Damana Melikishvili

 Language of Ioane Petritsi

A Great medieval philosopher-theologian Ioane Petritsi, “the Platonic philosopher”, as manuscript glosses name him, is a representative of a new stage in the history of Christian thought. Study of his literary heritage has an immense importance for understanding the tendencies and specifics of development of medieval philosophy and theology not only in Georgia but in the Eastern Christendom in general. This study will also help to establish and shed light on the relationship between Eastern and Western Christian philosophy and theology.

The list of textbooks utilized in Gelati theological-literary school, conventionally called Gelati Academy (12th-13th  centuries), that is a Georgian analogue of the Constantinopolitan Mangana University, consists of Neo-Platonist literature and textbooks on the free arts – the trivium and quadrivium – similar to those that were widely used also in medieval European educational centers. On the basis of translation of those works the formal -semantic system of Georgian philosophical terminology was elaborated and established through the efforts of Eprem Mtsire, Arsen Iqaltoeli and Ioane Petritsi. Ioane Petritsi introduced among the compendia of the Gelati Academy the “Elements of Theology”, a treatise of a 5 th  century outstanding Greek Neo-Platonist Proclus, a successor or “diadochus” of Plato’s cathedra – as Petritsi calls him. To this treatise Petritsi added his scholia or commentaries, more extensive than the treatise itself. The commentaries are unique in their importance, for they consist not only of meticulous analysis of Proclus’ philosophy, but in general discussion and explication of basic issues of Hellenic (Platonic) philosophy and an attempt to present, relying on the method of analogy, of his own, original, his Christianity-influenced interpretation of the Neoplatonic structure of reality. In its form and style, Petritsi’s work represents a cycle of lectures for his audience of students whom the author introduces into the thought of Hellenic philosophers. While discussing different issues, Petritsi quotes and analyses Plato and the Academics, Aristotle and Peripatetics, Pythagoras and Pythagoreans, Stoics; commentators of Plato and Aristotle: Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus, Asclepius, Alexander of Aphrodisias and others. Since the commentaries of Ioane Petritsi are aimed at students’ ears, they thoroughly bear a conversational air, which is the main factor defining his linguistic style. Throughout the entire commentaries he addresses a second person, a hearer, a student, who is always in the center of his attention. The author frequently refers to him callin g him a “listener”, or a “perceiver”, a “hearer” and a “student”: “Behold the beauty of the theories, o, perceiver” [2, 154, 28]; “Look and perceive, o perceiver, those wonderful theories” [2, 186,13]; “and you, o listener, give to me your attention for theorizing” [2, 186,13]; “now what should we do, o student, who look through your intellect” [2, 107,17]; “listen, [o you], who desire to study” [2, 83, 19].

Great importance and influence of this work of Ioane Petritsi on later period thinkers is evidenced by those passages of “The Knight in Panther Skin” of Shota Rustaveli, the summit of Georgian poetry and aesthetic thought, in which are utilized philosophical terms characteristic of Proclus’ philosophical system exactly in the form Petritsi renders them. Furthermore, the importance of Petritsi’s work was acknowledged outside Georgia as well, since in 1248 his commented translation was translated into Armenian. It is well known how great Petritsi’s influence on the school of Anton Catholicos was (18th  century). In literary circles of this epoch Petritsi was referred to as “enlightener of the Georgian language”.

Language and style of Ioane Petritsi has always attracted the attention of writers and scholars. According to a traditional view, which was established in the school of Anton Catholicos, Ioane Petritsi’s language is very difficult to understand however, despite this, exactly the authors of this epoch, Sulkhan-Saba Orbeliani, Anton Catholicos, Ioane Orbeliani and others call him the “sun of the Georgian language”. What makes Petritsi’s language so peculiar and outstanding?

In different places of his commentaries on Proclus, in which he quite extensively speaks about  his  translational principles, Petritsi  provides a  key  for  understanding of  why  his language is so original. For the first thing, he explains the complexity of his language by the fact that such texts like that of Proclus, are difficult to understand for those who are not experienced in “theories of immaterial entities”. He notes, that other Ge orgian translators translate easier texts of a common language, and he, himself is positive about following the simplicity and lucidity of the native language only to the point when this simplicity may already damage the precise meaning of a more difficult philosophical text. Thus, the difficulty of Petritsi’s language is due to the difficulty of the material he translates, for the disciplines he treats in his commentaries – logical, mathematical, physical and metaphysical-theological – require a different level of terminological rigor. His principle of creation of terminology is based upon his views and attitudes towards the Greek language, which has a long philosophical tradition and  infinite capacities for  expressing philosophical categories. In Petritsi’s words: “in the Greek language, which is as bright as the sun, every [notion] has its own term, according to its essence” [2, 6]. From this follows the translational method of Ioane Petritsi: to create an exact, adequate translation of the Greek text and  transmitting into Georgian the entire philosophical-logical apparatus, theological notions and terms into Georgian in a mirror-like manner. This was the way also followed by Latin authors when they attempted to create a Latin philosophical-theological terminology, as well as in general by all European translators whenever they tried to form and establish scientific terminology in their native tongues.

The Gelati philosophical-theological school (12th-13th   centuries) represents the most important  stage  of  development  of  the  Georgian  philosophical-theological thought and scientific language. This school continued the work initiated by the great scholar and translator from the Black Mountain, Ephrem Mtsire. In Gelati were finalized the theoretical foundations of translation of philosophical texts and the Georgian philosophical-theological language   and   style,   as   well   as   formal-semantic  system   of   philosophical-theological terminology was clearly formed.

Creation of such language for his compatriots, Georgians, was the aim of Petritsi. As he writes: “I desired earnestly for the people of my nation to create a flexible and orderly [philosophical] language that differs from that of the plebs” [1, p. 220, 24-25]. That is to say, he decided to create a Georgian scientific, philosophical language, a Georgian scientific style that was different from a plebeian, common conversational language, to elaborate Georgian philosophical-logical apparatus.

In any language, a newly created term initially leaves an impression of oddity and artificiality. In this case the factor of “getting accustomed with” becomes if not decisive, then at least one of the important conditions for the establishment of a term. Exactly this was meant by Ilia Chavchavadze, one of the principal creators of the modern Georgian language, when he wrote: “however successful you may be in the creation of a word, even if this word will be purely Georgian, if you give to this word a new meaning, it will be for a while as odd and as difficult for understanding as a foreign word. Of course, we may get accustomed to the meaning of this word in time, but before this happens they are difficult to understand”.

Scientific, in particular, philosophic language, in a sense, is a constructed language. Thus,  artificiality,  that  is  to  say  distinction  from  naturally  developing  conversational language, is unavoidable not only in syntactic constructions and generalizations of this or that morphological means, but first of all in the very new words [5, p. 361]. Initially, terms created by any of the philosophers may look artificial. However, as time passes, they get incorporated in the fabric of the language if the relevant science continues to develop and if the posterior generations have relevant conditions for mastering the legac y of this science.

Ioane Petritsi had great predecessors who translated and commented biblical exegetical texts. These were Georgian monks engaged in literary activities in monasteries in Syria, Tao - Klarjeti – the so called “pre-Athonite” period of translations and the Athonite fathers – Euthymius and Giorgi the Athonites (11th  century) who had left the richest literary legacy. Furthermore,  before  Petritsi  philosophical-theological works  were  translated  by  a  great master of commentary, a luminary of the Black Mountain school – Eprem Mtsire: in the 80-

90s    of  the  11th       century  Eprem  had  already  translated philosophical chapters of  John Damascene’s “Font of Knowledge”, the so called “Dialectics” together with another part of this work, the “Precise Exposition of the Orthodox Faith”; besides he had translated the entire Corpus Areopagiticum together with commentaries of Maximus Confessor. Evidently, with the purpose of achieving a greater degree of precision, Arsen Iqaltoeli made a second translation of Damascenes’ “Dialectics” and the “Exposition” (Eprem himself tells us in his colophon, that while translating those works of Damascene, his helper was Arsen Iqaltoeli). In Gelati, in the circle of Arsen the work of a representative of the Athenian Neoplatonic school was translated: Amonius Hermeas’ commentaries on Aristotle’s “Categories” and the same author’s commentaries on Porphyry’s commentaries on the same “Categories”, in which were compiled and systematized logical terminology of Aristotle and his commentat ors. In the first period of Ioane Petritsi’s literary activities, his translation of Nemesius of Emesa’s “On Human Nature” still bears conspicuous traits of Arsen’s style.

