25 research outputs found
Circassians, Apkhazians, Georgians, Vainakhs, Dagestanians : peoples of old civilization in the Caucasus
No full text
MERAB MAMARDASHVILI VS THE SOVIET MENTALITY
No full textIn the present paper the author analyzes the thought of Georgian philosopher Merab Mamardashvili (1930-1990) in the context of philosophy of culture. According to Mamardashvili, philosophy and thinking is identical to life. He tried to break through the closed borders of the Soviet system and bring the experience of other cultures into the Soviet philosophy. Mamardashvili’s thought represents an attempt of original synthesis of different (French, German and Russian) cultural traditions. He criticized harshly everyday life of a Soviet citizen. With his criticism he significantly promoted the development of critical consciousness in the Soviet Union
On the Formal Marker of Statisticality in Kartvelian
No full textეძღვნება თსუ-ს ემერიტუს პროფესორ ლელი ბარამიძის დაბადებიდან 90-ე წლისთავს/ Dedicated to the 90th Birthday of Emeritus Professor of TSU Leli BaramidzeIn Georgian linguistic reality, different classifications of Kartvelian verbs are known.
According to Arn. Chikobava's classification, verbs are divided into two main classes:
dynamic and static verbs. Dynamically considered is the class of verbs that convey the
action - xat-av-s “he/she paints”. At the same time, there is a static verb that indicates the
statics of an action / situation – xat-ia “it is painted”. According to A. Shanidze, the
classification of verbs is related to the category of transitivity, and static verbs are grouped
with intransitive verbs and form a single subclass - intransitives. Moreover, here static
verbs are considered to be a subset of the passive voice and they are called static verbs of
medial passive voice. But, if we share this theory, then the question arises as to which kind
of voice we should attribute these verbs to: t’ir-i-s “weeps”, k’iv-i-s “whires”, cekv-av-s
“dances”, etc. In a situation like this we have to partially agree with Arn. Chikobava, who
called them voiceless verbs. Clearly, t’ir-i-s “weeps” type verbs oppose each other in terms
of dynamics / statics. However we can not agree with Arn. Chikobava's view that static
verbs reflect the stage of language development when the verb denoted a state, and that
state, like its quality, was unchanged over time. On the contrary, binary opposition: statics
- dynamics was prevailing in the entire system of common Kartvelian origin from the very
beginning. The case is that static verbs did not have the ability to have the time-mood of
the aorist series (in Kartvelian reality, a formal expression of this, at the level of grammatical
semantics, is also impossible). That is why in linguistic Kartvelology the terminology
of the middle voice appears, which borrows this or that verbform from other types
of (actually dynamic) verbs. Based on our observations, we can say that it was the
limitation of form formation (formative production) of static verbs that created the solid
ground due to which these types of verbs did not develop the morphological category of
the voice. This assumption also works successfully in all Kartvelian subsystems, i. e. the
verbs of the medial passive voice separated by Akaki Shanidze as an independent group by
their origin are nothing more than static verbs, the peculiarity of which is that the verbs
with different morphological status are opposed not by the voice but by the dynamics. The
verbal form t’ir-i-s is not even a verb of the middle-active voice, but a static verb of the
active voice, and does not even fill the forms of the second series i-t’ir-a, and so on, but
has no aorist at all, nor can it have or ever had it. In fact, the verb t’ir-i-s is a static verb of
the active voice and correlates with the forms of dynamic i-t’ir-eb-s / i-t’ir-a by dichotomy:
static (t’ir-i-s) / dynamic (i-t’ir-eb-s / i-t’ir-a), the time difference is too late if it was
functioning somewhere, or if it functioned at all. So it can be boldly said that the forms of
t’ir-i-s - a-t’ir-eb-s type oppose each other not by voice but by the morphological category
static-dynamics. In terms of voice, their partner / correlative is the verb a-t’ir-d-eb-a (a-tird-
a), which is a form of the passive voice with a clearly expressed content of the inchoative
in the present time. Thus, the forms are verbs of the active voice t’ir-i-s - a-t’ir-eb-s / i-t’ireb-
s, which correlate with the form of the passive voice a-t’ir-d-a, while all the dynamic
allomorphs taken together are dynamic forms of the t’ir- verb in contrast to the static verb
t’ir-i-s. So, in Kartvelian reversibility (B. Jorbenadze), transitivity, causativity (from original) and so on are separate independent morphological categories, the separation of which, in
the classification of verbs, is conditioned by the necessary requirement of the factual
situation (existence of the empirical material)
YAKHONTOV’S LIST AND THE IBERIAN-CAUCASIAN LANGUAGES
No full textThe genetic relationship of the Iberian-Caucasian languages and
the reality of the genealogical classification of these languages is
