Kartvelian languages (3000 words)

Kevin Tuite, Université de Montréal

The Kartvelian or South Caucasian languages form a small indigenous language family of the
Caucasus region. It comprises four languages: Georgian, the closely related Mingrelian and Laz,
and the outlier Svan. (The term “Kartvelian” comes from the Georgian name for themselves,
kartvel-). Despite numerous attempts going back centuries, it has yet to be convincingly
demonstrated that Kartvelian is related to any other group of languages, neither any other
indigenous family of the Caucasus, nor any languages spoken elsewhere. Although the
archaeological evidence indicate a continuity between past populations and present-day
Georgians that goes back to at least the Bronze Age, there is reason to believe that the ultimate
origin of the Kartvelians is further to the south, most likely in what is now southwestern Georgia
or northeastern Turkey.
PROTO-KARTVELIAN

SVAN GEORGIAN-ZAN

ZAN GEORGIAN

LAZ MINGRELIAN

1. Population. At present, four to five million people speak one or more Kartvelian language.
They mostly inhabit the republic of Georgia and adjoining regions. Communities of Kartvelian
speakers can be found in Russia, Israel, Europe, North America and elsewhere. The vast majority
of Kartvelians speak Georgian. This includes nearly all Mingrelian and Svan speakers, for whom
Georgian is the language of education, writing, and contact with other Georgians. The number of
Mingrelian speakers is estimated at 500,000 to 600,000; and the Svan speech community at
25,000 to 40,000. (Estimates vary considerably, since speakers of minority Kartvelian languages
are not counted as such in Georgian censuses). It should be emphasized here that Mingrelians and
Svans identify themselves as Georgians, and perceive no contradiction between their attachment
to their communities of origin and their belonging to the larger community of the Georgian
nation. Most Laz speakers live in or near their traditional territory, which for the most part is in
northeastern Turkey. Estimates of their number vary widely from as few as 22000 to as many as a
quarter million, due to the lack of recent Turkish census data. To this should be added a few
thousand Laz speakers on the Georgian side of the border. UNESCO considers all three minority
Kartvelian languages to be “definitely endangered”, although Mingrelian and Svan — especially
the former — are still being acquired by children living in these communities. According to some
reports, the transmission of Laz to future generations is less certain.

2. Writing and script. The adoption of Christianity by the ruling elites in the eastern Caucasus in
the 4th-5th centuries was accompanied by the creation of distinctive scripts for the Georgian,
Armenian and so-called Caucasian Albanian languages (the last of these three has been shown to
 Kartvelian languages (Tuite) — page 2 — 19-08-19

be closely related to the Udi language of the East Caucasian family). Although all three alphabets
follow the letter sequence of the Greek script, the shapes of the letters are different in each one. A
medieval Georgian chronicler attributed the invention of the Georgian alphabet to the legendary
King Parnavaz, and an Armenian historian credited St Mesrop with the creation of all three
Caucasian scripts; neither story seems entirely plausible, and the precise origin of the Georgian
writing system remains an enigma. What does appear likely is that the rapid adoption and spread
of Georgian writing in the decades after its invention drew upon the experience of elites with
literacy in other languages, such as Greek and Aramaic. Over time, the Georgian script evolved
into three distinct variants: (i) the uncial alphabet (asomtavruli) of the oldest inscriptions and
manuscripts; (ii) a later “priestly” (xucuri) script, still used by the Georgian Orthodox Church;
(iii) the “military” (mxedruli) alphabet, which is the basis of today’s standard writing system.
Mingrelian and Svan are primarily used for within-group oral communication, but modified
Georgian scripts with additional letters have been developed for both. Sporadic attempts have
been made to publish periodicals in Mingrelian, initiatives whose fate was tied up with the
shifting winds of Tsarist, Soviet and post-Soviet nationality politics. (Laz literacy initiatives have
similarly been circumscribed by Turkish ethnic policy). The rise of the Internet and social media
has provided new venues for written communication in Mingrelian, Svan and Laz, which may
improve the survival chances of these languages.

