The first subclass consists of adjectives that, at least in their predicative use, express properties that can only be attributed to a [+animate] entity. Some examples are given in (59) to (61); cf. Section 23.3.4 for a discussion of the examples in (59b) and (60b).

Subsection F will show that adjectives that end in a schwa, like beigebeige or frêledelicate, yield a marked result in the partitive genitive construction: ?iets beiges/frêles. So, one might want to claim that the doubly-primed examples in (59) and (60) are excluded because the adjectives dronken and verlegen are usually pronounced with a final schwa. However, other cases of adjectives ending in -en do occasionally occur in this construction, in which case the /n/ seems to be phonetically realized; cf. (70b) below. In fact, the relevant examples are rated as acceptable by some (but not all) speakers in contexts like (62a&b), showing that they are not blocked for phonological reasons. The cases in (62) are special in that the adjectives do not attribute a property to an animate being: iets dronkens in (62a) refers to some aspect of Jan’s appearance, iets verlegens/loops in (62b&c) refers to some aspect of Peter’s/the dog’s behavior, and iets zwangers in (62d) refers to Marie’s way of walking.

The constructions with the verb zitten in (62b-d) alternate with the construction with the verb hebbento have in (63), in which the entity to which the partitive genitive construction attributes the relevant property appears as the subject of the clause. We will ignore examples like (62) and (63) in what follows, but they clearly deserve more attention in the future; cf. Schoorlemmer (2005) for some discussion.

The exclusion of adjectives modifying only [+animate] nouns is probably related to the fact that the quantifiers iemandsomeone and niemandno one cannot be used as the nominal part of a partitive genitive construction. Moreover, partitive genitive constructions as a whole never refer to [+animate] entities: iets slimssomething smart denotes a thing, e.g., a plan, not an animate being. The examples in (64) illustrate this again by showing that the predicatively used partitive genitive construction iets leuks can be predicated of a [-animate] noun phrase such as een feesta party but not of a [+animate] noun phrase like die manthat man. This can be explained by assuming that the features of the nominal predicate and its logical subject must match, which implies that the partitive genitive construction has the feature [-animate].

Constructions like those in (65) can of course be found, but these assertions are offensive because they represent the [+human] subject as an object. The primed examples show that replacing the indefinite noun phrase by a proper noun or a referential pronoun makes the examples unacceptable.

Finally, we refer the reader to the discussion of (10) and (11) in Section 29.1, which has shown that adjectives taking a PP-complement can only be used as partitive genitives if the PP can precede the adjective. Given that Section 24.1, sub I, has shown that such adjectives generally select a [+animate] subject, it is not surprising that they hardly ever occur in the partitive genitive construction.

In (66) we have examples from the second subset of set-denoting adjectives that cannot be used in the partitive genitive construction, i.e. adjectives like jammera pity, mogelijkpossible and zekercertain, which usually take a proposition as their logical subject.

Unlike the adjective mogelijk in (66a), the adjective onmogelijk can take a noun phrase as its logical subject, and, as expected, it can also occur in the partitive genitive construction.

The third subclass consists of adjectives like bewolktcloudy, regenachtigrainy and benauwdoppressive/muggy, which take so-called weather het as their logical subject in predicative structures. Some examples are given in (68).

The fourth subclass consists of adjectives that take a nominal complement. Section 24.2 has shown that we should distinguish between adjectives with a genitive complement and adjectives with a dative complement; we will discuss these in separate subsections. A third subsection is devoted to adjectives with a nominal complement that cannot be used attributively.

The last subclass consists of the (absolute) superlatives. Example (76c'') shows that superlatives are excluded from the partitive genitive construction, while their corresponding positive and comparative forms are fully acceptable. The examples in (76d&e) show that periphrastic comparatives and superlatives behave just like the morphological comparatives in the doubly-primed examples in (76b&c).

However, we will see below that we cannot straightaway conclude from the unacceptability of (76c''&e'') that superlatives cannot occur as partitive genitives, although we will see in the end that this conclusion is indeed correct. First, observe that the predicatively used adjectives in (76c'&e') are preceded by the determiner(like) element het. Now, we have seen in Section 26.3.2 that there are also superlative forms preceded by aller- that can be used as predicates without het, the so-called pseudo-superlatives. The English renderings in (77) show that in this cease the presence or absence of het entails a semantic difference: alleraardigst in (77a) is preceded by het and the copular construction expresses that Jan has the property of being kind to the highest degree; alleraardigst in (77b), on the other hand, is not preceded by het, and the copular construction expresses that Jan has the property of being kind to a very high degree.

Now consider the examples in (78), where the pseudo-superlatives are predicated of [-animate] entities and can also appear as partitive genitives. However, the form of the partitive genitive is rather special. The expected form A-sts is reduced to A-s: in (78a), for example, the expected form allerleuksts appears as allerleuks, cf. Paardekooper (1986:691). Note in passing that some speakers have difficulty with both forms in the primed examples.

