Ban

[Arpa]

Harut BA!!

This is for you.

Ee skspan er Ban@, ev Ban@.... In the beginning was the WORD...

 

[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

[2] The same was in the beginning with God.

[3] All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made

http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx...V2&byte=4760438

 

I will not go into the idiotic theological debate about this sentence.

As to Harut Ba!

First. I promised not to air this publicly, yet in the E-Dictionary (an excellent work) the word "ban" is defined as "affair" ???. I don't get it it.

For a along time we were made to believe that "ban" meant "word" as in "logos".

When did "ban" end up meaning "thing"? This may partially be answered by the Khaberd dialect who use "irq", the plural of "ir/article/thing" instead of "ban" to mean "thing".

The e-dictionary had little to do with this post, except to trigger it again, as I have been mulling over the subject for quite sometime.

I had to ask Mr. Ajarian. He has not been superseded yet!

 

Let me see if I can this right?

 

Looking up "ban", it speaks about its meaning as "work" as in "banil" (Hats ou panir, ker our banir), and as to "ban/word" it refers one to the verb to "bal"...(to "speak"). It seems like "ba-l" (to speak) is a verb based on the root word "ba" (Hi Harut!). To make it short, "bal" = khosel, asel is based on "ba" which in time has evolved to such as "ban" and "bas" and "ba(y)(verb). One can only see it in such as "ban-basel", to gossip.

I will quit here as it gets too far, too far for my comprehension and patience.

 

Ee skspan er BA(n)!!!! ???

 

 

http://armenians.com/forum/index.php?showt...100entry64622

 

 

?? ??? ???? ??????, ?????? ???? ??? ??????:

 

BTW. Harut you never instructed us how to display and convert to Unicode.

[gamavor]

Thank you Arpa! After all the English translation of the Bible is not that bad I guess.

[nairi]

I don't know when or what, but here's a short summary:

 

Ban means:

 

1. word (in the sense of speech)

2. thought, idea, sense

3. reality

 

Some derivations with ban:

 

- banagogh: plagiarist

- banakan: logical, sensable

- banaser: philologist

- banasteghts: poet

- banavetch: discussion

- banavor: oral

 

Interesting!

 

Pagan Greek philosophy spoke of "in the beginning was the deed". And of course in Grabar "ban" meant "word". So the translation is still fine Apparently...

[MosJan]

banaser: is ? philologist ??

 

haaaa haskanali a yes el kartsum eyi te urish bana et bana ser@ sirum

 

 

lav merci / hima haskatsam

[nairi]

Philologist is also lezvaban Or lezvaget.

[Harut]

I don't know when or what, but here's a short summary:

 

Ban means:

 

1. word (in the sense of speech)

2. thought, idea, sense

3. reality

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

4. work

5. thing

 

4. work -> banvor (worker), banel (to work)

5. de ban eli... el vonts batsatrem.

[nairi]

Harut, gna banid hetevits :) j/k

 

I have a whole page dedicated to ban alone in my dictionary...

 

- song, verse

- situation

- secret

- belongings

- experience

- knowledge

- relation(ship), bond

- strength

- chapter

- type of tree

 

Among those already mentioned...

[Arpa]

Philologist is also lezvaban Or lezvaget.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

 

Philologist is strictly banaser and it is a direct translation from the Greek philo=love/ser and logos=word/ban. Lezvaban/lezvaget is linguist.

I am also surprised about banavor to mean beranatsi/oral. The dictionary says so too. I would like to dispute that. Just like in the English oral, beranatsi. We have always used the word to mean logical, just as zinvor means that who carries a zenq/weapon(armed) ban-a-vor would be a person, a thing that possesses logic.

 

Soukiasian has a whole page about ban and words based on it some of which are based on the sense of banil/work, as well as banak=army/camp where I learned that banagnatsutyun is not a meeting of armies but a meeting of words, messages.

 

Another interesting entry is banadrum/banadranq (anathema/curse) is in fact "to put the word(on)".

 

Also, please everyone read the first post of this thread where many questions may have been answered, like how the original "ban" strictly meant "work" and "ban" as in logos is in fact a variation, or corruption if you will, of "bal".

[gamavor]

Pagan Greek philosophy spoke of "in the beginning was the deed". And of course in Grabar "ban" meant "word". So the translation is still fine  Apparently...

