The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

185
5.3 The proposal
.
Recall that it is typical of e-Ns to project arguments (DPs). However, e-Ns
introduced by le- in object gap constructions are predicative NPs. I will take this to
suggest that these nominals have been lexically altered prior to syntactic insertion in
such a way as to preclude their combination with D. More precisely, it will be argued
that le- is the ultimate source for the ‘peculiar’ properties manifested by these
nominals, among them the absence of D.
Based on the discussion of the P-morpheme le- in chapter 4, le- is a P-head in
the Directional construction where it denotes a relation (P R ) (section 4.3), but it is a
nominal lexical affix in the Dative construction where it is a Case-related element
(P C ) (section 4.2). As already mentioned, in object gap constructions le- is neither P R
nor P C , as its complement is predicative. Note also that if it was a relation denoting
predicate (P R ), and given that it is highly ambiguous, one would expect it to be
replaceable by semantically related prepositions such as bišvil (‘for’) or el (‘to’). This
however, is completely impossible:
(28) a. ha-sefer kal *bišvil/*el/li-kri’a
the book [is] easy for/to-reading
Intended meaning: “The book is easy to read.”
b. bart hevi et ha-oto i *bišvil/*el/li-vdika e i
Bart brought Acc the-car for/to-examination
Intended meaning: “Bart brought the car to examine.”
Consider also the following, which supports the conclusion that the occurrence
of le- in object gap constructions is not Case-related. le- introducing the nominal in
object gap contexts is obligatory (29a), but unlike the small Case-checking Ps in PPverb
constructions (chapter 3), the occurrence of le- is not motivated by the properties
of the tough adjective. Tough As in Hebrew can combine with nominals forming a
CS, without a preposition (29b) (Siloni 2002):
(29) a. ha-sefer i kal *(le)-havana e i
the book [is] easy to-understanding