 So, we will continue talking about verbs and objects, we are looking at verbs and objects in the process of understanding structure of sentences or a structure of a sentence. Out of different components of a sentence, we have seen both the parts namely subject and predicate. We have seen components of a predicate namely verbs and objects and then we have seen the relationship between subject and predicate to be precise subjects and verbs. Then we started looking at what is the relationship between subject between verbs and their objects. We will look at more in terms of structural representation and structural representation of a sentence that is later. So, last time we were talking about nature of verb in terms of transitive and intransitive. We saw that transitivity is largely responsible for how or why a verb will have an object or will not have an object. What did we conclude? If a verb is a transitive one, then it has an object, if it is an intransitive one, then it does not have an object and sometimes there are few verbs in languages, they are dytransitive verbs which will have two objects. Now, please pay attention to these number of objects and the fact that they are associated with verbs in the sense that transitivity or intransitivity may be nature of a verb. Once a verb is transitive or intransitive that is going to stay forever in the sense that transitivity of a verb is not dependent on languages. A verb may not be transitive in one and intransitive in the other language. If a verb is transitive in language A, it is going to be transitive everywhere. Now, we are going to see why is this valency required? Why is this association between object and verbs required and also that the relationship, the presence of object is dependent on verb, not on anything else. So, it seems like subject and object, what is the primary difference between a subject and an object? Besides their position in a sentence, now you know about the position of these things in a sentence. What do you think will be a primary difference between a subject and an object? Anybody? Subjects have no dependence on verbs, that is every sentence will have a verb and every sentence will have a subject. These are two independent principles, they are not dependent on one another. However, whether a verb is going to be present in a sentence, whether an object is going to be present in a sentence or not is going to be dependent on the nature of the verb. That is the primary difference between an object and the verb. We have seen the intransitive, transitive and die-transitive nature of verbs and then I have, I tried to demonstrate some of them through examples to you that verbs like sleep, go, come, sit, dance happen to be in transitive verbs as they do not have objects. And verbs like eat, read and write are transitive ones as they require an object. And we know the distinction between requirement and not requirement by putting a diagnostic test, what was the test? You just need to question the verb with what? If the question is a legitimate question, do you understand by legitimate question? That is if the question sounds okay, then you are going to get an answer also and that answer is most likely the object of the verb. In other words, the answer determines whether the verb will have an object or not. Now, how do we argue that the noun home in sentence number 2 is not an object of this verb? Besides knowing the diagnostic test of what? When we question this verb with what, we know that that is not a good question. Go what? Therefore, this will not have an object. This verb does not seem to allow an object. Nonetheless, you see something here and sentence sounds okay. If someone says I was going, you would want to know where? You understand what I am saying? When someone says I was going, it does not sound like a complete sentence. At the same time, this does not seem to be an object of the verb. So what is going on here? It is an important question for us to understand. I am only underlining this question for you to think about it and then we will discuss this question little later. If you look at the second sentence, Chris was sitting in a chair. If we simply say Chris was sitting, it is not as bad, but sounds little bit incomplete and sitting in a chair, in a room, in a class gives completion to a sentence. So we will talk about them too. Remember, I have told you that there are some verbs which may pass these kinds of diagnostic tests, but it still may not be a transitive verb or the other way around. Do you remember this point? What I am trying to say is this diagnostic test may not be completely foolproof. Nonetheless, it works to a great extent. Now I want to, so in a way I want to put all these discussions in perspective in an example and see how they work and then carry forward our discussions to a different level. So if we have a sentence like this, John likes to eat pizza with his friends in E.D. Sounds like a good sentence. Now for our understanding, I have tried to categorize this sentence in different categories that we have been discussing so far. The subject of the sentence is John. Everything else likes to eat pizza with his friends in the evening is going to be predicate. The verb of this sentence is like. Do you agree with this or do you think there is something else? First of all, let me hear from you and then we talk about this. How many verbs do you see in this sentence? Two, but if you are asked, what is the verb of this sentence? What will be the answer? These are not two complicated questions. The fact that there are two verbs and I can see that, anyone can see that and still someone asks you the question, what is the verb of this sentence? What will be your answer? Knowing that the answer cannot be both of them. Why? Why and like any scientific investigation, every answer must be supported with evidence. The answer cannot be, I think so. That is not an answer in any science, any scientific investigation. I am sure you know that. I think so or I believe, I feel are not the answers. So to make things more precise and