National Centre for Language Technology (NCLT) Seminar Series
Dublin City University
July 18th 2007
A feature valuation approach to the
prohibition on two definite determiners
in genitive noun phrases in Irish
Gearóid Ó Donnchadha
University College Dublin
This research has been funded by a scholarship received from the Irish
Research Council for the Humanities and Social Sciences (IRCHSS).
Research Question
Possessed noun cannot be accompanied by a definite determiner
(An Gúm, 1999: 45; Doyle, 2001: 63; Duffield, 1995: 268; Mac
Congail, 2002: 26; Ó Cadhlaigh, 1940:193).
Prohibition on two determiners in genitive noun phrases.
Using the framework of the Minimalist Program (Chomsky, 1995)
and subsequent related work, as well as Distributed Morphology
(Halle and Marantz, 1993; 1994; Marantz, 1998).
As far as we are aware there is no significant dialectal variation in
the constructions discussed
2
Syntactic Theories
Several frameworks for syntactic research
Principles and Parameters
Minimalism
Lexical Functional Grammar
Head Driven Phrase Structure Grammar
Categorial Grammar
3
Generative Syntax
Early Generative Grammar was based on Phrase Structure (PS) rules
which generate Deep Structure (DS) and transformational rules which
operate on DS to generate Surface Structure (SS).
SS output feeds into the semantic and phonological interface levels
called Logical Form (LF) and Phonetic Form (PF).
Proliferation of rules proved problematic and had to be constrained.
4
Principles and Parameters
Constraints on possible grammars were defined in modules or
theories according to the level at which they applied (DS, SS, LF, PF).





X-bar theory
Case theory
Movement theory
Binding theory
theta theory
Abstracting of general principles to replace rules in defining possible
languages.
Variation across languages could be accounted for by parameters.
5
The Minimalist Program
Minimalism is a model of Transformational Grammar which is
outlined in Chomsky (1995; 2000; 2001; 2004; 2005).
Using the minimum amount of theoretical machinery seeks to
explain the computational processes involved in human language.
Derivational – syntactic structure is built incrementally by Merge and
Agree. Well formedness conditions are internal to the derivation.
Representational – syntactic structure is given and well-formedness
conditions apply at a specific level of representation.
Derivational versus representational approach is still a highly
contentious issue.
6
The Minimalist Program
DS and SS eliminated, LF and PF remain (interface levels).
A Lexicon and a Computational System (CS).
In CS two operations Merge and Agree build the syntactic
structure required for a sentence.
Merge may be either external (insertion) or internal
(movement).
7
Research Question
How can we explain the following examples?
(1)
hata an mhairnéalaigh
hat the sailor (Gen)
’the sailor’s hat’
(2)
*an hata an mhairnéalaigh
the hat the sailor (Gen)
’the sailor’s hat’
8
Determiner Phrase (DP)
(Abney, 1987: 9) ‘the DP Hypothesis’.
Noun phrase in Irish (Acquaviva, 2005; Bondaruk, 2006;
Carnie, 2000; Doyle, 2002; Duffield, 1995; 1996; Harley,
2000; McCloskey, 2001; 2006)
(3)
[DP D [NP N …
DP
D
NP
N
9
Possessor Noun Phrases
Duffield (1995; 1996) comparative analysis with the Semitic languages :
(4)
[DP D [AgrP Agr [NumP Num [NP N …
Assumes that D has D-features that must be checked which happens when
D is occupied by a determiner, a possessive pronoun or a noun.
If D is occupied by a noun it assigns Case (genitive) to the possessor noun
phrase (Duffield, 1995: 313).
(5)
hata an mhairnéalaigh
hat the sailor (Gen)
’the sailor’s hat’
[DP D hatai [AgrP Agr ti [NumP Num an mhairnéalaigh k [NP tk N ti …
Move
Move
10
Determiner Phrase (DP)
In (6) the possessive pronoun base generated in Agr where it
functions as an agreement marker licensing pro in Spec NP.
