ევიდენციალურ-ეპისტემიკური მწკრივების კვალიფიკაციის საკითხი მეგრულში.

Abstract

1.6.2.1.9. The Issue of Qualification of Evidential-Epistemic Screeves in Megrelian. /M. Lomia/. Journal Language and Culture. – 2020. – #23. – pp. 51-57. – geo.; abs.: geo., eng.

In Megrelian, like other Kartvelian languages and, in general, numerous languages of the world, there are two types of evidentiality: modalized and non-modalized. When information is obtained from an inferential source based on background knowledge, such information is considered as dubitable, probable, likely. Based on such evaluation, the forms expressing epistemic modality are created. These forms are expressed both  descriptively and organically. In Megrelian, modalized evidentiality is also expressed lexically (descriptively) and grammatically (by means of verb paradigms i.e. screeves). The given paper focuses on the issue of qualification of epistemic-evidential screeves in Megrelian. It should be mentioned that such verb-forms were noted, distinguished and described in the Georgian scientific literature at the end of the past century, yet, they were qualified differently. When speaking of the organic (morphological) formation of evidentialepistemic forms, we imply complex forms expressed by means of Present Subjunctive or Conditional I, as well as additional means (i"i/i"uapu „may be“, i"idu/i"uapudu „would be”). Initially, the distinction of these forms was closely related to the formation of the future tense, and the forms of both types were termed as follows: Future Continuous: arundas i"i/i"uapu „he/she may be writing“; arunduko i"idu/i"uapudu „would be writing“. Later, the forms were separately termed as: Future Continuous: arundas i"i/i"uapu „may be writing“ and Conditional Continuous: arunduko i"idu/i"uapudu „would be writing“. Later, the forms expressed by means of Present Subjunctive and additional means were termed as Present Continuous Subjunctive. It should be noted that consideration of opinions of different authors (Z. Chumburidze, I. Kobalava, K. Margiani) and the evaluation of the forms in question from the viewpoint of evidentiality have enabled their qualification as evidential-epistemic screeves. Namely, based on the corresponding methodological approach, it has been concluded that: 1. In Megrelian, there are two evidential-epistemic screeves: Evidential-Epistemic Present and Evidential-Epistemic Imperfect I. 2. Evidential-Epistemic Presentis expressed by means of Present Subjunctive and i"i/i"uapu „may be“ modal form. 3. Evidential-Epistemic Imperfect I is expressed by means of Conditional I and the modal form i"idu/i"uapudu „would be“. 4. The complex forms of evidential-epistemic screeves express dubitable-probable actions in the present and past. In this, they are opposed to actions expressed by means of neutral present and continuous tenses. 5. The Megrelian complex forms of evidential-epistemic screeves are expressed in Georgian by means of neutral present or continuous verb-forms and the modality adverb „probably“. 6. In spite of the fact that evidentialepistemic screeves consist of two parts and are of complex structure, they are semantically unified and they perfectly fall within the tense system. Ref. 8.

Auth.