Dr. Tamar Makharoblidze a short Grammar of Georgian Introduction Georgian
|
|  Yüklə 0.89 Mb.
|
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).
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).
Compare : 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). 16. Preverbs 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
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). 17. Conjugation 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):
17. 1. Conjugation of transitive (active) verbs I series 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
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
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. Compare:
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
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).
The first verb is one personal and the second verb is two-personal. I series
vimalebi/vemalebi vimalebit/vemalebit imelabi/emalebi imalebit/emalebit imelaba/emaleba imalebian/emalebian Imperfect - I was hiding / from someone vimalebodi/vemalebodi vimalebodit/vemalebit imalebodi/emalebodi imalebodit/emalebodit imaleboda/emaleboda imalebodnen/emalebodnen Present Subjunctive - If /I wish I am hiding /from someone vimalebode/vemalebode vimalebodet/vemalebet imalebode/emalebode imalebodet/emalebodet imalebodes/emalebodes imalebodnen/emalebodnen Future Indicative - I will hide /from someone davimalebi/davemalebi davimalebit/davemalebit daimalebi/daemalebi daimalebit/daemalebit daimaleba/daemaleba daimalebian/daemalebian Conditional - I use to hide /from someone davimalebodi/davemalebodi davimalebodit/davemalebit daimalebodi/daemalebodi daimalebodit/daemalebodit daimaleboda/daemaleboda daimalebodnen/daemalebodnen Future Subjunctive - If /I wish I hide /from someone davimalebode/davemalebode davimalebodet/davemalebet daimalebode/daemalebode daimalebodet/daemalebodet daimalebodes/daemalebodes daimalebodnen/daemalebodnen II series
davimale/davemale davimalet/davemalet daimale/daemale daimalet/daemalet daimala/daemala daimalnen/daemalnen Optative - I (must/want/can) hide/ from someone davimalo/davemalo davimalot/davemalot daimalo/daemalo daimalot/daemalot daimalos/daemalos daimalon/daemalon III series Perfect - It seems I hid/from someone davmalulvar/davmalvivar davmalulvart/davmalvivart damalulkhar/damalvikhar damalulkhart/damalvikhart damalula/da(h)malvia damalulan/da(h)malvian Pluperfect - (If) I would hide /from someone davmaluliq’av/davmalvode davmaluliq’avit/davmalvodet damaluliq’av/damalvode damaluliq’avit/damalvodet damaluliq’o/damalvodes damaluliq’vnen/damalvodnen Perfect Subjunctive - I wish I would/will hide / from someone damaluliq’os/damalvodes damaluliq’on/damalvodnen This last row is less commonly in modern Georgian. Its forms repeat the Pluperfect. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||