(6) mo theach
‘my house’
License
[DP D moi [AgrP Agr ti [NumP Num theachk [NP proi N tk…
Move
Move
11
Possessor Noun Phrases
D is already occupied. Determiners, possessive pronouns and
prenominal determiners cannot co-occur in possessor noun
phrases as shown in (7)-(9):
(7)
*an mo theach
the my house
(8)
*mo hata an mhairnéalaigh
my hat the sailor
(9)
*an hata an mhairnéalaigh
the hat the sailor (Gen)
’the sailor’s hat’
12
Type Constructions
Type constructions (Doyle, 1996; Green, 2004). In (10)-(12) - head
noun has raised to D checking the D features of D and assigning
genitive case to the complement. Following examples from De
Bhaldraithe (1959):
(10)
hata mairnéalaigh
hat sailor (Gen)
’a sailor hat’
(11)
bean tí
woman house (Gen)
’a housewife’
(12)
sagart paróiste
priest parish (Gen)
’a parish priest’
13
Type Constructions
Definite version of (10)-(12) shown in (13)-(15) are more
problematic for Duffield's framework:
(13)
an hata mairnéalaigh
the hat sailor (Gen)
’the sailor hat’
(14)
an bhean tí
the woman house (Gen)
’the housewife’
(15)
an sagart paróiste
the priest parish (Gen)
’the parish priest’
14
Type Constructions
(13)-(15) cannot be a noun-noun compound following the
determiner as in (18), as this type of compound (19) does not have
a genitive complement, examples are from (Ó Dónaill, 1977).
(18)
[DP D [NP N [NP N …
DP
NP
D
N
(19)
othar + carr 
‘Masc’
‘Masc’
‘Sg’
‘Sg’
‘Nom’
‘Nom’
N
an t-otharcharr ’the ambulance’
‘Masc’
‘Sg’
‘Nom’
15
Determiner Placement
Correlation between the placement of the determiner and
type of reading involved.
(16)
an hata mairnéalaigh
the hat sailor (Gen)
’the sailor hat’
(17)
hata an mhairnéalaigh
hat the sailor (Gen)
’the sailor’s hat’
In (13)-(15) how is genitive case assigned?
If D is filled no explanation for the determiner.
16
Type Constructions
Major stumbling block, (13)-(15) are commonplace. Examples
(20)–(22) are from (Ó Dónaill, 1977):
(20)
an mála scoile
the bag school (Gen)
’the schoolbag’
(21)
an páirc imeartha
the field play (Gen)
‘the playing field’
(22)
an múinteoir eolaíochta
the teacher
science (Gen)
‘the science teacher’
17
Paradigm
The following paradigm emerges:
(23)
hata an mhairnéalaigh
hat the sailor (Gen)
’the sailor’s hat’
(24)
*an hata an mhairnéalaigh
the hat the sailor (Gen)
’the sailor’s hat’
(25)
an hata mairnéalaigh
the hat sailor (Gen)
’the sailor hat’
18
New Developments
New developments (Chomsky, 2000; 2001; 2004; 2005).
Elimination of Agr and the introduction of Merge and Agree.
Hypothesis - lexical categories such as verb and noun are not
primitive but are compositional and are defined by functional heads
within their internal structure i.e. little [v] and little [n] (Borer,
2005a; 2005b; Chomsky, 2001; 2004; Marantz, 1998; Ouhalla,
2005).
Can look at the previous examples (23)-(25) in a new light.
19
The Minimalist Program and Distributed Morphology
Merge from right to left until required sentence is derived:
(26)
The man has closed the door
External Merge (27)
(27)
[DP the [NP door]]
Merge of (27) with the verb:
(28)
[VP closed [DP the door]...
20
The Minimalist Program and Distributed Morphology
Merge of (28) with [v]:
(29)
[vP [DP the man v [VP closed [DP the door]
Merge of (29) with tense (T):
(30)
[TP T has [vP [DP the man v [VP closed [DP the door]
Internal Merge moves the subject to Spec T resulting in the required
derivation:
(31)
[TP [DP the man T has [vP v [VP closed [DP the door]
21
The Minimalist Program and Distributed Morphology
NATURE and FUNCTION of [v].
[v] enters the derivation with its agreement features unvalued and
enters Agree with the direct object (DO). Merge with DO results in
the valuation of the agreement features of [v] (32) (Chomsky, 2004:
123). Merge also results in the valuation of the Case feature of DO
to accusative (33).