3. Phonology. Compared to the rich consonant systems of the West and East Caucasian
languages, the Kartvelian languages have a more normal-sized inventory, similar in structure to
that of Armenian. All four languages have a three-way contrast of obstruents (plain voiced;
aspirated; ejective/glottalized), and a two-way voicing contrast for fricatives. Svan and Old
Georgian have the most conservative systems, including a voiceless uvular stop and palatal glide:

Table 1. Kartvelian consonant phonemes

Obstruents Fricatives Sonorants
voiced aspirate ejective voiced voiceless
Labial b p p’ m w/v
Dental d t t’ n
Alveolar ʒ [dz] c [ts] c’ [ts’] z s r l
Palatal(-alveolar) ǯ [dʒ] č [tʃ] č’ [tʃ’] ž [ʒ] š [ʃ] (y [j])
Velar g k k’
Uvular q q’ ɣ [ʁ] x [χ]
Glottal (h)

As for vowels, Georgian has the smallest inventory, the five basic vowels /a, e, i, o, u/.
Mingrelian and Laz have the same plus the central vowel /ə/. Svan possesses by far the largest
vowel sets, with some dialects distinguishing as many as 18. The distributions of the Svan and
Mingrelian-Laz schwa vowels, and the “umlauted” vowels of some Svan dialects (/ä, ö, ü/), are
for the most part predictable. It is likely, therefore, that the Kartvelian proto-language had a five-
vowel triangular system like that of Georgian. Some linguists maintain that Proto-Kartvelian also
had long vowels, as do some Svan dialects, but the evidence for this is not entirely convincing.

Perhaps the most spectacular phonological feature of the Kartvelian languages is the clustering of
consonants. Georgian noun and verb roots can begin with clusters consisting of as many as six
consonants, which can be further extended by the addition of person prefixes; e.g. the oft-cited
 Kartvelian languages (Tuite) — page 3 — 19-08-19

verb v-prckvn-i “I peel it”. In reality, the internal structure of these clusters is tightly constrained,
especially the sequence of obstruents. In Kartvelian, combinations of front (labial, dental,
alveolar, palatal) + homorganic back (velar, uvular) obstruents have the same distribution as
single consonants (“decessive harmonic clusters”). The addition of a labial continuant /v/ or /w/
likewise results in a cluster that patterns like a single consonant.

Table 2. The structure of harmonic clusters.

front stops and affricates back stops and fricatives
b d dz dʒ g ʁ
ph th tsh tʃh + kh χ
p’ t’ ts’ tʃ’ k’ (q)χ’

Harmonic clusters may well represent an ancient areal feature, at least in the west-central
Caucasus. The West-Caucasian language Kabardian also has decessive clusters, and the East-
Caucasian Nakh languages allow a limited number of initial stop + fricative groups.

In expressive verb roots, phonological features are deployed to denote particular characteristics of
movement, intensity, sound production, visual effects, size, etc. Full or partial reduplication is
also frequent in expressives. Note how voicing and glottalization are used to create a contrasting
triplet of Georgian expressive verbs denoting the act of eating: (aspirated) cickn-i-s “picks at,
nibbles at one’s food”; (glottalized) c’ic’k’n-i-s “shreds one’s food with the teeth”; (voiced) ǰiǰgn-
i-s “eats greedily; tears meat off the bone”.

4. Nouns and pronouns. The Kartvelian languages have similar inventories of cases, and several
of them (the NOM, DAT, GEN and ADV) are sufficiently similar in form to be attributed to the
proto-language. The origin of the so-called ergative case (ERG) is less clear, and it may have
arisen independently in each branch of Kartvelian from postposed demonstratives (which
functioned similarly to definite articles or topic markers). Plurality is marked by a suffix
preceding the case ending. In Old Georgian, a single suffix –t(a) indicated both plural number
and oblique (DAT, GEN or ERG) case.

