А. Ростовцев - Попель ( Петербург ) Пространственная метафора в картвельских превербах Работа посвящена пространстенным значениям , выражаемым пре - вербами в грузинском , мегрельском и сванском языках . В каждом из этих языков представлена система превербов . Системы эти различны в отношении набора компонентов , их сочетаемостных свойств и выражае - мых пространственных категорий . Сравнительный анализ систем префик - сации в первую очередь опирается на использование превербов в глаголах движения и позиции . Между тем , глагольный инвентарь далеко не исчерпывается подобного рода лексемами , и большинство глаголов в картвельских языках образованы за счёт префиксации . При этом простран - ственные и дейктические значения , свойственные превербам , претер - певают значительные изменения . Таким образом , можно говорить о мета - форе пространственных значений , как , например , в груз . (1) ga-vida ‘X вышел ’ vs. (2) ga-igo ‘X понял Y’ vs. (3) ga-witlda ‘X покраснел ’. В первом примере преверб выступает в дефолтном просранственном значении , в то время как в третьем он полностью десемантизован ; второй же пример иллюстрирует промежуточную ступень метафоры . В работе рассматриваются грузинские , мегрельские и сванские глаголы , для которых реконструируются общие пракартвельские архе - типы . A. Rostovtsev-Popiel(Peterburg) Metaphor of Space in Kartvelian Preverbs The paper addresses spatial values of preverbs in Georgian, Megrelian, and Svan. Each of the languages employs a preverb system, and they crucially differ in the number of components, combinatory properties, and the range of 354 spatial values expressed. The comparative analysis of these systems primarily leans upon the use of preverbs in verbs of motion and position. Verbal inven- tory, however, extends many further and the majority of Kartvelain verbs are formed by means of prefixation, and as it usually is, preverbs may substantially change their spatial deictic meanings. Thus, one can speak of metaphor of spatial values, cf. Georgian (1) ga-vidai ‘X went out’ vs. (2) ga-igo ‘X under- stood Y’ vs. (3) ga-citlda ‘X got red.’ The first example displays a default spati- al meaning, while it is completely lost in the third one; the second example rep- resents an intermediary grade of the metaphoric change. In the scope of the work, Georgian verbs are confronted with thier Meg- relian and Svan cognates. m. r u s i e S v i l i (Tbilisi) andazis pragma-semantikuri modeli da andazis ekvivalenturobis problema (qarTuli da inglisuri andazebis korpusis magaliTze) andaza aris verbaluri forma, romelic yvela enaSi ar- sebobs da, amdenad, mkvlevarTa yuradRebas imsaxurebs. spe- cifikuri bunebis gamo andaza ramdenime disciplinis yura- dRebis centrSi moeqca.Lmas Seiswavlian folkloris, eTno- lingvistikis, sociolingvistikis, pragmatikis, zogadi enaT- mecnierebis poziciebidan. bunebrivia, TiToeuli maTgani kon- kretul moTxovnebs uyenebs am formas da cdilobs Tavis CarCoebSi Casvas igi. amis Sedegad, dRes arsebobs andazis bevri gansazRvreba da amdenive Teoria, romelnic, garkveul meTodze dayrdnobiT, cdiloben srulad “amoxsnan” anda- zis saidumlo. magaliTad, aarne-tomsonis Teoria andazas Seiwavlis zRapris sintagmatikuri modelis meSveobiT, xo- lo levi-strosi ki andazis sakvlevad moixmobs miTis para- digmatikul models. 355 Cemi azriT, Cem mier SemoTavazebuli andazis pragma-se- mantikuri modeli SeiZleba gamodges erT-erT gzad andazis siRrmeebSi wvdomisa. moxsenebaSi davaxasiaTeb andazis ierarqiul models, romelic, garda imisa, rom srulad xsnis andazis rTul bu- nebas, gamodgeba andazis rogorc Sidaenobrivi, ise enaTaSo- risi ekvivalentobis dasadgenad. andazis SemoTavazebuli pragma-semantikuri modeli Se- dgeba sami urTierTdakavSirebuli sinTezuri donisaganL(eq- splicituri, implicituri da presupoziculi doneebi), rom- lebic Seadgens andazis semantikas da romelTaganac TiToe- uli Tavisi funqciiT xasiaTdeba. kerZod, eqsplicitur do- neze fiqsirdeba andazis metaforuli forma; implicituri done asaxavs andazis implicitur, gadataniT mniSvnelobas, xolo presupoziciul doneze aqtualizdeba adamianis fonu- ri codnis, samyaros modelis is nawili, romelsac exeba konkretuli andaza. Sua, implicituri done, Tavis mxriv, ganSrevdeba or Sred. zemo Sreze, andazis implicitur mniSvnelobasTan er- Tad, fiqsirdeba konkretuli konteqstur-pragmatikuli para- metrebi; xolo meore, qveda Sreze fiqsirdeba azrobrovi struqtura, romelic andazis diferencialur niSnad mimaC- nia. Cemi azriT, andazebi, romlebsac aqvT Tanmxvedri eq- splicituri da implicituri (Sesabamisad, presupoziciuli) doneebi, SeiZleba ganvixiloT srul ekvivalentebad, magali- Tad: “yvelaferi, rac brwyinavs, oqro ar aris” da “ All that glitters is not gold ”. xolo is erTeulebi, romlebic Tanxvdeba mxolod implicitur doneze-dinamiur ekvivalentebad. maga- liTad, “patara torola