Nominal Neologisms Formed Through Affixation andthe Problems of Spelling

Abstract

The language as a constantly changing phenomenon, following after the development of public life, requires new words and phrases to express new concepts. Thus, neologisms are created to fill these gaps. As is known, there are different ways of creating neologisms in a language. This time we are
interested in nominal neologisms formed through affixation and showing
the problems related to their spelling. During the research the following
important questions emerged: a) What criteria should be chosen by a
specialist when the words with the same meaning are sometimes considered
to be improper, e.g. bordi (sabch’o) “board”, avtent’ik’uri (namdvili,
sarts’muno, dednis shesabamisi) “authentic” and sometimes, to be a
standard, e.g. degust’atsia (dach’ashnik’eba) “degustation”, insp’iracia (shtagoneba) “inspiration”, etc.? Accordingly, what qualifications should be given to such words as ist’eblishment’i “establishment”, keteringi “catering”, shop’ingi “shopping”, bankingi “banking”, autsorsingi “outsourcing”, bulingi
“bulling”, geimeri “gamer”, k’ont’raktori “contractor”, etc. b) Is it acceptable to assess the use of one and the same formative in the word formation process differently in terms of properness according to the
functional style of a language (on the one hand, drek’adi “flexible”,
brunebadi “rotatable” and on the other hand, tsnobadi “famous”, mosmenadi “listenable”)? The situation is similar to the words having similar formation anazghaurebadi “payable”, regulirebadi “regulable”,
angarishgebadi “accountable”, aragamravlebadi “non-multipliable”, aragaskhivebadi
“non-alienable”, tvitkmnadi “self-creatable”, int’erp’ret’irebadi
“interpretable”, k’onvent’irebadi “convertible”, mots’q’vladi “vulnerable”,
p’rogramirebadi “programmable”, etc. c) What is the most accurate criterion for separating a neologism as a proper form and a barbarism as an improper form one in the case of the units created as a result of nominal word formation? For example, it is interesting whether we should consider shop’ingi “shopping” (cf. onlainshop’ingi “online shopping”, int’erne t’shop’ingi “internet shopping”), keteringi “catering”, bank’ingi “banking”, autsorsingi “outsourcing”, geimeri “gamer” to be barbarisms. What should we do if we consider a certain lexical unit to be neither a barbarism nor a neologism?

These issues require comprehensive research and the development of
common approaches. This will enable us to make the right decisions in such a
varied and complex field that covers new words formed through affixation.
Special caution is required when classifying them as neologisms or barbarisms in order to maintain the rich literary language and not to pollute it by improper words and expressions.