agan ‘zealous (child, pupil)’. Attested only once, in a late medieval song [NHB 1: 2c]: Zi sireli ic‘es mardkan, / Ler yusaneld manuk agan! “Be zealous in your study, so that you will be loved by people”. ●ETYM Clackson (1994: 223-22498) ascribes a meaning ‘early’ to agan and identifies it with -agan found in anagan ‘late; evening (time)’ (q.v.). The latter is considered, thus, as composed of the privative prefix an- and agan ‘early’, literally *‘not-early’. This, in fact, was first proposed in NHB 1: 101a. However, in its only attestation (see above), agan, as stated by Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 75a), means ‘zealous (child, pupil)’ rather than ‘early’. Therefore, the connection with an-agan is possible only in terms of a semantic development ‘early’ > ‘quick(-minded)’ > ‘zealous, diligent’.
aganim1, 3sg.aor. ag-a-w, imper. ag-ir ‘to put on clothes or shoes’ (Bible+), ag-uc‘anem, 3sg.aor. agoyc‘ ‘to dress someone, make put on clothes; to put into rings’ (Bible+), ag-oyc‘, i-stem: IPl aguc‘-i-w-k‘ (Exodus 37.10) ‘crowbar, lever, ring for a lever’ (Bible+); with an initial h-: haganim ‘to put on clothes’ (Paterica+), MidArm. hag- in a number of verbal forms and derivatives (MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 3-4). ●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects, always with h-. Next to the basic meaning ‘to put on clothes’, the verb is also used in the meaning ‘to put into rings’, e.g. in T‘iflis [HAB 1: 76a]. The initial h- is old and probably has an etymological value since: 1) it is attested since Paterica; 2) it is dialectally ubiquitous; 3) in the Van-group and in the Armenian dialects of Iran it is regularly reflected as x-. For a discussion, see H. Muradyan 1982: 266, 277, 315-319; 1982a; Greppin 1982-83; 1983: 260-261; Kortlandt 1983: 9-10 = 2003: 39-40; Weitenberg 1986: 90-91; 1996: 105-106. ●ETYM Since Bugge (1889: 13-14), connected with Av. aoϑra- ‘footwear’, Lat. induō, -ere ‘to put on, dress oneself in; to assume; to fall or be impaled (upon)’, OCS ob-uti ‘to put on footwear’, Lith. aũtas ‘foot-cloth, rag’, aũti ‘to put on footwear’, Latv. àuts ‘cloth, bandage’, see Hübschmann 1897: 411; Ačaṙean 1908: 121a; Lidén 1933: 41; HAB 1: 75-76; Pokorny 1959: 346; Greppin 1983: 260-261; Mallory/Adams 1997: 109a. See also s.vv. aṙ-ag-ast ‘curtain, canopy, etc.’, awd ‘footwear, shoes’, aw-t‘-oc‘ ‘cover, coat, garment; blanket’. In order to explain Arm. hag- (see above), Kortlandt (1983: 13; 1984: 43 = 2003: 42-43, 55-56) reconstructs *h2eu- and points out that the h-less form *ag- must have arisen under the influence of either o-grade derivatives (cf. Umbr. anouihimu ‘induitor’, for a discussion, see also Ravnæs 1991: 10; Untermann 2000: 112-113) or prefixed formations, e.g. aṙ-ag-ast ‘curtain’; he identifies this etymon with *h2ues- ‘to put on clothes’ assuming that the initial laryngeal has been eliminated in Hitt. úe-eš-ta and Gr. ἕννυμι ‘to clothe’ and ‘wears’ to avoid the homonymy with *h2ues- ‘to spend the night’. However, if Hitt. unu-zi ‘to adorn, decorate, lay (the table)’ belongs with aganim, etc. and derives from PIE *h3u-néu-ti and *h3u-nu-énti (see Kloekhorst 2008: 918920; cf. also Eichner 1978: 15128), the Armenian forms hag- and ag- may be aganim
explained from *h3eu- (*hoganim > haganim, see, however, s.v. hoviw ‘shepherd’)
and *h3ou- (*oganim > aganim, loss of the laryngeal before an original *-o-), see
Kloekhorst ibid.; for a different analysis, see Lindeman 1982: 29, who does not
mention the Armenian h-.
