A grammar of

Iranian Armenian
Parskahayeren or Iranahayeren

Hossep Dolatian
Afsheen Sharifzadeh
Bert Vaux

language
Languages of the Caucasus 3 science
press
Languages of the Caucasus

Editors: Diana Forker (Universität Jena), Nina Dobrushina (National Research University Higher
School of Economics, Moscow), Timur Maisak (Institute of Linguistics at the Russian Academy of
Sciences, Moscow), Oleg Belyaev (Lomonosov Moscow State University).

In this series:

1. Daniel, Michael, Nina Dobrushina & Dmitry Ganenkov (eds.). The Mehweb language:
Essays on phonology, morphology and syntax.

2. Forker, Diana. A grammar of Sanzhi Dargwa.

3. Dolatian, Hossep, Afsheen Sharifzadeh & Bert Vaux. A grammar of Iranian Armenian:
Parskahayeren or Iranahayeren.

ISSN (print): 2699-0148

ISSN (electronic): 2699-0156
A grammar of
Iranian Armenian
Parskahayeren or Iranahayeren

Hossep Dolatian
Afsheen Sharifzadeh
Bert Vaux

language
science
press
Hossep Dolatian, Afsheen Sharifzadeh & Bert Vaux. 2023. A grammar of Iranian
Armenian: Parskahayeren or Iranahayeren (Languages of the Caucasus 3). Berlin:
Language Science Press.

This title can be downloaded at:

http://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/354
© 2023, Hossep Dolatian, Afsheen Sharifzadeh & Bert Vaux
Published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Licence (CC BY 4.0):
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
ISBN: 978-3-96110-419-2 (Digital)
978-3-98554-077-8 (Hardcover)

ISSN (print): 2699-0148

ISSN (electronic): 2699-0156
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.8177018
Source code available from www.github.com/langsci/354
Errata: paperhive.org/documents/remote?type=langsci&id=354

Cover and concept of design: Ulrike Harbort

Proofreading: Amir Ghorbanpour, Diana M. Lewis, Elliott Pearl, Geoffrey Haig,
Jean Nitzke, Jeroen van de Weijer, Mary Ann Walter, Maša Bešlin, Patricia
Cabredo, Rebecca Madlener, Steven Kaye, Tom Bossuyt, Vladan Sutanovac,
Yvonne Treis
Fonts: Libertinus, Arimo, DejaVu Sans Mono, Mardoto
Typesetting software: XƎLATEX

Language Science Press

xHain
Grünberger Str. 16
10243 Berlin, Germany
http://langsci-press.org

Storage and cataloguing done by FU Berlin

Contents
Acknowledgments v

Abbreviations vii

1 Introduction 1
1.1 Overview of Iranian Armenian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 Migration history and dialect classification . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.3 Sociolinguistics of the Iranian Armenian community . . . . . . 10
1.3.1 Characteristics of the three codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.3.2 Social stigmatization of the spoken vernacular . . . . . . 12
1.4 Fieldwork and language consultants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.5 Orthography, transcription, and glossing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2 Phonology 17
2.1 Segmental phonology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.1.1 Laryngeal qualities of consonants . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.1.2 Rhotics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.1.3 Other consonants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.1.4 Vowel inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.2 Suprasegmental phonology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.2.1 Syllable structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.2.2 Lexical stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.2.3 Prosodic phonology and intonation . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

3 Morphophonology 39
3.1 Morphophonological alternations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.1.1 Root-initial glide insertion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.1.2 Vowel hiatus repair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.1.3 Destressed high vowel reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.2 Phonologically-conditioned allomorphy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.2.1 Syllable-counting allomorphy of the plural suffix . . . . 44
3.2.2 Schwa alternations in the determiner slot . . . . . . . . 45
3.2.3 Voicing assimilation in the synthetic future prefix . . . . 48
Contents

3.3 Phonosyntax: Auxiliary-induced segment deletion . . . . . . . . 49

3.3.1 Background on the mobile auxiliary . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.3.2 Non-constant form of the perfective converb . . . . . . 52
3.3.3 Long-distance conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.3.4 Irregular imperfective converb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
3.3.5 Diachronic origins and effects of adjacency . . . . . . . 61

4 Nominal morphology 67
4.1 Basic template for nominal inflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
4.2 Constraints on definite marking and case marking . . . . . . . . 70
4.3 Constraints on possessive marking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
4.4 Synthetic constructions for plural possessors . . . . . . . . . . . 74
4.5 Differential object marking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
4.6 Indefinites and classifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

5 Function words 79
5.1 Personal pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
5.2 Demonstratives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
5.3 Interrogative pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
5.4 Numerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
5.4.1 Cardinal numerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
5.4.2 Ordinal numerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
5.5 Other function words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

6 Verbal morphology 99
6.1 Simple verbs and their classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
6.2 Auxiliaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
6.2.1 Present auxiliary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
6.2.2 Past auxiliary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
6.2.3 Negation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
6.3 Periphrastic structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
6.3.1 Indicative present and past imperfective . . . . . . . . . 109
6.3.2 Present perfect and pluperfect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
6.3.3 Simultaneous converb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
6.4 Synthetic forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
6.4.1 Past perfective or aorist form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
6.4.2 Subjunctive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
6.4.3 Imperatives and prohibitives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
6.4.4 Participles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

ii
 Contents

6.5 Future: Synthetic and periphrastic constructions . . . . . . . . . 137

6.5.1 Variation in future marking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
6.5.2 Periphrastic future with a converb . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
6.5.3 Synthetic future with a prefix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
6.6 Complex regular verb class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
6.6.1 Passives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
6.6.2 Inchoatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
6.6.3 Causatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
6.7 Irregular verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
6.7.1 Infixed verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
6.7.2 Suppletive verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
6.7.3 Defective verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
6.7.4 Other irregular verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

7 Syntax 167
7.1 Object clitic for second person . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
7.1.1 General use of the object clitic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
7.1.2 Object clitic for direct objects in the synthetic future . . 171
7.1.3 Object clitic for other tenses and moods . . . . . . . . . 174
7.1.4 Cliticizing other verbal arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
7.2 Resumptive pronouns in relative clauses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
7.3 Subjunctive marking in complement clauses . . . . . . . . . . . 180
7.4 Agreement-marking in nominalized relative clauses or
participial clauses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

8 Text 187

References 191

Index 211
Name index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211

iii
Acknowledgments
First and foremost, we thank the speakers of Iranian Armenian who shared their
speech and culture with us.
Afsheen extends his heartfelt gratitude to his parents, Khalil and Simin Shar-
ifzadeh, whose support allowed him to acquire his first Armenian primer as a
teenager, and years later to journey freely throughout Persia and Armenia con-
ducting fieldwork. Afsheen thanks his brother, Arya Sharifzadeh, who acted as
a sounding board for sociological and linguistic discussions, and without whom
his research on the Iranian Armenian dialect would not have happened. To Dr.
Ina Baghdiantz-McCabe, a world expert on New Julfa who inspired his passion
for Iranian Armenian topics, Afsheen says մի աշխարհ շնորհակալութիւն. Afsheen
extends a special thanks to his dear friends Sevada, Tina and Lernik Yedgarian
for their undying hospitality and becoming something of an adoptive Armenian
family in Tehran, Yerevan, and Los Angeles.
Bert thanks Armen, Anna Gevorkyan, Ara Ghazarians, Arsineh Artounians
Hovannisian, Bavrina Bigjahan, Hagop Hachikian, Narineh Hacopian, Anahit
Keshishian, Armineh Mirzabegian, and Alla Petrosyan. He would especially like
to thank Karine Megerdoomian for her extensive insights into Iranian Armenian
lexis, syntax, and sociolinguistics over the years, and Richard Hovannisian for
introducing him to many members of the Iranian Armenian community in the
Los Angeles area over the years, which first made him aware of how distinctive
and widespread the dialect is, and for organising the 2004 UCLA conference on
Armenians in Iran that forced him to begin crystallizing his fieldwork on the
dialect.
Hossep thanks Hannah Cox and Vartan Haghverdi for teaching him what Ira-
nian Armenian is in the first place. Hossep also thanks Karine Megerdoomian
for continuing fieldwork together.
Among Hossep’s consultants, much of the material in this grammar wouldn’t
have been possible without Hossep’s main consultant and language teacher, Ni-
cole Khachikian. Hossep thanks her from the bottom of his heart for all the Zoom
meetings. He thanks Arevik Torosyan for providing Eastern recordings, and for
bearing with him over Facebook. Vahagn Petrosyan is owed special thanks for
organizing the Eastern Armenian paradigms on Wiktionary in such a way that
Acknowledgments

it was relatively easy to go about our morphology fieldwork. We thank the many
Eastern speakers who helped us with elicitations and Eastern syntax: Mariam
Asatryan, Harut Hayrapetyan, Katherine Hodgson, Victoria Khurshudyan.
We thank Beaina Amirian, James Barry, Maryam Ghiasian, Shushan Kara-
petian, Varand Nikolaian, Shakeh Amirian Petrossian, Hakimeh Rezayi, Claris
Sarkissian, and Hamo Vassilian for help in tracking down Iranian Armenian
sources.
We thank the comedians who wrote and acted out the sample text on Insta-
gram:1 Tiffany Alice, Ryan Ebrahamian, Helen Kalognomos, Loucineh Mardiros-
sian, Shant Nazarian, and Gilbert Sinanian.
For discussion of various aspects of Armenian dialectology, we thank Nikita
Bezrukov, Peter Cowe, Garoun Engström, Hagop Gulludjian, Tereza Hovhan-
nisyan, Hrach Martirosyan, and Anooshik Melikian. For Turkic discussions, we
thank Stephen Nichols and Jonathan North Washington.
For discussion of various aspects of Persian phonology and syntax, we thank
Koorosh Ariyaee, Reza Falahati, Hamed Rahmani, Nima Sadat-Tehrani, and Scott
Seyfarth. We especially thank Nazila Shafiei for syntax elicitations.
For discussion of the liquid deletion process, we thank Arto Anttila, Canaan
Breiss, Larry Hyman, Mark Liberman, Kate Lindsey, Nicholas Rolle, Katherine
Russell, Hannah Sande, and Shanti Ulfsbjorninn.
For discussions of the past perfective paradigms, we thank Sargis Avetyan,
Matthew Carter, Borja Herce, Brian Joseph, Laura Kalin, Shuan Karim, and Jordan
Kodner.
We thank Diana Forker, Felix Kopecky, and Sebastian Nordhoff for their pa-
tience and advice as we went through the publishing process. We owe a special
thanks to our reviewers (Katherine Hodgson and Donald Stilo) and proofreaders
for making this book better.
Finally, we thank the sender of the anonymized email in §1.3. If it wasn’t for
that email, Hossep would not have bothered to do any of the synthesis or replica-
tion work. For better or worse, this grammar was done out of resistance against
linguistic discrimination.

1
https://www.instagram.com/tv/COWtIvUn4KA/

vi
Abbreviations
√ root ins instrumental
abl ablative loc locative
acc accusative lv linking vowel
agr agreement neg negation
aor aorist stem or suffix, nmlz nominalizer
regardless of whether nom nominative
it’s used in the past nx stem extender between
perfective or in other irregular nouns or
contexts pronouns and oblique cases
asp aspect om object marker (for Persian)
aux auxiliary verb or copula ‘is’ ord ordinal
k case pass passive
caus causative perf.cvb perfective converb
clf classifier pl plural
con connective poss.1sg first person possessive
cn.cvb connegative converb suffix poss.2sg second person possessive
or converb form pro pronoun
dat dative prog progressive (used for Persian)
def definite proh prohibitive
det determiner prs present
fut synthetic future ptcp participle
fut.cvb future converb pst past
gen genitive rptcp resultative participle
imp imperative sg singular
impf imperfective sim.cvb simultaneous converb
impf.cvb imperfective converb sbjv subjunctive
inch inchoative sptcp subject participle
ind indicative (used for Western t tense
Armenian) th theme vowel
indf indefinite vx meaningless suffix
inj interjection as a verbal stem-extender
inf infinitive
1 Introduction
In this grammar, what we call Iranian Armenian is the koine variety of spoken
Eastern Armenian that developed in Tehran, Iran over the last few centuries.
It has a substantial community of speakers in California. This variety or lect
is called ‘Persian Armenian’ [pɒɻskɒhɒjeɻen] or ‘Iranian Armenian’ [iɻɒnɒhɒ-
jeɻen] by members of the community (romanized as ‘Parksahayeren’ and ‘Irana-
hayeren’). A speaker of this dialect (or a person descended from this community)
is called a ‘Persian Armenian’ [pɒɻskɒhɒj] or ‘Iranian Armenian’ [iɻɒnɒhɒj] (ro-
manized as ‘Parskahay’ and ‘Iranahay’). The name is a compound of the term for
Persian or Iranian, plus the compound linking vowel /-ɒ-/, and then the word for
Armenian (Table 1.1).
Table 1.1: Name of the language and of the ethnic group

Armenian Persian Armenian Iranian Armenian

Person hɒj pɒɻsk-ɒ-hɒj iɻɒn-ɒ-hɒj
հայ պարսկահայ իրանահայ

Language hɒjeɻen pɒɻsk-ɒ-hɒjeɻen iɻɒn-ɒ-hɒjeɻen

հայերէն պարսկահայերէն իրանահայերէն

Roots: pɒɻsik ‘Persian’ iɻɒn ‘Iran’

պարսիկ Իրան

Persian Armenian is the more conventional name for the language. It reflects
the historic name for Persia used in the Armenian language, Parskastan Պարս-
կաստան, which is still widely used by Armenians in Iran today, and the fact that
the Armenian community and their dialects existed prior to the creation of the
modern state of Iran. But in recent years, some circles within the community
have shifted to preferring the term “Iranian Armenian.” They feel that using the
name “Persian Armenian” creates the wrong sense that either a) the Armenian
variety is closely related genetically to the Persian language, or b) that these Ar-
menians are ethnically Persian. Out of respect to this newer sentiment in the
1 Introduction

community, we use the English name “Iranian Armenian” (IA) in this grammar
to refer to this dialect.
The present book is not a comprehensive grammar of the language. It occu-
pies a gray zone between being a simple sketch vs. a sizable grammar. We try to
clarify the basic aspects of the language, such as its phoneme inventory, notice-
able morphophonological processes, various inflectional paradigms, and some
peculiar aspects of its syntax. We likewise provide a sample text of Iranian Ar-
menian speech (Chapter 8). Many aspects of this variety seem to be identical
to Standard Eastern Armenian, so we tried to focus more on those aspects of
Iranian Armenian which differ from that variety. Readers are encouraged to con-
sult Dum-Tragut’s (2009) reference grammar of Standard Eastern Armenian if
needed.
The introduction provides a basic typological sketch of the language (§1.1). We
then discuss the origin of the Iranian Armenian community and its demographics
in §1.2. The community displays triglossia and we discuss the community’s basic
sociolinguistics in §1.3. We discuss how we carried out our fieldwork in §1.4 and
our annotation system in §1.5.
At the time of writing this grammar, we have made recordings of some but
not all of the examples in the grammar. We have created an online archive. We
are currently holding it on GitHub, but we plan to transfer it to a more dedicated
archive in the future.1 The archive consists of the following items:

• some recorded elicitations

• original sound files that are used in the figures in the phonology chapter
(Chapter 2)

• complete verb conjugation classes from the verb morphology chapter

(Chapter 6)

• the sample text from Chapter 8

Elicitation records were made over either Zoom, Audacity, or text messaging
services (Telegram and Facebook Messenger); the recording medium does have
some effects on the acoustic signal (Sanker et al. 2021). The elicitations and sam-
ple text were transcribed with Praat TextGrids (Boersma 2001), and then broken
up with Praat scripts (DiCanio 2020).

1
https://github.com/jhdeov/iranian_armenian

2
 1.1 Overview of Iranian Armenian

1.1 Overview of Iranian Armenian

When providing a basic typological sketch of this variety, it is wise to first ex-
plain how Iranian Armenian relates to other Armenian varieties. Armenian is an
independent branch of the Indo-European language family. Its earliest attested
ancestor is Classical Armenian of the ~5th century. The modern varieties of Arme-
nian are conventionally divided into two branches: Western and Eastern. There
are two standardized dialects that are mutually intelligible after significant expo-
sure: Standard Western Armenian (SWA) and Standard Eastern Armenian (SEA),
which we sometimes call Standard Western and Standard Eastern. Both branches
have dozens of extinct, endangered, or viable non-standard varieties (Adjarian
1909, Աճառեան 1911, Greppin & Khachaturian 1986, Vaux 1998b: §1.1, Baronian
2017, Dolatian submitted).
Geographically, the dividing line between the two branches roughly corre-
sponds with the Turkey-Armenia border. Dialects that developed and were spo-
ken in the Ottoman Empire are part of the Western group, while dialects that
developed in the Persian and Russian Empires constitute the Eastern branch. Ira-
nian Armenian is part of this Eastern branch. The variety likely developed from
a common ancestor between Standard Eastern and Iranian Armenian. Whereas
Standard Eastern (as spoken in Yerevan) is a more conservative descendant of
this ancestor, Iranian Armenian has developed various innovations that we dis-
cuss in this grammar. Despite these innovations, speakers of Iranian Armenian
report feeling that Iranian Armenian is a dialect of Standard Eastern.
In terms of its segmental and suprasegmental phonology, Iranian Armenian for
the most part resembles Standard Eastern Armenian. Like Standard Eastern and
unlike Standard Western, Iranian Armenian has a three-way laryngeal contrast
for stops and affricates, e.g., /b, p, pʰ/ as in Table 1.2 (§2.1.1) (Hacopian 2003). It
has a two-way rhotic contrast between a trill /r/ and a retroflex approximant /ɻ/
(§2.1.2). It has a relatively simple vowel inventory of /ɒ, e, i, o, u, ə/, and it includes
/æ/ as a marginal phoneme, mostly for Iranian loanwords (§2.1.4).
Table 1.2: Illustrating the three-way laryngeal contrast in Standard
Eastern and Iranian Armenian, but not Standard Western

IA SEA SWA
‘word’ bɒr bɑr pʰɑɾ բառ
‘cheese’ pɒniɻ pɑniɾ bɑniɾ պանիր
‘elephant’ pʰiʁ pʰiʁ pʰiʁ փիղ

3
1 Introduction

In terms of differences, the Iranian Armenian segments /ɻ, ɒ/ correspond to

Standard Eastern /ɾ, ɑ/, while /æ/ does not exist in Standard Eastern. These dif-
ferences are likely due to contact with Persian. A significant area of difference
is in question intonation: Iranian Armenian has adopted the intonation patterns
of Persian when forming questions (§2.2.3).
For morphophonology (Chapter 3), Iranian Armenian has grammaticalized
as obligatory some processes that are optional or variable in Standard Eastern.
These involve allomorphy of the definite article (§3.2.2), and a process of liq-
uid deletion in periphrasis (§3.3). Liquid deletion is a type of phonosyntactic or
syntax-sensitive phonological process (or arguably syntax-sensitive allomorphy).
The liquid of the perfective converb suffix -el or -eɻ is deleted if the suffix does
not precede the auxiliary.
For morphology, Iranian Armenian has agglutinative and suffixal inflection.
There is no grammatical gender. Nouns inflect for case, number, and determin-
ers (definite, possessive), with some residue of irregular inflection. Nominal mor-
phology is largely the same in Standard Eastern and Iranian Armenian (Chap-
ter 4).
For verbal morphology (Chapter 6), Iranian Armenian verbs are divided into
different conjugation classes based on the type of theme vowel, presence of va-
lency suffixes (causative, passive, inchoative), and any irregularities in inflection
(root suppletion, affix allomorphy, etc.). Iranian Armenian uses synthetic inflec-
tion for some parts of the verbal paradigm, but it is largely periphrastic. Like Stan-
dard Eastern and unlike Standard Western, Iranian Armenian forms the present
indicative by using a converb and an inflected auxiliary, while Standard Western
uses a synthetic form instead (Table 1.3).

Table 1.3: Illustrating periphrastic vs. synthetic verbal inflection across

the dialects

IA siɻ-um e-m սիրում եմ

SEA siɾ-um e-m սիրում եմ
like-impf.cvb aux-1sg
SWA ɡə-siɾ-e-m կը սիրեմ
ind-like-th-1sg
‘I like.’

4
 1.1 Overview of Iranian Armenian

Compared to Standard Eastern, Iranian Armenian has developed some signif-

icant changes in verbal inflection. The suffix /-m/ is a 1SG agreement marker for
present verbs in Standard Eastern Armenian, but this suffix has been generalized
to mark the 1SG for any possible tense in Iranian Armenian (§6.2.2). Compare the
various tenses of ‘to read’ in Table 1.4. And in the past perfective or aorist, Iranian
Armenian has developed extensive changes in what suffixes are used to mark the
past and perfective/aorist morphemes (§6.4.1). In brief, Standard Eastern Arme-
nian uses the morpheme template /-t͡sʰ-i/ for most verb classes, such as A-Class
‘to read’ and E-Class ‘to sing’, while it uses /-∅-ɑ/ for irregulars like ‘to eat’. Note
the presence of theme vowels before /-t͡sʰ-i/, and the absence of theme vowels
before /-∅-ɑ/. In contrast, Iranian Armenian has generalized the /-∅-ɒ/ pattern
and uses this template for many types of regular verb classes, such as ‘they sang’
but not ‘they read’.
Table 1.4: Illustrating changes in verbal inflection across Standard East-
ern and Iranian Armenian

Tense Verb SEA IA

Sbjv. Pres. 1SG ‘to read’ kɑɾtʰ-ɑ-m kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-m read-th-1sg
կարդամ կարդամ
Sbjv. Past 1SG ‘to read’ kɑɾtʰ-ɑj-i-∅ kɒɻtʰ-ɒj-i-m read-th-pst-1sg
կարդայի կարդայիմ

Past Pfv. 3PL ‘to read’ kɑɾtʰ-ɑ-t͡sʰ-i-n kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-i-n read-th-aor-pst-3pl

կարդացին կարդացին
Past Pfv. 3PL ‘to sing’ jeɾkʰ-e-t͡sʰ-i-n jeɻkʰ-∅-∅-ɒ-n sing-th-aor-pst-3pl
երգեցին երգան
Past Pfv. 3PL ‘to eat’ keɾ-∅-∅-ɑ-n keɻ-∅-∅-ɒ-n eat-th-aor-pst-3pl
կերան կերան

In terms of syntax (Chapter 7), we have not been able to carry out an exten-
sive study of Iranian Armenian. Based on intuitions of our speakers, it seems that
Standard Eastern and Iranian Armenian have relatively few significant syntactic
differences. Like Standard Eastern Armenian, Iranian Armenian is primarily an
SOV language but with free word order. One important area of commonality
is that the copula is a mobile auxiliary in Standard Eastern and Iranian Arme-
nian but not in Standard Western (Kahnemuyipour & Megerdoomian 2011). The
auxiliary is added to focused words in Standard Eastern and Iranian Armenian
(Table 1.5).

5
1 Introduction

Table 1.5: Mobile clitic in Standard Eastern and Iranian Armenian but
not Standard Western

IA mɒɻjɒ-n ɒ uɻɒχ Մարիան ա ուրախ։

SEA mɑɾjɑ-n e uɾɑχ Մարիան է ուրախ։
Maria-def aux happy
SWA mɑɾjɑ-n uɾɑχ e Մարիան ուրախ է։
Maria-def happy aux
‘MARIA is happy.’

There are some syntactic differences that we have noted. Due to contact with
Persian, Iranian Armenian can use the second person possessive suffix -t to act
as an object clitic. No such use is attested for the other persons. There are other
minor innovations in relative clause formation, again mostly due to Persian con-
tact.
In terms of its lexicon, we have not found any major differences between Stan-
dard Eastern and Iranian Armenian. Because of contact and sometimes bilingual-
ism with Persian, Iranian Armenian speakers tell us that they often use Persian
words for some concepts, such as for various plants or spices. The community
has likewise borrowed some Persian phrases and turned them into Armenian
phrases, i.e., calques.
For example, the following phrases in Table 1.6 are common phrases in Persian;
they are syntactically complex predicates made up of a word and light verb.2
Armenian speakers have adopted these phrases and just replaced the light verb
with an Armenian equivalent. These phrases are known even by young members
of the California diaspora who speak Iranian Armenian but not Persian.3
Unfortunately due to lack of time and resources, we haven’t been able to carry
out an extensive study of such phrases in Iranian Armenian. See Sharifzadeh
(2015) and our sample text (Chapter 8) for more examples of calques and bor-
rowed words.
Finally, Iranian Armenian is under-described as a language. To our knowledge,
the only manuscript that even has data on this variety is Shakibi & Bonyadi
(1995). This manuscript provides some sample paradigms, and a large glossary
of Iranian Armenian. However, this document seems to actually describe a type
of code switching or mixing between Iranian Armenian and Standard Eastern
2
For the Persian borrowing [pʰæχʃ], NK felt that this word meant nothing outside of the context
of the calqued phrase in Table 1.6. So we are not sure if this word should be translated as
‘broadcast’ or not.
3
Persian IPA is taken from Wiktionary, verified by Koorosh Ariyaee.
6
 1.2 Migration history and dialect classification

Table 1.6: Calqued phrases from Persian to Iranian Armenian

Persian Iranian Armenian

‘to take a nap’ t͡ʃʰoɾt zædæn ‫چرت زدن‬ t͡ʃʰoɾtʰ χəpʰel
nap hit nap hit
‘to broadcast’ pʰæxʃ kærdæn ‫پخش كردن‬ pʰæχʃ ɒnel
broadcast do X do
‘to shower’ duʃ ɡeɾeftæn ‫دوش گرفتن‬ duʃ bərnel
shower catch shower catch

Armenian. For example, that manuscript uses some Iranian Armenian features
like the 1SG suffix -m, but it also uses more Standard Eastern Armenian features
like using the Eastern style of marking the past perfective.4 As we discuss later,
Standard Eastern and Iranian Armenian are two registers of Armenian as spoken
by the Iranian Armenian community in a type of diglossia.

1.2 Migration history and dialect classification

Armenians have had a long historical presence in Persia or Iran. We briefly review
this history in order to later illustrate the sociolinguistic situation of the modern
community.
Ethnic Armenians have been in contact with Persian or Iranian culture since
antiquity, since at least the 6th century BCE (Dekmejian 1997: 421, Hovhannisian
2021: 1). Because of this historic contact, there has been extensive language con-
tact between Armenian and Iranian languages, particularly Parthian and Middle
Persian (Meyer 2017: §1). There have been villages or areas in modern-day Iran
with historically large Armenian populations, especially in Northwest Iran or
Iranian Azerbaijan such as Tabriz. These villages, towns, and districts developed
their own dialects or Armenian varieties. These varieties differ significantly from
Standard Eastern Armenian and from (Tehrani) Iranian Armenian.
An incomplete list of some area-specific varieties include Maku (Կատվալյան
2018b), Maragha (Աճառյան 1926), New Julfa (Աճառյան 1940, Vaux in preparation),
4
Shakibi & Bonyadi (1995) do not represent the three-way laryngeal contrast for stops and af-
fricates. We suspect that this is because this manuscript seems to have developed without using
linguistic sources on Armenian (which would state that there is such a distinction), and that
the authors of this manuscript likely don’t speak Armenian.

7
1 Introduction

Salmast (Vaux 2022b), and Urmia/Khoy (Ասատրյան 1962). For an overview of

these dialects, see Martirosyan (2019, 2018: 85). These dialects constitute the his-
torical region of “Persian Armenia”, called [pɑɾskɑhɑjkʰ] Պարկսահայք in Stan-
dard Eastern Armenian (Martirosyan submitted). For an overview of the migra-
tion patterns of these dialects, see Mesropyan (2022). For lists and historical
overviews of past and present Armenian villages and districts, see Amurian &
Kasheff (1986) and Ghougassian (2021). For in-depth historical and anthropolog-
ical overviews of the Armenian community in Iran, see Cosroe Chaqueri (1998),
Sanasarian (2000), and Barry (2017b, 2018). There is likewise recent work on lan-
guage signage in Armenian-populated areas (Rezaei & Tadayyon 2018).
In terms of demographics, the ancestors of most modern Iranian Armenians
entered Iran via mass migrations (Kouymjian 1997: 19, Hovhannisian 2021: 3). In
the 1600s, Shah Abbas I of Persia forced the mass migration of ethnic Armeni-
ans from historical Eastern Armenia, especially from modern-day Nakhchivan
or Nakhijevan (Նախիջեւան). The number of these Armenians is estimated as
400,000 being deported to Iran in 1604, of which 300,000 individuals survived
by 1606 (Ghougassian 2021: 314). These Armenians then settled in different re-
gions of Iran, especially in Tabriz and in the New Julfa quarter of Isfahan, which
had been constructed specifically for their resettlement (Hovhannisian 2021: 9).
Other areas where Armenians were settled in Safavid times included Peria (Fer-
eydan), Chaharmahal, and Buurvari, while thereafter New Julfan trade networks
gave rise to Armenian communities in other urban centers throughout Persia
and as far as Astrakhan, India, Burma/Myanmar, and Java.
Over time, large numbers of Armenians then moved to Tehran sometime in the
19th and early 20th centuries, drawn by better prospects for wealth and social mo-
bility. (Hovhannisian 2021: 6). Then in the mid to late 20th century, particularly
around the time of the Islamic Revolution (1979), large numbers of Armenians
emigrated from Tehran to elsewhere around the globe, especially to Los Angeles
county in Southern California.
In terms of contemporary population size, it is difficult to get clear numbers
(Iskandaryan 2019).5 Some sources estimate that the Armenian population of
Tehran reached a peak of 50,000 people in the late decades of the 20th cen-
tury (Hovhannisian 2021: 6). The US government gives larger numbers. Curtis
& Hooglund (2008: 101) estimate that the size of the Armenian population in
Iran was around 350,000 in 1979 (prior to the revolution). Emigration then led to
a population count of 300,000 in 2000. They report that 65% of the population
lived in Tehran, around 195,000.
5
To illustrate this, see the inconsistent population estimates on the Wikipedia page for Iranian
Armenians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Armenians

8
 1.2 Migration history and dialect classification

As for the Iranian Armenian diaspora, Iranian Armenians are a culturally sig-
nificant subset of the Armenian population in California (Bakalian 2017). The US
census lists 47,197 individuals in California who report themselves as Armeni-
ans born in Iran (United States Census Bureau 2015). For more in-depth socio-
economic, demographic, and anthropological studies of the California popula-
tion, see Der-Martirosian (2021) and Fittante (2017, 2018, 2019).
Because of these complicated demographic changes, it is possible that mod-
ern Tehrani Iranian Armenian developed as an offshoot of Standard Eastern Ar-
menian. The Tehrani variety had some degree of contact with the varieties of
other Armenian villages in Iran over the centuries. Over time, as Armenians
moved within Iran to Tehran, the Tehrani community levelled their speech to
form modern-day Tehrani Iranian Armenian. This modern variety is what we
refer to as Iranian Armenian. This is the variety that is spoken and acquired by
Armenian children in Tehran, and in the large Iranian Armenian diaspora.
Because Iranian Armenian is a spoken vernacular, there are only scant records
of it. Within Armenian philology, the earliest reference we have found for Teh-
rani Iranian Armenian is in the introduction chapter of Adjarian 1940 (Աճառ-
յան 1940), which is a grammar of New Julfa Armenian (translated into English
in Vaux in preparation). For that grammar, Adjarian collected data from native
speakers on a visit to New Julfa in 1919. That variety is spoken primarily in the
New Julfa district of Isfahan. He contrasts New Julfa Armenian with what he
calls “Persian Armenian” or “Perso-Armenian” which he says is spoken in the
northern regions of Iran, including Tehran. He doesn’t provide any data on this
dialect but he states that this Perso-Armenian lect is socially predominant and
close to Yerevan Armenian. We suspect that what he calls Perso-Armenian is the
direct ancestor of modern Tehrani Iranian Armenian.
Based on conventional dialectological work in Armenian (Աճառեան 1911), the
ancestor of Standard Eastern Armenian is often assumed to be the dialect of Old
Yerevan Armenian (Dolatian submitted), though the exact genetic relationship is
complicated (Sayeed & Vaux 2017). Tehrani Iranian Armenian may have devel-
oped as a subdialect of 16th century Yerevan Armenian, or a koine that arose via
mingling Yerevan and SEA with other migrant communities (like Julfa Armeni-
ans) and the pre-existing Armenian dialects of Iran (such as in Maragha, Khoy,
and others). Based on migration patterns from Armenia to Iran, Tehrani IA may
be viewed as a daughter of the 16th century dialects of Nakhichevan and At-
ropatene (Iranian Azerbaijan, Atrpatakan), having differentiated further within
Iran over the centuries, and more recently having been subjected to prescriptive
influences from SEA and modern Yerevan Armenian through education and liter-
ary and broadcast media. Moreover, we believe that the koineization of multiple

9
1 Introduction

Iranian Armenian dialects in Tehran during the 20th century was compounded by
improved schooling in SEA and increased cultural output from Yerevan. This led
to leveling the more salient features of the lect and has in turn brought Tehrani
Iranian Armenian (the Tehran koine) closer to SEA than to other local Iranian
Armenian dialects like New Julfa Armenian. This is reflected in the tendency for
some older speakers to employ more Persianisms and retain dialectical forms
from their hometowns throughout Iran. Because of the close contact between
Iranian Armenian and SEA, IA speakers likewise report perceiving that IA is
a dialect of SEA. Adjarian himself discusses some difficulties in classifying IA,
while using the name of Perso-Armenian (Աճառյան 1940: §1), where he says that
Perso-Armenian is related to Tabriz and Astrakhan Armenian.

1.3 Sociolinguistics of the Iranian Armenian community

The Tehran community is diglossic or triglossic (Nercissians 1988, 2012). Armeni-
ans learn and speak Persian with non-Armenians, and code switching is common
(Ghiasian & Rezayi 2014, Ghiasian & Rezaei 2014). Within the Armenian commu-
nity, children acquire Iranian Armenian at home. This variety is spoken as an
informal register. In Armenian schools, children learn Standard Eastern Arme-
nian. The community uses Standard Eastern Armenian as a formal register in
literature, newspapers, written communications, and formal speech. We discuss
each code in §1.3.1, and then discuss the social stigmatization of the spoken ver-
nacular with respect to Standard Eastern Armenian (§1.3.2).
Whereas the Iranian Armenian community in Tehran is diglossic or triglos-
sic, the Iranian Armenian diaspora is much less so. For the diaspora in Califor-
nia, families may speak Iranian Armenian at home, but not necessarily Standard
Eastern or Persian. The relative rarity of transmitting Persian to the youth makes
sense because it is not a lingua franca among Armenians in the US. As for the
Armenian registers, Standard Eastern Armenian is the formal register, while Ira-
nian Armenian is the informal register. Thus the children of such communities
acquire Iranian Armenian at home. Some but not all diaspora children attend
Armenian schools where they acquire Standard Eastern.

1.3.1 Characteristics of the three codes

For Persian, Zamir (1982: §6.7) reports that Tehrani Armenians spoke a distinc-
tive dialect of Persian. Their dialect involved various phonological changes. For
example, standard Persian /æ/ was pronounced as /ɒ/ by speakers of this dialect

10
 1.3 Sociolinguistics of the Iranian Armenian community

(Zamir 1982: 370); the history of /æ/ is discussed more in §2.1.4. Afsheen Shar-
ifzadeh (AS) and others report that this Persian dialect died out over the last few
decades (Barry 2017a: 154). This dialect is now more characteristic of the current
generation’s grandparents or great-grandparents, i.e., people who were adults
around the time of Zamir (1982)’s study.
The modern community still has some level of awareness of this old dialect
however; for example, the phonological accent of this old dialect is satirized in
the work of Iranian Armenian comedian Gilbert Sinanian (Gibo Hopar).6 For the
modern community, speakers seem to use the same dialect of Persian as non-
Armenians but with some noticeable phonological features. For example, Barry
(2018: 220) reports:

Furthermore, the Armenian accent is not simply something of which Ira-

nian Armenians are self conscious; Muslim Iranians recognise it also. Two
Iranian students in Melbourne stated that the Armenian accent in Persian
is easily recognisable in its intonation.

There are similar reports on Armenian-accented Persian among Isfahan Arme-

nians (Rezaei & Farnia 2023). Though the exact linguistic features of this accent
are unclear to us. In AS’s experience, some members of the Iranian Armenian
speech community utilize the IA approximant /ɻ/ when speaking Persian, to an
extent that is easily recognizable and stereotypical of their speech among Irani-
ans (Barry 2018: 220).
As for the informal register of Iranian Armenian, this variety is natively ac-
quired at home by speakers in the Tehran community. Outside of Tehran, var-
ious people have told us that the Tehrani variety is known in other Armenian-
populated towns and villages in Iran. For example, Nercissians (2001: 64) explic-
itly states that “there is a clearly prestigious Tehrani dialect for Armenian.” Specif-
ically, spoken Tehrani Iranian Armenian is more prestigious than the spoken
vernacular of other towns and villages, such as Isfahan, Tabriz, and so on.
It seems that other Armenian varieties in Iran are dying out and being replaced
by Tehrani Iranian Armenian. For example, in AS’s travels through Iran, he’s
found that many young people in New Julfa (Isfahan) no longer speak the New
Julfa variety of their ancestors. Instead, the current generation speaks the Tehrani
variety. The parents of this generation speak Tehrani and the local New Julfa
vernacular; while the grandparents of this generation speak only the New Julfa
vernacular.

6
https://www.facebook.com/gibohopar/

11
1 Introduction

Because of the prestige and language shifts, AS suggests that Tehrani Iranian
Armenian has become a spoken koine or lingua franca among Armenians in Iran.
The social prominence of Tehrani has likewise spread throughout the Iranian
Armenian community in Los Angeles. Here, Varand Nikolaian (2016, p.c.) reports
that the Tehrani variety is quite prominent among Iranian Armenians. In Los
Angeles, Iranian Armenians from Isfahan, Tabriz, and other areas often shift to
speaking Tehrani Iranian Armenian when talking to Iranian Armenians from
other villages or towns. Some people likewise feel ashamed of their own local
vernacular and have shifted to using Tehrani Iranian Armenian even in their
own homes.
As for the formal register, it’s more accurate to say that the formal register is
Standard Eastern Armenian with an Iranian Armenian accent. That is, the com-
munity would say a Standard Eastern Armenian sentence but use Iranian Ar-
menian phonology, such as using the rounded Iranian Armenian /ɒ/ instead of
unrounded Standard Eastern /ɑ/.

1.3.2 Social stigmatization of the spoken vernacular

As a last note on sociolinguistics, we must mention the social status of Iranian
Armenian with respect to Standard Eastern Armenian. Because of the diglossic
situation in Tehran, the spoken vernacular of Tehrani Iranian Armenians is often
stigmatized as “wrong”, “broken”, or “vulgar” speech, especially by the older gen-
eration of speakers. For example, in the early 2000s, one of the present authors
(Bert Vaux, BV) gave a conference presentation at UCLA (University of California,
Los Angeles) on Iranian Armenian. Before the conference, he received an aggres-
sive email from a member of the Iranian Armenian community in California. We
repeat parts of that email below, anonymized. We re-transcribe Armenian words
in IPA. Bolding is our own; Persian words are romanized in italics.

I am writing to you to express my deep concern about your thesis of

the third literary dialect (the Persian-Armenian). The examples you cite
to prove your findings, [ɡənɒt͡sʰim], [imɒt͡sʰɒm] (instead of [ɡənɒt͡sʰi,
imɒt͡sʰɒ]), [me] (instead of [mek]) are all dialectal forms, they are used in
spoken language but never, never, never in print. You mention the printed
material before the revolution. I have not seen one example with such vul-
gar errors. As to [lev] or [lɒf] instead of [lɒv], this is truly unheard of.
These are all spoken forms by not-very-educated people in Iran and those
who are here, and there are many. As to the words havich, xiar, jafari, xi-
arshur, these are purely Persian words (not even borrowings) and nonex-

12
 1.4 Fieldwork and language consultants

istent in the spoken language let alone in the Persian Armenian literary
dialect which I think, such an animal does not exist at all...
Please check your sources before coming to these conclusions. I consider
myself an educated Iranian Armenian, who writes in Eastern Armenian lit-
erary language (and there is non [sic] other variations) and also speaks
with some dialectal forms but never mixes Persian words.
Your question of what form of literary language is/was taught in schools
in Iran. I am very much familiar with the textbooks used in Iran before the
revolution and after. The text, the syntax, the lexicon, and the grammar is
that of Standard Eastern Armenian literary language. The same standards
are used also in the media. I beg you again, revisit your findings and con-
clusions. Your presentation may irritate many Iranian Armenians. I was
hoping you would speak about a distinct dialect of Iranian Armenians, like
the Maragha dialect (the er branch: [etɑs eɾ] meaning I am going) or the
Gharadagh dialect that is close to the Gharabagh dialect.
[Correction by BV: No one uses /etɑs eɾ/. Khoy/Urmia/Salmast have /eɾtʰɑs
em/ ‘I am going’ and /eɾtʰɑs em eɾ/ ‘I was going’. Maragha uses /etʰæli im/
‘I am going’ and /etʰæli im eɾ/ ‘I was going’.]

As is clear, the email shows that the spoken vernacular is extremely stigma-
tized by at least some members of higher social classes. The dialect is considered
“vulgar”, “un-educated”, or even “non-existent”. Paradoxically, the Iranian Ar-
menian community legitimizes Armenian varieties that are spoken in the more
peripheral areas of Iran. These varieties are deemed “exotic” and un-intelligible
enough for Tehranis to consider them as legitimate languages. In contrast, the
spoken language of the average Tehrani child or adult is erased. People pretend
they don’t speak this spoken vernacular, even though they do.

1.4 Fieldwork and language consultants

This grammar is based on fieldwork that was done by each of the authors, at
different times, and with different people. We go through each phase of fieldwork
below.
The first phase of fieldwork was undertaken in the 1990s and early 2000s by
Bert Vaux (BV). BV is a trained generative phonologist and is a native speaker of
English. He undertook fieldwork by collecting data from Armenian expatriates
from Iran, especially in Boston and Los Angeles.

13
1 Introduction

BV’s main consultant was Karine Megerdoomian (KM, female), who was born
and raised in Tehran until the age of 13. There, she acquired Iranian Armenian,
Standard Eastern Armenian, and Persian. After that, she moved across Europe
and North America until finally settling in the United States. KM is a trained gen-
erative syntactician and thus often gave meta-linguistic judgments as a linguist-
speaker. At the time of BV’s fieldwork, KM was in her early 30s.
BV also elicited data from other Iranian Armenian expatriates living in the US
and Europe. One such consultant is AP. AP is a male from Peria, which is in the
province of Isfahan, Iran. His judgments were relayed to BV through AP’s wife.
The second phase was undertaken by Afsheen Sharifzadeh (AS). AS is a self-
trained linguist and is a native speaker of Persian and English. His fieldwork
was somewhat atypical. He initially was interested in merely learning the Arme-
nian culture and language. He often visited the Armenian community in Iran and
would befriend Iranian Armenian speakers. His exposure was some time in the
late 2000s and early 2010s. Over time, he developed an advanced proficiency in
Standard Eastern Armenian and Iranian Armenian. His data comes from his in-
teractions with a wide community of Iranian Armenian speakers, both in Tehran
and in expatriate communities in the US. His main consultants were people in
their early to late 20s.
The third phase was undertaken by Hossep Dolatian (HD). HD is a trained
generative morphophonologist and is a native speaker of Standard Western Ar-
menian. He did fieldwork after discovering the data collected by BV and AS. He
then undertook the task of synthesizing their data and replicating it with speak-
ers of Iranian Armenian in California. He did fieldwork in 2021 and his main
consultant was Nicole Khachikian (NK, female). Her parents and grandparents
are from Tehran. She was born and raised in the US outside of Los Angeles, but
was often within the Iranian Armenian community of LA. Her home languages
were Iranian Armenian and English. She does not know Persian. She learned
aspects of Standard Eastern Armenian both by a) learning the spoken formal
register of Standard Eastern Armenian with the larger Armenian community in
Los Angeles, and b) taking Armenian classes at university. She was in her early
20s during HD’s fieldwork. HD at times elicited data from KM, who was in her
early 50s in 2021. Recordings were made remotely, either with Praat (Boersma
2001) over Zoom or with Audacity. HD’s recording methodology is documented
on the associated archive of this grammar.
For some data points, HD elicited material on Standard Eastern Armenian in
order to show a contrast between Standard Eastern and Iranian Armenian. Some
other IA-speaking linguists were also consulted at times. Elicitations were done
with the following speakers:

14
 1.5 Orthography, transcription, and glossing

• Eastern Armenian
– Mariam Asatryan (MA): female; born and raised in Tsovasar, Arme-
nia, age was around late 20s.
– Victoria Khurshudyan (VK): female; born and raised in Goris, Arme-
nia, age was around early 40s.
– Vahagn Petrosyan (VP): male; born and raised in Yerevan, Armenia;
age was around mid 30s.
– Arevik Torosyan (AT): female; born and raised in Yerevan, Armenia
up until her late teens; age was around early 20s.

• Iranian Armenian
– Anooshik Melikian (AM): female; born and raised in Tehran, Iran up
until 2016; age was around early 50s.
– Garoun Engström (GE): female; born and raised in Uppsala, Sweden;
age was around early 30s.

As is clear, the three linguists did their fieldwork at different times and loca-
tions. However, we have found little to no discrepancies across these different
pools of data. The main differences come from generational changes in the pro-
nunciation of certain lexical items and morphemes, which we take note of.
Furthermore, neither BV, AS, nor HD are native speakers of Standard Eastern
Armenian or Iranian Armenian. BV’s and AS’s data come from speakers who
can be considered bi-dialectal, which means the speakers are proficient in both
Iranian Armenian and Standard Eastern Armenian. This is because their speak-
ers were born and raised in Iran and thus were exposed to Standard Eastern
Armenian within the education system of the Armenian community. In contrast,
HD’s main consultants are mono-lectal and mainly speak Iranian Armenian. Be-
cause HD’s consultants grew up in the US, his speakers did not acquire Standard
Eastern Armenian within an educational system. We have found only minor dif-
ferences between the grammars of bi-dialectal vs. mono-lectal speakers when it
comes to Iranian Armenian judgments or pronunciations.

1.5 Orthography, transcription, and glossing

The Armenian language is normally written in the Armenian script (Sanjian
1996). There are two orthographic conventions or spelling systems for Armenian:
Classical and Reformed. The Classical system is the original system of writing

15
1 Introduction

the Armenian script. It is used for Standard Western. It was originally used for
Standard Eastern Armenian as well, but then a series of Soviet-era spelling re-
forms created the Reformed system. The Reformed system is used for Standard
Eastern Armenian as spoken in Armenia and large parts of the Diaspora. But in
Iran, Standard Eastern Armenian is still written with the Classical system. For
an overview of these orthographic changes, see Dum-Tragut (2009: 5–6, 12).
For this grammar, we use the Reformed spelling to write Standard Eastern Ar-
menian examples. We use Classical spelling to write Iranian Armenian examples
out of respect to the community’s orthographic customs. This is somewhat atyp-
ical because Iranian Armenian is an unwritten vernacular. We have decided to
provide orthographic forms to make future cross-dialectal work easier. Note that
the orthographic script does not indicate all phonetic aspects of Iranian Arme-
nian pronunciation. All data is likewise transcribed in IPA.
For our glossed sentences, we first provide an IPA transcription, then gloss,
then translation, and then the orthographic representation.
For glossing, we follow the Leipzig Glossing Rules, and we’ve added our own
conventions for those morphosyntactic features that are absent from the Leipzig
Glossing Rules.
In this grammar, we adopt a simple item-and-arrangement model of morphol-
ogy (Hockett 1942). We try to segment as many affixes as possible. We adopt the
word “morph” as a theory-neutral term to denote the surface form of morphemes,
i.e., to simply denote morphological items (Haspelmath 2020). We at times pro-
vide realization rules to more clearly show how certain inflectional features are
marked in Iranian Armenian; these rules should not be treated as explicit formal
theoretical rules.
Full morpheme segmentation and glosses are given for sentences and for mor-
phological paradigms. In the morphology section, we likewise segment zero mor-
phemes. We generally avoid segmentation for the data in the phonology chap-
ter in order to reduce clutter. Outside of the morphology chapter, we often seg-
ment the 3SG auxiliary (positive ɒ and negative t͡ʃ-i) as just ‘(neg)-aux’ instead
of ‘(neg)-aux.prs.3sg’ to reduce clutter.
For our bibliography, we do not romanize or transliterate Armenian entries.
All Armenian entries are given in the Armenian alphabet, so that searching for
those entries in the future (via library catalogs) is easier. Translations are pro-
vided to help preview the content of the entry.

16
2 Phonology
In this chapter we present the basic segmental inventory (§2.1) and suprasegmen-
tal phonology (§2.2) of Iranian Armenian.

2.1 Segmental phonology

Table 2.1 lists the consonant inventory of Iranian Armenian, including both
phonemes and non-contrastive sounds in parentheses.
Table 2.1: Consonant inventory of Iranian Armenian

Labial Coronal Dorsal/Back

Stop p b t d k ɡ
pʰ tʰ kʰ
Affricate t͡s d͡z t͡ʃ d͡ʒ
t͡sʰ t͡ʃʰ
Nasal m n (ŋ)
Fricative f v s z ʃ ʒ χ ʁ h
Liquid ɻ l
r
Glide j (w)

Iranian Armenian has largely the same phonemic inventory as Eastern Ar-
menian. For example, both utilize a three-way laryngeal contrast for stops and
affricates: D, T, Tʰ (§2.1.1). General overviews of Standard Eastern Armenian seg-
mental phonology are found in Vaux (1998b: §1) and Johnson (1954: §1–3).
The lects do differ in a few aspects. In terms of rhotics (§2.1.2), Eastern has a
phonemic trill /r/ and phonemic flap /ɾ/, while Iranian Armenian has a phonemic
trill /r/ and phonemic approximant /ɻ/.
Both dialects have [ŋ] as a non-phonemic allophone of /n/ before velar stops.
Iranian Armenian utilizes a glide [w] as a non-contrastive epenthetic segment,
while this segment is absent for Standard Eastern (§2.1.3). We show these two
sounds with parentheses in Table 2.1.
2 Phonology

In terms of vowels (§2.1.4) in Figure 2.1, the low back vowel is unrounded /ɑ/
in Standard Eastern but rounded /ɒ/ in Iranian Armenian. Iranian Armenian also
has a low front vowel /æ/ as a marginal phoneme.

i u

e ə o

æ ɒ
Figure 2.1: Vowel inventory of Iranian Armenian

2.1.1 Laryngeal qualities of consonants

Both Standard Eastern and Iranian Armenian utilize a three-way laryngeal con-
trast for stops and affricates based on voice onset time (VOT). There is a phone-
mic contrast between prevoiced or voiced (-VOT), voiceless unaspirated (0VOT),
and voiceless aspirated (+VOT) consonants. We provide near-minimal pairs in
Table 2.2 from Iranian Armenian. In general, there is a separate grapheme (or-
thographic letter) for each type of phonemic stop/affricate. We list the graphemes
in the first column, and the phonemes in the second column.
Acoustic data on the three-way contrast can be found for both Iranian Arme-
nian (Hacopian 2003, Amirian 2017, Toparlak 2017) and Standard Eastern (Sey-
farth & Garellek 2018, Seyfarth et al. forthcoming). The contrast is maintained
even word-finally. However, there are very few words that are pronounced with
word-final voiced obstruents. The coronals have been reported to be dental in
Standard Eastern (Խաչատրյան 1988: 110), but we are unsure if they are also den-
tal in Iranian Armenian.1
For word-final voiceless unaspirated stops (p, t, k), it is reported that some
Iranian Armenian speakers pronounce these sounds as ejectives (Fleming 2000,
Toparlak 2017, Toparlak & Dolatian 2023), while some do not (Amirian 2017). For
NK, we rarely heard any ejectivized tokens. Figure 2.2 shows an example of a

1
NK self-reported a dental articulation for some tokens with initial coronal stops, but also re-
ported alveolar articulation for other tokens.

18
 2.1 Segmental phonology

Table 2.2: three-way laryngeal contrast for stops and affricates

Initial Medial Final

բ /b/ ˈbɒr ‘word’ ɒɻɒbeˈɻen ‘Arabic’ æˈɻæb ‘Arab’
բառ արաբերէն արաբ
պ /p/ pɒˈniɻ ‘cheese’ ɒpɒˈki ‘glass’ ˈkɒp ‘connection’
պանիր ապակի կապ
փ /pʰ/ ˈpʰiʁ ‘elephant’ t͡ʃʰɒˈpʰel ‘to measure’ ˈtupʰ ‘box’
փիղ չափել տուփ

դ /d/ ˈdɒɻ ‘century’ bɒˈdik ‘duckling’ ˈbɒd ‘duck’

դար բադիկ բադ
տ /t/ ˈtun ‘house’ pʰeˈtuɻ ‘feather’ ˈsut ‘lie’
տուն փետուր սուտ
թ /tʰ/ ˈtʰuɻkʰ ‘Turk’ d͡ʒuˈtʰɒk ‘violin’ ˈkɒtʰ ‘milk’
թուրք ջութակ կաթ

գ /ɡ/ ˈɡiɻkʰ ‘book’ ɒˈɻɒɡ-ə ‘fast-def’ ˈtʰɒɡ ‘crown’

գիրք արագը թագ
կ /k/ kɒɻˈtʰɒl ‘to read’ t͡ʃɒˈkɒt ‘forehead’ ˈbɒk ‘yard’
կարդալ ճակատ բակ
ք /kʰ/ ˈkʰɒɻ ‘rock’ mɒˈkʰuɻ ‘clean’ kʰɒˈʁɒkʰ ‘city’
քար մաքուր քաղաք

ձ /d͡z/ ˈd͡zun ‘snow’ hɒmɒˈd͡zɒjn ‘agreeing’ ˈind͡z ‘me.dat’

ձուն համաձայն ինձ
ծ /t͡s/ ˈt͡sɒr ‘tree’ kəˈt͡su ‘spicy’ ˈmet͡s ‘big’
ծառ կծու մեծ
ց /t͡sʰ/ ˈt͡sʰɒv ‘pain’ hɒˈt͡sʰ-i ‘bread-gen’ ˈbɒt͡sʰ ‘open’
ցաւ հացի բաց

ջ /d͡ʒ/ ˈd͡ʒuɻ ‘water’ d͡ʒənˈd͡ʒik ‘eraser’ ˈkʰɒd͡ʒ ‘brave’

ջուր ջնջիկ քաջ
ճ /t͡ʃ/ t͡ʃ ɒˈɻel ‘to look for’ ɒˈt͡ʃ el ‘to grow’ ˈlit͡ʃ ‘lake’
ճարել աճել լիճ
չ /t͡ʃʰ/ ˈt͡ʃʰɒɻ ‘evil’ ɒˈt͡ʃʰ-it͡sʰ ‘right-abl’ ˈvot͡ʃʰ ‘no’
չար աջից ոչ

19
2 Phonology

final ejectivized unaspirated /k/, along with an un-ejectivized one. The record-
ings for these two words can be found in our online archive.2 There is a larger
debate about whether any varieties of modern or ancient Armenian possess(ed)
a glottalized or ejective series of voiceless stops; for discussion and references
see Vaux (2022a).

(a) Un-ejectivized final stop (b) Ejectivized final stop

Figure 2.2: Variable ejectivization of final unaspirated stops from NK

In general, for a given morpheme that is shared between Iranian Armenian

and Standard Eastern Armenian, the obstruents in that morpheme maintain the
same laryngeal features in the two lects. That is, if a word begins with a prevoiced
stop in Standard Eastern, then it also begins with a prevoiced stop in Iranian
Armenian. This correspondence is the general case. But we have encountered
some morphemes where the Iranian Armenian pronunciation utilizes a different
laryngeal quality (Table 2.3). For example, the resultative participle suffix -ած
is pronounced /-ɑt͡s/ in Standard Eastern, but is often pronounced as /-ɒt͡sʰ/ in
Iranian Armenian with aspiration in some speakers. NK always uses aspiration
for this morpheme, while KM reports that she rarely does so.
Table 2.3: Unexpected aspiration in Iranian Armenian from NK

SEA IA
երգած jeɾˈkʰ-ɑt͡s jeɻˈkʰ-ɒt͡sʰ sing-rptcp ‘sung’
կարդացած kɑɾtʰ-ɑ-ˈt͡sʰ-ɑt͡s kɒɻtʰ-ɒˈ-t͡sʰ-ɒt͡sʰ read-th-aor-rptcp ‘read’

2
https://github.com/jhdeov/iranian_armenian

20
 2.1 Segmental phonology

From AS’s personal experience, the unexpected use of aspiration for the af-
fricate ծ /t͡s/ varies by speaker (Table 2.4). We speculate that this variable as-
piration may be connected to variable ejectivization or glottalization of voice-
less unaspirates. Variable ejectivization is reported for Standard Eastern (Schirru
2012, Seyfarth & Garellek 2018, Toparlak & Dolatian 2023). AS likewise finds vari-
able ejectivization for /t͡s/. We speculate that what we report as aspiration might
instead be a reflex of ejectivization. More data is of course needed.

Table 2.4: Unexpected but variable aspiration of affricate /t͡s/ in Iranian

Armenian from NK

SEA IA
ծնուել t͡sənˈvel t͡sənˈvel∼t͡sʰənvel ‘to be born’
գործածել ɡoɾt͡sɑˈt͡sel ɡoɻt͡sɒˈt͡sel∼ɡoɻt͡sʰɒˈt͡sʰel ‘to use’

In NK’s speech (and in her family’s), there were some words where the voiced
stops were (variably) devoiced in her speech, and some where voiceless stops
were (variably) voiced (Table 2.4). KM felt that such variable voicing was more
characteristic of heritage speakers in the diaspora than of speakers in Tehran.
Note that these are all high-frequency words.

Table 2.5: High-frequency words with variable (de)voicing from NK

and her family

SEA IA
‘(If) I come’ ɡɑm ɡɒm, kɒm գամ
‘door’ dur dur, tur դուռ
‘to put’ dənel dənel, tənel դնել
‘dance’ pɑɾ pɒɻ, bɑɻ պար
‘mouth’ beɾɑn beɻɒn, peɻɒn բերան
‘to bring’ beɾel beɻel, peɻel բերել
‘knife’ dɑnɑk dɒnɒk, dɒnɒɡ դանակ
‘yesterday’ jeɾek eɻek, eɻeɡ երեկ, էրեկ
‘drawer’ dɑɾɑk dæɻæk, dæɻæɡ դարակ

21
2 Phonology

For such voicing differences, BV reports that using devoiced tokens like [tənel]
instead of [dənel] ‘to put’ is the expected outcome in non-standard dialects of
Iran, such as Urmia, Khoy, and Salmast (Ասատրյան 1962: 34–40), Maragha (Աճառ-
յան 1926: 83–89) and Keyvan (Քեյվան) (Բաղրամյան 1985: 187). For Tehrani Iranian
Armenian, such variation in devoicing may indicate the residue of dialect shift-
ing, or possibly a diglossic continuum between Iranian Armenian and Standard
Eastern Armenian.

