Our speaker today is our very, very, the camera guy who joined our department in January to work on the project by HSC, which is about possessors for two years. But his talk today is not about possessors at all. The specific topic is about languages which have differential object marking and in which the exponent of differential object marking is homophonous with date of case. And so we find this in a number of languages, for example, in Spanish, which is on the first page of your handout in examples one and two, where in 1A we have a transitive clause with a definite direct object. You'll be able to see the book just subject web object, nothing special going on there. But in 1B, when the direct object is animate, we get this differential object marking element. So we have, I see the woman and we have this appearing here. In 1C, we have a die transitive construction in which the direct object does not get differential marking, but there is a recipient argument and we see that this recipient argument is introduced by an element which is homophonous with what is glossed as differential object marking in 1B. So we have, I give the book to the woman. So that's the basic phenomenon. So we have this element, which can appear with what I usually call direct objects and indirect objects or recipients. Two shows an example, another die transitive with the verb return now, which shows that if we have an inanimate recipient or goal argument, like library, as in 2, we still get this, even though we have an inanimate argument now. So there are some differences in, so basically direct objects have differential marking, that's what the name says, but indirect objects are introduced by this ah in Spanish in general. Spanish is not at all the only language which does something like this, though most of the data I'll be talking about will be from Spanish, European Spanish. But I'll, other languages that have something similar are Hindi, Kashmiri, Bask, at least some varieties of Bask as well. Most of, most Romance languages with which have differential object marking show something, show this kind of homophony, but it's also found in some other languages outside of the Indo-European family. And the way that I want to approach this question is, or I want to ask the question where this, where this homophony comes from. And what I'll try and do is sort of have, think about two extreme hypotheses. One is that, that homophony comes is because of syntax, meaning that when we have this ah in Spanish on both direct objects and indirect objects, this is because, so this, the hypothesis could be that this is because they express the same grammatical relation. So whatever object is in that grammatical relation is spelled out with ah. On this view, we would, we would explain the homophony just by saying that, yeah, these are syntactically the same kind of syntactic object and that's why they get the same spell out. This is what some people have suggested, in particular for Spanish, but the logic or like, ah, Romance in Spanish, but the logic sort of is supposed to hold for other languages as well. Ah, if this is true, then we would expect that, if, so if we're looking at one grammatical relation, we would expect ah, objects with differential object marking and indirect objects to behave alike in syntax. Ah, so that's one hypothesis. The other hypothesis is that the homophony is just simply due to morphology. These languages happen to have ah, this differential object case marker which just accidentally is syncretic with dative case basically. So nothing in syntax tells us that these two things should be identical, but they come out as identical in ah, in morphology. So the idea here is that we're dealing with two distinct grammatical relations like we're used to from languages which don't have this homophony, say a direct object and an indirect object, but these are spelled out in the same way. On this hypothesis, ah, we don't necessarily expect these two kinds of objects to form a natural class in syntax because we're looking at two distinct grammatical relations. And what I'm doing in this talk is to apply a couple of tests to structures involving both and see whether direct objects with or without differential marking and indirect objects patterned together or differently. So that's the basic idea. And we'll look at, we'll look a tiny bit at some different object positions in the clause. We'll look at how these arguments relate to passivization, reduced relative formation, controlling secondary predicates, nominalizations and some other aspects. So the basic claims that I'm trying to, or that I want to make are that in Spanish, Hindi, Kashmiri, Basque and probably some other languages, zero-coded direct objects and objects with differential object marking form a natural class. They are both direct objects and should be analyzed as that and they are distinct from indirect objects. And towards the end, I'm not sure what has any handouts left. And towards the end of this talk, contrast the Spanish, Hindi, etc. data with data from English and Gandhi which allow a kind of argument structure alternation in certain verbs which I think provides some more evidence that we're looking at sort of, there's different ways of grouping grammatical relations basically. Okay. If we turn the page, we can start with syntactic tests. So the first thing in 2.1 that I want to talk about is just very briefly about object positions. Luis Lopez in his book on differential object marking in Spanish and some other languages discusses some evidence for a structurally lower and a structurally higher object position. So in example three, he provides a certain context. It's about enemies and taking hostages and so on. And so he says that there's a context. What did the enemies do? The enemies delivered X to Y and Z to W, but los enemigos no entregaron a suijo a ningún prisionero. So the enemies did not deliver any prisoner to his son. Now he points out that in this sentence, you can either have the R, so you can have differential object marking on any prisoner, or you can not have differential object marking on that object. Both sentences are fine, but only when you have differential object marking can the direct object bind the possessive pronoun in the recipient. So that would give us the meaning that the enemies did not deliver any prisoner to that prisoner's son. So he suggests that that reading is only possible when we have differential object marking, which suggests that the object with differential object marking is structurally more prominent because it can bind the possessor. Even though this is not reflected in the word order in example three. Hindi is another language which shows different object positions in connection with differential object marking. We see this in 4a and b. We have a di-transitive with the verb send. So we can have the word order RAM to Anita a letter send, in which the direct object letter doesn't have overt case marking. But we can also have 4b where we have RAM, the letter, core, Anita to send. So we have, again, we have the homophonous core on both the direct object and the indirect object in this language, and we get this different object position. So one could say, okay, so maybe the spell out of this homophonous element comes about because of a structurally high position in the clause. So whenever you have a direct object that is in a higher position than its base position basically, maybe that's why you spell out the same, an element in the same way as the indirect object. And this seems to be what's happening in Spanish and Hindi, but these are not by no means the only languages which do this kind of thing. So loads of other languages have distinct positions for objects independently of whether they have differential object marking or not, and independently of whether this differential object marking is homophonous with datives. So in 5a, b, c, d, I just have a couple of examples from Canada which has differential marking as well as well as distinct object positions but no dative differential object marking overlap. So in 5a we have something like i, adverb well, then book and read. So we have the object book following the adverb, and this means something like I enjoyed book reading. This is a non-specific reading of book. This means something like there were multiple reading events and it doesn't have to be the same book that's involved in there. However when we keep that word order, so when we have an object following the adverb and then add an accusative suffix, we get a specific reading of book. So we get something like I enjoyed reading a book and this is about a single book. Now we can further sort of modify this example by having the direct object precede that adverb. So we're looking at a different position there and now we only get the specific reading. So with or without differential object marking. So this language allows, has different object positions as well. The higher position is sort of associated with a more prominent meaning in that it's specific. But this doesn't mean that they're expressed in the same way as dative. So I haven't shown you an example with a dative there but the language has a distinct dative suffix. So basically those higher object positions are not something that we only find in this dative differential object marking languages. That's the point here. And languages like German which don't even have differential object marking also show different object positions and so on. So that's the point about object positions. The next point we can look at to see what kind of grammatical relations we're dealing with or how these grammatical relations behave is passivization. So in 6 on page 4 we have the passive counterparts to the active sentences in 1. So 6a is a Libre Fuebista. The book was seen. In 6b we have La Mujer Fuebista. Both of these are theme passives. So we passivize a direct object, a theme or a patient. It becomes a subject. And note that this happens independently of whether the direct object would have triggered differential object marking or not. It happens with the inanimate and it also happens with the animate object. But 6c shows that Spanish doesn't allow passivizing a recipient. So we can't say La Mujer Fuebista, La Mujer Fue dada el libro with the intended meaning the woman was given the book. So we have this test here which shows us that we can passivize direct objects in Spanish but we can't passivize indirect objects. Turning to Hindi, we can look for the same things. In 7a and b we have first an active sentence in 7a. Ram will carry Anil. And 7b shows that the direct object can be passivized. We can get Anil will be carried by Ram. Straight forward. In 8a we have an active, die-transitive sentence. Ram sent Anil the necklace. And 8b and c show that this structure can be passivized in both ways with the dative in the first position or the absolute in the first position. Mohanand suggested in 8b the dative is actually a subject but what's crucial is that the recipient retains its dative case here whereas as we've seen in 7b themes don't retain their accusative. So again even though the core suffix is homophonous for both types of objects they behave distinctly in passivization. Moving on to page 5 there is possibly a slight complication here in Hindi because some speakers of Hindi at least allow retaining an accusative under passivization. So 9 shows that according to Mohanand we can say something like Anil accusative was carried by Ram. So a passive direct object does not necessarily become nominative it seems. Now Rajesh Bhatt told me that at least for him there is a difference in meaning between the accusative preserving and the non-accusative preserving types here. So in 10a and b we have the same lexical material Ram in earthquake was killed. So Ram was killed in earthquake but Rajesh Bhatt told me that when the accusative is present on the subject for him there is a more active reading here. So while 10a means Ram was killed in an earthquake 10b means something like Ram was murdered in an earthquake. So there is a difference in meaning here with respect to how agentive the thing is. The crucial point is that for indirect objects that doesn't seem to be this possibility. So direct objects can lose their accusative and often do lose their accusative and for some speakers that's the only possibility whereas indirect objects always retain their dative. And this is so we basically see identical things in Spanish and Hindi here that direct objects whether they trigger differential object marking or not they can become nominative subjects whereas indirect objects in these languages cannot do that. The next test we can look at refers to reduced relative clauses which actually also involves a kind of passivization and the structures I'm thinking of here are shown in 11a and b with English examples so something like 11a the book given to the woman where we have a reduced relative clause headed by a theme the book or 11b where we have a reduced relative clause headed by a recipient so the woman given the book. In English both of these are possible and perfectly natural but not both of these so we don't find both of these structures in Spanish and Hindi. So in 12a and b we see sort of by now familiar examples we have a Libro Bistain Lacaya the book seen in the street that's fine we can also say La Muchera Bistain Lacaya the woman seen in the street also fine so again independently of whether we have whether we would have differential object marking or not these noun phrases can head reduced relatives. 13a shows that we can't do this with a recipient we can't say La Muchera dada a Libro the woman given the book that's ungrammatical and 13b just shows that this is not something about that transitive because we can have a reduced relative headed by the theme so we can say a Libro dada a La Muchera so it's not about that transitive it's about relativizing the recipient. Hindi now shows the same picture as Spanish so now the recipient just sort of or the indirect object patterns just like in Spanish in that in 14a and b we can say something like the woman seen in the market so we can have a reduced relative headed by a theme in 14b we can have the book given to the woman so we can also have a die transitive reduced relative headed by a theme that's fine but in 14c just like in Spanish we can't have something like book given to the woman so the woman given the book is out in Hindi as well so looking at reduced relatives we again see that direct objects seem to form a natural class whether animate or inanimate specific or nonspecific to the exclusion of indirect objects the next thing we can look at is controlling secondary predicates again I'm giving some English examples to illustrate what this should be about so in 15a we have a sentence I have seen you drunk and as is sort of often said in such transitive sentences the subject or the object can control the depictive secondary predicates so in I have seen you drunk drunk can refer to both the subject I or the object you context will help you disambiguate what's going on here but looking at die transitive constructions this is something that is much more difficult for the indirect object I have given the book to the woman drunk and here drunk wants to refer to the subject the book will not be drunk anyway and in 15c with the double object construction in English I have given the woman the book drunk I think it's still sort of more much more salient to have drunk refer to the subject so we can look at this in other languages as well so on the top of page 7 in 16 we have examples from Spanish we can start with something like with an example with an inanimate direct object my mother bought the washing machine broken what's very practical here is that the depictive secondary predicates in Spanish shows what its controller is because it agrees with it in gender so in 16a it could also be that Rota refers to the subject but that's sort of an irrelevant meaning here but in 16b when we have Juan as the subject and Maria as an object we can tell by the agreement on the depictive predicate what its controller is so 16b and 16c are a nice little pair because we see a very similar surface string but we see that they don't really allow the same pattern so in 16b we have the predicate which takes a dative argument let's talk to so in 16b we get Juan Lea Blua Maria Boraccio Juan talk to Maria drunk Juan being drunk but we can't have the depictive predicate agreeing with the object so we can't say Juan Lea Blua Maria Boraccio that's out so basically the dative argument cannot control the depictive secondary predicate in 16c if we change the predicate from talk to to find both options become available so we get Juan Lea Lea Controa Maria Boraccio referring to Juan but we can also say Boraccia with the predicate referring to Maria so a direct object can control the depictive secondary predicate an indirect object or a dative object cannot 16d and e show examples with domestic violence and di-transitives I'm going to skip those show the same picture basically now I'm not going to talk mention Hindi here because I don't have the right kind of data but a variety of BASC so some dialects of BASC have differential object marking where the differential object marker is again homophonous with dative case so we have an example in 17a including a from standard BASC which has a dative on grandmother the second word in the clause so we have something like I have carried the child to the grandmother happy and the indexation on happy shows that in the sentence I have carried the child to the grandmother happy it's possible that the subject is happy that the child is happy but it can't mean that the grandmother is happy so again we see that the recipient or goal argument here cannot control the depictive secondary predicate in 17b however where we have I have seen you happy and you here is marked with the homophonous differential object dative marker the secondary predicate can actually control can be controlled by the direct object so in I have seen you happy it's possible that you are happy so once again looking at depictive secondary predicates across languages these two languages at least shows that direct objects pattern alike irrespective of whether they have differential object marking or not they can control secondary predicates while indirect objects cannot for the next couple of examples I'll only give examples from a single language but they sort of add to the picture in general so the first point on page 8 refers to nominalizations in Spanish 18a shows a sort of straightforward transitive sentence with differential object marking so we get something like the dog captured Juan we have an animate object we have a proper name so that triggers differential object marking that's fine when we nominalize this verb so we make out of captured we make capture we get something like 18b la captura de Juan por el perro fue sorprendente so the dog's capture of Juan was surprising so what happens here is that we as the object of a nominal sort of of the nominalized version of capture we don't have differential object marking anymore but 18b shows that la captura de Juan is ungrammatical so basically what we see is that the differential object marker changes to the genitive when we're in the nominal domain we can extend this to diatransitives as well so in 19a we have a verbal diatransitive Maria le entregó el paquete a Susana Maria delivered the package to Susana and what we see here is that we have an inanimate direct object differential object marking on the package we have a dative marker on Susana because it's marked as the recipient argument when we nominalize this structure we get la entrega del paquete a Susana so we get again the direct object being expressed by a genitive in the nominalized construction but the recipient now retains its a, it retains its dative so once again we see that whether an argument triggers differential object marking or not it's the object of a verb so this distinction is neutralized when we look at the nominalization and in the nominalization it becomes a genitive irrespective of the animacy, specificity of the object however when we're looking at recipients or goals which are marked with a this a is retained in the nominalization so it looks like we again see direct objects patterning together indirect objects patterning a different way the next example is from a southern Italian variety called palizese which also has differential object marking so animate and definite objects have to be marked with a now we don't see this a so much on its own in these examples because it confuses with the definite determiner u giving rise to a so in 20a we have something like I saw the book no differential marking, just a definite determiner in 20b we get I saw or child which indicates that differential object marking has happened here and if we turn the page to page 9 in 21 we see that we can have, we can get this or as well in a di-transitive construction so we have something like I gave the money to the child and to the child is or child just like in the direct object version however what's very cool about this variety is that its dative has a genitive alimorph which should be greek influence if I remember correctly and this is also called the greek dative basically that you can express a dative case using a genitive alimorph so this is shown in 22 which is just like 21 but rather than expressing the recipient with dative case we also use genitive here now the cool thing is that this genitive alimorph only targets recipients but it doesn't target direct objects so 22b where we have the genitive alimorph for the direct object is ungrammatical, that's just not possible so again we see that now we have sort of alimorphy which targets indirect objects or recipients but not direct objects or themes Spanish, doubling in some varieties of Spanish we see