Category Archives: LINGUISTICS

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).

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