Abstract:
The paper deals with the functions of the i-prefix in the Georgian verb
and the morphosyntactic function of this marker in the verb conjugation
system. I consider any verb morphological category of the Georgian language
in the context of morphosyntax, where each morpheme (element) is much
larger than the morpheme; A morphosyntactic key element (morpheme) is not
just a word (lexical unit), nor words or morphemes, but is a form-content
combination. In the traditional sense, syntax is the coordination, structure, and
sequence of lexical items. In fact, Georgian morphology and syntax are intertwined;
A morphosyntactic approach to the morpheme (in this case, imorpheme)
allows us to define the syntactic structure ("trees") of this morpheme,
which is paired with phonological and conceptual information: Accordingly,
it creates a distinct system-structure (ი-წერ-ებ-ა ის i-tsereba is; ვ-ი-წერ
მე მას v-i-tser me mas; მ-ი-წერ-ს ის მას მე m-i-tsers is mas me); Discussing
morphosyntax through a prism allows us to study a polyfunctional verb as a
morphological category (dynamics-statics, person, version, causative, transitive,
voice, reflexive, introvert ...) "Size" with different lexical units and also stores
information about a different, second syntactic construction in the case of form
identity (e.g., future - ი-ცხოვრებ-ს ის icxovrebs is < > present იცხოვრებს ის
მას icxovrebs is mas). As lexical units, they are presented separately in the
dictionary; The syntactic "connection" with the actants associated with these
units is non-identical.
The morpheme (i-) is much larger than the morpheme - it bears a system
of different sizes: 1. lexical unit (იბოლებს ibolebs), 2. construction (იბოლებს
ის მას ibolebs is mas, იბოლებს ის ibolebs is), 3. defines several morphological
and modal categories. The morpheme stores information about the creation of
these categories in the history of the Georgian language. The paper discusses the morpheme i- in the context of the voice category. I express the opinion that
in Georgian (as well as in other Kartvelian languages) the separation of the
category of voice is artificial.
