Predicate-Internal Subjects, Auxiliaries, Nonfinite Clauses

Home , Subject (grammar)

Some mid-term policy decisions CAS LX 522 and clarifications Syntax I ¥ Proper names in English as DPs with ¯ D. ¥ Full clauses are CPs ¥ Predicate-internal subjects, auxiliaries, nonfinite clauses. Week 8. Control and PRO ¥ EPP holds in nonfinite clauses ¥ Expletives don’t get θ-roles. ¥ ECM, embedded TPs.

Proper names Matrix clauses are CPs… ¥ Henceforth, we will consider ¥ We will also consider all matrix proper names in English to be DP clauses to be full CPs. CP DPs with a ¯ D head, in order to D′ C′ capture the crosslinguistically ¥ In questions, we need a CP headed common form of proper names D NP C TP ¯ by a [+Q] morpheme in C. [ÐQ] the Bill, as well as to allow for N′ DP T′ the Bill I know, etc. Bill N ¥ In declaratives, we will assume T … Bill that we have a CP headed by a should (null) [ÐQ] morpheme.

Internal subjects … Predicate-internal subjects and auxiliaries DS T′ … ¥ Note that this means that the subject ¥ VP-Internal Subject Hypothesis DS The subject of a verb originates in ′ has to be in the specifier of the main T VP T verb in cases where there are [past] the specifier of VP at DS. V′ T VP auxiliaries. Not in the specifier of the auxiliary verb—it’s the main verb ′ θ V VP ¥ This goes for other subjects of DP V which assigns the -roles. have other predicates, e.g., small clauses V′ DP ′ V … V like I find Bill intolerable. ¥ Also note: This has nothing to do with Bill V AP whether the clause is finite or not—this V DP find eaten has to do with VP (or AP, etc.), not θ DP A′ ¥ All -roles are assigned within the with TP. The subject is always in the lunch predicate’s own XP. Bill A specifier of the predicate. intolerable

1 EPP: Clarification Expletives and θ-roles

¥ The EPP is a constraint on TP, it says that ¥ Let me reiterate, the reason we have expletives at θ SpecTP must be filled. all is because we have a conflict between the - criterion and the EPP. Ð The EPP requires something in SpecTP. Ð The θ-criterion says we can only have as many ¥ It is not a property of finite T alone, it is a arguments as there are θ-roles. property of T in general. In particular, the ¥ In it rains, it is not present at DS—it cannot be, SpecTP position of a nonfinite clause must be because it cannot get a θ-role (since there is none filled as well. This will be relevant later today. around for it to get), but is inserted between DS and SS in order to satisfy the EPP.

Government Government The radius of The radius of ¥ These three environments government ¥ A Case-assigning head X can government Ð Sister assign Case to a DP which is Ð Specifier any of these positions. Ð Specifier of sister XP XP ¥ …are together sometimes ¥ Case-assignment can only called the positions which DP X′ take place between a Case- DP X′ are governed by the head X. assigner and a DP within the X YP radius of government. X YP DP Y′ DP Y′

Y … Y …

… * TP Government Case ′ SS DPi T ¥ Take this to be The Truth. The radius of Bill government ¥ This is how I drew the tj VP tree last time (and in t ′ ¥ Bill wants me to leave. fact how it is drawn in i V the book). V +T CP j ′ ¥ Here the verb want assigns an XP wants C θ Experiencer -role and a Proposition ′ θ DP X ¥ But can this be right? C TP -role, the proposition assigned to [ÐQ] the embedded clause. T′ X YP DPk 1sg Y′ T VP ¥ Me is getting Case from want, DP ¥ Can want provide to V′ Case for me? t apparently, since it is accusative. Y … k V leave

2 … TP * … Case ′ SS Case SS DPi T Bill TP tj VP ¥ Answer: No. ¥ Instead, it must look ′ DPi T like this, where there is Bill ti V′ no CP containing the tj VP V +T CP embedded clause, just a j ′ ¥ Want wants C bare TP. ti V′ and me are too far apart. C TP Vj+T TP [ÐQ] ¥ Now, everything is wants T′ T′ DPk fine. DPk ¥ Me is not in the 1sg 1sg T VP T VP government radius of to to want. V′ V′ tk V tk V leave leave

