3.1. Cardinal numerals of the two standards

Numerals can be categorized as either cardinals (card) or ordinals (ord). There is variation in the morphological structure of the cardinal (Table 3). Numbers 1–6 are monomorphemic from a simple root (√), while 7–10 can variably take the definite suffix -ə (def). The decade 20 is a single root, while the decades 30 and higher are made up of a bound root plus the decade suffix -sun (dec). The higher numbers ‘100, 1000’ are also single roots.

Table 3

Simple cardinal numbers in Standard Armenian.

As for combining numbers to form complex numerals (Table 4), the teens are formed by combining the number ‘10’ + the definite suffix -n + a connective schwa (con) + the ones unit.Footnote ⁴ The higher numbers (25, 35, …) are formed by simple concatenation of the larger numeral and then the smaller numeral.

Table 4

Complex cardinal numbers in Standard Armenian.

This completes cardinal numerals. We next discuss ordinals.

3.2. Ordinal numerals in the two standards

For most cardinal numbers, their ordinal form is transparently created by adding the ordinal suffix -eɾoɾtʰ after the cardinal. There is limited allomorphy, which we discuss in Section 3.3.

For simple numbers 5–10, decades, and their complex numeral combinations, the ordinal is formed by adding the suffix - eɾoɾtʰ in both dialects (Table 5). Numbers 7–10 and the teens can variably include the definite suffix -n- before the ordinal suffix.

Table 5

Regular ordinals for most numerals in Standard Armenian.

We see suppletion and allomorphy, however, for the smaller numbers (Table 6). Number ‘1’ has a fused suppletive form: ‘one’ mek/ meɡ vs. ‘first’ ɑrɑt͡ʃʰin/ɑɾɑt͡ʃʰin.Footnote ⁵ In contrast, numbers 2–4 use different allomorphs for both the root and ordinal suffix: ‘four’ t͡ʃʰoɾs vs. ‘fourth’ t͡ʃʰoɾ-ɾoɾtʰ.

Table 6

Irregular ordinals for numbers ‘1–4’ in Standard Armenian.

For the number ‘1’ and its ordinal form, Standard Eastern and Western Armenian follow the common typological pattern of using a separate lexeme for the ordinal, such as in English (Veselinova Reference Veselinova and Bruening1997). The form ɑrɑt͡ʃʰin can be considered a portmanteau form.

For numbers 2–4, the ordinal is an irregular reduced form of the regular forms. There is a separate allomorph for the root and the suffix. Such reductions are allomorphic because they are unique to these numerals.Footnote ⁶ There is no general phonological rule that deletes obstruents like /s, k^h, k, ɡ/ before a vowel or rhotic. Such alternations are restricted to these three roots.Footnote ⁷

3.3 Propagation or inheritance of irregular ordinals

The previous section established the basic patterns of regular ordinals and irregular ordinals. This section shows how the standard dialects vary in the inheritance of these irregular forms in complex numerals. Briefly, Standard Eastern and Early Standard Western are uniformly external marking languages, while Modern Standard Western is a mixed system.

For the numeral ‘one’ mek, its ordinal is a suppletive portmanteau ɑrɑt͡ʃʰ in, like English ‘first’. This suppletive form, however, is not inherited by complex numerals (Table 7). Like French, complex numerals instead attach the regular ordinal suffix to create a sequence of morphemes, which is not attested as a separate word: - mek -e ɾoɾtʰ. Such external marking is found in both dialects. We underline the irregular forms.

Table 7

Blocked suppletion for derivatives of ‘one’ in Standard Armenian.

For the numeral ‘one’, the two dialects show external marking. However, the dialects diverge for numbers ‘2–4’. First, consider Standard Eastern Armenian (Table 8). The ordinal forms of ‘2–4’ involve special allomorphs for both the root and suffix. Such irregular allomorphs are not propagated to complex numbers. We underline the irregular forms.Footnote ⁸

Table 8

Blocked suppletion for derivatives of ‘2–4’ in Standard Eastern Armenian.

For Eastern Armenian, the irregular portmanteau of ‘1’ and the irregulars allomorphs of ‘2–4’ are not propagated to higher numbers. Thus, Eastern Armenian is uniformly external marking, like French.Footnote ⁹

For Standard Western Armenian, we see variation ( Table 9). In early variants of Standard Western Armenian, we again find that the numbers ‘2–4’ do not propagate their irregular allomorphs: ‘23rd’ kʰəsɑn -je ɾek ʰ- eɾoɾtʰ. Such forms are attested in older grammars and in some modern teaching grammars, which we later list. In contrast, contemporary or Modern Standard Western does propagate these irregular forms: ‘23rd’ kʰəsɑn- je ɾ- ɾoɾtʰ . Such forms are attested marginally in some older grammars but often in more modern grammars.

