Dating an armenian woman
Furthermore, it should be emphasized that these borrowings were not limited to the vocabulary but also involve derivational suffixes, phraseology, and all kinds of names, and that they are from the beginning of the Armenian literary tradition inextricably mixed with the inherited vocabulary of IE. (For the political, social, cultural, and religious contacts between Iran, Armenia, and Georgia see most recently Lang, 1983.) 2. Armenian word forms are close to or even identical with Iranian and especially NPers. languages themselves, e.g.: -; see Benveniste, 1957/58, pp. In every investigation of these questions one must bear in mind, however, that individual cases either may not be so clearcut on the Iranian side because the Ir. 25-29) thought she had found the key to its characterization in older Aramaic inscriptions from the region, particularly in that of King Artašês/Artaxias (189-160 B. characteristics of which a limited number can be established for the Old Iranian period (see Périkhanian herself, 1966, p. Most striking is the fact that a number of words known only from Sogdian were borrowed into Armenian (see Bolognesi, 1966, pp. No definitive proof has been found but it is plausible to assume that the words in question may have been East Iranian words that entered Armenian via Parthian. But matters are clearest in the case of some borrowings from Greek, in particular with the older ones, which were taken over in the period before the complete Christianization of Armenia. Formerly it was thought that the borrowings in the first group go back to a period when the original final syllables had not yet disappeared. Such an assumption would entail that the so-called (older) Arm. A chronological dilemma is brought about by treating as morphologically late such group 2 forms which phonological criteria prove to be archaic borrowings. Such words or compositional elements are partly also in independent use in Arm., as is the case with - “lord, chief.” The extremely large number of these formations (collected, classified, and interpreted in detail by Leroy, 1960 and Benveniste, 1961 ) is clear evidence of the profound influence of the Arsacid and Sasanian feudal aristocracy and military on Armenia. suffixes that were true suffixes from the beginning and have gained great vitality and productivity in Arm. Conclusive evidence of the strong influence of the foreign Iranian culture and languages on Armenia and Armenian is also afforded by the loan translations, of which a steadily increasing number has been identified. On the one hand we find a great many names of Arsacid or Sasanian kings and queens, princes and princesses, generals and notables of various kinds which refer exclusively to Iran proper and to Iranian matters but just happen to occur in Armenian texts and are therefore virtually on the same level as the Ir. Schmitt, “Iranische Namenschichten und Namentypen bei altarmenischen Historikern,” , N.
forms in so many cases that the particular connection between the two languages could not escape the notice of scholars even at the beginning of modern Armenological studies. transmission is in parts very fragmentary, or on the whole be more complicated because of borrowings between different Iranian dialects. This complication of the Iranian situation calls for a more comprehensive view in order to assess the Armenian borrowings, which means that one must take into account all available data rather than discuss specific criteria in isolation. The confusion described above is compounded by additional factors. That Parthian played the part of such an intermediary must be assumed also in other instances. Even the general historical situation would lead us to expect that Greek words would have come to Armenia through the Parthian empire since Greek was the cultural language of the Parthians, who were Hellenized to some extent at least in their upper classes. This view seems to have been first expounded by Meillet, 1911/12, p. 149, and it was repeated subsequently in several manuals although it was never based on a close investigation of the problem, relying mainly on certain cases of agreement between Arm. “Law of final syllables,” according to which the vowel of the originally final syllable of a word and this syllable itself disappear, would have operated only in the Arsacid period at roughly the same time as the analogous phenomenon in Western Mid. It is true that a number of such correspondences are found but they can not be considered apart from the many seemingly archaic borrowings whose antiquity is guaranteed by phonological features (e.g. The only way out of the dilemma seems to be the one proposed by Bolognesi, 1954, p. Prefixes that are of frequent occurrence and thus often allow a borrowing to be identified by way of cumulative evidence are: -: no longer productive in Arm. are, among many others, the following: --formations so characteristic of some of the younger Ir. Many phrases composed only of Armenian words were in fact modeled on Iranian expressions. It is of course much more difficult to detect instances of loan translation than loanwords so that there remains much scope for future research in this field. In Armenian literature we find from the very beginning in the fifth century A. a very large number of Iranian proper names, especially personal names. collateral tradition in Greek, Aramaic, Elamite sources, etc. Leroy, “Emprunts iraniens dans la composition nominale en arménien classique,” ibid., pp.
