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).