Ana səhifə

Dr. Tamar Makharoblidze a short Grammar of Georgian Introduction Georgian


Yüklə 0.89 Mb.
səhifə6/8
tarix24.06.2016
ölçüsü0.89 Mb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8

17. 2. 1. 2. Un-marked forms and suffix-produced dynamic passive
Beside the prefix-produced forms, the dynamic passive has non-marked forms – vtbebi (I warm) and the forms produced by the suffix “-d” – vts’itledebi (I became red) from ts’iteli (red). Such verbal forms are mostly produced from nouns – k’atsi – k’atsdeba, kali – kaldeba, shavi (black) – shavdeba tetri (white) – tetrdeba, etc.
I series
Present Indicative

vtbebi/vts’itldebi vtbebit/vts’itldebit

tbebi/ts’itldebi tbebit/ts’itldebit

tbeba/ts’itldeba tbebian/ts’itldebian


Imperfect

vtbebodi/vts’itldebodi vtbebodit/vts’itldebodit

tbebodi/ts’itldebodi tbebodit/ts’itldebodit

tbeboda/ts’itldeboda tbebodnen/ts’itldebodnen


Present Subjunctive

vtbebode/vts’itldebode vtbebodet/vts’itldebodet

tbebode/ts’itldebode tbebodet/ts’itldebodet

tbebodes/ts’itldebodes tbebodnen/ts’itldebodnen


Future Indicative

gavtbebi/gavts’itldebi gavtbebit/gavts’itldebit

gatbebi/gats’itldebi gatbebit/gats’itldebit

gatbeba/gats’itldeba gatbebian/gats’itldebian



Conditional

gavtbebodi/gavts’itldebodi gavtbebodit/gavts’itldebodit

gatbebodi/gats’itldebodi gatbebodit/gats’itldebodit

gatbeboda/gats’itldeboda gatbebodnen/gats’itldebodnen


Future Subjunctive

gavtbebode/gavts’itldebode gavtbebodet/gavts’itldebodet

gatbebode/gats’itldebode gatbebodet/gats’itldebodet

gatbebodes/gats’itldebodes gatbebodnen/gats’itldebodnen

II series

Aorist Indicative

gavtbi/gavts’itldi gavtbit/gavts’itldit

gatbi/gats’itldi gatbit/gats’itldit

gatba/gats’itlda gatbnen/gats’itldnen


Optative

gavtbe/gavts’itlde gavtbet/gavts’itldet

gatbe/gats’itlde gatbet/gats’itldet

gatbes/gats’itldes gatbnen/gats’itldnen


III series

Perfect

gavmtbarvar/gavts’itlebulvar gavmtbarvart/gavts’itlebulvart

gamtbarkhar/gats’itlebulkhar gamtbarkhart/gats’itlebulkhart

gamtbara/gats’itlebula gamtbaran/gats’itlebulan


Pluperfect and Perfect Subjunctive

gavmtbariq’av/gavts’itlebuliq’av gavmtbariq’avit/gavts’itlebuliq’avit

gamtbariq’av/gats’itlebuliq’av gamtbariq’avit/gats’itlebuliq’avit

gamtbariq’o/gats’itlebuliq’o gamtbariq’vnen/gats’itlebuliq’vnen


These verbs can be two-personal by adding an indirect object and having the forms of objective version.

vtbebi - vutbebi/vutbebodi/gavutbebi/gavutbi, etc.

vts’itldebi – vuts’itldebi/vuts’itldebodi/gavuts’itldi, etc.

17. 2. 2. Static Passive
Static passive is opposite to dynamic passive. Samples: (a)ts’eria - is written, (a)khat’ia -is painted, aparia - is covered, abia - is tied, etc. They expose the act which is already done. Such forms don’t have all rows in the I series.

Conjugation of the static passive:


I series

Present Indicative

v ts ’erivar vts’erivar

ts ’erikhar ts’erikhart

ts ’eria ts’erian


Imperfect and Present Subjunctive are missing.
Future Indicative is produced based on the forms of e-prefix two personal dynamic passive, but now they are only one-personal verbs.

vets’erebi vets’erebit

ets’erebi ets’erebit

ets’ereba ets’erebian



Conditional

vets’erebodi vets’erebodit

ets’erebodi ets’erebodit

ets’ereboda ets’erebodnen


Future Subjunctive

vets’erebode vets’erebodet

ets’erebode ets’erebodet

ets’erebodes ets’erebodnen


II series.

The forms of dynamic passive are repeated in this serya. But very often these forms are missing.


Aorist Indicative

vets’ere vets’eret

ects’ere ets’eret

ets’era ets’ernen


Optative

vets’ero vets’erot

ets’ero ets’erot

ets’eros ets’eron


III series

In I-II seryas there is no difference between the one-personal and two-personal verbs. But the III serya shows this difference.

Below the first verb is one-personal and the second verb is two-personal.
Perfect

vts’erebulvar/v(s)ts’erebivar vts’erebulvart/v(s)ts’erebivart

ts’erebulkhar/sts’erebikhar ts’erebulkhart/sts’erebikhart

ts’erebula/sts’erebia ts’erebulan/sts’erebian


Pluperfect

vts’erebuliq’av/ v(s)ts’erebodi vts’erebuliq’avit/ v(s)ts’erebodit

ts’erebuliq’av/ sts’erebodi ts’erebuliq’avit/ sts’erebodit

ts’erebuliq’o/ sts’ereboda ts’erebuliq’vnen/ sts’erebodnen


Perfect Subjunctive

vts’erebuliq’o/v(s)ts’erebode vts’erebuliq’vnet/v(s)ts’erebodet

ts’erebuliq’o/sts’erebode ts’erebuliq’vnet/sts’erebodet

ts’erebuliq’os/ sts’erebodes ts’erebuliq’vnen/sts’erebodnen


17. 2. 3. Medio-actives
According to traditional Georgian grammar medio-actives are the verbs with the forms of active-transitive verbs but without any direct object. Compare:

A. khat’avs (active) - goravs (Rolls – medio-active)

ts’ers (active) - dughs (boils- medio-active)
B. Active agorebs (S, Od.) - ugorebs (S, Od. O ind.)

