Mark Volpe: Numeral Quantifiers in the l-node hypothesis (reply to Heidi Harley)

[Martha McGinnis]

Dear Listers,
    I think in light of the Japanese facts, Heidi's
analogy between light verbs and Numeral Classifiers is
very compelling. There is widespread agreement that
Japanese NCs are nominals or at least nominal-like.
NCs, rather than their complement NPs, can be marked
for case by postpositions in certain configurations.
They can be scrambled much as Japanese Ns are.
    Like light verbs without VP complements, they can
even stand alone without complement NPs when reference
is pragmatically clear, doing the service of PNs.
    In terms of syntax, the analogy places them right
where I think they should be, that is; to the right of
the NP they agree with (in base position), though not
everyone is in agreement on this. I think Hisatsugu
Kitahara's article (1993), in which he postulates a
Numeral Classifier Phrase in between NP and DP, has it
just about right; this is right where Heidi's nP would
be.
    Other than appealing to the venerable Panini and
his principles, is there no alternate way of assuring
agreement between Ns and NCs? The number of
classifiers (say 25 in Japanese, many more in old
Japanese and perhaps in more exotic languages) just
make this somehow not to my liking.
                     Thanks,---Mark

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com