Reduplication in old Armenian and its functional implementations (experience of comparative diachronic analysis)

: The reduplication in the Indo-European languages has been studied quite thoroughly both in connection with the issues of the origin and development of the language, and with the issues of assessing their functional content. Regarding the latter, scientists are more inclined to believe that this is due to the reproduction of child’s or imperfect speech. The article examines the reduplicates in the Armenian language, which is central to the territory of settlement of the Indo-Europeans. Using the example of the translation of the Bible, the authors show that only in Armenian the reduplicates had a stylistic significance, fixed a high style. This conclusion is drawn on the basis of the fact that the synonyms of reduplicates in Armenian in the era of the Bible translation (V century AD) were used in folklore and historical works, that is, the translator used the reduplicates consciously, emphasizing the high importance of the Holy Scriptures. This is also indicated by comparisons of Armenian examples with reduplicates with corresponding examples from the original source and translations of the Bible into Latin, English, Old Bulgarian and German. This testifies to the fact that by the V century AD the Armenian language was not only finally formed, but also contained style awareness.


Introduction
The formal and substantive aspects of reduplication have been studied quite thoroughly on the example of more than one language (Volkova, 2014;Kryuchkova, 2000;Aronoff et al., 2005;etc.),including Armenian (Jaukyan, 1989).Reduplication in a child's speech has been investigated, which is clearly related to the problem of studying speech generation in general and the development of language thinking (Steinberg, 1969).Many words in different languages, including Armenian, lose their parallelism in education over time (reduplicates are formed by doubling the roots or their variations), are transformed into solid roots, which also requires special study.Reduplication is also considered from the stylistic perspective, since, as a rule, reduplicates fix objects of low style, that is why they are determined as its explicit indicators (Sanyarova, 2019).As the text of the Holy Scripture in the Armenian translation initially shows, reduplicates can also be indicators of high style, and this phenomenon is considered in our work for the first time not only in Armenian studies, but also in world linguistics.According to historical information, the translation of the Bible into Armenian (The Bible, 1997) was carried out at the beginning of the fifth century by the creator of the Armenian alphabet Mesrop Mashtots (and his student), who, apart from Armenian and Greek, also spoke Assyrian, Persian, Georgian, Aghvan, i.e. all the languages of Transcaucasia.The translation fully retains both its functional (spiritual) and cultural significance up to the present day (By Maturinus Veyssié re La Croze, the translation of the Bible into Armenian is the queen of translations).The Bible was translated into Old Bulgarian (Old Church Slavonic) by Cyril and Methodius in the ninth century.The Bible was translated into Latin in the 5th century, too, English into the 14th century, and German into the 16th century (The Bible: Old & New Testament, 1997;Biblia Sacra, 1994;Holy Bible, 2012;The Bible, 1997).Regardless of the chronology of translation, the original language of the Bible has been preserved in multilingual translation books, so it is of particular interest to study the comparative linguistic reality in the above languages.

2․ Methods
Since the studied ancient Armenian material is translated, the ancient Greek text of the Holy Scripture and its translations into Latin, English, Old Church Slavonic (Old Bulgarian) and German is used (Biblia Sacra, 1994;Holy Bible, 2012;The Bible, 2002;etc.),which makes it possible to compare the semantics and evaluate the functions of reduplicates in Old Armenian in comparison with the semantics and function of their equivalents in these languages (Allen, 1953;Bazell, 1958).In this regard, the material was studied by a comparative method using elements of component analysis in some cases (Fodor and Katz, 1964).The paper describes the structure of reduplicates only in connection with their historical reconstruction and the need to indicate the Indo-European roots.Firstly, an attempt was made to establish the history of the root by the method of internal reconstruction.Units with genetic affinity are determined, which become the material for comparison (Horne, 1966).When comparing the reduplications of different languages, the comparative-historical method with external reconstruction is used (Hartmann, 1956;Knobloch, 1956), and more attention is paid to semantic and stylistic factors, since word-formation features have already been studied (Jandlova, 2018;Brini, 2000).A comparison of the approaches of the Bible translators shows that they brilliantly combined the originality of the vocabulary with the word-formation capabilities of the native language.
The material is grouped and presented according to the word-formation principle only in order not to violate the established tradition.
The work is written using a comparative technique not only in terms of lexical comparison, but also in terms of stylistic and semantic, since only in this way it is possible to show the originality, individual approach of the Armenian translator and characterize the stylistic value of reduplication.
The presence of reduplication in itself does not mean that it is stylistically marked.Modern theoretical stylistics does not yet indicate the real circumstances that make it possible to assess the stylistic value of a word in general or in a sentence.For now, we consider that վեհություն "majesty" in the Armenian language is a word of high style, and its synonym in a certain sense մեծ "big" belongs to the middle style.However, the opposite point can be argued as well.In both cases there are no practices to prove it.When analyzing the vocabulary of works (or translations) written in ancient times, this question gets more complicated due to the fact that we do not possess the "internal understanding" of the role of this word in the psychological infrastructure of the language, since it is possible to return to the era when this work was created and perceive its linguistic perception only in comparison with the works of that time.As long as the mechanisms to determine the stylistic significance in modern linguistics are missing, it seems impossible to search for the stylistic essence of a linguistic unit used a millennium and a half ago.Thus, we can suggest that the stylistic value of a word should be determined by context.This rule may be formulated in the following way: A synonym used in a high style text under logical stress is a unit of high style: a synonym used in a stylistically neutral text is a unit of neutral style, and so on.A word acquires this or that meaning, including a stylistic one, when compared to a synonym in an absolutely similar position.A variant of the textual characterization of the word was proposed by S. Bally, noting, for example, that ché rir is used only in relation to women, contains a connotation of tender attitude, i.e. it is "to love tenderly", "to love a tender being" (Bally, 1909, p. 187).
This can be analyzed in synchrony.In diachrony, it should be noted that style is also reflected in semantics.When the author uses դասերով instead of դասադաս, he seems to apply different semantics: դասերով means "in rows", while դասադաս stands for "in orderly rows", although in the lexical semantics of this word the component "slender" is missing, if the expression կանոնավոր դասադաս is considered.Based on this, our rule of diachronic analysis of stylistic markings is as follows: a word is stylistically marked if it contains a connotation of additional semantics associated with the context of use.In this regard, when translating stylistically marked reduplications into English, the lexical shade due to the style is given after the+sign.

Reduplicates in old Armenian, their stylistic significance in comparison with Armenian synonyms and Indo-European equivalents
Since the ancient period, a significant number of words in the Armenian language are formed with the help of reduplication.These words (nearly 500) (Ačaryan, 1957) have broad usage in the translated books of the Bible and in the manuscript works of the 5th century 1 .
As it is seen, all the above-mentioned reduplications have a coloring of quality enhancement.This is due to their common initial meaning which is feature, i.e. they are primordially adjectives that can be substantivized in the context and function as a noun.
In the languages under consideration, the meaning of doubling a feature (including the one presented as an object) is expressed in the superlative of the agreed adjective; maximum, greatest.Comp.Et concurrerunt ad eam omnes a minimo usque ad maximum quoniam speraverunt eam iam non esse venturam (Judith,13;15).And all ran to meet her from the least to the greatest: for they now had no hopes that she would come (Judith,13;15) 3 .
By implementing the method of component analysis on this material, it can be concluded that reduplication in Armenian has a similar role in comparison with the degrees of adjectives and adverbs (superlative degree).Such reduplication is observed in all Indo-European languages.However, the lack of consistency in their formation indicates that the substantivation of adjectival reduplications makes it possible to perceive their semantics in a graduated form: մեծամեծ in the example of Gen., 1,16, where this word has the meaning of "super-large".Perhaps reduplication was the original pattern of the comparative or superlative adjective and adverb formation but has since lost its productivity.It is worth emphasizing that all the highlighted reduplications are under logical stress.It is impossible to determine whether the logical stress occured due to the stylistics and semantics of the words under consideration or the contrary based on the linguistic material examined.
They resemble the form of simple repetitions, which suggests that they are the result of ancient derivations preserved in many Indo-European languages.In English: step by step, in Russian еле-еле, едва-едва etc.The style is determined by both the logical stress and the lexical semantics of the reduplications themselves, denoting the "incredible multitude" in the heroic song.
