The Antiquity of Western Armenian Voicing Armenian Dialects Are

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

The Antiquity of Western Armenian Voicing Armenian dialects are famously divided between Eastern and Western branches. Adjarian's (1909) classification used the present tense as the defining isogloss, which roughly corresponded to the Russian/Ottoman border. However, Adjarian himself admits that the division is unsatisfactory, with many dialects sharing both Eastern and Western features. I propose a new definition of the Eastern/Western border that rests on a more ancient phonological isogloss: the voicing of stop consonants, which roughly corresponded to the border between Persian and Byzantine Armenia. I show that, as far as the consonant system is concerned, the Western dialect diversity is local and continuous, showing no features from Central or Eastern Armenian. The presence of lexical items exclusive to this Far Western area, signaled by Martirosyan (2010), also confirms its unity. By pushing back in time the Western consonantal voicing system, it becomes much more likely that it was inherited directly from Proto-Armenian, as opposed to Classical Armenian. Benveniste (1958) and Garrett (1998) have presented arguments in favor of this or a similar view before. I will present new arguments ranging from phonetic principles to early voicing errors of scribes, voicing discrepancies and dialect borrowings. Two conclusions may be drawn from the arguments above: 1) Western dialects show at least some pre-Classical features, which change the portrait of Proto-Armenian, and imply that Middle Armenian should be considered a sister language of Classical Armenian, rather than a daughter language; 2) some Central dialects are best described as Eastern dialects that gradually acquired Western morphology to varying degrees. Adjarian, H. 1909. Classification des dialects arméniens. Paris: Champion. (Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études. Sciences historiques et philologiques, fasc. 173.) Benveniste, E. 1958. Sur la phonétique et la syntaxe de l’arménien classique. Bulletin de la Société de linguistique de Paris 54, pp. 46-68. Garrett, A. 1998. Adjarian’s Law, the Glottalic Theory and the Position of Armenian. Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society; Special Session on Indo-European Subgrouping and Internal Relations, pp. 12-23. Martirosyan, H. 2010. Etymological dictionary of the Armenian Inherited Lexicon. Brill Academic Publishers. .

Copy Link

Recommended publications

Armenian Secret and Invented Languages and Argots
Armenian Secret and Invented Languages and Argots The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Russell, James R. Forthcoming. Armenian secret and invented languages and argots. Proceedings of the Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:9938150 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Open Access Policy Articles, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#OAP 1 ARMENIAN SECRET AND INVENTED LANGUAGES AND ARGOTS. By James R. Russell, Harvard University. Светлой памяти Карена Никитича Юзбашяна посвящается это исследование. CONTENTS: Preface 1. Secret languages and argots 2. Philosophical and hypothetical languages 3. The St. Petersburg Manuscript 4. The Argot of the Felt-Beaters 5. Appendices: 1. Description of St. Petersburg MS A 29 2. Glossary of the Ṙuštuni language 3. Glossary of the argot of the Felt-Beaters of Moks 4. Texts in the “Third Script” of MS A 29 List of Plates Bibliography PREFACE Much of the research for this article was undertaken in Armenia and Russia in June and July 2011 and was funded by a generous O’Neill grant through the Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies at Harvard. For their eager assistance and boundless hospitality I am grateful to numerous friends and colleagues who made my visit pleasant and successful. For their generous assistance in Erevan and St.
[Show full text]
Epenthesis and Prosodic Structure in Armenian
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles Epenthesis and prosodic structure in Armenian: A diachronic account A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Indo-European Studies by Jessica L. DeLisi 2015 © Copyright by Jessica L. DeLisi 2015 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Epenthesis and prosodic structure in Armenian: A diachronic account by Jessica L. DeLisi Doctor of Philosophy in Indo-European Studies University of California, Los Angeles, 2015 Professor H. Craig Melchert, Chair In this dissertation I will attempt to answer the following question: why does Classical Armenian have three dierent reexes for the Proto-Armenian epenthetic vowel word- initially before old Proto-Indo-European consonant clusters? Two of the vowels, e and a, occur in the same phonological environment, and even in doublets (e.g., Classical ełbayr beside dialectal ałbär ‘brother’). The main constraint driving this asymmetry is the promotion of the Sonority Sequenc- ing Principle in the grammar. Because sibilants are more sonorous than stops, the promo- tion of the Sonority Sequencing Principle above the Strict Layer Hypothesis causes speak- ers to create a semisyllable to house the sibilant extraprosodically. This extraprosodic structure is not required for old consonant-resonant clusters since they already conform to the Sonority Sequencing Principle. Because Armenian has sonority-sensitive stress, the secondary stress placed on word-initial epenthetic vowels triggers a vowel change in all words without extraprosodic structure, i.e. with the old consonant-resonant clusters. Therefore Proto-Armenian */@łbayR/ becomes Classical Armenian [èł.báyR] ‘brother,’ but Proto-Armenian */<@s>tipem/ with extraprosodic <@s> becomes [<@s>.tì.pém] ‘I rush’ because the schwa is outside the domain of stress assignment.
