Nanomorphosyntax of the Iberian-Caucasian Languages and Its

Leading Elements in Diachrony

Ts. R. Baramidze

Iv. Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgiea

Keywords: Nanomorphosyntax, Iberian-Caucasian Languages, Lability, Grammatical Class, Ergativity, Recipient.

Abstract: The article deals with the relationship between the main categories of nanomorphosyntax of the Iberian-

Caucasian languages (lability, grammatical class, ergativity). The relationship of these categories should be

studied as elements of nanosyntax. The formation of a complex syntactic system of the Iberian-Caucasian

languages is associated with the specifics of the verb of these languages. Verbal categories are included in the

syntactic constructions of the Iberian-Caucasian languages; therefore, the syntax of these languages should

be considered as morphosyntax. The significator of an ergative construction in a verb is the recipient marker

(R). The recipient marker (R) is a small element, an “atom” of the nanomorphosyntax of the Iberian-Caucasian

languages, which preserves the ancient conjugation model. From a nanosyntactic point of view, I consider the

recipient - R (direct object) to be the key and leading actant, as well as the smallest element of this actant - a

marker of the ergative construction in the Iberian-Caucasian languages. I note that the recipient valence, its

form-content originality forms a set of distinctive features of the Iberian-Caucasian languages from other

language families, including those languages that have ergative and ergative constructions, but do not have a

grammatical class, lability and, most importantly, priority of recipient marker valency (R) in a transitive verb.

1 INTRODUCTION

In the article the relationship between the main

categories of nanomorphosyntax of the Iberian-

Caucasian languages (lability, grammatical class,

ergativity) is considered. The interrelationship of

these categories should be studied as elements of

nanosyntaxis. I want to discuss the solution of a wide

range of issues, from large problems, such as

modularity of language, to small details, such as the

functioning of allomorphy (facultative and

positional) in Iberian-Caucasian languages and its

interaction with syntactic structures. Synchronous

and diachronic analysis of the empirical material of

the Iberian-Caucasian languages, as well as the use of

the method of internal reconstruction of subsystems

between language groups show that the main

morphosyntactic categories are interrelated. This

relationship may reflect the smallest element of the

nanomorphosyntax of the Iberian-Caucasian

languages - the recipient marker (R).

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

The atoms of language are smaller than we thought

(Starke, 2009). The problem of differentiation of

research fields of formal and functional language:

"Formal research assumes immanent qualities of

language form, study of causal connection between

formal elements... Accordingly, functional research

assumes language functions, discussion of structure

(values), their mutual relations... A separate problem

is the correlation of form and function. In this case, I

discuss the formal-functional relation in the

nanosyntax of the Iberian-Caucasian languages.

Nanosyntactic structures are much larger than we

thought and, conversely, their elements become much

smaller. It turns out that this contradicts a

fundamental tenet of the field: the deeply rooted

assumption that the "ingredients" of syntactic

structure are lexical units, "words" or "morphemes.

The contradiction stems from the fact that

traditionally one views syntax as a way of organizing

lexical units. But as syntactic structures "grew," not

only their "terminals" became "much smaller," they

became submorphemic - smaller than individual

morphemes.

Baramidze, T.

Nanomorphosyntax of the Iberian-Caucasian Languages and Its Leading Elements in Diachrony.

DOI: 10.5220/0011602700003577

In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Actual Issues of Linguistics, Linguodidactics and Intercultural Communication (TLLIC 2022), pages 77-83

ISBN: 978-989-758-655-2

 2023 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. Under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

I consider the recipient – R (direct object) as the

key and leading actant and the smallest element of

this actant - marker of the ergative construction in

Iberian-Caucasian languages from the nanosyntactic

point of view. I will note that the recipient valency,

its form-containing singularity forms a set of

distinguishing features of Iberian-Caucasian

languages from other language families, including

those languages which have ergative and ergative

constructions but have no grammatical class, lability

and, most importantly, the priority of the recipient

marker valency (R) in the transitive verb.

3 RESEARCH RESULTS

In the Iberian-Caucasian languages three types of

conjugation are attested: class, class-personal and

personal. We should separately distinguish cases

when a verb does not change either in person or in

grammatical classes (Lezgi language). If the language

does not distinguish between grammatical classes,

then the language cannot have class or class-personal

conjugation, but personal conjugation (or non-

differentiation of persons and classes). There is class

conjugation in Chechen, Ingush, Avar and Andi and

Dido languages (Chikobava, 1979).

Class conjugation can be of two kinds: class-

subject and class-object. In a non-transitive verb, only

the class and number of the subject (class-subject

conjugation), and in a transitive verb, only the class

and number of the object (class-object conjugation)

can be designated: in class conjugation, the subject is

not reflected in the transitive verb - the verb does not

designate either class or number of the subject. Class-

subject conjugation of a non-transitive verb.

For example, Avar language: w-ugo wats "there is

a brother" - noun (subject) of grammatical class I

("man"); j-igo jats "there is a sister" - noun (subject)

of grammatical class II ("woman"); b-ugo ču "there is

a horse" - noun (subject) of grammatical class III; r-

ugo watsal, jatsal, chujal "there are brothers, sisters,

horses" - nouns (subjects) of the plural I, II and III

grammatical classes; w-ach’ana wats "came brother"

- noun (subject) of I grammatical class ("man"); j-

ach’ana jats "sister came" - noun of II grammatical

class ("woman"); b-ach’ana ču "horse came" - noun

(subject) of III grammatical class; r-ach’ana watsal,

jatsal, čujal "brothers, sisters, horses came" - nouns

(subject) of I, II and III grammatical classes in plural.

The class-object conjugation of the transitive

verb: w-etsula wats "praises brother" is the noun

(subject) of grammatical class I ("man"); j-etsula jats

"praises sister" is the noun of grammatical class II

("female gender"); b-etsula ču "praises horse" is the

noun (subject) of grammatical class III whom; r-

etsula watsal, jatsal, čujal "praises brothers, sisters,

horses" are nouns (objects) of grammatical classes I,

II and III in the plural. In the plural, the grammatical

classes are not distinguished, so the nouns of all three

classes have the same form. In a transitive verb, all

four forms indicate the class of the object: "who is

praised?", "what is praised?" The verbs w-etsula, j-

etsula, b-etsula indicate that the nouns belong to

grammatical classes I, II and III (Chikobava, 1979).

In general, the transitive verb semantics implies

an active subject and therefore the designation of the

subject is more important here than in a non-transitive

verb, but this logical assumption is not justified: a

verb with active semantics indicates the name to

which the action is directed and the actor (subject) is

not reflected in the verb conjugation - active action

without an actor (without subject) - such is the

transitive verb in the Ibero-Caucasian grammar class

conjugations.

In the class conjugation, the subject (with a non-

transitive verb) and the nearest object (with a

transitive verb) are denoted by the same formants: w-

ach’ana 'come' points to the subject of Grammatical

Class I and w-etsula 'praise someone' points to the

object of Grammatical Class I, in both cases the noun

being in the Nominative case. The subject and object

are distinguished by personal conjugations

(Georgian: v-aqe 'I praised him', m-ako 'he praised

me'; v - S1, m - O1). However, the same subject and

object person form can be denoted by the same

formant (e.g. in Adygean, Ubykh and Abkhazian).

The indistinguishability of subject and object

formants is an ancient phenomenon, and the

distinction is new.

In Old Georgian, the plural of subject and object

could be denoted in the verb by the same suffix - en:

igini (S) ts’er-en "write"; igini (O) čven davts’er-en-

it "we wrote them"; both subject and object are in the

nominative case here (Chikobava, 1979).

