User talk:Vahagn Petrosyan

Regarding Ottoman Turkish قامه

Hello @Vahagn Petrosyan, I'm wondering if it's normal for Armenian loans from (Ottoman) Turkish to turn k into χ. In particular, I'm interested in խամա (xama) and where exactly it's used. I'm wondering if Laz ხამი (xami, “knife”) and Mingrelian ხამუ (xamu, “knife”) borrowed it from Ottoman Turkish via Armenian or if in Armenian this word is a doublet from Laz? k~χ does happen in Georgian (i.e., ვახშამი), but I'm struggling to think of an example in Mingrelian TsibaTsibaTsiba (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi @TsibaTsibaTsiba. It is regular for the dialects of Constantinople and Crimea in those instances of Turkish k where it is written as ق (q), both in the beginning of the words and in other positions. Where it is written as ك (k), the dialects have ք (kʻ), as in քյոմուր (kʻyomur). I believe Turkish k has different pronunciation in different positions, reflected in Ottoman orthography. Most of other dialects turn ق (q) into ղ (ġ).

խամա (xama) is used in Constantinople and Nakhichevan-on-Don (these were transplanted from Crimea, also known as Armenia Maritima). Other dialects have կամա (kama) (Van) or ղամա (ġama) (most others).

Ačaṙyan has two explanations as to why Constantinople and Crimea have խ (x) instead of the expected ղ (ġ). These dialects do not tolerate ղ- (ġ-) at the beginning of the word and turn it to խ- (x-). But they can have ղ (ġ) in other positions. So Ačaṙyan assumes the /χ/ pronunciation in positions other than the beginning is due to contact with an unknown Turkish dialect on the way of migration from Armenia to Constantinople and Crimea.

I think the explanation should be sought in a dialectal or older pronunciation of Turkish ق (q) rather than in inner-Armenian or inner-Kartvelian developments. --Vahag (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Vahagn Petrosyan Thank you for such an amazing explanation! Ačaṙyan seemingly has an explanation for everything. :) TsibaTsibaTsiba (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, he was a genius. --Vahag (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

