DOCSLIB.ORG

Reflexivization Strategies in Georgian

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Reflexivization Strategies in Georgian Published by LOT Phone: +31 30 253 6006 Trans 10 Fax: +31 30 253 6000 3512 JK Utrecht e-mail: [email protected] the Netherlands http://wwwlot.let.uu.nl/ Cover illustration: Tell Myself. Copyright c Claudia Fernety. Reproduced here with the kind permission of the artist ISBN-10: 90-76864-96-9 ISBN-13: 978-90-76864-96-9 Copyright c 2006 Nino Amiridze. All rights reserved. This dissertation is typeset using LATEX. Reflexivization Strategies in Georgian Reflexivisatie Strategieen¨ in het Georgisch (met een samenvatting in het Nederlands) Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit Utrecht op gezag van de Rector Magnificus, Prof. Dr. W. H. Gispen, ingevolge het besluit van het College voor Promoties in het openbaar te verdedigen op donderdag 30 maart 2006 des ochtends te 10:30 uur door Nino Amiridze geboren op 30 september 1971 te Tbilisi Promotores: Prof. Dr. M. B. H. Everaert Prof. Dr. E. J. Reuland Contents Acknowledgments ix Abbreviations xiii 1 Introduction 1 2 Notes on Georgian Morphosyntax 7 2.1 Introduction................................ 7 2.2 Agreement Marking in Georgian . 8 2.3 Screeves or TAM Paradigms........................ 12 2.4 Case and Agreement Patterns of Georgian . 15 2.4.1 Introduction . 15 2.4.2 Case Alignment and TAM, Volition, Verb Class Distinction . 16 2.4.3 Georgian is not an Ergative Language . 24 2.4.4 Georgian is neither a “Split-Ergative” Language . 27 2.4.5 Conclusion ............................ 32 2.5 What Kind of Verbs Are Relevant for Anaphoric Binding? . 32 2.5.1 Introduction . 32 2.5.2 Some Classifications of Verbs . 32 2.5.3 The Verbs Relevant for Anaphoric Binding in Georgian . 38 2.5.4 Conclusion ............................ 40 2.6 Summary ................................. 40 3 Binding Issues in Georgian 41 3.1 Introduction................................ 41 3.2 Literature on Georgian Reflexives and Reciprocals . 41 3.3 Binding Conditions of the Government and Binding Theory . 43 3.4 The Complex Reflexive Phrase POSS+tav- ................ 49 3.4.1 Introduction . 49 3.4.2 Domain and C-Command . 49 v 3.4.3 Binding and Word Order . 51 3.4.4 S/O Asymmetries . 61 3.4.5 The Determiner of the Complex Reflexive Phrase POSS+tav- . 66 3.4.6 The Complex Reflexive Phrase POSS+tav- as a Determiner . 85 3.4.7 Conclusion ............................ 91 3.5 The Simple Reflexive Pronoun tav- .................... 92 3.5.1 Introduction . 92 3.5.2 Is the Simple Reflexive tav- the Same POSS+tav- Strategy? . 92 3.5.3 Domain and C-Command . 102 3.5.4 Binding and Word Order . 104 3.5.5 POSS+tav-, tav- and Sub-Classes of Transitive Verbs . 104 3.5.6 Conclusion ............................110 3.6 The Georgian Reciprocals . 111 3.6.1 Introduction . 111 3.6.2 The Form of the Reciprocals . 111 3.6.3 Domain and C-Command . 116 3.6.4 Binding and Word Order . 127 3.6.5 Number Agreement of Reciprocals in Georgian . 129 3.6.6 Conclusion ............................134 3.7 Summary .................................134 4 Outline of Reflexivization Strategies in Georgian 137 4.1 Introduction................................137 4.2 TheReflexivityFramework. .137 4.3 Nominal Reflexivization in Georgian . 142 4.3.1 Introduction . 142 4.3.2 The POSS+tav- Strategy .....................142 4.3.3 The Simple tav- Strategy.....................153 4.3.4 Conclusion ............................157 4.4 Verbal Reflexivization . 157 4.4.1 Introduction . 157 4.4.2 Reflexive Pre-Radical Vowel i- ..................157 4.4.3 Non-Reflexive Pre-Radical Vowel i- ...............168 4.4.4 Conclusion ............................179 4.5 Summary .................................180 5 “Anaphors” that Violate the Binding Theory 183 5.1 Introduction................................183 5.2 The Use of the Phrase POSS+tav- in Object Camouflage . 183 5.3 The Use of the Phrase POSS+tav- in Wish Formulae . 191 5.4 The Reflexive Phrase POSS+tav- as a Subject Argument . 194 5.5 The Reciprocal ertmanet- as a Subject Argument . 197 vi 5.6 Summary .................................198 6 Anaphors and Agreement 199 6.1 Introduction................................199 6.2 Anaphor Agreement Effect . 199 6.3 Modified Anaphor Agreement Effect . 201 6.4 Georgian and the (Modified) Anaphor Agreement Effect . 206 6.5 Reflexivity Theoretic Explanation for Subject Anaphors . 207 6.6 Georgian and the Reflexivity Theoretical Explanation . 210 6.7 Summary .................................216 7 Georgian Anaphors as a Subject Argument 219 7.1 Introduction................................219 7.2 CanItBeCalledBinding? . .220 7.3 Georgian Subject Anaphors and their Postcedents . 226 7.3.1 Introduction . 226 7.3.2 The Aspect/Property of Reading of the Subject Anaphors . 226 7.3.3 The Image/Representation of Reading of the Subject Anaphors 230 7.3.4 Conclusion ............................238 7.4 Summary .................................239 8 Conclusions 241 A Some Classes of Verbs in the Screeves of the Three TAM Series 243 A.1 The 1-Argument Unaccusative -c. itld-/-c. itl- “turn red” . 