1 
 

 

 

 

On the Restoration of the Pre-Nostratic Language 

Kukuri Pipia 

Phasis Academy, Georgia 

 

 

Abstract 

The given work addresses the problem of the origin of speech and Pre-Nostratic language, 

which the linguists regard unsolved to this day. 

Here our studies of the following issues are presented: 

1. How the early men began to speak and on which basis they gave relevant names to the 

objects and the phenomena; 

2. How did they manage to express their views? 

3. What proof and the data of Pre-Nostratic language has been preserved by the Kartvelian 

language.  

 We pursue the aim of the reconstruction of the lexis of the Pre-Nostratic language, for which 

reason it has become necessary to study the basic words consisting of word sounds and 

harmonious sound complexes proved in the Kartvelian language, in other words consonants 

and neutral vowel O[ǝ], as well as harmonious sound complexes and a neutral vowel. 

The work includes the Pre-Nostratic language vocabulary, as well as the method of 

restoration of the archetypes of the Pre-Nostratic words through the reconstruction of the 

Kartvelian words; these archetypes represented the word sounds and sound harmonious 

complexes prompted by the nature, which, for the expression of certain idea, formed on its 

part non-grammatical sentences. Here are presented the examples of forming modern words, 

as a result of uniting the archetypes forming part of the non-grammatical sentences and the 

following phonetic changes. 

      

Keywords: Word sound, harmonious sound complex, Pre-Nostratic language, Kartvelian 

language. 

 

 

 

 



 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

Introduction 

 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 

The same was in the beginning with God.  All things were made by him; and without him  

was not anything made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of 

men.(John 1:1-4) 

It is widely known that aforetime there was one uniform, single language (Genesis 11.1). 

However its reconstruction is considered to be impossible by the scholars, as its trace and the 

linguistic data are   believed to be lost for the mankind beyond recall. Although, it is a well 

known fact that nothing is lost in the nature and it only changes.  That is why the denial of the 

possibility to recover, reclaim something that had existed aforetime is the same as to concede 

to one’s own failure. 

From the archaeological discoveries it is clear that a man used to be a wild creature. We 

may suppose that at the time, a man only possessed the survival instinct and could produce 

inarticulate sounds but not the words that expressed any particular notions. Nevertheless, 

being in possession of the sensory organs, exceptional memory and the capability of 

development we may assume that the humans eventually developed the skill to perceive the 

sounds of the nature and their imitation. Probably, initially the man perceived only the simple 

(non compound) sounds expressed only by one consonant, while eventually he mastered 

more complex sounds. For instance, the sound that is emitted by hitting a stone on the stone 

k'ǝǝ, or a sound we hear when snowflakes fall on our head or shoulders thǝ which a man may 

have perceived earlier than a sound deer makes ǝrǝmǝǝǝ, the sound made by a hoopoe 

ǝphǝphǝ. Therefore, the man, imitating the nature’s realities, eventually gave relevant names 

to these realities, which is also confirmed by the Biblical traditions: “And out of the ground 

the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them 

unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living 

creature, that was the name thereof.`” (Genesis 2.19). 

It becomes clear that the primitive man started to talk imitating the sounds of nature and 

the phenomena and gave them relevant names. It gives us grounds to assume that the 

language of the primitive men was a language of the nature. While the linguistic differences 

within the nature’s language used to be determined by the diversity of nature on the world 

territories, which apparently caused the differences between the speech sounds – quantitative 

difference of phonemes in various languages throughout the world. 

Possibly due to the abovesaid dialectic differences of the nature’s language occurred at 

the various territories of the earth, although, the nature’s language, i.e. “Adam’s language” 

had mostly to be uniform throughout the territory of the entire world. The hypothesis is 

proved by the existence of relevant natural sounds and words in multiple, different languages, 

(Bomhard, 2018), which in our opinion derive from one, basic language, the language of the 

nature. 

 



 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Megrelian, i.e. Iberian language, referred today as Kartvelian language assisted us 

greatly in solving the given task, as it keeps quite an impressive data on Pre-Nostratic or 

“Adam’s Language”. 

After the comparative analysis of corresponding Georgian Megrelian words it becomes 

clear that the Georgian language sprung from the maternal body of the Iberian language and 

grew upon it (in Megrelian, ardili/khardili. Ethnic name kharthi ( khardi derived from it. 

thabali, mentioned in Assyrian sources, t'ibari  and t'iberi, in Greek and  Latin 

sources, tnobeli, in Greek Bible, tnobeli - in Hebrew, thuvali in Georgian (N. Khazaradze, 

1967) confirm that they have undergone different phonetic changes in different languages, 

despite being allomorphs derived from the common basic form  thǝbǝrǝ. While the basic 

mom-grammarized sentence  thǝ bǝ rǝ means [The Suopreme] Existing with supreme the 

light~. From here derives ethnic name iberi (thiberi), and ethnic name from iberi -  

megreli (iberi  igeri  egeri  egri  megri  megreli). 
The existence of many corresponding words having derived from the common base has been 

proved in Georgian, Megrelian (same Iberian), Lazi – Chanian and Svani languages. (H. 

Fenrich, Z. Sarjveladze 2000), which is a proof that they resulted due to the divergence of 

common basic language. However, as only Iberian language explains the etymology of the 

national origin lexis in the language, named common literary Georgian, whereas other 

Kartvelian languages fail to do so, the Iberian language, possessing unparalleled quantity of 

grammatical possibilities and accordingly the richest lexical fund in the world has no 

alternative. (M. Dzadzmiaand others...2007), It points to the fact that the so called scheme of 

interrelationship Kartvelian Languages by Kurdiani and Chikobava is incorrect as well as the 

term “Kartvelian”, as the languages implied under the term, are detached from Iberian 

language and not Georgian. The antecedence of the Iberian language is confirmed by the 

article of Acad.Takaishvili “When the state of Ibers became the Kartvelian 

State”(Takaishvili, 1948) and a Megrelian inscription  `khiana miɁorc~ – “I love the 

Universe”, performed by the 3000 year old ligature  in Asomtavruli and Mkhedruli script, 

discovered on Grakliani Hill.  (Pipia K. 2017). Besides, as only the Iberian language allows 

to reach the depth of “Adam’s language” and no other language, possessing such possibilities 

has been identified so far, the scheme of interrelationship between the “Adam’s language”, 

Iberian and Nostratic languages, complied with  Bomhard’s scheme we believe to be the 

following:  

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

                                                        

 

 

I. Linguistic Data and scientific achievements  

As we have noted above, the scholars believed the trace and data of the language and 

speech origin to be lost beyond recall (G. Nebieridze, 1981, p. 50) and the interest to the 

language and speech studies has dwindled since 1866, but on the basis of the logic that the 

problem never arises if there  is no way to solve it, the given interest has not been 

extinguished completely and our study is not conducted on empty ground.. 

