In terms of agreement with the finite verb, the partitive genitive construction behaves like the nominal part of the construction in isolation: it triggers singular agreement. This is illustrated in (25).

The presence of the expletive erthere in example (25) above shows that both the quantificational pronoun iets and the partitive genitive construction can be non-specific (cf. also the discussion of (23a)); in general, only non-specific indefinite subjects license expletive er. If the expletive is absent, the partitive genitive construction is given a specific or a generic interpretation, just as is the case with other indefinite subjects. This is illustrated in (26): on its specific interpretation in (26a), which is marginal for some speakers, the partitive genitive construction refers to a certain exciting thing known to the speaker; on its generic reading in (26b), which is fully acceptable to all speakers, the sentence expresses that any exciting thing would be welcome.

Like other noun phrases, partitive genitive constructions can be modified by a relative clause. The examples in (27) show that relative clauses can also modify the quantificational pronoun (n)iets, i.e. the partitive genitive adjective need not be present.

Note that not all clauses following the partitive genitive construction modify the noun phrase as a whole. Comparative dan-clauses, for example, also follow the noun phrase, but since they depend on the comparative -er morpheme on the adjective, the adjective is obligatory. Something similar holds for phrases with the modifier te.

The fact that partitive genitive constructions can occur in most regular NP-positions has already been illustrated for the subject and object positions in (25) and (23). In (29) this is illustrated for the complement position of PPs: (29a) involves a PP-complement of the verb and (29b) an adverbial phrase.

Partitive genitive constructions are not readily used as indirect objects, which may have to do with the fact that indirect objects generally refer to [+animate] entities or institutions, while partitive genitive constructions generally refer to [-animate] entities; cf. the discussion of the examples in (59) through (64) in Section 29.2.3. Some relatively acceptable examples are given in (30), where the partitive genitive construction refers to some kind of institution.

Given the similarity in syntactic behavior and distribution of indefinite noun phrases and partitive genitive constructions, it seems safe to conclude that the quantificational pronoun iets is the head of the complex construction. Of course, this coincides with the fact that the partitive genitive adjective cannot be used in isolation in the NP-positions in (23) to (29); the noun iets is obligatorily present in these examples (see the discussion of (4)). However, the fact that the partitive genitive construction is headed by the indefinite noun does not mean that it is always possible to omit the adjective; omitting the adjective in (31a&b), for example, causes the example to be less acceptable in the intended reading. The fact that the two (c)-examples are fully acceptable, however, shows that something special is going on in the (a) and (b)-examples.

The difference in acceptability between (31a'&b') and (31c') is probably related to the presence of a sentence negation in the first two examples. The examples in (32) show that the quantificational pronoun ietssomething cannot normally be preceded by the sentence negation nietnot; instead, the negative pronoun nietsnothing is used.

If we apply the same merging rule to (31a'), we get the result in (33a). However, this structure expresses constituent negation, and not sentence negation. To express sentence negation, the negative noun phrase must be moved into the position that is otherwise occupied by the negative marker; cf. Section V13.3.1 for a more detailed discussion. This can be done can by applying R-pronominalization and R-extraction. This results in the acceptable structure in (33a'); for the same reason, (31b') surfaces as (33b).

The fact that the negative adverb nietnot is used in (31a&b) may be related to the fact that R-pronominalization is not possible when the pronoun is part of a larger phrase: the examples in (34) are unacceptable, leaving (31a&b) as the only means of expressing the intended meanings. This may account for the contrast in acceptability between (31a'&b') and (31c').