Cover not available
Part of
Perfects in Indo-European Languages and Beyond
Edited by Robert Crellin and Thomas Jügel
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 352] 2020
► pp. 351–376

Chapter 10
The perfect in Classical Armenian

| University of Würzburg
The paper discusses the syntax and semantics of the perfect and pluperfect of Classical Armenian. While A is usually marked for genitive, S may be marked for nominative or genitive. The perfect of terminative unaccusative verbs (‘fall’, ‘come’) describes the state of the subject after the event has reached its endpoint (‘be fallen, lie’, ‘have come, be present’). In two-place predicates the majority of perfects occur in a single-actant construction describing the resulting state of the object of the active clause (‘weave’ → ‘is woven’). If the underlying A is present as oblique subject in the genitive and the resulting state of O is backgrounded, the perfect may depict A as responsible for the event (‘characterizing’), or as being affected more than O (‘possessive’). Cases without a clear target state may have triggered the development of the perfect into a resultative in the modern language denoting present relevance of a preceding state of affairs.
Keywords: perfect, Armenian, genitive subject, target state, resultative
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Syntax
  • 3.Morphology
  • 4.Semantics
    • 4.1Participle
    • 4.2Perfect
    • 4.3One-place predicates
      • 4.3.1
      • 4.3.2Stative/ingressive ambiguity
    • 4.4Two-place predicates
      • 4.4.1Resultative
      • 4.4.2Characterizing
      • 4.4.3Possessive
      • 4.4.4Generalized resultatives
      • 4.4.5Continuative/universal
      • 4.4.6Relative tense
      • 4.4.7Counterfactual
  • 5.Later developments
  • 6.Summary
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 23 September 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.352.10kol
References (32)
References
Awetik‘ean, Gabriēl, Xač‘atowr Siwrmēlean & Mkrtič‘ Awgerean. 1979. Nor baṙgirk‘ haykazean lezowi. [reprint of the edition I Venetik, 1836–1837]. 2 vols. Yerevan: Erevani Hamalsarani Hratarakč‘ut‘jun.Google Scholar
Blake, Robert P., & Richard N. Frye. 1949. History of the nation of the archers (the Mongols) by Grigor of Akanc‘. Hitherto ascribed to Matak‘ia the Monk. The Armenian text edited with an English translation and notes. Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 12. 284–443. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burkitt, Francis Crawford. 1904. Evangelion Da-Mepharreshe: The Curetonian version of the Four Gospels, with the readings of the Sinai palimpsest and the early Syriac patristic evidence, vol. I: Text. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Revere D. Perkins, & William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2013. The expression of gender (The Expression of Cognitive Categories 6). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dum-Tragut, Jasmine. 2009. Armenian: Modern Eastern Armenian (London Oriental and African Language Library 14). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gerö, Eva-Carin, & Arnim von Stechow. 2003. Tense in time: The Greek perfect. In Regine Eckardt, Klaus von Heusinger & Christoph Schwarze (eds.), Words in time: Diachronic semantics from different points of view (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 143), 251–294. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1984. Syntax: A functional-typological introduction. Vol. I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haug, Dag. 2004. Aristotle’s kinesis/energeia-test and the semantics of the Greek perfect. Linguistics 42. 387–418. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jensen, Hans. 1959. Altarmenische Grammatik. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Karst, Josef. 1901. Historische Grammatik des Kilikisch-Armenischen. Strasbourg: Trübner. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klein, Jared S. 1996. On personal deixis in Classical Armenian: A study of the syntax and semantics of the N-, S-, and D- demonstratives in manuscripts E and M of the Old Armenian Gospels. (Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft, Beiheft N.F. 17). Dettelbach: Röll.Google Scholar
Kölligan, Daniel. 2013. Non-canonical subject marking: Genitive subjects in Classical Armenian. In Ilja A. Seržant & Leonid Kulikov (eds.), The diachronic typology of non-canonical subjects (Studies in Language Companion Series 140), 73–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kümmel, Martin Joachim. 2000. Das Perfekt im Indoiranischen: Eine Untersuchung der Form und Funktion einer ererbten Kategorie des Verbums und ihrer Weiterentwicklung in den altindoiranischen Sprachen. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Künzle, Beda O. 1984. Das altarmenische Evangelium. 2 vols. Frankfurt: Lang.Google Scholar
Lyonnet, Stanislas. 1933. Le parfait en arménien classique: principalement dans la traduction des évangiles et chez Eznik (Collection linguistique 37). Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Maslov, Jurij S. 1988. Resultative, perfect and aspect. In Nedjalkov (ed.), 63–86.Google Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1936. Esquisse d’une grammaire comparée de l’arménien classique. Vienna: Mekhitharistes [Dr.].Google Scholar
. 1980. Altarmenisches Elementarbuch. 2nd unchanged edn. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Meyer, Robin. 2015. Morphosyntactic alignment, pattern replication, and the Classical Armenian periphrastic perfect. In Stephanie W. Jamison, H. Craig Melchert & Brent Vine (eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference, 117–134. Bremen: Hempen.Google Scholar
Müth, Angelika. 2014. Indefiniteness, animacy and object marking: A quantitative study based on the Classical Armenian Gospel translation. Oslo: University of Oslo dissertation.Google Scholar
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. 1971. Kauzativnye konstrukcii v nemeckom jazyke: Analitičeskij kauzativ [Causative constructions in German: The compound causative]. Leningrad: Nauka. [German translation: Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. 1976. Kausativkonstruktionen (Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 4). Tübingen: Narr].Google Scholar
(ed.). 1988. Typology of resultative constructions (Typological Studies in Language 12). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. & Sergej Je. Jaxontov. 1988. The typology of resultative constructions. In Nedjalkov (ed.), 3–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olsen, Birgit Anette. 1999. The noun in Biblical Armenian: Origin and word formation; with special emphasis on the Indo-European heritage (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 119). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ouzounian, Agnès. 2002. Le parfait en arménien classique. Revue des Études Arméniennes 28. 13–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Le parfait en arménien classique: notes à propos de lsem “entendre”. Revue des Études Arméniennes 30. 15–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parsons, Terence. 1990. Events in the semantics of English: A study in subatomic semantics (Current Studies in Linguistics Series 19). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rijksbaron, Albert. 2002. The syntax and semantics of the verb in Classical Greek. 3rd edn. Amsterdam: Gieben.Google Scholar
Schmitt, Rüdiger. 2007. Grammatik des Klassisch-Armenischen mit sprachvergleichenden Erläuterungen. 2nd revised edn. (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 123). Innsbruck: Institut für Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Stempel, Reinhard. 1983. Die infiniten Verbalformen des Armenischen (Europäische Hochschulschriften 21: Linguistik 22). Frankfurt: Lang.Google Scholar
Tēr-Mkrtčʻean, Karapet. 1910. (ed.). Irenaeus. Adversus haereses. Gegen die Häretiker. Buch 4 u. 5. In armenischer Version entdeckt von Karapet Ter-Mkrttschian. Leipzig: Hinrichs.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Meyer, Robin
2023. Iranian Syntax in Classical Armenian, DOI logo
Dahl, Östen
2022. Perfects Across Languages. Annual Review of Linguistics 8:1 ► pp. 279 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 june 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.