Pseudo-partitive constructions give rise to multiple interpretive ambiguities including a container interpretation (i.e. individuating) and a contents (i.e. measuring) one. There are two competing analyses: one based on structural ambiguities (Landman in Indefinites and the types of sets, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004; Rothstein in Brill’s J Afroasiat Lang Ling 1:106–145, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1163/187666309X12491131130783, a.o.) and one based on a uniform syntax (Lehrer in Lingua 68:109–148, 1986; Matushansky and Zwarts in Lamont and Tetzloff (eds) North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 47, Volume 2, pp 261–274, GLSA, Amherst, 2016, a.o.). I contribute to this debate with data from Alasha Mongolian (Mongolic), which differentiates each interpretation via case marking on the quantizing noun: glass-comitative = individuating vs. glass-genitive/Ø = measuring. I argue that there is no large-scale structural ambiguity: the numeral and the quantizing noun always form a constituent introduced in the specifier position of a null functional head (Schwarzschild in Syntax 9(1):67–110, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2006.00083.x; Svenonius in McNally and Kennedy (eds) Adjectives and adverbs: syntax, semantics and discourse, Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics, pp 16–42, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008; Ott in J Comp Ger Ling 4:1–46, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-010-9040-x). I propose that (i) case differences on the quantizing constituent boil down to the presence or absence of a case probe on a higher Agr head; (ii) and, the interpretive differences between the individuating and measuring pseudo-partitives are the result of a more subtle syntactic distinction in the feature content of the quantizing noun, i.e. an interpretable [±Container] feature.

伪部分结构引起多种解释歧义，包括容器解释（即个体化）和内容解释（即测量）。有两种相互竞争的分析：一种基于结构模糊性（Landman in Indefinites and the types of set, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004；Rothstein in Brill's J Afroasiat Lang Ling 1:106–145, 2009。https://doi. org/10.1163/187666309X12491131130783, ao) 和一个基于统一语法的语法（Lehrer in Lingua 68:109–148, 1986；Matushansky 和 ​​Zwarts in Lamont 和 Tetzloff (eds) North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 47, Volume 2, pp 261–274，GLSA，阿默斯特，2016 年，ao）。我用来自阿拉善蒙古语（蒙古语）的数据为这场辩论做出了贡献，该数据通过量化名词上的格标记来区分每种解释：glass -comitative=individuating vs. glass- genitive/Ø=measurement。我认为不存在大规模的结构歧义：数字和量化名词总是形成在空功能中心词的说明符位置中引入的成分（Schwarzschild in Syntax 9(1):67–110, 2006。 https:// /doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2006.00083.x；Svenonius in McNally and Kennedy (eds)《形容词和副词：语法、语义和话语》，《牛津理论语言学研究》，第 16-42 页，牛津大学出版社，牛津，2008 年；Ott，J Comp Ger Ling 4:1–46, 2011。https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-010-9040-x）。我建议 (i) 量化成分上的案例差异归结为较高 Agr 头上是否存在案例探针；(ii) 并且，个体化伪分词和测量伪分词之间的解释差异是量化名词的特征内容（即可解释的[±容器]特征）中更微妙的句法区别的结果。