The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

(16) a. lisa i somexet *ale-ha i /al acma i
Lisa believes on-her/on herself
Compare: b. lisa i sama et ha-cova ale-ha i /*al acma i
Lisa put Acc the-hat on-her/on herself
Given the thematic definition of PP-verbs (13), the cross-linguistic variation
attested in the group of PP-verbs in Hebrew, English and Russian is surprising and
demands an explanation.
It is observed that many [-c] assigning verbs in Russian occur without a
preposition, but their complement is Dative. Based on this, Dative Case, on a par with
P C , is assumed to be another device to check the Case of the nominal argument of an
Accusative-less verb.
On the assumption that Accusative and Dative are morphologically indistinct in
English, the [-c] argument of English verbs that occur without a preposition (e.g.
threaten, order, betray, all of these are PP-verbs in Hebrew) is argued to be realized
via Dative Case.
In Chapter 4 a systematic comparison between Locative, Directional and Dative
constructions leads to detailed analyses of the corresponding Ps.
Based on the binding phenomena (17) and across copula predication (18) the
Dative P is shown to be a Case-related element, a particular instance of P C .
(17) a. Bart i gave the prize to *him i /himself i
b. Bart i put the book near him i /??himself i
(18) a. *The prize is to Lisa.
b. The book is on the table.
Focusing on Hebrew, the Dative le- (‘to’) is argued to differ from the P C in PPverb
constructions (chapter 3) in its syntactic manifestation. While the P C in PP-verb
constructions is a full, syntactically independent P-head, the Dative P C in Hebrew (le-
‘to’) is a D-affix, rather than a syntactic P-head on its own. Consequently, the Goal
argument in the Dative construction in Hebrew is realized as a (Dative) DP, rather
than as a PP.