clitics which are sensitive to the case of the argument so we can have distinct dative and accusative clitics, other varieties don't have that distinction so this is not a very strong argument but yeah not bad to mention this the final point that is interesting to make I think is comes from Kashmiri now which also has differential object marking which is homophonous with dative case and one thing that is particularly interesting in this language is the case on pronominals on pronoun objects because direct objects which are personal pronouns are only marked with dative case when that person is more prominent than the person of the subject so if you think of a prominent scale where a first person is higher than second person which is higher than third person then when you have a first person subject and a second person object you get on the pronoun object but if you have a third person subject and a second person object then the second person object is more prominent and you get dative examples show this a bit more clearly so in 24a and b we have I am teaching you versus he is teaching you so the only thing that changes in these examples is the person of the subject we have a first person in 24a and a third person in 24b and correlating with this change in person we see a change in the case of the object so in I am teaching you the object U is expressed in its nominative form whereas in he is teaching you the object is expressed in its dative or differential object marking form now crucially this thing only applies to direct objects when we have indirect objects they are always dative and the person of neither the person of the subject nor the person of the object influences this dative in any case so in 25a we have he will hand you over to me where he is third person so it's like the least prominent possible person with respect to this case marking alternation and the direct object U is marked dative or in its differential object marking form and so is the indirect object me both are dative in 25b when the subject is the most prominent I am handing him over to you more prominent than both the direct object and the indirect object the direct object is nominative morphologically unmarked whereas the indirect object is dative so indirect objects keep that dative irrespectively of the person of the other arguments so 26 just shows that this alternation is only found in the imperfective aspect so in the perfective we don't get this we don't get this alternation on direct objects but indirect objects are still dative that was a whole load of data basically what we have seen here is that looking at passives in Spanish and Hindi, reduced relatives in Spanish and Hindi, secondary predicates in Spanish and Basque as well as normalizations and some other patterns these things sort of converge on one point showing that direct objects whether they trigger differential marking or not behave as a natural class with respect to these constructions whereas indirect objects always pattern in a different way so I think that these data are fairly clear for these languages so I now want to briefly talk about English and Khanti to illustrate how in some languages it is possible to express themes and recipients as the same grammatical relation so this is a kind of counterpoint to what we've seen so far because both English and Khanti allow in a fairly straightforward way to show that themes and recipients can be the same grammatical relations so that they pass all of these tests in the same way in the same way but sort of differently than Spanish Hindi etc so the main idea here is that it's well known that English has a di-transitive alternation for some verbs including give so we can have in English give can have or can appear with what is often called the prepositional dative construction I gave the book to Mary where the recipient is expressed with two or we can have the double object construction I gave Mary the book a lot has been written about this there's some references here on page 11 and one way of thinking about this is illustrated in 27 and 28 and you don't have to take these structures too seriously there's sort of more to illustrate a crucial property of both constructions so in 27 we have what I call the recipient prominent structure so in some sense the recipient is more prominent the recipient gets accusative in some languages the recipient will agree with the verb and so on we'll see examples of all of this in a theme prominent structure it's the theme that is accusative the theme that can agree with the verb and also arguably in a higher position than the recipient maybe so in languages which allow both of these we get some more we get some more freedom than in Spanish and Hindi with respect to some of the tests we've seen so in 29 we have two di-transitive examples from English I just mentioned that we can have I gave the books to Mary or I gave Mary the books straight forward now both of these allow passivization but in both of these we can only passivize the more prominent argument in the sense of 27-28 so I gave the books to Mary allows the structure the books were given to Mary and we can kind of tell that we passivize the prepositional-dative construction because the recipient still has its prepositional-dative whereas the books has become the subject here so that's 30a in 30b in Mary was given the books we can sort of see that we passivize the double object construction because there's no this can originate from I gave Mary the books so English allows both theme and recipient passives and this is in contrast to what we've seen before English we've seen an example of this earlier also allows both constructions and reduced relatives so we can have the books given to the woman or the woman given the books straight forward now English doesn't really might not tell us that much more but Khanti uses some interesting other data or actually shows some parallels but also shows object agreement so Khanti is a Uralic language its sister language Manjsi behaves in the very same way and both of these languages are similar to English in that certain predicates have di-transitive alternations so like English allows prepositional-dative and the double object construction Khanti and Manjsi allow so-called indirective and secundative alignment these terms basically mean that one of the two arguments in a di-transitive can become accusative and the other argument is an oblique so examples of this are shown in 32A and B in 32A we have a theme object which is accusative and the recipient which is expressed as a post-positional phrase so we have something like I gave sorry I cup to Peter gave and the two verb forms show that we can either have the verb can agree with the accusative object but the verb doesn't have to agree with the accusative object both are fine now the same verb allows a different argument structure frame in 32B we can also say I now Peter the recipient is an accusative the cup accusative case and the verb now must agree with the accusative object so we have basically an alternation like I gave a cup to Peter and then something like I provided Peter with a cup basically so two ways of expressing transfer of possession using different cases on the theme and the recipient the crucial point now is that Khanti differs from Spanish and Hindi and so on in that what is accusative here really seems to be the same kind of grammatical relation because the accusative object can undergo all kinds of syntactic processes that the other object cannot so we we see in 32 that accusative objects whether they're themes or recipients can agree with the verb that's fine accusative objects can also be in a high syntactic position outside of the VP this is shown in 33A and B where we have in 33A T cup accusative preceding so where did you take the cup where we have T cup preceding the question word where or in 33B where we have this I gave the cup to Peter and again cup preceding the recipient what they also have in common both themes accusative themes and accusative recipients is that both can be passivized just like in English so in 34A and B we see a theme passive and a recipient passive respectively in 34A we have the girl was given to him girl is in the nominative he is in the dative just like in English 34B shows a recipient passive where we have he was given a knife by John and here the recipient is now nominative and the knife is oblique in locative case and turning the page to page 14 we see that as might not be surprising by now that reduced relatives are also possible in this language headed by both a theme and both a recipient and again these kind of show nicely which case frame they originate from so it's always the accusative which can sort of become the head of the reduced relative and the other argument stays in its oblique case so in 35 we have to the child given book was very expensive so the book given to the child was very expensive and we see this marked with the latiff case which is the recipient which marks the recipient in surgut hanti in 35B we have reduced relative headed by a recipient where now we have with the book given child so the child given the book and here the child is the recipient heads the reduced relative and the other internal argument has its oblique case that it has in this case frame so basically what English and hanti both show is that it's possible in principle to have a case marker that expresses or to associate a certain case marker with one type of grammatical relation and in some sense this is similar to what we see in Spanish right because we have a similar we can have the same morphological expression for both themes and recipients but these data show that these languages differ from Spanish and Hindi etc because whatever has accusative in English and hanti actually can undergo passiveization reduced relative formation etc so we see this difference between these types of languages and English sorry Spanish but there is a way of kind of forcing Spanish into this into this pattern as well because while not all languages allow different case frames with a single predicate many languages will have different predicates which allow different case frames so I've already mentioned that in English we can say something like I give the book to the woman where we have an unmarked or an accusative theme and a prepositional or dative recipient but we can also say I provide the woman with a book in which case the recipient is accusative or morphologically unmarked and the theme with a book is now expressed with an oblique prepositional phrase English is not the only language with predicates so in Spanish one example of such a verb is armar to arm to provide someone with weapons which behaves in the same way in that its recipient is now kind of accusative and its theme is expressed with a preposition 37 shows an example the government armed the army with pistols just like in English what's interesting about these verbs now is that the direct