Category Archives: LINGUISTICS


(Recursive compounds)


Lalik M. Khachatryan
The article discusses such synthetic reduplications with dependent roots which were used in the Bible for the first time and express subject and quality.

Such reduplicative compounds are grouped by the meaning of components of dependent root and are included in different groups; root groups and root-variant groups.

1. Root reduplications are unique constructions which have different structures;

a) reduplication of simple root (ծործոր – flowing, ջախջախ – smash, smash up),

b) are formed with secondary (word-forming) morphemes (անփոփոխելի- invariable, աղաղակ – cry, shout, արարիչ – creator, թաքթաքուն – secretely).

2. In the structure of root-variant reduplications, wհich form a special group, the second component is a variant of dependent root. Different sound interchange factors form such structures; vowel alternation (սարսուռ – trembling, սպառսպուռ – wholly, entirely), alternation (անդանդաղ – slowly, կարկառ – a heap of stones, կարկուտ – hail, բողբոջ – bud, պաղպաջ – bright, shining), sound dropping (դադար-rest, peace, թրթուր – larva, խախուտ – unsteady, կակուղ – soft, gentle, հեղեղ – flood, սօսափիւն-rustling), augmentative (արհամարհանք- neglect, աղջամուղջ – twilight, տատասկ – blackthorn, ճաճանչ – ray).

There are such reduplications in Bible structure of which have sound interchange combined realities – vowel alternation and sound dropping or alternation and sound dropping, like զարհուրանք – horror, արհաւիրք- disaster.

The synchronic survey of reduplications with dependent roots can become a basis for the diachronic study of certain type of word-formation.



Vardan Z. Petrosyan

1/ Like the occlusive-fricatives of other Indo-European languages, the Armenian occlusive-fricative phonemes are the result of the nasalization of the back-lingual occlusives of the common Indo-European language. In fact, common Indo-European language possessed two back-lingual categories – *G and *K with their aspirated and non-aspirated subcategories (comp. *g/*gh, *k/*kh) and three types – post-palatal, palatal and labio-velar (comp. *g, *g՛ , *gṷ, *k, *k՛ , *kṷ). The latter could freely interchange with each other. The prototypes of occlusivefricatives with a dental occlusive and with i̭semi-vowel are, in fact, the result of analogical processes.

2/ Apart from Armenian, occlusive-fricative phonemes were common in all old languages of the Satem group, in particular in Old Indian. However, they were also typical of Old Greek and Phrygian which have traditionally been ascribed to the western Centum dialect group. This provides evidence to conclude that either the process of the formation of occlusive-fricatives had already started during the period when the language bearers were leaving the Indo-European homeland (in Western Asia) or, as some comparative linguists claim, these languages belonged to the eastern dialect group. In either case, the existence of occlusive-fricatives in Old Greek and Phrygian provides evidence for their deeper relations with eastern languages than a simple contact or sub-layer inter-penetrations.

3/ The process of the origin of occlusive-fricatives had started much earlier before the Old Balkan peoples (Greeks, Phrygians, Thracians and others) abandoned their Indo-European homeland. Therefore, it started towards the end of the 3rd millennium or at the start of the 2nd millennium B.C. We have solid grounds to suppose that at least in Armenian that process lasted rather long – until the middle of the 1st millennium B.C.

4/ The fact that, according to the approaches accepted in comparative linguistics, sibilant sounds are considered to be the result of the first nasalization, and fricatives – of the second one in Armenian and Indian, while in old Slavic languages it is the opposite (in the languages mentioned their origin is ascribed to the time periods too remote from each other (about two to three thousand years) we believe, it comes to suggests that the two types of nasalization were parallel processes or at least, the second started while the first one was already in progress.



Seda Q. Gasparyan-Doctor of Philological Sciences
The article aims at presenting the results of the main conclusions of our investigation directly connected with the “infamous” Article 301 which, in essence, is an evil for the Turkish society. According to the specialists of the International law, the given article is a serious threat meant to endanger the fundamental right of humans to Freedom of Expression.