However, Ioane Petritsi’s contribution to the creation of Georgian philosophical- theological language stands out: through his translation of Proclus’ “Elements of Theology”, Petritsi systematized Georgian philosophical-theological terminology and created rigorously elaborated Georgian  scientific  language,  formal-semantic system  of  terminology. Petritsi adopted from Proclus the latter’s systematic logic, which is evident in Petritsi’s entire work of creation of philosophical-logical terms and neologisms. As is well known, Proclus in the “Elements of Theology”, “Platonic Theology” and commentaries on Plato’s dialogues (which works Petritsi is closely acquainted with and which he amply utilizes), with meticulousness and exactness characteristic of him, had established a rigorous philosophical terminology of Greek philosophy, with a Neo-Platonist elaboration. To be sure, this has compelled the translator of such an author to adhere with similar rigor to translating each philosophic al term and notion in Georgian.

Georgian lexemes created in the course of centuries as equivalents of Greek terms, as well as newly translated notions of Neo-Platonist philosophy required unification in one formal-semantic system. Thus, the Gelati philosophic-literary school is a new stage in the development of Georgian philosophical-theological terminology. It represents a conscious attempt of creation of a unitary, mono-structural system. This work required one hand and one intellect, a person who would have combined in himself creative audacity and a broad knowledge, linguistic intuition and deep comprehension of languages, an ability to penetrate into the inner core and meaning of words and an aesthetic ability of appreciating their beauty. Besides, of course, knowledge of philosophy and “desire for theories” was indispensable, and all those gifts found their harbor in the person of “Ioane the Platonic Philosopher” nicknamed as “Petritsi”, who writes about himself without a degree of shyness that he is “wonderfully gifted by the Providence of God, and is experienced in both the arts of soul (i.e. the trivium + quadrivium) and theories of Intellect” [2, 222]. In the words of Nicolas Marr, “we should be thankful to Petritsi for creation of ready -made philosophic terminology in Georgian, which is based on Georgian roots and conveys meanings of all terms, which in present day European languages exist only in the form of Greek and Latin borrowings.” [4, p. 35].

Thus, Petritsi’s aim was to create such a system of philosophic terms that its elements would be in mutual connection both from formal and semantic points of view. He intended those terms to create formal-semantic paradigmatic unity and would be different from the vernacular. Petritsi implies exactly that, when he says that he “desired for people of his nation – Georgians – to create an orderly language that is different from that of the plebs”.

Observation of Petritsi’s language, precisely of its philosophic term-creating aspects, shows that according to his principles;

A philosophic term should be created through Georgian roots and affixes;

A philosophic term should be distinguished from common lexeme by structural and semantic systemness;

A philosophic term should exactly convey meaning of a relevant notion, should be transparent and motivated;

Relationship between term and notion should be unilateral: term should be monosemous;

A philosophic term should be short and elastic.

Implementation of these principles was not always possible and in general it is an impossible task for any translator and term-creator because scientific language, as well as any living language  is  not  something  static,  but  subject  to  laws  of  development. However, aspiration towards this ideal systemness required mastering of  the “art of  language and grammar”, study of the “essence of language and its flexion”, mastering of art of “junction and disjunction of  words” (syntax), insight into the essence of  words and by  means of  this establishment of etymology or motivation [2, 220-221].

Study of Ioane Petritsi’s language reveals that, as a brilliant grammarian, through his next to infallible linguistic intuitions, wonderfully used possibilities of Georgian language for enrichment of its dictionary.

Ioane Petritsi closely follows the laws of Georgian word-creation: roots and affixes are Georgian and rules of their utilization also are in accord with the structure of the Georgian grammar. From the roots that have the same meaning, in most of the cases, Petritsi picks that which is the longest. A peculiarity of his method is in that for signifying notions of one row, Petritsi establishes the dominance of one type of word-creation and subjects to this type all roots that he would find useful for the expression of a new philosophic notion. For example, it is known that to create an abstract notion from adjectives used the “si -e” (სი-ე) confix is usually in Georgian. However, Petritsi for this purpose adheres to  a  different linguistic possibility, the “-oba” suffix, by which he satisfies the demand for uniformity in creating terms of one and the same row, for example, ‘mzhave-oba’ (მჟავე-ობა), tetr-oba (თეთრ- ობა), did-oba (დიდ-ობა) etc. By such an abstract word-creation he gives terminological value to words, for, in fact, si-ket-e (სი-კეთ-ე), si-tetr-e (სი-თეთრ-ე), si-mzhav-e (სი-მჟავ- ე), si-did-e (სი-დიდ-ე) rather signify features of particular things, whereas the ‘mzhave-oba’ (მჟავე-ობა), tetr-oba (თეთრ-ობა), did-oba (დიდ-ობა) represent generic, most general and abstract notions that combine in themselves all good things, all white things, all big things etc. As Petritsi clearly distinguishes them when he says that “Good-ness” (ketil-oba კეთილ- ობა) is a generic term, whereas “good” is a special subcategory of it, in his words: “good is a threshold of goodness”.

