meow

1 files changed, 13 insertions, 10 deletions

diff --git a/linguistics/syntax.md b/linguistics/syntax.md
index 9aee239..d9cbe7b 100644
--- a/linguistics/syntax.md
+++ b/linguistics/syntax.md
@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ Certainly, all of syntax cannot be taught at once. Yet the desire to generalize
 - Move [SKS 8]
   - [Affix Hopping](#affix-hopping)
   - Head Movement [SKS 8.3]
-  - Wh- Movement
+  - Wh- Movement [SKS 10]
   - [vP Shells](#vp-shells) [SKS 12.4]
 - Agree
   - Theta Roles [SKS 6.8.1]
@@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ Surprisingly (or unsurprisingly), we shall see that these ideas generalize to se
 
 ### silent heads
 
-Why are proper names Ds? Why is it possible to say either *I moved the couches* and *I moved couches*, but only possible to say *I moved the couch* and not *I moved couch*? Why is the infinitive form of a verb identical to the present, in some cases?
+Why are proper names $D$s? Why is it possible to say either *I moved the couches* and *I moved couches*, but only possible to say *I moved the couch* and not *I moved couch*? Why is the infinitive form of a verb identical to the present, in some cases?
 
 These inconsistencies can be all addressed by one (controversial) concept: the idea of *silent morphemes*, invisible in writing and unpronounceable in speech. We represent such morphemes as ∅, and so may write the earlier strange sentence as *I moved ∅-couches*.
 
@@ -205,7 +205,7 @@ The lexicon and structure are blended in bare phrase structure. This is useful,
 
 ...
 
-It cannot be emphasized enough that notational conventions are *just that*: notational conventions. There's nothing stopping us from exclusively using X'-notation or exclusively using BPS, and syntactic concepts are *not* tied to any specific notation. I will pretty much exclusively use BPS going forth as I like it a whole lot more.
+It cannot be emphasized enough that notational conventions are *just that*: notational conventions. There's nothing stopping us from exclusively using X'-notation or exclusively using BPS, and the syntactic concepts they describe are *not* tied to any specific notation. I will pretty much exclusively use BPS going forth as I like it a whole lot more.
 
 ### lexical entries
 
@@ -263,9 +263,10 @@ Merge is *the* fundamental underlying aspect of syntax and arguably language as
 
 </details>
 
-So far, we have not dealt with tense. We have diagrammed sentences with verbs in present and past forms by entirely ignoring their *-s* and *-ed* affixes. But tense is an aspect of grammar just like anything else, and writing it off as purely semantic does no good to anyone. Indeed, the English future having its tense marker *will* as a free-standing morpheme strongly suggests that we have to treat tense as a category in its own right, and not just as an inflectional property of verbs.
+So far, we have not dealt with tense. We have diagrammed sentences with verbs in present and past forms by entirely ignoring their *-s* and *-ed* affixes. But tense is an aspect of grammar just like anything else, and writing it off as purely semantic does no good to anyone. Indeed, the English future having its tense marker *will* as a free-standing morpheme strongly suggests that we have to treat tense as a syntactic category in its own right, and not just as an inflectional property of verbs.
 
 A tense needs a *subject*. This is evident in our tree structure below, but is motivated by...
+
 For now, we'll consider the verb to no longer be in charge of selecting the subject. This is not in fact accurate - as we will see at the end of this section - but it is a simplification we shall make for the time being.
 
 ![will](tense-will.png)
@@ -290,7 +291,9 @@ For now, we'll consider the verb to no longer be in charge of selecting the subj
 
 </details>
 
-...
+While *will* is straightforward: what about *-ed* and and *-s*? These markers are *suffixes* (bound morphemes) and are directly attached to the end of the verb. Attempts to diagram these with our current knowledge of syntactic structure begin and end with nonsense. However, consider *will*: on analogy with *will*, it should follow that the tense markers *-ed* and *-s* should actually be in the same position, given our diagramming of *will* works without issue. But how can this be?
+
+In this section, we introduce the idea of *movement*: that certain portions of sentences can *move* in certain *constrained* fashions around the rest of the sentence, almost (but not quite) *copying* themselves to other places. We saw hints of this with our constituency tests earlier producing grammatically valid but unanalyzable sentences. For now, we shall simply assert that tense suffixes move on analogy with *will* without asserting anything about movement in general. We shall cover constraints on movement shortly.
 
