Ardoteli, A. Chikobava Institute of Linguistics, notes that, while in the Nakh-Dagestanian or East-Caucasian languages a system of lateral consonants has been preserved, there are only spirants in the Adighe languages. He proposes that lateral consonants can be reconstructed at the chronological level of the Caucasian parent language; however, reconstruction of these phonemes in the pre-Kartvelian language is very problematic. Baramidze, Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, provides a diachronic analysis of the basic morphosyntactic model of the Iberian-Caucasian languages: lability, based on empirical material of these languages and taking into account synchronous aspects of the languages and using the internal reconstruction method of subgroups among the linguistic groups. Labilе constructions create the possibility of variations in transitiveness-intransitiveness of actants. The morphosyntactic issue of the labilе constructions of the Iberian-Caucasian languages is discussed in relation to other language families. Makharoblidze, Ilia State University, discusses writing systems used for Deaf-blind people: the Lorm tactile alphabet, widely used in many European countries. The first Georgian tactical alphabet, GeoLorm, is based on the international Lorm alphabet. Makharoblidze argues for conducting detailed neurocognitive studies as the best method to determine how successful the communication system is. Beynen discusses the semantic distinctive features of the Georgian Stem Formant -am-. Only about a dozen verbs have this infix, also called present/future stem formant (P/FSF) and in the case of at least one verb, vč'am, “I eat,” -am- seems to be a part of the verbal stem with still the same meaning found in verbs where -am- is an infix. The verbs with the -am- infix describe a situation where the subject and object can be observed in close contact with the object having been influenced by the subject. The juxtaposition, influence and separateness are described using Jakobson’s and van Schooneveld’s semantic distinctive features: van Schooneveld’s first “duplication,” later “enumeration,” and Jakobson’s “directionality ” or possibly maybe “partitive.” Scholars seem to agree that the verbal infixes do not have different meanings, if they have meanings at all; this paper shows that at least one infix, -am, has a clear meaning that can be formulated in terms that have been proven useful in the description of Russian.