The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

147
(66) a. ha-yeled hu me-hodu
the-child he from-India
“The child is from India.”
b. *ha-yeled hu le-hodu
the-child he to-India
Intended meaning: “The child is (traveling) to India.”
On the assumption that (65a) and (66a) are instances of elliptic modification (see
4.3.3), they are related to (67a) and (67b), respectively:
(67) a. ha-tiyul hu tiyul me-hodu
the-trip he trip from-India
“The trip is a trip from India.”
b. ha-yeled hu yeled me-hodu
the-child he child from-India
“The child is a child from India.”
Since the PP in (67a) is Directional, it is plausible to attribute the grammaticality
contrast between (65a) and (67a) to the complex predicate formed between the N and
the PP in (67a). Eliding the nominal, which is part of the complex Directional predicate,
arguably results in a marginal sentence (65a). The PP in (66a) and (67b) is not
Directional, therefore (67b) does not involve complex predicate formation.
Consequently, eliding the nominal has no grammaticality affect (66a). 38
Note that since the PP in (66a) is not Directional, i.e. it is headed by P which
realizes a fully-fledged P R , (66a) is not necessarily an elliptic modification. Recall that
the relation specified by P R is assumed to be interpreted as predicate-argument relation.
Thus it may well be the case that in (66a) the PP is an across copula predicate, rather
than a nominal modifier.
To summarize, I have argued that the Hebrew Directional (Goal) preposition
(le-/el ‘to’) is a predicate (P R ), but not a fully-fledged one. Its external slot forces
38 The PP in (65a) cannot be interpreted as non-Directional Source. It appears to be the case that path
denoting nominals such as the trip force the Directional reading of the PP.