Jaume Solà i Pujols - Departament de Filologia Catalana ...

general view. 92
I will not develop the question further. It suffices for the present purposes that Partitive
Case, if at all an inherent Case, is different from other inherent Cases in that it additionally
requires structural Case, so that 0 is an accurate rule for AGR coindexation. It could turn out, as
we pointed out in Chapter 1, that Partitive is not a Case, but rather a special interpretative option
for DPs. For convenience, though, I will keep using the term Partitive Case.
3.2. Indefinite DPs and phi-features
Now let us address the other problem raised by indefinite subjects, namely that they are
possible I-subjects in non-NSLs, which otherwise do not allow [-anaphoric] I-subjects.
A solution to this problem can be formulated in the following terms. Let us assume that:
92 I think, however, that Chomsky's proposal cannot be
trivially adopted nowadays. First of all, Chomsky's assumption
that inherent Case has to be 'realized' does not involve
structural Case-assignment. Secondly, the facts Chomsky's theory
is intended to cover are basically related to Genitive case.
Since it is crucial in his account that Genitive is both
assigned and realized in the government domain of N, the theory
should be carefully revised in the light of the Determiner
Phrase hypothesis, if we are to accommodate it to present day
common assumptions.
1