If we observe monuments of Old Georgian literature, we shall see that some means of word-creation that seem strange in Petritsi’s language is wide spread and usual there. For instance, a participle “moba-dzavi” (მო-ბაძავი “imitator”) which is formed through a prefix only, that seems strange from the point of view of modern conventions, was quite common in Old Georgian, where we have quite a few examples of such subject -participles (მოდგამი modgami, მოძილი modzili, მოშიში moshishi etc.).

from the verb: “iqo” იყო>”iqoi” იყოჲ (was>the was, or was-ness, i.e. past), “iqos” იყოს>”iqosi” იყოსი>iqosobai იყოსობაჲ (will be>the will be>the will-be-ness i.e. future);

from  the  pronoun:  “mas”მას>”masi”მასი>”masoba” მასობა  (him>the  him>himness;

“igi”იგი>“igiveoba” იგივეობა (same>sameness); “tvit”  თჳთ>tvitoba   თჳთობა>tviteba; თჳთება self> selfness> selfness/property);

From  suffixes:  “gan” გან> “gani” განი  (from>the   from/=the   effect/),   “gamo” გამო>”gamoi” გამოჲ (from>that which came from, /literally: that which “frommed”/, for instance aristotelis-gamoi=that which came from [the school of] Aristotle); from the same “gamo” (from) suffix Petritsi forms a verb “igamoa” (“came out from”), an abstract noun “gamooba” (“the coming out from” or “the fact of being caused”);

From adverb: “odesme” ოდესმე>“odesmei” ოდესმეჲ (sometimes>that which is [exists] sometimes), “merme” მერმე> “mermei” მერმეჲ (after>the after/that which comes after).

Such word-formation is wide spread in Old Georgian. It is frequently used by Ephrem Mtsire in his translation of the Corpus Dionysiacum. Just as Ioane Petritsi, for adhering to meticulous exactitude with the Greek text and its profound philosocphical-theological meaning, Ephrem elaborates a special terminology. Types of term-formation are similar in both translators, which shows that their source is a living material of Georgian language. Sometimes the terms, which they have evidently created independently, totally coincide both  in  form  and  in  meaning.  For  instance  the  terms  “tvitebai”  თჳთებაჲ  (property), “tvitebiti”  თჳთებითი  (belonging  to  a  property),  “masi”  მასი  (the  him),  “masveoba” მასვეობა (the sameness), “qovloba” ყოვლობა (the whole), “iqoi” იყოი (the was), “iqosi” იყოსი (the will be) are found in both authors. Like Ioane Petritsi, also Ephrem Mtsire broadly uses the capacities of the Georgian language for creation of new semantic units.

In conclusion, it should be noted that Ioane Petritsi skillfully uses versatile capacities of the Georgian language for rendering one and the same Greek word in order to express different semantic shades and nuances of this word. Thus, Ioane Petritsi’s language is a very precious source for modern Georgian, especially for formation of the terminology of philosophy and of special branches of science. Quite a few of the abovementioned terms also are used today in a terminological meaning.

Thus, terms created by Ioane Petritsi are built according to patterns that characterize the Georgian language and such models are widely used now in Georgian scientific terminology. Those models represent a source for enrichment of Georgian terminology of different scientific branches.