these are not too complicated. It just requires little bit of attention. We know that every sentence must have a verb. This sentence has one and maybe it has more than one. But when we say every sentence must have a verb, it must have a meaning. That is the proposition must have a meaning. And if you are deciding that the verb is like or I am telling you the verb is like, there must be a reason for that. What do you think is the reason? Should not be too complicated? No. Not really the answer that I am looking for. Not really the answer that I am looking for. You are saying somehow we can ask a question where we can involve the subject and then probably get some answer. It is simpler than that. Go ahead. Anybody else? We can say the same thing in different words. That is the verb which carries agreement features. Remember we have talked about agreement at great length. That is the verb which carries agreement features. John happens to be the subject because it agrees with John. If you change the subject, if you just make the subject plural, you are going to see some changes on the verb. Suppose if I have to say John and Mary, then how will the verb change? John and Mary like to eat pizza with their friends in the evening. Now, nothing is happening to the verb to eat. Therefore that is not the verb of the sentence participating in agreement. Therefore, like is the verb as it happens to participate in the agreement. This is making sense to everybody. Do you see that? It is not too complicated. It just requires little bit of attention and I am asking you this question only because you have seen agreement features before and you know that there is going to be just one verb in a sentence. When we say there is going to be just one verb in a sentence, what we mean is only one verb will be participating in the agreement. In the absence of such an agreement, no matter how many verbs you have in a sentence, the sentence is not complete as long as that agreement is taken care of, the sentence is complete over done. Step by step. So, should we first identify the subject or should we first identify the verb in a sentence? Because when we defined subject, we said that it is that which agrees with the verb. So, the definition itself says that first identify the verb and then you will be able to identify the subject. But really that the requirement says first you have to identify whether the sentence is fulfilling the requirement of agreement or not. Your question is also important for learning language, for acquisition of language. How do we learn a language? Do we learn to identify categories first? Either in terms of lexical categories like John, Mary, eat, drink, pizza, do we learn things this way or do we learn grammatical categories that is grammatical relations like subjects, verbs, objects or how, what else? I mean one convenient answer or depending upon a particular level of discussion, we can say one can say that is not very important at this time. One can also say we do not know much about them, but you can always investigate how does it work. Therefore, when we try to understand a sentence which let us say we call s and say it has two parts which has let us say roughly to begin with I am going to say subject and predicate or we can say we can refine this and say subjects are usually a noun phrase and a verb phrase meaning everything else is still part of a verb phrase which is predicate. To resolve questions like that when people started looking at feature of a sentence, they had to look at things what we are called functional properties of sentence or functional features the abstract things that we do not see and then when we determine that neither subject nor verb is really required really defines a sentence then people started defining this thing in terms of what was called agreement. So, we really your answer was very simple, but with that I am sorry your question was very simple, but with your question I wanted to emphasize I do want to emphasize significance of agreement that in a sentence it is not really important to identify a subject or a verb what is important to identify the agreement and once you see the agreement then you can see which are the components that are participating in the agreement. Thus you understand what is the subject and what is the verb and lot of times once we identify a subject lot of times that subject is going to be a logical subject also grammatical subject at times depending upon which language we are talking about they may there may be some differences that is in some cases logical subjects may be a different one and grammatical subject may be a different one nonetheless what is more striking is all that you know are not going to be in contradiction with one another they do not violate any principle and then so we will expand this thing further later so let me let me move on and show you more things. So, next in the sentence what is the object of the sentence we see so many so many things after the after verb or associated with the verb and I am telling you that the object is pizza because it answers the question if we say eat what right then we get the answer pizza we do not get the answer friends or evening or anything else right but I also want to draw your attention that the rest of the sentence the rest of the things in the sentence is not finding any space here what are they when we say with his friends what is that and in the evening what is that this is my question do you understand my question we have been talking about a sentence we have talked about agreement we have talked about subject we have talked about verbs and we have now finished talking about objects but we see there are several other things in the sentence so what can we quickly say without saying much about rest of the things one way to put this is see what we have been talking about are really required elements of a sentence they are grammatical revisions and they are required elements of a sentence having said that we end up saying that rest of the things are not required elements right and that happens