4 DISCUSSION

As it is well known, the grammatical class category,

which is the basic morphological category in the

Nakh languages and most Dagestani languages, is

alien to the Kartvelian languages; it is differentiated

in both Abkhazian and Abaza, but does not occur in

other languages of the same group: Adyg languages

and Ubykh. The conjugation systems of the Adyghe,

Ubykh and Kartvelian languages are personal, the

verb changes either according to the subject or to the

TLLIC 2022 - I INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE "ACTUAL ISSUES OF LINGUISTICS, LINGUODIDACTICS AND

INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION"

subject and the object. In most Nakh and Dagestani

languages, the verb is alien to the person category; the

verb changes according to classes: a non-transitive

verb changes according to the subject class, a

transitive verb changes only according to the object

class; in the transitive verb conjugation the subject is

never specified. In some languages of the Daghestan

group, in addition to the category of class, the verb

has the category of person... In one language (Udi) the

conjugation system is personal, and in two closely

related Udi languages (Lezgi and Agul) the verb

changes neither in class nor in person (Chikobava,

1979).

Originally in morphology the grammatical class

category – persons (who?) and things (what?) –

represented the basic, universal morphological

category; grammatical class indexes were used in

nouns, adjectives, numerals, pronouns, verbs,

participles, masdars, adverbs of place. In Kartvelian

languages we can observe the presence of fossilized

class-markers (fused with bases) in nouns, verbs; as

well as in participles and masdars, although their

function has already changed; the morphological

relation between the categories of person (who?) and

thing (what?) is mostly complete, sometimes

incomplete.

The main marker of the class category in the Nakh

and Dagestanian languages d- is also found in the

Kartvelian languages, namely in verbs (fused together

with bases). Grammatical classes were also indicated

in the declension of nouns. The original conjugation

system was class conjugation, the next step in the

development of the conjugation system was the

period of the class-personal conjugation, which was

replaced by the personal conjugation as a result of

dying away the class category. In Old Georgian

personal conjugation the leading role of the object (in

comparison with the subject) was still felt, which was

essential for class conjugation.

The leading role of the object in transitive verb

conjugation, which is the initial position typical for

the history of verbal conjugation in the Iberian-

Caucasian languages, explains the amplification on

the object; this feature was characteristic of the

transitive verb, the verb of the ergative construction.

The ergative construction was formed simultaneously

in the Iberian-Caucasian languages during the period

of class conjugation, when verb stems differed only

minimally from nominal stems. Transitive verbs in

the ergative construction could not distinguish a

voice; the stem of a transitive verb could be neither

passive nor active (transitivity was initially "labile" in

nature).

Lability in the Kartvelian languages has now

disappeared. Lability is a leading phenomenon in the

morphosyntactic structures pattern of the Iberian-

Caucasian languages. Lability is present wherever if

there is a grammatical class and, consequently, an

ergative. Diachronic analysis of the lability of the

Kartvelian languages empirical material and the

synchronic aspects of the languages allow the

reconstruction of the category of lability as a key

morphosyntactic phenomenon of the Iberian-

Caucasian languages along with grammatical class

and ergative through internal reconstruction of

subsystems among the Iberian-Caucasian language

groups. The verb-predicate of a labile construction

creates the possibility of varying transitivity-

intransitivity:

Georgian: aγ iq’vana man igi – "he took him"

(Active) – aγ iq’vana igi = aγ q’vanil iqna "was taken"

(passive);

Georgian: moiḳ la man igi "killed himself"

(Active) - moiḳ la igi "was killed" (Passive).

Active and passive semantics participate in

lability before the formation of a voice; lability

expresses both active and passive nature without a

voice. The precedence of labile constructions lies in

the designation of the recipient (direct object) in the

verb instead of the subject and even of the ergative

construction in languages which have no ergative

case, since the case has not been developed (e.g., in

Abkhazian). Ergativity and lability are intertwined

with the most ancient morphosyntactic phenomenon

– the grammatical class. In languages in which the

grammatical class is well preserved and the

conjugation has the character of class conjugation, the

category of lability-stability fully functions, contains

the semantics of transitivity-intransitivity and

formally expresses precisely both active and passive

nature.

The expression of active voice is directly related

to the marking of the grammatical class of the

recipient in the verb. Object-class conjugation is the

initial morphosyntactic structure model of ergative-

constructed languages with morphosemantic ability

to express lability and transitivity. The voice in these

languages (Abkhaz-Adyg, Nakh, Daghestan) is not

developed because it is not necessary - the category

of lability includes active and passive, both

semantically and formally, as a possibility of active

and passive voice subsequently.

In languages in which the class has disintegrated,

the category of labiality is gradually reduced, and

then semantics creates a voice category along with the

category of transitivity-non-transitivity to express the

grammatical opposition of active and passive

character from the depths of labiality, but the active

Nanomorphosyntax of the Iberian-Caucasian Languages and Its Leading Elements in Diachrony

voice is a syntactic unit (defined by construction), the

passive developed later (for example, in Georgian).

What is the set of basic categories of

morphosyntactic system structure of Paleo-

Caucasian< Iberian-Caucasian languages and what

are the main categories representing their

morphosyntactic constructions in entwinement? The

study of empirical material of Iberian-Caucasian

languages proves that lability is the leading

phenomenon in the morphosyntactic frame model of

these languages – in diachronic analysis of empirical

material and synchronic aspects of these languages

and the use of internal reconstruction of subsystems

among language groups. Grammatical class and

ergativity are also key morphosyntactic phenomena

of the Iberian-Caucasian languages. The verb-

predicate with labile construction creates the

possibility of variation of actants and transitivity-non-

transitivity. Active and passive semantics participates

in lability before voice formation and expresses both

active and passive without voice.

Avar: šiša b-eq’ana "The bottle was broken" (S

Nom.),

vats-a šiša b-eq’ana "the brother broke the

bottle" (S Erg. O Nom.) (Chikobava, 1962).

The form b-eq’ana is ambivalent; the verbal form

is unchanged, the construction varies, and hence there

is possibility of expressing active and passive. The

bivalent form is transitive and expresses an active

action, and the univalent form is non-transitive and

expresses a passive action. The agent S in the

monovalent form (šiša b-eq’ana "The bottle broke")

corresponds to the recipient in the bivalent form

(vats-as šiša b-eq’ana "The brother broke the bottle").

There are stable and labile verbs in Adygean.

Some simple verb stems may be either transitive or

non-transitive; these are stable verbs; transitive verbs

have historically been labile - the same verb with a

simple stem could form an ergative construction in

one context (i.e. could have a recipient) and a

nominative construction in another (could have no

recipient). The Adyghe language has preserved labile

verbs. For example, the verb q'ute "to break" may be

both non-transitive (dzhegual'er meq'ute "The toy is

broken") and transitive (ki elets’ek’um dzhegual'er

eqs'ute "The child breaks the toy"). The author points

out that transitivity-non-transitivity of verbs with

labile construction change as a result of the

alternation of the vowel stem: ma-de "smb. sews" (in

general) is non-transitive, e-dy "smb. sews

(something)" is transitive (Ujuhu, 2012).

The formation of the complex syntactic system of

the Iberian-Caucasian languages is related to the

specificity of the verb of these languages. Verbal

categories are included in the syntactic constructions

of Iberian-Caucasian languages; therefore, the syntax

of these languages should be regarded as

morphosyntax. The morphosyntactic cornerstone of

Iberian-Caucasian (Paleo-Caucasian) languages is the

category of grammatical class, the classification of

beings, things, events of the universe not only as

reasonable and unreasonable classes, but also as a

linguistic worldview. Even an imperfect study of the

various Iberian-Caucasian language families shows

that the labile phenomenon is characteristic only of

those languages which have a grammatical class and,

therefore, a priority of the recipient marking – i.e.

objective marking in the transitive verb-noun, and in

such a construction the Subject is in the Ergative, i.e.

has an Ergative construction despite the time of action

expressed by the verb (tab.: izu b-is-nu-za ǯa "I

caught the bird" A - Erg. R - Nom.).

