However, verbs from both the previous e- and i-conjugations form the imperative identically, taking the ending -ē in the singular and the ending -ec‘ēk‘ in the plural. As for the imperative singular ending -iәr (< -ir), it is not attested with simple verbs of the former i-conjugation (again, contrary to H. Ačaṙyan’s description); only suffixed verbs in the previous e- and i-conjugations, as well as verbs in the a-conjugation in general, exhibit the ending -iәr in the imperative singular in the dialect of Aṙtial.
Category Archives: LINGUISTICS
ON A PHONOLOGICAL PROBLEM OF OLD ARMENIAN(Phonetic-phonological relations of վ (v), ւ (ṷ), and ու (oṷ))
The issue of the phonological characteristics of the linguistic units represented by the letters վ (v), ւ (ṷ), and ու (oṷ) in Old Armenian has been a topic of scholarly discussion since the late 19th century, particularly in the works of H. Hübschmann. He argued that all three letters reflected the same phoneme (i.e., phone – V.P.), with a key difference. Hübschmann claimed that վ (v) was a simple fricative consonant, whereas ւ (ṷ) and ու (oṷ), had a dual function. Depending on their position they could function either as consonants [v] or as vowels [u]. From a phonological perspective, this means that the letters վ (v), ւ (ṷ), and ու (oṷ) were merely different positional variants – allophones – of the same phoneme. Most Armenian linguists who have explored this topic in one way or another have, conceptually, accepted Hübschmann’s paradigm (A. Meillet, N. Marr, H. Acharyan, S. Ghazaryan, E. Tumanyan, H. Muradyan) with slight variations. This is especially true in the case of ու (oṷ): all the scholars mentioned above considered Old Armenian ու (oṷ) to be a simple vowel [u] represented by two letters. Only H. Pedersen argued that Old Armenian ու (oṷ) was a diphthong. S. Ghazaryan, A. Abrahamyan, E. Tumanyan, and V. Hambardzumyan also supported this view. E. Aghayan was the first Armenian linguist who, in the 1960s, analyzed the phonemic system of Old Armenian from a phonological perspective drawing on N. Trubetzkoy’s principles of functional phonology, which is based on the concepts of distinctive features and binary oppositions. Nonetheless, even Aghayan supported Hübschmann’s concept on the phonological features of these sounds. Aghayan believed that the actual phoneme among the three was <Ու> (oṷ) – a sonorant, while ու (oṷ), վ (v), and ւ (ṷ) were its positional variants, i.e. sub-phonemes. Guided by the principles of functional phonology, we have demonstrated that: 1) վ (v) and ւ (ṷ) were integral members of the phonemic system of Old Armenian, despite some positional limitations. More specifically, a word could not begin with ւ (ṷ), and վ (v) could only appear at the end of a word if it followed the vowel ո (o) and the resulting sound was not the diphthongoid ու (oṷ) (compare: բով “a furnace for melting metal” vs. բու “owl”). Otherwise, in post-vocalic positions – both medial and final – ւ (ṷ) was the usual form, not վ (v): 2) ու (oṷ) represented not a simple vowel, but a diphthongic structure, more specifically a diphthongoid. This can be demonstrated by the fact that the semivowel ւ (ṷ), like the semivowel յ (i̭), only appeared as part of diphthongs and could alternate independently with both consonants and the semivowel յ (i̭), forming phonological oppositions (contrastive units), i.e., phonological oppositions. (Compare: բաւ “border, edge” ~ բան “speech, saying” ~ բառ “word”; գոյն” shade, color” ~ գուն-(ել) “to color” etc.). Moreover, phonological oppositions existed even between the vocalic components of the same diphthongoid (compare: նաւ “ship” ~ նու “bride”; չու “journey” ~ չեւ “not yet, still absent” etc.). This suggests that the connection between the vocalic and semivocalic elements of diphthongs was weak, and they could also function independently.
EVALUATIONITY IN CONTEMPORARY MASS COMMUNICATION CHANNELS
The article explores evaluativity within the domain of media language. At its core, evaluativity is an attitudinal-conceptual category that, in media texts, becomes a tool for expressing public opinion. It reflects the communicator’s subjective stance toward an event or individual and transforms into an ideological and persuasive impulse within the media. Especially in the digital environment — where content dissemination often relies on expressed attitudes — evaluativity becomes a key component of media language.
