LINGUISTIC WORK Soviet Georgia

Multilingualism Caucasus. Here are the languages ​​of the Indo-European (Russian, Armenian, Ossetian, Talysh), Turkish (Azeri, Kumyk) and the Ibero-Caucasian (Georgian, Zan, or Mingrelian-Chansk, Svan, Abkhazian, Adygei, Kabardian, Bats, Kisti, Avar, Dargin, Lak , Lezgin, Udi, and others.).

The main task of the Georgian linguists, of course, is the study of Ibe-Syrian-Caucasian languages, that first of all necessary for the development of socialist culture of the peoples who speak these languages. In addition, the Ibero-Caucasian languages ​​are of exceptional interest in terms of the cultural-historical (since the question of the relationship between living Iberian-Caucasian languages ​​with ancient languages ​​of the Near East — on this, see. Below) and from the point of view of general linguistic (the origin and development of grammar categories of case, private conjugation, liens, grammatical gender, syntax and so on. d. are a valuable material for the correct formulation and proper lighting in the facts of these languages).

* * *

Planned, systematic work in the field of linguistics began only in Soviet Georgia in Tbilisi University, founded in 1918 on the initiative of prof. I. Javakhishvili, in the Soviet years has become one of the largest public universities of the Soviet Union.

Linguistic Department of Tbilisi State University. Stalin (Department of novogruzipskogo language, the Georgian language, the Caucasian languages ​​of general linguistics and phonetics, the Semitic languages, and others.) And the Institute of Linguistics of the Academy of Sciences of the Georgian SSR direct the upbringing of new linguistic training.

The team of Georgian linguists now employs 5 full members of the Academy of Sciences of the Georgian SSR (out of the total — 40 full members), 9 Doctors of Philology and 42 candidates (including the university and the Institute of Linguistics are 9 doctors and 29 candidates of philological sciences).

Centre of research on language is the Institute of Linguistics of the Academy of Sciences of Georgia. SSR, which originated in the bowels of the Institute of Language, History and Material Culture, organized in 1936 at the initiative of Beria (and headed by acad. SN Janashia until 1941, when the Institute was divided into Institute of Languages. H . Marr — now the Institute of linguistics — and the Institute of History of. I. Javakhishvili).

Institute of Linguistics work of six departments: 1) Kartvelian languages ​​(zav.- prof. Topuria VT), 2) the mountain Caucasian languages ​​(zav.- prof. A. Chico Bava), 3) Middle Eastern languages ​​( zav.- prof. G. Tsereteli), 4) general linguistics and phonetics (zav.- prof. Lomtatidze KV), 5) Lexicology (zav.- candidate. filol. Sciences SB Menteshashvili) 6) scientific terminology (Head. — prof. VM Baie ridze).

Work in the field of linguistics, as mentioned above, is determined by three major objectives intrinsically linked to one another;

1) the development of the core issues of the Soviet general linguistics;

2) the development of the key problems of the history of Ibero-Caucasian languages ​​in the light of the objectives put forward by the scientific substantiation of the Georgian and related places him among the languages ​​spoken Hittite-Iberian circle;

3) maintenance of cultural development practices in the field of language.

* * *

General Linguistics. Without a clear conscious correct settings can not be fruitful theoretical research practice. Without historicism is not the science of language — this provision was in the original work of the Institute from the beginning of its activities. The study of the history of languages, different in origin and grammatical system, established that the fundamental values ​​are the words of one root may change drastically (eg, Svan doshdul — «moon» and the Georgian TBE — «month» — the same root, although their present form no overall sound); and, on the contrary, the words have nothing to do with each other in origin, as a result of phonetic changes may acquire -odinakovuyu sound form. Not knowing the history of linguistic fact can not properly judge it. It is clear, therefore, that all the advances in the study of languages ​​related to the proper application of the principle of historicism; neglect of this principle (or limited possibility of its application in the circumstances of the objective of the order) will inevitably lead to failure. Cognitive force historicism tested in two ways: positive — a historical approach to the facts of language made possible the birth of linguistics; negative — a departure from the historical method undermines the very foundations of the science of language, driving patterns and imposing tyranny (in the dismemberment of words and interpretation dismembered).

This approach to language does not remove the question of the need for a descriptive, static, analysis of the system language. This analysis serves as a starting point for the history of the language, is absolutely necessary; hence the importance of the history of reference PA can not be brushed aside by static analysis of complex issues. Static analysis — a necessary, but not sufficient time to study the language of fact.

The study of the history of language has led to the establishment of kinship language of origin, the creation of a genealogical classification of languages ​​and to the development of -sravnitelno historical method by which establishes the common origin of languages. Kinship languages ​​of origin, genealogical classification of languages ​​and comparative-historical method is intrinsically linked with the historical point of view on language. You can not protect historicism, abandoning kinship language of origin and the comparative historical method. Soviet -lingvistika must uphold the principle of historicism in his dialectical-materialist interpretation-sky. Such were the installation of the Institute.

It is clear that such attitudes inevitably follows a negative attitude to the paleontological elemental analysis Acad. Marr and the provisions of the so-called «new doctrine» of language Marr, mined by means of elemental analysis (what stadial classification of languages, glottogonic a single process with a single, ie,. Common to all languages ​​of the world, raw material — the four elements). The element of paleontology Marr there emphatic rejection of historicism in the name of prehistory, paleontology speech, interpreted nenstori-cally, unscientific study.

Even in 1930, the position was formulated: while «povoe teaching» the language I. Marr wielding elemental analysis, neither of which Marxism theory of Marr’s speech can not be. No linguistics — all the more Marxist linguistics — is incompatible with the element paleontology Marr (AS Chikobava).

The negative attitude towards non-scientific element of paleontology «new doctrine» • on the language «disciples» and followers of Marr attempted to qualify as a struggle against the Marxist foundations of the «new doctrine» Marr. In fact, it is the «build nteresy Soviet, materialist linguistics demanded negation, not recognizing the element of paleontology Marr, which could only discredit the Soviet science of language. On the contrary, the interests of Soviet linguistics does not require denial and assertion of the principle of historicism, understood dialectical materialism. Soviet linguistics should be based on the principles of dialectical materialism, on the provisions of the classics of Marxism-Leninism on the language.

So I understand the problem of Soviet linguistics. This determines the critical attitude to the theory of Marr and the various currents of foreign idealistic linguistics. This also determines the direction of research by Dr. bots Iberian-Caucasian languages ​​and attempts to address key issues of the Soviet General Linguistics.

