Etymological Dictionary of the Armenian Inherited Lexicon

Edited by: Hrach K. Martirosyan

As an Indo-European language, Armenian has been the subject of etymological research for over a hundred years. There are many valuable systematic handbooks, studies and surveys on comparative Armenian linguistics. Almost all of these works, with a few exceptions, mostly concentrate on Classical Armenian and touch the dialects only sporadically. Non-literary data taken from Armenian dialects have largely remained outside of the scope of Indo-European etymological considerations. This book provides an up-to-date description of the Indo-European lexical stock of Armenian with systematic inclusion of dialectal data. It incorporates the lexical, phonetic, and morphological material in the Armenian dialects into the etymological treatment of the Indo-European lexicon. In this respect it is completely new.

See Brill.com for more information on print edition.

Purchase Access
Author
Introduction
Abbreviations
Dialects
Historical Grammar
Semantics, Culture, Etymology
Place names
Hrach K. Martirosyan, (Ph.D. 2008) in Comparative Linguistics, University of Leiden, has published several papers on Armenian etymology and dialectology.

INTRODUCTION

This work aims at providing a description of the Indo‑European lexical stock of Armenian, with systematic inclusion of new data.

As an Indo-European language, Armenian has been the subject of etymological research for over a hundred years. There are many valuable systematic handbooks, studies and surveys on comparative Armenian linguistics: Hübschmann 1897; Meillet 1936; AčaṙHLPatm 1-2, 1940-51; Solta 1960; Godel 1975; Schmitt 1972‑74; 1981; J̌ahukyan 1972; 1982; 1987; de Lamberterie 1992; 1997; Clackson 1994; Olsen 1999; Kortlandt 2003; Beekes 2003.

All of these works, with the exception of Ačaṙyan’s fundamental studies (see below, and 1.1) and J̌ahukyan 1972 and 1987, mostly concentrate on Classical Armenian, touching only sporadically upon the dialects. With respect to the comparative historical evaluation of several dialectal features, the series of papers by Kortlandt and Weitenberg is particularly important. Middle Armenian is extensively studied in Karst 1901 (ModArm. transl.: 2002) and “Aknarkner miǰin grakan hayereni patmut‘yan”, vols. 1 and 2, Yerevan: University Press, 1972‑1975 (see in particular H. Muradyan 1972 and M. Muradyan 1982).

The present study intends to incorporate the lexical, phonological and morphological material of the Armenian dialects into the etymological treatment of the Indo‑European lexicon. In this respect it is completely new.

The lexical stock relies heavily upon Ačaṙyan’s etymological dictionary (HAB). No serious etymological or dialectological investigation can be undertaken without recurring to HAB. Unfortunately, the latter work was written in Armenian and is therefore inaccessible for many students of Indo‑European linguistics.

It should be borne in mind that, in the new publication of HAB (vols. 1‑4, 1971‑1979), numerous misprints and omissions are present, many of which were corrected in HAB‑Add 1982. Nevertheless, these corrections sometimes escape the attention of scholars. For an example, see s.v. garšapar ‘heel’.

Non‑literary data taken from Armenian dialects have largely remained outside the scope of Indo‑European etymological studies. First of all, this concerns data scattered in Armenian dialectological literature, particularly in Ačaṙyan’s HAB, as well as in numerous descriptions of individual dialects by various authors. Furthermore, there is a considerable number of dialectal words in folklore texts and anthropological descriptions, which are almost never provided with indices. That literature, written mostly in Armenian, remains largely unavailable or inaccessible to scholars outside Armenia.

Apart from (potentially old) dialectal words, which are not attested in Classical or Middle Armenian sources, there are many ClArm. words considered to be absent in dialects. In such cases, the newly found dialectal data frequently provide us with invaluable clues for establishing the semantics, the phonological shape, the morphological features and the geographical distribution of the words.

The present study comprises two basic parts. The first part represents the (alphabetically ordered) lexical corpus with philological and etymological discussion. The second one lists phonological, morphological and lexico‑semantic features resulting from the first part and outlines new prospects. Whenever the philological data taken from literature are insufficient (for instance, when dealing with words with uncertain status and/or unspecified semantics), I consult the material obtained during my field work (August and September 2003) with indispensable systematic assistance of my wife, Satenik Gharagyozyan, in areas where some of the important Armenian dialects, such as Łarabaɫ, Goris, Ararat/ Loṙi,Van/Diadin, Sasun, etc., are still spoken properly.    

Another essential bearing of my research into the field of Armenian etymology is the systematic inclusion of cultural data.

ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS

SYMBOLS

C             consonant

H            laryngeal

R             resonant

N             nasal

V             vowel

<             developed from

>             developed into

<<           replaced analogically by

>>           analogically replacing

<…>       omitted part of text

*             reconstructed form

+             and later

Etymological Dictionary of the Armenian Inherited Lexicon

Bibliography

Aalto 1959Aalto, Pentti 1959Ein alter Name des Kupfers. In: Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 31 (Gedenkband Julius von Farkas). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz; pp. 33-40.
Abaev 1949Abaev, V. I. 1949Osetinskij jazyk i fol’klor. Vol. 1. Moscow, Leningrad: Academy Press.
Abaev 1958-95Abaev, V. I. 1958-95(1-5), Istoriko-ètimologičeskij slovar’ osetinskogo jazyka. 1: 1958; 2: 1973; 3: 1979; 4: 1989; [5] Ukazatel’: 1995. (Moscow), Leningrad: Academy Press “Nauka”.
Abaev 1963Abaev, V. I. 1963Ob iranskix nazvanijax stali. In: Fs Zarubin 1963 : 203-207.
Abaev 1964Abaev, V. I. 1964Preverby i perfektivnost’: ob odnoj skifo-slavjanskoj izoglosse. In: PrIndEvrJaz : 90-99.
Abaev 1965Abaev, V. I. 1965Skifo-evropejskie izoglossy: na styke Vostoka i Zapada. Moscow: GRVLI “Nauka”. Akademija Nauk SSSR. Instituit jazykoznanija.
Abaev 1970Abaev, V. I. 1970Tipologija armjanskogo i osetinskogo jazyka i kavkazskij substrat. In: SprGes 1970 : 16‑28.
Abaev 1978Abaev, V. I. 1978Armeno‑Ossetica. In: VoprJaz 1978, Nr 6: 45‑51.
Abaev 1985Abaev, V. I. 1985Avestica. In: Fs Knobloch 1985 : 7‑19.
Abeɫyan 1899Abeɫyan, Manuk 1899(Abeghian), Der armenische Volksglaube. Leipzig: Druck von W. Drugulin. [ModEArm. transl. by Sargis Harut‘yunyan: in M. Abeɫyan 1975: 11-102].
Abeɫyan 1940Abeɫyan, Manuk 1940Gusanakan žoɫovrdakan taɫer, hayrenner yev antuniner (uraxut‘yan, siru, harsank‘i, ororoc‘i, lac‘i). Yerevan: Academy Press.
Abeɫyan 1941Abeɫyan, Manuk 1941“Višapner” koč‘vac kot‘oɫnern ibrev Astɫik‑Derketo dic‘uhu arjanner. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Abeɫyan 1955‑59Abeɫyan, Manuk 1955‑59 (1‑2) (Abeɫean), Hayoc‘ hin grakanut‘ean patmut‘iwn (2nd publ.). Vol. 1, 1955; vol. 2, 1959. Beyrut‘: “Sewan”.
Abeɫyan 1975Abeɫyan, Manuk 1975Erker. Vol. 7. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Abeɫyan 1985Abeɫyan, Manuk 1985Erker. Vol. 8. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Abgaryan 1979Abgaryan, G. V. 1979(ed.), Patmut‘iwn Sebēosi (critical text with introduction and commentary). Yerevan: Academy Press.
Abgarean 1966Abgarean, T. 1966Nor J̌uɫayi barbaṙi k‘erakanut‘iwnic‘. In: HandAms 80.1-3: 93-100.
Abrahamyan 2006Abrahamyan, Anahit 2006Gorcik‘aniš baṙerə V dari hay matenagrut‘yan meǰ ew dranc‘ artac‘olumə hayereni barbaṙnerum. In: IntConfArmLett 2006 : 335-342.
Abrahamyan 1958Abrahamyan, A. A. 1958Baṙak‘nnakan ditoɫut‘yunner. In: TeɫHasGit 1958, Nr. 4: 61-64.
Abrahamyan 1970Abrahamyan, A. A. 1970Ezniki erki bnagrayin mi k‘ani meknabanut‘yunner. In: PBH 1970, Nr 2: 93‑106.
Abrahamyan 1985Abrahamyan, A. A. 1985Bnagragitakan ditarkumner Step‘anos Ōrbelyani patmakan erkum. In: PBH 1985, Nr 3: 55-67.
Abrahamyan 1986Abrahamyan, A. A. 1986Step‘anos Ōrbelyan, Syunik‘i patmut‘yun. Yerevan: “Sovetakan groɫ”.
Abrahamyan 1994Abrahamyan, A. A. 1994See Sources : Eznik Koɫbac‘i.
Abrahamyan 1962Abrahamyan, Ašot Arseni 1962Bayə žamanakakic‘ hayerenum. Book 1. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Abrahamyan 1976Abrahamyan, Ašot Arseni 1976Grabari jeṙnark. Yerevan: “Luys”.
Abrahamyan 1952-53Abrahamyan, A. 1952-53Davit‘ Alavka ordu kanonnerə. In: (1) Ēǰmiacin 1952, Sept-Oct: 48-57; (2) Ēǰmiacin 1953, Jan: 56-62; (3) Febr: 53-60; (4) March: 51-63.
Abrahamyan 1940Abrahamyan, Ašot Garegini 1940 (ed.) Anania Širakac‘i, Tiezeragitut‘iwn ew tomar (redacted by H. Ačaṙyan). Yerevan: State Press of Armenia (HayPetHrat).
Abrahamyan 1941Abrahamyan, Ašot Garegini 1941(ed.), Yovhan Mamikonean, Patmut‘iwn Tarōnoy (critical text and introduction). Yerevan: Matenadaran/Gitamankavaržakan hratarakč‘. tparan. [I am not sure whether this author is identical with the others named A. Abrahamyan.]
Abrahamyan 1944Abrahamyan, Ašot Garegini 1944Anania Širakac‘u matenagrut‘yunə: usumnasirut‘yun. Yerevan: Matenadaran Press.
Abrahamyan 1963Abrahamyan, Ašot Garegini 1963Naxamaštoc‘yan hay matenagrut‘yunə ew danielyan grerə. In: PBH 1963, Nr 4: 131-144.
Abrahamyan 1978Abrahamyan, Ašot Garegini 1978Haykakan cackagrut‘yun. Yerevan: University Press.
Abrahamyan 1979Abrahamyan, Ašot Garegini 1979Tomaratiezeragitakan erek‘ bnagrer. In: BngTxnPtmHay 7: 38‑66.
Abrahamyan 1982Abrahamyan, Ašot Garegini 1982Naxamaštoc‘yan hay gir ew grč‘ut‘yun. Yerevan: “Hayastan”.
Abrahamyan/Petrosyan 1979Abrahamyan, A. G. & Petrosyan, G. B. 1979Anania Širakac‘i, Matenagrut‘yun: introduction, translation and commentary. Yerevan: “Sovetakan groɫ”.
Abrahamyan/Petrosyan 1987Abrahamyan, A. G. & Petrosyan, G. B. 1987Hovhannes Erznkac‘u “Yaɫags erknayin šaržmann” ašxatut‘yan norahayt jeṙagirə. In: BngTxnPtmHay 8: 52‑80.
Abrahamyan/Šahinyan 1975Abrahamyan, A. G. & Šahinyan, A. N. 1975Arcvaniki hayeren norahayt cackagirə ew nra vercanut‘yunə. In: PBH 1975, Nr 3: 113-125.
Abrahamyan 2004Abrahamyan, Lewon 2004Bawiɫ-labirint‘os: Artavazdyan aṙaspelə kovkas-aṙaǰavorasiakan hamateqstum. In: HayŽoɫMšak 12 (Republication Scientific Conference. Yerevan: “Muɫni”): 13-18.
Abrahamyan 2006Abrahamyan, Lewon 2006(Abrahamian), Hero chained in a mountain: on the semantic and landscape transformations of a Proto-Caucasian myth. In: Aramazd 1: 208-221.
Ačaṙyan 1897Ačaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi 1897Anuank‘ haykakan amsoc‘. In: Bazmavēp 55: 391-394.
Ačaṙyan 1897aAčaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi 1897aHaykakank‘. In: Bazmavēp 55: 169-171, 259-261.
Ačaṙyan 1898Ačaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi 1898(Ačaṙean), K‘nnut‘iwn Aslanbēgi barbaṙin. In: Bazmavēp 56, 1: 31‑35; 2: 83‑88.
Ačaṙyan 1898aAčaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi 1898a(Ačaṙean), K‘nnut‘iwn Aslanbēgi barbaṙin (reprinted from 1898). Venice: S. Lazar. (Usumnasirut‘iwnner haykakan gawaṙabanut‘ean, 1).
Ačaṙyan 1898bAčaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi 1898bHaykakank‘. In: Bazmavēp [>] 56, 370‑372.
Ačaṙyan 1899Ačaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi 1899(Ačaṙean), K‘nnut‘iwn Łarabaɫi barbaṙin. Reprinted from “Ararat” 1899. Vaɫaršapat: Tparan Mayr At‘oṙoy S. Ēǰmiacni. (Usumnasiru-t‘iwnner haykakan barbaṙaxōsut‘ean, 3).
Ačaṙyan 1901Ačaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi 1901Barbaṙaxōsut‘ean ōgutnerə ew matenaxōsakan ‘Ewdokioy gawaṙabarbaṙ’-in. (Review of Gazančean 1899). In: Banasēr (Paris) 3: 76-82.
Ačaṙyan 1902Ačaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi 1902(Ačaṙean), T‘urk‘erēnē p‘oxaṙeal baṙer hayerēni mēǰ (= Ēminean azgagrakan žoɫovacu, vol. 3). Moscow, Vaɫaršapat.
Ačaṙyan 1906‑08Ačaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi 1906‑08(Adjarian), Gutturales issues de semi‑occlusives par dissimilation. In: MSL 14: 288.
Ačaṙyan 1908Ačaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi 1908Hayerēn stugabanut‘iwnner. In: HandAms 22: 120-124.
Ačaṙyan 1908aAčaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi 1908a(Ačaṙean), Hayerēn nor baṙer Noragiwt Mnac‘ordac‘ Groc‘ mēǰ. Vienna: Mxit‘arean Tparan. (Azgayin Matenadaran, 56).
Ačaṙyan 1908‑09Ačaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi 1908‑09(Adjarian), Étymologies arméniennes: 1‑9. In: MSL 15: 242‑245.
Ačaṙyan 1908-09aAčaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi 1908-09a, 1-2(Ačaṙean), Hayerēn nor baṙer Timot‘ēos Kuzi Hakačaṙut‘ean mēǰ. In: HandAms 22, 1908: 367-372 (1); 23, 1909: 44-47, 148-153 (2).
Ačaṙyan 1911Ačaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi 1911(Ačaṙean), Hay barbaṙagitut‘iwn: uruagic ew dasaworut‘iwn hay barbaṙneri (barbaṙagitakan k‘artēsov). Moskua, Nor-Naxiǰewan. (Ēminean azgagrakan žoɫovacu, vol. 8). [Armenian dialectology: a sketch and classification of Armenian dialects (with a dialect map)].
Ačaṙyan 1913Ačaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi 1913 (Ačaṙean), Hayerēn gawaṙakan baṙaran. T‘iflis (Ēminean azgagrakan žoɫovacu, vol. 9).
Ačaṙyan 1918Ačaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi 1918(Adjarian), Étymologies arméniennes: 10‑20. In: MSL 20: 160‑163.
Ačaṙyan 1925Ačaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi 1925(Ačaṙean), K‘nnut‘iwn Nor‑Naxiǰewani (Xrimi) barbaṙi. Yerevan.
Ačaṙyan 1925aAčaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi 1925aBuzandi siws baṙə. In: HamGitTeɫ 1, 1925: 169-170.
Ačaṙyan 1926Ačaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi 1926(Ačaṙean), K‘nnut‘iwn Maraɫayi barbaṙi. Yerevan.
Ačaṙyan 1935Ačaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi 1935(Ačaṙean), K‘nnut‘iwn Agulisi barbaṙi. Yerevan: PetHrat (State Press).
Ačaṙyan 1935aAčaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi 1935a(Adjarian), 1. Arm. xuc̣. 2. Pehlévi dašn. In: Gd Marr 1935: 125.
Ačaṙyan 1937Ačaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi 1937(Adjarian), De l’affinité du grec et de l’arménien. In: Mélanges Boisacq 1: 3‑4.
Ačaṙyan 1937aAčaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi 1937a(Adjarian), Etymologie du mot arm. meɫc. In: Fs Pedersen 1937: 125‑126.
Ačaṙyan 1940Ačaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi 1940(Ačaṙean), K‘nnut‘iwn Nor‑J̌uɫayi barbaṙi. Yerevan.
Ačaṙyan 1940aAčaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi 1940aStrabon (select. and transl.). Yerevan: University Press. (Otar aɫbyurner hayeri masin, Nr 1; Hunakan aɫbyurner, Nr 1).
Ačaṙyan 1940‑51Ačaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi 1940‑51(AčaṙHLPatm 1‑2): Hayoc‘ lezvi patmut‘yun, vol. 1, Yerevan: University Press, 1940; vol. 2, Yerevan: State Press of Armenia (HayPetHrat), 1951.
Ačaṙyan 1941Ačaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi 1941K‘nnut‘iwn Polsahay barbaṙi. In: Gitakan ašxatut‘yunner of Yerevan State University, vol. 19: 19‑250.
Ačaṙyan 1942‑62Ačaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi 1942‑62Hayoc‘ anjnanunneri baṙaran [AčaṙAnjn 1‑5]. 1, 1942; 2, 1944; 3, 1946; 4, 1948; 5, 1962. Yerevan: University Press. [The volumes 1‑4 = Gitakan ašxatut‘yunner 21, 24, 25, 26, respectively].
Ačaṙyan 1947Ačaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi 1947K‘nnut‘yun Hamšeni barbaṙi. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Ačaṙyan 1952Ačaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi 1952K‘nnut‘yun Vani barbaṙi. Yerevan: University Press.
Ačaṙyan 1953Ačaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi 1953K‘nnut‘yun Aṙtiali barbaṙi. Yerevan: Academy Press. (Hayeren barbaṙner, 1).
Ačaṙyan 1955‑05Ačaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi 1955‑05(AčaṙLiak): Liakatar k‘erakanut‘yun hayoc‘ lezvi: hamematut‘yamb 562 lezuneri. Yerevan: Academy Press. Introductory vol., 1955; vol. 1, 1952; vol. 2, 1954; vol. 3, 1957, vol. 4a, 1959, vol. 4b, 1961; vol. 5, 1965; vol. 6, 1971. The last [7th] volume does not have a number; it comprises the unfinished manuscripts of the author on Semantics, Lexicology, and Syntax (ed. by S. Galstyan and X. Badikyan): Yerevan: University Press, 2005. I cite it as AčaṙLiak 2005.
Ačaṙyan 1967Ačaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi 1967Kyank‘is hušeric‘. Yerevan: “Mitk‘”, Yerevan State University.
Ačaṙyan 1971‑79Ačaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi 1971‑79(HAB), Hayerēn armatakan baṙaran, in 4 vols (second edition). Yerevan: University Press. [The original edition: 1926‑1935, in 7 volumes, Yerevan: University Press].
Ačaṙyan 2003Ačaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi 2003K‘nnut‘yun Kilikiayi barbaṙi. Yerevan: University Press.
Ačaṙean/Ačaṙean 1902Ačaṙean, Hrač‘eay & Ačaṙean, Armenuhi 1902Hawak‘acoy Pōlsahay ṙamkakan angir grakanut‘ean. In: AzgHand, year 7, book 9: 160-196.
Adams 1984Adams, Douglas Q. 1984Tocharian A. śiśäk, B ṣecake, and the Proto-Indo-European word for ‘lion’. In: ZVS 97.2: 284-286.
Adams 1985Adams, Douglas Q. 1985Designations of the Cervidae in Proto‑Indo‑European. In: JourIndEurStud 13, 3‑4: 269‑281.
Adams 1999Adams, Douglas Q. 1999A dictionary of Tocharian B. Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi (LeidStudIndEur; 10).
Adonc‘ 1911Adonc‘, N. 1911Tork‘ astuac hin Hayoc‘. In: Yušarjan. Vienna: 389‑394.
Adonc‘ 1915Adonc‘, N. 1915Dionisij Θrakijskij i armjanskie tolkovateli (texts and study). Petrograd: Tipografija Imperatorskoj Akademii Nauk. (Bibliotheca Armeno-Georgica, 4). [See also Adonc‘ 2008 and Bibliographical abbreviations, AdonDion 2008].
Adonc‘ 1927Adonc‘, N. 1927Tarkou chez les anciens arméniens. In: RevEtArm 7: 185‑194.
Adonc‘ 1937Adonc‘, N. 1937Quelques étymologies arméniennes. In: Mélanges Boisacq 1: 5‑12.
Adonc‘ 1938Adonc‘, N. 1938(Adontz, Nicolas), Emprunts de haute époque en arménien. In: REIE 1: 457‑467 (Arm. transl., see 1972: 382-392).
Adonc‘ 1970Adonc‘, N. 1970(Adontz), Armenia in the period of Justinian: the political conditions based on the naxarar system (< 1908; translated with partial revisions, a bibliographical note and appendices by Nina G. Garsoïan). Lisbon: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.
Adonc‘ 1972Adonc‘, N. 1972Hayastani patmut‘yun. Yerevan: “Hayastan”.
Adonc‘ 2006Adonc‘, N. 2006Nikoɫayos Adonc‘. Erker. Vol. 1: Patmagitakan usumnasirut‘yunner (ed. by P. H. Hovhannisyan). Yerevan: University Press.
Adonc‘ 2008Adonc‘, N. 2008Nikoɫayos Adonc‘. Erker. Vol. 2: Hayerenagitakan usumnasirut‘yunner (ed. by P. H. Hovhannisyan). Yerevan: University Press. [Here is also AdonDion 2008 (see abbreviations), which is a new Armenian edition of Adonc 1915].
Adrados 1985Adrados, Francisco R. 1985Gr. ἀλώπηξ, O.I. lopāśá-, Av. urupis, Lat. uolpēs and the IE laryngeals with appendix. In: Fs Knobloch 1985: 21-28.
Akaba 1955Akaba, L. X. 1955Abxazy Očamčirskogo rajona. In: KavkÈtnSbor 1: 48‑112.
Akaba 1984Akaba, L. X. 1984Istoričeskie korni arxaičeskix ritualov abxazov. Suxumi: “Alašara”.
Akinean 1936Akinean, H. N. 1936(ed.), Simēon dpri Lehac‘woy Uɫegrut‘iwn: taregrut‘iwn ew yišatakarank‘. Nkaragir uɫeworut‘ean i Lvovē i K. Polis, i Hṙom, i Muš ew yEruseɫēm yamsn 1608-1619. Vienna: Mxit‘arean Tparan. (Azgayin Matenadaran, 141).
Aɫabekyan 1979Aɫabekyan, Melada A. 1979Hay‑italyan baṙayin zugabanut‘yunner. In: Hayoc‘ lezvi hamematakan k‘erakanut‘yan harc‘er. Yerevan: Academy Press : 23‑127.
Aɫabekyan 1980Aɫabekyan, Melada A. 1980Stugabanakan ditoɫut‘yunner. In: PBH 1980, Nr 3: 159-168.
Aɫabekyan 1981Aɫabekyan, Melada A. 1981Hndevropakan baɫajaynə hayerenum. In: PBH 1981, Nr 4: 95‑108.
Aɫabekyan 1981aAɫabekyan, Melada A. 1981aHndevropakan jaynavor ew jaynord u‑n hayerenum. In: LrHasGit 1981, Nr 8: 56‑63.
Aɫabekyan 1984Aɫabekyan, Melada A. 1984Šeštə ew nra het kapvac hnč‘yunakan p‘op‘oxut‘yunnerə naxapatmakan šrǰani hayerenum. In: IntSympArmLing 1984 : 7-14.
Aɫabekyan 1998Aɫabekyan, Melada A. 1998Hayereni hamematakan hnč‘yunabanut‘yan harc‘er. In: Hayoc‘ lezvi hamematakan k‘erakanut‘yan harc‘er 2. Yerevan: “Anania Širakac‘i”: 49‑144.
Alayan 2002Alayan, Artašes 2002Bun haykakan metaɫagorcakan terminneri cagumə ew stugabanut‘yunə. In: PBH 2002, Nr 1: 210-216.
Aɫayan 1954Aɫayan, Ē. B. 1954Meɫru barbaṙ. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Aɫayan 1958Aɫayan, Ē. B. 1958Barbaṙayin hnaguyn tarberut‘yunner hayerenum. In: TeɫHasGit 1958, Nr 5: 67-80.
Aɫayan 1964Aɫayan, Ē. B. 1964Grabari k‘erakanut‘yun. Volume 1, Sinxronia. Book 1, Hnč‘yunabanut‘yun. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Aɫayan 1965Aɫayan, Ē. B. 1965(Agajan), Ob odnom fonetičeskom zakone drevnearmjanskix dialektov. In: LingPosn 10: 7-14.
Aɫayan 1967Aɫayan, Ē. B. 1967Hndevropakan *Ger armatə hayerenum. In: LrHasGit 1967, Nr 5: 62-65.
Aɫayan 1973Aɫayan, Ē. B. 1973Baṙak‘nnut‘yun ew stugabanut‘yun. In: PBH, Nr 2: 16‑26.
Aɫayan 1974Aɫayan, Ē. B. 1974Baṙak‘nnakan ew stugabanakan hetazotut‘yunner. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Aɫayan 1976Aɫayan, Ē. B. 1976Ardi hayereni bac‘atrakan baṙaran. Vol. 1 (letters A‑ J); vol. 2 (letters Ł‑F). Yerevan: “Hayastan”.
Aɫayan 1977Aɫayan, Ē. B. 1977Naxamaštoc‘yan hay gri u grakanut‘yan, mesropyan aybubeni ew harakic‘ harc‘eri masin. Yerevan: University Press.
Aɫayan 1980Aɫayan, Ē. B. 1980(Aghayan), Declinasion [read déclinaison, HM] en ‑iwn/‑ean, ‑un/‑uan de l’arménien classique. In: ProcFICAL 1980 : 139‑146.
Aɫayan 1984Aɫayan, Ē. B. 1984Əndhanur ew haykakan baṙagitut‘yun. Yerevan: University Press.
Aɫayan 1985Aɫayan, Ē. B. 1985On the chronology of Indo‑European ō and ŏ (ŏm, ŏn) > Armenian u sound shift. In: AnnArmLing 6: 21‑25.
Aɫayan 1986Aɫayan, Ē. B. 1986Aknarkner hayoc‘ tomarneri patmut‘yan. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Aɫayan 1987Aɫayan, Ē. B. 1987Lezvabanut‘yan himunk‘ner. Yerevan: University Press.
Aɫayan 2003Aɫayan, Ē. B. 2003Lezvabanakan hetazotut‘yunner (ed. by Ṙ. S. Łazaryan, introd. by H. Z. Petrosyan). Yerevan: University Press.
Aɫayan 1979Aɫayan, Łazaros 1979Erker (ed. by B. H. Ananikyan). Yerevan: “Sovetakan groɫ” (Hay dasakanneri gradaran).
Ališan 1876Ališan, Łewond 1876see Sources: Assizes of Antioch.
Ališan 1895Ališan, Łewond 1895Haybusak kam haykakan busabaṙut‘iwn. Venice: S. Lazar.
Ališan 1910Ališan, Łewond 1910Hin hawatk‘ kam het‘anosakan krōnk‘ Hayoc‘. Venice: S. Lazar.
Ališan 1920Ališan, Łewond 1920Yušikk‘ hayreneac‘ hayoc‘. Venice: S. Lazar.
Alishan 1986Alishan, Leonardo P. 1986The sacred world of Sasna tsṙer: steps toward an understanding. In: JourSocArmStud 2, 1985-86 [1986]: 107-139.
Allahvērtean 1884Allahvērtean, Y. 1884Ulnia kam Zeyt‘un. K-Polis: Paɫtatlean/Aramean.
Allen 1983Allen, Leslie C. 1983Psalms 101‑150 (transl. from the Hebrew with comm., explanations and notes). Waco, Texas: Word Books. (World Biblical Commentary 21).
Allen 1950Allen, W. S. 1950Notes on the phonetics of an Eastern Armenian speaker. In: TrPhilSoc 1950 [1951]: 180‑206.
Amalyan 1966Amalyan, H. M. 1966Miǰnadaryan Hayastani baṙaranagrakan hušarjanner (V‑XV dd.). Yerevan: Academy Press.
Amalyan 1971Amalyan, H. M. 1971Miǰnadaryan Hayastani baṙaranagrakan hušarjanner (XVI‑XVII dd.). Yerevan: Academy Press.
Amalyan 1971aAmalyan, H. M. 1971aEremia Meɫrec‘u baṙaranə hay banasirut‘yan meǰ. In: BanbMaten 10: 251-258.
Amalyan 1972Amalyan, H. M. 1972Baṙak‘nnakan ditoɫut‘yunner. In: PBH 1972, Nr 2: 131-144.
Amalyan 1975Amalyan, H. M. 1975 Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Amatuni 1912Amatuni, Sahak Vardapet 1912 Hayoc‘ baṙ u ban. Vaɫaršapat.
Ananyan 1961‑75Ananyan, V. S. 1961‑75see HayKendAšx 1‑5.
Ananyan 1978Ananyan, V. S. 1978Hin vrani p‘ok‘rik bnakič‘ə. Yerevan: “Sovetakan groɫ”.
Ananyan 1980Ananyan, V. S. 1980Ur en tanum kacannerə? Yerevan: “Sovetakan groɫ”.
Ananyan 1984Ananyan, V. S. 1984(1‑4), Erker. In: 4 volumes. Yerevan: “Sovetakan groɫ”. [Whenever the volume number is not indicated, the volume 4 (“Hovazajori gerinerə”) is meant].
Ananyan 1987Ananyan, V. S. 1987Sewani ap‘in. Yerevan: “Arewik”. (Arkacayin gradaran).
Anasyan 1967Anasyan, Arsen 1967T‘ovmas Kilikec‘u ašxarhagrut‘yunə. In: BanbMaten 8: 275-284.
Anasyan 1959-76Anasyan, Hakob Sedraki 1959-76(HaykMaten 1-2), Haykakan matenagitut‘yun: 5-18 dd (redacted by V. A. Hakobyan). Vol. 1, 1959; vol. 2, 1976. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Andranik 1900Andranik 1900Tērsim: čanaparhordut‘iwn ew teɫagrut‘iwn. T‘iflis: Aragatip M. Martiroseanc‘i. (T‘iflisi hayoc‘ hratarakč‘akan ənkerut‘iwn, 188).
Andreasyan 1967Andreasyan, Tigran 1967Svediayi barbaṙə (K‘ist‘inəgi lezun). Yerevan: Academy Press.
Ant‘osyan 1961Ant‘osyan, S. M. 1961 Kesariayi barbaṙə. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Ant‘osyan 1972Ant‘osyan, S. M. 1972Bayə ew nra xonarhman hamakargə. Č‘t‘ek‘voɫ xosk‘i maser. In: Aknarkner miǰin grakan hayereni patmut‘yan. Vol. 1. Yerevan: Academy Press: 297-490.
Ant‘osyan 1975Ant‘osyan, S. M. 1975Xonarhman hamakargi zargac‘man ənt‘ac‘k‘ə. In: HayLezPatmK‘er 2: 159-377.
Anttila 1986Anttila, Raimo 1986Deepened joys of etymology, Grade a (and ä). In: Journal de la Société finno‑ougrienne 80: 15‑27.
Anttila 2000Anttila, Raimo 2000Greek and Indo-European etymology in action: Proto-Indo-European *aĝ-. Amsterdam, Philadelphia. John Benjamins Publishing Company. (Amsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science. Series IV, Current issues in linguistic theory, 200).
Aṙak‘elyan 1941Aṙak‘elyan, B. N. 1941Hayk-Ōrion. In: TeɫGAHF 1941, Nr 8 (13): 29-36.
Aṙak‘elyan 1951Aṙak‘elyan, B. N. 1951Ditoɫut‘yunner Višapak‘aɫ Vahagni masin. In: TeɫHasGit 1951, Nr 2: 75‑81.
Aṙak‘elyan 1988Aṙak‘elyan, B. N. 1988Urartun ew hay žoɫovrdi kazmavorumə. In: UrHay 1988: 5‑46.
Aṙak‘elyan 1969Aṙak‘elyan, Varag 1969Movses Kaɫankatvac‘i, Patmut‘yun Aɫvanic‘ ašxarhi (ModEArm. translation and commentary). Yerevan: “Hayastan”.
Aṙak‘elyan 1975Aṙak‘elyan, Varag 1975Grigor Narekac‘u lezun ew očə. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Aṙak‘elyan 1979Aṙak‘elyan, Varag 1979Baṙak‘nnakan ditoɫut‘yunner. In: PBH 1979, Nr 4: 35‑45.
Aṙak‘elyan 1981Aṙak‘elyan, Varag 1981Aknarkner hayoc‘ grakan lezvi patmut‘yan (V dar). Yerevan: Academy Press.
Aṙak‘elyan 1982Aṙak‘elyan, Varag 1982See Sources: Kirakos Ganjakec‘i.
Aṙak‘elyan 1983Aṙak‘elyan, Varag 1983(ed.), Movsēs Kaɫankatuac‘i, Patmut‘iwn Aɫuanic‘ ašxarhi (critical text and introduction). Yerevan: Academy Press.
Aṙak‘elyan 1984Aṙak‘elyan, Varag 1984Hingerord dari hay t‘argmanakan grakanut‘yan lezun ew očə. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Aṙak‘elyan 1984aAṙak‘elyan, Varag 1984aBaṙak‘nnakan ditoɫut‘yunner. In: PBH 1984, Nr 3: 142‑151.
Arbeitman 1980Arbeitman, Yoël 1980The recovery of an IE collocation. In: ProcFICAL 1980 : 225‑231.
Arbeitman/Ayala 1981Arbeitman, Yoël & Ayala, Gilbert‑James 1981Rhotacism in Hieroglyphic Luwian. In: Gd Kerns 1981, part 1: 25‑28.
Ardzinba 1983Ardzinba, V. G. 1983Posleslovie: O nekotoryx novyx rezul’tatax v issledovanii istorii, jazykov i kul’tury drevnej Anatolii. In: Makkuin, Dž. G., Xetty i ix sovremenniki v Maloj Azii (Russ. translation by F. L. Mendel’son). Moscow: GRVLI “Nauka”; pp. 152‑180.
Ardzinba 1985Ardzinba, V. G. 1985Nartskij sjužet o roždenii geroja iz kamnja. In: DrevAnat 1985: 128-168.
Arešyan 1975Arešyan, G. E. 1975Železo v drevnej Zapadnoj Azii. (candidate dissertation: avtoreferat). Leningrad.
Arewšatyan 1956Arewšatyan, S. 1956(Arevšatjan), Traktat Zenona Stoika “O prirode” i ego drevnearmjanskij perevod. In: BanbMaten 3: 315‑342.
Ark‘ayik 1908Ark‘ayik 1908Łap‘ani awandut‘iwnneric‘. In: AzgHand 11th year, 18th book, 1908, Nr 2: 106-108.
Ark‘ayik 1910Ark‘ayik 1910Łap‘ani banawor grakanut‘iwnic‘: ǰangilumner; aɫōt‘k‘ner. In: AzgHand 12th year, 20th book, 1910, Nr 2: 112-115.
Arutjunjan 1983Arutjunjan, Covinar R. 1983Armjano‑grečeskie leksičeskie izoglossy. In: OčSrLekArm 1983: 221‑354.
Arutjunjan 1965Arutjunjan, N. V. 1965Nekotorye voprosy toponimiki Urartu. In: PBH (= IFŽ) 1965, Nr 1: 187‑200.
Arutjunjan 1978Arutjunjan, N. V. 1978K interpretacii urartskoj nadpisi iz Xagi. In: DrevVost 3: 153‑167.
Arutjunjan 1985Arutjunjan, N. V. 1985Toponimika Urartu. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Arutjunjan 2001Arutjunjan, N. V. 2001Korpus urartskix klinoobraznyx nadpisej. Yerevan: Academy Press ‘Gitutjun’.
Arzoumanian 1982Arzoumanian, Zaven 1982History of Lewond, The Eminent Vardapet of the Armenians. Translation, introduction and commentary. Philadelphia.
Asatryan 1990Asatryan, G. D. 1990Patmakan K‘anak‘eṙə ew k‘anak‘eṙc‘inerə (XII‑XX darer). Yerevan: “Hayastan”.
Asatryan 1990Asatryan, G. S. 1990Ardyok‘ kan haykakan p‘oxaṙut‘yunner nor parskerenum? In: PBH 1990, Nr 3: 139‑144.
Asatryan 1992Asatryan, G. S. 1992Kontakty armjanskogo s novoiranskimi jazykami (doctoral dissertation: avtoreferat). Yerevan: Academy Press.
Asatryan 1962Asatryan, M. E. 1962Urmiayi (Xoyi) barbaṙə. Yerevan: University Press.
Asatryan 1968Asatryan, M. E. 1968Loṙu xosvack‘ə. Yerevan: “Mitk‘”, University Press.
Asmanguljan 1984Asmanguljan, A. A. 1984: Nekotorye voprosy istoriko-ètimologičeskogo izučenija terminov rodstva armjanskogo jazyka. In: IntSympArmLing 1984: 15-30.
Astuacaturean 1895Astuacaturean, T‘. 1895Hamabarbaṙ Hin ew Nor Ktakaranac‘. Jerusalem: St Jacob.
Atkins 1941Atkins, Samuel D. 1941Pūṣan in the Rig-Veda. Princeton: Princeton University dissertation.
Audouin 1892Audouin, E. 1892 Prothèse vocalique. In: MSL 7: 61-64.
Austin 1941Austin, William M. 1941The prothetic vowel in Greek. In: Language 17: 83‑92.
Austin 1942Austin, William M. 1942Is Armenian an Anatolian language? In: Language 18: 22‑25.
Avagyan 1973Avagyan, Suren Artemi 1973Vimakan arjanagrut‘yunneri hnč‘yunabanut‘yun (X‑XIV dd.). Yerevan: Academy Press.
Avagyan 1978Avagyan, Suren Artemi 1978Vimakan arjanagrut‘yunneri baṙak‘nnut‘yun. Yerevan: University Press.
Avagyan 1986Avagyan, Suren Artemi 1986Vimagrakan prptumner. Yerevan: University Press.
Avagyan 1978Avagyan, Serine Movsesi 1978Arčak. HayAzgBan 8. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Avetisyan 1989Avetisyan, Ē. S. 1989Kirakos Episkoposi “Vasn t‘ṙč‘noc‘” banasteɫcut‘yunə. In: BanbErewHamals 1989, Nr 3: 122‑126.
Bader 1986Bader, Françoise 1986An I.E. myth of immersion-emergence. In: JourIndEurStud 14.1-2: 39-123.
Bailey 1930-31Bailey, Harold W. 1930-31To the Zamasp Namak I-II. In: BSOS 6.1 (1930): 55-85; 6.3 (1931): 581-600.
Bailey 1955-56Bailey, Harold W. 1955-56Indo-Iranian studies III. In: TrPhilSoc 1955 [1956]: 55-82.
Bailey 1956Bailey, Harold W. 1956Armeno-Indoiranica. In: TrPhilSoc 1956: 88-126.
Bailey 1961Bailey, Harold W. 1961Indagatio Indo-Iranica. In: TrPhilSoc 1960 [1961]: 62-86.
Bailey 1968Bailey, Harold W. 1968Saka of Khotan and Wakhān. In: Fs Kuiper 1968 (Pratidānam): 157‑159.
Bailey 1979Bailey, Harold W. 1979Dictionary of Khotan Saka. Cambridge, London, New York, Melbourne: Cambridge University press.
Bailey 1983Bailey, Harold W. 1983Armenian azbn and peɫem. In: AnnArmLing 4: 1-4.
Bailey 1985Bailey, Harold W. 1985Armenian sin and zgeṙ (zkeṙ). In: AnnArmLing 6: 27‑30.
Bailey 1986Bailey, Harold W. 1986An Iranian miscellany in Armenian. In: Gd Berbérian 1986: 1‑8.
Bailey 1987Bailey, Harold W. 1987Armenia and Iran IV. Iranian influences in Armenian. 2. Iranian loanwords in Armenian. In: EncIran 2, 1987: 459-465.
Bailey 1989Bailey, Harold W. 1989Two Armeno‑Iranian etymologies. In: AnnArmLing 10: 1‑4.
Bakunc‘ 1976Bakunc‘, Aksel 1976Erker. In: 4 volumes. Vol. 1. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Baɫdasaryan‑T‘ap‘alc‘yan 1958Baɫdasaryan‑T‘ap‘alc‘yan, S. H. 1958Mšo barbaṙə. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Baɫdasaryan‑T‘ap‘alc‘yan 1971Baɫdasaryan‑T‘ap‘alc‘yan, S. H. 1971Baṙimasti p‘op‘oxut‘yan mi k‘ani erewuyt‘ner Araratyan barbaṙum. In: PBH 1971, Nr 4: 217‑234.
Baɫdasaryan‑T‘ap‘alc‘yan 1973Baɫdasaryan‑T‘ap‘alc‘yan, S. H. 1973Araratyan barbaṙi xosvack‘nerə Hoktemberyani šrǰanum. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Baɫdasaryan‑T‘ap‘alc‘yan 1976Baɫdasaryan‑T‘ap‘alc‘yan, S. H. 1976(Bagdasarjan‑Tapalcjan), Meždialektnye kontakty v Araratskoj doline. In: LingGeogrDialIstJaz: 100‑108.
Balles 1997Balles, Irene 1997Reduktionserscheinungen in langen Wortformen als Ursprung morphologischer Doppelformen im Urindo­ger­ma­nischen: die Suffixformen -i̯o- und -ii̯o-. In: Die Sprache 39.2: 141-167.
Baɫramyan 1960Baɫramyan, Ṙ. H. 1960Dersimi barbaṙayin k‘artezə. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Baɫramyan 1961Baɫramyan, Ṙ. H. 1961Kṙzeni barbaṙə. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Baɫramyan 1964Baɫramyan, Ṙ. H. 1964Šamaxii barbaṙə. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Baɫramyan 1965Baɫramyan, Ṙ. H. 1965‘A’ jaynavori p‘op‘oxut‘yunə barbaṙnerum. In: PBH 1965, Nr 4: 79‑95.
Baɫramyan 1972Baɫramyan, Ṙ. H. 1972Hayereni barbaṙner: Sewana lči avazani xosvacqnerə. Yerevan: Haykakan petakan mankavaržakan institut.
Baɫramyan 1974Baɫramyan, Ṙ. H. 1974Hayeren baṙer “K‘it‘abi dada Gorgudum”. In: PBH 1974, Nr 1: 162‑174.
Bammesberger 1970Bammesberger, Alfred 1970Litauisch lãpė und lateinisch volpēs. In: Fs Stang 1970: 38-43.
Bammesberger 1971Bammesberger, Alfred 1971Urgermanisch *funsaz. In: Die Sprache 17.1: 46-49.
Bammesberger 1982Bammesberger, Alfred 1982Le mot irlandais désignant l’oeil. In: ÉtCelt 19: 155-157.
Bańkowski 1989Bańkowski, Andrzej 1989Slavic *kъnorzъ as a relic of a primitive Indo-European adjective-building class. In: LingPosn 30, 1987 [1989]: 39-45.
Baṙnasyan 2006Baṙnasyan, J̌emma 2006Hayoc‘ hin amsanunneri cagman harc‘i šurǰ. In: IntConfArmLett 2006: 343-348.
Bartholomae 1899Bartholomae, Christian 1899Arica XI. In: IndogForsch 10: 1‑20.
Bartholomae 1904Bartholomae, Christian 1904Altiranisches Wörterbuch. Strassburg: Verlag von Karl J. Trübner.
Bartikjan 1967Bartikjan, R. M. 1967Eretiki Arevordi (“Syny solnca”) v Armenii i Mesopotamii i poslanie armjanskogo katolikosa Nersesa Blagodatnogo. In: ÈllBlVVizIr: 102‑112.
Barton 1963Barton, Charles R. 1963The etymology of Armenian ert‘am. In: Language 39.4: 620.
Barton 1985Barton, Charles R. 1985Hittite me-ri-ir, epp- and a note on the ablaut of root verbs. In: ZVS 98: 13-19.
Barton 1987Barton, Charles R. 1987Greek eirw, Latin sero, Armenian yerum. In AmJPhil 108.4: 672-674.
Barton 1988Barton, Charles R. 1988Gk. ā̆́esa, Arm. agay and PIE *h1A. In: LaryngTheor 1988: 49-58.
Barton 1989Barton, Charles R. 1989PIE. *mer-, Arm. mer̄anim ‘die’. In: IndogForsch 94: 135-157.
Barton 1990-91Barton, Charles R. 1990-91On the denominal a-statives of Armenian. In: RevEtArm n.s.22: 29-52.
Barxudareanc‘ 1883Barxudareanc‘, Makar Vard./Epis. 1883(Makar Vard.), Pələ-Puɫi. T‘iflis: Mov. Vardaneani ew Ənk. tparanum.
Barxudareanc‘ 1995 (1895)Barxudareanc‘, Makar Vard./Epis. 1995 (1895)(Makar Epis. Barxutareanc‘/Barxudaryan), Arc‘ax. Step‘anakert: “Munk‘”, 1995; Yerevan: “Amaras”, 1996. Reprinted from 1895, Bagu: “Arōr”.
Barxutareanc‘ 1883Barxutareanc‘, Usta‑Gēorg 1883Arazə tarin ktari. Šuši: Tparan M. Mahtesi-Yakobeanc‘.
Barxutareanc‘ 1896Barxutareanc‘, Usta‑Gēorg 1896Č‘obann u nšanacə (1883 t‘uin). T‘iflis: Tparan M. Šarajēi.
Barxutareanc‘ 1898Barxutareanc‘, Usta‑Gēorg 1898Baroyakan aṙacner. Tp‘xis: Tparan M. Šarajēi ew Ənk.
Basmaǰean 1926Basmaǰean, K. Y. 1926(ed.) Amirtovlat‘i Amasiac‘woy Angitac‘ anpet kam baṙaran bžškakan niwt‘oc‘. Vienna: Mxit‘arean tparan.
Baum 2006Baum, Daniel 2006The imperative in the Rigveda. PhD diss. Leiden University. Utrecht: Landelijke Onderzoekschool Taalwetenschap.
Bdoyan 1963-83Bdoyan, V. H. 1963-83(HayŽoɫXaɫ 1-3), Hay žoɫovrdakan xaɫer. Vol. 1: 1963; vol. 2: 1980; vol. 3: 1983. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Bdoyan 1964Bdoyan, V. H. 1964Šarac‘an sistemə Vana lči avazanum. In: PBH 1964, Nr 1: 249‑257.
Bdoyan 1972Bdoyan, V. H. 1972Erkragorcakan mšakuyt‘ə Hayastanum. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Bdoyan 1986Bdoyan, V. H. 1986Haykakan aɫamanner. Yerevan: “Sovetakan groɫ”.
Bediryan 1955Bediryan, P. S. 1955Hayereni mi k‘ani baṙeri stugabanut‘yan šurǰə. In: TeɫHasGit 1955, Nr 9: 95-104.
Bediryan 1956Bediryan, P. S. 1956Stugabanakan verlucut‘yunner. In: TeɫHasGit 1956, Nr 7: 39-48.
Bediryan 1962Bediryan, P. S. 1962Mi k‘ani stugabanut‘yunner. In: PBH 1962, Nr 1: 139-147.
Bediryan 1966Bediryan, P. S. 1966Stugabanut‘yunner. In: PBH 1966, Nr. 2: 217-225.
Bediryan 2003Bediryan, P. S. 2003Baṙeri xorhrdavor ašxarhum: zruyc‘ner. Yerevan: “Zangak”.
Beekes 1969Beekes, Robert S. P. 1969The development of the Proto‑Indo‑European laryngeals in Greek. The Hague, Paris: Mouton.
Beekes 1971Beekes, Robert S. P. 1971μώνυχες ἵπποι. In: Orbis 20.1: 138-142.
Beekes 1971aBeekes, Robert S. P. 1971aA European substratum word. In: Orbis 20.1: 132-137.
Beekes 1972Beekes, Robert S. P. 1972H2O. In: Die Sprache 18: 117‑131.
Beekes 1972aBeekes, Robert S. P. 1972aThe nominative of the Hysterodynamic noun-inflection. In: ZVS 86.1: 30-63.
Beekes 1973Beekes, Robert S. P. 1973The Proterodynamic ‘Perfect’. In: ZVS 87: 86‑98.
Beekes 1973aBeekes, Robert S. P. 1973aThe Greek i‑ and u‑stems and πόlις, ‑ηος. In: Glotta 51: 228‑245.
Beekes 1973bBeekes, Robert S. P. 1973bLat. prae and other supposed datives in -ai. In: ZVS 87: 215-221.
Beekes 1973cBeekes, Robert S. P. 1973cReview of Hahn 1969. In: Mnemosyne 26.4: 399-401.
Beekes 1974Beekes, Robert S. P. 1974Another proterodynamic verb in Hittite. In: ZVS 88: 181-184.
Beekes 1975Beekes, Robert S. P. 1975Review of Furnée 1972 (Part I: General). In: Lingua 36: 69-82. (For Part II see Kuipers 1975).
Beekes 1975aBeekes, Robert S. P. 1975aTwo notes on PIE stems in dentals. In: FlexWortb 1975: 9-14.
Beekes 1975bBeekes, Robert S. P. 1975bReview of W. F. Wyatt, The Greek prothetic vowel. Cleveland, 1972. In: Mnemosyne 28.4: 427-430.
Beekes 1976Beekes, Robert S. P. 1976Some Greek aRa-forms. In: MünStudSpr 34: 9-20.
Beekes 1976aBeekes, Robert S. P. 1976aUncle and nephew. In: JourIndEurStud 4: 43-63.
Beekes 1976bBeekes, Robert S. P. 1976bReview of E. Seebold, Das System der indogermanischen Halbvokale, Heidelberg, 1972. In: IndIranJour 18: 88-96.
Beekes 1977Beekes, Robert S. P. 1977Greek nouns in -υς, -υος. In: Orbis 26: 253-261.
Beekes 1977aBeekes, Robert S. P. 1977aΚῆρες, Κᾶρες: root nouns of the type Cēr, Cărós? In: MünStudSpr 36: 5-7.
Beekes 1981-82Beekes, Robert S. P. 1981-82Review of Peters 1980. In: Kratylos 26, 1981 [1982]: 106-115.
Beekes 1982Beekes, Robert S. P. 1982GAv. , the PIE word for ‘moon, month’, and the perfect participle. In: JourIndEurStud 10: 53-64.
Beekes 1984Beekes, Robert S. P. 1984PIE ‘sun’. In: MünStudSpr 43: 5-8.
Beekes 1985Beekes, Robert S. P. 1985The origins of the Indo‑European nominal inflection. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, 46).
Beekes 1986Beekes, Robert S. P. 1986‘You can get new children...’: Turkish and other parallels to ancient Greek ideas in Herodotus, Thucydides, Sophocles and Euripides. In: Mnemosyne 39.3-4: 225-239.
Beekes 1986aBeekes, Robert S. P. 1986aReview of A. Bammesberger, Studien zur Laryngaltheorie, Göttingen, 1984. In: Kratylos 31: 70-75.
Beekes 1987Beekes, Robert S. P. 1987Gr. (ἀ)στεροπή, ἀστραπή. In: MünStudSpr 48: 15‑20.
Beekes 1987aBeekes, Robert S. P. 1987aOn Indo-European ‘wine’. In: MünStudSpr 48: 21-26.
Beekes 1987bBeekes, Robert S. P. 1987bThe PIE words for ‘name’ and ‘me’. In: Die Sprache 33.1-2: 1-12.
Beekes 1987cBeekes, Robert S. P. 1987cIndo-European neuters in -i. In: Fs Hoenigswald 1987: 45-56.
Beekes 1987dBeekes, Robert S. P. 1987dThe word for ‘four’ in Proto-Indo-European. In: JourIndEurStud 15: 215-219.
Beekes 1988Beekes, Robert S. P. 1988Laryngeal developments: a survey. In: LaryngTheor 1988: 59‑105.
Beekes 1988aBeekes, Robert S. P. 1988aPIE. RHC‑ in Greek and other languages. In: IndogForsch 93: 22‑45.
Beekes 1989Beekes, Robert S. P. 1989The nature of Proto-Indo-European laryngeals. In: NewSouIndEur 1989: 23-33.
Beekes 1989aBeekes, Robert S. P. 1989aOld Persian p‑ϑ‑i‑m. In: MünStudSpr 50: 7‑13.
Beekes 1989bBeekes, Robert S. P. 1989bReview of Nussbaum 1986. In: Kratylos 34: 55-59.
Beekes 1990Beekes, Robert S. P. 1990Wackernagel’s explanation of the lengthened grade. In: SprPhil 1990: 33-53.
Beekes 1990aBeekes, Robert S. P. 1990aBloem en blad. In: 100 jaar etymologisch woordenboek van het Nederlands, ed. by A. Moerdijk, W. Pijnenburg, P. van Sterkenburg. The Hague: 375-382.
Beekes 1990-92Beekes, Robert S. P. 1990-92The genitive in *-osio. In: FolLingHist 11.1-2, 1990 [1992]: 21-25.
Beekes 1991Beekes, Robert S. P. 1991Review of LaryngTheor 1988. In: AmstBeiAltGerm 33: 237-245.
Beekes 1992Beekes, Robert S. P. 1992‘Widow’. In: HistSpr 105.2: 171-188.
Beekes 1994Beekes, Robert S. P. 1994‘Right’, ‘left’ and ‘naked’ in Proto-Indo-European. In: Orbis 37: 87-96.
Beekes 1994aBeekes, Robert S. P. 1994aThe neuter plural of thematic nouns. Derivatives from a stem in -e- from thematic nouns. In: FrMitSpIdg 1994 : 1-15.
Beekes 1995Beekes, Robert S. P. 1995Comparative Indo‑European linguistics: an introduction. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Beekes 1996Beekes, Robert S. P. 1996Ancient European loanwords. In: HistSpr 109.2: 215-236.
Beekes 1996aBeekes, Robert S. P. 1996aThe etymology of Germ. Funke ‘spark’. In: AmstBeiAltGerm 46: 1-8.
Beekes 1998Beekes, Robert S. P. 1998Hades and Elysion. In: Fs Watkins 1998: 17‑28.
Beekes 1998aBeekes, Robert S. P. 1998aThe origin of Lat. aqua, and of teutā ‘people’. In: JourIndEurStud 26, 3-4: 459-466.
Beekes 2000Beekes, Robert S. P. 2000European substratum words in Greek. In: Ofitsch/Zinko 2000: 21‑31.
Beekes 2001Beekes, Robert S. P. 2001God is non-Indo-European. In: AmstBeiAltGerm 54: 27-30.
Beekes 2002 [2004]Beekes, Robert S. P. 2002 [2004]Hom. γέφυρα, and Arm. kamurǰ ‘bridge’. In: Glotta 78, 1‑4: 12‑21.
Beekes 2003Beekes, Robert S. P. 2003Historical phonology of Classical Armenian, apud Kortlandt 2003: 133‑211.
Beekes 2003aBeekes, Robert S. P. 2003aIndo-European or substrate? φάτνη and κῆρυξ. In: LangPrehEur 2003: 109-115.
Beekes 2004Beekes, Robert S. P. 2004Armenian gišer and the Indo-European word for ‘evening’. In: Fs Rasmussen 2004: 59-62.
Beekes 2008Beekes, Robert S. P. 2008Palatalized consonants in Pre-Greek. In: Fs Kortlandt 2008, 1: 45-56.
Beekes 2009Beekes, Robert S. P. 2009Etymological Dictionary of Greek (with the assistance of Lucien van Beek). Leiden: Brill.
Beekes/van der Meer 1991Beekes, R. S. P. & van der Meer, L. B. 1991De Etrusken spreken. Muiderberg: Dick Coutinho.
Béguinot/Diratzouyan 1912Béguinot, Augusto & Diratzouyan, P. Nersès 1912Contributo alla flora dell’Armenia. Venezia: Tipografia Armena di S. Lazzaro.
Behr 2004Behr, Wolfgang 2004Hinc sunt leones: two ancient Eurasian migratory terms in Chinese revisited (1). In: International journal of Central Asian studies. Seoul, Institute of Asian culture and development; Tashkent, International association of Central Asian studies. 2004: 1-24.
Behr 2005Behr, Wolfgang 2005Hinc sunt leones: two ancient Eurasian migratory terms in Chinese revisited (2). In: International journal of Central Asian studies. Seoul, Institute of Asian culture and development; Tashkent, International association of Central Asian studies; vol. 10: 1-28.
Belardi 1950Belardi, Walter 1950Arm. nerkanem. Arm. p‘ayt e payt‘em. In: RicLing 1.1: 147-148 and 148-149.
Belck 1901Belck, Waldemar 1901, 1-2Beiträge zur alten Geographie und Geschichte Vorderasiens. 2 vols. Leipzig: Verlag von Eduard Pfeiffer.
Belenickij 1964Belenickij, A. M. 1964K istorii kul’turnyx svjazej Srednej Azii k Indii v rannee srednevekov’e. In: IndDrev 1964: 188‑198.
Benninghaus 1989Benninghaus, Rüdiger 1989Zur Herkunft und Identität der Hemşinli. In: EthnGrTurk: 497‑502.
Benveniste 1927Benveniste, Émile 1927Sur quelques emprunts iraniens en arménien. In: HandAms 41: 761-764.
Benveniste 1929Benveniste, Émile 1929Le nom d’un animal indien chez Élien. In: Fs Schrijnen 1929: 371‑376.
Benveniste 1930Benveniste, Émile 1930Sur ‑r‑ de arménien merk ‘nu’. In: RevEtArm 10.2: 187.
Benveniste 1932Benveniste, Émile 1932Une racine indo‑européenne. In: BSL 33: 133‑135.
Benveniste 1945Benveniste, Émile 1945Etudes iraniennes. In: TrPhilSoc 1945 [1946]: 39‑78.
Benveniste 1954Benveniste, Émile 1954Problèmes sémantiques de la reconstruction. In: Word 10.2-3: 251-264.
Benveniste 1957-58Benveniste, Émile 1957-58Mots d’emprunt iraniens en arménien. In: BSL 53 (1957‑1958), fasc. 1: 55‑71.
Benveniste 1964Benveniste, Émile 1964Éléments parthes en arménien. In: RevEtArm n.s. 1: 1-39.
Benveniste 1965Benveniste, Émile 1965Arménien aregakn ‘soleil’ et la formation nominale en ‑akn. In: RevEtArm n.s. 2: 5‑19.
Benveniste 1966Benveniste, Émile 1966Une correspondance indo-européenne en arménien. In: RevEtArm n.s. 3: 7-10.
Benveniste 1967Benveniste, Émile 1967Un fait de supplétisme lexical en indo-européen. In: Fs Pokorny 1967: 11-15.
Benveniste 1969Benveniste, Émile 1969, 1‑2Le vocabulaire des institutions indo‑européennes. 1. économie, parenté, société; 2. pouvoir, droit, religion. Paris: Les Editions de Minuit. Engl. transl. see 1973.
Benveniste 1973Benveniste, Émile 1973Indo-European language and society. Summaries, table and index by Jean Lallot; translated (from 1969) by Elizabeth Palmer. London: Faber and Faber Limited.
Berbérian 1974Berbérian, H. 1974Une racine arménienne méconnue: aɫ-. In: Gd Sɫuszkiewicz 1974: 39-40.
Bernštejn 1984Bernštejn, S. B. 1984Nekotorye voprosy metodiki izučenija problem ètnogeneza slavjan. In: ÈtnNarBalk 1984: 11‑17.
Bezzenberger 1877Bezzenberger, Adalbert 1877[Miscellanea 2‑10]. In: BKIgS 1: 163‑170.
Bijagov 1974Bijagov, L.N. 1974K voprosu ob interpretacii “Xaldi i Arubani‑Bagbartu”. In: LrHasGit (VON) 1974, Nr 11: 98‑101.
Billigmeier 1981Billigmeier, Jon‑Christian 1981Santas and Kupapa on Crete. In: Gd Kerns 1981, 2: 751‑760.
Bittner 1896Bittner, Maximilian 1896Der Kurdengau Uschnûje und die Stadt Urûmije: Reiseschilderungen eines Persers, im Originaltexte herausgegeben, übersetzt und erläutert von Dr. M. Bittner. In: Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-historischen Classe der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. 133.3. Wien.
Blanchard/Young 1998Blanchard, Monica J. & Young, Robin Darling 1998A Treatise on God written in Armenian by Eznik of Koɫb (floruit c. 430-c. 450). An English translation, with introduction and notes. Leuven: Peeters.
Bläsing 1992Bläsing, Uwe 1992Armenisches Lehngut im Türkeitürkischen am Beispiel von Hemşin. Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi.
Bläsing 1995Bläsing, Uwe 1995Armenisch – Türkisch: etymologische Betrachtungen ausgehend von Materialen aus dem Hemşingebiet nebst einigen Anmerkungen zum Armenischen, insbesondere dem Hemşindialekt. Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi.
Bläsing 1995aBläsing, Uwe 1995aBemerkungen zu arm. koɫinǰ ‘Schnecke’. In: NewApprMedArm: 111‑119.
Bläsing 2000Bläsing, Uwe 2000Irano‑Turcica: weitere iranische Elemente im Türkeitürkischen. In: FolOrient 36 (Studia in honorem Stanislai Stachowski dicata): 33‑61.
Bläsing 2001Bläsing, Uwe 2001Arm. p‘ilunc‘ vs. laz. bilonc-, grg. blenc-. Ein Beitrag zu den Bezeichnungen von Farnen (Pteropsida) im Kaukasus und Anatolien. In: StudEtymCrac 6: 15-78.
Bläsing 2007Bläsing, Uwe 2007Armenian in the vocabulary and culture of the Turkish Hemshinli. In: H. Simonian 2007: 279-302.
Blažek 1995Blažek, Václav 1995Indo-European personal pronouns (1st & 2nd persons). In: Dhumbadji! Journal of the history of language 2.3 Dec: 1-15.
Blažek 1998Blažek, Václav 1998Is Indo-European H1ek̂wo- ‘horse’ really of Indo-European origin? In: StudIndogLodz 2: 21-32.
Blažek 1998-99Blažek, Václav 1998-99Baltic and Slavic ‘fox’. In: Linguistica Baltica 7, 1998-99, 25-31.
Blažek 2001Blažek, Václav 2001On the Baltic theonyms: Baltic‑Italic correspondences in divine‑names. In: JourIndEurStud 29, 3‑4: 351‑365.
Blažek 2001aBlažek, Václav 2001aTocharian A muk ‘yoke’ and A maku, B mekwa pl. ‘(finger)nails’ - why m-? In: HistSpr 114.1: 191-195.
Blažek 2002Blažek, Václav 2002The ‘beech’-argument – State-of-the-Art. In: HistSpr 115.2: 190-217.
Blažek 2003Blažek, Václav 2003Slavic *ezero vs. *ozero. In: Studia etymologica Brunensia 2. Praha: Lidové noviny: 243-257.
Blažek 2003aBlažek, Václav 2003aA Tocharian key to the etymology of the bird-name *sr̥ĝó- ‘stork’. In: TochIndEurStud 10: 15-16.
Blažek 2004Blažek, Václav 2004A little light upon ‘night’. In: Fs Rasmussen 2004: 63-68.
Blažek 2005Blažek, Václav 2005Hic erant leones: Indo-European ‘lion’ et alii. In: JourIndEurStud 33.1-2: 63-101.
Blažek 2008Blažek, Václav 2008Celtic ‘smith’ and his colleagues. In: Fs Kortlandt 2008, 1: 67-85.
Blažek forthc.Blažek, Václav forthc.Indo-European ‘smith’ and his divine colleagues.
Bloomfield 1908Bloomfield, Maurice 1908The etymology of πρέσβυς. In: AmJPhil 29, 1: 78‑81.
Boehme/Flint 1994Boehme, R. L. & Flint, V. E. 1994Dictionary of animal names in five languages: birds. Moscow: Russo; Russkij jazyk.
Bogoljubov 1987Bogoljubov, M. N. 1987O drevneindijskom nazvanii Plejad. In: LitKDSInd 1987: 6‑10.
Bogoljubov 1989Bogoljubov, M. N. 1989Iranskie nazvanija utrennej zvezdy. In: VoprJaz 1989, Nr 4: 88‑91.
Boisacq 1910-11Boisacq, Émile 1910-11Grec. ἑλίκη ‘saule’. In: MSL 16: 261-263.
Boisacq 1911‑12Boisacq, Émile 1911‑12Grec κέλωρ ‘fils’ et homonymes. In: MSL 17: 113‑116.
Bolognesi 1960Bolognesi, Giancarlo 1960Le fonti dialettali degli imprestiti iranici in armeno. Milano: Società Editrice Vita e Pensiero. (Pubblicazioni dell’Università cattolica del Sacro cuore. Serie 3: Scienze filologiche e letteratura, 1).
Bolognesi 1986Bolognesi, Giancarlo 1986Armeniaca: emprunts iraniens et calques grecs en arménien. In: PlacArmLIE 1986: 1-15.\
Bolognesi 1986aBolognesi, Giancarlo 1986a(Bolonyezi), Hayereni stugabanakan ew hnč‘yunabanakan harc‘er. In: PBH 1986, Nr 1: 34-42.
Bolognesi 1994Bolognesi, Giancarlo 1994La contribution de Holger Pedersen aux études de linguistique arménienne. In: Pedersen Kolloquium 1994: 29‑39.
Bolognesi 1995Bolognesi, Giancarlo 1995Some notes on Arm. hrapar and its etymology. In: AnnArmLing 16: 1‑11.
Bomhard 1979Bomhard, Allan R. 1979The Indo-European phonological system: new thoughts about its reconstruction and development. In: Orbis 28.1: 66-110.
Bomhard 1986Bomhard, Allan R. 1986An etymological note: PIE H̥s‑tér‑ ‘star’. In: JourIndEurStud 14, 1‑2: 191‑192.
Bomhard 2008Bomhard, Allan R. 2008, 1-2Reconstructing Proto-Nostratic: comparative phonology, morphology, and vocabulary (2 volumes). Leiden, Boston: Brill. (LeidIEEDSer, 6/1-2).
Bonfante 1937Bonfante, Giuliano 1937Les isoglosses gréco‑arméniennes. I. Faits phonétiques. In: Fs Pedersen 1937: 15‑33.
Bonfante 1974Bonfante, Giuliano 1974Das Problem des Weines und die linguistische Paläontologie. In: AntiqIndog 1974: 85-90.
Bonfante 1975Bonfante, Giuliano 1975Un capítolo di fonología dell’indoeuropeo: il problema dell’ŏ breve. In: Fs Benveniste 1975: 47‑54.
Bonfante 1981Bonfante, Giuliano 1981Hayereni dirk‘ə hndevropakan lezuneri meǰ. In: PBH 1981, Nr 2: 54-67.
Bonfante 1984Bonfante, Giuliano 1984The Armenian family-terminology. In: IntSympArmLing 1984: 26-30.
Bournoutian 1994Bournoutian, George A. 1994A history of Qarabagh: an annotated translation of Mirza Jamal Javanshir Qarabaghi’s Tarikh-e Qarabagh. Costa Mesa, California: Mazda Publishers.
Boyce 1957Boyce, Mary 1957The Parthian gōsān and Iranian minstrel tradition. In: JourRoyAsSoc: 10-45.
Boyce 1977Boyce, Mary 1977 A word‑list of Manichaean Middle Persian and Parthian (with a reverse index by Ronald Zwanziger). Leiden: E.J. Brill; Téhéran-Liège: Biliothèque Pahlavi. (Acta Iranica 9a, Série 3 – “Textes et mémoires”, vol. 2‑supplément).
Braccini 2004Braccini, Tommaso 2004Carmen choliambicum quod apud Ps.‑Callisthenis Historiam Alexandri reperitur. München, Leipzig: K. G. Saur Verlag GmbH (Beiträge zur Altertumskunde, 210).
Brandenstein 1967Brandenstein, Wilhelm 1967Ein Beitrag zur Entstehung des aktiven Indikativs. In: Fs Pokorny 1967: 17-19.
Brandenstein/Mayrhofer 1964Brandenstein, Wilhelm & Mayrhofer, Manfred 1964Handbuch des Altpersischen. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Bratcher/Reyburn 1991Bratcher, Robert G. & Reyburn, William D. 1991A translator’s handbook on the book of Psalms. New York: United Bible Societies.
Braun 1998Braun, Jan 1998Euscaro-caucasica: historical and comparative studies on Kartvelian and Basque. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Akademickie (Academic Publications) DIALOG. (Philologia orientalis, 4).
Brosset 1834Brosset, M. 1834Aperçu général de la langue géorgienne. In: JourAsiat 1834, November: 369-405.
Brosset 1870Brosset, M. 1870Deux historiens arméniens: Kiracos de Gantzac, XIIIe s., Histoire d’Arménie; Oukhtanès d’Ourha, Xe s., Histoire en trois parties. St.‑Pétersbourg.
Brown 1947Brown, Norman O. 1947Hermes the thief: the evolution of a myth. The University of Wisconsin Press.
Brugmann 1902-03Brugmann, Karl 1902-03Wortgeschichtliche Miszellen. In: IndogForsch 13: 144-163.
Brugmann 1904Brugmann, Karl 1904Etymologische Miszellen. In: IndogForsch 16: 491-509.
Bugge 1889Bugge, Sophus 1889Beiträge zur etymologischen Erläuterung der armenischen Sprache. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.
Bugge 1890Bugge, Sophus 1890Etruskisch und Armenisch: sprachvergleichende Forschungen. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.
Bugge 1892Bugge, Sophus 1892Beiträge zur etymologischen Erläuterung der armenischen Sprache. In: IndogForsch 1: 437‑459.
Bugge 1893Bugge, Sophus 1893Beiträge zur etymologischen Erläuterung der armenischen Sprache. In: ZVS 32: 1‑87.
Bugge 1897‑1901Bugge, Sophus 1897‑1901 (1‑2),Lykische Studien. 1, 1897; 2, 1901. Christiania: In Kommission bei Jacob Dybwad; A. W. Brøggers Buchdruckerei. (Videnskabsselskabets Skrifter. II. Historisk‑filosofisk Klasse. 1897, Nr 7; 1901, Nr 4).
Bugge 1899Bugge, Sophus 1899Einige Zahlwörter im Lykischen. In: IndogForsch 10: 59‑61.
Bugge 1903Bugge, Sophus 1903Armen. magil. In: ZArmPhil 1: 164-166.
Burrow 2001Burrow, Thomas 2001The Sanskrit language. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited; London: Faber and Faber (< 1973 < 1955).
Cabolov 2001Cabolov, R. L. 2001 : Ètimologičeskij slovar’ kurdskogo jazyka, vol. 1. Moskva: Russian Academy Press “Vostočnaja literatura”.
Campbell 1990Campbell, Lyle 1990Indo‑European and Uralic tree names. In: Diachronica 7.2: 149‑180.
Čanikean 1895Čanikean, Y. K. 1895Hnut‘iwnk‘ Aknay. T‘iflis: Tparan M. D. Ṙōtineanc‘i. (T‘iflisi hayoc‘ hratarakč‘akan ənkerut‘iwn, 89).
Cardona 1987Cardona, George 1987On Sanskrit bhunákti ‘aids, serves, protects’. In: Fs Hoenigswald 1987: 65‑72.
Carpelan/Parpola 2001Carpelan, Christian & Parpola, Asko 2001Emergence, contacts and dispersal of Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Uralic and Proto-Aryan in archaeological perspective. In: EarlContUralIndEur 2001: 55-150.
Casaretto 2000Casaretto, Antje 2000Korpussprachen und Produktivität: Einige Überlegungen zu den gotischen s‑Stämmen. In: HistSpr 113: 210‑238.
Caturyan 1970Caturyan, T‘. G. 1970Buyseri anunneri latineren-hayeren-ṙuseren baṙaran (2nd revised ed.). Yerevan: University Press.
Černyx 1999Černyx, Pavel Jakovlevič 1999(1-2), Istoriko-ètimologičeskij slovar’ sovremennogo russkogo jazyka (2 volumes). Moscow: “Russkij jazyk”.
Chantraine 1968-80Chantraine, Pierre 1968-80Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque: histoire des mots (4 volumes). Paris: Klincksieck.
Chapman/Chapman 1975Chapman, Donald & Chapman, Norma 1975Fallow deer: their history, distribution and biology. Lavenham, Suffolk: Terence Dalton Limited.
Charpentier 1909Charpentier, Jarl 1909Kleine Beiträge zur armenischen Wortkunde. In: IndogForsch 25: 241-256.
Cheung 2002Cheung, Johnny 2002Studies in the historical development of the Ossetic vocalism. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.
Cheung 2007Cheung, Johnny 2007Etymological dictionary of the Iranian verb. Leiden, Boston: Brill. (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary series, 2).
Chirikba 1985Chirikba, Vyacheslav A. 1985(Čirikba), Baskskij i severokavkazskie jazyki. In: DrevAnat 1985: 95‑105.
Chirikba 1996Chirikba, Vyacheslav A. 1996Common West Caucasian: the reconstruction of its phonological system and parts of its lexicon and morphology. Leiden: Research School CNWS. (CNWS publications, 48).
Chirikba 2006Chirikba, Vyacheslav A. 2006Abkhaz loans in Megrelian. In: IranCauc 10.1: 25-76.
Cilvan 1899Cilvan, G. L. 1899T‘amar ew Ōvan. In: Biwrakn 1899: 197-200.
Cimino 1994Cimino, Rosa Maria 1994An exceptional find in India: a small sculpture depicting Eros issuing from an egg. In: SouthAsArch 1994, 1: 171-182.
Cirbied 1823Cirbied, Jacques Chahan (Yakovb Šahan J̌rpetean) 1823Grammaire de la langue arménienne: où l’on expose les principes et les règles de la langue, d’après les meilleurs grammairiens, et les auteurs originaux et suivant les usages particuliers de l’idiome Haïkien. Paris: de l’Imprimerie d’Éverat.
Civ’jan 1977Civ’jan, T. V. 1977Balkanskie dopolnenija k poslednim issledovanijam indoevropejskogo mifa o Gromoveržce. In: BalkLingSbor 1977: 172-195.
Clackson 1994Clackson, James 1994The linguistic relationship between Armenian and Greek. Oxford, Cambridge: Blackwell (Publications of the Philological Society, 30).
Clackson 1999-2000Clackson, James 1999-2000Arm. ariwn ‘blood’. In: AnnArmLing 20: 27-45.
Clackson 2004Clackson, James 2004Minge - a loanword study. In: Fs Rasmussen 2004: 109-115.
Clackson 2004‑05Clackson, James 2004‑05Review of Kortlandt 2003 (with an appendix = Beekes 2003). In: AnnArmLing 24‑25: 153‑158.
Členova 1989Členova, N. L. 1989Volga i Južnyj Ural v predstavlenijax drevnix irancev i finno‑ugrov vo II – načale I tys. do n. è. In: SovArx 1989, Nr 2: 225‑240.
Členova 1990Členova, N. L. 1990Zaključitel’noe slovo po diskussii. In: SovArx 1990, Nr 3: 161‑165.
Č‘olak‘ean 1986Č‘olak‘ean, Yakob 1986K‘esapi barbaṙə. Haleb.
Colarusso 1997Colarusso, John 1997Proto-Pontic: phyletic links between Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Northwest Caucasian. In: JourIndEurStud 25.1-2: 119-151.
Colditz 1987Colditz, Iris 1987Bruchstücke manichäisch‑parthischer Parabelsammlungen. In: AltorForsch 14.2: 274‑313.
Collinge 1985Collinge, N. E. 1985The laws of Indo‑European. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Connolly 1984Connolly, Leo A. 1984Altnordisch e < indogermanisch i. In: ZVS 97.2: 267-280.
Considine 1978-79Considine, Patrick 1978-79Review of J. A. C. Greppin, Initial vowel and aspiration in Classical Armenian, Vienna: Mechitarist Press, 1973. In: RevEtArm n.s. 13: 355-364.
Considine 1979Considine, Patrick 1979A semantic approach to the identification of Iranian loanwords in Armenian. In: Fs Szemerényi 1979, 1: 213‑228.
Considine 1984Considine, Patrick 1984Two Armenian runners. In: AnnArmLing 5: 51‑58.
Čop 1955Čop, Bojan 1955Etyma. In: Linguistica 1: 28-33 [non vidi; cited from Greppin 1983. See s.v. azbn ‘weft, warp’].
Corthals 1979Corthals, Johan 1979Altirisch dúas. In: Fs Szemerényi 1979, 1: 229‑234.
Cowe 1992Cowe, S. Peter 1992The Armenian version of Daniel. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press (University of Pennsylvania Armenian texts and studies, 9).
Cowgill 1960Cowgill, Warren 1960Greek ou and Armenian oč‘. In: Language 36.3: 347-350.
Cowgill 1986Cowgill, Warren 1986Einleitung. In: Indogermanische Grammatik 1/1 (Ins Deutsche übersetzt und bibliographisch bearbeitet von A. Bammesberger und M. Peters). Heidelberg: Carl Winter, Universitätsverlag.
Cox 1981Cox, Claude E. 1981The Armenian translation of Deuteronomy. University of Pennsylvania: Scholars Press (Armenian texts and studies, 2).
Cox 2006Cox, Claude E. 2006Armenian Job: reconstructed Greek text, critical edition of the Armenian with English translation. Leuven – Paris – Dudley, MA: Peeters. (Hebrew University Armenian studies, 8).
Crepajac 1967Crepajac, Ljiljana 1967Die idg. Wortsippe ĝh/ghel‑ ‘hell, glänzend’ im Griechischen und Slavischen. In: ZVS 81, 3/4: 181‑196.
Č‘ugaszyan 1980Č‘ugaszyan, B. L. 1980see Sources: Bžškaran jioy ew aṙhasarak grastnoy (13th cent.).
Č‘ugaszyan 1986Č‘ugaszyan, B. L. 1986(ed., with introduction and commentary), Eɫia Mušeɫyan Karnec‘i, T‘urk‘eren‑hayeren baṙaran. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Cuinet 1890‑1900Cuinet, Vital 1890‑1900La Turquie d’Asie: géographie administrative, statistique descriptive et raisonnée de chaque province de l’Asie‑mineure. Paris: Leroux. Vol. 2, 1891.
Čulartean 1880Čulartean, H. Simon V. 1880Aṙack‘ azgayink‘. Venice: S. Lazar.
Cuny 1937Cuny, A. 1937Questions d’apophonie vocalique. In: Mélanges Boisacq 1, 1937: 227‑231.
Dadean 1908Dadean, A. 1908Varandayi banawor grakanut‘iwnic‘: ǰan-giwlumner. In: AzgHand 11th year, XVIII book, 1908, Nr 2: 25-32.
Dahood 1970Dahood, Mitchell S. J. 1970The Anchor Bible: Psalms III (101‑150). Intr., transl. and notes with an appendix. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company.
Dalalyan 2000Dalalyan, Tork‘ 2000Hay-ōsakan lezvamšakut‘ayin aṙnč‘ut‘yunner (candidate avtoreferat). Yerevan.
Dalalyan 2004Dalalyan, Tork‘ 2004“Sasna cṙeri” ew ōsakan “Nart‘yan dic‘avepi” hamematakan k‘nnut‘yan urvagcer. In: SasCṙGit 2004: 82‑87.
Danielyan 1967Danielyan, T‘ewan 1967Malat‘iayi barbaṙə. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Danka/Witczak 1997Danka, Ignacy R. & Witczak, Krzysztof T. 1997Indo-European *k̂wn̥Hos and its meanings in the Neolithic and Post-Neolithic times. In: JourIndEurStud 25.3-4: 361-369.
Dankoff 1995Dankoff, Robert 1995Armenian Loanwords in Turkish. Wiesbaden. Harrassowitz Verlag (“Turcologica”, ed. by Lars Yohanson; vol. 21).
Darbinjan‑Melikjan/Xanlarjan 1988Darbinjan‑Melikjan, M. O. & Xanlarjan, L. A. 1988Grigor Narekaci, Kniga skorbnyx pesnopenij (Russ. transl. and commentary. With an introduction by S. S. Averincev). Moscow: GRVLI “Nauka”.
Darms 1978Darms, Georges 1978Schwäher und Schwager, Hahn und Huhn: die Vr̥ddhi-Ableitung im Germanischen. München: Kitzinger. (MünStudSpr Beiheft 9).
Dashian 1890Dashian, P. 1890Das Hochland Ulnia oder Zeitun. In: Mittheilungen der kais. königl. geographischen Gesellschaft in Wien 33 (N.F. 23): 424‑458.
Davt‘yan 1973Davt‘yan, H. M. 1973T‘ueleac‘ ergeri anvanman aṙt‘iv. In: Ēǰmiacin 30, 1973, Nr 7: 46-48.
Davt‘yan 1976Davt‘yan, H. M. 1976Mi parzabanum “Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘i” 1698 t‘. tpagrut‘yan veraberyal. In: PBH 1976, Nr 2: 182-188.
Davt‘yan 1966Davt‘yan, K. S. 1966Leṙnayin Łarabaɫi barbaṙayin k‘artezə. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Dawit‘-Bēk 1919Dawit‘-Bēk, Melik‘ S. 1919Arabkiri gawaṙabarbaṙə: jaynabanakan ew k‘erakanakan usumnasiru‘iwn. Vienna: Mxit‘arean Tparan. (Azgayin Matenadaran 79).
Dawkins 1910Dawkins, R. M.: 1910: Modern Greek in Asia Minor. In: JourHellStud 30: 109-132, 267-291.
Dawkins 1916Dawkins, R. M.: 1916: Modern Greek in Asia Minor: a study of the dialects of Sílli, Cappadocia and Phárasa with grammar, texts, translations and glossary; with a chapter on the subject-matter of the folk-tales by W.R. Halliday. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Degen 1979Degen, Rainer 1979See Ullmann 1979.
Delamarre 2001Delamarre, Xavier 2001Dictionnaire de la langue gauloise: une approche linguistique du vieux‑celtique continental. Paris: Errance.
Demiraj 1997Demiraj, Bardhyl 1997Albanische Etymologien: Untersuchungen zum albanischen Erbwortschatz. Amsterdam, Atlanta: Rodopi (LeidStudIndEur, 7).
Demiraj 1997aDemiraj, Bardhyl 1997a Idg. */h1neu̯n̥/ : alb. */nan(-)/ - zwei Fragen der albanischen Lautgeschichte. In: Fs Beekes 1997: 15-20.
Demiraj 2001Demiraj, Bardhyl 2001Das Meyersche Gesetz über den Schwund der intervokalischen Media im Albanischen (Revision). In: MünStudSpr 61: 57‑92.
Derksen 1996Derksen, Rick 1996Metatony in Baltic. Amsterdam, Atlanta: Rodopi (LeidStudIndEur, 6).
Derksen 2002Derksen, Rick 2002‘Rozwadowski’s change’ in Baltic. In: Baltu filolog̓ija 11.1: 5-12.
Derksen 2002-03Derksen, Rick 2002-03On the reception of Winter’s law. In: Baltistica 37.1, 2002 [2003]: 5-13.
Derksen 2008Derksen, Rick 2008Etymological dictionary of the Slavic inherited lexicon. Leiden, Boston: Brill. (LeidIEEDSer, 4).
Dervischjan 1877Dervischjan, P. Seraphin 1877Armeniaca I: Das Altarmenische. Wien: Mechitharisten Buchdruckerei.
Dervischjan 1887Dervischjan, P. Seraphin 1887Hayakank‘ VI. In: Lezu 1887: 89-91.
Dervischjan 1885Dervischjan, P. Seraphin 1885(Tērvišean, H. Serovbē), Hndewropakan naxalezu. K. Polis: Nšan K. Pērpērean.
Dowsett 1961Dowsett, C. J. F. 1961The History of the Caucasian Albanians by Movsēs Dasxuranc‘i (English translation and commentary). London, New York, Toronto: Oxford University Press. (London Oriental Series, 8).
Dowsett 1965Dowsett, C. J. F. 1965Armenian niwt‘, niwt‘em; hiwt‘, hiwt‘em. In: RevEtArm n.s. 2: 117-128.
Dowsett 1986Dowsett, C. J. F. 1986Little Satana’s wedding breakfast. In: Gd Berbérian 1986: 243‑263.
Dowsett 1992Dowsett, C. J. F. 1992A lamentation of ostriches? In: RevEtArm 23: 155-189.
Drazin 1982Drazin, Israel 1982Targum Onkelos to Deuteronomy (English translation, analysis and commentary). Ktav Publishing House.
Driem/Sharmā 1996Driem, George van, & Suhnū Rām Sharmā 1996In search of Kentum Indo‑Europeans in the Himalayas. In: IndogForsch 101: 107‑146.
Duchesne-Guillemin 1940Duchesne-Guillemin, J. 1940Tocharica. In: BSL 41: 140-183.
Dumézil 1938Dumézil, Georges 1938Traitement de m + p en arménien. In: BSL 39: 241‑242.
Dumézil 1938aDumézil, Georges 1938aNotes sur quelques tournures et formes participiales de l’arménien. In: BSL 39: 93-102.
Dumézil 1938bDumézil, Georges 1938bSéries étymologiques arméniennes. In: BSL 40: 48-54.
Dumézil 1940Dumézil, Georges 1940Séries étymologiques arméniennes V-VI. In: BSL 41: 65-69.
Dumézil 1963Dumézil, Georges 1963Le puits de Nechtan. In: Celtica 6: 50-61.
Dumézil 1964Dumézil, Georges 1964Notes sur le parler d’un Arménien musulman de Hemşin. In: Académie Royale de Belgique: Mémoires de la Classe des Lettres (Bruxelles) 57.4: 3-52.
Dumézil 1965Dumézil, Georges 1965Notes sur le parler d’un Arménien musulman d’Ardala. In: RevEtArm n.s. 2: 135-142.
Dumézil 1967Dumézil, Georges 1967Trois récits dans le parler der arméniens musulmans de Hemşin. In: RevEtArm n.s. 4: 19-35.
Dumézil 1967aDumézil, Georges 1967a‘Vin’ et ‘bière’ dans deux noms propres scythiques. In: Fs Pokorny 1967: 29-31.
Dumézil 1986-87Dumézil, Georges 1986-87Un roman policier en arménien d’Ardala. In: RevEtArm n.s. 20: 5-27.
Dumézil 1997Dumézil, Georges 1997Vartan Matiossian (ed.), A Long‑lost contribution to Armenian linguistics by Georges Dumézil “Quelques adjectifs negatifs de l’arménien” [< 1947]. In: AnnArmLing 18: 1‑5.
Dumont 1992Dumont, Darl J. 1992The ash tree in Indo‑European culture. In: MankQuart 32.4: 323‑336.
Dunaevskaja 1961Dunaevskaja, I. M. 1961Principy struktury xattskogo (protoxettskogo) glagola. In: Peredneaziatskij sbornik, 1: 57‑159.
Durante 1968Durante, Marcello 1968Untersuchungen zur Vorgeschichte der griechischen Dichtersprache. Die Terminologie für das dichterische Schaffen. In: IndogDicht 1968: 261-290 (< 1960: 231-249).
Durean 1933Durean, Eɫišē Patriark‘ 1933Hayoc‘ hin krōnə kam haykakan dic‘abanut‘iwn. Jerusalem: Tparan Srboc‘ Yakobeanc‘. (Durean Matenadaran, 3).
Duridanov 1974Duridanov, Ivan 1974Zur etymologie des Wortes (h)urda. In: LingBalk 17, 1: 51‑62.
Dvoreckij 1986Dvoreckij, I. X. 1986Latinsko-russkij slovar’. Moscow: “Russkij jazyk”.
D’jakonov 1968D’jakonov, I. M. 1968Predystorija armjanskogo naroda: istorija Armjanskogo nagor’ja s 1500 po 500 g. do n. è. – xurrity, luvijcy, protoarmjane. Yerevan: Academy Press. [English transl. with revisions by the author: see 1984].
D’jakonov 1971D’jakonov, I. M. 1971(Diakonoff), Hurrisch und Urartäisch. Transl. from Russian by Karl Sdrembek (MünStudSpr, Beiheft 12, N.F.). München: R. Kitzinger.
D’jakonov 1980D’jakonov, I. M. 1980In DrJazMalAz 1980: Xurritskij jazyk i drugie substratnye jazyki Maloj Azii (99‑106); Frigijskij jazyk (357‑377); Primečanija to Xaaz. Pamjatniki frigijskogo jazyka (408‑418).
D’jakonov 1981D’jakonov, I. M. 1981K drevnevostočnomu substratu v armjanskom jazyke. In: PBH (= IFŽ) 1981, Nr 1: 56‑78.
D’jakonov 1982D’jakonov, I. M. 1982(Diakonoff), Ancient Near Eastern substrata in Armenian. In: AnnArmLing 3: 13-18.
D’jakonov 1983D’jakonov, I. M. 1983K praistorii armjanskogo jazyka: o faktax, svidetel’stvax i logike. In: PBH (= IFŽ) 1983, Nr 4: 149‑178.
D’jakonov 1984D’jakonov, I. M. 1984(Diakonoff), The pre-history of the Armenian people (transl. from D’jakonov 1968 by Lori Jennings; with revisions by the author). Delmar, New York: Caravan Books (Anatolian and Caucasian studies).
D’jakonov 1985D’jakonov, I. M. 1985Hurro-Urartian borrowings in Old Armenian. In: JAmOrSoc 105.4: 597-603.
D’jakonov 1992D’jakonov, I. M. 1992First evidence of the Proto-Armenian language in Eastern Anatolia. In: AnnArmLing 13: 51-54.
Diakonoff/Starostin 1986Diakonoff, I. M. & Starostin, S. A. 1986Hurro‑Urartian as an Eastern Caucasian language (MünStudSpr, Beiheft 12, N.F.). München: R. Kitzinger.
Diakonoff/Kashkai 1981Diakonoff, I. M. & Kashkai, S. M. 1981Geographical names according to Urartian texts. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag. (Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients: Beihefte, Reihe B, Bd. 9).
D’jakonov 1951D’jakonov, M. M. 1951Obraz Sijavuša v sredneaziatskoj mifologii. In: Kratkie soobščenija instituta istorii material’noj kul’tury (Moscow: Academy Press) 40: 34-44.
Džejranov 1898Džejranov, Θ. I. 1898Selenie Čajkend, Elisavetpol’skago uezda, toj že gubernii. In: SMOMPK 25.2: 59-100.
Edelman 2003Edelman, Džoj (Joy) I. 2003Some taboo-words in Iranian languages of Central Asia. In: Fs Winter 2003: 121-130.
Eichner 1978Eichner, Heiner 1978Die urindogermanische Wurzel H2reu ‘hell machen’. In: Die Sprache 24: 144‑162.
Eichner 1982Eichner, Heiner 1982Zur hethitischen Etymologie. In: Gd Kronasser 1982: 16-28.
Eichner 1988Eichner, Heiner 1988Anatolisch und Trilaryngalismus. In: LaryngTheor 1988: 123-151.
Eilers 1953Eilers, Wilhelm 1953Der alte Name des persischen Neujahrsfestes. In: Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur in Mainz: geistes‑ und sozialwissenschaftliche Klasse, 1953.2: 35‑86. Wiesbaden.
Eilers 1967-83Eilers, Wilhelm 1967-83(DeutPersWört 1-2), Deutsch-Persisches Wörterbuch. Vol. 1: A-D, 1967; vol. 2: E-Feucht, 1983. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Eilers 1971Eilers, Wilhelm 1971Iranisches Lehngut im Arabischen. In: Actas. IV Congresso de Estudos Árabes e Islâmicos. Coimbra-Lisbon, September 1-8, 1968. (Congress of Arabic and Islamic Studies, 4). Leiden: E. J. Brill. (pp. 581-660).
Eilers 1974Eilers, Wilhelm 1974Die vergleichend‑semasiologische Methode in der Orientalistik. In: Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur in Mainz: geistes‑ und sozialwissenschaftliche Klasse, 1973.10. Wiesbaden.
Eilers 1974aEilers, Wilhelm 1974aHerd und Feuerstätte in Iran. In: AntiqIndog 1974: 307‑338.
Eilers 1976Eilers, Wilhelm 1976Sinn und Herkunft Planetennamen. In: Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften: Philosophisch‑historische Klasse. Sitzungsberichte 1975.5. München.
Eilers 1979Eilers, Wilhelm 1979Die Āl, ein persisches Kindbettgespenst. In: Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften: Philosophisch‑historische Klasse. Sitzungsberichte 1979.7. München.
Eilers 1982Eilers, Wilhelm 1982Geographische Namengebung in und um Iran. In: Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften: Philosophisch‑historische Klasse. Sitzungsberichte 1982.5. München.
Eilers 1987Eilers, Wilhelm 1987Iranische Ortsnamenstudien. In: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften: Philosophisch‑historische Klasse. Sitzungsberichte, 465. Wien.
Eilers/Mayrhofer 1962Eilers, Wilhelm & Mayrhofer, Manfred 1962Kurdish būz und die indogermanische ‘Buchen’-Sippe. In: MitAntGesWien 92: 61-92.
Elbourne 2000Elbourne, Paul 2000Plain voiceless stop plus laryngeal in Indo‑European. In: HistSpr 113: 2‑28.
Elizarenkova 1982Elizarenkova, T. Ja. 1982 Grammatika vedijskogo jazyka. Moscow: GRVLI “Nauka”.
Elizarenkova 1989Elizarenkova, T. Ja. 1989(ed.) Rigveda : mandaly I‑IV. Moscow: “Nauka”.
Elizarenkova/Toporov 1979Elizarenkova, T. Ja. & Toporov, V. N. 1979Drevneindijskaja poètika i ee indoevropejskie istoki. In: LitKDSInd 1979: 36-88.
Emeneau 1993Emeneau, Murray B. 1993Rats, mice, and other small rodents in the Indian linguistic area. In: Fs Szemerényi 1993, 3: 197‑201.
Emmerick/Skjærvø 1997Emmerick, R. E. & Skjærvø, P. O. 1997Studies in the vocabulary of Khotanese III. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch‑historische Klasse; Sitzungsberichte 651; Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Iranistik hrsg. von H. Eichner und R. Schmitt, Nr. 27).
Erēc‘ 1898Erēc‘, S. 1898Hmac‘[!]akner: Nuēr aṙ H. Ł. A. In: Biwrakn 1898, June 11: 380.
Eremean 1923Eremean, Aram 1923Č‘aharmahali hay žoɫovrdakan banahiwsut‘iwnə. Vienna: Mxit‘arean tparan. (Azgayin Matenadaran, 96).
Eremean 1930Eremean, Aram 1930P‘šrank‘ner J̌uɫahay ew Hndkahay banahiwsut‘iwnic‘: taɫer ew žoɫovrdakan erger (17-19rd dar). Vienna: Mxit‘arean Tparan. (Azgayin Matenadaran, 129).
Eremean 1953Eremean, Aram 1953(Eremyan), Step‘anos Erec‘i mecaržek‘ jeṙagir matyanə. In: Ēǰmiacin, 1953, 7‑8: 26‑32.
Eremyan 1963Eremyan, S. T. 1963Hayastanə əst Ašxarhac‘oyc‘‑i: p‘orj VII dari haykakan k‘artezi verakazmut‘yan žamanakakic‘ k‘artezagrakan himk‘i vra. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Eremyan 1970Eremyan, S. T. 1970Hay žoɫovrdi kazmavorman ənt‘ac‘k‘ə. In: PBH 1970, Nr 2: 27-56.
Eremyan 1972‑73Eremyan, S. T. 1972‑73“Ašxarhac‘oyc‘i” skzbnakan bnagri verakangnman p‘orj. A) in: PBH 1972, Nr 4: 209‑230; B) in PBH 1973, Nr 1: 238‑252; C) in: PBH 1973, Nr 2: 261‑274.
Eren 1999Eren, Hasan 1999Türk dilinin etimolojik sözlüğü. Ankara.
Èrlix 1989Èrlix, V. R. 1989Korčaga iz Majkopskogo muzeja. In: SovArx 1989, Nr 2: 244-247.
Ernout/Meillet 1959Ernout, A. and Meillet, A. 1959Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine: histoire des mots (4th ed.). Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck.
Ervandyan 2007Ervandyan, Zuxra 2007Łarabaɫi barbaṙi baṙayin kazmi hastatman gorcənt‘ac‘ə. Yerevan: Heɫinakayin hratarakut‘yun.
Eska 1992Eska, Joseph F. 1992Further to ανδοουνναβο. In: Journal of Celtic Linguistics 1: 119‑125.
Eska/Wallace 2001Eska, Joseph F. & Wallace, Rex E. 2001Remarks on the thematic genitive singular in ancient Italy and related matters. In: IncLing 24: 77-97.
Euler 1979Euler, Wolfram 1979Indoiranisch‑griechische Gemeinsamkeiten der Nominalbildung und deren indogermanische Grundlagen. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft).
Euler 1985Euler, Wolfram 1985Tiernamen im Altpreußischen. In: ZVS 98: 84-98.
Evans 1974Evans, David 1974Dodona, Dodola, and Daedala. In: MythIEAnt : 99‑130.
Falk 1986Falk, Harry 1986 Bruderschaft und Würfelspiel: Untersuchungen zur Entwicklungsgeschichte des Vedischen Opfers. FFreiburg: Hedwig Falk.
Falk 1994Falk, Harry 1994Copper Hoard weapons and the Vedic vajra. In: SouthAsArch 1993, 1: 193-206.
Fasmer 1964-73Fasmer, Maks 1964-73(1-4), Ètimologičeskij slovar’ russkogo jazyka (translated from German and supplemented by O. N. Trubačev). Vol. 1, 1964 – vol. 4, 1973. Moscow: Progress. See also Vasmer 1950-58.
Feydit 1979Feydit, F. 1979(Feydi), Hnč‘yunabanakan ditoɫut‘yunner. In: PBH 1979, Nr 3: 57‑61.
Feydit 1980Feydit, F. 1980Sopra certe tendenze della fonetica armena e la loro incidenza sulla morfologia della lingua classica e l’etimologia. In: Transcaucasica 2, Venezia: 43‑47.
Fick 1877Fick, A. 1877[Miscellanea 11‑18]. In: BKIgS 1: 170‑174.
Fick 1905Fick, A. 1905Hesychglossen 2. In: BKIgS 29: 196‑201.
Fick 1905aFick, A. 1905aReview of Matthaeus Much, Die Heimat der Indogermanen, Berlin 1902. In: BKIgS 29: 225‑247.
Finck 1903Finck, Franz Nikolaus 1903Armen. moli. In: ZArmPhil 1: 170.
Finck 1903‑04Finck, Franz Nikolaus 1903‑04(1‑2) Kleinere mittelarmenische Texte. 1. In: ZArmPhil 1, 1903: 97‑120, 177‑219, 301‑352; 2. In: ZArmPhil 2, 1904: 81‑111.
Ford 1974Ford, Patrick K. 1974The Well of Nechtan and ‘La Gloire Lumineuse’. In: MythIEAnt 1974: 67-74.
Forrer 1931Forrer, Emil 1931Hajasa-Azzi. In: Caucasica 9: 1-24.
Forssman 1994Forssman, Bernhard 1994Zu hethitisch šipand‑ und išpand‑. In: Pedersen Kolloquium 1994: 93‑106.
Fraenkel 1937Fraenkel, Ernst 1937Zur baltischen Wortforschung und syntax. In: Fs Pedersen 1937: 443-455.
Fraenkel 1955‑65Fraenkel, Ernst 1955‑65(1-2), Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Freitas 1987Freitas, Lima de 1987Labyrinth. In: EncRel 8: 411-419.
Frejman 1958Frejman, A. A. 1958Tadžikskoe pūst ‘koža, kožura, kora, oboločka, skorlupa, šeluxa, škura’. In: SovVost 1958, Nr 6: 77‑81.
Friedrich 1954Friedrich, Johannes 1954Göttersprache und Menschensprache im hethitischen Schrifttum. In: Fs Debrunner 1954: 135-139.
Friedrich 1959Friedrich, Johannes 1959Die hethitischen Gesetze. Leiden: Brill.
Friedrich 1970Friedrich, Paul 1970Proto‑Indo‑European trees: the arboreal system of a prehistoric people. Chicago, London: Chicago University Press.
Frisk 1944Frisk, Hjalmar 1944Etyma Armeniaca. In: GötHögÅrs 50, 1944, 1: 1‑36 (= 1966: 253‑280).
Frisk 1960-72Frisk, Hjalmar 1960-72(1-3), Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Vol. 1, 1960; vol. 2, 1970; vol. 3 (Nachträge, Wortregister, Corrigenda, Nachwort), 1972. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Frisk 1966Frisk, Hjalmar 1966Kleine Schriften zur Indogermanistik und zur griechischen Wortkunde. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
Fulk 1988Fulk, Robert D. 1988PIE ə in Germanic unstressed syllables. In: LaryngTheor 1988: 153‑177.
Funk 1990Funk, Bernd 1990Rannie svjazi grekov s deržavoj Axemenidov v svete drevnepersidskix i antičnyx istočnikov. In: VestDrIst 1990, Nr 2: 3‑23.
Furnée 1972Furnée, Edzard Johan 1972Die wichtigsten konsonantischen Erscheinungen des Vorgriechischen: mit einem Appendix über den Vokalismus. The Hague, Paris: Mouton.
Furnée 1979Furnée, Edzard Johan 1979Vorgriechisch-Kartvelisches: Studien zum ostmediterranen Substrat nebst einem Versuch zu einer neuen pelasgischen Theorie. Leuven: Peeters.
Furnée 1989Furnée, Edzard Johan 1989Die Urbaskisch und Urkartvelisch: Indizien für eine Verwandtschaft. Leiden: The Hakuchi Press.
Gabikean 1952Gabikean, Karapet 1952 Baṙgirk‘ Sebastahay gawaṙalezui. Erusaɫēm: St Jacob.
Gabriēlean 1912Gabriēlean, M. S. 1912Aknay gawaṙabarbaṙə. Vienna: Mxit‘arean tparan.
Galēmk‘earean 1911Galēmk‘earean, Grigoris 1911Agat‘angeɫosi krknagir bnagirə̌ [palimpsest]. In: Yušarjan : 67‑160.
Galšoyan 1981Galšoyan, M. H. 1981Marut‘a sari amperə: patmvack‘ner. Yerevan: “Sovetakan groɫ”.
Galstyan 1958Galstyan, A. G. 1958See Sources: Smbat Sparapet.
Galustean 1934Galustean, Gr. H. (Kilikec‘i) 1934Maraš kam Germanik ew heros Zēyt‘un. New York: “Koč‘nak” (Maraši hayrenakc‘akan miut‘iwn).
Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984Gamkrelidze, Th. V. & Ivanov, V. V. 1984Indoevropejskij jazyk i indoevropejcy: rekonstrukciya i istoriko‑tipologičeskij analiz prayazyka i protokul’tury. With a preface by R. Jakobson, 2 vols, Tbilisi: University Press. [English translation, see 1995].
Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1995Gamkrelidze, Th. V. & Ivanov, V. V. 1995 Indo‑European and the Indo‑Europeans: a reconstruction and historical analysis of a proto‑language and a proto‑culture. Part 1. The text. Transl. by J. Nichols, ed. by W. Winter. Berlin, New York : Mouton de Gruyter (Trends in linguistics. Studies and monographs, 80). [English translation of the Russian original 1984].
Garamanlean 1931Garamanlean, H. A. 1931Žoɫovrdakan hawatk‘ə Ezniki k‘ov. In: HandAms 45, 1931, 3‑5: 232‑246; 7: 423‑432; 8‑9: 489‑517; 10‑11: 637‑657 [the last part entitled: Hreštaknern u satananerə hay žoɫovrdakan hawatk‘in mēǰ].
García-Ramón 1998García-Ramón, J. L. 1998Indogermanisch *gu̯hen- ‘(wiederholt) schlagen’, ‘töten’. In: Fs Watkins 1998: 139-154.
Garsoïan 1989Garsoïan, Nina G. 1989The Epic Histories attributed to P‘awstos Buzand (Buzandaran Patmut‘iwnk‘): translation and commentary. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Gasparyan 1966Gasparyan, H. 1966Haǰəni barbaṙə. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Gatuev 1932Gatuev, Dzaxo 1932Amran: osetinskij èpos. Russ. transl. and commentary. (Introduction and redaction by N. Marr). Moscow, Leningrad: Academia.
Gauthiot 1910-11Gauthiot, Robert 1910-11Des noms de l’abeille et de la ruche en indo-européen et en finno-ougrien. In: MSL 16: 264-279.
Gauthiot 1916Gauthiot, Robert 1916Iranica. In: MSL 19: 125-132.
Gayseryan 1990Gayseryan, V. A. 1990Sepagir aɫbyurneri KUREtiu erkri toponimikayi harc‘er. In: LrHasGit 1990, Nr 3: 76‑87.
Gazančean 1899Gazančean, Yovhannēs 1899Ewdokioy hayoc‘ gawaṙabarbaṙə. Vienna: Mxit‘arean tparan.
Geldner 1951Geldner, K. F. 1951Der Rig‑Veda aus dem Sanskrit ins Deutsche übersetzt und mit einem laufenden Kommentar versehen von K. F. Geldner. Volumes 1‑3. Cambridge, Massachusetts. (Harvard Oriental Series, 33‑35).
Georgiev 1974Georgiev, Vladimir I. 1974Prinzipien der Deutung der thrakischen zweistämmigen Personennamen. In: LingBalk 17, 3: 5‑21.
Georgiev 1975Georgiev, Vladimir I. 1975Die thrakischen Götternamen: ein Beitrag zur Religion der alten Thraker. In: LingBalk 18, 1: 5‑56.
Gerstein 1974Gerstein, Mary R. 1974 Germanic Warg: The Outlaw as Werwolf. In: MythIEAnt 1974: 131‑156.
Geworgyan 1980Geworgyan, G.G. 1980Łzlar. HayAzgBan 10. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Geworgyan 1999Geworgyan, T‘amar 1999Loṙi (Taširk‘ – Joraget). HayAzgBan 20. Yerevan: Academy Press “Gitut‘yun”.
Gharib 1995Gharib, B. 1995: Sogdian dictionary: Sogdian‑Persian‑English. Tehran: Farhangan Publications.
Gindin 1977Gindin, L. A. 1977Mif o poedinke i mifologii Apollona (na materiale I-III gomerovskix gimnov). In SlavBalkJaz 1977: 96-117.
Gippert 1993Gippert, Jost 1993, 1-2Iranica Armeno-Iberica: Studien zu den iranischen Lehnwörtern im Armenischen und Georgischen. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Part 1; Part 2: Materialien. (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse. Sitzungsberichte, 606. Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Iranistik, 26).
Gippert 1994Gippert, Jost 1994Die Glottaltheorie und die Frage urindogermanisch‑kaukasischer Strachkontakte. In: Pedersen Kolloquium 1994: 107‑123.
Godel 1965Godel, Robert 1965Les origines de la conjugaison arménienne. In: RevEtArm n.s. 2: 21-41.
Godel 1975Godel, Robert 1975An introduction to the study of Classical Armenian. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.
Godel 1982Godel, Robert 1982Linguistique arménienne: Études diachroniques. Paris: Librairie H. Samuel / Venise – St. Lazare: Imprimerie des PP. Mekhitaristes.
Godel 1982aGodel, Robert 1982aUne “loi phonétique” bien difficile à énoncer: *w > arm. w (v)/g/zéro. In: RevEtArm n.s. 16: 9‑16 [reprinted in Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure 38, 1984: 281‑288].
Godel 1984Godel, Robert 1984Une concordance lexicale gréco‑arménienne. In: Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure 38, 1984: 289-293.
Gojan 1952Gojan, Georg 1952 (1-2), Teatr drevnej Armenii: po pamjatnikam material’noj kul’tury i drevnim tekstam. Vols. 1-2. Moscow: State Press “Iskusstvo”.
Gordlevskij 1927Gordlevskij, V. A. 1927Džardžary v Konii [Les Djardjares de Konia]. In: DoklANSSSR 1927: 108‑113.
Gosche 1847Gosche, Richardus 1847De Ariana linguae gentisque Armeniacae indole prolegomena. Berlin (Berolini).
Götze/Pedersen 1934Götze, Albrecht & Pedersen, Holger 1934Muršilis Sprachlähmung: ein hethitischer Text mit philologischen und linguistischen Erörterungen. København: Levin & Munksgaard. (Det Kgl. Danske Videnskabernes Selskab. Historisk-filologiske Meddelelser. 21.1).
Grammont 1909Grammont, Maurice 1909Grec γυμνός ‘nu’. In: IndogForsch 25: 371-374.
Grammont 1918Grammont, Maurice 1918Notes de phonétique générale. 6. Arménien classique (pp. 213-253); 7. Arménien médiéval et arménien moderne (pp. 253-259). In: MSL 20: 213-259.
Grantovskij/Raevskij 1984Grantovskij, È. A. & Raevskij, D. S. 1984Ob iranojazyčnom i “indoarijskom” naselenii Severnogo Pričernomor’ja v antičnuju èpoxu. In: ÈtnNarBalk 1984: 47‑66.
Grassmann 1873/1964Grassmann, Hermann 1873/1964Wörterbuch zum Rig-Veda. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus [4th, unchanged edition: Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1964].
Greenfield/Mayrhofer 1967Greenfield, Jonas C. & Mayrhofer, Manfred 1967The ’algumm–m/’almugg–m-problem reexamined. In: Fs Baumgartner 1967: 83-89.
Greppin 1972Greppin, John A. C. 1972Xet‘a-haykakan mi zugaheṙ. In: PBH 1972, Nr. 3: 221-222.
Greppin 1973Greppin, John A. C. 1973Armenian h‑, Hittite h‑, and the Indo‑European laryngeal. In: HandAms 87 (January‑March): 61‑80.
Greppin 1974Greppin, John A. C. 1974Comments on some Armenian suffixes of substratum origin. In: LingBalk 17, 3: 65‑71.
Greppin 1975Greppin, John A. C. 1975Classical Armenian nominal suffixes: a historical study. Wien: Mechitharisten‑Buchdruckerei.
Greppin 1975aGreppin, John A. C. 1975aDoes IE sV‑ give Arm. hV‑? In: ZVS 89: 46‑52.
Greppin 1975bGreppin, John A. C. 1975bSovremennoe sostojanie izučenija armjanskix laringalov. In: PBH 1975, Nr 1: 54‑70.
Greppin 1978Greppin, John A. C. 1978Classical and Middle Armenian bird names: a linguistic, taxonomic, and mythological study. Delmar, New York: Caravan Books.
Greppin 1978aGreppin, John A. C. 1978aA further comment on the God Šanta‑/Σανδων. In: La Parola del Passato (Napoli) 33: 411‑413.
Greppin 1978bGreppin, John A. C. 1978bOrnithologia Armeniaca. In: LezOčHarc‘ 5: 151‑156.
Greppin 1978cGreppin, John A. C. 1978cLuwian elements in Armenian. In: DrevVost 3: 115-126.
Greppin 1978‑79Greppin, John A. C. 1978‑79Armeno‑Luwica. In: RevEtArm n.s. 13: 7‑13.
Greppin 1978-79aGreppin, John A. C. 1978-79aReview of van Windekens 1976. In: RevEtArm n.s. 13: 426.
Greppin 1978-79bGreppin, John A. C. 1978-79bReview of J. Friedrich & A. Kammenhuber, Hethitisches Wörterbuch, Lief. 1-2, 1975-1977. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag. In: RevEtArm n.s. 13: 433-435.
Greppin 1979Greppin, John A. C. 1979Łumri, sakṙ ew dahuč baṙeri stugabanut‘yunə. In: PBH 1979, Nr 1: 213‑216.
Greppin 1980Greppin, John A. C. 1980The origin of Arm. z from IE gh and dh. In: ProcFICAL 1980: 131-137.
Greppin 1980aGreppin, John A. C. 1980aA note on the alternation of E and A in Classical Armenian. In: AnnArmLing 1: 97-103.
Greppin 1980bGreppin, John A. C. 1980bA note on Arm. bosor ‘Carnelian’. In: RevEtArm n.s. 14: 471-472.
Greppin 1981Greppin, John A. C. 1981Some comments on Arm. eluzanem ‘extract’, etɫ ‘place’ and eɫǰewr ‘horn’. In: ZVS 95: 134‑140.
Greppin 1981aGreppin, John A. C. 1981a(Various reviews). In: RevEtArm n.s. 15.
Greppin 1981bGreppin, John A. C. 1981bReduplicated patterns in Classical Armenian. In: AnnArmLing 2: 1‑11.
Greppin 1981cGreppin, John A. C. 1981cConcerning the reply of Kerns and Schwartz to Austin. In: Gd Kerns 1981, 1: 119‑126.
Greppin 1981dGreppin, John A. C. 1981dGk. μαλλός ‘fleece, lock of wool’. In: Glotta 59: 70-75.
Greppin 1982Greppin, John A. C. 1982Arm. t‘‑ Gk. πτ. In: JourIndEurStud 10: 347‑354.
Greppin 1982aGreppin, John A. C. 1982aTwo points on Hurrian‑Armenian lexical relationships. In: Fs Diakonoff 1982: 117‑119.
Greppin 1982-83Greppin, John A. C. 1982-83Some comments on the chronology of secondary aspiration in Classical Armenian. In: ZVS 96: 146‑151.
Greppin 1983Greppin, John A. C. 1983An Etymological Dictionary of the Indo‑European Components of Armenian. In: Bazmavēp 141, 1‑4: 235‑323.
Greppin 1983aGreppin, John A. C. 1983aThe Armenian botanical terms hačar, hačari and hačaruk. In: RevEtArm n.s. 17: 13‑17.
Greppin 1983bGreppin, John A. C. 1983bHypercorrection in Armenian. In: AnnArmLing 4: 67‑71.
Greppin 1983cGreppin, John A. C. 1983cGk. ἀλέτριος and the modern Armenian Grammarians. In: RevEtArm n.s. 17: 19‑20.
Greppin 1984Greppin, John A. C. 1984Arm. šun ‘dog’ and the passage of IE k̂w to Arm. š. In: AnnArmLing 5: 91-97.
Greppin 1984aGreppin, John A. C. 1984aThe reflexes of the Indo-European ‘voiceless aspirates’ in Armenian. In: IntSympArmLing 1984: 35-48.
Greppin 1985Greppin, John A. C. 1985Baṙk‘ Gaɫianosi: the Greek‑Armenian dictionary to Galen. Delmar, New York: Caravan Books.
Greppin 1985aGreppin, John A. C. 1985aReview of Huld 1984. In: RevEtArm n.s. 19: 462‑463.
Greppin 1985bGreppin, John A. C. 1985bBaṙaverǰi *-s > *-ḥ > -k‘ hnč‘yunap‘oxut‘yunə hayerenum. In: PBH 1985, Nr 1: 169-171.
Greppin 1986Greppin, John A. C. 1986The development of Armenian l and ɫ. In: Gd Berbérian 1986: 279‑292.
Greppin 1987Greppin, John A. C. 1987Armenian art ‘field’ and Arm. acem ‘drive’. In: JourIndEurStud 15, 3‑4: 393‑396.
Greppin 1988Greppin, John A. C. 1988Laryngeal residue in Armenian: genetic and loan evidence. In: LaryngTheor 1988: 179‑193.
Greppin 1988-89Greppin, John A. C. 1988-89A rejoinder to Birgit Olsen on the sole color of the laryngeal in Armenian being A. In: RevEtArm n.s. 21: 477-480.
Greppin 1989Greppin, John A. C. 1989Armenian and the theory of etymology. In: JourIndEurStud 17: 165‑170.
Greppin 1989aGreppin, John A. C. 1989a‘Akkadian’ loan words in Armenian. In: AnnArmLing 10: 73‑83.
Greppin 1990Greppin, John A. C. 1990Armenian insect names. In: AnnArmLing 11: 67-73.
Greppin 1990aGreppin, John A. C. 1990aSome comments on nepuk ‘millipede, sowbug’. In: AnnArmLing 11: 75-78.
Greppin 1990bGreppin, John A. C. 1990bThe etymology of Gr. σῦριγξ ‘pipe’. In: HistSpr 103: 35-37.
Greppin 1990cGreppin, John A. C. 1990cA note on Armenian zuṙna. In: FolOrient 27: 185-188.
Greppin 1990-91Greppin, John A. C. 1990-91The etymology of Arm. astem and tarm and the Hurro-Urartian hypothesis with a bibliographical excursion. In: RevEtArm n.s. 22: 17-21.
Greppin 1991aGreppin, John A. C. 1991aThe survival of ancient Anatolian and Mesopotamian vocabulary until the present. In: JourNearEastStud 50, 3: 203-207.
Greppin 1991bGreppin, John A. C. 1991bSome effects of the Hurro-Urartian people and their languages upon the earliest Armenians (with additional notes by I. M. Diakonoff dated October 4, 1989). In: JAmOrSoc 111.4: 720-730.
Greppin 1991cGreppin, John A. C. 1991cThe Mediterranean term for cabbage. In: AnnArmLing 12: 77‑88.
Greppin 1993Greppin, John A. C. 1993The development of Ty in Classical Armenian. In: ProcSISAL 2: 15‑24.
Greppin 1994Greppin, John A. C. 1994A rejoinder to Frederik Kortlandt on the palatalization of dentals in Armenian. In: AnnArmLing 15: 33‑35.
Greppin 1994aGreppin, John A. C. 1994aArmenian axerak and ahiparanoc‘. In: AnnArmLing 15: 79-84.
Greppin 1996Greppin, John A. C. 1996Armenian aɫaɫanč‘ ‘duck?’. In: AnnArmLing 17: 73‑77.
Greppin 1997Greppin, John A. C. 1997Armenian phonology. = Chapter 38 in PhonAsAfr 1997: 777-793.
Greppin 1997aGreppin, John A. C. 1997aA note on Georgian USX- and Indo-Europeanisms in the Kartvelian languages. In: JourIndEurStud 25.3-4: 383-386.
Greppin 1998Greppin, John A. C. 1998Arm. gini, Grg. ɣvino ‘wine’. In: AnnArmLing 19: 65-69.
Greppin 1998aGreppin, John A. C. 1998aArm. xstor ‘garlic’. In: AnnArmLing 19: 57-63.
Greppin 2008Greppin, John A. C. 2008More material on the Urartian substratum in Armenian. In: JourIndEurStud 36.1-2: 1-9.
Greppin 2008aGreppin, John A. C. 2008aDid the good wines come from Armenia? In: Aramazd 3.1: 47-52.
Greppin/Khachaturian 1986Greppin, John A. C. & Khachaturian, Amalya A. 1986A handbook of Armenian dialectology. Delmar, New York: Caravan Books. (Append.: see J̌ahukyan 1986 and H. Muradyan 1986).
Griffiths/Lubotsky 2009Griffiths, A. & Lubotsky, A. 2009Two words for ‘sister-in-law’? Notes on Vedic yātar- and giri-. In: Fs Kellens 2009: 115-121.
Grigoryan 1957Grigoryan, A. V. 1957Hay barbaṙagitut‘yan dasənt‘ac‘. Yerevan: University Press.
Grigoryan 1970Grigoryan, Ṙ. H. 1970Hay žoɫovrdakan ōroroc‘ayin ew mankakan erger. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Grigoryan 1983Grigoryan, Ṙ. H. 1983Geɫark‘unik‘. HayAzgBan 14. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Grigoryan 1988Grigoryan, S. A. 1988Hayereni armatakan gunanunnerə, nranc‘ imastayin tarberakumn u stugabanut‘yunə. In: BanbErevHamals 1988, Nr 2: 188‑192.
Grigoryan 1999Grigoryan, S. M. 1999Bnik t‘e p‘oxaṙyal baṙer? In: PBH 1999, Nr. 1: 327-334.
Grigoryan‑Spandaryan 1971Grigoryan‑Spandaryan, M. M. 1971Leṙnayin Łarabaɫi banahyusut‘yunə. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Grossfeld 1988Grossfeld, Bernard 1988The Targum Onqelos to Deuteronomy (English translation, apparatus, notes). Edinburgh: T& T Clark Ltd. (The Aramaic Bible, 9).
Grottanelli 1986Grottanelli, Cristiano 1986Yoked horses, twins, and the powerful lady: India, Greece, Ireland and elsewhere. In: JourIndEurStud 14.1-2: 125-152.
Güntert 1921Güntert, Hermann 1921Von der Sprache der Götter und Geister: bedeutungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur homerischen und eddischen Göttersprache. Halle: Max Niemeyer.
Gurney 1977Gurney, O. R. 1977Some aspects of Hittite religion. Oxford University Press. (The Schweich lectures of the British Academy 1976).
Gurshtein 2005Gurshtein, Alexander A. 2005Did the Pre-Indo-Europeans influence the formation of the Western Zodiac? In: JourIndEurStud 33.1-2: 103-150.
Gurunyan 1991Gurunyan, Hakob 1991Hamšenahay banahyusut‘yun. Yerevan: “Luys”.
Gusmani 1985Gusmani, Roberto 1985Lydisch kâna- und luwisch wana-. In: Fs Knobloch 1985: 127-132.
Gyozalyan 2001Gyozalyan (Geɫuni), Grigor Mat‘ewosi 2001Musa leṙan azgagrut‘yunə (compiled and edited by Veržine Svazlyan). Yerevan: Academy Press “Gitut‘yun”.
Gyulnazaryan 1984Gyulnazaryan, Xažak 1984Hetk‘er getni vra ew getni tak. Yerevan: “Sovetakan groɫ”.
Gyurǰinyan 1987Gyurǰinyan, Davit‘ 1987Aṙ naxdri baṙakazmakan aržek‘ə. In: LrHasGit 1987, Nr 3: 28-34.
Haas 1939Haas, Otto 1939Über die phrygischen Sprachreste und ihr Verhältnis zum Armenischen. In: HandAms 53.7-12: 225-235.
Haas 1939aHaas, Otto 1939aΑκουω - ansam. In: HandAms 53.7-12: 235-237.
Haas 1940Haas, Otto 1940Das armenische Pluralzeichen -k‘. In: HandAms 40.1-6: 96-106.
Haas 1961Haas, Otto 1961Phrygische Inschriften: Berichtigte Lesungen – verbesserte Deutungen. In: Die Sprache 7: 77‑92.
Haas 1994Haas, Volkert 1994Geschichte der hethitischen Religion. Leiden, New York, Köln: Brill.
Haas/Wilhelm 1974Haas, Volkert & Wilhelm, Gernot 1974Hurritische und luwische Riten aus Kizzuwatna. Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen‑Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. (Alter Orient und Altes Testament: Veröffentlichungen zur Kultur und Geschichte des Alten Orients 3; Hurritologische Studien 1).
Hac‘uni 1910Hac‘uni, H. Vardan V. 1910Erdumn hin Hayoc‘ mēǰ. Venice: S. Lazar.
Hac‘uni 1923Hac‘uni, H. Vardan V. 1923Patmut‘iwn hin hay tarazin (patkerazard). Venice: S. Lazar.
Hac‘uni 1936Hac‘uni, H. Vardan V. 1936Hayuhin patmut‘ean aṙǰew. Venice: S. Lazar.
Hahn 1969Hahn, Emma Adelaide 1969Naming-constructions in some Indo-European languages. Cleveland (Ohio): Press of Case Western Reserve University. (Philological monographs of the American Philological Association; monograph 27).
Hajnal 1992Hajnal, Ivo 1992Griechisch χαμαί – ein Problem der Rekonstruktion? In: RekRelChr 1992: 207-220.
Hakobyan 1974Hakobyan, G. A. 1974Nerk‘in Baseni azgagrut‘yunə ew banahyusut‘yunə. Yerevan: “Hayastan”.
Hakobyan 1999Hakobyan, P. H. 1999“Sasna cṙer” herosakan ēposi aṙaǰin arjagank‘nerə Arewelyan Hayastanum. In: PBH 1999, Nr 1: 301-320.
Hakobyan 1951‑56Hakobyan, Vazgen Artašesi 1951‑56(1‑2) Manr žamanakagrut‘yunner XIII‑XVIII dd. (compiled by V. A. Hakobyan). Vol. 1: 1951; vol. 2: 1956. Yerevan: Academy Press. (Materialy po istorii armjanskogo naroda; 3, 7).
Halaǰyan 1973Halaǰyan, Geworg 1973Dersimi hayeri azgagrut‘yunə. HayAzgBan 5. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Hambarjumyan 1995Hambarjumyan, V. G. 1995Movses Xorenac‘u Patmut‘yan “Tenč‘ay Sat‘enik tikin” hatvacə. In: PBH 1995, Nr 2: 227‑236.
Hambarjumyan 1997Hambarjumyan, V. G. 1997Hayeren aɫǰik baṙi stugabanut‘yunə. In: PBH 1997, Nr 2: 149-152.
Hambarjumyan 1998Hambarjumyan, V. G. 1998Aknarkner hayoc‘ lezvi hamematakan baṙagitut‘yan. Yerevan: Academy Press “Gitut‘yun”.
Hambarjumyan 2002Hambarjumyan, V. G. 2002Hndevropakan armati tarberakaynut‘yunə ew hayeren astuac baṙi cagumn u tipabanut‘yunə. In: PBH 2002, Nr 3: 242-260.
Hamp 1959-60Hamp, Eric P. 1959-60Notes on early Greek phonology. In: Glotta 38.3-4: 187-203.
Hamp 1966Hamp, Eric P. 1966Three Armenian etymologies. In: RevEtArm n.s. 3: 11-15.
Hamp 1967Hamp, Eric P. 1967Two Armenian etymologies: 1. əmpem. 2. leaṙn ‘mountain’. In: RevEtArm n.s. 4: 15-17.
Hamp 1970Hamp, Eric P. 1970Sanskrit duhitā́, Armenian dustr, and IE internal schwa. In: JAOS 90.2: 228‑231.
Hamp 1973Hamp, Eric P. 1973Mōrum. In: AmerJourPhil 94.2: 167‑169.
Hamp 1973aHamp, Eric P. 1973aReligion and law from Iguvium. In: JourIndEurStud 1.3: 318-323.
Hamp 1975Hamp, Eric P. 1975On the nasal presents of Armenian. In: ZVS 89: 100‑109.
Hamp 1979Hamp, Eric P. 1979Indo-European *gwen-Ha. In: ZVS 93.1: 1-7.
Hamp 1981Hamp, Eric P. 1981Arm. am ‘year’; Armenian k‘ez. In: AnnArmLing 2: 13-14.
Hamp 1982Hamp, Eric P. 1982‘Arm, shoulder’; Gothic inu, Greek ἄνευ, OHG ânu ‘ohne’; On Greek ζ – y‑. In: JourIndEurStud 10: 187‑191.
Hamp 1982aHamp, Eric P. 1982a‑og in British Celtic and notes on bro. In: ÉtCelt 19: 143‑149.
Hamp 1982bHamp, Eric P. 1982bTwo roots *Hobhel-. In: Glotta 60: 227-230.
Hamp 1982cHamp, Eric P. 1982cμαλλός: a clarification. In: Glotta 60: 61-62.
Hamp 1982dHamp, Eric P. 1982dArmenian miscellanea. In: AnnArmLing 3: 53-56.
Hamp 1983Hamp, Eric P. 1983Philologica varia. In: RevEtArm n.s. 17: 5‑12.
Hamp 1983aHamp, Eric P. 1983aOn the Helleno‑Armenian shared lexicon. In: AnnArmLing 4: 63‑64.
Hamp 1983bHamp, Eric P. 1983bErastank‘. In: AnnArmLing 4: 64‑65.
Hamp 1983cHamp, Eric P. 1983c(Hemp‘), Mi k‘ani kisašp‘akanneri masin hayereni patmut‘yan meǰ. In: PBH 1983, Nr 1: 38-42.
Hamp 1984Hamp, Eric P. 1984Indo-European ‘bone’ reconsidered. In: ZVS 97.2: 197-201.
Hamp 1984aHamp, Eric P. 1984aArmenian anurǰ. In: ZVS 97.1: 130.
Hamp 1985Hamp, Eric P. 1985Greek πτ- and Armenian. In: AnnArmLing 6: 51-52.
Hamp 1986Hamp, Eric P. 1986Armenian yisun. In: Gd Berbérian 1986: 293‑294.
Hamp 1986aHamp, Eric P. 1986aezn ‘ox’. In: AnnArmLing 7: 63‑64.
Hamp 1986‑87Hamp, Eric P. 1986‑87Armenian bok ‘barefoot’. In: RevEtArm n.s. 20: 35‑36.
Hamp 1990Hamp, Eric P. 1990Three Armenian sound laws. In: AnnArmLing 11: 21-23.
Hamp 1990-91Hamp, Eric P. 1990-91Armenian and IE u-stem derivatives. In: RevEtArm n.s. 22: 9-12.
Hamp 1991Hamp, Eric P. 1991Erastank‘. In: AnnArmLing 12: 5.
Hamp 1994Hamp, Eric P. 1994Arm. gewɫ ‘village’. In: AnnArmLing 15: 24‑26.
Hamp 1996Hamp, Eric P. 1996Once again aṙaǰin. In: AnnArmLing 17: 61-62.
Hamp 1997Hamp, Eric P. 1997The Celtic road to the γέφῡρα. In: Gd Campanile 1997, 1: 463‑466.
Hamp 1997aHamp, Eric P. 1997aTwo notes. In: AnnArmLing 18: 19‑21.
Hamp 1998Hamp, Eric P. 1998Two regular milk products. In: Fs Watkins 1998: 241‑242.
Hamp 2001Hamp, Eric P. 2001Armenian gind ‘earring’ and asr ‘wool’. In: AnnArmLing 21: 9-10.
Hananyan 1995Hananyan, Gaɫt‘uhi Karapeti 1995Svediayi barbaṙə (Xtrbeki xosvack‘). Yerevan: University Press.
Haneyan 1978Haneyan, A. N. 1978Tigranakerti barbaṙə. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Haneyan 1985Haneyan, A. N. 1985Grabari baṙaskzbi y jaynordi artac‘olumə ardi hayereni barbaṙnerum. In: Hayereni barbaṙagitakan atlas: usumnasirut‘yunner ew nyut‘er 2. Yerevan: Academy Press : 22‑45.
Haneyan 1985aHaneyan, A. N. 1985aGrabari oy ew iw erkbarbaṙneri patmakan hnč‘yunap‘oxut‘yan šurǰə. In: HayLezPatmHarc‘ 2: 37‑58.
Haneyan 2001Haneyan, A. N. 2001Hay barbaṙnerum ‘ciacan’ [‘rainbow’] haskac‘ut‘yan baṙanvanumneri hogewor-mšakut‘ayin aržek‘ə. In: Hay Srb 2001: 109-113.
Hanneyan 1979Hanneyan, M. K. 1979 Marmni maseri hndewropakan anvanumneri taracqayin nkaragirə hayerenum. In: Hayoc‘ lezvi hamematakan k‘erakanut‘yan harc‘er. Yerevan: Academy Press: 128‑187.
Hanneyan 1998Hanneyan, M. K. 1998 Hayereni hndewropakan baṙapašari t‘ematik‑imastayin mi k‘ani xmberi tarack‘ayin bnut‘agirə (tntesakan gorcuneut‘yun artahaytoɫ baṙer). In: Hayoc‘ lezvi hamematakan k‘erakanut‘yan harc‘er 2. Yerevan: “Anania Širakac‘i”: 145‑227.
Harðarson 1995Harðarson, Jón Axel 1995Griechisch τῆλε. In: HistSpr 108: 205-206.
Harkness 1996Harkness, John 1996Another approach to “The Great Armenian Puzzle”. In: AnnArmLing 17: 11‑19.
Hartmann 1965Hartmann, R. 1965al-Furāt. In: EncIsl 2: 945-947 [+ E. de Vaumas, 947-948].
Hartner 1985Hartner, W. 1985Old Iranian Calendars. In: The Cambridge history of Iran. II, The Median and Achaemenian periods (ed. Ilya Gershevitch), Cambridge: 714-792.
Harut‘yunyan 1989Harut‘yunyan, B. H. 1989, 1-2Mec Hayk‘i Parskahayk‘ ašxarhn əst Ašxarhac‘oyc‘-i. (1) In: PBH 1989, Nr 2: 26-39. (2) In: PBH 1989, Nr 3: 18-36.
Harut‘yunyan 1991Harut‘yunyan, Lewon 1991 Nšxarner Arc‘axi banahyusut‘yan. Yerevan: University Press.
Harut‘yunyan 1960Harut‘yunyan, Sargis 1960Hay žoɫovrdakan hanelukner: usumnasirut‘yun (Armenian folk riddles: a study). Yerevan: Academy Press.
Harut‘yunyan 1965Harut‘yunyan, Sargis 1965Hay žoɫovrdakan hanelukner (Armenian folk riddles). Yerevan: Academy Press.
Harut‘yunyan 1975Harut‘yunyan, Sargis 1975Aneck‘i ew ōrhnank‘i žanrə hay banahyusut‘yan meǰ (Жанр проклятий и пожеланий в армянском фольклоре). Yerevan: Academy Press.
Harut‘yunyan 1987Harut‘yunyan, Sargis 1987Hndevropakan taɫač‘ap‘ut‘yan mi k‘ani aṙanjnahatkut‘yunneri drseworumnerə hay hin banasteɫcut‘yan ew banahyusut‘yan meǰ. In: PBH 1987, Nr 4: 48-60.
Harut‘yunyan 2000Harut‘yunyan, Sargis 2000Hay aṙaspelabanut‘yun. Beyrut‘. “Hamazgayin”: Vahē Sēt‘ean tparan.
Harut‘yunyan 2006Harut‘yunyan, Sargis 2006Hay hmayakan ew žoɫovrdakan aɫot‘k‘ner (Armenian incantations and folk prayers). Yerevan: University Press.
Harut‘yunyan/Xač‘atryan 2000Harut‘yunyan, Sargis & Xač‘atryan, Ženya 2000(eds.), Karos xač‘: usumnasirut‘yunner ew bnagrer: Yerevan: Academy Press “Gitut‘yun”.
Haykuni 1895Haykuni, S. 1895See Hut‘Sam 1895.
Haykuni 1902Haykuni, S. 1902Žoɫovrdakan hēk‘eat‘. ĒmAzgŽoɫ 4. Moscow, Vaɫaršapat.
Haykuni 1906Haykuni, S. 1906Žoɫovrdakan erg, aṙac, asac, haneluk, erdum, ōrhnank‘, anēck‘, ew ayln. ĒmAzgŽoɫ 6. Moscow, Vaɫaršapat.
Hayrapetyan 2004Hayrapetyan, T‘amar 2004Anjrewaber ew anjrewaxap‘an ceseri erkhakadir ənkalumneri šurǰ. In: PBH 2004, Nr 3: 217-227.
Henning 1935-37Henning, W. B. 1935-37Soghdische Miszellen. In: BSOS 8.2/3: 583-588.
Henning 1939Henning, W. B. 1939Sogdian loan-words in New Persian. In: BSOS 10.1 [1939-1942]: 93-106.
Henning 1945Henning, W. B. 1945Two Central Asian words. In: TrPhilSoc 1945 [1946]: 150-162.
Henning 1977Henning, W. B. 1977The Kurdish elm. In: W. B. Henning Selected papers 2 (Acta Iranica 15. Série 2. Hommages et Opera minora; vol. 6). Téhéran-Liège: Bibliothèque Pahlavi; Leiden: Brill. (pp. 68-72).
Heubeck 1949‑50Heubeck, Alfred 1949‑50Smyrna, Myrina und Verwandtes. In: BeitrNamenf 1: 270‑282.
Hewsen 1983Hewsen, Robert H. 1983The Kingdom of Arc‘ax. In: MedArmCult 1983: 42-68.
Hewsen 1988‑89Hewsen, Robert H. 1988‑89Introduction to Armenian historical geography IV. In: RevEtArm n.s. 21: 271‑319.
Hewsen 1992Hewsen, Robert H. 1992The Geography of Ananias of Širak (Ašxarhac‘oyc‘): the long and the short recensions. Introduction, translation and commentary. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag. (Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients. Reihe B /Geisteswissenschaften/, 77).
Hewsen 2001Hewsen, Robert H. 2001Armenia: a historical atlas (cartographer-in-chief: Christopher C. Salvatico). Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Hiersche 1964Hiersche, Rolf 1964Untersuchungen zur Frage der Tenues aspiratae im Indogermanischen. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Hilmarsson 1982Hilmarsson, J. G. 1982Indo-European ‘tongue’. In: JourIndEurStud 10: 355-367.
Hilmarsson 1984Hilmarsson, J. G. 1984Reconstruction of a Tocharian paradigm: the numeral ‘one’. In: ZVS 97.1: 135-147.
Hilmarsson 1984aHilmarsson, J. G. 1984aEast Tocharian kñom ‘the expanded hood or neck of a serpent’. In: ZVS 97.2: 287-290.
Hilmarsson 1986Hilmarsson, J. G. 1986Studies in Tocharian phonology, morphology and etymology: with special emphasis on the o‑cocalism. Reykjavik.
Hintze 1994Hintze, Almut 1994Der Zamyād-Yašt: Edition, Übersetzung, Kommentar. Wiesbaden: Reichert. (Beiträge zur Iranistik, 15). [Zugl.: Erlangen, Nürnberg, Univ., Diss., 1990].
Hirt 1899Hirt, Herman 1899Akzentstudien 11‑14. In: IndogForsch 10: 20‑59.
Hiwnk‘earpēyēntean 1894Hiwnk‘earpēyēntean, Tēr Yovhannēs k‘ahanay 1894Stugabanakan baṙaran hay lezui. Kostandnupolis: Tparan G. Paɫtatlean.
Hmayakyan 1990Hmayakyan, S. G. 1990Vani t‘agavorut‘yan petakan kronə. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Hmayakyan 1990aHmayakyan, S. G. 1990aKueṙa-Kuaṙ astvacut‘yan paštamunk‘ə Haykakan leṙnašxarhum. In PBH 1990, Nr 1: 152-167.
Hobosyan 2004Hobosyan, Suren 2004Aygin miǰnadaryan hayeren vimagrerum. In: HayŽoɫMšak 12 (Republication Scientific Conference. Yerevan: “Muɫni”): 80-85.
Hoffmann 1982Hoffmann, Karl 1982Vedica. In: MünStudSpr 41: 61-94.
Hoffmann/Forssman 1996Hoffmann, Karl & Forssman, Bernhard 1996Avestische Laut‑ und Flexionslehre. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck. (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, 84).
Hoffner 1964Hoffner, Jr. Harry A. 1964The laws of the Hittites. Brandeis University PhD thesis, 1963.
Hoffner 1967Hoffner, Jr. Harry A. 1967An English‑Hittite Glossary. In: RevHitAs 25, fasc. 80: 5‑99.
Hoffner 1967aHoffner, Jr. Harry A. 1967aReview of Johannes Friedrich, Hethitisches Wörterbuch. 3, Ergänzungsheft. Heidelberg: Winter, 1966. In: JAmOrSoc 87.3: 353-357.
Hoffner 1974Hoffner, Jr. Harry A. 1974Alimenta Hethaeorum: food production in Hittite Asia Minor. New Haven, Connecticut. (American Oriental series, 55).
Hofmann 1932Hofmann, Erich 1932Kultur und Sprachgeist in den Monatsnamen. In: ZVS 59: 132-142.
Höltker 1928Höltker, P. Georg 1928Zeit und Zahl in Nordwestafrika. In: Fs Schmidt 1928: 282‑302.
Hooker 1979Hooker, J. T. 1979γέφυρα: a Semitic loan‑word? In: Fs Szemerényi 1979, 1: 387‑398.
Houwink ten Kate 1961Houwink ten Kate, Ph. H. J. 1961The Luwian population groups of Lycia and Cilicia Aspera during the Hellenistic period. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Hovdhaugen 1968Hovdhaugen, Even 1968Prothetic vowels in Armenian and Greek and the laryngeal theory. In: NrsTidSpr 22: 115‑132.
Hovhannisyan 1978Hovhannisyan, H. V. 1978T‘atronə miǰnadaryan Hayastanum: patmut‘yan ew tesut‘yan harc‘er. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Hovhannisyan 1990Hovhannisyan, H. V. 1990Hay hin draman ew nra paymanajewerə. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Hovhannisyan 1977Hovhannisyan, L. Š. 1977Grabari ew Łarabaɫi barbaṙi aṙnč‘ut‘yan harc‘i šurǰə. In: PBH 1977, Nr 1: 141-152.
Hovhannisyan 1979Hovhannisyan, L. Š. 1979Baṙayin hnabanut‘yunner Łarabaɫi barbaṙum. In: LrHasGit 1979, Nr 9: 52-60.
Hovhannisyan 1987Hovhannisyan, L. Š. 1987Norahayt baṙer hay matenagrut‘yan meǰ: 1. Evsebios Emesac‘u čaṙerum; 2. Ep‘rem Asoru kc‘urdnerum. In: PBH 1987, Nr 4: 130‑138.
Hovhannisyan 1988Hovhannisyan, L. Š. 1988Hayereni iranakan p‘oxaṙut‘yunneri gorcaṙakan mi k‘ani aṙanjnahatkut‘yunner. In: PBH 1988, Nr 3: 126‑134.
Hovhannisyan 1988aHovhannisyan, L. Š. 1988aHay-iranakan zugadipumner. In: BanbErewHamals 1988, Nr 3: 168-173.
Hovhannisyan 1990Hovhannisyan, L. Š. 1990Hayereni iranakan p‘oxaṙut‘yunnerə. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Hovhannisyan 1990aHovhannisyan, L. Š. 1990aNor Haykazean baṙaranum č‘vkayvac baṙer V dari ink‘nuruyn grakanut‘yunic‘. In: PBH 1990, Nr 2: 149‑158.
Hovhannisyan 1990bHovhannisyan, L. Š. 1990bŁarabaɫi barbaṙum iranakan mi k‘ani p‘oxaṙut‘yunneri masin. In: LrHasGit 1990, Nr 11: 65-70.
Hovhannisyan 1991Hovhannisyan, L. Š. 1991Baṙayin tarberakner V dari grabarum. In: HayLezPatmHarc‘ 3: 5‑60.
Hovhannisyan 1991aHovhannisyan, L. Š. 1991aV daric‘ vkayvac mi k‘ani baṙeri k‘nnut‘yun. In: PBH 1991, Nr 2: 147‑152.
Hovhannisyan 2000Hovhannisyan, L. Š. 2000Łarabaɫi barbaṙi baṙapašari hnaguyn šerterə. In: LrHasGit 2000, Nr 1: 117-122.
Hovhannisyan 2000aHovhannisyan, L. Š. 2000aBaṙak‘nnakan nkataṙumner “Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘um” teɫ gtac mi k‘ani baṙeri veraberyal. In: PBH 2000, Nr 2: 213‑221.
Hovhannisyan 2001Hovhannisyan, L. Š. 2001Stugabanakan nkataṙumner. In: PBH 2001, Nr 1: 181-189.
Hovhannisyan 2008Hovhannisyan, L. Š. 2008Grabari baṙapašari imastayin xmberi k‘nnut‘yun (I mas). Yerevan: Academy Press “Gitut‘yun”.
Hovhannisyan 1991Hovhannisyan, N. G. 1991Naɫaš Hovnat‘ani taɫeri lezun orpes vaɫ ašxarhabari artahaytut‘yun. In: HayLezPatmHarc‘ 3: 61‑192.
Hovsep‘yan 1975Hovsep‘yan, L. S. 1975Jewabanut‘yun: holovum. In: Aknarkner miǰin grakan hayereni patmut‘yan. Vol. 2. Yerevan: Academy Press: 5-130.
Hovsep‘yan 1987Hovsep‘yan, L. S. 1987Grabari baṙakazmut‘yunə. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Hovsep‘yan 1966Hovsep‘yan, N. E. 1966Ozmi barbaṙi mi k‘ani aṙanjnahatkut‘yunneri masin. In: PBH 1966, Nr 2: 226‑238.
Hoy 1898Hoy 1898Teaṙəndaṙaǰə Karmiru mēǰ. In: Biwrakn 1898, June 11: 380‑381.
Huart 1908-09Huart, Cl. 1908-09La forteresse d’Alamūt. In: MSL 15: 130-132.
Hübschmann 1876Hübschmann, H. 1876Review of Dervischjan 1877. In: ZeitDeutMorgGesel 30: 774-779.
Hübschmann 1877Hübschmann, H. 1877Ueber die stellung des armenischen im kreise der indogermanischen sprachen. In: ZVS 23 [N.F. 3.1]: 5-49. [ModEArm. transl. by Liana Hovsep‘yan, see Hübschmann 1985; 1990: 46-88].
Hübschmann 1877aHübschmann, H. 1877aArmeniaca. In: ZVS 23 [N.F. 3]: 400-407.
Hübschmann 1881Hübschmann, H. 1881Armeniaca I. In: ZeitDeutMorgGesel 35: 168-180.
Hübschmann 1883Hübschmann, H. 1883Armenische Studien. 1/1. Grundzüge der armenischen Etymologie. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.
Hübschmann 1894Hübschmann, H. 1894Arisches und Armenisches. In: IndogForsch 4: 112‑120.
Hübschmann 1897Hübschmann, H. 1897Armenische Grammatik. 1. Theil: Armenische Etymologie. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.
Hübschmann 1899Hübschmann, H. 1899(On Hübschmann 1897). In: Anzeiger zu IndogForsch 10: 41‑50.
Hübschmann 1899aHübschmann, H. 1899aReview of P. Horn, Neupersische Schriftsprache. (Grundriss der iranischen Philologie, hrsg. von W. Geiger und E. Kuhn; I.2), Strassburg: Trübner, 1898. In: Anzeiger zu IndogForsch 10: 18‑41.
Hübschmann 1904Hübschmann, H. 1904Die altarmenischen Ortsnamen. In: IndogForsch 16: 197‑490 (+ Karte). Published also separately: Strassburg: Karl Trübner, 1904. ModWArm. translation: Hiwbšman 1907.
Hübschmann 1907Hübschmann, H. 1907(Hiwbšman), Hin Hayoc‘ teɫwoy anunnerə (ModWArm. translation from Hübschmann 1904 by H. B. Pilēzikčean). Vienna: Mxit‘arean Tparan.
Hübschmann 1985Hübschmann, H. 1985(Hyubšman), Hayereni dirk‘ə hndevropakan lezuneri šrǰanum (/šark‘um) (ModEArm. transl. of 1877 by Liana Hovsep‘yan). In: PBH 1985, Nr 4: 27-54.
Hübschmann 1990Hübschmann, H. 1990(Hyubšman), Hayagitakan usumnasirut‘yunner. Yerevan: University Press.
Huld 1981Huld, M. E. 1981Albanian corrigenda to Friedrich’s Proto‑Indo‑European trees. In: ZVS 95: 302‑308.
Huld 1984Huld, M. E. 1984Basic Albanian etymologies. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica.
Huld 1984aHuld, M. E. 1984aOn Armenian k‘san. In: AnnArmLing 5: 59-67.
Huld 1997Huld, M. E. 1997The loins of Antimachus. In: JourIndEurStud 25.3-4: 409-414.
Humbach 1982Humbach, Helmut 1982Der metaphorische Gebrauch von av. gau- ‘Rind’ und die Jātakas. In: MünStudSpr 41: 103-117.
Hutter 2003Hutter, Manfred 2003Aspects of Luwian religion. In: Melchert (ed.) 2003, Chapter 6: 211‑280.
Ičiro 1989Ičiro, Ito 1989Obščeslavjanskij fol’klornyj istočnik gogolevskogo ‘Vija’. In: Izvestija Akademii nauk SSSR: serija literatury i jazyka 48.5: 454-459.
Illič‑Svityč 1964Illič‑Svityč, V. M. 1964Drevnejšie indoevropejsko‑semitskie jazykovye kontakty. In: PrIndEvrJaz : 3‑12.
Illič‑Svityč 1971Illič‑Svityč, V. M. 1971Opyt sravnenija nostratičeskix jazykov (semitoxamitskij, kartvel’skij, indoevropejskij, ural’skij, dravidijskij, altajskij). Vvedenie: sravnitel’nyj slovar’ (b‑Ḳ) (with redaction and introduction by V. A. Dybo). Moscow: “Nauka”.
Illič‑Svityč 1976Illič‑Svityč, V. M. 1976Opyt sravnenija nostratičeskix jazykov (semitoxamitskij, kartvel’skij, indoevropejskij, ural’skij, dravidijskij, altajskij). Sravnitel’nyj slovar’ (l‑ʒ́). Ukazateli (with redaction by V. A. Dybo). Moscow: “Nauka”.
Illič‑Svityč 1984Illič‑Svityč, V. M. 1984Opyt sravnenija nostratičeskix jazykov (semitoxamitskij, kartvel’skij, indoevropejskij, ural’skij, dravidijskij, altajskij). Sravnitel’nyj slovar’ (p‑q). Po kartotekam avtora (redaction by V. A. Dybo). Moscow: “Nauka”.
Isebaert 1979Isebaert, L. 1979Études étymologiques. In: Orbis 28.2: 365-368.
Isebaert 1982Isebaert, L. 1982Nouvelle note sur l’arménien. In: RevEtArm n.s. 16: 17-19.
Israyelyan 1979Israyelyan, Astɫik 1979“Bužič‘” ulunk‘‑pahpanakner. In: LrHasGit 1979, Nr 3: 80‑88.
Israyelyan 1999Israyelyan, Astɫik 1999Havkit‘-pahpanaknerə hay žoɫovrdakan havatalik‘nerum. In: PBH 1999, Nr 2-3: 331-341.
Israyelyan 1973Israyelyan, H. Ṙ. 1973Paštamunk‘n u havatalik‘ə uš bronzedaryan Hayastanum (əst hnagitakan nyut‘eri). Yerevan: Academy Press.
Israyelyan 1980Israyelyan, H. Ṙ. 1980Erkvoryakneri paštamunk‘i hetk‘erə hin Hayastanum. In: PBH 1980, Nr 3: 216-228.
Išxanyan 1987Išxanyan, Ṙ. A. 1987Mi k‘ani hnaguyn teɫanunneri ew anjnanunneri stugabanut‘yan p‘orj. In: ThesSISAL 1987: 71-72. [Not published in ProcSISAL (1987) 1993].
Ivanov 1964Ivanov, V. V. 1964Drevneindijskij mif ob ustanovlenii imen i ego parallel’ v grečeskoj tradicii. In: IndDrev 1964 : 85-94.
Ivanov 1974Ivanov, V. V. 1974Opyt istolkovaniija drevneindijskix ritual’nyx i mifologičeskix terminov, obrazovannyx ot aśva- ‘kon’’. In: Gd Vorob’jev-Desjatovskij 1974: 75-138.
Ivanov 1975Ivanov, V. V. 1975Rekonstrukcija indoevropejskix slov i tekstov, otražajuščix kul’t volka. In Izvestija Akademii nauk SSSR: serija literatury i jazyka 34.5: 399-408.
Ivanov 1976Ivanov, V. V. 1976Problemy istorii metallov na Drevnem Vostoke v svete dannyx lingvistiki. In: PBH (=IFŽ) 1976, Nr 4: 69‑86.
Ivanov 1976aIvanov, V. V. 1976aOčerki po istorii semiotiki v SSSR. Moscow: “Nauka”.
Ivanov 1977Ivanov, V. V. 1977Drevnebalkanskij i obščeindoevropejskij tekst mifa o geroe-ubijce psa i evrazijskie paralleli. In: SlavBalkJaz 1977: 181-213.
Ivanov 1977aIvanov, V. V. 1977aDrevnie kul’turnye i jazykovye svjazi južnobalkanskogo, ègejskogo i maloazijskogo (anatolijskogo) arealov. In: BalkLingSbor 1977: 3-39.
Ivanov 1977bIvanov, V. V. 1977bK balkano-balto-slavjanskim paralleljam. In: BalkLingSbor 1977: 143-164.
Ivanov 1979Ivanov, V. V. 1979Urartsk. mari, xurritsk. marianne, xajassk. Marija-. In: Peredneaziatskij sbornik 3: 101-112.
Ivanov 1979aIvanov, V. V. 1979aÈstetičeskoe nasledie drevnej i srednevekovoj Indii. In: LitKDSInd 1979: 6-35.
Ivanov 1981Ivanov, V. V. 1981Slavjanskij, baltijskij i rannebalkanskij glagol: indoevropejskie istoki. Moscow: “Nauka”.
Ivanov 1983Ivanov, V. V. 1983Vydelenie raznyx xronologičeskix sloev v drevnearmjanskom i problema pervonačal’noj struktury teksta gimna Va(x)agnu. In: PBH (=IFŽ) 1983, Nr 4: 22‑43.
Ivanov 1983aIvanov, V. V. 1983aPrus. emnes, emmens ‘imja’: ierogl. luv. atimaza : xet. láman. In: BaltSlavIssl 1982; 1983: 104-108.
Ivanov 1983bIvanov, V. V. 1983bK probleme sootnošenija drevnegrečeskoj i xattskoj tradicij. In: Slavjanskoe i balkanskoe jazykoznanie: problema jazykovyx kontaktov. Moscow: 53-61.
Ivanov 1985Ivanov, V. V. 1985Ob otnošenii xattskogo jazyka k severozapadnokavkazskim. In: DrevAnat 1985: 26‑59.
Ivanov 1999Ivanov, V. V. 1999On terms for ‘half, moiety’ in Indo-European and Germanic. In: Fs Lehmann 1999, 1: 172-182.
Ivanov 2003Ivanov, V. V. 2003 On the origin of Tocharian terms for GRAIN. In: Fs Winter 2003: 189-210.
Ivanov/Toporov 1973Ivanov, V. V. & Toporov, V. N. 1973K probleme dostovernosti pozdnix vtoričnyx istočnikov v svjazi s issledovanijami v oblasti mifologii: dannye o Velese v tradicijax Severnoj Rusi i voprosy kritiki pis’mennyx tekstov. In: TrudZnakSist 6 = Festschrift M. M. Baxtin. (UZTGU, 308).
Ivanov/Toporov 1974Ivanov, V. V. & Toporov, V. N. 1974Issledovanija v oblasti slavjanskix drevnostej: leksičeskie i frazeologičeskie voprosy rekonstrukcii tekstov. Moscow: “Nauka”.
Ivanov/Toporov 1983Ivanov, V. V. & Toporov, V. N. 1983K rekonstrukcii Mokoši kak ženskogo personaža v slavjanskoj versii osnovnogo mifa. In: BaltSlavIssl 1982 [1983]: 175-197.
Ivanova 1983Ivanova, Ju. V. 1983Obrjadovyj ogon’. In: KalObyč 1983: 116-130.
Jasanoff 1979Jasanoff, Jay H. 1979Notes on the Armenian personal endings. In: ZVS 93: 133‑149.
J̌ahukyan 1954J̌ahukyan, G. B. 1954K‘erakanakan ew uɫɫagrakan ašxatut‘yunnerə hin ew miǰnadaryan Hayastanum (V-XV dd.). Yerevan: University Press.
J̌ahukyan 1959J̌ahukyan, G. B. 1959Hin hayereni holovman sistemə ew nra cagumə. Yerevan: University Press.
J̌ahukyan 1961J̌ahukyan, G. B. 1961The Hayaša language and its relation to the Indo-European languages. In: ArchOr 29: 353-405.
J̌ahukyan 1963J̌ahukyan, G. B. 1963(Džaukjan), Urartskij i indoevropejskie jazyki. Yerevan: Academy Press.
J̌ahukyan 1963aJ̌ahukyan, G. B. 1963aStugabanut‘yunner. In: PBH 1963, Nr 4: 85‑98.
J̌ahukyan 1964J̌ahukyan, G. B. 1964Xajasskij yazyk i ego otnošenie k indoevropejskim jazykam. Yerevan: Academy Press.
J̌ahukyan 1965J̌ahukyan, G. B. 1965Stugabanut‘yunner. In: PBH 1965, Nr 1: 251‑261.
J̌ahukyan 1967J̌ahukyan, G. B. 1967(Džaukjan), Očerki po istorii dopis’mennogo perioda armjanskogo jazyka. Yerevan: Academy Press.
J̌ahukyan 1967aJ̌ahukyan, G. B. 1967a(Džaukjan), Vzaimootnošenie indoevropejskix, xurritsko‑urartskix i kavkazskix jazykov. Yerevan: Academy Press.
J̌ahukyan 1967bJ̌ahukyan, G. B. 1967b Hayereni ew xet‘a‑luvakan lezuneri baṙayin kazmi cagumnayin zugadipumnerə. In: PBH 1967, Nr 4: 57‑74.
J̌ahukyan 1968J̌ahukyan, G. B. 1968Hayerenə ew p‘ṙyugerenə. In: PBH 1968, Nr 3: 121-137.
J̌ahukyan 1969J̌ahukyan, G. B. 1969(Djahukian), Armenische Miszellen. In: Fs Pagliaro 1969, 2: 65-71.
J̌ahukyan 1970J̌ahukyan, G. B. 1970Hayerenə ew hndevropakan hin lezunerə. Yerevan: Academy Press.
J̌ahukyan 1971J̌ahukyan, G. B. 1971Stugabanut‘yunner. In: BanbErewHamals 1971, Nr 1: 49-56.
J̌ahukyan 1972J̌ahukyan, G. B. 1972Hay barbaṙagitut‘yan neracut‘yun: vičakagrakan barbaṙagitut‘yun. Yerevan: Academy Press.
J̌ahukyan 1973J̌ahukyan, G. B. 1973Stugabanut‘yunner. In: LrHasGit 1973, Nr 6: 17-22.
J̌ahukyan 1974J̌ahukyan, G. B. 1974Žamanakakic‘ hayereni tesut‘yan himunk‘nerə. Yerevan: Academy Press.
J̌ahukyan 1975J̌ahukyan, G. B. 1975Die Bedeutung der ersten (indogermanischen) und der zweiten (inner‑armenischen) Palatalisierung für die Konstituierung des armenischen Konsonanten‑Systems. In: ZVS 89: 31‑42.
J̌ahukyan 1976J̌ahukyan, G. B. 1976Hayasayi lezvi hinanatoliakan cagman varkacə. In: PBH 1976, Nr 1: 89-110.
J̌ahukyan 1976aJ̌ahukyan, G. B. 1976aStugabanut‘yunner. In: LrHasGit 1976, Nr 12: 41-51.
J̌ahukyan 1978J̌ahukyan, G. B. 1978Obščee i armjanskoe jazykoznanie. Yerevan: Academy Press.
J̌ahukyan 1979J̌ahukyan, G. B. 1979Stugabanut‘yunner. In: LrHasGit 1979, Nr 3: 23‑34.
J̌ahukyan 1980J̌ahukyan, G. B. 1980, 1-2(Džaukjan) Ob akkadskix zaimstvovanijax v armjanskom jazyke. Part 1 in PBH 1980, Nr 3: 107-119; part 2 in PBH 1980, Nr 4: 96-106.
J̌ahukyan 1981J̌ahukyan, G. B. 1981Hay‑iranakan zugadipumner. In: BanbErewHamals 1981, Nr 2: 21‑29.
J̌ahukyan 1981aJ̌ahukyan, G. B. 1981aMovses Xorenac‘u “Hayoc‘ patmut‘yan” aṙaǰin grk‘i lezvakan aɫbyurnerə. In: PBH 1981, Nr 3: 48‑63.
J̌ahukyan 1982J̌ahukyan, G. B. 1982(Džaukjan), Sravnitel’naja grammatika armjanskogo jazyka. Yerevan: Academy Press.
J̌ahukyan 1982aJ̌ahukyan, G. B. 1982a(Djahukian), Akkadian loan words in Armenian. In: AnnArmLing 3: 1-12.
J̌ahukyan 1983J̌ahukyan, G. B. 1983Stugabanut‘yunner. In: BanbErewHamals 1983, Nr 2: 86‑94.
J̌ahukyan 1983aJ̌ahukyan, G. B. 1983a(Džaukjan), O perexode o > a v armjanskom jazyke. In: HayLezGrak 1‑2: 40‑53.
J̌ahukyan 1984J̌ahukyan, G. B. 1984Bnik hayeren armatnerov kazmvac anjnanunnerə. In: PBH 1984, Nr 4: 32‑44.
J̌ahukyan 1984aJ̌ahukyan, G. B. 1984aOb ètimologičeskix dubletax i paralleljax v armjanskom jazyke. In: IntSympArmLing 1984: 146-160.
J̌ahukyan 1985J̌ahukyan, G. B. 1985(Djahukian), Die archaischen Schichten armenischer Dialektwörter. In: Fs Winter 1985: 151‑160.
J̌ahukyan 1985aJ̌ahukyan, G. B. 1985a(Džaukjan), Urartskie zaimstvovanija v armjanskom jazyke. In: Kul’tNaslVost 1985: 364‑372.
J̌ahukyan 1986J̌ahukyan, G. B. 1986(Djahukian), Introduction. In: Greppin/Khachaturian 1986: 9‑26.
J̌ahukyan 1986aJ̌ahukyan, G. B. 1986aHaykakan šertə urartakan dic‘aranum. In: PBH 1986, Nr 1: 43‑58.
J̌ahukyan 1986‑87J̌ahukyan, G. B. 1986‑87L’étymologie des mots haraw “sud”, hiwsis(i) “nord” et le système d’orientation des anciens Arméniens. In RevEtArm n.s. 20: 29‑33.
J̌ahukyan 1987J̌ahukyan, G. B. 1987Hayoc‘ lezvi patmut‘yun: naxagrayin žamanakašrǰan. Yerevan: Academy Press.
J̌ahukyan 1988J̌ahukyan, G. B. 1988Urarterenə ew hayerenə. In: UrHay 1988: 127‑168.
J̌ahukyan 1988J̌ahukyan, G. B. 1988, 1‑2O sootnošenii xajasskogo i armjanskogo jazykov. (1) in: PBH (= IFŽ) 1988, Nr 1: 60‑79; (2) in: PBH 1988, Nr 2: 68‑88.
J̌ahukyan 1990J̌ahukyan, G. B. 1990Hayereni anhayt cagman baṙarmatnerə. In: PBH 1990, Nr 2: 62‑77.
J̌ahukyan 1990aJ̌ahukyan, G. B. 1990a(Djahukian), Combinatory vowel changes in Armenian. In: AnnArmLing 11: 1‑16.
J̌ahukyan 1991J̌ahukyan, G. B. 1991Stugabanut‘yunner. In: PBH 1991, Nr 2: 36‑44.
J̌ahukyan 1991aJ̌ahukyan, G. B. 1991aArc‘axahay (Łarabaɫi) barbaṙi kazmavorman masin. In: LrHasGit 1991, Nr 5: 52-58.
J̌ahukyan 1992J̌ahukyan, G. B. 1992Lezvakan nor tvyalner hayoc‘ naxak‘ristoneakan kroni ew havatalik‘neri masin, In: PBH 1992, Nr 1: 14‑27.
J̌ahukyan 1993J̌ahukyan, G. B. 1993(Jahukian), The Armenian suffixes of Iranian origin. In: Fs Szemerényi 1993: 257‑269.
J̌ahukyan 1994J̌ahukyan, G. B. 1994(Djahukian), Indoeuropäische phonetisch-grammatische Dialekt-Isoglossen, die vom Hethitisch-Luvischen und Armenischen geteilt werden. In: IndogCaucas 1994: 12-24.
J̌ahukyan 1995J̌ahukyan, G. B. 1995Hay‑iranakan lezvakan zugadipumner. In: PBH 1995, Nr 2: 183‑186.
J̌ahukyan 1998J̌ahukyan, G. B. 1998Hin hayereni verǰacanc‘neri cagumə. In: Hayoc‘ lezvi hamematakan k‘erakanut‘yan harc‘er 2. Yerevan: “Anania Širakac‘i”: 5‑48.
Jakobson 1959Jakobson, Roman 1959Marginalia to Vasmer’s Russian Etymological Dictionary (Р‑Я). In: IntJourSlavLingPoet 1/2: 266‑278.
Jakobson 1969Jakobson, Roman 1969The Slavic god Veles’’ and his Indo-European cognates. In: Fs Pisani 1969: 579-599.
Janda 1996Janda, Michael 1996Altgriechisch νεβρός ‘Hirschkalb’ und νέβραξ ‘Küchlein’. In: Die Sprache 38.1: 87-92.
Jasanoff 1997Jasanoff, Jay H. 1997Gathic Avestan cikōitərəš. In: Fs Beekes 1997: 119-130.
Jensen 1959Jensen, Hans 1959Altarmenische Grammatik. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.
Jensen 1898Jensen, P. 1898Hittiter und Armenier. Strassburg: Verlag von Karl J. Trübner.
Jensen 1904Jensen, P. 1904(Ensēn), Haterēn ew hayerēn. In: HandAms 18: 180-184, 271-276.
Jeremiás/Maróth 1977Jeremiás, É. M. & Maróth, M. 1977Drei mitteliranische wörter für ‘Sonne’. In: Fs Harmatta 1977 (= ActAntHung 25): 221‑226.
J̌ihanyan 1991J̌ihanyan, V. G. 1991Haykakan leṙnašxarhi ǰranunnerə. In: HayLezPatmHarc‘ 3: 193‑276.
Johansons 1970Johansons, Andrejs 1970Die lettischen Benennungen der Schlange. In: Fs Stang 1970: 222-229.
Jokl 1984Jokl, Norbert 1984Sprachliche Beiträge zur Paläo-Ethnologie der Balkanhalbinsel: zur Frage der ältesten Griechisch-Albanischen Beziehungen (aus dem Nachlass hrsg. von Oskar E. Pfeiffer mit einem Vorwort von Georg R. Solta). Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Johnson 1986Johnson, Buffie 1986Lady of the beasts: ancient images of the Goddess and her sacred animals. HarperSanFrancisco (a division of HarperCollins Publishers).
Jordán-Cólera 1997Jordán-Cólera, Carlos 1997The etymology of insula, aestus and aestuarium. In: JourIndEurStud 25.3-4: 353-360.
Joseph 1984Joseph, Brian D. 1984Lindeman versus Kortlandt: summary and evaluation. In: AnnArmLing 5: 45‑50.
Justi 1895Justi, Ferdinand 1895Iranisches Namenbuch. Marburg. (Reprinted in 1963, Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung).
Kagarov 1928Kagarov, E. G. 1928Mifologičeskij obraz dereva, rastuščego kornjami vverx. In: DoklANSSSR 1928: 331‑335.
K‘aǰberuni 1902K‘aǰberuni 1902Haykakan sovorut‘iwnner. In: AzgHand, year 7, book 9: 83-116.
K‘alant‘ar 1895K‘alant‘ar, A. 1895Sasun. [T‘iflis].
K‘amaleanc‘ 1893K‘amaleanc‘, S. 1893Covinar (hēk‘eat‘). T‘iflis: Tipografija I. Martirosianca.
Kammenhuber 1961Kammenhuber, Annelies 1961Zur Stellung des Hethitisch‑Luvischen innerhalb der indogermanischen Gemeinsprache. In: ZVS 77: 31‑75.
Karagyozyan 1975Karagyozyan, H. H. 1975Sepagir aɫbyurneri Alia k‘aɫak‘ə. In: LrHasGit 1975, Nr 4: 89‑99.
Karapetyan 1986Karapetyan, Donara M. 1986Hovasap‘ Sebastac‘u “Bžškaran əntreal tarrakan maxc‘i” bnagitakan erkə. In: Banber Matenadarani 15: 288‑316.
Karapetyan 1993Karapetyan, Donara M. 1993See Sources : Asar Sebastac‘i.
Karapetyan 1962Karapetyan, Eɫiazar Karapeti 1962Sasun: azgagrakan nyut‘er. Yerevan: State Press of Armenia (HayPetHrat).
Karpenko 1981Karpenko, Ju. A. 1981Nazvanija zvezdnogo neba. Moscow: “Nauka”. (Series “Literaturovedenie i jazykoznanie”).
Karolidēs 1885Karolidēs (Καρολιδης), Paulos 1885Γλοσσαριον συγκριτικον ελληνοκαππαδοκικων λεξεων ητοι η εν Καππαδοκιᾳ λαλουμενη Ελληνικη διαλεκτος και τα εν αυτῃ σωζομενα ιχνη της αρχαιας. Καππαδοκικης γλωσσης – υπο Π. Καρολιδου. Σμυρνη: εκ του τυπογραφειου “Ο Τυπος”.
Karst 1901Karst, Josef (Joseph) 1901Historische Grammatik des Kilikisch‑Armenischen. Strassburg: Verlag von Karl J. Trübner (= 1970: Photomechanischer Nachdruck. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.). For a ModArm. translation, see Karst 2002.
Karst 1911Karst, Josef (Joseph) 1911Zur ethnischen Stellung der Armenier. In: Yušarjan 1911: 399‑431.
Karst 1930Karst, Josef (Joseph) 1930Armeno‑Pelasgica: Geschichte der armenischen Philologie in kritischer beleuchtung nach ihren ethnologischen Zusammenhängen dargestellt. Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung.
Karst 1948Karst, Josef (Joseph) 1948Mythologie arméno‑caucasienne et hétito‑asianique. Strasbourg, Zurich: Editions P. H. Heitz.
Karst 2002Karst, Josef (Joseph) 2002Kilikyan hayereni patmakan k‘erakanut‘yun (ModArm. translation from Karst 1901 by Dmitri Alivnyak). Yerevan: University Press.
Katz 1983Katz, Hartmut 1983Zu idg. *mr̥tó-. In: Die Sprache 29: 174-177.
Katz 1998Katz, Joshua T. 1998How to be a dragon in Indo‑European: Hittite illuyankaš and its linguistic and cultural congeners in Latin, Greek, and Germanic. In: Fs Watkins 1998: 317‑314.
Katz 2000Katz, Joshua T. 2000Evening dress: the metaphorical background of Latin uesper and Greek ἕσπερος. In Karlene Jones-Bley, Martin E. Huld, Angela Della Volpe (eds.), Proceedings of the eleventh Annual UCLA Indo-European conference. Los Angeles, June 4-5, 1999. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man. (Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph Series, 35): 69-93.
Kazanskij 2005Kazanskij, N. N. 2005K rekonstrukcii indoevropejskoj formuly “koleso solnca”. In: Fs Ivanov 2005: 148-154.
K‘ēč‘ean/Parsamean 1952K‘ēč‘ean, Aṛak‘ēl & Parsamean, Mkrtič‘ 1952Akn ew Aknc‘ik‘. Initiated and compiled by Aṛak‘ēl K‘ēč‘ean; composed and edited by Mkrtič‘ Parsamean. Paris: Compatriotic Association of Eguen.
Kellens 1995Kellens, Jean 1995Liste du verbe avestique (avec un appendice sur l’orthographe des racines avestiques par Eric Pirart).K Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.
Kelly 1976Kelly, Fergus 1976The Old Irish tree-list. In: Celtica 11: 107-124.
Kent 1953Kent, Roland G. 1953Old Persian: grammar, texts, lexicon. New Haven, Connecticut: American Oriental Society. (American Oriental Series, 33).
Kern 1894Kern, J. H. 1894Mist und die Wurzel migh. In: IndogForsch 4: 106‑112.
Kētikean 1905Kētikean 1905Acux t‘ē acuɫ. In: HandAms 19, 1905, Nr 11: 346‑348. [The name of the author is not printed. According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 103a), it is Kētikean].
Khachatoorian 2001Khachatoorian, Khachatoor 2001Grigor Narekatsi, The Book of Sadness. Yerevan: “Nairi”.
Kim 2000Kim, Ronald 2000‘To drink’ in Anatolian, Tocharian, and Proto‑Indo‑European. In: HistSpr 113: 151‑170.
Kimball 1987Kimball, Sarah E. 1987*H3 in Anatolian. In: Fs Hoenigswald 1987: 185-192.
Kimball 1999Kimball, Sarah E. 1999Hittite historical phonology. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck. (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, 95).
Kiwlēsērean 1899-1900Kiwlēsērean, Babgēn Vardapet 1899-1900Čaniki vičakin mēǰ gtnuoɫ hamšēnc‘ineru gawaṙabarbaṙə (KiwlHamš 1899-1900). In: Biwrakn, vol. 17, 1899, Nr 31-32: 508-513; Nr 35: 558b-560a; Nr 38-39: 603b-605b; Nr 41: 654b-656a; Nr 44: 699b-700b; Nr 47-48: 752b-754b; Nr 49: 779b-780b; vol. 18, 1900: Nr 1: 14-16; Nr 2: 29b-31a; Nr 3: 42-43; Nr 4: 59b-62b; Nr 6: 82b-84b; Nr 8: 120-121.
Klaproth 1831Klaproth, Julius 1831Asia polyglotta (2nd ed.). Paris: Verlag von Heideloff & Campe.
Klein 1988Klein, Jared S. 1988Proto-Indo-European *gwiH3- ‘live’ and related problems of laryngeals in Greek. In: LaryngTheor 1988: 257-279.
Klein 1996Klein, Jared S. 1996On personal deixis in Classical Armenian: a study of the syntax and semantics of the n-, s-, and d- demonstratives in manuscripts E and M of the Old Armenian Gospels. Dettelbach: Verlag J. H. Röll. (MünStudSpr: Beiheft, N.F. 17).
Kleinlogel 1981Kleinlogel, Alexander 1981Götterblut und Unsterblichkeit. In: Poetica 13: 252-279.
Klimov 1964Klimov, G. A. 1964Ètimologičeskij slovar’ kartvel’skix jazykov. Moscow: “Nauka”.
Klimov 1971Klimov, G. A. 1971Kavkazskie ètimologii (1‑8). In: Ètimologija 1968: 223‑230.
Klimov 1989Klimov, G. A. 1989Refleks indoevropejskogo laringal’nogo v kartvel’skix jazykax? In: VoprJaz 1989, Nr 6: 23‑28.
Klimov 1991Klimov, G. A. 1991The Kartvelian analogue of Proto-Indo-European su̯omb(h)o- ‘spongy, porous’. In: Fs Polomé 1, 1991: 111-116.
Klimov 1993Klimov, G. A. 1993Ešče odno svidetel’stvo prebyvanija arijcev v Perednej Azii. In: VoprJaz 1993, Nr 4: 29‑37.
Klimov 1994Klimov, G. A. 1994Drevnejšie indoevropeizmy kartvel’skix jazykov. Moscow: Rossijskaja Akademija Nauk, Institut Jazykoznanija; “Nasledie”.
Klimov 1998Klimov, G. A. 1998Etymological dictionary of the Kartvelian languages. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Klingenschmitt 1970Klingenschmitt, Gert 1970Griechisch ̔ῑλάσκεσϑαι. In: MünStudSpr 28: 75-88.
Klingenschmitt 1974Klingenschmitt, Gert 1974Griechisch παρϑένος. In: AntiqIndog 1974: 273-278.
Klingenschmitt 1982Klingenschmitt, Gert 1982Das altarmenische Verbum. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.
Kloekhorst 2006Kloekhorst, Alwin 2006Initial laryngeals in Anatolian. In: HistSpr 119: 77-108.
Kloekhorst 2008Kloekhorst, Alwin 2008Etymological dictionary of the Hittite inherited lexicon. Leiden, Boston: Brill. (LeidIEEDSer, 5).
Kluge 1989Kluge, Friedrich 1989(Kluge/Seebold), Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. 22.Auflage, unter Mithilfe von Max Bürgisser und Bernd Gregor völlig neu bearbeitet von Elmar Seebold. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Knobloch 1974Knobloch, Johann 1974Osk. aíz ‘Vermögen’ und die Beteilung mit irdischen Gütern. In: AntiqIndog 1974: 349‑351.
K‘oč‘aryan 2000K‘oč‘aryan, Gayane 2000Dvin teɫanvan vaɫemut‘yan harc‘ə. In: LrHasGit 2000, Nr 2: 132-138.
K‘oč‘aryan 2001K‘oč‘aryan, Gayane 2001Dvin amroc‘-srbavayrə Hayoc‘ darji naxōrein. In: HaySrb 2001: 289-296.
K‘oč‘oyan 1963K‘oč‘oyan, A. K. 1963Sayat‘‑Novayi hayeren xaɫeri baṙaran. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Koivulehto 2001Koivulehto, J. 2001The earliest contacts between Indo-European and Uralic speakers in the light of lexical loans. In: EarlContUralIndEur 2001: 235-263.
Kortlandt 1975Kortlandt, Frederik H. H. 1975A note on the Armenian palatalization. In: ZVS 89: 43‑45.
Kortlandt 1976Kortlandt, Frederik H. H. 1976Notes on Armenian historical phonology I. In: StudCauc 3: 91‑100.
Kortlandt 1978Kortlandt, Frederik H. H. 1978Notes on Armenian historical phonology II: The second consonant shift. In: StudCauc 4: 9‑16.
Kortlandt 1980Kortlandt, Frederik H. H. 1980On the relative chronology of Armenian sound changes. In: ProcFICAL 1980: 97‑106.
Kortlandt 1980aKortlandt, Frederik H. H. 1980aAlbanian and Armenian. In: ZVS 94: 243‑251. [I refer to the revised version: 1986].
Kortlandt 1980bKortlandt, Frederik H. H. 1980bH2o and oH2. In: LingPosn 23: 127‑128.
Kortlandt 1981Kortlandt, Frederik H. H. 1981On the Armenian personal endings. In: AnnArmLing 2: 29-34.
Kortlandt 1983Kortlandt, Frederik H. H. 1983Notes on Armenian historical phonology III: h‑. In: StudCauc 5: 9‑16.
Kortlandt 1984Kortlandt, Frederik H. H. 1984PIE. H‑ in Armenian. In: AnnArmLing 5: 41‑43.
Kortlandt 1984aKortlandt, Frederik H. H. 1984aProto-Armenian case endings. In: IntSympArmLing 1984: 97-106.
Kortlandt 1985Kortlandt, Frederik H. H. 1985The syncretism of nominative and accusative singular in Armenian. In: RevEtArm n.s. 19: 19‑24.
Kortlandt 1985aKortlandt, Frederik H. H. 1985aArm. artawsr ‘tear’. In: AnnArmLing 6: 59‑61.
Kortlandt 1985bKortlandt, Frederik H. H. 1985bNotes on Armenian historical phonology IV. In: StudCauc 6: 9‑11.
Kortlandt 1986Kortlandt, Frederik H. H. 1986Armenian and Albanian. In: PlacArmLIE: 38‑47.
Kortlandt 1987Kortlandt, Frederik H. H. 1987Notes on Armenian historical phonology V. In: StudCauc 7: 61‑65.
Kortlandt 1987aKortlandt, Frederik H. H. 1987aSigmatic or root aorist? In: AnnArmLing 8: 49‑52.
Kortlandt 1988Kortlandt, Frederik H. H. 1988The Thraco-Armenian consonant shift. In: LingBalk 31: 71-74.
Kortlandt 1989Kortlandt, Frederik H. H. 1989The making of a puzzle. In: AnnArmLing 10: 43‑52.
Kortlandt 1991Kortlandt, Frederik H. H. 1991Arm. canawt‘ ‘known’. In: AnnArmLing 12: 1‑4.
Kortlandt 1993Kortlandt, Frederik H. H. 1993Intervocalic ‑w‑ in Armenian. In: AnnArmLing 14: 9‑13.
Kortlandt 1994Kortlandt, Frederik H. H. 1994Palatalization of dentals in Armenian. In: AnnArmLing 15: 27‑31.
Kortlandt 1994aKortlandt, Frederik H. H. 1994aProto‑Armenian numerals. In: Pedersen Kolloquium 1994: 253‑257.
Kortlandt 1995Kortlandt, Frederik H. H. 1995The sigmatic forms of the Armenian verb. In: AnnArmLing 16: 13‑17.
Kortlandt 1996Kortlandt, Frederik H. H. 1996The Proto-Armenian verbal system. In: ProcFICAL 1996: 35-43.
Kortlandt 1996aKortlandt, Frederik H. H. 1996aArm. caɫr ‘laughter’. In: AnnArmLing 17: 55‑59.
Kortlandt 1997Kortlandt, Frederik H. H. 1997Arm. nēr ‘sister‑in‑law’. In: AnnArmLing 18: 7‑9.
Kortlandt 1998Kortlandt, Frederik H. H. 1998The development of y‑ in Armenian. In: AnnArmLing 19: 15‑18.
Kortlandt 1998aKortlandt, Frederik H. H. 1998aArm. gom ‘am’. In: AnnArmLing 19: 19-20.
Kortlandt 1999Kortlandt, Frederik H. H. 1999The Armenian causative. In: AnnArmLing 20: 47-49.
Kortlandt 2001Kortlandt, Frederik H. H. 2001Armenian ariwn ‘blood’. In: AnnArmLing 21: 11‑12.
Kortlandt 2003Kortlandt, Frederik H. H. 2003Armeniaca: comparative notes; with an appendix on the historical phonology of Classical Armenian by Robert S. P. Beekes [see Beekes 2003]. Ann Arbor: Caravan Books.
Kortlandt 2004Kortlandt, Frederik H. H. 2004Indo-Uralic consonant gradation. In: Fs Koivulehto 2004: 163-170.
Kortlandt 2008Kortlandt, Frederik H. H. 2008Arm. ewɫ. In: Aramazd 3.1: 40-41.
Kossian 1997Kossian, Aram V. 1997On Anatolian-Urartian linguistic contacts. In: JourIndEurStud 25.1-2: 27-34.
Kostandyan 1979Kostandyan, D. M. 1979 Erznkayi barbaṙə. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Kostanyan 1983Kostanyan, S.‑A. S. 1983“Hazarapet” termini masin. In: PBH 1983, Nr 2‑3: 178‑189.
Krahe 1949/50-Krahe, Hans 1949/50-(AltFluß), Alteuropäische Flußnamen. In: BeitrNamenf 1, 1949/50, etc.
Krahe 1955Krahe, Hans 1955Die Sprache der Illyrier. I: Die Quellen. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Krahe 1959Krahe, Hans 1959Sprachliche Aufgliederung und Sprachbewegungen in Alteuropa. Wiesbaden: Verlag der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur in Mainz. (Abhandlungen der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse, Jhrg. 1959, Nr. 1).
Krahe 1963Krahe, Hans 1963Die Struktur der alteuropäischen Hydronymie.K Wiesbaden: Verlag der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur in Mainz. (Abhandlungen der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse, Jhrg. 1962, Nr. 5).
Krahe 1970Krahe, Hans 1970Einleitung in das vergleichende Sprachstudium (hrsg. von Wolfgang Meid). Innsbruck. (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft).
Krause/Thomas 1960-64Krause, Wolfgang & Thomas, Werner 1960-64(1-2), Tocharisches Elementarbuch. Bd. I: Grammatik, 1960. Bd. II: Texte und Glossar, 1964. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.
Kretschmer 1933Kretschmer, Paul 1933Der nationale Name der Armenier. In: Anzeiger der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien: Philosophisch‑historische Klasse. 69. Jahrgang 1932. Wien und Leipzig: 28-36.
Krkyašaryan 1970Krkyašaryan, Simon 1970K‘senofon. Anabasis (ModArm. transl. and commentary). Yerevan: Academy Press.
Krkyašaryan 1986Krkyašaryan, Simon 1986Herodotos. Patmut‘yun inə grk‘ic‘ (ModArm. transl. and commentary). Yerevan: Academy Press.
Kuiper 1937Kuiper, F. B. J. 1937Die indogermanischen Nasalpräsentia: ein Versuch zu einer morphologischen Analyse. Amsterdam: Noord-Hollandsche Uitgeversmaatschappij.
Kuiper 1942Kuiper, F. B. J. 1942Notes on Vedic noun‑inflexion. In: MedKonNedAkadWetLet 5.4: 161‑256 (1‑96).
Kuiper 1951Kuiper, F. B. J. 1951Νώροπι χαλκῷ. In: MedKonNedAkadWetLet 14.5: 201-227.
Kuiper 1995Kuiper, F. B. J. 1995Gothic bagms and Old Icelandic ylgr. In: NOWELE 25, March: 63-88.
Kuipers 1975Kuipers, A. H. 1975Review of Furnée 1972 (Part II: Caucasian materials). In: Lingua 36: 82-100. (For Part I see Beekes 1975).
Kulagina 1999Kulagina, A.V. 1999Russkaja èrotičeskaja častuška. In M. Levitt, A. Toporkov (eds.), Eros and Pornography in Russian Culture. Moscow: “Ladomir”: 94‑162.
Kulikov 2000Kulikov, Leonid 2000The Vedic type syáti revisited. In: IndIranIndog 2000: 267-283.
Kulikov 2001Kulikov, Leonid 2001The Vedic ‑ya‑presents. PhD diss. Leiden University.
Kulikov 2005Kulikov, Leonid 2005Reduplication in the Vedic verb: Indo‑European inheritance, analogy and iconicity. In: StudRedup 2005: 431‑454.
Kurdoev/Jusupova 1983Kurdoev, K. K. & Jusupova, Z. A. 1983Kurdsko-russkij slovar’ (sorani). Moscow: “Russkij jazyk”.
K‘yoškeryan 1981K‘yoškeryan, Armine 1981(ed.) Grigor Narekac‘i, Taɫer ew ganjer. Yerevan: Academy Press.
K‘yoškeryan 1987K‘yoškeryan, Armine 1987(ed.) Nerses Šnorhali, Taɫer ew ganjer. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Lagarde 1850Lagarde, Paul de 1850(Boetticher), Vergleichung der armenischen Consonanten mit denen des Sanskrit. In: ZeitDeutMorgGesel 4: 347-369.
Lagarde 1854Lagarde, Paul de 1854Zur Urgeschichte der Armenier: ein philologischer Versuch. Berlin: Besser’sche Buchhandlung. – W. Hertz (aus der K. K. Hof‑ und Staatsdruckerei zu Wien).
Lagarde 1866Lagarde, Paul de 1866Gesammelte Abhandlungen. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus.
Lagarde 1868Lagarde, Paul de 1868Beitraege zur baktrischen Lexikographie. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner.
Lagarde 1886Lagarde, Paul de 1886NeuGriechisches aus KleinAsien. In: AbhKönGesWisGöt 33.1: 3-68.
Lalayeanc‘ 1892Lalayean (Lalayeanc‘, Lalayan), E. 1892(Lalayeanc‘), J̌awaxk‘i burmunk‘. T‘iflis: Tparan “Arōr” T. Nazarean. (Žoɫovrdagrakan niwt‘er, 2).
Lalayean 1897Lalayean (Lalayeanc‘, Lalayan), E. 1897J̌awaxk‘ (reprinted from “Azgagrakan handēs”). T‘iflis: Tparan M. D. Ṙotineanc‘i.
Lalayean 1902Lalayean (Lalayeanc‘, Lalayan), E. 1902Ara Geɫec‘ik. In AzgHand, year 7, book 9: 144-159.
Lalayean 1912-14Lalayean (Lalayeanc‘, Lalayan), E. 1912-14(LalVasp 1-2), Vaspurakan: banahyusut‘iwn (reprinted from AzgHand). Volume 1, 1912, T‘iflis: N. Aɫaneanc‘; vol. 2, Šataxi barbaṙov, 1914, T‘iflis: “Ēsperanto”.
Lalayean 1983‑Lalayean (Lalayeanc‘, Lalayan), E. 1983‑ (1‑), Erker. Vol. 1, 1983 (J̌avaxk‘); vol. 2, 1988 (Arc‘ax); vol. 3, 2004 (Borč‘alui gavaṙ). Yerevan: Academy Press.
Lamberterie 1978Lamberterie, Charles de 1978Armeniaca I-VIII: études lexicales. In: BSL 73: 243-285.
Lamberterie 1978-79Lamberterie, Charles de 1978-79Armeniaca X: une isoglosse gréco-arménienne. In: RevEtArm n.s. 13: 31-40.
Lamberterie 1980Lamberterie, Charles de 1980Échange de gutturales en arménien. In: ProcFICAL (1979): 221‑223.
Lamberterie 1982Lamberterie, Charles de 1982Poids et force: reconstruction d’une racine verbale indo-européenne. In: RevEtArm n.s. 16: 21-55.
Lamberterie 1982aLamberterie, Charles de 1982aLa racine *(s)per-ĝh- en arménien. In: RevEtArm n.s. 16: 57-68.
Lamberterie 1986Lamberterie, Charles de 1986Deux isoglosses entre l’arménien et l’indo-iranien. In: PlacArmLIE 1986: 48-61.
Lamberterie 1986aLamberterie, Charles de 1986aArménien barjraberj ‘très haut’. In: Gd Berbérian 1986: 469-476.
Lamberterie 1990Lamberterie, Charles de 1990(1-2), Les adjectifs grecs en -υς: sémantique et comparaison (2 vols.). Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters. (Bibliothèque des cahiers de l’Institut de Linguistique de Louvain, 54-55).
Lamberterie 1992Lamberterie, Charles de 1992Introduction à l’arménien classique. In: LALIES 10 (Aussois, 1988‑1989): 234‑289.
Lamberterie 1992aLamberterie, Charles de 1992aFiançailles arméniennes et germaniques. In: RevEtArm 23: 91-119.
Lamberterie 1997Lamberterie, Charles de 1997L’arménien. In: LangIndEur 1997: 139‑165.
Lamberterie 2006Lamberterie, Charles de 2006Traces de la langue poétique indo-européenne dans le lexique arménien. In: LangPoétIndEur 2006: 213-234.
Łanalanyan 1960Łanalanyan, Aram 1960Aṙacani. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Łanalanyan 1969Łanalanyan, Aram 1969Avandapatum. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Landsberger 1950Landsberger, B. 1950B. Landsberger’s lexicographical contributions. In: JCunSt 4: 1‑62.
Lane 1967Lane, George S. 1967The Beech argument: a re-evaluation of the linguistic evidence. In: ZVS 81.3-4: 197-212.
Lane 1970Lane, George S. 1970Tocharian: Indo‑European and non‑Indo‑European relationships. In: IndEur&IndEur 1970: 73‑88.
Langlois 1867Langlois, Victor 1867Collection des historiens anciens et modernes de l’Arménie. Vol. 1. Paris: Libraire de Firmin Didot Frères.
Łap‘anc‘yan 1927Łap‘anc‘yan, Grigor A. (Kapancjan, Grigor) 1927“Hnēabanakan” mi k‘ani mnac‘ordner hayerenum. Stugabanut‘yunner – aṙiwc, morm, xlēz. In: Teɫekagir HXSH gitut‘yan yev arvesti instituti 1927, Nr 2: 77‑104, 105‑113.
Łap‘anc‘yan 1939Łap‘anc‘yan, Grigor A. (Kapancjan, Grigor) 1939K proisxoždeniju nacional’nogo imeni gruzin Kharthveli. In: Gitakan ašxatut‘yunner of Yerevan State University, vol. 11: 5-21.
Łap‘anc‘yan 1945Łap‘anc‘yan, Grigor A. (Kapancjan, Grigor) 1945Ara Geɫec‘ki paštamunk‘ə. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Łap‘anc‘yan 1947Łap‘anc‘yan, Grigor A. (Kapancjan, Grigor) 1947Xajasa – kolybel’ armjan: ètnogenez armjan i ix načal’naja istorija. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Łap‘anc‘yan 1951Łap‘anc‘yan, Grigor A. (Kapancjan, Grigor) 1951(Kapancjan), Xurritskie slova armjanskogo jazyka. In: TeɫHasGit 1951, Nr 5: 25-50. (= 1951b).
Łap‘anc‘yan 1951aŁap‘anc‘yan, Grigor A. (Kapancjan, Grigor) 1951a(Kapancjan): K ustanovleniju xurritskogo termina šarr‑//zarr‑ v značenii ‘sluga, rab’ po dannym armjanskogo i gruzinskogo jazykov. In: ArchOr 19: 321‑328.
Kapancjan 1951bŁap‘anc‘yan, Grigor A. (Kapancjan, Grigor) 1951b(Kapancjan): Xurritskie slova armjanskogo jazyka. In: ArchOr 19: 579‑605.
Łap‘anc‘yan 1961Łap‘anc‘yan, Grigor A. (Kapancjan, Grigor) 1961Hayoc‘ lezvi patmut‘yun: hin šrǰan. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Kapancjan 1975Łap‘anc‘yan, Grigor A. (Kapancjan, Grigor) 1975(Kapancjan): Istoriko‑lingvističeskie raboty. Vol. 2, 1975. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Łaragyulyan 1961Łaragyulyan, T‘ereza Aršaviri 1961Hin hayereni xonarhman hamakargi cagumə. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Łaribyan 1953Łaribyan, Ararat Sahaki 1953Hay barbaṙagitut‘yun: hnč‘yunabanut‘yun ew jewabanut‘yun. Yerevan: Armenian State External [heṙaka] Pedagogical Institute Press.
Łaribyan 1958Łaribyan, Ararat Sahaki 1958Hayereni norahayt barbaṙneri mi nor xumb. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Łaribyan 1966Łaribyan, Ararat Sahaki 1966Review of Davt‘yan 1966. In: PBH 1966, Nr 4: 273-276.
Latyšev 1947Latyšev, V. V. 1947, 1-2Izvestija drevnix pisatelej o Skifii i Kavkaze. In: VestDrIst 1947, Nr 1: 263-316; Nr 2: 247-332.
Laufer 1919Laufer, Berthold 1919Sino‑Iranica: Chinese contributions to the history of civilization in ancient Iran. Chicago. (Field Museum of Natural History publications 201; Anthropological series, vol. 15, Nr 3).
Lavrov 1955Lavrov, L. I. 1955Abaziny (istoriko‑ètnografičeskij očerk). In: KavkÈtnSbor 1: 5‑47.
Łazaryan 1981Łazaryan, Ṙ. S. 1981Busanunneri hayeren-latineren-ṙuseren-angleren-franseren-germaneren baṙaran. Yerevan: University Press.
Łazaryan 2001Łazaryan, Ṙ. S. 2001Miǰin grakan hayereni baṙapašarə. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Łazaryan 1987‑92Łazaryan, Ṙ. S., Avetisyan, H.M. 1987‑92See MiǰHayBaṙ.
Łazaryan 1991Łazaryan, Vigen 1991Nerses Šnorhali, ‘Hisus ordi’: vipasanakan oɫbergut‘yun (introduction and Modern EArm translation). Yerevan: “Apolon”.
Łaziyan 1983Łaziyan, Alvard S. 1983Arc‘ax. HayAzgBan 15. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Łaziyan/Vardanyan 2004Łaziyan, Alvard & Vardanyan, Svetlana 2004Bak‘vi hayoc‘ banahyusut‘yunə. Yerevan: “Zangak”.
Lehmann 1952Lehmann, Winfred P. 1952Proto-Indo-European phonology. Austin: University of Texas Press and Linguistics Society of America.
Lehmann 1981Lehmann, Winfred P. 1981The genitive singular ending in *-syo: how an Indo-Europeanist works. In: Gd Kerns 1981, 1: 179-188.
Lehmann 1986Lehmann, Winfred P. 1986A Gothic Etymological Dictionary (based on the 3rd ed. of Feist’s dictionary). Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Lehmann 1988Lehmann, Winfred P. 1988‘The Divine Twins’ or ‘The Twins ... Divine?’. In: Fs Polomé 1988: 373-380.
Lejeune 1982Lejeune, Michel 1982Notes d’étymologie gauloise. In: Études Celtiques 19: 107‑119.
Leroy 1986Leroy, Maurice 1986Le redoublement comme procédé de formation nominale en arménien classique. In: Maurice Leroy and Francine Mawet (eds.), La place de l’arménien dans les langues indo‑européennes. Louvain: Peeters: 62‑75.
Leskien 1902-03Leskien, A. 1902-03Litauisches żavėti ‘zaubern’. In: IndogForsch 13: 117-119.
Levin 1995Levin, Saul 1995Semitic and Indo-European: the principal etymologies: with observations on Afro-Asiatic. Amsterdam, Philadelphia. John Benjamins Publishing Company. (Amsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science. Series IV. Current issues in linguistic theory, 129).
Liddell/Scott 1940/53Liddell, Henry George, and Scott, Robert 1940/53A Greek‑English Lexicon. A new edition revised and augmented throughout by Sir Henry Stuart Jones, with the assistance of Roderick McKenzie and with the co‑operation of many scholars. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [I systematically used this dictionary without mentioning it explicitly].
Lidén 1905Lidén, Evald 1905[apud HandAms 1905: 191b, on sayl].
Lidén 1905‑06Lidén, Evald 1905‑06Baumnamen und Verwandtes. In: IndogForsh 18: 485‑509.
Lidén 1905-06aLidén, Evald 1905-06aAltenglische Miszellen. In: IndogForsch 18: 407-416.
Lidén 1906Lidén, Evald 1906Armenische Studien. Göteborg: Wald. Zachrissons.
Lidén 1933Lidén, Evald 1933Armeniaca. In: GötHögÅrs 39, 1933: 2 (= Donum natalicium Oscari von Sydow oblatum): 39‑56.
Lidén 1934aLidén, Evald 1934aZur indogermanischen Terminologie der Milchwirtschaft. In: ZVS 61: 1-13.
Lidén 1934bLidén, Evald 1934bZur alten tieranatomischen Terminologie. In: ZVS 61: 14-28.
Lidén 1937Lidén, Evald 1937Wortgeschichtliches. In: Fs Pedersen 1937: 88‑94.
Lindeman 1965Lindeman, Fredrik Otto 1965Note phonologique sur hittite eku- ‘boire’. In: RevHitAs23.76: 29-32.
Lindeman 1978-79Lindeman, Fredrik Otto 1978-79Note étymologique. In: RevEtArm n.s. 13: 41-42.
Lindeman 1980Lindeman, Fredrik Otto 1980Indo‑European and Classical Armenian: a phonological note. In: ProcFICAL 1980: 59‑66.
Lindeman 1981Lindeman, Fredrik Otto 1981L’arménien keam. In: RevEtArm n.s. 15: 19-20.
Lindeman 1982Lindeman, Fredrik Otto 1982The triple representation of Schwa in Greek and some related problems of Indo‑European phonology. Oslo, Bergen, Tromsø: Universitetsforlaget.
Lindeman 1982aLindeman, Fredrik Otto 1982aVaria. In: ÉtCelt 19: 159-163.
Lindeman 1986Lindeman, Fredrik Otto 1986A note on the morphology of Class. Arm. anun. In: AnnArmLing 7: 57-58.
Lindeman 1986aLindeman, Fredrik Otto 1986aRemarques sur l’étymologie de l’aoriste eki en arménien ancien. In: Gd Berbérian 1986: 497-498.
Lindeman 1987Lindeman, Fredrik Otto 1987Introduction to the ‘Laryngeal Theory’. Oslo: Norwegian University Press (Universitetsforlaget AS).
Lindeman 1989Lindeman, Fredrik Otto 1989Review of LaryngTheor 1988. In: HistSpr 102: 268‑297.
Lindeman 1990Lindeman, Fredrik Otto 1990Is there any conclusive evidence for a triple representation of schwa in Armenian? In: AnnArmLing 11: 25-30.
Lindeman 1990aLindeman, Fredrik Otto 1990aA note on the phonology of the word for ‘sheep’ in Indo‑European. In: HistSpr 103: 20‑21.
Lindeman 1990aLindeman, Fredrik Otto 1990aOn the word for ‘wool’ in Indo-European. In: HistSpr 103: 22-24.
Lindeman 1997Lindeman, Fredrik Otto 1997Introduction to the ‘Laryngeal Theory’. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck. (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft; Bd. 91). A revised and augmented edition of 1987.
Lindeman 2003Lindeman, Fredrik Otto 2003On a possible vestige in Germanic of a particular Indo‑European type of construction with the verbal theme H2er‑k‑ ‘to hold’. In: HistSpr 116: 96‑99.
Lindeman 2003aLindeman, Fredrik Otto 2003aIndo-European *H3ekw- ‘to see; eye’: a speculative ‘laryngeal’ note. In: IndogForsch 108: 47-57.
Lisic‘yan 1935Lisic‘yan, Step‘an D. 1935(Lisician), Košun-daš: megalitičeskoe gorodišče v Sisiane (Zangezure). In: Gd Marr 1935: 709-721.
Lisic‘yan 1955Lisic‘yan, Step‘an D. 1955(Lisician) Očerki ètnografii dorevoljucionnoj Armenii. In: KavkÈtnSbor 1: 182‑264.
Lisic‘yan 1969Lisic‘yan, Step‘an D. 1969 Zangezuri hayerə. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Lisic‘yan 1981Lisic‘yan, Step‘an D. 1981Leṙnayin Łarabaɫi hayerə: azgagrakan aknark. In: HayAzgBan 12: 7‑84.
Littleton 1973Littleton, C. Scott 1973Poseidon as a reflex of the Indo-European ‘Source of Waters’ god. In: JourIndEurStud 1.4: 423-440.
Loewenthal 1928Loewenthal, John 1928Lat. vesper. In: ZVS 55: 4‑5.
Lowenstam 1979Lowenstam, Steven 1979The meaning of IE *dhal-. In: TrAmPhilAss 109: 125-135.
Łṙeǰyan 2004Łṙeǰyan, Lusine 2004Erkvoryakneri aṙaspelnerə “Sasna cṙer” ēposum. In: SasCṙGit 2004: 117‑120.
Lubotsky 1981Lubotsky, A. M. 1981Gr. pḗgnumi : Skt. pajrá‑ and loss of laryngeals before mediae in Indo‑Iranian. In: MünStudSpr 40: 133‑138.
Lubotsky 1985Lubotsky, A. M. 1985The PIE word for ‘dry’. In: ZVS 98: 1-10.
Lubotsky 1988Lubotsky, A. M. 1988The system of nominal accentuation in Sanskrit and Proto‑Indo‑European. Leiden, New York, København, Köln: E. J. Brill. (Memoirs of the Kern Institute, 4).
Lubotsky 1989Lubotsky, A. M. 1989Against a Proto-Indo-European phoneme a. In: NewSouIndEur 1989: 53-66.
Lubotsky 1990Lubotsky, A. M. 1990La loi de Brugmann et H3e-. In: RecLar 1990: 129-136.
Lubotsky 1992Lubotsky, A. M. 1992The Indo‑Iranian laryngeal accent shift and its relative chronology. In: RekRelChr 1992 : 261‑269.
Lubotsky 1997Lubotsky, A. M. 1997Review of Marianne Volkart, Zu Brugmanns Gesetz im Altindischen. (Universität Bern. Institut für Sprachwissenschaft. Arbeitspapier 33.) Bern 1994, 68 p. In: Kratylos 42: 55-59.
Lubotsky 1998Lubotsky, A. M. 1998Avestan xvarənah-: the etymology and concept. In: SprKultIndog 1998: 479-488.
Lubotsky 1998aLubotsky, A. M. 1998aVedic roots of the type TeRDh-. In: StudIndogLodz 2: 75-81.
Lubotsky 1999Lubotsky, A. M. 1999Avestan compounds and the RUKI‑rule. In: Gd Schindler 1999: 299‑322.
Lubotsky 2000Lubotsky, A. M. 2000Indo‑Aryan ‘six’. In: Ofitsch/Zinko 2000: 255‑261.
Lubotsky 2000aLubotsky, A. M. 2000aThe Vedic root vr̥- ‘to cover’ and its present. In: IndIranIndog 2000: 315-325.
Lubotsky 2001Lubotsky, A. M. 2001The Indo‑Iranian substratum. In: EarContUralIndEur 2001: 301‑317.
Lubotsky 2001aLubotsky, A. M. 2001aReflexes of Proto‑Indo‑European sk in Indo‑Iranian. In: IncLing 24: 25‑57.
Lubotsky 2001bLubotsky, A. M. 2001bHet vuur na aan de Indo-Europese schenen leggen: over de reconstructie van betekenis. Inaugural lecture Leiden University.
Lubotsky 2002Lubotsky, A. M. 2002Scythian elements in Old Iranian. In: IndoIranLangPeop 2002: 189‑202.
Lubotsky 2002aLubotsky, A. M. 2002aThe Indo-Iranian word for ‘shank, shin’. In: JAmOrSoc 122.2: 318-324.
Lubotsky 2002bLubotsky, A. M. 2002b(ed.), Atharaveda-Paippalāda, kāṇḍa five (text, translation, commentary).L Cambridge: Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies, Harvard University. (Harvard Oriental Series; Opera Minora; 4).
Lubotsky 2004Lubotsky, A. M. 2004Vedic pŕ̥dākusānu‑. In: IndIranJour 47: 1‑6.
Lüders 1942Lüders, Heinrich 1942Von indischen Tieren. In: ZeitDeutMorgGesel 96: 23‑81 [= Lüders 1973: 490‑548].
Lüders 1973Lüders, Heinrich 1973Kleine Schriften (ed. by Oscar von Hinüber). Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag GmbH.
Lusararean 1912Lusararean, Karapet 1912Gawazanagirk‘: yaǰordut‘iwnk‘ vanaharc‘ uxtis S. Karapeti Tarōnoy. Erusaɫēm: Tparan Aṙak‘. at‘oṙoy S. Yakovbeanc‘.
Lusenc‘ 1982Lusenc‘, Ašot Łukasi 1982Areši barbaṙə. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Macdonell 1993Macdonell, Arthur Anthony 1993A Vedic grammar for students. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited (< London: Oxford University Press, 1916). Reprint: 2004.
Maciuszak 1996Maciuszak, Kinga 1996Notes on etymology of the New Persian colour names. In: StudEymCrac 1: 25‑37.
MacKenzie 1966MacKenzie, D. N. 1966The dialect of Awroman (Hawrāmān-ī Luhōn): grammatical sketch, texts and vocabulary. København: Kommissionær – Ejnar Munksgaard. (Historisk-filosofiske skrifter, 4.3).
MacKenzie 1970MacKenzie, D. N. 1970(ed.), The ‘Sūtra of the causes and effects of actions’ in Sogdian. London, New York, Toronto: Oxford University Press.
MacKenzie 1971MacKenzie, D. N. 1971A concise Pahlavi dictionary. London, New York, Toronto: Oxford University Press.
Madat‘yan 1985Madat‘yan, K‘. M. 1985 Alaškerti xosvack‘ə (Aparan‑Aragaci tarack‘). Yerevan: Academy Press.
Madoyan 1989Madoyan, A. 1989(ed.), Aṙak‘el Siwnec‘i, Adamgirk‘. Yerevan: University Press.
Mahé 1982Mahé, J.‑P. 1982Le crime d’Artawazd et les k‘aǰk‘ ou le mythe du temps profané. In: RevEtArm n.s. 16: 175‑206.
Mahé 1986‑87Mahé, J.‑P. 1986‑87Remarques supplémentaires sur Artawazd et les k‘aǰk‘. In: RevEtArm n.s. 20: 557‑558.
Mahé 1986‑87aMahé, J.‑P. 1986‑87aArménien haw ‘grand‑père’ et ‘oncle’? In: RevEtArm n.s. 20: 55‑56.
Mahé 1990-91Mahé, J.‑P. 1990-91Remarques philologiques sur l’arménien astem ‘demander une femme en mariage’ et tarm ‘bande (d’oiseaux)’. In: RevEtArm n.s.22: 23-28.
Makaev 1974Makaev, È. A. 1974Armjano‑kel’tskie izoglossy. In: KelKelJaz : 51‑62.
Makovskij 1986Makovskij, M. M. 1986Anglijskaja ètimologija. Moscow: “Vysšaja škola”.
Maksoudiantz 1911-12Maksoudiantz, M. 1911-12Arménien aṙac. In: MSL 17: 356.
Mallory 1982Mallory, J. P. 1982Indo‑European and Kurgan fauna I: wild mammals. In: JourIndEurStud 10: 193‑222.
Mallory 1989Mallory, J. P. 1989In search of the Indo‑Europeans: language, archaeology and myth. London: Thames and Hudson.
Mallory/Adams 1997Mallory, J. P. & Adams, D. Q. (eds.) 1997Encyclopedia of Indo‑European culture. London, Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers.
Mallory/Adams 2006Mallory, J. P. & Adams, D. Q. (eds.) 2006The Oxford introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European world. MOxford: Oxford University Press.
Mallory/Huld 1984Mallory, J. P. & Huld, Martin E. 1984Proto-Indo-European ‘silver’. In: ZVS 97.1: 1-12.
Malxaseanc‘ 1944-45Malxaseanc‘, Step‘an 1944-45 (HBB 1-4), Hayerēn bac‘atrakan baṙaran. Yerevan. (Reprinted in 1955-56 and 1983, Pēyrut‘: “Sewan”).
Malxaseanc‘ 1987Malxaseanc‘, Step‘an 1987P‘avstos Buzand, Hayoc‘ patmut‘yun. ClArm. text with ModArm. translation and commentary (collations: pp. 416‑417). Yerevan: University Press. See also Sources: P‘awstos Buzand.
Mamikonean 1895Mamikonean, N. 1895Hazaric‘ mekə (vēpik). T‘iflis: Tparan Yovhannēs Martiroseanc‘i. (“T‘iflisi Hayoc‘ hratarakč‘akan ənkerut‘iwn”, Nr 96).
Manaster Ramer/Michalove 1997Manaster Ramer, Alexis & Michalove, Peter A. 1997Nostratic from a typological point of view. In: JourIndEurStud 25.1-2: 79-104.
Manaster Ramer/Michalove 2001Manaster Ramer, Alexis & Michalove, Peter A. 2001Etymology vs. phonology: the treatment of /w/ after sonorants in Armenian. In: MünStudSpr 61: 149‑161.
Mann 1963Mann, Stuart E. 1963Armenian and Indo‑European: Historical phonology. London: Luzac & Co. Ltd.
Margaryan 1971Margaryan, Alek‘sandr S. 1971Barbaṙayin baṙeri meknut‘yunner: 1‑7. In: PBH 1971, Nr 3: 210‑222.
Margaryan 1973Margaryan, Alek‘sandr S. 1973Barbaṙayin baṙeri meknut‘yunner: 8‑13. In: PBH 1973, Nr 4: 127‑136.
Margaryan 1975Margaryan, Alek‘sandr S. 1975Gorisi barbaṙə. Yerevan: University Press.
Margaryan 1975aMargaryan, Alek‘sandr S. 1975aBarbaṙayin baṙeri meknut‘yunner: 14‑19. In: PBH 1975, Nr 2: 183‑191.
Margaryan 1977Margaryan, Alek‘sandr S. 1977Barbaṙayin baṙeri meknut‘yunner: 20‑24. In: PBH 1977, Nr 3: 157‑164.
Margaryan 1980Margaryan, Alek‘sandr S. 1980Barbaṙayin baṙeri meknut‘yunner: 25‑28. In: PBH 1980, Nr 2: 98‑104.
Margaryan 1988Margaryan, Alek‘sandr S. 1988Mi k‘ani teɫanunneri cagman masin. In: PBH 1988, Nr 4: 123‑130.
Margaryan 1992Margaryan, Alek‘sandr S. 1992Teɫanvanakan meknut‘yunner. In: PBH 1992, Nr 1: 133‑139.
Markey 1972Markey, Thomas L. 1972Germanic terms for temple and cult. In: Fs Haugen 1972: 365-378.
Markosyan 1989Markosyan, Ṙazmik Ararati 1989Araratyan barbaṙ. Yerevan: “Luys”.
Marr 1903Marr, N. Ja. 1903Grammatika drevnearmjanskago jazyka: ètimologija. Sanktpeterburg: Tipografija Imperatorskoj Akademii Nauk. (Izdanija fakul’teta vostocnych jazykov Imperatorskago Sanktpeterburgskago universiteta, 11).
Marr 1925Marr, N. Ja. 1925(Marr/Kipšidze), Materialy po xemšinskomu narečiju armjanskogo jazyka: po zapisi I. A. Kipšidze. In: Zapiski Kollegii Vostokovedov (Leningrad: Academy Press). 1: 73-80.
Marr 1927Marr, N. Ja. 1927Egipetskij, šumerskij, kitajskij i ix paleontologičeskie vstreči. In: DoklANSSSR : 82‑84.
Martirosyan 1964Martirosyan, H. A. (= Martirosjan A. A.) 1964 (Martirosjan A. A.), Armenija v èpoxu bronzy i rannego železa. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Martirosyan 1990-91Martirosyan, Hrach Kayosiki 1990-91The ancient Armenian day‑names (unpublished).
Martirosyan 1991Martirosyan, Hrach Kayosiki 1991The reflexes of the Proto‑Indo‑European laryngeals in Armenian (unpublished).
Martirosyan 1993Martirosyan, Hrach Kayosiki 1993Armeno‑Indoarica (unpublished).
Martirosyan 1996Martirosyan, Hrach Kayosiki 1996Artaxur xawart‑i meknut‘yan nor p‘orj [New attempt of interpretation of artaxur xawart]. In: PBH 1996, Nr 1‑2: 311‑316.
Martirosyan 2003Martirosyan, Hrach Kayosiki 2003On the Armenian spring feast of the cow sacrifice: a comparative historical study. In: International Congress on Armenian studies: Armenology today and prospects or its development (September 15‑20, 2003, Yerevan). Abstracts of papers. Yerevan University Press, 2003. Page 106.
Martirosyan 2003aMartirosyan, Hrach Kayosiki 2003aThoughts on the lexicon of Narekac‘i. In: Colloque international Grégoire de Narek (12‑23 décembre 2003; Paris, dans les salons de l’INALCO). Theses, p. 14.
Martirosyan 2005Martirosyan, Hrach Kayosiki 2005On Armenian čiw ‘shank’. In: IranCauc 9.1: 81‑84.
Martirosyan 2007Martirosyan, Hrach Kayosiki 2007Mediterranean-Pontic substratum words. In: Aramazd: Armenian journal of Near-Eastern studies, vol. 2, 2007 (Yerevan: Association for Near Eastern and Caucasian Studies): 88-123.
Martirosyan 2008Martirosyan, Hrach Kayosiki 2008Development of some dialectal features in the Artsax region. In: 8th International Conference on Armenian Linguistics (16-17 August 2008).
Martirosyan forthc.Martirosyan, Hrach Kayosiki forthc.On Armenian andund‑k‘ ‘abyss’. In: Fs Weitenberg.
Martirosyan/Gharagyozyan 2003Martirosyan, Hrach & Gharagyozyan, Sat‘enik 2003(FW), Field work: Armenia and Łarabaɫ (video materials).
Martirosyan/Gharagyozyan 2005Martirosyan, Hrach & Gharagyozyan, Sat‘enik 2005(unpublished), On Armenian words of mythological and folklore origin. Presented at the 10th General Conference of the AIEA. Universidad del País Vasco, Vitoria‑Gasteiz, 7‑10 September 2005.
Martirosyan/Gharagyozyan forthc.Martirosyan, Hrach & Gharagyozyan, Sat‘enik forthc. Death of the Armenian epic hero Davit‘. Paper presented at the Workshop "Cultural, linguistic and ethnological interrelations in and around Armenia", Michaelbeuern, July 4th to 7th, 2007.
Martirosyan 1972Martirosyan, Nšan 1972Npast mə het‘ ew hay baṙak‘nnut‘yan. In: PBH 1972, Nr. 2: 163‑186.
Martoyan 2004Martoyan, Gagik 2004Taroni Innaknya vayri paštamunk‘i cagman xndri šurǰ. In: PBH 2004, Nr 3: 235-251.
Marut‘yan 1989Marut‘yan, Harut‘yun T. 1989(A. Marutjan), Inter’er armjanskogo narodnogo žilišča (vtoraja polovina XIX - načalo XX v.): materialy k “Kavkazskomu istoriko-ètnografičeskomu atlasu”. In: HayAzgBan 17: 63-142 (+ illustrations).
Matasović 1996Matasović, Ranko 1996A theory of textual reconstruction in Indo-European linguistics. Frankfurt am Main, Berlin, etc.: Peter Lang, Europäischer Verlag der Wissenschaften. (Schriften über Sprachen und Texte, 2).
Matasović 2009Matasović, Ranko 2009Etymological dictionary of Proto-Celtic. Leiden, Boston: Brill. (LeidIEEDSer, 9).
Matikean 1930Matikean, H. Aɫek‘sandr V. 1930Aray Geɫec‘ik: hamematakan‑k‘nnakan usumnasirut‘iwn. Vienna: Mxit‘arean tparan. (Azgayin Matenadaran, 126).
Matzinger 1997Matzinger, Joachim 1997A note on Armenian doustr. In: AnnArmLing 18: 11‑18.
Matzinger 1997aMatzinger, Joachim 1997aZu armenisch mek‘ ‘wir’. In: HistSpr 110.1: 83-92.
Matzinger 2000Matzinger, Joachim 2000Armenisch ark‘ay ‘König’: Ein etymologischer Versuch. In: HistSpr 113: 283‑289.
Matzinger 2005Matzinger, Joachim 2005Untersuchungen zum altarmenischen Nomen: die Flexion des Substantivs. Dettelbach: Verlag J. H. Röll. (Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft; Beiheft 22, Neue Folge).
Matzinger 2006Matzinger, Joachim 2006Altarmenisch ewɫ/iwɫ ‘Öl’. In: Fs Pisowicz 2006: 71‑72.
Mawet 1983Mawet, Francine 1983The motif of the bird in Armenian epic literature and its relations with Iranian tradition. In: MedArmCult 1983 [1984]: 179-193.
Mawet 1990Mawet, Francine 1990L’expression de l’alterité en arménien classique. In: AnnArmLing 11: 49-65.
Mawet 1992Mawet, Francine 1992Altérité, appartenance sociale et tolérance. In: ActOrBelg 7 (Philosophy. Tolerance): 153-158.
Mawet 1993Mawet, Francine 1993Les adjectifs primaires en -u-: review of de Lamberterie 1990. In: RevEtArm n.s. 24: 301-305.
Mayrhofer 1952Mayrhofer, Manfred 1952Stern. In: BeiGesDeuSprLit 74: 316‑318.
Mayrhofer 1956-80Mayrhofer, Manfred 1956-80See KEWA.
Mayrhofer 1961Mayrhofer, Manfred 1961Indogermanische Randglosse zu “Kluge‑Mitzka”. In: Die Sprache 7: 177‑189.
Mayrhofer 1979Mayrhofer, Manfred 1979Ausgewählte kleine Schriften (hrsg. von Sigrid Deger‑Jalkotzy, Rüdiger Schmitt). Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.
Mayrhofer 1986Mayrhofer, Manfred 1986Lautlehre: segmentale Phonologie des Indogermanischen. In: Indogermanische Grammatik 1.2. Heidelberg: Carl Winter, Universitätsverlag.
Mayrhofer 1987Mayrhofer, Manfred 1987Die Vertretung der indogermanischen Laryngale im Lateinischen. In: ZVS (= KZ) 100: 86‑108.
Mayrhofer 1992‑2001Mayrhofer, Manfred 1992‑2001See EWAia.
Mayrhofer 2005Mayrhofer, Manfred 2005Die Fortsetzung der indogermanische Laryngale in Indo-Iranischen. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften: Philosophisch-historische Klasse. Sitzungsberichte, 730).
McCone 1998McCone, Kim 1998‘Double nasal’ presents in Celtic, and Old Irish léicid ‘leaves’. In: Fs Watkins 1998: 465-476.
McNamara 1997McNamara, Martin M. S. C. 1997Targum Neofiti 1: Deuteronomy (English translation, apparatus, notes). Edinburgh: T& T Clark Ltd. (The Aramaic Bible, 5A).
Meek 1913Meek, Th. J. 1913Cuneiform bilingual hymns, prayers and penitential psalms. In: BeiAssSemSpr 10/1: 1‑127 (with notes of Fr. Delitzsch in 129‑146).
Meid 1974Meid, Wolfgang 1974Dichtkunst, Rechtspflege und Medizin im alten Irland: zur Struktur der altirischen Gesellschaft. In: AntiqIndog 1974: 21-34.
Meid 1982Meid, Wolfgang 1982‘See’ und ‘Meer’. In: Gd Kronasser 1982: 91-96.
Meid 1994Meid, Wolfgang 1994Die Terminologie von Pferd und Wagen im Indogermanischen. In: IndogPferd 1994: 53-65.
Meier‑Brügger 1990Meier‑Brügger, Michael 1990Zu griechisch ἄγρωστις. In: HistSpr 103: 33‑34.
Meier‑Brügger 1990aMeier‑Brügger, Michael 1990aZu griechisch ἀρήν und κρῑός. In: HistSpr 103: 26-29.
Meier‑Brügger 1993Meier‑Brügger, Michael 1993Zu griechisch νῆσος. In: HistSpr 106: 302.
Meillet 1892Meillet, A. 1892Notes de phonétique. In: MSL 7: 161-167.
Meillet 1892aMeillet, A. 1892aLes groupes indo-européens. In: MSL 7: 57-60.
Meillet 1894Meillet, A. 1894Notes arméniennes. In: MSL 8: 153‑165.
Meillet 1894aMeillet, A. 1894aVaria. In: MSL 8: 235‑245.
Meillet 1894bMeillet, A. 1894bDe quelques difficultés de la théorie des gutturales indo‑européennes. In: MSL 8: 277‑304.
Meillet 1896Meillet, A. 1896Varia. In: MSL 9: 136‑159.
Meillet 1896aMeillet, A. 1896aIndo‑iranica. In: MSL 9: 365‑380.
Meillet 1896bMeillet, A. 1896bÉtymologies slaves. In: MSL 9: 49-55.
Meillet 1897Meillet, A. 1897Recherches sur la syntaxe comparée de l’arménien. I: Les démonstratifs. In: MSL 10: 241-271. (= 1962: 5-35; Arm. transl. 1978: 291-319).
Meillet 1898Meillet, A. 1898Étymologies arméniennes. In: MSL 10: 274‑282.
Meillet 1900Meillet, A. 1900Étymologies arméniennes. In: MSL 11: 390‑401.
Meillet 1900aMeillet, A. 1900aNotes sur quelques faits de morphologie. In: MSL 11: 6‑21.
Meillet 1900bMeillet, A. 1900bLetto‑slavica. In: MSL 11: 173‑186.
Meillet 1900cMeillet, A. 1900cSur les suffixes verbaux secondaires en indo‑européen. In: MSL 11: 297‑323.
Meillet 1902Meillet, A. 1902Review of Ačaṙean 1899 (1901). In: JourAsiat 9e série, tome 19: 561-571.
Meillet 1903Meillet, A. 1903De quelques archaïsmes remarquables de la déclinaison arménienne. In: ZArmPhil 1: 139‑148.
Meillet 1903aMeillet, A. 1903aDe la différenciation des phonèmes. In: MSL 12: 14‑34.
Meillet 1903bMeillet, A. 1903bVaria. In: MSL 12: 213‑238.
Meillet 1903cMeillet, A. 1903cÉtymologies arméniennes. In: MSL 12: 429‑431.
Meillet 1905‑06Meillet, A. 1905‑06Varia. In: MSL 13: 237-253.
Meillet 1906Meillet, A. 1906Quelques hypothèses sur des interdictions de vocabulaire dans les langues indo‑européennes. Chartres: Durand.
Meillet 1908‑09Meillet, A. 1908‑09Armeniaca. In: MSL 15: 353‑357.
Meillet 1908‑09aMeillet, A. 1908‑09aNotes sur quelques faits gotiques. In: MSL 15: 73‑103.
Meillet 1908‑09bMeillet, A. 1908‑09bDe quelques emprunts probables en grec et en latin. In: MSL 15: 161‑164.
Meillet 1908‑09cMeillet, A. 1908‑09cÀ propos de quelques etymologies. In: MSL 15: 336‑340.
Meillet 1910-11Meillet, A. 1910-11Sur une origine de grec ο. In: MSL 16: 217-220.
Meillet 1910-11aMeillet, A. 1910-11aDeux notes sur des formes verbales indo-européennes. In: MSL 16: 239-246.
Meillet 1911Meillet, A. 1911Remarques sur les l de l’arménien classique. In: Yušarjan 1911: 209‑211.
Meillet 1911‑12Meillet, A. 1911‑12Sur les mots iraniens empruntés par l’arménien. In: MSL 17: 242‑250.
Meillet 1911‑12aMeillet, A. 1911‑12aLes formes verbales de l’indo‑européen melg1‑ ‘traire’. In: MSL 17: 60‑64.
Meillet 1911‑12bMeillet, A. 1911‑12bNotes iraniennes. In: MSL 17: 107‑112.
Meillet 1911‑12cMeillet, A. 1911‑12cLes noms de nombre en tokharien B. In: MSL 17: 281‑294.
Meillet 1913Meillet, A. 1913Altarmenisches Elementarbuch. Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitäts-buchhandlung.
Meillet 1916aMeillet, A. 1916aPersica. In: MSL 19: 49-59.
Meillet 1916bMeillet, A. 1916bLatin vel. In: MSL 19: 63-64.
Meillet 1916cMeillet, A. 1916cSlave mazati, arménien macanim. In: MSL 19: 122-123.
Meillet 1916dMeillet, A. 1916dArménien aṙn. In: MSL 19: 124.
Meillet 1916eMeillet, A. 1916eSur l’histoire des consonnes en grec. In: MSL 19: 163-173.
Meillet 1916fMeillet, A. 1916fDe quelques présents radicaux athématiques. In: MSL 19: 174-177.
Meillet 1916gMeillet, A. 1916gLatin pluit et arménien heɫum. In: MSL 19: 178-180.
Meillet 1916hMeillet, A. 1916hDe quelques présents athématiques à vocalisme radical o. In: MSL 19: 181-190.
Meillet 1918Meillet, A. 1918A propos du présent avestique nāismī. In: MSL 20: 210‑212.
Meillet 1919Meillet, A. 1919D’une action de l’iranien sur l’arménien. In: MSL 21.4: 187-188.
Meillet 1920Meillet, A. 1920Les noms du ‘feu’ et de l’‘eau’ et la question du genre. In: MSL 21.6: 249-256.
Meillet 1921Meillet, A. 1921Notes iraniennes. In: MSL 22: 219-227.
Meillet 1922aMeillet, A. 1922aDes causatifs arméniens en ‑uc‘anem. In: MSL 22: 47‑48.
Meillet 1922bMeillet, A. 1922bDu nominatif et de l’accusatif. In: MSL 22: 49‑55.
Meillet 1922cMeillet, A. 1922cArménien amul. In: MSL 22: 55.
Meillet 1922dMeillet, A. 1922dDe quelques contradictions phonétiques. In: MSL 22: 56‑60.
Meillet 1922eMeillet, A. 1922eSur le sort de w géminé en arménien. In: MSL 22: 61‑63.
Meillet 1922fMeillet, A. 1922fXšm dans le pronom ‘vous’ en iranien. In: MSL 22: 140‑141.
Meillet 1922gMeillet, A. 1922gÀ propos du nom indo‑européen de la ‘puce’. In: MSL 22: 142‑143.
Meillet 1922hMeillet, A. 1922hLe nom de nombre ‘un’. In: MSL 22: 144.
Meillet 1922iMeillet, A. 1922iLes noms du type ϝέργον. In: MSL 22: 203.
Meillet 1922jMeillet, A. 1922jTraitement de s suivie de consonne. In: MSL 22: 211‑214.
Meillet 1922kMeillet, A. 1922kLat. crēdō et fidēs. In: MSL 22: 215‑218.
Meillet 1922lMeillet, A. 1922lNotes iraniennes. In: MSL 22: 219‑227.
Meillet 1922mMeillet, A. 1922mLa forme du génitif pluriel en ombrien. In: MSL 22: 258‑259.
Meillet 1924Meillet, A. 1924Remarques étymologiques. In: RevEtArm 4, fasc. 1: 1‑6.
Meillet 1927Meillet, A. 1927De la prothèse vocalique en grec et en arménien. In: BSL 27: 129‑135.
Meillet 1927aMeillet, A. 1927aSur arew, aregakn et p‘aylakn. In: HandAms 41: 757-762.
Meillet 1927bMeillet, A. 1927bÀ propos de l’interrogatif et relatif or. In: RevEtArm 7.1: 1-3.
Meillet 1929Meillet, A. 1929Sur l’étymologie de arménien unim. In: MSL 23: 276-277.
Meillet 1930Meillet, A. 1930Observations sur l’étymologie de l’arménien. In: RevEtArm 10.2: 183-186 (= Meye 1978: 223‑226).
Meillet 1930aMeillet, A. 1930aArménien barjr. In: MSL 23: 328 (= Meye 1978: 222-223).
Meillet 1935Meillet, A. 1935Les sourdes aspirées en arménien. In: BSL 36: 109-120 (= Meye 1978: 61-65).
Meillet 1936Meillet, A. 1936Esquisse d’une grammaire comparée de l’arménien classique. Wien: Mechitharisten. (ModArm. translation: Meyē 1988).
Meillet 1936aMeillet, A. 1936aArménien hangim ‘je me repose’. In: BSL 37 (Nr 110): 11.
Meillet 1936bMeillet, A. 1936bArménien gir, grel. In: BSL 37 (Nr 110): 12.
