None of the eight Old Armenian diphthongs (comp. եա, էա, էի, էո, իա, իե, իէ, իո) is a direct representative of the common Indo-European diphthongal system. Though the comparative Indo-European Studies restores the diphthong Վէմ համահայկական հանդես, ԺԵ (ԻԱ) տարի, թիվ 2 (82), ապրիլ-հունիս, 2023 in the IE base language, the Armenian էի (Ɲi) does not reflect either this or any other IE diphthong. As a matter of fact, it comes to represent the IE pattern of the verb stem *-oi (> է) +*-i (-ի) ending. The other diphthongs also display a varied origin. Two of them - էա (Ɲa) and իե (ie)- are the results of word forming processes observed within the Armenian language, though certain Greek borrowings also contain examples with this phonemic sequence. Etymologically, եա (ea) and իա (ia) diphthongs are not homogenous, either.

The monograph titled "The School of Annals and the Ways of Writing History" by Smbat Hovhannisyan is an attempt to comprehend new methodologies of history in the Armenian environment. The work refers to the exposition of the history and logic of the Annales school, which plays an important role in the Western historiography. The placement of the Chronicle School in the Armenian humanitarian thought is an important event since it is a platform for bringing Armenian history out of the crisis and comprehending it in a new way. The book begins with a definition of the crisis of history, which is the result of eventful history. The historiographic crisis means that historical essays repeat each other and do not meet the existing cognitive requirements.

Herman Melville, one of the most influential writers of the 19th century, wrote “Bartleby, the Scrivener”1 in 1853 for Putnam’s magazine, which is considered one of his most representative works. His iconic short story “Bartleby, the Scrivener” brings to light the notion of alienation of a man in the capitalistic society. It has been a subject of intense critical scrutiny due to its ambiguous nature and enigmatic symbols. Numerous inconclusive debates have sparked about what truly Bartleby stands for. Critics have been profusely fascinated by “Bartleby”, endeavoring to unravel its mysteries. Given its cryptic and complex nature, it has entailed various challenges for critics to interpret. Over the years, they have sought to show different perspectives of the short story.

From the numerous documents assembled in the archival fund “Divan of Catholicos” of the Matenadaran named after Mesrop Mashtots, a deed of purchase of the Armenian catholicos Hakob Jughaetsi (1655-1680), approved in 1667, was presented.

War discourse is a specific type of communication maintained and structured through language, serving as a medium of mass interaction. The discourse is purposefully created to construct internal support against an external enemy and encourage direct action against a certain state, country, nation, or ethnic group. Social actors worldwide employ the language of war to shape ideologies that legitimize violence and justify certain political, economic, territorial, or social interests. Any call for war masterfully uses the power of words to achieve the consent of society and the citizens to get involved in war.

These and still many more were the accolades inundating social media, mourning the loss of the man who had just relinquished life, leaving behind a monumental legacy in the field of Armenian Studies. And none of these words were exaggerations but in fact a roadmap or even a challenge for me to try to accomplish the impossible task to construe and present, within the limits of this journal article, the life and work of someone who had been my mentor, my role model, my inspiration, my colleague, my friend. I will do my best, holding in my heart the pride of having been a part of a minuscule portion of his activities, and cherishing the honor of having been trusted to write this article for Vem, a reputable academic journal in Armenia.

The Armenian language has been greatly influenced by Russian especially after the unification of Eastern Armenia with Russia in 1828. The connection between a nation and its history is unarguable and the history of any nation leaves its mark on the language. In this sense political, economic, cultural relations with neighboring nations are important, as a result of which languages borrow many words from each other. Among the borrowed words there are a certain number of exoticisms that indicate objects, phenomena and customs specific to a particular nation or country. Usually, they are used when it comes to culture-specific concepts characteristic of a given nation. The article considers some exoticisms transferred from and through Russian into Armenian, which are classified into the following semantic groups: accommodation-residence-area, art-literature, mode of address-address, political directions, clothes, common words.

Key words – mission, opportunity, Russian question, Turkish question, creativity, the meaning of the ark, new Ukraine, ferment.

The potential and ability to clearly convey to the reader the internal logic of speech, psychological or mental features, content-conceptual information in a fiction text is due to a number of circumstances and forms that are determined not only by the content and semantic system of the text. The semantic system of a fiction text is a comprehensive self-developing complex system, the structure of which involves the interconnection of certain text elements, through which unique semantic connections are formed. Among these elements, the most important function is performed by the title of the text and the epigraph to it, which, in addition to being key textual elements, are also independent semantic-informational units, typological elements of intertextuality.

In the underground crypt of the Church of St. Stepanos in the village of Nakhichevan, Kars historical region, there are two box-shaped tombstones. On the southern slope of one of them, a 6-line inscription is carved, in which the name Artavazd Kamsarakan is read, and that he was an apahupat patrick and prince of Armenia. The grave inscription also mentions Hrahat, the father of Artavazd, who was the ruler of the Shirak and Arsharunik regions, and his wife Shushan Mamikonyan. The inscription has no date, which makes it difficult to determine the time of the activity of the prince of Armenia Artavazd Kamsarakan. Armenian historiographers do not remember his name. The name of Artavazd Kamsarakan is also missing from the list of the princes of Armenia in the 8th century, where the years 726-732 remain open.