2.1.2 Rhotics
A stark difference between the two lects concerns their rhotics. Standard Eastern
Armenian has a phonemic contrast between a flap /ɾ/ and a trill /r/. The flap
is more frequent than the trill. Orthographically, the flap is represented by the
grapheme ր, and the trill by ռ. Although Iranian Armenian also has a two-way
rhotic distinction, the Standard Eastern flap corresponds to an Iranian Armenian
retroflex approximant /ɻ/. We contrast the two lects in Table 2.6.3
In general, if a word has a rhotic trill in Standard Eastern Armenian, then it has
a trill in Iranian Armenian as well. However, there were some high-frequency
words where NK and other speakers preferred using a trill /r/ where Standard
Eastern would use a flap /ɾ/ (Table 2.7).
Some high-frequency words have a rhotic in Standard Eastern Armenian, but
the rhotic is optionally deleted in Iranian Armenian (Table 2.8). The loss of the
rhotic here may be related to the loss of rhotics in the perfective converb (§3.3).
The Standard Eastern flap /ɾ/ is typically spirantized in some positions, such
as word-finally (Toparlak 2019: §5, Seyfarth et al. forthcoming). The Iranian Ar-
menian retroflex approximant sounds similar to the American English alveolar
approximant [ɹ] to our ears, but more retroflex like [ɻ]. A future acoustic or ar-
ticulatory study can help in determining the exact place of articulation of this
rhotic.
Cross-linguistically, it is common to find that dialects differ in the phonetic re-
alization of rhotics (Ladefoged & Maddieson 1996, Chabot 2019). It is rather rare
to find languages with a phonemic retroflex approximant [ɻ] (Arsenault 2018: 28).
For example, the UCLA Phonological Segment Inventory Database (UPSID) lists
only 17 out of 451 languages (3.77%) that have the phoneme /ɻ/ (Maddieson &
Hanson 1990).4 Most of these languages are in Australia. Similar results are ob-
tained from the PHOIBLE 2.0 database at 306 out of 3020 languages (10%) (Moran
3
The /f/ in ‘Raffi’ is variably geminated. The /b/ in Iranian Armenian ‘thin’ is variably devoiced
for NK.
4
http://menzerath.phonetik.uni-frankfurt.de/S/S0763.html

22
 2.1 Segmental phonology

Table 2.6: Rhotic contrasts in Standard Eastern and Iranian Armenian

SEA IA SEA IA
/ɾ/ /ɻ/ ր /r/ /r/ ռ

Initial ɾɑˈfi ɻɒˈfi ‘Raffi (a name)’ reˈzin reˈzin ‘eraser’

Րաֆֆի ռեզին
rɑzˈmik rɒzˈmik ‘Razmik (a name)’
Ռազմիկ
Medial bɑˈɾɑk bɒˈɻɒk ‘thin’ ˈsɑrə ˈsɒrə ‘cold’
բարակ սառը
pɑˈɾɑp pɒˈɻɒp ‘available, empty’ heˈru heˈru ‘far’
պարապ հեռու
Final ˈsɑɾ ˈsɒɻ ‘mountain’ ˈbɑr ˈbɒr ‘word’
սար բառ
ˈkɑɾ ˈkɒɻ ‘string’ ˈtɑr ˈtɒr ‘letter’
կար տառ

Table 2.7: High-frequency words that use a trill instead of an approxi-

mant

SEA IA
‘minute’ ɾope rope րոպէ
‘war’ pɑteɾɑzm pɒterɒzm պատերազմ

Table 2.8: High-frequency words that lose a rhotic in Iranian Armenian

SEA IA
‘to go’ jeɾtʰɑl, eɾtʰɑl, eɻtʰɒl, etʰɒl երթալ, էրթալ, էթալ
‘when’ jeɾpʰ jeɻpʰ, jepʰ երբ

23
2 Phonology

& McCloy 2019). For the alveolar approximant [ɹ], this segment is acoustically
quite similar to [ɻ]. This sound is cross-linguistically rare as well at 60 languages
(2%) in the PHOIBLE database. This segment is found particularly in Southeast
Asia and in English.
The origins of the Iranian Armenian approximant could be due to language
contact with Persian. Persian has a rhotic /r/ whose realization varies between
a trill, tap, fricative, and approximant (Majidi & Ternes 1991, Rafat 2010). In a
study on Persian rhotics, Rafat (2010: 675) found that when they were realized as
approximants, the approximants sounded retroflex.5
There is evidence that an approximant rhotic is attested in other Armenian
dialects of Iran. In Vaux’s translation of Աճառյան (1940)’s grammar of New Julfa
(Isfahan) Armenian, Vaux uses the IPA symbol [ɹ] to transcribe the letter ր (§6).
Allen (1950: 195) likewise reports a speaker of New Julfa who has a retroflex
fricative that he transcribes as [ɹ]. It is an open question if the Tehrani [ɻ] and
New Julfa [ɹ] are articulatorily different or the same.6
Although the trill is phonemic in both lects, KM reports that the Iranian Ar-
menian trill feels “not as trilled as in Eastern.” This suggests that the trill uses a
smaller number of tongue contacts in Iranian Armenian than in Standard East-
ern. Coincidentally, some dialects like Standard Western Armenian have lost a
phonemic trill for certain communities like in Lebanon (Vaux 1998b: 16).7 Some
communities in Canada still maintain weak phonemic and weak articulatory dis-
tinctions between trills and flaps (Tahtadjian 2020). KM’s intuitions thus might
indicate a slow language change toward losing the trill.8

5
However, the role of contact is likely limited. It is a stereotype that when IA speakers speak
Persian, they use the approximant /ɻ/ more often than Persian speakers. Classical Armenian
may have had an approximant [ɹ] (Macak 2017: 1040), so it’s possible that IA keeps [ɻ] as an
archaism. But we suspect that it’s more likely that the IA /ɻ/ is an innovation.
6
The sound /ɹ/ is sometimes reported elsewhere in the Turkey-Caucasus-Iran region: queer
Turkish speakers from Istanbul (Kontovas 2012: 11), and the Muslim variety of the Hamshen
dialect spoken in the village of Köprücü (Hopa province, northeastern Turkey) (Vaux 2007:
258). The sound [ɻ] is also reported in the Iranian language of Kumzari in Oman (van der Wal
Anonby 2015: 25). For Turkish, it seems that approximants are generally attested (Nichols 2016),
possibly characteristic of “white” Turkish women and also found in the northeastern parts of
Turkey (Nicholas Kontovas, p.c.). But it is unclear what is the exact place of articulation, with
some sources reporting an alveolar place while others report a retroflex place (Tıraş 2021: 12).
7
In Armenian dialectology, Jahukyan (Ջահուկյան 1972) reports feature 23 as about “confusion
between /r/ and /ɾ/ in non-preconsonantal position” in the dialects of Kuty, Hadjin, Tabriz,
Tbilisi, Burdur, and Maragha.
8
Don Stilo (p.c.) suggests that such a trajectory makes sense. Given that the modern IA rhotic
pair /ɻ, r/ likely descends from a /ɾ, r/ pair (wih a flap), it is possible that the trill is slowly
simplifying to become a flap.

24
 2.1 Segmental phonology

2.1.3 Other consonants

For completeness, we provide the rest of the consonantal inventory of Iranian
Armenian in Table 2.9. To our knowledge, the phonological properties of these
remaining consonants do not differ between Standard Eastern and Iranian Arme-
nian.9
The nasal /n/ becomes [ŋ] before velar stops /k, kʰ, ɡ/ (Table 2.10).
In addition to the above consonantal phonemes, Iranian Armenian has a sur-
face glide [w] that is used to repair vowel hiatus (1). This glide is discussed in
§3.1.2. It is not a contrastive or phonemic segment.

(1) /kɒˈtu =e-m/ → [kɒ.ˈtu.wem]

cat =aux-1sg
‘I am a cat.’
Կատու եմ։

2.1.4 Vowel inventory

The vowel inventory is largely the same in both lects. We provide the basic vowel
inventory in the two lects in Table 2.11. Most occurrences of the schwa are un-
written in the orthography for Standard Eastern Armenian.
Between the two lects, the main difference is that the low back vowel is un-
rounded /ɑ/ in Standard Eastern but rounded /ɒ/ in Iranian Armenian. The round-
ing of the low vowel is likely due to contact between Iranian Armenian and
Persian. Persian has a phonemic low back rounded vowel /ɒ/ (Majidi & Ternes
1991).10
9
Don Stilo (p.c.) reports that the fricative /h/ of SEA and IA sounds like a voiced form [ɦ]. We
are not sure if this impression is accurate. Instrumental work on SEA reports that the fricative
is generally a voiceless [h], but it has a voiced variant [ɦ] when intervocalic (Խաչատրյան 1988:
182–184). In Armenian dialectology, early work by Adjarian (Աճառեան 1911, translated in Dola-
tian submitted) reports a (possibly phonemic) [ɦ] in some dialects in Turkey (Erzurum/Karin,
Mush, Van, Şebinkarahisar, Sebastia), but not in modern-day Armenia or Iran. Adjarian does
however report in later work that the dialect of New Julfa in Iran possesses the phoneme
/ɦ/ (Աճառյան 1940: §5), to which Jahukyan (Ջահուկյան 1972: 60) adds Livasian (Chaharmahal).
More recent sources also report /ɦ/ in many modern Armenian varieties spoken in the Republic
of Armenia: Vardenis, Ashtarak, Koghb, Ghalacha/Berdavan, and Kamo/Gaver/New Bayazet
(Ջահուկյան 1972: 58–59), and many more in the provinces of Gegharkunik (Կատվալյան 2018a)
and Kotayk (Կատվալյան 2020).
10
Anecdotally, BV has sometimes heard a rounded /ɒ/ in spoken Eastern Armenian in Yerevan.
In modern Persian, the low back rounded vowel /ɒ/ is acoustically unstable and can approach
/ɔ/ (Esfandiari et al. 2015, Mokari et al. 2017, Aronow et al. 2017, Jones 2019). In our impressions,
the Iranian Armenian low vowel is much lower than the Armenian /o/. Although more acoustic
data is needed, we speculate that the Iranian Armenian /ɒ/ is truly [ɒ] and not [ɔ].

25
2 Phonology

Table 2.9: Other consonants in Iranian Armenian

Initial Medial Final

մ /m/ ˈmɒɻtʰ ‘man’ mɒˈm-it͡sʰ ‘mom-abl’ dəˈɻɒm ‘Arm. dram’
մարդ մամից դրամ
ն /n/ ˈnɒv ‘ship’ kʰəˈnel ‘to sleep’ mɒˈt͡sun ‘yogurt’
նաւ քնել մածուն

ֆ /f/ fɒtʰiˈmɒ ‘Fatima’ ɻɒˈfi ‘Raffi (name)’ ˈkʰef ‘party, mood’

Ֆաթիմա Րաֆֆի քէֆ
ւ, վ /v/ voɾˈteʁ ‘where’ təˈvoʁ ‘giver’ veˈɻev ‘up’
որտեղ տուող վերեւ
ս /s/ siˈɻel ‘to love’ ɒˈsel ‘to say’ pɒˈkɒs ‘missing’
սիրել ասել պակաս
զ /z/ ˈzɒŋɡ ‘bell’ ɒzɒˈtel ‘to free’ ˈkʰez ‘you.dat.sg’
զանգ ազատել քեզ
շ /ʃ/ ˈʃeŋkʰ ‘building’ pʰoˈʃi ‘dust’ ˈt͡ʃɒʃ ‘food’
շէնք փոշի ճաշ
ժ /ʒ/ ʒəpˈtɒl ‘to smile’ uˈʒeʁ ‘strong’ ˈuʒ ‘strength’
ժպտալ ուժեղ ուժ
խ /χ/ ˈχɒt͡ʃʰ ‘cross’ t͡sɒˈχel ‘to sell’ ˈmeχ ‘nail’
խաչ ծախել մեխ
ղ /ʁ/ ʁɒzɒˈɻos ‘Lazarus’ uʁɒɻˈkel ‘to send’ ˈpʰoʁ ‘money’
Ղազարոս ուղարկել փող
յ, հ /h/ ˈhɒt͡sʰ ‘bread’ mɒhɒˈnɒl ‘to die’ ˈʃɒh ‘gain’
հաց մահանալ շահ

լ /l/ ˈlɒv ‘good’ moloɻˈvel ‘to go astray’ ˈɡɒl ‘to come’

լաւ մոլորուել գալ
յ /j/ ˈjeɻkʰ ‘song’ tɒˈjim ‘I give (sbjv.pst)’ ˈtʰej ‘tea’
երգ տայիմ թէյ

Table 2.10: Examples of nasal place assimilation

/zɒnɡ/ → ˈzɒŋɡ ‘bell’ զանգ

/menkʰ/ → ˈmeŋkʰ ‘we’ մենք
/tsʰɒnkɒnɒl/ → tsʰɒŋkɒˈnɒl ‘to wish’ ցանկանալ

26
 2.1 Segmental phonology

Table 2.11: Vowel inventory across the lects

Grapheme Phoneme Example

SEA IA SEA IA
ա /ɑ/ /ɒ/ tɑˈɾi tɒˈɻi ‘year’ տարի
է, ե /e/ /e/ t͡sʰoˈɾen t͡sʰoˈɻen ‘wheat’ ցորեն
ի /i/ /i/ ˈkʰitʰ ˈkʰitʰ ‘nose’ քիթ
օ, ո /o/ /o/ ˈvoɾ ˈvoɻ ‘that’ որ
ու /u/ /u/ ˈdur ˈdur ‘door’ դուռ
ը /ə/ /ə/ ˈmɑɾtʰə ˈmɒɻtʰə ‘the man’ մարդը
ɡəˈɾel ɡəˈɻel ‘to write’ գրել

When the low vowel /ɒ/ is next to a glide /j/, the low vowel is still rounded
(Table 2.12), but we suspect that it is not as rounded as in other contexts. More
data is needed with finer acoustic measurements and across multiple speakers.11
Table 2.12: The low back vowel stays rounded next to glide /j/

[ˈhɒj] ‘Armenian person’ հայ

[mɒɻˈjɒm] ‘Mariam’ Մարիամ

Iranian Armenian likewise utilizes a low front vowel /æ/ as a marginal

phoneme (Table 2.13). This vowel appears in Persian loanwords. Some of these
loanwords likewise exist in Standard Eastern (sometimes via a different route,
such as from Turkish). But in Standard Eastern, the loanwords are nativized with
the low back vowel /ɑ/. In general, the front vowel does not appear in native Ar-
menian words, but we did find a few native constructions that contain it.12
In the Armenian script, the front vowel /æ/ is represented as the symbol ա with
umlaut in dialectological work. Because of variation across Iranian Armenian
speakers, we do not adopt this symbol in our orthographic forms, but instead
use a simple ա.
11
For the word ‘voice’, the Iranian Armenian word is [d͡zen] ձեն while the Standard Eastern
word is the cognate [d͡zɑjn] ձայն. NK reports that Iranian Armenians sometimes say the word
[d͡zɑjn] as a type of Standard Eastern borrowing, sometimes nativized as [d͡zɒjn].
12
The word ‘drawer’ is [dɑɾɑk] in Standard Eastern. In Iranian Armenian, bi-dialectal KM pro-
nounces the final stop as [k], while mono-lectal NK uses [ɡ]. We suspect this is just individual-
level variation within the diaspora.

27
2 Phonology

Table 2.13: Low front vowel /æ/ in Iranian Armenian

IA cf. SEA
æˈɻæb ‘Arab’ արաբ from Persian ɑˈɾɑb
mænˈʁæl ‘grill’ մանղալ from Persian mɑnˈʁɑl
læmæˈd͡ʒun ‘lahmacun’ լահմաջուն from Turkish/Persian lɑhmɑˈd͡ʒun
dæˈɻæɡ ‘drawer’ դարակ native dɑˈɾɑk
mæˈhæt ∼ ˈmæt ‘a one’ մի հատ native mi ˈhɑt

The use of /æ/ is due to contact with Persian which has a phonemic /æ/ vowel
(Mahootian 2002: 286). Although contemporary Iranian Armenian has /æ/ as a
marginal phoneme, it is possible that earlier stages of Iranian Armenian did not.
Zamir (1982: 368) reports that his sample of Iranian Armenians did not have the
phoneme /æ/ when they spoke Persian. Their accent of Persian was characterized
by replacing the Persian /æ/ with a back variant. Similarly for New Julfa Arme-
nian in Isfahan, Adjarian (Աճառյան 1940: §7) reports that in the 1910s/1920s, /æ/
was slowly getting introduced in the speech of young Armenians. See the trans-
lation by Vaux (in preparation). This suggests that the introduction of /æ/ as a
marginal phoneme is both recent and widespread in the Armenian dialects of
Iran.13
As an interesting diachronic fact, there are some words that are pronounced
with either [uj] or [ju] in Standard Eastern Armenian, but which are pronounced
with [u] in Iranian Armenian (Table 2.14). But this is not a general rule because
there are some words that are pronounced with [uj] or [ju] in both varieties.14

2.2 Suprasegmental phonology

In general, we did not find significant differences between Standard Eastern and
Iranian Armenian in terms of syllable structure (§2.2.1). There are some differ-
ences in word stress (§2.2.2). Intonational differences are salient because Iranian
Armenian has borrowed aspects of Persian intonation (§2.2.3).

13
Allen (1950: 183) reports a speaker from New Julfa who only has a low vowel without any
indication of rounding or fronting. This speaker does however self-report as being heavily
influenced by Yerevan Standard Eastern Armenian.
14
For SWA, the SEA [ju] sequence corresponds to [ʏ]: [t͡sʏn] ‘snow’. Don Stilo reports that he
may have heard some IA speakers use a front vowel as well [d͡zʏn]. Unfortunately, we have
not been able to replicate this form with our speaker pool.

28
 2.2 Suprasegmental phonology

Table 2.14: Dialectal variation in [uj] and [ju] sequences

Changing /uj/, /ju/ or [u] Keeping /uj, ju/

‘sister’ ‘snow’ ‘color’ ‘other’
SEA [kʰujɾ] [d͡zjun] [ɡujn] [mjus]
IA [kʰuɻ] [d͡zun] [ɡujn] [mjus]
քոյր ձիւն գոյն միւս

2.2.1 Syllable structure

The syllable structure of Iranian Armenian is not substantially different from
that of Standard Eastern (Table 2.15). In Iranian Armenian, the typical syllable is
at most CVCC. Complex onsets are limited to /Cj/ clusters, and intervocalic /Cj/
clusters are usually syllabified together into the same syllable. Complex codas
generally have falling sonority. The segment /kʰ/ can follow any type of cluster.
Phonologically, this segment is an extrasyllabic appendix.
Table 2.15: Syllable shapes in Iranian Armenian

V ˈu ‘and’ ու
CV ˈdu ‘you (nom.sg)ˈ դու
VC ˈɒpʰ ‘shore’ ափ
CVC ˈpʰiʁ ‘elephant’ փիղ
CVCC ˈmɒɻtʰ ‘man’ մարդ

CjVCC ˈkjɒŋkʰ ‘life’ կեանք

CV.CjVC seˈnjɒk ‘room’ սենեակ
CVCkʰ ˈpetkʰ ‘need’ պէտք
CVCCkʰ ˈkuɻt͡skʰ ‘breast’ կուրծք

All the above generalizations are likewise found in Standard Eastern Arme-
nian. For general overviews of syllable structure in Standard Eastern Armenian,
see Vaux (1998b: §1, 3). For a discussion of the final appendix -kʰ in Standard
Eastern, see Vaux (1998b: 83), Vaux & Wolfe (2009), and Dolatian (2021a: §5).
An exception to the above generalizations concerns word-initial sibilant-stop
sequences. Such clusters variably undergo schwa prothesis in both Standard East-
ern and Iranian Armenian (Table 2.16). In modern Eastern, the norm is for schwa
prothesis to not apply. In our elicitations from Iranian Armenian speakers, most

29
2 Phonology

cases of sibilant-stop clusters did not undergo prothesis. When a schwa is absent,
the sibilant is analyzed as an extrasyllabic appendix (Vaux 1998b: 83ff, Vaux &
Wolfe 2009, Dolatian 2023c).
Table 2.16: Schwa prothesis in sibilant-stop clusters

zɡujʃ ‘caution’ զգոյշ

stɒnɒl ‘to receive’ ստանալ
(ə)skəsel ‘to start’ սկսել
əzɡɒl ‘to feel’ զգալ
skizb ‘beginning’ սկիզբ

2.2.2 Lexical stress

Iranian Armenian seems to utilize the same lexical stress system as Standard East-
ern Armenian. For an overview of lexical stress in Standard Eastern Armenian,
see Vaux (1998b: §4) and Dolatian (2021a). But there are differences in irregular
stress.

2.2.2.1 Regular stress

Within the morphological word, stress is generally final on the rightmost non-
schwa vowel (2). This means that regular stress is on the final syllable if that syl-
lable has a non-schwa nucleus. Suffixation of non-schwa suffixes triggers stress
shift.15

(2) a. t͡ʃɒˈkɒt ‘forehead’ ճակատ

t͡ʃɒkɒt-ɒ-ˈɡiɻ ‘destiny’ ճակատագիր
b. uˈɻɒχ ‘happy’ ուրախ
uɻɒχ-uˈt͡ʃʰun ‘happiness’ ուրախութիւն

Note that [ɒ-ɡiɻ] is the compound linking vowel lv and the root [ɡiɻ] ‘writing’.
The suffix [-ut͡ʃʰun] is a nominalizer suffix.
If the final syllable has a schwa, then stress is on the penultimate syllable (3).

15
Prescriptively, the suffix -ութիւն (-ություն in Standard Eastern) is pronounced as [-utʰjun]. But
in casual speech, the stop-glide sequence usually undergoes affrication.

30
 2.2 Suprasegmental phonology

(3) a. t͡ʃɒˈkɒt-ə ‘forehead-def’ ճակատը

‘the forehead’
t͡ʃɒˈkɒt-əs ‘forehead-poss.1sg’ ճակատս
‘my forehead’
t͡ʃɒˈkɒt-ət ‘forehead-poss.2sg’ ճակատդ
‘your forehead’

Besides final schwas, stress is avoided on clitics (4).

(4) a. t͡ʃɒˈkɒt=el ‘forehead=also’ ճակատ էլ

‘also forehead’
t͡ʃɒˈkɒt=ɒ ‘forehead=aux’ ճակատ ա
‘is forehead’
b. uˈɻɒχ=el ‘happy=also’ ուրախ էլ
‘also happy’
uˈɻɒχ=ɒ ‘happy=aux’ ուրախ ա
‘is happy’

If the word takes a cluster of clitics, stress stays inside the word (5).

(5) a. t͡ʃɒˈkɒt=el=ɒ ‘forehead=also=aux’ ճակատ էլ ա

‘is also a forehead’
b. uˈɻɒχ=el=ɒ ‘happy=also=aux’ ուրախ էլ ա
‘is also happy’

2.2.2.2 Irregular stress

We catalog some morphological contexts which trigger exceptional non-final
stress.
A systematic exception to final stress involves the negation prefix /t͡ʃʰ-/ (pro-
nounced [t͡ʃʰə-] before consonants), as in Table 2.17. In both periphrastic and syn-
thetic tenses, the negation prefix attracts primary stress. For periphrastic tenses,
the prefix is added to the auxiliary, and the auxiliary takes stress. In synthetic
tenses, the prefix is added directly to the verb. The first syllable of the verb takes
stress, even if the first syllable has a schwa.
Negation stress is reported in Iranian Armenian dialogues from Shakibi &
Bonyadi (1995). In HD’s experience, negation stress is likewise attested in Stan-
dard Western Armenian in both synthetic and periphrastic tenses. However in
Standard Eastern Armenian, negation attracts stress in only periphrastic tenses,

31
2 Phonology

Table 2.17: Irregular stress in negation

Positive Negative
‘I am singing’ jeɻˈkʰ-um e-m ˈt͡ʃʰ-e-m jeɻkʰ-um
sing-impf.cvb aux-1sg neg-aux-1sg sing-impf.cvb
երգում եմ չեմ երգում

‘he took’ veɻ-t͡sˈɻ-ɒ-v ˈt͡ʃʰə-veɻ-t͡sɻ-ɒ-v

take-caus-pst-3sg neg-take-caus-pst-3sg
վերցրաւ չվերցրաւ

‘he did’ ɒˈɻ-ɒ-v ˈt͡ʃʰ-ɒɻ-ɒ-v

do-pst-3sg neg-do-pst-3sg
արաւ չարաւ

‘he fell’ əŋˈɡ-ɒ-v ˈt͡ʃʰ-əŋɡ-ɒ-v

fall-pst-3sg neg-fall-pst-3sg
ընկաւ չընկաւ

not synthetic (Մարգարյան 1997: 77). The fact that Iranian Armenian has negation-
sensitive stress may be due to language contact with Persian, where negation is
a stressed prefix (Kahnemuyipour 2009).
Another morphological exception for final stress comes from ordinals (Ta-
ble 2.18). The ordinal suffixes /-ɻoɻtʰ, -eɻoɻtʰ/ assign stress to the previous syl-
lable (cf. Vaux 1998b: 132ff). For more examples, see §5.4.2. When an inflectional
suffix or clitic is added after the ordinal suffix, irregular stress is lost and we get
regular stress on the rightmost non-schwa and non-clitic vowel.
Beyond this section, we generally avoid marking stress in order to reduce clut-
ter. Unless otherwise stated, stress is on the rightmost non-schwa and non-clitic
vowel.

2.2.3 Prosodic phonology and intonation

Above the word, there is relatively little known about the prosodic structure of
phrases and clauses in any Armenian lect (Fairbanks 1948: 27ff, Johnson 1954:
14ff, Ղուկասյան 1990, Toparlak & Dolatian 2022, Dolatian 2022b). There is how-
ever one aspect of Iranian Armenian prosodic phonology which stands out from
Standard Eastern Armenian. This concerns the intonational structure of ques-
tions. We briefly overview the main properties of Iranian Armenian interroga-

32
 2.2 Suprasegmental phonology

Table 2.18: Irregular stress in ordinals in Iranian Armenian

a. Cardinal ‘two’ eɻˈku 2 էրկու

‘five’ ˈhiŋɡ 5 հինգ

b. Ordinal ‘second’ ˈjek-ɻoɻtʰ 2-ord երկրորդ

‘fifth’ ˈhiŋɡ-eɻoɻtʰ 5-ord հինգերորդ

c. Adding /-i/ ‘to the second one’ jek-ɻoɻˈtʰ-i-n 2-ord-dat-def երկրորդին

‘to the fifth one’ hiŋɡ-eɻoɻˈtʰ-i-n 2-ord-dat-def հինգերորդին

d. Adding /-ə/ ‘the second one’ jek-ˈɻoɻtʰ-ə 2-ord-def երկրորդը

‘the fifth one’ hiŋɡ-eˈɻoɻtʰ-ə 5-ord-def հինգերորդը

e. Adding clitic ‘he is second’ jek-ˈɻoɻtʰ =ɒ 2-ord=aux երկրորդ ա

‘he is fifth’ hiŋɡ-eˈɻoɻtʰ=ɒ 5-ord=aux հինգերորդ ա

tives, using common notation from the autosegmental-metrical tradition on in-

tonational phonology (Pierrehumbert 1980, Ladd 1986, Jun 2005). The recordings
from this subsection can be found in the online archive.16
In a basic SOV sentence in the present tense (6a), verbal inflection is periphras-
tic. The verb is in the form of the imperfective converb, and tense-agreement
marking is on an auxiliary. If the object is morphologically bare, then it carries
sentential stress (nuclear stress, underlined). The auxiliary is cliticized to the bare
object.17 Declarative sentences end in falling intonation.

(6) a. Declarative SOV sentence with an auxiliary

i. mɑɾjɑ-n ɡiɾkʰ =e kɑɾtʰ-um↘ (SEA)
Մարիան գիրք է կարդում։
ii. mɒɻjɒ-n ɡiɻkʰ =ɒ kɒɻtʰ-um↘ (IA)
Maria-def book =aux read-impf.cvb
‘Maria is reading books.’
Մարիան գիրք ա կարդում։
b. Polar question
i. mɑɾjɑ-n ɡiɾkʰ↗ =e kɑɾtʰ-um↘ (SEA)
Մարիան գի՞րք է կարդում։
ii. mɒɻjɒ-n ɡiɻkʰ↗ =ɒ kɒɻtʰ-um↗ (IA)
Maria-def book =aux read-impf.cvb
‘Is Maria reading books?’
Մարիան գի՞րք ա կարդում։
16
https://github.com/jhdeov/iranian_armenian
17
The distribution of this auxiliary is complex in Standard Eastern and Iranian Armenian (§3.3.1).
For further data and discussion, see Tamrazian (1994), Megerdoomian (2009), Kahnemuyipour
& Megerdoomian (2011, 2017).
33
2 Phonology

To form polar questions, the only strategy in Standard Eastern and Iranian
Armenian is intonational. In Standard Eastern Armenian, there is a significant
rise in pitch on the bare object in (6b-i). The sentence ends in falling intonation
(cf. Ղուկասյան 1990, 1999). In contrast in Iranian Armenian, there is both a rise
on the object and a sentence-final rise (6b-ii).
For illustration, Figure 2.3 shows the pitch track of the declarative sentence (6a)
and its corresponding polar question (6b) in both Standard Eastern and Iranian
Armenian. The Iranian Armenian recordings are from NK. The Standard Eastern
Armenian recordings are from AT. We annotate the perceived nucleus with the
H* symbol, sentence-final fall with L%, and sentence-final rise with H%.
As is clear, both declarative sentences end in L%. The Iranian Armenian polar
question has H%. For Standard Eastern, both the declarative and polar question
end in a L%. The main difference is the level of pitch on the nuclear stressed word
[ɡiɾkʰ] ‘book’.

(a) SEA declarative with L% (b) SEA polar with L%

(c) IA declarative with L% (d) IA polar with H%

Figure 2.3: Pitch track of declarative (6a) and polar question (6b) in SEA
an IA

34
 2.2 Suprasegmental phonology

The use of a sentence-final rise is likely due to two factors: one language-
internal, and the other is language contact with Persian.
In Persian, polar questions end in a sentence-final rise as a type of Intonational
Phrase boundary H% (Sadat-Tehrani 2007, 2011: 111, Mahjani 2003: 55). Further-
more, AS reports that some Iranian Armenian speakers draw out the last syllable,
i.e., they apply sentence-final lengthening. This is also reported in Persian polar
questions (Sadat-Tehrani 2011: 113).
As for language-internal factors, prescriptively, Standard Eastern Armenian
uses L% for polar questions when nuclear stress is on a non-final word. However,
AT informs us that Colloquial Eastern Armenian (as spoken in Yerevan) does al-
low a final H%. She said that the use of this H% is socially judged as “improper”
for her Eastern Armenian community. We provide a pitch track in Figure 2.4. An-
other parallelism is that Colloquial Eastern Armenian can also use the colloquial
auxiliary [ɑ] (like IA) instead of the standard [e].

Figure 2.4: Polar question in Standard Eastern (6a-i) with optional H%

For Iranian Armenian, the final syllable in a polar question can be considerably
lengthened in order to indicate politeness. AS reports that final lengthening in
Iranian Armenian is common in order to indicate a non-aggressive and polite
inquiry.
Phonologically, the sentence-final H% is on the final syllable of the polar ques-
tion, regardless of whether that syllable carries lexical stress. For example, con-
sider the following declarative sentence and its polar question form (7a). Mor-
phologically, the sentence consists of a verb in a non-finite form, plus a cliticized
auxiliary. In the declarative, lexical stress and nuclear stress H* are on the last
syllable of the verb, while the clitic is unstressed and carries L%.

35
2 Phonology

(7) a. Declarative V-Aux with lexical stress on the V

i. t͡səχ-um =e-s↘ (SEA)
ii. t͡səχ-um =e-s↘ (IA)
smoke-impf.cvb aux-2sg
‘You smoke.’
Ծխում ես։
b. Polar question
i. t͡səχ-um↗ =e-s↘ (SEA)
ii. t͡səχ-um =e-s↗ (IA)
smoke-impf.cvb aux-2sg
‘Do you smoke?’
Ծխու՞մ ես։

In the polar form, the Standard Eastern version simply makes the nuclear stress
more prominent, while the clitic keeps its L% tone. But in Iranian Armenian,
sentence-final H% is placed on the clitic. The proximity of H% and the verb causes
the verb to lose its nuclear stress. We show a pitch track for these sentences in
Figure 2.5 from NK and AT.
Such lengthening and rising are also found in wh-questions (8). In a subject
wh-question in the present tense, the subject is replaced by the wh-word, takes
nuclear stress, and is cliticized with the inflected auxiliary. There is a signifi-
cant rise on the wh-word. The sentence ends with a falling intonation in Stan-
dard Eastern (Johnson 1954: 15). For Iranian Armenian, the sentence can end in a
falling intonation in casual speech. However, speakers can also apply a sentence-
final rise in order to indicate a degree of politeness.

(8) Subject wh-question

a. ov↗ =e ɡiɾkʰ kɑɾtʰ-um↘ (SEA)
Ո ՞վ է գիրք կարդում։
b. ov↗ =ɒ ɡiɻkʰ kɒɻtʰ-um↘ (IA - Casual)
c. ov↗ =ɒ ɡiɻkʰ kɒɻtʰ-um↗ (IA - Polite)
who =aux book read-impf.cvb
‘Who is reading books?’
Ո ՞վ ա գիրք կարդում։

Figure 2.6 (page 38) shows the recordings for the above wh-question, one with
a final fall L%, and one with a final rise H%. Data is from NK. She at first produced
the falling sentence, but in subsequent elicitations preferred the rising sentence.

36
 2.2 Suprasegmental phonology

(a) SEA declarative with L% (b) SEA polar with L%

(c) IA declarative with L% (d) IA polar with H%

Figure 2.5: Pitch track of declarative (7a) and polar question (7b) in SEA
and IA

In Persian, wh-questions likewise end in falling intonation (Sadat-Tehrani 2011:

118). Such questions can undergo a final rise and lengthening in order to indicate
politeness, curiosity, or a sense of not asserting the question (Sadat-Tehrani, p.c.).
The use of a final rise in wh-questions seems to have become somewhat conven-
tionalized in Iranian Armenian. For example, NK produced some wh-questions
with final rises, and some wh-questions with final falls. But she more often used
final rises than final falls. More data is however needed to establish the frequency
of using sentence-final rises vs. falls in wh-questions across multiple speakers.
Finally, recall that Standard Eastern Armenian is used by the Armenian com-
munity in Iran as a formal register. It is possible that a contributing factor to
the intonational difference between Standard Eastern and Iranian Armenian is
the fact that Persian utilizes lower pitch in formal contexts (Falahati 2020). Thus,
Iranian Armenian might have conventionalized the use of sentence-final rises in
order to further reinforce the sociolinguistic distinction between formal Standard
Eastern and informal Iranian Armenian.

37
2 Phonology

(a) SEA wh-question with L% (b) IA wh-question with L%

(c) IA wh-question with H%

Figure 2.6: Pitch track of wh-question from (8) with a final fall (8a,b) or
with a final rise (8c) in Standard Eastern and Iranian Armenian

In sum, Iranian Armenian has adopted aspects of Persian intonation. Such

aspects are not due to code switching. It seems that in general, Iranian Armenian
speakers born in the diaspora (like NK) do not acquire Persian at the home.

38
3 Morphophonology
In terms of the interaction between morphology and phonology, we discuss mor-
phologically-induced phonological processes (§3.1), phonologically-conditioned
allomorphy (§3.2), and a phonosyntactic process that references both phonology
and syntax (§3.3).

3.1 Morphophonological alternations

Besides general phonology, Armenian dialects show various morphophonologi-
cal rules which operate at morpheme boundaries. This includes root-initial glide
insertion (§3.1.1), vowel hiatus repair under suffixation/cliticization (§3.1.2), and
high vowel reduction under suffixation (§3.1.3).
In general, morphophonological processes that are attested in Standard East-
ern Armenian are also attested in Iranian Armenian. But in the judgments of
KM, “phonological changes at morpheme boundaries are becoming simpler in
Iranian Armenian.” This “simplicity” suggests that such processes apply less of-
ten in Iranian Armenian than in Standard Eastern Armenian. For an overview of
such morphophonological processes in Standard Eastern and Western Armenian,
see Vaux (1998b: §1) and Dolatian (2020: §2).

3.1.1 Root-initial glide insertion

Armenian is primarily suffixing, and there are few morphophonological rules
that are sensitive to prefix boundaries. The most noticeable process is root-initial
“diphthongization” or glide insertion.
The Classical Armenian grapheme ե was a mid vowel e (Macak 2017). In the di-
achronic development from Classical Armenian to modern Armenian, this graph-
eme later underwent root-initial glide insertion (Weitenberg 2008). For example
in Standard Eastern Armenian, the word-initial pronunciation of this grapheme
is [je] (Table 3.1). In Standard Eastern, the glide is prescriptively supposed to
delete after inflectional prefixes like the synthetic future k- and negative t͡ʃʰ-, but
3 Morphophonology

the retention of the glide has become more common in Colloquial Eastern Ar-
menian (Dum-Tragut 2009: 15). For Iranian Armenian, the retention seems oblig-
atory based on our elicitations, at least for NK and her family. These prefixes
trigger schwa epenthesis before a consonant.
However, there are some lexemes which have the initial <#ե> [#je] in Stan-
dard Eastern Armenian, but where the glide is lost in Iranian Armenian (Ta-
ble 3.2). For some of these lexemes, Colloquial Eastern Armenian also has dialec-
tal forms without the glide. The loss of the glide in Iranian Armenian is likely a
sporadic and idiosyncratic diachronic process because the relevant lexemes are
high-frequency words, and oftentimes function words.1
The words that show this glide-to-zero change are all polysyllabic. We have
found monosyllabic words that have an invariant glide, such as [jeɻpʰ] ‘when’
երբ and [jeɻkʰ] ‘song’ երգ. But we have not been able find monosyllabic roots
where the glide is deleted. It is possible that glide deletion is only allowed in
polysyllabic roots.
When glide insertion applies word-initially, the orthographic convention is to
write the word with an initial letter <ե>. When the glide is absent, the convention
is to use the letter <է>. For example, the word ‘to cook’ with a glide [jepʰel] is
spelled եփել, while the glide-less form [epʰel] is spelled էփել.
A related process is how the letters <ո, օ> are pronounced [vo, o] root-initially,
but both as [o] root-medially (Table 3.3). For the letter ո, it seems that this letter
is always pronounced as [vo] word-initially in both monosyllables and polysylla-
bles. In Standard Eastern Armenian, a root-initial and word-medial [vo] changes
to [o] in prefixation, but Colloquial Eastern Armenian and Iranian Armenian
prefer keeping this root-initial [vo] as [vo] (Dum-Tragut 2009: 16). More data is
needed to verify these tendencies.

3.1.2 Vowel hiatus repair

Within the word, vowel-vowel sequences (vowel hiatus) are typically repaired,
such as via [j] epenthesis or by changing [u] to [v]. Iranian Armenian seems to
utilize all the vowel hiatus repair rules that are used by Standard Eastern. Iranian
Armenian is however innovative in that it can also epenthesize a [w] glide.
Across the stem-inflection boundary in Standard Eastern Armenian, pre-vo-
calic /i/ tends to delete (1a) while pre-vocalic /u/ tends to de-vocalize or change
to [v] (1b). Less common strategies are to epenthesize a glide [j] in these contexts.
The following data uses the instrumental suffix /-ov/.
1
For the word ‘yesterday’ in Iranian Armenian, NK and her family tend to say this word as
[eɻeɡ], while KM and AS report [eɻek].

40
 3.1 Morphophonological alternations

Table 3.1: Root-initial glide insertion from NK

SEA IA
երգել jeɾkʰ-e-l jeɻkʰ-e-l √ -th-inf ‘to sing’
երգեմ jeɾkʰ-e-m jeɻkʰ-e-m √ -th-1sg ‘I sing (sbjv)’
կերգեմ k-eɾkʰ-e-m fut-√ -th-1sg ‘I will sing’
kə-jeɾkʰ-e-m kə-jeɻkʰ-e-m
չերգեմ t͡ʃʰ-eɾkʰ-e-m neg-√ -th-1sg ‘I don’t sing (sbjv)’
t͡ʃʰə-jeɾkʰ-e-m t͡ʃʰə-jeɻkʰ-e-m

Table 3.2: Loss of initial glides in Iranian Armenian

SEA IA
երեկ jeɾek ∼ eɾek eɻek ‘yesterday’
երթալ jeɾtʰɑl ∼ eɾtʰɑl ∼ etʰɑl eɻtʰɒl ∼ etʰɒl ‘to go’
երկու jeɾku ∼ eɾku eɻku ‘two’
եփել jepʰel ∼ epʰel epʰel ‘to cook’
ելնել jelnel ∼ elnel elnel ‘to rise’ (SEA);
‘to be’ (IA)
եկել jekel ∼ ekel ekel ∼ ekeɻ ‘to come (rptcp)’

Table 3.3: Maintaining initial [v] in Iranian Armenian

SEA CEA IA
ոսպ vosp vosp vosp ‘lentil’
որոշել voɾoʃel voɾoʃel voɻoʃel ‘to decide’
կորոշեմ k-oɾoʃem kə-voɾoʃem kə-voɻoʃem ‘I will decide’

41
3 Morphophonology

(1) /u/ devocalization and /i/ deletion in vowel hiatus

SEA IA
a. ɑjɡi ɒjɡi ‘garden’ այգի
ɑjɡ-ov ɒjɡ-ov ‘garden-ins’ այգով
ɑjɡi-jov ɒjɡi-jov այգիով
b. lezu lezu ‘tongue’ լեզու
lezv-ov lezv-ov ‘tongue-ins’ լեզվով (Reformed)
լեզուով (Classical)
lezu-jov lezu-jov լեզուով

In KM’s judgments for pre-vocalic /u/, Iranian Armenian utilizes /u/-devocali-

zation and /i/-deletion less often than Standard Eastern, while Iranian Armenian
utilizes /j/-insertion more often than Standard Eastern.
Unlike Standard Eastern, Iranian Armenian utilizes /w/-insertion to repair
vowel hiatus in a cliticized /u=V/ sequence (2). Inserting a glide /w/ is obligatory
if the /u/ is part of the future converb. The second vowel is part of the inflected
auxiliary, and the vowel can be /e, ɒ, i/. We provide stress markings to reinforce
the fact that the final vowel is a clitic. We do not provide a finer segmentation
for the auxiliary.
(2) /w/-insertion for cliticized future converbs
/jeɻkʰ-e-l-u=em/ jeɻ.kʰe.ˈlu.wem ‘I will sing’
երգելու եմ
/jeɻkʰ-e-l-u=iɻ/ jeɻ.kʰe.ˈlu.wiɻ ‘you were going to sing’
երգելու իր
/jeɻkʰ-e-l-u=ɒ/ jeɻ.kʰe.ˈlu.wɒ ‘he will sing’
√ -th-inf-fut.cvb=aux երգելու ա

Rule 1 is a rule for vowel hiatus repair in the future converb.

Rule 1: Morpheme-specific rule of w-epenthesis

∅ → [w] / u 1 _ V2
where /u1 / is the future converb suffix,
and /V2 / is the auxiliary

Insertion of /w/ is also attested outside of the future converb (3). When an
enclitic is attached to a /u/-final noun, the typical vowel hiatus repair rule is to
insert [j]. But NK and AS report that /w/-insertion is also possible.

42
 3.1 Morphophonological alternations

(3) /w/-insertion outside of the future converb

a. /kɒtu=e-m/
kɒ.ˈtu.jem or kɒ.ˈtu.wem
cat=aux-1sg
‘I am a cat.’
Կատու եմ։
b. /kɒtu=el=e-m/
kɒ.ˈtu.je.lem or kɒ.ˈtu.we.lem
cat=also=aux-1sg
‘I am also a cat.’
Կատու էլ եմ։

It is possible that Iranian Armenian innovated a rule of /w/-insertion because

of contact with Persian. Persian allows various types of vowel hiatus repair rules
(Ariyaee & Jurgec 2021: 3). One such rule inserts the glide [w] after a back vowel
/u/ (Dehghan & Kambuziya 2012: 20).

3.1.3 Destressed high vowel reduction

Armenian utilizes a process of destressed high vowel reduction (Vaux 1998b,
Khanjian 2009, Dolatian 2020, 2021a). When a root undergoes suffixation, reg-
ular final stress typically shifts to the suffix (Table 3.4). In Standard Eastern and
Iranian Armenian, destressed high vowels from the root reduce before deriva-
tional suffixes, but generally not before consonant-initial inflectional suffixes.
Some words exceptionally reduce before the consonant-initial -neɻ.2
Table 3.4: Destressed high vowel reduction

SEA IA
ɑmuˈsin ɒmuˈsin ‘husband’ ամուսին
ɑmusn-uˈtʰjun ɒmusn-uˈt͡ʃʰun ‘marriage’ ամուսնութիւն
ɑmusin-ˈneɾ ɒmusin-ˈneɻ ‘husbands’ ամուսիններ

ˈskizb ˈskizb ‘beginning’ սկիզբ

skizb-ˈneɾ skizb-ˈneɻ ‘beginnings’ սկիզբներ
skəzb-ˈneɾ skəzb-ˈneɻ ‘beginnings’ սկզբներ

2
See footnote 15 in Chapter 2 on the difference in the pronunciation of the suffix /-utʰjun/.

43
3 Morphophonology

Before vowel-initial inflectional suffixes, the tendency in Standard Eastern Ar-

menian is for reduction to apply (4). For Iranian Armenian, KM feels that reduc-
tion applies less often in this context than in Standard Eastern.

(4) Variation in vowel reduction before V-initial inflection

a. kɒmˈuɻd͡ʒ ‘bridge’ կամուրջ
kɒmuɻˈd͡ʒ-it͡sʰ ‘bridge-abl’ կամուրջից
kɒməɻˈd͡ʒ-it͡sʰ կամրջից
b. jeɻˈkiɻ ‘world’ երկիր
jeɻkiˈɻ-um ‘world-loc’ երկիրում
jeɻkˈɻ-um երկրում
c. ˈtun ‘house’ տուն
tuˈn-um ‘house-loc’ տունում
təˈn-um տնում

Before vowel-initial inflectional suffixes, there is widespread cross-dialectal

and lexical variation in the application of high vowel reduction (Ղարագյուլյան
1974, Մարգարյան 1997). For an overview, see Dum-Tragut (2009: 41ff) and Dola-
tian (2021a: §2.7).

3.2 Phonologically-conditioned allomorphy

This section presents some examples of phonologically-conditioned allomorphy
in Iranian Armenian. These include syllable-counting allomorphy of the plural
suffix (§3.2.1), schwa-zero and schwa-nasal alternations for the possessive and
definite suffixes (§3.2.2), and variable voicing assimilation in the synthetic future
prefix (§3.2.3).

3.2.1 Syllable-counting allomorphy of the plural suffix

For the plural, the regular suffix is -eɻ for monosyllabic bases, and -neɻ for poly-
syllabic bases (Vaux 2003, Dolatian 2021b). This is a relatively straightforward
case of syllable-counting allomorphy, as a form of phonologically-conditioned
allomorphy (Table 3.5).
Words that have only one syllable and the appendix -kʰ count as monosyllabic
for plural-counting (Table 3.6).3 Words with an initial appendix /s/ + a syllable
are treated as polysyllabic.
3
Compounds have complicated rules for plural allomorphy in Armenian (Vaux 1998b: 21). For
discussion, see Dolatian (2021b, 2022c).

44
 3.2 Phonologically-conditioned allomorphy

Table 3.5: Distribution of regular plural suffixes

Monosyllabic Polysyllabic
bɒr ‘word’ բառ senjɒk ‘room’ սենեակ
bɒr-eɻ ‘words’ բառեր senjɒk-neɻ ‘rooms’ սենեակներ

Table 3.6: Pluralization of exceptional syllable structures

syllable + /-kʰ/ /s/ + syllable

pɒɻtkʰ ‘debt’ պարտք skizb ‘beginning’ սկիզբ
pɒɻtkʰ-eɻ ‘debts’ պարտքեր skizb-neɻ ‘beginnings’ սկիզբներ
skəzb-neɻ սկզբներ
kuɻt͡skʰ ‘breast’ կուրծք
kuɻt͡skʰ-eɻ ‘breasts’ կուրծքեր

Syllable + [CəC]
vɒɡəɻ ‘tiger’ վագր pʰokʰəɻ ‘small’ փոքր
vɒɡɻ-eɻ ‘tigers’ վագրեր pʰokʰɻ-eɻ ‘small ones’ փոքրեր
vɒɡəɻ-neɻ վագրներ pʰokʰəɻ-neɻ փոքրներ

Bisyllabic words that end in a [CəC] sequence have an epenthetic schwa, such
as [vɒɡəɻ] ‘tiger’ from /vɒɡɻ/ (Vaux 2003, Dolatian 2023c). For modern Standard
Eastern Armenian, the plural ignores this schwa and the word is treated as mono-
syllabic with [-eɾ], such ‘tigers’ [vɑɡɾ-eɾ] (Dum-Tragut 2009: 65). But in older or
colloquial registers, the form [-neɾ] is attested like [vɑɡəɾ-neɾ] (Սարգսյան 1987:
217). For Iranian Armenian, Anooshik Melikian (AM) reports that the modern
community likewise almost always uses [-eɻ], while older members (such as her
grandfather) would use [-neɻ].

3.2.2 Schwa alternations in the determiner slot

In nominal inflection, the determiner slot is occupied by either a possessive suffix
or a definite suffix. Both types of suffixes display allomorphy conditioned by
consonant- vs. vowel-final stems. The definite suffix likewise displays outwardly-
conditioned allomorphy to subsequent vowels.
The possessive suffixes are -s, -t for vowel-final bases. A schwa is epenthe-
sized after consonant-final bases (Table 3.7). The epenthetic schwa is maintained
between a C-final base and a V-initial clitic.

45
3 Morphophonology

Table 3.7: Allomorphy in possessive marking

No epenthesis after V-final base

kɒtu ‘cat’ կատու
kɒtu-s cat-poss.1sg ‘my cat’ կատուս
kɒtu-s=el cat-poss.1sg=also ‘also my cat’ կատուս էլ
kɒtu-t cat-poss.2sg ‘your cat’ կատուդ
kɒtu-t=el cat-poss.2sg=also ‘also your cat’ կատուդ էլ

Schwa epenthesis after C-final base

ɡumɒɻ ‘amount’ գումար
ɡumɒɻ-əs amount-poss.1sg ‘my amount’ գումարս
ɡumɒɻ-əs=el amount-poss.1sg=also ‘also my amount’ գումարս էլ
ɡumɒɻ-ət amount-poss.2sg ‘your amount’ գումարդ
ɡumɒɻ-ət=el amount-poss.2sg=also ‘also your amount’ գումարդ էլ

The definite suffix has three allomorphs: -ə, -n, -ən (Table 3.8). The choice of
suffix is conditioned by the preceding segment and the following segment. When
there is no following segment, the suffix is -n after vowel-final bases, but -ə after
consonant-final stems.
Table 3.8: Forms of the definite suffix in Standard Eastern and Iranian
Armenian

SEA IA
kɑˈtu kɒˈtu ‘cat’ կատու
V_ kɑˈtu-n kɒˈtu-n cat-def ‘the cat’ կատուն
V_V kɑˈtu-n=el kɒˈtu-n=el cat-def=also ‘also the cat’ կատուն էլ
kɑˈtu-n=e kɒˈtu-n=ɒ cat-def=aux ‘is the cat’ կատուն է/ա

ɡuˈmɑɾ ɡuˈmɒɻ ‘amount’ գումար

C_ ɡuˈmɑɾ-ə ɡuˈmɒɻ-ə amount-def ‘the amount’ գումարը
C_V ɡuˈmɑɾ-n=el ɡuˈmɒɻ-ən=el amount-def=also ‘also the amount’ գումարն էլ
ɡuˈmɑɾ-n=e ɡuˈmɒɻ-ən=ɒ amount-def=aux ‘is the amount’ գումարն է/ա

The lects differ when the definite suffix is between a C-final base and V-initial
clitic (5). In this context, Standard Eastern Armenian uses the -n form of the
definite. In Iranian Armenian, the form is -ən. More examples are shown below.

46
 3.2 Phonologically-conditioned allomorphy

(5) Other examples of the /-ən/ form before clitics in Iranian Armenian
ˈmɒɻtʰ-ən=ɒ man-def=aux ‘(he) is the man’ մարդն ա
ˈiŋkʰ-ən=ɒ he-def=aux ‘it is he’ ինքն ա
dɒˈnɒk-ən=ɒ knife-def=aux ‘(it) is the knife’ դանակն ա
Iranian Armenian also uses the -ən form between a C-final word and a V-initial
word (6).

(6) Use of -ən before a V-initial word

a. ˈiŋkʰ-ən iɻ
him-def he.gen
‘himself’ (KM)
ինքն իր
b. mɒɻtʰ-ən ɒɻtʰn-ɒ-t͡sʰ-ɒ-v
man-def wake.up-lv-aor-pst-3sg
‘The man woke up.’ (KM)
Մարդն արթնացաւ։

The form [ən] is attested in colloquial Western Armenian speech (Dolatian

2022a), so it is likely that Iranian Armenian developed its [ən] via language-
internal grammaticalization. BV also reports that he has come across [ən] forms
in published texts from some Iran-adjacent areas such as Astrakhan (Ախվերդեան
1852: 121)4 which has had close trade connections with Armenians in New Julfa,
Isfahan. It is an open question how widespread this [ən] form is for Iranian com-
munities outside of Tehran.5
Prosodic phrasing and pauses can block the use of the -ən form between a
C-final word and V-initial word (7). For example, in the sentence below, it is
common to have a pause between the subject and the object. The presence of a
pause blocks the -ən form.

(7) d͡ʒɒn-ə ind͡z mɒkʰɻ-ɒ-v

John-def me.dat clean-pst-3sg
‘John cleaned me.’ (NK)
Ջոնը ինձ մաքրաւ։
4
See the accessible page at Google Books (https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Sajeath_N%
C3%B4waj/-bg-AAAAcAAJ).
5
Stevick (1955) documents a speaker from Tabriz/Tehran who seems to largely speak in Standard
Eastern Armenian, such as by not using the suffix /-m/ for the aorist 1sg (p. 19). But this speaker
does show minor traces of Iranian Armenian morphophonology, such as using the definite
suffix /-ən/ (p. 3, 27).

47
3 Morphophonology

In sum, the shape of the definite suffix is sensitive to the type of the preceding
and following segments and to prosodic pauses. This amounts to a case of phrasal
allomorphy that is outwardly-sensitive. Such phenomena are cross-linguistically
rare (Paster 2006). For an analysis of the definite suffix in Iranian Armenian and
other Armenian lects, see Dolatian (2022a).

3.2.3 Voicing assimilation in the synthetic future prefix

There are reports of limited phonologically-conditioned allomorphy for the syn-
thetic future prefix. See §6.5.3 for a morphological description of this prefix.
Some speakers seem to have this process, some do not. The process resembles
a mildly long-distance assimilation process whereby velar stops in a /CV-C/ con-
text can assimilate in voice. For some speakers this process is limited to a few or
no lexical items, while for others it is more widespread.
The synthetic future prefix is underlyingly /k-/ (8a). Before a consonant, schwa
epenthesis resolves the consonant cluster. Before a voiced velar stop [ɡ], AS re-
ports that the prefix assimilates to [ɡə-] for some speakers (8b). However, one
consultant (NK) does not produce any alternation (8c). Though for the word ɡɒm
‘I come’, NK’s family reports variable voicing changes (8d).

(8) Voicing assimilation for synthetic future prefix /k-/

a. k-uɻɒχɒnɒm ‘I will be happy’ կուրախանամ
kə-tesnem ‘I will see’ կը տեսնեմ
b. From AS’s contacts
ɡə-ɡəɻem ‘I will write’ կը գրեմ
ɡə-ɡɒm ‘I will come’ կը գամ
c. From NK
kə-kɒɻtʰɒm ‘I will read’ կը կարդամ
kə-ɡəɻem ‘I will write’ կը գրեմ
kə-kʰənem ‘I will sleep’ կը քնեմ
d. From NK’s family
kə-ɡɒm ‘I will come’ կը գամ
ɡə-ɡɒm
ɡə-kɒm

The cognate of this prefix assimilates in voicing and aspiration to a root-initial

consonant in many varieties of modern Armenian, including Ararat (the set
of varieties to which the Yerevan dialect belongs; Մարկոսյան 1989: 150), Goris
(Մարգարյան 1975), Karabakh (Աճառեան 1911: 68), New Nakhichevan (Աճառեան

48
 3.3 Phonosyntax: Auxiliary-induced segment deletion

1925, Աճառյան 1961: 85), and in Iran in Maragha (Աճառյան 1926: 273–274) and
New Julfa (Vaux 1997, 1998a, 1998b: 39, 215ff, Աճառյան 1940: §287, translated in
Vaux in preparation: 287). It is possible that the traces of this process in (Tehrani)
Iranian Armenian ultimately come from one of these Iranian varieties.

3.3 Phonosyntax: Auxiliary-induced segment deletion

We examine the behavior of the final segment of the perfective converb suffix: -el
or -eɻ. This phenomenon is the most complex morphophonological process that
we describe in this grammar, because it involves syntax-phonology interactions.
Phonologically, this segment can delete in different morphosyntactic contexts.
To make this segment surface, we find that the ultimate conditioning factor is
syntactic and long-distance. This factor is that the suffix has to precede the aux-
iliary ‘to be’ within the same clause or verb phrase. The suffix and auxiliary can
be adjacent or non-adjacent.
This section focuses on describing as much as we can about the behavior of this
suffix. This process counts as a phonosyntactic or syntax-sensitive phonological
process (perhaps syntax-sensitive allomorphy) because of the deep interaction
between phonology and syntax. We postpone a complete theoretical analysis to
future work.
We present some basics of Armenian syntax, with regards to the mobile aux-
iliary (§3.3.1). We then discuss the basic data on liquid deletion in §3.3.2. Long-
distance factors are examined in §3.3.3. An identical deletion process is attested
in irregular imperfectives (§3.3.4). We discuss the diachronic origin of liquid dele-
tion from Standard Eastern Armenian (§3.3.5).
There are other Armenian lects in Iran which alternate in the form of the
perfective converb suffix based on whether the auxiliary is to the right vs. the
left of the verb.6 For Tehrani Iranian Armenian, this difference manifests in the
presence/absence of the final liquid: V-el/eɻ vs. V-e. But in Iran, there are other
Armenian lects where the difference is manifested in using a completely different
allomorph for the alternating suffix. For example in Salmast (Vaux 2022b: 53), the
pre-auxiliary form of the imperfective converb is V-s, while the post-auxiliary
form is V-li. Other such dialects include Urmia (Ղարիբյան 1941: 275). It is an open
question whether all the generalizations for Tehrani Armenian likewise extend
to these other Armenian varieties.

6
The alternation is also attested in Armenian lects that developed outside of Iran, such as the
Karin or Erzurum dialect which developed in modern-day Turkey (Bezrukov 2022: 120).

49
3 Morphophonology

3.3.1 Background on the mobile auxiliary

Before we discuss the main morphophonological process, we survey the basic
features of Iranian Armenian syntax. We focus on the use of converbs and the
mobile auxiliary. The syntactic data has been discussed in previous works on
Standard Eastern Armenian, but previous analyses extend to Iranian Armenian
(Comrie 1984, Kahnemuyipour & Megerdoomian 2011, 2017).
As in Standard Eastern Armenian, many verbal tenses are marked by periphra-
sis. For example, the present indicative is marked by using the form of the verb
that we call the “imperfective converb” (9). Tense and agreement are marked on
the auxiliary ‘to be’. See §6.3.1 for full morphological paradigms.

(9) a. jes ɡiɻkʰ-ə ɡəɻ-um =e-m

I book-def write-impf.cvb aux-1sg
‘I am writing the book.’ (NK)
Ես գիրքը գրում եմ։
b. du ɡiɻkʰ-ə kɒɻtʰ-um =e-s
you book-def read-impf.cvb aux-2sg
‘You are reading the book.’ (NK)
Դու գիրքը կարդում ես։

Throughout this section we underline the relevant converb form. We highlight

the auxiliary. We mark the nuclear stress of the sentence via boldface, because
this information is quite relevant to the syntax of the auxiliary. In the above
sentences, nuclear stress is on the verb.
The auxiliary is phonologically cliticized to the word to its left, i.e., the con-
verb. The auxiliary is a clitic that unambiguously syllabified with the converb:
[ɡə.ɻu.mem] ‘I am writing’. In terms of stress, the auxiliary is an unstressed clitic
in general (§2.2.2).7
In the simple sentences above, the auxiliary appears by default after the verb.
However, in more complex types of sentences, we find that this auxiliary can
shift or move leftwards. Hosts for the mobile clitic include the negation marker
(10).