Medio-active goravs (S) - ugoravs (S, O ind.)

Active adughebs (S, Od.) - udughebs (S, Od. O ind.)

Medio-active dughs (S) - udughs (S, Oind .)


C. Active agorebs (S, Od.) - ugorebs (S, Od. O ind.)

Medio-active gordeba (S) - ugordeba (S, O ind.)

Medio-active goravs (S) - ugoravs (S, O ind.)

Active adughebs (S, Od.) - udughebs (S, Od. O ind.)

Medio-active dughdeba (S) – udughdeba (S, O ind.)

Medio-active dughs (S) - udughs (S, O ind.)


Conjugation of medio-actives one-personal and two-personal forms:

I series (t’irili - to cry)



Present Indicative

vt’iri/vut’iri vt’irit/vut’irit

t’iri/ut’iri t’irit/ut’irit

t’iris/ut’iris t’irian/ut’irian


Imperfect

vt’irodi/vut’irodi vt’irodit/vut’irodit

t’irodi/ut’irodi t’irodit/ut’irodit

t’iroda/ut’iroda t’irodnen/ut’irodnen


Present Subjunctive

vt’irode/vut’irode vt’irodet/vut’irodet

t’irode/ut’irode t’irodet/ut’irodet

t’irodes/ut’irodes t’irodnen/ut’irodnen


Future Indicative - Thematic markers appear and prefix “i-“ produces these three rows of “mq’opadi”-group in one-personal verbs, while prefix “u-“ produces the forms of two-personal verbs.

vit’ireb/vut’ireb vit’irebt/vut’irebt

it’ireb/ut’ireb it’irebt/ut’irebt

it’irebs/ut’irebs it’ireben/ut’ireben


Conditional

vit’irebdi/vut’irebdi vit’irebdit/vut’irebdit

it’irebdi/ut’irebdi it’irebdit/ut’irebdit

it’irebda/ut’irebda it’irebdnen/ut’irebdnen


Future Subjunctive

vit’irebde/vut’irebde vit’irebdet/vut’irebdet

it’irebde/ut’irebde it’irebdet/ut’irebdet

it’irebdes/ut’irebdes it’irebdnen/ut’irebdnen


II series

In the II series the subject of the medio-active is in ergative just like the subject of a transitive verb.



Aorist Indicative

vit’ire/vut’ire vit’iret/vut’iret

it’ire/ut’ire it’iret/ut’iret

it’ira/ut’ira it’ires/ut’ires


Optative

vit’iro/vut’iro vit’irot/vut’irot

it’iro/ut’iro it’irot/ut’irot

it’iros/ut’iros it’iron/ut’iron


III series

As medio-actives follow the model of conjugation of transitive (in other

words - active) verbs, in this serya they have the inversion just like transitive verbs. Thematic marker also appears here.

Perfect

mit’irnia/mit’irebia gvit’irnia/gvit’irebia

git’irnia/git’irebia git’irniat/git’irebiat

ut’irnia/ut’irebia ut’irniat/ut’irebiat


Pluperfect

met’irna/met’irebina gvet’irna/gvet’irebina

get’irna/get’irebina get’irnat/get’irebinat

et’irna/et’irebina et’irnat/et’irebinat


Perfect Subjunctive

met’ir(n)os/met’irebinos gvet’ir(n)os/gvet’irebinos

get’ir(n)os/get’irebinos get’ir(n)ot/get’irebinot

et’ir(n)os /et’irebinos et’ir(n)ot/et’irebinot



17. 2. 4. Medio-Passive
Medio-passives use the forms for passive (opposite to medio-actives). The number of medio-passives is not great in Georgian: dgas (stands), zis (sits), ts’evs (lies), dzevs (thing lays), sdzinavs (sleeps), uq’vars (loves), sdzuls (hates), shurs (is jealous), sts’adis (wants), surs (wishes), shia (is hungry), sts’q’uria (is thirty), akvs (has), ghirs (costs), hghvidz’avs (is awakening), akhsovs (remembers), hgavs (looks like), bnela (it’s dark), tskhela (it’s hot), grila (it’s cool).
There are two groups of medio-passives. The verbs of A-group have only four rows in the I series, but they have all the forms of the II series. The verbs of another B-group don’t have the forms of the II series, but they have all forms of the I series.
A-group Lie- ts’ola; One-personal – vc’evar and two-personal - vuts’evar

I series



Present Indicative

vts’evar / vuts’evar vts’evart / vuts’evart

ts’evkhar / uts’evkhar ts’evkhart / uts’evkhart

ts’evs / uts’evs ts’vanan / uts’vanan


Imperfect and Present Subjunctive are missing.
Future Indicative

Prefix ”i“ produces the forms of one-personal verbs, and prefix “e“ produces the forms of two-personal verbs in “mq’opadi”-group rows.

vits’vebi/vets’vebi vits’vebit/vets’vebit

its’vebi/ets’vebi its’vebit/ets’vebit

its’veba/ets’veba its’vebian/ets’vebian
Conditional

vits’vebodi/vets’vebodi vits’vebodit/vets’vebodit

its’vebodi/ets’vebodi its’vebodit/ets’vebodit

its’veboda/ets’veboda its’vebodnen/ets’vebodnen


Future Subjunctive

vits’vebode/vets’vebode vits’vebodet/vets’vebodet

its’vebode/ets’vebode its’vebodet/ets’vebodet

its’vebodes/ets’vebodes its’vebodnen/ets’vebodnen


II series

Aorist Indicative

vits’eki/vets’eki vits’ekit/vets’ekit

its’eki/ets’eki its’ekit/ets’ekit

its’va/ets’va its’vnen/ets’vnen


Optative

vits’ve/vets’ve vits’vet/vets’vet

its’ve/ets’ve its’vet/ets’vet

its’ves/ets’ves its’vnen/ets’vnen

III series

These verbs need the auxiliary (to be – q’opna)



    • var, khar, viq’o, viq’av, etc.