to be true that rest of the things give you additional information but are not really required components for making the sentence therefore and we I do not want to go and repeat everything you know the required element is an agreement then the required thing manifestation of agreement is between these two and then we know which one is a verb which one is the subject and if at all this needs an object or not that is all and then we have a sentence everything else in the sentence is simply giving us more information not really but and when I say not really required and just giving us information I do not mean they are not semantically relevant okay I am not saying that we do not need to say those things I am only saying required with respect required or not required with respect to requirements of component in a sentence for the for the formation of a sentence and at the level of I language where whether a sentence is good or not here is all that we are talking about whether someone in a conversation needs to give this information that they were eating pizza with friends or enemies or whoever is not really required information at the at the level of I language that is representation of a sentence here getting getting the point so it is important to understand what we mean by required elements required elements simply means required components in formation of a sentence without which sentence may not be complete okay you can drop everything else in the sentence but if we drop pizza if we say John likes to eat with his friends in the evening right there is some this sentence gives you and if you test the grammaticality of this sentence with native speakers this tells you that there is something missing in this sentence okay and if it does not sound too odd to us that is because our languages allows our languages allow dropping of objects because the moment we say John likes to eat with his friends right we are the idea is in our the idea in our languages is the the slot of the object is still there it is just conceptually not required when we say John likes to eat pizza okay what is the object of the sentence the the the verb is like right the object is not just pizza eating pizza the whole thing is the object that is what I meant by damage control and I said like I said I should have picked up a simpler sentence than that we can say John eats a pizza okay John eats a pizza in that sentence what's the word eat and the object is pizza here the sub the verb is like so the object is going to be what is it that John likes and what is it that John likes eating pizza therefore to eat pizza is the object of the verb like it is clarification good enough do you see this this thing okay so when I said in our languages of dropping of an objects is okay and therefore these kinds of sentences in English where we drop an object and sounds okay to us the reason is if I say John eats pizza with his friends right we can say John eats with his friends the moment we say John eats with his friend we are conceptually allowing this possibility that the fact that we are already saying eating must be eating something right must be eating something and if that something is understood so if it does not manifest overtly still at a conceptual level the slot of object stage but not necessarily we need to articulate that in a language like English that's not allowed we must have objects articulated therefore the dropping of an object is not allowed in a language like English it is this this clear to you why I'm talking about several things together one why English does not allow to drop subjects I'm sorry drop objects why our languages that is Hindi English in the Tamil Telugu Malayalam and many others why our languages allow to drop a subject and then why when we speak English a sentence in English without an object looks okay to us okay alright yeah why it allows or it doesn't allow its language dependent we have not answered why it allows or why it allows and why it doesn't allow meaning dropping of an object that is true it see objects are required by verbs at that's a principle why not not why some languages may allow to drop an object and some languages may not is is what is language dependent okay now then the question was why some languages allow and why we have not answered the why part of it that that that is what I was trying I was trying to say I I and this answer may not be a complete answer in some languages like ours when it is it has a space that is conceptual space to to fulfill it fulfill the object in its absence such as when we say eat the object is going to be something edible right therefore it is it it's allowed in the sense that it's okay not to have the subject let me let me give you some bizarre kind of examples so when when we say John likes to play what we are saying is the requirement of language English is we must say John likes to play football right for our English that let's say Indian English it's okay to say John likes to play because in our languages it's okay to say the counterpart of that sentence the reason why it is allowed the verb transitive word allowed without a subject we need we are making a distinction that that is not allowed at the conceptual level the slot of the object is there but in reality we drop it because of the following region that when we say John likes John John plays cricket it the sentence possibly could not be John likes John plays pizza you see the you see the restriction on the sentence this is called selectional restriction okay there is something in language that operates as a principle it's called selectional restriction which is a particular kind of word is going to select only particular kinds of objects what we have seen so far is whether a word selects an object or not okay in some cases verbs do not in some cases verbs do what we have not seen is what are the types of objects a verb is allowed to select like I am giving you example eat cricket cannot be an allowed sequence even though it's fulfilling the grammatical requirement what's the grammatical requirement eat is a