Meillet 1936cMeillet, A. 1936cArménien aɫaxin, aɫiǰ (aɫǰik). In: BSL 37 (Nr 110): 73‑74.
Meillet 1936dMeillet, A. 1936dArménien šurǰ ‘autour’. In: BSL 37 (Nr 110): 75.
Meillet 1937Meillet, A. 1937Arménien erkin et erkir. In: Mélanges Boisacq 1, 1937: 1-2.
Meillet 1950Meillet, A. 1950Les dialectes indo‑européens (nouveau tirage avec une introduction nouvelle et des additions). Paris: Librairie ancienne Édouard Champion; Librairie de la Société de Linguistique de Paris.
Meillet 1962Meillet, A. 1962Études de linguistique et de philologie arméniennes. Lisboa: Imprensa Nacional de Lisboa. I: Recherches sur la syntaxe comparée de l’arménien, suivis de la composition en arménien. Avant-propos de E. Benveniste. (Bibliothèque arménienne de la Fondation Calouste Gulbenkian).
Meillet 1978Meillet, A. 1978(Meye, Antuan), M. Minasyan (ed.), Hayagitakan usumnasirut‘yunner. Yerevan: University Press.
Meillet 1988Meillet, A. 1988(Meyē), Dasakan hayerēni hamematakan k‘erakanut‘ean uruagic (ModArm. translation of Meillet 1936 by Martiros Minasean). Geneva.
Meillet/Vendryes 1924Meillet, A. & Vendryes, J. 1924Traité de grammaire comparée des langues classiques. Paris: Librairie Ancienne Édouard Champion.
Meissner 2006Meissner, Torsten 2006S-stem nouns and adjectives in Greek and Proto-Indo-European: a diachronic study in word formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Oxford classical monographs).
Melchert 1979Melchert, H. Craig 1979Three Hittite etymologies. In: ZVS 93: 262‑271.
Melchert 1987Melchert, H. Craig 1987Reflexes of *h3 in Anatolian. In: Die Sprache 33.1-2: 19-28.
Melchert 1994Melchert, H. Craig 1994Anatolian historical phonology. Amsterdam, Atlanta: Rodopi. (LeidStudIndEur, 3).
Melchert 1994aMelchert, H. Craig 1994aPIE *y > Lydian d. In: Gd Klíma 1994: 181-187.
Melchert 2003Melchert, H. Craig 2003(ed.), The Luwians. Leiden, Boston: Brill (Handbuch der Orientalistik, 1/68).
Mēlik‘‑Dawit‘pēk 1896Mēlik‘‑Dawit‘pēk, S. 1896Jaynakan usumnasirut‘iwn Maraši barbaṙin. In: HandAms 1896: 43‑45, 113‑114, 229‑232, 354‑357.
Melik‘ean 1964Melik‘ean, Eɫišē Y. 1964Hark‘-Xnus. Ant‘ilias, Lebanon: Tparan Kat‘oɫikosut‘ean Hayoc‘ Meci Tann Kilikioy.
Melik‘‑Ōhanǰanyan 1961Melik‘‑Ōhanǰanyan, K. A. 1961See Sources: Kirakos Ganjakec‘i.
Melik‘-Šahnazareanc‘ 1907-08Melik‘-Šahnazareanc‘, Kostandin K. (Tmblač‘i Xač‘an) 1907-08(1-2), Zuṙna-tmbla. Vol. 1, 1907; vol. 2, 1908. Vaɫaršapat: Elēk‘trašarž Tparan M. At‘oṙoy S. Ēǰmiacni.
Menevischean 1889Menevischean, P. G. 1889Faustus von Byzanz und Dr. Lauer’s deutsche Übersetzung. In: WienZeitKundMorg 3: 51‑68.
Meščaninov 1925Meščaninov, I. I. 1925Kamennye statui ryb-višapy na Kavkaze i v Severnoj Mongolii. In: Zapiski Kollegii Vostokovedov pri Aziatskom Muzee Rossijskoj Akademii Nauk. Leningrad. Vol. 1: 401-409.
Meščaninov 1978Meščaninov, I. I. 1978Annotirovannyj slovar’ urartskogo (Biajnskogo) jazyka. Leningrad: “Nauka”, Leningradskoe otdelenie.
Mesropyan 2001Mesropyan, Haykanuš 2001Surb baṙi gorcacut‘yan aṙanjnahatkut‘yunnerə hayereni tarber drseworumnerum. In: HaySrb 2001: 118-124.
Meyer 1892Meyer, Gustav 1892Etymologisches. In: IndogForsch 1: 319-329.
Mežunc‘ 1989Mežunc‘, B. X. 1989Šamšadin‑Diliǰani xosvack‘ə. Yerevan: University Press.
Mik‘ayelyan 1980Mik‘ayelyan, G. H. 1980Nor Bayazet. HayAzgBan 11. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Milbrath 1999Milbrath, Susan 1999Star gods of the Maya: astronomy in art, folklore, and calendars. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Minassian 1978-79Minassian, Martiros 1978-79A. Meillet et l’adaptation inachevée du Dictionnaire étymologique arménien d’Ačaṙyan. In: RevEtArm n.s. 13: 15-30.
Minasyan 1999Minasyan, Šoɫer Maṙlesti 1999Łarabaɫi barbaṙi darjvacnerə (atenaxosut‘yan seɫmagir). Yerevan.
Minorsky 1930Minorsky, M. V. 1930Le nom de Dvin. – Kasāl/Ḳazaḫ. In: RevEtArm 10/1: 117‑123.
Minshall 1955Minshall, Robert 1955‘Initial’ Indo‑European /y/ in Armenian. In: Language 31.4: 499‑503.
Mkrtč‘yan 1980Mkrtč‘yan, Ēmma L. 1980Ašxarhabari tarrerə miǰnadari grakan hušarjannerum. Yerevan: University Press.
Mkrtč‘yan 1992Mkrtč‘yan, Ēmma L. 1992Grabarum hognaki t‘vi kazmut‘yan aṙanjnahatkut‘yunneri masin. In: BanbErewHamals 1992, Nr 2: 67-74.
Mkrtč‘yan 1952Mkrtč‘yan, H. M. 1952Karno barbaṙə. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Mkrtč‘yan 1987Mkrtč‘yan, Hasmik 1987Hay-arabakan banahyusakan kaperi patmut‘yunic‘. In: LrHasGit 1987, Nr 3: 54-60.
Mkrtč‘yan 1973Mkrtč‘yan, Manik 1973(ed.) Nersēs Šnorhali, Oɫb Edesioy. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Mkrtč‘yan 1981Mkrtč‘yan, Manik 1981(ed.) Nersēs Šnorhali, Vipasanut‘iwn. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Mkrtč‘yan 1969Mkrtč‘yan, Nerses Alek‘sani 1969Xet‘a-haykakan mi k‘ani baṙayin əndhanrut‘yunner. In: PBH 1969, Nr 1: 238-246.
Mkrtč‘yan 1970Mkrtč‘yan, Nerses Alek‘sani 1970Mi k‘ani hin semakan baṙer hayerenum. In: PBH 1970, Nr 2: 241-251.
Mkrtč‘yan 1970aMkrtč‘yan, Nerses Alek‘sani 1970aXet‘a-haykakan əndhanrut‘yunner. In: PBH 1970, Nr 7: 58-69.
Mkrtč‘yan 1971Mkrtč‘yan, Nerses Alek‘sani 1971Burduri barbaṙə. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Mkrtč‘yan 1979Mkrtč‘yan, Nerses Alek‘sani 1979(Mkrtčjan), ‘Otklonenija’ ot zakonomernostej armjanskogo jazyka v svete dannyx akkadskogo jazyka. In: PBH 1979, Nr 4: 219-234.
Mkrtč‘yan 1980Mkrtč‘yan, Nerses Alek‘sani 1980Araberen p‘oxaṙut‘yunner hayerenum: naxk‘an arabneri aršavank‘ə Hayastan. In: LrHasGit 1980, Nr 3: 49-64.
Mkrtč‘yan 1983Mkrtč‘yan, Nerses Alek‘sani 1983(Mkrtčjan), Substratnye nazvanija rastenij v armjanskom jazyke. In: Drevnij Vostok (Yerevan: Academy Press) 4: 24‑37. [English summary: 286‑287].
Mkrtč‘yan 1984Mkrtč‘yan, Nerses Alek‘sani 1984Araberen p‘oxaṙut‘yunner hayerenum. In: LrHasGit 1984, Nr 2: 72-82.
Mkrtč‘yan 1987Mkrtč‘yan, Nerses Alek‘sani 1987Araberen p‘oxaṙut‘yunner hayerenum. In: LrHasGit 1987, Nr 10: 54-60.
Mkrtč‘yan 1988Mkrtč‘yan, Nerses Alek‘sani 1988(Mkrtčjan), Utočnenie akkadskix nazvanij rastenij po dannym armjanskogo jazyka. In: Drevnij Vostok (Yerevan: Academy Press) 5: 187‑202.
Mkrtč‘yan 1995Mkrtč‘yan, Nerses Alek‘sani 1995Sivri‑Hisari gaɫt‘ōǰaxi ew barbaṙi masin. In: PBH 1995, Nr 2: 205‑214.
Mkrtč‘yan 2005Mkrtč‘yan, Nerses Alek‘sani 2005(Mkrtčjan), Semitskie Jazyki i armjanskij. Yerevan: “Drazark”.
Mkrtč‘yan 2006Mkrtč‘yan, Nerses Alek‘sani 2006Anatoliayi norahayt hay barbaṙnerə ew banahyusut‘yunə. Yerevan: “Ōrenk‘ ew irakanut‘yun”. (Heɫinakayin hratarakut‘yun).
Mkrtumyan 1974Mkrtumyan, Yu. I. 1974(Mkrtumjan), Formy skotovodstva v Vostočnoj Armenii: vtoraja polovina XIX - načalo XX v. (istoriko-ètnografičeskoe issledovanie). In: HayAzgBan 6: 5-90.
Mladenov 1937Mladenov, Stefan 1937Zur armenischen und slavischen Etymologie. In: Fs Pedersen 1937: 95‑102.
Mnac‘akanyan 1941Mnac‘akanyan, Asatur Š. 1941(ed.), H. T‘lkuranc‘i, Taɫ garnann. In: MatGNŽoɫ 1: 178-181.
Mnac‘akanyan 1956Mnac‘akanyan, Asatur Š. 1956Haykakan miǰnadaryan žoɫovrdakan erger. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Mnac‘akanyan 1969Mnac‘akanyan, Asatur Š. 1969(Mnacakanjan), O literature Kavkazskoj Albanii. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Mnac‘akanyan 1971Mnac‘akanyan, Asatur Š. 1971Dic‘abanakan anunner ew baṙer ot ew ut verǰacanc‘nerov. In: LrHasGit 1971, Nr 11: 52-64.
Mnac‘akanyan 1977Mnac‘akanyan, Asatur Š. 1977Dic‘abanakan eɫǰerun miǰnadaryan hay arvestum. In: BanbMaten 12: 7‑49.
Mnac‘akanyan 1980Mnac‘akanyan, Asatur Š. 1980Hay miǰnadaryan hanelukner (5‑18 dd.). Yerevan: Academy Press.
Mnac‘akanyan 1980aMnac‘akanyan, Asatur Š. 1980a “Govank‘ t‘ṙč‘noc‘“ taɫašark‘ə, nra heɫinakə ew žamanakə. In: Banber Matenadarani 13: 233‑258.
Mnac‘akanyan 1995Mnac‘akanyan, Asatur Š. 1995Hayrenner: texts, introduction, commentary. Yerevan: “Nairi”; Matenadaran.
Monchi‑Zadeh 1990Monchi‑Zadeh, Davoud 1990Wörter aus Xurāsān und ihre Herkunft. Leiden: E. J. Brill. (Acta Iranica 29).
Monier‑Williams 1899/1999Monier‑Williams, Monier 1899/1999A Sanskrit‑English dictionary. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.
Morani 1977Morani, Moreno 1977Noterelle etimologiche. In: Orbis 26.2: 371-376.
Morani 1980-82Morani, Moreno 1980-82Arménien ənker. Pour l’histoire d’un calque structurel. In: Orbis 29.1-2: 169-175.
Morani 1981Morani, Moreno 1981In margine a una concordanza greco-armena. In: ArchGlottItal 66.1-2: 1-15.
Morani 1987Morani, Moreno 1987A proposito della vocale composizionale -a- in armeno. In: HandAms 101: 677-684.
Morani 1990Morani, Moreno 1990Sul trattamento di liquide e nasali in sillaba finale in armeno. In: RendLombLett 123 [1989]: 155-165.
Morani 1991Morani, Moreno 1991Three Armenian etymologies. In: JSocArmStud 5 (1990‑1991): 173‑183.
Morani 1994Morani, Moreno 1994Sui casi di IE o > Arm. a. In: Fs Belardi 1994, 1: 385‑398.
Morgenstierne 1974Morgenstierne, Georg 1974Etymological Vocabulary of the Shughni Group. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag. (Beiträge zur Iranistik, 6).
Morgenstierne 2003Morgenstierne, Georg 2003A new etymological vocabulary of Pashto. Compiled and edited by J. Elfenbein, D. N. MacKenzie and Nicholas Sims-Williams. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag. (Beiträge zur Iranistik, 23).
Movsisyan 1972Movsisyan, Sahak (Bense) 1972 Hark‘ (Mšo Bulanəx). HayAzgBan 3. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Msereanc‘ 1899Msereanc‘, Lewon 1899Hayerēn barbaṙaxōsut‘iwn. (Arm. transl. from Russian by Gabriēl Mēnēvišean). Vienna: Mxit‘arean Tparan. (Azgayin Matenadaran, 30).
Muɫdusyan 1985Muɫdusyan, Zohrab 1985Haykakan naxamayr astvacut‘yan ew Xaldii harc‘i šurǰə. In: LrHasGit 1985, Nr 7: 61‑71.
Müller 1870Müller, Friedrich 1870Armeniaca II. In Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-historischen Classe der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. 64.2. Wien: 447-456.
Müller 1877Müller, Friedrich 1877Schwan und Taube [Miscellanea 1]. In: BKIgS 1: 163.
Müller 1890Müller, Friedrich 1890Armeniaca VI. In Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-historischen Classe der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. 122.1. Wien: 1-8.
Muller 1984Muller, Gerard 1984: The developmend of vocalized laryngeals in Old Armenian. In: APILKU 4: 95-98.
Muller 1984aMuller, Gerard 1984a: Notes on four Old Armenian etymologies. In: APILKU 4: 99-101.
Muradean 1901Muradean, Y. 1901Hamšēnc‘i hayer. T‘iflis: K. Martiroseanc‘i tparan (reprinted from “Azgagrakan handēs”).
Muradyan 1971Muradyan, A. N. 1971Hunaban dproc‘ə ew nra derə hayereni k‘erakanakan terminabanut‘yan steɫcman gorcum. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Muradyan 1993Muradyan, Gohar 1993Girk‘ Pitoyic‘. Critical text with introduction and commentary. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Muradyan 2000Muradyan, Gohar 2000Kniga Xrij. Russ. Translation with introduction and commentary. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Muradyan 2006Muradyan, Gohar 2006(Muradean), Hrat, Lusaber, P‘aylacu, Erewak, Lusnt‘ag. In: HandAms 120, Nr 1-12: 1-18.
Muradyan 1960Muradyan, H. D. 1960Karčewani barbaṙə. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Muradyan 1967Muradyan, H. D. 1967Kak‘avaberdi barbaṙə. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Muradyan 1972Muradyan, H. D. 1972Neracut‘yun; Hnč‘yunabanut‘yun. In: Aknarkner miǰin grakan hayereni patmut‘yan. Vol. 1. Yerevan: Academy Press: 7‑165.
Muradyan 1982Muradyan, H. D. 1982Hayoc‘ lezvi patmakan k‘erakanut‘yun, vol. 1. Hnč‘yunabanut‘yun. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Muradyan 1982a
Muradyan, H. D. 1982aHavelakan h//h’‑n hayereni barbaṙnerum. In: BanbErewHamals 1982, Nr 2: 202‑206.
Muradyan 1985Muradyan, H. D. 1985Review of Weitenberg 1983. In: PBH 1985, Nr 3: 219-226.
Muradyan 1986Muradyan, H. D. 1986How to interpret Adjarian’s Law. In: Greppin/Khachaturian 1986: 27‑33. [This paper originally appeared, in a slightly different form, in BanbErewHamals 1973, Nr 2: 161‑170].
Muradyan 1984Muradyan, Kim 1984See Hexaemeron.
Muradyan 1962Muradyan, M. H. 1962 Šataxi barbaṙə. Yerevan: University Press.
Muradyan 1972Muradyan, M. H. 1972Baṙagitut‘yun. In: Aknarkner miǰin grakan hayereni patmut‘yan. Yerevan: Academy Press: 167‑296.
Muradyan 1975Muradyan, M. H. 1975Baṙagitut‘yun. In: HayLezPatmK‘er 2: 5-158.
Muradyan 1982Muradyan, M. H. 1982Urvagic Moksi barbaṙi. In: Hayereni barbaṙagitakan atlas: usumnasirut‘yunner ew nyut‘er 1. Yerevan: Academy Press: 108‑183.
Muradyan 1996Muradyan, P. 1996Kovkasyan mšakut‘ayin ašxarhə ew Hayastanə: Armeno‑Georgica. In: PBH 1996, Nr 1‑2: 117‑136.
Murvalyan 1955Murvalyan, A. A. 1955Hayoc‘ lezvi baṙayin kazmə (usumnasirut‘yun). Yerevan: Academy Press.
Mušeɫyan 1997Mušeɫyan, Armen H. 1997(Musheghian), Armenian etymologies. In: AnnArmLing 18: 51‑57.
Mušeɫyan 2000Mušeɫyan, Armen H. 2000(Musheghian), Essays on history of the Armenian language. Vol. 1: Historical-etymological studies. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Mušeɫyan 2003Mušeɫyan, Armen H. 2003Stugabanakan ditarkumner. In: PBH 2003, Nr 2: 181-187.
Mxit‘arean 1898Mxit‘arean, Step‘an 1898Hayerēnē p‘oxaṙeal baṙer t‘urk‘erēni mēǰ. In: Biwrakn 1898: 788-790, 865-866.
Mxit‘areanc‘ 1901Mxit‘areanc‘, A. 1901P‘šrank‘ Širaki ambarneric‘. (= Ēminean azgagrakan žoɫovacu, vol. 1). Moscow, Alek‘sandrapol.
Nagy 1974Nagy, Gregory 1974Perkū́nas and Perunъ. In: AntiqIndog 1974: 113‑131.
Nalbandian 1948Nalbandian, Vartouhie Calantar 1948About the theory of the Babylonian origin of the Armenian people. In: ArmRev 1.1: 15-19; 1.3: 90-94.
Nassivera 2000Nassivera, Michele 2000The development of the PIE words for ‘sky’, ‘cow’ and ‘ship’ and the relative chronology of Osthoff’s law. In: HistSpr 113: 57‑70.
Nawasardeanc‘ 1882‑Nawasardeanc‘, Tigran 1882‑(HŽHēk‘ 1‑), Hay‑žoɫovrdakan hēk‘iat‘ner.
Nawasardeanc‘ 1903Nawasardeanc‘, Tigran 1903Baṙgirk‘ Araratean barbaṙi. T‘iflis: Tparan Movsēs Vardaneanc‘i. (See also HŽHēk‘ 5, 1889: 81‑141).
Nazaryan 1978Nazaryan, Astɫik 1978Ēǰmiacni ew Aštaraki banahyusut‘yunic‘. In: HayAzgBan 9: 73-173.
Nazinyan 1986Nazinyan, Artašes 1986Hay žoɫovrdakan hek‘iat‘ner. Yerevan: “Sovetakan Groɫ”.
Nejxardt 1982Nejxardt, A. A. 1982Skifskij rasskaz Gerodota v otečestvennoj istoriografii. Leningrad: “Nauka”, Leningradskoe otdelenie.
Nestle/Aland 1984=93Nestle/Aland 1984=93See Sources: Bible.
Nevskaja 1974Nevskaja, L. G. 1974Baltijskie nazvanija bolot v sopostavlenii so slavjanskimi: semasiologičeskie nabljudenija. In: BaltSlavIssl 1974: 155-182.
Neu 1970Neu, Erich 1970Ein althethitisches Gewitterritual. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. (StBoT 12).
Neu 1974Neu, Erich 1974Der Anitta‑Text. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. (StBoT 18).
Niedermann 1899Niedermann, Max 1899Studien zur Geschichte der lateinischen Wortbildung. In: IndogForsch 10: 221‑258.
Nikolaev 1984Nikolaev, S. L. 1984Severokavkazskie zaimstvovanija v armjanskom. In: LingRek 1984, 1: 70-73.
Nikolaev 1985Nikolaev, S. L. 1985Severokavkazskie zaimstvovanija v xettskom i drevnegrečeskom. In: DrevAnat 1985: 60‑73.
Nikolayev/Starostin 1994Nikolayev, S. L. & Starostin, S. A. 1994A North Caucasian etymological dictionary. Moscow: Asterisk Publishers.
Nocentini 1994Nocentini, Alberto 1994Le radici ie. mor‑/morm‑ ‘incubo’ e bū‑/bub‑ ‘spauracchio’ e il sistema fonologico indeuropeo. In: Fs Belardi 1994, 1: 399‑415.
Norayr Biwzandac‘i 1911Norayr N. Biwzandac‘i 1911K‘nnut‘iwn Malxasean hratarakut‘eanc‘ Agat‘angeɫosi ew Łazaray P‘arpec‘woy. In: Yušarjan 1911: 161-174.
Norayr Biwzandac‘i 1923Norayr N. Biwzandac‘i 1923K‘nnadatut‘iwn Haybusaki. In: HandAms <...>, 496‑506, <...>.
Normier 1980Normier, Rudolf 1980Beiträge zur armenischen Etymologie I. In: AnnArmLing 1: 19‑22.
Normier 1981Normier, Rudolf 1981Zu Esche und Espe. In: Die Sprache 27: 22‑29.
Nšanean 1915Nšanean, Mesrop Vardapet 1915(ed.) Žamanakagrut‘iwn Grigor Vardapeti Kamaxec‘woy kam Daranaɫc‘woy. Erusaɫēm: St Jacob.
Nussbaum 1986Nussbaum, Alan J. 1986Head and Horn in Indo-European. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter. (Untersuchungen zur Indogermanischen Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft, N.F. 2).
Nyberg 1974Nyberg, H. S. 1974A manual of Pahlavi. Part 2. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Nždehean 1902Nždehean, K‘. 1902Paṙawašunč‘. In: AzgHand 7th year, 9th book: 263-271.
Nždehean 1910Nždehean, K‘. 1910Alaškerti banawor grakanut‘iwnic‘. In: AzgHand 12th year, 20th book, 1910, Nr 2: 108-111.
Oberlies 2000Oberlies, Thomas 2000Pūṣans Zahnlücken und Hermes’ Vorliebe für Backwerk: ererbte Strukturen des Pantheons der r̥gvedischen Religion (mit einer Nachbemerkung von Stefan Zimmer [see Zimmer 2000]). In: IndIranIndog 2000: 369-387.
O’Brien 1982O’Brien, Steven 1982Dioscuric elements in Celtic and Germanic mythology. In: JourIndEurStud 10.1-2: 117-136.
Ōdabašyan 1976Ōdabašyan, A. A. 1976(Odabašjan), Narodnye verovanija armjan (po materialam rukopisnyx talismanov 15‑19 vv.). In: KavkÈtnSbor 6. Mosow: “Nauka”, 107‑130.
Ōdabašyan 1978Ōdabašyan, A. A. 1978Amanorə hay žoɫovrdakan tonac‘uyc‘um. In: HayAzgBan 9: 5-72.
Ōdabašyan 1986Ōdabašyan, A. A. 1986Tiezerasteɫcman aṙaspeli veraprukayin tarrern axtark‘um. In: PBH 1986, Nr 3: 138-149.
Ōdabašyan 1987Ōdabašyan, A. A. 1987Tiezerakan caṙə hin hayoc‘ dic‘abanakan hamakargum. In: LrHasGit 1987, Nr 10: 61‑71.
Oettinger 1976Oettinger, Norbert 1976Der indogermanische Stativ. In: MünStudSpr 34, 1976: 109-149.
Oettinger 1979Oettinger, Norbert 1979Die Stammbildung des hethitischen Verbums. Nürnberg: Verlag Hans Carl. (Erlanger Beiträge zur Sprach‑ und Kunstwissenschaft, 64).
Oettinger 1994Oettinger, Norbert 1994Pferd und Wagen im Altiranischen und Anatolischen. In: IndogPferd 1994: 67-76.
Oettinger 1997Oettinger, Norbert 1997Altindisch mahā́nt- ‘groß’ und indogermanisch -nt-. In: Fs Beekes 1997: 205-207.
Oettinger 1998Oettinger, Norbert 1998Semantisches zu Pan, Pūṣan und Hermes. In: Fs Watkins 1998: 539-548.
Oettinger 2000Oettinger, Norbert 2000Die Götter Pūṣan, Pan und das Possessivsuffix *-h3en. In: IndIranIndog 2000 : 393-400.
Oettinger 2003Oettinger, Norbert 2003Review of Kimball 1999. In: IndogForsch 108: 339‑341.
Ofitsch/Zinko 2000Ofitsch, Michaela, & Zinko, Christian 2000(eds.), 125 Jahre Indogermanistik in Graz: Arbeiten aus der Abteilung “Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft” Graz. Leykam.
Olsen 1984Olsen, B. A. 1984On the development of Indo‑European prothetic vowels in Classical Armenian. In: APILKU 4: 103‑118.
Olsen 1985Olsen, B. A. 1985On the development of Indo‑European prothetic vowels in Classical Armenian. In: RevEtArm n.s. 19: 5-17.
Olsen 1986Olsen, B. A. 1986The Armenian continuations of Indo‑European intervocalic w. In: AnnArmLing 7: 51‑56.
Olsen 1988-89Olsen, B. A. 1988-89A surrejoinder to J.A.C. Greppin’s remarks on prothetic vowels in Armenian. In: RevEtArm n.s. 21: 481-483.
Olsen 1989Olsen, B. A. 1989A trace of Indo‑European accent in Armenian. In: HistSpr 102: 220‑240.
Olsen 1989aOlsen, B. A. 1989aThree notes on Armenian historical phonology. In: AnnArmLing 10: 5-25.
Olsen 1994Olsen, B. A. 1994Armenian dalowkn ‘jaundice’ and the IE suffixes ‑gwon‑, ‑gon‑ and ‑don‑. In: Pedersen Kolloquium 1994: 331‑347.
Olsen 1999Olsen, B. A. 1999The noun in Biblical Armenian: origin and word‑formation: with special emphasis on the Indo‑European heritage. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. (Trends in linguistics. Studies and monographs 119).
Olsen 2000Olsen, B. A. 2000On the origin of the types devī́ and vr̥kī́ḥ. In: IndIranIndog 2000: 401-408.
Oranskij 1975Oranskij, I. M. 1975Indo‑iranica 4: tadjik (régional) buruǰ ‘bouleau’. In: Fs Benveniste 1975: 435‑440.
Oranskij 1977Oranskij, I. M. 1977Est’ li ètimologičeskaja svjaz’ meždu russk. bereza i tadž. burs ‘arča’? In: Ètimologija 1975. Moscow: “Nauka”: 138‑140.
Orbeli 1956Orbeli, I. A. 1956Basni srednevekovoj Armenii. Moscow, Leningrad: Academy Press.
Orbeli 1956aOrbeli, I. A. 1956aArmjanskij geroičeskij èpos. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Orbeli 1982Orbeli, I. A. 1982Fol’klor i byt Moksa. Moscow: GRVLI “Nauka”.
Orbeli 2002Orbeli, I. A. 2002 Izbrannye trudy v dvux tomax, vol. 2. Yerevan: Academy Press “Gitutjun” .
Ōrdoyan 1983Ōrdoyan, Grigor Vruyri 1983Mimakan arvesti gcerə Kilikyan miǰavayrum. In: PBH 1983, Nr 1: 117-124.
Ōrdoyan 1991Ōrdoyan, Grigor Vruyri 1991T‘atronə Kilikyan Hayastanum (12-13 dd.). Yerevan: Academy Press.
Orel 1984Orel, Vladimir 1984Albanskij i južnoindoevropejskie jazyki. In: LingRek 1984, 1: 76-78.
Orel 1994Orel, Vladimir 1994Albanian and Indo‑European. In: Pedersen Kolloquium 1994: 349‑364.
Orel 1994aOrel, Vladimir 1994aArmenian etymologies. In: AnnArmLing 15: 37-42.
Orel 1995Orel, Vladimir 1995Indo-European notes. In: IndogForsch 100: 116-128.
Oshiro 1989Oshiro, Terumasa 1989On Hieroglyphic Luwian sign or . In: JourIndEurStud 17.1-2: 181.
Oskean 1939Oskean, H. H. 1939Bznuneac‘ covi kɫzineru anapatnern u vank‘erə. In: HandAms 53.1-6: 25-77.
Oskean 1939aOskean, H. H. 1939aṘštuneac‘ gawaṙi vank‘erə. In: HandAms 53.7-12: 159-195 (continued in vol. 54, 1940, Nr 1-6, pp. 21ff).
Osthoff 1898Osthoff, Hermann 1898Griechische und lateinische Wortdeutungen (dritte Reihe). In: IndogForsch 8, 1‑2: 1‑68.
Osthoff 1905Osthoff, Hermann 1905Zwei artikel zum ablaut der āu̯-basen. In: BKIgS 29: 249-258.
Otkupščikov 1985Otkupščikov, Ju. V. 1985Ob indoevropejskom proisxoždenii lat. vīnum, dr.-greč. (ϝ)οἶνος ‘vino’. In: VoprJaz 1985, Nr 4: 95-103.
Otrębski 1966Otrębski, Jan 1966Die ältesten germanischen Lehnwörter im Baltischen und Slavischen. In: Die Sprache 12: 50-64.
Otrębski 1967Otrębski, Jan 1967Die von dem indoeuropäischen Reflexivpronomen *se, *seu̯e, *su̯e usw. abgeleiteten Verwandtschaftsnamen. In: Fs Pokorny 1967: 73-77.
Otten 1950Otten, H. 1950Die Gottheit Lelvani der Boğazköy‑Texte. In: JCunSt 4: 119‑140.
Otten 1988Otten, H. 1988Die Bronzetafel aus Boğazköy: ein Staatsvertrag Tutḫalijas IV. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. (StBoT, Beiheft 1).
Palean 1898Palean, T. V. 1898Mankakan ōrōr Aknay barbaṙov. In: Biwrakn 1898: 601‑602.
Palean 1898aPalean, T. V. 1898aAntuni (Aknay gawaṙabarbaṙov). In: Biwrakn 1898: 393‑394.
Papanastassiou 1994Papanastassiou, Georges C. 1994Compléments au Dictionnaire étymologique du grec ancien de Pierre Chantraine (Λ-Ω). Théssalonique: Magia.
Parpola 1985Parpola, Asko 1985The sky‑garment. Helsinki (Studia Orientalia edited by the Finnish Oriental Society, 57).
Pârvulescu 1986Pârvulescu, Adrian 1986Arm. amusin ‘spouse’. In: AnnArmLing 7: 45‑49.
Pârvulescu 1989Pârvulescu, Adrian 1989‘Black water’ in the Thracian hydronymy. In: ThracMyc 1989: 290‑295.
Pârvulescu 1989aPârvulescu, Adrian 1989aBlood and IE. Kinship terminology. In: IndogForsch 94: 67-88.
Patkanov 1864Patkanov, K. 1864Izsledovanie o sostave armjanskago jazyka. Sankt‑Peterburg: Tipografija Imperatorskoj Akademii Nauk.
Patkanov 1869Patkanov, K. 1869Izsledovanie o dialektax armjanskago jazyka: filologičeskij opyt. Sankt‑Peterburg: Tipografija Imperatorskoj Akademii Nauk.
Patkanov 1880Patkanov, K. 1880(Patkanean, K‘.), T‘ē inč‘ teɫ ē bṙnum hayerēn lezun hndka-ewropakan lezuneri šrǰanum. In: P‘orj 4.3:
Patrubány 1897Patrubány, Lukas v. 1897Beiträge zur armenischen Ethnologie. In: EthnMittUng 5, 1896: 139‑153.
Patrubány 1897aPatrubány, Lukas v. 1897aArmenische Etymologien. In: EthnMittUng 5, 1896: 234.
Patrubány 1902-03Patrubány, Lukas v. 1902-03Idg. *e/ozg1h im Armenischen. In: IndogForsch 13: 124-125.
Patrubány 1902-03aPatrubány, Lukas v. 1902-03aArmeniaca. In: IndogForsch 13: 163-164.
Patrubány 1904Patrubány, Lukas v. 1904Miscellen. In: ZVS 37: 427-428.
Patrubány 1906‑08Patrubány, Lukas v. 1906‑08(Badrupanean, Łukas), [StugHetaz] Stugabanakan hetazōtut‘iwnk‘. In: HandAms <...>; vol. 18, 1904: 94, 184-185, 334b; vol. 20, 1906: 23-25, 55-58, 71-73, 172-174, 341-347, 366-368; vol. 21, 1907: 16-17, 89-90, 303-306; vol. 22, 1908: 23-27, 85-86, 151-155, 186-189, 212-215, 245-247, 274-276.
Patrubány 1908Patrubány, Lukas v. 1908 (Badrupanean, Łukas), Lezuabanakank‘. In: HandAms 1908: 276‑279, 312‑315, 341‑344.
Pedersen 1900Pedersen, Holger 1900Albanesisch und Armenisch. In: ZVS 36: 340-341 (= 1982: 1-2).
Pedersen 1905Pedersen, Holger 1905Zur armenischen Sprachgeschichte. In: ZVS 38: 194‑240 (=1982: 56‑102).
Pedersen 1905aPedersen, Holger 1905aLes pronoms démonstratifs de l’ancien arménien. In: Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskabs Skrifter Sectietitel. Sjette Række: Historisk og filosofisk Afdeling 6.3: 5-51 [303-353] (= 1982: 8-55).
Pedersen 1906Pedersen, Holger 1906Armenisch und die Nachbarsprachen. In: ZVS 39: 334‑485 (= 1982: 112‑263). ModWArm. translation: Pedersən 1907.
Pedersen 1906aPedersen, Holger 1906aZur Akzentlehre. In: ZVS 39: 235-243 (= 1982: 103-111).
Pedersen 1907Pedersen, Holger 1907(Pedersən), Hayerēn ew drac‘i lezunerə (ModWArm. translation of Pedersen 1906 by H. T‘ovmas Ketikean). Vienna: Mxit‘arean Tparan.
Pedersen 1924Pedersen, Holger 1924Armenier. B. Sprache. In: Max Ebert (ed.), Reallexikon der Vorgeschichte. Vol. 1. Berlin, pp. 219-226 (= 1982: 302-309).
Pedersen 1982Pedersen, Holger 1982Kleine Schriften zum Armenischen (hrsg. von Rüdiger Schmitt). Hildesheim, New York: Georg Olms Verlag.
Penney 1988Penney, J. H. W. 1988Laryngeals and the Indo‑European root. In: LaryngTheor 1988 : 361‑372.
Perixanjan 1966Perixanjan, A. G. (P‘erixanyan) 1966Une inscription araméenne du roi Artašēs trouvée à Zangézour (Siwnik‘). In: RevEtArm n.s. 3: 17-29.
Perixanjan 1982Perixanjan, A. G. (P‘erixanyan) 1982Ètimologičeskie zametki I. In: PBH (= IFŽ) 1982, Nr 1: 55-62.
Perixanjan 1983Perixanjan, A. G. (P‘erixanyan) 1983Obščestvo i pravo Irana v parfjanskij i sasanidskij periody. Moscow: GRVLI “Nauka”.
Périkhanian 1985Perixanjan, A. G. (P‘erixanyan) 1985(Périkhanian), Arm. dašxuran et arm. vsestak. In: AnnArmLing 6: 75‑80.
Perixanjan 1993Perixanjan, A. G. (P‘erixanyan) 1993Materialy k ètimologičeskomu slovarju drevnearmjanskogo jazyka. Part 1. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Peščereva 1963Peščereva, E. M. 1963Nekotorye dopolnenija k opisaniju prazdnika tjul’pana v Ferganskoj doline. In: Fs Zarubin 1963: 214-218.
Peters 1980Peters, Martin 1980Untersuchungen zur Vertretung der indogermanischen Laryngale im Griechischen. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. (Sitzungsberichte: Philosophisch-historische Klasse, 377. Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Linguistik und Kommunikationsforschung, 8).
Peters 1986Peters, Martin 1986Probleme mit anlautenden Laryngalen. In: Die Sprache 32.2: 365-383.
Peters 1987Peters, Martin 1987λῆνος aus *h2/3u̯l̥h1náh2-. In: Die Sprache 33.1-2: 114-115.
Peters 1988Peters, Martin 1988Zur Frage strukturell uneinheitlicher Laryngalreflexe in idg. Einzelsprachen. In: LaryngTheor 1988: 373‑381.
Peters 1991Peters, Martin 1991Idg. ‘9’ im Armenischen und Griechischen. In: ZeitPhonSprKom 44.3: 301-310.
Peters 1997Peters, Martin 1997Der armenische Flexionstyp gitem, gitac‘i und das ion.-att. Plusquamperfekt. In: Fs Beekes 1997: 209-217.
Petersson 1916Petersson, Herbert 1916Beiträge zur armenischen Wortkunde. In: ZVS 47: 240‑291.
Petersson 1920Petersson, Herbert 1920Arische und armenische Studien. In: Lunds Universitets Årsskrift. N.F. Avd. 1, Bd. 16. Nr. 3. Lunds, Leipzig.
Petersson 1926Petersson, Herbert 1926Armenische Etymologien. In: IndogForsch 43: 69-79.
Petit 2006Petit, Daniel 2006Lituanien Er̃žvilkas, une formule poétique indo-européenne? In: LangPoétIndEur 2006: 343-366.
Petoyan 1954Petoyan, Vardan A. 1954 Sasuni barbaṙə. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Petoyan 1965Petoyan, Vardan A. 1965Sasna azgagrut‘yunə. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Petrosyan 1989Petrosyan, A. S. 1989Gayli paštamunk‘ə hay žoɫovrdakan havatalik‘nerum. In: BanbErewHamals 1989, Nr 2: 72-80.
Petrosyan 1995Petrosyan, A. S. 1995Arǰi paštamunk‘ə hay žoɫovrdakan havatalik‘nerum. In: BanbErewHamals 1995, Nr 3: 163-170.
Petrosyan 1987Petrosyan, Armen 1987(Petrosjan), Otraženie indoevropejskogo kornja uel‑ v armjanskoj mifologii. In: LrHasGit (= VON) 1987, Nr 1: 56‑70.
Petrosyan 1990Petrosyan, Armen 1990(Petrosjan), Armjanskie ètnonimy v svete mifologičeskix dannyx. In: MežIssArm 1990: 234‑245.
Petrosyan 1991Petrosyan, Armen 1991 (Petrosjan), Armjanskie ètnonimy, drevnearmjanskaja model’ mira i vopros lokalizacii drevnejšix armjanskix plemen. In: BanbErevHamals (= VEU) 1991, Nr 2: 102-115.
Petrosyan 1991Petrosyan, Armen 1991Samonazvanie armjan i vopros lokalizacii nositelej protoarmjanskogo jazyka. In: LrHasGit (=VON) 1991, Nr 5: 120-129.
Petrosyan 1997Petrosyan, Armen 1997Arami aṙaspelə hndevropakan aṙaspelabanut‘yan hamatek‘stum ew hayoc‘ azgacagman xndirə. Yerevan: Van Aryan.
Petrosyan 1997aPetrosyan, Armen 1997aHaykakan ēposi hnaguyn akunk‘nerə: hndevropakan aṙaspelner ew patmakan naxatiper. Yerevan: Van Aryan.
Petrosyan 2001Petrosyan, Armen 2001Ara Geɫec‘ik ew surb Sargis: hndevropakan astvacn u nra k‘ristoneakan hetnordə. In: HaySrb 2001 : 157‑169.
Petrosyan 2002Petrosyan, Armen 2002The Indo‑European and ancient Near Eastern sources of the Armenian Epic. JIES Monograph Nr 42. Washington D. C.: Institute for the Study of Man.
Petrosyan 2002aPetrosyan, Armen 2002a(Petrosjan), Armjanskij èpos i mifologija: istoki, mif i istorija. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Petrosyan 2003Petrosyan, Armen 2003Hayoc‘ azgacagman harc‘er avandakan tvyalneri k‘nnut‘yan luysi tak. In: PBH 2003, Nr 2: 189-224.
Petrosyan 2004Petrosyan, Armen 2004Haykakan dic‘arani hnaguyn akunk‘nerə. In: PBH 2004, Nr 2: 205-233.
Petrosyan 2006Petrosyan, Armen 2006Hayoc‘ azgacagman harc‘er. Yerevan: “Noravank‘”.
Petrosyan 2006aPetrosyan, Armen 2006aAramazd: kerpar, paštamunk‘, naxatiper. Yerevan: Van Aryan.
Petrosyan 2006bPetrosyan, Armen 2006bTir ew Maštoc‘: dprut‘yan astvacə ew greri steɫcoɫə. In: IntConfArmLett 2006: 41-53.
Petrosyan 2007Petrosyan, Armen 2007Stugabanut‘iwnner. In: HandAms 121.1-12: 1-24.
Petrosyan 2007aPetrosyan, Armen 2007aThe problem of identification of the Proto-Armenians: a critical review. In: JourSocArmStud 16: 25-66.
Petrosyan 1989Petrosyan, Ēmma X. 1989(Petrosjan, È.), Ritual’no-mifologičeskaja i teatral’no-zrelishchnaja sistema armjan: opyt rekonstrukcii (doctoral dissertation: avtoreferat). Yerevan.
Petrosyan 1976Petrosyan, H. Z. 1976Aknarkner hayereni patmakan jewabanut‘yan: hodayin karg. Yerevan: University Press.
Petrosyan 1987Petrosyan, H. Z. 1987Hayerenagitakan baṙaran. Yerevan: “Hayastan”.
Petrosyan 1968Petrosyan, L. N. 1968Hay žoɫovrdakan p‘oxadramiǰoc‘nern əst matenagrut‘yan. In: LrHasGit 1968, Nr 9: 36‑48.
Petrosyan 1974Petrosyan, L. N. 1974Hay žoɫovrdakan p‘oxadramiǰoc‘ner. A. Hetiotn ew grastayin p‘oxadramiǰoc‘ner (patma-azgagrakan usumnasirut‘yun). In: HayAzgBan 6: 91-156 + Tables.
Petrosyan 1976Petrosyan, S. G. 1976Merjsewanyan c‘eɫeri miut‘yunə Haykakan leṙnašxarhi hyusis‑arewelk‘um (m. t‘. a. 6‑5 dd.). In: PBH 1976, Nr 1: 187‑198.
Petrosyan 1977Petrosyan, S. G. 1977T‘raka‑kimerakan c‘eɫeri miut‘yunnerə Haykakan leṙnašxarhum (m. t‘. a. 6‑5 dd.). In: PBH 1977, Nr 2: 207‑220.
Petrosyan 1979Petrosyan, S. G. 1979Hin Marastani tarack‘i errord ēt‘nikakan tarri masin. In: PBH 1979, Nr 4: 46‑58).
Petrosyan 1981Petrosyan, S. G. 1981“Vahagni ergi” akrostik‘osneri verakangnman ew vercanman p‘orj. In: LrHasGit 1981, Nr 4: 78-88.
Petrosyan 1991Petrosyan, S. G. 1991Erkguyn-erkhark tiezerk‘i masin aṙaspelabanakan patkerac‘umə Haykakan leṙnašxarhum. In: LrHasGit 1991, Nr 2: 126-131.
Petrosyan 1999Petrosyan, S. G. 1999Gnuni naxararakan tohmi ew ginu paštamunk‘i šurǰ. In: PBH 1999, Nr 2‑3: 175‑189.
Petrosyan/Petrosyan 2001Petrosyan, Sargis & Petrosyan, Covinar 2001Hnaguyn Cop‘k‘i dic‘akan glxavor eṙyaki šurǰ. In: ŠirGitAšx 4: 79-96.
Petruševskij 1930Petruševskij, I. 1930O doxristianskix verovanijax krest’jan Nagornogo Karabaxa. Izvestija Azerbajdžanskogo Gosudarstvennogo Naučno-Issledovatel’skogo Instituta: Istoriko-ètnografičeskoe i arxeologičeskoe otdelenie. 1.5. Baku: Izdatel’stvo AzGNII.
Pfeifer 1989Pfeifer, Wolfgang 1989 (1-3), Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Deutschen. Erarb. von einem Autorenkollektiv des Zentralinstituts für Sprachwissenschaft unter der Leitung von Wolfgang Pfeifer. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Bd. 1: A-G; Bd. 2: H-P; Bd. 3: Q-Z. 1989.
Picard 1989Picard, Marc 1989A reanalysis of Armenian prothesis and metathesis. In: FolLingHist 10.1-2: 61-69.
P‘iliposyan 2005P‘iliposyan, Ṙafik Eɫišei 2005P‘arpi: P‘arpi gyuɫi patmut‘yunə (ed. by Paruyr Muradyan). Yerevan: P‘arpi gyuɫi gyuɫapetaran. [Consists of two parts, each having its own pagination].
P‘iloyeanc‘ 1888P‘iloyeanc‘, S. 1888Korac margarit: Nor‑Bayazēdi keank‘ic‘. T‘iflis: Tparan M. D. Ṙotineanc‘i.
Pinault 2002Pinault, Georges-Jean 2002Tokh. B kucaññe, A kuciṃ et skr. tokharika. In: IndIranJour 45: 311-345.
Piotrovskij 1940Piotrovskij, B. B. 1940Urartskaja bronzovaja statuètka Gos. Muzeja Armenii. In: SovArx 1940, Nr 6: 89‑91.
Pisani 1934Pisani, Vittore 1934Armeniaca. In: ZVS 61: 180-189.
Pisani 1941‑42Pisani, Vittore 1941‑42Glottica parerga: 1. Appunti di tocarico; 2.Alcuni casi di analogia fonetica; 3. Sulpur/sulfur e le aspirate indeuropee. In: RendLombLett 75: 157‑171; 172‑190; 257‑280.
Pisani 1944Pisani, Vittore 1944Armenische Studien. In: ZVS 68: 157-177.
Pisani 1950Pisani, Vittore 1950Studi sulla fonetica dell’armeno. I. Palatalizzazioni ed esiti di s + gutturale; esiti delle semivocali. In: RicLing 1/2: 165‑193.
Pisani 1950aPisani, Vittore 1950aGr. ἄρτος. In: RicLing 1/1: 141.
Pisani 1950bPisani, Vittore 1950bRusso potolok. In: RicLing 1/2: 271‑272.
Pisani 1957Pisani, Vittore 1957Indoiranische Miszellen. In: ZDMG 107 (N.F. 32): 551-553.
Pisani 1966Pisani, Vittore 1966Armenische Miszellen. In: Die Sprache 12: 227-236.
Pisani 1974Pisani, Vittore 1974Russ. čečevíca. In: Gd Sɫuszkiewicz 1974: 179-180.
Pisani 1975Pisani, Vittore 1975Zum armenischen Pluralzeichen -k‘. In: ZVS 89.1: 94-99.
Pisowicz 1986Pisowicz, Andrzej 1986Quelques remarques sur le développement des sonores en arménien ancien. In: Gd Berbérian 1986: 659‑661.
Pisowicz 1989Pisowicz, Andrzej 1989Die armenischen Entlehnungen in türkischen Dialekten. In: FolOr 26: 123‑129.
Pitra 1855Pitra, J. B. 1855Spicilegium Solesmense complectens Sanctorum Patrum scriptorumque ecclesiasticorum anecdota hactenus opera. Vol. 3. Paris. (Arm. text of “Physiologus”: 374‑390).
Pivazyan 1951Pivazyan, Ē. 1951(ed.), Mxit‘ar Goš, Aṙakner (critical text and introduction). Yerevan: Academy Press.
Pivazyan 1960Pivazyan, Ē. 1960Hovhannes T‘lkuranc‘i, Taɫer: texts, introduction, commentary. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Pokorny 1959Pokorny, Julius 1959Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, vol. 1. Bern, Stuttgart: Francke [> 1994].
Polomé 1975Polomé, Edgar C. 1975Old Norse religious terminology in Indo-European perspective. In: NordLangModLing 1975: 654-665.
Polomé 1980Polomé, Edgar C. 1980Armenian and the Proto‑Indo‑European laryngeals. In: ProcFICAL: 17‑33.
Polomé 1983Polomé, Edgar C. 1983The etymological dictionary of Dutch: an analysis of the work of Jan de Vries. In: EtymWört 1983: 217-228.
Polomé 1997Polomé, Edgar C. 1997Thoughts about the Celtic religious vocabulary. In: Gd Campanile 1997, 2: 809‑814.
Polomé 1998Polomé, Edgar C. 1998Some considerations on Dutch erg, etc. In: Fs. Watkins 1998: 603-606.
Poɫosyan 1965Poɫosyan, A. M. 1965Hadrut‘i barbaṙə. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Poɫosyan 1974Poɫosyan, A. M. 1974Ni masnikə ew nra baṙakazmakan nšanakut‘yunn u imastayin aṙumnerə hayereni barbaṙnerum. In: PBH 1974, Nr 2: 124-144.
Poɫosyan 1969Poɫosyan, H. M. 1969Zeyt‘uni patmut‘yunə (1409‑1921 t‘t‘.). Yerevan: “Hayastan”.
Pomorska 1996Pomorska, Marzanna 1996 Some names for ‘button’ in Turkic languages. In: StudEtymCrac 1: 63‑76.
P‘ork‘šeyan 1971P‘ork‘šeyan, X. A. 1971Nor Naxiǰewani hay žoɫovrdakan banahyusut‘yunə. HayAzgBan 2. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Porzig 1954Porzig, Walter 1954 Die Gliederung des indogermanischen Sprachgebiets. PHeidelberg: Winter. (Indogermanische Bibliothek. 3. Reihe: Untersuchungen).
Porzig 1964Porzig, Walter 1964(Porcig, V.), Členenie indoevropejskoj jazykovoj oblasti. (Russian translation of Porzig 1954; ed. by A. V. Desnickaja). Moscow: “Progress”.
Poturean 1914Poturean, H. Mkrtič‘ 1914Aṙak‘el Siwnec‘i ew ir k‘ert‘uacnerə. Venice: S. Lazar.
Praust 1996Praust, Karl 1996Armenisch əmpem ‘trinke’. In: Die Sprache 38.2: 184-200.
Puhvel 1969Puhvel, Jaan 1969“Meadow of the Otherworld” in Indo‑European tradition. In: ZVS 83: 64‑69.
Puhvel 1970Puhvel, Jaan 1970Aspects of equine functionality. In: MythLawIndEur 1970: 159-172.
Puhvel 1971Puhvel, Jaan 1971Hittite ḫurkiš and ḫurkel. In: Die Sprache 17: 42‑45.
Puhvel 1973Puhvel, Jaan 1973Aquam exstinguere. In: JourIndEurStud 1.3: 379-386.
Puhvel 1974Puhvel, Jaan 1974Indo-European structure of the Baltic pantheon. In: MythIEAnt 1974: 75-85.
Puhvel 1982Puhvel, Jaan 1982Baltic-Anatolian lexical isoglosses. In: Gd Kronasser 1982: 179-185.
Puhvel 1984Puhvel, Jaan 1984(HED 1-), Hittite etymological dictionary. Vol. 1-2 (1: A + 2: E and I). 1984. Berlin, New York, Amsterdam: Mouton. (Trends in linguistics. Documentation 1).
Puhvel 1985Puhvel, Jaan 1985Sober thoughts on Latin ēbrius. In: Fs Winter 1985: 693‑696.
Puhvel 1987Puhvel, Jaan 1987Comparative mythologyP. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Puhvel 1991Puhvel, Jaan 1991Names and numbers of the Pleiad. In: Fs Leslau 1991, 2: 1243‑1247.
Puhvel 2003Puhvel, Jaan 2003Eventide in Hatti-land. In: Fs Winter 2003: 347-349.
Puhvel 2007Puhvel, Jaan 2007Reed and arrow in Anatolia and beyond. In: Aramazd 2: 85-87.
Pulju 1997Pulju, Tim 1997Indo-European dA > dh. In: JourIndEurStud 25.3-4: 387-399.
Radde 1890Radde, Gustav 1890Karabagh: Bericht über die im Sommer 1890 im russischen Karabagh von Dr. Gustav Radde und Dr. Jean Valentin ausgeführte Reise (mit Karte). Gotha: Justus Perthes. (Ergänzungsheft No. 100 zu “Petermanns Mitteilungen”).
Raevskij 1990Raevskij, D. S. 1990K stat’e N. L. Členovoj “Volga i Južnyj Ural v predstavlenijax drevnix irancev i finno‑ugrov vo II – načale I tys. do n. è”. In: SovArx 1990, Nr 3: 151‑154.
Rahlfs 1931Rahlfs, Alfred 1931(ed.), Psalmi cum Odis. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. (Septuaginta, vol. 10).
Rahlfs 1979Rahlfs, Alfred 1979See Sources: Bible.
Raingeard 1934Raingeard, P. 1934Hermès Psychagogue: essai sur les origines du culte d’Hermès. Paris thesis. Rennes: Oberthur.
Ramat 1974Ramat, Anna Giacalone 1974Alcuni aspetti della terminologia agricola del gotico. In: AntiqIndog 1974: 69‑83.
Rapoport 1971Rapoport, Ju. A. 1971Iz istorii religii drevnego Xorezma (ossuarii). Moscow: “Nauka”.
Rasmussen 1985Rasmussen, Jens Elmegård 1985Miscellaneous morphological problems in Indo‑European languages (I‑II). In: LingPosn 28, 1985 [1987]: 27‑62.
Rasmussen 1989Rasmussen, Jens Elmegård 1989Die Tenues Aspiratae: Dreiteilung oder Vierteilung des indogermanischen Plosivsystems und die Konsequenzen dieser Vrage für die Chronologie einer Glottalreihe. In: NewSouIndEur 1989: 153-176.
Rasmussen 1989aRasmussen, Jens Elmegård 1989aErwiderung auf P. J. Hopper’s ‘Remarks’. In: NewSouIndEur 1989: 249-254.
Rasmussen 1999Rasmussen, Jens Elmegård 1999Selected papers on Indo-European linguistics: with a section on comparative Eskimo linguistics. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, University of Copenhagen. (Copenhagen studies in Indo-European, 1).
Rasmussen 2003Rasmussen, Jens Elmegård 2003An integrated view on ablaut and accent in Indo-European. In: Fs Winter 2003: 351-362.
Ravnæs 1991Ravnæs, Erling 1991: The chronology of the sound changes from Proto-Indo-European to Classical Armenian. Thesis. University of Oslo.
Rayfield 1988Rayfield, Donald 1988Sheepkeeping terminology in the Caucasus. In: Studia Caucasologica 1. Fridrik Thordarson (ed.), Proceedings of the third Caucasian colloquium; Oslo, July. Oslo: Norwegian University Press: 239-250.
Rédei 1986Rédei, Károly 1986Zu den indogermanisch‑uralischen Sprachkontakten. Wien: Verlag der Akademie. (Sitzungsberichte Philosophisch‑historische Klasse, Bd. 468. Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Linguistik und Kommunikationsforschung; H. 16).
Riegler‑Klagenfurt 1910Riegler‑Klagenfurt, Richard 1910Zwei mythische Tiernamen. In: WörtSach 2: 186‑190.
Rieken 1999Rieken, Elisabeth 1999Untersuchungen zur nominalen Stammbildung des Hethitischen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. (StBoT 44).
Rikov 1998Rikov, G. T. 1998The development of Indo-European *CN̥hxV in Latin. In: Fs Toporov 1998: 30-36.
Ringe 1984Ringe, Donald A. Jr. 1984Ionic ὀνονημένα. In: Glotta 62.1-2: 45-56.
Ringe 1988Ringe, Donald A. Jr. 1988Laryngeal isoglosses in the western Indo-European languages. In: LaryngTheor 1988: 415-441.
Ringe 1988aRinge, Donald A. Jr. 1988aReview of Nussbaum 1986. In: JAmOrSoc 108.1: 186-187.
Ritter 1983Ritter, Ralf-Peter 1983Eine verkannte Etymologie für armen. aniw ‘Rad’. In: MünStudSpr 42: 191-196.
Ritter 2006Ritter, Ralf-Peter 2006Zur Frage der Reste indogermanischer Dichtersprache im Armenischen. In: LangPoétIndEur 2006: 413-417.
Rix 1969/72Rix, Helmut 1969/72Review of Beekes 1969. In: Kratylos 14: 176‑187.
Rix 1970Rix, Helmut 1970Anlautender Laryngal vor Liquida oder Nasalis sonans im Griechischen. In: MünStudSpr 27, 1969 [1970]: 79-110.
Rix 1985Rix, Helmut 1985Sūdor und sīdus. In: Fs Knobloch 1985: 339-350.
Rix 1992Rix, Helmut 1992Historische Grammatik des Griechischen: Laut- und Formenlehre. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Rix 2003Rix, Helmut 2003The Latin imperfect in -bā-, the Proto-Indo-European root *bhu̯eh2- and full grade I forms from seṭ-roots with full grade II. In: Fs Winter 2003: 363-384.
Rosenberg 1991Rosenberg, A. J. 1991Psalms 3: a new English translation (transl. of text, Rashi and commentary). New York: Judaica Press.
Roth 1927Roth, Karl 1927Die Bedeutung des Armenischen. In: HandAms 41: 741-750.
Ṙōzmēri 1898Ṙōzmēri 1898T‘pɫa, yang, groɫ, kroɫ. In: Biwrakn 1898: 867-868 (with an addendum by the editor, prob. G. Andrēasean).
Rudnyćkyj 1974Rudnyćkyj, Jaroslav B. 1974Slavic terms for ‘god’. In: AntiqIndog 1974: 111-112.
Rudnicki 1938Rudnicki, Mikoɫaj 1938Étude sémantique sur la racine i.-e. *sweyd-. In: Mélanges Boisacq 2, 1938: 225-229.
Russell 1980Russell, James R. 1980The word k‘ustik in Armenian. In: ProcFICAL: 107‑114 (= 2004: 1‑8).
Russell 1985-86Russell, James R. 1985-86The name of Zoroaster in Armenian. In: JourSocArmStud 2: 3-10 (= 2004: 57-64).
Russell 1987Russell, James R. 1987Zoroastrianism in Armenia. Cambridge: Harvard University Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations and National Association for Armenian Studies and Research. (Harvard Iranian Series, 5).
Russell 1987aRussell, James R. 1987aYovhannēs T‘lkuranc‘i and the Mediaeval Armenian lyric tradition (Oxford University thesis). Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press. (University of Pennsylvania Armenian texts and studies, 7).
Russell 1998/2000Russell, James R. 1998/2000A scholium on Coleridge and an Armenian demon. In: JourSocArmStud 10, 1998, 1999 [2000]: 63‑71
Russell 2004Russell, James R. 2004Armenian and Iranian studies. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England: Harvard University Press (Harvard Armenian texts and studies, 9).
Šagirov/Dzidzarija 1985Šagirov, A. K. & Dzidzarija, O. P. 1985K probleme indoarijskix (praindijskix) leksičeskix zaimstvovanij v severokavkazskix jazykax. In: VoprJaz 1985, Nr 1: 58-62.
Sahakyan 1986‑87Sahakyan, Hasmik 1986‑87See UšMǰnHayBnst 1‑2.
Šahnazareanc‘ 1857Šahnazareanc‘, Karapet 1857(ed.), Łewond Vardapet Hayoc‘, Aršawank‘ Arabac‘ i Hays. Paris: Šahnazareanc‘.
Šahpazean 1913Šahpazean, Y. 1913Bun haykakan steɫcagorcut‘yun. Łalat‘ia: Tparan “Šant‘”.
Samuelian 2001Samuelian, Thomas J. 2001Speaking with God from the depths of the heart: the Armenian prayer book of St. Gregory of Narek (English translation and introduction). Yerevan: “Vem Press”.
Sani 1994Sani, Saverio 1994La serie lessicale di sskr. nabh. In: Fs Belardi 1994, 1 : 83-97.
Saradževa 1976Saradževa, L. A. 1976Sravnitel’no‑tipologičeskoe issledovanie cvetovyx oboznačenij v drevnearmjanskom i staroslavjanskom jazykax. In: PBH (=IFŽ) 1976, Nr 4: 186‑198.
Saradževa 1980Saradževa, L. A. 1980Armjano-slavjanskie leksiko-grammatičeskie paralleli. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Saradževa 1980aSaradževa, L. A. 1980aK voprosu o dialektnom var’irovanii indoevropejskoj zemledel’českoj terminologii (na materiale armjanskogo i slavjanskix jazykov). In: LrHasGit (=VON) 1980, Nr 1: 52‑63.
Saradževa 1980bSaradževa, L. A. 1980bŽivotnovodčeskaja terminologija indoevropejskogo proisxoždenija v armjanskom i slavjanskix jazykax. In: PBH (=IFŽ) 1980, Nr 1: 230‑242.
Saradževa 1980cSaradževa, L. A. 1980cÈtimologičeskie zametki. In: BanbErewHamals (=VEU) 1980, Nr 1: 207‑209.
Saradževa 1981Saradževa, L. A. 1981Sravnitel’no‑tipologičeskoe issledovanie indoevropejskoj botaničeskoj terminologii v drevnearmjanskom i slavjanskix jazykax. In: Ètimologija 1979. Moscow: “Nauka”: 156‑ 167.
Saradževa 1981aSaradževa, L. A. 1981aÈtimologija armjanskogo nazvanija osiny – kaɫamax. In: PBH (=IFŽ) 1981, Nr 4: 227‑229.
Saradževa 1983Saradževa, L. A. 1983Vzaimodejstvie fonetičeskix i morfologičeskix processov v konce slova v armjanskom i slavjanskom jazykax (na materiale konečnogo *-s). In: HayLezGrak 1-2: 228-232.
Saradževa 1985Saradževa, L. A. 1985Drevnejšie religioznye predstavlenija praarmjan i praslavjan v svete dannyx sravnitel’no-istoričeskogo jazykoznanija. In: PBH 1985, Nr 2: 73-84.
Saradževa 1986Saradževa, L. A. 1986Armjano‑slavjanskie leksiko‑semantičeskie paralleli: sravnitel’no-istoričeskoe issledovanie genetičeski obščej leksiki. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Saradževa 1991Saradževa, L. A. 1991Odnostoronnie armjano‑baltijskie izoglossy. In: PBH (=IFŽ) 1991, Nr 2: 170‑175.
Sargisean 1864Sargisean, Nersēs 1864Teɫagrut‘iwnk‘ i P‘ok‘r ew i Mec Hays. Venice: S. Lazar.
Sargisean 1932Sargisean, Yarut‘iwn K‘hn. (Alewor) 1932Balu: ir sovoroyt‘nerə, krt‘akan u imac‘akan vičakə ew barbaṙə. Cairo: “Sahak‑Mesrop”.
Sargsyan 2002Sargsyan, Armen Yu. 2002Arc‘axahay barbaṙi usumnasirut‘yan patmut‘yun. In: Arcaxskij Gosudarstvennyj Universitet: učenye zapiski: lingvistika (priloženie), Stepanakert. Vol. 1: 3-6.
Sargseanc‘ 1883Sargseanc‘, Sargis 1883Agulec‘oc‘ barbaṙə (zōkeri lezun): lezuabanakan hetazōtut‘iwn. Vols. 1‑2. Moscow: Skoropečatnja O. Gerbeka.
Sargsyan 1956Sargsyan, G. X. 1956Aɫbyurneri ōgtagorcman eɫanakə Movses Xorenac‘u mot. In: BanbMaten 3: 31‑42.
Sargsyan 1967Sargsyan, G. X. 1967(Sarkisjan), O dvux znachenijax termina dastakert v rannix armjanskix istočnikax. In: ÈllBlVVizIr: 97‑101.
Sargsyan 1988Sargsyan, G. X. 1988Urartakan terut‘yunə ew hayerə (hay žoɫovrdi kazmavorman xndri šurǰə). In: UrHay 1988: 47‑126.
Sargsyan 1988aSargsyan, G. X. 1988aMi havelum. In: UrHay 1988: 169.
Sargsyan 1988Sargsyan, Vahan 1988Baskern Ararat leṙan storotum. In: Garun 1988, Nr 3: 66-74.
Saryan 1982Saryan, Sarkis S. 1982Language connections: kinship of Armenian with sister Indo-European languages. Yarmouth, MA: Sarmen Book Co.
Šaumjan 1935Šaumjan, R. M. 1935Armeniaca‑Lesgica (Armjano‑lezginskie leksiko-morfologi-českie paralleli). In: Gd Marr 1935: 419‑426.
Sausverde 1987Sausverde, Ē. 1987Hayeren cov baṙi stugabanut‘yunə. In: ThesSISAL 1987 : 159 [Not published in ProcSISAL (1987) 1993].
Scardigli 1961Scardigli, Pier Giuseppe 1961Zu gotisch aibr ‘Opfergabe’. In: Die Sprache 7: 138-139.
Schanidse 1970Schanidse, A. 1970Etymologisches zu Bati (‘Gans’) und Kvati (‘Ente’) in den Kartwelsprachen. In: SprGes 1970: 199‑201.
Scheftelowitz 1904Scheftelowitz, J. 1904Die Begriffe für “Schädel” im Indogermanischen. In: BKIgS 28, 1904: 143‑158.
Scheftelowitz 1904‑05Scheftelowitz, J. 1904‑05Zur altarmenischen Lautgeschichte. (1) in: BKIgS 28, 1904: 282‑313; (2): in 29, 1905: 13‑71.
Scheftelowitz 1927Scheftelowitz, J. 1927Idg. zgh in den Einzelsprachen. In: ZVS 54: 224‑253.
Scheftelowitz 1929Scheftelowitz, J. 1929Die verbalen und nominalen sk̂‑ und sk‑Stämme im Baltisch‑Slavischen und Albanischen. In: ZVS 56: 161‑210.
Scheller 1965Scheller, Meinrad 1965Hindi āṭā. In: ZVS 79, 3/4: 224‑238.
Scherer 1953Scherer, Anton 1953Gestirnnamen bei den indogermanischen Völkern. Heidelberg: Carl Winter, Universitätsverlag.
Scherer 1974Scherer, Anton 1974Sociologisches über Sternnamen. In: AntiqIndog 1974: 185‑192.
Schindler 1966Schindler, Jochem 1966Hethitisch lišši ‘Leber’. In: Die Sprache 12: 77‑78.
Schindler 1966aSchindler, Jochem 1966aIdg. du̯‑ im Tocharischen. In: IndogForsch 71: 236‑238.
Schindler 1966bSchindler, Jochem 1966bBemerkungen zum idg. Wort für ‘Schlaf’. In: Die Sprache 12: 67-76.
Schindler 1967Schindler, Jochem 1967Zu hethitisch nekuz. In: ZVS 81.3-4: 290-303.
Schindler 1969Schindler, Jochem 1969Die idg. Wörter für ‘Vogel’ und ‘Ei’. In: Die Sprache 15: 144-167.
Schindler 1972Schindler, Jochem 1972L’apophonie des noms-racines indo-européens. In: BSL 67: 31-38.
Schindler 1973Schindler, Jochem 1973Bemerkungen zur Herkunft der idg. Diphthongstämme und zu den Eigentümlichkeiten ihrer Kasusformen. In: Die Sprache 19: 148‑157.
Schindler 1975Schindler, Jochem 1975Armenisch erkn, griechisch ὀδύνη, irisch idu. In: ZVS 89: 53‑65.
Schindler 1975aSchindler, Jochem 1975aL’apophonie des thèmes indo‑européens en ‑r/n. In: BSL 70, 1: 1‑10.
Schindler 1975bSchindler, Jochem 1975bZum Ablaut der neutralen s-Stämme des Indogermanischen. In: FlexWortb 1975: 259-267.
Schindler 1976Schindler, Jochem 1976Armenisch unim. In: HandAms 90, Nr 1-12: 339-344.
Schindler 1978Schindler, Jochem 1978Hittite šalpa-. In: Die Sprache 24.1: 45.
Schindler 1994Schindler, Jochem 1994Alte und neue Fragen zum indogermanischen Nomen (Erweitertes Handout). In: Pedersen Kolloquium 1994: 397‑400.
Schlerath 1994Schlerath, Bernfried 1994Der Morgensänger. In: IndogCaucas 1994: 164-167.
Schmalstieg 1980Schmalstieg, William R. 1980A note on Armenian tun and jiwn. In: AnnArmLing 1: 45-50.
Schmalstieg 1987Schmalstieg, William R. 1987Armenian and Jatvingian mard: a shared lexical item. In: AnnArmLing 7: 59-61.
Schmid 1900Schmid, Joh. Michael 1900Des Wardapet Eznik von Kolb Wider die Sekten: aus dem Armenischen übersetzt und mit Einleitung, Inhalts‑Übersichten und Anmerkungen versehen. Wien: Druck und Verlag der Mechitharisten‑Congregation.
Schmidt 1962Schmidt, Karl Horst 1962Studien zur Rekonstruktion des Lautstandes der südkaukasischen Grundsprache (hrsg. von der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, XXXIV, 3). Wiesbaden: Kommissionsverlag Franz Steiner GMBH.
Schmidt 1980Schmidt, Karl Horst 1980Armenian and Indo-European. In: ProcFICAL 1980: 35-58.
Schmidt 1980aSchmidt, Karl Horst 1980aAltarmenische Miszellen. In: AnnArmLing 1: 1-5.
Schmidt 1985Schmidt, Karl Horst 1985On aspect in Old Armenian and Proto-Kartvelian. In: AnnArmLing 6: 85-90.
Schmidt 1987Schmidt, Karl Horst 1987The Indo-European background of the Classical Armenian noun declension. In: AnnArmLing 8: 35-47. (For an Armenian translation of this paper, see PBH 1987, Nr. 1: 29-39).
Schmidt 1990Schmidt, Karl Horst 1990The Indo-European basis of Proto-Armenian: principles of reconstruction. In: AnnArmLing 11: 33-47.
Schmidt 1992Schmidt, Karl Horst 1992Contributions from new data to the reconstruction of the proto-language. In: RecLangCult 1992: 35-62.
Schmidt 1916Schmidt, Manfred Erwin 1916Armen. aner ‘Vater der Frau’. In: ZVS 47: 189.
Schmitt 1964Schmitt, Rüdiger 1964Desaffrizierung im Armenischen? In: MünStudSpr 16: 89‑93.
Schmitt 1966Schmitt, Rüdiger 1966Die Hesychglosse σάτιllα. Eine Nachprüfung. In: Glotta 44: 148‑151.
Schmitt 1967Schmitt, Rüdiger 1967Dichtung und Dichtersprache in indogermanischer Zeit. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Schmitt 1970Schmitt, Rüdiger 1970Der ‘Adler’ im Alten Iran. In: Die Sprache 16.1: 63-77.
Schmitt 1971Schmitt, Rüdiger 1971Iranica auf kleinasiatischen Inschriften. In: Die Sprache 17.2: 177-180.
Schmitt 1972‑74Schmitt, Rüdiger 1972‑74Die Erforschung des Klassisch‑Armenischen seit Meillet (1936). In: Kratylos 17: 1‑68.
Schmitt 1975Schmitt, Rüdiger 1975Von Bopp bis Hübschmann: Das Armenische als indogermanische Sprache. In: ZVS 89, 1: 3-30.
Schmitt 1980Schmitt, Rüdiger 1980“Armenische” Namen in altpersischen Quellen. In: AnnArmLing 1: 7‑17.
Schmitt 1981Schmitt, Rüdiger 1981Grammatik des Klassisch‑Armenischen mit sprachvergleichenden Erläuterungen. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck. (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, 32).
Schmitt 1983Schmitt, Rüdiger 1983Iranisches Lehngut im Armenischen. In: RevEtArm n.s. 17: 73‑112.
Schmitt 1987Schmitt, Rüdiger 1987Armenia and Iran I. Armenia, Achaemenid province. IV. Iranian influences in Armenian. 1. General. In: EncIran 2, 1987: 417-418; 445-459.
Schmitt 1988Schmitt, Rüdiger 1988(Šmitt), Pragmatika i sistematika v laringal’noj teorii. In: VoprJaz 1988, Nr 1: 23‑31.
Schmitt 2008Schmitt, Rüdiger 2008Zu der Fremdbezeichnung Armeniens altpers. Armina-. In: Fs Kortlandt 2008, 1: 499-508.
Schrader 1917-29Schrader, O. 1917-29(1-2), Reallexikon der indogermanischen Altertumskunde: Grundzüge einer Kultur- und Völkergeschichte Alteuropas. Zweite, vermehrte und umgearbeitete Auflage (hrsg. von A. Nehring). Berlin, Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter.
Schrijver 1991Schrijver, Peter C. H. 1991The reflexes of the Proto‑Indo‑European laryngeals in Latin. Amsterdam, Atlanta: Rodopi. (LeidStudIndEur, 2).
Schrijver 1995Schrijver, Peter C. H. 1995Studies in British Celtic historical phonology. Amsterdam, Atlanta: Rodopi. (LeidStudIndEur, 5).
Schrijver 1997Schrijver, Peter C. H. 1997Animal, vegetable and mineral: some Western European substratum words. In: Fs Beekes 1997: 293-316.
Schrijver 1998Schrijver, Peter C. H. 1998The British word for ‘fox’ and its Indo-European origin. In: JourIndEurStud 26.3-4: 421-434.
Schrijver 2001Schrijver, Peter C. H. 2001Lost languages in Northern Europe. In: EarlContUralIndEur 2001: 417-425.
Schultheiß 1961Schultheiß, Tassilo 1961Hethitisch und Armenisch. In: ZVS 77: 219‑234.
Schwartz 1986Schwartz, Martin 1986Coded sound patterns, acrostics, and anagrams in Zoroaster’s oral poetry. In: Fs Humbach 1986: 327‑392.
Schwartz 1992Schwartz, Martin 1992Relative Chronology in and across formal and semantic hierarchies: the history of dhwer(E)‑ ‘go apart’ in Indo‑European. In: RekRelChr 1992: 391‑410.
Seebold 1988Seebold, E. 1988Wissenschaftsgeschichte und Theorieformulierung. Oder: Wie nötig ist die Laryngalhypothese? In: LaryngTheor 1988: 497‑525.
Seidel 1908Seidel, E. 1908Mechithar’s, des Meisterarztes aus Her, ‘Trost bei Fiebern’: nach dem Venediger Druck vom Jahre 1832 zum ersten Male aus dem Mittelarmenischen übersetzt und erläutert. Leipzig.
Seɫbosyan 1974Seɫbosyan, K. V. 1974Arhestavorakan avanduyt‘nerə ew dranc‘ artahaytut‘yunnerə leninakanc‘ineri kenc‘aɫum (patma-azgagrakan usumnasirut‘yun). In: HayAzgBan 6: 157-252.
Serebrennikov 1971Serebrennikov, B. A. 1971Ètimologičeskie zametki. In: Ètimologija 1968: 207-214.
Šērenc‘ 1885‑99Šērenc‘, Gēorg G. 1885‑99[VanSaz 1‑2], Vanay saz. Vol. 1. Hawak‘acoyk‘ Vaspurakani žoɫovrdakan ergeri, hēk‘eat‘neri, aṙacneri ew hanelukneri (teɫakan barbaṙov). T‘iflis: Tparan Yovhannēs Martiroseanc‘i, 1885. Vol. 2. Hawak‘acoyk‘ Vaspurakani žoɫovrdakan ergeri, hēk‘eat‘neri, aṙacneri, hanelukneri, ōrhnut‘iwnneri ew anēck‘neri (teɫakan barbaṙov). T‘iflis: Tparan K. Martiroseanc‘i, 1899.
Šermazanean‑Vardaneanc‘ 1861Šermazanean‑Vardaneanc‘, Galust 1861Im nšanacə Arazn a. In: Kṙunk Hayoc‘ ašxarhin 2, Nr. 4 (April): 266‑282. [A play in the subdialect of Astapat (Ararat)].
Šermazanean‑Vardaneanc‘ 1861aŠermazanean‑Vardaneanc‘, Galust 1861aAzgayin harsanik‘. In: Kṙunk Hayoc‘ ašxarhin 2, Nr. 6 (June): 426‑440. [A play in the subdialect of T‘avriz/T‘arviz (Ararat)].
Šervašidze 1989Šervašidze, I. N. 1989Fragment obščetjurkskoj leksiki: zaimstvovannyj fond. In: VoprJaz 1989, Nr. 2: 54‑92.
Shapiro 1982Shapiro, Michael 1982Neglected evidence of Dioscurism (Divine Twinning) in the Old Slavic pantheon. In: JourIndEurStud 10.1-2: 137-165.
Shields 1982Shields, Kenneth Jr. 1982Indo-European noun inflection: a developmental history (foreword by William R. Schmalstieg). University Park and London; Pennsylvania State University Press.
Shields 1990Shields, Kenneth Jr. 1990Sound change, child language, and Gothic atta. In: MankQuart 30.4: 329-335.
Siebs 1904Siebs, Theodor 1904Anlautstudien. In: ZVS 37: 277-324.
Simonian 2007Simonian, Hovann H. 2007(ed.), The Hemshin: history, society and identity in the Highlands of Northeast Turkey. London and New York: Routledge. 2007. (Caucasus world; series editor: Nicholas Awde).
Simonyan 1989Simonyan, Hasmik 1989(ed.), Patmut‘iwn Aɫek‘sandri Makedonac‘woy: haykakan xmbagrut‘yunner. Yerevan: Academy Press. See Sources: Alexander Romance.
Simonyan 1979Simonyan, N. M. 1979 Hay barbaṙneri hndewropakan hnabanut‘yunnerə. In: Hayoc‘ lezvi hamematakan k‘erakanut‘yan harc‘er. Yerevan: Academy Press : 188‑248.
Simonyan 1991Simonyan, N. M. 1991Hayereni bayakazmut‘yan mi k‘ani harc‘er. In: HayLezPatmHarc‘ 3: 277‑312.
Sims-Williams 1997Sims-Williams, Nicholas 1997The denominal suffix -ant-. In: Fs Beekes 1997: 317-325.
Širokov 1980Širokov, Oleg 1980Mesto armjanskogo jazyka sredi indoevropejskix i problema armjanskoj prarodiny: avtoxtonnost’ armjan po dannym sravnitel’no‑istoričeskogo jazykovedenija. In: LrHasGit 1980, Nr 5: 80‑93.
Skjærvø 1998Skjærvø, P. O. 1998Eastern Iranian epic traditions I: Siyāvaš and Kunāla. In: Fs Watkins 1998: 645-659.
Sokolova 1990Sokolova, Z. P. 1990Ardvi Sura Anaxita irancev i “Zlata Baba” finno‑ugrov. In: SovArx 1990, Nr 3: 154‑161.
Solta 1960Solta, G.R. 1960Die Stellung des Armenischen im Kreise der indogermanischen Sprachen: eine Untersuchung der indogermanischen Bestandteile des armenischen Wortschatzes. Wien: Mechitharisten. (Studien zur armenischen Geschichte 9).
Solta 1966Solta, G.R. 1966Lat. viridis und deutsch grün (ein Beitrag zur Wortbildungslehre). In: Die Sprache 12: 26‑47.
Soukry 1881Soukry, P. Arsène 1881Géographie de Moïse de Corène d’après Ptolémée. Texte Arménien, traduit en Français. Venise: Imprimerie Arménienne.
Specht 1944Specht, Franz 1944Ai. godhā. In: ZVS 68: 217.
Specht 1947Specht, Franz 1947Der Ursprung der indogermanischen Deklination. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Speirs 1978Speirs, A. G. E. 1978The Proto-Indo-European labiovelars. Amsterdam: Verlag Adolf M. Hakkert. (Bibliotheca slavonica, 18).
Speirs 1984Speirs, A. G. E. 1984Proto-Indo-European laryngeals and ablaut. Amsterdam: Verlag Adolf M. Hakkert. (Bibliotheca Slavonica, 24).
Spinage 1968Spinage, C. A. 1968The book of the giraffe. London: Collins.
Springer 1987Springer, Otto 1987Greek φαλιός, Latin balan, Old High German bal (?) ‘marked by a blaze’: a horse fanciers’ multilingual symposium. In: Fs Hoenigswald 1987: 375‑383.
Srvanjtyanc‘ 1978‑82Srvanjtyanc‘, Garegin 1978‑82(1‑2) Erker. Vol. 1: 1978; vol. 2: 1982. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Stalmaszczyk/Witczak 1990Stalmaszczyk, P. & Witczak, K. T. 1990Celto-Tocharica I: three Celtic-Tocharian terms for certain parts of the body. In: TochIndEurStud 4: 35-44.
Starke 1990Starke, Frank 1990Untersuchung zur Stammbildung des keilschrift‑luwischen Nomens. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. (= StBoT 31).
Starostin 1985Starostin, S. A. 1985Kul’turnaja leksika v obščeseverokavkazskom slovarnom fonde. In: DrevAnat 1985: 74‑94.
Starostin 1998Starostin, S. A. 1998Hurro-Caucasica. In: Fs Toporov 1998: 90-99.
Stefano 1996Stefano, Giuseppe di 1996The Mesopotamian fallow deer (Dama, Artiodactyla) in the Middle East Pleistocene. In: NJbGeolPal 199.3: 295‑322.
Stefano/Petronio 1997Stefano, Giuseppe di and Petronio, Carmelo 1997Origin and evolution of the European fallow deer (Dama, Pleistocene). In: NJbGeolPal 203.1: 57‑75.
Steingass 1977/2000Steingass, F. 1977/2000A comprehensive Persian-English dictionary: including the Arabic words and phrases to be met with in Persian literature: being Johnson and Richardson’s Persian, Arabic and English dictionary. Revised, enlarged and entirely reconstructed by F. Steingass. [1892/1977: London: Routledge & Kegan Paul]. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, 2000.
Stempel 1988Stempel, Reinhard 1988Armenisch surb ‘heilig, rein’: Erbwort oder Lehnwort? In: Fs Müller 1988: 239-244.
Stempel 1993Stempel, Reinhard 1993Reste indogermanischer nt-Stämme im Armenischen. In: ProcSISAL 1993, 2: 147-153.
Stempel 1994Stempel, Reinhard 1994Final IE *-s and the Old Armenian plural marker -k‘. In: AnnArmLing 15: 1-19.
Stempel 2000Stempel, Reinhard 2000Armenisch und Indoiranisch. In: IndIranIndog 2000: 515-522.
Step‘anyan 1976Step‘anyan, Gaṙnik 1976Ačaṙyani het: hušer. Yerevan: “Hayastan”.
Step‘anyan 2003Step‘anyan, Lusik 2003See Sources: Yovhan Mandakuni.
Steuerwald 1972Steuerwald, Karl 1972Türkisch‑Deutsches Wörterbuch. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Stokes 1901Stokes, Whitley 1901Irish etymologies. In: IndogForsch 12: 185-195.
Stokes 1904Stokes, Whitley 1904Hibernica. In: ZVS 37: 250-261.
Stone 1979Stone, Michael E. 1979The Armenian version of IV Ezra. University of Pennsylvania: Scholars Press (University of Pennsylvania Armenian texts and studies, 1).
Strohmeyer 1978-79Strohmeyer, Jr. Virgil B. 1978-79The meaning of haw and t‘ṙč‘un in Classical Armenian. In: RevEtArm n.s. 13: 43-48.
Stüber 1997Stüber, Karin 1997Urindogermanisch h1nóm-n̥ ‘Name’, h2óng-n̥ ‘Salbe’ und der Ablaut der neutralen n-Stämme. In: Die Sprache 39.1: 74-88.
Sudnik/Civ’jan 1981Sudnik, T. M. & Civ’jan, T. V. 1981Mak v rastitel’nom kode osnovnogo mifa (Balto-Balcanica). In: BaltSlavIssl 1980: 300-317.
Suk‘iasyan 1967Suk‘iasyan, A. M. 1967Hayoc‘ lezvi homanišneri baṙaran. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Suk‘iasyan/Galstyan 1975Suk‘iasyan, A. M. and Galstyan, S. A. 1975See HayLezDarjBaṙ.
Suk‘iasyan 1979Suk‘iasyan, Henrieta V. 1979 Ačakanə hndewropakan baṙi kazmum (hayereni nyut‘i himan vra). In: Hayoc‘ lezvi hamematakan k‘erakanut‘yan harc‘er. Yerevan: Academy Press : 249-324.
Suk‘iasyan 1986Suk‘iasyan, Henrieta V. 1986 Ačakanə hayerenum. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Svazlyan 1973Svazlyan, Veržine Gaṙniki 1973Sargis Haykuni: kyank‘n u gorcuneut‘yunə. In: HayAzgBan 4: 5-82.
Svazlyan 1984Svazlyan, Veržine Gaṙniki 1984Musa leṙ. HayAzgBan 16. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Svazlyan 1994Svazlyan, Veržine Gaṙniki 1994Kilikia: Arewmtahayoc‘ banavor avandut‘yunə (Cilicia: the oral tradition of Western Armenians). Yerevan: Academy Press “Gitut‘yun”.
Svešnikova 1979Svešnikova, T. N. 1979Volki‑oborotni u rumyn. In: BalcLingIssl 1979: 208‑221.
Svešnikova 1987Svešnikova, T. N. 1987Ob odnom fragmente narodnogo kalendarja: “volč’i dni” u rumyn. In: IsslStrTeks 1987: 266‑277.
Szemerényi 1954Szemerényi, Oswald 1954Latin promulgare. In: Emerita 22: 159‑174.
Szemerényi 1959-60Szemerényi, Oswald 1959-60Etyma Latina I (1‑6). In: Glotta 38, 3-4: 216‑251.
Szemerényi 1959-60aSzemerényi, Oswald 1959-60aLatin hībernus and Greek χειμερινός: the formation of time-adjectives in the Classical languages. In: Glotta 38.1-2: 107-125.
Szemerényi 1960Szemerényi, Oswald 1960Studies in the Indo‑European system of numerals. Heidelberg: Carl Winter, Universitätsverlag.
Szemerényi 1966Szemerényi, Oswald 1966Iranica II. In: Die Sprache 12: 190-226.
Szemerényi 1970Szemerényi, Oswald 1970The Indo-European name of the ‘heart’. In: Fs Stang 1970: 515-533.
Szemerényi 1977Szemerényi, Oswald 1977Studies in the kinship terminology of the Indo-European languages: with special reference to Indian, Iranian, Greek, and Latin. In: Varia 1977 (Acta Iranica, Série 3. Textes et mémoires, 7): 1-240. Téhéran-Liège: Bibliothèque Pahlavi; Leiden: Brill.
Szemerényi 1964Szemerényi, Oswald 1964Syncope in Greek and Indo-European and the nature of Indo-European accent. Naples (Napoli): Istituto universitario orientale di Napoli. (Quaderni della sezione linguistica degli annali a cura di Walter Belardi; 3).
Szemerényi 1982Szemerényi, Oswald 1982Anatolica II (8-10). In: Gd Kronasser 1982: 215-234.
Szemerényi 1985Szemerényi, Oswald 1985Armenian between Iran and Greece. In: Fs Winter 1985 : 783‑799.
Szemerényi 1996Szemerényi, Oswald 1996Introduction to Indo‑European linguistics (translated from the 4th edition, 1990, with additional notes and references). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
T‘ahmizyan 1985T‘ahmizyan, N. K. 1985Grigor Narekac‘in ew hay eražštut‘yunə V-XV dd. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Takács 1996Takács, Gábor 1996 Egyptian lexics in an Afrasian perspective: new etymologies. In: StudEtymCrac 1: 125‑171.
Takács 1997Takács, Gábor 1997Note on the origin of PIE pes- ‘penis’. In: JourIndEurStud 25.3-4: 371-382.
Tangherlini 1990Tangherlini, Timothy R. 1990Some Old Norse hang-ups: ritual aspects of Hávamál 134. In: MankQuart 31.1-2: 87-108.
Tašean 1921Tašean, H. Y. 1921Hay bnakč‘ut‘iwnə Sew covēn minč‘ew Karin. Vienna: Mxit‘arean Tparan. (Azgayin Matenadaran, 90).
Tatarincev 1993Tatarincev, B. I. 1993Zaimstvovanija ili iskonnaja leksika? (K probleme drevnix slov inojazyčnogo proisxoždenija v tjurkskix jazykax). In: VoprJaz 1993: (1) Nr. 1: 114‑128; (2) Nr. 2: 83‑95.
Taxo-Godi 1989Taxo-Godi, Aza Alibekovna 1989Grečeskaja mifologija. Moscow: “Iskusstvo”.
Tedesco 1945Tedesco, P. 1945Persian čīz and Sanskrit kím. In: Language 21.3: 128-141.
Telegin 2005Telegin, D. Ya. 2005The Yamna culture and the Indo-European homeland problem. In: JourIndEurStud 33.3-4: 339-357.
T‘emurčyan 1970T‘emurčyan, V. S. 1970Gamirk‘i hayerə. In: HayAzgBan 1: 7‑140.
Tēr-Aɫek‘sandrean 1885Tēr-Aɫek‘sandrean, Gēorg 1885T‘iflisec‘oc‘ mtawor keank‘ə. T‘iflis: Yovhannēs Martiroseanc‘i tparan.
Ter-Davt‘yan/Arewšatyan 2004Ter-Davt‘yan, K‘. S. & Arewšatyan, S. S. 2004(Ter-Davtjan/Arevšatjan), Agatangelos, Istorija Armenii (transl. from ClArm. with introduction and commentary). Yerevan: “Nairi”. (Pamjatniki drevnearmjanskoj literatury).
Ter‑Łewondyan 1982Ter‑Łewondyan, Aram 1982Łewond, Patmut‘yun. Translation, introduction and commentary. Yerevan: “Sovetakan groɫ”.
Ter‑Łewondyan 1983Ter‑Łewondyan, Aram 1983See Sources: Agat‘angeɫos.
Ter‑Minasyan 1989Ter‑Minasyan, E. 1989(ed.): Eɫišē, Vardani ew Hayoc‘ paterazmi masin (ModArm. translation and commentary; includes also the classical text). Yerevan: University Press.
Ter‑Mkrtč‘yan 1970Ter‑Mkrtč‘yan, E. 1970Vanec‘oc‘ harsanik‘ə. In: HayAzgBan 1: 143‑198.
Ter‑Poɫosyan 1939Ter‑Poɫosyan, Avetik‘ 1939Hayastani kladoc‘ernerə 3: Step‘anavani šrǰani kladoc‘ernerə. In: ErHamGitAšx 9: 5‑46.
Tēr-Pōɫosean 1921-22Tēr-Pōɫosean, Gr. 1921-22Havariki barbaṙə. In: Banber Hayastani Gitakan Instituti. Vol. 1-2: 160-177.
Tēr-Pōɫosean 1944Tēr-Pōɫosean, H. P. 1944Teɫagrakan hetazōtut‘iwnner. In: HandAms 58, Nr. 1-12: 9-35.
Tēr-Pōɫosean 1960Tēr-Pōɫosean, H. P. 1960Stugabanakan ditoɫut‘iwnner. In: HandAms 74, Nr. 10-12: 519-525.
Tēr-Vardanean 1968Tēr-Vardanean, Gurgēn 1968Erznka-Kamax gawaṙabarbaṙə ew azgagrakan yušer. Erusaɫēm.
Tēr‑Yakobean 1960Tēr‑Yakobean, Yakob 1960Partizakə xatutik. Yaweluacabar – Manušak ew ir hēk‘eat‘nerə. Paris.
Teubner 1974Teubner, Johann Karl 1974Einige chwaresmische Tiernamen. In: AntiqIndog 1974: 301‑305.
Thieme 1952Thieme, Paul 1952Studien zur indogermanischen Wortkunde und Religionsgeschichte. In: Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig: Philologisch‑historische Klasse, 98.5. Berlin.
Thieme 1953Thieme, Paul 1953Die Heimat der indogermanischen Gemeinsprache. In: Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur in Mainz: geistes- und sozialwissenschaftliche Klasse, 1953.11 [1954]: 35-86. Wiesbaden.
Thieme 1968Thieme, Paul 1968Die Wurzel vat. In: IndogDicht 1968: 187‑203.
Thierry 1992Thierry, J. M. 1992Sasun: voyages archéologiques. In: RevEtArm n.s. 23: 315-391.
Thomson 1976Thomson, R. W. 1976Agathangelos, History of the Armenians (Armenian text and English translation on facing pages; “The Teaching of St. Gregory” is omitted; with introduction and commentary). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Thomson 1978Thomson, R. W. 1978Moses Khorenats‘i, History of Armenians: translation and commentary. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England: Harvard University Press. (Harvard Armenian texts and studies, 4).
Thomson 1982Thomson, R. W. 1982Eɫišē, History of Vardan and the Armenian War: translation and commentary. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England: Harvard University Press. (Harvard Armenian texts and studies, 5).
Thomson 1985Thomson, R. W. 1985Thomas Artsruni, History of the House of the Artsrunik‘: translation and commentary. Detroit, Michigan: Wayne State University Press. (Byzantine texts in translation).
Thomson 1991Thomson, R. W. 1991The History of Łazar P‘arpec‘i. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press. (Columbia University Program in Armenian Studies. Suren D. Fesjian Academic Publications, 4).
Thomson 1992Thomson, R. W. 1992A medieval Armenian view of the physical world: the cosmology of Vardan Arewelc‘i in his Chronicle. In: RevEtArm 23: 191-208.
Thomson 1995Thomson, R. W. 1995A bibliography of Classical Armenian literature to 1500 AD. Turnhout: Brepols.
Thomson 2001Thomson, R. W. 2001The teaching of Saint Gregory: translation, commentary and introduction (revised edition). New Rochelle, New York: St. Nersess Armenian Seminary. (Avant: Treasures of the Armenian Christian Tradition, 1).
Thomson/Howard‑Johnston 1999Thomson, R. W. & Howard‑Johnston, James 1999The Armenian History attributed to Sebeos. Translated, with notes, by R. W. Thomson; historical commentary by James Howard‑Johnston; assistance from Tim Greenwood. Part 1. Translation and notes. Part 2. Historical commentary. Liverpool University Press. [For translated passages I simply cite Thomson 1999 with no indication of the volume number, which is, naturally, 1].
Thurneysen 1937Thurneysen, R. 1937Zwei irische Etymologien. In: Fs Pedersen 1937: 301‑302.
Tigō 1889Tigō 1889Łali adat‘neran patkerner. Čpatət k‘ōlat ktri. T‘iflis: Yovhannēs Martiroseanc‘i Tparan.
Tigranean 1892Tigranean, Gēorg 1892Aṙack‘, asac‘uack‘ ew zroyc‘k‘ hayoc‘ Nor‑Naxiǰewani. Ṙostov (Dōni veray): Tparan Yovhannu Tēr‑Abrahamean.
Tiracjan 1983Tiracjan, G. A. 1983K antičnym istokam armjanskoj rannesrednevekovoj kul’tury (po arxeologičeskim dannym). In: PBH (=IFZ) 1983, Nr 2‑3: 55‑64.
Tiracjan 1985Tiracjan, G. A. 1985Hayeri oč‘ hndevropakan naxninerə, xurri urartac‘inerə ew Urartu-Hayastan problemə. In: PBH 1985, Nr 1: 195-207.
Tirac‘yan 2006Tirac‘yan, Nvard 2006Ivarša ew Marduk astvacneri paštamunk‘ə Araratyan daštum. In: PBH 2006, Nr 2: 187-193.
Tirac‘yan 2008Tirac‘yan, Nvard 2008(Tiratsyan), Luwian gods in Urartu? In: Aramazd 3.1: 79-86.
Tischler 1983-Tischler, Johann 1983-HethEtymGlos: Hethitisches etymologisches Glossar (mit Beitrāgen von von Günter Neumann und Erich Neu). Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck. (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, 20).
Tokarev/Filimonova 1983Tokarev, S. A. & Filimonova, T. D. 1983Obrjady i obyčai, svjazannye s rastitel’nost’ju. In: KalObyč 1983: 145-160.
Tolstoj 1969Tolstoj, N. I. 1969Slavjanskaja geografičeskaja terminologija: semasiologičeskie ètjudy. Moscow: “Nauka”.
Tomaschek 1896Tomaschek, Wilhelm 1896Sasun und das Quellengebiet des Tigris: historisch‑topographische Untersuchung. In: Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-historischen Classe der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. 133.4. Wien.
Tomson 1887Tomson, A. 1887Lingvističeskija izsledovanija. Vol. 1. S.-Peterburg: Tipografija E. Evdokimova.
Tomson 1890Tomson, A. 1890Istoričeskaja grammatika sovremennago armjanskago jazyka goroda Tiflisa. S.-Peterburg: Tipografija E. Evdokimova.
Toporov 1964Toporov, V. N. 1964Neskol’ko illirijsko-baltijskix parallelej iz oblasti toponomastiki. In: PrIndEvrJaz: 52-58.
Toporov 1974Toporov, V. N. 1974Slavjanskie kommentarii k neskol’kim latinskim arxaizmam. In: Ètimologija 1972. Moscow: “Nauka”: 3-19.
Toporov 1974aToporov, V. N. 1974aOb indoevropejskix sootvetstvijax odnomu baltijskomu mifologičeskomu imeni, balt. Puš(k)ait-: dr.-ind. Pūṣán, dr.-gr. Πάν. In: BaltSlavIssl 1974: 3-36.
Toporov 1975‑Toporov, V. N. 1975‑See PrJaz.
Toporov 1977Toporov, V. N. 1977Ob otraženii odnogo indoevropejskogo mifa v drevnearmjanskoj tradicii. In: PBH (= IFŽ) 1977, Nr 3: 88-106.
Toporov 1977aToporov, V. N. 1977aΜουσαι ‘Muzy’: soobraženija ob imeni i predystorii obraza (k ocenke frakijskogo vklada). In: SlavBalkJaz 1977 : 28-86.
Toporov 1977bToporov, V. N. 1977bK drevnebalkanskim svjazjam v oblasti jazyka i mifologii. In: BalkLingSbor 1977: 40-58.
Toporov 1977cToporov, V. N. 1977cK frakijsko-baltijskim jazykovym paralleljam 2. In BalkLingSbor 1977: 59-116.
Toporov 1977dToporov, V. N. 1977dXettsk. purullii̯a, lat. parīlia, palīlia i ix balkanskie istoki. In: BalkLingSbor 1977: 125-142.
Toporov 1977eToporov, V. N. 1977eZametki o rastitel’nom kode osnovnogo mifa (perec, petruška i t.p.). In: BalkLingSbor 1977: 196-207.
Toporov 1979Toporov, V. N. 1979Lady‑bird (Coccinella septempunctata L.) in the Baltic and Slavic traditions in connection with the reconstruction of some motives of the principal myth. In: Fs Biezais 1979: 268‑273.
Toporov 1979aToporov, V. N. 1979aO dvux tipax drevneindijskix tekstov, traktujuščix otnošenie celostnosti-rasčlenennosti i spasenija. In: Peredneaziatskij sbornik 3, Moscow: 215-228.
Toporov 1981Toporov, V. N. 1981Die Ursprünge der indoeuropäischen Poetik. In: Poetica 13: 189-251.
Toporov 1981aToporov, V. N. 1981aEšče raz o baltijskix i slavjanskix nazvanijax bož’ej korovki (Coccinella septempunctata) v perspektive osnovnogo mifa. In: BaltSlavIssl 1980, 1981: 274‑300.
Toporov 1988Toporov, V. N. 1988O rituale: vvedenie v problematiku. In: ArxRit 1988: 7-60.
Toporov 1995Toporov, V. N. 1995Mif. Ritual. Simvol. Obraz: issledovanija v oblasti mifopoètičeskogo (izbrannoe). Moscow: Progress‑Kul’tura.
Toporova 1989Toporova, T. V. 1989Jazyk i mif: germ. *walundaz, *wēlundaz. In: Izvestija Akademii nauk SSSR: serija literatury i jazyka 48.5: 442-453.
Torbiörnsson 1945Torbiörnsson, Tore 1945Armenisk akcentuering. In: Årsbok. Kungl. Humanistiska Vetenskaps-Samfundet i Uppsala (pp. 85-96). Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells boktryckeri; Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz.
T‘oṙlak‘yan 1981T‘oṙlak‘yan, Barunak G. 1981Hamšenahayeri azgagrut‘yunə. HayAzgBan 13. Yerevan: Academy Press.
T‘oṙlak‘yan 1986T‘oṙlak‘yan, Barunak G. 1986Nšxarner Hamšeni ew Trapizoni banahyusut‘yan. Yerevan: University Press.
T‘osunyan 1983T‘osunyan, G. B. 1983Grabari naxadrut‘yunnerə (V-XI dd.). In: LezOčHarc‘ 7: 5-115.
T‘osunyan 1996T‘osunyan, G. B. 1996See Sources: Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i.
Toumanoff 1963Toumanoff, Cyril 1963Studies in Christian Caucasian history. Georgetown University Press.
Tovar 1974Tovar, Antonio 1974Etymologisches zu air. guth ‘Stimme’. In: AntiqIndog 1974: 293-294.
T‘umanyan 1971T‘umanyan, E. G. 1971(Tumanjan), Drevnearmjanskij jazyk. Moscow: “Nauka”.
T‘umanyan 1978T‘umanyan, E. G. 1978(Tumanjan), Struktura indoevropejskix imën v armjanskom jazyke: opyt rekonstrukcii. Moscow: “Nauka”.
T‘umanyan 1988‑T‘umanyan, Hovhannes 1988‑(1‑), Erkeri liakatar žoɫovacu (in 10 volumes). Yerevan: Academy Press.
Twain 1993Twain, Mark 1993The adventures of Tom Sawyer (ed. with an introduction by Lee Clark Mitchell). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
T‘ux-Kṙpō 1898T‘ux-Kṙpō 1898Dewer. In: Biwrakn 1898: 461-463.
Uhlenbeck 1942Uhlenbeck, C. C. 1942De oudere lagen van den Baskischen woordenschat. In: Mededeelingen der Nederlandsche Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afdeeling Letterkunde 5.7: 327-376.
Ullmann 1979Ullmann, Manfred 1979Wa‑ḫairu l‑ḥadīṯi mā kāna laḥnan (mit einem Anhang von Rainer Degen). In: Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften: philosophisch-historische Klasse. Sitzungsberichte 1979/9. München. (Beiträge zur Lexikographie des Klassischen Arabisch, 1).
Ulubabyan 1971Ulubabyan, Bagrat 1971Patma-ašxarhagrakan čšgrtumner. In: BanbErevHamals 1971, Nr 1: 176-186.
Ulubabyan 1982Ulubabyan, Bagrat 1982See Sources: Łazar P‘arpec‘i.
Untermann 2000Untermann, Jürgen 2000Wörterbuch des Oskisch-Umbrischen. Heidelberg: C. Winter Universitätsverlag. (Indogermanische Bibliothek: Reihe 1, Lehr- und Handbücher. Handbuch der italischen Dialekte; Bd. 3).
Uspenskij 1978Uspenskij, B. A. 1978Kul’t Nikoly na Rusi v istoriko-kul’turnom osveščenii: specifika vosprijatija i transformacija isxodnogo obraza. In: TrudZnakSist 10. Semiotika kul’tury. (UZTGU, 463).
Vaan 1999Vaan, Michiel de 1999The PIE root structure Te(R)Dh-. In: HistSpr 112.1: 1-25.
Vaan 1999aVaan, Michiel de 1999aThe etymology of English shower. In: Die Sprache 41.1: 39-49.
Vaan 2000Vaan, Michiel de 2000The Indo‑Iranian animal suffix ‑āćá‑. In: IndIranJour 43: 279‑293.
Vaan 2001Vaan, Michiel de 2001Reconsidering Dutch rups, German Raupe ‘caterpillar’. In: AmstBeiAltGerm 54: 151-174.
Vaan 2003Vaan, Michiel de 2003The Avestan vowels. Amsterdam, New York: Rodopi. (LeidStudIndEur, 12).
Vaan 2004Vaan, Michiel de 2004‘Narten’ roots from the Avestan point of view. In: Fs Rasmussen 2004: 591-599.
Vaan 2008Vaan, Michiel de 2008Etymological dictionary of Latin and the other Italic languages. Leiden, Boston: Brill. (LeidIEEDSer, 7).
Vaillant 1938Vaillant, André 1938L’imparfait slave et les prétérits en -ē- et en -ā-. In: BSL 40: 5-30.
Vanc‘ean 1899‑1901Vanc‘ean, Gr. 1899‑1901Naxahayerēni hetk‘er zōkerēnum. (1) in: HandAms 13, 1899, Nr 5: 147‑149; (2) in: HandAms 15, 1901, Nr 5‑6: 180‑181.
Vanséveren 1995Vanséveren, Sylvie 1995A propos de arm. ur étymologique pronominale. In: AnnArmLing 16: 37‑44.
Vanséveren 1998Vanséveren, Sylvie 1998Arm. jmeṙn: Thèmes indo-européens en *-m- et dérivés en *-r/n. In: AnnArmLing 19: 21-32.
Vardanean 1910Vardanean, H. Aristakēs 1910Hayerēn nor baṙer S. Irenēosi “C‘oyc‘k‘” ew “Ənddēm herjuacoc‘” groc‘ mēǰ. In: HandAms 24: 281‑284, 301‑306.
Vardanean 1911Vardanean, H. Aristakēs 1911“Uhi” masnikə dasakan hayerēni mēǰ. In: Yušarjan 1911: 309‑314.
Vardanyan 1989Vardanyan, Ṙ. H. 1989Hayastani č‘ap‘ern u kšiṙnerə (V‑XV darer). Yerevan: Academy Press.
Vardanjan 1980Vardanjan, Ṙ. O. (= H.), Asatrjan, D. G. 1980Nekotorye zamečanija po metrologii Urartu. In: PBH (= IFŽ) 1980, Nr 2: 166‑178.
Vardanyan 1974Vardanyan, Stella A. 1974See Sources: Abusayid.
Vardanyan 1971Vardanyan, Stella A. 1971Hay bžškakan terminabanut‘yunə XII darum. In: BanbMaten 10: 185‑212.
Vardanjan 1990Vardanyan, Stella A. 1990(Vardanjan), Amirdovlat Amasiaci, Nenužnoe dlja neučej. Moscow: “Nauka”.
Vardanyan 1989Vardanyan, Vardan H. 1989Hovhan Mamikonyan, Taroni patmut‘yun (introduction, ModEArm. translation, commentary). Yerevan: “Xorhrdayin groɫ”.
Vardanyan 1973Vardanyan, V. M. 1973“Patmut‘iwn tann Arcruneac‘” erkum hišatakvac mi k‘ani teɫanunneri masin. In: PBH 1973, Nr 1: 111‑122.
Vardanyan 1985Vardanyan, V. M. 1985T‘ovma Arcruni ew Ananun: Patmut‘yun Arcruneac‘ tan. Yerevan: University Press (Usanoɫi gradaran).
Vardiman 1982Vardiman, E. E. 1982Die Frau in der Antike: Sittengeschichte der Frau im Altertum. Düsseldorf und Wien: Econ Verlag GmbH. (Russ. transl., see Vardiman 1990).
Vardiman 1990Vardiman, E. E. 1990Ženščina v drevnem mire (transl. in Russian from Vardiman 1982 by M. S. Xaritonov, with afterword and commentary by A. A. Vigasin). Moscow: GRVLI “Nauka”.
Vardumyan 1991Vardumyan, Gohar Dereniki 1991(Vardumjan), Doxristianskie kul’ty armjan. In: HayAzgBan 18: 59-146 (+ illustrations).
Vardumyan/T‘oxat‘yan 2004Vardumyan, Gohar & T‘oxat‘yan, Karen 2004Luysi ew arewi paštamunk‘i drseworumnerə “Sasna cṙer” ēposum. In: SasCṙGit 2004: 88-101.
Vartanov 1983Vartanov, Ju. P. 1983Proisxoždenie semitskix nazvanij metallov. In: DrevVost 4: 83‑98.
Vartapetjan 1962Vartapetjan, N. A. 1962Sjunikskij dialekt (PhD candidate dissertation: avtoreferat). Yerevan: Academy Press.
Vasil’ev 1999Vasil’ev, M. A. 1999Jazyčestvo vostočnych slavjan nakanune kreščenija Rusi: religiozno-mifologičeskoe vzaimodejstvie s iranskim mirom: jazyčeskaja reforma knjazja Vladimira. Moscow: “Indrik”. Rossijskaja Akademija Nauk. Institut slavjanovedenija.
Vasil’ev 1990Vasil’ev, V. I. 1990O stat’e N. L. Členovoj “Volga i Južnyj Ural v predstavlenijax drevnix irancev i finno‑ugrov vo II – načale I tys. do n. è”. In: SovArx 1990, Nr 3: 150‑151.
Vasil’kov 1998Vasil’kov, Ja. V. 1998Indoevropejskaja poètičeskaja formula v mordovskom obrjadovom tekste. In: Fs Toporov 1998: 352‑369.
Vasmer 1950-58Vasmer, Max 1950-58Russisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg. See Fasmer 1964-73.
Vaumas 1965Vaumas, E. de 1965al-Furāt. In: EncIsl 2: 947-948 [see also Hartmann 1965].
Vaux 1998Vaux, Bert 1998The phonology of Armenian. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Vaux 2001Vaux, Bert 2001The Armenian dialect of Aslanbeg. In: AnnArmLing 21: 31‑64.
Vaux 2007Vaux, Bert 2007Homshetsma: the language of the Armenians of Hamshen. In: H. Simonian 2007: 257-278.
Veljus 1981Veljus, N. 1981Velnio banda: ‘stado Vjal’njasa’. In: BaltSlavIssl 1980; 1981: 260-269.
Vendryes 1914Vendryes, J. 1914La famille du latin mundus ‘monde’. In: MSL 18: 305‑310.
Vendryes 1920Vendryes, J. 1920Étymologies. In: MSL 21: 39-44.
Vennemann 1986Vennemann, Theo 1986Syllable‑based sound changes in early Armenian. In: AnnArmLing 7: 27‑43.
Vennemann 1994Vennemann, Theo 1994Linguistic reconstruction in the context of European prehistory. In: TrPhilSoc 92.2: 215-284.
Vennemann 1998Vennemann, Theo 1998Etymology and phonotactics: Latin grandis vs. Basque handi ‘big’ and similar problems. In: JourIndEurStud 26, 3‑4: 345‑390.
Viereck/Goldammer 2003Viereck, Wolfgang & Goldammer, Matthias 2003Ouvrier, Arbeiter, workman, rabočij, obrero, operaio. In: Fs Winter 2003: 405-417.
Vine 1985Vine, Brent 1985On the Germanic type lūkan. In: ZVS 98: 60-81.
Vine 1999Vine, Brent 1999Latin *opiō and optāre. In: Fs Ivanov 1999: 520-526.
Vine 2002 [2006]Vine, Brent 2002 [2006] Gk. σφήν, Eng. spoona note on ‘Eichner’s Law’. In: MünStudSpr 62: 289-299.
Vine 2005Vine, Brent 2005Remarks on Rix’s Law in Greek. In: JourIndEurStud 33.3-4: 247-290.
Viredaz 1997Viredaz, Rémy 1997‘Six’ en indo-européen. In: IndogForsch 102: 112-150.
Viredaz 2000Viredaz, Rémy 2000k‘erb, jerb, χερσί. In: HistSpr 113: 290‑307.
Viredaz 2001-02Viredaz, Rémy 2001-02Sur le traitement arménien des sonantes voyelles. In: Slovo 26-27, Actes du 6e CILA (5-9 juillet 1999), Inalco, 2001-2002: 24-36.
Viredaz 2001-02aViredaz, Rémy 2001-02aContractions et place de l’accent en ancien arménien. In: RevEtArm 28: 1-11.
Viredaz 2002Viredaz, Rémy 2002The Great Armenian Puzzle is not thorny. In: AnnArmLing 22‑23: 59‑81.
Viredaz 2003Viredaz, Rémy 2003Notes on Armenian historical phonology. In: AnnArmLing 24‑25: 85‑103.
Viredaz 2005-07Viredaz, Rémy 2005-07Notes d’étymologie arménienne I. In: RevEtArm n.s. 30: 1-14.
Viredaz forthc.Viredaz, Rémy forthc.Grec korésai, arménien serem, latin cresco. Forthcoming.
Viredaz prepar1Viredaz, Rémy prepar1eɫǰewr, , yisun: a new palatalization law in Armenian? In preparation.
Viredaz prepar2Viredaz, Rémy prepar2Notes on Armenian historical phonology II. In preparation.
Vogt 1938Vogt, Hans 1938Arménien et Caucasique du Sud. In: NrsTidSpr 9: 321‑338.
Vogt 1958Vogt, Hans 1958Les occlusives de l’arménien. In: NrsTidSpr 18: 143‑161.
de Vries/Tollenaere 1993Vries, J. de & Tollenaere, F. de 1993Etymologisch woordenboek (with assistance of A. J. Persijn). The Hague: “Het Spectrum” (< 1991 < 1958).
Vycichl 1965Vycichl, Werner 1965Sumerisch guskin, armenisch oski ‘Gold’. In: HandAms 79.1-3: 81-84.
Vycichl 1967Vycichl, Werner 1967Sumerisch AN.BAR, armenisch erkath ‘Eisen’. In: HandAms 81.1-3: 67-70.
Wackernagel/Debrunner 1954Wackernagel, Jacob, & Debrunner, Albert 1954J. Wackernagel, Altindische Grammatik. Band II, 2. Die Nominalsuffixe von A. Debrunner. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Wagner 1984Wagner, Norbert 1984Belisarius. In: ZVS 97.1: 123-129.
Wagner 1984aWagner, Norbert 1984a Die idg. Wurzel in got. hallus. In: ZVS 97.2: 281-283.
Walde 1909Walde, A. 1909Zu den indogerm. Wörtern für ‘Milz’. In: IndogForsch 25: 160-166.
Walde/Hofmann 1938‑54Walde, A., Hofmann, J. B. 1938‑54(1‑2), Lateinisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg.
Ward 1970Ward, Donald J. 1970An Indo-European mythological theme in Germanic tradition. In: IndEur&IndEur 1970 : 405-420.
Watkins 1970Watkins, Calvert 1970Language of gods and language of men: remarks on some Indo-European metalinguistic traditions. In: MythLawIndEur 1970: 1-17.
Watkins 1973Watkins, Calvert 1973An Indo-European agricultural term: Latin ador, Hittite ḫat-. In: HarvStudClasPhil 77: 187-193.
Watkins 1974Watkins, Calvert 1974‘god’. In: AntiqIndog 1974: 101‑110.
Watkins 1974aWatkins, Calvert 1974aI.‑E. ‘star’. In: Die Sprache 20: 10‑14.
Watkins 1975Watkins, Calvert 1975La famille indo-européenne de grec ὄρχις: linguistique, poétique et mythologie. In: BSL 70.1: 11-26.
Watkins 1975aWatkins, Calvert 1975aLatin ador, Hittite ḫat- again: addenda to HSCP 77 (1973), 187-193. In: HarvStudClasPhil 79: 181-187.
Watkins 1976Watkins, Calvert 1976The etymology of Irish dúan. In: Celtica 11: 270‑277.
Watkins 1995Watkins, Calvert 1995How to kill a dragon: aspects of Indo‑European poetics. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wegner 1981Wegner, Ilse 1981Gestalt und Kult der Ištar‑Šawuška in Kleinasien. Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen‑Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. (Alter Orient und Altes Testament: Veröffentlichungen zur Kultur und Geschichte des Alten Orients und des Alten Testaments 36; Hurritologische Studien 3).
Weidner 1917Weidner, Ernst F. 1917Aus den hettitischen Urkunden von Boghazköi. In: Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft zu Berlin. Mitteilung Nr. 58, August 1917: 53-78 + a map.
Weinberg/Weinberg 1956Weinberg, Gladys Davidson, and Weinberg, Saul S. 1956Arachne of Lydia at Corinth. In: Fs Goldman 1956: 262‑267.
Weiss 1994Weiss, Michael 1994On the non‑verbal origin of the Greek verb νήφειν ‘to be sober’. In: HistSpr 107: 91‑98.
Weitenberg 1980Weitenberg, Jos J. S. 1980Armenian action nouns in -st. In: ProcFICAL 1980: 209-219.
Weitenberg 1981Weitenberg, Jos J. S. 1981Armenian əntocin. In: AnnArmLing 2: 85‑89.
Weitenberg 1983Weitenberg, Jos J. S. 1983Armenian dialects and the Latin‑Armenian glossary of Autun. In: MedArmCult 1983: 13‑28.
Weitenberg 1983aWeitenberg, Jos J. S. 1983aRemarks on the pronominal genitive in Classical Armenian. In: RevEtArm n.s. 17: 113-121.
Weitenberg 1984Weitenberg, Jos J. S. 1984Die hethitischen u‑stämme. Amsterdam: “Rodopi”.
Weitenberg 1984aWeitenberg, Jos J. S. 1984aThe inflexion of mi ‘one’ as a trace of Proto-Armenian nominal gender. In: IntSympArmLing 1984: 195-218.
Weitenberg 1985Weitenberg, Jos J. S. 1985Additional ‑n in Armenian. In: AnnArmLing 6: 101‑106.
Weitenberg 1986Weitenberg, Jos J. S. 1986Additional h‑, initial y‑ and Indo‑European y‑ in Armenian. In: PlacArmLIE : 90‑101.
Weitenberg 1989Weitenberg, Jos J. S. 1989The inflection of proper names in Armenian. In: AnnArmLing 10: 57‑72.
Weitenberg 1989aWeitenberg, Jos J. S. 1989aArmenian arbun(k‘) ‘vigour, maturity’. In: Hanǰamana (ed. by Subhadra Kumar Sen. Calcutta University): 109-112.
Weitenberg 1991Weitenberg, Jos J. S. 1991The meaning of the expression “to become a wolf” in Hittite. In: Fs Polomé 1991‑92, 1: 189‑198.
Weitenberg 1992Weitenberg, Jos J. S. 1992An early dialectal phonetic split in Classical Armenian: the cases of t‘awt‘ap‘em and p‘lanim. In: John A. C. Greppin (ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Armenian Linguistics, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, Ohio September 14‑18, 1991. Delmar, New York: Caravan Books, 295‑318.
Weitenberg 1992aWeitenberg, Jos J. S. 1992aParallel aligned text and bilingual concordance of the Armenian and Greek versions of the Book of Jonah. Amsterdam, Atlanta, GA: Rodopi. (Dutch studies in Armenian language and literature, 1).
Weitenberg 1993Weitenberg, Jos J. S. 1993Initial y‑ in Classical Armenian and the early development of Armenian dialects. In: L. Hovsepian, N. Parnassian, S. Simonian (eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Armenian Linguistics, 21‑23 September 1987. Yerewan: Armenian Academy Press, 208‑217.
Weitenberg 1993aWeitenberg, Jos J. S. 1993aOn the interpretation of Postclassical Armenian linguistic data. In: Henning Lehmann & J. J. S. Weitenberg (eds.), Armenian texts: tasks and tools. Aarhus University Press, Denmark [printed by the Alden Press, Oxford] (Acta Jutlandica LXIX.1; Humanities Series 68): 65‑74.
Weitenberg 1994Weitenberg, Jos J. S. 1994Text chronological aspects of the use of the article -s and -d in Gospel manuscripts M and E. In: Text and context: studies in the Armenian New Testament (Conference, 1992): 97-113.
Weitenberg 1995Weitenberg, Jos J. S. 1995The role of morphological variation in medieval Armenian poetry. In: NewApprMedArm 121‑134.
Weitenberg 1996Weitenberg, Jos J. S. 1996On the early development of the Armenian dialects. In: Dora Sakayan (ed.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Armenian Linguistics, McGill University of Montreal, Quebec, Canada May 1‑5, 1995. Delmar, New York: Caravan Books, 93‑118.
Weitenberg 1997Weitenberg, Jos J. S. 1997Armenian plurals in ‑stan. In: ActOrHung 50, 1‑3: 329‑336.
Weitenberg 1997aWeitenberg, Jos J. S. 1997aLinguistic continuity in Armenian hellenizing texts. In: Muséon 110.3‑4: 447‑458.
Weitenberg 1997bWeitenberg, Jos J. S. 1997bThe prepositional group i y‑ and the orthography of Gospel manuscript M (Matenadaran 6200). In: AnnArmLing 18: 39‑50.
Weitenberg 1997cWeitenberg, Jos J. S. 1997cArmenian mawruk‘ ‘beard’. In: Fs Beekes 1997 : 339‑347.
Weitenberg 1999‑2000Weitenberg, Jos J. S. 1999‑2000On the early development of Armenian dialects. 2. The monophthon-gization of ay. In: AnnArmLing 20: 1‑26.
Weitenberg 2001Weitenberg, Jos J. S. 2001Thoughts on early Armenian accentuation. In: AnnArmLing 21: 65‑73.
Weitenberg 2002Weitenberg, Jos J. S. 2002Aspects of Armenian dialectology. In: PresDayDial 2002: 141‑157.
Weitenberg 2003Weitenberg, Jos J. S. 2003Classical Armenian hagag ‘breath’ and ogem ‘to speak’. In: Fs Winter 2003: 419‑428.
Weitenberg 2004Weitenberg, Jos J. S. 2004Armenian barwok‘ ‘good, well’. In: Fs Rasmussen 2004: 627-632.
Weitenberg 2006Weitenberg, Jos J. S. 2006Aspects of Classical Armenian orthography: Armenian e, ē and the Greek names in the Gospels. In: Fs Pisowicz 2006: 215-228.
Weitenberg 2008Weitenberg, Jos J. S. 2008Diphthongization of initial e- and the development of initial y- in Armenian. In: Fs Kortlandt 2008, 1: 609-616.
Weitenberg/de Leeuw van Weenen 1990Weitenberg, J. J. S. and van Weenen, A. de Leeuw 1990 Lemmatized index of the Armenian version of Deuteronomy. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press. (Septuagint and cognate studies series, 32; Leiden Armenological publications, 1).
West 1971West, M. L. 1971Early Greek philosophy and the Orient. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
West 2007West, M. L. 2007Indo-European poetry and myth. Oxford: University Press.
Wevers 1977Wevers, J. W. 1977(ed.), Septuaginta: vetus testamentum Graecum. Vol. 3.2. Deuteronomium. Adiuvante U. Quast. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.
Wevers 1986Wevers, J. W. 1986(ed.), Septuaginta: vetus testamentum Graecum. Vol. 2.2. Leviticus. Adiuvante U. Quast. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.
Wevers 1995Wevers, J. W. 1995Notes on the Greek text of Deuteronomy. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press. (Septuagint and cognate studies series, 39).
Wevers 1997Wevers, J. W. 1997Notes on the Greek text of Leviticus. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press. (Septuagint and cognate studies series, 44).
Whitehead 1972Whitehead, G. Kenneth 1972Deer of the world. London: Constable.
Whitney 1885Whitney, William Dwight 1885The roots, verb-forms, and primary derivatives of the Sanskrit language: a supplement to his Sanskrit grammar. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel; London: Trübner; Ludgate Hill. (Bibliothek indogermanischer Grammatiken, 2.2). Reprinted: New Haven, Connecticut: American Oriental Society, 1945. (American Oriental Society, 30).
Whitney 1889Whitney, William Dwight 1889Sanskrit grammar: including both the classical language, and the older dialects, of Veda and Brahmana. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press; London: Oxford University Press (< Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1879, 1889, 1960).
Whittaker 2004Whittaker, Gordon 2004Word formation in Euphratic. In: IndEurWordForm 2004: 381-423.
Whittaker 2005Whittaker, Gordon 2005The Sumerian question: reviewing the issues. In: EthnAncMesop 2005: 409-429.
Wikander 1974Wikander, Stig 1974Aramäisch sprb, Sanskrit śvabhra. In: Gd Sɫuszkiewicza 1974: 271-272.
Windekens 1961Windekens, A. J. van 1961Sur trois mots arméniens. In: HandAms 75.10-12: 545-548.
Windekens 1964Windekens, A. J. van 1964Essai de solution d’un vieux problème: la formation d’arm. kanay- = gr. γυναι- ‘femme’. In: HandAms 78.4-6: 185-190.
Windekens 1976Windekens, A. J. van 1976Le tokharien confronté avec les autres langues indo-européennes. Vol. 1: La phonétique et le vocabulaire. Louvain: Centre International de Dialectologie Générale. (Travaux publiés par le Centre International de Dialectologie Générale de l’Université Catholique Néerlandaise de Louvain).
Windekens 1980Windekens, A. J. van 1980Quelques confrontations lexicales arméno‑hittites. In: AnnArmLing 1: 39‑43.
Windekens 1986Windekens, A. J. van 1986Dictionnaire étymologique complémentaire de la langue grecque: nouvelles contributions à l’interprétation historique et comparée du vocabulaire. Leuven: Peeters.
Windekens 1990-91Windekens, A. J. van 1990-91Arménien oskr et hittite ḫašduir. In: RevEtArm n.s. 22: 13-16.
Winter 1962Winter, Werner 1962Problems of Armenian phonology 3. In: Language 38: 254‑262.
Winter 1965Winter, Werner 1965Armenian evidence. In: EvidLaryng: 100‑115.
Winter 1966Winter, Werner 1966Traces of early dialectal diversity in Old Armenian. In: AncIEDial 1966: 201‑211.
Winter 1980Winter, Werner 1980Eine verschüttete armenisch‑baltoslavische Isoglosse? In: LingPosn 23: 209‑214.
Winter 1980aWinter, Werner 1980aTocharisch B yok, A yok ‘Körperhaar, Farbe’ und Verwandtes. In: Fs Seiler 1980: 469‑472.
Winter 1982Winter, Werner 1982Indo-European words for ‘tongue’ and ‘fish’: a reappraisal. In: JourIndEurStud 10: 167-186.
Winter 1983Winter, Werner 1983Nochmals arm. hiwsn ‘Zimmermann’. In: Die Sprache 29: 177‑181.
Winter 1986Winter, Werner 1986Hayereni anvanakan t‘ek‘man mi k‘ani harc‘er. In: PBH 1986, Nr 2: 17‑24.
Winter 1989Winter, Werner 1989Nekotorye mysli ob indoevropejskix čislitel’nyx. In: VoprJaz 1989, Nr 4: 32-45.
Winter 1997Winter, Werner 1997Armenian arǰ ‘bear’. In: Fs Beekes 1997: 349-351.
Winter 1999Winter, Werner 1999Consonant harmony in Armenian. In: Fs Lehmann 1999, 1: 313-319.
Witczak 1991Witczak, K. T. 1991Armenian op‘i ‘white poplar, Populus alba L.’ and the development of ps in Armenian. In: AnnArmLing 12: 65-75.
Witczak 1999Witczak, K. T. 1999Studies in Armenian etymology (1‑30). In: StudEtymCrac 4: 173‑190.
Witczak 2003Witczak, K. T. 2003Studies in Armenian etymology (31‑35). In: AnnArmLing 22‑23: 83‑87.
Witzel 2003Witzel, Michael 2003Linguistic evidence for cultural exchange in Prehistoric Western Central AsiaW. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Department of East Asian Languages and Civilizations. (Sino-Platonic papers, 129).
Wolohojian 1969Wolohojian, Albert Mugrdich 1969The Romance of Alexander the Great by Pseudo‑Callisthenes (translated from the Armenian version with an introduction). New York and London: Columbia University Press. See Sources: Alexander Romance.
Woodhouse 1994Woodhouse, Robert 1994Greek αἶα, δεύω and δεῖσα. In HistSpr 107: 99‑100.
Wünsch 1890Wünsch, Josef 1890Die Landschaften Schirwan, Chisan und Tatik. In: Mittheilungen der kais. königl. geographischen Gesellschaft in Wien 33 (N.F. 23): 1‑19 (+ Taf. 1).
Wutz 1914Wutz, Franz 1914Onomastica sacra: Untersuchungen zum Liber interpretationis nominum hebraicorum des Hl. Hieronymus. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung. Hälfte 1: Quellen und System der Onomastika. (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur. 3. Reihe, Bd. 11, der ganzen Reihe 41.Band).
Xač‘atryan 1982Xač‘atryan, A. E. 1982Ačaṙyanə ew hay barbaṙagitut‘yunə. In: HayBrbAtl 1: 28‑107.
Xač‘atryan 1984Xač‘atryan, A. E. 1984Jayndarji hin erewuyt‘ner hay barbaṙnerum. In: IntSympArmLing 1984: 318-326.
Xač‘atryan 1985Xač‘atryan, A. E. 1985Hnč‘yunabanut‘yan usumnasirut‘yan skzbunk‘nerə hay barbaṙagitakan ašxatut‘yunnerum. In: HayBrbAtl 2: 91‑135.
Xač‘atryan 1993Xač‘atryan, A. E. 1993Hayereni patmakan hnč‘yunap‘oxut‘yan mi k‘ani harc‘er. In: ProcSISAL 1993, 1: 102‑118.
Xač‘atryan 2004Xač‘atryan, Gurgen Kiproni 2004Haykakan Hamabarbaṙ (Concordance), Nr 17. Sebēos. (Based on the critical text of Abgaryan 1979). Yerevan: “Zangak”.
Xač‘atryan/Eɫiazaryan 2004Xač‘atryan, Gurgen K. & Eɫiazaryan Vano A. 2004(ed.), Sebeos, Patmut‘yun (the Modern EArm. translation with the Classical Armenian text of Abgaryan 1979 on facing pages, with introduction and commentary). Yerevan: “Zangak”.
Xač‘atryan 1988Xač‘atryan, Hayk Harut‘yuni 1988Sosyac‘ antaṙ. Yerevan : “Arewik”.
Xač‘atryan 1979Xač‘atryan, M. M. 1979Haykakan leṙnašxarhn u P‘ok‘r Kovkasə əst Ptɫomeosi. In: BngTxnPtmHay 7: 158‑181.
Xač‘atryan 1980Xač‘atryan, M. M. 1980Haykakan leṙnašxarhn əst Ptɫomeosi k‘artezagrakan tvyalneri. In: PBH 1980, Nr 2: 199‑211.
Xač‘atryan/Łazinyan 1985Xač‘atryan, P. M. & Łazinyan, A. A. 1985(eds.), Grigor Narekac‘i, Matean oɫbergut‘ean. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Xač‘atryan 1999Xač‘atryan, Ṙaisa 1999T‘alin. HayAzgBan 20. Yerevan: Academy Press “Gitut‘yun”.
Xač‘atryan 1971Xač‘atryan, Valerij N. 1971Vostočnye provincii Xettskoj imperii: voprosy toponimiki. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Xač‘atryan 1978Xač‘atryan, Valerij N. 1978Strana Xajk’ v sostave Urartu. In: LrHasGit (= VON) 1980, Nr 6: 101‑112.
Xač‘atryan 1988Xač‘atryan, Valerij N. 1988Marija – titul xajasskix carej. In: DrevVost 5: 57-62.
Xač‘atryan 1975Xač‘atryan, Ženya Kamsari 1975J̌avaxk‘i hay žoɫovrdakan parerə: azgagrakan usumnasirut‘yun (pp. 5-14 + Figures 1-18); Łaragöz: stverneri t‘atron (pp. 105-124 + Figures 1-24). In: HayAzgBan 7.
Xač‘aturova 1973Xač‘aturova, E. G. 1973Ob armjano‑indijskix leksičeskix izoglossax. In: PBH (= IFŽ) 1973, Nr 2: 191‑199.
Xač‘aturova 1979Xač‘aturova, E. G. 1979Drevnejšie armjano‑indo‑iranskie jazykovye kontakty. In: Hayoc‘ lezvi hamematakan k‘erakanut‘yan harc‘er. Yerevan: Academy Press: 325‑375.
Xač‘aturova 1987Xač‘aturova, E. G. 1987Hay‑k‘art‘velakan stugabanut‘yunner. In: ThesSISAL 1987: 81. (Not in ProcSISAL 1993).
Xač‘aturyan 2001Xač‘aturyan, Xač‘atur 2001See Khachatoorian 2001.
Xač‘eryan 1962Xač‘eryan, L. G. 1962‘Grč‘ut‘yan arvesti’ lezvakan-k‘erakanakan tesut‘yunə miǰnadaryan Hayastanum: usumnasirut‘yun ew bnagrer. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Xač‘ikyan 1941Xač‘ikyan, L. S. 1941“Yaɫags taremtin i Vanakan Vardapetē asac‘eal” (introduction, critical text and commentary). In: MatGNŽoɫ 1: 151‑169.
Xač‘ikyan 1949Xač‘ikyan, L. S. 1949Zenoni “Yaɫags bnut‘ean” erki haykakan t‘argmanut‘yunə. In: MatGNŽoɫ 2, 1949 [1950]: 65‑98.
Xač‘ikyan 1963Xač‘ikyan, L. S. 1963Naxamesropyan gri harc‘ə ew hmayagrerə. In: PBH 1963, Nr 4: 145‑158.
Xač‘konc‘ 1898Xač‘konc‘, D. 1898“Mut‘‑ašxarhk‘i” verlucumə. In: Biwrakn 1898, 26: 484‑487.
Xač‘konc‘ 1899Xač‘konc‘, D. 1899‘Ōn’, ‘C‘rōnk‘ u ‘Žankaṙi’. In: Biwrakn 1899, 6: 81‑83.
Xalat‘eanc‘ 1896Xalat‘eanc‘, Grigor 1896(Xalat’janc), Armjanskij èpos v istorii Armenii Moiseja Xorenskago: opyt kritiki istočnikov (Part 1, Issledovanie. Part 2, Materialy). Moscow: Tipografija Varvary Gatcuk.
Xalat‘eanc‘ 1899Xalat‘eanc‘, Grigor 1899Girk‘ mnac‘ordac‘ əst hnagoyn hay t‘argmanut‘ean. Moscow: Tparan Varvaṙē Gatc‘uk.
Xanlaryan 1973Xanlaryan, L. A. (Xanlarjan) 1973(ed.), Arakel Davrižeci, Kniga istorij. Russian translation with introduction and commentary. Moscow: GRVLI “Nauka”. (Pamjatniki pis’mennosti Vostoka, 37).
Xanlaryan 1976Xanlaryan, L. A. (Xanlarjan) 1976(ed.), Kirakos Gandzakeci, Istorija Armenii. Russian translation with introduction and commentary. Moscow: GRVLI “Nauka”. (Pamjatniki pis’mennosti Vostoka, 53).
Xanlaryan 1990Xanlaryan, L. A. (Xanlarjan) 1990(ed.), Aṙak‘el Dawrižec‘i, Girk‘ patmut‘eanc‘. The critical ClArm. text with introduction and commentary. Yerevan: Academy Press. (Matenadaran).
Xaṙatyan 1989Xaṙatyan, Zaven V. 1989(Xaratjan), Kul’tovye motivy semejnyx obyčaev i obrjadov u armjan. In: HayAzgBan 17: 5-62.
Xaṙatyan 1989aXaṙatyan, Zaven V. 1989aAmusnakan zuygi uɫin hayoc‘ harsanik‘um. In: LrHasGit 1989, Nr 11.
Xaxutajšvili 1974Xaxutajšvili, D. A. 1974(Khakhutaishvili), A contribution of the Kartvelian tribes to the mastery of Iron metallurgy in the ancient Near East. In: ActAntHung 22: 337-348.
Xaxutajšvili 1988Xaxutajšvili, D. A. 1988Drevnekolxidskoe železo i Bližnij Vostok. In: KavkBližVostSbor 8: 168-172.
Xemč‘yan 2000Xemč‘yan, Ēst‘er H. 2000Tavuš. HayAzgBan 21. Yerevan: Academy Press “Gitut‘yun”.
X. K‘. 1899X. K‘. 1899Yisusin nuēr. In: Biwrakn 1899: 17‑18.
Yovnanean 1897Yovnanean, Łewond 1897Hetazōtut‘iwnk‘ naxneac‘ ṙamkōrēni vray: usumnasirut‘iwnk‘ ew k‘aɫuack‘ner (2 vols.). Venice: S. Lazar. (Azgayin Matenadaran, 23‑24).
Yovsēp‘eanc‘ 1892Yovsēp‘eanc‘, Garegin Sarkawag 1892P‘šrank‘ner žoɫovrdakan banahyusut‘iwnic‘. T‘iflis: M. Šarajē.
Yuzbašyan 1963Yuzbašyan, Karen N. 1963(ed.), Patmut‘iwn Aristakisi Lastivertc‘woy. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Yuzbašyan 1968Yuzbašyan, Karen N. 1968(Juzbašjan), Povestvovanie Vardapeta Aristakèsa Lastivertci. Russian transl. with introduction and commentary. Moscow, Leningrad: GRVLI “Nauka”. (Pamjatniki pis’mennosti Vostoka, 15).
Zak‘aryan 2008Zak‘aryan, Mari G. 2008Agulisi barbaṙə: ink‘nut‘yan bac‘ahaytum. Yerevan: “Iravunk‘”.
Zatikyan 1992Zatikyan, Hovhannes 1992Karin. Yerevan: “Hayastan”.
Zavaroni 2003Zavaroni, Adolfo 2003Etr. ana, lat. ānus, annus, got. aþn, germ. *ansi-. In: IndogForsch 108: 223-247.
Zekiyan 1980Zekiyan, Boghos Levon 1980Suggestions for a systematic approach to the nominal declension system of Classical Armenian. In: ProcFICAL 1980: 147‑162.
Zeyt‘unyan 1985Zeyt‘unyan, A. S. 1985(ed.), Girk‘ cnndoc‘: critical text. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Zhou Jixu 2002Zhou Jixu 2002Correspondences of the basic words between Old Chinese and Proto-Indo-European. Philadelphia: Department of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, University of Pennsylvania. SinPlatPap 115, April 2002.
Zhou Jixu 2003Zhou Jixu 2003Correspondences of cultural words between Old Chinese and Proto-Indo-European. Philadelphia: Department of East Asian Languages and Civilizations, University of Pennsylvania. SinPlatPap 125, July 2003.
Zhou Jixu 2005Zhou Jixu 2005Old Chinese *tees and Proto-Indo-European *deus: similarity in religious ideas and a common source in linguistics. Philadelphia: Department of East Asian Languages and Civilizations, University of Pennsylvania. SinPlatPap 167, December 2005.
Ziegler 1939Ziegler, Joseph 1939(ed.), Septuaginta. Vol. 14: Isaias. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Zimansky 1998Zimansky, Paul E. 1998Ancient Ararat: a handbook of Urartian studies. Delmar, New York: Caravan Books. (Anatolian and Caucasian Studies).
Zimmer 1997Zimmer, Stefan 1997Gallisch DIVERTOMV, kymrisch llawer, tocharisch A want‑wraske. In: Fs Beekes 1997: 353‑358.
Zimmer 2000Zimmer, Stefan 2000Nachbemerkung zum Beitrag von Thomas Oberlies [see Oberlies 2000]. In: IndIranIndog 2000: 389-391.
Zoller 1989Zoller, C. P. 1989Bericht über grammatische Archaismen im Bangani. In: MünStudSpr 50: 159‑218.
Zupitza 1904Zupitza, E. 1904Miscellen. In: KZ 37: 387‑406.
Zōhrapean 1805Zōhrapean, Yovhannēs 1805Astuacašunč‘ matean Hin ew Nor Ktakaranac‘ (4 vols.). Venice: S. Lazar.
AbhKönGesWisGötAbhandlungen der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingenhistorisch-philologische Classe. Göttingen: in der Dieterichsen Buchhandlung.
AčaṙAnjnAčaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi 1942‑62Hayoc‘ anjnanunneri baṙaran [AčaṙAnjn 1‑5]. 1, 1942; 2, 1944; 3, 1946; 4, 1948; 5, 1962. Yerevan: University Press. [The volumes 1‑4 = Gitakan ašxatut‘yunner 21, 24, 25, 26, respectively].
AčaṙHLPatmAčaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi 1940‑51(AčaṙHLPatm 1‑2): Hayoc‘ lezvi patmut‘yun, vol. 1, Yerevan: University Press, 1940; vol. 2, Yerevan: State Press of Armenia (HayPetHrat), 1951.
AčaṙLiakAčaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi 1955‑05(AčaṙLiak): Liakatar k‘erakanut‘yun hayoc‘ lezvi: hamematut‘yamb 562 lezuneri. Yerevan: Academy Press. Introductory vol., 1955; vol. 1, 1952; vol. 2, 1954; vol. 3, 1957, vol. 4a, 1959, vol. 4b, 1961; vol. 5, 1965; vol. 6, 1971. The last [7th] volume does not have a number; it comprises the unfinished manuscripts of the author on Semantics, Lexicology, and Syntax (ed. by S. Galstyan and X. Badikyan): Yerevan: University Press, 2005. I cite it as AčaṙLiak 2005.
ActAntHungActa Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae. Budapest.
ActOrHungActa Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae. Budapest.
ActOrBelgActa Orientalia Belgica (published by Société Belge d’Études Orientales). Leuven.
AdonDion 2008Aruest Dioniseay k‘erakani ew hay meknut‘iwnk‘ norin. InAdonc‘ 2008: IX-CLXXXIII (the study), 1-305 (the texts). This is a new edition of Adonc 1915. The Armenian translation of the study (IX-CLXXXIII) and the commentary (425-448) by Olga Vardazaryan.
AltorForschAltorientalische Forschungen.
AmJPhilAmerican journal of philology.
AmstBeiAltGermAmsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik. Amsterdam, Atlanta GARodopi.
AncIEDial 1966H. Birnbaum, J. Puhvel (eds.), Ancient Indo-European dialectsproceedings of the Conference on Indo-European linguistics held at the University of California, Los Angeles, 1963. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
AnnArmLingAnnual of Armenian linguistics.
AntiqIndog 1974M. Mayrhofer, W. Meid, B. Schlerath, R. Schmitt (eds.), Antiquitates indogermanicaeStudien zur indogermanischen Altertumskunde und zur Sprach- und Kulturgeschichte der indogermanischen Völker. Gedenkschrift für Hermann Güntert. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck. (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, 12).
Anzeiger zu IndogForschAnzeiger für indogermanische Sprach- und Altertumskunde. Beiblatt zu den Indogermanischen Forschungen.
APILKUArbejds papirerInstitut for Lingvistik. Københavns Universitet.
AramazdAramazdArmenian journal of Near-Eastern studies. Yerevan.
ArchGlottItalArchivio Glottologico Italiano. Firenze.
ArmPont 2009Richard G. Hovannisian (ed.), Armenian Pontusthe Trebizond-Black Sea communities. (UCLA Armenian history and culture series. Historic Armenian cities and provinces, 8).
ArmRevThe Armenian Review.
ArxRit 1988Arxaičeskij ritual v fol’klornyx i ranneliteraturnyx pamjatnikax. MoscowGRVLI.
AzgHandAzgagrakan handēs.
ArchOrArchiv Orientální. Prague.
BalcLingIssl 1979BalcanicaLingvističeskie issledovanija. Moscow: “Nauka”, 1979.
BalkLingSborT. V. Civ’jan (otv. red.), Balkanskij lingvističeskij sbornik. Moscow“Nauka”.
BaltSlavIsslBalto-slavjanskie issledovanija. Moscow“Nauka”.
BanbErewHamalsBanber Erewani hamalsaranihasarakakan gitut‘yunner = Vestnik Erevanskogo universiteta: obščestvennye nauki (VEU). Yerevan: University Press.
BanbMatenBanber Matenadarani. YerevanAcademy Press. Matenadaran: gitakan nyut‘eri žoɫovacu; vol. 1, 1941; vol. 2, 1949 [1950]. Since vol. 3: Banber Matenadarani.
BasPerzNed 2007Basiswoordenboek Perzisch-Nederlands. By Asghar Seyed-Gohrab, Gabrielle van den Berg and Marjolijn van Zutphen. LeidschendamQuist.
BeiAssSemSprBeiträge zur Assyriologie und semitischen Sprachwissenschaft. Leipzig.
BeiGesDeuSprLitBeiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur. Halle (Saale).
BeitrNamenfBeiträge zur Namenforschung.
BiblSacrPolygl 1, 1657B. Walton (ed.), Biblia Sacra polyglotta. Vol. 1. LondonThomas Roycroft. M DC LVII (=1657).
BKIgSBeiträge zur Kunde der indogermanischen Sprachen (ed. Ad. Bezzenberger). Göttingen.
BngTxnPtmHayBnagitut‘yan ew texnikayi patmut‘yunə Hayastanum (gitakan ašxatut‘yunneri žoɫovacu). YerevanAcademy Press.
BSLBulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris.
BSOSBulletin of the School of Oriental Studies. University of London. (Currently published by School of Oriental and African Studies).
ChicHittDictChicago Hittite dictionaryThe Hittite dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Vol. L-N, 1989 [fascicles 1-4, 1980-1989], vol P, 1997 (ed. by Hans G. Güterbock and Harry A. Hoffner), vol. , fasc. 1, 2002, fasc. 2, 2005 (ed. by Hans G. Güterbock, Harry A. Hoffner, Theo P. J. van den Hout).
DerSöz(1-12), Türkiye’de Halk Ağzɩndan, Derleme sözlüğü. Vol. 1, 1963 – vol. 12, 1982. Ankara.
DeutPersWörtEilers, Wilhelm 1967-83(DeutPersWört 1-2), Deutsch-Persisches Wörterbuch. Vol. 1: A-D, 1967; vol. 2: E-Feucht, 1983. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
DialAdd apud NHBAddendum of dialectal words in NHB 21060-1067.
DoklANSSSRDoklady Akademii Nauk SSSR (Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences de l’URSS). Mosow/LeningradAcademy Press.
DrevAnat 1985Drevnjaja Anatolija. MoscowGRVLI “Nauka”.
DrevVostDrevnij Vostok. YerevanAcademy Press.
DrJazMalAzI. M. D’jakonov & V. V. Ivanov (eds.), Drevnie jazyki Maloj Aziisbornik statej. Moscow: “Progress”.
EarContUralIndEur 2001Christian Carpelan, Asko Parpola & Petteri Koskikallio (eds.), Early contacts between Uralic and Indo-Europeanlinguistic and archaeological considerations. Papers presented at an international symposium held at the Tvärminne Research Station of the University of Helsinki (8-10 January, 1999). Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilainen seura. (Mémoires de la Société Finno-ougrienne, 242).
ÈllBlVVizIr 1967Èllinističeskij Bližnij Vostok, Vizantija i Iranistorija i filologija. Moscow: “Nauka”.
ĒmAzgŽoɫĒminean azgagrakan žoɫovacu.
EncIranEhsan Yarshater (ed.), Encyclopaedia Iranica. Vol. 1, London, Boston and HenleyRoutledge & Kegan Paul, 1982; vol. 2, London and New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1987; <...>; vol. 12, New York, New York: Encyclopaedia Iranica Foundation, 2004; vol. 13, fascicle 4, New York: Encyclopaedia Iranica Foundation, 2006. (Columbia University, Center for Iranian studies).
EncIslThe encyclopaedia of Islam (prepared by a number of leading orientalists). LeidenBrill, etc.
EncRel 8, 1987Mircea Eliade (editor-in-chief), The encyclopedia of religion. Vol. 8. New YorkMacmillan Publishing Company. London: Collier Macmillan Publishers.
ErHamGitAšxYerevani petakan hamalsarangitakan ašxatut‘yunner. Yerevan: University Press.
ÉtCeltÉtudes celtiques. Paris.
EthnAncMesop 2005W. H. van Soldt (ed., in coop. with R. Kalvelagen and D. Katz), Ethnicity in ancient Mesopotamia. Papers read at the 48th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale. Leiden, 1-4 July 2002. LeidenNederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten.
EthnGrTurk 1989Ethnic groups in the Republic of Turkey. Comp. and ed. by Peter Alford with the assistance of Rüdiger Benninghaus. WiesbadenDr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag. (Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients. Reihe B /Geisteswissenschaften/, 60).
EthnMittUngEthnologische Mitteilungen aus Ungarn. Budapest.
ÈtimSlovIranJazV. S. Rastorgueva & D. I. Èdel’man, Ètimologičeskij slovar’ iranskix jazykov. Vol. 1, 2000; 2, 2003; 3, 2007 -. Moscow“Vostočnaja Literatura” Publishers.
ÈtimSlovSlavJazO. N. Trubačev (ed.), Ètimologičeskij slovar’ slavjanskix jazykov. Vol. 1, 1974 – vol. 32, 2005 (in progress). Moscow“Nauka”.
ÈtnNarBalk 1984L. A. Gindin (red.), Ètnogenez narodov Balkan i Severnogo Pričernomor’jalingvistika, istorija, arxeologija. Moscow: “Nauka”.
EtymDictAltLang 2008Sergei Starostin, Anna Dybo, Oleg Mudrak; with assistance of Ilya Gruntov & Vladimir Glumov. Etymological dictionary of the Altaic languages. Leiden etc.Brill.
EtymWört 1983Alfred Bammesberger (ed.), Das etymologische WörterbuchFragen der Konzeption und Gestaltung. Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet. (Eichstätter Beiträge 8: Abteilung Sprache und Literatur).
EvidLaryngWinter, Werner (ed.), Evidence for laryngeals. The Hague, London, ParisMouton.
EWAiaM. Mayrhofer, Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen, 3 vols., 1992-2001. HeidelbergUniversitätsverlag C. Winter.
FlexWortb 1975Helmut Rix (ed.), Flexion und WortbildungAkten der V. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft (Regensburg, 9-14 September 1973). Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.
FlorTurkP. H. Davis e.a. (ed.), Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands. Vol. 1 (1965) etc. EdinburghUniversity Press.
FolLingHistFolia linguistica historica. Societas Linguistica Europaea.
FolOrientFolia Orientalia. Kraków.
FrMitSpIdg 1994George E. Dunkel, Gisela Meyer, Salvatore Scarlata, Christian Seidl (eds.), Früh-, Mittel-, SpätindogermanischAkten der IX. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 5. bis 9. Oktober 1992 in Zürich. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 1994.
Fs Baumgartner 1967Hebraische Wortforschung. Festschrift zum 80.Geburtstag von Walter Baumgartner. LeidenE. J. Brill.
Fs Beekes 1997A. Lubotsky (ed.), Sound law and analogypapers in honor of Robert S. P. Beekes on the occasion of his 60th birthday. Amsterdam-Atlanta, GA: Rodopi B.V.
Fs Belardi 1994P. Cipriano, P. Di Giovine, M. Mancini (eds.), Miscellanea di studi linguistici in onore di Walter Belardi. 1-2. RomaIl Calamo.
Fs Benveniste 1975Mélanges linguistiques offerts à Émile Benveniste. LouvainDépositaire Éditions Peeters. (Collection Linguistique publiée par la Société de Linguistique de Paris, LXX).
Fs Biezais 1979Humanitas religiosaFestschrift für Haralds Biezais zu seinem 70. Geburtstag. Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksell.
Fs Debrunner 1954Sprachgeschichte und WortbedeutungFestschrift Albert Debrunner gewidmet von Schülern, Freunden und Kollegen (mit Vorwort und Verzeichnis seiner Schriften von Georges Redard). Bern: Francke Verlag.
Fs Diakonoff 1982Societies and languages of the ancient Near Eaststudies in honour of I. M. Diakonoff. Warminster, Wilts, England: Aris & Phillips Ltd.
Fs Goldman 1956Weinberg, Saul S. (ed.), The Aegean and the Near Eaststudies presented to Hetty Goldman on the occasion of her seventy-fifth birthday. Locust Valley, New York: J. J. Augustin Publisher.
Fs Harmatta 1977Studies in honour of J. Harmatta. = ActAntHung 25, 1977. BudapestAkadémiai Kiadó.
Fs Haugen 1972Evelyn Scherabon Firchow, Kaaren Grimstad, Nils Hasselmo, Wayne A. O’Neil (eds.), Studies for Einar Haugenpresented by friends and colleagues on the occasion of his 65th birthday. The Hague, Paris: Mouton.
Fs Hoenigswald 1987George Cardona & Norman H. Zide (eds.), Festschrift for Henry Hoenigswaldon the occasion of his 70. birthday. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Fs Humbach 1986B. Forssman, K. Hoffmann, J. Narten (eds.), Studia grammatica iranicaFestschrift für Helmut Humbach. (“Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft”, Beiheft 13, N.F.). München: R. Kitzinger.
Fs Ivanov 1999Poètika, istorija literatury, lingvistikasbornik k 70-letiju Vjačeslava Vsevolodoviča Ivanova = Essays in poetics, literary history and linguistics: presented to Viacheslav Vsevolodovich Ivanov on the occasion of his seventieth birthday. Moscow: OGI.
Fs Ivanov 2005Antropologija kul’tury. Vypusk 3. K 75-letiju V. V. Ivanova. Moscow“Novoe izdatel’stvo”, 2005.
Fs Kellens 2009É. Pirart & X. Tremblay (eds.), Zarathushtra entre l’Inde et l’Iran. Études indo-iranniennes et indo- européennes offertes аÌ Jean Kellens аÌ l’occasion de son 65e anniversaire. WiesbadenReichert. (Beiträge zur Iranistik, 30).
Fs Knobloch 1985Hermann M. Ölberg & Gernot Schmidt (eds.) [unter Mitarbeit von Heinz Bothien], Sprachwissenschaftliche ForschungenFestschrift für Johann Knobloch zum 65. Geburtstag. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck. (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft, 23).
Fs Kortlandt 2008Evidence and counter-evidenceessays in honour of Frederik Kortlandt; ed. by Alexander Lubotsky, Jos Schaeken, Jeroen Wiedenhof, with the assistance of Rik Derksen and Sjoerd Siebinga. Vol. 1: Balto-Slavic and Indo-European linguistics; vol. 2: General linguistics. Amsterdam, New York: Rodopi. (Studies in Slavic and general linguistics, 32-33).
Fs Kuiper 1968PratidānamIndian, Iranian and Indo-European studies presented to Franciscus Bernardus Jacobus Kuiper on his 60th birthday. The Hague, Paris: Mouton.
Fs Lehmann 1977Paul J. Hopper et al. (eds.), Studies in descriptive and historical linguisticsFestschrift for Winfred P. Lehmann. (Amsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science. Series IV Current issues in linguistic theory, 4). Amsterdam: John Benjamins B. V.
Fs Lehmann 1999Edgar C. Polomé & Carol F. Justus (eds.), Language change and typological variationin honor of Winfred P. Lehmann on the occasion of his 83rd birthday. Vol. 1: Language change and phonology; vol. 2: Grammatical universals and typology. Washington: Institute for the Study of Man. (JourIndEurStud Monograph Numbers 30 and 31).
Fs Leslau 1991Alan S. Kaye (ed.), Semitic studiesin honor of Wolf Leslau on the occasion of his 85th birthday (2 vols.). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Fs Müller 1988Piotr O. Scholz & Reinhard Stempel (eds.), Nubia et oriens christianusFestschrift für C. Detlef G. Müller zum 60. Geburtstag. Köln: Verlag Jürgen Dinter. (Bibliotheca Nubica, 1).
Fs Pagliaro 19691-3 Studia classica et orientalia Antonino Pagliaro Oblate. Roma.
Fs Pedersen 1937L. Hjelmslev, C. Höeg, Ch. Møller, Ad. Stender-Petersen (eds.), Mélanges linguistiques offerts à M. Holger Pedersen à l’occsion de son soixante-dixième anniversaire, 7 avril 1937. AarhusUniversitetsforlaget; København: Levin & Munksgaard. (Acta Jutlandica: Aarsskrift for Aarhus Universitet, IX1).
Fs Pisani 1969Studi linguistici in onore di Vittore Pisani (2 parts). PBresciaPaideia.
Fs Pisowicz 2006Anna Krasnowolska, Kinga Maciuszak, Barbara Mękarska (eds.), In the Orient where the gracious light...Satura orientalis in honorem Andrzej Pisowicz. Kraków.
Fs Pokorny 1967Wolfgang Meid (ed.), Beiträge zur Indogermanistik und KeltologieJulius Pokorny zum 80. Geburtstag gewidmet. Innsbruck: Sprachwissenschaftliche Institut der Universität Innsbruck. (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft; Bd. 13).
Fs Polomé 1988Mohammad Ali Jazayery and Werner Winter (eds.), Languages and culturesstudies in honor of Edgar C. Polomé. BJerlin, New York, Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. (Trends in linguistics. Studies and monographs, 36).
Fs Polomé 1991-92Perspectives on Indo-European language, culture and religionstudies in honor of Edgar C. Polomé. Vol. 1, 1991; vol. 2, 1992. Virginia: McLean; Institute for the Study of Man. (Journal of Indo-European studies; Monographs 7, 9).
Fs Rasmussen 2004Per aspera ad asteriscosstudia indogermanica in honorem J. E. Rasmussen sexagenarii Idibus Martiis anno MMIV. Innsbruck.
Fs Schlerath 1994Die Indogermanen und das PferdAkten des internationalen interdisziplinären Kolloquiums Freie Universität Berlin, 1.-3. Juli 1992 (hrsg. von Bernhard Hänsel und Stefan Zimmer unter Mitwirkung von Marie-Luise Dunkelmann und Almut Hintze). Bernfried Schlerath zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet. Budapest: Archaeolingua Alapítvány.
Fs Schmidt 1928W. Koppers (ed.), Festschriftpublication d’hommage offerte au P. W. Schmidt. Wien: Mechitharisten.
Fs Schrijnen 1929Donum natalicium SchrijnenVerzameling van opstellen door oud-leerlingen en bevriende vakgenooten opgedragen aan mgr. prof. dr. Jos. Schrijnen bij gelegenheid van zijn zestigsten verjaardag 3 Mei 1929. Nijmegen, Utrecht: N. V. Dekker & Van De Vegt.
Fs SeilerGunter Brettschneider & Christian Lehmann (eds.), Wege zur Universalienforschungsprachwissenschaftl. Beitr. zum 60. Geburtstag von Hansjakob Seiler. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. (Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik, 145).
Fs Stang 1970Velta Rūķe-Draviņa (ed.), Donum Balticumto Professor Christian S. Stang on the occasion of his seventieth birthday 15 March 1970. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Fs Szemerényi 1979Bela Brogyanyi (ed.), Studies in diachronic, synchronic, and typological linguisticsfestschrift for Oswald Szemerényi on the occasion of his 65th birthday (“Current issues in linguistic theory”, vol. 11, in two parts). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fs Szemerényi 1993Bela Brogyanyi & Reiner Lipp (eds.), Comparative-historical linguisticsIndo-European and Finno-Ugric (Current issues in linguistic theory, 79). Papers in honor of Oswald Szemerényi. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Fs Toporov 1998A. A. Gippius, L. G. Nevskaja, T. M. Nikolaeva, T. V. Civ’jan (eds.), Πολυτροπον. To 70th birthday of Vladimir Toporov. Moscow“Indrik”.
Fs Watkins 1998Jay Jasanoff, H. Craig Melchert & Lisi Oliver (eds.), Mír curadstudies in honor of Calvert Watkins. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, 92).
Fs Weller 1954Johannes Schubert & Ulrich Schneider (eds.), AsiaticaFestschrift Friedrich Weller. Zum 65.Geburtstag gewidmet von seinen Freunden Kollegen und Schülern. Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz.
Fs Winter 1985U. Pieper and G. Stickel (eds.), Studia linguistica, diachronica et synchronica Werner Winter sexagenario anno MCMLXXXIII. Berlin, New York, AmsterdamMouton de Gruyter.
Fs Winter 2003Brigitte L. M. Bauer, Georges-Jean Pinault (eds.), Language in time and spacea Festschrift for Werner Winter on the occasion of his 80th birthday. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 144).
Fs Zarubin 1963Iranskij sbornikk semidesjatipjatiletiju prof. I. I. Zarubina. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Vostočnoj Literatury.
Gd Berbérian 1986Dickran Kouymjian (ed.), Armenian studies in memoriam Haïg Berbérian (1887-1978). LisbonCalouste Gulbenkian Foundation. (Armenian Library of the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation).
Gd Campanile 1997Scríbthair a ainm n-ogaimscritti in memoria di Enrico Campanile. Pacini Editore S.p.A.
Gd Güntert 1974M. Mayrhofer, W. Meid, B. Schlerath, R. Schmitt (eds.), Antiquitates indogermanicaeStudien zur indogermanischen Altertumskunde und zur Sprach- und Kulturgeschichte der indogermanischen Völker. Gedenkschrift für Hermann Güntert. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck. (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, 12).
Gd Kerns 1981Yoël L. Arbeitman & Allan R. Bomhard (eds.), Bono homini donumessays in hitorical linguistics, in memory of J. Alexander Kerns. (Amsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science. Series IV Current issues in linguistic theory, 16). Amsterdam: John Benjamins B. V.
Gd Klíma 1994Petr Vavroušek (ed.), Iranian and Indo-European studiesmemorial volume of Otakar Klíma. Prague: Enigma Corporation. (Prague: Prospektrum).
Gd Kronasser 1982Erich Neu (ed.), Investigationes philologicae et comparativaeGedenkschrift für Heinz Kronasser. KWiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Gd Marr 1935I. I. Meščaninov (ed.), Akademija Nauk SSSR XLVAkademiku N. Ja. Marru. Moscow, Leningrad: Academy Press. 1935.
Gd Meillet 1987L’opera scientifica di Antoine Meilletatti del Convegno della Società italiana di glottologia, Pisa, 12-14 dicembre 1986; testi raccolti a cura di Adriana Quattordio Moreschini. Pisa: Giardini, 1987. (Biblioteca della Società italiana di glottologia, 11).
Gd Schindler 1999Compositiones indogermanicae in memoriam Jochem Schindler (hrsg. von H. Eichner und H.C. Luschützky unter redaktioneller Mitwirkung von V. Sadovski). Praha (enigma corporation), 1999.
Gd Sɫuszkiewicz 1974Jan Reychman (ed.), Anantapāraṁ kila śabdaśāstram ...księga pamiątkowa ku czci Eugeniusza Sɫuszkiewicza. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.
Gd Vorob’jev-Desjatovskij 1974Problemy istorii jazykov i kul’tury narodov Indiisbornik statej pamjati V. S. Vorob’jev-Desjatovskij. Moscow: GRVLI “Nauka”.
GötHögÅrsGöteborgs Högskolas Årsskrift. GöteborgWettergren & Kerber (Elander).
GRVLI “Nauka”Glavnaja redakcija vostočnoj literatury izdatel’stva “Nauka”.
GwṙUrmSalmBanasēr, Gawaṙakan baṙer Urmioy ew Salmasti hayoc‘. InBazmavēp: (1) 1897: 544-547; (2) 1898: 96-98.
HABAčaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi 1971‑79(HAB), Hayerēn armatakan baṙaran, in 4 vols (second edition). Yerevan: University Press. [The original edition: 1926‑1935, in 7 volumes, Yerevan: University Press].
HAB-AddHr. Ačaṙyan, Hayerēn armatakan baṙaranhavellik‘ ew uɫɫelik‘. Yerevan: University Press.
HamGitTeɫHayastani Petakan hamalsarani gitakan teɫekagir. Yerevan. 1-, 1925-.
HarvStudClasPhilHarvard Studies in Classical Philology.
HayAzgBanHay azgagrut‘yun ew banahyusut‘yunnyut‘er ew usumnasirut‘yunner (Armjanskaja ètnografija i fol’klor: materialy i issledovanija). Yerevan: Academy Press.
HayBrbAtlHayereni barbaṙagitakan atlasusumnasirut‘yunner ew nyut‘er. Yerevan: Academy Press, vol. 1, 1982; vol. 2, 1985.
HayKendAšxV. S. Ananyan, Hayastani kendanakan ašxarhəhnaguyn žamanakneric‘ minč‘ew mer ōrerə. Vol. 1, 1961; vol. 2, 1962; vol. 3, 1965; vol. 4, 1967; vol. 5, 1975. Yerevan: “Hayastan” (vols. 1 and 2: HayPetHrat, State Press of Armenia).
HaykHamHanrHaykakan hamaṙot hanragitaran (Armenian concise encyclopedia). Vol. 1, 1990; vol. 2, 1995; vol. 3, 1999; vol. 4, 2003. Editor-in-chiefK. S. Xudaverdyan (vols. 1-2), H. M. Ayvazyan (vols. 3-4); president of the scientific editorial council: V. H. Hambarjumyan (vols. 1-2), F. T. Sargsyan (vols. 3-4). Yerevan: Haykakan (Xorhrdayin) Hanragitarani Glxavor Xmbagrut‘yun (vol. 4: Haykakan Hanragitaran).
HayLezBrbBaṙ(2001-), A. Sargsyan et al. (eds.), Hayoc‘ lezvi barbaṙayin baṙaran. Vol.1, 2001 [letters a-z]; vol. 2, 2002 [letters ē-c]; vol. 3, 2004 [letters k-č]; vol. 4, 2007 [letters m-č‘];vol. 5, 2008 [letters p-s]. YerevanAcademy Press “Gitut‘yun”.
HayLezDarjBaṙ 1975A. M. Suk’iasyan & S. A. Galstyan, Hayoc‘ lezvi darjvacabanakan baṙaran. YerevanUniversity Press.
HayLezGrakHayoc‘ lezu ew grakanut‘yungitakan ašxatut‘yunneri miǰbuhakan žoɫovacu. Yerevan: University Press.
HayLezPatmHarc‘Hayoc‘ lezvi patmut‘yan harc‘er. YerevanAcademy Press.
HayLezPatmK‘erHayoc‘ lezvi patmakan k‘erakanut‘yun. YerevanAcademy Press. Vol. 1, 1982 (see H. Muradyan 1982); vol. 2, 1975 (see S. Ant‘osyan 1975; M. Muradyan 1975).
HaySrb 2001Sargis Harut’yunyan & Aram K‘alant‘aryan (eds.), Hayoc‘ srberə ew srbavayrerəakunk‘nerə, tiperə, paštamunk‘ə. Yerevan: “Hayastan” (Nat. Acad. of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia: Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography).
HayTeɫBaṙ(1986-2001), T‘. X. Hakobyan, St. T. Melik‘-Baxšyan, H. X. Barseɫyan. Hayastani ew harakic‘ šrǰanneri teɫanunneri baṙaran. Vol. 1, 1986; vol. 2, 1988; vol. 3, 1991; vol. 4, 1998; vol. 5, 2001. YerevanUniversity Press.
HayŽoɫMšakHay žoɫovrdakan mšakuyt‘. YerevanInstitute of Archaeology and Ethnography.
HerkWört 1997Herkunftswörterbuch der deutschen Sprache (bearb. von Günther Drosdowski). Mannheim, Leipzig, Wien, ZürichDudenverlag. (Duden, 7).
HHBMxit‘ar Vardapet Sebastac‘, Baṙgirk‘ Haykazean lezui (2 vols.). Venice, 1749-1769. [See also NHB].
HistSprHistorische Sprachforschung. Göttingen. See also KZ and ZVS.
Hut‘Sam 1895Hut‘ut‘ik ew Samēl Hovik, recorded by S. Haykuni, with introduction by N. K‘. InBiwrakn 29.9: 354-361.
HŽHek‘Hay žoɫovrdakan hek‘iat‘ner (HŽHek‘), redacted by H. Ōrbeli et al. YerevanAcademy Press. Vol. 1 (Ararat), ed. by A. M. Nazinyan (1959). Vol. 2 (Ararat), ed. by A. M. Nazinyan (1959). Vol. 3 (Ararat), ed. by A. M. Nazinyan (1962). Vol. 4 (Širak – Alek‘sandrapol, Basen, J̌avaxk‘), ed. by M. S. Mkrtč‘yan (1963). Vol. 5 (Łarabaɫ), ed. by A. M. Nazinyan & M. M. Grigoryan (Spandaryan) (1966). Vol. 10 (Muš‑Bulanəx), ed. by S. Taronc‘i (1967). Vol. 9 (Alaškert etc.), ed. by M. S. Mkrtč‘yan (1968). Vol. 6 (Arc‘ax/Łarabaɫ‑Utik‘), ed. by A. M. Nazinyan & V. G. Svazlyan (1973). Vol. 8 (Gugark‘), ed. by A. M. Nazinyan & Ṙ. H. Grigoryan (1977). Vol. 7 (Łarabaɫ‑Zangezur), ed. by A. M. Nazinyan & M. N. Aṙak‘elyan (1979). Vol. 11 (Muš‑Bulanəx), ed. by M. S. Mkrtč‘yan (1980). Vol. 12 (Mšo dašt/Taron/Turuberan), ed. by V. G. Svazlyan (1984). Vol. 13 (Muš/Taron/Turuberan), ed. by A. S. Łaziyan (1985). Vol. 14 (Van/Vaspurakan), ed. by A. Łaziyan (1999).
IncLingIncontri linguistici. Pisa, Roma.
IndDrev 1964V. V. Struve, G. M. Bongard-Levin (eds.), Indija v drevnosti (collection of papers). MoscowGRVLI “Nauka”.
IndEur&IndEur 1970George Cardona, Henry M. Hoenigswald & Alfred Senn (eds.), Indo-European and Indo-Europeans. PhiladelphiaUniversity of Pennsylvania Press. (The Haney Foundation series, University of Pennsylvania, 9).
IndEurWordFormJames Clackson & Birgit Anette Olsen (eds.), Indo-European word formationproceedings of the conference held at the University of Copenhagen October 20th – 22nd 2000. Copenhagen: Museum Tuscalanum Press. (Copenhagen studies in Indo-European, 2).
IndIranIndog 2000Bernhard Forssman & Robert Plath (eds.), Indoarisch, Iranisch und die IndogermanistikArbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 2. bis 5. Oktober 1997 in Erlangen. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag.
IndIranJourIndo-Iranian journal.
IndoIranLangPeopNicholas Sims-Williams (ed.), Indo-Iranian languages and peoples. New YorkOxford University Press, 2002. (Proceedings of the British Academy, 116).
IndogCaucas 1994Indogermanica et CaucasicaFestschrift für Karl Horst Schmidt zum 65. Geburtstag. Hrsg. von Roland Bielmeier und Reinhard Stempel; unter Mitarb. von René Lanszweert. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter. (Untersuchungen zur indogermanischen Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft, 6).
IndogDicht 1968R. Schmitt (ed.), Indogermanische Dichtersprache, DarmstadtWissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
IndogForschIndogermanische Forschungen. StrassburgKarl J. Trübner.
IndogPferd 1994Die Indogermanen und das PferdAkten des internationalen interdisziplinären Kolloquiums Freie Universität Berlin, 1.-3. Juli 1992 (hrsg. von Bernhard Hänsel und Stefan Zimmer unter Mitwirkung von Marie-Luise Dunkelmann und Almut Hintze). Bernfried Schlerath zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet. Budapest: Archaeolingua Alapítvány.
IntConfArmLett 2006International Conference dedicated to the 1600th anniversary of the Armenian letters creation (Yerevan, September 12-17, 2005)collection of papers. Yerevan: Academy Press “Gitut‘yun”.
IntJourSlavLingPoetInternational journal of Slavic linguistics and poetics. ’s-GravenhageMouton & Co.
IntSympArmLing 1984International symposium on Armenian linguistics (Yerevan, September 21-25, 1982)Reports. Yerevan: Academy Press, 1984.
IranCaucIran and the Caucasusresearch papers from the Caucasian Centre for Iranian studies, Yerevan. Leiden/Boston: Brill.
IsslStrTeks 1987Issledovanija po strukture teksta. Moscow“Nauka”.
IstDrevVostIstorija drevnego Vostokazaroždenie drevnejšix klassovyx obščestv i pervye očagi rabovladel’českoj civilizacii. Part 1. Mesopotamija, 1983. Part 2. Perednjaja Azija. Egipet, 1988. Moscow: GRVLI “Nauka”.
JAmOrSocJournal of the American Oriental Society.
JaynHamšJayn hamšenakan. Vol. [1]Sero Xanzadyan (ed.), Yerevan: “Hayastan”, 1971; vol. 2: A. Zeyt‘unyan (ed.), Yerevan: “Sovetakan groɫ”, 1979; vol. 3: Sergey Vardanyan (ed.), Yerevan: “Xorhrdayin groɫ”, 1989; vol. 4: Sergey Galstyan & Lyudvig Karapetyan (eds.), Yerevan: “Vernatun”, 1999.
JCunStJournal of Cuneiform Studies.
JourAsiatJournal asiatique.
JourHellStudJournal of Hellenic studies.
JourIndEurStudJournal of Indo-European studies.
JourRoyAsSocJournal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland. London.
JourSocArmStudJournal of the Society for Armenian Studies.
KalObyč 1983Kalendarnye obyčai i obrjady v stranax zarubežnoj Evropyistoričeskie korni i razvitie obyčaev. Moscow: “Nauka”.
KavkÈtnSborKavkazskij ètnografičeskij sbornik. MoscowAcademy Press.
KavkBližVostSborKavkazsko-bližnevostočnyj sbornik. Tbilisi“Mecniereba”.
KelKelJaz 1974Jarceva, Serebrennikov, Makaev, Korolev (eds.), Kel’ty i kel’tskie jazykiMoscow: “Nauka”, 1974.
KEWAM. Mayrhofer, Kurzgefaßtes etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindischen (A concise etymological Sanskrit dictionary). HeidelbergCarl Winter Universitätsverlag. Bd. 1-4, 1956-1980.
KiwlHamšKiwlēsērean, Babgēn Vardapet 1899-1900Čaniki vičakin mēǰ gtnuoɫ hamšēnc‘ineru gawaṙabarbaṙə (KiwlHamš 1899-1900). In: Biwrakn, vol. 17, 1899, Nr 31-32: 508-513; Nr 35: 558b-560a; Nr 38-39: 603b-605b; Nr 41: 654b-656a; Nr 44: 699b-700b; Nr 47-48: 752b-754b; Nr 49: 779b-780b; vol. 18, 1900: Nr 1: 14-16; Nr 2: 29b-31a; Nr 3: 42-43; Nr 4: 59b-62b; Nr 6: 82b-84b; Nr 8: 120-121.
Kluge/SeeboldKluge, Friedrich 1989(Kluge/Seebold), Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. 22.Auflage, unter Mithilfe von Max Bürgisser und Bernd Gregor völlig neu bearbeitet von Elmar Seebold. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Kul’tNaslVostKul’turnoe nasledie Vostokaproblemy, poiski, suždenija. Leningrad: “Nauka”, 1985.
K‘ristHayast 2002K‘ristonya Hayastanhanragitaran (encyclopedia). Redactor-in-chief and director: H. M. Ayvazyan. Yerevan: Haykakan hanragitarani glxavor xmbagrut‘yun.
KZKuhns Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung. See also HistSpr and ZVS.
LALIESActes des sessions de linguistique et de littérature 10 (Aussois, 1988-1989). ParisPresses de la Sorbonne Nouvelle. 1992.
LalVaspLalayean (Lalayeanc‘, Lalayan), E. 1912-14(LalVasp 1-2), Vaspurakan: banahyusut‘iwn (reprinted from AzgHand). Volume 1, 1912, T‘iflis: N. Aɫaneanc‘; vol. 2, Šataxi barbaṙov, 1914, T‘iflis: “Ēsperanto”.
LangIndEur 1997Langues indo-européennes (sous la direction de Françoise Bader). ParisCNRS Éditions.
LangPoétIndEur 2006Georges-Jean Pinault et Daniel Petit (eds.), La langue poétique indo-européenneactes du Colloque de travail de la Société des Études Indo-Européennes (Indogermanische Gesellschaft/Society for Indo-European Studies), Paris, 22-24 octobre 2003. Leuven, Paris: Peeters. (Collection linguistique, 91).
LangPrehEur 2003Languages in prehistoric Europe. Ed. by Alfred Bammesberger, Theo Vennemann; in collaboration with Markus Bieswanger, Joachim Grzega. HeidelbergUniversitätsverlag Winter.
LanguageLanguageJournal of the Linguistic Society of America.
LaryngTheor 1988Alfred Bammesberger (ed.), Die Laryngaltheorie und die Rekonstruktion des indogermanischen Laut- und Formensystems. HeidelbergCarl Winter: Universitätsverlag.
LeidIEEDSerAlexander Lubotsky (ed.), Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary series. Leiden, BostonBrill.
LeidStudIndEurLeiden studies in Indo-European. Series edited by R. S. P. Beekes, A. Lubotsky, J. J. S. Weitenberg. Amsterdam, AtlantaRodopi.
LezOčHarc‘Lezvi ew oči harc‘er. YerevanAcademy Press.
LingBalkLinguistique Balkanique (Balkansko ezikoznanie). SofiaAcademy Press.
LingGeogrDialIstJazLingvističeskaja geografija, dialektologija i istorija jazyka. YerevanAcademy Press, 1976.
LingPosnLingua Posnaniensis.
LingRek 1984Lingvističeskaja rekonstrukcija i drevnejšaja istorija Vostokatezisy i doklady konferencii. Moscow.
LitKDSIndLiteratura i kul’tura drevnej i srednevekovoj Indii (sbornik statej). MoscowGRVLI “Nauka”.
LrHasGitLraber hasarakakan gitut‘yunneri = Vestnik obščestvennyx nauk (VON). YerevanAcademy Press.
MankGAŽoɫErewani X. Abovyani anvan Haykakan petakan mankavaržakan instituti gitakan ašxatut‘yunneri žoɫovacu. YerevanAcademy Press.
MankQuartMankind quarterly.
MatGNŽoɫMatenadarangitakan nyut‘eri žoɫovacu; vol. 1, 1941; vol. 2, 1949 [1950]. Since vol. 3: Banber Matenadarani.
MedArmCultThomas J. Samuelian & Michael E. Stone (eds.), Medieval Armenian culture. Chico, Calif.Scholars Press, 1984 (University of Pennsylvania Armenian texts and studies, 6).
MedKonNedAkadWetLetMededelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, afd. Letterkunde. AmsterdamNoord-Hollandsche Uitgevers Maatschappij.
Mélanges Boisacq1-2, 1937-1938Mélanges Émile Boisacq. Annuaire de l’Institut de Philologie et d’Histoire Orientales et Slaves. 5, 1937; 6, 1938. Bruxelles.
MežIssArm 1990S. A. Esajan & G. E. Arešjan (eds.), Meždisciplinarnye issledovanija kul’turogeneza i ètnogeneza Armjanskogo nagor’ja i sopredel’nyx oblastej. YerevanUniversity Press.
MifNarMirMify narodov miraènciklopedija. Redactor-in-chief: S. A. Tokarev. Vol. 1, 1980; vol. 2, 1982. Moscow: “Sovetskaja ènciklopedija”.
MiǰHayBaṙ(1-2), Łazaryan, Ṙ. S. & Avetisyan, H.M., Miǰin hayereni baṙaran, vol. 1, 1987; vol. 2, 1992. YerevanUniversity Press.
MitAntGesWienMitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien. Horn, WienVerlag Ferdinand Berger.
MovsXorenMatenSrboy hōrn meroy Movsēsi Xorenac‘woy Matenagrut‘iwnk‘. VeniceS. Lazar, 1843; 1865. (See Sources: Movsēs Xorenac‘i).
MSLMémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris.
MünStudSprMünchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft.
MythIEAnt 1974Myth in Indo-European Antiquity, ed. by Gerald James Larson, coedited by C. Scott Littleton and Jaan Puhvel. Berkeley, Los Angeles, LondonUniversity of California Press.
MythLawIndEur 1970Jaan Puhvel (ed.), Myth and law among the Indo-Europeansstudies in Indo-European comparative mythology. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press. (Publications of the UCLA center for the study of comparative folklore and mythology; 1).
NewSouIndEur 1989Theo Vennemann (ed.), The new sound of Indo-Europeanessays in phonological reconstruction. The seventh international conference on historical linguistics held Sept. 9-13, 1985 at the University of Pavia. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter. (Trends in linguistics. Studies and monographs, 41).
NewApprMedArmJ. J. S. Weitenberg (ed.), New approaches to medieval Armenian language and literature. Amsterdam/AtlantaRodopi, 1995.
NHBG. Awetik‘ean, X. Siwrmēlean, M. Awgerean, Nor baṙgirk‘ haykazean lezui, 2 vols., VeniceSt Lazar (1836-1837); reprinted: Yerevan: University Press (1979-1981).
NJbGeolPalNeues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie. Stuttgart.
NmušLeṙnŁarab 1978Nmušner Leṙnayin Łarabaɫi žoɫovrdakan banahyusut‘yunic‘ (compiled by Mik‘ayel Aṙak‘elyan & Ṙobert Łahramanyan). Yerevan“Hayastan”.
NordLangModLing 1975Karl-Hampus Dahlstedt (ed.), The Nordic languages and modern linguistics 2proceedings of the Second International Conference of Nordic and General Linguistics, University of Umeå, June 14-19, 1973. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.
NovVulgBiblSacrNova Vulgata Bibliorum Sacrorum editio. Libreria Editrice VaticanaTypis Polyglottis Vaticanis. 1979.
NOWELENorth-Western European language evolution. OdenseOdense University Press.
NrsTidSprNorsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap. Oslo.
OčSrLekArm 1983G. B. Džaukjan, L. A. Saradževa, C. R. Arutjunjan. Očerki po sravnitel’noj leksikologii armjanskogo jazyka. YerevanAcademy Press.
Ofitsch/Zinko 2000Michaela Ofitsch & Christian Zinko (eds.), 125 Jahre Indogermanistik in Graz. Leykam.
OsnIranJaz-Dr 1979Osnovy iranskogo jazykoznanijadrevneiranskie jazyki. Ed. by V. A. Abaev, M. N. Bogoljubov, V. S. Pastorgueva (otv. red.). Moscow: “Nauka”.
OsnIranJaz-Sr 1981Osnovy iranskogo jazykoznanijasredneiranskie jazyki. Ed. by V. A. Abaev, M. N. Bogoljubov, V. S. Pastorgueva (otv. red.). Moscow: “Nauka”.
OsnIranJaz-NovOsnovy iranskogo jazykoznanijanovoiranskie jazyki. Ed. by V. A. Abaev, M. N. Bogoljubov, V. S. Pastorgueva (otv. red.). Moscow: “Nauka”, 1982, 1987.
OxfLatDictOxford Latin dictionary (ed. by P. G. W. Glare). OxfordClarendon Press. 1982.
PBHPatma-banasirakan handes = Istoriko-filologičeskij žurnal (IFŽ). YerevanAcademy Press.
Pedersen Kolloquium 1994In honorem Holger PedersenKolloquium der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 25. bis 28. März 1993 in Kopenhagen (hrsg. von J. E. Rasmussen, unter Mitwirkung von Benedicte Nielsen). Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag. 1994.
PlacArmLIE 1986Maurice Leroy & Francine Mawet (eds.), La place de l’arménien dans les langues indo-européennes. LouvainPeeters.
PhonAsAfr 1997Alan S. Kaye (ed.), Phonologies of Asia and Africa (including the Caucasus). Technical advisorPeter T. Daniels. Eisenbrauns.
PoeticaPoeticaZeitschrift für Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft. München. Since 1974: Amsterdam.
PresDayDial 2002Jan Berns & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Present-day dialectologyproblems and findings. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. (Trends in linguistics: Studies and monographs, 137).
PrIndEvrJaz 1964V. N. Toporov (ed.), Problemy indoevropejskogo jazykoznanijaètjudy po sravnitel’no-istoričeskoj grammatike indoevropejskix jazykov. Moscow: “Nauka”.
PrJazV. N. Toporov, Prusskij jazykslovar’: A-D (1975); E-H (1979); I-K (1980); K-L (1984); L (1990); not completed. Moscow: “Nauka”.
ProcFICAL 1980Proceedings of the First international symposium on Armenian linguistics (11-14 July 1979); ed. By John Greppin. Delmar, New YorkCaravan Books.
ProcFICAL 1996Proceedings of the Fifth international conference on Armenian linguistics. Delmar, New YorkCaravan Books.
ProcSISAL 1993Proceedings of the Second international symposium on Armenian linguistics (21-23 Sept. 1987); 2 vols. YerevanAcademy Press. See also ThesSISAL 1987.
PtmSivHisHay 1965Grigor Tēr Yovhannēsean (ed.), Patmagirk‘ Sivri-Hisari hayoc‘teɫagrakan, patmakan ew azgagrakan (initiated by Mihran Nersēsean). Pēyrut‘: Tparan Mšak.
RecLangCult 1992Edgar C. Polomé & Werner Winter (eds.), Reconstructing languages and cultures. Berlin, New YorkMouton de Gruyter. (Trends in linguistics: Studies and monographs, 58).
RecLar 1990La reconstruction des laryngales (= Bibliothèque de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres de l’Université de Liège, fascicule CCLIII). Liège-Paris.
RekRelChr 1992R. Beekes, A. Lubotsky, J. Weitenberg (eds.), Rekonstruktion und relative ChronologieAkten der Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft; 8 (Leiden, 1987). Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.
REIERevue des études indoeuropéennes.
RendLombLettRendicontiReale Istituto Lombardo di Scienze e Lettere, Milano; classe di lettere.
RevEtArmRevue des études arméniennes. Paris.
RevHitAsRevue hittite et asianique. Paris.
RicLingRicerche linguistiche. Roma. 1950-.
SasCṙSasna cṙer (SasCṙ)Armenian epic, “Daredevils of Sasun”. 1: 1936; 2.1: 1944; 2.2: 1951: M. Abeɫyan (ed.) with the assistance of K. Melik‘-Ōhanǰanyan. Yerevan: State Press. 3, 1979 and 4, 1999: ed. by Sargis Harut‘yunyan & Arusyak Sahakyan. Yerevan: Academy Press. SasCṙ 2000, ed. by Ṙoza Grigoryan & Eranuhi Melik‘-Muradyan. Yerevan: Academy Press “Gitut‘yun”. The most recent and valuable study on Armenian epic is A. Petrosyan 2002 (an expanded English version of the Armenian original 1997a). Russian version: see 2002a. Russ. transl. of selected versions of the epic: see below, SasUdal.
SasUdalSasna cṙer (SasCṙ)Armenian epic, “Daredevils of Sasun”. 1: 1936; 2.1: 1944; 2.2: 1951: M. Abeɫyan (ed.) with the assistance of K. Melik‘-Ōhanǰanyan. Yerevan: State Press. 3, 1979 and 4, 1999: ed. by Sargis Harut‘yunyan & Arusyak Sahakyan. Yerevan: Academy Press. SasCṙ 2000, ed. by Ṙoza Grigoryan & Eranuhi Melik‘-Muradyan. Yerevan: Academy Press “Gitut‘yun”. The most recent and valuable study on Armenian epic is A. Petrosyan 2002 (an expanded English version of the Armenian original 1997a). Russian version: see 2002a. Russ. transl. of selected versions of the epic: see below, SasUdal.
SasCṙGit 2004Azat Eɫiazaryan, Sargis Harut‘yunyan, Armen Petrosyan [editor-in-charge], Varag Nersisyan (eds.), Haykakan “Sasna cṙer” ēposə ew hamašxarhayin žaṙangut‘yunəmiǰazgayin gitažoɫovi zekuc‘umnerə, 4-6 November, 2003, Caɫkajor (The Armenian epic “Daredevils” of Sassoun and the world epic heritage: international conference’s reports). Yerevan: Academy Press.
SemEtymDictMilitarev, Alexander & Kogan, Leonid, Semitic etymological dictionary. Vol. 1Anatomy of man and animals, 2000; vol. 2: Animal names, 2005. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. (Alter Orient und Altes Testament, 278/1-2).
SinPlatPapSino-Platonic papers.
ŠirGitAšxGitakan ašxatut‘yunnerŠiraki hayagitakan hetazotut‘yunneri kentron; National Academy of Sciences of Republic of Armenia. Gyumri: Academy Press “Gitut‘yun”.
SlavBalkJaz 1977Slavjanskoe i balkanskoe jazykoznanieantičnaja balkanistika i sravnitel’naja grammatika. Moscow: “Nauka”.
SlovRusNarGovF. P. Filin (ed.), Slovar’ russkix narodnyx govorov. LeningradNauka, 1963-.
SMOMPKSbornik materialov dlja opisanija mestnostej i plemen Kavkaza. Tiflis.
SouthAsArch 1994South Asian archaeology 1993Proceedings of the Twelfth International conference of the European Association of South Asian Archaeologists held in Helsinki University 5-9 July 1993 (ed. by Asko Parpola & Petteri Koskikallio). Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1994.
SovArxSovetskaja arxeologija.
SovVostSovetskoe vostokovedenie.
SovÈtnSovetskaja ètnografija.
SprGes 1970Harry Spitzbardt (ed.), Sprache und Gesellschaft. Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena.
SprKultIndog 1998Wolfgang Meid (ed.), Sprache und Kultur der IndogermanenAkten der X. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft (Innsbruck, 22-28 September 1996). Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft. (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, 93).
SprPhil 1990Heiner Eichner & Helmut Rix (eds.), Sprachwissenschaft und PhilologieJacob Wackernagel und die Indogermanistik heute. Kolloquium der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 13. bis 15. Oktober 1988 in Basel. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.
StBoTStudien zu den Boğazköy-Texten.
StudCaucStudia Caucasica.
StudEtymCracStudia etymologica Cracoviensia. Kraków.
StudIndogLodzStudia indogermanica Lodziensia. Łódź.
StudRedupBernhard Hurch (ed.), Studies on reduplication. BerlinMouton de Gruyter. (Empirical approaches to language typology, 28).
TeɫGAHFTeɫekagir SSṘM Gitut‘yunneri Akademiayi Haykakan Filiali. YerevanArmFAN.
TeɫHasGitTeɫekagirhasarakakan gitut‘yunner. Yerevan: Academy Press.
ThesSISAL 1987The Second international symposium on Armenian linguistics (21-23 Sept. 1987). Theses of reports. YerevanAcademy Press. See also ProcSISAL (1987) 1993, 1-2.
ThracMyc 1989Jan G. P. Best & Nanny M. W. de Vries (eds.), Thracians and Mycenaeansproceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Thracology, Rotterdam, 24-26 September 1984. Leiden etc.: E. J. Brill, 1989.
TochIndEurStudTocharian and Indo-European studies. ReykjavíkIceland University, Institute of Linguistics. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press. M
T‘ōxBaṙArsēn vardapet T‘ōxmaxean, Baṙakoyt Haykakan lezui (unpublished manuscript); a collection of (dialectal) words compiled in the prison of Van (cited in Amatuni 1912).
TrPhilSocTransactions of the Philological Society. London.
TrudZnakSistTrudy po znakovym sistemam. TartuUniversity Press.
TurkArmDictČ‘ugaszyan, B. L. 1986(ed., with introduction and commentary), Eɫia Mušeɫyan Karnec‘i, T‘urk‘eren‑hayeren baṙaran. Yerevan: Academy Press.
UšMǰnHayBnstHasmik Sahakyan (ed.), Uš miǰnadari hay banasteɫcut‘yunə. YerevanAcademy Press. Vol. 1, 1986; vol. 2, 1987.
UrHay 1988B. N. Aṙak‘elyan, G. B. J̌ahukyan, G. X. Sargsyan, Urartu-Hayastan. YerevanAcademy Press.
UZTGUUčenye zapiski Tartuskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta (Transactions of the Tartu State University). TartuUniversity Press.
VanSazŠērenc‘, Gēorg G. 1885‑99[VanSaz 1‑2], Vanay saz. Vol. 1. Hawak‘acoyk‘ Vaspurakani žoɫovrdakan ergeri, hēk‘eat‘neri, aṙacneri ew hanelukneri (teɫakan barbaṙov). T‘iflis: Tparan Yovhannēs Martiroseanc‘i, 1885. Vol. 2. Hawak‘acoyk‘ Vaspurakani žoɫovrdakan ergeri, hēk‘eat‘neri, aṙacneri, hanelukneri, ōrhnut‘iwnneri ew anēck‘neri (teɫakan barbaṙov). T‘iflis: Tparan K. Martiroseanc‘i, 1899.
VestDrIstVestnik drevnej istorii. Moscow.
VoprJazVoprosy jazykoznanija. Moscow.
WörtSachWörter und Sachen.
WienZeitKundMorgWiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes.
YušamXotorǰ 1964H. Yarut‘iwn v. Hulunean & H. Matt‘ēos v. Hačean, Yušamatean Xotorǰuri. ViennaMechitharisten.
Yušarjan 1911Nersēs Akinean (ed.), Festschrift aus Anlass des 100 jahrigen Bestandes der Mechitaristen-Kongregation in Wien (1811-1911), und des 25. Jahrganges der philosophischen Monatsschrift Handes amsorya (1887-1911). ViennaMxit‘arean Tparan.
YušMusLer 1970Martiros Gušagčean and Pōɫos Matuṙean, Yušamatean Musa Leran. Pēyrut‘Tparan “Atlas”.
ZArmPhilZeitschrift für armenische Philologie. Vol. 1, 1903; vol. 2, 1904. Marburg (Hessen)N. G. Elwert’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.
ZeitDeutMorgGeselZeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft.
ZeitPhonSprKomZeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung. BerlinAkademie-Verlag.
ZeitSlavPhilZeitschrift für slavische Philologie.
ZVSZeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung. See also HistSpr and KZ.
AbusayidA 12th-century Syrian scholar who lived in Cilician Armenia and wrote on medicine. “Yaɫags kazmut‘ean mardoyn”; ed. by S. A. Vardanyan (Arm. text and Russ. translation). YerevanAcademy Press, 1974.
Agat‘angeɫosPatmut‘iwn Hayoc‘ (5th century). Critical editionG. Tēr-Mkrtč‘ean & St. Kanayeanc‘. Tp‘ɫis (Tiflis): Aragatip Mnac‘akan Martiroseanc‘i, 1909. A facsimile reproduction with an introduction by R. W. Thomson. Delmar, New York: Caravan Books, 1980.The same text with ModArm. translation (on facing pages) and commentary by A. Ter-Łewondyan. Yerevan: University Press, 1983. English translation with the Armenian text (on facing pages): Thomson 1976. English translation of The Teaching of Saint Gregory (revised edition) with commentary and introduction: Thomson 2001. For the palimpsest, see Galēmk‘earean 1911. For a Russian translation, see Ter-Davtjan/Arevšatjan 2004.
Alexander Romanceby Pseudo-Callisthenes. Critical edition with introd. and commentary; see H. Simonyan 1989; English translationWolohojian 1969. See also Braccini 2004.
Amirdovlat‘Amirdovlat‘ Amasiac‘i (15th cent.; Amasia). Armenian textBasmaǰean 1926. Russ.: see S. Vardanjan 1990.
Anania Širakac‘iAnania Širakac‘i (c. 600 – c. 670; Širak, in the province of Ayrarat). Collection and study; see A. G. Abrahamyan 1944. “Tiezeragitut‘iwn ew tomar”see A. G. Abrahamyan 1940. Collection in ModArm.: A. G. Abrahamyan & G. B. Petrosyan 1979.
Ašxarhac‘oyc‘Armenian Geography (Ašxarhac‘oyc‘)MovsXorenMaten 1865: 585-616; A. G. Abrahamyan 1944: 336-354. With a French translation: Soukry 1881. With an introduction, ModArm. translation and annotated indices: Eremyan 1963. An unfinished attempt of a reconstructed text with thorough footnotes; see Eremyan 1972-73. English translation with introduction and commentary: Hewsen 1992. ModArm. Translation: A. G. Abrahamyan & G. B. Petrosyan 1979: 258-312.
Aṙak‘el Dawrižec‘iAṙak‘el Dawrižec‘i (17th cent., T‘avriz-Ēǰmiacin). The critical text with introduction and commentaryXanlaryan 1990; Russian translation with introduction and commentary: Xanlarjan 1973.
Aṙak‘el Siwnec‘iAṙak‘el Siwnec‘i (14-15th cent.)“Adamgirk‘”, critical text: Madoyan 1989; poems: Poturean 1914.
Aristakēs Lastiver(t)c‘iAristakēs Lastiver(t)c‘i – 11th cent.; born in Lastiver (district of Karin, in the province Barjr Hayk‘)Patmut‘iwn (History); critical edition: Yuzbašyan 1963. Russian translation: Yuzbašyan (Juzbašjan) 1968.
AṙOɫomp 1854AṙOɫomp 1854 – Aṙakk‘ Oɫompianu (apud Mxit‘ar Goš 1854).
Asar Sebastac‘iAsar Sebastac‘i (16-17th cent., native of Sebastia), “Girk‘ bžškakan arhesti” (16-17 th cent.), ed. by D. M. Karapetyan. YerevanAcademy Press, 1993.
Assizes of AntiochAssizes of Antioch – Ansiz Antiok‘ay (Crusader Law Code), translated by Smbat Sparapet (13th cent.). The text with French translationAlišan, Assises d’ Antioche. Venice: Imprimerie Arménienne Médaillée. 1876. (See also Thomson 1995: 36, 198).
BibleBiblethe complete ClArm. text: Zōhrapean 1805; separate editions: Xalat‘eanc‘ 1899; Stone 1979; Cox 1981; Zeyt‘unyan 1985; Cowe 1992; Weitenberg 1992a; Cox 2006.
SeptuagintaSeptuaginta (ed. by Alfred Rahlfs). StuttgartDeutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1935, 1979. Deuteronomy and Leviticus: Wevers 1995; 1997.
New TestamentNew TestamentNestle/Aland. Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1984, 1993. See also Bibliographical abbreviations: BiblSacrPolygl 1, 1657.
Book of ChriesBook of Chries (Book of Chreia), Girk‘ Pitoyic‘. A half-translated handbook of rhetoric (sec. half of 5th cent. or 6th cent.), written after the pattern of the Greek schoolbook composed by Aphthonius of Antioch. Critical text with introduction and commentaryG. Muradyan 1993; Russ. translation with introduction and commentary: G. Muradyan 2000.
Bžškaran jioy ew aṙhasarak grastnoyBžškaran jioy ew aṙhasarak grastnoy (13th cent.). Ed. by B. L. Č‘ugaszyan. YerevanAcademy Press, 1980.
ColophonsHayJeṙHiš V-XIIHayeren jeṙagreri hišatakaranner: V-XII dd. Ed. by A. S. Mat‘ewosyan. Yerevan: Academy Press, 1988.
Dawit‘ Alawkay OrdiDawit‘ Alawkay Ordi (11-12th cent., Ganjak/Kirovabad)Abrahamyan, A. 1952-53: Davit‘ Alavka ordu kanonnerə. In: (1) Ēǰmiacin 1952, Sept-Oct: 48-57; (2) Ēǰmiacin 1953, Jan: 56-62; (3) Febr: 53-60; (4) March: 51-63.
Dawt‘akDawt‘ak (7th cent.)see Movsēs Kaɫankatuac‘i (Dasxuranc‘i).
Dionysius ThraxDionysius Thrax (grammarian of the 2nd century BC; the Armenian text6-7th cent.). See Adonc‘ 1915, 2008, and AdonDion 2008. (For French translations 1830 and 1970, see Thomson 1995: 45).
DivHayVim 5, 1982DivHayVim 5, 1982Divan hay vimagrut‘yan. Vol. 5: Arc‘ax. Compiled by S. G. Barxudaryan; redacted by B. N. Aṙak‘elyan. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Eɫia MušeɫyanEɫia Mušeɫyan Karnec‘i, a merchant and philologist who knew many languages (Armenian, Classical Armenian, Turkish, Latin, French; partly – Persian, Polish, Russian (see Č‘ugaszyan 198617, 19, 312); born in 1689 in Karin; his father was from Xotorǰur. Turkish-Armenian dictionary, around 2000 words (c. 1720 AD); see Č‘ugaszyan 1986.
EɫišēEɫišē (5th century), Vasn Vardanay ew Hayoc‘ paterazmin“History of Vardan and the Armenian War”. Ed. by E. Ter-Minasyan (ClArm. text with ModArm. translation and commentary). Yerevan: University Press, 1989. English translation: Thomson 1982.
Eusebius of CaesareaEusebius of Caesarea (3-4th cent.), ChronicleJ. Aucher, Ewsebi Pamp‘ileay Kesarac‘woy Žamanakakank‘ erkmasneay. 2 vols. Venice: S. Lazar, 1818.
Eznik Koɫbac‘iEznik Koɫbac‘i (5th cent.; the village of Koɫb in Čakatk‘, Ayrarat)Eɫc aɫandoc‘ “Refutation of the Sects” / “De Deo”. Critical edition: M. Minasean. In: HandAms 1987-1992. ClArm. text with ModArm. translation and commentary by A. A. Abrahamyan. Yerevan: University Press, 1994. English translation: Blanchard/Young 1998. German translation: Schmid 1900.
Folk-talesHay žoɫovrdakan hek‘iat‘ner (HŽHek‘), redacted by H. Ōrbeli et al. YerevanAcademy Press. Vol. 1 (Ararat), ed. by A. M. Nazinyan (1959). Vol. 2 (Ararat), ed. by A. M. Nazinyan (1959). Vol. 3 (Ararat), ed. by A. M. Nazinyan (1962). Vol. 4 (Širak – Alek‘sandrapol, Basen, J̌avaxk‘), ed. by M. S. Mkrtč‘yan (1963). Vol. 5 (Łarabaɫ), ed. by A. M. Nazinyan & M. M. Grigoryan (Spandaryan) (1966). Vol. 10 (Muš‑Bulanəx), ed. by S. Taronc‘i (1967). Vol. 9 (Alaškert etc.), ed. by M. S. Mkrtč‘yan (1968). Vol. 6 (Arc‘ax/Łarabaɫ‑Utik‘), ed. by A. M. Nazinyan & V. G. Svazlyan (1973). Vol. 8 (Gugark‘), ed. by A. M. Nazinyan & Ṙ. H. Grigoryan (1977). Vol. 7 (Łarabaɫ‑Zangezur), ed. by A. M. Nazinyan & M. N. Aṙak‘elyan (1979). Vol. 11 (Muš‑Bulanəx), ed. by M. S. Mkrtč‘yan (1980). Vol. 12 (Mšo dašt/Taron/Turuberan), ed. by V. G. Svazlyan (1984). Vol. 13 (Muš/Taron/Turuberan), ed. by A. S. Łaziyan (1985). Vol. 14 (Van/Vaspurakan), ed. by A. Łaziyan (1999).
HŽHek‘ 1980HŽHek‘ 1980Haykakan žoɫovrdakan hek‘iat‘ner (ed. by N. A. Hakobyan & A. S. Sahakyan). Yerevan: University Press.
Grigor Daranaɫc‘iGrigor Daranaɫc‘i or Kamaxec‘i (or Grigor Buk‘) (ca. 1576 /Kamax/ – 1643). See Nšanean 1915.
Grigor Narekac‘iGrigor Narekac‘i (circa 947 – after 1003; South of Lake Van). Matean Oɫbergut‘ean (1001-1003 AD). Critical editionP. M. Xač‘atryan, A. A. Łazinyan. Yerevan: Academy Press, 1985. Other editions: Garegin episkopos Trapizoni. Narek, Buenos Ayres, 1948. A facsimile reproduction with an introduction by James R. Russell. Delmar, New York: Caravan Books, 1981. Russ. Translation: Darbinjan-Melikjan and Xanlarjan 1988. English translations: Khachatoorian 2001; Samuelian 2001. Songs: K‘yoškeryan 1981.
HayJeṙHišHayJeṙHiš V-XIIHayeren jeṙagreri hišatakaranner: V-XII dd. Ed. by A. S. Mat‘ewosyan. Yerevan: Academy Press, 1988.
HayrensMnac‘akanyan, Asatur Š. 1995Hayrenner: texts, introduction, commentary. Yerevan: “Nairi”; Matenadaran.
HerodotosHerodotosModArm. transl. and commentary: Krkyašaryan, Simon 1986: Herodotos. Patmut‘yun inə grk‘ic‘ (ModArm. transl. and commentary). Yerevan: Academy Press.
HexaemeronHexaemeronBarseɫ Kesarac‘i, Yaɫags vec‘awreay ararč‘ut‘ean (ed. by Kim Muradyan). Yerevan: Academy Press, 1984.
Kirakos Ganjakec‘iKirakos Ganjakec‘i (13th cent.; “world”/district of Ganjak)Patmut‘yun Hayoc‘ – Critical text by K. A. Melik‘-Ōhanǰanyan. Yerevan: Academy Press, 1961. French translation: Brosset 1870. Russ. transl. by L. A. Xanlarjan: Kirakos Gandzakeci, Istorija Armenii. Moscow: GRVLI “Nauka”, 1976. ModEArm. transl. by Varag Aṙak‘elyan: Hayoc‘ patmut‘yun. Yerevan: “Sovetakan groɫ”, 1982.
KoriwnKoriwnVark‘ Maštoc‘I, “The life of Maštoc‘” (5th cent.). Ed. by M. Abeɫyan / Ē. Pivazyan (comprises the critical edition and ModArm., Russ. and Engl. translations, as well as a study by M. Abeɫyan in Arm., Russ. and Engl.). Yerevan: University Press, 1981.
Łazar P‘arpec‘iŁazar P‘arpec‘i (5th cent.; P‘arpi, a village close to Aštarak)Hayoc‘ patmut‘iwn. T‘uɫt‘ aṙ Vahan Mamikonean. Ed. by G. Tēr-Mkrtč‘ean, St. Malxasean. Tp‘ɫis (Tiflis): Aragatip Mnac‘akan Martiroseanc‘i, 1904. A photographic reproduction with a new introduction and critical bibliography by Dickran Kouymjian: Delmar, New York: Caravan Books, 1985. Transl. into ModEArm with commentary by Bagrat Ulubabyan. Yerevan: University Press, 1982.
Łewond VardapetŁewond Vardapet (8th cent.); textŠahnazareanc‘ 1857. English translation with introduction and commentary: Arzoumanian 1982. Modern EArm. translation with introduction and commentary: Ter-Łewondyan 1982.
Movsēs Kaɫankatuac‘iMovsēs Kaɫankatuac‘i/Dasxuranc‘i (7-10th cent.); critical textV. Aṙak‘elyan 1983; English translation: Dowsett 1961; ModEArm. translation: V. Aṙak‘elyan 1969. The chapter 2.35 comprises “The elegy on the death of the great prince J̌uanšēr” by Dawt‘ak (7th cent.), an acrostic poem (see V. Aṙak‘elyan 1983: 224-230; 1969: 176-179; Dowsett 1961: 145-148).
Movsēs Xorenac‘iMovsēs Xorenac‘i (5th cent.; the dating is a matter of fierce debate). The most famous of all Armenian historians, the “father of [Armenian] history”. His “History of Armenians” (Patmut‘iwn Hayoc‘) gives an account of the history of the Armenian nation from the origin to the death of Mesrop Maštoc‘ in 440 AD. Critical editionM. Abeɫean & S. Yarut‘iwnean, Movsisi Xorenac‘woy Patmut‘iwn Hayoc‘. Tp‘ɫis (Tiflis): Aragatip Mnac‘akan Martiroseanc‘i, 1913. A facsimile edition with additional collations by A. B. Sargsyan. Yerevan: Academy Press, 1991. English translation and commentary: see Thomson 1978. ModArm. translation (with introduction and commentary) by St. Malxasyan. Yerevan: “Hayastan” (ed. by Gagik Sargsyan), 1990. Collected works: MovsXorenMaten (see Bibliographical abbreviations), Venice, 1843,1865; comprises also works the attribution of which to Movsēs is debated or wrong; for “Armenian Geography” (Ašxarhac‘oyc‘), see Anania Širakac‘i.
Mxit‘ar GošMxit‘ar Goš (12-13th cent.); Aṙakk‘ Mxit‘aray Goši. VeniceSt. Lazar (with fables of Olympian [pp. 165-189], see AṙOɫomp 1854). The critical text: Pivazyan 1951.
Mxit‘ar Herac‘iMxit‘ar Herac‘i (12th cent.); see Seidel, E. 1908Mechithar’s, des Meisterarztes aus Her, ‘Trost bei Fiebern’: nach dem Venediger Druck vom Jahre 1832 zum ersten Male aus dem Mittelarmenischen übersetzt und erläutert. Leipzig.
Nersēs ŠnorhaliNersēs Šnorhali (1101/02-1173, Cilicia)Oɫb Edesioy; see M. Mkrtč‘yan 1973. Vipasanut‘iwn: M. Mkrtč‘yan 1981. Songs: K‘yoškeryan 1987. Yisus ordi: V. Łazaryan 1991.
Patmut‘iwn srboc‘ Hṙip‘simeanc‘“History of Rhipsimē and her companions”; attributed to Movsēs Xorenac‘i (q.v.); the text is published in MovsXorenMaten 1843, 1865.
P‘awstos BuzandP‘awstos Buzand, Hayoc‘ Patmut‘iwn or Buzandaran Patmut‘iwnk‘ (5th cent.). The textK‘. Patkanean. St. Peterburg, 1883. A facsimile reproduction with an introduction by Nina G. Garsoïan. Delmar, New York: Caravan Books, 1984. The text (< 1892, Venice) with ModArm. translation and commentary by St. Malxasyan (collations: pp. 416-417): Malxasyanc‘ 1987. English translation and commentary: Garsoïan 1989.
PhiloPhilo (6th century).
PhysiologusPitra, J. B. 1855Spicilegium Solesmense complectens Sanctorum Patrum scriptorumque ecclesiasticorum anecdota hactenus opera. Vol. 3. Paris. (Arm. text of “Physiologus”: 374‑390).
Sasna cṙer (SasCṙ)Armenian epic, “Daredevils of Sasun”. 11936; 2.1: 1944; 2.2: 1951: M. Abeɫyan (ed.) with the assistance of K. Melik‘-Ōhanǰanyan. Yerevan: State Press. 3, 1979 and 4, 1999: ed. by Sargis Harut‘yunyan & Arusyak Sahakyan. Yerevan: Academy Press. SasCṙ 2000, ed. by Ṙoza Grigoryan & Eranuhi Melik‘-Muradyan. Yerevan: Academy Press “Gitut‘yun”. The most recent and valuable study on Armenian epic is A. Petrosyan 2002 (an expanded English version of the Armenian original 1997a). Russian version: see 2002a. Russ. transl. of selected versions of the epic: see below, SasUdal.
SasDav 1977Sasunc‘i Davit‘nor patumner; compiled and edited by Grigor Grigoryan & Vahagn Grigoryan. Yerevan: “Sovetakan groɫ”.
SasDav 1989Sasunc‘i Davit‘haykakan žoɫovrdakan ēpos (introd. by Lewon Mkrtč‘yan). Yerevan: “Arewik”.
SasUdalArmjanskij narodnyj èpos Sasunskie udal’cyizbrannye varianty. Russ. transl. and glossary-commentary by K. Melik‘-Ōhanǰanyan. Yerevan: Van Aryan, 2004.
SebēosSebēos (7th cent.)critical text: Abgaryan 1979. An older edition: 1851, Kostandnupolis: Yovhannēs Miwhēntisean. A Modern EArm. translation with the Classical Armenian text of Abgaryan 1979 on facing pages, with introduction and commentary: G. Xač‘atryan/Eɫiazaryan 2005. Concordance: G. Xač‘atryan 2004. English translations with notes: Thomson 1999 (with historical commentary by James Howard-Johnston).
Simēon Lehac‘iSimēon Lehac‘i (17th cent.)Uɫegrut‘iwn, see Akinean, H. N. 1936: (ed.), Simēon dpri Lehac‘woy Uɫegrut‘iwn: taregrut‘iwn ew yišatakarank‘. Nkaragir uɫeworut‘ean i Lvovē i K. Polis, i Hṙom, i Muš ew yEruseɫēm yamsn 1608-1619. Vienna: Mxit‘arean Tparan. (Azgayin Matenadaran, 141).
Smbat SparapetSmbat Sparapet (13th cent., Cilicia), Datastanagirk‘. Ed. (with a Russian translation) by A. G. Galstyan. YerevanState Press of Armenia (HayPetHrat), 1958. See also Assizes of Antioch.
Step‘anos ŌrbeleanStep‘anos Ōrbelean (ca. 1250/60-1303/5, Siwnik‘). He wrote a history of the province of Siwnik‘, see A. A. Abrahamyan 1986 (introduction, ModEArm translation, commentary).
T‘ovma Arcruni and AnanunT‘ovma Arcruni and Ananun (10/13th cent.); the Classical Armenian text with Modern Armenian translation (on facing pages) and commentaryV. M. Vardanyan 1985. English translation and commentary: Thomson 1985.
T‘ovmas Kilikec‘iT‘ovmas Kilikec‘i (14th cent.); with an addendum to Ašxarhac‘oyc‘, on Cilician Armenia. The text with studyA. Anasyan 1967; English translation: Hewsen 1992: 322-324.
VanakanVanakan Vardapet Tawušec‘i /Yovhannēs Vanakan/1180/1181 - (after) 1251. The critical text with introduction and commentary: Xač‘ikyan 1941.
XenophonXenophon. Anabasis 2001 (with an English translation by Carleton L. Brownson; revised by John Dillery). Cambridge, LondonHarvard University Press. ModArm. transl. and commentary: Krkyašaryan 1970.
Yovasap‘ Sebastac‘iYovasap‘ Sebastac‘i (16th cent., Sebastia), “Bžškaran əntreal tarrakan maxc‘i”; see D. M. Karapetyan 1986.
Yovhan MamikoneanYovhan Mamikonean (7th cent.; Tarōn), “Patmut‘iwn Tarōnoy”; this History is closely connected with that of Zenob Glak. Critical textAš. Abrahamyan 1941. ModEArm. translation (with introduction and commentary): V. H. Vardanyan 1989. English translation: Avdoyan 1993 [non vidi]. French translation by Jean-Raphael Emine: Langlois 1867: 357-382. [Zenob Glak: by Langlois, ibid. 333-355].
Yovhan MandakuniYovhan Mandakuni (5th cent.) or Yovhan Mayragomec‘i (7th cent.). Recently published by Lusik Step‘anyan (with a short foreword and bibliography)Yovhan Mandakuni, Čaṙk‘; Kanonk‘. In: Matenagirk‘ Hayoc‘. Vol. 1. E dar (5th century). Ant‘ilias, Lebanon, 2003 (pp. 1153-1288).
Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘iYovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i (9-10th cent.) 1912=1980Yovhannu kat‘oɫikosi Drasxanakertec‘woy Patmut‘iwn Hayoc‘. T‘iflis, 1912. A facsimile reproduction with an introduction by Krikor Maksoudian: Delmar, New York: Caravan Books, 1980. Transl. into ModEArm. and commentary by G. B. T‘osunyan. Yerevan: University Press, 1996.
Yovhannēs T‘lkuranc‘iYovhannēs T‘lkuranc‘i (14‑15th centuries; T‘lkuran was situated in Mesopotamia, between Amid and Hṙomkla, see Pivazyan 196029f): Mnac‘akanyan 1941; Pivazyan 1960; Russell 1987a.
ZenoZenoTract “On Nature”. Transl. into Armenian prob. In: 6-7th cent. (the oldest manuscript is from 1280: Matenadaran Nr 5254). See Xač‘ikjan 1949; Russ. transl.: Arewšatyan 1956.

