Agreement and definiteness (Abkhaz)

[Wolfgang Schulze]

Edith mentioned Lindsay Whaley's remark on 'definiteness' in Abkhaz. To
my knowledge, the claim that "the verb carries a marker when it has
a definite object and is unmarked when the object is indefinite" does
not hold for this language. A 'direct object' (better 'objective' in
Abkhaz) is
always indicated by a cross-referencing element on the verb, which,
however, is
lost when a non-animate third person objective immediately precedes the
verb.
This happens both if the objective role is exerted by a definite or
indefinite referent, cf.

a-pHwe/s a-xarp 0-le/-dz:wa-yt'
ART-woman ART-shirt 3:O:inam-3:A:hum:f-wash-AOR:IND
'The woman washed the shirt"

a-pHwe/s xarp-ak' 0-le/-dz:wa-yt'
ART-woman shirt-INDEF/SG 3:O:inam-3:A:hum:f-wash-AOR:IND
'The woman washed a shirt"

Unfortunately, I don't have Whaley's book at hands right now, so I
cannot judge the example. Anyway, the presence or absence of an 'object'
clitic is determined in Abkhaz by the position of the antecedent, not by
(in)definiteness

Wolfgang

*****************************
Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze
Institut fuer Allgemeine und Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitaet München
Geschwister-Scholl-Platz 1
D-80539 München
Tel.: +89-21805343 / Fax: +89-21805345
Email: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de
http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~wschulze/
*****************************