Somatic Lexemes in the Kartvelian Linguistic Space (original) (raw)
Related papers
Eurasian Linguistic Foundations, Part II of II Parts (Update 02.10.2022)
Special Note: Out of 54 pages of the 560 page "Eurasian Linguistic Foundations" document, I have extracted data that is reaching 40 pages! I thought there might be pattern(s) that would clarify the movement of Indo-Europeans and their interaction with other linguistic groups. While the data all look like chaos, it is surprising how much of an affect the extinct Akkadian language (last spoken ~3,000 years ago!) has had in our European and Asian linguistic foundations. Hittite, a dead language since 1150 B.C., also plays a big part in the formation of our modern European and Asian languages. Akkadian is one of the oldest Semitic languages and Hittite is considered to be the oldest Indo-European language. It is clear that the patterns shown on Akkadain and Hittite will continue to dominate our search. Hoping to see patterns involving Georgian, Basque and Armenian, I broke them into separate linguistic "correspondences." As will be seen in Part I, "Eurasian Linguistic Foundations," Basque is highly influenced by Latin and corresponds with Slavic, English, et. al. Armenian is not as associated with Greek as linguists would have us believe and Georgian corresponds with Eurasian languages more than expected. However: This discussion, Part II of "Eurasian Linguistic Foundations," attempts to make sense out of the data base of linguistic patterns in Part I. Part II is a work in progress and will be updated and is expected to exceed 200 pages. Part I of this document consists of a data base showing correspondences among Indo-European, Akkadian, Basque, Georgian, Finnish-Uralic, Altaic, and Traditional Chinese, languages. We also include extinct languages, such as Etruscan, Lycian, Milyan (Mylian), Luvian, Tocharian and Hittite. The corresponding words in Part I did not emerge as I expected, and there are many anomalies that need to be addressed which will be presented in Part II of this work. The greatest anomaly involves Akkadian, an extinct and the oldest Semetic language. It is named after Akkad, a major center of the Mesopotamian civilization(s). It was spoken from the 3 rd millennium B.C. until its replacement by Old Aramic by the 8 th century B.C. The language was the lingua Franca of much of the Ancient Near East until the Bronze Age Collapse ~1180-1150 B.C., when major capitals were destroyed, such as Troy, and the Hittite capital, Hatussa. By the Hellenic period the Akkadian language was largely confined to scholars and priests working in temples in Assyria and Babylonia. The last known cuneiform text in Akkadian dates from the 1 st century B.C. (See Wikipedia.org). Because of its central position, such as during the Assyrian Empire (2025-1522 B.C.), traders were no doubt coming from afar to exchange goods with the civilizations of the Near East. Some of the curious affiliations that need to be explained include the Basques (who are located in Iberia (Spain) and southwestern France). They were known as the Vascones by Rome. While the Basque language generally corresponds with Latin-based languages, that we color "red" in Part I, there are many peculiar correspondences with Akkadian. Another language, Finnish-Uralic, displays similar anomalous features relating to Akkadian. Any connection that these or other languages may have to Akkadian would have to be well before the 8 th century B.C. I recommend that an informative application of this data base Eurasian Linguistic Foundations-Discussion on anomalous patterns of cultural exchange.
This is a summary of my book "Kartvelian Linguoculturology of the Past". It includes 18 selected articles grouped into 4 classes: (a) Kartvelian and English—Germanic—Indo-European; (b) Kartvelian and Sumerian; (c) Kartvelian and Egyptian; (d) Kartvelian and Basque. The analyses of the material demonstrates that Kartvelian languages etymologize and decipher linguistic and artistic evidence of different civilizations with equal ease. This shows that the Kartvelian languages represent a common linguoculturological substratum for all the tongues spread over a vast European and Near Eastern territory. Based on these and my other works, a new genetic classification of languages is offered.