In regards with the study of the given issue, it is important to consider the views 

expressed by Gamkrelidze-Machavariani: “as in early common Kartvelian vowel ǝ had to 

be present by the side of the consonant, the number of syllables was determined by the 

number of vowels. In the common Kartvelian of the period there were no specific 

sonant phonemes, as the units opposed particularly to consonants and vowels as the 

element c  was accompanied by the element ǝ”” (T. Gamkrelidze, G. Machavariani, 1963, 

p.. 370). The view expressed by the renowned linguists is a truth and it has to be pointed out 

that the consonant sound, pronounced separately and independently in the form of a phoneme 

does not exist in the nature. The consonant pronounced independently is always accompanied 

by the neutral vowel ǝ, attached to it in a natural way. Therefore not a single representative of  



 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

any nation could pronounce the consonant sound without it, being accompanied by the ǝ 

vowel.  That is why the consonant sounds pronounced independently in Iberian language 

have the meanings of a complete word. That is why they are called word sounds. The same 

logic extends over the word harmonious complexes, which neither exist in the nature without 

the accompaniment of the neutral sound ǝ and it gives them the importance, without which, 

they have no meanings, as the particular phonemes extracted from the word.   

Today, in various languages there exist sound harmonious complexes, some originated 

in the nature and others were established within the Socius. The establishment of the latter in 

the socius had to be based on eliding of the ǝ vowel in a more complex words derived 

through the merge of archetypes forming part of primeval non-grammarized sentences. Such 

phonetic phenomenon had to occur in certain places due to the weakness of a stress on ǝ 

vowel. Gamkrelidze and Machavariani explain the reason of eliding of the vowel (Sincoping) 

in a word, in the following way: “One of the reasons for the vowel sincope may have been 

the  presumption of the mobile dynamic stress at the early stage of the development of 

the common Kartvelian, through the influence of which weakening and loss of the 

vowels without a stress occurred.” (T. Gamkrelidze. G, Machavariani, 1965, p. 370). As a 

result, instead of the form cǝcǝ, sound harmonious complex ccǝ was achieved.  

 

Despite the work presented by the renowned scholar T. Gamkrelidze and G. 

Machavariani (`System of sonants and ablaut in Kartvelian languages~), phenomenon of 

Megrelian language has not been thoroughly studied to this day.. 

Iberian language has preserved the interjection, pronounced to show extremely negative 

emotion, characteristic of various animals, of specific sound, before the beginning of speech 

by the humans, dating back to the wild life, expressing despondency and horror – vǝǝǝǝǝvǝ-

vǝvǝ interjection (by women) and vo-va, va-va (by men), still used to express something 

negative by the word sound  vǝ (va/ve).  Academician Niko Marr stated on the basis of the 

study of these or similar archaic words: “The Japetian language group allows us to reach the  

 



 

6 
 

 

 

 

 

border lines between the Human language and animal speech, through the comparative 

studies.| (Niko Mar, 1923, p. 42). 

Views of M. and Ts. Dzadzamia on the sounds, word origin and the speech have to be 

pointed out: „Megrelian consonant words are presented, as such, with only one certain 

condition, when they are accompanied by  a half vowel ǝ.  Without it, single consonant 

sounds and consonant harmonious complexes present no notion, no meaning.”  (Dzadzamia 

M., Dzadzamia Ts., 1997, p. 58); “speech sounds represent phonetic (sound) units segmented 

by the man, imitating the multiple inarticulate sound complexes existing in the nature, briefly 

– the phonemes, that are historically determined by the meanings (defined)”, ...` Initial or 

primitive speech was actually imitation of the sounds produced by the nature, i.e. sounds 

expressed by the objects and the natural phenomena. In brief it was a speech in the nature’s 

language.~ (Dzadzamia M., Dzadzamia Ts., 1997, pp. 204-205); “Primitive speech was  a 

speech with the imitated basic consonant forms, namely single consonants, consonant sounds 

harmonious complexes and their attachments (if present) with the accompaniment of 

emphatic semi-vowel ǝ sound”    (Dzadzamia M., Dzadzamia Ts., 2007, p. 93). i.e. When at 

the time no grammar existed, the men expressed their views through the combination of word 

sounds and sound harmonious complexes. However, the authors of the given reality presented 

the problem in a general form, hypothetically.  

They present little or insufficient concrete examples. Nevertheless when the Dzadzamia 

authors (Father and son) made such conclusions they relied upon the word sounds and sound 

harmonious complexes preserved in the Iberian language to this day and multiple basic forms 

existing as their attachment. For instance, in Iberian language expressions preserved from the 

consonant speech era: k'ǝ čǝ _ `Fed acorn; ŝǝ dixa skhǝrǝ _ `Moist earth is drying up ~; 

č'q'ǝnt'ǝ Ɂvali č'q'ǝrt'ǝ _ `Fresh (young) cheese is being squashed ~ etc. However did there 

exist in Iberian language, preserved and intensively used ten single consonant word sounds 

(gǝ, k’ǝ, lǝ, t’ǝ, ŝǝ, čǝ, ca, ʒǝ, c’ǝ  and  č’ǝ) apart from word sounds with the homonyms 

presented by 20 consonants out of 30, how the word sounds and sound harmonious 

complexes came to existence; which particular realities emitted these sounds; Besides 

“speech sounds are phonetic units,   segmented from the multiple inarticulate  sound 

complexes existing in the nature, in short phonemes, which are historically determined by  



 

7 
 

 

 

 

 

certain notions, meanings (specified).” (M. Dzadzamia, Ts. Dzadzamia 1997, p. 204), if in 

word sounds achieved by the imitation of concrete realities existing in the nature, presenting 

neutral vowels separately or the result of possible reconstruction of word sounds into 

phonemes, has not ever been studied before us. 

