Georgian is a language allowing reﬂexives to be marked by ergative.The subject use of the Georgian reﬂexive phrase was ﬁrst documented withcausative verbs by Asatiani (1982). The later works such as (Amiridze andEveraert, 2000), (Amiridze, 2003), (Amiridze, 2004) discuss the use withobject-experiencer verbs and transitive verbs on non-agentive reading. Thepresent paper offers the ﬁrst hand data on subject uses of the Georgian reﬂex-ive phrase with transitive verbs on their agentive reading in special contexts(such as a twin context, Madame Tussaud context, etc.) which are problem-atic for the Binding Theory of Chomsky (1981) as well as for the ReﬂexivityTheory of Reinhart and Reuland (1993). The data could be accounted forwithin the approach developed in (Reuland, 2001). However, the subjectuses of the Georgian reciprocal
leave the issue of subject anaphorsopen.
The paper deals with the subject occurrences of the Georgian reﬂexive phrase ex-empliﬁed in 1 and 2. In both examples the reﬂexive phrase
ismarked by ergative and it triggers the Set A agreement sufﬁx
which is the agree-ment marker for subject arguments in the Aorist Indicative. The phrase is thesubject argument of the verb forms
a. “Some property of Mixa ruined his life/career.”b. “Mixa’s savings made it possible to pay for the expenses related to hisfuneral.”
This research was supported by the Language in Use project of the Utrecht Institute of Lin-guistics OTS. I am grateful to Martin Everaert, Alice C. Harris and Eric Reuland for the insightfulcomments on an earlier version of this work. Special thanks go to Kevin Tuite for suggesting toconsider subject uses of Georgian reciprocals as well. All errors are mine.
Abbreviations: 3=3rd person;
=Set A agreement marker;
=Set B agreement marker;
=type of anaphor;
=type of anaphor;
=subjanctive.The indices show the case of the argument triggering the particular agreement marker. For in-stance, 3
=3rd person singular Set B agreement marker triggered by the