In linguistic studies, it is viewed as a system that includes the parameters of attitude, engagement, and graduation. In the Armenian academic field, the topic remains underexplored, although there are isolated studies related to the language of the press, public speech, and advertising. The article aims to provide a comprehensive account of the role of evaluativity in contemporary mass media, examining it on both linguistic levels (word, sentence) and in discourse and macro-contextual dimensions — such as author, audience, genre, media platform, and the
broader cultural-political context.
THE PERCEPTION OF THE CONCEPT OF SADNESS IN VAHAN TERIAN’S POETIC LANGUAGE
In the Linguistic Consciousness of the Contemporary Armenian-speaking Society
The article is devoted to the description of the linguistic and cultural specifics.
The emotional experiences impact all aspects of life and are considered to be one of the forms of reflection, cognition and assessment of objective reality. The Sadness refers to the basic emotions that nominates emotions and feelings.
The object of our research is the emotional concept of Sadness, its representation in the poems of V. Teryan and in linguistic consciousness of Armenian society. To analyze the concept of Sadness in the linguistic consciousness of society, we conducted an associative experiment, which involved studying the associations that arise in connection with the concept of the emotion of Sadness. More than 100 people took part in the associative experiment: they had to give associations for the word Sadness.
ON SOME ISSUES OF DIPHTHONG FORMATION
Linguistics has suggested considerably different approaches with regard to diphthongs all of which can be summed up as follows: 1) A diphthong is the pronunciation of two vowels in one syllable (V1+V2) (N. Trubetzkoy, G. Trager, K. Pike, H. Gleason, A. Reformatsky, etc.) The following is yet another version of this definition – a diphthong is the pronunciation of syllabic sounds within a single syllable with only one component being syllabic (E. Aghayan). 2) A diphthong is the pronunciation of two vowels or a vowel and a semi-vowel (ṷ, i̭) in one syllable. In this case, it is not important whether the sonorant has the syllabic function of or not. (D. Jones, H. Acharyan, G. Ghapantsyan, etc.). 3) A diphthong is the combination of only a vowel and a (semi-vowel) sonorant (V+S / S+V) in one syllable (L. Bloomfield). Some distinguish between true and false diphthongs considering the combination of two vowels with equivalent components to belong to the first group, i.e., with no syllabic sound (L. Shcherba, J.Vahek, R. Budagov, etc.), unlike the three other types in which one of the diphthong components is syllabic (a nucleus of a diphthong). While these approaches regard a diphthong a minimum functional unit – a phoneme, another approach views a two-phoneme (= two-vowel) formation acting as one phonetic whole a diphthong. The components of a two-phoneme diphthong can be divided by a morphemic seam or can relate to adjacent syllables.
The key descriptions of diphthongs provide grounds for a broader understanding of the unit. Hence, a diphthong is the pronunciation of two vowels or a vowel and a syllabic sonorant as a phonetic whole, which phonemically can be equivalent to a complex phoneme uttered in the same syllable or to two phonemes divided by a morphemic seam and (or) two phonemes distributed between adjacent syllables. Based on this interpretation, diphthongs can be stable and non-stable: the former include two-vowel combinations uttered in the same syllable. The latter contain two-phoneme formations uttered in adjacent syllables and/or divided by a morphemic seam. According to the fullness of the sound, there are non-equivalent (with a syllabic component) and equivalent (without a syllabic component) diphthongs.
Following the given interpretation of the formation of diphthongs, the combination of a vowel and a non-syllabic (semi-vowel) sonorant in a single syllable is a diphthongoid rather than a diphthong.
KEROPE PATKANYAN AND THE INDO-EUROPEAN CHARACTER OF ARMENIAN ISSUES AND THEORY OF ARMENIAN DIALECTS – 2024-3
Vazgen G. Hambardzumyan
Doctor of Philological Sciences
Keywords – Russian oriental studies, Armenian studies, Armenology, Armenian historians, literary monuments, Urartian studies, humanitarian science, scientific consultant, originator of foundations.
