Tavet Tat Satyam Studies in Honor of Jared S. Klein on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday edited by Andrew Miles Byrd Jessica DeLisi Mark Wenthe Beech Stave Press Ann Arbor • New York © Beech Stave Press, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Typeset with LATEX using the Galliard typeface designed by Matthew Carter and Greek Old Face by Ralph Hancock. The typeface on the cover is Magnum by Steve Peter. Photo of Jared Klein courtesy of Justin Evans Photography. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data ISBN ---- (alk. paper) Printed in the United States of America Table of Contents Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Bibliography of Jared S. Klein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xx Gary Beckman, Ahhijawa und kein Ende: The Battle over Mycenaeans in Anatolia . . . . . . ˘˘ Joel P. Brereton, Word Positioning in Rgvedic Poetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ˚ Jessica DeLisi, A Second Look at First- and Second-person Deictic Suffixes in Modern Eastern Armenian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Joseph F. Eska, On Pragmatic Information Structuring at Séracourt à Bourges (Cher) and Related Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bernhard Forssman, Griechisch βοÚλοµαι ½ und προββουλα . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . José Luis García Ramón, Anthroponymica Mycenaea : Compound Names in °me-de, °me-ta and Pylian me-ti-ja-no . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . José Virgilio García Trabazo, Sobre indio antiguo mrgá- ‘animal salvaje’ ˚ y el texto hitita KUB .+ (‘El gran camino del alma’) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o, vi-le´s/li´s, vi-ris. und die Verstauchung des Opfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Toshifumi Got¯ Dag Trygve Truslew Haug, PIE *kwi-/kwo-: Interrogative, Indefinite or Both? . . . . . . . . . Hans Henrich Hock, P¯an.ini’s Language: Real or Not? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stephanie W. Jamison, Inter-hymnic Rhetorical Structure in RV I.–: ˚ ´ aktya’s Vai´sv¯anara Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Par¯a´sara S¯ Jay H. Jasanoff, Toch. AB a¯ kl- ‘learn’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brian D. Joseph, Balkan, Indo-European, and Universal Perspectives on ‘be’ in Albanian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Götz Keydana, Kausative im Frühvedischen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ronald I. Kim, Studies in Armenian Historical Phonology I: Aspiration and Spirantization of PIE Voiceless Stops. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Masato Kobayashi, The Adnominal Locative in Indo-Aryan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v Table of Contents Martin Joachim Kümmel, *syá- im Indoiranischen: Zahlwort und Demonstrativum? . . Melanie Malzahn, Vedic a´sáni-: Another Stone from Heaven? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. Craig Melchert, Hittite k¯ı (kuit) and Vedic “sá-figé” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alan J. Nussbaum, A Note on Latin Syllables and Anaptyxis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Norbert Oettinger, Altindisch Agní- ,Feuergott‘ und hethitisch d Agni/d Akni-. . . . . . . . . Birgit Anette Olsen, Zarathustra and the Needle’s Eye of Etymology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Georges-Jean Pinault, Reflecting the Divine Mansion: Vedic amáti- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Joseph Rhyne and Andrew Miles Byrd, Stressful Conversions: Internal Derivation within the Compositional Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elisabeth Rieken, Repetition und Variation in den hethitischen Gebeten. . . . . . . . . . . . . Don Ringe, The Nature of the South Greek Dialect Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Caley Charles Smith, The Kat.hopanis.ad and the Deconstruction of the Fire-Altar . . . . Olga A. Thomason, Indicating Path: Evidence from New Testament Greek, Gothic, Classical Armenian, and Old Church Slavic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elizabeth Tucker, Rigvedic Root-accented Neuters in -ana- and Animate Forms in -ana-/-an¯ı- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brent Vine, Latin b¯es/bessis ‘two-thirds of an