damana meliqiSvili

meTodologiuri sakiTxebi (//problemebi) qarTuli enis gramatikaSi saxelisa da zmnis morfo-sintaqsuri analizis magaliTze moxsenebaSi sakiTxebze. saubari iqneba enaTmecnierebaSi meTodologiuri magaliTebi cnobil meTodologiur problemebis, gramatikul

ganxiluli da

iqneba

xasiaTis qarTul

dabrkolebebisa

darRvevebis

literaturaSi da naCvenebi iqneba am problemebisa da axsnisa da darRvevebis daZlevis cda.

dabrkolebebis

nebismier empiriul mecnierebaSi da maT Soris gramatikaSi am mecnierebis sagnis (an movlenis) Seswavlisas saWiroa moxdes mocemuli swori daskvnebis simravlis misaRebad

klasifikacia garkveuli TvalsazrisiT. aucilebelia:

1. klasifikaciisas cnebis dayofis logikuri wesis dacva: gvareobiTi cnebis sworad gansazRvra da am klasifikaciis farglebSi miRebuli kriteriumis bolomde dacva (qcevisa da gvaris kategoriebis problema: zmnur xmovanprefiqsTa problema gramatikuli funqciisa da semantikuri funqcia _

diferenciaciis pirTa

(xmovanprefiqsebis aRniSvnaa,

gramatikuli

korelacia-orientaciis miuTiTebs

xolo

logikur-semantikuri lokatiur Tu sxva

qvekategoria funqciebze struqturis prefiqsi

kuTvnileba-daniSnulebis,

(rac qcevis gramatikul kategoriadaa miCneuli, xolo R-ebi zmnebSi, gansxvavebiT uxmovanprefiqsisagan, (ix. a. SaniZe, ida eniSnadaa kvalificirebuli qarTuli

pasivis

gramatikis safuZvlebi, b. jorbenaZe, `zmnis xmovanprefiqsuli warmoeba qarTulSi, Tsu gamomcemloba, 1983; m. maWavariani, qcevis gramatikuli kategoriis semantika, mecniereba, mocemuli dargis Sesaswavli Tb., 1987 da sxv.); unda emyarebodes mecnierebis (sagnis /movlenis) Sinagan, obieqtis 2. saklasifikacio kriteriumi (principi)

imanentur bunebas: gramatikis SemTxvevaSi _ morfologiur da sintaqsur kategoriebs. kvlevisas gamoyenebuli unda iyos dargis Sesabamisi cnebaterminebi. Sinaarssac, xdebodes marTalia, enaTmecniereba swavlobs enis formasTan erTad magram es ar niSnavs imas, rom gramatikaSi operireba da

logikuri

terminologiiT:

gramatikuli

struqtura

konstruqcia unda aRiweros gramatikul cnebaTa aRmniSvneli terminebiT, romelTa funqcias Sesabamisi logikuri kategoriis termini Seesabameba (meTodologiurad swori klasifikaciis idealuri magaliTia qarTuli zmnis dro-kiloTa formebis a. SaniZiseuli sam seriad dayofa, rac eyrdnoba morfo-sintaqsur kriteriums: zmnis morfologiur struqturasa da sintaqsur arn. konstruqcias; Ciqobavaseuli da mis aseve, qarTuli Sesityvebis struqturazmnuri mcire sintaqsuri da

meqanizmis Sesityvebis sistemis

analizis erTad wevrebad

Sedegad ZiriTadi,

qarTuli didi

subordinaciulTan

koordinaciuli

gamovlena

koordinantebis gramatikaSi. pirdapiri asaxaven Sinaarsobliv

gamoyofiT

daZleulia

logikis terminebi: romlebic

eqspansiis

problema

logikidan /iribi obieqti zmnis

Semotanili //damateba,

subieqti//qvemdebare, Sesityvebis wevrTa mcdarad suraTs;

daxasiaTebas

gulisxmoben,

araadekvaturad, Sesabamisobis

qarTuli

morfosintaqsuri

terminebis: agensi, paciensi, iniciatori, Tema da sxv. gamoyeneba ar cvlis situacias. neitraluri Sinaarsis termini participanti ukeTesia, rogorc neitraluri, magram igi ar ar Seicavs maTi termini

Sesityvebis sintaqsuri (induqciidan (/niSnis) monaTesave semantikuri

monawileTa 3.

sintaqsur unda ara

daxasiaTebas, eyrdnobodes piriqiT);

iZleva

funqciis Sesaxeb cnobas/ codnas. klasifikacia da empiriul masalas

>deduqciisken kvalifikaciisas

gramatikuli

kategoriis (maT Soris

aucilebelia

statistikuri

enebis) monacemebis gaTvaliswineba:

magram problemebs qmnis qarTuli

zmnis uRlebis tipebad klasifikaciis kriteriumad gvaris

kategoriis miReba, ramac gamoiwvia logikur/semantikuri da gramatikuli kategoriebis aRreva, ris Sedegadac qarTuli zmnis uRlebis sistemis

araadekvaturi suraTia miRebuli:

