SLIDE 1
Georgian agreement
- Infamously complex
- Person (π) and number (#) agreement for
Subjects and Objects
- Templatic slots, morpheme complementarity
- ‘Inverse agreement’
- Testing ground for many theories (Anderson
South Caucasian Agreement: Optimization and Lingering Mysteries - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
South Caucasian Agreement: Optimization and Lingering Mysteries - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
South Caucasian Agreement: Optimization and Lingering Mysteries Steven Foley UC Santa Cruz srfoley@ucsc.edu Georgian agreement Infamously complex Person ( ) and number (#) agreement for Subjects and Objects Templatic slots,
SLIDE 2
SLIDE 3
Georgian agreement
- Optimization in morphology (Trommer 2000,
Caballero & Inkelas 2013, Foley to appear)
- One way to formalize blocking relationships
- Balancing competing morphological constraints
- Drive to express as many features as possible
- An aversion towards redundancy (multiple exponence)
SLIDE 4
The data
π-prefix Stem
TAM-suffix
#-suffix v– ‘1.SUBJ’ m– ‘1SG.OBJ’ gv– ‘1PL.OBJ’ g– ‘2.OBJ’ nax ‘see’ … –e ‘
AOR:1/2’
–a ‘
AOR:3SG’
–es ‘
AOR:3PL’
… –t ‘PL’
SLIDE 5
The data
1SG.OBJ 2SG.OBJ 3SG.OBJ 1PL.OBJ 2PL.OBJ 3PL.OBJ 1SG.SUBJ — g-nax-e v-nax-e — g-nax-e-t v-nax-e 2SG.SUBJ m-nax-e — nax-e gv-nax-e — nax-e 3SG.SUBJ m-nax-a g-nax-a nax-a gv-nax-a g-nax-a-t nax-a 1PL.SUBJ — g-nax-e-t v-nax-e-t — g-nax-e-t v-nax-e-t 2PL.SUBJ m-nax-e-t — nax-e-t gv-nax-e-t — nax-e-t 3PL.SUBJ m-nax-es g-nax-es nax-es gv-nax-es g-nax-es nax-es
π-prefix Stem
TAM-suffix
#-suffix v– ‘1.SUBJ’ m– ‘1SG.OBJ’ gv– ‘1PL.OBJ’ g– ‘2.OBJ’ nax ‘see’ … –e ‘
AOR:1/2’
–a ‘
AOR:3SG’
–es ‘
AOR:3PL’
… –t ‘PL’
SLIDE 6
The data
1SG.OBJ 2SG.OBJ 3SG.OBJ 1PL.OBJ 2PL.OBJ 3PL.OBJ 1SG.SUBJ — g-nax-e v-nax-e — g-nax-e-t v-nax-e 2SG.SUBJ m-nax-e — nax-e gv-nax-e — nax-e 3SG.SUBJ m-nax-a g-nax-a nax-a gv-nax-a g-nax-a-t nax-a 1PL.SUBJ — g-nax-e-t v-nax-e-t — g-nax-e-t v-nax-e-t 2PL.SUBJ m-nax-e-t — nax-e-t gv-nax-e-t — nax-e-t 3PL.SUBJ m-nax-es g-nax-es nax-es gv-nax-es g-nax-es nax-es