did torolas atyuebdao” da “pata- ra eSmakma didi eSmaki acdunao”. es gansxvaveba did mniSvne- lobas iZens, miT ufro, rom misi meSveobiT dgindeba andaze- bis ekvivalenturobis xarisxi. rogorc kvlevam gviCvena, zog SemTxvevaSi, leqsikonSi ekvivalenturad miCneuli andazebis 356 ekvivalenturoba realurad ar dasturdeba. magaliTad, Sem- degi erTeulebi: 1) “Pendent que les chiens s’entre-grndent le loup devore la brebis ” (sanam ZaRlebi kinklaobdnen, mgelma kravi gadaylapa ) 2) ‘‘sanam xari gaxardao, patroni gaTavdao’’ 3) ‘‘sanam xmali movidoda, enam Tavi moiWrao’’ 4) “sanam petre movidoda, petres tyavi gaaZreso” es erTeulebi ekvivalentebad fiqsirdeba i. gvarjalaZi- sa da k. miqelaZis mier Sedgeil “Proverbs et dictions francais avec leurs traductions et qeuivalents georgiens ’’. xolo analizi gviCvenebs, rom franguli da qarTuli andazebis struqturis yvela do- ne gansxvavebulia. Sesabamisad, es erTeulebi SeuZlebelia ekvivalentebi iyos. M. Rusieshvili(Tbilisi) The Semantic Model of a Proverb and Problems of Equivalence (on the material of Georgian and English proverbs) A proverb is a verbal form which can be classed as both universal and unique. Its universality lies in the fact that a proverb is attested in all the langua- ges of the universe. On the other hand, its uniqueness is expressed in the variety of its forms and the complexity of its semantics. Because of these a proverb has been studied by a number of disciplines: folklore, ethnolinguistics, sociolinguistics, and general linguistics each of them trying to fit the proverb into its scopes. In the same fashion, there exist a num- ber of definitions of a proverb and many theories which aim at revealing fully the complex nature of the proverb and finding a path leading to its heart. For example, Aarne-Thomson’s theory argues that a proverb can be studied using the syntagmatic model of a fairy tale whereas Levis-Strauss proposes to use the paradigmatic model of a myth for the same purpose. We argue that the pragma-semantic model of the proverb which we pro- 357 pose can be one of the ways leading to the heart of the proverb. Thus, in this paper we will characterise a hierarchical, semantic model of a proverb and mo- reover. We will show that this model, besides revealing the complex nature of the proverb, can act as the indicator for determining equivalent proverbs within the scope of one language as well as on the plane of several other languages. We view a semantic model of a proverb as a synthesis of three interdepen- dent and intertwined layers: explicit, implicit and pre-supposition, each of them having its own status, function and playing a definite role in the creation of the ge- neral meaning of a proverb. The direct meaning of a proverb metaphor is realized on the explicit layer of the model whereas the figurative meaning of a proverb is re- vealed on its implicit layer. The pre-supposition layer actualises the part of the inguistic model of the world connected with the extra linguistic background knowledge of the surrounding world , which is expressed in the proverb.. The implicit level, on the other hand, is further sub-divided into two addi- tional sub-layers; one of which acts as the basis for decoding the proverb metaphor and shows the concrete contextual pragmatic parameters of the communicative act. The underlying nucleus of a proverb -a binary oppositional semantic construct is fixed on the other sub-layer. We also argue that proverbs having similar explicit and implicit layers should be considered to be complete equivalents whereas those coinciding by implicit level only should be classed as dynamic equivalents. Arguably, this dis- tinction is crucial in defining the degree of equivalence among proverbs. As the study shows, in certain cases proverbs classed as and thus grouped as equiva- lents in proverb collections don’t prove to be equivalents in reality. n. r u x a Z e (Tbilisi) kiTxviTi nawilakis istoriisaTvis udiurSi udiurSi kiTxviT formaTa sawarmoeblad gamoiyeneba -a// @ nawilaki, romelic, rogorc fonetikurad, ise funqciurad, saerToqarTveluri -a kiTxviTi nawilakis ekvivalenti Cans. 358 rogorc samecniero literaturidanaa cnobili, Zvel qarTulSi gvxvdeba kiTxviTi -a nawilaki, romelsac zanursa da svanurSi moepoveba kanonzomieri Sesatyvisebi: megruli -o (Г. А. Климов , Г. И. Мачавариани 1966) da svanuri -a (m. qal- dani 1964) qarTvelur enebsa da dialeqtebSi am nawilakis [ -a (Zv. qarT. da svan.): -o (megr.)] funqcia kiTxviT formaTa warmoebiT Semoifargleba. kiTxviTi -a nawilaki axlavs zmnas da SesaZlebelia gvqondes metyvelebis sxva nawilTa- nac (T. uTurgaiZe 1966). udiurSi ki kiTxviTi a// @ @nawilakis funqcia farToa. igi kiTxviT sityvas daerTvis boloSi, Tuki aseTi sityvaa mxolobiTi ricxvis mesame piris nacvalsaxeli, gasubstanti- vebuli msazRvreli, zogierTi