As W. von Humboldt writes, "It is doubtful that a more subtle improvement of the language could be associated with the initial stage of its formation.This perfection presupposes a state that peoples reach only over the long years of their development, and in this process, they usually experience the cross-influence of other peoples" (Humboldt, 1984, p. 309).In this regard, it is quite natural for Greek, Arabic, and Persian languages to influence the Armenian language, especially Persian, which was probably formed as an independent language during the period when the Armenian language and the Armenian people were being formed.At the same time, the influence of European culture went through the Greek language.The influence of the Arab language was carried out only through individual contacts, but the multiplicity of contacts created a new quality.Reduplicants without a connecting vowel element are synthetic compounds of root components, which can be expressed either as separate word units or as derivative stems of the compound.In the Armenian translation of the Bible, there are the following words of that structure: այլայլել (aylaylel) -'change, alter'+much, արծարծել (artsartsel) -'revive, stir up'+miraculously, խողխողել (khoghkhoghel) -'stab, butcher'+vastly, deeply, խորխորատ (khorkhorat) -'abyss, precipice'+deep, ողողել (voghoghel) -'flood, overflow'+fully, չարչարանք (ch'arch'arank') -'torment, torture'+painful, ջախջախ (jakhjakh) -'smash-up'+fully, փայփայել (p'ayp'ayel) -'to keep, to bring up in love and care'+very, փողփողել (p'oghp'oghel) -'wave, flutter'+strongly and e.g.
If we consider verbs from the point of view of functional grammar, they fix the nature of the localized action in time.Stylistic marking is due to semantics: all actions proceed in a double mode, as if "two in one", which allows us to state that reduplications make it possible to express the "superlative degree of action" even in a verb.There is no unequivocal interpretation for the root components of these words.Thus, they can be divided into two groups; words with the root components realized as independent word units, and words that show semantic "bleaching".a.To the first group belong such reduplicates the root-components of which had independent usage in Old Armenian and are realized by their root meaning.These reduplicants have also become word-building derivative stems for other units, like, այլայլել (aylaylel) -'to change', խորխորատ (khorkhorat) -'abyss, gulf', ողողել (voghoghel) -'to inundate', չարչարանք (ch'arch'arank') -'suffering', վաղվաղ (vaghvagh) -'very soon' + early, ջախջախ (jakhjakh) -'confractum'+fully, and e.g.
In the translated books of the Bible, the reduplicants in proper syntactic structure show intensification of root meaning.
There are some analytical combinations among reduplicative compounds without a connecting vowel element in Bible, like արագ արագ (arag arag) -'quicklyquickly'+ with speed, մանր մանր (manr-manr) -'little-little'+slowly, դաս դաս (das das) -'by class -by class'+ precisely.Here are introduced examples of those words in their original usage.Seemingly, these reduplications were perceived as lexemes of high style again by virtue of their perception on the principle of "two in one".b.Scientists note: "Forms of thinking do not have national and linguistic boundaries, they are the same for all mankind, while each language has its own specifics, its own "internal form" (Orlova and Semenovskaya, 2016).In this view, the variety of translation techniques becomes quite understandable.As shown in various works (see above), reduplicates in the European linguistic consciousness are not perceived as units of high style, and therefore they are not used in translations of the Bible.The form of thinking is manifested in its identity in all languages, and in the linguistic manifestation it differs, and the European languages indicate a greater closeness of linguistic thinking with each other than with ancient Armenian.To the second group belong such reduplicants the root-stems of which do not have independent usage, they have appeared in reduplication as a whole unit (Abrahamyan, 1962).They are either native words or borrowings, that during the time gained semantic "bleaching" and now are interpreted etymologically.Comp.The dead root ջախ (jakh) in the reduplication ջախջախ (jakhjakh) relates to the verb ջախել (jakhel)−'hit, beat', derives from Hittite zah(h) -'beat' and Georg.jah 'beat' or jax 'to hammer' (Ačaryan, 1979;Jahukyan, 2010).The reduplicant with meanings "crumbled, crush, demolished" is used in Old Armenian, comp.Յուսացեալ ես ի ցուպն եղեգնեայ ի ջախջախ՝ յեգիպտացին [Yusats'eal yes i ts'upn yeghegneay i jakhjakh, yegiptats'in; They hoped for a reed stick to crush the Egyptians] (Isaiah, 36; 6).
