The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

125
(i) Modified conjunction
As noted in Landau (1994), only conjoined DPs allow either one adjectival
modifier or two modifiers (23). Conjoined PPs allow only the option with two
modifiers, using one modifier for both conjuncts results in ungrammaticality, as shown
in (24) and (25). Note that le- in (24) is not Dative, as the construction is Directional.
(25) illustrates the Hebrew PP-verb construction, in which the small preposition is
argued to be a syntactic P-head projecting a PP (see 3.3.2).
(23) a. ha-mora berxa et ha-yeled ha-xadaš ve-et ha-yalda ha-xadaša
the-teacher greeted Acc the-boy the-new and-Acc the-girl the-new
b. ha-mora berxa et ha-yeled ve-et ha-yalda ha-xadašim
the-teacher greeted Acc the-boy and-Acc the-girl the-new-pl.
(24) *dan hifna et rina la- menahel ve-la-pkidot ha-adivim
Dan directed Acc Rina to+the-director and-to+the-clerks the-polite-pl.
(25) *dan somex rak al ha-menahel ve-al ha-axayot ha-menusim
Dan relies only on the-director and-on the-nurses the-experienced-pl.
Importantly, modification of conjoined Goal arguments in the Dative construction (26)
patterns with conjoined DPs (23), rather than PPs (24), (25), namely both options are
grammatical:
(26) a. dan natan et ha-pras la-yeled ha-mavrik ve-la-yalda ha-mavrika
Dan gave Acc the-prize to+the-boy the-brilliant and-to+the-girl the-brilliant
b. dan natan et ha-pras la-yeled ve-la-yalda ha-mavrikim
Dan gave Acc the-prize to+the-boy and-to+the-girl the-brilliant-pl.
Given that APs are modifiers of nominal projections only (modifiers of PPs are
adverbial in nature), the grammaticality of the modified conjunction in (26b) strongly
supports the claim that the Goal argument in the Hebrew Dative construction is a DP.