[Show full text]
66. the Evolution of Armenian
1146 X. Armenian Weitenberg, Jos J. S. 1997c The prepositional group iy-and the orthography of Gospel manuscript M (Matenadaran 6200). Annual of Armenian Linguistics 18: 39−50. Weitenberg, Jos J. S. 1999−2000 On the early development of Armenian dialects. II. The monophthongization of ay. Annual of Armenian Linguistics 20: 1−26. Weitenberg, Jos J. S. 2001 Thoughts on Armenian accentuation. Annual of Armenian Linguistics 21: 65−73. Weitenberg, Jos J. S. 2002 Aspects of Armenian dialectology. In: Jan Berns and Jaap Van Marle (eds.), Present- day Dialectology. Problems and Findings. (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Mono- graphs 137). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 141−157. Weitenberg, Jos J. S. 2004 Armenian barwokʿ ‘good, well’. In: Adam Hyllested, Anders Richardt Jørgensen, Jenny Helena Larsson, and Thomas Olander (eds.), Per Aspera ad Asteriscos. Studia Indoger- manica in Honorem Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissen- schaft der Universität, 627−632. Weitenberg, Jos J. S. 2006 Aspects of Classical Armenian orthography: Armenian e, and the Greek names in the Gospels. In: Anna Krasnuolska, Kinga Maciuszak, and Barbara Mękarska (eds.), In the Orient where the Gracious Light … Satura Orientalis in Honorem Andrzej Pisowicz. Cracow: Księgarnia Akademicka, 215−228. Weitenberg, Jos J. S. 2008 Diphthongization of initial E- and the development of initial Y- in Armenian. In: Alexan- der Lubotsky, Jos Schaeken, and Jeroen Wiedenhof (eds.), Evidence and Counter-Evi- dence. Essays in Honour of Frederik Kortlandt. Volume I. Balto-Slavic and Indo-Euro- pean Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 609−616. † Jos J. S. Weitenberg 66. The evolution of Armenian 1. Varieties of Armenian 5.
[Show full text]
Armenian Proverbs and Biblical Scripture
Armenian Proverbs and the Biblical Scripture Gayané V. Hagopian Abstract The article examines different types of parallels between Armenian folk sayings and proverbs and the Bible, classifies the types of parallels and the main trends of divergence in cultural, religious, ideological, and linguistic-metaphorical aspects and attempts to explain the possible roots and origins for the observed parallelism. Introduction: Christian and Not Christian 1 Types of Parallels: 2 Proverb Tapestry 2 A World Vision 6 Direct Parallels (PART I) Complete Equivalency 9 Equivalency in Meaning 11 Equivalency in Form 14 Indirect Parallels (PART II) Lexical Matches 16 Thematic Adages 20 Opposite Mentality 25 Ideological Adages 27 Conclusions Statistics 32 Difference Trends 30 Origins 33 Introduction Numerous biblical idioms and proverbs1 circulate in communication through many languages, including Armenian and English. Does that mean that the Christian ideology dominates over the Armenian proverbs? In his article Christian and Non-Christian, Matti Kuusi states that notwithstanding the centuries long monopoly on education, the Christian ideology does not dominate over the Finnish proverbs. At a broad glance, this is true also about the Armenian proverbs, and even more generally, about the folk sayings of Christian nations. Since the separation of proto-Armenians from Indo-European community around the fifth millennium BC, the Armenian language and culture passed a long way until the domination of Christianity for the last sixteen hundred years. My research below shows that the ancient ideological layers of the pre-Christian era govern the general ideology of the system of the Armenian proverbs, regardless of a formal parallelism with many Biblical passages on the surface, particularly with the Old Testament.
