Case marking in infinitive (ad-form) clauses in Old Georgian

A specific feature of both Modern and Old Georgian is that case marking of subjects and objects is sensitive to the choice of tense/aspect. This paper focuses on a construction that was found in complementation in Old Georgian (5th-11th centuries) where alongside with finite forms, an infinitive began to develop. Generally, this was a verb-noun in the adverbial case (-(a)d): tesva ‘sowing’ –> tesva-d ‘sow’. As the infinitive lacks expression of tense/aspect it is not able to assign case to its arguments in the same way as a finite verb does in Georgian. In this paper we will show that case marking of the direct object (and sometimes of the subject) of the infinitive is determined by the tense/aspect of the matrix verb

Sociolinguistic aspects of the development of Georgian

Abstract is not availabl

Towards the morphological and syntactical classification of Georgian verbs

In this paper, it is proposed that Georgian verbs can be classified into two large groups: verbs formed without auxiliary verbs (mainly with thematic markers) and with auxiliary verbs. Syntactically, two main groups are identified: direct verbs and inversive verbs. Dynamic and stative are considered formal categories; the ability to form the present tense without taking an auxiliary verb is considered a morphological marker of formally dynamic verbs. Within this frame, a system is proposed that includes eight verb types, each with direct and indirect syntactic patterns. A large class of Georgian verbs, traditionally known as Class III verbs, is split into three different types, or subclasses. Characteristic formal features of all three types within Class III are touched upon. It is argued that various degrees of semantic transitivity have their morphological marking in Georgian

Georgian medial verbs : their form and peculiarities of case alternating objects

Three main issues are touched upon in this paper: (a) main morphological types of Georgian verbs in correlation with verb form, on one hand, and with the categories of telicity, stativeness, and transitivity, on the other; (b) peculiarities of case alternating objects of medial verbs; (c) and formal features of medial verbs as the basis for identification of the medial verb class (along with semantic features).This paper is based on Hopper & Thompson’s (1980) hypothesis that considers transitivity not as a strict dichotomy but as a continuum where various degrees of semantic transitivity may be distinguished. Differences expressed on semantic and syntactical levels mark one class of Georgian verbs, Class III, as intermediate between transitives and intransitives. Labile transitives, a term suggested by Melikishvili (2001), is used in this paper to indicate peculiarities of Class III verbs with respect to transitivity. This term expresses the nature of Class III verbs in terms of transitivity more accurately than the labeling of these verbs as intransitive, transitive, stative voiceless, or active intransitive verbs. It is demonstrated in this paper that various degrees of semantic transitivity as well as the category of telicity have their morphological expression in Georgian. Semantically, a case-alternating object of labile transitive verbs is often an inconcrete, non-definite object and/or is not affected by the action described in the verb. Syntactically, the difference is expressed by the lack of ability to assign a third person object marker to a verb. Case alternating objects of both Class I and Class III verbs are marked by the dative case in the tenses of series I. But the difference is that the dative marked, case alternating object of telic verbs (Class I) is usually marked by a prefix on verbs in old Georgian and in several modern dialects of East Georgia (ს-თლის s-tlis ‘s/he is peeling it’). In contrast, the dative marked, case alternating third person object of Class III verbs (atelic, labile transitives) cannot trigger a person marker on a verb (თამაშობს tamashobs but not *ს-თამაშობს *s-tamashobs ‘s/he is playing’). The latter forms are not attested, not even in those dialects where the person marking of the dative marked third person direct object is still preserved.As is described above, besides semantic peculiarities, this verb class, standing in an intermediate position between transitives and intransitives, exhibits morphological and syntactical features of its own

Minority identity and identity maintenance in Georgia

With its long history of about three thousand years of statehood and with its geographic situation in the Caucasus, at the cross-roads of the Christian and Muslim worlds, Georgia represents an interesting picture in terms of linguistic (and not only linguistic) diversity. During the Soviet period and even since the Russian expansion in Georgia (19th century), minority and majority languages and identities formed a complicated hierarchy in Georgia. Changes during the post-Soviet period have been reflected on this hierarchy. The official status of the languages has not changed but different intragroup and intergroup attitudes have emerged. This article is an attempt to present a general review of these processes. The hierarchy of minorities from the demographic point of view is discussed in section 1. Section 2 deals with the hierarchy of languages in Georgia, and section 3 discusses the ambiguity of this hierarchy. In sections 4 and 5, the means of creating of a new Soviet identity connected with the script, name-giving and mother tongue are briefly discussed. The paper regards language as a social characteristic (de Vries 1992:211)

