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:
-
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.
-
The languages which have the ergative for subjects in perfect tenses.
The modern Georgian ergative system belongs to this group.
-
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.
-
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:
-
The noun/flexional part and
-
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 – ქართული – როგორც 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. David’s 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. |