The Kartvelologist

The Kartvelologist” is a bilingual (Georgian and English) peer-reviewed, academic journal, covering all spheres of Kartvelological scholarship. Along with introducing scholarly novelties in Georgian Studies, it aims at popularization of essays of Georgian researchers on the international level and diffusion of foreign Kartvelological scholarship in Georgian scholarly circles.

“The Kartvelologist” issues both in printed and electronic form. In 1993-2009 it came out only in printed form (#1-15). The publisher is the “Centre for Kartvelian Studies” (TSU), financially supported by the “Fund of the Kartvelological School”. In 2011-2013 the journal is financed by Shota Rustaveli National Science Foundation.

Ramaz Kurdadze, Darejan Tvaltvadze, Maia Lomia, Ketevan Margiani-Subari, Rusudan Zekalashvili 


Linguistic Means of Negation  in Kartvelian Languages


In 2015, within the targeted grant project in Tbilisi State University, the linguistic means of negation in the Kartvelian languages was explored. The presented article is a part of the work performed. It introduces the grammatical models expressing negation on the ground of the linguistic data of Old Georgian, Modern Georgian and other Kartvelian languages not having alphabets. Additionally, on the synchronic level the questions related to the derivation of double negation are discussed; empiric material is supported by the language corpus. The data of TITUS, ARMAZI and GEKKO were used as well as the Laz and Svan printed texts. The data of the Old Georgian languagewere investigated according to the pre-Athenic and Athenic redactions of the Sinai Polycephalion and Tetraevangelium, and the Bible of Gelati. Comparing the data revealed common Kartvelian regularities and specific factors from each separate language of this family related to the issue under analysis.

Negation is a universal category though the means of its expression differs not only in the non-related but in the related languages as well. It is urgent to conduct research in this field in accordance with the diachronic and synchronic data of the Kartvelian languages. The results of such researches are very important, not only for investigating and defining the history and typology of the Kartvelian languages, but also from the standpoint of the general linguistics, cultural studies and practical use. The empirical material was processed in diachronical and synchronical views, using the descriptive-statical, historical-comparative and distribu¬tional (syntagmatic) methods. The results received are interesting and useful for linguists, psychologists and psycho-linguists and also for those concerned about the problems of Georgian language history and normalisation of standard Georgian. The complex researches were conducted taking into consideration specific issues.
The article consists of two parts: I. Grammar models expressing negation, II. The issues regarding double negation.

I. Grammar models expressing negation
structure of the negative pronouns
structure of the negative adverbs

Old Georgian shows the following grammar models of negative pronouns:negative particle+interrogative pronoun:vin/ra -who/what; negative particles may be represented by the following alternatives: ar||ara||ara(ra)||artsh(a)||artshara approximately meaning: not||not+||no more||neither¬||not anymore; ver||vera||verγa(ra)||vertsh(a) cannot- it is impo¬ssib-le)||cannot+||cannot anymore (at all)|| cannot either;nu||nura||nuγa(ra)||nursth(a)||nurtshaγa–do not||do not any||do not anymore. The following negative pronouns are also evidenced: aravin, vervin, nuvin, arγaravin, verγaravin, araraj, veraraj, nuraj, arγaraj, nuraraj- nobody, not anybody, nobody ever, not anybody anymore, nothing, nothing at all, not anything [14, p. 73]; though the negative pronoun verγavin- nobody at all ever was not revealed in the four texts we have investigated, it is notable that two new forms of pronouns arγavin, verγavin - nobody anymore and not anybody anymore were added to the list of the pronouns above:

ara+vin > aravin-not+who>not anybody: ...sixaruli thkhueni aravin migiγos thkhuengan- let not anybody take away your joy from you Sinai Polycephalion: Sin. Mr., 1, 3, 29 (1v); arγa+vin > arγavin - not any more+who:dahrkhuamath: ...hp’ovoth k’itshvi dabmuli, romelsa k’atshi arγavin dadჳdomil ars- Saying, . . . you will find tied there a colt that has never been ridden Tetraevangelium (redactio athonensis): NT, Lk., 19, 30; arγara+vin > arγaravin - not anymore+who >not anybody any more: amierithgan arγaravin aq’uedros gardaslvaj igi mtshnebathaj... –sincenow not anybody any more reproach for deviation from commandments Sinai Polycephalion: Sin. Mr., 17, 91, 13 (85v);ver+vin > vervin - can’t+who:vervin ∫emdzlebel ars γirsad p’at’ivis-tshemad misa- anyone can’t respect him properly Sinai Polycephalion: Sin. Mr., 23, 139, 36 (135r);verγa+vin > verγavin - not anybody anymore+who>not anybody whoever: verγavin ik’adra sit’q’vis-gebad ts’midisa basilisa matshilobelthaganman- not anybody from those who were arguing dared to answer St. Basil Sinai Polycephalion: Sin. Mr., 11, 71, 28 (68v); nu+vin > nuvin - don’t+who > don’t anybody: da nuvin daak’ldebin ts’odebasa amas sixarulisasa- and let not anybody miss this call of joy Sinai Poly¬cephalion: Sin. Mr., 24, 141, 24 (136v);

ara+ra(j) > araraj- not+what>nothing at all:da araraj miugo mas artsha erthisa sit’q’visathvis.. - But he gave him no answer, not even to a single charge Tetraevangelium (redactio praeathonensis): NT, Mt., 27, 14;...da arara iq’o qheltha ∫ina mistha - and nothing at all was at his hands Vetus testamentum iberice, redactio Gelatica: VT, Ju., 14, 6 (376v, 192r); arγa+raj > arγaraj - nothing what>nothing at all anymore:artshaγa vin ik’adra mier dγithgan k’ithxvad misa arγaraj - nobody dared to tell him any word, nothing at all since that day. Tetraevangelium (redactio athonensis): NT, Mt., 22, 46; vera+raj > veraraj - not any (impossible)+what> impossible something:da vithar veraraj sargebel ekhmneboda, ma∫inγa ts’il-igdes - and only when it was impossible to have any benefits then they cast lots Sinai Polycephalion: Sin. Mr., 19, 106, 7 (100r); nu+raj > nuraj - not (don’t)+what>not any:thkhu nurajgmobaj γmrthisa mimarth da mohk’ude- Don’t say any blasphemy about God and die Sinai Polycephalion: Sin.Mr., 38, 214, 36 (204v); nura+raj > nuraraj - let be nothing+what>nothing at all: da hrkhua math: nuraraj gakhun gzasa zeda... - And he said to them: take nothing to your journey Tetraevangelium (re¬da¬ctio athonensis): NT, Lk., 9, 3.

In Old Georgian the negative adverbs’ structure is much like one of the negative pronoun’s: negative particle+interrogative adverb/noun. The scientists regard the number and qualifications of the adverbs differently [17, p. 141; 14, p. 159; 6, p. 64]. Taking all the existing opinions into account, the final list of the negative adverbs is as follows:arasada, verasada, nusada, araodes, veraodes, nuodes, arasadajth, araჳamsa- nowhere, not anywhere, never impossible ever not ever, from no side, not any timesthough in the texts chosen for analyses only two are revealed:
ara+sada > arasada - no+where>nowhere:...arasada mtshnebasa ∫ensa gardavhqhed, da me arasada mometsh thik’ani erthi, rajthamtsha megobartha t∫hemtha thana vixare - I have never (in nocase, nowhere) disobeyed your command; yet you have never given me even a young goat so that I might celebrate with my friends Tetraevangelium (redactiopra-eathonensis): NT, Lk., 15, 29; nu+sada > nusada - not+where>nowhere, not anywhere: ...nusada ts’arstshe khvasa pherqhi ∫eni - so that you will not dash your foot against a stone (anywhere) Tetraevan¬ge¬li¬um (redactioa¬t-ho¬nensis): NT, Lk., 4, 11.

The adverb arasada –nowhere is mostly evidenced in the Sinai Polycephalion; next by frequency are pre-Athenic and Athenic redactions of the New Testament; as for the adverb nusada - nowhere Gelati redaction of the New Testament shows most productive in this respect. In the Athenic redaction we discovered only two cases of its use and in Sinai- only one. It often has the meaning of the particle nuuk’ue/nu - let it not/do not.

In modern Georgian negation is expressed by means of negative pronouns and adverbs by addition of the particles ar (a), ver (a) and nu (ra) - no, cannot and let not (nothing). One of them is always included in a negative pronoun or adverb, namely, negation particle adds to the interrogative pronouns (vin/ra - who/what): aravin, veravin, nuravin - nobody, nobody at all, let nobody;arara, verara, nurara - nothing, not anything, nothing at allor some other words add pheri/nairi/vithari- colour/kind of/like: arapheri, verapheri, nurapheri - nothing (no kind of/ no colour of), aranairi, veranairi, nuranairi; aravithari, veravithari, nuravithari- nothing like that/nothing of that kind/not any kind of that [see16, p. 44].

Examples from the Georgian Language National Corpus: p’iradad t∫hemthan aravin ar mosula–nobody didn’t come to me) id=240075157464347&cpos=28744449&corpus¬=grc; nurtshnuravin ∫eetshdeba- Let not nobody try to do thisid=240075206005831&cpos=84723278&corpus=grc; gulma verara ver ∫eiq’vara- heart could not love anything (nothing at all) id=240075206005831&cpos=17564283&corpus=grc; -erthmaneths verapheri gavagebineth–we could understand each other nothing at all id=240075206005831&cpos-=28532808&corpus=grc; nurapheri ∫egva∫phothebs - let nothing worry us id=240075206005831&cpos=19252237& corpus¬=grc; veranairi ekhsp’ert’iza ver t∫hat’ardeba - no expertise (not at all any) can be done id=24-0075206005831&cpos=53608005&corpus=grc; math artsh aravithari rts’mena ar gaat∫hniath...- they do not haveno (not any) belief at all id=240075206005831&cpos=82455112&corpus=grc; veravithari p’olit’ik’uri reჳimi veγar dagitshavs- not any political regime will be able to protect you id=240075206005831&cpos¬=141352685&corpus=grc.