From the History of Identity and Language Planning Policy in Georgia

During the Soviet period, languages and identities formed a complicated hierarchy in Georgia as well as in the whole Soviet Union. Russian was a major language relative to Georgian and Georgian was a major language relative to other languages in Georgia. At the same time, Georgians constitute a minority group in some regions of Georgia and Georgian is a language of the minority in these regions. Ambiguity of status is observable among other groups as well. The cases of reversed assimilation have occurred: A minority group appears as a regional majority and assimilates representatives of the majority group. It has also been attested that one minority group assimilates another minority group. The crucial factor is the demographic factor and the intergroup sociopsychological climate, which was formed when Georgia itself was either a weakened state (17th-18th centuries) or a part of another state (19th-20th centuries) that tried to change the national face of Georgia. The Russian policy aimed to grant all languages the same rights on the whole territory of the Soviet Union despite the national borders (except those languages that are main languages of population outside the borders of the Soviet Union Assyrian, Kurdish, Greek). This was meant to create a new language balance among all languages where only Russian should work as a means of interethnic relations, and place Georgian at the same level as Armenian, Azerbaijanian, and other languages in Georgia as a first step of the Russification. Changes during the post-Soviet period have been reflected on this hierarchy. After the Soviet period the second group of minorities turned out to be minorities only in relation to Georgians lacking the Soviet (Russian) state with its supranational and even suprareligious or atheistic ideology (communism). Thus this second group found itself to be a part not of the Soviet Union (where every nationality had its contribution, and everybody had the same “elder brother“ Russia), but to be a minority in Georgia, an old country with its very clearly defined own historic and cultural face. Some of these groups felt like minorities for the first time relatively to their former “equals“. Protest against the new hierarchy and attempts to maintain and more precisely to obtain a new status in Georgia have emerged. The choice of the forms of these attempts depends on the demographic and geographic situation of the group. The hard socio-economic situation in Georgia also plays its part in this case. This gave opportunity to Russia to retain immediate ties to any group within the former “middle-stage” state Georgia and even grant its citizens with the citizenship of Russia as a new means of expansion after the supra-national state fall. This article is an attempt to present a general review of these processes and to describe the means employed by the Soviet State for replacing the traditionally formed identities by the new Soviet one. One step of the Soviet policy - to disintegrate, to deconstruct the inner structure of all republics - turned out to be reached to a significant degree, the next step - to integrate all these parts around one centre - the Soviet identity involving the shared history, culture, language, ideology, has failed. The complex of older values appeared to be stronger than the new Soviet one. Under the “umbrella” of the “supranational” Soviet citizenship of the supranational state the consciousness of real “informal” ethnic belonging to own ethnic groups has been preserved and developed among both Georgians and other ethnic groups in Georgia as a compensation of the lacking national citizenship. The independent Georgia faces the challenge to integrate the population of Georgia not only administratively and economically, but also ideologically and linguistically

Some verbs of perception and their shared root kh- i n Georgian

The paper discusses etymology of some stems, among them, kh-ev-a ‘to sound, to talk aloud, to recite’, m-kh-i-ar-ul-i ‘cheerful’, sa-kh-el-i ‘name’. In this paper, it is supposed that these stems are derived from the root -kh-. The same root occurs in verbs kh-ed-v-a ‘to see’, kh-eb-a ‘to touch’. The original meaning of the root -kh- must have been expression of physical contact. The similar shared etymology of different perception verbs is attested in wide range of languages and has been examined in lexical typology

Mother tongue and language use in Armenian and Russian schools in Georgia

This paper deals with the different stages of language maintenance and language shift among some minority groups in connection with the language of education and character of settlement in Georgia. This paper is focused on the comparison of Armenian respondents educated via Russian and via Armenian, and also on Armenian respondents living in Tbilisi and in areas of compact Armenian settlement. The respondents’ different understandings and self-evaluations of the notion ‘mother tongue’ are also touched upon

