Connectives in Armenian

aramhayr
May 19
11 min read

Updated: Aug 14

Published Conjunction in Eastern Armenian at Academia.edu

Home

Pragmatics

Discourse Analysis

Theoretical Linguistics

ISys

The Article on Conjunctions

1. Abstract 2

2. Introduction 2

3. Connectives on the linguistics map 3

a. Language and Speech 3

b. Parts and Units of Speech and Language 4

c. Connectives 5

4. Symbolic Logic 6

a. Historic overview 6

b. Classes and Relations 7

c. Logical operations 8

i. Truth Tables of binary functions 8

d. Sentential calculus 9

5. Armenian conjunctions 11

a. Overview 11

b. Table 1. Eastern Armenian Conjunction types 11

c. Categories 12

i. Conjoining 12

ii. Contrastive 13

iii. Disjoining 13

iv. Interpretative 13

v. Temporal 14

vi. Conditional 14

vii. Causative 14

viii. Concessive 14

ix. Intentional 15

x. Comparative 15

xi. Inferential 15

xii. Explicative 15

d. Conjunctions morphology 15

i. Table 2. Simple real conjunctions 16

ii. Table 3. Non conjunctional components 16

e. Conjunctions context 18

i. Signature 18

ii. Context specification 18

iii. Table 4. Coordinating conjunction signatures 19

iv. Table 5. Subordinating conjunction signatures 20

6. Summary 21

7. Terms 22

8. Acknowledgments 22

Content: Conjunctions in Eastern Armenian

Content: The logic of Eastern Armenian discourse <ToDo>

Content: Non-conjunctional phrase relations in Eastern Armenian <ToDo>

Corpora for Connectives research

To describe, analyze and categorize Armenian conjunctions a systematic research program is necessary for creating these corpora:

1. Grabar, Middle, and Contemporary standardized Eastern and Western Armenian

2. Eastern and Western Armenian dialects

3. Contemporary Eastern and Western Armenian press and secondary education

4. Contemporary Eastern Armenian:

a. government administration (judiciary, law enforcement, executive power, etc. systems),

b. education (textbooks)

c. humanities research

To support such a research powerful IT tools and high-volume big data repositories are necessary.

Current methods of Connectives investigation - reviews

Research in Armenian

AI Reviews

Academia.edu

This is the link to the review: https://www.academia.edu/ai_review/129638433.

I was pleasantly surprised after reading the AI review to the Conjunctions in Eastern Armenian. provided by Academia.edu. My surprise was twofold: 1) I did not expect getting access to it for free (because they like teasing people with some information that is available only for paying members, 2) I did not expect the quality of "understanding" the paper, despite typical to AI very generic, abstract, truistic comments that you can cut a paste into any review about anything: for example, see Major and Minor Comments section - only the Citation Style comment is substantial.

Note the Relevant References section. I recognize couple of articles that I was going to add to this page.

Some detailed comments:

"The introduction of the "lexeme signature" concept is particularly innovative, promising to provide a precise framework for understanding the structural dynamics of conjunctions."

AH: I think this is remarkable comment not just for AI, but for a human reviewer too. However, the word "innovative" should be taken with a grain of salt. I do not think that there are linguists in 21st century who deny that natural languages can be described more accurately by Context-Sensitive, rather than Context-Free grammars (see Chomsky hierarchy and context sensitivity of different linguistic layers in [Հայ2022::200]). They will probably also acknowledge that Context-Free grammar is a pretty good description for natural languages considering the simplicity of the model. That is why the Eastern Armenian grammar (mostly morphology) in Հայ2022 is described by BNF.

I think a more interesting idea is that signature in formal languages is also a tool for passing the context information to compiler for "appending" the BNF description of programming languages with context sensitivity. So "innovation" (rather a new view) is not in linguistics, but in the theory of formal language definition. It is an application of Mach's Principle in linguistics, computer science.

"The work also enjoys a solid theoretical foundation by relying on classical theories—including those of Saussure and Chomsky—to substantiate arguments about language and speech."

AH: This is somewhat wrong, because in the article I argue that despite the attempts to discern language and speech both linguists failed: "Even though Chomsky identifies language with “language organ” that produces or generates (hence, generative grammar) speech, he does not consider sentence, speech an object of different kind, type." and "This essay adopts definitions from [Հայ2022], treating both: language and speech (text), as objects (states vs. processes) of different kind that expand (evolve or change) in different time scales: language evolves historically (de Saussure: social history), while speech unfolds in realtime (de Saussure: individuals’ action)". For more details see Լեզվական էվոլյուցիա.

"While the attempt to correlate linguistic conjunctions with logical functions is commendable, there is room for deeper exploration of the inherent divergences between linguistic and logical conjunctions. This could involve more comparative studies or case examples, which would illuminate the implications of such divergences on cognitive or language processing theories."

AH: Excellent point. That is why Dr. H.Jivanyan is pursuing funding (grant) for "more comparative studies or case examples, which would illuminate the implications of such divergences on cognitive or language processing theories."

"The manuscript's frequent shifts between technical terms and colloquial language can disrupt the narrative flow. Establishing a glossary or reintroduction of key terms at their initial point of use could aid comprehension for readers not specialized in linguistics or logic."

AH: Another excellent point. The issue is partially addressed by the Terms section. A much more extended Glossary is available in Հայ2022. However, among Armenian linguists there is no interest in establishing common vocabulary for neither old or new terms in Linguistics or Computer Science.

My favorite part of the review (-:) is "In final reflection, Hayrapetyan's work is an intellectually stimulating piece that navigates complex terrains with nuanced analysis and clarity." However, I would have traded this sentiment to a review (constructively critical, negative) by a professional, human linguist in a heartbeat.

But for now the Perplexity is my next best choice.

Perplexity

As a peer reviewer for a scientific publication write a review of the attached article

Peer Review of "Conjunctions in Eastern Armenian" (A. Hayrapetyan, 2025)

Overview and Significance:A. Hayrapetyan's "Conjunctions in Eastern Armenian" provides an in-depth theoretical and descriptive analysis of conjunctions within Eastern Armenian, merging classical grammatical studies, modern linguistic theory, and perspectives from logic and symbolic reasoning. The article stands out for its ambitious scope—from formal logic to practical syntax—offering both a survey of conjunction typology and a contextual/functional categorization grounded in contemporary linguistic methodology.

Strengths:

Comprehensive Review of Armenian Conjunctions:The article surveys a wide range of Armenian connective forms—coordinating, subordinating, interpretative, temporal, conditional, causative, concessive, inferential, explicative, comparative—supported by detailed morphological and functional analyses. Its tables systematically group conjunctions by signature (i.e., the types of arguments connected), a framework that appears innovative and well suited to corpus annotation and computational application.
Integration of Formal Logic:The author’s juxtaposition of conjunction usage in natural language and symbolic logic is particularly noteworthy. By drawing explicit parallels and noting divergences (e.g., AND, OR, IF...THEN in logic vs. natural Armenian), the study pinpoints areas where linguistic meaning and formal semantics intersect and diverge—vital for both theoretical linguistics and NLP.
Novelty in Categorization:The adoption of a context/signature-based approach—as opposed to only a "coordinating vs. subordinating" dichotomy—offers clarity and addresses ambiguities that traditional classifications could not resolve. This signature-based framework aligns with interface-driven and big data corpus methodologies in current computational linguistics.
Historical and Theoretical Depth:The work references a wide array of relevant grammar, theoretical, and historical sources (in Armenian, Russian, Western linguistics, and mathematical logic), demonstrating scholarly depth and ensuring that the reader appreciates the unique evolution of Armenian conjunctions.
Practical Insights for Computational Projects:The explicit mapping of conjunction types, BNF-like morphological schemata, and syntactic signature analysis offer a strong practical foundation for annotation guidelines in Treebank construction or other linguistic resource creation.