In the field of term-creation especially notable is Petritsi’s fine intuition and wonderful ability to achieve an ideal level of morpho-semantic systematization of notions and terms. For example, we can adduce an instance with a paronymous couple genus-idea. In fact, systematization of notions and terms that stand for those notions requires complex stages of work. Establishment of the meaning of notions and selection of names for them does not happen in  an  abstract and  detached manner (or  should not  happen so),  but  should be ascertained and made precise through comparison and relationship with other notions and terms relevant to them. Every notion should have its own place in the system of notions and should reflect the order that exists between those notions (and accordingly between the terms expressing those notions). As is known, this order is based on a logical connection between notions and implies such a classification of notions which is revealed in genus - species dependence [6, 46]. When this hierarchical dependence – hyponymy - of genus- species notions is expressed through transparent linguistic material, then we have an ideal instance  with  respect  of  systematizing notions  and  their  corresponding terms.  Petritsi’s translating of the Greek γένος – ἐιδός/ἰδέα couple through a mutually dependant couple “tomi” ტომი (genus) and “guari” გუარი (idea) that belong to one semantic field (of which the first is a broad-volume hyperonym whereas the second a narrow-volume hyponym that is included in the first) represents an exemplary instance of exactly such an ideal case. Instead of this, before Petritsi, another, less plausible solution was used: natesavi ნათესავი-sakhe სახე (in translations of Damascene’s “Dialectics”and works of Ammonius). In fact, neither in the Greek terms themselves nor in their Old Georgian translations is kept (and realized) appropriate systematic character, which in the ideal case would posit notions of one row through terms that belong to one semantic field. The term “natesavi” ნათესავი (which was simultaneously a very commonly used term in everyday speech) is substituted by Petritsi by its partial synonym, a term that was borrowed in Georgian from Persian – tomi ტომი, and for translating the ἐιδός/ἰδέα he substitutes the previous “sakhe” სახე - with “guar” გუარ term, which in turn represents a sub-category of “tomi” ტომი (genus). Thus, he manages to reflect already through his linguistic-terminological material that hierarchical relationship which exists between those notions, through which he achieves an ideal systematic character on  the  plane  of  expression. In  this  respect he  even  eclipses  Proclus  himself, who  was renowned through his wonderful capacity for systematization, because Proclus was in fact fettered by a centuries long tradition, whereas Petritsi broke almost totally new ground that opened for him next to unlimited opportunities.

In his way of terminological searches, for Petritsi most important was to penetrate into the essence of  language and to  express by  a  linguistic sign this essence with a  highest precision.  He  aspired  at  creation  of  terms  that  would  have  a  clear  motivation  and  a transparent semantic structure in order to adequately express essence of a notion, an object or an event, and correctly orient readers of philosophic texts.

According to Plato’s thought, expressed in the dialogue “Cratylus”, every name should express the nature of a thing (cf. Cratylus 396a). Petritsi fully agrees with this, and since in his deep conviction “the sun-like language of Greeks provides for every notion and adequate term corresponding to the nature of this notion”, he aims at making Georgian philosophic language as lucid and expressive as Greek, which is “convenient for philosophic theorizing”. From  this  ensues  his  characteristic principle of  term-creation: actively  mirroring Greek notions and terms in Georgian. This well attested method warranted precision of translation and protected a translator from the peril of voluntary or involuntary subjective interpretations.

Together with terminology, syntax is that essential sphere through which we can speak about the peculiarities of Ioane Petritsi’s language. This is moreover so, since philosophic, and generally, scientific language is quite distinct from everyday language.

Petritsi’s frequent use of participle constructions (that is a familiar feature of Greek), omission of members of a sentence (especially of subject and predicate and of the auxiliary verb “is”, which is tacitly implied by the author), which is also characteristic of th e Greek original, does not create a misunderstanding, because the omission of a member is compensated by other means. Petritsi also uses the conjunction “da” და (and) in the sense of “also”, which clearly reflects Greek, where καί stands for both “and” and “also”. Besides, Petritsi’s text  abounds with  complex subordinate clauses, and  after them he  starts new sentences with summative words “vidreme” ვიდრემე, “vinaive” ვინაჲვე, “vinaica” ვინაჲცა (all meaning “therefore”, “thus”), and this also bears witness to how closely he follows the Greek syntax of the original.

The Grecisms in syntax is a familiar feature of the Old Georgian translated texts, among them of the Old Georgian translation of the Four Gospels. The translators could not get rid of, or  consciously  submitted  to  the  influence  of  Greek.  In  Old  Georgian  translations  this tendency is most vividly evident in the sphere of syntax. However, we should not assign to mechanical  factors  Petritsi’s  transferring  of  Greek  syntactic  constructions  in  Georgian. Rather, it serves a specific objective: to make Georgian as perfect an instrument for conveying philosophic meanings  as  Greek,  in  which  philosophic thought  was  raised  to  incredible heights by Plato and Aristotle and other philosophers in their lead.