CP ECM … SS TP ¥ So when do we have CP and when don’t we? ¥ This configuration, where ′ DPi T ¥ Finite clauses always have a CP (this includes a Case-assigning predicate Bill matrix clauses now too.). provides Case to the tj VP specifier of its sister, is ¥ Nonfinite clauses generally don’t have a CP sometimes called ti V′ unless you can see it (unless there is a Exceptional Case Marking Vj+T TP complementizer or some other evidence of CP). (ECM). wants ¥ The idea was that it’s an T′ Ð I want for Bill to leave. (CP) DPk unusual configuration for 1sg Ð I want Bill to leave. (TP) T VP Case (not complement or to Ð I don’t know what to buy. (CP) specifier of the assigner). V′ tk V leave

CP Back to C′ ECM C TP … SS business… [ÐQ] DS ¥ Note! The textbook TP T′ provides an altogether ′ ¥ Mary is likely to leave. different analysis of how DPi T T VP me gets Case in this Bill ¥ Mary starts in SpecVP, [pres] V′ sentence, under the name tj VP gets a θ-role from leave. V AdjP “object raising”. be Adj′ ti V′ ¥ Problem is, doing it the θ Adj TP way the textbook does Vj+T TP wants likely right now breaks X-bar T′ T′ theory and we don’t want DPk 1sg to do that. So, for now, T T VP VP this is the official way to to to V′ V′ analyze these sentences. t DPi k V Mary V leave θ leave

3 CP CP C′ C′ C TP C TP Recall… [ÐQ] Recall… [ÐQ] SS ′ ′ T DPi T Mary ¥ Mary is likely to leave. ¥ Mary is likely to leave. (Note how we Vj+T VP Vj+T VP write multiple ′ ′ ¥ Mary starts in SpecVP, be+[pres] V ¥ Mary starts in SpecVP, be+[pres] V traces) gets a θ-role from leave. gets a θ-role from leave. tj AdjP tj AdjP ¥ Mary moves up to the Adj′ ¥ Mary moves up to the Adj′ embedded SpecTP to θ embedded SpecTP to θ satisfy the EPP. Adj TP satisfy the EPP. Adj TP likely likely ¥ Mary still doesn’t have Case. T′ ¥ Mary still doesn’t have Case. ′ T′ DPi ti Mary ¥ Mary moves up to main T VP T VP to clause SpecTP, satisfying the to ′ EPP and getting Case. ′ ti V ti V V V θ leave θ leave

CP C′ C TP Recall… [ÐQ] SS Reluctance to leave ′ DPi T Mary ¥ This happens because ¥ Now, consider: θ Vj+T VP likely assigns only one - be+[pres] V′ Ð Mary is reluctant to leave. role, an internal θ-role. tj AdjP Adj′ ¥ This looks very similar to Mary is likely to leave. ¥ Likely does not assign θ Case, and so Mary must Adj TP ¥ Can we draw the same kind of tree for it? likely keep moving, both to ′ T′ ti satisfy the EPP and to get ¥ How many θ-roles does reluctant assign? Case. T VP to ′ ti V V θ leave

Reluctance to leave Reluctance to leave

¥ Reluctant has two θ-roles to assign. ¥ In Mary is reluctant to leave, Ð One to the one feeling the reluctance (Experiencer) Ð Mary is doing the leaving, gets Agent Ð One to the proposition about which the reluctance holds from leave. (Proposition) Ð Mary is showing the reluctance, gets Experiencer from reluctant. ¥ Leave has one θ-role to assign. Ð To the one doing the leaving (Agent). ¥ And we have a problem: ¥ In Mary is reluctant to leave, what θ-role does Mary get? Ð Mary appears to be getting two θ- roles, in violation of the θ-criterion.

4 TP TP

′ ′ Reluctance… DPi T SS Reluctance… DPi T SS Mary Mary Vj+T VP Vj+T VP is V′ is V′ ¥ Mary is reluctant to leave. ¥ Mary is reluctant to leave. t t ¥ Reluctant assigns its θ- j AdjP ¥ There must be something j AdjP θ roles within AdjP as ti Adj′ there, getting the -role ti Adj′ required, Mary moves up and satisfying the EPP. θ θ θ θ to SpecTP in the main Adj TP Adj TP clause by SS. reluctant reluctant ′ ¥ But we can’t see it. ′ ? T ? T ¥ But what gets the θ-role T VP ¥ It’s a phonologically T VP from leave, and what to to ′ empty (¯) DP. We will ′ satisfies the EPP for the ? V call it PRO. ? V θ V θ V embedded clause? leave leave

