Tea Burchuladze 

Towards some types of word-combinations in a compound subordinate clause

In the linguistic literature different authors make an attempt to solve the issue of word-combinations based on different methodologies. To explore the essence of a syntagm is one of the important issues of the theory of syntax. In the Georgian language the principle of singling out syntagms based on different types of a sentence (simple, compound and complex) is quite specific. The principle of singling out syntagms is based on this specificity.

Arn. Chikobava noted that the word combination is not a mere set, sequence of words: “A word combination is a sequence of words revealing a certain relationship with each other. Only this relationship turns a string of words into the word combination”. The study of a word combination aims to analyze the interrelationship between the words. In order to discuss the issue from this standpoint, it is essential to determine the role of a certain word in this interrelationship [5, p. 94].

Thus, each pair of words originating from a word-combination is the smallest syntactic unit. As noted above, a multi-word sentence usually consists of such units. The number of pairs in a sentence is always fewer than that of the members. The conclusion is reached according to which in a simple sentence the number of pairs is equal to that of the members minus one [3, p. 16]. As to a complex sentence, since it consists of several homogenous members, thereby each homogenous member is included in the syntagm as a group and not separately. For example, homogenous subjects syntactically related to the verb-predicate, homogenous attributes – to a determinant as one syntagm, etc. The analysis of a syntagm in a complex sentence reveals that the number of syntagms in a paratactic sentence is considered separately in each of the member sentence [3, p. 17].

Georgian professional literature has not yet analyzed the issue regarding how many or what kind of syntagms can be singled out in a complex subordinate clause. As well as this, it has yet to determine what kind of rules and principles should be employed to single out a hypotactic structure or word combinations in a complex sentence. This problem is topical since a complex subordinate clause is both structurally complex and long. We believe that in the complex sentence the method of selection of syntagms successfully employed with other types of a constructions cannot be effective.

In addition, it should also be taken into account such sentences are characterised not only by independent clauses but they are also always accompanied by the subordinate ones. It is also important to reveal the means the main clause is linked with the subordinate one, whether this is by means of subordinating conjunctions, relative adverbs or relative pronouns. In addition, it has not yet been explored whether relative adverbs and relative pronouns can be considered parts of the word-combinations or what role the subordinate conjunctions play in syntagms. It is also debatable syntagms can be singled out separately in the main and subordinate clauses of a complex sentence.

I argue that any word-member of a complex subordinate clause is considered together with its corresponding member in a syntactic pair. Like a complex coordinate clause, here syntagms are considered separately (both in the main and in the subordinate clauses). This opinion is based on the fact that such words are simultaneously a conjunction as well as a member of the clause. At the same time, it plays a certain specific function in a hypotactic sentence: sometimes that of a subject, an object or an attribute, etc.

In addition, in a relevant pair they agree with the verb-predicate in the case and number. In the syntagms in which the relative words express the main members or a simple object of a sentence, the correlation with a verb-predicate is that of government. If a member-conjunction, expressed by a relative adverb, expresses any kind of adverbial modifier, it is parataxis: სადაც მივიდა (where smb arrived); როგორც უნდოდა (as smb liked) რისთვისაც დასჭირდა...(what smb needed for). [1, p. 57].

In the following word combinations the same syntactic relationships are observed: აქ მოვიდა და სადაც მივიდა; (smb arrived here and where smb arrived) გუშინ გავიგე და როდე¬საც გავიგე; (I got to know smth yesterday and when I got to know smth); უცბად გამოჩნდა და როგორც გამოჩნდა; (smb/smth appeared suddenly and as soon as smb/smth appeared) იმიტომ მერჩივნა და რადგანაც მერჩივნა; (that’s why I preferred and as I preferred) ამისთვის დამჭირდა და რისთვი¬საც დამჭირდა (I needed it for this and what I needed it for).

At this stage of the research I will focus on word combinations regarding the type of subordinate clauses in which the following subordinating conjunctions occur: თითქოს, (as if although/even though) თუმცა, (because/since), ვინაიდან,( even if/even), თუნდაც/თუნდ (even if); while, (სანამ), or else/otherwise, before/until/till, ვიდრე, სანამ( as though), ვითომ, თითქოს; (even (if), გინდ/გინდაც, (that), რომ, თუ (if).

