Participles, among the non-finite verbal inventory, most often appear to be taken by linguists as being tenseless or having the feature [-tense]. This is due to their interaction only with the Aspect layer, meaning that the TP layer should not be projected. If the TP layer was not projected, then we would account for the absence of phi-features agreement with the subject [person, number, gender].

But why is this the case, why TP layers are not projected in the participial clauses?

  • I think you need to make it very clear you're interested in the GB (or MP) formalism.
    – Alex B.
    Jan 11 '19 at 23:51
  • Alex B, it's MP formalism I I put TP to indicte that).
    – Tsutsu
    Jan 12 '19 at 10:41

Who are these linguists? What language are they talking about? In Sanskrit, Greek, Latin (to name but a few) participles have tense and agree with their antecedent in gender and number.

  • Siloni (1995), Siloni (1997), Kayne (1994), Hoerska (1984).., ... when you said to name but a few, what are the other languages you could name ? can you please remove the {-} you put on my question (in case it was you).. Thank you
    – Tsutsu
    Jan 8 '19 at 11:31
  • Almost any Indo-European language (e.g. German, French...), almost any Semitic language (e.g. Arabic, Akkadian ....), the list is endless. By the way, I never down-vote anything. It is a stupid game.
    – fdb
    Jan 8 '19 at 11:34
  • can you please list some references on Indo-european languages (in generative grammar) dealing with this issue (participial relatives) ?
    – Tsutsu
    Jan 8 '19 at 11:39

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.