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).