The topic of concern is viewed from the perspective of the interconnection and intersection of linguistics and law. The author concentrates on the organization of linguistic units in the versions of 2005 and 2008 of Article 301 and provides theoretical and practical linguistic interpretation of the language data. An attempt is also made to offer an insightful account of the legal aspect of those documents. The special emphasis laid on the analysis of the manipulative strategies exerted in the document in question reveals that the basic function of law to communicate the truth and express clear-cut, accurate and understandable ideas has been violated here for they are meant to control people and manipulate their perception and interpretation through the abuse of language to achieve practical goals.

The investigation reveals that verbal manipulation preconditions the usage of ambiguous expressions and all sorts of double-speak. It implies a beginning in smaller and more discrete segments of linguistic forms that connect to larger linguistic entities. The latter undergoing some transformations turn out to be relatively unexpected by the addressee.

Manipulation is directly connected with domination, control and demagogic language, and manipulators are experts in using manipulative tools, among which of prime importance are a great command of language and the rhetoric of persuasion.

Thus, by applying the comparative-contrastive method of research the present article reveals linguistic facts, the investigation of which exposes the manipulative strategies implemented in Article 301 to the readers and unveils the dangers arising as a result of these implementations.



Davit S. Gyurjinyan-Candidate of Philological Sciences
To denote the concept of “an Armenian living in Georgia, an Armenian from Georgia”, lexical variants were formed in the Armenian language, whose first components are the basis of the name of the neighboring country: վրահայ (outdated word), վիրահայ, վրացահայ, as well as new and outdated names of its capital: թբիլիսահայ, թիֆլիսահայ, տփղիսահայ (rarely used) “Armenian from Tbilisi /Tiflis/ Tpghis”. All the words and their variants are formations of the 19th-20th centuries, although Armenians have been living in Georgia since ancient times.

With the help of suffixes, collective nouns were formed on the basis of the listed lexical variants: վիրահայություն “Armenians of Georgia as a community, totality of Armenians of Georgia”, թիֆլիսահայություն “Armenians from Tiflis”, etc.

Only two variants (out of six) are recorded in the dictionaries of the Armenian language: վիրահայ “an Armenian living in Georgia, an Armenian from Georgia”, which is adopted in the official Armenian language and is considered acceptable for the Armenians of Georgia (since the variant վրացահայ is often interpreted as Georgianized Armenian), and թիֆլիսահայ “Armenian from Tiflis”.

The lexical variants under study are used in different styles with the meaning of a noun and an adjective.



Anush A. Khachatryan
Along with the blazing development of the information culture, neologisms have become an integral part of the press language.

The electronic media, where social-political struggle has penetrated, is a powerful propaganda weapon. It is regularly updated with semantic neologisms. In connection with the events in Armenia in 2018-2019, a number of words began to be used with meanings they did not have in the past. These linguistic units, which have ironically pronounced shades, are commonly found in opposition media.

In the system of authorial neologisms, epistemic words are distinctly distinguished by their stylistic value and frequency. Unable to find a word that accurately expresses his mind in the lexicon of the language, the journalist, according to his linguistic taste, compiles new words that combine emotion, appreciation, stylistic coloring and innovative breath, reflecting both the objective image of the present moment and the subjective self-image of the author. These words make the news texts more alive and, of course, there are also a number of unsuccessful and not recommended structures.

Widespread and effective ways of creating neologisms in the electronic media are word complexion and derivation. Comparative (synthetic) compositions are created containing foreign morphemes, which are formed in accordance with the word-formation rules of the Armenian language.



Davit S. Gyurjinyan
In the old Armenian language, only three verbs were formed, meaning the transformation of ethnic identity: հրեանալ, պարթևանալ, պարսկանալ (“become a Jew, become a Parthian, become a Persian, accept their customs, language and faith”). In subsequent periods of the development of the Armenian language (and today too) 30 verbs were formed, uniting in the lexical-semantic subgroup of the verbs of transformation.

