Lexical, Grammatical and Stylistic Aspects of Translation / Interpretation Zaal Kikvidze Kutaisi-Tbilisi, Georgia Lexicalized and Grammaticalized C1aC2 Onomatopes in Georgian: Patterns and Translation Options τОsЩТЭО ШП ЭСО ПКМЭ ЭСКЭ, ТЧ rОsЩОМЭТЯО ХТЭОrКЭЮrО, ЭСО ЭОrЦ ‗ШЧШЦКЭШЩО‘ ШММЮrs ХОss ПrОЪЮОЧЭХв ЭСКЧ ‗ШЧШЦКЭШЩШОТК,‘ КЧН ЭСКЭ ЭСО ПШrЦОr СКs ЛООЧ coined by way of back-formation from the latter, it, as a phenomenon, is basic in relation to what is referred to as onomatopoeia. Normally, onomatopes emerge as mimetic entities which are extra-grammatical owing to their non-аШrНСШШН ΦСКrНХв КЧ ШЧШЦКЭШЩО МКЧ ЛО rОПОrrОН ЭШ Кs ‗аШrН‘ ТП it occurs only as a mimetic syllable, that is, if it is not lexicalized). The distinction between just an onomatope and an onomatopoeic word is better visible in morphologically rich languages such as Georgian. It is noteworthy that, with respect to multiple ways of lexicalization and grammaticalization, onomatope-based entities display same semantic processes (for instance, metaphorization) as other lexical items. Thus, onomatopoeic words have usually been very problematic in terms of their translation, and the aforementioned features make them much more problematic. With a view to the above-stated circumstances, the paper deals with a set of Georgian C1aC2 onomatopes; e.g. *bag-, *ХКМ‟-, *rКФ‟-, *čКФ-, etc. (both initial and final consonants may extend to a cluster: *brag-, *tkar*rКМ‟Ф‟-, *partx-, etc.). The processes of their lexicalization and grammaticalization are diverse: 1. Suffixation 1.1. Suffix –an 1.2. Suffix –un 2. Reduplication 2.1. Total Reduplication 2.2. Ablaut Reduplication Hence, one and the same onomatope can be lexicalized and grammaticalized as at least four items; for instance, based on *ХКМ‟, there are the following: ХКМ‘КЧ‘Т, ХКМ‘ЮЧ‘Т, ХКМ‘ХКМ‘Т, ХКМ‘КХЮМ‘Т (or ХКМ‘ТХЮМ‘Т). The *ХКМ‟ can only be treated as a syllable; only when it is able to take on affixes, it becomes a root; hence, the formulas: C1aC2-an-i and C1aC2-un-i. Morphologically, they are masdars. As for reduplication, initially we should distinguish between Total Reduplication (TR) and Ablaut Reduplication (AR). Within TR, we identify Syllable Reduplication (TRS) and Root Reduplication (TRR). Two kinds of syllables are doubled in Georgian and Kartvelian languages, at large; hence, there are two sub-types of syllable reduplication: 271 Lexical, Grammatical and Stylistic Aspects of Translation / Interpretation TRS-1. Open syllable: (CV)2 e.g. ka: ka-ka-n-i ―ЩКЧЭТЧР, rКЧЭТЧР,‖ Ф’К: Ф‘К-Ф‘К-n-i ―ΦСОЧ‘s, ЩСОКsКЧЭ‘s) МКМФХТЧР,‖ pi: pi-pi-n-i ―ЭаТЭЭОrТЧР, rЮsЭХТЧР‖ TRS-2. Closed syllable (C1V2C)2 e.g. bax: bax-bax-i ―ЛКЧР,‖ ХКМ’: ХКМ‘-ХКМ‘-i ―ЩrШаХТЧР,‖ rКФ’: rКФ‘-rКФ‘i ―ΦаКЭОr) РХЮРРТЧРλ ΦsЭrОКЦ) ЛЮrЛХТЧР‖ In terms of phonosemantic doubling, root reduplication (rather frequently, in combination with