Hello, TheTrevTutor. I would like to thank you for your work. You are really helping me with all your explanations. If you don't mind, I would like to ask you for an exercise video about this subject. It would help me to understand how to draw these kind of trees. Bye!
i really appreciate your efforts .your videos are handy and helpful .would you please add some video about type of clause and label them as in exercises .thanks a lot
Thank you so much for the amazing videos. I have a doubt. I want Mary to see the performance. Here, can Mary not act as a subject to the infinitival clause?
Great video, one question: what is the benefit of being able to identify "what type of clause it is" if you follow X bar and all the other rules to drawing trees from your lecture series you can correctly draw trees. How does knowing what type of clause it is help you? Is this video good just for review on key terms that will help us understand why were doing what were doing? or is it somehow beneficial to understand these concepts (in relation to drawing trees)
Well, if you can draw a tree, then you're set for minimalism and X-bar. But, if you look at other theories of syntax or want to talk experimentally, then you have to know the terminology and concepts behind the trees. Once you're able to draw trees and understand the terms, then the terminology and conceptual understanding becomes much more important than being able to draw a tree.
The adjunct/complement distinction is kind of fuzzy for me -- I think it's just one of those things that isn't super well defined. But in this case, I think the c-selection of the VP [to go] requires an argument that has the "where" information. A sentence like "I went" is grammatically correct at a bare-bones level, but functionally, it doesn't actually give us the information that the usage of [to go] promises. The only time you would say "I went," "I'm going," etc in real speech is if the "where" argument is implied from previous context in the conversation. (1: "Have you been to the festival yet?" 2: "I'm going tomorrow." -- 2 is really saying "I'm going [to the festival] tomorrow," but we're able to elide it because the information already exists.)
@@alexaveld3212 Thanks! You can also just say "I'm going!" though, meaning "I'm leaving!", but maybe that's essentially a different meaning of "go" and thus has a different structure from the kind of "go" that implies a "to". It's funny though that you can't really do this with other verbs like "put" though. Like, if someone says "The clock needs to be on the table!" you can't just say "OK, fine, I'll put!" or even "... I'll put it!" You still have to have both "it" and "there" in the sentence even when it's clear from the context. Because of the rule of complements needing to be sister to the head, I'm still not sure what to do with direct and indirect objects, other cases of double complements such as with "put" and particles of phrasal verbs. I'd really love to just do away with the complement/adjunct distinction and just allow any of them to attach at whatever height in the phrase they need to to preserve the order, but apparently that's not how it works. I'd love to know how it actually does work though. Also, where do fronted adverbials move to?
Another winner...but i worry about how you are applying the term "infinitive." A non-finite VP of the form "to + basal infinitive" is not correctly a prepositional infinitive, as the "to" is a particle, a marker that carries no self-evident value. It is so with idiomatic phrasal verbs--they are of the construction "V + particle," within which the particle can move. "I want to blow up the bunker" vs. "I want to blow it up." How is the unique case of particles dealt within the CP context?
Eureka! "The standard abbreviation for complementizer is C. The complementizer is often held to be the syntactic head of a full clause, which is therefore often represented by the abbreviation CP (for complementizer phrase)." wikipedia
I know this video is pretty old already and the chance of anyone responding to my comment is slim, but I'll ask anyway. In your example of an infinitival clause, you said that the infinitival TP cannot contain a specifier; but can't the subject "I" of the sentence be seen as originating in the specifier position of the VP and then being moved first to the specifier position of the infinitival TP and then being moved to the specifier position of the overarching TP? A kind of double syntactic movement following the "VP internal subject hypothesis"? Maybe I am getting this completely wrong, if that is the case, I am very sorry. I have not yet started my degree in linguistics at university and have exclusively been teaching myself.
i was really proud cos i paused the vid and did john said that he likes mary and i thought i got it right but then there was no tree for it so i was sad
![[Syntax] Theta Roles and Theta Grids](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/06MpE22sIPI/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Syntax] Theta Roles and Theta Grids](/img/tr.png)
![[Syntax] X-Bar Theory - Specifiers, Adjuncts, and Complements](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n8TYuq173N0/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Syntax] DP Hypothesis and Possessive Structure](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/63Zbn_w8Lm4/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Syntax] Verbs and Their Grammatical Properties](/img/n.gif)
Please add exercises! This is helping me loads!
Hello, TheTrevTutor.
I would like to thank you for your work. You are really helping me with all your explanations.
