Dating an armenian woman
In the clip, Khloe seductively tugged at her white sweatpants to show off her plunging black bodysuit. 'How sick does my #GOODSQUAD look in their brand new @goodamerican GOOD SWEATS!? Furthermore, it should be emphasized that these borrowings were not limited to the vocabulary but also involve derivational suffixes, phraseology, and all kinds of names, and that they are from the beginning of the Armenian literary tradition inextricably mixed with the inherited vocabulary of IE. (For the political, social, cultural, and religious contacts between Iran, Armenia, and Georgia see most recently Lang, 1983.) 2. Armenian word forms are close to or even identical with Iranian and especially NPers. languages themselves, e.g.: -; see Benveniste, 1957/58, pp. In every investigation of these questions one must bear in mind, however, that individual cases either may not be so clearcut on the Iranian side because the Ir. 25-29) thought she had found the key to its characterization in older Aramaic inscriptions from the region, particularly in that of King Artašês/Artaxias (189-160 B. characteristics of which a limited number can be established for the Old Iranian period (see Périkhanian herself, 1966, p. Most striking is the fact that a number of words known only from Sogdian were borrowed into Armenian (see Bolognesi, 1966, pp. No definitive proof has been found but it is plausible to assume that the words in question may have been East Iranian words that entered Armenian via Parthian. But matters are clearest in the case of some borrowings from Greek, in particular with the older ones, which were taken over in the period before the complete Christianization of Armenia. Formerly it was thought that the borrowings in the first group go back to a period when the original final syllables had not yet disappeared. Such an assumption would entail that the so-called (older) Arm. A chronological dilemma is brought about by treating as morphologically late such group 2 forms which phonological criteria prove to be archaic borrowings. Such words or compositional elements are partly also in independent use in Arm., as is the case with - “lord, chief.” The extremely large number of these formations (collected, classified, and interpreted in detail by Leroy, 1960 and Benveniste, 1961 ) is clear evidence of the profound influence of the Arsacid and Sasanian feudal aristocracy and military on Armenia. suffixes that were true suffixes from the beginning and have gained great vitality and productivity in Arm. Conclusive evidence of the strong influence of the foreign Iranian culture and languages on Armenia and Armenian is also afforded by the loan translations, of which a steadily increasing number has been identified. On the one hand we find a great many names of Arsacid or Sasanian kings and queens, princes and princesses, generals and notables of various kinds which refer exclusively to Iran proper and to Iranian matters but just happen to occur in Armenian texts and are therefore virtually on the same level as the Ir. Schmitt, “Iranische Namenschichten und Namentypen bei altarmenischen Historikern,” , N. forms in so many cases that the particular connection between the two languages could not escape the notice of scholars even at the beginning of modern Armenological studies. transmission is in parts very fragmentary, or on the whole be more complicated because of borrowings between different Iranian dialects. This complication of the Iranian situation calls for a more comprehensive view in order to assess the Armenian borrowings, which means that one must take into account all available data rather than discuss specific criteria in isolation. The confusion described above is compounded by additional factors. That Parthian played the part of such an intermediary must be assumed also in other instances. Even the general historical situation would lead us to expect that Greek words would have come to Armenia through the Parthian empire since Greek was the cultural language of the Parthians, who were Hellenized to some extent at least in their upper classes. This view seems to have been first expounded by Meillet, 1911/12, p. 149, and it was repeated subsequently in several manuals although it was never based on a close investigation of the problem, relying mainly on certain cases of agreement between Arm. “Law of final syllables,” according to which the vowel of the originally final syllable of a word and this syllable itself disappear, would have operated only in the Arsacid period at roughly the same time as the analogous phenomenon in Western Mid. It is true that a number of such correspondences are found but they can not be considered apart from the many seemingly archaic borrowings whose antiquity is guaranteed by phonological features (e.g. The only way out of the dilemma seems to be the one proposed by Bolognesi, 1954, p. Prefixes that are of frequent occurrence and thus often allow a borrowing to be identified by way of cumulative evidence are: -: no longer productive in Arm. are, among many others, the following: --formations so characteristic of some of the younger Ir. Many phrases composed only of Armenian words were in fact modeled on Iranian expressions. It is of course much more difficult to detect instances of loan translation than loanwords so that there remains much scope for future research in this field. In Armenian literature we find from the very beginning in the fifth century A. a very large number of Iranian proper names, especially personal names. collateral tradition in Greek, Aramaic, Elamite sources, etc. Leroy, “Emprunts iraniens dans la composition nominale en arménien classique,” ibid., pp. However, such words were not at first recognized as borrowings, and as a result, in the mid-19th century experts both in Armenian and in Iranian, foremost among whom were Paul de Lagarde and F. reflecting the enormous progress that has been made since the turn of the century has become more and more pressing for both disciplines concerned, especially since H. Ačaṟyan, (Armenian etymological dictionary) 4 vols., Erevan, 1971-1979 (first mimeographed edition 1926-1935), is unreliable as far as the Iranian evidence is concerned. dialectological characteristics, as far as they are reflected in Arm. They shed light on the phonetic developments that took place in the Ir. They provide evidence relating to Ir., and especially Mid. As is well known, there are in the basically Southwest-Ir. elements, incorporated mainly in Arsacid times, and on the other hand also a certain number of Southwest-Ir. dialects from Sasanian times, as in the case of Man. In this respect the book by Bolognesi, 1960, where all the most important dialectological features reflected in Armenian are discussed in great detail, is in every way a model. 24 established a connection of this phenomenon with the Iranian southwest, Benveniste, 1964, p. A third position was adopted by Périkhanian, 1968, pp. Thus, the Parthians came into close contact with the Armenians only after having spread over Northwest Iran in the second half of the second century B. They thus contributed much to the extinction of the old “Median” or “Atropatenian” dialect spoken there, a dialect apparently closely related to their own language. Most obvious is the case of Indian or Aramaic/Syriac words. Such indirect borrowing of Greek words via Parthian often can not be established unambiguously (as e.g. 124, that these cases of coincidence between the Arm. stem classes are to be explained as restored from derivatives or compounds in which the stem vowel could have been readily preserved. borrowed those forms when their final syllables had already been shortened in Ir., that is, in their typically Mid. form, and that the loss of the final syllables seen in the Arm. This process depended for its success on widespread bilingualism. influence have been brought to light only in recent times, mainly by Bolognesi (see Bolognesi, 1961; 1962a; 1966, pp. On the other hand, however, there are those names of Ir. studies as well, since they have become fully integrated within the Arm. The borrowing of personal names of foreign origin from other peoples is always conditioned by cultural matters and based upon something like an onomastic fashion.
