Category Archives: LINGUISTICS



Mary V. Hovhannisyan
It is indisputable that the study of speech art of the writer’s creative work is closely related to the period of regularities typical for both national and fiction languages. It touches upon the main features, ways and prospects of their development. On the one hand, works of the leading speech masters specify not only the development tendencies of literature, but also the national language. On the other hand, it is not enough to study thoroughly the period, literary trend that the writer followed, type and genre of the writer’s creative work.

It is necessary to study the language and the style of the writer. To study the speech art of the writer’s work means to introduce the individuality, which is specific to the author, to identify the peculiarities of the writer’s style by having the literary language as a starting point.

Teryan was very skillful to apply various opportunities of different stylistic layers of Armenian literary language vocabulary, word meaning and usage. The uniqueness of poet’s speech art is the in word-selection art that obviously reflected in the meaningstylistic specific usage of cooperative words. Parallel to stylistic delicate sense of cooperative words, terms of non-active word-layers also get peculiar display. Ethnoverbal and dialectical words, comparisons, phrases which are not specially popularized in Teryan’s speech characterize amazing figurativeness of things and phenomena. Archaism and barbarism are characterized on the basis of stylistic-expressive usage. As neologisms give his poetry a unique colouring, they are quite important for profound understanding of Teryan’s artistic manner. Word-forming models of V. Teryan’s neologisms are particularly important for the formation of new verbs: the unusual use of some suffixes are also rather unique. Special attention is paid to the examples of neologisms in the field of semantics and unusual meanings that Teryan gave to neologisms created by his predecessors. It is difficult to overestimate the stylistic significance of neologisms and their role in his art. One of the factors of Vahan Teryan’s speech art uniqueness is the word-selection art obviously reflected in the meaning-stylistic specific usage of ethno-verbal and dialectical words. Ethno-verbal and dialectical words, comparisons, phrases, which are not specially popularized in Teryan’s speech, are characterized by amazing figurativeness of things and phenomena. Ethno-verbal and dialectical words which have their suitable verbal place create the sonority of the paragraph, the rhyme and the whole poem.


Lexico-Semantic Group “Armenians of Arab Countries” in the Armenian Language


Davit S. Gyurjinyan

Key words – migration, Diaspora, lexico-semantic group, Arab world, եգիպտահայ “Egyptian Armenian”, արաբահայ “Armenian from Arab countries”, սիրիահայ “Syrian Armenian”, լիբանանահայ “Lebanese Armenian”, բեյրութահայ “Armenian from Beirut”, իրաքահայ “Iraqi Armenian”, սփյուռքահայ “Diasporan Armenian”.

This article studies 30 lexical units of the “Armenian of Arab Countries”, which have been formed since the second half of the 19th century as a result of the almost uninterrupted migration from Armenia, as well as pogroms, massacres and genocides of the Armenians in Western Armenia.

Word-building submodels are revealed: “country name + հայ “Armenian”” (եգիպտահայ “Egyptian Armenian”, սիրիահայ “Syrian Armenian”), “city name + հայ” (բեյրութահայ “Armenian from Beirut”, հալեպահայ “Armenian from Aleppo”), “village name + հայ” (քեսաբահայ “Armenian from Kessab”) and “region name + հայ” (սվեդիահայ “Armenian from Suedia”), as well as արաբահայ “Armenian from an Arab country”. The time of formation of the studied words is determined, the meanings, frequency and spheres of the use of these words, as well as their derivational and spelling variations, and lexicographic history are analyzed.


A new attempt of hypothetical restoration 


Vardan Z. Petrosyan

Key words – general Indo-European language, two-sequence system of occlusives, sequence and series, phoneme and subphoneme, Ye. Kurilovich, M. Mayrhofer, P. Hopper, F. Kortland, Gamkrelidze-Ivanov concept, “the Glottalic theory”, “the theory of glottalized stops”.

