5 r. a b a S i a (Tbilisi) bgeraTSesatyvisobis erTi rigisaTvis qarTvelur ...

evoluciis aseTi veqtori (perfeqtulobidan aoristamde _
perfeqtulobis “gafermkrTalebiT” da sxvadasxva modalobis
gaZlierebiT) tipologiurad damaxasiaTebelia perfeqtuli
formebisTvis bevr enaSi. iqneb SeiZleba vivaraudoT qar-
TulSi “Sebrunebuli” mimarTulebis veqtoris arseboba _
evidencialobis da masTan dakavSirebuli modalobebis ga-
ZlierebiT aoristuli formebis “perfeqtizacia” da sinTezuri
perfeqtis “gramatikalizaciisken” miswrafeba?
es ukanaskneli “miswrafebac” tipologiurad erTgvari
Cans enebSi _ rogorc cnobilia, diaqroniulad perfeqtis
analitikuri formebic SeiZleba sinTezurad iqcnen (meSveli
zmnis SerwymiT).
M. B e r i d z e (Tbilisi)
Towards the Peculiarities of the Georgian Perfect
The modern linguistics discusses a perfect at the boundery of grammar
and pragmatics. Georgian synthetic perfect is not exception in this respect.
An universal principle of formation of a Perfect is similar in a large number
of languages: merging of the conceptions of “having ”, “circumstance” and
“property” and reflecting the functional and complex timely (past _ present) relation
of these conceptions with an active and a narrator persons. One of the
typological signs of the perfect is seen in its connection with a category of evidennce
(modality) in one part of languages.
The paper discusses so called hrkvian and hgies type perfective forms
and the view is expressed that from the viewpoint of formation they can not part
to each others: I group historically is a plural form of III imperfect of an active
verb II, II group _ a plural form of aorist III of an active (causal) verb. We believe,
that on the basis of these forms I Perfect of transitive verbs were developed _ so
called a resultative perfect in Georgian. We believe, that the mentioned view
has a right of existing, as we see, on the example of hrkvian type verbs, a principle
_ to become the form of the 3 rd person (plural or singular) of the past ten-
92