The article is devoted to a comprehensive lexical analysis of M. Simonyan’s English-Armenian dictionary, “Small Dictionary from the English Language, Translated into the Armenian Dialect” (Madras, 1803). Using the example of the first English-Armenian dictionary, the study analyzes the qualitative and structural features of the target language—Armenian. Following a brief presentation of the historical context, the primary focus shifts to the manifestations of linguistic variability, orthographic irregularities, and thematic groups present in the dictionary. The rich dialectal layer of the dictionary and the use of vernacular synonyms undergo special examination. Through a comparative analysis with the Old and New Haigazian dictionaries, M. Simonyan’s terminological and neological efforts (morphological, derivational, and semantic coinages, particularly in the realm of rhetorical terms) are highlighted. The unique value of this work during the transitional phase of Armenian lexicography is demonstrated.
The term "Haykabanutyun" often comes across in scientific literature and fiction. The concept of "Haykabanutyun," however, hasn't been defined so far and we cannot explain what did Haykabanutyun/Haykaban specifically mean.
The author tackles this concern in this article, based on diverse dictionaries and other sources. He argues that though the term maintained a broad sense, it was used with various connotations in different periods and by different scholars.
Eventually, he combines the diverse sets of meanings and presents the reader with some of its characteristic objectives:
a. to prevent the Armenian language from the impact of Latin and maintain its purity.
b. to use only the 5th century classic Grabar (Old Armenian) words, and grammatical expression.
c. to make the Armenian language more perfect and artistic based on the 5th century linguistic achievements.
d. to spread Armenian education in educational institutions.
e. to avoid the influence of other languages and dialects on the Armenian language.
Those who had adopted such a policy were called "Haykaban"s.
The problem of transliteration of foreign proper names is more than painful for Armenians. Unlike ancient times, when Armenian was united, today a foreign word is transliterated into Armenian in three or four ways, due to the lack of canonized laws. The study is the first section of a series of articles examining the principles of transliterating various languages into Armenian. The author defines transliteration and its purpose, stating that whatever the principles and methods of transliteration, the final sounds and phonetics should not be alien to the Armenian ear and contradict the phonetic principles of the Armenian language. He notes that while transliterating one need to pay more attention to the laws of the borrowing language than to staying close to the sounds of the source language.
This study is dedicated to four Middle Eastern languages, Arabic, Persian, Turkish and Azerbaijani. The principles adopted in this study give priority to the historically established traditional transliteration of classical Armenian, which is also adopted in different scientific circles of Armenia and the Armenian Diaspora. The transliteration of consonants follows the rules of the classical three-level phonetic system of the Armenian language. Using several subtleties, the author proposes a set of norms regarding a united transliteration for the above mentioned four languages.
The author notes that the canonization of transliteration is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon that cannot be resolved individually. It is a long process which contributes to the strengthening and consolidation of the Armenian language. The author suggests that these issues should be approached publicly, with the joint efforts of specialists in various sciences, and that principles of transliteration should be developed, published and handed over to state language control bodies and language inspectorates. Eventually, the latter should take on the task of transforming the decisions into normative mandatory laws.
This article is one of a series that deals with the transliteration of foreign proper names into Armenian (the way to transcribe foreign names in Armenian characters).
The first part of the series was devoted to the Middle Eastern languages (Arabic, Persian, Turkish and Azerbaijani); see Armen Michaelian, «The Principles of
Transliterating Foreign Proper Names into Armenian, Part | - Middle Eastern Languages» [in Armenian], Haigazian Armenological Review, vol. 40, Haigazian University Press, Beirut 2020, pp. 341-364. The second part of the series deals with two classical languages, ancient Greek and Latin; see Armen Michaelian, «The Principles of Transliterating Foreign Proper Names into Armenian, Part I| - Classical Languages (Ancient Greek and Latin)» [in Armenian], Bazmavep, year CLXXVIII, Venice 2020, 304-336.
The present, third part of the series is devoted to the transliteration of names of French origin. The principle of transliteration is based (as in the whole series) on classical Armenian spelling, definitely ruling out the "Cilician" transliteration on one side and the "Soviet" one on the other. Unlike that of ancient Greek and Latin, the transliteration of French proper names is not stabilized in Armenian due, on the one hand, to the influence of the Western pronunciation of Armenian dialects, and, on the other hand, to the influence of the Russian language on Eastern Armenian.
