კლასობრივი ენის საკითხი და ფეოდალური ურთიერთობები
| dc.contributor.author | ჩიქობავა, აკაკი | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-03-25T07:43:29Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2022-03-25T07:43:29Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2018 | |
| dc.description | https://geohistory.humanities.tsu.ge/ge/procedings/83-shromebi/171-shromebi-14.html | en_US |
| dc.description.abstract | Article deals with the issue of class language and terms denoting ruling and working classes that originate during feudal epoch, and class specification of those terms. In France before the 11th century the term “dominus” was used to denote the God. In the 11th century it acquired a new meaning which had a social context, from this time on it denoted all kind of seignior, lord, owner of fortress. Dominus was used to denote the lord even in the Roman world, but in our article we have discussion concerning medieval linguistic features. This kind of situation is attested in France which is confirmed by legal documents including ecclesiastical materials. Almost similar process is attested in Georgia – term “upali” had a sacral meaning and was used to designate a God, but already from 9th-10th centuries it was used to denote lord and seignior. We see the similar changes in Armenian language – “ter” was used to designate the God, but later, almost next to the Georgian reality, acquired a new meaning of lord, seignior. The same meaning is shared by Russian term “Господин”. The Georgian term “glekhi”, which means a labor class, originates from “glakhaki”, hence diminutive form is used for description of this social class. Almost the same story is described by Georges Duby when he writes about the creation of term for peasant. He thinks that when a new order was established it appeared with new terminology. Ecclesiastical language had specifically defined the name of land worker. Despite the fact that term “laborator” (worker) had existed, it was rejected and instead “villanus” and “rusticus” were established. G. Duby writes that “villanus” was used to denote the lower class in France at that period. Seemingly, all those words were uses to preserve the Carolingian system and were reaction to the new order, both of those systems agreed to treat dependant as a slave. Russian word “Подлый” also was used to describe someone of lower origin. It obtained this meaning in the 18th century. Before that it meant the people and was used as hyponym of peasant and “kholop”. This word has Slavic roots and its familiar meaning we can see in different languages. “Villain” that is an English term for peasant has diminutive expression. Italian “Villano” has Latin roots and means a human who works in a villa or a peasant. It acquired diminutive forms as well. In Italian texts this word is used to denote rough, unworthy human. Spanish word “campesino” (peasant) means the same. French word “vile” – robber, someone of lower origin, is also derived from villanus. Before 9th century Georgia free laborers were called mdabio/mdabioni/ mdabiuri/mdabiori. During the strengthening of feudalization in the 12th century it acquired a new diminutive expression. Such kind of transformation of the words denoting the people are attested in French and Spanish languages. “Pueblo” is Spanish word and originates from Latin term “populous”. Next to its meaning this term acquired diminutive expression and was used to denote low and unworthy population in Medieval period. Latin term “vulgus/vulgates” is also very interesting. It meant the people, but from approx. 1530, during the late medieval period, it acquired new meaning which it has today and was applied to the lower classes. According to our observation, “language” could be class oriented during social and political changes. We think that during the establishment of feudalism specific social terminology was used to justify implementation of political supremacy by one group over another. Ruling elite tries to target and name the particular groups of people just as they try to exploit those groups. This is economic order brought by new formation and those who established it try to adjust it in the legal framework. Hence, the language works with its class specifications. | en_US |
| dc.identifier.citation | ივანე ჯავახიშვილის სახელობის თბილისის სახელმწიფო უნივერსიტეტის საქართველოს ისტორიის ინსტიტუტის შრომები, XIV, თბილისი, 2018, გვ. 115-130 / Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University Institute of Georgian History Proceedings, XIV, Tbilisi, 2018, pp. 115-130 | en_US |
| dc.identifier.issn | 1987–9970 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://dspace.tsu.ge/handle/123456789/1335 | |
| dc.language.iso | ge | en_US |
| dc.subject | ფეოდალიზმი | en_US |
| dc.subject | კლასები | en_US |
| dc.subject | ენა | en_US |
| dc.subject | ლინგვისტიკა | en_US |
| dc.title | კლასობრივი ენის საკითხი და ფეოდალური ურთიერთობები | en_US |
| dc.title.alternative | ISSUE OF CLASS LANGUAGE AND FEUDALISM | en_US |
| dc.type | Article | en_US |