Classification and origins Armenian is an independent branch of the
Indo-European languages. It is of interest to linguists for its distinctive
phonological changes within that family. Armenian exhibits
more satemization than centumization, although it is not classified as belonging to either of these subgroups. Some linguists tentatively conclude that Armenian,
Greek (and
Phrygian),
Albanian and
Indo-Iranian were dialectally close to each other; within this hypothetical dialect group, Proto-Armenian was situated between
Proto-Greek (
centum subgroup) and
Proto-Indo-Iranian (
satem subgroup). The Armenian language has a long literary history, with a 5th-century Bible translation as its oldest surviving text. Another text translated into Armenian early on, and also in the 5th-century, was the
Armenian Alexander Romance. The vocabulary of the language has historically been influenced by
Western Middle Iranian languages, particularly
Parthian; its derivational morphology and syntax were also affected by
language contact with Parthian, but to a lesser extent. Contact with Greek,
Persian, and
Syriac also resulted in a number of loanwords. There are two standardized modern literary forms,
Eastern Armenian (spoken mainly in Armenia) and
Western Armenian (spoken originally mainly in modern-day Turkey and, since the
Armenian genocide, mostly in the
diaspora). The differences between them are considerable but they are
mutually intelligible after significant exposure. Some subdialects such as
Homshetsi are not mutually intelligible with other varieties. Although Armenians were known to history much earlier (for example, they were mentioned in the 6th-century BC
Behistun Inscription and in
Xenophon's 4th century BC history,
The Anabasis), the oldest surviving Armenian-language writing is etched in stone on Armenian temples and is called
Mehenagir. The
Armenian alphabet was created by
Mesrop Mashtots in 405, at which time it had 36 letters. He is also credited by some with the creation of the
Georgian alphabet and the
Caucasian Albanian alphabet. While Armenian constitutes the sole member of the Armenian branch of the Indo-European family, Aram Kossian has suggested that the hypothetical
Mushki language may have been a (now extinct) Armenic language.
Early contacts from
Jerusalem with Armenian language and alphabet W. M. Austin (1942) concluded that there was early contact between Armenian and
Anatolian languages, based on what he considered common archaisms, such as the lack of a feminine gender and the absence of inherited long vowels. Unlike shared innovations (or
synapomorphies), the common retention of archaisms (or
symplesiomorphy) is not considered conclusive evidence of a period of common isolated development. There are words used in Armenian that are generally believed to have been borrowed from Anatolian languages, particularly from
Luwian, although some researchers have identified possible
Hittite loanwords as well. One notable loanword from Anatolian is Armenian
xalam, "skull", cognate to Hittite
ḫalanta, "head". In 1985, the Soviet linguist
Igor M. Diakonoff noted the presence in
Classical Armenian of what he calls a "Caucasian substratum" identified by earlier scholars, consisting of loans from the
Kartvelian and
Northeast Caucasian languages. Noting that
Hurro-Urartian-speaking peoples inhabited the Armenian homeland in the second millennium BC, Diakonoff identifies in Armenian a Hurro-Urartian substratum of social, cultural, and animal and plant terms such as
ałaxin "slave girl" ( ← Hurr.
al(l)a(e)ḫḫenne),
cov "sea" ( ← Urart.
ṣûǝ "(inland) sea"),
ułt "camel" ( ← Hurr.
uḷtu), and
xnjor "apple (tree)" ( ← Hurr.