For a further philological and etymological discussion and for the nasal present,
see Mariès/Meillet apud Minassian 1978-79; Hamp 1975: 101; Szemerényi 1977:
87346 (*aw-an-); Lindeman 1982: 29; Klingenschmitt 1982: 196; Joseph 1984: 48;
Greppin 1988-89: 478; Kortlandt 1996: 41; 1996a: 58 = 2003: 115, 119; Beekes
2003: 184. For Armenian -anim vs. Hittite -nu- (cf. also *ues-nu- in z-genum ‘to
dress’, as well as MidArm. hagnul) note Arm. ǰeṙ-anim vs. ǰeṙ-num (see s.v. ǰer
‘warmth’). For the Armenian caus. meaning ‘to put into rings’ compare the
semantics of the Hittite verb ‘to adorn’.
aganim2, 3sg.aor. ag-a-w, imper. ag-ir ‘to spend the night’ (Bible+); vayr-ag, a-stem:
GDSg vayrag-i (Book of Chries), IPl vayrag-a-w-k‘ (Philo) ‘sleeping in the field’
(Bible+); further see awt‘, i-stem ‘sleeping place, spending the night’.
●ETYM Connected with Gr. αὐ̃λις, -ιδος f. ‘tent or place for passing the night in’,
ἰαύω ‘to sleep, spend the night’, aor. ἄεσα, ἰαυϑμός ‘sleeping place’, see Müller
1890: 8; Hübschmann 1897: 411-412 (sceptical); HAB 1: 76 with references;
Pokorny 1959: 72; Mallory/Adams 1997: 171b. For a thorough philological and
etymological discussion, see Minassian 1978-79: 25-26.
The underlying PIE verbal root is reconstructed as *h2u̯es-, cf. Hitt. ḫu̯iš- ‘to
live’, Skt. vasati, ávasat, vásant- ‘to stay, dwell, spend the night’, etc.; Gr. ἰαύω ‘to
sleep, spend the night’ is a reduplicated present from *h2i-h2eus-; note also Arm. go-
‘to be, exist’ from *h2uos- (for a discussion, see Beekes 1969: 57, 127, 129; Greppin
1973: 68; C. Arutjunjan 1983: 256-257; Greppin 1983: 260; Mayrhofer EWAia 2,
1996: 531-532). For a further discussion, see Barton 1988; Beekes 1991: 243;
Clackson 1994: 104-107, 22392.
An IE *h2u̯V- would yield Arm. *gV-. One therefore derives ag- from a full-grade
*h2eu̯- (Polomé 1980: 28; cf. also Eichner 1978: 151, 15128). This would give Arm.
*haw/g-, however. More probably we can posit PArm. *ag- < *aw(h)- < QIE zero
grade *h2u-s- (for the development, see s.v. ayg ‘morning’). This zero grade form
may be corroborated by awt‘, i-stem ‘sleeping place’ (q.v.).
Kortlandt (1983: 13; 1984: 43 = 2003: 43, 56; cf. also Beekes 2003: 174, 184)
posits *Hou- in vayr-ag ‘living in the field’ and awt‘ ‘place to spend the night’ <
*ou-ti- (cf. the vocalic development in ayt ‘cheek’). This view is improbable as far
as awt‘ is concerned because: 1) I prefer a different analysis for ayt ‘cheek’ (q.v.); 2)
awt‘, i-stem is most probably a *-ti-derivative and is likely derived from a zerograde root *h2u- or, perhaps better, PArm. *aw- or *ag- from *h2us- (see s.v. awt‘).
agarak, a-stem: GDSg agarak-i, GDPl agarak-a-c‘ (Bible+) ‘landed property; estate,
a house with all possessions; village’.
For the contextual relatedness with art ‘cornfield, tilled field’ (q.v.) cf. e.g. Isaiah
27.4: pahel zoč artoy yagaraki : φυλάσσειν καλάμην ἐν ἀγρῷ.
In Agat‘angeɫos § 126 (1909= 1980: 73L6), agarak is found in an enumeration of
the types of dwellings or rural communities, which is represented by Thomson 1976:
139 as follows: awan ‘town’, šēn ‘village’, geōɫ ‘hamlet’, agarak ‘estate’.
agi
Thoroughly analyzing a number of similar lists and other attestations, Sargsyan 1967
concludes that agarak means ‘landed property, estate’ and is equivalent to dastakert.
Armenian loans: Georg. agarak’i ‘cornfield, estate, village’, and, without -ak,
agara ‘estate, rural house’ [HAB 1: 77b].
