Maket 2014_Layout 1.qxd


On the Temporal and Aspectual Value of Modern Eastern

Armenian Aorist: A Comparative Perspective

Alessandra Giorgi, Sona Haroutyunian
Ca’ Foscari University of Venice1

Abstract

In this research we study some syntactic and semantic properties of the Modern Eastern
Armenian aorist by comparing it to similar verbal forms in English and Italian. We argue that
the temporal interpretation of the aorist is not a primitive property, but derives from its main
aspectual characteristic, i.e. perfectivity. This hypothesis is further supported by the analysis
of the futural value expressed in certain contexts by means of the first person aorist form.

Keywords: perfectivity, temporal anchoring, aorist, future, Modern Eastern Armenian.

Introduction

It is a well-known fact that languages differ widely as far as their verbal systems are
concerned. Some languages, for instance, have very poor verbal morphology – like
English or Chinese – whereas others overtly mark several subtle temporal and aspectual
distinctions – like Russian and Greek, both Ancient and Modern. Temporal and aspectu-
al properties, moreover, can combine with each other following certain patterns dis-
cussed at length in the literature.2

The analysis of the interactions between temporal and aspectual properties is presum-
ably one of the most fascinating fields in the study of verbal systems. In this paper we
show that the temporal interpretation of the Armenian aorist is actually derived from its
aspectual properties, in dependence of the context in which the verbal form is used.3

The Armenian aorist exhibits temporal and aspectual properties not easily fitting the
“canonical” descriptions. We will see that its distribution might seem at first sight inco-
herent and show that only by means of a finer analysis it is possible to account for its
characteristics in a uniform way. To this end, we compare the Armenian aorist with the
English simple past and present perfect, on the one hand, and with the Italian passato
remoto (simple past) and passato prossimo (present perfect), on the other.

1. A Brief Overview of the Italian and English Simple Past and Present Perfect

In this section we briefly compare the properties of the English simple past and pres-
ent perfect with those of the Italian – allegedly – corresponding forms. We show that in
spite of the superficial morphological similarity, one must be very cautious in directly
identifying the verbal forms in question, given that at a closer look they exhibit different
temporal and aspectual properties.

In English some forms are clearly identifiable as temporally marked as past – such as
the simple past I ate – whereas some forms encode an aspectual value – such as the pres-
ent perfect I have eaten. The literature on the English past and perfect forms is particu-
larly rich and emphasizes in various ways the following point: aspectual and temporal

Armenian Folia AnglistikaArmenological Studies

151



values interact in complex ways, which are idiosyncratic of a specific language.  
For instance in English the aforementioned forms can both refer to a past event, but

if the present perfect is used, the consequences of the event must be detectable at the time
of the utterance, i.e., it must be relevant at the present time.4  Consider for instance the
following example (from Higginbotham 2006, ex. 47):

(1) I have spilled my coffee.

This sentence (1) is acceptable only if there is spilled coffee around at the moment of
the utterance. Moreover, presumably for the same reason, these forms are (mostly)
incompatible with a definite temporal reference, as in the following case:

(2) John has left at four.

The sentence (2), with a present perfect, contrasts with the sentence in (3), with a sim-
ple past, or with (4), where no temporal reference is realized:

(3) John left at four.
(4) John has left.

Both sentences are about a past event of leaving, but the specific aspectual properties
of the present perfect give rise to the contrast above.

The Italian present perfect has exactly the same morphological structure as the English
one: a present tense auxiliary, followed by a past participle. The sentences equivalent to
(1) and (2) are however perfectly grammatical and there is no requirement to be
observed, such as the present relevance found in (1). Consider the following examples:5

(5) Ho versato il caffè
I have spilled my coffee.
(6) Gianni è partito alle Quattro.
Lit: Gianni has left at four. (Gianni left at four.)

Sentence (5) can be uttered even if there is no sign around of spilled coffee and there
is full compatibility with definite temporal adverbs.

It is a well-known fact that it is very difficult to find a correspondence between the
forms expressing temporal distinctions and those expressing aspectual ones. In the case
of English and Italian illustrated in (1) it is important to understand that if the English
sentence I have spilled my coffee is translated as ho versato il caffè, the fact that the
speaker (English) is in a situation where there is actually coffee around is simply lost in
the Italian equivalent, where this might be true, but not necessarily so. On the other hand,
the Italian sentence does express a meaning corresponding to the English one, i.e., both
sentences talk about a past event of spilling coffee, but this is not enough to capture and
explain all the properties of these forms.

Armenian Folia Anglistika Armenological Studies

152



The challenge is therefore to account for these facts in general theoretical terms, by means
of general principles, which might predict the English/Italian behavior of the verbal forms.

In this work we are not going to further discuss the contrast illustrated above, but we will
consider a case displaying similar properties: the Armenian aorist. As we anticipated above,
this verbal form has in fact a rather puzzling distribution when compared to the possible
equivalents in languages such as Italian and English. The analysis of the Armenian aorist will
also shed light on the interactions between aspectual properties and the anchoring condi-
tions, which are crucially relevant in the temporal interpretation of utterances.

2. Temporal and Aspectual Properties of the Armenian Aorist 

2.1. On the Temporal Properties of the Armenian aorist

In Modern Eastern Armenian – henceforth, MEA – most verbal tenses, at least in the
indicative system, are periphrastic, i.e. formed by means of an auxiliary and a participle.
The aorist is the only synthetic verbal form of the indicative. It includes the aorist stem
of the verb followed by the verbal inflection. Note that for many verbs the aorist stem is
lexicalized by adding the suffix c‘ to the verb. We will consider the nature of this suffix
with more detail in section (5) below.6 

The Armenian aorist normally expresses pastness, i.e., it refers to past events, both in
main and in subordinate contexts. Consider for instance the following examples:

(7) Erek Armenə lav gnahatakan stac‘av
Yesterday Armen gained (AOR) a good mark.
(8) Silvan asac‘ wor erek Armenə lav gnahatakan stac‘av
Silva said that yesterday Armen gained (AOR) a good mark.

The temporal interpretation of (8) is analogous to the English one: Armen gained a good
mark and this event is past with respect to Silva’s saying it. The same holds in Italian:

(9) Ieri Gianni ha preso un bel voto. 
Yesterday Gianni gained (PRES PERF)  a good mark. 
(10) Maria ha detto che ieri Gianni ha preso un bel voto.
Maria said that yesterday Gianni gained (PRES PERF) a good mark.

In (10) the gaining of the good mark lies in Maria’s past. Hence, it looks like the aorist
is the form corresponding to simple past in English and to the present perfect in (Central-
Northern) Italian. 