π-prefix Stem
TAM-suffix
#-suffix v– ‘1.SUBJ’ m– ‘1SG.OBJ’ gv– ‘1PL.OBJ’ g– ‘2.OBJ’ nax ‘see’ … –e ‘
AOR:1/2’
–a ‘
AOR:3SG’
–es ‘
AOR:3PL’
… –t ‘PL’
SLIDE 7
The data
1SG.OBJ 2SG.OBJ 3SG.OBJ 1PL.OBJ 2PL.OBJ 3PL.OBJ 1SG.SUBJ — g-nax-e v-nax-e — g-nax-e-t v-nax-e 2SG.SUBJ m-nax-e — nax-e gv-nax-e — nax-e 3SG.SUBJ m-nax-a g-nax-a nax-a gv-nax-a g-nax-a-t nax-a 1PL.SUBJ — g-nax-e-t v-nax-e-t — g-nax-e-t v-nax-e-t 2PL.SUBJ m-nax-e-t — nax-e-t gv-nax-e-t — nax-e-t 3PL.SUBJ m-nax-es g-nax-es nax-es gv-nax-es g-nax-es nax-es
π-prefix Stem
TAM-suffix
#-suffix v– ‘1.SUBJ’ m– ‘1SG.OBJ’ gv– ‘1PL.OBJ’ g– ‘2.OBJ’ nax ‘see’ … –e ‘
AOR:1/2’
–a ‘
AOR:3SG’
–es ‘
AOR:3PL’
… –t ‘PL’
SLIDE 8
The data
1SG.OBJ 2SG.OBJ 3SG.OBJ 1PL.OBJ 2PL.OBJ 3PL.OBJ 1SG.SUBJ — g-nax-e v-nax-e — g-nax-e-t v-nax-e 2SG.SUBJ m-nax-e — nax-e gv-nax-e — nax-e 3SG.SUBJ m-nax-a g-nax-a nax-a gv-nax-a g-nax-a-t nax-a 1PL.SUBJ — g-nax-e-t v-nax-e-t — g-nax-e-t v-nax-e-t 2PL.SUBJ m-nax-e-t — nax-e-t gv-nax-e-t — nax-e-t 3PL.SUBJ m-nax-es g-nax-es nax-es gv-nax-es g-nax-es nax-es
π-prefix Stem
TAM-suffix
#-suffix v– ‘1.SUBJ’ m– ‘1SG.OBJ’ gv– ‘1PL.OBJ’ g– ‘2.OBJ’ nax ‘see’ … –e ‘
AOR:1/2’
–a ‘
AOR:3SG’
–es ‘
AOR:3PL’
… –t ‘PL’
SLIDE 9
The data
1SG.OBJ 2SG.OBJ 3SG.OBJ 1PL.OBJ 2PL.OBJ 3PL.OBJ 1SG.SUBJ — g-nax-e v-nax-e — g-nax-e-t v-nax-e 2SG.SUBJ m-nax-e — nax-e gv-nax-e — nax-e 3SG.SUBJ m-nax-a g-nax-a nax-a gv-nax-a g-nax-a-t nax-a 1PL.SUBJ — g-nax-e-t v-nax-e-t — g-nax-e-t v-nax-e-t 2PL.SUBJ m-nax-e-t — nax-e-t gv-nax-e-t — nax-e-t 3PL.SUBJ m-nax-es g-nax-es nax-es gv-nax-es g-nax-es nax-es
π-prefix Stem
TAM-suffix
#-suffix v– ‘1.SUBJ’ m– ‘1SG.OBJ’ gv– ‘1PL.OBJ’ g– ‘2.OBJ’ nax ‘see’ … –e ‘
AOR:1/2’
–a ‘
AOR:3SG’
–es ‘
AOR:3PL’
… –t ‘PL’
SLIDE 10
The data
1SG.OBJ 2SG.OBJ 3SG.OBJ 1PL.OBJ 2PL.OBJ 3PL.OBJ 1SG.SUBJ — g-nax-e v-nax-e — g-nax-e-t v-nax-e 2SG.SUBJ m-nax-e — nax-e gv-nax-e — nax-e 3SG.SUBJ m-nax-a g-nax-a nax-a gv-nax-a g-nax-a-t nax-a 1PL.SUBJ — g-nax-e-t v-nax-e-t — g-nax-e-t v-nax-e-t 2PL.SUBJ m-nax-e-t — nax-e-t gv-nax-e-t — nax-e-t 3PL.SUBJ m-nax-es g-nax-es nax-es gv-nax-es g-nax-es nax-es
π-prefix Stem
TAM-suffix
#-suffix v– ‘1.SUBJ’ m– ‘1SG.OBJ’ gv– ‘1PL.OBJ’ g– ‘2.OBJ’ nax ‘see’ … –e ‘
AOR:1/2’
–a ‘
AOR:3SG’
–es ‘
AOR:3PL’
… –t ‘PL’
SLIDE 11
The data
1SG.OBJ 2SG.OBJ 3SG.OBJ 1PL.OBJ 2PL.OBJ 3PL.OBJ 1SG.SUBJ — g-nax-e v-nax-e — g-nax-e-t v-nax-e 2SG.SUBJ m-nax-e — nax-e gv-nax-e — nax-e 3SG.SUBJ m-nax-a g-nax-a nax-a gv-nax-a g-nax-a-t nax-a 1PL.SUBJ — g-nax-e-t v-nax-e-t — g-nax-e-t v-nax-e-t 2PL.SUBJ m-nax-e-t — nax-e-t gv-nax-e-t — nax-e-t 3PL.SUBJ m-nax-es g-nax-es nax-es gv-nax-es g-nax-es nax-es
π-prefix Stem
TAM-suffix
#-suffix v– ‘1.SUBJ’ m– ‘1SG.OBJ’ gv– ‘1PL.OBJ’ g– ‘2.OBJ’ nax ‘see’ … –e ‘
AOR:1/2’
–a ‘
AOR:3SG’
–es ‘
AOR:3PL’
… –t ‘PL’
SLIDE 12
The data
1SG.OBJ 2SG.OBJ 3SG.OBJ 1PL.OBJ 2PL.OBJ 3PL.OBJ 1SG.SUBJ — g-nax-e v-nax-e — g-nax-e-t v-nax-e 2SG.SUBJ m-nax-e — nax-e gv-nax-e — nax-e 3SG.SUBJ m-nax-a g-nax-a nax-a gv-nax-a g-nax-a-t nax-a 1PL.SUBJ — g-nax-e-t v-nax-e-t — g-nax-e-t v-nax-e-t 2PL.SUBJ m-nax-e-t — nax-e-t gv-nax-e-t — nax-e-t 3PL.SUBJ m-nax-es g-nax-es nax-es gv-nax-es g-nax-es nax-es
π-prefix Stem
TAM-suffix
#-suffix v– ‘1.SUBJ’ m– ‘1SG.OBJ’ gv– ‘1PL.OBJ’ g– ‘2.OBJ’ nax ‘see’ … –e ‘
AOR:1/2’
–a ‘
AOR:3SG’
–es ‘
AOR:3PL’
… –t ‘PL’ Observation 1: g– wins out over v–.
SLIDE 13
The data
1SG.OBJ 2SG.OBJ 3SG.OBJ 1PL.OBJ 2PL.OBJ 3PL.OBJ 1SG.SUBJ — g-nax-e v-nax-e — g-nax-e-t v-nax-e 2SG.SUBJ m-nax-e — nax-e gv-nax-e — nax-e 3SG.SUBJ m-nax-a g-nax-a nax-a gv-nax-a g-nax-a-t nax-a 1PL.SUBJ — g-nax-e-t v-nax-e-t — g-nax-e-t v-nax-e-t 2PL.SUBJ m-nax-e-t — nax-e-t gv-nax-e-t — nax-e-t 3PL.SUBJ m-nax-es g-nax-es nax-es gv-nax-es g-nax-es nax-es
π-prefix Stem
TAM-suffix
#-suffix v– ‘1.SUBJ’ m– ‘1SG.OBJ’ gv– ‘1PL.OBJ’ g– ‘2.OBJ’ nax ‘see’ … –e ‘
AOR:1/2’
–a ‘
AOR:3SG’
–es ‘
AOR:3PL’
… –t ‘PL’
SLIDE 14
The data
1SG.OBJ 2SG.OBJ 3SG.OBJ 1PL.OBJ 2PL.OBJ 3PL.OBJ 1SG.SUBJ — g-nax-e v-nax-e — g-nax-e-t v-nax-e 2SG.SUBJ m-nax-e — nax-e gv-nax-e — nax-e 3SG.SUBJ m-nax-a g-nax-a nax-a gv-nax-a g-nax-a-t nax-a 1PL.SUBJ — g-nax-e-t v-nax-e-t — g-nax-e-t v-nax-e-t 2PL.SUBJ m-nax-e-t — nax-e-t gv-nax-e-t — nax-e-t 3PL.SUBJ m-nax-es g-nax-es nax-es gv-nax-es g-nax-es nax-es
π-prefix Stem
TAM-suffix
#-suffix v– ‘1.SUBJ’ m– ‘1SG.OBJ’ gv– ‘1PL.OBJ’ g– ‘2.OBJ’ nax ‘see’ … –e ‘
AOR:1/2’
–a ‘
AOR:3SG’
–es ‘
AOR:3PL’
… –t ‘PL’
SLIDE 15
The data
1SG.OBJ 2SG.OBJ 3SG.OBJ 1PL.OBJ 2PL.OBJ 3PL.OBJ 1SG.SUBJ — g-nax-e v-nax-e — g-nax-e-t v-nax-e 2SG.SUBJ m-nax-e — nax-e gv-nax-e — nax-e 3SG.SUBJ m-nax-a g-nax-a nax-a gv-nax-a g-nax-a-t nax-a 1PL.SUBJ — g-nax-e-t v-nax-e-t — g-nax-e-t v-nax-e-t 2PL.SUBJ m-nax-e-t — nax-e-t gv-nax-e-t — nax-e-t 3PL.SUBJ m-nax-es g-nax-es nax-es gv-nax-es g-nax-es nax-es
π-prefix Stem
TAM-suffix
#-suffix v– ‘1.SUBJ’ m– ‘1SG.OBJ’ gv– ‘1PL.OBJ’ g– ‘2.OBJ’ nax ‘see’ … –e ‘
AOR:1/2’
–a ‘
AOR:3SG’
–es ‘
AOR:3PL’
… –t ‘PL’
SLIDE 16
The data
1SG.OBJ 2SG.OBJ 3SG.OBJ 1PL.OBJ 2PL.OBJ 3PL.OBJ 1SG.SUBJ — g-nax-e v-nax-e — g-nax-e-t v-nax-e 2SG.SUBJ m-nax-e — nax-e gv-nax-e — nax-e 3SG.SUBJ m-nax-a g-nax-a nax-a gv-nax-a g-nax-a-t nax-a 1PL.SUBJ — g-nax-e-t v-nax-e-t — g-nax-e-t v-nax-e-t 2PL.SUBJ m-nax-e-t — nax-e-t gv-nax-e-t — nax-e-t 3PL.SUBJ m-nax-es g-nax-es nax-es gv-nax-es g-nax-es nax-es
π-prefix Stem
TAM-suffix
#-suffix v– ‘1.SUBJ’ m– ‘1SG.OBJ’ gv– ‘1PL.OBJ’ g– ‘2.OBJ’ nax ‘see’ … –e ‘
AOR:1/2’
–a ‘
AOR:3SG’
–es ‘
AOR:3PL’
… –t ‘PL’ Observation 2: 3PL SUBJs don’t get –t.
SLIDE 17
The data
1SG.OBJ 2SG.OBJ 3SG.OBJ 1PL.OBJ 2PL.OBJ 3PL.OBJ 1SG.SUBJ — g-nax-e v-nax-e — g-nax-e-t v-nax-e 2SG.SUBJ m-nax-e — nax-e gv-nax-e — nax-e 3SG.SUBJ m-nax-a g-nax-a nax-a gv-nax-a g-nax-a-t nax-a 1PL.SUBJ — g-nax-e-t v-nax-e-t — g-nax-e-t v-nax-e-t 2PL.SUBJ m-nax-e-t — nax-e-t gv-nax-e-t — nax-e-t 3PL.SUBJ m-nax-es g-nax-es nax-es gv-nax-es g-nax-es nax-es
π-prefix Stem
TAM-suffix
#-suffix v– ‘1.SUBJ’ m– ‘1SG.OBJ’ gv– ‘1PL.OBJ’ g– ‘2.OBJ’ nax ‘see’ … –e ‘
AOR:1/2’
–a ‘
AOR:3SG’
–es ‘
AOR:3PL’
… –t ‘PL’ Observation 3: 1PL OBJs don’t get –t.
SLIDE 18
Optimization
- These peculiarities can be explanatorily derived as
morphological optimization
- Competing constraints
- MAX[MSF]: Express as many morphosyntactic features as
possible
- *MULTIPLEEXPONENCE: Don’t expone a morphosyntactic feature
more than once
SLIDE 19
Optimization
MAX[MSF] is the morphological throttle. Input: (s)he saw you.PL MAX[MSF] ☞ a. g-nax-a-t
- b. g-nax-a-t
w
- c. g-nax-a-t
w
- d. g-nax-a-t
w
SLIDE 20
Optimization
But there are cases where we need brakes, too. *MultExp prevents morphological redundancy. Input: (s)he saw us MAX[MSF] a. gv-nax-a-t b. gv-nax-a-t w
- c. gv-nax-a-t
w
- d. gv-nax-a-t
w
SLIDE 21
Optimization
But there are cases where we need brakes, too. *MULTEXP prevents morphological redundancy. Input: (s)he saw us *MULTEXP MAX[MSF]
- a. gv-nax-a-t
W L
☞ b. gv-nax-a-t
- c. gv-nax-a-t
w
- d. gv-nax-a-t
w w
SLIDE 22
Optimization
But there are cases where we need brakes, too. *MULTEXP prevents morphological redundancy. Input: (s)he saw us *MULTEXP MAX[MSF]
- a. gv-nax-a-t
W L
☞ b. gv-nax-a-t
- c. gv-nax-a-t
w
- d. gv-nax-a-t
w w
✓ Observation 3: 1PL OBJs don’t get –t.
SLIDE 23
Optimization
But there are cases where we need brakes, too. *MULTEXP prevents morphological redundancy. Input: they saw me *MULTEXP MAX[MSF]
- a. m-nax-es-t
W L
☞ b. m-nax-es-t
- c. m-nax-es-t
w w
- d. m-nax-es-t
w
SLIDE 24
Optimization
But there are cases where we need brakes, too. *MULTEXP prevents morphological redundancy. Input: they saw me *MULTEXP MAX[MSF]
- a. m-nax-es-t
W L
☞ b. m-nax-es-t
- c. m-nax-es-t
w w
- d. m-nax-es-t
w
✓ Observation 2: 3PL SUBJs don’t get –t.
SLIDE 25
Optimization
However, multiple exponence does occur! Input: I saw him/her *MULTEXP MAX[MSF] a. v-nax-e
W L
b. v-nax-e c. v-nax-e
SLIDE 26
Optimization
However, multiple exponence does occur! MAX[π]: Express as many person features as possible Input: I saw him/her MAX[π] *MULTEXP MAX[MSF] ☞a. v-nax-e
- b. v-nax-e
W L W
- c. v-nax-e
W L W
SLIDE 27
Optimization
This simple constraint interaction captures (almost) all of the agreement system Input: I saw you MAX[π] *MULTEXP MAX[MSF]
- a. v-nax-e
W
☞ b. g-nax-e
SLIDE 28
Optimization
This simple constraint interaction captures (almost) all of the agreement system Input: I saw you MAX[π] *MULTEXP MAX[MSF]
- a. v-nax-e
W
☞ b. g-nax-e
✓ Observation 1: g– wins out over v–.
SLIDE 29
Interim conclusion
- New perspective on Georgian agreement
- Permitting vs blocking multiple exponence
- Morphology in general
- Optimizing exponence: more explanatory analyses
- Sleeker grammar: post-syntactic operations less
(not?) necessary
- Parallels to OT phonology: conspiracies, Emergence
- f the Unmarked, positional faithfulness
SLIDE 30
Lingering questions
Tricky South Caucasian agreement phenomena
- 3PL marking
- Root suppletion & preverb alternations
- Information structure effects
- Person ~ number interaction
SLIDE 31
Lingering questions
3PL DOs typically don’t trigger number agreement (1) a. kal-ma bavšv-eb-i nax-a
woman-ERG child-PL-NOM see-AOR:3SG
‘The woman saw the children’
- b. kal-ma
bavšv-eb-i *nax-es
woman-ERG child-PL-NOM *see-AOR:3PL
- c. kal-ma
bavšv-eb-i *nax-a-t
woman-ERG child-PL-NOM *see-AOR:3SG-PL
SLIDE 32
Lingering questions
Except for some speakers in DAT-subject constructions? (2) a. kal-s bavšv-eb-i u-q ̇ var-s
woman-DAT child-PL-NOM 3.DAT-love-PRES:3SG
‘The woman loves the children’
- b. kal-s
bavšv-eb-i
%u-q̇var-nan
woman-DAT child-PL-NOM
%3.DAT-love-PRES:3PL
‘The woman loves the child’
SLIDE 33
Lingering questions
Except for some speakers in DAT-subject constructions? (2) a. kal-s bavšv-eb-i u-q ̇ var-s
woman-DAT child-PL-NOM 3.DAT-love-PRES:3SG
‘The woman loves the children’
- b. kal-s
bavšv-eb-i
%u-q̇var-nan
woman-DAT child-PL-NOM
%3.DAT-love-PRES:3PL
‘The woman loves the children’
SLIDE 34
Lingering questions
Does this extend to the PERF & PLU? (3) a. kal-s bavšv-eb-i u-nax-av-en
woman-DAT child-PL-NOM 3.DAT-love-TH-PERF:3SG
‘The woman apparently saw the children’
- b. kal-s
bavšv-eb-i unda e-nax-es woman-DAT child-PL-NOM
MOD APPL-love-PLU:3PL
‘The woman should have seen the children.’
SLIDE 35
Lingering questions
However, 3PL DOs do trigger PVB & root alternations. (4) a. monadire-m irem-i mo-k̤l-a
hunter-ERG deer-NOM
PVBSG-killSG-AOR:3SG
‘The hunter killed the deer.SG’
- b. monadire-m irm-eb-i
da-xoc-a
hunter-ERG deer-PL-NOM
PVBPL-killPL-AOR:3SG
‘The hunter killed the deer.PL’
SLIDE 36
Lingering questions
However, 3PL DOs do trigger PVB & root alternations. (4) a. monadire-m irem-i mo-k̤l-a
hunter-ERG deer-NOM
PVBSG-killSG-AOR:3SG
‘The hunter killed the deer.SG’
- b. monadire-m irm-eb-i
da-xoc-a
hunter-ERG deer-PL-NOM
PVBPL-killPL-AOR:3SG
‘The hunter killed the deer.PL’
SLIDE 37
Lingering questions
However, 3PL DOs do trigger PVB & root alternations. (4) a. monadire-m irem-i mo-k̤l-a
hunter-ERG deer-NOM
PVBSG-killSG-AOR:3SG
‘The hunter killed the deer.SG’
- b. monadire-m irm-eb-i
da-xoc-a
hunter-ERG deer-PL-NOM
PVBPL-killPL-AOR:3SG
‘The hunter killed the deer.PL’
SLIDE 38
Lingering questions
However, 3PL DOs do trigger PVB & root alternations. (4) a. monadire-m irem-i mo-k̤vl-a
hunter-ERG deer-NOM
PVBSG-killSG-AOR:3SG
‘The hunter killed the deer.SG’
- b. monadire-m irm-eb-i
da-xoc-a
hunter-ERG deer-PL-NOM
PVBPL-killPL-AOR:3SG
‘The hunter killed the deer.PL’ Is this agreement?
SLIDE 39
Lingering questions
Apparently 3PL.DATs can trigger –t… but not if there’s a 1/2 person. (5) a. man mat is mi-s-c-a-(%t)
3SG.ERG 3PL.DAT 3SG.NOM
PVB-3.IO-give-AOR:3SG-(%PL)
‘S/he gave it to them’
- b. me
mat is mi-v-ec-i-(*t)
1SG.ERG 3PL.DAT 3SG.NOM
PVB-1.SUBJ-give-AOR:1/2-(*PL)
‘I gave it to them’
SLIDE 40
Lingering questions
Apparently 3PL.DATs can trigger –t… but not if there’s a 1/2 person. (5) a. man mat is mi-s-c-a-(%t)
3SG.ERG 3PL.DAT 3SG.NOM
PVB-3.IO-give-AOR:3SG-(%PL)
‘S/he gave it to them’
- b. me
mat is mi-v-ec-i-(*t)
1SG.ERG 3PL.DAT 3SG.NOM
PVB-1.SUBJ-give-AOR:1/2-(*PL)
‘I gave it to them’
SLIDE 41
Lingering questions
This extends to 3PL.DAT SUBJs. (5) a. bavšv-eb-s kal-i u-q ̇ var-t
child-PL-DAT woman-NOM 3.DAT-love-PL
‘The children love the woman’
- a. bavšv-eb-s
šen u-q̇var-xar-(*t)
child-PL-DAT 2SG 3.DAT-love-PRES.2-(*PL)
‘The children love you’
SLIDE 42
Lingering questions
Though Nash (p.c.) suggests the picture may be more complicated — information structure effects? (6)
ici ninos da datos velap̈arak̤e gušin da mivxvdi, rom sekt̤emberši… ‘You know, I talked to Nino and Dato yesterday and I realized that in Sept…’
- a. … pro3PL
pro2SG ar u-nax-i-xar-t
NEG 3.DAT-see-TH-PERF.2-PL
‘…[they] didn’t talk to [you]’
- b. … magat pro2SG ar
u-nax-i-xar-(t)
3PL.DAT
NEG 3.DAT-see-TH-PERF.2-(PL)
‘…they didn’t talk to [you]’
SLIDE 43
Lingering questions
Though Nash (p.c.) suggests the picture may be more complicated — information structure effects? (6)
ici ninos da datos velap̈arak̤e gušin da mivxvdi, rom sekt̤emberši… ‘You know, I talked to Nino and Dato yesterday and I realized that in Sept…’
- a. … pro3PL
pro2SG ar u-nax-i-xar-t
NEG 3.DAT-see-TH-PERF.2-PL
‘…[they] didn’t talk to [you]’
- b. … magat pro2SG ar
u-nax-i-xar-(t)
3PL.DAT
NEG 3.DAT-see-TH-PERF.2-(PL)
‘…they didn’t talk to [you]’
SLIDE 44
Lingering questions
- Info. Struc. affects agreement in Laz, too (Öztürk 2016)
(7) a. si ma g-a-cer-u
2SG 1SG 2.OBJ-APPL-believe-PAST:3SGDEF
‘You believe me’
- b. si
MA v-a-cer-i
2SG 1SG 1.SUBJ-APPL-believe-PAST:1
‘You believe ME [not someone else]’
SLIDE 45
Lingering questions
- Info. Struc. affects agreement in Laz, too (Öztürk 2016)
(7) a. si ma g-a-cer-u
2SG 1SG 2.OBJ-APPL-believe-PAST:3SGDEF
‘You believe me’
- b. si
MA v-a-cer-i
2SG 1SG 1.SUBJ-APPL-believe-PAST:1
‘You believe ME [not someone else]’
SLIDE 46
Lingering questions
Some tantalizing observations about π~# interaction Georgian: 3PL>2PL — no –t! (8) a. man tkven g-nax-a-t
3SG.ERG 2PL 2.OBJ-see-AOR:3PL-PL
‘S/he saw you.PL’
- b. mat
tkven g-nax-es-(*t)
3PL.ERG 2PL 2.OBJ-see-AOR:3PL-(*PL)
‘They saw you.PL
SLIDE 47
Lingering questions
Some tantalizing observations about π~# interaction Georgian: 3PL>2PL — no –t! (8) a. man tkven g-nax-a-t
3SG.ERG 2PL 2.OBJ-see-AOR:3PL-PL
‘S/he saw you.PL’
- b. mat
tkven g-nax-es-(*t)
3PL.ERG 2PL 2.OBJ-see-AOR:3PL-(*PL)
‘They saw you.PL
SLIDE 48
Lingering questions
Some tantalizing observations about π~# interaction Svan (Palmaitis 1986): The pattern is more general
x saw y 3.OBJ 2SG.OBJ 2PL.OBJ 1SG.SUBJ v-nax-e g-nax-e g-nax-e-t 3SG.SUBJ nax-a g-nax-a g-nax-a-t 1EX.SUBJ v-nax-e-t g-nax-e-t g-nax-e-t 3PL.SUBJ nax-es g-nax-es g-nax-es-∅
SLIDE 49
Lingering questions
Some tantalizing observations about π~# interaction Svan (Palmaitis 1986): The pattern is more general SUBJ>1/2PL or 1/2PL>OBJ → –t 3PL>OBJ → –es
(with a few exceptions)
x saw y 3.OBJ 2SG.OBJ 2PL.OBJ 1SG.SUBJ v-nax-e g-nax-e g-nax-e-t 3SG.SUBJ nax-a g-nax-a g-nax-a-t 1EX.SUBJ v-nax-e-t g-nax-e-t g-nax-e-t 3PL.SUBJ nax-es g-nax-es g-nax-es-∅
SLIDE 50
Lingering questions
Some tantalizing observations about π~# interaction Svan (Palmaitis 1986): The pattern is more general
x prepares y 3.OBJ 2SG.OBJ 2PL.OBJ 1SG.SUBJ xw-amāre ǰ-amāre-∅ ǰ-amāre 3SG.SUBJ amāre ǰ-amāre ǰ-amāre-x 1EX.SUBJ xw-amāre-d ǰ-amāre-d ǰ-amāre-d 3PL.SUBJ amāre-x ǰ-amāre-x ǰ-amāre-x x saw y 3.OBJ 2SG.OBJ 2PL.OBJ 1SG.SUBJ v-nax-e g-nax-e g-nax-e-t 3SG.SUBJ nax-a g-nax-a g-nax-a-t 1EX.SUBJ v-nax-e-t g-nax-e-t g-nax-e-t 3PL.SUBJ nax-es g-nax-es g-nax-es-∅
SLIDE 51
Lingering questions
Some tantalizing observations about π~# interaction Svan (Palmaitis 1986): The pattern is more general 1/2PL>OBJ → –d 3PL>OBJ → –x 3SG/PL>1/2PL → –x
x prepares y 3.OBJ 2SG.OBJ 2PL.OBJ 1SG.SUBJ xw-amāre ǰ-amāre-∅ ǰ-amāre 3SG.SUBJ amāre ǰ-amāre ǰ-amāre-x 1EX.SUBJ xw-amāre-d ǰ-amāre-d ǰ-amāre-d 3PL.SUBJ amāre-x ǰ-amāre-x ǰ-amāre-x
SLIDE 52
Conclusion
Standard Georgian agreement has shaped many morphological and syntactic theories. But there’s still more to understand—Especially in Laz, Mingrelian, Svan, and non-standard Georgian!
SLIDE 53
References
Anderson, S. 1992. A-morphous morphology. Cambridge University Press. Béjar, S. & M. Rezac. 2009. Cyclic agree. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 35–73. Blix, H. 2016. South Caucasian agreement: A Spanning account. Master’s Thesis, University of Vienna. Caballero, G., and S. Inkelas. 2013. Word construction: tracing an optimal path through the lexicon. Morphology 23: 103–143. Foley, S. To appear. Morphological conspiracies in Georgian an Optimal Vocabulary
- Insertion. In Proceedings of CLS 52, eds. J. Kantarovich, V. Truong, & O. Xherija.
Halle, M., and A. Marantz. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of
- inflection. In The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain
Bromberger, eds. K. Hale and S. J. Keyser, 111–176. MIT Press. Öztürk, Balkız. Applicatives in Pazar Laz. Paper presented at the South Caucasian Chalk Circle. Paris, 22 Sept 2016. Palmaitis, M. 1986. Upper Svan: Grammar and Texts. Vilnius. Trommer, J. 2001. Distributed optimality. PhD dissertation, University of Potsdam.