Im Hamar And Indz Hamar ?

[Sip]

I am very confused on this issue ... not all the time but sometimes. When do you use "im" and when "indz" ...

 

Like es hartse im hamar e hetakrkir ... te ... indz hamar e hetakrkir?

[nairi]

Im = my

Indz = to me

 

So the harc is hetaqrqir indz hamar, apa da im harc@ chi

 

Anyone, please feel to correct me or to add info.

 

Btw, fonts still don't work. I'll ask around some Mac users this weekend. Vava???!!!

[Teutonic Knight]

I really don't know to be honest but I was taught that saying "im" as opposed to "indz" is ankirt and brings me a step closer to using corruptions such as "khi", "esi", "eni" and crap like that.

[Varduhi]

I am very confused on this issue ... not all the time but sometimes. When do you use "im" and when "indz" ...

 

Like es hartse im hamar e hetakrkir ... te ... indz hamar e hetakrkir?

indz hamar e hetakrkir?

 

This is the proper way use INDZ not IM

 

I can give you example where you can use INDZ and IM

 

but I am sure your not that intrested.

 

Take care...........

[Sip]

I can give you example where you can use INDZ and IM

 

but I am sure your not that intrested.

Using "reverse psychology" eh? That made me even more interested ... but not so much in "im" and "indz" but what is it you think I am not interested in (just im/indz or something else?)

[MJ]

While both forms are commonly used in colloquial Armenian, the proper way of saying it (at least in literary Eastern Armenian) is "im hamar."

 

“Im hamar” corresponds to the Armenian “Serakan Holov,” which it should. “Indz hamar” has elements of “Trakan holov,” I think, which is not proper in this case. It can be easily checked when looking at the “Andznakan deranunneri holovume” topic.

 

 

On the other hand, it was another life I have studied these things. Significant time has passed since…

[Arpa]

While both forms are commonly used in colloquial Armenian, the proper way of saying it (at least in literary Eastern Armenian) is "im hamar."

 

“Im hamar” corresponds to the Armenian “Serakan Holov,” which it should.  “Indz hamar” has elements of “Trakan holov,” I think, which is not proper in this case.  It can be easily checked when looking at the “Andznakan deranunneri holovume” topic.

 

 

On the other hand, it was another life I have studied these things.  Significant time has passed since…

Sorry MJ, I must differ.

Even if, just like you may have forgotten my kerakanakan orenkner, and even my English grammatical rules, not rememering which is serakan and which kravorakan, which is subjective and which objective. When we translate the phrase into English it will all be obvious.

We say; "for me" not "for I". If the Armenian follows in same manner then it would be "indz hamar"(objective) not "im hamar"(subjective). Yete indz ches havatum then "inds grir", not "im grir" or "yes grir".

BTW, of late I have been mulling over "ankanon bayer/irregulare verbs. We may start a new thread see how many we can come up with.

To start, "gal" is to come, why does it turn into "ekur" in the imperative/hramayakan eghanak? Or better yet, "ari" is the imperative, why does it turn inro "ekav" in the past tense.

As above, I'd rather start a new thread addressing the issue lest it turn into a theological garbage again.

[MJ]

Arpa,

 

Let me make another attempt disagreeing on the subject, reiterating again that it has been long time, and few chins have grown since…

 

I don’t see this issue in the context of “kravorakan.” I see it in the context of “serakan ev trakan holovner.” A demonstrating example may be the following, for example:

 

Would one say "Arpaii hamar" or "Arpaiin hamar" (let’s stick to Eastern Armenian.) In the first case, which would be the example of “serakan holov,” it would sound accurate. In the case of the second version, “trakan holov,” it would sound very weird. Assuming that one would accept this argument/example in the case of noun(s) (in this case the noun Arpa), why would one proceed differently in the case of personal pronouns – “yes, im, indz?”

 

The "kravorakan" argument would have implied that "gortsoghutiune hangum e ararkaiin," i.e. the action is being directed at the [pro]noun (sorry for the clumsy translation.) I don’t see any such context in the issue which has been raised.

Edited October 15, 2003 by MJ

[Harut]

while ինձ sounds more formal and 'inteligent', i agree with MJ that gramatically իմ is the correct word for the sentence given by Sip.

եկե՛ք հոլովենք ես դերանունը:

 

Ուղղական - ես

Սեռական - իմ

Տրական - ինձ

Հայցական - ինձ

Բացառական - ինձանից կամ ինձնից

Գործիական - ինձանով կամ ինձնով

Ներգործական - ինձանում, ինձնում կամ իմ մեջ

 

it the given case, i think we have to use սեռական հոլով which is իմ.