Perfect

vts’olilvar/vts’olodi vts’olilvart/vts’olodit

ts’olilkhar/ts’olodi ts’olilkhart/ts’olodit

ts’olila/ts’oloda ts’olilan/ts’olodnen



Pluperfect and Perfect Subjunctive

vts’oliliq’av/vts’olode vts’oliliq’avit/vts’olodet

ts’oliliq’av/ts’olode ts’oliliq’avit/ts’olodet

ts’oliliq’o/ts’olodes ts’oliliq’vnen/ts’olodnen




B-group Love – siq’varuli
I series
Present Indicative

vuq’varvar vuq’varvart

uq’varkhar uq’varkhart

uq’vars uq’vart


Imperfect

vuq’vardi vuq’vardit

uq’vardi uq’vardit

uq’varda uq’vardnen


Present Subjunctive

vuq’varde vuq’vardet

uq’varde uq’vardet

uq’vardes uq’vardnen


Future Indicative

veq’varebi veq’varebit

eq’varebi eq’varebit

eq’vareba eq’varebat



Conditional

veq’varebodi veq’varebodit

eq’varebodi eq’varebodit

eq’vareboda eq’varebodnen


Future Subjunctive

veq’varebode veq’varebodet

eq’varebode eq’varebodet

eq’varebodes eq’varebodnen


II series Is missing.
III series
Perfect

v(h)q’varebivar v(h)q’varebivart

hq’varebikhar hq’varebikhart

hq’varebia hq’varebiat


Pluperfect

v(h)q’varebodi v(h)q’varebodit

hq’varebodi hq’varebodit

hq’vareboda hq’varebodnen


Perfect Subjunctive

v(h)q’varebode v(h)q’varebodet

hq’varebode hq’varebodet

hq’varebodes hq’varebodnen



17. 3. Irregular verbs
Georgian has some irregular verbs. There are different levels of irregularities. Such verbs have different stems in different screeves. Irregular verbs are: "to be", "to come", "to say", "to tell", “to have”, "to give", etc.
A few verbs have polite versions. To be – q’opna - brdzaneba (polite form); To eat – ch’ama – mirtmeva or geakhelit (polite form); To say - tkma – brdzaneba (polite form).
Some verbs change their root in the plural form. The subject plural changes the verb root in the verb “to sit.” For one person it is “jdoma” and for more than one person it is “skhdoma”. (Compare: zis - skhedan )
The direct object in plural from can change the verb root too - to throw away one thing is “gadagdeba”, but to throw away many things is “gadaq’ra”, to give a seat to one person is “dasma”, but to give seats to more than one person is “ daskhma”.

17. 3.1. Conjugation of the verb “to be” – q’opna
Present subseries

Imperfect and Present subjunctive are missing



 

Present indicative

Imperfect

Present subjunctive

1s

var







2s

khar







3s

aris







1pl

vart







2pl

khart







3pl

arian







Future subseries

 

Future indicative

Conditional

Future subjunctive

1s

Viknebi

viknebodi

viknebode

2s

Iknebi

iknebodi

iknebode

3s

Ikneba

ikneboda

iknebodes

1pl

viknebit

viknebodit

viknebodet

2pl

Iknebit

iknebodit

iknebodet

3pl

Iknebian

iknebodnen

iknebodnen

Aorist series

 

Aorist indicative

Optative

1s

viq’avi

viq’o

2s

iq’avi

iq’o

3s

iq’o

iq’os

1pl

viq’avit

viq’ot

2pl

Iq’avit

iq’ot

3pl

Iq’vnen

iq’on

Perfective series

 

Perfect

Pluperfect

Perfect subjunctive

1s

vq’opilvar

vq’opiliq’av

vq’opiliq’avi

2s

q’opilkhar

q’opiliq’av

q’opiliq’avi

3s

q’opila

q’opiliq’o

q’opiliq’os

1pl

vq’opilvart

vq’opiliq’avit

vq’opiliq’vnet

2pl

q’opilkhart

Q’opiliq’avit

q’opiliq’vnet

3pl

q’opilan

q’opiliq’vnen

q’opiliq’on


17. 3. 2. Conjugation of the verb “To have” – kona/q’ola. Kona - to have something (inanimate) and q’ola - to have somebody (animate).

Present subseries



Imperfect and Present subjunctive are missing

 

Present indicative

Imperfect

Present subjunctive

1s

makvs/mq’avs

mkonda/mq’avda

mkondes/mq’avdes

2s

gakvs/gq’avs

gkonda/gq’avda

gkondes/gq’avdes

3s

akvs/hq’avs

hkonda/hq’avda

hkondes/hq’avdes

1pl

gvakvs/gvq’avs

gvkonda/gvq’avda

gvkondes/gvq’avdes

2pl

gakvt/gq’avt

gkondat/gq’avdat

gkondet/gq’avdet

3pl

akvt/hq’avt

hkondat/hq’avdat

hkondet/hq’avdet

Future subseries

 

Future indicative

Conditional

Future subjunctive

1s

mekneba/meq’oleba

mekneboda/meq’oleboda

meknebodes/meq’olebodes

2s

gekneba/geq’oleba

gekneboda/geq’oleboda

geknebodes/geq’olebodes

3s

ekneba/eq’oleba

ekneboda/eq’oleboda

eknebodes/eq’olebodes

1pl

gvekneba/gveq’oleba

gvekneboda/gveq’oleboda

gveknebodes/gveq’olebodes

2pl

geknebat/geq’olebat

geknebodat/geq’olebodat

geknebodet/geq’olebodet

3pl

eknebat/eq’olebat

eknebodat/eq’olebodat

eknebodet/eq’olebodet

The aorist series is missing.

