Table 10 has shown that predeterminer bare heel can be used with all types of determiners, although it is not fully compatible with the distal and especially the proximate demonstrative pronouns. The relevant examples are repeated here as (271).

However, the proximate demonstrative examples improve to the point of full acceptability in contrastive contexts of the type in (272). Constructions of the type in (272a) can normally be phonetically reduced by backward conjunction reduction and NP-ellipsis, but they yield robustly different results in the context of predeterminer heel; while backward conjunction reduction leads to perfectly acceptable results, the NP-ellipsis cases are unacceptable (and certainly considerably worse than the corresponding examples with predeterminer bare al; cf. example (24) in Section 21.1.2.1, sub II). -

The examples in (273a-c) show that bare heel can precede not only possessive pronouns but also (semi-)genitival possessive phrases. The somewhat marked status of (273c) is probably due to the heaviness of the overall construction.

Example (274b) shows that bare heel can also precede nominalized possessive pronouns. This supports the suggestion made in Section 19.2.2.4, sub II, that noun phrases like de jouwe do not involve ellipsis, since otherwise we would expect examples with strings heel de jouwe to be as bad as the doubly-primed examples in (272).

Predeterminer bare heel cannot be combined with noun phrases containing the indefinite article een: this is shown in (275a&b) for [+count] and [-count] nouns, respectively. Predeterminer bare heel cannot be combined with bare noun phrases either: the examples in (275b&c) illustrate this for bare singulars and bare pluralia tantum, respectively. Note that we deviate here from Zwarts (1992:156), who assigns a mere question mark to *heel een ijsjeall an ice cream; our informants generally agree that examples of this type are unacceptable.

An exception to the prohibition of heel before indefinite determiners is when een combines with zo to form the indefinite demonstrative zo’nsuch a; cf. Section 19.2.3.1, sub I. For heel to be acceptable, however, the head noun must be a count noun. Recall that the count/non-count distinction does not have the same influence on the distribution of predeterminer heel in the case of a definite demonstrative; both heel die stad and heel die ellende are acceptable.

Although predeterminer bare heel can precede the indefinite demonstrative zo’nsuch a in (276a), it cannot precede the indefinite determiner-like elements zulk/dergelijk/van diesuch. No doubt this is related to the fact that these determiners are usually followed by plural count nouns, which are excluded from this construction anyway. The fact that the constructions with non-count nouns in (277) are also unacceptable fits nicely with the fact that such examples are also impossible with zo’n.

This suggests that heel must be followed linearly by a definite determiner or by zo’n. We phrase this statement in linear terms to capture the difference in acceptability between zulk soort/dergelijk soort and their semantic equivalents dit soort/dat soort; (278a) shows that the latter are acceptable, which may be due to the fact that they themselves are introduced by a demonstrative that linearly follows heel in the output string. Example (278b) shows that the contrast in (278a) is not found with predeterminer bare al.

Section 21.1.2.1, sub IIB, concluded that al in (278b) forms a constituent with dat/dit/zulk soort, on the basis of the fact that al dat/dit/zulk soort N can appear as a subject in existential er constructions. Such a case cannot be made for heel, since it is impossible to determine on independent grounds whether heel is a strong or weak quantifier: the addition of heel to a noun phrase does not affect the weak/strong status of that noun phrase. Nevertheless, one possible way to eliminate the reference to linearity in the characterization of the relationship between heel and the following determiner is to analyze heel dat/dit soort in (278a) as a constituent as well. Although this analysis seems structurally plausible, a potential semantic problem for it is that heel seems to be construed with gedoe rather than with soort.

Predeterminer bare heel cannot precede quantifiers like enige/sommigesome and elk/iederevery.

Since Table 10 has shown that bare heel does not combine with plural noun phrases, it is not surprising that adding a cardinal numeral to the noun phrase to the right of heel is usually impossible. The number sign in example (280a) indicates that it may be marginally acceptable on the negative polarity reading of heel described in Section 21.2.1.1, sub II.

In the discussion of bare al in Section 21.1.2.1, sub IIC, it was pointed out that the addition of an inflected quantifier like velemuch/many or weinigelittle/few to the noun phrase following al is possible for some speakers, though always rather marginal. The relevant examples are reproduced here in (281a&a'); the (b)-examples show that adding predeterminer heel to such constructions leads to degraded results.

For completeness, note that heel can precede the quantifiers veel and weinig when it acts as a modifier of the quantifiers; cf. Section 20.2.5. That heel in (282) is a premodifier of the quantifier, and not of the noun phrase as a whole (i.e. as a predeterminer of the indefinite null article), is evident from the fact that the plural count nouns and the substance noun wijn cannot normally co-occur with predeterminer bare heel; cf. Table 10 and Table 11.

We can be brief about the combination of predeterminer bare heel and personal pronouns; heel cannot be combined with pronouns, regardless of whether it is placed to the left or to the right of the pronoun. Example (283) shows this only for heel preceding the pronoun.

We have already seen that bare heel can be combined with proper nouns that satisfy the semantic constraint imposed by heel that the noun phrase with which it is construed denotes a structured unit; cf. Section 21.2.1.1, sub I, for further discussion, and Section 21.1.2.1, sub IID, for a comparison with similar examples with al.

The examples in (285) show that bare heel differs from bare al in that it cannot precede the wh-word wat in free relatives (cf. Section 21.1.2.1, sub IID), but can form a constituent with wat in the guise of a quantified pronoun. Note that while indefinite wat normally alternates with ietssomething, this is impossible in (285b).