Ф-feature agreement : the distribution of the Breton bare and prepositional infinitives with the preposition da MÉLANIE JOUITTEAU

This article investigates the hypothesis that infinitive clauses in Breton are case-filtered. This hypothesis makes a straightforward prediction for the distribution of infinitive clauses: bare infinitives appear in positions where direct case is available to them; prepositional infinitives appear as a last resort, in positions where no case is available. In these environments, da, homophonous with a preposition, appears at the left-edge of the infinitive clause. I propose that da realizes inherent case. I show that once the paradigms of semantically motivated preposition insertion are set apart, the hypothesis shows correct for control and ECM structures, with both intervening subjects and objects, purpose clauses and their alternation paradigms, including some preposition tripling paradigms. Larger infinitive structures in narrative matrix infinitives and concessive clauses are not case-filtered. This makes Breton similar to English, where only perception and causative structures are case-filtered, whereas other infinitive structures are not (Hornstein, Martins & Nunes 2008).


Introduction
The literature reports a strange paradigm of preposition insertion at the left--edge of small-clauses in Breton, as in the purpose clause in (1).

J Journal of P
Portuguese L Linguistics, 11-1 (2012), 99-119   ISSN 1645-4537  (1) Reit din ur bluenn vat da Yann da skrivañ aesoc'h a se.give to-me a quill good P Yann to write easily-more of it 'Give me a good quill, for Yann to write more easily.' Treger, Tallerman (1997), cited from Stephens (1990) Hendrick (1988) proposes that the higher da in (1) is a prepositional complementizer.Stump (1989: 448ff), Stephens (1990), Borsley & Roberts (1996: 32), and Jouitteau (2005Jouitteau ( /2010: chapter 4) consider that da is a case assigner for the subject of infinitives, similar to English for in For Yann to write.Tallerman (1997) introduces a variant and proposes instead that the higher da is the head of an AgrS projection responsible for agreement in the infinitival clause.For the sake of this article, it is sufficient for me to note that the higher da in (1) is semantically motivated: it marks the following clause as a purpose clause.Da can be shown to independently assume the canonical goal/attribution/purpose semantic role in (2), including for infinitives as in (2c).
(2) a. Dit eo? P.you is 'Is it for you?', 'Is it yours?'Standard b.Bremañ e vez anoiou ken drol d' an dud.now PRT is names so funny P the people 'People have such weird names nowadays.' Treger, Gros (1970: 149) c.Ur mekanig da [ PRO arb skriva ].
a machine to write 'a writing machine ' Treger, Gros (1970: 150) It will turn relevant in this article that Breton prepositions have an "inflectional" paradigm as in (2a).I follow Jouitteau & Rezac (2006, 2008, 2009) in considering that these paradigms result from incorporation of a weak pronoun into the prepositional host.
The issue addressed in this article is the identification of the motivation for the lowest preposition da in (1).Hendrick (1988) and Tallerman (1997) both noticed that da can realize two different entities, and that the lower occurrence of da in (1) does not plausibly assign case to the subject of the infinitive.Stephens (1990: 154), as a side note, remarks: "the da immediately preceding the verb resembles English infinitival to which has been shown by Pullum (1982) to be neither a preposition nor a complementizer."Tallerman (1997) considers da an infinitival marker "which is not always overt", located in a Tense projection inside the infinitive.In previous work (Jouitteau 2005(Jouitteau /2010(Jouitteau , 2005b)), I have proposed a first attempt to account for the distribution of the lower da.I have proposed that da is a preposition whose insertion motivation is last-resort case-assignment to the infinitive itself.Jouitteau (2005bJouitteau ( , 2005Jouitteau ( /2010: : chap.4) and Jouitteau & Rezac (2006, 2008, 2009) have proposed that Breton extended verbal projections are nominal in the sense that they have interpretable 3SG φ-features, and hence serve as a goal for Agree, triggering complementarity effects in the verbal agreement system.In accordance, and like DPs, they need to pass the case filter.If this line of research is correct, in terms of Chomsky (2000Chomsky ( , 2001)), the second da in (1) is a morphological realization of an inherent case marker for the infinitive structure.
In this paper, I wish to evaluate the Case Filtered Infinitives Hypothesis in light of the broadest possible set of data.In a first section, I will present the core of the paradigms presented so far in favour of the Case Filtered Infinitives Hypothesis, and discuss the predictions it makes.In section 2, I will provide a map of the various semantically motivated uses of da.The aim of this section is to be able to set apart last-resort uses of da that are concerned with the Case Filtered Hypothesis, with paradigms that are simply not concerned.In the remainder of the article, I will investigate all semantically vacuous uses of da found in a large literature corpus.In section 3, I will discuss in detail Exceptional Case Marking (ECM) causatives and purpose clauses.I will conclude that the Case Filtered Infinitives Hypothesis can account for their paradigms of da insertion, even in face of some intriguing dialectal variations.In section 4, I present and discuss the hard cases where da seems truly optional: narrative matrix infinitives and concessives.Section 5 briefly summarizes and concludes with a typological view.