Table 3. Case and number suffixes in the Kartvelian languages.

case Old Georgian Georgian Mingrelian Laz Svan
sing pl sing. plural sing. plural sing. plural singular plural
NOM -i, Ø -n-i -i, Ø -eb-i -i -ep-i Ø -epe *-i, Ø -ǣl, -ær
ERG -man -t-a -m(a) -eb-ma -k -en-k -k -epe-k -em, -d -ǣl-d, -ær-d
DAT -s -t-a -s -eb-s -s -en-s -s -epe-s -s, -w, -am -ǣl-s, -ær-s
GEN -is -t-a -is -eb-is -iš -ep-iš -ši -epe-ši -iš, -eš -ǣl-eš, -(a)r-eš
INS -it —— -it -eb-it -it -ep-it -te(n) -epe-te -šw, -wš -ǣl-šw, -ar-šw
ADV -(a)d —— -ad -eb-ad -o(t) -ep-o(t) —— —— -d -ǣl-d, -ær-d
VOC -o -n-o -o -eb-o —— —— —— —— —— ——

When the subject, direct or indirect object is 1st or 2nd person — and therefore controls
agreement in the verb — an indeclinable pronominal particle can appear in the clause. A second
pronominal stem is used to form 1st and 2nd person possessives, and as a host for postpositions
(e.g. G čem-gan “from me”).
 Kartvelian languages (Tuite) — page 4 — 19-08-19

Table 4. 1st and 2nd person singular pronouns in Kartvelian.

Svan Georgian Mingrelian Laz
1ST SINGULAR
particle (NOM/ERG/DAT) mi me ma ma
adjective stem (other cases) mišgw- čem- čkim- čkim-
2ND SINGULAR
particle si šen si si
adjective stem isgw- šen- skan- skan-

Demonstratives are used as 3rd-person pronouns. These have distinct nominative and oblique
stems, and sometimes contain case endings different from those added to common nouns.
Table 5. Partial paradigms of proximal pronoun (“this”) in Kartvelian (singular only)
GEORGIAN SVAN MINGRELIAN LAZ
NOM es(e) ala atena aja
ERG ama-n am-nēm ate-k amu-k
DAT ama-s am-ən ate-s amu-s
GEN am-is am-iša ate-ši amu-ši

5. Verb classes and paradigms. All Kartvelian languages distinguish two primary classes of
verbs: active and inactive (or passive). In addition to formal properties which serve to distinguish
them (distinct sets of personal endings or suffixes in some tenses, depending on the language),
active verbs can assign ERG case, whereas inactive verbs cannot. (Mingrelian represents an
exception, for reasons to be explained below). Alongside the major groups of transitive and
dynamic-intransitive verbs, each language also has large numbers of medioactive and medio-
passive verbs. Although most mediopassives rarely, if ever, take a direct object, they have the
same case-assignment properties as transitives (e.g. G c’q’al-ma i-duɣ-a “(the) water-ERG
boiled”). Mediopassives are intransitive, but many have indirect objects with the syntactic
properties of subjects (G gogo-s k’at’a-Ø u-q’var-s “(the) girl-DAT loves (the) cat-NOM”).

Table 6. Kartvelian verb roots grouped by class.

Proto-form Georgian Zan (Mingrelian & Laz) Svan
I. Transitive
*b- “bind” a-b-am-s M. o-b-un-s x-a-b-em
*qan- “plough” qn-aw-s M. xon-un-s a-qn-i
*č’ed- “hammer, forge” č’ed-s M. č’k’ad-un-s a-šk’ǟd-i
II. Dynamic intransitive
*ɣ(a)r- “die, fade” ɣr-eb-a “fades” Z. ɣur-u-n “dies” x-e-ɣr-en-i
*leqw- “melt, soften” lqw-eb-i-s x-e-rqw-en-i
*šed- “remain” št-eb-i-s M. skid-u-n sed-n-i
III. Medioactive
*tow- “snow” tov-s M. tun-s šduw-e
*gor- “roll” gor-av-s L. o-ngor-u i-gwr-an-ǟl
*c’k’mu- “whine (dog)” c’k’mu-i-s M. c’k’um-in-un-s c’k’ū-l-i
IV. Mediopassive
*r- “be” a-r-i-s o-r-e-n ä-r-i
*q’war- “love” x-u-q’var-s u-ʔor-s
*ɣw- “have (inanimate)” M. u-ɣ-u-n x-u-ɣw-a
 Kartvelian languages (Tuite) — page 5 — 19-08-19

Transitive and dynamic-intransitive verbs usually have the full complement of tense, aspect and
mood paradigms, which are grouped into three series: present/imperfect (series I), aorist (series
II) and perfect (series III). In Old Georgian, the contrast between Series I and II was primarily
aspectual (durative vs. punctilear), whereas Series III forms have resultative and evidential
meaning. The inventory of paradigms and their functions have evolved along somewhat different
paths in the individual Kartvelian languages. One noteworthy change is the emergence of new
evidential and inferential verb forms in Svan, Mingrelian, Laz, and some Georgian dialects.

