maket_N_verjin.qxp


Structural-Semantic Patters with Suffixes
Expressing Resemblance in 

Modern English and Modern Armenian.

There may be over a million words in the Englishlanguage. But most people do not know all of those
words, and perhaps do not need to either. Knowledge of the
most frequent words can help in general, as those words
form a basic vocabulary. It has been estimated that about 100
words make up 50% of people’s daily vocabulary. As we add
to our knowledge of good English, we expand our mastery of
the basic vocabulary. To promote this process it is of
tremendous importance that linguists work out clearly
defined rules and observations.

Since there are so many words, and since the long-term
memory is rather slow in picking them up outside a natural
English-speaking setting, a little semantics is of great help.
Thus, common factors involved in many words help to
comprehend words, which in its turn facilitates memorizing. 

Some words consist of “building blocks” that are fit
together. To find out how these building blocks are put
together we shall have to turn to word-formation: the main
basis for so many words existing in a language. 

As P.Karashchuk puts on, word-formation must first of
all deal with the investigation of the problem “how the words
are built” which will help us to solve the problem “how to
build a word” (Karashchuk 1997)

Our study focuses on the formation of derivative
adjectives containing suffixes expressing resemblance in

Modern English and Armenian on the synchronic level.
The choice of derivative adjectives is accounted for by the fact that adjectives form

a considerable part of the word-stock of the English and Armenian languages and that
both languages are rich in affixes (especially in suffixes). As it is known the number of
simple adjectives in all the languages is extremely limited. Most adjectives have been
formed by means of affixation and compounding. 

The problems connected with the English word-formation have been studied by H.
Marchand, H.Koziol, I.Arnold, V.Adams, Z.Kharitonchik, Y.Kubriakova, P.Karashtchuk
and others. The contribution of Armenian linguists to this issue is of no less importance
as evident in the works by M.Abeghian, E.Aghayan, A.Mourvalyan, H.Ohanyan and

152

Armenian Folia Anglistika Linguistics

Lili Karapetyan

Armine Yakhnyan



others. At present the comparative study of word-building systems of native and foreign
languages (in the case discussed Armenian and English) is of great significance as it
reveals similarities and differences of word-building systems of the languages
concerned.

While comparing word-building systems of related languages, linguists very often
proceed from genetically identical affixes. Such an approach is not applicable to the
languages under study since here we can hardly speak of etymological identity of
affixes. However, it must be mentioned that the Indo-European languages under
investigation (English and Armenian) have some similarities in the means and ways of
word-formation, morphemic composition of words, grouping words into parts of speech,
word-building relations between parts of speech although they belong to different
morphological types of languages: English is basically an analytical language, while
Armenian is mainly an agglutinative one.

Word-building patterns help to better understand the peculiarities of word-building
systems in both languages. As H.Marchand, Z.Kharitonchik, Y.Kubriakova, we also
have tried to proceed from these patterns in our study.

To describe the system of suffixation of adjectives in Modern English and
Armenian we have found the following productive word-building patterns:

English Armenian
N+S=A N+S=A
V+S=A V+S=A
Adj+S=A Adj+S=A
Num+S=A Num+S=A
Adv+S=A

In these patterns N stands for noun stems, V - for verb stems, Adj - for adjective
stems, Num - for numeral stems, Adv - for adverb stems, S - for suffixes and A - for
derived adjectives.

Proceeding from the assumption that each pattern possesses a structure and
meaning, we have studied not only the structure of the patterns, but their meanings as
well, both of the stems and affixes and dynamics of their interrelation, which is very
important because in order to coin words it is necessary not only to know the morphemes
of which they consist but also to reveal their recurrent regular combinations and the
relationship existing between them. So, alongside lexical and grammatical meanings of
a derived word we distinguish its word-building meaning, by which we understand the
meaning of the derived word which is inferred from the meanings of the structural
components of the pattern.

As within the limits of the present article it is impossible to give an exhaustive
description of the stems and affixes functioning in the above mentioned word-building
patterns, we shall confine ourselves to the study of suffixes expressing resemblance in
Modern English and Modern Armenian.

