Chapanish Hayeren

[Arpa]

Pardon the poor editing.

I will clean up as we go along.

Nairi, you may have used the definitive word, "standard". The closest synonym in Armenian I could find is "chapanish", i.r something to measure by.

This is the proper medium for the "war of tongues", so start firing.

=====

 

 

QUOTE (den_wolf @ Feb 7 2004, 06:23 PM)

Hey Arpa, are you saying that there should be no such thing as Western Armenian?

 

 

You got it right!!!

There is no such thing as "eastern" or "western". There is only one Armenian(language), that is the Mesropian. Everything else is just as a provincial dialect, some of which have had their (Ottoman/Turkish) days.

 

Of all the above, is that all you could say? Nothing about our "brother" SevMard?

 

den_wolf Posted: Feb 7 2004, 12:52 PM

 

 

QUOTE

Of all the above, is that all you could say? Nothing about our "brother" SevMard?

 

 

I don't know SevMard, and I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic about the whole thing, so I'm not going to jump in on this one.

 

About the dialect, even in English, there are different dialects (word choice, accent, and so on) depending on what part of the English speaking world you look at. Us English folk don't use certain words in the same context as Americans do. Ditto for Australians. Ditto for Canadians. Ditto for the accent. As for Western Armenian, I do speak it. And frankly, while I like the pronounciation of Eastern Armenian better, I dislike written (spelling) of Eastern Armenian.

 

This post has been edited by den_wolf on Feb 7 2004, 12:54 PM

 

 

--------------------

 

Powered by the Department of Philosophy @ University of Liverpool.

 

 

Arpa Posted: Feb 7 2004, 04:58 PM

 

 

QUOTE (nairi @ Feb 7 2004, 08:18 PM)

No there isn't

 

Think neighbour and neighbor. Different than or different from? And many, many more.

 

 

 

Nairi you surprise me.

Yes, we are talking about a man of colOUR.

Here you are, from AmsterDAM, RotterDam or any other DAM place yet we have never heard anyone complain about your English or Americanish. Never a day goes by when we don't hear someone complaining about Yerevan and Beirut vernacular, never a day goes by when we don't hear someone complaining that they don't understand one or the other.

There are 5 billion 900 million 9,999,999 speakers of English. Who is that 0000000000000001 person that does not. Writers all the way from Alaska to Zambia, from Amsterdam to Queensland, from Yerevan to Yucatan, from Beirut to Botswana, some may be nighbOURs and others not, some may be of colOUR others not yet we all get the humOUR.

 

If six billion can communicate in the universal language that Americanish is what is our excuse a mere less than 2 million who actually speak and can write in Yerevanish. Or was it Hollandish or Hyderabadish?

 

But, egeyn, ez b4 dis is nat du pleys 2 diskass du sed sheyp av awr lenkwij.

 

This post has been edited by Arpa on Feb 7 2004, 05:36 PM

 

nairi Posted: Feb 7 2004, 05:34 PM

 

 

QUOTE (Arpa @ Feb 7 2004, 11:58 PM)

But, egeyn, ez b4 dis is nat du pulays 2 diskass the sed sheyp av awr lankwij.

 

 

Lol

 

Arpa, what you say about English is only partly true. I'd like to see you understand the Macroom accent (Ireland -- County Cork), to give just one example of a dialect that is near impossible to understand Or how about Liverpudlian? Or Edinburghian? Or simply "Negro" American from the South?

 

Point is that even among native-speakers there are communication problems, unless the two speakers speak a standard as opposed to a dialect. A person speaking RP (or BBC) English will have no trouble understanding someone speaking General (or Standard) American. But try to get a Texan from Hicksville to communicate with a Nottinghammer from the slums and see how far you get.. Same goes for Holland. An Amsterdammer and a Rotterdammer barely understand each other, let alone a Groninger and a Limburger (no Sip that's not food ).

