The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

188
.
Before I discuss the lexical externalization in more details, let me provide
some evidence to support the claim that the result of the lexical operation in (30) is
indeed a noun ([ N le N]), projecting an NP, rather than a (complex) preposition ([ P lenominal]).
In (31) the le-nominal sequence is modified by an AP, indicating the presence
of a nominal phrase:
(31) ha-sefer kaše li-kri’a mehira
the-book [is] difficult to-reading-fem. quick-fem
“The book is difficult to read quickly.”
Since the operation in (30) is lexical, if the result of the combination was a
(complex) P, its syntactic projection would not include any nominal phrase, and
therefore the compatibility of the sequence with an adjectival modifier would be very
surprising.
Further, consider the modified conjunction in (32):
(32) ha-šati’ax kal le-nikuy ve-*(le)-tikun miyadi’im
the-carpet easy to-cleaning and-(to)-mending immediate-pl.
“The carpet is easy to clean and to mend immediately.”
Note first that the ability of one AP modifier to modify both conjuncts indicates
that le-nikuy (‘to-cleaning’) and le-tikun (‘to-repairing’) are NPs, rather than PPs (see
4.3.4). Second, the obligatoriness of le- on the second conjunct shows that le- in this
context is neither a P-head (as in PP-verb constructions, 3.3.2) nor a D-affix (as in the
Hebrew Dative construction, 4.2). If it was, coordination with one le- would not be
out of the question, especially since the nominals are indefinite (see 4.2.2). Finally,
the occurrence of le- on the second conjunct can be taken to suggest that e-N and le N
are not of the same kind, and therefore cannot be conjoined.
5.3.2 The function of le- (P pred )
Externalization of a theta-role has been proposed in the literature before. It is
argued to be the consequence of the categorial change (from V to A), taking place in