DOCSLIB.ORG

History in Support of Synchrony*

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
History in Support of Synchrony* History in Support of Synchrony* ALICE C. HARRIS SUNY Stony Brook 0. Introduction In a recent paper I argued that diachronic linguistics can explain certain typological phenomena that are otherwise problematic; in the present paper I want to discuss two other ways the study of historical data can contribute to synchronic linguistics. In §1 I argue that consideration of a prior stage of a language offers the kind of insight also provided by the examination of closely related languages. In §2 I show that diachronic data offer a way of testing hypotheses and claims. 1. Person Agreement in Old Georgian Generative grammar has gained insight into the way language operates by examining in depth minimal differences between dialects or closely related European languages. Of course, other approaches have also made good use of related dialects. For example, it is well known that it was in part the comparison of the Swiss dialect of Kerenz with other forms of German that led to the recognition of the regularity of sound change (Osthoff and Brugman 1878:viii-ix). In this section I argue that it is possible to gain similar insights by studying older stages of a language from a synchronic point of view. Person and number agreement in the Georgian verb has been one of two testing grounds for new morphological theories for more than twenty years. At least eight analyses of these paradigms have appeared in the literature in that time; here I discuss only two of these—those of Anderson (1982, 1984, 1986, 1992) and Halle and Marantz (1993). Georgian, along with Potawatomi, seems to have been chosen as representing a complex system, yet the agreement of Old Georgian is significantly more complex and thus would better test theories. Here I discuss only the agreement prefixes, not the considerably more complex suffixes. I want to make two points here: (i) Both Anderson’s and Halle and Marantz’s approaches make the correct * The research reported here was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under grant BCS 0215523; gathering and analysis of data were supported by earlier grants, especially the American Council of Learned Societies’ exchange with the Academy of Science of the USSR (administered by the International Research and Exchanges Board, 1981, 1989). I am grateful to each of these organizations. 142 History in Support of Synchrony predictions for most of the interaction found among agreement prefixes. (ii) Residual interaction is a challenge to both. As is well know, Anderson’s approach treats the markers of agreement as processes (rules) applied to bases, groups competing rules in blocks, and makes use of extrinsic ordering as necessary. Halle and Marantz’s analysis treats the markers as objects (morphemes) added to bases, and is otherwise modeled after Anderson’s treatment. The disjunctive ordering and form of both analyses are summarized in (1). (1) Anderson (1986:7) Halle and Marantz (1993:119) a. /X/ ĺ /gv + X/ a. [+1], DAT, [+pl] ļ /gv-/ b. /X/ ĺ /m + X/ b. [+1], DAT ļ /m-/ c. /X/ ĺ /g + X/ c. [+2], DAT ļ /g-/ d. /X/ ĺ /v + X/ d. [+1] ļ /v-/ To simplify, I have omitted the portion of Anderson’s rules that specifies that rule (1a) is conditioned by a first person plural object, (1b) by a first person singular object, rule (1c) by a second person object, and rule (1d) by a first person subject. We may overlook the fact that Halle and Marantz’s rules, as written, will work only in one subset of Georgian tense-aspect-mood categories (traditionally called “Series I”). Both analyses prefer ordering by Panini’s Principle (or “The Elsewhere Condition”), but both accept extrinsic ordering. The disjunctive ordering represented in (1) for both analyses can account for the “competition” among these prefixes in the Modern Georgian dialect that they examine. Agreement in Old Georgian was considerably more complex, even when we limit our study to the prefixal markers of this type. First, while Modern Georgian has only the first person subject marker v-, introduced by rules (1d), Old Georgian had in addition a second person subject prefix, with the allomorphs s-, h-, x-, and Ø. Second, while the dialect of Modern Georgian considered by these authors has agreement prefixes only for first and second persons, Old Georgian had a third person object prefix, with the same allomorphs as the second person subject marker.1 Third, although syntactic rules prevent the cooccurrence of markers of direct and indirect objects in Modern Georgian (Harris 1981:48-52), these syntactic rules did not apply in Old Georgian. Consequently there was “slot competition” between markers of direct and indirect objects in Old Georgian that does not occur in Modern Georgian. Either version of the disjunctive rules of (1) will account for most of this increased competition, if we assume that the rules that introduce second person subject prefixes (1ƍf)and third person object prefixes (1ƍd) are ordered as in (1ƍ). I assume further that the basic form of these additional markers is h-, that phonological rules provide the correct final forms,2 and that other parts of the rules will assure that 1 In Old Georgian, the third person object marker is conditioned by indirect objects in Series I and II, but by direct objects only in Series I. I have selected examples below from Series I when the direct object prefix is at issue. 