Thus, on the structural level we single out the following structural patterns with

153

Linguistics Armenian Folia Anglistika



suffixes expressing resemblance in Modern English and Armenian, which are listed
according to the degree of productivity:

English Armenian
N+-like=A N+-³Ï³Ý=A
N+-ish=A N+-³ÛÇÝ=A
N+-y=A N+-»=A
N+-ly=A Adj+-³íáõÝ= A
Adj +-ish=A

Adjectives formed after these patterns have the following meanings:
A1 – resembling in appearance to the noun expressed by the derivational base
A2 – resembling in behavior to the noun expressed by the derivational base
A3 – resembling in qualities to the noun expressed by the derivational base
A4 – resembling in character to the noun expressed by the derivational base
A5 – resembling in a weak degree to the quality of the adjective expressed by the

derivational base
A thorough examination of the above mentioned patterns reveals the following: 
in the structural pattern N+-like =A we differentiate three meanings of the suffix -

like:
-like1 - resemblance in appearance
-like2 - resemblance in behaviour
-like3 - resemblance in quality

The suffix -like is used to convert nouns into adjectives expressing resemblance to
the noun; as, manlike, like a man; childlike, like a child; godlike, like a god, etc. Such
compounds are readily formed whenever convenient such as crescentlike, serpentlike,
hairlike.

Thus, on the structural-semantic level we single out the following patterns with the
suffix in question:

N1+-like1=A1 (bridelike, groomlike, girllike, boylike, ladylike, babylike, childlike,
workmanlike), where N1 stands for nouns denoting persons.

N1+-like2=A2 (childlike, babylike, ladylike, motherlike, fatherlike, brotherlike,
sisterlike).

N3+-like1=A1 (batlike, wolflike, serpentlike, foxlike, piglike, ratlike, lionlike,
mouselike, cocklike, sheeplike, birdlike, catlike, doglike), where N3 stands for animal
names.

N8+-like1=A1 (Londonlike, Moscowlike, Parislike, Berlinlike, Senalike, Volgalike),
where N8 stands for geographical names.

N6 +-like3=A3 (goldlike, pearllike, glasslike, silverlike), where N6 stands for nouns
of material.

The Armenian equivalents of the suffix -like appear to be -³Ï³Ý and -»:

154

Armenian Folia Anglistika Linguistics



N1+-³Ï³Ý=A1 (³ß³Ï»ñï³Ï³Ý, áõë³ÝáճϳÝ, »ñ»Ë³Û³Ï³Ý,
ïճ۳ϳÝ, ³ÕçϳϳÝ)

(cp. pupillike, studentlike, childlike, boylike, girllike), where N1 stands for nouns
denoting persons.

N2+-³Ï³Ý=A1 (³½Ýí³Ï³Ý³Ï³Ý, ó·³íáñ³Ï³Ý, ¹ùë³Ï³Ý,
½ÇÝíáñ³Ï³Ý, µ³ñáݳϳÝ)

(cp. noblelike, kinglike, dukelike, soldierlike, baronlike), where N2 stands for nouns
denoting rank or position. N6+-»=A3 (Ù³ñÙ³ñ», áëÏ», »ñϳû, ÑáÕ», ½ÙñáõËï»,
³å³Ï», Ù³ñ·³ñï», óíß», ϳí», ³ñͳû) (cp. goldlike, pearllike, glasslike,
silverlike), where N6 stands for nouns of material.

Another suffix expressing resemblance is the suffix -ish. The suffix -ish derives
from the Old English suffix -isc. We distinguish the following types of -ish:

-ish1- resemblance in appearance
-ish2 - resemblance in behaviour
-ish3 - resemblance in a weak degree of quality
-ish4 - resemblance in character
So, the structural pattern N+-ish =A produces the following structural-semantic

patterns:
N1+-ish1=A1 (babyish, girlish, boyish, childish), where N1 stands for nouns

denoting persons.
N1+-ish2=A2 (babyish, girlish, boyish, childish).
N3+-ish3=A1 (wolfish, foxish, piggish, cattish, cockish, doggish, battish, rattish,

bearish, goatish), where N3 stands for animal names.
N5+-ish1=A1 (Queen Annish, King Arthurish, Princess Dianish, Mark Twainish,

Lawerencish, Freudish), where N5 stands for personal names.
Adj1+-ish3=A5 (brownish, reddish, bluish, blackish, greenish), where Adj1 stands

for adjectives denoting colour.
Adj2+-ish3=A5 (roundish ,longish, shortish), where Adj2 stands for adjectives

denoting shape. 
The English suffix -ish is equivalent to the Armenian suffixes -³Ï³Ý and -³íáõÝ:
N1+-³Ï³Ý=A1 (»ñ»Ë³Û³Ï³Ý, ³ÕçϳϳÝ, ïճ۳ϳÝ) (cp. babyish, girlish,

boyish, childish).
Adj1+-³íáõÝ=A5 (ϳñÙñ³íáõÝ, ϳݳã³íáõÝ, ϳåï³íáõÝ, ¹»ÕݳíáõÝ)

(cp. reddish, greenish, bluish, yellowish), where Adj1 stands for adjectives denoting
colour.

Adj2+-³íáõÝ=A5 (ÏÉáñ³íáõÝ, »ñϳñ³íáõÝ, ϳñ׳íáõÝ, µ³ñ³Ï³íáõÝ)
(cp. Roundish, longish, shortish), where Adj2 stands for adjectives denoting shape. 

The next suffix to be analysed is -y, which descends from the Old English adjective
suffix -ig.

The general sense of the suffix is ‘having the qualities of’ or ‘similar to something’

155

Linguistics Armenian Folia Anglistika



as in doggy, catty , piggy or ‘full of’ which is denoted by the stem to which it is added,
as icy = (1) of the nature of or having the coldness, hardness of ice; (2) full of or covered
with ice. Such adjectives were numerous in Old English, and large additions were made
at particular periods, especially in the 14th century as dirty, healthy, saucy. From the 13th
century the suffix -y has been added to verb-stems to express the meaning ‘inclined or
apt to’ or ‘giving occasion to’ a certain action as blowy, drowsy, sticky. Some
monosyllabic adjectives were extended by means of this suffix as early as the 15th
century, as chilly, dusky, vasty. A sense ‘addicted to’ or ‘similar to’, as in doggy, horsy,
is of modern growth. The suffix has frequently come to express the same notion as -ish,
particularly with colour-epithets, and especially when these are used as quasi-adverbs,
as greeny-blue. (Marchand 1960: 287)

Before passing to the study of word-building patterns containing the suffix -y we
shall consider the meanings of the suffix in question:

-y1 - resemblance in appearance
-y2 - resemblance in character
-y3 - resemblance in a weak degree of quality

In the structural pattern N+-y =A the following structural-semantic patterns are
observed:

N3+-y1=A1 (batty, beary, foxy, doggy, dovy, spidery, mousy, wolfy, piggy, catty,
horsy, liony), where N3 stands for names of animals.

N3+-y2=A4 (foxy, doggy, mousy, wolfy, piggy, catty, horsy, liony).
N9+-y3=A3 (fishy, soucy, meaty, porky, beefy, minty, milky, peppery, winy, beery),

where N9 stands for names of foods and drinks.
The Armenian equivalent of the English suffix -y is -³ÛÇÝ, though not every

structural pattern has its equivalent in Armenian: 
N9+-³ÛÇÝ=A3 (ϳÃݳÛÇÝ, ÓÏݳÛÇÝ) (cp. milky, fishy), where N9 stands for

names of foods and drinks.
No equivalents have been found for meaty, porky, beefy, minty and etc. 
The last suffix expressing resemblance is the derivational suffix -ly. The suffix -ly

basically adds to the notion of ‘like’ or ‘in this way’ to nouns. Its oldest spellings were
variations of -like, such as -lic, -lich and

-liche, eventually reduced to -li or -ly. Words such as goodly, stately, and kindly
reflect a more purely grammatical use of -ly to mean ‘having to do with’. The origins of
their meanings are often usages of the base word that are uncommon or obsolete now.
(Marchand 1960: 267)

The suffix appears only in the N+-ly=A structural-semantic pattern and expresses
the meaning ‘similar to’. Words such as queenly, kingly and cowardly, fatherly mean
‘like a queen, king / coward, father’; the former refers to appearance or behavior, while
the latter is more particularly about behavior alone. So in the examples given below the
suffix in question has the following two meanings:

-ly1 - resemblance in appearance 

156

Armenian Folia Anglistika Linguistics



-ly2 - resemblance in behaviour 
In the structural pattern N+-ly =A the following structural-semantic patterns are

singled out:
N1+-ly2=A2 (bridely, groomly, burglarly, ghostly, manly, wifely, womanly, childly),

where N1 stands for nouns
denoting persons.
N2+-ly1=A2 (baronly, kingly, queenly, dukely, priestly, monkly, popely, princely,

soldierly), where N2 stands for nouns denoting rank or position.
N16+-ly2=A2 (motherly, fatherly, daughterly, cousinly, sisterly, brotherly), where

N16 stands for nouns denoting kinship relations.
The Armenian equivalent of the suffix -ly appears to be -³Ï³Ý:
N16+-³Ï³Ý=A2 (ѳÛñ³Ï³Ý, Ù³Ûñ³Ï³Ý, áñ¹Ç³Ï³Ý) (cp. fatherly, motherly),

where N16 stands for nouns denoting kinship relations.
As it can be seen from the examples adduced in the article we see that suffixes

expressing resemblance both in English and Armenian are chiefly added to N-stems. As
a matter of fact only one suffix, the suffix -ish, can coin adjectives from Adj-stems. It
has been noted that suffixes expressing resemblance deal mostly with concrete nouns,
both common and proper. It is also noteworthy that in Modern English adjectives formed
after these patterns are chiefly relative which is not characteristic of the Armenian
language where derivative adjectives are mostly qualitative. This lies in the fact that in
Modern Armenian suffixes forming relative adjectives are few in number (9 suffixes in
total) while in English qualitative adjectives are chiefly simple by their morphological
composition.

Thus, our study of adjectives expressing resemblance in Modern English and
Armenian has revealed some similarities and differences of word-building systems of
both languages, which will go a long way in working out the typology of patterns. And
our next logical step will be to study these patterns further to make a complete list of
structural-semantic patterns of adjectives in Modern English and Armenian.

References:

1. Akhmanova, O. (1979) Patterns and Productivity. Moscow: MGU
2. Ginzburg, R.S. (1979) A Course in Modern English Lexicology. Moscow: Vishaya

Shkola.
3. Marchand, H. (1960) The Categories and Types of Present Day English Word-

Formation.Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
4. Eloyan, M. (1962) Zhamanakakits hayereni atsantsnery. Yerevan: H.Kh.S.H. Git.

Akademia.
5. Galstyan, M.A. (1975) Goyakan himqerits atsakan kazmogh verjatsantsnery

zhamanakakits hayerenum. Yerevan: Yerevani hamals. hrat.
6. Karapetyan, L. ( 2007) The Role of Derivative Word-Building Patterns in Enriching

157

Linguistics Armenian Folia Anglistika



Learners’ Vocabulary // Armenian Folia Anglistika. / Yerevan, N1(3).
7. Karapetyan, L. (1998) Verjatsantsavor kaghaparneri karutsvatsqa-imastayin

verlutsutian mi qani hartser zhamanakakits anglereni yev hayereni
handipadrutyamb // Otar Lezunery Bardzraguyn Dprotsum. Yerevan: Yerevani
hamals. hrat. 

8. Karashchuk, P.M. (1997) Slovoobrazovaniye angliyskogo yazika. Moskva: Nauka.
9. Kharitonchik, Z.A. (1971) Semantika Proizvodnogo Slova. Avtoreferat

Candidatskoy Dissertatsii. Moskva, M.G.P.I.
10. Kubriakova, Y.S. (1965) Chto takoye slovoobrazovaniye. Moskva: Nauka.
11. (1985) The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.
12. Asmangulyan, H.A. (1984) Angleren-hayeren bararan. Yerevan: Hayastan hrat.
13. (1978) The Short Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles. Oxford:

Clarendon Press. Vol. 2.

ÜÙ³ÝáõÃÛáõÝ ³ñï³Ñ³ÛïáÕ í»ñç³Í³ÝóÝ»ñáí
ϳéáõóí³Íù³ÇÙ³ëï³ÛÇÝ µ³é³Ï³½Ù³Ï³Ý ϳճå³ñÝ»ñÁ

ųٳݳϳÏÇó ³Ý·É»ñ»ÝáõÙ ¨ ѳۻñ»ÝáõÙ

êáõÛÝ Ñá¹í³ÍáõÙ ùÝÝáõÃÛ³Ý »Ý ³éÝíáõÙ ÝÙ³ÝáõÃÛáõÝ ³ñï³Ñ³ÛïáÕ í»ñ-
ç³Í³ÝóÝ»ñáí ϳéáõóí³Íù³ÇÙ³ëï³ÛÇÝ µ³é³Ï³½Ù³Ï³Ý ϳճå³ñÝ»ñÁ
ųٳݳϳÏÇó ³Ý·É»ñ»ÝáõÙ ¨ ѳۻñ»ÝáõÙ: àõëáõÙݳëÇñíáõÙ »Ý Ýßí³Í ϳ-
Õ³å³ñÝ»ñÇ µ³Õ³¹ñÇãÝ»ñÇ (ÑÇÙù»ñÇ ¨ ³Í³ÝóÝ»ñÇ) ÷áËѳñ³µ»ñáõÃÛáõÝ-
Ý»ñÇ ³é³ÝÓݳѳïÏáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÁ ÇÝãå»ë ϳéáõóí³Íù³ÛÇÝ, ³ÛÝå»ë ¿É ÇÙ³ë-
ï³ÛÇÝ ï»ë³ÝÏÛáõÝÇó` í»ñ ѳݻÉáí Ýßí³Í »ñÏáõ É»½áõÝ»ñÇ µ³é³Ï³½ÙáõÃ-
Û³Ý áñáß ÝÙ³ÝáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñ áõ ï³ñµ»ñáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñ:

158

Armenian Folia Anglistika Linguistics