The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

128
Let us assume that in (29a) the coordination is between Ns, whereas in (29b)
between NPs. The fact that both the coordination of Ns and of NPs with a single le- is
possible indicates that le- is located above the NP-level. Hence, it is reasonable to
conclude that the Dative le- is affixed to D. 19 ’ 20
The following examples support this conclusion:
(30) a.*natati matanot le/la-[yeladim] ve-[ha-yeladot]
[I] gave presents to/to+the-boys and-the-girls
b. *natati matanot la-[yeladim (ha-xadašim)] ve-[yeladot (xadašot)]
[I] gave presents to+the-boys (the-new) and-girls (new)
In (30) one of the conjuncts is definite. It is commonly assumed that a definite
nominal is a DP (cf. Siloni 1997, Borer 1999, Danon 2002). Since in general it is
possible to conjoin an indefinite nominal with a definite one, I will assume that the
conjuncts in (30) are of the same syntactic category, namely DP. 21 If le- is adjoined to
D, and the conjunction is between DPs, the second conjunct is beyond the scope of
le-. 22
19 It is worth noting that as opposed to le-, which can introduce coordination of Ns or NPs (29a,b), the
definiteness affix ha- cannot:
(i) a. *?ha-sfarim ve-maxbarot šel bart ne’elmu
the-books and-notebooks of Bart disappeared
“Bart’s books and notebooks have disappeared.”
b. ha-sfarim ve-ha-maxbarot šel bart ne’elmu
the-books and-the-notebooks of Bart disappeared
“Bart’s books and notebooks have disappeared.”
In (ia) it is completely impossible to interpret the second conjunct as definite. This is accounted for given
the assumption that ha-, as opposed to le-, is an affix attached to the noun itself. Therefore coordination of
two Ns is outside its scope, so to speak.
20 As reported by Arhonto Terzi (p.c.), the Dative morpheme se-/s- in Greek exhibits the same behavior
with respect to coordination as the Hebrew Dative le-. Thus it is highly suggestive that this P-morpheme
in Greek is a D-affix, similarly to the Hebrew Dative le-.
21 The status of the definite nominal as a DP in Hebrew (rather than an NP) is argued in Siloni (1997) to
derive from the affixal status of the definiteness marker ha- (‘the’) (Siloni 1994, 1997, Borer 1999, Danon
1996). Definiteness, realized as the nominal affix ha- is viewed by the mentioned authors as a syntactic
feature of D, rather than the functional head D itself. The need to check this feature forces the projection
of the DP in Siloni (1997). (See Danon 2002 where an indefinite nominal in Hebrew is argued to project
an NP, rather than a DP).
22 A potential problem for this account is presented by (i) (Tali Siloni p.c.). The conjoined nominals are
clearly DPs, as they are definite and occur in the CS (cf. Danon 1996, 2002). Nevertheless, they can be
introduced by a single le-: