Geen is remarkably flexible when it comes to the types of noun phrases it combines with. It can be combined with count nouns of all genders and numbers, and it can also be construed with non-count nouns. Examples are given in Table 5.

	singular		plural
	[-neuter]	[+neuter]
count nouns	geen stad no town	geen huis no house	geen steden/huizen no towns/houses
non-count nouns	geen ellende/wijn no misery /wine	geen verdriet/water no sorrow/water	n/a

We have already seen that only a subset of geen phrases can occur with the indefinite article een in neutral contexts; een does not normally combine with plurals or non-count nouns (cf. Table 3). In Section 19.1.5.1, we therefore rejected the assumption that geen is the result of the fusion of niet and the indefinite article een, since it does not cover the entire spectrum of possibilities in the distribution of geen. We now add a particularly tough nut to crack for such an approach: example (287) shows that geen can be combined with an element that does not seem to qualify as nominal at all.

The expression buitenspeloffside in soccer jargon is a compound that originates from a PP headed by buiten (lit.: outside (of) play) and shows no signs of being nominal; it rarely occurs with a determiner (*de/?het/*een buitenspel) and it cannot be pluralized or used as the input for diminutivization either. Furthermore, it can occur in positions where we normally find PPs and not noun phrases (Hij staat buitenspel\`1in het doelHe is off-side/in the goal). Laxer variants of the fusion analysis which allow geen to result from the fusion of niet and the indefinite null article ∅ as well, do not fare any better in this regard, unless it can be shown that buitenspel combines with the null article.

Although geen can in principle be combined with plural count-noun phrases, there are restrictions on the use of such combinations: while the plural noun schepenships can be used with geen in the primeless sentences of (288), this is impossible in the primed examples that feature the more special “not a single” reading of geen; this reading requires that the noun is singular, as in (262) in Section 19.1.5.1, sub III.

The unacceptability of the primed examples in (288) matches that of the corresponding cases with geen enkel(e)/één in (289b); that these examples are unacceptable is not surprising from the point of view of their meaning “not a single”. What is interesting, though, is that enkel(e) is compatible with plural noun phrases in other contexts: enkele schepensome ships is perfect as the plural counterpart of een enkel schipa single ship. This means that it is not entirely clear what causes the unacceptability of (289b) with enkel(e).

There are also many pluralia tantum that cannot be preceded by geen, like tropen or Verenigde Staten in (290a&b). The reason for this is in the fact that tropen and Verenigde Staten are always used as parts of definite expressions, with which geen cannot be combined. When the plurale tantum can be indefinite, such as hersens/hersenen in (290c&c'), geen is possible.

The acceptability of using geen with non-count nouns extends to the cases of bare-stem and ge-nominalizations in (291).

Inf-nominalization like (292a) are generally awkward, although (292b&c) show that there are idiomatic examples involving inf-nominalizations.

Geen can also be combined with the nominal part of verbal N+V collocations of the type illustrated in (293), in which the primeless geen examples alternate with the primed examples with the negative adverb niet. There is a tendency to spell the members of the collocation as separate words in the examples with geen, but as a single word in the examples with niet, although all variants can be found on the internet.

Section 19.1.2.3, sub I, has shown that N+V collocations of this type are like particle verbs in the sense that the dependent nominal is obligatorily split off from the verbal base when the verb undergoes verb-second, i.e. moves into the second position of the main clause. It seems that in such cases there is a clear preference for the use of a noun phrase with geen; examples with geen occur frequently on the internet, whereas the frequency of examples with niet is conspicuously low.

The same contrast can be observed when the verb is part of a verb cluster and non-adjacent to the noun, as in (295). These facts suggest that N+V collocations are indeed ambiguous; when the noun is combined with geen, it functions as a regular object, while it is part of the verb when it is preceded by niet; cf. Booij (2010:§4) for a similar conclusion.

This suggestion is further supported by the fact that when the noun is also part of the verb cluster, as in (296), it is niet that must be used. Note that in these examples there is again a tendency to spell the collocations as single words.

Section 19.1.2.3, sub I, has shown that topicalization of the main verb cannot strand the noun, but must pied-pipe it. The examples in (297) show that topicalization of the N+V collocation with geen is excluded; it must strand the negative adverb niet in its original position. This suggests that the examples in (297) are related to those in (296a&b), in which the N+V collocations behave like a single word, rather than to those in (295), in which they are clearly construed independently and the nouns form a constituent with the negative quantifier geen.

The fact that geen forms a syntactic constituent with the nouns piano/auto again suggests that geen cannot be the result of the fusion of niet and een: nouns like piano/auto never feature an indefinite article in N+V collocations, as illustrated in (298), nor are they likely to have a null determiner; they are truly bare nouns, which nonetheless can still be combined with geen.

For further discussion of N+V collocations, we refer the reader to Section V10.2.

It is impossible for geen to combine directly with personal pronouns; the examples in (299) illustrate this for the plural pronouns. An exception must be made, however, for the doubly-primed examples in which geen is followed by a case-inflected form of the pronoun. These forms are relics from older stages of the language and belong to the formal register; in present-day Dutch, the partitive constructions in the singly-primed examples would be used.

Geen does not normally appear with proper nouns referring to persons, although a somewhat special case was discussed in Section 19.1.2.1, sub III. Nevertheless, geographical proper nouns can sometimes be construed with geen, especially in contexts in which they are premodified by an adjective, as in the (a)-examples of (300). Another instantiation of the combination of proper nouns with geen is formed by the names of languages, as in the (b)-examples of (300). In the (a)-examples, geen can be replaced with niet een, whereas in the (b)-examples only geen is possible.

This subsection examines the restrictions that geen imposes on other elements within the noun phrase, such as determiners, quantifiers, and attributive adjectives.