Category Archives: LINGUISTICS

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.

Vardan Z. Petrosyan
Similar to historical-comparative Armenological Studies, the linguistic tradition of other Old Indo-European languages possessing x (kh) (Iranian and German old languages, Hittite, Old Greek, Old Slavonic, Lithuanian, etc.) maintain that the phoneme has developed from the Indo- European aspirated voiceless (*kh) (in our opinion, it derives from *kh, one of the two major positional variants of the IE aspirated voiceless backlingual phoneme K[/h]).

It is worth mentioning that 1) this is one of the few instances when a single IE prototype is restored for a certain phoneme (in this case – x (kh) in Armenian and other languages, 2) Based on the well-accepted “consonant movement” in classical typology, i.e., according to the standard phonemic transitions both in Armenian and in other languages, the phoneme could not have developed into x (kh). Instead, it should have developed into 􀊛 (k’) since the IE category of aspirated voiceless sounds could not have undergone any changes, i.e., no “movement” could have taken place, which we witness in the case of labial and dental phonemes (comp. ph > 􀊚 (p􀒳), *th > 􀊀 (t􀒳)). However, the fact that the k > x (kh) transition is typical of not only IE languages, but rather is of general linguistic, more precisely, a typological nature (the phonemic transitions from back-lingual voiceless occlusives (q / 􀛘 / 􀛚 / k), fricatives into Armenian 􀊄 (x) in the Armenian borrowings from non IE languages like Semitic and Caucasian can prove the idea stated). This comes to confirm the high probability of the transition from the IE *kh to Armenian 􀊄 (x), on the one hand, and of the original phonetic, rather than phonemic nature of this change, on the other hand.

Following one of the most probable explanations, the transition from the back-lingual voiceless occlusive kh to the back-lingual voiceless fricative 􀊄 (x) could have been possible due to the opening of a narrow passage rather than an explosion of the glottis, which is specific to the pronunciation of occlusives (A. Meillet).

However, we hold the opinion that the explanation could be more complete if we acknowledged the importance of the common and no less important feature necessary for the articulation of all the above mentioned phonemes – their back-lingual position.

A Synchronic and Diachronic Examination

Sargis R. Avetyan

An attempt is made to show that typological evidence (namely, the patterns
of the historical development of old presents) confirms H. Acharyan’s hypothesis
that the formations with the particle կու (կը), which are commonly used with
future meaning in Eastern Armenian, originally served functions of a standard
present. Unforunately, researchers, with a few exceptions, have not paid due
attention to H. Acharyan’s above remark. The existence of the present with the
particle կու (կը) in Eastern Armenian either has been attributed to the influence
from neighbouring dialects pertaining to the Կը branch, or has just been stated as a
fact without any explanation. However, it is no accident that the old present formed
with the particle կու (կը) does not typically express progressive meaning and is
only used as a habitual and/or historical present in the Colloquial Eastern Armenian
and a number of Armenian dialects, where the standard present (progressive in
origin) involves a participle.

It is well established cross-linguistically that when a new progressive
aspect form arises and becomes obligatory, the old present is often restricted to
habitual (as well as historical present) and future meanings. Later the progressive
may also be extended to the habitual use and become obligatory there too. When
that happens, the old present becomes confined to the future meaning. On the other
hand, the historical present meaning found in old presents is readily explained as an
archaism that has been preserved in certain narrative genres. Particularly, folklore
genres are generally conservative in this respect, so it is here that old presents tend
to appear as narrative tenses even after the new formation (the new present) has
ousted the old present tense from its central functions.

Therefore, the above typological evidence sheds new light on the historical
relationship between the present tense forms involving the participle -ում and the
formations with the particle կու (կը) as well as on their synchronic functional
distribution in Eastern Armenian (the so-called Ում branch). To put it another way,
the habitual and historical present meanings of the formations with the particle կու
(կը) in Eastern Armenian should be regarded as residual uses preserved from an
erstwhile standard present. Besides, the examination of various written records of
the 17th-18th centuries suggests that the functional-semantic replacement of the old
present involving the particle կու (կը) by the new present tense involving the
participle -ում has taken place at different rates in different territorial varieties of
Eastern Armenian.

Summary

Lusine Avetisyan
Practically, the etymology of the Armenian word “Աղջիկ” (“Aghjik” girl) is absent, all attempts to explain its origin are unconvincing.

A new etymology is presented in this article, which at the same time is based on linguistic data and on ancient ideas about phenomena, on the cosmogonic myth as well as on the ancient Armenian calendar. The subject of the article is the roots of “Աղջ” (“aghj” dark) and “Աղիջ” (“aghij” girl). It is likely that the primary variant of the second root is also “Աղջ”.

According to my hypothesis, for both concepts there is a single common root “Աղջ”, and this is substantiated by the myth about Hayk, and also by the word “Աղջամուղջ” (“aghjamughj” darkness, night), which is, in fact, the ancient Armenian name of one of the night hours.

The original Armenian chronology originates from the moment when Hayk,  according to legend, with a three-winged arrow tore Bel’s chest – the incarnation of darkness. Later, the Armenian months were named after his children. Tradition provides indirect information that units of time got male or female characteristics, since the months were named after the descendants of Hayk, both male and female.

The names of the months also give information about other realities that have been forgotten in the mist of millennia. They suggest that Armenians called their children by the names of the descendants of Hayk, or attributed the names of their children to the sons and daughters of Hayk, and we see through the millennia an incomplete list of Armenian names, probably headed by the name Hayk.

Progenitor Hayk, whom Anania Shirakatsi considers the founder of the Armenian calendar, is in fact the Armenian god of time. And the god of time is the father of all units of time, and above all, of the dualistic day. “Աւր” (“or” day) and “Աղջ” (“aghj” night) were the first children of different sexes of the god of time. Their twelve-hour divisions were defined later. “Աղջամուղջ” (aghjamughj) is also the child of the god of time and, obviously, a definite fraction of “Աղջ” (night), and reminds that she is also a child of the night.

At first, human called things and phenomena of the surrounding world, only then, in their image and likeness, he called his children. And the first thing to which the human mind has reached in the flow of endless time, undoubtedly has been a day with its harmonious existence, in which features and characteristics of its male and female children – day and night are combined.

After the initial determination of time, the wide-open eye of human consciousness in its own form of existence will find a demonstration of the equilibrium of the universe and a reflection of the daily born celestial twin. And it is natural that he distinguished his children of different sexes with the same names by which he defined two halves of day, calling his son “Աւր” (day)> “Այր” (man, husband), and daughter – “Աղջ” (night)> “Աղջ” (girl), “Աղջիկ” (little girl).

Yuri S. Avetisyan

Undoubtedly, language development also supposes the development and enrichment of its vocabulary. One of the main means of language development is that of borrowings. Extralinguistic factors, such as progress in public life, contacts with different peoples, inevitable influences of languages with a great sphere of application, etc., also play an important role in this process. In different developmental stages, this process is performed with varying efficiency, due to the factors of greater or lesser influence. In the present stage of the Armenian language, that influence has grown substantially. It is, to a greater or lesser extent, expressed according to the fields of communication.

The sphere of public-political relations: This is the area that is most sensitive to changes, but the share of word borrowings in this area is not particularly active, as political discourse is more inclined to use its own vocabulary or word-formation means.

The field of science and technology: The unprecedented development of science in recent decades has opened a wide door to the creation of new terms, and to the unprecedented enrichment of vocabulary. Certain fields or branches of science such as law, medicine, economics. that are directly related to public life are naturally distinguished by more active changes in word structure.

The computer field: It is a new field, and the “attack” of foreign words is inevitable in the names related to the field.

The military sphere: Since the period of independence, the independent life the Armenian Military has significantly revived. It brought with it an updated military vocabulary. The Armenian language successfully creates a new military terminology.

The sports field: Sport is a rapidly evolving field. New sports equipment, new kinds of sports games, events and forms; all this is rapidly invading the social life. And these are mainly realities borrowed from abroad, from foreign nations. Naturally, their names are borrowed. The Armenian language tries to bring them to the field of the Armenian vocabulary as much as possible. It often succeeds.

The field of art: We cannot say that borrowings are active in this area. Because the sector itself does not show any signs of active development or progress.

Other areas of life: The names of food and, in general, food-related realities, clothing, and household items originate or enter into the borrowing language mostly as a result of the contact with other nations.

Certain areas have a larger sphere of influence, namely the specific fields of science and technology – cutting-edge technologies and computer science, medical science, economics, law, banking, military science, culture and sports, household, etc. According to these specific fields, in the contemporary Armenian language, certain semantic groups of loanwords are formed, which still have an indispensable role and importance in ensuring normal verbal communication.

(Recursive compounds)

Summary

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.

Summary

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.

Summary

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.

Summary

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.