First, the Mood0 probes on board. However, since the external argument for vP is a matter of energy box because of the cyclical spirit (recall section 2), it is not accessible to an agreement. The Mood0 probes continue to search for the internal argument, in this case “mangoes,” which may have moved to the edge of the vP (movement that is not displayed in the tree). DP mangoes would appreciate Phi`s features on the Mood0. This is demonstrated by the Agreement Review (1). The T0 MoodP selection (subjunctive) is still non-overt in marathi. Thus, either one could say that Marathi`s “unrealized future” probes trivially to locate the object as a target, or that it does not carry a Phi probe at all. The agreement in non-LDA construction is roughly the same as in any single construction as (48-49). An agreement is reached in each camping matrix and in an integrated local agreement. Unlike -s, the t̪ morpheme in a subjunctive clause does not allow the verb to agree with two arguments. However, it can be shown that t̪ differs from the model agreement and that it comes from the second part of the contract. See (9) below. That`s why I embellish – t̪ separately.
In addition, the integrated verb has a subjunctive morphology and a concordance. So I assume that there is a functional projection via vP to harbor conjunctiva morphology (i.e. irreversible morphology). I call it MoodP and I assume it is located above vP, but below TP (Wali 2006) 11 Another evidence of restructuring stems from the denial ban in the subjunctive clause inserted according to LDA. Marathi has several “negative auxiliaries” that naturally contain tense and suggestive information (Damle, 1970; Pandharipande 1997; Wali 2005; Dhongde – Wali 2009). In a verbal complex typical of each marathi clause, the main verb precedes negation and negation precedes the morphology of tension and concordance (see (37)). Given the linear order “V – Aspect – Tense- Tense” in Marathi, I assume that the NegP is lower than the TP, but perhaps higher than the AspP and The MoodP. Note that the Morpheme system occurs with a double agreement when the 2SG applicant wears either a nominative or initiative case, but not if he is wearing dative cases. For this reason, the absence of a dual agreement in the subjunctive clause of the LDA is not obvious. In (46.b), the -s on the subjunctive verb is due to the incompetent incarnate subject `of`. In LDA construction, the theme of the matrix is the only theme and dative door. Therefore, the morpheme for the 2SG subject is never displayed in the LDA context on a verb matrix or incorporated.
However, the t̪ morpheme that indicates the 3PL object does not appear on the connective verb in LDA as in LDA (47). Compare that with (46.a) above. Mahajan, Anoop. 1989. Contractual and contractual formulations. MIT Working documents in language 10. 217-252. 15Nayudu (2008), which discussed only -s as an example of a double agreement in Marathi, analyzes them as a “secondary Phi probe” on T0. An anonymous critic also questioned whether these markers were allokuactive morphemes similar to those of Basque (Haddican 2018). If they are actually allokutive morpheme, they may instead be in the field of camping on T0.