as’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Michael Weiss, The Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals and the Name of Cilicia in the Iron Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chlodwig H. Werba, Ur(indo)arisches im N¯urist¯an¯ı: Zur historischen Phonologie des Indoiranischen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kazuhiko Yoshida, Hittite parhattari Reconsidered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ˘ Index Verborum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi A Second Look at First- and Second-person Deictic Suffixes in Modern Eastern Armenian Introduction The Armenian language is remarkable from an Indo-European perspective because of its deixis. While it lacks grammatical gender even in its pronouns, it has developed a compli- cated deictic system built on distinctions of distance and person. There are three levels of reference: the proximal or first-person stem is built on a formant in s, the distal or second- person stem on one in d, and the neutral, narrative, or third-person stem on one in n. The most in-depth account of this system is Jared Klein’s monograph, in which he surveyed and analyzed all deictic forms in the text of the Classical Armenian Gospels. The present discussion is a thorough reworking of certain aspects of my master’s thesis written under the direction of Jared Klein, wherein I examined the system of personal demonstrative suffixes in Modern Eastern Armenian. In , I surveyed all three markers (-s, -d, and -n) in the text of the Gospel of Matthew from the perspective of both syntactically and semantically necessary deixis. In the corpus, I found more than , examples of third- person deixis, affording a sufficient sample size to discuss both the syntactic and semantic aspects of the suffix. The sample size of first- and second-person demonstrative suffixes in the Gospel of Matthew was far smaller, however, consisting of only examples of -d and eight of -s. Therefore, it seems appropriate to revisit first- and second-person deixis in Modern Eastern Armenian with both an expanded corpus and a narrowed focus, summarized in the following table: Corpus Current Corpus -d forms -s forms In this study, my corpus is composed of the four Gospels in Modern Eastern Armenian, with reference to the Grabar and Koin¯e versions. I have again used the Etchmiadzin transla- tion, which is based upon the Classical Armenian version, rather than a retranslation of the Koin¯e. The decision to use the Gospels as a corpus was made partially on the basis of the availability of translations in both Classical and Modern Armenian to facilitate comparing the two stages of the language, and partially on the basis of the earlier study by Klein on this Offprint from Andrew Miles Byrd, Jessica DeLisi, and Mark Wenthe (eds.), Tavet Tat Satyam: Studies in Honor of Jared S. Klein on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday. Copyright © Beech Stave Press, Inc. All rights reserved. First- and Second-person Deictic Suffixes in Modern Eastern Armenian matter in the Classical language. The Gospels, clearly, are not native Armenian literature. However, the fact that these texts represent translations of another language should not be a matter of concern: . . . the fact that the three-way Classical Armenian and two-way Hellenistic Greek systems of deixis do not match up is helpful in allowing us to perceive indepen- dent features of Armenian usage. These can be stated with the greatest degree of confidence in the case of the Armenian d-forms, which are without precise systematic counterparts in Greek, but sufficient deviations exist in the case of s- and n-forms and their Greek counterparts to provide insight into the workings of the Classical Armenian system. (Klein :–) The same justification can be made in favor of the Modern Armenian translations, not only in comparison with Greek sources, but also with those of the classical language. As I hope to demonstrate below, enough change has occurred throughout the system that usage in the modern texts is completely independent of that found in the classical version. The focus of this inquiry will not be on translation techniques from Greek to Armenian, or even from Classical to Modern Armenian, but on the independent forms and systems of usage in each period of Armenian. . The principle of deictic consistency The most important change between the classical and modern periods of the language can be found in the restricted application of what Klein calls the Principle of Deictic Consis- tency; in the Grabar, “once [an s-, d-, or n-form] is brought into play for whatever reason, subsequent anaphoric references must agree with it in deixis, so long as they are part of the same discourse without change of perspective” (Klein :). This principle increases the quantity of s- and d-stems within a single narrative episode, as well as introduces a tendency towards multiple marking of a syntagm with s- or d-deixis. By the modern period, however, this principle no longer holds within syntagms. In fact, in the extended corpus of all four gospels, there are no examples of the first-person demonstrative adjective ays with a head noun suffixed in -s. There are only two examples of the second person ayd co-occurring with a noun marked with the -d suffix: Mark : Ew na asac nran, “Ayd x¯osk id hamar gná, dew k o ałJkanic durs elaw.” ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ e And he said to them, “For that speech, go; the devil has left your girl.” John : Yisus Petrosin asac , “Ayd surd noric ir pateani m¯eJ dir; ayn bažak , or Hayrn ¯e inj tuel, ˘ ˘ e ˇc piti xmem?” ˘ Jesus said to Peter, “Put that sword in its sheath. That cup which my father gave to me, should I not drink it?” While it is certainly true that the text of the Gospels and the grammar of Standard Eastern Armenian do not generally allow for multiple marking of first- or second-person deixis within a syntagm, according to Dum-Tragut : double marking is quite frequent in colloquial Armenian. Jessica DeLisi The vast majority of syntagms involving the demonstratives ays and ayd do not conform to the Principle of Deictic Consistency; instead, the personal deixis is marked on only the first word of the syntagm and all following deictic markers show the default person, i.e. n-deixis. This tendency to fully specify only the first deictic element is similar to the kinds of “conjunction reduction” effects identified by Kiparsky () for other Indo-European languages, whereby instances of the same category become less marked in repetition. Be- cause of this reduction, there are fewer examples of -s and -d deixis in the modern version than in Klein’s classical corpus. The unusual multiple marking of the syntagm in Mark : may indicate emphasis (i.e. “that very speech of yours”), while John : perhaps exhibits pejorative connotations (“that damn sword of yours”) since this phrase is used in the context of an exasperated Jesus rebuking Peter. In Luke :, the Principle of Deictic Consistency is violated in a remarkable way: Luke : Du iwłov im glux ˇc ¯ocec ir, sa anuš iwłov otk ers ¯ocec . ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ e You did not anoint my head with oil, but this one anointed my feet with sweet oil. Immediately after having introduced s-deixis to refer to the girl anointing Jesus’s feet, the -s suffix marks possession. According to Classical Armenian grammar, the feet in question could belong to the same person indicated by sa in order to maintain consistent deixis, but the Modern Armenian text does not require this uniformity, and therefore the referent is unambiguously identified with the speaker, Jesus. Syntactically necessary deixis -d forms -s forms With pronouns With quantifiers With nonfinite verb forms As I found in , most syntactically necessary deixis in the extended corpus also occurs with the neutral deictic suffix -n, and is thus outside the scope of the present study. What remains include instances of the pronouns ink d ‘yourself,’ ink s ‘myself,’ and iwrak anˇc iwrd ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ ‘yourself,’ all of which merely provide personal reference to the pronoun. Similarly, quanti- fiers such as bolord ‘you all’ are quite common when a speaker addresses a large group. The only syntactically obligatory deixis that is remarkable in this extended corpus is the usage of the deictic suffix to indicate the agent of a non-finite verb, a usage I did not discuss in the study: For examples of ays and ayd with -n see DeLisi :ff. For a discussion of deictic suffixes with non-finite verbal forms in Standard Eastern Armenian, see Dum-Tragut : and ff. First- and Second-person Deictic Suffixes