243 A.2 The 1-Argument Unergative -cin- “laugh” ................250 A.3 The Transitive -c.ˇr-/-c.ˇer- “wound” ....................255 B Notes on the Grammaticalization of tav- “head” 281 Bibliography 291 Index 309 Samenvatting 313 ÞiÙÑe Öe (Georgian Summary) 315 Curriculum Vitae 317 vii Acknowledgments I would like to express my gratitude to my advisors Martin Everaert and Eric Reuland. I appreciate their constant help with my research as well as with practical matters during my stay at the OTS or even after moving from the Netherlands. Without their commit- ment, encouragement, insightful comments and motivating discussions the thesis might not be completed. I am very grateful to the members of the dissertation committee, for reading this work carefully on such a short notice. This work got improved thanks to the following people who have read the whole dissertation, or discussed issues in one or more parts of it, at several stages of writ- ing: Elena Anagnostopoulou, Rusudan Asatiani, Sergey Avrutin, Winfried Boeder, Pe- ter Cole, Norbert Corver, Alexis Dimitriadis, Thomas Gamkrelidze, Alice C. Harris, Gabriella Hermon, Ekkehard Konig,¨ Tanya Reinhart, Kakhi Sakhltkhutsishvili, Maaike Schoorlemmer, Yakov G. Testelec, Kevin Tuite, Mario van de Visser. The attention and help offered by Alice Harris over the last ten years has been invaluable. Her constructive comments on the drafts on various topics, sometimes on a short notice, have been extremely useful. I benefited a lot from the native speaker judgments, the knowledge of language(s) or expertise in their fields by Xabier Artiagoitia (Basque), Balthasar Bickel (Nepali), Win- fried Boeder (Georgian), George Hewitt (Georgian), Marine Ivanishvili (Georgian), Katalin E.´ Kiss (Hungarian), Itziar Laka (Basque), Katja Lyutikova (Bagwalal, Avar- Andic group of Dagestanian languages), David Paitschadze (Greek), Zurab Sarjveladze (Old / Middle / Modern Georgian), Eter Soselia (Georgian), Svetlana Toldova (Dages- tanian) as well as by the participants of the Basque discussion list (2001) and FUNKNET discussions (2000, 2002) on reflexives and reciprocals as subjects. During several LOT summer/winter schools I had an opportunity to discuss the subject uses of anaphors with Bill Croft and Anna Siewierska and to have shorter pre- sentations at the courses offered by Ekkehard Konig¨ and Peter Cole. I thank them for taking a close look at the Georgian data, and for their questions, suggestions, interest and the opportunity to present my work. I have been almost always extremely overloaded during my stay in Utrecht and, ix therefore, not able to participate in many social events. This makes me even more appreciate those small coffee breaks during a day when I could talk with my colleagues, discuss things or simply tell/listen to a joke. I am grateful to Sergey Avrutin, Olga Borik, Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul, Takaaki Hara, Anna Mlynarczyk, Øystein Nilsen, Kakhi Sakhltkhutsishvili, Balazs´ Suranyi,´ Willemijn Vermaat, Nadya Vinokurova for sharing their thoughts and good mood with me. I am grateful to Sergio Baauw, Jan Don, Esther Kraak for their help with organiza- tional issues at the beginning of my project and to Keetje van den Heuvel for her help in the final phrase. Giorgi Burkadze, Thea Gagnidze, Irina Kutateladze, Pien and Joris van Leeuwen, Kakhi Sakhltkhutsishvili and Lela Rietkerk have been very helpful and kind during my stay in Utrecht. Some part of this work has been written in Austria. I am grateful to Eric and Martin for allowing me to work away from the Institute, for their always immediate help both with the research and with organizational issues. Special thanks to Simone van Weteringen for her help with getting my documents translated and legalized into German in time. I appreciate the help from many people who made my moving to Austria a lot easier and as less stressful as possible, among them first of all Temur, my husband, Bruno Buchberger, Daniela and Claudio Dupre,´ Brigitte and Helmut Lam- plmaier, Maria and Max Mayr, Kakhi Sakhltkhutsishvili. I am very grateful to Manuel Kauers and Christian Vogt for their German lessons at RISC (University of Linz). Spe- cial thanks to Natia Borashvili, Besik Dundua, Adrian Craciun,ˇ Jeannette and Ralf Hemmecke, Mircea Marin, Bogdan Matasaru, Koji Nakagawa, Cleo and Petru Pau, Florina Piroi, Yulita Popova, Nikolaj Popov, Carsten Schneider, Heba and Mohamed Shalaby, and Ibolya Szilagyi for their company at many social occasions at RISC as well as outside of it. Nadya Vinokurova has been very kind to offer a place to stay during my visits from Austria to the Netherlands. I had many memorable and nice occasions of spending time with old friends of mine, Marika Butskhrikidze and Bedri Drini in Leiden as well as with friends of my family, Nana Aptsiauri and Yuri Burkadze in Krimpen a/d IJssel. Back home I owe a lot to the members of the Linguistics department, Tbilisi State University and the typology department of the Institute of Oriental Studies, Georgian Academy of Sciences, for sharing their knowledge, experience and time with me.
Recommended publications
  • The Syntax of the Malagasy Reciprocal Construction: an Lfg Account

