Learning Armenian from Armenian people

[Lucin]

Re: Learning Armenian from Armenian people

Ok thanks Lucin jan had little doubts with that one

OK I have some questions now, well first I've noticed there are words that are written one way and spoken differently...
For example, I think once I saw like these word "Հատակ" and I pronounced it Hatak, as I think it should be...but I heard Har-tak, don't know if that is even an example..but the question is, as many many languages have differences between how do they write it and how do they say it (i.e. in Armenian pronouncing the ë if there is a word that starts with two consonants), are there other rules like this?

No it should be pronounced as hatak. Hartak is a different word. Sometimes, letters such as 'բ', 'դ', 'ղ' or 'գ' change into 'փ', 'թ', 'խ' or 'ք' while pronouncing. Such as: Կարդալ [կարթալ], բարդ [բարթ], հարբել [հարփել], համբոյր [համփոյր], կեղտոտ [կեխտոտ], օգնել [օքնել], etc.

Also another question Lucin, I know what "HAYKAKAN" and "HAYOTS'" mean, but...is there a rule where to use Hayots' instead of Haykakan? For example if I say "Haykakan Patmutyun" I've also seen it as "Hayots' Patmutyun"...can you use both and there is no problem or there is a rule?

Good question but I'm afraid I may not be able to give you an accurate answer. Personally I've always tried to distinguish them by ear. You'll get used to it as well. I've never heard 'haykakan patmutyun' for instance. But in my opinion, 'hayots' accompanies nouns with abstract and more global signification such as 'hayots ashkharh', 'hayots patmutyum', while 'haykakan' being used more frequently is seen usually with concrete nouns, like 'haykakan kat', 'haykakan jur', haykakan hogh'.

[Haykakan]

Re: Learning Armenian from Armenian people

No it should be pronounced as hatak. Hartak is a different word. Sometimes, letters such as 'բ', 'դ', 'ղ' or 'գ' change into 'փ', 'թ', 'խ' or 'ք' while pronouncing. Such as: Կարդալ [կարթալ], բարդ [բարթ], հարբել [հարփել], համբոյր [համփոյր], կեղտոտ [կեխտոտ], օգնել [օքնել], etc.




Good question but I'm afraid I may not be able to give you an accurate answer. Personally I've always tried to distinguish them by ear. You'll get used to it as well. I've never heard 'haykakan patmutyun' for instance. But in my opinion, 'hayots' accompanies nouns with abstract and more global signification such as 'hayots ashkharh', 'hayots patmutyum', while 'haykakan' being used more frequently is seen usually with concrete nouns, like 'haykakan kat', 'haykakan jur', haykakan hogh'.

I have heard of haykakan patmutyun before and i think those two words are interchangeable."while 'haykakan' being used more frequently" Yeh i like it when i am used more frequently lol.

[Siggie]

Re: Learning Armenian from Armenian people

To me, the usage of hayots makes it sounds possessive like "of Armenians" or "Armenians' " and Haykakan is used more like an adjective.

[Lucin]

Re: Learning Armenian from Armenian people

I have heard of haykakan patmutyun before and i think those two words are interchangeable.

They may be interchangable sometimes but it doesn't change the fact that they are different. No other two words are 'the same'. 'Hayots Patmutyun' is more common.

"while 'haykakan' being used more frequently" Yeh i like it when i am used more frequently lol.

lol, 'used' in what sense?

To me, the usage of hayots makes it sounds possessive like "of Armenians" or "Armenians' " and Haykakan is used more like an adjective.

'Hayots' can perfectly be an adjective as well. 'Hayots Patmutyun' means Armenian History. Or 'Hayots Aybuben'; the Armenian Alphabet.

[Siggie]

Re: Learning Armenian from Armenian people

'Hayots' can perfectly be an adjective as well. 'Hayots Patmutyun' means Armenian History. Or 'Hayots Aybuben'; the Armenian Alphabet.

I think you're translating to English and then it ends up as "Armenian" it both cases, making it sound like both are used as an adjective. I maintain still though that Hayots not an adjective, but rather, is possessive and more the equivalent of "of Armenians". Haykakan aybuben vs. Hayeri aybuben@. Hayots is like saying Hayeri.

[Pedro Xaramillo]

Re: Learning Armenian from Armenian people

iHmm, its not maybe attributive, lemme explain :

Haykakan (the word, not the dude ) is used for like (the -akan) with for instance Arabakan yerazhshtoutyoun, Haykakan kerakour, etc.So similar to Greek -oid maybe?

Where Hayots is belonging as I saw in a Muradian ensemble song (yes I learn from music sometimes, I'm ridiculous I know lol) Hayots Aghjikner.

I think you use Hayots for possesive, or maybe for people, whereas the -akan for objects, thats another possibility (you find this in English and in Spanish sometimes)

[Haykakan]

Re: Learning Armenian from Armenian people

iHmm, its not maybe attributive, lemme explain :

Haykakan (the word, not the dude ) is used for like (the -akan) with for instance Arabakan yerazhshtoutyoun, Haykakan kerakour, etc.So similar to Greek -oid maybe?

Where Hayots is belonging as I saw in a Muradian ensemble song (yes I learn from music sometimes, I'm ridiculous I know lol) Hayots Aghjikner.

I think you use Hayots for possesive, or maybe for people, whereas the -akan for objects, thats another possibility (you find this in English and in Spanish sometimes)

Perhaps you have a point there but those two words can be iterchanged in atleast some situations.

[Federate]

Re: Learning Armenian from Armenian people

The best example is Movses Khorenatsi's "Hayots Patmutyun". The direct translation of this in English is Movses of Khoren's "History of Armenia". 'Hayots' is definitely possessive.

[Haykakan]

Re: Learning Armenian from Armenian people

The best example is Movses Khorenatsi's "Hayots Patmutyun". The direct translation of this in English is Movses of Khoren's "History of Armenia". 'Hayots' is definitely possessive.

Haykakan patmutyun doessnt really sound wrong either though does it?

[Federate]

Re: Learning Armenian from Armenian people

Haykakan patmutyun doessnt really sound wrong either though does it?

Academically, it does not since it's not what type of history but the history of what/who.