The grammaticalization of interrogative pronouns into relative ones in South Caucasian languages:...

Second International Conference on Grammaticalization: Theory and Data (Gramm2)

University of Rouen, 25-27 April 2016

1

The grammaticalization of interrogative pronouns into relative ones in

South Caucasian languages: internal development or replica?

Ophelie Gandon

Université Sorbonne Nouvelle Paris 3

UMR7528 Mondes iranien et indien

[email protected]

0. Introduction

South Caucasian (Kartvelian) languages ≈ 5 000 000 speakers1

Georgian: 3 600 000

spoken in Georgia Mingrelian: 380 000

Svan: 48 000

Laz: 50 000 spoken mainly in North-East Turkey (Black Sea)

Genealogical classification: (Alice C. Harris 1991a, 12, inter alia) Common

Kartvelian

Common

Georgian-Zan

Zan

Svan Mingrelian Laz Georgian

Finite postnominale relative pronoun strategy in Georgian, Mingrelian and Svan:

(1) Georgian (Hewitt 1987, 217)

i-q’o is bič’-i, [romel-ma-c gušin amxanag-s

SV-was that.NOM lad-NOM who-ERG-SUB yesterday friend-DAT

scema]

he.hit.him.AOR

‘He was that boy who yesterday hit his friend’

1 Estimation is from Charachidzé in Blanc et al. 2016

mailto:[email protected]



2

(2) Mingrelian (Harris 1991b, 383)

tis, [namu-še-ti sinatle iʒiredu-ni]

that.DAT which-ABL-SUB light.NOM show.1SG-COMP

‘that (residence), from which a light showed’ (Khubua 1937, 7, 20) in Abesadze 1965,

231‑237)

(3) Svan (Tuite 2004, 45)

eʒ ma:re [xed-wæ:j ætɣwæč' {<= ad-x-e-ɣwæč'}] gæč-d

that man.NOM which.NOM-SUB PV-O3-OBV-pursue.AOR knife-ADV

æd-(i)-sip'-æ:n

PV-SBV-turn-PASS.AOR

‘The man who was pursuing him turned into a knife’ (Shanidze and Topuria 1939, 110)

(4) Old Georgian (Harris 1992, 394)

miugo idua [romel-man misca igi]

he.respond.it Judas which-ERG he.give.him him

‘Judas, who betrayed him, replied’ (Mt 26: 25 AB)

(5) Old Georgian (Fähnrich 1991, 208)

mividoda črdilod mimart, [sada-igi iq'o ʒegli igi]

aller.IMPFT.3SG nord.INSTR vers where-SUB être.AOR.3SG statue ART

‘he went toward the north, where the statue was’

This postnominal relative pronoun strategy is very rare in Laz (Holisky 1991, 419, 457; Lacroix

2009, 768–69).

Formation of the relative pronouns in South Caucasian languages:

(6) Interrogative pronouns Relative pronouns

Georgian : vin ‘who’ + -c → vinc ‘who’ (Hewitt 1987, 185)

ra ‘what’ + -c → rac ‘which’ "

romeli ‘which one’ + -c → romeli-c ‘who, which’ "

Old Georgian : romel ‘which’ + -igi →

sada ‘where’ + -igi →

Mingrelian : namu + -t(i) → namu-ti (Harris 1991b, 332–33)

Svan : jer 'who' + -wæ:j → jer-wæ:j 'who' (Tuite 2004, 45)

ime 'where' + -wæ:j → im-wæ:j ‘where’ "

mä:y ‘what’ + -wä:y → mä:y-wä:y ‘which’ (Schmidt 1991, 504)

ẋed ‘which’ + -wä:y → ẋed-wä:y ‘who, which’ "

Relative pronouns have obviously developed from interrogative ones, but internal

development or contact induced?



3

1. Internal development?

Luján (2009, 232): “the grammaticalization of *kwi-/*kwo- in Proto-Indo-European can be best

explained as arising from its interrogative value and must have originated in maximalizing

relatives. These semantically maximalizing relative clauses introduced by *kwi-/*kwo- were

preposed free and correlative clauses, as shown by Old Latin and Hittite.”

(7) Latin (Luján 2009, 231)

[Qui ager frigidior… erit], ibi

REL.NOM.SG field.NOM.SG colder be.FUT.3SG there

oleam… seri oportet. olive_tree.ACC.SG be_planted is_appropriate

‘In a field which is quite cold it is appropriate to plant olive-trees.’ (Cato Agr.6.2)

(8) Hittite (Luján 2009, 231)

[ku-iš- wa- kan ki-e li-in-ga-uš šar-ri-iz-zi] nu-u- -š-ši

who QUOT thus these.ACC oaths.ACC splits then 3SG.DAT

DIM-aš GIŠAPIN ar-ha du-wa-ar-na-a-u Stormgod.NOM plow out break.IMP

‘Anyone who breaks theses oaths, may the Stormgod break his plow.’ (KBo VI 34 III 39 ff.)

1.1. Correlative relatives in South Caucasian languages

(9) Georgian (Jijiguri 1969, 177 in Aronson 1991, 281)

[Vin-c k’ac-s ga-a-ʒavr-eb-s], is Gmert-s ga-a-ʒavr-eb-s

who-NOM-SUB man-DAT he-will-anger-him he God-DAT he-will-anger-him

‘Who angers a man [he] angers God’

(10) Mingrelian (Harris 1991b, 383)

[si mi-ti gəgač’q’oruu ni], tis ma globaxənk-ia

you.DAT who-SUB angry.I COMP him.DAT I.NOM beat.I-QUOT

‘I will beat up that one who is angry with you’

(11) Svan (Tuite 2004, 45)

[xed-wæj-d lok xoča hark’-æl læ:kw-a-s], eʒa-s

which-SUB-ERG QUOT good tale-PL.NOM tell-OPT-S3SG.MOD that-DAT

x-æ:-c-e-s al diær

O3-OBV-have-OPT-S3SG.MOD this bread.NOM

‘Whoever tells good tales, let that one have this bread’ [UBal; A 111]

(12) Old Georgian (Fähnrich 1991, 208)

[sada-ca mʒori iq'os], mun-ca šek'rbes orb-eb-i

where-SUB carrion be.SBJV.3SG there-too assemble.SBJV.3SG eagle-PL-NOM

‘where there is [will be] carrion, there too will the eagles assemble’



4

The strategy has a non-specific (indefinite) reading.

1.2. A development from correlative relatives into postnominal finite ones?

From the correlative construction to the postnominal finite one, 2 steps:

- insertion of a head noun;

- postposition of the relative clause after the head noun.

The postposition of the relative clause (henceforth RC) after the head noun would be in

harmony with the noun-adjective word order of Old Georgian (Harris 2000).

The insertion of a head noun = a step toward a more specific meaning, and toward the

grammaticalization of the interrogative pronouns into relative ones by the loss of their

indefinite/interrogative value.

An argument in support: Case attraction

Case attraction with regressive assimilation was frequent in Old Georgian2 with the finite

postnominal strategy (Dondua 1967; Aronson 1972, 128; Hewitt 1987, 198; Harris 1992, 395),

inter alia): the head noun in the matrix clause bears the case that corresponds to its syntactic

function within the RC, and not the one in the matrix as expected.

In (14) the head noun sit'q'ua ‘word’ should stand in the nominative case, and in (15) the head

noun mama ‘father’ should stand in the ergative case:


sit'q'ua-sa, [romel-sa get'q'ude me tkuen], suli ars word-DAT which-DAT I.tell.it.to.you I you soul be.3SG

'the word which I say to you is spirit' (John 6: 63 Ad)


mama-y igi šeni, [romel-i xedavs daparul-sa], mogagos father-NOM the your which-NOM he.see.it secret-DAT he.respond.you

man šen exadad he.ERG you openly

'Your father, who sees in secret, will reward you openly' (Mt 6: 6 Ad, in Dondua 1967, 24, 25, 26)

2 Unfortunately no documentation is available for previous states in other South Caucasian languages.

(13) Laz, Arhavi dialect (Dumézil 1967.I in Lacroix 2009, 769)

[biga hak namu-k ordo mo-y-g-asen], esya

stick here INTERR/REL-ERG early PV-VAL2-bring-FUT.srI3SG objects

hemu-si ren-ya DEM2-GEN be.srI3SG-DR

‘The one of you who will bring earlier a stick, the objects will be him’



5

The head noun was belonging to the RC in a previous state?

Note also the frequent presence of a correlate in the matrix in (15) (in bold):

"The correlative was infrequent with a relative clause that followed the grammatical

norm (that is, that did not have case attraction)" ( Harris 1992, 395).

Thus these cases of case attraction could represent an intermediate state in the evolution of

correlatives into a finite postnominal RCs.

2. Contact-induced change?

However, an influence of some languages in contact is conceivable as well, given the facts

that:

- This finite postnominal strategy is almost absent in Laz (and Laz is not supposed to be

the language that diverge the most + is spoken more in the West in Turkey);

- This strategy is also known to be rare worldwide and specific to languages of Europe

(Creissels 2006, 228 vol. 2);

- Georgian indeed has been and is still in contact with some European languages (namely

Ancient Greek, Classical Armenian, then Modern Eastern Armenian and Russian);

- Relative pronouns built on interrogative ones is something that is often

calqued/borrowed (Hendery 2012, 51).

Heine & Kuteva (2003) suggest 2 possibilities for contact-induced grammaticalization:

‘ordinary contact-induced grammaticalization’ vs. ‘replica grammaticalization’.

Contact-induced grammaticalization, adapted from Heine & Kuteva (2003):

Speakers of language R notice that in language M there is a grammatical

category Mx

They develop an equivalent category Rx, using material available in

their own language (R)

Ordinary contact-induced grammaticalization: Replica grammaticalization:

To this end, they draw on universal strategies of

grammaticalization, using construction Ry in

order to develop Rx

To this end, they replicate a grammaticalization

process they assume to have taken place in

language M, using an analogical formula of

the kind [My > Mx] = [Ry > Rx]

They grammaticalize construction Ry to Rx.



6

Ancient Greek

First texts in Old Georgian where mainly translations of religious texts from Ancient Greek.

Postnominal relative pronoun strategy existed in Ancient Greek:

(16) Ancient Greek (Meyer 2013, 23)

ὁ ἀϲτὴρ [ὃv εἶδov προῆγεv αὐτοὺϲ] DET star.NOM-SG PRO.REL.SG.ACC see.AOR.3PL guide.AOR.3SG DEM.DAT.PL

‘The star that they saw guided them’

However relative pronoun (ὅς) ≠ interrogative one (τις) (Luján 2009, 226).

If the Greek have had an influence, according to the table of Heine & Kuteva it would

rather be an ordinary contact-induced grammaticalization.

Classical Armenian

Many of the translations of religious texts from Ancient Greek were actually often maid via

Syriac (Semitic) and/or Classical Armenian (which was also and is still a neighboring

language).

Postnominal relative pronoun strategy was available in Classical Armenian:

(17) Classical Armenian (Meyer 2013, 23)

asteɫ=n [z=or tesin] arjnordeac‘ noc‘a star.NOM.SG=DET ACC=which.SG see.AOR.3PL guide.AOR.3SG DEM.DAT.PL

‘The star that they saw guided them’

Relative pronoun = interrogative one (Krause, Greppin, and Slocum 2016).

If Classical Armenian have had an influence, according to the table of Heine & Kuteva

it would be a replica grammaticalization.

Modern neighboring languages

Several modern languages spoken in the neighboring area resort to finite postnominal RCs with

relative pronouns built on interrogative ones, for some of which it is obviously a later

borrowing.

European languages:

(18) Eastern Armenian (Dum-Tragut 2009, 479)

łarabałc’i-ner ēl k-an [or-onc’ hamar

Karabakhian-PL.NOM also exist-PTC.PRS which-PL.DAT POST

Samvel-ě heros ē]

Samvel.NOM-the hero.NOM he is

‘There are also Karabakhians for whom Samvel is a hero’



7

(19) Russian

Мужчина, [которого я ждал,] не пришёл

mužčina, [kotopogo ja ždal,] ne prišël

man which.ACC.MASC.SG I wait.PST NEG come.PST

‘The man I was waiting for didn’t come’

Non-European languages:

Udi and Tsova-Tush (also called Bats) (North-East Caucasian languages), and Azeri (Turkic)

have obviously copied the strategy from neighboring languages (from Georgian? Russian?

Armenian?): North-East Caucasian languages and Turkic languages commonly resort to

participial prenominal RCs.

Udi

Udi has been in a long standing contact with Classical Armenian, and is now spoken partly in

Azerbaijan and in Georgia. Udi makes a dominant use of the postnominal relative pronoun

strategy (Schulze-Fürhoff 1994, 450–51):

(20) Udi (North-East Caucasian) (Schulze-Fürhoff 1994, 503)

čoban-g-on [mat’ goy-te egel-ux azarru-ne-bak-i] q’eiri shepherd-PL-ERG which.GEN.PL-SUB sheep-PL ill-3SG-become-AOR other

as-n-ux furu-q’un-p-sa work-SA-DAT2 search-3PL-AUX-PRS

‘The shepherds whose sheep have become ill look for another job’

Tsova-Tush (Bats)

The strategy also exists to a lesser extent in Tsova-Tush (Bats), another North-East Caucasian

language spoken in Georgia:

Azeri

And it is also found in Azeri as a secondary strategy, more specific to spoken language

(Babaliyeva 2014):

(22) Azeri (Turkic) (Babaliyeva 2014)

25 kitab, [hansı-lar-ı ki, sən bir il ərzində oxu-yacaq-san]

25 book which-PL-ACC SUB 2SG one year during read-FUT-2SG

‘Twenty five books that you will read in one year’

South Caucasus = an area where genetically unrelated languages resort to finite

postnominal RCs introduced by relative pronouns built on interrogative ones

(21) Tsova-Tush (Bats, North-East Caucasian) (Desherijev 1953, 295)

okxyc цıepɑддuнɑ о жɑгн, [менух mxɑ ıɑмдuрɑxь] PRO.3SG he.wrote DEM livre which_one today you.read

‘He wrote this book that you read today’ (он написал ту книгу, которую ты читал сегодня)



8

Map 1 Languages with relative pronouns built on interrogative ones3

Thus, the possibility of a calque in South Caucasian languages as well is quite conceivable.

Note also the similarity with the subordinating particle in South Caucasian languages, Udi,

Tsova-Tush, Azeri and to a lesser Armenian with free RCs:

3 This linguistic map is realized from the different sources mentioned in references. Given the difficulty to

realize such maps (impossibility to consider all speakers and villages, difficulty to decide which language to

represent when several are spoken, the fact that populations may move through time, etc.), an exact delimitation

of each language/strategy is not expected; the main purpose here is to give an overall picture of the situation

regarding convergence and divergence phenomena. I am thankful to Emmanuel Giraudet for his help in the

realization of the maps.

(23) Eastern Armenian (Dum-Tragut 2009, 479)

Es gt-a [inč’ or du p’ntr-um ēir] I.NOM find-AOR.1SG what.NOM SUB you.NOM look_for-PTC.PRS you.were

‘ I found what you were looking for’



9

Areal phenomena as well or typological tendency? (colloquial French: laquelle qui est arrivée

en septembre, c’est Christelle).

3. Conclusion

The possibility of an internal development cannot be excluded, and possibly even following

another scenario than the one suggested here.

However, i) the visible easy diffusion in this area of relative pronouns built on interrogative

ones; ii) the fact that the postnominal relative pronoun strategy is worldwide rather rare

otherwise in non-European languages; iii) and the fact that it is absent in Laz which is spoken

at the periphery of the area suggest that some languages in contact may also have played a

role in the grammaticalization of interrogative pronouns into relative ones in Georgian, Svan

and Mingrelian. (Holisky and Gagua 1994)

Abbreviations4

1/2/3 : 1st/2nd/3rd pers, ABL : Ablative, ACC : Accusative, ADV : Adverbial case, AOR : Aorist,

ART : Article, AUX : Auxiliary, COMP : Complementizer, DAT : Dative, DEM : Demonstrative,

DET : Determiner, DR : Reported speech, ERG : Ergative, FUT : Future, GEN : Genitive, IMP :

Imperative, IMPFT : Imperfect, INSTR : Instrumental, INTERR : Interrogative, MASC : Masculine,

MOD : Modal, NEG: Negative, NOM : Nominative, O : Object marker, OBV : Object version, OPT :

Optative, POST : Postposition, PRS : Present, PST : Past, PTC : Participle, PASS : Passive, PL : Plural,

PRO : Pronoun, PV : Preverb, QUOT : Quotative, REL : Relativizer, S: Subject marker, SA: Stem

augment, SBJV: Subjunctive, SG : Singular, srI/II : Series markers, SUB : Subordinator, SV :

Subjective version, VAL2 : Valence operator

References

Abesadze, N. 1965. “Hip’ot’aksis C’evr-K’avširebi Da K’avširebi Megrulši [Subordinating

Conjunctions in Mingrelian],” Tbilisis saxelmts’ipo universit’et’isʃromebi [Works of Tbilisi

State University], Tbilisis universit’et’is ßromebi (114): 229–57.

Aronson, H. 1991. “Modern Georgian.” In The Kartvelian Languages, edited by A. C. Harris,

Greppin, J. A. C., 219–312. The Indigenous Languages of the Caucasus 1. Delmar, New York:

Caravan Books.

———. I. 1972. “Some Notes on Relative Clauses in Georgian.” In The Chicago Which Hunt: Papers

from the Relative Clause Festival, edited by Paul M. Peranteau, Judith N. Levi, and Gloria C.

Phares, 136–143. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

Authier, Gilles. 2012. Grammaire Juhuri, Ou Judéo-Tat, Langue Iranienne Des Juifs Du Caucase de

L’est. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag.

Babaliyeva, A. 2014. “Les Relatives En Azéri.” presented at the Workshop Typologie aréale et

stratégies de relativisation, Labex EFL/INALCO/MII/Sedyl: Paris, December 9.

Blanc, A., G. Charachidzé, L. Dubertret, and S. Serrano. 2016. “Caucase.” Encyclopædia Universalis.

Accessed February 26. http://www.universalis-edu.com/encyclopedie/caucase/.

Blumgardt, Temo. 2009. “Ethnic Groups in Caucasus Region.”

4 The glosses of some quoted examples have been slightly modified in order to uniformize, and non-glossed

examples have been glossed.



10

Bruk, Solomon I., and V. S. Apentchenko, eds. 1964. Атлас народов мира. Главное управление

геодезии и картографии, Государственного геологического комитета СССР Институт

этнографии им. Н.Н. Миклухо-Маклая Академии Наук СССР. Москва.

Creissels, D. 2006. Syntaxe Générale : Une Introduction Typologique, 2 Volumes. Paris: Lavoisier.

Desherijev/Дешериев, Ю. Д. 1953. Бацбийский Язык. Фонетика, Морфология, Синтаксис,

Лексика / Ответ. Ред. Б. А. Серебренников. Институт языкознания.

Dondua, K. 1967. “Mimartebiti Nacvalsaxelisa Da Misamarti Sit’q’vis Urtiertobisatvis Ʒvel Kartulši

[The Relationship between the Demonstrative Pronoun and the Correlative Word in Old

Georgian].” In Rčeuli Našromebi, I:20–29. Tbilisi: Mecniereba.

Dumézil, G. 1967. Documents Anatoliens Sur Les Langues et Les Traditions Du Caucase, IV. Récits

Lazes (Dialecte d’Arhavi). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Dum-Tragut, J. 2009. Armenian: Modern Eastern Armenian. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Durand, Marie-Françoise, Benoît Martin, Delphine Placidi, and Marie Törnquist-Chesnier. 2007. Atlas

de La Mondialisation. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.

Fähnrich, H. 1991. “Old Georgian.” In The Kartvelian Languages, edited by Alice C. Harris, Greppin,

J. A. C., 131–217. The Indigenous Languages of the Caucasus 1. Delmar, New York: Caravan

Books.

Harris, A. C. 1991b. “Mingrelian.” In The Kartvelian Languages, edited by Alice C. Harris, Greppin,

J. A. C., 315–89. The Indigenous Languages of the Caucasus 1. Delmar, New York: Caravan

Books.

———. 1991a. “Overview on the History of the Kartvelian Languages.” In The Kartvelian

Languages, edited by Alice C. Harris, Greppin, J. A. C., 9–83. The Indigenous Languages of

the Caucasus 1. Delmar, New York: Caravan Books.

———. 1992. “Changes in Relativization Strategies: Georgian and Language Universals.” In

Caucasologie et Mythologie Comparée, Actes Du Colloque International Du CNRS - IV

Colloque de Caucasologie, Sèvre, 27-29 Juin 1988, edited by Catherine Paris, 391–403. Paris:

Peeters.

———. 2000. “Word Order in Georgian.” In Stability, Variation and Change of Word-Order Patterns

over Time, edited by Rosanna Sornicola, Erich Poppe, and Ariel Shisha-Halevy, 133–63.

Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins PCo.

Heine, B., and T. Kuteva. 2003. “On Contact-Induced Grammaticalization.” In Studies in Language,

27:3:529–72. John Benjamins.

Hendery, R., ed. 2012. Relative Clauses in Time and Space.

Hewitt, B. G. 1987. The Typology of Subordination in Georgian and Abkhaz. Berlin: Mouton de

Gruyter.

Holisky, D. A. 1991. “Laz.” In The Kartvelian Languages, edited by A. C. Harris, Greppin, J. A. C.,

395–472. The Indigenous Languages of the Caucasus 1. Delmar, New York: Caravan Books.

Holisky, D. A., and R. Gagua. 1994. “Tsova-Tush (Batsbi).” In The North-East Caucasian Languages

Part 2, edited by Smeets, R., Greppin, J. A. C., 4:147–212. The Indigenous Languages of the

Caucasus. Delmar, New York: Caravan Books.

Hourcade, Bernard. 2014. “Unité et Diversité Linguistique de l’Iran.” In Irancarto. Etudes

Cartographiques Sur l’Iran et Le Monde Iranien, edited by Bernard Hourcade, Hubert

Mazurek, Mohammad-Hosseyn Papoli-Yazdi, and Mahmoud Taleghani.

http://www.irancarto.cnrs.fr/record.php?q=SOC-030101&f=local&l=fr [consulted on the

07/07/2016].

Jijiguri, Š. 1969. Ḳavširebi Kartul Enaši. Tbilisi: Tbilisis saxelmçipo universiṭeṭi.

Khubua, M. 1937. Megruli T’ekst’ebi [Mingrelian Texts]. Tbilisi: Ak’ademia.

Koryakov, Yuri B. 2002. Atlas of the Caucasian Languages. Moscow: Institute of Linguistics, Russian

Academy of Sciences.

http://www.lingvarium.org/raznoe/publications/caucas/alw_cau_content.shtml [consulted on

the 24/07/2016].



11

Krause, T. B., J. A. C. Greppin, and Jonathan Slocum. 2016. Classical Armenian Online.

http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/eieol/armol-0.html.

Lacroix, R. 2009. Description Du Dialecte Laze d’Arhavi (Caucasique Du Sud, Turquie). Grammaire

et Textes. Thèse de Doctorat. Université Lumière Lyon 2.

Luján, E, R. 2009. “On the Grammaticalization of *kwi-/kworelative Clauses in Proto-Indo-

European.” In Grammatical Change in Indo-European Languages. Papers Presented at the

Workshop on Indo-European Linguistics at the XVIIIth International Conference on

Historical Linguistics, Montreal, 2007, edited by Vit Bubeník, John Hewson, and Sarah Rose,

221–34. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Meyer, R. 2013. “Classical Armenian Relative Clause Syntax. A Comparative Study of Relative

Clauses in the Armenian and Greek NT and Other 5th-C. Armenian Texts.” University of

Oxford. Faculty of Linguistics, Philology & Phonetics.

Schmidt, K. H. 1991. “Svan.” In The Kartvelian Languages, edited by Alice C. Harris, Greppin, J. A.

C., 475–556. The Indigenous Languages of the Caucasus 1. Delmar, New York: Caravan

Books.

Schulze-Fürhoff, W. 1994. “Udi.” In North East Caucasian Languages Part 2, edited by Smeets, R.,

Greppin, J. A. C., 447–514. The Indigenous Languages of the Caucasus 4. Delmar, New York:

Caravan Books.

Shanidze, A., and V. Topuria. 1939. Svanuri P’rozauli T’ekst’ebi I: Balszemouri K’ilo (Svan Prose

Texts, I: Upper Bal Dialect). Tbilisi: Mecniereba.

Tuite, K. 2004. “A Short Descriptive Grammar of the Svan Language.” Université de Montréal.

https://www.uni-

jena.de/unijenamedia/Downloads/faculties/phil/kaukasiologie/Svan%5Bslightlyrevised%5D.p

df.

Date post:	30-Nov-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	univ-paris3
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times