Dr. Tamar Makharoblidze

A Short Grammar of Georgian

1

1. Introduction Georgian ( ქართული ენა, kartuli ena) is the official language of Georgia. Georgian is the primary language of about 3.9 million people in Georgia itself (83 percent of the population), and of another 500,000 abroad (chiefly in Turkey, Iran, Russia, USA and Europe). It is the literary language for all ethnographic groups of Georgian people, especially those who speak other South Caucasian languages (or Kartvelian languages): Svans, Mingrelians, and Lazs. Gruzinic, or "Kivruli," sometimes considered a separate Jewish

language, is spoken by an additional 20,000 in Georgia and 65,000 elsewhere (primarily 60,000 in Israel). The Georgian language belongs to the South Caucasian family, which also includes Svan, Megrelian - spoken in Northwest Georgia and Laz spoken along the Black Sea coast of Turkey. The separation of the Kartvelian languages took part in the second millennium BC or earlier. Dialects of Georgian include Imeretian, Racha-Lechkhumian, Gurian, Adjaran, Imerkhevian (in Turkey), Kartlian, Kakhetian, Ingilo (in Azerbaijan), Tush, Khevsur, Mokhevian, Pshavian, Fereydan dialect in Iran in Fereydunshahr and Mtiuletian, Meskhetian. Georgia has a rich literary tradition. The oldest surviving literary text in Georgian is the "Martyrdom of the Holy Queen Shushanik" (Tsamebay tsmindisa Shushanikisi, dedoplisa) by Iakob Tsurtaveli, from the 5th century AD. The Georgian national epic, "The

Knight in the Panther's Skin" (Vepkhistqaosani), by Shota Rustaveli, dates from the 12th century.

A. Georgian is an agglutinative language. That means that each grammatical category has its own markers. There could be a row of affixes in a word.B. Georgian verb is poly-personal. It exposes subject and both objects –direct and indirect. Every verbal person (argument) can be marked in the verb. C. Georgian is a post-positional language. Ad-positions are placed after the nouns and not before – as it is in English for example. D. Georgian has a subject-verb-object primary sentence structure. But the word order is not as strict as in some other languages (such as English). Not all word orders are acceptable, but subject-object-verb is also possible. E. There are no articles in Georgian.

2

2. Writing system (ABC) Georgian has been written in a variety of scripts over its history. These alphabets are called asomtavruli (Capitals), Nuskhuri (Small letters) and Mkhedruli. According to Leonti Mroveli (the 11th century) the first Georgian alphabet was created by the first King of Caucasian Iberia (also called Kartli), Pharnavaz in the 3rd century BC. However, the first examples of that alphabet, or its modified version, date from the 4th-5th centuries CE. During the centuries the alphabet was modernized. Modern Georgian alphabet – Mkhedruli has 33 letters. The number of sound is equal to the number of letters: We read as we write. There are 33 letters for 33 sounds. That's why Georgian alphabet is considered one of the best among 14.

Direction of writing is left to right and Georgian has no capital letters.

Georgian Alphabet

Letters Unicode Nam

e National ISO 9984 BGN IPA

ა U+10D0 an A a A a А а /ɑ/

ბ U+10D1 ban B b B b B b /b/

გ U+10D2 gan G g G g G g /ɡ/

დ U+10D3 don D d D d D d /d/

ე U+10D4 en E e E e E e /ɛ/

ვ U+10D5 vin V v V v V v /v/

ზ U+10D6 zen Z z Z z Z z /z/

3

თ U+10D7 t'an T t T' t' T' t' /tʰ/

ი U+10D8 in I i I i I i /i/

კ U+10D9 kan K' k' K k K k /k’/

ლ U+10DA las L l L l L l /l/

მ U+10DB man M m M m M m /m/

ნ U+10DC nar N n N n N n /n/

ო U+10DD on O o O o O o /ɔ/

პ U+10DE par P' p' P p P p /p’/

ჟ U+10DF žan Zh zh Ž ž Zh zh /ʒ/

რ U+10E0 rae R r R r R r /r/

ს U+10E1 san S s S s S s /s/

ტ U+10E2 tar T' t' T' t' T t /t’/

4

უ U+10E3 un U u U u U u /u/

ფ U+10E4 p'ar P p P' p' P' p' /pʰ/

ქ U+10E5 kan K k K' k' K' k' /kʰ/

ღ U+10E6 ḡan Gh gh Ḡ ḡ Gh gh /ɣ/

ყ U+10E7 qar Q' q' Q q Q q /q’/

შ U+10E8 šin Sh sh Š š Sh sh /ʃ/

ჩ U+10E9 č'in Ch ch Č' č' Ch' ch' /tʃ/

ც U+10EA c'an Ts ts C' c' Ts' ts' /ts/

ძ U+10EB jil Dz dz J j Dz dz /dz/

წ U+10EC cil Ts' ts' C c Ts ts /ts’/

ჭ U+10ED čar Ch' ch' Č č Ch ch /tʃ’/

ხ U+10EE xan Kh kh X x Kh kh /x/

5

ჯ U+10EF ǰan J j J ǰ J j /dʒ/

ჰ U+10F0 hae H h H h H h /h/

Bellow we use National transliteration for Georgian words.

The oldest surviving examples of the contemporary Georgian script mkhedruli (military riders) date from the 11-12th centuries. The script was developed from the earlier Georgian alphabet - khutsuri ('ecclesiastical') script.

6

Vowels

ɪ ი   ʊ უ

ɛ ე   ɔ

ო

  a ა  

7

Consonants

Where there are multiple consonants for a point of articulation, they are given in the following order: voiceless / voiced / voiceless ejective.

  Bilabial Dental Palatal Velar Postvelar Uvular Glottal

Stop p b p’ ფ ბ პ

t d t’ თ დ ტ

k g k’ ქ გ კ

q’ყ

Fricative Vვ

s z ს ზ

sh zh

შ ჟkh gh

ხ ღHჰ

Affricate   ʦ ʣ ʦ’ ც ძ წ

ch ʤ ch’ ჩ ჯ ჭ

Nasal Mმ

nნ          

Liquid l, r, ლ რ

Compare these similar sounds: In the ejective sounds, one creates a stronger stress in the sound that follows the consonant.

თ, t (aspirated) and ტ, t’ (ejective) ფ, p (aspirated) and პ, p’ (ejective) ქ, k (aspirated) and კ, k’ (ejective) ჩ, ch (aspirated) and ჭ , ch’ (ejective)

3. Noun 3.1. Flexion

8

There are seven cases in Georgian: nominative, ergative, dative, genitive, instrumental, adverbial and vocative. Plural forms are produced by the suffix “eb,” which appears after the root of the noun and before the case marker.

Nominative -i k'ats-i k'ats-eb-iErgative -ma k'ats-ma k'ats-eb-maDative -s k'ats-s k'ats-eb -sGenitive -is k'ats-is k'ats-eb -isInstrumental -it k'ats-it k'ats-eb -itAdverbial -ad k'ats-ad k'ats-eb -adVocative -o k'ats-o! k'ats-eb -o!

1. Nominative, ergative and dative are the cases of verbal persons - subject and objects. 2. Genitive is an equivalent to the preposition “of “or the possessive clitic -'s in English. In the phrase “Tbilisis kucha” "the street of Tbilisi" the word "Tbilis-is" is in genitive case. 3. Instrumental case corresponds the preposition “with” in English. "He is painting with a pencil," “is khat’avs pankrit” where the word "pencil"- “pankrit” is in the instrumental case.4. Adverbial case commonly marks adverbial phrases. It is also used in some other arbitrary contexts, especially while using the name of languages. For example, in the sentence "Please, write this in Georgian." getaq’va, es dats’ere kartulad “Georgian” – “kartulad” is in adverbial case.5. Vocative case is used for addressing someone and therefore only exists for the second person singular and plural. Plural suffix is not used when the noun is preceded by a cardinal number; For example, "five books" in Georgian is expressed as "khuti (5) ts’igni" and not "khuti ts’ignebi."

3.2. Flexion of consonant-ending nouns

The vocals - a, e, o are missing before n, r, l, m in the words ending on these consonants - in 3 cases: genitive, instrumental and adverbial in

9

singular and everywhere in plural. In the same cases in singular (and everywhere in plural as well) “o” changes into “v” before n, r, l.

a, e, o, before n, r, l, m                   ov before n, r, l,Nom. st’umari st’umrebi oboli oblebi mats’oni mats’vnebi Erg. s t’umarma st’umrebma obolma oblebma mats’onma mats’vnebmaDat. st’umars st’umrebs obols oblebs mats’ons mats’vnebsGen. st’umris st’umrebis oblis oblebis mats’vnis mats’vnebisInstr. st’umrit st’umrebit oblit oblebit mats’vnit mats’vnebitAdv. st’umrad st’umrebad oblad oblebad mats’vnad mats’vnebadVoc. st’umaro st’umrebo obolo oblebo mats’ono mats’vneboStumari -guest, oboli-orphan, matsoni -yogurt

OrthographyA. The words ending at “s” have two “s”-s in dative of singular forms: tbilissB. The words ending at “m” have two “m”-s in ergative of singular forms: katamma (hen-erg.)

3.3. Emphatic vowel

The emphatic “a” may appear after case markers in dative, genitive, instrumental and adverbial cases in singular and plural but it doesn’t change the word meaning:

sakhli -housesakhls/sakhlsa          sakhlebs/sakhlebsasakhlis/sakhlisa    sakhlebis/sakhlebisasakhlit/sakhlita         sakhlebit/sakhlebitasakhlad/sakhlada       sakhlebad/sakhlebada

3. 4. Flexion of nouns ending on vocals

10

The words ending on vowels “a” and “e” loose these vocals in genitive and instrumental. This final “a” is also missing everywhere in plural while the words ending on “e” have two “e”-s (ee) in plural.

Nom. mama (father) mamebi t’q’e(forest) t’q’eebi okro(gold) okroebiErg. mamam mamebma t’q’em t’q’eebma okrom okroebmaDat. mamas mamebs t’q’es t’q’eebs okros okroebsGen. mamis mamebis t’q’is t’q’eebis okros(i) okroebisInstr. mamit mamebit t’q’it t’q’eebit okrot(i) okroebitAdv. mamad mamebad t’q’ed t’q’eebad okrod okroebadVoc. mamao/mamav mamebo t’q’eo t’q’eebo okrov okroebo

ghvino is an exception  - ghvinis, ghvinit and in plural – ghvinoebi, ghvinoebs, etc.

3.5. Old plural forms

In the old Georgian there were another affixes for noun plurality. Suffix “n” was a case marker in nominative and vocative together with proper case markers (“i” and “o”) and “t” was in the other cases:

Nom. k'atsni (men) dedani (mothers) kheni (trees) ts’q’aroni (sources)Erg. k’atsta dedata Kheta ts’q’arota Dat. k’atsta dedata kheta ts’q’arotaGen. k’atsta dedata kheta ts’q’arotaInst. ------- --------- -------- --------Adv. -------- --------- --------- --------Voc. k’atsno dedano Kheno ts’q’arono In modern Georgian these forms are used in some forms: sabch’ota k’avshiri (USSR), mts’eralta k’avshiri (Writers’ Union), mkhat’varta k’avshiri (Painters’ Union), etc.

4. Postpositions Georgian has postpositions not prepositions. Ad-positions

11

are placed after rather than before the nouns.

4. 1. The postposition of nominative is “-vit” - like. It adds only to the nouns ending on consonants:  lomivit (like a lion), bavshvivit (like a child), kalivit (like a woman).  The nouns ending on vowels have the same postposition in dative.

4. 2. The postpositions of dative

Like  - vit     dedasavit (like a mother), kalsavit (like a woman). This postposition is seldom used in dative, as the same postposition in nominative is mostly used with consonant-ending words.On   - ze   (magidaze – on the table)In    - shi    (magidashi – in the table) At /near    -tan/-s-tan  (k’ats-tan, magida-s-tan ) This postposition is added to the word root directly in the words with final consonants, while the words ending on vocals keep the dative marker “–s”. Compare: - magida-s-tan (at the table) and megobar-tan (at/with the friend).

Between/among  shoris /shua  k’edlebs shoris/ k’edlebs shua (Between/among the walls)

Orthography

A. The words ending at “z” have two “z”-s after adding the postposition “-ze” (on) only in singular forms: k’ovzze (on the spoon).B. The words ending at “sh” have two “sh”-s after adding the postposition “shi” (in) in singular forms: tamashshi (in game).

4. 3. Postpositions of genitive

For - tvis (kalistvis - for the woman)12

From (material) - gan (kalisgan from the woman) Towards - k’en (kalisk’en to/towards the woman)By mier (kalis mier by the woman)Because of gamo (kalis gamo - Because of the woman) Except garda (kalis garda - except for the woman)About shesaxeb (kalis shesakheb - about the woman)According mixedvit/tanakhmad (kalis mikhedvit/tanakhmad - According to the woman)In spite of miukhedavad (kalis miukhedavad - In spite of the woman) Instead of natsvlad / magier (kalis natsvlad / magier - instead of the woman)In front of c’in (kalis c’in - in front of the woman)Behind uk’an (kalis uk’an – behind the woman)After shemdeg (kalis shemdeg - after the woman)Around irgvliv (kalis irgvliv - around the woman)Up zemot (kalis zemot - up of the woman)Down kvemot (kalis kvemot - down/under the woman)Under kvesh (kalis kvesh - down/under the woman)Left to/on martskhniv (kalis martskhniv – to the left of the woman)Right to/on marjvniv (kalis marjvniv – to the left of the woman)

4. 4. The postpositions of instrumental

–(i)dan/-dan  mean from/origin. It’s received after phonetic changes - it+gan-->itgan-->idgan-->idan. Samples: sakhlidan (from the house), otakhidan (from the room) tbilisidan (from Tbilisi), etc. Note, that the final “a” and “e” vocals are reduced by adding this postposition.

  4. 5. The postpositions of adverbial

13

-mde/-(a)mde and -mdis/-(a)mdis both mean till/unit. The “a” is the rest of case marker, the consonant “d” of case marker is missing. The samples: sakhlamde/sakhlamdis, tbilisamde/tbilisamdis, etc.