●DIAL No dialectal evidence is recorded in HAB 1: 77. Here Ačaṙyan interprets Nor
Naxiǰewan rural ɛgɛrɛk‘ ‘the summer staying place of bullocks in fields’ as a back
loan from Crimean Tatar *egerek (cf. Turk. ekrek in numerous place-names of Asia
Minor) < Arm. agarak.
Further, note Xotorǰur agrak ‘country-house, bower, summer place’
[YušamXotorǰ 1964: 459].
●ETYM Since long, connected with Gr. ἀγρός ‘field’, Lat. ager m. ‘field’, Skt. ájram. ‘field, plain’, etc. Since these forms go back to PIE *h2eĝ-ro- which cannot yield
Arm. *agar-ak, Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 77a) assumes a loan from a lost IE language of
Asia Minor. Others (e.g. Karst 1911: 402; Łap‘anc‘yan 1939: 17; see also J̌
ahukyan
1987: 452; cf. Olsen 1999: 246, 953) link agarak with Sumer. agar ‘field’. Arm.
agarak has been interpreted also as follows: “Gr. ἀγρός arrangé à l’arménienne”
[Mariès/Meillet apud Minassian 1978-79: 29]. For this PIE etymon, see s.v. art
‘cornfield, tilled field’.
At any case, the spread of the PIE term into Near East is possible, and Arm.
agar-ak can be regarded as its secondary reflex and linked with other cultural loans
as burgn ‘tower’ (q.v.), etc. But the ending -ak seems to favour an Iranian
intermediation.
Greppin (1982a: 118; see also 1991b: 724, with some ECauc. forms) treats agarak as a loan from Hurr. awari- ‘field’. He stresses that the Hurrian word would
appear in Urartian as *āre, so Arm. agar-ak must come from Hurrian, not Urartian.
According to J̌
ahukyan (1987: 425), this comparison is phonologically possible, but
the other etymology is more probable.
agi, GSg agw-o-y (cf. z-agw-o-y in P‘awstos Buzand 3.6), ISg agw-o-v (Epiphanius of
Cyprus), IPl age-a-w-k‘ or ISg ag-a-w (Philo) ‘tail’ (Bible+).
Unēin agis əst nmanut‘ean karči, ew xayt‘oc‘ yagis noc‘a (Revelation 9.10);
Agik‘ noc‘a nmanut‘iwn ōji. (Revelation 9.19). In these passages Arm. agi (= Gr.
οὐρά) refers to the tails of scorpions and snakes.
In P‘awstos Buzand 3.6 (1883=1984: 13L-12f; transl. Garsoïan 1989: 73): kapec‘in
kaxec‘in zmanukn Grigoris zagwoy jioyn “hanged and bound [in the text: bound and
hanged – HM] young Grigoris to the tail of the horse”.
In these three classical passages agi refers to the tail(s) of scorpions, snakes, and a
horse, respectively. Elsewhere, agi denotes the tail of a lion, a dog, etc. [NHB 1: 3].
As we can see, the word is also used in reference to snakes and dogs, despite
Ačaṙyan’s statement (see HAB 1: 77b).
A meaning ‘penis’ can be deduced from agat ‘whose penis is cut off’ used by
Grigor Tat‘ewac‘i in “Girk‘ harc‘manc‘” (14th cent.). For the semantic shift ‘tail’ >
‘penis’, see s.v. jet ‘tail’. For a philological analysis, see Minassian 1978-79: 29.
●DIAL Preserved in the dialects with:
initial a-: Agulis, Hačən, Aslanbek, Xarberd, Ṙotost‘o, Akn, Sebastia, J̌
t‘,
Alaškert, Suč‘ava [HAB 1: 78a], Papen, Xotrǰur [HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 3b];
Svedia [Andreasyan 1967: 352a];
agi
initial h-: Łarabaɫ hä́k‘y
i, hä́k‘y
ü [Davt‘yan 1966: 299]; Goris häk‘i, häk‘ü, häk‘y
ü
[Margaryan 1975: 311a, 425a], perhaps also häk‘ün, cf. AblSg häk‘ünic‘ (referring
to the tail of a hen) [Lisic‘yan 1969: 270]; Šamaxi häk‘i, häk‘y
i [Baɫramyan 1964:
185]; Meɫri hégy
in [Aɫayan 1954: 260a]; Karčewan hä́gy
in [H. Muradyan 1960:
188a]; Kak‘avaberd hä́gin, in the village of Gudemnis hä́k‘y
ü [H. Muradyan 1967:
98, 116, 164a]; Areš hägi [Lusenc‘ 1982: 195a]; Šamšadin/ Diliǰan häk‘i [Mežunc‘
1989: 183a].