The same particles (no, not, do not, not any) are used to derive negative adverbs by adding the adverbs of place, time and manner:-sad–where,-dros-time,-nairad, -gzith-manner, means): arsad, versad, nursad - nowhere; arasdros, nurasdros, verasdros – never; aranairad, veranairad, nuranairad - by no manner; arasgzith, verasgzith - by no way: arsad vmu∫aob- nowhere I work id=240075206005831&cpos=28636125&corpus=grc; versad veγar vip’ove- could not anymore find it anywhere id=240075206005831&cpos=10773036&corpus=grc; thu vinmes sit’q’va lobireba examu∫eba, nursad it’q’vis - if anyone does not like the word “lobbying” let him never say it anywhere id=240075206005831&cpos=55302476&corpus=grc.

The adverb dros - during, in time of is itself an unchangeable dative case form of the noun and the case marker -s adds to the particle and is used with it: ara-s+dro-s, vera-s+dro-s, nura-s+dro-s- never, cannot be ever, let it be nevere.g.: arasdrosartsh momsalmebia - even never greeted me id=240075157464347&cpos=140328098&corpus=grc; burduli k’i verasdros ikhneboda int’rigebis ep’itshent’r∫I - Burduli could not ever be in the epicentre of intrigues id=240075206005831&cpos=45943848&corpus=grc; besik’is t’oms nurasdros gada∫lis- let him never open the book of Besiki id=240075157464347&cpos-=107601068&corpus=grc.

To deliver an adverb of manner the nouns in adverbial case form are used nairad- in manner: aranairad arts phalsiphik’atshiasthan da artsh xarisxthan ar gvakhvs sakhme- in no manner we have dealings neither with falsification nor with quality id=240075206005831&cpos=2062884&corpus=grc; ts’uthisophlis da∫iphrul ts’eras veranairad veγar ugebda- could not any more get the meaning of script of the life id=240075206005831&cpos=140371533&corpus=grc.

One of the lexical units constituting a negative adverb is a noun in the instrumental case form-gzith (by means): arasgzith ar unda vats’q’eninoth moses da davithis xalxs- weshould by no means hurt the people of Mosesand David id=-240075206005831&cpos=31613055&corpus=grc; bulbulis galobis mosmenis msurveli q’vavis q’rant’alith verasgzis dak’maq’ophildeba - by no means can anyone who wishes to hear a nightingale be satisfied of the raven’s croak id=240075206005¬831&cpos=52764652&corpus=grc.

Thus in Georgian, beginning from the Old Georgian language traditions, there has been an established grammar model of negative pronouns and adverbs compounded with the negative particles and interrogative pronouns/nouns. The negative pronouns evidenced during the research are characterised by relative productivity in the Old Georgian written texts. Most frequent in the Old Georgian written monuments are the following pronouns: aravin, vervin, nuvin, araraj, veraraj - nobody, nobody at all, let anybody, nothing at all, cannot anything. It is noteworthy that all the negative pronouns using in Old Georgian did not move into the Modern Georgian; e.g.:araraj, veraraj, vervin, nuvin, arγaraj- nothing at all, can’t be anything, let nobody, nothing any more. Some such forms were expected to show in Old Georgian but in all the texts we have studied the following negative pronouns are not evidenced: artshraj, artshra, vertshra, nurtshra, nurtshraj, nurtsharaj, nurtshvin, vertshaγavin, nurtshaγavin.

In Megrelian the lexical units mitha- nobody and mutha - nothing are considered native negative pronouns, which are of compound structure and verbs with them are never in negative form but in positive mitha murs- nobody comes/will come, mutha ut∫’irs- nothing matters. According to this etymology mitha, will separate in the followingway, considering its constituents: mi- who (interrogative pronoun,+thi relative particle+a < var – not negative particle). Thus, mitha

Due to the fact that, arguably, a negative particle, even in a reduced form, is still present in these pronouns, we believe that this results in their agreement with the affirmative forms of verbs. skhani met’i mitha p’unania... - we have nobody but you. Megrelian Texts ed. Qipshi¬dze: IQ, ZS, XIII, 5 (31, 20).

Negative semantics in Megrelian is expressed not only by means of the negative pronouns but also by indefinite pronouns. In particular we mean mithini - anyone, muthuni - anything, namuthini–any generally followed by verb “ to be” together with the negative particle “no”, “not”. Indefinite pronouns in their turn are of the complex construction in Megrelian and are based on the interrogative pronouns [8, p. 049; 13, p. 224-225]: muthuni vadvark’at’ ∫xvasie let’s not refuse anything to other for anything) Megrelian Texts ed. Xubua: MX, 21, 86, 6.

Thus, semantics of the negative pronouns in Megrelian is expressed in accordance with the following grammar model: indefinite pronoun+negative particle, and it should be noted that both direct and reverse orders are possible, though negative pronouns show only the direct order, i.e. indefinite pronoun+negative particle: mithini var, which means nobody. It can be said that in both cases the verb with a negative particle tends not to be separated from the indefinite pronoun as their intonation unity introduces semantics of negation.

In Megrelian the indefinite pronouns can also be used in the function of negative pronouns, but this does not imply all groups of the indefinite pronouns; namely, migidareni and migida of the type “somebody (that who it is)” are never evidenced in the above mentioned function, unlike the indefinite pronouns mithini, muthuni, namuthini. For more information about the three groups of the discussed pronouns see I. Kipshidze [8, p. 049].

In Megrelian there is a negative adverb sotha – literally meaning nowhere:“where+relative particle will not/will be not it” which, regarding the structure is much like the forms mitha andmutha, contains an interrogative word and a reduced form of the negative particle. Adverbs agree with verbs in affirmative forms: sotha vorekh mantebeli - I am not running anywhere (I do not mean to run anywhere) Megrelian-Georgian Dictionary Kajaia: Megr. Dict., m, mant'ebel-i, 11579 . Besides that, in order to deliver negative semantics, an indefinite adverb sothini is also used, to which a negative particle var - not is aded (comp. delivering negative semantics by means of the I group indefinite pronouns): seri∫i giothanaphalkh sothini vama∫iis - we could not get any shelter for the night Megrelian Texts (from Сборник материалов): SM, 10/2, 4, 331, 67. Like the case of the indefinite pronouns, here the reverse order is also possible although the direct order prevails and is used to express the semantics of the negative adverb, comp.:sothini var - nowhere.

In Megrelian the adverb of time dγas- today, with the negative particle var- no also bears a negative meaning (dγas var – etymologically: “onnoday” – never; here day denotes time in general). This adverb of time can be evidenced pre-or post-positionally, though a direct order is more productive edჳgura dγas vaaphue bo∫iis nadჳirephi - This boy may have never seen something like this):

Thus, in Megrelian, negative pronouns and adverbs are of complex structure; they contain interrogative words and particles, including the remainders of negative particles. In order to express negative semantics a certain group of the indefinite pronouns, containing interrogative words and adverbs is used in combination with the negative particle.

In Laz proper negative pronouns are not evidenced. Simplified forms of the indefinite pronouns mithi - nobody and muthu - nothing are used in this function, containing interrogative pronouns. To express negation,var - no particle is added. The grammatical model is constructed as follows: indefinite pronoun+var negative particle, which is immediately followed by a verb in constructions like: mith var doskhidu-doren- nobody did not stay [4, p. 72]; ma skhan saγluγi∫en ba∫kha muthvar minon - I do not want nothing but your health) [4,p. 72].

In Laz, sothi which is a simplified variation of the indefinite adverb sothini is used, which contains an interrogative adverb and adds a negative particlevar/lazuti sothi var ort’u - maize was not nowhere [7, p. 219]. The Turkish negative particle hit∫ ’is also used in Laz, in the meaning of the negative adverb daha hit∫’ hamdora∫khule va bidi him t∫’ioi∫a- since that I never go to this village [7, p. 220].

Thus, the grammatical model containing the negative semantics in Laz is as follows: indefinite pronoun/ adverb+negative particle.

Svan, as compared to Georgian, is richer in the number of negative pronouns and the range of their employment also differs not only in different dialects but also in different modes of speech.

Many variations of negative particles in Svan correspond semantically to Georgian particles ar, ver, nu -no, cannot, do not: no - mā, mām(a), mōm(a), mād(e), mōd(e), madma, mad(e), mäd(e), mädm(a), mōdma, mode, mäd∫, ma/äjth, mä∫, dēs(a), dētsh(a), dēm(a), dēma(m), dēmis, deme(g), dem, dema, demis, bai…;
can’t- de∫, de∫sa, de∫ma, me∫mam, do∫…;
do not - no, nōs(a), nōm(a), nos(a), nom(a), nu/∂m(a), no/emeg, nem…
The majority of the mentioned particles reveal minor differences in some details, nevertheless it is often advisable to exchange them in texts; consequently, the pronouns, containing those particles show the similar situation in semantic viewpoint, e.g. negative pronouns cotaining negative particle mam(a), as compared to the pronouns containing madma (‘madma’particle, are less categoric and is used to Expressneutral negation. As for negative pronouns with madma-particles they express negation more categorically, against some specific fact. The causes of such semantic differences lay in the particles’ structure: categoricalness (“strong language”) is emphasised by the units, which simultaneously contain two different components of negation (m,d) (mamagwe∫ - no or nothing, madmagwe∫- nothing at all. mām mak’u- I don’t want, mād mak’u- I don’t want at all, not a bit (specific fact or thing) [9, p. 27]. It is often impossible to deliver their exact meaning in Georgian.

The Svan language uses the following grammatical models to express the negative pronouns:

(1) negative particle+interrogative pronoun: där- nobody = de- no+jär - who; de∫jär- no one = de∫- can no+jär- who; nōr- let no one = noma- don’t+jär+ who; dē/esama- nothing, no thing at all no+anything =desa- no+(h)esa+mäj - what/something; de∫ma - nothing (cannot anything) =de∫ - can’t+mäj - what; nō/osama- let nothing= nō/osa - let it not + mäj - what, dexeda- no one = de- no+xeda- which, de∫ma- cannot anything (=nothing) = de∫, do∫ - can’t+ mä - what, xeda–which and so on;athcxē drojჳi d’r igem amჳi k’otōl khorōlars - In this time nobody builds (sets) such asmall house) SPT, IV, 49, 64, 5; ჳi dexeda t∫’ikhs l∂mägo∫illi - it turned out that he did not fill no glass)(SPT, III, 126, 116, 13); mit∫ha jexws de∫ma axmeqrālvne, de i∫gens ēs - could not explain anything to his (own) wife and to others) SPT, IV,84, 123, 20;

(2) negative particle+noun gwe∫ - job: māmgwe∫/ mamagwe∫/mādmagwe∫=mām/madma - no+ gwe∫comp. Georgian no+color): madmagwe∫ cho∫k’ena- he/she has eaten anything Sv-dict, A. Shgni, 1957; laid t∫hu nomoγw adgär I ler∫wnid eser dem xor∫wni demgwa∫w Don’t kill me and I will never say a word about it to you [19, p. 316];

(3) negative pronoun+particle expressing possibility-mo∫/ därmo∫- let nobody can comp. model (1): de∫jär;
The structural model of the negative adverbs in Svan is similar to that of the negative pronouns:

(4) negative particle+interrogative adverb: dēm(e) - nowhere - de-m-no+imewhere: mahwrēne muxwbēmi tshxwi dēme xegwbenixthe arrow of the younger brother cannot be found anywhere [2,p. 158]; demeg-imeg- nowhere, demeg– no+ imeg - where: a∫xw sophels nent∫haγalisgäxi demegimeg xar- one village has no forest near it Svan Prose Texts II (Lower Bal): SPT, II, 125, 250, 3. de∫oma- neve, de(me)- no+∫oma- when: γ∂rda et∫hxent∫hu, demeg xo∫idda–devi(a mythological giant) never went in that direction (that side) he was not allowed Svan Chrestomaty: SC, 245, 225, 4.

(5) negative particle+preposition-postposition: dēmthe - nowhere to - dem- no+the -towards: γwa∫ärs qhalāz dēmthe xarax- the wild goats had nowhere to go [2, p. 84];

(6) negative particle +noun ∫hikh- time: demt∫hikh-s/dēmt∫hikhkha - never= deme– not+∫hikh¬-s, t∫hikhkha on time: dჳwinald methxwjär härid dēmt∫hikhkhat’exenda- in old times a hunter would never return without anything (empty) [2, p. 83];

(7) negative adverb + particle expressing possibility mo∫: dēmthe-mo∫ - no direction: dჳg∂rägs esnär ∫uk’w t∫hwäthkharw’n I kha dēmthemo∫xexōli - it is said St. George lost his way and cannot find it anywhere) [2,p. 132].
Thus, grammatical models used to express negation in the Georgian language and other Kartvelian languages which do not possess scripts, are similar by their composition; namely, interrogative words and particles are parts of the models. The negative particles with the meaning “no” occupy a definite position: in Georgian and Svan, such a particle precedes an interrogative word whereas in Megrelian and Lazit follows the interrogative word. Judging by the richness of particles and their semantical diversity, Svan stands out from other Kartvelian languages. It is noteworthy that in addition to the above mentioned, both in pronouns and adverbs,the following different model is evidenced: negative pronoun/adverb+particle of possibility.

II. Issues of the double negation
In the Georgian language we have the evidence of single and also double negation. Negation is single where only one negative word is used: either a pronoun, adverb, or a particle. Negation is double if, besides a negative pronoun and a negative adverb, there is a negative particle too, e.g. ar movida- did not come;aravin movida- nobody came; comp. aravin ar movida- nobody did not come; versad ver vip’ove- could not find anywhere.

Theoretically this issue is investigated thoroughly in Georgian linguistics in diachronic and synchronic planes. Besides that a particular attention is paid to grammatical-stylistic aspects of using double negation [20; 3; 15; 12; 5; 1; 21]. According to the research by V. Topuria, double negation was not used anywhere in original Georgian texts or translations from Greek of the X-XI Centuries. The scientist acknowledges only one case of double negation in “Adishi Tetra evangelium“ which he considers to be accidental.

