Kartvelian

This article discusses the genetic relations between the Sumerian and Kartvelian languages through the Theory of Communication (Information). This is a novel approach to the study of these ancient languages, and taking it reveals a number of features which contradict the substance of the accepted body of Assyriological knowledge. The analysis shows that although Sumerian is known as an isolate it is, in fact, genetically tied to the Kartvelian languages, not only through regular sound correspondences, but by a coded linguistic system. The two languages together mould a language cipher of exceptional unbreakability, which has withstood several millennia. The key to this code lies in Kartvelian, and it may also prove to be the key to various other writing systems, artifacts, and cultural mysteries far beyond the scope of this paper to discuss.

Por Georgeos Díaz-Montexano / Scientific Atlantology International Society (SAIS) / The Epigraphic Society

Desde los inicios del presente siglo, varios de nuestros más destacados expertos en epigrafía y lengua íberas coinciden en que la repetición de un término en las torteras o fusayolas ibéricas, que aparece escrito como keśtaun, kaśtaun o kaśtaum, indica que estaríamos ante un término del léxico relacionado con la actividades textiles, incluso que se trate del término usado por los íberos para denominar a la misma tortera. La lingüística histórica comparada nos proporciona una evidencia que permite sustentar dicha hipótesis a través de un vínculo lingüístico entre las dos Iberias.

Georgian is a language allowing reflexives to be marked by ergative. The subject use of the Georgian reflexive phrase was first documented with causative verbs by Asatiani (1982). The later works such as (Amiridze and Everaert, 2000), (Amiridze, 2003), (Amiridze, 2004) discuss the use with object-experiencer verbs and transitive verbs on non-agentive reading. The present paper offers the first hand data on subject uses of the Georgian reflexive phrase with transitive verbs on their agentive reading in special contexts (such as a twin context, Madame Tussaud context, etc.) which are problematic for the Binding Theory of Chomsky (1981) as well as for the Reflexivity Theory of Reinhart and Reuland (1993). The data could be accounted for within the approach developed in (Reuland, 2001). However, the subject uses of the Georgian reciprocal ertmanetleave the issue of subject anaphors open.

This dissertation investigates Georgian (Kartvelian) reflexivization strategies within the Government and Binding (Chomsky 1981) and Reflexivity framework (Reinhart and Reuland 1993). It argues that Georgian possesses one simplex and one complex nominal reflexivization strategy, based on a grammaticalized body-part noun. This strategy interacts with a verbal reflexivization strategy.

This dissertation discusses a non-anaphoric use of the phrase formally identical with the complex nominal reflexivization strategy in Object Camouflage (Harris 1981). The contrasting behavior of the phrase as an anaphor and as a pronominal is argued to illustrate the grammaticalization process the body-part has undergone.

The present study observes several problems for the Binding and Reflexivity frameworks, such as the subject use of the Georgian complex nominal reflexivization strategy. If 'Himself is killing him' is ungrammatical in English, its Georgian equivalent is grammatical with the "aspect/property of” reading. This study discusses Madame Tussaud's and similar contexts that allow a proxy reading of Georgian anaphors in subject position. This use is a problem also for various other proposals in the generative literature that aim to explain the absence/presence of subject anaphors cross-linguistically.

The dissertation investigates reflexivization strategies of Georgian (Kartvelian), a language with a split between the nominative and active alignment in both case and agreement marking. The work identifies one simplex and one complex nominal reflexivization strategies, both based on a grammaticalized body-part noun. A precise description of the strategies is offered within the Binding (Chomsky 1981) and Reflexivity Theories (Reinhart and Reuland 1993). Georgian additionally has a verbal reflexivization strategy, the prefix 'i-' which interacts in an interesting way with the nominal strategies. Reflexivity Theory makes it possible to study the behavior of the two nominal strategies with respect to the verbal strategy. Apart from describing the anaphoric system of Georgian the work offers a discussion on the apparent violations of principles of either the Binding Theory or the Reflexivity Theory. One of such violations is a non-anaphoric/pronominal use of the phrase formally ...

Georgian is usually described as a highly synthetic language. In this paper, we examine an analytical construction which emerged in the last few decades, possibly under the influence of a similar Russian construction. We examine the structural similarities between the two constructions and focus on their discourse / pragmatic functions. We argue that the Georgian construction is used to make the speaker sound authoritative and official, while the Russian construction serves mostly to de-emphasize the role of the agent in an event. We explore the development of the Georgian construction and possible cultural routes by which it acquired its sociolinguistic load.

Georgian is a language allowing reflexives to be marked by ergative. The subject use of the Georgian reflexive phrase was first documented with causative verbs by Asatiani (1982). The later works such as (Amiridze and Everaert, 2000), (Amiridze, 2003), (Amiridze, 2004) discuss the use with object-experiencer verbs and transitive verbs on non-agentive reading. The present paper offers the first hand data on subject uses of the Georgian reflexive phrase with transitive verbs on their agentive reading in special contexts (such as a twin context, Madame Tussaud context, etc.) which are problematic for the Binding Theory of Chomsky (1981) as well as for the Reflexivity Theory of Reinhart and Reuland (1993). The data could be accounted for within the approach developed in (Reuland, 2001). However, the subject uses of the Georgian reciprocal ertmanet- leave the issue of subject anaphors open.