Polish equatives as symmetrical structures 73
subject-predicate agreement. In both predicational and specificational to być
clauses, the verb always agrees with the postverbal item, which can be seen in (17)
and (18):
(17) Zepsute hamulce to była
broken brake.pl cop was.3sg.f
przyczyna wypadku.
cause.sg.f accident.gen
‘The broken brakes were the cause of the accident.’
(18) Przyczyna wypadku to były
cause.sg.f accident.gen cop were.3pl
zepsute hamulce.
broken brake.pl
‘The cause of accident was the broken brakes.’
In both the predicational sentence (17) and its specificational variant such as (18), the
verb always agrees with the DP that immediately follows it, but not with the one that
precedes it.
Equatives, on the other hand, show a different agreement pattern, i.e. the verb
always agrees with the first element, e.g.:
(19) Ja to jestem ty, a ty to
I.nom cop am you.nom and you.nom cop
jesteś ja.
are I.nom
‘I am you and you are me.’
In (19) the verb clearly agrees with the pre-copular element and, consequently, the
agreement pattern present in equatives is distinct from that found in either predica-
tional or specificational to być clauses such as (17) and (18), respectively.
Still another difference between the three classes of copular clauses under scru-
tiny refers to the person restriction which is typically attested in to być predicational
clauses. In particular, clauses of this type disallow first and second person subjects, as
confirmed by the ungrammaticality of (20) and (21) below:
(20) Ja / ty to dyrektor.
I.nom / you.nom cop manager.nom
‘I/you am/are a manager.’
(21) My / wy to dyrektorzy.
we.nom / you.pl.nom cop managers.nom
‘We/you are managers.’