(32)
[vP v
[uPerson, uClass, uNum]
[DP it
[‘3rdPers’., ‘Neut’., ‘Sing’., uCase]
…
[vP v
[‘3rdPers’., ‘Neut’., ‘Sing’.]
[DP it
[‘3rdPers’., ‘Neut’., ‘Sing’., uCase]
…
Agree
22
The Minimalist Program and Distributed Morphology
(33) [TPT [vP [Subj][v’ v
[uPers, uClass, uNum] [DP
it
[‘3rdPers’, ‘Neut’, ‘Sing’, uCase]
[TPT [vP [Subj][v’ v [‘3rdPers’, ‘Neut’, ‘Sing’] [DP it
[‘3rdPers’, ‘Neut’, ‘Sing’, ‘Acc’]
…
…
Agree
Lexical category verb is not a primitive category but a
combination of [v] as a verbaliser which when merged with a root
defines that root as a verb:
(34) [v] + [Root]  Verb
23
The Minimalist Program and Distributed Morphology
Proposal
- Merge must be motivated.
- Need to value unvalued features.
- Features are valued by Agree under Merge.
- Structure building is driven by feature valuation.
24
Little [n] as a nominaliser
Gender as a subdivision of Class.
Class systems can be considered to fall out into three types: (sexbased) gender systems consisting in two or three genders, with
Romance as a typical representative; noun class or multiple (> 3)
gender systems, as exemplified by many Niger-Congo languages; and
numeral classifier systems, as in Chinese (Kihm, 2001a: 2)
Gender associated with little [n].
gender, a particular realization of Class, expresses the functional
element n, whose primary function is to assign nounness to roots.
(Kihm, 2001b: 9)
25
Little [n] as a nominaliser
Acquaviva (2006: 1879) following Kihm (2001b) claims for Irish:
The properties that define a noun independent of its syntactic context
include gender; in this framework [n] is therefore the host for gender
features.
Distributed Morphology (Halle and Marantz, 1993; Marantz, 1998),
deconstructs the traditional lexicon and replaces it with three
distinct lists.



List 1 consists of the Roots and Abstract Morphemes or grammatical
feature bundles of the language
List 2 contains the Vocabulary Items that match the items of List 1 to
their phonological content
List 3, called the Encylopaedia, contains the semantic information
associated with a Root or a syntactically constructed object i.e. an
idiom such as ‘kick the bucket’ (Embick and Noyer, 2005).
26
Distributed Morphology
Semantic
Interface
MorphologyPhonology
Interface
Computational
System
Vocabulary
Lexicon
27
Little [n] as a nominaliser
An Gúm (1999: 141) states (my translation) that:
The second person singular, Imperative is called the root of the verb
The notion of root is discussed in Ó Sé (1991; 2000). Ó Sé (1991:
61) in a detailed discussion of verbal inflection in Modern Irish,
states that:
Irish verbal forms should be segmented into roots, stems and endings.
28
Little [n] as a nominaliser
In the following example, I am assuming that Root is acategorial.
Examples from (Ó Dónaill, 1977).
Root
[Root
[n]] = Noun
meabhr
meabhr
séid
séid
bodhr
aistr
meabhr-án [Masc] ‘memorandum’
meabhr-óg [Fem] ‘thoughful girl’
séid-eán [Masc] ‘gust (of wind)’
séid-eog [Fem] ‘puff (of wind)’
bodhr-án [Masc] ‘deaf person’
aistr-eog [Fem] ‘transfer (picture)’
[Root
[v]] = Verb
meabhr-aím ‘I remember’
séid-im ‘I blow’
bodhr-aím ‘I deafen’
aistr-ím ‘I transfer’
The association of Class (gender), in the form of little [n], with the
root identifies it as a noun.
29
Little [n] as a nominaliser
(35)
Noun
+
cigilt [Fem]
‘tickle’
[n]
–án [Masc]] 
Noun
cigilteán [Masc]
‘ticklesome person’
bláth [Masc]
‘flower’
–óg [Fem]] 
bláthóg [Fem]
‘floret’
In (35) the Class feature of [n] defines the Class of the newly
formed noun.
(36)
[nP n[‘Fem’] [Root]]  N[‘Fem’] (Noun)
[nP n[‘Masc’] [nP n[‘Fem’] [Root]]  N[‘Masc’] (Noun)
Necessary to assume the [n] enters the derivation with its Class
feature already valued.
30
Det-N Agreement
Determiner (D) in Irish agrees with the noun [n [Root]] in terms of
Class (gender), Case and Number. Definite nouns in Irish indicated
by the use of an in the singular and na in the plural.
(37)
an
mhuc
the-sg pig-sg-f
’the pig’
(38)
an
mac
the-sg son-sg-m
’the son’
(39)
na
muca
the-pl pig-pl-f
’the pigs’
(40)
na
mic
the-pl son-pl-m
’the sons’
31
Det-N Agreement
The genitive singular form of the definite determiner is na when
feminine, and an when masculine.
(41)
teach na
caillí
house the-sg-gen old woman-sg-f (gen)
’the old woman’s house’
(42)
teach an
fhir
house the-sg-gen man-sg-m (gen)
’the man’s house’
32
Det-N Agreement
The genitive plural form of the definite determiner is na for both
classes of noun.
(43)
teach na
gcailleach
house the-pl-gen old woman-pl-f (gen)
’the old women’s house’
(44)
teach na
bhfear
house the-pl-gen man-pl-m (gen)
’the men’s house’
33
Det-N Agreement
Why is it that Det-N agreement occurs?
From (37)-(44) it appears that Det-N agreement occurs under
Agree with [n]. D is a Probe and according to Chomsky (2000:
122), a Probe by virtue of having unvalued features:
seeks a goal, namely, “matching” features that establish agreement.
Feature valuation takes place in a Probe-Goal relationship.
According to Chomsky (2001: 4):
uninterpretable features of P and K render their relevant subparts
active, so that matching leads to agreement.
34
Det-N Agreement
Valued features that enter the derivation assign their value to
their unvalued counterparts by Agree. Unvalued features are
indicated by prefixation with the letter ‘u’ for unvalued [uNum].
Elimination of unvalued features after valuation is indicated in
the examples by red [uNum].
(45)
[DP D
[uClass, uNum, uCase]
[nP n
[‘Masc’, ‘Sing’, uCase]
[RootP Root… 
[DP D
[uClass, uNum, uCase]
[nP n
[‘Masc’, ‘Sing’, uCase]
[RootP Root…
Agree
35
Genitive Case
Genitive case syntactically conditioned. Assume [n] has an
unvalued Case feature valued by same functional head that values
Case on D. Case agreement is a One Probe-Two Goals
relationship:
(46)
Head (= v) [DP D
[‘Masc’, ‘Sg’, ‘Acc’]
[nP n
[‘Masc’, ‘Sg’, ‘Acc’]
[RootP Root…
Agree
(47)
Head(=Finite T)[DP D
[‘Masc’, ‘Sg’, ‘Nom’][nP
n
[‘Masc’, ‘Sg’, ‘Nom’][RootP
Root…
Agree
36
Genitive Case
Proposal - Genitive structures such as (41)-(44) have the derivation
shown in (48) or as a tree diagram in (49), where the Case feature
of the possessor is valued to genitive by [n].
(48) [nP n [CLASS, ‘Sg’, uCase][RootP Root [DP D[‘Masc’, ‘Sg’, uCase][nP n[‘Masc’, ‘Sg’, uCase] [RootP Root

[nP n
(49)
[CLASS, ‘Sg’, uCase][RootP
Root [DP D [‘Masc’, ‘Sg’, ‘Gen’][nP n
[‘Masc’, ‘Sg’, ‘Gen’] [RootP
Root
Agree
nP
n DP
D nP
n
‘Gen’
‘Gen’
Agree
37
Definiteness
Proposal - Definiteness is an unvalued feature on the noun and is
an inherent feature of a determiner and nouns have no inherent
definiteness. In the following examples N = [n + Root].
(50)
an fear
’the man’
D [‘Def’] + N
[uDef]
 DP [D
[‘Def’]
Null indefinite determiner
(51)
Ø fear
’a man’
D [‘InDef’] + N
[uDef]
 DP [D
+N
[uDef]]
Agree
[‘InDef’]
+N
[uDef]]
Agree
38
Definiteness
How to account for (52)?