ḫinzuri). Some of the terms he gives admittedly have an
Akkadian or
Sumerian provenance, but he suggests they were borrowed through Hurrian or Urartian. Given that these borrowings do not undergo
sound changes characteristic of the development of Armenian from
Proto-Indo-European, he dates their borrowing to a time before the written record but after the
Proto-Armenian language stage. Contemporary linguists, such as
Hrach Martirosyan, have rejected many of the Hurro-Urartian and Northeast Caucasian origins for these words and instead suggest native Armenian etymologies, leaving the possibility that these words may have been loaned into Hurro-Urartian and Caucasian languages from Armenian, and not vice versa. A notable example is
arciv, meaning "eagle", believed to have been the origin of Urartian
Arṣibi and Northeast Caucasian
arzu. This word is derived from Proto-Indo-European
*h₂r̥ǵipyós, with cognates in
Sanskrit (ऋजिप्य,
ṛjipyá),
Avestan (
ərəzifiia), and Greek (αἰγίπιος,
aigípios). Hrach Martirosyan and Armen Petrosyan propose additional borrowed words of Armenian origin loaned into Urartian and vice versa, including grammatical words and parts of speech, such as Urartian
eue ("and"), attested in the earliest Urartian texts and likely a loan from Armenian (compare to Armenian , ultimately from Proto-Indo-European ). Other loans from Armenian into Urartian includes personal names, toponyms, and names of deities. More recent scholarship is even more sceptical, suggesting that fewer than 10 Armenian words are of assuredly Hurro-Urartian origin, and that no secure loans can be established in the other direction. Loan words from
Iranian languages, along with the other ancient accounts such as that of Xenophon above, initially led some linguists to erroneously classify Armenian as an Iranian language. Scholars such as
Paul de Lagarde and F. Müller believed that the similarities between the two languages meant that Armenian belonged to the
Iranian language family. The distinctness of Armenian was recognized when philologist
Heinrich Hübschmann (1875) used the
comparative method to distinguish two layers of Iranian words from the older Armenian
vocabulary. He showed that Armenian often had two morphemes for one concept, that the non-Iranian components yielded a consistent
Proto-Indo-European pattern distinct from Iranian, and that the inflectional morphology was different from that of Iranian languages.
Graeco-Armenian hypothesis The hypothesis that Greek is Armenian's closest living relative originates with
Holger Pedersen (1924), who noted that the number of Greek-Armenian lexical cognates is greater than that of agreements between Armenian and any other Indo-European language.
Antoine Meillet (1925, 1927) further investigated morphological and phonological agreement and postulated that the parent languages of Greek and Armenian were dialects in immediate geographical proximity during the Proto-Indo-European period. Meillet's hypothesis became popular in the wake of his book ''Esquisse d'une histoire de la langue latine'' (1936).
Georg Renatus Solta (1960) does not go as far as postulating a Proto-Graeco-Armenian stage, but he concludes that considering both the lexicon and morphology, Greek is clearly the dialect to be most closely related to Armenian.
Eric P. Hamp (1976, 91) supports the Graeco-Armenian thesis and even anticipates a time "when we should speak of Helleno-Armenian" (meaning the postulate of a Graeco-Armenian proto-language). Armenian shares the
augment and a negator derived from the set phrase in the
Proto-Indo-European language ("never anything" or "always nothing"), the representation of word-initial
laryngeals by prothetic vowels, and other phonological and morphological peculiarities with Greek. Nevertheless, as Fortson (2004) comments, "by the time we reach our earliest Armenian records in the 5th century AD, the evidence of any such early kinship has been reduced to a few tantalizing pieces".
Greco-Armeno-Aryan hypothesis Graeco-(Armeno)-Aryan is a hypothetical
clade within the
Indo-European family, ancestral to the
Greek language, the Armenian language, and the
Indo-Iranian languages. Graeco-Aryan unity would have become divided into
Proto-Greek and
Proto-Indo-Iranian by the mid-3rd millennium BC. Conceivably,
Proto-Armenian would have been located between Proto-Greek and Proto-Indo-Iranian, consistent with the fact that Armenian shares certain features only with Indo-Iranian (the
satem change) but others only with Greek (
s >
h). Graeco-Aryan has comparatively wide support among Indo-Europeanists who believe the
Indo-European homeland to be located in the
Armenian Highlands, the "
Armenian hypothesis". Early and strong evidence was given by Euler's 1979 examination on shared features in Greek and Sanskrit nominal flection. Used in tandem with the Graeco-Armenian hypothesis, the Armenian language would also be included under the label
Aryano-Greco-Armenic, splitting into Proto-Greek/Phrygian and "Armeno-Aryan" (ancestor of Armenian and
Indo-Iranian). and contains smaller inventories of
loanwords from Greek, Arabic, Mongol, Persian, and
indigenous languages such as
Urartian. An effort to modernize the language in
Bagratid Armenia and the
Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia (11–14th centuries) resulted in the addition of two more characters to the alphabet ("" and ""), bringing the total number to 38. The
Book of Lamentations by
