Georgian: Verbal Syntax and Ergativity 31/05/2017 01:51

Quick Links:
BACK TO ESSAYS -- PRINT VERSION
Home
The Verbal Syntax and Ergativity of Georgian
Essays
Teaching
It is relatively unusual among languages of the world to find examples of what is called mixed ergativity;
Sitemap
this phenomenon occurs when some syntactical elements of a language can be ascribed to an ergative-
absolutive typology, but others must be considered part of a nominative-accusative structure. Ergativity in
Course Pages: and of itself is not exceptionally marked in a language, although traditional linguistics, which has been
German 101 based upon the work of Indo-European-speaking scholars, for whom ergativity seemed foreign and therefore
unnatural, has tended to regard ergativity as something strange or uncommon. In fact, ergative languages
German 102
are quite numerous in the world today: in Europe, the only ergative languages are Basque, an isolated
German 203
language unrelated to any other European tongue, and several languages of the Caucasian family, including
German 204 Georgian, but outside of Europe there are many different examples, including members of the Mayan and
other Amerindian families, as well as many of the Australian and Indo-Pacific languages.

The Caucasian language family is one of the most significant in terms of European ergative language groups;
most of its members have some form of ergativity inherent to their syntax and structure, and offer
interesting cases of study since they have been fairly well-documented and are still readily accessible to
field workers. Georgian, a member of the Southern branch of the Caucasian family, is particularly intriguing,
because it has a system of mixed ergativity as described above. The Georgian language is spoken today in its
traditional homeland, what is now the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic in the Soviet Union, as well as in
certain dialectical variations in parts of northeastern Turkey; the dialect most often studied by linguists, and
that which will be discussed here, is the one spoken in Tbilisi, the capital city of Georgia. The history of
Georgian dates back to many inscriptions from the Fifth Century A.D., and is strongly associated with the
nationalistic sentiments in Georgia today. Its phonology is not exceptionally marked, but it is worth noting;
the Georgians use an alphabet unique to their language, which shares many of the Cyrillic characters. The
basic Georgian phonology is as follows:

Bilabial Dental Alveolar Palatal Velar Glottal

Stop p t k
p' t' k'
b d g
Affricate c c j q x h
c c' j' g' j
Fricative f s s'
v z z'
Liquid r l
Nasal m n
Glide w

Georgian morphology is highly inflected, mainly in verbs and adjectives, although nouns are also marked for
case and number. According to Harris, a single Georgian verb may encode the following information: [1]

http://www.nthuleen.com/papers/L12paper.html Page 1 sur 9

Georgian: Verbal Syntax and Ergativity 31/05/2017 01:51

person of subject
person of direct object
person of indirect object
number of subject
number of direct object
number of indirect object
tense
aspect (complete/incomplete; habitual/non-habitual)
voice
mood
direction and orientation
causativity
version

Ergativity, at least as seen in Georgian, is defined as the "system of nominal case-marking where the subject
of an intransitive verb has the same morphological marker as a direct object, and a different morphological
marker from the subject of a transitive verb." [2] The intransitive subject and the transitive object share the
case known as the absolutive, while the subject of the transitive verb appears with an ergative case
marking. This phenomenon occurs quite predictably in the Georgian sentences below: [3]

(1) Student-i mivida.

student-ABS went
'The student went.'

(2) Student-ma ceril-i dacera

student-ERG letter-ABS wrote
'The student wrote the letter.'

The remarkable aspect of Georgian, though, occurs in its so-called split ergativity. This takes the following
form: in some tenses of the verb, notably the subjunctive and the aorist tense (a form of the past tense
which implies neither completed nor uncompleted actions), the constituents will be marked with the
ergative and absolutive case markings; in most other tenses, on the other hand, the sentence falls into the
'normal' pattern of nominative-accusative declension. Thus, for the present tense of the ergative sentences
above, we see the following accusative forms:

(3) Student-i midis.

student-NOM goes
'The student goes.'

(4) Student-i ceril-s cers.

student-NOM letter-ACC writes
'The student writes the letter.'

