LA OBLIGACIÓN DEBE CONSTAR EN UN TITULO EJECUTIVO.

The most common deviation in subject expression in participial relative clauses is encoding the subject as a possessor, which is available in 32 languages and with 106 participial forms in my sample. The possessive marking can appear in a variety of forms. For instance, in Kharia, the subject of a non-finite relative clause simply receives genitive marking, cf. (164). In Luiseño, the nominalized dependent predicate features a possessive marker referring to the agent, cf. (165). In Kolyma Yukaghir, the subject is expressed by the possessive marking on the modified noun outside the relative clause, cf. (166). Finally, the combination of the last two strategies is attested in Tundra Nenets, where the possessive marking can optionally be present both on the relative clause predicate and the head noun, cf. (167):

Kharia (Austro-Asiatic > Munda; India; Peterson 2011: 413) [iѪ=aҌ yo~yo] lebu

1SG=GEN see~PTCP person

‘the person I saw/see/will see’

Luiseño (California Uto-Aztecan; United States; Davis 1973: 236) as cited by Shopen (vol. 2: 253)

Nawítmal [Ҍé[ƾL Ҍu-qáni-pi] pilék yawáywis girl tomorrow your-meet-FUT/REL very pretty ‘The girl you’re going to meet tomorrow is very pretty.’ Kolyma Yukaghir (Yukaghir; Russia; Maslova 2003: 421)

[odu-pe modo-l] jalhil-pe-gi þRPǀG¶H jalhil ǀ-l’el

Yukaghir-PL live-AN lake-PL-POSS big.ATTR.ACT lake COP-INFR(3SG)

‘The lake where the Yukaghirs lived was a large lake.’

Tundra Nenets (Uralic > Samoyedic; Russia; Nikolaeva 2014: 315)

[ZROÛWDPSΩ-ZHPWÛ] xoba-PWÛ

dislike-PTCP.PFV.ACC.POSS.2SG skin-ACC.POSS.2SG

‘the skin (ACC) that you disliked’

Different strategies of subordinate subject encoding can be attested within a single language as well. In Kolyma Yukaghir, this distinction is one of the differences between so-called attributive relative clauses and nominal relative clauses, cf. (Maslova 2003: 329). In attributive relative clauses, which represent the primary relativization strategy in the

language, the A/S participant is encoded as the possessor of the modified noun. In nominal relative clauses, the A/S participant is encoded as the possessor of the nominal predicate. These two situations, however, are, in a way, two instances of one rule: the A/S participant is marked as the possessor of the noun heading the whole construction. If the predicate of a relative clause is nominal in its nature, it is treated as a possessee itself, while if it is adjectival, the modified noun is regarded as the head noun of the whole construction instead.

As Pakendorf (2012) shows based on the data from the languages of North Asia, even languages which at the first glance might seem very similar with respect to their relative clause structure, in fact can demonstrate considerable divergence, in particular regarding the types of possessive marking they exhibit in relative constructions. The differences can be the result of structural analogy of relative clauses with other types of constructions in the respective languages, such as complement clauses or possessive constructions. However, encoding of possession is relevant in all such cases, so I consider them altogether in this study.

In addition, in a number of languages it is not possible to determine whether the subject of a non-finite relative clause should be regarded as a possessor or not, since in some of them possession is expressed through mere juxtaposition. For example, in Kokama- Kokamilla, the agent in a clause relativizing a direct object, cf. (168a), does not receive any special marking and appears in exactly the same form as in an independent sentence, cf. (168b). However, the form in -n, the predicate of the relative clause, behaves as noun in many respects, and a sequence of two nouns (or a pronoun and a noun) is likely to be interpreted as [Npossessor Npossessed], cf. (168c):

Kokama-Kokamilla (Tupian > Tupí-Guaraní, Peru; Vallejos Yopán 2010: 590, 469, 275)

a. tsa mѠmѠra [yawara karuta-n] yapana=uy 1SG.F woman.son dog bite-NMZ.S/P run=PST1

‘My son that the dog bit escaped.’ b. yawara mui karuta-ari

dog snake bite-PROG

‘The dog is bitting the snake.’ c. rikua tapira rimariru iriw=uy

reason tapir grandson return=PST1

‘And that’s why the tapir’s grandson returned.’

