მოისმენს vs მოუსმენს

Fear_a_Phléasc
Posts: 74
Joined: 2013-12-04, 17:36
Gender: male
Country: US United States (United States)

მოისმენს vs მოუსმენს

Postby Fear_a_Phléasc » 2014-03-06, 6:01

Aronson gives "listen" with the ი versioner, whereas Kurtsikidze says it is უ.

I may be skipping ahead in my studies, but what is the difference between these, if any? Googling each word provides about the same number of results.

HoneyBuzzard
Posts: 454
Joined: 2009-04-18, 11:08

Re: მოისმენს vs მოუსმენს

Postby HoneyBuzzard » 2014-03-06, 14:17

I'm 100% certain there's a bit about this in Alice C. Harris's Georgian Syntax that says ი- has an inanimate direct object, and უ- has an animate indirect object., but for the life of me I can't find it now. It's a big book, and the index doesn't list verbs. :(

Examples in Aronson seem to bear this out,

მე თვითონ მოვისმინე მისი ყეფა. I myself listened to [the dog's] bark.
როცა ლაპარაკობდა, არ ვუსმენდი. When he was speaking, I was not listening to him.

but then it's not hard to find stuff like პირველად მოვუსმინე ამ სიმღერას I listened to this song for the first time (from Youtube).

I also asked ninkaakanino the same thing when she was still here. She said (about the above examples):

the common sense tells me that you can listen to a professor - as an indirect object. and usually nobody listens to dogs. you rather hear them bark or whatever sound they would make - thus, direct object -referring to ყეფა.


Since at least one native speaker agrees with what I remember reading in Georgian Syntax, I'd say it most likely is a question of animacy. Examples like the one from Youtube are probably reanalyzing the form with ი- as autobenefactive (i.e., hear for oneself), or they might simply be dialectal.

Fear_a_Phléasc
Posts: 74
Joined: 2013-12-04, 17:36
Gender: male
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: მოისმენს vs მოუსმენს

Postby Fear_a_Phléasc » 2014-03-07, 4:18

Interesting, thanks! That gives me enough to go on, at least. I wasn't sure if it was just natural variation or if there was a real difference in the type of situation, but it seems that there most likely is a primary link to animacy.

User avatar
E}{pugnator
Posts: 2077
Joined: 2002-06-24, 17:27
Real Name: Expug
Gender: male
Location: Vitoria da Conquista (living in Belo Horizonte)
Country: BR Brazil (Brasil)

Re: მოისმენს vs მოუსმენს

Postby E}{pugnator » 2014-03-11, 13:56

Hewitt (1995) agrees on the animacy distinction.
Learning Georgian, Mandarin Chinese, Russian and Papiamentu from scratch. Trying to brush up my Norwegian up to an advanced level.

Fear_a_Phléasc
Posts: 74
Joined: 2013-12-04, 17:36
Gender: male
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: მოისმენს vs მოუსმენს

Postby Fear_a_Phléasc » 2014-03-16, 1:25

Cool, thanks!

I also just realized that this sentence
პირველად მოვუსმინე ამ სიმღერას

is incorrect anyways (unless I'm mistaken), so trusting that they've used the correct verb seems dubious ;) Although I do believe it is the right verb.
Shouldn't it be "ეს სიმღერა" since it is in the aorist? :hmm:

HoneyBuzzard
Posts: 454
Joined: 2009-04-18, 11:08

Re: მოისმენს vs მოუსმენს

Postby HoneyBuzzard » 2014-03-16, 9:26

Fear_a_Phléasc wrote:Shouldn't it be "ეს სიმღერა" since it is in the aorist? :hmm:


I don't know if you've gotten that far yet, but the უ-series markers are always used for indirect object agreement regardless of the semantics of the indirect object, i.e., whether it marks a real indirect object (as here) or subject (under inversion).

In cases like this this lets us distinguish a dative direct object from a dative indirect object, e.g., მოისმენს uses a direct object (dative in the present/future, nominative in the aorist), and მოუსმენს uses a real indirect object (dative in both series).

ამ სიმღერას ვისმენ (dative direct object)
ეს სიმღერა მოვისმინე (nominative direct object)
ამ სიმღერას ვუსმენ (dative indirect object)
ამ სიმღერას მოვუსმინე (dative indirect object)

If you're interested in the historical development of this syntax, note that the present series behaves like an antipassive voice of the aorist, i.e., the ergative subject turns into an absolutive (now called nominative), and the absolutive direct object turns into a dative (reintroducing the chomeur direct object, and thus creating two datives if there already was an indirect object). This explains why dative direct objects like ამ სიმღერას ვისმენ don't trigger the უ- markers, they were never indirect objects to begin with.