Still today we are indebted to the one volume that was published of his (Hübschmann, 1897, pp. Bolognesi, and many others (see the articles cited in the select bibliography) have proved by means of Ir. words in Armenian, have in the meantime been identified, or at least claimed as Iranian loanwords (see Bolognesi, 1966, pp. 27f.), even if the last word has not yet been said in some cases: “distant.” Here the important point is that where the phonological development is parallel in both Parthian (or Iranian) and Armenian, it is not always possible to be certain whether a word is borrowed or inherited. borrowings to have come through Parthian (see especially Benveniste, 1957/ and Bolognesi, 1960). They must be examined more closely and the following points must be taken into account: a) Among the Arsacid loans there are words belonging to the basic vocabulary of everyday life in all its aspects including many adjectives, such as “better,” and others denoting colors, even though adjectives are not usually borrowed as readily as substantives. c) Only the Arsacid borrowings were still productive in Armenian so that new words, derivatives as well as compounds, could be formed from them. This was proved definitively by Bolognesi, 1951, who was able to advance beyond the work of Hübschmann by postulating on the basis of different phonological representations (such as Arm. Armenian played a similar role in connection with the neighboring languages in the north, especially Georgian. loanwords occur in Old Georgian literature from the fifth century A. After the fall of the Sasanian empire in the middle of the seventh century A. the Armenians came for a long period under the influence of Islamic masters (Arabs, Saljuqs, Mongols, and Ottomans), but that foreign rule did not greatly affect Armenian culture and language since the Armenians remained firmly Christian. In general they are limited to later, specialized or technical literature that has in many cases been translated from the donor languages. In other cases a more exact chronological classification is difficult or impossible because of the lack of decisive evidence. The Arsacids ruling in Armenia of course never abandoned their onomastic tradition, not even after becoming Christians. for which the name concerned is attested for the first time even when the Arm. times such as the three-stem formations based upon secondary composition or the “theophoric dummy dvandvas” of the ), which resulted from the secondary juxtaposition of two divine names. period, although this does not mean that it is possible to date each borrowing precisely. vocabulary, even though they are attested by only a few words, seem to belong to the time before Macedonian and Seleucid rule over Iran, i. chiefly to Achaemenid times, when Armenia was under Iranian domination but not yet thoroughly Iranianized (see Meillet, 1911/12, pp. The order followed is that of the Armenian alphabet. These borrowings from the Iranian religious vocabulary did not occur as a result of the close Irano-Armenian symbiosis during the Arsacid period. The terminology involved is not connected with any particular religious ideas such as those of Zoroastrianism but reflects the religious notions current among the people at large as is revealed by the fact that in the Bible translation even the disciples of Christ and the angels were designated by two terms of Iranian provenance: ), and even numerals, adverbs, and other indeclinables, may be carried out in different ways. historical dialectology, which made it possible for the first time to discover the exact Ir. However, in this case the Iranian evidence may be provided by Khotanese since, as R. 534ff.) because an argument often advanced is that since the model assumed is not attested in Iranian, the derivation from Iranian is based upon an argument ad silentio. interrelations, and is, as always in such cases, exemplified clearly by double borrowings like In general the Arm. It has been suggested that the first borrowing may have been that very form still shows the effect of the Arm. No attempt is made here to present a complete or even a comprehensive catalogue of the Iranian elements in Armenian. This fact often makes it easy to date the borrowings, especially if it is possible to obtain additional evidence from typical features of the historical phonology such as the characteristic Arm. In various studies (especially 1971), Nalbandyan has tried to distinguish between OIr. names, those from the Zoroastrian pantheon, and Scythian names), Mid. Nevertheless, there are cases where the rules of historical phonology allow not even the slightest doubt, as e.g. forms of the loanwords indicate that they were borrowed after the OIr. Note also that any such classification is to some extent arbitrary. elements in the common vocabulary, numerous as they are, seem nevertheless to be outnumbered by those pertaining to religion. Boccali, “Influenze della religione iranica sulla cultura armena,” -).
She traveled to Armenia with her family two years ago to learn more about her heritage.