"A word is not a simple designation of an "image" or "picture" that arises in the speaker's mind or when pronouncing a word, but a designation of a whole complex of sensations and ideas that arise in the mind in connection with a particular concept" (Romanenko, 2010).In this regard, it is pointless to look for absolute equivalents in the languages used, even at the level of use, when the lexical meaning must be unambiguous, since in each language the word, along with semantics, has its own history, which evokes different associations.The word փայփայել (p'ayp'ayel) in the Armenian language consciousness evokes associations with children, who are always recognized not just by offspring, but by the successors of the family and up to the present day nationality.Along with the features of the first group, the reduplicates considered in this part of the work reveal a number of features that are characteristic mainly of Old Armenian, and then of its subsequent variants up to modern Armenian: The reduplicate is formed not only to denote the corresponding concept, but also as a strengthening of the feature inherent in the semantics.In this regard, the Armenian ջախել corresponds to 'smash-up', i.e. the Latin 'confractum', and the Armenian ջախջախել is, as it were, a "superlative" ջախել, which in the modern sense of the verb as an indicator of action and state is not perceived either theoretically or practically.It is difficult to assume that such a phenomenon (the degree of comparison of the verb) could be in ancient Armenian, because, firstly, analogues could necessarily be reflected at least in historically close Greek grammars, and secondly, they could be the subject of an analogous influence of the languages of neighboring peoples, which is difficult to establish today, since neither Arabic, nor Persian, nor ancient Assyrian verbs have degrees of comparison.It is hardly legitimate to state "plurality" here, based on the same considerations as regarding the "degree of comparison of the verb".One could refer to the use of the dialectal form, i.e. the presence in different dialects of parallels such as ջախել and ջախջախել: The translator of the Bible was persecuted by both pagan Rome and Zoroastrian Persia, between which Armenia was divided, and his language could have dialectal variants of the same lexemes.M. Mashtots worked both on the territory of Western Armenia (Karin, Van, Mush, Tigranakert -now Turkey), modern Armenia (Vagharshapat, Dvin), Arakelots (Nagorno-Karabakh), and on the territory of modern Azerbaijan (Gandzak, now -Gyanja).However, none of the 44 Armenian dialects contains close relics.The only possible explanation is a stylistic explication: the sublime style of the Holy Scriptures required an increase in expressiveness, which was reflected in the reduplication, perhaps the neologism of the translator himself.
Change in the first component of the compound is spread enough in Old-Armenian.The compounds in the first component of which have occurred sound changes have some peculiarities.In the translated books of the Bible, while investigating those types of words, it is necessary to show a distinguishing approach.
In English, the meaning of "double amplification" of semantics is expressed by the Past Simple form were afraid: And he and his people pitched their camp over against them, and he saw that the people were afraid to go over the river (Maccab. A.,16;6).In Latin it is expressed only through the verb trepidantere: Et vidit populum trepidantem ad transfretandum torrentem (Maccab.A, 16; 6).
An analysis of the semantics of the word դանդաղ shows that translators into English and Latin, on the one hand, and into Armenian, on the other, were guided by different principles.The Armenian դանդաղ has several meanings, in which we are interested: 1. adj.Slow. 2. adv.Slowly.Used as a verb, դանդաղել means "to procrastinate", which indicates the hyperonym "long", associated more with a temporary sign.The English afraid corresponds to the Latin: trepidātio "1) trembling (nervorum); 2) confusion, fear, panic (t.fugaque hostium)" [ABBYY].Afraid in English means "frightened, frightened; afraid."The component analysis of these words shows that the Armenian equivalent does not contain the seme "fear".Hence it is difficult to assume that the Armenian verb could also be used in the meaning of "to be afraid".In this case, there is no reason to draw an unreasonable conclusion that people hesitated to cross the river because they were afraid.In this regard, it is necessary to address the dialectal foundations of the ancient Armenian literary language, which served as the literary language of all Armenians until the beginning of the XIX century and serves as the language of the Armenian Church and spiritual Armenian literature to the present day.To assume that it was any one dialect, most likely the dialect of the creator of the Armenian script, would be hasty and unreasonable.Indeed, Grabar (the ancient Armenian literary language) is based on Western Armenian dialects, but dialects, not one dialect.It is a fact that in the V century Eastern Armenia retained its relative independence, had a political center Vagharshapat, and King Vramshapukh himself sent M. Mashtots for the "writings of Daniel", but the basis of the grabar were Western Armenian dialects.This example might allow us to conclude that in Western Armenia there were larger cities with a mixture of dialects, as a rule, leading to similar confusion of languages (Hellenic koin'ē).In addition, the most famous Armenian scientific and educational schools were located in the territory occupied by Byzantium.They corresponded to the level of time.Both culturally and scientifically, the Western Armenian cities were much higher than the Eastern Armenian ones.And this is the case when the basis of the literary language was not the koin'ē of the political center, but the koin'ē of cultural centers, where, perhaps, դանդաղել could correspond to the verb with the meaning of "fear".If we compare it with the use of an analogue of this lexeme in the original, then this assumption is fully justified: Καὶ παρενέβαλε κατὰ προσωπον αὐτῶν αὐτὸς καὶ ὁ λαὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ εἶδεν τὸν λαὸν δειλούμενον διαπερᾶσαι τὸν χειμάρρουν; Kai parené vale kata pro sopon aftón aftós kaí o laós aftoú kaí eí den tón laón deiloú menon dia perá sai tón cheimá rroun; And he and his people intervened on their behalf and saw the people trembling and crossing the river (Maccab.A, 16; 6).Comp.also in Old Bulgarian: И҆ ви ́дѣ лю ́ди боѧщыѧсѧ прейтѝ пото ́къ и҆ пре йде пе рвый, и҆ ви ́дѣша є҆ го ̀ мѹжїе и҆ преидо ́ша в̾ слѣдъ є҆ гѡ̀ [I vide lyudi boyashchyasya prejti potok I prejde pervyj i videsha ego muzhie I preidosha vsled ego; And he saw men who were afraid to cross the stream, and he crossed first, and the men saw him, and crossed after him (Maccab. A,16;6)].
This example highlights that the Armenian translator considered the peculiarity of the aspect of the action, which in this case lasts longer than the usual one.
Change in the second component.The words of this subgroup can also be classified by the factor of their first components realized as word-building derivative stems.
According to our rule, only the last two signs contain stylistic markings.They are adverbs and denote a high level of quality, which is also fixed by the logical stress.This indicates that these lexemes denote the key position of the utterance, which in turn, adds a stylistic coloring.The stem սառն (sarrn) -'ice, cold' in the reduplication սարսուռ derives from Indo-European *kár-n-` *kér -'get cold'.As a result of semantic broadening the reduplicant, which previously meant 'rembling from cold or fear' has the meaning 'trembling, horror, fear' and is testified in the Bible.Comp.Հարցէ զքեզ Տէր տարակուսանօք, եւ ջերմամբ, եւ սարսռով, եւ երկիւղիւ [Harts'e zk'ez Ter tarakusanok', yev jermamb, yev sarsrrov, yev yerkiwghiw; I beseech thee, O Lord, in perplexity, with trembling, and fear, and apprehension] (Deuter., 28; 22).
