Documentation

Linglib.Fragments.Georgian.Agreement

Georgian Agreement Fragment @cite{just-2024} #

@cite{harris-1981}

Georgian (Kartvelian) has a polypersonal agreement system where the finite verb indexes both subject and object. Object agreement is person-conditioned: indirect objects (dative-marked) are cross-referenced on the verb for 1st/2nd person but not for 3rd person.

This is differential P indexing conditioned by person prominence.

Agreement Paradigm Overview #

Georgian has two sets of verbal agreement markers:

SetPositionFunction
Subject markersprefix/suffixAlways present
Object markersprefixSAP objects only (differential)

The object markers are prefixed to the verb stem:

Split-Ergative Case #

Georgian has a tense/aspect-conditioned split ergative system:

The agreement split is orthogonal to the case split — object agreement is person-conditioned regardless of the case frame.

Person-number combinations in the Georgian agreement paradigm.

Instances For
    Equations
    • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
    Instances For

      All person-number values.

      Equations
      • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
      Instances For

        Is this a SAP (speech act participant)?

        Equations
        Instances For

          Whether a P/R argument at a given person-number is indexed (triggers an object prefix on the verb).

          Derived from objectPrefix: a person-number is indexed iff it has a non-none object prefix.

          Equations
          Instances For

            Subject agreement is always present (not differential).

            Equations
            Instances For

              P indexing is grounded in the presence of an object prefix: indexed ↔ has overt prefix.

              The indexed/not-indexed split aligns with SAP vs 3rd.

              Georgian tense series. Case alignment varies by series:

              • Present: S/A = NOM, P/R = DAT (accusative-like framing)
              • Aorist: A = ERG, S/P = NOM (ergative framing)
              • Evidential: A = DAT, S/P = NOM ("inversion")
              Instances For
                Equations
                • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                Instances For

                  Georgian split-ergative system: only the aorist series uses ergative alignment. Present uses NOM-DAT framing and evidential uses DAT-NOM "inversion" — both non-ergative.

                  This instantiates Core.SplitErgativity from @cite{blake-1994}'s typology of tense/aspect-conditioned splits.

                  Equations
                  Instances For

                    Georgian agreement-relevant case inventory: {NOM, ERG, DAT}.

                    Note: the full Georgian case system also includes GEN (possessive) and INST (instrumental), yielding {NOM, ERG, GEN, DAT, INST} which satisfies contiguity. Here we validate only the agreement-visible subset, which also satisfies contiguity (all rank ≥ 4).

                    Equations
                    Instances For

                      The inventory covers all tense-series case frames.

                      Equations
                      • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                      Instances For

                        The agreement-relevant inventory {NOM, ERG, DAT} is valid per Blake's hierarchy: NOM/ERG at rank 6, DAT at rank 4, GEN at rank 5 — but wait: GEN is rank 5 and is NOT in the inventory, so there IS a gap!

                        This actually fails strict contiguity (Blake's hierarchy says you "usually" need GEN before DAT). Georgian is a known exception: DAT is so prominent in the case system (present P, evidential A, plus indirect objects) that it exists without surface genitive case being part of the agreement system.

                        We validate the full case system instead.

                        Equations
                        Instances For

                          Georgian verb classes (@cite{harris-1981}).

                          The class determines unaccusativity, case frame, and agreement pattern. The key split for case theory: classes 1 and 3 (non-derived subjects) take ERG in the aorist, while class 2 (derived/unaccusative subject) does not — motivating @cite{marantz-1991}'s Ergative generalization.

                          Instances For
                            Equations
                            • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                            Instances For

                              Does the subject take ERG in the aorist (Series II)?

                              The Ergative generalization (@cite{marantz-1991} ex. 6): ERG tracks the thematic vs derived status of the subject. Class 2 (unaccusative) subjects are derived (raised from object position) → no ERG. Class 4 subjects have quirky DAT (lexical case) → not eligible for ERG.

                              Equations
                              Instances For

                                Subject case by verb class and tense series (@cite{marantz-1991} ex. 1–3).

                                Present/aorist patterns from @cite{marantz-1991}. Evidential follows the general inversion pattern: all subjects surface as DAT (@cite{harris-1981}).

                                Equations
                                Instances For