Morphological and Syntactic Phenomena in Inner and South-Western Dialects of the Georgian Language

Abstract

This article examines a number of common morphological and morphosyntactic phenomena attested in the inner dialects of Georgian as well as in the south-western dialectal forms spoken beyond the borders of Georgia:
a) The modal particle unda (უნდა) [unda - expressing necessity, obligation, or intention] and its associated verbal morphology display notable variation across both eastern Georgian dialects (Khevsurian, Pshavian, and Khevian (i.e. Mokhevian or Mokheuri: (უნდ-ან-ან-თ [und-an-an-t], უნდ-ან-ან [und-an-an]) and western dialects (Lower Imeretian, Gurian, and Adjarian (უნდ-ენ [und-en], უნდ-ებ-ლარიენ [und-eb-larien]). Similar developments are found in the south-western ones — specifically Klarjian, Shavshian, and Tao dialects, where forms such as უნდ-ან-ან [und-an-an] and უნდ-ა-რ-ან [und-a-r-an] occur. Among the sub-dialects or idioms spoken by communities that migrated into a linguistically diverse dialectal environment of Lower Imereti, the Adigeni Meskhetians preserve the form უნდ-ან-ან [und-an-an]. In Lower Imeretian, innovative forms such as უნდ-ავ-ენ [und-av-en] and უნდ-ავ-ი-ენ [und-av-i-en] have emerged, in which -ავ [-av] appears to alternate with the Old Georgian thematic marker -ან [-an], later combined with the plural marker -ენ [-en] — უნდ-ან [und-an]/უნდ-ავ-ენ [und-av-en]. Alternative views concerning the origin of these forms have been proposed.
b) The verb ი-სვრ-ი-ს (i-svr-i-s, “throwing/shooting”) occurs in various forms across Georgian dialects. In the Pshavian dialect, it appears with the vowel prefix ა [a-]: ასვრის (asvris), ლეკები ასვრიან თოფებსა (cf. A. Shanidze: lekebi asvrian topebsa, “the Leks fire their rifles”). In the Lower Imeretian dialectal area, the form სროულობს [sroulobs], brought by migrated Lechkhumians, denotes a repeated
8
action, whereas სროლავს [srolavs] in Lower Imeretian sub-dialect expresses a single-occurrence action. These semantic distinctions are reflected in morphosyntax as well: ისვრის ის [isvris is – meaning: he/she is throwing/shooting], ისვრის ის მას [isvris is mas – meaning: he/she is throwing/shooting it], სროლავს ის [srolavs is – meaning: he/she is throwing/shooting], სროლავს ის მას [srolavs is mas – meaning: he/she is throwing/shooting it], ასვრის ის მას [asvris is mas – meaning: he/she is throwing/shooting it]. A theoretically expected construction would be ასვრის ის მას მას [asvris is mas mas, meaning “he/she is throwing/shooting it at him/her”], where the prefix ა- [a-] would serve as a functional equivalent of the vowel prefix ე- [e-]: ესვრის ის მას მას [esvris is mas mas]/ ასვრის ის მას მას [asvris is mas mas, both meaning “he/she is throwing/shooting it at him/her”]. In our view, the structural template seems closest to არტყამს [artqams], “he/she hits/strikes”, a verb related to throwing, shooting, hitting, and striking]; e.g., არტყამს ის მას ტყვიას [artqams is mas tkvias, meaning “he/she strikes him/her with a bullet”]), though we have not encountered the verb ა-სვრის [a-svris] in the form of a three-argument verb (or a ditransitive verb).
In the Imeretian dialect (specifically in the Vani variety), a form with the უ- [u-] prefix is attested: უსროდა ქვეფს და ებძოდა უბედურათ (usroda kveps da ebzoda ubedurat, “He threw stones and fought relentlessly”) (N. Sharashidze). The dialect also preserves an unprefixed variant, სვრის (svris, “he/she is shooting”) (B. Jorbenadze), with the plural form სვრი-ან [svri-an, “they are shooting”). The addition or loss of vowel prefixes correlates with the syntactic valency — or positional structure — of verbs.
In the Klarjian dialect, the form მსვრელი [msvreli, “one who shoots, shooter”) is attested. Examples include კარქა ვსვრი მაუზერ [Kark’a vsvri mauzer, “I shoot Mausers well”] (the Klaskuri idiom) and ვსრი (vsri), which is likewise encountered in the Machakhlian: e.g., ბაბამ ლივერი მიყიდა, ვსრი და ვსრი [Babam liveri miq’ida, vsri da vsri, “My father bought me a gun, I shoot and shoot”] (the Kedkedi idiom) (Paghava et al.), cf. Imeretian სვრის [svris], where — unlike the Machakhlian dialect — the Old Georgian verbal root სრ-ევ-ა [sr-ev-a] has not been preserved. However, both Klarjian and Imeretian dialects share the form მ-სვრ-ელ-ი [m-svr-el-i, “the one who is throwing/shooting”]. The insertion of the consonant ვ [v] into the root appears unexpected, as the anticipated root would be -სრ- [-sr-].
Across different linguistic environments, factors inherited from Old Georgian or Common Kartvelian continue to function in various areas, representing the outcomes of diachronic processes that have unfolded over extended periods of time.
c) In the speech of Muhajir communities, an alternation between nominative and quasi-ergative constructions is attested, where the ergative case assumes the function in expressing definiteness/indefiniteness. This feature does not appear elsewhere across the Georgian dialectal continuum. For instance, კაცი გეიარა [k’atsi geiara] indicates that an unfamiliar man passed by, whereas კაცმა გეიარა [k’atsma geiara] refers to a definite referent previously mentioned in discourse (Putkaradze et al., 2022). This development cannot be explained by the influence of Turkish, a non-ergative language; rather, it may have closer parallels with the function of an Old Georgian particle that marked the noun as definite.
It is generally recognized that the linguistic consciousness of populations subjected to forced displacement into foreign environments differs from that of voluntary migrants. In this context, speakers appear to have drawn upon the morphological inventory of their native language to convey familiarity, definiteness, and specificity, thereby forming a corresponding morphosyntactic construction serving this function.