գագաթն

Hi! I've seen you reverted my edit. I've been adding Akkadian entries and from now on I'll try to add more and more vocabulary. We decided to go for the Latin script for Akkadian entries, and the various way to "spell" them with cuneiform signs will be given inside their corresponding page. I had just create the "qaqqadum" entry, that's why I changed the link. If you want to keep the older one for now, that's ok, I guess. At some point in the future I'll ask for all cuneiform entries that are neither Translingual cuneiform signs nor Sumerian to be removed (by that point all Akkadian cuneiform entries will have their corresponding Latinised entry, of course, so no information will be lost). As for the meanings of qaqqadum, though, I cannot find anywhere that it means "skull", so I do think we should remove that. Sartma (talk) 09:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sartma: new conversations are added to the bottom of talk pages. As far as I can tell, the move to Latin transliterations is not universally accepted on Wiktionary. When there is consensus to centralize the content on the Latin page, you can update գագաթն (gagatʻn). I will remove the "skull" gloss. --Vahag (talk) 09:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sartma: I am more concerned by removal of cuneiform respectively term requests and only leaving Latin spellings, without the cuneiform being found anymore. That is the thing skeptics of Akkadian in Latin script always warned about. Don’t let it come that far. As I said, cuneiform in etymologies is standard. If you remove it because you make a full page for an Akkadian word where you list spellings it’s okay but if the actual spelling cannot be derived any more from the dictionary mention this is not even accepted by those who voted pro Latin Akkadian because their main motivation was trusting that Akkadian editors do not omit the cuneiform because only that is the real ting, the Latin spellings only the organization. On this grounds, I argue that, without prejudice to saving exceptional saveworthy content, Akkadian entries without cuneiform have to be speedy-deleted and Akkadian term mentions in Latin script have to be set to term requests if cuneiform is not added within reasonable time, de lege lata. Fay Freak (talk) 13:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Fay Freak: The cuneiform (Sumerograms, when existing, and phonetic spelling) will always be found in the body of each word's page. I'm not trying to omit it, I'm only trying to use it in a way that makes sense, and not "just because" (as it seems to me to have been used so far in Akkadian entries). I'm keeping track of all the entries I'm creating and reviewing on my user page, if you want to have a look at what I've been doing. I've also started discussions with other users who showed interest in Akkadian entries to create and implement Akkadian specific templates. So I just want to reassure you that the cuneiform script will always be there, just not in the pagename. Sartma (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Sartma:: There isn’t even a page. It does not make sense to remove cuneiform spellings or requests before the Latin-spelling Akkadian pages exist, or even before they are planned to be (you haven’t planned those specific words, since you keep track of “all the entries” on your user page and they are not linked there). Fay Freak (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Fay Freak:} I'm not sure I follow you. I created the Akkadian page qaqqadum before editing the etymology section of գագաթն. In my edit I deleted the 3 cuneiform links because you can find those spellings/links inside the new page I created, and because I find it quite strange to read on an Etymology section "From Akkadian 𒊕𒁺, 𒊕, 𒌋𒅗 (qaqqadu, “head, top”)", i.e. 1 word (qaqqadum) and 3 different links only in cuneiform without transcription/normalisation. I find it messy, inelegant and confusing. But then again, if the Armenian editors are happy with this style, who am I to tell them they can't do it? One thing, though: we've had a couple of exchanges now, me and you, here and elsewhere, and I have to say that I really don't appreciate either the tone or the the way you communicate, so unless you write something constructive, informed, meaningful, that can be considered as an actual contribution in the spirit of collaboration that one would expect on here, I hope you'll forgive me if from now on I'll just avoid replying to you. Sartma (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Sartma: I refer to the term mentions in the entry हलदी (haladī), which I have very explicitly linked, in the words beginning with “removal of cuneiform respectively …” (maybe the Wiktionary skin has a bad link colour, or rather you fell victim to a computer monitor with a bad contrast). I have not inspected the layout of գագաթն (gagatʻn) until now. What my post was about is that, more than Vahagn Petrosyan reckoned, Akkadian mentions in mere Latin script are quite tolerable, so I leaned to your side, but, in contrast, it is different if no Akkadian page exists; because if you cut down the term mention to a Latin spelling without term request then you withhold information. Categories like Category:Requests for native script for Akkadian terms and Category:Akkadian term requests have used to be filled (though basically only by Profes.I., so I just told you the truth that one is alone and forsaken on this website and disagree with your suggestion that I do not write informed comments, or even no meaningful ones!). And no, my ping in my contribution to हलदी (haladī) wasn’t a trap, sorry if I made it appear like that—I am not at all concern-trolling, but there are issues which I pointed out because as man sees others don’t do as thoroughly. (I am shirking my life by helping you’ll and then I get scolden, 😤!) Fay Freak (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Fay Freak:: You wrote about me "removing cuneiform spellings". I've never done that. I have just added a link where there wasn't one, and I added the etymology of हलदी (haladī) in the list of things to do on my user page. If that's a crime, then I'm guilty, but I still don't think I deserve your scorn. I'm not "scolding" you, I'm not your mother. You're an adult, I'm merely letting you know that I'm not willing to have exchanges with you if that's the way you feel you can or need to talk to me. Back to your last message, if you just wanted to point out that my edit ended up deleting हलदी (haladī) from the Category:Akkadian term requests page, why didn't you just say so instead of being rude over 3 messages before getting there? I didn't even know that page existed. "Helping me" would have meant you telling me what was wrong/potentially problematic with my edit, not being a dick. So, please, don't flatter yourself. You haven't been "helping me", you've just been a pain so far. Sartma (talk) 08:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Guys, stop arguing about this minor issue. @Sartma, I share Fay Freak's concern. If the attested cuneiform is nowhere to be found, I disagree with replacing the script request with the Latin link. Since you have the cuneiform at qaqqadum, I have now linked it at գագաթն (gagatʻn). No information is lost. --Vahag (talk) 09:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

գուրգուրել

@Vahagn Petrosyan: Old Georgian კურკურება (ḳurḳureba) is attested in 9th-10th century, but I obviously couldn't change the language tag to Old Georgian because Old Georgian couldn't have borrowed from Modern Armenian. Also might a stretch, but dialectal Georgian კურკუმელა (ḳurḳumela, “darkness”) could be related (itself cognate with Mingrelian უკუმელა (uḳumela), but I don't know what that *კურ- (*ḳur-) is in Georgian). Also I forgot to mention, that კურკური is found in the first volume of ქართულ კილო-თქმათა სიტყვის კონა, also book page is actually 315 (312 was the pdf page number). TsibaTsibaTsiba (talk) 10:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@TsibaTsibaTsiba: thanks for checking the status of these words. So კურკურება (ḳurḳureba) is Old Georgian (could be borrowed from unattested Old Armenian) and კურკური (ḳurḳuri) is dialectal modern Georgian. Are საკურკურა (saḳurḳura) and გრკჳნვა (grḳwinva) modern Georgian?