Table 9

Variable propagation of irregular forms for derivatives of ‘2–4’ in Standard Western Armenian.

Within Stump’s typology, Early Standard Western is classified as always an external marking language, like Standard Eastern. In contrast, Modern Standard Western does not easily fit into either of these categories. The ordinals of ‘1’ and its higher numbers are uniformly external marking (like French), while the ordinals of ‘2–4’ and their higher numbers are internal marking (like English). We label this system as a mixed system.

Because such variation data is subtle, the list in (1) shows the few references that we found that explicitly provided data on the complex ordinals for Standard Eastern and Western.Footnote ¹⁰ A few sources explicitly contrast the uniformly external marking system of Eastern against the mixed system of Modern Western (Սարգսյան Reference Սարգսյան1985: 209; Hagopian Reference Hagopian2005: 308).

For Western Armenian, some sources prescribe uniform external marking for the derivatives of ‘1–4’, but they also report that internal marking for the derivatives of ‘2–4’ is attested (Bardakjian & Thomson Reference Bardakjian and Thomson1977: 85; Bardakjian & Vaux Reference Bardakjian and Vaux2001: 108) although discouraged (Չոլաքեան Reference Չոլաքեան2018: 45; Եղիայեան Reference Եղիայեան2022: 159). In contrast, some sources report that mixed marking is the norm for Western and that some speakers are using uniform external marking due to contact with Eastern Armenian (Եղիայեան Reference Չոլաքեան2017: 173). Some sources report that both uniform and mixed marking are attested, without giving a prescriptive or descriptive preference (Ավետիսյան Reference Ավետիսյան2007: 96).

The modern internal-marking forms are quite pervasive across Western Armenian communities. I am a speaker of Standard Western from the Lebanese community. I confirmed my judgments against other people from Lebanon, Turkey, and the US (all under 40 years old). In my own anecdotal experiences, I had never heard of external-marking forms like kʰəsɑn-jeɾek ʰ- eɾoɾtʰ outside of a) Standard Eastern, b) Early Standard Western grammars, and c) some modern pedagogical grammars.

Given this empirical landscape, the next section formalizes the various ordinal forms.

4.1. Stump’s formalization of internal vs. external marking

Stump (Reference Stump2010) is a benchmark for exploring the morphological structure of ordinal allomorphy. Before we formalize the Armenian data, we show how the basic parameter of internal vs. external marking is modeled in Stump’s framework: PFM (Stump Reference Stump2001).

Recall that English and French are our canonical examples for internal vs. external marking. In a model like PFM, morphological operations are informally conceived as item-and-process operations (Hockett Reference Hockett1942). By default, a process of ordinal formation adds a suffix to the input (2a) (cf. Stump Reference Stump2010: 214). For suppletive forms like ‘one’, a special ordinal operation is defined for this numeral (2b). The two rules are in competition with each other, and the latter wins for ‘one’ by being more narrowly defined.

For higher numbers like ‘21’, the languages vary. French is external marking: French merely adds the ordinal suffix -ième (2a-ii). The suppletion rule (2b-ii) is defined only for ‘1’ un and not ‘21’ vingt-et-un. But English is internal-marking. A rule of decomposition (2c) defines the ordinal form of a large number ‘21’ in terms of a concatenation of ‘20’ and the ordinal of ‘1’. Such a rule exists for English but not French; and this rule applies for all ordinals in English.

Stump’s PFM account is elegant and captures the data. For this paper, however, we translate Stump’s system into an entirely separate formalization of morphology: DM (Halle & Marantz Reference Halle, Marantz, Hale and Keyser1993). The reasons are the following.

The first reason is scientific replicability. It is a strength for Stump’s generalizations and analyses that his system can be translated to a separate framework. By converting his analysis to DM, we reinforce the cross-linguistic and cross-theoretic utility of his typology. They are not tied down to any one specific formalism but can be generalized across frameworks.

The second reason is operational ease. PFM is an inferential-realizational framework (essentially item-and-process) whereby morphology is defined in terms of operations/processes and not morphemes/morphs. The formalism allows restricted uses of word-internal hierarchical structure (mostly for compounds and syntax-like complex numerals). DM in contrast is lexical-realizational (essentially item-and-arrangement), where morphology works over morphemes/morphs, and there is hierarchical structure for everything. We use DM to highlight the role of hierarchical constituency in ordinal allomorphy and to more visibly distinguish suppletive portmanteaus (a single morph) from agglutinative allomorphy (two morphs).

