Vocabulary insertion in realizational models of morphology like Distributed Morphology (Halle & Marantz 1993) and Paradigm-Function Morphology (Stump 2001) rely on some form of the Elsewhere Condition (EC) (Kiparsky 1973, 2005, Halle & Marantz 1993) to resolve competition between vocabulary items when more than one is compatible with a syntactic terminal node. In Icelandic (and Faroese), however, morphosyntactically less specific forms routinely block more specific forms in definite NPs, contrary to the EC. If the EC is reformulated in terms of two Optimality Theoretic (McCarthy & Prince 1995) constraints on the correspondence between features of syntactic terminal nodes and vocabulary items, it is possible to formulate an intervening constraint, which provides a principled way of accounting for the Icelandic data while preserving the EC as the principle arbiter of the syntax-morphology interface and without sacrificing basic insights gained from its application.An earlier version of this paper was presented at the eleventh Germanic Linguistics Annual Conference at the University of California, Davis. I am particularly grateful to David Perlmutter, Farrell Ackerman, Eric Bakovic, and Sharon Rose for comments on previous versions of this paper. Comments from two anonymous referees were also greatly appreciated. Any flaws in this work remain, of course, solely attributable to the author.

Invoking findings from studies on the grammaticization of tense/aspect meanings, I argue that semantic reconstruction of the Present Day English progressive from an often cited Old English construction (beon + PAP) is semantically very unlikely. Instead I argue for a reconstruction of the progressive from a locative construction source of the type, be on hunting. However, as I also show, there is a kind of formal relationship between the present-day English progressive and the OE construction that was encouraged by the prescriptions and proscriptions of the Early Modern English grammarians. Thus, by paying attention to both semantic and formal aspects of the development of the progressive, I provide a clearer picture of its historical reconstruction.

In JGL 18.4 a review of my book (te Velde 2005) appeared, written by Timothy Osborne. In this Discussion Note, I would like to respond to this review, addressing primarily section 4 (Discussion).