NICOLAE STANCIU, ETYMOLOGY IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISTION, 2020, IJIRES 1705 FINAL
Extensive research has shown great interest in the origins and evolution of Turkic cultures and languages underlying the importance of history, language and religion in building the ethnicity of different nations in Eastern Europe. However, less attention was paid to semantic convergences, divergences and evolutions of lexical items in the conceptual metaphors and phrases recovered in Romanian culture through Turkish and other south slavic intermediaries. Accidentally encountered in etymological dictionaries and studies, the Turkic elements have not benefited yet from a multidisciplinary research meant to point out the lines of continuity between old Turkic (Pechenges, Cuman and Tatar), those of Ottoman Turkish and their reverberations in Romanian language. In fact, words almost exclusively labelled as Turkish or those with unknown and multiple etymology, preserved in Romanian as relics found in various stylistically registers (academic, archaic, colloquial, popular, regional) as well as in anthroponomy and toponymy, have been recovered in the folklore and literature of the 19th to the 21st centuries. These have been found disguised in metaphorical expressions and symbols considered relevant for the spirituality of this multicultural space. Integrated into an evolution perspective, the concepts and metaphors analysed and interpreted within this article belong to extended cultural areas, and use symbols common to extremely various linguistic groups. Accepting multiple origins and following their semantic evolution in etymological charts designed for interpreting meaning from basic to abstract and semantic deviation found at secondary level or in metaphors, this article constitutes an attempt to design a hermeneutical method based on archaeo-and historical linguistics, etymological confluences and stratigraphy and to use the analysed lexis in the content of classes taught for the students in Kazakhstan. However, the traditional principle of connection between the phonetic body and meaning as unified parts of conceptual-semantic matrix is sustained, combined with the modern one pointing out the role of etymology in underlining the ethnic features of both nations. Keywords -Etymology, Second Language, Multidisciplinary Science.
ТИПОЛОГИЯ В СЕМАНТИКЕ: ИРАНО- СЛАВЯНСКИЕ СЕМАСИОЛОГИЧЕСКИЕ ВСТРЕЧИ
TYPOLOGY IN SEMANTICS: IRANIAN-SLAVIC SEMASIOLOGICAL PARALLELS, 2019
The article deals with a topical problem of general semasiology, namely the investigation of phenomenon of semantical development regularity in the vocabulary of two groups into Indo-European genetic family of languages. The approach with regard to analysis of semantics with taking into account of coverage of several lexical-and-semantic systems enables a researcher to imagine a fuller picture about extension of lingual phenomena and gives the solid ground for synthesis. Especially interesting is observing the vocabulary of languages, whose speakers are bearers of different cultures, including cultures and traditions of communication. Typological analogies in semantics of communication of ethnic groups, which have different cultures, indicate either typology of language thinking or implementation of common patterns, which have been formed in the epoch of the Proto-Indouropean language, either language contacts in different times. Lexicon of Iranian and Slavic languages is used as the object of observing because it hasn’t been widely devised in the aspect of its comparative semasiologi- cal description and highlighting of typologically common peculiarities in correlation of basic and derivative meanings. Preliminary observing entitles the author to highlight the semasiological parallels: 1) role-play situation when a child should be found on the road as a way to trick death, which hunting down all newborns in the family; 2) conferring of symbolic importance to a knot, tying, which can be taken as an agreement, an oath, a vow for consolidating all subjects of legal relationship; 3) very close link of hand with the idea of help (perhaps, also in ritual sense). Other semasiological parallels: human desire to reflect in lexical semantics the objects of environment by the way of comparison these with body parts; traces of an archaic view on relations between family members through blood, saved in semantics; change verba facere → verba dicere; figurative usage of the verbs with etymological meaning ‘sway, rock’ as ‘go’, ‘wolk, stroll’; implementation of semantical potential to denote something useless through caritive prefix and root with meaning ‘case, thing’; change ‘sweep, broom’ → ‘steal’ and ‘sweep, broom’ → ‘chase away’ and other. Key words: semantics, etymology, typology, derivative, verb.
Kartvelian and Lexical Contact in the Ancient Caucasus
Beyond recorded history: Methods and results in prehistoric contact linguistics
This paper will survey what kinds of lexical contact affected the Kartvelian languages in the ancient Caucasus: what kinds of lexical items were borrowed, and when, and what light such patterns shed on phonological and morphological developments within Kartvelian. It also provides evidence for: • a number of new phonemes in that protolanguage, including palatalized *rj, a velarized/labialized series of sibilants, and at least one pharyngeal fricative • the absolute dating of the loss of these earlier segments • 'm-mobile', a kind of rebracketing process affecting nasal stops word-initially By calibrating dates of attestation with known external facts of contact languages, I provide evidence for the absolute dating of important phonological sound-shifts and morphological reanalysis in the Kartvelian languages.