The third reason is theoretical refinements. Stump’s original PFM account made certain assumptions on the syntactic structure of complex ordinals like ‘21st’, which would differ in external vs. internal marking systems (footnote 12) and in languages with extended marking (Section 5.2). In contrast, DM assumes that the input to the morphology is directly motivated by the semantics or abstract syntax. This means that at an abstract level, we would expect that the syntactic structure of ‘21’ should be essentially the same in different languages, or at least for different dialects of the same language. The morphology can then apply operations that would change this structure and thus create mismatches between the (universal) semantics and the (language-specific) morphology. By using a DM-based syntactic structure, we discover points of ambiguity and possible controversy in Stump’s typology. These points do not negate Stump’s work, but they set up paths for future refinements of the typology and discovering possible connections between the typology of ordinal morphology and the typology of ordinal syntax/semantics.

The fourth reason is theory-internal benefits. The Armenian data provide theory-internal evidence on how different allomorphy domains can be defined in DM. In fact, Stump’s dichotomy between internal vs. external marking ends up analogous to linearity vs. constituency (spans) in the DM toolkit.

Fifth, the diachronic change from Early to Modern Western Armenian is formalized as rule simplification for DM but as a rule addition for PFM (Section 4.2). This paper cannot answer the typological question of whether the change from external-to-internal marking is cross-linguistically common. But such a change is subjectively more obvious to analyze and interpret in DM than in PFM.

Finally, computationally speaking, PFM and DM are inter-translatable. Within formal language theory, both models computationally define regular languages and thus have the same weak generative capacity or expressivity (Karttunen Reference Karttunen, Goos, Hartmanis, van Leeuwen and Gelbukh2003; Roark & Sproat Reference Roark and Sproat2007; Ermolaeva & Edmiston Reference Ermolaeva and Edmiston2018). Thus, any linguistic process that can be defined in one model is a priori definable in another. The mathematical equivalency between the two models should encourage the dialogue between the two formal camps (Kramer Reference Kramer, Siddiqi and Harley2016; Siddiqi & Harley Reference Siddiqi and Harley2016).

4.2. Linearity vs. constituency in allomorphy

Having shown how PFM formalizes internal vs. external marking, this section sets up a formal system for DM. Briefly, internal marking references locality domains, while external marking references constituency domains.

For clarity, we describe some basic assumptions in DM that are relevant for ordinal allomorphy. More information can be found in more dedicated surveys (Harley & Noyer Reference Harley and Noyer1999; Embick & Noyer Reference Embick, Noyer, Ramchand and Reiss2007; Bobaljik Reference Bobaljik2017). We focus on a handful of tools from DM.

DM works over lexical items (pieces), often called morphemes or morphs. The input to the morphological derivation is a sequence or structure of feature bundles. These bundles are then realized by specific morphs. For English and French, there is no ordinal process but an abstract ordinal morpheme ord that is realized in a multitude of ways, one of which is a default form (3a). Such realization rules are called Vocabulary Insertion (VI) rules. For number morphs, we assume that the roots are indexed items (Harley Reference Harley2014), such that a root for ‘one’ is underlyingly $ \sqrt{1} $ (3b).Footnote ¹¹

DM assumes that the input to the morphological derivation is a structured sequence of morphemes. This structure by default matches syntactic-semantic scope, but it can be modified during the course of the morphological derivation. We illustrate the structure of cardinal and ordinal for ‘1’ and ‘21’ in Figure 1.Footnote ¹²

Figure 1

Structure of cardinals and ordinals for ‘1’ and ‘21’.

Given such elaborated structures, VI can target an individual item (terminal node) such as the ord morpheme (3a), but it can also be sensitive to a larger cluster of units. This sensitivity allows refined allomorphy domains that distinguish internal vs. external marking. For portmanteaus like ‘first’ and ‘premier’, they simultaneously expone the root $ \sqrt{1} $ and the ord suffix. For English (4a), the portmanteau expones the linear sequence $ \sqrt{1} $ -ord regardless of internal structure. In contrast, the French portmanteau (4b) requires that $ \sqrt{1} $ -ord form a morphosemantic constituent, and VI targets the non-terminal node ‘21’.Footnote ¹³

We illustrate a derivation for the two systems in Figure 2. The dashed lines indicate portmanteau forms. We underline the irregular forms.

Figure 2

Deriving ordinals for ‘1’ and ‘21’ in English (internal) and French (external).

For English, the allomorphy rules derive internal marking because the portmanteau ‘first’ is sensitive only to the linear sequence of ‘1’ and ord (4a). This allows the propagation of the suppletive form. Internal marking is thus reduced to linearity-conditioned allomorphy in DM.

In contrast, the French premier is only allowed when the ‘1’ and ord form a semantic constituent (4b). This means that the allomorphy cannot be propagated to higher numbers. The ordinal of ‘21’ instead resorts to using an otherwise unattested sequence -un-ième made up of the default forms for the root and ordinal suffix (3). External marking is thus reduced to constituency-conditioned allomorphy.