Typology of the non-case related uses of da
Investigation on the lower da in (1) requires to carefully set apart the other uses of this widely used preposition.As seen in the introduction, da can mark goals in a broad sense.This core meaning leads to different meaning extensions: da is the canonical introducer for indirect arguments.It also marks direction with verbs of movements (3a), and attribution or destination as in (3b).It is likely that the deontic use of da as in (3c) derives from its primary 'goal' semantic import.
(3) a. Sevel a ra da zont d' ar prenestr.stand-up PRT does P go P the window 'He stands up in order to go to the window.' Standard, Drezen (1990: 12) b.Ur marh koad en-oa fardet da bep hini.
a horse wood he-had built for each one 'He had made a wooden horse for everyone.'Kerne, Trépos (2001: §594) c.Neuze e soñjas he-doa da walc'hiñ warhoaz.then PRT thought she-had to wash tomorrow 'Then she thought she had some washing to do the next day.' L e o n , Fave (1998: 140) Da also canonically marks the experiencer, a role which favours its apparition before the subjects of infinitives as in (4a).Some experiencer uses recall the prototypical contexts for benefactives/malefactives as in (4b).The experiencer reading is also the source for an evidential reading as in (4c).
(4) a. Gwellaad a ra dezañ./ ma teufe dezhañ mervel.go-better PRT does P.him / if came P.him die 'He is getting better.' / 'If he happened to die.' Leon, Fave (1998: 140, 135) b.Louiz a zo marvet unan bennag dezañ ive.Louiz PRT is dead one some P.him too 'Some relative of Louiz died too (on him).' Treger, Gros (1970: 155) c.Penegwir me a veze mezo dezo ordinal.because I PRT was drunk P.the ordinarily 'Because in their mind, I was drunk all the time.'Treger, Gros (1970: 157) Some uses of da clearly result from lexical selection, for example the adjective tost (da) 'next (to)' as in (5).Some uses of da seem perfectly idiosyncratic.Some nominal locutions like c'hoant 'desire (to)' optionally select da.This optionality seems perfectly idiosyncratic, and amounts to the availability of a genitive construction. 1  (5) Deuit tostoc'h d' an tan hag e tommo deoc'h.come closer-more P the fire and PRT warm you 'Come closer to the fire and you will feel warmer.'Leon, Fave (1998: 136) 1 Some verbs alternate in taking an argument introduced by da (Leclerc 1986: 167).
When the verb 'to speak' has two arguments ('to speak to someone about something'), if the first argument is introduced by da, the second one will be introduced by eus 'from'.If however the first argument is introduced by gant 'with', the second one will be introduced by diwar-benn 'about' (Kervella 1995: §629.II).Finally, the nominal expression kaout keuz, literally 'to have regret', selects the preposition eus for abstract actions, and the preposition da for people or objects (Leclerc 1986: 167) desire he had he his-one go to run 'He himself wanted to go for a run.' Standard, Drezen (1990: 34)