This system of split ergativity according to the tense system is very rare, and is shared only by Chol, a Mayan
language of Mexico, which, however, assigns the ergative and absolutive cases somewhat differently.

http://www.nthuleen.com/papers/L12paper.html Page 2 sur 9

Georgian: Verbal Syntax and Ergativity 31/05/2017 01:51

Although Georgian nouns are marked for case and number, there are several different sets of zero
morphemes; this often makes it necessary to refer to the encoding markers on the verb to determine the
case of the nouns involved. It is thus helpful to set out the markers that may be added on to verbs in a
Georgian sentence, as follows. Note that word and morpheme order in Georgian is fairly free, since there is
such a large amount of inflection; common usage dictates S-V-DO-IO or S-IO-DO-V, with no specific tendency
toward one or the other. (The dashed lines (--) indicate the position of the verb stem, which includes the
root and various formants.) [4]

Subject Markers
Singular Plural

First Person v -- --- v -- t

Second Person - -- --- - -- t
Third Person - -- s/a/o - -- en/es/nen

Direct Object Markers

Singular Plural

First Person m -- --- gv -- ---

Second Person g -- --- g -- t
Third Person - -- --- - -- ---

Indirect Object Markers

Singular Plural

First Person m -- --- gv -- ---

Second Person g -- --- g -- t
Third Person s/h/- -- --- s/h/- -- t

It is difficult at a first examination to discern which tenses in Georgian take the ergative case markings and
which the accusative. Perhaps the most helpful method would be to set out the same sentence in several
different tenses, and then to examine the results.

(5) Txa-i c'am-s venax-s

goat-NOM eat-3sgS vine-DAT
'The goat eats the vine.' -- Present

(6) Txa-m se-c'am-a venax-i

goat-ERG ASP-eat-3sgS vine-NOM
'The goat ate the vine.' -- Aorist

(7) Txa-s se-u-c'am-i-a venax-i

goat-DAT ASP-VER-eat-FORM-3sgS vine-NOM
'The goat has apparently eaten the vine.' -- Perfect [5]

Although no further examples are provided on which to base the conclusions, Harris has developed a set of
generalizations regarding ergativity and tense relationships in Georgian. Her work utilizes the separations of
different verbs into classes, a theory which seems to be generally accepted by other Georgian specialists, as

http://www.nthuleen.com/papers/L12paper.html Page 3 sur 9

Georgian: Verbal Syntax and Ergativity 31/05/2017 01:51

well as a second separation of tenses into different classes. Essentially, she divides all Georgian verbs into
four classes, based primarily on phonological and morphological distinctions. A summary of her classification
criteria can be rendered thus: [6]

Class 1:
a. The future and aorist tenses are formed with a preverb.
b. In the future tense, the suffix -s marks third person singular subjects, the suffix -en third person
plural subjects.
c. In the aorist tense, the third person plural subject is marked by the suffix -es.

Class 2:
a. The future and aorist tenses are formed with a preverb or the character vowel e-.
b. In the future tense, the suffix -a marks third person singular subjects, the suffix -an third
person plural subjects.
c. In the aorist tense, the third person plural subject is marked by the suffix -nen.

Class 3:
a. The future and aorist tenses are formed with the circumfix i -- (eb).
b. In the future tense, the suffix -s marks third person singular subjects, the suffix -en third person
plural subjects.
c. In the aorist tense, the third person plural subject is marked by the suffix -es.

Class 4:
a. The future and aorist tenses are formed with the character vowel e-.
b. In the future tense, the suffix -a marks third person singular subjects.
c. In the aorist tense, the third person plural final subject is marked as a singular.

An interesting point to note is that although these verbs are classified primarily according to morphological
criteria, there is a remarkable tendency for the classes to assume semantic characteristics. The Class 1
verbs for instance, are primarily causative actions, such as the following:

gaxsnis 'he will open it up'

modreks 'he will bend it'
gaatetrebs 'he will make it white'

Class 2 verbs, meanwhile, are passified, and although they may include actions, are often more like state-
of-being verbs:

daigleba 'he will tire out'

ecereba 'it will stand written'
darceba 'he will remain'

Action verbs seem to make up the majority of Class 3 verbs, although there are also impersonal and
onomatopoeic examples:

http://www.nthuleen.com/papers/L12paper.html Page 4 sur 9

Georgian: Verbal Syntax and Ergativity 31/05/2017 01:51

ixitxitebs 'he will giggle'

kartvelobs 'he behaves like a Georgian'
ibebiavebs 'she will do midwifery'

The Class 4 verbs are the most varied, but can be generalized to include most state-of-being verbs and some
abstract expressions:

scxela 'he is hot'

uxaria 'he finds it pleasing'
esxvapereba 'it appears different to him' [7]

After setting out the different classes of verbs, Harris then proceeds to classify Georgian verb tenses into
three different series, which are divided up not on semantic or morphological boundaries, but according to
their probability to take the ergative or the accusative case markings. The tenses, or 'screeves,' the term
accepted by many scholars (from the Georgian mckrivi, 'row,level'), are divided as follows: [8]

