NP → (D) N' ... DP → D NP

[Jase]

In the beginning of the discussion about X-bar Theory, Carnie lists NP → (D) N' as the first PSR (chapter 6), but in the following chapter he adjusts the rules to incorporate the determiner phrase, so that we now have DP → D NP. Does this mean that I should delete the first rule from my thinking? I'm trying to keep an updated list of PSRs as I progress through this study, but I'm not sure if I should just delete that and from now on just have NP → N' without any determiner/specifier slot, since this has been moved outside of the NP.

NP → (D) N'

[tree][NP [D the][N' [AdjP [Adj' [Adj nice]]][N' [N lady]]]][/tree]

DP → D NP

[tree][DP [D the][NP [N' [AdjP [Adj' [Adj nice]]][N' [N lady]]]]][/tree]

Thanks for taking the time to look at these things. I wouldn't bother you with such simplistic stuff, but I don't have anyone else to turn to with questions. I really appreciate it.

[Daniel]

Carnie frequently updates the grammar by eliminating earlier rules, even entire lines of argumentation. It's a process, and the grammar is constantly evolving.
The book is pretty good but that's my biggest objection, just because it's confusing.

[Jase]

Carnie frequently updates the grammar by eliminating earlier rules, even entire lines of argumentation. It's a process, and the grammar is constantly evolving.
The book is pretty good but that's my biggest objection, just because it's confusing.

In other words, I can delete the older rule at this point? Is NP → (D) N no longer a necessary rule?

[Daniel]

Correct.