According to V. Topuria, double negation is a secondary phenomenon for the Georgian language and begins from the Middle Georgian period. In the epic poem Vepkhistkaosani (Knight in the Panther Skin) both kinds of negation coexist. The famous scholar suggests that such forms did not develop under the influence of the foreign languages and “double negation is a natural phenomenon for Georgian” [20, p. 322].

Concerning usage of single and double negations, their “mutual substitution is free and belongs to the sphere of stylistics” [1, p. 178], but nevertheless there are some cases where the choice does not depend on the author’s will and where double negation is necessary: 1. When a negative pronoun or adverb stays apart from the verb; 2. When a pronoun is a pre-positioned determiner; 3.When negative words – a pronoun, or a noun adds a relative particle -tsha [12; 1, p. 178; 21, p. 124-125]. The cases of misusing of this type in mass media were studied by L. Geguchadze who emphasised that journalists prefer single negation even in the cases where double negation is necessary [5, p. 32-40].

The data of the Georgian Language Corpus enables us to ascertain frequency and peculiarities of usage of single and double negation in Modern Georgian as the corpus methodology provides a reliable statistical picture.

All the negative pronouns, either used separately or with particles, were evidenced in the Georgian language national Corpus: arapheri, verapheri, nurapheri- nothing, not anything; aravin, veravin, nuravin - nobody, cannot any; aranairi, veranairi, nuranairi- no kind;aravithari, veravithari- no way;arara, verara- no means, etc. The pronouns nuravithari andnurara -let no kind of and let nothing are relatively rarely used pronouns (nurara- let nothing is sometimes divided in nura ra). In oder to express double negation the negative particle ar-tsh, aγar-tshis used with the pronouns. Only rarely those particles precede the pronouns.

Statistical data of the negative pronouns usage (separately or with the particles) are given below:


Examples:dჳer arapheri ar aris dak’arguli - nothing is not lost yet (id=240075781283829&cpos=28666052&corpus=grc); am p’rotshess verapheri veγar ∫eat∫herebs- nothing cannot stop this process (id=240075781283829&cpos=68224037&corpus=grc); p’iradad t∫hemthan aravin ar mosula- nobody did not come to me (id=240075781283829&cpos=28744443&corpus=grc); axla k’i math xels veravin veγar ∫eu∫lis.

- and now nobody will not interfere with them) (id=240075781283829&cpos=54866641&corpus=grc); nuravin nu imukhreba da nu gva∫inebs ts’asvlith - let nobody do not scare us and do not threaten with leaving (id=2400757812838¬29&cpos=46169246&corpus=grc); t∫’iri aranairi ar varga- nothing harmful is good (id=240075781283829&cpos=51154¬703&corpus=grc); masze vertshveranairi ekhsp’ert’iza ver t∫hat’ardeba - not any kind of expertise cannot do with it (id=-240075781283829&cpos=53608005&corpus=grc); math artsh aravithari rts’mena ar gaat∫hniath - they do not have no belief at all (id=240075781283829&cpos=82455112& corpus=grc); veravithari p’olit’ik’uri reჳimi veγar dagitshavs- no political regime cannot protect you any more (id=2400757812838-29&cpos=141352680&corpus=grc); გულმა არარა არ გაიკარა gulma arara ar gaik’ara - the heart did not let nothing close to it (id=240075781283829&cpos=17564207¬&corpus=grc); magis nura gephikhrebath-ra - do not worry anything about it (id=240080269683483&cpos=143562809&cor¬pus=grc).
In the corpus all the negative pronouns were revealed, independently or with the negative particle, except for two of them: nuranairad andaragzith - by no mannerand by no way: arsad, versad, nursad, arasdros//arasodes, verasdros//verasodes, nurasdros//nurasodes, aranairad, veranairad, arasgzith, vera(s)gzith - nowhere, cannot anywhere, never,etc. In order to express double negation, negative particles with or without relative particletsh are used with the named adverbs: ar(tsh), aγar (tsh) – no, not more ).

The statistical data of using the negative adverbs are given in the table below:


Examples: arsad ar aris nathkhvami- it is not said nowhere (id=240075781283829&cpos=49986401&corpus=grc); ∫en nursad nu ts’axval xval- do not go nowhere tomorrow (id=2400757812¬83829&cpos=141951921&corpus=grc); igini arasdros aγar∫eiq’rebian erthad - they will not assemble together never (id=240075781283829&cpos=8386282&corpus=-grc); γmertho, nurasdros nu dagvatshileb! - Oh God, let not part us never! id=240075781283829&cpos=82886349&corpus=grc); asethi p’roblema aranairad ar ats’uxebth - such problem does not trouble them no manner (id=240075781283829&cpos=45196232 &corpus=grc); rusethis revolutshiis ist’oria sakharthvelos gamoritshxvitharasgzith ar daits’ereba - history of Russian revolution couldnot be written without Georgia by no way (id=¬240075781283829&cpos=75971720&corpus=grc).
Altogether 121, 859 contexts expressing negation, are found in the Georgian Language National Corpus (GEKKO), 11,233 of them contain double negation (about 9.21%). These data confirm the scientists’ observations about co-existence of single and double negations in Georgian, though single negation cases prevail. According to the GEKKO-data, literary texts show scarcely any examples of single negation in the place where double negation is needed. Unlike this, the media language revealed the cases where a negative pronoun aranairi, veranairi, nuranairi; aravithari, veravithari, nuravithari - no kind of, cannot any kind of, let no kind of, nothing of the kind, nothing like that, let nothing like that is in the role of the attribute, e.g. dek’anosidzes thithqhmis aranairi p’roblema ar ∫eqhmnia -Dekanosize had almost no problem (id=240075206005831&cpos=28557759&corpus=grc).

The data of the corpus also shows with which pronoun or adverbis often used with single negation. (e.g.arapheri – “nothing”): out of 36,495 contexts only 3,840 are double) and also, which double negation is favored (e.g..,aranairad – by no means) from 1,461 examples 1,228 are double).
Double negation is absolutely unacceptable for the Svan language. There are no such forms as nobody did not come – the correct form is: d’r anqäd - nobody came. As well as this, it is not correct to use a negative pronoun and a negative adverb in the same context, e.g. nobody nowhere goes in Svan will be d’rimth’ēsxri (<d’rimthe esxri), literally: – nobody where goes; never no one came but instead it: de∫omajäranγ∂rda; literally: never who came.

Double negation is also not used in Megrelian and Laz languages. The negative particle var -not/cannot, standing in an initial position is considered both a part of the grammatical model expressing negation and a determiner of negative semantics. For example, mithini vamurs, which literally means: whoever there be that is not coming.

1. Arabuli A., Georgian Speech Culture,“Universal”, Tbilis 2004 / არაბული, ა., ქართული მეტყველების კულტურა, „უნივერსალი“, თბ., 2004.
2. Chrestomathy of Svan language. (The texts gathered by A. Shanidze, M. Kaldani and Z. Chumburidze). “TSU Publishing house”, Tbilisi 1978. / სვანური ენის ქრესტომათია (ტექსტები შეკრიბეს ა. შანიძემ, მ. ქალდანმა და ზ. ჭუმბურიძემ), „თსუ გამომცემლობა”, თბ., 1978.
3. Chumburidze Z., “Negative Particles in Georgian and Stylistic Peculiarities of Their Usage”: Georgian Language and Literature in School, #2, Tbilisi 1970, p.p. 41-46. / ჭუმბურიძე, ზ., „უარყოფითი ნაწილაკები ქართულში და მათი ხმარების სტილური თავისებურებანი“: ქართული ენა და ლიტერატურა სკოლაში, N2, თბ., 1970, გვ. 41-46.
4. Dumezil G.,Laz Folk Tales and Legends, (Georgian version of text and the vocabulary compiled by Manana Bukia). ”Meridiani”,Tbilisi 2009. / დიუმეზილი, ჟ., ლაზური ზღაპრები და გადმოცემები, (ლაზური ტექსტის ქართული ვერსია და ლექსიკონი შეადგინა მანანა ბუკიამ). „მერიდიანი“, თბ., 2009.
5. Geguchadze L.,“About the Wrong Forms of Single Negation in Modern Georgian”: The Problems of the Georgian Literary Language: History and Modern State, Collection I, Tbilisi 2007, pp. 32-40. / გეგუჩაძე, ლ., „ერთმაგი უარყოფის მცდარ ფორმათა შესახებ თანამედროვე ქართულში“: ქართული სალიტერატურო ენის საკითხები: ისტორია და თანამედროვე მდგომარეობა, კრ. I, თბ., 2007, გვ. 32-40.
6. Imnaishvili D., “Negative Pronouns and Negative Adverbs in Iberian-Caucasian Languages”, Iberian-Caucasian Linguistics, v. IV, (ed. by I. Gigineishvili). “Georgian Academy of Sciences Publishing House”, Tbilisi 1953, pp. 53-73. / იმნაიშვილი, დ. „უარყოფითი ნაცვალსახელები და უარყოფითი ზმნიზედები იბერიულ-კავკასიურ ენებში“: იბერიულ-კავკასიური ენათმეცნიერება, ტ. IV, (რედ. ი. გიგინეიშვილი), “საქ. სსრ მეცნ. აკად. გამომცემლობა”, თბ., 1953, გვ. 53-73.
7. Kartozia G., “Laz Texts”, Matsne, #4 (Academy of Sciences of Georgia), (ed. by Al. Baramidze). “Science”, Tbilisi 1970, pp. 219-232. / კარტოზია, გ., ლაზური ტექსტები: საქ. სსრ მეცნ. აკად. „მაცნე“ ენისა და ლიტერატურის სერია, #4 (რედ. ალ. ბარამიძე). „მეცნიერება“, თბ., 1970, გვ. 219-232.
8. Kipshidze I., Grammar of Megrelian (Iberian) language with reading texts and dictionary. Imperial Academy of Sciences, S. Petersburg 1914 (in Russian). / ყიფშიძე, ი., Грамматика мингрельского (иверского) языка с хрестоматией и словарем, ТИПОГРАФIЯ ИМПЕРАТОРСКОЙ АКАДЕМIИ НАУКЪ, СПБ, 1914.
9. Lomia M.,“The principles of Functional Distribution of the Negation and Confirmation Participles in Megrelian”: Problems of Linguistics, “TSU Publishing House”, Tbilisi 2013, pp. 221-231. / ლომია, მ., „უარყოფითი და დადასტურებითი ნაწილაკების ფუნქციური განაწილების პრინციპები მეგრულში“: ენათმეცნიერების საკითხები,“თსუ გამომცემლობა”, თბ., 2013, გვ. 221-231.
10. Margiani-Subari Q., Derivation of the Negative Forms in Svan and in Abkhaz-Adighe Languages (Diploma work, manuscript), Tbilisi 1978. / მარგიანი-სუბარი, ქ., უარყოფითი ფორმების წარმოება სვანურსა და აფხაზურ-ადიღეურ 