As a result, it is not possible to identify whether the agent in the participial relative clause in Kokama-Kokamilla is a possessor of the nominalized verb form, or a regular subject. Both nominative arguments and possessors are also zero-marked in Cofán (Cofán; Colombia, Ecuador; Fischer & van Lier 2011: 223), which neutralizes the difference between the most typical verbal and nominal subject expression. This issue can appear to be relevant for some other languages as well.

Quite naturally, if a language employs possessive marking to express the subject of a participial relative clause, it may be able to use reflexive possessive marking for the relative clause subject coreferential with the subject of the main clause. 0DO¶þXNRY

216–217) reports this type of expression for Tungusic languages (Even, Nanai, Evenki), cf. examples in (169) from Nanai, where the non-coreferential subject requires the 3rd

person possessive marker -ñi on the participle, while the coreferential subject is represented by the reflexive possessive marker -bi:

Nanai (Tungusic; Russia; personal field notes)

a. mi GDƾVD-sal-ba [ama DƾJR-xa-ñi] taaxy-du 1SG book-PL-ACC father make-PTCP.PST-POSS.3SG shelf-DAT

nee-kte-xem-bi

put-PLR-PTCP.PST-POSS.1SG

I put books on the shelf that my father had made.’

b. Polokto [þimi waa-xam-bi] sogdata-wa DUþokam-ba Polokto morning kill-PTCP.PST-POSS.REFL.SG fish-ACC girl-ACC

sya-wan-ki-ñi

eat-CAUS-PTCP.PST-POSS.3SG

‘Polokto fed the girl with the fish that he caught in the morning.’

Dayley (1989: 360–362) provides similar examples of direct object relativization in Tümpisa Shoshone (Uto-Aztecan > Numic; United States), where the subject of the relative clause is expressed as a regular possessor if it is not coreferential with the subject of the main clause, but a reflexive possessive pronoun is used if the subjects of the two clauses are coreferential. Unfortunately, it is hardly possible to assess how widespread this phenomenon is, since the topic is very rarely discussed in language descriptions.

One more remark is in order here. Some languages in which the subject of a participial relative clause is regularly encoded as a possessor exhibit accusative subject marking in non-finite complement clauses featuring the same nominalized forms, cf. examples (170a) and (170b) from Kalmyk, where the form in -sΩn occurs with a genitive subject in a relative clause and with an accusative subject in a complement clause:

Kalmyk (Mongolic; Russia; personal field notes, Serdobolskaya 2008: 597)

a. [þLQL uu-þN-sΩn] cä jir sän bilä

2SG.GEN drink-COMPL-PTCP.PST tea very good be.REM

‘The tea that you drank up was very good.’

b. [þDPDJΩ cä uu-þN-s-i-nj_{] med-sΩn}

2SG.ACC tea drink-COMPL-PTCP.PST-ACC-POSS.3 know-PTCP.PST

uga-v

NEG.COP-1SG

‘I did not know that you had drunk up the tea.’

The accusative subject marking in such contexts is commonly explained by the raising of the dependent clause subject, cf. Serdobolskaya (2009), and since the phenomenon of raising is not relevant for relativization, in participial relative clauses accusative subjects are almost never attested. Probably the closest to accusative subject encoding can be found in Wappo, where the subject of a non-finite relative clause does not receive any marking and therefore should, according to Thompson et al. (2006: 117), be regarded as an

accusative, compare the form of the 1st_{person singular subject in the relative clause and}

the main clause below:

Wappo (Yuki-Wappo > Wappo; United States; Thompson et al. 2006: 117)

[i k’ew naw-ta] (ce) ah hak’-šeҌ

1SG man see-PST:DEP DEM 1SG:NOM like-DUR

‘I like the man I saw.’

This example is, however, the only one attested in my sample, and it does not feature any overt accusative marking, so it is possible to conclude that accusative is definitely not among the prominent strategies of subject encoding in participial relative clauses.