This division between external vs. internal marking can be easily modeled in DM in terms of different allomorphy domains, as shown above. Specifically, it is common for the participating morphemes in a suppletive or allomorphic process to be both linearly local to each other and to form a structural constituent (Bobaljik Reference Bobaljik2012); some argue that the portmanteau form can then target insertion at a non-terminal node (Caha Reference Caha2009; Radkevich Reference Radkevich2010; Embick Reference Embick, Gribanova and Shih2017). This creates external marking as in French. However, there are patterns of allomorphy where the component morphemes are linearly adjacent but do not form a constituent. In this case, some phenomena treat the component morphemes as structurally adjacent, i.e., a span (Svenonius Reference Svenonius2012; Merchant Reference Merchant2015; Middleton Reference Middleton2021). Other phenomena treat the morphemes as structurally non-adjacent with intervening but linearly non-adjacent material, i.e., stretches (Ostrove Reference Ostrove2018), post-linearization fusion (Embick Reference Embick2015: 215; Felice Reference Felice2021; Banerjee Reference Banerjee2021), or post-linearization spanning (Haugen & Siddiqi Reference Haugen, Siddiqi, Siddiqi and Harley2016). Internal marking in English ordinals can be considered either a span or stretch depending on one’s analysis of the internal structure of ordinals, i.e., whether ‘1’ and ord form a contiguous sequence of nodes in an extended projection.

Thus, the ordinal of ‘one’ is suppletive in both English and French. This suppletive form is inherited by higher numbers in English but not French. To block the propagation (external marking), the relevant rules define allomorphy as delimited by constituency (targeting a non-terminal node), while to allow propagation (internal marking), the rules are delimited by just locality (a span or stretch). Within DM, there have been various camps of practitioners who argued for using one of the above two modes for portmanteau formation (linearity and constituency), and often exclusively only one mode. The basic typology of ordinals is, however, evidence that both modes of allomorphy are attested and required.

Before we move on to formalizing the Armenian data, notice the subtle difference between the two DM rules in (4), repeated below. The internal marking rule (English: 5a) targets a string $ \sqrt{1} $ -ord which is representationally simpler than the string [ $ \sqrt{1} $ -ord] of the external marking rule (French: 5b). Thus for the DM analysis, internal marking is representationally simpler than external marking. In contrast, the PFM analysis (2) required adding a rule for internal marking (5c). Thus, PFM treats external marking as derivationally simpler than internal marking.

The above distinction of simplicity is quite formal: an analysis is simpler if it uses fewer symbols or rules. Given this formal distinction, one question is whether such a formal distinction has any empirical significance. For the Armenian case, it seems that the language has a tendency to gain internal marking for numerals ‘2–4’; this suggests that internal marking is simpler (= more default) than external marking.

Having set up how the basic typology of ordinal marking can be modeled in DM, the next section applies the formalization to Armenian.

4.3. Formalizing the mixed system of Armenian

Recall from Section 3.3 that Eastern Armenian and Early Western Armenian are uniformly external-marking systems (like French). Modern Western is instead a mixed system. This section formalizes the two systems, and shows how the systems differ in subtle rule reformulations. For brevity, we do not formalize Eastern Armenian but just the two Western registers.Footnote ¹⁴

Consider the forms of ‘one’ in Western Armenian. Both Early and Modern Western Armenian use the same rules for this number (6). The ordinal suffix is by default - eɾoɾtʰ and the root 1 is by default meɡ. Because the system is external marking like French, then the ordinal ‘1st’ is a portmanteau ɑɾɑt͡ʃʰin that is defined in terms of constituency.

Figure 3 illustrates how these rules derive external marking for ‘1’ and ‘21’ in essentially the same way as French (Figure 2). Portmanteaus are underlined.

Figure 3

Deriving external marking for ‘1’ and ‘21’ in Western Armenian.

In contrast, for the numerals ‘2–4’, we see agglutinative allomorphy instead of portmanteaus. The ordinal suffix uses a special allomorph -ɾoɾtʰ instead of the default -eɾoɾtʰ (7a). The numeral roots differ in the cardinal and ordinal forms for ‘2–4’ (7b).

For Early Western Armenian, these special allomorphs for ‘2–4’ are restricted to numbers ‘2–4’ and do not percolate to higher numbers. This system of external marking is represented in the above rules via referencing constituency brackets in the rules for both the ordinal suffix (7a) and numeral roots (7b).

Figure 4 illustrates the cardinal and ordinal forms for ‘4’ and ‘24’ for Early Western. We underline irregular forms. The use of constituency brackets in our rules (7) blocks the percolation of irregular forms.

Figure 4

Deriving external marking for ‘4’ and ‘24’ in Early Western Armenian.

The above is for Early Western Armenian. Modern Western Armenian, however, does propagate the irregular forms of ‘2–4’. Within our rule system, this means that Modern Western abandons the use of constituency brackets for the irregular forms of ‘2–4’ and the ordinal suffix (8).