Summary
In the second half of the previous century, the Armenian culture experienced significant development in the environment of the Russian Empire, the role of the St. Petersburg academic institution was particularly significant, where Kerope Patkanyan carried out his extensive scientific activities (1833-1889). His contribution to the progress of Armenian philology and linguistics is great. He represented various fields of Armenology and Armenian studies, the best researcher and spreader of relevant knowledge both in Russia and Europe. Patkanyan is an internationally recognized Armenologist.
The years of his scientific activity were the 1860s to the 1880s, a short period, and the famous scientist left a rich legacy, became a tireless organizer of science, mentored students who later gained great recognition in various fields of humanitarian science in general, and became a concerned and serious advisor about the Armenian language of many European armenologists in their scientific activities.
Patkanyan’s works are quite impressive in terms of their nature, volume and coverage of fields. He left literary-artistic and bibliographic works, scientific publications of historiographical and translational works, wrote concise and fundamental works on the Armenian language and Armenian dialects, has a theory with a wide coverage of the material on issues of historical and comparative study of Armenian, his works on Armenian philology, ethnography (studies of sources), lexicography, but also general oriental studies, and urartian studies.
Patkanyan’s linguistic heritage has been addressed to some extent, but not with a theoretically sound assessment. He is rightfully the predictor of the foundations of the theory of Armenian dialects and the classification of dialects “with various features” using the internal means of the language (phonetic system, vocabulary and grammatical structure). Such a classification of Armenian dialects is the contribution of a famous linguist to Armenian dialectology. His scientific legacy is a great contribution to the development of modern Armenian studies.
QUESTIONS OF MORPHOLOGY (zero as a numeral, the words “մերոնք” and “ձերոնք” as pronouns) – 2024-1
Summary
Yuri S. Avetisyan
Doctor of Sciences in Philology
The theory of the Armenian language has provided answers to many controversial questions of modern Armenian grammar. Of course, there are still disagreements on many issues, which will eventually be discussed, answers will be given, new disagreements will arise, and so on. This is a normal development of a language theory. And at all levels of the language, there are issues that have not received much attention or have not been discussed enough. This may also be because they had no systemic significance or there was simply no reason to make them the subject of special discussion. At the morphological level, we have identified two of them: firstly, zero as a number, and secondly, the verbal-partial affiliation of the words “մերոնք” and “ձերոնք”. 1. Zero is an integer and a digit in mathematics, as well as 1, 10, 12, 100. Taken separately, it does not express any quantities (Latin: nullus “nothing”). Increases or decreases a given number by placing it to the right or left of any digit. This is probably why the zero alone, as a rule, was not considered a number in grammar. Another reason is probably that it was applied in mathematics relatively recently, thanks to the efforts of Leonard Euler, a German mathematician of the 18 century. Zero names the number of
th
the object (its absence) just like five, twenty, one hundred. Not naming or showing the number also means a certain quantitative characteristic of the subject, for example, “He scored zero votes in the election.”, “It’s zero degrees outside.” One of the semantic features of the numerical part of speech is also that the words considered numerals are mostly unambiguous in their lexical meaning. Ambiguity and metaphorical use are not inherent in numerals. Few numerals are endowed with such characteristics. Zero is one of the multi–valued numbers, and also has a figurative meaning: one of the four meanings of this word is figurative, it means nothing, triviality, insignificance, as, for example, in this sentence: “All this did not matter at all for the good of the country.” 2. The words “մերոնք” and “ձերոնք” (as well as իմոնք, քոնոնք, նրանցոնք) how pronouns with the corresponding semantic and grammatical characteristics (act as a substitute for a name in speech, have a common, undifferentiated meaning, indicate an object in a temporal-spatial-facial relation, etc.) relate to a noun and can indeed be considered as pronouns of a noun with a collective meaning.
REFERENCES
1. Abrahamyan S., Paṛnasyan N., Ōhanyan H., Zhamanakakitsʻ hayotsʻ lezu, hat. 2, Yer., 1974 (In Armenian).
2. Achaṛyan H., Liakatar kʻerakanutʻyun, hat. 1, Yer., 1952 (In Armenian).
3. Aghayan Ē., Ardi hayereni batsʻatrakan baṛaran, Yer., 1976 (In Armenian)
4. Aghayan Ē., Zhamanakakitsʻ hayereni holovumě yev khonarhumě, Yer., 1967 (In Armenian).
5. Asatryan M., Zhamanakakitsʻ hayotsʻ lezu. dzevabanutʻyun, Yer., 2004 (In Armenian).
6. Harutʻyunyan H., Atsakan anun, deranun, Yer., 1976 (In Armenian).
7. Khlghatʻyan F., Meronkʻ yev dzeronkʻ baṛeri masin, “Hayotsʻ lezun yev grakanutʻyuně dprotsʻum”, Yer., 1968, N 1-2 (In Armenian).