    The Syntax of the Malagasy Reciprocal Construction: an Lfg Account

    THE SYNTAX OF THE MALAGASY RECIPROCAL CONSTRUCTION: AN LFG ACCOUNT Peter Hurst University of Melbourne Proceedings of the LFG06 Conference Universität Konstanz Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (Editors) 2006 CSLI Publications http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/ ABSTRACT The verbal reciprocal construction in Malagasy is formed by a reciprocal morpheme prefixing on the main verb with a corresponding loss of an overt argument in c-structure. Analyses of similar constructions in Chichewa and Catalan both treat the reciprocalized verb's argument structure as undergoing an alteration whereby one of its thematic roles is either suppressed or two thematic arguments are mapped to one grammatical function. In this paper I propose that the reciprocal morpheme in Malagasy creates a reciprocal pronoun in f-structure - thus maintaining its valency and leaving the argument structure of the verb unchanged, while at the same time losing an argument at the level of c-structure. 1. INTRODUCTION Malagasy is an Austronesian language and is the dominant language of Madagascar. The Malagasy sentences used in the analysis below are from the literature - in particular from a paper by Keenan and Razafimamonjy (2001) titled “Reciprocals in Malagasy” whose examples are based on the official dialect of Malagasy as spoken in and around the capital city Antananarivo. The Malagasy reciprocal construction is formed by the addition of a prefix -if- or -ifamp- to the stem of the verb accompanied by the loss of an overt argument in object position. Compare sentence (1a) below with its reciprocated equivalent (1b): (1) Malagasy a. N-an-daka an-dRabe Rakoto pst-act-kick acc.Rabe Rakoto V O S 'Rakoto kicked Rabe' b.
  • Khevsur and Tush and the Status of Unusual Phenomena in Corpora Author(S): Thomas R