Perfective series



 

Perfect

Pluperfect

Perfect subjunctive

1s

mkonia/mq’olia

mkonoda/mq’oloda

mkonodes/mq’olodes

2s

gkonia/gq’olia

gkonoda/gq’oloda

gkonodes/gq’olodes

3s

hkonia/hq’olia

hkonoda/hq’oloda

hkonodes/hq’olodes

1pl

gvkonia/gvq’olia

gvkonoda/gvq’oloda

gvkonodes/gvq’olodes

2pl

gkoniat/gq’oliat

gkonodat/gq’olodat

gkonodet/gq’olodet

3pl

hkoniat/hq’oliat

hkonodat/hq’olodat

hkonodet/hq’olodet

17.3. 3.Conjugation of the verb “To give” – mitsema

Present subseries

The Imperfect and Present subjunctive are missing.



 

Present indicative

Imperfect

Present subjunctive

1s

vadzlev

vadzlevdi

vadzlevde

2s

adzlev

adzlevdi

adzlevde

3s

adzlevs

adzlevda

adzlevdes

1pl

vadzlevt

vadzlevdit

vadzlevdet

2pl

adzlevt

adzlevdit

adzlevdet

3pl

adzleven

adzlevdnen

adzlevdnen

Future subseries

 

Future indicative

Conditional

Future subjunctive

1s

Mivtsem

mivtsemdi

mivtsemde

2s

Mistsem

mistsemdi

mistsemde

3s

Mistsems

mistsemda

mistsemdes

1pl

Mivtsemt

mivtsemdit

mivtsemdet

2pl

Mistsemt

mistsemdit

mistsemdet

3pl

Mistsemen

mistsemdnen

mistsemdnen

Aorist series

 

Aorist indicative

Optative

1s

mivetsi

mivstse

2s

mietsi

mistse

3s

mistsa

mistses

1pl

mivetsit

mivstset

2pl

mietsit

mistset

3pl

mistses

mistsen

Perfective series

 

Perfect

Pluperfect

Perfect subjunctive

1s

mimitsia

mimetsa

mimetses

2s

migitsia

migetsa

migetses

3s

miuitsia

mietsa

mietses

1pl

migvitsia

migvetsa

migvetses

2pl

migitsiat

migetsat

migetset

3pl

miuitsiat

mietsat

mietset

17.3.4. Conjugation of the verb “To say” – tkma



Present subseries

 

Present indicative

Imperfect

Present subjunctive

1s

Vambob

vambobdi

vambobde

2s

Ambob

ambobdi

ambobde

3s

Ambobs

ambobda

ambobdes

1pl

Vambobt

vambobit

vambobet

2pl

Ambobt

ambobit

ambobet

3pl

Amboben

ambobnen

ambobnen

Future subseries

 

Future indicative

Conditional

Future subjunctive

1s

vitq’vi

vitq’odi

vitq’ode

2s

itq’vi

itq’odi

itq’ode

3s

itq’vis

itq’oda

itq’odes

1pl

vitq’vit

vitq’odit

vitq’odet

2pl

itq’vit

itq’odit

itq’odet

3pl

Itq’vian

itq’odnen

itq’odnen

Aorist series

 

Aorist indicative

Optative

1s

vtkvi

vtkva

2s

tkvi

tkva

3s

tkva

tkvas

1pl

vtkvit

vtkvat

2pl

tkvit

tkvat

3pl

tkves

tkvan

Perfective series

 

Perfect

Pluperfect

Perfect subjunctive

1s

mitkvams

metkva

metkvas

2s

gitkvams

getkva

getkvas

3s

utkvams

etkva

etkvas

1pl

gvitkvams

gvetkva

gvetkvas

2pl

gitkvamt

getkvat

getkvat

3pl

utkvamt

etkvat

etkvat


17.3.5. Conjugation of the verb “to come” – movdivar
Present subseries

 

Present indicative

Imperfect

Present subjunctive

1s

movdivar

movdiodi

movdiode

2s

modikhar

modiodi

modiode

3s

modis

modioda

modiodes

1pl

movdivart

movdiodit

movdiodet

2pl

modikhart

modiodit

modiodet

3pl

modian

modiodnen

modiodnen

Future subseries

 

Future indicative

Conditional

Future subjunctive

1s

moval

movidodi

movidode

2s

mokhval

mokhvidodi

mokhvidode

3s

mova

movidoda

movidodes

1pl

movalt

movidodit

movidodet

2pl

mokhvalt

mokhvidodit

mokhvidodet

3pl

movlen

movidodnen

movidodnen

Aorist series

 

Aorist indicative

Optative

1s

movedi

movide

2s

mokhvedi

mokhvide

3s

movida

movides

1pl

movedit

movidet

2pl

mokhvedit

mokhvidet

3pl

movidnen

movidnen

Perfective series

 

Perfect

Pluperfect

Perfect subjunctive

1s

movsulvar

movsuliq’av

movsuliq’avi

2s

mosulkhar

mosuliq’av

mosuliq’avi

3s

mosula

mosuliq’o

mosuliq’os

1pl

movsulvart

movsuliq’avit

movsuliq’vnet

2pl

mosulkhart

mosuliq’avit

movsuliq’vnet

3pl

mosulan

mosuliq’vnen

movsuliq’vnen



18. Word order

The word order in Georgian is comparably free. You can use all these versions:

  

“I am in Tbilisi.” This sentence may have different word orders:



a. me var tbilisshi.

b. me tbilisshi var.

c. var me tbilishsi. (?) (This one is less used, as it’s in an interrogative word order.)
As we already mentioned in the introduction, Georgian has subject-object-verb sentence structure, but the word order is not strict and object-verb-subject, or subject-object verb are also possible.
19. Ergativity

In our opinion the suffix k’ in Megrelian verbs and the ergative case marker are same affix and come from the indefinite pronoun k’-ochi. The marker with such origin is outlining the animated category of the subject. It’s very important, that this verbal marker appears only in the first and the second persons. The first and the second persons are always animated (except a very small number of some semantic meanings). In our opinion Georgian and Svanian marker of the ergative case has the same origin (me-I, mare-man in Svan.)

Transitivity (which means the verb acts with a direct object) could be exposed by the accusative, instrumental or it could be out of verbal reference. In other words it also could stay as not only a semantic argument, but as a morphologically non-referenced verbal person as it is in Indo-European languages. The subject should be exposed as an acting person, which has a different type of marking in different languages.

What is most important is that the general semantic opposition in category of person is who-what opposition. The ergative subject belongs to who-category as animated subject. This is a real acting verbal person or argument. We offer a new term for the ergative subject – “the thinking subject.”

The different languages have different attitudes to class category and this is a base for nominative and ergative constructions in language systems. The subject of the what-inanimate category has a nominative character, while the ergative subject is an active person of who-category.

In the Kartvelian languages the referents of the ergative are given with animated class signs/markers. These are the morphological markers of the animate who-category thinking-subject making the opposition configurations with the intransitive and non-active inanimate thing-class category subject. The inanimate thing-class category subject and the intransitive subject together with the same inanimate category direct object have the shearing inactive semantic fields exposed by the absolutive case.

We can suppose that historically thinking the subject was exposed only in the ergative case and later the distributional changes of subjects (between who and what classes) gave us the temporary picture in the Georgian language. It’s significant that the un-deliberate or un-real action of the verbal subject in the rows of the third series (so called turmeobities) are not expressed by the ergative case. Neither potentials or indefinite common actions or future tenses are considered as any real act with ergative characterization in Georgian. Following many other linguists we must say that as a matter of fact the semantics of results and the perfect are very important for the Georgian ergative. An accomplished act by the thinking subject is a base for Georgian ergativity. Later this was spread to other forms in the second series. Megrelian spreads ergativity even in intransitive verbal forms in the second series.

Zanian transitive verbs have ergative subjects in some other rows of conjugation and for transitive verbs as well. So, then we could also expose the opposite opinion – that the Kartvelian languages were fully ergative languages and not with the split ergativity as it is now.

There are the following three types of split ergativity:


  1. In the Australian languages (like Dyrbal) the ergative is exposed morpho-syntactically, but with the first and the second personal pronouns we have nominative and accusative cases.

We’d love to put the parallels between these forms and Megrelian verbal suffix k, which appears in the first and seconds persons. In addition, these first two personal pronouns have the same forms in Georgian (being out declination).

From the North Caucasian languages the Batsbian language shows the similarity to this group, although it has the ergative in the first and second persons even with intransitive verbs. This fact outlines the importance and the main role of the class category of the thinking subject.



  1. The languages which have the ergative for subjects in perfect tenses.

The modern Georgian ergative system belongs to this group.

  1. The languages which have the ergative for intransitive subjects (Dakota).

The subject of the active verb (he runs) is in ergative like a subject of a transitive verb. But the subject of semantically passive or inactive verbs is in the nominative case. Typologically it seems there is a very interesting comparison with Megrelian ergative forms of intransitive verbs in the second series. We suppose that in Megrelian diachronically the verbs of active nature received the ergative case first, spreading this fact into other forms later. Unfortunately there is no written material to investigate this development. Georgian also could join this group with its medio-actives.

The fact that the Kartvelian languages give all variants in this classification is a very significant fact and we can’t consider such classification relevant even only on the samples of Kartvelain data. Georgian can join to the second and the third groups. But such combinations are not considered in this classification.

According to semantic and morphological meanings of the arguments of predicates or other verbal arguments (all the verbal persons that are involved in the verbal act), the diathesis of ergativity and destination is the general opposition of direct and indirect objects as their functional and formal opposition. The indirect object with its wide specter is considered as a possessor or destinator/addressee and ergativity is connected with a direct object. Such attitude is quite understandable because there is no morphological category of transitivity in Georgian and in other Kartvelian languages. Transitivity has no morphological markers and it’s connected with the direct object.

There is an opinion that ergative construction in the second series is not prior, as ergativity is given only by syntactic way and personal markers in the first and second series are symmetric, besides there is no ergative marker in the verbs. We neither have any common reference for the ergative case in the Kartvelian languages.

We suppose that in Megrealian verbs the suffix –k is an ergative suffix confirming the existence of verbal ergativity in the Kartvelian languages. To our opinion thematic markers in Georgian have some kind of ergative meanings. According to their distribution (Thematic suffixes appear in the first and the third series.)

The fact that the thematic markers just like Megralian - k appear in intransitive verbs, outlines importance of thinking subject (and not the importance of transitivity) for Karvelian ergativity. Zanian ergative suffix k’ is a reason for absence of thematic markers in this language.