affixation) is the most productive reduplication technique in Georgian. With a view to the common pattern of the root structure in the language, two sub-types are identified: TRR-1. Sub-type (CV)2 e.g. bi: bi-bi-n-i ―аКЯТЧР, sаКвТЧР ΦРrКss)‖ TRR-2. Sub-type (C1VC2)2 e.g. bax: bax-bax-i ―ЛКЧР‖ It should be noted that sub-type (C1VC2)2 has two realizations: Total and Ablaut. In case of total reduplication, the exact representations of a base and a reduplicant are as follows: TR: C1VC2+C1VC2—NOM e.g. bax: bax-bax-i ―ЛКЧР‖ In case of ablaut republication, they are: AR: C1V1C2+LINK+ C1V2C2—NOM e.g. bax: bax-a-bux-i ―sаКРРОr‖ bax-i-bux-i ―sаКРРОr‖ Judging from the above presented formulas, some patterns of syllable and root reduplication seem to coincide. In fact, with respect to their formal representation, the formulas for TRS-2 and TRR-2 do coincide: (C1VC2)2. However, this does not imply that they are one and the same. Functionally, the bases are different; in TRR-2, it is a morphological entity, that is a root, while, in TRS-2, it is a prosodic entity, that is a syllable. Structurally, the difference is realized in the fact that, in case of TR R-2, a base, as a root, is both doubled ((TR) C1VC2+C1VC2—NOM and reduplicated through vowel alternation ((AR) C1V1C2+LINK+ C1V2C2— NOM), while, in case of TRS-2, a base, as a syllable, can only be doubled (copied) (C1VC2+C1VC2—NOM). As already noted, in case of ablaut reduplication, the C1aC2 onomatopes are joined by means of an interfix, and the formula is the following: C1V1C2+LINK+C1V2C1—NOM. Among its sister languages, Georgian has the most clear-cut system of interfixal phonosemantic reduplication. It should be noted that this pattern is necessarily accompanied by vowel alternation in reduplicants as it is reflected in the formula; more specifically, the alternation is as follows: a-u. Hence, the formula will be specified as 272 Lexical, Grammatical and Stylistic Aspects of Translation / Interpretation C1aC2+a/i+C1uC2—NOM. The Georgian linguist Parnaoz Ertelishvili identified them as an ТЧНТЯТНЮКХ ЭвЩО ШП rОНЮЩХТМКЭТЯОs ТЧ ύОШrРТКЧκ ―TСО sЭОЦs КrО КЧ ШЮЭМШЦО ШП root reduplication; in an initial syllable of the root, there is the vowel a, while, in the final one, there is the u. simple roots are connected by means of the interfixal vowels a and i; the a is more frequent. With respect to interfixal vowels, parallel varianЭs ШП sЭОЦs СКЯО ЛООЧ КЭЭОsЭОН‖ Д1, Щέ ηίЖέ Individual varieties of the above presented formula are the following: C1V1C2+LINK+C1V2C2—NOM, specifically C1aC2+a/i+C1uC2—NOM e.g. bax: bax-a-bux-i ―ЛКЧР‖ C1C2V1C3+LINK+C1C2V2C3—NOM, specifically C1C2aC3+a/i+C1C2uC3—NOM e.g. čбКr: čбКr-a-čбЮr-i ―ХШЮН МШЧsЭКЧЭ УКЧРХТЧР ΦЦОЭКХ, РХКssОs)‖ C1C2C3V1C4+LINK+C1C2C3V2C4—NOM, specifically C1C2C3aC4+a/i+C1C2C3uC4—NOM e.g. ЭбХКš: ЭбХКš-a-ЭбХЮš-i ―К sОrТОs ШП sХКЩsλ sХШЩЩТЧР