    Khevsur and Tush and the Status of Unusual Phenomena in Corpora Author(S): Thomas R

    Khevsur and Tush and the status of unusual phenomena in corpora Author(s): Thomas R. Wier Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: Special Session on Languages of the Caucasus (2013), pp. 96-110 Editors: Chundra Cathcart, Shinae Kang, and Clare S. Sandy Please contact BLS regarding any further use of this work. BLS retains copyright for both print and screen forms of the publication. BLS may be contacted via http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/bls/. The Annual Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society is published online via eLanguage, the Linguistic Society of America's digital publishing platform. Khevsur and Tush and the Status of Unusual Phenomena in Corpora THOMAS R. WIER University of Chicago Introduction Recent years have seen an increasing realization of the threat posed by language loss where, according to some estimates, upwards of ninety percent of all lan- guages may go extinct within the next century (Nettle & Romaine 2002). What is less often realized, much less discussed, is the extent to which linguistic diversity that falls within the threshold of mutual intelligibility is also diminishing. This is especially true of regions where one particular language variety is both widely spoken and holds especially high prestige across many different social classes and communities. In this paper, we will examine two such dialects of Georgian: Khevsur and Tush, and investigate what corpora-based dialectology can tell us about phylogenetic and typological rarities found in such language varieties. 1 Ethnolinguistic Background Spoken high in the eastern Caucasus mountains along the border with Chechnya and Ingushetia inside the Russian Federation, for many centuries, Khevsur and Tush have been highly divergent dialects of Georgian, perhaps separate lan- guages, bearing a relationship to literary Georgian not unlike that of Swiss German and Hochdeutsch (see map, from Hewitt 1995:vi).
  • Lexicographic Potential of the Georgian Dialect Corpus

    Lexicographic Potential of the Georgian Dialect Corpus

    LexicographicLexicographic Potential Potential of ofthe the Georgian Georgian Dialect Dialect Corpus Corpus MarinaMarina Beridze, Beridze, David David Nadaraia Nadaraia Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, Arn. Chikobava Institute of Linguistics e-mail: [email protected] Abstract The project Linguistic Portrait of Georgia envisages various aspects of documentation of Georgian linguistic reality by means of corpus methodologies. This title is an umbrella for three large-scale projects within the framework of which The Georgian Dialect Corpus – GDC (http://corpora.co) was developed. Presently, the architecture and text base of the corpus have been designed, being permanently developed and updated. Besides, the lexicographic base of the corpus is organized, agglomerating data from printed dialect dictionaries. The lexical stock of the corpus is presented based on text, lexicographic and encyclopaedic data. The total quantity of tokens in the corpus is estimated to be up to 2 000 000, while the lexicographic base has 60 000 items (lemmas with entries) by now; this quantity is considerably increased owing to phonetic and grammatical variations, frequently associated with a single lexical item. Keywords: Georgian Dialect Corpus; lexicographic base; encyclopaedic data 1 Georgian Dialect Corpus: General Characteristics The Georgian Dialect Corpus (GDC) was developed as a means for documentation and study of Georgian linguistic diversity (Beridze, Nadaraia 2009: 25; Beridze, Lordkipanidze, Nadaraia: 2015-1, 323). Consisting of several components, this is a reference resource, which, with respect to its interdisciplinary objectives, considerably differs from other similar corpora. The principal difference is that GDC has corpus and library modes of text access; it integrates the lexicographic base, a prospective universal lexicographic base of the Georgian language.
  • Further Remarks on Reciprocal Constructions (To Appear In: Nedjalkov, Vladimir P