ASPECTS OF HISTORICAL GRAMMAR

In the following, I shall provide a comprehensive overview of various features resulting from the individual discussions in Part 1.

 

2.1 PHONOLOGY

2.1.1 PIE *e > Arm. a

Hübschmann (1899: 46) points out that in Arm. vat‘sun ‘sixty’ vs. vec‘ ‘six’, vasn ‘for, because’ vs. Gr. κητι, and tasn ‘ten’ vs. Gr. δέκα, IE *e yielded a “unter unbekannten Umständen”. But the Iranian origin of vasn cannot be doubted (see HAB 4: 309‑310). It has been assumed that *e lowers to a before a syllable containing -u- (for a further discussion, including references, see Clackson 1994: 126‑127, 159, 20621). Kortlandt (1994a: 255‑256; 1996a: 57 = 2003: 100‑101, 118; see also Beekes 2003: 156) rejects the rule in view of heru ‘last year’ < *peruti, and explains the numerals vat‘sun and tasn by assuming an analogical zero-grade taken from the ordinals. For a further discussion, see Greppin 1980a. Note also awri‑ord ‘virgin, young girl’, if one can assume the latter is related to Urart. euri ‘lord’ (see s.v.). Further, see Gayseryan 1990: 85.

On substratum fluctuation *-e/a-, see s.vv. kamurǰ ‘bridge’ and pal ‘rock’.

2.1.2 PIE *e > Arm. or i before the sibilants š and ž

Arm. gišer ‘night’ vs. Lat. vesper, OCS večerъ, etc.; Arm. , i-stem ‘viper’ vs. Gr. ἔχις, Skt. áhi-, YAv. aži-, etc.; ēš ‘donkey’ vs. Lat. equus ‘horse’ etc. In these examples, the rise of e to i is explained by the following palatals: š and ž (see Pedersen 1905: 205 = 1982: 67; Bonfante 1937: 27; de Lamberterie 1978: 264-266). This development may be related to that of *medh-io- > Arm. mēǰ, cf. Lat. medius ‘mid, middle’. For more detail, see s.vv. gišer ‘night’, ēš ‘donkey’ and ‘viper’.

2.1.3 PIE *o > Arm. a

This development may be formulated as follows: the unstressed *o in initial *Ho‑, *so‑, *po‑ becomes a in open syllables unless it was followed by a syllable containing another *o or, as Kortlandt 1983: 10 adds, by the reflex of *w. For a discussion and literature I refer to Grammont 1918: 223f; Bonfante 1975; Kortlandt 1980: 105; 1983: 10; 1985b: 9 (= 2003: 32, 40, 58); J̌ahukyan 1983a; 1990a: 3‑6; Morani 1994.

Of words that may be relevant for this issue note e.g. ali-k‘ ‘waves’, asr ‘fleece’, hac‘i ‘ash-tree’ (see s.vv.).

A fluctuation between o and a seems to be found in words of substratum (Mediterranean) origin, e.g. in some animal designations:

Arm. lor ‘quail’ vs. Gr. λάρος m. ‘sea‑mew, gull’, λαρίς, ‑ίδος f. ‘id.’;

Arm. kor and *kor‑č ‘scorpion’, ‘animal with a crooked body‑part’ vs. karič ‘scorpion’ < *karid‑i̯a, cf. Gr. κᾱρίς, ‑ί/ῖδος ‘Crustacea’ vs. κουρίς, κωρίς ‘id.’. Note the element *‑id‑ seen in both sets of words (λαρίς, ‑ίδος and κᾱρίς, ‑ί/ῖδος).

Compare also Gr. πάρδαλις vs. πόρδαλις f. ‘leopard’.

Another possible example is Lat. columba f. ‘dove, pigeon’ vs. Arm. salamb, a-stem ‘francolin’ (q.v.).

2.1.4 PIE *pe‑ : *po‑ > Arm. he‑ : o‑

A clear example of this distribution is het : ot ‘foot’ from *ped‑ and *pod‑, respectively. Ačaṙyan (AčaṙLiak 6, 1971: 519‑520) argues against this rule, mentioning holani ‘uncovered’ and hoɫ ‘earth, soil’ as counter‑examples. On the latter words, see s.vv.

2.1.5 PIE *Hoi‑ or *Hy‑ > Arm. ay‑

Discussing the vocalic problem of Arm. aytnum ‘to swell’ vs. Gr. οἰδέω ‘to swell’ etc., Meillet (1894: 153) points to *ai‑ seen in Lat. aemidus ‘swollen’. The latter probably reflects *h2eid‑sm‑ [Schrijver 1991: 38]. However, a full‑grade *h2e‑ would yield Arm. ha‑ (2.1.16.1). According to Kortlandt (2003: 32, 40, 42‑43; see also Beekes 2003: 158, 182), PIE *Hoi‑ developed into Arm. ay‑; cf. aygi, ayt, ayc‘. I accept his view on the loss of the initial laryngeal before *‑o‑. As to the development *Hoi‑ > ay‑, I alternatively propose to derive these words from zero-grade proto-forms (see also Greppin 1988: 184; Beekes 1991: 242) through the following scenario.