[vava]

Btw, fonts still don't work. I'll ask around some Mac users this weekend. Vava???!!!

Hi Nairi!

 

I could probably be of some help. Which version of Mac OS are you using? If you're on OS X, the Mac has native multi-language support. But then even in some cases, it is not always perfect - sometimes the armenian fonts will be visible, other times (depending on the encoding/whoever's done the writing) you may still have some trouble. Let me know, and I'll try to see what the problem is...

 

As for Indz & Im, in the case above I would be inclined to say Im hamar, although I must confess that I have (unfortunately) never studied Armenian grammar - although I hope to one day.

[Harut]

Այս երկու օրը դեռ կասկածանքների մեջ էի, բայց նոր մտքովս մի բան անցավ:

 

Ճիշտ ձևը ավելի պարզ է դարնում, երբ նույն նախադասությունը ասում ենք երրորդ դեմքի համար:

 

Նրա համար, այլ ոչ թե նրան համար:

[SAS]

Բարև բոլորին...

 

Ժամանակակից գրական արևելահայերենում ՃԻՇՏ ձև է համարվում հետ, համար, պես,վրա,մոտ կապերի կողքին գործածել ինձ( քեզ, մեզ, ձեզ) և ոչ թե՝ իմ( քո,մեր,ձեր ):

Edited October 31, 2003 by SAS

[Sip]

Sas, so "indz mod pogh chka" is better than "im mod pogh chka"?

 

How about

 

"indz vra jur tapets" te "im vra jur tapets"?

 

In both those cases I am inclined to say "im" but seems like indz is the correct one?

[nairi]

Sas, so "indz mod pogh chka" is better than "im mod pogh chka"?

Sounds like an Anglicism or Russianicism to me I think you mean: "Indz mot pogh chunem"

 

But yes, it is indz and not im in standard literary Eastern Armenian.

 

"indz vra jur tapets" te "im vra jur tapets"?

 

In both those cases I am inclined to say  "im" but seems like indz is the correct one?

The correct standard literary form is indz, but in spoken Armenian many people also use im. I think that's where the confusion comes in.

 

As for nran hamar: you wouldn't use nran but nra, however nra is still a dative in this case.

 

Why dative and not genetive? I don't know. I'll have to look this up. I'm inclined to say that postpositions and prepositions can't be made into possessives, but this is wrong since German does have prepositions with pronouns in the genetive. I think this may just be a simple rule in Armenian: dative pronouns with all postpositions/prepositions...

[MJ]

It appears to me that new revelations have been bestowed "Nairiin vra."

 

I wonder which rule of Armenian grammar gives basis for such statements?

[MJ]

In both those cases I am inclined to say "im" but seems like indz is the correct one?

You are speaking correct Armenian. Why does the opposite seem to be correct to you?

[MJ]

I see something starnge in this thread. The last message under my name was posted several days ago. Today, it shows as if my last message. This is not how things should have been sorted.

[nairi]

From Grammaire d'arménien orientale by Martiros Minassian, 1980, Caravan Books, Delmar, NY:

 

Postpositions:

 

- hamar, het: 1st and 2nd person dative; 3rd person genetive

 

- vra: 1st and 2nd person genetive or dative; 3rd person genetive

 

- tak: 1st and 2nd person genetive; 3rd person genetive

 

There's a whole list on pages 250-252. I only wrote down these and a few more that we were discussing. As you can see, I forgot "mot" I'll be at the library again in the next few days and will have a look once more, unless one of you has this book at your disposal now...

 

MJ, I don't see anything wrong with the date and time of your message. Anyway, concerning these postpositions, thanks for your correction. I was double checking what I had heard when you replied. As you can see, I ammended it. If you still think there's something wrong with this grammar, please feel free to post your source(s). I'd like to have a look at it as well, if I can find it.

[MJ]

From Grammaire d'arménien orientale by Martiros Minassian, 1980, Caravan Books, Delmar, NY:

 

Postpositions:

 

- hamar, het: 1st and 2nd person dative; 3rd person genetive

 

- vra: 1st and 2nd person genetive or dative; 3rd person genetive

 

- tak: 1st and 2nd person genetive; 3rd person genetive

 

There's a whole list on pages 250-252. I only wrote down these and a few more that we were discussing. As you can see, I forgot "mot" I'll be at the library again in the next few days and will have a look once more, unless one of you has this book at your disposal now...

