{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.049253731343283584, 'fraction_numerical': 0.03134328358208955, 'mean_word_length': 4.938053097345133, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A- and -Movement in Romanian Supine Constructions

Romanian supine sentences with tough-predicates, such as (la-b), are a classical example of a construction for which both A-movement (Grosu and Horvath 1987:183n3, Rubin 1995:56-61) and A-movement (Hill 2002) analyses have been proposed. This controversy has not arisen in other Romance languages, where tough-constructions are analyzed as instances of A-movement.1 In this squib, I demonstrate that both Aand A-movement exist in Romanian, but that the former correlates with the presence of agreement. In (la-b), the adjective is not marked for agreement, unlike predicate adjectives in most contexts in this language.