8. Khlghatʻyan F., Zhamanakakitsʻ hayotsʻ lezu, hat. G, Yer., 2007 (In Armenian).
9. Margaryan A., Hayotsʻ lezvi kʻerakanutʻyun. dzevabanutʻyun, Yer., 2004 (In Armenian).
10. Nersisyan V., Grakan arevelahayereni meronkʻ // dzeronkʻ baṛeri khoskʻimasayin arzhekʻi hartsʻě, “Lezu yev lezvabanutʻyun”, Yer., 2018, N 1 (18) (In Armenian).
11. Sevak G., Zhamanakakitsʻ hayotsʻ lezvi dasěntʻatsʻ, Yer., 2009 (In Armenian).
DIPTHONGOIDS WITH NON-DIPHTHONGAL ORIGIN IN OLD ARMENIAN (Diachronic and achronic aspects) – 2024-1
Only one of the dipthongoinds that has undergone y diachronic and achronic examination in the current article – ւո (ṷo), has so far been distinguished in Armenian Studies as a diphthong (a diachronic aspect). The others – ւա (ṷa), ւե (ṷe), ւէ (ṷē), ւի (ṷi), յա (i̭ a), յե (i̭ e), յի (i̭ i), յո (i̭ o), have been identified and investigated as diphthongs for the first time.
Considering the linguistic ambiance where each diphthong expresses itself, i.e. the word or the morpheme within which the given diphthong functions, as well as the native or borrowed nature of the given unit and its simple or compound structure, an attempt has been made to reveal the prototype of the given diphthong and the approximate time of its formation.
Further examination reveals that seven of the diphthongs ւա (ṷa), ւե (ṷe), ւո (ṷo), յա (i̭ a), յե (i̭ e), յի (i̭ i), յո (i̭ o) have their IE prototypes, i.e. derive from the IE base-language, hence, are native Armenian structures.
However, their prototypes are not diphthongs as expected. Rather, they are combinations of vowels, sonorants and consonants whose regular phonetic changes have resulted in the formation of diphthongs in Armenian.
Two other diphthongs – ւէ (ṷē)-ն and ւի (ṷi) have developed under the strong influence of Iranian borrowings since they are encountered only among Iranian borrowings and are the result of phonetic changes typical of shifts from Iranian languages into Armenian. The diphthongs deriving from the IE base-language, most probably, were developed in the stage of Proto Armenian, when Armenian started to develop as a separate and independent language following the break-away from the IE language. The diphthongs encountered among Iranian borrowings could develop not earlier than in the middle of the first millennium BC, since, according to historical records, mass and direct interaction of the Armenian ethnic people with the ancient Iranian peoples started at that time.