ΦШП ПООЭ ТЧ ЦЮН)λ sЭКЦЩТЧР, МХШЩЩТЧР ΦШП ПООЭ, СШШЯОs)‖ C1V1C2C3+LINK+C1V2C2C3—NOM, specifically C1aC2C3+a/i+C1uC2C3—NOM e.g. rКМ’Ф’: rКМ‘Ф‘-a- rЮМ‘Ф‘ ―ЭТЧФХТЧР, УТЧРХТЧР‖ He estimated up to 120 ablaut interfixal reduplicatives in Georgian [1, p. 78]. In the literature, similar phenomena of ablaut (either interfixal or not) reduplication have been labeled in various ways; Maurice Grammont refers to ЭСОЦ Кs ―ШЧШЦКЭШЩШОТМ КЩШЩСШЧв‖ ΦХ'КЩШЩСШЧТО НОs ШЧШЦКЭШЩцОs) [2]; the ЩСОЧШЦОЧШЧ Тs ХКЛОХОН Кs ―ЭШЭКХ rОНЮЩХТМКЭТШЧ аТЭС ЯШаОХ КХЭОrЧКЭТШЧ‖ ΦVokalalternierende volle Reduplikation) Лв ρЧНrгОУ ςгНęРК ДγЖλ КЧН, ПШr δКЮrТО ςКЮОr, ЭСО КЩЩrШЩrТКЭО ЭОrЦ Тs ―КЛХКЮЭ-ЦШЭТЯКЭОН МШЦЩШЮЧНs‖ ДδЖέ ЇЧ ЭСО other hand, Igor εОХ‘čЮФ ОбМХЮНОs sШ-called reduplicated stems, echo-words and onomatopoeic formations from the realm of reduplication [5, p. 41-42]. It is noteworthy that the formation process of such items in English has ЛООЧ ПШrЦЮХКЭОН ТЧ ЭСО ПШХХШаТЧР аКвκ ―ρssЮЦТЧР Эhat the root is the first syllable of the reduplicated form, the derivation of a form such as zigzag basically undergoes two stages, 1) syllable copy; 2) vowel ablaut: 1) A syllable template is fully reduplicated and linked to its C/V slots, ΦσVσ→σVσέσVσλ ТέОέ гТР → гТРέгТР)έ 2) A vowel changemotivated by ablaut occurs from /i/ to /aή ΦДæЖ) ПШr the second syllable (ziРέгТР → zig-zag or zigzag)‖ Дζ, Щέ ε1γЖέ The same formulation applies to Georgian onomatope-based reduplication; (C1VC2)2, specifically, TR (C1VC2+C1VC2—NOM), can be conceived of in the following way: 1) A template prosodic entity [C1aC2] is copied: [C1aC2.C1aC2]; 2) As a result of the lexicalization/grammaticalization process, an onomatopoeic syllable turns into a root/stem; 273 Lexical, Grammatical and Stylistic Aspects of Translation / Interpretation The resulting construction takes on a case marker: C1aC2-C1aC2-NOM; e.g. bax: bax-bax-i. In case of AR: C1V1C2+LINK+ C1V2C2—NOM, the formulation will be the following: 1) A syllable template is fully reduplicated and linked to its C/V slots: [C1aC2→σ1aC2.C1aC2: ЛКб→ЛКб.ЛКб; 2) An ablaut-motivated vowel change occurs from /a/ to /u/ for the reduplicant: [C1aC2.C1aC2→σ1aC2.C1uC2: ЛКб.ЛКб→ЛКб.ЛЮб]; 3) Interfixation takes place as construction (compound) marking [C1aC2.LINK.C1uC2: bax.a/i.bux.i]. With a view to the aforementioned, in Georgian, a C1aC2 onomatope may yield in five possible lexicalized and grammaticalized entities: Table 1. Lexicalization and grammaticalization options of CaC onomatopes Onomatope (Simplex) Suffix -an Suffix -un brax braxan-i č‘Кбan-i ХКМ‘an-i pacan-i Э‘Ф‘КМan-i *čбКran-i ЭбХКšan-i braxun-i č‘Кбun-i ХКМ‘un-i pacun-i Э‘Ф‘КМun-i čбКrun-i ЭбХКšun-i č‘Кб ХКМ‘ pac Э‘Ф‘КМ čбКr ЭбХКš Total Reduplication brax-brax-i Ablaut Reduplication (Interfix -a-) brax-a-brux-i Ablaut Reduplication (Interfix -i-) brax-a-brux-i č‘Кб-č‘Кб-i č‘Кб-a-č‘Юб-i