6. Verb morphology. The Kartvelian verb is agglutinative, although morphophonemic processes

can obscure morpheme boundaries in Svan, and to a lesser degree in Mingrelian. Descriptions of
verb morphology typically segment the verb into morpheme slots. Slots, however, can be
grouped into zones of similar function, moving outward from the verb root. In this section some
interesting features of the verb will be presented, but by no means all of them.

Table 7. The internal structure of the Kartvelian verb

1. root ROOT
2. stem version causative/passive, verbal
formants plurality, series marker
3. inflection person imperfect, person/
tense/mood number
4. clitics and preverbs, clitics
preverbs clitics

6.1. Verb roots. The basic Kartvelian verb root is either nonsyllabic or monosyllabic. Some
typical examples of basic roots are shown in table 6 above. A handful of verbs conserve an
ancient a/e ablaut indicating transitivity, e.g. Old G gan-v-qad-e “I drove sb away” vs. gan-v-qed
“I went away”. Some Kartvelian verb roots can be etymologically segmented into a primordial
root and a –VC- formant which undergoes i/e ablaut. On the whole, composite stems denote
manifestations of violent, distorting, or disintegrating force, such as these from Georgian:

Table 8. Composite verb roots

root coda
labial stop labial nasal dental stop sibilant
kl- abrade klep plane klet, klet’ tear kles plane off,
[skin] off kleš rub
xvr- gnaw xvrep’ slurp xvrem crunch, nibble xvret’ perforate
[gnaw through?]
č’q’(v)l- crush č’q’vlep’ crush, mash č’q’lem crush, squash č’q’let’ crush

Kartvelian verb roots can also be derived from nouns and other parts of speech; e.g. G tetr-d-eb-a
“becomes white” < tetr- “white”; Sv x-e-töp “shoots at” < töp “rifle”.

6.2. Stem formants and version. The verb root can be followed by a string of stem formants,
typically of VC shape, such as causative and inchoative suffixes. Svan verbal-plurality markers
indicate plural direct objects or intransitive subjects, or repeated actions (ä-šxb-i-jēl-i “sews many
things, sews a lot” < ä-šxb-i “sews). Old Georgian had a suffix of similar function, but distinct
phonological shape. Series markers appear in the present/imperfect paradigms (Series I), but not
the aorist series (Series II); Sv present x-o-ɣ-ēšg “I take away”; aorist ot-o-ɣ “I took away”).
 Kartvelian languages (Tuite) — page 6 — 19-08-19

The category of “version”, as it is commonly labeled by grammarians, indicates the relation

between the denoted action and the referent of an indirect object or implied reflexive. Version is
marked by pre-root vowels, as in these Georgian examples:

(1a) lia surat-s xat’-av-s

L-NOM picture-DAT paint-SM-S3sg
“Lia paints a picture” (neutral version)

(1b) lia surat-s i-xat’-av-s

L-NOM picture-DAT PRV-paint-SM-S3sg
“Lia paints a picture for herself” (subjective version)
(1c) lia surat-s m-i-xat’-av-s
L-NOM picture-DAT O1sg-PRV-paint-SM-S3sg
“Lia paints a picture for me” (objective version, 1st person indirect object)

(1d) lia surat-s u-xat’-av-s deda-s

L-NOM picture-DAT PRV-paint-SM-S3sg mother-DAT
“Lia paints a picture for her mother” (objective version, 3rd person indirect object)

(1e) lia surat-s a-xat’-av-s k’edel-s

L-NOM picture-DAT PRV-paint-SM-S3sg wall-DAT
“Lia paints a picture on the wall” (superessive or locative version)

Preradical vowels, which have other functions besides signaling version, appear to have
originated as markers of verbal orientation, contrasting an “outward” trajectory directed toward a
target or surface, and an “inward” trajectory toward the grammatical subject or the speech-act
participants (1st and 2nd person).