object if you want to call it that which we can call it direct object for now is now a recipient rather than a theme and it's this recipient now which takes part in differential object marking so in 38a when we have not the army but we have an animate object we get differential object marking so we get differential object marking on the recipient now again the argument which has accusative or differential object marking can be passivized so we can get 39 soldiers who were armados etc the soldiers were armed by the government we can do the other test as well in 40 we see that the recipient which is the kind of accusative recipient now can have a reduced relative so we can say soldiers armados con pistolas we can also see that the recipient's argument the recipient argument's case now changes to genitive and a nominalization to the degree that this is acceptable so we can say el armamiento del ejercito de los soldados and we can also see that the recipient can now control a depictive secondary predicate when it's introduced by a verb like this so in 42 we get el capitán armó Amaria Boracha the captain armed Mary and Mary was drunk and and in 42b we see that that meaning is not possible when we express it sort of in the dytransitive construction with give with the similar meaning so what these examples are supposed to show is that what's what's going on with differential object marking seems to be that it happens on the on the object that the verb takes as its direct object or its primary object as it's also called in Spanish sometimes so it's not about themes and recipients per se it's about which object in Spanish at least can sort of appear as an unmarked object and when it's the recipient that it appears as a primary object so when the recipient is in this accusative role then it can undergo all of these tests that direct objects otherwise can as well but we've seen that when a recipient is introduced by and it can't do these things so it looks like the argument structure of the verb also determines what's going on here and it's we can have distinct grammatical relations here so to come to an end soon I've talked about tests sort of how we can try and distinguish between direct or primary objects and secondary or indirect objects and I mentioned in the beginning that I think that these data are best analysed in a morphological way so just very briefly on the top of page 15 I'm showing how such a morphological analysis could work and the idea here is very simple so people for a long time have been thinking about decomposing case into smaller features and sort of expressing case by using sub features so for Hindi for example we could say that nominative is actually a bundle of two features which could be minus governed, minus oblique the labels that I'm using here are from the literature in principle you can use other labels here and there's also ways of making this a bit more systematic than what I've shown here but this is just a very simple way of looking at it so nominative is specified by minus governed, minus oblique for example accusative can be expressed as plus governed minus oblique so it differs from nominative in one feature and we can have a third case dative which is expressed as plus governed, plus oblique so we get these three cases which are distinguished by one feature each now the only thing on a morphological account that needs to be said in a way we have two we have two suffixes that can be spelled out we have a zero suffix which is inserted when a case is specified as minus governed and minus oblique so whenever we have nominative in the syntax the morphology sees this and spells out nothing that's fine and sort of a common way of modeling syncretism is that you just have some under-specification in one of the items that you want to spell out so in 44B we see that it would be enough to say that core is only specified for a plus governed feature and that's the one that accusative and dative have in common so whether the syntax gives an argument an accusative or a dative doesn't matter for the morphology because the morphology will see okay we have plus gov so we'll put a core in there but that's just morphology that sort of doesn't mess with what we see in syntax and this kind of idea and there's other ways of implementing this but this kind of approach can get us the sort of different syntactic representations of of direct objects with core and indirect objects with core sort of yeah different syntactic representation of those two things but the same morphological spell out so that's the idea behind how you can do syncretism so what I tried to show is that syntax sees the differences between differential object marking objects and dative objects in Spanish and Hindi and Basque and Kashmiri if if objects with if objects with differential object marking and indirect objects are syntactically identical so if they were the same grammatical relation we would expect that this grammatical relation sort of shows consistent behavior but this is not what we seem to find in these languages and I suggested that this distinct syntactic behavior can be captured by saying okay in syntax these are different things we have what we assume for other languages as well we have direct objects and indirect objects but they happen to be spelled out in the same way on this view whatever differential object marking really is it's sort of I've been treating it as an alimorph of accusative right so in in Hindi in Spanish say sometimes the direct object has accusative case which is null and sometimes it has accusative case which is ah or core respectively ah and I think that sort of some support for this idea comes from from languages in which we know that we can express themes and recipients as the same grammatical relation like English and Hanti and these languages show different behavior from Spanish, Hindi and Kashmiri and so on so I think we can sort of put those languages to one side and say that languages in which differential object marking and dative show homophony can be explained in a morphological way because we see the distinct syntactic behavior and that's it, thank you 13 I think it might be small the exam 37, when you discussed 37 you were hesitating what to call the army primary object or direct object or privileged object does that matter for you? it only matters to the degree I think that I would say that so basically I think for cross linguistic what's the word? it makes sense maybe from a terminological point of view to say direct object is a theme object that is marked identically in a transitive and monotransitive in the and the primary object is one that is marked identically in a monotransitive, a recipient that is marked identically in the that is marked like an unmarked monotransitive object so the classical definition of those terms what I'd have to say for Spanish then is that primary objects and direct objects behave alike and indirect objects and secondary objects don't so basically that could be a way of just saying that having primary or a direct object is one grammatical relation and then there's a secondary object relation which I think it's a terminological point of view I was hesitating a bit because I hadn't introduced primary objects so I wasn't sure whether it would be confusing or not so I think, yeah, it's a it's not a very deep issue I think the idea would be that primary and direct objects behave like I've got a small maybe related question what would you call non-agreing object in Hunter in such a two-way protocol? yeah that's a good question so given that given that a non-agreing object can also passivise right, or can it not then it's different from the relation that so I'm not sure whether we'd have to introduce another object so what you do in the in the book is call it object 2 it's respected to a theme patient yeah so the non-agreing object in Hunter would be could be one that is respected to a theater role maybe that sort of doesn't make it quite clear what a secondary object would then be something like an inferior basically I think you said that it's a language with differential object marking but without a demo object construction yeah thank you very much I have a couple of questions perhaps one is I suppose a bigger question as to how you or if you can under your account for how this variation arises cross linguistically your kind of structures here but also why that would or how that would become the case and then another perhaps related or perhaps in terms of the kind of more like information structure and why so you mentioned with the earthquake example I think in Spanish sort of subtlety in interpretation I think again even with the fancy one would you have like I provided Peter with a cut perhaps being slightly distinguished from Goebbins so I wondered if you could expand on so the provided translation was just that to show a similar like case frame in English rather than I give Peter the cup which doesn't have sort of where both arguments are unmarked in provided the theme has a proposition so I provided just sort of to have a parallel in the marking the so the in so as far as I remember from the literature it's the it is the information structure with which influences which which object you have basically that seems to be perfectly I mean I'm very happy with that being an explanation right I haven't really looked into what I think for English some people have tried to come up with all kinds of explanatory variables for when you use a different when you use the propositional date of construction and double object construction and there are some restrictions on the animacy of the recipient for example so you can say things like I gave I gave Mary book or I sent Mary the book but you can't say I sent London the letter things like that so these things play a role but I think that these things will probably have chosen differences across languages so yeah when it comes to when it comes to something like using the verb to arm instead of give arms to or give weapons to I can imagine that that's also something where you know information structure influences whether you say whether you kind of want to keep continuity with the recipients or whether you in a context where you're more it's more about you know different kinds of weapons or whatever use the weapons as the theme so I think that whatever seems to be maybe more salient more topical I could imagine that there's a trend to expressing that as more logically unmarked or accused of basically with the with the earthquake example that that's yeah that's that's quite an incident I didn't look too much into I have so with Hindi the so Mohanani writes that some speakers so some writers of Hindi seem to allow this this alternation of retaining accusative and Rajesh Bhatt told me that he thinks that sort of all speakers have this which is a contradiction so I'm not quite sure what's going on there I think it's about the right is maybe I do reference the Sahar there