Eastern Armenian-western Armenian

[Johannes]

Ուրախ եմ

 

Ուրախ եմ, որովհետեւ լեզուի բաժինի մասնակիցները շատցած են, որովհետեւ մեր լեզուն, մեր մշակոյթը ամէնաթեժ նիւթերէն մէկը դարձաւ, վէրջին 1-2 ամիսներու ընթացքին: Օր եղաւ, որ մի քանի «topic», «today» ժամանակացոյցը ուներ:

 

Կար ժամանակ երբ՝ երկու երեք հոգիով կը զրուցէինք: Կար ժամանակ երբ՝ յօդուածները կարդացող ունէին, բայց ոչ պատասխանող:

 

Ապրի՛ք ընկերներ, անդամներ: Լաւ կամ վատ. գրեցէ՛ք, հայերէն գրեցէ՛ք:

 

Ուստի, կը կարծեմ թէ հայ ֆորումը հետզհետէ աւելի ու աւելի...կը ներէք՝ կը հայանայ:

 

Այնչա՜փ ուրախ եմ, որ արդէն մի քանի տարի ամերիկա ապրած, նոյնիսկ ամերիկա ծնած տղաք կը գրեն, կը վիճին հայերէնով՝ հայերէնի եւ մեր մշակոյթի մասին:

 

Ժողովուրդ, հայերէնը միակն է որ մեր սեփականն է: Իւրաքանչիւր հայերէն բառ, որ կը սորվինք, իւրաքանչիւր հայերէն տող, որ կը գրենք. սեղմուած փամփուշտ է ցեղասպանի սիրտին:

 

 

[SAS]

Վահան,

 

իհարկե կարելի է, օրինակ, Տերյանին համարել անգրագետ,

 

Տառապանքը ՔԵԶ հետ քաղցր հուշ, և խոսքերը խորհուրդ կդառնան

Կհագնեն ուրիշ փայլ:

 

Անհայտության մեջ, խավար օրերում եկավ նա ինձ մոտ

 

Ինձ համար չկա ժամ ու ժամանակ,

Ես մի մոլորված, մի տխուր ասուպ

 

կամ Սիամանթոյին

 

Ու ո՜չ ալ դողդոջ երգ մը, քեզի համար, իմ հազարածուփ քնարես

 

Եվ քեզի համար, այդտե՛ղ է, որ այսուհետև կոթողները Փառքին,

Մարմար առ մարմար սերունդիդ ձեռքերովը պիտի բարձրանան

 

համարել սխալ գրաբարը(Արտավազդի խոսքը հորը: Ընդ նախդիրը տրականի հետ օգտագործելիս նշանակում է՝ հետ

 

Մինչ դու գնացեր

Եւ զերկինս ամենայն ընդ ՔԵԶ տարար

Ես աւերակացս որպե՞ս թագաւորեմ

 

բարբառները՝

 

Մին հպարապ օր Մեկիքը Պուղուն հրցնում ա.

- Ա, Պուղ՛ եշխերքս մարթը կընի շատ, թա՝ կնեգը:

-Կնեգը:

-Հինչ գյըդացեր:

-Կնանեքը լհա կնանեք, մարթ կա կնգանա բեթար ա, նահանց էլ ըմ հաշև անում:

- Բյալի ընձ էլ ը՞ս հաշև անում կնանուցը ջարգյումը:

-Մելիքն ապրած կենա, քըզ նմաններին վեչ կնանուցը շարքումն ըմ հաշև անում, վեչ տղամարթունցը:

 

և այլն:

 

Բայց մի վայրկյան խորհիր հետևյալ նախադասության վրա.

 

Մոտ արի ինձ = ինձ մոտ արի = արի ինձ մոտ

 

Բայց երբեք չես կարող ասել «մոտ արի իմ»:Ինչպես գեներալի կինն էր ասում «Պեպո» ֆիլմում՝ «նյե զվուչիտ(չի հնչում)»

 

Ի միջի այլոց, բացի դպրոցական դասագրքերից կան նաև ուրիշ գրքեր, որտեղ սևով սպիտակի վրա գրված է.