In most cases, they link the parts of a subordinate clause together with the correlation word (in some cases, the above-mentioned conjunctions occur separately, without a correlation word):

ისე − თითქოს (thus – as if)
ისეთი − თითქოს ( so - as if )
ისე − რომ (thus - that)
ისეთი − რომ (such - that)
მანამ − სანამ (before - until)
ისე − ვითომ (thus – as though)

Out of these, while, until/till are the time conjunctions, because/since is a causal conjunction, even, even (if), though – deductive conjunctions, as though, until/till, as if– circumstantial - resultative conjunctions:
„ვიდრე ისინი ერთმანეთს ესიყვარულებოდნენ, მე გულმოდგინედ ვათვალიერებდი ამ კაცს“ (იოს.) (While they were caressing each other, I was observing this man attentively) (Ios.);
„სანამ ნატაშა ამ აზრების გამოკვლევაში იყო, ვაჟმა ისევ გააგრძელა ლაპარაკი“ (ყაზბ.) (While Natasha was clarifying these thoughts the boy continued speaking” (Qazb.);
„მე მათი მობრძანება არაფრად მეპიტნავებოდა, ვინაიდან გული ტყე-მინდვრებსა და სამწყემსურისაკენ მქონდა” (აკაკი); (I did not like their arrival, since my heart longed for the forest, fields and pastures) (Akaki);
„არ ვიმეტებდი, თორემ ადრევე იყო ჩემის ხელისაგან გასანიავებელი” (ილია); (I was sorry for him, otherwise I would have killed him earlier) (Ilia);
„თუნდ მიამბო, რა დასაძრახია?” (ილია) (Even you tell me, so what!) (Ilia);
„გინდაც ჯერ კიდევ სჭეროდა სისხლიანი დანა მკვლელს, ბოჩია ხელს მაინც ვერ დაადებდა“ (Even if the killer was holding a bloody knife, Bochia would not have been able to put the blame on him) (Chil.);
„ამხანაგები დასცინოდნენ, თუმცა მის ენერგიას პატივს სცემდნენ“(ფანჯ.); (Comrades ridiculed him, although they respected his energy) (Panj.);
„ქალიშვილმა ისე ჩაუარა, თითქოს ქუჩაში კაცის ნაცვლად ხე იდგა” (დუმბ.); (A young woman passed by him, as if there was a tree instead of a man standing there) (Dumb.);
ისე მეჩვენა, ვითომც სახის მეტყველება შესცვლოდა“ (ილია). (It just seemed to me as though his facial expression was changed) (Ilia).

I believe that in the given sentences the word combinations are singled out in the following way: (Below there are several examples):
„ამხანაგები დასცინოდნენ, თუმცა მის ენერგიას პატივს სცემდნენ“ (ფანჯ.); (Comrades ridiculed him, though they respected his energy).
The word combinations of the main clause:
2. ამხანაგები დასცინოდნენ (comrades ridiculed him)
The word combinations of the subordinate clause
1. თუმცა პატივს სცემდნენ although they respected
4. მის ენერგიას (his energy)
5. ენერგიას პატივს სცემდნენ (respected his energy)

2. „ვიდრე ისინი ერთმანეთს ესიყვარულებოდნენ, მე გულ-მოდგინედ ვათვალიერებდი ამ კაცს“(იოს.) (While they were caressing each other, I was observing this man attentively) (Ios.);

The word combinations of the main clause:
5. მე ვათვალიერებდი I was observing
6. გულმოდგინედ ვათვალიერებდი (I was observing… attentively)
7. ამ კაცს (the man)
8. ვათვალიერებდი კაცს (I was observing the man)

The word combinations of the subordinate clause:
1. ვიდრე ესიყვარულებოდნენ (while they were caressing)
4. ისინი ესიყვარულებოდნენ (they were caressing)
5. 2. ერთმანეთს ესიყვარულებოდნენ (they were caressing each other)

„მე მათი მობრძანება არაფრად მეპიტნავებოდა, ვინაიდან გული ტყე-მინდვრებსა და სამწყემსურისაკენ მქონდა“(აკაკი); (I did not like their arrival, since my heart longed for the forest, fields and pastures) (Akaki);
The word combinations of the main clause:
1. მე მეპიტნავებოდა (I liked)
2. მათი მობრძანება (their arrival)
3. არაფრად მეპიტნავებოდა I did not like

The word combinations of the subordinate clause:
4. ვინაიდან მქონდა ( since I longed)
5. გული მქონდა (my heart longed)
ტყე-მინდვრებსა და სამწყემსურისაკენ მქონდა (longed for the forests, fields and pastures)

„გინდაც ჯერ კიდევ სჭეროდა სისხლიანი დანა მკვლელს, ბოჩია ხელს მაინც ვერ დაადებდა“ (Even if the killer was holding a bloody knife, Bochia would not have been able to put the blame on him”(Chil.);

The word combinations of the main clause:
1. ბოჩია ვერ დაადებდა; (Bochia would not have been able to put the blame)
2. ხელს ვერ დაადებდა (would not have been able to put the blame)
The word combinations of the subordinate clause:
1. გინდაც სჭეროდა (Even if … was holding)
2. სჭეროდა დანა (was holding a knife)
3. სისხლიანი დანა (a bloody knife)
4. სჭეროდა მკვლელს (a killer was holding)

All the above given conjunctions are semantically related to the verb-predicate.

These subordinating conjunctions establish a semantic correlation with the verb-predicate. Due to this all the above given subordinating conjunctions create word-combinations – they establish relations only with the verb-predicate: ვიდრე ესიყვარულებოდნენ,(While they were caressing…) სანამ იყო, (While Natasha was)…; ვინაიდან მქონდა, (since my heart longed…); თორემ გასანიავებელი იყო (otherwise I would have killed…) თუნდ მიამბო, (Even you tell me…) …; თუმცა პატივს სცემდნენ, (though they respected…) თითქოს იდგა. (as if there was…). Since a syntagm is the smallest unit, which is based on the syntactic correlation between two words, and is expressed by the agreement, government and parataxis [4, p. 214], in the given word-combinations there is a syntactical correlation - a subordinating conjunction is in relation with the verb-predicate. In these cases there is a correlation similar to that between an amorphous word (adverb or prepositional nouns) and the predicate - parataxis. Contextually the verb-predicate is linked with the subordinating conjunctions so that it does not have any grammatical function.

The same word-combination occurs between subordinating conjunctions and the verb-predicate, similar to that between amorphous adverbs:

გუშინ მოვიდა (Yesterday smb came )
ახლა ვისწავლი ( I’ll learn now)
შემდეგ ააშენებს (Smb will build then)
გარეთ გავიდა (went out )
აქედან წავა (will go from here)
ძალიან გამრავლდნენ (they increased in number greatly )
გვიან დაბრუნდა (came back late)
აქამდე მოაღწია (reached until now)
მუდამ მუშაობდა (always worked)
სანამ მოვიდა (before smb came)
ვინაიდან ვისწავლე (since I learned)
გინდ ააშენოს (even if smb builds)
თუნდ გავიდეს (even smb’d go out)
თორემ წავა or else (smb will go)
თითქოს გამრავლდნენ (as if they increased in number )
თუმცა დაბრუნდა (though smb came back)
ვიდრე მოაღწევდა (before reached here)
ვითომ მუშაობდა (as though it worked)

I believe that in both word-combinations there is a similar situation. Therefore, while singling out the word-combinations of a complec subordinate clause a position of subordinating conjunctions in a syntagm should be considered.
Of the subordinating conjunctions ვი¬თომ (as if) and თითქოს (as though) are particles. It is well-noted in the professional literature that a particle does not have a syntactic correlation to the word to which it is added [3, p. 325]. “Prepositions and particles are not independent members of a sentence, therefore they cannot be components of a syntagm. Together with those words they are added to, they relate to other words and wholly they are a syntagms” [4, p. 213]. This is true, but in the given sentences they are subordinating conjunctions and not particles. Due to this, like other subordinating conjunctions (so–as if, so–as though) together with a correlative word, they link the parts of the subordinating clause. Therefore, I believe that they create word-combination together with a verb-predicate in a hypotactic sentence. Obviously, the situation is not similar in a simple sentence, because there they are particles and not conjunctions: ის თითქოს ამას მიხვდა; (“As if he understood it”); კაცი ვითომ სიმართლეს ამბობდა. (“As though a man was telling the truth”). cf. „ქალიშვილმა ისე ჩაუარა, თითქოს ქუჩაში კაცის ნაცვლად ხე იდგა“(დუმბ.) (“A young woman passed by him, as if he was a tree instead of a man” (Dumb.)); „მე ისე მეჩვენა, ვი-თომც სახის მეტყველება შესცვლოდა“ (ილია). (“It just seemed to me as though his facial expression was changed” (Ilia)).

The subordinating conjunctions თუ, რომ (if, that,) cannot create word-combinations in relation to a verb-predicate. The reason for this is that they do not relate to one member, but to a whole sentence (main clause). They are conjunctions, and due to this they cannot create syntagms. For example, „მე რომ ჩემი სიყვარული და ენერგია მთელ კაცობრიობას გავუ¬ნაწილო, ჩემს ძმას ერთი მემილიარ¬დედიც არ ერგებო¬და(ჯავ.); (“If I allot my love and energy to all mankind, my brother would not have the one billionth of it”(Jav.)) „ლევანი მიხვდა, რომ თავისუფალი სავარძელი იმ ახალგაზრდას ეკუთვნოდა“ (ფანჯ.). (“Levan realized that an empty seat belonged to that young man”(Panj.)); „შენც დაიჯერებ, რომ უნდობლობა თანდაყოლილი გრძნობაა კაცის“ (ჭილ.); (“You will also believe that the mistrust is an inherent sense of man” (Chil.)); „თუ ლაპარაკში მამაკაცები შეესწრებოდათ, მყისვე ჩაჩუმდებოდნენ“(ლეონ.); (“If men entered they immediately stopped talking” (Leon)). „ძალიან კარგი იქნებოდა, თუ ამას ლიტერატურულ განყოფილებაშიც შეიგნებდნენ“ (რობ.); (“It would be great if the literary department realized it” (Rob.)). It is well-known that the conjunction that is poly-semantic. According to the fact which linking word occurs in the main clause, the subordinate one which contains this conjunction, could be of various types [2, p. 222]. Obviously, its poly-semantic nature cannot determine the creation and non-creation of a word-combination.

Therefore, in a complex subordinate clause the subordinating conjunctions together with relative pronouns (relative adverbs, relative pronouns) create a word-combination in relation to a verb-predicate (except the conjunctions that and if ) in the form of parataxis. Therefore, when discussing the word-combination of a complex subordinate clause this principle should be considered.

Bibliography:
1. Burchuladze, G., “Towards a syntagm in a compound subordinate clause”. Ibero-Caucasian Linguistics, vol. XLII. Tbilisi 2015, p. 52-60 / ბურჭულაძე, თ. „სინტაგმის გამო¬ყოფისათვის რთულ ქვეწყობილ წინადადებაში”. იბერი¬ულ-კავკასიური ენათმეცნიერება, ტ. XLII, თბ., 2015, გვ. 52-60.
2. Parnaoz, Ertelishvili. “A History of the complex sentence in Georgia”, Hypotaxis Issues, 1. Tb. 1962 / ერთელიშვილი, ფ. „რთული წინადადების ისტორიისათვის ქართულში”, ჰიპოტაქსის საკითხები, 1. თბ. 1962.
3. Kvachadze, L., Syntax of the modern Georgian language. Tbilisi 1996. კვაჭაძე, ლ., თანამედროვე ქართული ენის სინტაქსი, თბ., 1996.
4. Kiziria, A., “Towards the issue of a syntagm”. Works of Tbilisi State University, vol. 53. Tbilisi 1954, p. 205 - 214 / კიზირია, ა. „სინტაგმის საკითხისათვის”. თბილისის სახელმწიფო უნივერსიტეტის შრომები, ტ. 53, თბ., 1954, გვ. 205-214.
5. Chikobava, Arn., “Comments on word-combinations”. Works, vol. II, Tbilisi 2010, p. 99-141 / ჩიქობავა, არნ. „შე-ნიშვნები შესიტყვების შესახებ”. შრომები, II ტომი, თბ., 2010, გვ. 99-141.
6. Dzidziguri, Sh., Problem of a complex sentence in Georgian. Tbilisi 1989. / ძიძიგური, შ. რთული წინადადების პრობ¬ლემა ქართულ ენაში, თბ. 1989.