I don't think კურკუმელა (ḳurḳumela, “darkness”) is related. See here on it. --Vahag (talk) 11:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@Vahagn Petrosyan: საკურკურა (saḳurḳura) isn't attested in Abuladze or in Ghlonti (სიტყვის კონა). გრკჳნვა (grḳwinva) (page 96) is Old Georgian, there Abuladze refers to მგრკჳნველი (mgrḳwinveli, “nurse; wetnurse”) (page 225) without defining გრკჳნვა (grḳwinva) itself which I find strange because მგრკჳნველი (mgrḳwinveli) was derived from the other word. I'm kind of getting lost here, someone experienced with Old Georgian is needed. :) TsibaTsibaTsiba (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Orbeliani has a definition of გრკჳნვა (grḳwinva), which Neisser translates as "childlike caress, childlike talking". --Vahag (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

կրուկն

@Vahagn Petrosyan: I edited Laz ქური, which is actually derived from Proto-Karto-Zan, so կրուկն should be slightly reworded to reflect this. Klimov compares the Proto-Karto-Zan stem to PIE, without mentioning Armenian in particular. TsibaTsibaTsiba (talk) 10:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@TsibaTsibaTsiba: thanks for updating the Laz entry, but I believe the cautious wording at the Armenian entry ("It has been compared to") can stay. It has been compared to Laz after all and is still being compared after Klimov. --Vahag (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Dative and genitive cases in Armenian

Since Armenian genitive case (սեռական հոլով (seṙakan holov)) is always identical to indefinite dative case (տրական հոլով (trakan holov)), it might be worth omitting it in case graphs (templates). However, grammatically, they do perform quite distinct roles in a sentence, and for a new learner these graphs could be confusing. I think, some kind of merge mentioning the genitive case in the templates should be considered. GareginRA (talk) 22:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

If done so, we would also have to mention the accusative case (հայցական հոլով (haycʻakan holov)), which is also not special, since it resembles the dative case in animate nouns and the nominative in inanimate. --GareginRA (talk) 22:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

...Except, of course, when the animate noun is used as an inanimate, which adds to the complexity of the needed changes. --GareginRA (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@GareginRA: That complexity is precisely why I got rid of the genitive and the accusative. Wiktionary is a dictionary and is not intended for learning grammar. I have now added a tooltip to nominative and accusative of the declension tables. That should be sufficient. --Vahag (talk) 04:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Vahagn Petrosyan: Looks fine, but why grammars, in plural? That means books of grammar, according to Oxford Dictionary definition of countable grammar.[1] Maybe you mean different traditions of grammar? Also, accusative case should be added in the tooltip for the dative variants of animate nouns, like in տեսա աղջիկ / տեսա աղջկա(ն) --GareginRA (talk) 05:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@GareginRA: I did mean grammar books. There is no one "traditional grammar" as there is "traditional orthography" in Armenian. I added some additional tooltips. --Vahag (talk) 05:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Vahagn Petrosyan: That will do for now. But still, looks kinda clumsy. I think of simpler variants, like "corresponds to genitive" or "corresponds to animate accusative". "Includes" sounds like the dative case includes other cases, which is a contradiction in terms. Also, indefinite animate accusative (which corresponds to indefinite dative) is completely missed, even though it is perhaps seldom used. Definite inanimate accusative (which corresponds to definite nominative) is also missed. --GareginRA (talk) 06:30, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I've noticed that definite inanimate accusative isn't missed. Sorry. But it is not only for inanimate referents, since animate referents can decline as inanimate without losing their animateness in certain context. For example, "Ես հաշվեցի 26 զինվոր։".--GareginRA (talk) 07:07, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to deal with synchronic issues now and I don't trust you to do it yourself (as you are only hy-2). So let's shelve this matter. Sorry. --Vahag (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

