In this paper, we establish the empirical correlation that in Old English, the morphology on the quantified element is related to the morpho-syntactic status of the quantifier. While quantified DPs are always in the genitive, quantified non-DPs vary between genitive and concord based on the status of the quantifier. The quantifiers that take only genitive dependents contain uninflected particles and cannot be modified; those that occur with non-DP-size dependents in concord are inflected as adjectives and can be modified by degree words. We propose that particle-like quantifiers are in a head position but that quantifiers with adjectival properties are in a specifier position. The quantified dependents are also argued to be in different positions: all DP dependents are in the genitive and proposed to be the complement of N; in contrast, non-DP dependents are either in a specifier position (if genitive) or part of the nominal projection line (if concord). We wind up with the proposal that head-like quantifiers assign genitive case to their specifiers but adjective-like quantifiers do not. This proposal is confirmed in two related languages: most quantifiers in Old High German are of the head type and thus occur with genitive dependents, while all Old Icelandic quantifiers under investigation are adjective-like and take non-DP dependents in concord.

中文翻译：

---

古英语及其他语言中具有属格和和谐的复杂量词

在本文中，我们建立了经验相关性，即在古英语中，量化元素的形态与量词的形态句法状态有关。虽然量化的 DP 总是在属格中，但量化的非 DP 根据量词的状态在属格和协和之间有所不同。只接受所有格从属的量词包含不屈折的助词，不能修改；那些与非 DP 大小的依存者一致出现的词作为形容词变形，并且可以用度词修饰。我们建议类粒子量词处于头部位置，但具有形容词属性的量词处于说明符位置。量化的从属也被认为处于不同的位置：所有的 DP 从属都在所有格中并被提议为 N 的补语；相比之下，非 DP 受抚养人处于说明符位置（如果属格）或名义投影线的一部分（如果一致）。我们最终提出这样的提议，即类头量词将所有格分配给它们的说明符，而类形容词量词则不然。这一提议在两种相关语言中得到证实：古高地德语中的大多数量词都是头部类型，因此与属格从属一起出现，而所有被调查的古冰岛语量词都类似于形容词，并采用非 DP 从属关系。