4. 6. Postpositions with ergative semantics

In Georgian there are two cases are without postpositions: vocative and ergative. There are different points of view about vocative in Kartvelian linguistics. The fact is that this case stands separately in the system of Georgian flexion. So, it’s quite natural that this case doesn’t share much with the other cases. The second case which never adds the postpositions is ergative. Its function is well-investigated in different linguistic systems. It has an active role in the language systems where it appears. Generally the cases are more or less open for postpositions. It all depends on their semantic diapasons. Ergative as a case of transitive subject has no postpositions and it is not expected for a subject case to have postpositions. However still there are some postpositions with semantics of the ergative - “mier” (by), “gan” (from), “gamo” (of, from, because). The semantics of “mier” (by) is absolutely clear. It is a postposition of a subject – an acting person and its ergative meaning leaves no doubt. This is an agentive-type morphological unit; Compare: k’atsis mier gak’etebuli nivti (The thing done by the man)k’atsma gaak’eta nivti / k’atsi ak’etebs nivts. (The man did/does the thing) The postposition “mier” appears with infinitives of transitive verbs, or in other words, it acts out of Georgian verbal morphology. It’s very significant that the postposition “mier” is never used with nouns by intransitive verbs. This postposition doesn’t appear at all with intransitive semantics. Compare:

14

k’atsi ts’evs / k’atsi ats’vens / k’atsis mier dats’venili (The man lies / The man lies down somebody / Somebody is lied down by the man) k’atsi (u)tbeba / k’atsis mier gamtbari (for object) (The man becomes warm / Something becomes warm by the man) Only in case of such transitivation of the forms can we have the postposition “mier” with nouns by intransitive verbs. Postpositions “gamo” and “gan” expose this. They very often have ergative semantics. Of course we should remember that these postpositions also have other functions (especially “gan”), but now we are taking into consideration only their ergative semantics. In the Georgian language we have the equal pair of forms:1. shishma amak’ank’ala - (The fear shivered me - I shivered with fear)2. shishisgan mak’ank’alebs (shishis gamo mak’ank’alebs - I shiver because/with/from fear) In these impersonal transitive forms (in the above samples) we can easily see the ergative semantics of the postposition “gan”. The semantic role of the verbal person (or the argument) becomes wider by adding the meaning of reason and it turns out to be impossible to put these two meanings in the forms of ergative case. It’s very important that in such type of impersonal transitive forms (mak’ank’alebs, matsiebs, makhvelebs, mtskhela, mtsiva, mamq’opa, etc.) the actual subject doesn’t belong to either a class of humans or things. For Georgian there is a basic binary opposition between humans and things. The semantics of a subject out of the who-what category was taken away from the verbal morphology and ergative semantics of above mentioned postpositions appeared. There are the two groups of impersonal transitive forms: a. The verbs connected with any conditions of a human’s body and b. The forms with particle “net’av” (“wish”). The ellipsis of this particle in the second groups is quite common. Impersonal transitive forms can’t artificially take the ergative subject. The language doesn’t allow the creation of such hyper-ergativisation. – organizmma shishisagan amak’ank’ala (My organism made me shivering from fear) – is not acceptable, because “shishi” (fear) is the reason and the source (as the actual acting subject) in this action at the same time.

15

Speaking about the reason we mean the reason of verbal action, which could be also the source for this action. This is the reason and motivation of a verbal act. We have bilateral contacts between the semantics of reason and ergativity. The only form of hyper-ergativization which is more or less acceptable in Georgian is the following: (raghatsam) shishisagan amak’ank’ala. - Something made me shiver from fear. The language can permit the existence of such forms, because it’s one explanation of the class of the subject, which is outside of the who-what category, as could be exposed by the word raghatsam “something”. The semantics of the ergative exposed by postpositions doesn’t show split ergativity in Georgian. With these postpositions we have ergative semantics in any of the rows of conjugation. We could review a comparison these forms with ergative meaning from the one hand and the system of split ergativity in Georgian from the other. Compare:shishisagan mak’ank’alebs – shishi mak’ank’alebs shishisagan amak’ank’ala - shisma amak’an’kala shishisagan avuk’ank’alebivar/avk’ank’alebulvar/mik’ank’alia

- shishs avuk’ank’alebivar The forms of impersonal transitive have the problems in producing the third serya. The above-exposed forms of impersonal transitives can show postpositional ergativity in all rows of conjugation and we call them supper -ergatives. It’s very significant that all postpositions with semantics of ergativity are the postpositions of the genitive case. This fact outlines the very specific systemic relations between these two cases (ergative and genitive) in Iberian-Caucasian languages. The declination systems in some North Caucasian languages (the ergative or genitive type declinations, or so called “отэргативное” and “отгенитивное склонение” – from-ergative or from-genitive declination) seem to be a very important key in the light of relations with linguistic models of possessive-destination and ergativity. In our opinion the exposed item is connected with double marking declination appearing only in the ergative or the genitive in North Caucasian languages.

16

5. Adjectives

5.1. Adjective Degrees

In Georgian adjectives have three degrees: 1. Neutral2. Superlative/more - produced by affixes “u-es” 3. Minimal/less - produced by affixes “mo-o”

Compare: tetri (white) – utetresi (the whitest) – motetro (less white) mts’vane (green) – umts’vanesi (the most green) – momts’vano (less green)ts’iteli (red) – uts’itlesi (the reddest) – mots’italo (less red)

 Some adjectives ending on “il” and “el” loose these letters. Compare: t’k’bili (sweet) – ut’k’besi (the sweetest) – mot’k’bo (less sweet); grdzeli (long) – ugrdzesi (the longest) – mogrdzo (less long).

The two adjectives “good” – “k’argi” and “bad” – “tsudi” produce the degrees by changing the forms:k’argi (good) – uk’etesi (better ) – sauk’eteso (the best)tsudi (bad) - uaresi (the worst) (It has only superlative).

5.2. Flexion of adjectives

Flexion of independent adjectives and numerals follow the model of nouns with the same type of roots. 

17

5.2.1. Flexion of adjectives with nouns

A. The adjectives ending on vowels don’t change.

Nom. p’at’ara megobar-i p’at’ara megobreb-iErg. p’at’ara megobar-ma p’at’ara megobreb-maDat. p’at’ara megobar-s p’at’ara megobreb-sGen. p’at’ara megobr-is p’at’ara megobreb-isInstr. p’at’ara megobr-it p’at’ara megobreb-itAdv. p’at’ara megobr-ad p’at’ara megobreb-adVoc. p’at’ara megobar-o p’at’ara megobreb-o

B. The adjectives ending on consonants have the following model of flexion:

Nom. did-i megobari did-i megobreb-iErg. didm-ma megobar-ma did-ma megobreb-maDat. did megobar-s did megobreb-sGen. did-i megobr-is did-i megobreb-isInstr. did-i megobr-it did-i megobreb-itAdv. did megobr-ad did megobreb-adVoc. did-o megobar-o did-o megobreb-o

It has full forms in 3 cases: nominative, ergative and vocative. The adjective partially looses case markers (It looses the consonants.) in two cases: genitive and instrumental. It is absolutely without case markers in two cases: dative and adverbial.

6. Pronouns18

6.1. Personal pronouns

I            me You          shenShe/he/it     isWe          chvenYou          tkvenThey         isini

The I-II personal pronouns don’t change forms. The forms of the personal pronouns of the II person (singular and plural) lose the last consonant “n” in the vocative, especially when they are used with nouns: shen (nom.) - shen! or she k’atso (voc.) tkven (nom.) - tkven! or tkve khalkho – you people! (voc.)

The III person singular “is” is used for “she,” “he” and “it”. There is no difference in gender. There is no grammatical gender in Georgian, but the III person pronouns expose the space location towards the first person - the speaking person.

es         sing. This, near the first personeg         sing. This, near the second person (that near you)is (igi)  sing.  That, far from the first/second personseseni      Pl. These, near the first person.egeni      Pl. These, near the second person.isini       Pl. Those, far from the first/second persons 

The III person pronouns don’t form all cases, unless they are produced artificially.

19

Flexion of the III person personal pronouns:SingularNom. es eg igi is Erg. aman magan man iman Dat. amas magas mas imasGen. -----------------------------------Instr. amit magit mit imitAdv. amad magad mad imadVoc. -----------------------------------

Plural Nom. eseni egeni igini isini Erg. amat magat mat imat Dat. amat magat mat imatGen. ----------------------------------------Instr. ----------------------------------------Adv. ----------------------------------------Voc. ----------------------------------------

6. 2. Demonstrative pronouns

This/that these/those - es /eg/ is, eseni /egeni/isiniThis kind, such – aseti/iseti/egeti, amistana/imistana/magistana, amnairi/magnairi/imanairi

     Flexion of demonstrative pronouns with nouns:

Nom. es kali Eg kali is  kali es/eg/is kelebiErg. am kalma mag kalma im kalma am/mag/im kelebmaDat. am kals mag kals im kals am/mag/im kelebsGen. am kalis mag kalis im kalis am/mag/im kelebisInstr. am kalit mag kalit im kalit am/mag/im kelebitAdv. am kalad mag kalad im kalad am/mag/im kelebad

20

Voc. ------- ---------- ------- ---------

6. 3. 1. Possessive pronouns

My           chemi Your          sheni His/hers/its    misi / amisi / imisiOur          chveni Your         tkveni Their         mati / amati / imati The third person possessive pronouns repeat the same kind of space exposition as done in personal pronouns. Compare: es/is/eg, eseni/egeni/ isini and sing. misi - amisi - imisi; pl. mati - amati - imati

Actually the prefix “a”- shows the distance near the first person, while prefix “i”- exposes the opposite – far from the first/second persons. (As the second person is a member of communication and it is always near the first person.)

6. 3. 2. Flexion of possessive pronounsThe flexion of possessive pronouns look like others of the same type of consonant-stem-final adjectives and nouns. cases Nom. Erg. Dat. Gen. Instr. Adv. Voc.I person singular

chem-i chem-ma

Chem.-s chem-is chem-it chem-ad chem-o

II person singular

shen-i shen-ma Shen-s shen-is shen-it shen-ad shen-o

III person singular

a/i-mis-i a/i-mis-ma

a/i-mis a/i-mis-is

a/i-mis-it

a/i-mis-ad

a/i-mis-o

I person plural

chven-i chven-ma

chven-s chven-is chven-it chven-ad

chven-o

II person plural

tkven-i tkven-ma

tkven-s tkven-is tkven-it tkven-ad tkven-o

IIII a/i-mat-i a/i-mat-ma

a/i-mat-s a/i-mat- a/i-mat- a/i-mata-d

a/i-mat-o

21

person plural

is it

The same flexion model used for adjectives with nouns is used for possessive pronouns with nouns, but the possessive pronouns keep the dative case marker:

Nom. chemi megobari chemi megobrebiErg. chemma megobarma chemma megobrebmaDat. chems megobars chems megobrebsGen. chemi megobris chemi megobrebisInstr. chemi megobrit chemi megobrebitAdv. chem megobrad chem megobrebadVoc. chemo megobaro chemo megobrebo

6. 4. Reflexive pronounsHimself – tviton or tavad; His/her/its own - tavisi. These pronouns are produced from tavi (head).

6. 5. Indefinite pronounsvinme (somebody), vighats (someone), rame (something), raghats (something), romelighats (something), rogorighats (somehow), romelime (any), ramdenime (a few).

6. 6. Definite pronounserti (one), k’atsi (human, somebody), zogi (some people), zogierti (somebody), skhva (other), ertmaneti or erturti (each-other).

22

6. 7. Interrogative pronounsvin? (who?) ra? (what?), rogori? (what kind?) sadauri? (where from?) rodindeli? (from when?) ramdeni? (how much?) romeli? (which?)

6. 8. Directional pronouns are produced from interrogative pronouns by adding the particle “ts.”vints (who), rats (what), rogorits (that kind) sadaurits (where from) rodindelits (from when) ramdenits (how/that much) romelits (which).

7. ABOUT CLASS-CATEGORY

We expose the universal regulation - The general semantic

categories are universal for any language. The semantics of the class-

category is also universal. Different languages expose the regulations by

diverse types of linguistic models giving the priority to the dominant

categories. The Indo-European languages have three forms of gender,

Iberian languages have a category of animate and inanimate things; some

other languages have different signs for such classification, such as systems

of religious or social signs for proper identification etc.

In the Kartvelian languages we have the semantic category of classes

not only in the diachronic level. This category is not productive in the

23

temporary system of the Kartvalian languages and it has the tendency of

disappearing. But still on the synchronic level in Georgian this category is

exposed in morphology and syntax: In noun groups, in case and plural

systems, in participles, in different groups of pronouns, in verbs

(makvs/mq’avs), in proverbs, etc.

In our opinion ergative markers in Georgian and Svan m/man come from

the pronouns relating to the human, the who category (from me, mare- a

man, Svan.). The same origin has m - the first person object marker and v -

the first person subject marker; in mi-mo proverbs the center of orientation

is the first person, expressed by m having the proper opposition - ts’.

The general diathesis of the category of person is animate-inanimate

/who-what semantics. This category is very well exposed in the semantics

of the different groups of Georgian pronouns. The personal and

demonstrative pronouns have the rest of the class category opposition of s-

m. The marker of ergative follows the forms in the other cases:

Nom. is

Erg. m-a-n (“n” is the later marker of ergative)

Dat. m-a-s

Gen. m-is(i)

Inst.( i)-m-it

Adve. (i)-m-ad

Whatever we think about affix “a”, either consider this with the previous

consonant or take it as an inter-consonant vowel, in spite of this, we must

say that the ergative declination is quite clear in the Georgian language. 24

This is the same model of declination as in the other Caucasian languages.

In the Georgian language the class category is within the whole

language system. It’s spread by pronouns into the noun declination and

verbal conjugation. It is properly exposed in the poly-personal verbal

system. The class category appears in the basic semantics of the each

category of the poly-personal verb. The verbal category of the personal

relationship inside the verb of course is connected with the class category.

The who-what semantic category is the base for many categories in the

language, although in the modern language it has no referents itself –

except for just a few forms. Being a base semantic category for many other

categories is the reason why there is no need for it to be exposed with

proper morphological referents.

For typological comparison: There are different forms for the different

classes in the Basque language; for example, the post position “for” has the

different references for animate and un-animate nouns. Basque also has so

called allocutives in the verb showing the gender for the second verbal

person (subject, direct object and indirect object). It has feminine and

masculine gender, while there is no gender in the pronouns and nouns in

the Basque language. This is a very interesting fact that the Basque

language has the two types of class categories – gender and who-what

category. These categories produce the proper systems in the language.

The universal classification scheme of the class category:

1. Human1. a. Female

25

1. b. Male1. c. Neutral (child)

2. Thing2. A. Animated2. A. a. Female2. A. b. Male2. A. c. Neutral2. B Inanimate2. B. a. Classes by the different signs (size, color, forth, light, dynamic, growth, astronomical things, religious units etc.)2. B. b. Anything else

According to empirical data the simpler this scheme looks the level of

abstraction is higher in a language. The category of classes is a universal

linguistic phenomena and each language has to expose this somehow

showing its individuality.