 

The English translation may be fine, but not accurate.

 

Philologist is also lezvaban  Or lezvaget.

 

First thing that poped up in my mind after reading the above is the name of a Greek island.

[Sip]

What? We are banning harut? I'm all for it. And while we are at it, let's ban Domino too.

[Harut]

What? We are banning harut?  I'm all for it.  And while we are at it, let's ban Domino too.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

mi ban kasei, bayts yerevi heto Movses@ katsinov hetevitss ga...

[hayemyes]

One can only see it in such as "ban-basel", to gossip.

 

Isn't it spelled "bambasank" or "pampasank" depending on whether we consider the eastern pronounciation or the western, even though phonetically speaking the first one would be the correct spelling, but that's not the point. I am pretty sure it is written with an "m" not an "n".

[Harut]

I am pretty sure it is written with an "m" not an "n".

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

it is.

[Arpa]

Philologist is also lezvaban  Or lezvaget.

 

The English translation may be fine, but not accurate.

First thing that poped up in my mind after reading the above is the name of a Greek island.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

 

Gamavor, you make one more crack of the sort you will end up "lezvahat"!!

 

 

[Ash]

En yerazhishtnerin asek tox ban anen vor pesu bane bartsrana, "tramadrutyune"!

[Armen]

I like when after a long period of scilence among a group of friends someone says something like:

 

"Tgheq qeleq es bane kamac-kamac ban anenq en banov, vor heto en banere ban chlni, te che es bane arden ban eghav"

 

The most strage part is that everyone knows what he's talking about

[Arpa]

Yes, it is "m" as in "bam-basel".

However spelling it with the "n" is also officially acceptable.

I'll try and explain why.

In the original post I tried to make it as short as possible but in doing so I left out much relevent info.

 

An aside: Speaking of "info", I'm sure Nairi can give us the technical terms and reasons why. One of the resons why we spell it with the "m" may be, even if , as we will see that this may not be the only resson, is that when an "n" is preceded by a labial letter it sounds like "m". Case in point is "info". Recite the word loud and listen. Does it not sound as if it is "iMfo"? N is a nasal letter, b, p, f are labial, that is the lips are brought together and the transition between N to F is incomplete and the N ends up sounding like M. The best example would be "banber" (messenger/bringer of word), even though we spell it with the N it sounds more like M. How many words can you cite where the N preceding a labial letter sounds like M, be it Armenian, English or other?

 

In the initial post I indicated that when looking for "ban" as in "word" we are directed to "bal" as the original form of. I did neglect to mention that even "bal" is a variation of the native Armenian , protoIE root "ba". Hi Harut BA! In fact it is "bha", to speak. Btw, before I forget, Ajarian says that "ba/bam" has been used and may still be used instead of "the/te" and "or/vor", a few examples are given the best one:" Asatsi ba tsretsits znosa" (Trans, "Asatsi te/vor piti tsrvem nrants"). Eastern speakers do use the expression "ba". What is the real intent and meaning?

 

Ba/bha being the original root it has taken many forms and it has been used by various authors in one form or other. Could it be that "ban" became more common based on the original tranlation of the Bible where the subjective was used; "I zksban er ba-n" (THE word, as in "tgha/tgha-n"). Note that I took the liberty to type "ba-n" while the original text is "ban-n".

 

Not only the original "ba/bha" ends up as bal, ban it also appears as bas and barr. The former evolves into "asel" and the latter appears in places like "barbarr" (double R as in Ra).

 

Banbasel, bambasel is a repetetive/redundant word (just like barbar) where both components mean the same as, i.e. speak/asel/khosel, not unlike other expressions like asi-asav, @si-@sav, I said he said etc. I will not get in another debate but it seems like "khosel" is also an offshoot of the basic "ba/bas/basel/asel/khosel.

 

I almost forgot. As to "ban" meaning "thing" this explanation is given. It may have evolved by using "ban/word" as a subject of debate/conversation "ban nyuto/khosaktsutyan ararka".

 

Did I say that "bay/verb" is another form of it and the obsolete "BA!" once was used as the imperative tense/hramayakan eghanak, i.e. to mean SPEAK/KHOSIR!!

 

BA!!!