The system in (8) references linearity instead of constituency. This allows the propagation of irregular forms, creating internal marking instead of external marking, as Figure 5 illustrates.

Figure 5

Deriving internal marking for ‘4’ and ‘24’ in Modern Western Armenian.

For easier illustration, Table 10 shows how the relevant rules for ‘1–4’ changed from Early to Modern Western. The rules for ‘1’ stayed the same (external marking) because the modern form references constituency. The rules for ‘2–4’ abandoned constituency, creating internal marking.

Table 10

Diachronic change in rule formulation for Western Armenian.

In this way, the above formalization straightforwardly captures the mixed system of ordinal marking in Modern Western Armenian. Modern Western Armenian is a mixed system in terms of ordinal formation because it references structure and linearity in different parts of the grammar (cf. Lee & Amato Reference Lee and Amato2018). The data are evidence that multiple types of allomorphy domains (linearity and constituency) can coexist within the same grammatical system. The data and formalization likewise suggest that internal marking is ‘representationally simpler’ because Western Armenian went through a diachronic change of removing constituency conditions, thereby moving from external marking to internal marking.

4.4. Ambiguity of mixed vs. conjunct systems in Western Armenian

The previous sections presented our DM analysis of internal marking (English), of uniform external marking (French, Eastern Armenian, Early Western), and of mixed marking (Modern Western). This section discusses an alternative analysis in terms of conjunct morphology.

French is categorized as an external marking system because the ordinal for $ \sqrt{1} $ is different for the simple number ‘1’ vs. complex numbers like ‘21’. However, Stump (Reference Stump2010: 228) notes that suffixal external systems like French can be alternatively analyzed as using conjunct morphology.Footnote ¹⁵ Conjunct morphology is when a morpheme uses one allomorph when used in isolation (the absolute form: 9a) vs. another allomorph when used as part of a complex phrase (the conjunct form: 9b). Example (9) shows a hypothetical PFM analysis, adapted from Stump (Reference Stump2010: 222).

The above PFM analysis incorporates the concept of conjunct morphology into the process Ordconjunct(X). A hypothetical DM version would decompose this process into an allomorphy domain that references a word-initial boundary.

In DM, a conjunct analysis essentially just replaces references to constituency boundaries (7, 8) with references to word-initialness (11). For Early Western, the numbers ‘1’ (11a) and ‘2–4’ (11b) have separate absolute and conjunct forms. Both sets of numbers reference the word-initial boundary. But in the modern form, the ordinal of ‘1’ has separate allomorphs (11a) that reference the # boundary, while the ordinals of ‘2–4’ (11c) have identical absolute-conjunct forms that do not reference the # boundary.

Thus, if we assume Armenian has conjunct morphology, then both early and Modern Western Armenian can be categorized as external marking systems. The difference between the early and modern registers is just the leveling of the absolute-conjunct forms /t͡ʃʰoɾ-ɾoɾtʰ, t͡ʃʰoɾs-eɾoɾtʰ/ to identical absolute-conjunct forms /t͡ʃʰoɾ-ɾoɾtʰ, t͡ʃʰoɾ-ɾoɾtʰ/.

This alternative analysis works but we do not consider it further for the following reasons.

First, it is a formal ambiguity that any suffixal external marking system (or a mixed marking system) can be analyzed as a conjunct system. This point is acknowledged by Stump (Reference Stump2010: 227). There is thus no empirical evidence that prefers one analysis over another. Any possible arguments for one of the two systems will ultimately be conceptual.

Second, once we decompose conjunct morphology into an item-and-arrangement system like DM, the differences between conjunct morphology (word-boundaries) vs. external-marking (constituencies) look notational.

Third, if we adopt a conjunct system for Armenian, then it seems difficult to separately classify the early and modern registers of Western Armenian. If we assume that there is no conjunct system in Armenian, then Early Western is labeled as uniformly external marking, while the modern system is mixed. But if we assume a conjunct system, then terms such as ‘uniform’ and ‘mixed’ are not obviously interpretable.

Fourth, outside of these four numerals ‘1–4’ and their derivatives, we have not found evidence of conjunct morphology elsewhere in the language. There is ample work on Armenian compounds (Donabédian Reference Donabédian and Pierre2004; Dolatian Reference Dolatian2021b, Reference Dolatian, Özçelik and Kennedy2022b), but we cannot find any evidence of conjunct marking in compounds. This is in contrast to languages where conjunct morphology is argued to exist because of multiple phenomena (Stump Reference Stump2010, citing Stump Reference Stump, Booij and van Marle1995:264–273, Reference Stump2001:119–126).

Having acknowledged this formal ambiguity, the rest of this paper focuses on just using our external vs. mixed labels for illustrative ease.