 

Մոտ, վրա, պես, համար, նման, չափ կապական բառերի հետ գործածվելիս առաջին և երկրորդ դեմքի անձնական դերաննունները դրվում են ՏՐԱԿԱՆ հոլովով:

 

Ինձ\Քեզ (տր.) համար էլ ջուր բեր = Ինձ\Քեզ(տր.) էլ ջուր բեր: Գուցե սխալվում եմ և պետք է լինի «իմ էլ ջուր բեր»

 

[vahan79]

If you would be so kind and remove that Turkish ear plug and listen, by now you would have known how Mashtots spoke.

He invented Պ to sound like the Greek Pi, but those deafened illiterates, just like youknowwho in Istanbul, when they saw the letter they erroneously read it as B/Բ as in Bolis/Polis, and they wrote Baronian/Բարոնեան as Պարոնեան.

Փ This letter was designed to sound like the Greek PHI as in “philosophy/pharos/փիղ/Ֆիղ. But those idiots in Kilikia who did not know the Mesropian phonology had to imports the F from French.. It seems like Armenians had a problem with the sound F, just like many other people still do. Some Indians cannot pronounce F or V, they will pronoune “five” as “pibe”.

Բwas invented to sound like Beta as in Bartholomew/ԲարթողոմեոսԲարեւ Barevw not Parev/ Պարեվ

Տ was invented to sound like the Greek Tau as Troy/Տրովադա not Թրովադա

Թ This Was invented to sound like the Greek Theta as in “theory”. The reason why we write Թովմաս Թադտեոս

Դ this was invented to sound lie the Greek/Latin D/Delta so we can write Դանիէլ not Taniel/Թանիէլ

 

And, if you are so deaf and blind , I have nothing to add. Please see an audiologist and an oculist.

Now, the question is, as it was posed by Ohannes, why did հէ devise the Ծ and the Ճ, if the latter would be pronounceդ as J in western and Ch in eastern, and the former as DZ/Ձ v TS/Ց

Was Mesrop an Hellenophile/Europhile? Noy only he was, he was not ashamed of it, neither did he apoplogize.

We have spoken baout that on numerous occasions as to why he chose the Greek style of detached letters as opposed to Semitic- linked, why he chose left to write as opposed to other oriental ones of right to left.

 

(1) left to write! and you criticize using "Դ" instead of "Թ" for "yertal"?

 

(2) I think this theory is an interesting one, though I'm not sure if it really holds up. It could just be that those sounds (ph, th, etc.) didn't exist in Armenian (as they don't now, except for loan words where they use "fe"), so "Թովմաս Թադտեոս" might be approximations of how to pronounce loan words in Armenian.

 

(3) How do you explain the extra letters? Greek only has 24 letters, so how do you explain all the extra letters if you can't by reference to Greek?

 

(4) So, do you really go around pronouncing your name as "Arpha"?

 

 

 

 

[nairi]

Okay, I'll accept your speculation in this case, as truly I am not sure which is the most correct. All I know is that the standard wisdom is that "im" and not "indz" is considered to be the proper form in EA (I can't speak for "certain grammarians").

 

No school in Armenia would teach you that it is "im mot," for the reasons that I pointed above.

 

But let me point out something. I was in no one implying that someone in English would say "my near." I was simply giving the literal translation. What you miss is that it is possible that in Armenian, prepositions/postpositions are conceptualized as "spaces" (noun-like) rather than as descriptors. Thus, to an Armenian ear "my near" makes sense because it is an area. The fact remains that BOTH are used.

 

Yes, both are used. But that does not make both grammatically logical. In EA, at least, no literate person would use "im mot," unless they were imitating street slang or dialect.

 

What still doesn't feel right is that the postpositions take post positions. I mean, why is it "seghani vra" and not "vra seghani".

