Skip to content
Modern Eastern Armenian has a resultative participle in –ac, built from the present stem of e-conjugation verbs and from the aorist stem of a-conjugation verbs, e.g., grem ‘to write’ : grac ‘written’, kardam ‘to read’ : kardaccac ‘read’ (cf. Dum-Tragut 2009: 208). It denotes the resulting state after an event and can be used both in predicative and attributive function. In the latter it may refer not to the subject of the predicate, but a different subject expressed in the dative/genitive case, e.g.,
im kardaccac girkcə šat hetakcrkcir ēr
gen.1sg read.ptcp book-dem very interesting be.pst.3sg
‘The book I have read was very interesting.’ (cf. Dum-Tragut 2009: 210).
Together with the copula the –ac-form denotes a state, e.g. nstac em ‘I am sitting.’, together with the present tense of linim a habitual state of affairs, e.g. nstac em linowm ‘I usually sit.’ (Dum-Tragut 2009: 218-219).
In the classical language (grabar), two types can be distinguished (cf. Olsen 1999: 232), (a) adjectives based on substantives like erkiwł ‘fear’ > erkiwłac (-a-) ‘fearful’, (b) action nouns based on verbal stems like kotorem ‘to slaughter’ > kotorac (-o-/-i-) ‘slaughter’. Type (b) is not productive and in competition with nouns in –owac sometimes described as more abstract in meaning, i.e., closer to the function of a verbal noun, while forms in -ac show a tendency to lexicalize concrete meanings.
However, in Middle Armenian it seems that the -ac nouns with concrete meaning form the basis of the reanalysis of –ac as past passive participle, e.g. in ararac ‘creation’ > ‘creature’ > ‘created’. Karst (1901: 366) assumed that the adjectival use was primary and suppressed in the classical language, while Olsen (1999: 232 fn. 39) favours the view that –ac concrete nouns, though less common and less productive, form the basis for the later participles.
As for the origin of the –ac-forms both a derivation from compounds with acem (PIE *h2eǵ– ‘to lead’ : *h2oǵo-), a connection with the Greek type ἅρπαξ and Sanskrit derivatives in –aj– like svapnaj– ‘sleepy’ have been suggested (cf. Olsen 1999: 234).
The talk will discuss some of the problems involved both in the possible origins of the ac-forms and their diachronic development within Armenian.
Dum-Tragut, Jasmine. 2009. Armenian: Modern Eastern Armenian. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Karst, Josef. 1901. Historische Grammatik des Kilikisch-Armenischen. Straßburg: Trübner.
Olsen, Birgit Anette. 1999. The Noun in Biblical Armenian : Origin and Word Formation ; with Special Emphasis on the Indo-European Heritage. Berlin: De Gruyter.