 

On the basis of the fact that separate sound (phoneme) extracted from the word 

composition has no notion, linguistics considers the words with the notion as the unity of 

meaningless sound units displayed in a certain sequence: `….by the arrangement of minor 

units“ (or with meaning K.P.). with no notion, the speaker can create the units of more 

complex meaning, by merging them – the words, connecting the words, he can form a 

sentence. Therefore on the one hand we have the sound expression units, while on the other 

hand - rules for the combining of the given units, the so called grammar.~ (T. Gamkrelidze 

and others, 2003. p.  28). 

The conventionality theory of language origination was apparently formed on such erroneous 

views, which the majority of the scholars share to this day with the following dominant 

opinion; `the language mostly consists of the words that denote conventional meanings of 

the objects and phenomena. I.e. the principles of conventionality are applied instead of 

iconicity principle.” (G. Nebieridze, 1991, p. 17). That means that word meanings were 

adopted not on the basis of natural realities, but men gave un-motivated conventional names 

to the objects and the phenomena according their own will. In such case, errors are 

unavoidable and on the basis of these errors, the scholars, wishfully trying to present their 

language as the basic language, namely Gematrians, created an illusion of the divine, 

naturally ciphered origin of their language, through the selection of the words of different 

sound composition and artificially getting the required summed up number of characters in 

them. But we, along with the entire scientific world, do not share the given opinion, as big 

units of complex meaning – the words, were not created from smaller units void of meaning – 

sounds (phonemes), but by the combination of comparatively smaller units prompted by the 

nature, bearing the meaning – and word sounds and sound harmonious complexes, which 

after turning determining neutral vowel ǝ into a complete vowel are present today in the 

words as syllables. 



 

8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

II. Establishing the origin of sound harmonious complexes 

For the reconstruction of the real picture of Pre-Nostratic, or “Adam’s Language” 

speech it has become necessary to set whether the harmonious complex under the study is a 

sound harmonious complex existing in the nature or result of later, phonetic changes, 

characteristic for the socius, as it is known that the harmonious complex c1c2ǝ, existing in the 

nature, doesn’t break into separate c1ǝ and c2ǝ word sounds. As it was possible to pronounce 

c1ǝ c2ǝ forms in a reversed way c2ǝ c1ǝ and later (after the merging of the word sounds) due 

to the weakness of a stress on  ǝ vowel between the two consonants, eliding of the given 

vowel may have occurred. We also have reversed forms of the consonant sound harmonious 

complexes c1c2ǝ and c2c1ǝ, for example bro-li (crystal) and rbi -li (soft), rkha (horn) and 

khro-mi (chrome) etc. Similar reversed sound harmonious complexes do not exist in the 

world. Therefore, there do not exist t'q'ǝ, ǯɣǝ, čxǝ and etc.  Reversed forms of natural 

harmonious complexes q't'ǝ, ɣǯǝ, xčǝ and etc. Neither there exist amalgamated attachments 

of word sounds and sound harmonious complexes, which give us certain meaning.  For 

example cǝcǝ and ccǝcǝ forms. Such merging used to occur at the stage following the 

primeval speech of a man. I.e. if there exists the reversed form of c1c2ǝ - c2c1ǝ, it means that ǝ 

vowel with c1, or c2 has elided. Despite the fact that initially it originated in the form of  

c1ǝc2ǝ or c2ǝc1ǝ. 

 

It is possible that from the beginning to this day, throughout the millennia, under the 

influence of turbulent past and cataclysms, not all initially existing natures prompted word 

sounds and all speech sounds (phonemes) have been preserved, but on the basis of the 

linguistic data preserved in Megrelian (same Iberian) language, it becomes possible to 

reconstruct the main lexical fund of the Pre-Nostratic language, or the first common or 

“Adam’s Language”.  This lexical fund was possibly limited to the word sounds formed by 

30 (or more) consonants existing in Megrelian (if there existed over 30 consonants), 

homonyms and sound harmonious complexes. Until that we find it necessary to present 

several examples of the formation of the latter.  

 



 

9 
 

 

 

 

III. Origination of word sounds and sound harmonious complexes 

We have prepared all the assumed examples of the presumed origin of word sounds and 

sound harmonious complexes for the book soon to be published titled `The first alphabet of 

the mankind.” Here we present only several examples: 

1. If we quickly stretch a springy (solid) rope or a tightly stretched string between the 

two points, after pulling  the rope we shall hear word sound bǝǝǝ. In the first place tying, 

connection took place, while in the other case the tying, connection silence, peace was 

broken, during which the given realiities issued and we heard a sound complex bǝǝǝ. That is 

why the sound complex bǝ/bǝǝǝ assumed the neanning of tying, connection.. 

2. If we are in a cozy, comfortable environment and snow flakes fall on our head and 

shoulders we shall periodically hear the sound complex thǝ - thǝ - thǝ ... if we pronounce 

determinant sound of the sound th with bigger ephasy, with the prolonged thǝǝǝ form, in the 

shape of snow, water, or the phenomenon of light standard , with the aim to deliver 

information to someone, this information becomes more persuasive. Therefore the word 

sound thǝ/thǝǝǝ, after  pronouncing thoua  thova (snowing), figuratively assumes the 

meaning of arriving light.  Word sound thǝ in Iberian language is 3rd person verb. And 

expresses the finished event, the snow flake, fallen once will not fall again.  Therefore in 

Iberian language it will be ga-thǝǝǝ (finished), denoting ending of a certain task. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

3. rǝrǝrǝrǝrǝ... prolonged sound complex we shall hear during the movement of the 

invisible reality, around us at a high speed. It should be pointed out that all the rest 29 

(consonant) word sounds are emitted by the visible realities. Apparently, due to the fact of 

being different and special  the word sound rǝ, after pronouncing re (is) was given the 

function of confirming the presence pf other realities. 