The phonological reduction in the primed examples in (78) does not apply to the partitive genitives in iets juists/onbewustssomething right/unconscious, in which the sequence /sts/ is the result of adding the -s ending to an adjectival base ending in /st/, but it is known from other cases as well; cf. Section 26.1.2, sub I. If the phonological reduction were to apply to the partitive genitive forms in (76c''&e''), the superlative form leuksts would be reduced to leuks. This implies that the partitive genitive in iets leuks should be the corresponding partitive genitive of both the positive and the superlative form. Since the partitive genitive construction iets leuks semantically corresponds only to the positive degree, we can now conclude with certainty that there are no partitive genitives corresponding to the absolute superlative.

The fact that it is impossible for the absolute superlatives to occur as partitive genitives may be related to the fact that these forms cannot be used as such in the copular construction, but must be preceded by the element het. Alternatively, we can assume that the fact that partitive genitive constructions are always indefinite is incompatible with the fact that absolute superlatives pick out a fixed entity or group of entities from the domain of discourse; they are in a sense inherently definite, which is also clear from the fact that they cannot be preceded by the indefinite article een when they are used attributively: *een leukste boeka nicest book.

Besides the systematic restrictions discussed in the previous subsections, additional phonological restrictions seem to play a role. The discussion so far has been limited to partitive genitive adjectives ending in a consonant, but it should be noted that adjectives ending in a long vowel or a schwa often produce a marginal result in the partitive genitive construction. In (79), examples are given with adjectives ending in the long vowels /a/, /o/, /i/, /e/, /y/, and a schwa. Note that some examples are more acceptable than others, and that judgments may vary from speaker to speaker. It is not clear what determines the exact degree of acceptability; the fact that such adjectives are generally loanwords may also play a role.

For completeness’ sake, the examples in (80) show that partitive genitive forms of adjectives ending in /s/ have the same pronunciation as the corresponding positive form.

Section 23.3.3, sub II, distinguished the our classes of geographical adjectives in (82).

With respect to the classes in (82a&b), we have seen that these adjectives tend to shift towards the set-denoting adjectives and can therefore occur as predicates in certain contexts; this tendency can be enforced by the addition of the adverb typischtypically. Consequently, we correctly expect that these adjectives can also occur as partitive genitives; cf. (83).

Adjectives from the classes in (82c&d), on the other hand, are never used in predicative position; we therefore correctly predict that they cannot easily be used in the partitive genitive construction; cf. the examples in (84).

Section 23.3.3, sub III, divided the “movement/trend” adjectives into the three classes in (85).

The classes in (85a&b) tend to shift towards the set-denoting adjectives, which can again be enforced by adding the adverb typischtypically. The class in (85c), on the other hand, is never used in predicative position.

Consequently, we expect that adjectives from the subclasses in (85a&b) can occur as partitive genitives, while this should be completely impossible with the adjectives from the class in (85c). The examples in (87) show that this expectation is indeed borne out.

Section 23.3.3, sub IV, divided the time adjectives into the three subclasses in (88).

We begin our discussion with the class in (88b). In general, these adjectives cannot occur in predicative position, unless they refer to a specific, e.g. historical or cultural, period. Therefore, we expect these adjectives to occur in the partitive genitive construction only in the latter reading. This is indeed borne out.

Adjectives of the subclass in (88a) are at best marginally possible as predicates and they also yield marginal results in partitive genitive constructions. This is illustrated for the adjective maandelijksmonthly in (90b&c).

Adjectives from the subclass in (88c) are generally used as adverbs of time. Occasionally they are also used as attributive adjectives, but they are rarely used in predicative position. As expected, judgments on their partitive genitive use seem to correlate with judgments on their predicative use. In (91) and (92), this is illustrated for the adjectives regelmatigregular(ly) and vroegerprevious(ly).

Substance adjectives are used only in attributive position (cf. Section 23.3.3, sub V), and, as expected, the partitive genitive use of these adjectives is not possible.

For completeness’ sake, note that replacing the substance adjectives in (93) with a van-PP makes the predicative constructions in the singly-primed examples fully acceptable; this is illustrated for houten in (94b). This van-PP can also be added to the quantificational pronoun iets, as in (94c), but in this case we are probably not dealing with a partitive genitive construction, but with a structure similar to the regular noun phrase in (94a), i.e. a noun phrase headed by iets and modified by the postnominal van-PP.

Section 23.3.3, sub VI, has discussed some less systematic cases of denominal, relational adjectives. Again, these adjectives occasionally shift their meaning towards those of set-denoting adjectives. When this happens, the partitive genitive use is also possible: the partitive genitive construction in (95c) can refer to an administrative measure since the adjective administratief can be predicated of the noun phrase deze maatregel in (95b).

The partitive genitive construction in (96c), on the other hand, cannot refer to a linguistic lexicon, since the adjective taalkundig in (96b) cannot be predicated of the noun phrase dit lexicon.