Question 80:
You are a linguist specializing in Rapa Nui. You are given a sentence along with its morpheme breakdown, gloss, and translation. Words are separated by spaces, and morphemes are separated by hyphens. However, a word and its gloss are missing and represented by an underscore. Based on your understanding, please choose the most appropriate option. 
Sentence (with missing item): \ꞌI tū hora era o ___ \obe rere mai era\,\cb...
Gloss (with missing item): at DEM time DIST of ___ {\db}IPFV jump hither DIST
The English translation of this sentence is:‘At the moment when Kekoa jumped...’
Here is a relevant knowledge point for this example, with the related morphemes and glosses masked: Possessive-relative constructions occur in other Polynesian languages as well. There has been some discussion on the question whether the possessor\is{Possession} is raised from the subject\is{Subject!raising} position of the relative clause\is{Clause!relative} (e.g. \citealt[367]{Harlow2000}; \citealt[185]{Harlow2007Maori}), or whether it is a genuine noun phrase possessor\is{Possession} which happens to be coreferential to the relative clause subject \citep[116]{Clark1976}. In Rapa Nui the second option is more plausible. First, the possessor\is{Possession} can be in the same positions as in any other noun phrase, which suggests that it is no different from other possessors in the noun phrase. Second, as the examples above show, the form of the possessive construction varies between \is{Possession!o/a distinction}a- and o-possession: a{}-possession in \REF{ex:11.123}, \REF{ex:11.125} and \REF{ex:11.127}, o{}-possession in \REF{ex:11.124} and \REF{ex:11.126}. As a- and o-possession express different semantic relationships between possessor\is{Possession} and possessee (\sectref{sec:6.3.2}), this suggests that there is a direct relation between the possessor\is{Possession} and the head noun, even though the primary function of the possessor\is{Possession} seems to be the expression of the relative clause\is{Clause!relative} subject.\footnote{\label{fn:517}\citet{HerdMacdonald2011} make a similar observation for other Polynesian languages. They propose a structure where there is a relation between the possessor\is{Possession} and the relative construction as a whole. This involves a control relation (not raising) between possessor\is{Possession} and relative clause\is{Clause!relative} subject.} And indeed, in most of these cases the choice between \textit{{\ꞌ}a} and o is governed by the same principles guiding this choice in possessive constructions in general. In \REF{ex:11.127}, where the relation between possessor\is{Possession} and head noun is one between husband and wife, \textit{{\ꞌ}a} is used (\sectref{sec:6.3.3.1.1}). In \REF{ex:11.125}, the use of \textit{{\ꞌ}a} is possibly motivated by the active relationship of the possessee to the head noun ‘work’ (\sectref{sec:6.3.3.2} item 2). In \REF{ex:11.126}, o is used with a temporal noun, again conforming to a general pattern (\sectref{sec:6.3.3.3} item 11). In fact, given the wide range of relationships expressed by possessive constructions in Rapa Nui, all possessive-relatives seem to exhibit some kind of possessive relationship also attested in simple possessive constructions.
A: word: kālia	 gloss: Kalia
B: word: nei	 gloss: PROX
C: word: kekoa	 gloss: Kekoa
D: word: koa	 gloss: happy
Please only return the letter (A–D). Do not say anything else.
Correct Answer: C