 

[nairi]

An aside: Speaking of "info", I'm sure Nairi can give us the technical terms and reasons why. One of the resons why we spell it with the "m" may be, even if , as we will see  that this may not be the only resson, is that when an "n" is preceded by a labial letter it sounds like "m". Case in point  is "info". Recite the word loud and listen. Does it not  sound as if it is "iMfo"?  N is a nasal letter, b, p, f are labial, that is the lips are brought together and the transition between N to F is incomplete and the N ends up sounding like M. The best example would be "banber" (messenger/bringer of word), even though we spell it with the N it sounds more like M. How many words can you cite where the N preceding a labial letter sounds like M, be it Armenian, English or other?

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

You got the gist Nasals indeed tend to assimilate with the following bilabials (i.e. both lips closing, as in m, b, p). Hence, the prefix in- in, for instance, English, becomes im- in front of stems beginning with bilabials, e.g. important, imbalance, immoral.

 

We still write n with labio-dentals (f, v), but as you said, we come very close to assimilating nasals with them too, making a word like "info" sound like "imfo". esp. in fast speech.

 

Of course, there's also il- (illegal) and ir- (irrelevant) As you can see, the in- prefix assimilates with l and r.

 

Interestingly, un- never changes, even in unmarried, unbind, unless, unpaid, unread.

[Arpa]

You got the gist Nasals indeed tend to assimilate with the following bilabials (i.e. both lips closing, as in m, b, p).

Yes, even though I had M in mind as a bilabial as well, it slipped me. It is easy to see why it is so much easier to slide from one bilabial to another as opposed to from a nasal, it takes too much effort to reshape the mouth in such a short time, specially as you indicated, when we are talking fast .

Hence, the prefix in- in, for instance, English, becomes im- in front of stems beginning with bilabials, e.g. important, imbalance, immoral. 

I did not dare go there without first checking even if I thought about them.

We still write n with labio-dentals (f, v), but as you said, we come very close to assimilating nasals with them too, making a word like "info" sound like "imfo". esp. in fast speech.

Of course, there's also il- (illegal) and ir- (irrelevant) As you can see, the in- prefix assimilates with l and r.

Of course.

Interestingly, un- never changes, even in unmarried, unbind, unless, unpaid, unread.

style_images/master/snapback.png

As to un- , could it be that it is universally accepted as the negative prefix and we dare not, whereas in- is lesser known therefor can be altered to im- as in in-perfect to im-perfect.

 

So, is this what we are doing bambasanq/banbasanq, @si @sav?

 

:)

Edited November 5, 2004 by Arpa

[nairi]

As to un- , could it be that it is universally accepted as the negative prefix and we dare not, whereas in- is lesser known therefor can be altered to im- as in in-perfect to im-perfect.

 

Not sure what you mean by universally accepted? Maybe productive? As in, you can attach un- to almost any random word and make a new word out of it, whereas in- is "dead", i.e. it can only be used with a fixed number of words that we have to learn by heart.

 

Why the difference between in- and un- phonologically? I have no idea!! Maybe you're on the right track. Morphologically we would say (in simple terms) that in- is phonologically conditioned (i.e. the "place of articulation" depends on the following sound), whereas the difference between whether to choose in- or un- is lexically conditioned (as in depending on the word: mostly, Latin derived words take in-, non-Latin words take un-).

 

So, is this what we are doing bambasanq/banbasanq, @si @sav?

 

:)

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Very much so

[nairi]

Btw, I can't help but to say harutban whenever I see this thread As in rhyming with khanutban...

[Harut]

lseq, duq ban u gorts chuneq, sra-nra b..... lav, el chem sharunakum.

 

btw, interesting info. thanks

[MosJan]

Btw, I can't help but to say harutban whenever I see this thread As in rhyming with khanutban...

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

 

Nairi jan please don't say that loud

[nairi]

Hmm, then what about anban

[Arpa]

Hmm, then what about anban  

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

 

Thank you Nairi!

 

Not for the hayhoyanq

 

But for reminding me.

While writing my long piece today that word was one of the many floating around in my head as a good example of nasal-bilabial succession.

It also reminded me that sometimes we use "anban anasun!!" as a form of hayhoyanq, insult. While on the surface it is meant to mean "mindless beast" it is in fact a repetition of the same word as literally they both mean virtually the same; anban=wordless and anasun=speechless. Of course anban is also used to mean "anbanavor"=illogical, without logic, inane.