4. overripe fruit, being left on the branch in an inaproachable place, with its appetizing 

smell, seems to be whole and palatable from the distance, but with a slight shake of the 

branch it will drop to the ground and squashing will produce the sound harmonious complex 

t'q'ǝǝ, that’s the reason why the sound harmonious complex  t'q'ǝǝ assumed the meaning of 

false, imaginary.  Meaning of  Lying, deceitful false. From it Iberian word t'q'ura  (lie has 

come to exsistence): t'q'ǝre  t'q'ure  t'q'ura  and the Georgian t'q'uili (a lie): t'q'ǝǝre 

 t'q'uire   t'q'uile   t'q'uili. 

5. If we squeeze a fat chicken, live or plucked and cleaned, we shall hear the sound 

harmonious complex  ʒɣǝ, which can’t be said on a lean chicken. The chicken that does not 

produce such sound harmonious complex is not considered to be edible. In Iberian language 

it is said: dir-ʒɣǝ, to which Georgian ga-ʒɣa corresponds, in English saturated. 

As for the origin of the sounds (phonemes), as a result of the reconstruction of word 

sound consonants and neutral vowel, it is easier to present them as separate, units without the 

meaning, than their segmentation from inarticulate sound complexes”.  

 

IV. Pre-Nostratic or ”Adam’s Language” vocabulary 

We believe that there does not exist a complete vocabulary and it just can not exist, as 

in a short amount of time a new word may come to existence. It is also possible a word to 

lose its meaniing and be dropped out of use, in time. Thus, it is only natural that the linguistic 

fund of ”Adam’s language”, consisting of the old basic forms (word sounds and sound 

harmonious complexes) may not be complete, but it offers us approximate picture of the 

speech of the period. 

 



 

11 
 

 

 

 

 

As mentioned above, the primitive speech was a speech that involved immitation with 

single consonant forms, i.e word sounds, while expressing deeper views with their 

attachments is a more subsequent phenomenoon. 

In our view the primitive language lexis had to be similar to the one below; 

a) word sounds: 

bǝ 1. `tied ~; Cxou b¸ (čxou bǝ) _ `the cow is tied ~; 

2. `-is hung~; guda jas muko-b¸ (guda ǯas muk'o - bǝ) _ `leather bag is hanging on a 

tree ~; 

3. ` was hanging~; Citiq kuCxiT qimki-b¸ (ěit'ikh  k'čxith  khimk'i -bǝ) _ `bird hang 

from the branch with its foot ~; here all three words (atied, hanging and was hanging) express 

tying, connection in general; 

4. `poured out~; gegna-b¸ (gegna-bǝ) _ `poured out, poured down ~; 

5. `poured”; qigni-b¸ (khigni - bǝ) _ `poured on ~. Poured,  pouring in general. 

gǝ. 1. woodcock; 

2. `looks like~; squa mumas g¸ (skhua mumas gǝ) _ `son looks like father ~; 

3. `built~; giorgiq ჸude a-g¸ (Giorgikh Ɂude a-gǝ) _ `Giorgi built a house~; 

4. `won~; petreq laჸafi mi-g¸ (P'etrekh laɁaphi mi-gǝ) _ `Petre won a game ~; 

5. `won from~; petreq layafi mu-g¸ (P'etrekh laɁaphi mu-gǝ) _ “Petre won the game 

from sb ~; 

6. `to sheath~; yama orCxes qala-g¸ (q'ama orčxes khala-gǝ) _ `Sheathed a sword ~; 

7. `return grace~; mardi gina-g¸ (mardi gina-gǝ) _ `returned grace ~; 

8. `repaid~; vali gini-g¸ (vali gini-gǝ) _ `repaid debt ~; 

9. `put on, (-irgo)~; xeSTaTmani qimi-g¸ (xešthathmani khimi-gǝ) _ `put on gloves 

(fitted on)~; 

10. `hit~; keti qimio-g¸ (k'et'i  khimio-gǝ) _ `hit sb., with a bat ~; 

11. `find way out~; uryi tyaSe ZiuT g¸Sa-g¸ (urq'i tq'aše  ʒiuth  gaša-gǝ) _”hardly 

found the way out from a dense forest”; 

 

 



 

12 
 

 

 

 

 

12. `Earth~; ga/ge/gi (ga/ge/gi) _ `planet earth~. 

dǝ. 1. `-placed~; Wirqa tabakis qigla-d¸ (č'irkha  tabak'is  khigla-dǝ) _ `placed glass on 

the table ~;  

2. “put on” qimi-d¸ (č'aphula   khimi-dǝ) _ “put on shoes”; 

3. `left-~; ase i-d¸ (ase i-dǝ) _ `just left ~. 

vǝ. 1. ` vǝ/vo/va~ _ interjection expression of show sorrow, mourning, unpleasant 

experience. `vǝǝǝǝǝvǝ - vǝvǝ~ KKeening of Iberian women; `vo-va, va-va~ _ men; 

2. `va/ve~; va-re (va re) _ `is not ~; ve-laჸafu (ve - laɁaphu) _ `did not play~. 

zǝ. 1. `kneaded~; comi z¸ (comi zǝ) _ `Kneaded dough ~; 

2. `is burning, is on~; daCx¸ri z¸ (dačxǝri  zǝ) _ `Fireis on~; 

3. `-reconciled~; maCxuperi boSefi ga-z¸¸ (mačxup'eri bošephi ga-zǝ) _ `reconciled the 

fighting children ~. 

hǝ. Word sound h¸ (hǝ) conveys the name of the material mass, which we breath, smell 

and to which we listen, without which no living creature can survive for more then two 

minutes. And the one that is not pronounced, it is breathed out. 

thǝ. 1. `snowfall~; T¸¸ do T¸¸,... do sumi dRadoserc uWyvaduo T¸nd¸ (thǝǝ do thǝǝ, ... 

do sumi dɣadoserc uč'q'vaduo thǝndǝ) _ `snowing and snowing,... it snowed three days 

without a stop. ~; 

2. `family~; ibdaT Cqimi Ti-Sa (ibdath  čkhimi thi-ša) _ `let’s go ti my family~. 

