Dative/Nominative/Ergative Subjects?!

The case system of Georgian is a giant mess. Basically speaking, Georgian is an ergative language, meaning that it uses the ergative case for 'agents' (subjects of transitive verbs), and the absolutive case for 'intransitive subjects' and 'direct objects'. However, things are not quite this simple. Georgian makes a distinction between unergative and unaccusative subjects.

[Aside of explaination]
Intransitive verbs can be divided into two main classes. Fillmore (1968) posited two general formulas for these:

V + A (intransitive, active subject)

V + O (intransitive, inactive subject)

The first type came to be called unergative verbs (more 'agentive'), while the second were called unaccusatives. Perlmutter and Postal (1984: 98-99) wrote up a list of examples of both types:

Unergative Verbs:

Willed or Volitional Acts- speak, laugh, cry, walk
Manner of Speaking- whisper, mumble, bellow
Animal Sounds- bark, neigh, roar
Involuntary Bodily Processes- cough, sneeze, belch,

Unaccusative Verbs:

Affected Argument- burn, fall, dry
Inchoatives- melt, die, grow
Existing and Happening- exist, happen, arise
Involuntary Emission of Stimuli- shine, clink, stink
[End aside of explaination]

Now, unergative verbs require an ergative subject in Georgian, while unaccusative verbs do not. Moreover, the ergative case also shows up only in past tense constructions (unless it's an unergative verb, in which case it takes the ergative case in the present, past). In the present tense, the subject will appear in the nominative. Languages of this sort have, I believe, been called 'active' as opposed to 'ergative'. Another strange thing: in the perfect tense, the subject is in the dative, of all cases. How this situation arose I have no idea.

I Have Returned...

..., freed from the chains of employment. Working 10-12 hours a day doesn't leave much time for blogging, so my posts have deteriorated in number over the summer (the final count is zero).

However, more are forthcoming on an oddity of the Georgian case system, some thoughts on Greek Lyric poetry, and most likely a rant about the GRE.

Why I'm a Masochist, or, My Summer Reading List

Latin:

Cicero Pro Roscio Amerino (already started)
Cicero Phillipic I
Random Catullus Poems
Tibullus; all of his poems

Greek:

Euripides' Bacchae
Homer Iliad Book 24
A book of the New Testament

Other Stuff:

Learn German
Learn Old English or Old Norse

All this while working twelve hours a day six days a week so that I can pay for next year's schooling as well as have some money so I can pay for grad school.

Fun fun. I doubt much of it will get done.

Audio Recordings of Various Greek Texts

Here are some websites on which there are recordings of various people reading various Greek and Latin texts.


There's a good collection on here, ranging from Cicero and Catullus to Herodotus.

Also, on this site are audio recordings of the entire Greek New Testament.



'Tis pretty cool stuff.

On Greek ἐυπάτωρ

Can we derive Gk ἐυπάτωρ 'having a good father' straight from an IE root? The root would be a so-called nominal composite, that is, a noun formed from two elements, in this case an adverb and a noun. The first element of the compound is unproblematic *h1esu; it is the second part that may cause some troubles. The second nominal element is obviously derived from *ph2-tér-s (nom. sing), which is a standard hysterkinetic noun. The question becomes, then, can we derive an amphikinetic noun from a hysterokinetic one? The second element of the nominal composite would have to be *pá-tōr-s. The accent shift is interesting. From the root *ph2-tér-s, two methods of derivation are possible. First, the root with a syllabic laryngeal would have to hold the accent, so we would have *ph2-tōr-s. There are apparently roots which have accented syllabic resonants, but the roots (the ones for 'wolf' and 'bear') are a bit sketchy to being with, and to my knowledge there are no roots which have an accented syllabic laryngeal. So this, to me, seems unlikely. The second possibility is then the best one: namely that the accent shift occured after the 'loss' of the laryngeal and the creation of the 'a' vowel. Thus, in my view, we would have

*ph2-tér-s > *pa-tér-s > *h1esu-pá-tōr-s >ἐυ-πάτωρ.

and not

*ph2-tér-s > *ph2-tōr-s [with the accent on the root] > *h1esu-pá-tōr-s >ἐυ-πάτωρ.

Given all of this, it seems that whether ἐυπάτωρ comes from a 'true' IE root hinges upon when the shift from *h2 > α happened, which presumably was a post-IE-pre-Greek development. Thus, I would argue that the Greek word cannot be derived straight from an IE root, given that the shift from *h2 > a is a prerequisite of the derivation of the nominal element in the compound. To be fair, though, nominal composites such as this need much more work. Perhaps it's a future project for me.

Some IE Poetic Formulas from Watkins

Here are some of the IE poetic formulas which Watkins reconstructs in How To Kill a Dragon. This is by no means an exhaustive list (yet...)

PROTECT (*pah2-) MEN (*ṷihxro-) (and) LIVESTOCK (*peƙu)

GRAIN and BARLEY (*ieṷo-)

COVENATED (*ṷṛh1-to-) RECOMPENSE (*misdho-)

TREE (*dru-) (and) ROCK

PROdat BE (*h1es-) FAME (*ƙleṷos) IMPERISHABLE (*ṇdgʷitom) EVER(LASTING) (*h2ai̯u-)

PROnom HAVE (seĝh-/*dheh1-) FAME (*ƙleṷos) IMPERISHABLE (*ṇdgʷitom) EVER(LASTING) (*h2ai̯u-)

HERO SLAY (*gʷhen-/*ṷedh-) SERPENT/MONSTER (with WEAPON/ with COMPANION)

HERO1 SLAY (*gʷhen-) HERO2

HERO OVERCOME (*terh2-) ADVERSARY

HERO OVERCOME (*terh2-) DEATH

The formulas related to the slaying of the monster/serpent can also be reversed, as in Beowulf, for example, where the monster kills the hero. For a full discussion of these and other formulas see Watkins (1995) How To Kill a Dragon. (New York: Oxford University Press)

Buck's Grammar of Oscan and Umbrian

Here is a link where you can download Carl Buck's Grammar of Oscan and Umbrian in PDF format. 'Tis a decent grammar; it includes some inscriptions and a glossary as well.