Gregory of Narek (951–1003) is an example of the development of a literature and writing style of Old Armenian by the 10th century. In addition to elevating the literary style and vocabulary of the Armenian language by adding well above a thousand new words, through his other hymns and poems Gregory paved the way for his successors to include secular themes and vernacular language in their writings. The thematic shift from mainly religious texts to writings with secular outlooks further enhanced and enriched the vocabulary. "A Word of Wisdom", a poem by Hovhannes Sargavak devoted to a starling, legitimizes poetry devoted to nature, love, or female beauty. Gradually, the interests of the population at large were reflected in other literary works as well. Konsdantin Yerzinkatsi and several others took the unusual step of criticizing the ecclesiastic establishment and addressing the social issues of the Armenian homeland. These changes represented the nature of the literary style and syntax, but they did not constitute immense changes to the fundamentals of the grammar or the morphology of the language. Often, when writers codify a spoken dialect, other language users are then encouraged to imitate that structure through the literary device known as
parallelism. In the 19th century, the traditional Armenian homeland was once again divided. This time
Eastern Armenia was conquered from
Qajar Iran by the
Russian Empire, while
Western Armenia, containing two thirds of historical Armenia, remained under
Ottoman control. The antagonistic relationship between the Russian and Ottoman empires led to creation of two separate and different environments under which Armenians lived. Halfway through the 19th century, two important concentrations of Armenian communities were further consolidated. Because of persecutions or the search for better economic opportunities, many Armenians living under Ottoman rule gradually moved to
Istanbul, whereas
Tbilisi became the center of Armenians living under Russian rule. These two cosmopolitan cities very soon became the primary poles of Armenian intellectual and cultural life. The introduction of new literary forms and styles, as well as many new ideas sweeping Europe, reached Armenians living in both regions. This created an ever-growing need to elevate the vernacular, Ashkharhabar, to the dignity of a modern literary language, in contrast to the now-anachronistic Grabar. Numerous dialects existed in the traditional Armenian regions, which, different as they were, had certain morphological and phonetic features in common. On the basis of these features two major standards emerged: • Western standard: The influx of immigrants from different parts of the traditional Armenian homeland to Istanbul crystallized the common elements of the regional dialects, paving the way for a style of writing that required a shorter and more flexible learning curve than Grabar. • Eastern standard: The
Yerevan dialect provided the primary elements of Eastern Armenian, centered in Tbilisi, Georgia. Similar to the Western Armenian variant, the Modern Eastern was in many ways more practical and accessible to the masses than Grabar. Both centers vigorously pursued the promotion of Ashkharhabar. The proliferation of newspapers in both versions (Eastern & Western) and the development of a network of schools where modern Armenian was taught, dramatically increased the rate of literacy (in spite of the obstacles by the colonial administrators), even in remote rural areas. The emergence of literary works entirely written in the modern versions increasingly legitimized the language's existence. By the turn of the 20th century both varieties of the one modern Armenian language prevailed over Grabar and opened the path to a new and simplified grammatical structure of the language in the two different cultural spheres. Apart from several morphological, phonetic, and grammatical differences, the largely common vocabulary and generally analogous rules of grammatical fundamentals allows users of one variant to understand the other as long as they are fluent in one of the literary standards. After
World War I, the existence of the two modern versions of the same language was sanctioned even more clearly. The
Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic (1920–1990) used Eastern Armenian as its official language, whereas the diaspora created after the
Armenian genocide preserved the Western Armenian dialect. The two modern literary dialects, Western (originally associated with writers in the Ottoman Empire) and Eastern (originally associated with writers in the Russian Empire), removed almost all of their
Turkish lexical influences in the 20th century, primarily following the
Armenian genocide. File:Manuscript arm 5-6AD.jpg|Armenian manuscript, 5th–6th centuries. File:Gandzasar 01.jpg|Armenian inscription in
Gandzasar Monastery File:The Four Gospels, 1495, Portrait of St Mark Wellcome L0031107.jpg|The Four Gospels, 1495, Portrait of St Mark Wellcome with Armenian inscriptions File:The first Bible printed in the Armenian language.jpg|First printed Armenian language Bible, 1666 File:Panneau près d'Ohanavan.JPG|Armenian language road sign
Contamination and blending in Armenian etymology The proportion of words in Armenian inherited directly from
Proto-Indo-European is lower than in most other Indo-European languages attested before the end of the first millennium AD. The development of Armenian involved numerous
sound changes, the validity of several of which remains debated. A notable example is
Meillet's proposal that Proto-Indo-European *du̯o- developed into Armenian
erk-. Because of the difficulty in identifying regular sound laws and the presence of apparent exceptions, scholars have often explained certain Armenian words through processes of
contamination and blending. Comparable phenomena have been identified in other Indo-European languages; for instance, Georgiev (1979:34) suggested that 250 Slavic words could be explained in this way. A considerable proportion of inherited Armenian vocabulary has at some point been interpreted using contamination and blending, making it a recurrent topic in Armenian historical linguistics. ==Geographic distribution==