Banber Erevani hamalsarani. Banasirut'yun.
| E - ISSN | : | 2738-2575 |
| P - ISSN | : | 1829-457X |
Vol. 5 No. 2(143) (2014)
Articles
-
Articles
New Phraseological Units in the Armenian Sources of XVI-XVIII Centuries
AbstractThroughout a long period of time Armenology has extensively covered phraseological units in numerous works and dictionaries. However, further studies of original works, particularly those of the Late Middle Ages, reveal many more new phraseological units. Various works dating back to the period between 16th and 18th centuries have been studied. As a result of a thorough analysis, a number of new idioms and phraseological expressions were brought to light. Most of these idioms are not in use in Modern Armenian; while those that are considered active normally appear in modified forms. This article lists 150 new idioms, 100 of which were not included in dictionaries of idioms. They are considered to be genuine idioms of Early Modern Armenian.
References -
Articles
Old Armenian Phonemic System According to Edward Aghayan
Abstract“Grabar grammar” by Edward Aghayan is considered to be a valuable study which presents the phonetic peculiarities of the 5th century classical Grabar, their phonemic values, primary and secondary characteristic features, activities’ restrictions and the like. The distinguished scholar had a lot of difficulties in his practice for he first of all dealt with non-living (so-called dead) language and therefore couldn’t give reasons for his achievements through experimental researches. Besides, the original language material was subject to perversions. However, Edward Aghayan, as a real talented scholar, was able to give an answer to intricate questions. His work is of great scientific value in accordance with various researches on General linguistics, Comparative grammar and Historical grammar, Modern grammar and Dialectology.
References -
Articles
The System of Declension in the Colophons of Armenian Manuscripts of the XV Century
AbstractThe present article investigates the features of the declension system in the colophons of Armenian manuscripts of the 15th
century. The aim of this study was to identify any deviations from the standard declension norms of Classical Armenian (Grabar), as well as unveil the innovations of the Middle Armenian. Both nominal and pronominal declension systems have been examined. Studies show that the declension system in the colophons is not uniform. Grammatical forms of Old Armenian are used in parallel with their Middle Armenian counterparts, thus testifying to the ongoing nature of language development.References -
Articles
Aghayan as a Dialectologist
AbstractDialectological research is an essential part of E. Aghayan's scientific legacy. His monograph entitled ''The Dialect of Meghri'' is one of the most valuable studies of this kind. E. Aghayan's works on the role of dialects in the development of the national language, the differentiation of Old Armenian dialects, the interrelation between Classical Armenian (Grabar) and Modern Armenian dialects, their origin and the problems of thier development are really invaluable. E. Aghayan gave a high priority to the inclusion of dialectal material in historical-comparative studies, highlighting the importance of Indo-European archaisms in Armenian dialects. Relying on the sound changes that occur in different layers of genetic lexicon, E. Aghayan defined the relative chronology of their modifications. E. Aghayan's dialectological research provides rich data for further studies in Armenology.
References -
Articles
Greek Χαριτες – Armenian Ձիրք
AbstractThe name of three Graces Χαριτες pl. t. (the plural form of xαρις “beauty, delight, blossom”) by now has been translated into Latin as Gratiae pl.t. (the plural form of gratia “attractiveness, gratefulness, grace”) and refers to the names of goddesses in
Greek and Latin. Other languages also use these names. This article presents a study based on several etymological analyses of the nouns xαρις and gratia, and particularly, the adverbial use of their ablative cases. In this regard, drawing etymological parallels with their Armenian equivalents ձիր (noun) “donation, gift, favour, bliss” and ձրի (adverb) “donate, for free, gratis”, we assume that the word Ձիրք pl.t. “talent, gift”, which is the plural form of the Armenian word ձիր, is the Armenian equivalent of the names of the goddesses mentioned above.References -
Articles
The First Latin Textbook in Armenian
AbstractThe article is devoted to the description of the textbook by Ed. Aghayan “The Grammar of the Latin Language” (morphology). Following the principles of structural linguistics, Ed. Aghayan tried to present a comprehensive and consistent analysis of this ancient language with utmost diligence. The description of phonetic facts is followed by a characterization of morphological features of the parts of speech in Latin, ranging from grammatical categories of essential parts of speech to their partial syntactic usage. Apart from its practical purpose, this textbook is highly valued for providing the learners with an important insight into the classical grammatical terminology and the corresponding equivalents in Armenian.
References -
Articles
A General Description of Electronic Texts in Comparison with Other Types of Speech
AbstractThis article analyses the electronic text as a modern manifestation of the largest unit of language – text. Firstly, text is, in general, characterized as a unit exhibiting complex splitting. On the one hand it is a means of communication, and on the other hand, a personal view of objective reality. Taking this peculiarity into consideration, a distinction is drawn between linguistic and nonlinguistic text types. These text types in turn are subdivided into personal and general types, respectively. Modern type of the text is defined as an expressive example set of linguistic and non-linguistic elements. Further, depending on its nature and functions,electronic text is divided into two groups: a text chat and a text message. The analysis of the latest manifestations of the text (compared to its traditional types) reveals that the electronic text types take an intermediate position between written and oral text types. The article discusses the influence of electronic text on individual speech, spoken language
and, eventually, on language itself. Nowadays, due to the versatility to integrate both linguistic and non-linguistic components, electronic versions of linguistic units are favored over the already stated text types with strictly linguistic structure.References -
Articles
Laryngeal Behaviour of Obstruents in Armenian: Aspiration and Syllable Boundaries
AbstractArmenian is a language with three-way phonation types. As a result, the language comes out with vast morphological contrasts. In their efforts to maintain the relevant contrasts and reduce the chances of miscommunication to a minimum, native speakers of Armenian employ certain phonological and phonetic mechanisms, viz. [voice] is licensed utterance-finally as well as final environments are enhanced by adding [+spread glottis] feature to obstruents. Prosodically, fortition is motivated as an edge-marker of morpheme boundaries and syllable-initial positions. Any sound changes (through aspiration) at Word Level are uniformly extended to other levels of derivation, showing Paradigm Uniformity effects. O1O2 contexts undergo regressive assimilation. Both ‘voiced’ and ‘voiceless’ assimilation is reported in Armenian. In this paper laryngeal facts have been analysed in terms of the two main licensing approaches: Licensing by Cues and Licensing by Prosody. With this in view, laryngeal realities in Armenian might offer fertile ground for further thorough research.
References -
Articles
The Evolution of the Phoneme Theory in E. Aghayan’s Works
AbstractAghayan’s phonemic viewpoints were formed for 40 years en route from the publications of his works – “Course on General Linguistics” (1947) until “Basics of Linguistics” (1987). During this period his ideas were formed and concentrated mostly on the qualitative changes of phonemes, rather than its elaboration and enrichment. Three main disciplines on phonemes are outlined in the eminent author’s works of this period: 1) communicative or social, 2) epistemological-physical, 3) sense isolating abstract. For the third stage it is important that: a. as opposed to the first two stages, where the phoneme is considered a substantial unit, this stage defines it as “an abstract unit of linguistic construction,” b. besides phoneme and sound, an idea of a third unit – the context-phone (hnchurd) – is introduced as the representative of the first two in the speech plan.
In the basis of the proposing of the three component system of phonemic units is the new discipline of the perception of language and speech. According to it, the speech is not only an individual plan, but also a social one, i.e. one can distinguish the public speech that has its parallel definition in others’ works (E. Coseriou, G. Jahukyan) as individual speech. Professor E. Aghayan not only did enrich the study of phoneme with new ideas basing on the principles of pragmatic phonemics, but he also suggested a new model of phonemic distributive analysis. Through a profound study of the phonemic system of
Grabar (Grammar of Grabar: Phonetics, Yerevan, 1964), he became the founder of Phonemics in Armenian linguistics.References -
Articles
A Structural Description of Mood-Tense Systems of Armenian Dialects
AbstractThere are different tense and mood structural models in Armenian territorial variants (dialects and subdialects). As a result of their contrastivecomparative analysis, it becomes clear, that the synthetic tense forms of positive conjugation prevail over the ones that have analytical forms (correlation 21/12), whereas in the negative conjugation there is the opposite tendency: the mood forms with synthetic structure are fewer that the ones with analytical structure (correlation 9/17).
References -
Articles
Edward Aghayan's Contribution to Theoretical Linguistics and Teaching It
AbstractWhen evaluating Edward Aghayan's contribution, two aspects are to be taken into consideration: his fifty-year teaching practice and his scientific studies, particularly his "Principles of Linguistics", which is one of the main textbooks used to teach general linguistics at philological faculties of all universities in Armenia. As it is impossible to cover Edward Aghayan's linguistic views in their entirety in a few pages, this paper is an attempt to reveal the principle of his approach to language. His interpretations of the concept of phoneme and its relation to sound, the problem of stratification of language, the interrelation between language and speech are observed here as striking examples of his approach to linguistic problems. The analysis of all these, as well as other problems reveals the dialectical approach of the author, expressed in his refusal to absolutize oppositions, taking into account their unity, revealing transitional stages between poles. These manifestations of dialectics as a methodological
principle that guarantees the true scientific knowledge give special significance to Edward Aghayan's legacy in general linguistics.References -
Articles
On the Problem of the Origin of the Armenian Dialectal Sound Sequence ուվա
AbstractThe present article deals with the origin of the vowel ու in dialectal forms like չուվան, տուվալ. It is usually assumed that the vowel ու goes back to the vowel ը (e.g. չուվան <չըվան). Unfortunately, the supporters of this opinion have not specially considered the change ըվ >ուվ (that is, the assimilative change ը >ու, caused by labiodental վ ) in dialects. The above mentioned traditional view is challenged by some researchers on the basis of certain dialectal forms which have not undergone
the change ըվ >ուվ (e.g. հավ - հըվէ՛րան, սէվ - սըվ/ւըցնի՛լ), and it is believed that the sound sequence ուվ is not anything else but reflection of the corresponding glide of earlier diphthongs. However, the latter assumption is not borne out by dialectal
evidence, whereas a number of indisputable facts are in favour of the phonetic development ըվ >ուվ. A special note should be taken of the restricted and irregular nature of the change ըվ >ուվ, which accounts for also the unchanged forms հավ - հըվ
է՛րան, սէվ - սըվ/ւըցնի՛լ and the like.References -
Articles
Word Formation as a Means to Realize the Creative Peculiarities of Language
AbstractLanguage is the greatest cultural creation of human society and is realized as a primary tool for communication. Each speaker is a bearer of socially and objectively existing common language as a system of inherent qualities. The functioning of the mentioned system in communication is a specific creative process itself. This creativity is most obviously demonstrated in word formation. Academician Ed. Aghayan singled out the main tools of word formation in Armenian. According to our approach the methods of word formation in Armenian are: linear/morphemic/ word formation, which for centuries has been a dominant tool in enriching and developing the Armenian vocabulary, and nonlinear/inner/ word formation which is the result of a specific modification of meanings, morphological features and syntactic applications of a word. Both methods have been productive throughout the historical development of the vocabulary of Armenian language, especially in its present phase. Words created through the application of the mentioned methods differ from each other in expression and content.
References