 ![(-ed)](tense-ed.png)
 <details markdown="block">
@@ -315,6 +318,8 @@ For now, we'll consider the verb to no longer be in charge of selecting the subj
 
 </details>
 
+English's first-person present does not inflect the verb, and so we must introduce a null $T$. A similar example is given for the present tense in the third person, which does have an explicit tense marker.
+
 ![()](tense-null.png)
 <details markdown="block">
 <summary>LaTeX</summary>
@@ -338,8 +343,6 @@ For now, we'll consider the verb to no longer be in charge of selecting the subj
 
 </details>
 
-...
-
 ![(-s)](tense-s.png)
 <details markdown="block">
 <summary>LaTeX</summary>
@@ -363,7 +366,7 @@ For now, we'll consider the verb to no longer be in charge of selecting the subj
 
 </details>
 
-This now makes our top-level phrase type $T$ instead of $V$. It will not remain so for very long.
+This now makes our top-level phrase type $T$ instead of $V$. It will not remain so for very long, as we shall see in <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Agree</span>.
 
 ### head movement
 
@@ -395,7 +398,7 @@ Consider the following sentence: *Alice will speak to the assembly*. With our cu
 
 </details>
 
-The $D$ *Alice* here is the subject. While replacing it with some $D$s produces grammatical sentences ex. *The prime minister will speak to the assembly*: this is not true of all $D$s. Slotting in inanimate $D$s like *Time will speak to the assembly* and *Knowledge will speak to the assembly* produces grammatically unacceptable sentences. So there is some *selection* occurring somewhere in the sentence that wants a particular *feature set* (f-features) from the subject $D$.
+The $D$ *Alice* here is the subject. While replacing it with some $D$s produces grammatical sentences ex. *The prime minister will speak to the assembly*: this is not true of all $D$s. Slotting in inanimate $D$s like *Time will speak to the assembly* and *Knowledge will speak to the assembly* produces grammatically unacceptable sentences. So there is some *selection* occurring somewhere in the sentence that wants a particular *feature set* (f-features) from the subject $D$, specifically, animacy.
 
 Observe, however, that our tree structure suggests that $T$ - and only $T$ - is involved in the selection of $Alice$ as the subject, given locality of selection. But this can't be quite right. Plenty of other sentences involving the $T$ *will* are just fine with inanimate subjects: *Time will pass*, *Knowledge will be passed on*, etc. (Notice that *Alice will pass* and *Alice will be passed on* are similarly ungrammatical). How do we reconcile this?
 
@@ -426,7 +429,7 @@ We now introduce the idea of $vP$ shells and V-to-T movement. Our observations a
 
 </details>
 
-So we say that *Alice* is originally selected by the $V$ and *moves* to its surface position in the $T$. Our head movement principles allow for this. This does mean that every tree diagram we have drawn up until now is inaccurate, and that almost every tree we draw going forward will have to have this V-to-T movement. This is a fine tradeoff to make in exchange for accurately describing previously-unclear syntactic behavior.
+So we say that *Alice* is originally selected by the $V$ and *moves* to its surface position in the $T$. Our head movement principles allow for this. This does mean that every tree diagram we have drawn up until now is inaccurate, and that almost every tree we draw going forward will have to have this somewhat redundant V-to-T movement. This is a fine tradeoff to make in exchange for accurately describing previously-unclear syntactic behavior.
 
 > Note: this is not called V-to-T movement. What *is* it called?