in Modern Eastern Armenian Luke : Du inj mi hamboyr ¯el ˇc tuir, sakayn sa aha tun mtneluc s i ver ˇc i dadarum otk ers ham- ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ bureluc . ˘ You did not give me a kiss, whereas this one from my entering the house has not stopped kissing my feet. Mark : Zgóyš ełir, oˇc ok i ban ˇc ases, ayl gná, k ez k ahanayin góyc tur ew mak ruelud hamar ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ ncay tur ayn, inˇc hramayel ¯er Movs¯es , nranc hamar ibrew vkayut iwn. ˘ ˘ ˘ e e Take care that you do not say a word to anyone, but go, show yourself to your priest and give your offering, that Moses commanded on account of your cleansing to their testimony. In both Luke : and Mark :, the deictic suffix is used to indicate an agentive reading of the participle, i.e. “the entering that was done by me” and “the cleansing that you did.” Since this agentive reading is only available for the first- and second-person suffixes (Dum-Tragut :), which themselves are quite rare in the modern text, it is perhaps not surprising I did not find an instance in the corpus. Semantically necessary deixis -d forms -s forms Possession Vocative Pejorative Emotional Solidarity . Possession In the modern language, as was also the case in the classical language, there are two options for indicating possession: either a possessive adjective may be employed or, because of their metaphorical association with the first and second person, a noun may be marked with the -s or -d suffixes. When a noun is governed by a possessive adjective, the -n suffix is used rather than the deictic suffix which would agree with the possessive adjective in person: i.e. where the classical language would have z-azg-s mer “our people” (Luke :), the modern language has mer azgeri-n, another instance of the avoidance of multiple marking as discussed above in §.. The two possessive constructions do not seem to be functionally or semantically distinct; in fact, there are a few instances in which both possessive formations are found side-by-side for the same noun within a single sentence: Luke : Ew da˙rnalov knoJ kołm , Simonin asac , “Tesnum es ays knoJ ? mtay k o tun , otk eris ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ e e e hamar Jur ˇc tuir, isk sa ir artasuk nerov t rJec im otk er ew ir mazerov srbec . ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ e And turning to the side of the woman, to Simon he says, “Do you see this woman? I came to your house, you did not wash my feet; truly she wet my feet with her tears and wiped [them] with her hair. Jessica DeLisi Luke : Ew kam, inˇc p¯es karoł es ełb¯ord asel, ełbáyr, t oł or k o aˇc k ic ayd šiwł hanem, isk du k o ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ e aˇc k i miJi geran ˇc es tesnum. Kełcawór, nax k o aˇc k ic geran hanír ew apa law k tesnes, ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ e e e k o ełb¯or aˇc k ic šiwl hanelu hamar.” ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ e Or how can you say to your brother, “Brother, let me take that splinter from your eye,” but you cannot see the stake in your eye? O hypocrite, first remove the stake from your eye so that you can see well for taking the splinter from your brother’s eye. Note that in both Luke : and : deictic suffixes co-occur with possessive adjective con- structions. Each time both constructions are found in a single sentence within the corpus, it is always the noun with deictic suffix that comes first; perhaps this order indicates that the deictic suffix is the more marked of the two possessive markers, and the possessive adjective construction is used second due to deictic conjunction reduction. In discussions of the usage of -s and -d as possessive markers in Standard Modern Eastern Armenian, I have never seen any mention of constraints on the types of nouns these markers can be employed with. In fact, the Paradebeispiel found in most textbooks, including Dum- Tragut :, is girk -s ‘my book’ or girk -d ‘your book’. However, the text of the Gospels ˘ ˘ shows a much more highly constrained pattern. Possessives marked with deictic suffixes al- most exclusively fall within established categories of inalienable possession, cf. Lichtenberk, Vaid, and Chen :: -d forms -s forms Total: Alienable Possession Total: Inalienable Possession Relationships Body parts