 

Because Armenian is one of the many languages of the world that has taken a preference for postpositions instead of prepositions. Grammatically, this should make no difference.

 

It seems that if it were any case other than genitive/possessive, it would be the other way around. Anyway, it seems like things like this should be well-settled, not up for speculation....

 

This is not speculation. It's an argumentation that apparently makes more sense for grammarians in Armenia than the plea for "im mot."

 

As a side note, Armeniapedia says this:

 

Prepositions and postpositions in the Armenian language rule over genitive, dative and accusative cases.

 

1. With genitive case are used the following postpositions: ????? without, ??? on, ??? near, ??? under, ????? round, ??? in, ????? for, ??? with, ??? like, ????? in connection with, ??????? thanks to, ?????????? about (concerning), and others. E.g., ?????? ??? near the table, ???? ??? under the tree, ??????? ??? in the room, ???? ??? on the tree, ??????? ??? with the child, ???? ????? in connection with the holiday, etc.

 

Of course the author of Wiki would draw this conclusion, because he bases his argument on nouns, and not pronouns. I think he might run into a few problems if he would begin to replace the nouns with pronouns.

 

(Note: apologies for the question marks. I'm having trouble posting in Armenian.)

[nairi]

(2)

 

But, this leads me to point two. You keep missing the point about "gor." You ask why WA can't just have one present tense form like EA does, that is, if it works for EA why can't it work for WA. But doesn't that miss the point? Shouldn't YOU have to prove why we shouldn't use "gor" in WA? Is the burden not on you and Arpa, etc. to convince US that we should alter the natural version of spoken WA? Indeed, it is. You will fail though, because there is not good reason to change the language now! In fact, changing it to be "gor-less" will not make it easier to understand as you have posited. We are ALL used to "gor" in WA, changing it will be artificial and awkward, and to what end? To please you? Arpa?

 

I never said you should stop using "gor." I just don't see why you would not strive to speak an Armenian that is literate, rather than colloquial, especially when you are communicating with speakers of other Armenian dialects. I have enough respect to try to speak standard EA, no matter how difficult, when I bump into a WA-speaker or another EA-speaker. It just makes communication easier, because I'm fairly sure that if I broke down to my heavy Jughai dialect, you probably wouldn't understand a word of it. Why do it then?

[Shahan Araradian]

I never said you should stop using "gor." I just don't see why you would not strive to speak an Armenian that is literate, rather than colloquial, especially when you are communicating with speakers of other Armenian dialects. I have enough respect to try to speak standard EA, no matter how difficult, when I bump into a WA-speaker or another EA-speaker. It just makes communication easier, because I'm fairly sure that if I broke down to my heavy Jughai dialect, you probably wouldn't understand a word of it. Why do it then?

Նայիրի, what has been standardized into Eastern Armenian or Western Armenia is a "colloquial" dialect -- in EA's case that of the Ararad region of Russian Armenia, and in WA's case that of the Constantinople of Ottoman Armenia.

 

We argue that "-gor" has legitimate usage and has been left out of "standard" Western Armenian for dubious, illogical reasons. I have YET to encounter a logical argument against its usage. As we have shown above, there is no other way to distinguish between a simple present and a continuous present form of a verb in Western Armenian.

 

I don't know in detail what the situation is for Eastern Armenian, but based on the above and my conversations with an EA speaker from Iran, there's no way to express a continuous present form of a verb in EA -- not even by using a colloquial "hack".

