The syntax of individuating and measuring pseudo-partitives in Alasha Mongolian

Pseudo-partitive constructions give rise to multiple interpretive ambiguities including a container interpretation (i.e. individuating) and a contents (i.e. measuring) one. There are two competing analyses: one based on structural ambiguities (Landman in Indefinites and the types of sets, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004; Rothstein in Brill’s J Afroasiat Lang Ling 1:106–145, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1163/187666309X12491131130783, a.o.) and one based on a uniform syntax (Lehrer in Lingua 68:109–148, 1986; Matushansky and Zwarts in Lamont and Tetzloff (eds) North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 47, Volume 2, pp 261–274, GLSA, Amherst, 2016, a.o.). I contribute to this debate with data from Alasha Mongolian (Mongolic), which differentiates each interpretation via case marking on the quantizing noun: glass-comitative = individuating vs. glass-genitive/Ø = measuring. I argue that there is no large-scale structural ambiguity: the numeral and the quantizing noun always form a constituent introduced in the specifier position of a null functional head (Schwarzschild in Syntax 9(1):67–110, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2006.00083.x; Svenonius in McNally and Kennedy (eds) Adjectives and adverbs: syntax, semantics and discourse, Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics, pp 16–42, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008; Ott in J Comp Ger Ling 4:1–46, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-010-9040-x). I propose that (i) case differences on the quantizing constituent boil down to the presence or absence of a case probe on a higher Agr head; (ii) and, the interpretive differences between the individuating and measuring pseudo-partitives are the result of a more subtle syntactic distinction in the feature content of the quantizing noun, i.e. an interpretable [±Container] feature.