(10) jes ɡiɻkʰ-ə t͡ʃʰ -e-m ɡəɻ-um

I book-def neg=aux-1sg write-impf.cvb
‘I am not writing the book.’ (NK)
Ես գիրքը չեմ գրում։
7
The auxiliary takes stress when it is negated, as seen in (10).

50
 3.3 Phonosyntax: Auxiliary-induced segment deletion

Negation is marked by using the prefix t͡ʃʰ-. When the verb is periphrastic, the
negation prefix is placed directly before the verb, and then the auxiliary moves
leftwards and attaches to the prefix. The prefix-auxiliary combination acts as its
own phonological word, and carries the nuclear stress of the sentence.
Another context for leftward movement involves bare objects. In the above
sentences, the object of the verb is definite and resists taking nuclear stress. But
if the object lacks any morphological markers of definiteness or indefiniteness,
then the object is considered bare, takes nuclear stress, and acts as a host for the
auxiliary (11).
(11) jes ɡiɻkʰ =e-m ɡəɻ-um
I book =aux-1sg write-impf.cvb
‘I am writing books.’ (NK)
Ես գիրք եմ գրում։

For descriptions and analyses of bare objects in other Armenian lects, see Stan-
dard Eastern (Comrie 1984, Megerdoomian 2009, Yeghiazaryan 2010, Crum 2020)
and Standard Western (Sigler 1997, Sağ 2019, Kalomoiros 2022).
Another context is narrow focus. If a word has narrow focus and precedes the
verb, then the auxiliary moves and attaches to the focused word (12).
(12) a. jes ɡiɻkʰ-ən =e-m ɡəɻ-um
I book-def =aux-1sg write-impf.cvb
‘I am writing THE BOOK.’ (NK)
Ես գիրքն եմ գրում։
b. jes =e-m ɡiɻkʰ-ə ɡəɻ-um
I =aux-1sg book-def write-impf.cvb
‘I am writing the book.’ (NK)
Ես եմ գիրքը գրում։
c. esoɻ =e-m ɡiɻkʰ-ə ɡəɻ-um
today =aux-1sg book-def write-impf.cvb
‘I am writing the book TODAY.’ (NK)
Էսօր եմ գիրքը գրում։

It is obvious that there are strong correlations between auxiliary movement

and nuclear stress. Essentially, the auxiliary moves to the pre-verbal phrase that
carries nuclear stress. Such correlations have been modeled in the past with
various frameworks and analyses (Tamrazian 1994, Megerdoomian 2009, Kah-
nemuyipour 2009, Kahnemuyipour & Megerdoomian 2011, 2017, Giorgi & Haro-
utyunian 2016, Hodgson 2019a). We do not analyze or provide a larger catalog

51
3 Morphophonology

of contexts for auxiliary movement. For our purposes, we focus on the effects of
auxiliary movement on converbs.

3.3.2 Non-constant form of the perfective converb

Having surveyed the syntax of auxiliaries, this section shows how auxiliary
movement interacts with the morphophonology of the perfective converb suf-
fix.
The imperfective converb suffix -um is phonologically constant. Its segments
never delete or change, regardless of whether the suffix precedes the auxiliary or
not. In contrast, the perfective converb is formed with the suffix -el or -eɻ. The
liquid deletes when the auxiliary has moved.
When the perfective converb suffix precedes the auxiliary, some speakers pro-
duce this suffix as -el, some as -eɻ, and some as either (13). The choice of liquid
varies by speaker and perhaps by generation or geographic origin. For consis-
tency, we mostly use the -eɻ form in this chapter because HD’s main consultant
NK preferred it.

(13) jes ɡiɻkʰ-ə ɡəɻ-el/eɻ =e-m

I book-def write-perf.cvb =aux-1sg
‘I have written the book.’ (NK)
Ես գիրքը գրել եմ։
Ես գիրքը գրեր եմ։

When the auxiliary is attached to the suffix, the auxiliary is syllabified with
the suffix: [ɡə.ɻe.lem] or [ɡə.ɻe.ɻem].
When the auxiliary shifts leftwards, the perfective converb suffix loses its liq-
uid (14). We find deletion in configurations involving negation (14a), bare objects
(14b), or narrow focus (14c-14d), among others.

(14) a. jes ɡiɻkʰ-ə t͡ʃʰ -e-m ɡəɻ-e

I book-def neg=aux-1sg write-perf.cvb
‘I have not written the book.’ (NK)
Ես գիրքը չեմ գրէ։
b. jes ɡiɻkʰ =e-m ɡəɻ-e
I book =aux-1sg write-perf.cvb
‘I have written books.’ (NK)
Ես գիրք եմ գրէ։

52
 3.3 Phonosyntax: Auxiliary-induced segment deletion

c. jes =e-m ɡiɻkʰ-ə ɡəɻ-e

I aux-1sg book-def write-perf.cvb
‘I have written the book.’ (NK)
Ես եմ գիրքը գրէ։
d. esoɻ =e-m ɡiɻkʰ-ə ɡəɻ-e
today aux-1sg book-def write-perf.cvb
I have written the book TODAY.’ (NK)
Էսօր եմ գիրքը գրէ։

Note that in the above sentences, the final liquid of the suffix has deleted. NK
sometimes would produce sentences where the deleted liquid was replaced with
what HD and NK heard as an [h]. However, this [h] was so weak that it may be
an extragrammatical sentence-final voiceless interval rather than an allomorph
of the underlying final liquid.
As we discuss in §6.3.2, the perfective converb is analyzable as a suffix /e<ɻ>/
or /-e<l>/ with a floating segment. This segment surfaces based on the location
of the auxiliary.
Auxiliary movement and liquid deletion are quite common in answers to wh-
questions which naturally create narrow focus, as the following set of questions
and answers illustrate (15). Focus is on the wh-word int͡ʃʰ in the question (15a),
and on the focused word ‘song’ in the answer (15a). Because the auxiliary is to
the left of the verb, the final liquid of the verb is either dropped or pronounced
as [h]. It seems that the choice of deletion vs. [h] is unpredictable and due to
random chance.

(15) a. int͡ʃʰ =e-s jeɻkʰ-e(h)

what =aux-2sg sing-perf.cvb
‘What have you sung?’ (NK)
Ինչ ես երգէ։
b. jes es jeɻkʰ-ən =e-m jeɻkʰ-e(h)
I this song-def =aux-1sg sing-perf.cvb
‘I have sung this song.’ (NK)
Ես էս երգն եմ երգէ։

The deletion of the liquid is not a prosodic process. It is not conditioned by

the sentence-final pause. For example, in the following ditransitive constructions
(16), the verb appears between two noun phrases in a focus-neutral declarative
sentence (16a). In the corresponding interrogative sentence, the auxiliary moves
leftward and is placed on the wh-word. The verb can be sentence-final (16b) or
sentence-medial (16c). In both cases, the verb lacks a final liquid.

53
3 Morphophonology

(16) a. es ɡiɻkʰ-ə təv-eɻ =e-m d͡ʒon-i-n

this book-def give-perf.cvb =aux-1sg John-dat-def
‘I have given this book to John.’ (NK)
Էս գիրքը տուեր եմ Ջոնին։
b. es ɡiɻkʰ-ə um-i-n =e-s təv-e
this book-def who-dat-def aux-2sg give-perf.cvb
‘Who have you given this book to?’ (NK)
Էս գիրքը ումին ես տուէ։
c. um-i-n =e-s təv-e es ɡiɻkʰ-ə
who-dat-def =aux-2sg give-perf.cvb this book-def
‘Who have you given this book to?’ (NK)
Ումին ես տուէ էս գիրքը։

In (16c) the post-verbal word starts with a vowel /e/, but this vowel does not
block liquid deletion. Vowel hiatus between the suffix [-e] and the subsequent
word [es] ‘this’ is not repaired by glide epenthesis. In our recordings, we notice
a very slight transitional glide: [... təv-e ʲes.. ].
When a word is focused, the most typical situation is to place the focused
word before the verb (17a). In this case, the auxiliary shifts onto the focused word.
The direct object is optional and can be added at the end of the sentence. If the
sentence is negated (17b), we again find auxiliary shift and liquid deletion. Thus,
the uncliticized verb surfaces without the final liquid, regardless of whether it is
sentence-medial or sentence-final (17a).

(17) a. jes d͡ʒon-i-n =e-m təv-e (es ɡiɻkʰ-ə)

I John-dat-def =aux-1sg give-perf.cvb this book-def
‘I have given this book to JOHN.’ (NK, KM)
Ես Ջոնին եմ տուէ (էս գիրքը)։
b. jes d͡ʒon-i-n t͡ʃʰ =e-m təv-e (es ɡiɻkʰ-ə)
I John-dat-def neg=aux-1sg give-perf.cvb this book-def
‘I have not given this book to John.’ (NK, KM)
Ես Ջոնին եմ տուէ (էս գիրքը)։

An alternative construction places the focused answer after the verb (18). In
this case, the auxiliary does not shift leftwards and it remains cliticized to the
verb. Thus, the verb surfaces with a liquid.8

8
Focus can never move the auxiliary rightward from the verb. That is, we cannot have a con-
struction like V+X+Aux.

54
 3.3 Phonosyntax: Auxiliary-induced segment deletion

(18) es ɡiɻkʰ-ə təv-eɻ =e-m d͡ʒon-i-n

this book-def give-perf.cvb =aux-1sg John-dat-def
‘I have given this book to JOHN.’ (NK)
Էս գիրքը տուեր եմ Ջոնին։

Similarly, the following question-answer set again shows that the uncliticized
converb loses its liquid in sentence-medial position (19).

(19) a. jeɻpʰ =e-s ɡiɻkʰ-ə təv-e d͡ʒon-i-n

when =aux-2sg book-def give-perf.cvb John-dat-def
‘When did you give John the book?’ (NK)
Երբ ես գիրքը տուէ Ջոնին։
b. jes esoɻ =e-m təv-e d͡ʒon-i-n
I today =aux-1sg give-perf.cvb John-dat-def
‘I have given it to John TODAY.’ (NK)
Ես էսօր եմ տուէ Ջոնին։

AS’s fieldwork likewise reports the deletion of the liquid in uncliticized con-
verbs, and the retention of the liquid in cliticized forms (20),

(20) a. voɻteʁ =e-s t͡sən-v-e

where =aux-2sg birth-pass-perf.cvb
‘Where were you born?’ (AS)
Որտեղ ես ծնուէ։
b. ek-eɻ =e-∅-ɻ , ek-eɻ =∅-i-m
come-perf.cvb =aux-pst-3sg, come-perf.cvb =aux-pst-1sg
‘He had come. I had come.’ (AS)
Էկեր էր, էկեր իմ։
c. ɡəʒ-v-eɻ =e-n
insane-pass-perf.cvb =aux-3pl
‘They have gone insane.’ (AS)
Գժուեր են։

3.3.3 Long-distance conditions

So far, we have seen cases where the liquid is dropped when the auxiliary shifts
leftward. Based on the data so far, one could hypothesize that the liquid sur-
faces when the auxiliary is immediately to the right. We find evidence against
this hypothesis. In order for the liquid to surface, the liquid does not need to

55
3 Morphophonology

be adjacent to the auxiliary, just (non-immediately) before it. Data comes from
intervening coordination and clitics. The data constitutes a type of suspended af-
fixation (Kabak 2007, Kornfilt 2012, Erschler 2018, Fenger 2020, Dolatian 2023d).
In simple cases of coordination, two verbs can be coordinated each with their
own auxiliary. In a sentence such as (21a), the liquids of both verbs surface be-
cause each appears before an auxiliary. But this sentence can be paraphrased
with a simpler type of coordination which we call reduced coordination (21b).
(21) Coordination and liquid deletion
Verb1 Aux Conj Verb2 Aux
a. χəm-eɻ =e-m kɒm keɻ-eɻ =e-m
drink-perf.cvb =aux-1sg or eat-perf.cvb =aux-1sg
‘I have drunk or have eaten.’ (NK)
Խմեր եմ կամ կերեր եմ։
b. χəm-eɻ kɒm keɻ-eɻ =e-m
drink-perf.cvb or eat-perf.cvb =aux-1sg
‘I have drunk or eaten.’ (NK)
Խմեր կամ կերեր եմ։

In reduced coordination, only one auxiliary is used. The auxiliary follows the
second verb, and it licenses the liquids of both verbs. This auxiliary licenses the
liquid of the first verb (Verb1) even though they are not adjacent.
In the positive form, some speakers prefer to repeat the conjunction on both
verbs (22a). The single auxiliary licenses the liquids on both verbs. Also when
negating reduced coordination, an alternative construction is to delete the con-
junction entirely (22b). However, the only crucial point for now is the positioning
of the auxiliary leftward of the verb forms, which gives rise to liquid deletion here
as expected.
(22) a. kɒm χəm-el kɒm keɻ-el =e-m
or drink-perf.cvb or eat-perf.cvb be-1sg
‘I have drunk or eaten.’ (KM)
Կամ խմել կամ կերել եմ։
b. t͡ʃʰ -e-m keɻ-e χəm-e
neg=aux-1sg eat-perf.cvb drink-perf.cvb
‘I have not eaten or drunk.’ (KM)
Չեմ կերէ խմէ։

The generalization so far is that, in reduced coordination, the single auxiliary

can license the appearance of the liquid of both verbs without being adjacent to
both of them. Similar behavior is found in clitics.

56
 3.3 Phonosyntax: Auxiliary-induced segment deletion

The clitic [=el] is polysemous and can have a host of meanings based on its
position and presence of negation. We gloss it as ‘also’ because that is its basic
meaning. For verbs without negation, the clitic can appear between the verb and
the auxiliary (23a), or after the auxiliary (23b). In neither case does the clitic
prevent the liquid from surfacing. This is because the auxiliary is to the right of
the liquid.

(23) Liquid deletion and clitics without negation

a. keɻ-eɻ =el =e-m
eat-perf.cvb =also =aux-1sg
‘I have also eaten.’ (NK)
Կերեր էլ եմ։
b. keɻ-eɻ =e-m =el
eat-perf.cvb =aux-1sg =also
‘I have eaten already!’9 (NK)
Կերեր եմ էլ։

In contrast, in the context of verbal negation, the clitic can be placed either
after the auxiliary (24a) or after the verb (24b). In both cases, the liquid is deleted
for NK and KM because the auxiliary has shifted leftward. The clitic is vowel-
initial and in the same prosodic word as the suffix, but the clitic cannot license
the liquid.

(24) Liquid deletion and clitics with negation

a. t͡ʃʰ -e-m =el keɻ-e
neg=aux-1sg =also eat-perf.cvb
‘Also, I have not eaten.’ (NK, KM)
Չեմ էլ կերէ։
b. t͡ʃʰ -e-m keɻ-e =el
neg=aux-1sg eat-perf.cvb =also
‘I have not eaten anymore.’ (NK, KM)
Չեմ կերէ էլ։

We have found some speaker variation in cases where the suffix appears
after the auxiliary but before a clitic. Whereas NK and KM drop the liquid
(24b), Garoun Engström (GE) reports that she can maintain the liquid: [t͡ʃʰ-e-
m keɻ-el =el]. GE likewise reports that in cases of reduced coordination like
9
NK found the Aux-Clitic sequence rather odd but acceptable, while KM felt it too odd.

57
3 Morphophonology

V+kɒm+V+Aux (22), she also maintains the liquid. Thus for some speakers, the
rule is that the liquid is licensed either long-distance by the auxiliary, or locally
by an adjacent clitic. At this point, we do not have enough data and resources
to construct a large-scale variationist study on the phonosyntax of this process
across multiple speakers, but it is a worthwhile future endeavor.
Setting aside microvariation between speakers, the data can be categorized
in theoretical terms in terms of a post-lexical rule that is syntactically condi-
tioned. Such cases are relatively rarer than purely prosodic rules, but still at-
tested (Selkirk 1986, Kaisse 1985). However, to our knowledge, most attested
cases of syntax-sensitive phonology involve adjacency between the target and
trigger/blocker. For example, such locality or adjacency constraints are common
for phonosyntactic processes in Romance and Germanic (Ackema & Neeleman
2003, 2004, Sampson 2016, Weisser 2019).
The Iranian Armenian data is thus cross-linguistically rare in allowing long-
distance conditioning. To our knowledge, the closest attested case of long-
distance syntax-sensitive phonology is long-distance and discontinuous vowel
harmony in Wolof (Sy 2005) and Guébie (Dąbkowski & Sande 2021).10 For Wolof
(25), vowel harmony applies across words, specifically between a head and its
complement. This makes vowel harmony a type of syntax-sensitive phonology.
Harmony can ignore certain intervening words between the source and target
vowels. This invisibility of intervening words is what makes Wolof a case of long-
distance syntax-sensitive phonology.

(25) Long-distance ATR agreement in Wolof, taken from Sy (2005: 95, (1))

a. [−ATR] [−ATR] [−ATR]

xaj b-u weex b-ale
dog cl-rel be.white cl-dem.dist
‘that white dog’

b. [+ATR] [+ATR] [+ATR]

béy w-u réy w-ëlé
goat cl-rel be.big cl-dem.dist
‘that big goat’

10
We thank Kie Zuraw for bringing the Wolof case to our attention. Another potential case is
iterative or pervasive propagination in the Verbicaro dialect of Italian (Silvestri 2022: 7).

58
 3.3 Phonosyntax: Auxiliary-induced segment deletion

3.3.4 Irregular imperfective converb

All the preceding data focused on the perfective converb suffix. This suffix shows
an inconstant or variable form, with or without a final liquid: [-el/ɻ] or [-e].
Whether a liquid surfaces or not is based on the presence and location of the
auxiliary. We find exactly the same behavior in another suffix: the irregular im-
perfective [-i(s)].
For regular verbs and most irregular verbs, the imperfective converb is formed
by adding the suffix -um onto the verb root or stem. In contrast, there are two
irregular verbs ‘to give’ and ‘to come’ which form their imperfective converb by
adding the suffix -is to the infinitive (Table 3.9). Paradigms for these irregular
verbs are given in §6.7.2.11
Table 3.9: Formation of regular and irregular imperfective converbs

Regular Irregular
‘to sing’ ‘to give’ ‘to come’
inf jeɻkʰ-e-l √-th-inf t-ɒ-l ɡ-ɒ-l √-th-inf
երգել տալ գալ

impf.cvb jeɻkʰ-um √-impf.cvb t-ɒ-l-is ɡ-ɒ-l-is √-th-inf-impf.cvb

երգում տալիս գալիս

In §3.3.1, we saw that the regular suffix -um has a constant form and never
alternates. In contrast, the irregular suffix surfaces as -is before the auxiliary,
and as -i when the auxiliary has shifted leftwards (26).

(26) a. jes ɡiɻkʰ-ə t-ɒ-l-is =e-m

I book-def give-th-inf-impf.cvb =aux-1sg
‘I am giving the book.’ (NK)
Ես գիրքը տալիս եմ։
b. jes ɡiɻkʰ-ə t͡ʃʰ -e-m t-ɒ-l-i
I book-def neg=aux-1sg give-th-inf-impf.cvb
‘I am not giving the book.’ (NK)
Ես գիրքը չեմ տալի։
11
Standard Eastern Armenian utilizes the same irregular imperfective forms for the verbs ‘to
come’ [ɡ-ɑ-l], ‘to give’ [t-ɑ-l], and ‘to cry’ [l-ɑ-l]. But in Iranian Armenian, the verb [l-ɑ-l] ‘to
cry’ is replaced by regular [lɒt͡sʰ-e-l] ‘to cry’ which forms its imperfective converb with -um:
[lɒt͡sʰ-um]. See §6.7.4 for discussion of this verb.

59
3 Morphophonology

c. jes ɡiɻkʰ =e-m t-ɒ-l-i

I book =aux-1sg give-th-inf-impf.cvb
‘I am giving books.’ (NK)
Ես գիրք եմ տալի։
d. jes =e-m ɡiɻkʰ-ə t-ɒ-l-i
I aux-1sg book-def give-th-inf-impf.cvb
‘I am giving the book.’ (NK)
Ես եմ գիրքը տալի։

The imperfective [-is]∼[-i] alternation happens in the same contexts as the

perfective [-el/ɻ]∼[-e] alternation. We report additional data from AS’s work (27).
The same generalization stands: if the auxiliary has shifted leftwards, then the
suffix [-is] alternates with [-i].

(27) a. uʃ =e-n ɡ-ɒ-l-i

late =aux-3pl come-th-inf-impf.cvb
‘They are coming late.’ (AS)
Ուշ են գալի։
b. mez =e-n t-ɒ-l-i
us.dat =aux-3pl give-th-inf-impf.cvb
‘They are giving it to us.’ (AS)
Մեզ են տալի։
c. jes d͡zez-i χoskʰ =e-m t-ɒ-l-i voɻ
I you.pl-dat promise =aux-3pl give-th-inf-impf.cvb that
ɒχt͡ʃʰik-əs el jeɻpʰekʰ sent͡sʰ bɒn-er t͡ʃʰ-i-∅
daughter-poss.1sg ever never these thing-pl neg-aux-3sg
ɒn-e-l-u
doth-inf-fut.cvb
‘I promise you that my daughter will never do these things.’ (AS)
Ես ձեզի խօսք եմ տալի որ աղջիկս էլ երբէք սենց բաներ չի անելու։

We likewise see the same long-distance conditions in reduced coordination

(28). The suffix surfaces as [-is] when the auxiliary is to the right within the
phrase, even if not adjacent to the suffix. The suffix surfaces as [-i] when the
auxiliary shifts leftwards.

(28) a. t-ɒ-l-is =e-m kɒm t͡sɒχ-um =e-m

give-th-inf-impf.cvb =aux-1sg or sell-impf.cvb =aux-1sg
‘I am giving or I am selling.’ (NK)
Տալիս եմ կամ ծախում եմ։

60
 3.3 Phonosyntax: Auxiliary-induced segment deletion

b. t-ɒ-l-is kɒm t͡sɒχ-um =e-m

give-th-inf-impf.cvb or sell-impf.cvb =aux-1sg
‘I am giving or selling.’ (NK)
Տալիս կամ ծախում եմ։
c. t͡ʃʰ -e-m t-ɒ-l-i kɒm t͡sɒχ-um
neg=aux-1sg give-th-inf-impf.cvb or sell-impf.cvb
‘I am not giving or selling.’ (NK)
Չեմ տալի կամ ծախում ։

3.3.5 Diachronic origins and effects of adjacency

The previous section examined the synchronic behavior of the perfective converb
suffix -el/eɻ and how this suffix loses its liquid when the auxiliary has shifted.
This section describes the diachronic origins of this behavior in Standard and
Colloquial Eastern Armenian.
In Standard Eastern Armenian, the perfective converb suffix is -el, and the
irregular imperfective converb suffix is -is. Whereas these suffixes alternate in
Iranian Armenian, they do not in Standard Eastern (29). The forms of the suffixes
remain constant regardless of whether the auxiliary has shifted leftwards.

(29) Constant forms in Standard Eastern Armenian

a. ɡəɾ-el =e-m , t-ɑ-l-is =e-m
write-perf.cvb =aux-1sg, give-th-inf-impf.cvb =aux-1sg
‘I have written, I am giving.’
Գրել եմ, տալիս եմ։
b. t͡ʃʰ -e-m ɡəɾ-el, t͡ʃʰ -e-m t-ɑ-l-is
neg=aux-1sg write-perf.cvb, neg=aux-1sg give-th-inf-impf.cvb
‘I have not written, I am not giving.’
Չեմ գրել, չեմ տալիս։

The Iranian Armenian suffix [-el/-eɻ] developed from the same historical
source as the Standard Eastern suffix. It is reported that across Armenian lects,
the liquid of the perfective suffix can sometimes change from /l/ to a rhotic
(Գրիգորյան 2018; dialectological feature #85 in Ջահուկյան 1972: 101).
However, in Colloquial Eastern Armenian (CEA) as spoken in Yerevan, it is
reported that speakers can optionally drop the liquid /l/ and the fricative /s/ when
the auxiliary has shifted (30) (Ղարագյուլյան 1981: 101, Dum-Tragut 2009: 213, 223,
Ղամոյան et al. 2014: 37).

61
3 Morphophonology

(30) Optional deletion in Colloquial Eastern Armenian

a. ɡəɾ-el =e-m , t-ɑ-l-is =e-m
write-perf.cvb =aux-1sg, give-th-inf-impf.cvb =aux-1sg
‘I have written, I am giving.’
Գրել եմ, տալիս եմ։
b. t͡ʃʰ -e-m ɡəɾ-e(l), t͡ʃʰ -e-m t-ɑ-l-i(s)
neg=aux-1sg write-perf.cvb, neg=aux-1sg give-th-inf-impf.cvb
‘I have not written, I am not giving.’
Չեմ գրել, չեմ տալիս։

The deletion of the final liquid is reported to be unique to the perfective con-
verb suffix [-el] in Colloquial Eastern Armenian. This colloquial process is like-
wise attested in the Colloquial Eastern Armenian spoken by immigrant commu-
nities in Los Angeles (Karapetian 2014: 72).
There is some experimental evidence that this optional deletion process in
Colloquial Eastern Armenian is related to the prosodic weakening of liquids
(Գրիգորյան 2018).
One speaker of CEA (VP) informed us that the clitic [=el] ‘also, even’ can also
optionally delete its liquid in CEA (31).
(31) Colloquial Eastern Armenian
jes e(l) kʰez =e-m spɑs-um
I also you.sg.dat =aux-1sg wait-impf.cvb
‘I am also waiting for you.’ (VP)
Ես էլ քեզ եմ սպասում։

For Colloquial Eastern Armenian, we asked young speakers from Armenia

(around 20–40 years old) for their sociolinguistic intuitions about the optional
deletion in the suffixes [-el] and [-is] (Table 3.10). Some speakers told us that they
themselves have this optional process in their speech, some told us they do not
do it at all. Some told us that this process is common, while others told us that
it is judged as “vulgar” and uncommon. Some told us that they can apply the
deletion in some verbs, but not others.
Table 3.10: Consultants on Colloquial Eastern Armenian and their
meta-linguistic judgments

Speaker Age Sex What verbs? Social judgment?

MA late-20s F ‘open’, ‘close’, ‘eat’, ‘drink’ “it’s colloquial”
VP mid-30s M any verb “any social class/region”
HH early-20s M N/A “it’s colloquial and vulgar”

62
 3.3 Phonosyntax: Auxiliary-induced segment deletion

The above reports suggest that this colloquial process is attested but stigma-
tized. The use of this process varies by speaker, and sometimes by verb. There is
little to no work on the variationist sociolinguistics of Armenian,12 so we do not
know if any demographic factors are correlated with this deletion process.
Diachronically, there is an obvious path of historical development for the per-
fective suffix in Iranian Armenian. 1) In some stage of the dialect, there was no
deletion at all [-el] (like modern Standard Eastern Armenian). 2) Later on, the
dialect developed optional deletion [-e(l)] (like modern Colloquial Eastern Ar-
menian). 3) Finally, the deletion became obligatory [-e] (as in modern Iranian
Armenian). As we discuss below, stages 2 (for CEA) and 3 (for IA) also seem to
differ in terms of adjacency requirements between the suffix and the auxiliary.
Data on this colloquial process is sparse, but we suspect that Colloquial East-
ern and Iranian Armenian differ in the role of adjacency between the verb and
auxiliary. Briefly, in Iranian Armenian, non-adjacent auxiliaries cause the liquid
to surface, while non-adjacent auxiliaries can cause the liquid to delete. We illus-
trate below.
Consider the sentences in (32), in both Colloquial Eastern and Iranian Arme-
nian. In (32a), the sentence has un-reduced coordination with two verbs and two
auxiliaries. The verb’s liquid surfaces in both dialects. But in reduced coordina-
tion (32b) with just one auxiliary, Verb1 keeps its liquid in Iranian Armenian but
can optionally delete it in Colloquial Eastern Armenian. No deletion is found in
Standard Eastern. We use -p, =aux instead of -perf.cvb, =aux-1sg.

(32) Effect of verb-auxiliary adjacency in Colloquial Eastern and Iranian Arme-

nian
a. Un-reduced coordination with two auxiliaries
Verb1 Aux Conj Verb2 Aux
i. χəm-el =e-m kɑm keɾ-el =e-m (SEA) (MA, VP)
ii. χəm-el =e-m kɑm keɾ-el =e-m (CEA) (MA, VP)
Խմել եմ կամ կերել եմ։
iii. χəm-eɻ =e-m kɒm keɻ-eɻ =e-m (IA) (NK)
drink-p =aux or eat-p =aux
‘I have drunk or have eaten.’
Խմեր եմ կամ կերեր եմ։

12
To our knowledge, the closest work is Zakaryan (Զաքարյան 1981), a study of social factors in
different Armenian morphophonological choices.

63
3 Morphophonology

b. Reduced coordination with one auxiliary

Verb1 Conj Verb2 Aux
i. χəm-el kɑm keɾ-el =e-m (SEA) (MA, VP)
ii. χəm-e(l) kɑm keɾ-el =e-m (CEA) (MA, VP)
Խմել կամ կերել եմ։
iii. χəm-eɻ kɒm keɻ-eɻ =e-m (IA) (NK)
drink-p or eat-p =aux
‘I have drunk or eaten.’
Խմեր կամ կերեր եմ։

When reduced coordination is negated, Standard Eastern keeps the liquid in

Verb1, while Iranian Armenian deletes the liquids in both Verb1 and Verb2 (33).
For Colloquial Eastern Armenian, either both liquids surface or both delete. Other
permutations are not possible for our informants (liquid + no liquid, no liquid +
liquid).

(33) Reduced coordination with negation and consonant-initial conjunction

Neg-Aux Verb1 Conj Verb2
i. t͡ʃʰ -e-m χəm-el kɑm keɾ-el (SEA) (MA, VP)
ii. t͡ʃʰ -e-m χəm-el kɑm keɾ-el (CEA) (MA, VP)
t͡ʃʰ -e-m χəm-e kɑm keɾ-e (MA, VP)
*t͡ʃʰ -e-m χəm-e kɑm keɾ-el (*MA, *VP)
*t͡ʃʰ -e-m χəm-el kɑm keɾ-e (*MA, *VP)
Չեմ խմել կամ կերել։
iii. t͡ʃʰ -e-m χəm-e kɒm keɻ-e (IA) (NK)
neg=aux drink-p or eat-p
‘I have not drunk or eaten.’
Չեմ խմէ կամ կերէ։

The generalization so far is the following. In both Iranian Armenian and Collo-
quial Eastern Armenian, the auxiliary licenses the floating liquid of the perfective
converb. In Iranian Armenian, the suffix and auxiliary do not need to be adjacent,
but they do need to be adjacent in Colloquial Eastern Armenian.
The above generalization is however too simplified for Colloquial Eastern Ar-
menian, because we have found some variation across speakers. In reduced co-
ordination with a vowel-initial conjunction, one Standard Eastern speaker told
us that they can delete the liquid on Verb1 (VP), while another said that they
could not (MA). This data suggests that some speakers can allow other adjacent
vowel-initial words to license the perfective liquid (34).

64
 3.3 Phonosyntax: Auxiliary-induced segment deletion

(34) Effect of other vowel-initial words in Colloquial Eastern Armenian and in

Iranian Armenian
a. Un-reduced coordination with two auxiliaries
Verb1 Aux Conj Verb2 Aux
i. χəm-el =e-m u keɾ-el =e-m (SEA)
ii. χəm-el =e-m u keɾ-el =e-m (CEA)
Խմել եմ ու կերել եմ։
iii. χəm-eɻ =e-m u keɻ-eɻ =e-m (IA) (NK)
drink-p =aux and eat-p =aux
‘I have drunk and have eaten.’
Խմեր եմ ու կերեր եմ։
b. Reduced coordination with one auxiliary
Verb1 Conj Verb2 Aux
i. χəm-el u keɾ-el =e-m (SEA) (MA, VP)
ii. χəm-el u keɾ-el =e-m (CEA) (VP, MA)
χəm-e u keɾ-el =e-m (CEA) (VP, *MA)
Խմել կամ կերել եմ։
iii. χəm-eɻ u keɻ-eɻ =e-m (IA) (NK)
drink-p and eat-p =aux
‘I have drunk and eaten.’
Խմեր ու կերեր եմ։

The variation can cause ineffability when reduced coordination involves nega-
tion and a vowel-initial conjunction (35). In the sentences below, the auxiliary
has to shift because of negation, and Verb1 precedes a vowel. Our consultants
VP and MA are fine with deleting neither liquid. VP is fine with deleting both
liquids, but MA is not. Neither speaker is fine with deleting only one liquid. For
Iranian Armenian, our main consultant required deletion in both verbs. However,
another speaker (GE) reports that deletion of the first liquid is optional.

(35) Reduced coordination with negation and vowel-initial conjunction

Neg-Aux Verb1 Conj Verb2
i. t͡ʃʰ -e-m χəm-el u keɾ-el (SEA) (VP, MA)
ii. t͡ʃʰ -e-m χəm-el u keɾ-el (CEA) (VP, MA)
t͡ʃʰ -e-m χəm-e u keɾ-e (VP, *MA)
*t͡ʃʰ -e-m χəm-e u keɾ-el (*VP, *MA)
*t͡ʃʰ -e-m χəm-el u keɾ-e (*VP, *MA)
Չեմ խմել ու կերել։

65
3 Morphophonology

iii. t͡ʃʰ -e-m χəm-e u keɻ-e (IA) (NK)

t͡ʃʰ -e-m χəm-e(l) u keɻ-e (IA) (GE)
neg=aux drink-p and eat-p
‘I have not drunk and eaten.’
Չեմ խմէ ու կերէ։

The data from Colloquial Eastern Armenian and Iranian Armenian is quite
complicated and our analysis is incomplete. More variation-oriented data is re-
quired from larger pools of people from different areas and generations. But
crucially, the overarching generalization is that whereas IA allows non-local
conditioning between the suffix and the auxiliary, CEA seems to require local
conditioning. Some IA speakers also allow both generalizations simultaneously
(non-local or local conditioning).

66
4 Nominal morphology
This chapter covers the basics of nominal inflection in Iranian Armenian. In gen-
eral, we have not found any significant differences between Standard Eastern
and Iranian Armenian in this domain. We thus keep this chapter brief, with an
overview of the basic paradigms. For larger paradigms and for work on the noun
phrase of Armenian, we refer readers to other sources for Standard Eastern Ar-
menian (Kozintseva 1995, Yeghiazaryan 2010, Tamrazian 1994: §4, Megerdoomian
2009: §5, Dum-Tragut 2009: §2.1, Hodgson 2019b: §2.1.1) and Standard Western
Armenian (Sigler 1997, Khanjian 2013: §2.3, Bale & Khanjian 2014).

4.1 Basic template for nominal inflection

Nominal inflection is agglutinative for number, case, possession, and definite
marking. The basic template for nominal inflection is given in Table 4.1. The
rightmost column is dedicated to possessive and definiteness marking, which
we refer to collectively as a Determiner slot. We list productive suffixes within
each cell, including suffixal allomorphs.
Table 4.1: Template for nominal inflection and the set of productive
suffixes

N Number Case (k) Determiner (det)

sg -∅ nom/acc -∅ unmarked -∅
pl -eɻ -եր dat/gen -i -ի poss.1sg -(ə)s -ս
-neɻ -ներ abl -it͡sʰ -ից poss.2sg -(ə)t -դ
ins -ov -ով def -ə -ը
loc -um -ում -n -ն
-ən -ն

Some of the above morphemes have multiple realizations due to phonological-

ly-conditioned allomorphy. Such allomorphy is discussed in §3.2.
4 Nominal morphology

To illustrate nominal inflection, we show the paradigms of a singular case-

marked noun, a plural case-marked noun, and a plural case-marked possessed
noun (Table 4.2). Note that possessive marking follows case marking.
Table 4.2: Paradigm for singular noun, plural noun, and plural pos-
sessed noun

N-k N-pl-k N-pl-k-poss.1sg

nom/acc senjɒk senjɒk-neɻ senjɒk-neɻ-əs
սենեակ սենեակներ սենեակներս

dat/gen senjɒk-i senjɒk-neɻ-i senjɒk-neɻ-i-s

սենեակի սենեակների սենեակներիս

abl senjɒk-it͡sʰ senjɒk-neɻ-it͡sʰ senjɒk-neɻ-it͡sʰ-əs

սենեակից սենեակներից սենեակներիցս

ins senjɒk-ov senjɒk-neɻ-ov senjɒk-neɻ-ov-əs

սենեակով սենեակներով սենեակներովս

loc senjɒk-um senjɒk-neɻ-um senjɒk-neɻ-um-əs

սենեակում սենեակներում սենեակներումս

‘room’ ‘rooms’ ‘my rooms’

In Standard Eastern Armenian, the word for ‘case’ is /holov/ հոլով. The names
of the different cases are in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3: Names of cases in Standard Eastern Armenian

Nominative uʁʁɑkɑn ուղղական

Accusative hɑjt͡sʰɑkɑn հայցական
Genitive serɑkɑn սեռական
Dative təɾɑkɑn տրական
Ablative bɑt͡sʰɑrɑkɑn բացառական
Instrumental ɡoɾt͡sijɑkɑn գործիական
Locative neɾɡojɑkɑn ներգոյական

In terms of syncretism and exponence, nominative and accusative are zero-

marked, singular number is unmarked, and dative and genitive are syncretic for
common nouns. However, this syncretism does not apply to personal pronouns,
which we discuss in §5.1.

68
 4.1 Basic template for nominal inflection

Standard Eastern Armenian can use the instrumental case marker -ov to de-
note either the meaning of ‘to use X as an instrument’ or ‘to go along with X’.
The latter meaning is considered a comitative meaning (Dum-Tragut 2009: 93).
Standard Western Armenian can likewise use the instrumental as a comitative.
However in Iranian Armenian, the comitative meaning of the instrumental suffix
is considered atypical and odd. Speakers prefer to express the comitative mean-
ing through an alternative postpositional construction.1
For example, sentence (1a) places an instrumental suffix on the noun. The in-
tended interpretation is comitative: to go along with the sister. Such a meaning is
possible for some speakers in Standard Eastern Armenian, but not in Iranian Ar-
menian. The typical Iranian Armenian reading would be purely instrumental: to
go to the cinema by using the sister. To express the comitative meaning, speakers
strongly prefer using the postposition het (1b).2

(1) a. kʰəɻ-ot͡ʃʰ-ov-əs ɡən-ɒ-t͡sʰ-i-ŋkʰ sinemɒ

sister-dat-ins-poss.1sg go-th-aor-pst-1pl cinema
Intended meaning: ‘We went to the cinema along with my sister.’
Actual meaning: ‘We went to the cinema by using my sister.’
Քրոջովս գնացինք սինեմա։ (KM)
b. kʰəɻ-ot͡ʃʰ-əs het ɡən-ɒ-t͡sʰ-i-ŋkʰ sinemɒ
sister-gen-poss.1sg with go-th-aor-pst-1pl cinema
‘We went to the cinema along with my sister.’
Քրոջս հետ գնացինք սինեմա։ (KM)

The suffixes in Table 4.1 are the regular or default suffixes for the correspond-
ing morphosyntactic features. Iranian Armenian has limited morphologically-
conditioned allomorphy with irregular suffixes. We have not found any signifi-
cant differences for irregular inflection in Iranian Armenian vs. Standard Eastern
Armenian. At most, it seems that Iranian Armenian is slowly leveling out irreg-
ular inflection.
1
However, a reviewer states that a possibly more accurate description of SEA is that the instru-
mental can be used for activities that are carried out as a group (for example as a family), and
not alongside a person. If we take this description of SEA as accurate, then both SEA and IA
lack comitative instrumentals, while SWA has them. However, KM did report that she encoun-
tered such comitative readings in SEA before, so it is possible that there is variation among
SEA speakers. Our SEA consultant AT said that such a comitative reading is “not okay” but
that it is possible that someone might use it in a disparaging way, e.g., a misogynist might use
the comitative instrumental of the word ‘sister’.
2
For the word ‘sister’, the nominative form is [kʰuɻ] քուր. In the dative/genitive, the word uses
an irregular allomorph for both the root and the suffix: [kʰəɻ-ot͡ʃʰ]. The dative/genitive stem is
then further inflected to form the instrumental. Note that the prescriptive form of the irregular
dative/genitive suffix is [-od͡ʒ], but in Iranian Armenian it is more often pronounced as [-ot͡ʃʰ].

69
4 Nominal morphology

To illustrate, the regular dative/genitive suffix is -i. In both Standard Eastern

and Iranian Armenian, the dative/genitive suffix has a wide set of irregular allo-
morphs or realizations. For example, the suffix -ութիւն /-utʰjun/ is a productive
nominalizer (2). This suffix forms an irregular dative/genitive by using a differ-
ent allomorph for the entire nominalizer suffix: -ութեան /-utʰjɒn/. The use of this
allomorph is the prescriptive rule in Standard Eastern and Iranian Armenian,
but KM reports that Iranian Armenian speakers much more frequently apply a
regularized form /-utʰjun-i/.
(2) Leveling out of irregular dative/genitive of /-utʰjun/
a. uɻɒχ ‘happy’ ուրախ
uɻɒχ-utʰjun happy-nmlz ‘happiness’ ուրախութիւն
b. uɻɒχ-utjɒn happy-nmlz.dat/gen ‘to/of happiness’ ուրախութեան
c. uɻɒχ-utʰjun-i happy-nmlz-dat/gen ‘to/of happiness’ ուրախութիւնի

For complete paradigms of these irregular declensions in Standard Eastern Ar-

menian, see Dum-Tragut (2009: §2.1.2). These paradigms apply to the formal pre-
scriptive speech of Iranian Armenians. But in casual speech, KM and AS report
the loss of various irregular case suffixes.

4.2 Constraints on definite marking and case marking

The determiner slot can be realized by either nothing, the 1SG possessive, 2SG
possessive, or the definite suffix. The 1SG possessive and 2SG possessive can
follow any type of case marker. This was illustrated in section §4.1 in Table 4.2
for the 1SG possessive. However, the definite suffix cannot follow the genitive,
ablative, or instrumental (Dum-Tragut 2009: 104, Yeghiazaryan 2010: 7, Hodgson
2019b: 48, 2022).3
To illustrate, Table 4.4 shows definite marking on singular and plural nouns.
For the genitive, ablative, and instrumental, the noun is semantically ambiguous
in terms of being definite or not. The gloss k is a placeholder for case marking.4
3
We treat the definite and possessive morphemes as suffixes and not clitics. Morphosyntactically,
there is no obvious evidence for treating them as separate words (clitics) instead of suffixes.
Phonologically, these morphemes are unstressed (like clitics). But because these morphemes
lack a non-schwa vowel, a suffix account already correctly predicts that they are unstressable
(§2.2.2.1).
4
The morpheme sequence of instrumental-definite is judged as ungrammatical by NK. In Stan-
dard Eastern Armenian it is also judged as odd. However, BV found around 29 instances of
this morpheme sequence as [senjɑk-um-ə] սենյակումը ‘in the room’ on the EANC. Victoria
Khurshudyan reported that such a sequene can be uttered, “but it will be clearly perceived as
a non-standard form.”

70
 4.2 Constraints on definite marking and case marking

Table 4.4: Paradigm of definite singular noun and definite plural noun

N-k-def N-pl-k-def
nom/acc senjɒk-ə սենեակը senjɒk-neɻ-ə սենեակնեըր
dat senjɒk-i-n սենեակին senjɒk-neɻ-i-n սենեակներին
gen senjɒk-i սենեակի senjɒk-neɻ-i սենեակների
* senjɒk-i-n * senjɒk-neɻ-i-n
abl senjɒk-it͡sʰ սենեակից senjɒk-neɻ-it͡sʰ սենեակներից
* senjɒk-it͡sʰ-ə * senjɒk-neɻ-it͡sʰ-ə
ins senjɒk-ov սենեակով senjɒk-neɻ-ov սենեակներով
* senjɒk-ov-ə * senjɒk-neɻ-ov-ə
loc senjɒk-um սենեակում senjɒk-neɻ-um սենեակներում
* senjɒk-um-ə * senjɒk-neɻ-um-ə
‘the room’ ‘the rooms’

It is interesting that the dative and genitive are syncretic with the suffix -i.
However, the definite suffix can be used after the dative form, but not the genitive
form. This is illustrated in the following sentences.
In sentence (3a), the suffix -i marks dative case. It can take the definite suffix -n.
But in (3b), the suffix -i marks genitive case. It cannot be followed by the definite
suffix.
(3) a. senjɒk-i-n ɡiɻkʰ təv-ɒ-m
room-dat-def book give-pst-1sg
‘I gave books to the room.’ (NK)
Սենեակին գիրք տուամ։
b. senjɒk-i(*-n) ɡujn-ə
room-gen-*def color-def
‘the color of the room’ (*NK)
սենեակի գոյնը

This co-occurrence restriction applies equally to both non-human nouns and

to human nouns, such as the given name Aram (4).
(4) a. ɒɻɒm-i-n ɡiɻkʰ təv-ɒ-m
Aram-dat-def book give-pst-1sg
‘I gave books to Aram.’ (NK)
Արամին գիրք տուամ։

71
4 Nominal morphology

b. ɒɻɒm-i(*-n) ɡiɻkʰ-ə
Aram-gen-*def book-def
‘the book of Aram’ (NK)
Արամի գիրքը

The co-occurrence restriction between the genitive and the definite suffix is
limited to just the definite suffix (5). Other determiner suffixes like the 1SG pos-
sessive can freely co-occur with either the dative -i or the genitive -i.

(5) a. senjɒk-i-s ɡiɻkʰ təv-ɒ-m

room-dat-poss.1sg book give-pst-1sg
‘I gave books to my room.’ (NK)
Սենեակիս գիրք տուամ։
b. senjɒk-i-s ɡujn-ə
room-gen-poss.1sg color-def
‘the color of my room’ (NK)
սենեակիս գոյնը

The definite suffix has an additional function of helping to mark third person
possessives. This is discussed in the following section.

4.3 Constraints on possessive marking

The determiner slot can be occupied by either the possessive suffixes or the defi-
nite suffix. There are likewise co-dependencies between this slot and the posses-
sive pronouns.
Iranian Armenian has a set of 8 genitive/possessive pronouns which mark pos-
session. The 3SG and 3PL each have two members. One member is intensive or
emphatic, while the other member is non-intensive or non-emphatic. This is dis-
cussed in §5.1.
If a noun is possessed by the first person singular, then the noun can surface
in one of three forms (6a). It can surface without a possessive pronoun and with
the 1SG possessive suffix. Or, it can surface with the possessive pronoun and the
1SG possessive suffix. Or, it can surface with the possessive pronoun but with the
definite suffix. Similar options are found for 2SG possessives (6b).

72
 4.3 Constraints on possessive marking

(6) a. Variation in 1SG possessive marking

a. senjɒk-əs սենեակս
room-poss.1sg
b. im senjɒk-əs իմ սենեակս
my room-poss.1sg
c. im senjɒk-ə իմ սենեակը
my room-def
‘my room’
b. Variation in 2SG possessive marking
a. senjɒk-ət սենեակդ
room-poss.2sg
b. kʰo senjɒk-ət քո սենեակս
my room-poss.2sg
c. kʰo senjɒk-ə քո սենեակը
my room-def
‘your room’
Sociolinguistically, the simultaneous use of the possessive pronoun and the
possessive suffix is deemed prescriptively incorrect for Standard Eastern Arme-
nian (Dum-Tragut 2009: 113). The use of both the pronoun and the possessive
suffix is instead restricted to colloquial speech and often stigmatized. But it is
the preferred strategy for casual speech in Iranian Armenian.
For the other combinations of person and number, there is no dedicated posses-
sive suffix (Table 4.5). Instead, the possessed noun takes the genitive/possessive
pronoun and the definite suffix.
Table 4.5: Possessive marking for person-number combinations be-
yond 1SG-2SG

3SG iɻɒ senjɒk-ə ‘his room’ իրա սենեակը

nəɻɒ senjɒk-ə ‘his room’ նրա սենեակը

1PL meɻ senjɒk-ə ‘our room’ մեր սենեակը

2PL d͡zeɻ senjɒk-ə ‘your.pl room’ ձեր սենեակը

3PL iɻɒnt͡sʰ senjɒk-ə ‘their room’ իրանց սենեակը

nəɻɒnt͡sʰ senjɒk-ə ‘their room’ նրանց սենեակը

pro.gen room-def

73
4 Nominal morphology

4.4 Synthetic constructions for plural possessors

When the noun has a plural possessor, the most typical construction is to use a
genitive pronoun and the definite suffix (7a). Both Standard Eastern and Iranian
Armenian allow a synthetic alternative that is very restricted in usage (Dum-
Tragut 2009: 113–114). In Standard Eastern Armenian, one can use the plural suffix
-neɾ to encode a plural possessor (7b).

(7) Standard Eastern Armenian (adapted from Khurshudian 2020: 339,340)

a. meɾ ɑt͡ʃʰkʰ-eɾ-ə, meɾ het-ə
us.gen eye-pl-def, us.gen with-def
‘our eyes, with us’
մեր աչքերը, մեր հետը
b. ɑt͡ʃʰkʰ-neɾ-əs, het-neɾ-əs
eye-pl-poss.1sg, with-pl-poss.1sg
‘our eyes, with us’
աչքներս, հետներս

For SEA, note how the plural -neɾ suffix is supposed to attach only to polysyl-
labic stems, while the allomorph -eɾ attaches to monosyllables. But the suffix -neɾ
is exceptionally used to mark plural possession on monosyllables in the above
examples (§3.2.1).
In Standard Western Armenian, such constructions are productive, using dif-
ferent morphological templates (Arregi et al. 2013, Bezrukov 2016). In contrast
in Standard Eastern Armenian, the use of this synthetic construction for plural
possessors is quite unproductive, and limited to a small set of concepts, such as
talking about one’s body parts ‘our eyes’ or using an adposition ‘with us’. The
SEA-style of plural possessives is also attested in Iranian Armenian (8).5

(8) Iranian Armenian

a. meɻ ɒt͡ʃʰkʰ-eɻ-ə, meɻ het-ə
us.gen eye-pl-def, us.gen with-def
‘our eyes, with us’ (NK)
մեր աչքերը, մեր հետը

5
In SEA, the prescriptive norm is that the postposition /het/ ‘with’ assigns dative case to its
argument. In contrast, CEA uses genitive marking (Dum-Tragut 2009: 297–299). IA also uses
genitive marking.

74
 4.5 Differential object marking

b. ɒt͡ʃʰkʰ-neɻ-əs, het-neɻ-əs
eye-pl-poss.1sg, with-pl-poss.1sg
‘our eyes, with us’ (NK)
աչքներս, հետներս

This construction seems particularly common for body parts which come in
pairs, like feet or eyes (9).6

(9) Iranian Armenian

a. meɻ votkʰ-eɻ-ə, meɻ d͡zer-eɻ-ə
us.gen foot-pl-def, us.gen hand-pl-def
‘our feet, our hands’ (NK)
մեր ոտքերը, մեր ձեռերը
b. votkʰ-neɻ-əs, d͡zer-neɻ-əs
foot-pl-poss.1sg, hand-pl-poss.1sg
‘our feet, our hands’ (NK)
ոտքներս, ձեռներս

As in Standard Eastern Armenian, this construction is restricted and unpro-

ductive in Iranian Armenian (10). NK found it odd to add it to nouns that were
for animals.

(10) Iranian Armenian

a. meɻ muk-ə, meɻ kov-ə, meɻ kɒtu-n
us.gen mouse-def, us.gen cow-def, us.gen cat-def
‘our mouse, our cow, our cat’ (NK)
մեր մուկը, մեր կովը, մեր կատուն
b. *muk-neɻ-əs, kov-neɻ-əs, kɒtu-neɻ-əs
mouse-pl-poss.1sg, cow-pl-poss.1sg, cat-pl-poss.1sg
Intended: ‘our mouse, our cow, our cat’ (*NK)

4.5 Differential object marking

For nouns in the subject position, nominative case is covert or zero. But in the
object position, we see a distinction between nouns with human referents and
6
AS reports that for the word ‘foot’, the default form is /votkʰ/, as in [votkʰ-eɻ-əs]. However,
the form /vot/ can be used as well: [vot-eɻ-əs]. However, he suspects that such a form is more
permissible if the preceding genitive pronoun is singular and not plural. That is, this smaller
form is used when there is no plural possessor: /im vot-eɻ-əs/ ‘my feet’.

75
4 Nominal morphology

nouns with non-human referents. Non-human nouns are not overtly marked
for morphological case, i.e., they take covert accusative case. In contrast, human
nouns in object position take dative -i as a form of differential object marking.
The same pattern occurs in Standard Eastern Armenian (Dum-Tragut 2009: 61,
Scala 2011) and the Iranian dialect of Maragha (Աճառյան 1926: 160).
To illustrate, consider the sentences in (11). If the object is non-human (11a),
then the noun is unmarked for case. If the object is human, such as the given
name Aram (11b), then the object must take dative case. Our consultants felt that
if the dative marker was absent (11c), then the sentence reads as if Aram was a
non-human entity.
(11) a. senjɒk-ə mɒkʰɻ-ɒ-m
room-def clean-pst-1sg
‘I cleaned the room.’ (NK)
Սենեակը մաքրամ։
b. ɒɻɒm-i-n mɒkʰɻ-ɒ-m
Aram-dat-def clean-pst-1sg
‘I cleaned Aram.’ (NK)
Արամին մաքրամ։
c. *ɒɻɒm-ə mɒkʰɻ-ɒ-m
Aram-def clean-pst-1sg
Intended: ‘I cleaned Aram’.
Actual: ‘I cleaned some entity called an “Aram”.’
The above discussion focused on humans vs. inanimates. Differential object
marking on animals is more complicated (Dum-Tragut 2009: §2.1.1.1).

4.6 Indefinites and classifiers

Like Standard Eastern Armenian, Iranian Armenian has grammaticalized the nu-
meral ‘one’ into an indefinite proclitic. Iranian Armenian likewise utilizes a classi-
fier [hɒt] for counting. The combination of the indefinite and classifier has some
semantic and phonological idiosyncrasies (Hodgson 2020a, Sargsyan 2022).
The numeral ‘one’ in Iranian Armenian is [mek]. The k segment is retained in
the citation form (12a). But when the numeral is used as a modifier for a noun,
the k can be dropped: me rope ‘one minute’ (12b).7 The me morph is also gram-
maticalized as an indefinite proclitic (12c). It is spelled as մի <mi> because the
Standard Eastern equivalent is [mi].
7
For the word ‘minute’, the rhotic is a flap [ɾope] in Standard Eastern Armenian, but it is a trill
in NK and KM’s speech [rope] (§2.1.2).

76
 4.6 Indefinites and classifiers

(12) a. mek
one
‘one’ (KM)
մէկ
b. mek/me rope
one minute
‘one minute’ (NK, KM)
մէկ րոպէ
c. me bɒn
indf thing
‘A thing; something’ (NK)
մի բան

The indefinite morph /me/ is also the indefinite article in some of the tradi-
tional dialects of Iran (Khoy/Urmia: Ասատրյան 1962: 84; Maragha: Աճառյան 1926:
1.78; and Salmast).8 The mek/me alternation could be connected to how in collo-
quial Persian, the word [yek] is used to mean the cardinal ‘one’ while [ye] is used
as an indefinite article (Mahootian 2002: 328; Geoffrey Haig, p.c.).
The indefinite can be used alongside the classifier hɒt (13) (Sigler 2003, Bale
& Khanjian 2008, Sağ 2019). The classifier hɒt can also be used as a noun mean-
ing ‘piece’ (13a). As in Standard Eastern and Western Armenian, the classifier is
used in number + noun constructions. Here, the me is on the surface ambiguous
between an indefinite proclitic and a numeral (13b). But when it precedes the
classifier hɒt, the morpheme me is unambiguously a numeral (13c).

(13) a. me hɒt
indf/one piece
‘a piece; one’ (KM)
մի հատ
b. me mɒɻtʰ
indf/one man
‘a/one man’ (KM)
մի մարդ
c. me hɒt mɒɻtʰ
one clf man
‘one man’ (KM)
մի հատ մարդ
8
For Salmast, BV found an example of an indefinite /me/ in a newspaper article called Խայու
Լաճ from the periodical Պսակ (date October 11, 1880, volume 30): https://tert.nla.am/archive/
NLA%20TERT/Psak/1880/1880(30).pdf
77
4 Nominal morphology

The construction me hɒt can undergo vowel lowering and fronting as mæ hæt
(14). This phrase can be further reduced into a single morph mæt. Note the use
of [æ], which is otherwise a marginal phoneme in Iranian Armenian.

(14) a. {mæt / mæ hæt} mɒɻtʰ

indf.clf / indf clf man
‘a man’ (NK)
մի հատ մարդ
b. {mæt / mæ hæt} χɒʁɒlikʰ
indf.clf / indf clf toy
‘a toy’ (AS)
մի հատ խաղալիք
c. vɒʁ-ə k-eɻtʰ-ɒ-m χɒnutʰ-it͡sʰ mæt χɒʁɒlikʰ
tomorrow-def fut-go-th-1sg store-abl indf.clf toy
veɻ-t͡sʰn-e-m iɻɒ zɒvɒk-neɻ-i hɒmɒɻ
buy-caus-th-1sg he.gen child-pl-dat for
‘Tomorrow I’m going to go pick up a toy for his children from the
store’ (AS)
Վաղը կէրթամ խանութից մի հատ խաղալիք վերցնեմ իրա զաւակների
համար։

The combination of indefinite + classifier is also used as an adverb to denote a

sense of transience, roughly translatable to ‘for a moment’ or ‘a little bit’ (15).

(15) a. mæt ɒɻi ste

indf.clf come.imp.2sg here
‘Come here for a moment.’ (AS)
Մի հատ արի ստէ։
b. mæt mətɒt͡sʰ-i mjus-i zɡɒt͡sʰmuŋkʰ-neɻ-i mɒs-i-n
indf.clf think-imp.2sg other-gen feeling-pl-gen about-gen-def
‘Think a little bit about the other person’s feelings.’ (AS)
Մի հատ մտածէ միւսի զգացմունքների մասին։
c. mæt hɒŋɡəst-ɒ-t͡sʰɻ-u senjɒk-um-ət
indf.clf relax-lv-caus-imp.2sg room-loc-poss.2sg
‘Rest for a while in your room.’ (AS)
Մի հատ հանգստացրու սենեակումդ։

78
5 Function words
We go over basic function words in this chapter, including personal pronouns
(§5.1), demonstratives (§5.2), interrogative pronouns or wh-words (§5.3), numer-
als (§5.4), and other function words (§5.5). We have not found many significant
differences between Iranian Armenian and Standard Eastern Armenian when it
comes to pronouns.