[Show full text]
ISO 639-3 Code Split Request Template
ISO 639-3 Registration Authority Request for Change to ISO 639-3 Language Code Change Request Number: 2017-023 (completed by Registration authority) Date: 2017-8-16 Primary Person submitting request: Michael Everson Affiliation: Evertype E-mail address: everson at evertype dot com Names, affiliations and email addresses of additional supporters of this request: Susanna Mkrtchyan (President, Wikimedia Armenia, susanna.mkrtchyan at gmail dot com) Razmik Panossian (Director, Armenian Communities Department, Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, rpanossian at gulbenkian dot pt) Anaid Donabedian (Chair of Armenian Studies Institut National des Langues et Civilisations Orientales, Paris, adonabedian at inalco dot fr) Artur Khalatyan (Executive Director, Wikimedia Armenia, [email protected]) Azniv Stepanian (Western Armenian Project Coordinator, Wikimedia Armenia, khoraz at hotmail dot com) Postal address for primary contact person for this request (in general, email correspondence will be used): 73 Woodgrove, Portlaoise, R32 ENP6, Ireland PLEASE NOTE: This completed form will become part of the public record of this change request and the history of the ISO 639-3 code set and will be posted on the ISO 639-3 website. Types of change requests This form is to be used in requesting changes (whether creation, modification, or deletion) to elements of the ISO 639 Codes for the representation of names of languages — Part 3: Alpha-3 code for comprehensive coverage of languages. The types of changes that are possible are to 1) modify the reference information for an existing code element, 2) propose a new macrolanguage or modify a macrolanguage group; 3) retire a code element from use, including merging its scope of denotation into that of another code element, 4) split an existing code element into two or more new language code elements, or 5) create a new code element for a previously unidentified language variety.
[Show full text]
Proposal for an Armenian Script Root Zone LGR 1 General Information
Proposal for an Armenian Script Root Zone LGR Version 3 Date: 2015-06-04 1 General information The purpose of this document is to give an overview of the proposed LGR and the rationale behind the design decisions taken. It includes a discussion of relevant features of the script, the communities or languages using it, the process and methodology used and information on the contributors. The formal specification of the LGR can be found in the accompanying XML document (Proposed-LGR-Armn- 20150604.xml). 1.1 Script for which the LGR is proposed Code: Armn N°: 230 English Name: Armenian Property Value Alias: Armenian Date: 2004-05-01 English name of the script: Hye Native name of the script: հայ The Armenian language is an Indo-European language spoken by the Armenians. It is the official language of the Republic of Armenia and the self-proclaimed Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. It has historically been spoken throughout the Armenian Highlands and today is widely spoken in the Armenian Diaspora. Armenian has its own unique script, the Armenian alphabet, invented in 405 AD by Mesrop Mashtots. Linguists classify Armenian as an independent branch of the Indo-European language family. There are two standardized modern literary forms, Eastern Armenian and Western Armenian, with which most contemporary dialects are mutually intelligible. 1 1.2 Principal languages using that script List Language code and name for each (from ISO 639-3) ISO 639-1 hy ISO 639-2 arm (B) hye (T) ISO 639-3 Variously: hye – Modern Armenian xcl – Classical Armenian axm – Middle Armenian Glottolog arme1241 Linguasphere 57-AAA-a 1.3 Geographic territories or countries with significant user communities for the script Official language in Armenia Nagorno-Karabakh Republic Big Diaspora using the Armenian language in Argentina Brazil Cyprus France Georgia (Samtskhe- Javakheti) Hungary Iraq Lebanon Poland Romania Syria Turkey Ukraine United States 2 Uruguay Total Armenian population in the world is about 10mln.