2 Old Georgian texts are of three types regarding these allomorphs. One set of texts, termed xanmet’i, uses only the form x- for both prefixes; a second set, termed haemet’i, uses only the form h- for both. 143 Alice C. Harris these are conditioned by nominals with appropriate features. (1ƍ) Adaptation of Anderson (1986:7) Halle and Marantz (1993:119) a. /X/ ĺ /gu + X/ a. [+1], DAT, [+pl] ļ /gu-/ b. /X/ ĺ /m + X/ b. [+1], DAT ļ /m-/ c. /X/ ĺ /g + X/ c. [+2], DAT ļ /g-/ d. /X/ ĺ /h + X/ d. [+3], DAT ļ /h-/ e. /X/ ĺ /v + X/ e. [+1] ļ /v-/ f. /X/ ĺ /h + X/ f. [+2] ļ /h-/ In Modern Georgian the first person plural object prefix is phonetically [gw] (transliterated <gv>); in Old Georgian the same sounds were usually written <gu> (transliterated). In Old Georgian a first person plural object could be marked with either gu- or m-, but we will overlook the small problem this causes in the application of the rules in (1ƍ). One generalization represented by the disjunctive ordering in (1) and (1ƍ) is that, when both a subject prefix and an object prefix are conditioned, it is the object prefix that shows up. This is illustrated by (2) and (3) with direct objects. Agreement prefixes are in bold and are glossed with ‘S’ for subject markers, ‘O’ for object markers, and a number for first, second, or third person. Arguments are represented at the right margin of the page, in the order subject, direct object, indirect object (where applicable), with bold type indicating the argument or arguments marked by agreement prefixes. For example, in (2) the subject is first person, the direct object second; the latter is marked by a prefix in bold, glossed ‘O2’. (2) me gici šen (Ist. Kr. II, 29, 8; Imnaišvili 1971:320) 1-2 I O2-know you ‘I know you.’ (3) vitarmed ara mici me (Luke 22:34; Imnaišvili 1971:320) 2-1 because NEG O1-know me ‘because you do not know me’ The generalization holds also when the first or second person is the indirect object, as shown in (4)–(7). (4) p’uri þueni samaradisoj momec þuen dȖejs (Mt 6:11) 2-3-1 bread our everyday O1-give us today ‘Give us today our daily bread.’ The third set of texts, the sannarevi, has h- before labial, velar, and uvular consonants, s- before alveolars and alveopalatals, and Ø before vowels. 144 History in Support of Synchrony (5) p’uri þueni tanaarsobisaj momec þuen dȖiti dȖed (Lk 11:3) 2-3-1 bread our essential O1-give us day-to-day ‘Give us each day our essential bread.’ (6) þuen mas sesxsa migagebt (Piz XI, 23, Abula<e 1973:214b) 1-3-2 us the loan O2-give ‘we give you the loan’ (7) aramca migecit igi šen (John 18:30) 1-3-2 NEG O2-give him you ‘We would not have delivered him up to you.’ Anderson (1982, 1984, 1986, 1992) and Halle and Marantz (1993) observe this “slot competition” and this is the primary fact that motivates their arranging the agreement rules in “blocks” of competing rules. The second generalization represented by the disjunctive ordering is that, when there are both direct and indirect objects, first person objects take precedence over second person, and second over third, without regard to grammatical relations. Neither Anderson (1982, 1984, 1986, 1992) nor Halle and Marantz (1993) describe this interaction, because in Modern Georgian it is preempted by the syntax, as noted above. The correctness of the generalization is shown below. (8) Ȗmertman mogucna qelta tkuenta 3-1-2 god O1-give hands y’all’s ‘God delivered us into your (PL) hands.’ (9) mogucna tkuen Ȗmertman... qelta þuenta 3-2-1 O1-give y’all god hands our ‘God delivered you (PL) into our hands.’ (Ag. <eg. I, 167, 28 and 25; Imnaišvili 1971:319) These show that first person objects win the slot competition over second, regardless of whether the first person is direct object, as in (8), or indirect, as in (9). (10) mcnebasa axalsa migcem tkuen (J 13:34) 1-3-2 commandment new O2-give you ‘A new commandment I give unto you.’ (11) migcemden k’rebulsa (Mt 10: 17 AB, Imnaišvili 1986:354) 3-2-3 O2-give council ‘they will give you to [their] council’ These show that second person (g-) wins over third (h-), whether the second person is the direct or indirect object, illustrated in (10) and (11), respectively.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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”.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • (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.