8. Numerals

8.1. Numerals of quantity

The Georgian system of numbers is based on a counting system of 20. The numbers more than 20 and less than 100 are compound and the first number is composed of one or more 20's and then the remaining number is added. For example, 77 is expressed as “sam-ots-da-chvidmet’i” (lit. three-times-twenty and seventeen)

The numerals 11-19 are produced by the following scheme: ati (ten)+ the figure. The first vowel “a” and the nominative case marker ‘i’ are missing, ati t. 13 (t+s=ts), 17(t+sh=ch), 18(rv->vr), 19 have some phonetic

26

changes.1 erti 2 ori3 sami4 otkhi5 khuti6 ekvsi7 shvidi8 rva9 tskhra10 ati11 tertmet’i 12 tormet’i13 tsamet’i14 totkhmet’i15 tkhutmet’i16 tekvsmet’i17 chvidmet’i 18 tvramet’i19 tskhramet’i20 otsi 25  - otsdakhuti,  26 - otsdaekvsi  30 - otsdaati     31 – otsdatertmet’i,  37 – otsdachvidmet’i40 - ormotsi            42  - ormotsdaori 50 - ormotsdaati       57 -  ormotsdachvidmet’i 60 - samotsi             69  -  samotsdatskhra 70 - samotsdaati        79   -  samotsdatskhramet’i80 - otkhmotsi           81  -  otkhmotsdaerti 90 - otkhmotsdaati      98  -  otkhmotsdatvramet’i 100 - asi   200 - orasi,  300 -  samasi,  400 - otkhasi,  etc.1000 - atasi              1000 000 -  milioniMillard  -  miliardi    Uncountable -  utvalavi 

27

Georgian doesn’t use plurals with numerals – unlike English, for example. Compare: Six books, five notebooks with ekvsi ts’igni (not tsc’ignebi), khuti rveuli (not rveulebi).

In Georgian nouns are used in singular with “many”, “much”, “a few” – unlike English.

Compare these Georgian-English forms: Many animals - mravali or bevri tskhoveli; A few persons - ramdenime adamiani.

8. 2. Numerals of order are produced by affixes “me-e.” Except “the first” – “p’irveli.” The final “a” is missing in merve (8-rva) and metskhre (9-tskhra).  Samples: ori – me-or-e (the second), sami – me-sam-e (the third), tkhutmet’i – metkhutme’t’-e (the 15th), otsi - me-ots-e (the 20th), etc.

8. 3. The partial numerals are produced from numerals of order by adding the adverbial case marker: meore-d-i or nakhevari (half); mesame-d-i, moetkhe-d-i, mekhute-d-i, etc. The marker of the adverbial case “-ad” acts as a derivation marker.

All numerals have the same type of flexion as nouns and numerals with nouns following the declination model of adjectives with nouns.

9. Adverbs

9. 1. The adverbs of manner

Most adverbs are produced from the adverbial case of adjectives. (Some of them lose the case marker consonant, the final “-d”) neli - nela (slowly), chkari - chkara (quickly),  k’argi- k’arga/k’argad (well/OK), maghali – maghla (up), dabali - dabla (down), etc. 

28

nela, chkara, k’arga/k’argad, tsudad/avad (badly/ill);  utseb/utsbat/utsabedad - suddenly,  shemtkhvevit or  uneblied - accidentally, autsileblad - for sure. 9. 2. The adverbs of place

Near - akhlos  Next - gverdze  Far - shors  or moshorebitNearby - shoriakhlosUp -  zemot or maghla or aghma (directed)Down  - kvemot or dabla or daghma (directed)

Here - ak /aket /akve/aketk'en/akedan   There - ik /iket /ikve/iketk'en/ikedan  In front -  ts’in           Behind – uk’anRight  - marjvniv        Left  -  martskhnivCorrect side – ts’aghma         Wrong side – uk’ughmaSome places - zoggan or alag-alag or adgil-adgil (“place” is alagi or adgili)

Very often these adverbs produce new compound words by joining to the opposite words: shoriakhlos (nearby), ts’aghma-uk’ughma (front and behind), ts’in da uk’an (before and behind), zemot-kvemot (up and down), aka-ika (some places), aket-ikit (here and there), alag-alag (at some places), adgil-adgil (at some places). 9. 3. The adverbs of time

Today – dghes;   Tomorrow- khval;   Yesterday - gushin;The day before yesterday – gushints’in; The day after tomorrow - zeg;   In 2 days - mazeg;This year- ts’els;  Last year - sharshan;  Next year - gaisad;Often – khshirad;  Seldom - ishviatad;Sometimes - zogjer or  khandakhan or drodadro;Always – sul / (sul) mudam or (sul) q’oveltvis or q’oveldros;Never - arasdros /arasodes;Immediately -  ts’amierad  or  mq’isve  or mashinve;Now  - akhla; Right now - akhlave  Then - mashin;

29

After - mere  or  shemdegEver - odesme Mostly – umet’esad

9. 4. Adverbs of purpose     

For this - amad/amistvis for that - magad /magistvis and imad/imistvis

9. 5. Adverbs of reason

Because of this - amitom  Because of that  - imitom or magitom

9. 6. Adverbs of measure

Once - ertkhel, Twice – orjer, 3 times – samjer, 4 times - otkhjer, etc. Suffix “-jer” produces these adverbs. Quite/fully - sruliad or savsebit or q’ovlad Completely/fully – mtlianad,  Partially – nats’ilobrivLess – tsot’a / tsot’ati;    Little by little – tsot’a-tsot’a, More – met’ad or met’ts’ilad (mainly), More or less met’nak’lebad, Very - dzalian

9. 7. Interrogative adverbs Where? - sad? When - rodis? Why?- rat’om? How? – rogor?  What for?- ristvis?

9. 8. Adverbs as conjunctions

30

The particle “-ts” produces conjunctions from these interrogative adverbs – sadats, rodesats, rat’omats, ristvisats, rogorts/rogorats. These words are used in complex sentences as conjunctions.  

10. The conjunctions and particlesAnd - da;   That/if – rom;   But - magram;  Though - tumtsa;while/till - sanam / manam (manam… sanam);  Than/till - vidre;           However / but - kholo;  On the other hands/but – k’i;Or (either or) - an (…an);  Or - tu / tuk’I; Sometimes - khan (…khan);  But however - aramed;Because – imit’om;  Therefore – amit’om or mashasadame; Because of /for - radganats; i.e. – ese igi;   Or else – torem;  Which - romelits;  Such as – rogorits; That/whatever - rats;  Whoever - vints;  However - rogorts / tumtsa; As many/much - ramdenits;   May-be - ikneb;  Affirmative – khom;  Really? (doubting) - gana;Order intensification - aba;   I wish/wonder  - netavi or netav; Already – uk’ve;   Almost  -  titkmis/lamis /k’inagham;Apparently - turme;  Repetition (of action) -  kholme. 

11. Interjections

Calling (mots’odeba) - aba! ai! ei! au! hei! haiWish (natvra) – net’av, net’avi, -mtsSorrow (mts’ukhareba) - vai! vaime! vui! ui! uime! ah! oh! apsus! oi! uh! o!Joy (sikharuli) - vakh! vahsa! ura! Exclamation (aghtatseba) – bich’os! q’ochag’! barakala! vasha! dideba! vasha-dideba! Surprise (gakvirveba) - vaa! au! vah! ah!Swear (pitsi/pitsili) - ghmertmani! shemma mzem! Dedashvilobam! da-dzmobam!

31

Affectionate (saalerso) - genatsvale, getaq’va(ne).

12. Infinitive

In Georgian infinitives are used as nouns, although they are produced from verbs. They can receive case markers. The most infinitives are produced by the suffix “-a”: ts’er-a (to write), khat’v-a (to paint), mushaob-a (to work), pren-a (to fly), etc. Some infinitives have -om, -ol, -il, -ul endings. A few infinitives are produced by “si-il” and “si-ul.”a. k’vdoma - to die, ndoma - to want, jdoma - to sit, skhdoma - to sit (meeting), sk'doma - to break out, sh(v)roma - to work/to do, ts’vdoma - to reach, t’q’doma - to break, kht’oma-to jump;b. brdzola - to fight, krola - to blow, ts’ola - to lie, q’ola - to have; c. dughili - to boil, ts’ukhili - to worry, kukhili - to thunder, dumili -silent, t’q’uili-to lay, t’k’ivili - pain, q’muili - to wail, bghavili - to moan, k’navili - to mew, q’virili - to shout, t’irili - to cry;d. sik’vdili - death, sirbili - to run, sitsili - to laugh, shimshili -hunger (this is assimilated from simshili);siq’varuli - love, sikharuli- joy, sibraluli - to feel pity/sorry for, siaruli - to walk.

The infinitives can have the proverbs showing different direction: misvla, mosvla, gaprena, shemoprena, gadarbena, etc.

Infinitives can appear after modal verbs. Compare: Present a. shemidzlia/minda dakhat’va/dats’era - infinitiveb. shemidzlia/minda davkhat’o/davts’ero - II subjunctive

32

Future (II series)a. shemedzleba/mendomeba dakhat’va/dats’era - infinitiveb. shemedzleba/mendomeba davkhat’o/davts’ero - II subjunctive

Past (II series)a. shemedzlo/mindoda dakhat’va/dats’era - infinitiveb. shemedzlo/mindoda damekhat’a/damets’era -II Turmeobiti (The 10th row in the III series)

13. Participle

Usually participles are used as nouns or adjectives. A. The participles of transitive verbs are produced by the following

affixes: m-, me-el, m-ar/al. damts’eri (one, who wrote), mts’erali (writer), mkhat’vari (painter), masts’avlebeli (teacher), etc.

B. The future participles of passive are produced by affixes sa- and s-el: (da)sats’eri (something to write), (da)sakhat’i (something to paint), (ga)saketebeli (something to do), etc.

The past participles of passive are produced by the following affixes: -il, -ul, na-, m-ar. dats’erili (written), gaketebuli (made), nakhat’i (picture/painted), dakhatuli (painted), damdnari (melted) etc.

These participles can have negative forms as well, produced by u- and u-el: daukhat’avi (unpainted), dauts’ereli (unwritten), etc.

33

14. Derivation

Derivation is very rich in Georgian. Word derivation by adding the definite prefixes and suffixes produce many new nouns and adjectives from one root. For example: k’atsi (man), uk’atso (without a man), uk’atsrieli (no human existence place), sak’atse (something for man), k’atsuri (manly), k’atsoba (manhood), k’atsiani (with/having a man), arakatsi (bad man/no-man).

ant’i-(opposite) ant’i-rusuli (Anti-Russian), ant’i-kartuli (Anti-Georgian);-izm and -ist - k’omunizmi /k’omunisti (communism/communist)

Like -nairi, -tana, -peri -gvari   k’atsistana (like a man), kalisnairi (like a woman), chemperi (like me), shengvari (like you).

Geographical names are produced by sa-o, sa-et, -et sakartvelo, saprangeti, ruseti  

Destinative meaning/(for) is produced by the affixes: sa-e, sa-o, sa-ur sakatme - for hens; sazghvao - for sea; sapekhuri -for step.sa-ur is seldom used sataguri - for mouse.Abstract nouns are produced by si-e, -oba, -eba,    silamaze (beauty); bavshvoba (childhood); bedniereba (happiness).

Origin is produced by -el, (for human) -ur/ul  (for things), The suffix -ul is dissimilated form of the suffix -ur. Usually Georgian doesn't accept two 'r'-s in one word unless there is one "l" between them. Compare: azia-aziuri, kartli-kartluri, korea-koreuli. Only foreign words may have two 'r'-s. Origin is also produced by -iur,  -del, -eul   tbiliseli (Tbilisian), kartuli (Georgian), gushindeli (from yesterday), mziuri (sunny), dediseuli (from mother).

Specialty is produced by me-e and me-ur (less used)   mebag’e (gardener), mezg’vauri (sailor).

34

Diminutive forms are produced by –ik’(a), -ik’o, -uk’, -a, -ilo/a, -un The first two suffixes –ik’(a), -ik’o, are widely used for personal nouns. besik’i, tamrik’o, sosik’a, anuk’i, vaj’a, tamila, dedilo, mamilo, tamuna, k’atsuna (a small man – satirically).

Previous situation is produced by affixes na-ev and na-ar. nakmrevi (a woman, who had a husband before), natsolari (a man, who had a wife before). 

Possessive forms are produced with -ian, -osan, -ovan, (-ier, -a very seldom). tsoliani (married man with wife), kmriani (married woman with husband), gulovani (brave, with heart), goni (brain)  gonieri (clever),  ghone (strength) – ghonieri (strong).

Negative forms are produced by u-o and u-ur. ukhelo  (without a hand), uts’ignuri (not-educated from tsigni - book). 

15. Composition

Besides the universal type of compositions Georgian has its own way for word compositions. Some words for close relatives are produced by adding possessive pronouns.

My mother/father/grandmother/grandfatherdedachemi/mamachemi/bebiachemi/p’ap’achemi

Your mother/father/grandmother/grandfatherdedasheni/mamasheni/bebiasheni/p’ap’asheni

Her/his mother/father/grandmother/grandfatherdedamisi/mamamisi/bebimisi/p’ap’amisi

Our mother/father/grandmother/grandfather35

dedachveni/mamachveni/bebiachveni/p’ap’achveni

Your mother/father/grandmother/grandfatherdedatkveni/mamatkveni/bebiatkveni/p’ap’atkveni

bidza (uncle) bidzachemi/bidzasheni/bidzamisi/bidzachveni/bidzatkvenimamida (father’s sister) mamidachemi/mamidasheni/mamidamisi/mamidachveni/mamidatkveni deida (mother’s sister) deidachemi/ deidasheni/ deidamisi/ deidachveni/ deidatkveni

  Very closely related words can produce compound nouns:

Mother and father ded-mama Sister and brother da-dzma

Face                   p’iri-sakhe  or  tskhvir-piriThe beard and moustaches   ts’ver-ulvashiEyes and eyebrows /eyes    tval-ts’arbiKnife and fork             dana-changaliForest and valley             t’q’e-veliMountain and valley       mta-bariBad and good             av-k’argiNecked                    shishvel-t’it’veliHungry and thirsty         mshier-mts’q’urvaliSuit and trousers           sharval-k’ostiumiDoors and windows         k’ar-panjaraHouse and yard            saxl-k’ariDeath and life                  sik’vdil-sitsotskhleFood (bread and salt) pur-marili

Reduplication is also used in Georgian to produce the new words mainly with the voice imitation forms, such as ts’its’ini (thin voice complaining),

36

sisini (s-sounding like a snake), chichini (repeating the same), etc.