As the component analysis of the equivalents սարսուռ shows, their semantics (hyperonym) is based on "cold".In all translations, except Old Armenian, the usual equivalent is given.In ancient Armenian, there was also a name for cold -ցուրտ, ցրտություն, but M. Mashtots chose a reduplicate, which indicates not only that the translator specifically and consciously aspired to a high style, but also the existence of a wide lexical synonymy, which in turn highlights the lexical richness of the ancient Armenian language.After all, almost all the reduplicates discussed in the article had similar synonyms.The presence of broad synonymy is the basis of the stylistic division of speech.Although the basis of the reduplicate սարսուռ, as well as the basis of its equivalents, is the hyperonym "cold", these words can denote fear.According to the component analysis, it can be established that "cold" and "fear" do not have the same seme, but psychologically cold comes with a feeling of fear, so all translators followed the original, in which "cold" turned out to be a stylistically high version of the word "fear".Сomp. in Old Bulgarian translation: Да порази ́тъ тѧ̀ Господь неимѣнїемъ и҆ ѻ҆ гне ́вицею, и҆ стоужею и҆ жже ́нїемъ [Da porazit tya Gospod' neimeniem, i ogneviceju, i stouzheju, i zhzheniem; May the Lord smite you with perplexity, fever, and trembling, and burning] (Deuter., 28; 22).And so, in the original: πατάξαι σε κύριος ἀπορίᾳ καὶ πυρετῷ καὶ ῥίγει καὶ ἐρεθισμῷ καὶ φόνῳ καὶ ἀνεμοφθορίᾳ καὶ τῇ ὤχρᾳ καὶ καταδιώξονταί σε ἕως ἂν ἀπολέσωσίν σε.Patá xai se kýrios aporí a kaí pyretó kaí rí gei kaí erethismó kaí fóno kaí anemofthorí a kaí tí ó chra kaí kata dióxon taí se é os á n apolé sosí n se; Smite a master with a question and a fever and shouts and incitement and murder and anemofloria and the ochra and they will persecute you until they destroy you (Deuter.,28;22).
Proceeding from the need to emphasize the figurative meaning or to point out the direct connection of this word with the word "fear", M. Mashtots uses երկիւղ ("fear") at the end of the sentence.
Here are observed the semantic-structural peculiarities of these words.The form բողբոջ (boghboj) 5 has the meaning of 'plant, sprout' and derives from the Indo-European morpheme bhol with the same meaning.As a result of the sound alternation of the second component the reduplicant բողբոջ is formed.This form has semantic different developments 'sprout, shoot; generation, kin; bubble'.It is used in Bible with the meanings 'sprout, shoots'.Comp.Թզենի արձակեաց զբողբոջ իւր [T'zeni ardzakeats' zboghboj iwr; The fig tree has blossomed its flowers] (Song., 2; 13).
The literal meaning of "double amplification" of semantics in Latin and in German was expressed in simple lexical units, in the semantic structure of which severity was not manifested; grossos, (das) Knoten.Comp.Ficus protulit grossos suos (Song., 2; 13) 6 .Der Feigenbaum hat Knoten gewonnen (Song.,2;13).The meaning of the word in English is expressed analytically.Comp.The fig tree putteth forth her green figs… (Song. 2;13).Although the time between the Armenian and English translations is nine hundred years.Note that in none of our comparisons was the Armenian version descriptive.It is impossible to explain this fact in purely linguistic parameters, especially with reference to linguistic thinking.It is due to sociolinguistic factors.Armenia of the fifth century was close to both Greece and Israel.There was an interethnic community, even at the level of the "intelligent" part of society, which was due to both constant political and economic relations, and the cultural influence of Greece on neighboring countries.In Armenian life, there were the same objects and concepts that existed in Greece.In both languages, there could be not only a functional, but also a sound connection between the word and the object denoted by it."In general, the association of thought with sound form allows language to function as a complex means of communication, simultaneously organizing our thought" (Chafe, 2015, p. 61).There was no similar connection between Greece and England, that is why some objects, concepts, phenomena could receive a descriptive interpretation in English.
The lexeme աղջամուղջ (aghjamughj) -'twilight, dusk' is also used in the modern Armenian literary language, and as a sign of high style, especially in the poetry of the classic of Armenian literature V. Teryan.Unfortunately, due to the lack of its own statehood from the tenth century to 1921 and being under the yoke of two states (Byzantium until the XIV century and Iran until the XIX century, then Turkey and Russia), Grabar functioned as the Armenian literary language, the new Armenian literary language began to form from the beginning of the XIX century, but the transformations concerned not so much vocabulary as grammar, therefore, it can be assumed that lexemes in connection with the formation of a new literary language have retained their stylistic features.

Findings and conclusion
Thus, as the material shows, already in ancient times, at the beginning of the V century AD, at the very beginning of the appearance of the Armenian script (405 year), the Armenian people already had their own linguistic thinking, a formed language, which testifies to the formation of the Armenian people as a single spiritual and linguistic community from the Caspian Sea to the Aegean, and the stylistic use of reduplicates in the translated text of the Holy Scriptures confirms the presence of rich spiritual literature in the form of folklore, in which, perhaps even unconsciously, the concept of style already existed, especially in the works of Gokhtan singers and storytellers.
The peculiarity of the lexemes under consideration is that they are not onomatopoeias, imitation of sounds, etc., which exist in many languages and have been sufficiently studied.The considered reduplications are formed on the basis of already existing lexical units, or specially selected lexemes to express the stylistic sublimity of the text.Reduplication in such a function (sublime style) is not consistently found in any other old text written in Indo-European languages a peculiarity to which we intend to draw the attention of the linguistic community.The comparison of the Bible translations into other languages shows that adding a stylistic pathos to the text was a personal initiative by the Armenian translator, who was merely guided by own artistic taste.
Giving the text of the Holy Script a high style is also because of the perception that the Armenian public considers.The history of this work in Armenian finds it as an opportunity to communicate with God (also used in works of a later period).The transmission of the main ideas of the Bible by Grigor of Narek (10th century) as a dialogue with God is a clear confirmation of the above-mentioned.Within the framework of this article, it is not possible to make a psychological analysis of the perception of the Bible by the Latins, Germans, Englishmen, Greeks, and Bulgarians.The fact that the perception of the Holy Script differs in various countries (possibly in different periods) is determined by the stylistic marking of key concepts, though marking is possible if stylistically differentiated synonyms are apparent.
The translation of the Holy Scriptures, it would seem, can be considered the beginning of Armenian religious and philosophical literature, however, as the history of the Armenian people testifies, long before the appearance of Armenian writing in the territory of historical Armenia, especially in Western Armenia, there were universities and intellectual schools of the Greek type, prominent representatives of which not only studied in Greece and Rome, but also became outstanding spiritual and political figures there8.Stylistic processing of the text was known to Armenian authors, who in this case used reduplication.
Reduplication is not only a complex phenomenon, but also quite informative, the secrets of which can help not only to delve into the history of the language and its speaker, but also to determine its role as a stylistic factor, which is the most indicative in the movement of modern languages to enhance expressiveness.
We present the original sources of linguistic materials and their equivalents in the following order: 1.Old Armenian, 2. Latin, 3. German and English.

3.
Hereinafter, the translations with the missing examined parts of the Bible text are not mentioned.

4.
Gokht-The old Armenian region-The territory of the modern Nakhichevan region of the Republic of Azerbaijan, transferred to the neighboring country by the decision of the communist authorities of the USSR in 1921.

5.
The book "Liber Canticum Canticorum" is given "Song of Solomon" in German, "Song of Songs" in English.

6.
The book "Liber Iob" is given in German as "Hob", in English as "Job".

7.
As in this and in previous cases, it should be noted quite successful translations into English literary, the basic structure of which was formed by the XIV century.On the example of the development of the English language, as well as a little earlier German, it can be stated that the conclusions of W. von Humboldt about the development of "backward" languages are incorrect: "If the language has acquired its structure, then the basic grammatical forms do not undergo any changes; a language that does not know differences in gender, case, passive or neuter voice will no longer fill these gaps" (Humboldt 1984: 307).

8.
One of them is Proeresius the Armenian, or Paruyr Haykazn (276-368).He was born in Eastern Armenia.He received an excellent education at that time in his homeland.In order to improve his knowledge, he went to Greece, where he founded his own school, became the author of a number of famous works on philosophy and rhetoric, the head of the philosophical and rhetorical direction of Neoplatonism in Athens.He was educated by several prominent representatives of Christianity -the Church Fathers Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, etc.However, contrary to Haykazn, who was a strong follower of the teachings of the Savior, Julian became an Apostate, which is why his teacher was forced to close the school and go to Rome at the invitation of the emperor Constans.Here he became so famous for his oratory that he, like emperors, erected a monument with the inscription: "Queen of the powers Rome the king of eloquence."(«Rerum regina Romaregi eloquentiae»).(Wikipedia. Retrieved: 20.03.2023).