Some additional notes on Object Clitic Reduplication and non-reflexive se in Perugino

In this work I sharpen the description of Object Clitic Reduplication in Perugino, providing additional, relevant data with respect to the ones described in Di Domenico (2022). In specific, in this work I will deal with the distinction between non-reflexive se and all other clitics (including reflexive se) observed in previous work, providing evidence that concerns their distribution beyond restructuring sentences, where the phenomena at stake were originally observed. First of all, the analysis will show that the impossibility of having clitic reduplication with non-reflexive se cannot be due to an impossibility of having non-reflexive se in enclisis to the infinitive, since it may occur in enclisis in infinitives introduced by the preposition da. Furthermore, as the data show, the clitic string proclitic to the infinitive (activated by negation) and the one proclitic to the finite verb cannot be equated, as they behave differently with respect to the distribution of non-reflexive se. Finally, as I will show, when the pre-infinitival position is available, i.e. in negative infinitives, clitics, with the exception of non-reflexive se, can reduplicate: Clitic reduplication is thus possible in Perugino also beyond restructuring sentences.