Thematic markers activate dynamism of verbal process. This is a semantical content of the who-animated thinking subject. The verbal forms with thematic markers are opposition forms to the second series ergative construction, which is a classic form of ergativity. We have the opposition of the who-category thinking subject exposed by ergative markers in nouns from one hand and exposition of ergativity in verbal forms (with thematic markers) on the other hand. In other words, there are the constructions formed by the ergative or by the ergative-dative in perfect tenses and for dynamic verbs there are some verbal markers (thematic markers) of ergativity.

We have three types of ergativity in Kartvelian (case markers and cases, thematic markers, combination forms). The thematic markers are not obligator markers in the third series, as we already have ergative-dative case for subject and perfect tense. Actually, there is some combination type of exposition for ergativity in the III series.

There is verbal ergativity in the first series; the classic form of ergativity is in the second series with the subject in ergative case and with perfect tense. There are form-combinations in the third series with ergative-dative and thematic markers of verbal-referenced ergativity.

We must outline that this is a very significant theme and it needs to be investigated more carefully.

Concerning the reconstruction of the ergative case in proto-kartvelian, there is no common referent exposed, but we have the same semantics for ergative markers in all Kartvelian languages and this is connected with the human animate class category.

Many scientists considered that the opposition of nominative and ergative constructions is the most important for Basque verb dividing them on two groups:

1. The verbs with the subject in nominative case or in the partitive case

2. The verbs with the subject in the ergative case.

If we take into consideration that the agent (the subject of transitive verbs) and the dative argument have the identical markers in the verb, we can see another opposition: nominative and partitive from one hand and ergative and dative from another hand. Such close relations between ergative and dative in Basque verbs, reminds us about dative construction of Georgian transitive verbs in the third series. Concerning the partitive case we must say that it is often used as a subject case for negative forms in different languages.

The whole point is in distribution of semantics of the who-what category in the subject. Mainly the thinking subject of who animate category is in ergative and what-conversional subject is in nominative.

In our opinion ergative and nominative constructions diachronically may show parallel development. Being the object categories destination and ergativity are very close to each other according to their semantics and grammatical parameters. Poly-personal verbal structures play the most important role in exposition of destination and ergativity. Destination is well-exposed in the system of the Georgian language, but there is a split ergativity in it; while the Basque language has the classic ergative constructions but with less exposition of destination systems in the language. It means that the destination semantics and the indirect object are prior categories for Georgian while Basque gives the priority to transitivity and semantic categories of the direct object.

There are a few parameters for language classification in linguistics. We could take destination as a classification parameter for languages just like ergativity. Such classification would be based on concrete grammatical variations of this category.



  1. Compound Predicate

In traditional Georgian grammar compound predicate is a predicate with two members in opposition to a simple verbal predicate. The two parts of compound predicate are as following:

  1. The noun/flexional part and

  2. The verbal/conjugational part

The verb in such predicate is considered as an auxiliary verb, although very often it’s the verb “to be” which acts quite independently like many other verbs. The Georgian compound predicate could be more complex with adding the modal words and particles.

The nominal part of a compound predicate could be a noun, an adjective, a participle and very rarely – a pronoun, a numeral, or an infinitive (in such cases all of them behave like nouns in Georgian). This part of a predicate is flexional - in nominative in singular/plural, or very seldom it also could be in dative or in adverbial cases.


Samples of flexional part of compound predicate:

1. Noun


me kartveli profesori var. I am a Georgian professor.

I Georgian professor am


2. Adjective

tbilisi lamazi aris. Tbilisi is beautiful.

Tbilisi beautiful is.
3. Participle

es kalaki ganakhlebuli chans. This city seems renewed.

This city renewed seems.

4. Infinitive as a Noun

es dasatsq’isi gakhlavt. This is the beginning.

This the beginning is (polite)


5. Pronoun

ak kartveli me var. I am a Georgian here.

Here Georgian I am.
6. Numeral

es sul ati ikneba. They all well be ten.

It all ten will be.

The verbal part of a compound predicate is often exposed by the verb “to be”. The third singular shorten form “–a” is mostly used. It is usually connected as a suffix to the first part of a compound predicate.


Tbilisi lamazi-a.  Tbilisi lamazi aris

Tblisi beautiful-is  Tbilisi beautiful is. ( Tbilisi is beautiful.)

The polite forms of the verb “to be” (brdz’andeba, gakhlavt, etc.) also can be verbal parts for the compound predicate. It’s important, that some of these polite forms of existence-meaning -“to be” can be 2-personal, while “to be” itself –q’opna never is 2-personal. The Georgian verb “to be” - q’opna is only one-personal verb, unlike Basque “izan”, which can receive the other verbal arguments exposing more verbal persons in its verbal morphology.

The verb to have - “kona” (for animated) and “q’ola” (for inanimate) can be a verbal part of a compound predicate.

A few more verbs are used as verbal parts in compound predicate. These verbs are: gakhda-become, darcha- become/stay, hgonia-thinks/considers, gamodga –turns to be, gamova- will become/turn, chans-it seems etc.

Some verbs don’t have a passive from in Georgian and they use the analytic forms, which look like compound predicates, but must be strongly distinguished from it. Periphrastic passive can not be considered as a compound predicate. It has only absolute forms.

It’s very significant is that Georgian can expose compound predicate with phrases and this makes it more complicated.

Typological comparisons of Georgian data with other material could be very impressive with its results. There are a few items that may be considered in a new light; For example, the question of modal verbs acting together with the other verbs in frames of one simple sentence; the punctuation; case unification in compound predicate; universal regulations, etc.


21. Different

1. The form for the third person “aris” is usually reduced to “a” and it’s linked to the nouns.

“The book is on the table” –

1. ts’igni aris magidaze.

2. ts’igni magidazea.

3. ts’ignia magidaze.