confirmed according to the principle (methods) of researching their
kinship relationships. However, proving that ICE comes from a common
ancestor language is a very difficult task. The situation is getting
complicated due to a number of objective reasons. These are: a) mainly
monosyllabic composition of morphemes, which is valid for all Iberian-
Caucasian groups; b) special brevity of comparable lexical units in verbs,
which reduces the quality of verification; c) the mountainous landscape
of the Caucasus is attached to this, which dis not contribute to the
unification of peoples in one or another location while contributed
the acceleration of the processes of differentiation between languages as well as the conception and development of convergent events
in a synchronous mode. This is accompanied by another linguistic
contradiction that the Caucasian languages do not necessarily develop
independently of each other even after their separation. Thus, if
they continue to operate in contiguous areas, under conditions that
allow contact and interaction to be stable, then the differences in
their vocabulary will be less than expected, and the estimated time
for divergence will turn out to be shorter than it really is. Hence the
conclusion: the basic tenets of glottochronology are not true for all
possible cases. The simplicity of the phonemic composition of the root
and its subsequent transformations, together with the shortness of the
root, led to the blurring of the historically existing real picture in the
Iberian-Caucasian languages, which is not at all an insurmountable
contradiction.
If we consider the three main theories of the ethnogenesis of the
peoples of the Caucasus – migratory, autochthonous and migratory-autochthonous
– we share the second theory, which does not ignore
the possibility of using the theory of migration in relation to individual
peoples. For example, the assumption that the ancestors of the
Abkhazians and Georgians lived in the territory of modern Western
Georgia (Abkhazia) in prehistoric times has quite solid arguments. The
preservation of onomastic names that can be explained in the endemic
languages in Abkhazia should indicate the long-term coexistence of
the ancestors of the Abkhazians [= Apsuas] and Georgians in this area,
from ancient times to the present day. The same can be said about
the relationship between Dagestanian languages and peoples, which,
at the same time, in both considered cases, based on the theory of
prehistoric great migration of peoples, does not exclude the possibility
that the modern Caucasian peoples, before finding themselves in the
current residential areas, went through a long way of settlement.
In the paper, the problem of the kinship of the Iberian-Caucasian
languages according to the famous list of Yakhontov will be discussed
in more detail
Georgian Sensory Vokabulary : Mini Dictionary
No full textეძღვნება ნანა კიზირიას ხსოვნას;საავტორო უფლებებიდან გამომდინარე წიგნის ელექტრონული ვერსია ხელმისაწვდომია მხოლოდ ეროვნული ბიბლიოთეკის შენობიდან. გთხოვთ, მიმართოთ სამკითხველო დარბაზებ
Сравнительный словарь картвельскик диалектов
No full textაღწერილობას ახლავს ორი ელექტრონული რესურსი : სკანირებული და გატექსტებული ფაილ
The time and place of origin of South Caucasian languages: insights into past human societies, ecosystems and human population genetics
No full textThis study re-examines the linguistic phylogeny of the South Caucasian linguistic family (aka the Kartvelian linguistic family) and attempts to identify its Urheimat. We apply Bayesian phylogenetics to infer a dated phylogeny of the South Caucasian languages. We infer the Urheimat and the reasons for the split of the Kartvelian languages by taking into consideration (1) the past distribution ranges of wildlife elements whose names can be traced back to proto-Kartvelian roots, (2) the distribution ranges of past cultures and (3) the genetic variations of past and extant human populations. Our best-fit Bayesian phylogenetic model is in agreement with the widely accepted topology suggested by previous studies. However, in contrast to these studies, our model suggests earlier mean split dates, according to which the divergence between Svan and Karto-Zan occurred in the early Copper Age, while Georgian and Zan diverged in the early Iron Age. The split of Zan into Megrelian and Laz is widely attributed to the spread of Georgian and/or Georgian speakers in the seventh-eighth centuries CE. Our analyses place the Kartvelian Urheimat in an area that largely intersects the Colchis glacial refugium in the South Caucasus. The divergence of Kartvelian languages is strongly associated with differences in the rate of technological expansions in relation to landscape heterogeneity, as well as the emergence of state-run communities. Neolithic societies could not colonize dense forests, whereas Copper Age societies made limited progress in this regard, but not to the same degree of success achieved by Bronze and Iron Age societies. The paper also discusses the importance of glacial refugia in laying the foundation for linguistic families and where Indo-European languages might have originated