TP TP

′ ′ Reluctance… DPi T SS Reluctance… DPi T SS Mary Mary Vj+T VP ¥ Mary is reluctant Vj+T VP is V′ [PRO to leave]. is V′ ¥ Mary is reluctant to leave. tj AdjP tj AdjP ¥ There must be something ¥ PRO does not get Case. θ there, getting the -role ti Adj′ Ð *Mary is reluctant Bill to leave. ti Adj′ and satisfying the EPP. θ θ θ θ Adj TP Adj TP reluctant ¥ In fact, PRO cannot get Case. reluctant ¥ But we can’t see it. ′ ′ DPk T Ð *Mary is reluctant for to leave DPk T PRO Ð Mary is reluctant for Bill to leave PRO T VP T VP ¥ It’s a phonologically to to empty (¯) DP. We will t ′ ¥ PRO refers (like a pronoun or t ′ call it PRO. k V k V θ V an anaphor) to Mary. θ V leave leave

If there’s a PRO, If there’s a PRO, how do we know? how do we know? θ ¥ Mary is reluctant [PROm to leave] ¥ Best method for finding PRO: Count the - ¥ Mary is likely [ t to leave]. roles. If there appear to be fewer arguments i i than θ-roles (in a grammatical sentence), there must be a PRO. ¥ These two sentences look very much alike—when faced with a sentence that ¥ Another way is to try with idioms like The looks like this, how do we know which kind cat is out of the bag or The cat’s got your it is? tongue or The jig is up.

5 Idioms Idioms

¥ For something to have an idiomatic ¥ It is ok if the pieces of the idiom move away interpretation (an interpretation not literally after DS, we can still get the idiomatic derivable from its component words), the interpretation: pieces need to be very close together at DS. Ð [The cat]i is likely ti to have your tongue. Ð [The cat] is likely t to be out of the bag. Ð It is likely that the jig is up. i i Ð [The jig] is likely t to be up. Ð It is likely that the cat is out of the bag. i i ¥ The important thing is that they are together Ð It is likely that the cat has your tongue. at DS (the θ-role needs to be assigned by the predicate to the noun)

Idioms Idioms

¥ If we break up the pieces, then we lose the ¥ The reason for this is that the idiomatic idiomatic interpretation and can only get the literal subject and the idiomatic predicate were meaning. never together… Ð The cat thinks that it is out of the bag. Ð The cat is reluctant [PRO to be out of the bag] Ð The cat thinks that it has your tongue. ¥ With PRO sentences (“control sentences”), we Ð The cat attempted [PRO to have your tongue] also lose the idiomatic reading. Ð The jig tried [PRO to be up] Ð #The cat is reluctant to be out of the bag. Ð #The cat attempted to have your tongue. ¥ Unlike with raising verbs: Ð #The jig tried to be up. Ð [The jig]i is likely [ ti to be up]

Control Subject and object control

¥ PRO is similar to a silent pronoun; it gets its ¥ There are actually two different kinds of referent from somewhere outside its “control verbs”, those whose subject controls an sentence. In many situations, however, PRO embedded PRO and those whose object does. is forced to co-refer to a preceding DP, unlike a pronoun. ¥ Billi is reluctant [PROi to leave] Ð Billi thinks that hei/j is a genius. Ð reluctant is a subject control predicate Ð Billi is reluctant PROi/*j to leave. ¥ Johni persuaded Billj [PROj to leave] ¥ We say that PRO is controlled (here by Ð persuade is an object control predicate the matrix subject).

6 PROarb “Control theory” ¥ For now, what control theory consists of is just ¥ Finally, there is a third use of PRO, in marking the theta grids of specific predicates (persuade, which it gets arbitrary reference and means reluctant) with an extra notation that indicates when an something like “someone/anyone”. argument is a controller.