 

That's the nature of language It's living and dynamic. It adapts itself to its surroundings and people. No matter how much you try to isolate a language and standardize it, it will continue to change. You don't speak the same language as your parents and your children don't speak the same language as you. You don't even need to put any effort into this; it just happens naturally. Try to watch movies or documentaries from the 1940s and you'll notice yourself how different people spoke then than they do now. There are different reasons as to how and potentially why this happens. I might write about this or post relevant sources later.

 

And what's more, even two people speaking the same dialect in the same area may not understand each other!! In fact, every time you pronounce the same word or sentence, you pronounce it differently, even under conditioned circumstances. So take it a step further and we're talking about idiolects: the language that each individual speaks. You have your set of active vocab, grammar and pronunciation (as well as other features) and I have mine. Unless you're a brilliant imitator, you'll never be able to imitate my speech, and even then, you'll only be imitating.

 

As for me, I learned (and am still learning) standard British and American. So it shouldn't be surprising that you, who has also learned a standard, understand me.

 

nairi Posted: Feb 7 2004, 05:40 PM

 

 

 

QUOTE (nairi @ Feb 8 2004, 12:34 AM)

As for me, I learned (and am still learning) standard British and American. So it shouldn't be surprising that you, who has also learned a standard, understand me.

 

 

But even here, let me add, there can be (embarrassing) misunderstandings. Is it a truck or a lorry? Petrol or gas? These are "easy" examples, but it goes to show how even standards can be very different and at times an obstacle to communication even when spoken by speakers of standard varieties (e.g. British and American).

Edited February 8, 2004 by Arpa

[nairi]

How about miorinak hayeren? Sorry, I like teasing you with these "new" words All in good fun.

 

It is interesting though, since Armenian uses "grakan hayeren" for standard Armenian. The problem with this is that it ignores spoken and other forms of Armenian.

 

In the words of Tom McArthur, Standard English is "a widely used term that resists easy definition but is used as if most educated people nonetheless know precisely what it refers to." Or in the words of James Sledd: "Standard English is the English used by the powerful"

 

In other words: the standard is only used and produced by a (tiny) fraction of the population in all countries and societies. The rest speak and write in their own dialects.

 

Regardless of these simplistic references, I don't think it would be wise to compare English, a growing international language that knows no precedent, with Armenian, which remains a regional, ethnic-oriented language.

 

What is important to keep in mind, however, is that we'll never be able to form one language, variety, dialect or standard (call it what you want!! ) that everyone will use. There's different reasons for this, including uneducation, class difference, and more importantly perhaps, regionalism. Some people simply like their dialects and will hold on to them no matter what. Others will simply not have a choice, possibly because they live too isolated from areas or sources where the standard is used and taught.

 

what is our excuse a mere less than 2 million who actually speak and can write in Yerevanish. Or was it Hollandish or Hyderabadish?

 

You could also look at it in a positive light and say that we are a very creative and varied people

 

What would make things easier however, imo, is different standards, like English has ( and I'm the one who warned against a comparison! ). As such we could have Standard Eastern Armenian (perhaps with two standards, one for Armenia and one for Iran) and Standard Western Armenian (with all its major dialects, like Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, France, America). Ideally, this would be the best solution for everyone, imo. No fights, no right or wrong, no better or worse, but simply respect and understanding for everyone's differences and evolutionary paths...

[Arpa]

You said it all. Very eloquently I may add.

 

I had intended to add a small editorial which you touched upon.

This debate better stick to the written (standard) language. As nentioned before even English has many regional, local, ethnich "dialects", if you will, it also has many slangs some of which would be totally unintelligible outside their endemic regions. We are talking mainly about English since many of us have some knowledge of it. Another language that some of us may be aquainted with is Arabic, it is huge geographically speaking and has so many regional variations some of which are totally unintelligible to those outside the region, yet when it comes to the written language, no matter if one is from Mauritania or Manama, even those anvarti Arabs have one standard.

 

We can also talk about dialects or regional vernaculars, I think it would be a delightful subject in proper context. I think it a great tragedy that many of the Kilikian and other Western Armenian dialects have been lost, often many words can be easier explained by those dialects.

