Languages differ in terms of how they encode true partitives and pseudopartitives (Koptjevskaja Tamm 2001).
The difference in structure is backed up by experimential research, which shows that pseudopartitives (9) are the basis of building true partitives (8) in the process of acquisition (Stickney 2007 : 414).
They also note that the construction with the partitive case would be seen as being the parallel of the English pseudopartitives and that the construction with the elative case would parallel the true partitives following the results of previous work (see Anttila, Fong 2000).
In addition, the distinction that constrains the elatives to appear only in true partitives is based on quantitative determinacy instead of definiteness (21).
This allows us to account for one special option that is usually ignored in discussions of object marking in Hebrew -- objects preceded by the partitive preposition me- `from', `of' I will refer to these as bare partitives (BP), (31) to distinguish them from full partitive DPs in which me- is preceded by a determiner (xelek me-hasfarim, `part of the books').
38) The fact that Finnish lacks articles is probably responsible for the apparently wider use of partitive in that language than in Hebrew; but otherwise it seems that partitive case in Finnish is more or less equivalent to partitive me- in Hebrew, and therefore Hebrew indefinite objects are not the same as Finnish partitives.
The fact that Hebrew has overt partitive marking as an option also doesn't rule out the possibility of identifying Hebrew indefinite objects with Belletti's abstract partitives, if one ignores the problem of naming this abstract case.
She makes a distiction between two classes of bare partitives, which differ in meaning and in syntactic distribution, focusing only on those that have a more NP-like behavior.
This pattern is illustrated by the genitive/ partitive pairs 'lippude ~ 'lippusid, sadude ~ sadusid and ridade ~ ridasid, which are based on the corresponding partitives 'lippu, sadu and ridu, not on the genitives lipu, saju and 'rea.
As a class, second declension nouns lack fusional short illatives and stem partitives (though individual items may retain old short illatives, as in the case of MAA 'land', which preserves the short illative maha).
These stem partitives are based on the genitive singulars 'alguse, kusimuse and inimese, not on the partitive singulars, as in the first declension.
In addition, the paradigms of these nominals do not exhibit gradation, and never contain short illatives, stem partitives or short i-plural forms.
In (9a) laes takes a plural partitive genitive synna (though there is much case-syncretism in this paradigm), but the number on the verb is singular.
The partitive genitive construction does not survive into Modern English (ModE).
But ModE does have a partitive construction with quantifiers accompanied by a definite phrase: