A noun phrase quantified by geen has a somewhat limited distribution if geen has its core meaning of negative quantifier. It may appear as the subject in an expletive construction. Furthermore, it can be used as a direct object, but not as an indirect object; examples such as (267c) are pretty awkward.

Using a noun phrase with geen as the complement of a preposition gives rise to an unacceptable result: the negation must be expressed by the negative adverb niet.

On the more special meanings of geen the restrictions seem to be lifted. This is illustrated in the examples in (269) for noun phrases expressing the “not a single” reading. These examples show that such noun phrases need not occur in the expletive construction, can readily occur as indirect object, and can even be used as the complement of a preposition.

Haeseryn et al. (1997: 1657) notice that geen-phrases may also occur as the complement of a preposition in certain idiomatic constructions. These all involve a more or less emphatic negation. Some examples, taken from Klooster (2001b) are given in (270).

A geen phrase can be used as a nominal predicate if it is used with its core reading. This is illustrated in (271) with examples of the copular and vinden construction. We have not been able to find or construct examples for geen phrases with a “not a single” reading.

Geen phrases in non-negative questions, discussed in Section 5.1.5.1, sub IIIE, are restricted to the function of predicate. Some examples are given in (272).

The degree reading of geen in (241), in which geen is construed with a numeral following it and means something like “less than”, is particularly common in adverbial phrases. Example (241a) is repeated here as (273a). Example (273b) shows that geen phrases can also readily be used as nominal adjuncts on their “not a single” reading. In these constructions, main accent is falling on the element immediately following geen, that is, the numeral in (273a) and the head noun in (273b). Geen phrases in which geen receives prosodic prominence are difficult to construe as adjuncts.

Geen does not readily occur independently in argument positions. Examples (274a) shows, however, that there is a contrast between the cases with singular and plural agreement, the former being better than the latter. In order to express the intended meaning, Dutch can resort to two strategies: one is to add the numeral één'one' or enkele'single' to the right of geen, as in (274b); the other is to use a partitive construction, as in (274c). In both cases, agreement between the subject and the finite verb is necessarily singular.

In present-day Dutch geen cannot be used as a predicate (which was possible in earlier stages of the language): examples such as (275a) are unacceptable. Note that (275b) is not a counterexample; this example involves quantitative er, which is associated with the interpretative gap within a noun phrase containing geen. Given that adjuncts are also predicates, the impossibility of example (275a) automatically precludes adjunct construal of geen.

Example (276a) show that neither geen nor geen één/enkele can be used as a floating quantifier. The partitive noun phrase geen van alle/beide in (276b), on the other hand, can be used in this way. As usual, the floating quantifier must follow its associate, as in (276b), unless it is placed in clause-initial position, as in (276b'). If the associate has human reference, as in (277), Dutch orthography requires a plural ending -n on the quantifier.

In a similar way, geen can also be used as a floating quantifier in partitive constructions with numerals (Paardekooper 1986: 472). The numerals in these constructions always take the ending -en in written language, regardless of the kind of entity referred to. This is illustrated in (278).