ქართულ გვაროვნულ სახელთა რუსიფიცირება XIX საუკუნის ენაში [1832 წლის შეთქმულების მასალის მიხედვით]

Abstract

Written sources make it clear that the process of formation of personal names in Georgian ethnocultural space was of heterogenous nature and in terms of that the ongoing process changed gradually. It we look at the topic diachronically, in personal names, ancient Georgian written monuments allow us to identify the patronymic function ian [<*ivan <*evan] suffix. Historically, the two-segment-ian formator, aside from the meaning of having, gained the function of indicating the last name starter, its owner and that is how in ancient Georgia appeared personal names Parnavazian’I, Gorgaslian’, Nersian’I or Marushian’i. “And he has given… Chukhchakherity to Marushyan, son of Chukhcharekh”, reads the history essay Historian and Azman, written by unknown author from Tamar’s epoch (XII century) [Historian and Azman, 1959, pg. 33]. In parallel with the mentioned personal names appears the -el origin – the- suffix-added forms indicating origins; for example, Machabeli’I, Torel’i, Mkhargrdzel’i and others such. Second historian of Tamar’s epoch, Basili Ezosmodzgvari says in his essay that: “”and up there [was] Javakheti, where Sargis Mkhargrdzelidze Tmogueli and Shalva Torelive are” [Ezosmodzgvari, 1959, pg. 129]. The -el affix of descent was used in ancient Georgia far more extensively and along with secular persons, it often indicated the location of service by clergymen [for example, Martskvereleli, Bolneli and etc.] Such diversification of the names of descent was the result of general meaning of -el affix, which made the extensiveness of its usage in Georgian historical reality quite understandable. In general, last names were the indication of rank level and in Georgian ethnocultural space, existence of such anthroponyms for lower social classes or levels, the so called “those without last names”, is not present at all. The fundamental turning point in terms of form of Georgian personal names takes place when -dze and -shvili endings appear as result of influence from oriental languages. The fact is that organic Georgian formations are replaced by descriptive formations, which is accompanied by certain social-cultural requirement – formation of the social class without last names by personal names. The universality of -ian affix (-ian affix names’ result in modern Eastern Georgia – Odzelaani < Odzeliani, Keshelaaani < KeshelianI and etc.), is gradually weakening. It is apparent that Arabic language – “ibn”/”ibnu” [shvili/son] or Persian originated “zade” [given birth by] have their influence on Georgian language and -dze and -shvili endings gain systematic character in Georgian reality. Pressure by foreign languages in terms of change-formation of anthroponyms was present in the Georgian reality back in the V century and following epochs. Historical sources reveal that interesting linguistic facts can be detected as result of impact from Iranian policy and Persian language. Namely, names of noble women often add duxt, central Iranian [V c. B.C. – III c. A.D.] root. Considering that during the named period names of father and daughter were not different, the necessity of adding duxt to them was reasoned by the necessity for such difference. In Georgian ethnocultural terms, according to impact from epochs and foreign cultures, different linguistic fact appear, although, it must also be said that the XIX century (especially its first part) is truly distinguished in view of usage of last names. The 1832 Conspiracy case clearly shows what situation we are dealing with. The interrogation protocols of Georgian aristocrats or public figures directly point to the alarming situation. It cannot be claimed that the linguistic change in absolute majority of last names, namely, appearance of Russian ov/ ev endings, is without exception, however, it also a fact that the change of Georgian last names is not only started, but it is a reality, which, clearly points to the great power of Russification policy and fundamental change in the language and culture of leader Georgians. Even in Solomon Dodashvili’s testimony, there are no Georgian formulations of historic last names. The situation is a substantially homogeneous in view of usage of last names in the materials of 1832 Conspirators, which clearly indicates the gravest political course of Russification started in early XIX century and the attempt of deep intrusion into the nation’s mental mind. Russification of last names cannot of course be by its significance equalized with the lingual facts of usage of barbarisms detected in rare cases in XIX century Georgian language, as the latter were originally perceived as barbarisms and had less connection with the change of cultural heritage. The same cannot be said about the Russification of noble names. The conspirators initially named themselves and affiliates (here: Conspirators) with the changed last names, which significantly changed the appearance of the educated and leader Georgian community, which had to think for the recreation of Georgian Statehood in future.