Edited May 29, 2007 by Shahan Araradian

[vahan79]

Վահան,

 

իհարկե կարելի է, օրինակ, Տերյանին համարել անգրագետ,

 

Տառապանքը ՔԵԶ հետ քաղցր հուշ, և խոսքերը խորհուրդ կդառնան

Կհագնեն ուրիշ փայլ:

 

Անհայտության մեջ, խավար օրերում եկավ նա ինձ մոտ

 

Ինձ համար չկա ժամ ու ժամանակ,

Ես մի մոլորված, մի տխուր ասուպ

 

կամ Սիամանթոյին

 

Ու ո՜չ ալ դողդոջ երգ մը, քեզի համար, իմ հազարածուփ քնարես

 

Եվ քեզի համար, այդտե՛ղ է, որ այսուհետև կոթողները Փառքին,

Մարմար առ մարմար սերունդիդ ձեռքերովը պիտի բարձրանան

 

համարել սխալ գրաբարը(Արտավազդի խոսքը հորը: Ընդ նախդիրը տրականի հետ օգտագործելիս նշանակում է՝ հետ

 

Մինչ դու գնացեր

Եւ զերկինս ամենայն ընդ ՔԵԶ տարար

Ես աւերակացս որպե՞ս թագաւորեմ

 

բարբառները՝

 

Մին հպարապ օր Մեկիքը Պուղուն հրցնում ա.

- Ա, Պուղ՛ եշխերքս մարթը կընի շատ, թա՝ կնեգը:

-Կնեգը:

-Հինչ գյըդացեր:

-Կնանեքը լհա կնանեք, մարթ կա կնգանա բեթար ա, նահանց էլ ըմ հաշև անում:

- Բյալի ընձ էլ ը՞ս հաշև անում կնանուցը ջարգյումը:

-Մելիքն ապրած կենա, քըզ նմաններին վեչ կնանուցը շարքումն ըմ հաշև անում, վեչ տղամարթունցը:

 

և այլն:

 

Բայց մի վայրկյան խորհիր հետևյալ նախադասության վրա.

 

Մոտ արի ինձ = ինձ մոտ արի = արի ինձ մոտ

 

Բայց երբեք չես կարող ասել «մոտ արի իմ»:Ինչպես գեներալի կինն էր ասում «Պեպո» ֆիլմում՝ «նյե զվուչիտ(չի հնչում)»

 

Ի միջի այլոց, բացի դպրոցական դասագրքերից կան նաև ուրիշ գրքեր, որտեղ սևով սպիտակի վրա գրված է.

 

Մոտ, վրա, պես, համար, նման, չափ կապական բառերի հետ գործածվելիս առաջին և երկրորդ դեմքի անձնական դերաննունները դրվում են ՏՐԱԿԱՆ հոլովով:

 

Ինձ\Քեզ (տր.) համար էլ ջուր բեր = Ինձ\Քեզ(տր.) էլ ջուր բեր: Գուցե սխալվում եմ և պետք է լինի «իմ էլ ջուր բեր»

 

Thanks, but I'm not sure that persuades me one way or the other...

 

[Sassun]

I did not read this whole thread, but can someone tell me why people always say we must not use 'gor '?

 

My Armenian teacher in elementary school used to always tell us that 'gor' is Turkish expression and so we must not use it. Is it true, or she was bluffing to make us not use it?

[nairi]

As we have shown above, there is no other way to distinguish between a simple present and a continuous present form of a verb in Western Armenian.

 

Because there is no difference between simple and continuous in Armenian, East or West! It's an artificial difference that you wish to make when there is absolutely no necessity for it.

[Shahan Araradian]

Because there is no difference between simple and continuous in Armenian, East or West!

Yes there is! That's why the "gor" suffix exists (at least in WA)!!

 

It's an artificial difference that you wish to make when there is absolutely no necessity for it.

You can't fight nature. There is a NEED for expressing "I am walking" (present continuous) over "I walk" (simple present): «ես կը քալեմկոր» and «ես կը քալեմ», respectively. That's why Western Armenian has EVOLVED the "gor" suffix to be able to express this thought.

 

And that's exactly why English has an "-ing" suffix -- so that you can express continuous present.

 

One should be able to express any thought in any language. Hence, "-gor".

 

Evolution is GOOD.