Georgian medial verbs : their form and peculiarities of case alternating objects

Three main issues are touched upon in this paper: (a) main morphological types of Georgian verbs in correlation with verb form, on one hand, and with the categories of telicity, stativeness, and transitivity, on the other; (b) peculiarities of case alternating objects of medial verbs; (c) and formal features of medial verbs as the basis for identification of the medial verb class (along with semantic features). This paper is based on Hopper & Thompson’s (1980) hypothesis that considers transitivity not as a strict dichotomy but as a continuum where various degrees of semantic transitivity may be distinguished. Differences expressed on semantic and syntactical levels mark one class of Georgian verbs, Class III, as intermediate between transitives and intransitives. Labile transitives, a term suggested by Melikishvili (2001), is used in this paper to indicate peculiarities of Class III verbs with respect to transitivity. This term expresses the nature of Class III verbs in terms of transitivity more accurately than the labeling of these verbs as intransitive, transitive, stative voiceless, or active intransitive verbs. It is demonstrated in this paper that various degrees of semantic transitivity as well as the category of telicity have their morphological expression in Georgian. Semantically, a case-alternating object of labile transitive verbs is often an inconcrete, non-definite object and/or is not affected by the action described in the verb. Syntactically, the difference is expressed by the lack of ability to assign a third person object marker to a verb. Case alternating objects of both Class I and Class III verbs are marked by the dative case in the tenses of series I. But the difference is that the dative marked, case alternating object of telic verbs (Class I) is usually marked by a prefix on verbs in old Georgian and in several modern dialects of East Georgia (ს-თლის s-tlis ‘s/he is peeling it’). In contrast, the dative marked, case alternating third person object of Class III verbs (atelic, labile transitives) cannot trigger a person marker on a verb (თამაშობს tamashobs but not *ს-თამაშობს *s-tamashobs ‘s/he is playing’). The latter forms are not attested, not even in those dialects where the person marking of the dative marked third person direct object is still preserved. As is described above, besides semantic peculiarities, this verb class, standing in an intermediate position between transitives and intransitives, exhibits morphological and syntactical features of its own

Conjugation types of Georgian verbs

There is a strong tendency to form morphologically marked two major groups of verbs in Georgian: dynamic verbs marked by thematic markers, on the one hand, and stative verbs makred by auxiliary verbs, on the other hand. This difference is manifested in the first and second persons of the present tense in the v-set marked forms. Stative verbs which formed the present tense without auxiliary verbs in old Georgian employ auxiliaries in contemporary Georgian (vzi vzivar ‘I am sitting’, vdga vdgavar ‘I am standing’...), whereas a large group of dynamic verbs presented without thematic markers in old Georgian takes thematic markers in contemporary Georgian (vtib vtibav ‘I am mowing it’, vt’ex vt’exav ‘I am breaking it’). All formally stative verbs are atelic verbs (vuq’varvar ‘S/he loves me’, vdgavar ‘I am standing’). They form the future tense by adding vowel prefixes. Within dynamic verbs, three large groups are distinguished: transitive telic verbs (vasheneb ‘I am building it’), intransitive telic verbs (vimalebi ‘I hide myself) and atelic verbs (vcxovrob ‘I live’, vmgheri ‘I sing’). Telic verbs (both dynamic transitives and dynamic intransitives) form the future tense by adding preverbs. Atelic verbs (both dynamic and stative) form the future tense by adding vowel prefixes. It is reasonable to identify three various types traditionally presented within conjugation type III: a) verbs formed with the markers –eb, -ob- and –av, b) verbs formed with the marker –i (vicini ‘I am laughing), and c) verbs formed with auxiliary verbs (vc’uxvar ‘I am worried). It is suggested to place the latter group (medioactives formed with auxiliary verbs, e.g. vc’uxvar ‘I am worried’, vdumvar ‘I am silent’) within the verbs formed with auxiliary verbs. Three other main groups within auxiliary formation verbs are the following: mediopassives (vdgavar ‘I am standing’), stative passives (vgdivar ‘I am lying thrown about’), and verbs where the 3rd subject person marker –a is attached directly to the root (cxela ‘It’s hot’). Some other features, characteristic of each type, are also described. Separation of auxiliary and non auxiliary verb formation makes it possible to describe the relation between phonematic structure of verbs and conjugation types. Inversive verbs are presented as differnet groups reflecting a variety of morphology of direct verbs but marked with a shared syntactic pattern C. (Abbreviations: PV – preverb, PVR – preradical vowel, R – root, Th – thematic marker, Syntactic B – syntactic pattern of transitive and labile transitive verbs, Syntactic pattern A – syntactic pattern of intransitive verbs, Syntactic pattern C – syntactic pattern of inversive verbs