These principles form the basis of the work of AS Chikobava «General Linguistics». Propaedeutic The first part was published in 1935 (third edition — 1946); The second part («basic problem») appeared in 1945

The first part of «General Linguistics» is from the «Introduction» and twelve chapters; in Chapter I (p. 7-52) defines the language set out questions of the origin of language and the principles of its development; chapter II-VIII (pp. 52-176) dedicated departments of linguistics; Chapters IX and X (pp. 176-234) described the morphological and genealogical classification of languages; the last two chapters (pp. 234-240) devoted to the definition of the place of linguistics in the sciences, as well as clarification of values ​​applied linguistics.

The report Chikobava A. «The problem of language as a subject in the light of linguistics, the main tasks of Soviet linguistics» (Read in May 1940 at the Department of Literature and Language Sciences of the USSR) A critical analysis of the main directions of foreign idealist linguistics, on the one hand, and the «new doctrine» of language Acad. Marr — on the other.

In paragraphs 6 and 7 abstracts reads: «Paleontological elemental analysis Japhetic theory, put forward as the antithesis of comparative historical analysis of the language is the backbone of the new teaching of the language defining» a basic installation Japhetic theory. In particular, the denial of the genealogical classification and contrasting it stadial classification immediately from opposition paleontological method of comparative historical … Paleontological analysis, based on the unproved and unprovable doctrine of the four linguistic elements antiistorichen; it leads to impersonal language; he is helpless in the study of living languages ​​and to maintain the cultural construction of the urgent needs of the socialist countries. Japhetic theory, a four-element analysis of paleontological not only a Marxist-Leninist teaching of the language, but also can not be named as she wielded paleontological method, from four-element analysis is not the way to the Marxist-Leninist theory. «

Such an assessment of the «new doctrine» of language Marr shared by a number of leading employees IYAIMK and was subsequently installing the Institute of Language. Printing it found expression in particular in the «summary of the IYAIMK 1936-1944 gg.» Acad. SN Janashia (Math. IYAIMK, t. XIV, p. 384). Definitely negative characteristic stadial Marr’s theory given Acad. SN Janashia and «History of Georgia» (Russian. Translation, 1946, p. 17).

In the second part of «General Linguistics», entitled «Key issues» — (1945), deals with the problems of the subject and specific methods of linguistics. In the critical part (pp. 11-157), the analysis of naturalism (Schleicher, M. Muller), individualistic psychology (G. Paul, neogrammarians) psihologisticheskogo-sociology (de Saussure, Meillet), structuralism (Brendal, Hjelmslev), aesthetics ( Vossler) and mechanistic materialism (Marr.). On the positive side (pp. 138-198) is given an attempt to justify the substantive provisions of the essence of language-based research practices historical linguistics. The chapter on special methods of linguistics (pp. 199-356), given a detailed analysis of the elemental analysis of paleontological Marr (pp. 231-273).

This second part of the «General Linguistics» subjected to violent attacks «disciples» and followers of Marr.

Of the specific problems of general linguistics in the reporting period subject to a systematic analysis is the problem of classification of languages. Genealogical classification of languages ​​was devoted to the master’s thesis Sharadzenidze- TS (1942). She also developed monographically: morphological classification of languages, classification Schmidt Sapir classification, classification of stages Acad. Marr and Acad. I. Meshchaninova. The results of this work are summarized in the monograph, Assoc. TS Sharadzenidze «Classification of languages ​​and their principles.»

Methodological issues descriptive (static) analysis of the language system considered in the introduction (p. 1-134) A. Chikobava monograph «The problem is a simple sentence in the Georgian language» (1948), as well as in the article by the same author «The main questions of the structure of grammar «(View the Georgian branch of the USSR, 1940, number 2).

Much attention was paid to phonetics, both general and Ibero-SKO-Caucasian languages. Cabinet experimental phonetics, organized by the University prof. G. Akhvlediani and directed by him, served as the basis of scientific-methodological and scientific-research work. Relevant work is summarized in university courses phonetics professor. G. Akhvlediani, the first edition of which («Questions of Georgian and general phonetics») was published in 1938, and the second, enlarged and partially processed, produced University in 1949 under the title «Fundamentals of general phonetics.» The first part of this work (p. 1-258) consists of the «Introduction» and ten chapters, namely: 1. The natural-scientific fundamentals of general phonetics; 2. Classification of sounds; 3. The sound combination; 4. The number and duration of the sounds; 5. Stress; 6. syllable; 7. The audio part of the Georgian language in comparison to Russian; 8. The speech sound and letter; 9. Phonetic change the language; 10. The pattern zvukoizmeneny and «phonetic law».

The second part (pp. 259-420) consists of articles on various issues of phonetics («Some questions of phonology,» «Some questions alternation of sounds in the Georgian language,» «Two of the harmonic of stops in the Georgian language,» «The Sixth Georgian trio of stops,» etc. . d.). Most of these articles have been published before. On this second part the author writes in the preface: «The second part -» Some problems of general phonetics «- contains a discussion of a number of mostly obschefoneticheskih issues; most of them supplied by the author for the first time in our science and reviewed them on the material, mainly Georgian-Kartvelian and Mountain Language; Some of them, when interpreted in the phonetic literature before, considered by the author mostly all on the same material, and for the most part in a new light (Article III, IV, VII, VIII, X, XII, XIII, XVI, II, IX, XIV, XV). In the remaining four articles (I, V, VI, XI) the second part of «Fundamentals» the author does not claim any originality staging or lighting of the subjects.

The results of experimental studies of one of the Kartvelian languages ​​are summarized in the doctoral thesis prof. SM Zhgenti «Main issues of phonetics Svan language» (1949). On this, see. Below in the section «Kartvelian languages.»

Fighting «disciples» and followers of Marr who sought a monopoly position for the element of paleontology and to defame all those who disagree with the «new doctrine» of language Marr as idealistic, reactionary, bourgeois, especially aggravated over recent years and it has led to the fact that with determination the question arose about the development of Soviet linguistics. On this question in a discussion paper by S. Chikobava «On some issues of Soviet linguistics,» published in the newspaper «Pravda» May 9, 1950

However, the Institute could not understand the full depth of the depravity of the so-called «new doctrine» of NY Marr, anti-Marxist character of which became clear to all is only after the publication of the works of genius Stalin on linguistics.

Underlying the work of JV Stalin «On Marxism in Linguistics», «Some questions of linguistics», «Reply to Comrades», published in 1950 in connection with the debate, opened simplistic, vulgar materialistic so-called «new doctrine» of language Marr gave a deep scientific substantiation node, fundamental questions of general linguistics and thus laid the foundations of the Soviet Marxist science of language for a strong recovery of linguistic thought.

* * *

The study of Kartvelian and other Ibero-CAV-kazskih languages ​​aims to: a) give, first of all, the analysis of the grammatical structure and vocabulary of the Georgian language, Zan (Mingrelian-Chansk) language and Svan language with their language and dialects; b) to develop a comparative grammar and comparative dictionary of the Kartvelian languages ​​in order to identify the initial korneslova and restoration of ancient grammatical structure of the prospect of a scientific formulation and solution of the problem of genetic relationship between Kartvelian languages ​​with ancient languages ​​of Asia Minor (Hittite, hurriyskim, Urartu, Elamite, and others.) and Mediterranean (Basque — on the Iberian Peninsula, the ancient Etruscan language — in Italy).

The ancient languages ​​of Asia Minor, as well as live Iberian-Caucasian languages ​​(Kartvelian and Ibero-Caucasian languages) can not be assigned to the Indo-European nor Semitic nor to the Turkic-Tatar language. They make up an independent group of ancient languages ​​- pre-Indo, dosemiticheskogo — population of the Caucasus, the Near East and the Mediterranean. This opinion was supported by a number of major linguists and historians, it is suggested as a cultural and historical context, and grammatical structure of these languages. But the facts of ancient languages, now submitted only written monuments (inscriptions), it is difficult to interpret, it is difficult to establish exactly how sounded fixed in the monuments of ancient texts; besides, they are relatively small. On the other hand, live Iberian-Caucasian languages, past various historical path of development and have undergone many changes, little studied. In these circumstances, many attempts to compare the individual facts of ancient languages ​​»close» in appearance, sound, appearance of the facts of a particular Ibero-Caucasian language usually look unconvincing. Even a connoisseur of Ibero-Caucasian languages ​​like Acad. Marr, found it possible to link the indicator plural — re suzskih (Elamite) inscriptions Chansk plural suffix. h. D (ohochere «home») — see. Marr, language grammar Chansk 1910, p. XI. But Chansk plural indicator — the phonetic version of the Georgian suffix Eb (EB), and therefore with suzskim need to compare this original version (Eb), and not the subsequent out of it resulting phonetic variety [not to mention the fact that Chansk the language suffix plural. h. names is ep (ep), not pe (PE): the final e in the p-e) — Chansk flexion nominative].

Therefore, you must first give the scientific history of Kartvelian and other Ibero-Caucasian languages, give evidence of their grammatical structure and vocabulary to the «common historical denominator» and so prepare the possibility of law-comparison of the facts of the Ibero-Caucasian languages ​​with the facts of the ancient languages ​​of the Near East and the ancient Mediterranean.

In this regard, the history of Kartvelian languages ​​is of utmost importance, because one of the Kartvelian languages, Georgian, is documented in a V. and therefore, it is possible to trace its history documented for fifteen centuries (Basque fixed in written records only from the XVI century .; lexical entries of Ibero-Caucasian languages ​​are from the second half of the XVIII century.). The history of the Georgian language acts as a reliable support in the development of the history of the Iberian-Caucasian languages; On the other hand, the testimony of a newly created written and unwritten Iberian-Caucasian languages ​​are of exceptional value because they preserved certain archaic phenomenon, once typical for the Kartvelian languages.

Therefore it is impossible, on the one hand, develop a scientific history of Ibero-Caucasian languages ​​without the testimony of the Georgian and others Kartvelian; On the other hand, it is impossible to restore the ancient stages of the history of Kartvelian languages ​​without involving materials related mountain Caucasian languages.

In terms of the results obtained during the study of the Georgian language, revealing the following works:

«Georgian grammar. I. Morphology «(1930), prof. AG Shanidze, and the second, revised, significantly expanded edition of the same work — «Foundations of Georgian Grammar», vol. I, II, ed. 1942-1943 biennium. (p. 1-272; p. 371 273-). The paper summarizes the author’s research on individual morphological categories (subjective and objective persons versions, liens, etc.. D.), Which were conducted by Prof.. Shanidze AG in the course of twenty years. Is illustrated by well-chosen examples. Short grammar of the Georgian language (ed. 1930) covers the phonetics and morphology; new version (ed. 1942-1943.) has not yet been completed (it presents the bulk of phonetics and morphology), but also in the form of «Bases of the Georgian Grammar» represent the most detailed morphology of a university course of modern Georgian literary language.

In 1931-1932 gg. VT Topuria and AG Shanidze was compiled a brief tutorial of the Georgian language for students of the Pedagogical Institute in absentia. The textbook was presented a somewhat schematic, of an easily surveyed form morphology of contemporary literary Georgian language.

A number of articles A. Chikobava (under the title «Peculiarities of the grammatical structure of the Georgian language», 1929-1930.) The characteristic features of declension, conjugation of verbs and the syntactic relation of words, due to the presence of the subject-object-verb conjugations in Georgia.

General linguistic characteristics of the Georgian language is given in the introductory article A. Chikobava to the first volume Explanatory Dictionary of Georgian language (1950, pp. 18-80).

In terms of learning the phonetics of the Georgian language should be noted: the establishment of «reduction vowel» (truncation vowel outcome contraction bases) and the conditions of its manifestation (prof. AG Shanidze. For etymology celieadi- «year,» Hedgehog-is usable. Cargo . ling. of the Society, I / II, 1925), the establishment of troechnyh’i paired consonants, ejective consonant identification and determination of the characteristics of their articulation, justification of laws consonant detsessivnogo series (prof. G. Akhvlediani, Fundamentals of general phonetics) .

Study of the grammatical structure of the Georgian language and issues of historical grammar of the Georgian language is devoted to a series of monographs.

«Subjective prefix second person and third-person object prefix» (Doctor. Dissertation AG Shanidze, 1920) by a detailed analysis of diverse data sets old Georgian monuments formulas use the prefix X, h-, s- in conjugation of the Georgian verb. The assumption of vestigial nature of the prefix x (x-Ar — «Thou art»), expressed by the author, was confirmed in hanmetnyh texts discovered in 1923 by Professor. I. Javakhishvili in ancient Georgian palimpsests.

In «The problem is a simple sentence in the Georgian language. I. On the question of the subject and in the Old Georgian «AS Chikobava (1928) aims to provide a systematic analysis of the characteristics of syntactic context of words in sentences with dvuhlichnym transitive verb (ergative construction) and dvuhlichnym intransitive verb. The paper found that polipersonalny verb (subject-object conjugation) in the morphology of the Georgian language with inner necessity generates syntax complex syntactical relationship of the verb with subject and object — mutual control («Coordination»), the principal difference between subject and object as a syntactic concepts removed.

