The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

165
I propose that the marginality of (99c,d) and (100a) is of the same nature. (99c,d),
on a par with (100a), are not instances of across copula predication by non-Locative
PPs, but rather elliptic modifications. The non-elided version of (99d) is given in
(101a). It is indeed fully grammatical, like (100b). The ungrammaticality of (101b)
shows that (99a) is not an instance of elliptic modification, supporting the assumption
that the Locative PP in (99a) is indeed an across copula predicate:
(101) a. ha-diyun hu diyun al ahava non-Locative PP
the-discussion he discussion about love
“The discussion is discussion about love.”
b. *ha-sefer (hu) sefer al ha-šulxan Locative PP
the-book (he) book on the-table
In light of the above, Locative PPs differ from non-Locative PPs in that the former
can be genuine independent predicates, whereas the latter are modifiers. Put differently,
the external slot of the Locative P (Ext) can be satisfied either by identification with the
external argument of a nominal (R) or by assignment to a syntactic argument. But the
external slot of non-Locative Ps such as about can be satisfied only through
identification. Since non-Locative PPs cannot be independent predicates, they cannot
form clausal modifiers.
To summarize this section: Locative Ps are independent two-place predicates (P R ),
whose lexical representation can include an e variable. Accordingly, Locative PPs can
form SCs or PP-modifiers. I have argued that the structure of the Locative SC in the
locative construction is richer than that in the existential construction, as it includes an
additional PP layer projected from a phonetically null Directional P. Due to their status
as independent two-place predicates, Locative PPs in Hebrew can combine with T [present]
to form clausal PP-modifiers.