    Further Remarks on Reciprocal Constructions (To Appear In: Nedjalkov, Vladimir P

    1 Further remarks on reciprocal constructions (to appear in: Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. (ed.) 2007. Reciprocal constructions. Amsterdam: Benjamins.) MARTIN HASPELMATH In view of the breathtaking scope of the comparative research enterprise led by Vladimir P. Nedjalkov whose results are published in these volumes, I have no choice but to select and highlight a few topics that I find particularly interesting and worthy of further comment and further study. I will focus here on conceptual and terminological issues and on some phenomena that have been discussed in the literature but are not so well represented in this work. I will also try to summarize some of the major known generalizations about reciprocals, as discussed in this work and elsewhere, in the form of twenty-six Greenberg-style numbered universals. 1. Reciprocal, mutual, symmetric Let us begin with a terminological discussion of the most basic term, reciprocal. In the present volumes, this term is used both for meanings (e.g. reciprocal situation, reciprocal event) and for forms (e.g. reciprocal construction, reciprocal marker, reciprocal predicate). In most cases, the context will disambiguate, but it seems to be a good idea to have two different terms for meanings and for forms, analogous to similar contrasts such as proposition/sentence, question/interrogative, participant/argument, time/tense, multiple/plural. Since all reciprocals express a situation with a mutual relation, I propose the term mutual for the semantic plane, reserving the term reciprocal for specialized expression patterns that code a mutual situation. A similar terminological distinction is made by König & Kokutani (2006), Evans (2007), Dimitriadis (2007), but these authors propose the term symmetric for meanings, reserving reciprocal for forms.
  • PRO GEORGIA JOURNAL of KARTVELOLOGICAL STUDIES N O 27 — 2017 2

    PRO GEORGIA JOURNAL of KARTVELOLOGICAL STUDIES N O 27 — 2017 2

    1 PRO GEORGIA JOURNAL OF KARTVELOLOGICAL STUDIES N o 27 — 2017 2 E DITOR- IN-CHIEF David KOLBAIA S ECRETARY Sophia J V A N I A EDITORIAL C OMMITTEE Jan M A L I C K I, Wojciech M A T E R S K I, Henryk P A P R O C K I I NTERNATIONAL A DVISORY B OARD Zaza A L E K S I D Z E, Professor, National Center of Manuscripts, Tbilisi Alejandro B A R R A L – I G L E S I A S, Professor Emeritus, Cathedral Museum Santiago de Compostela Jan B R A U N (†), Professor Emeritus, University of Warsaw Andrzej F U R I E R, Professor, Universitet of Szczecin Metropolitan A N D R E W (G V A Z A V A) of Gori and Ateni Eparchy Gocha J A P A R I D Z E, Professor, Tbilisi State University Stanis³aw L I S Z E W S K I, Professor, University of Lodz Mariam L O R T K I P A N I D Z E, Professor Emerita, Tbilisi State University Guram L O R T K I P A N I D Z E, Professor Emeritus, Tbilisi State University Marek M ¥ D Z I K (†), Professor, Maria Curie-Sk³odowska University, Lublin Tamila M G A L O B L I S H V I L I, Professor, National Centre of Manuscripts, Tbilisi Lech M R Ó Z, Professor, University of Warsaw Bernard OUTTIER, Professor, University of Geneve Andrzej P I S O W I C Z, Professor, Jagiellonian University, Cracow Annegret P L O N T K E - L U E N I N G, Professor, Friedrich Schiller University, Jena Tadeusz Ś W I Ę T O C H O W S K I (†), Professor, Columbia University, New York Sophia V A S H A L O M I D Z E, Professor, Martin-Luther-Univerity, Halle-Wittenberg Andrzej W O Ź N I A K, Professor, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw 3 PRO GEORGIA JOURNAL OF KARTVELOLOGICAL STUDIES No 27 — 2017 (Published since 1991) CENTRE FOR EAST EUROPEAN STUDIES FACULTY OF ORIENTAL STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF WARSAW WARSAW 2017 4 Cover: St.
  • Shota Rustaveli Theatre and Film Georgia State University Faculty of Art Sciences, Media and Management Khatuna Damchidze Tbilis