In the AS through comparative historical analysis of the foundations of Georgian and other Kartvelian languages ​​installed: 1) «historical undifferentiated noun and verb in Kartvelian languages, in the process of differentiation is the original value of» name «(p. 280); 2) the simple composition base was now called derivatives. They include suffixes found determinative in its entirety and in a truncated and prefixes indicate whether the subject is a human category or categories of things; 3) The indices marked grammatical classes of man and things in the Kartvelian languages. Now grammatical classes («birth») in the morphology of the Kartvelian languages ​​are not different, just as they can not be traced in the ancient languages ​​of the Near East, but remained in the majority of the mountain Caucasian languages. Identify the foundations of an ancient structure of registered important both in terms of the historical relationship between Kartvelian languages ​​with ancient languages ​​of the Near East, and from the point of view of the genesis of the ergative construction.

The presence of fossilized performance category items excavated at the base of the Georgian verb t-kwa- — «he said,», d-gas — «is» (prof. T. V. Topuria); prefix t lt; — d is denoted by the grammatical class of the object in the nominative case, the fact of exceptional importance from the point of view of the genesis of the Georgian verb conjugations («Verbs with the prefix t lt; — d in the Georgian language, «Akad. gov’t. Univ. them. Stalin, XXV, 1942).

In the AS Chikobava «The problem ergative construction in the Ibero-Caucasian languages. I. Historical relationship nominative and ergative constructions according to the Georgian literary language «(1948) revealed the presence of only one ergative construction in the conjugation of verbs in Georgian transitional periods when conjugation foundations expressed aspects (long and instantaneous), and not the time. Nominative construction with the transitive verb — a secondary phenomenon, in the grammatical structure of the Georgian language as it is presented in the intransitive verb, existing in parallel with the ergative construction. Nominative and ergative construction historically go back to an indefinite structure.

A valuable contribution to the study of the grammatical system of the Georgian language is their dissertations I. Kavtaradze, AI Kizir, A. Marti Rosov, SE Chkhenkeli, KS Dzotsenidze, IV Imnayshvili, A . P. Dzhishiashvili, TV and other Goniashvili.

The subject of the PhD thesis IM Gigineishvili education is derived bases in Vephis-Tkaosani. Phonetic, morphological and syntactic features of Georgian monuments of XVI-XVIII centuries. monographically studied I. Kavtaradze AG Martirosov, AI Kizir, IM Gigineishvili and others.

Valuable for historical grammar of the Georgian language contains observations to yourself become a pro. Shanidze AG: «Personal record in nouns in the Kartvelian languages» (1936, Proceedings of the Univ.) prof. VT Topuria «Pe- prefixes, ni-, na- (Trudy Univ., VII, 1938),» -ed affixes, -ur, -r (Math. IYAIMK, V / VI. 1940), «On ancient verb suffixes in Georgia «(reported. Georgian Academy of Sciences. SSR, t. III, № 5, 1942); «On the reduction of vowels in the Kartvelian languages» (Iberia. Kavko. Yazykozn. I); prof. KS Kekelidze «Oh syntactic functions of postpositions zeda, tana, cinase in Old language (reported. Georgian Academy of Sciences. USSR 1942, number 2, 3); AG Martirosova «postposition in the Georgian language» (Iber.-Kavko. Yazykozn., I, 1946); prof. KD Dondua: «On the relation of the relative pronoun to the designated word in the Old Georgian» (Math. IYAIMK, V / VI, 1949), and others.

Study of dialects and sub-dialects of the Georgian language has been given a lot of attention — first Georgian linguistic society (1923-1928), hereinafter — the University and the Institute of Linguistics. Studied dialects: Kartli, Kakheti, Ingiloi, fereydansky, Tushino, mtiulsky, pshavsky, Khevsurian, mohevsky, dzhazahsky, Imereti, Guria, Ajaria, Raczynski, and others. The results of research of dialects were published in the form of articles, and in some SLE teas were a master’s theses (Hours: VN Panchvidze — dialect of Imereti, SM Zhgenti — of Guria, KA Gugushvili — about mohev-sky, PR Khubutia — about Tushino, RB Gambashidze and G. M. Imnayshvili — about Ingiloian, OI Kakhadze — vocabulary of cereal plants according Kartli, Kakheti and Racha adverbs, and so on. d.).

In dialects collected and partially published a considerable amount of text.

Developed and published dialectological dictionaries: Dictionary kiziksky — SB Menteshashvili, Gurian — Sharashidze GD, top-imeretinskiy- V. Tsereteli, MP Alavidze lechhumskiy-. Started a systematic study of basic vocabulary areas Kartli to Kakheti (MV Meskhishvili, TN Berozashvili, Lashauri M. et al.).

Of particular note is the publication of monuments of Georgian alphabet, carried out under the editorship of prof. KS Kekelidze, prof. AG Shanidze, prof. I. Abuladze, Art. Scien. et al. ML Kakhadze, prof. SG Kauhchipshili, Acad. SN Janashia and others. The most valuable documents of the history of the Georgian language and represent hanmetnye- haemetnye text, open profiles. IA-Javakheti shvili and prof. AG Shanidze in 1923 and Hanmetnye haemetnye texts published in part I. Javakhishvili, partially — AG Shanidze.

A number of articles I. Javakhishvili, A. Shanidze, KS Kekelidze and others attempt to interpret given hanmetnye haemetnye and texts from the standpoint of the historical development of the Georgian language.

Acad. I. Javakhishvili was the beginning of the development of a documented historical dictionary of the Georgian language. Collect more material to be processed further. Assoc. IV Imnayshvili compiled a valuable reference book «Symphony to the Georgian chetveroglavu Dictionary» (edited by G. A. Shanidze, 1949).

Since 1945, the work unfolded but the compilation «Explanatory Dictionary of the Georgian language.» The work of the special commission headed by the Presidium of the Georgian Academy of Sciences. SSR (chairman of the commission — prof. A. Chikobava). The dictionary is designed for eight volumes, it will include about 125 thousand words (ie. E. All of the basic vocabulary of modern literary Georgian language) and display the intensive development of the vocabulary of the Georgian language during the Soviet period, based on the powerful rise of socialist economy and culture of Georgia. The dictionary rightful place given to the lexical richness of the Georgian verb. Dictionary documented expressions of works of the classics of Georgian literature of XIX century. (Ilya Chavchakadze, Akaki Tsereteli), from the works of famous teacher Gogebashvili, as well as of the best examples of Soviet prose and poetry from the works of the classics of Marxism, a special scientific literature, and so on. D.). Already over the interpretation of the basic vocabulary — 118 thousand words. In March 1950, the first volume. dictionary (the letter A B 44 Pec. l .; chief editor and editor of the first volume — prof. A. Chikobava). In March 1951 came the second volume of the dictionary (the letter F, 50 Pec. N., Editor of Volume — prof. G. Tsereteli). Ends printing the third volume (editor — prof. Topuria VT), prepared for printing volumes of the fourth and fifth. Preparation for publication of the dictionary manages major revision of: G. Akhvlediani, SM Vachnadze, IG Grisha-schvili, Kupradze, GN Leonidze, TN Lomouri, S. B. Menteshashvili, VT Topuria, G. Tsereteli, A. Chikobava. Preparing the dictionary for publication, since 1950, carried out by the Institute of Linguistics.