č‘Кб- i-č‘Юб-i ХКМ‘-ХКМ‘-i ХКМ‘-a-ХЮМ‘-i ХКМ‘-i-ХЮМ‘-i pac-pac-i pac-a-puc-i pac-i-puc-i Э‘Ф‘КМ-Э‘Ф‘КМ-i čбКr-čбКr-i Э‘Ф‘КМ-aЭ‘Ф‘ЮМ-i čбКr-a-čбЮr-i Э‘Ф‘КМ-uЭ‘Ф‘ЮМ-i čбКr-i-čбЮr-i *ЭбХКš-ЭбХКš-i ЭбХКš-a-ЭбХЮš-i ЭбХКš-i-ЭбХЮš-i When discussing the consonantal part of (n) of the suffixes -un and -an, ςέ JШrЛОЧКНгО ШППОrОН ЧШЭОаШrЭСв ТЧПОrОЧМОsκ ―АСКЭ аКs ЭСО ПЮЧМЭТШЧ introduced in these forms by the formant -n? Apparently, it was a function of plurality, more exactly, a function of iterative, and, hence, the forms ХКМ‘КЧ-i and ХКМ‘ЮЧ-i appear to render the same function as the reduplicated ХКМ‘ХКМ‘-i and ХКМ‘КХЮМ-i. Therefore, ХКМ‘ХКМ-i and ХКМ‘КЧ-i seem to be each ШЭСОr‘s ЭШЭКХ ПЮЧМЭТШЧКХ ОЪЮТЯКХОЧЭs СКЯТЧР КМСТОЯОН Лв ЦОКЧs ШП ЯКrТШЮs formal devices: by means of reduplication, on the one hand, and by means ШП КППТбКЭТШЧ, ШЧ ЭСО ШЭСОr‖ Дη, Щέ β1ζЖέ 274 Lexical, Grammatical and Stylistic Aspects of Translation / Interpretation With a view to this statement, we have to find out whether they are translated identically or not. In order to check this, I refer to the most comprehensive one among the available Georgian-English dictionaries to date [8]. 1) brax – only two entries are found: 1.1. braxabruxi n 1 loud stamping, banging 2 bravado; 1.2. braxuni vn heavy knocking, pounding [8, p. 176]. 2) č’Кб – 2.1. č‟КбКЧТ vn bang, crack (of rifle etc); 2.2. č‟КбКč‟ЮбТ vn crackling (of gunfire); 2.3. č‟КбТ-č‟ЮбТ n crackling (of gunfire); 2.4. č‟КбЮЧТ vn bang, crack (of rifle etc); 2.5. č‟Кбč‟КбТ vn 1 shriek/chatter (e.g. of angry bird); 2 crackling (of gunfire); 3 bright shining [8, p. 1624]. 3) ХКМ’ – 3.1. ХКМ‟КХЮМ‟Т n (noise of) crashing down/horns clashing; 3.2. ХКМ‟КЧТ n (noise of sth) smashing; thump, slap; 3.3. ХКМ‟ТХЮМ‟Т n crashing, clash of horns see ХКМ‘КХЮМ‘Тλ γέδέ ХКМ‟ХКМ‟Т n (hungry wolves) prowling; 3.5. ХКМ‟ЮЧТ n (noise of sth) smashing see ХКМ‘КЧТ Дθ, Щέ θγβЖέ 4) pac – 4.1. pacapuci vn bustling; commotion; 4.2. pacipuci n bustling see ЩКМ‘КЩЮМТ Дθ, Щέ 1βεβЖέ 5) Э’Ф’КМ – 5.1. Э‟Ф‟КМКЧТ vn crack (of whip); crackle (of fire); 5.2. Э‟Ф‟КМКЭ‟Ф‟ЮМТ, Э‟Ф‟КМТ(Э‟Ф‟ЮМТ) vn crack(l)ing; 5.4. Э‟Ф‟КМЮЧТ vn 1 crackling; 2 crack see Э‘Ф‘КМКЧТ Дθ, Щέ 11θζЖέ 6) čбКr – 6.1. čбКrКčбЮrТ n loud constant jangling (metal, glasses); čбКrТčбЮrТ vn loud constant jangling (metal, glass); 6.3. čбКrЮЧТ vn jingling, tinkling [8, p. 1524]. 7) ЭбХКš – 7.1. ЭбХКšКЭбХЮšТ n 1 a series of slaps; 2 slopping (of feet in mud); stamping, clopping (of feet, hooves); 7.2. ЭбХКšКЧТ n 1 slapping (across the face) [8, p. 723]. What we have to do now is to scrutinize, compare and collate the data from Table 1 and the dictionary. Initially, it should be made clear that the table features just a random choice of onomatope-based word-forms. Notwithstanding the factor of a random choice, there are a couple of cases representing rather noteworthy aspects. Take, for