As we have noted earlier, creation of the Georgian philosophic language that “differs from the language of the common people”, for Petritsi was a task to be fulfilled on the basis Greek with its great philosophic tradition. In his “Epilogue” of the commentaries of the “Elements of Theology” he says: “had I enjoyed love and aid from Georgians, I would have perfectly assimilated Georgian to Greek and arisotelize concerning theoretic experiences of philosophers”. He frequently expresses his admiration with respect o f Greek eloquence and lucidity. On the contrary, the precision of Greek in rendering different notions with adequate terms, as Petritsi thinks, was not matched by Georgian translators before him: “our translators did not pay attention [to this feature of Greek] and now I am incredibly hindered in my translating work, for our translators put everything similarly [i.e. express different notions with the same terms]”.

The specifically Greek constructions, especially such as omission of the “ars” არს (“is”, “to be”) auxiliary verb and usage of the conjunction “da” და (“and”) in the meaning of “also”/“too”, participle and passive constructions (which in general is characteristic of texts saturated by philosophical discussions and definitions) often are absent in the relevant loci of the  Greek  original  that  Petritsi  translated.  Thus,  such  instances  sometimes  cannot  be explained  either  through  direct  translation  from  the  original,  or  through  Petritsi’s translational principles. We  should  take  into  consideration the  circumstance that  Ioane Petritsi was brought up and introduced to philosophical education in Constantinople. Most part of his life he spent in a Greek-speaking milieu and since Greek was for him an ordinary conversational language, it is quite expectable that his pen also involuntarily followed Greek syntactic constructions. As to the use of complex subordinate sentences and their interconnection by means of quite versatile conjunctions and conjunctive words – all these is a characteristic feature of philosophic language. This feature is conditioned by the requirement of precise, unbroken and sequential rendering of meaning, which is a feature of philosophic work of any author.

The peculiarity of Ioane Petritsi’s language, together with the abovementioned f actors, is conditioned by his individual style, which is revealed in a very specific order of sentences and his very idiosyncratic choice of synonyms.

It is known that the ordinary, familiar order of simple sentences in Georgian requires positing of  predicate after subject. Even  in  the  case  of  presence of  other members the sentence is usually closed by a predicate, whereas the   subject is usually posited at the beginning  of  a  simple  sentence.  However,  Ioane  Petritsi  with  his  manner  of  positing predicate before subject and positing both of them at the end of a sentence creates a very special and unfamiliar rhythm of the Georgian language. For instance: რამეთუ ბუნებით თამეჯოგედ და მოქალაქედ ცხოველად შეიქმნა კაცი (3, 16,4) in a more conventional Georgian the same sentence would be written like: რამეთუ კაცი შეიქმნა ბუნებით თანმეჯოგედ და მოქალაქედ. (“In fact, man was created as naturally communal and civil [being]”, in Petritsi’s syntax it sounds like: “In fact, naturally as communal and civil [being] was created man”).

The place of verbal suffixes in Georgian sentences is usually placed before a verb, whereas Petritsi gives a peculiar rhythm to a sentence through placing verbal suffix after the verb. For example: მოქმედებამან უძლიერესისამან იმოქმედაცა უძლიერესად (1, 46,7), in  usual  Georgian  syntax  would  be:  მოქმედებამან  უძლიერესისამან უძლიერესადცა იმოქმედა  (“Energy  of  the  more  powerful  [term]  also  acted  more  powerfully”, Petritsi attaches the “also” (“-tsa” -ცა) to the end of the verb “იმოქმედა-ცა”, “acted-also”).

Frequent use of isolated definitions, separated defining and defined words, when both are often divided by a verb or by few words inserted between them is a very specific feature of Petritsi’s language.

For  example:  რომელი-იგი იყო ქუაბი, მრავალხრახნილად  ქცეული და ძნიად წიაღსასვლელი და  ძნელად გამოსავალი, (2,  224,  8),  in  familiar  syntax  would  be: რომელი-იგი იყო მრავალხრახნილად ქცეული და ძნიად წიაღსასვლელი და ძნელად გამოსავალი ქვაბი (defining “labyrinth”: “Which was a multi-tunneled and ill-entered and ill-exited cave”, in Petritsi’s syntax the word order goes like this: “Which was a cave, multi - tunneled and ill-entered and ill-exited”).

Often the definer (adjective) and the defined (noun) are divided by a verb. For example: ყოველი ქმნილი ორობითისა მიერ იქმნების ძალისა, (1, 51, 9), which in usual syntax would  be  like:  ყოველი ქმნილი ორობითისა ძალისა მიერ იქმნების (“Every  created [being] is created by a twofold power”, in Petritsi it sounds like: “Every created [being] by a twofold is created power” (it looks far more awkward in English than in Georgian).