Ð [PROarb to leave] would be a mistake. reluctant Experiencer Proposition controller ¥ The conditions on which interpretation PRO i j can/must get are referred to as Control persuade Agent Theme Proposition Theory, although to this day the underlying controller explanation for Control remains elusive. i j k

“Control theory” The PRO conundrum ¥ Predicates that have a controller marked are control ¥ Back when we talked about Binding Theory, we said that predicates. When the controller is the external DPs come in one of three types, pronouns, anaphors, and argument, it is a subject control predicate, otherwise it R-expressions. is an object control predicate. ¥ PRO is a DP, so which kind is it? reluctant Experiencer Proposition Ð It gets its reference from elsewhere, so it can’t be an R- controller expression. i j Ð It is sometimes forced to get its referent from an antecedent, like an anaphor and unlike a pronoun. persuade Agent Theme Proposition Ð But that referent is outside its clause, meaning it can’t be an controller anaphor (the antecedent would be too far away for Principle A). Plus, it’s not always forced (PRO ), like a pronoun. i j k arb

The PRO conundrum The PRO conundrum ¥ Back when we talked about Binding Theory, we said that ¥ These weird properties of PRO are sometimes DPs come in one of three types, pronouns, anaphors, and taken to be the cause of another generalization R-expressions. about PRO (the “PRO theorem”) ¥ PRO is a DP, so which kind is it? ¥ PRO cannot get Case.

¥ Conclusion: It doesn’t seem to be any one of the three. It doesn’t seem to fall neatly under Binding Theory ¥ That is, PRO is forbidden from any position where Case would be assigned to it (hence, it cannot appear in SpecTP of a finite ¥ …hence, we need “Control Theory” to deal with the clause—only a nonfinite clause) distribution and interpretation of PRO.

7 PRO: One possible Control Theory piece of support ¥ Despite the fact that PRO does not submit to ¥ Let’s think back to Binding Theory. Binding Theory, there are some binding-theory- ¥ Principle A says that anaphors must be like requirements on control of PRO. bound within their binding domain, and we take binding domain to be the clause. ¥ PRO is only obligatorily controlled by a c- Ð *Bill wants [Mary to meet himself] commanding controller. ¥ However, now consider: Ð Bill is reluctant to buy himself a gift. Ð Bill promised Mary to buy himself a gift. ¥ [Billj’s mother]i is reluctant [PROi/*j to leave] ¥ Why are these allowed?

PRO: One possible PRO: recap piece of support Ð Bill is reluctant [PRO to buy himself a gift] i i i ¥ Although we can’t see that PRO is there, all of Ð Bill promised Mary [PRO to buy himself a gift] i i i our theoretical mechanisms point to its being Ð *Billi promised Maryj [PROi to buy herselfj a gift] there. Ð *Billi promised Maryj [PROi to buy himi a gift] Ð EPP says that clauses need a subject. Ð Billi promised Maryj [PROi to buy herj a gift] Ð The θ-criterion says that there must be exactly as Ð *Billi is reluctant [PROi to buy himi a gift] many arguments as θ-roles. ¥ While it’s true that Bill is outside of the binding Ð Binding Theory indicates something is present inside domain of himself, and hence Bill cannot be the embedded clauses. antecedent for himself, PRO is in the binding ¥ If the rest of our theory is right, it seems that domain and its reference is controlled. PRO must be there.

Back to raising Back to raising ¥ In fact, nothing keeps us from piling raising ¥ So far, we’ve only talked about is likely, but verbs one atop the other: there are a couple of other raising verbs as well. Ð [The cat] seems [ t ′ likely [ t to get his tongue]]. Ð [The cat] seems [ t to be out of the bag]. i i i i TP i ′′ ′ Ð [The jig]i began [ ti to seem [ ti likely [ ti to be up]]] Ð [The cat]i appears [TP ti to have his tongue]. Ð [The jig]i proved [TP ti to be up]. Ð [The cat]i began [TP ti to get his tongue]. ¥ In these cases, the subject moves from SpecTP to ¥ What these verbs have in common is that they SpecTP, only receiving Case at the last stop, have no external θ-role and an internal satisfying the EPP at each TP. Proposition θ-role.

8 Back to raising Side note: Chains ¥ Raising verbs will cause anything in a complement TP Ð [The jig] began [ t ′′ to seem [ t ′ likely [ t to be up]]] that isn’t getting Case to move up to their SpecTP. i i i i ¥ Passive arguments: ¥ Some time ago we saw the term chain applied to ′ the concept of positions occupied by a (moving) Ð [The sandwich]i seems [ ti to have been [ eaten ti]] ¥ Even expletive it: constituent in a structure.