instance, the onomatope *ЭбХКšκ Кs ТЭ Тs sООЧ, ЭСО ‗ЩКrКНТРЦ‘ ХКМФs *ЭбХКš-ЭбХКš-i (Total Reduplication). This is an outcome of a phonotactic constraint: impossibility of the prospective *šЭбХ cluster has blocked its emergence. As for another instance (the onomatope *čбКr; the paradigm lacks *čбКr-an-i, but not čбКr-un-i), this should be an outcome of a semantic constraint; to ОХКЛШrКЭО ςέ JШrЛОЧКНгО‘s sЭКЭОЦОЧЭ ΦШЩέ МТЭέ), ЭСО sЮППТбОs -an and -un are not entirely identical: 1. All such onomatope-based masdars take on the -un, but not the -an, provided that C1≠σ2; 2. Whenever both forms are attested with one and the same onomatope, they are not total synonyms as far as an an-suffixated word-form refers to a momentane act, while an -un-suffixated word-form refers to an iterative act. Thus, there are phonotactic and semantic constraints that block the emergence of some word-forms, and the 275 Lexical, Grammatical and Stylistic Aspects of Translation / Interpretation above cited items are not unique in this respect. Therefore, in 2) č’Кб, the following tokens: 2.1. č‟КбКЧТ vn bang, crack (of rifle etc) and 2.4. č‟КбЮЧТ vn bang, crack (of rifle etc), can in no way be translated similarly as far as č‟КбКЧТ is of an momentane act, and č‟КбЮЧТ is of iterative, albeit their denotations are the same. In 1) brax, there are only two entries: 1.1. braxabruxi and 1.2. braxuni. Irrespective of the fact that the word-form braxani does not occur in the dictionary, it does occur in Georgian, and the distinction between them is the same as between č‟КбКЧТ//č‟КбЮЧТ (momentane//iterative). In the similar way, in 3) ХКМ’, the corresponding word-forms 3.2. ХКМ‟КЧТ and 3.5. ХКМ‟ЮЧТ КrО ЭrКЧsХКЭОН ТНОЧЭТМКХХв Φ―ХКМ‟КЧТ n (noise of sth) smashing; ЭСЮЦЩ, sХКЩ… ХКМ‟ЮЧТ n (noise of sth) smashing see ХКМ‘КЧТ‖ Дθ, Щέ θγβЖέ Moreover, as it is seen, the authors of the dictionary in question demonstrate their certainness that the meanings of the two words are absolutely identical ΦІς ―ХКМ‟ЮЧТ n (noise of sth) smashing see ХКМ‘КЧТ‖ ДТЛТНОЦЖ)έ In 4) pac, there are only interfixal ablaut reduplicatives: 4.1. pacapuci vn bustling; commotion; 4.2. pacipuci n bustling. Interestingly, pacipuci, one of the interfixal ablaut reduplicatives, and pacpaci (Total Reduplication) occur in Sulkhan-SКЛК ЇrЛОХТКЧТ‘s Georgian Dictionary which first appeared back in 1713 (pacipuci ―СКsЭТЧРХв ЦШЯТЧР ЭШ КЧН ПrШλ‖ pacpaci ―СКrНХв sЭКЧН ШЧ ШЧО‘s ПООЭ‖ Дι, Щέ γεζЖ)έ εШrОШЯОr, ЭСТs КЧН ШЭСОr, later dictionaries evidence pacuni, and its meaning is rendered as equivalent of pacipuci (iterative act). The other three onomatopes (5) Э’Ф’КМ, 6) čбКr, 7) ЭбХКš) have one very interesting feature in common; all of them lack respective total reduplicatives ((C1VC2)2); specifically, *Э’Ф’КМЭ’Ф’КМТ, *čбКrčбКrТ, *ЭбХКšЭбХКšТ. As it was already specified concerning the latter instance, it