3. `-ended, finished ~; giorgiq saqvari ga-T¸¸ (Giorgikh  sakhvari ga-thǝǝ) _ `Giorgi 

finished work /ended it ~. 

k’ǝ. 1. acorn_ oaknut; 

2. `-kept to himself~; besoq dixa mi-k¸¸ (Besokh  dixa mi-k’ǝǝ) _ `Beso occupied the 

land~; 

 

 

 

 

 



 

13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

3. `-tempered~; petreq yama jgiro gagmo-kver¸ (P'et'rekh  q'ama ǯgiro gagmo-k’verǝ) 

_ `Petre tempered the sword well ~. 

lǝ. 1. `falls down~; qua dixas l¸ (khua dixas lǝ) _ `stone falls down ~. Falling. in 

general. 

2. `walked ~; iq mTeli qiana mi-l¸ (ikh  mtheli khiana mi-lǝ) _ `he walked around the 

world~; 

3. `-studied, investigated ~; giorgiq i akani jgiro gi-l¸ (Giorgikh  i ak'ani ǯgiro gi-lǝ) _ 

`giorgi investigated the area, studied the area well~. 

 

mǝ. 1. `m¸/ma~ (mǝ/ma) _ personal pronoun _ `I~; 

2. `m¸/mi/min~ (mǝ/mi/min) _ Interrogative pronoun _ `who~; 

3. `m¸/mu (mǝ/mu) _ Interrogative pronoun _ `what~. 

nǝ. 1. `n¸/na (nǝ/na) _ `water~; in fugurative sense _ `The sourse of life~, or, `God 

creator~; 

2. `-hurt~; baRanas Tofurq e-n¸ (baɣanas  thophurkh e-nǝ) _ `Honey hurt the baby ~. 

p’ǝ. 1. `lips~; p¸p¸/pipu (p’ǝp’ǝ/p’ip’u) _ `lips~; 

2. `made~; ma RoronTiq p¸ (ma  ɣoronthikh p’ǝ) _ `God made me ~ (created). 

žǝ. 1. `above~; J¸/Ji (žǝ/ži); dixas Ji ca re (dixas ži ca re) _ `Sky is above the earth ~; 

2. `J¸/Ja (žǝ/ža) _ `Sun~. 

rǝ. `r¸/re~ (rǝ/re) _ `Is~. 

sǝ. `Urinate~, in general, to urinate. figuratively: relief, facilitation pleasure, bliss. 

t’ǝ. 1. udder; 

2. `-left~; iliaq naTeli kvali di-t¸ (Yliakh  natheli  k'vali di-t’ǝ) _ `Ilia left a luminous 

mark~; 

3. `forgiveness~; RoronTiq coda miu-t¸ (ɣoronthikh coda miu-t’ǝ) _ `God forgave him, 

any sin~. 

4. `-breath last breath~; lexiq Suri go-t¸¸ (lexikh šuri go-t’ǝǝ) _ `The sick breathed 

last breath ~; 

 



 

14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

5. `-freed (set free)~; baRanaq Citi gou-t¸ (baɣanakh čit’i gou-tǝ) _ `Child freed a bird 

~ (set free); 

phǝ. 1. `layer~; f¸/fa (phǝ/pha);  žǝri  pha _ `two layers ~; 

2. `boiled~; wyarq qo-f¸¸ (c'q'arkh   kho-phǝǝ) _ `water boiled ~. 

khǝ. 1. `-ground~; petreq qobali do-q¸¸ (P'et'rekh   kho-bali do-khǝǝ) _ `Petre grounded 

wheat ~; 

2. `Do ~; zvambaq i-q¸¸ e saqme (Zvambakh   i-khǝǝ e sakhme) _ `Zvamba did it ~. 

ɣǝ. 1. `owl~ _ night bird; R¸/Ru (ɣǝ/ɣu) In Iberian language the bird was given a name 

according the sound complexes it produces R¸-R¸¸-R¸¸¸¸¸ (ɣǝ-ɣǝǝ-ɣǝǝǝǝǝ) immitating; 

 

2. `-took~; qeTiq wigni mide-R¸ (Khethikh  c'igni mid-ɣǝ) _ `Keti took the book~; 

3. `-brought~; gogiq oRali qimi-R¸ (Gogikh oɣali khimi -ɣǝ) _ `Gogi brought the load 

here ~. 

q’ǝ. `shoutediyvira~; aWou do y¸¸ (ač’ou do q'ǝǝ) _ `It hurt and he shouted~. 

šǝ. 1. `Wet~; S¸ dixa (šǝ dixa) _ `Wet earth~; 

2. `remembers~; is ifreli S¸ (is iphreli šǝ) _ `he remembers everything ~. In a general 

form, remembrance, memory; 

3. `-walked~/`vlida~; Cqaras mi-S¸ (čkharas mi-šǝ) _ `walked fast/walked~; 

4. `drank~; Tamadaq breli Rvini S¸/Su (thamadakh breli ɣvini ras šǝ/šu) _ `Toastmaster 

drank much wine ~; 

5. `knitting~; beboq xeSiTaTmanefi S¸ (bebokh xešithathmanephi  šǝ) _ `Granny 

knitted mittens ~. 

čǝ. 1. `Fed~; oWkumali C¸ (očk'umali čǝ) _ `Fed sb. ~. In general alimentated; 

2. `-gave away~; sikeTe go-C¸ (sik'ethe go-čǝ) _ `shared kindness~; 

3. `-kept~; sabuTefi jgiro do-C¸¸ (sabuthephi ǯgiro do-čǝǝ) _ `kept the documents 

safely ~. 

cǝ. 1. `elm~ _ tree specie; 

2. `beat up~; ketiT c¸ (k’et’ith cǝ) _ `beat up with a bat ~; 

3. `paid~; pativi c¸ (p’at’ii cǝ) _ `Paid respect~. 



 

15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

ʒǝ. 1. lies~ (devs); ja dixas Z¸ (ʒa gixas ʒǝ) _ `a tree lies on the ground~; 

2. `graze~; cxenq ndolo Z¸¸ (cxenkh ndolo ʒǝǝ) _ `horse grazes in the field~. 

c’ǝ. 1. `this year~; w¸ jgiri mosavali iჸuafu (c’ǝ ǯgiri mosavali iɁuaphu) _ `harvest is 

good this year~; 

2. `suckled~; Cq¸Cq¸q ZuZu w¸¸ (čkhǝčkhǝkh  ʒuʒu c'ǝǝ) _ `The baby suckled ~; 

3. `-grew~; besoq jgiri mosavali mi-w¸¸ (besokh ǯgiri mosavali mi-c'ǝǝ) _ `Beso grew 

good harvest ~. 

