enaTmecnierebis sakiTxebi ISSUES OF LINGUISTICS - Tbilisi State ...

Notes
1
The research reported here was supported in part by the National Science Foundation
under Grants Number BNS-8217355, SRB-9710085, and BCS-0215523 and by the
International Research and Exchanges Board under the ACLS-Academy of Sciences
Exchange with the Soviet Union (1989).
2
By identifying the class by its syntax and comparing this with its morphology, I am taking
an approach opposite to that taken in my 1981 book on the syntax of Georgian. At the time
I wrote that book, the notions unergative and unaccusative were just being introduced, and
it was essential to argue that they were real. The situation is very different today, and I can
assume the existence of these classes and now examine the development of the morphology
that marks them.
3
In particular, all of the verbs in three of the four subgroups used the SM -eb, namely the dsubconjugation,
the en-subconjugation, and the markerless subconjugation. However, it is
the fourth, i-subconjugation that is largest and most productive.
4
A few verbs used -o instead, and a handful still do. But even in Old Georgian the vast
majority used -a.
5
This statement of the trigger is approximate; for a more precise statement, see Harris
(1985, Chapter 10).
6
See additional conditions on en-Agreement in Harris (1985: 218-222).
326