 

2. There is a new classification for verbal conjugation by professor Damana Melikishvili introduced at the II International symposium of Caucasiology (Arnold Chikobava Institute of Linguistics; Tbilisi. 9-11/X 2008):




I Diathesis Ergative

I Diathesis Ergative

Static (Relative Static)

Mood: medio-active //reflexives

Structure:

R - Ø

i-/u-R [e/i]- Ø;

prev.-R- a/i/u-R-th.- Ø;

Construction is non-completed

[is-nom. --- man-erg.

is-nom. mas-dat. --- man-erg. mas-dat.]



Dynamic

Mood: Active

Structure:

a/i/u -R - Ø

a/i/u - R [e/i]- Ø;

a/i/u -R -th. suf. -Ø

Construction is completed

[is-nom. - mas-dat. -- man-erg. is-nom.

is-nom. mas-dat. mas-dat. --- man-erg. mas-dat. is-nom.]





II Diathesis Nominative

II Diathesis Nominative

Static (Absolutive Static)
Without mood

Structure:


Ø-/i-/u- R -i
Construction is non-completed
[is-nom. --- mas-dat..]

Dynamic

Mood: Auto-active; active; passive

Structure:

Ø-/u- R-eb-i;

Ø-/u- R-d-eb-i;

a- R-eb-i;

e-R-eb-i;

i-/e- R-eb-i;

Construction is completed

[is-nom. ---- mas-dat.; is-nom. mas-dat. ---- is-nom. mas-dat]





III Diathesis Dative

III Diathesis Dative

Static (Feeling Subject)

Main structure:



i-/u- R- Ø

i-/u- R- i
Construction:

[mas-dat. --- mas-dat.;

mas-dat. is-nom. --- mas-dat. is-nom.]


Static, Dynamic

(Feeling Subject)

Produced Structure

a-R-eb-Ø

e-R-eb-i

Construction:

[mas-dat. --- mas-dat.;

mas-dat. is-nom. --- mas-dat. is-nom.]



Personal markers

I diathesis (S nom.-erg.) in I-II series

II diathesis (S nom. -nom.) in I, II, III series

I diathesis (S dat.) in III series

III diathesis (S dat.) in

I, II, III series




Subject

1s.v-

2s. Ø- kh-

3s. -s, -a, -o
1 pl.v-----t

2pl. Ø- kh-------t

3pl. -en, -an, -nen, -n, -es


1s.m-

2s. g-


3s. Ø-, h-, s-
1 pl. gv----t

2pl. g-------t

3pl. Ø-, h-, s-----t





Object

1s.m-

2s. g-


3s. indirect object

h-, s- Ø-

3s. direct object

h-, s- Ø-,


1 pl. gv-----t

2pl. g-------t

3pl. indirect object

h-, s-, Ø-, ------t,-Ø

3pl. indirect object

h-, s, Ø-, ------ -Ø




1s.v-

2s. Ø-


3s. indirect object and direct object-

-s, -a


1 pl. v-----t

2pl. Ø- -------t

3 pl. indirect object and direct object -Ø





3. The verb “to want”
The III person subject of this verb “to want” – “ndoma” is always in dative (in present, past and future tenses): k’atss unda, k’atsebs undat, k’atss undoda, k’atsebs undodat, k’ats endomeba, k’atsebs endomebat. Actually the traditional Georgian grammars consider this dative verbal person as an indirect object and whatever is wanted - is the subject. This is intransitive verb – medio-passive.
A. Conjugation of the verb “to want” – “ndoma” – Present tense
I ( don’t ) want (ar) minda

You ( don’t ) want (ar) ginda

She/he/it ( doesn’t )want/s (ar) unda

We ( don’t ) want (ar) gvinda

You ( don’t ) want (ar) gindat

They ( don’t ) want (ar) undat


B. Conjugation of the verb “to want”- “ndoma” – Past tense
I s. mindoda I pl. gvindoda

II s. gindoda II pl. gindodat

IIIs. undoda III pl. undodat
C. Conjugation of the verb “to want”- “ndoma” – Future tense

I s. mendomeba I pl. gvendomeba

II s. gendomeba II pl. gendomebat

III s. endameba III pl. endomebat




4. The verb can – shedzleba
A. Present tense

I s. shemidzlia I pl. shegvidzlia

II s. shegidzlia II pl. shegidzliat

III s. sheudzlia III pl. sheudzliat

B. Past tense

I s. shemedzlo I pl. shegvedzlo

II s. shegedzlo II pl. shegedzlot

III s. sheedzlo III pl. sheedzlot

C. Future tense

I s. shemedzleba I pl. shegvedzleba

II s. shegedzleba II pl. shegedzlebat

III s. sheedzleba III pl. sheedzlebat



5. The verb “tsodna” (to know) is the only verb in Georgian which has the III person subject in ergative in present tense: kalma itsis. (The woman knows). All other transitive verbs have ergative subject only in past tense – in the II series. As it was told above the I and the II person pronouns never change their form.

6. The words of the other person usually are exposed by the suffix “-o”. man tkva, me davkhat’eo. – He said he had painted. Imat mitkhres, movideso. – They told my - you to come. Iman mitkhra, es ar gikhdebao. - She told me, (that) it will not be done.

7. Toasting is very important in Georgia. Toasted thing is in dative – gaumarjos sakartvelos! gaumarjos dedas! gaumarjos mamas!

Toasts are made only to positive cases.



8. Most Georgian surnames end on “dze” (son) and “shvili”(child), also there are other endings ia,ava, ua ( in Samegrelo), ani/iani (in Svaneti) and uri (in Eastern mountain area).

22. Bibliography 
The Author’s Main Publications

Books

2010 ლინგვისტური წერილები II. [Linguistic Papers II.] The St. Andrew University of the Patriarchy of Georgia, Tbilisi. ISBN 978-9941-416-21-7. 183 pp.

