Northeast Corridor Morphology

 Zoom Intelligence has summarized our meeting! Meeting assets for NorthEastCorridor Morphology are ready! Meeting summary  Quick recap The group explored various aspects of English syntax and phonology, including Scots dialect variations, modal verbs, and the complexities of prepositions in French. They discussed morphological and syntactic differences between past and present tenses in different languages, particularly focusing on Georgian and the role of modals in syntax. The conversation ended with discussions about semantic head movement, modal scope, and the challenges of categorizing verbs and their forms within a syntactic framework, with plans to meet again in December. Next steps Alec: let everyone know about the last meeting of the semester in December Alec: discuss the best ways to use this group in thinking about what to do in the spring Alec: discuss whether to change some of the ways they're doing things for next semester Summary Scots Accents and Syntax Projecti...

After today's discussion of possession, I wanted to write down a short (I hope) puzzle that I have been thinking about in connection with have -possession in English. To keep it short, I'll mostly avoid fleshing out all the implications and just treat it as a series of puzzles, which I think are relevant to a lot of what we have talked about. (Now that I finished, I see that it would probably exceed the word limit for Snippets ...)  The starting observation is that (1) and (2) are basically equivalent.  (1) She has a lot of money. (2) She has got a lot of money.  In my (American) English, got is very different from gotten , so (2) cannot be eventive/inchoative. It is strictly possessive. In (1), have  normally cannot undergo subject-aux inversion (nursery rhymes aside); see (3). But in (2), it can; see (4).  (3) *Has she a lot of money? / Does she have a lot of money.  (4) Has she got a lot of money?  So let's call this puzzle 1 : (2) has auxiliary hav...

 On Syntactic Features In discussions of the morphophonological mapping from syntax to phonology, we aim to establish generalizations based on the features of morphemes in the syntax.  But the featural content of morphemes in the syntax is often undertheorized by syntacticians, who are often motivated by a desire to keep the syntax somehow transparent to semantic interpretation.  What sorts of features should morphemes carry in the syntax? Syntactically relevant features?  What does the syntax actually accomplish with the features? Features related to agreement and case marking:  “Unvalued” or “valued” person, number, and gender features.  Unvalued or valued case features? Features related to syntactic selection?  Here we can separate proposals into two categories.  First, we have EPP or Merge features, i.e., features that ask for Merger, often requiring Merger of a phrase with a categorical (+DP) or “criterial” ...