Category Archives: LINGUISTICS

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

ON ONE LEXICOGRAPHICAL QUESTION – 2022-2

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.

ANACHRONISTIC AND DIACHRONIC DESCRIPTION OF OLD ARMENIAN VOICELESS FRICATIVE 􀉖 (X) – 2022-1

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.