    [Show full text]
  • Old Aramaic Script in Georgia
    Grapholinguistics in the 21th Century Paris, June 17-19, 2020 Helen Giunashvili G. Tsereteli Institute of Oriental Studies/Ilia State University, Georgia OLD ARAMAIC SCRIPT IN GEORGIA Introduction Aramaic is mostly important for Georgia. All the three historical phases of this language: Old, Middle and Modern are well represented in the Georgian cultural tradition. On the territory of contemporary Georgia, mainly in its Eastern part‒Kartli being historically Iberian kingdom (IV c BC-IV c AD) a number of original Aramaic inscriptions were found. They were made on different objects: steles (an epitaph and a victory stele), bone plates, wine- pitchers, silver bowls, and household items, stones of sanctuary buildings and sarcophagi, jewels. For the present, the whole corpus of inscriptions comprises nearly 100 units dated by III-II cc BC –III c AD and is kept at different funds of the National Museum of Georgia. These ancient Aramaic inscriptions were discovered in Mtskheta, the capital of Iberia as well as its outskirts – Armazi, Bagineti and other different locations in Central Georgia – Uplistsikhe, Urbnisi, Zguderi, Bori, Dedoplis Gora (Mindori), Dzalisa. The Aramaic inscriptions of Georgia are distinguished by their form and content. Some of them are quite extensive, such as Armazi steles and a number of dedicational inscriptions dated by III c AD, found on golden bracelets from Armazi burials. The rest of inscriptions are rather short, consisting only of one or two words, denoting a proper name, or a title, they also frequently have an attributive meaning of weight, size and function of an object. The Old Aramaic was one of chief written languages of Iberia before adoption the Christianity (IV century AD).
    [Show full text]
  • Church – Consolidating the Georgian Regions
    Church – Consolidating the Georgian Regions Metropolitan Ananya Japaridze Saint Ilia the Righteous said from the very establishment of the holy Church of Georgia, that it presented a strong power consolidating the whole population of the state. It was not locked within the narrow ethnic borders but was the belonging of different ethnos residing in the state. According to Holy Writ, it never differentiated Hellenist from Jew, Georgian from non-Georgian, as its flocks were children of Georgia with mutual responsibility to the country and citizenship. Even Saint Nino, founder of the Georgian Church, came from Kapadokia. Saint of Georgian Church, martyr Razhden, and Saint Evstati Mtskheteli were Persian. Famous 12 fathers struggling against fire-worship and Monophysitism were Assyrian (Syrian). Neopyth Urbani Episcope was Arabian. The famous Saint Abo Tbileli came from Arabia too. The Saint Queen Shushanik was Armenian etc. The above list shows that Georgian church unified all citizens of the country in spite of their ethnic origin. At the same time, the Georgian church always used to create a united cultural space. The Georgian Church was consolidating regions and different ethnic groups of Georgia. The Georgian language was the key factor of Georgian Christian culture. Initially, Georgian language and based on it Georgian Christian culture embraced whole Georgia, all its regions. Divine services, all church acts, in mountains and lowlands from the Black Sea to Armenia and Albania were implemented only in Georgian language. Georgian language and Georgian culture dominated all over the Georgian territory. And just this differentiates old Georgia from the present one. It’s evident that the main flocks of Georgian Church were Georgians of West, South and East Georgia.