Significant progress has been made in the study of Svan language, its four dialects, the data of which are of great interest from the standpoint of the history of the Georgian language. Correct understanding of complex facts morphology Svan language has been made possible thanks to the valuable research of prof. AG Shanidze «umlauts in Svan» (1925, Coll. «Ariely»). In 1931 he published a monograph large VT Topuria «Svan language, I. The verb», which gives a deep and detailed analysis of the complex system of verb conjugation Svan. It covers all categories of the verb (person, number, tense, mood, voice), verbal names (Masdar, participle) — according to the norms of the four dialects of Svan language, the basic phenomena Svan conjugations compared with the relevant facts of the Georgian language. «Svan verb» VT Topuria is required reading for all professionals interested in the history of Kartvelian languages. Specific issues of phonetics and morphology of Svan language relating to Article VT Topuria «Once again an umlaut in Svan language» (Math. Univ., VII, 1927), «On the alternation of r and n in the Svan verb» (Trudy Univ., XVIII 1941); prof. KD Dondua «On the question of a special plural form Svan in terms of kinship» (in «Materials on the history of Georgia and the Caucasus», VII, 1937); Assoc. TS Sharadzenidze «negative particles in Svan» and so on. D.

The results of an experimental study of the sound system Svan language are presented in the monograph of prof. SM Zhgenti «Main issues of phonetics Svan language» (1949, Doctor. Thesis). The paper analyzes the Svan vowel (p. 7-39), Svan consonant (p. 129-157); considered as phonetic processes Svan language (pp. 151-194).

In 1939 he published two volumes of Svan texts: «Svan poetry» edited by G. A. Shanidze, VT Topuria and MK Gudzhezhiani (with Georgian translation); «Svan prose texts», without translation, edited by G. A. Shanidze and VT Topuria. In prose texts presented material verhnebalskogo adverbs. According to the accuracy of recording texts meet the stringent requirements of linguistics and of great value.

From Zan dialects special attention was paid to the Chansk (Laz), studied less and less accessible to the study, as Lazistan after the First World War was almost entirely within Turkey.

Chansk published texts in all states: hopskie texts (A. Chikobava 1929) vitsskie, arkabskis Ata and texts (as a supplement to the «grammatical analysis Chansk dialect» AS Chikobava, 1936), «Chansk texts arkabsky voices «(SM Zhgenti, 1939). All the texts are recorded among manholes, living or residing in Georgia. In 1939 it was published «Chansk texts,» written by the late Professor. IA Kipshidze in 1917 Lazistan (preface and introductory article editor A. Chikobava). They provide data on all Chansk speak and are these controls when assessing Chansk texts written in Georgia (by the way, after checking was quite reliable for characterizing speech vats of the central districts Lazistan).

In 1936 appeared «Grammatical analysis Chansk (Laz) dialect» AS Chikobava where considered phonetics, morphology and basic syntactic phenomena Chansk dialect in comparison with similar data Mingrelian and Georgian, and given the place an attempt to clarify the historical fact of the analyte; work is the comparative-historical character. The actual part is figuring out the new system in the so-called conjugation of the third group of the time (she stayed out of sight in the «Grammar Chansk language» NY Marrd due to the failure to involve the analysis of the material). The deviation from the norms of the Kartvelian languages ​​in the construction of sentences with transitive verb — the presence of the ergative construction in the present tense — which gives rise to misunderstandings, explains how the phenomenon of secondary order — education, by analogy (pp. 221-222).

The logical continuation of the «grammatical analysis Chansk dialect» is «Chansk-Mingrelian-Georgian dictionary» A. Chikobava (1938), which is provided with a Russian translation of words interpreted. The findings should be noted position.

«Chansk and Mingrelian are in relation to each other dialects of the same language; This fact speaks much more clearly against the background of the analysis of vocabulary than … against the background of the analysis of phonetic, morphological and syntactic phenomena … Zan language stood apart as a result of differentiation of the Georgian language (more precisely, the language of which is a direct continuation of the Georgian language) in during the differentiation formed Chansk Zan language and dialects Zan Mingrelian language. The deeper we penetrate into the past of these languages, the closer the connection between Zan and Georgian languages, the closer are Chansk in Mingrelian each other «(p. 445-446).

Specific questions relating to the morphology of the language of Article Zan VT Topuria «suffix enz in Mingrelian» (Math. IYAIMK, I, 1937), «the genesis of some of the cases in Mingrelian» (Math. IYAIMK, I, 1937), «the genesis Some cases in Chansk Mingrelian-language «(ibid). A separate book came out «texts Megrelian» [M. AN Hu-bois (1937)].

* * *

The study related to Kartvelian mountain Caucasian languages ​​was conducted in terms of solving the main problem — the development of the scientific history of Ibero-Caucasian languages. Until 1933 studied only the Abkhaz language (DI Gulia, SN Jha-nashia), now work is being done in all major languages ​​and a number of minority languages, namely: Abkhazian (prof. Lomtatidze KV, X pp. Bgazhba VV Shinkuba, Charles B. Gian-Shia), Adyghe and Kabardian (Assoc. Rogava GV), Kist (Art. Scien. et al. Imnayshvili DS), Bats ( Assoc. RR Gagua), Avar (AS Chikobava, II Tsertsvadze) Lak (prof. T. V. Topuria) Dargin with Kubachi (Art. Scien. et al. Sh Gaprindashvili AO Magometov), ​​Lezgin (Assoc. VN Punch-Widzew), Udi (Assoc. VN Panchvidze, Assoc. EF Dzheyranishvili) Tsakhur (Assoc. EF Dzheyranishvili) , buduhskomu (Assoc. Panchvidze VN), or Kapuscinski hvanskomu (cand. filol. Sciences EA Lomtadze), Dido (Art. Scien. et al. Imnayshvili DS), Andi (Assoc. J. P . Tsertsvadze), Botlikh and tindiyskomu (cand. filol. Sciences TE Gudava) Akhvakh and Karata (cand. filol. Sciences 3. M. Magometbekova).

Wrote two doctoral and 10 master’s theses in these languages. Thesis: «Education in the Abkhaz times the verb» KV Lomtatidze (Math. IYAIMK, vol. I, 1937), «Polipersonalizm verbs lower-Circassian language» GV Rogava (Math. IYAIMK, XII, 1942) «Phonetic features tsudaharskogo dialect Dargin language» Sh Gaprindashvili (Math. IYAIMK, XII, 1942), «Antsuh-sky dialect of Avar» I. Tsertsvadze (Ibero-Caucasian yazykozn., II, 1948) «Adverbial the particles in the Abkhaz verb »(X. S. Bgazhba) and others.

Doctoral thesis prof. Lomtatidze KV «Tapantsky dialect of Abkhaz language» (1944, p. 236 + 144) indicative of the scientific level that can be achieved in the study of the most complicated in their phonetic and morphological system of the language of the circle. Doctoral dissertation Assoc. VP Panchvidze «Grammatical analysis Udi language» sums up the work that had been performed by the author in the process of studying the Udi language.

Important from the standpoint of the history of the Iberian-Caucasian languages ​​is a fact revealing Assoc. GV Rogava fossilized prefixes category of grammatical classes in Circassian language, now knows no such grammatical category.

Works KV Lomtatidze «replication functions in the Abkhaz language» (Math. IYAIMK, V / VI, 1940), «Category individuality and forming it affixes in the Abkhaz language» (Math. IYAIMK, ie. X), «in the category of transition Abkhazian language «(Math. IYAIMK, t. XII),« Relative pronouns verb forms Abkhaz language «(reported. Georgian Academy of Sciences. SSR, t. III),« On a phonetic patterns in Abkhaz dialects «can be recognized as exemplary research on the basis of a thorough knowledge and deep understanding of the facts of living speech.

Research in the grammatical structure of the Iberian-Caucasian languages ​​- declension and conjugation glagolov- combined problem ergative construction. From the published papers on specific issues are directly related to this issue: «On the problem of the ergative construction in Caucasian languages: stable and labile options Dinah design» A. Chikobava (Math IYAIMK, XII), «the question of polipersonalizme in the Avar language in connection with the problem Sing ergative construction «AS Chikobava (ibid, X),« History of ergative in the Avar language «A. Chikobava (Math. Dagest. Base of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1948),» Abkhaz subjectless form transitive verb «K. B. Lomtatidze (Ibero-Caucasian yazykozn., II), «the genesis accusative in Udi language» VI Panchvidze (Math. IYAIMK, V / VI), «The ergative and instrumentalis in Bats Language» RR Gagua ( Ibero-Caucasian yazykozn., PA).

It was found that the ergative construction is neither passive nor active (it is indifferent): transitive verb ergative construction in the pledge against historically not been differentiated. Ergative case is not an oblique case.

The problem of the history of grammatical classes discussed in a series of articles, «The grammar classes and their exponents in Lak language» (VT Topuria, Math. IYAIMK, XII), «Dative with cool performance in Antsukh dialect of Avar» (I. Tsertsvadze), «On the history of grammatical classes in the Avar language» (A. Chikobava, Math. IYAIMK, t. I), and so on. d.

It was found that the second grammar class — the phenomenon of the new formation; corresponding formant is a phonetic variant of the grammatical exhibitor fourth grade class of things.

Sound composition and sound processes of mountain Caucasian languages ​​are analyzed in several papers GS Akhvlediani, G. Rogava, KV Lomtatidze, II Tsertsvadze, Sh Gaprindashvili, etc .; performed several works about lexical relations Ibero-Caucasian and Kartvelian languages ​​(A. Chikobava SN Janashia, GV Rogava, EF Dzheyranishvili et al.).

Of particular note dictionaries «Bats-Georgian-Russian Dictionary» ND Kadagidze, richly illustrated expressions of live speech.

In the aspect of the ancient history of the Iberian-Caucasian languages ​​is certainly interesting is necessary to recognize the opening of the Albanian alphabet in 1938 prof. I. Abuladze (see. IV Abuladze «the opening of the alphabet of the Caucasian Albanians», Math. IYAIMK, IV, 1939 and AG Shanidze ‘newfound alphabet Caucasian Albanians and its significance for science’, ibid) . Judging by the composition of the Albanian alphabet, sound system of the ancient Albanian language (in the Caucasus) is strongly reminiscent of the sound system of some of the modern Dagestan languages.

In 1937 he published a fundamental research Acad. I. Javakhishvili «original nature, and close relatives of Georgian language with the Caucasus», conceived by the author as one of the «Introduction to the history of the Georgian people.» Based on the cash data of literature, both new and old (unfortunately, not always the desired accuracy), the author gives the etymology of the scientific bases of a number registered in the Kartvelian languages, highlighting a part of the foundations of current prefixes simple grammatical «birth.» By painstaking methodical analysis numerals, pronouns and verb stems series Acad. IA Javakhishvili concludes genetic kinship of Georgian (Kartvelian languages ​​and others) with the mountain Caucasian languages, which he calls savromatskimi.

Regulation on the genetic relationship of Kartvelian and Caucasian mountain languages, claimed venerable historian, finds full confirmation in special researches on the history of grammatical structure and vocabulary of Ibero-Caucasian languages. This situation can and must be considered in the initial comparative historical research on language Hittite-Iberian circle.

What general conclusions?

The studies found:

1. The sound composition Kartvelian languages, particularly Georgia (minus affricate plus pharyngeal), closest to the source for the Iberian-Caucasian languages ​​and of easily moving closer to the sound structure of ancient languages ​​of the Near East.

Sophisticated sound system of a number of Ibero-Caucasian languages ​​(from 46 to 85 phonemes!) — A secondary phenomenon.

2. consonant clusters at the heart of words, as a rule, a secondary phenomenon. Consonant clusters caused or loss of vowels in certain conditions or of incremental affixes.

3. The root usually consists of one consonant and deikticheskoy particles — determinative bases.

4. prefixing the main morphological principle for Ibero-Caucasian, and for the ancient languages ​​of the Near East.

Suffixes, where it now occurs (eg declension) — secondary phenomenon.

5. The name and verb stems initially are not differentiated (can be issued the same affixes).

6. In the process of differentiation of the verb is issued before the name: conjugation preceded decline.

7. grammatical class man (person) and things differed in all Ibero-Caucasian languages. Where they are now is not (Georgian, Zan, Svan, Adygei, Lezgin, Udi, and others.), There is the phenomenon of secondary-order analysis of the foundations of fossil finds formant grammatical classes.