is due to the phonotactic constraint. As for the entries related to 7) ЭбХКš, I have to dwell upon how they are translated in RКвПТОХН‘s НТМЭТШЧКrвκ ―ЭбХКšКЭбХЮšТ n 1 a series of slaps; 2 slopping (of feet in mud); stamping, clopping (of feet, hooves)… ЭбХКšКЧТ n 1 sХКЩЩТЧР ΦКМrШss ЭСО ПКМО)‖ Дθ, Щέ ηβγЖέ TСО ЭrКЧsХКЭТШЧ ―К sОrТОs ШП sХКЩs‖ (for ЭбХКšКЭбХЮšТ) is rather adequate as far as it, alongside with its denotative meaning, refers to the shade of iteration (a similar translation would be appropriate for the word-form ЭбХКšЮЧТ, had it appeared in the dictionary in question). As for ЭбХКšКЧТ, it refers to a momentane act, similarly to other onomatope-based masdars with the suffix -an. Based on the analyses of even the non-comprehensive sample of the onomatope-based word-forms, I was able to establish semantic patterns for pertaining structural options: 276 Lexical, Grammatical and Stylistic Aspects of Translation / Interpretation Table 2. Semantic patterns for C1aC2 onomatope-based word-forms Suffixation (1): C1aC2.an Suffixation (2): C1aC2.un Total Reduplication: C1aC2.C1aC2 Momentane act Iterative act Iterative act Monotonous action Ablaut Reduplication (Interfix -a-): C1aC2.a.C1aC2 Iterative act Nonmonotonous action Ablaut Reduplication (Interfix -i-): C1aC2.i.C1aC2 Iterative act Nonmonotonous action It should be borne in mind that, as already stated, not all potential wordforms may occur in actual usage due to the blockage caused by phonotactic and/or semantic constraints. The presented set of semantic patterns may be applied for appropriate translation of these and similar onomatope-based lexical items. References 1. Ertelishvili, P. Issues of the Phonemic Structure and Historical Aspects of Verbal Stems in Georgian. Tbilisi: Tbilisi State University Press, 1970; 357 pp. [in Georgian]. 2. Grammont, M. OnomatopцОs ОЭ ЦШЭs ОбЩrОssТПsέ Revues des Langues Romanes 44. Montpellier & Paris, 1901: 97-158. 3. ςгНęРК, ρέZ. Reduplizierte Wortbildung im Deutschenέ θШгЧКńκ θШгЧКńsФТО TШаКrгвsЭаШ θrгвУКМТяł Nauk, 1965; 187 pp. 4. Bauer, L. English Word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983; 311 pp. 5έ εОХ‘čЮФ, Iέ ρέ CШЮrs НО ЦШrЩСШХШРТО РцЧцrКХО: (ЭСцШrТqЮО ОЭ НОsМrТЩЭТЯО). VШХ. 1: IЧЭrШНЮМЭТШЧ ОЭ ЩrОЦТчrО ЩКrtie, Le motέ εШЧЭrцКХκ θrОssОs НО Х‘UЧТЯОrsТЭц НО εШЧЭrцКХ, 1ιιγλ δ1β ЩЩέ 6. Wang, S. Corpusbased approaches and discourse analysis in relation to reduplication and repetition. Journal of Pragmatics 37, 2005: 505-540. 7. Jorbenadze, B. Principles of Formal and Functional Analysis of the Georgian Verb. Tbilisi: Tbilisi University Press, 1980; 407 pp. [in Georgian]. 8. Rayfield, D. (Ed.in-Chief). A Comprehensive Georgian-English Dictionary. London: Garnett Press, 2006; 1728 pp. 9. Orbeliani, S.-S. Georgian Dictionary. Tbilisi: State Publishing House of Georgia, 1949; 584 pp. [in Georgian]. 277