2009 A Short Grammar of Georgian. LINCOM.DE, Germany. ISBN 9783895861512. 126 pp.

2009 Basic Georgian. LINCOM.DE, Germany. LINCOM Practical Language Courses. 2nd printing 2009. ISBN 9783895861154. 200 pp.

2008 Basic Georgian. LINCOM.DE, Germany. ISBN 9783895861512. LINCOM Studies in Caucasian Linguistics 16. ref. no.: ISBN 978-3-89586-151-2. 204 pp.

2009 ლინგვისტური წერილები I. [Linguistic Papers I.] The St. Andrew University of the Patriarchy of Georgia, Tbilisi. ISBN 978-9941-404-50-4. 173 pp.

2008 – Learning Grammar of Georgian. Georgian For Foreigners. The St. Andrew University of the Patriarchy of Georgia, Tbilisi.“” ISBN 978-9941-9018-8-1. 110 pp.

2007 ბასკური და ქართველური დესტინაციური სისტემების ტიპოლოგია. [The Typography of Basque and Georgian Destination Systems.] The Arnold Chikobava Institue of Linguistics, Tbilisi. ISBN 978-99940-911-5-7. 225 pp.

2007 ქართულიროგორც მეორე ენა. [Georgian as a Second Language.] For teaching in non-Georgian schools. The Arnold Chikobava Institue of Linguistics, Tbilisi. ISSN 978-99940-911-4-0. 44 pp.

2005 ბასკური ზმნის ადრესატობის კატეგორიის ტიპოლოგიური ანალიზი. [A Typographical Analysis of Addressing in Basque Verbs.] Tbilisi State University (TSU) Press, Tbilisi. ISSN 99940-0-685-1, 127 pp.

2005 დესტინაციურ სისტემათა ტიპოლოგია (ქართული და ბასკური მასალა). [A Typology of Systems of Destination (Georgian and Basque Materials).] TSU Press, Tbilisi. ISSN 99940-850-6-9. 158 pp.

2005 ქართული და ბასკური დესტინაციური სისტემების ტიპოლოგია. [A Typology of Georgian and Basque Destination Systems.] Doctoral Dissertation. TSU Press, Tbilisi. 75 pp.
1988 – Система адресатности баскского глагола – Опыт выявления, описания и типологической характеристики. Автореферат кандидатской диссертации. [The System of the Addressee of the Basque Verb.] PhD. Dissertaion. TSU Press, Tbilisi. 24 pp.

2011 BASIC GEORGIAN. 2nd edition. LINCOM.DE, Germany. LINCOM Practical Language Courses. 2011 (accepted for print).

Journal Submissions

2011 The Category of Version in Georgian. Davids Publishing, Chicago. 2011 (accepted for print).

2011 Inertia and Asymmetries. Scholarly Journals. www.scholarly-journals.com JSRE-020. September 2011 (accepted for print).

2011 The Functions of Georgian Preverbs. A volume of selected papers Advances in Kartvelian Morphology and Syntax, Diversitas Linguarum, Universitätsverlag Brockmeyer, Bochum. 2011 (accepted for print).

2011 კონკრეტული თუ აბსტრაქტული? იკე, 39. [Conrete or Abstract?] The Arnold Chikobava Institute of Linguistics, Tbilisi. 2011 (accepted for print).

2011 ხმოვანი პრეფიქსების შესახებ გარდამავალი ზმნის მესამე სერიის ფორმებში. [On Sound Prefixes of Transitive Verbs in the Second Series.] The Arnold Chikobava Institute of Linguistics Online Journal, Tbilisi. 2011 (accepted for print).

2010 ინერციის კანონი. იკე, 38. [The Law of Inertia.] The Arnold Chikobava Institute of Linguistics, Tbilisi. ISSN 1987-6572. pp 104-106.

2010 ინვერსია და ერგატივიზაციის პროცესი. ტიპოლოგიური ძიებანი VII. [Inversion and the process of Ergativity. Typological Investigations VII.] The Georgian National Academy of Sciences and George Tsereteli Institute of Oriental Studies, Tbilisi. ISSN 1512-326X. 2010 (accepted for print).

2010 ზმნისწინის ექვსი ფუნქცია და ზმნისწინთა კლასიფიკაცია. ქართველურ ენათა სტრუქტურის საკითხები XI. [The Six Functions of Prefixes and its Classification. Issues of Kartvelian Structure XI.] The Arnold Chikobava Institute of Linguistics, Tbilisi. ISSN 1987-7691. 2010 (accepted for print).
2010 ენობრივი ლოგიკა და ასიმეტრიები. ტიპოლოგიური ძიებანი VI. [Language Logic and Assymetries. Typographical Investigations VI.] The Georgian National Academy of Sciences and George Tsereteli Institute of Oriental Studies. Tbilisi. ISSN 1512-326X 189-193 pp.

2010 ისევ მესამე სერიისა და ინვერსიის შესახებ. საენათმეცნიერო ძიებანი XXIX. [On the Third Series and Inversion. Linguistic Investigations XXIX.] The Georgian National Academy of Sciences and The Arnold Chikobava Institute of Linguistics, Tbilisi. ISSN 1987-6653. 138-145 pp.

2009 თანდებულები ერგატივის სემანტიკით. საენათმეცნიერო ძიებანი XXIX. [Post-Positions with Ergative Semantics. Linguistic Investigations XXIX.] The Georgian National Academy of Sciences and The Arnold Chikobava Institute of Linguistics, Tbilisi. ISSN 1987-6653. 145-149 pp.

2008 Gaur Gungo Baskologia Kartveliarraren Emaitzak Eta Erspektibak. [The Results and Perspectives of Kartvelian Bascology.] In: Gernica. No. 2 www.gernika.ru.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8


Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©atelim.com 2016
rəhbərliyinə müraciət