Edited May 29, 2007 by Shahan Araradian

[vahan79]

I never said you should stop using "gor." I just don't see why you would not strive to speak an Armenian that is literate, rather than colloquial, especially when you are communicating with speakers of other Armenian dialects. I have enough respect to try to speak standard EA, no matter how difficult, when I bump into a WA-speaker or another EA-speaker. It just makes communication easier, because I'm fairly sure that if I broke down to my heavy Jughai dialect, you probably wouldn't understand a word of it. Why do it then?

 

"Gor" is used in standard spoken WA. All EA speakers know about it and it doesn't distract from EA speakers understanding of it, so there is no reason to make that kind of effort.

 

I see what you mean though in cases where it is hard to understand or where using a different word or something will make communication easier. But that is just personal choice. For instance, when I speak to both of my parents (one is EA, one is WA), I use words that I know both have, like "jermak" instead of "spitak." But that is something I personally have developed from my household which is why when I speak EA, more WA speakers can understand me than when my cousins speak EA.

 

As for your local accent, you are right...but in general, parskahayeren is usually not hard to understand, just painful. (just kidding...)

 

Anyway, I don't think any of this matters much. I will speak in Artsakh dialect from now on...

 

Lyokh lav a...

 

[vahan79]

No school in Armenia would teach you that it is "im mot," for the reasons that I pointed above.

Yes, both are used. But that does not make both grammatically logical. In EA, at least, no literate person would use "im mot," unless they were imitating street slang or dialect.

Because Armenian is one of the many languages of the world that has taken a preference for postpositions instead of prepositions. Grammatically, this should make no difference.

This is not speculation. It's an argumentation that apparently makes more sense for grammarians in Armenia than the plea for "im mot."

Of course the author of Wiki would draw this conclusion, because he bases his argument on nouns, and not pronouns. I think he might run into a few problems if he would begin to replace the nouns with pronouns.

 

(Note: apologies for the question marks. I'm having trouble posting in Armenian.)

 

What are you basing this on? I think you are right, but you have it backwards. Everyone says "indz," using "im" is not slang. I've had this discussion with Kevork Bardakjian who is a scholar and linguist of Armenian language and I think he is the one that told me that "im" was the correct version.

 

In any event, I don't care. Both are widely used, so both are "right" in my book...

[vahan79]

Okay, so I did a quick google search:

 

"քեզ հետ"gets 2,350 hits

"քո հետ" gets 524

 

Interestingly:

"քու հետ" gets 5 hits (used in Eastern Armenian, though)

"քեզի հետ" gets 226 hits

 

Also, interestingly, on this forum քո հետ was used:

 

(1) By Johannes when he said: "Համաձայն եմ քո հետ" (http://hyeforum.com/index.php?showtopic=14450&pid=188965&mode=threaded&show=&st=&)

(2) In Harut's post in "literature" of the "ՀԱՅՈՑ ԱՆՈՒՆՆԵՐԸ" (http://hyeforum.com/index.php?showtopic=9113&pid=128356&mode=threaded&show=&st=&)

 

Okay, I am done with this topic. Back to arguing "gor"....

 

 

 

 

 

[Sassun]

Yes there is! That's why the "gor" suffix exists (at least in WA)!!

You can't fight nature. There is a NEED for expressing "I am walking" (present continuous) over "I walk" (simple present): «ես կը քալեմկոր» and «ես կը քալեմ», respectively. That's why Western Armenian has EVOLVED the "gor" suffix to be able to express this thought.

 

And that's exactly why English has an "-ing" suffix -- so that you can express continuous present.

 

One should be able to express any thought in any language. Hence, "-gor".

 

Evolution is GOOD.

Yeah, I agree. It doesn't feel 'right' to say Կը քալեմ when you mean to say "I am walking". I have tried not using the 'gor' before and it just didn't feel right and confused me.

[nairi]

Yes there is! That's why the "gor" suffix exists (at least in WA)!!