SOMATISMS IN THE OLD TATAR LANGUAGE
SOMATISMS IN THE OLD TATAR LANGUAGE, 2019
The article is devoted to the study of the lexical system of the Old Tatar language and the identification of the style-forming properties of lexical means in the language of fiction. The analysis reveals the patterns of somatism functioning in the structure of poetic texts of this period. The written sources of this period recorded rich Turkic-Tatar lexical material with synonymous series, idiomatic constructions reflecting the most diverse aspects of the social, economic way of life of that time, cattle breeding and agriculture, the animal and plant world, human and animal anatomy, crafts and human activities. In this work, the somatic vocabulary of Old Tatar texts is analyzed. The words denoting the names of human body parts are the most common in the Old Tatar language. In this work, the study of somatisms is performed at the lexical and phraseological levels. The names of human body parts, especially phraseological material with somatisms, are of great interest to modern researchers. The authors of this article cite a number of observations on the nature of phraseological somatisms and their behavior in context. All statements are illustrated by examples from the monuments of the Old Tatar language. Attention is focused on the functioning of phraseological units with components-somatisms in diachrony.
Sorin Paliga, Lexikon proto‑borealicum et alia lexica etymologica minora [2007]
Fundația „Evenimentul”, București, 2007
Cuvânt înainte Volumul de fa!" este al patrulea din seria ini!iat" în 2006 de Editura Funda!iei Evenimentul, cu sprijinul generos al Rosal Grup, f"r" de care nu ar fi putut vedea lumina tiparului în condi!ii grafice deosebite. Astfel, am reu#it s" adun"m, în patru volume succesive, ceea ce a# considera opera lingvistic" major": 1. Lexiconul etimologic al elementelor autohtone (traco!dace) ale limbii române, în contextul în care mo#tenirea arhaic" înc" nu #i!a g"sit locul cuvenit în lucr"rile dedicate istoriei limbii române; 2. $ influen!ele romane #i preromane (trace, ilire) asupra limbilor slave de sud; 3. aproape toate studiile majore de lingvistic" #i de antropologie, publicate-de!a lungul anilor-în diverse reviste de specialitate, din !ar" #i de peste hotare. Acest al patrulea volum cuprinde, în primul rând, lexiconul proto!boreal, elaborat pe baza materialului oferit de lingvistul rus Nikolaj Dmitrievi% Andreev, cu multe adnot"ri #i complet"ri, mai ales referitoare la mo#tenirea traco!dac" a limbii române. Acest lexicon completeaz", în fapt, primul volum al acestei serii. Ipoteza lui Andreev nu este nici nou", nici original": cândva, în preistorie, va fi fost un conglomerat etno!lingvistic, numit conven!ional proto!boreal, din care, ulterior, s!au dezvoltat limbile indo!europene, limbile uralice #i limbile altaice, probabil #i limba coreean". Bojan &op (Slovenia) #i Illi%-Svity% (Rusia, Uniunea Sovietic" pe atunci) luaser" în considera!ie o asemenea ipotez", ca s" nu mai amintesc de ipoteza lui Delitzch, avansat" pe la final de secol XIX, care sugera o înrudire primordial" dintre limbile indo!europene #i limbile semite (ipotez" neconfirmat", deocamdat" cel pu!in). Nimeni îns" nu a reu#it, în opinia noastr", s" adune un material a#a de vast #i a#a de conving"tor cum a f"cut Lexica Etymologica Minora __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 8 N. D. Andreev. Consecin!ele pentru studierea preistoriei europene sunt extraordinare: înrudirea dintre limbile indo!europene face parte dintr!o "înrudire etno!lingvistic"" mult mai ampl" a majorit"!ii limbilor vorbite în spa!iul euro!asiatic. Am prezentat lucrarea, într!o form" abreviat", la Congresul Interna!ional al Slavi#tilor, Ljubljana, august 2003; aceast" form" final" a dedic"m viitorului congres interna!ional al slavi#tilor, ce urmeaz" a fi organizat de Universitatea din Skopje, Macedonia, în septembrie 2008. Al doilea lexicon al volumului de fa!" cuprinde o list" neexhaustiv", dar ampl", a elementelor autohtone ale limbii române care fac dovada existen!ei unei spirante velare (unii lingvi#ti prefer" s" o numeasc" laringal") în limba traco-dac". Odat" acceptat" existen!a acestui fonem specific, consecin!ele pentru studierea mo#tenirii autohtone se pot modifica radical. Al treilea lexicon cuprinde ceea ce noi consider"m a fi cele o sut! de r!d!cini de baz! ale limbii proto!slave. Este, desigur, o selec!ie subiectiv". Am dorit s" subliniem aici caracterul eterogen a ceea ce se nume#te adesea "limba proto!slav"" sau, mai degrab" incorect, "slava comun"". De fapt, nucleul slav arhaic este bazat, cum încearc" s" arate #i acest lexicon, pe elementele de tip sud!baltic, c"rora li s!au ad"ugat elemente vest iranice #i nord trace (a#a numitele idiomuri proto!slave A, B #i C, respectiv, conform categoriz"rii încercate recent de Aleksandar