On the Methodological Aspects of Identifying the Nominal Stems in Georgian.

Abstract

1.6.2.1.1. On the Methodological Aspects of Identifying the Nominal Stems in Georgian. /R. Gersamia/. Journal Language and Culture. – 2019. – #22. – pp. 14-20. – geo.; abs.: geo., eng.

In Georgian scholarly literature, the nominal stem is identified based on a simple linguistic method, namely, removal of the marker from a nominal lexeme in the ergative or dative case. The arguments in support of the dative case are based on the stability of the root and suffixal morphemes: a) the root of the lexeme in the dative case is not subject to phonetical alteration, b) the dative case is represented by one morpheme /-ს/ of C structure with all kinds of stems i.e. it is not represented by allomorphs. The issue becomes complicated in case of plural stems with -eb markers. Based on the above-mentioned method, the nominal stem ends with marker /-eb/ of VC structure. Thus, a nominal lexeme with ებ plural marker can only be consonantal, whereas, according to the type of declension, it can belong solely to the first i.e. consonantal type (A. Shanidze), which enables the following subtypes: stems subject to syncope and those not subject to syncope. According to this logic, there are different stems in the singular and plural. The system suggested by A. Shanidze is solid and true for the entire class of nominal parts of speech. According to this logic, defining a stem based on its final sound (consonant or vowel) is relevant only for the singular form. Only with regard to the singular form we can discuss morphonological issues: the changes and relations between the root and affixal morphemes. The plural system is based on certain paradigms i.e. paradigmatically, no changes are expected, because the changed paradigm appears in the initial nominative case. This issue is related to the phonetic structure of the plural morpheme. Analysis of the plural stem of a nominal part of speech should embrace the following issues: 1.The agglutinative nature of the Georgian language, the morphosyntactic chain of the nominal stem and the rank structure of morphemes. 2. The status of the morpheme /-eb/ based on diverse methods of linguistic analysis. 3. The boundary between derivation and inflexion (analysis of examples of the following type: k’op’l-ian-eb-i - k’op’l-eb-ian-i – k’op’l-eb-ian-eb-i . Corpus statistics). 4. Should the methodological approach be changed? What should serve as the basis for the new definition of the nominal stem? 5. What are the arguments in favour of A. Shanidze’s system and what are the counterarguments against the given system? Ref. 6.

Auth.