 

This is your typical "yes, it is-no, it isn't"-type of discussion, which I'd rather stop being a part of. I still stand by my point that Armenian, East or West, does not need to distinguish between simple and continuous the way English does, because both simple and continuous can be expressed with one form in Armenian. I already know your answer to this, so you don't need to respond.

[Shahan Araradian]

This is your typical "yes, it is-no, it isn't"-type of discussion, which I'd rather stop being a part of. I still stand by my point that Armenian, East or West, does not need to distinguish between simple and continuous the way English does, because both simple and continuous can be expressed with one form in Armenian. I already know your answer to this, so you don't need to respond.

What you can express in one language, you should be able to express in another.

[nairi]

What you can express in one language, you should be able to express in another.

 

Really?

[Gor-Gor]

This is your typical "yes, it is-no, it isn't"-type of discussion, which I'd rather stop being a part of. I still stand by my point that Armenian, East or West, does not need to distinguish between simple and continuous the way English does, because both simple and continuous can be expressed with one form in Armenian. I already know your answer to this, so you don't need to respond.

 

This argument makes no sense; it is circular. That's like saying "If we remove the '-ing' formation from English, then we will not need it anymore. Therefore, we should remove it."

 

Further, I don't understand what it is exactly that you mean when you a say a language does or does not "need" to distinguish between the present and present continuous forms. It is not a matter of necessity. English can also get rid of "-ing" and express present continuous by adding modifying words near the verb (eg, "I am walking" becomes "I walk now") -- and hence, according to you, English will not longer "need" the "-ing" suffix. Does this mean we should do away with "-ing"?

 

No, it's a matter of the ability to express yourself easily. Western Armenians have created/adapted a special form to be able to express the present continuous form. Eastern Armenian has not. Big deal. Much in the same way that Eastern Armenian has a created/adapted seventh case for nouns (the locative "oom" case), whereas Western Armenians have to use additional words (such as "mech" or "vra") to convey the same meaning.

[nairi]

Ironically, Gor, you are supporting a theory that Shahan made up about "gor" representing the present continuous in WA. Unless you can show me otherwise, as far as I'm concerned, "gor" is used in numerous other contexts that have nothing to do with the present tense or the continuous form.

 

Now, how would you translate: "Na g@ qayle gor"?

[Gor-Gor]

Ironically, Gor, you are supporting a theory that Shahan made up about "gor" representing the present continuous in WA. Unless you can show me otherwise, as far as I'm concerned, "gor" is used in numerous other contexts that have nothing to do with the present tense or the continuous form.

 

Now, how would you translate: "Na g@ qayle gor"?

 

I'm not sure what you mean. Where is the irony? What other contexts is it used in (besides past imperfect)? And what does that have to do with anything?

 

I'm not sure what you would like me to translate that into (as it is not WA). In Western Armenian, "na" becomes "an" and "kayle" becomes "kale." In English, it would be "He [or she] is walking."

 

I remain confused.

Edited May 29, 2007 by Gor-Gor

[vartahoor]

"քեզ հետ"gets 2,350 hits

"քո հետ" gets 524

Interestingly:

"քու հետ" gets 5 hits (used in Eastern Armenian, though)

"քեզի հետ" gets 226 hits

ԴԵՐԱՆՈՒՆՆԵՐԻ ՀՈԼՈՎՈՒՄԸ

 

Ինչպէս անունները դերանուններն էլ հոլովւում են:

 

ԱՆՁՆԱԿԱՆ ԴԵՐԱՆՈՒՆՆԵՐԻ ՀՈԼՈՎՈՒՄԸ

 

Ե զ ա կ ի

 

Ուղ. ես, ինքս դու, ինքդ նա, ինքը

Սեռ. իմ քո նրա

Տր. ինձ քեզ նրան, իրեն

Հայց. ինձ քեզ նրան, իրեն

Բաց. ինձնից, իձանից քեզնից, քեզանից նրանից, իրենից

Գործ. ինձնով, ինձանով քեզնով, քեզանով նրանվ, իրենով

Ներգ. ինձնում, ինձանում քեզնում, քեզանում նրանում, իրենում

 

