The adjectives in the primeless and primed examples in (236) differ in one important respect: adjectives of the former group can be modified not only by degree modifiers, as in (237), but also by nominal measure phrases; combining adjectives of the latter group with these measure phrases usually leads to an infelicitous result. This is illustrated in (241).

The adjectives in the acceptable examples in (241) have lost their antonymous meaning aspect in the sense that they no longer stand in opposition to the adjectives in the primed examples in (236). For example, the use of the adjective oudold in (242a) does not imply that the kitten is old; it is in fact quite young (viz. two days), which can be emphasized by using evaluative particles such as pasonly or maaronly. This shows that the adjective oudold is no longer in opposition to jongyoung. More or less the same applies to the adjective langlong in (242b).

Since measure adjectives like oud and lang do not have an antonymous meaning aspect when modified by a measure phrase, we can consider them neutral forms in such cases. Adjectives like jong and kort, on the other hand, usually retain their full meaning; an example such as (243) can only be intended as a joke and not said seriously.

The semantics of the above examples is fairly transparent: the nominal measure phrase indicates the exact position of the logical subject of the adjective on the implied scale; e.g. example (242a) indicates that d = ||2 days||. However, we cannot represent this example as in (244a), since this would incorrectly imply that the kitten is old. A more appropriate representation is given in (244b), where the use of boldface indicates that we are dealing with the neutral form of a measure adjective.

This also explains why the neutral form is normally used when asking about the degree of measure adjectives; cf. the examples in (238) and (245). The non-neutral form is marginally possible, but only if the context provides specific clues that the entity in question is indeed young/short and that the speaker wants to know to what degree this is the case.

The nominal measure phrase and the adjective form a constituent, which is clear from the fact that they can be placed together in clause-initial position; cf. the constituency test. This is shown by the primeless examples in (246), which correspond to the examples in (242). The singly-primed examples show that topicalization of the nominal modifier alone yields a slightly marked result, and requires an intonation contour with a heavy accent on the numeral. Stranding of the nominal measure phrase, as in the doubly-primed examples, is excluded.

Occasionally, predicative measure adjectives may be omitted when a nominal measure phrase is present. This is the case, for example, when referring to age, as in (247a). When referring to human beings, examples such as (247b) may also be used to indicate a person’s height; cf. Section N19.1.1.6, sub I, for further discussion.

Similarly, if a particular object is defined in part by having a certain proportion (length, width, etc.), or if the intended proportion can be recovered from the context, the adjective is sometimes omitted as well. Some examples are given in (248).

The primeless examples in (249) show that the temporal measure adjective lang differs from the other measure adjectives in that it cannot easily be used in copular constructions. The intended assertions can instead be expressed by the verb durento last in the primed examples. Note that the adjective is preferably dropped when a nominal measure phrase is present, which may be because the meaning expressed by the neutral form of the adjective lang is implied by the measure verb duren.

However, the copular verb zijnto be is possible in the examples in (250), which involve the coordination of a temporal measure adjective and an adjective of another type; the measure verb duren is excluded in such cases.

The measure adjective of weight zwaarheavy can be used in copular constructions, but not when a nominal measure phrase is used, as in (251a&b). In their primed counterparts containing the measure verb wegento weigh, the use of the nominal measure phrase is fully acceptable. The use of the measure adjective and the nominal measure phrase together, as in (251c'), is again impossible. This may be because the meaning of the neutral form of the adjective zwaar is already implied in the measure verb wegen; this suggestion is supported by the fact that substituting a copular for the verb wegen, as in (251c), again improves the result.

The percentage sign is used in (251a') to indicate that it is rejected in the normative literature, although the metaphorical use of zwaar wegen in an example such as (252) is accepted by all speakers; cf. onzetaal.nl/taaladvies/advies/zwaar-wegen-veel-wegen. We will return to this issue briefly in V2.4.

That there is no clear reason to reject (251a') is clear from the fact that the examples in (253) show that measure verbs cannot occur without an adjectival complement when no nominal measure phrase is present; this shows that the meanings expressed by the non-neutral forms of the measure adjectives override those already implied in the measure verbs.

Note, however, that the omission of the measure adjective in (253a) is at least marginally possible if the verb is heavily stressed or reduplicated, as in De vergadering duurde en duurde en duurdeThe meeting went on and on and on, in which case the utterances inherently express that the meeting was (too) long.

Nominal measure phrases can also be used to modify complex APs headed by tetoo, as in (254). In such cases the measure adjectives must be overtly expressed; compare the contrast between (254b) and De vergadering duurde twee uur (?lang) The meeting lasted two hours.

The fact that the measure adjective cannot be omitted has to do with the fact that we are not dealing with neutral forms, as the examples in (255) show that non-neutral forms can also enter the construction; cf. the contrast with the examples without te ’too’ in (241).

Note that not only the degree modifier tetoo can license the presence of a nominal measure, but that the same holds for the comparative form of the measure adjectives in (256); cf. Section 26.3.2, sub I, for further discussion. For convenience, we will include such comparative examples in the discussion below.

The fact that nominal measure phrases can modify the non-neuter forms of measure adjectives when the latter are modified by te or have the comparative form may also explain why adjectives like zwaarheavy and warmwarm, which cannot easily be preceded by nominal measure phrases in their unmodified positive form (cf. (251)), can co-occur with them in (257).

From a semantic point of view, the examples discussed so far are not quite on a par with those in (241). Section 23.3.2.2, sub I, has argued that the truth value of constructions containing a gradable adjective is generally determined in relation to a possibly contextually determined comparison class/set. In the case of an adjective in the positive degree or an adjective preceded by tetoo, the comparison class/set can be made explicit by a voor-PP, and in the case of a comparative by a dan/als-phrase. This is illustrated in (258).

Things change, however, when the adjective is modified by a nominal measure phrase. As shown in (259), it blocks the addition of a voor-phrase to the adjective in the positive degree, while nothing changes when the adjective is preceded by te or in the comparative form. This suggests that the addition of a nominal measure phrase to adjectives in the positive degree makes the AP “absolute” in nature, while the gradable nature of adjectives preceded by te and comparatives remains unaffected.

The primeless examples in (260) show that, as in the case of the measure adjectives in the positive form in (246), preposing APs of the kind in (255) and (256) can pied-pipe the nominal measure phrases, thereby indicating that they form a constituent. The singly-primed examples show that preposing the nominal measure phrase alone is quite marked, but slightly better than when it is stranded.

The doubly-primed examples may be marginally acceptable if the nominal measure phrase drie jaar is presented as an afterthought, in which case it would be preceded by an intonation break, but this is irrelevant here.

Examples (246) and (260) have shown that APs modified by a nominal measure phrase cannot be easily split. However, it is possible if the nominal measure phrase is questioned, as shown in example (261) for some of the primeless examples in (255) and (256).

Extraction of the nominal measure phrase is also sometimes allowed if it has a heavy accent or is preceded by a focus particle such as slechtsonly.

The acceptability of the above examples might lead us to expect that similar extractions are possible with neutral measure adjectives in the positive degree, but this does not seem to be borne out because the primeless examples in (263) sound relatively odd; the percentage sign is used to indicate that examples such as (263a) are given as acceptable in Corver (1990). Plausibly, the markedness of the primeless examples is not due to a syntactic restriction, but to the fact that the intended meaning can be expressed more economically as in the primed examples by combining the neuter forms of the measure adjectives with the interrogative degree modifier hoehow; cf. also example (245).

In short, the primeless examples are grammatical (i.e. syntactically well-formed), but marked for non-syntactic reasons.