Comes from the body Worn on a body Mind/mental processes Personal attributes Obvious possessions (a) Kinship and other social relationships: Luke : Žołovrdi miJic m¯ek nran asac , “Vardapét, asa ełb¯ors, or ža˙rangut iwn inj het bažani.” ˘ ˘ ˘ e e One among the crowd said to them, “O Teacher, tell my brother, that he should divide the inheritance with me.” Luke : orovhetew ¯orer piti gan vrad, erb t šnaminerd k o šurJ patn¯eš piti kangnen ew piti pašaren ˘ ˘ ˘ e k ez, piti nełen k ez bolor kołmeric ˘ ˘ For days will come upon you, when your enemies will lift up the barricade and surround you, and they will attack you from all sides. First- and Second-person Deictic Suffixes in Modern Eastern Armenian (b) Body parts: Luke : Du iwłov im glux ˇc ¯ocec ir, sa anuš iwłov otk ers ¯ocec . ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ e You did not anoint my head with oil, but this one anoints my feet with sweet oil. John : Aˇc k nerid erewac aci p¯es mí dat¯ek , ayl ułíł datastan ar¯ek . ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ Do not judge as your eyes see, but make righteous judgment. (c) The possessed comes from the possessor’s body: Mark : Yisus sastec nran u asac , “Jaynd ktrír ew dúrs el dranic .” ˘ ˘ ˘ Jesus scolded him and said, “Stop your voice and come out of that one.” (d) The possessed is worn by the possessor: Luke : Ov xp um ¯e k o cn¯otin, nran míwsn ¯el m¯otec ru, ew ov or k eznic k o baˇckon b˙rni ¯e ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ e verc num, nran mí argelir, or verc ni šapikd ¯el. ˘ ˘ Who strikes your chin, bring the other near him. And whoever takes your coat from you by force, do not forbid him from taking your shirt. (e) The mind and mental processes: Matthew : Ew minˇc na atean ¯er nstum, ir kin nran lur ułarkec u asac , “K o ew ayd ardari miJew ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ e oˇc inˇc ˇc kay, orovhetew ays¯or erazums nra patˇca˙rov glxovs šat baner anc an.” ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ And while he was sitting in court, his wife sent a message to him and said, “There is nothing between you and this righteous man, for today I suffered with my head many things on account of him in a dream.” Luke : Astuac nran asac , “Anmít, h¯enc ays gišer hogid k eznic pahanJelu en, isk inˇc or patrastel ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ es, umn ¯e linelu?” God said to him, “O fool! This very night your soul is demanded from you. But whose will it be, that which you have prepared?” (f) Personal attributes: Luke : Yisus harc rec nran ew asac , “Anund inˇc ¯e?” Ew na asac , “Leg¯eon,” orovhetew nra m¯eJ ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ šat dewer ¯ein mtel. Jesus asked him and said, “What is your name?” And he said “Legion,” because many demons had entered him. Jessica DeLisi The majority of the marked possessions that do not fall into these categories are more di- rectly associated with specific types of people in comparison to the general population, e.g. paralytic’s bed, farmer’s crop, master’s slave, and the worker’s employment: Mark : Orn ¯e aweli diwrin, andamaloycin asel, k o mełk er k ez neruac en, t ¯e asel, vér kac , á˙r ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ e mahiˇcd ew gná k o tun ? ˘ e What is easier, to say to a paralytic, “Your sins are forgiven,” or to say, “Get up, take your bed, and go out of your house?” Luke : Ew na xorhec ir mtk um u asac , “Tesnem inˇc karoł em anel, k ani or berk s kutakelu teł ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ ˇc kay.” ˘ And he thought to himself in his mind and said, “I shall see what I can do, for I don’t have a store for my gathered crops.” There are only two examples of marked possession in the text of the Gospels that do not seem obviously inalienable: Mark : Ew Yisus nran nayelov, sirec nran ew asac , “K ez m´¯ek ban ¯e pakasum. et ¯e kamenum es ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ katareal linel, gna vaˇca˙rír inˇc or unes u ałk atnerín tur ew erknk um ganjer k’unenas. ew ˘ ˘ ˘ verc rú xaˇc d ew arí im yetewic .” ˘ ˘ And Jesus seeing him, he loved him and said, “One thing is wanting. If you want to be perfect, go sell whatever you have and give it to the poor and you will have treasures in Heaven. And raise up the cross and follow after me.” John : Yisus Petrosin asac , “Ayd