Originally, Arm. ayt ‘cheek’ may have been an s‑stem neuter (cf. Gr. οἶδος etc.; see s.v.) of PD declension: NSg *h2óid‑os, GSg. *h2id‑és‑s > PArm. *oi̯t‑, *ai̯t‑ (with analogical ‑i̯‑ after the nominative). Subsequently, the oblique stem was generalized. This analysis may be corroborated by amp ‘cloud’, bark ‘lightning’, etc.; see s.vv. and 2.2.2.1.

See also s.vv. aygi ‘vineyard’, ayc ‘goat’, and ayc‘ ‘visit, inspection’.

2.1.6 PIE *i̯‑ > Arm. zero

Since a sound change *kw> Arm. zero is untenable (if not impossible), and the development *i̯‑ > Arm. ǰ‑ or j- (for references and discussion and/on the theory of *Hi̯- see Pisani 1950: 180-182; Minshall 1955; Winter 1965: 113-114; Polomé 1980: 20; Beekes 1981-82: 113; Ravnæs 1991: 64-68; Aɫabekyan 1998: 71-79) is not convincing either, one should posit PIE *i̯‑ > Arm. zero; Arm. ur ‘where, where to’ (interrog.), ‘wherever’, o‑, interrogative indefinite pronoun; also o‑r ‘which’, o‑v ‘who’ (see s.v.v) should be derived from PIE *i̯‑ rather than *kwforms: PIE *i̯o‑, cf. Skt. yá‑ ‘who, which’ etc.; note Pol. jak ‘how’ beside Russ. kak ‘how’ (Pisani 1950: 181; Kortlandt 1983: 11; 1997: 7; 1998 = 2003: 41, 120, 122‑124; Weitenberg 1986: 91; Beekes 2003: 162; cf. also Clackson 1994: 52; Olsen 1999: 50).

This view may be corroborated by two etymologies of mine: ēg, i‑ or a‑stem ‘female’ < PArm. *eig‑i‑ < *(y)eyw‑i‑ < QIE *ieus‑i(e)h2 or *ieus‑it‑; ors, o‑stem ‘hunt; animal for hunting’ < QIE (substratum) *iork̂‑o‑ ‘deer, roe’; see s.vv.

Further, see s.vv. du, obl. je- ‘you’, ju ‘egg’.

2.1.7 PIE *i̯‑ > Arm. l‑

Examples: leard ‘liver’ vs. Skt. yákr̥t etc.; luc ‘yoke’ vs. Skt. yugá‑, Lat. iugum, etc.

Different explanations have been offered for these words (see s.vv.). Hamp (1982: 191) assumes l < [λ] < *[j] < *[i̯], “an unspectacular phonetic sequence known from current attestation in dialects of a number of languages”.

The alternation *i̯‑ : *l‑ is reminiscent of the possible correlation seen in designations of ‘elephant’ (see Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 524‑525; Mallory/Adams 1997: 176‑177).

In some Armenian dialectal words, we see an initial l‑ instead of y‑, cf. ystak ‘pure’ > Muš listag, hiwsem ‘to weave’ (q.v.) > Łarabaɫ lüsil, yesan ‘whetstone’ > Alaškert, Muš, Sasun lɛsan. In some cases, contamination is possible. For Łarabaɫ lüsil, Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 101b) assumes contamination with PIE *plek̂‑ ‘to weave’. Muš listag may be due to the influence of loys ‘light’. On the whole, however, a phonetic explanation seems more reasonable. It is remarkable that, in all cases, the first following consonant is the sibilant ‑s‑. Thus, we may be dealing with a sound change of the type y…s > l…s, which is younger and is hardly related to the cases seen in leard and luc.

With this hypothetical sound development in mind, one can consider the following possible example: dial. *liz ‘female buffalo’, in Van [Ačaṙean 1913: 423a] and Moks [HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 225b]. NPl liz‑n‑ir is attested in a Moks version of the famous folk‑song “Camt‘el” (see Šahpazean 1913: 26L‑6 and footnote 3). The plural ending ‑ner (Van and Šatax) : ‑nir (Moks) presupposes an older NSg form with ‑n (see Ačaṙyan 1952: 108; M. Muradyan 1962: 85; M. Muradyan 1982: 139); cf. Van/Šatax yezner, Moks iznir, the plural of yez (Moks iz) < ClArm. ezn ‘bullock’. This implies that the older nominative form of the word under discussion would have been *lezn. One wonders, then, if *lez‑n ‘buffalo’ is identical with the synonymous by‑form *ye/iz < ClArm. ezn ‘bullock’. Typologically, compare the above‑mentioned ystak, which is represented in Muš by two forms next to each other: h’istag and listag (see Baɫdasaryan‑T‘ap‘alc‘yan 1958: 266a). Note that here, too, the following consonant is a sibilant, although in this case it is a voiced one.

2.1.8 PIE *u̯

The treatment of PIE *u̯ has been subject of extensive discussion: Grammont 1918: 225; Pisani 1950: 185-186; Aɫabekyan 1981; 1981a; Godel 1982a; Olsen 1986; Morani 1991; Ravnæs 1991: 76-86; 1998: 52-71; Kortlandt 1993 = 2003: 102‑105; Manaster Ramer/Michalove 2001.

According to Pedersen (1905: 196 = 1982: 58), the intervocalic *‑w‑ “erscheint als arm. v wo es auslautend geworden ist, sonst aber als g”. Note that govem is irrelevant since it is an Iranian loan (see s.v.). For different aspects concerning this phoneme see s.vv. anjaw ‘cave’, arew/g ‘sun’, cung ‘knee’, kov ‘cow’, haraw ‘south’, harawunk‘ ‘arable land’, hoviw ‘shepherd’, sag ‘goose’, etc.

2.1.9 Nasals

In two cases, we find Arm. m from PIE *n-: Arm. merk ‘naked’ : Skt. nagná- ‘naked’, Lith. núogas ‘naked’, etc.; Arm. magil ‘claw’ : Gr. ὄνυξ, -υχος m. ‘talon, claw, nail’, OHG nagal ‘nail’, etc. (see 2.1.17.3). Since, in both cases, the PIE root contains a labiovelar, it is tempting to assume its assimilatory influence on the initial nasal: PIE *negw-no- > *nwegwno- > *mekn- > merk (influence of lerk ‘hairless; smooth’?). Note especially YAv. maɣna- ‘naked’. The etymological details concerning these words are uncertain, however.

Moks *mžɫawil, next to *nžwaɫil, is probably due to contamination of *muž ‘fog’ and nuaɫim ‘to become dim; to faint, swoon, grow weak’ (Bible+; in dialects also *nɫawil); see s.v. *muž ‘fog’.

2.1.10 PIE *s > Arm. h

This sound change (see Greppin 1975a; J̌ahukyan 1982: 39-40; Beekes 2003: 169) has taken place in Armenian, Greek, Iranian, Phrygian, Lycian (and also in Brythonic Celtic) [Szemerényi 1985; Clackson 1994: 53-54].

For the loss of internal *-s-, see Viredaz 2000, as well as the discussion of ariwn ‘blood’.

2.1.11 PIE *-Ns- > Arm. -s (N = any nasal)

Examples: amis ‘month’ vs. Lat. mēnsis, Gr. μήν, Skt. mā́s-, etc.; is ‘me’ (acc.) next to gen. im, dat. inj : *h1me-; mis ‘meat’ vs. OCS męso ‘flesh, meat’, Goth. mimz ‘meat’, etc.; us ‘shoulder’ vs. Gr. ὦμος, Lat. umerus, Skt. áṃsa-, etc.

All the forms of Armenian (ClArm., MidArm. and all the dialects) regularly participate in this pre-Classical development (for the relative chronology, see Kortlandt 1980: 101 = 2003: 29). Therefore, the Agulis form yɔns seems to be particularly important (see s.v. us ‘shoulder’).

For a later period, one finds evidence for ‑nč‘ > ‑š.

Davt‘yan (1966: 62, cf. 425) posits a sound change rt‘ > Łarabaɫ š, giving only one example: matnašurt‘n ‘a suppurative swelling on one’s finger‑tip’ > mənnášɔš. This sound development is improbable. Next to matnašurt‘n (lit. ‘finger‑lip/edge’; attested in “Bžškaran” apud NHB 2: 215a, preserved in Van matišurt‘), there is a dialectal (Muš, Karin, T‘iflis, etc.) equivalent *matnašunč‘, lit. ‘finger‑breath’ (see Amatuni 1912: 465a). Ačaṙyan (1913: 759a) derives Łarabaɫ mənnášɔš from this compound. Alternatively, Łarabaɫ mənnášɔš may be linked with Agulis mtnášɔrž etc., with šurǰ ‘around’ as the second member (on this, see HAB 3: 539b): *matnašurǰ > *mtnášo(r)ž > Łarabaɫ mənnášɔš.

Another example of the sound change ‑nč‘ > ‑š is Astuacašunč‘ ‘Bible’ > Aslanbek asvajašüš [HAB 3: 535b].

The sound change is more transparent when ‑nč‘‑ is followed by another consonant; cf. examples from Meɫri [Aɫayan 1954: 84], among which bəṙɛ́šnə from *bṙinč‘‑n‑ ‘snowball‑tree’, cf. also Łarabaɫ pṙɛ́šnə (unless one prefers to link it with Łazax, Łaradaɫ, Agulis *bṙoš‑, see 1.5 and especially 1.12.1).

2.1.12 The ruki‑rule

On veštasan ‘sixteen’ vs. vec‘ ‘six’, and arǰ ‘bear’, Meillet (1898: 280-2811) writes: “L’ancienne prononciation chuintante de arm. issu de i.-e. ks (des dialectes orientaux), établie par veštasan, est attestée aussi par arǰ ‘ours’, cf. skr. r̥kṣas, gr. ἄρκτος; la prononciation chuintante n’a été éliminée que postérieurement au passage de la sourde à la sonore après r”. Pedersen (1905: 208; 1906: 432 = 1982: 70, 210; see also AčaṙLiak 6, 1971: 560-561) rejects this explanation and derives arǰ from *r̥ksi̯o-, introducing also ‘right’ vs. Gr. ἄξιος ‘worth’. Similarly, he (1906: 413 = 1982: 191) explains Arm. -rš- in t‘arš- and garš (q.v.) as having resulted from *-rsi̯-, cf. Skt. tŕ̥ṣyati and hr̥ṣyati, respectively. Meillet (1950: 85-86; cf. also 1900c: 316; 1936: 39-40) accepts *-rsi̯- > -rš-, but is sceptical about *-ksi̯o- > -ǰ-, since there is no trace of *-i̯- in the cognates of the word for ‘bear’, and has a better etymology (see s.v.). Note that the PIE word for ‘bear’ contained *-tk̂- rather than *-ks-. Tabu (see 2.1.36) and/or contamination (cf. arǰn ‘black’) may have played a role in Arm. arǰ as well.

The explanation of -rš- in t‘arš- and garš- from *-rsi̯- seems unconvincing and unnecessary. In what follows, I shall try to explain these and other cases by means of the well-known ruki-rule.

Let us sum up the evidence. The first case, namely veštasan ‘sixteen’ < *suek̂s-d(e)k̂m vs. vec‘ ‘six’ < *suek̂s, is practically the only example of the ruki-rule in Armenian commonly cited in Indo-European literature. Also, the following two words, t‘aršam and garšim, have played some role in relevant discussions:

*t‘áṙam (adj.) : *t‘aršam-ém(i) (verb) ‘to wither’; for a philological discussion, see s.v.;

jaṙ vs. garšim (see above and s.v.); note that the IE source for garš- is verbal, thus the Armenian noun garš must be analogical after the verb garšim ‘to abominate, be disgusted’.

golorši, -ea-c‘ ‘vapour, steam’, if from QIE *uol-HuVrs-ieh2- ‘warm vapour’ (cf. Hitt. u̯arša- ‘fog, mist’, Gr. ἐέρση ‘dew’, etc.) > PArm. *wol-ə(w)oršíya-; see s.v. gol ‘warmish, lukewarm; warmth’.

gišer ‘night’ vs. Gr. σπερος, Lat. vesper, Lith. vãkaras, OCS večerъ, etc. on the one hand, and Welsh ucher < *ewk̂sero-, Bulg. dial. (Vinga) uščer, on the other; perhaps contaminated with the other synonymous word: YAv. *xšapar-, Skt. kṣáp-, Hitt. išpant- ‘night’, etc.), thus: *ueksepero- > PArm. *we(k)še(w)eŕo- > *geišero- > gišer.

moš(-) ‘blackberry’, moš-i ‘bramble, blackberry-bush’ vs. mor, mor-eni ‘id.’, Gr. μόρον n. ‘black mulberry; blackberry’, μορέα, -έη f. ‘mulberry-tree, Morus nigra’, Lat. mōrum, ī, n. ‘fruit of the black mulberry’, mōrus, ī, f. ‘black mulberry-tree’, cf. Gr. μόρον ‘black mulberry; blackberry’, μορέα, -έη ‘mulberry-tree, Morus nigra’, Lat. mōrum ‘fruit of the black mulberry’, mōrus ‘black mulberry-tree’, etc.; the form mo(r)š is mostly found in derivatives (moš-a-vayri in Jeremiah 17.6, moš-i, etc.) and probably points to the tree/plant-name *morš-í- derived from PArm. *mor-s-íeh2- (see also s.vv.).

č‘ir ‘dried fruit’ (only in a medieval glossary), č‘or ‘dry’ (Bible+) vs. Gr. ξηρός ‘dry; withered, lean; fasting’ (see s.v.);

uši, *ho/uši probably ‘storax-tree’ and ‘holm-oak’, if from QIE *h3ek-s-ieh2- (cf. Gr. ὀξύα, ‘beech; spear’, Erzamordvin uks(o) ‘elm, ash’, etc.) or *HoHks- from *HoHs- (cf. Lith. úosis ‘ash-tree’ etc.) > PArm. *ho(k)šíya- > *hoši, and *u(k)šíya- > uši (see s.v.).

The rule did not operate in Arm. *-rs- < PIE *-rk̂-, cf. hars-n ‘bride’ from *pr̥k̂-; see also s.vv. ors ‘hunt-animal’, p‘esay ‘bridegroom’, etc.

 

Conclusion

On the strength of the presented evidence, I tentatively reformulate the ruki-rule in Armenian as follows: PIE *-s- following *k or *r yields Arm. -š- in post-apocopic internal pretonic or initial (or, simply, in the non-final) positions. In other words, in these positions, *-rs- and *(-)ks- yield Arm. -(r)š- and -(k)š- [in the initial position: č‘-], respectively, in contrast with -ṙ- and -c‘- in the remaining positions.

Comparable data from dialects

harsanik‘ ‘wedding’ > Nor Naxiǰewan and Sivrihisar hašnik‘. N. Mkrtč‘yan (1995: 210) considers this as one of the isoglosses shared by the dialects of Nor Naxiǰewan and Sivri-Hisar. Both are supposed to have migrated from Ani. One must also add Hačən hašnik‘ (also haš[n]uk ‘little bride’) [Gasparyan 1966: 50], Sebastia hašnik‘ and other derivatives, such as hašn-uk etc. [Gabikean 1952: 329], Č‘aharmahal hašnik‘ [Eremean 1923: 79a] and rural J̌uɫa hašnik‘ [HAB 3: 62b]. Remarkably, hars(n) ‘bride’ does not display the development rs > (r)š in the forms recorded in HAB 3: 62b. Č‘aharmahal has hays and haš [Eremean 1923: 79a], and the latter is obviously analogical after hašnik‘ ‘wedding’. Thus, the distribution seems to be as in the ruki-rule for ClArm., which seems to have operated only in initial or internal position.

We thus find the reflex of the ruki-rule in this word in the following areas: NW – Nor Naxiǰewan and Sivri-Hisar (both probably from Ani) : SW – Hačən, Sebastia : SE – Č‘aharmahal, rural J̌uɫa (migrated from the Ayrarat region). One might assume that the operation of the ruki-rule continued in a certain area. Otherwise, we are dealing with a more recent comparable development. Compare also the distribution of the development VrV- > ž/šV in Nor Naxiǰewan, Sivri-Hisar, and Hačən (see s.v. erek‘ ‘three’).

Note also hangoyc‘ ‘knot’ : *hangu(r)st > Sebastia hankušt (see Gabikean 1952: 329).

2.1.13 Loss of intervocalic *-t-

Alongside well-known examples, such as hayr ‘father’ < PIE *ph2tēr, mayr ‘mother’ < *meh2tēr etc., this development is also seen in a non-IE word with an i-stem: sayl, ‘wagon; Ursa Major and Minor, Arcturus’ vs. Hesychian σάτιλλα· πλειὰς τὸ ἄστρον (see s.v.), as was pointed out by J̌ahukyan (1987: 346).

2.1.14 The absence of palatalization

PIE labiovelars have been palatalized in Armenian before front vowels. The exceptions may be explained by the restoration of the velar or other circumstances, such as the preceding nasal (as in hing ‘five’ < PIE *penkwe), etc. [Kortlandt 1975 = 2003: 10‑12; Beekes 2003: 176‑179].

An interesting case is geɫj‑k‘ ‘glands’ from PIE *g(w)helĝh-; cf. Russ. železá etc. Beekes (2003: 177) writes: “The velar is not palatalized; was it taken from the zero grade?”. More probably, we are dealing with a restoration of the velar occlusive caused by dissimilation; in other words, the palatalization of the velar occlusive was blocked by the presence of a palatal h in the root (see Meillet 1905‑06: 243‑245; HAB 1: 535; Ačaṙyan 1952: 79; J̌ahukyan 1967: 196; 1982: 21675; Kortlandt 1975: 43‑44 = 2003: 10‑11)[1].

If related with Skt. kaśīkā́‑ ‘Ichneumonweibchen’ or ‘weasel’ and káśa‑ ‘weasel’, ak‘is ‘weasel’ derives from *Hkek̂‑ih2and shows a similar depalatilazion: *k ‑ k̂ > k‘ ‑ s instead of č‘ ‑ s.

The rule seems also to function with the affricates originated from palatalization of dentals, cf. Arm. gēǰ, o‑stem ‘moist’ (Bible+; several dialects) from QIE *gwheidh‑io‑, cf. Russ. žídkij etc. ‘liquid, watery’ (unless one assumes o‑grade form for Armenian). In the light of this example, I propose to derive Arm. dial. *keč‘‑i ‘birch’ (q.v.) from QIE *gwet‑i̯V‑, cf. Lat. betula ‘birch’, Welsh bedwen ‘id.’, etc. (from PIE *gwetu‑ ‘resin’, cf. Skt. jatu‑ n. ‘lac, gum’ etc.).

The absence of palatalization may be due to the onomatopoetic nature of certain words. A probable example is *geɫ‑, geɫ‑geɫ‑ ‘to sing’ (P‘awstos Buzand, Hexaemeron, etc.) from PIE *ghel‑, cf. OIc. gala ‘to call, sing’, OHG galan ‘to sing’, etc. Compare Arm. dial. onomatopoetic *gl‑gl‑, referring to water or laughing (see Amatuni 1912: 135a; Ačaṙean 1913: 232b).

Arm. mak‘i ‘ewe’ is perhaps of onomatopoetic origin (see Olsen 1999: 808). Arm. gerdastan, a‑stem ‘body of servants and captives; possessions; estate, landed property’ (Bible+) has been derived from PIE *gherdh, cf. Skt. gr̥há‑ m. ‘house, residence’ (RV+), YAv. gərəδa‑ m. ‘house of daēvic beings’, Goth. gards m. ‘house, housekeeping’, etc. The absence of palatalization of the initial guttural is unexplained; one may treat the Armenian form as an Iranian loanword.

Further, see s.v.v. keam ‘to live’, ker- ‘to eat’, kin ‘woman, wife’, kiw ‘tree pitch’, k‘erem ‘to scratch’.

2.1.15 Stops

The PIE (labio)velars yield palatovelars in Armenian in a position after the vowel *u (see Meillet 1892a). This holds also for the secondary *u which has resulted through anticipation (or metathesis) of the labial element of a labiovelar (see 2.1.27.1). For a further discussion and references, see s.vv. alawsunk‘ ‘Pleiades’, acuɫ ‘coal’, araws ‘virgin soil’, awcanem ‘to anoint’, awj ‘snake’, *boyc-, bucanem ‘to feed’, boys ‘plant’, loys ‘light’, luc ‘yoke’.

2.1.16 Initial *H-

2.1.16.1 PIE *HV‑ (H = any laryngeal, V = any vowel)

Meillet (1936: 38) did not operate with PIE laryngeals and therefore treated the initial Armenian h- vs. the vocalic anlaut in PIE as secondary. Similarly sceptical is Benveniste (1969, 1: 224) who treats the initial h- of Arm. han ‘grandmother’ and haw ‘grandfather’, albeit corresponding to Hitt. ḫ-, as “une aspiration secondaire due à un phénomène récent”.

As has been noticed first by Austin (1942: 22-23), the initial h- of Arm. han ‘grandmother’, haw ‘grandfather’, hoviw ‘shepherd’ etc. alongside the Hittite equivalents should be treated as a direct reflex of PIE laryngeals. This view has been advocated and developed by a number of scholars: Winter 1965: 102-103; J̌ahukyan 1967b: 66; 1994: 14; Greppin 1973; 1981c: 120-121; Polomé 1980; Kortlandt 1983: 12-15; 1984; Beekes 1988: 76; 2003: 179-183; etc. According to Kortlandt (ibid.), *h2e- and *h3e- yielded Arm. ha- and ho-, respectively, whereas any laryngeal followed by *-o- has been dropped. I studied the problems of Armenian laryngeals and the initial aspiration in the classical language as well as in Eastern peripheral dialects such as Łarabaɫ and Goris in my unpublished master thesis, H. Martirosyan 1991.

Nowadays, a number of Indo-Europeanists still treat the Armenian evidence with reservation (see Lindeman 1982: 17-18; 1987: 34; Mayrhofer 1986: 132142, 141; Szemerényi 1996: 126) or do not mention it at all, considering the Hittite ḫ- to be the only consonantal reflex of the PIE laryngeals, e.g. Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 1: 203, 206; Schmitt (Šmitt) 1988: 23; etc.

For an overview and a discussion of the problem, see Winter 1965; Greppin 1975b; 1988; Polomé 1980. See further s.vv. hayc‘em ‘to ask, supplicate, demand’, han ‘grandmother’, hask ‘ear of corn’, hat ‘grain’, harawunk‘ ‘sowing, sowing-field, arable land’, haw ‘grandfather’, *haw- ‘river’ (see s.v. getaṙ-), hoyn ‘cornel’, hoviw ‘shepherd’ and hot ‘smell, odour’. In some cases, traces of h- can be found in later literature and dialects, see e.g. s.vv. and ‘cornfield’, arawr ‘plough’, etc.

The absence of an expected initial h- in some cases may be due to time constructions with z- and y-, and generalization of the zero-grade of the oblique stem; see e.g. s.vv. *aɫǰ- ‘darkness, twilight’, ayg ‘morning’, ayc‘ ‘visit, inspection’, etc.

The assumption that Arm. x- and k- are other reflexes of the PIE laryngeals is untenable. An example is Arm. ozni ‘hedgehog’, which has dialectal by‑forms with initial k‑ and x‑: kozni, xozni. It has been suggested that the anlaut of these forms reflects an Indo‑European laryngeal, which is lost everywhere. This is highly improbable since: (1) the regular outcome of *h2 and *h3 is Armenian h‑; (2) Gr. ἐχῖνος shows that we are dealing with *h1which is regularly lost even in Armenian and Anatolian; (3) the solution can be much simpler: I think the initial k‑ and x‑ are due to contamination with other “culturally” related animal names, namely kuz ‘marten’ and xoz ‘pig’, cf. English hedgehog : hog.

2.1.16.2 PArm. *(h)o‑ > dial. fo‑

In a few ClArm. words with initial o‑ or ho‑ one finds dialectal forms with *fo‑: (h)ogi ‘soul; spirit’, hoɫ ‘earth, ground’, hot ‘smell’, hor ‘pit’, ort‘ ‘calf’, ors ‘hunt’ (see H. Muradyan 1982: 267-276). One may add hoyn ‘cornel’.

Ačaṙyan (2003: 106‑107) notes that this development occurs in monosyllables and is conditioned by the vowel o. He (AčaṙHLPatm 2, 1951: 411) correctly derives the form *fort‘ ‘calf’ (see s.v. ClArm. ort‘ ‘calf’) from *hort‘.

H. Muradyan (ibid., espec. 274‑275) assumes the opposite direction (o‑ > vo‑ > fo‑), explicitly referring to the devoicing process. It is not clear, however, why this process took place in a few words only and did not affect otn ‘foot’, orj ‘male’ and many others. Also, the reason of this devoicing and its distribution are unclear. If one tries to relate this initial devoicing to the consonant shift b/d/g > p/t/k, then it would be unclear why the development o‑ > vo‑ > fo‑ occurred in a dialect such as Ararat which does not show consonant shift, and why this would not happen to Van, Łarabaɫ and others, which did participate in the consonant shift. It is remarkable that ort‘ ‘calf’ yielded Kak‘avaberd hɔ/urt‘ in three villages and vəɛrt‘ only in Agarak, whereas Agarak systematically displays the consonant shift, i.e. devoicing (see H. Muradyan 1967: 65‑67).

Of the cited examples, two go back to PIE *h3e‑ (hot ‘smell’, hoyn ‘cornel’), one probably to *i̯o‑ (ors ‘hunt, game), one to *po‑ (ort‘ ‘calf’ vs. ordi ‘sun etc.’), and the rest are etymologically uncertain. In view of reliable cases which do not display fo‑ forms in dialects such as ot(n) ‘foot’ < PIE *pod‑, etc., and, in particular, ordi < PIE *porti‑o‑ (etymologically related with ort‘ ‘calf’), I assume that the development o‑ > vo‑ > fo‑ has taken place only in words with old ho‑ (from *h3e‑, perhaps also *i̯o‑?) and did not affect those with o‑ from PIE *po‑, *Ho‑, *so‑).

An exception is ort‘ ‘calf’ (dial. *hort‘ and *fort‘). Since the etymologically related ordi (< PIE *porti‑o‑) does not have an aspirated ‑t‘, nor appears with ho‑ or fo‑ in dialects, I suggest to examine the problem of *h/fort‘ within the context of the uspirated ‑t‘, see s.v. ort‘. See also s.v. hoɫ ‘earth’.

Among other cases, note hog ‘pain, grief; care’ (Bible) > *fog, ogi and hog‑i ‘spirit, soul’ (both Bible+) > *fogi [H. Muradyan 1982: 268f] vs. the etymologically related hov ‘cold’, with no fo‑forms. Whatever the ultimate origin of these words (cf. also hewam ‘to breathe heavily’), the absence of fo‑forms in the case of hov is easily explained by labial dissimilation (see Ačaṙyan 2003: 106‑107). These words possibly derive from *peu‑, cf. Lith. pū̃sti ‘to blow’, etc. (see HAB 3: 89‑90). The form ogi would not display fo‑forms for two reasons: (1) it is disyllabic; (2) its anlaut would be *po‑; cf. the cases otn ‘foot’ and ordi ‘son’ never displaying fo‑forms. One can assume that hog and hogi obtained the h‑ from the verb hewam, and this secondary ho‑ yields fo‑ in relevant dialects. Note that the etymology is not yet well established, and hog is semantically remote.

I conclude that the original distribution is as follows: PIE *po‑ > Arm. o‑ (not ho‑) vs. PArm. *ho‑ (from e.g. PIE *h3e‑) > fo‑. Cases with *po‑ > fo‑ like (h)ort‘ ‘calf’ are exceptional/uncertain and may be explained by analogical processes, see e.g. s.v. ort‘ ‘calf’.

For a phonetic discussion of the development ho‑ > fo‑, I would like to mention a unique case of the same development h > f in auslaut[2]: Arm. srah ‘hall’ (Bible+) > Zeyt‘un sɔyɔf, sɔrɔf, vs. srah in Łarabaɫ, Ararat, etc., and srax in Muš, Moks, Salmast, etc. [HAB 4: 281‑282], of which Ačaṙyan (2003: 108, 338) offers no explanation. Since the only dialect showing the development is Zeyt‘un, where, unlike in the other dialects, the vowel ‑a‑ regularly yielded ‑ɔ‑, one can reconstruct the following development: srah > Zeyt‘un *sroh > sɔy/rɔf. Here again, the sound change h > f may be conditioned by the neighbouring labial vowel ɔ, which, in this case, precedes the ‑h. Note, however, many counter-examples in Ačaṙyan 2003: 108.

2.1.17 Prothetic vowel

2.1.17.1 Preliminaries

The so-called “prothetic vowel”, viz. Gr. ἀ- (and ὀ-) : Arm. a-, and Gr. ἐ- : Arm. e- vs. zero in other languages, is now interpreted as a vocalized reflex of PIE initial laryngeal followed by a consonant. It has been generally assumed that Armenian, as Greek, represents a triple reflex[3].

For the material and discussion I refer to Audouin 1892; Meillet 1927; Bonfante 1937: 19; Hovdhaugen 1968; Beekes 1975b: 428; 1991: 237; Considine 1978-79; Muller 1984; Olsen 1984; 1985; 1988-89; Peters 1986: 377-378; Beekes 1987b; Picard 1989; Ravnæs 1991: 16-26; as well as the literature cited in 2.1.16.1. For a discussion of dialectal data, see Aɫayan 1958: 67-72. See also under relevant entries. Here I would like to draw attention to some considerations.

2.1.17.2 PIE *h1l- > Arm. l-

lanǰ, a-stem ‘breast’ (< ‘lungs) < QIE *h1lngwh-i(h1)-eh2-, cf. Gr. ἐλαχύς ‘small, short, mean, little’, ἐλαφρός ‘light (in weight)’, OIc. lunga ‘lung’, etc.;

lerk ‘hairless’, dial. ‘smooth’ : o-ɫork ‘smooth, polished’ vs. cf. MIr. lerg f. ‘sloping expanse, plain, surface’ < *lergā, less-lergg ‘pasture’, NIr. learg ‘a plain; field’, etc. (q.v.).

If the etymology of lanǰ is correct, we may be dealing with PIE *h1lV- > Arm. lV‑, in other words, loss of initial *h1- before *-l- + a vowel. The connection of lerk/o-ɫork with Celtic, albeit often met with scepticism, cannot be excluded. There is no direct evidence for an initial laryngeal here. A PIE initial *l-, however, yields Arm. l-, as is clear from loys ‘light’, lusin ‘moon’, etc. This implies that lerk : o-ɫork points to *Hle/org(w)-. It is theoretically possible that *h1le-, with a front vowel in the root, yields Arm. *(ə)lV-, whereas in the form with o-grade the shwa is not lost and is assimilated to the root vowel. Compare Arm. orcam ‘to vomit’ < *orucam vs. Gr. ἐρεύγομαι, from *h1reug-. For this assimilation, see below.

2.1.17.3 PIE *h3NV- > PArm. *oNV- > *(u)m-V́-

As is well known, PIE initial *h3nV- yields Arm. *anV- (through *o > a in an open syllable), cf. anēc-k‘ ‘curse’ vs. Gr. ὄνειδος n. ‘reprimand, abuse’, Lith. níedėti ‘to despise’, etc.

On the other hand, there are two words which, in my view, may point to a development PIE *h3NV- > PArm. *oNV- > *(u)m-V́-, if the nasal is *m, whether original or secondary:

Arm. mēg, o- or a-stem ‘mist, fog’ < *h3meigh-o- or *h3meigh-eh2-, cf. dial. *mglim ‘to cloud’ vs. Gr. ὀμίχλη ‘fog’, OCS mьgla ‘mist, haze’, Lith. miglà ‘fog’, Dutch dial. miggelen ‘to drizzle’. I do not subscribe to the theory that the Armenian word is an Iranian loan (see s.v. for a discussion).

Arm. magil ‘claw’ vs. Gr. ὄνυξ, -υχος m. ‘talon, claw, nail’, OHG nagal ‘nail’, etc. Perhaps: QIE *h3nogwh-ōl-eh2- (a coll. form, based perhaps on an old HD nom. *-ōl, cf. s.vv. acuɫ ‘coal’ and aseɫn ‘needle’) > PArm. *onogwúla- > *onwagwul(a)- > *umagúl, obl. *mag(u)l-á-, with the regular developments *oN- > uN- and -o- > -a- (on the latter, see 2.1.3). The shift *n > m may be due to assimilatory influence of the labiovelar in the following syllable, cf. Toch *mekwā : A maku, B mekwa ‘nails’ (see Adams 1999: 467). A similar assimilation can also be seen in merk ‘naked’ vs. *negwno-, perhaps also in mut‘n ‘dark; darkness’, if from PIE *nokwt- ‘night’.

The other Armenian reflex of the same PIE word, namely eɫungn ‘nail’, may be explained as follows: *h3noghw- > *onu(n)gw- > *(u)ɫung- (nasal dissimilation and loss of the pretonic vowel) > e-ɫungn, with a regular e- prothesis before the initial ɫ-.

This material seems to lead to the following tentative conclusion: (1) *h1lV- (where -V- is a non-labial vowel) > PArm. *-elV- > *ilV́- > lV-; (2) *h3m/nwV- > PArm. *omV- > *umV́- > mV-. This evidence, together with the contrast between e.g. Arm. erek(-oy) ‘evening’ : Gr. ἔρεβος, Goth. riqis, etc. (PIE *h1regw-e/os-) and Arm. arew ‘sun’ : Skt. ravi- ‘sun, sun-god’, cf. Hitt. haruu̯anai- ‘to become bright, to dawn’ (PIE *h2reu-i-), may be treated in terms of the triple reflex of the laryngeals in Armenian.

2.1.17.4 Prothetic vowel a- with a labial vowel in the root

The vocalic reflex of the PIE initial laryngeal appears in Armenian as e- or a-. Note the contrast erek ‘evening’ : arew ‘sun’ above. In both cases, the root vowel is *-e-, and the reflexes of the laryngeals *h1- and *h2- are distinct. In contrast, the real prothetic vowel (that is, an initial vowel of no etymological value) is mostly e- if the root contains -a-, cf. e.g. erkan ‘hand-mill’ (Bible+; widespread in the dialects) from PIE *gwr(e)h2-n-: Lith. gìrna ‘millstone’, OCS žrьny, cf. Skt. grā́van- ‘pressing-stone’, etc.; eɫbayr ‘brother’ < PIE *bhreh2tēr ‘id.’. This is corroborated by numerous Iranian loans, cf. Arm. erang ‘colour, dye’ (Bible+) vs. MPers. rang ‘colour, dye’; further, erak, eram, eran-k‘, erasan, all from Iranian forms with initial r- (see HAB s.vv.).

On the other hand, the prothetic vowel is a- if the word contains a labial vowel or diphthong:

aṙu ‘brook, etc.’ from PIE *sru- (cf. Greppin 1980a: 97, who assumes *e-ṙu- > a-ṙu, with “erratic *e > a”) and aṙog- ‘to water, wet, sprinkle, irrigate’ from PIE *srou- ‘to strem, flow’; see s.v. Better attested is the variant oṙog(an)em, which, as well as oroč- ‘to chew, ruminate’ (cf. Skt. rádati ‘to gnaw, bite, scratch’, Lat. rōdere ‘to gnaw’) and orcam ‘to vomit’ (vs. Gr. ἐρεύγομαι) can be explained by assimilation. Further: artasu-k‘ ‘tears’ from *drak̂u- (q.v.). Note also arawt ‘pasturing’ (q.v.).

Here again, the same phenomenon can be observed in Iranian loans: aroyr, i-stem ‘brass’ (Bible, Ephrem) from Iran. *rōδ, cf. MPers., NPers. rōy ‘copper, brass’, Skt. lohá- m. ‘reddish metal’, etc.; cf. also Georg. rvali ‘copper, brass’, which, according to Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 331b), is borrowed from Armenian.[4]

Further: araws, arawš ‘bustard’, if from Iran. *rūš ‘wild sheep’.[5]

2.1.18 PIE *p/t/k + *H

2.1.18.1 PIE *kH > Arm. x vs. *k > Arm. k‘; *k̂H > c‘ vs. *k̂ > s

 Arm. xaxank‘ ‘loud laughter’ (Ephrem+) next to Skt. kákhati ‘to laugh’, Gr. καχάζω, OCS xoxotati ‘to laugh loudly’, and c‘ax ‘branch’ (Geoponica, etc.; widespread in dialects) next to Skt. śā́khā‑ f. (RV+) ‘branch, twig’, are considered to represent PIE *kh [Meillet 1894b: 294; 1936: 35; 1950: 78‑83]. For a discussion on voiceless aspirates see Hiersche 1964; Greppin 1984a; Elbourne 2000.

This view can hardly be maintained since the reconstruction of PIE aspirated unvoiced series is generally abandoned (see, however, Elbourne 2000). Also, the first example clearly has expressive character (see Bomhard 1979: 73; Beekes 1995: 132, 139, 224). Greppin (1981b: 5) notes that the word is more likely to be onomatopoetic rather than from PIE *kh‑ or *kH‑.

Another onomatopoetic formation with -x- is baxem ‘to beat (said of breast, wave, etc.); to knock (at a door); to strike’, also reduplicated babax‑ (both Bible+); compare Laz and Megr. bax(‑) ‘to beat’, as well as Russ. bac, babax(‑), Engl. bang, etc., all of onomatopoetic origin (see s.v.).

As to c‘ax, which in some dialects (Łarabaɫ, Agulis, Loṙi, etc.) also has a form with ‑k‘ instead of ‑x, we are rather dealing with the development *‑kH‑ > Arm. ‑x‑. The alternants c‘ak‘ and c‘ax probably reflect nom. *‑k‑eh2and gen. *‑k‑h2‑ós, respectively (see s.v.).

On *skH- > Arm. š see 2.1.22.3.

The PIE palatovelar *k̂, the regular outcome of which is Arm. *s, is sometimes reflected as c‘. In these cases scholars often posit an s-mobile, despite its absence in cognate forms. I alternatively propose to consider a sound change *k̂H > Arm. c‘. For a discussion see s.vv. c‘ax ‘branch’ (assimilatory influence of x ?), c‘ac ‘low’, c‘ank/g ‘hedge, fence’, c‘awɫ(un) ‘stem, stalk’, c‘iṙ ‘onager, wild ass’, c‘urt ‘cold’.

2.1.18.2 PIE *tH and *pH

A similar development may be posited for *tH and *pH, although the material is not conclusive; see s.vv. analut‘ ‘deer’, t‘arp‘/b ‘fishing-basket’, yaɫt‘ ‘broad’, ort‘ ‘calf’, p‘ul ‘fall, ruins’, as well as 2.2.2.6, and 2.3.1 (on the suffix -t‘).

2.1.19 PIE *‑uH(s)m > Arm. ‑ukn

Kortlandt (1985b: 9 = 2003: 57; see also Beekes 2003: 196) derives Arm. jukn ‘fish’ and mukn ‘mouse’ from PIE AccSg *huH‑m and *muHs‑m respectively (with loss of *‑s‑ in mukn), assuming that “the laryngeal was oralized before the syllabic nasal” and is reflected as glottalic ‑k‑. For literature and discussion of this problem, see Winter 1965: 104-105; Lindeman 1987: 98. Another possible case is, according to Kortlandt (1985b: 10‑11; 1986: 42 = 2003: 58‑59, 71), kṙunk ‘crane’ if it reflects a metathesized AccSg *gruHnm (cf. OHG krani/uh ‘id.’).

Given that the material is scarce, and that the suffix ‑kn was widespread in OArm. (see 2.3.1), one may interpret jukn and mukn merely as *ju‑ + ‑kn and *mu(h)‑ + ‑kn. For kṙunk, see s.v.

Kortlandt (2003: 59) points out that “the laryngeal was not oralized in *‑iHm, as is clear from the original accusative min of mi ‘one’”.

2.1.20 PIE *‑CHC‑

The development of the PIE internal laryngeals in Armenian is much debated, see Clackson 1994: 36‑41, etc.

Listing words of which some show ‑a‑ as a reflex of a laryngeal (e.g., arawr ‘plough’ etc.) whereas the others (dustr ‘daughter’, armukn ‘elbow’, etc.) show a zero reflex, Greppin (1988: 75‑ 76) concludes: “I see no systematic explanation for this contradiction”. Commenting on this conclusion, Lindeman (1989: 283) writes: “So we are left wondering whether arawr ‘must’ reflect IE. *A(e)rO‑trom [= *h2(e)rh3‑trom (HM)], or whether it might not rather be compared to Lat. arātrum” (with a reference to Meillet 1936: 32). But Lat. arātrum is based on the verb arāre (see Schrijver 1991: 108). According to Lindeman (1982: 40‑41), Lat. arāre and the PArm. unattested *arā‑ may reflect an iterative in *‑ā‑ with zero grade in the root syllable: *h2rH‑eh2‑ye‑.

According to Beekes (1988: 77; 2003: 192‑193; see also Kortlandt 2003: 120), the laryngeal was vocalized in the first syllable and before a cluster. He explains the counter‑example of harawunk‘ ‘arable land’ (q.v.) as a result of analogy. There seem to exist more examples, however: haraw ‘south’ from *prHuo‑; yolov ‘many’ and alawunk‘ ‘Pleiades’ from *p(o)lh1u‑; etc. (see s.vv.). For the assimilation involved in haraw, yolov and others, see 2.1.23. The rule of Beekes, then, can be reformulated as follows: the internal laryngeal was vocalized before a cluster and before a resonant, and was lost before a single stop.

See also s.vv. *and‑ ‘door‑frame’, anjaw ‘cave’, armukn ‘elbow’, barti ‘poplar’, kardam ‘to call, recite’.

Olsen (1999: 778, 808) assumes *‑l̥h1C‑ > Arm. ‑oloC‑ when a labial *p or labiovelar *kw precedes the sonant. Her examples, however, are not convincing. The derivations of holov ‘rolling’ from *kwlh1‑ti‑ (cf. Skt. cūrti‑ ‘moving’) and yolov from the zero‑grade *‑pl̥h1bhi (cf. Skt. pūrbhis ‘in Fülle’) are doubtful because the internal laryngeal seems to regularly drop in the position before a stop (see above), and the developments *kw> Arm. h‑ and *‑h1ti‑ > Arm. ‑Vw‑ are uncertain.

More probably, yolov reflects *polh1u‑s (cf. Gr. πολύς ‘much’). The IE etymology of oloṙn ‘pea, been; globule’ (old heteroclitic *kwlh1‑r‑n‑ from *kwelh1‘to twist, turn’; see also op. cit. 139) combining with olor ‘twisting’ should be rejected since the plant‑name certainly is a Semitic loan or Medit.‑NEast. cultural word, and olor is probably of a different origin. Uncertain is also the interpretation of holonem ‘to collect, gather, assemble’ as a denominative from *pl̥h1no‑ ‘full’ since holon‑ is a later and poorly attested derivation from ClArm. hoyl ‘group’ (q.v.).

2.1.21 PIE *k̂ > Arm. š when followed by *-u̯- (or *-u-)

The regular reflex of PIE *k̂u̯ is considered to be Arm š, see s.vv. ēš ‘donkey’, šun ‘dog’, etc., though next to this there are also examples with sk, viz. skesur ‘mother-in-law’, skund ‘dog’, q.v.; see Scheftelowitz 1904-05, 1: 290-292; Pedersen 1905: 197-198; 1906: 422 = 1982: 59-60, 200); Lidén 1911; Grammont 1918: 252; Meillet 1936: 50-51; Bonfante 1937: 21; Schmitt 1972-74: 40; Godel 1975: 84-85; Kortlandt 1976: 92, 96-97; 1980: 99, 104; 1986: 39; 1988: 72, 73; 1989: 45 = 2003: 2, 6, 27-28, 31, 69, 84, 86, 89-90; Greppin 1978c: 119-122 (assuming a Luwian origin, cf. 1984: 92; for Luwian see Oshiro 1989; Oettinger 1994: 74-75); de Lamberterie 1978: 263, 263106 with references to older literature; Morani 1981: 5; J̌ahukyan 1982: 75, 218107; Ravnæs 1991: 166-168; Aɫabekyan 1998: 56-58; Beekes 2003: 209, 211; Viredaz 2003: 6838.

If one accepts the appurtenance of skund to the PIE word for ‘dog’ (cf. Arm. šun ‘dog’) and the derivation of hask, i-stem ‘ear of corn’ from QIE *h2ek̂-u̯-ih2- (> PArm. *hask-i-, see s.v.), the following distribution could be assumed: PIE *k̂u and *k̂u̯ > Arm. š and sk, respectively. In this case, Arm. ēš, o-stem and u-stem ‘ass’ may reflect an original PIE u-stem: *h1ek̂-u. This is, however, highly hypothetical[6].

2.1.22 Clusters

2.1.22.1 PIE *‑Ti̯‑ (T = any dental stop)

According to Pedersen (1906: 396-397 = 1982: 174-175): *-ti̯- > -č‘-, *-di̯- > -č-, *-dhi̯- > -ǰ-. This is shown e.g. by the following examples:

gēǰ ‘moist’ < *gwhe/oidh-i̯o- vs. cf. Russ. žídkij, SCr. žídak, etc. ‘liquid, watery’; koč‘em ‘to call, invite’ < gwot-i̯e- vs. Goth. qiþan etc.; mēǰ ‘middle’ < *medh-i̯o- vs. Lat. medius etc.; see s.vv., as well as s.v. oročam ‘to chew, ruminate’. For more examples and discussion, see J̌ahukyan 1982: 60-62; Greppin 1993; Kortlandt 1994 = 2003: 104-106.

This sound development may also apply to PArm. affricates. See the following entry.

2.1.22.2 PArm. *‑ci̯‑ > ‑č‑, *‑ji̯ > ‑ǰ‑

Possible examples: koškočem < *koč-koč-em ‘to beat, break’ < *koc-koc-i̯e-mi, from koc- ‘to beat; to lament by beating one’s chest’, possibly a reduplicated present in o-grade with the present suffix *-i̯e- (see 2.2.6.1);

Further, nom. *wánj-ōi- > Arm. *ganj-u(i) < ganj, u-stem and i-stem ‘store, treasury, buried treasure; belly, entrails, interior’; gen. *unj-i̯o- > unǰ ‘bottom, depth; buried treasure, store, barn’ (see 1.12.6).[7]

2.1.22.3 PIE *sk‑ > Arm. c‘‑, PIE *skH‑ > Arm. š‑

Next to PIE *kH > Arm. x (2.1.18.1) and the well-known development PIE *sk > Arm. > c‘ (see Meillet 1936: 32; Beekes 2003: 198), one may also consider a sound change PIE *skH- > Arm. š-. For a discussion, see s.vv. xayt‘ ‘sting, bite’, šant‘ ‘lightning, thunderbolt, spark’, šeɫ ‘slanting, crooked, oblique’, šert ‘split wood, piece of wood, splinter’, sxal ‘mistake, failure; crime’, etc.

2.1.22.4 PArm. *‑cC‑ > ‑sC‑

Arm. kaskac ‘doubt, fear’ (Bible+; several dialects; in Łarabaɫ and Ararat: kackac) derives from *kac‑kac, a reduplication of *kac‑, probably found in karcem ‘to assume, doubt’ [HAB 2: 533‑534]. The phonetic change ‑ck‑ > ‑sk is trivial and can help to reinterpret and understand some formations and etymologies.

Ararat, Loṙi, Č‘enkiler, Van pspɫ‑al ‘to shine’, Ararat, Łarabaɫ pspɫ‑in tal ‘to shine’ (see Ačaṙean 1913: 929‑930, without etymology). The root seems to be *poɫ ‘fiery coal’ (Łarabaɫ; see Ačaṙean 1913: 919b), cf., perhaps, paɫ‑ ‘shine’ [HAB 4: 13a, 14‑15], p‘aɫp‘aɫim, p‘oɫ(p‘oɫ)em ‘to shine’ [HAB 4: 476], and, perhaps, dial. *pl‑pl‑al ‘to shine’ (see Ačaṙean 1913: 914a). The first part of the compound, namely *ps‑, may be identical with Ararat, Łarabaɫ, T‘iflis etc. *pɛc ‘spark’, cf. Van pc‑aṙ ‘spark’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 908]; cf. also payc‑aṙ ‘shiny, clear, splended’ (Bible+; dial.) [HAB 4: 17‑18]. We arrive at *p(e/a)c‑poɫ‑.

Compounds of this semantic sphere containing (almost) synonymous roots are common; cf. *kayc‑u‑poɫ‑un (Łarabaɫ kəcəpɔ́ɫun [Ačaṙean 1913: 545a], Goris kəcəpu/ɔɫun [Margaryan 1975: 414a]) ‘fiery’, comprising kayc ‘spark’ and the very same *poɫ ‘fiery coal’; Ganjak pɛcin‑krakin anel (pɛc ‘spark’ and krak ‘fire’) [Ačaṙean 1913: 908a]; etc. If this etymology is correct, Xian, Č‘arsančag psal ‘to shine’ (especially of eyes; cf. also ps(ps)‑ik ‘eye’) [Ačaṙean 1913: 929b] should be treated as a back‑formation based on *ps‑pVɫ‑ < *pc‑pVɫ‑. Van ps‑peɫ ‘eye‑light’ (see Ačaṙean 1913: 929b) can be seen, then, as an intermediary between the semantics of psal ‘to shine’ (of eyes) and the formation of ps‑pɫ‑al ‘to shine’.

Arabkir, Polis, Karin etc. kas‑karmir ‘entirely red’ (see Ačaṙean 1913: 553b; HayLezBrbBaṙ 3, 2004: 49a) is treated by Vaux (1998: 242‑244) as a fixed coda reduplication. I tentatively propose to treat kas‑karmir as a compound of the type discussed above: ka(y)c ‘spark’ + karmir ‘red’ = *kac‑karmir > *kas‑karmir.

Other examples (e.g. Nor Naxiǰewan mos‑mɔṙ ‘strictly blue’, see Tigranean 1892: 115; Amatuni 1912: 489a) may be analogical or due to Turkish influence, cf. the report of Andrea Scala presented at the Workshop “Cultural, linguistic and ethnological interrelations in and around Armenia” in Michaelbeuern, July 4th to 7th, 2007.

2.1.22.5 PIE (and/or substratum) *sCV‑ > Arm. sV‑

For examples and discussion I refer to Lidén 1933: 50‑52, J̌ahukyan 1967: 214-215, and HAB s.vv. san, sanduɫ, sareak, sunkn. See also my treatments s.vv. sunkn ‘mushroom’ (cf. Gr. σπόγγος ‘sponge, tonsil’), sanduɫ-k‘ ‘ladder, stairs’, surb ‘pure; holy’.

It is difficult to determine whether we are dealing with metathesis *sp- > *ps- > *s- (cf. Lidén ibid.) or merely *spV- > *s(p)V-.

A similar alternation is found in Iranian, although in this case the starting point is PIE *k̂u̯-: SWIran. s‑ vs. Iran. sp‑ (see Brandenstein/Mayrhofer 1964: 12‑13, 39; OsnIranJaz‑Sr 1981: 298, 174; Schmitt 1983: 80‑81; Abaev 1985: 12; J̌ahukyan 1987: 562). This is reflected in Iranian loans into Armenian, e.g. sandaramet‑k‘ ‘underworld’, also as a theonym: Spandaramet (Bible+); borrowed from Iranian, cf. Pahl. Spandarmad ‘earth goddess’ [HAB 4: 172‑173; Russell 1987: 324‑329].

Next to spah and spay ‘army’ (borrowed from Iranian, cf. Pahl. spāh, NPers. sipāh ‘army’, etc.), attested since the Bible, there is sah ‘army’ (John Chrysostom), also in the compound sah‑a‑pet ‘army leader’ (Canon Law). J̌ahukyan (1987: 543, 54365, 551, 562) mentions this correspondence as a case of Iranian dialectal alternation s‑/sp‑ alongside sandaramet (see the previous item). His third example, i.e. aspar ‘shield’ vs. sar‑k‘, u‑stem ‘armour, equipment, furniture, etc.’ (see also Schmitt 1983: 76, 80‑81) is doubtful since sar‑k‘ does not mean ‘shield’ and probably has a different origin; see s.v. sari‑k‘.

The above-mentioned assumption of Lidén on *sp > ps (cf. Arm. sunkn ‘mushroom’ vs. Gr. σπόγγος ‘sponge, tonsil’) is reminiscent of a similar sound change seen in Ossetic; cf. PIran. *spāda‑ > Oss. æfsad ‘army’; *spāta‑ > Oss. æfsadun ‘to saturate’; *spana‑ > Oss. æfsæn ‘ploughshare’ (see s.v. arǰaspn ‘vitriol’); *aspā‑ > Oss. jæfs/æfsæ ‘mare’; *kasi̯apa‑ > Oss. xæfs/xæfsæ ‘frog’ (initial x‑ is unexpected); see Cheung 2002: 156‑157, 196, 246; Cabolov 1, 2001: 573.

Further typological parallels can be found in Armenian dialects:

dial. (Muš etc.) sak‘an ‘beaker, glass’, cf. Turkish forms and Russ. stakán ‘beaker, glass’ (see Fasmer s.v.). I find the Armenian forms e.g. in a fairy‑tale from Alaškert (Haykuni 1902: 158, lines 2‑5; reprinted: HŽHek‘ 9, 1968: 77); in other fairy‑tales from the Alaškert and Xnus regions: stak‘an (HŽHek‘ 9, 1968: 159‑14), istəkan (305L15,20, 306L‑14); in the glossary (635a): sak‘an and stakan, rendered by ModArm. bažak. Also found in a fairy‑tale told by Abraham Hakobyan (a 45‑year‑old illiterate farmer, former inhabitant of the village of Vardenis in the Muš‑region) and recorded by Senek‘erim Šalčyan in Alek‘sandrapol/Leninakan in 1915 (HŽHek‘ 13, 1985: 221, lines ‑11, ‑16), also glossed by ModArm. bažak (521b).

The anthroponym Step‘an(n)os, from Gr. Στέφανος [Hübschmann 1897: 336], appears also as Tep‘an(os) since 1601 AD, dialectally also as Sep‘an [AčaṙAnjn 4, 1948: 600]. The form Sɛp‘an is found three times in a fairy‑tale recorded by Orbeli (2002: 65Nr35) in 1911‑12 in Moks. In the Russian translation made by Orbeli himself (op. cit. 139) it is rendered as Степан. Further: in Nor Bayazet: Sub‑Sɛp‘anos < Surb ‘holy’ Step‘annos [P‘iloyeanc‘ 1888: 25‑26]; in a fairy‑tale recorded in T‘iflis (< Muš, village of Saləkan) in 1916 (HŽHek‘ 13, 1985: 14‑15); in the autobiography of V. Ananyan (1980: 368‑369), on refugees of the Genocide from the Van/Arčak region.

2.1.22.6 PIE *dw‑ > Arm. ‑rk‑ or ‑k‑

The sound change *dw‑ > Arm. ‑rk‑ has received a large amount of discussion and should be taken as uncertain, though it “cannot be dismissed” (see Clackson 1994: 113, with references). It has been assumed that the regular reflex is k. The initial er‑ of erku ‘two’ (< duo‑h1 or *duōu) is interpreted as taken from erek‘ ‘three’, and the original *ku‑ is seen in keɫ‑a‑karc ‘doubtful’, kuɫ (allegedly) ‘fold, double’, kic‘ ‘conjoined’, kēs ‘half’, koys ‘side’, and krkin ‘twice, again’, which is not convincing; most of these etymologies are doubtful or simply wrong (see s.vv.; see also Meillet 1908‑09: 353‑354). Arm. erkar ‘long’ (< *dueh2‑ro‑, cf. Gr. δηρός, Dor. δᾱρός ‘lasting long’, etc.) is another possible case representing the sound law under discussion.

Nevertheless, the development *dw‑ > ‑rk‑ is phonetically improbable. For the discussion see also Pedersen 1906: 176‑177, 178; AčaṙLiak 6, 1971: 402‑403; Grammont 1918: 251-252; Pisani 1934: 185; Dumézil 1938b: 51-52; Belardi 1950: 148; Schmitt 1972/74: 10‑11; J̌ahukyan 1982: 75; Ivanov 1983: 27‑29 (*dw‑ > *rkw‑> erk‑); Szemerényi 1985: 788‑795; Vennemann 1986: 33‑34, 41‑42; Kortlandt 2003: 2‑3, 7, 28, and especially 88‑95 (= 1989); Ravnæs 1991: 162-166; de Lamberterie 1992: 257; Bolognesi 1994: 34‑35; Harkness 1996; Olsen 1999: 270‑271; Beekes 2003: 199‑200, 209; Viredaz 2003.

See also s.vv. erkn ‘labour pains’, erknč‘im ‘to be frightened’, and erkiwɫ ‘fear’.

One wonders if the development can be elucidated by some indirect evidence from neighbouring languages or by dialectal archaisms. Klingenschmitt (1982: 225, 238‑239) proposed the following development: *du̯ō ‘two’ > *tu̯ō > *tgw> *tkw> erku. This is met with scepsis (cf. e.g. Szemerényi 1985: 791‑794). If, nevertheless, one accepts this development, it would be tempting to treat Kartv. *ṭq̣ub‑ ‘twins’ (on which see Klimov 1998: 194) as reflecting (or somehow related with) the theoretical PArm. *tkwu- ‘two’. Note also PNWCauc. *t’q’o ‘two’ which has been linked with the PIE word in terms of Proto-Pontic [Colarusso 1997: 143]. All this is attractive but uncertain. Similarly, nothing can be based on J̌uɫa y’etkar or yetkar ‘far away’ from erkar (q.v.).

In non‑initial position: PIE *meldu‑i(h2)‑ (cf. Skt. mr̥dvī́ f. ‘delicate, weak, soft, mild’, Lat. mollis ‘weak, soft’ from *moldu‑i‑) > Arm. meɫk ‘soft’ (q.v.). Also oskr ‘bone’, if from *ost‑wer‑.

2.1.22.7 PIE *‑k̂r‑ > Arm. ‑wr‑

An example: mawru‑k‘ ‘beard’ (Bible+; widespread in the dialects, also *miruk‘, *muruk‘) < PIE *smok̂ru‑, cf. Lith. smãkras, smakrà ‘chin’ vs. Skt. śmáśru‑ n. ‘beard’, etc.

A possible example with *l may be Arm. giwɫ ‘village’, if from QIE *u̯e/oik̂(s)‑l‑ih2 (see s.v.).

See also s.vv. artawsr ‘tear’ and erinǰ ‘heifer, young cow’ (if from *k̂r‑).

There are no cases with *ĝ and *ĝh. A special development is found in art ‘cornfield’ from *h2(e)ĝro‑, which is hard to explain (see s.v.). Kortlandt (1980: 101 = 2003: 28) notes that the palatal articulation of *‑ĝhbefore *‑r‑ was preserved in merj ‘near’ (cf. Gr. μέχρι ‘near’), but later assumes *me‑ĝhsr‑i (see s.v. merj ‘near’).

2.1.22.8 PIE *‑ln‑ > Arm. ‑ɫ‑

For examples and references, see Lidén 1933: 422; Meillet 1936: 48; Bonfante 1937: 19. See also s.vv. aɫam ‘to grind’, aṙastaɫ ‘ceiling’, astɫ ‘star’, etc.

Note also Aɫiwn, a district of the province of Barjr Hayk‘Upper/Higher Armenia’, if from *Alnib/wn, cf. Analibna (Ptolemy) etc.

2.1.22.9 PIE *-ɫc‘ > Arm. -c‘

According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 105), MidArm. and dial. (Nor Naxiǰewan, Polis, Ararat, Łarabaɫ) *puc‘ ‘vulva’ (see Ačaṙean 1913: 926b) derives from QIE *bul-sk-, cf. Skt. buli- f. ‘buttocks; vulva’, Lith. bulìs (-iẽs), bùlė, bulė̃ ‘Hinterer, Gesäß’, as well as Arm. Erznka pllik ‘vulva’. If true, the sound change can be linked to the following possible cases.

PIE *pelk̂-sk- or *pelk̂-s (cf. OHG felga, OEngl. felg(e) ‘felloe’) > *heɫc‘ > hec‘ (i-stem) ‘felloe’ (q.v.). See especially s.v. kat‘n ‘milk’ on the loss of *-l-, which has been preserved in Agulis and Meɫri *kaɫc‘.

Compare also aɫǰamuɫǰ ‘darkness, twilight’ > Łarabaɫ žəmažɛnk‘ (see s.v. *aɫǰ-).

2.1.22.10 PIE *‑mp‑ > Arm. ‑m‑

See Meillet 1922c, on amul ‘childless’ (q.v.). Other examples are adduced in Adontz 1937: 12; Dumézil 1938; 1997: 3‑4. See also s.v. amuri ‘unmarried, widowed’. However, not all of these etymologies are convincing. An example is amayi, ea‑stem ‘(adj.) uninhabited, desert; (subst.) desert, an uninhabited or uncultivated tract of country; a wilderness’ (Movsēs Xorenac‘i 3.20, etc.; dialects), ‘abandoned, orphaned, bereaved’ (P‘awstos Buzand 5.44 etc.), which has no acceptable etymology in HAB 1: 144b. The word has been interpreted as *an‑pat‑iyo‑ (cf. Gr. πατέομαι ‘manger’ etc.) ‘lieu sans fourrage’ [Adontz 1937: 12; Dumézil 1938: 241; 1997: 3]. This is semantically improbable. I tentatively propose to treat amayi as an Iranian loan with privative a‑ and *may‑ ‘dwelling’, cf. YAv. maiiah‑ n. ‘satisfaction, pleasure’, Sogd. my’kcyk ‘fortunate/happy’, Skt. máyas‑ n. ‘refreshment, enjoyment’ from *mei̯(H)‑es‑ (see Mayrhofer EWAia 2: 315‑316). For the semantic field ‘happiness, enjoyment, satisfaction’ : ‘dwelling, city’, see HAB 3: 498‑499, on šat. On the structure of Arm. amay‑i cf. anp‘ay, i‑stem (GDPl anp‘ay‑i‑c‘) : anp‘ay‑i ‘uninhabited, desert, inaccessible, untrodden’, said of ravines (Anania Širakac‘i, 7th cent.), and river‑banks (Paterica), apparently composed of priv. an‑ and p‘ay ‘foot’ < Iranian (cf. Pers. pay ‘foot; footstep, track’, pāyīdan ‘to stand firm; to be constant, fixed, established; to trample upon’, etc.).

Deriving amol ‘couple’ (Agat‘angeɫos etc.; dialects of Karin, Muš, Van, Moks, Salmast, etc.) from *səm‑pol‑, Dumézil (1938: 241) points out the accordance of this etymology with dialectal forms with b after m, *ambol. In fact, the b must be secondary, see 2.1.30.1.

2.1.22.11 PIE *‑mn > Arm. ‑wn

Clear examples are mrǰiwn : pl. mrǰmunk‘ ‘ant’ (q.v.), paštawn, gen. pašt‑aman ‘service’, etc. The sound change seems to have operated in the final position, whereas in the oblique stem the ‑m‑ remains intact, as is clear from paštawn vs. gen. pašt‑aman. This is corroborated by the word for ‘name’:

anun, gen. anuan etc. ‘name’ (Bible+; dialectally ubiquitous). PIE nom. *h3neh3‑mn yielded Arm. *anuwn > anun, whereas EArm. dial. *anum could be explained by generalization of obl. *an(u)man < * h3n(e)h3‑men‑. For more detail, see s.v. anun ‘name’ and 2.2.2.3.

2.1.22.12 PIE *‑Ct‑ > Arm. ‑wT

A number of examples display an addition of -w- before a dental stop. This type of alternation is represented by 3 subtypes:

1) ‑t : ‑wt

git‑ in gtanem (aor. gt‑i, e‑git) ‘to find’ (Bible+; widespread in the dialects) : giwt (i‑stem) ‘finding, invention’ (Bible+); see s.v. *git‑.

hat, o‑sem (later also i‑) ‘grain, seed; piece, fragment, section’ (Bible+), hatanem ‘to cut, split’ (Bible+), y‑atem, y‑atanem ‘to cut off branches from trees and especially from vine’ (Bible+) : y‑awt ‘cut‑off branch’ (Ezechiel 15.4), on which the denominative verb y‑awtem (Paterica+) is based; hawt, i‑stem ‘flock of sheep’ (Bible+; dial.); see s.vv. hat, hawt.

mat‑ (q.v.) in matč‘im, matnum ‘to approach, come close’ (Bible+) : mawt ‘near, close’, also i mawtoy and mawtim ‘to approach’ (Bible+; widespread in the dialects). Linked with OIc. mót n. ‘Zusammentreffen, Begegnung’, OEngl. mōt ‘Gesellschaft, Versammlung, Zusammenkunft, feindliche Begegnung’, etc. [HAB 3: 265‑266, 373]. Klingenschmitt (1982: 70‑71) explains Arm. mawt from *mautu‑ < *mədu‑.

2) ‑c : ‑wt

arac‑ ‘to browse, graze’ (Bible+) : arawt, i‑stem ‘pastureland’ (Bible+); see s.v. aracem.

*boyc‑ in bucanem ‘to feed’ (Bible+) : but ‘food’ (Bible+; dial.), on which the denominative btem ‘to feed’ (Ephrem+) is based; see s.v. *boyc‑.

*moyc‑ in mucanem ‘to introduce, give entrance’ (Bible+) : mut (i‑stem) ‘entrance; income; sunset, West’ (Bible+), mtanem ‘to enter’ (Bible+; widespread in the dialects).

3) ‑č‘‑ : ‑wt‘

čanač‘em ‘to know’ : canawt‘, i‑stem ‘(adj. and subst.) known’, etc.

The phonological problems involved in explanation of these words have mostly been discussed in the context of the w‑epenthesis (on which, see s.vv. acuɫ ‘coal’, awji-k‘ ‘collar’). Some of the proposals are mentioned in the following. For a general discussion, see also Winter 1966: 204; A. Xač‘atryan 1993.

Klingenschmitt (1982: 153‑154) treats the ‑w‑ in artawsr, arawt, hawt etc. as an “u‑epenthese nach betontem a der ursprünglichen Pänultima”, e.g. artawsr ‘tear’ < *drák̂ur : artasu‑k‘ (pl.) < *drak̂ú‑ə2, assuming that arawt is composed of the PIE prefix *pr̥(i) and Arm. *hawti (cf. hawt, i‑stem ‘flock of sheeps etc.’), the latter belonging to PIE *peh2 ‘to pasture’ (on this, see s.v. hawran ‘flock of sheep or goats’). Then, he (ibid.) reconstructs an old *i‑stem with *‑ōi in the nominative (as in gewɫ, q.v.): NSg *pah2dō(i̯) > *fātū > *utu > *háu̯tu, ISg *2d‑i‑bhi‑ > *hat‑i‑w(i), etc. For the epenthetic ‑w‑ compare also well-known issues on awr ‘day’, awj ‘snake’ etc. On giwt and others, see Klingenschmitt 1982: 178‑182.

This account, however, is not convincing. The proposed etymology of arawt is improbable (note, in particular, that the ‑c‑ of aracem remains uncertain, and *ar‑ is attested only with a trilled ‑ṙ‑: aṙ‑), for artawsr another explanation is preferable (see s.v.), hawt has a better etymology (see s.v.), etc. More important, all the three subtypes of alternations seem to be of the same nature, whereas Klingenschmitt’s explanation can only be applied to the second subtype.

A unitary solution for all the subtypes would be preferable. In practically all these cases (except for mawt) we are dealing with deverbatives containg a final ‑t and belonging to the i‑declension. The PIE deverbative suffix *‑ti‑ is then a good candidate.

Winter (1962: 261) derives giwt from *uid‑ti‑ assuming a development of *‑dt‑ to ‑wt‑. This view is advocated by Clackson (1994: 155). Compare Arm. an‑giwt adj. ‘not found’ (Koriwn, P‘awstos, Łazar P‘arpec‘i, Eɫišē) with Skt. á‑vitti‑ f. ‘not‑finding’ (AV); see s.v. git‑.

The third subtype may be explained as follows: *ĝnh3‑sk‑ie‑ > *canač‘em > čanač‘em : *ĝnh3‑sk‑ti‑ > canawt‘ (see Clackson 1994: 40), and the first subtype involves a development of *‑ĝ‑t‑ to ‑wt, see s.vv. arawt, but, mut. The development of *‑dt‑ to ‑wt‑ seems to contradict that seen in p‘oyt‘ ‘zeal’ which is derived by Klingenschmitt (1982: 167) from *(s)peud‑to‑ (see s.v.). However, here the *‑dt‑ follows a diphthong, and we may be dealing with a simplification: *‑eud‑t‑ > ‑oy(t)t‘. For a similar explanation, see Clackson 1994: 155. The postulation of the suffix *‑ti‑ (or *‑to‑) and the subsequent simplification of the clusters can clarify, in my opinion, many other notorious problems, such as ert‘am, maɫt‘em, etc., which may be denominative verbs based on i-stem nouns, see s.vv. and the following section (2.1.22.13); on the suffix *-ti-, see 2.3.1.

According to this mechanism, the alternation ‑c‑ : ‑wt‑, arawt, i‑stem, must be taken as a deverbative noun in *‑ti‑ based on verbal arac‑. If the latter derives from *treHĝ‑, arawt (i‑stem) would point to *trHĝ‑ti‑ (cf. Gr. τρῶξ‑ις). Similarly, but ‘food’ (vs. boyc‑ ‘to feed’ <*bheug‑) is best explained by *buwt from *bhug‑ti‑, cf. Skt. bhukti‑ f. ‘Genießen’ (Br.+).[8]

2.1.22.13 PIE *‑RC‑t‑ > Arm. ‑R(C)t‘‑

As we have seen in the previous section, in p‘oyt‘ ‘zeal’ < *(s)peud‑to‑ one can postulate simplification: *‑eud‑t‑ > ‑oy(t)t‘. The final dental is aspirated here. This can be corroborated by other examples.

xayt‘ ‘sting, bite’ (Bible), xayt‘em ‘to bite (of insects and snakes)’ (Bible+); xayt‘em may be a denominative verb based on xayt‘ < *kh2eid‑ti/o‑, cf. Lat. caedō, etc. The forms xit‘ and šit‘ represent the zero-grade of the same word and go back to PIE *kh2i(d)‑t‑ and *skh2i(d)‑t‑, respectively. This seems to contradict giwt, etc. However, in xit‘ and šit‘ we might be dealing with analogical influence of the other ablaut forms, especially xayt‘. The form xawt‘ ‘ill, sick (of body, eye, or ear)’ (Bible+), dial. *xōt‘‑ik ‘a kind of wound’, is unclear, since a hypothetical *kh2(e)d‑t‑ would yield *xawt according to the previous section. For the discussion, see s.vv. and especially xayt‘.

For a discussion of other cases, see s.vv. an(u)t‘ ‘armpit’, ert‘am ‘to go’, kat‘n ‘milk’, maɫt‘em ‘to pray’, šant‘ ‘lightning’, p‘oyt‘ ‘zeal’.

2.1.23 Assimilation: *-ə…V1́- > -V1… V1́- (*ə also from PIE *-H-; V = any vowel)

In 2.1.20, I assumed that the internal laryngeal was vocalized before a resonant, cf. *h2(e)rH‑u‑ > harawunk‘ ‘arable land’; *prHuo‑ > haraw ‘south’; etc. Various attempts to explain the vocalism of yolov ‘many’ are not convincing (see s.v.). The best solution is, in my view, the direct derivation from *polh1u‑s (cf. Gr. πολύς ‘much’). The vowel of the final syllable underwent an assimilatory influence by that of the first syllable. It is remarkable that alawunk‘ ‘Pleiades’ (q.v.), which apparently derives from the same PIE word (cf. YAv. *paru̯ii̯ainī‑, NPers. parvīn, Greek Πλειάδες), underwent the same assimilation, starting with the ‑a‑ from the zero‑grade form (cf. IIr. *prHu‑ ‘abundant’).

For ariwn ‘blood’ and garun ‘spring’ Szemerényi (1960: 21) assumes assimilation and contraction: *ehar > *ahar > *ar‑, *gehar > *gahar > *gar‑. Similarly, he (ibid.) explains č‘or‑k‘ ‘four’ and k‘or‑k‘ NPl of k‘oyr ‘sister’ from *č‘ewor‑k‘ < *kwetores and *khehor‑kh < *swesores, respectively.

2.1.24 Dissimilation

2.1.24.1 Grassmann’s Law is ‘breath dissimilation’ or a dissimilatory loss of the aspiration of the initial stop, which took place in Indo‑Iranian and Greek independently [Collinge 1985: 47‑61; Beekes 1995: 99, 128; Szemerényi 1996: 19, 56]. The rule seems to have partly operated in Armenian, cf. pind ‘tight, fastened’, pndem ‘to tie, fasten’ (q.v.) from PIE *bhendh-, cf. Skt. bandh- ‘to bind, fasten’, etc. (see J̌ahukyan 1969: 66; 1978: 17613). See also s.v. papanjim ‘to grow dumb, speechless’. Counter-examples: barjr ‘high’, geɫj-k‘ ‘glands’, etc.

For a further discussion see Rasmussen 1989: 170-17116.

2.1.24.2 r…r > l…r. Apart from the well-known cases of Indo-European origin, namely aɫbewr ‘spring, well’ and eɫbayr ‘brother’ (q.v.), this dissimalation is also seen in oɫorm ‘compassion; supplication’ (Bible+; widespread in the dialects), if this word derives from reduplicated *or-orm- (see HAB 3: 556-557). See, however, s.v. oɫorm ‘compassion; supplication’. Note also an Iranian loan: saɫawart ‘helmet; mitre’ (Bible+; dial.) < MPers. *sāravart(i)-, literally ‘Kopf-bedeckung’ [Hübschmann 1897: 235-236; HAB 4: 165, 652b]. See AčaṙLiak 6, 1971: 699-700.

Examples in the dialects:

orar, urar ‘stole, tippet’ attested in Eusebius of Caesarea etc. < Gr. ὠράριον [Hübschmann 1897: 369; HAB 3: 615a]; widespread in the dialects: T‘iflis, Axalc‘xa, Łarabaɫ, Polis, Sebastia., Muš etc. urar, Tigranakert urär, Maraɫa ürar, Zeyt‘un uyɔy, urɔr [HAB 3: 615]. Only in J̌uɫa: ular, through dissimilation [Ačaṙean 1940: 154, 381a]. Compare Georgian olari ‘id.’, treated as an Armenian loan in HAB 3: 615b;

parart ‘fat’: Dersim barard and (Č‘arsančag) balard [Baɫramyan 1960: 98a]. The word balard ‘fresh’ (Erznka, Xnjorek) recorded in the glossary of purely dialectal words (op. cit. 112b) seems to belong here, too;

Dissimilation in the opposite direction, namely r…r > r…l, is less frequent; see 3.5.2.2 on Svedia j‘irəbäɫig ‘hyena’ etc. 

2.1.25 Assimilation and dissimilation

Very often, especially in dialects, an assimilatory or a dissimilatory process seems irregular and arbitrary. A careful examination reveals that we may be dealing with a complex simultaneous process of assimilation and dissimilation in which three or more (rather than two) participants are involved. A possible example is bok-ik ‘barefoot’ > dial. *bobik. A metathesis of the type P…K > P…P is exceptional for Armenian and does not occur in words like bak, buk‘, po/uk, p‘ak, etc. (see HAB s.vv.). One might therefore explain bokik > *bobik through a twofold process: assimilation (b…k > b…b) and dissimilation (k…k > b…k). Thus: b…k…k… > b…b…k [labial-velar-velar > labial-labial-velar, or ABB > AAB].

Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 181a, 462b) compares the development with that of anapak-uk ‘waterless, oilless, pure’ > Sebastia *ampakuk > *ampapuk > ambəbug and mentions only the assimilatory process. For an explicit description of a simultaneous process of assimilation and dissimilation, see Aɫayan 1987: 269-270, 280.

The form bobik in turn underwent a further development: *bobik > Łarabaɫ *topik > tɛ́pɛgy (Aɫayan 1987: 28023). This development probably started from the compound with otn ‘foot’, cf. Goris vəndəpɛpik, vənnəpɛpik (see Margaryan 1975: 474a). *otnapopik > *otnatopik is to be understood then as t…p…p > t…t…p (ABB > AAB).

Examples for vocalic assimilation + dissimilation: eraxay ‘child’ > dial. *erexa, MIran. *Mihrakān > Arm. mehekan ‘the 7th month of the ancient Armenian calendar’.

Further examples:

zok‘anč‘ ‘wife’s mother’ > Łarabaɫ zä́nk‘uč‘, zä́mk‘uč‘, zɛ́nk‘uč‘, zɛ́mk‘uč‘ [Davt‘yan 1966: 351]: zok‘anč‘ > *zak‘onč‘ > zä/ɛnk‘uč‘ > zä/ɛmk‘uč‘, as well as

nzov- ‘to curse’ > Łarabaɫ mzov-,

žptal ‘to smile’ : Šatax žəmtal [M. Muradyan 1962: 196b]; M. Muradyan (1962: 55) posits a twofold development: žp > žm, assimilative loss of the plosive feature, and pt > mt, plosive dissimilation.

xaɫoɫ ‘grape’ > *xavoɫ (in numerous dialects, see HAB 2: 322a). The choice of the ‑v‑ may have been triggered by the following labial vowel ‑o‑: A‑AoA > A‑BoA (/vel. + V + vel. + Vlab + vel./ > (/vel. + V + lab. + Vlab + vel./, in other words, of the three velar fricatives, the middle one, which precedes the labial vowel ‑o‑, is dissimilated into labial ‑v‑). Compare dial. *pavart from parart ‘fat’: balard (see above). Note also *havoɫ < the same xaɫoɫ ‘grape’. This is, thus, a combination of two dissimilatory developments: (1) x‑ɫ‑ɫ > h‑ɫ‑ɫ, (2) x‑ɫ‑ɫ > x‑v‑ɫ.

*net-u-aɫeɫ(n) > Zeyt‘un ləmb‘aɫɛɫ : *nedv- > *nidb- > *ninb- > *nimb- > *limb-; see s.v. aɫeɫn ‘bow’.

tatr(a)k-ik > *tatrtik > Aslanbek dadərdig : t-t-k-k > t-t-t-k (see s.v. tatrak ‘turtle-dove’).

tzruk ‘leech’ is reflected in J̌uɫa as pzdruk ‘a leech‑like water worm’ [HAB 4: 400a]. In order to explain this form, Ačaṙyan (1940: 145, 160‑161, 163) proposes a complicated scenario involving three steps: (1) metathesis (tz‑ > *zt‑); (2) addition of a “prothetic” p‑; (3) ‑zt‑ > ‑zd‑. Thus: tzruk > *ztruk > *p‑ztruk > pzdruk. The first two steps are not convincing, however. An alternative explanation is: (1) tzruk > *tzdruk, with epenthetic stop before r, cf. t‘mril > J̌uɫa d‘mbrel, manr > J̌uɫa mandr, etc. (see Ačaṙean 1940: 159‑160); (2) *tzdruk > pzdruk, with dissimilatory simplification of the initial cluster comprising four dental phonemes.

Amatuni (1912: 442a) records Muš, Alaškert čšnarɔt ‘truly’ (unknown to Ačaṙyan), used in oaths. No etymological attempt is known to me. It seems to be identical with čšmarit, i‑stem (later also a‑stem) ‘true, precise, genuine’ which is attested in the Bible onwards and has been preserved in several dialects. In Polis, it only appears in the oath formula *čšmarit Astuac “true God” [HAB 3: 209]. The vowel ‑ɔ‑ is unclear. As for ‑n‑ instead of ‑m‑, one can assume “circular assimilation”: čš‑m‑r‑t (all the consonants but ‑m‑ being dental) > *čš‑n‑r‑t : dental-labial-dental > dental-dental-dental (ABA > AAA).

An example of BAA > AAA [vc-c > pc-c] may be seen in kovcuc ‘a kind of lizard’ (lit. ‘cow‑sucker’) > Xotorǰur: kopcuc ‘green lizard’ [YušamXotorǰ 1964: 472a]; see s.v. kov‑a‑diac‘, cf. also dagaɫ‑k‘ ‘coffin’ > Malat‘ia, Sebastia *gagaɫk‘.

2.1.26 Metathesis

2.1.26.1 Criteria

In order to assess the nature and direction of metathesis one has to start with the oldest form, taking into account two basic criteria: (1) philological (chronology and reliability of the attestations); (2) etymological.

Things are often unclear, especially with cultural and/or substratum words. For instance, alongside ClArm. oloṙn ‘pea, been; globule’ (Bible+; dialects), there are other variants: oleṙn (Paterica; several dialects), and *oṙel (dialects of Xotorǰur, Nor Naxiǰewan). Both philological (oloṙn is the basic form and is attested from the Bible onwards) and etymological (cf. Akkad. ḫallūru, ḫi/ullūru, etc.; probably also Gr. ὄλυραι) considerations suggest that oloṙn must have served as a starting point. The fact that the same metathesis is present also in Semitic forms (cf. Aram. ḫurlā, Arab. ḫarul, Hebr. ḫarūl) makes it difficult to determine whether the dialectal form *oṙel is due to intermediation of a particular Semitic language or reflects an independent development of a similar nature. The latter alternative is more probable, since *oṙel is present only in two Armenian dialects located far from the Semitic languages.

Also internal factors should be taken into account. The vocalism of *oleṙn (and *oṙel) seems to have resulted analogically after siseṙn, GSg sis(e)ṙan ‘pea’ (Agat‘angeɫos+; widespread in the dialects). Further, note gaylagṙaw, lit. ‘wolf-raven’ > Łarabaɫ kəṙáklav, Hadrut‘ kəṙákläv [Davt‘yan 1966: 332], perhaps due to influence of onomatopoeic kṙ- ‘to croak’ (said of crows).

In order to explain some unclear dialectal forms one can postulate a metathesis which is corroborated by other dialectal forms. For instance, ǰulhak ‘weaver’ (also ǰulahak in Grigor Tat‘ewac‘i, see HAB‑Add. 1982: 16), dial. also ‘spider; spider‑web’, is borrowed from Pers. ǰulāhak ‘weaver’; cf. ǰūlah(a), ǰūlāh(a) ‘spider; weaver’. Some forms have an “epenthetic” ‑w‑ or ‑f‑: Č‘mškacag č‘uvulag, Karin ǰuflak next to ǰulfa(k), Axalc‘xa ǰ‘uflak [HAB 4: 133a], Berri (Dersim) ǰiväläg ‘spider‑web’ [Baɫramyan 1960: 164a], Tigranakert č‘üvläg, č‘uläg [A. Haneyan 1978: 196a], Malat‘ia ǰuvalag ‘weaver; spider’ [Danielyan 1967: 225], etc. One notes that none of these forms displays a reflex of the ‑h‑. Therefore, the forms of the type *ǰuw(V)lak should be interpreted as coming from *ǰuhalak, which in turn represents a metathesized form of ǰulahak. The postulation of such a metathesized form, namely *ǰuhalak, is directly corroborated by Zeyt‘un čhalɔg, ǰ‘halog ‘weaver; spider’ [HAB 4: 133a; Ačaṙyan 2003: 337], Ararat ǰuhlak [Nawasardeanc‘ 1903: 102a] or ǰuhlag, T‘iflis ǰúhlak, J̌uɫa ǰuxlak (the ‑x‑ is from ‑h‑) [HAB 4: 133a]. Note that Zeyt‘un is both geographically and dialectally very close to Malat‘ia and Svedia, and is located between them. Its *ǰuhalak matches Malat‘ia ǰuvalag. The Svedia and Hačən forms have the unmetathesized sequence ‑lh‑ (see Ačaṙyan 2003: 337, 586). As to the development ‑uha‑ > ‑uwa‑, see 2.1.32, on zohal.

Next to Moks tɛrɔ̈xri ‘priest’s wife’ one finds tərxori ‘id.’ in the dialect of Šatax, which is both dialectally and geograpfically closest to Moks. M. Muradyan (1962: 216b; 1972: 209) interprets Šatax tərxori ‘priest’s wife’ as a compound of tēr ‘lord’ and huri ‘(heavenly) beautiful woman, fairy’ not mentioning the Moks form. This etymology is not convincing. It is better to treat Moks tɛrɔ̈xri as the original form deriving from *tēr‑urhi, and the metathesis of the Šatax form is due to the folk‑etymological re‑interpretation as *tēr‑hōr‑i ‘(the one that belongs) to the priest’.

In what follows I will present several sets of (mainly dialectal) examples of metathesis.

2.1.26.2. Stops

PIE *‑Dr‑ and *‑Dhr‑ are subject to metathesis in Classical Armenian (see s.vv. aɫbewr ‘spring, well’, artawsr ‘tear’, darbin ‘blacksmith’, eɫbayr ‘brother’, surb ‘pure, holy’, etc.), but *‑tr‑ is not. It yields Arm. ‑wr‑.

One might expect metathesis also in a form with an aspirated *‑Th, in words of substratum origin, for instance. A possible example would be k‘aɫirt‘, a‑stem ‘stomach of animals’, if from *k‘aɫíth‑ra‑ (q.v.).

Examples from the dialects:

Labial : dental

put ‘poppy’ > Łarabaɫ tɔp ‘id.’, put ‘drop’ > Łarabaɫ tɔp ‘id.’ (q.v.), see especially Margaryan 1977: 161-164;

p‘etur ‘feather’ > dial. (Zeyt‘un, Xarberd, Hamšen, Karin, Alaškert, Łarabaɫ, Agulis, J̌uɫa, etc.) *tep‘ur ‘id.’.

Arm. p‘aycaɫn ‘spleen’ > Cappadocian Greek πεϊσάχι ‘id.’ > Xotorǰur sipɛx ‘id.’, s.v. p‘aycaɫn.

This material can lead to new etymological suggestions. For instance, t‘epek ‘ape; jackal’, of which no etymology is known to me, may be regarded as a loan from Gr. πίϑηκος ‘ape’ through metathesis /labial…dental/ > /dental…labial/ discussed above (see 3.5.2.2 on the etymology).

Dental : velar

dagaɫ ‘coffin’ > dial. *gadaɫ, jgem ‘to throw’ > dial. *gjem (see HAB s.vv.), targal ‘spoon’ > *gdal (q.v.).

Next to kaɫin ‘acorn’ (q.v.), the dialect of Łarabaɫ has tkɔ́ɫɛn and metathesized ktɔ́ɫɛn ‘hazel-nut’.

čakat ‘forehead’ (Bible+; widespread in the dialects) > Ṙodost‘o ǰadag, gen. ǰadgi [HAB 3: 176a].

Next to ClArm. čkoyt‘ and ckoyt‘ ‘the little finger’, Łarabaɫ has ckɛ́ynə, kcɛ́ynə, etc. (cf. also J̌uɫa ck-ik, Šamaxi ckla mat, etc.). The form kcɛ́ynə, found also in Goris (see Margaryan 1975: 346a), reflects a metathesis ck- > kc-.

Velar : dental

kayc-oṙ-ik ‘glow-worm, firefly’ > Łarabaɫ cikúṙi [HAB 2: 506-507];

kant‘ ‘handle’ > Ararat, Łarabaɫ, Goris, Meɫri etc. tank/g ‘id.’ [Margaryan 1977: 160-162];

kot‘ ‘handle’ > Svedia dük‘ [Ačaṙyan 2003: 430].

2.1.26.3 Nasals, resonants, spirants

r…N > N…r

Arm. erani ‘blissful’ > Łarabaɫ (h)ənɛ́rak, nɛ́rak.

For the dialect of Hamšen, Ačaṙyan (1947: 73; see also 235) mentions only one case for r…n > n…r : cirani gōti ‘purple girdle’ > jinari kɔdi ‘rainbow’. The other dialects have no metathesis here: Polis jirani‑gɔdi [Ačaṙyan 1941: 220], Erznka cirani gɔdi [Kostandyan 1979: 157b], Svedia ciränə kudək‘ [Andreasyan 1967: 366b], K‘esab ciränə kütä [Č‘olak‘ean 1986: 206a], Xotorǰur *cirani‑gōti [YušamXotorǰ 1964: 466a], etc.

A possible typological parallel: The name Amirani, the theomachist hero of the type of Prometheus in the Georgian Epic, is considered to be somehow related with Mihr (see A. Petrosjan 2002a: 182‑183, with ref.). I tentatively derive Amirani from Persian Ahriman ‘Ahriman, the principle of Evil, opposed to Ormuzd, the principle of Good; the devil; a demon’. Iranian *hr is reflected in Georgian as r (see e.g. HAB, s.vv. agah, ah, bah, zoh). Ahriman could develop to *A(h)riman > *Amiran‑ through dissimilation r…N > N…r. Also an association with Mihr may have played a role here.

For an older stage compare PIE gen. *h2nr‑ós > Arm. aṙn, gen. of ayr ‘man’ (q.v.). Here, however, we are dealing with contact rather than distant metathesis.

n…r > r…n

anarat ‘pure, spotless’ > Svedia äränud [Andreasyan 1967: 353b]; t‘onir ‘ground-hearth’ > Łarabaɫ t‘ɔ́run, etc.

l…n > n…l

This metathesis is found e.g. in MFr. alumette > Fr. omelette ‘omelet’.

For the dialect of Hamšen, Ačaṙyan (1947: 73) mentions only one case: šlni‑ ‘neck’ (q.v.) > šnlik‘ ‘face’. xnlink‘ from xlink‘ ‘snivel’, mentioned by Ačaṙyan (ibid.; see also p. 233) as a case of nasal epenthesis may also belong here. What he suggests is, in fact, anticipation (see 2.1.27.2). It seems probable, however, that anticipation was preceded by metathesis. The forms šnlik‘ and *xnlik‘ have developed into šnlink‘ and xnlink‘, with an epenthetic ‑n‑, exactly as in banali ‘key’ > Hamšen pɔnlink/k‘ alongside with pɔnlik/k‘. The form xnl‑ is corroborated by other NW dialects such as Ṙodost‘o, Ewdokia and Karin. Here, Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 373b) explicitly assumes a metathesis *xln‑ > *xnl‑.

Another case for such a metathesis is found in dial. *gdalnoc‘ (< *gdal‑anoc‘) ‘a pot for spoons’, present in Hamšen, Karin, Širak, Xarberd, Sebastia, etc. (see Amatuni 1912: 127a; Ačaṙean 1913: 222b; Gabikean 1952: 135; HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 232a). As is shown by Bläsing (1992: 42), the Armenian word has been borrowed into Turkish dial. (in Hamšen area) gedanluç‘, gedanloç‘ ‘kleines, an der Wand befestigtes Holzkästchen mit runder Öffnung an der Vorderseite zur Aufbewahrung der Löffel’, as well as kadanloç ‘Löffelkästchen’ (also in Sivas).

Bläsing (ibid.) argues that the metathesis ln > nl “erst bei oder nach der Entlehnung ins Türkeitürkische eingetreten ist”. In view of the above‑mentioned examples from Armenian Hamšen and adjacent areas I assume that the metathesis may have taken place in Armenian Hamšen, although the metathesized form *gdanloc‘ is not recorded here. It should be borne in mind that Ačaṙyan’s *gdalnoc‘ is a standard reconstruction rather than a phonetic record of the word, which would have an initial k‑ in Hamšen (cf. gdal > Hamšen kdal ‘spoon’ [Ačaṙyan 1947: 62, 255]). In either case, we are dealing with a clear case of ln > nl metathesis in this region.[9]

On analut‘ ‘deer’, see below.

Bearing in mind also the case of cirani > Hamšen jinari (see above), one may postulate a more or less regular metathesis R…n > n…R, where the R is either r or l. While other dialects metathesize in both directions, Hamšen seems to display only the mentioned one, since anali and banali remain unchanged here: ɔnli and pɔnlik/k‘, pɔnlink/k‘ (see Ačaṙyan 1947: 56, 220, 222). A dissimilation from n…n results in n…l in ananux ‘mint’ > Hamšen ɔnluxk‘, cf. also annman ‘not resembling’ > ɔnləmɔn (see Ačaṙyan 1947: 56, 220, 221).

The contact group ln (resulting from ‑lin‑ ir ‑lun‑) mostly develops into Hamšen ‑ll‑, cf. lnum ‘to fill’ > lluš, linim ‘to be, become’ > əlluš, *(h)ulunem ‘to button up’ > hilluš, etc. [Ačaṙyan 1947: 56]. One may assume that the metathesis l…n > n…l is relatively old and predates the syncope of ‑a‑. Thus, (1) *gdalanoc‘ > gdanaloc‘ (metathesis); (2) *gdanaloc‘ > *gdanloc‘ (syncope). Otherwise we would have *gdalloc‘.

It seems that the metathesis is not old enough to affect ‑l(i)n‑ and ‑l(u)n‑, unless we admit that a metathesis is an irregular process, or in individual cases it has been blocked by other circumstances. The latter alternative is more plausible. The absence of metathesis in, for instance, lnum ‘to fill’ (< *linum) > lluš, is easy to explain. The nasal belongs to the present and is naturally absent from aorist (lc‘‑i, lc‘‑ir, ɛ‑lic‘ etc.) and imperative (lic‘, lc‘‑ɛk‘), see Ačaṙyan 1947: 133, 232, thus a metathesized *nəlum would not be tolerated in the paradigm where the other forms have an initial l‑. The same holds for elanem ‘to rise’ > ɛlluš : ɛla, yɛ́l, etc. (op. cit. 128, 227).

To sum up: in the Hamšen dialect (partly also, perhaps, in Karin etc.), the phonotactics of the sonants n and l seems to be governed by three rules: (1) n…l > n…l (unchanged), cf. anali > ɔnli, etc.; (2) l…n > n…l (cf. šlni > šnlik‘, etc.); (3) n…n > l…n (cf. ananux > ɔnluxk‘, etc.). In all the three cases the outcome is n…l. The n…l is thus the most preferred sequence of these sonants.

In the light of what has been said, the derivation of analut‘ ‘deer, hind’ (q.v.) from QIE *h1(o)l‑Hn‑th2o‑ (with the same metathesis l…n > n…l seen also in the related Hesychian ἔνελος· νεβρός ‘young of the deer, fawn’) becomes more significant. If my etymology of analut‘ is accepted, one can postulate a dialectally restricted word in the Classical period.

Conclusion

The metathesis l…n > n…l may be regarded as an areal feature restricted to the NW of historical Armenia (Hamšen, Karin, Barjr Hayk‘) or perhaps, in a broader sense, to Mediterranean/Pontic regions (cf. Hesychian ἔνελος ‘fawn’ above). Arm. analut‘ ‘deer’ < QIE *h1(o)l‑Hn‑th2o‑ demonstrates that this metathesis is rather old.

l…r > r…l

oloṙn ‘pea, been; globule’ (Bible+; several dialects) : *oṙel (dialects of Xotorǰur, Nor Naxiǰewan). The same metathesis is present also in Semitic forms (see s.v. oloṙn). Probably we are dealing with independent developments of a similar nature.

h…v > v…h

hawak‘em ‘to gather’ > Łarabaɫ həvák‘ɛl and vəhák‘ɛl [Davt‘yan 1966: 411]. A textual illustration can be found in a fairy‑tale from Łarabaɫ recorded by Grigor Bahat‘ryan in 1860 (HŽHek‘ 6, 1973: 67L20): vəhak‘al ən ‘they have gathered’.

lv > vl

luanam ‘to wash’ (Bible+; widespread in the dialects) > Polis, Aslanbek, Karin, Muš, Xarberd, Zeyt‘un, Van, Salmast, etc. *vlal (see HAB 2: 300b).

v…l > l…v

vayel‑em ‘to enjoy; to suit’ > *vɛl‑ɛl (contraction as in hayeli ‘mirror’ > *hili, etc.) > Maraɫa and Salmast lɛvɛl [HAB 4: 300a; Ačaṙean 1926: 76, 424].

awelc‘uk ‘remnant’ > Svedia ləvcäk [Hananyan 1995: 54].

mn > n…m

mananay ‘manna’ > Šamaxi nəmana [Baɫramyan 1964: 67, 213].

2.1.26.4 Vowel metathesis

Examples: zok‘anč‘ ‘wife’s mother’ > Łarabał zä́nk‘uč‘, zä́mk‘uč‘, zέnk‘uč‘, zέmk‘uč‘ [Davt‘yan 1966: 351]: zok‘anč‘ > *zak‘onč‘ > *zänk‘uč‘.

lezu ‘tongue’ > Łarabaɫ lǘzi [Davt‘yan 1966: 366].

Martiros > Gor. Mərtüris (see Lisic‘yan 1969: 273).

See also s.v. uɫeɫ, o‑stem ‘brain’.

2.1.26.5 Metathesis involving a cluster

Arm. dial. *pəngəl ‘panther’ seems to be related with Pers. palang ‘leopard, panther’, cf. Skt. pŕ̥dāku‑, Sogd. pwrδnk‑, Gr. πάρδαλις ‘leopard’, etc. (see Lubotsky 2004: 4). Metathesis of a cluster (l…ng > ng…l) or contamination with another oriental word *panTVr/l‑, cf. Gr. πάνϑηρ, ‑ηρος m. ‘panther’, Skt. (Lex.) puṇḍarīka‑ m. ‘tiger’.

This is reminiscent of the following example: next to Akn, Polis kṙt‘n‑il ‘to lean, recline, incline the body against an object for support’ (see s.v. kṙt‘unk‘ ‘back’), Ararat attests knt‘ṙnil, with metathesis, as is pointed out by Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 669b). One of the possible scenarios is: (1) *‑t‘n‑ > ‑nt‘n‑ (anticipated or epenthetic ‑n‑); (2) *kṙnt‘n‑ > *knt‘ṙn‑.

In both cases, thus: C1RNC2 > C1NC2R, in other words, metathesis of R and the cluster NC2.

2.1.26.6 Miscellaneous

Other types of metathesis are found in the following words:

čm‑l‑em ‘to squeeze, press’ (Bible+; several dialects) > Muš člmil, next to it we find dial. (widespread) *čm‑ṙ‑em > Aslanbek, Sebastia, Akn *ǰəṙmɛl. Other metathesized forms of this verb are člm‑k‑ot‑ vs. čm‑l‑k‑(o)t‑. The evaluation of forms like čmkt‘el, čmtk‘el, čm‑t‘‑el vs. kčmt/t‘el, kmčt‘el etc. ‘to pinch’ depends on whether the forms with čm‑ derive from čm‑‘to press’ or are metathesized from *kč‑m‑. See s.v. čm‑.

Šahmar > Šamxar, found in a fairy‑tale (1918/1965, Nor Bayazet – Yerevan), see HŽHek‘ 9, 1968: 552‑554.

šišaɫ ‘demon’ (q.v.) : NPl šiɫš‑ay‑k‘.

2.1.27 Anticipation

2.1.27.1 Anticipation or metathesis of ‑i/y‑ and -u/w-

Classical Armenian words of Indo-European origin: ayg ‘morning’, ayl ‘other’, ayr ‘man’, *ant‘a(y)r-, jayn ‘voice’, p‘ayl ‘shine’. Note also PIE *medh‑io‑ > PArm. *meiǰ‑ > mēǰ ‘middle’. Further, see s.vv. ayg ‘morning’ and ēg ‘female’. For later periods: žayn vs. žanik‘ ‘tusk’.

A comparable example from later periods for the development seen in mēǰ may be kamurǰ ‘bridge’ (q.v.) > Kak‘avaberd kármiǰ in the village of Varhavar (vs. kármunǰ in other villages, as well as in other Armenian dialects). Perhaps we may assume *karmuǰ > *karmuiǰ > kármiǰ.

Ačaṙyan (1935: 35) cites three examples of the irregular sound change ClArm. a > Agulis ay : aseɫn ‘needle’ > áysäɫ(nə), calel ‘to fold’ > cáylil, halel ‘to melt’ > háylil. One may explain these forms through anticipation of the front vowel e/i in the following syllable. On áysäɫ(nə) see also s.v. aseɫn.

For anticipation or metathesis of -u/w- see s.vv. acuɫ ‘coal’, awcanem ‘to anoint’, awji-k‘ ‘collar’, awɫi ‘a strong drink’, awr ‘day’.

This -y- or -w- is sometimes regarded as ‘epenthetic’. For a discussion and further references see Morani 1981; Olsen 1984: 113-114; 1985: 66; Olsen 1999: 176-177; Kortlandt 1985a: 59 = 2003: 60; Clackson 1994: 96; Beekes 2003: 169, 204-205.

2.1.27.2 Anticipation of a nasal

Anticipation of a nasal is found in the following cases:

*ayg‑hoɫ‑k‘ ‘ceremony on the next morning after a funeral’, Eastern *ayg‑n‑a‑hoɫ > J̌uɫa nagnaxoɫ and Šamaxi ink‘nahɔɫ. See s.v. ayg ‘morning’. See further in the next sections.

gtanem ‘to find’ > Van etc. kəndənil.

xlink‘ ‘snivel’ > Hamšen xnlink‘, see above on metathesis, 2.1.26.3.

2.1.28 Perseveration

Ačaṙyan (AčaṙLiak 6, 1971: 716‑717) presents a number of cases with perseveration: kanač‘ ‘green’ > *kananč‘ in most of the dialects [HAB 2: 511a] and čanač‘em ‘to know’ (q.v.) > dial. *čananč‘el. The examples are ambiguous, however, since an additional ‑n‑ is often seen before hushing affricates, especially ‑č‘‑; see 2.1.29.

Some of the other examples can also be explained by epenthetic ‑n‑, as mek‘ ‘we’ > *menk‘, mawruk‘/miruk‘ ‘beard’ > *mirunk‘, etc.

Similarly, Łarabaɫ hrištrak from hreštak ‘angel’ may be a mere case of r‑epenthesis, cf. lōštak (a plant) > Van, Šatax lɔštrak, napastak ‘hare’ > Van lapəstrak, Šatax ləpəstrak, etc. (see Ačaṙyan 1952: 101; M. Muradyan 1962: 64).

Probable case of perseveration: PIE *n̥bhro- > PArm. *amb/pro- > ampro-p ‘thunder’ (q.v.). Note also kṙunk ‘crane’ (q.v.).

2.1.29 Perseveration or anticipation of a nasal

In H. Petrosyan 1987: 478, we find the following examples of anticipation:

     akanǰ ‘ear’ > Muš anganǰ (see HAB 1: 104b);

aɫač‘ank‘ ‘supplication’ > Kṙzen ɫanč‘ank‘ [Baɫramyan 1961: 173b];

zok‘anč‘ ‘wife’s mother’ > dial. (mostly western) *zɔnk‘anč‘ [HAB 2: 110b];

irikun ‘evening’ > Polis iringun, Sebastia h’iringun [HAB 2: 46a].

Of these examples, however, perhaps only iringun is a straightforward case of anticipation. An additional ‑n‑ is often seen before hushing affricates, especially ‑č‑, whether or not the word originally contained a nasal ‑n‑; cf. e.g. in the dialect of Kṙzen: aɫač‘el ‘to beg, supplicate’ > aɫanč‘ɛl, amač‘el ‘to be shy’ > həmanč‘ɛl, baṙač‘el ‘to bellow’ > bəṙanč‘ɛl, kanač‘ ‘green’ > kananč‘, čanač‘el ‘to know’ > čənanč‘ɛl. In Kṙzen ɫanč‘ank‘ we can thus posit an epenthetic ‑n‑.

As for akanǰ and zok‘anč‘, there are also forms displaying a metathetic ‑n‑, e.g. Kṙzen angɔǰ and zänk‘yäč‘ (see Baɫramyan 1961: 81, explicitly positing metathesis). The form *zo/ank‘ač‘ is widespread and is represented in Northern and Eastern dialects, as well as in Alaškert and Ararat [HAB 2: 110b]. One may assume that also Western *zonk‘anč‘ reflects the metathesized form *zonk‘ač‘ with subsequent n‑epenthesis before ‑č‘‑ (and/or with a secondary restoration of the original ‑nč‘). More demonstrative is the word for ‘ear’, the dialectal forms of which (HAB 1: 104b) display the following distribution: (1) unchanged *akanǰ in Van‑group and Akn; (2) anganǰ only in Muš; (3) *ankaǰ in the rest (Suč‘ava, Nor Naxiǰewan, Polis, T‘iflis, Hamšen, Sebastia, Alaškert, Łarabaɫ, Agulis, Maraɫa, etc.).

2.1.30 Epenthesis

2.1.30.1 Epenthetic nasal

Before a dental stop or affricate

blit‘ ‘a kind of bread or cake’ (q.v.) > Axalc‘xa b‘lint‘.

ddum ‘pumpkin’ > Hamšen, Agulis, J̌uɫa *dəndum, whereas the majority of the dialects has no epenthetic ‑n‑. Since Hamšen is located in extreme NW, while Agulis and J̌uɫa are in SE, we are hardly dealing with a shared innovation. One may assume an archaism or an independent development, perhaps a (quasi‑)reduplication *dumdum.

xuc‘ ‘small chamber’ (5th cent.+; several dialects) > dial. (Moks, Ozim, Sipan, Hamšen) xunc‘ [HAB 2: 422‑423].

*ccruk ‘leech’ (cf. Aparan, Bulanəx ccruk from tzruk, due to contamination with ccel ‘to suck’) > Nor Bayazet jnjruk (with an epenthetic ‑n‑).

kamurǰ ‘bridge’ > *karmunǰ (late attestations), which is the only form found in dialects.

karkut ‘hail’ (q.v.): Aslanbek gargünd. Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 556b) assumes a folk‑etymological association with gund ‘ball’.

kēt1 ‘point, dot’ : E and N dial. kent ‘odd’.

hnjan ‘wine‑press’, if from *ha/ouzan.

mec ‘big’ > *menc.

mēǰ ‘middle’ > *manǰ, etc.

The epenthetic nasal is also seen in recent borrowings, e.g. Turk. suč > Aṙtial (Pol.) sunǰ ‘sin’ (see Ačaṙyan 1953: 188, 197).

For amač‘el ‘to be shy’ > Kṙzen həmanč‘ɛl etc., see 2.1.29.

Before a labial stop

žpit ‘smile’, žptim ‘to smile’ (Bible+) : žmtim (Philo etc.), žmb(ə)tim (Knik hawatoy= “Seal of faith”, 7th cent.). Dial.: Ararat žəpətɛl : Moks, Salmast, T‘iflis, Alaškert *žmtal, Kürin žmnil [HAB 2: 234b]. No acceptable etymology in HAB 2: 234b. The comparison with OIc. gaman ‘Freude, Spaß, Wollust’, MHG gampen, gumpen ‘to spring’ etc. (< PIE *gwhem‑b‑; see J̌ahukyan 1967: 200) implies that the nasal in the Armenian form is original. However, the etymology is highly uncertain, and žpit is the oldest and principal form. In my view, žp(i)t‑ has developed to *žmbt‑ (cf. “Knik‘ hawatoy”) with nasal epenthesis, then *žmbt‑ was simplified to *žmt‑.

*xabarik‑a‑tu, lit. ‘who gives information or news’ > Hadrut‘ xəmbərkatu ‘spider’ (see Poɫosyan 1965: 286L‑7, without etymology); cf. xəbər-bezan ‘spider’ (Martirosyan/Gharagyozyan, FW 2003, Łarabaɫ).

xipilik ‘demon, nightmare’ > dial. xmblik ‘house spirit or goblin, brownie’ (T‘ōxBaṙ apud Amatuni 1912: 696a).

hapalas ‘bilberry, Vaccinium Myrtillus L.’ (Geoponica) from Arab. ḥabb‑al‑ās : Svedia həmbälus [HAB 3: 44‑45; Ačaṙyan 2003: 575; Andreasyan 1967: 176, 370b; Gyozalyan 2001: 17]. See also s.v. aɫeɫn ‘bow’.

hpart ‘proud’ > Šamšadin *hmbart, in compound tärtäk‑hmbart ‘empty‑proud’; see textual illustrations in Xemč‘yan 2000: 172aL17, 221aL22.

šahpalut ‘chestnut’ (an Iranian loan, cf. Pahl. šāh‑balūt ‘id.’, lit. ‘royal acorn’) > Łarabaɫ šmbálut‘ ‘chestnut’ [Hübschmann 1897: 272; HAB 3: 486a].

Before a velar

Jagejor > Zangezur (for an etymological discussion see Margaryan 1988: 125‑126).

For examples in Zeyt‘un see Ačaṙyan 2003: 139. Here Ačaṙyan argues that šak‘ar ‘sugar’ > Zeyt‘un šank‘ɔy (*šan‑k‘ar) is due to re‑interpretation as šan k‘ar “dog’s stone”.

An older example may be seen in Arm. kngum vs. k‘ak‘um and Pahl. kākum ‘white weasel’, see s.v. ak‘is and *č‘asum.

Compositional epenthesis

*ayg‑hoɫ‑k‘ ‘ceremony on the morning after a funeral’ > Łarabaɫ ik‘návəɛɫ, Ararat ɛk‘nafɔ́ɫɛk‘, J̌uɫa nagnaxoɫ, Šamaxi ink‘nahɔɫ, etc.; also Łarabaɫ ik‘nárɔt (with arawt ‘pasturing’); see s.v. ayg ‘morning’.

*aṙ‑i‑koɫ ‘precipitous, sloped’ (cf. aṙ‑i‑koɫ‑eal in Movsēs Xorenac‘i 1.16 vs. z‑aṙ‑i‑koɫ(‑eal) ‘precipitous’ in “Book of Chries” etc.) > Hamšen aṙəngɛɫ (cf. Xotorǰur *aṙikoɫ, Muš, Van*aṙkoɫ); see 1.3.

maškat‘ew ‘(having) a wing of skin’ (an epithet of the bat in Hexaemeron 8), ‘bat’ (Alexander Romance etc.) > Hamšen maškənt‘ew (see s.v.).

Ambiguous cases

It is sometimes unclear whether we are dealing with epenthesis or metathesis, or analogical influence.

gṙuz ‘curly’ (MidArm. and dialects of Cilicia, Van, Agulis, etc. Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 601) assumes that Van, Salmast, Nor Bayazet kṙunj is the original form and for the sound change nj > z compares koriz ‘stone or hard seed of fruits’ which appears in Łarabaɫ (kɔ́rɛnj) and the Van‑group (*koɫinj) with ‑nj (see also HAB 2: 648b; Davt‘yan 1966: 77). However, the nasalless form koriz is attested in literature (Hexaemeron, Paterica, Grigor Magistros, etc.) and is present in most of the dialects, such as Hamšen, T‘iflis, Ararat, Šamaxi, etc.; cf. also J̌uɫa kɫɛz and Agulis kɫaz. It is more probable, then, that koriz is the original form, and Łarabaɫ/Van *kor/ɫinj has a non‑etymological epenthetic ‑n‑ or should be explained as follows: *koɫiz > *koɫiz‑n (additional ‑n, on which see 2.2.1.3) > *koɫinj. Similarly, gṙuz ‘curly’ > *gṙuz/ž‑n (cf. Łarabaɫ kəṙəž‑n‑ut) > Van etc.

For both words no acceptable etymologes are recorded in HAB. Is gṙuz ‘curly’ related with Pers. gurs ‘curled hair; a ringlet’ (see Steingass 1082a)?

Sometimes we have an alternation VnC : VC where the nasal seems to be epenthetic, e.g. Sebastia tɫunk vs. Baberd tɫuk ‘a kind of water worm’. However, the only attested form NPl təɫkunk‘ may suggest an original *tɫukn, and Sebastia tɫunk is probably due to metathesis, cf. armukn ‘elbow’ (q.v.) > most of dialects *armunk.

2.1.30.2 Epenthetic ‑r‑

ac‑el‑i ‘razor’ (Bible+; several dialects) : Muš, Alaškert, Nor Bayazet, Ozim, Ararat, Maraɫa *arceli [HAB 1: 102b].

acu ‘garden‑bed’ < PIE *h2(e)ĝ‑us‑ih2 (cf. Gr. ἄγυια, pl. ἀγυιαί f. ‘street, road’ (q.v.) > Nor J̌uɫa aṙcu (see HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 100a; cf. NHB 1: 21b); see s.v. acu. Given the etymology of the word, the ‑r‑ should be seen as epenthetic.

bažanem ‘to divide’ (Bible+; ubiquitous in the dialects; borrowed from Iran. *baž‑) is spelled as baržan‑ in a number of sources like Xosrovik (8th cent.) etc. The ‑r‑, as is explicitly pointed out by Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 381b), has no etymological value.

hosem ‘to make flow, pour down, winnow’ (Bible+; dial.). From this verb a derivative in ‑eli is found in dialects designating a ‘winnowing‑fan’, namely *hoseli. A number of dialects (Muš, Bulanəx, Ararat, Łazax) have *horseli. For the description of the object, see HayLezBrbBaṙ 3: 2004: 308a. According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 315), the latter is the original form, and the ‑r‑ has dropped everywhere else. It is not clear, however, why the ‑r‑ would drop in the underlying verb without there being a single trace in the whole of classical and MidArm. literature, but be preserved in some dialectal forms in a derivative. An epenthesis seems more probable.