Even this brief sketch of the historical background shows that the relations between Armenia and Iran were often very strained, especially during the golden ages of Iran under the Achaemenid and Sasanian dynasties. A selection of these early Iranian words in Armenian is organized in groups to indicate the Iranian penetration. Later than these older loanwords many of the more recent post-Sasanian and modern Persian words are found in the Armenian authors.
Moreover, it shows that conditions favorable to a fruitful cultural interchange between Armenians and Iranians existed almost exclusively during the rule of the Arsacids over Armenia before the Christianization of Armenia. Henning, who in 1963 had assigned those words containing the group ) to Median. Since there were never direct connections between Armenians and Sogdians it is impossible to envisage Sogdian loanwords in Armenian. Such words are however well known in later stages of Persian and are of less interest for the old Iranian vocabulary.
However, such words were not at first recognized as borrowings, and as a result, in the mid-19th century experts both in Armenian and in Iranian, foremost among whom were Paul de Lagarde and F. reflecting the enormous progress that has been made since the turn of the century has become more and more pressing for both disciplines concerned, especially since H. Ačaṟyan, (Armenian etymological dictionary) 4 vols., Erevan, 1971-1979 (first mimeographed edition 1926-1935), is unreliable as far as the Iranian evidence is concerned. dialectological characteristics, as far as they are reflected in Arm. They shed light on the phonetic developments that took place in the Ir. They provide evidence relating to Ir., and especially Mid. As is well known, there are in the basically Southwest-Ir. elements, incorporated mainly in Arsacid times, and on the other hand also a certain number of Southwest-Ir. dialects from Sasanian times, as in the case of Man. In this respect the book by Bolognesi, 1960, where all the most important dialectological features reflected in Armenian are discussed in great detail, is in every way a model. 24 established a connection of this phenomenon with the Iranian southwest, Benveniste, 1964, p. A third position was adopted by Périkhanian, 1968, pp. Thus, the Parthians came into close contact with the Armenians only after having spread over Northwest Iran in the second half of the second century B. They thus contributed much to the extinction of the old “Median” or “Atropatenian” dialect spoken there, a dialect apparently closely related to their own language. Most obvious is the case of Indian or Aramaic/Syriac words. Such indirect borrowing of Greek words via Parthian often can not be established unambiguously (as e.g. 124, that these cases of coincidence between the Arm. stem classes are to be explained as restored from derivatives or compounds in which the stem vowel could have been readily preserved. borrowed those forms when their final syllables had already been shortened in Ir., that is, in their typically Mid. form, and that the loss of the final syllables seen in the Arm. This process depended for its success on widespread bilingualism. influence have been brought to light only in recent times, mainly by Bolognesi (see Bolognesi, 1961; 1962a; 1966, pp. On the other hand, however, there are those names of Ir. studies as well, since they have become fully integrated within the Arm. The borrowing of personal names of foreign origin from other peoples is always conditioned by cultural matters and based upon something like an onomastic fashion.
, appear only exceptionally in words inherited from IE. letters are here transliterated according to the system proposed by Schmitt, 1972: a b g d e z ê ə ṭʿ ž i l x c k h j ł č m y n š o čʿ p ǰ ṟ s v t r cʿ w pʿ kʿ ô f, and the digraph ow for [u]. In ancient times the name “Armenia” designated the entire highland, which in spite of all political and historical changes in the course of time such as the temporary separation of certain districts or even the complete disintegration of the country, was defined by the Taurus mountains in the south, the upper Euphrates River in the west, the Caucasus mountains in the north, and Media Atropatene, the modern Azerbaijan in the east. simply placed on the Armenian throne his younger brother Tiridates (Trdat) I, who had been acknowledged by the Romans in the treaty of Rhandeia in 63 and who had finally been crowned by Emperor Nero himself in 66 A. For several centuries thereafter Armenia was ruled by a Parthian aristocracy, who exerted considerable influence.Apart from interruptions of varying duration Armenian was to bear the yoke of the respective Iranian leading power for more than a thousand years, for after the Medes followed the Persian Achaemenids (550-330 B. Licinius Lucullus had marched against Tigranes during the third Mithridatian War and this king had submitted himself to Pompeius in 66 B. The Roman protectorate was followed by the rule of a younger line of the Parthian Arsacids (Arm. D.), until the Armenian apple of discord was finally divided between Romans and Sasanians in 387 A. Bailey) Originally Published: December 15, 1986 Last Updated: August 12, 2011 This article is available in print. In the clip, Khloe seductively tugged at her white sweatpants to show off her plunging black bodysuit. 'How sick does my #GOODSQUAD look in their brand new @goodamerican GOOD SWEATS!?