We suppose that no marker can appear in the forms without the proper meaning and such forms show diachronically different pictures. This is proved by some form comparisons from the other Katrvelian languages, for example the opposition by version is restored in the following forms: I know it - vitsi (Georgian) - mikha-khokha (Svan).
The question of the formal and functional diachronic changes of the category version is a big theme that needs to be investigated very carefully.
16.8.2. Version markers in the III series
Concerning the verbal prefix vowels in Georgian verbs A. Shanidze in his Grammar (1973) wrote that the prefixes in passives were from the category of version by their origin. Of course it’s clear that the prefix vowels unify the function of version and mood in one marker. Actually the mood and version have the same ranges in the verbal morphemic row and this identical position of these two categories complicates the final answer for e-i opposition. In modern Georgian we have the poly-functional verbal vowels in the prefix positions.
To our opinion the prefix vowels - the deictic vowels in Georgian verbs are poly-personal affixes with synthetic semantics outlining the concrete semantic in concrete morphological forms.
This fact (together with some other facts like that) separates the Georgian language from other agglutinative types of languages.
There are so called non-functional forms of version in the third series in Georgian. Generally, the version is the category of an indirect object. In the third series where this indirect object goes out of the verb, these forms lose the meaning of version although they still have the markers, which are left in the verb in order to keep the destination semantics of the verb. In addition, the indirect object out of a verb takes the post position tvis – for to keep the destination semantics. Factually, in these forms the semantics are left the same, but the morphology is changed. The semantics of destination chooses the other morphological forms to expose its content. But the destination semantics doesn’t free the verb totally, leaving its markers in the verbal forms. These markers are out of function as they stay without a real verbal indirect object.
The languages don’t know any non-functional markers – any marker synchronically or diachronically has the proper meaning and function, which have been changed or lost later. As a matter of fact the morphemes have two sides of a coin: the proper semantics and their formal references. We speak about non-function morphemes when these functions are changed or their semantic fields become narrower. The semantic field of the word is changeable. It can be changed in different ways.
It’s a well known fact that historically the forms of the third series came from the static verbs and the appropriate historical analysis are also different. Today the forms of the third series are on the other space paradigmatically and syntagmatically. These are the opposition forms for the forms of the first and the second series and they are far from their original static semantics. Now they act with their modern semantics.
Diachronically the above mentioned situation looks as following: the historical indirect object becomes the subject while producing the forms of the third series from static verbs. That explains the fact of inversion in Georgian. Realizing this fact in a new way a new verbal person appears – the indirect object, which is the only legal indirect object in the first and the second series. In the third series we have the historical indirect object with its markers (in the case systems of the nouns and in the personal markers of the verb), although now this is already the subject for these forms. The verb doesn’t take the second indirect object and puts it out of the verb. We receive a simple object with postposition “-tvis” with its destination meaning. In many other languages such objects are considered as verbal arguments. As a matter of fact Georgian verbs may have two indirect objects in one form (mich’mie – you him me give food it; mismie – you him me give drink it), but usually this is a fact of another category – the causative relations exposed by these forms. Besides, in such from only one indirect object from these two has the priority of being marked in the verb.
It’s significant that even without this new indirect object which can’t realize itself in the verbal morphology we already have the markers of version from the original static forms. These markers were the functional markers in static verbs and therefore these markers can be considered without the new indirect object. Only diachronic analysis wouldn’t be correct as the language even creates the poly-semantic forms to express the new meanings. We must understand the tendency and the reality - the new forms have new semantics.
On the other hand the static verbs have the version: ’ts’eria - uts’eria - ats’eria. As there was a demand to outline the destination semantics in the third series, the referenced forms with objective version were taken as a basic for new forms. This choice between the forms of static verbs seems absolutely understandable. On the synchronic level these forms are non-functional forms as they stayed without the indirect object and no objective version can exist without indirect verbal relation.
This version is a relative category. Reflexivity is a binary type of relation. In our opinion there was a two-dimensional model of version in the Georgian language (and in all the Kartvelian languages as well). It was as the prior opposition of the forms with and without version. Later the prefixal mono-personality of Georgian verbs actively helped to create the new form of the opposition - the subjective version.
The reflexive and version flow together. But we must note that the reflexive is a different grammatical category with its proper syntactic and morpho-semantic models. Reflexive as a semantic category loses its independence joining to the morphology of version creating the three dimensional model in the Kartvelian languages.
The verbal type of reflexive-marking reduces the need of any kind of other exposition in morphology. With tvis – the postposition in the category of the reflexive produces out-verb reflexivity creating the parallel schemes on the syntactic level.
