The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

32
perspective, I will assume that the P-morphemes instantiating P C function have
uninterpretable φ-features (following Kayne 2001) which enter Agree with the
appropriate DP, checking and deleting its Case feature.
Note that, as far as Case is concerned, I draw a clear distinction between P R and
P C . While the function of P C , by definition, is to check structurally the Case feature of
its nominal complement, the following characterizes Case assignment by P R : (i) The
ability to assign Case is a property of individual P-morphemes realizing P R in a given
language (e.g. in English: under vs. because). (ii) The Case assigned by P R is
inherent, namely Case assigned by a predicate to its argument (as defined in 2.1.3), its
assignment does not involve feature checking.
Finally, consider the examples in (15):
(15) a. ha-sefer kal le-havana
the-book easy to-understanding
“The book is easy to understand.”
b. dan hevi et ha-oto le-tikun
Dan brought Acc the-car to-repairing
“Dan brought the car to repair.”
As opposed to P R and P C , whose complements are argumental constituents, CP
or DP, the P in (15) introduces property denoting, predicative constituents (e.g. NP,
rather than DP). The role of P illustrated in (15) is labeled P pred(icate) . (See chapter 5 for
a detailed analysis of this type of P in Hebrew and English).
Given the three types of P I have proposed, and their distinct functions, the
following should be emphasized. The proposed types of P are subtypes of one
functional category P, rather than three separate syntactic categories.
Note that if we assume three distinct categories, the occurrence of the various
prepositions in more than one of the categories would be surprising and puzzling
((16), (17)) (for further discussion see 2.2.2). However, if the three types of P are a