    [Show full text]
  • A Language Guide to Georgian Language
    Georgian Language Beginner Program Peace Corps/Georgia The script accompanies the following 13 audio tracks. GE_Georgian_Lesson_1 (Time 3:57) (File Size: 2.72 MB) GE_Georgian_Lesson_2 (Time 1:38) (File Size: 1.12 MB) GE_Georgian_Lesson_3 (Time 5:01) (File Size: 3.45 MB) GE_Georgian_Lesson_4 (Time 5:10) (File Size: 3.55 MB) GE_Georgian_Lesson_5 (Time 2:59) (File Size: 2.05 MB) GE_Georgian_Lesson_6 (Time 5:46) (File Size: 3.96 MB) GE_Georgian_Lesson_7 (Time 2:22) (File Size: 1.62 MB) GE_Georgian_Lesson_8 (Time 7:47) (File Size: 5.35 MB) GE_Georgian_Lesson_9 (Time 5:02) (File Size: 3.45 MB) GE_Georgian_Lesson_10 (Time 4:20) (File Size: 2.98 MB) GE_Georgian_Lesson_11 (Time 3:15) (File Size: 2.23 MB) GE_Georgian_Lesson_12 (Time 3:52) (File Size: 2.66 MB) GE_Georgian_Lesson_13 (Time 5:58) (File Size: 4.09 MB) 2 Table of Contents Lesson 1 Letters and Sounds of Georgian Language 4 Lesson 2 Pronouns/The Verb "To Be" 6 Lesson 3 Greetings and Getting Acquainted 8 Lesson 4 Phrases for Meeting Somebody 13 Lesson 5 Meeting Somebody 14 Lesson 6 Forms of Address 16 Lesson 7 Members of the Family 18 Lesson 8 Some Basic Questions and Answers 19 Lesson 9 In a Restaurant 21 Lesson 10 House Orientation 22 Lesson 11 Buying Personal Items 23 Lesson 12 Georgian dancing 25 Lesson 13 Georgian Supra 26 Foreword Note (without an audio track) The following pre-departure language CD and an accompanying script will briefly introduce you to the basics of the Georgian Language, as well as give you some insights on two of the core cultural values of Georgia – folk dances and supra (feast).
    [Show full text]
  • Causes of War Prospects for Peace
    Georgian Orthodox Church Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung CAUSES OF WAR PROS P E C TS FOR PEA C E Tbilisi, 2009 1 On December 2-3, 2008 the Holy Synod of the Georgian Orthodox Church and the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung held a scientific conference on the theme: Causes of War - Prospects for Peace. The main purpose of the conference was to show the essence of the existing conflicts in Georgia and to prepare objective scientific and information basis. This book is a collection of conference reports and discussion materials that on the request of the editorial board has been presented in article format. Publishers: Metropolitan Ananya Japaridze Katia Christina Plate Bidzina Lebanidze Nato Asatiani Editorial board: Archimandrite Adam (Akhaladze), Tamaz Beradze, Rozeta Gujejiani, Roland Topchishvili, Mariam Lordkipanidze, Lela Margiani, Tariel Putkaradze, Bezhan Khorava Reviewers: Zurab Tvalchrelidze Revaz Sherozia Giorgi Cheishvili Otar Janelidze Editorial board wishes to acknowledge the assistance of Irina Bibileishvili, Merab Gvazava, Nia Gogokhia, Ekaterine Dadiani, Zviad Kvilitaia, Giorgi Cheishvili, Kakhaber Tsulaia. ISBN 2345632456 Printed by CGS ltd 2 Preface by His Holiness and Beatitude Catholicos-Patriarch of All Georgia ILIA II; Opening Words to the Conference 5 Preface by Katja Christina Plate, Head of the Regional Office for Political Dialogue in the South Caucasus of the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung; Opening Words to the Conference 8 Abkhazia: Historical-Political and Ethnic Processes Tamaz Beradze, Konstantine Topuria, Bezhan Khorava - A
    [Show full text]
  • Ninidze, Mariam " a New Point of Vew on the Origin of the Georgian Alphabet"
    Maia Ninidze A New Point of View on the Origin of the Georgian Alphabet The history of the development of different scripts shows that writing may assume the organized systemic appearance that Georgian asomtavruli (capital alphabet) had in the 5th century only as a result of reform. No graphic system has received such refined appearance through its independent evolution. Take, for example, the development of the Greek alphabet down to 403 B.C. In reconstructing the original script of the Georgian alphabet I was guided by the point of view that "the first features and the later developed or introduced foreign elements should be demarked and in this way comparative chronology be defined" (10, p. 50) and that "knowledge of the historical development of the outline of letters will enable us to form an idea of how the change of the outline of letters occurred and ... perceive the