The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

33
single category, it is fully expected that some of its members instantiate more than
one type: 24
(16) a. dan maca matbe’a ba-gina/al ha-kise P R
Dan found [a] coin in+the-garden/on the-chair
b. dan ma’amin ba-teoriya šelo P C
Dan believes in+the-theory his
c. dan somex al rina P C
Dan relies on Rina
(17) a. dan natan matana le-rina P C
Dan gave present to-Rina
b. dan maca dira le-rina P R
Dan found apartment for Rina
c. ha-sefer kal le-kri’a P pred
the book easy to-reading
“The book is easy to read.”
Moreover, consider PP-extraposition in Dutch (sometimes referred to as PPover-V):
PPs, regardless of their type (and unlike DPs), can occur both pre- and post
verbally (cf. Van Riemsdijk 1998) (18). 25 If the subtypes of P were viewed as
different categories, an explanation would be needed as to why exactly these
categories can be extraposed. Obviously, if they are instantiations of the same
category, it is at all not surprising that they behave on a par.
(18) a. Ik had niet (op zoveel mensen) gerekend (op zoveel mensen) P C
I had not (on so-many people) counted (on so-many people)
b. Dan (onder de tafel) zat (onder de tafel) P R
Dan (under the table) sat (under the table)
24 Note that the phenomenon is attested across languages and involves several P-morphemes. Thus it is
not comparable to the instantiation of distinct functional heads (e.g. C and D) by an isolated morpheme
(e.g. that), mentioned in 2.1.4.
25 For ease of presentation I do not give the relevant examples with DPs. These can be found in Van
Riemsdijk (1998).