DOCSLIB.ORG

The Consonant Phonotactics of Georgian

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Consonant Phonotactics of Georgian The Consonant Phonotactics of Georgian Published by LOT phone: +31 30 253 6006 3512 JK Utrecht fax: +31 30 253 6000 The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] http://www.let.uu.nl/lot/ Cover illustration: The oldest specimen of Georgian writing, found in the Bolnisi Sioni Temple (5th century). ISBN 90-76864-24-1 NUGI 941 Copyright © 2002 by Marika Butskhrikidze. All rights reserved. The Consonant Phonotactics of Georgian PROEFSCHRIFT ter verkrijging van de graad van Doctor aan de Universiteit Leiden, op gezag van de Rector Magnificus Dr. D.D. Breimer, hoogleraar in de faculteit der Wiskunde en Natuurwetenschappen en die der Geneeskunde, volgens besluit van het College voor Promoties te verdedigen op woensdag 6 november 2002 te klokke 16.15 uur door Marika Butskhrikidze geboren te Tbilisi (Georgië) in 1971 Promotiecommissie promotores: Prof. dr. C.J. Ewen Prof. dr. H.G. van der Hulst (University of Connecticut) co-promotor: Dr. J.M. van de Weijer referent: Prof. dr. E.V. Hume (Ohio State University) overige leden: Prof. dr. V.J. van Heuven Dr. H.J. Smeets YX=5YQL&HPVP6REOHEV [To my parents] Contents Acknowledgements .......................................................................... xi Abbreviations and Symbols .......................................................... xiii 1 Preliminaries ....................................................................... 1 1.0. Introduction: the ‘problem’ ............................................................................... 1 1.1. Ontological premises ........................................................................................ 2 1.1.1. Marked vs. unmarked ............................................................................ 3 1.1.2. Form vs. meaning .................................................................................. 5 1.1.3. Lexicon vs. grammar ............................................................................. 9 1.2. Epistemological premises ............................................................................... 11 1.3. Language as an open system ........................................................................... 12 1.4. Methodology ................................................................................................... 14 1.5. Proposals ......................................................................................................... 15 1.6. Outline ............................................................................................................ 16 2 Phonotactics: Domains and Principles ........................... 19 2.0. Introduction ..................................................................................................... 19 2.1. The domain ..................................................................................................... 20 2.1.0. Introduction ......................................................................................... 20 2.1.1. The word ............................................................................................. 21 2.1.2. The syllable ......................................................................................... 25 2.1.2.0. Introduction .............................................................................. 25 2.1.2.1. Syllabification .......................................................................... 27 2.1.2.2. Phonotactics ............................................................................. 31 2.1.2.3. Word-edge phenomena ............................................................. 33 2.1.2.4. Phonological processes ............................................................ 35 2.1.2.5. Accent assignment ................................................................... 40 2.1.2.6. Conclusions .............................................................................. 41 viii CONTENTS 2.1.3. The stem .............................................................................................. 42 2.1.3.1. Phonotactic restrictions ............................................................ 42 2.1.3.2. Phonological processes ............................................................ 45 2.1.3.3. Accent assignment ................................................................... 48 2.1.3.4. Conclusions .............................................................................. 49 2.1.4. General conclusions ............................................................................ 50 2.2. Morphological typology ................................................................................. 50 2.2.0. Introduction ......................................................................................... 50 2.2.1. Previous studies on morphological typology ...................................... 51 2.2.2. The morphological classification revised ............................................ 52 2.3. Principles ........................................................................................................ 59 2.3.0. Introduction ......................................................................................... 59 2.3.1. The Obligatory Contour Principle ....................................................... 61 2.3.2. The Sonority Sequencing Principle ..................................................... 64 2.3.2.0. Introduction .............................................................................. 64 2.3.2.1. Statistical data from Zubkova (1990) ....................................... 64 2.3.2.2. Conclusions .............................................................................. 68 2.3.3. The Principle of Resolvability ............................................................. 68 2.3.4. Phonotactic generalisations ................................................................. 70 2.3.5. Conclusions ......................................................................................... 70 2.4. General conclusions ........................................................................................ 71 3 Georgian Phonotactics ...................................................... 75 3.0. Introduction ..................................................................................................... 75 3.1. The Georgian language ................................................................................... 75 3.2. The phonemic inventory ................................................................................. 80 3.2.1. The vowel system ................................................................................ 81 3.2.2. Hiatus .................................................................................................. 83 3.2.3. Labials ................................................................................................. 84 3.2.4. Conclusions ......................................................................................... 85 3.3. The consonant system ..................................................................................... 85 3.3.1. Syllabicity of sonorants ....................................................................... 88 3.3.2. The sonorant /v/ as a secondary articulation ........................................ 93 3.4. The minimal word ........................................................................................... 96 3.4.1. Word-final position ............................................................................. 98 3.4.2. Word-initial position ........................................................................... 99 3.4.3. Conclusions ....................................................................................... 100 CONTENTS ix 3.5. General introduction to consonant syntagmatics .......................................... 101 3.5.1. Harmonic clusters .............................................................................. 103 3.5.1.0. Introduction ............................................................................ 103 3.5.1.1. Phonological behaviour .......................................................... 103 3.5.1.2. Conclusions ............................................................................ 105 3.5.2. Consonant combinations in adjacency .............................................. 105 3.5.3. Conclusions ....................................................................................... 112 3.6. Testing the hypothesis .................................................................................. 113 3.6.1. Studies by Kobalava (1967) .............................................................. 113 3.6.2. Studies by Melikishvili (1997) .......................................................... 115 3.6.3. My study ............................................................................................ 119 3.6.4. Conclusions ............................................................................ 119 3.7. General conclusions ...................................................................................... 120 4 Phonetic Evidence for Harmonic Clusters: A Perceptual Experiment ............................................... 123 4.0. Introduction ................................................................................................... 123 4.1. Alternative approach ..................................................................................... 125 4.1.1. Method .............................................................................................. 126 4.1.1.1. Stimuli ...................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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).