 

MJ, I don't see anything wrong with the date and time of your message. Anyway, concerning these postpositions, thanks for your correction. I was double checking what I had heard when you replied. As you can see, I ammended it. If you still think there's something wrong with this grammar, please feel free to post your source(s). I'd like to have a look at it as well, if I can find it.

Yes, the date is still wrong. I have not posted the "You are speaking correct Armenian. Why does the opposite seem to be correct to you?" message today. When I posted my reply to your earlier comments on "im" and "indz" today, that message was were it was supposed to be

 

Now, regarding my sources... I have no sources at my disposal at this time. I have no books here on Armenian Grammar. I would be interested to know if the book referenced above by you is about the Eastern or Western Armenian grammar.

 

My "source" here is primarily the logic and the structure of Armenian grammar. One thing that is remarkable about the latter is that it has very robust and well structured logic. Sure, there are always exception, but exceptions are justified only when there is a good reason for them. In this case, I don't see any good reason to use "indz mot" or "indz hamar" - every bit of it contradicts to the rules of Armenian "holovner."

 

Now, in the examples you have brought above, there is also an explicit argument to be made, which would demonstrate the arbitrariness of the interpretations in favor of "indz vra" or "indz hamar."

 

If according to the proposed by some logic we should us "Indz vra" rather than "im vra," then we should also use "indz tak." However, this would be the weirdest thing to say in Armenian language - to the level of vandalizing one's ear.

 

I think I have an idea where the opinion on the acceptability of the expressions “indz vra,” “indz hamar” comes from. In 1960s and on, an opinion existed among some Armenian linguists that if something is commonly used then it is right, since “the Armenian language is a living and breathing organism” and the rules may change. Basically that means that the rules should comply with the habits of people. While this type of argument can be understood, in general, I think one has to also draw a line somewhere. For example, in vast segments of Armenian people, in Glendale for example, you would here people use “indzi” rather than “indz.” However, there is no such word in [Eastern] Armenian language as “indzi.”

 

Finally, it is one thing to accept something that is commonly used, even though it may be inconsistent with the logic of the Armenian language based on the argument that it is “commonly used,” it is another thing to dismiss the correct and consistent way of expressing it based on some arguments that have never been provided.

Edited November 3, 2003 by MJ

[nairi]

Arménien Oriental means Eastern Armenian.

 

Looking through this list, it became overly clear that there is no logic to the blind eye in postpositions and prepositions in Armenian. I expressely chose vra and tak to show this. However, like all languages there must a be a logical root somewhere. If only I had the knowledge to know where to find this and understand it.

 

In any case, I don't think we should ponder too much on why vra is not used in the same way as tak without more knowledge on this first. Many languages show such inconsistencies to the inexperienced eye. Take English for example: give, gave, given but live, lived, lived; or lie, lay, lain, but die, died, died. However, there is no inconsistency in English if you understand how these verbs developed to become what they are today (re: Old English and its mutations).

 

The fact alone that there is a distinction between 1st and 2nd person and 3rd person, is enough reason to believe that there is some consistency at least in the use of prepositions and postpositions. It is up to us to find out what that is exactly. Meanwhile, just learn the list by heart, just like you would learn the list of "irregular" verbs in English by heart, or the feminine, masculine and neutral nouns in German

 

As for the date and time, I guess you should ask Garo about it. I'm not sure what you mean...

[MJ]

But who is forcing someone to use something which is out of the mainstream of the Armenian language, when there is a completely acceptable, logical form, which is being used by the mainstream of educated [in Armenian language] people? Why should we create an artificial problem and then struggle with it? One explanation I could perhaps give is that "indz vra" sounds quite "verambardz" (sort of pompous) and that might be the reason some people tend to use it.

 

 

As to the date issue, again, I am saying that the message which is supposedly posted by me on November 2nd (according to the current record) and thus sorted in the body of all messages accordingly, has been posted by me several days ago. The date of it has been altered for some reason.

Edited November 3, 2003 by MJ

[nairi]

The logical form you refer to may not be so logical at all if we go back far enough. What the mainstream uses is not necessarily the logical form, and may simply be a simplification of the original, logical form. You'll find this in all languages around the world.

 

Many educated Dutch people, for instance, don't know the difference between "hen" (dative them) and "hun" (genetive their). They mix them up or only use one form for both. However, this doesn't mean that it's "logical". Same with im hamar: why go through the trouble of learning two different forms for different pronouns when you can use one for both?