In some cases however, the aorist does not have a past reading, but on the contrary,
refers to future events. Consider for instance the following sentence:7

(11) Aysōr ašxatavarj em stac‘el Vałə t‘atroni tomserə gnec‘i
Today I received my salary. Tomorrow I’ll buy (AOR) the tickets for the

theatre.

Armenian Folia AnglistikaArmenological Studies

153



The buying of the tickets has not taken place yet, as clearly specified by the time
adverb tomorrow. The speaker’s intuition is that the aorist in this sentence is admitted
as the future outcome of a past situation, i.e. I got the money, and on the basis of this I
make a decision concerning the future. The specification concerning the past, enabling
the present and the future situation to come out, does not necessarily have to be men-
tioned, but needs to be present and retrievable from the context. Hence, the future mean-
ing of the aorist needs a presupposition concerning the conditions enabling the future
event.

Let us compare now this future usage of the aorist with the meaning expressed by the
other future forms in Armenian. In MEA, but not in MWA, the future can also be
expressed by means of a form from the conditional mood, i.e. the finite verb prefixed by
k-, as seen in example (12), which we will gloss as “conditional future” (COND FUT).
This form, to be fully acceptable, requires the existence of a planning in the future, as in
the following case:

(12) Vałə t‘atroni tomserə kgnem (ayspisov erekoyan miasin kgnank)
Tomorrow I’ll buy (COND FUT) the tickets for theatre (hence in the

evening we’ll go together). 

The planned events do not need to be overtly mentioned in the same sentence, but
they can remain implicit, belonging to the presupposed part necessary to license this
usage. This future is in some sense considered a colloquial form and not used in writing.
The periphrastic future, formed by means of the future participle and the inflected
auxiliary em in the present tense, on the contrary, is the more learned form, used in
writing as well. Consider for instance sentence (13):

(13) Vałə gnelu em t‘atroni tomserə (ayspisov erekoyan miasin kgnank)
Tomorrow I’ll buy (FUT) the tickets for theatre (hence in the evening

we’ll go together). 

In this case as well, a planning is required, either expressed or retrievable form the
context. Finally, the present tense can also have a future meaning, analogously to Italian
– and, to a certain extent, to English – as shown in the following example:

(14) Vałə arjanagrvum em pari dasənt‘ac‘i (bayc‘ vstah č‘em)
Tomorrow I enroll (PRES) in a dance course (but I am not sure).

To clarify the meaning of the various forms in Armenian, note that the clause bayc‘
vstah č‘em (but I am not sure) could neither be added to the sentence with the aorist, nor
to the one with the future. The first in fact entails a certainty by the speaker, based on
events located in the past, and the second – the existence of a plan in the speaker’s mind.
Hence the presence of I am not sure would be inconsistent. The present tense, however
is neutral and therefore compatible with it.8

Armenian Folia Anglistika Armenological Studies

154



The aorist tense can also express ingressive meaning with verbs of emotion as illus-
trated in the following example (from Dum-Tragut 2009:232):

(15) Lilit‘n atec‘ ayn nor usanołin
Lilit started to hate (AOR) that new student.

The event expressed by means of a future aorist does not need to take place in the imme-
diate future, as shown by the fact that adverbs such as in two months can also be used:

(16) Aysōr imac‘a, wor erku amis heto ašxatavarj em stanalu. Erku
amis heto t‘atroni tomserə  gnec‘i.

Today I learnt that in two months I’ll receive my salary. In two months
I’ll buy (AOR) my tickets for the theatre.

Hence, the value of this future aorist is not purely imminential, because the event can
be delayed. Interestingly, the future interpretation of the aorist is natural for the first per-
son – and the second – but quite marginal for the third one – both singular and plural –
where a regular future is by far the preferred option:9

(17) Armenə avartec‘ dasere. (Na) Hima kgna/ *gnac‘  
Armen has just finished his lessons. He is now going (COND

FUT/*AOR) away.

Note also that the futural interpretation of the aorist cannot be simply labeled a modal
one, in the sense that it is not the expression of a wish, and it is neither an optative, nor
a desiderative. The speaker simply expresses what she is going to do in the future. 

As additional evidence for the future reading of the aorist, consider for instance also
the following example:

(18) Vaghe andzrev chi galu. Yes vaghe khaghac’-i futbol
Tomorrow it is not going to rain. I will play (AOR) football.

In the same vein, consider the following context. A football team has two goalkeep-
ers. The coach chooses one of them for the match. The chosen one utters to the other:

(19) Du mnac’ir nstaranin nstatz
You will stay (AOR) seated.

Furthermore, to strengthen our argument, note that the Armenian aorist cannot be
used as a counterfactual form as it might be the case for past forms in other languages,
for instance in English, as shown by the following example:

(20) If you went to bed earlier, you would not be so tired.

Armenian Folia AnglistikaArmenological Studies

155



Armenian in these cases uses the subjunctive, as Italian. The aorist is ungrammatical,
as shown by the following examples:10

(21) Et‘e du erek šut ankołin mtac lineir (PAST SUBJ)/*mtar (AOR),
aysk‘an hognac č‘ēir lini.

(22) Se tu ieri fossi andato (PAST SUBJ)/*sei andato(PRES PERF) a
letto prima, non saresti così stanco.

If you went to bed earlier, you would not be so tired.

Summarizing, in a language like Italian, having the subjunctive in its verbal invento-
ry, it is never the case that the simple past, or the present perfect can have a modal inter-
pretation:

(23) Se sapessi /*seppi/ *ho saputo volare, farei un giro sopra New York.
If I could (subj/*simple past/*present perfect) fly, I would fly over New

York.

The same holds in Armenian as well:

(24) Ete yes  t‘ŕč‘el imanayi/*imac‘a/*imac‘el em New Yorki vrayov
kt‘ŕč‘ei. 

If I could fly (subj/*AOR/*present perfect), I would fly over New York.

The Armenian aorist, therefore, seems to behave as a regular past form, with the
interesting exception of the future reading. Note that, in general, past forms cannot be
used to express future meanings. As discussed above, in Italian, the present tense can
have such a use, as shown in the following example (from Bertinetto, 1991, ex. 57):

(25) Esco fra un attimo.
I leave (PRES) in a moment.

But a past, i.e. a present perfect or a simple past, cannot:11

(26) *Sono uscito/*uscii fra un attimo.
Lit: I have left /I left in a moment. 

