Previous Accounts. The Previous Accounts:
4.1 have been prepared in accordance with all Laws;
4.2 comply with Accounting Standards in force at the dates to which they were prepared; and
4.3 give a true and fair view of the assets and liabilities and state of affairs of each UK Group Company (and, in relation to the consolidated financial statements of the Company, of any relevant Group Companies (for the accounting period) as a whole) as at the dates to which they were prepared and of the profit or loss and cash flows of each UK Group Company (and, in relation to the consolidated financial statements of the Company, of any relevant Group Companies (for the accounting period) as a whole) for the financial years ended on such dates.
Previous Accounts. Concerning the exact nature of the trigger, Xxxxxx (1999; 2000) proposes a structure based account: assuming that nominal expressions come in (at least) two types, DP and NumP, and that only definite nominals project a full-fledged DP, the necessary and sufficient condition for object agreement can be identified to be the presence of a DP projection, whereas indefinite nominals, which project only a NumP, surface with the indefinite form of the verb. The claim is based among others on the observation that possessive DPs can be both definite and indefinite, but in spite of this, possessive nominals trigger definite agreement (4). This is easy to explain with the help of a structural account: Possessive nominals are DPs and, as such, trigger definite agreement, irrespective of whether they themselves have a definite or indefinite interpretation.2
(a) Xxxx lát-xx Xxxx-nak a könyv-é-t. Xxxx.nom see-def Mari-dat the book-poss-acc “Xxxx can see Mari’s book.”
(b) Xxxx lát-xx Xxxx-nak egy könyv-é-t. Xxxx.nom see-def Mari-dat a book-poss-acc “Xxxx can see a book of Mari’s.” Xxxxxx’x account is made more subtle by Bárány (2015) based on, e.g., possessor extrac- tion data cited from Szabolcsi (1994) where the verb appears in its indefinite form due to the extraction of the dative possessor (5).
(5) Xxxxxxx-nak nem olvas-t-ál vers-é-t. (Szabolcsi 1994, 227) Xxxxxxx-dat not read-pst-indef poem-poss-acc “You haven’t read any poem of Xxxxxxx’x.” Though the presence of definite agreement clearly depends on the properties of the object, the exact nature of the features concerned is immaterial to the purposes of the present paper, which focuses on the locality issues of definiteness agreement. Whatever the exact nature of the feature on the constituent triggering agreement turns 2 Pronominal definiteness agreement sensitive to person and number (with the definite agree- ment form surfacing only in third person and indefinite agreement forms appearing in first and second person) poses further problems not discussed in the present paper. out to be, it is indicated as a [±def] feature in our paper. For the data discussed here the conclusions of Bárány (2015) can be assumed to carry over without modification.3
Previous Accounts. The data introduced in this section are usually accounted for by assuming clause union (É. Kiss 1989; Den Dikken 2004) or Long Distance Agreement (LDA) taking place between the finite verb and the object of the infinitive (É. Kiss 2002). Both approaches assume that agreement is between the finite verb and the object DP. When the infinitive has no object the finite verb selecting the infinitive shows the indefinite agreement pattern. The predictions these approaches make is that the only factor to consider is the definiteness of the object (however long distance) and that other intervening constituents do not play a role. In the next section we show that this is not supported by the data. Considering clause union, our problems are twofold: on the one hand clause union does not necessarily have to be assumed in the definiteness agreement cases: under traditional approaches no clause union is assumed to take place in the finite clauses under discussion, which trigger the definite agreement paradigm. On the other hand, assuming that non-agreeing verbs fail to participate in clause union with their infinitival complement fails to capture that these verbs actually show other clause union effects, such as scrambling. In example (11) the subject of the matrix verb, Xxxx, is scrambled with the constituents of the infinitival clause, but the matrix verb itself does not show definiteness agreement due to its non-agreeing nature.
(11) Holnap készül el-olvas-ni Xxxx a könyv-et. tomorrow prepare.indef pv-read-inf Xxxx.nom the book-acc “Xxxx is preparing to read the book tomorrow.”
Previous Accounts. The Previous Accounts:
Previous Accounts. The Previous Accounts:
9.5.1 were prepared in accordance with applicable laws;
9.5.2 comply with Accounting Standards in force at the dates to which they were prepared; and
9.5.3 give a true and fair view of the assets and liabilities and state of affairs of the Company as at the dates to which they were prepared and of the profit or loss of the Company for the financial years ended on such dates.
Previous Accounts