č’ǝ. 1. `intestine~; 

 

 

2. `-sew~; kaba do-W¸¸ (k’aba do-č’ǝǝ) _ `(sewed( made a dress ~; 

3. `-burnt~; daCx¸rc¸ do-W¸¸ (dačxǝrcǝ do-č’ǝǝ) _ `burnt in fire ~. 

qhǝ. 1. handful; 

 

2. `overthrew (knocked down) ~; dudigime ø/Ãu (dudigime qh/qhu) _ `is 

overthrown ~; 

3. `-dismantled~; kare do-ø¸ (k'are do-qhǝ) _ `dismantled a tent ~. 

xǝ. 1. `hand~; x¸/xe qimeTx¸ (xǝ/xe  khimethxǝ) _ `took his hand ~; 

2. `sits~; mafa taxtis x¸/xe (mapha t'axt'is  xǝ/xe) _ `King sits on the throne; 

 

 

3. `gave birth~; Txaq qacari x¸ (thxakh  khacari xǝ) _ `a goat gave birth ~. 

ǯǝ. 1. `tree~; xumla j¸/ja gedg¸ (xumla ǯǝ/ǯa  gedgǝ) _ `a dead tree stands ~; 

2. `-burnt ~; din-j¸ (din-ǯǝ) _ `burnt~. 

Ɂǝ. `created, made~; ifreli RoronTiq ჸ¸(iphreli  ɣoronthikh  Ɂǝ) _ `God created 

everything ~. 

b) Sound harmonious complexes existed in the nature: 

t’q’ǝ.  `liar~; ty¸ re (t’q’ǝ re) _ `is a liar~; 



 

16 
 

 

 

 

 

čxǝ. `hot~; Cx¸/Cxe re (čxǝ/čxe re) _ `it’s hot ~; 

ʒɣǝ. Sound harmonious complexes expressing something fat, well-fed (gam-ʒɣa-ris),; 

č’q’ǝ/č’q’ǝǝ. 1. `screethed~; Citiq Wy¸¸ (čitikh  č’q’ǝǝ) _ `bird screetched ~; 

2. `cursed~; RoronTiq Wy¸¸ (ɣoronthikh  č’q’ǝǝ) _ `cursed by God~; 

ǯɣǝ/ǯɣǝǝ.  `wailed~; yvaruas oCiq jR¸¸ (q’varuas očikh ǯɣǝǝ) _ `Billy goat wailed when 

castrated~. 

Besides there do exist sound harmonious complexes sc’ǝ, phxǝ, p’q’ǝ, cxǝ da c’q’ǝ, 

which seem to be of natural origon , but we havent’t yet sought out the realities emitting such 

complexes. Complexes confirmed in Georgian language cxǝ and c’q’ǝ of natural origin have 

to be equivalent forms of čxǝ da č’q’ǝ complexes confirmed in Iberian language. 

V. Method of the restoration of archetypes and sentences of Pre-

Nostratic language through the reconstruction of Kartvelian words.  

It is noteworthy that in Megrelian (Iberian) language 86 homomyms are presented in 

total through 30 wordsounds constreucted on 30 existing consonants. Among them 15 – 

nouns, 63 3rd person verbs., 1 – interjection, 1 – particle, 3 – pronouns, 2 adverbs  and 1 

adjective. i.e. signs of grammatization were initially involved in the wordsounds and sound 

harmonious complexes. Therefore, although rarely, we encounter in Pre-Nostratic language 

well grammatized and slightly grammatized archaic sentences as well.  

In order to reconstruct archetypes and sentences of the Pre-Nostratic or Nature’s 

language we have to set whether the words under the study  are of relatively later formations 

or have been cenceived in the era of the functioning of Pre-Nostratic language . For which 

reason we should replace all the vowels of the studied word with the neutral ǝ vowel and we 

may get three types of archaic sentences: 

 

a) when the archaic sentence includes only the archetypes presented by wordsounds.; 

b) when the archaic sentemce includes one or more word sounds and sound 

harmmonious complex existing in the nature; 

c) when archaic sentence includes one or more wordsound and sound harmonious 

complex born in an archaic era, which is a result of syncopy of the neutral ǝ vowel between  



 

17 
 

 

 

 

 

 

the two consonants, having come to existence due to the merging of archetypes presented by 

wordsounds in the same sentence.   

After the reconstruction of the sound harmonios complexes, dated back to when they 

were conceived, archaic sentence represented in point”a” is received. 

The given method only allows  to determine etymology and meaning of the words that 

came into existence during the functioning of Pre-Nostratic language.  I.e. it would allow to 

restore the non-grammarized sentences built by archetypes, through the restoration of the 

words that are in use to this day (but have originated in the archaic period). If it turns out that 

the notion of the latter received through the grammarization at the modern level accurately 

determines the meaning of the word under the study, it will prove that it has been conceived 

in the era of the functioning of Pre-Nostratic language and the archetypes and the sentence 

are restored (reconstructed) correctly.  

 

For the reconstruction of true archetype of the studied words of the conception period it 

is always necessary to take into consideration the possible phenomenon of ablaut.    

 

VI. Restoration of the speech forms of Pre-Nostratic language 

In order to clarify the abovesaid, we should consider several examples: 

a) From the vocabulary of Nostratic (latin nostratos _ our) languages: 

1. Proto-Indo-European *bºor-/*bºr̥ - ‘to bore, to pierce’; Proto-Afrasian *bur- ‘to bore, 

to pierce’; Proto-Uralic *pura ‘borer, auger’; Proto-Dravidian *pur- ‘(vb.) to bore, to 

perforate; (n.) borer, gimlet’; Proto-Altaic *burV- ‘to bore through, to pierce’. Cf. Sumerian 

bùr ‘to bore through, to pierce’ (Bomhard, vol. I, 2018, p. 16). In Georgian burva // burua; 

In Megrelian rxuala _ boring, piercing. 

Here, the the equivalence of the bases of rxu and ru is important, the initial form of 

which has to be rə xə, which, at the level of modern speech could be imagined in the 

following way:  is (rə) birth (xə), or there is a [new desired reality] birth. And indeed 

through drilling/boring, a new and desired, more complete reality is born. 