16. VERB

16.1. General information

Georgian verb is poly-personal. It exposes the markers of subject and objects. In the sentence using the personal pronouns as subject is not obligatory, because the Georgian verb always exposes the subject and even the objects. One may say: me var (I am) or var, shen khar (You are) or khar, me vsts’avlob (I study) or vsts’avlob.     The negative form of the verbs can be produced by adding “ar“ or “ara” before the verbs.   Negative imperatives often use “nu.” Don’t be so bad! - nu iknebi aseti tsudi! Don’t be afraid! - nu geshinia! But “ar” is also used – Don’t be! – ar iq’o! The negative forms with “ar” usually are more categorical.

The markers of the subject and the object both are exposed in the verb, because the Georgian verb is poly-personal. There are 4 types of verbs in Georgian: A. One personal – I go - mivdivar (me),  I come - movdivar (me)The subject is always in the nominative case. B. Two personal (subject and indirect object) intransitive – I know somebody  -  vitsnob (me -I mas-him/her) The subject is always in the nominative case and the indirect object is always in dative. C. Two personal (subject and direct object) transitive – I paint  -vkhat’av (me-I mas -him/her);  In past - I painted – davkhat’e (me-I is –him/her) 

37

D. Three personal (subject, indirect object and direct object) transitive – I paint it for him/her – vukhat’av (me-I mas-him/her mas –it); I’ m telling him it – vuambob (me-I mas-him/her mas –it).

16. 2. The cases of verbal persons in transitive verbs

2-personal transitive (group C.)Present tense (I series)   kali surats khat’avs - The woman paints a picture.Subject – nominativeObject direct – dative

Past /Aorist (II series)  kalma surati dakhat’a - The woman painted a picture.Subject – ergativeObject direct – nominative

Past unreal /perfect ( III series)     kals surati daukhat’avs – It seems, the woman painted a picture, Subject – dativeObject direct – nominative 3-personal transitive  (group D.)Present tense (I series)     kali dedas surats ukhat’avs - The woman paints a picture for (her) mother.Subject – nominativeObject direct – dativeObject indirect – dative

38

 Past /Aorist (II series)   kalma dedas surati daukhat’a - The woman painted a picture for (her) mother.Subject – ergativeObject direct – nominative Object indirect – dative

Past unreal /perfect ( III series)    kals dedistvis surati daukhat’avs – It seems, the woman painted a picture for (her) mother. Subject – dativeObject direct – nominativeThe object indirect – with postposition “for” - tvis is out of verbal morphology. This is a 2-personal verb now.

The markers of version in three-personal transitive verbs lost their function in the third series of conjugation. The indirect object stays out of the verb, which tries to keep its destinational content exposing the indirect object with post-position “for” and the markers of version. Diachronically these forms of conjugation are originally from the static verbs, which diachronically had a choice between marked and unmarked forms of version.

A. In transitive verbs the subject is in nominative in present and in future tenses (in the I series), but it’s in ergative in the II series:k’atsi mgels khat’avs. (I series)k’atsi mgels dakhat’avs. (I series)k’atsma mgeli dakhat’a. (II series)

B. In transitive verbs the direct object is in the dative case in present and in future tenses (in the I series ), but it’s in nominative in the II serya:

k’atsi mgels khat’avs. (I series)

39

k’atsma mgeli dakhat’a. (II series)k’ats mgeli daukhat’avs. (III series)

The cases of subject and direct object in transitive verbs

1 series k’atsi (S) nom. khatavs surats (Od.) dat. II series k’atsma (S) erg. dakhata surati (Od.) nom.III series k’atss (S) dat. daukhatavs surati (Od.) nom.

The indirect object is always in dative and the subject of intransitive verbs is always in nominative.

16. 3. Markers of verbal persons

1. The markers of subject:I s. v- I pl. v- --- -tII s. kh-, h-, s-, Ø- II pl. kh-, h-, s-, Ø- - -tIII s. ---- -s, -a, -o III pl. -- -es, -en, -nen, -an, -on, -n

2. The direct object has no markers in the third person singular and plural. Only the indirect object is marked in the third person. The markers of the object: I s. m- I pl. gv- II s. g- II pl. g- --- -tIII s. h-, s-, Ø- III pl. h, s, Ø- --- -t

16. 4. Polypersonality

40

When the verbal morphology is rich, there is the less demand for some

other categories. The poly-personal verb and the case system guarantee

relatively free word order in the sentences.

The poly-personal Basque verb, for instance, in difference from

Georgian, always exposes all markers of all its verbal persons. There are

some morphologically non-referenced or weakly marked, or partially

marked verbal persons/actants (arguments) in Georgian, while Basque

doesn’t have such facts being as very accurate in exposing each verbal

person. It has the strict succession in exposing its grammatical categories

such as personality, ergativity, plurality, etc. Sometimes the Basque

language has double referencing for some grammar categories.

In Georgian verbs, some personal referents meet each-other in the prefix

position and this fact became the reason for many different opinions about

this matter.

According to some contemporary Georgian linguists verbal personality is

a morphological category and only referenced persons can be taken into

account. We disagree with this opinion as we think that it’s very important

for the Georgian verbal morphology to include in the verbal personality

zero-marking persons and even non-referenced persons such as the third

direct object in the modern Georgian language. The conjugation system in

Georgian is based on such understanding of personality. Besides, this new

theory of verbal personality is full of logical problems.

We consider valency as a semantic category. We can expose the

41

appropriate linguistic universal regulation – there are different valency

verbs in each language and the realization of these differences is the task of

the proper grammars.

16. 5. Conjugation system

   The Georgian verb has 3 series and 11 so called mts’krivi / screeve (rows) of conjugation. There are 11 rows of conjugation in Georgian.

I series ats’mq’o - Present Indicative - Indefinite or present continuous, narrative (vkhat’av - I paint/I am painting) Sometimes these forms without a preverb may be poly-semantic with a meaning of future tense: vkhat’av - now and vkhat’av - tomorrow; uts’q’vet’eli - Imperfect - Past continuous, narrative (vkhat’avdi - I was painting)ats’mq’os k’avshirebiti - Present Subjunctive- Present subjunctive (vkhat’avde - If I paint/if I am painting)mq’opadi - Future Indicative- Imperfect Future indefinite, narrative (davkhat’av -I’ll paint)kholmeobiti – Conditional- Future in the past conditional (davkhat’avdi - I would paint)mq’opadis k’avshirebiti - Future Subjunctive- Future subjunctive, conditional (davkha’tavde - If I'll paint)

II series ts’q’vet’ili/aoristi - Aorist Indicative - General past, narrative (da)vkhat’e - I have painted / I painted. It could be present/past perfect with preverbs.II k’avshirebiti - Optative - Future subjunctive (da)vkhat’o - If I’ll paint) It could be present/past perfect with preverbs.

42

III series I turmeobiti – Perfect - Past narrative (The subject hardly believes in his act - turme – it seems) (da)mikhat’avs – It seems I painted /I have/had painted/ It could be present/past perfect with proverbs.II turmeobiti - Pluperfect - and III k’avshirebiti - Perfect Subjunctive- are very close rows - Future in the past subjunctive conditional. (da)mekhat’a – (da)mekhat’os - If I would paint)

The subjunctive mood is exposed by the following rows:ats’mq’os k’avshirebiti, kholmeobiti, mq’opadis k’avshirebiti, II k’avshirebiti and III k’avshirebiti.

The imperatives in modern Georgian don’t have special rows. They use the following rows: ts’q’vet’ili – dakhat’e! II k’avshirebiti – For the I and the III persons – (ar) davkhat’ot! (ar) dakhat’on! For negative imperatives of the II person – ar (da)khat’ot!mq’opadi is seldom used only for very categorical orders - (ar) davkhat’av!

Negative forms are produced by adding ar or ver. “ar” is more categorical. Compare: ar davkhat’av - I’ll not paint and ver davkhat’av - I can’t paint.

Indefinite1. Present – ats’mq’o2. Past – ts’q’vet’ili (aoristi)3. Future – mq’opadi4. Future in the past - kholmeobiti

Continuous 1. Present – ats’mq’o 2. Past - uts’q’vet’eli 3. Future - ats’mq’o Without preverbs.4. Future in the past - II turmeobiti / III k’avshirebiti

43

Perfect1. Present – ts’q’vet’ili (aoristi) or I turmeobiti 2. Past - ts’q’vet’ili (aoristi or I turmeobiti 3. Future- mq’opadi 4. Future in the past - II turmeobiti / III k’avshirebiti

Perfect-continuous1. Present – uts’q’vet’eli 2. Past - uts’q’vet’eli 3. Future - mq’opadi 4. Future in the past - II turmeobiti / III k’avshirebiti

16. 6. Thematic markers

The difference between the I and the II series is marker of theme – so called thematic marker, which appears in the I series. Compare: I series - (da)vkhat’av and II series – vkhat’e.

Thematic markers are the suffixes: -av, -am, -eb, -i, -ob, -op.av – vkhat’av (I paint), vklav (I kill), vmarkhav (I bury), vkhurav (I close), vkharshav (I boil), vkhuchav (I close eyes), vplangav (I spend money/time), vdzrav (I move), vzidav (I carry), vk’itkhav (I ask), vmalav (I hide), vbadzav (I imitate), vp’arav (I steal), vq’nosav (I smell), vq’lap’av (I swallow), vkhedav (I look), vnakhav (I see), vparav (I cover) etc.

am - is seldom used, vdgam (I stand), vabam (I tie).

em - Is used only with one verb, which changes its meaning by adding different proverbs: mivtsem (I give), gavstem (I give away), davtsem (I fall him/it down).

op - Is used only with one verb with different proverbs changing the word 44

meaning: gavq’op (I devide), davq’op (I part), shevq’op (I put in), mivq’op (I follow).

i - vtkhri (I dig), vsvri (I dirty), vzrdi (I up-bring), vtsdi (I examine/try), vtsvli (I change), vtvli (I count/consider), vtsli (I make empty), vch’ri (I cut), vshli (I open), vq’ri (I throw away). Many of them will have the vocal “a” in the root of the II serya – Compare: vtkhri-vtkhare, (I dig – I dig) vtsvli-vtsvale, (I change - I changed) vshli-vhsale, (I open – I opened) vq’ri-vq’are (I throw away – I thew away), etc.eb - (very often used) vak’eteb (I make), vasheneb (I build), vats’itleb (I make red), vaq’vitleb (I make yellow), etc.

ob - vsts’avlob (I study), vkhumrob (I joke), vtskhovrob (I live), vtamashob (I play), vnadirob (I hunt), vvach’rob (I trade), vsauzmob (I have breakfast), vsadolob (I have dinner), vsamkhrob (I have lunch), vvakhshmob (I have supper), etc.

A few verbs have the same thematic forms for the I and the II seyas: vts’er (I write), vcham (I eat), vt’ekh (I broke), vretskh (I wash), vtkhov (I ask for), vban (I wash somebody). They don’t have any thematic markers.

There is also another group of verbs which changes the vocal (e-->i) inside the root having “e” in the I series and ”i” in the II series: vglej-vglije (I uproot, vdrek’-vdrik’e (I bend), vzel-vzile (I stir), vgrekh-vgrikhe (I pend), vchkhrek’-vchkhrik’e (I search), vchkhvlet’-vchkhvlit’e (I prick/stick), vch’q’let’-vch’q’lit’e (I crush).

In some dialects of these forms are used with the –“av” suffix. This is an intensive tendency in the language.

16. 7. Inversion

The III series has 3 rows. In this series ONLY transitive verbs have 45

inversion. The subject is exposed by the markers of the object and the object is exposed by the markers of the subject. Compare: I series - I pant it. me(S) vkhat’av mas(Od.) and III series - It seems, I’ve painted it. me(S) damikhat’avs is(Od.) In the first example “v”- is the I person subject marker, but in the second example the marker for the I person subject is “m”-, which is usually the I person object marker and the III person object is exposed by the subject marker -“s.”Inversion is a result of actualization of the object as a demand from the

ergative construction created by the transitive verbs. In the III series

the role of the thinking subject (human) is not as clear and as

categorical as it is in aorist and it has the dative case. The forms of the

III series in transitive verbs are exposing the inversional possesivity.

16. 8. Version

ONLY THE POLY-PERSONAL VERBS CAN EXPOSE THE VERBAL CATEGORY OF DESTINATION. Georgian verbs have a destination system. The verbs show to whom (to which verbal person) is the verbal act destined or oriented. There are 3 types of version:

1. Neutral – with the prefix markers “a-“, Ø- . I’m painting it v-Ø-khat’av;

2. Subjective - with the prefix marker “i-“. I’m painting it for myself – v-i-

khat’av. The verbal act is performed by the subject and for the subject.

3. Objective - with the prefix markers “i” - for the indirect object of the I-

II persons and “u” - for the indirect object of the III person. Objective

version conveys the meaning when the verbal act is performed for the

46

interests of the indirect object. Compare: I’m painting it for you – g-i-

khat’av and I’m painting it for him/her – v-u-khat’av.

The subjective version exposes the subject acting on its own body and the subject performing the verbal act for his/her own-self. Only two-personal transitive verbs have this form of version. Samples: viban t’ans/p’irs ( I wash myself my body/my face), vivartskhni tmas (I comb my hair), viretskhav t’ansatsmels (I wash my cloth).

All markers of version are prefixes. They appear after personal prefixes. Compare the two schemes without and with objective version (khat’va - to paint):

A.s/Oi. I s. II s. III s. I pl. II pl. III pl.I s. ------ gkhat’av vkhat’av ------- gkhat’avt vkhat’av

II s. mkhat’av ------ khat’av gvkhat’av ------- khat’av

III s. mkhat’avs gkhat’avs khat’avs gvkhat’avs gkhat’avt khat’avs I pl. ------- gkhat’avt vkhat’avt ------- gkhat’avt vkhat’avt

II pl. mkhat’avt ------- khat’avt gvkhat’avt ------- khat’avt

III pl. mkhat’aven gkhat’aven khat’aven gvkhat’aven gkhat’aven khat’aven

B.s/Oi. I s. I Is. III s. I pl. II pl. III pl.I s. ------ gikhat’av vukhat’av ------- gikhat’avt vukhat’av

II s. mikhat’av ------ ukhat’av gvikhat’av ------- ukhat’av

III s. mikhat’avs gikhat’avs ukhat’avs gvikhat’avs gikhat’avt ukhat’avs I pl. ------- gikhat’avt vukhat’avt ------- gikhat’avt vukhat’avt

II pl. mikhat’avt ------- ukhat’avt gvikhat’avt ------- ukhat’avt

III pl. mikhat’aven gikhat’aven ukhat’aven gvikhat’aven gikhat’aven ukhat’aven

All rows can expose the category of version. Compare: vkhat’avdi – vikhat’avdi- vukhat’avdi,

47

vkhat’avde – vikhat’avde- vukhat’avde,dackhat’o - davikhat’o - davukhat’o, etc.