[Show full text]
On an Armenian Word List from the Cairo Geniza
On an Armenian Word List from the Cairo Geniza The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Russell, James R. 2013. On an Armenian word list from the Cairo Geniza. Iran and the Caucasus 17(2): 189-214. Published Version doi:10.1163/1573384X-20130205 Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:10880590 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Open Access Policy Articles, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#OAP 1 ON AN ARMENIAN WORD LIST FROM THE CAIRO GENIZA. By James R. Russell, Harvard University. (Symposium on the anniversary of the journal Iran and the Caucasus, Erevan, Armenia, July 2011) “… No one in the world except Armenians. No European can ever really understand or speak your language.” (Gabriel Bagratian’s French wife Juliette, in Franz Werfel, The Forty Days of Musa Dagh, translated from the German by Geoffrey Dunlop, New York: Viking Press, 1934, p. 178) * * * T‘eguz ǝlim, t‘eguz č‘ǝlim, meǰlisnerun saz č‘i paksi, T‘e ku paksim, k‘iz ku paksim, ašxaris me maz č‘i paksi, Sayat‘ Novu gerezmanǝn Hind, Habaš, Arab mi ani. “To be or not to be, no party will lack for a lute because of me; This world lacks not for a hair; if I lack, I lack for thee— Let not a Hindu, Ethiop, or Arab Sayat‘ Nova’s gravedigger be.” (Morus Hasrat‘yan, ed., Sayat‘ Nova, Erevan: Haypethrat, 1963, p.
[Show full text]
The Place of Armenian in the Indo-European Language Family: the Relationship with Greek and Indo-Iranian*
Hrach Martirosyan Leiden University The place of Armenian in the Indo-European language family: the relationship with Greek and Indo-Iranian* The main purpose of this paper is to present lexical correspondences that unite Armenian with Greek and/or Indo-Iranian. They include shared innovations on the one hand, and iso- lated lexemes on the other. These two lexical corpora — lexical innovations on an inherited basis and isolated words — can be placed within the same temporal and spatial framework. After the Indo-European dispersal Proto-Armenian would have continued to come into contact with genetically related Indo-European dialects. Simultaneously, it would certainly also have been in contact with neighbouring non-Indo-European languages. A word can be of a substrate origin if it is characterized by: (1) limited geographical distribution; (2) un- usual phonology and word formation; (3) characteristic semantics. The material presented here, albeit not exhaustive, allows to preliminarily conclude that Armenian, Greek, (Phrygian) and Indo-Iranian were dialectally close to each other. Within this hypothetical dialect group, Proto-Armenian was situated between Proto-Greek (to the west) and Proto-Indo-Iranian (to the east). The Indo-Iranians then moved eastwards, while the Proto-Armenians and Proto-Greeks remained in a common geographical region for a long period and developed numerous shared innovations. At a later stage, together or independently, they borrowed a large number of words from the Mediterranean / Pontic substrate language(s), mostly cul- tural and agricultural words, as well as animal and plant designations. On the other hand, Armenian shows a considerable number of lexical correspondences with European branches of the Indo-European language family, a large portion of which too should be explained in terms of substrate rather than Indo-European heritage.
[Show full text]
Matasović, Armenian]
October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN] A GRAMMATICAL SKETCH OF CLASSICAL ARMENIAN RANKO MATASOVIĆ Zagreb 2020. [Type text] Page 1 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN] FOREWORD This publication is intended primarily for students of the course “Comparative grammar of Indo-European languages”, which I have been teaching for more than a decade in the University of Zagreb. It hopes to offer a reasonably compact overview of the grammar of Classical Armenian and its position within the Indo-European family of languages. It is neither a textbook nor a comprehensive grammar of the language. In Zagreb, October 2020 Ranko Matasović [Type text] Page 2 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN] INTRODUCTION Armenian was considered to be an Iranian dialect until Heinrich Hübschmann proved it to be a separate branch of IE languages in 1877. It does contain a lot of Iranian loanwords, which help us reconstruct the prehistory of Armenian, since they shared many developments of native Armenian words.1 The exact dialectal position of Armenian is disputed; in 1924 Holger Pedersen noted the extraordinary number of lexical correspondences that Armenian shares with Greek, and the thesis that Greek was the closest relative of Armenian is known as the Graeco-Armenian hypothesis.2 However, a recent examination of this hypothesis by J. Clackson (1994) is sceptical.3 It is at present unclear how, when, and whence the Armenians entered their present- day habitat south of the Caucasus. The name Armenia, known to the Greeks and Romans, is of Iranian origin, and occurs on Dareios' stele at Behistun (Old Persian Armina). Herodot (VII, 73) says that Armenians are ‘colonists of the Phrygians’ (Phrygôn ápoikoi), but there is very little archeological or linguistic evidence to either confirm or refute this.
[Show full text]
The Place of Armenian in the Indo-European Language Family: the Relationship with Greek and Indo-Iranian*
Hrach Martirosyan Leiden University The place of Armenian in the Indo-European language family: the relationship with Greek and Indo-Iranian* The main purpose of this paper is to present lexical correspondences that unite Armenian with Greek and/or Indo-Iranian. They include shared innovations on the one hand, and iso- lated lexemes on the other. These two lexical corpora — lexical innovations on an inherited basis and isolated words — can be placed within the same temporal and spatial framework. After the Indo-European dispersal Proto-Armenian would have continued to come into contact with genetically related Indo-European dialects. Simultaneously, it would certainly also have been in contact with neighbouring non-Indo-European languages. A word can be of a substrate origin if it is characterized by: (1) limited geographical distribution; (2) un- usual phonology and word formation; (3) characteristic semantics. The material presented here, albeit not exhaustive, allows to preliminarily conclude that Armenian, Greek, (Phrygian) and Indo-Iranian were dialectally close to each other. Within this hypothetical dialect group, Proto-Armenian was situated between Proto-Greek (to the west) and Proto-Indo-Iranian (to the east). The Indo-Iranians then moved eastwards, while the Proto-Armenians and Proto-Greeks remained in a common geographical region for a long period and developed numerous shared innovations. At a later stage, together or independently, they borrowed a large number of words from the Mediterranean / Pontic substrate language(s), mostly cul- tural and agricultural words, as well as animal and plant designations. On the other hand, Armenian shows a considerable number of lexical correspondences with European branches of the Indo-European language family, a large portion of which too should be explained in terms of substrate rather than Indo-European heritage.
[Show full text]
The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto
The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World This page intentionally left blank The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World J. P. Mallory and D. Q. Adams 1 1 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford ox26dp Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With oYces in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York ß J. P. Mallory and D. Q. Adams 2006 The moral rights of the authors have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) First published 2006 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford
[Show full text]
Classical Armenian Introduction – Part 1: External History, Writing System Roadmap
DANIEL KÖLLIGAN AND RONALD I. KIM Classical Armenian Introduction – Part 1: External History, Writing System Roadmap . External history of Armenian . Periodization: Old, Middle, Modern Armenian . Earliest sources; important dates . The Armenian alphabet . Early writing Classical Armenian – Introduction, Part 1 2 External history of Armenian . When the Armenians enter history in the middle of the 1st millennium BC, they are settled in the highlands of eastern Anatolia and the southern Caucasus. During the later 1st millennium AD, Armenian communities spread south and west along the Byzantine-Arab frontier, reaching the Mediterranean in Cilicia (now in southeastern Turkey). Classical Armenian – Introduction, Part 1 3 External history of Armenian . Armenians have also been present for centuries in • Iran (e.g. Tabriz, Tehran) and • the Levant (e.g. Jerusalem); • throughout Anatolia (e.g. Constantinople/Istanbul) and • the Caucasus (e.g. Tiflis/Tbilisi); • in Crimea; • and in Eastern Europe (Romania, Poland). Classical Armenian – Introduction, Part 1 4 Historical Armenian lands Map by Peter Z. Mahakian, http://diocesanministries.us/get-involved/armenian-genocide-centennial/banners/ 5 Modern Armenia and its neighbors Periodization: Old and Middle Armenian . Old or Classical Armenian: grabar “(classical) written language” of the Bible and other works of the oskedar “Golden Age” (5th-6th c. AD) . Standardized, no detectable dialectal variation (possibly t‘aršamim vs. t‘aṙamim ‘wither’, with different outcomes of the cluster *rs) . Middle Armenian: best known from the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia (1198-1375 AD), whose society and culture was much influenced by the Western Crusaders. Classical Armenian – Introduction, Part 1 7 Major centers of ancient Armenia Classical Armenian – Introduction, Part 1 8 Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia, 1198–1375 Map by Sémhur, https://commons.wikimedia.org/ wiki/File:Cilician_Armenia-en.svg CC BY-SA 4.0 Classical Armenian – Introduction, Part 1 9 Periodization: Modern Armenian .
[Show full text]