 

18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Proto-Kartvelian *baba ‘father’: Georgian babua- ‘grandfather’; Laz baba- ‘father, 

dad’; Mingrelian baba- ‘father, dad’; Svan baba- ‘dad’. Klimov 1964:47 *baba-; Schmidt 

1962:94. (Bomhard, Vol. II, 2018, p. 9). 

The base of the mention corresponding words has to be bəbə, double bə, which directly 

means binding, link, connection, biological connection is implied, continuity: Son - father - 

grandfather. Georgian  ba-všvi and bi-č’i, Megrel. ba-anaDand  bo-ši, Laz. be-re denote 

biological connection, son. 

3. In Aramaic language there is  kerüm (bark, leather) equivalent to Georgian 

kherkhi, in Sahara Berberic Tuareg there is a-urum (a bark); Muab Chad language group has 

kuroro (shell, bark); Latin and old Russian k’ora; In Old Mongolian körü - süm (skin); In 

Japanese k’ara _ shell, bark (Dolgopolsky Долгопольский, 1971-1972, p. 117). 

In our opinion, the word kherkhi and its equivalent forms in various languages have 

been derived from the basic form khə rə khə  kherkhi, where  khə means making  rə – is. 

Then  khə rə khə // kherkhi means creator(maker) is  Creator. Thus, truly the bark is the 

creator of wood without which the growth of the wood and its development and creation are 

impossible.  

b) From Russian: 

In Russian we have the word lečenie _ treatment (medical). If the word was conceived 

in the era of uniform speech, it had to be conceived in a form lə čə nə. The basic form 

denoted by the similar connected form does not exist in the nature. In Megrelian we have 

separate word sounds lə _ falling down, falling; čə _ fed to, alimentate; nə _ Water, Water 

Source of Life. Thus if in the era of uniform speech they used to pronounce jointly the words 

falling + feeding + source of life it means that they wanted to say: feeding the fallen with the 

source of life. Even on the level of the contemporary speech Feeding the fallen, or a sick 

person with the source of life may only mean treatment. 

2. k’niga _ a book. Its basic form had to be k'ə nə gə,  where k'ə in Megrelian means 

tempering, nə _ water (directly meaning), figuratively source of wisdom, gə _ build,  

 



 

19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

General form, building, therefore the sentence consisting of these words is of the 

following essence: source built by [mind] tempering [of wisdom] is nothing else but a 

book. 

c) From Hebrew: 

1. In Hebrew we have a word daluti _ beggar. Its basic form had to be də lə t'ə, whre 

də is the 3rd person verb and means put, in a general form placement (put), lə, as we have 

mentioned means falling, t’ə is also 3rd person verb and means give birth, general form, birth. 

Then dalut’i  də lə t’ə means placement (put) _ born to be fallen, i.e. for inactive falling, 

doomed to be a beggar. 

2. Jewish Cabalists write that the language initially was called thanaxa. Thora and 

sacred scriptures were written in this language, but they fail to explain convincingly the 

etymology of the given word. The word thanaxa is written in Hebrew only with consonant 

sounds thnx where th in their opinion means thora, Pentateuch, n – nevim (Prophets), and x, 

means k't'uvim (Scriptures). (I apologize to the readers for being unable to explain what is 

the connection of the sound x with the word k't'uvim). 

In Iberian language thə in the word thənəxə means light (Supreme is implied, the divine 

wisdom, nə _ is water , source of life, figuratively God - creator. xə-is also a 3rd person verb 

and means giving birth, in a general form, birth.  Therefore the basic form of the language 

thanaxa - thə nə xə // (light- God - Birth) means language born of God’s light wisdom(lucid). 

And indeed the first common (uniform) language of the physical manifestation of the 

Supreme Creator – language suggested by the nature (its wisdom). 

d) From Georgian (same New Iberian): 

Snow in absolute darkness is so clearly visible that it may be considered the etalon of 

visibility, light. Therefore if they wanted to say: the most visible reality has befell upon the 

environ~, they expressed the given reality in the following way: nə  thə  rə (water-snow-is). 

So the contemporary word came to existence natheli (nəthərə  nəthəre  nathere  

nathele  natheli). 

 



 

20 
 

 

 

 

 

I.e. water befallen as visible snow, as the fresh water is invisible in the dark of the night, i.e. 

it is dark (Georg. – bneli. Thus, the given reality used to be expressed in the following way 

bə nə rə (pouring _ water _ is). bə nə rə  bənə re  bne re  bnele  bneli; If they 

wanted to say “a lie” they used to say: <<t’q’əə rə>> (is a liar). From here Megr. t’q’ura and 

Georgian t’q’uili; The essence of the notions “New” and “old” can not be determined by the 

rapid wearing of the newly made object or preservance of the quality of centuries old object, 

therefore if they wanted to say <<axali>> (new), they used to sai: <<a xə rə>> (was born – 

is) and if they wanted to say the word `ჳveli~ (old), they used to say `ჳəə rə~ (is placed is) 

(ჳəə rə → ჳue re → ჳuele → ჳueli → ჳveli and etc.  

Now let us have a look at the situation between the words having derived from the 

basic words (k’ethili da sa-k’uthari) (in the word k’ethili sound I is a result of the relaxation, or 

softening of the sound. 

 

Word sound k’ə in the word k’e thili (←k’ə thə rə) means tempering, in the word _ 

k’uthari (←k’ə thə rə) _ it denotes keeping (for oneself), while word sound th in the word 

k’ethili means light, divine wisdom, in a word _ k’uthari it denotes a head. The word 

k’ethili, means literally: tempering of light wisdom is and indeed the best deed in the human 

behavior, tempering of light and wisdom. The rest, in comparison, are nothing but rendering 

disservice; Word _ k’uthari literally means kept to self is. Personal is nothing else but reality 

kept for self; Iberian word k’ithi (← k’ə thə=kept to self), finger in Georgian, a part for 

keeping something for self. 

As we have seen, it is clear from the analyzed words there is a live link between the 

lexis of Pre-Nostratic and contemporary Iberian language. 