    Shota Rustaveli Theatre and Film Georgia State University Faculty of Art Sciences, Media and Management Khatuna Damchidze Tbilis

    Shota Rustaveli Theatre and Film Georgia State University Faculty of Art Sciences, Media and Management Khatuna Damchidze Tbilisi 0108 Georgia Dance Dialects of West Georgia (Abkhazian, Acharian, Laz-Shavshetian, Megrelian, Rachan) and Main Ethnocoreological Aspects of Their Interrelation Abstract of the thesis work for the Academic degree Dr. of Arts (Phd) Scientific supervisor: Dr. of Arts Ana Samsonadze Tbilisi 2019 1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE WORK Actuality of the themes: Today, when the world is overwhelmed by the irreversible process of globalization, when the difference between the nations is being eliminated, the problem of maintaining originality is fairly acute. This problem is more obvious on the example of little countries such as Georgia. Had it not been the cultural heritage (material and intangible) from ancient times to this day, Georgia would not have occupied the place it holds now, in the world culture. As an object of cultural heritage, Georgian national choreography holds a special place and is of particular importance. Originality of Georgian folk dance is manifested in its ethnic variety which, on the one hand, exists as absolutely different dance tradition and on the other hand, as part of common Georgian folklore. Although certain number of dialects, from the standpoint of dance lexicon has disappeared (Imeretian, Lechkhumian); diversity of dance dialects is observed on a geographically small territory of West Georgia West Georgian circle of dialects comprises Svan, Rachan, Abkhazian, Megrelian, Gurian and Laz folk choreography1. One of the most important issues of choreology to be researched today is ascertainment and classification of separate dance dialects and elucidation of their interrelations.
  • Georgian Country and Culture Guide

    Georgian Country and Culture Guide

    Georgian Country and Culture Guide მშვიდობის კორპუსი საქართველოში Peace Corps Georgia 2017 Forward What you have in your hands right now is the collaborate effort of numerous Peace Corps Volunteers and staff, who researched, wrote and edited the entire book. The process began in the fall of 2011, when the Language and Cross-Culture component of Peace Corps Georgia launched a Georgian Country and Culture Guide project and PCVs from different regions volunteered to do research and gather information on their specific areas. After the initial information was gathered, the arduous process of merging the researched information began. Extensive editing followed and this is the end result. The book is accompanied by a CD with Georgian music and dance audio and video files. We hope that this book is both informative and useful for you during your service. Sincerely, The Culture Book Team Initial Researchers/Writers Culture Sara Bushman (Director Programming and Training, PC Staff, 2010-11) History Jack Brands (G11), Samantha Oliver (G10) Adjara Jen Geerlings (G10), Emily New (G10) Guria Michelle Anderl (G11), Goodloe Harman (G11), Conor Hartnett (G11), Kaitlin Schaefer (G10) Imereti Caitlin Lowery (G11) Kakheti Jack Brands (G11), Jana Price (G11), Danielle Roe (G10) Kvemo Kartli Anastasia Skoybedo (G11), Chase Johnson (G11) Samstkhe-Javakheti Sam Harris (G10) Tbilisi Keti Chikovani (Language and Cross-Culture Coordinator, PC Staff) Workplace Culture Kimberly Tramel (G11), Shannon Knudsen (G11), Tami Timmer (G11), Connie Ross (G11) Compilers/Final Editors Jack Brands (G11) Caitlin Lowery (G11) Conor Hartnett (G11) Emily New (G10) Keti Chikovani (Language and Cross-Culture Coordinator, PC Staff) Compilers of Audio and Video Files Keti Chikovani (Language and Cross-Culture Coordinator, PC Staff) Irakli Elizbarashvili (IT Specialist, PC Staff) Revised and updated by Tea Sakvarelidze (Language and Cross-Culture Coordinator) and Kakha Gordadze (Training Manager).
  • Deponent Verbs in Georgian Kevin Tuite (Université De Montréal)

    Deponent Verbs in Georgian Kevin Tuite (Université De Montréal)

    Deponent verbs in Georgian Kevin Tuite (Université de Montréal) 0. Introduction. In the summer of 2000, while on a research trip to Georgia, I came across the following cartoon in a Tbilisi newspaper. Here is the text with a translation: Waiter: supši rat’om ipurtxebit? (Why do you keep spitting in the soup?) Customer: vsinǰav, cxelia tu ara. (I’m testing if it’s hot or not.) Waiter: ??? Customer: čemi coli q’oveltvis egre amoc’mebs utos. (My wife always checks the iron like this.) Leaving aside the political incorrectness — on several levels — of the content of the cartoon, let us make use of it as a source of linguistic data. The verb in the first line, i-purtx-eb-i-t “you [pl/polite] spit”, is formally in the passive voice; its 3rd-person subject form would be i- purtx-eb-a. Its morphology contrasts with that of the transitive a-purtx- eb-s in exactly the same way as, say, the passive (k’ari) i-ɣ-eb-a “(the door) is opened” is opposed to the active (k’ars) a-ɣ-eb-s “s/he opens (the door)”. If the meaning of a-purtx-eb-s is “s/he spits”, one would expect the first line of the above dialogue to mean something along the lines of “Why are you being spit into the soup?”, which is manifestly not the case. The Explanatory Dictionary of the Georgian Language (KEGL) glosses ipurtxeba “spits continually, sprays spit all the time (from the mouth)” (erttavad apurtxebs, c’ara-mara purtxs isvris (p’iridan)); according to Tschenkéli’s dictionary, it means “(dauernd) spucken”.
  • For the Annotation of Titlo Diacritic

    For the Annotation of Titlo Diacritic

    Irina LOBJANIDZE Associate Professor Ilia State University Tbilisi, Georgia For the annotation of Titlo Diacritic Abstract: The paper describes different levels of annotation used in the Corpus of Modern, Middle and Old Georgian Texts. Aiming at building a new, extensive and representative tool for Georgian language the Corpus was compiled under the financial support of the Shota Rustaveli National Science Foundation and the Ilia State University (AR/266/1-31/13). In particular, the Corpus of Georgian language is envisaged as collecting a substantial amount of data needed for research. The scope and representativeness of texts included as well as free accessibility to it makes the corpus one of the most necessary tools for the study of different texts in Modern, Middle and Old Georgian (see, http://corpora.iliauni.edu.ge/). The corpus consists of different kind of texts, mainly: a) Manuscript- based publications; b) Reprints; c) Previously unpublished manuscripts and; d) Previously published manuscripts and covers Modern, Middle and Old Georgian. The paper presents the research area, the design and structure and applications related to the compilation of the corpus, in particular, different levels of annotation as meta-data, structural mark-up and linguistic annotation at word-level, especially, from the viewpoint of Titlo Diacritic. This paper is structured as follows: Section 1 includes background and research questions; Section 2 presents a methodological approach and briefly summarizes its theoretical prerequisites; Section 3 includes the findings and hypothesis, which refers generally to the differences between the annotation of Modern and Old Georgian texts; and Section 4 presents the answers to the research questions.
  • Russian Peripheral Reciprocal Markers and Unaccusativity