Յ ո գ ն ա կ ի

 

Ուղ. մենք, ինքներս դուք, ինքներդ նրանք, իրենք

Սեռ. մեր ձեր նրանց, երենց

Տր. մեզ ձեզ նրանց, իրենց

Հայց. մեզ ձեզ նրանց, իրենց

Բաց. մեզնից, մեզանից ձեզնից, ձեզանից նրանցից, իրենցից

Գործ. մեզնով, մեզանով ձեզնով, ձեզանով նրանցով, իրենցով

Ներգ. մեզնում, մեզանում ձեզնում, ձեզանում նրանցում, իրենցում

 

ՑՈՒՑԱԿԱՆ ԴԵՐԱՆՈՒՆՆԵՐԻ ՀՈԼՈՎՈՒՄԸ

 

Եզակի

 

Անձ Իր

Ուղ. սա դա նա այս այդ այն

Սեռ. սրա դրա նրա սրա դրա նրա

Տր. սրան դրան նրան սրան դրան նրան

Հայց. սրան դրան նրան այս այդ այն

Բաց. սրանից դրանից նրանից սրանից դրանից նրանից

Գործ. սրանով դրանով նրանով սրանով դրանով նրանով

Ներգ. սրանում դրանում նրանում սրանում դրանում նրանում

 

 

Յոգնակի

 

Անձ Իր

Ուղ. սրանք դրանք նրանք սրանք դրանք նրանք

Սեռ. սրանց դրանց նրանց սրանց դրանց նրանց

Տր. սրանց դրանց նրանց սրանց դրանց նրանց

Հայց. սրանք դրանք նրանք սրանք դրանք նրանք

Բաց. սրանցից դրանցից նրանցից սրանցից դրանցից նրանցից

Գործ. սրանցով դրանցով նրանցով սրանցով դրանցով նրանցով

Ներգ. սրանցում դրանցում նրանցում սրանցում դրանցում նրանցում

 

 

ՓՈԽԱԴԱՐՁ ԴԵՐԱՆՈՒՆՆԵՐԻ ՀՈԼՈՎՈՒՄԸ

 

Հոլով Յոգնակի

 

Ուղ. - - -

Սեռ. միմեանց իրար մէկմէկու

Տր. միմեանց իրար մէկմէկու

Հայց. միմեանց իրար մէկմէկու

Բաց. միմեանցից իրարից մէկմէկից

(մէկ-մէկուց)

Գործ. միմեանցով իրարով մէկմէկով

Ներգ. - - -

 

 

ՀԱՐՑԱԿԱՆ ԴԵՐԱՆՈՒՆՆԵՐԻ ՀՈԼՈՎՈՒՄԸ

 

Ո՞վ Ի՞նչ Ո՞ւր Քանի Որտեղ

 

Ե զ ա կ ի

Ուղ. ո՞վ ի՞նչ (ը) ո՞րը քանի՞սը որտե՞ղ(ը)

Սեռ. ո՞ւմ ինչի՞ որի՞ քանիսի՞ որտեղի՞

Տր. ո՞ւմ ինչի՞(ն) որի՞ն քանիսի՞(ն) որտեղի՞(ն)

Հայց. ո՞ւմ ի՞նչ (ը) ո՞րը, որի՞ն քանի՞սը(ի՞ն) որտե՞ղ(ը)

Բաց. ո՞ւմից, ո՞ւմնից ինչի՞ց որի՞ց քանիսի՞ց որտեղի՞ց

Գործ. ո՞ւմով, ո՞ւմնով ինչո՞վ որ՞ով քանիսո՞վ որտեղո՞վ

Ներգ. - ինչո՞ւմ որո՞ւմ քանիսո՞ւմ որտեղո՞ւմ

 

 

Ո՞վ Ի՞նչ Ո՞ւր Քանի Որտեղ

 

