09:42 in the full expansion including the determiner along with the possessive...how do we define the functioning Head, coz there happens two different and seemingly independent or idk like functionally fulfilled terminals both as Determiners (the and 's)...is it possible to prioritize a head, indicating the man as the head or is it the informative bit that the 's provides with? ... thx a lot...and if possible, is it a complementizer phrase at 10:53 'standing over there'...ty so much.
Your videos are very helpful. Thank you very much for sharing this. I have a question though, is there any difference between TP (tensed phrase) and IP (inflectional phrase) ?
If I got this, IP should justify aspects in the behaviour of the subject (which results as a Specifier of IP), in the behaviour of Adverbs (which follow Auxiliaries but always precede the verb when there is no Aux - the only exception is the verb "to be" but, guess what? Some theorists argue that it is a verb of pure Inflection, i.e. it plays no role as a head of a VP in copular sentences) and other things. When you talk about IP, you tend to put it as the root node, and more generally, as a node always c-commanding the VP. A more complex theory within the GB is that IP is actually made of Agreement Phrase + Tense Phrase. I don't know much more at the moment, I read divulgative texts of theorists of the Minimalist Program, and for some reason the TP appears as the root node, so evidence perhaps led them to throw away the hypothesis of the AgrP as a root node (in the GB some theorists argued that there are two AgrP, one for the subject and one for the DO, in order to justify the fact that the verb manages to assign to both Case and theta-roles).
Thank you Sir for your help, l appreciate it! A question please! why is the the adjunct (standing over there) is a sister to N' and a daughter to N' and not a sister to D' and daughter to D' since we can say the man's hat?
at 8.03 minute you added a DP to a DP, why don't we call it a D' instead it is an intermediat level. There already a DP above, can DP occour under a DP?
![[Syntax] X-Bar Theory - Specifiers, Adjuncts, and Complements](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n8TYuq173N0/mqdefault.jpg)
You're the GOAT (Greatest of all time)
Thank you so much for your great lecture! It helped me a lot in understanding what DP is !
You give wonderful explanations, uncommon in this subject that can get very confusing. Many thanks for the good job.
thank you sooooo much! your videos are saving my future hahaha
well explained!
09:42 in the full expansion including the determiner along with the possessive...how do we define the functioning Head, coz there happens two different and seemingly independent or idk like functionally fulfilled terminals both as Determiners (the and 's)...is it possible to prioritize a head, indicating the man as the head or is it the informative bit that the 's provides with? ... thx a lot...and if possible, is it a complementizer phrase at 10:53 'standing over there'...ty so much.
Your videos are very helpful. Thank you very much for sharing this. I have a question though, is there any difference between TP (tensed phrase) and IP (inflectional phrase) ?
If I got this, IP should justify aspects in the behaviour of the subject (which results as a Specifier of IP), in the behaviour of Adverbs (which follow Auxiliaries but always precede the verb when there is no Aux - the only exception is the verb "to be" but, guess what? Some theorists argue that it is a verb of pure Inflection, i.e. it plays no role as a head of a VP in copular sentences) and other things. When you talk about IP, you tend to put it as the root node, and more generally, as a node always c-commanding the VP.
A more complex theory within the GB is that IP is actually made of Agreement Phrase + Tense Phrase. I don't know much more at the moment, I read divulgative texts of theorists of the Minimalist Program, and for some reason the TP appears as the root node, so evidence perhaps led them to throw away the hypothesis of the AgrP as a root node (in the GB some theorists argued that there are two AgrP, one for the subject and one for the DO, in order to justify the fact that the verb manages to assign to both Case and theta-roles).
Thank you Sir for your help, l appreciate it! A question please! why is the the adjunct (standing over there) is a sister to N' and a daughter to N' and not a sister to D' and daughter to D' since we can say the man's hat?
Would this then allow a sentence such as 'the man the hat'?
Please can you explain why u put “standing over there” as a CP? My book (which is the same book you use) says its a VP.
standing over there = that is standing over there, and "that" is a Complementizer, i think
@@bluemoon4961 aww shit you are right
@@bluemoon4961 a reduced relative clause.
at 8.03 minute you added a DP to a DP, why don't we call it a D' instead it is an intermediat level. There already a DP above, can DP occour under a DP?
😢