5.1. Asymmetries in Modern Standard Armenian

The previous PFM and DM analyses both capture the relevant data from Early and Modern Western Armenian. However, our formal analysis does not capture a striking correlation in the data. The ordinal of ‘1’ uses portmanteau allomorphy and it always uses external marking (= never propagates). In contrast, the ordinals of ‘2–4’ use agglutinative allomorphy, variably show internal vs. external marking, but they always behave as a single set for Standard Armenian.

In other words, the numerals ‘2–4’ either all show external marking as in Early Western, or they all show internal marking as in Modern Western. Table 11 summarizes the range of variation. It is not the case that ‘2’ acts differently from ‘3–4’. To illustrate, an unattested variety of Western Armenian is to make ‘2’ have have internal marking in ‘22’ /kʰəsɑn-jeɾɡ-ɾoɾtʰ/, while ‘4’ is external marking in ‘24’ /kʰəsɑn-t͡ʃʰoɾs-eɾoɾtʰ/. Similarly, we do not know of any register of Armenian where ‘1’ propagates, while ‘2–4’ do or do not.

Table 11

Asymmetries in portmanteau vs. agglutinative allomorphy.

Note that we later find that some non-standard dialects regularize a larger number like ‘4’ while still maintaining the irregularity of ‘2–3’.

The above sample is obviously small with only three language varieties, but the data are suggestive. The next two subsections go through more Armenian varieties in order to establish these generalizations. We first discuss the diachrony of Armenian.

5.2. Diachronic origins of the ordinal system

The earliest known attested variety of Armenian is Classical Armenian ( $ \sim $ fifth century).Footnote ¹⁶ The cardinal and ordinal words are virtually the same across the ancient and modern languages but have subtle combinatorial differences (Աճառյան Reference Աճառյան1952a: 283–284; Thomson Reference Thomson1989: 94–97). These differences again indicate an asymmetry between ‘1’ vs. ‘2–4’.

First, consider the numbers ‘1–5’ and ‘20’ (Table 12). The ordinal suffix -(e)ɾoɾd is the ancestor of the modern form -(e)ɾoɾtʰ. The suffix -eɾoɾd is the default form. Like the modern language, the ordinal of ‘1’ is a portmanteau, while ‘2–4’ use agglutinative allomorphy. We underline the irregular forms.Footnote ¹⁷

Table 12

Cardinals and ordinals for ‘1–5, 20’ from Classical Armenian (Thomson Reference Thomson1989: 94–97).

For the teens (Table 13), Classical Armenian places the morpheme for ‘10’ on the right, and it takes the regular ordinal suffix -eɾoɾd. Thus, the teens cannot inform us on whether the irregular allomorphs of ‘1–4’ propagate. Note that cardinals were taken from Thomson (Reference Thomson1989: 94), while the ordinals are from the Classical Armenian Bible.

Table 13

Cardinals and ordinals for ‘11–15’ from Classical Armenian.

Matters get complicated for higher numbers (Thomson Reference Thomson1989: 95–97). For a complex numeral like ‘25’, Classical Armenian uses a more syntactic method. The larger number ‘20’ and the smaller number ‘5’ are separated by the conjunction եւ [ew] (Table 14).

Table 14

Cardinals ‘21–25’ from the Classical Armenian Bible.

For these complex numbers, the ordinal is formed by turning each cardinal numeral into an ordinal (13a). The conjunction [ew] can sometimes be dropped in some contexts, although it is unclear when (13b).Footnote ¹⁸

Based on the above data, Classical Armenian can be classified as using an extended ordinal system (Stump Reference Stump2010: 214). Multiple constituents in the complex numeral receive ordinal marking.

We see this same extended pattern for numerals that use allomorphy. For derivatives of ‘2–4’ like ‘22–24’, the irregular form is used (Table 15).

Table 15

Cardinals and ordinals for ‘21–25’ from Classical Armenian.

Because complex ordinals like ‘24th’ inherit the irregular ordinal of ‘4’, Stump (Reference Stump2010: 223) would classify Classical Armenian as an extended internal system based on his PFM formalization. However, from the perspective of DM, such ordinals are ambiguously either internal or external. In a phrase like ‘20-ord 4-ord’, this phrase would have the constituency structure of [ [20-ord] [4-ord]]. The right member is a constituent and would use the irregular ordinal form regardless whether we think the system is internal or external (cf. the rules in Table 10).

As a brief caveat though, the Bible corpus did have a few cases where the left numeral does not get ordinal marking (14). Thus, it is possible that some complex ordinals have structures like [ [20 and 4]-ord] and would necessarily require an internal-marking formalization.

Matters are more complicated for derivatives of ‘1’ (15). In a complex ordinal like ‘21st’, the ‘1’ unit uses a portmanteau and the regular ordinal suffix. This inheritance system for ‘1’ resembles multiple exponence. Ordinality is marked both in the portmanteau and in the default ordinal suffix.Footnote ¹⁹

It is unclear to me what is the most elegant way to model the above multiple exponence of ‘21st’ in either PFM or DM. We set that aside. But what matters for us is that even in Classical Armenian, where there is ambiguous distinction between internal vs. external marking, we still find an asymmetry between the inheritance of portmanteau allomorphy of ‘1’ vs. agglutinative allomorphy of ‘2–4’.

5.3. Decay of the ordinal system across Armenian dialects

Besides the two standard lects, there are dozens of non-standard Armenian varieties with varying degrees of mutual (un-)intelligiblity (Աճառեան Reference Աճառեան1911). These dialects can be loosely categorized as being part of the Western branch (W) vs. the Eastern branch (E). The former branch developed in the Ottoman Empire and the latter in the Persian/Russian Empires. This section goes over the few Armenian dialects for which I could find grammars at hand.Footnote ²⁰ What we find is that no dialect ever develops internal marking for ‘1’, but it can lose irregular marking for ‘2–4’.

Standard Eastern is uniformly external marking and neither portmanteaus nor agglutinative allomorphy propagate. The Karin dialect (W) is reported to be the same (Մկրտչյան Reference Մկրտչյան1952: 56–57). The cardinal ‘1’ is [meɡ], and its ordinal is a portmanteau [ɦɑrd͡ʒi]. The grammarian reports that the irregular suffix [-ɾoɾtʰ] is used for ordinals of ‘2–4’, while other ordinals take default [-eɾoɾtʰ].

Modern Standard Western is a mixed system such that portmanteaus do not propagate while agglutinative allomorphy does. Tehrani Iranian Armenian (E) is reportedly the same (Table 16: Dolatian et al. in review). The portmanteau of ‘1’ does not propagate to higher numbers, while the irregular agglutinative forms of ‘2–4’ do propagate.

Table 16

Mixed marking from Tehrani Iranian Armenian.

The dialects so far still treat the numeral set ‘2–4’ uniformly. The numerals all take irregular agglutinative allomorphy. And they either all propagate (Modern Standard Western), or none of them propagate (Standard Eastern). Some dialects show, however, that this set can be reduced in size. The dialect of Kirzen (E) maintains largely the same morphemes as Standard Eastern Armenian (Table 17: Բաղրամյան Reference Բաղրամյան1958: 80). The ordinal ‘1’ is a portmanteau, while the numerals ‘2–3’ use agglutinative allomorphy with an irregular -ɾoɾtʰ suffix.Footnote ²¹ But the numeral ‘4’ uses the regular suffix -eɾoɾtʰ without any root allomorphy. Thus, it is possible for an irregular ordinal like ‘4’ to be regularized without affecting the lower numbers ‘1–3’. Unfortunately, the source does not discuss higher ordinals.

Table 17

Loss of irregular ordinal for ‘4’ in the Kirzen dialect.

Other Armenian dialects show more variation. Many dialects have simplified or levelled away ordinal allomorphy through various means. Some attested methods are a) losing the irregular ordinal suffix, b) replacing ordinal suffixes with other suffixes, and c) replacing Armenian ordinals with cardinals or Turkish/Azerbaijani ordinals (Martirosyan Reference Martirosyan2019: 195). But in some of these levelled dialects, we find an asymmetry between the ordinals of ‘1’ vs. other numerals.

In some dialects like Malatya (W), the numeral ‘1’ has a portmanteau ordinal that does not propagate to higher numbers (Table 18: Դանիելյան Reference Դանիելյան1967: 95–98). But this dialect lost the irregular ordinal suffix -ɾoɾtʰ and irregular root allomorphs for ‘2–4’. There is only one ordinal suffix -eɾɾoɾtʰ, and this suffix is used for numerals ‘2’ and above.Footnote ²²

Table 18

Loss of irregular ordinal suffix in Malatya Armenian.

The retention of the non-propagating portmanteau ordinal for ‘1’ and the loss of other irregular ordinals is also found in some dialects that have replaced the Armenian -(e)ɾoɾtʰ suffix with other morphemes.

In the Sasun dialect (W), the cardinal ‘1’ has a portmanteau ordinal (Table 19: Պետոյան Reference Պետոյան1954: 38–39). But all other ordinals are formed by borrowing the Turkish suffix -inci. The grammarian does not report any propagation of the ordinal of ‘1’ to higher numbers. Other dialects that behave this way include Agulis (E: Աճառեան Reference Աճառեան1935: Section 293), Burdur (E: Մկրտչյան Reference Մկրտչյան1971: 105), Kesab (W: Չոլաքեան Reference Չոլաքեան2009: 87), Meghri (E: Աղայան Reference Աղայան1954: 178), and Old Istanbul (W: Աճառյան Reference Աճառյան1941: 106). Some of these may have borrowed the suffix from Azerbaijani instead of Turkish.Footnote ²³

Table 19

Retention of portmanteaus but replacement of the ordinal suffix in Sasun Armenian.

Some dialects replaced the ordinal suffixes -( e)ɾoɾtʰ with the suffix -um that is a reflex of a locative suffix from Classical Armenian. Adjarian (Աճառյան Reference Աճառյան1952a: 287) reports three such dialects: New Julfa (E), Suceava (W), and New Nakhichevan (W: Table 20). The ordinal ‘1’ is a portmanteau that does not propagate. The other numerals (2 and beyond) do not show any allomorphy (Աճառեան Reference Աճառեան1925: 203).Footnote ²⁴

Table 20

Retention of portmanteaus but replacement of the ordinal suffix in New Nakhichevan Armenian.

The pattern so far is that the portmanteau ordinal of ‘1’ is perseverant and resistant to wide-scale morphological changes. For example, some dialects lost almost the entire ordinal system except for ‘1’. In the Bayazet dialect (E: Կատվալյան Reference Կատվալյան2016: 331–335), the cardinal ‘1’ [mek] has a portmanteau ordinal [ɦɑrt͡ʃʰi]. But the other numerals do not have any ordinal form; instead, cardinals are used, often with some type of case suffix. Other such dialects include the general dialect area of Ararat (E: Մարկոսյան Reference Մարկոսյան1989: 126).Footnote ²⁵ Middle Armenian ( $ \sim $ twelfth century) had an ordinal for ‘1’ but there is little attestation of other ordinal numbers (Karst Reference Karst1901: 222).

However, some dialects are on the path to losing the special status of the ‘1’ ordinal. In the general dialect area of Karabakh (E: Դավթյան Reference Դավթյան1966: 125), all ordinals are formed by adding the Turkic suffix -inci after the cardinal. But for the cardinal ‘1’ [min], its ordinal is either the cardinal plus this suffix [min-ind͡ʒi], or a reflex of the portmanteau plus the suffix [ɑɾɑt͡ʃʰ-ind͡ʒi].Footnote ²⁶

Some dialects have finalized the loss of the native ordinal allomorphy. For example, the Goris dialect (E: Մարգարյան Reference Մարգարյան1975: 154–157) replaced all the native ordinals with just the cardinal plus a Turkic suffix: ‘1’ [min] vs. ‘1st’ [min-ind͡ʒi]. Other such dialects include Aresh (E: Բաղրամյան Reference Բաղրամյան1979: 82).

Some dialects removed all native ordinal morphology but did introduce some allomorphy for ‘1’. For example, the Maragha dialect (E: Աճառյան Reference Աճառյան1926: 182–183) replaced the native ordinal suffixes with a Turkic suffix (Table 21). They borrowed a special root allomorph for ‘1st’ from Turkic/Persian <avval>, but this root does not propagate to higher numbers. This dialect thus still maintained an external-marking system despite changing all the ordinal morphemes. Cross-linguistically, borrowing is known to affect ordinal systems in this way (Stolz & Robbers Reference Stolz and Robbers2016: Section 3.1.4).

Table 21

External marking ordinals in Maragha via borrowings.

Some dialects have replaced all native ordinals with Turkish or Azerbaijani ordinals (as borrowings). These include Arapgir (W: Դաւիթ-Բէկ Reference Դաւիթ-Բէկ1919: 215), Artvin (E: Ալավերդյան Reference Ալավերդյան1968: 234), and Kayseri (W: Անթոսյան Reference Անթոսյան1961: 80).

And finally, some dialects have simply lost all ordinal morphology. For example, one variant of the Hamshen dialect (W: Աճառյան Reference Աճառյան1947: 109) uses cardinals instead of ordinals. Other dialects without ordinal morphology include Çatak or Šatax (W: Մուրադյան Reference Մուրադյան1962: 115), Van (W: Աճառյան Reference Աճառյան1952b: 148), and Vozim (W: Արևիկյան Reference Արևիկյան1967: 78). Some dialects like Urmia (E: Ասատրյան Reference Ասատրյան1962: 86) and Lori (E: Ասատրյան Reference Ասատրյան1968: 106) lost their ordinal morphology, but its speakers have started to adopt Standard Eastern ordinals because of education.

In sum, ordinal morphology is quite susceptible to diachronic change across Armenian dialects. However, even across such changes, we find that the ordinal of ‘1’ never develops internal marking, not propogation (= no propagation) and that ‘1’ resists regularization before ‘2–4’. These asymmetries fall out from a functional account that would emphasize the semantic significance, high frequency, and portmanteau morphology of the ordinal ‘first’ (Veselinova Reference Veselinova and Bruening1997). We emphasize this point next.