 

But to my defence I have said this on a few occasions before: in many ways I am against standardization of a language, if only because it dismisses dialects, and thus also kills them. On the other hand, standardization can be handy, if only because it eases communication between speakers of different dialects.

 

As for your post: I have no idea how that could've happened. I've never seen it happen before. I guess if it happens more frequently, we should tell Garo about it. He's the only one who could potentially fix it.

 

Edit: But you're right when you say that people who speak the standardized form of a language generally sound pompous. This is a very common remark that many people make concerning standardized forms (or dialects are they are officially called), in the same way that non-standardized dialects are considered uneducated, lower-class forms.

[MJ]

Lord, have mercy…

 

I don’t like the arguments for the sake of the arguments themselves. Therefore this would be my last injection on this topic.

 

What I have argued is that the logical form of the expression is “im hamr” and “im vra.” And it is not simplification – it is consistent with the core and, if you wish, the mainstream of the Armenian language.

 

One advantage that [Eastern] Armenian language has over the other languages that I know (English, for example) it is the fact of having very structured and logical grammar. I don’t know German, but I hear it has a similar quality. In any case, this argument [on German language] tangential for the point I am trying to deliver.

 

I also don’t know what “standardization” means. As far as the dialects are concerned, everyone is free to use the dialect of his/her choice (though I think dialects are expressions of underdeveloped forms of communication.) But we are not discussing dialects here, but literary Armenian.

 

And as far as the pompousness of the expression is concerned, you have turned my comment upside-down. What I have said was “indz hamar” is the pompous way of expressing the corresponding phrase not the other way around. Most likely it has been introduced by Terian, Charents, et al, in a poetic context. This is fine in poetry, where people are trying to convey a special, at times exaggerated, sentiment. I agree that one should not go through the trouble of learning two different forms, when one of them is obviously not typical for the given language.

 

As for as the “logic of the language” is concerned, at least in the case of the structure of the Armenian language, it is manifested [partially and relevant to this discussion] through the rules of “holovumner,” which unequivocally speak in favor of “im hamar.”

[nairi]

What I have argued is that the logical form of the expression is “im hamr” and “im vra.”

And what I have argued is that it isn't necessarily. I have said from the very beginning that there is no point in pondering over why one form is favored over the other in Standard Eastern Armenian since neither of us know for sure what stimulated linguists to choose one form over the other.

 

All languages have a very structured and logical form. Armenian is nowhere near being alone in this.

 

The result of standardization is what you find in grammar books and lexicons. It is what you learn at school, read in newspapers and consider the "correct" form of a language. Thus "indz hamar" is the standardized form in Eastern Armenian. Why? I don't know, and clearly, neither do you.

 

As for dialect: it is a very vague term that most linguists are still arguing over. But to keep things simplified, there are regional dialects and there are social dialects. The standardized form of a language is also considered a dialect. Thus Standard Eastern Armenian is a dialect of Armenian. And this latter is the Armenian that is taught at school, used in formal writing and speech, and what you call "literary Armenian".

[nairi]

One last post here. It's funny that you have been trying to prove that "im vra" is the logical form when it is included in Standard Eastern Armenian:

 

Vra: 1st and 2nd person genetive or dative; 3rd person genetive

 

So Sip, both "im vra" and "indz vra" are recorded in Standard Eastern Armenian (SEA), and are thus considered correct. There may be a slight nuance in meaning however, which unfortunately I'm not aware of. But as this SEA list suggests, you can only use "indz hamar".

 

Here's a few more preps and postps from that list:

 

aranc: 1st and 2nd person dative; 3rd person genetive

hamadzayn: 1st and 2nd person dative; 3rd person genetive

hamar: 1st and 2nd person dative; 3rd person genetive

hamemat: 1st and 2nd person dative; 3rd person genetive

pes: 1st and 2nd person dative; 3rd person genetive

 

arjev: 1st and 2nd person genetive; 3rd person genetive

dimac: 1st and 2nd person genetive; 3rd person genetive

vrayic/vrayov: 1st and 2nd person genetive; 3rd person genetive

tak: 1st and 2nd person genetive; 3rd person genetive

 

durs: 1st and 2nd person ablative; 3rd person ablative

heto: 1st and 2nd person ablative; 3rd person ablative

yetev: 1st and 2nd person genetive or ablative; 3rd person genetive or ablative

 

Hakarak : 1st and 2nd person dative; 3rd person dative