Meithei has a Source marker that lexicalizes only the Source head.
Now, turning to Goal paths, we can imagine a scenario in which B lexicalizes Place and the lexical item A, specified as <Goal>, lexicalizes the Goal head.
However, note that if C lexicalizes GoalP, we have a violation of Minimize Junk.
The tendency for languages to lexicalize location, goal and source of motion according to the patterns in (1a), (1b), and (1c) finds further support in the typological study conducted by Noonan (2008).
In a language like Estonian this is morphologically transparent, as there are dedicated morphemes (-t and -le) that lexicalize the Path head.
The grammatical feature specification of a given lexical item determines which heads in the syntactic structure it can lexicalize.
For illustration, a lexical item A specified with the features <[alpha], [beta]> can lexicalize the syntactic structure in (16) only if [gamma] has been spelled out, for instance, by B with the feature <[gamma]>, (16a), or if [gamma] has moved out, (16b).
The Superset Principle allows for there to be more than one lexical item that matches a given syntactic structure and therefore can lexicalize it.
B can lexicalize all the structures which A can lexicalize plus also the structures in (29a), which A cannot spell out for lack of the feature [alpha].
For that reason A is favored over B to lexicalize the structure in (27).
A language can have Locative, Goal and Source markers that are specified to lexicalize the entire stretch of the corresponding structures, as shown in the leftmost column of Table 5.
There are also hybrid cases between a language of Type 1, where spatial markers that are higher on the hierarchy lexicalize larger chunks of structure, and a language of Type 2, where the lexical entries for two (or more) of the spatial markers have the same number of grammatical features, with these features, of course, being different.