(52)
*an hata an mhairnéalaigh
the hat the sailor (Gen)
’the sailor’s hat’
Merge of the noun mhairnéalaigh ‘sailor’ with the definite
determiner.
(53)
[DP D an
[DEF, uClass, uNum, uCase]
[nP n mhairnéalaigh [CLASS, NUM, uDef, uCase]
[DP D an
[‘Def’, uNum, uClass, uCase]
[nP n mhairnéalaigh [‘Masc’, ‘Sg’, uDef, uCase]

Agree
39
Definiteness
Merge of (53) an mhairnéalaigh ‘the sailor’s’ with hata ‘hat’.
(54) [nP n hata[CLASS,uNum,uDef,uCase][DP D an[DEF,uCase][nP n mhairnéalaigh[CLASS,uCase]

[nP n hata[‘Masc’, uDef, uCase][DP D an
[‘Def’, ‘Gen’]
[nP n mhairnéalaigh [‘Masc’, ‘Gen’]
Agree
No motivation exists for Merge of (54) with a determiner.
Under the above assumptions how might (13) repeated below
as (55) be derived:
(55)
an hata mairnéalaigh
the hat sailor (Gen)
’the sailor hat’
40
Definiteness
Merge of mairnéalaigh with a determiner we get either (56) a
definite DP or (57) an indefinite DP:
(55)
an hata mairnéalaigh
(56)
[DP D an
[‘Def’, uClass, uCase]
[nP n mhairnéalaigh [‘Masc’, uDef, uCase]
Agree
(57)
[DP D Ø
[‘InDef’, uClass, uCase]
[nP n mairnéalaigh [‘Masc’, uDef, uCase]
Agree
(56) will not result in the required derivation (55). Continue with
the derivation of (57):
41
Definiteness
(57)
[DP D Ø
[‘InDef’, uCase]
[nP n mairnéalaigh [‘Masc’, uCase]
Merge with hata:
(58) [nP n hata [‘Masc’, uDef, uCase][DP D Ø [‘InDef’, ‘Gen’][nP n mairnéalaigh [‘Masc’, ‘Gen’]
Agree
No motivation for Merge with a definite determiner resulting in
(59). Possessor reading derives from the merger of the indefinite
determiner with the possessor (57).
(59)
hata mairnéalaigh
hat sailor (Gen)
’a sailor’s hat’
42
Definiteness
Merge of two nouns:
(60)
[nP n hata
[‘Masc’, uDef, uCase]
[nP n mairnéalaigh [‘Masc’, uDef, ‘Gen’]
Agree
Merge of (60) with a definite determiner:
(61) [DP an[‘Def’, uNum, uClass, uCase][nP hata[‘Masc’, ‘Sg’, uDef, uCase][nP mairnéalaigh[‘Masc’, uDef]
Agree
an hata mairnéalaigh
the hat sailor (Gen)
’the sailor hat’
Type reading (definite)
43
Definiteness
Merge of (60) with an indefinite determiner:
(62) [DP Ø[‘InDef’, uNum, uClass, uCase][nP hata[‘Masc’, ‘Sg’, uDef, uCase][nP mairnéalaigh[‘Masc’, uDef]
Agree
hata mairnéalaigh
hat sailor (Gen)
’a sailor hat’
Type reading (indefinite)
44
Conclusion
In this presentation the following points were discussed:
agreement and derivation of noun phrases in Irish using feature
valuation by Merge and Agree.
an explanation of why the prohibition on two definite determiners
exists.
the ambiguity of hata mairnéalaigh as ’a sailor’s hat’ or ’a sailor hat’.

the possessor reading ’a sailor’s hat’ results from an initial Merge
with a null determiner followed by a Merge with a noun
whereas

the type reading ’a sailor hat’ results from an initial Merge with a
noun followed by a Merge with a null determiner.
45
References
Abney, Steven Paul. 1987. The English Noun Phrase in its sentential aspect, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Acquaviva, Paolo. 2005. The Morphosemantics of Transnumeral Nouns. In Morphology and Linguistic Typology
- On-line Proceedings of the Fourth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting. Catania.