The primary function of the postposition tvis is reflexivity as it is produced from the form tavi (head). In many languages “head” produces the reflexive forms. Such scheme is in the Basque language, for example: the noun or the pronoun in dative + head (buru) in dative; for example: Gure buruari - for us, Bere buruari – for himself.
The Georgian syntactic reflexive is mainly produced by the form tavistvis which is a reduplication of the formants, as the postposition “-tvis” is produced form “tavi”. Such reduplication was used to distinguish reflexivity from the syntactic category of version.
The distribution of reflexivity and version on the morpho-semantic level makes the following scheme: if we have the forms of objective version, the forms with the tvis postposition are not acceptable there; for example: mik’etebs chemtvis – is prohibited in the language, while with reflexive version we can have vik’eteb chemtvis. So, the reflexive as a category can accept the reduplicative referencing in opposite to the category of version. This is a significant difference between reflexivity and version.
The poly-semantic form damiq’ena (1. He/she made me stand; 2. He/she me made to him/her stand) expresses the subjective version with a conjugative object, loses its reflexivity. The best expression of reflexivity is in the forms where the object is in the subject and additionally can be given by adding the form – tavi; for example: ikhat’avs tavs (He/she paints himself), ilamazebs tavs (He/she makes beautiful herself), etc.
Reflexivity requires a special attitude with causation when the direct object is the first or the second person; compare: daavits’q’a - man mas is (He/she made him forget it) and daavits’q’a - man mas sheni tavi (He/she made him/her forget you), dagavits’q’a - man shen chemi tavi (He/she made you forget me), damavitsc’q’a - man me sheni tavi (He/she made me forget you). The first and the second direct objects enter the verb by reflexive forms as the third person through the possessive pronoun and tavi. This has no alternative in the modern Georgian language. It’s rare when the first and the second persons create the forms not like the third one. This can be considered the appearance of the class category. The third person has a choice in this paradigm: to give the verbal referencing – daavits’q’a - man mas is (He/she made him/her forget her) or to follow the first two persons making the symmetric system – daavits’q’a - man mas misi tavi (He/she made him/her forget him/her).
16. 9. Contact - Causation
In Georgian the subject performs a verbal act itself (direct contact) or makes the indirect object to do it (intermediary contact); or the subject acts with the help of the indirect object. In such forms the indirect object is what actually produces the verbal act. The subject makes it act. This is a category of contact or causation. The most productive suffixes of contact are “-in” with thematic marker “-eb”. Another marker “-ev” is very seldom used, sometimes it appears in combination with “-in” accompanied with the same thematic marker “-eb”.
The direct contact to the verbal act: vkhat’av - I paint, vts’er - I write, vak’eteb I do, vk’lav - I kill (her).
The subject makes the indirect object perform the verbal act, an indirect or intermediary contact: vakhat’vineb - I make him paint, vats’erineb - I make him write, vaketebineb - I make him do (it), vakvlevineb - I make him kill (her).
A. Preverbs show the direction of the verbal act.
mi- away (from the 1st person) midis - goes away
mo- towards ( To the 1st person) modis - comes
a- up adis - goes up
da- down dadis Sometimes “da” shows an intensive act.
cha- down inside chadis – goes down
she- from outside (in)to inside shedis - goes into
ga- from inside outside gadis -goes out
gada - over the barrier gadadis -goes over
ts’a- away ts’avida - went away
All these preverbs show the direction away from the 1st person - except “mo-“. They are simple preverbs, but they can be added “mo-“ and they will become complex preverbs. By adding “mo-“ the direction becomes orientated towards the 1st person. So, all complex preverbs show the direction to the 1st person.
amo- up - to the 1st person amodis - comes up
chamo- down inside - to the 1st person chamodis -comes down
shemo- from outside (in)to inside - to the 1st person shemodis –comes into
gamo- outside from inside - to the 1st person gamodis - comes out
gadmo - over the barrier - to the 1st person gadmodis – comes over
ts’amo - towards the - 1st person ts’amovida - went/came to the 1-st person.
B. Preverb produces the new rows of conjugation in the I series. Then they don’t show the direction.
khatavs - dakhatavs, ts’ers – dats’ers - No verbal direction is exposed here.
C. Preverbs don’t show the direction while producing the perfect. Compare: vkhat’e (I was painting) – davkhat’e (I painted)
vts’ere (I was writing) – davts’ere (I wrote).