It is essential for labile constructions to have a

recipient (direct object) in the verb instead of the

subject, and to have an ergative construction even in

languages that do not have an ergative as a case, since

the declension has not developed (e.g., in Abkhazian).

Why is declension not developed in Abkhazian?

Abkhazian transitive verb contains markers of

recipient and agent; recipient comes first, indicating

that the verb is transitive and has an ergative

construction, i.e. the subject of this verb contains an

ergative... The non-alternative marking of the

recipient priority in a language is an ancient

phenomenon in the Iberian-Caucasian language.

The objective conjugation in Georgian (gaqeb me

šen ... "I praise you...") can only be explained by the

fact that the morphosyntactic constructions of

Kartvelian conjugation were formed as one of the

diasystems of the morphosyntactic frame model -

system of Iberian-Caucasian languages - a historical

departure from the basic system and reinterpretation

of the system expressing the change of actants

valence (class - class-person - person), lability was

destroyed along with grammatical class and as a

"compensation" the voice evolved. As a result of the

divergence of the original morphosyntactic system of

the Iberian-Caucasian languages, the

nanomorphosyntactic diasystems were formed,

which subsequently formed the morphosyntactic

properties of the related branches of the Iberian-

Caucasian languages.

Ergativity and transitivity, as well as the priority

of recipient marking simultaneously exist in the

morphosyntactic basis of the Iberian-Caucasian

languages. Today Adygean languages have no

grammatical class, but this does not mean that the

TLLIC 2022 - I INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE "ACTUAL ISSUES OF LINGUISTICS, LINGUODIDACTICS AND

INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION"

features of this category are excluded and no longer

exist. The grammatical class has not disappeared

without a trace. The voice category in these languages

has not been formed seeing that, in spite of the fact

that the grammatical class has disappeared as a full-

fledged morphological phenomenon, the lability

remains and, therefore, the ability to distinguish

between active and passive character exists. On the

one hand, there are languages with personal

conjugation (Adygean, Udine...) in which the class

conjugation has been destroyed, but the lability is

preserved and the category of the voice has not been

formed. On the other hand, there is a model of

personal conjugation in which the lability has been

partly or largely obscured together with the class

conjugation, the model of object conjugation has

collapsed, but the object conjugation has still

survived (gaqeb me šen "I praise you"...). In order to

compensate for the lost class and lability, in contrast

to the North Caucasian languages, voice grades,

rounds and series were formed.

Thus:

1. The morphosyntactic basic system of the

Iberian-Caucasian languages included the

following categories: grammatical class,

ergative-nominative, labile-stable, dynamic-

static, semantic distinction of active-passive

nature.

2. Stage 2 preserves all the above categories, but

the grammatical class expression weakens and

the process of collapse of this category in the

so-called peripheral languages begins, but the

process of collapse at this stage is not yet

complete. Along with the collapse of the class

the opposition labile-stability weakens, but in

all Iberian-Caucasian languages the direct

object-marking priority of the verb is

preserved. Consequently, at this stage the

formation of the declension system, the case-

marking begins. At the 1st stage no cases are

marked, but there are constructions:

nominative, ergative, reflected in the verb (cf.

Abkhazian). Abkhazian remained in Stage 1 for

the formation of cases, and in Stage 3 for the

formation of conjugation.

3. At the 3rd stage the functioning

morphosyntactic phenomenon - grammatical

class is no longer marked, has completely

disintegrated as a functioning morphological

category, but has not disappeared without a

trace (participles, word-formation,

substances...). Lability-stability is lost, but the

"trace" remains; ergativity-transitivity becomes

more evident, leading to the final formation of

the system of declension. At this stage the

category of voice can be distinguished.

Thus, Stage 1 is well preserved in the North

Caucasian languages (except Adygean and some

Lezgi languages...). Stage 2 is a transitional stage, and

Stage 3 is represented in the Kartvelian languages.

The grammatical class contains notions of labiality

and ergativity, including the ability to meaningfully

and formally distinguish between active and passive.

Class conjugation, as the initial conjugation for

Iberian-Caucasian languages, is built precisely on

lability-ergativity, where the priority in expressing

the active character belongs to the recipient, unlike in

Indo-European, Turkish and other languages.

In non-Iberian-Caucasian languages, the active

and passive actants are always in the nominative case.

Here there is only a nominative construction. Hence,

there is no class, no labiality and ergativity, no

pronounced transitivity-non-transitivity distinction as

in the Iberian-Caucasian languages.

The objective conjugation in Georgian (gaqeb me

šen ... "I praise you...") can only be explained by the

fact that morphosyntactic conjugation constructions

of the Kartvelian languages were formed as one of the

diasystems of the morphosyntactic frame model -

system of Iberian-Caucasian languages - a historical

departure from the core system and reinterpretation of

the system expressing the change of actants valence

(class - class-person - person), lability being lost with

the grammatical class and as a "compensation" the

voice developed.

There are three different approaches to

understanding the category of voice in linguistic

Kartvelology:1. A. Shanidze: There are three types of

voice: active, passive, and middle (Kipshidze, 1994)

2. Arn. Chikobava: A verb can show active and

passive voice (Chikobava, 1979). 3. B. Jorbenadze:

Middle is one of the components of the voice, but at

the same time it is static. Active and passive voice

forms are opposed to the verb of the middle voice,

static to dynamic (Jorbenadze, 1975).

The Zanskij (Mingrelo-Lazian) material supports

the viewpoint of Arn. Chikobava. There are only two

voices in Zanski: active and passive. As for the so-

called middle voice, T. Uturgaidze's point of view

seems acceptable: verbs (qris "blows", ts’uxs

"worries", duγs "boils", dgas "stands", ts’evs "lies"...)

became medium after the category of voice

(Uturgaidze, 2002). D. Melikishvili's point of view is

also noteworthy: the agent of these verbs is the same

subject (ts’uxs is - tvitonve mts’uxarea - "He is sad -

himself is sad"). The subject of these verbs is self-

acting, its action is reciprocal (Melikishvili, 2001).

Obviously, it is necessary to distinguish the verbs of

Nanomorphosyntax of the Iberian-Caucasian Languages and Its Leading Elements in Diachrony

the so-called middle voice, as they form a group of

verbs which have no concept of voice, these are verbs

without voice and this is partly determined by their

semantics and largely by the fact that they are static

verbs (Kyria, 2015).

The verbs of the so-called Middle Voice are

singled out (A. Shanidze), because they form a group

of verbs without a voice meaning, these are verbs

without a voice and this is partly determined by their

semantics and to a large extent by their static nature.

These verbs have not developed the voice and are

therefore singled out into separate groups. In the

Middle and Active Voices, it is evident that the direct

object is lost everywhere, and at the expense of it, the

action transferred from the subject to the object

becomes a self-acting subject, and it gives the

impression that we are dealing with another type of

verb, while the loss of one of the objects has meaning.

In Mingrelo-Lazian it is impossible to observe this,

but in Old Georgian it is obvious:

Old Georgian. h-mepob-s - h-mepa,

New Georgian. mepob-s "reigns" imepa

"reigned".

The recipient is lost in the verb because of the

semantics of the verb, otherwise the presence of a

personal marker indicates that h-mepa means

"reigned / was king. That is why bivalent markers are

given in the verb. I. Kipshidze did not single out the

conjugation of verbs of the so-called middle voice, as

the scientist believed that medioactives in the

Mingrelian language are conjugated similarly to

verbs of the active voice (Kipshidze, 1994).

Labiality is an ancient category in the Ibero-

Caucasian languages. The ergative construction in the

Ibero-Caucasian languages is neutral from this point

of view. The great structural difference between the

modern Ibero-Caucasian languages gives us an

excellent opportunity to trace in diachronicity the

history of the overall structure of these languages

through the internal reconstruction of the subsystems.

5 CONCLUSIONS

The history laid out hereby reveals the general

phenomena underlying the modern differences: the

structural differences between the Ibero-Caucasian

languages are secondary, the general features are old.

The original residence of the Ibero-Caucasian peoples

is a natural prerequisite for the problem of historical

and genetic kinship of the Ibero-Caucasian languages

with the non-Indo-European and non-Semitic

languages of the same region: the Hattian, Urartian,

Hurrian, Proto-Caucasian languages (the mentioned

problem has a long history).

The above conjugation types must belong to

different periods of time: they reflect different stages

in the evolution of the conjugation system. This is

evidenced by the results of studying their relations by

the method of internal reconstruction: class-personal

conjugation - class conjugation, complicated by

personal indicators. This is most evident in those

languages in which the grammatical class indicator is

a prefix and the person indicator is a suffix (Lak,

Dargin and Batsbi), and the person indicators may or

may not be attached to the verb, and the class markers

are not obligatory. Since the historical connections of

class and class-personal conjugation have already

been identified, we can establish the history of the

formation of personal conjugation: personal

conjugation can be seen as the result of simplification

of class-personal conjugation. After the

disappearance of the category of grammatical classes,

the verb ceased to change by grammatical classes.

The destruction of the grammatical class category in

the language must have entailed the loss of class

conjugation: the class indicator left without function,

according to the general rules, must have either been

lost, merged with the base, or acquired a new function

(reinterpretation).

Despite such significant changes, the

morphosyntactic models historically developed by

primordial categories preserve the priority of the

recipient (R) even in languages where the

grammatical class (Georgian, Adygean) has

disappeared or class-personal conjugation is

represented, but there is no nominative, ergative,

dative system. The signifier of the ergative

construction in a verb is the marker-recipient (R)

(Abkhazian). The marker-recipient (R) is a small

element, an "atom" of the nanomorphosyntax of the

Iberian-Caucasian languages, preserving the ancient

model of conjugation.

REFERENCES

Starke, M., 2009. Nanosyntax: A short primer to a new

approach to language. 36. 1. pp. 1-6.

http://www.ub.uit.no/baser/nordlyd/.

Jorbenadze, B., 1975. Formal and functional analysis of the

Georgian verb. pp. 177.

Melikishvili, D., 2001. On the principle of grouping

conjugated forms of Georgian verbs into rows and

series.

Uturgaidze, T., 2002. On the direction and outcome of

morphological processes. II.

TLLIC 2022 - I INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE "ACTUAL ISSUES OF LINGUISTICS, LINGUODIDACTICS AND

INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION"

Kyria, C., Ezugbaya, L., Memishishi, O., Chukhua, M.,

2015. Comparative grammar of the Laz and Mingrelian

languages. I.

Kipshidze, I., 1994. Works.

Shanidze, A., 1953. Fundamentals of morphology.

Chikobava, A., 1979. Introduction to Iberian-Caucasian

linguistics.

Chikobava, A., Tsertsvadze, I., 1962. Avar language.

Ujuhu, T., 2012. Textbook on Adygei (Circassian)

Language.

APENDIX

Abbreviations:

Avar. - Avar

Georgian. - Georgian

Old Georgian. - Old Georgian

New Georgian. - New Georgian

noun

tab. - Tabasaran

с. - page

R - recipient

S - subject

O - object

Nanomorphosyntax of the Iberian-Caucasian Languages and Its Leading Elements in Diachrony