სტატიკურობის ფორმალური ნიშნისათვის ქართველურში

Abstract

In 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’ira, 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’iri- 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 (atir- d-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’ir-eb-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).