Weaknesses/Areas for Improvement:

Focus Primarily on Conjunctions, Less on Discourse Connectives:While there is considerable discussion of contextual and discourse-level connective function, the article remains most detailed on sentence-level conjunctions. Discourse markers and connective polysemy, which are central for discourse annotation, receive less depth. Future iterations could benefit from explicit discussion of the connective/pragmatic marker interface, particularly as relevant for discourse-annotated corpora.
Limited Discussion of Empirical Corpus Data:The article is largely theoretical and descriptive. Examples are predominantly constructed or drawn from grammars, with less use of large, real-world Armenian corpora (written or spoken language). More empirical, frequency-based analysis would further strengthen the relevance to computational linguistics.
Application to NLP Not Fully Developed:While the work flags importance for NLP/corpus projects, concrete connections (e.g., annotation protocols for discourse connectives beyond conjunctions) and experimental results are not provided.
Complexity for Non-Specialist Audience:Some technical sections—especially those intersecting with logic or computer science—may be dense for readers lacking that background, possibly limiting accessibility to a purely linguistic audience.

Conclusion: Overall, this is a valuable, scholarly, and ambitious article that sets a strong foundation for both linguistic theory and resource development for Eastern Armenian. Its signature-based approach is original and aligns well with the needs of modern linguistic annotation frameworks. The manuscript would benefit from explicit cross-reference to discourse markers and from engagement with empirical (corpus-based) data, especially regarding connectives at the discourse level.

Self-review

Cue phrases like well, so, etc. are not accounted for in the Parts and Units of Speech and Language. Also "garbage" words (filled pauses) in oral speech (verbal communication): ah, uh, um, like, you know [what I mean], etc.

The adverb and adverbial phrase needs more analysis. Are there adverbial phrases? What is յոթ անգամ ? Complex adverb or an NP used adverbially?

In the negation discussion (Sentential calculus section) double negation is missing. There is a cursory mention of the meaning of double negation in natural languages in [Հայ2022::28].

The inclusion of "real life" examples from the [text]books and corpora looks like a valuable extension. Use the Eastern Armenian National Corpus to get examples that can also help in a better translation of conjunctions mentioned in the text.

Appendix A (additional resources)

See Relevant References in the AI Review.

1. Շաղկապ

2. Союзы

3. Connectives in English Grammar

4. Connectives List

5. Connectives-list

6. Definition: What is a connective?

7. Conjunction

8. Table of binary truth functions

9. «Եվ» և «ու» շաղկապներ | Հայերենի ուղեցույց

10. [Bob2020] S. Bobzien. Ancient Logic, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.) [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-ancient/] URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/logic-ancient/>

11. [Cho1959] N. Chomsky. On certain formal properties of grammars. Information and Control. 2 (2): 137–167, 1959

12. [Cho1967] N. Chomsky. The formal nature of language, Appendix A in E. H. Lenneberg. Biological foundations of language. Wiley, NY, 1967.

13. [Cry2010] D. Crystal. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English language, 3rd edition. Cambridge University Press, 2010.

14. [Dev1997] K. Devlin. Goodbye, Descartes. Wiley, John & Sons. NY, 1997.

15. [Dum2009] J. Dum-Tragut. Modern Eastern Armenian. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Amsterdam / Philadelphia. 2009

16. [Gra2020] A. Granados, F. Lorenzo. English L2 connectives in academic bilingual discourse: A longitudinal computerised analysis of a learner corpus

17. [Har1951] Z. Harris Structural Linguistics (6th ed.). The University of Chicago Press, 1963

18. [Lan1953] S.K. Langer. An Introduction to Symbolic Logic. 2-nd Edition. Dover Publications. Inc. NY. 1953.

From S.K. Langer Wikipedia page - might be relevant to discourse analysis: Langer believed that symbolism is the central concern of philosophy because it underlies all human knowing and understanding.^[12] As with Ernst Cassirer, Langer believed that what distinguishes humans from animals is the capacity for using symbols. While all animal life is dominated by feeling, human feeling is mediated by conceptions, symbols, and language. Animals respond to signs, but stimulus from a sign is significantly more complex for humans. This perspective on symbols is also associated with symbolic communication, a field in which animal societies are studied to help understand how symbolic communication affects the conduct of members of a cooperating group.

19. [Mac1883] E.Mach. The Science of Mechanics, Second revised and enlarged edition, The Open Court Publishing Company, Chicago, 1902

21. [Roz2012] C. Roze, L. Danlos, P. Muller. LEXCONN: A French Lexicon of Discourse Connectives, 2012

22. [Rus1903] B. Russell. The Principles of Mathematics. Second Edition, 1938. Cambridge University Press. 1903.