5.1 Personal pronouns

Iranian Armenian uses the personal pronouns in Table 5.1. Whereas common
nouns are syncretic for dative and genitive, pronouns distinguish the two cases.
The Iranian Armenian pronouns do not significantly differ from Standard Eastern
(Dum-Tragut 2009: 123) except that the intensive 3SG dative is iɾen in Standard
Eastern but iɻɒn in Iranian Armenian. The form [iɾɑn] is attested in Colloquial
Eastern Armenian (Dum-Tragut 2009: 128).
For the 3SG and 3PL, there are two series of pronouns. One series is inten-
sive (Dum-Tragut 2009: 126) or emphatic (Donabédian 2018) and starts with the
segment i, while the other series is a generic third person pronoun and starts
with n. For the syntactic distribution of Armenian pronouns, see Sigler (2001),
Donabédian-Demopoulos (2007). For both NK and KM, the intensive pronoun is
considered more “conversational”, while the non-intensive pronoun feels more
formal. For the 3PL non-intensive, the initial /nəɻɒ-/ sequence was often lenited
in NK’s speech, e.g., acc/dat/gen plural [nəɻɒnt͡sʰ] or lenited [nɒnt͡sʰ] ‘they’.1
For the accusative/dative series, outside of the third person, the pronoun has
two forms: one bare and one suffixed with -i. For example, accusative/dative 1SG
is ind͡z or ind͡z-i. The bare form is the more common form, but there is significant
speaker variation on the preferred form. For example, NK almost always used the
bare form in our elicitations, while AS reports that his consultants often used the
suffixed form.
1
Compare New Julfa acc/dat/gen plural [nu̯ ont͡sʰ] նոնց, which in its Indian subdialect is [nɑn-
t͡sʰɑn] նանցան ‘those over there.acc/dat/gen’, ablative [nɑnt͡sʰɑne] նանցանէ ‘from those’
(Աճառյան 1940: §266).
5 Function words

Table 5.1: Paradigm of personal pronouns in Iranian Armenian

Nominative Acc/Dative Genitive Ablative Instrumental Locative

pro pro-(dat) pro pro-(nx)-abl pro-(nx)-ins pro-(nx)-loc
1SG jes ind͡z, ind͡z-i im ind͡z-ɒn-it͡sʰ ind͡z-ɒn-ov ind͡z-ɒn-um
ես ինձ, ինձի իմ ինձանից ինձանով ինձանում

2SG du kʰez, kʰez-i kʰo kʰez-ɒn-it͡sʰ kʰez-ɒn-ov kʰez-ɒn-um

դու քեզ, քեզի քո քեզանից քեզանով քեզանում

3SG iŋkʰ-ə iɻɒn iɻɒ iɻɒn-it͡sʰ iɻɒn-ov iɻɒn-um

ինքը իրան իրա իրանից իրանով իրանում
nɒ nəɻɒn nəɻɒ nəɻɒn-it͡sʰ nəɻɒn-ov nəɻɒn-um
նա նրան նրա նրանից նրանով նրանում

1PL meŋkʰ mez, mez-i meɻ mez-ɒn-it͡sʰ mez-ɒn-ov mez-ɒn-um

մենք մեզ, մեզի մեր մեզանից մեզանով մեզանում

2PL dukʰ d͡zez, d͡zez-i d͡zeɻ d͡zez-ɒn-it͡sʰ d͡zez-ɒn-ov d͡zez-ɒn-um

դուք ձեզ, ձեզի ձեր ձեզանից ձեզանով ձեզանում

3PL iɻɒŋkʰ iɻɒnt͡sʰ iɻɒnt͡sʰ iɻɒnt͡sʰ-it͡sʰ iɻɒnt͡sʰ-ov iɻɒnt͡sʰ-um

իրանք իրանց իրանց իրանցից իրանցով իրանցում
nəɻɒŋkʰ nəɻɒnt͡sʰ nəɻɒnt͡sʰ nəɻɒnt͡sʰ-it͡sʰ nəɻɒnt͡sʰ-ov nəɻɒnt͡sʰ-um
նրանք նրանց նրանց նրանցից նրանցով նրանցում

In pronouns, the accusative is syncretic with the dative (and with the genitive
in the 3PL). This syncretism is shown in the following sentences (1).
(1) a. d͡ʒɒn-ə ind͡z mɒkʰɻ-ɒ-v
John-def me.dat clean-pst-3sg
‘John cleaned (or washed) me.’ (NK)
Ջոնը ինձ մաքրաւ։
b. d͡ʒɒn-ə ind͡z ɡiɻkʰ təv-ɒ-v
John-def me.dat book give-pst-3sg
‘John gave a book to me.’ (NK)
Ջոնը ինձ գիրք տուաւ։

Morphotactically, the ablative, instrumental, and locative are built on top of

the dative form. For the non-third person series, the dative form and the added
case suffix are separated by the meaningless morph -ɒn-. This morph sequence
can be weakened to either -ən- or -n-: [ind͡z-ɒn-it͡sʰ, ind͡z-n-it͡sʰ] ‘I-nx-abl’.
We have received conflicting judgments on the frequency of such weakening.
NK always lenited the 1SG obliques to -ən-, e.g. 1SG ablative ind͡z-ən-it͡sʰ. Yet she

80
 5.2 Demonstratives

always lenited the other non-third person series to just -n-, e.g., dative 2SG kʰez-
n-it͡sʰ. In contrast, AS reports that for speakers in Iran, the deletion of /ɒ/ is not
frequent.
For the instrumental and locative series, they are quite difficult to elicit in
natural speech. Alternative syntactic strategies are preferred. For example, for
instrumentals, the comitative meaning of the instrumental (‘to go alongside X’)
is expressed by using a postpositional construction with the genitive pronoun
(Table 5.2). Similarly, the locative meaning is expressed by using a postposition
[met͡ʃʰ] մէջ ‘in’.
Table 5.2: Expressing comitative-instrumental with postpositions

1SG im het ‘with me’ իմ հետ

2SG kʰo het ‘with you.sg’ քո հետ
3SG iɻɒ het ‘with him’ իրա հետ
nəɻɒ het ‘with him’ նրա հետ
1PL meɻ het ‘with us’ մեր հետ
2PL d͡zeɻ het ‘with you.pl’ ձեր հետ
3PL iɻɒnt͡sʰ het ‘with them’ իրանց հետ
nəɻɒnt͡sʰ het ‘with them’ նրանց հետ
pro.gen with

5.2 Demonstratives
Iranian Armenian uses a small set of demonstrative pronouns. These show a
three-way contrast for deixis: proximal, medial, and distal. There are different
forms for when the pronoun is a modifier in a noun phrase vs. when the pronoun
stands on its own as a substantive.
For illustration, we focus on the proximal series in (2). This series is charac-
terized by starting with the segmental sequence /es-/ or /s/. When the proximal
pronoun is a modifier in a noun phrase, it is realized as [es]. It can modify either
a singular noun or plural noun.

(2) a. es ɡiɻkʰ-ə b. es ɡiɻkʰ-eɻ-ə

this book-def this book-pl-def
‘this book’ ‘these books’
էս գիրքը էս գիրքերը

81
5 Function words

Table 5.3 shows the set of demonstrative pronouns when the pronoun is a
modifier.
Table 5.3: Demonstrative pronouns when acting as a modifier

Proximal Medial Distal

es էս et էտ en էն
‘this’ ‘that (close)’ ‘that (yonder)’
Usage The item is by The item is by The item is not by
the speaker the listener the speaker or listener

In Standard Eastern Armenian, these demonstratives have cognate forms that

are phonologically larger. For example, the proximal-medial-distal series in Stan-
dard Eastern Armenian is {/ɑjs/, /ɑjd/ or /ɑjt/, /ɑjn/} (այս, այդ, այն). The Iranian
Armenian forms /es, et, en/ are likely diachronically reduced versions of these
larger Standard Eastern Armenian forms. A reviewer informs us that these re-
duced forms are also attested in Colloquial Eastern Armenian in Armenia. BV
reports that this is just the regular change of Classical /ɑi ̯/ <ay, այ > to /e/ in
Eastern dialects.
When the pronoun is substantivized and stands for an entire noun phrase, it
can be realized in one of three forms (3). For the proximal pronoun, the singular
forms are es, esi, and esikə. The plural form of the substantivized pronoun is
səɻɒŋkʰ.

(3) a. es/esi/esikə ɡiɻkʰ =ɒ

this book-def =aux
‘This is a book.’ (NK)
Էս/էսի/Էսիկը գիրք ա։
b. səɻɒŋkʰ ɡiɻkʰ-eɻ =e-n
these book-pl =aux-3pl
‘These are books.’ (NK)
Սրանք գիրքեր են։

The final schwa of the long pronoun esikə is likely part of the definite suffix
(4). Evidence for this is that the schwa becomes a schwa-nasal sequence when
cliticized. See similar patterns for the definite suffix in §3.2.2.

82
 5.3 Interrogative pronouns

(4) esik-ən e-m uz-um

this-def aux-1sg want-impf.cvb
‘I want this one.’ (NK)
Էսիկն եմ ուզում։

Etymologically, it is possible that forms like /esik-ə/ ‘this’ derive from adding
the definite suffix onto a hypothetical earlier form like *esik (cf. Աճառյան 1954:
195ff). Alternatively, BV suggests that the modern complex form /esik-ə/ may
have a more complicated origin. First, the form was *esikɒ. Second, the form
underwent final vowel reduction to *esikə. Third, the form underwent morpho-
logical reanalysis as /esik-ə/ with a definite suffix. But Hrach Martirosyan (p.c.)
suggests the first is more probable.
When these demonstratives are substantivized, they inflect for case (5).

(5) a. səɻɒn t͡ʃɒʃ təv-ɒ-m

this.dat food give-pst-1sg
‘I gave food to this one.’ (NK)
Սրան ճաշ տուամ։
b. səɻɒ ɡujn-ə
this.gen color-def
‘the color of this one’ (NK)
սրա գոյնը

Table 5.4 shows the paradigm of substantivized demonstratives. Note that the
inflected forms of the substantivized distal are identical to the non-intensive
third-person personal pronouns from Table 5.1. The Iranian Armenian paradigm
does not significantly differ from that of Standard Eastern Armenian (Dum-
Tragut 2009: 129). For the medial series, the plurals and the case-marked forms
use [d] in Standard Eastern Armenian: [dəɾɑŋkʰ, dəɾɑ]. Some Iranian Armenian
speakers like KM use [d] too, while some Iranian Armenian speakers like NK use
[t].

5.3 Interrogative pronouns

Iranian Armenian seems to use the same set of interrogative pronouns (wh-
words) as Standard Eastern Armenian (Dum-Tragut 2009: 247). Full declension
paradigms are found in the Dum-Tragut grammar for Standard Eastern Arme-
nian. We have not found significant differences between Standard Eastern and

83
5 Function words

Table 5.4: Paradigm for substantivized demonstratives

Nom/Acc Dative Genitive Ablative Instrumental Locative

pro pro pro pro-abl pro-ins pro-loc
Singular
Prox. es, esi, esikə səɻɒn səɻɒ səɻɒn-it͡sʰ səɻɒn-ov səɻɒn-um
էս, էսի, էսիկը սրան սրա սրանից սրանով սրանում

Med. et, eti, etikə dəɻɒn dəɻɒ dəɻɒn-it͡sʰ dəɻɒn-ov dəɻɒn-um

təɻɒn təɻɒ təɻɒn-it͡sʰ təɻɒn-ov təɻɒn-um
էտ, էտի, էտիկը դրան դրա դրանից դրանով դրանում

Dist. en, eni, enikə nəɻɒn nəɻɒ nəɻɒn-it͡sʰ nəɻɒn-ov nəɻɒn-um

էն, էնի, էնիկը նրան նրա նրանից նրանով նրանում

Plural
Prox. səɻɒŋkʰ səɻɒnt͡sʰ səɻɒnt͡sʰ səɻɒnt͡sʰ-it͡sʰ səɻɒnt͡sʰ-ov səɻɒnt͡sʰ-um
սրանք սրանց սրանց սրանցից սրանցով սրանցում

Med. dəɻɒŋkʰ dəɻɒnt͡sʰ dəɻɒnt͡sʰ dəɻɒnt͡sʰ-it͡sʰ dəɻɒnt͡sʰ-ov dəɻɒnt͡sʰ-um

təɻɒŋkʰ təɻɒnt͡sʰ təɻɒnt͡sʰ təɻɒnt͡sʰ-it͡sʰ təɻɒnt͡sʰ-ov təɻɒnt͡sʰ-um
դրանք դրանց դրանց դրանցից դրանցով դրանցում

Dist. nəɻɒŋkʰ nəɻɒnt͡sʰ nəɻɒnt͡sʰ nəɻɒnt͡sʰ-it͡sʰ nəɻɒnt͡sʰ-ov nəɻɒnt͡sʰ-um

նրանք նրանց նրանց նրանցից նրանցով նրանցում

Iranian Armenian when it comes to the use or form of these interrogative pro-
nouns, and therefore keep this section rather brief. In the following sentences,
we provide examples of the different types of interrogative pronouns in bold.
The pronoun ‘who’ (6) is [ov] in the nominative (6a). But it uses a different root
allomorph um when case suffixes are added.2 Instrumentals and locative suffixes
are generally avoided, and replaced with postpositional constructions.

(6) a. ov ɒ uɻɒχ
who aux happy
‘Who is happy?’ (NK)
Ո ՞վ ա ուրախ։
b. um-i-n e-s mɒkʰɻ-um
who-dat-def aux-2sg clean-impf.cvb
‘Who are you washing?’ (NK)
Ումի՞ն ես մաքրում։
2
This allomorph /um/ is actually the genitive-dative form of this morpheme in Standard Eastern
Armenian (Dum-Tragut 2009: 148).

84
 5.3 Interrogative pronouns

c. ɡiɻkʰ-ə um-i-n e-s t-ɒ-l-i

book-def who-dat-def aux-2sg give-th-inf-impf.cvb
‘Who do you give the book to?’ (NK)
Գիրքը ումի՞ն ես տալի։
d. um-i ɡiɻkʰ-ə
who-gen bookdef
‘Whose book?’ (NK)
Ումի՞ գիրքը։
e. um-it͡sʰ
who-abl
‘From who?’ (NK)
Ումի՞ց։
f. um-i het, um-i met͡ʃʰ
who-gen with, who-gen in
‘With who? In who?’ (NK)
Ումի՞ հետ։ Ումի՞ մէջ։

The pronoun ‘what’ is [int͡ʃʰ], and there is no case-conditioned suppletion or

stem allomorphy involved (7).

(7) a. int͡ʃʰ ɒ kɒput. int͡ʃʰ e-s uz-um

what aux blue. what aux-2sg want-impf.cvb
‘What is blue? What do you want?’ (NK)
Ի՞նչ ա կապուտ։ Ի՞նչ ես ուզում։
b. int͡ʃʰ-i(-n) e-s t-ɒ-l-i ɡiɻkʰ-ə
what-dat(-def) aux-2sg give-th-inf-impf.cvb book-def
‘To what do you give the book?’ (NK)
Ինչի՞ն/Ինչի՞ ես տալի գիրքը։
c. int͡ʃʰ-i ɡujn-ə
what-gen color-def
‘The color of what?’ (NK)
Ինչի՞ գոյնը։
d. int͡ʃʰ-it͡sʰ, int͡ʃʰ-ov, int͡ʃʰ-um
what-abl, what-ins, what-loc
‘From what? With what? In what?’ (NK)
Ինչի՞ց։ Ինչո՞վ։ Ինչո՞ւմ

85
5 Function words

The word for ‘where’ can vary between [voɻteʁ] and [uɻ]. NK reports that [uɻ]
feels more informal (8).

(8) a. keɻɒkuɻ-ə voɻteʁ ɒ

food-def where aux
‘Where is the food?’ (NK)
Կերակուրը որտե՞ղ ա։
b. keɻɒkuɻ-ə uɻ ɒ
food-def where aux
‘Where is the food?’ (NK)
Կերակուրը ո՞ւր ա։
c. voɻteʁ-it͡sʰ. voɻteʁ-um e-s t͡sən-v-e
where-abl. where-loc aux-2sg born-pass-impf.cvb
‘From where? Where were you born?’ (NK)
Որտեղի՞ց։ Որտեղո՞ւմ ես ծնուէ։

The pronoun ‘when’ is prescriptively [jeɻpʰ], but the rhotic can be deleted in
colloquial speech [jepʰ] (9a). The pronoun takes a special dative/genitive suffix
-vɒn or -vɒ (9b). This suffix is also used before oblique case suffixes like the abla-
tive (9c), as a type of oblique stem.

(9) a. tɒɻedɒɻt͡sʰ-ət jeɻpʰ/jepʰ ɒ

birthday-poss.2sg when aux
‘When is your birthday?’ (NK)
Տարեդարձդ ե՞րբ ա։
b. jeɻpʰ-vɒ
when-gen
‘Of when?’ (NK)
Երբուա՞յ։
c. jeɻpʰ-vɒn-it͡sʰ
when-dat-abl
‘From when?’ (NK)
Երբուանի՞ց։

For the pronoun ‘why’ (10), the Eastern Armenian version is [int͡ʃʰu]. This word
is used by the Iranian Armenian community as well, but it has a formal connota-
tion. A common colloquial version is [heɻ] հեր, which Sargsyan et al. (Սարգսյան
et al. 2001: vol. 4: p. 227) report for New Nakhichevan and several dialects around

86
 5.3 Interrogative pronouns

Lake Van (Moks, Shatakh, Mush, Van). Adjarian (Աճառեան 1926) cites a form /heɾ/
հէր for Tabriz (p. 658) and Maragha (p. 119) and derives it from Classical Arme-
nian /ēɾ/ էր, also meaning ‘why’. Given the presence of [heɻ] հեր in so many
of the neighboring southeastern dialects, particularly in Iran, we should not be
surprised to come across it in Tehran.

(10) a. int͡ʃʰu
why
‘Why?’ (NK)
Ինչո՞ւ։
b. heɻ uʃ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-ɒ-n
why late-lv-aor-pst-3pl
‘Why are they late?” (AS)
Հե՞ր ուշացան։

NK reports that her family uses [heɻ] more often than [int͡ʃʰu] (11). She further
reports that [int͡ʃʰu] is restricted to more formal speech.

(11) a. heɻ e-s et hɒkʰ-e

why aux-2sg that wear-perf.cvb
‘Why are you wearing that?’ (NK)
Հե՞ր ես էտ հագէ։
b. heɻ e-s et ut-um
why aux-2sg that eat-impf.cvb
‘Why are you eating that?’ (NK)
Հե՞ր ես էտ ուտում։
c. heɻ t͡ʃʰ-e-s zɒŋɡ-um
why neg-aux-2sg call-impf.cvb
‘Why don’t you call?’ (NK)
Հե՞ր չես զանգում։

For the pronoun ‘how’, Standard Eastern Armenian uses [int͡ʃʰpes] while Collo-
quial Eastern Armenian uses [vont͡sʰ] (Dum-Tragut 2009: 154). Iranian Armenian
uses [int͡ʃʰpes] (12). The modifier version is [int͡ʃʰpesi].

(12) a. keɻɒkuɻ-ət int͡ʃʰpes ɒ

food-poss.2sg how aux
‘How is your food?’ (NK)
Կերակուրդ ինչպէ՞ս ա։

87
5 Function words

b. int͡ʃʰpesi mɒɻtʰ ɒ
what.kind man aux
‘What kind of man is he?’ (NK)
Ինչպէսի մա՞րդ ա։

5.4 Numerals
Iranian Armenian uses essentially the same set of numerals and morphological
operations to create complex numerals, as Standard Eastern Armenian. We fo-
cus on cardinals (§5.4.1) and ordinals (§5.4.2). For cardinals, there are only mi-
nor lexical differences between Standard Eastern Armenian and Iranian Arme-
nian. For ordinals, Iranian Armenian displays a difference from Standard East-
ern Armenian in the use of irregular morphology in complex numerals. All nu-
meral data in this section was gathered from NK. She gave useful meta-linguistic
judgements on variation within the Iranian Armenian community in Los Ange-
les. Standard Eastern Armenian forms were taken from Wiktionary and double-
checked against grammars, the EANC’s lexicon,3 and speakers.

5.4.1 Cardinal numerals

Table 5.5 lists the basic numerals from 0 to 10. Numeral 9 includes the definite suf-
fix /-ə/. We include stress markers because ordinals will later present exceptional
stress patterns.
Some minor points of difference between Standard Eastern and Iranian Arme-
nian: a) the numeral 0 has different vowels in SEA and IA, b) the numeral 2 has
an initial glide in SEA [jeɾku] but not in IA [eɻku],4 c) the numeral 9 has an extra
nasal [inn-ə] in IA, and d) numeral 10 includes a definite suffix in SEA but not
IA. Note however that an unsuffixed form [tɑs] is attested in Colloquial Eastern
Armenian.
The final schwa in these cardinals is morphologically the definite suffix, but
it is being used here meaninglessly without contributing definiteness. One can-
not add another definite suffix onto these suffixed roots. And also, this schwa
/-ə/ shows the same allomorphy patterns as the definite suffix (§3.2.2), such as a
prevocalic /-n-/ (13).

3
https://bitbucket.org/timarkh/uniparser-grammar-eastern-armenian/src/master/
4
As discussed in §3.1.1, many polysyllabic words start with /je/ in SEA but an initial /e/ in IA. It
is odd how the numerals 2 and 3 are both bisyllabic but behave differently.

88
 5.4 Numerals

Table 5.5: Cardinal numerals 0–10

Value Iranian Armenian cf. SEA

0 zeˈɻo zero զէրօ zəˈɾo zero զրո
1 ˈmek one մէկ ˈmek one մեկ
2 eɻˈku two էրկու jeɾˈku two երկու
3 jeˈɻekʰ three երեք jeɾekʰ three երեք
4 ˈt͡ʃʰoɻs four չորս ˈt͡ʃʰoɾs four չորս
5 ˈhiŋɡ five հինգ ˈhiŋɡ five հինգ
6 ˈvet͡sʰ six վեց ˈvet͡sʰ six վեց
7 ˈjotʰ seven եօթ ˈjotʰ seven յօթ
8 ˈutʰ eight ութ ˈutʰ eight ութ
9 ˈinn-ə nine-def իննը ˈin-ə nine-def ինը
10 ˈtɒs ten տաս ˈtɑs-ə ten-def տասը

(13) tɑs-n =e (SEA)

tɒs-n =ɒ (IA)
ten-def aux
‘(The time) is ten.’
Տասն է/ա։

For numerals 11–19, Iranian Armenian admits more variability than Standard
Eastern Armenian (Table 5.6). In Standard Eastern Armenian, a number like 11 is
expressed by concatenating the numerals for 10 [tɑs] and 1 [mek]; the two numer-
als are separated by the definite suffix /-n-/ and a meaningless connective suffix
/-ə-/: [tɑs-n-ə-mek]. Colloquial Eastern Armenian allows a simpler construction
whereby the intervening ‘def-con’ morphs are omitted: [tɑs-mek]. NK reports
that in her Iranian Armenian community, both strategies are attested, and she
feels that neither is dominant over the other. She reports that she herself uses
the ‘def-con’ template more often for 15 than for 16. She also had vowel hiatus
in words like 12.
A point of difference between Iranian Armenian and Standard Eastern Arme-
nian concerns numerals 12, 13, and 18 where the ones digit starts with a glide
or vowel: SEA 2 [jeɾku], 3 [jeɾekʰ], 8 [utʰ]. For SEA, the connective schwa and
glide are absent: 12 [tɑs-n-eɾku], 13 [tɑs-n-eɾekʰ], 18 [tɑs-n-utʰ]. Colloquial East-
ern Armenian allows the retention of the schwa and of the numeral’s glide: 12

89
5 Function words

Table 5.6: Cardinal numerals 11–19 in Iranian Armenian

Value Using SEA-style template Using CEA-style template

11 tɒs-n-ə-ˈmek 10-def-con-1 տասնմէկ tɒs-ˈmek 10-1 տասմէկ
12 tɒs-n-ə-eɻˈku 10-def-con-2 տասէրկու tɒs-eɻˈku 10-2 տասէրկու
13 tɒs-n-ə-jeˈɻekʰ 10-def-con-3 տասներեք tɒs-jeˈɻekʰ 10-3 տասերեք
14 tɒs-n-ə-ˈt͡ʃʰoɻs 10-def-con-4 տասնչորս tɒs-ˈt͡ʃʰoɻs 10-4 տասչորս
15 tɒs-n-ə-ˈhiŋɡ 10-def-con-5 տասնհինգ tɒs-ˈhiŋɡ 10-5 տասհինգ
16 tɒs-n-ə-ˈvet͡sʰ 10-def-con-6 տասնվեց tɒs-ˈvet͡sʰ 10-6 տասվեց
17 tɒs-n-ə-ˈjotʰ 10-def-con-7 տասնեօթ tɒs-ˈjotʰ 10-7 տասեօթ
18 tɒs-n-ə-ˈutʰ 10-def-con-8 տասնութ tɒs-ˈutʰ 10-8 տասութ
19 tɒs-n-ə-ˈinn-ə 10-def-con-9-def տասնիննը tɒs-ˈinn-ə 10-9-def տասիննը

[tɑs-n-ə-jeɾku], 13 [tɑs-n-ə-jeɾekʰ], 18 [tɑs-n-ə-utʰ]. Iranian Armenian patterns

like CEA in keeping the connective and the glide, except for 12.5
Moving onto the higher numbers (Table 5.7), most multiples of ten like 30
consist of a root and suffix /-sun/. For illustration, we don’t separately segment
the root and suffix because their allomorphy is quite opaque.
Table 5.7: Higher cardinal numerals (decades, 100, 1000) in Iranian Ar-
menian

20 ˈkʰsɒn twenty քսան

30 jeɻeˈsun thirty երեսուն
40 kʰɒrɒˈsun forty քառասուն
50 hiˈt͡sʰun fifty յիսուն
60 vɒˈt͡sʰun sixty վաթսուն
70 jotʰɒnɒˈsun seventy եօթանասուն
80 utˈt͡sʰun eighty ութսուն
90 innəˈsun ninety իննսուն
100 hɒˈɻuɻ hundred հարուր
1000 hɒˈzɒɻ thousand հազար

Numbers 20, 100, and 1000 have their own special forms. For the decade 20,
the initial consonant cluster can contain a schwa in careful speech [kʰəsɒn], but
it is usually omitted in natural speech (cf. SEA data from Hovakimyan 2016). NK
never produced a schwa for this form.
5
No such differences arise for numeral 17: SEA [tɑs-n-ə-jotʰ] and IA [tɒs-n-ə-jotʰ].

90
 5.4 Numerals

The lects differ for numerals 50, 60, 80, and 100. For Standard Eastern Arme-
nian, these numerals end in /sun/: 50 [hi-sun], 60 [vɑtʰ-sun], 80 [utʰ-sun]. In Col-
loquial Eastern Armenian, it’s possible to affricate the /s/ in these numerals, as in
[hit͡sʰun, vɑt͡sʰun, ut͡sʰun]. Iranian Armenian speaker NK always affricates these
numerals, sometimes also including a /t/ before the affricate: [hi-t͡sʰun, vɒt͡sʰun,
utt͡sʰun].
For the number 100, Standard Eastern Armenian uses [hɑɾjuɾ] with a glide,
while Iranian Armenian uses [hɒɻuɻ] without a glide.
To create complex cardinals, Iranian Armenian and Standard Eastern Arme-
nian use the same strategy as English. Numerals are concatenated from the high-
est number to the lowest. For example, the number 35 is just a concatenation of
the numerals 30 and 5: [jeɻesun jeɻekʰ] երեսուն երեք. Our archive includes more
examples of complex cardinals that we elicited.
As a final note, these cardinals can act as nouns and take nominal inflection
(14a). When the numeral 2 takes inflection, it uses a special allomorph [eɻkus]
(14b).

(14) a. jeɻekʰ-ən e-m uz-um

three-def aux-1sg want-impf.cvb
‘I want the three of them.’ (NK)
Երեքն եմ ուզում։
b. eɻkus-ən e-m uz-um
two-def aux-1sg want-impf.cvb
‘I want the two of them.’ (NK)
Էրկուսն եմ ուզում։

5.4.2 Ordinal numerals

Iranian Armenian uses essentially the same set of ordinal numerals and ordinal
morphology as Standard Eastern Armenian. However, the two varieties differ
in the use of irregular allomorphy in complex ordinals (Stump 2010, Dolatian
2023b). Briefly, the numeral one displays allomorphy for ‘first’ but not for higher
numerals. Numerals 2–4 show allomorphy for their simple ordinals, but their
allomorphy is variably percolated to higher numbers.
First, consider numerals 1–10 (Table 5.8). The ordinal of 1 [mek] is a special
suppletive lexeme [ɒrɒt͡ʃʰin].6 Numerals 2–4 utilize allomorphy with a special
6
The ordinal [ɒrɒt͡ʃʰin] ‘first’ is morphologically related to the word [ɒrɒt͡ʃʰ] which means ‘for-
ward, before’ in the modern language. In Classical Armenian, the word also had other mean-
ings like ‘previous’, while the root had other meanings like ‘front’. The etymological connec-
tion between these words is cross-linguistically common (Veselinova 1997: 441).

91
5 Function words

root allomorph and short suffix allomorph /-ɻoɻtʰ/. For example, 2 is [eɻku] but
2nd is [jek-ɻoɻtʰ].7 The ordinals of 5–10 are formed by combining the cardinal
root with the default ordinal suffix /-eɻoɻtʰ/: 5 [hiŋɡ] and 5th [hiŋɡ-eɻoɻtʰ]. The
ordinal suffixes /-ɻoɻtʰ, -eɻoɻtʰ/ are morphologically exceptional because they are
prosodically prestressing (§2.2.2.2).
Table 5.8: Ordinal numerals 1–10

Value Iranian Armenian cf. SEA

1st ɒrɒˈt͡ʃʰin first առաջին ɑrɑˈt͡ʃʰin առաջին
2nd ˈjek-ɻoɻtʰ two-ord երկրորդ ˈjeɾk-ɾoɾtʰ երկրորդ
3rd ˈje-ɻoɻtʰ three-ord երրորդ ˈjeɾ-ɾoɾtʰ երրորդ
4th ˈt͡ʃʰo-ɻoɻtʰ four-ord չորրորդ ˈt͡ʃʰoɾ-ɾoɾtʰ չորրորդ
5th ˈhiŋɡ-eɻoɻtʰ five-ord հինգերորդ ˈhiŋɡ-eɾoɾtʰ հինգերորդ
6th ˈvet͡sʰ-eɻoɻtʰ six-ord վեցերորդ ˈvet͡sʰ-eɾoɾtʰ վեցերորդ
7th ˈjotʰ-eɻoɻtʰ seven-ord եօթերորդ ˈjotʰ-eɾoɾtʰ յոթերորդ
8th ˈutʰ-eɻoɻtʰ six-ord ութերորդ ˈutʰ-eɾoɾtʰ ութերորդ
9th ˈinn-eɻoɻtʰ nine-ord իններորդ ˈin-n-eɾoɾtʰ իններորդ
10th ˈtɒs-eɻoɻtʰ ten-ord տասերորդ ˈtɑs-n-eɾoɾtʰ տասներորդ

Standard Eastern Armenian uses essentially the same morphemes, with some
additional segments for ordinals 2–4, cf. SEA [jeɾk-ɾoɾtʰ] against IA [jek-ɾoɾtʰ]
‘2nd’. Ordinals 9 and 10 include the definite suffix /-n-/ in SEA.
The ordinal suffix /-eɻoɻtʰ/ is the default suffix for ordinal formation. Higher
numbers like decades use this suffix as well (Table 5.9).
For complex numbers like 35, the default strategy is to add the ordinal suffix
/-eɻoɻtʰ/ to the entire complex cardinal. For example, 35 is [jeɻesun hiŋɡ] երեսուն
հինգ, thus the ordinal ‘thirty-fifth’ is [jeɻesun hiŋɡ-eɻoɻtʰ] երեսուն հինգերորդ.
Complications arise for complex numerals where the ones digit is 1–4. Recall
that for the numeral 1, the cardinal is [mek] and the ordinal is [ɒrɒt͡ʃʰin]. For
numerals 2–4, the cardinal is one root allomorph like 2 [eɻku], while the ordinal
uses special root and suffix allomorphs [jek-ɻoɻtʰ]. These two groups of numerals
differ in whether their allomorphy is inherited by higher complex cardinals.
First consider the numeral 1 and its higher forms (Table 5.10). For complex
ordinals like 31st , we simply add the ordinal suffix without using the lexeme
[ɒrɒt͡ʃʰin], such as [jeɻesun-mek-eɻoɻtʰ]. The lexeme [ɒrɒt͡ʃʰin] is not used for
higher forms *jeɻesun-ɒrɒt͡ʃʰin.
7
For 2, NK uses a glide in the ordinal but not the cardinal. AM reports more ordinal variation
as [je(ɻ)ɡ-ɻoɻtʰ, je(ɻ)k-ɻoɻtʰ].
92
 5.4 Numerals

Table 5.9: Higher ordinal numerals (decades, 100, 1000) in Iranian Ar-
menian

20th kʰsɒn-eɻoɻtʰ twenty-ord քսաներորդ

30th jeɻeˈsun-eɻoɻtʰ thirty-ord երեսուներորդ
40th kʰɒrɒˈsun-eɻoɻtʰ forty-ord քառասուներորդ
50th hiˈt͡sʰun-eɻoɻtʰ fifty-ord յիսուներորդ
60th vɒˈt͡sʰun-eɻoɻtʰ sixty-ord վաթսուներորդ
70th jotʰɒnɒˈsun-eɻoɻtʰ seventy-ord եօթանասուներորդ
80th utˈt͡sʰun-eɻoɻtʰ eighty-ord ութսուներորդ
90th innəˈsun-eɻoɻtʰ ninety-ord իննսուներորդ
100th hɒˈɻuɻ-eɻoɻtʰ hundred-ord հարուրերորդ
1000th hɒˈzɒɻ-eɻoɻtʰ thousand-ord հազարերորդ

Table 5.10: Allomorphy of numeral 1 in complex ordinals in Iranian

Armenian

1 mek 1 մէկ
1st ɑrɑˈt͡ʃʰin first առաջին
21 kʰsɒn-ˈmek 20-1 քսան մէկ
21st kʰsɒn-ˈmek-eɻoɻtʰ 20-1-ord քսան մէկերորդ
31 jeɻesun-ˈmek 30-1 երեսուն մէկ
31st jeɻesun-ˈmek-eɻoɻtʰ 30-1-ord երեսուն մէկերորդ
41 kʰɒrɒsun-ˈmek 40-1 քառասուն մէկ
41st kʰɒrɒsun-ˈmek-eɻoɻtʰ 40-1-ord քառասուն մէկերորդ

Such patterns of limited allomorphy in higher numbers have been called exter-
nal marking (Stump 2010). The idea is that the ordinal of a complex cardinal like
31 is treated as an exocentric construction, and that the component 1 numeral
cannot use its special allomorph in complex cardinals.
Standard Eastern Armenian shows the same patterns for the non-use of
[ɑrɑt͡ʃʰin] in higher numbers (Dum-Tragut 2009: 120). For example, 21st in Stan-
dard Eastern Armenian is simply [jeɾesun-mek-eɾoɾtʰ] and not *jeɾesun-ɑrɑt͡ʃʰin.
Different behavior is found for complex ordinals where the ones digit is 2–4.
Consider the numeral 2 [eɻku]. Its ordinal is [jek-ɻoɻtʰ] with special root-suffix
allomorphs. NK reports that she uses the same allomorphs for both simplex or-
dinals like 2 and complex ordinals like 32: [jeɻesun-jek-ɻoɻtʰ] (Table 5.11). Such

93
5 Function words

patterns are typologically called internal-marking (Stump 2010), metaphorically

meaning that the complex ordinal is treated like an endocentric compound.
Table 5.11: Allomorphy of numerals 2–4 in complex ordinals in Iranian
Armenian from NK

2 eɻˈku 2 էրկու
2nd ˈjek-ɻoɻtʰ 2-ord երկրորդ
22 kʰsɒn-eɻˈku 20-2 քսան էրկու
22nd kʰsɒn-ˈjek-ɻoɻtʰ 20-2-ord քսան երկրորդ
32 jeɻesun-eɻˈku 30-2 երեսուն էրկու
32nd jeɻesun-ˈjek-ɻoɻtʰ 30-2-ord երեսուն երկրորդ
42 kʰɒrɒsun-eɻˈku 40-2 քառասուն էրկու
42nd kʰɒrɒsun-ˈjek-ɻotʰ 40-2-ord քառասուն երկրորդ

3 jeˈɻekʰ 3 երեք
3rd ˈje-ɻoɻtʰ 3-ord երրորդ
23 kʰsɒn-jeˈɻekʰ 20-3 քսան երեք
23rd kʰsɒn-ˈje-ɻoɻtʰ 20-3-ord քսան երրորդ
33 jeɻesun-jeˈɻekʰ 30-3 երեսուն երեք
33rd jeɻesun-ˈje-ɻoɻtʰ 30-3-ord երեսուն երրորդ
43 kʰɒrɒsun-jeˈɻekʰ 40-3 քառասուն երեք
43rd kʰɒrɒsun-ˈje-ɻoɻtʰ 40-3-ord քառասուն երրորդ

4 ˈt͡ʃʰoɻs 4 չորս
4th ˈt͡ʃʰo-ɻoɻtʰ 4-ord չորրորդ
24 kʰsɒn-ˈt͡ʃʰoɻs 20-4 քսան չորս
24th kʰsɒn-ˈt͡ʃʰo-ɻoɻtʰ 20-4-ord քսան չորրորդ
34 jeɻesun-ˈt͡ʃʰoɻs 30-4 երեսուն չորս
34th jeɻesun-ˈt͡ʃʰo-ɻoɻtʰ 30-4-ord երեսուն չորրորդ
44 kʰɒrɒsun-ˈt͡ʃʰoɻs 40-4 քառասուն չորս
44th kʰɒrɒsun-ˈt͡ʃʰo-ɻoɻtʰ 40-4-ord քառասուն չորրորդ

Standard Eastern Armenian crucially differs from NK’s IA ideolect in this re-
gard. In SEA, a numeral like 2 [jeɾku] cannot percolate its irregular form [jeɾk-
ɾoɾtʰ] to higher numerals. Thus, the ordinal of 32 in SEA is [jeresun-eɾku-eɾoɾtʰ]
with the default ordinal suffix, and not *jeɾesun-eɾk-ɾoɾtʰ with the special allo-
morphs (Սարգսյան 1985: 209, Hagopian 2005: 308). For discussion on such ordi-
nal variation in Armenian, see Dolatian (2023b).

94
 5.5 Other function words

NK informs us that, because of this difference between Standard Eastern Ar-

menian and Iranian Armenian, her colleagues and family gave her contradictory
judgments on the correct formation of complex ordinals like 32. Some recom-
mended the use of the SEA-style ordinal with the default ordinal suffix /-eɻoɻtʰ/
(like [jeɻesun-eɻku-eɻoɻtʰ]), while she and her friends preferred the use of the ir-
regular ordinal suffix /-ɻoɻtʰ/ (like [jeɻesun-jek-ɻoɻtʰ]). Anooshik Melikian (AM,
an Iranian Armenian speaker from Tehran) likewise reports that NK’s colloquial
constructions are attested across educated and non-educated speakers in Tehran.
The use of the SEA-style construction is obviously due to the prestige of SEA, as
a form of prescriptivism.

5.5 Other function words

The following are lists of function words that we have elicited which do not fit
neatly into the previous sections. As of writing this grammar, we have not been
able to study these function words extensively.
Iranian Armenian uses the adverbial function words in Table 5.12 to indicate
location, e.g., the equivalent of English ‘here’ and ‘there’. As with demonstratives,
these locational words distinguish between proximal, medial, and distal locations.
We specify the source of the items.
Table 5.12: Location adverbs in Iranian Armenian

Proximal esteʁ (KM, NK), ste (AS), steʁ (AS) ‘this place’
էստեղ, ստեղ, ստէ

Medial etteʁ (AS, NK) ‘that place’

էդտեղ

Distal əndeʁ (AS), ənde (AS), ‘that place yonder’

ənne (NK, KM), ənneʁ (KM)
ընտեղ, ընտէ, ըննէ, ըննեղ

All these words like [esteʁ] ‘this place’ are morphologically derived from a
demonstrative like [es] ‘this’ and the word ‘place’ [teʁ]. Note how the [t] becomes
[d] after the nasal in [əndeʁ] ‘that place yonder’. Post-nasal voicing seems limited
to such function words.
To illustrate, the following sentence shows a location adverb (15).

95
5 Function words

(15) ɡən-ɒ ənne

go-th there’
‘Go over there.’ (NK)
Գնա ըննէ։

We likewise elicited the following adverbs of manner (Table 5.13).

Table 5.13: Manner adverbs in Iranian Armenian from AS

Proximal esent͡sʰ, sent͡sʰi էսենց, սենցի ‘like this’

Medial etent͡sʰ, tent͡sʰi էտենց, տենցի ‘like that’
Distal nent͡sʰi նենցի ‘like that yonder’

An additional adverb of manner is [hent͡sʰ], which has a broad range of uses,

often translatable to the English word ‘just’ (16).

(16) a. hent͡sʰ et
just that
‘That’s it’ (NK)
Հէնց էտ։
b. hent͡sʰ himɒ
just now
‘Right now’ (NK)
Հէնց հիմա։

Iranian Armenian has a modal word [piti] that roughly translates to ‘must’
(17). It is used to create a debitive or obligative mood (Dum-Tragut 2009: 263).

(17) a. piti etʰ-ɒ-m

must go-th-1sg
‘I have to go.’ (NK)
Պիտի էթամ։
b. piti ut-e-m
must eat-th-1sg
‘I have to eat.’ (NK)
Պիտի ուտեմ։

This word is related to the syntactic construction [petʰk ɒ] which is used to

mean ‘it is needed’ or ‘it is necessary’ (18).

96
 5.5 Other function words

(18) a. petkʰ ɒ
need aux
‘It is needed.’ (NK)
Պէտք ա։
b. petkʰ ɒ ut-e-m
need aux eat-th-1sg
‘I have to eat.’ (NK)
Literally: ‘It is needed that I eat.’
Պէտք ա ուտեմ։

97
6 Verbal morphology
In Iranian Armenian, regular verbs are divided into simple verbs and complex
verbs. In their infinitive citation form, simple verbs consist of a root, theme
vowel, and infinitive suffix. Of these simple verbs, there are two conjugation
classes based on the theme vowel. Complex verbs include a valency-changing
morpheme. These include passives, causatives, and inchoatives. In contrast, ir-
regular verbs can be divided into four categories: nasal-infixed verbs, suppletive
verbs, defective verbs, and miscellaneous verbs.
When comparing Iranian Armenian with other Armenian lects, Iranian Arme-
nian is close to Standard Eastern Armenian. Like Standard Eastern, Iranian Arme-
nian widely uses periphrasis for various inflectional paradigm cells. Periphrasis
is used for the indicative present, indicative past imperfective, and various com-
plex tenses (present perfect, past perfect, future). Periphrasis involves the use of
a non-finite converb (which carries lexical meaning) alongside an inflected auxil-
iary that carries tense/agreement marking. Synthesis is used for less frequent in-
flectional cells, such as subjunctives, conditionals, futures, and imperatives. The
most common synthetic form is the past perfective, also called the aorist.
There is a larger literature on the verbal morphology of other Armenian lects.
For Standard Western Armenian morphotactics, see Donabédian (1997), Boyaci-
oglu (2010), Boyacioglu & Dolatian (2020), Dolatian & Guekguezian (2022b,a),
and Karakaş et al. (2021). For Standard Eastern Armenian, most work on verbal
morphology is on verbal semantics (Kozintseva 1995, Dum-Tragut 2009, Daniel &
Khurshudian 2015, Plungian 2018). For Iranian Armenian, we focus on providing
complete paradigms for the different conjugation classes. We provide a complete
segmentation of all inflectional morphology.
For reference, Iranian Armenian shows the following significant differences
from Standard Eastern Armenian in terms of verbal morphology.

• The 1SG marker /-m/ is used in both the present and past paradigms (§6.2.2).

• The present 3SG auxiliary is /ɒ/ in Iranian Armenian, /e/ in Standard East-
ern (§6.2.1). The form [ɑ] is also attested in Colloquial Eastern Armenian.

• Iranian Armenian deletes the auxiliary /e/ or theme vowel /e/ before the
past marker /i/ (§6.2.2, §6.4.2).
6 Verbal morphology

• There is optional leveling of the negated copula and negated auxiliary

(§6.2.3).

• The perfective converb suffix displays liquid-zero alternations, briefly il-

lustrated in §6.3.2, discussed more in §3.3.

• The past perfective or aorist system has been significantly altered, by pro-
moting the past morph /-ɒ/ from a restricted marked allomorph to an else-
where allomorph (§6.4.1).

• The imperative 2SG suffix differs across the lects (§6.4.3).

• Some irregular verbs in Standard Eastern have become leveled or lost in

Iranian Armenian (§6.7).

For contrast, we often show the verbal paradigms of both Standard Eastern Ar-
menian and Iranian Armenian. This chapter provides complete paradigms for the
simplex verbs, and partial paradigms for complex and irregular verbs. Complete
paradigms are found in our online archive.1
Across Armenian varieties, the conjugation classes utilize different stems
when forming the different paradigm cells. These are often called the present
stem and the past/aorist stem. The aorist stem can be formed via various mor-
phological strategies, such as root allomorphy and affix deletion. The aorist stem
can include either an overt aorist suffix -t͡sʰ- or a covert aorist suffix -∅-. Due to
space limitations, we do not explicitly discuss the formation of present vs. aorist
stems in Iranian Armenian. Our paradigms indicate the use of the aorist stem and
aorist suffix -t͡sʰ/∅- in both the past perfective and other paradigm cells as aor.
When used in the past perfective, the aorist morpheme contributes perfective
meaning; but it is used meaninglessly as a morphomic element in other para-
digm cells (cf. Aronoff 1994). For discussion of the formation of aorist stems in
Standard Armenian, see Dolatian & Guekguezian (2022a).

6.1 Simple verbs and their classes

Like in Standard Eastern Armenian, regular simple verbs in Iranian Armenian
are classified into two classes based on the choice of theme vowel: -e-, -ɒ- (Ta-
ble 6.1). We call these classes E-Class and A-Class. The citation form is the infini-
tive, called the [ɑnoɾoʃ deɾbɑj] անորոշ դերբայ ‘indefinite participle’ in Standard
Eastern Armenian.
1
https://github.com/jhdeov/iranian_armenian

100
 6.2 Auxiliaries

Table 6.1: Simple infinitives from the two regular classes

E-Class A-Class
jeɻkʰ-e-l ɒpɻ-e-l kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-l χos-ɒ-l √ -th-inf
‘to sing’ ‘to live’ ‘to read’ ‘to speak’
երգել ապրել կարդալ խօսալ

Standard Eastern Armenian uses the same conjugation classes. In general, a

given verb belongs to the same conjugation class in both lects. There are some
exceptions though. For example, the verb ‘to speak’ uses the root χos-. In Ira-
nian Armenian, this verb belongs to the A-Class: χos-ɒ-l ‘to speak’. In contrast
in Standard Eastern Armenian, this verb belongs to the E-Class: χos-e-l.2
In terms of morphological structure, we treat theme vowels as meaningless
empty morphs (Aronoff 1994). The choice of theme vowel is root-conditioned and
meaningless. For a theoretical analysis of Armenian theme vowels, see Guekgue-
zian & Dolatian (forthcoming). Their Standard Western Armenian analysis can
easily extend to Iranian Armenian.
Having set up the basic classes, the next sections describe verbal inflection.
Like Standard Eastern Armenian, verbal inflection in Iranian Armenian is highly
periphrastic. Before we describe these periphrastic forms, we first describe the
auxiliary system in Iranian Armenian.

6.2 Auxiliaries
The verb ‘to be’ acts as both a copula in predicate sentences (1a), and as an aux-
iliary in periphrastic forms (1b).

(1) a. mɒɻtʰ-ə təχuɻ ɒ

man-def sad aux.prs.3sg
‘The man is sad.’ (NK)
Մարդը տխուր ա։
2
It is possible that these few deviations have a diachronic reason. Modern Standard Eastern
and Iranian Armenian utilize only two theme vowels: -e- and -ɑ/ɒ-. But Classical Armenian
had two additional theme vowels -i- and -u-. Reflexes of verbs with these theme vowels are
assigned to one of the surviving classes, usually to the E-Class. For example, ‘to speak’ was an
I-Class verb in Classical Armenian: χos-i-l. The fact that this verb became E-Class in Standard
Eastern Armenian, but A-Class in Iranian Armenian suggests that more deviations would be
found in the reflexes of Classical verbs with obsolete theme vowels.

101
6 Verbal morphology

b. mɒɻtʰ-ə jeɻkʰ-um ɒ
man-def sing-impf.cvb aux.prs.3sg
‘The man is singing.’ (NK)
Մարդը երգում ա։

In this section, we gloss the present 3SG auxiliary [ɒ] as ‘aux.prs.3sg’ for ex-
planation. But throughout the rest of the grammar, we usually just gloss it as
aux.
In periphrastic constructions, the verb is in a converb form, e.g., the imper-
fective converb in (1b). Before discussing these converbs, we first lay out the
paradigm of the auxiliary. The name of the auxiliary is [oʒɑndɑk bɑj] օժանդակ
բայ ‘helper verb’ in Standard Eastern Armenian.

6.2.1 Present auxiliary

We show the present tense paradigm of the auxiliary in Table 6.2. Because the
auxiliary can also function as a copula, we gloss both as aux. In the present
tense, the auxiliary consists of the auxiliary’s marker -e-, and then a fused tense-
agreement marker (t/agr or just agr). In the 3SG, there is no T/Agr marker.
Instead, the inflected auxiliary is just the auxiliary marker /e/ in Standard Eastern
Armenian. In contrast, in Iranian Armenian, the 3SG present uses an allomorph
/ɒ/ of the auxiliary.
Table 6.2: Paradigm of the present auxiliary and copula in Standard
Eastern and Iranian Armenian

Standard Eastern Iranian Armenian

1SG e-m եմ e-m եմ
‘I am’ ‘I am’
2SG e-s ես e-s ես
3SG e է ɒ ա
1PL e-ŋkʰ ենք e-ŋkʰ ենք
2PL e-kʰ եք e-kʰ էք
3PL e-n են e-n են
aux-agr

The Iranian Armenian 3SG form /ɒ/ is likely diachronically derived from an
earlier /e/ form. In fact, the 3SG auxiliary /ɒ/ is found in the colloquial speech

102
 6.2 Auxiliaries

of Standard Eastern speakers in Armenia as /ɑ/. For Iranian Armenian, the low-
vowel form /ɒ/ form is simply grammaticalized as the only realization of the
present 3SG auxiliary.
We utilize the following rules for Iranian Armenian (Rule 2). Tense and agree-
ment are expressed via a single marker in the present.

Rule 2: Rules for marking present agreement

1sg ↔ -m
2sg, present ↔ -s
3sg, present ↔ -∅
1pl ↔ -nkʰ
2pl ↔ -kʰ
3pl ↔ -n

Note that the 1PL suffix is underlyingly /-nkʰ/ and the nasal assimilates in place
to become [-ŋkʰ] (§2.1.3). This plural morpheme is a reflex of Classical *-m-kʰ.
Compare modern [eŋkʰ] against Classical եմք <emk’> (Thomson 1989: 26).
The markers of the 1SG and the plurals do not specify tense. As we see later,
these markers are used throughout Iranian Armenian for these person-number
combinations.
As for the auxiliary itself (Rule 3), it has allomorphs /e/ and /ɒ/. For the present
3SG, the auxiliary is expressed by /ɒ/ without an extra tense marker. We later
revise the marker rules for the auxiliary.

Rule 3: Rules for the form of the auxiliary verb ‘to be’ in the present (to be
revised)

‘be’ or aux ↔ ɒ- / _ prs.3sg

e- / elsewhere

6.2.2 Past auxiliary

For the present auxiliary, Standard Eastern and Iranian Armenian have few dif-
ferences. But in the past form of the auxiliary, we find two major differences

103
6 Verbal morphology

between the two lects. In Table 6.3, we provide zero markers for easier illustra-
tion. Note the glide is epenthetic.
Table 6.3: Paradigm of the past auxiliary in Standard Eastern and Ira-
nian Armenian

Without zero markers With zero markers

SEA IA SEA IA
1SG ej-i էի i-m իմ ej-i-∅ ∅-i-m
‘I was’ ‘I was’
2SG ej-i-ɾ էիր i-ɻ իր ej-i-ɾ ∅-i-ɻ
3SG e-ɾ էր e-ɻ էր e-∅-ɾ e-∅-ɻ
1PL ej-i-ŋkʰ էինք i-ŋkʰ ինք ej-i-ŋkʰ ∅-i-ŋkʰ
2PL ej-i-kʰ էիք i-kʰ իք ej-i-kʰ ∅-i-kʰ
3PL ej-i-n էին i-n ին ej-i-n ∅-i-n
aux-pst-agr

Consider first the non-3SG forms. In Standard Eastern Armenian, the past form
of the auxiliary is made up of three overt morphs: the auxiliary e, a past suffix -i,
and then agreement. Tense and agreement are thus separate suffixes in the past.
Vowel hiatus between the auxiliary and past suffix triggers glide epenthesis: 1PL
/e-i-nkʰ/ → [ej-i-ŋkʰ]. In contrast, in Iranian Armenian, the auxiliary morpheme
is covert in these contexts. Outside of the 3SG, there are only two overt morphs
and these are the past suffix and the agreement suffix. For example, 1PL is [ej-i-
ŋkʰ] in Standard Eastern but [i-ŋkʰ] in Iranian Armenian.
We analyze this difference as due to a morpheme-specific rule of vowel dele-
tion in hiatus (Rule 4). This rule will delete the vowel e before the past morpheme
-i. We call this rule e-deletion. The target of this rule is just a segment, while the
trigger is a specific morph.

Rule 4: e-Deletion: Rule for deleting /e/ before past /i/

/e/ → ∅ /_i
where i is the past suffix

104
 6.2 Auxiliaries

In morphological theory, the use of morpheme-specific phonological processes

is controversial (Pater 2007, Siddiqi 2009, Haugen & Siddiqi 2016, Haugen 2016,
Embick & Shwayder 2018). There are two pieces of evidence for treating the ab-
sence of the auxiliary -e- as morpheme-specific phonology instead of allomorphy.
First, in the 3SG, the past suffix is covert, and the auxiliary is overt: e-∅-ɻ instead
of *∅-i-ɻ or *∅-∅-ɻ. It thus seems that the absence of the auxiliary is conditioned
by making the past suffix an overt vowel. Second, we will see in the subjunctive
past (§6.4.2) that the -e- theme vowel likewise deletes before the past -i- suffix. In
sum, the above rule was possibly developed in Iranian Armenian as a morpheme-
specific rule for repairing vowel hiatus.
Outside of Iranian Armenian, there are other Armenian dialects where the past
auxiliary has this reduced form. For example, in 1911, the dialect of Armenian
spoken in Yerevan had past auxiliaries like 3PL [∅-i-n] (Աճառեան 1911: 43; trans-
lated by Dolatian submitted). Such auxiliary forms were lost in Yerevan, due to
the language shift from (Old) Yerevan Armenian to Standard Eastern Armenian.
But they remain as grammaticalized in Iranian Armenian.
The second difference between the lects concerns the 1SG. In Standard Eastern,
the Agr morph is covert: e-i-∅ ‘I was’. In Iranian Armenian, the Agr morph is an
overt /m/: ∅-i-m. This /m/ morph is the same suffix used in the present 1SG [e-m].
Thus this morph /m/ has a more general distribution in Iranian Armenian than
in Standard Eastern. We list the rules for the 1SG below for the two lects for the
two tenses (Rule 5).
The use of -m as a general 1SG marker is rather common in Armenian lects
in Iran (Ջահուկյան 1972: p. 103, feature 100.6). See Vaux (2022b: 55–56) for useful
maps on the spread of this phenomenon across Iran. For the spread of the -m
morph, it is possible that a contributing factor is that Persian uses a morph -
æm as a generalized 1SG marker for both the present and past (Mahootian 2002:
229ff).

Rule 5: Rules for the 1SG in the two lects

Standard Eastern 1sg ↔ -∅ / in the past

-m / elsewhere
Iranian Armenian 1sg ↔ -m

We list below the additional rules that are needed for the Iranian Armenian
3SG (Rule 6). The past morph is covert in the 3SG: [e-∅-ɻ], while an overt /-i/

105
6 Verbal morphology

elsewhere. We do not need to list any rules for plural Agr, because they are the
same as for the present (§6.2.1).

Rule 6: Rules for past tense and agreement in 3SG

pst ↔ -∅ / in 3sg
-i / elsewhere
singular non-1st person ↔ -ɻ / in the past

The past 2SG and 3SG are syncretic for the agreement suffix (Karakaş et al.
2021). They both use the morph ɻ. The two paradigm cells are distinguished by
tense being overt in the 2SG, but covert in the 3SG: ∅-i-ɻ ‘you were’ vs. e-∅-ɻ ‘he
was’.

6.2.3 Negation
The previous subsections described the inflection of the auxiliary in the positive.
Negation is straightforwardly marked by adding the negation prefix t͡ʃʰ-. How-
ever, we see some divergences in the present 3SG.
Table 6.4 shows the paradigm for the negated present auxiliary for Standard
Eastern and Iranian Armenian. For all but the present 3SG, negation is marked
by adding the negation prefix t͡ʃʰ- to the auxiliary.
Table 6.4: Paradigm of negated present auxiliary in Standard Eastern
and Iranian Armenian

Present: (neg)-aux-agr
Standard Eastern Iranian Armenian
Positive Negaive Positive Negaive
1SG e-m եմ t͡ʃʰ-e-m չեմ e-m եմ t͡ʃʰ-e-m չեմ
2SG e-s ես t͡ʃʰ-e-s չես e-s ես t͡ʃʰ-e-s չես
3SG e-∅ է t͡ʃʰ-i-∅ չի ɒ-∅ ա t͡ʃʰ-i-∅ չի
1PL e-ŋkʰ ենք t͡ʃʰ-e-ŋkʰ չենք e-ŋkʰ ենք t͡ʃʰ-e-ŋkʰ չենք
2PL e-kʰ եք t͡ʃʰ-e-kʰ չեք e-kʰ էք t͡ʃʰ-e-kʰ չէք
3PL e-n են t͡ʃʰ-e-n չեն e-n են t͡ʃʰ-e-n չեն

106
 6.2 Auxiliaries

Table 6.5 shows the paradigm of the negated past auxiliary. Negation is marked
by adding the negation prefix.
Table 6.5: Paradigm of negated past auxiliary in Standard Eastern and
Iranian Armenian

Past: (neg)-aux-pst-agr
Standard Eastern Iranian Armenian
Positive Negaive Positive Negaive
1SG ej-i-∅ էի t͡ʃʰ-ej-i-∅ չէի ∅-i-m իմ t͡ʃʰ-∅-i-m չիմ
2SG ej-i-ɾ էիր t͡ʃʰ-ej-i-ɾ չէիր ∅-i-ɻ իր t͡ʃʰ-∅-i-ɻ չիր
3SG e-∅-ɾ էր t͡ʃʰ-e-∅-ɾ չէր e-∅-ɻ էր t͡ʃʰ-e-∅-ɻ չէր
1PL ej-i-ŋkʰ էինք t͡ʃʰ-ej-i-ŋkʰ չէինք ∅-i-ŋkʰ ինք t͡ʃʰ-∅-i-ŋkʰ չինք
2PL ej-i-kʰ էիք t͡ʃʰ-ej-i-kʰ չէիք ∅-i-kʰ իք t͡ʃʰ-∅-i-kʰ չիք
3PL ej-i-n էին t͡ʃʰ-ej-i-n չէին ∅-i-n ին t͡ʃʰ-∅-i-n չին

Differences emerge in the present 3SG. When used as a verbal auxiliary in Ta-
ble 6.6, the positive form is /ɒ/ in Iranian Armenian, and /e/ in Standard Eastern.
The negative form is /t͡ʃʰ-i/ for both lects. The negative auxiliary is placed before
the verb.3
Table 6.6: Forms of negative auxiliary across Standard Eastern and Ira-
nian Armenian

Positive Negaive
SEA jeɾkʰ-um e Երգում է։ t͡ʃʰ-i jeɾkʰ-um Չի երգում։
IA jeɻkʰ-um ɒ Երգում ա։ t͡ʃʰ-i jeɻkʰ-um Չի երգում։
Gloss: singing is neg-is singing
‘He is singing.’ ‘He isn’t singing.’

But when used as a copula, we find more significant dialectal differences in

Table 6.7. In both the positive and negative, the copula is placed after the pred-
icate. The positive form is /ɒ/ in Iranian Armenian and /e/ in Standard Eastern,
as expected. When negated, Standard Eastern uses /t͡ʃʰ-e/. In Iranian Armenian,
speakers can use either /t͡ʃʰ-e/ or /t͡ʃʰ-i/. We call the use of /t͡ʃʰ-e/ the un-leveled
form, while the use of /t͡ʃʰ-i/ is the leveled form. Such variation is also documented
for Colloquial Eastern Armenian (Dum-Tragut 2009: 216).
3
The complete gloss for the copula and auxiliary in the tables is aux.prs.3sg. The complete gloss
for the verb ‘singing’ is sing-impf.cvb.

107
6 Verbal morphology

Table 6.7: Forms of negative copula across Standard Eastern and Ira-
nian Armenian

Positive Negaive
SEA uɾɑχ e Ուրախ է։ uɾɑχ t͡ʃʰ-e Ուրախ չէ։
IA (un-leveled) uɻɒχ ɒ Ուրախ ա։ uɻɒχ t͡ʃʰ-e Ուրախ չէ։
IA (leveled) uɻɒχ ɒ Ուրախ ա։ uɻɒχ t͡ʃʰ-i Ուրախ չի։
Gloss: happy is happy neg-is
‘He is happy.’ ‘He isn’t happy.’

The above patterns require the following rules (Rule 7). For Standard Eastern,
the verb ‘to be’ surfaces as /i/ only when it is an auxiliary, negative, and present
3SG. In all other contexts (including as a copula), it surfaces as the elsewhere
morph /e/.

Rule 7: Rules for the auxiliary verb ‘to be’ in Standard Eastern

‘be’ or aux ↔ i- / neg _ prs.3sg, used as verbal auxiliary

(not a copula)
e- / elsewhere

For Iranian Armenian, matters are slightly more complicated. Some speakers
can use /i/ in the negative of both the auxiliary and the copula. All speakers use
the form /ɒ/ in the positive of both the auxiliary and copula. This simpler leveled
system uses the rules below (Rule 8). The rule for /i/ simply does not reference
the auxiliary vs. copula status of the verb. The verb surfaces as [ɒ] in the positive
present 3SG, and as [e] elsewhere.

Rule 8: Rules for the auxiliary verb ‘to be’ in Iranian Armenian with full leveling

‘be’ or aux ↔ i- / neg _ prs.3sg

ɒ- / _ prs.3sg
e- / elsewhere

108
 6.3 Periphrastic structures

As for the speakers who have not leveled the negative copula towards the neg-
ative auxiliary, they need the more complicated system below (Rule 9). These
speakers use /i/ for the negative auxiliary, /ɒ/ for the positive verb, and /e/ else-
where.

Rule 9: Rules for the auxiliary verb ‘to be’ without leveling

‘be’ or aux ↔ i- / neg _ prs.3sg, used as auxiliary verb

(not as copula)
ɒ- / _ prs.3sg
e- / elsewhere

6.3 Periphrastic structures

Iranian Armenian uses periphrasis to realize most tense-aspect-mood combina-
tions. These periphrastic forms all utilize a special form of the verb called the
converb. Tense and agreement are marked on the auxiliary. The auxiliary fol-
lows the converb in the positive, and it precedes the converb in the negative.4
Note that the future is marked with both synthetic and periphrastic construc-
tions, discussed in §6.5.
Throughout this grammar, we reserve the term “converb” for non-finite verb
forms that are restricted to verbal periphrasis. We use the term “participle” for
non-finite verb forms that can be used outside of periphrasis. This seems to be
the intuition behind the use of these terms in the Eastern Armenian National
Corpus.5

6.3.1 Indicative present and past imperfective

The first periphrastic construction that we describe is the indicative imperfective
forms, called [sɑhmɑnɑkɑn jeʁɑnɑk] սահմանական եղանակ in Standard Eastern
Armenian. This construction is used in the indicative present and the indicative
past imperfective (also called the past imperfect). This construction is formed
identically in Standard Eastern and Iranian Armenian.
The verb is in a converb form called the imperfective converb (2). Some gram-
mars also use the term present participle (Dum-Tragut 2009: 219). In Standard
4
The auxiliary can further move around the sentence because of focus and other syntactic fac-
tors (§3.3.1).
5
eanc.net/

109
6 Verbal morphology

Eastern Armenian, this converb is called [ɑŋkɑtɑɾ deɾbɑj] անկատար դերբայ.

Given the infinitive for a verb like jeɻkʰ-e-l ‘to sing’, the imperfective converb
is formed by replacing the theme vowel and infinitive with the suffix -um: jeɻkʰ-
um. Tense and subject agreement are marked on the auxiliary. The present auxil-
iary is used to form the indicative present; the past auxiliary is used to form the
indicative past imperfective.

(2) a. jeɻkʰ-um e-ŋkʰ

sing-impf.cvb aux-1pl
‘We are singing.’ (NK)
Երգում ենք։
b. jeɻkʰ-um ∅-i-ŋkʰ
sing-impf.cvb aux-pst-1pl
‘We were singing.’ (NK)
Երգում ինք։

Negation is marked by placing the negated form of the auxiliary before the
converb (3).

(3) a. t͡ʃʰ-e-ŋkʰ jeɻkʰ-um

neg-aux-1pl sing-impf.cvb
‘We are not singing.’ (NK)
Չենք երգում։
b. t͡ʃʰ-∅-i-ŋkʰ jeɻkʰ-um
neg-aux-pst-1pl sing-impf.cvb
‘We were not singing.’ (NK)
Չինք երգում։

The two conjugation classes (E-Class and A-Class) do not differ in constructing
the imperfective converb, e.g., the converb of kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-l ‘to read’ is kɒɻtʰ-um. All
tense-number-person combinations are straightforwardly marked by using the
appropriate inflected auxiliary. The complete paradigm is given in Table 6.8. For
clarity of presentation, we do not segment the internal structure of the auxiliary.
The imperfective converb suffix is simply -um. If we assume that the theme
vowels /e, ɒ/ are underlyingly present, then we need a rule that deletes the theme
vowels before the converb suffix, as a type of morpheme-specific vowel hiatus
repair (Rule 10). For example, /jeɻkʰ-e-um/ → [jeɻkʰ-∅-um].

110
 6.3 Periphrastic structures

Rule 10: Deleting theme vowels before the converb suffix

V → ∅ / _ V2 (where V2 is part of a converb suffix)

Table 6.8: Paradigm for indicative present and indicative past imperfec-
tive for E-Class [jeɻkʰ-e-l] ‘to sing’

Positive Negaive
Indc. present Indc. past imperf. Indc. present Indc. past imperf.
1SG jeɻkʰ-um em jeɻkʰ-um im t͡ʃʰ-em jeɻkʰ-um t͡ʃʰ-im jeɻkʰ-um
‘I am singing’ ‘I was singing’ ‘I am not singing’ ‘I was not singing’
երգում եմ երգում իմ չեմ երգում չիմ երգում

2SG jeɻkʰ-um es jeɻkʰ-um iɻ t͡ʃʰ-es jeɻkʰ-um t͡ʃʰ-iɻ jeɻkʰ-um

երգում ես երգում իր չես երգում չիր երգում

3SG jeɻkʰ-um ɒ jeɻkʰ-um eɻ t͡ʃʰ-i jeɻkʰ-um t͡ʃʰ-eɻ jeɻkʰ-um

երգում ա երգում էր չի երգում չէր երգում

1PL jeɻkʰ-um eŋkʰ jeɻkʰ-um iŋkʰ t͡ʃʰ-eŋkʰ jeɻkʰ-um t͡ʃʰ-iŋkʰ jeɻkʰ-um

երգում երգում ինք չենք երգում չինք երգում

2PL jeɻkʰ-um ekʰ jeɻkʰ-um ikʰ t͡ʃʰ-ekʰ jeɻkʰ-um t͡ʃʰ-ikʰ jeɻkʰ-um

երգում էք երգում իք չէք երգում չիք երգում

3PL jeɻkʰ-um en jeɻkʰ-um in t͡ʃʰ-en jeɻkʰ-um t͡ʃʰ-in jeɻkʰ-um

երգում են երգում ին չեն երգում չին երգում

√ -impf.cvb aux neg-aux √ -impf.cvb

6.3.2 Present perfect and pluperfect

The next periphrastic construction that we discuss is the periphrastic perfective.
Like the other periphrastic forms, this construction utilizes a special converb
and the inflected auxiliary. The converb is called the perfective converb. Some
grammars also use the term perfect participle (Dum-Tragut 2009: 213) or past
participle (Աճառեան 1911, Dolatian submitted). It is called [vɑʁɑkɑtɑɾ deɾbɑj]
վաղակատար դերբայ in Standard Eastern Armenian.
The perfective converb has subtle differences across the two lects (Table 6.9).
In Standard Eastern Armenian, the perfective converb is formed by adding the

111
6 Verbal morphology

suffix -el. The theme vowel is deleted thanks to the vowel-hiatus rule in Rule 10.
In Iranian Armenian, this suffix is -el or -eɻ. AS and NK report that -eɻ form is
more common among younger generations than older ones.6
Table 6.9: Liquid quality of the perfective converb in Standard Eastern
and Iranian Armenian for E-Class ‘to sing’

Infinitive Perfective converb

Standard Eastern jeɾkʰ-e-l jeɾkʰ-el
Iranian Armenian jeɻkʰ-e-l jeɻkʰ-el
jeɻkʰ-eɻ
√ -th-inf √ -perf.cvb
երգել երգել, երգեր

For the same speaker, the choice of liquid can vary between [-el] or [-eɻ] with-
out semantic motivation (4). It is possible that [-el] feels more formal for our
speakers.
(4) es jeɻkʰ-ə voɻ mɒm-it͡sʰ sovoɻ-eɻ/el e-m
this song-def that mom-abl learn-perf.cvb aux-1sg
‘This song that I learned from my mom.’ (NK)
Էս երգը որ մամից սովորեր/սովորել եմ։

In some social phrases, AS reports that the liquid is conventionally a lateral

(5).
(5) kɒɻot-el =e-m kʰez
miss-perf.cvb =aux-1sg you.sg.dat
‘I’ve missed you.’ (AS)
Կարօտել եմ քեզ։

Diachronically, the rhotic form [-eɻ] may have developed from the lateral form
[-el]. This development has been attested in other Armenian lects (Գրիգորյան
2018).
AS reports that some archaic registers use the form [-i], such as (6). We found
this sentence in our transcribed sample text, uttered by an actor who was putting
on an archaic accent.
6
The variation has some connections with geography. Osik Movses, an Iranian Armenian
speaker from Tehran, informs us that some Tehran neighborhoods use the [-eɻ] form because
these speakers’ ancestors originate from villages that used such a form.

112
 6.3 Periphrastic structures

(6) vɒksɒn e-n t͡ʃɒɻ-i

vaccine aux-3pl find-perf.cvb
‘They’ve found a vaccine.’
<vaccine> են ճարի։

Iranian Armenian has grammaticalized a process of liquid deletion for the per-
fective converb suffix [-eɻ] or [-el] (Table 6.10). When this suffix is used in the
positive before the inflected auxiliary, the liquid surfaces. But when the auxiliary
has shifted leftward as in negation, the suffix’s liquid is deleted, and sometimes
pronounced as [h].
Table 6.10: Perfective converb in Standard Eastern and Iranian Arme-
nian for the E-Class verb ‘to sing’

Positive present perfect 1SG Negative present perfect 1SG

SEA jeɾkʰ-el em t͡ʃʰ-em jeɾkʰ-el
Երգել եմ։ Չեմ երգել։
IA jeɻkʰ-el em t͡ʃʰ-em jeɻkʰ-e
Երգել եմ։ Չեմ երգէ։
jeɻkʰ-eɻ em t͡ʃʰ-em jeɻkʰ-eh
Երգեր եմ։ Չեմ երգէ։
√ -perf.cvb aux neg-aux √ -perf.cvb
‘I have sung.’ ‘I have not sung.’

The behavior of the perfective suffix in Iranian Armenian suggests that the
final liquid is a floating segment or latent segment: -e(l) or -e(ɻ) (cf. ghost conso-
nants: Tranel 1996, Côté 2011, Zimmermann 2019). The above paradigm suggests
that the liquid is licensed when it is followed by the auxiliary. The conditions for
surfacing or deleting this liquid are discussed in §3.3. For now, we just provide
the relevant rules (Rule 11).

Rule 11: Rule for the perfective converb

perf.cvb ↔ -e(l) / (older speakers)

-e(ɻ) / (some younger speakers)

113
6 Verbal morphology

The above data concerns constructing the perfective converb for the E-Class.
In the A-Class, the same suffix is used. However, a meaningless affix -t͡sʰ- is added
between the theme vowel and the converb suffix (Table 6.11).
Table 6.11: Perfective converb in Standard Eastern and Iranian Arme-
nian for the E-Class vs. A-Class verb

E-Class A-Class
Infinitive Pfv. converb Infinitive Pfv. converb
երգել երգել, երգեր կարդալ կարդացել, կարդացեր

SEA jeɾkʰ-e-l jeɾkʰ-el kɑɾtʰ-ɑ-l kɑɾtʰ-ɑ-t͡sʰ-el

IA jeɻkʰ-e-l jeɻkʰ-el kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-l kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-el
jeɻkʰ-eɻ kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-eɻ
√ -th-inf √ -perf.cvb √ -th-inf √ -th-aor-perf.cvb

In the traditional literature on Armenian, the meaningless -t͡sʰ- is called the

aorist suffix. We gloss the additional meaningless suffix t͡sʰ as aor. The suffix is
used to mark synthetic past perfective verbs for the A-Class, but it is also used
meaninglessly in other constructions. In the case of the perfective converb, this
-t͡sʰ- is being used morphomically. The use of this suffix in the A-Class perfective
converb is treated as using an aorist stem. Such a stem is morphomic (Aronoff
1994). For a discussion and analysis of aorist stems in Armenian, see Dolatian &
Guekguezian (2022a). In this grammar, we do not provide rules for generating
this meaningless aorist suffix. For descriptive purposes, the full paradigm is given
in Table 6.12 for the E-Class.
When the perfective converb is used with the present auxiliary, the construc-
tion denotes the present perfect. If we use the past auxiliary, then the construc-
tion denotes the pluperfect. The paradigm for the A-Class ‘to read’ is analogously
constructed with the converb [kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-el]. We do not segment the auxiliary.
As before, the auxiliary shifts its position in the negated form.

6.3.3 Simultaneous converb

Standard Eastern Armenian has an additional periphrastic construction that uses
the simultaneous converb (Table 6.13), also called the processual participle (Dum-
Tragut 2009: 205). The converb is called [hɑmɑkɑtɑɾ deɾbɑj] համակատար դերբայ
in Standard Eastern Armenian. This converb is built by adding the suffix -is to
infinitives. This construction is quite infrequent in Standard Eastern Armenian.

114
 6.3 Periphrastic structures

Table 6.12: Paradigm for the present perfect and the pluperfect for E-
Class [jeɻkʰ-e-l] ‘to sing’

Positive Negaive
Present perfect Pluperfect Present perfect Pluperfect
1SG jeɻkʰ-el em jeɻkʰ-el im t͡ʃʰ-em jeɻkʰ-e t͡ʃʰ-im jeɻkʰ-e
jeɻkʰ-eɻ em jeɻkʰ-eɻ im
‘I have sung’ ‘I had sung’ ‘I haven’t sung’ ‘I hadn’t sung’
երգել եմ երգել իմ չեմ երգէ չիմ երգէ
երգեր եմ երգեր իմ

2SG jeɻkʰ-el es jeɻkʰ-el iɻ t͡ʃʰ-es jeɻkʰ-e t͡ʃʰ-iɻ jeɻkʰ-e

jeɻkʰ-eɻ es jeɻkʰ-eɻ iɻ
երգել ես երգել իր չես երգէ չիր երգէ
երգեր ես երգեր իր

3SG jeɻkʰ-el ɒ jeɻkʰ-el eɻ t͡ʃʰ-i jeɻkʰ-e t͡ʃʰ-eɻ jeɻkʰ-e

jeɻkʰ-eɻ ɒ jeɻkʰ-eɻ eɻ
երգել ա երգել էր չի երգէ չէր երգէ
երգեր ա երգեր էր

1PL jeɻkʰ-el eŋkʰ jeɻkʰ-el iŋkʰ t͡ʃʰ-eŋkʰ jeɻkʰ-e t͡ʃʰ-iŋkʰ jeɻkʰ-e

jeɻkʰ-eɻ eŋkʰ jeɻkʰ-eɻ iŋkʰ
երգել ենք երգել ինք չենք երգէ չինք երգէ
երգեր ենք երգեր ինք

2PL jeɻkʰ-el ekʰ jeɻkʰ-el ikʰ t͡ʃʰ-ekʰ jeɻkʰ-e t͡ʃʰ-ikʰ jeɻkʰ-e

jeɻkʰ-eɻ ekʰ jeɻkʰ-eɻ ikʰ
երգել էք երգել իք չէք երգէ չիք երգէ
երգեր էք երգեր իք

3PL jeɻkʰ-el en jeɻkʰ-el in t͡ʃʰ-en jeɻkʰ-e t͡ʃʰ-in jeɻkʰ-e

jeɻkʰ-eɻ en jeɻkʰ-eɻ in
երգել են երգել ին չեն երգէ չին երգէ
երգեր են երգեր ին

√ -perf.cvb aux neg-aux √ -perf.cvb

115
6 Verbal morphology

For Iranian Armenian, NK reports that she never uses this participle, while KM
reports that she does use it. AS reports that his consultants never use it. We do
not report further on this converb because of the the limited data available to us.
Table 6.13: Forming the simultaneous converb

E-Class ‘to sing’ A-Class ‘to read’

Infinitive Simultaneous converb Infinitive Simultaneous converb
jeɻkʰ-e-l jeɻkʰ-e-l-is kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-l kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-l-is
√ -th-inf √ -th-inf-sim.cvb √ -th-inf √ -th-inf-sim.cvb
երգել երգելիս կարդալ կարդալիս

6.4 Synthetic forms

A large chunk of Iranian Armenian verbal inflection is handled via periphrasis.
There are however some pockets of synthetic constructions. These include the
aorist (past perfective), subjunctives, and imperatives. Prohibitives are derived
from imperatives via the addition of a particle. Note that the future is marked
with both synthetic and periphrastic constructions, discussed in §6.5.

6.4.1 Past perfective or aorist form

Impressionistically, the past perfective or aorist is the most common synthetic
construction. It is used to denote the simple past. But as the examples in Table
6.14 illustrate, the two classes use markedly different affixes to generate the past
perfective. The past perfective of the A-Class is formed in essentially the same
way for the two lects, while the E-Class uses a markedly different construction.
The name of the past perfective is [ɑnt͡sʰjɑl kɑtɑɾjɑl] անցյալ կատարյալ in Stan-
dard Eastern Armenian.
We first describe the A-Class in Iranian Armenian, whose past perfective is
formed essentially the same in Standard Eastern. The past perfective is formed
by taking the stem of the A-Class (root and theme vowel), and adding the aorist
suffix -t͡sʰ-. The -t͡sʰ- is a marker of perfectivity (Donabédian 2016). We then add
the past marker /i/ and agreement markers. For brevity, we say that A-Class verbs
use the /-t͡sʰ-i/ template for marking the past perfective. We gloss -t͡sʰ- as -aor-
both in the past perfective (where it is meaningful) and in non-past paradigms,
as in the perfective converb of the A-Class (§6.3.2).

116
 6.4 Synthetic forms

Table 6.14: Past perfective 1PL for E-Class and A-Class

E-Class A-Class
IA SEA IA SEA
Infinitive jeɻkʰ-e-l jeɾkʰ-e-l kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-l kɑɾtʰ-ɑ-l
√ -th-inf √ -th-inf √ -th-inf √ -th-inf
‘to sing’ ‘to sing’ ‘to read’ ‘to read’
երգել երգել կարդալ կարդալ

Past Pfv. jeɻkʰ-ɒ-ŋkʰ jeɾkʰ-e-t͡sʰ-i-ŋkʰ kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-i-ŋkʰ kɑɾtʰ-ɑ-t͡sʰ-i-ŋkʰ

√ -pst-1pl √ -th-aor-pst-1pl √ -th-aor-pst-1pl √ -th-aor-pst-1pl
‘we sang’ ‘we sang’ ‘we read (past)’ ‘we read (past)’
երգանք երգեցինք կարդացինք կարդացինք

The complete paradigm is shown in Table 6.15 for the A-Class in Standard East-
ern and Iranian Armenian. Negation is formed by adding the prefix t͡ʃʰ-, which
surfaces with a schwa before consonant-initial verbs. The only morphological
difference between the two lects is that the 1SG marker /-m/ is used in Iranian
Armenian (§6.2.2), while Standard Eastern uses a zero suffix.
Table 6.15: Paradigm of past perfective of A-Class [kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-l] ‘to read’
in Standard Eastern and Iranian Armenian

Positive Negative
SEA IA SEA IA
1SG kɑɾtʰ-ɑ-t͡sʰ-i kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-i-m t͡ʃʰə-kɑɾtʰ-ɑ-t͡sʰ-i t͡ʃʰə-kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-i-m
‘I read (past)’ ‘I read (past)’ ‘I did not read’ ‘I did not read’
կարդացի կարդացիմ չկարդացի չկարդացիմ

2SG kɑɾtʰ-ɑ-t͡sʰ-i-ɾ kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-i-ɻ t͡ʃʰə-kɑɾtʰ-ɑ-t͡sʰ-i-ɾ t͡ʃʰə-kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-i-ɻ

կարդացիր կարդացիր չկարդացիր չկարդացիր

3SG kɑɾtʰ-ɑ-t͡sʰ kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-t͡sʰ t͡ʃʰə-kɑɾtʰ-ɑ-t͡sʰ t͡ʃʰə-kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-t͡sʰ

կարդաց կարդաց չկարդաց չկարդաց

1PL kɑɾtʰ-ɑ-t͡sʰ-i-ŋkʰ kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-i-ŋkʰ t͡ʃʰə-kɑɾtʰ-ɑ-t͡sʰ-i-ŋkʰ t͡ʃʰə-kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-i-ŋkʰ

կարդացինք կարդացինք չկարդացինք չկարդացինք

2PL kɑɾtʰ-ɑ-t͡sʰ-i-kʰ kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-i-kʰ t͡ʃʰə-kɑɾtʰ-ɑ-t͡sʰ-i-kʰ t͡ʃʰə-kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-i-kʰ

կարդացիք կարդացիք չկարդացիք չկարդացիք

3PL kɑɾtʰ-ɑ-t͡sʰ-i-n kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-i-n t͡ʃʰə-kɑɾtʰ-ɑ-t͡sʰ-i-n t͡ʃʰə-kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-i-n

կարդացին կարդացին չկարդացին չկարդացին

√ -th-aor-pst-agr neg-√ -th-aor-pst-agr

117
6 Verbal morphology

For illustration, Table 6.16 provides a fuller segmentation that shows zero
markers for the positive. For contrast, we also repeat the paradigm of the past
auxiliary.

Table 6.16: Full segmentation of past perfective for A-Class [kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-l]

‘to read’ and past auxiliary

Past Pfv. with zero markers Past auxiliary

1SG kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-i-m կարդացիմ ∅-i-m իմ
2SG kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-i-ɻ կարդացիր ∅-i-ɻ իր
3SG kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-∅-∅ կարդաց e-∅-ɻ էր
1PL kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-i-ŋkʰ կարդացինք ∅-i-ŋkʰ ինք
2PL kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-i-kʰ կարդացիք ∅-i-kʰ իք
3PL kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-i-n կարդացին ∅-i-n ին
√ -th-aor-pst-agr aux-pst-agr

For the past perfective in the 3SG, both the past suffix and the agreement suffix
are covert. Elsewhere for the A-Class, the past suffix is /i/ in the past perfective,
just as in past auxiliaries. Outside of the 3SG, the agreement morphs likewise
match the morphs used in the past auxiliary: i-ŋkʰ ‘we were’. We list below some
other example A-Class words in the past perfective that we have collected (Ta-
ble 6.17).
Table 6.17: Past perfective form of some A-Class verbs

Infinitive Past perfective

IA IA SEA
ʒəpt-ɒ-l ‘to smile’ ʒəpt-ɒ-t͡sʰ-i-ɻ ʒəpt-ɑ-t͡sʰ-i-ɾ ‘You.sg smiled’
ժպտալ ժպտացիր ժպտացիր
hɒvɒt-ɒ-l ‘to believe’ hɒvɒt-ɒ-t͡sʰ-i-m hɑvɑt-ɑ-t͡sʰ-i-∅ ‘I believed’
հաւատալ հաւատացիմ հավատացի
√ -th-inf √ -th-aor-pst-agr

For the E-Class, the past perfective has a more complicated construction. In
Standard Eastern, the past perfective is formed in the same way as for the A-
Class, except for a difference in theme vowel: [jeɾkʰ-e-t͡sʰ-i-ŋkʰ] ‘we sang’. Thus

118
 6.4 Synthetic forms

the Standard Eastern E-Class uses the template /-t͡sʰ-i/. In contrast, the Iranian
Armenian form drops the theme vowel and the aorist, and uses a different past
allomorph /ɒ/: [jeɻkʰ-ɒ-ŋkʰ] ‘we sang’. For brevity, we say that the Iranian Ar-
menian E-Class uses the template /-∅-ɒ/ where -∅ is a covert perfective or aorist
marker.
The paradigm is given below for both lects (Table 6.18). The negative is formed
by just adding the negation prefix t͡ʃʰə-. In order to save space we do not show zero
morphs. In the 3SG of the E-Class, Iranian Armenian uses an overt /ɒ/ morph for
past, and /v/ for agreement. Standard Eastern uses covert nodes for both. The 1SG
uses an overt agreement morph /m/ in Iranian Armenian, but covert in Standard
Eastern.
Table 6.18: Paradigm of past perfective of E-Class ‘to sing’ in both lects

Standard Eastern Iranian Armenian

Positive Negative Positive Negative
1SG jeɾkʰ-e-t͡sʰ-i t͡ʃʰə-jeɾkʰ-e-t͡sʰ-i jeɻkʰ-ɒ-m t͡ʃʰə-jeɻkʰ-ɒ-m
‘I sang’ ‘I did not sing’ ‘I sang’ ‘I did not sing’
երգեցի չերգեցի երգամ չերգամ

2SG jeɾkʰ-e-t͡sʰ-i-ɾ t͡ʃʰə-jeɾkʰ-e-t͡sʰ-i-ɾ jeɻkʰ-ɒ-ɻ t͡ʃʰə-jeɻkʰ-ɒ-ɻ

երգեցիր չերգեցիր երգար չերգար

3SG jeɾkʰ-e-t͡sʰ t͡ʃʰə-jeɾkʰ-e-t͡sʰ jeɻkʰ-ɒ-v t͡ʃʰə-jeɻkʰ-ɒ-v

երգեց չերգեց երգաւ չերգաւ

1PL jeɾkʰ-e-t͡sʰ-i-ŋkʰ t͡ʃʰə-jeɾkʰ-e-t͡sʰ-i-ŋkʰ jeɻkʰ-ɒ-ŋkʰ t͡ʃʰə-jeɻkʰ-ɒ-ŋkʰ

երգեցիինք չերգեցինք երգանք չերգանք

2PL jeɾkʰ-e-t͡sʰ-i-kʰ t͡ʃʰə-jeɾkʰ-e-t͡sʰ-i-kʰ jeɻkʰ-ɒ-kʰ t͡ʃʰə-jeɻkʰ-ɒ-kʰ

երգեցիք չերգեցիք երգաք չերգաք

3PL jeɾkʰ-e-t͡sʰ-i-n t͡ʃʰə-jeɾkʰ-e-t͡sʰ-i-n jeɻkʰ-ɒ-n t͡ʃʰə-jeɻkʰ-ɒ-n

երգեցին չերգեցին երգան չերգան

( neg)-√ -th-aor-pst-agr ( neg)-√ -pst-agr

To showcase the widespread difference between Standard Eastern and Iranian

Armenian for the E-Class perfective, Table 6.19 lists some frequent E-Class verbs,
and an example past perfective form.

119
6 Verbal morphology

Table 6.19: Past perfective form of some E-Class verbs

Infinitive Past perfective form

Iranian Armenian Iranian Armenian Standard Eastern Armenian
χəm-e-l խմել χəm-ɒ-m խմամ χəm-e-t͡sʰ-i խմեցի ‘I drank’
t͡sɒk-e-l ծակել t͡sɒk-ɒ-ɻ ծակար t͡sɑk-e-t͡sʰ-i-ɾ ծակեցիր ‘you.sg made a hole’
t͡sɒχ-e-l ծախել t͡sɒχ-ɒ-v ծախաւ t͡sɒχ-e-t͡sʰ ծախեց ‘he sold’
voɻoʃ-e-l որոշել voɻoʃ-ɒ-v որոշաւ voɾoʃ-e-t͡sʰ որոշեց ‘he decided’
kɒnt͡ʃʰ-e-l կանչել kɒnt͡ʃʰ-ɒ-v կանչաւ kɑnt͡ʃʰ-e-t͡sʰ կանչեց ‘he called’
mekn-e-l մեկնել mekn-ɒ-v մեկնաւ mekn-e-t͡sʰ մեկնեց ‘he went away’
bərn-e-l բռնել bərn-ɒ-v բռնաւ bərn-e-t͡sʰ բռնեց ‘he caught’
kɒŋɡ(ə)n-e-l կանգնել kɒŋɡ(ə)n-ɒ-v կանգնաւ kɑŋɡn-e-t͡sʰ կանգնեց ‘he stood’
kʰɒjl-e-l քայլել kʰɒjl-ɒ-v քայլաւ kʰɑjl-e-t͡sʰ քայլեց ‘he walked’
uʁɒɻk-e-l ուղարկել uʁɒɻk-ɒ-ŋkʰ ուղարկանք uʁɑɾk-e-t͡sʰ-i-ŋkʰ ուղարկեցինք ‘we sent’
ɒpɻ-e-l ապրել ɒpɻ-ɒ-kʰ ապրաք ɑpɾ-e-t͡sʰ-i-kʰ ապրեցիք ‘you.pl lived’
ɡəɻ-e-l գրել ɡəɻ-ɒ-n գրան ɡəɾ-e-t͡sʰ-i-n գրեցին ‘they wrote’
√ -th-inf √ -pst-2sg √ -th-aor-pst-agr

In terms of morphological structure, we assume that the Iranian Armenian

past perfective of the E-Class contains a covert aorist perfective suffix to license
perfective meaning. The theme vowel is then deleted before the /ɒ/ vowel as a
morpheme-specific rule of vowel-hiatus repair (Rule 12).
We show below the underlying and surface structure of the past perfective 1PL
for both the A-Class and E-Class in Iranian Armenian (Table 6.20). The aorist
suffix marks perfective aspect asp.

Rule 12: Delete theme vowels before the past suffix /ɒ/

/e/ → ∅ / _ ɒ
(where /e/ is a theme vowel, and /ɒ/ is a past marker)

Before we provide complete rules for these morphemes in Iranian Armenian,

readers might wonder about the origin of this /ɒ/ morph. In Standard Eastern,
the cognate of this morph is the past morph /ɑ/. This /ɑ/ is restricted to certain
irregular classes and in some regular complex verbs such as inchoatives. In fact,
the /ɑ/ morph is treated as the restricted or marked past allomorph in Standard
Eastern and in Western Armenian (Dolatian & Guekguezian 2022b, Karakaş et al.
2021), while /i/ is the elsewhere morph. In contrast, in Iranian Armenian, the /ɒ/
morph has developed a larger distribution, while /i/ shrank in its distribution.

120
 6.4 Synthetic forms

Table 6.20: Underlying and surface structure of past perfective 1PL in

Iranian Armenian

A-Class E-Class
Underlying and surface Underlying Surface
‘we read’ ‘we sang’
/kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-i-ŋkʰ/ /jeɻkʰ-e-∅-ɒ-ŋkʰ/ → [jeɻkʰ-∅-∅-ɒ-ŋkʰ]
agr agr agr

t t t

asp asp asp

th th th

√ th aor t agr √ th aor t agr √ th aor t agr

kɒɻtʰ -ɒ -t͡sʰ -i -ŋkʰ jeɻkʰ -e -∅ -ɒ -ŋkʰ jeɻkʰ -∅ -∅ -ɒ -ŋkʰ

Similarly for the aorist/perfective suffix, the morph /t͡sʰ/ is the elsewhere morph
in Standard Eastern, while a covert -∅ is restricted to some irregular verbs.
Table 6.21 illustrates the distribution of these four morphs. For Standard East-
ern, the perfective-past sequence of morphs is /-t͡sʰ-i/ for E-Class and A-Class
verbs, while this sequence is /-∅-ɑ/ for suppletive verbs like ut-e-l ‘to eat’. In
contrast, for Iranian Armenian, the /∅-ɒ/ sequence is now generalized to the per-
fective of E-Class, while /-t͡sʰ-i/ shrank in its distribution. We show the deleted
theme vowels and covert aspect.
It is a separate diachronic question to determine what caused these changes.
One possible source is that the /ɑ/ morph is used in high-frequency irregular
and suppletive verbs in Standard Eastern Armenian. Iranian Armenian speakers
thus generalized the distribution of /ɑ, ɒ/ from high-frequency verbs to regular
verbs, as illustrated above. Such a diachronic change is attested across differ-
ent Armenian lects of Iran (Աճառյան 1961: 201, Martirosyan 2018) and Colloquial
Eastern Armenian in Yerevan (Dum-Tragut 2009: 230 citing Ղարագյուլյան 1981:
98, Ավետյան 2020). Tehrani Iranian Armenian is special in how wide-scale this
change is.7
7
Some dialectological sources are more vague because they conflate the use of a zero perfective
-∅ with a past /-ɑ, -ɒ/ (Ջահուկյան 1972: p. 102, feature 95).

121
6 Verbal morphology

Table 6.21: Past perfective 1PL for E-Class, A-Class, and suppletive
verbs

A-Class E-Class Suppletive

‘we read’ ‘we sang’ ‘we ate’
SEA kɑɾtʰ-ɑ-t͡sʰ-i-ŋkʰ jeɾkʰ-e-t͡sʰ-i-ŋkʰ keɾ-∅-∅-ɑ-ŋkʰ
√ -th-aor-pst-1pl √ -th-aor-pst-1pl √ -th-aor-pst-1pl
կարդացինք երգեցինք կերանք

IA kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-i-ŋkʰ jeɻkʰ-∅-∅-ɒ-ŋkʰ keɻ-∅-∅-ɒ-ŋkʰ

√ -th-aor-pst-1pl √ -th-aor-pst-1pl √ -th-aor-pst-1pl
կարդացինք երգանք կերանք

We leave a full-scale diachronic investigation to future work. For now, we

focus on a synchronic analysis of Iranian Armenian.8 The generalization is that
in Standard Eastern, the default template for the past perfective is /-t͡sʰ-i/, while
it is /-∅-ɒ/ in Iranian Armenian. In auxiliaries and in the subjunctive past (§6.4.2),
the past is uniformly just /-i/ for all classes (Table 6.22); it is zero for the 3SG.
Table 6.22: Infinitive and subjunctive past forms

A-Class E-Class Suppletive

‘to read’ ‘to sing’ ‘to eat’
Inf. SEA kɑɾtʰ-ɑ-l jeɾkʰ-e-l ut-e-l √ -th-inf
IA kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-l jeɻkʰ-e-l ut-e-l √ -th-inf
կարդալ երգել ուտել

Sbjv. Past 3PL SEA kɑɾtʰ-ɑj-i-n jeɾkʰ-ej-i-n ut-ej-i-n √ -th-pst-3pl

IA kɒɻtʰ-ɒj-i-n jeɻkʰ-∅-i-n ut-∅-i-n √ -th-pst-3pl
կարդային երգեին, երգին ուտեին, ուտին

Sbjv. Past 3SG SEA kɑɾtʰ-ɑ-∅-ɾ jeɾkʰ-e-∅-ɾ ut-e-∅-ɾ √ -th-pst-3sg

IA kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-∅-ɻ jeɻkʰ-e-∅-ɻ ut-e-∅-ɻ √ -th-pst-3sg
կարդար երգեր, երգէր ուտեր, ուտէր

8
For the perfective of the A-Class, one could argue that the reason why the aorist -t͡sʰ- and past
suffix /i/ are used is to maintain a contrast between a past perfective 1PL form like [kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-
i-ŋkʰ] ‘we read.pst’ (where /ɒ/ is the past morph) vs. a subjunctive present form kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-ŋkʰ
and subjunctive past [kɒɻtʰ-ɒj-i-ŋkʰ] ‘if we read.pst’ (where /ɒ/ is the theme vowel). See §6.4.2
for a fuller discussion of subjunctives.

122
 6.4 Synthetic forms

These generalizations are formalized below, based on the A-Class, suppletive

‘to eat’, and E-Class. For illustration, we use rules that realize templates of mor-
phemes like aor-pst because the exponents for the two morpheme slots are
highly correlated.
For the past perfective, this paradigm cell uses the morpheme template aor-
pst (Rule 13). In Standard Eastern Armenian, this template is realized as /-∅-ɑ/
for a handful of irregular verbs like ‘to eat’, while it is /-t͡sʰ-i/ elsewhere for the
E-Class and A-Class. In contrast, in Iranian Armenian, the template /-t͡sʰ-i/ is for
the A-Class, and /-∅-ɒ/ is elsewhere.

Rule 13: Rules for exponing the template /AOR-PST/ in the past perfective for
the E-Class, A-Class, and suppletive ‘to eat’

• Standard Eastern: aor-pst → -∅-ɑ / √eat th _

-t͡sʰ-i / elsewhere

• Iranian Armenian: aor-pst → -t͡sʰ-i / √A-Class th _

-∅-ɒ / elsewhere

Table 6.23 illustrates the application of the above rules.

Table 6.23: Deriving or exponing the template aor-pst in the past per-
fective

E-Class A-Class Suppletive

‘they sang’ ‘they read’ ‘they ate’
Input √sing-th-aor-pst-3pl √read-th-aor-pst-3pl √eat-th-aor-pst-3pl
SEA jeɾkʰ-e-t͡sʰ-i-n kɑɾtʰ-ɑ-t͡sʰ-i-n ∅-ɑ-n
keɾ-∅-∅
IA jeɻkʰ-∅-∅∅-ɒ-n kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-i-n ∅-ɒ-n
keɻ-∅-∅

In the past auxiliary and subjunctive past, there is no perfective or aorist mor-
pheme aor. Instead, the template is just pst. This morpheme is realized in the
same way in both dialects as just /i/ for all but the 3SG. We illustrate a rule below
(Rule 14). It is /-∅/ for the 3SG, and /-i/ elsewhere.
Table 6.24 illustrates the application of the above rules.

123
6 Verbal morphology

Rule 14: Rules for exponing the template /PST/ in the past auxiliary and sub-
junctive past

Standard Eastern Iranian Armenian

pst → -∅ / _ 3SG pst → -∅ / _ 3SG
-i / elsewhere -i / elsewhere

Table 6.24: Deriving or exponing the template aor-pst in the past aux-
iliary or subjunctive past

A-Class A-Class
‘if he were reading’ ‘if they were reading’
Input √read-th-pst-3sg √read-th-pst-3pl
SEA ∅-ɾ
kɑɾtʰ-ɑ-∅ kɑɾtʰ-ɑj-i-n
IA ∅-ɻ
kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-∅ kɒɻtʰ-ɒj-i-n

If we try to decompose the template aor-pst into two separate realizations,

so that we can unite the rules for the perfective and non-perfective (sbjv. past),
then it is difficult to write a coherent set of rules to expone the past morpheme
(Rule 15). For Standard Eastern Armenian, the past morpheme is /-ɑ/ for irregu-
lar perfectives, /-∅/ for 3SG, and /-i/ elsewhere (regular perfectives and non-3SG
non-perfectives). For Iranian Armenian, the past morpheme is /-∅/ for A-Class
3SG perfectives, /-∅/ for 3SG non-perfectives, /-i/ for A-Class non-3SG perfec-
tives, /-ɒ/ for other perfectives (for other classes), and then /-i/ again for non-3SG
non-perfectives. We use the notation ¬aor to denote non-perfective contexts (cf.
Siddiqi 2009: 49).
Table 6.25 illustrates the application of the above rules for Iranian Armenian.
The rules are quite convoluted. But the core generalization is that in the past
perfective, the default template is /-t͡sʰ-i/, while /-∅-ɑ/ is the restricted or marked
template. Iranian Armenian instead does the reverse, with /-∅-ɒ/ as default while
/-t͡sʰ-i/ is restricted or marked. When there is no aorist morpheme, the past mor-
pheme reverts back to /-i/ as the elsewhere form. We next discuss subjunctives,
where we again find the past marker /-i/.

124
 6.4 Synthetic forms

Rule 15: Rules for exponing the morpheme PST in the past auxiliary, subjunc-
tive past, and past perfective for E/A-Class and ‘to eat’

Standard Eastern Iranian Armenian

pst → -ɑ / √eat aor _ pst → -∅ / √A-Class th aor _ 3SG
-∅ / _ 3SG -∅ / ¬aor _ 3SG
-i / elsewhere -i / √A-Class th aor _
-ɒ / aor _
-i / ¬aor _

Table 6.25: Deriving or exponing the past morpheme in Iranian Arme-

nian

A-Class ‘to read’ perfective 3SG √read-th-aor-pst-3sg ∅-∅

kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-∅
E-Class ‘to sing’ sbjv. past 3SG √sing-th-pst-3sg ∅-ɻ
jeɻkʰ-e-∅
A-Class ‘to read’ perfective 3PL √read-th-aor-pst-3pl kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-i-n
E-Class ‘to sing’ perfective 3PL √sing-th-aor-pst-3sg jeɻkʰ-∅-∅-ɒ-n
E-Class ‘to sing’ sbjv. past 3PL √sing-th-pst-3pl jeɻkʰ-∅-i-n

6.4.2 Subjunctive
The subjunctive is a synthetic construction. It includes present and past subjunc-
tives. In brief, these synthetic subjunctive forms differ from the periphrastic in-
dicative forms by placing T/Agr suffixes on the verb itself instead of on the aux-
iliary. We illustrate below for the A-Class verb [kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-l] ‘to read’ in Iranian
Armenian (Table 6.26).
Diachronically, the modern subjunctive construction is a reflex of the Classical
indicative (Vaux 1995). Subjunctive forms can also combine with other particles
to create more nuanced meanings. For example, subjunctives can combine with
the debitive proclitic [piti] to create the debitive mood (§5.5).
We discuss the two types of subjunctives below.

125
6 Verbal morphology

Table 6.26: Synthetic subjunctives vs. periphrastic indicatives for the

1PL in Iranian Armenian

Present 1PL Past PL

Indicative kɒɻtʰ-um e-ŋkʰ kɒɻtʰ-um ∅-i-ŋkʰ
√ -impf.cvb aux-1pl √ -impf.cvb aux-pst-1pl
‘we read’ ‘we were reading’
կարդում ենք կարդում ինք

Subjunctive kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-ŋkʰ kɒɻtʰ-ɒj-i-ŋkʰ

√ -th-1pl √ -th-pst-1pl
‘(if) we read’ ‘(if) we were reading’
կարդանք կարդայինք

6.4.2.1 Subjunctive with present-tense agreement

We first discuss the present subjunctive. When the finite verb uses present-tense
agreement morphemes, the construction has been called “subjunctive present”
(Minassian 1980: 190, Hagopian 2005: 160), “subjunctive future” (Bardakjian &
Vaux 1999: 174, Sakayan 2007: 150, Dum-Tragut 2009: 239), “present optative”
(Fairbanks & Stevick 1975: 149). We label this construction as just the “subjunc-
tive present”, in order to emphasize the connection between the indicative and
subjunctive forms.
Paradigms for the E-Class are in Table 6.27 and for the A-Class in Table 6.28.
Negation is marked by adding the prefix /t͡ʃʰ-/, which triggers schwa epenthesis
before a consonant. We juxtapose these subjunctive forms with their indicative
periphrastic forms. For illustration, we also provide the Standard Eastern sub-
junctive present which does not morphologically differ from Iranian Armenian.
As before, we treat the present tense suffix as fused with the agreement suffix.
For all but the 3SG, the distribution of the Agr suffixes follows straightfor-
wardly. The same Agr suffixes as used in the present auxiliary are placed onto
the subjunctive verb. In the A-Class, we see that the 3SG morph is covert in the
present subjunctive: [kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-∅] √read-th-3sg ‘he reads’. Similarly, the present
3SG auxiliary is just /ɒ-∅/. But for the E-Class, the /e/ theme vowel is replaced
by /i/: [jeɻkʰ-i-∅] ‘he sings’ instead of *jeɻkʰ-e-∅.
In terms of explanation, this apparent allomorphy has multiple options
(Rule 16).

126
 6.4 Synthetic forms

Table 6.27: Paradigm of subjunctive present in simple E-Class verbs in

Standard Eastern and Iranian Armenian

Iranian Armenian Standard Eastern

Sbjv. present Indc. present Sbjv. present
Positive Negaive Positive Positive
1SG jeɻkʰ-e-m t͡ʃʰə-jeɻkʰ-e-m jeɻkʰ-um e-m jeɾkʰ-e-m
‘(if) I sing’ ‘(if) I did not sing’ ‘I sing’ ‘(if) I sing’
երգեմ չերգեմ երգում եմ երգեմ

2SG jeɻkʰ-e-s t͡ʃʰə-jeɻkʰ-e-s jeɻkʰ-um e-s jeɾkʰ-e-s

երգես չերգես երգում ես երգես

3SG jeɻkʰ-i t͡ʃʰə-jeɻkʰ-i jeɻkʰ-um ɒ jeɾkʰ-i

երգի չերգի երգում ա երգի

1PL jeɻkʰ-e-ŋkʰ t͡ʃʰə-jeɻkʰ-e-ŋkʰ jeɻkʰ-um e-ŋkʰ jeɾkʰ-e-ŋkʰ

երգենք չերգենք երգում ենք երգենք

2PL jeɻkʰ-e-kʰ t͡ʃʰə-jeɻkʰ-e-kʰ jeɻkʰ-um e-kʰ jeɾkʰ-e-kʰ

երգէք չերգէք երգում էք երգեք

3PL jeɻkʰ-e-n t͡ʃʰə-jeɻkʰ-e-n jeɻkʰ-um e-n jeɾkʰ-e-n

երգեն չերգեն երգում են երգեն

( neg)-√ -th-agr √ -impf.cvb aux-agr √ -th-agr

Rule 16: Hypothetical rules to explain the subjunctive present 3SG

1. /i/ is the marker of the theme vowel /e/ but it has changed to [i] in
the 3SG.
/jeɻkʰ-e-∅/ → [jeɻkʰ-i-∅]

2. /i/ is the allomorph of the E-Class theme vowel in the present 3SG.
/jeɻkʰ-i-∅/

3. /i/ is the marker of the E-Class 3SG Agr suffix, and the theme /e/ is
deleted before /i/.
/jeɻkʰ-e-i/ → [jeɻkʰ-∅-i]

127
6 Verbal morphology

4. /i/ is the fused marker of the theme vowel /e/ and 3SG.
/jeɻkʰ-i/ with glossing √ -th.3sg

5. /i/ is the result of autosegmental docking of the theme vowel /e/ and
the E-Class 3SG floating feature [+high]
/jeɻkʰ-e-[+ high]/ → [jeɻkʰ-i]
Glossing as [jeɻkʰ-i-∅]

Table 6.28: Paradigm of subjunctive present in simple A-Class verbs in

Standard Eastern and Iranian Armenian

Iranian Armenian Standard Eastern

Sbjv. present Indc. present Sbjv. present
Positive Negaive Positive Positive
1SG kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-m t͡ʃʰə-kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-m kɒɻtʰ-um e-m kɑɾtʰ-ɑ-m
‘(if) I read’ ‘(if) I did not read’ ‘I read’ ‘(If) I read’
կարդամ չկարդամ կարդում եմ կարդամ

2SG kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-s t͡ʃʰə-kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-s kɒɻtʰ-um e-s kɑɾtʰ-ɑ-s

կարդաս չկարդաս կարդում ես կարդաս

3SG kɒɻtʰ-ɒ t͡ʃʰə-kɒɻtʰ-ɒ kɒɻtʰ-um ɒ kɑɾtʰ-ɑ

կարդայ չկարդայ կարդում ա կարդա

1PL kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-ŋkʰ t͡ʃʰə-kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-ŋkʰ kɒɻtʰ-um e-ŋkʰ kɑɾtʰ-ɑ-ŋkʰ

կարդանք չկարդանք կարդում ենք կարդանք

2PL kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-kʰ t͡ʃʰə-kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-kʰ kɒɻtʰ-um e-kʰ kɑɾtʰ-ɑ-kʰ

կարդաք չկարդաք կարդում էք կարդաք

3PL kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-n t͡ʃʰə-kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-n kɒɻtʰ-um e-n kɑɾtʰ-ɑ-n

կարդան չկարդան կարդում են կարդան

( neg)-√ -th-agr √ -impf.cvb aux-agr √ -th-agr

Any of the above options must restrict the relevant change to the E-Class,
while the A-Class and auxiliary would use a zero morph for the 3SG. We are
partial to a floating feature analysis (cf. Akinlabi 2011) and we use that for il-
lustration. We likewise suspect that such allomorphy is not triggered by classes

128
 6.4 Synthetic forms

themselves, but by the identity of the actual theme vowel. That is, the present
3SG is [+high] after the /e/ theme vowel, but a zero -∅ elsewhere (Rule 17).

Rule 17: Rule for the present 3SG agreement suffix

prs.3sg ↔ [+high] / eTh _

-∅ / elsewhere

One reason why we are partial to this floating feature analysis over alterna-
tives involving allomorphs is that in Standard Western Armenian, the present
3SG suffix is uniformly a zero for both the E-Class and the A-Class, e.g., the
subjunctive forms [jeɾkʰ-e-∅] ‘(if) he sings’ and [ɡɑɾtʰ-ɑ-∅] ‘(if) he reads’ [√ -
th-prs/1sg]. Thus, it is likely that Standard Eastern and Iranian Armenian are
innovative in causing this /e/→[i] change in the present 3SG.

6.4.2.2 Subjunctive with past-tense agreement

Moving on to the past tense, the subjunctive forms again involve placing the
T/Agr suffixes directly onto the verb instead of the auxiliary.
When the verb has the tense-agreement morphemes of the past, then the con-
struction has been called the “subjunctive past” in grammars of Standard Eastern
Armenian that are written in English (Bardakjian & Vaux 1999: 174, Hagopian
2005: 160, Sakayan 2007: 150, Dum-Tragut 2009: 249). One French grammar uses
the “subjunctive imperfect” (Minassian 1980: 191). However, for grammars of
Standard Western Armenian, the cognate construction is called either the “sub-
junctive past” (Sakayan 2000: 113, Hagopian 2005: 143), “subjunctive imperfect”
(Riggs 1856: 35, Gulian 1902: 50, Feydit 1948: 107, Kogian 1949: 89, Bardakjian &
Thomson 1977: 154, Andonian 1999: 47, Bardakjian & Vaux 2001: 181), “past opta-
tive” (Fairbanks 1948: 78, 1958), “hypothetical imperfect” (Boyacioglu 2010). The
large set of names for the past-based subjunctive is due to the fact that the Arme-
nian name for it is variably the subjunctive imperfect or subjunctive past.9 We
call this construction the “subjunctive past”.
We provide paradigms below for E-Class jeɻkʰ-e-l (Table 6.29) and A-Class
kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-l (Table 6.30). The abstract morphological structure of subjunctive past
verbs is the same in Standard Eastern and Iranian Armenian. We show deleted
and zero morphs. Negation is again formed by adding [t͡ʃʰ(ə)-].
9
The SEA name for the word “subjunctive” is variably [əʁd͡zɑkɑn] ըղձական or [stoɾɑdɑsɑkɑn]
ստորադասական.

129
6 Verbal morphology

Table 6.29: Paradigm of subjunctive past in simple E-Class verbs in

Standard Eastern and Iranian Armenian

Iranian Armenian Standard Eastern

Sbjv. past Indc. past impf. Sbjv. past
Positive Negaive Positive Positive
1SG jeɻkʰ-∅-i-m t͡ʃʰə-jeɻkʰ-∅-i-m jeɻkʰ-um ∅-i-m jeɾkʰ-ej-i-∅
‘(if) I were ‘(if) I were not ‘I was singing’ ‘(if) I were
singing’ singing’ singing’
երգիմ չերգիմ երգում իմ երգեի

2SG jeɻkʰ-∅-i-ɻ t͡ʃʰə-jeɻkʰ-∅-i-ɻ jeɻkʰ-um ∅-i-ɻ jeɾkʰ-ej-i-ɾ

երգիր չերգիր երգում իր երգեիր

3SG jeɻkʰ-e-∅-ɻ t͡ʃʰə-jeɻkʰ-e-∅-ɻ jeɻkʰ-um e-∅-ɻ jeɾkʰ-e-∅-ɾ

երգէր չերգէր երգում էր երգեր

1PL jeɻkʰ-∅-i-ŋkʰ t͡ʃʰə-jeɻkʰ-∅-i-ŋkʰ jeɻkʰ-um ∅-i-ŋkʰ jeɾkʰ-ej-i-ŋkʰ

երգինք չերգինք երգում ինք երգենք

2PL jeɻkʰ-∅-i-kʰ t͡ʃʰə-jeɻkʰ-∅-i-kʰ jeɻkʰ-um ∅-i-kʰ jeɾkʰ-ej-i-kʰ

երգիք չերգիք երգում իք երգեիք

3PL jeɻkʰ-∅-i-n t͡ʃʰə-jeɻkʰ-∅-i-n jeɻkʰ-um ∅-i-n jeɾkʰ-ej-i-n

երգին չերգին երգում ին երգեին

√ -th-pst-agr neg-√ -th-pst-agr √ -impf.cvb aux-pst-agr √ -th-pst-agr

The markers of tense and agreement in the subjunctive past all follow from
the same rules used for auxiliaries.
Morphophonologically, vowel hiatus between the theme vowel and past /i/
causes deletion of the /e/ theme vowel in Iranian Armenian, while [j] is epenthe-
sized after the /ɒ/ theme vowel. In Standard Eastern, the /e/ theme vowel is not
deleted; instead [j] is epenthesized to resolve vowel hiatus. We illustrate this be-
low for the 1PL (see the derivation in Table 6.31).
Glide epenthesis is a general rule of hiatus repair in Armenian, while deletion
requires morpheme-specific deletion rules (Rule 18).

Rule 18: Delete the /e/ theme vowel before past /i/

/e/ → ∅ / _ i
(where /e/ is a theme vowel, /i/ is past)

130
 6.4 Synthetic forms

Table 6.30: Paradigm of subjunctive past in simple A-Class verbs in

Standard Eastern and Iranian Armenian

Iranian Armenian Standard Eastern

Sbjv. past Indc. past impf. Sbjv. past
Positive Negaive Positive Positive
1SG kɒɻtʰ-ɒj-i-m t͡ʃʰə-kɒɻtʰ-ɒj-i-m kɒɻtʰ-um ∅-i-m kɑɾtʰ-ɑj-i-∅
‘(if) I were ‘(if) I were not ‘I was reading’ ‘(if) I were
reading’ reading’ reading’
կարդայիմ չկարդայիմ կարդում իմ կարդայի

2SG kɒɻtʰ-ɒj-i-ɻ t͡ʃʰə-kɒɻtʰ-ɒj-i-ɻ kɒɻtʰ-um ∅-i-ɻ kɑɾtʰ-ɑj-i-ɾ

կարդայիր չկարդայիր կարդում իր կարդայիր

3SG kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-∅-ɻ t͡ʃʰə-kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-∅-ɻ kɒɻtʰ-um e-∅-ɻ kɑɾtʰ-ɑ-∅-ɾ

կարդար չկարդար կարդում էր կարդար

1PL kɒɻtʰ-ɒj-i-ŋkʰ t͡ʃʰə-kɒɻtʰ-ɒj-i-ŋkʰ kɒɻtʰ-um ∅-i-ŋkʰ kɑɾtʰ-ɑj-i-ŋkʰ

կարդայինք չկարդայինք կարդում ինք կարդայինք

2PL kɒɻtʰ-ɒj-i-kʰ t͡ʃʰə-kɒɻtʰ-ɒj-i-kʰ kɒɻtʰ-um ∅-i-kʰ kɑɾtʰ-ɑj-i-kʰ

կարդայիք չկարդայիք կարդում իք կարդայիք

3PL kɒɻtʰ-ɒj-i-n t͡ʃʰə-kɒɻtʰ-ɒj-i-n kɒɻtʰ-um ∅-i-n kɑɾtʰ-ɑj-i-n

կարդային չկարդային կարդում ին կարդային

√ -th-pst-agr neg-√ -th-pst-agr √ -impf.cvb aux-pst-agr √ -th-pst-agr

Table 6.31: Vowel hiatus repair in subjunctive past

A-Class 1PL E-Class 1PL

‘(if) we were reading’ ‘(if) we were singing’
SEA IA SEA IA
Input /kɑɾtʰ-ɑ-i-ŋkʰ/ /kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-i-ŋkʰ/ /jeɾkʰ-e-i-ŋkʰ/ /jeɻkʰ-e-i-ŋkʰ/
Epenthesis kɑɾtʰ-ɑj-i-ŋkʰ kɒɻtʰ-ɒj-i-ŋkʰ jeɾkʰ-ej-i-ŋkʰ
Deletion jeɻkʰ-∅-i-ŋkʰ
կարդայինք կարդայինք երգեինք երգինք

131
6 Verbal morphology

There is evidence that the Armenian dialects of Iran vary in the application of
theme vowel deletion before the past marker /i/. In Standard Eastern Armenian,
neither the theme vowel /ɑ/ nor the theme vowel /e/ is deleted before past /-i/.
In Tehrani Iranian Armenian, only /e/ is deleted. But in New Julfa Armenian
(Isfahan), both theme vowels are deleted (Աճառյան 1940, Vaux in preparation:
§275).
As with the past auxiliary (§6.2.2), the deletion of the theme vowel /e/ before
past /i/ is not rare among Armenian dialects. Old Yerevan Armenian likewise
had such a rule in the subjunctive past (Աճառեան 1911: 42; translated: Dolatian
submitted).

6.4.2.3 Eliciting the subjunctive

Before closing this section, we document how we elicited such subjunctives.
These subjunctive forms can be elicited in diverse contexts with various mean-
ings (Dum-Tragut 2009: 239ff). In our fieldwork, we used the following sentence
where the verb ‘to want’ selects for a subjunctive clause (7). Note that this sen-
tence is not a control or ECM (exceptional case-marking) construction. The em-
bedded clause can have a different subject than the main clause. The embedded
subject can be made overt as a pronoun. The complementizer voɻ can be option-
ally added.