which seems to have a similar thing that in accusatives it can and passives it can retain accusative and there it's also said that that's something a gentle about it so I haven't really looked into where that's coming from but I think it's it's about the something about the representation of the other instructor in the passive so then passive is mostly about reducing transitivity rather than sort of removing the agent and that gives us a sense of this was that whether thanks for great tool I never really know if this is like an appropriate question for these kind of talks but you've drawn on a number of languages I was just wondering why you chose these words in particular and how generalizable you think this phenomenon is it's a thing that you have to look at for each language in a way because because because yeah because we find similar overlaps right so English gives you a way of expressing themes and recipients with the same with homophonous marking in a way so the Spanish but when you look at different tests they show different results so you kind of have to have to do this I think for different languages English is handy because it's it's widely spoken by this audience for example and and gives this and has this nice transitive alternation that is well known Humpty is in there because that's sort of where I found a lot of this the similar behavior of recipients and themes and that's some accessible literature Spanish is one of the prime examples of a language of differential object marking and in general some of the papers that I referred to in the beginning where people have suggested that that differential objects are maybe expressed the same syntactic category they were dealing with Spanish in part and other Romance languages so so that's it I would like to have some more non-Indo-European languages with the same overlap and I'm pretty sure that they're around so Basque is an example but with Basque it's sort of difficult to rule out that Spanish could have had an influence on that so yeah I'd sort of I'd like some more examples which which are unrelated to the ones I have ideally if someone knows of a language like that what would be a good contrast is another language which doesn't have differential object marking but has a state of accusative syncretism because that would also show that you can have syncretism of these two cases which I'm sure also exists it's just not a part of differential object marking because that would give us another piece of evidence that there's nothing inherent about that kind of homophony that is linked to differential object marking learning languages where recipients have to be mapped as direct objects but not differential objects can give you references later so it was practicality to some degree Michael Silverstein published a paper many many years ago which he draws a linkage between what he calls normatives and datives essentially arguing from a very wide range of languages that when you get constructions in which differential object marking is collapses the encoding is always in a dative case structure so if a language for example has differential object marking in main clauses but then in dependent clauses it doesn't make that distinction then the encoding is typically dative okay of the subject then of the object then do you know which paper of his that is I'll have a look cool yeah thank you I wasn't aware of that it was actually written in about 1974 but it was published in the 90s in a volume edited by Bob Van Beylen thank you and you get the same thing in antipassive constructions so languages that have differential object marking in basic transitive clauses when you form antipassives they typically encode they collapse the distinction and encode all what would be objects as datives that's interesting yeah I'll have a look thank you which doesn't that's not what you get with indirect objects yeah I think I have to look at those structures to understand what's going on there thank you my earlier question was this how it also links to which variations yeah which variations so why why English has different and other languages don't or the other way around it's a good question so I think what some people who have looked at give a lot probably my husband has said is that I remember this correct certain kind of more prototypical and sort of give is the most prototypical one I think and I seem to have a vague recollection that if you have these kind of alternations then they would start with a verb like give so you maybe you don't have a language which only has this for send or like throw but not give so this is also something that people have looked at in English as well another language is how give and send and throw behave with respect to whether they allow these alternations yeah so maybe it's just it's a kind of extension of often information structural device from one predicate to another and it starts somewhere and it seems to start with give and it can go somewhere and then it could spread out so I think there seem to be some scales in both yeah so in this 2010 book by Maltschikov, hospital modern comery on die transitive constructions and they have this analysis I think of in terms of semantic maps where they show how how certain meanings in die transitive can spread out from give to other predicates and they show them different languages so there seems to be some regularity in how these things happen which I can't remember but yeah there is something there but give is useful because it's very common and it's easy to handle in very languages can I can I ask after the semantics in the Spanish case what is differentially marked as anemones yeah that's a that's a that's a difficult question so animosity plays a role but you can also have differentially marked inanimates I think then they have to be definite and having looked at some of the literature I mean I think it's difficult to look at all the literature on Spanish differential object marking no two people completely agree on what triggers I think one part is also one aspect of this is also that different varieties of Spanish handle these things in different ways so in general animacy and definiteness animacy and specificity play a role but there's some ways of overriding it so yeah do you know what other languages I mean is that what does the semantic factors in that's actually yeah that's that's a good point so when I started thinking about this I was actually more on the side of of thinking that maybe they maybe the two cause and so on are actually the same thing because these languages seem to involve these languages seem to involve both animacy and specificity to some degree and recipients are often also animate right but it can't be that simple because we've seen that in two we have an indefinite we have a definite but inanimate recipient or goal argument in Spanish which also takes a part so these are maximally tendencies so in but animacy might play a role in many languages in Persian which has differential object marking where the differential object marker originates from what used to be a date of suffix if I remember correctly their animacy doesn't play a role so it's also not that this date of connection is necessarily tied to animacy it just happens to be the case in many languages I think but yeah actually another good language to find would be one which has differential object marking where animacy doesn't play any role it still has the homophony because that would sort of still has differential object marking and the homophony between data because then that eliminates another variable so would give us another example of what's going on so now a bunch of go for it sometimes people compare this with object marking optionality of the Victorian so I really there's an object marking paradigm and you have to double the object if the object is animate but then there's variation across bunch of languages so this looks like a semantic plan and that's fairly robust I think and you have similar effects where it seems to be morphological terrain so in Makuwa that seems to be a noun class and then in Chaga it seems to be pro nouns so whether that's a morphological thing or a pragmatic thing a lot of knows but it seems to me that in this in a sense it goes what you say about the tendencies I think it looks a bit like you know people want to mark a particular I think semantic relation probably but it's a bit vague but then they piggyback on formal means which are already there so that's why you get the data in a sense it doesn't really matter I mean it's a useful thing that data is also a recipients of an animate but actually that might not be but it's just the formal means are there and there's a need or a desire to express a particular semantic relation so in this case you piggyback on the dated marking in the Bantu case you just piggyback on the object doubling because there isn't really a case this tension so we don't have that but from that perspective the system is actually identical it doesn't matter what the formal means is what is interesting is the sort of secondary use of established grammatic expressions and then if you think of a grammatization story you would at some such expect that that's not the primary and then you get things like what you have in German where you have remnant type things like certain predicates take particular cases like what is held with dative and think of as a genitive which are really weird but in a sense these are historical remnant for something when it was making more motivation yeah thank you that's another good point the piggybacking story actually and what I haven't really mentioned is why it would be the dative and the differential marker that would be secretive right so there's a paper by Guillape Boson who coined the term differential object marking and he wrote a lot about this and he made some counts I think and he said that when there is some syncretism of the differential marker with another case it tends to be the dative is the most frequent alternative so we can actually ask why that would be and I think that what might actually help is syncretism accounts in some senses that dative and accusative are sort of close together on people's case hierarchies so it doesn't have to be the animus in a series it doesn't have to be a formal feature that sort of gives that closeness but it could just be that something about how cases are accusative being the non-oblig case and dative being on the boundary between the non-oblig and oblique so syncretism between accusative and dative seems to be a costumistic common thing anyway so it's that kind of piggybacking but it doesn't have to be the same animus or something like that I can also add the story we've had in the book is basically that in many cases this differential object marking starts as marking of topics well we call them secondary topics but anyway they tend to be recipients for various independent in many cases that is actually the historical source of these projects then the multiplication are different ways and you know they can spread to objects which are not recipients sometimes it spreads to any object specific objects and there are different types basically we had some kind of story which goes back to the mesh stretch marking I don't know if it's true or not but that was the idea the whole story because we get differential subject marking with often with datives as well self-agent experience with subjects with datives so you get that a lot so at least in some languages when you have dative subjects you can sort of identify a thematic distinction in the predicate so that it's not an agent that would get a dative but an experience or something so speculating it's possible that language chooses to sort of build on that analogy maybe and sort of come up with something like this that you have that distinction at some point where which would be sort of more what you just said that recipients are maybe the first element that shows something and then based on that you go down a certain path you can imagine that if you have a language which marks experience some subjects with datives then that can influence grammaticalization of differential subject marking which maybe loses the distinction or loses the sensitivity to experiences but retains the dative marking or something so that's true though that then the syncretism doesn't quite work out as nicely because that close cases that's a good point there is a lot of work by Miriam about grammaticalization of differential subject marking and he'll do it okay thank you very much then I'll just


