The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

231
b. hu nexšav le-šakran
he considered to-liar
“He is/was considered a liar.”
c. hu nexšav
he considered
“He is highly considered.”
.
Based on the properties listed above, le- in ECM/Raising SCs cannot be
analyzed as le- introducing the nominals ( le NP) in object gap constructions. First,
since NPs and APs are predicative phrases, by definition (B.7), the addition of le- to
them cannot be assumed to have the same effect as it has when added to an e-N (in
object gap constructions).
(B.7) dan more/yafe
Dan [is a] teacher/beautiful
Second, since the complement of le- can be definite (B.3), it is unreasonable to
even contemplate that the le-nominal sequence is lexically formed.
In other words, it does not seem to be the case that the discussed le- realizes
P pred . What is the function of le- in this context?
I propose that le- in ECM/Raising constructions is Directional. As discussed at
length in chapter 4, the Directional le- is licensed by a path-denoting predicate (e.g.
run to school vs. *find to school). Raising/ECM verbs that license the occurrence of
le- in their SC complement, denote transition from one state to another. Consequently,
they can be argued to be path-denoting, although in an abstract way. 72
Thus consider the contrast in (B.8). Both nehefax (‘turned into’) in (B.8a) and
nimca ([is/was] ‘found’) in (B.8b) take a SC complement. However, nimca ([is/was]
72 Both nexšav/maxšiv (‘[is] considered’/’consider’) and nehefax (‘turned into’) are supposedly pathdenoting
verbs. However, the path meaning of the former is less dominant than of the latter. This
observation is supported by the following. The embedded (SC) predicate of nexšav can be introduced
either by le- (‘to’) or by the small P-morpheme ke- (‘as’), which is not Directional (ia). However,
nehefax (‘turned into’) licenses only le- in its SC (ib):
(i) a. dan nexšav le-/ke-yafe
Dan [is] considered to-/as-beautiful
b. dan nehefax *ke-/le-yafe
Dan turned as-/to-beautiful