(7) a. uz-um e-m (voɻ) (iɻɒŋkʰ) jeɻkʰ-e-n

want-impf.cvb aux-1sg (that) (they.nom) sing-th-3pl
‘I want them to sing.’ (NK)
Ուզում եմ որ իրանք երգեն։
b. uz-um ∅-i-m (voɻ) (iɻɒŋkʰ) jeɻkʰ-∅-i-n
want-impf.cvb aux-pst-1sg (that) (they.nom) sing-th-pst-3pl
‘I wanted them to sing.’ (NK)
Ուզում իմ որ իրանք երգին։

6.4.3 Imperatives and prohibitives

Imperatives and prohibitives are formed almost identically between Standard
Eastern and Iranian Armenian. They are restricted to the second person. The
markers of imperative and prohibitive morphology depend on verb class. We
show the imperative paradigms in Table 6.32. We use zero morphs to represent
deleted theme vowels and covert 2SG suffixes.
The imperative is called [həɾɑmɑjɑkɑn jeʁɑnɑk] հրամայական եղանակ in Stan-
dard Eastern Armenian. In the imperative 2SG, the A-Class is inflected by adding

132
 6.4 Synthetic forms

Table 6.32: Paradigm of imperatives in Standard Eastern and Iranian

Armenian

E-Class ‘to sing’ A-Class ‘to read’

SEA IA SEA IA
Infinitive jeɾkʰ-e-l jeɻkʰ-e-l kɑrtʰ-ɑ-l kɒrtʰ-ɒ-l
√ -th-inf √ -th-inf
երգել երգել կարդալ կարդալ

Imperative 2SG jeɾkʰ-∅-iɾ jeɻkʰ-∅-i kɑɾtʰ-ɑ-∅ kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-∅

Colloquial jeɾkʰ-∅-i
√ -th-imp.2sg √ -th-imp.2sg
երգիր երգի կարդա կարդա

Imperative 2PL jeɾkʰ-∅-ekʰ jeɻkʰ-∅-ekʰ kɑɾtʰ-ɑ-t͡sʰ-ekʰ kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-ekʰ

√ -th-imp.2pl √ -th-aor-imp.2pl
երգեք երգէք կարդացեք կարդացէք

nothing to the theme vowel in both lects. The imperative 2SG suffix is thus covert
for the A-Class: kɒɻtʰ-ɒ ‘read!’.
But for the E-Class, there is significant cross-dialectal variation. In Standard
Eastern Armenian, the theme vowel is deleted, and followed by the overt imper-
ative 2SG suffix -iɾ: jeɾkʰ-iɾ ‘sing!’. In Colloquial Eastern Armenian, the suffix
can be optionally reduced to -i: jeɾkʰ-i (Dum-Tragut 2009: 273, Քամալյան 2015:
164, Գրիգորյան 2019). Iranian Armenian uses only -i: jeɻkʰ-i ‘sing!’. In contrast,
in Standard Western Armenian, both the E-Class and A-Class use a covert suffix
without a vowel change: jeɾkʰ-e ‘sing!’ երգէ, ɡɑɾtʰ-ɑ ‘read!’ կարդա.
For the imperative 2PL, the two lects align. The E-Class is inflected by adding
the imperative 2PL suffix -ekʰ to the root, deleting the theme vowel: jeɻkʰ-ekʰ
‘sing.pl’. In the A-Class, the aorist suffix -t͡sʰ- is added between the theme vowel
and the -ekʰ: : kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-ekʰ ‘read.pl’. The use of the aorist here is morphomic
and meaningless, and is traditionally analyzed as part of an “aorist stem”.10 For
the E-Class, more prescriptive uses of Standard Eastern Armenian utilize the

10
One could argue that the reason why the A-Class imperative 2PL uses the morphomic aorist
in [kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-ekʰ] ‘read.pl’ is to prevent ambiguity with the present subjunctive 2PL [kɒɻtʰ-
ɒ-kʰ] ‘if you.pl read’. Analyzing the use of morphomic aorist as due to contrast-preservation
is attractive. However, it would not extend to other paradigm cells for the A-Class like the
subject participle, which also uses the morphomic aorist [kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-oʁ ] ‘reader’ without any
contrasting form [*kɒɻtʰ-oʁ].

133
6 Verbal morphology

aorist stem for the E-Class imperative 2PL as well (Dum-Tragut 2009: 272). But
it has become increasingly common to abandon the aorist stem for the E-Class
imperative 2PL in Standard Eastern Armenian.
The prohibitive is formed by simply adding the proclitic mi before the imper-
ative form: mi kɒɻtʰ-ɒ ‘don’t read!’ (Table 6.33).
Table 6.33: Paradigm of prohibitives in Standard Eastern and Iranian
Armenian

E-Class A-Class
SEA IA SEA IA
Infinitive jeɾkʰ-e-l jeɻkʰ-e-l kɑrtʰ-ɑ-l kɒrtʰ-ɒ-l
√ -th-inf √ -th-inf
‘to sing’ ‘to sing’ ‘to read’ ‘to read’
երգել երգել կարդալ կարդալ

Prohibitive 2SG mi jeɾkʰ-∅-iɾ mi jeɻkʰ-∅-i mi kɑɾtʰ-ɑ-∅ mi kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-∅

Colloquial mi jeɾkʰ-∅-i
proh √ -th-imp.2sg proh √ -th-imp.2sg
մի երգիր մի երգի մի կարդա մի կարդա

Prohibitive 2PL mi jeɾkʰ-∅-ekʰ mi jeɻkʰ-∅-ekʰ mi kɑɾtʰ-ɑ-t͡sʰ-ekʰ mi kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-ekʰ

proh √ -th-imp.2pl proh √ -th-aor-imp.2pl
մի երգեք մի երգէք մի կարդացեք մի կարդացէք

For illustration, the verbs below show the imperative and prohibitive form
of various verbs that we had elicited over the years (Table 6.34). We omit zero
morphs for space.
One thing to note though is that our Iranian Armenian speakers frequently
prefer to use the negative subjunctive present 2PL in lieu of the prohibitive 2PL
(Table 6.35). We suspect this is an influence from Persian. AS reports that Persian
often utilizes the subjunctive 2PL in lieu of the negative imperative 2PL. Note
how for the E-Class, the surface sequence -ekʰ has different morphological parses
in the subjunctive vs. the prohibitive.

6.4.4 Participles
Alongside converbs, Iranian Armenian utilizes a set of participles derived from
verbs. These participles cannot be used in periphrastic constructions. They are
restricted to use as adjectives or nouns. Participle formation in Iranian Armenian
is identical to that in Standard Eastern.

134
 6.4 Synthetic forms

Table 6.34: Elicited imperatives and prohibitives

Infinitive Finite form Quality

nəst-e-l ‘to sit’ նստել nəst-i Imp 2SG նստի
kʰən-e-l ‘to sleep’ քնել kʰən-i Imp 2SG քնի
ɡəɻ-e-l ‘to write’ գրել ɡəɻ-i Imp 2SG գրի
mi ɡəɻ-i Proh 2SG մի գրի
mi ɡəɻ-ekʰ Proh 2PL մի գրէք
bərn-e-l ‘to hold/catch’ բռնել mi bərn-i Proh 2SG մի բռնի
mi bərn-ekʰ Proh 2PL մի բռնէք
t͡səχ-e-l ‘to smoke’ ծխել mi t͡səχ-i Proh 2SG մի ծխի
mi t͡səχ-ekʰ Proh 2PL մի ծխէք
χɒʁ-ɒ-l ‘to play’ խաղալ mi χɒʁ-ɒ Proh 2SG մի խաղա
mi χɒʁ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-ekʰ Proh 2PL մի խաղացէք
mən-ɒ-l ‘to remain’ մնալ mi mən-ɒ Proh 2SG մի մնա
mi mən-ɒ-t͡sʰ-ekʰ Proh 2PL մի մնացէք
ʒəpt-ɒ-l ‘to smile’ ժպտալ mi ʒəpt-ɒ Proh 2SG մի ժպտա
mi ʒəpt-ɒ-t͡sʰ-ekʰ Proh 2PL մի ժպտացէք

Table 6.35: Negative subjunctive vs. prohibitive 2PL in Iranian Arme-

nian

Prohibitive 2PL Negative sbjv. 2PL

E-Class ‘to sing’ mi jeɻkʰ-∅-ekʰ t͡ʃə-jeɻkʰ-e-kʰ
proh √ -th-imp.2pl neg-√ -th-2pl
մի երգէք չերգէք

A-Class ‘to read’ mi kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-ekʰ t͡ʃə-kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-kʰ

proh √ -th-aor-imp.2pl neg-√ -th-2pl
մի կարդացէք չկարդաք

135
6 Verbal morphology

There are two types of participles: the subject participle and the resultative
participle (Table 6.36). The subject participle uses the suffix [-oʁ]. The resulta-
tive participle uses the suffix [-ɒt͡sʰ] in Iranian Armenian, [-ɑt͡s] in Standard East-
ern.11 For the E-Class, these suffixes are added directly after the root, deleting the
theme vowel. We use zero morphs to show the deleted theme vowel. For A-Class
verbs, these suffixes trigger a morphomic aorist suffix -t͡sʰ- between the theme
and suffix, i.e., an aorist stem.
Table 6.36: Paradigm of subject and resultative participles

E-Class A-Class
SEA IA SEA IA
Infinitive jeɾkʰ-e-l jeɻkʰ-e-l kɑɾtʰ-ɑ-l kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-l
‘to sing’ ‘to read’
√ -th-inf √ -th-inf
երգել կարդալ

Subject participle jeɾkʰ-∅-oʁ jeɻkʰ-∅-oʁ kɑɾtʰ-ɑ-t͡sʰ-oʁ kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-oʁ

√ -th-sptcp √ -th-aor-sptcp
երգող կարդացող

Resultative participle jeɾkʰ-∅-ɑt͡s jeɻkʰ-∅-ɒt͡sʰ kɑɾtʰ-ɑ-t͡sʰ-ɑt͡s kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-ɒt͡sʰ

√ -th-rptcp √ -th-aor-rptcp
երգած կարդացած

In Standard Eastern Armenian, the resultative participle is called [hɑɾɑkɑtɑɾ

deɾbɑj] հարակատար դերբայ, and the subject participle is called [jentʰɑkɑjɑkɑn
deɾbɑj] ենթակայական դերբայ.
The following are examples with these participles in Iranian Armenian (8).

(8) a. Subject participle

jeɻkʰ-oʁ-ə jev kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-oʁ-ə
sing-sptcp-def and read-th-aor-sptcp-def
‘the singer and the reader’
երգողը եւ կարդացողը

11
As explained in §2.1.1, some Iranian Armenian speakers aspirate the resultative suffix as [-ɒt͡sʰ],
while some do not. Throughout this section, we aspirate this suffix because our main consultant
NK used aspiration.

136
 6.5 Future: Synthetic and periphrastic constructions

b. Resultative participle
jeɻkʰ-ɒt͡sʰ jeɻkʰ jev kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-ɒt͡sʰ ɡiɻkʰ
sing-rptcp song and read-th-aor-rptcp book
‘a sung song and a read book’
երգած երգ եւ կարդացած գիրք

6.5 Future: Synthetic and periphrastic constructions

This section discusses the two morphological strategies that are used to mark the
future. One strategy is periphrastic with a converb, while the other is synthetic
with a prefix. The same strategies are used in both Standard Eastern Armenian
and Iranian Armenian.
The existing literature on Armenian is quite inconsistent in how these two
categories are classified and analyzed. To minimize these inconsistencies, we dis-
cuss them both together here.

6.5.1 Variation in future marking

To mark the simple future in Standard Eastern Armenian, most traditional gram-
mars (both descriptive and pedagogical) report a periphrastic construction (9).
Dum-Tragut (2009: 233) labels this as the “simple future”. The verb is in a non-
finite form called the future converb (with suffix -u) while tense-agreement is on
an auxiliary. Iranian Armenian has the same periphrastic construction.
(9) Periphrastic future
ɡəɾ-e-l-u e-m (SEA)
ɡəɻ-e-l-uw e-m (IA)
write-th-inf-fut.cvb aux-1sg
‘I will write.’
Գրելու եմ։

An alternative synthetic construction is to add the prefix k(ə)- before a finite

subjunctive verb (10). Dum-Tragut (2009: 253) calls this the “conditional future”.
(10) Synthetic future
kə-ɡəɾ-e-m (SEA)
kə-ɡəɻ-e-m (IA)
fut-write-th-1sg
‘I will write.’
Կը գրեմ։

137
6 Verbal morphology

Note that our translations for the periphrastic future (9) and synthetic future
(10) are identical. The problem is that it is quite unclear what are the fixed seman-
tic and functional differences between the periphrastic and synthetic future.12 To
quote Dum-Tragut (2009: 253):

In [SEA], however, [the synthetic future] is more often used to express sim-
ple actions in the future and as such has no major semantic differences to
the [periphrastic future] and is even more often used [than] the [periphras-
tic future].

There are some subtle semantic distinctions between the periphrastic and syn-
thetic forms. For example, the synthetic form implies a stronger sense of inten-
tionality or volition. For our consultants, it can denote a wish, a future condition,
or an optative. It can be used to denote an action in the immediate future, where
the agent has a strong desire to perform the action. The synthetic future has a
sense of being more temporally immediate than the periphrastic future. But in
general, the two types of futures can be used interchangeably.
The above semantic observations concerning the future contrast strongly with
the traditional names that grammars use. The periphrastic future is always la-
beled as “the future” (Minassian 1980: 182, Fairbanks & Stevick 1975: 209, Bar-
dakjian & Vaux 1999: 71, Hagopian 2005: 94, Sakayan 2007: 124, Dum-Tragut
2009: 233). This shows that these grammarians think that the main function of
this construction is to mark the future. In contrast, the synthetic form has multi-
ple names, each of which make the synthetic form seem subordinate to the peri-
phrastic form. It has been called the “conditional present” (Minassian 1980: 192,
Hagopian 2005: 160), “hypothetical future” (Sakayan 2007: 224), “future” (John-
son 1954: 85, Fairbanks & Stevick 1975: 93), and “conditional future” (Bardakjian
& Vaux 1999: 196, Dum-Tragut 2009: 253). In contrast, in Armenian dialectology,
Adjarian (Աճառեան 1911, translated in Dolatian submitted) labels the synthetic
future as just the future.13
There is thus a mismatch between the names and functions of the two future
constructions. Traditional grammars and names treat the periphrastic future as
the default, while the synthetic future is argued to be restricted to special types of
12
Sometimes NK would say that the periphrastic construction means ‘I will X’ while the synthetic
one means ‘I am going to X’. But then we get the opposite order from AS’s consultants.
13
Among modern grammars written in Armenian, there is also some inconsistency. The peri-
phrastic future has been called the “future” [ɑpɑrni] ապառնի (Եզեկյան 2007: 292) or the “future
present” [ɑpɑrni neɾkɑ] ապառնի ներկա (Սևակ 2009: 295). In contrast, the synthetic is called the
“conditional future present” or “(conditional) future” (Եզեկյան 2007: 292, Սևակ 2009: 295). The
word for “conditional” can be [jentʰɑdɾɑkɑn] ենթադրական or [pɑjmɑnɑkɑn] պայմանական.

138
 6.5 Future: Synthetic and periphrastic constructions

conditional clauses. However, more recent semantic work on Armenian argues

that the synthetic future is the default way to mark the future tense (Ավետյան
2022). The periphrastic future is instead an expected (predetermined) future. Per-
sonal communication with Avetyan (Ավետյան 2022) then suggests the following
two translations for these two types of futures (11).

(11) Alternative translations

a. Periphrastic future (expected)
ɡəɾ-e-l-u e-m (SEA)
ɡəɻ-e-l-uw e-m (IA)
write-th-inf-fut.cvb aux-1sg
‘I am (going) to write.’
Գրելու եմ։
b. Synthetic future (simple)
kə-ɡəɾ-e-m (SEA)
kə-ɡəɻ-e-m (IA)
fut-write-th-1sg
‘I will write.’
Կը գրեմ։

As can be seen, it is difficult to know how to label these two morphological

constructions. The traditional names obfuscate the fact that the synthetic struc-
ture is more common than the periphrastic structure, and that the synthetic can
be used in non-conditional contexts. But, if we use new names based on semantic
functions, then we run the risk that future more in-depth work may contradict
our grammar. With new semantically-based names, a future reader might also
have trouble seeing the connection between our grammar and past grammars.
As a compromise, we use morphological names for the two types of futures:
the periphrastic future and the synthetic future (Fairbanks & Stevick 1975). We
gloss the morpheme /-u/ for periphrastic future as -fut.cvb ‘future converb’, and
the prefix /k-/ for the synthetic future as fut- ‘future’.
The rest of this section discusses in more detail the morphology of these two
constructions. More specifically, we discuss their past forms and their negation.

6.5.2 Periphrastic future with a converb

The periphrastic future is made by combining the future converb with an in-
flected auxiliary. The future converb is formed by taking the infinitive and then
adding the suffix -u (Table 6.37). Both the E-Class and A-Class keep their theme

139
6 Verbal morphology

vowel. This construction is formed identically in Standard Eastern and Iranian

Armenian. The future converb is also called the future participle [ɑpɑrni deɾbɑj]
ապառնի դերբայ in Standard Eastern Armenian (Dum-Tragut 2009: 206).

Table 6.37: Forming the future converb for simple regular verbs

E-Class ‘to sing’ A-Class ‘to read’

Infinitive Future converb Infinitive Future converb
jeɻkʰ-e-l jeɻkʰ-e-l-u kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-l kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-l-u
√ -th-inf √ -th-inf-fut.cvb √ -th-inf √ -th-inf-fut.cvb
երգել երգելու կարդալ կարդալու

The future converb suffix -u likely originates from the genitive/dative suffix
-u that is used by some declension classes (traditionally called the second declen-
sion). Its use is grammaticalized here as part of the future converb.
The converb can take the present or past auxiliaries to respectively create the
simple future or the past future (“future in the past”, Dum-Tragut 2009: 235). We
show in Table 6.38 the complete paradigm for the E-Class jeɻkʰ-e-l. The paradigm
for the A-Class is analogously constructed with the converb [kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-l-u]. We do
not segment the auxiliary.
Vowel hiatus between the converb and the auxiliary triggers the insertion of
[w], discussed in §3.1.2.
When the converb is combined with the past auxiliary, the usual name for this
construction is the “past future” or “future in the past” (Minassian 1980: 182, Bar-
dakjian & Vaux 1999: 71, Hagopian 2005: 94, Dum-Tragut 2009: 235). Other names
include the “future imperfect” (Sakayan 2007: 126) and “past future” (Fairbanks
& Stevick 1975: 210).
As before, the auxiliary shifts its position in the negated form.

6.5.3 Synthetic future with a prefix

The synthetic future is derived from subjunctives via prefixation in the positive.
But its negative form uses periphrasis with a converb called the connegative (12).

(12) a. kə- kɒɻtʰ -ɒ -ŋkʰ

fut- read-th -1pl
‘We will read.’ (NK)
Կը կարդանք։

140
 6.5 Future: Synthetic and periphrastic constructions

Table 6.38: Paradigm for the periphrastic future and the periphrastic
past future for E-Class [jeɻkʰ-e-l] ‘to sing’

Positive Negaive
Future Past future Future Past future
1SG jeɻkʰ-e-l-uw em jeɻkʰe-l-uw im t͡ʃʰ-em jeɻkʰ-e-l-u t͡ʃʰ-im jeɻkʰe-l-u
‘I will sing’ ‘I was going to sing’ ‘I will not sing’ ‘I wasn’t going to sing’
երգելու եմ երգելու իմ չեմ երգելու չիմ երգելու

2SG jeɻkʰ-e-l-uw es jeɻkʰ-e-l-uw iɻ t͡ʃʰ-es jeɻkʰ-e-l-u t͡ʃʰ-iɻ jeɻkʰ-e-l-u

երգելու ես երգելու իր չես երգելու չիր երգելու

3SG jeɻkʰ-e-l-uw ɒ jeɻkʰ-e-l-uw eɻ t͡ʃʰ-i jeɻkʰ-e-l-u t͡ʃʰ-eɻ jeɻkʰ-e-l-u

երգելու ա երգելու էր չի երգելու չէր երգելու

1PL jeɻkʰ-e-l-uw eŋkʰ jeɻkʰ-e-l-uw iŋkʰ t͡ʃʰ-eŋkʰ jeɻkʰ-e-l-u t͡ʃʰ-iŋkʰ jeɻkʰ-e-l-u

երգելու ենք երգելու ինք չենք երգելու չինք երգելու

2PL jeɻkʰ-e-l-uw ekʰ jeɻkʰ-e-l-uw ikʰ t͡ʃʰ-ekʰ jeɻkʰ-e-l-u t͡ʃʰ-ikʰ jeɻkʰ-e-l-u

երգելու էք երգելու իք չէք երգելու չիք երգելու

3PL jeɻkʰ-e-l-uw en jeɻkʰ-e-l-uw in t͡ʃʰ-en jeɻkʰ-e-l-u t͡ʃʰ-in jeɻkʰ-e-l-u

երգելու են երգելու ին չեն երգելու չին երգելու

√ -th-inf-fut.cvb aux neg-aux √ -th-inf-fut.cvb

b. t͡ʃʰ- e -ŋkʰ kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-∅

neg- is -1pl read-th-cn.cvb
‘We will not read.’ (NK)
Չենք կարդայ։

In the positive, these synthetic forms are created by adding the prefix k- to
the subjunctive form (§6.4.2). A schwa is added to repair any consonant clusters
created by this prefix. Complications arise when the root starts with [je] (§3.1.1).
When the prefix is added to a subjunctive present verb, it produces a future
meaning, but with various nuances (§6.5.1). When this prefix is added to a sub-
junctive past verb, the meaning is more conditional-oriented. Grammars give
many divergent names for this construction: conditional past (Hagopian 2005:
160, Dum-Tragut 2009: 260), conditional imperfect (Minassian 1980: 192, Bar-
dakjian & Vaux 1999: 196), hypothetical past (Sakayan 2007: 225), past future
(Fairbanks & Stevick 1975: 132). Because NK translates this construction as ‘I
would X’, we decided to call it the conditional past.
Table 6.39 shows the paradigm of the synthetic future and of the conditional
past. We do not provide the Standard Eastern Armenian forms because Standard
Eastern Armenian likewise builds this tense from the subjunctive.

141
6 Verbal morphology

Table 6.39: Paradigm of positive synthetic future and the conditional

past in Iranian Armenian

Future Conditional past

E-Class A-Class E-Class A-Class
1SG kə-jeɻkʰ-e-m kə-kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-m kə-jeɻkʰ-∅-i-m kə-kɒɻtʰ-ɒj-i-m
‘I will sing.’ ‘I will read.’ ‘I would sing’ ‘I would read.’
կը երգեմ կը կարդամ կը երգիմ կը կարդայիմ

2SG kə-jeɻkʰ-e-s kə-kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-s kə-jeɻkʰ-∅-i-ɻ kə-kɒɻtʰ-ɒj-i-ɻ

կը երգես կը կարդաս կը երգիր կը կարդայիր

3SG kə-jeɻkʰ-i-∅ kə-kɒɻtʰ-ɒ kə-jeɻkʰ-e-∅-ɻ kə-kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-∅-ɻ

կը երգի կը կարդայ կը երգէր կը կարդար

1PL kə-jeɻkʰ-e-ŋkʰ kə-kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-ŋkʰ kə-jeɻkʰ-∅-i-ŋkʰ kə-kɒɻtʰ-ɒj-i-ŋkʰ

կը երգենք կը կարդանք կը երգինք կը կարդայինք

2PL kə-jeɻkʰ-e-kʰ kə-kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-kʰ kə-jeɻkʰ-∅-i-kʰ kə-kɒɻtʰ-ɒj-i-kʰ

կը երգեք կը կարդաք կը երգիք կը կարդայիք

3PL kə-jeɻkʰ-e-n kə-kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-n kə-jeɻkʰ-∅-i-n kə-kɒɻtʰ-ɒj-i-n

կը երգեն կը կարդան կը երգին կը կարդային

fut-√ -agr fut-√ -pst-agr

Table 6.40: Connegative converbs for the E-Class and A-Class

E-Class A-Class
‘to sing’ ‘to read’
Infinitive jeɻkʰ-e-l kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-l √ -th-inf
երգել կարդալ

Connegative jeɻkʰ-i kɒɻtʰ-ɒ

Possible analysis: jeɻkʰ-i-∅ kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-∅ √ -th-cn.cvb
երգի կարդայ

142
 6.6 Complex regular verb class

The above focused on the synthetic future and conditional when the verb is
positive. When the verb is negative, then an entirely different periphrastic con-
struction is used. Tense and agreement are placed on a negative auxiliary (§6.2).
The verb is in the connegative form (Table 6.40), also called the negative partici-
ple (Dum-Tragut 2009: 214). The converb is called [ʒəχtɑkɑn deɾbɑj] ժխտական
դերբայ in Standard Eastern Armenian. The converb is constructed differently for
the two classes. The converb suffix is a zero morph in the A-Class. In the E-Class,
the theme vowel is replaced by /i/.
In terms of segmentation, we treat the connegative converb as a zero suffix
in the A-Class. In the E-Class, we assume the connegative is a floating [+high]
feature that docks onto the /e/ theme vowel, thus changing /e/ to [i] (Rule 19).
This is the same analytical strategy that we used for the subjunctive present 3SG
(Rule 17). The alternatives in Rule 16 would also work.

Rule 19: Rule for the connegative converb

cn.cvb ↔ [+high] /e_ (where /e/ is theme)

-∅ / elsewhere

We show the negative paradigm in Table 6.41. Note that because we are defin-
ing the future constructions in terms of their morphology, then the negative
paradigm is actually “the negative periphrastic of the synthetic future”.
We do not show Standard Eastern Armenian because it displays the exact same
patterns, factoring out the phonological differences in the low vowel and rhotic,
i.e., the connegative of ‘to read’ in Iranian Armenian [kɒɻtʰ-ɒ] corresponds to
[kɑɾtʰ-ɑ] in Standard Eastern. We do not provide full segmentation for the auxil-
iary; for that see §6.2.3.

6.6 Complex regular verb class

The previous section provided the synthetic and periphrastic inflection of simple
regular verbs. This section describes the inflection of complex verbs. Complex
verbs are divided into passives, causatives, and inchoatives. These differ from
simple verbs by including additional verbal material, such as the passive suffix.
Their inflections differ from simple verbs in some but not all paradigm cells.

143
6 Verbal morphology

Table 6.41: Paradigm of the negative periphrastic form of the synthetic

future and of the conditional past in Iranian Armenian

Future Conditional past

E-Class A-Class E-Class A-Class
1SG t͡ʃʰ-em jeɻkʰ-i-∅ t͡ʃʰ-em kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-∅ t͡ʃʰ-im jeɻkʰ-i-∅ t͡ʃʰ-im kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-∅
‘I will not sing’ ‘I will not read’ ‘I would not sing’ ‘I would not read’
չեմ երգի չեմ կարդայ չիմ երգի չիմ կարդայ

2SG t͡ʃʰ-es jeɻkʰ-i-∅ t͡ʃʰ-es kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-∅ t͡ʃʰ-iɻ jeɻkʰ-i-∅ t͡ʃʰ-i-ɻ kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-∅

չես երգի չես կարդայ չիր երգի չիր կարդայ

3SG t͡ʃʰ-i jeɻkʰ-i-∅ t͡ʃʰ-i kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-∅ t͡ʃʰ-eɻ jeɻkʰ-i-∅ t͡ʃʰ-eɻ kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-∅

չի երգի չի կարդայ չէր երգի չէր կարդայ

1PL t͡ʃʰ-eŋkʰ jeɻkʰ-i-∅ t͡ʃʰ-eŋkʰ kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-∅ t͡ʃʰ-iŋkʰ jeɻkʰ-i-∅ t͡ʃʰ-iŋkʰ kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-∅

չենք երգի չենք կարդայ չինք երգի չինք կարդայ

2PL t͡ʃʰ-ekʰ jeɻkʰ-i-∅ t͡ʃʰ-ekʰ kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-∅ t͡ʃʰ-ikʰ jeɻkʰ-i-∅ t͡ʃʰ-ikʰ kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-∅

չէք երգի չէք կարդայ չիք երգի չիք կարդայ

3PL t͡ʃʰ-en jeɻkʰ-i-∅ t͡ʃʰ-en kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-∅ t͡ʃʰ-in jeɻkʰ-i-∅ t͡ʃʰ-in kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-∅

չեն երգի չեն կարդայ չին երգի չին կարդայ

neg-aux.prs.agr √ -th-cn.cvb neg-aux.pst.agr √ -th-cn.cvb

6.6.1 Passives
Passive verbs are formed by adding the suffix -v- (Table 6.42). The suffix is added
directly after the root of an E-Class verb. For an A-Class verb, the passive triggers
the morphomic aorist -t͡sʰ- (an aorist stem). Passive formation is the same in the
two lects. We show the deleted theme vowel as a zero morph.
The name of the passive is [kəɾɑvoɾɑkɑn] կրավորական in Standard Eastern
Armenian.
Semantically, the passive suffix demotes the object argument of the active verb.
The passive can likewise trigger a host of other argument-reducing operations
such as reflexivization, anticausativization, and so on (Haspelmath 1993, Dum-
Tragut 2009: 175). However, there are some high-frequency intransitive verbs
that have the passive suffix, like skəs-v-e-l ‘to begin’, but do not really have pas-
sive semantics, just intransitive semantics. For consistency, we gloss all instances
of the passive suffix -v- as just pass even though its semantics can vary for some
verbs.
Morphologically, the passive takes its own theme vowel -e-. We list some pas-
sives in Table 6.43.

144
 6.6 Complex regular verb class

Table 6.42: Passive verbs in Standard Eastern and Iranian Armenian

E-Class A-Class
SEA IA SEA IA
Infinitive jeɾkʰ-e-l jeɻkʰ-e-l kɑɾtʰ-ɑ-l kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-l
√ -th-inf √ -th-inf
‘to sing’ ‘to read’
երգել երգել կարդալ կարդալ

Passive jeɾkʰ-∅-v-e-l jeɻkʰ-∅-v-e-l kɑɾtʰ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-v-e-l kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-v-e-l

√ -th-pass-th-inf √ -th-aor-pass-th-inf
‘to be sung’ ‘to be read’
երգվել երգուել կարդացվել կարդացուել

Table 6.43: Example passive verbs in Iranian Armenian

Active Passive
bərn-e-l ‘to catch’ բռնել bərnə-v-e-l ‘to be caught’ բռնուել
kotɻ-e-l ‘to break’ կոտրել kotəɻ-v-e-l ‘to be broken’ կոտրուել
skəs-e-l ‘to start (trans.)’ սկսել skəs-v-e-l ‘to begin’ սկսուել
ɒzɒt-e-l ‘to free’ ազատել ɒzɒt-v-e-l ‘to be freed’ ազատուել
ɒvɒɻt-e-l ‘to finish’ աւարտել ɒvɒɻt-v-e-l ‘to graduate (school)’ աւարտուել

kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-l ‘to read’ կարդալ kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-v-e-l ‘to be read’ կարդացուել

Table 6.44: Past perfective of passive verbs in Iranian Armenian

Active Passive
bərnə-v-e-l ‘to be caught’ բռնուել bərnə-v-ɒ-m ‘I was caught’ բռնուամ
kotəɻ-v-e-l ‘to be broken’ կոտրուել kotəɻ-v-ɒ-v ‘it broke’ կոտրուաւ
ɒvɒɻt-v-e-l ‘to graduate’ աւարտուել ɒvɒɻtv-ɒ-v ‘he graduated’ աւարտուաւ
ɒzɒt-v-e-l ‘to be freed’ ազատուել ɒzɒt-v-ɒ-n ‘they were freed’ ազատուան

145
6 Verbal morphology

Passive verbs are inflected as simple E-Class verbs. For example, in the past
perfective, they take the past morph /-ɒ/ (Table 6.44).
The passive triggers schwa epenthesis after a CC cluster that cannot form a
licit word-medial complex coda. For example, we see a schwa in [bərnə-v-e-l]
‘to be caught’ but not in [jeɻkʰ-v-e-l] ‘to be sung’.14 For an analysis of this phe-
nomenon in Standard Eastern and Standard Western Armenian, see Vaux (1998b:
29,82) and Dolatian (2023a).

6.6.2 Inchoatives
Inchoatives are productively formed by adding the sequence [-ɒ-n-ɒ-l] to a noun
or adjective (Table 6.45). The nasal is the inchoative affix. It is followed by the
/ɒ/ theme vowel. Depending on the lexeme, the pre-nasal vowel is either /ɒ/ or
/e/. But the low vowel is more common. We assume this pre-nasal vowel is a
meaningless linking vowel (LV) (Dolatian & Guekguezian 2022b).
Table 6.45: Inchoative constructions

LV is /ɒ/ LV is /e/
Base Inchoative Base Inchoative
t͡ʃʰoɻ t͡ʃʰoɻ-ɒ-n-ɒ-l vɒχ vɒχ-e-n-ɒ-l
√ √ -lv-inch-th-inf √ √ -lv-inch-th-inf
‘dry’ ‘to become dry’ ‘fear’ ‘to fear’
չոր չորանալ վախ վախենալ

The meaning of an inchoative can be loosely paraphrased as ‘to become X’.

Note the contrast below between using the adjective as a predicate vs. as an
inchoativized verb (13).

(13) a. uɻɒχ el-n-e-l b. uɻɒχ-ɒ-n-ɒ-l

happy be-vx-th-inf happy-lv-inch-th-inf
‘to be happy’ ‘to become happy’
ուրախ էլնել ուրախանալ
14
It is not completely clear to us why [rn] cannot form a complex coda in the passive verb [bəɾnə-
v-e-l] ‘to be caught’. An open question is whether complex codas like [rn] are truly banned
across the entire lexicon, or just passives. See discussion of complex codas in Armenian in
Dolatian (2023c)

146
 6.6 Complex regular verb class

We list below various morphologically inchoative verbs that we have elicited

(Table 6.46).15
Table 6.46: Example inchoative verbs

mɒh-ɒ-n-ɒ-l ‘to die’ մահանալ

hɒsk-ɒ-n-ɒ-l ‘to understand’ հասկանալ
ɡoʁ-ɒ-n-ɒ-l ‘to steal’ գողանալ
im-ɒ-n-ɒ-l ‘to know’ իմանալ
ləv-ɒ-n-ɒ-l ‘to wash’ լուանալ
ɒɻtʰn-ɒ-n-ɒ-l ‘to awake’ արթնանալ
t͡sʰɒŋk-ɒ-n-ɒ-l ‘to wish’ ցանկանալ
hɒŋɡəst-ɒ-n-ɒ-l ‘to relax’ հանգստանալ
un-e-n-ɒ-l ‘to have/own’ ունենալ

Inchoatives are inflected similarly to A-Class verbs but with some deviations,
such as the imperative 2SG (Table 6.47). Inchoatives use the morphomic aorist
suffix (aorist stem) in more contexts than typical A-Class verbs. When the aorist
is used, the inchoative affix and its theme vowel are deleted. We show a partial
paradigm below, just for the Iranian Armenian forms. We show only the devia-
tions between the inchoative and A-Class. All other paradigm cells are formed
the same. We do not use zero morphs to show deleted theme vowels and deleted
inchoatives.16 We place an asterisk for those paradigm cells where the inchoative
nasal is deleted, and where the aorist stem is used instead.
Prohibitives are formed by adding the proclitic mi- before the imperative forms.
For the other paradigm cells, inchoatives are inflected like A-Class verbs. These
cells are the other converbs, the subjunctive, the synthetic future, and the condi-
tional past. Complete paradigms are provided in the online archive.

15
Some of these verbs like ɡoʁ-ɒ-n-ɒ-l ‘to steal’ have inchoative morphology, but are transitive in
their semantics and argument structure. And for some verbs like ‘to understand’ /hɒsk-ɒ-n-ɒ-l/
or ‘to know’ /im-ɒ-n-ɒ-l/, the root is a bound, and not an independent adjective or noun.
16
Inchoatives are inflected similarly in Standard Eastern. The main difference is that in Standard
Eastern, inchoatives are exceptional because they are inflected with the past tense morph /ɑ/.
Iranian Armenian on the other hand uses the past tense morph /ɒ/ which is the default form
for the past perfective. For an analysis and documentation of similar facts in Standard Western
Armenian, see Dolatian & Guekguezian (2022b).

147
6 Verbal morphology

Table 6.47: Partial paradigm of inchoatives vs. A-Class verbs

A-Class Inchoative
‘to read’ ‘to become happy’
Infinitive kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-l uɻɒχ-ɒ-n-ɒ-l
√ -th-inf √ -lv-inch-th-inf
կարդալ ուրախանալ

Past. Pfv. 1SG * kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-i-m uɻɒχ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-ɒ-m

√ -th-aor-pst-1sg √ -lv-aor-pst-1sg
կարդացիմ ուրախացամ

Imp. 2SG * kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-∅ uɻɒχ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-i

√ -th-imp.2sg √ -lv-aor-imp.2sg
կարդալ ուրախացի

Imp. 2PL * kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-ekʰ uɻɒχ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-ekʰ

√ -th-aor-imp.2pl √ -lv-aor-imp.2pl
կարդացէք ուրախացէք

Subj. Ptcp. * kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-oʁ uɻɒχ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-oʁ

√ -th-aor-sptcp √ -lv-aor-sptcp
կարդացող ուրախացող

Res. Ptcp. * kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-ɒt͡sʰ uɻɒχ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-ɒt͡sʰ

կարդացած ուրախացած
√ -th-aor-rptcp √ -lv-aor-rptcp
Pfv. Cvb. * kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-el uɻɒχ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-el
kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-eɻ uɻɒχ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-eɻ
√ -th-aor-perf.cvb √ -lv-aor-perf.cvb
կարդացել, կարդացեր ուրախացել, ուրախացեր

148
 6.6 Complex regular verb class

6.6.3 Causatives
A causative infinitive consists of a stem plus the sequence -t͡sʰn-e-l (Table 6.48).
The causative suffix is -t͡sʰn- and it takes the -e- theme vowel. The stem of the
causative can be the root of a simple verb and its theme vowel. Causatives can
also be derived from non-verbs and from inchoative verbs. When a causative
is derived from an inchoative, the inchoative suffix and its theme vowel are
deleted.17 The name of the causative is [pɑtt͡ʃɑrɑkɑn] պատճառական in Standard
Eastern Armenian.
Table 6.48: Forming causatives
(a) Causatives from simple verbs (b) Causatives from non-verbs or inchoatives

Simple verb Causative Non-verb Inchoative verb Causative

sovoɻ-e-l sovoɻ-e-t͡sʰn-e-l uɻɒχ uɻɒχ-ɒ-n-ɒ-l uɻɒχ-ɒ-t͡sʰn-e-l
√ -th-inf √ -th-caus-th-inf √ √ -lv-inch-th-inf √ -lv-caus-th-inf
‘to learn’ ‘teach’ ‘happy’ ‘to become happy’ ‘to make happy’
սովորել սովորեցնել ուրախ ուրախանալ ուրախացնել

Our consultants feel that deriving causatives from simple verbs is not very pro-
ductive in Iranian Armenian.18 In contrast, causativization is more productive in
Standard Eastern and Western Armenian (Daniel & Khurshudian 2015, Dolatian
& Guekguezian 2022b). Deriving causatives from inchoatives is productive in
Iranian Armenian (Megerdoomian 2005).
In many cases when a causative is derived from a simple verb, the post-root
theme vowel differs between the simple verb and causative in Iranian Armenian
(Table 6.49).19
Some common causatives are listed in Table 6.50. It is common to find causa-
tive verbs without any pre-causative vowel.
17
The causative suffix can sometimes surface with a schwa [-t͡sən-] in Iranian Armenian. This
is likewise reported for Standard Eastern (Աբեղյան 1933: 47, Ղարագյուլյան 1974: 163, 1979: 42,
Մարգարյան 1997: 59).
18
Don Stilo (p.c.) suggests that language contact with Persian may be the reason why our IA
consultants disprefer such causatives. He reports that:
There are very few causative verbs in Persian that are formed on transitive verbs and
those transitive verbs that are causativized are not commonly used verbs. The causative
verbs in Persian are for the most part cases of valency changing strategies, i.e., intransi-
tive > transitive (‘be afraid of’ > ‘scare’). (Stilo, p.c)

19
Megerdoomian (2005) lists many more cases of causative verbs that are derived from simple
verbs but utilize a theme-vowel change.

149
6 Verbal morphology

Table 6.49: Differing pre-causative theme vowels

Theme vowel changes Theme vowel stays constant

kʰən-e-l kʰən-ɒ-t͡sʰn-e-l kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-l kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-t͡sʰn-e-l
√ -th-inf √ -th-caus-th-inf √ -th-inf √ -th-caus-th-inf
‘to sleep’ ‘to make sleep’ ‘to read’ ‘to make read’
քնել քնացնել կարդալ կարդացնել

Table 6.50: Other common causative verbs in Iranian Armenian

hɒŋɡəst-ɒ-t͡sʰn-e-l ‘to calm down’ հանգստացնել

ve(ɻ)-t͡sʰn-e-l ‘to take’ վերցնել
lə-t͡sʰn-e-l ‘to fill/pour’ լցնել
dɒɻ-t͡sʰn-e-l ‘to turn into’ դարձնել

√ (-lv)-caus-th-inf

In terms of inflection, causatives are inflected primarily as E-Class verbs but

with some deviation (Table 6.51). In the past perfective, the causative suffix uses
a special allomorph -t͡sʰɻ-. This allomorph is likewise used in disparate paradigm
slots. These are slots which tend to show morphomic aorist stems in other verb
classes. We show a partial paradigm below. We only show the causative para-
digm cells which differ from simple E-Class verbs. We place an asterisk for those
paradigm cells where the -t͡sʰɻ- allomorph is used, meaning where we see the
aorist stem. The theme vowel is deleted in most of these cells.
Prohibitives are formed by adding the proclitic mi- before the imperative forms.
For the other paradigm cells, causatives are inflected like E-Class verbs. These
cells are the other converbs, the subjunctive, the synthetic future, and the con-
ditional past. The Iranian Armenian forms do not significantly differ from Stan-
dard Eastern except for the past perfective. The Standard Eastern past perfective
of causatives uses the past tense morph /i/ instead of /ɒ/: Iranian Armenian sovoɻ-
e-t͡sʰɻ-ɒ-n vs. Standard Eastern sovoɾ-e-t͡sʰɾ-i-n ‘they taught’. Complete paradigms
are provided in the online archive.

150
 6.6 Complex regular verb class

Table 6.51: Partial paradigm of causatives vs. E-Class verbs

E-Class Causative
Infinitive sovoɻ-e-l sovoɻ-e-t͡sʰn-e-l
√ -th-inf √ -th-caus-th-inf
սովորել սովորեցնել

Past. Pfv. 1SG * sovoɻ-ɒ-m sovoɻ-e-t͡sʰɻ-ɒ-m

√ -pst-1sg √ -th-caus-pst-1sg
սովորամ սովորեցրամ

Imp. 2SG * sovoɻ-i sovoɻ-e-t͡sʰɻ-u

√ -imp.2sg √ -th-caus-imp.2sg
սովորի սովորեցրու

Imp. 2PL * sovoɻ-ekʰ sovoɻ-e-t͡sʰɻ-ekʰ

√ -imp.2pl √ -th-caus-imp.2pl
սովորէք սովորեցրէք

Subj. Ptcp. sovoɻ-oʁ sovoɻ-e-t͡sʰn-oʁ

√ -sptcp √ -th-caus-sptcp
սովորող սովորեցնող

Res. Ptcp. * sovoɻ-ɒt͡sʰ sovoɻ-e-t͡sʰɻ-ɒt͡sʰ

√ -rptcp √ -th-caus-rptcp
սովորած սովորեցրած

Pfv. Cvb. * sovoɻ-el sovoɻ-e-t͡sʰɻ-el

sovoɻ-eɻ sovoɻ-e-t͡sʰɻ-eɻ
√ -perf.cvb √ -th-caus-perf.cvb
սովորել, սովորեր սովորեցրել, սովորեցրեր

151
6 Verbal morphology

6.7 Irregular verbs

The regular verb classes were discussed in the previous section. These classes
constitute the majority of verbs in the Iranian Armenian lexicon. This section
goes over some irregular classes. These are all rather low-frequency in terms
of types, but seem high-frequency in their tokens. These irregulars can be di-
vided into different subclasses: infixed verbs, suppletive verbs, defective verbs,
and other verbs.
This section focuses on providing paradigms just for Iranian Armenian. To
contrast these irregular paradigms with Standard Eastern, see Dum-Tragut (2009:
277ff). Complete paradigms are provided in the online archive.

6.7.1 Infixed verbs

In the infinitive form, simple regular verbs consist of a root, theme vowel, and the
infinitive suffix -l. Iranian Armenian likewise has a set of irregular verbs where
a meaningless morph /-n-/ surfaces between the root and theme vowel (Table
6.52). We gloss this meaningless verbal stem-extender as vx.20
Table 6.52: Infixed irregular verbs in Standard Eastern and Iranian Ar-
menian

IA SEA
mət-n-e-l ‘to enter’ mət-n-e-l ‘to enter’ մտնել
tes-n-e-l ‘to see’ tes-n-e-l ‘to see’ տեսնել
ɒr-n-e-l ‘to buy’ ɑr-n-e-l ‘to take’ առնել
el-n-e-l ‘to be’ jel-n-e-l ‘to get up’ ելնել
tʰoʁ-n-e-l ‘to let/leave’ tʰoʁ-n-e-l ‘to let/leave’ թողնել
əŋɡə-n-e-l ‘to fall’ əŋk-n-e-l ‘to fall’ ընկնել
it͡ʃʰ-n-e-l ‘to descend’ it͡ʃʰ-n-e-l ‘to descend’ իջնել
√ -vx-th-inf √ -vx-th-inf

Across Armenian lects, this nasal morph /-n-/ is diachronically a reflex of

the Proto-Indo-European nasal infix (Greppin 1973, Hamp 1975, Kocharov 2019).
Standard Eastern Armenian has these same verbs. However, for some of these
verbs, the meaningless morph is an affricate /t͡ʃʰ/ in Standard Eastern Armenian.
20
For the verb ənɡə-n-e-l ‘to fall,’ the second schwa is epenthetic. It is absent before a vowel:
ənɡ-ɒ-ŋkʰ ‘we fell’ [√ -pst-1pl].

152
 6.7 Irregular verbs

It seems that Iranian Armenian has lost the affricate morph, and now all the
infixed verbs just use the nasal morph (Table 6.53).21
Table 6.53: Infixed irregular verbs with affricates in Standard Eastern,
but nasals in Iranian Armenian

IA SEA
pʰɒχ-n-e-l փախնել pʰɑχ-t͡ʃʰ-e-l ‘to escape’ փախչել
tʰər-n-e-l թռնել tʰər-t͡ʃʰ-e-l ‘to fly’ թռչել
√ -vx-th-inf √ -vx-th-inf

What is irregular about this class is that the nasal is dropped in some but not
all paradigm cells (Table 6.54). Whenever the verb lacks this nasal, the verb is
said to use its aorist stem. For example, the nasal surfaces in the subjunctive
present and the subjunctive past. But the nasal is deleted in the past perfective.
The surface morphs are just the root and T-Agr suffixes.
Table 6.54: Nasal deletion in infixed verbs vs. E-Class verbs in Iranian
Armenian

Irregular infixed verb Regular E-Class

Infinitive mer-n-e-l √ -vx-th-inf jeɻkʰ-e-l √ -th-inf
‘to die’ ‘to sing’
մեռնել երգել

Sbjv. Present 1PL mer-n-e-ŋkʰ √ -vx-th-1pl jeɻkʰ-e-ŋkʰ √ -th-1pl

մեռնենք երգենք

Past Pfv. 1PL mer-ɒ-ŋkʰ √ -pst-1pl jeɻkʰ-ɒ-ŋkʰ √ -pst-1pl

մեռանք երգանք

The partial paradigm below shows the finite and non-finite forms of this ir-
regular class (Table 6.55). An asterisk is placed next to each cell that shows the

21
The replacement of the affricate infix with the nasal infix is likewise attested in Colloquial
Eastern Armenian (Dum-Tragut 2009: 172), Khoy/Urmia (Ասատրյան 1962: 98), Salmast (Vaux
2022b: §3.2.7), and all of the Southeastern group of dialects, and Van (Աճառյան 1952: 165). We
could also find it perhaps in Alashkert, Mush, Agulis, New Julfa and other dialects that often
pattern with Salmast.

153
6 Verbal morphology

deletion of this nasal morph. This class is inflected the same as the regular E-
Class; the only difference is the deletion of the nasal morph in certain slots.22
Table 6.55: Distribution of nasal deletion in Iranian Armenian with
[mer-n-e-l] ‘to die’

Cell Form Gloss

Infinitive mer-n-e-l √ -vx-th-inf մեռնել
Imperfective converb mer-n-um √ -vx-impf.cvb մեռնում
Future converb mer-n-e-l-u √ -vx-th-inf-fut.cvb մեռնելու
Perfective converb * mer-el, mer-eɻ √ -perf.cvb մեռել, մեռեր
Connegative converb mer-n-i √ -vx-cn.cvb մեռնի
Subject participle mer-n-oʁ √ -vx-sptcp մեռնող
Resultative participle * mer-ɒt͡sʰ √ -rptcp մեռած
Sbjv. Present 1PL mer-n-e-ŋkʰ √ -vx-th-1pl մեռնենք
Sbjv. Past 1PL mer-n-i-ŋkʰ √ -vx-pst-1pl մեռնինք
Past Pfv. 1PL * mer-ɒ-ŋkʰ √ -pst-1pl մեռանք
Imperative 2SG * mer-i √ -imp.2sg մեռի
Imperative 2PL * mer-ekʰ √ -imp.2pl մեռէք
Causative * mer-t͡sʰn-e-l √ -caus-th-inf մեռցնել
Passive N/A

For brevity, the above paradigm omits zero morphs (theme vowels). For the
finite forms, we only show the 1PL; the other agreement cells behave the same
with respect to the nasal. We omit the following:
• The negatives that derive from simple prefixation of t͡ʃʰ- onto a subjunctive
or past perfective base.
• The positive synthetic future and conditional past that are derived by pre-
fixing k(ə)- to the subjunctive.
• The prohibitives that are derived by adding the proclitic mi to the impera-
tive base.
It is difficult to find a single infixed verb that can be both causativized and pas-
sivized (Table 6.56). Causativization generally deletes the nasal morph, as seen
in Table 6.55. Passivization generally keeps the nasal morph.
22
In Standard Eastern Armenian, the infixed verbs are irregular in the past perfective not only
because they drop the nasal, but also because they use the past T marker /ɑ/: [mer-ɑ-v] ‘he died’
[√ -pst-3sg]. But in Iranian Armenian, the use of the past T marker /ɒ/ is a regular feature.

154
 6.7 Irregular verbs

Table 6.56: Passivization of infixed verbs

Active Passive
tes-n-e-l √ -vx-th-inf tes-nə-v-e-l √ -vx-pass-th-inf
‘to see’ ‘to be seen’
տեսնել տեսնուել

For a typical infixed verb like mer-n-e-l ‘to die’, the imperative 2SG is formed
by dropping the nasal and using the imperative 2SG suffix -i. A subset of these
infixed verbs have an irregular imperative 2SG. This set is listed in Table 6.57.
The prohibitive 2SG is derived from this imperative by adding the proclitic mi.
Table 6.57: Irregular imperative 2SG within irregular infixed verbs

‘to see’ ‘to buy’ ‘to let/leave’

Infinitive tes-n-e-l ɒr-n-e-l tʰoʁ-n-e-l √ -vx-th-inf
տեսնել առնել թողնել

Imperative 2SG tes ɒr tʰoʁ √

տես առ թող

There is no semantic or morphosyntactic correlation that unites the various

cells which show the deletion of the nasal. The distribution is morphomic, and
is traditionally described as utilizing an aorist stem. The distribution of nasal
dropping is the same in Standard Eastern Armenian, and essentially in Standard
Western Armenian as well. Dolatian & Guekguezian (2022a) analyze the cognate
infixed verbs of Standard Western Armenian as morphomic and provide an anal-
ysis of aorist stems.
For the infixed verb ‘to let’ [tʰoʁ-n-e-l] թողնել, AS reports that the fricative /ʁ/
can be optionally deleted in some of the inflected forms, such as the imperfec-
tive converb [tʰoʁ-n-um] or [tʰo-n-um]. We have not systematically studied this
deletion, but it is likely just grammaticalized lenition in a highly-frequent verb.
Similar deletion is attested in function words like [əste(ʁ)] ‘here’ (§5.2).

155
6 Verbal morphology

6.7.2 Suppletive verbs

A small class of irregular verbs are suppletive. These inflect as E-Class verbs
in many parts of the paradigm. But in other parts, they use a different root al-
lomorph and irregular imperative suffixes. Suppletive verbs can be categorized
into three groups or subclasses, which we catalog below.
The first group of verbs is listed in Table 6.58. For a suppletive verb like ‘to
eat’ ut-e-l, the root maintains a constant form ut- in many paradigm cells. In
some other cells, the root uses a morphologically-conditioned allomorph keɻ-.
We call keɻ- the restricted allomorph, while ut- is the elsewhere allomorph.23 In
the traditional literature, the restricted morph is also called the aorist stem.
Table 6.58: Suppletive verbs in Iranian Armenian - Group 1

‘to eat’ ‘to do’ ‘to take to’ ‘to put’

Elsewhere allomorph: ut- ɒn- tɒn- dən-
Infinitive ut-e-l ɒn-e-l tɒn-e-l dən-e-l √ -th-inf
ուտել անել տանել դնել

Sbjv. present 1PL ut-e-ŋkʰ ɒn-e-ŋkʰ tɒn-e-ŋkʰ dən-e-ŋkʰ √ -th-1pl

ուտենք անենք տանենք դնենք

Restricted allomorph: keɻ- ɒɻ- tɒɻ- dəɻ-

Past Pfv. 1PL keɻ-ɒ-ŋkʰ ɒɻ-ɒ-ŋkʰ tɒɻ-ɒ-ŋkʰ dəɻ-ɒ-ŋkʰ √ -pst-1pl
կերանք արանք տարանք դրանք

Imperative 2SG keɻ ɒɻ-ɒ tɒɻ diɻ √ -(imp.2sg)

կեր արա տար դիր

For the verb ‘to eat’, the imperative 2SG is formed by just using the restricted
allomorph without further suffixation. In contrast, some suppletive verbs like ‘to
do’ use an additional suffix. Some verbs like ‘to put’ use a special additional root
allomorph that is only found in the imperative 2SG. We list the imperative 2SG
of the suppletive verbs in Table 6.58. The prohibitive 2SG is derived from this
imperative by adding the proclitic mi.
The above suppletive verbs all use the -e- theme vowel in their infinitive form.
Outside of the imperative 2SG, they pattern the same in the distribution of their
root allomorphs.
23
For some of our speakers like NK, the suppletive verb dən-e-l ‘to put’ is pronounced with an
initial voiceless stop [t] in all its allomorphs. In contrast, AS and KM report [d], just as in
Standard Eastern Armenian.

156
 6.7 Irregular verbs

The partial paradigm in Table 6.59 lists the distribution of the root allomorphs
for Group 1 verbs. An asterisk is placed next to each cell that shows the restricted
allomorph.24 The subjunctive forms pattern like E-Class verbs.
Table 6.59: Distribution of root allomorphs in Iranian Armenian for [ut-
e-l] ‘to eat’

Cell Form Gloss

Infinitive ut-e-l √ -th-inf ուտել
Imperfective converb ut-um √ -impf.cvb ոտում
Future converb ut-e-l-u √ -th-inf-fut.cvb ուտելու
Perfective converb * keɻ-el, keɻ-eɻ √ -perf.cvb կերել, կերեր
Connegative converb ut-i √ -cn.cvb ուտի
Subject participle ut-oʁ √ -sptcp ուտող
Resultative participle * keɻ-ɒt͡sʰ √ -rptcp կերած
Sbjv. Present 1PL ut-e-ŋkʰ √ -th-1pl ուտենք
Sbjv. Past 1PL ut-i-ŋkʰ √ -pst-1pl ուտինք
Past Pfv. 1PL * keɻ-ɒ-ŋkʰ √ -pst-1pl կերանք
Imperative 2SG * keɻ √ կեր
Imperative 2PL * keɻ-ekʰ √ -imp.2pl կերէք

The paradigm in Table 6.59 omits zero morphs (theme vowels). For the finite
forms, we only show the 1PL; the other agreement cells behave the same with
respect to the root allomorphy. We omit the following:

• The negatives that derive from simple prefixation of t͡ʃʰ- onto a subjunctive
or past perfective base.

• The positive synthetic future and conditional past that are derived by pre-
fixing k- to the subjunctive.

• The prohibitives that are derived by adding the proclitic mi to the impera-
tive base.

24
As with the infixed verbs, in Standard Eastern Armenian, many of the suppletive verbs are
irregular in the past perfective not only because they use a different root allomorph, but also
because they use the past T marker /ɑ/: [keɾ-ɑ-v] ‘he ate’ [√ -pst-3sg]. But in Iranian Armenian,
the use of the past T marker /ɒ/ is a regular feature for verbs.

157
6 Verbal morphology

The second group of suppletive verbs consists of only the verb [etʰ-ɒ-l] ‘to go’.
It acts as an A-Class verb in terms of the distribution of theme vowels, the aorist
suffix, and the past marker /i/. Its irregularity is that some of its paradigm cells
utilize a restricted root allomorph ɡən-. We show a partial paradigm in Table 6.60.
The asterisk is used to mark the cells that utilize the restricted allomorph.25
Table 6.60: Distribution of root allomorphs in Iranian Armenian for
[etʰ-ɒ-l] ‘to go’

Cell Form Gloss

Infinitive etʰ-ɒ-l √ -th-inf էթալ
Imperfective converb etʰ-um √ -impf.cvb էթում
Future converb etʰ-ɒ-l-u √ -th-inf-fut.cvb էթալու
Perfective converb * ɡən-ɒ-t͡sʰ-el √ -th-aor-perf.cvb գնացել
ɡən-ɒ-t͡sʰ-eɻ գնացեր
Connegative converb etʰ-ɒ √ -th էթայ
Subject participle * ɡən-ɒ-t͡sʰ-oʁ √ -th-aor-sptcp գնացող
Resultative participle * ɡən-ɒ-t͡sʰ-ɒt͡sʰ √ -th-aor-rptcp գնացած
Sbjv. Present 1PL etʰ-ɒ-ŋkʰ √ -th-1pl էթանք
Sbjv. Past 1PL etʰ-ɒj-i-ŋkʰ √ -th-pst-1pl էթայինք
Past Pfv. 1PL * ɡən-ɒ-t͡sʰ-i-ŋkʰ √ -th-aor-pst-1pl գնացինք
Imperative 2SG * ɡən-ɒ √ -th գնա
Imperative 2PL * ɡən-ɒ-t͡sʰ-ekʰ √ -th-aor-imp.2pl գնացէք

Finally, there is a third group of suppletive verbs (Table 6.61), made up of two
members: [t-ɒ-l] ‘to give’ and [ɡ-ɒ-l] ‘to come’. These verbs use the -ɒ- theme
vowel, and the elsewhere root allomorph is a single consonant. These two verbs
have restricted allomorphs in the past perfective. Each has a separate allomorph
used in the imperative 2SG.

25
Some speakers pronounce the elsewhere root allomorph as eɻtʰ- instead of etʰ-. Some speakers
can make the sbjv. past utilize the restricted root ɡən-, e.g. the 1PL form [ɡən-ɒj-i-ŋkʰ]. Some
speakers use the restricted allomorph in the connegative converb: [ɡən-ɒ] instead of [etʰ-ɒ].
But others have told us that using ɡən- root in these contexts sounds more “Eastern” instead
of Iranian Armenian. In Standard Eastern Armenian, the root ɡən- is used to form a regular
non-suppletive A-Class verb ɡən-ɑ-l ‘to go’. Some of our speakers use this separate verb as
well.

158
 6.7 Irregular verbs

Table 6.61: Suppletive verbs with mono-consonantal root

‘to give’ ‘to come’

Elsewhere allomorph t- ɡ-
Infinitive t-ɒ-l ɡ-ɒ-l √ -th-inf
տալ գալ
Sbjv. Present 1PL t-ɒ-ŋkʰ ɡ-ɒ-ŋkʰ √ -th-1pl
տանք գանք

Restricted allomorph təv- ek-

Past Pfv. 1PL təv-ɒ-ŋkʰ ek-ɒ-ŋkʰ √ -pst-1pl
տուանք էկանք
Imperative 2SG tuɻ ɒɻi √
տուր արի

These two verbs also use a special construction for forming the imperfective
converb (Table 6.62). Whereas A-Class verbs use the template √ -um, these two
verbs use the template √ -ɒ-l-is. The suffix -is is an irregular imperfective converb
suffix. The final fricative is a latent segment, meaning this segment is deleted
when the auxiliary has moved such as in negation. This segment’s distribution
parallels that of the perfective converb’s latent segment; see §3.3.4.
Table 6.62: Imperfective converb for suppletive mono-consonantal root

‘to give’ ‘to come’

Infinitive t-ɒ-l ɡ-ɒ-l √ -th-inf
տալ գալ
Impf. converb t-ɒ-l-is ɡ-ɒ-l-is √ -th-inf-impf.cvb
տալիս գալիս
Indc. Pres. 1PL t-ɒ-l-is e-ŋkʰ ɡ-ɒ-l-is e-ŋkʰ √ -th-inf-impf.cvb aux-1pl
տալիս ենք գալիս ենք
Neg. indc. Pres. 1PL t͡ʃʰ-e-ŋkʰ t-ɒ-l-i t͡ʃʰ-e-ŋkʰ ɡ-ɒ-l-i neg-aux-1pl √ -th-inf-impf.cvb
չենք տալիս չենք գալիս

The partial paradigm of the verb ‘to give’ is shown in Table 6.63. The verb ‘to
come’ is inflected similarly.26 These verbs further differ from the previous set of
26
The subject participle of ‘to come’ [ɡ-ɒ-l] is typically [ek-oʁ] ‘√-sptcp’ էկող, but NK says the
word [ek-ɒ-t͡sʰ-oʁ] ‘√-th-aor-sptcp’ էկացող is also attested, especially in the phrase [ek-ɒ-t͡sʰ-
oʁ t͡ʃʰ-i] meaning ‘he’s not coming’ with the negative 3SG auxiliary. The participle here is used
to mean something like ‘he’s not the type of person to come’, such as to a party.