The semantic component of transformation refers to: a) national identity, b) religious identity, c) language, d) customs:

The word-formation basis of the verbs became: a) the names of representatives of neighboring countries or countries attached to Armenia (ռուսանալ, վրացանալ), b) the names of those nations and countries in which there were or are Armenian communities (լեհանալ, ռումինանալ), c) self-naming of Armenians – հայ (հայանալ), d) the names of religions, faiths and their followers (քրիստոնեանալ, իսլամանալ, կաթոլիկանալ).

The studied verbs mostly have one meaning, but there are also some that have multiple meanings: (թուրքանալ “1. become a Turk, 2. get furious”, etc.).

Most of the dictionaries have the verb հայանալ recorded “1. become an Armenian, 2. (rel.) adopt the Armenian-Gregorian faith”, however, many lexical units of this lexico-semantic group are not yet registered in the dictionaries. Verbs of ethnic transformation are of limited use, some are very rare, even in a single participial form.


(Levels of vowels, sonorants and “diphthongs”)


Vazgen. G. Hambardzumyan
The Armenian and the Celtic languages present not only generalizations of phonetic (vowel, sonorant, and “diphthong”) isoglosses but also differences that so far have not been the subject of a separate study; our work is such an experience. These isoglosses are systemic and subsystemic in nature.

In this article, we bring together the Armenian-Celtic phonetic parallels, mostly based on the material so far accumulated, but also make partial adjustments and additions.

In traditional comparisons, their obvious patterns have been the focus of much attention. Our study reveals that there are a significant number of common rules (parallels) besides the traditionally cited, with exceptions and deviations from these rules that are, in their turn, definable, simply illustrative and justified by the full characterization of the phenomenon. This article has given some attention to this aspect of the problem.

The facts show that the subsystem of simple (“short”) vowels is not only broader in the given vowel but also substantially more substantive than the subsystem of compound (“long”) vowels, and it is well known that is justified in communication.

The subsystem of sonorants is characterized not only by the quantitative (“formal”) but also by the functional variety, which is generally a feature of the major part of Indo-European languages (three-way sonorant usage). In the Armenian-Celtic phonetic relation, the subsystem of diphthongs has little quantitative and functional expression.

The article is notable for its detailed analysis of the facts.

A detailed examination of the historical (and not just the phonetic) overlap between the Armenian and other Indo-European languages seems to us to be quite appropriate in terms of the totality of linguistic and social perceptions of individual societies.



Mary V. Hovhannisyan
It is indisputable that the study of speech art of the writer’s creative work is closely related to the period of regularities typical for both national and fiction languages. It touches upon the main features, ways and prospects of their development. On the one hand, works of the leading speech masters specify not only the development tendencies of literature, but also the national language. On the other hand, it is not enough to study thoroughly the period, literary trend that the writer followed, type and genre of the writer’s creative work.

It is necessary to study the language and the style of the writer. To study the speech art of the writer’s work means to introduce the individuality, which is specific to the author, to identify the peculiarities of the writer’s style by having the literary language as a starting point.

Teryan was very skillful to apply various opportunities of different stylistic layers of Armenian literary language vocabulary, word meaning and usage. The uniqueness of poet’s speech art is the in word-selection art that obviously reflected in the meaningstylistic specific usage of cooperative words. Parallel to stylistic delicate sense of cooperative words, terms of non-active word-layers also get peculiar display. Ethnoverbal and dialectical words, comparisons, phrases which are not specially popularized in Teryan’s speech characterize amazing figurativeness of things and phenomena. Archaism and barbarism are characterized on the basis of stylistic-expressive usage. As neologisms give his poetry a unique colouring, they are quite important for profound understanding of Teryan’s artistic manner. Word-forming models of V. Teryan’s neologisms are particularly important for the formation of new verbs: the unusual use of some suffixes are also rather unique. Special attention is paid to the examples of neologisms in the field of semantics and unusual meanings that Teryan gave to neologisms created by his predecessors. It is difficult to overestimate the stylistic significance of neologisms and their role in his art. One of the factors of Vahan Teryan’s speech art uniqueness is the word-selection art obviously reflected in the meaning-stylistic specific usage of ethno-verbal and dialectical words. Ethno-verbal and dialectical words, comparisons, phrases, which are not specially popularized in Teryan’s speech, are characterized by amazing figurativeness of things and phenomena. Ethno-verbal and dialectical words which have their suitable verbal place create the sonority of the paragraph, the rhyme and the whole poem.


Lexico-Semantic Group “Armenians of Arab Countries” in the Armenian Language


Davit S. Gyurjinyan

Key words – migration, Diaspora, lexico-semantic group, Arab world, եգիպտահայ “Egyptian Armenian”, արաբահայ “Armenian from Arab countries”, սիրիահայ “Syrian Armenian”, լիբանանահայ “Lebanese Armenian”, բեյրութահայ “Armenian from Beirut”, իրաքահայ “Iraqi Armenian”, սփյուռքահայ “Diasporan Armenian”.

This article studies 30 lexical units of the “Armenian of Arab Countries”, which have been formed since the second half of the 19th century as a result of the almost uninterrupted migration from Armenia, as well as pogroms, massacres and genocides of the Armenians in Western Armenia.

Word-building submodels are revealed: “country name + հայ “Armenian”” (եգիպտահայ “Egyptian Armenian”, սիրիահայ “Syrian Armenian”), “city name + հայ” (բեյրութահայ “Armenian from Beirut”, հալեպահայ “Armenian from Aleppo”), “village name + հայ” (քեսաբահայ “Armenian from Kessab”) and “region name + հայ” (սվեդիահայ “Armenian from Suedia”), as well as արաբահայ “Armenian from an Arab country”. The time of formation of the studied words is determined, the meanings, frequency and spheres of the use of these words, as well as their derivational and spelling variations, and lexicographic history are analyzed.


A new attempt of hypothetical restoration 


Vardan Z. Petrosyan

Key words – general Indo-European language, two-sequence system of occlusives, sequence and series, phoneme and subphoneme, Ye. Kurilovich, M. Mayrhofer, P. Hopper, F. Kortland, Gamkrelidze-Ivanov concept, “the Glottalic theory”, “the theory of glottalized stops”.

The traditional comparative linguistics has restored two types of systems of occlusives in the Proto-Indo European language – a three- sequence one: voiced – voiceless – aspirated (comp. *b-*p-*bh) and a four-category one: voiced- voiceless- aspirated voiced – aspirated voiceless (comp. *b-*p-*bh-*ph). The Glottalic theory that developed in the 70s of the 20th century proposed a new pattern of a three-sequence system where the category of simple voiced consonants was replaced by the category of glottalized phonemes (comp. *p’)-*p-*bh). In another, a more advanced version suggested by Gamkrelidze-Ivanov the voiced and voiceless consonants were presented in the sub- sequence of aspirated and non-aspirated consonants (comp. *g/*gh,…*k/*kh…): By the way, the sequence of glottalized stops was viewed as lacking – due to the absence of a labial representative. Before the development of this theory, certain representatives of traditional Indo-European studies (H. Hubschmann, H. Pedersen, A. Meillet) viewed the category of simple voiced consonants deficient/ lacking ( the absence of *b). The followers of the Glottalic theory (P. Hopper, F. Kortland, A. Odrikur and others) believed that they also shared another feature: the sequence of those phonemes was presented in the voiceless version. We believe that it is not right to attribute a glottalic sequence to the Proto-Indo European language and particularly to the general Indo-European stage from the genealogical point of view since such phonemes were not and are not known in any Indo-European language. This sequence was ascribed to the Indo-European languages through the typological generalization of languages with a different system-structure (sematic, Kartvelian, American-Indian), two of which, according to nostratic linguistics, had kinship relations with the Proto-Indo European language. From both genealogical and typological perspectives, the restoration of the system of voiced and voiceless consonants in general European gets more realistic. Each of them will be presented in the voiced and voiceless subcategory. Such system is not just the pattern offered by Gamkrelidze-Ivanov without the sequence of glottalized stops, but is principally a new approach as the acceptance or rejection of the sequence of glottals means a differentiation of a new pattern of the system of Indo-European phonemes which has its full reflection in the morphologicalphonemic structure of the root.