The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

64
Thus, whatever the exact restrictions on secondary predication are, they seem to
be more than just c-command of the secondary predicate by the DP argument.
Therefore the argument based on the impossibility of secondary predication, by itself,
cannot be viewed as conclusive evidence for the existence of a PP (see also note 28
ahead).
Consider, however, PP-extraposition in Dutch (cf. Van Riemsdijk 1998),
mentioned in 2.2.1. In Dutch, PPs extrapose freely (44), while DPs do not ((45a) vs.
(45b)): 27
(44) a. Ik had niet op zoveel mensen gerekend
I had not on so-many people counted
“I had not counted on so many people.”
b. Ik had niet gerekend op zoveel mensen
I had not counted on so-many people
“I had not counted on so many people.”
(45) a. Ik had niet zoveel mensen verwacht
I had not so-many people expected
“I had not expected so many people.”
b. *Ik had niet verwacht zoveel mensen
I had not expected so-many people
“I had not expected so many people.”
The contrast between the grammatical (44b) and the ungrammatical (45b) shows
conclusively that the P DP sequence is a PP strongly supporting the analysis in (33),
repeated in (46) for convenience:
27 As shown in Van Riemsdijk (1998), PP-extraposition is attested also with locative/temporal PP
adjuncts (i). The contrast between PPs and DPs holds in this context as well ((ib) vs. (iib)):
(i) a. Hij gaat op zondagochtend altijd golfen
he goes on Sunday-morning always play-golf
b. Hij gaat altijd golfen op zondagochtend
he goes always play-golf on Sunday-morning
(ii) a. Hij gaat de hele dag golfen
he goes the whole day play-golf
b. *Hij gaat golfen de hele dag
he goes play-golf the whole day