transitive verb and it must have an object is are people with me you understand I'm coming to that in a moment I'm coming to that in a moment no I am coming to that also let me let me first finish and I know that you get the point but I need to make it with clarity certain kinds of verbs require only certain kinds of argument that is only certain kinds of object when we say eat it the verb the sequence eat cricket is not allowed because it's not fulfilling the requirement of the type of object it needs to select and this requirement is called selectional restriction okay this is clear and you are right the selectional requirement is a semantic criteria absolutely right no denying from that fact selectional restriction is a semantic criteria now remember few days ago I was telling you about independence of syntax do you do you remember about independence of syntax colorless green ideas sleep furiously where we discussed that a sentence can be grammatical independence independent of its semantics that is even though a sentence does not have a meaning it can be grammatical now I am telling you bringing you bringing something in which says selectional restriction is an important factor now what I am trying to say is I am giving you two two perspective and two two positions and both are at work in language the the discussion on selectional restriction becomes the logical argument refuting independence of syntax those who say independence of syntax exists can be refuted through selectional restriction not not completely but to a great extent okay however dropping selectional restriction allows independence of syntax so though there is no contradiction they are in opposition with one another to some extent because selectional restriction does not allow does not is is not a not a principle only at the level of word only at the level of word when its object selectional restriction works at many levels for example when we talk about adjectives and noun selection between adjectives and noun so we can say the moment we have a we have a noun let us say pointer or a computer it can select only certain kinds of adjectives we cannot say we can say black computer but we cannot say sweet computer okay I hope you get the get the point we can similarly we can say sweet tea we can we can also say black tea but we cannot say fast tea well we cannot say that also if it is coming from a fast food joint we can say that but we you get the point you just have to pick something which is not allowed right sorry bright tea yeah I mean as long as we get the point we we are good with that right so you get the get the answer of selectional restriction independence of syntax and why two things are given as examples and counter examples to another alright now coming back to your thing yeah that that's true John that that's true so here also you're fine when you when you say John likes what to eat but if we have pizza in the sentence then what we are saying is the whole chunk is the object the if pizza was not there then the sentence was okay right I like I like I told you I should have picked up as simpler sentence than that because we are not ready for the whole discussion right away by when I say we are not ready we I mean we need to I need to take you through several other things to reach here so right now what I am saying is pizza is not important here but there is a reason why it is important because when we say John likes to eat okay to eat is also going to play to eat is a is a small sentence within its own right and this is where we are not ready to discuss that part to eat is a small sentence within its own right these are miraculous and magical things in languages and I I I don't mean to digress from the point but I cannot leave it hanging either so give me two minutes and then I come back to this dear I am sure all of us know the sentences like I want to go right simple sentence how many sentences do you see here on the board I want to go right it's it looks like there is one sentence but if I tell you this has two sentences in it do you do you believe that yes so what are the two sentences in this I want and to go no you are saying there are two words where are the two sentences I think at this level you can discuss this much right you are saying there are two words and probably you are right about two sentences but we need to say more to make them two sentences okay we are saying the first sentence is not I want is want a transitive of transitive or not a transitive or it's a transitive or because when we say I want I want something want what so just saying I want is not a complete sentence what is complete sentences I want to go okay within that whole thing so this is sentence number one what's the object of this word want to go right now this is argued to be an independent sentence by itself what's the object of this verb is not really a verb because verbs do not become an object okay and I will discuss little bit more on these things later I promise you this thing I just now right now I just want to show you that this is a sentence it's not simply a word it's not a noun this is a sentence by itself because the subject of this sentence you know this is when I say sentence I am I am cutting several things out of this discussion it's not a complete sentence but it's a sentence and I promise you I will bring you back to this this these kinds of questions and these kinds of questions are important in language because this they tell a lot they give us a lot of theoretically motivated insights in insights and they help us understand language in a much better way the other reason why these things are important is they are such so simple sentences but they could be so complicated at the level of human cognition I am saying both and I am saying that knowing very well that we will wait for more discussions on this thing I am saying this is a sentence but not a full sentence so far this is not a sentence because do you see a subject here no if I tell you there is a subject here therefore this is a sentence because when I say I want to go I am