ÐIti began [ ti to rain] ¥ Here, the chain for The jig is: ÐIt began [ t ′′ to seem [ t ′ likely [ t to rain]]] ′′ ′ i i i i Ð ( [The jig]i, ti , ti , ti ) ¥ Here, it was inserted to satisfy the EPP in the most ¥ …referring to all the places its been in the tree. embedded TP, but then raised from SpecTP to SpecTP to satisfy the rest of their EPP conditions.

Side note: Chains Italian subjects ′′ ′ Ð [The jig]i began [ ti to seem [ ti likely [ ti to be up]]] Ð Chain: ( [The jig] , t ′′ , t ′ , t ) ¥ Many languages have the property that i i i i when the subject is understood (often in the ¥ If we consider the chain as a coherent entity, we cases where in English we would use a can state conditions in a slightly nicer way: pronoun subject), it can be just left out Ð Every (argument) chain gets exactly one θ-role. entirely. For example, Italian: Ð Every (argument) chain receives Case. (except PRO’s) ¥ Doing this allows us to avoid saying every Ð Parlo. Parli. argument gets case at some point, and a θ-role at speak-1s speak-2s ‘I speak’ ‘You speak’ some different point.

Italian subjects Little pro

¥ So what about the EPP and the θ-criterion? ¥ There is one important difference between Clearly ‘speak’ assigns a θ-role, and the Italian null subject and PRO, namely the presumably the Italian SpecTP needs to be null subject in Italian appears in a position filled as well. that gets Case. Ð Io parlo. ¥ This sounds like a familiar question… I speak-1s ‘I speak’ should we hypothesize that the subject in ¥ Since PRO cannot appear in a Case-marked these sentences is PRO? position, we have to take this to be something similar but different: Little pro.

9 Little pro Features and checking ¥ Little pro is really just a regular pronoun, only null. It doesn’t have the fancy control properties exhibited by ¥ An elaboration… PRO, it appears in Case-marked positions. ¥ We assume that we have a lexicon full of ¥ Languages seem to be divided into those which have items (“words”) that get inserted into little pro and those which don’t, often correlating with terminal nodes of the tree. These items can the amount of agreement on the verb (rich agreement makes it more likely that a language will have pro). be considered to be little collections of Languages with pro are often called “pro-drop properties, or “features.” languages” or “null subject languages”.

Features and checking Features of T

¥ What do we know about she in English? ¥ Now, let’s think about T. Ð It’s a D ¥ English T has features like [past] or [pres], and Ð It’s pronounced “she” sometimes we’ve written [past] as -ed to indicate Ð It has nominative Case its pronunciation. Ð It is 3rd person ¥ But what determines the (regular) pronunciation of Ð It is singular the affix in T? Ð It is feminine Ð I walk. You walk. He walks. They walk. ¥ These things we know are all properties, or Ð I walked. You walked. He walked. They walked. features, of the lexical item she. (These are the grammatically relevant properties anyway…)

Features of T Spec-head agreement

¥ It seems that both the tense feature and the person ¥ The reason it is important for the features to specification of the subject affects how T is be close to each other is that the syntax needs pronounced. ¥ Why? to be able to check to make sure the features ¥ The modern approach to this phenomenon (which match. Spec-head counts as “close”. often goes by the name of Spec-Head Agreement) Ð *I walks. *He walk. is to suppose that there are features both on T and ¥ If the subject has different person features on the subject (for person, number) and that when they are in a Spec-Head relationship, the features from the tense/agreement suffix in T, then the are close to each other. sentence is ungrammatical.

10 SpecTP SpecTP

¥ Another thing SpecTP is famous for its ability to host ¥ This is really just another way to state the Case nominative case-marked subjects. Filter (“DPs need (to check their) Case”) but it’s ¥ This is implemented in the same way, by analogy to now in terms of a more specific understanding of agreement. what it means to “assign Case”. ¥ To say that finite T is a nominative case assigner is to say that it has a feature [(Assign) Nom], and DPs like I and he have a feature [Nom]. ¥ This also means that the “government radius” is a ¥ A subject “getting Case” in SpecTP is then not exactly way to characterize the positions which are close getting Case so much as it is checking to be sure that enough for feature checking to occur. the Case it has is the right one. ¥ Case has to be checked (guilty until proven innocent).

Features and checking Features and checking

¥ There is a distinction between features that ¥ Another point worth observing about checking need to be checked and features that do not. features like [Nom] on a DP is that it only happens once. Once you’ve checked to be sure that the Ð Case features like [nominative] need to be Case is right, you’re fine—in fact, you can’t check checked. These are the kinds of features which it a second time. often motivate movement. Ð Category features like [D] on a determiner are ¥ For this reason, sometimes people think of the fine as they are, they don’t need to be checked features as being removed when checked (like on against anything else. a checklist). Either way, you only check them once.

Case checking seems Moving to Case positions symmetrical ¥ Recall that we said T has a feature [Assign Nom], ¥ Consider: and this is checked against the [Nom] feature of a subject like we in order to validate the Case on the Ð It is likely that we will leave. subject. Ð *Wei are likely that ti will leave. ¥ There is actually reason to think that both the [Assign Nom] feature on T and the [Nom] feature on the DP need to be checked—and that each can ¥ What’s the problem with the second one? happen only once. Ð Finite T needs to check Nom on a DP. Ð DPs need to check Case.

11 Moving to Case positions Moving to Case positions

Ð *Wei are likely that ti will leave. ¥ It is possible to move solely for the EPP if there ¥ We moved up to the finite SpecTP, and checked is no Case to check (i.e. in a nonfinite TP). ′ off its [Nom] feature with [Assign Nom] feature Ð [The sandwich]i is likely ti to have been eaten ti. of T. Both are now inactivated. ¥ So, we could have moved we to the matrix SpecTP—something else went wrong. ¥ But then we is moved up to the matrix SpecTP. Ð *We are likely that t will leave. Yet we no longer has an active [Nom] feature i i ¥ And what went wrong is that this leaves the (it’s been checked already), so the matrix T matrix SpecTP without a DP to check its can’t get rid of its [Assign Nom] feature. [Assign Nom] feature against.

So where are we? Wh-questions

¥ The generalizations here are: ¥ This was kind of complicated, but it was ¥ The Case Filter: worth going through in order to set up wh- Ð DPs are inserted into the structure with a Case feature questions for next time. which must be checked. Ð Case assigners are inserted into the structure with a Case-assignment feature which must be checked. ¥ To get us started: ¥ A DP cannot move from a Case-checking position ¥ Wh-questions are information-seeking (not to another Case-checking position. yes/no) questions, in English involving one or Ð Case checking only happens once (de-activating the Case feature on both the Case-assigner and the DP) more of the “wh-words” (who, where, what, when, why, how, …)

Wh-questions Wh-questions

¥ In a wh-question, we find that we do the same ¥ With yes-no questions, we posited a [+Q] C at inversion that happens with yes-no the head of CP, which caused the movement of T questions… (moving T to C). to C. Ð Will Bill t eat lunch? i i ¥ For wh-questions, we can think of a different •…plus, we move the wh-word into SpecCP: kind of C, a [+Q, +WH] C, which prompts both Ð What will Bill t eat t ? j i i j the movement of T to C and the movement of the ¥ This movement of wh-words is similar, but wh-word into SpecCP. different, from the DP movement we’ve seen so far with passives and raising verbs. Ð (So, yes-no questions would have a [+Q, ÐWH] C)

12 Wh-questions Wh-questions

¥ What causes the movement of the wh-word ¥ Interestingly, looking at English, [+WH] to SpecCP is considered to also be a case of feature checking appears not as symmetrical feature checking. as Case checking. In particular, moving just ¥ In this case, the C has a [+WH] feature to one wh-word to SpecCP seems to be check, and the wh-words have [+WH] sufficient. features that can be checked against it. Ð Who gave what to whom? ¥ So, the wh-word is brought up into SpecCP to bring the features close enough for ¥ That is, all of the other wh-words can checking, and then presto! everybody wins. remain, seemingly “unchecked”.

Wh-questions

¥ [+WH] C must check its [+WH] feature. ¥ Wh-words may check their [+WH] feature. ¥ In a sense, English wh-movement provides a pretty good motivation for a “feature” view of these phenomena. It appears that [+WH] C has a “need” which a wh-feature can satisfy, and once satisfied (even with other wh-words around), everything is fine.

For next time:

¥ Read: Ð Chapter 10 ¥ Homework: Ð No homework, due to the BUCLD.