Author Topic: NP → (D) N' ... DP → D NP (Read 5961 times)

Jase · « **on:** March 16, 2014, 10:25:52 PM »

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'

DP → D NP

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 · « **Reply #1 on:** March 17, 2014, 09:36:24 AM »

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 · « **Reply #2 on:** March 17, 2014, 01:44:09 PM »

Quote from: djr33 on March 17, 2014, 09:36:24 AM

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 · « **Reply #3 on:** March 17, 2014, 01:54:50 PM »

Correct.

Author Topic: NP → (D) N' ... DP → D NP (Read 5961 times)

Jase

NP → (D) N' ... DP → D NP

Daniel

Re: NP → (D) N' ... DP → D NP

Jase

Re: NP → (D) N' ... DP → D NP

Daniel

Re: NP → (D) N' ... DP → D NP