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Options for Handling Full Unicode Character Encodings in MARC21 a Study for the Library of Congress
    1 Assessment of Options for Handling Full Unicode Character Encodings in MARC21 A Study for the Library of Congress Part 1: New Scripts Jack Cain Senior Consultant Trylus Computing, Toronto 1 Purpose This assessment intends to study the issues and make recommendations on the possible expansion of the character set repertoire for bibliographic records in MARC21 format. 1.1 “Encoding Scheme” vs. “Repertoire” An encoding scheme contains codes by which characters are represented in computer memory. These codes are organized according to a certain methodology called an encoding scheme. The list of all characters so encoded is referred to as the “repertoire” of characters in the given encoding schemes. For example, ASCII is one encoding scheme, perhaps the one best known to the average non-technical person in North America. “A”, “B”, & “C” are three characters in the repertoire of this encoding scheme. These three characters are assigned encodings 41, 42 & 43 in ASCII (expressed here in hexadecimal). 1.2 MARC8 "MARC8" is the term commonly used to refer both to the encoding scheme and its repertoire as used in MARC records up to 1998. The ‘8’ refers to the fact that, unlike Unicode which is a multi-byte per character code set, the MARC8 encoding scheme is principally made up of multiple one byte tables in which each character is encoded using a single 8 bit byte. (It also includes the EACC set which actually uses fixed length 3 bytes per character.) (For details on MARC8 and its specifications see: http://www.loc.gov/marc/.) MARC8 was introduced around 1968 and was initially limited to essentially Latin script only.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Batumi Linguocultural Digital Archive (Contemporary Technological Achievements for the Database Arrangement of the Folklore Resources)
    M.Tandaschwili, R. Khalvashi, Kh. Beridze, M. Khakhutaishvili, N. Tsetskhladze, Batumi # 10. 2010 Linguocultural Digital Archive pp. 52-68 Manana Tandaschwili Frankfurt Goethe University R. Khalvashi, Kh. Beridze, M. Khakhutaishvili, N. Tsetskhladze Batumi State University Batumi Linguocultural Digital Archive (Contemporary Technological Achievements for the Database Arrangement of the Folklore Resources) Abstract The evolution of the new forms of the scientific communication and development of the web technologies and global networking gave the scholars an excellent opportunity to rapidly and effectively use academic digital resources, the number of which is constantly increasing. Establishment of the OR (Open-Resource) and introduction of the RE (Resource Exchange) supported development of the infrastructure for the digital archives. That, in its own right, became a fast and efficient instrument for the use of scholarly resources. It has essentially changed the research procedures in the 21st century. The researchers now are able to make use of the ‘open and merge’ approach to their resources. Creation of the global library has become a new opportunity of the international scholarly communication. The joint scientific project Batumi Linguocultural Digital Archieve (BaLDAR) implemented jointly by Batumi Shota Rustaveli State University and Goethe Frankfurt University is sponsored by the Shota Rustaveli National Science Foundation. The project is a result of the international cooperation and aims to introduce new forms of the scientific communication, which will support multidisciplinary research development. The paper studies the significance of the establishment digital archives in Georgia. It outlines the themes of the resources that have been developed within the project framework. Key words: web technologies; Linguoculturalizm; Digital Archieve.
