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

units. However, Kartvelian offers some well-known, but underestimated cases
of mismatch between syntactic and morphological units, for instance:
a) bavSvebs Cais dagis
gisxamT, ufro
rose
sebi ki Gvi
vinos davlevT
(Georgian)
child-Pl-Dat tea-Dat Prev-2Obj-we.pour.it-Pl, adult-Pl-Nom but wine-Dat Prev-
1Subj-drink-Pl ‘We will pour tea to you, the children, whereas we adults will
drink wine’;
b) samTa
mTagan erTi SeuvalT, sxva gareT vscemdeT gareb
rebsa
(Sota Rustaveli
1405,2) of three one-Nom we.will.enter.it, other.Nom outside we.will.slay those.outside-Dat
‘One of us shall enter, while the others continue to fight outside’
(transl. R.H. Stevenson) (“samTagan erT-erTi SevaGwevT sxvebi gareT vebrZoloT
gareT mKofebs”, comment on the Academic edition)
c) Savo maKva
vali
liviT Tvale
lebi
biano
(Saiat Nova, Georgian) black-Voc blackberry-“Nom”-like
eye-Pl-Poss.Suffix-Voc ‘O thou with eyes black as blackberries!’
d) f‘ri
JˆJ(v)i i lˆtr l
r gC g
(A. Oniani, Svan) cow.Gen horn.Gen Poss.Prefix-handle
knife. (Nom‘a knife with a handle made of a cow’s horn’;
a) and b) are examples of “disagreement”, in c) and d) word formation
(suffixation) does not respect word boundaries. Examples like these enforce an
interpretation of the morphology-syntax interface that differs from the restrictions
that are usually assumed to obtain with this relationship. The paper will discuss
some possible theoretical implications of this type of data.
i. b r a u n i (varSava)
kvlav sibilantTa erTi, “sisina” rigis
rekonstruqciisaTvis proto-qarTveluri enis
fonologiur sistemaSi
(baskur da qarTvelur enaTa naTesaobis dadgenis 60
wlisTavisadmi)
qarTvelur da baskur enaTa genetiuri naTesaoba damtkicebulad
unda CaiTvalos 1948 wlidan, rodesac frangma
lingvistma, baskologma da kavkasiologma, prof. rene la-
99