Iranian Syntax In Classical Armenian

This is an open access title available under the terms of a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International licence. It is free to read at Oxford Academic and offered as a free PDF download from OUP and selected open access locations. This book draws on a detailed corpus analysis of fifth-century historiographical texts to explore the influence of the Iranian languages on the syntax of Armenian. While contact between the Iranian languages - particularly Parthian - and Armenian has been a fertile field of research for several decades, its effects on syntax have to date been somewhat neglected. Here, Robin Meyer argues that the Armenian periphrastic perfect construction with its unusual morphosyntactic alignment was created on the model of similar constructions in Parthian, along with a number of other syntagms. Unlike previous accounts, the language contact model presented in this book can explain all the idiosyncrasies of the construction, as well as its diachronic developments. The study also offers new insights into the historical social dynamics between Armenian and Parthian speakers, and suggests that the Parthians, who were the ruling class in the Armenian Kingdom for almost four centuries, eventually abandoned their native language.

This book draws on a detailed corpus analysis of fifth-century historiographical texts to explore the influence of the Iranian languages on the syntax of Armenian. Robin Meyer argues that the Armenian periphrastic perfect was created on the model of similar constructions in Parthian via a long period of language contact.

Iranian Armenian is the variety of spoken Armenian that was developed by Armenians in Tehran, Iran over the last few centuries. It has a substantial community of speakers in California. This variety or lect is called “Persian Armenian” [pɒɻskɒhɒjeɻen] or “Iranian Armenian” [iɻɒnɒhɒjeɻen] by members of the community. The present book is not a comprehensive grammar of the language. It occupies a gray zone between being a simple sketch versus a sizable grammar. We attempt to clarify the basic aspects of the language, such as its phoneme inventory, noticeable morphophonological processes, various inflectional paradigms, and some peculiar aspects of its syntax. We likewise provide a sample text of Iranian Armenian speech. Many aspects of this variety seem to be identical to Standard Eastern Armenian (SEA), so we tried to focus more on those aspects of Iranian Armenian which differ from SEA. The phonology has developed new phonemes and intonational contours due to contact with Persian. The morphophonology has grammaticalized allomorphic patterns that are phonosyntactic, meaning they reference syntactic information. Nominal morphology is largely identical to SEA but with some simplification of irregular processes. Verbal morphology is similar to SEA, but with major innovations in the aorist paradigm. The aorist or past perfective paradigm has undergone a change whereby irregular patterns have been reanalyzed as regular patterns. The syntax is largely the same as SEA, but with innovations due to contact with Persian, such as object clitics and the use of resumptive pronouns.

The author is particularly interested in comparative and historical research on Armenian as an Indo-European language. This "Introduction" consists of two parts. The first one describes the phonological and morphological system of Classical Armenian with the purpose of setting off its characteristic features, not of dwelling on such details as can be found in any good grammar book. The second part is comparative and historical. besides the best ascertained facts, it includes disscussions on controversial issues, as well as some new insights in histroical morphology.

Iranian Armenian is the variety of spoken Armenian that was developed by Armenians in Tehran, Iran over the last few centuries. It has a substantial community of speakers in California. This variety or lect is called “Persian Armenian” [pɒɻskɒhɒjeɻen] or “Iranian Armenian” [iɻɒnɒhɒjeɻen] by members of the community. The present book is not a comprehensive grammar of the language. It occupies a gray zone between being a simple sketch versus a sizable grammar. We attempt to clarify the basic aspects of the language, such as its phoneme inventory, noticeable morphophonological processes, various inflectional paradigms, and some peculiar aspects of its syntax. We likewise provide a sample text of Iranian Armenian speech. Many aspects of this variety seem to be identical to Standard Eastern Armenian (SEA), so we tried to focus more on those aspects of Iranian Armenian which differ from SEA. The phonology has developed new phonemes and intonational contours due to contact with Persian. The morphophonology has grammaticalized allomorphic patterns that are phonosyntactic, meaning they reference syntactic information. Nominal morphology is largely identical to SEA but with some simplification of irregular processes. Verbal morphology is similar to SEA, but with major innovations in the aorist paradigm. The aorist or past perfective paradigm has undergone a change whereby irregular patterns have been reanalyzed as regular patterns. The syntax is largely the same as SEA, but with innovations due to contact with Persian, such as object clitics and the use of resumptive pronouns.

Byzantium is more and more recognized as a vibrant culture in dialogue with neighbouring regions, political entities, and peoples. Where better to look for this kind of dynamism than in the interactions between the Byzantines and the Armenians? Warfare and diplomacy are only one part of that story. The more enduring part consists of contact and mutual influence brokered by individuals who were conversant in both cultures and languages. The articles in this volume feature fresh work by younger and established scholars that illustrate the varieties of interaction in the fields of literature, material culture, and religion. Contributors are: Gert Boersema, Emilio Bonfiglio, Bernard Coulie, Karen Hamada, Robin Meyer, Johannes Preiser-Kapeller, Claudia Rapp, Mark Roosien, Werner Seibt, Emmanuel Van Elverdinghe, Theo Maarten van Lint, Alexandra-Kyriaki Wassiliou-Seibt, and David Zakarian.

In the historical development of many languages of the IE phylum the loss of inflectional morphology led to the development of a configurational syntax, where syntactic position marked syntactic role. The first of these configurations was the adposition (preposition or postposition), which developed out of the uninflected particle/preverbs in the older forms of IE, by forming fixed phrases with nominal elements, a pattern later followed in the development of a configurational NP (article + nominal) and VP (auxiliary + verbal). The authors follow this evolution through almost four thousand years of documentation in all twelve language families of the Indo-European phylum, noting the resemblances between the structure of the original IE case system and the systemic oppositions to be found in the sets of adpositions that replaced it. Quite apart from its theoretical analyses and proposals which in themselves amount to a new look at many traditional problems, this study has a value in the collected store of information on cases, and on adpositions and their usage. There is also a considerable store of etymological information that is relevant to the description of the systemic development.