Loma, tot la amintitul congres interna!ional al slavi#tilor de la Ljubljana) precum #i, ulterior, elemente germanice #i vechi române#ti (protoromâne#ti). În fine, lexiconul minimal al divinit!"ilor lituaniene reia lista publicat", acum ceva ani, ca addendum la traducerea lucr"rii lui Algirdas Julien Greimas, Despre zei !i despre oameni. Fiind primul #i, deocamdat", singurul lexicon mitologic lituanian ap"rut în România, apreciem c" poate fi util unei largi categorii de cititori, fie #i "rupt" de corpul traducerii amintite. Sorin Paliga, iunie 2007 Cuvânt înainte / Foreword __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 9 Foreword This volume is the fourth in the series initiated in 2006 by Evenimentul Foundation Publishers, and with the generous support of Rosal Group, without which these books could not be published in such beautiful conditions. The four volumes gather together what I may label the major linguistic and anthropological works: 1. The Etymological Lexicon of the Indigenous (Thracian) Elements in Romanian, issued at a moment when the archaic heritage of Romanian has not yet found its proper place in the history of the Romanian language; 2. Romance and Pre!Romance (Thracian, Illyrian) influences on South Slavic; 3. Almost all the major studies in linguistics and anthropology, issued over years in various scientific journals, in Romania and abroad. This fourth volume includes, first of all, the Proto!Boreal lexicon, based on the works and analysis of the Russian linguist Nikolaj Dmitrievi% Andreev, with many adnotations and additions, especially referring to the Thracian heritage of Romanian. Thus, this volume complements the first of the series. Andreev's hypothesis is not perhaps new or original: some time in prehistory there must have been an ethno!linguistic group, conventionally labelled Proto!Boreal, out of which the Indo!European, Uralic and Altaic languages later emerged, probably Korean as well. Bojan &op (Slovenia) and Illi%!Svity% (Russia, or Soviet Union at that time) considered such a hypothesis, to say nothing of Delitzch's hypothesis, advanced in the 2 nd half of the 19 th century, which assumed a primordial relationship between the Indo!European and Semitic languages (unconfirmed, at least so far). In our opinion nobody else has succeeded in gathering together such a rich and Lexica Etymologica Minora __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 10 convincing material as Andreev did; and the consequences for the study of European prehistory are outstanding: the Indo!European relationship is just a chapter in a vast and older relationhip of most Euro!Asianic languages.
(2) Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences
2013
This paper is devoted to the use of two tools for creating morphologically annotated linguistic corpora: UniParser and the EANC platform. The EANC platform is the database and search framework originally developed for the Eastern Armenian National Corpus (www.eanc.net) and later adopted for other languages. UniParser is an automated morphological analysis tool developed specifically for creating corpora of languages with relatively small numbers of native speakers for which the development of parsers from scratch is not feasible. It has been designed for use with the EANC platform and generates XML output in the EANC format. UniParser and the EANC platform have already been used for the creation of the corpora of several languages: Albanian, Kalmyk, Lezgian, Ossetic, of which the Ossetic corpus is the largest (5 million tokens, 10 million planned for 2013), and are currently being employed in construction of the corpora of Buryat and Modern Greek languages. This paper will describe ...
The given paper discusses the significance of Kartvelian languages (Georgian, Megrelian, Laz, Svan) from the point of view of the intangible cultural heritage. It states, that Kartvelian vocabulary similarly to the general vocabulary depicts the life, historic‐ethnographic reality, material culture and national worldview of a lingual community. I believe, that for the purpose of the illustration of the above mentioned, the vocabulary of Kartvelian languages must be presented synchronically. This process will vividly reveal the above given problematics and a genetic kinship of Kartvelian languages. For the purpose of the achievement of all these goals together with my colleagues I created the dictionary, which united vocabulary of Kartvelian languages and presented its translation in one of the European languages. The dictionary entitled " Georgian‐Megrelian‐Laz‐Svan‐English Dictionary " was created in Tbilisi in 2015. The given article presents the theoretic bases of the systematization of the data of Kartvelian languages. Moreover, it discusses the objectives and tasks of newly‐published " Georgian‐ Megrelian‐Laz‐Svan‐English Dictionary " .