Hey everybody, it's Brian. Welcome to the 23rd C-Sharp tutorial. Today we're just going to make a simple Windows form application. And we're going to be discussing the checkbox. So let's just throw a checkbox and a button up there. And then we're going to set the startup position to center screen on the form. That way it just pops open where we want it to. Align our stuff a little bit. Change the text of the text box. That's the label portion of it to enabled. Now what we're going to do is we're going to make this application very simple, very easy. When it loads, it's going to check the state of this checkbox and enable or disable the button. And when we check or uncheck the checkbox, it'll enable or disable the button. Let me show you what I mean here. F5 to run. When we check this, the button should be enabled. When we uncheck it, it'll be disabled. That's really all the checkbox does is just true or false, yes or no. So let's double click our form, get our form load. Double click our checkbox, get the checkbox one, check changed. Notice how you can just double click the control and you don't have to sit here and go into the events and muck around and figure out which one you want. So just a very quick shortcut. We're going to make a function here, private void to checked. And we're going to say button one enabled equal checkbox one checked. There you have it. That's as hard as that is. And you notice how the enabled is a boolean and the checked is a boolean. So they're both the same types. You can just say equals. You don't have to do any sort of funky processing. Then you can just add your function in here. So when the form is loaded, it's going to call a function. And when the state of the checkbox changes, it's going to call the function again. Save your work, f5 to run, sure enough, it's disabled, enabled, disabled. So there you have it. There's the checkbox in all of its glory. Not a long tutorial, but this isn't a very difficult control to work with. So there's not a whole lot there to discuss. This is Brian. Thank you for watching. I hope you found this educational and entertaining.


Hello everybody, this is Roman in Ukraine. I'm here at the intersection of Khristatik Street, and the famous Rzhevsova Street, where a lot of the violence and the protests have happened. There's a bunch of protesters playing soccer right there. What's amazing about these protests is that it speaks well to your mind. Here's a coffee shop. It's open. The windows are smashed. Nothing is looted. There's a pub, a London pub. It's all open. That building over there, that's where they think the sniper shot and killed one of the protesters from. But it's not a lethal conflict yet. It's less than lethal, and I think it'll stay that way. But there's a news crew filming. So it's like a combination of protests and just regular old city life. And I'm going to have to leave it at that, because it's really cold. I think it's minus 15 today, and my hands are getting tired. But I just wanted to say hi from my Don, and that's that. Alright, here we are a little further up on Rzhevsova Street. See, there's the building from before over there. Come on, please don't worry. Because there are these little old ladies with grocery bags walking. So it's just like a mix of city life and protests. But there's a burnt-out car. Here's the barricade, very impressive in size. And there's a couple other barricades ahead of it. Now, this is pretty cool. Whoa! Dean! I just slipped on the ice a little bit. You can see over there how dark it got from all the fires that were burning. Like half that arc is still original color, and half of it is black. Let's take a little further look. And now we're getting a little bit closer. And that's it. And up there on the hill is my first glimpse of the actual riot police. And I think this is how it goes all day long. They look at each other, the protesters, the riot police. And there's a few flare-ups now and then. But they tell me that this is the last barricade. The protest organizers will not let you pass this barricade without a helmet. So that is that.


We are here today to break free from fossil fuels and all our brothers and sisters who deserve better, who deserve to be treated with a dignity, respect, and justice that has been too long denied them. Years in our community, never knowing that the largest gas storage facility in the Western United States was in our backyard, and one of the key people who said keep the coal in the ground is Jerry Brown. Where are you at Jerry? We come here united calling on our leaders and letting them know that they are the leaders of all people and not just a few. We come calling on the moral conscience of the corporations that take money here and don't care anything about the health of the wealth of the people. And the city, where do you stand behind a broken regulatory system with antiquated laws filled with flaws that pave the way for oil companies to get away with burdening communities with toxic waste? We live together and close to oil and oil drilling and refineries operations in Wilmington. We live close to oil and oil industries and all our lives. We have come to understand the consequences that not only have in our health but the health of our families, of our friends and each one of us who is here now.  And a young girl died because she was drinking contaminated water. I don't think that that's respect. I don't think that's human dignity. And they're depriving us from that. My family was sick. My dog was sick. My community's been sick. We saw 4,000 people out of their homes.   Everybody really has to come down to fight climate change but really to break free from fossil fuels to fight this corporate system that wants to pollute instead of actually hold up the needs of people. We stand together united looking for better and improved ways such as solar and wind which do not harm our communities but we stand here as good and faithful students this day united moving forward for justice.


Hey everybody it's Sam at Mixed Up Craft. Thank you for watching my tutorial today. I'm going to be showing you how to make a hidden message card. So this has been a requested tutorial. Two ladies have requested this one, a lady called Sylvia and a lady called Jane. So thank you for sending you know the requests for this and sorry you've had to wait so long because it just takes me a while to get through them and you know things happen. So this is my take on it. Now I had a little look online and I found a tutorial from 10 years ago and it was a teacher actually showing you how to make one of these in the classroom. But I have seen this style before. I'm sure I've done something similar in school or I know I've come across this before because I recognise the mechanism and I'm sure you will too. So it's a 5x7 card. I've done mine with a belly band but there are other ways to fold this and I'll show you in a moment. You basically remove the belly band and you open it up and you have this. Okay so you have all these panels you know it stands up nicely. It's like a bit of a concertina fold but then the idea is and this is why it's a hidden message. The one thing I would say is you want to give this to someone who is going to understand that they've got to kind of hunt for it. They've got to move this card around. So you squeeze it all together and then you pull out this section and you have a whole hidden part and this is where I would say to write your message. So I've left these blank. Okay so again if I just pull that open like so so squeeze it down and then these kind of open to reveal a whole another section. It's really really cool. Now you could also have it folded like this and you could have it wrapped with some ribbon or the bow and pop it in an envelope like that but the other cool thing is on the back you have all of this section. Okay I've just put some you know fun little ephemera and just anything really but you could just keep it all plain but there's an even more hidden section and if you fold it flat so there's where you've opened it. If you fold it in half this way and then open this section you have a whole another area again. So I think this would be really good for you know colleagues you know at work because there's loads of spaces for people to write messages and you could really write some funny just all sorts you know let your imagination go with that. It's it's just really cool but it's great for children but it's also really good for adults as well so again you just close that one up and then open it all up again. So you've got one two three four. I know some of you now are going to be watching this thinking oh no this is just way too hard. It is so simple honestly you will not believe just how simple this is and I will show you every step but the longest part is choosing what you're going to have. The actual card to make you can make this no and I'm not lying in like 10 minutes it's so so fast. Let's get into the tutorial. Okay so I've got everything cut for today's that was my other template there so like I said you can have it that way but I think I'm just going to keep mine in the five by seven flat you know size like so but again you can see just how cool it looks and then on the back again if you want to do more there do it that way was it like that and then like that it's just really really fun I can't stop doing it so anyway so I'm using pebbles ink and I was given all these bits from magazine from magazine feature that I've done so I've got all of this to use which is great we've got the puffy stickers the phrase ephemera and the icon ephemera I have just mixed all mine you can see actually no did I keep no I have mixed it all I think I'm going to catch that one there there's all phrases in there which I will use but there's just tons of bright bold fun colorful pieces so I'll be cutting them up so I've gone and cut a piece of cardstock here I'm going to use that for my belly band so this is a piece of 10 by 7 and along that 10 inch side you just want to score it two and a half five and seven and a half okay and then fold and burnish all of the score lines and then fold it in half like this okay and you're going to score at well these score lines we're then going to cut down so if you'd rather do a pencil mark you can but you want to do it at one and three quarters three and a half and five and a quarter so you have four equal sections okay and it kind of yeah it should have gone through both sides but you're just going to keep it folded in half and you're just now going to cut up those lines so like I said if you want to keep the you know use pencil lines instead you can but make sure you pinch it really really well together you don't want it kind of going you know when you cut through multiple pieces of paper and it starts to kind of all go off in one direction just you know it's cardstock you're cutting through so it may want to budge so just keep keep them squeezed together okay that one and that one okay so now we can open it up and you will have two and a half two and a half and then you'll have all of this in the middle and then you'll have another two and a half piece okay then you're going to need two pieces of whatever cardstock I've got white here so there might be mats and layers and these measure two and three eighths so they're just one eighth of an inch under the the width of these pieces by seven okay you want that full width and then it's up to you whether you want to go under first over and then under you may want to go under first and then over because each one will be the opposite to whatever one you do first so I'm going to do under over the next one under the third one and then over the last one so under the first over the second under the third so you finish with it over the bottom one and push it right in okay and you want to make sure it's you know the perfect height of that card and then this one then this is what locks it together this one you'll do the opposite so this time I'm going to go over the first one okay under the second one over the third and then under the last one it's not fiddly you just want to get them going just slide it all down and now that's all locked together then fold it back the other way and just burnish everything just so it feels you know like it's going in the right direction and now you can open it up and again now it's down to decorating so I've got these panels here which I've already popped my pattern paper on and these are going to go on the front so these pieces here the white is two these are two so it's two and a quarter by six and three quarters and then the pattern paper is two by six and a half so you're going to want four pieces of each but your pattern paper you may want to vary so I've got the hip hip array on the inside and then on the front of the kind of gatefold I'm going to have this one here and then I'm going to have this lovely topper with my belly band on the front okay so I'm going to get those mats all stuck down first of all next I need to decorate all these sections here so you know it's entirely up to you how you do this so one thing I would say is have the hidden message because obviously you know they're going to open it up like this you know it displays nicely but the hidden message is in this piece so whatever you're going to you know write to them I would have it within this section here so I'm going to keep maybe two of these sections of the white I'm going to keep them plain so I've got room to actually write something but I'm going to decorate all of these and all of this side here I would say first of all decorate this and then move it so you know what you're working with because if you decorate here and then you've got all the space on the back as well you just might start to confuse yourself so I would certainly do each side you know bit by bit which is what I'm going to do so I've got lots of different papers from this collection and obviously it all ties in together so then I'm going to cut some of these pieces here so I would say if you want to cut any mats for any of these you know smaller sections the white ones I'm just going to stamp or stick stickers onto I'm actually only going to cut pattern paper for the to go over this kind of pinky paper so they're two and a half wide so I would do two and I don't know if I want to do a quarter inch border this time mind you go one eight no I'm going to do I'm going to do two and a quarter by one and a half okay okay so I've done that one just stamped a couple of images here and I can color them later on and I'm still going to add other bits here probably just going to do some colorful shapes and bits and pieces but now I'm going to fold out this middle section these two I'm going to keep free for me to actually write something and I'm going to just decorate the same so I'm going to cut some more pattern paper and just carry on and get it all finished really okay so I've done everything there and then I've just into the belly band but you open up you have this section and then obviously it all stands up close it up and then you have this part here and I've got these empty to write my message but then if you fold it in half this way so and then you've got the back which I've just decorated there okay but then if you fold it in half so here's the front if you fold it in half that way you also have an even more hidden message section and I've got this one here which says one year older and then you can write something again in that section there it's really fun I love this one I've done a few little doodles on it and I just think it's great so you could then have it kind of like that if they wanted to but then it all opens and takes you back to the beginning again so it's kind of a bit like an impossible card you know the never-ending cards those kind of things it's just got a yeah just that kind of it's a bit of an optical illusion I guess because people look at it and they think how is that just done that and then how have I just done that and then done that so yeah it's it's clever you've got to make it to get it so now I've just got that one there and then I've got this piece of one and a half by 12 but it doesn't have to be 12 as long as you can wrap it around I mean that's probably too long so I'm going to end up trimming trimming that off I do that I can just stick it over the top like that it should be okay actually so I don't want the belly band so tight that you can't get it off so just make sure you can slide it off okay and then I've got that nice big one there so I'm just going to pop some glue through the middle slide it off just so I make sure I've got no glue which I haven't okay so there is the finished card so just slide off the belly band open it up and you've got this and then you've got that section there and then you've got the back again you can just put pattern paper on there if you want to you also notice I changed these I don't think I mentioned it I wasn't happy with the the or the yellowy color it just didn't work properly but then also if you fold it in half that way and I think this is the real hidden one then you've got space there I think it's a great one like you could do like a nice little Valentine's kind of thing or like even like a proposal I don't know there's just so many fun ways like maybe for your children to say that they're going to Disneyland or something you could you know say where are we going and they're looking for ages going I don't know I don't know what to do I can't see anything and then they look you've got to fold it that way and then you get that completely hidden section I just think it's great it's really really fun it's really interactive I think it's a great one for children but also you know for adults too and then it just slides back in the bellyband just make sure that you get your you know these pieces here because obviously they are kind of loose and I think I've got it caught on that bit a little bit make sure you don't catch it on there but yeah there we have it so I hope you've enjoyed this one I think it's such a fun card can't wait to see your variations and yeah thank you for watching please give me a thumbs up if you've enjoyed today or consider subscribing so you get to see more see you later bye


nto the wider economy. That is what is crucial in that framework because of the nature of how it operates. David, do you have anything to add? On the question that I had, convener, it is about prevention and collaboration that you mentioned, Professor Roy. I do not want to be a spokesperson for local government, but when you can see what has happened to the local government budget, I have got a fear that, in terms of prevention, that could be impacted by the cut of 2.7 per cent to the local government budget. Is that something that you share as well? The fear that the prevention agenda cannot happen because where a local government, where a lot of the prevention takes place, is having its budget so squeezed? I probably would not say anything specific about local government whether their budget settlement is going to make it better, worse than prevention. I think that your privacy of overall question comes back to the very first question that you gave to me. If you have a tight budget settlement, how can you make the changes that let you do prevention? That means shifting money from something in the here and now into something that is potentially speculative and potentially really long-term. That is really hard to do. Local government is at the front end of that because a lot of what they do is about prevention there. If it is helpful in the spending review to try and separate it out and not try and put everything into the pot at once and try and separate it out into what are the changes that we could do now that might make some savings and make better service, delivery or efficiencies that will generate relatively quick savings and then continue to have the really thorny difficult conversations about where do we actually make the changes on prevention that are going to take a very long time. I do not have the answer to that. We have been talking about this for more than a decade and we had James Mitchell in the Auditor General talking about this a month or so ago. We have not come up with the solutions in the six weeks since then. I think that we have talked about