type of the preceding change, no imprints on monuments of which have come down to us" (12. p. 202). When one alphabet evinces similarity with another in the outline of corresponding graphemes of similar sounds, this suggests their common provenance or one's derivation from the other. But closeness existing at the level of general systemic peculiarities is a sign of later, artificial assimilation. The systemic similarity of Georgian asomtavruli with Greek would seem to suggest that it was reformed on the basis of the Greek counterpart. The earliest Georgian inscriptions in the asomtavruli are characterized by similarity to Greek in: 1) equal height of letters, 2) geometric roundness of graphemes and linearity-angularity, 3) the direction of writing from left to right, 4) the order of the alphabet and the numerical value of graphemes, but not similarity in the form of individual graphemes.
    [Show full text]
  • Basic Georgian 2Nd Edition
    TAMAR MAKHAROBLIDZE BASIC GEORGIAN 2 nd Edition Proofread and other contributions made by Krystyl Kane Contents Introduction............................................................................. 11 The Location of Georgia..........................................................................................................11 The National Flag of Georgia..................................................................................................12 The History of the Flag...........................................................................................................12 Earlier Flags of Georgia...........................................................................................................13 The State Emblem of Georgia.................................................................................................14 Former State Emblems............................................................................................................15 Basic Data.................................................................................................................................15 Short Information about the Georgian Script and Language................................................16 The Georgian Alphabet...........................................................................................................18 Morphology.............................................................................................................................19 Morphophonology...................................................................................................................19
    [Show full text]
  • Epistemic Modality in Georgian
    166 Nino Sharashenidze Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, Georgia 1 Ilia Chavchavadze Ave, Tbilisi 0179 Tel.: +995 599 393980 +370 686 91 423 e-mail: [email protected] Research interests: syntax, dialectology, semantics (modality), language history, methodology of teaching Georgian as a foreign language and as a second language EPISTEMIC MODALITY IN GEORGIAN The epistemic modality consists of epistemic possibility and necessity. Particle “Unda” (must) is the main formative of the epistemic necessity. Originating from a notional verb, it still retains its verbal functions. In the conjugation of an object, “Unda” is the III person form. It means “wish”, “want”. However, in modern Georgian, it is a multifunctional particle, with the epistemic necessity being one of the meanings thereof. “Unda” is associated with a verb in the subjunctive mood and expresses the speaker’s opinion, evaluation and attitude to the reality, the speaker’s assumption, conviction or the lack thereof. The said modality expresses intellectual perception of the speaker. Sentence1.“ის ახლა სახლში უნდა იყოს” [is axla saxlshi unda ix’os] – He must be at home now. “Unda” (must) expresses the speaker’s certainty ensuing from the analytical assessment of reality. The sentence implies his belief that someone must be at home since it is the most logical possibility based on the fact that lights are on. 2. “მას კარგად უნდა გაეკეთებინა ეს საქმე” [mas k’argad unda gaek’etebina es sakme] – He must have done a good job of it. Here “Unda” implies that as far as I know him, his capabilities and sense of responsibility, I believe that he must have got on with the job well enough.
    [Show full text]