անդունդ

Consider the following fragment.
Խուլ խշշում է անտառը սարերի լանջերին, խշշում է խոր անդունդներում ու ձորերում… (Վ․ Խեշումյան)
Clearly he is not talking about infinite abysses in the forest. Armenian Wiktionary entry also has a picture of what seems to be a finite pit. GareginRA (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

He is talking about abysses in a poetic way. The pairing with ձոր (jor, “gorge, ravine”) should tell you that in the author's mind it does not refer to some deep hole in the ground. Անդունդ is equivalent to English "abyss", Russian "бездна, пропасть", none of which is simply "deep pit". Vahag (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

OK, but I don't think you can use it that way in English. A second meaning might need to be added. If so, maybe "a deep pit" isn't the right definition. "A deep indentation" could be the one, but still, poetic senses are very diverse. GareginRA (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

No, there is no need to document every possible poetic and figurative sense. Readers can deduce them from the main meaning. --Vahag (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

bor vs der

Hey you changed der to bor in სკაროსი. I'm confused which one to use, for example I used der in ბარსაბონი and ფჳნიქსი/ფუვინკაჲ. Is that correct? 46.242.14.191 19:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

{{bor}} is for immediate (direct) borrowings. {{der}} is for non-immediate (indirect) borrowings. So სკაროსი (sḳarosi) should use 'bor' from Ancient Greek, unless your Hexaemeron was translated from Armenian (we have սկարոս (skaros) in the same passage). ფჳნიქსი (pwiniksi) should use 'bor' from Ancient Greek. ფუვინკაჲ (puvinḳay) should use 'bor' from Old Armenian, but 'der' from Ancient Greek. Vahag (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Vahagn_Petrosyan: thanks I didn't know there was documentation for modules, it now makes sense to me how to use them. Slightly off topic: I tried fixing a broken sentence on Gregory Pakourianos Wikipedia page, but I have no idea if that changed the meaning of the sentence itself. Would it be possible for you to take a look? :) 46.242.14.191 20:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I checked Bartikyan's comment to Urhayetsi's text. You figured the meaning correctly. Independently from Bartikyan I can confirm that ancient Armenian authors often refer to dyophysite heretics as "Greek Roman" or "Georgian", whatever their ethnic origin. Likewise, the good miaphysites are "Armenian", even if they are Aghwan or Georgian. Vahag (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. That's very interesting. So 'Vrats' in Classical Armenian could refer to Chalcedonian Armenians. Shouldn't its Wiktionary page be expanded then? Although I guess that would be confusing to people. :D 46.242.14.191 21:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

A usage note is merited. I'll add one once I come across a suitable quotation from Old Armenian literature. --Vahag (talk) 10:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

ազգային

Noun sense example:

Ազատություն շնորհե՛ք հայոց գերիներին, թող գնան իրենց տները և սրբեն ազգայինների արտասուքը։ (Րաֆֆի)

Of course, adjectives in Armenian are often nominalized, but this seems as a distinct sense with interlingual meaning and dictionary mentions. GareginRA (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

It is indeed an archaic noun sense, but none of the English noun definitions at national fit. Naïve English speakers believe a nation is based on citizenship, not race. What we mean by ազգ (azg) is ethnicity. Vahag (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

If you click on those words you will see that their senses perfectly correspond. Compare ազգություն. GareginRA (talk) 20:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

They don't correspond. English and French nation = civic and political community. Armenian ազգ (azg) = ethnic community. In Armenia we don't understand how a sub-Saharan can be English or French. Likewise we consider the US citizen Kim Kardashian, French citizen Charles Aznavour and Russian citizen GareginRA as ազգակից (azgakicʻ), ազգային (azgayin) and even հայրենակից (hayrenakicʻ). Vahag (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, nation doesn't only represent a country. In fact, the very first example of use of the word states: The Roma are a nation without a country. In the very same sense Armenia is also a nation, which crosses borders and dialects and even languages. There would probably be no need for the words like citizen and citizenship if the word nation meant exactly the same. GareginRA (talk) 20:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe that is the most common understanding of the English term. Even if it is one of the senses, you should gloss the English translation of the Armenian term to disambiguate the meaning, by using {{gloss}}. --Vahag (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, the English understanding is that a nation stands before a country, but not that every nation has (is) a country. That lead to the conception that all countries are considered nations, which is right (mostly). But that does not require the opposite to be true. GareginRA (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

In case, my explanation wasn't clear. Every country is a nation, but not every nation has its own country. In fact, a sense diversion has happened. When we say nation, the things we consider the most are common historic background and self-identification.