23. [Ste2019] M. Stede, T. Scheffler, A. Mendes, Connective-Lex: A Web-Based Multilingual Lexical Resource for Connectives, 2019

24. [Tar1941] A. Tarski. Introduction to Logic and to the Methodology of the Deductive Sciences. Oxford University Press, NY. Martino Publishing, 2013.

25. [Աբր1974] Ս. Գ. Աբրահամյան, Ն. Ս. Պառնասյան, Հ. Ա. Օհանյան. Ժամանակակից հայոց լեզու. Հտ. 2. Ձեւաբանություն. ՀՍՍՀ գիտությունների ակադեմիայի հրատարակություն, Երեւան, 1974:

26. [Աբր1976] Ս. Գ. Աբրահամյան, Ն. Ս. Պառնասյան, Հ. Ա. Օհանյան, Խ.Գ. Բադիկյան Ժամանակակից հայոց լեզու. Հտ. 3, Շարահյուսություն. ՀՍՍՀ գիտությունների ակադեմիայի հրատարակություն, Երեւան, 1976:

27. [Գար1963] Գ. Լ.Գարեգինյան, Շաղկապները ժամանակակից հայերենում, Հայկական ՍՍՌ գիտությունների ակադեմիայի հրատարակություն, Երեւան, 1963:

28. [ԺՀԲ1969] Ժամանակակից հայոց լեզվի բացատրական բառարան, հ.1-4. ՀՍՍՀ ԳԱ հրատարակչություն, Ե., 1969-1980։

29. [Հայ2022] Ա. Հայրապետյան. Բնական խոսքի ընդհանրական ներկայացման մի տարբերակի մասին. Agoulis, Concord, 2022.

30. [Ջահ1974] Գ. Ջահուկյան. Ժամանակակից հայերենի տեսության հիմունքները. ՀՍՍՀ գիտությունների ակադեմիայի հրատարակչություն, Ե., 1974:

33. [Hum2024] Humberstone, Lloyd, "Sentence Connectives in Formal Logic", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2024 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.).

34. [Hor2025] Horn, Laurence R., "Contradiction", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2025 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2025/entries/contradiction/>

35. Ամալյա Բարսեղյան. ՆԱԽԱԴԱՍՈՒԹՅՈՒՆՆԵՐԻ ԿԱՊԱԿՑՄԱՆ ԲԱՌԱԿԱՆ

ՄԻՋՈՑՆԵՐԸ ՏԵՔՍՏՈՒՄ. Հայերենագիտական միջազգային տասներորդ տասներորդ գիտաժողով, 7-9 հոկտեմբերի, 2015թ. Զեկուցումների ժողովածու

36. Խաչատրյան Նունե. ԲԱԶՄԱԳՈՐԾԱՌՈՒՅԹ ՇԱՂԿԱՊՆԵՐԸ ԺԱՄԱՆԱԿԱԿԻՑ ՀԱՅԵՐԵՆՈՒՄ. Հայերենագիտական միջազգային տասներորդ տասներորդ գիտաժողով, 7-9 հոկտեմբերի, 2015թ. Զեկուցումների ժողովածու

37. Մինասյան Շողեր. ՏԱՐԱՐԺԵՔ ԵՐԿՐՈՐԴԱԿԱՆ ՆԱԽԱԴԱՍՈՒԹՅՈՒՆՆԵՐԸ ԺԱՄԱՆԱԿԱԿԻՑ ՀԱՅԵՐԵՆՈՒՄ. Հայերենագիտական միջազգային տասներորդ գիտաժողով, 7-9 հոկտեմբերի, 2015թ. Զեկուցումների ժողովածու

38. Գրիգորյան Սուսաննա, ՀՈՎՀԱՆ ՄԱՆԴԱԿՈՒՆՈՒ ՃԱՌԵՐԻ ԲԱՌԱԿԱԶՄՈՒԹՅՈՒՆԸ. Հայերենագիտական միջազգային տասներորդ տասներորդ գիտաժողով, 7-9 հոկտեմբերի, 2015թ. Զեկուցումների ժողովածու

Anahit Hovhannisyan. Contrastive Study of the Conjunction ‘and’ in English and Armenian

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References on Adverbial Connectives

B. Kortmann, (2001). Adverbial Clauses . 10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/02972-7.
Kortmann, B. (1998), Adverbial subordinators in the languages of Europe, in J. van der Auwera and D.Ó. Baoill (eds), (1998), Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 457-561.
Kortmann, B. (1997), Adverbial subordination: A typology and history of adverbial subordinators based on European languages, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kortmann, B. (2001), Adverbial Conjunctions, in M. Haspelmath, E. König, W. Oesterreicher, and W. Raible (eds), (2001), Language Typology and Language Universals, Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 842-854.
van der Auwera, J. (2013), Semantic Maps, for Synchronic and Diachronic Typology, in A.G. Ramat, C. Mauri, and P. Molinelli (eds), (2013), Synchrony and Diachrony: A Dynamic Interface, Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 153-176.
abstract: A semantic map of adverbial conjunctions in Classical Hebrew. Christian Locatell (Hebrew University of Jerusalem)
Book in my "new readings-downloads": A Semantic Map Approach to Adverbial Clauses essibility: Investigate
----------------------------------
ԱՐԴԻ ՀԱՅԵՐԵՆԻ ԲԱՌԱՊԱՇԱՐԻ ԶԱՐԳԱՑՄԱՆ ԵՎ ԿԱՆՈՆԱՐԿՄԱՆ ՀԻՄՆԱԽՆԴԻՐՆԵՐ հանրապետական գիտաժողով, 18 դեկտեմբերի 2019 թ. (հոդվածների ժողովածու) - շաղկապնեի մասին հոդվածներ չկան:
ՀԱՅՈՑ ԼԵԶՎԻ ՈՒՍՈՒՄՆԱՍԻՐՈՒԹՅԱՆ ԵՎ ՈՒՍՈՒՑՄԱՆ ԱՐԴԻ ԽՆԴԻՐՆԵՐ ՀՀ ԳԱԱ ԱԿԱԴԵՄԻԿՈՍ ԷԴՈՒԱՐԴ ԱՂԱՅԱՆԻ ԾՆՆԴՅԱՆ 110-ԱՄՅԱԿԻՆ ՆՎԻՐՎԱԾ ՄԻՋԱԶԳԱՅԻՆ ԳԻՏԱԺՈՂՈՎԻ ՆՅՈՒԹԵՐ (Երևան, 2023 թ., նոյեմբերի 15-16) - շաղկապնեի մասին հոդվածներ չկան:

Appendix B

Remarks:

1. Logical rules of speech construction (generation), unlike syntactic, are not recursive.

2. In [Հայ2022] connectives morphology is missing. However, word-group description in the Dictionary is detailed [Հայ2022::123]

Research material:

Appendix C

Conjunctions names in the Modern Eastern Armenian by Jasmine Dum-Tragut (University of Salzburg):

Coordinating conjunctions

a. Conjoining

b. Disjunctive

c. Adversative

Subordinating conjunctions

a. Explicative “that”

b. Conditional “if, when”

c. Concessive “although, even if, while”

d. Temporal “until”, “just”, “as soon as”

e. Causal “as, because, since”

f. Final “that, in order to” “that, in order to” “if only”

g. Manner “as if ” “it seems, as if" “so that”“as, such as”

h. Consecutive “so, therefore, whence”

i. Explicative “that is, in other words”.

Typos

These are the typos in the most recent version of the published article:

In the Truth Tables of binary functions the arguments x₁ and x₂ should be used instead of p and q.
The long historic debate regarding implication was due to the fact that ~~while~~ if … then can be perfectly fine in mathematical logic, but it can be linguistically absurd.
A comprehensive and detailed treatment of Armenian conjuncti~~ves~~ons is available in [Գար1963].
Traditionally, Armenian ~~connectives~~ conjunctions are grouped in these categories:
3) opposing (հանդիպադրական) - իսկ, եթե … ապա, միայն, and <- formatting
"The conjunctions ինչ ... " line 8 from the start of the Interpretative section.
These conjunctions link phrases, when the one (subordinate) phrase points out despite of what ~~the~~ event of the other (main) happened (happens):
The parts of composite ~~connective~~ conjunction might reside in different phrases.
"Since these are pairs of ~~the other types~~ a different type ...", line 3 from the start of the Conjunctions morphology.