Hence, the present discussion will focus on the anomalous behavior of the Armenian
aorist with respect to the availability of the future interpretation, which we will try to
characterize and explain without introducing ad hoc theories, resorting instead to more
general principles of temporal anchoring.

2.2. On the Aspectual Properties of the Armenian Aorist

In the previous section we illustrated the temporal properties of the aorist. In this sec-

Armenian Folia Anglistika Armenological Studies

156



tion, we will consider the aspectual one. We apply here the well-known tests on the com-
patibility of a verbal form with time adverbials, which have been shown to discriminate
well between the various aspectual interpretations. In this section we show that the aorist
is a perfective form. Consider the following example:

(27) Silvan erek‘žamum salorə kerav
Silva ate (AOR) the plum in three hours.

In this sentence, the aorist – a form of non-suffixed aorist – is compatible with the
adverbial in X time, which is a typical property of perfective forms.12 The sentence means
that the plum has been eaten up in a time span of three hours. Analogously, there is the
following case:

(28) Armenə erek‘ tarum tunə kaŕuc‘ec‘
Armen built (AOR) the house in three years. 

This sentence expresses the reaching of a result: Armen finished building the house
in three years. 

Let us consider now a different adverbial. Bertinetto (1991) points out that in Italian
the adverbial da X tempo (lit: from X time) is only compatible with compound perfective
forms and not with the synthetic ones, namely it selects a certain past, even if both past
forms in Italian can be said in general to be perfective. 

Consider the following contrast between the Italian present perfect and the simple
past (adapted form Bertinetto 1991, section 1.5.2.2., exx. 204 and 207):13

(29) Marco è arrivato da almeno due ore.
Lit: Marco has arrived (PRES PERF) at least from two hours.
Marco arrived at least two hours ago.
(30) *Marco arrivò da almeno due ore.
Marco arrived (PAST) at least from two hours. 
Marco arrived at least two hours ago.

According to Bertinetto (1991), the compound form and the simple one differ because
in the former, but not in the latter, the interpretation requires the presence of a reference
point, in Reichenbachian terms.14 The adverbial in question in fact measures the time span
between the end of the event and the reference point, hence it cannot be compatible with
the simple past, which does not have any.15

The same judgments obtain with the locution sono due ore che (lit: It is two hours
that):

(31) Sono due ore che Marco è arrivato. 
Lit: It is two hours that Marco has arrived (PRES PERF). 
Marco arrived at least two hours ago

Armenian Folia AnglistikaArmenological Studies

157



(32) *Sono due ore che Marco arrive.
It is two hours that Marco arrived (PAST). 
Marco arrived at least two hours ago.

In Armenian the only locution available in this case is the one corresponding to the
Italian sono due ore che (It is two hours that) in examples (31)-(32). Consider the follow-
ing examples:

(33) Erku žam ē inč‘ Armenə hasel ē
Lit: Two hours is that Armen has arrived (PRES PERF)
Armen arrived two hours ago.  
(34) *Erku žam ē inč‘Armenə hasav
Lit: Two hours is that Armen arrived (AOR).
Armen arrived two hours ago.  

In this case as well, Armenian behaves like Italian, and the aorist patterns with the
simple past. 

As an interim conclusion, we can say that the Armenian aorist is a perfective verbal
form, which exhibits properties similar to the non-compound perfective forms of the
Italian system.

3. Towards an Explanation: the Anchoring Conditions

Let’s summarize the properties of the Armenia aorist discussed so far:

(35) a) It is a synthetic verbal form.
b) It can have a futural meaning, even if it is mostly used as a past.
c) It is aspectually perfective.
d) It patterns with the Italian non-compound perfective forms.

The hypothesis we will argue for here is the following: the Armenian aorist is a per-
fective present tense. In what follows we argue in favor of this hypothesis.

It is a well-known fact that verbal forms are obligatorily anchored.16 Namely, an event
or state, henceforth eventuality, must be placed along a temporal continuum, taking some
other event as the anchoring one. In main clauses the anchoring event is provided by the
Speech event itself. Consequently, a past, a present or a future verbal form has the effect
of placing the eventuality as preceding, overlapping, or following the Speech event:17

(36) John ate an apple.
(37) John is eating an apple.
(38) John will eat an apple.

In example (36) the event precedes the Speech event, overlaps it in (37) and follows
it in (38). 

Armenian Folia Anglistika Armenological Studies

158



We follow here Higginbotham’s (1995) and Giorgi and Pianesi’s (1997) proposal
according to which a temporal morpheme is a two-place predicate. Hence, a past verbal
form like ate is characterized by the presence of a predicate as the following one: past
(e1, e2), where e1 is identified with the eating event and e2 with the Speech event. The
anchoring procedure is analogous to a theta-marking (or theta-identification) procedure,
i.e. to the process involved in the linking of the predicate to its arguments in general. 

Subordinate events must be anchored as well. In normal complement clauses, the
anchoring point is provided by the superordinate event, plus a condition enabling the
Double Access Reading in languages having this requirement. The anchoring require-
ment is even in this case universal.18

Consider for instance the following examples:

(39) Mary said John ate an apple.
(40) Mary said John is eating an apple.
(41) Mary said John will eat an apple.

In sentence (39) the eating precedes the saying, in (40) it is simultaneous with it and
in (41) it is located in the future.19

However, the anchoring conditions are on their turn constrained by the aspectual
properties, namely, the aspect of the verbal form. For instance being perfective or con-
tinuous contributes to the outcome of the temporal anchoring. This issue is analyzed at
length in Giorgi and Pianesi (1997), who propose the Punctuality Constraint. Giorgi and
Pianesi (1997) argue that the anchoring event is by definition punctual, both in the case
it is taken to be the Speech event itself, and in the case it is the superordinate event in the
case of embedded clauses. 

Note also that Giorgi and Pianesi (1997) develop a mereological view of the notion
of punctuality, to the effect that punctuality does not necessarily imply absence of a tem-
poral extension. A point under their view is defined as something that, independently of
its extension, cannot be partitioned. This is however a technical issue we will not further
consider here and refer the reader to the cited works.

The Punctuality Constraint can be stated as follows (from Giorgi and Pianesi
1997:163): (42) “A closed event cannot be simultaneous with a punctual event.”

Let us now consider what a closed event is and why it cannot coincide with a punc-
tual event.

Giorgi and Pianesi (1997, ch.4) argue that all eventive predicates – as opposed to sta-
tive ones – have an internal structure. Each predicate, even achievements ones – i.e.,
those usually considered to be inherently punctual – can be seen as a sequence of tempo-
rally ordered sub-events. In order to clarify this notion, the authors discuss the following
example (Giorgi and Pianesi, 1997, ch.4, ex.9):

(43) John ate an apple. While eating the first bit of it, he remembered
that he had to phone Mary.

Armenian Folia AnglistikaArmenological Studies

159



The first sentence set the scene: a native speaker of English knows that the eating
event took place in the past and has ended. The rest of the example, however, makes it
clear that this event can be partitioned in a meaningful way. Giorgi and Pianesi argue that
the role of the past morpheme appearing on eat in the first sentence is to put a boundary
to the sequence of eating sub-events, which however remain conceptually available for
further reference. In other words, the English simple past closes the eventive sequence.
The punctuality constraint states that even if the internal structure of the event, once
closed, is still conceptually available, it is not formally so anymore. Coherently with this
view, the following sentence is completely unacceptable:

(44) *While John ate an apple, Mary was playing the piano. 

The only possibility is to express the first verbal form as an open sequence, by means
of the progressive periphrasis, also appearing in the second part of the sentence:

(45) While John was eating an apple, Mary was playing the piano.

A progressive form is continuous and non-perfective, whereas the simple past of an
eventive verb is perfective. Only the progressive form, as shown in example (45), can be
interpreted as the background for another event. In other words, the eating and the play-
ing can be made to overlap only if the former is aspectually an open, continuous
sequence, and not if it is a closed, perfective, one.

Hence, a closed event can only be ordered as preceding or following a punctual,
closed, event and can never be simultaneous with it.20 In other words a perfective, closed
event can only be past with respect the Utterance time or the anchoring point, or future,
but could never be simultaneous.

4. Back to the Armenian Aorist

What can we say about the Armenian aorist and its peculiar characteristics? Our
hypothesis is that the aorist morpheme does not contribute a past temporal value, but an
aspectual one, namely we propose that the aorist is a purely aspectual form and that its
temporal interpretation is a side-effect of its aspectual value. More specifically, we pro-
pose that this form is a perfective present tense.

4.1. A Diachronic View

Let us illustrate the diachronic and synchronic evidence in favor of this conclusion.
A typical Armenian aorist form is the following (see also Haroutyunian 2011 for a
detailed discussion):

(46) gr -ec‘ -i
write-AOR-1SG (were -e- is the thematic vowel)
I wrote.

Armenian Folia Anglistika Armenological Studies

160



With respect to the Armenian aorist suffix -c’ Meillet (1936: 115) claims the follow-
ing: (47) “La caractéristique -c’- de l’aoriste repose sur un ancien *-ske-; le grec a de
même des prétérits comme φάσκον, φεύγεσχοv, φύγεσκον, φιλέεσκον, etc.; le suffixe n’a
rien de proprement aoristique: […] l’aoriste arménien représente une forme indo-
européenne a désinences secondaires, mais non pas nécessairement un aoriste.”

Ačaŕyan (1961) – who is a very authoritative Armenian grammarian – completely
agrees with Meillet. 

Hence, even if it might prima facie seem that the Armenian suffix -c’ marking the
aorist resembles the Indo-European sigmatic aorist, this is presumably not the case. In
more modern historical literature the issue is still debated, see for instance
Klingenschmitt (1982) and Kortland (1995), without however providing any clear evi-
dence against Meillet’s claim. 

Note also that in Armenian this verbal form is not called aorist, which is a term intro-
duced by the non-Armenian tradition, but is simply called antc’yal kataryal, literally
meaning past perfect.

Now, we know that *-ske- is an Indo-European suffix which gives rise to different
semantic nuances in the various languages, as pointed out for instance by Szemerényi
(1985: 314). In Latin, for instance – see also Ernout (1953: 132) – it has a clear inchoa-
tive value, but in Hittite, it attributes to the verb an iterative or distributive meaning, and
in Tocharian it mostly adds a causative meaning – cf. Szemerényi (1985: 315). Note that
in all these cases it contributes an aspectual value and not a temporal one. Hence, a rea-
sonable hypothesis might be the following: the Armenian aorist is formed by the verbal
stem plus an aspectual marker, followed by inflection. Hence, we endorse here Meillet’s
position and propose what is called aorist in the non-Armenian tradition, is actually an
aspectual form.21

Under this hypothesis, this form does not include any temporal morpheme. Note that
the absence of an overtly realized temporal morpheme in the present tense is a largely
widespread property among the languages of the world. For instance, Giorgi and Pianesi
(1997) argue that this is a universal characteristic of present verbal forms, and that the
lexically realized morphemes, which might occasionally surface in association with the
present tense, have always an aspectual value, and not a temporal one, as we briefly dis-
cuss below. This observation is coherent with our claim: we propose that the morpheme
in question is an aspectual perfective morpheme; hence, the Armenian aorist is a present
perfective form.

4.2. Deriving the Properties of the Aorist

Let us go back to the properties of the aorist listed under point (35), repeated here:

(48) a) It is a synthetic verbal form.
b) It can have a futural meaning, even if it is mostly used as a past.
c) It is aspectually perfective.
d) It patterns with the Italian non-compound perfective forms.

Armenian Folia AnglistikaArmenological Studies

161



Property a) follows from our hypothesis, as we pointed out above. Present tense ver-
bal forms may combine with aspectual morpheme, but never have a purely temporal
affix. 

An example of this sort is provided for instance by the present tense in Turkish, as
discussed in Giorgi and Pianesi (1997, ch.2). We briefly review the relevant paradigm
here, because it has some significant similarities with the Armenian phenomena in ques-
tion. 

In Turkish the present tense is formed by means of the verb stem, the suffix –iyor and
verbal inflection. Consider for instance the verb gitmek (to go). The verbal stem is gid-.
The stem is followed suffix –iyor and verbal inflection, giving rise to the form gid-iyor-
um, meaning I am going. The presence of the suffix is obligatory, i.e., the form *gid-um
is not available. One might therefore prima facie conclude that the morpheme -iyor is a
temporal one. On the other hand, by considering the whole system, we can see that the
form gid-iyor-um can be combined with the past morpheme -d-, giving rise to gid-iyor-
d-um, which means I was going. Moreover, the morpheme -iyor- is not the only one that
can appear in between the verbal stem and inflection, given that, interestingly, the aorist
morpheme -er- can also appear, giving rise to the pair gid-er-im, which might be glossed
I go (habitually), and gid-er-d-im, that can be glossed as I used to go, i.e., an habitual
past.

Summarizing, therefore, the paradigm in Turkish looks as follows (see Giorgi and
Pianesi, 1997, exx.3-5):

(49) gid-iyor-um (I am going)
(50) gid-iyor-d-um (I was going)
(51) gid-er-im (I go habitually)
(52) gid-er-d-im (I used to go)

Hence, both morphemes iyor and er can be combined with a past, and therefore can-
not be taken to mark a present. They express therefore aspectual meanings, progressive
and habituality, respectively.22

Therefore, we can conclude that exactly the same situation arises in Armenian: the
verbal stem is followed by an aspectual marker and inflection. There is one difference
though, in MEA the “normal”, continuous, present tense is available and is periphrastic.
MEA in fact forms the present tense by means of the –um present participle of the verb,
and the auxiliary em (be):23

(53) kardum ē.
Read (PRES PART) is
(he) reads

Hence, in Armenian we find an unmarked, periphrastic, present tense and an aspec-
tually marked one, the so-called aorist. 

A possible generalization to account for the non-periphrastic nature of the aorist could

Armenian Folia Anglistika Armenological Studies

162



be that in MEA it is impossible to inflect a tensed verb, but there is no ban for inflecting
an aspectually, or modally, marked form. Note that this might also account for the exis-
tence of the synthetic (conditional) future in MEA i.e. the finite verb prefixed by k-, a
marker for the conditional, as in k-gne-m (COND FUT-buy-1SING), as discussed above
– cf. for instance ex.(12). As far as k- is concerned, we can say that is a conditional – i.e.,
a modal– prefix, with a future interpretation, hence, there is no co-occurrence of tense
and inflection. This ban does not exist in MWA.

Let’s consider now the temporal interpretation in point (b). As proposed by Giorgi
and Pianesi (1997, 2001) and briefly discussed in section 3, a perfective verbal form can-
not be interpreted as a presently ongoing event, due to the punctuality constraint. A per-
fective form, being closed – i.e., punctual in the relevant sense – cannot overlap the
Speech event, which, being an anchor, is punctual by definition. 

Therefore, a perfective present tense cannot de facto be interpreted as a present. The
consequence of this is that its temporal interpretation must be shifted either in the past,
or in the future. The aorist permits both options. Let us consider the future interpretation
first.24

As pointed out above, the aorist can express the future outcome of a past situation,
which may or may not be explicitly mentioned, even if it must be retrievable from the
context. This interpretation is exactly what we expect. As discussed in the introduction,
a present perfect usually expresses the present outcome of a past situation – as very well
exemplified by the English language – in which the past component is introduced by the
perfective marker. 

Hence, we can say that in the future interpretation the perfective marker of the
Armenian aorist has the same function, requiring the event to be the outcome of a past
situation.25

Given the co-occurrence in the Armenian system of the futurate – i.e. the present
tense with a future interpretation – and the “normal” future, either with the k- prefix, or
in the canonical periphrastic construction, we find a specialization of the various forms.26

Property c), i.e. perfectivity, has already been discussed in section 2 above. Finally
with respect to property d), let us briefly consider the analysis proposed by Bertinetto
(1991, section 1.5.2.2). He suggests that the temporal adverbs such as da due ore (lit:
from two hours, roughly meaning two hours ago) – and we also added periphrases such
as sono due ore che (lit: are two hours that, roughly meaning two hours ago, as well)
must stress the present relevance of the past event. We can say that in Italian in the pres-
ent perfect they measure the time lapse between the end of the event – the right bound-
ary – and the present moment, now. In other words, are two hours that (sono due ore che)
implies that the event finished two hours ago, with respect to now. The present perfect is
compatible with them because it combines perfectivity, expressed by means of the par-
ticiple, with the present auxiliary. The present tense on the auxiliary is interpreted as a
regular, continuous, present – hence, it does not violate the anchoring conditions imposed
by the punctuality constraint, as discussed by Giorgi and Pianesi (1997, ch.3). Therefore,
the locution can denote the relevant time span, in this case the interval between the real-
ization of the resultant state, expressed by means of the participle, and now. As proposed

Armenian Folia AnglistikaArmenological Studies

163



above, the events expressed by means of the aorist, on the contrary, cannot coincide with
the present moment, due to the punctuality constraint, hence the temporal locution can-
not be properly interpreted, giving rise to ungrammaticality.27

Conclusion

In this work we have shown with several arguments coming mostly from a cross-lin-
guistic analysis that the so-called aorist is actually a perfectively marked present tense.
Due to perfectivity, the event is a closed sequence – i.e., a mereological point – and can-
not be simultaneous with the Speech event. We argued, following Giorgi and Pianesi
(1997), that this move would violate the punctuality constraint holding on the anchoring
conditions. For this reason, the aorist cannot have a present temporal value, but must be
interpreted either as a past, or as future, according to further pragmatic conditions. This
analysis is also supported by some diachronic considerations, pointing to the conclusion
that its temporal interpretation is just a side effect of its aspectual properties.28

Notes:

1. The authors elaborated every part of this research together. However, as a far as legal
requirements are concerned, Alessandra Giorgi takes official responsibility for the
introduction and sections 1 and 2 up to example (29) and Sona Haroutyunian for the
remaining part. We wish to thank Pier Marco Bertinetto for his careful reading of a
preliminary version of this paper and his very interesting comments.

2. For a typological perspective, see Dahl (2000) and references cited there. Note also
that in some languages the same morpheme can express both a temporal and an
aspectual value. This is, for instance, often the case in Italian.

3. Armenian is an Indo-European language spoken in Armenia and in Persian and Indian
Armenian colonies. Nowadays it is also spoken in other areas due to recent emigra-
tion from Armenia. This variety is called Modern Eastern Armenia, MEA. In com-
munities living in Turkey and several other countries where the Armenians have emi-
grated especially after the 1915 Genocide – other varieties which go under the gener-
al label of Modern Western Armenian, MWA are used. MEA and MWA exhibit some
differences, in particular in the verbal system. Even if the aorist is presumably quite
alike in the two varieties, we limit our analysis to MEA. We do not consider here the
properties and distribution of other temporal forms in MEA, such as the present and
past perfect and the imperfect. Even if a comparison among the various verbal forms
is certainly important, it should be addressed in a separate work. In this work
Armenian graphemes are transliterated adopting the system developed by
Hübschmann-Meillet (1913) as follows: i. Ա A; Բ,B; Գ,G; Դ,D;Ե,E; Զ,Z; Է, Ē; Ը, $;
Թ, T‘; Ժ, Ž; Ի, I; Լ,L; Խ,X; Ծ,C; Կ,K; Հ,H; Ձ,J; Ղ, Ł; Ճ, Č; Մ,M;Յ,Y; Ն,N; Շ, Š; Ո,O;
Չ, Č‘; Պ,P; Ջ, Ĵ; Ռ, Ŕ; Ս, S; Վ,V; Տ,T; Ր,R; Ց, C‘; ՈՒ,U; Ւ,W;Փ, P‘; Ք, K‘; Օ, Ō; Ֆ, F.

4. There are other conditions that might intervene in the licensing of a present perfect in
English, which will not be discussed here. For a comparative discussion of Germanic

Armenian Folia Anglistika Armenological Studies

164



and Romance languages in the framework sketched in this work, see among many
others, Giorgi and Pianesi (1997). 

5. The variety of Italian given here is the one spoken in Central and Northern Italy,
where the simple past, partì (he left), is quite marked and used only in certain con-
texts, and the notion of pastness is mostly expressed by means of a present perfect. In
Southern Italy, the situation is the opposite: the simple past is the form expressing
pastness, whereas the present perfect is only very marginally used. On this issue, see
Giorgi and Pianesi (1997, section 3.4); see also Bertinetto and Squartini (1996). Note
however that, as discussed in Giorgi and Pianesi, the claim that for Northern Italian
speakers the periphrastic form ho mangiato (I have eaten) is a mere past would be too
simplistic. In fact, when the context elicits it, even Northern Italian speakers must
attribute to this form the present relevance property we are discussing in this section.
In English the effect in question is much more marked, in Italian it is less so, but still
detectable. 

6. For a description of some properties of the verbal system of MEA, see Haroutyunian
(2011); for an analysis of tense and aspect in MWA, see Donabedian (1996, 1999,
2002) and Donabedian and Ouzounian (2008). We are not going to consider all the
possible ways to derive an aorist in Armenian and will concentrate, mostly in section
4, on the properties of the sigmatic one, as discussed by Meillet and other scholars.
Our claim with respect to this point is the one generally holding in generative gram-
mar. Since a native speaker does not have an innate diachronic competence, it is
assumed that the generalizations holding for a certain form, namely in this case the
sigmatic aorist, also holds for the other forms belonging to the same kind, even if
diachronically derived in different ways. In the example and discussion therefore, we
will consider all aorist forms as alike.

7. Dum-Tragut (2009) mentions a similar case in her work (252). However, we show
that this future meaning is not just imminential, as proposed by Dum-Tragut, but
selects a particular presupposition.

8. Note that in English the present tense with futural meaning entails the so-called agen-
da interpretation. Namely, the event must have been scheduled in advance. This is
presumably due to the aspectual properties of the English present tense form, which
are different from those of the present tense in Armenian and Italian (See Giorgi and
Pianesi 1997).

9. Note also that, if inserted in a special context, where the sentence can have an excla-
mative/evaluative interpretation, the aorist can be used. Consider the following dia-
logue: A: erku zham avel mn-ank‘ ašxat-enk‘. 

B: Razmikə hastat mn-ac‘!
A: Let’s stay for two more hours and work. 
B: Razmik will stay for sure!

In this sentence B is meaning exactly the opposite, namely that R will never consent
at staying. This piece of evidence will also follow from the proposal we argue for in
section 4, but we will not consider these contexts in detail. See also fn. 23 below.

10. Note that in Italian the imperfect of the indicative can have a counterfactual role as

Armenian Folia AnglistikaArmenological Studies

165



well: Se partivi domani, saresti arrivato in tempo per la cerimonia di aperture. If you
left (IMPF) tomorrow, you would be (IMPF) on time for the opening ceremony. This,
however, does not seem to be the case in Armenian, where counterfactuals can only
be expressed by means of the subjunctive.

11. Bertinetto (1991) discusses some cases where the present perfect can have an anteri-
ority reading in subordinate clauses (from Bertinetto, 1991, ex 153b): Se entro due
ore Enrico non è arrivato, gliene dico di tutti i colori. If in two hours Enrico has not
arrived, I’ll give him what for. These cases however, are very different form the
future reading of the aorist we are discussing here. As a first consideration note that
in Italian they can never appear in matrix clauses. Moreover, in Italian the futurate
reading of the present perfect is possible only if the event is past with respect to some
other event or reference point – even if the whole situation may be located in the
future – as is the case in the example above. This is not the case in Armenian, as clear-
ly emerging form the examples.

12. There is important and very interesting literature on this and related issues. Here, we
are taking the relevant generalizations for granted, without further discussing them.
See, among the many others, Bertinetto (1991) and Giorgi and Pianesi (1997). Note
also that all the various sorts of aorist behave alike, independently of their diachron-
ic and morphological derivation.

13. We will not consider here the distribution of similar time adverbials in English, given
that the discussion would not be pertinent to the main topic of this paper. In general,
however, the indexical temporal expression X time ago, does not distinguish between
the two verbal forms, as shown by the English translation. On the other hand, other
temporal expressions, such as the ones introduced by since, would have a different
distribution, along however different dimensions.

14. Reichenbach (1947) identifies three temporal points, relevant for locating an event
along the temporal axis: E, the event point, S, the speech point, and a third point, R,
the reference point. We will not discuss here the Reichenbachian system and the
various interpretations given by the scholars during the years. For a brief discussion,
see Giorgi and Pianesi (1997, ch.2).

15. Bertinetto (1991, section 1.5.2.2), precisely for this reason, distinguishes between two
kinds of perfectivity: the perfectivity of the present perfect and compound tenses, and
the one, which he calls aoristic, of the simple past. According to him, the aoristic
forms cannot express the persistency of a certain result at a reference time.

16. See among the many others Enç (1988).
17. There is an ample debate on this topic. See, among many others, Giorgi and Pianesi

(2001a, 2001b), Higginbotham (1995).
18. The Double Access Reading is a phenomenon found in some languages, such as

Italian and English, according to which the tense of the embedded cause must be
interpreted twice: once with respect to the temporal coordinates of the superordinate
subject and once with respect to the temporal coordinates of the speaker. Consider for
instance the following sentence: John said that Mary is pregnant. For this sentence to
be felicitous, Mary’s pregnancy must hold both at the time John said it and at the time

Armenian Folia Anglistika Armenological Studies

166



the speaker is uttering the sentence. On the anchoring procedure, see also
Higginbotham (1995, 2002, 2006). On the Double Access Reading see Giorgi and
Pianesi (2001a, 2001b) and Giorgi (2010, 2011).

19. Note that the future must be computed both with respect to the time of John’s saying
and the time of the utterance event. Giorgi and Pianesi (2001b) and Giorgi (2010)
consider this property evidence in favor of a Generalized Double Access Reading the-
ory, holding not only for an embedded present tense, but for a past and a future as
well. The issue however is not directly relevant to the present discussion, and we do
not pursue it further here.

20. Ramchand (2008:169, ex.23) points out, with respect to perfective forms in Russian,
the following properties: i. “[perfective forms] cannot get a simple ongoing interpre-
tation in the present tense.” ii. They cannot be used as the complements of phrasal
verbs such as begin/finish/continue. iii. They cannot form present participles. iv. In
discourse, they combine to form non-overlapping events in the narrative. These
properties all follow from our proposal, in that they would all violate the punctuality
constraint.

21. Cambi and Bertinetto (2003) discuss the properties of ške/a- in Hittite and conclude
that this morpheme has an imperfective meaning, expressing habitual and progressive
reading. This analysis is coherent with our hypothesis.

22. By descriptive grammars, the meaning of the aorist er is often defined as conveying
a nuance of “general truth”. See for instance Thomas and Itzkowitz (1967:75).

23. Note that the Armenian present tense, as the Italian one, can have the continuous
reading. Hence, example (53) corresponds to the English sentence he is reading.

24. In Russian the shifting to the future is the natural interpretation of perfectively
marked present tense, as in the following example: Zavtra Maria prigotovit užin.
Tomorrow Maria PERF-makes dinner. Tomorrow Maria will make dinner. If there is
no perfective prefix, the sentence is interpreted as a continuous present. Finally, if the
perfective form is combined with a past inflection, it is interpreted as a perfective
past. See the following examples: Maria gotovit užin. Maria makes dinner. Maria is
making dinner. Včera Maria prigotovila užin. Yesterday Maria PERF -make- PAST
dinner. Yesterday Maria made dinner. Note however that this issue is much more
complex than that, and has been studied at length by many scholars. The only point
relevant to our discussion, however, is the shifting of the present perfective form to
the future, as predicted by our hypothesis. 

25. The reason why this most naturally happens with first and second person sentences
might simply be due to the fact that the knowledge of the past situation is taken to be
subjective, i.e. to be limited to the speaker and to the discourse situation. This might
also be an explanation for the fact that, third person, both singular and plural, tends
to have an exclamative/evaluative interpretation – see fn. 8 above. The evaluative
component is actually speaker-related as well. Hence, the whole pattern might follow
from the same property. Further investigation on this point is however required.

26. For a discussion of the futurate interpretation as a planning future, with respect to the
normal future, see Copley (2009) and Greco (2011).

Armenian Folia AnglistikaArmenological Studies

167



27. See Beninca’ (1978) for a syntactic analysis of locutions such as sono due ore che (lit:
are two hours that, roughly meaning two hours ago).

28. Note that this analysis does not amount to saying that the Armenian aorist and the
English present perfect have the same value. Their interpretation is derived in very
different ways. Recall in fact, as discussed in section 1, that the English present per-
fect is used for talking of the present relevance of a past event, whereas this is not the
case in Armenian.

References:

1. Ačaŕyan, H. (1961) Liakatar k’erakanut’yun hayoc’ lezvi [Complete Grammar of
Armenian]. Vol. 4b, Erevan: Haykakan SSR GA hratarakč’ut’yun [Armenian SSR
Academy of Sciences Press], pp.357-358.

2. Benincà, P. (1978) Sono tre ore che ti aspetto. // ms., / Padua, Centro di Dialettologia
del CNR.

3. Bertinetto, P.M. (1991) Il Verbo. // Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione. / Ed.
by L. Renzi and G. Salvi. Bologna: Il Mulino, pp.13-162.

4. Bertinetto, P.M. and Squartini, M. (1996) The Distribution of the Perfetto-semplice
and the Perfetto-composto in Different Varieties of Italian. // Romance Philology.
49(4) 383-419.

5. Cambi, V. and Bertinetto, P.M. (2003) Hittite Temporal Adverbials and the Aspectual
Interpretation of the ške/a- Suffix. // Studi linguistici in onore di Roberto Gusmani. /
Ed. by R. Bombi et al.. Alessandria: L’Orso, pp.193-233.

6. Copley, B. (2009) The Semantics of the Future. New York: Routledge.
7. Dahl, O. (ed.) (2000) Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton

De Gruyter.
8. Donabédian, A. (1999) Négation analytique et médiatif en arménien occidental: un

liensystémique? // Cahiers de Linguistique de l’INALCO. Paris 99(1), pp.23-41.
9. Donabédian, A. (1996) Mediative and Perfect in Western Modern Armenian. //

Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Armenian Linguistics. / Ed. by
D. Sakayan. New York. Delmar: Caravan Books, pp.149-166.

10. Donabédian, A. (2002) Médiatif et progressif en arménien occidental: convergences
discursives. // Actes du VIème Colloque International de Linguistique arménienne. /
Ed. by A. Donabédian, A. Ouzounian.   Slovo N.24, pp.343-357.

11. Donabédian, A.; Ouzounian, A. (2008) Diachronic and Dialectological Variation of
Verb Morphology in Armenian: Internal and/or Contact-Induced Changes? // ms.,
Comunicazione al13th IMM, 2008. Vienna.

12. Dum-Tragut, J. (2009) Modern Eastern Armenian. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.

13. Enç, M. (1987) Anchoring Conditions for Tense. // Linguistic Inquiry 18 (4), pp.633-
657.

14. Ernout, A. (1953) Morphologie historique du latin. Klincksieck, Paris.

Armenian Folia Anglistika Armenological Studies

168



15. Giorgi, A. (2010) About the Speaker: Towards a Syntax of Indexicality. Oxford: OUP.
16. Giorgi, A. (2011) Reflections on the Optimal Solution: On the Syntactic

Representation of Indexicality. // The Biolinguistic Enterprise. / Ed. by A-M- Di
Sciullo and C. Boeckx.  Oxford: OUP.

17. Giorgi, A.; Pianesi, F. (1997) Tense and Aspect: From Semantics to Morphosyntax.
New York: OUP.

18. Giorgi, A.; Pianesi, F. (2001a) The Temporal Coordinate of Subject and Speaker: from
Semantics to Morphosyntax. // Working Papers in Linguistics. 11, University of
Venice, pp.130-151.

19. Giorgi, A.; Pianesi, F. (2001b) Tense, Attitudes and Subjects. // Proceedings of SALT-
XI. / Ed. by  R. Hastings, B. Jackson and Z. Zvolenszky.  Cornell University.

20. Greco, C. (2011) Double Access Reading And Embedded Futurates, ms., University
of Milan-Bicocca.

21. Haroutyunian, S. (2011) An Analysis of Dante’s Tenses in the Armenian Translations
of the Divina Commedia. / PhD dissertation. University of Venice.

22. Higginbotham, J. (1995) Tensed Thoughts. // Mind and Language. 10(3), pp.226-249.
23. Higginbotham, J. (2002) Why is Sequence of Tense Obligatory? // Logical Form and

Language. / Ed. by  G. Preyer and G.  Peter. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp.207-227.
24. Higginbotham, J. (2006) The Anaphoric Theory of Tense. // Proceedings of SALT

XVI, CLC Publications. / Ed. by M. Gibson and J. Howell.  Cornell University, Ithaca.
25. Klingenschmitt, G. (1982) Das Armenische Verbum. Wiesbaden, pp.42-43.
26. Kortland, F. (1995) The Sigmatic Forms of the Armenian Verb. // Annual of Armenian

Linguistics, 16, 13-17.  
27. Hübschmann, H.; Meillet, A. (1913) Altarmenisches Elementarbuch. Heidelberg,

reprint, New York, 1981. 
28. Meillet, A. (1936) Esquisse d’une Grammaire comparee de l’Armenien classique /

seconde ed., Vienne Imprimerie des Pp. Mekhitharistes. 
29. Ramchand, G.C. (2008) Perfectivity as Aspectual Definiteness: Time and the event in

Russian. // Lingua, N.118(11),1690-1715.
30. Reichenbach, H (1947) Elements of Symbolic Logic. New York: Free Press.
31. Szemerényi, O. (1985) Introduzione alla linguistica indoeuropea. Milano: Unicopli.
32. Thomas, L.;  Itzkowitz, N. (1967) Elementary Turkish. London: Dover.

ųٳݳϳÏÇó ³ñ¨»É³Ñ³Û»ñ»ÝÇ ³ÝóÛ³É Ï³ï³ñÛ³ÉÇ  ųٳݳϳÛÇÝ ¨
Ï»ñå³ÛÇÝ ÇÙ³ëïÝ»ñÁ  (ѳٻٳï³Ï³Ý í»ñÉáõÍáõÃÛáõÝ)

êáõÛÝ áõ ëáõ٠ݳ ëÇ ñáõÃ Û³Ý Ù»ç Ù»Ýù Ñ» ï³ ½á ïáõÙ »Ýù ų Ù³ ݳ ϳ ÏÇó ³ñ¨» ɳ -
ѳ Û» ñ» ÝÇ ³Ýó Û³É Ï³ ï³ñ Û³É Å³ Ù³ ݳ Ï³Ó¨Ç á ñáß ß³ ñ³ ¹³ ë³ Ï³Ý ¨ Ç Ù³ë ï³ -
μ³ Ý³ Ï³Ý ³ é³ÝÓ Ý³ ѳï Ïáõà ÛáõÝ Ý»ñ, ¹ñ³Ýù ѳ Ù» Ù³ ïáõÃ Û³Ý Ù»ç ¹Ý» Éáí Ç ï³ -
É» ñ» ÝÇ ¨ ³Ý· É» ñ» ÝÇ μ³ Û³ Ï³Ý ÝÙ³ ݳ ïÇå Ó ̈ » ñÇ Ñ»ï: Ø»Ýù ùÝݳñ ÏáõÙ »Ýù, áñ
³Ýó Û³É Ï³ ï³ñ Û³ ÉÇ Å³ Ù³ ݳ ϳ ÛÇÝ Ù»Ï Ý³ μ³ Ýáõà Ûáõ ÝÁ ï³ñ ñ³ Ï³Ý Ñ³ï ϳ ÝÇß
ã¿, ³ÛÉ ³ÛÝ μËáõÙ ¿ Ýñ³ ÑÇ٠ݳ Ï³Ý Ï»ñ å³ ÛÇÝ Ñ³ï ϳ ÝÇ ßÇó` ³Û ëÇÝùÝ Ï³ ï³ñ Û³ -

Armenian Folia AnglistikaArmenological Studies

169



Éáõà Ûáõ ÝÇó: ²Ûë í³ñ ϳ ÍÁ ÑÇ٠ݳ íáñ íáõÙ ¿ ³ å³é ÝÇ Å³ Ù³ ݳ ÏÇ Ç Ù³ë ïÇ í»ñ Éáõ -
Íáõà ۳Ùμ, á ñÁ á ñáß Ñ³ Ù³ ï»ùë ï» ñáõÙ ³ñ ï³ Ñ³Ûï í³Í ¿ ³Ýó Û³É Ï³ ï³ñ Û³ ÉÇ 1-
ÇÝ ¹»Ù ùáí:

Âðåìåííûå è âèäîâûå çíà÷åíèÿ àîðèñòà â ñîâðåìåííîì âîñòî÷íîàðìÿíñêîì ÿçûêå
(ñîïîñòàâèòåëüíûé àíàëèç)

 äàí íîé ðà áî òå ìû èññ ëå äóåì íå êî òî ðûå ñèí òàê ñè ÷åñ êèå è ñå ìàí òè ÷åñ êèå
ñâîéñò âà àî ðèñòà â ñîâ ðå ìåí íîì âîñ òî÷  íî àð ìÿíñ êîì ÿçû êå â ñî ïîñòàâ ëå íèè ñî ñõîä -
íû ìè ãëà ãîëü íû ìè ôîð ìà ìè â àíã ëèéñ êîì è èòàëüÿíñ êîì ÿçû êàõ. Ìû àð ãó ìåí òè -
ðóåì, ÷òî âðå ìåí íàÿ èí òåðï ðå òà öèÿ  àî ðèñòà íå ÿâ ëÿåò ñÿ ýëå ìåí òàð íûì êà ÷åñò âîì, à
ïðîèç âîä íà îò åãî îñ íîâ íîé âè äî âîé õà ðàê òå ðèñòè êè, ò.å. perfectivity. Äàí íàÿ ãè ïî òå -
çà â äàëü íåé øåì îáîñ íî âû âàåò ñÿ àíà ëè çîì  çíà ÷å íèÿ áó äó ùå ãî âðå ìå íè, âû ðà æåí íî -
ãî â îï ðå äå ëåí íûõ êîí òåêñòàõ ïîñ ðåäñò âîì ôîð ìû ïåð âî ãî ëè öà àî ðèñòà.

Armenian Folia Anglistika Armenological Studies

170