The initial hä- in Šatax häkyi regularly corresponds to Van ä- in äkyi (see M.
Muradyan 1962: 25, 33, 76, 172, 191a). Ačaṙyan (1952: 24f) does not explain this a-
> Van ä- development. Bearing in mind that the Classical y- yields voiced h- in
Šatax whereas it disappears in Van (see Ačaṙyan 1952: 76; Muradyan 1962: 24, 53),
one must trace the anlaut of Šatax häkyi back to y- rather than h-, since the latter
would have given x-. This perfectly fits in the rule formulated by Weitenberg (1986:
92-93). Thus, at least on the basis of Van and Šatax, one may reconstruct a by-form
with an initial y-, namely Armenian *y-agi. See 2.3.1 on y-.
For Partizak, a recent meaning ‘an inseparable friend’ is recorded [HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 3b].
In most of the dialects, the word generally means ‘tail’ (as stressed byAčaṙyan in
HAB 1: 78a, in Suč‘ava even pertaining to sheep, fish and birds), while the meanig
‘lap’ is attested in Van, Šatax (specifically of women’s dress; see M. Muradyan
1962: 68, 76, 172, 191a), Akn and Svedia. Svedia is particularly interesting, for here
we have a contrast: aka ‘tail’ (< agi), NPl äkəsdun ‘tails’ : äkäk‘ ‘lap’ (< agi-k‘)
[Andreasyan 1967: 40, 42, 52, 352a]. The latter formation should be interpreted as a
common development shared with Akn ag‘ik‘, since this too is a plural formation
with the semantic shift. However, this meaning could be pretty old, as it is found
also in Van and Šatax, while in Alaškert we find ‘edge of the spinal column’.
The by-form *äk‘ü, found in Łarabaɫ, Goris and partially in Kak‘avaberd (see
above), has perhaps resulted from a generalization of the oblique stem agw-, cf.
Łarabaɫ e.g. AblSg hyak‘van [S. Harut‘yunyan 1965: 94bNr964g]), Kak‘avaberd
(Gudemnis) GDPl hä́k‘vac‘ [H. Muradyan 1967: 116], etc.
●SEMANTICS Theoretically, the basic meaning of the word might have been ‘edge’ in
the semantic fields of animal (partly also, perhaps, human) anatomy and dressing.
This suggestion will be verified below, in the etymological section. Arm. tutn/ttun
(HAB s.v.) can serve as an interesting parallel to the semantic field. Cf. also ClPers.
dum ‘tail; edge/end’ (‘хвост; конец’) [ÈtimSlovIranJaz 2, 2003: 479]. This Arm.
word demonstrates semantic variety already in the Bible, whereas agi appears in the
literature only in the meaning ‘tail’, the other meanings being confined to the
dialects; cf. also V. Aṙak‘elyan 1984: 50.
●ETYM No acceptable etymology is recorded in HAB 1: 77-78. Listed by Olsen
(1999: 940) among words of unknown origin.
J̌
ahukyan (1967: 191) connects the word to Pol. ogon and Czech ohon ‘tail’ < IE
*aĝ- (= *h2eĝ-) ‘to drive’ (cf. s.v. acem) and places it in the list of aberrant words
which deviate from the rules of palatalization. I would agree with Greppin (1983:
261), who considers the etymology uncertain by putting the whole entry in square
brackets.
azbn
If the basic meaning of agi were indeed ‘edge’ (in the semantic fields of animal
and partly, perhaps, human anatomy, as well as dressing; see above, in the
dialectological section), I would connect the word to Arm. haw ‘beginning’ <
perhaps *‘edge’, which may be derived from *p(e)h2u̯-. haw and (h)agi correspond
to each other as kov and kogi (see s.v.v). The loss of the initial h- in agi is perhaps
due to the unstressed position: *ph2u̯-ii̯V- > Arm. *(h)agíi̯V- > agi. In Eastern
dialects, the h-, if not from y-, may have been preserved due to the initial syllable
being accented as a result of accent retraction.