D. Sometimes preverbs change the meaning of the word:
moigo He won (the game or money)
gaigo He understood
ts’aago He lost
mikhvda He realized/ understood
mokhvda He got
shekhvda He met
dakhvda He met (run into)
E. Preverbs can change the verbal personality – the number of arguments.
a-ashena man is (he/she built it) – mo-ashena man mas is /mi-ashena man mas is /da-ashena man mas is (he/she built it at/on it);
da-vts’ere me is (agh-vts’ere / amo-vts’ere / gada-vts’ere) (I wrote, /described /rewrote it) – mo-vts’ere me mas is / mi-vts’ere me mas is (I wrote /described /rewrote it to/for him/her);
da-vts’minde me is/isini (I cleaned it/them) – mo-vts’minde me mas is /gada-vts’minde me mas is /shemo-vts’minde me mas is (I cleaned it from him/her/it);
ga-vglije me is (I tore it away/off) – mo-vglije me is mas (I tore it away/off him/her);
ga-vq’ide me is (I sold it) – mi-vq’ide me is mas (I sold it to him/her), etc.
F. The preverb da- conveys the meaning of plurality for the direct object in some verbs, compare: kalma p’uri gamo-atskho – The woman baked a loaf of bread and kalma p’urebi da-atskho - The woman baked several loafs of breads; man ga-pina k’aba – she hung a dress on the line and man k’abebi da-pina – he/she hung the dresses on the line; man is ga-k’ida –he/she hung it (on/upon something) and man isini da-k’ida –he/she hinged them (on/upon something).
Georgian is an agglutinating language. Agglutination means that each affix expresses a single meaning, and they usually do not merge with each other or affect each other phonologically. Each verbal screeve is formed by adding a number of prefixes and suffixes to the verb stem. Certain affix categories are limited to certain screeves and not all possible markers are obligatory (in a scheme below). The components of a Georgian verb form occur in the following order (but not every one is exposed obligatorily):
Georgian verb template
prefixal nominal marker
suffixal nominal marker
17. 1. Conjugation of transitive (active) verbs
1. Present Indicative - I paint/write - present indefinite or present continuous
I s. vkhat’av / vts’er I pl . vkhat’avt / vts’ert
II s. khat’av / ts’er II pl. khat’avt / ts’ert
III s. khat’avs / ts’ers III pl. khat’aven / ts’eren
2. Imperfect - Past continuous. I was painting/writing (or I used to paint with “kholme” – a particle of repeated verbal action). The final “i” is the marker of this row.
I s. vkhat’avdi / vts’erdi I pl . vkhat’avdit / vts’erdit
II s. khat’avdi / ts’erdi II pl. khat’avdit / ts’erdit
III s. khat’avda / ts’erda III pl. khat’avdnen / ts’erdnen
3. Present Subjunctive - If I paint/write. These forms are used in complex sentences, with the conjunctions “net’av” – wonder or “ikneb”-probably. The final “e” is the marker of this row.
I s. vkhat’avde / vts’erde I pl . vkhat’avdet / vts’erdet
II s. khat’avde / ts’erde II pl. khat’avdet / ts’erdet
III s. khat’avdes / ts’erdes III pl. khat’avdnen / ts’erdnen
The next 3 rows of mq’opadi group repeat the 3 previous rows with proverbs.
4. Future Indicative - I’ll paint/write.
I s. davkhat’av / davts’er I pl . davkhat’avt / davts’ert
II s. dakhat’av / dats’er II pl. dakhat’avt / dats’ert
III s. dakhat’avs / dats’ers III pl. dakhat’aven / dats’eren
5. Conditional - past conditional – I would paint/write. The final “i” is the marker of this row.
I s. davkhat’avdi / davts’erdi I pl . davkhat’avdit / davts’erdit
II s. dakhat’avdi / dats’erdi II pl. dakhat’avdit / dats’erdit
III s. dakhat’avda / dats’erda III pl. dakhat’avdnen / dats’erdnen
6. Future Subjunctive - future subjunctive – If I’ll pant/write. The final “e” is the marker of this row.
I s. davkhat’avde / davts’erde I pl. davkhat’avdet / davts’erdet
II s. dakhat’avde / dats’erde II pl. dakhat’avdet / dats’erdet
III s. dakhat’avdes / dats’erdes III pl. dakhat’avdnen / dats’erdnen
Aorist Indicative - I painted/I have/had painted. It indicates a general past. The past indefinite is often accompanied with a preverb but not in the case of the past continuous. The forms with preverbs could be also translated as past/present perfect, because it is an accomplished act. The marker of the row is “e.”
I s. (da)vkhat’e/(da)vts’ere I pl. (da)vkhat’et/(da)vts’eret
II s. (da)khat’e/(da)ts’ere II pl. (da)khat’et/(da)ts’eret
IIIs.(da)khat’a/(da)ts’era III pl. (da)khat’es/(da)ts’eres
Imperatives are also expressed with the forms of this row - (da)khat’e! (da)ts’ere! (da)khat’et! (da)ts’eret!
Optative - II subjunctive (the future subjunctive is used in complex sentences with proper conjunctions: rom (that), net’av, ikneb (I wish), etc.) The marker of the row is “o”.
I s. (da)vkhat’o/(da)vts’ero I pl. (da)vkhat’ot/(da)vts’erot
II s. (da)khat’o/(da)ts’ero II pl. (da)khat’ot/(da)ts’erot
IIIs.(da)khat’os/(da)ts’eros III pl. (da)khat’on/(da)ts’eron
These forms are used as negative imperatives ar (da)khat’o! ar (da)ts’ero! ar (da)khat’ot! ar (da)ts’erot!
Only this row can be used for both types of imperatives (positive and negative) for the I and the III persons: ar (da)vkhat’ot! ar (da)vts’erot! ar (da)khat’os! ar (da)ts’eros! ar (da)khat’on! ar (da)ts’eron!
This row is used in the second verbal element with modal verbs (may, can, must): minda gavak’eto (I want to do it), unda gaak’etos (He must do it), sheudzlia dats’eros (He can write), ar sheudzlia dakhat’os (He can’t write), sheudzlia ar dakhat’os (He can not-write), etc.
Perfect - I turmeobiti. “turme” means – it seems. This is unreal act. The subject did the action, but either he (the subject) didn’t remember it, or he didn’t see it. It seems, I’ve painted it.
I s. damikhat’avs/damits’eria I pl. dagvikhat’avs/dagvits’eria
II s. dagikhat’avs/dagits’eria II pl. dagikhat’avt/dagits’eriat
III s. daukhat’avs/dauts’eria III pl. daukhat’avt/dauts’eriat
A. The direct object usually has no markers for the III person, but in case of INVERSION (in the III series) it uses the markers of the subject. (Note: only transitive verbs have inversion.)
B. The verbs with thematic markers have them in this series.
I series - vkhat’av/davkhat’av vts’er/davts’er
II series – vkhat’e/davkhat’e vts’ere/davts’ere
III series – damikhat’avs damits’eria
C. The forms in this row are widely used for negative forms: ar damikhat’avs, ar damits’eria. In such forms the sense of turme – it seems (an unreal action) is missing.
Negative forms of the aorist and mq’opadi sound more principal and categorical: ar davkhat’e! ar davts’ere! ar davkhatav! ar davts’er!
Pluperfect - future in the past subjunctive conditional. I’d paint/write.
I s. damekhat’a/damets’era I pl. dagvekhat’a/dagvets’era
II s. dagekhat’a/dagets’era II pl. dagekhat’at/dagectserat
III s. daekhat’a/daets’era III pl. daekhat’at/daets’erat
Perfect Subjunctive - subjunctive conditional. I wish I would paint/write. The last 11-th row is very seldom used. (But it’s widely used in the forms for toasting.)
I s. damekhat’os/damets’eros I pl. dagvekhat’os/dagvets’eros
II s. dagekhat’os/dagets’eros II pl. dagekhatot/dagets’erot
III s. daekhat’os/daets’eros III pl. daekhat’ot/daets’erot
17. 2. Conjugation of intransitive verbs
Transitive verbs have a direct object and intransitive verbs don’t. There are two types of intransitives in Georgian: Passive and Medial.
17. 2. 1. Dynamic Passive
Georgian dynamic passive verbs have 3 groups:
A. Prefix-produced, B. Suffix-produced and C. Unmarked.
The first group is produced by prefix “i-“ - one personal verbs vimalebi (I am hiding) and prefix “e-“ produces two-personal verbs vemalebi (I am hiding from somebody).
17. 2. 1. 1. Prefix-produced dynamic passive
The first verb is one personal and the second verb is two-personal.
Present Indicative - I am hiding / from someone
Imperfect - I was hiding / from someone
Present Subjunctive - If /I wish I am hiding /from someone
Future Indicative - I will hide /from someone
Conditional - I use to hide /from someone
Future Subjunctive - If /I wish I hide /from someone
Aorist Indicative - I hided /from someone
Optative - I (must/want/can) hide/ from someone
Perfect - It seems I hid/from someone
Pluperfect - (If) I would hide /from someone
Perfect Subjunctive - I wish I would/will hide / from someone
This last row is less commonly in modern Georgian. Its forms repeat the Pluperfect.