A hitherto unnoticed feature of this phenomenon is that in all these cases the epenthetic ‑r‑ appears only in derivative forms. In other words, there are no forms like verbal *arc‑ and *hors‑ vs. acem and hosem, and the ‑r‑ is present only in derivatives like *arc‑u, *arc‑eli, *hors‑eli.

Similarly, in the Armenian dialects of Syria, ClArm. astɫ ‘star’ (q.v.) is reflected as ust/dɫ, but its diminutive suffixed as well as plural forms have an inserted ‑r‑ or ‑ṙ‑: Svedia aṙəsdɫag, arəsɫig, K‘abusie arasɫ̊ək, pl. aras(ə)ɫ̊ənnir or ‑nnɔyr, Aramo aṙstɫəir. In this case the epenthesis may have been prompted by contamination with aṙastaɫ ‘ceiling’, taken metaphorically as ‘starry sky’; see 3.7.1.

Another peculiarity is that the epenthesis often occurs before sibilants and affricates.

Further examples:

xuc‘ ‘small chamber’ (5th cent.+; several dialects) > Akn xurc‘ [HAB 2: 422‑423].

karž, dial. kaž‑ : MPers. kač, NPers. kaž ‘raw or floss silk’ > Arab. qaz > NPers. qaz, see Maciuszak 1996: 30.

koč ‘stem, beam; ankle’ > Xotorǰur koyǰ (< *korč) ‘balkony’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 590a; HAB 2: 626a; YušamXotorǰ 1964: 472b; Kostandyan 1985: 63].

kovcuc ‘a kind of lizard’, composed of kov ‘cow’ and cuc ‘sucking’; in some dialects: kovrcuc; see s.v. kov‑a‑diac‘.

stec/stēc ‘weaver’s vertical stick’: Moks əsterc (or stɛṙč). According to N. Simonyan (1979: 245‑246), Moks *sterc has preserved the original form, with ‑r‑.

Other: Xotorǰur, Sebastia *kaɫart‘ vs. Hamšen, Trapizon kalat‘ ‘a big basket’ from Gr. κάλαϑος, see Ačaṙean 1913: 541b.

Also in modern times: Russ. bloknót ‘note‑book’ > Colloquial Arm. bloknort‘.

According to M. Muradyan (1962: 64), in Šatax we find epenthesis also in hangoyc‘ ‘knot’ > xangyörc‘, and pahēz ‘kitchen-garden’ >paxrɛz. These cases are ambiguous, however. The former may be due to contamination with gorc ‘work, weaving’, and the latter probably reflects the original Iranian form: *pahrēz. Compare *bahel ‘to spade’ > Kak‘avaberd bihríl, pihríl. As correctly stated by H. Muradyan (1967: 101), here the -r- is etymological: *bahər.

2.1.30.3 Miscellaneous

sr > str

See 2.1.25, on tzruk ‘leech’. Compare Latv. strauja ‘stream’, Russ. strujá ‘stream’, OIc. straumr ‘stream’ next to Lith. sraujà, Skt. srav‑ ‘to stream, flow’, etc. from PIE *srou‑ ‘to flow, stream’ (see s.vv. aṙu, aṙog).

snC‑ > ‑stnC

Nor Naxiǰewan lustnga ‘moony night’ (< lusn(a)kay) vs. lusin ‘moon’ [HAB 2: 296a].

2.1.31 Epithetic ‑t after sibilants

aɫuēs ‘fox’ (q.v.) > Karčewan áɫvɛst [Muradyan 1960: 188b].

ak‘is (i‑stem) ‘weasel’ (q.v.) > Xotorǰur ak‘ist ‘weasel’, Axalc‘xa ak‘ist ‘rat’. Curiously enough, the same kind of additional ‑t is found in Oss. myst ‘mouse’ < *mūs‑ (cf. Cheung 2002: 206); cf. mystūlæg ‘weasel’ and Lat. mūstēla ‘weasel’. Compare aṙnēt ‘rat’ (HAB s.v.).

šrēš ‘a kind of edible mountain-herb that produces a sticky paste’ (late and poorly attested; widespread in the dialects, including those in extreme north, east and south‑west) < Pers. *širēš, cf. sirīš ‘id.’, sirīšim ‘glue; bird‑lime’ [HAB 3: 544‑545], Skt. śreṣ‑ ‘to adhere, stick, be attached’, etc. Some of the dialects have a final ‑t : Ararat, Alaškert, Van, Urmia, Salmast, Maraɫa, J̌uɫa [HAB 3: 545a; GwṙUrmSalm 2, 1898: 98].

It seems that we are dealing with another case of the epithetic ‑t following a sibilant. Note, however, Pers. sirišt ‘mingle, mixture’ or ‘nature’ (see HAB 3: 545a), Khot. ṣṣiṣṭa‑ adj. ‘attaching, hold’, as well as the infinitive: Pers. sirištan ‘to mingle’ = Pahl. srištan ‘to mix, knead’ < *srēš‑ (see MacKenzie 1971: 76). Since most of these dialects are located in areas neighbouring with Iran (SE Armenia) and in Iran itself, one may alternatively connect the Armenian ‑t to those Iranian forms with -t-, although an epithetic ‑t should not be ruled out completely.

poz ‘horn’ : J̌uɫa pozd, Agulis puzt [HAB 4: 93b].

hangoyc‘ ‘knot’ > dial. *hangust [HAB 3: 37b].

patroys ‘inoculation, grafting’ > Hamšen badrust, Muš padrust, Svedia badrɛst, J̌uɫa patrust [HAB 4: 54a].

For more examples in Hamšen see Ačaṙyan 1947: 74. For a discussion of one of them see s.v. asem ‘to say’. In Hamšen Istus K‘ristɔs < from Yisus K‘ristos (see Ačaṙyan 1947: 74), Istus is clearly influenced by K‘ristos.

Found also in modern borrowings from Russian: fókus > Axalk‘alak‘ fɔk‘ust (in a manuscript written by the father of Mane-Erna Širinyan), Russ. kolbasá ‘sausage’ > Arm. dial. kalbast, ṙus ‘Russian’ > ṙust (for these and some more examples, see Ačaṙyan 1952: 85).

2.1.32 Hiatus, glide

The glide -h- is found in a few dialectal and late literary forms belonging to words of native origin, cf. *aṙ-a-h-orm-i vs. *aṙ-orm-i ‘a log or wooden structure that supports the wall or the ceiling of a house’, gi-h-i vs. gi ‘juniper’, *e-h-al ‘to go’, place-name K‘ar-a-hunǰ = k‘ar + -a- + unǰ ‘bottom’.

Examples from loanwords: dial. *dahek < dayeak ‘nurse’ (q.v.); dial. vrayek ‘rain’ > Hamšen vrahɛg, where, as Ačaṙyan 1947: 36 points out, the -h- is due to the hiatus (horanǰ). There is also a contracted form, viz. vrɛg (ibid.).

Before a labial vowel we often find -w-, e.g. ark‘ayut‘iwn ‘kingdom’ > Łarabaɫ ərk‘əvɔ́t‘un [HAB 1: 347a], Moks ärk‘äwut‘in, ark‘awot‘ín [Orbeli 2002: 99L21, 124Nr203], etc. Compare the development VwhV > VwwV in e.g. ǰul(a)hak ‘weaver’, dial. also ‘spider; spider-web’ (from Pers. ǰulāhak ‘weaver’) > *ǰuhalak (with metathesis, cf. Zeyt‘un čhalɔg, ǰ‘halog, T‘iflis, Ararat *ǰuhlak, J̌uɫa ǰuxlak) > *ǰuwalak, cf. Malat‘ia ǰuvalag, Tigranakert č‘üvläg, etc.[10]

2.1.33 Loss

2.1.33.1 Loss of w before r or loss of intervocalic w

Szemerényi (1960: 20‑21) assumes that the sequences ewa, owa, awa suffered loss of intervocalic ‑w‑ and subsequent contraction: nor ‘new’ < *newəros (cf. Gr. νεαρός ‘young’), sor ‘hole’ < PIE *k̂owor‑ (cf. Lat. caverna ‘cavern, grotto, cave, hole’), erkan ‘millstone’ < *erkawan‑, and the genitives of the type aɫber ‘well’ and aler ‘flour’ from *aɫbewar(os), *alewar(os), with the instrumental ‑erb from *‑ewarbi. Aɫabekyan (1981: 104) points out that the loss of ‑w‑ occurs especially when followed by the suffix *‑ro‑ or determinative *‑r‑. Note also golorši, -ea-c‘ ‘vapour, steam’, if from QIE *uol-HuVrs-ieh2- ‘warm vapour’ (cf. Hitt. u̯arša- ‘fog, mist’, Gr. ἐέρση ‘dew’, etc.) > PArm. *wol-ə(w)oršíya-; see s.v. gol ‘warmish, lukewarm; warmth’.

Kortlandt (2003: 29‑30 = 1980: 102) adduces these examples in his chronology under PA 12c (“Loss of labialization before *o, *u, and nonsyllabic *r”), stressing the opposition GSg aɫber and aler : NSg aɫbewr, alewr. He further (2003: 103) points out that “there is no reason to assume an intervocalic *‑w‑ in nor and sor, which evidently adopted the suffix *‑ro‑ at an early stage”. Similarly, Beekes (2003: 165) derives nor from *neu‑ro‑ (> *nou‑ro‑ > nor), with *‑ro‑ replacing *‑o‑, and GSg aɫber from *brewr‑os, the reshaped gen. of aɫbiwr. On the latter see also Eichner 1978: 153‑154.

It has been assumed, however, that aɫber has developed from *aɫbewer by regular loss of intervocalic *‑w‑. For references and more details see s.vv. aɫbewr and alewr. As for sor ‘hole, den, cave’ (cf. Gr. κύαρ n. ‘hole’, Lat. caverna ‘cave, hole’, etc.), I prefer to derive it directly from *k̂owHro- (> PArm. *sowəro-) and treat as a case of loss of intervocalic -w-.

Kortlandt (2003: 103) leaves out erkan from the list since there is no evidence for ‑w‑ in the Armenian form, cf. Lith. gìrna etc. He adds nerd‑i, GSg of neard ‘sinew’ (< *sneh1ur‑t‑). I think this is ambiguous since any ‑ea‑ automatically yields ‑e‑ in pretonic position. As for the loss of ‑w‑ in NSg neard, Kortlandt (op. cit. 1031) characterizes it as “delabialization before non‑final ‑r‑ <…> as in leard ‘liver’”. This seems to imply that the rule is not confined to the sequence ‑wrV‑, since here we have *ne(H)wr̥t‑ > *ne(w)ərt‑ > neard. At a certain stage this is, in fact, an intervocalic position. However, Beekes (2003: 165) assumes that the loss of the w in NSg neard is analogical after the (old) oblique cases: *snēwr‑, which lost its w just like aɫber.

The secondary w (that is, ‑w‑ not from PIE *‑u‑) is not lost before r, cf. PIE GSg *ph2trós > Arm. GSg hawr ‘of father’; *smok̂ru-eh2- > mawruk‘ ‘beard’.

2.1.33.2 Loss of the initial vowel or syllable

Loss of pretonic i‑ or u‑ is well-known, cf. ner ‘husband’s brother’s wife; husband’s other wife’ vs. Gr. εἰνάτερες, Skt. yātar-, Lat. pl. ianitrīcēs, etc. (see s.v.). See also HAB, s.vv. hreay and ver.

The pretonic vowel or syllable of trisyllabic words is lost in Łarabaɫ and adjacent dialects which have penultimate accent. This mainly concerns derivatives.

a(r)celi ‘razor’ (Bible+; widespread in the dialects) > Łarabaɫ, Goris, Šamaxi cíli (> Udi cíli), Agulis cɛ́li [HAB 1: 102b; Margaryan 1971: 211]; akanat ‘trap’ > Łarabaɫ kánat ‘net for catching birds’ [HAB 1: 109ab].

*ayg‑hoɫ‑k‘ ‘ceremony on the morning after a funeral’and hoɫ ‘earth’, Eastern *ayg‑n‑a‑hoɫ > Šamaxi ink‘nahɔɫ and k‘nahɔɫ. The latter variant may be due to reinterpretation as composed of k‘un ‘sleep’ and hoɫ ‘earth’. See s.v. ayg ‘morning’.

asaranoc‘ ‘oil-mill’ > Łarabaɫ sranoc‘ [S. A. Avagyan 1978: 28-32].

kaɫamar ‘inkpot’ from Gr. καλαμάριον (Paterica, Grigor Magistros, etc.) > J̌uɫa ɫambar (Ačaṙean 1940: 111, 159, 368a; T. Abgarean 1966: 94); cf. kaɫampar in Karin and Axalc‘xa, with an epenthetic p [HAB 2: 492-493], also in the Turkish-Armenian dictionary (ca. 1720 AD) by Eɫia Mušeɫyan Karnec‘i [Č‘ugaszyan 1986: 42Nr2, 123].

hac‘ahan ‘an implement for taking out the baked bread’ (Zak‘aria K‘anak‘eṙc‘i, 17th cent.) > Šamaxi cahan vs. Łarabaɫ and Goris cəhan [HAB 3: 65a; Margaryan 1975: 112, 406b].

*č‘‑erekoy > Łarabaɫ č‘üṙǘgü ‘until evening’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 879b], probably from *(min)č‘‑erekoy.

On the basis of this evidence, I propose the following etymologies.

Ačaṙyan (1913: 390a; HAB 2: 223b) interprets Łarabaɫ *žamažamk‘ ‘twilight’ as *žam-a-žam, lit. ‘time of the church service’. Next to *žamažamk‘, however, there are many forms with final -nk‘ : Łarabaɫ, Ganjak *žmažank‘ [Amatuni 1912: 229a; HayLezBrbBaṙ 2, 2002: 154a], adv. žamažank‘-in [K‘amaleanc‘ 1893: 35L-5, 45L-2, 65L-5] and žžmank‘-in, the latter being rendered as aɫǰamuɫǰin [Lalayan 2, 1988: 443], Meɫri žəmážunk‘ [Aɫayan 1954: 299], Hadrut‘ ìžìmäžɛnk‘y [Poɫosyan 1965: 15], etc. The -nk‘ forms are more frequent in folklore texts. One may derive this word from ClArm. aɫǰamuɫǰ ‘darkness’, positing a formation with -ayn-k‘ found with other terms for time (cf. hram-ēn-k‘, vaɫord-ayn, see HAB s.vv.): *(aɫ)ǰamuɫǰ-ayn-k‘ > *žamužaynk‘ > žəməžánk‘. The more widespread by-form *žəmáženk‘ may be analogical after the most productive pattern of compounds with conjunction -a-, and *žam-a-žam-k‘ is due to folk etymology. If the form aɫǰ-a-m-aɫǰ (see Karst 1930: 109), with internal -a-, really exists, it may strengthen the postulation of Łarabaɫ *žamaž-ayn-k‘.

Goris čəṙavand ‘thick beams as part of the ceiling’ [Margaryan 1975: 434a], Łarabaɫ *čṙawand ‘id.’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 734b]. I suggest a composition of a(w)čaṙ ‘ceiling’ (cf. Łarabaɫ, Loṙi, Moks etc. *o/ōčoṙ-k‘, see HAB 1: 140a) and *vand- ‘a framework of wooden bars, a wooden trellis-work’, cf. vand-ak ‘a wicker basket, net; a wooden trellis-work’. Thus: *(aw)čaṙ-a-vand ‘wooden framework of the ceiling’.

2.1.33.3 Loss of r

Compare p‘esay ‘bridegroom; son-in-law’ (Bible+; dial.) < *perk̂- and tesanem ‘to see’ < *derk̂- vs. harsn ‘bride’ (see Winter 1966: 205). One may a priori assume an accent-dependent distribution: *phersáyi > p‘esay, *tersaném(i) > tesanem : *hárs-n > harsn. The -r- is lost, then, in unaccented syllables, before a sibilant. However, the material is scanty, and the etymology of p‘esay is not very certain. Both problems (the initial p‘- and the loss of *-r-) occur also with the hypothetical derivation of p‘os ‘furrow, trench; hollow; channel’ from PIE *pork̂- (see s.v.).

There is no loss of -r- in ors, o-stem ‘hunt; animal for hunting’ (Bible+; dial.), perhaps from PIE *iork̂-o- ‘deer, roe’ (cf. Gr. δόρκος, ζόρξ, ἴορκος, etc.; Corn. yorch, ‘roe’, Welsh iwrch); see s.v.

Further: -parišt vs. paštem ‘to adore’, from Iranian *pari-štā- (see Meillet 1922k: 217; HAB 4: 23-24).

On Moks šəṙäkylk‘y ‘retention of the urine’ < *šṙ-a(r)gil-k see 2.1.39.2 (Ačaṙyan’s Law).

2.1.34 Haplology

An old example is tuarac ‘herdsman’ = tuar ‘cattle’ + arac ‘pasturing’; see s.v. place‑name Tuarac‑a‑tap‘. The Urartian match, with Ṭuaraṣini ḫubi, provides us with a unique clue for the absolute chronology of this haplological sound change. In a fairy‑tale from Berd (Šamšadin) one finds vəexčarac ‘shepherd’ [Xemč‘yan 2000: 35aL‑13], with the same kind of haplology: oč‘xar ‘sheep’ + arac.

A dialectal example is xaɫoɫ ‘grapes’ > Hamšen havöɫ and xaɫɔɫ vs. xaɫoɫ‑eni > Hamšen xaɫəni, with haplological loss of ‑(o)ɫ‑ [Ačaṙyan 1947: 53‑54]. This example helps to clarify the conditions of haplology. It shows that one of the two identical or similar phoneme groups undergoes haplological loss if these groups are not in final position.

Haplology may also occur when the two groups of phonemes are partially identical; cf. *orb‑ew‑ayri ‘widow’ > Nor Naxiǰewan ɔrfari, ɔfari (older ɛrp‘ɛvari); see s.v. ayri ‘widow’. Thus, ‑p‘(e)‑va‑ > ‑fa‑, or, as far as ɔfari is concerned, ‑rp‘e‑war‑ > ‑far‑. However, this is ambiguous; other explanations are also possible, e.g. allegro speech (see the next paragraph), or simplification of the cluster ‑rp‘(e)va‑ > ‑r(p‘)fa‑; the absence of the first r in ɔfari might be due to dissimilatory loss.

2.1.35 Allegro

Allegro forms occur frequently in compounded kinship terms. Typical examples are the derivations of hayr ‘father’: hōr‑eɫbayr ‘paternal uncle’: Suč‘ava hɔb‘ar, Hamšen hɔrb‘ɛr, Łarabaɫ ɫɔ́rp‘ɛr [HAB 3: 32b], Karčewan hɛ́rbär [H. Muradyan 1960: 82‑83, 199b], etc.; hōr‑a‑k‘oyr ‘paternal aunt’ > Łarabaɫ, Hadrut‘ hák‘u, hák‘ur [HAB 3: 32b; Davt‘yan 1966: 415], etc.

For hōr‑a‑k‘oyr ‘paternal aunt’ and mōr‑a‑k‘oyr ‘maternal aunt’ > Kak‘avaberd hák‘ur and mák‘ur, H. Muradyan (1967: 101) suggests the following scenario: the component hōr has been dropped first, and then the initial h‑ is added to the remaining part *ak‘ur, which is found in other dialects as ak‘ir. This is unnecessarily complicated. Moreover, *ak‘ir (Łarabaɫ á‑k‘ɛr) is best explained as a vocative form of k‘oyr ‘sister’ (see HAB 4: 587a). Thus, hōr‑a‑k‘oyr > hák‘ur is merely an allegro or, perhaps better, a haplologized form: *horak‘ur > hák‘ur.

Other examples: *orb‑ew‑ayri ‘widow’ > Nor Naxiǰewan ɔrfari, ɔfari (older ɛrp‘ɛvari); see 2.1.34 (on haplology).

Łarabaɫ singydem < *es inč‘ gitem? literally: “what do I know?” [HŽHek‘ 6, 1973: 454L‑6]; Č‘aylu, Maraɫa išnam? ‘id.’ < inč‘ imanam or inč‘ gitenam (see Davt‘yan 1966: 362).

Urmia, Salmast šma? (next to inč‘hma?) ‘why?’, literally ‘for what?’ [GwṙUrmSalm 1, 1897: 544].

Meɫri *k‘šan‑ ‘early morning’, probably from *gišer‑hana‑, unless very old (see s.v. gišer ‘night’).

2.1.36 Tabu, euphemism

As we know, some notions, in particular certain animals (such as ‘bear’, ‘wolf’, ‘snake’, ‘ant’, ‘spider’), are liable to formal or semantic distortions or to replacements for reasons of tabu.[11]

Arm. arǰ cannot be derived from PIE *h2rtk̂o- ‘bear’ (cf. Gr. ἄρκτος, Skt. ŕ̥kṣa-, Hitt. ḫartagga-, etc.) through regular sound developments. The irregularity may be explained by tabu [HAB 1: 334b; Ačaṙyan 1971: 722]. Typologically similar phenomena of distortion of the words for e.g. ‘bear’ and ‘snake’ for tabu purposes are found in other IE languages (see Edelman 2003: 126-127). On tabu of ‘bee’ see Gauthiot 1910-11. In the case of Arm. arǰ perhaps a contamination with arǰn ‘black’ too played a role. This is conceivable in view of the variety of designations for ‘bear’ in different languages (for some examples see Uspenskij 1978: 125; Ičiro 1989: 458; Edelman 2003: 124). This variety is usually explained by tabu [Meillet 1906: 7-12]. In Slavic, the PIE name for ‘bear’ has completely disappeared on account of tabu whereas that of ‘wolf’ has been preserved [Bernštejn 1984: 13]. The basic term for ‘bear’ in Armenian has often been replaced by designations such as leṙan caɫkakox ‘flower-trampler of the mountain’, tanj-a-ker ‘pear-eater’ (cf. Russ. medved’ ‘honey-eater’), k‘eṙi ‘uncle’, etc. [HAB 1: 334b]. According to Gabikean (1952: 224; see also HayLezBrbBaṙ 2, 2002: 221a), Sebastia leṙan caɫkakox refers to ‘wolf’. Note also dial. arǰ-a-blo ‘ghost, monster’, composed of arǰ ‘bear’ and *bolo ‘bogy, ghost, monster’. For other examples see A. S. Petrosyan 1995: 163.

This phenomenon, however, has been misused frequently. For instance, Ačaṙyan (Ačaṙyan 1971: 722) explains the phonological irregularity of kamurǰ ‘bridge’ vs. Gr. γέφῡρα (Boeot. βέφυρα, Cret. δέφυρα, Lac. /Hesychius/ δίφουρα) by tabu. It is not conceivable, however, why would a word for ‘bridge’ undergo a tabu-influence. Besides, the word can be of substratum origin (see H. Martirosyan 2007: 97-99 for more detail). Therefore one should try to corroborate the assumption on a concrete case with cultural data. Such an explicit information can be found e.g. for ‘bear’ in Dersim where women were afraid to pronounce the name of the bear and used other designations instead (see Halaǰyan 1973: 287b1). For comparable data from Russian ethnography see e.g. Uspenskij 1978: 120 with lit.

In the dialect of Meɫri, beside the regular form aṙǰ ‘bear’, one finds ɔṙǰ with irregular vocalism which was used 1) by hunters; 2) by people when supposing a danger. Aɫayan (1954: 85, cf. 263b) explains this irregularity through tabu and notes also gül from gayl ‘wolf’ (q.v.). One may wonder: why ɔ-? Perhaps the form has been taken from the neighbouring dialect of Agulis, where ɔṙǰ regularly stands for ClArm. arǰ (see Ačaṙean 1935: 21; M. Zak‘aryan 2008: 335). Note, however, that in Meɫri and adjacent dialects the same irregularity is found also in a few other words, such as gam ‘to come’, gaṙn ‘lamb’, gari ‘barley’, mayri ‘forest’, etc. Further, see s.v. gayl ‘wolf’.

Also the snake often became subject for tabu (see above). Aɫayan (1987: 397) records a folk-belief in the villages of Meɫri according to which the snake will appear if you mention its name, so people used words meaning ‘rope’ (t‘ok, č‘at‘u, paran) instead; cf. also lar ‘a kind of snake’ from ‘cord, rope’. In view of this, the explanation of the peculiar form of the word awj ‘snake’ through tabu (see Ačaṙyan 1971: 722) seems plausible. However, even here one has to be cautious since there is a phonological explanation: PIE *h2ngwh-i- > PArm. *anwgi > *awĝhi (with *gh > h regularly before *u/w) > *awj-i-.

See also s.vv. mor(m) ‘tarantula’, mrǰiwn ‘ant’.

Some words have been replaced by semantically related forms. For instance, əntanik‘ ‘family’ substitutes the word for ‘wife’ (see AčaṙLiak 2005: 11). Similarly: Van andivor ‘family’ > ‘wife, spouse’ [HAB 1: 186b].

I wonder if Skt. jāyā́‑ f. ‘woman, wife’ (RV+) can be explained in the same way. If this word indeed belongs to jani ‘to be born, produce’, its basic meaning might have been something like ‘race, tribe, family’ (cf. jātá‑ ‘born; birth, origin, race’, jā́‑ mf ‘child, family, descendance’, etc.). In this case we might be dealing with ‘tribe, family’ > ‘wife’ comparable to the development of Arm. əntanik‘.

As is convincingly demonstrated by Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 632), the village‑name Kot‘ has been replaced by Adiyaman, lit. Turk. “Odd‑named”, since the Turkish pronunciation of Kot‘ is göt, and this is homonymous with Turk. göt ‘buttocks’.

This is corroborated by the following. Arm. kot‘ ‘handle’ is pronounced as göt in the dialect of Hamšen. Since the speakers of Hamšen all understand Turkish, they deliberately avoid using the word and replace it by böč‘ < poč‘ ‘tail’. This is the explicit interpretation given by the inhabitants of Gagri as an answer to Ačaṙyan’s inquiry (ibid.).

2.1.37 Folk‑etymology; blend or contamination

For examples and discussion of sound changes based on folk-etymological reinterpretation see AčaṙLiak 6, 1971: 728-733, 840; Aɫayan 1984: 88-91; 1987: 269. For examples and the notion of folk-etymology in general see e.g. Krahe 1970: 91-92. In what follows I adduce a few examples from Armenian dialects.

The Arm. compound *ayg-hoɫ-k‘ ‘ceremony at the next morning after the funeral’ is omposed of ayg ‘morning’ and hoɫ ‘earth’. In Šamaxi, this word is continued in two forms that are difficult to explain through regular phonetic developments: ink‘nahɔɫ and k‘nahoɫ. These forms can be due to folk-etymological reinterpretation as ink‘(n) ‘himself’ + -a- + hoɫ ‘earth’ (cf. Aɫayan 1984: 88) and k‘un ‘sleep’ + -a- + hoɫ ‘earth’, respectively; see s.v. ayg ‘morning’.

Arm. andund ‘abyss’ is represented by Łarabaɫ əndɔ́xtə, which might be explained by a folk-etymological reinterpretation as *ənd oxt(n) *‘at the seven(th layer of the Underworld)’; see s.v. andund-k‘ ‘abyss’.

The compound *ayri-knik ‘widowed woman’ (cf. Zeyt‘un ɛrigə́nə́g) has become ɛrig-gnig < *ayrik-knik ‘widow’, lit. ‘husband-wife’ or ‘man(ly)-wife’ in Tigranakert; see s.v. ayri ‘widow’.  

Arm. šaɫgam ‘turnip’ is attested in the 12th century onwards, and is widespread in dialects. The by-form šoɫgam is found in “Geoponica” (13th cent.), and in the dialects of Akn, Xarberd, Tigranakert (*šoɫgam), Zeyt‘un (šuxg‘ɔ/om), Sebastia (žɔxbank‘) [HAB 3: 489-490]. One may wonder if the by-form šoɫgam is due to folk-etymological association with šoɫ ‘ray, shine’; cf. the following riddle from Baɫeš, the village of Xult‘ik (see Tarōnean 1961: 113, 164):

 

Gluxn i xoɫ,

Murusn i šoɫ

           “The head – in soil, the beard – in ray, shine”.

 

Examples for blend or contamination can be found s.vv. asr ‘fleece’, lezu ‘tongue’, loganam ‘to bathe’, meɫr ‘honey’, mun ‘itch, gnat’.

2.1.38 Semantic differentiation of phonological alternants

ClArm. hogi, ogi ‘soul, spirit, person’ (both Bible+) is probably of native origin and may be related with hewam ‘to breathe heavily’ and hov ‘cool’; see 2.1.16.2. The alternants have become semantically differentiated in Modern Armenian: hogi ‘soul’ vs. ogi ‘spirit, spiritual power, zeal’ [HAB 3: 107b].

A variant of this process is seen in dialects. It should be first of all noted that the by‑form ogi is almost absent in dialects whereas hogi is ubiquitous. In Agulis, we find two forms: hɛ́g(y)i ‘person’, with the regular vocalic reflex, and hɔ́k‘i ‘soul’, a literary loan, with no vocalic shift [Ačaṙean 1935: 67, 69, 370; HAB 3: 108b]. More illustrative is J̌uɫa with its triple representation: (1) xog‘i ‘person’, which is the oldest by‑form in view of the regular reflex h > x; (2) vog‘i ‘soul’, a literary loan from the by‑form ogi; (3) hog‘i ‘soul’, a literary loan from the by‑form hogi [Ačaṙean 1940: 72, 114, 373b; HAB 3: 108]. In both dialects the older, genuine dialectal forms have the meaning ‘person’, whereas the recent forms which have been borrowed from the literary language refer to ‘soul’.

Examples from Alaškert: ClArm. əntrem > Alaškert həndərel ‘to select’ vs. əntrel ‘to make one’s choice, vote’ [Madat‘yan 1985: 1892]; ClArm. azg > Alaškert ask ‘relative, kinsman, kindred’ vs azg ‘people, nation, nationality’ [Madat‘yan 1985: 1801]; in both cases the latter by-forms must be recent literary loans. A similar picture is seen in Agulis, gyuṙc ‘weaving, embroidery’ vs. gɔrc ‘work, opus, composition’ (see s.v. gorc ‘work, labour’). Further, see s.v. naw ‘boat, ship’.

Other cases showing a similar formal contrast accompanied by semantic differentiation:

dew, a‑stem: GDSg div‑i, GDPl div‑a‑c‘ (Bible+) ‘spirit, demon’ (Bible+), ‘angel’ (Eɫišē, John Chrysostom), ‘soul’ (Plato). Iranian loanword, cf. MPers., NPers. dēw ‘demon’, YAv. daēuua‑ m. ‘demon, monster, idol’, etc. [Hübschmann 1897: 140; HAB 1: 657‑658; ÈtimSlovIranJaz 2, 2003: 306‑310].

This word is widespread in the dialects, mostly meaning ‘a monster‑like mythical creature’. Some dialects which normally display a consonant shift b/d/g/ > p/t/k, have by‑forms with d‑ and t‑, with semantic differentiation: Moks tɛv ‘devil, Satan’ : dɛv ‘monster’ [HAB 1: 658b; Ačaṙyan 1952: 256, cf. 57]; Maraɫa tɛv ‘devil, Satan’ : dɛv ‘mythical dragon’ [Ačaṙean 1926: 89, 391; HAB 1: 658b].

Of these by‑forms, tɛv is undoubtedly the older one since it reflects the shift d > t regular for these dialects. The meaning of the older form tɛv is religious and suits the classical literary context. For an illustration compare a proverb from Moks (Orbeli 2002: 119Nr4(3)): Inč‘ tev (var. sätäna) xač‘ic‘ kəp‘axəɛ : “(He) flees from the cross like a devil/Satan”. In most of the dialects the meaning ‘devil, Satan’ has been replaced by ‘monster, dragon, giant’, a meaning that has become dominant obviously due to the extensive use of the word in folklore, especially in fairy‑tales. Of other neighbouring languages, cf. e.g. the textual illustration for Kurd. dēw cited in Cabolov 1, 2001: 304‑305, in the motif of Cyclops. Consequently, the recent re‑borrowing (perhaps partly due to Turkish influence, see Ačaṙean 1926: 89) dɛv in given dialects comes to mean ‘monster, dragon’, whereas the older meaning ‘devil, Satan’ remained attached to the genuine dialectal form tɛv.

Also Łarabaɫ has doublets tɛv/dɛv, although in this case no semantic differentiation is indicated [HAB 1: 658b; Davt‘yan 1966: 341].

darman, o‑stem, i‑stem ‘cure, remedy, medicine; refreshment; provender, provision, victuals; care; subsistence, nourishment, maintenance’ (Bible+), an Iranian loan, cf. Pahl. darmān ‘medicine, remedy’ [MacKenzie 1971: 24; Nyberg 1974: 58b], probably related to Skt. dhárman‑ n. ‘support, firm hold, fixed order, law’ (RV+) from PIIr. *dhar‑ ‘to hold, keep, preserve, support’ [Hübschmann 1897: 138; HAB 1: 640a; Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 778‑779, 780; ÈtimSlovIranJaz 2, 2003: 338].

Two basic meanings are found in dialects: ‘straw’ and ‘medicine, remedy’. Some dialects participating in the consonant devoicing shift display two forms: (1) with initial t‑ and the meaning ‘straw’; (2) with initial d‑ and the meaning ‘medicine, remedy’. For instance: Hamšen tarmɔn ‘straw’ vs. dɛrmɔn ‘remedy’ [Ačaṙyan 1947: 22, 43, 226]; Moks tärman ‘straw’ vs. därman ‘remedy’ [Ačaṙean 1952: 255, cf. 57]; Urmia/Xoy tärmän ‘straw’ vs. därman ‘remedy’ [M. Asatryan 1962: 194b], etc. The former is the genuine dialectal reflex of ClArm. (< MIran.) darman whereas the latter is a recent (re‑)borrowing from Persian or (as in Ačaṙyan 1947: 226) Turkish.

This can be corroborated by semantic analysis. All the Iranian forms (Pahl., NPers., Kurd. etc.) have only the meaning ‘medicine, remedy’ (see the references above, especially ÈtimSlovIranJaz 2, 2003: 338; also Steingass 514a; Cabolov 1, 2001: 277‑278). The classical meanings ‘care’, ‘provision, victuals’ ‘subsistence, nourishment, maintenance’ etc., as well as the dialectal meaning ‘straw’ (from ‘fodder’ < ‘nourishment, victuals’) should be treated as reflecting an Iranian older, unattested meaning (cf. Skt. dhárman ‘support etc.’) rather than a semantic development from ‘medicine, remedy’.

More evidence can be obtained from folklore texts, e.g. in Łaziyan 1983 on Łarabaɫ: darman : xelk‘u darman, with synonymous xelk‘u čar ‘remedy for intelligence’ (134‑135); dardis darmen ‘remedy for my grief’ (157a, lines 11, 17); tɛrman : in a narrative where a boy terman č‘i tam “does not give straw/fodder” to the buffalo (82bL‑11); in a proverb (164aL17): K‘yohna terman a k‘amun tam : “(He) winnows old straw”.

On *darman‑a‑goɫ ‘Milky Way’, ‘cloud’, see 3.1.3 and 1.3.

Morphological alternants, too, seem to display semantic differentiation. For possible examples see s.vv. aseɫn ‘needle’, ptuɫ ‘fruit’, uɫeɫ ‘brain’.

2.1.39 Ačaṙyan’s Law

2.1.39.1 Ačaṙyan’s Law with ‑o‑ Łarabaɫ

Ačaṙyan’s Law describes the fronting of back vowels after voiced obstruents (see Ačaṙyan 1952: 18-23, 40; Aɫayan 1964: 227-229; H. Muradyan 1982: 92-93; H. Muradyan apud Greppin/Khachaturian 1986: 27-33; Weitenberg 1986: 95-96; 1996: 103-114; 1999 [2000]; Vaux 1998: 10-11). Here we will only be concerned with the vowel o in Łarabaɫ.

The regular reflex of ‑o‑ following an initial voiced stop is ‑ö‑ in Łarabaɫ. Next to this, one also finds ‑o‑ > Łarabaɫ ‑ɛ‑ (the examples are taken from the glossary in Davt‘yan 1966: 299: 503):

boxi ‘hornbeam’ > pö́xi/ɛ, pɛ́xi,

bokik ‘barefoot’ > pəɛ́pigy, pɛ́pɛgy,

boɫk ‘radish’ > pəɔxk/pöxk and pɛxk,

boṙ ‘bumble‑bee, drone’ > Hadrut‘ and Šaɫax pɛṙ, next to Łarabaɫ pö́ṙnə, pǘṙnə [Davt‘yan 1966: 329, 363];

also word‑internally: borbos‑ ‘to mould’ > pərp‘ɛ́šnɛ/il : *borbos‑ > *börbös‑ (Ačaṙyan’s Law) > *börp‘ös‑ (‑rb‑ > ‑rp‘‑) > *p‘örp‘ös‑ (assimilation).

There are no examples with go‑ and do‑, apart from gortn‑uk ‘little frog’ > kyö́ṙ(t‘)nuk, kyér/ṙt‘nuk, kɛ́ṙt‘nuk. Neither are there examples with initial unvoiced stops, including the labial ones: t‘o‑, to‑, p‘o‑, po‑, k‘o‑, ko‑. One may therefore preliminarily formulate the following rule: as a result of Ačaṙyan’s Law (and the subsequent consonant shift), ClArm. bo‑ yields Łarabaɫ pɛ‑ (next to pö‑). This can be due to labial dissimilation.

A similar case is found with initial o‑ which regularly yields Łarabaɫ vəɛ́‑ or vɛ́‑ (also word‑internally, cf. sovorem ‘to learn’ > səvəɛ́rɛl). This probably shows that the rule operates not only with voiced labial stop b‑ but also with voiced labial (labiodental) fricative v‑.

Note that mo‑ does not usually yield Łarabaɫ mö‑, but one does find one instance with mo‑ > məɛ‑: mocak ‘mosquito’ > məɛ́cak.

As to gortn‑uk ‘little frog’ > kyéṙt‘nuk/kɛ́ṙt‘nuk, we may be dealing with dissimilative loss of the first of two labial vowels.

For Łarabaɫ pṙɛ́šnə, probably from *bṙoš‑ (cf. Łazax p‘ṙɔš, Łaradaɫ bṙošni) or bṙinč‘ ‘snowball‑tree’, see 1.12.1.

This material corroborates the assumption of A. Xač‘atryan 1984: 321-322 that Łarabaɫ pɛ́rp‘ɛl is the regular outcome of ClArm. borb- ‘to inflame’ rather than an archaic reflex of an otherwise unattested e-grade form *berb-.

Similarly untenable is the derivation of Łarabaɫ kɛ́ɫɛl and Meɫri gɛ́ɫil ‘to hide, conceal oneself’ of an archaic *geɫ-; A. Xač‘atryan 1984: 321 convincingly argues that these forms rather continue gaɫel ‘to hide’ through Ačaṙyan’s Law.

2.1.39.2 Ačaṙyan’s Law in inlaut

Ačaṙyan’s Law also operated in inlaut, cf. arǰasp ‘vitriol’ : Šatax arčäps, Moks aṙčäsp or arčäp‘s/arčäfs vs. Alaškert aṙčasp, Muš aṙčaps, etc. (see s.v.). For more examples and some remarks concerning the relative chronology, see s.vv. argand ‘womb’, ard ‘shape’. The law can be applied successfully in etymological research:

Moks šəṙäkylk‘y ‘задержание мочи’ (= ‘retention of the urine’); e.g. šəṙäkylk‘y əɛ ‘у него задержание мочи’ [Orbeli 2002: 302]. The first component of this word is surely šeṙ ‘urine’ (Geoponica) which is widespread in the dialects [HAB 3: 510a].

There are MidArm. and dial. derivatives referring to the retention of urine: š(e)ṙ-kap and šṙ-at [HAB, ibid.; Amatuni 1912: 147a; Ačaṙean 1913: 246b; Ter-Mkrtč‘yan 1970: 15011; MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 214a], with kap- ‘to tie, bind’ and *(h)at- ‘to cut’ respectively. It is conceivable that our šəṙäkylk‘y too contains a second member meaning ‘to bind’, ‘to cut’, ‘to hold, obstacle’, or the like. Another clue to the interpretation of the word can be provided by the palatal ky, presupposing an older *-ge- or *-gi- (Ačaṙyan’s Law). This brings us to ClArm. argel- ‘to forbid, obstacle, hinder, etc.’, cf. Ozim arg‘ilil etc. (see s.v.). Thus, Moks šəṙäkylk‘y ‘retention of urine’ goes back to *šṙ-a(r)gil-k‘, with loss of -r- (on which, see 2.1.33.3).

2.2 MORPHOLOGY

2.2.1 Case system

2.2.1.1 Vocative

According to Ačaṙyan (AčaṙLiak 6, 1971: 283, 336), in both Classical and Modern Armenian, the vocative is sometimes accented on the first syllable, cf. háyrik ‘father’, máyrik ‘mother’, Kárapet, Łázar(ē), Pétr-ē/Pétros, etc. Traces of initial accentuation of vocative forms have been preserved in Armenian manuscripts [Torbiörnsson 1945; Weitenberg 2001: 651]. The vocative frequently appears with the accented interjection particle óv (medieval and dial. áy). In this case the word itself loses the accent, e.g. óv (áy) mard ‘you man!’, áy tɫa ‘you boy!’, etc. (see Marr 1903: 57; AčaṙLiak 6, 1971: 283). A few examples are found in the Armenian rendering of the grammar of Dionysius Thrax: ó Hamuni, ó Mani, ó Nuni [Adonc‘ 1915=2008: 246]. 

Armenian dialects provide rich evidence for vocative forms accented on the first syllable. Note e.g. Hamšen voc. háyri ‘father’, máyri ‘mother’, cf. yɛ́ba, yɛ́ma [Ačaṙyan 1947: 175]. Also in the dialect of T‘iflis the accent is put on the first syllable when a word consists of two or more syllables, and monosyllables take an accented particle á, e.g. áxpɛr ‘brother’, vúrt‘i ‘son’, á šun ‘dog’, etc. (Tomson 1890: 190).  

Here are some more examples from folklore texts: in P‘iloyeanc‘ 1888 (Nor Bayazet): hársɛ (21L1, 22L-6, 23L9); Hóṙomsim (25L4, 26L7); Máyran (31L5); Márgarit (34L-4), Báɫdasar, t‘ágävur (Moks, see SasCṙ 1, 1936: 315L263f), etc. The same is observable even when we are dealing with lexicalized expressions or formulae, such as tnákolner “you whose house may be destroyed!” (P‘iloyeanc‘ 1888: 23L11), or word combinations, ɫúrban harsɛ “you, dear sister-in-law (to whom may I be sacrificed)” (P‘iloyeanc‘ 1888: 21L1).

When used with a vocative particle, the noun loses the accent. In some dialects this can also be seen in the vocalic difference, cf. Łarabaɫ vocative á-k‘ɛr vs. nominative k‘ur from ClArm. k‘oyr ‘sister’ (see HAB 4: 587a). Note also the auslaut reduction in e.g. á may < mayr ‘mother’ (see HŽHek‘ 6, 1973: 409L3,22, 522L7,8). In dialects which have penultimate accentuation, the last vowel of a disyllabic word may drop, cf. Tavuš vocative á vəɛrt‘ vs. ɛ́rt‘i from ClArm. ordi ‘sun or daughter, offspring’, see Xemč‘yan 2000: 59bL17f, 62aL22,130aL21 (here note a vocative ɛrt‘i in a few lines above, 130aL4, without the particle á and for this reason with the final -i preserved).

The vocative with initial accentuation may be regarded as Indo-European inheritance (see J̌ahukyan 1959: 151-152; Aɫabekyan 1998: 123-124). In Vedic Sanskrit, the vocative, when accented, has the acute on the first syllable, e.g. pítar vs. NSg pitā́ (see Whitney 1960: 108-109; Macdonell 1993: 457; Szemerényi 1996: 189; Burrow 2001: 235). The same is found in Greek: ἄδελφε vs. NSg ἀδελφός ‘brother’; δέσποτα vs. δεσπότης ‘master (of the house), lord’; πάτερ vs. πατήρ ‘father’; etc. (Rix 1992: 131-132, 38, 152; see also Meillet/Vendryes 1924: 498). For further discussion see Shields 1982: 53-524. One might also look for evidence in modern Iranian languages. Indeed, in Kurdish Awroman, according to MacKenzie (1966: 21): when no vocative particle is present the stress is brought forward to the first syllable of a noun.

Apart from accentuation and particles, in Middle Armenian and especially in dialects the vocative can be formed with endings such as -i, , , -a.

A typologically interesting way of forming vocatives is found in the Armenian dialects of Syria. Here the vocative of taygr ‘husband’s brother’ (Svedia dak‘r, K‘esab tägər) is a compound with ayr ‘man’: Svedia däk‘rärɛ, K‘esab tɛ̂grɛ̂riv [Ačaṙyan 2003: 589; Andreasyan 1967: 55, 277, 384b; Č‘olak‘ean 1986: 218b; Gyozalyan 2001: 144]. Note also Svedia *ner-tikin and *tal-tikin, vocative forms of nēr ‘husband’s brother’s wife’ and tal ‘husband’s sister’ respectively, both containing tikin ‘mistress, lady’.

2.2.1.2 Nominative *‑s

A clear relic of an old nominative *-s is seen in anic ‘nit, louse egg’ < QIE *s(k)onid-s vs. Gr. κονίς < *κονιδ-ς. Further, note *kaɫc‘ vs. kat‘n ‘milk’, and hec‘ ‘felloe’, if from *pelk̂-s (see s.vv.). Another possible example is dial. (Urmia, Salmast) urj ‘an island or peninsula in a river’, if belongs to urd ‘a small canal’ (< PIE *uh1rdh-, see s.v.) and derives from PArm. NSg *urd-s.

I wonder if this *-s is responsible for cases like nom. aɫuēs ‘fox’ vs. oblique aɫues-. Compare also Bēl vs. GDSg Belay: in Movsēs Xorenac‘i 1.10 and 1.11 (1913=1991: 32‑37; additional readings: 416‑418), the nominative is always Bēl, whereas the gen./dat. form is spelled as both Belay and Bēlay.

For further possible examples see s.vv. ‘salt’, hac‘ ‘bread’, mic ‘mud, dirt’.

2.2.1.3 Nominative‑accusative: syncretism

On this issue, as well as for the additional -n from PIE acc. *-m, see Meillet 1903b: 234‑238; Meillet 1922b; Weitenberg 1985; Kortlandt 1985.

For a remarkable case, see kat‘n ‘milk’ vs. Agulis and Meɫri *kaɫc‘. See also s.v. us ‘shoulder’.

Arm. arǰasp (attested since the 7th cent.) and arǰaspn ‘vitriol’; the second component has been borrowed from *span‑ or *ā‑span‑. Therefore, the form arǰaspn should be considered original, so that we are dealing with loss of final ‑n in the 7th century.

2.2.1.4 Genitive

PIE GSg*‑osyo‑: Skt. ‑asya, Gr. ‑οιο, ‑ου, Arm. -oy, etc. see Meillet 1900a: 17; Lehmann 1981; Beekes 1990-92; Eska/Wallace 2001. For ‑oǰ see Meillet 1900a: 18‑19; see also below on locative.

2.2.1.5 Locative

Locative in ‑i

A distinct locative in ‑i is found in a number of o‑stem nouns, cf. gišer, o‑stem ‘night’ : loc. gišer‑i (see Meillet 1913: 49; A. Abrahamyan 1976: 23‑24, 38‑39; Clackson 1994: 63).

This and the following issue will be exemplified by the dialect of Łarabaɫ.

Locative in ‑i in Łarabaɫ

händ‑i ‘in pasture‑land’: Vart‘in <…> ešəm a, təesnum min händi min č‘oban vexčar a ərəcc‘nəm. “Vart‘i <…> looks, sees (that), on a pasture‑land, a shepherd pastures sheep” [HŽHek‘ 5, 1966: 538L17]. In a riddle (see Barxutareanc‘ 1898: 51): Mi kov unem ‑ handi a : “I have a cow, (which) is on the pasture‑land”. On other attestations see s.v. and ‘cornfield; pastureland’. ClArm. and ‘cornfield’ generally has an o‑stem. In the Bible it is found 21 times in LocSg. y‑and‑i. The initial h‑ in Łarabaɫ (hardly from the PIE laryngeal) may be due to generalisation of the locative form: yandi > händi (through Ačaṙyan’s Law).

əra/äz‑i ‘in a dream’ [HŽHek‘ 5, 1966: 540L‑2; HŽHek‘ 6, 1973: 140L‑9, 183L‑5]. In a fairy‑tale recorded by M. Grigoryan in Mardakert in 1950 [HŽHek‘ 5, 1966: 401‑409], əra/äz‑i ‘in a dream’ is found frequently (402L6, 403L13,18, 404L‑14, 405L‑18, 408L‑8). Next to it, one also finds the more recent, normal form ərazum (402L8, 405L‑8, 407L‑1,‑4, 408L10). Note that eraz has a u‑stem in Łarabaɫ, at least in the same fairy‑tale (cf. GDSg. ərazu : 402L14, 406L‑6), and an o‑stem in ClArm. Therefore, the option that Łarabaɫ LocSg *(y)eraz‑i is identical with ClArm. LocSg. y‑eraz‑i ‘in a dream’ (frequent in the Bible) should be taken seriously.

Łarabaɫ has a locative adverb meaning ‘yesterday’ from ClArm. erēk, ‑i ‘yesterday’ : erek(oy) ‘evening’ (< PIE *h1regwos), in the following variants: ərek/g‑i and yərk/gy‑ɛ (see Davt‘yan 1966: 200): əregy‑i ‘yesterday’ [HŽHek‘ 5, 1966: 242L9, 568L‑5 (iregyi); HŽHek‘ 6, 1973: 407L3, 539L‑13 (ɛregyi), 584L14 (əregi)]; yrke [HŽHek‘ 5, 1966: 591L15]; əregi ‘yesterday’, in a fairy‑tale from Kirovabad/Ganjak (HŽHek‘ 6, 1973: 584L14).

These three examples show that the classical locative in ‑i has been preserved in Łarabaɫ. Later it produced more recent, analogical adverbs, such as sɔ́ri ‘today’, urkyüni ‘in the evening’, etc. An illustration for šüt‑i ‘quickly’ is found in [HŽHek‘ 5, 1966: 573].

Discussion

The Łarabaɫ and adjacent dialects normally have a penultimate accent. Nevertheless, they display locative forms with both ultimate and penultimate accentuation, cf. yərkɛ́ and həṙnɛ́ vs. yɛrɛ́gi and hɛ́ru and Agulis hä́rvi (see s.vv. erēk ‘yesterday’, heru ‘last year’).

It is tempting to assume that the Armenian locative-adverbial marker -i goes back to the PIE locative marker *-i which probably was accented, cf. PIE LocSg *ped-í ‘foot’: Skt. pad-í, Gr. dat. ποδ-ί, etc. (Rix 1992: 43, 149, 154; Szemerényi 1996: 164ff). The -i escaped the apocope because it preserved the accent (or obtained a secondary accent) in order to retain its morphological role (unless we posit a thematization of the locative, *h1regw-i-i̯o- > *erekí-yo > *ereki, cf. ayg ‘morning’, etc., see below). As to the alternating forms with accented and unaccented -i, compare the three types of locative singular in Sanskrit, illustrated by the alternative forms of locative of the word for ‘eye’: akṣán, akṣáṇi, akṣṇí, the third one being the latest (see Burrow 2001: 234).

Traces of the PIE locative *-i may be seen in some time-words which can be interpreted as frozen locatives, see s.vv. *aɫǰ- ‘darkness, twilight’, ayg ‘morning’, ere/ik(-) ‘evening’ and erēk ‘yesterday’. Note also EArm. dial. *heru-i vs. heru < PIE *peruti ‘last year’ (q.v.).

2.2.1.6 Instrumental

Arm. instrumental ending -w / -(m)b derives from PIE *-bhi, cf. IPl (Skt. -bhis, Av. -bīš, Opers. -biš), DAblPl (Skt. -bhyas, Av. -byō); Homeric Greek attests -φι- as a marker of the ablative, instrumental and locative in both singular and plural markers; cf. also Lat. DAblPl -bus, OIr. DPl -b, etc. (for the forms and discussion see Meillet 1950: 120-123; K. Schmidt 1980: 46-47, 50; Shields 1982: 50-52; Beekes 1995: 115-116, 117-118). According to Shields (1982: 51), *-bh(i) is also to be found in Toch. A additive particle -pi.

The instrumental forms may be relevant for etymological and morphological discussion, cf. e.g. Arm. har-b from *ph2tr̥-bhi- (see s.v. hayr ‘father’).

‑av : ‑ɔk‘ in Łarabaɫ

Ačaṙyan (1899: 97, 147) derives the Łarabaɫ ISg ending ‑av from ModArm. ‑ov rather than ClArm. ‑aw. This is confirmed by the phonological reflex of ov in e.g. xorovem ‘to roast’ > xrrável, kov ‘cow’ > kav, etc.

The plural has ‑ɔk‘/‑uk‘. For instance: ClArm. us ‘shoulder’ : Łarabaɫ IPl ɔs‑uk‘ : min xurǰin ɔsuk‘ə k‘əc‘ac [HŽHek‘ 5, 1966: 398L2]; xurǰinə <…> ɔsük‘ə k‘c‘‑ (ibid. 109L14, 111L3). The same expression is found in the singular: xurǰinə <…> ɔsavə k‘c‘‑ [HŽHek‘ 5, 1966: 647L8]. It seems that Łarabaɫ *usok‘ reflects *us‑av‑k‘ = ISg *us‑av + pl. marker ‑k‘. The development ‑av‑k‘ > ‑ok‘ (seemingly identical with ClArm. ‑aw‑k‘ > ‑ōk‘) is unexpected for such a recent stage, however. One expects *usavk‘. More likely, *us‑ok‘ is analogical after the type of ClArm. jeṙ‑k‘, IPl jeṙ‑a‑w‑k‘ jeṙ‑ō‑k‘ ‘hand’ : Łarabaɫ IPl cəeṙok‘ (see e.g. HŽHek‘ 6, 1973: 466L12).

Unlike the numerous petrified adjectives of the type xelok‘ ‘clever, intelligent’, aṙok‘‑p‘aṙok‘ ‘with honour, glory’, etc., the above‑mentioned examples demonstrate the function of the case marker. Note also: pəetk a <…> srtok‘ əli “must be brave” [HŽHek‘ 6, 1973: 452L19]; tü <…> užok‘ es “you are strong” [HŽHek‘ 6, 1973: 401L‑4, 402L5]. Of these adjectives, xelōk‘ and p‘aṙōk‘ reflect the ClArm. IPl forms in ‑aw‑k‘ = ‑ōk‘ of xel‑k‘ and p‘aṙ‑k‘, both a‑stems. The others are analogical.

Also other dialects display frozen instrumentals, e.g. T‘iflis k‘ar-ɔk‘ ‘with stones’, maz-ɔk‘ ‘with hair(s)’ (see Tēr-Aɫek‘sandrean 1885: 189L-6 and 190L1, respectively).

2.2.1.7 Accusative pl. ‑s

The Classical Armenian accusative plural ending -s has been lexicalized in many dialects. For instance, kṙiw-s, APl of kṙiw ‘fight’, appears in Ararat, Łarabaɫ, Łazax etc. kṙiws tal ‘to struggle’, literally ‘to give fights’ (see Ačaṙean 1913: 613a). Textual illustrations are found e.g. in a fairy‑tale from Sisian, in Zangezur (HŽHek‘ 6, 1973: 236L‑11), and, in Ł. Aɫayan 1979: 615L12. For a discussion, see s.v.v. mawru-k‘ ‘beard’, mēǰ ‘middle’.

For examples of frozen APl ending -s in toponyms see 4.8.

2.2.2 Paradigmatic solutions for a phonological or morphological irregularity

2.2.2.1 *s‑stem neuters

For a discussion of s-stem neuters which are mostly continued as Arm. o-stems see Meillet 1936: 74; Olsen 1999: 44-48; Matzinger 2005: 31-52; Meissner 2006: 55; see also s.vv. get ‘river’, erek ‘evening’, hay ‘Armenian’, Hay-k‘ ‘Armenia’, ǰer ‘warmth’.

Some words (possibly) belonging to PIE PD s‑stem neuters show vocalic peculiarities, which may be explained by generalization of the zero‑grade genitive.

amp, o‑stem ‘cloud; lightning’ : Skt. nábhas‑ n. ‘cloud, mass of clouds’, Gr. νέφος n. ‘cloud’, OCS nebo ‘sky’, etc. The Armenian old nominative *neb‑ (< *nébhos) was replaced by amp after the genitive *amp‑ from *nbhés‑s. The possible influence of amprop ‘thunder’ (< *m̥bhró‑ : Skt. abhrá‑ n. ‘thunder‑cloud’, etc.) must also be taken into account. See s.vv. amp and amprop.

ayt ‘cheek’ : Gr. οἶδος etc. (see s.v.). The Armenian old nominative *oi̯t‑ (> *ēt) from *h2óid‑os was replaced by the oblique stem *ai̯t‑ (from NSg GSg. *h2id‑és‑os); see also 2.1.5.

bark ‘lightning’ (q.v.), if related with Skt. bhárgas‑ n. ‘radiance, splendour, light’ (RV+), would have had an old nominative *berk from *bhérg(w)‑os. It became bark analogically after the oblique *bhrg(w)‑és‑ > *bark‑.

sut, o‑stem ‘false; falsehood, lie’ (Bible+; dial.) : Gr. ψεῦδος n. ‘lie’, also ψύδος. NSg *pséudos, GSg *psud‑és‑os; see s.v.

2.2.2.2 Other *s-stems

See the discussion s.vv. hot ‘smell, odour ’, jet ‘tail’, us ‘shoulder’.

2.2.2.3 *n‑stem

anun, gen. anuan etc. ‘name’ (Bible+; dialectally ubiquitous): EArm. dial. *anum. From PIE PD n‑stem neuter nom. *Hneh3‑mn, obl. *Hn(e)h3‑men‑: Skt. nā́man‑, Lat. nōmen, etc. The PArm. paradigm, nom. *anuwn : obl. *an(V)man‑, was levelled to (1) *anuwn : *anwan > ClArm. anun : anuan, with generalization of *‑w‑; (2) *anumn : *anman > anum, with generalization of *‑m‑. See s.v. anun ‘name’.

For a possible example of a HD n-stem consider Arm. deɫ ‘herb’ and ϑαλλός m. ‘green twig, sprout’ (see s.v.).

2.2.2.4 PIE HD i‑stem

Arm. tal (i‑stem according to NHB, without evidence) ‘husband’s sister’ (13th cent. hapax); in dialects: tal (widespread) : Muš, Van, Moks etc. *talv. At least in Van and perhaps Moks, the final ‑v is confined to the nominative. If the word is directly derivable from a PIE i‑stem (cf. Gr. γάλις) rather than u‑stem (cf. Gr. γάλως, OCS zъlъva, etc.), the following paradigm may be reconstructed: NSg *ĝl̥H‑ōi > *táləu > *talw, oblique *ĝl̥H‑i‑ > *tal(i‑). See s.v. tal.

For a discussion and other examples see s.vv. arew ‘sun’ and especially giwɫ ‘village’. Further, see s.vv. gol ‘warmish, lukewarm’ vs. gaɫǰ ‘id.’; k‘arb ‘a snake’.

2.2.2.5 *l‑stems

See s.vv. aseɫn ‘needle’, joɫ ‘log, bar’, ptuɫ ‘fruit’, p‘ul ‘fall, ruins’, and especially acuɫ ‘coal’.

2.2.2.6 Laryngeal stems

The hysterodynamic (HD) paradigm of PIE words in laryngeal stems is reconstructed as follows: NSg *Có(R)C‑eH‑s, GSg *C(R)C‑H‑ós (see Beekes 1995: 181‑183). A well‑known example is the PIE word for ‘path, road, ford’: NSg *pónt‑eh1‑s, GSg *pnt‑h1‑ós, cf. Av. paṇtā̊ vs. ISg paϑa. The nominative analogically became *pontH‑ in Skr. pánthās and, probably, Arm. hun (q.v.). For the o‑grade nominative within this paradigm cf. also PIE *Hros‑eh2: Lith. rasà ‘dew’, OCS rosa ‘dew’, Skt. rasā́‑ f. ‘name of a mythical stream at the end of the world, a tributary of the Indus’ (RV) (cf. also rása‑ m. ‘juice (of plants), liquid, essence’), YAv. raŋhā‑ f. ‘name of a mythical stream’.

Next to Arm. ordi (wo‑stem) ‘generation, son/daughter’ (< PIE *por‑ti‑o‑, cf. Gr. πόρτις, ‑ιος f. ‘calf, young heifer; young maiden’, Lat. partus, ‑ūs m. ‘bringing forth, birth; foetus, embryo; offspring, progeny’, etc.), there also exists Arm. ort‘ (dial. also *hort‘) ‘calf; fawn’, the aspirated ‑t‘‑ of which needs an explanation. One may reconstruct a PArm. HD *‑h2stem paradigm (whether original or secondary) in the same way as we have seen above: NSg *pórt‑eh2, GSg *prt‑h2‑ós > PArm. *órd‑a‑ (cf. awri‑ord, a‑stem ‘virgin’), obl. *harth‑. Subsequently, NSg *ord‑ became ort‘ analogically after the oblique *hart‘. The analogical influence of the oblique form seems to function also at a much later period and causes an initial aspiration in the majority of the dialects (*hort‘). See s.vv. ordi and ort‘.

Arm. c‘ax ‘branch’ (Geoponica etc.; widespread in the dialects) vs. Skt. śā́khā‑ f. (RV+) ‘branch, twig’ etc. In some Armenian dialects (Łarabaɫ, Agulis, Loṙi, etc.) we also find a form with ‑k‘ instead of ‑x. Here we are dealing with the development *‑kH‑ > Arm. x, Skt. kh, Slavic x. The alternants c‘ak‘ and c‘ax probably reflect nom. *‑k‑eh2and gen. *‑k‑h2‑ós, respectively.

For a similar analysis, see also s.vv. t‘arp‘/b ‘a wicker fishing basket’ and *law/p‘‑ ‘flat (hand, stone, etc.)’. Note that the alternation w/p‘ (after a vowel) and b/p‘ (after *‑r‑) point to the nom. *‑p‑eh2and *‑ph2‑ó‑ respectively, much the same way as d/t‘ and k‘/x in the cases above.

2.2.3 Generalization (or relics) of PIE fem. adjectives in *‑ih2in Armenian

PIE *meldu‑i(h2)‑ (cf. Skt. mr̥dvī́ f. ‘delicate, weak, soft, mild’, Lat. mollis ‘weak, soft’ from *moldu‑i‑) > Arm. meɫk, i‑stem according to NHB ‘soft’ (q.v.).

yaɫt‘ ‘wide, broad spacious (land, space, territory); mighty’ (5th cent.), yaɫt‘‑k‑u ‘victorious, mighty’ (Philo+), also spelled yaɫt‘‑u (e.g., in Grigor Maškuori, 12th cent.). While y‑aɫt‘ (q.v.) can be derived from PIE *plth2‑ú‑ (cf. Skt. pr̥thú‑ etc.), y‑aɫt‘‑u must have had one syllable more and can theoretically go back to PIE fem. *plth2‑u‑ih2(Skt. pr̥thvī́, Av. pərəϑβī‑). However, the ‑u in yaɫt‘‑u can be accounted for by the synchronic pattern of adjectives in ‑u, cf. has‑u, ls‑u, etc. (see J̌ahukyan 1987: 241).

For other possible examples see s.vv. yolov ‘many’ and yoyr ‘fat’.

2.2.4 Numerals

For an extensive study on numerals see AčaṙLiak 1, 1952: 131-453. For individual treatments of the Armenian numerals see s.v. mi, erku, erek‘, č‘ork‘, hing, vec‘, eawt‘n, ut‘, inn, tasn, k‘san, k‘aṙasun, yisun. See also Kortlandt 1994a (= 2003: 98-101, with a small addition).

‘11’ etc. are formed as follows: me-tasan ‘eleven’ < *tasan-i, cf. Lat. ūn-decim < *ūn-decimi [Meillet 1916b: 63-64], etc. For a complete list of the Armenian numerals including also ‘11’ to ‘19’ as well as the decimals and ordinals see Meillet 1936: 99-101; Schmitt 1981: 128-132; Beekes 1995: 214. For lists and discussion see also Szemerényi 1960; Saradževa 1986: 89-91. For surveys on the PIE system see Beekes 1995: 212-217; Szemerényi 1996: 221-229; C. Justus apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 397-405.

2.2.4.1 Stability and replacements

For the PIE sources of Armenian numerals see Kortlandt 1994a (= 2003: 98‑101, with a small addition). The numbers from ‘11’ are formed as follows: me-tasan ‘eleven’ < *tasan-i, cf. Lat. ūn-decim < *ūn-decimi [Meillet 1916b: 63-64], etc. For a complete list of the Armenian numerals including also ‘11’ to ‘19’ as well as the decimals and ordinals see Meillet 1936: 99-101; Schmitt 1981: 128-132; Beekes 1995: 214.

In general, the native numerals are stable in dialects. In some of them, however, numerals like ‘70’ etc., as well as the ordinals are replaced by Turkish or Arabic equivalents.

In the dialect of Aslanbek, the numerals ‘70’, ‘80’, ‘90’, as well as the ordinals (e.g. pɛšinči ‘5th’), are replaced by Turkish forms. The distributives are formed normally: č‘örsagã < č‘ors‑akan ‘four by four’, ɛrgɛrgü < erk‑erku ‘two by two’, etc. [Ačaṙean 1898: 83‑84, 85bL‑5 and note 1; Vaux 2001: 43, 51, 6243].

In Van, vat‘sun ‘60’ is followed by Turkish loans, yet‘miš ‘70’, sähysän ‘80’ and dɔxsan ‘90’ [Ačaṙyan 1952: 26, 147]. For an illustration of the juxtaposition of native vat‘sun ‘60’ and the loan et‘miš ‘70’ in Alaškert folklore see HŽHek‘ 9, 1968: 154 (three times: in lines 4-5, 5, -3). ‘

In the dialect of Aramo, the numerals ‘70’, ‘80’, ‘90’, as well as the ordinals, are Arabic [Łaribyan 1958: 10, 34]. This also seems to be the case in K‘abusie, since the numerals for ‘70’, ‘80’, and ‘90’ are absent from the list (see op. cit. 99).

Mužambar (T‘avriz), T‘iflis, Łarabaɫ (in some villages) *erek‘‑k‘san ‘sixty’ < erek‘ ‘three’ + k‘san ‘twenty’; cf. erek‘ k‘san mi tasə ‘seventy’ < “three twenty (and) one ten”. This is considered as taken from the Caucasian system [Ačaṙean 1913: 307a]. A similar system is found in e.g. Moks (see Orbeli 2002: 22; M. Muradyan 1982: 113, 181).

2.2.4.2 Collective numerals

ClArm. erkok‘in, erkok‘ean ‘both’ (Bible+) has been preserved in Łarabaɫ ərkɔ́k‘an, ɛ/urkɔ́k‘an, Meɫri ərkɔ́k‘ɛn (see s.v. erku ‘two’). ClArm. erek‘in, erek‘ean ‘all three’ (Bible+) has been preserved in Łarabaɫ ərɛ́k‘an, irɛ́k‘an and Karčewan irik‘yɛ́n, but in other parts of Meɫri region one finds forms with ‑k‘k‘‑ or ‑k‘k‑: Meɫri irik‘k‘ɛ́n, Kak‘avaberd irɛ́k‘kan (see s.v. erek‘ ‘three’). The other forms are: č‘orek‘in or č‘orek‘ean ‘all four’ > Łarabaɫ č‘urk‘ɛk‘an vs. č‘ursɛk‘an and č‘urɛk‘an; hngek‘in or hngek‘ean ‘all five’ > həngɛk‘an (emphatic hngɛk‘k‘an), vec‘ek‘in or vec‘ek‘ean ‘all the six’ > vəc‘ɛk‘an, etc. [Davt‘yan 1966: 126]; Meɫri č‘ərk‘ɛk‘yɛn, hingyɛk‘yɛn or həngɛk‘yɛn, vəc‘c‘ɛk‘yɛn, etc. [Aɫayan 1954: 179‑180]; Kak‘avaberd č‘ərɛ́k‘kan, hingɛ́k‘kan, vi/ɛc‘ɛk‘kan, etc. [H. Muradyan 1967: 127‑128]. See also AčaṙLiak 1, 1952: 325‑326.

One might treat the gemination in Meɫri irik‘k‘ɛ́n and Kak‘avaberd irɛ́k‘kan (for erek‘ean) as emphatic. More probably, however, they go back to analogical *erek‘‑k‘ean (that is, erek‘ > irɛk‘ ‘three’ + ‑k‘ean) after ərkɔ́k‘ɛn which is analysed as ərkɔ‑ (cf. ɛrku ‘two’) + ‑k‘ean. The analogical process is clearly seen in forms like Łarabaɫ č‘urk‘ɛk‘an (next to č‘urɛk‘an directly from ClArm. č‘orek‘ean) and Meɫri č‘ərk‘ɛk‘yɛn and Kak‘avaberd č‘ək‘ɛ́k‘kan.

The analogy has functioned differently in Karčewan. Here we find yərkɛ́n, irik‘ɛ́n, č‘ək‘ɛ́n, hingɛ́n, etc. [H. Muradyan 1960: 110]. These forms can hardly reflect different formations since: (1) there is no alternative way to satisfactorily explain Karčewan yərkɛ́n; (2) Karčewan is dialectally and geographically very close, actually almost identical with Kak‘avaberd and Meɫri, so that one hardly expects a significant variety with respect such archaic grammatical features; (3) Karčewan irik‘ɛ́n exactly corresponds to ClArm. erek‘ean (or ‑in); (4) the paradigm of yərkɛ́n, namely gen. yərkunc‘ú etc. (see H. Muradyan 1960: 110) clearly continues that of Classical Armenian: erkok‘in, erkoc‘un, etc.

One must therefore start from Karčewan irik‘ɛ́n < ClArm. erek‘ean. Apparently, this form has been analysed as erek‘ ‘three’ (> Karčewan írik‘y ‘id.’) + ‑ean or ‑in. Then, erkok‘ean has been replaced by analogical yərkɛ́n, as if composed of erku ‘two’ (> Karčewan yɔ́rku ‘two’) and ‑ean or ‑in. The same holds for the other numerals.

In Łarabaɫ, the Classical Armenian paradigm erkok‘in, gen. erkoc‘un etc., has been replaced by ərkuk‘an‑ɔc‘ etc. (see Davt‘yan 1966: 127), with analogical ‑c‘‑ > ‑k‘‑ after the nominative, whereas in the Meɫri‑region the ‑c‘‑ has been preserved (see AčaṙLiak 1, 1952: 325‑326). Note further Karčewan gen. yərkunc‘ú, etc. [H. Muradyan 1960: 110]. For Meɫri, Aɫayan (1954: 180) records by‑forms with ‑k‘‑ and ‑c‘‑: ərkɔc‘un and ərkɔk‘ɛn‑u. Kak‘avaberd has analogical irɛ́k‘‑c‘‑un etc. [H. Muradyan 1967: 128].

Sometimes erkok‘ean is replaced by ǰuxek‘yan [AčaṙLiak 1, 1952: 326], obviously with ǰuxt ‘pair’ of Iranian origin, cf. Pahl. ǰuxt, Pers. ǰuft ‘pair, couple’.

2.2.5 Pronouns

For the paradigms and discussion on the Armenian pronouns see Meillet 1913: 59-67; 1936: 86-92; AčaṙLiak 2, 1954; Godel 1975: 107-112; A. A. Abrahamyan 1976: 75-93; Schmitt 1981: 115-127; J̌ahukyan 1982: 140-150; Kortlandt 2003: 52-53. For surveys on the PIE system see Beekes 1995: 201-211; Szemerényi 1996: 203-221; Adams apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 454-458.

Further, see s.vv. personal pronouns es ‘I’, du ‘you’, mek‘ ‘we’, demonstratives *s(a/o)-, *d(a/o)-, *n(a/o)-, reflexive iwr ‘his own etc.’, reciprocal irear ‘each other’, interrogative i- ‘thing’, o-r ‘which’ and o-v ‘who’. For a number of issues see s.v. ur ‘where, where to’ (interrog.), ‘wherever’.

2.2.6 Verbs

For extensive treatments of the origin and development of the Armenian verbal system see AčaṙLiak 4a, 1959; 4b, 1961; Łaragyulyan 1961; Godel 1965; Ant‘osyan 1975; Klingenschmitt 1982; Kortlandt 1996 = 2003: 110-116. The rest can be found in following sections and under the relevant lexical entries.

2.2.6.1 *‑i̯e‑presents

For these formations see Meillet 1936: 107‑108; 1950: 109‑110; J̌ahukyan 1982: 171; cf. e.g. *ǰ(i)nǰe- ‘to efface, annihilate, destroy’ < *gwhen-i̯e/o-: Gr. ϑείνω ‘to kill’, etc. (q.v.). See further s.vv. goč‘em ‘to call’, koč‘em ‘to call’, as well as y‑orǰ‑orǰ‑em ‘to call’; all are synonymous verbs with o‑grade and *i̯e‑present.

koškočem < *koč‑koč‑em ‘to beat, break’ (q.v.) < *koc‑koc‑i̯e‑mi, from koc‑ ‘to beat; to lament by beating one’s breast’, a reduplicated present in o‑grade with the present suffix *‑i̯e‑. For *‑ci̯‑ > ‑č‑ see 2.1.22.2.

čanač‘em (see s.v. *can‑ ‘to know, be acquainted’) derives from QIE *ĝnh3‑sk‑i̯e‑, with zero grade in the root, cf. Gr. βαίνω ‘to go’ and Lat. veniō ‘to come; to go’ from *gʷm̥‑i̯e‑ (see Beekes 1995: 228).

Another possible, though highly hypothetic example is Arm. conjectural *huyem ‘to fear’ < *pu‑i̯e‑mi (see s.v. hoy ‘fright, fear’).

2.2.6.2 Presents with a nasal element

For nasal presents, see e.g. s.vv. aṙnem ‘to make’, dnem ‘to put’. Further, see s.vv. əmpem ‘to drink’, lsem ‘to hear’, yɫp‘anam ‘to be filled to repletion, be overfilled, be satiate, luxuriate’. For the type -anem going back to PIE nasal-infixed presents see s.vv. bekanem ‘to break’, lk‘anem ‘to leave’. An interesting case is har-k-anem vs. aor. har-i ‘to strike’, of uncertain origin. A group of -anem verbs derive from sigmatic aorist (see below). The sk-present or inchoative is reflected in e.g. harc‘anem ‘to question’ and čanač‘em (aor. can-) ‘to know, be acquainted’ (see s.vv.).

For *nu-presents, see Klingenschmitt 1982: 246-259; see also s.vv. aṙnum ‘to gain, obtain, win, plunder, take, grasp’, zgenum ‘to put on clothes’, li : lnum ‘to fill’, ǰeṙnum ‘to be/become warm, burn’.

In the dialect of Agulis, the verbs of the 2nd class, that is those with a suffix ‑ánim (‑ä́nim) in present, form their aorist and imperative without the nasal element: ‑áham (‑ä́ham) and ‑áhi (‑ä́hi), respectively (see Ačaṙyan 1935: 245‑249). The ‑h‑ is perhaps a glide.

2.2.6.3 Sigmatic aorist

Traces of PIE sigmatic aorist may be found in a number of Armenian verbs such as anicanem ‘to curse’, luc‘anem ‘to light, kindle, set on fire’, xacanem ‘to bite’, hecanim ‘to mount, ride’, meṙanim ‘to die’, teṙem ‘to flay’, c‘ncam ‘to rejoice’, etc. (see s.vv.). For a discussion, see Pedersen 1906: 423ff = 1982: 201ff; Frisk 1944: 30 = 1966: 278; Godel 1965; J̌ahukyan 1982: 74, especially 180; Olsen 1984: 1149; Kortlandt 1987a; 1995 = 2003: 79-82, 107-109; Ravnæs 1991: 1691.

2.2.6.4 Denominative and iterative verbs *-o- + *-eie-

The pattern of denominative verbs is reflected in e.g. PIE *uosn-eie- ‘to buy, sell’: Gr. ὠνέομαι and Skt. vasnayáti, from *uesno- ‘price’: Skt. vasná-, Lat. vēnum, Arm. gin ‘price’, cf. also *uoĝh-eie- from *uoĝho- ‘carrying’ (see Beekes 1995: 229-230; Szemerényi 1996: 300). For a discussion and other examples, see Klingenschmitt 1982: 141-143. Note also y-arag-em ‘to expose to the sun’ (= Gr. ἐξ-ηλιάζω in 2 Kings 21.6, 9, 13) probably from *h2rou̯-eie- < *h2reu-i-, see s.v. areg- ‘sun’.

For iteratives note gorcem ‘to work’, k‘orem ‘to scratch’ (see Meillet 1936: 105; Klingenschmitt 1982: 142).

 

2.3 WORD FORMATION

2.3.1 Affixes

Extensive comparative treatments of the Armenian affixes can be found in Greppin 1975; J̌ahukyan 1987; 1998; Olsen 1999. In this section I present a selection of affixes that are relevant for analysis of lexical entries in Part 1.

‑(a)li‑

*luc‑ali [if lucatli is a corruption] ‘yoke; beam of balance; the constellation Orion=Hayk’ = luc ‘yoke; the constellation Libra’ + ‑ali‑, perhaps from fem. *‑lih2 (cf. Lat. iugula f. ‘a part of the constellation Orion’); note also luc-l-il-k‘ ‘a pair of cerebral veins’ (Oskip‘orik); see s.vv. luc ‘yoke’ and luca[t]li ‘Orion’. For sayl, another asterism with *‑lih2, see next.

sayl, i‑stem (Bible+), o‑stem (Movses Xorenac‘i, “Čaṙəntir”) ‘wagon’ (Bible+), ‘Ursa Major and Minor, Arcturus’ (Job 9.9, Philo, Anania Širakac‘i), ‘North Pole’ (Aristotle), etc. : Hesychian σάτιλλα· πλειὰς τὸ ἄστρον (perhaps of Thracian origin), next to Gr. σατίνη f. ‘chariot’. Probably from Mediterranean/Pontic substratum *k̂ati‑lih2.

tam-al(i) ‘building; roof’ from QIE *dmh1-li(h2)- (see s.v.).

targ-al ‘spoon’ from QIE *tr̥u̯-l-i-, cf. Hitt. GIŠtaru̯-āli- n. ‘pestle’ (see s.v.).

As we can see, the suffix -al(-i)- is found especially in designations for implements and constructions. In this respect it is particularly interesting to note Anatolian implement names in -ala- c. and especially -a/āli- n. seen in Hitt. GIŠḫulāli- n. ‘distaff’ and the above-mentioned GIŠtaru̯-āli- n. ‘pestle’ (see Starke 1990: 300-343).

Further, see s.v. am‑l-ik ‘one‑year‑old child or lamb’.

‑(a)mn : ‑iwn : ‑imn

For the suffix ‑amn, Greppin (1975: 37) only mentions atamn ‘tooth’; cf. ‑mn (op. cit. 110‑111). Aɫayan (1980: 142) analyzes ayceamn ‘gazelle, roe’ as *ayci‑ + ‑amn and compares it with eɫeamn = *eɫi‑amn ‘hoar‑frost’ (q.v.), pašt‑awn, ‑aman ‘service’, etc. He further (op. cit. 139‑140, 142, 1461) also mentions the animal‑names t‘ož‑iwn ‘(bear‑)cub’, kor‑iwn ‘cub’, mrǰiwn/‑imn ‘ant’. Other animal‑names: ayceamn ‘roe-buck’ (see Clackson 1994: 89; J̌ahukyan 1998: 9, noting that the origin of the suffix is unclear); see also s.v. lusan : dial. *lus(e)amn.

Compare the type ‑un, gen. ‑uan, presupposing older nom. *‑uwn or *‑umn. Thus, anun, GDSg anuan ‘name’, jeɫun, GDSg jeɫuan ‘ceiling’, srun‑k‘, GDPl sruan‑c‘ (vs. sru/ōn‑i‑c‘ etc.) ‘shin, shank’, etc. (see s.vv.) are derived from *anuwn, *jeɫuwn, *sruwn, etc., respectively (see Aɫayan, ibid.; Zekiyan 1980: 156‑157). Here again we are thus dealing with ‑mn/‑wn. See s.v. anun. As regards jeɫun, note ISg jeɫmamb (Anania Sanahnec‘i, 11th cent.).

ardiwn‑k‘ ‘deed, work; earth products’ (Bible+) > Ararat ardum ‘earth goods, harvest’ < *ard(i)umn (see s.v.).

‑awš

Arm. t‘eɫ‑awš ‘holm‑oak; pine’ (Bible+; dial.) vs. t‘eɫ‑i ‘elm’ (late attest.; several dialects), cf. Gr. πτελέ‑α, Ion. ‑η ‘elm’, Lat. tilia ‘linden’; note also Georg. thelamuši ‘elm’ (see s.vv.).

Greppin (1975: 64‑65) posits ‑awš/‑oš as a botanical suffix seen in t‘eɫ‑awš and zarawš ‘germander’ (Galen, Bžškaran), the latter being of unknown origin [HAB 2: 85a]. He considers (1974: 69) ‑awš to be of substratum origin and adds other plant‑names which, however, seem to be irrelevant (cf. e.g. marzangoš < Pers. marzan ‘mouse’ + gōš ‘ear’; see HAB 3: 282b).

J̌ahukyan (1987: 380) mentions t‘eɫ‑awš as the only example of the suffix ‑awš, and presents a separate entry for the suffix ‑oš found in the adjective dandal‑oš (cf. dandaɫ ‘slow’), as well as in tk‑ṙ‑oš ‘big‑bellied’ (a deverbative adjective) and brd‑oš ‘medley’ (a deverbative noun). All of these three words are, however, dialectal and may also represent ‑awš (= ‑ōš).

Further possible examples:

bṙinč‘ ‘snowball, Viburnum opulus’ (poorly attested; dial.) : Łazax and Łaradaɫ *bṙoš or *bṙōš.[12]

kokṙ‑oš vs. kokoṙ ‘water‑lily; currant’ (late; dial. of Łarak‘ilisa) [HAB 2: 618b];

kokan ‘blackthorn’, only in kokan‑eni, attested in “Bžškaran”; present in some dialects [HAB 2: 617b]; Ararat, Loṙi ɫɔɫn‑ɔš ‘a kind of black round plum, hapalasi [‘bilberry, Vaccinium Myrtillus L.’], found in the Northern parts of Armenia’ (see HayLezBrbBaṙ 3, 2004: 355a) probably belongs here;

p‘oɫoš ‘muraena, moray eel’ (Step‘anos Lehac‘i), if from p‘oɫ ‘pipe’ (see s.v. əngɫayk‘).

 

An interesting example seems to be the Iranian word for ‘violet’: Pahl. wanafšag, Pers. bunafša ‘violet’ [MacKenzie 1971: 86], Zoroastrian vanafša, Arabic‑Persian banafšaǰ, manafšaǰ [Bailey 1985: 29], Kurd. banafš [Cabolov 1, 2001: 115]; Iranian borrowings: Turk. menekše > Arm. dial. mɛnɛk‘šɛ [Ačaṙean 1902: 233], Turk. menefše (cf. Arm. manōšay in Amirdovlat‘ etc.), Syriac mənīškā, etc.; Arm. manušak < *manawšak < MPers. *manafšak (Agat‘angeɫos+; dial. widespread) vs. manišak (Nersēs Lambronac‘i+; dialects of Muš, Alaškert, Ararat, Agulis, Łarabaɫ, etc.), probably from Syriac [Hübschmann 1897: 191, 311; HAB 3: 256, 258a; J̌ahukyan 1987: 533].

Bailey (1985: 29) derived the Iranian form from vana‑ ‘blue’, comparing also Arm. van‑ ‘crystal’. I propose a comparison with Gr. ἴον [< *ϝίον], DPl ἰάσι [ῑᾰ] n. ‘violet’, γία (= ϝία ἄνϑη (Hesychius) and Lat. viola, which are considered to be Mediterranean loans (see Frisk, s.v.). A proto‑form like *wion‑ might yield Iran. *v(y)an‑, with loss of ‑y‑ as e.g. in the word for ‘tiger’: Pahl. babr, MIran. *vagr (cf. Arm. vagr, Georg. vigri) vs. Skt. vyāghrá‑ ‘tiger’. We might be dealing with a Mediterranean‑Iranian/Near‑Eastern flower‑name, as in the case of Gr. ῥόδον < *ϝρόδον, Aeol. βρόδον n. ‘rose’ : OIran. *u̯r̥da‑ ‘rose’ (cf. Arm. vard, NPers. gul ‘id.’, etc.); see Meillet 1908‑09b: 162 (cf. HAB 4: 317‑318). At any rate, Ir. *‑afš can be regarded as a suffix of substratum origin comparable with Arm. ‑awš in t‘eɫ‑awš etc.

I conclude that ‑awš is a suffix mainly found in plant and animal names of substratum origin. Probably Mediterranean; cf. espec. t‘eɫ‑awš : t‘eɫ‑i vs. Gr. πτελέ‑α ‘elm’ and Lat. tilia ‘linden’.

‑awt

Next to kar‑awt, J̌ahukyan (1990: 74) mentions aṙ‑aw‑awt ‘morning’ and cɫ‑awt ‘straw’, and points out that the attempts to interpret ‑awt as IE are not convincing, although IE origin of the roots is conceivable.

karčaṙawt, i‑stem ‘brief(ly)’ (Bible +); the i‑stem is seen in karčaṙōt‑i‑w ‘in brief, briefly’ [Łazar P‘arpec‘i, Movsēs Xorenac‘i 1.15 (1913=1991: 50L15), etc.] and karčaṙōt‑i‑w‑k‘ [Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.49 (1913=1991: 176L15), John Chrysostom, etc.]. Transparently contains karč ‘short, brief’ (HAB), perhaps also the verbal root aṙ‑ ‘to take’, as suggested in NHB 1: 1074a (karč aṙeal ew yōdeal).

The same ‑aṙawt occurs in another synonym: hamaṙawt ‘brief’ (Bible+), also an i‑stem; cf. hamaṙōt‑i‑w‑k‘ in Eusebius of Caesarea, etc.

According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 21a), hamaṙōt contains the Iranian prefix ham‑. He also states that karčaṙōt and hamaṙōt have the same root *aṙōt or *ṙōt, which is of unknown origin. Olsen (1999: 887, 889) suggests a derivation from the participle of IIr. *‑rabh‑, cf. Skt. rabh‑ ‘to grasp’.

In my view, we are dealing with the suffix ‑awt, which may be identified with that of aṙaw‑awt ‘morning’, as well as in in some hour‑names (see s.v. aṙawawt), and originates in hawt (i‑stem), y‑awt ‘*division, cut’; see s.v. hat‑ (z‑at‑, y‑at‑) ‘to cut; to divide; to cut off’. The basic function of the suffix may be to express the derivational meaning ‘division, cut’, such as ‘a time‑division, unit of time’.

narawt, u‑stem: GDPl narōt‑u‑c‘ in Ezekiel 27.16, 24; a‑stem: GDIPl narōt-aw‑k‘ twice in P‘awstos Buzand 6.2 (1883=1984: 223); o‑stem: GDPl narawt‑o‑c‘ in Hexaemeron 4 (K. Muradyan 1984: 120L3) ‘coloured thread or plait/braid’ (Bible+). In Nersēs Šnorhali (12th cent., Cilicia), the word refers to a thread that was tied to the horns of an animal (NHB 2: 405c). The word is widespread in the dialects, in the meaning ‘motley thread tied around the neck of a bride and a bridegroom’ [HAB 3: 433a]. According to Amatuni (1912: 501a), the thread consists of three colours, green, red and white, and is also tied around the neck of a child when being baptized.

Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 431b) mentions Ozim narɛnǰ ‘dyed thread’ s.v. narinǰ ‘orange’ and questions whether it belongs there (i.e. to narinǰ ‘orange’; cf. Moks narənǰəɛ ‘оранжевый (цвет)’, Orbeli 2002: 297). In fact, the word seems to belong to the first component of nar‑awt, see below.

No acceptable etymology is recorded in HAB 3: 432‑433. Nowadays the word is treated as an Iranian loan, cf. Khot. nar‑ ‘to dye’; perhaps also Arm. ner‑k (?) [J̌ahukyan 1987: 536; Olsen 1999: 896]. The element -awt, however, remains unclear. It may be identical with our suffix ‑awt. However, one might alternatively posit Iran. *nar‑ ‘to paint, dye’ + Iran. *raxt‑ ‘coloured plait/braid’ (cf. Khwar. rxtk ‘red’, Skt. raktá‑ ‘dyed, red’). For *‑rawt < *raft instead of *raxt compare Pers. ǰuft ‘pair, couple’ vs. Pahl ǰuxt (see MacKenzie 1971: 47, with an exclamation‑mark). This etymology partly coincides with that of Dervišyan, who interprets the word as *n‑arak‑t, comparing the second component with Skt. raktá‑ (see HAB 3: 432b).

Another such compound can be seen in Ozim narɛnǰ ‘dyed thread’ (see above), which, I think, is composed of *nar‑ ‘to dye’ + *ranǰ ‘colour’, cf. Pers. ranǰ (alongside with rang) ‘colour’ (see Steingass 587b), MPers. rang ‘colour, dye’ > Arm. erang. For Arm. dial. *rɛ/anǰ ‘colour’, see 1.11.

‑t‘ (and/or ‑it‘) < PIE *‑t‑ + *‑H‑. See s.v. yaɫt‘ ‘broad’; other examples: see 2.1.18. In body‑part terms: see s.vv. bl-it‘ ‘a roundish soft bread’; boyt‘, boyt‘n ‘thumb’, *boyt‘ ‘a soft lump of flesh, lobe’; kṙ-t‘-un-k‘ ‘back’ vs. kuṙn ‘back’. Compare Skt. pr̥ṣṭhá‑ n. ‘back, mountain‑ridge, top’ (RV+) from PIE *prsth2, cf. YAv. paršta‑ m. ‘back, spine, support in the back’, paršti ‘back’, Lith. pir̃štas ‘finger’, OCS prьstъ ‘finger’, etc., vs. Skt. pr̥ṣṭí‑ f. ‘rib’ (RV+).

For the morphology compare Skt. rátha‑ m. ‘light two‑weeled war‑chariot’ (RV+) from *Hrot‑h2‑o‑, derivative of PIE *Hrot‑eh2 ‘wheel’, cf. Lat. rota f. ‘wheel, disc’, OIr. roth ‘wheel’, OHG rad ‘wheel’, Lith. rãtas ‘wheel’, etc.

‑(V)x

*bo/ux‑i ‘hornbeam’ (dial. Ararat, Łarabaɫ, see Ačaṙean 1913: 200a), if related to the PIE word for ‘beech‑tree’, cf. OHG buohha, etc., see J̌ahukyan 1972: 317, with reservation because of the vocalism and the ‑k‘‑ in rural Łarabaɫ pük‘i. The formal problems would be partly solved if we assume *bo/uk‑ + tree‑suffix ‑x‑ + ‑i, thus *bo/u(k)xi.

Saradževa (1981a: 229) compares the ‑ax of kaɫam‑ax ‘aspen’ (alongside Hesychian καλαμίν‑δαρ, etc.) with the ending of numerous Greek tree‑names probably of Mediterranean origin, such as σμῖλαξ ‘Taxus’ etc. Here are some other possible examples from Armenian.

tawsax ‘box‑tree, Buxus sempervirens’ (Bible+), according to Ašxarhacoyc, a species of the Northern Armenian province of Gugark‘; preserved in the dialect of Hamšen: dɔsxi, dɔsxəni (see 1.6).[13]

meɫ‑ex, o‑stem, i‑stem ‘the handle of an axe’ (Deuteronomy 19.5, Ephrem, “Naxadrut‘iwnk‘” Ecclesiastes), if related with Gr. μελία ‘manna ash, Fraxinus ornus; ashen spear’ (see s.v.).

From these examples one gets the impression that the vowel before x agrees with the vocalism of the root: meɫ‑ex vs. kaɫam‑ax and taws‑ax. *bo/u(k)xi may be explained through *buk‑(u)x‑í > *bu(k)xí. Note that the tree‑suffix ‑i is accented even in dialects with penultimate accent, such as Łarabaɫ. See also s.v. t‘ɫk‘i ‘maple’.

Since kaɫam‑ax and taws‑ax are reliably attested also in these pure forms, without the tree‑suffix ‑i, one can consider ‑ax to be a tree‑suffix on its own, of non‑IE, perhaps Mediterranean origin. Later the forms analogically received the native and productive tree‑suffix ‑i : kaɫamax‑i, tawsax‑i.

‑k – diminutive > plant-suffix

From the examples for the determinative -k in H. Suk‘iasyan 1986: 90, the following are reliable: boɫ‑k ‘radish’ (q.v.) and jaɫk ‘branch’ (q.v.).

Alongside hačar caṙ or hačar‑a‑caṙ ‘beech‑tree’, one finds hačar‑uk as the designation for ‘beech-nut’ in Agat‘angeɫos § 644 (1909=1984: 330L8). Łarabaɫ, Loṙi *hačar‑k‑i (see HAB 3: 16a), then, should be regarded as composed of hačar‑uk and the tree‑suffix ‑i. A similar suffix can also be seen in kas(t)‑k‑eni ‘chestnut‑tree’ (q.v.).

Compare sinj ‘sorb, service‑berry; haw; etc.’ (q.v.) > Svedia snj‑äg (the berry) and sənj‑g‑ina (the tree).

*hac‘eak and *xnjoreak are seen in place‑names (see 4.8).

The diminutive suffix ‑ik is seen in a number of dialectal forms of Arm. mor ‘blackberry’: Sasun mor‑ig, Moks murun‑ik ‘blackberry’, Muš, Alaškert *moren‑uk, Atap‘azar mɔml‑ig, Nikomidia *morem‑uk, *mor‑mor‑ik, Muš *moremuk, Akn *morm‑ik, etc. Comparable forms are also found in other languages: Chechen mürg ‘guelder rose, snowball‑tree’ < PNakh. dimin. *mor‑iḳ : Gr. μυρ‑ίκ‑η ‘tamarisk’.

‑kn

For examples see J̌ahukyan 1987: 238. For a discussion see s.vv. armukn ‘elbow’ and unkn ‘ear’.

Kortlandt (1985b: 9‑10 = 2003: 57‑58) offers a different explanation for akn ‘eye’, jukn ‘fish’, mu‑kn ‘mouse’ (q.v.), see 2.1.19.

‑j/z in animal and plant names

Apart from well-known plant-names such as deɫ-j ‘peach’ from deɫ-in ‘yellow’, this suffixal element can also be seen in words designating animals.

Some animal‑names (especially those of mustelids, lizards etc.) confined to a few IE and/or non‑IE languages probably contain a suffixal *‑k̂‑ or *‑ĝ‑, cf. aɫuēs ‘fox’; ak‘is ‘weasel’ : axaz ‘marten’; lusan‑ ‘lynx’; inj ‘panther’ (see s.vv.); kuz ‘cat; marten’ (< Iran. – Sem.); etc. Cf. also Latv. luõss ‘weasel’, Russ. láska ‘weasel’, NPers. rāsū ‘weasel’, if from *loH‑k̂‑ ‘weasel’ (see Mallory/Adams 1997: 638b).

This suffixal element is reminiscent of the Indo‑Iranian animal suffix *‑āćá‑ (see de Vaan 2000) and probably related *‑āj́há‑ found in IIr. *u̯arāj́há‑ ‘wild boar’ (> Finno‑Volgian *oraśe ‘(castrated) boar’; cf. Arm. varaz, Iranian loan) which are thought to be of substratum origin (see Mallory 1982: 211; Rédei 1986: 54; Lubotsky 2001: 303, 304, 307, 309, and espec. 312). The latter contains a *‑j́há‑ comparable Arm.‑IAr. *sinĝho‑ : Skt. siṁhá‑ ‘lion’, inj ‘panther’. Note also *h1el‑k̂‑ : Gr. ἄλκη ‘elk’, Skt. r̥śa‑ m. ‘male antelope’ (AV), etc.

Other possible examples:

xl‑ēz ‘lizard’ (MidArm.), dial. also ‘snail’; cf. xɫunǰn ‘snail’, Aṙtial xɔxanč ‘crayfish’ (see Ačaṙyan 1953: 269), Svedia: xranč, xranǰ ‘chameleon’, etc. related to Syriac xlīzonā ‘snail’ etc. (see 3.5.2.5). Separating the element ‑ēz, I propose a connection with Kartvel. *mxul‑ ‘lizard’, see below.

moɫ‑ēz ‘lizard’ (Bible+; widespread in the dialects): in Leviticus 11.30, kovadiac‘ and mo/uɫēz render Gr. καλαβώτης ‘spotted lizard, gecko’ and σαύρα f. ‘lizard’ (see Wevers 1997: 154), respectively. In a number of dialects, as well as in the final edition of the Alexander Romance (see H. Simonyan 1989: 306L4f), in the form moɫoz (see 1.4).

Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 342) compares the word with Pers. mālūs or mālōs ‘green lizard’. I wonder if there is a relation with ORuss. smolžь ‘snail’, Byel. smowž ‘snail’, Polab. mouz ‘snail’, Chech mlž ‘shellfish’, Pol. maɫż ‘id.’ (see Fasmer 3: 690). On the semantic correlation ‘lizard’ : ‘snail’, see above on xlēz ‘lizard’ and ‘snail’; cf. also Arm. xṙnǰayl ‘snail’ vs. dial. (Svedia) xranǰ ‘chameleon’, etc. (see 3.5.2.5).

Given the remarkable formal and semantic resemblance, I propose to combine Arm. *xul‑ ‘lizard; snail’ with *mo/uɫ‑ ‘lizard’ deriving them from *(m)xul‑ and *m(x)o/ul‑, respectively. This may be corroborated by Kartvel. *mxul‑ ‘lizard’: Georg. mxuliv‑ ‘lizard’, Laz mtxola(r)‑, xolura‑, Megr. xolar‑, etc. (see Klimov 1964: 144; 1998: 134).

Remarkably, Aparan and Surmalu moɫoz‑r‑ik ‘lizard’, and especially Trapizon and Hamšen *moɫ‑or‑ik ‘a small poisonless snake’ (see HAB 3: 342b; Ačaṙyan 1947: 263), with a suffixal ‑r‑, are reminiscent of the Kartvelian forms like Laz *m(t)xolar‑. Note also the MidArm. hapax marɫis ‘a kind of reptile’ [Amatuni 1912: 469b], for which no etymology has been proposed [HAB 3: 286a]. One might hypothetically connect it with our words for ‘lizard’ and ‘a small poisonless snake’, assuming the following development: *mo/al‑ur‑is > *maɫris > marɫis (with metathesis).

It is also interesting that Arm. xlēz has forms with initial m‑: məglɛz, mgəldrɛz, mṙxlɛz. One might assume contamination with synonymous moɫēz and/or contamination with mukn ‘mouse’. This is possible, but I would not exclude the possibility that this m‑ is somehow related to the Kartvelian m‑. At any rate, the correlation of xlēz and moɫēz and Kartvel. *mxul‑, whether original or contaminative, seems very plausible. For the suffix, compare further Van, Šatax *deɫ‑ez ‘bumble‑bee’, if from deɫ‑ ‘yellow’.

y

It has often been stated that PIE initial *p‑ and *s‑ sometimes irregularly yield y‑ instead of h‑ (see AčaṙLiak 6, 1971: 519; Aɫayan 1964: 162-164; Winter 1966: 203ff; H. Muradyan 1982: 277‑278; Greppin 1983b: J̌ahukyan 1987: 244, 372‑373). The usually listed examples are: *penkwe > hing ‘five’ : *penkwēk̂omth2 > yisun ‘fifty’; *ph2t‑ēr > hayr ‘father’ : yawray ‘stepfather’; etc. Greppin (1983b) discusses this conflicting evidence within the context of a reverse development, namely ClArm. yV‑ > ModArm. and dial. hV‑, and explains the forms with y‑ as hypercorrections. He also (ibid.) adduces yaɫt‘em ‘to overcome, subdue’ (q.v.).

Admitting the alternative development *p‑ and *s‑ > y‑ (alongside the regular h‑), J̌ahukyan (1987: 244) points out that the words with h‑ sometimes also have variants with y‑ (cf. hatanem : yatanem ‘to cut’), and, therefore, it is often difficult to assess whether the y‑ is of prefixal origin or not. In cases with initial zero and *s‑, he continues, the prepositional (= prefixal) origin of the y‑ is not very probable. Nevertheless, it seems obvious that y‑atem, y‑atanem ‘to cut off branches from trees and especially from vines’ (Bible+) is a prefixed formation from hatanem ‘to cut, split’ (Bible+), q.v. Its basic meaning is ‘to incise’, so Lat. in‑cīdō ‘to cut into; to make an end to; to engrave’ (from caedō ‘to fell, hew; to cut; to slaughter’) can serve as a clear typological illustration for such a formation. The initial h‑ drops in these cases: *y‑(h)at‑ > yat‑. Thus, the ultimate origin of the anlaut is irrelevant.

Next to ClArm. hiwsem ‘to weave, plait’ (q.v.), there is a later and poorly attested variant in y‑: yus‑, yōs‑ (Ephrem, Paterica). This is taken by Winter (1966: 202‑204) to be a conflicting example of y‑ vs. h‑. Nevertheless, he (op. cit. 209) admits the possibility of considering y‑ here as the prefix y‑, adding that “such an analysis seems precluded for yisun ‘fifty’”. This is quite possible. The structure of *y‑iws‑ would then be parallel to that of Gr. ἐμ‑πλέκω, Dutch in‑vlechten.

Postulating a productive prefix y‑ can also solve the puzzle of yawray ‘stepfather’, probably from *y‑(h)awr‑ay lit. ‘(who is) in fatherhood, paternity’ (see s.v.).

Arm. yisun ‘fifty’ (from PIE *penkwe2 ‘fifty’: Gr. πεντή‑κοντα, Lat. quīnquāgintā, Skt. pañcāśát‑ f., etc.) is usually explained as *hingisun [Meillet 1936: 40, 101; cf. Szemerényi 1977: 19, 1963] > *hingsun > *hi(n)sun, with common loss of nasal before ‑s‑ [Clackson 1994: 171]. Winter (1966: 206) points out that “such an assumption implies that this particular sound change remained active until a fairly late time, as the syncope of i and u is a rather recent phenomenon, and only after *i from *was syncopated did *yin‑ and ‑sun come in direct contact”. For a survey of theories mostly relying upon the loss of *‑n‑ before *‑s‑ see Clackson 1994: 234292. None of them, however, explains the y‑ satisfactorily. Kortlandt (2003: 40, 44, 100, 123‑124) assumes that pretonic *hin‑ yielded yi‑. I prefer starting with *hingisun : *hiŋisun > *(h)i(ŋ)isun > *(h)i-isun > *i-y-isun (where the y‑ is perhaps a glide) > yisun. This explanation basically coincides with that of Beekes (2003: 163). See also s.v. yorǰorǰem ‘to name, call’.

As is noted by Lidén (1906: 76), numerous words meaning ‘many, abundant, plenty, fat, etc.’ contain the prefix/preposition y‑. Lidén mentions y‑ač‑ax, y‑olov, y‑oyž, and y‑ogn (see s.vv.). More examples can be found s.v. y‑uṙ‑t‘i.

In the dialects

Bearing in mind that the Classical y‑ yields voiced h‑ (h’) in Šatax whereas it disappears in Van (see Ačaṙyan 1952: 76; M. Muradyan 1962: 24, 53), one should trace the anlaut of e.g. Šatax häkyi ‘tail’ (vs. ClArm. agi, q.v.) back to y‑ rather than h‑, since the latter would have given x‑. On this and related problems see also AčaṙHLPtm 2, 1951: 427‑428; H. Muradyan 1982: 225ff, 276ff; H. Muradyan 1982a; Haneyan 1985: 36ff.

Weitenberg (1986: 92‑97; 1993; 1996: 105‑106) formulated a rule according to which one may reconstruct an old parallel form with an additional y‑ if the initial a‑ of a Classical word corresponds to Šatax h’ä‑, Van ä‑ and Muš h’a‑. He (1986: 96) lists 20 such forms. Then he adds: “It seems to me that the words reconstructed in the list above can be added to the stock of 5th-century Armenian and should be accounted for in etymological studies” (1986: 96). For a further discussion on this and related issues, see Weitenberg 2008.

The forms with y‑ can be explained from prefixation with y < PIE *h1en ‘in’; cf. Weitenberg 1986: 94. Regarding e.g. *y‑andund‑k‘, this is easy to understand since andund ‘abyss’, yatak ‘bottom’ etc. are frequently used in allative contexts, particularly in idioms, curses and spells of the structure “may you/the Evil eye go to Black abyss/hell; he went to/disappeared into abyss/hell”; cf. i yan(y)atak covn ‘to the bottomless sea’ [Ōdabašyan 1976: 121; Harut‘yunyan 2000: 12]; in the dialect of Muš (Bulanəx): <…> i cov, /Covn h’anatak [Movsisyan 1972: 130a]; etc. For the relationship i y‑ : Muš h’‑, see Weitenberg 1997. Note also the context with the ablative: hanem i yandndoc‘ (ǰur, aɫbiwr, šogilk‘) ‘to take ((spring-)water, steam) from the Abyss’ (see Mnac‘akanyan 1956: 383L29, 391LL28,44). The preverb i/y‑ (cf. Weitenberg 1986: 93‑94) may also have played a role here; cf. *y‑andndim ‘to get lost underground, get rid of smth., smb.’.

In my view, the structure of *y‑an‑dund‑k‘ is parallel to Armenian yatak ‘bottom (of sea, underworld, hell)’, dial. also ‘hell; abyss’: y‑ + Iran. privative a‑ + tak (*a‑tā̆k ‘bottomless’), exactly like *y‑an‑dund‑k‘; cf. the synonymous Pahl. a‑bun ‘bottomless’. For the etymological textual parallelism between the two Armenian synonyms, see s.vv.

For further examples, see s.vv. an(u)t‘ armpit’, aṙu ‘ brook’.

‑t‘i, -ti, -di : PIE *‑ti‑

This suffix is found in words of PIE origin (e.g. bay ‘word’ from PIE *bhh2-ti). It remained productive at later stages too. Compare an‑ǰr‑di ‘arid, not‑watered’ (with privative an‑ and ǰur ‘water’), y‑uṙ‑t‘i ‘watered, irrigated, fertile’, nawt‘i ‘hungry’ < *n‑ + *aw‑ + ‑t‘i, perhaps also nay ‘moist’; see s.vv. Further, see 2.1.22.13-14.

Arm. sard, i‑ stem ‘spider’ (Bible+; dial.) is usually treated as a *‑ti‑ derivative: *k̂r‑ti‑ > sard, obl. sard‑i(‑). See s.v.

In spand, i‑stem ‘slaughter’ (cf. span‑anem ‘to kill’; see s.v.), Viredaz (2005: 91‑92, 9766) sees an Armenian creation with the suffix *‑di‑ < PIE *‑tis, which, being “phonetically regular after *r and *l, seems to have been analogically extended after n”. He points out that ‑nd is not regular here, in view of hun ‘ford’ < *pontis. However, hun may be from *pontH-.

Svedia *anapurt ‘uninhabited’ [HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 55a], anaburd diɫ ‘uninhabited place’ [Andreasyan 1967: 201]. Andreasyan (1967: 353b) derives it from anapat ‘desert’, which is unsatisfactory. From anapat one expects Svedia *anabud. The word may be composed (or folk‑etymologically reinterpreted as such) of the privative prefix an‑, the root apur‑ ‘to live’ and a suffixal element ‑d. The latter may derive from IE *‑ti‑, with regular voicing of *‑t‑ after *‑r‑. See also s.v. anǰrdi (preserved in Zeyt‘un and Goris).

There are some formations in -ti, with a voiceless unaspirated -t-. ClArm. lk-ti ‘licentious’ seems to derive from verbal lk-n-im ‘to be/become licentious’ (on which, see HAB 2: 289-290, in separate entries). This may help to etymologize some other words. For instance, ang-ti ‘prostitute’ (John Chrysostom) probably derives from ank/ganim ‘to fall down; to sin, prostitute’ (q.v.). In “Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘” (Amalyan 1975: 252Nr186) one finds špti, glossed by lkti ‘licentious’. This form is hardly a corruption for htpit (as has been assumed by Ačaṙyan, HAB 3: 129a, who also cites šptil in Philo). It may rather be regarded as a ti-derivation of šp‘-anam ‘to boast’ (John Chrysostom), dial. ‘to become spoilt, mischievous’ (on which, see HAB 3: 546a).

dial. (Xian) an‑lṙ‑ti ‘garrulous, chattering, talkative’; Ačaṙyan (1913: 100a) writes: “it seems composed of the privative an‑ and the verb lṙel ‘to be silent’”. He does not specify ‑ti, which is clearly a deverbative suffix here. Thus, an‑lṙ‑ti basically means ‘who does not become silent’.

Urmia, Salmast anlrti ‘insatiable (for eating and drinking)’ [GwṙUrmSalm 1, 1897: 545] is probably composed of privative an‑, l(i)r‑ ‘full’ and the suffix ‑ti.

c‘-

c‘ (prep.) ‘to, up to’; lexicalized in e.g. c‘-ayg ‘night’ < ‘*to morning’, c‘-erek ‘day’ < ‘*to evening’. Further, see s.vv. c‘ank/g ‘hedge, fence; list, table of contents’, c‘nor-k‘ ‘fancy, day-dream; bad dream, apparition, bogy’.

Connected with Skt. ácchā (adv.) ‘to, towards’ (see Hübschmann 1897: 499 with lit.; Matzinger 2005: 132; Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 50 with lit.). Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 446a; see also J̌ahukyan 1987: 245) links Arm. c‘- with Lat. ad ‘to, towards, near by, at, before, up to, until’ etc., assuming *ad-sk̂-. Olsen (1999: 811) derives c‘- from *poti̯-, which is untenable. One expects *oč‘- from *poti̯-.

The best solution is to directly connect Arm. c‘- with Skt. ácchā (adv.) ‘to, towards’ < PIIran. *a-sćā, probably from PIE *h1esk(w)eh1,especially Lubotsky 2001a: 41-42. As has been pointed out by Lubotsky (ibid.), “the initial *e- has disappeared in Armenian, due to the proclitic nature of the word, cf. əst ‘after’ < *post, ənd ‘to’ < *anti, etc.”.

2.3.2 Reduplication

On reduplication patterns of Proto-Armenian I refer to the survey in J̌ahukyan 1987: 250‑252. On reduplicated presents, see 2.2.6.1, and s.vv. koškočem ‘to beat, break’, yoɫdoɫdem ‘to shake, move, cause to totter, waver’, y‑orǰ‑orǰ‑em ‘to call’.

Greppin (1981b) argues that the IE reduplicated verb class was not continued in Armenian, and that reduplication was (re)introduced into Armenian through the influence of Hittito‑Luwian and perhaps also Hurro‑Urartian. See the references in Greppin 1981b: 8. I cannot share this opinion since: (1) the material introduced by Greppin is far from exhaustive; (2) some examples of native origin are removed to hastily; cf. hototim ‘to smell’ vs. Gr. ὀδωδή f. ‘smell’ and perf. ὄδωδα; although in some cases we have no reduplicated formations in cognate languages, one still has to reckon with the fact that they are of IE origin; see e.g. s.v. heɫeɫ ‘flood’; further, note e.g. kokov- ‘to boast’ vs. Skt. intensive jóguve ‘to call, announce’ from gav- ‘to call, invoke, praise’ (see s.v.); (3) words like xaxank‘, mṙmṙam, tatrak etc. (also those not included in Greppin’s list, such as aɫaɫak etc.; see above) which all have reduplicated parallels in cognate languages cannot be removed only because of their onomatopoeic nature; (4) Greppin himself accepts kokord ‘throat’ and siseṙn ‘chickpea’; (5) there are only a couple of examples where we may be dealing with Hittite loans, and all of these represent full reduplication only (cf. xoɫxoɫem ‘to slaughter’, ǰaxǰaxem ‘to crush, destroy’, etc.; on geɫgeɫ‑, see s.v.), whereas the examples above, as well as the examples of the types *Ci‑CaR (see s.v. cicaɫ ‘laughter’, cf. also s.v. šišaɫ ‘demon’) and *Ca‑CuC (see below) are of IE origin.

