History in Support of Synchrony* ALICE C. HARRIS SUNY Stony Brook 0. Introduction In a recent paper I argued that diachronic linguistics can explain certain typological phenomena that are otherwise problematic; in the present paper I want to discuss two other ways the study of historical data can contribute to synchronic linguistics. In §1 I argue that consideration of a prior stage of a language offers the kind of insight also provided by the examination of closely related languages. In §2 I show that diachronic data offer a way of testing hypotheses and claims. 1. Person Agreement in Old Georgian Generative grammar has gained insight into the way language operates by examining in depth minimal differences between dialects or closely related European languages. Of course, other approaches have also made good use of related dialects. For example, it is well known that it was in part the comparison of the Swiss dialect of Kerenz with other forms of German that led to the recognition of the regularity of sound change (Osthoff and Brugman 1878:viii-ix). In this section I argue that it is possible to gain similar insights by studying older stages of a language from a synchronic point of view. Person and number agreement in the Georgian verb has been one of two testing grounds for new morphological theories for more than twenty years. At least eight analyses of these paradigms have appeared in the literature in that time; here I discuss only two of these—those of Anderson (1982, 1984, 1986, 1992) and Halle and Marantz (1993). Georgian, along with Potawatomi, seems to have been chosen as representing a complex system, yet the agreement of Old Georgian is significantly more complex and thus would better test theories. Here I discuss only the agreement prefixes, not the considerably more complex suffixes. I want to make two points here: (i) Both Anderson’s and Halle and Marantz’s approaches make the correct * The research reported here was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under grant BCS 0215523; gathering and analysis of data were supported by earlier grants, especially the American Council of Learned Societies’ exchange with the Academy of Science of the USSR (administered by the International Research and Exchanges Board, 1981, 1989). I am grateful to each of these organizations. 142 History in Support of Synchrony predictions for most of the interaction found among agreement prefixes. (ii) Residual interaction is a challenge to both. As is well know, Anderson’s approach treats the markers of agreement as processes (rules) applied to bases, groups competing rules in blocks, and makes use of extrinsic ordering as necessary. Halle and Marantz’s analysis treats the markers as objects (morphemes) added to bases, and is otherwise modeled after Anderson’s treatment. The disjunctive ordering and form of both analyses are summarized in (1). (1) Anderson (1986:7) Halle and Marantz (1993:119) a. /X/ ĺ /gv + X/ a. [+1], DAT, [+pl] ļ /gv-/ b. /X/ ĺ /m + X/ b. [+1], DAT ļ /m-/ c. /X/ ĺ /g + X/ c. [+2], DAT ļ /g-/ d. /X/ ĺ /v + X/ d. [+1] ļ /v-/ To simplify, I have omitted the portion of Anderson’s rules that specifies that rule (1a) is conditioned by a first person plural object, (1b) by a first person singular object, rule (1c) by a second person object, and rule (1d) by a first person subject. We may overlook the fact that Halle and Marantz’s rules, as written, will work only in one subset of Georgian tense-aspect-mood categories (traditionally called “Series I”). Both analyses prefer ordering by Panini’s Principle (or “The Elsewhere Condition”), but both accept extrinsic ordering. The disjunctive ordering represented in (1) for both analyses can account for the “competition” among these prefixes in the Modern Georgian dialect that they examine. Agreement in Old Georgian was considerably more complex, even when we limit our study to the prefixal markers of this type. First, while Modern Georgian has only the first person subject marker v-, introduced by rules (1d), Old Georgian had in addition a second person subject prefix, with the allomorphs s-, h-, x-, and Ø. Second, while the dialect of Modern Georgian considered by these authors has agreement prefixes only for first and second persons, Old Georgian had a third person object prefix, with the same allomorphs as the second person subject marker.1 Third, although syntactic rules prevent the cooccurrence of markers of direct and indirect objects in Modern Georgian (Harris 1981:48-52), these syntactic rules did not apply in Old Georgian. Consequently there was “slot competition” between markers of direct and indirect objects in Old Georgian that does not occur in Modern Georgian. Either version of the disjunctive rules of (1) will account for most of this increased competition, if we assume that the rules that introduce second person subject prefixes (1ƍf)and third person object prefixes (1ƍd) are ordered as in (1ƍ). I assume further that the basic form of these additional markers is h-, that phonological rules provide the correct final forms,2 and that other parts of the rules will assure that 1 In Old Georgian, the third person object marker is conditioned by indirect objects in Series I and II, but by direct objects only in Series I. I have selected examples below from Series I when the direct object prefix is at issue. 2 Old Georgian texts are of three types regarding these allomorphs. One set of texts, termed xanmet’i, uses only the form x- for both prefixes; a second set, termed haemet’i, uses only the form h- for both. 143 Alice C. Harris these are conditioned by nominals with appropriate features. (1ƍ) Adaptation of Anderson (1986:7) Halle and Marantz (1993:119) a. /X/ ĺ /gu + X/ a. [+1], DAT, [+pl] ļ /gu-/ b. /X/ ĺ /m + X/ b. [+1], DAT ļ /m-/ c. /X/ ĺ /g + X/ c. [+2], DAT ļ /g-/ d. /X/ ĺ /h + X/ d. [+3], DAT ļ /h-/ e. /X/ ĺ /v + X/ e. [+1] ļ /v-/ f. /X/ ĺ /h + X/ f. [+2] ļ /h-/ In Modern Georgian the first person plural object prefix is phonetically [gw] (transliterated <gv>); in Old Georgian the same sounds were usually written <gu> (transliterated). In Old Georgian a first person plural object could be marked with either gu- or m-, but we will overlook the small problem this causes in the application of the rules in (1ƍ). One generalization represented by the disjunctive ordering in (1) and (1ƍ) is that, when both a subject prefix and an object prefix are conditioned, it is the object prefix that shows up. This is illustrated by (2) and (3) with direct objects. Agreement prefixes are in bold and are glossed with ‘S’ for subject markers, ‘O’ for object markers, and a number for first, second, or third person. Arguments are represented at the right margin of the page, in the order subject, direct object, indirect object (where applicable), with bold type indicating the argument or arguments marked by agreement prefixes. For example, in (2) the subject is first person, the direct object second; the latter is marked by a prefix in bold, glossed ‘O2’. (2) me gici šen (Ist. Kr. II, 29, 8; Imnaišvili 1971:320) 1-2 I O2-know you ‘I know you.’ (3) vitarmed ara mici me (Luke 22:34; Imnaišvili 1971:320) 2-1 because NEG O1-know me ‘because you do not know me’ The generalization holds also when the first or second person is the indirect object, as shown in (4)–(7). (4) p’uri þueni samaradisoj momec þuen dȖejs (Mt 6:11) 2-3-1 bread our everyday O1-give us today ‘Give us today our daily bread.’ The third set of texts, the sannarevi, has h- before labial, velar, and uvular consonants, s- before alveolars and alveopalatals, and Ø before vowels. 144 History in Support of Synchrony (5) p’uri þueni tanaarsobisaj momec þuen dȖiti dȖed (Lk 11:3) 2-3-1 bread our essential O1-give us day-to-day ‘Give us each day our essential bread.’ (6) þuen mas sesxsa migagebt (Piz XI, 23, Abula<e 1973:214b) 1-3-2 us the loan O2-give ‘we give you the loan’ (7) aramca migecit igi šen (John 18:30) 1-3-2 NEG O2-give him you ‘We would not have delivered him up to you.’ Anderson (1982, 1984, 1986, 1992) and Halle and Marantz (1993) observe this “slot competition” and this is the primary fact that motivates their arranging the agreement rules in “blocks” of competing rules. The second generalization represented by the disjunctive ordering is that, when there are both direct and indirect objects, first person objects take precedence over second person, and second over third, without regard to grammatical relations. Neither Anderson (1982, 1984, 1986, 1992) nor Halle and Marantz (1993) describe this interaction, because in Modern Georgian it is preempted by the syntax, as noted above. The correctness of the generalization is shown below. (8) Ȗmertman mogucna qelta tkuenta 3-1-2 god O1-give hands y’all’s ‘God delivered us into your (PL) hands.’ (9) mogucna tkuen Ȗmertman... qelta þuenta 3-2-1 O1-give y’all god hands our ‘God delivered you (PL) into our hands.’ (Ag. <eg. I, 167, 28 and 25; Imnaišvili 1971:319) These show that first person objects win the slot competition over second, regardless of whether the first person is direct object, as in (8), or indirect, as in (9). (10) mcnebasa axalsa migcem tkuen (J 13:34) 1-3-2 commandment new O2-give you ‘A new commandment I give unto you.’ (11) migcemden k’rebulsa (Mt 10: 17 AB, Imnaišvili 1986:354) 3-2-3 O2-give council ‘they will give you to [their] council’ These show that second person (g-) wins over third (h-), whether the second person is the direct or indirect object, illustrated in (10) and (11), respectively.