As I tried to demonstrate in the dialectological section, a by-form *y-agi can be
reconstructed on the basis of Šatax and Van (but perhaps also on the basis of others
with an initial h-, if this goes back to Arm. *y-). This is parallel to haw, next to
which there is a rarely attested prefixed form yaw (HAB s.v.).
azazim ‘to become dry, wither’ (Eɫišē, see Ter-Minasyan 1989: 404L14f), azazanam
‘to become dry’ (Philo), azazem ‘to make dry’ (Vkayk‘ arewelic‘, Sargis Šnorhali,
Čaṙəntir); azaz-un ‘dry, withered’ in Genesis 41.23-24 (said of hask ‘ear of corn’,
Zeyt‘unyan 1985: 342), Philo, etc.
●ETYM Probably from QIE *h2(H)s-gh
-, cf. Goth. azgo ‘ashes’, etc.; see Meillet
1898: 281-282; 1908-09: 357; HAB 1: 82; Pokorny 1959: 68-69; J̌
ahukyan 1982:
66, 102; Lehmann 1986: 54; Mallory/Adams 1997: 170b; Olsen 1999: 489.
Sceptical: Greppin 1983: 261. On the PIE etymon, see Lubotsky 1985. Further, see
s.v. ačiwn ‘ash’.
Arm. az-az- is considered a reduplicated present (Meillet 1936: 113) or an
intensive (Clackson 1994: 86; cf. J̌
ahukyan 1982: 171). For azaz-un, see J̌
ahukyan
1982: 130-131.
The connection with Gr. ὄσχος, MPers. azg ‘branch’, Arm. azn ‘tribe’, ezn
‘bullock’, etc. (Patrubány 1902-03) is untenable.
azbn, -bin, -bamb ‘weft, web, warp’.
First attested three times (not twice, as in Astuacaturean 1895: 11b and Greppin
1983: 262) in Judges 16.13-14 (in the story of Samson and Delilah) rendering Gr.
δίασμα ‘warp/Kettenfaden’: Et‘ē ankc‘es zeōt‘anesin gisaks glxoy imoy ənd azbin
<...>. Ēaṙ zeōt‘anesin gisaks glxoy nora handerj azbambn <...>. Korzeac‘ zc‘ic‘sn
handerj ostayniwn ew azbambn yormoy anti.
Next: asbn (Philo); aspn (Vark‘ ew vkayabanut‘iwnk‘); ISg azbamb (Nersēs
Lambronac‘i, 12th cent.; see NHB 1: 6b); APl azbuns (George of Pisidia).
The “pure” root *azb (without -n) is found in two derivatives: azb-a-xumb
‘crowd, rabble’ (P‘awstos Buzand 4.5: 1883=1984: 71L-11) and azboc‘ ‘weaver’s
comb’ (John Chrysostom). The rendering of the former as ‘a grouping of the warp or
weft’, as proposed by Greppin (1983: 262), is rather literal than textual. I do not
understand why Bailey (1983: 2) translates the compound as ‘very close’. The
passage from P‘awstos reads as follows: t‘ṙč‘el anc‘anel i veray azbaxumb
zōrut‘eanc‘s “they fly over dense forces” (transl. Garsoïan 1989: 119-120). As for
the renderings ‘weaver’s reed to separate threads’ (emphasis is mine) and ‘stick’,
proposed by Bailey respectively for azbn and azboc‘, one feels a tendency towards
stressing their semantic conformity with Khot. ysba < *(a)zbā- ‘reed’; see the
etymological section.
azbn
The interpretation of azbaxumb should be reconsidered. The first component can
in fact be equated with *asp- ‘to arm’, a quasi-word based on a re-analysis of
aspazēn and contamination with aspar ‘shield’ and (a)sparapet ‘commander-inchief’. A secondary (dialectal?) voicing of sibilants and affricates is not uncommon
in Buzand’s History; cf. Aɫjk‘ < Aɫc‘k‘, Amaraz < Amaras, Tozb < Tosp. So,
azbaxumb may have been made up to mean ‘armed crowd, rabble’. This suits the
context: azbaxumb zōrut‘eanc‘.
●DIAL Preserved in numerous dialects. A trace of the final -n, although lacking even
in Goris, Meɫri and other neighbouring dialects, appears to be found in Leṙnayin
Łarabaɫ: áspə (Łarabaɫ, Hadrut‘, Šaɫax-Xcaberd, Mehtišen) [Davt‘yan 1966: 300]. In
what follows, I will only mention data which are relevant for the semantics.
