In these examples, the “feel” matrix takes an embedded clause as a complement. The embedded verb “to eat” corresponds to the subjunctive/optativativ morphology -ɑw- and corresponds respectively to its object “mango”, “raw mango” and the plural object “Mangoes” in (1.a), (1.b) and (1.c). The matrix “feel” also corresponds to the embedded object that is not theta-marked. In addition, the embedded verb is accompanied by an -s- which is glossed here as “such”, 1, which also corresponds to the same embedded object. The mapping of the matrix and s- to the embedded object is a “remote matching” instance (LDA below) in which these two elements correspond to an argument they did not choose. This document provides an analysis of LDA in this special construction. I suppose the PRO argument for an agreement is invisible (Davison, 1991). Therefore, the built-in Mood0 cannot conform to the PRO external argument and must continue the investigation. It locates the internal argument (perhaps moved to the edge of vP) as the target. This is shown by the probe (1). The concordance in the non-LDA construction is substantially the same as in any monoclausal construction as (48-49). An agreement is concluded in each cp matrix as well as in the framework of an integrated local agreement.
In (49.a), the Asp0 hosts an imperfect-looking morpheme. If a tense form of help is followed, the imperfective participatory form of the verb shows an optional correspondence in Marathi. In particular, in the presence of the past, it shows no convergence. While I leave a report on optionality in the future, it would be enough to think that the imperfect-looking head does not carry a Phi probe. As a result, no morphology of correspondence manifests itself on the imperfective participatory verb. The T0 carries a Phi probe and searches its command domain C for a target. It locates the external argument of the VP, which carries a non-interpretable nominative case function and is accessible to an agreement. This is how we get the standard local subject contract.16 I propose that the object incorporated in Marathi, in its own clause, receives a battery even in the LDA construction.
Remember that the correspondence of the built-in subjunctive brood does not depend on the LDA. The embedded subjunctive corresponds to its unmarked object, both in the LDA context and in the non-LDA context. In addition, I assert that both types of subjunctive clauses have a vP projection and an agent argument (a lexical DP or a Pro in the non-LDA context and a PRO argument in the LDA context). It implies, according to Burzio`s generalization, that the v0 integrated into both types of conjunctiva has the potential to associate the object with the object in an accusative manner. Therefore, there is no obvious reason to conclude that the assignment of cases for the internal argument may be different in the context of the ADA and the absence of the ADA. In the LDA context and not LDA, the v0 in the built-in clause assigns the object accurately. Therefore, in the LDA context, it is not necessary to move the object embedded in the matrix clause to save uppercase/lowercase. This indicates that the second slot machine of the conformity morpheme is not available in the restructured subjunctive clause. Although it is not yet known what the structural position of the second conformity slot15 is, the contrast between (46.a) and (47) is enough to suggest the absence of this slot in the subjunctive game in LDA. .