Documentation

Linglib.Fragments.Georgian.Agreement

Georgian Agreement Fragment [Jus24] #

[Har81]

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.

Object agreement prefixes, as a descriptive paradigm over canonical φ-cells (Agreement.Cell — the same φ a pronoun carries). SAP objects (1st/2nd person) receive an overt prefix; 3rd person objects have no entry (unmarked). A controller's Word.agrCell indexes it directly.

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

    A P/R argument is indexed iff the object paradigm realizes its φ-cell. Differential: SAP cells are present, 3rd person absent.

    Equations
    Instances For

      Subject agreement is always present (not differential).

      Equations
      Instances For

        P indexing is differential.

        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
          @[implicit_reducible]
          Equations
          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 Alignment.SplitErgativity from [Bla94b]'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 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 ([Har81]).

                  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 [Mar91]'s Ergative generalization.

                  Instances For
                    @[implicit_reducible]
                    Equations
                    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 ([Mar91] 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 ([Mar91] ex. 1–3).

                        Present/aorist patterns from [Mar91]. Evidential follows the general inversion pattern: all subjects surface as DAT ([Har81]).

                        Equations
                        Instances For

                          The Ergative generalization from verb classes: ERG in the aorist ↔ non-derived subject (classes 1, 3).