6.3. Person and number marking. The Kartvelian verb has two sets of personal prefixes, but
certain asymmetries determine which of the two may appear in the verb: 1st and 2nd person take
precedence over 3rd person, and object markers take precedence over subject markers; e.g. G m-
c’er [O1sg-write] “you write to me”; g-c’er [O2-write] “I write to you”. This curious person-
marking system may in fact have emerged from a hierarchical or direct/inverse contrast similar to
that characteristic of Algonquian and Tupí-Guaraní languages. The so-called subject prefixes
mark a “direct” situation, where the subject outranks the object (on a hierarchy of 1st and 2nd > 3rd
person), whereas the object prefixes signal an “inverse” situation, where the object is of equal or
higher rank than the subject.

Table 9. Proto-Kartvelian personal prefixes, as a direct/inverse system

DIRECT (= subject prefixes) INVERSE (=object prefixes)
+ speaker *(x)w- 1 > 3 *m- 2, 3 > 1
+ speaker, + hearer —— *gw- 3 > 1+2
+ hearer *x- 2 > 3 *g- 1, 3 > 2
— speaker, — hearer *Ø 3SUB > 3DO *x- 3SUB > 3IO
 Kartvelian languages (Tuite) — page 7 — 19-08-19

A suffix is employed to mark the plural number of 1st and 2nd person subjects. Georgian, Laz and
Mingrelian have three pairs of 3sg and 3pl subject suffixes, the choice of set being determined by
tense and mood, and verb type. But Svan has nothing of the sort, leading to speculation that the
allomorphic S3 marking system was an innovation of Georgian-Zan, and that perhaps 3rd person
subjects were not marked at all in the Proto-Kartvelian verb.

7. Syntax. In this overview. I will present only two particularly salient features of Kartvelian
morphosyntax: case assignment and syntactic orientation.
7.1. Case assignment. In Georgian and Svan, transitive and medioactive verbs have distinct
case-assignment patterns in each of the three tense/aspect series. In the Series I tenses, verbs in
all classes assign NOM case to their grammatical subjects, giving a nominative-accusative
alignment. In Series II, transitive and medioactive verbs assign ERG case to their subjects, and
NOM to the direct object (if there is one). Some linguists describe this as an ergative-absolutive
alignment. But since medioactive verbs are mostly intransitive, others characterize the Series II
alignment as split-intransitive or active-inactive. In Series III, transitive and medioactive verbs
undergo inversion: they assign the attributes of an indirect object to their logical subjects,
whereas the logical direct object is assigned NOM case and subject agreement in the verb. Here
are clauses headed by a Svan transitive in tenses from each of the three series:

(2a) eǰjær-Ø næj tæš-s gw-a-hwd-i-x

they-NOM us cheese-DAT O1incl-PRV-give-PRS-PL
“they-NOM give us (inclusive) the cheese-DAT” [Series I: PRESENT]

(2b) eǰjær-d næj tæš-Ø la-gw-ēm-x

they-ERG us cheese-NOM Pv-O1incl-give.AOR-PL
“they-ERG gave us the cheese-NOM” [Series II: AORIST]

(2c) eǰjær-s nišgwej-d tæš-Ø loxwhodax {la-x-o-hod-a-x}

they-DAT our-ADV cheese-NOM Pv-O3-PRV-give-PERF-PL
“they-DAT gave us the cheese-NOM” [Series III: PRESENT PERFECT]

The alignment split has been simplified somewhat in the two Zan languages, but in different
ways. In Laz, the split-intransitive alignment characteristic of Series II has been extended to
Series I as well, e.g.

