The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

122
from natan, but from the embedded predicate. 11 This is consistent with the ECM
analysis of natan (‘let’). In contrast, this phrase has to be interpreted as the Goal
argument of the Control verb ifšer (‘allowed’) in (19b), resulting in ungrammaticality.
The above tests show that sentences like (16), featuring the causative natan (‘let’),
can be analyzed both as Control and as ECM constructions. The ECM analysis of (16)
indicates clearly that the relation between the Dative le- and its DP complement is not
semantic, as the DP introduced by le- is not the internal Goal argument of natan, but
rather the external argument of the embedded verb. The lack of the semantic relation
between le- and its DP complement supports the claim that the Dative P-morpheme lein
Hebrew is an instance of P C .
There is independent evidence that le- in Hebrew can function as a purely Case
related P. Consider the occurrence of le- within a Locative PP in (20):
(20) a. ha-sefer mitaxat la-šulxan /ha-šulxan.
the-book [is] under to+the-table/the-table
b. ha-sefer mitaxat *(le)-šulxan kolšehu.
the-book [is] under to-table some
“The book is under some table.”
The appearance of le- in the above context is interesting and rather puzzling on its
own. For our purposes it is enough to note that its occurrence is optional with a definite
complement (20a), and tends to be obligatory with the indefinite one (20b). The mere fact
that le- can be optional suggests that the DP following le- is not the argument of le-.
Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the function of le- in this context is P C . As for
the question why the occurrence of le- here is optional, let me propose the following. 12
It is argued in Siloni (2002) that Ps in Hebrew, similarly to Ns, form a Construct
State (CS) with their complement (e.g. lifney-(ha)-ši’ur, ‘before (the) class’, –ey is a
suffix typical of plural Construct heads). Following Siloni (2002), I assume that CS is the
configuration in which structural Case is checked at PF. It seems that in PPs headed by a
complex P without CS morphological marking (e.g. mitaxat (’under’)), the ‘burden’ of
11 I have no explanation for the slight marginality of (19a). In fact, for some speakers the sentence indeed
is fully grammatical.
12 I thank Arhonto Terzi (p.c.) for drawing my attention to this question.