159
6 Verbal morphology

suppletive verbs in that their subject participles utilize the restricted allomorph.
Their subjunctive forms pattern like A-Class verbs.
Table 6.63: Distribution of root allomorphs in Iranian Armenian for [t-
ɒ-l] ‘to give’

Cell Form Gloss

Infinitive t-ɒ-l √ -th-inf տալ
Imperfective converb t-ɒ-l-is √ -th-inf-impf.cvb տալիս
Future converb t-ɒ-l-u √ -th-inf-fut.cvb տալու
Perfective converb * təv-el, təv-eɻ √ -perf.cvb տուել, տուեր
Connegative converb t-ɒ √ -th տայ
Subject participle * təv-oʁ √ -sptcp տուող
Resultative participle * təv-ɒt͡sʰ √ -rptcp տուած
Sbjv. Present 1PL t-ɒ-ŋkʰ √ -th-1pl տանք
Sbjv. Past 1PL t-ɒj-i-ŋkʰ √ -th-pst-1pl տայինք
Past Pfv. 1PL * təv-ɒ-ŋkʰ √ -pst-1pl տուանք
Imperative 2SG * tuɻ √ տուր
Imperative 2PL * təv-ekʰ √ -imp.2pl տուէք

It is difficult to make generalizations when it comes to causativizing or pas-

sivizing suppletive verbs. We have come across causatives of [ut-e-l] ‘to eat’ that
use the elsewhere root allomorph: [ut-e-t͡sʰn-e-l] ‘to feed’ ուտեցնել. But we have
also come across speakers who prefer not causativizing this verb at all. For pas-
sivization, Standard Eastern Armenian uses the restricted root allomorph to pas-
sivize ‘to take to’, ‘to put’, and ‘to give’. Some (more literate) Iranian Armenian
speakers do this as well: [tɒɻ-v-e-l] տարուել ‘to be taken to’, [dəɻ-v-e-l] դրուել ‘to
be put’, [təɻ-v-e-l] տրուել ‘to be given’. Some Iranian Armenian speakers prefer
not passivizing these at all.

6.7.3 Defective verbs

There is a small set of defective verbs in Iranian Armenian. These verbs are de-
fective in not having all possible types of finite and non-finite forms.
One defective verb is the copula, which only appears in the present tense and
the past tense. We discussed the copula in §6.2 under the guise of the auxiliary.

160
 6.7 Irregular verbs

Two other defective verbs are the verbs ‘to exist’ [k-ɒ-m] and ‘to have’ [un-
e-m].27 The verb ‘to exist’ is used to mark existential sentences like ‘there is X’.
The verb ‘to have’ is more accurately translated as ‘to own’. This verb only marks
possession and is not an auxiliary.
We show a partial paradigm in Table 6.64 with just the 1SG. Both of these verbs
are used only in the indicative present and past, along with the corresponding
negated forms. Unlike regular verbs, the indicative of these verbs is formed syn-
thetically. The two verbs use the same T-Agr morphs as the subjunctive of the
regular A-Class and E-Class respectively.
Table 6.64: Defective verbs ‘to exist’ and ‘to own’

‘to exist’ ‘to have’

Infinitive N/A N/A
Indc. pres. 1SG k-ɒ-m un-e-m √ -th-1sg
կամ ունեմ
Neg. indc. pres. 1SG t͡ʃʰə-k-ɒ-m t͡ʃʰ-un-e-m neg-√ -th-1sg
չկամ չունեմ

Indc. past 1SG k-ɒj-i-m un-∅-i-m √ -th-pst-1sg

կայիմ ունիմ
Neg. indc. past 1SG t͡ʃʰə-k-ɒj-i-m t͡ʃʰ-un-∅-i-m neg-√ -th-pst-1sg
չկայիմ չունիմ

Note that the past markers are the ones used for the subjunctive past. But for
these defective verbs, the meaning can be perfective as in the following examples
(14).

(14) a. kɒtu un-∅-i-m

cat have-th-pst-1sg
‘I had a cat.’ (NK)
Կատու ունիմ։
b. t͡ʃɒʃ k-ɒ-∅-ɻ
food exist-th-pst-3sg
‘There was food.’ (NK)
Ճաշ կար։
27
For the verb ‘to exist’, the initial stop is usually voiceless k-ɒ-m, but some speakers voice it:
ɡ-ɒ-m.

161
6 Verbal morphology

For the verb ‘to have’, all other tenses are expressed by using the regular in-
choative verb [un-e-n-ɒ-l] ‘to have; own’. For the verb ‘to exist’, other tenses are
expressed by using the verb ‘to be’ (15).

(15) a. t͡ʃɒʃ k-el-n-i-∅

food fut-be-vx-th-3sg
‘There will be food.’
Ճաշ կէլնի։
b. t͡ʃɒʃ piti el-n-i-∅
food must be-vx-th-3sg
‘There will be food.’
Ճաշ պիտի էլնի։

Another defective verb is the word for ‘to be worth’, but it is quite restricted in
use (16). It has two main functions: to say how much some item is worth or costs,
and as part of a social phrase. For Standard Eastern Armenian, it is restricted
to the indicative present and past imperfective, but synthetically. It is usable for
any person-number combination. However for Iranian Armenian, it seems to be
mainly used for the third person, and we have not been able to successfully elicit
it for other persons. Our online paradigms show all the possible persons (as they
would hypothetically be constructed), but it is possible there there are paradigm
gaps.

(16) a. hiŋɡ dolɒɻ ɒɻʒ-i-∅

five dollar worth-th-3sg
‘It’s worth five dollars.’
Հինգ դոլար արժի։
b. t͡ʃʰ-ɒɻʒ-i-∅
neg-worth-th-3sg
Literal translation: ‘It’s not worth it.’
Functional translation: ‘You’re welcome.’
չարժի

Standard Eastern Armenian has a few additional defective verbs (Table 6.65).
But in Iranian Armenian, these have either been replaced or are not used in gen-
eral.28

28
It is difficult to be sure if these verbs truly do not exist in IA because of diglossia between IA
and SEA.

162
 6.7 Irregular verbs

Table 6.65: Loss of defective verbs from Standard Eastern to Iranian

Armenian

Defective in Standard Eastern Status in Iranian Armenian

√ -th-1sg
hus-ɑ-m ‘I hope’ հուսամ does not exist
ɡit-e-m ‘I know’ գիտեմ replaced by
inchoative [im-ɒ-n-ɒ-l] իմանալ

6.7.4 Other irregular verbs

This section discusses verbs that have some irregularity in their conjugation, but
do not neatly fit into the previous categories.
Two irregular verbs in Table 6.66 are conjugated as regular E-Class verbs in
most of the paradigm except for the imperative 2SG (and prohibitive 2SG).
Table 6.66: E-Class verbs that are irregular in only the imperative 2SG

‘to say’ ‘to bring’

Infinitive ɒs-e-l beɻ-e-l √ -th-inf
ասել բերել
Imperative ɒs-ɒ beɻ √ (-imp.2sg)
ասա բեր

The verb ‘to bring’ has an irregular imperative 2SG also in SEA beɾ and in
SWA pʰeɾ. The verb ‘to say’ has an irregular imperative 2SG in SEA ɑs-ɑ but not
in SWA əs-e √-th.
Among inchoative verbs (Table 6.67), the verb [dɒr-n-ɒ-l] has some irregulari-
ties. Before the nasal inchoative suffix, the rhotic surfaces as a trill /r/. But before
the aorist suffix, the rhotic is a retroflex approximant /ɻ/.29 The inchoative ‘to
wash’ is irregular because it uses the past T marker /i/ in the past perfective. Its

29
We have gotten some contradictory information from some informants. It is possible that some
more innovative speakers use a retroflex /ɻ/ throughout this verb’s paradigm, while other more
conservative speakers have the /r/-/ɻ/ change as we describe above. Note that this verb has an
irregular imperative 2SG in Standard Eastern Armenian: [dɑɾt͡sʰ]. In Iranian Armenian, the
imperative 2SG is regular.

163
6 Verbal morphology

imperative 2SG is likewise irregular.30 One can argue this verb is actually het-
eroclitic (= mixed) with the A-Class because its past perfective and imperative
pattern with the A-Class instead of with inchoatives.
Table 6.67: Two irregular inchoatives against the regular inchoative ‘to
become happy’

Infinitive Past Pfv. 1PL Imperative 2SG

‘to become happy’ uɻɒχ-ɒ-n-ɒ-l uɻɒχ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-ɒ-ŋkʰ uɻɒχ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-i
√ -lv-inch-th-inf √ -lv-aor-pst-1pl √ -lv-aor-imp.2sg
ուրախանալ ուրախացանք ուրախացի

‘to turn into’ dɒr-n-ɒ-l dɒɻ-t͡sʰ-ɒ-ŋkʰ dɒɻ-t͡sʰ-i

√ -inch-th-inf √ -aor-pst-1pl √ -aor-imp.2sg
դառնալ դարձանք դարձի

‘to wash’ ləv-ɒ-n-ɒ-l ləv-ɒ-t͡sʰ-i-ŋkʰ ləv-ɒ

√ -lv-inch-th-inf √ -lv-aor-pst-1pl √ -lv
լուանալ լուացինք լուա

There is evidence that Iranian Armenian has leveled out some irregularities
in verbal inflection (Table 6.68). The following verbs are irregular in Standard
Eastern Armenian but they either a) are regular verbs in Iranian Armenian, or b)
have been replaced by regular verbs in Iranian Armenian.

Table 6.68: Loss of irregulars in Iranian Armenian, relative to Standard

Eastern

Irregular in SEA Status in IA

zɑɾk-e-l ‘to hit’ replaced by E-Class χəpʰ-e-l ‘to hit’
զարկել խփել
l-ɑ-l ‘to cry’ replaced by E-Class lɒt͡sʰ-e-l ‘to cry’
լալ լացել
bɑt͡sʰ-e-l ‘to open’ regularized E-Class
բացել
ken-ɑ-l ‘to stand’ replaced by E-Class kɒŋɡ(ə)n-e-l ‘to stand’
կենալ կանգնել

30
The origin of the imperative 2SG of ‘to wash’ is likely from the synonymous A-Class verb
[ləv-ɑ-l] which exists in Standard Eastern Armenian but not Iranian Armenian.

164
 6.7 Irregular verbs

One convoluted case involves the Standard Eastern words [lin-e-l] ‘to be’ and
[jel-n-e-l] ‘to get up’ or ‘to go up’ (Table 6.69). The first is suppletive; the second
is an infixed verb. In Iranian Armenian, the form of the second verb is used as
the verb ‘to be’, without an initial glide: [el-n-e-l]. The meaning of ‘to get up’ or
‘to go up’ is periphrastic with another verb.
Table 6.69: Lexical shift from Standard Eastern to Iranian Armenian

SEA IA
‘to be’ ‘to get up’ ‘to be’ ‘to get up’
Infinitive lin-e-l jel-n-e-l el-n-e-l etʰ-ɒ-l veɻev
√ -th-inf √ -vx-th-inf √ -vx-th-inf √ -th-inf up
լինել ելնել էլնել էթալ վերեւ

Past Pfv. 1PL jeʁ-ɑ-ŋkʰ jel-ɑ-ŋkʰ el-ɑ-ŋkʰ ɡən-ɒ-t͡sʰ-i-ŋkʰ veɻev

√ -pst-1pl √ -pst-1pl √ -pst-1pl √ -th-aor-pst-1pl up
եղանք ելանք էլանք գնացինք վերեւ

We have noted some degree of optional heteroclisis (Stump 2006), meaning

that a verb changes its conjugation class in some paradigm cells (Table 6.70).
Consider the common verb siɻ-e-l ‘to like’. This verb is primarily a regular E-Class
verb and is inflected as such. But in the past perfective, some speakers conjugate
the verb as E-Class and some as A-Class. NK sometimes produced perfective
converbs with the aorist stem, following the A-Class pattern.
Table 6.70: Variable aorist stem as a form of heteroclisis

‘to like’
Infinitive sir-e-l √ -th-inf սիրել
Past Pfv. 1SG siɻ-ɒ-m √ -pst-1sg սիրամ
siɻ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-i-m √ -th-aor-pst-1sg սիրացիմ

Pfv. converb siɻ-el, siɻ-eɻ √ -perf.cvb սիրել, սիրեր

siɻ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-el, siɻ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-eɻ √ -th-aor-perf.cvb սիրացել, սիրացեր

Some speakers consider the A-Class forms to be normal, but others perceive
them as “done in jest.” It is difficult to tell if this is genuine inter-speaker variation,
or if it is due to hyper-correction from Standard Eastern Armenian.

165
6 Verbal morphology

Another possible case of heteroclisis that we found was for the A-Class verb
[χos-ɒ-l] ‘to speak’. NK inflects this as an A-Class almost always, but sometimes
she produced an imperative 2PL that followed the E-Class pattern [χos-ekʰ] √-
imp.2pl instead of the A-Class pattern [χos-ɒ-t͡sʰ-ekʰ] √-th-aor-imp.2pl. She like-
wise once produced an E-Class infinitive [χos-e-l] instead of [χos-ɒ-l]. Obviously,
more data is needed to see the extent of lexical or speaker variation in such mix-
ing of conjugation classes. It is possible that such class changes are a form of
dialect-mixing between Iranian Armenian and Standard Eastern Armenian.

166
7 Syntax
In terms of its syntax, Iranian Armenian is largely identical to Standard Eastern
Armenian. As such, we do not go over the syntax of Iranian Armenian in depth. In
terms of general typological features, Iranian Armenian is SOV (1a), has optional
post-verbal objects (1b), uses pro-drop (1c), and contextually-implied objects can
drop too (1d).

(1) a. d͡ʒɒn-ə ind͡z mɒkʰɻ-ɒ-v

John-def I.dat clean-pst-3sg
‘John cleaned me.’ (NK)
Ջոնը ինձ մաքրաւ։
b. d͡ʒɒn-ə mɒkʰɻ-ɒ-v ind͡z
John-def clean-pst-3sg I.dat
‘John cleaned me.’ (NK)
Ջոնը ինձ մաքրաւ։
c. mɒkʰuɻ e-m
clean aux-1sg
‘I am clean.’ (NK)
Մաքուր եմ։
d. i. d͡ʒuɻ-ə χəm-ɒ-ɻ
water-def drink-pst-2sg
‘Did you drink the water?’ (NK)
Ջուրը խմա՞ր։
ii. ɒjo, χəm-ɒ-m
yes drink-pst-1sg
‘Yes, I drank it ’ (NK)
Այո, խմամ։

More in-depth studies of Standard Eastern Armenian syntax exist (Dum-

Tragut 2009, Yeghiazaryan 2010, Su 2012, Hodgson 2019b, Khurshudyan & Don-
abédian 2021) and these descriptions largely apply to Iranian Armenian. Further-
more, there are some studies of “Eastern Armenian”, but these are actually done
7 Syntax

based on data from Iranian Armenian speakers who are bi-dialectal (Stevick 1955,
Tamrazian 1994, Megerdoomian 2009).
This chapter focuses on describing those aspects of Iranian Armenian syntax
that are innovative when compared to Standard Eastern. Some of these are gram-
maticalized from attested colloquial and optional properties of Standard Eastern
Armenian. Some of these changes were likely encouraged by the use of similar
structures in Persian (cf. other language-contact effects in the region: Donabé-
dian & Sitaridou 2020). These changes are listed below.

• Using the second person possessive suffix as an object clitic (§7.1) → bor-
rowed from Persian

• Preference for using resumptive pronouns over case-marked relativizers

(§7.2) → language-internal but encouraged from Persian

• Preference for subjunctive marking in complement clauses (§7.3) → lan-

guage-internal but encouraged from Persian

• Variation in expressing subject marking in participle clauses (§7.4) → lan-

guage-internal

In previous sections of this grammar, we did briefly discuss some major aspects
of Iranian Armenian syntax. These include auxiliary movement (§3.3.1) and inter-
rogative questions (§5.3). Their syntax does not significantly differ from Standard
Eastern Armenian.
Throughout this chapter, Persian sentences were elicited from Nazila Shafiei
(NS), an Iranian syntactician. We use the glossing that she provided. The IPA
transcriptions were double-checked with Koorosh Ariyaee, an Iranian phonolo-
gist.1 The Standard Eastern Armenian sentences were judged by the consultants
mentioned in §1.4.

7.1 Object clitic for second person

Due to contact with Persian, Iranian Armenian has extended the use of the 2SG
possessive suffix /-(ə)t/ into an object clitic. Within Armenian dialectology, the
use of /-(ə)t/ as an object clitic has been previously attested for Armenian dialects
in Iran (Sayeed & Vaux 2017: 1159, citing Աճառեան 1911: 284, Մուրադյան et al.
1
Ariyeae notes that what we transcribed as a Persian [ɒ] may be closer to [ɑ] for Iranian Persian
speakers. See footnote 10 in §2.1.4 for discussion.

168
 7.1 Object clitic for second person

1977: item 675, Khurshudian 2020: 340, Hodgson 2022, Martirosyan 2018: 87, Vaux
2022b: §4.1).
For the Armenian community of Tehran and the diaspora, AS reports that this
use of the clitic is “prevalent in generation Y’s vernacular,” where generation Y
is anyone born in the 80’s or 90’s. The use of the clitic is stigmatized because it
is part of a “very informal register.” Speakers are aware of the register difference.
Most of our consultants could use the Armenian possessive as an object clitic.
Some Iranian Armenians who were born and raised in the diaspora however said
they had never heard of such constructions.

7.1.1 General use of the object clitic

In its typical uses, the morpheme /-(ə)t/ acts as a second person possessive suffix
on nouns (2).

(2) senjɒk-ət
room=poss.2sg
‘your room’
Սենեակդ։

But in Iranian Armenian, this morpheme also functions as an object clitic (3).
As a clitic, this morpheme has some correlations with tense, mood, and valency.
For example, many instances of the clitic are found for verbs with the synthetic
future. The clitic is mostly used to replace the direct object of a transitive verb.

(3) a. kə-χəpʰ-e-m kʰez

fut-hit-th-1sg you.sg.dat
‘I will hit you.’ (NK, AP, KM)
Կը խփեմ քեզ։
b. kə-χəpʰ-e-m=ət
fut-hit-th-1sg=poss.2sg
‘I will hit you.’ (NK, AP, KM)
Կը խփեմդ։

Throughout this chapter, we gloss the /(ə)t/ morpheme consistently as a pos-

sessive, even when it is functioning as an object clitic /=(ə)t/.
Although the second person possessive /-(ə)t/ can function as an object clitic,
the first person possessive /-(ə)s/ cannot (4).

169
7 Syntax

(4) a. kə-χəpʰ-e-n ind͡z

fut-hit-th-3pl I.dat
‘They will hit me.’ (NK)
Կը խփեն ինձ։
b. *kə-χəpʰ-e-n=əs
fut-hit-th-3pl=poss.1sg
Intended: ‘They will hit me.’ (*NK)
Similarly, the definite suffix is used for third person possessive marking, but it
cannot be used as an object clitic (5).
(5) a. kə-χəpʰ-e-m iɾɒn
fut-hit-th-1sg he.dat
‘I will hit him.’ (NK)
Կը խփեմ իրան։
b. *kə-χəpʰ-e-m=ə
fut-hit-th-1sg=def
Intended: ‘I will hit him.’ (*NK)
There is no clitic option for plural objects.
The use of the possessive /-t/ as an object clitic likely developed by contact
from Persian, which has an entire set of pronominal clitics that act as object
clitics for every person-number combination (Mahootian 2002: 138, Samvelian &
Tseng 2010). The object of a transitive verb can be either present (6a) or absent
(6b). When the object is absent, Persian uses object clitics on the verb (6b).
(6) Object cliticization in Persian
a. (mæn) to=ro mi-zæn-æm
(I) you=om impf-hit-1sg
‘I’m going to hit you.’ (NS)
.‫من تو رو میزنم‬
b. (mæn) mi-zæn-æm=et
(I) impf-hit-1sg=2sg
‘I’m going to hit you.’ (NS)
.‫من میزنمت‬
Although Persian allows object clitics for every person-number combination,
Iranian Armenian has an object clitic /-t/ for only the 2SG. It is unclear why this
restriction exists. Don Stilo (p.c.) suggests that the restriction might exist because
of formality. To quote him:

170
 7.1 Object clitic for second person

It seems to me that this use of the possessive clitic as an object clitic only
with the 2nd singular further emphasizes the ‘informal’ nature of this pat-
tern. That is, since it is only used in the 2nd singular, this possibly shows
that it is only used with friends. Otherwise, what would be the logic of us-
ing it only in the 2nd singular when Persian uses these clitics universally in
all persons?

Furthermore, as we discuss in the following sections, the object clitic prefers

certain tenses and moods; it is unclear to us if these restrictions were also copied
from Persian.

7.1.2 Object clitic for direct objects in the synthetic future

As stated earlier, the most typical use of the object clitic is to replace the direct
object of a verb in the synthetic future. The synthetic future is marked by the
prefix /k-/.
The object clitic can be used for a range of verbs (7). These all seem to be
verbs of physical action. More data is needed to determine if this is a general
restriction or a tendency. For some cases, the use of the clitic carries an emphatic
connotation, e.g., kə-spɒn-e-m=ət ‘(I am so mad that) I will kill you’.

(7) a. i. kə-spɒn-e-m kʰez

fut-kill-th-1sg you.sg.dat
‘I will kill you.’ (NK)
Կը սպանեմ քեզ։
ii. kə-spɒn-e-m=ət
fut-kill-th-1sg=poss.2sg
‘I will kill you.’ (NK)
Կը սպանեմդ։
b. i. kə-χeχt-e-m kʰez
fut-strangle-th-1sg you.sg.dat
‘I will strangle you.’ (NK)
Կը խեղդեմ քեզ։
ii. kə-χeχt-e-m=ət
fut-strangle-th-1sg=poss.2sg
‘I will strangle you.’ (NK)
Կը խեղդեմդ։

171
7 Syntax

c. i. kə-bərn-e-m kʰez
fut-hold-th-1sg you.sg.dat
‘I will hold you.’ (NK)
Կը բռնեմ քեզ։
ii. kə-bərn-e-m=ət.
fut-hold-th-1sg=poss.2sg
‘I will hold you.’ (NK)
Կը բռնեմ քեզ։
Կը բռնեմդ։

For some transitives, the clitic cannot be used by AP (8). Some of them can be
used by KM.

(8) a. i. kə-tɒn-e-m kʰez

fut-take-th-1sg you.sg.dat
‘I will take you.’ (AP).
Կը տանեմ քեզ։
ii. *kə-tɒn-e-m=ət
fut-take-th-1sg=poss.2sg
‘I will take you.’ (*AP, okay KM)
Կը տանեմդ։
b. i. kə-pʰəntr-e-m kʰez
fut-take-th-1sg you.sg.dat
‘I will look for you.’ (AP)
Կը փնտռեմ քեզ։
ii. *kə-pʰəntr-e-m=ət
fut-take-th-1sg=poss.2sg
Intended: ‘I will look for you.’ (*AP)

The verb [mɒt͡ʃʰel] ‘to kiss’ cannot take the clitic for NK (9).

(9) a. kə-mɒt͡ʃʰ-e-m kʰez

fut-kiss-th-1sg you.sg.dat
‘I will like you.’ (NK)
Կը մաչեմ քեզ։
b. *kə-mɒt͡ʃʰ-e-m=ət
fut-kiss-th-1sg=poss.2sg
Intended: ‘I will kiss you.’ (*NK)

172
 7.1 Object clitic for second person

In the domain of verbs of speech, the transitive verbs [kɒnt͡ʃʰel] ‘to call’ and
[zɒŋɡel] ‘to phone’ can take the clitic for some speakers (10).
(10) a. i. kə-kɒnt͡ʃʰ-e-m kʰez
fut-call-th-1sg you.sg.dat
‘I will call you.’ (AP)
Կը կանչեմ քեզ։
ii. kə-kɒnt͡ʃʰ-e-m=ət
fut-call-th-1sg=poss.2sg
‘I will call you.’ (AP)
Կը կանչեմդ։
b. i. kə-zɒŋɡ-e-m kʰez
fut-phone-th-1sg you.sg.dat
‘I will phone you.’ (AS)
Կը զանգեմ քեզ։
ii. kə-zɒŋɡ-e-m=ət
fut-call-th-1sg=poss.2sg
‘I will phone you.’ (AS)
Կը զանգեմդ։

AS provides a common example with the verb ‘to see’. He reports that this is
a social expression and a calque from Persian (11).
(11) kə-ɡ-ɒ-s kə-tesn-e-m=ət
fut-come-th-2sg fut-see-th-1sg=poss.2sg
‘Come, let me see you.’ (AS)
Կը գաս, կը տեսնեմդ

Some verbs like [siɻel] ‘to like’ cannot take the clitic for some speakers (12).
It is unclear if this is idiosyncratic, or if it reflects a restriction against verbs of
non-physical action.
(12) a. kə-siɻ-e-m kʰez
fut-like-th-1sg you.sg.dat
‘I will like you.’ (NK)
Կը սիրեմ քեզ։
b. *kə-siɻ-e-m=ət
fut-like-th-1sg=poss.2sg
‘Intended: ‘I will like you.’ (*NK)
Կը սիրեմդ։

173
7 Syntax

7.1.3 Object clitic for other tenses and moods

The previous section focused on examples of the object clitic when the verb is
in the synthetic future. It is rather difficult to find cases where the clitic is added
for other tenses and moods for some of our consultants.
In other synthetic tenses, NK expressed uncertainty about using the clitic in
the subjunctive (13).
(13) a. uz-um e-m kʰez χəpʰ-e-m
want-impf.cvb aux-1sg you.sg.dat hit-th-1sg
‘I want to hit you.’ (NK)
Ուզում եմ քեզ խփեմ։
b. ?uz-um e-m χəpʰ-e-m=ət
want-impf.cvb aux-1sg hit-th-1sg=poss.2sg
Intended: ‘I want to hit you.’ (?NK)
AS however provides an example in the subjunctive. The phrase is a social
expression (14).
(14) ɒɻi tes-n-e-m=ət
come.imp.2sg see-vx-th-1sg=poss.2sg
‘Come, let me see you.’ (AS)
Արի, տեսնեմդ։

For the past perfective, NK reports that she cannot use the object clitic (15).
(15) a. χəpʰ-ɒ-m kʰez
hit-pst-1sg you.sg.dat
‘I hit (past) you.’ (NK)
Խփամ քեզ։
b. *χəpʰ-ɒ-m=ət
hit-pst-1sg=poss.2sg
Intended: ‘I hit (past) you.’ (*NK)
For periphrastic tenses, AS reports that the object clitic can be used (16). In
such cases, the clitic would cliticize onto the auxiliary. Such cliticization is also
reported in the Armenian dialect of Urmia in Iran (Ղարիբյան 1941: 282).
(16) a. i. nɒj-um e-m kʰez
look-impf.cvb aux-1sg you.sg.dat
‘I am looking at you.’ (AS)
Նայում եմ քեզ։

174
 7.1 Object clitic for second person

ii. nɒj-um e-m=ət

look-impf.cvb aux-1sg=poss.2sg
‘I am looking at you.’ (AS)
Նայում եմդ։
b. i. spɒs-um e-m kʰez
wait-impf.cvb aux-1sg you.sg.dat
‘I am waiting for you.’ (AS)
Սպասում եմ քեզ։
ii. spɒs-um e-m=ət
wait-impf.cvb aux-1sg=poss.2sg
‘I am waiting for you.’ (AS)
Սպասում եմդ։
c. i. kɒɻot-el e-m kʰez
miss-impf.cvb aux-1sg you.sg.dat
‘I’ve missed you.’ (AS)
Կարօտել եմ քեզ։
ii. kɒɻot-el e-m=ət
miss-impf.cvb aux-1sg=poss.2sg
‘I’ve missed you.’ (AS)
Կարոտել եմդ։

Don Stilo (p.c.) informs us that Persian can also add the object clitic to some
periphrastic tenses, such as the present perfect (17).
(17) Persian (formal register)
di-d-e æm=æt
impf-look-ptcp aux.1sg=2sg
‘I have looked at you.’ (NS, Don Stilo)
‫دیدهامت‬
More common colloquial version with reduction: [di-d-æm-et]

7.1.4 Cliticizing other verbal arguments

All previous examples were cases where the object clitic replaced the direct object
of a transitive verb. For other types of verbal arguments, we have found mixed
judgments. We go through these other possible arguments.
The clitic has varying grammaticality when used to replace an indirect object
(18). NK felt that use of the clitic was possible but sounded “silly.” KM cannot say
these.

175
7 Syntax

(18) a. k-ɒs-e-m kʰez

fut-say–th-1sg you.sg.dat
‘I will tell you.’ (NK)
Կասեմ քեզ։
b. k-ɒs-e-m=ət
fut-say-th-1sg=poss.2sg
‘I will tell you.’ (NK, *KM)
Կասեմդ։

AS reports an example of an indirect object in the subjunctive (19).

(19) me bɒn ɒs-e-m=ət

indf thing tell-th-1sg=poss.2sg
‘Let me tell you something’. (AS)
Մի բան ասեմդ

As before, the indirect object clitic is not used in the past perfective (20).

(20) a. ɒs-ɒ-m kʰez

say-pst-1sg you.sg.dat
‘I told you.’ (NK)
Ասամ քեզ։
b. *ɒs-ɒ-m=ət .
say-pst-1sg=poss.2sg
Intended: ‘I told you.’ (*NK)

So far, it seems there is significant speaker variation for using the object clitic
in place of an indirect object. Much stronger negative judgments are found for
other possible arguments. For example, benefactive phrases cannot be replaced
by the object clitic (21).

(21) a. jes kə-jeɻkʰ-e-m kʰo hɒmɒɻ

I fut-sing-th-1sg you.sg.gen for
‘I will sing for you.’ (NK)
Ես կը երգեմ քո համար։
b. *jes kə-jeɻkʰ-e-m=ət
I fut-sing-th-1sg=poss.2sg
Intended: ‘I will sing for you.’ (*NK)

176
 7.1 Object clitic for second person

However, AP reports that they can add the clitic onto the benefactive postpo-
sition (22).

(22) a. kʰo hɒmɒɻ kə-jeɻkʰ-e-m

you.sg.gen for fut-sing-th-1sg
‘I will sing for you.’ (AP)
Քո համար կը երգեմ։
b. hɒmɒɻ=ət kə-jeɻkʰ-e-m
for=poss.2sg fut-sing-th-1sg
‘I will sing for you.’ (AP)
Համարդ կը երգեմ։

Second-person substantives cannot be replaced by the object clitic (23).

(23) a. jes kʰo jeɻkʰ-ə kə-jeɻkʰ-e-m

I you.sg.gen song-def fut-sing-th-1sg
‘I will sing your song.’ (NK)
Ես քո երգը կը երգեմ։
b. jes kʰon-ə kə-jeɻkʰ-e-m
I yours-def fut-sing-th-1sg
‘I will sing yours.’ (NK)
Ես քոնը կը երգեմ։
c. *jes kə-jeɻkʰ-e-m-ət
I fut-sing-th-1sg=poss.2sg
Intended: ‘I will sing yours’. (*NK)

Nor can we turn the indirect object of the verb ‘to speak’ into an object clitic
(24e). More accurately, the restriction could be against comitatives.

(24) a. kə-χos-ɒ-m
fut-speak-th-1sg
‘I will speak.’ (NK)
Կը խօսամ։
b. jes es lezu-n kə-χos-ɒ-m
I this language-def fut-speak-th-1sg
‘I will speak this language.’ (NK)
Ես էս լեզուն կը խօսամ։

177
7 Syntax

c. jes es lezu-n d͡ʒon-i het kə-χos-ɒ-m

I this language-def John-gen with fut-speak-th-1sg
‘I will speak this language with John.’ (NK)
Ես էս լեզուն Ջոնի հետ կը խօսամ։
d. jes es lezu-n kʰo het kə-χos-ɒ-m
I this language-def you.sg.gen with fut-speak-th-1sg
‘I will speak this language with you.’ (NK)
Ես էս լեզուն քո հետ կը խօսամ։
e. *jes es lezu-n kə-χos-ɒ-m=ət
I this language-def fut-speak-th-1sg=poss.2sg
Intended: ‘I will speak this language with you’. (*NK)

7.2 Resumptive pronouns in relative clauses

In Standard Eastern Armenian, relative clauses utilize case marking on the rel-
ativizer (relative pronoun voɾ: 25a). The use of a resumptive pronoun is judged
as ungrammatical, unnatural, or excessive for speakers (25b), and it is not even
mentioned in the Dum-Tragut grammar (2009: 478).

(25) Standard Eastern Armenian

a. ɑjn kin-ǝ voɾ-it͡sʰ ɑjs ɡiɾkʰ-ǝ veɾ-t͡sʰɾ-e-t͡sʰ-i-∅
that woman-def that-abl this book-def buy-caus-th-aor-pst-1sg
‘that woman from whom I bought this book’ (MA, VK, VP)
այն կինը որից այս գիրքը վերցրեցի
b. ɑjn kin-ǝ voɾ iɾen-it͡sʰ ɑjs ɡiɾkʰ-ǝ
that woman-def that she-abl this book-def
veɾ-t͡sʰɾ-e-t͡sʰ-i-∅
buy-caus-th-aor-pst-1sg
‘that woman from whom I bought this book’ (MA, ?VK, *VP)
այն կինը որ իրենից այս գիրքը վերցրեցի

MA felt the use of a resumptive pronoun was grammatical but “includes com-
plexity that we can avoid.”
Similarly for Standard Western Armenian, HD’s judgments are that using a
case-marked relativizer is the norm (26a). Using a separate resumptive pronoun
(26b) doesn’t sound ungrammatical, but does sound “excessively clunky.” It cre-
ates a sense that the relative clause is an after-thought.

178
 7.2 Resumptive pronouns in relative clauses

(26) Standard Western Armenian

a. ɑjn ɡin-ǝ voɾ-m-e ɑjs kʰiɾkʰ-ǝ kʰənn-e-t͡sʰ-i-∅
that woman-def that-nx-abl this book-def buy-th-aor-pst-1sg
‘that woman from whom I bought this book’ (HD)
այն կինը որմէ այս գիրքը գնեցի
b. ?ɑjn ɡin-ǝ voɾ iɾ-m-e ɑjs kʰiɾkʰ-ǝ
that woman-def that she-nx-abl this book-def
kʰənn-e-t͡sʰ-i-∅
buy-th-aor-pst-1sg
‘that woman from whom I bought this book’ (?HD)
այն կինը որ իրմէ այս գիրքը գնեցի

However, resumptive pronouns are attested in some Colloquial Eastern Arme-

nian registers (Polinsky 1995: 100, Hodgson 2020b: ex:5). Such resumptive pro-
nouns are also attested and seem to be more common in Classical and Middle
Armenian (Hewitt 1978, Hodgson 2020b: §3.3) and some other Armenian dialects
(Aslanbeg: Vaux 2001: 53).
In contrast, in Iranian Armenian, both strategies are attested (27a), at least
for clauses where the head noun acts as an ablative argument in the relative
clause. For a bi-dialectal speaker like KM, both options were possible, while the
resumptive pronoun feels more common (27b). For a mono-lectal speaker like
NK, the resumptive pronoun strategy was the default, while using a case-marked
complementizer felt odd.

(27) Iranian Armenian

a. en kin-ǝ voɻ-ut͡sʰ es ɡiɻkʰ-ǝ veɻ-t͡sʰɻ-ɒ-m
that woman-def that-abl this book-def take-caus-pst-1sg
‘that woman from whom I took this book’ (KM, ?NK)
էն կինը որուց էս գիրքը վերցրամ
b. en kin-ǝ voɻ jes iɻɒn-it͡sʰ es ɡiɻkʰ-ǝ veɻ-t͡sʰɻ-ɒ-m
that woman-def that I she-abl this book–def take-caus-pst-1sg
‘that woman from whom I took this book’ (KM, NK)
էն կինը որ ես իրանից էս գիրքը վերցրամ

It’s unknown if the preference for resumptive pronouns is constant across all
possible types of case-marking (nominative, accusative, genitive/dative, ablative,
instrumental, and locative). However, as Katherine Hodgson reminds us, the Rel-
ativization Accessibility Hierarchy (Keenan & Comrie 1977) says that resump-

179
7 Syntax

tives should be more common with lower roles like ablative than with higher
ones like subject.
The preference for resumptive pronouns is likely due to contact with Persian
(28). In Persian, if the head noun has oblique case in the relative clause, then
the only strategy is to use a resumptive pronominal clitic (Mahootian 2002: 34,
Abdollahnejad 2018: 2). The relativizer /ke/ cannot be case-marked.

(28) Persian
un zæn-i ke æz-æʃ in ketɒb-ɾo xæɾid-æm
that woman-def that from-her this book-om bought-1sg
‘the woman from whom I bought this book’ (NS)
‫اون زنی که ازش این کتاب رو خریدم‬

7.3 Subjunctive marking in complement clauses

In Standard Eastern Armenian, a modal verb like ‘want’ can select complement
clauses where the verb is an infinitive (29a). The implicit subject of the com-
plement clause is the subject of the main clause. An alternative strategy is to
include a complementizer voɾ, and then change the verb into a finite subjunctive
verb (29b). Both of these two options are judged as prescriptive norms. A third
alternative however is to omit the complementizer but still use a subjunctive
verb (29c). This third alternative is judged as quite colloquial (Dum-Tragut 2009:
425–427).

(29) Standard Eastern Armenian

a. uz-um e-n ind͡z ɡoɾt͡s-i dən-e-l
want-impf.cvb aux-3pl I.dat work-dat put-th-inf
‘They want to make me work.’ (MA, VK, VP)
Ուզում են ինձ գործի դնել։
b. uz-um e-n voɾ ind͡z ɡoɾt͡s-i dən-e-n
want-impf.cvb aux-3pl that I.dat work-dat put-th-3pl
‘They want to make me work.’ (MA, VK, VP)
Ուզում են որ ինձ գործի դնեն։
c. uz-um e-n ind͡z ɡoɾt͡s-i dən-e-n
want-impf.cvb aux-3pl I.dat work-dat put-th-3pl
‘They want to make me work.’ (MA, VK, VP)
Ուզում են ինձ գործի դնեն։

180
 7.3 Subjunctive marking in complement clauses

Similar judgments apply for Standard Western Armenian. The norm is to use
an infinitive (30a) or a complementizer (30b). Using a subjunctive (30c) is possi-
ble in colloquial speech. When the complement clause includes multiple items
besides the verb, HD feels that using a subjunctive sounds more natural than
using an infinitive.

(30) Standard Western Armenian

a. ɡ-uz-e-n ind͡z-i ɑʃχɑt-t͡sən-e-l
ind-want-th-3pl I-dat work-caus-th-inf
‘They want to make me work.’ (HD)
Կուզեն ինծի աշխատցնել։
b. ɡ-uz-e-n voɾ ind͡z-i ɑʃχɑt-t͡sən-e-n
ind-want-th-3pl that I-dat work-caus-th-3pl
‘They want to make me work.’ (HD)
Կուզեն որ ինծի աշխատցնեն։
c. ɡ-uz-e-n ind͡z-i ɑʃχɑt-t͡sən-e-n
ind-want-th-3pl I-dat work-caus-th-3pl
‘They want to make me work.’ (HD)
Կուզեն ինծի աշխատցնեն։

In contrast, in Iranian Armenian, the use of a finite subjunctive verb is more

common (31c). NK personally felt that using an infinitive was odd or ungrammat-
ical (31a).

(31) Iranian Armenian

a. ?uz-um e-n ind͡z-i ɡoɻt͡s-i kʰɒʃ-e-l
want-impf.cvb aux-3pl I-dat work-dat drive-th-inf
‘They want to make me work.’ (?NK)
Ուզում են ինձի գործի քաշել։
b. uz-um e-n voɾ ind͡z-i ɡoɻt͡s-i kʰɒʃ-e-n
want-impf.cvb aux-3pl that I-dat work-dat drive-th-3pl
‘They want to make me work.’ (NK)
Ուզում են որ ինձի գործի քաշեն։
c. uz-um e-n ind͡z-i ɡoɻt͡s-i kʰɒʃ-e-n
want-impf.cvb aux-3pl I-dat work-dat drive-th-3pl
‘They want to make me work.’ (KM, NK)
Ուզում են ինձի գործի քաշեն։

181
7 Syntax

AS reports more examples of embedded verbs where Standard Eastern Arme-

nian would prefer an infinitive form, while Iranian Armenian prefers a subjunc-
tive form (32).

(32) a. Iranian Armenian

i. t͡ʃʰ-e-m kɒɻ-oʁ ɒs-e-m
neg-aux-1sg can-sptcp say-th-1sg
‘I cannot say.’ (AS)
Չեմ կարող ասեմ։
ii. uz-um ∅-i-m ɒn-∅-i-m
want-impf.cvb aux-pst-1sg do-th-pst-1sg
‘I wanted to do (it).’ (AS)
Ուզում իմ անիմ։
iii. int͡ʃʰ ∅-i-ɻ uz-um ɒs-∅-i-ɻ
what aux-pst-2sg want-impf.cvb say-th-pst-2sg
‘What did you want to say?’ (AS)
Ի՞նչ իր ուզում ասիր։
b. Standard Eastern Armenian
i. t͡ʃʰ-e-m kɑɾ-oʁ ɑs-e-l
neg-aux-1sg can-sptcp say-th-inf
‘I cannot say.’ (AS)
Չեմ կարող ասել։
ii. uz-um ej-i-∅ ɑn-e-l
want-impf.cvb aux-pst-1sg do-th-inf
‘I wanted to do (it).’
Ուզում էի անել։
iii. int͡ʃʰ ej-i-ɾ uz-um ɑs-e-l
what aux-pst-2sg want-impf.cvb say-th-inf
‘What did you want to say?’
Ի՞նչ էիր ուզում ասել։

In Iran, the Salmast dialect of Armenian likewise prefers using subjunctive

forms (Vaux 2022b: §4.5).
The preference for subjunctive forms is likely due to language-internal devel-
opment that got encouraged by language contact with Persian (33). In Persian,
verbs like ‘want’ select subjunctive verbs (Mahootian 2002: 29).

182
 7.4 Agreement-marking in nominalized relative clauses or participial clauses

(33) Persian
a. mi-tun-æm be-ɾ-æm
prog-can-1sg sbjv-go-1sg
‘I can go.’ (NS)
.‫میتونم برم‬
b. ne-mi-tun-æm be-ɡ-æm
neg-prog-can-1sg sbjv-say-1sg
‘I cannot say.’ (NS)
.‫نمیتونم بگم‬
c. mi-x-ænd mæn be-ɾ-æm
prog-want-3pl I sbjv-go-1sg
‘They want me to go.’ (NS)
.‫میخواند من برم‬

7.4 Agreement-marking in nominalized relative clauses or

participial clauses
A small area of microvariation concerns agreement marking on nominalized rel-
ative clauses. For a sentence like (34a), the relative clause is expressed as a post-
nominal relative clause with a finite verb. In contrast, this sentence can be para-
phrased as in (34b), but where the relative clause is now pre-nominal, and the
finite verb is replaced by a participle.

(34) Standard Eastern Armenian

a. ɡiɾkʰ-ǝ voɾ iŋkʰ-ə kɑɾtʰ-ɑ-t͡sʰ-∅-∅
book-def that he-def read-th-aor-pst-3sg
‘the book that he read.’ (VP)
գիրքը որ ինքը կարդաց
b. (iɾ) kɑɾtʰ-ɑ-t͡sʰ-ɑt͡s ɡiɾkʰ-ǝ
(he.gen) read-th-aor-rptcp book-def
‘the book that he read.’ (VP)
(իր) կարդացած գիրքը

A special subcategory of such relative clause constructions is when the subject

or ‘doer’ of the verb is either the first or second person singular (35a). We focus
on the first person for illustration. When such a relative clause is converted to

183
7 Syntax

a participle clause (35b), the subject is expressed by the first person possessive
suffix -(ə)s.

(35) Standard Eastern Armenian

a. ɡiɾkʰ-ǝ voɾ kɑɾtʰ-ɑ-t͡sʰ-i-∅
book-def that read-th-aor-pst-1sg
‘the book that I read.’ (MA, VK, VP)
գիրքը որ կարդացի
b. kɑɾtʰ-ɑ-t͡sʰ-ɑt͡s-ǝs ɡiɾkʰ-ǝ
read-th-aor-rptcp-poss.1sg book-def
‘the book that I read.’ (MA, VK, VP)
կարդացածս գիրքը
c. im kɑɾtʰ-ɑ-t͡sʰ-ɑt͡s-ǝs ɡiɾkʰ-ǝ
I.gen read-th-aor-rptcp-poss.1sg book-def
‘the book that I read.’ (*MA, ?VK, *VP)
իմ կարդացածս գիրքը

Our Standard Eastern Armenian consultants all felt that using an overt geni-
tive pronoun alongside the possessive suffix on the participle (35c) was odd or
ungrammatical.
For these participle clauses, there is dialectal variation in how the subject or
doer of the action is marked for the first/second person singular. In Standard
Eastern Armenian, the norm is (i) to not use an overt genitive pronoun, (ii) to
place a subject-marking possessive suffix -əs on the participle, and (iii) to mark
the head noun as definite (Dum-Tragut 2009: 508–509).
In contrast in Standard Western Armenian (36a), the norm is to (ii’) make the
participle unmarked, while (iii’) the noun gets the possessive suffix. The pronoun
is optional (i’). For more data, see Ackerman & Nikolaeva (1997), Ackerman (1998),
Ackema & Neeleman (2004), and Ackerman & Nikolaeva (2013: 284ff). For Stan-
dard Eastern, such constructions are deemed “okay but not default” for VK and
“not preferable” for VP (36b). Neither consultant approved of adding the pronoun.

(36) a. Standard Western Armenian

(im) ɡɑɾtʰ-ɑ-t͡sʰ-ɑd͡z kʰiɾkʰ-əs
I.gen read-th-aor-rptcp book-poss.1sg
‘the book that I read’ (HD)
(իմ) կարդացած գիրքս

184
 7.4 Agreement-marking in nominalized relative clauses or participial clauses

b. Standard Eastern Armenian

(*im) kɑɾtʰ-ɑ-t͡sʰ-ɑt͡s ɡiɾkʰ-əs
I.gen read-th-aor-rptcp book-poss.1sg
‘the book that I read’ (VK, ?VP)
(իմ) կարդացած գիրքս

Note that some speakers like MA feel that having the possessive on the noun
(36b) was grammatical but had a distinct meaning of ‘I own the book and I read
it.’ In contrast, when the possessive suffix is on the participle (35b), there is no
information concerning who the owner of the book is.
In contrast, in Iranian Armenian, it seems that there is optionality across these
parameters. We can either follow SEA and place the possessive on the participle
(37b), or we can follow SWA and place the possessive on the noun (37d). An
intermediate option is to not use a possessive suffix at all (37c).

(37) Iranian Armenian

a. ɡiɻkʰ-ǝ voɾ kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-i-m
book-def that read-th-aor-pst-1sg
‘the book that I read.’ (NK)
գիրքը որ կարդացիմ
b. (im) kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-ɒt͡s-ǝs ɡiɻkʰ-ǝ
(I.gen) read-th-aor-rptcp-poss.1sg book-def
իմ կարդացածս գիրքը (KM, ?NK)
c. im kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-ɒt͡s ɡiɻkʰ-ǝ
I.gen read-th-aor-rptcp book-def
իմ կարդացած գիրքը (KM, NK)
d. (im) kɒɻtʰ-ɒ-t͡sʰ-ɒt͡s ɡiɻkʰ-ǝs
(I.gen) read-th-aor-rptcp book-poss.1sg
‘the book that I read’
(իմ) կարդացած գիրքս (KM, ?NK)

For a bi-dialectal speaker like KM, all of the options were acceptable. For a
mono-lectal speaker like NK, the intermediate option (37c) was judged as the
best option, the SEA-style sentences were judged as odd (37b), while the SWA-
sentences (37d) were judged as better than the SEA-style ones, but not as good
as the intermediate.
This intermediate option (37c) was likewise accepted for SEA (38) by our con-
sultants; VK and MA went as far to say this intermediate option is as good as

185
7 Syntax

the norm (35b). Katherine Hodgson informs us that all this variation is likewise
attested in Colloquial Eastern Armenian.

(38) Standard Eastern Armenian

im kɑɾtʰ-ɑ-t͡sʰ-ɑt͡s ɡiɾkʰ-ǝ
I.gen read-th-aor-rptcp book-def
‘the book that I read.’ (MA, VK, VP)
իմ կարդացած գիրքը

Among these various options for Iranian Armenian, KM reports that the in-
termediate option is relatively more preferred (37c). The SWA-style option is at-
tested but rather stigmatized (37d). The SEA-style option is prescriptively the
rule but rather uncommon (37b). It seems that at some point, Standard Eastern
Armenian developed this intermediate option as an acceptable colloquial alter-
native. Iranian Armenian then grammaticalized this intermediate option as the
norm.

186
8 Text
Iranian Armenian is a spoken vernacular. Thus, it is difficult to find any written
records of the language. What makes it more difficult is that, as AS informs us,
Iranian Armenian is so stigmatized that he has not found any common Iranian
Armenian songs or folk tales in his decade-long interaction with the community.
In recent years, however, there have been Iranian Armenians who have posted
online comedic sketches. These are posted on various social media platforms
like Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook. We examined and transcribed one such
sketch which is a 9-minute-long scripted dialogue between six Iranian Arme-
nian comedians (May 2021). The original video is available on Instagram as a
publicly-accessible video with subtitles.1 Ethically, although the video is public,
we wanted to obtain the consent of the comedians so that they know we were
using their sketch for our academic purposes. We managed to track down and
get the consent of four out of the six participants. We did not hear back from the
other two despite multiple attempts at contacting them.
The sketch is rather long with around 9 minutes of speech, and over 650 words.
We transcribed the entire video using our IPA and glossing system with Praat
Boersma 2001.2 We demarcated borrowed words with <>. The Armenian orthog-
raphy line uses romanization for Persian-based loanwords. Our English transla-
tion differs slightly from the subtitles. The entire transcript can be found in our
online archive as a Praat TextGrid.3 Because the video is long, we present only
one dialog between Vahik and Anjel, both acted out by the same male speaker
(Ryan Ebrahamian).

1
https://www.instagram.com/tv/COWtIvUn4KA/
2
We generally did not gloss zero morphs. We used zero morphs ∅ for the past morpheme and
past auxiliary like [∅-i-m] ‘aux-pst-1sg’ meaning ‘I was’.
3
https://github.com/jhdeov/iranian_armenian
8 Text

(1) Vahik
a. ɒnd͡ʒel ləs-el e-s es <væksin>-ə voɻ duɻs ɒ
Anjel hear-perf.cvb aux-2sg this vaccine-def that out aux
ɡ-ɒ-l-is
come-th-inf-impf.cvb
‘Anjel, have you heard of this vaccine that’s coming out?’4
Անջել, լսե՞լ ես էս <vaccine>-ը որ դուրս ա գալիս։
b. mæt noɻ-ən ɒ
indf.clf new-def aux
‘It’s a new one.’
Մի հատ նորն ա։
c. <d͡ʒɒnsən d͡ʒɒnsən>-n ɒ sɒɻkʰ-um
Johnson Johnson-def aux make-impf.cvb
‘Johnson and Johnson is making it.’
<Johnson and Johnson>-ն ա սարքում։
d. me ɒŋkʰɒm piti χəpʰ-e-s tʰev-i-t
indf time should shoot-th-2sg arm-dat-poss.2sg
‘You only take it once. (Lit: You should shoot it at your arm once)’
Մի անգամ պիտի խփես թեւիդ։
e. himɒ ɒmen əŋkeɻ-neɻ-i-s zɒŋɡ-e-l-uw e-m
now all friend-pl-dat-poss.1sg ring-th-inf-fut.cvb aux-1sg
mæt mek mek k-ɒs-e-m
indf.clf one one fut-say-th-1sg
‘I’m gonna call all my friends to tell them one-by-one. (Lit: Now I will
call all my friends, tell each one-by-one)’
Հիմա ամէն ընկերներիս զանգելու եմ, մի հատ մէկ մէկ կասեմ:
(2) Anjel
a. bɒbɒ d͡zer kʰɒʃ-i
dude hand pull-imp.2sg
‘Just leave it alone. (Lit. and idiomatic: Dude, pull your hand)’
Բաբա ձեռ քաշի։

4
Vahik does not drop the fricative /s/ of the imperfective converb suffix. It is more typical to
drop the /s/. The fact that he does not, suggests that there is either more variation than we
found (§3.3.4), or that he may be code switching or trying to sound more formal.

188
 b. ɡəluχ kə-tɒn-e-s vɒhik d͡ʒɒn-ət
head fut-take-th-2sg Vahik dear-poss.2sg
‘You’ll drive people crazy, Vahik, dear. (Lit and idiomatic: you shall
take away heads?)’5
Գլուխ կը տանես, Վահիկ ջանդ։
c. ov voɻ uz-um ɒ iɻɒ tʰev-ə χəpʰ-i in͡tʃʰ-i
who that want-impf.cvb aux he.gen arm-def shoot-th what-gen
het uz-um ɒ χəpʰ-i kə-χəpʰ-i
with want-impf.cvb aux shoot-th fut-shoot-th
‘Whoever wants to stick themselves can stick themselves with
whatever they’d like.’
Ով որ ուզում ա իրա թեւը խփի, ինչի հետ ուզում ա խփի կը խփի։
d. kʰez in͡tʃʰ
you.sg.dat what
‘What’s it to you?’
Քե՞զ ինչ։
(3) Vahik
a. <jæni> int͡ʃʰ in͡dz int͡ʃʰ
meaning what I.dat what
‘What do you mean, “what’s it to me”?’
<Yani> ի՞նչ «ինձ ինչ»։
Borrowed from Persian ‫‘ یعنی‬meaning’
b. jetʰe me ɒŋkʰɒm piti eɻt-ɒ-n χəpʰ-e-n iɻɒn͡tsʰ
if indf time should go-th-3pl strike-th-3pl they.gen
tʰev-eɻ-ə
arm-pl-def
‘If they only need to stick themselves once,’
Եթէ մի անգամ պիտի էրթան խփեն իրանց թեւերը,
c. heto ɒrɒt͡ʃʰ t͡ʃʰ-i piti kʰəʃ-e-n voɻ benzin eɻ-e-n
after before neg-aux should drive-th-3pl that gasoline burn-th-3pl
pʰoʁ t͡sɒχs-e-n
money spend-th-3pl
‘then they don’t have to drive back and forth to burn gas, spend
money.’
յետոյ առաջ չի պիտի քշեն, որ բենզին էրեն, փող ծախսեն:
5
We find the use of the possessive suffx -t on [d͡ʒɒn-ət] ‘your dear’ puzzling. We’re not sure if
we’re mishearing this [t], or if this is some novel construction for some speakers of IA.

189
8 Text

d. <nɒtʰiŋɡ iz fɻi> es ɒmeɻikɒ-ji met͡ʃʰ ɒnd͡ʒel d͡ʒɒn

nothing is free this America-gen in Anjel dear
‘Nothing is free in America, Anjel, dear.’
<Nothing is free> էս Ամերիկայի մէջ, Անջել ջան:
e. lɒv me bɒn el uz-um e-m ɒn-e-m
good indf thing also/even want-impf.cvb aux-2sg do-th-1sg
tʰɒpʰ-um e-s ɡəlχ-i-s
throw-impf.cvb aux-2sg head-dat-poss.1sg
‘Even when I want do something good, you’re still on top of me. (Lit:
you throw at/on my head)’
Լաւ մի բան էլ ուզում եմ անեմ թափում ես գլխիս։
f. bɒbɒ d͡zer kʰɒʃ-i in͡dz-n-it͡sʰ
dude hand pull-imp.2sg me-nx-abl
‘Dude, leave me alone! (Lit: pull away your hand from)’
Բաբա, ձեռ քաշի ինձնից։

Since writing this grammar, we discovered that the UCLA Phonetics Lab
archive had recordings of Tehrani Armenians in Los Angeles (The UCLA Pho-
netics Lab Archive 2007).6 We are currently in the process of transcribing their
material, with the goal of archiving more material.

6
http://archive.phonetics.ucla.edu/Language/HYE/hye.html

190
References
Abdollahnejad, Elias. 2018. Competing grammars in language acquisition: The
case of resumption in Persian relative clauses. In E. Abdollahnejad, D. Abu
Amsha, K. Burkinshaw, A.D. Daniel & B.C. Nelson (eds.), Calgary Working Pa-
pers in Linguistics, vol. 30(Fall), 1–14.
Ackema, Pete & Ad Neeleman. 2003. Context-sensitive spell-out. Natural Lan-
guage & Linguistic Theory 21(4). 681–735. DOI: 10.1023/A:1025502221221.
Ackema, Peter & Ad Neeleman. 2004. Beyond morphology. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199267286.001.0001.
Ackerman, Farrell. 1998. Constructions and mixed categories: Determining the
semantic interpretation of person/number marking. In Miriam Butt & Tracy
Holloway-King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG98 Conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI
Publications.
Ackerman, Farrell & Irina Nikolaeva. 1997. Identity in form, difference in function:
The person/number paradigm in W. Armenian and N. Ostyak. In Miriam Butt
& Tracy Holloway-King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG97 Conference. Stanford,
CA: CSLI Publications.
Ackerman, Farrell & Irina Nikolaeva. 2013. Descriptive typology and linguistic the-
ory: A study in the morphosyntax of relative clauses (CSLI Lecture Notes 212).
Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, Center for the Study of Language and Infor-
mation.
Adjarian, Hrachia. 1909. Classification des dialectes arméniens. Paris: Librairie
Honoré Champion. https://archive.org/details/bibliothquedel173ecol/page/
n7/mode/2up.
Akinlabi, Akinbiyi. 2011. Featural affixes. In Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen,
Elizabeth Hume & Keren Rice (eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology,
vol. 4, 1945–1972. Cambridge, MA: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10 . 1002 /
9781444335262.wbctp0082.
Allen, W. S. 1950. Notes on the phonetics of an Eastern Armenian speaker. Trans-
actions of the Philological Society 49(1). 180–206. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-968X.1950.
tb00241.x.
References

Amirian, Beaina. 2017. ‫ویژگیهای صوتشناختی همخوانهای انسدادی و انسایشی در‬

‫[ زبان ارمنی شرقی‬A study of acoustic features of stops and affricates in Eastern
Armenian]. Department of Linguistics, Allameh Tabataba’i University. (MA
thesis).
Amurian, A. & M. Kasheff. 1986. Armenians of modern Iran. In Encyclopædia
Iranica, vol. II/5, 478–483. https : / / iranicaonline . org / articles / armenians - of -
modern-iran.
Andonian, Hagop. 1999. Beginner’s Armenian. New York: Hippocrene Books.
Ariyaee, Koorosh & Peter Jurgec. 2021. Variable hiatus in Persian is affected by
suffix length. In Proceedings of the Annual Meetings on Phonology, vol. 9. DOI:
10.3765/amp.v9i0.4919.
Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by itself: Stems and inflectional classes (Linguis-
tic Inquiry Monographs 22). London/Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Aronow, Robin, Brian D. McHugh & Tessa Molnar. 2017. A pilot acoustic study
of Modern Persian vowels in colloquial speech. In Proceedings of the Linguistic
Society of America, vol. 2, 17. DOI: 10.3765/plsa.v2i0.4059.
Arregi, Karlos, Neil Myler & Bert Vaux. 2013. Number marking in Western Ar-
menian: A non-argument for outwardly-sensitive phonologically conditioned
allomorphy. Unpublished manuscript. Talk given at the 87th Linguistic Society
of America Annual Meeting, Boston.
Arsenault, Paul. 2018. Retroflexion in South Asia: Typological, genetic, and areal
patterns. Journal of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 4(1). 1–53. DOI: 10.
1515/jsall-2017-0001.
Bakalian, Anny. 2017. Armenian Americans: From being to feeling Armenian. Lon-
don/New York: Routledge.
Bale, Alan & Hrayr Khanjian. 2008. Classifiers and number marking. Semantics
and Linguistic Theory 18. 73. DOI: 10.3765/salt.v18i0.2478.
Bale, Alan & Hrayr Khanjian. 2014. Syntactic complexity and competition: the
singular-plural distinction in Western Armenian. Linguistic Inquiry 45(1). 1–
26. DOI: 10.1162/LING\_a\_00147.
Bardakjian, Kevork B. & Robert W Thomson. 1977. A textbook of Modern Western
Armenian. Delmar, NY: Caravan Books.
Bardakjian, Kevork B. & Bert Vaux. 1999. Eastern Armenian: A textbook. Ann Ar-
bor: Caravan Books.
Bardakjian, Kevork B. & Bert Vaux. 2001. A textbook of Modern Western Armenian.
Delmar, NY: Caravan Books.
Baronian, Luc. 2017. Two problems in Armenian phonology. Language and Lin-
guistics Compass 11(8). e12247. DOI: 10.1111/lnc3.12247.