it for a long time and still not find solutions. Let us be a bit more optimistic than that. If you are looking for optimism, you have possibly come to the wrong place. We have covered an awful lot of what I would have wanted to explore in this session. Sometimes politicians play these games about, if it were me, what would I do? There are lots of things, for example. We could make all of Scotland a free trade zone. Oh no, we cannot do that. We could attract lots more entrepreneurs into Scotland going back to the digital link. Oh no, we cannot do that. We could really pick up on George Osborne's own phrase about the kind of march that the makers and, as a convener pointed out, there has been a 9.7 per cent cut in CAPEX. However, having said that, I accept your comments, particularly about public sector consolidation and focusing key sectors and the move away from the oil and gas. One thing that this session has been very good for is looking at the wider perspective. In terms of structural issues, you made that comment and I do not know if we have ever talked about that enough in this committee. My question is how are the structural issues in the UK economy holding Scotland back? I fully accept that there are structural issues in the Scottish economy, but looking at the macro picture, how are the UK structural issues holding Scotland back? A few things, I would say. You generally make as well about who controls the levers. I think that it is important, again, to reflect in the sense that this framework means that Scotland takes the risk of its income tax performance diverting from the UK, but it is not the Scottish Government that purely controls what drives those income tax. They are the structural factors, but they are also UK policy choices that will not just impact on Scotland but will impact on Scotland relative to the rest of the UK. It is nice to be at committees not mentioning Brexit, but Brexit is an example of where decisions taken at the UK will have an impact on Scottish income tax revenues. We do not know whether it is going to be worse or better in Scotland relative to the UK, but it is an example of a decision taken outside Scotland that would potentially have an impact there. Again, we have to be realistic about what this Parliament can do to control the relative performance there. In terms of the structural issues that you highlight, many of the structural issues that we have spoken about from a Scottish perspective exist at the UK level. Some of them are slightly more pronounced in Scotland, some of them are potentially less. The UK has an ageing population, too. It is just that it is more rapidly ageing in Scotland. I heard an earlier conversation about different parts of the UK ageing differently as well. In Scotland, Scotland has been seen in that context. The productivity puzzle is a UK productivity puzzle. Scotland has caught up with the UK in recent times in terms of productivity, but it is the UK overall that is lagging behind our key competitors. We think that regional inequalities as well, so that built regional inequalities that exist in the UK economy and levelling up whatever that means, will be designed to try to address that. We have the wider inequalities, too, which, again, the Parliament can control to an extent. Those wider inequalities were not just an issue in themselves, but we know increasingly the evidence that that feeds through to issues of productivity and able labour market participation and the like. For me, they are the broad UK issues, which are very similar to Scotland. There are just nuances about whether or not they are more significant or less significant from the Scottish perspective. In that respect, I accept that, so that a lot of the levers that you might choose to use reside at UK level as you talk about macroeconomic policy. There are a whole bunch of taxis and there is borrowing, which Scotland cannot do. There is immigration that you have talked about. In terms of looking at the current Scottish budget, is your assessment of that that the Scottish Government is doing the best it can with pretty limited—I do not want to put words in your mouth, I am not trying to do that—with fairly limited fiscal levers? You can put your own words to it. The reason that I am asking that question is that, consistently, whether it is the economy committee or this committee, we have all been agreed that post-2008 and post-Covid requires really quite radical policy choices. Yet this entire session has brought out the limitations that the Scottish Government has when we look at macroeconomic policy when we look at levers. I suppose that I am trying to get a sense of—again, it links back to if it were me—what I would be doing. Every single thing that I thought of, we could not do. Every single radical thing that I thought of, we could not do.  I am not merely a committee member, so I would appreciate your thoughts. I will maybe dodge two parts of your question there. One about what would happen if Scotland controlled more of those levers, because that opens up a whole series of questions about macroeconomics in different constitutional settlements and whether the Scottish Government is doing the best that they could. Ultimately, that is a decision for you guys to scrutinise the Government and see whether you think that they are doing the best. I think that two general questions I would say about the point is that, under the framework of the Scottish Parliament, it takes the risk of income tax divergence, but it does not have all the levers there. That is a natural refraction of devolution in the nature of the framework. Decisions taken elsewhere will spill over into the relative performance, either good or bad, of the Scottish economy. In terms of radical policy choices, there is nothing constraining the Scottish Government within its spending envelope to do different things. That is within its gift to do it. On the economy, if it wanted to, it could, with the money that it spends at the moment, do completely different things from the UK on all aspects of skills, on education or economic development. In general, it is interesting to look at devolution over 20 years. There has not really been that radicalism in economic development policy in comparison to other areas. You can think of things such as smoking ban or the minimum unit pricing. There have been quite radical decisions taken in different aspects of the policy of the Parliament control. However, if you look at the economy, yes, there are differences in the margin, but there is not really that radical difference there. That might be a consensus on what constitutes the right policies in economic growth, supply side policies and so on, but there has not certainly been a difference in radicalism. I would not say that purely because I am constrained to do that. I think that that is a deliberate choice. Last week's question is to you both as a behavioural element. You talk about the Scottish Parliament taking the risk. If I was running a business, there is no way that I would run a business in that way. How does that affect behaviours? It is probably my last question before the convener closes me down. I am sure that that is a risk. Does that act to diminish appetite for change? If you are taking the risk, as you highlight, about differential tax policies, does that inhibit behaviours? I thought that you were going to ask about behavioural responses to tax change, but I have just realised that that is not what you are asking about. Do you think that there will be economic outcomes for the two-hour link? I do not know if I have any immediate thoughts about political cultures and behaviours and how those influence policy. On economic development policy, there is a consensus that if you look at what we need to do to create a better economy, most people would agree on what they are—the skills, investment, and tax inequality. Those things are there, so there is probably broad consensus across most policy makers and most economists about what that would be. The relative balance is how do people weight things more than the others. The nature of the framework means that we are always comparing what we are doing to the rest of the UK, and that might constrain behaviours. That might be less of an issue about risk, but more of just about how much are you spending on economic development or what is your poundage on business rates versus what is the UK's poundage on business rates. The framing of that might constrain the willingness for people to be more radical if it is always going to be looked through that lens. It is an interesting question that I think will be interesting to follow up on. I sometimes think that we look too much about what happens in the UK, not perhaps beyond our borders a bit more, where there have been many more ideas that we could perhaps look at. That brings us to the end of our time. I want to thank both our guests, both David and Graham, for once again providing some very thought-provoking and helpful evidence for our scrutiny. Thank you very much. We will just have a one minute break for our witnesses to leave a couple of minutes with members of the committee to update them on important matters.


So now I would like to briefly talk about our subject teams. So subject teams are teams of multidisciplinary librarians who provide supports in the areas of instructions, research, writing, and collections development. So we have three subject teams and each team works with different departments within the university. You can find out which teams supports the department from this link of departments here under each team information. You can also find this information on the slip guide as well. So within our subject teams, each librarian has their own set of expertise and we have a variety of different expertise and knowledge across our teams. We can help you with an area of different topics such as identifying readings for your navigating open access and copyright as a faculty member and building collections that support your research and courses. If you have any questions about any of these things or library services in general, you can just directly email the team of subject librarians that usually works with your department and we are always happy to hear from you and work with you. I hope this has given you a short overview of some of the services that we offer here at the library. We have a lot more videos, tutorials, and other resources available throughout our library webpage. So whenever you have time, I encourage you to check it out. I also encourage you to check out our library engagement calendar, which is a calendar that we set up to help our faculty members and staff to plan for library related tasks throughout the academic year. We hope this will be something useful for you to have and can serve as a reminder to help you stay engaged with the library. So let us know if you have any questions. Thanks a lot and I hope we will be hearing from you soon.