R- eb- i struqturis zmnebis pasivad

kvalificireba, mediumis, rgorc gvaris gramatikuli kategoriis mesame saxis miReba da medioaqtivisa da mediopasivis qvejgufebis gamoyofa aqtivisa da pasivisagan formaTa sesxebis daSvebis safuZvelze, rac ganmartebiTi leqsikonis mTliani zmnuri bazis rogorc diaqroniulma, ise sinqroniulma empiriulma kvlevam da statistikurma analizma ar daadastura (ix. a. SaniZe, qarTuli gramatikis safuZvlebi, Tbilisi; 1963; l. nozaZe, qarTvelur enaTa istoriuli morfologiis sakitxebi,

~universali,Tb.,2008; d. meliqiSvili, `qarTuli zmnis uRlebis sistema, logos presi, Tbilisi, 2001; misive, qarTuli zmnis uRlebadi formebis gramatikuli klasifikaciisa da kvalifikaciis principebisaTvis, I, II, enaTmecnierebis sakiTxebi, 2008, #1, gv.123-130; 2009,#1-2, gv.78-95; D.

Melikishvili, J.D. Humphries, M. Kupunia, The Georgian Verb: A Morphosyntactic Analysis, Dunwoody press, U.S.A., 2008). 4. daskvnebis siswore-mcdaroba mcdarobaze masalis (rasac empiria Tu damokidebulia an wanamZRvris sisworeda xSirad an damokiebulia axali amowmebs

mokvlevasa

aRmoCenebze), statia

logikuri

argumentaciis ZiriTadi

simtkice-sisusteze. pirvelis magaliTia arn. CiqobavasTvis Cveuli mtkice argumentaciiT gamorCeuli mravlobiTis aRniSvnis principisaTvis qarTulSi danaskvis mcdaroba ki gamoiwvia wanamZRvris mcdarobam (rom mravlobiTisa da inkluzivis kategoria erTi da igivea, rac kvlevis Semdgom etapze uaryofil iqna al. onianis mier svanuri

masals monacemebiT da Zveli qarTulis S2O1 pirTa brZanebiTis formebis masalis g. ninuas analizs Sedegad); aseve, R-ebi struqturis zmnebis (/aqtivis konversiuli formebis) apriorulad pasivad kvalificirebis aramarTebuloba analizma (rac aCvena qeglis sruli zmnuri bazis statistikurma Zeglebis am daadastura Zveli qarTuli naTargmni

struqturis zmnaTa analizmac). 5. aucilebelia kvlevisas sinqroniisa enobrivi (mag., da diaqroniis faqtis monacemebis

gamijnva:

sinqroniul analizis

doneze Sedegebis

kvalifikaciisas movlenis

diaqroniuli

morfo-sintaqsuri

reinterpretaciis) momarjveba saWiro xdeba faqtis axsnis mizniT, magram ara sinqroniul WrilSi am faqtis kvalifikaciisTvis: faqtebis diaqroniuli analizis Sedegad morfo-sintaqsuri reinterpretaciis

gamomJRavneba da maTi saTanado kvalifikacia sinqroniul WrilSi (mag.: qarTuli saliteraturo enis ganviTarebis sxvadasxva doneze Zireul nacvalsaxelTa fuZis agebulebis (//fuZis segmentaciis) problema, rac monaTesave niSanTa enaTa monacemebTan sakiTxi Sejereba-Sepirispirebis da meore mxriv _ Sedegad sinqroniaSi unda am gadawydes; amasTan dakavSirebiT genezisis erTis mxriv _ arsebiT saxelTa brunvis

nacvalsaxelTa

brunvis

niSnebis

kvalifikacia;

morfo-sintaqsuri

faqtebis terminologiuri daxasiaTebis problema: mag.: Zveli qarTuli enis gramatikaSi da terminis kavSirebiTis III sakiTxi mwkriv/eb/i rogorc gamoyenebis termin ise Zvel, Seusabamoba mizanSeuwonloba; mizanSewonilobis seriis mwkrivTaTvis

`TurmeobiTebis

Tanamedrove qarTulSi; gardamavlobis, rogorc gramatikuli kategoriis sakiTxi polipersonalur qarTul zmnaSi da inversiis problema da amasTan dakavSirebiT piris gramatikuli markerebis logikuri funqciebis gansazRvra istoriul da siqronul WrilSi da sxv.).