After a reminder of the phonological and orthographic principles of Armenian transliteration mentioned in the first articles of the series, the author scrutinizes the most problematic French sounds and phonemes and confirms or proposes (based on numerous examples) a coherent and principled transliteration for each of them. It is especially underlined that French transliteration is of capital importance, given that French provides not only proper names coming from France, Belgium, Switzerland or Quebec but also those coming from all over the world where the French were the first to transcribe many vernacular languages to which Armenian language cannot immediately have access.
The series of articles will continue with other important languages such as English, German, Italian, Spanish, Russian, Hindi, Chinese, Japanese, etc.
Dyachronical analysis of levels of word formation in the Old Armenian and Modern Armenian languages shows that certain old Armenian analytic constructions have been transformed into compound words. These, however, have preserved a meaningful plan in the Modern Armenian language, sometimes revealing differences in the semantic plan. The paper examines, through a historical lexicology approach, a set of compound words with the following pattern: noun +verb > verb, and notes that these are the result of a transformation. Transformation, in such cases, is seen as an abstract mechanism of reflection of objective reality, and is characterized by different degrees of abstraction.
Besides, in patterns of analytic constructions, which in Old Armenian exhibit free word combination, the verb base becomes a component of word formation.
Such analytic constructions are:
a) Nominal-verbal structures. In this case nominal-verbal structures have been transformed into compound words like երկիր պագանեմ > երկրպագել, ծունր դնել ծնրադրել //ծնրադրել, ակն ածեմ > ակնածել, խունկ արկանեմ խնկարկել etc.
b) Prepositional structures. In this case prepositional structures have been transformed into compound words, like արկանեմ ի գործ > գործարկել, իւղի արկանեմ > ուղարկել, ի կիր առնում > կիրառել, ի կիր արկանեմ > կիրարկել etc.
The question of the genetic relationship between Armenian and the Tocharian languages has not yet been the subject of a separate comprehensive study. The extant documentary evidence for the Tocharian languages (conventionally designated as Tocharian A and Tocharian B) dates to the fifth and sixth centuries CE, as does the evidence for Classical Armenian. The two Tocharian varieties are sometimes regarded as dialects of a common Proto-Tocharian, a perspective that invites comparison with the dialectal evidence of Classical Armenian. Unlike the case of Armenian, whose earliest written records belong to the fifth century, Tocharian A and Tocharian B are separated by a chronological gap and differ considerably in the quantity of preserved linguistic material. The investigation of Armenian–Tocharian linguistic correspondences, particularly at the levels of phonology and lexicon, is of considerable importance for the reconstruction of the historical development of the Indo-European languages.
Վազգեն Համբարձումյան· Language and Linguistics· 0 citations
This study focuses on a comparative analysis of the phonetic transformations that occurred during the transition from Sanskrit to Prakrit, and the sound changes from Proto-Indo-European to Germanic languages (known as Grimm's Law). Adopting a qualitative approach based on documentary analysis, this study primarily utilizes the comparative method to analyze the data. The main objective of this study is to examine how sounds were distributionally shifted based on their place of articulation during the linguistic transformation from Sanskrit to Prakrit, as well as from Proto-Indo-European to Germanic.
In this study, the grammatical aphorisms (sutras) of Prakrit grammarians such as Vararuchi, Hemachandra, and Chanda are taken as primary evidence, against which the nature of Germanic sound change is compared based on Grimm's Law. The findings reveal that during the phonetic transformation from Sanskrit to Prakrit, almost all sounds underwent a shift or redistribution based on their place of articulation. Along with these positional shifts, changes were also observed in their manner of articulation, voicing (phonation), and aspiration. When these sounds change, they do not disperse to distant places of articulation but rather shift to neighboring positions, or are pronounced from the same position while changing in terms of voicing and aspiration.
In contrast, Grimm's Law reveals a cyclical change in the quality or manner of articulation while the place of articulation remains constant. By comparing these two systems, this paper concludes that sound change from Sanskrit to Prakrit is primarily oriented toward distribution or decentralization, moving toward lenition (weakening/softening of sounds). Conversely, the changes in Grimm's Law do not follow a distributed pattern based on the place of articulation, but are instead centered around fortition (strengthening) and a structural cyclical pattern.