If you don't mind, I would like to ask you for an exercise video about this subject. It would help me to understand how to draw these kind of trees.
Bye!
Yes, if you can draw examples of these! We’d greatly appreciate that!
i really appreciate your efforts .your videos are handy and helpful .would you please add some video about type of clause and label them as in exercises .thanks a lot
Ok serious question. Where do you teach? I will just enroll to that school.
Yeah, I really want to know the tree diagram of sentential subjects! Please add exercise!
Thank you so much for the amazing videos.
I have a doubt.
I want Mary to see the performance. Here, can Mary not act as a subject to the infinitival clause?
I owe you my life
You're awesome, brother!
How does this conceptualisation work across all or most languages?
Great video, one question: what is the benefit of being able to identify "what type of clause it is" if you follow X bar and all the other rules to drawing trees from your lecture series you can correctly draw trees. How does knowing what type of clause it is help you? Is this video good just for review on key terms that will help us understand why were doing what were doing? or is it somehow beneficial to understand these concepts (in relation to drawing trees)
Well, if you can draw a tree, then you're set for minimalism and X-bar. But, if you look at other theories of syntax or want to talk experimentally, then you have to know the terminology and concepts behind the trees. Once you're able to draw trees and understand the terms, then the terminology and conceptual understanding becomes much more important than being able to draw a tree.
At 2:33 you say "to Nara" is the complement of "went". How is it not an adjunct? You can just drop it from the sentence.
The adjunct/complement distinction is kind of fuzzy for me -- I think it's just one of those things that isn't super well defined. But in this case, I think the c-selection of the VP [to go] requires an argument that has the "where" information. A sentence like "I went" is grammatically correct at a bare-bones level, but functionally, it doesn't actually give us the information that the usage of [to go] promises. The only time you would say "I went," "I'm going," etc in real speech is if the "where" argument is implied from previous context in the conversation. (1: "Have you been to the festival yet?" 2: "I'm going tomorrow." -- 2 is really saying "I'm going [to the festival] tomorrow," but we're able to elide it because the information already exists.)
@@alexaveld3212 Thanks! You can also just say "I'm going!" though, meaning "I'm leaving!", but maybe that's essentially a different meaning of "go" and thus has a different structure from the kind of "go" that implies a "to".
It's funny though that you can't really do this with other verbs like "put" though. Like, if someone says "The clock needs to be on the table!" you can't just say "OK, fine, I'll put!" or even "... I'll put it!" You still have to have both "it" and "there" in the sentence even when it's clear from the context.
Because of the rule of complements needing to be sister to the head, I'm still not sure what to do with direct and indirect objects, other cases of double complements such as with "put" and particles of phrasal verbs. I'd really love to just do away with the complement/adjunct distinction and just allow any of them to attach at whatever height in the phrase they need to to preserve the order, but apparently that's not how it works. I'd love to know how it actually does work though. Also, where do fronted adverbials move to?
I thought that the bars (^) indicated the rising rhythm and falling rhythm.
can this be true?
What is overt complimentizer?
whats a CP? i know that linguists use different names of abbreviations for words but ive never heard CP before...
CP stands for Complementizer Phrase. You can check th-cam.com/video/8GQ6cjITFQo/w-d-xo.html
Nice sir
Another winner...but i worry about how you are applying the term "infinitive." A non-finite VP of the form "to + basal infinitive" is not correctly a prepositional infinitive, as the "to" is a particle, a marker that carries no self-evident value. It is so with idiomatic phrasal verbs--they are of the construction "V + particle," within which the particle can move. "I want to blow up the bunker" vs. "I want to blow it up." How is the unique case of particles dealt within the CP context?
What does CP mean?
Eureka! "The standard abbreviation for complementizer is C. The complementizer is often held to be the syntactic head of a full clause, which is therefore often represented by the abbreviation CP (for complementizer phrase)." wikipedia
I know this video is pretty old already and the chance of anyone responding to my comment is slim, but I'll ask anyway.
In your example of an infinitival clause, you said that the infinitival TP cannot contain a specifier; but can't the subject "I" of the sentence be seen as originating in the specifier position of the VP and then being moved first to the specifier position of the infinitival TP and then being moved to the specifier position of the overarching TP? A kind of double syntactic movement following the "VP internal subject hypothesis"?
Maybe I am getting this completely wrong, if that is the case, I am very sorry. I have not yet started my degree in linguistics at university and have exclusively been teaching myself.
i was really proud cos i paused the vid and did john said that he likes mary and i thought i got it right but then there was no tree for it so i was sad