Kartvelian languages

Genealogical tree

The connection between these languages was first reported in linguistic literature by Johann Anton Güldenstädt in his 1773 classification of the languages of the Caucasus, and later proven by G. Rosen, Marie-Félicité Brosset, Franz Bopp and others during the 1840s. Zan is the branch that contains the Mingrelian and Laz languages.

On the basis of glottochronological analysis, Georgi Klimov dates the split of the Proto-Kartvelian into Svan and Proto-Georgian-Zan (Proto-Karto-Zan) to the 19th century BC,^[10][11] and the further division into Georgian and Zan to the 8th century BC,^[11] although with the reservation that such dating is very preliminary and substantial further study is required.^[10] A 2023 study employing Bayesian linguistic phylogenetics in conjunction with archaeological, ethnoecological, and human population genetic data suggests a substantially earlier separation between Svan and the Karto-Zan languages. This multidisciplinary approach dates the divergence to the Early Copper Age, approximately 7600 years before present. ^[12]

According to this study it is highly likely that Proto-Karto-Zan (i.e. Proto-Georgian-Zan) prior to its split into Georgian and Zan was spoken by pre-Kura-Araxes and Kura-Araxes farmers that thrived in the watershed of Mtkvari (Kura) River during the Copper and Bronze Ages.

Higher-level connections

No relationship with other languages, including Northwest Caucasian and/or Northeast Caucasian, has been demonstrated so far.^[7] There have been numerous attempts to link Kartvelian languages to other language families, such as the proposed Nostratic family, but these have fallen out of favor.^[13] Certain grammatical similarities with Basque, especially in the case system, have often been pointed out. However, the hypothesis of a relationship, which also tends to link the Caucasian languages with other non-Indo-European and non-Semitic languages of the Near East of ancient times, is generally considered to lack conclusive evidence.^[7] Any similarities to other linguistic phyla may be due to areal influences. Heavy borrowing in both directions (i.e. from North Caucasian to Kartvelian and vice versa) has been observed; therefore, it is likely that certain grammatical features have been influenced as well.

Regular correspondences

Noun classification

The Kartvelian languages have traces of grammatical gender based on animacy, classifying objects as intelligent ("who"-class) and unintelligent ("what"-class) beings.

Declension

Verb

Kartvelian verbs can indicate one, two, or three grammatical persons. A performer of an action is called the subject and affected persons are objects (direct or indirect). The person may be singular or plural. According to the number of persons, the verbs are classified as unipersonal, bipersonal or tripersonal.

• Unipersonal verbs have only a subject and so are always intransitive.
• Bipersonal verbs have a subject and one object, which can be direct or indirect. The verb is:
  • transitive when the object is direct;
  • intransitive if the object is indirect.
• Tripersonal verbs have one subject and both direct and indirect objects and are ditransitive.

Subjects and objects are indicated with special affixes.

By means of special markers Kartvelian verbs can indicate four kinds of action intentionality ("version"):

• subjective—shows that the action is intended for oneself,
• objective—the action is intended for another person,
• objective-passive—the action is intended for another person and at the same time indicating the passiveness of subject,
• neutral—neutral with respect to intention.

Case patterns

Subject, direct object and indirect object are coded by the three core-cases, namely ergative, nominative and dative. Although the term "ergative" is traditional, strictly speaking no Kartvelian language features ergative alignment. Rather, they display a mixture of nominative-accusative and active alignment,^[16] depending on two factors:

• the class to which the verb belongs, based on its morphological and syntactic properties (class 1 including all transitive verbs, while intransitive verbs are divided between class 2 and 3);
• the series to which the tense/aspect/mood form (traditionally known as screeve) belongs.

Georgian and Svan have accusative alignment in the Present series (often termed Series I) and active alignment in the Aorist series (Series II).

Laz has extended the case marking of Series II to Series I, thus featuring active alignment regardless of tense.

Mingrelian, on the other hand, has extended the use of the ergative to all intransitive verbs, becoming fully accusative in all series, although with different case marking.