    [Show full text]
  • Anti-Marriage” in Ancient Georgian Society
    “Anti-marriage” in ancient Georgian society. KEVIN TUITE, UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL ABSTRACT One of the more striking features of the traditional cultures of the northeastern Georgian provinces of Pshavi and Xevsureti, is the premarital relationship known as c’ac’loba (Pshavi) or sc’orproba (Xevsureti). This relationship was formed between young women and men from the same community, including close relatives. It had a strong emotional, even intimate, component, yet it was not to result in either marriage or the birth of a child. Either outcome would have been considered incestuous. In this paper I will demonstrate that the Svans, who speak a Kartvelian language distantly related to Georgian, preserve a structurally-comparable ritual the designation of which — ch’æch’-il-ær — is formed from a root cognate with that of c’ac’-l-oba. On the basis of a comparative analysis of the Svan and Pshav-Xevsurian practices in the context of traditional Georgian beliefs concerning marriage and relationships between “in-groups” and “out-groups”, I will propose a reconstruction of the significance of *c´’ac´’-al- “anti-marriage” in prehistoric Kartvelian social thought. 0. INTRODUCTION. For over a century, specialists in the study of Indo-European linguistics and history have examined the vocabulary of kinship and alliance of the IE languages for evidence of the familial and social organization of the ancestral speech community (e.g., Benveniste 1969; Friedrich 1966; Bremmer 1976; Szemerényi 1977). The three indigenous language families of the Caucasus have received far less attention in this regard; comparatively few studies have been made of the kinship vocabularies of the Northwest, Northeast or South Caucasian families, save for the inclusion of such terms in etymological dictionaries or inventories of basic lexical items (Shagirov 1977; Klimov 1964; Fähnrich and Sardshweladse 1995; Xajdakov 1973; Kibrik and Kodzasov 1990).
    [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]
  • (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]
  • Distributive and Acoustic Analysis of [Q'] and [ʔ
    Language@Leeds Working Papers. Issue 1 (2020) 29 Distributive and Acoustic Analysis of [q’] and [ʔ] Consonants in Megrelian Marine Ivanishvili, Ivane Lezhava Iv. Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] Abstract The phonemic systems of Georgian and Zan (Megrelian-Laz) languages coincide with each other. The difference is minimal: 1) the so-called neutral vowel [ə]; 2) the glottal plosive (stop) consonant [ʔ],1 which in the linguistic literature is qualified variously. It is shared that [ʔ] and dorso-uvular ejective [q’] are the allophones of one phoneme. It should be noted that [q’] falls within the system of fricatives; though following the fricative on-glide, it is characterized by occlusion as well. Here, too, the classification necessitates the consideration of syntagmatic level (e.g., in “harmonic” clusters [q’] will be found alongside the fricatives [γ] and [x]: [bγ], [px], [p’q’]...). Because of that, some phoneticians used to qualify it as a “spirantoid” (Akhvlediani, 1999, pp. 90, 294). Our synchronic distributive and experimental analysis shows that [q’] and [ʔ] are different phonemes. In particular, it has been stated that the distribution of [ʔ] is: #-V, V-V, #-v(ვ), -S- v(ვ) (and the same for [q’]). Although for the [q’] : [ʔ] opposition there is no minimal pair, many examples of contrastive distributions are attested, on the basis of which we can consider [q’] and [ʔ] not as the positional variants of [q’] phoneme, but as two different phonemes in the Megrelian consonant system. This is also confirmed by the typological point of view, because in the languages with glottalization, usually the /ʔ/ phoneme is presented.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposal for the Georgian Script Root Zone LGR
    Proposal for the Georgian Script Root Zone LGR LGR Version 2 Date: 2016-11-24 Document version: 1.1 Authors: GEORGIAN SCRIPT GENERATION PANEL 1 General Information/ Overview/ Abstract The purpose of this document is to give an overview of the proposed Georgian LGR in the XML format and the rationale behind the design decisions taken. It includes a discussion of relevant features of the script, the communities or languages using it, the process and methodology used and information on the contributors. The formal specification of the LGR can be found in the accompanying XML document: • Proposed-LGR-Georgian-20160915.xml Labels for testing can be found in the accompanying text document: • Labels-GeorgianScript-20160915.txt 2 Script for which the LGR is proposed ISO 15924 Code: Geor ISO 15924 Key N°: 240 ISO 15924 English Name: Georgian Mkhedruli Latin transliteration of native script name: Mkhedruli Native name of the script: მხედრული Maximal Starting Repertoire (MSR) version: MSR-2 Proposal for a Georgian Script Root Zone LGR Georgian Script GP 3 Background on Script and Principal Languages Using It The Georgian scripts are the three writing systems used to write the Georgian language: Asomtavruli, Nuskhuri and Mkhedruli. Mkhedruli (Georgian: მხედრული) is the current Georgian script and is therefore the standard script for modern Georgian and its related Kartvelian languages, whereas Asomtavruli and Nuskhuri are used only in ceremonial religious texts and iconography. In the following, the term Georgian script is used synonymously with Mkhedruli. Like the two other scripts, Mkhedruli is purely unicameral. Mkhedruli first appears in the 10th century - the oldest Mkhedruli inscription found is dated back to 982 AD.
    [Show full text]