Acquaviva, Paolo. 2006. Goidelic inherent plurals and the morphosemantics of number. Lingua 116: 1860–1887.
An Gúm. 1999. Graiméar Gaeilge na mBráithre Críostaí. Baile Átha Cliath: An Gúm.
Bondaruk, Anna. 2006. The licensing of subjects and objects in Irish non-finite clauses. Lingua 116: 874-894.
Borer, Hagit. 2005a. Structuring Sense Volume I: In Name Only. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Borer, Hagit. 2005b. Structuring Sense Volume II: The Normal Course of Events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Carnie, Andrew. 2000. On the Definition of X0 and XP. Syntax 3: 59-106.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework. In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in
Honor of Howard Lasnik, eds. Roger Martin. David Michaels. and Juan Uriagereka. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by Phase. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz. Cambridge
MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2004. Beyond Explanatory Adequacy. In Structures and Beyond, ed. Adriana Belletti. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2005. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 1-22.
De Bhaldraithe, Tomás ed. 1959. English-Irish Dictionary. Baile Átha Cliath: Oifig an tSoláthair.
46
References
Doyle, Aidan. 1996. Compounds and syntactic phrases in modern Irish. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 30: 83-96.
Doyle, Aidan. 2001. Irish. Muenchen: Lincom Europa.
Doyle, Aidan. 2002. Covert and Overt Pronominals in Irish.Vol. 1: Lublin Studies in Celtic Languages. Lublin:
Folium.
Duffield, Nigel. 1995. Particles and Projections in Irish Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Duffield, Nigel. 1996. On structural invariance and lexical diversity in VSO languages. In The Syntax of the Celtic
Languages: A comparative perspective, eds. Robert D. Borsley. and Ian Roberts. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Embick, David. and Noyer, Rolf. 2005. Distributed Morphology and the Syntax/Morphology Interface. (To appear).
In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, eds. G Ramchand. and C Reiss: Oxford Univeristy Press.
Green, Antony Dubach. 2004. Lenition, coronal blocking and compounding in Irish. Paper presented at Workshop
on Word Domains: Theory and Typology, Leipzig.
Halle, Morris. and Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection. In The View from
Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, eds. Ken
Hale. and Samuel Jay Keyser. 111–176. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Halle, Morris. and Marantz, Alec. 1994. Some Key Features of Distributed Morphology. MIT Working Papers in
Linguistics 21: 275-288.
Harley, Heidi. 2000. Irish, the EPP and PRO ms.
47
References
Kihm, Alain. 2001a. Noun Class, Gender, and The Lexicon-Syntax-Morphology Interfaces: CNRS – Laboratoire de
Linguistique formelle. ms.
Kihm, Alain. 2001b. Agreement in noun phrases in Semitic: Its nature and some consequences for morphosyntactic
representations: CNRS – Laboratoire de Linguistique formelle. ms.
Mac Congail, Nollaig. 2002. Leabhar Gramadaí Gaeilge. Indreabhán: Cló Iar-Chonnachta.
Marantz, Alec. 1998. No Escape From Syntax: Don't Try Morphological Analysis in the Privacy of Your Own Lexicon.
Paper presented at Penn Linguistics Colloqium.
McCloskey, James. 2001. The Distribution of Subject Properties in Irish. In Objects and Other Subjects, eds.
William D. Davies. and Stanley Dubinsky. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
McCloskey, James. 2006. Irish Existentials: Predicates and Defniteness. Paper presented at Stanford Existentials
Fest, Stanford.
Ó Cadhlaigh, Cormac. 1940. Gnás na Gaeilge. Baile Átha Cliath: Oifig an tSoláthair.
Ó Dónaill, Niall ed. 1977. Foclóir Gaeilge-Béarla. Baile Átha Cliath: Oifig an tSoláthair.
Ó Sé, Diarmuid. 1991. Verbal Inflection in Modern Irish. Ériu XLII: 61-81.
Ó Sé, Diarmuid. 2000. Gaeilge Chorca Dhuibhne. Baile Átha Cliath: Institiúid Teangeolaíochta Éireann.
Ouhalla, Jamal. 2005. Agreement Features, Agreement and Antiagreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory
23: 655–686.
48