For modern English speakers, nation and country are, by default, interchangable. There are occasional exceptions, but they're thought of as special cases. Without a gloss, no one will get the right meaning. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

For many laymen many terms are interchangeable though having a distinct meaning. Unfortunately the meaning in which a word is used does not equal the meaning it has, as I have demonstrated when I remarked that for many people the “situation” is also interchangeable with “pandemic” and ”rona”. DCDuring has used to like the “substitutability test” to discover synonymy but it turned out that this is not how it works.

If you see the terms as interchangeable, @Chuck Entz, this is of course peculiar to your situation in the US: In a multinational state (I just had to adjust the definition even) the verbiage has more distinction and care, so I assume that both Caucasians here know better what “national” in English means than the dictionary defining it.

“Ethnic” is basically only the racialist decoct (ha, we lack the noun) of “national” (although some ethne may not have been elevated to nations – this has only to with the pertinacity of some group giving itself a definition, only distinguished via the paradox of the heap, and seems to be not a problem in the Soviet region as all (?) got this definition …). And “national”, “nation” is used for German Volk, Russian наро́д (naród) in either English, German or Russian (as in w:ru:Национальный состав России “national composition of Russia” introducing us: “На территории России проживает более 190 народов.”), English again having lost a native word and replacing the term by metonymy (as e.g. German conservatives of course distinguish Volk and Nation, although I wouldn’t do that and following arch-purist skepticism drop the latter as foreign intruder, because in the end the term you use only means what you make it to mean, it being so dehnbar a concept as we say), the word people not being fit due to its also meaning manaman, Leute. Fay Freak (talk) 05:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Btw, traditionally one could be (and probably still can be) considered Armenian just by faith. So it's not so much about ethnic origins and bloodline. GareginRA (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Then again that shows that nationality is not just defined by ethnos and sometimes not necessarily, so somewhat naturally for Christians: as the Christians, that is at least their primary ideologues, that is their priests, the theologians, are kind of progressives, they were the Bolsheviks of the 1st century of their era. On the other side, Eugène Terre'Blanche of course would tell you, has told (I am not gonna pick on his interviews now, which are but to taste 😃), that a black can never be an Afrikaner. There we see that for his purposes “ethnic” and “national” are interchangeable, while for Armenians it is probably not that way. But as explained above these extreme examples do not tell us how the words are correctly glossed.

It was very wrong all the time to come to believe, due to the use–mention distinction, that usage would contain meanings. The word “meaning” itself tells you what a meaning of a word is: The understanding that people have of a word, what they mean to say in general by the word, not their use—their mere opinions, English meaning being the cognate of German Meinung (“opinion”). The wrong idea is suggested (I say this in a negative sense like German suggerieren) by overly narrowly understood descriptivism and the wording “conveying meaning” in WT:ATTEST. Now that I notice that Imma put the wording in my draft of the CFI from “conveying meaning” to “bearing meaning” (if not you find aught even better). Fay Freak (talk) 05:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the reason for this dispute is simply radically nationalistic Armenian editorship and arrogance. Considering your origins a "real" nation (or ազգ, which actually is mostly used in that sense) and contrasting it to those artificial "country-born" nations is pretty supremacistic. PS. I might be wrong. GareginRA (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

What you are saying is out of the ballpark of what should be under dispute. Nobody contrasts country-born nations. Countries are artificially born from nations, and ultimately individuals. The dispute is because English readers are not expected to be smart enough to recognize that or think like you or me or Vahagn and derive the correct meaning from a translation in their languages. That’s why we gloss in more than one word. Now the article ազգային gives people at least the idea that perhaps it is neither of any mainstream English concepts. Fay Freak (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Don't expect me to join your squad. Unlike you, I don't underestimate dear native English speakers. Once again, it is not a coincidence that the very first definition of nation does not mention 'country' or 'sovereign state'. In fact, even the word country has some puzzling meanings in English. GareginRA (talk) 23:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)