REFERENCES
1. Abrahamyan A., Grabari dzeṙ’nark, Yer.,1976 (In Armenian).
2. Ačaṙ’yan H., Hayeren armatakan baṙaran, Yer., hat. I-IV, 1971-1979 (In Armenian).
3. Aṙ’akʻelyan V., Grabari kʻerakanutʻyun, Yer., 2010 (In Armenian).
4. Gamkrelidze T., Ivanov Vyach., Indoevropeyskiy yazyk i indoevropeytsy, Tbilisi, t. II, 1984 (In Russian).
5. Dzhahukyan G., Hayeren stugabanakan baṙaran, Yer., 2010 (In Armenian).
6. Dzhahukyan G., Hayocʻ lezvi patmutʻyun: nakhagrayin zhamanakashrdzhan, Yer., 1987 (In Armenian).
7. Krasukhin K., Vvedenie v indoevropeyskoe yazěkoznanie, М., 2004 (In Russian).
8. Hyubshman H., Hayereni kʻerakanutʻyun, Yer., 2003 (In Armenian).
9. Meillet A., Esquisse d’un grammaire comparée de l’arménien classique, Vienne, 1936 (In French).
10. Meye A., Vvedenie v sṙavnitel’noe izuchenie v indoevropeyskikh yazěkov, M.-L., 1938 (In Russian).
11. Pedersen H., Hayerēn yev dracʻi lezunerě, Vienna, 1907 (In Armenian).
12. Petrosyan V., Hin hayereni ւ (ṷ) dzaynordi hamazhamanakya yev tarazhamanakya bnutʻagrery // BEH. Banasirutʻyun, 2017, N 3, ēdzh 11-22 (In Armenian).
13. Petrosyan V., Proiskhozhdenie v drevnearmyanskom yazyke sonornogo zvuka յ(y) i yego phonematicheskaya znachimost’ (istoricheskiy aspekt) // European journal of Humanities and Sosial Scienes, 2017, N 5, с. 24-29 (In Russian).
14. Petrosyan V., H.-e. kokordayinneri tesutʻyuně yev hin hayereni khul shp’akan Հ (H)-ի hnchabanakan bnut’agrerě (apazhamanakya yev tarazhamanakya hayecʻaketer), Hayagitutyan harcer, 2022, 1, ēdzh 189-208 (In Armenian).
15. Petrosyan V., Hin hayereni erkbarbaṙayin yev eṙabarbaṙayin kazmutʻyunneri harcʻi shurdzh (hamazhamanakya hayecʻakerp) // BEH. Banasirutʻyun, 2023, N 1, ēdzh 57-67 (In Armenian).
16. Savchenko A., Sravnitelnaya grammatika indoevropeyskih yzěkov, М., 1974 (In Russian).
17. Selischev A., Staroslavyanskiy yazěk, ch. I, M., 1951 (In Russian).
18. Semeren’i O., Vvedenie v sravnitel’noe yazěkoznanie, М., 1980 (In Russian).
19. Tumanyan Ē., Drevnearmyanskiy yazěk, М., 1971 (In Russian).
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LEXICO-SEMANTIC SUBSET “PROTECTION OF A PERSON” IN THE ARMENIAN LANGUAGE – 2023-4
Artashes R. Martirosyan
The article refers to a relatively new, sometimes problematic area of
linguistics – lexical semantics of the word, in particular, to the problem of semantic changes in the lexical composition of the language. For the first time, the lexicographic elaborations of the development of semantic structures of lexemes of the lexical subset “to safeguard/protect a person”, operating in the lexico-semantic field “person, man”, are subject to chronological order, starting from the ancient Armenian period to the present day. Cognitive-semantic mechanisms of changing the meaning of lexemes in this huge historical period, their relationship with other lexical groups are revealed. The studies of lexicographic processing of lexemes of the subset show that the ancient Armenian period was quite rich in lexemes “to safeguard/protect a person” both in Armenian (grabar) and in borrowed forms with the archiseme “bodyguard”. The study showed that both Armenian and borrowed words subsets, historicisms did not develop their semantic structure from the ancient Armenian period, and some of them, as a generative basis, appeared in various compositions in both the ancient Armenian and the Soviet periods.
The study also revealed that semantemes functioning in the semantic structure of the studied lexemes at different stages of the development of the Armenian language are used in other semantic subsets and groups of the lexical field with the meaning “person, man” in different meanings (cf. BODYGUARD: “in accordance with interests, activities, social status, established community relations” (cf. henchman, accomplice), “to act as an aid, protection, assistance, concession” (cf. defender), “in the service of the judiciary, administrative and legal institutions” (cf. legal adviser/lawyer), “for a certain function in team sports games” (cf. (semi)defender-attacker), etc.).
Thus, in different forms of language development, it is not the lexical and semantic system of fields that changes, but individual sections within it, as well as the relations between them, since a member of any subset or group functioning in the FIELD is connected with other members operating in the FIELD: the whole system has many semantic threads, and any change in the latter leads to a qualitative shift in the vocabulary of the language.
CONSTRUCTION OF INDO-EUROPEAN POETIC SPEECH’S DICHOTOMIC DIVERSITY – 2023-3
(In the context of the relations of related languages)
Vazgen G. Hambardzumyan