    Russian Peripheral Reciprocal Markers and Unaccusativity

    Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 8 O. Bonami & P.Cabredo Hofherr (eds.) 2011, pp. 313–332 http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss8 Russian peripheral reciprocal markers and unaccusativity Alexander Letuchiy∗ Introduction In the last few decades, the unaccusativity hypothesis and notion of unaccusativity has been widely discussed in linguistics. The hypothesis, as formulated by Perlmut- ter (1976), Rosen (1984), Mithun (1991), and others, says that the class of intransitive verbs is not homogenous. Different syntactic criteria show that in many languages one observes two classes of intransitives: unaccusative verbs and unergative verbs. The for- mer are, roughly speaking, ‘patientive’ verbs which denote a situation which the sub- ject does not control – in other words, the subject is a patient rather than an agent, since the absence of control, according to Dowty (1991) and Ackerman & Moore (2001) characterizes prototypical patients, and not prototypical agents. Structurally, accord- ing to Perlmutter (1976), the subject of unaccusatives at some level of representation occupies the same place as the object of transitive verbs. In contrast, the core of the unergative class includes situations controlled by the subject (thoughother verbs join the unergativeclass as well). In the syntactic structure, the subject occupies the same place as the subject (agent) of transitive verbs. In this paper, I discuss ‘peripheral’ reciprocal markers in Russian1. First, I analyze the grammatical properties of the prefix vzaimo- ‘mutually’. Surprisingly, this prefix, which cannot be the sole reciprocal marker in the verb form, can serve as the sole marker in nouns and even in participles. I am trying to explain this difference between verbs vs.
  • UC Berkeley Dissertations, Department of Linguistics

    UC Berkeley Dissertations, Department of Linguistics

    UC Berkeley Dissertations, Department of Linguistics Title Constructional Morphology: The Georgian Version Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1b93p0xs Author Gurevich, Olga Publication Date 2006 eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Constructional Morphology: The Georgian Version by Olga I Gurevich B.A. (University of Virginia) 2000 M.A. (University of California, Berkeley) 2002 A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics in the GRADUATE DIVISION of the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY Committee in charge: Professor Eve E. Sweetser, Co-Chair Professor James P. Blevins, Co-Chair Professor Sharon Inkelas Professor Johanna Nichols Spring 2006 The dissertation of Olga I Gurevich is approved: Co-Chair Date Co-Chair Date Date Date University of California, Berkeley Spring 2006 Constructional Morphology: The Georgian Version Copyright 2006 by Olga I Gurevich 1 Abstract Constructional Morphology: The Georgian Version by Olga I Gurevich Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics University of California, Berkeley Professor Eve E. Sweetser, Co-Chair, Professor James P. Blevins, Co-Chair Linguistic theories can be distinguished based on how they represent the construc- tion of linguistic structures. In \bottom-up" models, meaning is carried by small linguistic units, from which the meaning of larger structures is derived. By contrast, in \top-down" models the smallest units of form need not be individually meaningful; larger structures may determine their overall meaning and the selection of their parts. Many recent developments in psycholinguistics provide empirical support for the latter view. This study combines intuitions from Construction Grammar and Word-and-Para- digm morphology to develop the framework of Constructional Morphology.
  • (Tamaz) Kochlamazashvili

    (Tamaz) Kochlamazashvili

    OLD GEORGIAN TRANSLATIONS OF GREGORY OF NYSSa’S WORKS Tina Dolidze/Ekvtime (Tamaz) Kochlamazashvili “Great Father,” “Stronghold of Orthodoxy,” “River of the Paradise,” “Tree of Life for the believers,” “Inculcator of the Truth,” “Splendid Preacher of repentance”—this is an incomplete list of the epithets that Old Georgian intellectuals, on the trail of Byzantines, used to attribute to Gregory of Nyssa. Along with these elevated appraisals, numerous translations of Gregory of Nyssa’s works are preserved in a multitude of manuscripts, as well as quotations from his works. Chants and nar- ratives included in the Georgian liturgical books attest to the great reputation Gregory of Nyssa had among educated men in Georgia. The Georgian manuscript tradition identifies more than 30 works under the name of Gregory of Nyssa, both authentic and pseudo- epigraphic. The Georgian reader has been acquainted with the works of Gregory of Nyssa since the earliest period of medieval Georgian literature. Fol- lowing the periods into which the Georgian literature of the Middle Ages is divided as well as the typological classification of translation, the Georgian versions of his works can be organised into three periods: (1.) before the 80s of the 10th century, (2.) from the 80s of the 10th century until the second half of the 11th century, and (3.) from the second half of the 11th century up until the 20s of the 12th century. During the first period there were produced three anonymous trans- lations of Gregory’s works: a) On the creation of man which he wrote to his brother Petrus bishop of Sebasteia, which actually is a translation of De hominis opificio.