Fear_a_Phléasc
Posts: 74
Joined: 2013-12-04, 17:36
Gender: male
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: მოისმენს vs მოუსმენს

Postby Fear_a_Phléasc » 2014-03-17, 23:02

Hmm, nope, definitely haven't gotten that far yet. I've encountered some verbs with the უ marker, which seems to have a couple of different functions: one as an actual versioner and the other as an object marker, but I could be explaining this badly. Meaning there is a difference in function between the უ in მოვუსმენს compared to უკეთებს. Kurtsikidze has this to say in the section on the first resultant tense: "Vowels ი and უ are version markers that, for historical reasons, appear in the perfect series; they do not serve to indicate a "version" meaning in the tenses of the perfect series." There could be a missing piece that connects these concepts, but I haven't learned it yet.

EDIT:
What is your source for the above bit about უ verbs always taking a dative direct object? I've encountered at least one example where this is not true, unless I'm misunderstanding you: Kurtsikidze has multiple examples like "მუსიკა დაუკარი?" If what you're saying is true, it should be "მუსიკას".

HoneyBuzzard
Posts: 454
Joined: 2009-04-18, 11:08

Re: მოისმენს vs მოუსმენს

Postby HoneyBuzzard » 2014-03-18, 19:46

I'll try not to get in the way of Kurtsikidze then. Probably owing to the short time Georgian has been studied in the west, different authors have different analyses of Georgian grammar, use the terminology differently, etc. I swear by Aronson, who deviates quite far from the traditional native analysis (in my opinion for the better), and he usually forgoes talk of "version" in favor of more universal concepts like subject, benefactive, possessive and ethical dative, etc.

Fear_a_Phléasc wrote:Vowels ი and უ are version markers that, for historical reasons, appear in the perfect series; they do not serve to indicate a "version" meaning in the tenses of the perfect series.


უ- is only used in the third person, so the ი- she's talking about here, the one used in the perfect series, is the first and second person allomorph. This is different from the ი- in something like ვისმენ.

What's going on underneath (Alice C. Harris's Georgian Syntax again) is that the third person indirect object marker elides in front of vowels, and it causes ი- to change to უ-. ვისმენ has no indirect object, so the ი- is allowed to remain intact.

Fear_a_Phléasc wrote:EDIT:
What is your source for the above bit about უ verbs always taking a dative direct object? I've encountered at least one example where this is not true, unless I'm misunderstanding you: Kurtsikidze has multiple examples like "მუსიკა დაუკარი?" If what you're saying is true, it should be "მუსიკას".


Try Aronson's Reading Grammar §13.6.2, for example. Aronson specifically notes on დაუკრავს "always takes u-series id.o. markers but has no id.o.." Note that this verb can also take the semantic direct object with -ზე, e.g., პიანინოზე უკრავ? Do you play the piano?

It's common to see verbs with fossilized person markers like this in Georgian, გაუშვებს, გაემართება, etc. If you want to be able to make generalizations in Georgian, you have to be ready for exceptions like this.

It's supposed to be "dative indirect object" anyway, for varying values of "indirect object." This is where Georgian really gets fun. I don't know how far Kurtsikidze goes, but Georgian has a disconnect between verbal markers, case markers and semantics. The უ-series markers, for example, always refer to indirect objects, but the semantics of the indirect object can change so much you'd think it should be an entirely different argument, e.g., subject, and the dative case, which you would expect should only be used for indirect objects, can also be used for other things, like direct objects (which however never trigger indirect object agreement on verbs), etc.

Maybe you shouldn't listen to me. I'm getting my Aronson all mixed up in your Kurtsikidze. :wink:

Fear_a_Phléasc
Posts: 74
Joined: 2013-12-04, 17:36
Gender: male
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: მოისმენს vs მოუსმენს

Postby Fear_a_Phléasc » 2014-03-19, 4:43

უ- is only used in the third person, so the ი- she's talking about here, the one used in the perfect series, is the first and second person allomorph. This is different from the ი- in something like ვისმენ.


This seems only partially consistent with what Kurtsikidze says. It's difficult to summarize because I'm not that good with the terminology, but yes, უ does indicate a third person in the context of the მი-, გი-, უ- markers (I believe she calls this the "perfect series" - still trying to wrap my head around the different terminologies involved and how they are different in different sources), but as a versioner in ordinary active verbs, such as დაუკრავს, there does not appear to be any such special characteristics of the subject-object relationship, i.e. she in fact gives "პიანინო დაუკარი?" which is a second person singular conjugation with a direct object. :hmm: I haven't read the relevant Aronson section yet. At this point I'll probably just finish this book and then go back to Aronson (which I think is more in depth, grammatically) and note if there are any actual discrepancies or if it was just my misunderstanding at the time (which is more likely).

HoneyBuzzard
Posts: 454
Joined: 2009-04-18, 11:08

Re: მოისმენს vs მოუსმენს

Postby HoneyBuzzard » 2014-03-20, 14:13

You mean she says that the უ in პიანინო დაუკარი is showing agreement for პიანინო? This isn't the case if we folllow Aronson's analysis. If this were the case, how would you explain something like ამ სიმღერას მოუსმინე?

Let us argue more when you have finished Kurtsikidze, maybe she has a different explanation later in the book. :)

Fear_a_Phléasc
Posts: 74
Joined: 2013-12-04, 17:36
Gender: male
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: მოისმენს vs მოუსმენს

Postby Fear_a_Phléasc » 2014-03-21, 16:38

You mean she says that the უ in პიანინო დაუკარი is showing agreement for პიანინო?


No, I must have explained it badly. She's presents the უ is as a versioner like any other in this verb. In this example it says nothing about the object or subject. It is the 2nd person singular past tense form of დაუკრავს.
how would you explain something like ამ სიმღერას მოუსმინე?

The only way I can think to explain it is, as you say, if the function of the უ in დაუკრავს and მოუსმენს are completely different, i.e. if what you say about the former being "fossilized" and not following the rules of most verbs is the case. At least, that's what I took that to mean. We have two examples which we can probably presume to be grammatically correct - both using უ in the 2nd person singular past tense, except one has the object in the dative and the other has it in the nominative. The latter is what I would have expected for both, but for what you've told me of what Aronson says about უ (by the way I have finished Kurtsikidze's book now and she makes no mention of this).

I quickly looked over 13.6.2 and didn't find any mention of დაუკრავს there. Which section was it in that you said that he mentioned that? The rest of it seems slightly out of context for me, so I'd have to read the entire section which I didn't have time to do just yet.

HoneyBuzzard
Posts: 454
Joined: 2009-04-18, 11:08

Re: მოისმენს vs მოუსმენს

Postby HoneyBuzzard » 2014-03-21, 19:55

Everything I've read, and not only in Aronson, says the უ-series markers correspond to indirect objects (and semantic subjects for class IV verbs and in the third series of class I and III verbs). Even Armazi's little summary says so. Everything I've read about the historical development would also lead to the same conclusion (because of the antipassive pattern I mentioned).

Examples of the ამ სიმღერას მოვუსმინე pattern abound both in textbooks and in the wild. It's particularly clear in verbs that have both a direct object and an indirect object, e.g., (from Aronson)

ხელი შეუწყო ეკონომიკისა და კულტურის განვითარებას, it lend a hand to the development of the economy and culture
დიანა, ქართული სიმღერა მიმღერე, გთხოვ! Diana, sing me a Georgian song, please.
წიგნს გიყიდდი. I would have bought you the book.
მე გამოგიგზავნეთ წერილი. I sent a letter to you.

Verbs like დაუკრავს just stand out like a sore thumb.

Fear_a_Phléasc wrote:I quickly looked over 13.6.2 and didn't find any mention of დაუკრავს there. Which section was it in that you said that he mentioned that?


It's in the vocabulary section for chapter 12, page 353.

§13.6.2 is just a summary, so it doesn't go into detail about particular verbs.

Fear_a_Phléasc wrote:The rest of it seems slightly out of context for me, so I'd have to read the entire section which I didn't have time to do just yet.


Was Kurtsikidze's book as you expected? You posted a review a while back. I hope you got something out of it even if it wasn't a smooth ride. ;)

Fear_a_Phléasc
Posts: 74
Joined: 2013-12-04, 17:36
Gender: male
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: მოისმენს vs მოუსმენს

Postby Fear_a_Phléasc » 2014-03-21, 22:21

Verbs like დაუკრავს just stand out like a sore thumb.


So I guess it's not normal to see a verb like this that uses the უ marker? I'm at quite a disadvantage here because none of this is discussed at all in Kurtsikidze. I would have to read all of Aronson to really have a foundation for discussion here - I don't even know the correct terms. The only time she talks about versioners in the context of objects, direct or otherwise, is in the perfective series, i.e. -მი-, -გი-, and -უ-, but that isn't really what we're talking about here. She seems to suggest that -უ- in this context isn't really a version marker in the ordinary sense of the word. This corresponds to this part of the link you provided:

This distinction is preserved in the aorist series, but it is lost in the perfect series as the pre-radical vowel now marks the 'logical subject' (კაცს k'ats-s) and not the beneficiary of the action.


I don't doubt that ამ სიმღერას მოვუსმენე is correct, I'm just trying to reconcile it with my own understanding of other examples like პიანინო დაუკარი. My hang-up, I guess, is that I don't think she covers any other -უ- verbs in this book with examples in the aorist that I can use for comparison. Is it safe then to just assume that დაუკრავს is an exception and I shouldn't expect it to conform to the rules of the other -უ- verbs?

I've gotten a lot out of the book, but it is definitely more of a text book for a class than it is a book for self-study, I think. Not that you can't use it for that, but as you see, there will be gaps in understanding of certain things. There are also just some everyday concepts/words that would prove useful which I'm surprised she doesn't cover, given that she opts to cover things like cooking recipes which most people may or may not have any use to know (although it's mostly a foundation for practicing the 2nd subjunctive tense, which is used in directions).

HoneyBuzzard
Posts: 454
Joined: 2009-04-18, 11:08

Re: მოისმენს vs მოუსმენს

Postby HoneyBuzzard » 2014-03-22, 15:36

Fear_a_Phléasc wrote:Is it safe then to just assume that დაუკრავს is an exception and I shouldn't expect it to conform to the rules of the other -უ- verbs?


Yes, definitely. The უ-series markers are always supposed to show agreement for an argument in the dative, but the reverse isn't true since the dative also has other functions (such as marking a direct object in the present/future). The argument can be an indirect object (a recipient, a benefactive, etc.) or a subject in the perfect series, but never a direct object. It's not hard to find verbs like დაუკრავს, but in these cases the უ- isn't showing agreement for anything. In practical terms it's just a derivational marker to separate it from related verbs like დააკრავს attach.

This is why I keep going back to the historical origin of the system. The development makes it clear that you shouldn't see things like უ- in the aorist without a corresponding dative argument, and whatever function that argument has in the aorist, it should have the same function in the present/future series.

Fear_a_Phléasc
Posts: 74
Joined: 2013-12-04, 17:36
Gender: male
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: მოისმენს vs მოუსმენს

Postby Fear_a_Phléasc » 2014-03-23, 3:30

Is შეკერვა "to sew" another exception? I've been looking for other ones in this book to try to get comparison and found this, and again it runs contrary to the rule in Aronson's:

დედამ შვილს კაბა შეუკერა
The mother sewed a dress for the child

I'd expect both of the nouns to be in the dative, but like the other such verb in this book it follows the same rule as every non-უ verb. I am guessing to avoid having to explain this, since she didn't really cover version, she stuck to verbs which obey the existing case rules she has covered?

But I'm realizing that I clearly don't get what's going on at all, because I re-read an earlier post and see

ხელი შეუწყო

Why isn't this dative? So far მოუსმენე is the only one I have seen where what I would expect to see as the direct object is in the dative and not the nominative, as I interpret from the -უ rule from Aronson's.

I even started reading chapter 13 of Aronson's and this is the first -უ verb I encounter in the aorist:
ქეთევანმა მათ საუზმე გაუმზადა
Ketevan prepared breakfast for them

Again, the direct object is in the nominative. :hmm:

In fact, reading some more of Aronson's, it seems most examples conform with my pre-existing understanding. He talks about აუშენებს so I did a Google search and found things like
აუშენე ოქროს ხიდი მტერს, რომელიც გტოვებს.

where again the direct object ხიდი is in the nominative as would be expected in the aorist series. If anything it looks like მოუსმენს is the exception rather than the rule, as far as what I've been able to find so far. The other strange piece of the puzzle is that Aronson's statement about დაუკრავს always using indirect object doesn't make much sense to me. That's the only piece that so far directly contradicts the examples in Kurtsikidze, as the indirect object in the aorist should be in the dative. If that's true, which I assume it is, the "song" that you are listening to is an indirect object rather than a direct object, whereas the instrument you play can be either the direct object (in Kurtsikidze) or something you play "on", as an indirect object (as in section 7 of Aronson).

HoneyBuzzard
Posts: 454
Joined: 2009-04-18, 11:08

Re: მოისმენს vs მოუსმენს

Postby HoneyBuzzard » 2014-03-23, 17:05

This all looks consistent to me.

I made some charts and parsing highlights. Everybody loves charts. ;)

For nouns:


SubjectDirect objectIndirect object უ-
PresentNominativeDativeDative
AoristErgativeNominativeDative


ამ სიმღერა მოვსმინე
ეს სიმღერა მოვისმინე
დიანა, (მე) ქართული სიმღერა მიმღერე, გთხოვ!
(შენ) წიგნს გიყიდდი.
(შენ) მე გამოგიგზავნეთ წერილი.

Fear_a_Phléasc wrote:Is შეკერვა "to sew" another exception?

დედამ შვილს კაბა შეუკერა
The mother sewed a dress for the child


No, this is exactly what we should expect:
დედამ შვილ კაბა შეკერა

Fear_a_Phléasc wrote:
ხელი შეუწყო

Why isn't this dative?


ხელი is the direct object. The indirect object, which უ- points to, is განვითარებას at the end:

ხელი შეწყო ეკონომიკისა და კულტურის განვითარება,

Fear_a_Phléasc wrote:I even started reading chapter 13 of Aronson's and this is the first -უ verb I encounter in the aorist:
ქეთევანმა მათ საუზმე გაუმზადა
Ketevan prepared breakfast for them

Again, the direct object is in the nominative. :hmm:


It's always supposed to be in the nominative in the aorist. The უ- points to the indirect object (მათ):

ქეთევანმა მათ საუზმე გამზადა

აუშენე ოქროს ხიდი მტერს, რომელიც გტოვებს.


შენე ოქროს ხიდი მტერ, რომელიც გტოვებს

Fear_a_Phléasc wrote:The other strange piece of the puzzle is that Aronson's statement about დაუკრავს always using indirect object doesn't make much sense to me.


No, it never has an indirect object. That's why it stands out, it has an უ- without it pointing to anything:

(???) პიანინო დაკარი

Fear_a_Phléasc wrote:something you play "on", as an indirect object (as in section 7 of Aronson).


No, that doesn't have an indirect object either. That one looks like this:

(???) პიანინოზე დაკარი

I.e., it has no syntactic direct object at all, and the უ- still doesn't refer to anything.

Fear_a_Phléasc
Posts: 74
Joined: 2013-12-04, 17:36
Gender: male
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: მოისმენს vs მოუსმენს

Postby Fear_a_Phléasc » 2014-03-23, 17:34

:hmm:


I think I'm just gonna forget about this thread, at this point. My head is spinning in circles. Everything I thought I understood I then thought I didn't understand and now I'm feeling like I actually did but the only example that doesn't conform to my pre-existing understanding (before being told by you about the u-marker) is the sentence "ამ სიმღერას მოფუსმინე", which again is the only one I can see that has a logical direct object in the dative. For this to work, სიმღერა obviously has to be the indirect object rather than the direct object, but then why are all the other direct objects from the other examples not turned into indirect objects by the u-markers and thus end up in dative rather than nominative? It seems a peculiarity of the verb მოფუსმინე rather than anything else I can make sense of, but at this point trying to understand why is not productive for me.

Thanks for trying to help though.

HoneyBuzzard
Posts: 454
Joined: 2009-04-18, 11:08

Re: მოისმენს vs მოუსმენს

Postby HoneyBuzzard » 2014-03-24, 1:18

Alrighty then. I hope you'll consider reading Aronson's books though, I can hardly do justice to his hundreds of pages of explanations and examples. :)

Fear_a_Phléasc
Posts: 74
Joined: 2013-12-04, 17:36
Gender: male
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: მოისმენს vs მოუსმენს

Postby Fear_a_Phléasc » 2014-03-24, 4:53

Oh, I plan to. I am still re-reading sections of this book to gain better understanding. I did find one thing that helped me immensely though: in the back conjugation table, I found a small note about მოსმენა saying that it never takes a direct object, which confirms my suspicion. Based on that, everything now makes sense except why Aronson says that დაუკრავს only takes an indirect object (unless I'm misunderstanding him), when Kurtsikidze has at least two examples which contradict this. If I could clear that up, I'd be 100% on the subject.


Return to “Georgian (ქართული)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron