Talk:Georgian language
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Georgian language article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 6 months  |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gender
I know that Georgian doesn't use masculine and feminine genders. However, according to grammatical gender there are many other types of "noun classes" that are also "genders" in linguistics. I don't know if Georgian has any of these other distinctions, so I was hesitant to simply say that "Georgian nouns have no gender." If anyone can clarify or expand, that'd be appreciated. Isomorphic 18:22, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Good question. AFAIK, Georgian has nothing at all resembling grammatical gender or noun classes -- it's rather like Turkish or Hungarian in that regard. --Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 13:40, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Contradiction?
Georgian is believed to have separated from Megrelian and Laz in the third millennium BC. Based on the degree of change, linguists (e.g. G.Klimov, T.Gamkrelidze, G.Machavariani) conjecture that the earliest split occurred in the second millennium BC or earlier, separating Svan from the other languages. Megrelian and Laz separated from Georgian roughly a thousand years later.
"Believed" by whom?
- The linguists whose names are cited, I'd guess. Anyway, where do you see a "contradiction" here? --Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 14:54, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Ouch. On rereading, I see the contradiction. This really needs cleanup. --Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 13:16, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Schwa
The protests of User:Demnaozi nothwithstanding, with respect to their repeated removal of sourced content such as this one, the cited paper shows that of a test group of six native Georgian speakers, all six pronounced the word in question with an epehthetic schwa, as [dəgas], and, expressly, not as [ⁿdgɑs] as that user insists in their edit summary. The material should be restored. In addition, Demnaozi's edit summaries are puzzling, simultaneously acknowledging that the pronunciation with a schwa exists, but dismissing it as a matter of "speaking difficulties" or that it isn't allophonic, when it clearly is for those speakers. Largoplazo (talk) 22:53, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Demnaozi really needs to understand that they if they still feel confident that the person whose paper is cited is wrong, they need to discuss their reasoning here rather than repeatedly, unilaterally removing the content from the article, as they just did once more. Largoplazo (talk) 12:36, 8 September 2025 (UTC)