In the ancient languages ​​of the Near East (Urartu, Hittite), which also did not differ grammatical childbirth, apparently, we have a provision similar to the Kartvelian languages.

8. Category grammatical classes pervades the morphological system: declination, conjugation, education foundations. Specific options like class of cases and verbal names preceded by an abstract.

9. From the most ancient of cases are the genitive and dative. Erg-tive (narrative), and the nominative took shape as a result of the latest increase pronominal particles by the foundation.

10. Security Interests differences were: there were transitive and intransitive verb, transitive verb but thus was not a verb active voice. The basis of a transitive verb in the pledge against indifferent (neutral).

11. ergative construction preceded nominative at transitive verb; when intransitive verb nominative construction — an ancient phenomenon. Both designs originate from indefinite.

The most important result of a general nature: the more able to penetrate deep into the history of the Iberian-Caucasian languages, the closer they are to each other and to the ancient languages ​​of the Near East. Comparative historical analysis reveals primordial proximity (similarity), where at first glance, would seem to have nothing in common, where, apparently, there is a complete divergence.

So, what would be better studied the history of our language, the clearer it will exude a genetic commonality Hittite-Iberian languages ​​(A., P., 1948).

* * *

Over the last thirty years, Georgia has evolved a new field of science — Oriental.

At the Institute of Language, History and Material Culture Georgian SSR from 1936 there is a department of languages ​​of the Middle East, which was mainly focused all research rabotv in the study of languages ​​and peoples of the East.

Work department was conducted, in accordance with its tasks, in two ways: 1) the study of genetic, cultural and historical ties of the Georgian language with the languages ​​of the Middle East and 2) to study the structure of a number of Asian languages.

Georgian orientalists have focused on ancient languages ​​of the Near East, which differs in structure from the language of Indo-European, Semitic and other language families, however, reveal some similarities with the Kartvelian. These problems were the subject of separate studies, monographs and articles in which the issues of genetic, cultural and historical ties between languages ​​Hittite-Iberian group. The work of Acad. SN Janashia ‘oldest national news of the initial settlement of Georgians in the light of the history of the Middle East «addresses a number of issues of history hur-ferrites (subariytsev) and given new reasons to locate a number of toponymic terms mentioned in the annals of the Assyrian king Sargon II (VIII century. BC. e.) and other monuments and approach the author with Georgian names. The author also draws attention to its structure related phenomena in the Kartvelian languages, as well as Hurrian and protohettskih. V’drugoy studies on the genesis of the Georgian ethnic terms, Acad. SN Janashia provides materials on the basis of the Georgian new explanation of the name of the people, having Hittite hieroglyphic writing.

Much work has been done to study the language of Urartu. Prof. G. Tsereteli issued in 1939 Urartu inscriptions kept in the State Museum of Georgia. Along with the translation and detailed commentary author gives an analysis of the structure of Urartu verb and indicates its similarity to the Georgian. Assoc. P. Ushakov devoted a series of articles on the genesis of the Indo-European and Kartvelian tribes due to the Hittite problem and points to a number of evidence of similarity between the proto-Hittite and Hurrian language Georgian. Assoc. GA Melikishvili dedicates his work studying the language and history urartians and the question of their cultural and historical links with the Kartvelian tribes. Assistant VA Gvakharia wrote a study on the issue of the relationship of Urartu and Assyrian ideograms and determinatives.

Of particular note is the study of epigraphic monuments discovered during archaeological excavations in Mtskheta and of vital importance for the study of cultural life and political system of Georgia in the first centuries BC. e.

As I have found out a special study (prof. G. Tsereteli), a letter found during excavations in Mtskheta label is a kind of branch of the Aramaic script, known now in the name of science armazskogo. In connection with the opening of armazskogo letter was again raised the question of the origin of the Georgian writing. In a special study on this issue, Professor. G. Tsereteli sees genetic link armazskogo letter to Georgian, which in some cases reveals more archaic than armazskoe.

Georgian Arabists were successful in the study of classical Arabic. Issues the Arabic verb structure, as well as other parts of speech dedicated to a number of valuable works Assoc. A. Lekiashvili. The subject of a special study is also the language of the documents, written in Arabic and on the history of the peoples of the Caucasus (prof. G. Tsereteli, TS Margvelashvili). Assistant LG Chiala-shvili dedicated their works to research the issues of classical Arabic poetry. She also belongs to the literary translation of the progressive Arab writer Taxa Hussein. Much work has been done on the study of Arabic dialects (prof. G. Tsereteli, Assoc. V. Akhvlediani). The study of the newly discovered in Central Asia (Uzbek SSR) Arabic dialects is largely the merit of Georgian Arabists. Ezdivshey to Central Asia in 1935, the Georgian expedition Arabists were able to establish the existence of two independent Arabic dialects are genetically related to the Bedouin dialects Iraq.

Tbilisi is one of the few research centers, which conducted a systematic study of modern Aramaic dialects, especially Aramaic language Urmia. Assoc. K. G. Tsereteli has devoted a number of studies phonetic and morphological features of the language.

Also conducted work on the study of Iranian languages. Prof. G. Akhvlediani devotes several studies studying ancient Persian cuneiform texts and Avesta. He also wrote a number of articles on the Ossetian language (three kinds of t in the Ossetian language, 1923; Dativus praedicativus in the Ossetian language, 1923). On the history of the Ossetian language, I, 1935; «Yalguzidze and his work», II, 1936, etc.).

Georgian Turkish Studies (S. Jikia) published a number of Turkish historical documents concerning Georgia. Of particular note is «An extensive roster Gyurd-zhistanskogo Wilaya» (vol. I, 1941, and so on. II. 1947 Assoc. S. Jikia). The value of this publication is determined it contains very valuable material regarding the various aspects of the historical life of Georgia and Turkey. Besides the fact that this monument, created by the Turkish official circles, undeniably confirms the indisputable historical rights of Georgia on ancestral Georgian territory, predatory alienated Turkey, it is a document of exceptional value for the study of issues of Georgian-Turkish political, cultural and historical relations in the XVI century. A number of works devoted to the study of the structure and history of the Turkish language.