Series I
present
future
imperfect
conditional
present subjunctive
future subjunctive

Series II
aorist
optative (second subjunctive)

Series III
perfect (first evidential)
pluperfect (second evidential)
third subjunctive (third evidential)

Once she has established these classifications, Harris proceeds to examine a few cases, and then states her
conclusions about the interactions of these different groups in the form of a table in which she comes up
with a pattern for the resulting case usage, the two patterns being represented here by the letter A or B:

Series I Series II Series III

Classes 1 and 3 B A B
Classes 2 and 4 B B B

The patterns she then simplifies in terms of which constituents take which cases:

http://www.nthuleen.com/papers/L12paper.html Page 5 sur 9

Georgian: Verbal Syntax and Ergativity 31/05/2017 01:51

Final Subject Final Direct Object Final Indirect Object

Pattern A ERG NOM DAT
Pattern B NOM NOM DAT

With this framework established, Harris can now explain the irregularities and other problems that occur in
Georgian syntax as regards case markings. For example, the sentences below fit perfectly into her
framework, since the verb 'to sow' in Georgian is a Class 1 verb. [9]

(8) glexi tesavs siminds

peasant-NOM he-sows-it corn-DAT
'The peasant is sowing corn.'

(9) glexma datesa simindi

peasant-ERG he-sowed-it corn-NOM
'The peasant sowed corn.'

(10) glexs dautesavs simindi

peasant-DAT he-sowed-it corn-NOM
'The peasant has sown corn.'

There are, of course, some minor and irregular exceptions to the rules Harris has set out, as she herself
discusses. The verb uqveba 'he tells it to him' may, for example, freely take on characteristics of either Class
1 or Class 2: [10]

Class 1:
(11) mamam ojaxs motxroba mouqva
father-ERG family-DAT story-NOM he-told-him-it
'Father told the story to the family.'

(12) turme bics saxeli seukitxia gogostvis

apparently boy-DAT name-NOM he-asked-it girl-for
'Apparently the boy has asked the girl her name.'

Class 2:
(13) mama ojaxs motxrobas mouqva
father-NOM family-DAT story-DAT he-told-them-it
'Father told the story to the family.'

(14) turme bici saxels sekitxia gogos

apparently boy-NOM name-DAT he-asked-her-it girl-DAT
'Apparently the boy has asked the girl her name.'

The verb arsebobs 'it exists' also does not behave according to the rules set out above. It is morphologically a
Class 3 verb, although it can take on characteristics of Class 2 or 3 in basically free variation. More
surprising, however, are the restrictions on its case marking system that appear seemingly at random, as in
the following example. (15), which uses the Class 3 case markings, is unacceptable to native speakers of

http://www.nthuleen.com/papers/L12paper.html Page 6 sur 9

Georgian: Verbal Syntax and Ergativity 31/05/2017 01:51

Georgian, although (16), which also uses Class 3 markings but adds a locative adverbial phrase, is perfectly
fine. Instead of (15), then, (17), using the Class 2 system, must be used. [11]

(15) *devebs ar uarsebniat

devils-DAT not they-exist
'Devils do not exist.'

(16) devebs ar uarsebniat betaniasi

devils-DAT not they-exist Betania-in
'There are no devils in Betania.'

(17) devebi ar arsebulan

devils-NOM not they-exist
'Devils do not exist.'

Despite these relatively few and minor exceptions, Harris' theory works for the great majority of Georgian
verbs. There are still many unresolved problems, however, and it must be pointed out that many linguists
and Georgian specialists do not accept the validity of her conclusions. On a related note, it is interesting to
examine several other aspects of Georgian ergativity and verbal syntax. One of the most interesting areas is
the phenomenon known as the 'versions' of a Georgian verb. This allows the creation of an indirect object
for a verb that would not normally have one, and is useful in comparing case markings between the two
versions. For each (a) sentence below, the verb is in its normal form, with no specified indirect object. For
the (b) sentences, however, which are the versions, a formant is added on or in to the verbal phrase to allow
an indirect object to be placed in the sentence, marked in the dative case.

(18) Benefactive Version:

(a) gelam sekera axali sarvali senivis
Gela-ERG he-sewed-it new trousers-NOM you-for
'Gela made new trousers for you.'

(b) gelam segikera axali sarvali sen

Gela-ERG he-sewed-you-it new trousers you-DAT
'Gela made new trousers for you.'

(19) Possessive Version:

(a) mzia cmends
Mzia-NOM she-cleans-it sister-GEN shoes-DAT
'Mzia is cleaning her sister's shoes.'

