ავტორისეული სიტყვის შემცველი ქვეწყობილი წინადადების სტრუქტურისა და სტატუსის შესახებ ქართული ანდაზების მაგალითზე

Abstract

The proverbs containing author’s words or sentences expressed by hypotactic constructions can be structurally analyzed in two ways. For instance, the proverb: ბელტი ტიროდა: წვიმა რო მოვიდეს, აი, იმ ქვას რა ეშველებაო belt’i t’iroda: ts’vima ro movides, ai, im kvas ra eshvelebao “a clod was weeping, if it rains, what will become of that stone?” can be analyzed as follows: 1. It can be viewed as one sentence, in which ბელტი ტიროდა belt’i t’iroda “a clod was weeping” is the main clause, whereas წვიმა რო მოვიდეს, აი, იმ ქვას რა ეშველებაო ts’vima ro movides, ai, im kvas ra eshvelebao “if it rains, what will become of that stone” is the subordinate clause. The subordinate clause itself can be divided into the main clause: აი, იმ ქვას რა ეშველებაო ai, im kvas ra eshvelebao “what will become of that stone”, which has its own clause of condition answering the questions: on what condition? In which case? – წვიმა, რომ მოვიდეს ts’vima ro movides “if it rains”. Such analysis does not seem reasonable: firstly, according to such analysis, there are two main clauses in one hypotactic construction; secondly, according to this approach, all proverbs containing the author’s words or sentences should be considered hypotactic constructions. 2. The proverb can be viewed as two separate sentences, out of which ბელტი ტიროდა belt’i t’iroda “a clod was weeping” is a sentence of simple structure which contains the author’s words, whereas the following part – წვიმა რო მოვიდეს, აი, იმ ქვას რა ეშველებაო ts’vima ro movides, ai, im kvas ra eshvelebao “If it rains, what will become of that stone” is a hypotactic construction. This kind of analysis has its shortcomings, because a proverb as a paremic unit is a whole entity, and therefore, it should not be divided into separate parts. The above-mentioned issue represents a problem for other languages as well. As for Georgian, due to its rich morphology, this language can off er additional arguments in favour of either of the above-mentioned approaches. Based on the material of Georgian proverbs, the paper reveals an additional syntactic function of the Georgian reported speech particle -ო /-o/. This element enables a clear distinction in the proverbs of hypotactic construction with author’s words or sentences containing direct speech, namely, the distinction is made between the author’s sentence and the direct speech. Based on the above-mentioned, we can conclude that, from the syntactic viewpoint, such sentences cannot be considered as one whole structural unit. This fact supports the second approach. However, from the paremic viewpoint, the clauses comprise one whole entity.