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.
Author Archives: Admin
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.
THE PERCEPTION OF WOMEN’S ROLE IN PATRIARCHAL FAMILIES IN 19TH CENTURY EASTERN ARMENIAN LITERATURE
Through literary works by Ghazaros Aghayan, Perch Proshyan, Leo, and Raffi, the research reveals how women internalized patriarchal norms through fear, obedience, and ritual practices. The “eldest mother” (mets mayr) emerged as a powerful figure who, after years of submission, gained authority over younger women, perpetuating cycles of oppression. However, the arrival of Enlightenment ideas and new socio-economic orders in the late 19th century catalyzed the dissolution of the gerdastān system, as individual desires and rights began to challenge collective family structures.
The study concludes that the primary causes of patriarchal family disintegration lay not merely in external socio-economic factors, but fundamentally in the internal contradictions of the patriarchal system itself—particularly the suppression of individuality that ultimately generated the forces for its own destruction.
EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA AND MOSES KHORENATSI:Justification of The Royal Authority in The Christian Hellenism
This paper examines similar cases in the context of the Late Roman Empire and Greater Armenia, focusing on the reigns of Constantine the Great (306-337) and Tiridates III (298-330). Despite their differences, they share common features across various aspects of social policy, particularly in religious affairs. The conversion to Christianity opened new perspectives for both Rome and Armenia.
This paper explores these transformations through the narratives of two distinguished intellectuals: Eusebius of Caesarea and Moses Khorenatsi. The former was a close companion of Constantine; the latter, who lived more than a century later, sought to understand and justify the actions of King Tiridates. Eusebius employed an apologetic approach, while Khorenatsi adopted a historical description and interpretation. Both authors, however, drew upon Hellenistic social theory combined with biblical wisdom. According to this synthesis, the Roman Empire reached its zenith under Constantine’s wise leadership, and his new capital, Constantinople, embodied this ideal. Greater Armenia, conversely, followed a different trajectory: after Tiridates, it gradually declined into decay and disintegration. Nevertheless, even under these dire circumstances, a path to redemption emerged.
According to Khorenatsi, such a possibility could only become reality through the creation of a new elite forged in a new national culture and educational system. With this vision, the author revisited the fundamental concept of his teacher, St. Mesrop Mashtots.
THE TIME OF WRITING OF YEGHISHE’S HISTORY
In Armenian philology, different opinions have appeared regarding the time of writing of Yeghishe’s work “History of Vardan and the Armenian War”. According to the facts reflected in it, it is accepted that Yeghishe’s History was written around 462-465. The centuries-old Armenian national literary tradition recognizes the testimony of Yeghishe as absolutely reliable regarding author’s witnessing the events. However, for more than a century, the debate among philologists and historians over the primacy of Yeghishe’s “History of Vardan and the Armenian War” and Ghazar Parpetsi’s “History of Armenia” has been going on. Yeghishe as the Avarayr’s battle historian, really appears as an impartial author, documenting genuine and reliable facts. Meanwhile, Parpetsi evaluates things from a distance in time, with a certain coloring. Thus, retelling the main episodes of Yeghishe’s Vardanants History, Parpetsi tries to replace the words used by his predecessor with synonymous expressions or change them according to the information he has. He even replaces geographical place names with parallel names as much as possible.
The information reported by Yeghishe regarding the exact dates of the Vardanants war, the troops and victims, and many other details, his awareness of the near and far events that took place, truly make the history an authentic work created by an informed figure and eyewitness author, and his powerful, eloquent poetic speech and vivid imagination elevate the historically authentic work to the level of a national epic.
Our impartial, meticulous study reveals Yeghishe’s primacy over Parpetsi not only chronologically, but also in the very significant differences in the content of their works, which prove the dependence of Parpetsi’s History on Yeghishe’s original.
THE BIOPOLITICAL PARADOXES OF POSTMODERN
This article building on Michel Foucault’s concept of “the governance of life” and Hannah Arendt’s thesis of “the right to have rights,” the article demonstrates that the security imperative, intended to protect life, often turns into a mechanism of rightlessness and exclusion. Giorgio Agamben’s analysis of the normalization of the state of exception, Roberto Esposito’s idea of “immunity,” and Byung-Chul Han’s thesis of the “society of transparency” reveal that modern power operates not only through coercion, but also through fear and voluntary self-surveillance. Special attention is given to digital biopolitics, in which data becomes the primary criterion of political inclusion and exclusion.
The Armenian experience (COVID-19 state of emergency, martial law, uncertainties in migration policy, inequality in healthcare) shows that even in small states, security can rapidly transform a tool for restricting freedoms. The article concludes that overcoming the biopolitical paradox requires a new model of security, grounded in mutual recognition, comprehensive participation, and digital ethics.
WHY IS ARARAT BEING TARGETED?
Since through this the Turkish-Azerbaijani tandem is automatically involved in Armenia’s internal political discourse, the examination of such a challenge is possible only on two planes: synchronic and diachronic. The first requires carrying out a scientific analysis of Turkish-Azerbaijani perceptions regarding place names of the Armenian Highland and, through comparative examination, revealing the fundamental differences between the linguistic thinking of nomads and indigenous peoples. The second requires illuminating Armenia’s pivotal role in combining, reinterpreting, and transmitting the mythological ideas of the Ancient Near East concerning Mount Ararat and the Land of Ararat to the entire Christian civilization.
“VEM”, YEAR 17 (23)
AZERBAIJAN’S EXPANSIONIST AMBITIONS TOWARDS THE ZAKATALA DISTRICT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE “GREAT AZERBAIJAN” PROGRAM (1918-1921)
Between 1918 and 1920, under the conditions of the new world order emerging after World War I, Georgians and Caucasian Tatars found themselves engaged in mutual territorial disputes. The border tensions between Georgia and the “Azerbaijan” formation that had emerged in Transcaucasia became frequent, long-lasting, and at times escalated into open military confrontations – particularly over the ownership of the Zakatala district. Taking advantage of the presence of the Ottoman Empire’s army in the region and without waiting for the final settlement of border disputes, the conspiratorial steps were taken by Musavat government to incorporate the Zakatala district into the newly formed “Azerbaijan” entity. Azerbaijan’s claims to this territory were closely tied to the broader ideological and political framework of the “Great Azerbaijan” program.
After the establishment of Soviet power in Azerbaijan on April 28, 1920, the leadership of the Azerbaijan SSR still adhered to the strategic line of expansionism of the Musavatists and continued to take systematic steps to implement the “Great Azerbaijan” program. North Caucasian Bureau of Communist Party acting on the principles of “socialist internationalism”, in the person of its chairman S. Ordzhonikidze supported this expansionist policy, and the Zakatala District was annexed to the Azerbaijan SSR. Thus, if the Young Turks and Musavatists created an artificial entity “Azerbaijan” within the framework of the concept of the general Turkic state, then the top leadership of the RSFSR, based on the idea of a world socialist revolution by strengthening the Turkic factor in the region, essentially contributed to the implementation of the common Turkic program of “Great Azerbaijan”.
THE VIOLENCE AGAINST ARMENIAN WOMEN IN THE CONTEXT OF CRIMES COMMITTED IN SOVIET AZERBAIJAN (1988-1990)
This article examines the violence committed against women during the massacres of Armenians in the cities of Sumgait, Kirovabad (Gandzak), and Baku in 1988-1990. Despite the extensive documentation of these events, the gendered aspect of this violence, particularly the targeting Armenian women, has not been sufficiently studied. This gap in research is particularly evident when it comes to classifying such crimes under international criminal law. While much attention has been given to the broader ethnic violence during these massacres, the specific suffering of women — who were subjected to extreme forms of violence — has remained largely underexplored. Thus, the aim of this article is to present a deeper analysis of the violence perpetrated against Armenian women, drawing from survivor testimonies, legal documents, and human rights reports. Research indicates that nearly half of the Armenian victims during these massacres were women, with their ages ranging from teenage girls to elderly women in their 80s and 90s. Armenian women were not only killed or injured, but many were also subjected to horrific forms of violence, including torture, rape, public humiliation, and other acts intended to degrade their dignity and destroy their identity. By analyzing these crimes through the lens of gender violence, this article seeks to classify the violence against Armenian women as a specific form of atrocity within the broader context of ethnic conflict.