Category Archives: LINGUISTICS

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.