Nouns and Adjectives in Numeral NPs Overview Recent work by Ionin & Matushansky (2004) argues, primarily on semantic grounds, that numerals should not be considered determiners or syntactic heads, but rather nominal modifiers. They further show that complex numeral phrases, both multiplicative ('three hundred') and additive ('a hundred and three') are derived in the syntax rather than the lexicon, resulting in structures as in [T1]. However, in treating all numerals alike, they do not address one of the most puzzling generalizations about the syntax of numerals: in many languages, the simple numerals do not show the properties of a single syntactic category. Rather, lower numerals tend to share syntactic and morphological properties with adjectives, while higher numerals tend to exhibit properties associated with nouns (see Corbett (1978)). I propose a modification of the Ionin & Matushansky analysis that takes this difference into account, and further serves to tie the syntax of numerals with recent analyses of quantity words such as few and many (Kayne (2002,2003)). The Data In many Bantu languages, numerals lower than a certain threshold (often 5 or 10, though much variation exists) agree with the noun they modify, featuring adjectival or enumerative agreement prefixes . Higher numerals do not agree, instead featuring their own nominal class prefixes . That this behavior is truly nominal can be seen in multiplicative complex numerals such as , where the multiplier agrees with the numeral it modifies rather than with the head of the DP. In English, starting with hundred, numerals can appear in plural form in partitive constructions , can take determiners  and can be modified by other numerals . In Modern Hebrew, numerals up to 19 agree in gender with the head noun , but higher numerals do not . Similar patterns can be found in many other languages. Analysis: Kayne (2002, 2003) provides a detailed argument that shows that few and many are adjectives, but instead of modifying nouns directly, they modify an unpronounced noun which he terms NUMBER, and in turn, the whole NUMBER NP modifies the noun, as in [T2], which explains, among other things, why, even though every normally modifies only singular NPs, it can modify phrases such as few days, as in . Extending his proposal to numerals is a natural step, and would help explain the puzzle above. Under this analysis, numerals are NPs. The low, adjectival numerals such as three take the form [NP [AP three] NUMBER], while higher numerals feature an overt noun, as in [NP [AP three] thousand]. This analysis is supported by evidence from a variety of languages. In English, where numerals such as hundred normally appear in singular form, it is possible to modify them by every even though the head noun is plural, as in . In Hebrew, however, the equivalent of hundred appears in plural; and can only appear concurrent with every if the head noun is singular . Adjectival numerals, however, freely appear with every  as NUMBER is singular. Another piece of evidence can be found in the Bantu language Luvale. In additive complex numerals in Luvale, the head noun can be appear in each member of the conjunction, as in  (thus showing that additive complex numerals are formed by conjunction of the whole NP, not just of the numerals; see Ionin & Matushansky (2004)). Also, in this language the numeral for 6 is formed by a conjunction of two adjectival numbers, 1 and 5. Note, however, that the head noun does not appear within this conjunction . This supports the structure in [T3] as opposed to a three-way conjunction (fifty and five and one). Conclusion This proposal extends Kayne's (2002,2003) account of few and many in a manner that is compatible with Ionin & Matushansky's (2004) semantics. It draws its support on a variety of cross-linguistic data, some of which has been presented above, and shows how an apparent asymmetry in the structure of low versus high numerals in many languages can be accounted for in a single structure. 1. 2. 3. 4a. b. 5a. b. 6a. b. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. emi-dumu e-biri MI-jug AGRMI-two 'two jugs' emi-dumu mu-sanvu MI-jug MU-seven 'seven jugs' emi-dumu ama-kumi a-biri MI-jug MA-ten AGRMA-two 'twenty jugs' hundreds of boys *threes of boys a/several/hundred boys *a/several three boys four hundred boys *four three boys shlosha yeladim /*yeladot three-MASC boys/*girls 'three boys' shloshim yeladim/yeladot thirty boys/girls 'thirty boys/girls' Every few days, John visits his mother. For every hundred dollars I spend, I get ten back as a rebate. kol shlosh meot yom/*yamim... every three hundreds day/*days 'every three hundred days' kol shalosh *yom/yamim... every three *day/days 'every three days' Luganda mikoko makumi atanu na-mikoko vatanu sheep ten five and-sheep five 'fifty five sheep' mikoko makumi atanu na-mikoko vatanu naumwe sheep ten five and-sheep five and-one 'fifty six sheep' Luvale NP T1. T2. NP N Two N hundred NP English English English Modern Hebrew Modern Hebrew English English Modern Hebrew Modern Hebrew Luvale NP NP Adj few N NUMBER dollars NP sheep Luganda NP dollars NP T3. NP Luganda Adj atanu NP NP NP N maku na NP Adj Adj vatanu na umwe sheep N maku References: Corbett, G.G. 1978. Universals in the Syntax of Cardinal Numerals. Lingua 46, 355-368. Ionin, T. & Matushansky, O. 2004. A Healthy Twelve Patients. Paper presented at GURT 2004. Kayne, R. 2002. On the Syntax of Quantity in English. NYU Ms. Kayne, R. 2003. Silent Years, Silent Hours. NYU Ms.