In Classical Armenian, intensive reduplication occurs not only to form new words, but also merely as a repetition, or in distributive function, or to express the meaning ‘every’. E.g. in P‘awstos Buzand 4.55 (1883=1984: 147L9f; transl. Garsoïan (1989: 176): xaɫac‘(uc‘)eal ew zayl gerut‘iwns gawaṙac‘ gawaṙac‘, koɫmanc‘ koɫmanc‘, p‘ori p‘ori, zašxarhi ašxarhi, acin žoɫovec‘in i k‘aɫak‘n Naxčawan, zi and ēr zōražoɫov iwreanc‘ zōrac‘n : “[the Persians] also took away captives from every district, region, valley, and realm, and collected them in the city of Naxčawan, for that was the gathering place for their army”. Malxasyanc‘ (1987: 267) translates not “from every” but “from various (zanazan)”.

šrǰ‑ ‘to turn’ : šrǰ‑šrǰ‑, attested in Agat‘angeɫos § 112 (1909=1980: 66L7f; transl. Thomson 1976: 125): ew k‘aršec‘in ew t‘aɫec‘in zna i tataskin; ew šrǰšrǰēin zna andēn : “they dragged and buried and rolled him in the ‘thistles’”. For the whole passage, see s.v. tatask ‘thistle’.

For a list of such examples, see Leroy 1986: 64‑65, and, with the conjunction ‑a‑, 70‑71.

With the copula ew

In Agat‘angeɫos § 33 (1909=1980: 22L16f; transl. Thomson 1976: 49): Zi getn Erasx yaruc‘eal gayr li dariw ew dariw : “For the river Araxes had risen and was flowing full to both banks”. The same expression occurs in Joshua 3.15: <…> yaruc‘eal gayr dariw ew dariw. Here the Greek text reads as follows: ὁ δὲ Ιορδάνης ἐπλήρου καϑ’ ὅλην τὴν κρηπῖδα αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ ἡμέραι ϑερισμοῦ πυρῶν. As is clear from the collation of the passage, the Armenian phrase is not a Greek calque. Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 631b) does not mention this passage, but compares Agat‘angeɫos’ phrase with a similar one from 1 Paralipomenon 12.15 with ap‘n ‘shore, bank’ instead of dar : gayr [getn Yordanan] li ap‘amb ew ap‘amb aṙ hasarak cayriw iwrov.

Reduplication a/o, a/u, etc.

For this type, Leroy (1986: 67, 6720) presents only one example: hay‑hoy‑em ‘to scold, utter abuse or slander’ (Bible+; dial. Ararat, Sebastia etc.), cf. Pers. hāy ū hōy ‘tumulte, plainte’, etc.; onomatopoetic [HAB 3: 30b]. In the dialect of Łarabaɫ it has been replaced by hɔvhɔvel (HAB), a reduplication of *hov or *huv, unless one assumes remodelling with the copula u ‘and’: *hayuhoy > *ha(y)whoy > (assimil.) *hov‑hov; cf. also Pers. hāy ū hōy. See also J̌ahukyan 1987: 250‑252, 364.

For a remarkable type a/u-reduplication see s.vv. aɫǰamuɫǰ ‘darkness, twilight’, karkut ‘hail’, mamul ‘press’, mamuṙ ‘moss’. Note also kerakur ‘food’ (see s.v. ker- ‘to eat’). All these words are of IE origin.



[1] Ačaṙyan (1906‑08; AčaṙLiak 6, 1971: 542; 1952: 79‑80) adduced some dialectal parallels to this dissimilatory development: ǰ(r)aɫac‘‑k‘ ‘water‑mill’ > Aslanbek k‘aɫašk‘; č‘orek‘šabt‘i ‘Wednesday’ > Van k‘yörök‘yəšpät‘ and č‘örök‘yəšpät‘. He assumes that the palatals ǰ and č‘ have turned into their velar correspondent k‘ through dissimilatory influence of š. However, an assimilatory influence of ‑k‘‑ seems more likely and simpler (an alternative mentioned but rejected by Ačaṙyan himself).

[2] Typologically compare Alb. final -h > -f in many dialects (M. de Vaan, p.c.).

[3] Sceptical: Lindeman 1990.

[4] Greppin (1980a: 98) points out that the expected form is *e-r-.

[5] The rule seems in a way comparable with the dependence of the reflex of ClArm. ere- in the J̌uɫa dialect on the vowel of the third syllable, as is formulated by Ačaṙyan (1940: 56-57): ereCa- > (h‘)areCa- vs. ereCo/u- > (h‘)araCo/u-.

[6] Beside ClArm. hask ‘ear of corn’, the dialects of the Van group have *hašk > xašk, with an unexplained . If one accepts the developments PIE *k̂u̯ > Arm. sk vs. *k̂u > š, the of *hašk, unless due to influence of Pers. xūša ‘ear of corn’, may be explained as follows: PIE nom. *h2ék̂-(ē/ō)u : gen. *h2k̂-u-ós (and/or *h2ek̂-u̯-ih2-) > PArm. *hašu vs. *(h)ask- > > hask and *hašk. Of course, this is highly hypothetical, too.

[7] In view of Skt. aśva- ‘horse’ > aśvatará- ‘mule’, ‘a horse, the one of the two’, one could derive Arm. ǰori ‘mule’ from ji, o-stem ‘horse’: PArm. ji-yo- ‘horse’ + suffix -or-, or perhaps even *-tor-, as in the above-mentioned Sanskrit form (note that *-oto- > -o- is regular in Armenian, cf. č‘ork‘ ‘four’ etc.) + the suffix -i which is frequent in animal-names such as ayci ‘goat’, mari ‘female bird’, mak‘i ‘ewe’, etc. Thus: *j(i)yori > ǰori.

[8] It may be argued against this explanation that *‑ugt‑ would yield Arm. ‑ust‑, as shown by PIE *dhugh2‑tēr > Arm. dustr ‘daughter’ (q.v.). This is not conclusive, however, since dustr is the only example. Unlike dustr, where we are dealing with the sequence *‑g(H)t‑ as directly inherited from PIE, but has been analyzable in Old Armenian for a long period, so *buc‑ti‑ would not necessarily develop to an assibilated *bust. Besides, if the derivation of ustr ‘son’ (q.v.) from *su(H)k‑ter‑ is accepted, dustr could be explained by the analogical influence of ustr.

[9] An interesting though highly hypothetical case may be Aɫiwn (Ašxarhac‘oyc‘) vs. Analib(n/l)a (Ptolemy etc.), name of a district in the province of Barjr Hayk‘Upper/Higher Armenia’, perhaps pointing to *Alnib/wn. Note that this province was situated in NW of historical Armenia, thus not far from the Hamšen region. If the interpretation is accepted, this example may be important for the chronology.

[10] Note also zohal, zōhal ‘the planet Saturn’ > Zval Astɫ, the princess of India (Hndkastan) in a folk-tale from Baɫeš (see HŽHek‘ 9, 1968: 361-375). However, Zval is the modernized orthographic variant of Zual Astɫ ‘the Star Zual’ in the original text (Haykuni 1901: 321-333). One should then reckon with the alternative possibility which would imply a mere loss of the -h- (Zuhal > Zual) rather than Zuhal > Zuwal.

[11] On tabu in Armenian see J̌ahukyan 1992: 21.

[12] Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 490b) notes the resemblance with Assyr. burāšu, Hebr. berōš, Aram. brūtā (on these forms see s.v. barti ‘poplar’). However, he leaves the etymology open since the Semitic words mean ‘cypress’; see 1.12.1.

[13] Somehow related with Hurr. tas̄kar‑ ‘box‑tree’: *takhsar‑ + ‑(a)x?





ARMENIAN DIALECTS

1.1 Preliminaries: the treatment of archaic features in dialects

The foundations of Armenian dialectology have been laid by Hrač‘ya Ačaṙyan, the most outstanding figure in Armenological disciplines, whose incredible diligence and productivity have been a constant source of my inspiration. His “Armenian Dialectology” (1911), “Armenian Dialectological Dictionary” (1913) and eleven dialect descriptions form the basic storage of dialectological data, which are systematically included, supplemented and evaluated in his fundamental AčaṙHLPatm and AčaṙLiak, and especially in his crowning work, the Etymological Dictionary of Armenian (HAB).

Unfortunately, most of the works of Ačaṙyan (as well as those of J̌ahukyan and others) are written in Armenian and are therefore inaccessible to many students of Indo‑European linguistics.

Besides Ačaṙyan’s and J̌ahukyan’s works, the following general dialectological research and handbooks should be mentioned: Patkanov 1869; Yovnanean 1897; Msereanc‘ 1899; Łaribyan 1953; A. Grigoryan 1957; Greppin/Khachaturian 1986. Extensive phonological treatments are given in H. Muradyan 1982; Vaux 1998. A lucid overview on aspects of Armenian dialectology can be found in Weitenberg 2002. Armenian dialects preserve many archaic features. Meillet (1936: 11) mentions two such examples: dial. *lizu vs. Classical lezu ‘tongue’ and the preservation of the preposition z-.

Kortlandt (1980: 105 = 2003: 32) considers that the reflex of PIE *rs, t‘aršamim : t‘aṙamim ‘to wither’, q.v. (see Winter 1966: 205) offers the only trace of early dialectal diversity. Clackson (2004-05: 154) points out that this claim needs to be reviewed, adding some other examples, namely the semantic doublets of ays ‘wind; (evil) spirit’ (q.v.), and p‘axnum : p‘axč‘im, both meaning ‘to flee’ in the Bible translation.

Beekes (2003: 142) basically agrees with Kortlandt. He (142-143) mentions the case of -n (see 2.2.1.3), stating that dial. asteɫnə (vs. ClArm. astɫ ‘star’, q.v.), for example, “cannot have been taken from the Classical dialect; it must have been selected at an earlier stage”. Similarly, Beekes (ibid.) mentions the word for ‘milk’; see s.v. kat‘n ‘milk’. His conclusion is that “the Classical language is one dialect (group), perhaps of a small number of speakers, that there were several dialects (though perhaps differing only on a limited scale), and that the modern dialects may preserve important data for the reconstruction of the oldest history of the language”.

Viredaz (2003: 76) points out that pre-Classical dialect variants within Armenian are very few and very late. As an example, he mentions lizu > lezu ‘tongue’. For a discussion of an important evidence from the 5th century, see s.v. ays ‘spirit; wind’.

Issues regarding the origin of the Armenian dialects and their existence in the classical period, as well as numerous archaic dialectal words and features, are dealt with in AčaṙHLPatm 2, 1951: 114‑141, 324‑439; Winter 1966; J̌ahukyan 1972; 1985; N. Simonyan 1979.

In the said works, dialectal archaisms are mostly represented as a preservation of what has been lost in the classical language and/or other dialects. Methodologically speaking, such an approach is not completely justifiable. Throughout the following chapters and the lexical corpus, I aim at establishing the philological background of the lexical data, while conducting a systematic evaluation of the deviant dialectal forms and features. In order to give an idea of how I treat and evaluate dialectal archaisms and to demonstrate the importance of dialectal data for etymological research, I refer to my treatment, for example, of dial. *anum vs. ClArm anun ‘name’ from PIE *h3neh3-mn ‘name’ and Agulis yɔns vs. ClArm. us ‘shoulder’ from PIE *Homsos ‘shoulder’.

The importance of the Armenian dialectal archaisms goes beyond Armenology per se. The Armenian peripheral dialects may provide us with information that can prove indispensable even for establishing the status of the Indo‑European cognate forms. I shall mention one example, whereby Greek, Latin and Armenian cultural terms of a so‑called Mediterranean substratum obtain an invaluable additional material from Armenian dialects, thus corroborating the connection and clarifying the status and spread of the terms.

Arm. kat‘n ‘milk’ has been considered to be cognate with Greek *gala(kt) [γάλα, γάλακτος] n. ‘milk’, Lat. *(g)lk‑t‑ [lac, lactis] n. ‘milk’, although the absence of ‑l‑ in Armenian makes the connection not evident. But the dialects of Agulis and Meɫri reflect a form, which preserved the liquid: *kaɫc‘ < nom. *glkt‑s [Weitenberg 1985: 104‑105]. This form shows that the various attempts to reconstruct the word with an initial *ĝ‑, *d- or *m‑ should be given up.

In a series of articles (1986, 1992, 1993, 1996, 1997, 1999‑2000, 2001), Weitenberg extensively treats several phonological features of Armenian dialects as reflecting ancient, partly even prehistoric isoglosses. These studies open new perspectives for the history of Armenian dialects, as well as for Armenian etymology. This can be exemplified by Weitenberg’s rule on the reconstruction of an additional y‑ and related chronological issues, such as Ačaṙyan’s Law and consonant shift (see 2.3.1).

As is shown by Weitenberg’s treatment of Ačaṙyan’s Law, one can posit an old contrast between (a) Western dialects (Muš, Alaškert, Karin/Erzrum, etc.) and (b) Eastern‑Southeastern dialects (Agulis, Łarabaɫ, Van, etc., groups 6 and 7). For a discussion of a possible historical evidence from the 5th century for this dialectal contrast, see s.v. ays ‘wind; spirit’.

In a number of cases, we can speak of a more narrow dialectal feature; for example, in cases like erkan ‘mill’ (q.v.), the prothetic vowel before a word‑initial r‑ is a‑ only in Agulis, Łarabaɫ and other adjacent dialects, whereas the Van subgroup follows the remaining dialect areas and the classical language.

1.2 5th-century dialectal words

The collation of the dialectal distribution of a word with the geography of literary attestations often leads to remarkable conclusions. For example, getaṙ ‘river‑bed; river‑shore; outbranching river’ is present in the Eastern dialects: Ararat (Erevan, Ōšakan), Meɫri, J̌uɫa. The only claimed exception is Muš. However, the only source for the latter is Amatuni, and I have an impression that the evidence he presents as from Muš in fact originates from the Muš‑speakers of the Ararat area (Aštarak, Yerevan, etc.), where many immigrants from Muš have been living since the 19th century. Another such example may be argat (q.v.).

The same distribution is also found with literary attestations. Łazar P‘arpec‘i (5th cent.) was a native of the village of P‘arpi (very close to the above‑mentioned Ōšakan); Step‘anos Orbelean (13th cent.) was from Siwnik‘; “Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘” shows close affinities to the Eastern dialects (I shall attempt to discuss this point elsewhere). This also holds for the place‑name Getaṙ(u): (1) a river (= Agri‑č‘ay) and a district in Aɫuank‘; (2) a left tributary of the river Hrazdan. Thus, we are perhaps dealing with a word, dialectally restricted, since the 5th century, to Eastern Armenia.

1.3 Dialectal words: new or old?

Throughout his dictionary (HAB), Ačaṙyan records numerous dialectal formations, labelling them as nor baṙer (“new words”). Sometimes, however, one doubts whether this definition is justifiable. Let us take a look at some examples.

According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 621a), dial. *aṙikoɫ and *aṙkoɫ are new words. The forms are: Muš, Van *aṙkoɫ ‘stony place; precipice’ [Amatuni 1912: 57b; Ačaṙean 1913: 133a]; Xotorǰur *aṙikoɫ ‘sloping, precipitous’ [YušamXotorǰ 1964: 430a; HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 99b]; Hamšen aṙəngɛɫ [Ačaṙean 1913: 135; 1947: 221]. Next to z-aṙ-i-koɫ(-eal) ‘precipitous’ (“Book of Chries” etc.), one also finds aṙ-i-koɫ-eal ‘precipitous, sloped’ in Movsēs Xorenac‘i 1.16 (1913= 1991: 51L13; transl. Thomson 1978: 99). Thus, the dialectal forms are not recent.

*gišer(n)uk: Among several dialectal derivatives from gišer ‘night’, which denote ‘bat’, Ačaṙyan (Ačaṙean 1913: 230b) also mentions Maškert (Arabkir/ Xarberd) gišeruk and Łazax gišernuk.

Compare Lat. vesper-ūgō ‘bat’. Since Arm. gišer and Lat. vesper, as well as, probably, Arm. -uk and Lat. -ugō are etymologically related (for the suffix, see Olsen 1999: 584-592), and since Maškert and Łazax are located in the opposite peripheries of the Armenian-speaking territory, Arm. *gišer(n)uk is a potentially old formation, although the independent creation of these forms cannot be excluded.

Darman-a-goɫ ‘Milky Way’, lit. ‘Straw-Thief’, is considered to be a new word [HAB 1: 640a]. The word is found only in the Eastern dialects, Ararat, Loṙi and Łarabaɫ, and may indeed be a recent replacement of the older *Yard(a)goɫ. However, this is hard to verify since, in Łarabaɫ, next to ‘Milky Way’, Darmanagoɫ denotes a small ‘straw-stealing’ cloud, and this may reflect older folk-beliefs, since a similar association between ‘Milky Way = Straw-Thief’ and a ‘straw-stealing wind’ is recorded in Xotorǰur, which is, both geographically and dialectally, quite far from Łarabaɫ. For more details, see 3.1.3.

*erat‘at‘: Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 55a) cites Łarabaɫ, Loṙi hərat‘at‘ < *er-a-t‘at‘, composed of eri ‘shoulder’ (q.v.) and t‘at‘ ‘arm, paw’, as a new word. Probably, Xotorǰur *ɛrelt‘at‘ ‘shoulder-blade’ [YušamXotorǰ 1964: 447b] belongs here too, although the nature of the internal -l- is obscure. Since these dialects are not contiguous, *er-a-t‘at‘ may be old.

Šulaver (in the territory of Georgia) *net-ōj ‘a kind of snake’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 811b], obviously net ‘arrow’ + ōj ‘snake’. Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 442b) cites it as a new dialectal word derived from net ‘arrow’. One finds Dersim (K‘ɫi) nɛdig ‘a poisonous snake’, featured by Baɫramyan (1960: 155a) only in the glossary of dialectal words. It certainly reflects a diminutive of net ‘arrow’. Since these dialectal areas are very far from each other, a question arises: are we dealing with an archaism or independent innovations?

Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 413a) places tɫaɫǰik ‘a young girl/woman’ in his list of new dialectal words. The compound is present in the dialects Davrež/Tabrez [Ačaṙean 1913: 1032b], and Meɫri (təɫáxč‘ɛky, see Aɫayan 1954: 332). Certainly composed of tɫay ‘child’ and aɫǰik ‘girl’. Given the literary attestation of tɫay aɫǰik ‘a small girl’, as well as the fact that in Southeastern and Eastern dialects tɫay means ‘boy’ rather than (the generic) ‘child’ (see HAB 4: 412b), one can assume that tɫaɫǰik is relatively old.

k‘aɫoc‘ ‘mowing time’ (in Karin, see Ačaṙean 1913: 1092b), a derivative of ClArm. k‘aɫem ‘to pluck, weed, mow, harvest’, is considered to be a new dialectal word [HAB 4: 541b]. However, this dialectal word is not confined to Karin. More importantly, the word is identical with the old Armenian month-name k‘aɫ-oc‘, which has often been wrongly interpreted as ‘month of goats’.

Conclusion: The definition “new words” should be clarified. The mere fact that a word is not attested in literature does not necessarily imply that it is new. A dialectal word can be labelled as new only after a thorough analysis, which should also reckon, next to linguistic details, with factors like the dialectal spread, underlying folk beliefs, etc.

1.4 Textual replacement by dialectal synonyms

A number of classical words attested in the earliest edition of the Alexander Romance, published first by H. Simonyan (1989), have, in the final edition, been replaced by dialectal equivalents:

moɫ‑ēz ‘lizard’ (Bible+); widespread in the dialects, also in the form *moɫoz‑. In the earliest edition of the Alexander Romance (see H. Simonyan 1989: 431L5): moɫēzk‘ meck‘ orpēs višapk‘ “lizards as big as dragons”; the final edition has here: moɫozk‘ k‘an zvišaps mec ēin (306L4f). The classical form moɫēz, thus, has been replaced by dialectal *moɫoz-, present in Van, Moks, Salmast, etc.

The word maškat‘ew ‘(having) a wing of skin’, an epithet of the bat (č‘ɫǰikan) in “Hexaemeron”, in the independent meaning ‘bat’ appears first in the earliest edition of the Alexander Romance (see H. Simonyan 1989: 423L‑3). In the final edition, we find čəɫǰikan instead (op. cit. 290L‑3). Since maškat‘ew ‘bat’ is attested poorly and late and is preserved only in some peripheral dialects, namely Hamšen and Xotorǰur (see s.v.), whereas č‘iɫǰ, č‘ɫǰikan (Bible+; dialects of Sebastia, Axalc‘xa, Alaškert [HAB 3: 628‑629]) seems to be the principal word for ‘bat’, one may assume that the original translator was a native of a peripheric dialect, where maškat‘ew was the term for ‘bat’. The later editor(s) considered maškat‘ew odd or little known and has(ve) replaced it with the ‘more normal’ č‘ɫǰikan.

But, sometimes, details are unclear. For instance, instead of sex ‘melon’ (Bible+), preserved in several dialects, the final edition has meɫrapop (see H. Simonyan 1989: 306L3, 431L5), which is attested from the Bible onwards, but is absent in dialects. Moreover, it denotes a particular kind of melon (synonymous with MidArm. šamam), rather than merely ‘melon’.

In some cases, specific terms are interpolated. For instance: aniw sayli, or ē kundn “a wagon‑wheel which is kundn” (see H. Simonyan 1989: 432L‑16, in the earliest edition). The word kunt(n) or kund(n) ‘wheel’ is attested from the “Book of Chries” onwards and judged by Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 593‑594) as belonging to the more widespread gund ‘ball’, although some philological details are unclear. In the dialects, it refers to the wheel of wagons, mills, spinning‑wheels, etc. For the translator of our text, as we saw, kundn has the specific meaning ‘wagon‑wheel’. It is interesting to note that, in the dialect of Alaškert, one finds kund (pl. kəndner) in the very same specific meaning ‘wagon‑wheel’ and with an initial k‑, which presupposes a classical k‑ rather than a g‑ (see HAB 1: 594a).

In different editions of the Alexander Romance, we find xec‘geti(n) or xē/ač‘ap‘ar/ṙ as words for ‘crayfish’, see H. Simonyan 1989: 261 (three times xec‘getin, and once xeč‘ip‘ar), 290 (pl/coll. xec‘getneay), 413 (xec‘geti, or ē xič‘ip‘ar), 423 (xēč‘ip‘ar), 478 (three times xač‘ap‘aṙ). In a 16th-century kafa, Zak‘aria Gnunec‘i (of Gnuni) introduces saratɫanay as synonymous with xeč‘ip‘ar (see H. Simonyan 1989: 261). The form astonishingly resembles the word for ‘crayfish’ in the dialect of Moks, namely säläträna (Orbeli 2002: 320, rendered by Russ. krab ‘crab’), cf. also Van salatrana ‘Satan’.[1] Zak‘aria of Gnuni introduced saratɫanay probably because it was a normal word in his vernacular dialect. The original domain of the Gnuni seems to have been found around the areas (Aɫiovit etc.) immediately North and East of Lake Van (see Adontz 1970: 240; Toumanoff 1963: 205; Garsoïan 1989: 374-375; Hewsen 1992: 343; S. Petrosyan 1999: 176). One may therefore assume that we are dealing with a dialectal word confined to the Van‑Moks area already in the 16th century.

1.5 Interdialectal loans

Arm. baṙ ‘word’ : dial. Van p‘aṙ, with an initial aspirated p‘ which is explained by assuming a loan from the literary language of Polis (see Ačaṙean 1952: 53, with a few other examples of the same type).

Arm. *bṙinč‘ etc. ‘snowball‑tree’: Agulis b/pṙášnə, with allophonic b‑ and p‑ (the shift b > p being irregular for this dialect), is considered to be a loan from Łarabaɫ pṙɛ́šnə [Ačaṙyan 1935: 93]. The latter probably reflects *bṙoš‑ or *bṙōš‑, cf. Łazax p‘ṙɔš, Łaradaɫ bṙošni (see 1.12.1).

In the Hamšen region, the initial g‑ yields g‘‑ in Mala, k‑ in Čanik, and g‑ in Trapizon. In view of this, Ačaṙyan (1947: 42) treats ClArm. gerandi ‘scythe’ > Hamšen gɛrəndi (also k‘ɛrɛndi), gaɫtikur ‘a plant’ > gaɫgur, etc. as borrowed from other dialects, such as Trapizon. Further on gerandi, see 1.10.

lurǰ ‘light, shiny; awake; cheerful; (light) blue’ (q.v.) has been preserved in few dialects: Muš lurč‘ ‘a kind of blue canvas that is made in Haleb (= Turk. zal)’; T‘iflis lrč‘anal ‘to turn blue’ (referring to a beaten and bitten body); Akn. lrǰuc‘ ‘in one’s waking hours’; as well as in Syria: Svedia lɔṙč‘ ‘blue’, K‘esab lɔrǰ ‘light blue’, Aramo laurč ‘blue’. As we can see, the “pure” adjectival colour designation lurǰ ‘blue’ has been preserved only in the Armenian dialects of Syria, whereas in Muš we find only a technical meaning: ‘a kind of blue canvas that is made in Haleb’. Since Haleb (Aleppo) is situated in NW Syria, very close to Svedia and K‘esab, one may assume that the dialect of Muš has borrowed the word from the dialects of Syria, together with the product.

Šamšadin/Diliǰan xɛmk‘ ‘the wooden frame of a sieve’ (see Mežunc‘ 1989: 205b), for which cf. Van, Moks xim, xɛmk‘, J̌uɫa xemk‘, etc. from himn ‘basis’ (see HAB 3: 93-94); cf. especially Xnus-Bulanəx xɛmk‘ ‘the wooden frame of a sieve’ (Melik‘ean 1964: 499b). The initial x- is irregular for Šamšadin, Łazax and adjacent areas. One therefore might assume that the initial x- in Šamšadin/Diliǰan xɛmk‘ is due to the influence of famous wool-carders and felt-makers from Moks, Ozim, and other Van-group-speaking areas, who used to travel throughout Armenia, Caucasus, and even farther. Note especially a fairy-tale from Łazax the hero of which is from Van (HŽHek‘ 6, 1973: 318-329).

In the same fairy-tale (326L3) one finds aneɫ ‘wool-card’. In the dialects of Van, Moks, Loṙi, Muš, Širak, etc., *aneɫ ‘bow’ (from ClArm. aɫeɫn ‘bow; rainbow’, q.v.) is described as ‘a bow-like instrument used for combing and preparing wool and cotton (a card)’. One may wonder if, e.g. in Loṙi, Łazax, and Širak, this semantic shift too was motivated by the influence of the wool-carders and felt-makers from Van-group-speaking areas.

On interdialectal contacts in the valley of Ararat see Bagdasarjan‑Tapalcjan 1976.

1.6 Ašxarhac‘oyc‘ (Armenian Geography): agreement between historical and dialectal distributions

The 7th century Armenian Geography (Ašxarhacoyc) by Anania Širakac‘i mentions the following products of the province of Gugark‘: analut‘ ‘hind, deer’ (probably ‘fallow deer’), hačar caṙ or hačar‑a‑caṙ ‘beech‑tree’, serkewil or s(o)rovil ‘quince’, tawsax or tōsax ‘box‑tree’ [Soukry 1881: 34L‑1f; French transl. 46; MovsXorenMaten 1865: 610; A. G. Abrahamyan 1944: 350L31; Eremyan 1963: 110; Greppin 1983a: 15; Hewsen 1992: 65, 65A]. In the version of T‘ovmas Kilikec‘i (14th cent.): nalut‘, hačarik‘ caṙ ew srovel ew tōsax [Anasyan 1967: 282L-12].

The tree‑name hačar‑ ‘beech’ (Agat‘angeɫos+; see HAB s.v.; Greppin 1983a) has been preserved only in Hamšen, Loṙi, Łazax, Łarabaɫ [HAB 3: 16a]. The tree Fagus orientalis is native to Balkan Peninsula, Crimea, Caucasus, N. Iran [P. Friedrich 1970: 112‑115; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984: 623 = 1995: 535, with lit.; FlorTurk 7, 1982: 658; Mallory 1989: 115‑116, 160, 216; Friedrich and Mallory apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 58‑60]. It is common in N. Turkey and is scattered in W. and S. Anatolia [FlorTurk 7, 1982: 657‑658, 887: map 77]. It is one of the most typical trees of the Hamšen area (see espec. T‘oṙlak‘yan 1981: 25f, 31, etc.). Thus, Fagus orientalis is present only in the extreme NW, N and NE of the Armenian speaking territory and is absent from the rest of the Armenian highland. This is clearly seen especially in the maps: P. Friedrich 1970: 113M16; FlorTurk 7, 1982: 887M77; Mallory/Adams 1997: 59. The distribution thus perfectly corresponds to the dialectal spread (Hamšen, Loṙi, Łazax, Łarabaɫ) and the testimony of Ašxarhacoyc (Gugark‘).

The term tawsax ‘box‑tree’ (Bible+), another product of Gugark‘, refers to Buxus sempervirens which, except for Europe and NW Africa, is present in Transcaucasia, N. Iran, and in Turkey it is confined mainly to the Pontic coastal areas and in Cilicia [FlorTurk 7, 1982: 631, 886M74]. On Hamšen see T‘oṙlak‘yan 1981: 25, 28, 31. From FlorTurk 7, 1982: 631 we learn that in Rize “the species forms a moss forest above Hemşin”. Remarkably, the word tawsax has been preserved only in the dialect of Hamšen (dɔsxi, dɔsxəni, GSg dɔsxu, dɔsxɛc‘ə, see Ačaṙyan 1947: 12, 92‑93, 255), perhaps also in Svedia (Musa-leṙ), if t‘usug ‘box-tree’ (recorded in Gyozalyan 2001: 88 without a note on its origin) is related. The word tawsax is probably composed of *taws- (from *takhs-? cf. Hurr. tas̄kar- ‘id.’) + tree-suffix -ax (see 2.3.1). The Svedian form seems to contain a different suffix, viz. -uk, cf. hačar-uk ‘beech’. The accented -u- in the final syllable usually yields Svedia -ö- or -ü- or -u-, cf. cacuk > jäjög, t‘mbuk > t‘mbüg, čnčɫuk > ǰənǰəɫug (see Ačaṙyan 2003: 391-393). The initial aspirated dental may be due to a distant assimilation of the sibilant -s-. Thus, *taws-uk > Svedia t‘usug or *t‘usüg seems quite possible.

Most remarkable is analut‘, on which see s.v.

Arm. gaz(a)pēn ‘manna’ is scarcely attested in literature and has been preserved in the dialects of Muš, Alaškert, Ozim, Karin (Ērzrum), Axalc‘xa [HAB 1: 499b]. Since the district of Karin neighbours with Turuberan, and Axalc‘xa belongs to the dialect group of Karin, one can speak of the original dialectal restriction of this word.

The oldest attestations are found in Ašxarhacoyc by Anania Širakac‘i (from Širak) and in “History of Tarōn” by Zenob. In the former, gazpe/ēn is mentioned as a product of Turuberan (the province where the district of Tarōn is located), alongside with meɫr ‘honey’ [MovsXorenMaten 1865: 608L2; A. G. Abrahamyan 1944: 349L24]. In the long recension (Soukry 1881: 31L‑4), gazpe/ēn is missing. Instead one reads: meɫr anoyš k‘an zamenayn erkri : “the sweetest honey in the world” [Hewsen 1992: 63]. Also Sasun, a district south to Taron, abounds in manna, see K‘alant‘ar 1895: 30‑31; Petoyan 1965: 101‑104. According to Amirdovlat‘ Amasiac‘i (see S. Vardanjan 1990: 93, § 392), manna is abundant in Amid, that is, further south‑east to Sasun.

On manna, “History of Tarōn” (A. Abrahamyan 1941: 143‑144) informs: zor gazpēn (var. gazpan) koč‘emk‘ : “which we call gazpēn (in transl by V. Vardanyan 1989: 59: gazpa). Under “we” the population of Tarōn should be understood. These attestations point to a geographical restriction which basically agrees with the dialectal spread of the word.

Another example is arawš ‘a kind of bird identical with or resembling bustard’, only in the long recension of Ašxarhacoyc; probably identical with Xotorǰur *earoš ‘a kind of bird with very tasty flesh, which sings in whistling voice, big partridge’.

1.7 Further issues on Ašxarhac‘oyc‘

In both the long and the short recensions of Ašxarhacoyc, one finds zaṙik as a product of the province of Korčēk‘ = Korčayk‘ [Soukry 1881: 32L13; MovsXorenMaten 1865: 608L14; A. G. Abrahamyan 1944: 349L34].

The word zaṙik refers to ‘arsenic’ and has been borrowed from MIran. *zarnīk (> Arm. *zarrik > zaṙik), cf. Pers. zarnī(x), Arab. zarnīx/q etc. ‘arsenic’ [Hübschmann 1897: 149; HAB 2: 81]. However, Eremyan (1963: 93‑94) mentions other semantic nuances and points out that the establishing of the specific meaning of zaṙik, within the context of Ašxarhacoyc, needs additional evidence. See also Hewsen 1992: 176127 (brief note). On the map of Ašxarhacoyc apud Eremyan 1963, zaṙik is conjecturally indicated in the district of Čahuk, which can be shown to be correct by a curious accident.

A more recent borrowing from Pers. or Arab. zarnīx is MidArm. zaṙne/x, zṙnex (MiǰHayBaṙ 1, 1987: 209a221a; also Hübschmann 1897: 149: ModArm. zṙnex). Present in the dialects of Moks, Van, Akn, T‘iflis, etc. [HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 422b].

That zaṙik and zaṙnix refer to ‘arsenic’ is clearly shown by Amirdovlat‘ Amasiac‘i (15th cent.), who treats these forms as equivalent to Pers. zṙnex and Arm. mkn‑deɫ, literally ‘mouse‑poison’, and describes the varieties and the medical use of the arsenic (see S. Vardanjan 1990: 119 § 525, comments 606525). He also notes that arsenic is used to get rid of armpit hair (ibid.). Compare Moks zəṙnɛx described as follows: “yellow earth used for removing one’s body‑hair” [HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 422b; Orbeli 2002: 222].

One can even specify the precise location of the mines of zaṙik mentioned in Ašxarhacoyc. According to Srvanjtyanc‘ (1, 1978 [< 1884]: 402), there are mines of zəṙnex in the vilayet of Van, districts of Norduz and J̌ulamerg, and one finds select coal in the vicinity of the village of Šamanis. Since Norduz and J̌ulamerg are situated in the territory of the province of Korčayk‘, more precisely in the district of Čahuk (see e.g. the map in Cuinet 2, 1891: 522/523), one can match the evidence from Ašxarhacoyc (7th century) with that of Garegin Srvanjtyanc‘ (1884 AD) identifying mines of arsenic in the district of Čahuk.

According to Strabo (16.1.24), Korduk‘ (in Korčayk‘) produced γαγγῆτις λίϑος ‘lignite’, i.e. ‘a variety of brown coal’, which keeps serpents away (see Ačaṙyan 1940a: 90, ModArm. transl. 91). This is obviously identical with the evidence presented by G. Srvanjtyanc‘ on coal in this area.

1.8 Anania Širakac‘i[2]

Parallel to Karič, the standard term for the constellation Scorpio, Anania Širakac‘i (see A. G. Abrahamyan 1944: 329L10, 330L12) sometimes uses the vernacular form Kor (see s.vv.). The word karič is widely attested from the 5th century onwards in both meanings ‘scorpion’ and ‘the constellation Scorpio’, and is widespread in the dialects ranging from Sebastia, Muš and Karin to Agulis, Salmast and Łarabaɫ, and from Axalc‘xa and T‘iflis to Moks and Ozim. In contrast, kor is attested only in Širakac‘i (7th cent., Širak) and some later, MidArm. sources (a riddle by Nersēs Šnorhali [12th cent., Cilicia], Fables by Vardan Aygekc‘i [12‑13th cent., Tluk‘, Cilicia], Geoponica [13th cent.], Amirdovlat‘ Amasiac‘i [15th cent., Amasia]) and has been preserved in some W and SW dialects (Cilicia, Xarberd, Akn, Arabkir [kə‑class]), as well as in two Southeasternmost villages of Maraɫa and Salmast (assuming that Sal., absent from the list of abbreviations, stands for Salmast) [l‑class]. One may assume that kor was a dialectally restricted form, present also in the vernacular of Anania Širakac‘i.

The unexplained asterism Arkawɫ is attested only in Anania Širakac‘i (A. G. Abrahamyan 1944: 331L3). It probably derives from ark‑an‑em ‘to throw (a missile etc.)’ and may thus be regarded as a vernacular term for Orion, Orion’s belt, or Sagittarius, although Širakac‘i normally uses the standard terms Kšiṙ and Aɫeɫnawor (see 3.1.4). In this case, however, dialectal evidence is missing.

1.9 Nersēs Šnorhali (12th cent., Cilicia)

The riddle Nr 112 by Nersēs Šnorhali [Mnac‘akanyan 1980: 261] reads:

     I hiwsisoy gay jiawor,

     Hanc‘ sur ert‘ay zinč‘ t‘ewawor,

     Zp‘ičik‘s aṙnē kotor‑kotor,

     Xayt‘ē zmardoyn ač‘k‘n zed kor.

     There comes from the North [an] equestrian,

     Rides as a sword, as if having wings,

     Breakes pine‑trees into pieces,

     Bites the eye of the man like a scorpion.

The answer is parxar ‘a Northern cold wind’, which otherwise is attested only in Geoponica (13th cent.), pa(r)xrc‘i, and derives from Parxar, the mountain range also called Pontic, in areas close to Xotorǰur [HAB 4: 62b]. Preserved in Xotorǰur, Baberd barxar, Zeyt‘un baxər/yc‘a ‘a Northern cold wind’ [HAB 4: 63a].

p‘iči ‘pine‑tree’ (John Chrysostom, Fables of Mxit‘ar Goš, Geoponica, etc.); present in Xotorǰur [YušamXotorǰ 1964: 518b], Hačən, Svedia [HAB 4: 503‑504].

kor ‘scorpion’ is further attested only in Anania Širakac‘i (7th cent., Širak) and some later, MidArm. sources: in Fables by Vardan Aygekc‘i (12‑13th cent., Tluk‘, Cilicia), Geoponica (13th cent.), Amirdovlat‘ Amasiac‘i (15th cent., Amasia); it is preserved in some W and SW dialects (Cilicia, Xarberd, Akn, Arabkir), as well as in extreme SE (Maraɫa, Salmast).

Thus, three words in the same riddle by Nersēs Šnorhali (Cilicia), namely kor, parxar, p‘iči, seem to be restricted mostly to the NW and SW dialects of the kə‑class, particularly in the Cilicia, Pontic and adjacent areas.

1.10 Back loans

For the notion and examples of back loans or Rückentlehnungen see e.g. Krahe 1970: 92. Here I list a few examples from Armenian. That this issue is relevant for etymological research is clearly illustrated by Arm. p‘aycaɫn ‘spleen’ > Cappadocian Greek πεϊσάχι ‘id.’ > Xotorǰur sipɛx ‘id.’ (see s.v.); this helps to eliminate the theory on the extremely archaic nature of this Armenian dialectal form.

MPers. *bāzūk ‘arm’ (cf. Pers. bāzū) > Arm. bazuk ‘1. arm; 2. beet’ > Pers. pāzū ‘beet’ (see HAB 1: 377; G. Asatryan 1990: 143).

Arm. gerandi ‘scythe’ (q.v.): Łarabaɫ kyärä́ndi (vs. regular kɛrándu) and Kṙzen k‘yäränt‘i can be explained as back loans from Azerbaijani. Similarly, Hamšen k‘ɛrɛndi may have been borrowed from Laz kherendi, which in turn is considered to be an Armenian loan.

As is demonstrated by Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 204a), Van, Muš, Alaškert, Bulanəx *čiwɫ ‘flock of sheep’ derives from čiwɫ ‘branch’ and čeɫ‑ ‘to divide’, and Kurd. čɛɔl ‘(sheep‑)flock’ is borrowed from Armenian (see 3.9.1). Sasun *čɔl ‘flock of sheep’ recorded by Ačaṙyan (1913: 739b) without any etymology or internal connections, may have been borrowed from Kurdish. Thus: Arm. čiwɫ ‘branch, division; flock’ > Kurd. čɛɔl ‘(sheep‑)flock’ > Arm. dial. (Sasun) *čɔl ‘flock of sheep’.

Next to partēz ‘garden; kitchen‑garden’ (Bible+; dialects), there is pahēz ‘kitchen‑garden’ (Paterica+; SE dialects) for which I tentatively propose the following scenario: Iran. *pardēz > Arm. partēz (at an early stage) > NWIran. *pa(r)hēz (with the regular development *rt > NWIran. > (r)h) > Arm. pahēz. We might be dealing here, thus, with a “double back loan” (or a re‑re‑borrowing).

A number of cases with Turkish or Tatar:

Nor Naxiǰewan rural ɛgɛrɛk‘ ‘the summer staying place of bullocks in fields’ is a back loan from Crimean Tatar *egerek (cf. Turk. ekrek in numerous place-names of Asia Minor) < Arm. agarak.‘landed property, estate, a house with all possessions, village’ (q.v.).

Meɫri gärmäší vs. germast ‘snowball-tree, guelder rose’ (Aɫayan 1954: 265b) can be explained by a Turkish intermediation (see HAB 1: 546 for the forms).

Arm. dial. di/alama, deleme ‘ferment for cheese’ is interpreted as a loan from a Turkish dialectal form, which in turn has been borrowed from Arm. da(y)l ‘colostrum’ (q.v.).

1.11 Re-borrowings in dialects

Iranian lexemes borrowed into Classical Armenian may, in individual dialects, be independently re-borrowed in different forms. Two well-known examples: dial. bazar ‘market’ vs. ClArm. vačaṙ ‘trade, market’, cf. Pahl. wāčār vs. Pers. bāzār [HAB 4: 298-299; J̌ahukyan 1987: 491; HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 145a]; Arm. dial. bet‘ar ‘worse, ugly’ vs. ClArm. vatt‘ar ‘bad, worse, evil’ (Bible+; T‘iflis dial.), cf. Pahl. wattar ‘worse, bad, evil’, NPers. bat(t)ar ‘id.’ [HAB 4: 312a].

Arm. erang ‘colour, dye’ (Bible+) is a MIran. loan, cf. MPers. rang ‘colour, dye’. The form has not been preserved in Armenian dialects [HAB 2: 39a]. Instead, one finds dial. *ṙang as a recent borrowing from Pers. rang, cf. e.g. Ararat ṙang [Nawasardeanc‘ 1903: 103b] or (h)əṙang [Markosyan 1989: 370b] and Goris əṙäng [Margaryan 1975: 513a].

Alongside rang, Persian also has ranǰ ‘colour’ (see Steingass 587b), which seems to be reflected in some Arm. dialectal compounds. Whether Ozim narɛnǰ ‘dyed thread’ belongs with narinǰ ‘orange’ is uncertain (see HAB 3: 431b). In my view, the word is more probably composed of *nar- ‘to dye’ + *ranǰ ‘colour’ (see 2.3.1 under the suffix -awt, on narawt ‘coloured thread or plait/braid’). Further, Ararat mknaṙinǰ ‘mouse-coloured (e.g., of a horse or cat)’ [Amatuni 1912: 483a] can be interpreted as mukn ‘mouse’ + conjunction -a- + *ṙinǰ ‘colour’.

More interesting are cases where the old and recent borrowings display not only formal, but also semantic contrast; see 2.1.38 on darman ‘medicine, remedy’ etc.

1.12 Internal etymology

In many respects, the examination of the dialectal material plays an indispensible role in etymological research. Apart from well‑known cases, where some peripheral dialects preserve a phoneme, morpheme or other features, which are otherwise lost in ClArm. and in the majority of dialects (see e.g. s.vv. kat‘n, kaɫin, c‘ax/k‘, us, etc.), one has to reckon with the dialectal material when dealing primordially with internal etymology. The latter is the starting point of any etymological research, since there can be no external comparison before reaching a clear picture of the internal evidence. Very frequently, literary attestations are too scarce, and dialects provide us with valuable information bridging the gaps in the literary evidence. Here are some examples.

1.12.1 A considerable number of plant-names point to the Mediterranean substratum, and some of them also have possibly related forms in Semitic languages. In some cases, it is very difficult to determine whether the Armenian term originates from the Mediterranean substratum or is a Semitic loan. The analysis becomes even more complex when the Armenian term displays by-forms with phonological and/or word-formative irregularities, which renders the reconciliation between internal and external data practically impossible. Let us take a look, for example, at the word for ‘snowball-tree etc.’.

bṙinč‘ (the fruit), bṙnč‘-(en)i (the tree); dial. *bṙo/ōš-, *bɫinč‘/ǰ-, etc. ‘Celtis australis or occidentalis’ (see Ališan 1895: 101Nr387; HAB 1: 490b) or ‘snowball-tree, guelder rose (Viburnum opulus)’. According to Malxaseanc‘ (HBB 1: 397b), bṙnč‘-i means ‘Viburnum opulus’, whereas the alternating dialectal forms pršni and p‘ṙšni are taken as synonymous with ltt-eni and denote ‘Celtis australis’ or, according to Sepetčean, ‘Celtis caucasica’ (Malxaseanc HBB 2: 221c; 4: 129a, 528b). Abeɫyan (Abeghian 1899: 61) distinguishes between bṙnč‘-i ‘Viburnum opulus’ and bṙi ‘Celtis australis’ (the latter form is unknown to me).

Attested in Galen (bṙinč‘, bɫinč‘, etc., see Ališan 1895: 101Nr387; Greppin 1985: 139) and J̌uanšēr [HAB 1: 490b]. NHB (2: 1061b) considers it as a dialectal word.

Preserved in the dialects of Akn, Arabkir, Xarberd, etc. *bṙinč‘, *bṙnč‘-i. Muš, Baɫeš, Bulanəx have *b‘ɫinč‘ [HAB 1: 490b]. Šatax pəɫišk ‘a wild plant’, which is found in the glossary of purely dialectal words of the dialect description [M. Muradyan 1962: 215b], apparently belongs here, too. That Šatax pəɫišk reflects *bɫinč‘-k is corroborated by Moks pəɫinč‘k, gen. pəɫənč‘kəɛ, pl. pəɫənč‘kətir ‘[кустарный] плод, мелкий, круглый, желтый и с косточкой, мяса мало, терпкий, поспевает осенью’ (see Orbeli 2002: 313).

Ališan (1895: 631Nr3069, 635Nr3103) records Sasun, Muš p‘ɫinǰk‘, p‘ɫnǰ‘k‘-i vs. Northern p‘ṙšni, describing the word as denoting ‘a shrub with hard wood and sweet fruit of the size of a small acorn’ and identifying it, albeit hesitantly, with bṙinč‘. Note Sasun pɫinč‘, pṙinč‘, pɫinǰk‘ [Petoyan 1954: 153; 1965: 517-518].

Agulis bṙášnə, pṙášnə Łarabaɫ pṙɛ́šnə (the berry), pṙšnɛ́nɛ (the tree), Łazax p‘ṙɔš, Łaradaɫ bṙošni [HAB 1: 490b].

Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 490b) notes the resemblance with Assyr. burāšu, Hebr. berōš, Aram. brūtā. He, however, leaves the etymology open, since the Semitic words mean ‘cypress’. N. Mkrtč‘yan (1983: 26) advocates the connection, stating that the correct meaning of Akkad. burāšu is ‘Juniperus giganteus’, which is identical with the meaning of Arm. *bṙoš-ni, *bṙaš-nə. He also notes that the Armenian form bṙinč‘ may have a different origin, which seems improbable.

The semantic difference is not a decisive argument against the connection. The snowball-tree, the juniper and the like are strongly marked in Armenian tradition. Arm. bṙnč‘i is a powerful ‘Abwehrmittel’ against the Evil Eye [Abeghian 1899: 61]. Note also the curse formula from Axalc‘xa: bṙnč‘i terew utɛ “may he eat the leaf of the snowball-tree” (see Ačaṙean 1913: 207b). In a number of traditional stories, the juniper protects Jesus Christ, or is related to certain saints (Łanalanyan 1969: 115f).

The tree-names under question come from Mediterranean and Near-Eastern areas: Gr. βράϑυ n. ‘savin, Juniperus sabina; Juniperus foetidissima’ (also βόρατον n., βορατίνη), Lat. bratus (Pliny) ‘an Anatolian cypress’; Aram. berāt, Hebr. berōš, Assyr. burāšu ‘cypress’ < Proto-Semitic *brāϑu (see Huld 1981: 303). Georgian brinǰaos-xe ‘Celtis australis or caucasica’ is considered an Armenian loan [HAB 1: 491a].

Some of the Armenian dialectal forms from Łazax and Łaradaɫ point to *bṙoš or *bṙōš, which is derivable from Semitic, cf. Assyr. burāšu and Hebr. berōš. Considering forms in the closely related Łazax and Łaradaɫ, Łarabaɫ pṙɛ́šnə, too, seems to reflect *bṙoš. Given the allophones with initial b- and p-, Agulis b/pṙášnə is considered to be a loan from Łarabaɫ [Ačaṙyan 1935: 93]. Since the accented penultimate -ó- yields -a- in Agulis (see Ačaṙyan 1935: 66-67), one may reconstruct *bṙoš- for Agulis.

Some comments on Łarabaɫ vocalism are in order. In view of such examples, as boxi ‘hornbeam’ > pɛ́xi, the derivation *bṙoš- > Łarabaɫ pṙɛ́šnə seems regular. A closer look, however, shows that Łarabaɫ -ɛ- reflects an older -o- only when it follows an initial b- or v- (see 2.1.39.1). Here, two possibilities come to mind: either (1) the rule also operated with *bṙo-; or (2) Łarabaɫ pṙɛ́šnə reflects a form different from the one seen in Łazax, Łaradaɫ and Agulis and, therefore, requires another solution. Since accented i yields Łarabaɫ ɛ (see Ačaṙean 1899: 68; Davt‘yan 1966: 35), one may derive Łarabaɫ pṙɛ́šnə from *bṙinč‘-n-, cf. 2.1.11. The same solution is given by Aɫayan (1954: 39, 84) for Meɫri bəṙɛ́šnə.

How to reconcile *bṙoš- with the other forms, namely *bṙinč‘ and *bɫinč‘/ǰ? The latter forms may be due to an epenthetic -n- (see 2.1.30.1) or to a metathesis of the nasal element of the tree-suffix: *-Vš-n- > *-Vnš-> *-Vnč‘. The vowel -i- may be analogical; thus: *bṙ(ō/u)š-ni > *bṙnč‘i (the tree) >> *bṙinč‘ (the berry). The shift ‑nš- > -nč‘- is uncertain, however. Note that next to forms with sibilant -š-, there are also forms with dental stops, cf. Gr. βόρατον, Aram. brūtā, etc., so the Armenian may reflect a substratum form with an affricate. One can also offer alternatives for -inč‘/ǰ : (1) *-in-ieh2- > Arm. -inǰ, cf. Gr. βορατ-ίνη vs. βόρατον; (2) compare other Armenian plant-names (Persian/Arabic loans), such as t‘urinǰ, narinǰ ‘orange’ (see HAB s.vv.).

Arm. *bṙ-o/ōš vs. bṙi (Abeɫyan) and *bṙ/ɫinč‘- may have been synchronically interpreted as containing a “plant-suffix” -o/ōš, as seen in t‘eɫ-awš vs. t‘eɫ-i ‘elm’ (q.v.); see also 2.3.1.

1.12.2 brut, i‑stem: GDSg brt‑i, GDPl brt‑i‑c‘ (Bible); a‑stem: GDPl brt‑a‑c‘ (Yovhannēs Erznkac‘i Corcorec‘i, 13‑14th cent.) ‘potter’; widespread in the dialects [HAB 1: 493b]; e.g. Moks pərut ‘гончар’ [Orbeli 2002: 315].

J̌ahukyan (1987: 313) considers brut as possibly borrowed from Hitt. purut‑ ‘clay’. We are probably dealing with an older (derivative?) *purut‑i (cf. J̌ahukyan, op. cit. 316). The semantics seems to be corroborated by dial. *brt‑in ‘a kind of red clay’ (< brut, according to HAB ibid.), mentioned by J̌ahukyan. A philological discussion is in order. Rather than arguing against the Hittite etymology of the word, the following aims to demonstrate that the philological background and the internal data deserve more careful consideration.

The meaning ‘clay’ of dial. *brt‑in can hardly directly reflect the Hittite semantics, since ‑in points rather to a derivative. Besides, Ačaṙyan (1913: 212b) does not specify the form or location of the dialectal word. Such a form is found, for example, in Šatax: pəṙt‑ɛn ‘treated clay to make pottery with’ (see M. Muradyan 1962: 77, 215b). One might rather derive this word from the verb represented, for example, by Moks pəṙtil ‘мять, смазывать, мешать’ = ‘to batter, plunge, anoint, mix’ (see Orbeli 2002: 314). Note especially Moks pəṙtun xoɫ ‘горшечная глина = potter’s clay’, lit. ‘earth’ (see Orbeli ibid.).

Thus, dial. *brt‑in cannot be used as evidence for a possible basic meaning ‘clay’ of brut. For this purpose, one might mention a better example, namely the derivative brt‑eay ‘made of clay’ (attested in Zenob).

1.12.3 Next to ktrem ‘to cut’, ktur‑k‘, etc., one finds *ktir as the second member of the poorly attested compound hat‑u‑ktir (also hat‑u‑kčir) (see HAB 2: 642a). No dialectal forms specifically belonging to *ktir are recorded by Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 642‑643), although the dialectal descendants of the forms k(o)tor and ktrem are abundant. One would like to find more internal evidence for *ktir, too, since it would be helpful in establishing the status of the poorly attested and ambiguous hat‑u‑kt/čir.

Among the forms mentioned by Ačaṙyan s.v. kotor (HAB 2: 643a), Maraɫa kutir presents a special interest; see also Davt‘yan 1966: 400.

In the dialects of Van, Sasun and Šatax, there is a similar form, namely kətir, meaning ‘flock of sheep’ (see Ačaṙean 1913: 619a; M. Muradyan 1962: 212b). According to A. Xač‘atryan (1993: 107), the word is connected with ktr‑em ‘to cut’. This is corroborated by semantic parallels presented in 3.9.1. Here, I suggest to add ktir‑k‘ ‘dowry’ (John Chrysostom); for the semantic development, cf. bažin‑k‘ ‘dowry’ from bažin ‘share, cut’ (see 3.8.2).

1.12.4 xučič ‘scarecrow’ is attested in Evagrius of Pontus. In “Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘” (Amalyan 1975: 113Nr95, cf. 145Nr224), xočič is glossed alongside xrtuilak ‘scarecrow’ and *bo‑xoxič (q.v.). The root seems to be xuč ‘scarecrow, bogy’ (pl. xuč‑k‘), found in John Chrysostom. Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 418a) rejects the relation of these words with xučap ‘panic fear’ (Philo etc.): xučap‑k‘ ‘bogy, ghost’ (Bible) on the strength of the dialectal forms: Sebastia xɔxɔǰ ‘bogy’, Erznka ets. *xox ‘etc.’. He (Ačaṙean 1913: 481a) compares the latter with Pers. kux.

A more careful internal examination shows that Ačaṙyan’s analysis must be revised. First of all, xuč‑k‘, as attested in John Chrysostom, shows that the root may be *xuč rather than *xox. Sebastia xɔxɔǰ can easily be regarded as reduplicated. Secondly, a root *xox cannot explain xo/učič, which rather comprises *xuč‑ and the suffix ‑ič. Finally, the root *xuč‑ is corroborated by dialectal forms. The same dialect of Erznka also has xuǰ‑ur‑ik ‘scarecrow used in a drought‑ritual by children’ (see Kostandyan 1979: 152b, in the glossary of dialectal words). Further: Vaɫaršapat/Ēǰmiacin xunč‘‑ak ‘scarecrow’ (Amatuni 1912: 292a), P‘arpi xonǰ-ol-oz ‘an evil spirit’ (P‘iliposyan 2005, 2: 84), Nor Bayazet xuč‘‑kurur‑ik ‘doll of the drought‑ritual’ (Ačaṙean 1913: 489‑490).

The element ‑ap is not entirely clear. Nevertheless, compare tagnap, which is synonymous with xučap (see Łap‘anc‘yan 1961: 164).

Thus: *xuč‑: xo/uč‑ič, with the suffix ‑ič, and redupl. *xu‑xuč. The latter has been re‑analysed as derived from *xo/ux. Note also secondary forms based on this *xo/ux and containing the element ‑l‑ and/or the same suffix ‑ič, cf. *xox‑ič (see s.v. *bo‑xoxič ‘scarecrow’). Sebastia *xuxuč may either be due to vocalic assimilation or reflect another type of reduplication. Note also xax‑al‑ič (see Lisic‘yan 1969: 27042), Partizak *xuxu‑l‑ič, etc. Typologically, compare *bo‑ : *bo‑bol : *bolo‑č ‘insect, bogy, etc.’ (q.v.).

1.12.5 čkoyt‘, a‑stem, čkoyt‘n, an‑stem (John Chrysostom etc.); ckoyt‘, o‑stem (Bible+); ckik (Aṙak‘el Dawrižec‘i, 17th cent.) ‘the little finger’.

Widespread in the dialects. All the kə‑class dialects, including those located in extreme peripheries, such as Transylvania, T‘iflis, Cilicia, as well as Van and Salmast, have the form čkoyt‘. In contrast to this, the forms of the dialects of the extreme South-East and East are characterized by the initial hissing affricate c‑ and the absence of ‑oyt‘. Thus: Łarabaɫ ckɛ́ynə, kcɛ́ynə, J̌uɫa ck‑ik (next to rural čfkit‘, for which I posit čkoyt‘ = /čkuit‘/ > *čkwit‘ > *čkwit‘, through metathesis), Šamaxi ckla mat, Agulis claygy büt‘, Ganjak ccink‘, etc.; cf. also Aza, Maraɫa *čltik [HAB 3: 205a]. In K‘esab, one finds an intermediate form, namely čəkɛk (see Č‘olak‘ean 1986: 206a).

Aṙak‘el Davrižec‘i lived very close to Nor J̌uɫa and witnessed the well‑known migration of J̌uɫa. The form ckik, used only by him, can be seen, in fact, as a first-hand record of the dialectal form from J̌uɫa in the 17th century.

Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 204‑205) reconstructs a proto‑form *c(u)lkoyt‘ and treats it as borrowed from Kartvelian languages; cf. Laz cúlu khíthi (lit.) ‘little finger’. Internal derivation, however, points to a *čk‑/ck‑, which has adopted the suffix ‑oyt‘ (see s.vv. boyt‘, bl‑it‘, and 2.3.1) in the literary language and in kə‑dialects, but not in SE and E dialects. Ačaṙyan’s etymology can be correct only if one assumes that ckoyt‘ has been reduced to *ck‑ in those dialects and, subsequently, has adopted other suffixes, such as ‑ik etc.

1.12.6 When examining the origin of homonymous words, one must naturally start with scrutinizing the possible internal relations among them. An illustrious example is unǰ, with its three homonymous forms:

unǰ1, o‑stem: GDSg ənǰ‑o‑y in Gregory of Nyssa ‘bottom, depth (of a sea etc.); root; the underground, Underworld’ (P‘awstos Buzand, Hexaemeron, Philo, etc.);

unǰ2 prob. ‘treasure, treasury, granary, barn’ (P‘awstos Buzand 5.6); cf. Georg. unǰi ‘treasure’;

unǰ3 ‘soot (in stoves; resulted by smoke); rust’, attested in “History of the nation of the Archers (i.e. the Mongols)” and Oskip‘orik, preserved mainly in Eastern peripheral dialects; cf. also Moks . See s.vv.

The first two are most likely connected, implying a semantic development ‘*bottom, depth, the underground’ > ‘buried/underground treasure or granary’. In order to establish the semantics, we must take another set of words into consideration:

ganj, u‑stem, i‑stem ‘store, treasure’ (Bible+; several dialects), probably an Iranian loan: Pahl. ganǰ ‘treasure, treasury’ [MacKenzie 1971: 35], Pers. ganǰ ‘store, hoard, hidden treasure; granary, store‑house, mart; case’ [Steingass 1098a], MIran. ganj ‘treasury’; also Iranian loans: Skt. gañja‑ ‘treasury, jewel room; a mine; a cowhouse or station of cowherds; a mart, place where grain etc. is stored for sale; tavern’ [Monier-Williams 1899/1999: 342c], Gr. γάζα f. ‘(royal) treasury’, Aram. gnz’, etc., see Hübschmann 1897: 126; HAB 1: 516-517; Nyberg 1974: 81a; Olsen 1999: 872. In view of the final ‑j instead of ‑ǰ, Arm. ganj (cf. also Georgian ganji ‘buried treasure’) is considered to be a Median loan (see J̌ahukyan 1987: 505‑506, 554, 558, with ref.). For an alternative solution, see below.

Some of the forms above refer to a ‘hidden or buried treasure’. This enables us to introduce other words. Arm. ganjak ‘bowels, entrails, interior’ (Eusebius of Caesarea, Alexander Romance, Anania Širakac‘i, GDSg ganjak‑i, A. G. Abrahamyan 1944: 329L14f, etc.), ‘wallet, case’ (Yovhannēs Vanakan Vardapet Tawušec‘i, 12‑13th cent.). Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 517b) takes the meaning ‘wallet, case’ as original and derives the word from Pers. ganǰa/e ‘wallet’, assuming that the latter has lost the secondary meaning ‘entrails, interior’. See also J̌ahukyan 1987: 520, with a question mark. This interpretation is not convincing. I think ganjak belongs with our ganj ‘store, treasure’, and the basic meaning is ‘buried/hidden treasure’.

Further, note the place‑name Ganjak, as well as the compound place‑names Ganj‑a‑sar and Ganj‑a‑p‘arax, with sar ‘summit of a mountain’, dial. ‘mountain’, and p‘arax ‘sheep‑fold’, respectively. The first component *ganj‑ is considered to be unknown by Hübschmann (1904: 417). I propose to interpret it as meaning ‘ravine, valley, district’ (cf. the place-name Koɫb, see s.v., for the semantic field) and connect it to Arm. *ganj‑ ‘bowels, interior; buried treasure’.

Summarizing the evidence, we can posit *ganj‑ ‘*bottom, depth, the underground; *the interior of earth or belly’ > (1) ‘buried/underground treasure’; (2) ‘bowels, entrails’; (3) ‘ravine’ or the like.

Given the formal similarity and semantic identity, one can etymologically identify Arm. ganj (together with related Iranian and other forms) with Arm. unǰ. The proto‑form may be reconstructed with an initial *w‑, which yields Arm. g‑ when followed by a vowel, and Iran. g‑ when followed by a short a. Arm. *gan‑ : *un‑ points to ablaut *wan‑ : zero‑grade *un‑. In view of the parallel i‑ and u‑stems of Arm. ganj, as well as the fact that the ablaut alternants differ also with respect to the following affricate (ganj vs. unǰ), one can tentatively reconstruct the following old paradigm: nom. *wánj‑ōi‑ > Arm. *ganj‑u(i), with a hissing affricate; gen. *unj‑i̯o‑ > unǰ, with a hushing affricate. If this is true, the paradigm is identical to the one inherited from PIE HD i‑stems, seen in giwɫ ‘village’ (q.v.), arew ‘sun’, etc. (see also 2.2.2.4). For the sound development *ji̯ > ǰ, see 2.1.22.2. Naturally, this is highly hypothetical.

The ultimate origin of the Armenian and other forms is unclear. Given the formal variety and the large semantic field of the Armenian forms, one cannot rule out the possibility that the source of the forms in other languages (or at least of some of them) was Armenian.[3]

If unǰ3 ‘soot; rust’ (cf. also dial. *banǰ ‘id.’) is related to the others, one may assume a semantic development ‘bottom, depth’ > ‘sediment/Bodensatz’ > ‘soot; rust’. In this case, Moks should be interpreted as having lost the nasal, although, more naturally, unǰ could be regarded as an epenthetic form of an original *. For more detail, see s.v. unǰ3.



[1] Ačaṙyan (1952: 72, 104, 290; HAB 4: 164a) placed these forms s.v. saɫamandr ‘salamander’.

[2] On this author, see 1.6 and 1.7.

[3] The connection of Arm. ganjak with Skt. vakṣáṇā ‘Bauch, Höhlung, Eingeweide’, proposed by Petersson (1916: 247‑248), is uncertain (cf. Mayrhofer EWAia 2: 487), but perhaps not impossible. One may hypothetically derive Skt. vakṣáṇā from substr. *u̯(a)nĝh‑s‑ and connect it to PArm. *uánj‑(ō)i, obl. *unǰ‑, which has developed into Arm. ganj, u‑ and i‑stem ‘store, treasury, buried treasure; belly, entrails, interior’, and unǰ ‘bottom, depth; buried treasure, store, barn’, respectively. Since the ‑ak of Arm. ganjak points to an Iranian loan, this word can be seen as a back-loan into Armenian.

SEMANTICS, CULTURE AND ETYMOLOGY

This section comprises sketches on several semantic fields, which can illustrate the relevance of anthropological and mythological evidence for philological and etymological studies. At the end of this section I present an overview of the Mediterranean-Pontic substratum lexicon, which mainly comprises animal and plant names, as well as cultural words.

An interesting case demonstrating an agreement between philological analysis, dialectal spread and zoological data is represented by analut‘ ‘a kind of deer’ (see s.v. and 1.6).

3.1 Astral/Celestial world

3.1.1 Starry sky

There is a certain association of ‘Pleiades’ and ‘starry sky’ with the idea of ‘sieve’ (possibly also: ‘sieve with a thousand holes/eyes), see Puhvel 1991. This is reminiscent of Axalk‘alak‘ *astucoy maɫə ‘sky’, literally: “the sieve of God”; used in an expression that means “who can escape from under the God’s sieve (i.e. from the Last Judgement)?” [Ačaṙean 1913: 141b].

This equation is also found in a widespread type of Armenian riddles where the starry sky is portrayed as a sieve (see S. Harut‘yunyan 1965: 8‑11). Compare ‘a thousand eyes’ in variants from Loṙi (10aNr70) and Axalc‘xa (11bNr79), in the latter referring to the Milky Way.[1] A Partizak riddle on astɫner ‘stars’ reads [Tēr-Yakobean 1960: 389L1]: Mer tan vray maɫ mə hawkit‘ : “A sieve of eggs above our house”. In a riddle from Moks (Karčkana Nanəkanc‘) told by Armaɫan Martirosyan [Haykuni 1906: 350L10], astɫer ‘stars’ is represented as a sieve of č‘ort‘an (a milk product).

The folk astronomy in all the countries of the Northern hemisphere distinguishes first of all (the ladle of) Ursa Major, Orion or its belt, and Ursa Minor [Karpenko 1981: 45]. Of the Armenian designations of these astral terms, the following are of considerable importance:

Sayl (rendering Gr. Ἀρκτοῦρος ‘the star Arcturus, Bearward’ in Job 9.9) vs. Gr. σατίνη f. ‘chariot’, σάτιλλα· πλειὰς τὸ ἄστρον (Hesychius), the constellation being regarded as a car [considered to be of Phrygian (Lidén 1905; 1933: 454; HAB 4: 169b; Scherer 1953: 145) or Thracian (Schmitt 1966) origin]. For various designations for Ursa Major based on ‘wagon, chariot’ in IE and non‑IE languages, see Scherer 1953: 139‑141; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 686, 6862 (with ref.).

Hayk ‘Orion’ (see Ališan 1910: 130ff; B. Aṙak‘elyan 1941), dial. Xɛk‘ (on which, see below, on Pleiades); cf. also Van xek‘er ‘starry sky’ [HayLezBrbBaṙ 2, 2002: 317b]. See s.v. alaw(s)unk‘.

3.1.2 Pleiades

The dialectal designation for the constellation of Orion xek‘, xek‘er, as well as the combined Xek‘‑bazük‘ ‘Orion/Hayk and Pleiades’ are mentioned s.v. alaw(s)unk‘ ‘Pleiades’ within the context of the close association of these two astronyms. On xek‘, xek‘er, see HAB 3: 373; Łanalanyan 1969: 10Nr8. In fact, in the traditional story cited by Łanalanyan, xek‘er (a formation with double plural markers, namely ‑k‘ and ‑er) ‘Orion’ seems to denote ‘Pleiades’, the well‑known asterism in the constellation of Taurus. According to the story, the three sons and the three daughters (the total number of them thus being six) of Hayk (= Orion) transformed into those stars. This can be compared to the famous Greek version, in which the seven sisters pursued by Orion, metamorphosed to doves‑Pleiades.

Van Xɛyk‘ is also attested in a late medieval folk-song (Šērenc‘, VanSaz 1, 1885: 52; see also Abeɫyan 1940: 14). In a footnote, Šērenc‘ (ibid.) describes Xɛyk‘ as follows: “A group of stars that is seen from in the East much before dawn”.

As is well known, one of the seven stars of Pleiades is barely visible, so in many cultures their canonic number is six, unlike the Greek tradition which has seven Pleiades; see Puhvel 1991: 1244. Note the fluctuation in the Indian tradition, in which the six stars of the Pleiades are said to be the unfaithful wives of the seven sages (the stars of the Ursa Major); only the seventh was faithful (see Parpola 1985: 121). A typological parallel can be found, for example, in Tuareg tradition, where “die Plejaden sind die sieben Töchter der Nacht, von denen die siebente ein einäugiger Knabe ist” [Höltker 1928: 292].

Arm. bazum ‘many’ seems to be a loan from an unattested MIran. form cognate with OAv. bəzuuaitē ‘dense’, Khot. balysga- ‘wide, large’ < *bazulaká-, Skt. bahú- ‘many, much, frequent, abounding in’ (see Hübschmann 1897: 426-427; HAB 1: 378; Bailey 1979: 270; J̌ahukyan 1987: 518; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 221; Olsen 1999: 870). It is found in a few formations meaning ‘Pleiades’ in Classical and Middle Armenian, as well as in dialects [NHB 1: 415c; HAB 1: 379a; MiǰHayBaṙ 1, 1987: 108b; Amatuni 1912: 80b]. Cf. also Moks päzünk‘y [Ačaṙyan 1952: 249], Šatax päzunk‘y [M. Muradyan 1962: 193a], Svedia päzänk‘ (u > is here regular before NK; the meaning here is ‘Ursa Minor’) [Andreasyan 1967: 355b, cf. 22] (all of them assimilated from bazum‑k‘ or based on the “pure” *bazu‑ ?). The above-mentioned *bazuk‘, however, is not based on bazum ‘many’ with loss of the m, as is suggested in Ačaṙyan 1952: 99, cf. 105, 249. One schould rather treat it as a parallel form next to bazum with a different Iranian suffix, that is *‑ka‑: *bazuk + ‑k‘ (pl. marker).

Thus, *bazuk ‘Pleiades’ (< ‘many’) is an old dialectal word preserved in Van päzük (next to päzümk‘ < bazum‑k‘) [Ačaṙyan 1952: 43, 99, 105, 249], Meɫri bézuk [Aɫayan 1954: 25, 264], Łarabaɫ pä́zuk, pézuk [Davt‘yan 1966: 323], Šamšadin/ Diliǰan päzük [Mežunc‘ 1989: 185a], Borč‘alu (Loṙi) bazuk [Amatuni 1912: 80b], as well as in Hamšen *bazuk (see Y. Muradean 1901: 80).

To my knowledge, no Iranian forms (neither with a suffix m, nor with k) meaning ‘Pleiades’ have been mentioned in connection with the Armenian forms. The forth asterism of the Sogdian Lunar Zodiac may be Strβ’zk, interpreted by Bogoljubov (1987: 9‑10) as reflecting *Star‑Bāzuka‑, the second component of which, namely bāzu‑ ‘hand’, corresponds to the Indian equivalent asterism: Bāhu‑ (cf. Monier‑Williams 1899: 730b: ‘the constellation Ārdrā’, by lexicographers). If this is true, Arm. *bazuk ‘Pleiades’ (< ‘many’) is etymologically different. I cannot determine whether a confusion has taken place here. At any rate, however, there seems to be a correlation; cf. Skt. bahulá‑ ‘thick; many’, f. pl. ‘Pleiades’, and bāhula‑ ‘manifold; the month Kārttika, when the moon is near the Pleiades’ (see Monier‑Williams 1899: 726b and 730c, respectively). For the semantic development cf. also Arm. boyl ‘group’ (q.v.) : boyl‑k‘ ‘Pleiades’ (see below). The resemblance of boyl(k‘) with Skt. bahulá‑ and bāhula‑ seems to be accidental. Numerous other parallels can be found in various languages (see Scherer 1953: 141f; Pârvulescu 1988: 103f; Puhvel 1991; etc.).

Next to boyl‑k‘ ‘Pleiades’ (from boyl, i‑stem ‘group’ < *bheuH‑l‑i‑, cf. Skt. bhū́ri‑ ‘much, abundant, numerous’, OAv. būiri‑ ‘abundant’), Malat‘ia has p‘ɔrk‘ < *boyr‑k‘, probably borrowed from MIran. *būr‑ (cf. OAv. būiri‑ ‘abundant’), unless directly comparable with Lith. būrỹs ‘multitude, crowd’, Latv. bũris ‘heap, mass’. In either case, we are dealing with the same semantic development: ‘multitude, mass’ > ‘Pleiades’.

Since the semantic development ‘multitude’ > ‘Pleiades’ is one of the most representative patterns for naming this star cluster, one may explain alaw(s)unk‘ ‘Pleiades’ as containing the zero‑grade form of y‑olov ‘many’ (< *polh1us, cf. Gr. πολύς ‘many’), namely *plh1u‑ (cf. Skt. purú‑, etc.). See s.v.

Some Armenian forms of e.g. boyl ‘group’ (q.v.) refer to ‘Ursa Major’ rather than ‘Pleiades’. This interchange, seen also in Hesychian σάτιλλα ‘Pleiades’ vs. Arm. sayl ‘Ursa Major etc.’ (q.v.), can be conditioned by the fact that both comprise seven stars (cf. Schmitt 1966: 1482). There is also some fluctuation or confusion between ‘Orion’, ‘Ursa Major’ and ‘Libra’; see 3.1.4.

3.1.3 Milky Way

Yard(a)goɫ : In “Yaɫags ampoc‘ ew nšanac‘” by Anania Širakac‘i, 7th cent. (A. G. Abrahamyan 1944: 307L11f): Asteɫk‘ en oroc‘ xaṙnakeal čanaparhk‘ linin gnac‘ic‘, or anuaneal koč‘i[n] yardgoɫ : “There are piles of stars that stretch as a road and is called yardgoɫ” (cf. EArm transl. Abrahamyan/Petrosyan 1979: 319L‑3f). The published text is based on the oldest Armenian manuscript of paper (Matenadaran Nr 2679) which is copied by the scribe Łukas in 971 AD (op. cit. 142). If the reading is reliable, the syncope of ‑a‑ antedates the 10th century (see s.v. aɫawni ‘dove’ for the syncope). See also below, on the dialect of Xotorǰur.

In “Yaɫags kendanatesakac‘” by the same author (see A. G. Abrahamyan 1944: 326L14f), in APl: yardagoɫs ‑ zhet astuacoc‘n : “the trace of gods”.

In another passage, Anania Širakac‘i (A. G. Abrahamyan 1944: 321L7f) mentions yardagoɫ ‘Milky Way’ in an enumeration of atmospheric visual phenomena.

Discussing the various interpretations of the Kat‘in cir ‘Milky Way’, lit. ‘circle of milk’, Anania Širakac‘i (A. Abrahamyan 1940: 37, lines 15‑19; see also Łanalanyan 1969: 7Nr4a) mentions also Arm. Yardgoɫi het ‘the trail of the Straw‑Thief’, explicitly interpreting it by the myth on the god Vahagn, the ancestor of the Armenians (naxni Hayoc‘), who steals straw from Baršam, the ancestor of the Assyrians (cf. also ModArm. transl. Abrahamyan/Petrosyan 1979: 95‑96; for the passage with English translation see Russell 1987: 170).

For other attestations of Yardagoɫ see Ališan 1910: 126‑130.

Xotorǰur *erdgoɫ is explained as “cir xawarman which is better visible in august” [YušamXotorǰ 1964: 444b]. By cir xawarman, apparently, the ecliptic is meant, cf. Modern Armenian xawar‑a‑cir (see Malxaseanc HBB 2: 251c). In reality, we seem to be dealing with a visible celestial body or phenomenon rather than an abstract line or circle, since Hačean (ibid.) adds: “It is believed that these are [NB: plural ‑ H. M.] the ones that make wind”. He also cites an expression: ɛrdgoɫnin elan, ɛrdn cackink‘ “the ɛrdgoɫ‑s arose/appeared, let us cover the straw” [otherwise they will steal the straw]. [YušamXotorǰ 1964: 444b]. Then (op. cit. 447b), Hačean introduces another entry: ɛrdgoɫ ‘Milky Way’. I conclude that these two entries must be combined in the following way: ɛrdgoɫ (pl. ɛrdgoɫni) denotes the Milky Way and is associated with the straw‑stealing wind. See also below on Łarabaɫ *darman‑a‑goɫ.

The above-mentioned association with ecliptic is not surprising. Note that e.g. some Maya people (Chortí) seem to visualize the Milky Way as a path or axis intersecting with the ecliptic, the path of the Sun [Milbrath 1999: 40b].

Since Anania Širakac‘i (7th cent.) was native of Širak which is close to Xotorǰur both dialectally and geographically, one may regard *Yard(‑a)‑goɫ as a potential case of an areal restriction recorded in the 7th century. Both Anania Širakac‘i and the dialect of Xotorǰur have the name in plural, as well as the syncopated form yardgoɫ (manuscript from 971 AD). The area may have been somewhat larger since one also finds the word in other kə‑dialects such as Tigranakert härt‘k‘uɫ (see Haneyan 1978: 51). Note also Alaškert Sanamɔr yɛrd [Nždehean 1902: 271]. For other designations of Milky Way comprising sanamayr ‘the mother of a baptized child for the godfather and godmother’ see below. See also s.v. hecanoc‘ ‘winnowing fan’, ‘Milky Way’.

 

 

In the eastern dialects, namely Ararat, Loṙi [Amatuni 1912: 162a; Ačaṙean 1913: 270a] and Łarabaɫ [Lisic‘yan 1981: 66b], *Yard(‑a)‑goɫ has been replaced by Darman‑a‑goɫ ‘Milky Way’, with darman ‘straw’. The actual designation of the Milky Way in Łarabaɫ is Tɛrmanuköɫi čənapar “the road/way of the Straw‑Thief” or Tɛrmani həɫi “the road/way of straw” [Lisic‘yan 1981: 66b]; according to Džejranov (1898: 91), tarmanu-koɫi čanapar in Čajkend-Getašen.

Łarabaɫ Tɛrmankyöɫ : *Darmangoɫ occurs e.g. in an Ascension folk-song (“ǰangyulum”) from Łarabaɫ (probably Šuši) [Grigoryan-Spandaryan 1971: 219, Nr 1348]:

 

Kyetə k‘əšəm a Termankyöɫin,

Ast‘xerin šoxkn a caɫkin c‘oɫin,

Lüsnəngyän ɛl ašk a tiräl

Lüs čəkatis vəeske p‘oɫin.

 

           The river drives the Darmangoɫ,

           The reflection of stars is on the dew of flowes,

           And the Moon has put his eye

           On the golden coin of my forehead.

 

Obviously, Darmangoɫ refers here to Milky Way; the river drives down the reflection of the Milky Way.

In Varanda (a region of Łarabaɫ), Darmanagoɫ also denotes a small cloud considered to be a sign for a wind which will steal straw from thrashing‑floors (see Lalayan, ibid.). For the association between ‘Milky Way = Straw‑Thief’ with ‘straw‑stealing wind’ see above on Xotorǰur.

On corresponding beliefs particularly in connection with the testimony from Eznik Koɫbac‘i (5th cent.) see Garamanlean 1931: 515a; Abeɫyan 1941: 18, 23‑25, 30‑31; B. Aṙak‘elyan 1951: 80. For the comparison with Pers. kāh kašān and some discussion see Russell 1987: 170, 174.

Arm. Kat‘in cir or Cir kat‘in, a designation of ‘Milky Way’, lit. ‘circle of milk’, is apparently a calque from Gr. κύκλος γαλαξίας ‘Milky Way’. On this calque, as well as many other designations of the Milky Way in other languages, some of which contain the element ‘straw’, see Ališan 1910: 128‑130; Eilers 1974: 15‑17; Karpenko 1981: 14‑26.

However, the motif of ‘milk’ in this connection is not only resulted from learned tampering. A traditional story recorded in Łarabaɫ relates the Milky Way with milk from the breast of a female werewolf [Lalayan 2, 1988: 175; Łanalanyan 1969: 8Nr4/6; Lisic‘yan 1981: 66b].

The Armenian designations of the Milky Way and the traditional stories explaining those designations and the origin of the Milky Way (see Abeghian 1899: 49‑50; Y. Muradean 1901: 80; Mxit‘areanc‘ 1901: 181L-13f; Nždehean 1902: 271; Ališan 1910: 129‑130; Lalayan 2, 1988: 175; Amatuni 1912: 162a; Karst 1948: 67‑68, 76‑79; Petoyan 1965: 341; Łanalanyan 1969: 7‑9; S. Movsisyan 1972: 27b; Lisic‘yan 1981: 66b; Martirosyan-Gharagyozyan, FW 2003) are mostly connected with the idea of stealing, cf., apart from the above mentioned Yard(a)goɫ and Darmanagoɫ ‘Straw‑Thief’, also Derman hɫi ‘Straw-way’, as well as a number of designations comprising sanamayr ‘the mother of a baptized child for the godfather and godmother’: Sanamɔr čanba (‘way’), Sanamɔr yɛrd (‘straw’), Sanamɔr k‘aš (‘track’), etc.

On the other hand, the mouse is often considered to be ‘a stealer’, note e.g. a proverb from Nor Naxiǰewan (see P‘ork‘šeyan 1971: 111bL-11f). The interpretation of the PIE word for the mouse (*muHs‑ = *mūs‑) as a root noun from *meus‑ ‘to steal’ (see Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 383‑384) is perhaps doubtful because of the vocalism. Still, there are other examples confirming the association of the mouse with stealing, see Emeneau 1993: 199[2]. One may therefore assume that “Vahagn the Straw‑Thief” was a chthonic deity somehow associated with the mouse, like Apollo Σμινϑεύς (from σμίνϑος ‘mouse’) and Mars Sminthianus (for which see Toporov 1977a: 55; Toporov 1977b: 48-49; Gindin 1977: 107-10822a, 112), and the Milky Way has originally been considered “the way of Vahagn the Mouse / the Straw‑Thief”. This reconstruction may receive some support from Russ. мыши́на тро́пка (myšína trópka) ‘Milky Way’, literally: “the Way of the Mouse”, dial. Myšíny Trópki (see SlovRusNarGov 19, 1983). The only problem of my hypothesis seems to be the absence of evidence which would prove the direct association of the mouse with the Milky Way in Armenian, like we have for East Slavic. Nevertheless, we do find some possible indirect evidence, which would corroborate the hypothesis.

A riddle from Daralagyaz‑Keč‘ut, recorded by S. Harut‘yunyan (1965: 8bNr61), reads:

 

ɔrə gnac‘,

mukə mnac‘

 

The day passed,

the mouse stayed.

 

 

The answer of the riddle is: ASTŁER ‘stars’. S. Harut‘yunyan (op. cit. 220bNr61) points out that “by the metaphor of the mouse, the smallness of stars is stressed”. One might consider this explanation to be unsatisfactory. In the light of what has been said in this paragraph, I hypothetically assume that this riddle possibly betrays an otherwise lost denotation (or idea) of the Milky Way as “the Way of the Mouse / the Straw‑Thief”.

This putative interpretation of the Armenian Vahagn the Dragonslayer-Thunder-cloud as a kind of Apollo Σμινϑεύς receives some support from the well-known association of the mouse with thunder and its role in the ‘Thunder-myth’ (see Toporov 1977a: 52-57 with literature and discussion). For the association of Apollo Smintheus with Armenian Vahagn = St. Karapet, and on the giant mouse of Nemrud in the Muš plain (where Vahagn/Karapet was venerated) see A. Petrosyan 2002: 140-141.

In the Armenian folklore one finds possible traces of the association of the mouse with thunder. In Alek‘sandrapol (Leninakan, nowadays Gyumri), when it thundered, the children touch walls with their backs and said (K‘aǰberuni 1902: 83Nr1):

 

Ampə goṙac‘

Mukə čṙṙac‘,

Mayram xat‘un

T‘axtə nstaw

 

           The cloud cried,

           the mouse squeaked,

           Mariam-Lady

           sat on the wooden bed.

3.1.4 Orion, Libra, and other asterisms

3.1.4.1 Designations for Orion and Libra

As we have seen in 3.1.2, the constellation Orion is called Hayk, dial. Xek‘. Other designations display a fluctuation with ‘Libra’:

luc ‘yoke; burden; the beam of a balance from which the scales are suspended’ (Bible+), ‘the constellation Libra’ (Zak‘aria Kat‘oɫikos, 9th cent.), ‘pair’ (Geoponica); Muš/Bulanəx luc‑k‘ is a constellation consisting of eight stars, each of them representing an actor in the ploughing process: yoked oxen, ploughmen, dinner‑bringer, and wolf which attacked the latter [HAB 2: 301b]. S. Movsisyan (1972: 55b) offers almost the same picture, but here the constellation consists of seven stars and is identified as Ursa Major. See also s.v. luca[t]li ‘Orion’; cf. Lat. iugula below. Note that Lat. iugula ‘the girdle of Orion’, as well as Gr. ζυγόν n. (also ζυγός m.) ‘yoke of a plough or of a carriage; beam of a balance; the constellation Libra’ are cognate with Arm. luc. Typologically compare OHG pfluoc ‘Orion’ < ‘plough’, etc. (see Scherer 1953: 188, 224).

Thus: luc refers to ‘Libra’, ‘Orion’, ‘Ursa Major’. Note that Orion is often associated with Pleiades, and the latter is sometimes confused with Ursa Major (see s.v. alaw(s)unk‘ and 3.1.2).

kšiṙ ‘weigh, balance, scales’ (Bible+) : ‘the zodiacal constellation Libra’ in Hexaemeron, Anania Širakac‘i (see A. G. Abrahamyan 1944: 323, 327, 329‑330, 332); dial. Zeyt‘un *kšiṙk‘ ‘the constellation Hayk/Orion’, Maraɫa *k‘ar‑kšiṙk‘ ‘id.’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 582b, 1104a]. According to S. Movsisyan (1972: 55b), Bulanəx Kšeṙk‘ refers to a part of Orion with three stars forming one line and “called Šamp‘ur Haykay in astrology”. This is in perfect agreement with the evidence from Anania Širakac‘i’s “Yaɫags kendanatesakac‘” (“On zodiacal constellations”), which states that the constellation Kšiṙ consists of three stars (see A. G. Abrahamyan 1944: 332L8) and is thus, in fact, identical with the girdle of Orion. In another chapter (323L12f), Arm. Kšiṙ is presented as equivalent to Gr. ziwgaws/ziwgos (cf. ζυγός ‘yoke; beam of the balance; the constellation Libra’) and Pers. t[a]razuk, on which, see below. On *šamp‘ur‑kšiṙk‘ also see below.

t[a]razuk Pers. ‘Libra’ (see above), cf. Pahl. tarāzūg, NPers. tarāzū ‘balance, scales; astr. Libra’ [MacKenzie 1971: 82]; see HAB 4: 383a. As has been shown by L. Hovhannisyan 1990: 230, this is a mere record of the Persian term rather than a borrowing. A recent borrowing from New Persian is found in the dialect of Akn: t‘ɛrazu (glossed by kšiṙ) ‘a constellation comprising three stars on one line’ (see Čanikean 1895: 331). The same dialect also has the appellative t‘ɛrazu ‘balance’ found in a folk-song (see op. cit. 439L-7, footnote 4).

šamp‘ur ‘rod of wood or metal’ (Bible+), in the book Ēfimērtē and in the dialect of Zeyt‘un: ‘the constellation Hayk/Orion’; cf. Ararat *šamp‘ur‑kšiṙk‘ ‘id.’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 820b; HAB 3: 492b]. For the association between Hayk [= Orion], Kšiṙ, and Šamp‘ur, see also “Baṙgirq hayoc‘”: Amalyan 1975: 178Nr108, 270Nr144; Ališan 1910: 133‑137.

Sasun Šahink ‘Libra’ [Petoyan 1965: 340]; on the appellative šähink ‘balance, scales’, see Petoyan 1954: 148; 1965: 509.

 

Conclusion

Different designations follow a common semantic pattern: ‘yoke’ or ‘balance, scales’. The central idea is here ‘pair, yoke’ or ‘rod, beam of the balance’ referring to the girdle of Orion, a short line of three bright stars across the middle of of the constellation Orion.

The oldest Armenian designation of this pattern is luc, of native origin, cf. ζυγόν n. (also ζυγός m.) ‘yoke; beam of the balance; the constellation Libra’, Lat. iugula f. ‘a part of the constellation Orion, the girdle of Orion’, with a suffix somehow comparable with that of Arm. luc‑a[t]li (see s.v.). The other Armenian designations reflecting the same basic idea, namely ‘yoke’, ‘balance, scales’ or, in the case of šamp‘ur, ‘the beam of a balance’ (cf. the corresponding meaning of luc), are loans.

3.1.4.2 Further remarks on Hayk/Orion and related issues

According to Movsēs Xorenac‘i 1.11 (1913=1991: 36‑37; transl. Thomson 1978: 87‑88), the skillful archer (aɫeɫnawor) Hayk, the ancestor of the Armenians, kills Bēl (identified with Nebrovt‘ in 1.5, p. 20L5) with an arrow, “embalmed the corpse of Bēl with drugs, he [Mar Abas Catina – Thomson, note 5] says, and ordered it to be taken to Hark‘ and to be buried in a high place in the view of his wives and sons”.

Hark‘ was a district of Turuberan, northwest of Lake Van. The summit on which Bēl has been buried may be identified with one of the mountains to the South of the district from which the river Meɫraget issues. Another source of this river appears in a folk‑version of this narrative, according to which Hayk took the corpse of Bēl to the summit of the mountain Nemrut‘ (note the equation Bēl=Nebrovt‘ above) and burnt it down; the fire turned into water and deepened downwards into the mountain (see Łanalanyan 1969: 73Nr194g), probably forming the underground sources of the river Meɫraget which is told to originate from a lake on the summit of the mountain Nemrut‘ (op. cit. 89Nr233b).[3]

As we have seen, the ancestor of the Armenians, Hayk, the skillful archer (aɫeɫnawor), is identified with the constellation of Orion, which was in a way associated with Pleiades. Particularly marked was the girdle of Orion, consisting of three bright stars across the middle of Orion. Orion is commonly associated with the number three because the three bright stars in Orion’s Belt are easily seen even with the full moon nearby. For corresponding designations, as well as for the relation of Orion with Sirius compare e.g. the Maya traditions (see Milbrath 1999: 39a). Orion’s dog is identified with Sirius, the Dog‑Star (see Scherer 1953: 109‑116), Arm. Šn‑astɫ (lit. ‘dog‑star’), attested in Anania Širakac‘i as the first asterism in the list of eighteen stars or constellations which indicate zanjrewac‘ sastkut‘iwn “abundance of rains” (A. G. Abrahamyan 1944: 331L1f). On Orion’s Belt and the Dog‑Star see also Ališan 1910: 132‑133, 137‑138. On Hayk/Orion : Pleiades : Dog-Star and related issues see references s.v. alaw(s)unk‘ ‘Pleiades’ to a number of works by A. Petrosyan, and especially A. Petrosyan 2003: 192-193, 205; see also s.v. hay.

We have also seen that the girdle of Orion (the Three‑Star) was often named ‘beam of a balance’. In view of this, one may assume that the Persian theonym and asterism Tīr, which, next to the meanings ‘the angel who is guardian of the cattle’, ‘name of the fourth month and the 13th day of every month’, ‘the planet Mercury’, ‘arrow’ etc., denotes also ‘a scale‑beam’ (see Steingass 341a), may have referred to the divine archer of the type Orion/Hayk and/or to ‘Orion’s belt’ as well; cf. also tīr‑andāz ‘archer’. Note the Indo‑Iranian term for the Orion’s girdle seen in the designation of Sirius *tištrii̯a‑ < *tri‑str‑ii̯o‑ ‘belonging to the Three Stars’: YAv. tištriiaēniiō, ‑aēniias‑catištriia‑ ‘Sirius‑Stars’ [Hoffmann/Forssman 1996: 127], Tištriia‑ m. name of Sirius, worshipped as a god, Pahl. Tištar ‘Sirius’, considered as confused with Tīr ‘the planet Mercury’, cf. also Pers. tīr ‘arrow’ [MacKenzie 1971: 83; Nyberg 1974: 193b], Skt. tiṣyà‑ ( tiṣíya‑) m. name of a fixed star or asterism (RV+), etc. (Lelekov apud MifNarMir 2: 515; Mayrhofer EWAia 1: 649; cf. Bogoljubov 1987: 9; for another etymology of *Tištrii̯a‑ involving tig‑ri‑ ‘arrow’ etc., see Scherer 1953: 113 with ref.). I putatively conclude that Pers. tīr‑andāz ‘archer’ too referred to ‘Orion’ or ‘Orion’s belt, Three‑Star’. This may be corroborated by the following considerations.

The typical Armenian fasting period called Aṙaǰawor‑a‑c‘ (aṙaǰ‑awor ‘going in front, forerunner’) belongs to the movable feast‑cycle at the end of the year roughly corresponding to January‑February [K‘ristHayast 2002: 75]. St. Sargis (mostly considered to be the Christian descendant of the resurrecting god Aray Geɫec‘ik) and his dog, which always preceded the saint and was therefore called *aṙaǰ‑awor ‘forerunner’, played an essential role in the traditional background of this fasting, the latter having been determined to honour the dog *aṙaǰawor which was killed by wolves [HAB 1: 252‑253; Čanikean 1895: 471; Matikean 1930: 153‑170; Łap‘anc‘yan 1945: 61‑68; A. Petrosyan 2001: 158].

Diachronically, the fasting Aṙaǰ‑awor‑a‑c‘ of the movable calendar seems to be somehow related with the fixed feast teaṙn‑ənd‑aṙaǰ (lit. “going forwards to the Lord, meeting the Lord “), on February 13/14, corresponding to Candlemas (Germ. Lichtmesse), the feast of the presentation of Christ in the Temple or purification of the Virgin Mary celebrated with a great display of candles on the 2nd of February.

The Armenian popular variant names of the feast are Tɛrəndɛz [Amatuni 1912: 625a; Davt‘yan 1966 (Č‘aylu)] or *Terntas [Ačaṙean 1913: 1025‑1026] (found in numerous dialects); Ararat, Muš drndɛz [Amatuni 1912: 172]; Łarabaɫ Dəṙdɔ́ṙa(n)č‘ [Davt‘yan 1966: 482] or Dɔndɔṙɔnǰ [Lisic‘yan 1981: 70b], Goris Dəṙdaranč‘ [Lisic‘yan 1969: 262‑263], etc. [Bdoyan 1972: 445a68]. For an extensive description for Sebastia see Gabikean 1952: 528. NHB (2: 862b) presents Tērəntas as a dialectal equivalent to Teaṙn‑ənd‑aṙaǰ and Tēr‑ənd‑ays, the latter being a re‑interpretation as “Lord with this” (see also HAB 4: 402b). Note Hačən Dɛyɛndɛz ‘New Year’ vs. Zeyt‘un dɛyindäs ‘Candlemas’ [HAB 4: 402b; Ačaṙyan 2003: 95, 340].

In the same dialect of Hačən, the term for ‘Candlemas’ is substituted by švɛd, which goes back to šuot ‘February, the month of freedom from devils; the demon of February’ [HAB 3: 537‑538].

Kesaria *kučuk‘ ‘a spirit personifying February’, in the village of Karmir – ‘the feast of Teaṙnəndaṙaǰ (February 13/14)’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 604a; Hoy 1898]. Ačaṙyan (ibidem) separately mentions Partizak *kučuk ‘short, with broken handle’ (said of a spoon). Ant‘osyan (1961: 262) takes these two together: güǰüg ‘a spoon without a handle; February; the little finger’.

The feast Teaṙnəndaṙaǰ/Tērəntas ‘Candlemas’ is especially characterized, apart from the display of candles, by a bonfire. The young people (including the barren women, e.g., in Goris) jumped over it, young couples walked round the fire, and the girls and women singed the hems of their skirts, etc. [Abeghian 1899: 72‑73; Lisic‘yan 1969: 262‑263; 1981: 70b; Bdoyan 1972: 444‑447; K‘ristHayast 2002: 1018‑1020]. Contextually speaking, this festivity is a part of the final, ‘chaotic’ period of the year associated with wolves and demons (cf. šuot ‘demon’ : ‘February’ etc.) and immediately followed by the resurrection of the sun and nature and the establishing of the ‘cosmic order’.

In both the Indian and Iranian systems of the lunar zodiac, the count starts with the asterism Pleiades. In those lists, the first lunar station is the one situated in the vicinity of the point of vernal equinox. It follows from this that both systems have been established somewhere between the 3rd and 2nd millennia when the point of vernal equinox was located near Pleiades [Bogoljubov 1987: 6‑8]. Note that the latter is named *parvya‑ ‘first’ (ibid.). [If this term originally derives from PIE *pe/olh1u‑ ‘many’ (see s.v. alaw(s)unk‘ ‘Pleiades’), the association with *parvya‑ ‘first’ must be treated as secondary]. At the end of each year, that is before the vernal equinox, Tištriia‑ conquered the demon of drought and released the waters [Bogoljubov 1987: 8‑9].

In what follows I present an evaluation and summary of the above.

1) The feast Teaṙnəndaṙaǰ ‘Candlemas’ (February 13/14), lit. “going forwards to the Lord, meeting the Lord” can be regarded within the large context of the movable feast‑cycle of the end of the year roughly corresponding to January‑February, in relation with the (diachronically identic?) typical Armenian fasting period called Aṙaǰawor‑a‑c‘ (aṙaǰ‑awor ‘going in front, forerunner’).

2) The central figures of this cycle are St. Sargis, the Christian descendant of the resurrecting god Aray Geɫec‘ik, and his dog which was always preceding the saint and was therefore called *aṙaǰ‑awor ‘forerunner’. The fasting has been established for commemoration of the dog which was killed by wolves. The dog is a prominent character in this cycle, in association with aralēz‑k‘ and the like (cf. the well‑known motifs of Aray Geɫec‘ik, Artawazd, Zangi‑Zrangi, etc.). Compare also St. Karapet, lit. ‘forerunner’, i.e. Yovhannēs Mkrtič‘ = John the Baptist, the forerunner of Jesus Christ. It is remarkable that the festival of nawasard ‘New Year’ has been established for the commemoration of John the Baptist/St. Karapet (Agat‘angeɫos § 836 and P‘awstos Buzand 4.15), and St. Karapet, according to a traditional story (see Łanalanyan 1969: 254‑255), was associated with the dog.

3) The month February with Teaṙnəndaṙaj ‘Candlemas’ etc. formed the final, ‘chaotic’ period of the year associated with wolves and demons and immediately followed by the resurrection/release of the sun and/or waters, i.e. the rebirth of the nature, and the establishing of the ‘cosmic order’. In the Armenian dialect of Hačən, remarkably, Dɛyɛndɛz < *Terənt/das/z ‘Candlemas’ has shifted its meaning to ‘New Year’ (hardly due to influence by dayi < tari ‘year’), and the meaning ‘Candlemas’ is represented by švɛd, which goes back to šuot ‘February, the month of freedom from devils; the demon of February’.

For the contrast with wolves see above under point 2. In Muš/Bulanəx, one of the stars of the Armenian asterism luc (lit. ‘yoke; beam of the balance’), usually referring to Orion or Libra (or Ursa Major, which has often been confused with Pleiades), represents the wolf attacking the person who brought dinner to the ploughmen.

4) In a deeper perspective, *Teaṙnəndaṙaǰ ‘Candlemas’ can be interpreted as ‘(the feast of) the Archer Hayk/Orion = IIran. *Tištrii̯a‑’ in association with Pleiades, marking the vernal equinox and, subsequently, the New Year, and Sirius, Orion’s dog. Iranian Tištriia‑ conquered the demon of drought and released the waters. Similarly, the skillful archer Hayk, the ancestor and eponym of the Armenians, kills Bēl/Nebrovt‘ and (indirectly) gives rise to the underground sources of the river Meɫraget, lit. ‘honey‑river’ (see S. Harut‘yunyan 2000: 226, 230, espec. 232; A. Petrosyan 2003: 203-204). The names of both Tištriia‑ and Hayk are related with the asterism ‘Orion’s belt’ : ‘Three‑Star’. Note also Arm. Šn‑astɫ ‘Sirius’, lit. ‘dog‑star’, the first in Širakac‘i’s list of the asterisms which indicate “abundance of rains”.

5) Arm. dial. *Terənt/das/z ‘Candlemas’ can hardly be explained as a corrupted or re-interpreted form of Teaṙnəndaṙaǰ. The connection with the theonym Tir proposed by Durean (1933: 46; accepted by P. Xač‘atryan 1990: 81-82) is more plausible. One may treat *Terənt/das/z as reflecting (or influenced by) Pers. tīr-andāz ‘archer’ and testifying by this the unattested theonymical/astral aspect of the latter, comparable to the divine/astral archer Hayk/Orion/Tištriia- (see under point 4 above). Next to tīr-andāz ‘archer’, note the Persian theonym and asterism Tīr, which also denotes ‘a scale-beam’ (cf. the association ‘beam of the balance’ : ‘Orion’s belt’).

3.1.5 Planets

Of names comprising native Armenian components most important are those of Venus, first of all Gišer‑a‑var, lit. ‘Night-leader’ (Bible+, see NHB 1: 555a), with gišer ‘night’ (q.v.), compare the etymologically related forms: Gr. σπερος m. ‘evening; evening-star, Venus’, Lat. vesper ‘evening; evening-star’.

In a homily by Zak‘aria Kat‘oɫikos (9th cent.) we find Eɫǰeru ‘Deer, stag’ as the name of a planet, presumably the Venus (NHB 1: 657a; cf. HAB 1: 339a; 4: 126b; see also Ališan 1910: 121-123; Aɫayan 1986: 79-80; A. Petrosyan 2002: 61221); further, see G. Muradyan 2006: 1-22.

In a tale written by H. T‘umanyan (5, 1994: 89L1f, var. 611L-1) entitled ‘Eɫǰerun = The stag’, Eɫǰeru-Lusastɫ ‘Venus, Morning Star’ appears at dawn.  

I propose to treat this asterism as ‘the star of the wild animal, Tierstern’, cf. Early German tierstern ‘Evening Star’ from tier ‘wild animal’, Lith. žvėrìnė ‘Evening Star’ from žvėrìs ‘wild animal’ (Scherer 1953: 83-84). Note also Slavic designations of the types ‘star of the wild animal’ and ‘star of the wolf’ (Karpenko 1981: 80). Since the deer is usually associated with ‘wolf’ and with the general notion of ‘wild animal’ (see 3.5.2.3; cf. also Engl. deer vs. Germ. Tier ‘animal, beast’), one may link Arm. Eɫǰeru and those German and Balto-Slavic designations of the planet Venus as reflecting the same general pattern: ‘Tierstern’.

For the association of the planet Venus with the Venus-like goddess note Astɫ-ik < ‘little star’; further see e.g. Lisic‘yan 1969: 143. For the cult of the deer and see Mnac‘akanyan 1977; Deweǰyan 1982; for its association with the star and cross see Mnac‘akanyan 1977: 18-20, 35.

Another interesting asterism with IE and non-IE semantic parallels is dial. *hōtaɫ-astɫ ‘Evening Star’, see s.v. *hawt-aɫ ‘shepherd’.

Dialects mostly display compounds of the type e.g. Sasun Lus‑astɫ [Petoyan 1965: 340, 478], Bulanəx Lusu‑asyɫ [S. Movsisyan 1972: 55b]. Note also *Bari lusoy astɫ : Arčak Pari lusu astɫ ‘the planet Venus’, literally: ‘star of the Good light’ (see S. Avagyan 1978: 24bL‑10).; cf. dial. barili/us ‘dawn’, literally ‘good light’ (see Amatuni 1912: 92a); cf. in a folk‑song (see Abeɫyan 1940: 127L‑12): Bari lusun durs elay “I went out at dawn”. Typologically cf. Iran. *vahu‑uša(h)‑farnah‑ “whose good/benefit is from the farn of Morning Star” (see Bogoljubov 1989: 88).

Most of the planet‑names are loanwords or calques (see Eilers 1976 passim; G. Muradyan 2006). These are beyond the scope of my work. Here I will limit myself to Aprayoyz ‘the planet Saturn’, found in K‘aǰuni [HAB 1: 243; L. Hovhannisyan 1990: 220]. Though comprising Iranian components, this compound is an Armenian creation. It is composed as *apr < Pahl. abr ‘cloud’, Pers. abr ‘cloud’ (see MacKenzie 1971: 4) from PIE *n̥bhro‑ (see s.v. amprop ‘thunder’) + ‑a‑ + yoyz ‘to move, stir’, lit. ‘cloud‑mover, rain‑bringer’ [HAB 1: 243; L. Hovhannisyan 1990: 220]. This is corroborated by Aṙak‘el Siwnec‘i (14‑15th cent.) who describes Saturn, Zawhal astɫ, as amp-a-(y)holov (see A. G. Abrahamyan 1979: 47L‑15), composed of amp ‘cloud’ and holov‑ ‘to roll, move rolling, turn’.

In the dictionary of Zak‘aria (15th century) a similar compound is used to render amprop ‘thunder’, namely: ampayoyz < amp ‘cloud’ + ‑a‑ + yoyz (see Amalyan 1966: 97). Compare yuzumn (or pl. yuzmun‑k‘/s) ampoc‘, frequent in “Yaɫags ampoc‘ ew nšanac‘” by Anania Širakac‘i, 7th cent. (A. G. Abrahamyan 1944: 305‑309). Note also hoɫm‑a‑yoyz‑k‘, with hoɫm ‘wind’ as the first member (Hexaemeron); anjrew‑a‑yoyz, with anjrew ‘rain’ as the first member, in Hexaemeron (see K. Muradyan 1984: 195L20) and Movsēs Xorenac‘i 3.68 (1913=1991: 365L1; transl. Thomson 1978: 354): amaṙn anjrewayoyz “summer very rainy”.

I could not find parallels for this kind of designation of Saturn in Eilers 1976: 88‑97, 99‑100. Its semantics is rather suitable to Jupiter; cf. the epithet of Zeus νεφεληγερέτα ‘cloud-gatherer’. Note, however, appellatives like ‘Unglück’ and ‘dunkelfarbig, düster’ (Eilers ibid.). Further: Skt. anila-prakr̥ti- ‘Saturn‘ < “having an airy or windy nature”.

3.1.6 Celestial Purple Sea and Otherworld

Criticizing heathen notions about the world structure, Anania Širakac‘i (7th cent.) writes (A. Abrahamyan 1940: 15L1f): Zcovē asen xelagareal p‘ilisop‘ayk‘n het‘anosac‘, t‘ē pat aṙeal zerkraw, ew i miǰi covu ē erkir orpēs kɫzi mi : “The mad heathen philosophers say about the sea that it encircles the earth, and the earth is in the middle of the sea like an island” (cf. also ModArm. transl. Abrahamyan / Petrosyan 1979: 75). It has been assumed that Anania Širakac‘i may have taken this information from Cosmas Indicopleustes [Abrahamyan/Petrosyan 1979: 34112].

cirani cov ‘Purple Sea’, in the famous epic fragment on the birth of Vahagn recorded by Movsēs Xorenac‘i (1.31); see Abeɫean 1, 1955: 34; Saradževa 1976: 192. See the passage s.v. erkn ‘labour pains, pang (of childbirth); fear, grief, sorrow’.

In a medieval riddle [Mnac‘akanyan 1980: 313Nr230] written by Nersēs Šnorhali (12th cent., Cilicia), the mirror (hayeli) is represented as ciran cov‑ik ‘little purple‑sea’.

In a folk morning‑prayer from Geɫark‘unik‘ (Ṙ. Grigoryan 1983: 235a): Erkink‘ cov a cirani “The heaven is a purple sea”.

In a folk‑song consisting of a series of questions and answers of the pattern: “Whom may my little child resemble? – May (or may not) he resemble …” (Ṙ. Grigoryan 1970: 175Nr305), among negative answers, Ciran cov ‘Purple Sea’, as well as arew ‘sun’ and lusin ‘moon’ are mentioned.

In ritual songs of Caṙ‑zardar ‘Palm Sunday’: “My friend fell into the sea, and the sea (cov) became purple (cirani)” [Ṙ. Grigoryan 1970: 317‑319, 321].

Compare dial. arun cov ‘Blood-Sea’: in a number of variants for the riddle on thunder or hail the heavenly sea is represented as ‘blood‑sea’: Širak aryunacov, Basen arni cov, Borč‘alu (Loṙi) aren cov, arin cov (on this and on Purple Sea in general, see Abeghian 1899: 77; S. Harut‘yunyan 1965: 11‑12, 223‑224; 2000: 80-83; A. Petrosyan 2002: 13-14). In geographically unspecified variants of the riddle: arən‑cov, arun cov [S. Harut‘yunyan 1965: 61aNr633a/251a, 204aNr2087/321b].

In a folk‑song from Moks (Yovsēp‘eanc‘ 1892: 22L11f):

Caṙ əm kɛr mɛč‘ arənkin covirun,

Xawk‘ əm kɛr meanč‘ ɛn covun.

There was a tree in blood‑seas, there was a bird in that sea.

In a folk‑song (Ṙ. Grigoryan 1970: 352Nr752), Lusunka k‘eṙi “Uncle Lusunka” says he is coming Abrahamu covu veren “from over the sea of Abraham”. Compare arün köl “Blood Lake” in a similar riddle from Akn (Čanikean 1895: 188).

In an incantation prayer against the evil eye entitled gir č‘ar ač‘k‘i “writing against the evil eye” written down in a hmayil (see Xač‘ikyan 1963: 150) we read: El hoviwn Cirani, aracēr yovitn Cirani “The purple shepherd arose; (he) was pasturing in the Purple valley”. In another incantation, entitled gir cəcac‘awi “writing against breast-pain” (ibid.), mayr (‘mother’) Cirani, dusdr (‘daughter’) Cirani, and dētər (?) Cirani are mentioned (Xač‘ikyan op. cit. 151).

We can thus consider a hypothetical female deity Cirani mayr ‘Purple Mother’ of the celestial Cirani cov ‘Purple Sea’; cf. the theonym Covean.

The Purple pasture of the incantation above may reflect the IE picture of the Otherworld as a pasture (on which, see Thieme 1952: 48ff; Puhvel 1969; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 823-824; Mallory/Adams 1997: 153b; Beekes 1998). Compare Arm. dial. Sebastia groɫin[4] antə ‘cornfield/pastureland of the Other-world’ preserved in proverbs and in a curse formula, see Gabikean 1952: 60, 157, who explicitly refers to and ‘cornfield, pastureland’ and assumes mythological origin.[5]

A curse formula in Xotorǰur [YušamXotorǰ 1964: 466b] reads: Coveyn anc‘nis. The ending -eyn points to pl. -er + the article -n. In Xotorǰur, the sonant -r- develops into -y- before a dental stop [YušamXotorǰ 1964: 392] like in neighbouring dialects such as Hamšen. This probably holds true also for the position before -n-, as in Hamšen; cf. beran ‘mouth’ > Hamšen pɛrɔn, GSg pɛyni, etc. [Ačaṙyan 1947: 65]. The formula should then be translated as follows: “May you pass over the seas”. Since this is a curse, it seems most logical that here a reference is made to the “Otherworld, Valley of Death”, which is situated beyond the water or seas (cf. Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 825-826).

3.2 Sun; Moon

The PIE word for ‘sun’, *sh2u-l/n- (Beekes 1984), has been replaced by the Indo-European or Armeno-Aryan poetic designation of the sun: Arm. arew and Skt. ravi- (for discussion see Schmitt 1967: 259-260), cf. Hitt. haruu̯anai- ‘to become bright, to dawn’ (see especially Eichner 1978).

Of the two IE designations for ‘moon’ (Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 684-685), Armenian inherited *louks-no-/-neh2- as lusin ‘moon’, cf. also lusn-kay, whereas the other is reflected in amis ‘month’ (see s.vv.).

‘sun’ : ‘eye’. In a few Indo-European traditions the sun was considered as an eye; compare also OIr. súil ‘eye’ < *sūli- from the PIE word for ‘sun’, *sh2u-l/n- (see Bammesberger 1982; Schrijver 1995: 422; Adams and Beekes apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 188a and 556b).

Arm. areg-akn ‘sun’ is interpreted as ‘eye of the sun’ (or ‘das Auge, das die Sonne ist’, see Scherer 1953: 52); for discussion and parallels from other languages see Ališan 1910: 93; HAB 1: 107-108, 310b; Garamanlean 1931: 428-431, 501; Benveniste 1965: 5, 7-14; Ivanov 1983: 41; Olsen 1999: 675-676. Compare also ClArm. expressions where the sun is described as akn ‘eye’ (S. Harut‘yunyan 2000: 40-43). The interpretation as ‘Quelle der Sonne’ (Abeghian 1899: 41, cf. 89; Schmitt 1967: 219) seems to be gratuitous.

‘Wheel of the sun’: Skt. sū́ryasya cakrá-, Gr. ἡλίου κύκλος, etc. (see Schmitt 1967: 166-169; Ivanov/Toporov 1974: 221; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 1: 350-351; 2: 720-721; Kazanskij 2005). For the association ‘sun’ : ‘wheel’ in Armenian literature (especially Eznik Koɫbac‘i) and folklore see Srvanjtyanc‘ 1, 1978: 77, 168; Garamanlean 1931: 431, 495, 501; H. Israyelyan 1973: 69.

Chariot of the sun’ in IE and non-IE traditions, see Ivanov apud MifNarMir 1: 664-665 with lit.; Mallory/Adams 1997: 627b; ‘Horses of the sun’: for Greek and Aryan passages see Schmitt 1967: 165-166. For the ‘Viergespann’ of the sun in Greek note the Armenian belief recorded by Ališan (1910: 98-99; see also H. Israyelyan 1973: 65-69; S. Harut‘yunyan 2000: 44). In this relation it is remarkable that Armenian both arew ‘sun’ and ji ‘horse’ belong to the poetic language shared with Indo-Aryan (see s.vv.; also Porzig 1954: 162 = 1964: 239-240; Xačaturova 1973: 198; Ritter 2006: 413-414). For another pair belonging to the poetic language (this time from Armenian-Greek-Indo-Iranian unity) see s.vv. arcui ‘eagle’ and c‘in ‘kite’.

Both arew ‘sun’ and lusin ‘moon’ have been deified (see Abeghian 1899: 41-49; Ališan 1910: 93-115; S. Harut‘yunyan 2000: 40-64); see also s.v. areg ‘sun’.

3.3 Time

3.3.1 Temporal, spatial and processual aspects

PIE *dieu‑ has two basic meanings: ‘day’ and ‘heaven’. These, in fact, reflect the temoral and spatial aspects of the basic meaning ‘daylight’. Note also Lat. saeculum (Weitenberg, p.c.).

Here are some more examples for the interchange between temporal, spatial and processual aspects:

and, andēn ‘then, in that time; there, in that place’ (both in the 5th cent.);

atean ‘meeting, gathering; judgement, interrogation’ : ‘court‑room’ : ‘time, while’ [HAB 1: 286‑287];

žam ‘time; hour’ : ‘church ceremony’ : ‘church’ [HAB 2: 221‑224];

vayr ‘place’ :‘field, commons’ : ‘a while’, vayrkean ‘minute’ [HAB 4: 300b];

dial. teɫə ‘while’ (< teɫ ‘place’); cf. in a fairy‑tale from Loṙi: manelis teɫə ‘while spinning’; xač‘ə gnalis teɫə ‘while going to the Cross’ (see HŽHek‘ 8, 1977: 73L2 and 75L18, respectively); in Šamšadin (Tavuš): ərek‘nakə mer mtnilis teɫə “when the sun was setting” [Xemč‘yan 2000: 28aL9].

Next to these examples, Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 286‑287) also mentions Pers. gāh. One may add more:

Parth. tcr [*tažar] ‘palace, dwelling’; as an astronomical term, ‘double hour, period of two hours’ [Boyce 1977: 86];

Lat. saeculum, ‑ul– n. ‘the body of individuals born at a particular time, generation; (pl.) the succession of generations; a breed, race; the present time, the contemporary generation, the age; human life time, generation; century; human life, the world’ (Oxford Latin Dictionary).

Celt. *bitu‑ ‘world’ < *‘life’ (see Meid 1985); this is reminiscent of Arm. *ašxarh mtnel ‘to marry’, lit. ‘to enter into the world/life’.

Arm. ropē ‘second, moment, eye‑wink’ (= ‘element/unit of time’ – temporal aspect) : ropē‑k‘ ‘world’ (= ‘elements of space’ – spatial aspect)’.

3.3.2 Seasons

Among the PIE seasonal terms, ‘winter’ and ‘spring’ are stable, while ‘summer’ and ‘autumn’ are liable to innovations. One assumes that the PIE system of seasons comprised three seasons, one of them being ‘summer and autumn’; for references and discussion, see Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 852-853, 853-8541 = 1995: 750-75120.

The new terms for ‘summer’ often derive from words for ‘year’, cf. Arm. amaṙn ‘summer’ : OHG sumar ‘summer’ vs. am ‘year’ : Skt. sámā- ‘year, season’ etc. (see s.vv.), as well as Russ. leto ‘summer’ : let ‘year’.

The PIE word for ‘autumn’ has frequently been replaced by derivatives like ‘after summer’, ‘before winter, harvest’, etc. [Baldi/Mallory apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 504b]. The autumn (and/or the end of the summer) is also associated with ‘harvest-time’ [E. Hofmann 1932: 132]. In the Indo-Iranian calendar, the year was divided into six seasons (on Iranian gāhānbārs, six well-defined solar dates rather than seasons, see Hartner 1985: 749-756), of the Indic names of which only two reflect PIE seasonal terms: vasantá- ‘spring’ and hemantá- ‘winter’ (see Èrlix 1989: 246).

The Armenian seasonal terms are usually stable. Some exceptional replacements have taken place in a few dialects. In Nor Naxiǰewan, ašun ‘autumn’ has been replaced by *kiz/kuyz : giz, rural guyz (see P‘ork‘šeyan 1971: 220b): kuyzə kuka “the autumn comes” (52bL8). Note that in the same song the winter is represented by the native, basic Armenian term jmeṙn (52aL10): Cmeṙə anc‘av, puk‘ə halec‘av “The winter passed, the snow melted”. Other illustrations: ušgeg kizin ‘in the late autumn’ (57bL4); kuyzə ɛgav “the autumn came” (79aL3).

In a remarkable passage (80bL14f), all the seasons are mentioned: kizin, cmeṙə ew paherin cin xist aɫeg ɛr, ama erb amaṙə ɛgav, cin p‘eṙatc‘av “In autumn, winter and in fasts, the horse was very good, but when summer came, the horse <…>”. As we can see, the winter and summer are represented by the native terms cmeṙ and amaṙ, whereas kiz appears instead of ašun ‘autumn’, and pah-er ‘fasts’ functions for the spring, of which the native term is garun. The words jmeṙ and amaṙ are also mentioned in 80bL9f. For the origin of *kiz/kuyz note Pers. gūz ‘autumn’ (see Steingass 1102b).

Next to amɔṙ from ClArm. amaṙn ‘summer’ (q.v.), of native/IE origin (see HAB 1: 146; Ačaṙyan 2003: 296), the dialect of Zeyt‘un has also t‘amuz (gen. t‘amzɔn) ‘summer’, borrowed from Arab. tammūz ‘July’ (Ačaṙyan 2003: 186).

3.4 Geographical terms

3.4.1 ‘mountain’ : ‘forest’

Regarding the semantic shift ‘mountain’ > ‘forest’, perhaps through intermediary ‘wooded mountain = Bergwald’, cf. the IE and non‑IE parallels mentioned in Tolstoj 1969: 22ff, 69, 71‑73, 80‑88; Martynov 1971: 14 (in Ètimologija 1968); Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984: 666; Toporov, PrJaz (2), 1979: 164‑165; as well as OHG hart etc. ‘Bergwald’ from ‘Stein(haufen)’. Further examples: PIE *gw(o)rH‑eh2 ‘mountain’: Skt. girí‑ m. ‘mountain, hill’, OCS gora, Czech hora ‘mountain’, Pol. góra ‘mountain’ : Lith. girià ‘wood’, Slk. hora ‘(wooded) mountain’, Sln. góra ‘mountain, (dial.) wood’, etc. For the meaning ‘wooded mountain’, see also Nagy 1974: 116, on *perkwunio‑.

In Armenian, this semantic shift is reflected in sar ‘mountain’ > Hamšen sar ‘forest’ [Ačaṙyan 1947: 253]. See also antaṙ ‘forest’. The opposite development: Arm. *c‘axut > Hamšen dial. c‘axud ‘forest’ [Ačaṙyan 1947: 256], which in Muslim Hamšen also means ‘mountain’ [Bert Vaux, 21.10.03, Hamšen Conference, Leiden]; cmak ‘dark place’: dial. ‘forest’; according to Gabikean (1952: 475), Muš cmak means ‘brushy mountain’.

3.4.2 ‘to stream, flow’ > ‘water(ed), irrigated land’ > ‘island, river‑shore’

OHG auwa, ouwa ‘meadow; island’, Germ. Aue, Au ‘Niederung, Flusslandschaft, Wiese; Insel’, and others derive from Germanic *ahw(j)ō ‘water’ (cf. OHG aha, OEngl. ēa ‘water; river’, etc.); cf. also OEngl. ēaland, ēalond ‘island’ = ēa ‘water; river’ + land. The involved semantic development is: ‘of or pertaining to water, watery, watered’ > ‘watered place, meadow, island’. Further examples can be seen in Russ. ostrov ‘island’ < PIE *srou‑, cf. Russ. strujá ‘stream’, Lith. sraujà, Latv. strauja ‘stream’, Skt. srav‑ ‘to stream, flow’, etc. (see s.vv. aṙu, aṙog); Skt. dvīpá‑ ‘island, island in a river, sandbank’ (RV+) < *dui‑h2p‑ó‑, lit. ‘having water on two sides’, cf. Skt. áp‑ ‘water’, Toch. AB āp f. ‘water, river, stream’, etc. For more examples, see Jordán-Cólera 1997.

The semantic development can also be seen in Armenian; see s.v. getaṙ(u). Another possible example is dial. (Urmia, Salmast) urj ‘an island or peninsula in a river’, if belonging to urd ‘a small canal’ (q.v.).

3.5 Animals

3.5.1 young animals : young branches : child, generation (human, fauna and flora)

See s.v. erinǰ ‘calf’ : ‘vine’, cf. ort‘ ‘id.’. Further, morč, morč‘ ‘young branch, stick’ > Xarberd morč(ik), Dersim mɔrǰ ‘thicket; young branch’ [HAB 3: 349b; Baɫramyan 1960: 93a] : Sebastia manuk‑morčuk ‘young (children, orphans)’ [Gabikean 1952: 410] : Akn morč‑ik ‘offspring, son or daughter’ [HAB 3: 349b].

‘beetroot’

The beetroot plays an important role in the semantic field ‘stem/stalk/root of a plant; tribe, generation’, cf. tak ‘root of a plant; tribe, family, kin’ (cf. also Kurd. tak ‘stem, stalk’, considered an Armenian borrowing), which refers to ‘beet’ in several dialects’ (see HAB 4: 360). For the semantic association ‘beet’ : ‘young branches, shoots’ note Arm. bazuk ‘arm’, which has generally shifted its semantics to ‘beet’, but in some dialects it refers to ‘thin and green branches of vine’ (Arabkir), ‘the stalk, stem of a plant’ (Akn), etc. [HAB 1: 377]; čakəndɫi bazuk in “Bžškaran jioy” (13th cent.), see Č‘ugaszyan 1980: 110L21.

Hebrew t(’)ō ‘wild ox or a kind of antelope’ corresponding to Gr. ὄρυξ and Arm. yamoyr, in Isaiah 51.20 stands for Gr. σευτλίον ‘beet’ and Arm. čakndeɫ ‘beet’. In this respect, a Partizak riddle [Tēr-Yakobean 1960: 390L1f] seems particularly interesting. Here, č‘ük‘üntür ‘beet’ is equated with karmir kov ‘red cow’. The same is seen in a riddle from Trapizon or Hamšen (collection of Nerses Fntk‘yan; see T‘oṙlak‘yan 1986: 205L‑17): Karmir kovə ktrec‘ank‘, kat‘il mə arun durs č‘ekav : “We cut (slaughtered) the red cow, not a drop of blood came out”. It should be borne in mind, however, that bovine animals are frequently found in riddles concerning different subjects; cf. karmir kov ‘red cow’ referring to fire (T‘oṙlak‘yan, ibid., the next riddle). Compare also karmir eiz ‘red bullock’ equated with keṙas ‘cherry etc.’ in Trapizon [Haykuni 1906: 351L-5f]; sew kov ‘black cow’ = boɫk ‘radish’ in Moks (Karčkana Nanəkanc‘) [Haykuni 1906: 350L16]. In view of what has been said above on Gr. σευτλίον ‘beetroot’ etc., nevertheless, the equation ‘beetroot’ : ‘cow’ in riddles may be significant.

Bearing in mind this material, one may approach Muš čav, Bulanəx, Širak, Aparan čavik ‘leaf of beet’ (Amatuni 1912: 80a; see also HayLezBrbBaṙ 3, 2004: 374a) in a broader context of internal comparison. Karčewan and Kak‘avaberd čɛv ‘young animal’ is listed in glossaries of dialectal words without any inner‑Armenian correspondence (see H. Muradyan 1960: 221b and 1967: 198b, respectively).

Formally, it can be compared to Arm. čiw ‘shin, shank’, which also refers to the leg of humans and other vertebrates, as well as to the arm and wing (cf. T‘iflis, Ararat, Łazax, Łarabaɫ haw‑či/aw ‘poultry’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 652a]), but a connection with *čaw ‘leaf of beet’ seems semantically more attractive, especially in view of Meɫri gəɫ‑a‑čɛv ‘the child of a thief’ (see Aɫayan 1954: 294) = goɫ ‘thief’ + ‑a‑ + čɛv, where čɛv apparently means something like ‘child, generation’ and should be linked with Karčewan and Kak‘avaberd čɛv ‘young animal’. The development a > ɛ after unvoiced consonants in monosyllables is not very common in Kak‘avaberd, but we do have some examples here, cf. čanč ‘fly’ > čɛnǰ or čänǰ, čaš ‘dinner’ > čɛš, č‘ap‘ ‘measure’ > č‘ɛp‘ (Varhavar), etc. (see H. Muradyan 1967: 21). In Karčevan there are more examples (see H. Muradyan 1967: 19).

As to the literary language, it is tempting to consider čawak ‘child’ (also in čavaket‘ ‘daughter’), attested only by grammarians. De Lagarde (see HAB 2: 85a) and J̌ahukyan (1967: 210, 308) link čawak with zawak a‑stem ‘child, offspring, tribe, generation’ (Bible+; widespread in the dialects). J̌ahukyan (1967: 210) proposed to connect čavak with Avest taoxman etc. (see HAB 4, s.v. tohm ‘tribe’), which is formally improbable. As to zawak, Iranian origin is considered possible (see J̌ahukyan 1987: 437, 555, 571), cf. Sogd. ’’zwn (op. cit. 525, with a question mark). The latter (’’z’wn) means ‘being, creature; existence; child’ [MacKenzie 1970: 43]. This etymology does not seem to be secure. There have been other attempts, e.g. Av. ząϑβa > *zahwak > zawak (Marr, see HAB 2: 85). Olsen (1999: 151285, 244‑245, 76914, 784, 858) derives it from Ir. *zanϑa‑(ka‑) < *ĝenh1to‑, cf. Av. ząϑa ‘birth etc.’, MPers. z’hk ‘child, offspring’ vs. z’tk ‘child’, with the development ϑ < w in intervocalic position. She admits (24576), however, that there is no reliable example of the development, and mentions hambaw ‘fame’ with a question mark. I therefore prefer positing Iran. *za(n)ϑwa‑ka‑, cf. OAv. hu‑zə̄ṇtu‑ ‘of good lineage, noble’, haoząϑβa‑ n. ‘good relationship’, Skt. jā́tu ‘from birth, by nature’, jantú‑ m. ‘creature, being, tribe, race’, from *ĝ(e)nh1‑tu‑ (cf. Marr’s etymology), or Iran. *zā‑va‑ka‑ < ĝnh1‑uo‑.

For the alternation č – z J̌ahukyan (1967: 308) only mentions čawak : zawak, but there are more of such examples, e.g. xoz vs. xoč- ‘pig’.

The internal comparison thus helps to reconstruct Arm. *čaw(‑) ‘child, generation; young animal; leaf of a beet(root)’. All three aspects (viz. human, fauna and flora) are present.

3.5.2 ‘terrestrial beasts or insects’ : ‘pagan, abominable, demon’ : ‘grandmother, lady’[6]

3.5.2.1 ‘woman, lady, (grand)mother’ : ‘insect, snail, frog etc.’ : ‘demon, spirit’

*mam‑uk ‘little grandmother’ > ‘spider’: Muš mamuk ‘spider’ [Amatuni 1912: 149‑150], Svedia mämɛüg ‘spider’ < *mam‑uk [Andreasyan 1967: 374a], Polis, Nor Naxiǰewan mamuk ‘id.’, see Ačaṙean 1913: 748a and HAB 4: 186b, with parallels from other languages: Kurd. pirik ‘grandmother; spider’, Georg. deda‑zardeli ‘*mother‑spider’, etc. Further: satanay ‘Satan’ > dial. ‘spider’ (see HAB 4: 164a, 180a; cf. also 1: 658a); Meɫri, Karčewan, Kak‘avaberd tat ‘scorpion’, literally, ‘grandmother’ (see s.v. tat ‘grandmother).

mor, morm ‘tarantula’ (MidArm. and dial.): Gr. Μορμώ, ‑όος ‑οῦς, Μορμώv, ‑όνος f. ‘she‑monster, bogy’ (also used by nurses to frighten children), generally ‘bugbear’, Lat. formīdō, inis f. ‘fear, terror; a thing which frightens, bogy’; note also Gr. μύρμηξ ‘ant; fabulous animal in India’, Lat. formīca ‘ant’, and especially Arm. dial. (Loṙi) mɔrmənǰ (see s.v. mor, morm ‘tarantula’).

Similar formations can also be found for the snail, cf. Łarabaɫ ana‑xat‘un [Ačaṙean 1913: 93b], ala‑xat‘un (see HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 12a; also Martirosyan/Gharagyozyan FW 2003, Goris). In both forms the second component is xat‘un ‘Lady’. According to Ačaṙyan (ibid.), ana‑ is either the female personal name Anna, or Turk. anne ‘mother’. The latter seems more probable especially because, next to Goris anaxat‘um/n, Margaryan (1975: 375a) also cites mama‑xat‘um. As to the variant ala‑, we must be dealing with al ‘female demon’. Note especially that by Hazāra in Afghanistan the female demon āl is called al‑xātū < *āl‑xātūn ‘Herrin Āl’, see Monchi‑Zadeh 1990: 6Nr9.

Meɫri, Karčewan, Kak‘avaberd tat ‘scorpion’, literally, ‘grandmother’; see s.v. tat.

In a poem by Aṙak‘el Siwnec‘i /14-15th cent./ [Poturean 1914: 52, stanza 30] the Virgin Mary is equated with a spider:

 

Sard es luseɫēn yankean,

Aṙanc‘ niwt‘ hines zostayn;

Ansermn yəɫac‘ar əzBan.

 

You are a shiny spider in the corner,

You weave a web without material;

You begot (became impregnated by) the Logos without sperm.

Designations for ‘lady‑bug’ (see for more detail s.v. zatik ‘sacrifice; Passover; Resurrection feast, Easter; feast’; dial. also ‘ladybug’):

‘(bug of the) Virgin Mary’: Germ. Marienkäfer, Engl. ladybug, Arm. dial. Arčak/Van mayram xat‘un ‘the Lady Mariam’, etc.;

‘cow of God’: Arm. dial. Łarabaɫ *astucoy kov/eznak, Russ. bož’ja korovka, Lith. diẽvo karvýtė, Roman. vaca domnului, etc.

‘frog’

In a traditional story (about a place called T‘ornatap‘, close to Goris) told by Šalunc‘ Mak‘an and recorded by Sero Xanzadyan in 1947 (Łanalanyan 1969: 98Nr263), a young woman is metamorphosed to a kyoṙt‘unk ‘frog’. A similar story from Alaškert narrates about a pregnant woman turning into a frog too (op. cit. 130Nr355). There is a considerable body of ethnographic data showing that frogs were associated with ideas of fertility and rain, and were considered to be female devils or mermaids; frog-shaped talismans (or those made of frogs) were largely used by women (particularly when pregnant) [Bdoyan 1972: 476-478, 495-497; A. Israyelyan 1979: 86]. On an oracular practice related to a big frog living in a well in the village of Šxnoc‘ (Karin/Erzrum region) see Łanalanyan 1969: 104Nr283. Compare the oracular practice of the Finno-Ugric “Golden Woman” and a silvern frog (see Sokolova 1990: 156).

The motif of a girl transforming into a frog is widespread in fairy-tales as well; see e.g. HŽHek‘ 3: 243, 326, 489; 4: 394; 5: 189, 593; 6: 69; 9: 195 [= Haykuni 1902: 172], 343-346; 10: 73; 11: 200; 13: 284 (for these references I am indebted to S. Gharagyozyan). In two of these, namely those from HŽHek‘ 9: 195 and 343-346, Kṙkṙan Sanamer and Xoṙxoṙ xanum seem to implicitly represent an aquatic female deity personified as a frog and associated with weavering. For Xoṙxoṙ cf. the homonymous spring under the rock of the Van fortress (see Srvanjtyanc‘ 1: 78).

In a fairy-tale edited/retold by Nazinyan (1986: 79) one finds a contrast gort ‘frog’ (female) : agṙav ‘raven’ (male).

According to N. Mkrtč‘yan (PtmSivHisHay 1965: 455; N. Mkrtč‘yan 2006: 152, 584), the word surp‘ ‘frog, toad’ in the Armenian dialect of Sivri-Hisar derives from homonymous surp‘ ‘holy’ < ClArm. surb ‘pure; holy’ (q.v.). Since, as we have seen, the frog plays a significant role in rituals and folk-beliefs, the interpretation of N. Mkrtč‘yan should be taken seriously. Note also Partizak mariam-gort ‘a big frog’ [Tēr-Yakobean 1960: 512], obviously composed of Mariam ‘St. Mary’ and gort ‘frog’.

We have seen that the frog is associated mainly with females. It is interesting to note in this respect that Arm. gort, i-stem ‘frog’ (q.v.) may be derived from QIE feminine *vord-iH-, cf. Latv. var̃de.

Further examples:

butterfly’: Arm. xipilik (mostly dial.) ‘nightmare, spirit; an illness; beautiful girl; doll; trefoil; etc.’ [HAB 2: 369]; Russ. babočka ‘butterfly’ from baba ‘woman, wife’, etc.

‘damsel‑fly, dragonfly, mosquito’: Engl. damsel‑fly “the slender dragon‑fly Agrion Virgo, and kindred species, called in French demoiselle” from damsel ‘a young unmarried woman’ (OxfEnglDict).

3.5.2.2 ‘Hyena’, ‘wolf’, etc.

‘Hyena’, ‘wolf’, ‘mule’

Arm. ǰoreak ‘a kind of small locust’ is attested in the Bible, rendering Gr. βροῦχος e.g. in Leviticus 11.22 (see Wevers 1997: 150). It seems to be composed of ǰori ‘mule’ (Bible+, widespread in dialects) and the diminutive suffix -ak [NHB 2: 676a].  

Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 132a) points out that in Geoponica (13th cent.) the word occurs with uncertain semantics since it corresponds to Greek ‘hyena’; he records no dialectal forms. We in fact have strong evidence for MidArm. and dial. ǰoreak ‘hyena’.

 In Amirdovlat‘ Amasiac‘i (see S. Vardanjan 1990: 94-95, § 397, comment 596397; MiǰHayBaṙ 1, 1987: 138a; cf. NHB 1: 508b) one finds gayl-ǰori (gen. gayl-ǰoru), gayl-ǰorek ‘hyena’, with gayl ‘wolf’ as the first member. Since in such compounds gayl usually functions as attributive to the animal represented by the second member of the compound (cf. gayl-agṙaw ‘a kind of raven’, with agṙaw ‘raven’), gayl-ǰorek, literally ‘wolf-hyena’, may be interpreted as ‘a kind of hyena’. The compound is corroborated by dial. (Büt‘ania/Nikomedia) *gayl-ǰori ‘a kind of predator’ < gayl ‘wolf’ + ǰori (see Ačaṙean 1913: 219a), where an unsuffixed ǰori is used instead of ǰoreak. Note that both Amasia and Nikomedia are located in the NW margins of the Armenian-speaking territories.

The existence of ǰoreak ‘hyena’ is corroborated by more straightforward and unambiguous evidence, both literary and dialectal. In a medieval riddle by Nersēs Šnorhali (12th cent., Cilicia) [Mnac‘akanyan 1980: 298Nr 189], the animal called ǰoreak is represented as follows:       

 

Azniw uni ink‘n žanik‘,       

Išxanayk‘ mi ir handipik‘;       

Gerezmanac‘ uni balnik‘,       

Uti zmeṙealn u zoskrtik‘.

           He has tusks of a good kind;

           Do not you dare to encounter him!

           He has the key to the graves,

           He eats the dead and bones.       

 

In the glossary of the book, Mnac‘akanyan (1980: 503b) records ǰoreak ‘locust’ referring to the very same riddle Nr 189. This does not make any sense. Given the evidence above, one can safely postulate the meaning ‘hyena’ of ǰoreak, and this perfectly fits in the context. The hyena was also named mard-a-gayl ‘werewolf’ (see s.v. gayl ‘wolf’) and k‘avt‘aṙ-k‘osi (see below) and is said to take out corpses from cemeteries (see Ananyan HayKendAšx 1, 1961: 421-433).

In an incantation, Hmayil Nr 1 of Matenadaran (Harut‘yunyan 2006: 158a, Nr. 4, Line 11), ǰore(a)k (abl. i ǰorek-ē) occurs in a list of beasts between gayl ‘wolf’ and aṙewc ‘lion’. S. Harut‘yunyan (op. cit. 473a) hesitantly identifies the word with the insect-name ǰoreak. Here again we are rather dealing with ǰoreak ‘hyena’.

In his list of animal-names in Svedia, Andreasyan (1967: 162) mentions čirəg ‘hyena’ glossing it by Arm. boreni and Arab. /dabaa/. Taking the word as “formally identical with ǰori ‘mule’ “ (> Svedia čira, op. cit. 381b; in Ačaṙyan 2003: 586, ǰ‘ira), he does not give any further comment. I think it simply reflects ǰoreak ‘hyena’. Note that Nersēs Šnorhali is from Cilicia, and the dialects of Cilicia and Svedia form an appropriate locus for MidArm. items (cf. Ačaṙyan 2003: 12-13, 350). On Svedia *ǰore-paɫik ‘hyena’ see below.

In a famous dance-song from Svedia / Musa Leṙ we read (see YušMusLer 1970: 222 with ModArm. translation where ǰirɛk is correctly interpreted as ‘hyena’):

 

Itew tunə mirɛk i,

Mirɛ kinoɫ ǰirɛk i

Behind the house there is brushwood,

In the brushwood stays the hyena.

 

Č‘olak‘ean (1986: 216a, 277) records K‘esab ǰurik or ǰürik ‘hyena’ and derives it from ǰoreak.

The association ‘mule’ : ‘hyena’ should not surprise anyone. Firstly, both animals are considered “outlaws”. For the wolf and hyena, see below. As to the mule, the fact that this animal is unique in not having been created by the Creator (cf. the medieval riddles by the very same Nersēs Šnorhali in Mnac‘akanyan 1980: 293Nr177, 335Nr49), and the traditional stories according to which the mule has been cursed by Christ (see e.g. Lalayan 2, 1988: 428) seem to be sufficient to demonstrate its special status. Secondly, both meanings can derive from ‘brown or grey animal’, cf. Gr. κιλλός ‘grey’ : κίλλος m. ‘ass’ and Cyprian ‘cicada’ (glossed as τέττιξ πρωϊνός in Hesychius); French grison ‘donkey’ vs. gris ‘grey’; Arm. *bor- ‘brown (animal)’ : bor-eni ‘hyena’, perhaps also vorak ‘locust’ (Lex.).      

‘Hyena’, ‘wolf’, ‘witch’

In the dialect of Svedia we find a compound j‘irəbäɫig ‘hyena’ [Ačaṙyan 2003: 350, 426, 527, 585] or čirəbäɫəg ‘an animal of the kind and size of the jackal’ [Andreasyan 1967: 162]. According to Ačaṙyan (2003: 350, 426, 585; HAB 4: 61b), j‘irəbäɫig ‘hyena’ is composed of j‘ira < ClArm. ǰori ‘mule’ and ClArm. parik ‘a mythical being, spirit’, thus: *ǰori-(a-)parik ‘mule-demon/witch’ > ‘hyena’; cf. also Svedia bəṙṙə-j‘irig ‘hyena’ = Arab. barriī ‘wild’ + ǰoreak [HAB 4: 61b].

A compound *ǰori-a-parik ‘mule-demon/witch’ goes parallel with yušk-a-parik (Bible+), všk-a-pari-k‘ (John Chrysostom) ‘a mythical being’, ‘ass-demon/fairy’, which renders Gr. ὀνοκένταυρος in Isaiah 13.22, 34.11, 34.14, and is composed of *yušk/vušk- ‘ass’ (cf. Pers. vušk ‘ass’, Khot. jūṣḍa- < *yauž-da- ‘ibex, mountain goat’), and parik ‘fairy’ (cf. YAv. pairikā- f. ‘sorceress, witch’, Pahl. parīg ‘witch’, Bartholomae 1904: 863-864; MacKenzie 1971: 65) [Hübschmann 1897: 199-200; HAB 3: 410; Bailey 1968: 157-158; 1979: 112a; Russell 1987: 449]. On the ‘hyenic’ aspect of ǰori ‘mule’ see above.

Elsewhere (Ačaṙyan 2003: 527), the first component is considered to be ǰur ‘water’. Compare in this respect *ǰr-parik which is recorded by Ačaṙyan (1913: 945b) without any reference to the dialectal area. Interestingly, the meaning of this form is not ‘hyena’ but ‘an old woman which cures with sorcery and incantations’. This can be identified with Akn ǰrpɔrik ‘old woman’, perhaps ‘witch’, which, according to S. Erēc‘ (1898: 380a), reflects *ǰr-parik with the sound change a > ɔ. In all his examples, however, as well as in those of Gabriēlean 1912: 23, the sound change is seen in the position before the nasal -n-, and one is not sure whether it applies in other conditions too.

If *ǰr-parik ‘old woman, witch, sorceress’ indeed comprises ǰur ‘water’ and parik, its original meaning would have been ‘female water spirit, nymph’. Svedia j‘irəbäɫig hardly contains ǰur ‘water’ because it refers to ‘hyena’ (unless one assumes a subsequent semantic development ‘female water spirit’ > ‘old witch, sorceress’ > ‘hyena’).

Ačaṙyan (2003: 426) mentions the change -r- > -ɫ- not specifying it any further. The sound change may be dissimilatory. On the other hand, one should also take into account other factors such as contamination. Note, for instance, Sebastia čṙ-paɫu ‘frog; (pejorative) a new-born child of a woman’ (see Gabikean 1952: 379).

Further, note Marzvan *gayl-paṙav ‘a female evil spirit which, like the ali-paṙaw, strangles new-born children’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 219a], obviously composed of gayl ‘wolf’ and paṙaw ‘old woman’.

‘Hyena’, ‘wolf’, ‘witch’, ‘leprosy, scab’

The basic Armenian word for ‘hyena’ is boreni, wo-stem: GDSg borenwoy (Jeremiah 12.9), AblSg i borenwoy (Paterica); borean, i-stem: GDPl borenic‘ (P‘awstos Buzand 4.13). The word seems to be related with *bor ‘brown or motley/spotted animal’ (cf. Karin borek ‘a dark-complexioned cow with white spots’, Ačaṙyan 1913: 203b; Muš bor hort‘ik ‘brown or motley calf’, HŽHek‘ 13, 1985: 161ff; etc.); bor ‘leprosy’ (cf. bor-ot ‘leprosy’, Bible+); Pahl. bōr ‘reddish-brown, bay, chestnut (horse)’, Kurd. bōr ‘grey; brown’, etc.

The word for ‘leprosy’ is also associated with the notions of ‘(moral) dirt, heresy’, cf. bor-ot ‘leprous’ > Georg. borot’i ‘evil, bad, unjust, dangerous’, Arm. dialect of Malat‘ia borot ‘heretic’ (see HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 212a); Arm. pisak ‘spotted; leprous’, dial. of Van and Łarabaɫ p‘is ‘dirty’ vs. Pers. pīs ‘leprous; dirty’ (see HAB 4: 84b; Ačaṙean 1902: 352); Arm. dial. Van kṙ-ot ‘leprous; bad, useless’. The latter is identical with Ararat, Muš, Nor Bayazet gṙ-ot ‘id.’ (see Amatuni 1912: 154b; Ačaṙean 1913: 257b; HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 286b).

Arm. dial. k‘awt‘aṙ-k‘os(i) ‘hyena; old witch’ is present in T‘iflis, Łarabaɫ [Ačaṙean 1913: 1107a; HAB 4: 567a], Łazax [Ananyan 1961: 421]. Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 567a) correctly presents the word with the meaning ‘hyena; old witch’, though earlier (1913: 1107a) he had described the animal as ‘a kind of rabid wolf’. Ananyan (1961: 421, 425, 427, 429, 432) corroborates the meaning ‘hyena’ and repeatedly states that this is the animal otherwise called mard-a-gel ‘werewolf’.

The first component of the compound is k‘awt‘ar/ṙ ‘hyena; old witch’, which is poorly attested but is widespread in the dialects [HAB 4: 567a]. In the late medieval dictionary Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ (Amalyan 1975: 58Nr367, 337Nr212), k‘awt‘aṙ and k‘ōt‘arinē are represented as synonymous to boreni ‘hyena’, and the denotatum is said to eat the flesh of corpses. The word is borrowed from Pers. kaftār ‘hyena’ (cf. Pahl. haftār ‘hyena’, MacKenzie 1971: 39).

For other forms in various languages see HAB 4: 567a; Bläsing 2000: 39. Bläsing (ibid.) records Turk. dial. kafdar, kaftarküç (Kars), kaftaküski (Ardvin) ‘hyena’, Azerbaijani kaftar ‘hyena; (pejorative) ‘alter, häßlicher Kerl, alter Knacker’, kaftarkuš ‘id.’, kaftarkus ‘alter Stinker’, mentioning also Arm. k‘awt‘ar/ṙ and k‘awt‘aṙ-k‘os(i). He points out that the element -kUs/š is unclear.

I suggest to treat Arm. k‘awt‘aṙ-k‘os(i) as containing k‘os ‘a kind of leprosy, scab’ (Bible+; widespread in dialects), cf. k‘os-ot ‘scabbed’, in dialects also ‘dirty, useless’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 1121b; HAB 4: 588a][7]. If this is accepted, Azerbaijani kaftarkus, Turkish dialectal kaftarküç etc. should be regarded as Armenian loans. Note that the geographical distribution of Turkish dialectal (Kars, Ardvin) and Azerbaijani forms is roughly compatible to that of the Armenian term (T‘iflis, Łarabaɫ).

3.5.2.3 Wolf as a ‘wild animal, animal of God’ and ‘outlaw’

The wolf and the deer

In many IE and non-IE languages derivatives denoting ‘animals of God’ are used to designate ‘wild (not domesticated) animals’, cf. Hitt. šiunaš ḫuitar ‘wild animals’, lit. ‘animals of God’, Latv. dieva zuosis ‘wild geese’, lit. ‘geese of God’, etc.[8]

The deer and the wolf are often considered wild animals par excellence, animals of God, cf. Latv. dieva suns ‘wolf’, lit. ‘dog of God’, Russ. dial. of Kolyma božij olen’ ‘wild deer’, lit. ‘deer of God’, cf. Yakut taŋara tabata ‘id.’, lit. ‘deer of Heaven-God’, etc. [Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 486-488 = 1995, 1: 406-408; Edelman 2003: 125-126], Polab. dai̯və korvo ‘deer’, lit. ‘wild cow, cow of God’ [Toporov PrJaz i-k, 1980: 242]; Pashto lewə́ ‘wolf’ < *daiu̯-i̯a- ‘of God’ (rather than ‘daevic’, see Edelman 2003: 125-126). Note Arm. dial. of Zeyt‘un vɛyɛ, vɛrɛ ‘deer’ from vayr-i ‘wild’, a derivative of < vayr ‘field, commons’ [HAB 4: 301b; Ačaṙyan 2003: 65, 339]. Further, see s.v. arti(k) ‘wild sheep’.

Such a parallelism between the deer and the wolf is also seen in designations of the planet Venus. In a homily by Zak‘aria Kat‘oɫikos (9th cent.) we find Eɫǰeru ‘Deer, Stag’ as the name of a planet, presumably the Venus. One may link Arm. Eɫǰeru with Early German tierstern ‘Evening Star’ from tier ‘wild animal’, Lith. žvėrìnė ‘Evening Star’ from žvėrìs ‘wild animal’ (Scherer 1953: 83-84), Slavic designations of the types ‘star of the wild animal’ and ‘star of the wolf’ (Karpenko 1981: 80). All these names reflect the same general pattern ‘Star of the wild animal, esp. deer or wolf’, ‘Tierstern’. See 3.1.5 for more details.

Another illustration of the parallelism between the wolf and the deer can be seen in designations of the sun-shower in Armenian [Amatuni 1912: 69b; HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 235a] and other languages often referring to the wolf [Abeghian 1899: 108; A. Petrosyan 1987: 5811] or to the hind (see e.g. Lalayean 1897: 247L2 = 1, 1983: 247: Arewov anjrew galis, asum en, eɫniknerə kə cnin “when it rains by the sun, they say, the hinds give birth”). See also A. Petrosyan 1987: 5812. In Nerk‘in Basen, both the wolf and the hind function in this context (see Hakobyan 1974: 277).  

To become a wolf

The idiomatic expression “to become a wolf” in § 37 of the Hittite Laws (see J. Friedrich 1959: 27; Hoffner 1964: 38, 189-190), reflecting the concept “to be deprived from one’s rights”, has been discussed by Weitenberg (1991) in connection with Germanic and other data. On Germ. ‘wolf’ : ‘outlaw’ and other related problems see also Gerstein 1974; Ivanov 1975: 401-405; Ivanov 1977: 152-153). Weitenberg (op. cit. 194) points out that there is no material basis for direct comparison of Hittite “you have become a wolf” with wargus sit in the Lex Salica since the meaning ‘wolf’ of North Germanic vargr is recent. Then he introduces an interesting parallel from the Armenian Canonical law, gayl eɫew “he became a wolf”, which reflects a background that is comparable to the situation in § 37 of the Hittite Laws.

It is not clear, however, whether the document is an originally Armenian text or a translation. Therefore, Weitenberg (op. cit. 195) comes to the following cautious conclusion: “it cannot be shown that at the Proto-Indo-European level such an expression was used in the sense in which it was used in Hittite: that it had a well defined meaning in legal language”.

The Armenian evidence becomes more reliable on the strength of a similar expression in Chapter 40 of the History of Łewond, 8th century [Šahnazareanc‘ 1857: 196L-1f]: ew xortakēr zk‘aɫc‘r luc hawatoyn or i K‘ristos, ew orošiwr i hōtēn Teaṙn ew zgenoyr zkerparan gayloy, ew partawor aṙnēr zink‘n tiezerakan atenin : “He destroyed the easy yoke of his faith in Christ, separated himself from the flock of the Lord, and assumed the image of a wolf, thus making himself subject to the eternal judgement” (transl. Arzoumanian 1982: 145). The expression zgenoyr zkerparan gayloy literally means “he put on the image of a wolf” (cf. the ModArm. translation in Ter-Łewondyan 1982: 129).

Note also a medieval riddle [Mnac‘akanyan 1980: 289Nr169] by Nersēs Šnorhali (12th cent., Cilicia), where the wolf is described as a thief who did not worship Christ: č‘ēr K‘ristosi erkrpagoɫ.

One may assume that the phrase “to become a wolf” or “to assume the image of a wolf” at least in Hittite and Armenian legal traditions reflects an Indo-European legal expression. It seems to actually mean “to become an outlaw, offcast, a person declared to be outside the society”.[9]

3.5.2.4 ‘hind, deer’ : ‘dragon, snake’ : ‘wolf’ : ‘devil’

‘hind’ : ‘dragon, snake’

In a medieval riddle [Mnac‘akanyan 1980: 287Nr164] written by Nersēs Šnorhali (12th cent., Cilicia), the hind (eɫn) is described as follows:

Ē annman aɫuor tikin,

Ink‘n cnani zmayrn ōjin

She is a matchless lovely Lady;

(she) herself gives birth to the mother of the snake.

Amirdovlat‘ Amasiac‘i (15th cent.) thoroughly describes the snake‑eating habit of the deer/stag (see Vardanjan 1990: 40). According to folk‑beliefs recorded in J̌avaxk‘ (Axalk‘alak‘), the dragon (ušap) = tornado originates from a new‑born deer that has been taken to the sky by dragons [Lalayean 1897: 239 = 1, 1983: 241; see also Garamanlean 1931: 512a].

In two variants of the riddle on the thunder (see 3.2, on cirani cov) [S. Harut‘yunyan 1965: 61aNr633a/251a, 204aNr2087/321b], the thunder has been replaced by the stag (eɫǰeru) and the dragon (višap).

In a fairy tale from Łarabaɫ [HŽHek‘ 5, 1966: 492‑494], a deer (ǰeyran) appears in the role of the resurrecting figure (which is commonly represented by a demon in fairy‑tales), and transforms to a snake.

On the association ‘deer’ : ‘dragon/snake’, see also Deweǰyan 1982: 148‑149.

‘hind, deer’ : ‘wolf’ : ‘devil’

As we have seen, the dragon and snake are associated with the deer. In view of the association of ‘Satan’ with ‘wolf’ and ‘hyena’ (see above, as well as 4.3), one also expects a parallelism between the wolf and the deer. Indeed, designations of the sun‑shower in Armenian [Amatuni 1912: 69b; HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 235a] and other languages often refer to the wolf [Abeghian 1899: 108; A. Petrosyan 1987: 5811], and in J̌avaxk‘ one finds the hind instead [Lalayean 1897: 247L2 = 1, 1983: 247]: Arewov anjrew galis, asum en, eɫniknerə kə cnin “when it rains during sunshine, they say, the hinds give birth”. See also A. Petrosyan 1987: 5812. In Nerk‘in Basen, both the wolf and the hind function in this context (see G. Hakobyan 1974: 277).

As we have seen above, in the same area, i.e. in J̌avaxk‘, the dragon is believed to originate from a new‑born deer. The two motifs are combined in a variant attested by G. Ter‑Mkrtč‘yan, native of the same area (the village of Cuɫrut‘ close to Axalc‘xa), see P. Hakobyan 1979: 6. It says that dragons are born from hinds in mountains at the time of banǰarbusuk. The latter refers to a a kind of soft snow or hail in early spring [Amatuni 1912: 89b; Ačaṙean 1913: 174b]. Remarkably, it is synonymous with siklik or səklik, which seems to refer to one of the daughters of Satan etymologically (see below). Thus, the sun‑shower and banǰarbusuk are related with the wolf, the deer, or the devil.

Also in designations for ‘plant‑seeds floating in the air’ one finds the parallelism ‘deer’ : ‘devil, Satan’; cf. Diliǰan/Poɫosk‘ilisa baxri p‘rp‘ur lit. ‘foam of deer’ (see Ananyan 1980: 370) vs. Atap‘azar satanayi črag and Polis satanayi aṙapa (see Ačaṙean 1913: 956ab), lit. ‘Satan’s lamp’ and ‘Satan’s wagon’, respectively.

Further etymological implications

We have seen that there is enough material explicitly or implicitly reflecting an association between the deer, the snake or dragon, the wolf, and the devil. This evidence can play a significant role in etymological studies. In the following I will propose some ideas.

Dragons are born from hinds at the time of banǰarbusuk, that is ‘a kind of soft snow or hail in the early spring’ (see above). In DialAdd apud NHB 2: 1066c one finds a dialectal word siklik or səklik, which, according to Amatuni (1912: 589a), has been preserved in Trapizon. The word is synonymous with banǰarbusuk. No etymological explanation of si/əklik is known to me. I think this word may be identified with one of the two daughters of Satan: Səlik and Bəlik, in Ewdokia [Gazančean 1899: 22, 54] and in Sebastia [Gabikean 1952: 499]; cf. the light‑minded (giž) spouses Sklik and Baklik in a fairy‑tale [HŽHek‘ 3, 1962: 388‑390].

Dial. (Muš, Van) xazal‑ɔj ‘a kind of snake’, with ōj (= awj) ‘snake’ as the second component (see Ačaṙean 1913: 445a), or simply xazal [HayLezBrbBaṙ 2, 2002: 260b], can be identical with dial. (Muš, Van, Sasun, Moks) xäzal/xazal ‘hind, deer’ (on which, see Petoyan 1954: 127; 1965: 479; HayLezBrbBaṙ 2, 2002: 260b).

The mountain‑name Gaylaxaz‑ut is explicitly understood as ‘abounding in gaylaxaz’. The latter (lit. = ‘wolf’s stone’) refers to ‘flint’ and resembles or is confused with dial. satani eɫung ‘obsidian’, lit. ‘Satan’s nail. Earlier the mountain was called Paxray, possibly identical with paxray ‘cattle; hind, deer, stag’. Aristakēs Lastivertc‘i relates a traditional story on this mountain and a Holy Cross destroyed by “servants of Satan”. It is thus possible that both names of this mountain somehow reflect the mythological background of it. See 4.3 for more detail.

There is abundant cultural evidence demonstrating a close association between the stag and the cross or divinities, see Mnac‘akanyan 1977 (especially 17‑21); Deweǰyan 1982; cf. also the famous song by Grigor Narekac‘i entitled “Taɫ yarut‘ean”, the horns of the oxen are described as xač‘‑a‑nman ‘cross‑like’ [K‘yoškeryan 1981: 62L26; Mnac‘akanyan 1977: 20‑21]. In what follows I shall discuss the word xač‘eneak within the same cultural framework.

xač‘eneak ‘a kind of male animal’ [HAB 2: 335a]. In NHB 1: 924c: “perhaps xoč‘k‘orak ‘a young swine, pig’” (highly improbable). Attested only by grammarians. Grigor Magistros (11th cent.) mentions it in a list of male animals, between eɫǰeru ‘stag’ and xoy ‘ram’ [Adonc 1915: 240]. No etymology is known to me.

Formally, xač‘eneak can be interpretted as xač‘ ‘cross’ + ‑eni‑ + dimin. ‑ak. For the suffix ‑eni = ‑ean + ‑i cf. ark‘ay ‘king’ : ark‘ayean, ark‘ayeni ‘royal’, etc. (see J̌ahukyan 1998: 23). Bearing in mind that the basic meaning of xač‘ and xēč‘ ‘cross’ (q.v.) was ‘stick, staff; forked branch, pole’, one may identify xač‘eneak with the stag. The fact that eɫǰeru is also mentioned in the list should not be a problem because we are dealing with a list of male animal designations and not the animals (i.e. the denotata) per se, so eɫǰeru and xač‘eneak, mentioned next to each other, might be synonymous. Besides, xač‘eneak could have been the male of a different kind of deer (e.g. fallow‑deer; see s.v. analut‘). Such a metaphoric designation perfectly parallels Oss. sag ‘deer’ (< *šāka‑ lit. ‘forked, having branches’) and Russ. soxátyj ‘elk’ which derive from Oss. sagoj/sagojnæ ‘hay‑fork’ (cf. Sogd. (Man.) š’ɣh ‘branch’) and Russ. soxá ‘(wooden) plough’ (cf. Pol. socha ‘two‑pronged fork’, Bulg. soxá ‘stick with a fork’, Sln. sóha ‘pole with a cross‑beam’ etc.), see Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984: 519; Cheung 2002: 222 (see also s.v. c‘ax). Thus, the derivation of xač‘eneak ‘(prob.) stag’ from xač‘ ‘cross’ may be based on both metaphoric and cultural motivations.

3.5.2.5 ‘spider’ : ‘ass’

We have seen the associations ‘lady, grandmother’ : ‘spider or other insects’ : ‘demon’ on the one hand, and ‘hyena’ : ‘ass, mule’ : ‘fairy, spirit’ on the other. Combining these semantic fields into a broader context, one can understand the following data.

*ēš‑xṙanǰ/č‘ ‘a poisonous spider or the like’: Xotorǰur ɛšxṙanǰ ‘a wild, poisonous spider’ (see YušamXotorǰ 1964: 447b; in HayLezBrbBaṙ 2, 2002: 26a – ēšxṙanč‘) may be connected with Łarabaɫ *išaxaṙanč‘ ‘a kind of black, poisonous insect’ and Ararat išuxaṙanč‘ ‘a kind of insect living under ground’ = Trapizon getni lakot, lit. ‘earth‑puppy’, Fr. courtilière, Russ. medvédka [Ačaṙean 1913: 225a, 399b], also Muš, Van iša/əxaṙanč‘ and Nor J̌uɫa išixaṙič‘ ‘a kind of black insect’ (see Amatuni 1912: 233a; HayLezBrbBaṙ 2, 2002: 177b). According to Davt‘yan (1966: 363), Łarabaɫ and Hadrut‘ išə/ixáṙanč‘ refers to ‘bumble‑bee, dog‑bee’ and is synonymousal to pǘṙnə < boṙ. The latter is described by Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 473a) as follows: ‘a kind of big, black fly which stings horses and cattle’.

The word seems to comprise ēš ‘ass’ and *xr/ṙanǰ ‘*a terrestrial animal, lizard or snail’. I find the latter word in the dialect of Svedia: xranč, xranǰ ‘chameleon’ [Andreasyan 1967: 160, 237]. The OArm. form of xranǰ would be *xranǰ, and/or, given the parallel of narinǰ > laranǰ (see Andreasyan 1967: 361b, 376b), *xrinǰ. Andreasyan (1967: 237) ascribes onomatopoeic origin to the word, trying to connect it to xṙnč‘em ‘to grunt (in Łazax, said of an ass)’. This is not convincing, but a folk‑etymological association is obvious, see below. I propose a connection to xɫunǰn ‘snail’ and xlēz ‘lizard’, dial. also ‘snail’; cf. Syriac xlīzonā, which is borrowed in the dialect of Zeyt‘un in both meanings, ‘snail’ and ‘lizard’ (see HAB 2: 315a, s.v. xalizon). For the ‑r‑ of *xrVnǰ cf. Arm. xṙnǰayl, xṙnč‘oɫ = Gr. κοχλίας in Galen [NHB 1: 986a; Greppin 1985: 62‑63] and Georg. q’urinč’ila ‘a kind of snail’ [HAB 2: 376b]. Is Kartvel. *mxul‑ ‘lizard’ [Klimov 1964: 144; 1998: 134] somehow related, too? for more detail, see 2.3.1, on ‑(ē)z.

Ačaṙyan (1953: 269) mentions Aṙtial xɔxanč ‘crayfish’. Further, note Urmia, Salmast xərǰala is rendered as xeč‘ap‘ar ‘crayfish’ in GwṙUrmSalm 2, 1898: 97. Dial.*salatrana ‘crayfish’ (Moks) : ‘Satan’ (Van), see HAB 4: 164a.

Note that some designations of the spider and other insects literally mean ‘divine ass etc.’: Pers. (Xurāsānī) šotor e xodā ‘spider’, literally ‘Gotteskamel’; Lurī xar e xodā ‘spider’, literally ‘Gottesesel’, next to Pers. xar i xudā, which, like Gabrī of Kirmān gŏ‑xodā *‘Gottesochse’, denotes ‘Kellerassel’ (see Monchi‑Zadeh 1990: 10‑11Nr23). Other designations of the spider in Xurāsānī (see Monchi‑Zadeh 1990: 10‑11Nr23): asb e doldol ‘Doldol’s horse’, hašū‑dôdô ‘spider’< ‘camel‑Dodo’.

3.5.2.6 Chthonic animals

Slav. *aščerъ : OCS m. ašterъ ‘lizard’, Russ. jáščer ‘inflammation of the tongue of cattle, horses’, jáščur ‘a kind of mouse or dormouse’, jáščerica ‘lizard’, Czech dial. jaščur ‘salamander’, Upper Sorbian ješćeŕ ‘otter; grass‑snake’, etc.; cf. Lith. skėrỹs m. ‘locust’, Latv. šķìrgaîlis m. ‘lizard’, etc., perhaps also Gr. σκίουρος m. ‘squirrel’; note also Slav. *gu‑ščerъ ‘lizard’ [ÈtimSlovSlavJaz 1, 1974: 87‑89; 7, 1980: 179].

Slav. *ščur designates terrestrial animals such as the sand martin, rat, mole, grass‑snake, salamander, earthworm, grasshopper, cricket or scorpion; the prefixed form *prá‑ščur means ‘dead ancestor’; note also ščurit’ ‘to squint’; derived from IE *skeur‑ ‘to cover, hide’, cf. Lat. obscūrus ‘dark, shady, obscure; gloomy’; Slav. *gu‑ščerъ ‘lizard’ perhaps contains *gu‑ ‘horned cattle’, cf. the traditional belief that the lizards are cowmilkers [Jakobson 1959: 277].

Since Russ. jáščur refers to ‘a kind of mouse or dormouse’, the dormouse being a small rodent of a family intermediate between the squirrels and the mice, the comparison with Gr. σκίουρος m. ‘squirrel’ does not seem impossible. The interpretation as ‘shadow‑tail’ has a flavour of folk‑etymology. One may tentatively posit *sker‑ : *ski/eur‑ or *skiw(o)r‑, a designation for terrestrial animals of substratum origin; compare Arm. Moks *swor‑ik ‘squirrel’.

All these words seem to be in a way related with each other, although it is not easy to establish exact formal correspondences. They cover a broad semantic field ranging from reptiles and lizards to harmful insects and rodents. Traditionally, these animals are grouped around the notion chthonic animals. It is not surprising, then, that such designations are sometimes related with designations of illnesses (note Russ. jáščer ‘inflammation of the tongue of cattle, horses’ above; cf. also HAB 2: 374 on xlurd ‘mole’) and/or demons. For interesting illustrations in Armenian, see s.vv. t‘it‘eɫn ‘butterfly’ and t‘it‘ɫ-ot ‘mad’, mor(m) ‘tarantula’. Further, see 2.1.36 on tabu.

3.5.2.7 Lizard : cow‑milker/sucker

There is a similar belief among Armenians about dragons that suck the milk of cows [Ališan 1910: 210; Garamanlean 1931: 510, 515‑516]. See also HAB 1: 457b s.v. bnas ‘a kind of cattle/sheep sucking snake’.

According to Romanian folk‑beliefs (see Svešnikova 1979: 216, 218), were-wolves take away milk from the cow by striking it on the leg. Corresponding beliefs are recorded concerning witches (Butterhexen or Hasenfrauen) among Germanic and Celtic peoples [Riegler‑Klagenfurt 1910: 187]. On witches that fly in the shape of butterflies steal butter or cream (cf. Germ. Schmetterling, Molkendieb, Buttervogel, Engl. butterfly, etc.), see Makovskij 1986: 50‑51.

According to Jakobson (1959: 277), Slav. *gu‑ščerъ ‘lizard’ is probably composed of *gu‑ ‘horned cattle’ and *(a)ščerъ ‘lizard or other terrestrial animals’ and should be treated in relation with the traditional belief that the lizards are cowmilkers. Note also Ukr. molokosís ‘lizard’, lit. ‘milksucker’ (see Fasmer 3: 690).

West Circassian ħadepčeməʔw (Temirgoy dial.), ħadečeməʔw (Shapsugh dial.) ‘tortoise’ may contain čemə ‘cow’, although the first component (cf. ħade ‘corpse’?) is unclear (R. Smeets, p.c.). For the association between ‘tortoise/turtle’ and ‘frog’ cf. Iran. *kasi̯apa‑ (cf. YAv. kasiiapa‑ m. ‘turtle’, Pers. kašaf/w ‘turtle’, etc.) > Oss. xæfs/xæfsæ ‘frog’ (see Cheung 2002: 246); Germ. Schild‑kröte ‘tortoise’, lit. ‘shield‑toad’. Compare also Arm. dial. (Aṙtial, Hungary) taštov gort ‘tortoise’ < ‘a frog with a basin’, see Ačaṙyan 1953: 195, 197 (considered a Turkish calque).

Note especially Skt. godhā́‑ f. ‘Iguana, a species of big lizard’ (RV) < ‘*cow milker/sucker’ etymologically and semantically comparable with Arm. kovadiac‘ ‘a kind of lizard, toad’ (Bible+). The underlying semantic pattern remained to be vivid since kov‑a‑diac‘ has later been replaced by the synonymous kov‑(a‑)cuc or kov‑r‑cuc (see s.v. kovadiac‘). Commenting on the etymology of Sebastia kov‑r‑cuc, Gabikean (1952: 311) informs us that, as people say, the lizard likes sucking the cow’s udder, which then becomes swollen and bleeds.

For the belief that lizards, toads and snakes are ‘cow‑suckers’, see Lüders 1942: 44ff = 1973: 511ff. On some examples of the pattern ‘goat biter/sucker’ > ‘a kind of lizard’ in other languages, see Monchi‑Zadeh 1990: 45‑46.

For the structural typology of ‑ac‘ in kov‑a‑di‑ac‘ and folk‑believes around this lizard, probably to be identified with the toad, the following seems interesting.

In the dialect of Van, Ačaṙyan (1913: 760b) records *mac‘oc‘, *kanač‘‑m‘ac‘oc‘, rural *matot, *kanač‘‑matot ‘a kind of green large lizard which is believed to provide snakes with his poison’. The first component of the compounds is kanač‘ ‘green’.

No etymological attempt is known to me. This lizard is obviously identical with Svedia ucə‑xmc‘näg (< *ōji‑xmc‘nuk, lit. ‘who gives the serpent to drink’) ‘a kind of green lizard’ (see Andreasyan 1967: 161, 264). Note also K‘esab ujə xumc‘ənuɔɫ ‘a kind of black, snake‑like, harmless lizard (two spans long) that lives in moist earth and is believed to provide snakes with poison and makes them drink it’ [Č‘olak‘ean 1986: 271]. Bearing in mind this synonymous compound, one may tentatively derive Van *mac‘‑oc‘ from *xm‑ac‘‑ōj ‘who gives the serpent to drink’.

A similar folk‑belief is recorded by Sargisean (1932: 457) on Balu *kovrcuc ‘a large poisonous lizard that jumps onto a human face, and from which the snake gets his poison’, and by Petoyan (1954: 113; 1965: 457) on Sasun govjuj ‘a green lizard which is supposed to give poison to the snake’. It seems that we are dealing with the toad (see s.v. kovadiac‘ ‘lizard, toad’).

The element ‑ac‘ in *xm‑ac‘‑ōj is probably identical with that found in the synonymous kov‑a‑di‑ac‘ ‘a lizard, toad’, lit. ‘who drinks the milk of a cow’ (q.v.). The structure is completely identical: xmem ‘to drink’ : *xm‑ac‘ vs. diem ‘to drink milk’ : *di‑ac‘ ‘who drinks milk’ (cf. also stn‑diac‘ ‘baby’). One may argue that in the compound under discussion the meaning is causative. I am not sure whether this is important enough to reject the comparison. Besides, in the underlying folk‑beliefs an inversion of the subject and the object may have taken place. In Hačən, which is very close to Svedia, the very same lizard is called ‘who eats poison of the snake’ (see HAB 3: 342b).

Still there are two formal problems:

1) Ačaṙyan presents the (quasi‑)reconstruction of the Van compound. The precise form is, thus, unknown. If the actual form indeed contains ‑o‑ rather than ‑ō‑ (= ‑aw‑), we have a problem;

2) Where does the variant *matot come from? Perhaps through an intermediate dissimilated variant *matoc‘ and/or some kind of folk‑etymology?

3.5.2.8 Eels

Papen aɫanak ‘a long kind of worm that lives in mud’ [HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 36a]. In the word‑collection of Arsēn vardapet T‘ōxmaxean collected in the prison of Van (see Amatuni 1912: 684a), aɫanak is explained as follows: ergoɫ ordn čahičneri, aɫik‘ajew serm gorteri “the singing worm of the swamps; the intestine‑like semen of frogs”. It must be identical with Van aɫanak ‘a kind of animal which, like a turtle, consists of a large lump of flesh, lives in brooks and sings sweetly at night’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 73a]. According to Ačaṙyan (ibid.), the same animal is called krɔr in Muš.

I think this is the eel. The description of both Papen and Van forms fits here. The eels are nocturnal feeders in and they in the mud for most of the day-time. They also sing or at least are believed to sing. The association with female sea-monsters or sirens is plausible, see s.v. əngɫayk‘. Eels are rare in Armenia, but they are still present in Cilicia, and in the Caspian.

3.5.2.9 ‘weasel, mouse, etc.’ : ‘bride, young woman, etc.’

A synchronically clear example is Turk. gelin ‘bride’, diminutive gelincik ‘little bride, little young woman; weasel’. Gr. γαλέη ‘weasel, marten’, Lat. glīs, -īris m. ‘dormouse’ and Skt. giri(kā)- ‘mouse’ (Lex.) are usually derived from the PIE word for ‘husband’s sister’: Gr. γάλις f. ‘sister-in-law’, etc., see s.v. tal ‘husband’s sister’. This is due to metaphorical or tabuistic use of ‘sister-in-law’ for ‘weasel’ (see Szemerényi 1977: 90, with refer.). Details (e.g. the laryngeal) are not clear, however; see Mallory/Adams 1997: 387, 521-522. For the (erotic) associaton between a young girl or woman and weasel compare RV 1, 126.6 where a young woman “trembles like kaśīkā́- (‘Ichneumonweibchen or weasel’)”. Here the context is clearly erotic. If Arm. ak‘is (i-stem) ‘weasel’ (q.v.) is related with Skt. kaśīkā́-, one may derive it from a PIE feminine noun in *-ih2-. This would be another piece of evidence supporting the “feminine nature” of the weasel. For the association ‘weasel; marten’ : ‘love; wedding’, see also Toporov, PrJaz (I-K) 1980: 279-283.

Hamšen (Čanik) xadug mork‘urik ‘a kind of mouse’ [T‘oṙlak‘yan 1986: 116Nr135, 233b], literally: ‘spotted, motley or beautiful mother’s sister’. This probably refers to the weasel, cf. cəṙmuk ‘weasel’ (< jar-muk), described by people as balak‘ = xatutik (see Martirosyan/Gharagyozyan FW 2003, September, Hrazdan), or č‘al, č‘altik ‘motley’ (see Ananyan, HayKendAšx 1, 1961: 164, 168; cf. especially the kind called xayt‑ak‘is “motley/spotted weasel”, see op. cit. 157). Compare also Abkhaz apšja ‘weasel’ < ‘beautiful’ (Chirikba, p.c.; Starostin has a different etymology).

Other examples: Sebastia hašn‑uk ‘weasel’ from harsn‑uk ‘little bride’ [Gabikean 1952: 329]; cf. also nert‘akn (q.v.).

In the fable “The weasel and the mouse” of Olympian (see AṙOɫomp 1854: 171‑172; transl. by Orbeli 1956: 125), the goddess of love Astɫik transformed the weasel, who had fallen in love with a boy, to a beautiful woman.

In a humorous fairy‑tale (1926, Leninakan < Bulanəx), a mouse (harsnuk‑muk “little bride or daughter‑in‑law : mouse”) marries a rooster (čet) [HŽHek‘ 10, 1967: 376Nr140].

3.6 Plants

‘cut, split’ : ‘grain, corn’

Arm. hat, o‑stem ‘grain’ is related to hatanem ‘to cut’ (q.v.)[10]. It seems likely that hat derives from *h2edos‑ n. ‘sort of cereal, grain’ (cf. Lat. ador etc.). If we are dealing with a deverbative noun, Arm. hat‑ ‘to cut’ would be the only independent evidence for the underlying verb. According to Morani (1991: 176‑177), the Armenian displays the development ‘grain, seed’ > ‘cut, section, piece, fragment’.

The semantic relationship is reminiscent of that between kut, o‑stem ‘seed’ (Hexaemeron+) and, if related, kt‑ur and kot‑or ‘cut, piece’ (both Bible+); for the suffix cf. hat‑or ‘cut, fragment’.

Some (possible) examples: Lat. terō ‘to grind; rub’ : trīticum n. ‘wheat’; Lat. secale ‘rye’ : secāre ‘to cut’ (which is, however, rejected by Szemerényi 1959/60: 247); Engl. spelt ‘a type of grain (Triticum spelta)’ : ‘to husk or pound (grain)’.

3.7 Body parts

3.7.1 ‘ceiling’ : ‘palate’ : ‘ sky, heaven’

aṙastaɫ ‘ceiling’ (Bible+) > MidArm. (mainly in medical literature) and dial. ‘palate’; see s.v.

In Partizak, Sebastia, Xotorǰur etc., Arm. aṙik‘ ‘ceiling’ also means ‘ceiling of the mouth’, that is to say, ‘palate’.

ClArm. jeɫun ‘ceiling’ (q.v.) is metaphorically associated with the sky (Eznik Koɫbac‘i etc.).

Dial. tamaɫ ‘palate’ vs. ClArm. tamal(i) ‘roof’ seems interesting too, but the relation is uncertain; see s.v. tamal.

Typologically cf. Moks ač‘ič‘ tanis ‘upper eyelid’, lit. ‘roof of the eye’ and ceṙac‘ tanis ‘поверхность кисти руки’, lit. ‘roof of hand’ (see Orbeli 2002: 204, 253); see also s.v. *and‑: dr‑and.

For the semantic shift ‘ceiling’ > ‘palate’ Ačaṙyan mentions dial. t‘avan from Turk. tavan ‘ceiling; palate’ (HAB 1: 254a, 255a; see also 1902: 121, 329).

As for the semantic shifts ‘ceiling’ > ‘palate’ and ‘ceiling’ > ‘sky’, one finds examples displaying the opposite developments:

‘sky’ > ‘palate’, cf. Lat. palātum ‘roof of the mouth, palate’ (> Engl. palate), perhaps related to Etruscan falandum ‘sky’ (OxfEnglDict).

‘sky’ > ‘ceiling’, cf. Lat. caelum ‘heaven, sky’ > MLat. ‘canopy; vault; roof’, It. cielo, F. ciel ‘sky; canopy; ceiling’, Engl. ceiling, etc.

Note also that in the Ossetic epic, the mountain-home of Mar’am is described as having a roof of midnight‑stars: “звезды полночные – крыша” [Gatuev 1932: 27].

All three components, as in the case of aṙastaɫ, are found in Slav. *nebo ‘sky, heaven’ (from PIE *nebh ‘sky; cloud’, see s.v. amp): SCr. nȅbo ‘sky, heaven’, dial. ‘ceiling; palate’, Sln. nebọ̑ ‘id.’, Russ. nëbo ‘palate’, etc. (see ÈtimSlovSlavJaz 24, 1997: 101‑102). On the semantic field, see also Pisani 1950b.

Šatax astɫunk‘y ‘uvula, windpipe’ is formally identical with Van etc. astɫunk‘ ‘stars’, thus we may be dealing with a shift ‘sky (= stars)’ > ‘palate’, unless it is derived from aṙastaɫ ‘palate’ with loss of ‑ṙ‑ and/or contamination with astɫunk‘ ‘stars’; see s.v. aṙastaɫ ‘ceiling; palate’. For the relationship ‘star’ : ‘sky’ cf. E.g. Kassit. da‑ka‑áš ‘star’ : da‑gi‑gi ‘sky’, ‘*Star’, Tigrē Ethiopian ‘astar ‘sky’, etc. (see Eilers 1976: 57, 57134). For ‘palate’ > ‘uvula etc.’ cf. Engl. palate, palace ‘the roof of the mouth’ that also refers to a relaxed or enlarged soft palate or uvula. For ‘heavenly’ > ‘star or planet’, see s.v. ampar.

3.7.2 ‘crooked, twisting, bending’ > ‘a twisting/bending body‑part’

The meanings ‘armpit’, ‘armfull’, ‘shoulder’, ‘elbow’, ‘neck’, and ‘knee’ can be grouped around the idea “des gekrümmten Gelenks”; cf. Skt. áñcati ‘to bend’, áṅkas‑ n. ‘curve’, Gr. ἀγκ‑ ‘to curve’, ἀγκάλη f., mostly pl. ‘curved arm, armfull’, ἀγκών ‘elbow’, Lat. ancus ‘with crooked arms’, etc.; Arm. an(u)t‘ ‘armpit’, dial. also ‘embrace, grasp’, ‘bundle’, ‘shoulder, back’ (q.v.). See also K. H. Schmidt 1962: 117, with a possible example from Kartvelian. Further examples:

ClArm. bazuk ‘arm’ > Udi bazuk ‘armpit’ [HAB 1: 376‑377].

This semantic field also includes a shift ‘shoulder’ > ‘back, spine’ or ‘breast’. The connection of oɫn ‘spine, back’, uln ‘neck’ (dial. also, perhaps, ‘elbow’ or ‘shoulder’) and uɫuk ‘palm, distance from the thumb to the little finger’ with Gr. ὠλένη ‘elbow, underarm’, Lat. ulna ‘elbow’, uilen ‘angle’, etc., points to a basic meaning ‘joint, a moving (twisting and/or bending) body part’ (see s.vv., especially oɫn).

Similar semantics is found in the set šeɫ ‘slanting, crooked, oblique’, šil ‘squint‑eyed’, etc. : Gr. σκέλος n. ‘leg (from the hip downwards)’, σκελλός ‘crook‑legged’, σκολιός ‘wicked, crooked’, Lat. scelus, GSg sceleris n. ‘misdeed, crime’, etc. (see especially s.v. šeɫ). Here may also belong, I think, Arm. šl(n)‑i ‘neck’ (q.v.). This would match the meaning ‘neck’ of the above‑mentioned uln (see s.v. oɫn).

A case of ‘shoulder’ : ‘spine, back’ : ‘chest, breast’ is found in MPers., NPers. dōš ‘shoulder’, cf. YAv. daoš‑ ‘upper arm’, Skt. dóṣ‑ n. ‘arm, fore‑arm’ (RV+), OIr. doë ‘arm’, etc. The Persian word has been borrowed into Arm. dial. doš ‘chest, breast; ‘slope (of a mountain)’ (see HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 345‑346), perhaps through a Turkish intermediate [Ačaṙean 1902: 336; Margaryan 1975: 511b (on Goris döš ‘breast; slope’)].

3.7.3 ‘calf of leg’ : ‘fish’

Ararat, Loṙi, Širak, Bulanəx, Alaškert juk, jkn‑er (pl.) ‘(anat.) calf’ [Amatuni 1912: 372a], which is the basic Armenian word for the fish, namely jukn. Łarabaɫ *jukn‑a‑mis ‘(anat.) calf’ (see Ačaṙean 1913: 690b) literally means ‘meat of fish’. We find it, for example, in a fairy‑tale: vəennis cüknamesə “the *juknamis of my leg” [HŽHek‘ 5, 1966: 523]. Note also Bulanəx juk, glossed as msi mkanunk‘ “muscles of meat” [S. Movsisyan 1972: 71a]

This curious semantic relationship can be compared with that of Russ. ikrá ‘roe, spawn, caviar’, ‘(anat.) calf’ (see s.v. leard ‘liver’).

In the dialect of Ozim, the calf (of the leg) is called cok‑olok‘. Ačaṙyan (1913: 522b) treats it with some reservation as a compound with cak ‘hole; hollow’ (*cak‑olok‘), which is improbable. On the strength of the above‑mentioned material, one can interpret cok‑olok‘ as composed of cöuk ‘fish’ and olok‘ ‘shin’. For the analysis, see s.v. olok‘ ‘shin’.

3.8 The human world: social aspects, etc.

3.8.1 ‘princess, queen’ > ‘girl’ and vice versa

Arm. awri‑ord, a‑stem ‘virgin, young girl’ (Bible+) is probably composed of *awri‑ ‘lord’ or ‘lordly’ (cf. Urart. euri ‘lord’ or Iran. *ahur‑i‑ ‘lordly’) and *ord‑ ‘offspring, son/daughter’; see s.v. If this is accepted, we are dealing with a semantic shift from the elevated level to the generic one: ‘princess’ > ‘girl’. A similar generalization is found in the feminine suffix ‑u(r)hi, originated from t‘ag‑uhi ‘queen’. In what follows, a case with the opposite development is discussed.

Arm. dšxoy ‘queen’ (Bible+) is an Iranian loan, although the element ‑oy is not entirely clear (L. Hovhannisyan 1990: 239, with references), cf. MPers. dwxš [duxš] ‘maiden, virgin; one of the women’ [Boyce 1977: 37], duxš ‘princess’, OPers. *duxçī‑ f. ‘daughter’ (see Brandenstein/Mayrhofer 1964: 117; ÈtimSlovIranJaz 2, 2003: 477‑478). These words imply a semantic shift ‘daughter, maiden, woman’ > ‘princess, queen’.

3.8.2 ‘share’ > ‘dowry’

Arm. bažin‑k‘ ‘dowry’, widespread in the dialects [Amatuni 1912: 81; Ačaṙean 1913: 164a; HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 147a147a] and attested in Grigor Tat‘ewac‘i, clearly derives from bažin ‘share’ (see HAB 1: 382a).

This semantic development helps to etymologize Arm. ktir‑k‘ ‘dowry’, which is attested only in John Chrysostom: Č‘ic‘ē jeṙnhas [harsn] t‘axanjs ew ktirs i mēǰ berel? [NHB 1: 1131a]. No acceptable etymology is known to me. Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 677a) only mentions the improbable connection with əntir ‘selected, excellent’ proposed by Hiwnk‘earpēyēntean.

The word can be linked to *ktir ‘cut’, dial. ‘sheep‑flock’ (see 1.12.3) going back to kotor, ktur‑k‘ ‘cut, share’, demonstrating, thus, the same semantic development as in bažin‑k‘.

3.9 Crafts and occupations

3.9.1 ‘to cut, divide’ > ‘a division of flock’ > ‘flock of sheep’

As convincingly demonstrated by Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 204a), Van, Muš, Alaškert, Bulanəx *čiwɫ ‘flock of sheep’ derives from čiwɫ ‘branch’ and čeɫ‑ ‘to divide’. In the folk‑story “Karos Xač‘” one finds čyuɫ mə oč‘xar (Srvanjtyanc‘ 1, 1978: 608; Karos Xač‘ 2000: 63a). According to Ačaṙyan (ibid.), Kurd. čɛɔl ‘(sheep‑)flock’ and perhaps Arab. ǰul ‘flock of sheep; group’ are borrowed from Armenian. Sasun *čɔl ‘flock of sheep’ (see Ačaṙean 1913: 739b) have been reborrowed from Kurdish; see 1.10 on back-loans.

Also notice Mush čɫa ‘a part of a sheep‑flock’ (see HŽHek‘ 13, 1985: 519a), if it belongs to the words under discussion.

In the same dialectal area there is another word for ‘flock’, namely *ktir ‘flock of sheep’ (Van), ‘a flock of 22‑30 sheeps or goats’ (Sasun) [Ačaṙean 1913: 619a], as well as Šatax kətir ‘flock of sheep’ (see M. Muradyan 1962: 212b). Attested in a number of editions of the folk‑story “Karos Xač‘” (2000: 60a, 67b; 68b, 69a; also S. Avagyan 1978: 135bL12), in the very same passage where čiwɫ occurred (see above): k‘(y)aṙsun ktir oč‘xar ‘forty flocks of sheep’. A. Xač‘atryan (1993: 107) connects the word to ktr‑em ‘to cut’ (see 1.12.3 on *ktir).

Citing these two semantic parallels, A. Xač‘atryan (ibid.) convincingly connects Arm. hawt, i‑stem ‘flock of sheep’ (q.v.) to y‑awt ‘cut‑off branch’ and hatanem ‘to cut’. The basic semantics of hawt and y‑awt is, thus, ‘a division, cut’. See s.v. hat. [HAB 3: 204a].

3.9.2 Shinbone > implement

The hollow shinbone was used for making flutes and other objects (e.g., bobbins) in and around the house, cf. OEngl. scīa ‘shin, leg’; Russ. cévka ‘bobbin; (esp. hollow) bone; (dial.) shinbone’, OCS cěvьnica ‘flute’, SCr. cì ̀jev ‘tube, spool, shinbone’, cjevnica ‘shinbone, flute’; Lith. šeivà ‘spool, forearm, shin(‑bone)’; Indo‑Iranian *Hast‑čiHu̯a‑ ‘shin, shank’; etc. (from PIE *(s)kiHu‑ ‘shin’). For these and some other examples, see Lubotsky 2002: 322b. In this context it is interesting that, alongside čuṙ ‘shank’, the dialect of Sebastia also has čuṙa, čɛɔṙɛ ‘a kind of (small) flute’ [Gabikean 1952: 378], see Martirosyan 2005: 83. See also s.v. srunk‘ ‘shinbone’.

Meɫri č‘ak‘ ‘shinbone of cattle; instrument for carding wool’ [Aɫayan 1954: 323]; Moks č‘äk‘y ‘a stick used for beating and carding wool’ [Orbeli 2002: 306].

The meaning ‘shank’ is often related with meanings like post, pole; shaft; stalk’, etc., cf. Engl. shank ‘shank; a shaft of a column’; Latv. stulps ‘shank; post, pole’; OEngl. scīa ‘shin, leg’ next to MHG schīe ‘post’, etc. [Lubotsky 2002: 323b] (see also siwn ‘pillar’). Further: Oss. zæng / zængæ ‘shin; stalk’, cf. Skt. jáṅghā‑ f. ‘ankle’ (RV+); YAv. zaṇga‑ m. ‘ankle’, MPers. zang ‘ankle, shank’ (see Cheung 2002: 254).

Further, see s.v. srunk ‘shin, shank’.

3.9.3 ‘weaving, plaiting’ : ‘multiplicity, abundance’

In P‘awstos Buzand 3.14, Arm. hiwsem ‘to weave, plait’ refers to the thickness or piling up of snow. This makes the derivation of *hiwsi(n) ‘avalanche’ (q.v.) from hiwsem ‘to weave, plait’ more probable.

The Pleiades are usually named as ‘many, multiple, abundant’ (see 3.1.2). Next to this widespread pattern, there seem to exist also cases which possibly imply a basic meaning like ‘Geflecht’, cf. Skt. kŕ̥ttikā‑ f. pl. ‘Pleiades’ (AV+) from *kr̥t‑ti‑ ‘Geflecht’, kart‑ (kr̥ṇátti, AV+) ‘to spin, twist threads’; Lat. Vergiliae ‘Pleiades’ from conjectural *vergus ‘Geflecht’ or the like [Scherer 1953: 141‑142; Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 391].

These examples, if acceptable, imply a development ‘plait’ > ‘multiplicity, abundance’. One wonders whether the opposite is possible too. Arm. boyt‘ ‘lobe (of the ear or the liver); thumb; hump’, etymologically from ‘abundance, growth, swelling’ (see s.v.). Given the fact that the ‘felloe’ is usually expressed as ‘curved, plaited’ (see 3.9.4), one might attempt a derivation of boyt‘2 ‘felloe’ (8th cent.) from boyt‘1, through the semantic development ‘multiplicity, abundance’ > ‘woven together’.

3.9.4 ‘plaited, twisted’ > ‘felloe’

Gr. ἴτυς ‘felloe’ and Lat. vitus ‘fellow’ are *‑tu‑ derivatives from a PIE verb meaning ‘to twist, wind, plait’: Lat. viēre ‘wind, bend’, OCS viti ‘twist, wind’, Russ. vit’ ‘something that has been plaited’, etc.

The same semantic shift can be seen in *pel‑k̂‑ ‘to turn, wind’ (a form of *plek̂‑ ‘to plait’?) > OHG felga, OEngl. felg(e) ‘felloe’, probably also Arm. hec‘ ‘felloe’ (if from *heɫc‘), q.v. See also s.v. boyt‘2 ‘felloe’.

3.10 Miscellaneous

In the territory of Łarabaɫ, e.g., one finds five synonyms for ‘hungry’: anōt‘i, k‘aɫc‘ac, sovac, tüznə and naštáv [Davt‘yan 1966: 313]. The first two are of IE origin, sov is probably an Iranian loan, and the other two are dialectal.

Davt‘yan (1966: 52, 343) derives Łarabaɫ, Hadrut‘ etc. tüznə ‘hungry’ from ClArm. doyzn, without any comment. ClArm. doyzn means ‘few, a few, small, miserable; insignificant (person)’ (Bible+) and has no acceptable etymology [HAB 1: 678b]. Ačaṙyan (HAB ibid.) does not record any dialectal forms. The derivation of Łarabaɫ etc. tüznə from doyzn is formally impeccable. As to the semantics, cf. Pers. nahār ‘diminution; fasting’, ni/ahār ‘detriment, loss; a wasting of the body’, ni/ahārīdan ‘to waste, decay, fall away’ [Steingass 1437b], Arm. nihar ‘thin, lean; skinny’ (Gregory of Nyssa, Anania Širakac‘i, etc.; a few dialects), see HAB 3: 452a.

Č‘aylu (in the territory of Łarabaɫ; linguistically close to Urmia/Xoy, in Persia) naštáv ‘hungry’ must be from Pers. nāštā ‘hungry’.

3.11 Mediterranean-Pontic substratum

The lexicon of Armenian is characterized by: (1) the native, i.e. Indo-European heritage; (2) a considerable number of loanwords; (3) a large number of words of unknown origin.

In etymological research, one must reckon, apart from philological analysis, with the relevant historical background. If we are dealing with a loanword from a known neighbouring language within the framework of well-established historico-cultural circumstances, like in cases of Middle Persian, Aramaic, Arabic, Georgian etc. loans, the matter is straightforward. Things are complicated, however, when we are dealing with the native layer. The reason for this is simple: the location of the Proto-Armenian homeland and its derivation from the ‘Urheimat’ of the Indo-Europeans have not yet been established. It should be pointed out that most of the scholars look for the ‘Urheimat’ of the Indo-Europeans North (but, e.g., Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, South) of the Caucasus and the Black Sea.

Even more problematic are the borrowings from an unknown source. In recent years, the methodology of dealing with such borrowings has been developed and applied by Kuiper (1995), Beekes (1996; 1998a; 2000; 2003a), Schrijver (1997), and Lubotsky (2001). It has been pointed out that an etymon is likely to be a loanword if it is characterized by some of the following features: (1) limited geographical distribution; (2) phonological or morphophonological irregularity; (3) unusual phonology; (4) unusual word formation; (5) specific semantics (see Schrijver 1997: 293-297; Beekes 2000: 22-23; Lubotsky 2001: 301-302).

Throughouht this research, I have applied the aforementioned methodology to the so-called Mediterranean substratum words in Armenian, which consist mostly of plant names, animal names and cultural words. In these cases, an etymon is attested in Armenian, Greek, Latin and/or another Indo-European language of SE Europe (like Albanian, Phrygian etc.) or Anatolia, but the phonological or word-formative correspondences are irregular with respect to the Indo-European system, and they cannot be assumed to loanwords from one another.

The Armenian words that are frequently considered to be of Mediterranean origin are: gini ‘wine’, ewɫ/iwɫ ‘oil’, t‘uz ‘fig’, spung ‘sponge’, sunk/g(n) ‘mushroom’ [Meillet 1908-09b; 1936: 143; Meillet/Vendryes 1924: 16-17; AčaṙHLPatm 1, 1940: 100-104; J̌ahukyan 1987: 307-308]. Ačaṙyan (1937: 3) treats Arm. gini ‘wine’, ewɫ/iwɫ ‘oil’, sring ‘pipe, fife’, and their Greek cognates as loans from Phrygian or from the Aegean civilization. J̌ahukyan (1987: 306-311) provides us with references and discussion, introducing more words.

Throughout this book I discuss most of these, as well as some other words (a few of which have been etymologized by me) that have not been discussed in this context before. At the end of this paragraph I give a list of these Mediterranean words, ordered by semantic fields. The list is by no means exhaustive. I excluded gini ‘wine’ (cf. Gr. (ϝ)οἶνος, Lat. vīnum, Hitt. u̯ii̯an-, etc.) from the list since the Indo-European origin of the term for ‘wine’ is more probable (see Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 647f = 1995: 557f; Otkupščikov 1985; Beekes 1987a; Kloekhorst 2007, 2: 1170; for a discussion, see also J̌ahukyan 1987: 49, 155, 307, 309, 450; Mallory/Adams 1997: 644-646). I also excluded spung ‘sponge’ which is likely to be a Greek loan (see s.v. sunk/gn ‘mushroom’).

Bearing in mind that Greek and Latin on the one hand and Armenian on the other are historically located on the opposite sides of the Black Sea, as well as that in some cases Mediterranean words have related forms in the Caucasus and Near East, I prefer not to confine myself strictly to the notion of so-called Balkan Indo-European. I conventionally use a term Mediterranean-Pontic Substratum (shortly: MedPont). In some cases (e.g. ors ‘hunt, game’, pal ‘rock’), an etymon is also present in other European branches, such as Celtic and Germanic, thus we are faced with the European Substratum in terms of Beekes (2000); see also below. Whether the Mediterranean-Pontic and European substrata are identical or related is difficult to assert.

There are words belonging to the same semantic categories (plant names, animal names, cultural words) that may be treated as innovations shared by Armenian and Greek etc. For instance, the morphological agreement between Arm. kaɫin, o-stem ‘acorn’ and Gr. βάλανος f. ‘acorn’ (vs. Lat. glāns, glandis f. ‘acorn, beach-nut’, Russ. žëlud’, SCr. žȅlūd ‘acorn’, Lith. gìlė, dial. gylė̃ ‘acorn’, Latv. zĩle ‘acorn’, etc.) may reflect a common innovation undergone jointly by Greek and Armenian [Clackson 1994: 135-136, 200/2372]. I have not put such words in the list since they are of Indo-European origin and do not reflect any phonological or morphological deviation. Nevertheless, these innovations are relevant to our topic in that they may be ascribed to the same MedPont area and period. In other words, after the Indo-European dispersal, Proto-Armenian, Proto-Greek and some contiguous language-branches (e.g. Thracian, cf. Kortlandt 2003: VIII, 83-87) may have remained in contact somewhere in the Mediterranean (Balkan) and/or Pontic areas prob. in the 3rd and 2nd millennia B.C. I hope to discuss this issue on another occasion.

The consonantal correspondences are of two kinds:

1) archaic, matching the correspondences of the native Indo-European heritage: anurǰ ‘prophetic dream, vision’, kamurǰ ‘bridge’ (*-ri̯- : Arm. ); kat‘n ‘milk’, kamurǰ ‘bridge’ (*g/gw : Arm. k); ors ‘hunt, game’, siseṙn ‘chick-pea’, siwn ‘column, pillar’ (*: Arm. s); erbuc ‘breast of animals’ (*ĝ : Arm. c);

2) relatively recent: kaɫamax(i) ‘white poplar, aspen’, kask ‘chestnut’, karič ‘scorpion’, kor ‘scorpion’ (*k : Arm. k), pal ‘rock’ (*p : Arm. p); sring ‘pipe, fife’, sayl ‘wagon’ (*s : Arm. s, unless borrowed from lost satəm-forms).

This implies that we have to deal with at least two chronological layers (cf. J̌ahukyan 1978: 129 on the examples of karič and siwn), and that the Proto-Armenians must have remained in or close to the Mediterranean-Pontic areas for a long period of time.

Semantic fields:

flora: gari ‘barley’; dalar ‘green, fresh’, dalar-i ‘greenery, grass, herb’; ewɫ ‘oil’ (if from ‘olive’); t‘eɫawš ‘holm-oak; cedar, pine’, t‘eɫi ‘elm’; t‘uz ‘fig’; xstor ‘garlic’; kaɫamax(i) ‘white poplar, aspen’, probably also ‘pine’; kask ‘chestnut’; kṙan ‘cornel; ash’ (see s.v. hoyn ‘cornel’); meɫex ‘the handle of an axe’ (if from ‘ash-tree’); moš ‘tamarisk; blackberry, bramble’, mor ‘blackberry (the fruit of bramble)’; siseṙn ‘chick-pea’; sunk/g(n) ‘mushroom’; uši/*(h)oši probably ‘storax-tree’ and ‘holm-oak’.

fauna: aɫawni ‘dove’; erbuc ‘breast of animals’; lor ‘quail’ (prob. from ‘sea-gull’); karič ‘scorpion’; kor ‘scorpion’; mor(m) ‘tarantula’; ozni ‘hedgehog’; ors ‘hunt, hunted animal, game’ (if from ‘a kind of deer, roe’); salam(b) ‘francolin’; k‘aɫirt‘ ‘stomach of animals’; k‘arb ‘basilisk, asp’.

physical world: pal ‘rock’.

products: ewɫ ‘oil’ (cf. above, on “flora”); kat‘n ‘milk’.

craft, implements, buildings: damban ‘tomb, grave’; darbin ‘blacksmith’, t‘arp‘ ‘a large wicker fishing-basket, creel’; lar ‘rope, rein, cable, cord, string, plumbline of stone-masons’; kamurǰ ‘bridge’; sayl ‘wagon’; sring ‘pipe, fife’.

religion, spiritual world: anurǰ ‘prophetic dream, vision’.

For the problem of the European substratum, see above. Some possible examples: blur ‘hill’, *boxi/buk‘i ‘hornbeam’, geran ‘beam, log’, gom ‘fold/stall for sheep or cattle’, *doyn ‘hill’ (a possible appellative of the toponym Duin, q.v.), kiw ‘tree-pitch’, knjni ‘elm’, hec‘ ‘felloe’, k‘ar ‘stone’, etc.

3.12 Language of gods vs. language of men

For the opposition ‘language of gods’ vs. ‘language of men’ in the Indo-European poetic tradition see Güntert 1921; J. Friedrich 1954; Watkins 1970; 1995: 269; Ivanov 1977a: 33; de Lamberterie 1978: 262-263; 2006; Elizarenkova/Toporov 1979: 43-54; Toporov 1981: 200-214; Kleinlogel 1981: 265-266; Gamkrelidze/ Ivanov 1984, 2: 476 = 1995: 397.

A possible trace of this opposition may be seen in the semantic hierarchy between two words for ‘horse’, Arm. ēš (> ‘donkey’) : Skt. áśva- (semantically unmarked: ‘language of men’) vs. Arm. ji : Skt. háya- (semantically marked: ‘language of gods’; cf. Güntert 1921: 160), which, as has been demonstrated by Watkins (1970: 7), resulted in the semantic shift ‘horse’ > ‘donkey’ of Arm. ēš (q.v.).

Another similar example may be Skt. ravi- vs. Arm. areg- ‘sun’ (q.v.).



[1] Note that Axalcxa is geographically and dialectally very close to Axalkalak.

[2] Compare also perhaps Hittite kapirt ‘mouse’, if from PIE *bher‑ ‘to carry, bear’, secondarily: ‘to steal’ (cf. Lat. fūr ‘thief’), cf. also the denominative verb Lyd. kabrdokid ‘steal’ Mallory/Adams 1997: 387a; this is uncertain, however.

[3] At the Workshop in Michaelbeuern, Austria (July 2007), Satenik Gharagyozyan and myself presented a joint paper on this subject.

[4] Groɫ is the divine scribe.

[5] Hardly related to Sebastia antɛn ‘the afterlife’, which is from ClArm. adverbial and, and-ēn ‘there’ (op. cit. 68-69).

[6] This chapter is based on a study for which I received funding support from the Knights of Vartan FAS, to whom I express my deepest gratitude. Part of it was presented in a joint report with Satenik Gharagyozyan at the 10th General Conference of the AIEA, Vitoria‑Gasteiz, 7‑10 September 2005 (see Martirosyan/Łaragyozyan 2005), and at the Workshop Cultural, linguistic and ethnological interrelations in and around Armenia in Michaelbeuern, July 4‑7, 2007.

[7] It is uncertain whether *-k‘os-i is in a way related with NPers. kūse ‘shark; sea-devil; having little beard’ (on which see BasPerzNed 2007: 199b).

[8] Typologically compare Nor Naxiǰewan, Polis *astucoy leṙnerə ‘very wild, uninhabited (places)’, lit. ‘mountains of God’ (see Ačaṙean 1913: 141).

[9] Compare Akkad. barbaru ‘wolf’ vs. Sumer. barbar ‘foreigner’; cf. Gr. βάρβαρος ‘foreign(er), non-Greek; uncivilised, raw’, Skt. barbara- ‘stammer’.

[10] Whether Arm. hačar ‘spelt’ (Bible; Łarabaɫ etc.) is related, is uncertain.

PLACE-NAMES

4.1 Preliminaries

Unlike the Armenian anthroponyms which are abundantly present in AčaṙAnjn (= Ačaṙyan 1942‑1962, 5 vols.), Armenian place‑names have not been studied in such a thorough way. The voluminous HayTeɫBaṙ is very helpful in presenting an extremely large body of data. With respect to philological and etymological examination, however, this dictionary has little value (cf. also J̌ihanyan 1991: 204). The only systematic treatment is found in Hübschmann 1904 (Arm. transl. = Hiwbšman 1907), which is, however, far from exhaustive. Unfortunately, this valuable monograph is frequently neglected in etymological studies. The hydronyms are covered in J̌ihanyan 1991.

For the study of historical geography of Armenia particularly important are the works by Ł. Ališan, T‘. Hakobyan, S. Eremyan, R. Hewsen, and others. Urartian place‑names are systematically treated in Diakonoff/Kashkai 1981 and N. Arutjunjan 1985.

Numerous Armenian place‑names are treated etymologically by G. Łap‘anc‘yan, G. J̌ahukyan, V. Xač‘atryan, A. Petrosyan, S. Petrosyan and others as of native (that is to say, of Indo‑European) origin. Many of these etymologies, however, cannot bear criticism. For an overview on place‑names which contain native Armenian elements, see J̌ahukyan 1987: 412‑417.

Justly criticizing the etymological methods of V. Xač‘atryan (1980), D’jakonov (1983: 164) claims that none of the toponyms and ethnonyms attested between the third and first millennia in the Armenian Highland has been demonstrated to be Armenian. As regards the first half of the first millennium, note e.g. URUBarzuriani, a stronghold in Uaiais, South of Lake Van (!), attested in the 8th cent. BC (see Diakonoff/Kashkai 1981; N. Arutjunjan 1985: 54), which is derived from Arm. barjr ‘high’ by J̌ahukyan (1988: 160).

An Indo‑European etymology of an Armenian place‑name can be considered most reliable if it meets the following two requirements: (1) it presupposes an appellative that is compatible with the type of place‑name; (2) there is/are cognate place‑name(s) in (an) IE language(s).

The systematic examination and evaluation of all the place‑names for which IE etymologies have been proposed is beyond the scope of my work. In a supplement to the vocabulary, I shall present only a few etymologies (some of them being my own) that conform to the above‑mentioned criteria.

In the following chapters some aspects of toponymical etymology will be discussed.

4.2 Textual evidence for identifying the appellatives

According to Movsēs Xorenac‘i, Duin reflects an otherwise unknown Iranian word for ‘hill’; see s.v.

Čahuk, a place‑name close to Naxčawan, attested in Sebēos 16 (1979: 87L28). No acceptable etymology is known to me. Hübschmann (1904: 447) mentions another homonymous place‑name (in Siwnik‘) on which he comments: “sicher nicht zu čahuk ‘Herde’ (von Füchsen)”. J̌ihanyan (1991: 250) reconstructs an unattested river‑name *Čahuk identical with modern J̌aɫri‑č‘ay and derives it, albeit with reservation, with the same čahuk ‘group’.

However, an etymology of a place‑name that shows no semantic motivation has no value. The above‑mentioned passage from Sebēos provides us with an important clue: i šambin or koč‘i Čahuk “das Röhricht (šamb), das genannt wird Čahuk” [Hübschmann 1904: 447]. In view of this information, one can safely derive Čah‑uk from Arm. *čah/x‑ ‘marsh, meadow’ (cf. čah‑ič, čax‑in, etc. [HAB 3: 177]).

It has been assumed that this place‑name is identical with Šamb mentioned in another chapter by Sebēos (1979: 146L20), on which, see Hübschmann 1904: 458. For literature and discussion I refer to Abgaryan 1979: 316‑317522. If this turns out to be true, then we are dealing with alternating names for one and the same place that are based on synonymous appellatives (see 4.3).

Note also Agulis Šumb ‘name of a spring’ < šamb (see Ačaṙean 1935: 24, 379). Agulis too is located in the vicinity of Naxčawan.

4.3 Synonymous or contrasting place‑name variants

Some geographical places are known by different names given by the same or different populations in the same or different periods of time. In certain cases, the name variants turn out to contain the same semantic nucleus. Sometimes, alongside these (often synchronically opaque) variants, there is yet another name that has synchronically transparent semantics not corroborated by other data and should therefore be explained by folk‑etymology. For instance, the river‑name Meɫ (q.v.) probably derives from PIE *mel‑ ‘dark, black, blue’: Gr. μέλας ‘dark, black’, Skt. mála‑ ‘dirt, impurity, filth’ (RV+), Lith. mė́las ‘blue’, etc.; cf. numerous river‑names in the Balkans and Asia Minor, such as Μελας, Μελης, Mella, etc. Remarkably, the etymological semantics of Arm. *meɫ are corroborated by the modern Turkish name: Kara‑su, lit. ’black water’. Thus, the more common Armenian name Meɫr‑a‑get, lit. ‘honey‑river’, must be the result of folk‑etymology.

The mountain Gaylaxaz‑ut (earlier named Paxray, see below) is identical with Baghi/yr dagh and is probably located in the district of Mananaɫi, in the province of Barjr Hayk‘, close to or on the border between the provinces of Barjr Hayk‘ and Cop‘k‘ [Hübschmann 1904: 287, 416; Eremyan 1963: 76b].

In Chapter 23 of the “History” of the 11th-century author Aristakēs Lastivertc‘i (see Yuzbašyan 1963: 128L17) we read: I hatuac(s) lerinn Paxray or ayžm koč‘i Gaylaxazut, <…> “In a part of the mountain Paxray which now is called Gaylaxazut, <…>”. Yuzbašyan (1968: 124) translates the beginning of the passage slightly differently: “близ горы Пахрай”. The Divine sign (Astuacayin nšan) was established here in the village of Bazm‑aɫbiwr (lit. “abounding in springs”), and the village has been renamed Xač‘ (‘cross’). Then the historian tells us that the “servants of Satan” (kamarar mšakk‘n satanayi) destroyed the Cross and returned “to their snake‑dwelling lairs” (yōjabnak orǰs iwreanc‘ “в свои <…>, змеиные логова”).

Hübschmann (1904: 287, 416) correctly interpreted Gaylaxazut as composed of gaylaxaz ‘flint, Feuerstein’ and the suffix ‑ut (thus: “feuersteinreich”), and treats Paxray as a genetive of an unattested *Paxir. The latter statement is not necessarily true. Paxray may in fact be identical with paxrē, paxray ‘cattle’, which denotes the hind/deer in the dialects of Ararat, T‘iflis, Łazax (páxra), and the stag in Łarabaɫ (báxra); see HAB 4: 7; Ačaṙean 1913: 891a. Place‑names based on appellatives that denote the hind or the stag are not uncommon (see 4.5).

The denotata of gaylaxaz ‘flint’ (lit. ‘wolf’s stone’) and dial. satani eɫung ‘obsidian’ (lit. ‘Satan’s nail) resemble each other and are often confused. In DialAdd apud NHB 2: 1066c, satani eɫung is described as a black stone that resembles gaylaxaz. According to Amatuni (1912: 584b) and Ačaṙyan (1913: 956a), satani eɫung is identical with gaylaxaz. For the parallelism between ‘Satan’ and ‘wolf’ and ‘hyena’, see 3.5.2.4. On the other hand, the wolf and the dragon or snake are surely associated with the deer (3.5.2.4). Bearing in mind that the mountain of Paxray = Gaylaxazut is said to be dwelled by “servants of Satan” (in “snake‑dwelling lairs”), one may assume that the “devilish fame/nature” of the mountain is conditioned by the abundance of gaylaxaz‑stones as is seen in the name of the mountain (Gaylaxaz‑ut) and is also reflected in its earlier name Paxray, if this indeed is identical with paxray ‘hind, deer’. Note also the association of the stag with the ‘cross’ (see 3.5.2.4 on xač‘eneak etc.).

Some further examples:

If Šamb is indeed the name variant of Čahuk (see 4.2), we might be dealing with a case of alternating names for one and the same place that are based on synonymous appellatives.

Siah‑kuh lerink‘ = modern Łara‑daɫ (see Eremyan 1963: 80b), both meaning ‘black mountains’; see 4.6.

Sim : Sev‑sar, see s.v. place-name Sim.

Urart. Ardiunak (in Aiduni/Ai̯adu, South of Lake Van, roughly coinciding with the territory of the province of Moks), possibly derives from Arm. ardiun‑k‘ ‘earth products’ : Arm. Mayeak in Moks < mayeak ‘barn’. Urart. Ardiunak may be geographically identical with Arm. Mayeak, both names reflecting synonymous appellatives meaning ‘earth products, barns’; see s.v. place‑name Ardean‑k‘.

4.4 ‘Cattle / pasturing’ > ‘pastureland’ > place‑name

This naming pattern is common; cf. those place-names with tap‘ ‘earth, plain, field’, e.g. Ernǰ‑a‑tap‘, a village close to Aparan, on the NE slopes of the mountain called Arayi leṙ [HayTeɫBaṙ 2, 1988: 247c] with erinǰ ‘heifer’ as the first member, Tuarac‑a‑tap‘ (q.v.), etc. Note also Ararat naxratap‘ ‘pastureland’ (see Markosyan 1989: 348a) = naxir ‘herd’ + ‑a‑ + tap‘.

Step‘anos Ōrbelean (13‑14th cent.) mentions a place in Siwnik‘ named Maxaɫ‑a‑tap‘‑k‘, the first component of which is identified with maxaɫ ‘Mantelsack, Felleisen, Tasche’ by Hübschmann (1904: 448). However, the semantics are not very probable for a place‑name. One should rather think of makaɫ ‘sheep‑fold’, dial. maɫal, with the alternation : -l (cf. also Kurd. meɣel, HAB 3: 231). This is an old Semitic loan and seems to be found in Urart. URUMaqaltuni (on the place‑name, see N. Arutjunjan 1985: 132‑133) < makaɫ + tun ‘house’ [J̌ahukyan 1987: 445].

One might also find similar examples with hovit ‘valley’ which is very frequent in place‑names (see Hübschmann 1904: 384‑385; HAB 3: 116‑117), with a first component that itself is a place‑name (cf. Arčišak‑ovit etc.) or an appellative (cf. Arǰ‑ovit with arǰ ‘bear’).

In view of these data, the district‑name Kog‑ovit (q.v.), may be interpreted as ‘the valley of the cow’, with kov, GSg kog‑ ‘cow’ (q.v.).

4.5 Wild animals > place‑names

A number of place‑names are based on appellatives that denote wild animals, see J̌ahukyan 1987: 417. On Arǰ‑ovit, see 4.4. The hind or the stag frequently appear in this function: Eɫanc‘ berd or Eɫnut, probably Eɫǰeruenik‘ (see Hübschmann 1904: 423‑424), etc. The mountain‑name Paxray, later Gaylaxazut, as noted by Aristakēs Lastivertc‘i (see Yuzbašyan 1963: 128L17), probably located in Mananaɫi (in the province of Barjr Hayk‘), seems to be identical with paxrē, paxray ‘cattle’, dial. ‘hind/deer; stag’; see 4.3. See also s.v. Arciw.

Interesting is Yɛɫin axpür < *Eɫin aɫbiwr ‘spring of hind’ in Łarabaɫ (close to the village of Kusapat; see Lisic‘yan 1981: 56b, 59), which is not attested in literature but reflects the classical genitive eɫin.

4.6 Mountains named as ‘dark’ or ‘black’

Mt‘in leaṙn ‘the Dark mountain’ (= Kangar‑k‘), in the province of Gugark‘; attested in Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.8 (1913=1991: 113L16) and Asoɫik (11th cent.); see Hübschmann 1904: 354, 453.

*Mt‘in leaṙn or Mut‘n ašxarh = Masis, see Xač‘konc‘ 1898: 486‑487; Hübschmann 1904: 453.

Seaw leaṙn ‘the Black mountain’ (Cilicia), attested in Matt‘ēos Uṙhayec‘i (12th cent.) etc. [Hübschmann 1904: 466].

Siah‑kuh lerink‘ = Łara‑daɫ (see Eremyan 1963: 80b), both meaning ‘black mountains’.

In view of these data, one may propose similar semantic interpretations for e.g. T‘əmnis and Sim (see s.vv.).

4.7 Place‑name > wind‑name

Step‘anos Ōrbelean (13‑14th cent.) writes that the district Sot‘‑k‘ (on the shore of Sevan Lake) has taken its name from the strong winds. Hübschmann (1904: 467) points out the absence of such an appellative in Armenian. Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 238b) records dial. (Nor Bayazet) sot‘ ‘an eastern, bitter wind on Sevan’. According to A. A. Abrahamyan (1986: 41016), the latter may be a derived meaning, not the other way around. This suggestion is quite probable and may be corroborated typologically by the example of Parxar (mountain‑name) > parxar, pa(r)xr‑c‘i ‘a cold Northern wind’ (HAB 4: 62‑63); see 1.9.

4.8 Dialectal place-names as evidence for otherwise unattested dialectal words, forms or meanings

Only a few papers (especially those by Margaryan) dealing with the etymology of dialectal place-names are known to me. There are numerous dialectal place-names and micro place-names (micro-toponyms) that are absent (or poorly attested) in literature but conceal old features. On the other hand, some place-names, although attested in literature, seem to reflect certain local dialectal words or forms (sometimes – otherwise lost) and can thus provide us with relevant data for the absolute chronology of the rise of those dialectal features. In this and the following chapters I present some examples from the Northwestern (Hamšen/Xotorǰur) and especially from the Eastern (Łarabaɫ/Arc‘ax and surroundings) peripheries of the Armenian-speaking territory.

Words can be lost (or ignored by the dialect describers) in certain dialects but preserved in adjacent dialects. One might hope that at least in some cases a place-name bears witness to a once existant dialectal form. For instance, Arm. *hiwsi(n) ‘avalanche’ has been preserved in Xotorǰur husi but is lost in Hamšen. However, the place-name Hus-er in Hamšen seems to testify the existence of Hamšen *husi (see s.v. *hiwsi ‘avalanche’).

Łarabaɫ Kɔhak is a sacred grove of holy čapki ‘cornus sanguinea’ on the top of a hill, in the village of Gyuney-Čartar [Lalayan 2, 1988: 162; Martirosyan/ Gharagyozyan, FW 2003]. It may be identical with Arm. kohak ‘wave; hill’, which has not been preserved in dialects. The latter meaning is attested, among others, by Movsēs Kaɫankatuac‘i and Step‘anos Ōrbelean, both from the Eastern part of Armenia. One is tempted to assume, therefore, that the place-name under question continues the EArm. dial. word, although it has been lost later.

On Łarabaɫ *Eɫin aɫbiwr, see 4.5.

No dialectal forms of ClArm. tamal(i) ‘roof, house-top; prob. also ruins’ are attested in HAB 4: 367a. Its existence in the Goris region can be testified by Tamalek-k‘, a village close to the monastery of Tat‘ew. Nowadays, the ruins of the village are called Təmbäläsk, from frozen APl *tamali-ak-s (see s.v. tamal ‘roof etc.’).

A similar case (with the same structural-morphological background) is represented by Xnjoresk, a village in the former district of Goris. Variants: Xnjorēk‘s, Xncorēsk‘ (18th cent.). The oldest variant is Xnjoreak (= xnjor-i ‘apple-tree’ + diminutive suffix -ak), found in almost all the manuscripts of Step‘anos Ōrbelean (1250/60-1303/5); see Margaryan 1992: 135-138. In a colophon from 1654, as well as in Abraham kat‘oɫikos Kretac‘i (1735) one finds Xnjorek [Lisic‘yan 1969: 97; Margaryan 1992: 135-136].

As has been demonstrated by Margaryan (1992: 134-138), Xnjoresk is composed of Xnjoreak (= xnjori ‘apple-tree’ + diminutive suffix -ak) and -s : *Xnjore(a)k-s > Xnjoresk (through metathesis). Compare xnjr-k-ec‘i ‘inhabitant of Xnjoresk’ – xnjörkec‘i [Łanalanyan 1960: 97b; Grigoryan-Spandaryan 1971: 42Nr203] or xünjürkec‘i [Margaryan 1992: 136-137]. The -s, not specified by Margaryan, is certainly the ClArm. APl ending. Compare also Tamalek-k‘ : Təmbäläsk above. The same metathesis is found in p‘uk‘s ‘bellows’ > Meɫri p‘ɔsk [Aɫayan 1954: 289b], etc.

That the APl -s does not appear in xnjr-k-ec‘i ‘inhabitant of Xnjoresk’ is normal; cf. muk-äc‘əe ‘inhabitant of Mok-k‘/Mok-s’ (see M. Muradyan 1982:139). For the typology of the structure /tree-name + diminutive suffix + plural marker/ cf. *Hac‘ek-k‘ < hac‘i ‘ash-tree’ + -ak + pl. marker -k‘.

K‘ar(ah)unǰ, K‘arunǰ, the name of a village in the district of Ewaylax (in the province of Siwnik‘) mentioned by Step‘anos Ōrbelean (1250/60-1303/5). This seems to be the k‘aɫak‘agiwɫn K‘arunǰoy, in Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i (9-10th cent.) [1912=1980: 333L4], identified with the present-day village of K‘arahunǰ not far from Goris (see T‘osunyan 1996: 379125). The variant with the conjunctional -a-, namely K‘ar-a-hunǰ, is attested in Abraham kat‘oɫikos Kretac‘i (1735); see Margaryan 1988: 129.

There are also other place-names in Zangezur and Łarabaɫ named K‘ar-a-hunǰ. In Loṙi one finds K‘arinǰ, the name of a village close to Dseɫ, on the foot of the mountain Č‘at‘in-daɫ. It is composed of k‘ar ‘stone’ and unǰ1 ‘bottom, depth’ (q.v.) (see Hübschmann 1904: 387, 479, and, independently, Margaryan 1988: 129). The passage from P‘awstos Buzand 4.18 (1883=1984: 109L9f) which Hübschmann cites as a contextual illustration for unǰ reads as follows: zi ēr hareal zxorann i jor yunǰ berdin : “for the tent was pitched in the gorge beneath the fortress” (transl. Garsoïan 1989: 149L3f).

The component unǰ seems to be also found in other compounded place-names, although not all the components are entirely clear: Arp‘-unǰ-n, Unǰ-i-jor (see Hübschmann 1904: 387 and 462, respectively), unǰ-oṙ-k‘ (also in Step‘anos Ōrbelean).

Compare also the fortress Brd-a-honǰ Łala, see Barxudaryan 1995 (< 1885): 87 (the author cites also Berdaunč‘ between brackets). This is perhaps to be understood as *berd-a-(h)unǰ. Compare with yunǰ berdin “beneath the fortress” in the above-mentioned passage from Buzand 4.18. The same pattern is seen in Berdatak, in Siwnik‘ (see Hübschmann 1904: 388, 414).

According to Margaryan (1988: 129), the second component unǰ acquired a prothetic h- (as in ənker ‘friend’ > hingɛr, etc.), and this triggered an intrusion of the conjunctional vowel -a-. This process does not seem probable. Besides, the actual dialectal reflexes of unǰ in Goris etc. are unǰ