There is evidence that pronouns do not only involve anaphoric relations at the reference level (co-reference with an antecedent or interpretation as a variable bound by the antecedent), but may also involve anaphora at the level of the descriptive content, i.e., nominal anaphora (the recovery of an N(P)-antecedent from the context). Considering the fact that nominal anaphora is a systematic phenomenon in DPs, surfacing as noun ellipsis or, in some languages, pro-N forms (see Engl. one), a natural conclusion is that 3rd person personal pronouns spell-out THE+null-NP, filling an apparent gap in the distribution of nominal ellipsis (as first proposed by Postal 1966). However, this analysis faces a number of problems: the difference between pronouns and DPs headed by THE with respect to binding, other differences in semantic or syntactic features found in some languages (see gender, or the features responsible for clitic placement), the existence of distinct strong and weak series of pronouns, as opposed to a single THE+null-NP structure, and a gap in the attested combinations of THE and null-NP. The solution to these problems, within an analysis that includes an N-component in pronouns, is based on the proposal that the D found in pronouns, although it has the semantics of THE, differs from THE in terms of features. It is argued that a minimal difference between THE and the pronominal D must exist because empty constituents must be licensed by features on the selecting head, which implies that the pronominal D, as opposed to THE, carries the features necessary for licensing an empty complement.