(b) mzia ucmends das pexsacmlebs

Mzia-NOM she-cleans-her-it sister-DAT shoes-DAT
'Mzia is cleaning her sister's shoes.'

(20) Superessive Version:

(a) gelam surati daxata kedelze
Gela-ERG picture-NOM he-painted-it wall-on
'Gela painted a picture on the wall.'

http://www.nthuleen.com/papers/L12paper.html Page 7 sur 9

Georgian: Verbal Syntax and Ergativity 31/05/2017 01:51

(b) gelam surati daaxata kedels

Gela-ERG picture-NOM he-painted-it-it wall-DAT
'Gela painted a picture on the wall.' [12]

As a final point of interest in regards to Georgian ergativity, note that, although Georgian is an ergative
language, it has a common and grammatically-functional passive construction. This is rather unusual in
terms of language universals: if a language is ergative, most often it either does not have a passive
construction, or the ergative may in some way double as a type of passive. In fact, of the 19 ergative
languages examined by Trask, only Basque, Georgian, Hindi, and a few members of the Mayan languages had
an independent passive construction as well as ergativity. [13] Georgian, quite significantly, has both, and
this has made it particularly interesting for scholars. The passive construction is not terribly complicated,
and a few examples should suffice to give a good general picture of its characteristics, which are, in fact,
not unlike English:

(21) Passive with Object:

(a) jagli ukbens bavsvs
dog-NOM he-bites-it child-DAT
'The dog is biting the child.'

(b) bavsvi dakbenilia jaglis mier

child-NOM bitten-it-is dog by
'The child is bitten by a dog.'

(22) Passive with Location:

(a) mascavlebels gaugzavnes cemi tavi
teacher-DAT they-sent-him-him my self-NOM
'They sent me to the teacher.'

(b) me gagzavnili var mascavleblistvis

I-NOM sent I-am teacher-for
'I am sent to the teacher.' [14]

Thus, the ergativity of the Georgian language, although only partial, can be well-defined and follows
reasonable rules of selection. There are many more topics of interest in Georgian verbal syntax, many of
which are closely related to the ergativity vs. nominative distinctions; unfortunately, access to the few
works that have been written in these areas is difficult to achieve, although the work of Harris and Comrie
seems especially approachable. It is quite remarkable, I find, that Georgian verbs in general are so highly
inflected and marked, while the nouns and other sentence constituents are hardly inflected at all. The
current debates in Georgian scholarship, instead of focusing on more explanations of the actual ergative
usage, are concerned primarily with the evolution of this ergativity and the direction it is taking: it seems
that the ergative is a fairly recent development, which is, however, already dying out, to be replaced by the
purely nominative-accusative case distinctions. This subject is truly a fascinating issue, and will hopefully
add to the limited body of literature available at this time.

http://www.nthuleen.com/papers/L12paper.html Page 8 sur 9

Georgian: Verbal Syntax and Ergativity 31/05/2017 01:51

Notes:

(1) Alice C. Harris, Georgian Syntax: A Study in Relational Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1981, p. xviii. [return to text]
(2) Bernard Comrie, "Ergativity" in Winfred P. Lehmann, ed., Syntactic Typology: Studies in the
Phenomenology of Language. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1978, p. 329. [return to text]
(3) Comrie, p. 351-352. [return to text]
(4) Harris, p. 29. [return to text]
(5) W. Boeder, "Ergative Syntax and Morphology in Language Change: The South Caucasian Languages" in
Frans Plank, ed., Ergativity: Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations. London: Academic Press,
1979, p. 437. [return to text]
(6) Harris, p. 261. [return to text]
(7) Harris, p. 262. [return to text]
(8) Harris, p. 47. [return to text]
(9) Harris, p. 1. [return to text]
(10) Harris, p. 270. [return to text]
(11) Harris, p. 274. [return to text]
(12) Harris, p. 87. [return to text]
(13) R. L. Trask, "On the Origins of Ergativity" in Frans Plank, ed., Ergativity: Towards a Theory of
Grammatical Relations. London: Academic Press, 1979, p. 404. [return to text]
(14) Harris, pp. 103, 109. [return to text]

Written and Nancy Thuleen in 1991 for Linguistics 12 at Pomona College.

If needed, cite using something like the following:

Thuleen, Nancy. "The Verbal Syntax and Ergativity of Georgian." Website Article. 8 May 1991.
<http://www.nthuleen.com/papers/L12paper.html>.

http://www.nthuleen.com/papers/L12paper.html Page 9 sur 9