Damana Melikhishvili

Methodological issues in the Georgian language grammar based on the morphosyntactic analysis of the noun and verb

This paper analyzes the known methodological issues concerning linguistics. It examines the examples of problems, obstacles, and violations of methodological character in Georgian grammatical literature and suggests the possible ways of understanding and overcoming these issues. In any empirical science, including grammar, when studying the subject (or issue), it is necessary to classify the given numerous data by certain criteria. The following is needed in order to come to the correct conclusions:

1. Adhering to a logical rule of differentiating notions when classifying data: correctly identifying the concept of voice and strictly adhering to the criterion assumed within this classification. (The problem of the categories of version and voice represent the issues of grammatical function and semantic differentiation of verbal vowel prefixes. The grammatical function of the vowel prefixes is to mark the persons correlation and orientation, whereas the logical-semantic subcategory indicates the possessive, benefactive, locative, and other functions (that which has been considered a grammatical category of version, while unlike the vowel prefix u-, the prefixes iand e- have been classified as markers of passive voice in R-eb-i structure verbs));

2. Classification criterion (or principle) should be based on the inner, immanent nature of the object, i.e., subject/issue, of the given scientific branch that is to be studied: in the case of grammar, this concerns morphological and syntactic categories. In research, the terms and notions appropriate to the field should be used. Certainly, this does not mean that logical terminology should operate in grammar: grammatical structure and construction should be described by the terms designating grammatical notions, whose function corresponds to the term of the corresponding logical category. (The ideal example for methodologically correct

classification is the division of the Georgian verb forms expressing different times and moods by the three series defined by Shanidze. This division is based on the morphosyntactic criterion, i.e., on the morphological structure and the syntactic construction of the verb. Another good example would be the discovery of the Georgian phrasal verbs coordinate syntactic system along with the subordinate system, which happened through Chikhobavas analysis of the Georgian clause structure and mechanism. This coordinate system, which concerns the distinguishing of the main, i.e., the major and minor, coordinates as the systems members, overcame the problem of expansion of logic in grammar). The terms borrowed from logic, such as subject and direct/indirect object, which indicate the content description of clause members, inadequately, incorrectly represent the picture of the Georgian verbs morphosyntactic conformity; furthermore, the usage of the terms agent, patient, initiator, etc. does not change the situation. Although the neutral term participant is better (as the neutral one), it is still inadequate since it does not contain the syntactic characterization of the participants of the clause, i.e., it does not give information about their syntactic function.

3. Classification should be substantiated by the empirical material (from induction to deduction, but not vise versa); it is necessary to take into consideration the statistical data (of the related languages, among them) when classifying a grammatical category. But taking the semantic category of voice as the criterion for classifying the Georgian verbs conjugated forms has created problems; it has caused the confusing intermixing of the logical/semantic and grammatical categories, which resulted in an inadequate picture of the Georgian verbs conjugation system: classifying the R-eb-i structure verbs as passives, allowing medium as the third type of grammatical category of voice, as well as designating the subgroups of medioactives and mediopassives through borrowing active and passive forms, which was confirmed neither by the diachronic, nor synchronic empirical research of the entire verb database of the Georgian dictionary, nor by the statistic analysis (see the appropriate literature).

4. The validity or invalidity of the conclusions depends either on the correctness or incorrectness of the starting point (this is proved by empiricism and often depends on the discoveries and research of new material) or on the strength or weakness of the logical argumentation. An example for the first one would be Chikhobavas article, On the Main Principle of Marking Plurality in the Georgian Language, which stands out for the authors strong argumentation.

Here, the incorrectness of the starting point resulted in the incorrectness of the conclusion. (The conclusion stating that the categories of plurality and inclusion are the same was found wrong at the following stages of research. This was done through the work of Oniani, who used the data from the material on the Svanian language, and through Ninuas analysis of the material on the plural forms of the S2O1 persons in Old Georgian); likewise, the statistic analysis of the entire verb database of Cegl showed the invalidity of the a priori qualification of the R-eb-i structure verbs (/the conversive forms of actives) as passives. This was also confirmed by the analysis of this same structure verbs found in the translated Old Georgian works.

5. During the process of research, it is necessary to demarcate the data on the synchronism and diachrony: when qualifying a linguistic fact on the synchronic level, applying the results of diachronic analysis (e.g., the reinterpretation of the morphosyntactic phenomenon) becomes necessary in order to elucidate the fact, but not for the purpose of the qualification of the fact through the synchronic prism, i.e., bringing to light the reinterpretation of the morphosyntactic facts through the diachronic analysis, and their appropriate qualification through the synchronic prism (for example, (1.) the problem of the structure

(/segmentation) of the basic pronoun stems at the different developmental levels of the Georgian literary language, the problem which should be resolved by means of comparing, coordinating, and contrasting the data of the related languages; with regard to this, on the one hand - the issue of the genesis of the noun case markers, and on the other hand - the qualification of the pronoun case markers in synchrony; (2.) the problem of the terminological description of the morphosyntactic facts: for instance, the pertinence of the usage of the term conjunctive screeve/s in the Old Georgian grammar; (3.) the issue of relevance of the terms first evidential and second evidential for the third series screeves in both the Old and Modern Georgian; (4.) the issue of transitivity in the polypersonal Georgian verb as being considered a grammatical category, as well as (5.) the problem of inversion, and with this regard, the defining of the logical functions of the persons grammatical markers through both the historical and synchronic prisms).