     Conclusion 

Proceeding from the abovesaid we may conclude that if a word has corresponding words in 

various languages, it means that their common basic form was conceived in the era of 

functioning of the primary uniform (common) language and their meanings could be 

determined by the meanings of the word sounds and sound harmonious complexes,  existing 

in the Iberian language. If the word has no corresponding forms in other languages (or they  



 

21 
 

 

 

 

 

 

may not be studied yet) but if the method we have elaborated and the application of the word 

sounds, existing in Iberian language as well as use of word sound meanings, existing in the 

Iberian language to determine its precise etymology, it points to the fact that it was conceived 

in the era of the first common language and has been formed through the further connection 

and linking of the lexis of the period. 

Therefore the given method allows to determine the basic forms of all corresponding words 

that are included into the vocabulary of Nostratic languages, the basis of obtaining their 

meanings, i.e. the lexis used in the era of common speech and accordingly reconstruct Pre-

Nostratic language, same as the first primary, common language of the mankind. 

Besides, the humble work is noteworthy for paving the way to the solution of the 

problem, regarded unsolvable in Linguistics, namely the reconstruction of the Primary, 

common language of the mankind, which in our view is a further important step towards the 

perception of the unsolved mystery and accordingly further spiritual-moral development of 

the mankind. 

 

References: 

1. Bible, (1991) New Testament and the psalms, Institute for Bible Translation axali 

aRTqma da fsalmunebi, stokholmi, bibliis Tangmnis instituti (biblia (1991) axali aɣkhma da 

phsalmunebi, Stok'holmi, bibliis thargmnis instituti); 

2. Bomhard, A. (2018) A Comprehensive introduction to Nostratic Comparative 

linguistics, with cpecial Reference to indo – European, volume 1.2. third revised corrected 

and expanded edition, florence, sc; 

3. Gamkrelidze T. Machavariani G. (1965) System of sonants and ablaut in Kartvelian 

languages Tbilisi “Mecniereba” sonatTa sistema da ablauti qarTvelur enebSi, Tbilisi, 

`mecniereba~ (Gamq'reliʒe, T. Mač'avariani, G. (1965) sonant'tha sist'ema da ablaut'i 

kharthvelur enebši, Tbilisi "mecniereba"); 

 

 



 

22 
 

 

 

 

 

 

4. Gamkrelidze T.  and others (2003) Course of theoretical linguistics, Tbilisi, Tbilisi 

State University Teoriuli enaTmecnierebis kursi, Tbilisi, Tbilisis saxelmwifo universiteti 

(Gamq'reliʒe, T. da sxv. theoriuli enathmecnierebis k'ursi, Tbilisi, Tbilisis saxelmc'ipho 

universit'et'i); 

5. Dolgopolsky,A. (1971-72) Which languages are related to European? Science and 

humanity, international annual 106-118 Долгопольский, А. (1971-72) Какие языки 

родственны европейским? журнал - Наука и человечество, международный ежегодник,  

106-118. 

6. Takaishvili, E. (1948) When did the Iberian state changed to Georgian state, a 

journal Mnatobi, #8, 1948. TayaiSvili, e. (1948) rodis Seicvla iberTa saxelmwifo qarTvelTa 

saxelmwifod, J-li mnaTobi, #8, 1948. Thaq’aišvili, E. (1948) Rodis šeicvala ibertha 

sexelmc'ipho karthveltha saxelmc’iphod, źurnali Mnathobi, #8, 1948. 

7. Nebieridze G. (1991) Introduction to Linguistics, Tbilisi, “Ganatleba” 

enaTmecnierebis Sesavali, Tbilisi, `ganaTleba~ (Nebieriʒe, G. (1991) enathmecnierebis 

sesavali, Tbilisi, "ganathleba"); 

8. Orbeliani S. (1991-1993) Georgian Dictionary, V. I, II, Georgia’s Academy of 

Sciences, Tbilisi, “Merani”  saqarTvelos mecnierebaTa academia, Tbilisi, `merani~ 

(Orbeliani, S. (1991-1993) lekhsik'oni kharthuli, t'. I, II. Sakharthvelos mecnierebatha 

ak'ademia, Tbilisi, "merani"); 

9. Chikobava A. (1950-1964) Explanatory Dictionary of the Georgian Language, V. I-

VII, Tbilisi. Georgia’s Academy of Sciences  qarTuli enis ganmartebiTi leqsikoni, t. I÷VIII, 

Tbilisi, saqarTvelos mecnierebaTa akademia (Cikhobava, A. (1950-1964) Kharthuli enis 

ganmart'ebithi lekhsik;oni, t'. I-VIII. Tbilisi, Sakharthvelos mecnierebatha ak'ademia);' 

10. Fenrich, H. , Sarjveladze, Z. (2000) Etimological Dictionary of Kartvelian 

lanfguages, Tbilisi, S.S. Orbeliani State Pedagogical Institute.  qarTvelur enaTa etimologiuri 

leqsikoni, Tbilisi, s. s. orbelianis saxelobis saxelmwifo pedagogiuri instituti (Phenrixi, H., 

Sarǯvelaʒe, Z. (2000) Kharthvelur enatha et'imologiuri lekhsik'oni, Tbilisi, S.S. Orbelianis 

saxelobis saxelmc'ipho p'edagogiuri instituti); 

 



 

23 
 

 

 

 

 

 

11. Dzadzamia, M. Dzadzamia Ts. (1997) Mystery of the Language Origin, Zugdidi, 

Zugdidi Independent University  enis warmoSobis saidumloeba, zugdidi, zugdidis 

damoukidebeli universiteti (ʒaʒamia, M.,  ʒaʒamia, C. (1997) enis c'armošobis saidumloeba,  

Zugdidi, Zugdidis damouk'idebeli universit'eti); 

12. Dzadzamia, M. Dzadzamia Ts., Vakhania V. (2007) Megrelian Language Lexis and 

word Origins, V. I, Tbilisi, Abkhazian Academy of Sciences megruli enis leqsika da 

sityvaTwarmomavloba, t. I, Tbilisi, afxazeTis mecnierebaTa akademia (ʒaʒamia, M.,  

ʒaʒamia, C., Vaxania, V. (2007) megruli enis lekhsika da sit'q'vathc'armomavloba, t'. I, 

Tbilisi, aphxasetis mecnierebatha ak'ademia.