# QUE feature on the verb

**URL:** <https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/t/que-feature-on-the-verb/366>\
**Category:** Grammar Matrix\
**Tags:** erg, hpsg\
**Created:** [November 4, 2019, 7:46pm UTC](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/t/que-feature-on-the-verb/366 "2019-11-04T19:46:16Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 46

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![olzama](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/user_avatar/delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/olzama/32/6_2.png) [@olzama](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/u/olzama)\
**Post date:** [November 12, 2019, 8:05pm UTC](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/t/que-feature-on-the-verb/366/46 "2019-11-12T20:05:36Z")

</div>

Update: Ginzburg and Sag (2001) have a “WH-amalgamation constraint” similar to SLASH-amalgamation, stating that a word’s WH is the union of its ARG-ST element’s WHs. (WH there corresponds to QUE). So a noun will have its specifier’s WH, for example. Then for verbs, they say that “subject-selecting verbs must be WH-empty”, but that is because they have something called WH-Subject Prohibition: a word’s SUBJ must be WH-empty. This is so that sentences like _Who left_ are licensed by the HFR and not the HSR. They have yet an additional WH-Constraint stating that “any non-initial element of a lexeme’s ARG-ST must be WH-empty”. It is a bit confusing to me; the section on verbs is disappointingly short and focuses entirely on special cases, not really explicating how the basic cases are supposed to work. Maybe I will find that in an earlier section (though I already have read them!)

---

_[View the full topic](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/t/que-feature-on-the-verb/366)._