Verbal nouns in Georgian

[paulmeurer]

In Georgian, verbal nouns exhibit nominal syntax (as they should; in contrast to inifinitives in other languages).

On the other hand, they are often used more infinitive-like in argument positions that alternatively could be filled by a subclause with a finite verb (often in the Subjunctive), e.g.

მინდა ბიჭების ნახვა / minda bič̣ebis naxva
I-want boys-Gen seeing-VN
“I want the seeing of the boys”

versus

მინდა ბიჭები ვნახო / minda bič̣ebi vnaxo
I-want boys-Nom see-Sub
“I want (that) I see the boys”

In the second case, the analysis is clear: the subclause will get the relation ccomp, and ‘boys’ is obj of ‘see’ (ergative syntax).

In the verbal noun case however, there are two possible analyses: the more superficial nominal one (which is easier to get right with a rule-based parser), where 'boys-Gen' is treated as an nmod:poss of the (nominal) VN, the relation to the main verb being obj, and a verbal analysis, where the relation to the main verb is ccomp, and the pos of the VN is VERB.
I am not sure how to connect the argument of the VN. Should it be obj? Or should it be something like nmod:obj? Or even obl:obj? The rationale would be that all core arguments of the verb are demoted to oblique status (like obl:agent for passives, or, in the Georgian case, obl:iobj, the indirect object in the perfect tense).

In a more complex (slightly contrived) example

წიგნის მიცემა გოგოსთვის ბიჭის მიერ სასურველია / c̣ignis micema gogostvis bič̣is mier sasurvelia
book-Gen giving-VN girl-for boy by is-desirable
“the giving of the book to the girl by the boy is desirable”

there are three core arguments that are demoted to oblique status, which would respectively be annotated as obl:obj, obl:iobj, obl:agent.

Does this make sense?

[dan-zeman]

I think I would favor the nominal analysis. The verbal noun is tagged NOUN (but with the feature VerbForm=Vnoun to distinguish it from ordinary nouns), it is attached as obj to the wanting verb (assuming that verb is not nominalized), and nominal arguments of the verbal noun, if any, are attached to it as nmod. Subtyping the relation as nmod:poss does not seem necessary to me (if it just signals that the argument is in genitive, then it is probably enough that there is Case=Gen in the features).

[paulmeurer]

Ok, good. This is also the easier solution. nmod:poss seems not only unneccessary, but also wrong to me, since the genitive doesn’t mark a possessor in this case. The other demoted arguments (obl:agent, obl:iobj above) should then also be nmod, and a special subtype (e.g., nmod:agent) would be unneccessary I guess. If somebody wants to retrieve the verbal argument structure of such constructioins, the case/postposition marking should suffice to do that.

There is a similar case where an attributively used participle can have an agent; here too, nmod alone will then do.

Future participles (in the adverbial (essive)) case can be used to express a final clause; here, I am not sure what to do. Those constructions look verbal to me, even though also here, the verbal arguments are demoted to obliques, with the same case marking as in the VN case. E.g.:

წერილის დასაწერად დაჯდა / c̣erilis dasac̣erad daǯda.
letter-Gen to-write-FutPart he-sat-down
“He sat down (in order) to write a letter”

If interpreted nominally, the participle would be a simple obl of the main verb. That would somehow obscure the verbal force of the participle, but, on the other hand, be in line with the treatment of the verbal nouns, and the features Vform=Part Tense=Fut would again distinguish them from ordinary adjectives. But at least an obl:final or similar would seem appropriate to me.

[dan-zeman]

There is a similar case where an attributively used participle can have an agent; here too, nmod alone will then do.

I suppose the participle would be treated as an adjective; then we would use obl instead of nmod. Unless it is a nominal where the head noun has been elided and the adjective has been promoted to the head position; then the modifier would modify a nominal and would be labeled nmod.

obl might also be the easiest solution for the future participles, although there may be other justifiable options. (I can imagine that the language-specific guidelines will say that core arguments use case coding A with finite verbs and case coding B with future participles.)

[paulmeurer]

Ah, yes, thanks, I was confused about obl and adjectives. Participles are treated as adjectives (except in periphrastic tense forms). Then obl would work for both cases (attributively used participles etc., and future participles).