(3) xurma-Ø i-mxor-s ǰoɣoi-k

persimmon-NOM PRV-eat-S3sg dog-ERG
“The dog is eating a persimmon.”
(G. xurma-s č’am-s dzaɣl-i [persimmon-DAT eats dog-NOM])

In Mingrelian, on the other hand, the so-called ERG case has spread to nearly all intransitive
verbs. One could in a sense consider it the Series II allomorph of the NOM case:

(4) k’oč-k do-ɣur-u

man-ERG Pv-die-PST.S3sg
“The man-ERG died.” (Georgian: k’ac-i mo-k’vd-a [man-NOM died])
 Kartvelian languages (Tuite) — page 8 — 19-08-19

7.2. Direct and indirect syntax. In Kartvelian, syntactic orientation, or the attribution of features
characteristic of “subjecthood”, is to a significant degree independent of case assignment. Using
the indexing of a reciprocal pronoun as a proxy for syntactic subjecthood, one can see that the
first verb in each of the following pairs has a NOM-case subject (direct syntax), whereas the
second in each pair has a DAT-case subject (indirect syntax). Indirect syntax is especially
common with bivalent intransitives, as in (5b), but is also possible with a handful of transitive
verbs (6b).

INTRANSITIVE
(5a) es gogo-eb-i ertmanet-s Ø-e-lap’arak’-eb-i-an
this:NOM girl-PL-NOM each.other-DAT O3-PRV-speak-SM-INTR-S3pl
Direct syntax: “These girls (NOM) speak to each other (DAT).”

(5b) am gogo-eb-s ertmanet-i Ø-u-q’var-t

this:OBL girl-PL-DAT each.other-NOM O3-PRV-love-O3pl
Indirect syntax: “These girls (DAT) love each other (NOM)”
(lit. 'each other is beloved to these girls')

TRANSITIVE
(6a) es gogo-eb-i ertmanet-s Ø-a-cin-eb-en
this:NOM girl-PL-NOM each.other-DAT O3-PRV-laugh-SM-S3pl
Direct syntax: “These girls (NOM) make each other (DAT) laugh.”

(6b) am gogo-eb-s ertmanet-i Ø-a-int’eres-eb-t

this:OBL girl-PL-DAT each.other-NOM O3-PRV-interest-SM-O3pl
Indirect syntax: “These girls (DAT) are interested in each other (NOM)”
(lit. 'each other make these girls interested')

8. Lexicon. Georgian and the two Zan languages share an inherited vocabulary of 1200 lexemes,
whereas Svan shares only 400-500 lexemes with its sister languages. Georgian borrowed
extensively from Iranian from pre-Christian times until the modern period, and also has
numerous words from Armenian, Greek, Turkish and other sources. After the incorporation of
Georgia into the Tsarist and then Soviet empires, Russian words entered Georgian informal
speech, although the language authorities imposed strict limits on the admission of Russian loans
into normative written Georgian. In the post-Soviet period, English is the principal source of new
words, e.g. da-p’ost’-av-s “posts (a message) on social media”. Georgian has had a large impact
on the Mingrelian and Svan lexical inventories, as has Turkish on Laz. Svan has also borrowed a
small number of words from Circassian (gwiz “special-quality flour used for baking ritual bread
on feast-days”, cf. Kabardian gweʒ “wheat”), and other nearby speech communities.

9. Recommended readings on Kartvelian.

Boeder, Winfried. 2004. The South Caucasian languages. Lingua 115: 5-89.

Deeters, Gerhard (1930). Das kharthwelische Verbum: vergleichende Darstellung des

Verbalbaus der südkaukasischen Sprachen. Leipzig: Markert und Petters.
 Kartvelian languages (Tuite) — page 9 — 19-08-19

Harris, Alice C. (1981). Georgian syntax: a study in relational grammar. New York: Cambridge
University Press.

Imedadze, Natela and Kevin Tuite (1992). The acquisition of Georgian. Dan Slobin (ed.), The
crosslinguistic study of language acquisition, Vol. III. Hillsdale: Erlbaum Associates, 39-109.

Lacroix, René. 2009. Description du dialecte laze d’Arhavi (caucasique du sud, Turquie) –
Grammaire et textes. Thèse, Sciences du langage, Lyon 2. Available online here:
http://theses.univ-lyon2.fr/documents/lyon2/2009/lacroix_r/pdfAmont/lacroix_r_these.pdf

Tschenkéli, Kita (1958). Einführung in die georgische Sprache. Zürich: Amirani Verlag.

Tuite, Kevin. 2017. Alignment and orientation in Kartvelian (South Caucasian). Jessica Coon,
Diane Massam & Lisa Travis (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity, 1115-1138. Oxford
University Press