But the forms of the III series never have version, although they are produced by the version markers. These markers are out of category in the III series. All forms of version have the same forms in the III series. They don’t show any differences. Compare:Neutral vkhat’av – damikhat’avsSubjective vikhat’av – damikhat’avsObjective vukhat’av – damikhat’avs

16.8.1. Irregular forms of version

The existence of a few anomalies together with the regulations is

considered a normal fact in languages. The grammar category of version

has the following peculiarities:

1. The difference between transitive and intransitive verbs by the

category of version is systemic. The three dimensional model of

Georgian version is available only in transitive verbs. Intransitive

verbs may have only the two dimensional model, because there is no

subjective version in intransitive verbs. This is the systemic

difference of principle character showing the importance and

initiality of the two-dimensional model of version in the Georgian

language.

2. The verbs that lack some forms of version. There are the two groups

of such verbs:

48

A. The lack of the forms inside the one row of conjugation with the

missing opposition forms of version, for example: we have vatsnob-

vitsnob, but there is no objective version form - vutsnob.

B. The lack of the forms in the verbs that are missing the forms in the

conjugation paradigm, for example we have the opposition of the

static verbs ’ts’eria - uts’eria and they both have ets’era in the

second series. The three personal verbs also lose the meaning of

version in the forms of the third series. When version creates the new

forms of conjugation rows, having the function of flexion affixes in

the verbal forms, than these affixes loose their destination meaning.

3. Sometimes there are two indirect objects in the verbs. Of course this

doesn’t mean that both of them are exposed in the verb.

A. Two indirect objects in intransitive verbs – in passives: mitsvia (He/she

me-mine is dressed it) mimep’q’ar (you treat him me-mine); in medial

verbs: mimidevs (He/she follows him/her me-mine), mit’k’iva (it pains

him/her-mine). One from these two objects is always a possessor object

and it could have the alternatively descriptive syntactic forms with a two-

personal verb and the argument in the possessive object case - genitive or

dative (out of the verb); for example: “mitsvia me tsols k’aba” compare

with “chems tsols k’aba atsvia” (My wife wears a dress).

B. Two indirect objects in transitive verbs create the four personal forms:

mimits’era (He/she wrote it me him/her) mimikhat’a (He/she painted it me

him/her). In such cases mostly causatives are used: gamik’etebine (you

49

make him/her do it me), damikhat’vine (you make him paint it me). All

types of such forms are objective version forms without any exceptions.

The adding the indirect object has two ways and reasons:

I. The causation needs to have the executive object or

II. The possessive beneficiary semantic needs to be outlined.

The forms with two indirect objects mainly have the semantics of

objective version.

4. The poly-semantic forms of version.

There are a few verbal forms in the Georgian language with the

conjugative direct object and makes it possible to have the forms of the

subjective version in the objective rows of these verbs. These forms are

mostly poly-semantic (damiq’ena/dagiq’ena).

5. The verbs without the category of version. Such verbs have no

opposition forms and therefore have no category of version: uq’vars

(loves), itsis (He/she knows), akhsovs (He/she remembers), hgonia

(He/she takes into), uch’iravs (He/she holds), sdzuls (He/she hates).

These verbs have the two groups as well:

A. The forms without the markers of version: sch’ams (He/she eats),

cdz’uls (He/she hates), hkvia (He/she /it is named) and etc. These

verbs have no markers nor understanding of version.

B. The forms with the markers of version: itsis (He/she knows),

uq’vars (He/she loves), akvs (He/she has) and etc. These verbs have

the version markers without the destination semantic, as they have

no opposite forms. 50

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).

6. 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

51

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

52

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

53

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.

16.8.3. Reflexivity

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

54

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.

55

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

56

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”. 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 awaymo- towards ( To the 1st person) modis - comesa- up adis - goes upda- down dadis Sometimes “da” shows an intensive act.cha- down inside chadis – goes downshe- from outside (in)to inside shedis - goes intoga- from inside outside gadis -goes outgada - over the barrier gadadis -goes overts’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

57

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 upchamo- down inside - to the 1st person chamodis -comes downshemo- 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 overts’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 lostmikhvda He realized/ understoodmokhvda He gotshekhvda He metdakhvda 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

58

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

59

form occur in the following order (but not every one is exposed obligatorily):

Georgian verb template

preverb

prefixal nomina

l marker

version

marker

VERB ROO

T

passive

marker

thematic

suffix

causative

markerimperfective marker

suffixal nomina

l marker

auxiliary

verb

plural marke

r

17. 1. Conjugation of transitive (active) verbs

I series1. Present Indicative - I paint/write - present indefinite or present continuousI 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

 

60

    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

61

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’erII 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 62

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).

63

17. 2. 1. 1. Prefix-produced dynamic passive The first verb is one personal and the second verb is two-personal. I series Present Indicative - I am hiding / from someone

vimalebi/vemalebi vimalebit/vemalebit imelabi/emalebi imalebit/emalebitimelaba/emaleba imalebian/emalebian

Imperfect - I was hiding / from someonevimalebodi/vemalebodi vimalebodit/vemalebit imalebodi/emalebodi imalebodit/emaleboditimaleboda/emaleboda imalebodnen/emalebodnen

Present Subjunctive - If /I wish I am hiding /from someonevimalebode/vemalebode vimalebodet/vemalebet imalebode/emalebode imalebodet/emalebodetimalebodes/emalebodes imalebodnen/emalebodnen

Future Indicative - I will hide /from someonedavimalebi/davemalebi davimalebit/davemalebit daimalebi/daemalebi daimalebit/daemalebitdaimaleba/daemaleba daimalebian/daemalebian

Conditional - I use to hide /from someonedavimalebodi/davemalebodi davimalebodit/davemalebit daimalebodi/daemalebodi daimalebodit/daemaleboditdaimaleboda/daemaleboda daimalebodnen/daemalebodnen

Future Subjunctive - If /I wish I hide /from someonedavimalebode/davemalebode davimalebodet/davemalebet daimalebode/daemalebode daimalebodet/daemalebodet

64

daimalebodes/daemalebodes daimalebodnen/daemalebodnenII series

Aorist Indicative - I hided /from someonedavimale/davemale davimalet/davemalet daimale/daemale daimalet/daemaletdaimala/daemala daimalnen/daemalnen

Optative - I (must/want/can) hide/ from someonedavimalo/davemalo davimalot/davemalot daimalo/daemalo daimalot/daemalotdaimalos/daemalos daimalon/daemalon

III series

Perfect - It seems I hid/from someonedavmalulvar/davmalvivar davmalulvart/davmalvivart damalulkhar/damalvikhar damalulkhart/damalvikhartdamalula/da(h)malvia damalulan/da(h)malvian

Pluperfect - (If) I would hide /from someonedavmaluliq’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 someonedamaluliq’os/damalvodes damaluliq’on/damalvodnen

This last row is less commonly in modern Georgian. Its forms repeat the Pluperfect.

65

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 Indicativevtbebi/vts’itldebi vtbebit/vts’itldebittbebi/ts’itldebi tbebit/ts’itldebittbeba/ts’itldeba tbebian/ts’itldebian

Imperfect vtbebodi/vts’itldebodi vtbebodit/vts’itldebodittbebodi/ts’itldebodi tbebodit/ts’itldebodittbeboda/ts’itldeboda tbebodnen/ts’itldebodnen

Present Subjunctivevtbebode/vts’itldebode vtbebodet/vts’itldebodettbebode/ts’itldebode tbebodet/ts’itldebodettbebodes/ts’itldebodes tbebodnen/ts’itldebodnen

Future Indicativegavtbebi/gavts’itldebi gavtbebit/gavts’itldebit

66

gatbebi/gats’itldebi gatbebit/gats’itldebitgatbeba/gats’itldeba gatbebian/gats’itldebian

Conditional gavtbebodi/gavts’itldebodi gavtbebodit/gavts’itldeboditgatbebodi/gats’itldebodi gatbebodit/gats’itldeboditgatbeboda/gats’itldeboda gatbebodnen/gats’itldebodnen

Future Subjunctivegavtbebode/gavts’itldebode gavtbebodet/gavts’itldebodetgatbebode/gats’itldebode gatbebodet/gats’itldebodetgatbebodes/gats’itldebodes gatbebodnen/gats’itldebodnen

II series Aorist Indicativegavtbi/gavts’itldi gavtbit/gavts’itlditgatbi/gats’itldi gatbit/gats’itlditgatba/gats’itlda gatbnen/gats’itldnen

Optative gavtbe/gavts’itlde gavtbet/gavts’itldetgatbe/gats’itlde gatbet/gats’itldetgatbes/gats’itldes gatbnen/gats’itldnen

III series Perfect gavmtbarvar/gavts’itlebulvar gavmtbarvart/gavts’itlebulvartgamtbarkhar/gats’itlebulkhar gamtbarkhart/gats’itlebulkhart gamtbara/gats’itlebula gamtbaran/gats’itlebulan

67

Pluperfect and Perfect Subjunctivegavmtbariq’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 Indicativev ts ’erivar vts’erivarts ’erikhar ts’erikhartts ’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’erebitets’erebi ets’erebitets’ereba ets’erebian

68

Conditional vets’erebodi vets’ereboditets’erebodi ets’ereboditets’ereboda ets’erebodnen

Future Subjunctivevets’erebode vets’erebodetets’erebode ets’erebodetets’erebodes ets’erebodnen

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

Aorist Indicativevets’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.

69

Perfect vts’erebulvar/v(s)ts’erebivar vts’erebulvart/v(s)ts’erebivartts’erebulkhar/sts’erebikhar ts’erebulkhart/sts’erebikhart ts’erebula/sts’erebia ts’erebulan/sts’erebian

Pluperfectvts’erebuliq’av/ v(s)ts’erebodi vts’erebuliq’avit/ v(s)ts’erebodit ts’erebuliq’av/ sts’erebodi ts’erebuliq’avit/ sts’ereboditts’erebuliq’o/ sts’ereboda ts’erebuliq’vnen/ sts’erebodnen

Perfect Subjunctivevts’erebuliq’o/v(s)ts’erebode vts’erebuliq’vnet/v(s)ts’erebodet ts’erebuliq’o/sts’erebode ts’erebuliq’vnet/sts’erebodetts’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.)

70

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 Indicativevt’iri/vut’iri vt’irit/vut’iritt’iri/ut’iri t’irit/ut’iritt’iris/ut’iris t’irian/ut’irian

Imperfect vt’irodi/vut’irodi vt’irodit/vut’iroditt’irodi/ut’irodi t’irodit/ut’iroditt’iroda/ut’iroda t’irodnen/ut’irodnen

Present Subjunctivevt’irode/vut’irode vt’irodet/vut’irodett’irode/ut’irode t’irodet/ut’irodett’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

71

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 Subjunctivevit’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 Indicativevit’ire/vut’ire vit’iret/vut’iretit’ire/ut’ire it’iret/ut’iret it’ira/ut’ira it’ires/ut’ires

Optative vit’iro/vut’iro vit’irot/vut’irotit’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 otherwords - active) verbs, in this serya they have the inversion just like transitive verbs. Thematic marker also appears here.

Perfect

72

mit’irnia/mit’irebia gvit’irnia/gvit’irebia git’irnia/git’irebia git’irniat/git’irebiatut’irnia/ut’irebia ut’irniat/ut’irebiat

Pluperfectmet’irna/met’irebina gvet’irna/gvet’irebina get’irna/get’irebina get’irnat/get’irebinat et’irna/et’irebina et’irnat/et’irebinat

Perfect Subjunctivemet’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.

73

A-group Lie- ts’ola; One-personal – vc’evar and two-personal - vuts’evar I series Present Indicativevts’evar / vuts’evar vts’evart / vuts’evartts’evkhar / uts’evkhar ts’evkhart / uts’evkhartts’evs / uts’evs ts’vanan / uts’vanan

Imperfect and Present Subjunctive are missing.

Future IndicativePrefix ”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’vebitits’vebi/ets’vebi its’vebit/ets’vebitits’veba/ets’veba its’vebian/ets’vebian

Conditional vits’vebodi/vets’vebodi vits’vebodit/vets’veboditits’vebodi/ets’vebodi its’vebodit/ets’veboditits’veboda/ets’veboda its’vebodnen/ets’vebodnen

Future Subjunctivevits’vebode/vets’vebode vits’vebodet/vets’vebodetits’vebode/ets’vebode its’vebodet/ets’vebodetits’vebodes/ets’vebodes its’vebodnen/ets’vebodnen

II series Aorist Indicativevits’eki/vets’eki vits’ekit/vets’ekitits’eki/ets’eki its’ekit/ets’ekitits’va/ets’va its’vnen/ets’vnen

74

Optative vits’ve/vets’ve vits’vet/vets’vetits’ve/ets’ve its’vet/ets’vetits’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’oloditts’olilkhar/ts’olodi ts’olilkhart/ts’oloditts’olila/ts’oloda ts’olilan/ts’olodnen

Pluperfect and Perfect Subjunctivevts’oliliq’av/vts’olode vts’oliliq’avit/vts’olodetts’oliliq’av/ts’olode ts’oliliq’avit/ts’olodetts’oliliq’o/ts’olodes ts’oliliq’vnen/ts’olodnen

B-group Love – siq’varuli

I series

Present Indicativevuq’varvar vuq’varvartuq’varkhar uq’varkhart

75

uq’vars uq’vart

Imperfect vuq’vardi vuq’vardituq’vardi uq’vardit uq’varda uq’vardnen

Present Subjunctivevuq’varde vuq’vardetuq’varde uq’vardet uq’vardes uq’vardnen

Future Indicativeveq’varebi veq’varebiteq’varebi eq’varebiteq’vareba eq’varebat

Conditional veq’varebodi veq’varebodit eq’varebodi eq’vareboditeq’vareboda eq’varebodnen

Future Subjunctiveveq’varebode veq’varebodet eq’varebode eq’varebodeteq’varebodes eq’varebodnen

II series Is missing.

III series 76

Perfect v(h)q’varebivar v(h)q’varebivarthq’varebikhar hq’varebikharthq’varebia hq’varebiat

Pluperfectv(h)q’varebodi v(h)q’varebodithq’varebodi hq’varebodithq’vareboda hq’varebodnen

Perfect Subjunctivev(h)q’varebode v(h)q’varebodethq’varebode hq’varebodethq’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).

77

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

78

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 iknebodne

n iknebodnen

79

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

80

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’vne

n 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’avdes81

1pl gvakvs/gvq’avs gvkonda/

gvq’avdagvkondes/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

82

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

83

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 adzlevdne

n adzlevdnen

Future subseries

  Future indicative Conditional Future

subjunctive

84

1s Mivtsem mivtsemdi mivtsemde

2s Mistsem mistsemdi mistsemde

3s Mistsems mistsemda mistsemdes

1pl Mivtsemt mivtsemdit mivtsemdet

2pl Mistsemt mistsemdit mistsemdet

3pl Mistsemen mistsemdne

n mistsemdnen

Aorist series

  Aorist indicative Optative

1s mivetsi mivstse

2s mietsi mistse

3s mistsa mistses

85

1pl mivetsit mivstse

t

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

86

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 ambobne

n ambobnen

87

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

88

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

89

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

1p movdivart movdiodit movdiodet

90

l

2pl modikhart modiodit modiodet

3pl modian modiodne

n 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 mokhvidodi

t mokhvidodet

3pl

movlen movidodne movidodnen

91

n

Aorist series

  Aorist indicative Optative

1s movedi movide

2s mokhvedi mokhvide

3s movida movides

1pl movedit movidet

2pl mokhvedit mokhvide

t

3pl movidnen movidnen

Perfective series

92

  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’vne

n movsuliq’vnen

18. Word orderThe 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.)

93

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

94

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

95

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.

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

The modern Georgian ergative system belongs to this group.

3. The languages which have the ergative for intransitive subjects

(Dakota). 96

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.

97

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

98

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 99

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

100

ergativity. Such classification would be based on concrete grammatical variations of this category.

20. 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. Nounme kartveli profesori var. I am a Georgian professor.I Georgian professor am

2. Adjectivetbilisi lamazi aris. Tbilisi is beautiful. Tbilisi beautiful is.

101

3. Participlees kalaki ganakhlebuli chans. This city seems renewed.This city renewed seems. 4. Infinitive as a Nounes 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. Numerales 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.

102

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

103

Static (Relative Static)Mood: medio-active //reflexivesStructure:R - Øi-/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.]

DynamicMood: 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 NominativeStatic (Absolutive Static)

Without moodStructure:

Ø-/i-/u- R -i

Construction is non-completed

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

DynamicMood: 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 DativeStatic (Feeling Subject)Main structure:i-/u- R- Øi-/u- R- i

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

Static, Dynamic(Feeling Subject)Produced Structurea-R-eb-Øe-R-eb-iConstruction:[mas-dat. --- mas-dat.;mas-dat. is-nom. --- mas-dat. is-nom.]

Personal markersI diathesis (S I diathesis (S 104

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

dat.) in III seriesIII diathesis (S dat.) inI, II, III series

Subject 1s.v- 2s. Ø- kh-3s. -s, -a, -o

1 pl.v-----t 2pl. Ø- kh-------t3pl. -en, -an, -nen, -n, -es

1s.m- 2s. g-3s. Ø-, h-, s-

1 pl. gv----t 2pl. g-------t3pl. Ø-, h-, s-----t

Object 1s.m- 2s. g-3s. indirect objecth-, s- Ø-3s. direct objecth-, s- Ø-,

1 pl. gv-----t 2pl. g-------t3pl. indirect objecth-, s-, Ø-, ------t,-Ø3pl. indirect objecth-, s, Ø-, ------ -Ø

1s.v- 2s. Ø-3s. indirect object and direct object- -s, -a

1 pl. v-----t 2pl. Ø- -------t3 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

105

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) gindaShe/he/it ( doesn’t )want/s (ar) unda We ( don’t ) want (ar) gvindaYou ( don’t ) want (ar) gindatThey ( don’t ) want (ar) undat

B. Conjugation of the verb “to want”- “ndoma” – Past tense

I s. mindoda I pl. gvindodaII s. gindoda II pl. gindodatIIIs. 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. gendomebatIII s. endameba III pl. endomebat

4. The verb can – shedzleba

A. Present tenseI s. shemidzlia I pl. shegvidzliaII s. shegidzlia II pl. shegidzliatIII s. sheudzlia III pl. sheudzliat B. Past tenseI s. shemedzlo I pl. shegvedzlo

106

II s. shegedzlo II pl. shegedzlotIII s. sheedzlo III pl. sheedzlot C. Future tenseI s. shemedzleba I pl. shegvedzleba II s. shegedzleba II pl. shegedzlebatIII 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).

107

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.

108

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

109

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

110

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. <http://www.gernika.ru/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=26:gaur-egungo-baskologia-kartveliarraren-emaitzak-eta-perspektibak-r&catid=6:euskara&Itemid=13> (in Basque and Russian).

2007 – The General Parameters of Destination Systems. In: “Litera Vasconicae” Institut Labayru. Spring 2007. 77-90 pp.

2007 – ქართული – როგორც მეორე ენა (ნაცვალსახელის სწავლება) მეთოდური ჟურნალი “მერმისი” X. [Georgian – as a Second Language (Teaching Pronouns). Methodical Magazine “Mermisi”.] The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), Tbilisi. ISSN 1512-2662. 12-25 pp.

2007 - Результаты и перспективы современной Картвельской Баскологии. Журнал «Этнографическое Обозрение» АН России, Москва. 2007

2007 - Again about the III series and Inversion. enaTmecnierebis sakiTxebi. Tbilisi, TSU. 2007 #I 2007 - The general parameters of destination systems. “Litera Vasconicae” Institut Labayru. Spring 2007

111

2006 – ქართული – როგორც მეორე ენა (არსებითი სახელი). მეთოდური ჟურნალი “მერმისი” I & V. [Georgian – as a Second Language (Nouns). Methodical Magazine “Mermisi” I & V.] OSCE, Tbilisi. ISSN 1512-2662. 14-20 pp.

2006 – ქართული – როგორც მეორე ენა (ბრუნება). მეთოდური ჟურნალი “მერმისი” VI & VII. [Georgian – as a Second Language (Declination). Methodical Magazine “Mermisi” I & V.] OSCE, Tbilisi. ISSN 1512-2662. 11-20 pp.

2006 – ქართული – როგორც მეორე ენა (ზედსართავის სწავლება). მეთოდური ჟურნალი “მერმისი” IX. [Georgian – as a Second Language (Teaching Adjectives). Methodical Magazine “Mermisi” IX.] OSCE, Tbilisi. ISSN 1512-2662. 12-25 pp.

2006 – როგორც მეორე ენა (რიცხვითი სახელის სწავლება). მეთოდური ჟურნალი “მერმისი” IX. [Georgian – as a Second Language (Teaching Numerals). Methodical Magazine “Mermisi” IX.] OSCE, Tbilisi. ISSN 1512-2662. 14-22 pp.

2006 – About the Category of Version. In: “Moambe”. The Bulletin of the Georgian National Academy of Sciences Vol. 173, No. 3. Georgian National Academy Press, Tbilisi. May-June 2006. ISSN 0132-1447. 629-631 pp.

2006 – ქცევის კატეგორიის თავისებურებანი. საენათმეცნიერო ძიებანი XXI. [Characteristics of Behavioral Category. Linguistic Investigations XXI.] The Georgian National Academy of Sciences and The Arnold Chikobava Institute of Linguistics, Tbilisi. ISSN 1987-6653. 193-200 pp.

2005 – დრო-კილოთა ინგლისურ-ქართული შესაბამისობა. იკე, ტ. 35. [English-Georgian Correspondances of Tense and Mood. Vol. 35.] The Arnold Chikobava Institute of Linguistics, Tbilisi. ISBN 99940-864-5-6. 211-215 pp.

112

2005 – ახალი საბაზისო თეორია ისტორიულ-შედარებითი ენათმეცნიერებისათვის. ქართველურ ენათა სტრუქტურის საკითხები IX. [A New Elementary Theory for Historical Comparative Linguistics. Issues of Kartvelian Structure IX.] The Arnold Chikobava Institute of Linguistics, Tbilisi. ISBN 99940-864-7-2. 198-203 pp.

2005 – ქართული – როგორც მეორე ენა (შესავალი). მეთოდური ჟურნალი “მერმისი” I & V. [Georgian – as a Second Language (Introduction). Methodical Magazine “Mermisi” I & V.] OSCE, Tbilisi. ISSN 1512-2662. 11-18 pp.

2005 – A Few Questions About Basque Noun Morphology. The Georgian National Academy of Sciences’ “Moambe” and the Bulletin of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 172, No. 1. Georgian National Academy Press, Tbilisi. July-August 2005. ISSN 0132-1447. pp. 159-162.

2005 – მესამე სერიაში ე.წ. უფუნქციო ქცევის ნიშნების შესახებ. ენათმეცნიერების საკითხები I-II. [On the so called Dysfunctional Behavior of Verb Makers in the Third Series. Issues of Linguistics I-II.] TSU, Tbilisi. 99-101 pp.

2005 – Некоторые вопросы типологии дестинативных систем. [A Few Questions Concerning the Typology of the Destination Systems.] In: Caucasiology No. 7. Russian Academy of Science. ISSN 1512-1216 Moscow. 152-157 pp.

2005 – Вопросы типологии дестинативных систем. [About the Typology of Destination Systems.] In: Journal of The Kabardo-Balkarian University No. 7. Nalchik. ISSN 1726-9946. 79-81 pp.

2005 – ერგატივის გენეზისისათვის. გელათის აკადემიის ჟურნალი. ქუთაისი. [On the Origin of the Ergative Case. The Academy Journal of Gelati I.] Kutaisi. ISSN 1512-1593. 46-58 pp.

2005 – ვინ-რა კატეგორიის სინქრონული ანალიზისთვის ქართულში. ერგატივის გენეზისისათვის. გელათის აკადემიის ჟურნალი. ქუთაისი. [On the

113

Who-What Synchronous Analysis of Georgian. The Academy Journal of Gelati III.] ISSN 1512-1593. Kutaisi. 39-48 pp.

2005 – კლას-კატეგორიათა ნაშთები ნაცვალსახელთა ბრუნებაში. თსუ ახალგაზრდა მეცნიერთა შრომები IX. [Class and Categories of Residual Pronouns in Declination. TSU Works of Young Scientists IX.] Tbilisi. 93-96 pp.

2005 – პირიანობა და ვალენტობა. საენათეცნიერო ძიებანი XVIII. [Personality and Valency. Linguistic Investigations XVIII.] The Georgian National Academy of Sciences and The Arnold Chikobava Institute of Linguistics, Tbilisi. ISSN 1987-6653. 50-57 pp.

2004 – ერგატივის გენეზისისათვის. თსუ კავკასიოლოგიის განყოფილების 70-ე წლისთავისადმი მიძღვნილი კრებული. [On the Origin of the Ergative Case. TSU Department of Caucasiology 70th the Anniversary Edition.] TSU Press, Tbilisi. ISSN 99940-32-04-5 65-71 pp.

2003 – ბასკური ზმნის ადრესატობისა და ქართული ზმნის ვერსიის კატეგორიათა ტიპოლოგიური შეპირისპირების ზოგიერთი საკითხის შესახებ. თსუ შრომები, ენათმეცნიერების სერია. [On the Issue of Typological Comparative Studies of Addressing in Basque Verbs and Version in Georgian Verbs. TSU Works, a Series of Linguistics.] TSU, Tbilisi. ISSN 1512-1429. 24-45 pp.

2001 – ქართული ენის დესტინატური სისტემის ტიპოლოგიური ანალიზისათვის. ვ. თოფურიას მე-100 წლისთავისადმი მიძღვნილი კრებული. [On the Typological Analysis of the Destination System of the Georgian Language. V. Torpuria’s 100th Anniversary Collection.] The Georgian National Academy of Sciences, TSU Press, Tbilisi. 131-135 pp.

1996 – Semejanzas tipologicas de la categoria “adresada” del verbo basco y la categoria de versioned del verbo georgiano. [Typological Items of the Addresee of Basque Verbs and Version in Georgian

114

Verbs.] In: Fontes Linguae Vasconum. Studia et documentra, Navarra. May-August 1996 reprint. 181-190 pp.

1995 – ვექტორიალობის თეორიისა და ლინგვისტური ვექტორის შესახებ. საენათმეცნიერო ძიებანი IV. [On Vector Theory and Linguistic Vectors. Linguistic Investigations IV.] TSU Press, Tbilisi. 9-13 pp.

1988 – ადრესატობის კატეგორიის მარკიორები და ადრესატის ბრუნვა ბასკურში. თსუ შრომები XVI, ჰუმანიტარული სერია. [Markers of the Category of Addressing and the Case Addressee in Basque. TSU Works XVI, Humanitarian Series.] TSU Press, Tbilisi. ISSN 0205-5457. 189-193 pp.

1987 – О категории адресатности Баскского глагола. [About the Category of Addressee in the Basque Verb.] In: TSU Works XIV. Tbilisi. ISSN 0205-5457, 293-297 pp.

1987 – О категории адресатности в Баскском глаголе. [About the Category of Addressee in the Basque verb.] In: Referencial Problems in Language and Literature. TSU, Tbilisi. 78-79 pp.1986 – Zur Frage des Adressatbezugs im Baskishen Verb, Sprachbau und Sprachwandel. [On the Question of the Addressee in Reference to the Basque Verb, Language Structure and Language Change.] Wissenshaftliche Beiträge der Friedrich-Shiller–Universität. ISSN 0232-3753. 70-85 pp.

Georgian literauture

1. Arabuli A . arabuli a. mesame seriis nakvTeulTa warmoeba da mniSvneloba Zvel qarTulSi. Tbilisi, 19842. Gogolasvili G. gogolaSvili g. dro-kiloTa mesame seriaSi momxdar formobliv cvlilebaTa Sesaxeb. Bvarlam Tofuria 100. Tsu, Tbilisi. 2001.

115

3. Gurgenidze T. gurgeniZe t. mravlobiTobis kategoria piris nacvalsaxelebSi da misi warmoebis zogadi principebi. Mmacne, els-2  1984. 114-1294. Damenia M. damenia. m. qarTuli zmnuri morfemebis struqturuli modelebi. Tbilisi. 19825. Enuqidze L. enuqiZe l. zmnis valentobisa da pirianobis mimarTeba qarTulSi. Tanamedrove zogadi da maTematikuri enaTmecnierebis sakiTxebi, IV, 1974. 50-68 6. Ertelisvili F. erTeliSvili f. qcevis sakiTxisaTvis qarTulSi. Tsu Sromebi. t. 114, 19657. Topuria V. Tofuria v. svanuri ena. I zmna, Sromebi. Tbilisi. 19678. Topuria V. Tofuria v. pirisa da CvenebiTi nacvelsaxelebi qarTvelur enebSi. Sromebi III. Tbilisi. 19799. Topuria V. Tofuria v. zmnis uZvelesi sufiqsaciisaTvis qarTulSi. ssr mecnierebaTa akademiis moambe, t. III #5, 194210. Imnaisvili I. imnaiSvili i. saxelTa bruneba da brunvaTa funqciebi Zvel qarTulSi. Tbilisi. 1957. 11. Imnaisvili I. Imnaisvili V. imnaiSvili i. imnaiSvili v. zmna Zvel qarTulSi. I-II, mainis frankfurti. 1996 12. Kiziria A. Kkiziria a. qvemdebaris brunvaTa mimarTeba qarTvelur enebSi. a. Ciqobavas dabadebis me-80 wlisTavisadmi miZRvnili krebuli. Tbilisi. mecniereba. 1979 13. Kiziria A. Kkiziria a. martivi winadadebis Sedgeniloba qarTvelur enebSi. Tbilisi. mecniereba. 1982 14. Lomtatidze K. lomTaTiZe q. q- sufiqsisaTvis megrul zmnebSi. ike 1 1946. 131-140 15. Martirosovi A. martirosovi a. nacvalsaxeli qarTvelur enebSi, istoriul-SedarebiTi analizi. Tbilisi 196416. Martirosovi A. martirosovi a. windebulisa da Tandebulis istoriuli urTierTobisaTvis qarTulSi. ike VIII, Tbilisi. 195617. Machavariani G. maWavariani g. zmnis ZiriTadi morfologiuri kategoriebi qarTvelur enebSi. (sakandidato disertacia) Tbilisi. 195318. Machavariani G. maWavariani g. qarTvelur enebaTa SedarebiTi morfologia. Nnawili I, zmnis ZiriTadi morfologiuri kategoriebi. TsuU kavkasiur enaTa kaTedra. xelnaweri Sroma. Tbilisi. 1958

116

19. Machavariani M. maWavariani m. Mqcevis kategoriis semantika. Tbilisi. 1987.20. Meliqishvili D. meliqiSvili d. qarTuli zmnis uRlebis sistema. Tbilisi. 2001. 21. Natadze N. naTaZe n. mesame seriis dro-kiloTa warmoebisaTvis qarTulSi. Ike, VII, Tbilisi. 1987. 81-10022. Nebieridze G. nebieriZe g. qcevis kategoria qarTulSi. macne, els #3 Tbilisi. 197623. Nebieridze G. nebieriZe g. arsebobs Tu ara ergatiuli konstruqcia qarTvelur enebSi. macne els 3. Tbilisi. 1987. 177-19124. Nebieridze G. nebieriZe g. rogori sistema unda aRsdges qarTvelur fuZe enaSi ergatiuli Tu nominatiuri? macne els 2. Tbilisi. 1988. 83-9425. Oniani A. oniani a. qarTvelur enaTa istoriuli morfologiis sakiTxebi. Tbilisi. 197826. Oniani A. oniani a. qarTvelur enaTa SedarebiTi gramatikis sakiTxebi, (saxelTa morfologia). Tbilisi. 198927. Rogava G. rogava g. nominatiuri konstruqciis mqone gardamavali zmnis genezisisaTvis qarTvelur enebSi. ike weliwdeuli II, 197528. Rogava G. rogava g. zmnis polipersonalizmis istoriisaTvis iberiul-kavkasiur enebSi. ike, t. XIII. Tbilisi. 196229. Rogava G. rogava g. kuTvnilebiTi afiqsi “i” qarTvelur enaTa zmnisa da saxelis morfologiur kategoriebSi (qcevasa da brunvebSi). saqarTvelos ssr mecnierebaTa akademiis moambe, t.III #2. Tbilisi. 194230. Sarjveladze Z. sarjvelaZe z. qarTuli saliteraturo enis istoriis Sesavali. Tbilisi 1984. 31. Sarjveladze Z. sarjvelaZe z. subieqti moTxrobiT brunvaSi zog gardauval zmnasTan. qarTuli ena da literatura skolaSi. #2, 1973. 71-7332. Suxishvili M. suxiSvili m. gardamavaloba, ergatiuloba da gvari qarTulSi. sadoqtoro disertaciis avtoreferati. Tbilisi, 1999.33. Uturgaidze T. uTurgaiZe T. gramatikuli kategoriebisa da maTi urTierTmimarTebisTvis qarTul zmnaSi. Tbilisi. 2002. 34. Kavtaradze I. qavTaraZe i. zmnis ZiriTadi kategoriebis istoriisaTvis Zvel qarTulSi. Tbilisi. 196435. Shanidze A. SaniZe a. qarTuli enis gramatikis safuZvlebi. Tbilisi. 1973.

117

36. Shanidze A. SaniZe a. Txzulebani Tormet tomad. t. II. Tbilisi 198137. Shanidze A. SaniZe a. subieqturi prefiqsi meore pirisa da obieqturi prefiqsi mesame pirisa qarTul zmnebSi. tf. 192038. Shanidze A. SaniZe a. qarTuli zmnis saqcevi. tfilisis universitetis moambe, VI. 1926.39. Chikobava A. Ciqobava a. zogi prefiqsuli warmoebis istoriisaTvis qarTul zmnebSi. ike XI, Tbilisi. 195940. Chikobava A. Ciqobava a. moTxrobiTi brunvis genezisisaTvis qarTvelur enebSi. Tsu Sromebi X, Tbilisi. 193941. Chikobava A. Ciqobava a. ergatiuli konstruqciis problema iberiul-kavkasiur enebSi. Tbilisi. 196142. Chikobava A. Ciqobava a. Mmartivi winadadebis problema. Tbilisi. 196843. Chikobava A. Ciqobava a. iberiul-kavkasiuri enaTmecnierebis Sesavali. Tbilisi. Tsu. 1979.44. Chikobava A. Ciqobava a. saxelis fuZis uZvelesi agebuleba qarTvelur enebSi. Tbilisi 1942. 45. Chikobava A. Ciqobava a. ergatiuli konstruqciis problema iberiul-kavkasiur enebSi. ergatiuli konstruq ciis raobis Teoriebi. Tbilisi, 1961. 46. Chikobava A. Ciqobava a. pirovani uRvlilebis genezisisaTvis qarTulSi. ike weliwdeuli. T.3. Tbilisi. 197647. Chikobava A. Ciqobava a. gramatikuli klas-kategoria da zmnis uRlebis zogi sakiTxi Zvel qarTulSi. ike, t. I, Tbilisi. 195348. Chikobava A. Ciqobava a. zmnis gardamavloba, rogorc morfologiuri kategoria qarTulSi. ike-s weliwdeuli, Tbilisi. 1977.49. Chikobava A. Ciqobava a. saxelobiTi, rogorc obieqtis klasisa da micemiTi, rogorc obieqtis piris brunva, qarTuli zmnis uRvlilebis istoriaSi. ike-s weliwdeuli #7, 1980. 50. Dzidziiguri Sh. ZiZiguri S. baskur-kavkasiuri problema. Mmecniereba. Tbilisi. 198151. Chanisvili N. WaniSvili n. qarTuli enis brunvaTa sistema mis dinamikaSi. macne, els. Tbilisi. 1970 173-18852. Jorbenadze B. jorbenaZe b. formaTa warmoebisa da funqciis sakiTxebi qarTulSi. Tbilisi. 1975

118

53. Jorbenadze B. jorbenaZe b. zmnis xmovanprefiqsuli warmoeba qarTulSi. Tbilisi. 1983

Literature:

54. Ахманова О. С. Словарь лингвистических терминов. М. 196655. Базелл Ч. Е. Лингвистическая типология и принцип типологтческого анализа языков различниго строя. М. Наука, 1972. 15-30 с.56. Гак В. Г. Десемантизация языкового знака в аналитических структурах синтаксиса. Аналитические конструкции в языках различных типов. М-Л. 196557. Гамкрелидзе Т. В. Современная диахроническая лингвистика и картвельские языки. ВЯ №3, 1971. 34-48 58. Зыцарь Ю. В. К типологической характеристике эргативной структуры языков басков. ВЯ № 3 М. 1977ю 37-47 59. Зыцарь Ю. В. O родстве баскского языка с кавказскими. ВЯ 1955 № 5 60. Зыцарь Ю. В. О единстве сознания и различиях языков. ВЯ 1984 № 461. Иванов В. В. Поссесивная конструкция и посессивный тип языка в синхронии и диахронии. Типы языковых общностей и методы их изучения. Тезисы всесоюзной конференции по теоретическим вопросам языкознания - 3. (ТЯОМИ) М. 1984 56-5862. Иванов В. В. Типология и сравнительно-историческе языкознание. ВЯ -5. 195863. Исследования по структурной типологии / Отв. ред. Т.Н. Молошная. М., 1963. 64. Категория субъекта и объекта в языках различных типов. М-Л. 198265. Категория бытия и обладания в языке. М. 1977 66. Категория глагола и структура предложения. Конструкция с предикатными актантами. Л. 198367. Каузативные конструкции. Л. 197368. Кацнельсон С. Д. Эргативная конструкция и эргативное предложение. Изв. АН СССР. 1947. т. №:6 вып. 1. 43-4969. Кацнельсон С. Д. Типология языка и речевое мышление. Л. 1972

119

70. Кацнельсон С. Д. Общее и типологическое языкознание. Л., 1986. 71. Кибрик А. Е. Очерки по общим и прикладным вопросам языкознания. М., 1992. 72. Кибрик А. Е. Материалы и типология эргативности. М. 197973. Кибрик А. Е. Функционализм в лингвистике. Лингвистическая типология. Web/version. 2005 74. Климов Г. А. Типология языков активного строя. М. 1977 75. Климов Г. А. Очерк общей теории эргативности. М. 1973 76. Климов Г. А. Принципы контесивной типологии. М. 1983. 77. Климов Г. А. О позиционных падежах эргативной системы. ВЯ, 1983. №4 78. Климов Г. А. Алексеев М. Е. Типология кавказских языков. М. 1980. 79. Кортава Ю. Г. Глаголы обладания в грузинском языке. Проболемы внутренней и внешней лингвистики. М. 1978 80. Курилович Е. Эргативность и страдательность в языке. Очерки по лингвистике. 1962. 81. Курилович Е. Очерки по лингвистике. М., 1960. 82. Лафон Р. Система баскского глагола. Тбилиси. 1984 83. Марр Н. Я. Грамматика древнелитературного грузинского языка. Л. 1925 84. Марр Н. Я. Две работы Уленбека по баскскому языку. Язык и литература 1 Л. 1926 85. Мачавариани Г. И. Основные морфологические категории глагола в картвельских языках. Часть 1. Автореферат кандидатской диссертации. Тбилиси. 195386. Мещанинов И. И. Глагол. Л. 1982 87. Мещанинов И. И. Номинативное и эргативное предложения. Типологическое сопоставление структур. М. 1984. 88. Морфологическая структура слова в языках различных типов / Отв. ред. В. М. Жирмунский и О. П. Суник. М.; Л., 1963. 89. Морфологическая типология и проблема классификации языков / Отв. ред. Б.А. Серебренников и О.П. Суник. М.; Л., 1965. 90. Морфологические значения. М., 199891. Общее языкознание: Внутренняя структура языка / Под ред. Б.А. Серебренникова. М., 1972. - Глава 4. Грамматика.

120

92. Общее языкознание: Методы лингвистических исследований / Под ред. Б.А. Серебренникова. М., 1973. - Глава 1. Методы лингвогенетических исследований; Глава 2. Синхронное и диахроническое описание языков. 93. Общее языкознание / Под ред. А.Е. Супруна. Минск, 1983. 94. Основные направления структурализма / Отв. редакторы М. М. Гухман и В. Н. Ярцева. М., 1964. 95. Палмайтис Л. Аккузатив и родительный. ВЯ, №4 1979. 96. Пауль Г. Принципы истории языка. М., 1960. 97. Принципы описания языков мира. М. Наука. 1976 98. Принципы типологического анализа языков различного строя. М. Наука. 1972 99. Проблемы грамматического моделирования / Отв. ред. А.А. Зализняк. М., 1973. 100. Рогава Г. В. Генезису номинативной конструкции переходного глагола в картвельских языках. Ежегодник. ИКЯ №2, Тбилиси. 1975.101. Розенталь В. З. Теленькова М. А. Словарь лингвистических терминов. М. Просвешение. 1976 102. Серебренников Б. А. О лингвистических универсалиях. ВЯ -2, 1972103. Синхронно-сопастовительный анализ языков разных систем. М. Наука. 1971 104. Скаличка В. O современном состоянии типологии. Новое в лингвистике. Вып. III. - М., 1963. 105. Степанов Г. В. Методы и принципы современной лингвистики. М. Наука. 1975 106. Структурная типология языков / Отв. ред. Вяч. Вс. Иванов. М., 1966.107. Структурно-типологические исследования / Отв. ред. Т. Н. Молошная. М., 1962. 108. Теория и типология местоимений. М. 1980 109. Теоретические основы классификации языков мира. М., 1980. 110. Тестелец Я. Г. Парциальная эргативность и проблема типологической классификации. Типы языковых общностей и методы их изучения. Всесоюзная конференция III по теоретическим вопросам языкознания. Тезисы, М. 1984. 111. Тестелец Я. Г. Объктния версия в картвельских языках. В сб. Лингвистические исследования. ч. 2. М. Наука, 1984. 112. Тимберлейк А. Косвенно-объектные контролеры рефлексивизации в русском языке. Новое в зарубежной лингвистике. XI, М. 1982.

121

113. Типология пассивных конструкций. Диатезы и залоги. Л. 1974. 114. Типология грамматических категорий: Мещаниновские чтения / Отв. ред. В. Н. Ярцева. М., 1975. 115. Типология конструкций с предикатными актантами / Отв. ред. В. С. Храковский. Л., 1985. 116. Типология результативных конструкций: результатив, статив, пассив, перфект) / Отв. ред. В. П. Недялков. Л., 1983. 117. Томпсон С. Подлежащее и топик: новая типология языков // Новое в зарубежной лингвистике. Вып. 11. М., 1982.118. Топурия В. Т. О взвимоотношении эргативного и местного падежей в лезгинском языке. ЭКПЯРТ. Л. 1967119. Топурия В. Т. Эргатив самостоятельный и эргатив совмещающий и их функции в иберийско-кавказскиях языках. Нальчик. 1977. 120. Уленбек Х. К. Агенс и пациенс в падежной системе индоевропейских языков. Эргативная консрукция предложения. М.1950 121. Универсалии и типологические исследования. М. 1974122. Уорф Б. Л. Грамматические категории. – В сб.: Принципы типологического анализа языков различного строя. М., 1972123. Успенский Б. А. Структурная типология языков. М., 1965124. Филмор Ч. Дело о падеже. Новое в зарубежной лингвистике. т. Х. М. 1981. 125. Филмор Ч. Дело о падеже открывается вновь. Новое в зарубежной лингвистике. т. Х. М. 1981 126. Фогт Г. Баскский и кавказские языки. Еженгодник Иберийско-кавказского языкознания. Тбилиси. 1972 127. Хомский Н. Язык и мышление. М. 1972128. Чантурия Р. Опыт внутриструктурного и типологического анализа баскской модально-временной системы (проблема выделения основ). Автореферат кандидатской диссертации. Тбилиси 1986 129. Чикобава А. С. Историческое взаймоотношение номинативной и эргативной конструкций по данным древнегрузинского языка. Изв. АН СССР, ОЛЯ. т. 7 Вып. 3 М-Л. 1948 130. Чикобава А. С. К отностиельной роли субъекта и объекта в истории эргативной конструкции. Юбилейнная научная сессия ТГУ Тезсиы. 1961. 131. Чикобава А. С. Проблема эргативной конструкции в Иберийско-кавказских языков. Основнные вопросы ее истории и описательного анализа. Эргативная

122

конструкция предлжения в языках различных типов. Л. 1967 (Тезисы докладов ЭКПРЯТ-Л. 1964)132. Шишмарев В. Ф. Очерки по истории языков Испании. М-Л. 1941 133. Шухардт Г. Избранные статьи по языкознанию. М. 1950134. Шухардт Г. Баскский язык и языкознание. Избранные статьи по языкознанию. М. 1950 135. Эргативния конструкция предложения М. 1950136. Языки и диалекты мира: Проспект и словник. М., 1982. 137. Якобсон Р. О. Избранные работы. М., 1985. 138. Ярцева В. Н. Принципы типологического анализа родственных и неродственных языков. В сб. Проблемы языкознания, Доклады и сообщения советских ученных на Х международном конгрессе лингвистов. Бухарест 28У.ШХ М. Наука. 1976. 139. Mark C. Baker Thematic Roles and Syntactic Structure. McGill University. USA. V.2. Revised, June 1996. 140. Boeder W. "Ergative Syntax and Morphology in Language Change: The South Caucasian Languages" in Frans Plank, ed., Ergativity: Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations. London: Academic Press, 1979141. Boeder W. Uber die versionen des Georgischen Verbs. Follia Lingusitica. #2, 1968. 142. Comrie Bernhard. 1978. Ergativity. In W. P. Lehman (ed.), Syntactic Typology, Austin: University of Texas Press 143. Comrie B. S. Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Chicago, 1981. 144. Comrie B. S. Linguistic typology // F.J. Newmeyer ed. Linguistic theory: Foundations. – Cambr. etc.: Cambr. UP, 1988. 145. Dixon Robert Ergativity. Language 55:59, 1979 146. Garrett Andrew The Origin of Split NP Ergativity. Language 66:261-296. 1990.147. Gereño Xabier A new method for learning basque. Euskare Ikasteko Methodoa. Translated by D. Johnson. 1984148. Givón T. Mind, code and context. Hillsdale, 1989. 149. Harris Alice and Lyle Campbell. Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ch. 9, 1995150. Harris Alice C. Georgian Syntax: A Study in Relational Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

123

151. Heath J. G. The role of Basque in modern linguistic theory. IKER-I Bilbao. 1981 p. 433-444 152. Holmer Artur The Iberian-Caucasian Connection in a Typological Perspercive. Research report. Lund. 2001.153. Holmer N. M. A historic comparative analysis of the structure of Basque language. Fontes Linguae Vasconum. 1970 II154. Jacobsen W. A. The Basque language. Basque Studies program newsletter. 1968155. Kibrik A. Toward a Typology of Ergativity. In Johanna Nichols and Anthony Woodbury (eds.) Grammar inside and outside the clause. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1985. 156. Lafon R. Ergatif et passif en basque at en georgien. Billetin de la Societe de Linguistique. 1971. LXVI 1. 157. Laka I. "Unergatives that assign ergative, unaccusatives that assign accusative" in Papers on Case and Agreement, Vol I., J. Bobaljik & C. Phillips (eds), MITWPL 18, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. 1993 158. Manning Christopher Ergativity: Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Ch. 1, pp. 1-76 (Cutting the Ergativity Pie). 1996 159. Marantz Alec Relations and Cofigurations in Georgian. 1989 Sept. Curriculum CB#3166. Chapel Hill.160. Mitxelena K. La lengua vasca, Leopoldo Zugaza, editor, Durango, Vizcaya. [History. Early written testimonies. Grammatical structure. Ergativity. Agreement.] 1977. 161. Oyharçabal B. "Verb agreement with non-arguments: On allocutive agreement' in J. Hualde & J. Ortiz de Urbina eds. generative Studies in Basque Lingusitics Benjamins, Amsterdam & Philadephia, 1993 162. Paradigmas De La Conjugation Vasca. Dialectos Gipuzcoano y Vizcaino. Luis Villasante, Carmelo Iturria. Editorial Franciscana Aranzazu. 1955. Peeters Bert Morphological and syntactic ergativity. LINGUIST List 6.642 Fri 05. May, 1995.163. Perlmutter D. "Impersonal Passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis" in Berkeley Linguistic Society 4, [Unaccusative predicates] 1978 164. Plank Frans Bibliography on Ergativity. In Frans Plank (ed.) Ergativity: Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations. London/New York: Academic Press. 1979Pujana P. Euskal aditza (Bizkaiera) Flexiones del verbo vasco viscaino. Bilbao. 165. De Rijk R. "Is Basque an SOV language?" Fontes Linguau Vasconum 1, [Free word order and underlying word order.] 1969

124

166. Scott W. J. E. The Basque declinsion: its Kolarian origin and structure. Bulleten of the School of Oriental Studies 1920/I 167. Schuchardt H. Das baskishe linguistich-ethnologische Problem. RIEV 1928, XIX, 168. Schuchardt H. Sobre la formacion de las flexiones de relacion del verbo vasco. BSVAP 1972 XXVIII 169. Schuchardt H. Baskische Studien. Wien, 1893 .170. Schuchardt H. Baskische conjugation. RIEV, 1919 X171. Schuchardt H. Le Vebe vasque. RLPhC 1895, XXVIII 172. Tovar A. El euskera y sus parientes. Madrid, 1959 173. Trask R. L Basque verbal morphology. IKER-I. 1970174. Trask R. L. "On the Origins of Ergativity" in Frans Plank, ed., Ergativity: Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations. London: Academic Press, 1979 175. Ulenbeck C. C. Gestaafde en vermeende affiniteiten van net Baskish. Amsterdam, 1947. I 176. Ulenbeck С. C. La lingue Basque et la linguistique generale. Lingua I, 1947 177. Vamling Karina Complementation in Georgian. University press, Lund. 1989 178. Van Valin Robert Grammatical Relations in Ergative Languages. Studies in Language 5:361. 1981 179. Wilbur T. H. Ergative and pseudo-ergative in basque. Fontes Linguae Vasconum. 1970 II, 180. Woolford Ellen Four Way Case Systems: Ergative, Nominative, Objective and Accusatives. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 15.1:1, 1997.

125

23. CONTENT

1. Introduction 2. Writing system (ABC) 3. Noun 3.1. Flexion 3.2. Flexion of consonant-ending nouns 3.3. Emphatic vowel 3. 4. Flexion of nouns ending on vocals 3.5. Old plural forms 4. Postpositions 4.1. The postposition of nominative 4. 2. The postpositions of dative 4. 3. Postpositions of genitive 4. 4. The postpositions of instrumental 4. 5. The postpositions of adverbial 4. 6. Postpositions with ergative semantics 5. Adjectives 5.1. Adjective Degrees 5.2. Flexion of adjectives 5.2.1. Flexion of adjectives with nouns 6. Pronouns 6.1. Personal pronouns 6. 2. Demonstrative pronouns 6. 3. 1. Possessive pronouns 6. 3. 2. Flexion of possessive pronouns 6. 4. Reflexive pronouns 6. 5. Indefinite pronouns

126

6. 6. Definite pronouns 6. 7. Interrogative pronouns 6. 8. Directional pronouns 7. About Class category 8. Numerals 8.1. Numerals of quantity 8. 2. Numerals of order 8. 3. The partial numerals 9. Adverbs 9. 1. The adverbs of manner 9. 2. The adverbs of place 9. 3. The adverbs of time 9. 4. Adverbs of purpose 9. 5. Adverbs of reason 9. 6. Adverbs of measure      9. 7. Interrogative 9. 8. Adverbs as conjunctions 10. The conjunctions and particles 11. Interjections 12. Infinitive 13. Participle 14. Derivation 15. Composition 16. Verb 16.1. General information 16. 2. The cases of verbal persons in transitive verbs 16. 3. Markers of verbal persons 16. 4. Polypersonality 16. 5. Conjugation system 16. 6. Thematic markers 16. 7. Inversion 16. 8. Version 16. 8.1. Irregular forms of version 16. 8. 2. Version markers of the III series 16.8.3. Reflexive

127

16. 9. Contact – Causation 16.10. Preverbs 17. Conjugation 17.1. Conjugation of transitive (active) verbs 17. 2. Conjugation of intransitive verbs 17. 2. 1. Dynamic Passive 17. 2. 1. 1. Prefix-produced dynamic passive 17. 2. 1. 2. Un-marked forms and suffix-produced dynamic passive 17. 2. 2. Static Passive 17. 2. 3. Medio-actives 17. 2. 4. Medio-Passive 17. 3. Irregular verbs 17. 3. 1. Conjugation of the verb “To be” – q’opna 17. 3. 2. Conjugation of the verb “To have” – kona/q’ola 17. 3. 3. Conjugation of the verb “To give” – mitsema 17.3.4. Conjugation of the verb “To say” – tkma 17.3.5. Conjugation of the verb “to come” – movdivar 18. Word order 19. Ergativity 20. Compound Predicate 21. Different 22. Bibliography 23. Content

128

Dr. Tamar Makharoblidze

1- Dolabauri Street 65

Tbilisi Georgia 0144

ateni777@yahoo.com

Tel. 99532 2778090; (995)99317776

C U R R I C U L U M V I T A E

BORN - 24.01.69. Tbilisi GeorgiaEDUCATION - Tbilisi State University, Department of Philology, PH.D. Doctor, professorLANGUAGES: Georgian, Russian, English, Spanish (about 20 languages with linguistic knowledge including Basque)

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCEAuthorship – A few new theories in typological linguistics, general linguistics and cognitive linguistics; 12 monographs and handbooks and more than 80 scientific publications; Produced screenplays and stage plays, Published books for children

2011- Linguist of Georgia Primary education Project. Chemonics International, USAID 2011-2012 Linguist at NGO Save the Children working on Georgian Sign Language. 2009- The Chief scientific worker at Arnold Chikobava Institute of Linguistics2009 – The vice president of Rotary International of Tbilisi 2010- 2011 Rector of Tbilisi International University “LITTERA” (TIU “LITERA”)

129

2010- The board member of the animator’s union 2009 – Member of Central Eurasian Studies Society (CESS) Indiana University, USA 2009, 2010, 2011 – Consultant-translator for InWent. Germany. 2008 Vice-President of Caucasus International University CIU www.ciu.ge 2008 – 2010 Full professor of St. Andrew The First-called Georgian University of the

Patriarch of Georgia. Head of the Department “Georgian for Foreigners”.2007 September - The film “BUTTERFLIES IN THE WIND” - Hollywood, USA. (by Tamar Makharoblidze’s screenplay) was invited at Ava Gardner Film Festival. http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=865264312007 Winner of TOPSITE competition T. Makharoblidze’s project for children www.fairytaleshow.com, www.fairytale.ge2007-2008 Exchange Professor at Sangmyung University Seoul (South Korea) 2007 Film of Jason Spencer “THE LIST” by Tamar Makharoblidze’s screenplay –/”FATE” is in production. (NY.NY. USA)2006-2010 Professor of Georgian Studies at I. Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University 2006 Member of Scientific Awards Committee2006 Winner of Rustavi-2 TV reality-show “Idea, money and one chance” (This creative project was financed by two biggest banks of Georgia)2006 Presentation of a new linguistic field – Diffusive linguistics at I. Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University and Arnold Chikobava Institute of Linguistics of Georgia2005 The highest degree in linguistics (professor) “The typological analysis of destination systems in Georgian and Basque”2004-2005 The screenplay “THE WAY TO ONESELF” was produced by Vic Alexander (Cinema Classic, Hollywood, CA USA) Screened at Cannes International Film Festival market.2003 September The stage play THE MOST BEAUTIFUL DAY” was published in the WORDS, WORDS, WORDS quarterly annual literary e-zine http://www.wordswordswords.4t.com2002 Winner of Poetry Competition at Poetry Institute of Africa.2002 March-July PRI (Penal Reform International) South Caucasian Office Informational Officer2002 Telavi amateur theatre produced T. Makharoblidze’s stage play for children

130

2002-2003 PRI (NGO) South Caucasian information officer, project manager2003 Published the illustrated book for children – “THE MOST BEAUTIFUL DAY” 2001 Gori State Theatre produced T. Makharoblidze’s stage play “THE MOST BEAUTIFUL DAY”2000 (April/August) winner of two poetry competitions, USA.1988- 2005 Professor of Georgian Studies at TSU 1989-2003 Awarded researcher of verbal categories at TSU1998 Visiting professor at Jena University Department of Kartvelology (Germany)1990-1996 Lecturer at summer school for foreigners at TSU1995 Chief Editor of the daily newspaper “24 Hours”1994-2004 Writer and journalist at “The Republican Centre of Literature of Georgia”1991-2000 Member of Writers’ Independent Association “Gulani” (poet)1989-1990 visiting professor at Harvard, MIT in USA (MA) and SOAS in Great Britain (London)1988- Doctor of linguistics at TSU Modern Georgian Language department. PH.D. “The category of addressee in Basque verb (Typological investigations)” 1992-1993 Head of Information Agency “Contact”. Tbilisi1985-1997 Member of Basque-American Society, USA. Reno, Nevada.1990-1991 Head of creative LTD. “Kaleidoscope”1983-1992 Editor of Foreign Relation Department at Georgian TV and Radio (Author of more than 200 different type media programs with different TV and Radio groups from all the world; documentary screenwriting; administration job; management; coordinating; interpreting)1989 Working at BBC /”Panorama” for the film “Bloody Sunday” - awarded by Royal Academy and other political and educational/cultural programs – see the article about T. Makharoblidze at BBC magazine ARIEL – January 1989; Chief coordinator at Voyage of Argonauts by Tim Severin.1980 – Member of Basque-American Society. Reno Nevada.1981-1983 Editor of Editorial Department at Teacher’s mastering Central Institute. I published about 200 methodical editions.1976-1981 Student at the department of philology at Tbilisi State University 1978 Head of national activity defending Georgian language as an official state

131

language1975-1976 Correspondent at local newspaper in Gori. Georgia

132