 

However, let me repeat myself, when we talk about standard ("miorinak", yes it could be monotonous and boring), we are talking about the written language and formal orthography.

 

We are not talking about how one speaks in their home, as far as I am concerned they can speak Anklohayeren, Fransahayeren, Arabahayeren, Parskahayeren, even Turkahayeren. We speak one language at church and another at the local bar but how do we write?

Some have advanced the idea of composing a hybrid Armenian, a good idea where the best features of each can be merged, yet orthography cannot be compromised. Mesrop had to create 36 letters, and some that seem to be redundant were created for a reason as each has its proper nuance.

 

Why is not anybody writing in Cockney, or Aparantsi?

 

It would be fun in a proper context.

 

I move that Hamshentsma be our standard language. Only me(?, not even) and a couple of guys in Hamshen would be able to communicate. :)

Edited February 8, 2004 by Arpa

[nairi]

The trouble is Arpa, that what I wrote above also goes for the written word. Most people who speak the standard (especially at work or school), also use it in writing, although of course writing is in many ways different from/than/to speaking. One has more time to think and construct sentences, but the essence remains unchanged.

 

My point is, Standard English, in all its varieties, also knows different features, such as grammar, vocabulary and orthography (spelling and punctuation).

 

Just a few examples:

 

UK: Have you seen this film?

US: Did you see this movie?

 

UK: I've just got home.

US: I just got home.

 

UK: I have got a car.

US: I have a car.

 

UK: I have got a car.

US: I have gotten a car.

 

UK: It's in the loft.

US: It's in the attic.

 

UK: There's a man, a woman and a child here.

US: There's a man, a woman, and a child here.

 

Yes, American consciously broke away from British English sometime in the 19th century by changing some of its features, but much would have changed regardless of this conscious effort. It is inevitable: another consequence of the natural evolution or mutation, if you will, of languages.

 

Btw, Canadian English is probably the worst in this They use things like: "Tire and Automotive Centre" In which "tire" is US spelling, but "centre" is British, and yet, they're too proud (re: regionalism) to change that.

 

However, concerning English, changes ARE taking place, especially now that American English is pretty much taking over the world. More and more (young) Brits and other native-speakers are using and picking up on Americanism. Maybe one day one of our own standards can play the role that America is playing now. I doubt, however, to which extent American English can fully absorb native-speakers/writers of English elsewhere...

 

It may also be of interest to know that the change of voiced/voiceless consonants is one of the first things that happen in a language, i.e. /b, d, g/ (voiced) turning into /p, t, k/ (voiceless) and vice versa

[Harut]

How about miorinak hayeren? Sorry, I like teasing you with these "new" words All in good fun.

չափանիշ and միօրինակ are not "new" words.

[sev-mard]

Of all the above, is that all you could say? Nothing about our "brother" SevMard?

 

den_wolf Posted: Feb 7 2004, 12:52 PM

 

 

QUOTE

Of all the above, is that all you could say? Nothing about our "brother" SevMard?

 

 

I don't know SevMard, and I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic about the whole thing, so I'm not going to jump in on this one.

I know it's not the point of your post, but these seems disjointed, is this from the chatroom? And what about me was being discussed may I ask?

 

On topic, Hayaren is a pretty intesting foray linguistically. Spuikahyes have had their languages affected by host cultures and even haystanscis use alot of Russian. That mixed with normal drifts and changes in language itself, makes for an interesting milieu for the Hye people to deal/interact with just amongst themselves. It's quite interesting, and i'm definately studying more. Or course not being of this culture, I don't have any thing to say on whether I like one more than the other or what is more 'right'. As I study I see deviations from 'standard' for each 'way' of speaking armenian, but that is language, and that's what I love. Adaptation and innovation, self-innovation of course, never forced innovation from outside forces. My little yerku cents, and hopefully you all weren't saying vat baner im masin, because that might maybe me sad... ...