basically saying I want I to go because the possibilities are how do I say I want can I say or not I want him to go I want you to go can I say these sentences are not right these are good sentences they are exactly the same pattern I want you to go I want him to go I want her to go right this so when I say I want to go the sentence is I want I to go right the identity of these two the moment it is matched okay when I say I want to go the identity of this thing and this thing is matched the principle of economy applies and it's deleted not needed cannot be deleted when I say I want him to go because the sentence is completely different I want him to go the sentence is completely different the identity between I and him is not matched it's about a different person therefore that stage and this one is deleted which mean which is to say that this slot of the subject is open okay now we so we can say there is a subject and there is a verb but where is the agreement okay there is no agreement between subject and the verb so I'll come to the agreement part later this is what I said I will discuss this thing later right now I can tell you this seems to be a subject sentence but not a good not a real sentence by real sentence I mean this sentence will not have an independent status outside this big sentence however in this big sentence this has any status okay similarly John likes to eat pizza to eat pizza has a different status okay it's not a complete sentence by itself but some have argued that to eat the pizza to eat pizza is the object of the main verb want but pizza is the object of to eat even though it's not a complete sentence and then there are more discussions required for that therefore that's that's needed but right now I can simply say pizza is not the object in our discussion right now what is our discussion what is it in our discussion the subject the object is to eat pizza likes what to eat even though I feel like I should have picked up a simpler sentence but I'm glad that we I picked up that sentence so that we got to discuss something else I hope things are clear to you you can see these are simple sentences and not very difficult for us to see we say these kinds of sentences several times every day right alright this sentence is relevant for discussing couple of other modules of theory couple of other principles of language which I am coming to very soon now we will stop in a couple of minutes but I want you to see that we are heading in a we are heading towards the discussing these things okay where the the point is and even with the in the previous thing when we were looking at subject predicate objects and verb the point is identifying things okay in this slide I am only trying to show you grammatical relations okay now and you see that some elements are required and some elements are not required this is why I have listed with his friends and in the evening are something else that we will discuss we I have a sentence like students of physics students of physics this is not a good sentence you see that what will be the word students of physics like to eat pizza with their friends in the evening actually I think what I wanted to write the student of physics okay so that that that is a type of nonetheless what is the subject of this sentence student of physics right right now before discussing anything else what can you say about the subject no that is not redundant that is not redundant it is not redundant in the sense that okay let me first say why do you think it's redundant that's fine so what you are saying is students could be of anything but someone who wants to specify students right for that processing it's not redundant you see the difference between redundant and not redundant we are saying the reason why it sounds redundant to you is because you are used to seeing subjects as once one little noun right John Mary students here we are seeing for the first time or at least we are looking at it for the first time that the subject is a bigger chunk I will also show you in what under what circumstances this could be redundant and under what circumstances these are not redundant such as in this case it's not redundant we want to specify students of what when we say students students of what right it's not redundant number one the all we are I'm trying to show you through this sentence is a sentence could be bigger chunk I'm sorry a subject could be a bigger chunk okay and the rest of the things you have already seen so through this we are see we are we are looking at the following point that's several several words in a sentence seem to form a group okay and group of words are called constituents okay that is that is simply simply to say they are forming one cluster and that's easy to see like you have seen student of physics in this sentence the fat monkey were jumping on the roof of this building right when we say monkey what's the subject what's the subject of this sentence the fat monkey were jumping on the roof of this building the fat monkey the so in a way this the subject is monkey but the fat and monkey they together seem to form a group right why is the forming a group with monkey right and not watch right so watch jumping on the roof of this building is one constituent and even in that bigger chunk on the roof of this building is another looks like another constituent and then when you when you say on the roof and then of this building these are a smaller chunks right on the roof of this building is one chunk and within that of this building is another another chunk all I am trying to show you is these are these are are we we see in sentences that words form groups and how they form groups and what's the what's the notion of the whole constituent heads and then then eventually we through these groups we are trying to go to phrases and constitution of a phrase is that how do we how do we recognize a phrase is what we are looking at so we will we will talk about phrases and their constitution soon so that we can come to different principles and discussing sentences like these we stop here