Category Archives: LINGUISTICS

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.

(In the context of the relations of related languages)

Vazgen G. Hambardzumyan

Dichotomic distribution of the reality as a way of thinking was also specific to the peoples carrying the Indo-European proto-language, whose various reflections are known in the epic (mythical-poetic) sections of related languages.

Davit S. Gyurjinyan

In the Armenian independent and translated written sources of the 5th century, in addition to the name of the native (Armenian) language, the names of 12 other languages of the nations are mentioned, with the speakers of which the Armenians had cultural, political, religious and other relations. The exceptions are single linguonyms used in the translation of the Bible (լիկայոնարէն “Lycaon language”).

Liana V. Azizyan

From the Ancient Armenian sonorants ཫ (l), ཱ (á), ཱི (m), ཱུ (n), ཿ (r), ཻ (৘), ཱྀ (w), ུ (j) only the last two ཱྀ (w) and ུ (j), participated in the formation of diphthongs and triphthongs, because only these two phonemes acted as sonorants. And therefore we shall study these two sonorants together.

Vardan Z. Petrosyan

None of the eight Old Armenian diphthongs (comp. եա, էա, էի, էո, իա, իե, իէ, իո) is a direct representative of the common Indo-European diphthongal system. Though the comparative Indo-European Studies restores the diphthong *ei in the IE base language, the Armenian էի (Ɲi) does not reflect either this or any other IE diphthong. 

(Diachronic and synchronic aspects)

Lalik M. Khachatryan

The article discusses the transformation of the analytical structures of the Old Armenian language into compound words. The phenomenon of transformation is analyzed both in Grabar and in the modern Armenian literary language. Ակն, ձեռն, ունկն, ծունր, արիւն, դէմք and other words act as somatic components of verbal juxtapositions.

Analysis under a new light

Miranush E. Kesoyan

Figurative-expressive means in linguistics have been examined for the most
part as stylistic tricks to make speech influential, impressive, and enriching.
However, they perform another remarkable function too, that is, to serve
expressing the implied meaning, enabling to convey information indirectly, or
sometimes masking it, depending on various circumstances. This article is an
attempt to examine the figurative and expressive means from that point of view.

In comparison with the Greek original

Sargis R. Avetyan

It is argued that attempts to characterize the semantic relationship between
the two forms of the Subjunctive (the present subjunctive and the aorist
subjunctive) in Classical Armenian as either a mood contrast or an aspect-mood
contrast are not backed up by the relevant synchronic as well as diachronic
linguistic data of Old Armenian.

Summary

Davit S. Gyurjinyan

To designate the concept of the “French language” in Armenian, words formed on the basis of the names of the tribes that took part in the formation of the French people (Franks, Gauls), the names of the country and nation (France, French) and their variants were used. There were a number of language names in use with different variants: ֆռանկերէն / ֆռանգերէն / փռանկերէն “Language of the Franks (French people)”, ֆրանցուզերեն / ֆռանցուզերեն “French language”, գաղղիերէն / գալլիերէն, գաղղիարէն / գալլիարէն “language of the inhabitants of Gaul (France)”, ֆրանսիարէն “language of France”, currently both versions of the Armenian language adopted a single name – ֆրանսերեն “French language”.

Variants of the name of the language differ in phonetic and derivational features: double sounds (գաղղիերէն / գալլիերէն), various sounds at the beginning and in the middle of the word (ֆռանկերէն / փռանկերէն, ֆրանցուզերեն / ֆռանցուզերեն), variable suffixes – արէն / -երէն, denoting “language” (գաղղիարէն / գաղղիերէն), lexical foundations: ֆռանկերէն (Frank), գաղղիերէն (Gaul), ֆրանսերեն (Frank), etc. Most of the options have a pan-Armenian character.

փռանկերէն, ֆրանցուզերեն / ֆռանցուզերեն), variable suffixes – արէն / -երէն, denoting “language” (գաղղիարէն / գաղղիերէն), lexical foundations: ֆռանկերէն (Frank), գաղղիերէն (Gaul), ֆրանսերեն (Frank), etc. Most of the options have a pan-Armenian character. In the 19th century, by analogy with the corresponding structures of the Armenian language of the 5th century, synonymous phrases were created that were used in parallel with lexical names: գաղղիական / գալլիական բարբառ / լեզու “Gallic/Gaulish speech (language)”, փռանկաց / փռանկական լեզու “Frank language, language of Franks”.

The chronology of the use of variants presents the following picture: the last quarter of the 16th century – ֆռանկերէն (the first Armenian name of the French language), 1611 – ֆռանգերէն, the middle of the 19th century – փռանկական լեզու (in the Western Armenian), ֆրանսիարէն, ֆրանցուզերեն (in the Eastern Armenian), the last quarter of the 19th century – before the 20th century – փռանկերէն. Now the variability of the Armenian name of the French language has been eliminated.

From the Middle Armenian ֆռանկերէն to the modern French ֆրանսերեն, it has been a centuries-old process of finding an acceptable name for the French language, its adoption and standardization

Summary

In the context of the philosophical problematic field

Gevorg G. Hakobyan
The subject of this analysis is the problem of the (moral, political, scientific, etc.) obligation of demonstration/not demonstration of existing or possible errors in all kinds of spheres of human activity.

At first glance, it seems clear and self-evident that any errors that exist or are possible in human relations must be revealed, educed and eliminated. And if this process of elimination requires that the existence of the error be publicly announced, then this demand also has to be met. But this seems true only at a glance.

Actually, revealing the errors is fraught with the danger of deepening, spreading, and/or strengthening those errors. That is, it is quite possible that when we point out the errors, it will lead to the exact opposite result.

Taking into account this circumstance, it can be insisted that there is a paradoxical situation. Namely, the errors have to be pointed out to be eliminated or at least neutralized, but at the same time, the errors do not have to be pointed out to be eliminated or at least neutralized.

By all appearances, this is the essence of the problem of the obligation of demonstration/not demonstration of errors, which also exists in lexicographical processes.

It is self-evident and many lexicographers also explicitly claim that the purpose of a dictionary is to demonstrate the truth and not the errors. Nevertheless, there are many cases when the lexicographers not only point out the errors and/or explain them in detail, but also put the wrong or inaccurate word in place of the correct headword.

This lexicographical practice can have many causes, perhaps the most predominant of which is the widespread use of the wrong word at the expense of obscuring the right one. Lexicographers sometimes intentionally make the wrong or even non-existent word a headword, being sure that if the correct word was put in place of the headword, the reader would not be able to find it, because the reader only knows the wrong version of that word and will eventually search for its wrong version. In these and other cases of pointing out errors, the errors can be spread, deepened, and/or more strengthened: a result against which (among others) any scientific practice as well as lexicography is directed. And here a question arises. How can we deal with the abovementioned paradoxical situation?

Overcoming this situation is very important, as lexicography has a significant impact on both the speed and direction of the development of the (Armenian) language.

It is clear that there can be more than one way to achieve a possible solution to the problem, but in the article it is suggested to deal with this situation by constructing a conventional paradigm and making it public, as the most common or perhaps the only way to get rid of paradoxical situations is the conventionalist approach.