Larry’s Reviews > An Introduction to Syntactic Analysis and Theory > Status Update
Larry
is on page 205 of 472
On the 1hand, VPE strands Neg°, so NegP can’t adjoin to VP (ie [VP [Neg] [VP]]), it must take VP as its complement (ie [NegP [Neg’ [Neg] [VP]]]), but on the other, Neg doesn’t change the category of what it applies to (“alienable” is Adj, so is “inalienable”), arguing for adjunction. Tough
— Sep 27, 2026 05:06AM
Like flag
Larry’s Previous Updates
Larry
is on page 286 of 472
Successive cyclic movement allows us to save the subjacency condition!
— Sep 28, 2026 01:10PM
Larry
is on page 249 of 472
The difference btw Raising to object and Control is whether the surface DP complement is selected by the verb (Control: eg “convince”), or surfaces post-verbally as the embedded subject of the TP-complement (Raising: eg “believe”)
— Sep 28, 2026 04:19AM
Larry
is on page 251 of 472
Object control vs ECM verbs: OCs select an (inf-)TP-, ECMs, an (inf-)CP-complement
— Sep 28, 2026 03:03AM
Larry
is on page 212 of 472
Selection test: is “time” selected by “seems” or “elapse” in “Time seems to elapse AdvP”? Change the embedded VP: “*Time seems to swim AdvP”: bad. Is it because of “seems”? Compare: “Sharks seem to swim AdvP”: fine. Conclusion: “Time” seems to be selected by “elapse”, not “seems”.
— Sep 27, 2026 06:52AM
Larry
is on page 134 of 472
I didn’t know there was controversy on whether adjuncts are sisters to X’ or XP: interesting!!
— Sep 20, 2026 07:11AM