Where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are opposite values of (non-)L-relatedness.

5. This would roughly yield (i) and (ii) for heads, duplicating the equivalent definitions of \cite{Rizzi_1990b} for maximal projections and thereby making these definitions insensitive to the head versus maximal projection nature of the elements of the chain:

(i) A head X antecedent-governs Y only if there is no head Z such that

- Z c-commands Y and does not c-command X
- Z is a typical potential antecedent-governor for Y.

(ii) Z is a potential antecedent-governor for Y if both X and Z are $\alpha$-L-related heads.

6. In \cite{Roberts_1991}, excorporation is defined as ``successive cyclic head-to-head movement where one head simply passes through another, first incorporating and then moving on.''

7. In a parallel case, imagine you are doing physics and discover that 29 of your 30 particles have an anti-particle. There is nothing obviously different about the 30th one; so you'll continue searching until you either find that anti-particle or a reason that would differentiate your 30th particle. Intuitively, one could say that such a position is justified. But imagine you have 2 particles and only one has an anti-particle. Would you be equally motivated to impose symmetry there? These examples are all from physics, but if language is like other biological systems, then the point can be made more strongly, since biological systems are notoriously ``messy.''

8. In principle, his proposal does not dictate that every case of head-movement that does not take place for morphological reasons should be non-L-related (see discussion around his (20) and (21)). In general comments he explicitly states that though movement for morphological reasons is L-related, there can be other cases of L-related chains as well. But when he discusses the specifics of LHM (and the other constructions) he deduces the non-L-relatedness of the chain from the argument that movement did not happen because of morphological considerations. In other words, he effectively (but not in principle) identifies L-relatedness with m(orphological)-selection and non-L-relatedness with the remaining cases of movement. If this is correct, one wonders why we would need the notion of (non-)L-relatedness at all, given that (non-)m-selection (which he has anyway) will yield the required distinctions. Overall, Roberts' paper does not discuss what L-relatedness does over and above m-selection.

9. Recall that following \cite{Rizzi_Roberts_1989}, Roberts distinguishes between substitution and adjunction for head-movement.

10. According to Roberts, this movement into C creates an economy of derivation issue, as follows. Since this derivation involves the additional trace in C, it will be longer than just movement of the clitic to the local AGR2. And since the shorter movement is not preferred, i.e. since the longer movement is possible, it must be that it is obligatory, and therefore clitic-climbing will never be optional. But it seems to me that somewhere in this line of reasoning there must be a gap, since clitic-climbing in Italian is optional, as he himself shows some time later in the text, without addressing, as far as I can tell, the contradiction to the aforementioned conclusion.

(i) Lo voglio fare

(ii) Voglio farlo

But it is unclear whether such an economy of derivation issue really exists here. There is a tension between the Economy requirements of shortest move and fewest steps; \cite{Chomsky_1992} attempts to resolve the tension between these contrary requirements in his formulation of ``form chain'' as a unitary operation.

11. In addition, according to Roberts' discussion just above his (43), infinitival AGR does not m-select T. And since he also believes infinitival AGR can be skipped, it leaves open the possibility that even substitution into infinitival AGR (i.e. not just adjunction to it) may constitute non-L-related movement. I will not pursue this further.

12. In all this discussion, AGR2 is the AGR of the lower clause. If phrase structure is indeed as in (9) of section 2.1, then structure (10) will be more complicated. This will also raise the question of what happens with the AGR of the main verb (i.e. AGR2 of (9)) when the clitic appears before the auxiliary verb as in a simple sentence like (i):

(i) Je l'ai mange

'I have eaten it'

Is the AGR of \textit{manger} skipped over by the clitic on its way to the AGR \textit{avoir}? For this to be possible, AGR should be a head governor, an option not taken in Modern French according to Roberts. Is the AGR moved into and excorporated from? But then this should also be considered a possibility for the Italian cases.

13. Notice that in this imaginable scenario it would be harder to show why negation did not create a problem for clitic-climbing: it could be because Neg was an L-related head and therefore skipped over or it could be because negation is a non-L-related head and therefore forcibly an intermediate landing site for the clitic.

14. This is just an instance of the more general dialectical point that if both a position A and its opposite $\sim$A are compatible with a position B, A cannot be used to argue for B.

15. Obviously one cannot avoid this whole problem by not accepting the relevance of (or even existence of) excorporation in these cases, because it is a crucial component of Roberts' entire system.

16. Unless he wants to make a distinction between non-L-related \textit{heads} and non-L-related \textit{head-positions}, which he does not do explicitly, but which may be desired.

17. I looked at \cite{Roberts_1991} for some candidates. The only cases of excorporation discussed there are clitic-climbing and verb second in combination with verb raising. The first one is the actual case under discussion here and the second one is not of much help within the present context because it is unclear how some of the assumptions of the present paper would be extended to the con-