Յ ո գ ն ա կ ի

 

Ուղ. ո՞վքեր ինչե՞ր(ը) որո՞նք քանիսնե՞րը Չ

Սեռ. - իչների՞ որո՞նց քանիսների՞ Ո

Տր. - ինչերի՞(ն) որո՞նց քանիսների՞ն Ւ

Հայց. - ինչե՞ր(ը) որո՞նք, որո՞նց քանիսնե՞րը(ի՞ն) Ն

Բաց. - ինչերի՞ց որոնցի՞ց քանիսների՞ց Ի

Գործ. - ինչերո՞վ որոնցո՞վ քանիսներո՞վ

Ներգ. -- ինչերո՞ւմ որոնցո՞ւմ -

Edited May 29, 2007 by vartahoor

[nairi]

I'm not sure what you mean. Where is the irony? What other contexts is it used in (besides past imperfect)? And what does that have to do with anything?

 

If it is used with the past imperfect (can you give an example, because I'm not sure what you mean?), then apparently it is not only used to denote the present continuous. Which makes me question the whole "continuous" theory, and thus also this apparent necessity to use "gor."

 

I'm not sure what you would like me to translate that into (as it is not WA). In Western Armenian, "na" becomes "an" and "kayle" becomes "kale." In English, it would be "He [or she] is walking."

 

I remain confused.

 

In English is good. It was only to demonstrate another weakness of Armenian, and one that not many Armenians, East or West, seem to care about much. While we can easily distinguish between present simple and continuous (with or without "gor"), we are still incapable of distinguishing between genders.

[Shahan Araradian]

Ironically, Gor, you are supporting a theory that Shahan made up about "gor" representing the present continuous in WA.

Նայիրի, it's not a theory. Anyone who uses the "-gor" suffix knows EXACTLY what "-gor" does. It is the equivalent to the English "-ing." (This isn't a "theory" on some historical origins of "-gor"; it is a simple statement of its obvious current usage. There are no ambiguities regarding the usage of the "-gor" suffix.)

 

I'll demonstrate what I think Gor Gor was explaining in the past imperfect with an example:

"I was walking" --> «Ես կը քալէիկոր»

 

I think that "-gor" is not needed in the past imperfect, because there is no loss of information when one says «Ես կը քալէի». In other words, adding "-gor" does not change meaning in the past imperfec.

[Gor-Gor]

If it is used with the past imperfect (can you give an example, because I'm not sure what you mean?), then apparently it is not only used to denote the present continuous. Which makes me question the whole "continuous" theory, and thus also this apparent necessity to use "gor."

In English is good. It was only to demonstrate another weakness of Armenian, and one that not many Armenians, East or West, seem to care about much. While we can easily distinguish between present simple and continuous (with or without "gor"), we are still incapable of distinguishing between genders.

 

I'm not sure if I used the correct name for the tense, but here are 2 examples:

 

Kaletsi = I walked

Gu kalei = I would walk

Gu kalei gor = I was walking

 

Katsi = I went [katsi equals the EA gnatsi]

G'ertai = I would go

G'ertai gor = I was going

 

In standard written WA, the second form in each example is used the convey the meanings of both the second and the third forms. But in spoken Armenian, the "gor" is used to distinguish the continuous form from the other.

Edited May 29, 2007 by Gor-Gor

[Shahan Araradian]

In English is good. It was only to demonstrate another weakness of Armenian, and one that not many Armenians, East or West, seem to care about much. While we can easily distinguish between present simple and continuous (with or without "gor"), we are still incapable of distinguishing between genders.

You can distinguish between genders by using "Տղան" or "Ախչիկը կը քալեկոր". In my opinion, it is ridiculous to give gender to a chair, a car, or a utensil -- it makes a language extremely difficult to learn, as in Arabic or Latin, wherein you need to keep track of the artificial gender assignment on objects that in real life don't have a gender attribute.

Edited May 29, 2007 by Shahan Araradian