<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7226.0">
<TITLE>Re: Psych Verbs in Ergative Languages</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/rtf format -->
<P><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Times New Roman">Georgian has:</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Times New Roman">(1) split ergativity with transitives and unergative intransitives - subject(-object) as follows:</FONT>
<BR> <FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Times New Roman">(a) nominative-dative[=accusative] marking in present-future tenses;</FONT>
<BR> <FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Times New Roman">(b) ergative-nominative marking in preterite tenses;</FONT>
<BR> <FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Times New Roman">(c) "inverted" dative-nominative marking in perfect[=evidential] tenses;</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Times New Roman">(2) no ergativity, nominative marking in all tenses, with passives and unaccusative intransitives; </FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Times New Roman">(3) "inverted" dative-nominative marking in all tenses, with experiencer verbs of the sort you mention.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Times New Roman">Best,</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Times New Roman">Steve Hewitt</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Times New Roman">s.hewitt@unesco.org</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Times New Roman">-------</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Times New Roman">Carol Rosen wrote :</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Times New Roman">> I have a question about psych verbs in languages with ergative</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Times New Roman">> morphology.</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Times New Roman">></FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Times New Roman">> English psych verbs, of course, vary a lot in how they treat the</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Times New Roman">> experiencers. Verbs like remember, forget, fear take the experiencer as</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Times New Roman">> subject, while such verbs as annoy, bother, frighten seem to take the</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Times New Roman">> experiencer as direct object. In other languages the experiencer often</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Times New Roman">> appears as a dative.</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Times New Roman">></FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Times New Roman">> I hope to discover whether any one of these patterns tends to be</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Times New Roman">> preferred</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Times New Roman">> in languages with ergative morphology.</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Times New Roman">></FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Times New Roman">> I'm grateful not only for data, but also for references to appropriate</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Times New Roman">> sources. -- With thanks, Carol Rosen</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Times New Roman">></FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>