ენებში (სადიპლომო ნაშრომი, ხელნაწერი), თბ., 1978.
11. Martirosov A., Pronoun in Kartvelian Languages,“Georgian Academy of Sciences Publishing House”, Tbilisi 1964. / მარტიროსოვი, ა., ნაცვალსახელი ქართველურ ენებში,“საქ. სსრ მეცნ. აკად. გამომცემ¬ლობა”, თბ., 1964.
12. Reference Book for Journalists, International Journalistic Centre. Tbilisi 2002. / ჟურნალისტის სტილისტიკური ცნო¬ბარი, ჟურნალისტთა საერთაშორისო ცენტრი, თბ., 2002.
13. Rogava G. “Trail of Zan conjunction - particle -(ni) in Chandialect”: Iberian-Caucasian Linguistics, v. XXVII. “Mecniereba” Publishing House, Tbilisi 1988, pp. 221-226. / როგავა, გ., „ზანური-ნი კავშირ-ნაწილაკის კვალი ჭანურ დიალექტში“: იბერიულ-კავკასიური ენათმეცნიერება“, ტ. XXVII, „მეცნიერება“, თბ., 1988, გვ. 221-226.
14. Sarjveladze Z., Old Georgian Language, “Tbilisi State Pedagogical Institute Publishing House”, Tbilisi 1997. / სარჯველაძე, ზ., ძველი ქართული ენა, „თბილისის სახელმწიფო პედაგოგიური უნივერსიტეტის გამომცემ-ლობა”, თბ., 1997.
15. Shalamberidze, G., Some Questions of the Georgian Correct Speech, “TSU Publishing House”, Tbilisi 1980. / შალამბერიძე, ქართული სწორმეტყველების ზოგი¬ერთი საკითხი, „თსუ გამომცემლობა”, თბ., 1980.
16. Shanidze A., “Bases of Georgian Grammar”, Collected works in 12 volumes, vol. III. “TSU Publishing House”, Tbilisi 1980. / შანიძე, ა., ქართული ენის გრამატიკის საფუძვლები, ტ. III, თხზულებანი თორმეტ ტომად. “თსუ გამომცემლობა”, თბ., 1980.
17. Shanidze A., Old Georgian Grammar, “Tbilisi State University Publishing House”, Tb., 1976. / შანიძე, ა., ძველი ქართული ენის გრამატიკა, “თსუ გამომცემლობა”, თბ., 1976.
18. Sharadzenidze T., “Negative particles in Svan”: Iberian-Caucasian Linguistics, vol. I. “Georgian Academy of Sciences Publishing House”, Tb., 1946, pp. 289-328. / შარაძენიძე, თ., „უარყოფითი ნაწილაკები სვანურში“: იბერიულ-კავკასიური ენათმეცნიერება, ტ. I. „საქ. მეცნ. აკად. გამომცემლობა”, თბ., 1946, გვ. 289-328.
19. Svan Prosaic Texts, vol.II, Lower-Bal dialect. (The texts collected by A. Davitiani, V. Topuria and M. Kaldani). “Georgian Academy of Sciences Publishing House”, Tbilisi 1957. / სვანური პროზაული ტექსტები, ტ. II, ბალსქვემოური კილო (ტექსტები შეკრიბეს ა. დავითიანმა, ვ. თოფურიამ და მ. ქალდანმა), „საქ. სსრ მეცნ. აკად. გამომცემლობა”, თბ., 1957.
20. Topuria V., Collected Works, vol. II, “Georgian Language”, Tbilisi 2002. / თოფურია, ვ., შრომები, ტ. II, „ქართული ენა“, თბ., 2002.
21. Zeqalashvili R. The Issues of Georgian Orthography, ”Univrsali”, Tbilisi 2004. / ზექალაშვილი, რ., ქართული ენის მართლწერის საკითხები, „უნივერსალი“, თბ., 2004.