192
Barry, James. 2017a. Monologue and authority in Iran: Ethnic and religious het-
eroglossia in the Islamic Republic. In Matt Tomlinson & Julian Millie (eds.),
The monologic imagination, vol. 1, 143–158. New York: Oxford University Press.
DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190652807.003.0008.
Barry, James. 2017b. Re-Ghettoization: Armenian Christian neighborhoods in
multicultural Tehran. Iranian Studies 50(4). 553–573. DOI: 10.1080/00210862.
2017.1294528.
Barry, James. 2018. Armenian Christians in Iran: Ethnicity, religion, and identity
in the Islamic Republic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/
9781108684873.
Bezrukov, Nikita. 2016. Number marking mismatches in Modern Armenian: A Dis-
tributed Morphology approach. University of Chicago. (MA thesis).
Bezrukov, Nikita. 2022. Caucasus in motion: Dynamic wordhood and morpheme
positioning in Armenian and beyond. University of Pennsylvania. (Doctoral dis-
sertation).
Boersma, Paul. 2001. Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot Inter-
national 5(9/10). 341–345.
Boyacioglu, Nisan. 2010. Hay-Pay: Les verbs de l’arménien occidental. Paris:
L’Asiathèque.
Boyacioglu, Nisan & Hossep Dolatian. 2020. Armenian verbs: Paradigms and verb
lists of Western Armenian conjugation classes. Zenodo. DOI: 10.5281/ZENODO.
4397423.
Chabot, Alex. 2019. What’s wrong with being a rhotic? Glossa 4(1). DOI: 10.5334/
gjgl.618.
Comrie, Bernard. 1984. Some formal properties of focus in Modern Eastern Ar-
menian. Annual of Armenian Linguistics 5. 1–21.
Cosroe Chaqueri (ed.). 1998. The Armenians of Iran: The paradoxical role of a mi-
nority in a dominant culture; Articles and documents (Harvard University Cen-
ter for Middle East Studies Monograph Series 30). Cambridge: Harvard Uni-
versity Press.
Côté, Marie-Hélène. 2011. French liaison. In Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen,
Elizabeth Hume & Keren Rice (eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology,
vol. 5, 2685–2710. Cambridge, MA: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10 . 1002 /
9781444335262.wbctp0112.
Crum, Jonathan. 2020. Eastern Armenian pseudo-incorporation. Unpublished
manuscript.
Curtis, Glenn E & Eric Hooglund. 2008. Iran: A country study. 5th edition. Federal
Research Division. Library of Congress. https://lccn.loc.gov/2008011784.

193
References

Dąbkowski, Maksymilian & Hannah Sande. 2021. Phonology-syntax interleaving

in Guébie focus fronting. Paper presented at the 14th Brussels Conference on
Generative Linguistics (BCGL14), Brussels, Belgium.
Daniel, Michael & Victoria Khurshudian. 2015. Valency classes in Eastern Ar-
menian. In Andrej Malchukov & Bernard Comrie (eds.), Valency classes in
the world’s languages, 483–540. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter. DOI: 10 . 1515 /
9783110338812-018.
Dehghan, Masoud & Aliyeh Kord-e Zafaranlu Kambuziya. 2012. A short analysis
of insertion in Persian. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 2(1). 14–23.
DOI: 10.4304/tpls.2.1.14-23.
Dekmejian, Hrair. 1997. The Armenian diaspora. In Richard G. Hovannisian (ed.),
The Armenian people from ancient to modern times, vol. 2, 413–445. Houndsmil-
l/London: Macmillan Press.
Der-Martirosian, Claudia. 2021. Economic and social integration of Armenian
Iranians in Southern California. In Richard G. Hovhannisian (ed.), Armenian
communities of Persia/Iran, 545–560. Costa Mesa, California: Mazda Publishers.
DiCanio, Christian. 2020. Sound file subdivision. Praat script. https://www.acsu.
buffalo.edu/~cdicanio/scripts/Sound_file_division.praat (15 April, 2022).
Dolatian, Hossep. 2020. Computational locality of cyclic phonology in Armenian.
Stony Brook University. (Doctoral dissertation).
Dolatian, Hossep. 2021a. Cyclicity and prosodic misalignment in Armenian
stems: Interaction of morphological and prosodic cophonologies. Natural Lan-
guage & Linguistic Theory 39(3). 843–886. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-020-09487-7.
Dolatian, Hossep. 2021b. The role of heads and cyclicity in bracketing paradoxes
in Armenian compounds. Morphology 31(1). 1–43. DOI: 10 . 1007 / s11525 - 020 -
09368-0.
Dolatian, Hossep. 2022a. An apparent case of outwardly-sensitive allomorphy in
the Armenian definite. Glossa 7(1). DOI: 10.16995/glossa.6406.
Dolatian, Hossep. 2022b. Interface constraints for nuclear stress assignment un-
der broad focus in Western Armenian vs. Turkish and Persian. In Öner Özçelik
& Amber Kennedy (eds.), Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Central Asian
Languages and Linguistics (ConCALL-4), 59–80.
Dolatian, Hossep. 2022c. Variation in a bracketing paradox: A case study in Ar-
menian compounds. In Öner Özçelik & Amber Kennedy (eds.), Proceedings of
the 4th Conference on Central Asian Languages and Linguistics (ConCALL), 95–
108.
Dolatian, Hossep. 2023a. Cyclic residues of affix deletion in Armenian passive
stems. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-023-09586-
1.

194
Dolatian, Hossep. 2023b. Fluctuations in allomorphy domains: Applying Stump
2010 to Armenian ordinal numerals. Journal of Linguistics. 1–35. DOI: 10.1017/
S0022226723000099.
Dolatian, Hossep. 2023c. Isomorphism between orthography and underlying
forms in the syllabification of the Armenian schwa. Phonological Data and
Analysis 5(4). DOI: 10.3765/pda.v5art4.68.
Dolatian, Hossep. 2023d. Output-conditioned and non-local allomorphy in Arme-
nian theme vowels. The Linguistic Review 40. 1–42. DOI: 10.1515/tlr-2022-2104.
Dolatian, Hossep. Submitted. Translation and commentary on Adjarian 1911 ‘Ar-
menian dialectology’. Unpublished manuscript. https://github.com/jhdeov/
adjarian1911/.
Dolatian, Hossep & Peter Guekguezian. 2022a. Derivational timing of mor-
phomes: Canonicity and rule ordering in the Armenian aorist stem. Morphol-
ogy 32(3). 317–357. DOI: 10.1007/s11525-022-09397-x.
Dolatian, Hossep & Peter Guekguezian. 2022b. Relativized locality: Phases and
tiers in long-distance allomorphy in Armenian. Linguistic Inquiry. 1–41. DOI:
10.1162/ling_a_00456.
Donabédian, Anaïd. 1997. Neutralisation de la diathèse des participes en -ac de
l’arménien moderne occidental. Studi italiani di linguistica teorica ed applicata
26(2). 327–339.
Donabédian, Anaïd. 2016. The aorist in Modern Armenian: Core values and con-
textual meanings. In Zlatka Guentchéva (ed.), Aspectuality and temporality:
Descriptive and theoretical issues, 375–412. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI:
10.1075/slcs.172.12don.
Donabédian, Anaïd. 2018. Middle East and beyond - Western Armenian at the
crossroads: A sociolinguistic and typological sketch. In Christiane Bulut (ed.),
Linguistic minorities in Turkey and Turkic-speaking minorities of the periphery,
89–148. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. DOI: 10.2307/j.ctvckq4v1.
Donabédian, Anaïd & Ioanna Sitaridou. 2020. Anatolia. In Adamou Evangelia
& Yaron Matras (eds.), The Routledge handbook of language contact, 404–433.
London: Routledge.
Donabédian-Demopoulos, Anaïd. 2007. A la recherche de la logophoricité en ar-
ménien moderne. In Jocelyne Fernandez-Vest (ed.), Combat pour les langues du
monde/Fighting for the world’s languages, hommage à Claude Hagège, 165–176.
Paris: Editions L’Harmattan.
Dum-Tragut, Jasmine. 2009. Armenian: Modern Eastern Armenian (London Ori-
ental and African Language Library 14). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI:
10.1075/loall.14.

195
References

Embick, David & Kobey Shwayder. 2018. Deriving morphophonological

(mis)applications. In Roberto Petrosino, Pietro Cerrone & Harry van der Hulst
(eds.), From sounds to structures: Beyond the veil of Maya, 193–248. Berlin: De
Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9781501506734-007.
Erschler, David. 2018. Suspended affixation as morpheme ellipsis: Evidence from
Ossetic alternative questions. Glossa 3(1). DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.501.
Esfandiari, Nasim, Batool Alinezhad & Adel Rafiei. 2015. Vowel classification and
vowel space in Persian. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 5(2). 426–434.
DOI: 10.17507/tpls.0502.26.
Fairbanks, Gordon H. 1948. Phonology and morphology of modern spoken West
Armenian. University of Wisconsin-Madison. (Doctoral dissertation).
Fairbanks, Gordon H. 1958. Spoken West Armenian. New York: American Council
of Learned Societies.
Fairbanks, Gordon H. & Earl W. Stevick. 1975. Spoken East Armenian. New York:
American Council of Learned Societies.
Falahati, Reza. 2020. The acquisition of segmental and suprasegmental features
in second language Persian: A focus on prosodic parameters of politeness. In
Pouneh Shabani-Jadidi (ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language acqui-
sition and pedagogy of Persian, 9–35. New York: Routledge.
Fenger, Paula. 2020. Words within words: The internal syntax of verbs. University
of Connecticut. (Doctoral dissertation).
Feydit, Frédéric. 1948. Manuel de langue arménienne: Arménien occidental mod-
erne. Paris: Klincksieck.
Fittante, Daniel. 2017. But why Glendale? A history of Armenian immigration to
Southern California. California History 94(3). 2–19. DOI: 10.1525/ch.2017.94.3.2.
Fittante, Daniel. 2018. The Armenians of Glendale: An ethnoburb in Los Ange-
les’s San Fernando Valley. City & Community 17(4). 1231–1247. DOI: 10.1111/
cico.12340.
Fittante, Daniel. 2019. Constructivist theories of political incorporation. Ethnici-
ties 19(5). 809–829. DOI: 10.1177/1468796819833007.
Fleming, Harold C. 2000. Glottalization in Eastern Armenian. Journal of Indo-
European Studies 28(1/2). 155–196.
Ghiasian, Maryam & Hakimeh Rezaei. 2014. ‫بررسی نقش نماهای کلامی فارسی در‬
‫فارسی‬-‫[ مکالمات دوزبانههای ارمنی‬The study of Persian multifunctional discourse
markers in Armenian-Persian bilinguals]. Language Studies 5(9). 125–147. https:
//languagestudy.ihcs.ac.ir/article_1438.html.
Ghiasian, Maryam Sadat & Hakimeh Rezayi. 2014. ‫رمزگردانی با نگاهی بررسی پدیدۀ‬
‫ فارسی تهرانی‬-‫[ به گفتار دوزبانههای ارمنی‬A study of code-switching according to

196
 Armenian conversations of Armenian-Persian bilinguals]. Language and Lin-
guistics 10(20). 103–120. https://lsi-linguistics.ihcs.ac.ir/article_1880.html.
Ghougassian, Vazken S. 2021. Armenian rural settlements and New Julfa
(seventeenth-nineteenth century). In Richard G. Hovhannisian (ed.), Armenian
communities of Persia/Iran, 311–350. Costa Mesa, California: Mazda Publishers.
Giorgi, Alessandra & Sona Haroutyunian. 2016. Word order and information
structure in Modern Eastern Armenian. Journal of the Society for Armenian
Studies 25. 185–200.
Greppin, John A. C. 1973. The origin of Armenian nasal suffix verbs. Zeitschrift
für vergleichende Sprachforschung 87(2. H). 190–198.
Greppin, John A. C. & Amalya A. Khachaturian. 1986. A handbook of Armenian
dialectology. Delmar, NY: Caravan Books.
Guekguezian, Peter & Hossep Dolatian. Forthcoming. Distributing theme vowels
across roots, verbalizers, and voice in Western Armenian verbs. In Proceedings
of the 39th Meeting of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL).
Gulian, Kevork H. 1902. Elementary modern Armenian grammar. Heidelberg:
Julius Groos.
Hacopian, Narineh. 2003. A three-way VOT contrast in final position: Data from
Armenian. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 33(1). 51–80. DOI:
10.1017/S0025100303001154.
Hagopian, Gayané. 2005. Armenian for everyone: Western and Eastern Armenian
in parallel lessons. Ann Arbor, MI: Caravan Books.
Hamp, Eric P. 1975. On the nasal presents of Armenian. Zeitschrift für vergle-
ichende Sprachforschung 89(1. H). 100–109.
Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb
alternations. In Bernard Comrie & Maria Polinsky (eds.), Causatives and tran-
sitivity (Studies in Language 23), 87–121. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI:
10.1075/slcs.23.05has.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2020. The morph as a minimal linguistic form. Morphology
30(2). 117–134. DOI: 10.1007/s11525-020-09355-5.
Haugen, Jason D. 2016. Readjustment: Rejected? In Daniel Siddiqi & Heidi Harley
(eds.), Morphological metatheory, 303–342. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI:
10.1075/la.229.11hau.
Haugen, Jason D. & Daniel Siddiqi. 2016. Towards a restricted realization theory:
Multimorphemic monolistemicity, portmanteaux, and post-linearization span-
ning. In Daniel Siddiqi & Heidi Harley (eds.), Morphological metatheory, 343–
386. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/la.229.12hau.
Hewitt, Brian George. 1978. The Armenian relative clause. International Review
of Slavic Linguistics 3. 99–138.

197
References

Hockett, Charles F. 1942. A system of descriptive phonology. Language 18(1). 3–

21. DOI: 10.2307/409073.
Hodgson, Katherine. 2019a. Information structure and word order in Armenian.
Unpublished manuscript.
Hodgson, Katherine. 2019b. Relative clauses in colloquial Armenian: Syntax and
typology. Université Sorbonne Paris. (Doctoral dissertation).
Hodgson, Katherine. 2020a. Discourse configurationality and the noun phrase
in Eastern Armenian. Faits de Langues 50(2). 137–166. DOI: 10.1163/19589514-
05002015.
Hodgson, Katherine. 2020b. Finite relative clauses in colloquial Armenian and
the phenomenon of “inverse attraction”. Lingua 246. 1029–50. DOI: 10.1016/j.
lingua.2020.102950.
Hodgson, Katherine. 2022. Grammaticalization of the definite article in Arme-
nian. Armeniaca 1. 125–150. DOI: 10.30687/arm/9372-8175/2022/01/008.
Hovakimyan, Knar. 2016. Eastern Armenian consonant clusters. Reed College.
(Bachelor’s Thesis).
Hovhannisian, Richard G. 2021. Armenian communities of Persia/Iran: An intro-
duction. In Richard G. Hovhannisian (ed.), Armenian communities of Persia/I-
ran, 1–16. Costa Mesa, California: Mazda Publishers.
Iskandaryan, Gohar. 2019. The Armenian community in Iran: Issues and emigra-
tion. Global Campus Human Rights Journal 3. 127–140.
Johnson, Emma Wintler. 1954. Studies in East Armenian grammar. University of
California, Berkeley. (Doctoral dissertation).
Jones, Taylor. 2019. A corpus phonetic study of contemporary Persian vowels
in casual speech. In University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics,
vol. 25, 15.
Jun, Sun-Ah. 2005. Prosodic typology: The phonology of intonation and phrasing.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199249633.001.
0001.
Kabak, Bariş. 2007. Turkish suspended affixation. Linguistics 45(2). 311–347. DOI:
10.1515/LING.2007.010.
Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan. 2009. The syntax of sentential stress. Oxford: Oxford
University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199219230.001.0001.
Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan & Karine Megerdoomian. 2011. Second-position clitics
in the vP phase: The case of the Armenian auxiliary. Linguistic Inquiry 42(1).
152–162. DOI: 10.1162/LING_a_00033.
Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan & Karine Megerdoomian. 2017. On the positional dis-
tribution of an Armenian auxiliary: Second-position clisis, focus, and phases.
Syntax 20(1). 77–97. DOI: 10.1111/synt.12129.

198
Kaisse, Ellen M. 1985. Connected speech: The interaction of syntax and phonology.
Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Kalomoiros, Alexandros. 2022. Bare singulars and pseudo-incorporation in West-
ern Armenian. Semantics and Linguistic Theory 31. 365–384. DOI: 10.3765/salt.
v31i0.5087.
Karakaş, Ayla, Hossep Dolatian & Peter Guekguezian. 2021. Effects of zero mor-
phology on syncretism and allomorphy in Western Armenian verbs. In Pro-
ceedings of the Workshop on Turkic and Languages in Contact with Turkic, vol. 6,
5056. DOI: 10.3765/ptu.v6i1.5056.
Karapetian, Shushan. 2014. “How do I teach my kids my broken Armenian?”: A
study of Eastern Armenian heritage language speakers in Los Angeles. University
of California, Los Angeles. (Doctoral dissertation).
Keenan, Edward L. & Bernard Comrie. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and Uni-
versal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8(1). 63–99.
Khanjian, Hrayr. 2009. Stress dependent vowel reduction. In Iksoo Kwon, Han-
nah Pritchett & Justin Spence (eds.), Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguis-
tics Society, vol. 35, 178–189. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. DOI:
10.3765/bls.v35i1.3609.
Khanjian, Hrayr. 2013. (Negative) concord and head directionality in Western Ar-
menian. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (Doctoral dissertation).
Khurshudian, Victoria. 2020. Some aspects of possessive markers in Modern
Armenian. In A. Kibrik, K. Semenova, D. Sichinava, S. Tatevosov & A. Ur-
manchieva (eds.), Вапросы языкознания [Voprosy Jazykoznanija]. Collection
of articles dedicated to the anniversary of V. A. Plungyan, 337–343. Moscow:
Russian Academy of Sciences.
Khurshudyan, Victoria & Anaïd Donabédian. 2021. Cleft constructions and focus
strategies in Modern Armenian. Faits de Langues 52(1). 89–116. DOI: 10.1163/
19589514-05201005.
Kocharov, Petr. 2019. Old Armenian nasal verbs. Archaisms and innovations. Lei-
den University. (Doctoral dissertation).
Kogian, Sahak L. 1949. Armenian grammar (West dialect). Vienna: Mechitharist
Press.
Kontovas, Nicholas. 2012. Lubunca: The historical development of Istanbul’s queer
slang and a social-functional approach to diachronic processes in language. Indi-
ana University. (MA thesis).
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2012. Revisiting “suspended affixation” and other coordinate
mysteries. In Laura Brugé, Anna Cardinaletti, Giuliana Giusti, Nicola Munaro
& Cecilia Poletto (eds.), Functional heads: The cartography of syntactic struc-

199
References

tures, 181–196. Oxford/NY: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/

9780199746736.003.0014.
Kouymjian, Dickran. 1997. Armenia from the fall of the Cilician Kingdom (1375)
to the forced emigration under Shah Abbas (1604). In Richard G. Hovan-
nisian (ed.), The Armenian people from ancient to modern times, vol. 2, 1–50.
Houndsmill/London: Macmillan Press.
Kozintseva, Natalia. 1995. Modern Eastern Armenian. München: Lincom Europa.
Ladd, D. Robert. 1986. Intonational phrasing: The case for recursive prosodic
structure. Phonology Yearbook 3. 311–340. DOI: 10.1017/S0952675700000671.
Ladefoged, Peter & Ian Maddieson. 1996. The sounds of the world’s languages.
Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Macak, Martin. 2017. The phonology of Classical Armenian. In Jared Klein, Brian
Joseph & Matthias Fritz (eds.), Handbook of comparative and historical Indo-
European linguistics, 1037–1079. Berlin/Munich/Boston: Walter de Gruyter.
DOI: 10.1515/9783110523874-016.
Maddieson, Ian & Kristin Hanson. 1990. Updating UPSID. In UCLA Working Pa-
pers in Phonetics, vol. 74, 104–111.
Mahjani, Behzad. 2003. An instrumental study of prosodic features and intonation
in Modern Farsi. University of Edinburgh. (MA thesis).
Mahootian, Shahrzad. 2002. Persian. Abingdon & New York: Routledge.
Majidi, Mohammad-Reza & Elmar Ternes. 1991. Persian (Farsi). Journal of the In-
ternational Phonetic Association 21(2). 96–98. DOI: 10.1017/S0025100300004461.
Martirosyan, Hrach. 2018. The Armenian dialects. In Geoffrey Haig & Geoffrey
Khan (eds.), The languages and linguistics of Western Asia, 46–105. Berlin/-
Boston: De Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110421682-003.
Martirosyan, Hrach. 2019. The Armenian dialects: Archaisms and innovations;
description of individual dialects. Bulletin of Armenian Studies / Армянский
гуманитарный вестник 5. 164–258.
Martirosyan, Hrach. Submitted. Lingo-cultural studies on Persian Armenia. Un-
published manuscript.
Megerdoomian, Karine. 2005. Transitivity alternation verbs and causative con-
structions in Eastern Armenian. Annual of Armenian Linguistics 24. 13–33.
Megerdoomian, Karine. 2009. Beyond words and phrases: A unified theory of pred-
icate composition. Berlin: VDM, Verlag Dr. Müller.
Mesropyan, Haykanush. 2022. The linguistic geographical characteristics of the
dialects of the Armenians in Persia and the migration of the dialect speakers.
http://eng.aybuben.com/the-linguistic-geographical-characteristics-of-the-
dialects - of - the - armenians - in - persia - and - the - migration - of - the - dialect -
speakers/ (1 March, 2022).

200
Meyer, Robin. 2017. Iranian-Armenian language contact in and before the 5th cen-
tury CE: An investigation into pattern replication and societal multilingualism.
University of Oxford. (Doctoral dissertation).
Minassian, Martiros. 1980. Grammaire d’arménien oriental. Delmar, NY: Caravan
Books.
Mokari, Payam Ghaffarvand, Stefan Werner & Ali Talebi. 2017. An acoustic de-
scription of Farsi vowels produced by native speakers of Tehrani dialect. The
Phonetican Journal of the International Society of Phonetic Sciences 114. 6–23.
Moran, Steven & Daniel McCloy. 2019. PHOIBLE 2.0. Jena: Max Planck Institute
for the Science of Human History. https://phoible.org/.
Nercissians, Emilia. 1988. Bilingualism with diglossia: Status and solidarity di-
mensions. In J. Normann Jørgensen, Elisabeth Hansen, Anne Holmen & Jørgen
Gimbe (eds.), Bilingualism in society and school, 55–68. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Nercissians, Emilia. 2001. Bilingualism and diglossia: Patterns of language use by
ethnic minorities in Tehran. International Journal of the Sociology of Language
148. 59–70. DOI: 10.1515/ijsl.2001.014.
Nercissians, Emilia. 2012. Life and culture of Armenians in Iran. Language Dis-
course & Society 2. 31–54.
Nichols, Stephen. 2016. An acoustic study of the Turkish rhotic. Poster. 5th Interna-
tional Workshop on Phonetic, Phonological, Acquisitional, Sociolinguistic and
Dialect-Geographic Aspects of Rhotics, 18–20 May, Leeuwarden, Netherlands.
Nikolaian, Varand. 2016. Dialects of the Armenian of the Iranian diaspora: A
study of the hierarchical interaction of the Iranian-Armenian dialects. Unpub-
lished manuscript.
Paster, Mary. 2006. Phonological conditions on affixation. University of California,
Berkeley. (Doctoral dissertation).
Pater, Joe. 2007. The locus of exceptionality: Morpheme-specific phonology as
constraint indexation. In Leah Bateman, Michael O’Keefe, Ehren Reilly &
Adam Werle (eds.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguis-
tics 32: Papers in Optimality Theory III, 187–207. Amherst, MA: Graduate Lin-
guistics Student Association, University of Massachusetts. DOI: 10 . 7282 /
T38C9TB6.
Pierrehumbert, Janet Breckenridge. 1980. The phonology and phonetics of English
intonation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (Doctoral dissertation).
Plungian, Vladimir. 2018. Notes on Eastern Armenian verbal paradigms. In Daniël
Olmen, Tanja Mortelmans & Frank Brisard (eds.), Aspects of linguistic variation,
233–246. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110607963-009.

201
References

Polinsky, Maria. 1995. Cross-linguistic parallels in language loss. Southwest Jour-

nal of Linguistics 14(1-2). 88–123.
Rafat, Yasaman. 2010. A socio-phonetic investigation of rhotics in Persian. Ira-
nian Studies 43(5). 667–682. DOI: 10.1080/00210862.2010.518030.
Rezaei, Saeed & Maryam Farnia. 2023. Armenian language and identity in Iran:
The case of Iranian Armenians of Isfahan. In Anousha Sedighi (ed.), Iranian and
minority languages at home and in diaspora, 249–270. Berlin/Boston: Walter de
Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110694277-010.
Rezaei, Saeed & Maedeh Tadayyon. 2018. Linguistic landscape in the city of Isfa-
han in Iran: The representation of languages and identities in Julfa. Multilingua
37(6). 701–720. DOI: 10.1515/multi-2017-0031.
Riggs, Elias. 1856. A grammar of the modern Armenian language as spoken in Con-
stantinople and Asia Minor. Constantinople: AB Churchill.
Sadat-Tehrani, Nima. 2007. The intonational grammar of Persian. University of
Manitoba. (Doctoral dissertation).
Sadat-Tehrani, Nima. 2011. The intonation patterns of interrogatives in Persian.
Linguistic Discovery 9(1). 105–136. DOI: 10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.389.
Sağ, Yağmur. 2019. The semantics of number marking: Reference to kinds, counting,
and optional classifiers. Rutgers University. (Doctoral dissertation).
Sakayan, Dora. 2000. Modern Western Armenian for the English-speaking world:
A contrastive approach. Montreal: Arod Books.
Sakayan, Dora. 2007. Eastern Armenian for the English-speaking world: A con-
trastive approach. Yerevan: Yerevan State University Press.
Sampson, Rodney. 2016. Sandhi phenomena. In Adam Ledgeway & Martin
Maiden (eds.), The Oxford guide to the Romance languages, 669–680. Oxford:
Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677108.003.0040.
Samvelian, Pollet & Jesse Tseng. 2010. Persian object clitics and the syntax-
morphology interface. In Stefan Müller (ed.), Proceedings of the 17th Interna-
tional Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 212–232. Paris:
CSLI Publications.
Sanasarian, Eliz. 2000. Religious minorities in Iran. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511492259.
Sanjian, Avedis K. 1996. The Armenian alphabet. In Peter T. Daniels & William
Bright (eds.), The world’s writing systems, 356–363. New York and Oxford: Ox-
ford University Press.
Sanker, Chelsea, Sarah Babinski, Roslyn Burns, Marisha Evans, Jeremy Johns,
Juhyae Kim, Slater Smith, Natalie Weber & Claire Bowern. 2021. (Don’t) try this
at home! The effects of recording devices and software on phonetic analysis.
Language 97(4). e360–e382. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2021.0075.

202
Sargsyan, Hasmik. 2022. The forms of the indefinite article in Eastern Armenian:
Pre-modern, early and colloquial Eastern Armenian sources. Armeniaca 1. 151–
170. DOI: 10.30687/arm/9372-8175/2022/01/009.
Sayeed, Ollie & Bert Vaux. 2017. The evolution of Armenian. In Jared Klein, Brian
Joseph & Matthias Fritz (eds.), Handbook of comparative and historical Indo-
European linguistics, 1146–1167. Berlin/Munich/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. DOI:
10.1515/9783110523874-021.
Scala, Andrea. 2011. Differential object marking in Eastern Armenian: Some re-
marks. In Vittorio Springfield Tomelleri, Manana Topadze & Anna Lukianow-
icz (eds.), Current advances in Caucasian studies, 363–372. Munich: Otto Sag-
ner.
Schirru, Giancarlo. 2012. Laryngeal features of Armenian dialects. In Benedicte
Nielsen Whitehead, Thomas Olander, Birgit Olsen & Jens Elmegard Rasmussen
(eds.), The sound of Indo-European: Phonetics, phonemics, and morphophonemics,
435–457. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1986. On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology
Yearbook 3(1). 371–405. DOI: 10.1017/S0952675700000695.
Seyfarth, Scott, Hossep Dolatian, Peter Guekguezian, Niamh Kelly & Tabita
Toparlak. Forthcoming. Armenian (Yerevan Eastern and Beirut Western va-
rieties). Journal of the International Phonetic Association.
Seyfarth, Scott & Marc Garellek. 2018. Plosive voicing acoustics and voice quality
in Yerevan Armenian. Journal of Phonetics 71. 425–450. DOI: 10.1016/j.wocn.
2018.09.001.
Shakibi, Jami Gilani & Hermik Bonyadi. 1995. A short survey of the Armenian
language: Tehrani dialect. Nashville, TN: Babylonia Language and Translation
Center.
Sharifzadeh, Afsheen. 2015. On “Parskahayeren”, or the language of Iranian Ar-
menians. https : / / borderlessblogger . wordpress . com / 2015 / 08 / 25 / on -
parskahayeren-or-the-language-of-iranian-armenians/ (1 March, 2022).
Siddiqi, Daniel. 2009. Syntax within the word: Economy, allomorphy, and argument
selection in Distributed Morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/
la.138.
Sigler, Michele. 1997. Specificity and agreement in Standard Western Armenian.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (Doctoral dissertation).
Sigler, Michele. 2001. A logophoric pronoun in Western Armenian. Annual of
Armenian Linguistics 21. 13–30.
Sigler, Michele. 2003. A note on the classifier in Western Armenian: Had. Annual
of Armenian Linguistics 22. 41–53.

203
References

Silvestri, Giuseppina. 2022. Italian dialects at the phonology-syntax interface:

The case of propagination. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America 7(1).
5256. DOI: 10.3765/plsa.v7i1.5256.
Stevick, Earl W. 1955. Syntax of Colloquial East Armenian. Cornell University.
(Doctoral dissertation).
Stump, Gregory T. 2006. Heteroclisis and paradigm linkage. Language 82(2). 279–
322. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2006.0110.
Stump, Gregory T. 2010. The derivation of compound ordinal numerals: Impli-
cations for morphological theory. Word Structure 3(2). 205–233. DOI: 10.3366/
word.2010.0005.
Su, Yu-Ying Julia. 2012. The syntax of functional projections in the vP periphery.
University of Toronto. (Doctoral dissertation).
Sy, Mariame. 2005. Ultra Long-Distance ATR Agreement in Wolof. Annual Meet-
ing of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 31(2). 95–106. DOI: 10.3765/bls.v31i2.824.
Tahtadjian, Talia. 2020. Western Armenian rhotics: A differential phonetic study.
Carleton University. (Bachelor’s Thesis).
Tamrazian, Armine. 1994. The syntax of Armenian: Chains and the auxiliary. Uni-
versity College London. (Doctoral dissertation).
The UCLA Phonetics Lab Archive. 2007. UCLA Department of Linguistics. Los
Angeles, CA. http://archive.phonetics.ucla.edu/ (20 May, 2022).
Thomson, Robert W. 1989. An introduction to Classical Armenian. Delmar, NY:
Caravan Books.
Tıraş, Melda Nisan. 2021. /r/ sesinin uzamsal özelliklerinin ultrason yöntemiyle
incelenmesi [Investigation of the spatial properties of the /r/ sound using speech
ultrasound]. İstanbul Medipol Üniversitesi. (MA thesis).
Toparlak, Tabita. 2017. Etude phonétique des consonnes occlusives de l’arménien
oriental. Université Paris 3 - Sorbonne Nouvelle. (MA thesis).
Toparlak, Tabita. 2019. Etudes phonétiques en arménien. Université Paris 3 - Sor-
bonne Nouvelle. (MA thesis).
Toparlak, Tabita & Hossep Dolatian. 2022. Intonation and focus marking in West-
ern Armenian. In Öner Özçelik & Amber Kennedy (eds.), Proceedings of the 4th
Conference on Central Asian Languages and Linguistics (ConCALL), 81–94.
Toparlak, Tabita & Hossep Dolatian. 2023. Aerodynamics and articulation of
word-final ejectives in Eastern Armenian. In Radek Skarnitzl & Jan Volín (eds.),
Proceedings of the 20th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 3246–3251.
Guarant International.
Tranel, Bernard. 1996. French liaison and elision revisited: A unified account
within Optimality Theory. In Claudia Parodi, Carlos Quicoli, Mario Saltarelli &

204
 Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds.), Aspects of Romance linguistics, 433–455. Wash-
ington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
United States Census Bureau. 2015. Place of birth for the foreign-born population
in the United States. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=armenian&g=
0400000US06&tid=ACSDT5YSPT2015.B05006.
van der Wal Anonby, Christina. 2015. A grammar of Kumzari: A mixed Perso-
Arabian language of Oman. Leiden University. (Doctoral dissertation).
Vaux, Bert. 1995. A problem in diachronic Armenian verbal morphology. In Jos
Weitenberg (ed.), New approaches to medieval Armenian language and litera-
ture, 135–148. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Vaux, Bert. 1997. The phonology of voiced aspirates in the Armenian dialect of
New Julfa. In Nicholas Awde (ed.), Armenian perspectives. 10th anniversary con-
ference of the Association Internationale des Études Arméniennes, 231–248. Rich-
mond, Surrey: Curzon.
Vaux, Bert. 1998a. The laryngeal specifications of fricatives. Linguistic Inquiry
29(3). 497–511. DOI: 10.1162/002438998553833.
Vaux, Bert. 1998b. The phonology of Armenian. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Vaux, Bert. 2001. The Armenian dialect of Aslanbeg. Annual of Armenian Linguis-
tics 21. 31–64.
Vaux, Bert. 2003. Syllabification in Armenian, Universal Grammar, and the lexi-
con. Linguistic Inquiry 34(1). 91–125. DOI: 10.1162/002438903763255931.
Vaux, Bert. 2007. Homshetsma: The language of the Armenians of Hamshen. In
Hovann Simonian (ed.), The Hemshin: History, society and identity in the high-
lands of northeast Turkey, 257–278. London and New York: Routledge.
Vaux, Bert. 2022a. Does Armenian have glottalized IOR ejective stops? Talk. Cam-
bridge Phonetics and Phonology Seminar, 8 November 2022. https://lingbuzz.
net/lingbuzz/007165.
Vaux, Bert. 2022b. The Armenian dialect of Salmast. Unpublished manuscript.
https://lingbuzz.net/lingbuzz/007166.
Vaux, Bert. In preparation. The Armenian dialect of New Julfa, Isfahan. Unpub-
lished manuscript.
Vaux, Bert & Andrew Wolfe. 2009. The appendix. In Eric Raimy & Charles
E. Cairns (eds.), Contemporary views on architecture and representations in
phonology, 101–143. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/
9780262182706.003.0005.
Veselinova, Ljuba. 1997. Suppletion in the derivation of ordinal numerals: A case
study. In Benjamin Bruening (ed.), Proceedings of the 8th Student Conference in
Linguistics, 429–44. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.

205
References

Weisser, Philipp. 2019. Telling allomorphy from agreement. Glossa 4(1). DOI: 10.
5334/gjgl.803.
Weitenberg, Jos J.S. 2008. Diphthongization of initial E- and the development
of initial Y- in Armenian. In Alexander Lubotsky, Jos Schaeken, Jeroen
Wiedenhof, Rick Derksen & Sjoerd Siebinga (eds.), Evidence and counter-
evidence: Essays in honour of Frederik Kortlandt, volume 1: Balto-Slavic and Indo-
European linguistics, 609–616. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi. DOI: 10 . 1163 /
9789401206358.
Yeghiazaryan, Lusine. 2010. Caso, definitude e os sintagmas nominais no armênio.
Universidade de São Paulo. (Doctoral dissertation).
Zamir, Jan Roshan. 1982. Variation in Standard Persian: A sociolinguistic study.
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. (Doctoral dissertation).
Zimmermann, Eva. 2019. Gradient symbolic representations and the typology
of ghost segments. In Proceedings of the Annual Meetings on Phonology, vol. 7.
DOI: 10.3765/amp.v7i0.4576.
Աբեղյան, Մանուկ. 1933. Հայոց Լեզվի Տաղաչափություն: Մետրիկա [Metrics of
the Armenian language]. Երևան: Հայկական ՍՍՀ Գիտությունների Ակադեմիա
Հրատարակչություն.
Ախվերդեան, Գէորգեայ. 1852. Սայեաթ-Նօվայ. Լուս Գցած Աշխատասիրութէնով
[Sayat-Nova]. Մոսկվը: Ի տպարանի Վլատիմիրայ Գստիէ. https://www.google.
co.uk/books/edition/Sajeath_N%5C%C3%5C%B4waj/-bg-AAAAcAAJ.
Աճառեան, Հրաչեայ. 1911. Հայ Բարբառագիտութիւն [Armenian dialectology].
Մոսկուա-Նոր-Նախիջեւան: Լազարեան Ճեմարան Արեւելեան Լեզուաց.
Աճառեան, Հրաչեայ. 1925. Քննութիււն Նոր-Նախիջեւանի (Խրիմի) Բարբառի [Exami-
nation of the New Nakhichevan (Crimea) dialect].
Աճառեան, Հրաչեայ. 1926. Հայերէն Արմատական Բառարան [Armenian etymologi-
cal dictionary]. Երեւան: Երեւանի Համալսարանի Հրատարակչութիւն.
Աճառյան, Հրաչյա. 1926. Քննություն Մարաղայի Բարբառի [Examination of the
Maragha dialect].
Աճառյան, Հրաչյա. 1940. Քննություն Նոր-Ջուղայի Բարբառի [Examination of the New
Julfa dialect].
Աճառյան, Հրաչյա. 1952. Քննություն Վանի Բարբառը [Study of the the dialect of Van].
Երևան: Երևանի Պետական Համալսարանի Հրատարակչություն.
Աճառյան, Հրաչյա. 1954. Լիակատար Քերականություն Հայոց Լեզվի [Complete gram-
mar of the Armenian language]. Vol. 2. Երևան: Հայկական ՍՍՀ Գիտությունների
Ակադեմիա Հրատարակչություն.
Աճառյան, Հրաչյա. 1961. Լիակատար Քերականություն Հայոց Լեզվի [Complete gram-
mar of the Armenian language]. Vol. 4.2. Երևան: Հայկական ՍՍՀ Գիտությունների
Ակադեմիա Հրատարակչություն.

206
Ասատրյան, Մանվել. 1962. Ուրմիայի (Խոյի) Բարբառը [Dialect of Urmia or Khoy].
Երևան: Երևանի Պետական Համալսարանի Հրատարակչություն.
Ավետյան, Սարգիս. 2020. Համաբանական Փոփոխությունների Երկու Միտում
Արդի Արևելահայերենի Աորիստի Հարացույցում (Համաժամանակյա և
Տարաժամանակյա Քննություն) [Two tendencies of analogical changes in
the aorist paradigm of Modern Eastern Armenian (A synchronic and di-
achronic examination)]. Բանբեր Երևանի Համալսարանի. Բանասիրություն 31(1).
24–39.
Ավետյան, Սարգիս. 2022. Արդի Արևելահայերենի կ(ը)- Ապառնիի և -Ու Ապառնիի
Իմաստագործառութային Փոխհարաբերության Հարցի Շուրջ [On the question
of the semantic-functional relationship between the կ(ը)- future and the
-Ու future in Modern Eastern Armenian]. Բանբեր Երևանի Համալսարանի.
Բանասիրություն 13(2 (38)). 22–35.
Բաղրամյան, Ռ. Հ. 1985. Ղարադաղի Միջենթաբարբառը [The intermediate subdi-
alect of Gharadagh]. Պատմա-բանասիրական հանդես 1. 185–194.
Գրիգորյան, Գայանե. 2018. Խոսակցական Լեզվում Վաղակատար Դերբայի Լ-ի
Անկումը Շրջուն Շարադասության Ժամանակ (Փորձառական Հետազոտություն)
[The fall of the sound “L” of the past participle during the inversion in the spo-
ken language]. In Վ. Լ. Կատվալյան (ed.), Ջահուկյանական Ընթերցումներ, 53–60.
Երևան: ՀՀ ԳԱԱ Հրաչյա Աճառյանի անվան լեզվի ինստիտուտ.
Գրիգորյան, Գայանե. 2019. Խոսակցական Լեզվում Հրամայական Եղանակի Իր
Վերջավորության Ր-ի Անկման Մասին [On the fall of “r” of the suffix “ir” of
the imperative mood in the spoken language]. In Վ. Լ. Կատվալյան (ed.),
Ջահուկյանական Ընթերցումներ, 180–88. Երևան: ՀՀ ԳԱԱ Հրաչյա Աճառյանի
անվան լեզվի ինստիտուտ.
Եզեկյան, Լևոն. 2007. Հայոց Լեզու [Armenian language]. Երևան: Երևանի Պետական
Համալսարանի Հրատարակչություն.
Զաքարյան, Հովհաննես. 1981. Հայերենի Հասարակական Տարբերակումը Երևանում
[Social differentiation of Armenian in Yerevan]. In Էդուարդ Բագրատի Աղայան
(ed.), Ժամանակակից Հայերենի Խոսակցական Լեզուն [Modern colloquial Arme-
nian], 120–278. Երևան: Հայկական ՍՍՀ Գիտությունների Ակադեմիա.
Խաչատրյան, Ամալյա. 1988. Ժամանակակից Հայերենի Հնչույթաբանություն [Pho-
netics of contemporary Armenian]. Երևան: Հայկական ՍՍՀ Գիտությունների
Ակադեմիա Հրատարակչություն.
Կատվալյան, Վիկտոր. 2018a. Հայաստանի Հանրապետության Բարբառային
Համապատկեր, Գիրք 1: Գեղարքունիքի Մարզ [Dialectal summary of the
Republic of Armenian; Book 1, Gegharkunik Province]. Երևան: Ասողիկ
հրատարակչություն.

207
References

Կատվալյան, Վիկտոր. 2018b. Մակուի Խոսվածքը Գեղարքունիքի Մարզում [Maku

speech in the region of Gegharkunik]. In Հայաստանի Հանրապետության
Բարբառային Համապատկեր. Գիրք 1 Գեղարքունիքի Մարզ [Dialectal overview
of the Republic of Armenia, volume 1, Region of Gegharkunik], 73–81. Երևան:
Ասողիկ.
Կատվալյան, Վիկտոր. 2020. Հայաստանի Հանրապետության Բարբառային
Համապատկեր, Գիրք 2: Կոտայքի Մարզ [Dialectal summary of the Republic of
Armenian; Book 1, Kotayk Province]. Երևան: Ասողիկ հրատարակչություն.
Ղամոյան, Լուսինե, Մերի Սարգսյան & Անահիտ Քարտաշյան. 2014. Երևանի
Խոսակցական Լեզուն [The colloquial language of Yerevan]. ՀՀ ԳԱԱ Հրաչյա
Աճառյանի անվան լեզվի ինստիտուտ.
Ղարագյուլյան, Թերեզա. 1974. Ժամանակակից Հայերենի Ուղղախոսությունը [Mod-
ern Armenian orthoepy]. Երեւան: Հայկական ՍՍՀ Գիտությունների Ակադեմիա
Հրատարակչություն.
Ղարագյուլյան, Թերեզա. 1979. Հայերենի Գաղտնավանկային Ը-ի Հնչման Հիմնական
Առանձնահատկությունները [Primary characteristics of epenthetic schwas in Ar-
menian]. Լրաբեր Հասարակական Գիտությունների 12. 35–45.
Ղարագյուլյան, Թերեզա. 1981. Ակնարկներ Ժամանակակից Հայերեն Խոսակցական
Լեզվի [Observations on modern colloquial Armenian]. In Էդուարդ Բագրատի
Աղայան (ed.), Ժամանակակից Հայերենի Խոսակցական Լեզուն [Modern colloquial
Armenian], 120–278. Երևան: Հայկական ՍՍՀ Գիտությունների Ակադեմիա.
Ղարիբյան, Արարատ. 1941. Համառոտություն Հայ Բարբառագիտության [Summary
of Armenian dialectology]. Երևան: Պետհամալսարանի տպ․. https://arar.sci.am/
dlibra/publication/307074/.
Ղուկասյան, Սևակ. 1990. Գրական Արևելահայերենի և Արևմտահայերենի
Հնչերանգային Առանձնահատկությունները: Փորձառական-Զուգադրական
Հետազոտություն [The intonational features of literary Eastern Armenian and
Western Armenian: Experimental-comparative research]. Երևան: Հայկական
ՍՍՀ Գիտությունների Ակադեմիա Հրատարակչություն.
Ղուկասյան, Սևակ. 1999. Արևելահայերենի Այո-Ոչ Հարցման Հնչերանգը [Intona-
tion of yes-no questions in Eastern Armenian]. Լրաբեր Հասարակական
Գիտությունների 1. 125–134.
Մարգարյան, Ալեքսանդր. 1997. Ժամանակակից Հայոց Լեզու. Հնչյունաբանություն
[Contemporary Armenian language: Phonology]. Երևան: Երեւանի Պետական
Համալսարանի Հրատարակչություն.
Մարգարյան, Ալեքսանդր Սիմոնի. 1975. Գորիսի Բարբառը [The dialect of Goris].
Երևան: Երևանի Համալսարնի Հրատարակչություն.
Մարկոսյան, Ռազմիկ Արարատի. 1989. Արարատյան Բարբառ [The dialect of Ararat].
Երևան: Լույս.

208
Մուրադյան, Հ. Դ., Դ. Մ. Կոստանդյան, Ա. Ն. Հանեյան, Մ. Հ. Մուրադյան & Ա. Վ.
Գրիգորյան. 1977. Հայերենի Բարբառագիտական Ատլասի Նյութերի Հավաքման
Ծրագիր [Program for the collection of materials for an Armenian dialectologi-
cal atlas]. Երևան: Հայկական ՍՍՀ Գիտությունների Ակադեմիա.
Ջահուկյան, Գևորգ Բեգլարի. 1972. Հայ Բարբառագիտության Ներածություն [Intro-
duction to Armenian dialectology]. Երևան: ՀՀ ԳԱԱ Հրաչյա Աճառյանի անվան
լեզվի ինստիտուտ.
Սարգսյան, Ամալյա. 1987. Գոյականական զուգաձևությունները ժամանակակից
հայերենում [Noun doublets in contemporary Armenian]. Լեզվի և ոճի հարցեր
10. 123–230.
Սարգսյան, Արտեմ. 1985. Արևելահայ և Արևմտահայ Գրական Լեզուներ:
Զուգադրական-տիպաբանական Քննություն [Literary languages of Western
and Eastern: A comparative-typological examination]. Երևան: Հայկական ՍՍՀ
ԳԱ Հրատարակչություն.
Սարգսյան, Արտեմ Եղիշեի, Լավրենտի Շահենի Հովհաննիսյան, Նվեր Սարգսյան,
Ռոբերտ Թոխմախյան & Ռոբերտ Ուռուտյան (eds.). 2001. Հայոց Լեզվի
Բարբառային Բառարան [Dialectological dictionary of the Armenian lan-
guage]. Երևան: Հրաչյա Աճառյանի Անվան Լեզվի Ինստիտուտ։ ՀՀ Գիտությունների
Ազգային Ակադեմի.
Սևակ, Գուրգեն. 2009. Ժամանակակից Հայոց Լեզվի Դասընթաց [Course in Modern
Armenian]. Երևան: ԵՊՀ Հրատարակչություն.
Քամալյան, Արեվիկ. 2015. Գրական և Խոսակցական Արևելահայերեն․
Փոփոխություններ և Կանոնարկում [Literary and colloquial Eastern Arme-
nian changes and standardization]. In Լիլիթ Գալստյան & Յուրի Ավետիսյան
(eds.), Արդի Հայերենի Հիմնախնդիրներ, 162–172. Երևան.

209
Name index

Abdollahnejad, Elias, 180 Dąbkowski, Maksymilian, 58

Ackema, Peter, 58, 184 Daniel, Michael, 99, 149
Ackerman, Farrell, 184 Dehghan, Masoud, 43
Adjarian, Hrachia, 3 Dekmejian, Hrair, 7
Akinlabi, Akinbiyi, 128 Der-Martirosian, Claudia, 9
Allen, W. S., 24, 28 DiCanio, Christian, 2
Amirian, Beaina, 18 Dolatian, Hossep, 3, 9, 18, 21, 25, 29,
Amurian, A., 8 30, 32, 39, 43–45, 47, 48, 56,
Andonian, Hagop, 129 91, 94, 99–101, 105, 111, 114,
Ariyaee, Koorosh, 43 120, 132, 138, 146, 147, 149,
Aronoff, Mark, 100, 101, 114 155
Aronow, Robin, 25 Donabédian, Anaïd, 79, 99, 116, 167,
Arregi, Karlos, 74 168
Arsenault, Paul, 22 Dum-Tragut, Jasmine, 2, 16, 40, 44,
45, 61, 67, 69, 70, 73, 74, 76,
Bakalian, Anny, 9 79, 83, 84, 87, 93, 96, 99, 107,
Bale, Alan, 67, 77 109, 111, 114, 121, 126, 129, 132–
Bardakjian, Kevork B., 126, 129, 138, 134, 137, 138, 140, 141, 143, 144,
140, 141 152, 153, 167, 180, 184
Baronian, Luc, 3
Barry, James, 8, 11 Embick, David, 105
Bezrukov, Nikita, 49, 74 Erschler, David, 56
Boersma, Paul, 2, 14, 187 Esfandiari, Nasim, 25
Bonyadi, Hermik, 6, 7, 31
Boyacioglu, Nisan, 99, 129 Fairbanks, Gordon H., 32, 126, 129, 138–
141
Chabot, Alex, 22 Falahati, Reza, 37
Comrie, Bernard, 50, 51, 179 Farnia, Maryam, 11
Cosroe Chaqueri, 8 Fenger, Paula, 56
Côté, Marie-Hélène, 113 Feydit, Frédéric, 129
Crum, Jonathan, 51 Fittante, Daniel, 9
Curtis, Glenn E, 8 Fleming, Harold C, 18
Name index

Garellek, Marc, 18, 21 Karakaş, Ayla, 99, 106, 120

Ghiasian, Maryam, 10 Karapetian, Shushan, 62
Ghougassian, Vazken S., 8 Kasheff, M., 8
Giorgi, Alessandra, 51 Keenan, Edward L., 179
Greppin, John A. C., 3, 152 Khachaturian, Amalya A., 3
Guekguezian, Peter, 99–101, 114, 120, Khanjian, Hrayr, 43, 67, 77
146, 147, 149, 155 Khurshudian, Victoria, 74, 99, 149, 167,
Gulian, Kevork H., 129 169
Kocharov, Petr, 152
Hacopian, Narineh, 3, 18 Kogian, Sahak L., 129
Hagopian, Gayané, 94, 126, 129, 138, Kontovas, Nicholas, 24
140, 141 Kornfilt, Jaklin, 56
Hamp, Eric P., 152 Kouymjian, Dickran, 8
Hanson, Kristin, 22 Kozintseva, Natalia, 67, 99
Haroutyunian, Sona, 51
Haspelmath, Martin, 16, 144 Ladd, D. Robert, 33
Haugen, Jason D., 105 Ladefoged, Peter, 22
Hewitt, Brian George, 179
Hockett, Charles F., 16 Macak, Martin, 24, 39
Hodgson, Katherine, 51, 67, 70, 76, 167, Maddieson, Ian, 22
169, 179 Mahjani, Behzad, 35
Hooglund, Eric, 8 Mahootian, Shahrzad, 28, 77, 105, 170,
Hovakimyan, Knar, 90 180, 182
Hovhannisian, Richard G., 7, 8 Majidi, Mohammad-Reza, 24, 25
Martirosyan, Hrach, 8, 121, 169
Iskandaryan, Gohar, 8 McCloy, Daniel, 22
Megerdoomian, Karine, 5, 33, 50, 51,
Johnson, Emma Wintler, 17, 32, 36, 67, 149, 168
138 Mesropyan, Haykanush, 8
Jones, Taylor, 25 Meyer, Robin, 7
Jun, Sun-Ah, 33 Minassian, Martiros, 126, 129, 138, 140,
Jurgec, Peter, 43 141
Kabak, Bariş, 56 Mokari, Payam Ghaffarvand, 25
Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan, 5, 32, 33, Moran, Steven, 22
50, 51
Neeleman, Ad, 58, 184
Kaisse, Ellen M, 58
Nercissians, Emilia, 10, 11
Kalomoiros, Alexandros, 51
Nichols, Stephen, 24
Kambuziya, Aliyeh Kord-e Zafaranlu,
Nikolaeva, Irina, 184
43

212
 Name index

Paster, Mary, 48 Tahtadjian, Talia, 24

Pater, Joe, 105 Tamrazian, Armine, 33, 51, 67, 168
Pierrehumbert, Janet Breckenridge, 33 Ternes, Elmar, 24, 25
Plungian, Vladimir, 99 Thomson, Robert W, 103, 129
Polinsky, Maria, 179 Tıraş, Melda Nisan, 24
Toparlak, Tabita, 18, 21, 22, 32
Rafat, Yasaman, 24 Tranel, Bernard, 113
Rezaei, Hakimeh, 10 Tseng, Jesse, 170
Rezaei, Saeed, 8, 11
Riggs, Elias, 129 van der Wal Anonby, Christina, 24
Vaux, Bert, 3, 7–9, 17, 20, 24, 28–30,
Sadat-Tehrani, Nima, 35, 37 32, 39, 43–45, 49, 105, 125,
Sağ, Yağmur, 51, 77 126, 129, 132, 138, 140, 141,
Sakayan, Dora, 126, 129, 138, 140, 141 146, 153, 168, 169, 179, 182
Sampson, Rodney, 58 Veselinova, Ljuba, 91
Samvelian, Pollet, 170
Sanasarian, Eliz, 8 Weisser, Philipp, 58
Sande, Hannah, 58 Weitenberg, Jos J.S., 39
Sanjian, Avedis K, 15 Wolfe, Andrew, 29, 30
Sanker, Chelsea, 2
Sargsyan, Hasmik, 76 Yeghiazaryan, Lusine, 51, 67, 70, 167
Sayeed, Ollie, 9, 168
Zamir, Jan Roshan, 10, 11, 28
Scala, Andrea, 76
Zimmermann, Eva, 113
Schirru, Giancarlo, 21
Selkirk, Elisabeth, 58 Աբեղյան, Մանուկ, 149
Seyfarth, Scott, 18, 21, 22 Ախվերդեան, Գէորգեայ, 47
Shakibi, Jami Gilani, 6, 7, 31 Աճառեան, Հրաչեայ, 3, 9, 25, 48, 87,
Sharifzadeh, Afsheen, 6 105, 111, 132, 138, 168
Shwayder, Kobey, 105 Աճառյան, Հրաչյա, 7, 9, 10, 22, 24, 25,
Siddiqi, Daniel, 105, 124 28, 49, 76, 77, 79, 83, 121, 132,
Sigler, Michele, 51, 67, 77, 79 153
Silvestri, Giuseppina, 58 Ասատրյան, Մանվել, 8, 22, 77, 153
Sitaridou, Ioanna, 168 Ավետյան, Սարգիս, 121, 139
Stevick, Earl W., 47, 126, 138–141, 168
Stump, Gregory T., 91, 93, 94, 165 Բաղրամյան, Ռ. Հ., 22
Su, Yu-Ying Julia, 167
Sy, Mariame, 58 Գրիգորյան, Գայանե, 61, 62, 112, 133

Tadayyon, Maedeh, 8 Եզեկյան, Լևոն, 138

213
Name index

Զաքարյան, Հովհաննես, 63

Խաչատրյան, Ամալյա, 18, 25

Կատվալյան, Վիկտոր, 7, 25

Ղամոյան, Լուսինե, 61
Ղարագյուլյան, Թերեզա, 44, 61, 121, 149
Ղարիբյան, Արարատ, 49, 174
Ղուկասյան, Սևակ, 32, 34

Մարգարյան, Ալեքսանդր Սիմոնի, 48

Մարգարյան, Ալեքսանդր, 32, 44, 149
Մարկոսյան, Ռազմիկ Արարատի, 48
Մուրադյան, Հ. Դ., 168

Ջահուկյան, Գևորգ Բեգլարի, 24, 25, 61,

105, 121

Սարգսյան, Ամալյա, 45
Սարգսյան, Արտեմ Եղիշեի, 86
Սարգսյան, Արտեմ, 94
Սևակ, Գուրգեն, 138

Քամալյան, Արեվիկ, 133

214
A grammar of Iranian Armenian

Iranian Armenian is the variety of spoken Armenian that was developed by Armenians
in Tehran, Iran over the last few centuries. It has a substantial community of speakers
in California. This variety or lect is called ‘Persian Armenian’ [pɒɻskɒhɒjeɻen] or ‘Ira-
nian Armenian’ [iɻɒnɒhɒjeɻen] by members of the community. The present book is not
a comprehensive grammar of the language. It occupies a gray zone between being a
simple sketch versus a sizable grammar. We attempt to clarify the basic aspects of the
language, such as its phoneme inventory, noticeable morphophonological processes, var-
ious inflectional paradigms, and some peculiar aspects of its syntax. We likewise provide
a sample text of Iranian Armenian speech.
Many aspects of this variety seem to be identical to Standard Eastern Armenian (SEA),
so we tried to focus more on those aspects of Iranian Armenian which differ from SEA.
The phonology has developed new phonemes and intonational contours due to contact
with Persian. The morphophonology has grammaticalized allomorphic patterns that are
phonosyntactic, meaning they reference syntactic information. Nominal morphology is
largely identical to SEA but with some simplification of irregular processes. Verbal mor-
phology is similar to SEA, but with major innovations in the aorist paradigm. The aorist
or past perfective paradigm has undergone a change whereby irregular patterns have
been reanalyzed as regular patterns. The syntax is largely the same as SEA, but with
innovations due to contact with Persian, such as object clitics and the use of resumptive
pronouns.