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
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

Cited by 2 other publications

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

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 april 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.