The traditional comparative linguistics has restored two types of systems of occlusives in the Proto-Indo European language – a three- sequence one: voiced – voiceless – aspirated (comp. *b-*p-*bh) and a four-category one: voiced- voiceless- aspirated voiced – aspirated voiceless (comp. *b-*p-*bh-*ph). The Glottalic theory that developed in the 70s of the 20th century proposed a new pattern of a three-sequence system where the category of simple voiced consonants was replaced by the category of glottalized phonemes (comp. *p’)-*p-*bh). In another, a more advanced version suggested by Gamkrelidze-Ivanov the voiced and voiceless consonants were presented in the sub- sequence of aspirated and non-aspirated consonants (comp. *g/*gh,…*k/*kh…): By the way, the sequence of glottalized stops was viewed as lacking – due to the absence of a labial representative. Before the development of this theory, certain representatives of traditional Indo-European studies (H. Hubschmann, H. Pedersen, A. Meillet) viewed the category of simple voiced consonants deficient/ lacking ( the absence of *b). The followers of the Glottalic theory (P. Hopper, F. Kortland, A. Odrikur and others) believed that they also shared another feature: the sequence of those phonemes was presented in the voiceless version. We believe that it is not right to attribute a glottalic sequence to the Proto-Indo European language and particularly to the general Indo-European stage from the genealogical point of view since such phonemes were not and are not known in any Indo-European language. This sequence was ascribed to the Indo-European languages through the typological generalization of languages with a different system-structure (sematic, Kartvelian, American-Indian), two of which, according to nostratic linguistics, had kinship relations with the Proto-Indo European language. From both genealogical and typological perspectives, the restoration of the system of voiced and voiceless consonants in general European gets more realistic. Each of them will be presented in the voiced and voiceless subcategory. Such system is not just the pattern offered by Gamkrelidze-Ivanov without the sequence of glottalized stops, but is principally a new approach as the acceptance or rejection of the sequence of glottals means a differentiation of a new pattern of the system of Indo-European phonemes which has its full reflection in the morphologicalphonemic structure of the root.



Anahit Z. Adilkhanyan

Key words – Speech etiquette, appeal you/You, communicative situation, social role, official, unofficial situation, degree of acquaintance, familiar attitude, characteristics of the speakers, change of the attitude, change from “you” and “You” for “you”.

All of us anyway communicate with others, and it is important to follow some etiquette, when it comes to negotiating, meetings with clients, simply politeness. It is necessary to appeal with “You” to all unfamiliar people independеntly from the age and social status, to the employees, partners and so on. It is allowed to use “you” towards the members of the family, friends and children. In the collective it is possible only between the colleagues, who make friends, but in an official situation it is necessary to apply with “You”. For a time “you” and “You” have undergone many transformations. A big etiquette importance has got the possible change from “you” to “You” and from “You” to “you”. The transition like this bear important changes in the attitude of people to each other, and this factor of attitudes comes to the fore in this case.



Arpine M. Avetisyan

Key words – Nerses Lambronaci, Cilicia, church figure, panegyric, neologisms, adjective, verb, noun, adverb, derivative.

Nerses Lambronatsi (1153-1198) is one of the prominent representatives of the Armenian medieval literature. He is known by his diverse activities in various fields. Lambronatsi is an author of many panegyrics, anthems, sharakans, speeches, interpretations and translations. The language of Nerses Lambronatsi’s poetic heritage has unique vocabulary: he is not only a great poet, but also an original word maker. There are about twenty neologisms in his panegyrics that we have chosen based on the “New Dictionary of Old Armenian Language”. These neologisms have been quite viable, some of them have been incorporated into a collaborative vocabulary and are still being used.



Liana S. Hovsepyan

Key words – Movses Khorenatsi, History of Armenia, vocabulary, military terms, military functions, armament, ammunition, equipment, weapons, military operations.

The article examines Old Armenian military terms used by Movses Khore natsi in his «History of Armenia». In this article the terms used in the text of the «History» are distributed into six semantic groups: 1.Types of troops and soldiers, 2. Military status and functions, 3. Units and subdivisions of forces, 4. Armament: types of weapons, ammunition, equipment, 5. Military operations and their results, 6. Military constructions and locality, disposition of troops. The military vocabulary in Khore na tsi’s «History» gives notion on military technic and military affair in his epoch.



Davit S. Gyurjinyan

Key words – Armenian community, collective names, collective noun, real collective nouns, Armenians, Armenian people, Armenians of Diaspora.

The article studies the words (collective nouns) of the Armenian language, meaning Armenian community, aggregate of Armenians, their collectivity, as an inseparable unit. The lexical units with the component հայ “Armenian” are analyzed: հայք and հա յեար “Armenians”, հա յո րեար “Armenians, their leaders, Armenian nobility”, հա յաս տան (ազգ) “Armenian people”, հա յաս տա նեայք “residents of Armenia”, հա յութ յուն “Armenians, Armenian people”, հա յա գունդ “Armenian regiment”, հա յաբ նա կութ յուն “Armenian population”, etc. The time of formation of these collective names is revealed, special attention is paid to their first uses (since the 5th century). Special attention is paid to the formations with the last component հա յություն “Armenians” (ար ևե լա հա յութ յուն “Eastern Armenians, Armenians of Eastern Armenia”, արևմ տա հա յութ յուն “Western Armenians, Armenians of Western Armenia”, գա վա ռա հա յութ յուն “Armenians of provinces”, սփյուռ քա հա յութ յուն “foreign Armenians, Armenians from Diaspora”, ֆրան սա հա յութ յուն “Armenians, living in France”, etc.). Lexical units are analyzed from different sides (meaning, structure, variability, wordformative significance, frequency of use), their lexicographical processing is studied, the lexico-semantic links with other words of the Armenian language are indicated.



Davit S. Gyurjinyan

Key words – the semantic group “foreign Armenian / Diasporan Armenian”, the word-formation model “country name+ հայ “Armenian”, պարսկահայ “Armenian living in Persia”, իրանահայ “Armenian, living in Iran”, Armenian lexicography.

The words that were created as a result of historical events, generating the concept of “Armenian living in Persia (in Iran)”, are being studied in this article. These are lexical units of Modern Armenian language, formed according to the following models: “country name+ հայ “Armenian” (պարսկահայ “Armenian, living in Persia”, իրանահայ “Armenian, living in Iran”), “name of a city populated by Armenians+հայ” (թեհրանահայ “Armenian living in Tehran”, թավրիզահայ “Armenian living in Tabriz”), “name of a province populated by Armenians+հայ” (փերիահայ “Armenian living in Peria Province”, սալմաստահայ “Armenian living in Salmas”).

The historical foundations of word formation, the structural and semantic features of these words, their morphological values, the spheres and frequency of usage, the lexical semantic links to the analogous words are revealed.

Special attention is paid to the lexicographical processing of the units of the studied group of words in monolingual and translation dictionaries of the Armenian language.



Bagrat S. Nersisyan, Karine Zh. Sahakyan

Key words – syntagma, paradigm, abstract grammatical meaning, morpheme, grammatical synonymy, homonymy, absoluteness, accusativity, possessiveness, being dative, initiality, accompanying.

In this article, we attempt to single out seven cases in the literary Eastern Armenian language on the basis of the abstracted grammatical meanings of the cases, which are expressed by the corresponding morphemes. We believe that the paradigm and the syntagma need to be compared and not opposed, as a result of which it turns out that the case wordform is not only a morphological but also a syntactic category.

In our opinion, the accusative is a separate, independent case, since it cannot be characterized by the grammatical meaning of unlimitedness, absoluteness, which are inherent only in the nominative case. The accusative case of inanimate objects depends on the semantics of the transitive verb and is therefore characterized by accusativity. Nominative and accusative cases of the inanimate objects are grammatical homonyms.

The genitive and the dative are also independent cases: the genitive is characterized by being possessive, and the dative – by being dative. These are incompatible grammatical meanings. Therefore, despite the fact that these cases are formed by the same morphemes, they are not polysemantic wordforms, but homonymous different wordforms. Using the abstracted grammatical meanings inherent in the corresponding case forms put forward by E. Aghayan and G. Jahukyan, we come to the conclusion that each case is characterized by its inherent grammatical meaning. These are: nominative – unlimitedness, absoluteness, accusative – being accusative, genitive – possessiveness, dative – being dative, initial case – being initial, instrumental case – accompanying, local case – being at.



Vardan Z. Petrosyan

Key Words ռ Pre-Armenian, liquid sonorant, Velar sound, fricative sound, sub-phoneme.

The ղ(ł) and լ(l)­ sonorants ­of ­Old­ Armenian­ were ­the ­main­ speech­ variations ­of ­the pre-Armenian ­sonorant­ phoneme­ <*l> ­and­ were­ in­ a ­sub-phoneme ­relation ­with­ each other. In the 5th­ century,­ at­ the­ initial­ stage ­of ­Classical ­Armenian, ­ղ(ł)-լ(l)­ contrast­ appearse specially ­at ­the­ending­ position­ of ­the ­word. ­It ­had ­a ­function ­of ­semantic ­distinction (phonological). ­However,­ in­native ­Armenian­ it ­was ­excluded­ for ­ղ(ł) ­to­appear­ at­ the beginning­ of­ a­word.­ This ­means ­that ­here, ­in ­this­ position, ­they ­were­ in­ an ­additional relation ­of­ distribution­ (sub-phonological).­ Most­ apparently, ­the­ phonemicization ­of­ ղ(ł) as­ a­ velar­ sound ­is­ the­r esult­ of­ divergent ­developments.