Modals dialectally selecting indirect arguments
The modals gallout 'can' and rankout 'must' vary in transitivity across the dialects.Seite, from Kleder, of the Leon dialect, uses the modal gallout 'can' with a da infinitive (7).Fave, from the same village, acknowledges such uses by recommending not to use da in these structures, as in most other dialects as in (8a).Seite himself sometimes makes use of this modal without da as in (8b).
(7) Pesked i a heller ive da [ baka ø i ], braoged dreist-oll.fishes PRT can.IMP also to catch sea-bass above-all 'One can also catch fish, above all sea bass.' Leon (Kleder), Seite (1998: 9) (8) a. Dezho da c'hell _ ober o zro foar ganin.for-them P can do their round fair with-me 'For them to be able to go around the fair with me.' Kerne (bigouden), Bijer (2007: 197) b. … e heller _ [ taoler eur zell war ar Vro-Bagan ]… PRT can.IMP throw a glance on the country-Pagan 'One can look at the Pagan country.' Leon (Kleder), Seite (1998: 200) All occurrences of da after the modal gallout are not to be disregarded as falling under this dialectal variation.In (9), Seite produces an example where the modal 'can' is itself infinitive and selects as its internal argument an infinitive with a realized subject (ar batimañchoù).As pointed out by Rezac (p.c.), the inflected version of ( 9), as illustrated in (10), could not survive preposition insertion.Until sentences like (10) are attested, ( 9) is a real case of da insertion at the left-edge of the infinitive.
(9) eun all a zo nevez beza bet savet dezo… a other PRT is new to-be been built for.3PLda helloud d' ar batimañchou dont ennañ.P be-able P the vessels come in-it 'Another one has been built for them recently, for the vessels to be able to come in it.'Leon (Kleder), Seite (1998: 33), cited in Rezac (2009) (10) Gellout a ra (?*d') ar batimañchoù don't ennañ.be-able PRT does P the vessels come in-it 'The vessels can come in it.' unattested Dialectal alternations are also to be found with the modal rankout 'must'.Fave (1998: 141) from the Leon dialect follows most usages and recommends bare uses, but prepositional examples are to be found in standard and even in the same Leon dialect, again with Seite (see also Kervella 1933: 62 andInizan 1977: 205) ' Treger, Gros (1970: 157, 158) It looks at first sight as if wh extraction is the trigger for da insertion, which could suggest that da simply marks movement.It is however likely that the above structures evolved from a semantically required da marking purpose.Breton makes extensive use of ellipsis.In (13), the structure has originated as mat da ober 'good to do', with further movement of the prepositional constituent to the left, probably for focus.Ellipsis of a zo mat 'is good' at the end of the sentence would just produce the same word order as above, with a purpose da.We are now well equipped to screen the empirical domain where the Case Filtered Infinitives Hypothesis makes predictions.

The hypothesis of Case Filtered Infinitives and semantically vacuous da
In this section, I present the paradigms that support the Case Filtered Infinitives Hypothesis: (i) Control verbs, intervening subjects in ECM structures including causatives; (ii) intervening objects; (iii) purpose clauses and their "alternation paradigms", including (iv) some intriguing tripling paradigms.

Control, ECM and intervening subjects
The hypothesis of Case Filtered Infinitives predicts that da should appear in Breton ECM structures when realized subjects of infinitives compete for case with the infinitive clause they originate from.Intervention effects should vanish with PRO subjects as those fail to compete for case.Indeed, control clauses, when the da preposition is neither semantically motivated nor independently selected by the matrix verb, always show bare infinitives.This is illustrated in ( 14), proposed by Tallerman (1997: 207) as an example of subject control verb, and in ( 15) with an indirect object control verb.The infinitive structure plausibly receives prototypical object case from the matrix verb.
(14) N' he x deus klasket zoken _ PRO x gwalc'hiñ he belo.NEG she has searched even wash her bike 'She didn't even try to wash her bike.'Standard, Press (1986: 183) (15) Lavaret en deus Lomig d' e vreur x _ PRO x kemer ar garrigell.told he has Lomig to his brother take the wheelbarrow 'Lomig told his brother to take the wheelbarrow.'Treger, Stephens (1982: 149) In ( 16), the ECM verb gortoz 'to wait' selects a small clause whose subject is assigned the prototypical case of the object by the matrix verb.As predicted, da appears at the left-edge of the infinitival domain.

ECM causatives
ECM causative structures deserve particular attention.The causative verbs 'to put' or 'to let' assign the prototypical case of the object to the subject of the infinitive (Stephens 1990: 158, Tallerman 1997, Jouitteau 2005/2010) shame of 3PL language 'Government Paris searches only one thing: make them be ashamed of their language.'Leon (Kleder), Seite (1998: 37) When a matrix clause subject corefers with the pronominal subject of the infinitive, the latter shows up as a reflexive proclitic as in (21), with a Gwened morphological te variant of da.The subject of the infinitive can be a weather expletive (22) Treger, Stephens (1990: 161) In the causative ECM structure in lakaat 'put', the presence of da depends on the realization of the subject of the infinitive.In ( 23), the context ensures disjunction of reference between the matrix subject and the subject of the infinitive, suggesting a structure with PRO.Da is illicit.In (24), when the subject is realized and receives the prototypical case of the object assigned by the causative verb, da appears before the infinitive.When the subject is null however, no da appears (see also Le Gléau 2000: §93).The second type of causative structure makes use of the verb leskel 'to let' that also distributes the canonical case of the object to the subject of its infinitive (25), that can be a weather expletive (26).
bad the weather nothing to-do but allow it.F / it.M to-do 'The weather is bad, but what can you do?' Treger, Stephens (1990: 161) Presence of the da preposition is tied to the presence of a realized subject.In ( 27), the subject of the infinitive is PRO.Argument for this analysis comes from the form of the inanimate pronoun hen.If there was here no subject in the infinitive structure, hen would be bound in its local domain by the subject of the matrix sentence ar pehed, and should appear as a reflexive.Grammaticality of the non-reflexive form suggests there is another subject in the infinitive, that fails to bind the object pronoun (arbitrary PRO).( 27 Treger, Gros (1984: 207) In ( 28), the causative verb shows imperative morphology, a mood which allows for a special paradigm of object pronouns.Direct case is assigned to the pronominal subject of the infinitive by the imperative causative verb.Again da appears.( 28 dog no NEG could do P.him come from-there 'No dog could make him leave from there.' Central Breton, Perrot (1912: 139) As illustrated in section 2, the use of da as introducing an experiencer is common.The causative structure in 'to do' thus does not involve any semantically empty preposition.The prediction that causatives in 'do' validate with respect to the Case Filtered Infinitives Hypothesis is that absence of the semantically empty da correlates once again with absence of a realized subject in the infinitive.I now turn to purpose clauses introduced by the prepositional complementizers da and evit.

Intervening objects
The hypothesis of Case Filtered Infinitives correctly predicts that a raised object out of the infinitive should trigger the same competition effect as a subject does.In (30a), the infinitive structure is the subject of the matrix copula.In (30b), the object of the infinitive has raised and absorbs direct

Alternation paradigms in purpose clauses and privatives
The hypothesis of Case-Filtered Infinitives also finds support in two paradigms where the subject appears optionally either before or after da.The first one is the paradigm of purpose clauses with evit 'for' as in ( 32).1SG) to (1SG) 2PL.OBL hear better 'Come closer so that I could hear you better.' Trépos (1980: 261) In (32a), the pronominal subject of the infinitive is incorporated into a semantically vacuous da.The prepositional complementizer evit selects and licenses the infinitive.In (32b), the pronominal subject is licensed by evit, and da is required and appears lower.In each alternative (a) and (b), both the pronominal subject of the infinitive and the small clause itself would receive case.The second paradigm showing such alternations is that of privative constructions introduced by hep 'without '. In (33), the semantically vacuous da introduces the infinitive and appears lower than the subject.Both lexical or pronominal subjects can also appear below da as in (34).In accordance with the Case Filtered Infinitives Hypothesis, da is incompatible with a PRO subject ( 35 Treger, Gros (1970: 235) As noted in Jouitteau (2005Jouitteau ( /2010)), alternation paradigms are particularly tricky to account for by other means than the Case Filtered Infinitives Hypothesis.

Purpose clauses with da and evit
Purpose clauses can be introduced by the prepositional complementizer da (36) or evit.Word order is constant across dialects, for both pronominal and lexical realized subjects.for his wife to cook pancakes 'He cut dry broom for his wife to make pancakes.'Kerne, Trépos (1980: 261) (37) … e-barzh an dour sal [ evito da gemer blaz an holen ] in the water salted for-them P take taste the salt '…in salted water, for them to take the taste of salt.' Bijer (2007: 412) Like was the case in causatives, the lower da seems tied to extraction of the subject out of the infinitive domain ( 37 (39) Ne vezo nepred a-walc'h a-zivrec'h evit [ PRO troc'hañ ha NEG will-be never enough of-arms for cut and dastum an eost ]. collect the harvest 'There won't ever be enough arms in order to cut and collect the harvest.' Treger, Berthou (1985: 78) Stephens (1990: 155) has shown that both purpose clauses with da and evit are forming a constituent, as they can be clefted.for Yann to frighten before.3SGMFOC is Lomm strong enough Treger, Stephens (1990: 155), cited in Tallerman (1997: 221) This paradigm shows alternation cases (C da S / C S da): some pronominal and lexical subjects of purpose clauses in evit appear to the right of the preposition da.
(42) [ evit d' ar c'hezeg gallout kerzhout ingal] for P the horse can walk even 'for the horse to be able to walk on an even surface' Bijer (2007: 219)

Tripling paradigms
A final complication in the data is exemplified in (43), where the only semantically motivated preposition is the goal marker evid 'for'.Below it, two da prepositions appear, the former hosting the incorporated subject of the infinitive, and the latter preceding the infinitive structure.
(43) a. evid din da hounid ar repoz eternel.for to-me P gain the rest eternal 'For me to gain eternal rest.' Seite (1998: 189) b.Méd hastom buan bremañ evid deom da veza a-raog an noz e but speed fast now for to-us P be before the night in Konkerne.Concarneau 'But let's hurry up so that we could be in Concarneau before night.' Leon dialect, Seite (1998: 136) I propose that the tripling cases are due to defectiveness of inflected prepositions, which is subject to dialectal variation.The highest da in (43) provides morphological support for weak pronouns incorporation, as does da in (44).This hypothesis correctly predicts that lexical DPs will not be selected as arguments of the complex evit da preposition, and that evit da never appears as complementizer in tensed domains.
(44) N' int ket ken brokus evitdezhi.... NEG are not as generous for-to-3SGF 'They are not as generous as she is.' Keit vimp Beo (1983: 25) (45) Kavet ez eus un tu evit (*da) e teufe Yann e-barzh.found PRT is a way for P PRT come Yann inside 'A way was found for Yann to come in.' Tallerman (1997: 221-2) Independent evidence for da suppletion in prepositional defective paradigms is easily found, as mentioned in Kervella (1995: §586) for standard and Humphreys (1995: 585,616) for central Breton.For illustration, on the same page, Fave (1998) uses the preposition a-enep 'against' with a direct object and a pronominal indirect one.
(46) a. Mond a-eneb [ réd an dour] n' eo ket êz.to-go against tide the water NEG is not easy 'It is hard to go against the tide' Leon dialect, Fave (1998: 140) b.Evid ar votadeg ez in a-eneb dezañ.for the election PRT will-go.1SGagainst P.3SGM 'I'll go against him at the elections.' Leon dialect, Fave (1998: 140)

Optional da: the hard cases
This last section presents two paradigms where the Case Filtered Infinitives Hypothesis fails to predict optional da: (i) narrative matrix infinitives and (ii) concessive clauses.

Narrative matrix infinitives
Breton has matrix infinitives whose Tense is calculated as directly consecutive to the Tense of the last inflected sentence.I adopt the structure proposed by Rezac (2011: 266) for Breton narrative infinitives as in (47).In ( 48) and ( 49), the marker ha(g), homophonous with a coordination marker, introduces the infinitive.The da insertion paradigm of narrative matrix infinitives is peculiar for two reasons.First it is optional (Kervella 1995: licenses null Tense, which in turn provides case to the subject.As pointed out by Rezac (2009Rezac ( , 2011: 266): 266), narrative matrix infinitives allow for postverbal subjects (54), which shows that subject movement is not case related.
(54) Ha mont Yann diouzhtu ha… and go Yann immediately and 'Yann went immediately and… ' Leon, Troude and Milin (1870), cited in Rezac (2011: 267) Further research obviously needs to be done on these structures to accurately predict their alternations, but their existence does not impact the Case Filtered Infinitives Hypothesis because TP structures are not case--filtered.

Concessives
Concessive clauses are introduced by the semantically contentful prepositions da, evit and daoust da in the sense of 'despite'.I propose the structure in (55), adapted from Rezac (2011: 266), for Breton concessives with daoust da.I follow Tallerman (1997) in postulating that selection of the higher and obligatory da by the complementizer daoust follows from the latter lacking an inflectional paradigm altogether.The lower, semantically empty da is optional, as illustrated in ( 56 Treger, Tallerman (1997: 231) The preposition evit, that we saw can introduce purpose clauses, can also introduce concessive clauses (58).When the subject of the infinitive raises as internal argument of evit, da can optionally introduce the infinitive.for the guy-here be strong 'despite the guy to be strong... ' Standard, An Here (2001: §'evit') The subject of the infinitive, be it a pronoun or a full DP, can appear in--situ in the infinitive clause, as in (60), or incorporated into the higher preposition, as in (59a).
2 Leclerc (1986: 162, 209)  PRT will-do P walk for be bad the weather 'I will go for a walk despite of the bad weather.' Standard, An Here (2001: §'evit')

Conclusion
The Case Filtered Infinitives Hypothesis in Breton is accurate to account for (i) ECM paradigms (ECM verbs like gortoz, 'wait', and ECM causative structures), (ii) PRO infinitives and (iii) alternation paradigms.The hypothesis has been shown to make accurate predictions in the empirical domain of causatives, privatives with hep 'without', and purpose clauses with both da 'to' and evit 'for'.Two paradigms pose a real challenge for the hypothesis: that of real da optionality in (i) narrative infinitives with ha(g) and (ii) concessives with da, daoust da and evit.However, availability of postverbal realized subjects in both cases suggest that these infinitives are structurally different from the regular case-filtered infinitives, and has to provide a richer structure (temporal encoding in narrative infinitives, speaker's point of view toward acceptability of the previous sentence).If so, these untensed structures are not case-filtered, accurately predicting bare uses.Note that narrative matrix infinitives and concessive readings are not incompatible.
(63) Labourat a ra c'hoazh, ha hi kozh.work R does still and she old 'She is still working, although she is old.' Standard, Kervella (1995: §813) Obviously more research has to be done to understand the exact nature of the truly optional da marker in both narratives and concessives.The present article shows these are not case related.The Case Filtered Infinitives Hypothesis resolves a typological contrast with English.On the surface these languages look dissimilar: in contrary to Breton, promotion of the argument of an infinitive under ECM structures in English does not trigger preposition/particle insertion as in (64a).
b. Lionel has been made *(to) write a letter At a deeper level however, this makes Breton similar to English, where infinitives in perception and causative structures are case-filtered, whereas other infinitive structures are not.Following Hornstein, Martins & Nunes (2008), ungrammaticality of to in active mood in English (64a) follows from the maximization principle by which the defectiveness of features of the infinitive allows the causative verb to probe and distribute case twice.The passive verbal form in (64b) has a complete set of features that can intervene for Agree and triggers last-resort inherent case marker to.The proper parameter between English in Breton here is that Breton infinitive clauses come with a complete set of interpretable φ-features and are full interveners for Agree (Jouitteau & Rezac 2006, 2008, 2009).
. This generalization is confirmed in the Treger dialect of Gros for almost every type of interrogative word.The equivalent sentences of (12) without da would all be fine in Standard Breton.
If this analysis is on the right track, examples in (12) would just represent cases of ellipsis of a zo mat 'is good'.
(13) Ne welan ket petra [ CP [ SC da PRO ober ] a zo mad _ ].NEG see-I not what to do R is good 'I don't know what is good to do.' Leon, Fave (1998: 141) .Da appears before infinitives in the three types of causative structures schematised in (17).Lexical DPs are unmarked for case in Breton, but pronouns show morphological evidence that the subject of the infinitive indeed receives the case that is prototypically assigned to objects.Breton pronominal objects canonically do not receive direct case.They appear instead as incorporated pronouns into a hosting preposition a/eus as in (18) or (19), or alternatively as oblique proclitics as in (20). .
The third causative structure in (17) makes use of the verb 'to do', a verb that takes an agent DP subject and an intransitive VP internal argument.An experiencer is introduced by da (for further examples, see Kervella 1995:§253 bis or Bijer 2007: 144).
case, triggering da insertion.The examples in (31) replicate the argument for ECM causatives. ).
signals a dialectal contrast between the Leon dialect (and standard) and the Treger dialect: in the latter, the concessive construction in evit is restricted to pronominal subjects.Lexical subjects in the Treger dialect are to be used with the daoust da construction.Daoust da (loaned cheptel da) greskiñ (loaned cheptel) er vro-mañ despite to animal cattle P grow animal cattle in-the land-this 'Despite the raising of cattle in this land.'[D.L.], Quimperlé Breton (62) Mont a rin da vale evit _ [ bezañ fall an amzer ]. go