Cover not available
Part of
Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 14: Selected papers from the 46th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Stony Brook, NY
Edited by Lori Repetti and Francisco Ordóñez
[Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 14] 2018
► pp. 215–229

Chapter 12
Dependent numerals and dependent existentials in Romanian

| University of Bucharest

The paper discusses Romanian dependent indefinites (DepIndef’s) introduced by the distributive marker câte (/‘kɨ.te/). They come in two guises, referred to as dependent numerals (DepNum’s) in the configuration [câte num np], and dependent existentials (DepExist’s), in the configuration [câte sg-indef np]. The two marked indefinites are identical to their unmarked counterparts at the level of assertion. The narrower distribution of DepNum’s is an effect of the interaction between the numeral and certain Partition operators which license câte. The licensing condition of câte DPs in both guises states that these DPs must be under the scope of a D/Part operator in the terminology of Champollion (2016a,b). DepNum’s are associated with an event-dependent measure of cardinality.

Keywords: dependent indefinites, distributive operator, partition
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The distribution of DepIndef’s in Romanian
    • 2.1Does “câte” supply distributivity?
    • 2.2What type of variable may serve as key?
      • 2.2.1DepNums
      • 2.2.2DepExist’s
  • 3.The licensing conditions of câte dependent indefinited
    • 3.1Champollion’s D and Part operators
    • 3.2Romanian DepNum and DepExist
      • 3.2.1The semantic contribution of “câte” in DepIndef’s
      • 3.2.2Universally quantified sentences
      • 3.2.3Temporal keys
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 August 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.14.12pan
References
Brasoveanu, Adrian, and Donka F. Farkas
2011 “How Indefinites Choose Their Scope.” Linguistics and Philosophy 34 (1): 1–55.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brasoveanu, Adrian, and Robert Henderson
2009 “Varieties of distributivity: One by one vs. each.” Proceedings of SALT 19, ed. by Ed Cormany, Satoshi Ito, and David Lutz, 55–72. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Champollion, Lucas
2016a “Overt Distributivity in Algebraic Event Semantics.” Semantics and Pragmatics 9 (16). 1–65.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016b “Covert Distributivity in Algebraic Event Semantics.” Semantics and Pragmatics 9 (15). 1–66.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doetjes, Jenny, and Martin Honcoop
1997 “The Semantics of Event-related Readings: a case for pair quantification.” In Ways of scope taking, ed. by Anna Szabolcsi, 263–310. Dordrecht: Kluwer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dotlacil, Jakub
2015 “Why Is Distributivity so Hard? New Evidence from Distributive Markers and Licensors in Czech.” In Slavic Languages in the Perspective of Formal Grammar: Proceedings of FDSL 10.5, Brno 2014, ed. by Markéta Ziková, Pavel Caha, and Mojmír Docekal, 139–154. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka
2015 “Dependent Indefinites Revisited.” Presentation at the Workshop on (Co-)distributivity, Paris.
Henderson, Robert
2016 “Variation in Dependent Indefinites.” Presentation at the Workshop on (Co-)distributivity, Paris.
Krifka, Manfred
1990 “Four Thousand Ships Passed Through the Lock: Object-induced Measure Functions on Events.” Linguistics and Philosophy 13: 487–519.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oh, Sei-Rang
2001 “Distributivity in an Event Semantics.” In 11th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference (SALT 11), ed. by Rachel Hastings, Brendan Jackson, and Zsofia Zvolenszky, 326–345. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 “Plurality Markers across Languages.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Panaitescu, Mara
To appear. “Romanian Dependent Numerals as Ratios.” Proceedings of Going Romance 2015.
Szabolcsi, Anna
2010  Quantification . Research Surveys in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 “Each What? Individual-key and Event-key Distribution.” Presentation at the Workshop “Quantification”, Stuttgart.
Vlach, Frank
1993 “Temporal Adverbials, Tenses and the Perfect.” Linguistics and Philosophy 16 (3): 231–283.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Linmin
2013 “A Rate Analysis of Binominal Each”. Poster at the Mid-Atlantic Colloquium of Studies in Meaning 3.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte
2002 “Boys buying two sausages each: On the syntax and semantics of distance-distributivity.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar