DOI: 10.7763/IPEDR. 2014. V80. 3

Typological Similarities in Phonetics of French and Tush Languages

and Associations with the name of Marie Brosset

Arsen Bertlani

Department of Georgian Philology Iakob Gogebashvili Telavi State University Telavi, Georgia

Abstract. Comparing Tush and French languages promotes moral reanimation of endangered Tush

language, which will contribute its vitality. Any essay on Tush language, connected with Marie-Félicité

Brosset’s name, is one more step towards French orientalist’s thoughts.

Comparison of these unkindred languages and underlining parallels between anthroponyms take place here

for the first time, which revealed their identity in both languages.

Typological analysis of vowel system here’s based on synchronous and diachronic aspects; we meet

similarity and difference in forming nasalization of vowels. We use materials collected till present accessible

for us from the rich linguistic theory.

Typological proximity was revealed in nasalization of vowels. By remembering Brosset, his name’s anew

appreciated. This time, we see structural interrelation between them, possible proximity in Phonetics, it’ll be

fundamental for the next typological research.

Typology of languages with dissimilar structures, origin, history and geography, gives us perspective for

revealing new realias in General Phonetics.

Keywords: French, Tush, Vowels, Nasalization, Phonetics, Typology, Anthroponomy.

1. Introduction

In spite, in any case, it’s essential to make the definition of the term denoting the language to be

investigated, the term Tush language is still painful for us maybe according to the natural reason that there

are plenty of synonyms connected to the mentioned term in Iberian-Caucasian linguistics even since the

soviet period, which caused chaos in linguistic as well as in ethnographic definitions, namely various authors

name this language as Tsovatush, Tsova or sometimes Bats without any arguments. It takes place in the

conditions, when the term is the form as well, which influences on the own content. It’s worth mentioning

that this issue is in direct connection with the name of French Caucasiologist Marie Brosset.

Bearers of Tush language, dissimilar from Georgian one are Tsovatushs (Tsovas) from ethnographical

point of view, who belong to the ethnical group Tushs together with Chagmatushs (Chagmas) speaking on

Tush dialect of Georgian language. But still nobody knows whose name was the mentioned term, of

Tsovatushs or Chagmatushs for the first time. In its tend, Tushs (Tsovatushs and Chagmatushs) are included

in greater national union named by Georgians.

It’s logical, that speech of French people is called (and should be called) French, English people’s –

English, German people’s – German... Therefore, Tush should be the name of Tushs’ (both Tsovatushs and

Chagmatushs) speech by taking into consideration that the speech of Tsovatushs is the language and the

speech of Chagmatushs is the dialect (of Georgian language). The given obviously special situation was

inherited for Tushs by their history, that’s why we can’t change anything in it.

After long-lasting judgment the Georgian linguist Akaki Shanidze ordered not accidentally, that even in

70s of XX century, from historical standpoint, Tush should be just the language, which is spoken by Tsovas

at present (Shanidze 1970: 105).

Undoubtedly: the same would be explained by Marie Brosset at the moment.

In short, Tsovatushs‘speech should be called not three (or four), but only one name – Tush language.

Corresponding author. Tel.: +99558414727; fax: +995350272401.

E-mail address: abertlani@rambler.ru. 11

We notice with grief, that Tush language is named in the current contemporary usage still incorrectly

such as Bats or sometimes Tsovatush (or Tsova), which should indisputably become the subject of

discussion in order the described problem to be liquidated and therefore, the terminological equity to be

formed.

This talk on Tush language begun even since 2002 because of 200th anniversary of Marie Brosset (1802-

1880), is interesting for us as it’s in direct connection with the venerable name of French orientalist, who was

himself in the village Alvani and made connection with the mentioned language, speakers of the language

(Khantadze 1966: 74). We want to look at the old connections between Marie Brosset’s thoughts and Tush

language in a new manner.

The language which was called Tush by Marie Brosset together with other first Caucasiologists, is one of

the interesting Iberian-Caucasian mountain languages. The reason of it is also the fact that according to the

scientific sources just this language was described in Caucasus for the first time (Chrelashvili 20021: 7).

Namely, German orientalist, academician A. Schiefner made the monograph (Schiefner 1859), which

wouldn’t be written by Marie Brosset’s initiation (Chrelashvili 20021: 29) and accordingly, it’s equitably

noticed, that “we had no work at that period implemented on such level not only for Iberian-Caucasian

languages, but for Georgian language as well” (Chikobava 1965: 176).

2. Submitting

Via description typology is used as the research method by involvement synchronous as well as

diachronic aspects of the vowel systems of French and Tush languages in it. We meet similarity and

difference of the rare feature nasalization of vowels of French and Tush languages. Anthroponyms of French

and Tush languages are chosen as the object of observation. They are considered as giving us the precious

materials for History, Ethnography, History of the given language as they depict the history of the people as

well as their life, social structure and fortune. In research process we use the materials collected till present

and accessible for us from the theoretical arsenal.

3. Discussion

Rich phonological system of Tush language contains 82 phonemes according to the last researches

(Bertlani 2012: 5-489). While making comparison of French and Tush languages, the first mark which is

worth catchy is nasalization of vowels, which means incorporation of nasal consonants with the previous oral

vowel in some conditions, which reveals similarity between the members of the language families totally

different from each other. Such consonants incorporated with the previous oral vowel are m and n in French

language, but in Tush – only n.

Functioning of nasalized vowels is known in French, Polish, Portuguese and Old Indian languages

(Grammatological Dictionary, 2011) and in each of them there are worked out and established the adequate

means denoting nasalization, as for Tush language having no written language we have to work out the

proper graphemes by using various alphabets in the process of analyzing.

From Nakh group of the languages, to which Tush language belong, Chechen language as well is

characterized by weakly expressed nasalization of the vowels (Alkhastova, 2012).

Existence of five nasalized correlatives [ã], [ẽ], [ĩ], [õ], [ũ] of five main (oral) vowels [a], [e], [i], [o], [u]

in Tush language (transcription is Latin) is known for Linguistics but with the graphics proper for this

language. Number of nasal vowels in French language is slightly different from Tush one – as they are four

[Natalia, 2012]: [ã], [ ], [ ], [ ]. Amongst the first two vowels are the closest ones in articulation for the

proper vowels of Tush language, though in these four nasal vowels, historical sequence an, en, in, on, un of

five nasal vowels of French and Tush languages are realized, in other words in both languages graphical

quantities of historical an, en, in, on, un were formed as nasalized phonetic quantities:

12

Historical structure Formed in French

language

Formed in Tush language

an > [ã] [ã]

en > [ã] [ẽ]

in > [ ] [ĩ]

on > [ ] [õ]

un > [ ] [ũ]

Fig. 1: Ways for forming French-Tush nasalization

This table stimulates us to pay attention to the insufficient distinguish of nasalized phonemes in both

languages on the one hand and similar or identical historical (phonetic) processes also in both languages on

the other hand.

French language is regarded as the most obvious sample of using the nasalized vowels. Though, this

interesting mark of vocals is widely presented in Tush language still being in the process of studying till

today, which was well expressed in the documented materials – as in lexicographical (Tsovatush-Georgian-

Russian-English Dictionary, Volume I, “Saari”, Tbilisi, 2012; Tsovatush-Georgian-Russian-English

Dictionary, Volume II, “Saari”, Tbilisi, 2013) as well as in texts (E. Kadagidze, Tsovatush Texts, Tbilisi,

2009; M. Mikeladze, A. Bertlani, K. Gigashvili, M. Tsiskarishvili, Tsovatush Texts, Part I, Tbilisi, 2011).

In the peculiar position the nasalized vowels of Tush language take the total distributional function. If

they are lack of this function in the root of the word, just this function makes them special from oral vowels

while using them as formants. As prof. M. Mikeladze points, in Tush language the dative and genitive forms

of the names are distinguished from each other with nasal form (Mikeladze 2011: 29). According to her

research outcomes it becomes clear, that the infinitive of the verb is marked just with nasalized vowels in the

same language in connection to other forms (Mikeladze, 2013: 257-259).

Tsovas’ small community of Tushs underwent the long and hard way with thick ragged felt or shabby

wings, precious papyrus or without the simple writing papers. On such a way without pens, it hardly created

those anthroponyms, the total number of which is approximately 170 on the territory of the half village in the

whole world and which are interesting from semantic and structural standpoints.

Due to their bilingualism, Tsovas, who speak in Tush and Georgian languages, have two forms of

anthroponyms (surnames): official (written), which is almost totally Georgian and unofficial (oral), which is

formed in unwritten Tush language. Herewith, we notice that Georgian language has no nasal vowels.

Official forms contain Georgian anthroponomical formants of later period -švil(i) and -ʒe. e.g.: Bartišvili,

Lagaziჳe... We have some more ancient Georgian formation -ur(i)/-ul(i) with formants: Ožilauri, Bukurauli...

It’s natural, that unofficial forms should be originated on their own, local, community ground from

historical-ethnical and etymological-semantic or psychological viewpoints – even at the time when Tsovas

were inhabited at the mountainous areas of old Tosheti (at present: Tusheti) and when the quote “never

forget your roots” was appreciated and valued.

It’s known, that genitive (relative) formation is a usual phenomenon in Anthroponomy in general. Tush

language forms have historical derivational formants -an and -in of plural genitive, which denote possession

of surname and nowadays give us nasal vowels [ã] and [ĩ] of auslaut: Bertlã Mixô ‘Mikho Bartishvili‘,

Lagzourã Porê ‘Phore Lagazidze’, Berγarĩ Natel ‘Natela Tsiskarishvili’, Toraγarĩ Mitô ‘Mito Torgoshvili’...

(compare: French Jean, Rodin, Proudhon and etc.).

In the conditions of unwritten Tush language, we may regard the fact as the lucky case or even testimony,

that the original anthroponomical structure of Bartishvilis (> Bertlanis) is saved in this way on Russian

secret map of 1960: Хrebeṭ Berṭlaṭea ‘ridge Berṭlaṭea’, where, in its tend, the second member of word

combination (Berṭlaṭea), is originated from Tush language word combination Bertlã ṭeā

‘Bartis‘/Bartishvilebis‘ ridge’.

Ivane Bukurauli, public figure from Tsovas’ community of Tushs, has fixed Tush form of his own

anthroponomy at the end of his story in the same way: Bukraulã Ivanê ‘Bukurauli / Bukuraulis‘ Ivane. Tush

13

form of public figure Taso Jemoshvili‘s anthroponomy is similarly fixed with K. Chrelashvili: Ǯemγarĩ Ṭajsî

‘Jemoshvili / Jemos‘ / Jemoshvilis‘ Taso’ (Chrelashvili 20021: 456) and etc.

Undoubtedly, if Tush langauge had written language, the official forms of these surnames would be fixed

in that way as well.

Here the phonetic identity of French and Tush languages are so evident and indisputable, that in case of

using French orthography or orthoepy, nasalization characteristic for Tush anthroponyms are given the best,

which is characteristic for neither Georgian nor Russian languages, in which surnames of Tsovatushs were

documented for centuries:

Tush

language

French language Georgian language

Russian language

Bertlã Berthlan Barthišvili Barƣišvili

Lagzurã Lagzouran Lagaziʒe Lagazidze

Fig. 2: Means for marking Tush anthroponyms

“French expression” of Tush anthroponyms is tended in the deep strata of the structure of these two

languages – in Phonetics, which is regarded as the first thing of speech and not in their outward resemblance

(compare e.g.: French Berthrand – Tush Bertlã and others), which we may regard so at one look and which

would be superficial prompt approach towards the issue.

While making his comparison, it’s difficult not to remember the tender attitude of Marie Brosset towards

Tush language. He, “one of the initiators” of Iberian-Caucasian linguistics (Chrelashvili 2002: 4), supposed

such deplorable end of Tush language even at the middle times of XIX century. “As he saw, that this

language belongs to the minority people and which would be extinguished at any time” (Chrelashvili 20021:

29), he advised to one of “educated and erudite Tush” (Khantadze 1966: 74) Iob Tsiskarishvili to write

grammar of this language and he would give him consultations on it as well (Chrelashvili 20021: 29). French

scientist was enchanted of Iob Tsiskarishvili’s erudition. Due to his recommendation, Iob also created the

vocabulary containing 3000 words and translated the total number of the chapters of New Testament into

Tush language. Marie Brosset took these materials tenderly from Tbilisi to Saint-Petersburg, which he

thought to be the valuable scientific materials and from which A. Schiefner created the abovementioned

monograph on the highest level and in very short period, which is known for lots of people.

The thing which should be made by the children of our country at an appropriate time, but they couldn’t

manage it because of some not enviable situations, was made by the people in many cases, who we

remember as “foreigners”: just they fixed lot f information from different fields such as history, culture and

life. Nowadays, when we try to find in the deepness of the ancient history the information so important and

valuable for us, we have to use just the unique legacy of the foreigners. Marie Brosset is one of such

foreigners, so prominent and devoted.

Though, the emotion of the professional is conceivable, which is caused by the fortune of the language of

the ethnos belonging to such minority number (Chrelashvili 20021: 36) and at the same time so educated one.

But we think, not only the fortune of the language couldn’t be the reason of Marie Brosset’s such great

attention and treatment: it’s difficult to imagine that he couldn’t notice some of those common features,

which are characteristic for French and Tush languages even on the level of Typology.

And if just the fortune of Tush language was the motive of the academician’s sorrow, this fortune

nowadays is in more regrettable condition, than it was at the period when he was really troubled on it: Tush

language goes away from our country in front of our civilized society, that we couldn’t publish even the texts

(Chrelashvili 20021: 36).

Based on the contemporary sociolinguistic researches, in those conditions, when the level of danger of

Tush language is so serious (Gigashvili 2011: 60), that maximal duration of the last vitality of Tush language

is the age of 80 and in the case if the current youngest speakers will live until the age of 100 (Gigashvili

2013: 455); also based on the newest linguistic researches as prof. K. Gigashvili points, that the mechanisms

for renewing the language vitality don’t work (Gigashvili 2010: 169-185), in addition, when Caucasus,

14

where Tush language functions may be regarded as “linguistic paradise, the door of which is a bit open”

(Kashia 2001: 144) and when Marie Brosset’s merit in studying Caucasian language on the scientific level

remains still in the shadow (Chrelashvili 20021: 27), we think that speeches are the subject of interest with

high coefficient about Tush language as well as on French researcher so interested in it, who was called “the

founder of European science in Georgia” by great Georgian historian Iv. Javakhishvili (Javakhishvili 1937).

4. Conclusion

Probability of making typological analysis of French and Tush languages at the beginning of XXI

century gives us hopeful impulses for the next researches in this direction. Any research on Tush language,

any line, word or letter recorded in this language, is and will be each step for coming closer to the thoughts

of Marie-Félicité Brosset, the great orientalist and person, “so remote and at the same time so familiar figure

for Georgian people”.

5. Acknowledgements

I give my gratitude to Mrs. Nana Karaulashvili – for giving me the materials on Marie Brosset and

making some bibliographical details more precise, also to Mr. Eldar Chichiashvili – for consultations in the

part of French language, to Mrs. Elene Dzamiashvili – for translating this article into English language, to

Professor Ketevan Gigashvili – for training me in making the scientific work due to the international

standards, to the professor and mother of Tush language – Makvala Mikeladze – for giving me quite helpful

advises and to the famous French orientalist of XIX century, academician Mr. Marie-Félicité Brosset – for

such great love towards Tush language, which became the motive for writing the given work.

6. References

[1] T. Alkhastova, Comparative-Typological Research of Chechen, English and French Languages on Phonological

level, 2012 (in Russian language) http://www.referun.com/n/sopostavitelno-tipologicheskoe-issledovanie-

chechenskogo-angliyskogo-i-frantsuzskogo-yazykov-na-fonologicheskom-urovne.

[2] A. Bertlani, Phonetics and Phonology of Tush language, Tbilisi, 2012 (in Georgian language).

[3] A. Chikobava, History of studying of Iberian-Caucasian languages, “Ganatleba”, Tbilisi, 1965 (in Georgian

language).

[4] K. Chrelashvili, at the beginnings of Caucasiology (dedicated to 200th

anniversary of the academician Marie

Brosset), Chveni Mtserloba (our writing), February 1-8, 2002 (in Georgian language) pp. 4-5.

[5] K. Chrelashvili, Tsovatush language, “Publishing house of Tbilisi University”, Tbilisi, 20021 (in Georgian

language).

[6] K. Gigashvili, Danger Level for Tsova-Tush Language, III International Symposium Ibero-Caucasian Languages:

Structure, History, Functioning, materials, Tbilisi, 2011 (in Georgian language), pp. 59-60.

[7] K. Gigashvili, Linguistic Map of Modern World and Problems of Endangered Languages, “Universal”, Tbilisi,

2010 (in Georgian language).

[8] K. Gigashvili, Modern ethno-sociolinguistic profile of Tsovatushs, “Saari“, Tbilisi, 2013 (in Georgian language).

[9] Grammatological Dictionary, 2011 (in Russian language) http://enc-dic.com/grammar/Nazalizacija-109.html.

[10] I. Javakhishvili, Introduction of the history of Georgian nation, second book, the first nature and relation of

Georgian and Caucasian languages, Tbilisi, “publishing house of Georgian branch of USSR Science Academy”,

Tbilisi, 1937 (in Georgian language).

[11] E. Kadagidze, Tsova-Tush Texts, Tbilisi, 2009.

[12] J. Kashia, Typology of Kartvelian languages (attempt of meta-theory of Kartvelian languages), issues of linguistics,

Tbilisi Iv. Javakhishvili State University, the faculty of Philology, Transactions #3, Tbilisi, 2001 (in Georgian

language) pp. 103-150.

[13] Sh. Khantadze, Marie Brosset, “Soviet Georgia“, Tbilisi, 1966 (in Georgian language).

[14] M. Mikeladze, A. Bertlani, K. Gigashvili, M. Tsiskarishvili, Tsovatush Texts, Part I, Tbilisi, 2011.

15

[15] M. Mikeladze, Issues of Morphology of Tsovatush Verbs, “Saari”, Tbilisi, 2013 (in Georgian language).

[16] M. Mikeladze, Morphology of the Names of Tsovatush Language, “Saari”, Tbilisi, 2011 (in Georgian language).

[17] Natalia, Phonetical Structure of French Language. Classification and Characterization of French Vowels, 2012 (in

Russian language). http://french-online.ru/zvuki-glasnie/.

[18] A. Schiefner, Versych über die Thusch-Sprache oder die Khistische Mundart in Thuschetien, Mém. VI Série, Sc.

politiques ets., IX, St.-Pétersbourg, 1859 (in German language) pp. 1-160.

[19] A. Shanidze, Tushs, Mnatobi, #2, 1970 (in Georgian language) pp. 103-106.

[20] Tsovatush-Georgian-Russian-English Dictionary, Volume I, “Saari”, Tbilisi, 2012.

[21] Tsovatush-Georgian-Russian-English Dictionary, Volume II, “Saari”, Tbilisi, 2013.

16