surd noric ir pateani m¯eJ dir; ayn bažak , or Hayrn ¯e inj tuel, ˘ ˘ e ˇc piti xmem?” ˘ Jesus said to Peter, “Put that sword in its sheath. That cup which my father gave to me, should I not drink it?” It could be argued that these particular deictic suffixes are not intended to be read as pos- sessive markers, and therefore the category of inalienable possession is perfect for this text. Perhaps Mark : should be interpreted as “that cross (near you)” and John : is “that sword (near you).” I also proposed in §. above that John : may be an example of pejorative usage of the -d suffix. Mark Wenthe has suggested to me (p.c.) that the deixis in Mark : may have theological significance; i.e., the inalienable possession that each Chris- tian has of his or her own cross to bear. If these two examples remain, however, then the distinction between alienable and inalienable possession must be reduced to only a strong tendency in the text and not an inviolable rule. Whether rule or tendency, the distinction is a peculiarity of this text, and not a general phenomenon in Standard Eastern Armenian. First- and Second-person Deictic Suffixes in Modern Eastern Armenian . The vocative -d forms -s forms Vocatives In I claimed that -d deixis was grammaticalized as a marker of the vocative. Unfor- tunately, under closer examination I have found that most examples I found are in fact not vocatives at all, but rather datives with second-person reference. It would be much more appropriate to call them pejorative marking (discussed in §. below). A more careful read- ing admits only nine actual -d suffixed vocatives in the entirety of the Gospels, of which two occur in a single sentence: John : Mí vaxec ir, óv dustrd Sioni, aha k o t agawor galis ¯e, nstac mi ¯eši k u˙raki vray. ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ e Do not fear, O daughter of Zion, lo your king is coming seated on the foal of a donkey. Luke : es ¯el, or skzbic stugut eamb hetamut ¯ei ełel am¯en bani, kamec ay kargov k ez grel, óv ger- ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ azanc d T֒¯eop il¯e . . . ˘ I, who from the beginning with certainty pursued everything, wanted to write the series for you, O excellent Theophilus . . . Matthew : Ek´¯ek inj m¯ot, bolor yognacnerd u be˙rnaworuacnerd, ew es jez k hangstac nem. ˘ e ˘ Come to me, all (you) laborers and (you) bearers of burdens, and I will give you rest. The deictic suffix on the two nouns in Matthew : may be attributable more to the pres- ence of the quantifier (see DeLisi :–) than to the vocative. Note that in both John : and Luke :, the vocative is preceded by the vocative particle óv ‘O’, making any further marking of the vocative redundant. The more normal way to indicate the vocative is via intonation alone, where a shesht (transliterated here as an acute accent) is marked above the tonic vowel, as in Luke :, which was previously discussed in §. above: Luke : Žołovrdi miJic m¯ek nran asac , “Vardapét, asa ełb¯ors, or ža˙rangut iwn inj het bažani.” ˘ ˘ ˘ e e One among the crowd said to them, “O Teacher, tell my brother, that he should divide the inheritance with me.” Here the vocative vardapét lacks the -d suffix; instead, the vocative is indicated purely via the shesht. I have not counted all instances of the vocative in the text of the Gospels, but it may See DeLisi :ff. where I discussed the examples of marked vocatives I found. For a discussion of the intonational patterns associated with the vocative in spoken Eastern Armenian, see Dum- Tragut :–. Jessica DeLisi suffice to say that if only eleven of the total number of vocatives are marked with a deictic suffix at all, the unmarked vocative must be far more common. A final reason that the vocative must be divorced from d-deixis in the Modern Eastern Armenian version of the Gospels can be seen in Mark : and John :: Mark : Ew ašakertner zarmac ac ¯ein nra x¯osk eri vray; isk Yisus darjeal patasxanec nranc ew ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ e asac, “Zawaknérs, inˇc k án džuar ¯e Astcu ark ayut iwn mtnel nranc hamar, or irenc ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ yoys drel en harstut ean vray! ˘ e And the disciples were astonished by his words, but Jesus again answered them and said, “O children, how hard is it to enter the kingdom of God for those, who put their hope in riches.” John : Ordeaknérs, mi k iˇc žamanak de˙r jez het em; inj piti p nt˙r¯ek , ew inˇc p¯es asac i hreanerin, ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ ur es em gnum, duk ˇc ¯ek karoł gal, —ayžm ayd jez ¯el em asum. ˘ ˘ My sons, I am among you for a short time yet. You will seek me, and as I said to the Jews, where I am going, you cannot go, —now I say that to you. In both passages, the vocatives are marked with s- rather than the expected d-deixis. The semantics of the suffixes will be discussed below in §.. Combined with the uncounted legions of unmarked vocatives, these two forms present damning counterevidence against the -d suffix as a grammaticalized vocative marker. . Pejorative usage -d forms -s forms Pejorative without vocative Pejorative with vocative In , I was only able to find one secure example of pejorative deixis in the text of Matthew. By expanding the corpus to include the rest of the Gospels, I can now point to examples. Beyond the small size of the corpus, the other reason for the paucity of evidence for this usage is that examples of pejorative deixis were originally misclassified merely as vocatives: Matthew : Váy jez kełcawornerid ¯or¯ensg¯etnerid ew p arisec inerid, or erknk i ark ayut iwn ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ e p akum ¯ek mardkanc a˙raJ. duk ˇc ¯ek mtnum ew mtnołnerin ¯el t oyl ˇc ¯ek talis, or mtnen. ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ Woe to you hypocrites, scribes, and Pharisees, who shut the Kingdom of Heaven before mankind. You will not enter and you will allow those who would enter to enter. In this phrase, which is repeated six more times in Matthew , kełcawornerid, ¯or¯ensg¯etnerid, and p arisec inerid are morphologically marked as datives in apposition to the pronoun jez ˘ ˘ See DeLisi : for the original discussion of this passage as containing vocatives. First- and Second-person Deictic Suffixes in Modern Eastern Armenian rather than vocatives. The pejorative context should be clear from the phrase váy jez “woe to you . . . ” Four more examples contain the same vay jez language seen in Matthew , and therefore can be securely categorized as pejorative. Of the remaining six, all but one are both pejorative and vocative: Luke : T¯er nran asac , “Ayžm duk , p arisec inerd, bažkaki ew pnaki artak inn ¯ek mak rum, ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ e isk jer nerk in li ¯e yap štakut eamb ew ˇc arut eamb.” ˘ ˘ ˘ e The Lord said to him, “Now you, O Pharisees, you are cleaning the exterior of a cup and plate, but your interior is full of spoil and wickedness.” Mark : ew sksec in nran ołJoyn tal u asel, “OłJóyn k ez, hreaneri t agawórd!” ˘ ˘ ˘ And they began to salute him and say, “Hail to you, O King of the Jews!” Luke : Ew tant¯er k’asi, “Asum em, jez ˇc gitem, t ¯e ortełic ¯ek . he˙rac ´¯ek injnic duk , bolor aniraw ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ e mšaknerd.” And the landlord will say, “I say to you I do not know where you are from. Go away from me, all you evildoers.” Mark : Na patasxanec nranc ew asac , “Óv anhawat serund, minˇc ew erb jez het piti linem? ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ minˇc ew erb jez piti handuržem? ber´¯ek nran inj m¯ot.” ˘ ˘ He asked them and said, “O unbelieving generation, how long will I be with you? How long will I suffer you? Take him to me.” Mark : Ew omank sksec in t k el nra eresin, šorov glux cackel, b˙runc k ov xp el u asel, “Mar- ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ e gar¯eacír mez, K ristósd, ayn ov ¯e, or k ez xp ec ?’” Ew spasaworner aptakum ¯ein nran. ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ e And some people began to spit at him and confront him, to cover his head with clothing, to beat him with fists and to say, “Prophesy to us, O Christ, who is it, that struck you?” And the guards struck him. The final example does not include vay jez or a vocative: Mark : Na patasxanec ew asac nranc , “Esayin law margar¯eac aw jer, kełcawornerid masin, ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ aselov, ‘Ays žołovurd inj šrt neróv ¯e mecarum, bayc nranc srter injnic he˙ru en.’ ” ˘ ˘ ˘ e e He replied and said to them, “Isaiah prophesied well about you hypocrites, saying, ‘This multitude venerates me with their lips, but their hearts are far away from me.’ ” Like the vay jez examples above, this one also involves an overt second-person pronoun. It could be argued that Mark : and Matthew have been marked with -d deixis because of their overt second-person contexts, and the many examples of vocatives because of their im- plicit second-person context; however, the fact that each involves either Jesus railing against groups he believes to have angered God, or Jesus being mocked by the Roman soldiers and Pharisees, would remain remarkable and unexplained. Therefore, it seems to me that the pejorative reading is more likely than mere second-person reference alone. Jessica DeLisi . Emotional solidarity -d forms -s forms Emotional Solidarity In I was only able to find two examples of the -s suffix used to convey emotional solidarity. By extending the corpus to the entirety of the Gospels I can now adduce two more: Mark : Ew ašakertner zarmac ac ¯ein nra x¯osk eri vray; isk Yisus darjeal patasxanec nranc ew ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ e asac, “Zawaknérs, inˇc k án džuar ¯e Astcu ark ayut iwn mtnel nranc hamar, or irenc ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ yoys drel en harstut ean vray! ˘ e And the disciples were astonished by his words, but Jesus again answered them and said, “O children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God for those who put their hope in riches.” John : Ordeaknérs, mi k iˇc žamanak de˙r jez het em; inj piti p nt˙r¯ek , ew inˇc p¯es asac i hreanerin, ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ ur es em gnum, duk ˇc ¯ek karoł gal, —ayžm ayd jez ¯el em asum. ˘ ˘ My sons, I am among you for a short time yet. You will seek me, and as I said to the Jews, where I am going, you cannot go, —now I say that to you. What is most remarkable about these two passages, as noted in §. above, is that both za- waknérs ‘children’ and ordeaknérs ‘sons’ are vocatives, yet they are marked with first-person deixis. In both passages, Jesus makes an emotional connection to his disciples by calling them his children, although they are not his literal offspring. This figurative usage of the first-person possessive suffix is so important to his message that it trumps the general second- person context of the vocative. Conclusion The most important changes in the usage and distribution of the demonstrative suffixes -s, -d, and -n from the classical to the modern period stem from the abandonment of the Principle of Deictic Consistency in favor of conjunction reduction of deixis under repetition. This reduction is seen in the pairing of demonstratives ays/ayd and the possessive adjectives like mer ‘our’ and k o ‘your’ with the neutral deictic -n, as well as in the pairing of the suffixed ˘ nouns and the possessive adjective plus noun constructions within a single sentence. Perhaps the rarity of -s and -d, originally driven by the loss of the Principle of Deictic Consistency, has been increasing the markedness of these suffixes, further feeding conjunction reduction. The -s vocatives in Mark : and John : raise an interesting question for further study: Is there a hierarchy for deictic markers? Since more than one suffix cannot be used on a single word, when multiple markers are applicable, how do speakers decide which one to use? In the present case, the emotional connotations of the first person trumped the second- person context of the vocative. It may, with careful study, be possible to rank the usages according to how robust or weak they are. First- and Second-person Deictic Suffixes in Modern Eastern Armenian References Astowacašownˇc : Matean Hin ew Nor Ktakaranneri. . Etchmiadzin: The Armenian Apos- ˘ tolic Church, Catholicosate of All Armenians. DeLisi, Jessica. . “The demonstrative article in Modern Eastern Armenian.” M.A. the- sis, University of Georgia. Dum-Tragut, Jasmine. . Armenian: Modern Eastern Armenian. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Kiparsky, Paul. . “Tense and mood in Indo-European syntax.” Foundations of Language :–. Klein, Jared S. . On Personal Deixis in Classical Armenian: A Study of the Syntax and Semantics of the n-, s-, and d-Demonstratives in Manuscripts E and M of the Old Armenian Gospels. Dettelbach: Röll. Lichtenberk, Frantisek, Jyotsna Vaid, and Hsin-Chin Chen. . “On the interpretation of alienable vs. inalienable possession: A psycholinguistic investigation.” Cognitive Linguis- tics :–.
US