A great deal of work on the preparation of textbooks for learning languages ​​of the East. At present, prepared and partially published the following textbooks and manuals: Arab reader, Arabic-Georgian Dictionary to anthologies (prof. G. Tsereteli), the paradigm of verbal forms of classical Arabic (Doc. AS Lekiashvili) Drevne- Jewish reader with dictionary (prof. G. Tsereteli), Aramaic reader with dictionary (Assoc. K. G. Tsereteli), Persian Anthology (prof. Yu Abuladze), Persian texts (doc. VS Putu -ridze), Turkish reader (S. Jikia) and so on. d.

Much work has been done as training. At the Tbilisi State University. Stalin and the Institute of Linguistics of the Academy of Sciences of the Georgian SSR operates a number of young specialists in all major branches of Oriental Studies.

* * *

Start of intensive development of the Georgian scientific terminology is closely related to the Great October Socialist Revolution. First thing to create and organize all of the Georgian scientific terminology was requested State Academic Council (HUS), under the chairmanship of Academician. I. Javakhishvili.

In 1925, the development of the Georgian scientific terminology were transferred to a special organization — the Central Scientific Terminology Committee (now the Department of scientific terminology of the Institute of Linguistics). Since 1925 and to date has led the development of scientific terminology prof. V. Beridze.

During this period the Department of scientific terminology has developed terminology in various branches of science and technology, most of which have not previously had a scientific tradition. Published 26 sectoral terminologies (edited by V. Beridze) found wide practical application.

These are: I. The mathematical terminology (1925); 2. Construction Dictionary (1926); 3. Terminology Occupations (1928); 4. The terminology of physics and electrical engineering (1928); 5. Accounts terminology (1928); 6. Terminology of Literature and Linguistics (1928); 7. Terminology normal anatomy (in 1930); 8. Terminology of Library Science, Bibliography and Printing (1932); 9. Terminology Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology (1934); 10. Technical Terminology (1935); 11. Materials socio-economic terminology (1936); 12. Agricultural terminology. I. Crop (1938); 13. Agricultural terminology. II. Entomology (1938); 14. The geological and paleontological terminology (1941); 15. Technical terminology for vocational schools (1942); 16. Mathematical Terminology (1945); 17. Accounting terminology (1946); 18. Brief mining and technical terminology (1947); 19. Economic Terminology (1947): 20. Medical Terminology (1947); 21. Radio Technical Terminology (1947); 22. Autotractor terminology (1950); 23. Metallurgical terminology (1949); 24. The terminology of Soil Science (1950); 25. Terminology Accounting and Statistics (1950). Of particular note are named:

«The terminology the normal anatomy» (compiled by prof. Natishvili AN), at one time served as almost the only scientific terminology tool in medicine;

«Glossary of library science, bibliography and Printing» (compiled by a team of specialists);

«Technical terminology» (compiled by a team of specialists), which was developed over the years to the present time is a set of key terms in almost all sectors of technology. Many of the terms «technical terminology» Used widely in literary and entered the everyday life of the Georgian language;

«Crop» (AK Makashvili), developed mainly on the basis of people’s vocabulary of agriculture;

«Geological terminology» (compilers — GA Lomtatidze, MV Popkhadze et al.), Carefully designed in all areas of geology;

«Medical Terminology» (compiled by prof. 3. N. Maisuradze), which are widely used rich materials Georgian written sources and Georgian folk medical terminology;

«The economic terminology» (compiled by PK and P. Gugushvili Kuchaidze), which covers a large amount of factual material.

«Automobile and Tractor terminology» (compiled by VP Omiadze) is a known indicator of the growth of this important area of ​​technical sciences, and others.

Through the service the needs of cultural development of our country, in addition to terminology work, it should be noted work on the unification of the rules of the modern Georgian literary language. Back in 1936, the People’s Commissariat had published a collection of «Norms of the literary Georgian language» reports on controversial issues of the literary language, and with the relevant regulations, mandatory instructions.

Since 1946, the Academy of Sciences of the Georgian SSR created «State Commission for unification of the rules of the literary Georgian language» (Chairman — Academician. SN Janashia, after his death in 1947 — prof. AG Shanidze).

The Commission prepared to publish a new edition of the «Compendium of rules on controversial issues.»

Compiled by «The grammar of the Georgian language» (I. Morphology, II. Syntax, prof. AG Shanidze) for secondary schools; «Russian Grammar» for Georgian schools (prof. G. Akhvlediani, 1942).

Issued «Spelling reference Georgian language» (prof. VT Topuria and Assoc. Gigineishvili IM).

Issued school dictionaries, «Russian-Georgian» (prof. VT Topuria and prof. Kaukhchishvili SG) and «Georgian-Russian» (prof. G. Akhvlediani and prof. Topuria VT). Issued by the «Russian-Georgian dictionary» (prof. G. Akhvlediani and SG-Iorda nishvili, Vol. I A — 3, 1931, 358 p .; Vol. II I — I, 1936, 392 pp.) «Russian-Georgian dictionary» (prof. Yu Abuladze, 1926), as well as educational dictionaries: French-Georgian, German-Georgian, English, Georgian, and others.

Published «Dictionary of Foreign Words» (I. Imedashvili, 1928), «Dictionary of Foreign Words» (prof. G. Akhvlediani, 1931).

Published «Dictionary of figurative expressions of the Georgian language,» the writer F. Sa hokia (1950); «Thesaurus of Georgian language» (A. Neumann, 1951).

It published the two-volume «Georgian-Russian Dictionary» edited by K. Datikashvili Assoc. Vachnadze SM (1948).

Tbilisi University named after Stalin issued a large one-volume «Russian-Georgian dictionary» (1937, 1132 pp.).

Now it is preparing a new edition of a large-volume Russian-Georgian Dictionary (editor of the new edition — prof. G. Akhvlediani); after that it will be captured by the Priest-four-volume compilation of Russian-Georgian and Georgian-Russian dictionary.

* * *

Above given linguistic survey of the main results of work in Soviet Georgia. Much has been done, but the work done is far from enough if we compare it with what had to be done. Especially little has been done to study the history of other Kartvelian and Ibero-Caucasian languages.

Needless to say, it was not easy to work in this area, when dominated by cell paleontology N. Marr when genealogical classification of languages, kinship language of origin and comparative-historical study of language by a qualified followers of Marr as the formalism of bourgeois comparativism, racism and so on. D, and m. n.

The classic work of Stalin’s «Marxism and Problems of Linguistics» relieved Soviet linguistics from the domination of Marxist theory and N. Marr, his genuinely scientific Marxist foundations of linguistics, has opened up new prospects for the development of a powerful linguistic thought.

Today, Georgian linguists, in close cooperation with all Soviet linguists direct their collective efforts to ensure that overcome the existing backlog, to create a work worthy of the Stalinist phase in linguistics.

Like this post? Please share to your friends: