subject of this verb will have other person morphology or third person plural in the illustrative examples. The example (42a) features an infinitiva l raising structure and its corresponding configuration is given in (42b). As in ordinary infinitival raising structures, the subject raises to satisfy the EPP and get case. (42) a. Noi p rem a fi primii. we seem to be first.the We seem to be the first ones. b. [IPNoi [vP p rem [IPnoi a [vP noi fi primii]]]] The subjunctive counterpart of ( 42a) appears in (43a). Motapa nyane (1995) argues that in such instances the subject raises not for case but for the EPP only. On the other hand Rivero (1989) believe that the subject of a subjunctive raising structure raises for case. Without arguing for one or the other, I will treat all raising structures the same, i.e. their subject moves for case and EPP. The sentence of (43a) has the configuration in (44b). (43) a. Noi p rem s fim primii. we seem s be.1pl first.the We seem to be the first ones. b. [IPNoi [vP p rem [IPnoi s [vP noi fi primii]]]] It is important to note that raising verbs may have a double nature. Park & Park (2004) argue that raising verbs are of two types: They se lect for the raising type infinitival complement or for the OC-type complement. The latter type occurs in Spanish and Italian and when a dative experiencer argument is involved. Crosslinguistic variation is expected and can be seen even between Spanish and Italian. (Italian sembrare seem may selectively take a dative experiencer subject in an OC structure (Park & Park, 2004)).

PAGE 229

229 In Romanian, a prea can take an OC complement wh en the infinitival/subjunctive subject (PRO) is a dative experiencer (44a,b). Th e example (44) seems to be an instance of obligatory control for the followi ng reason. PRO must be dative case, which should be preserved in A-movement. Since it is not, (44) should not involve A-moveme nt. (A raising structure with case mismatch has never been attested). In 5.2.5 it will be shown that a p rea is not able to have an inherent/quirky (non-expletive) subject. (44) a. Noi1 p rem [PRO1 a ne1 fi (nou n ine1) we,Nom seem to cl.Dat be (ourselves.Dat) team de ceva] fear of something We seem to be (ourselves ) afraid of something. b. Noi1 p rem [PRO1 s ne1 fie (nou n ine1) we,Nom seem s cl.Dat be (ourselves.Dat) team de ceva] fear of something We seem to be (ourselves ) afraid of something. In (45) the verb a prea selects an indicative compleme nt, whose subject is a dative experiencer marked on the clitic, hence a prea does not appear in ra ising structures only. (45) Noi p rem [c ne e team de ceva]. we.Nom seem that cl.Dat is fear of something We seem to be afraid of something. The standard configuration of an OC structure, e.g., of (44a) repeated in (46a), is given in (46b) where there is a chain in the matrix (of the subject noi we) and one in the embedded clause, of PRO. In agreement with the MTC, ther e should be just one chain in (46b) as shown in (47). Notice that the copies have two forms in (47). (46) a. Noi1 p rem [PRO.Dat1 a ne1 fi (nou n ine1) we,Nom seem to cl.Dat be (ourselves.Dat) team de ceva] fear of something We seem to be (ourselves ) afraid of something.

PAGE 230

230 b. [IPNoi.Nom1 [vP noi.Nom1 p rem [IPPRO.Dat1 a [vP PRO.Dat1 ne.Dat fi team de ceva]]]] (47) [IPNoi1 [vP noi 1 p rem [IP nou 1 a [vP nou 1 ne fi team de ceva]]]] Even ignoring that a copy has two different forms in the same chain (47) and deleting them leaving the topmost (nominative) copy to be spelled out, the dative clitic ne (in bold), the mandatory double of the copy nou, serves as evidence that a case have been assigned (to PRO) in the subordinate. (Again, the dative clitic ne is the double of nou to us. Only the clitic is required. Nou is optional but excluded in OC clauses si mply because PRO is never lexical). It is not clear how the MTC would operate in this context. Quirky case in OC and raising will be discussed in 5.2.5. 5.3.3 Structural Case The cardinal claim in B&H (2006) is that nom inative case in infinitive contexts and nominative case in finite contexts are distinct species. Thus, nominative case in OC clauses would not be structural in Icelandic, and for that matter in Romanian, because of lack of agreement in the infinitive and because nominative would be marginal/marked and consequently a default case. B&H (2006:592) state: Overt morphological agreement on finite verbs (person, number) and passive past participle (cas e, number, gender) can only take place with elements bearing structural case. Furthermore, the agreement mu st be shown on MP elemen ts: passive participles and predicate nominals as opposed to floating quantifiers, emphatic pronouns, and SPs like the adjective singur alone in (49a,b and 50a,b). (By the quoted statement, the MTC is automatically excluded from subjunctive obligatory control).

PAGE 231

231 As already seen, B&L (2007) and S