The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

138
rather an (elided) NP modified by the Directional PP. The non-elided version of (48) is
given in (49):
(49) ha-tiyul hu tiyul le-hodu
the-trip he trip to-India
“The trip is a trip to India.”
NPs can certainly be predicates (e.g. Dan is a teacher). Elided modifications like
(48) are marginal, probably due to the ellipsis of the nominal, which is part of the
complex Directional predicate. Nevertheless these constructions are not ungrammatical,
as long as the elided NP is semantically appropriate (49). The constructions will be
completely ungrammatical (50b), if the noun does not denote path. In other words, (50)
is ungrammatical, regardless of the ellipsis, because the nominal children, not having a
path meaning component, cannot be combined with a Directional phrase.
(50) a. *ha-yeladim hem yeladim le-hodu
the-children they children to-India
b. *ha-yeladim hem le-hodu
the-children they to-India
Given the claim that the Directional P has only an internal semantic argument, the
following binding fact is surprising:
(51) ba-xalom, bart šalax et lisa i el acma i /*ele-ha i
“In his dream, Bart sent Lisa to herself/*to her.”
The obligatoriness of the reflexive in (51) seems to indicate that the two
arguments, lisa and acma (‘herself’) are co-arguments of the Directional P. On the face
of it, this is inconsistent with the assumption that the Directional P has an internal
argument slot (Int. location), but not an external one (47).
Based on the proposal made above, the noted inconsistency is reconciled. It should
be noted first that I assume that like the Dative verbs, the Directional ditransitive verb
such as send is materialized in the Larsonian VP-shell. At LF the lower V path and the