| Voice marking | Proper marker | no | |
| Voice marking | Lookalike marker | no | |
| Voice marking | Synthetic marker | n/a | |
| Voice marking | Analytical marker | n/a | |
| Flagging | S-argument flagging | no | Abkhaz-Abaza lacks argument-nominal marking and relies exclusively on pronominal head-marking (Arkadiev and Lander 2021: 393).
In the Northwest Caucasian languages the original state may
be preserved in Abkhaz, where S, P, A and lO are not differentiated in the noun (which appears as a pure stem) but only in the verbal affixes (where S/P differ from the rest) (Boeder 1979: 461). |
| Flagging | P-oblique flagging | n/a | |
| Flagging | P-oblique unflagging | n/a | |
| Flagging | P-oblique flagging variation | n/a | |
| Indexation | S-argument indexed | yes | The verb agrees with both the subject and object, utilizing an ergative-absolutive pattern. The absolutive agreement series always occurs outermost, i.e., first on the verb (...) (O'Herin 2020: 463).
Absolutive agreement is obligatory, with one significant exception: null agreement.
When the argument indexed by the absolutive agreement is third person singular inanimate
or third person plural (the two prefixes with the form j-) and when that argument is overt and occurs immediately before the verb, the absolutive agreement is null, as in (31a) (O'Herin 2020: 464). (KJ)
|
| Indexation | S-argument indexation conditioned | yes | Absolutive agreement is obligatory, with one significant exception: null agreement.
When the argument indexed by the absolutive agreement is third person singular inanimate
or third person plural (the two prefixes with the form j-) and when that argument is overt and occurs immediately before the verb, the absolutive agreement is null, as in (31a) (O'Herin 2020: 464). (KJ)
|
| P-individuation properties | Incorporated P is generic (non-specific) | n/a | |
| P-individuation properties | Incorporated P is indefinite (non-specific) | n/a | |
| P-individuation properties | Incorporated P can be referential | n/a | |
| P-individuation properties | Oblique is generic (non-specific) | n/a | |
| P-individuation properties | Oblique is indefinite (non-specific) | n/a | |
| P-individuation properties | Oblique can be referential | n/a | |
| P-individuation properties | Eliminated P is generic (non-specific) | no | |
| P-individuation properties | Eliminated P is indefinite (non-specific) | yes | Based on Naess (2007: 127), examples (1)-(2) exemplify indefinite object omission, where the omitted object is effected, i.e., not yet produced. Effected objects are non-referential.
1) Abkhaz (O’Herin 2020: 481)
a.
Jɨ-s-pa-wajt’.
3NH.SG.ABS-1SG.ERG-knit-PRS.IND.DYN
‘I am knitting it.
b.
s-pa-wajt’
1SG.ABS-knit-PRS.IND.DYN
‘I am (busy with) knitting.’
2) Abkhaz (Cirikba 2013: 50)
a.
jə-s-pa-wá-:jt'
‘I am sewing it’
b.
s-ʒax-wá-jt'
‘I am (busy with) sewing’
The intransitive variant describes the process itself, while the transitive variant focuses on the object (O’Herin 2020: 480) (KJ).
In the first of each pair, the action is seen as a process in itself, without attention to its impact on an object; in the second we have forms which indicate an action directed at a concrete object (Chirikba 2013: 50) (KJ).
FYI: The loss of indexation when P is omitted leads to the unspecified reading of P. In other words, the unexpressed P argument is interpreted as unspecified. The loss of indexation does not trigger the referential interpretation (KJ).
|
| P-individuation properties | Eliminated P can be referential | no | FYI: The loss of indexation when P is omitted leads to the unspecified reading of P. In other words, the unexpressed P argument is interpreted as unspecified. The loss of indexation does not trigger the referential interpretation (KJ).
1) Abkhaz (O’Herin 2020: 481)
a.
Jɨ-s-pa-wajt’.
3NH.SG.ABS-1SG.ERG-knit-PRS.IND.DYN
‘I am knitting it.
b.
s-pa-wajt’
1SG.ABS-knit-PRS.IND.DYN
‘I am (busy with) knitting.’
2) Abkhaz (Cirikba 2013: 50)
a.
jə-s-pa-wá-:jt'
‘I am sewing it’
b.
s-ʒax-wá-jt'
‘I am (busy with) sewing’
The intransitive variant describes the process itself, while the transitive variant focuses on the object (O’Herin 2020: 480) (KJ).
In the first of each pair, the action is seen as a process in itself, without attention to its impact on an object; in the second we have forms which indicate an action directed at a concrete object (Chirikba 2013: 50) (KJ).
|
| Oblique affectedness | Less affected oblique | n/a | |
| P-constraining properties | Animacy constrains oblique demotion | n/a | |
| P-constraining properties | Person constrains oblique demotion | n/a | |
| P-constraining properties | Number constrains oblique demotion | n/a | |