Bruening and Al Khalaf (2020) deny the possibility of coordination of unlike categories. They use three mechanisms to reanalyze such coordination as involving same categories: conjunction reduction, supercategories, and empty heads. We show that their proposal leaves many cases of unlike category coordination unaccounted for, and we point out various methodological, technical, and empirical problems that it faces. We conclude that the so-called Law of the Coordination of Likes is a myth. Instead, all conjuncts must satisfy any external restrictions on the syntactic position they occupy. Such restrictions may be rigid, resulting in categorial sameness, but when they are underspecified or disjunctive, category “mismatches” may arise.

This squib argues that adverbs can act as primary predicates. In Polish, a relatively large class of adverbs are frequently used in predicative constructions when the subject of predication is an InfP (infinitival phrase) or a CP referring to abstract objects: event kinds or facts. This requirement of a purely verbal rather than nominal subject of predication is the main difference between predicative adverbs and predicative adjectives, explaining contrasts between their syntactic behavior in extraction and coordination. Predicative adverbs usually express attitudes toward event kinds or facts and often combine with dative experiencers; in the case of InfP subjects, dative experiencers obligatorily control the subject.