We can formulate shac as a principle on words with specifiers. One possibility is as follows: the Specifier-Head Agreement Constraint ensures consistency between the Specifier and the Head. This is necessary for: another question is whether we really want a general principle like shac. If we use the SUBJ function for subjects and SPR for subject determinants, we need a second version of the SHAC to take into account the subject-verb concordance. But that is an open question. We argue that in Germanic languages, predicate NPs always get a case structure. In some languages (English, Frisian, Danish and Norwegian), the verb Copula itself is an accusative; In other languages (Icelandic, Swedish and German), the case characteristics of a senior case manager, which contains the predicate NP, may penetrate the Vice-President. According to this view, any obvious “correspondence” between the subject and the NP predicate is epiphenomenal, not because of a rule of agreement under the coindexation, but because of the fact that the two PRs depend on I just in case, by Spec-Head agreement on the one hand, but under the government on the other. Assumptions that PR predicates are caseless or receive typical cases are untenable. It is shown that the structural case hypothesis provides a simple representation of some complex case changes in Icelandic. In Sag/Wasow/Bender 2003, the SHAC is not a principle on the sort word or sentence, but a principle on a Lexem subtype, on the lexem type (p. 495).

Andrew Verboncouer • (920) 562-9601 • andrewverbs@gmail.com@averbs