According to HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 106b, the basic dialectal meaning of azb(n)
is ‘the movable frame of a (weaver’s) loom with comb-like threads through which
the threads of the woof pass’. Interestingly enough, this thorough description suits
the dialectal (noted as “ṙmk.”) meaning cited in NHB 1: 6b: “the comb-like woof
through which the aṙēǰ-k‘ pass; = Turk. /p‘öčü, p‘üčü/”. Compare *aspasantr (in
many dialects) ‘the comb (santr) of asp (= azbn), a part of the loom by which the
woven fabric is pushed forward’ [HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 106b], as well as azboc‘
‘weaver’s comb’ (see above).
Orbeli (2002: 207) describes the meaning of Moks asp‘ as follows: “ремизки,
четыре пары палочек с нитяными гребнями, разделяющими нити тканья”. For
the devoicing, cf. azg ‘nation’ > Moks ask, oblique ask‘- (op. cit. 206).
Compounds *azbat‘el and *azbap‘ayt (with t‘el ‘thread’ and p‘ayt ‘wood’,
respectively, as the second members) are recorded in Meɫri (əzbát‘il and əzbáp‘ɛt
[Aɫayan 1954: 260]) and Łarabaɫ (əspát‘il and əspáp‘ɛt, -áp‘at, etc. [Davt‘yan 1966:
300]). Łarabaɫ *azbap‘ayt is cited in HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 7b in the meaning ‘the
horizontal thin wood of a (weaver’s) loom on which azb is based/put’. No Goris
form is recorded in Margaryan 1975. However, Lisic‘yan (1969: 158) mentions aspi
p‘ɛtnɛr (= Turk. /küǰu-aɫaǰi/), and the stick (čipot) on it – əspap‘ɛtin čəpat (= Turk.
/küǰu-čubuxi/). For additional ethnographic information concerning azb(n), see
Lisic‘yan 1969: 160-161. Note also azbel (in a few dialects) ‘to stretch the azb-’s for
the weaving’, a process where aspnkoč, with koč ‘beam’ as a second member (only
in Sebastia), is involved, too [HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 7b, 106b].
●SEMANTICS NHB and HAB specify the meaning of azbn as follows: ‘initial
edge-threads (glossed as cop) of a woven fabric’. The same is stated by Aɫayan
(1954: 260a) concerning Meɫri azb, but this seems to be taken from HAB and should
not be used as first-hand information. I am not sure whether there is a solid textual
basis for justifying the particular reference to the edge-threads, but it seems to be
confirmed at least by the denominative verb azbel (in a few dialects) ‘to stretch the
azb-’s for the weaving’.
Although the textual evidence requires further examination, I preliminarily
conclude that the basic meaning of the word can be formulated as follows: ‘the
(wooden) frame of a loom with the main threads as the basis of the fabric’. A
secondary specification focused on the threads or the edge-threads might have taken
place; cf. in Sebastia, where the word refers to ‘golden and silver threads (in
jeweller’s art)’, and the just-mentioned azbel.
azbn
As is suggested by numerous examples (ostayn, stori, torg, etc.), the basic
meaning can easily be derived from ‘wood; branch’.
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 84b) considers the resemblance with Syriac *azbā ‘pubic
or armpit hair’ as accidental. Indeed, it is semantically remote. Then Ačaṙyan
(AčaṙHLPatm 1, 1940: 184; cf. J̌
ahukyan 1985a: 367; 1987: 436-437; 1990: 63)
mentions the word in the list of etymologically opaque words, conjecturally of
Urartian origin. J̌
ahukyan does not mention any of the references below, although he
does list Bailey 1983 and Čop 1955 in his bibliography (1987: 647, 650).
Čop (1955: 28; I cite from Greppin 1983: 262) proposed a connection with Skt.
átka- m. ‘garment, coat’ (RV+); YAv. aδka- m. ‘coat, outer garment’, Gr. ἄττομαι <
*ἄτ-ϳομαι ‘set the warp in the loom, i.e. begin the web’, ἄσμα, more usual δίασμα,
-ατος n. ‘warp/Kettenfaden’ (cf. διάζομαι ‘to set the warp in the loom, i.e. begin the
web’), Alb. end/ẽn(d) ‘weben; anzetteln’. The Armenian form is derived from
*ant-s-mn.
Though semantically attractive (δίασμα corresponds to azbn in the
above-mentioned passage from Judges 16.13-14), this etymology poses serious
phonological problems. Greppin (1983: 262) argues against this derivation by
stating that *ant-s-mn “would seem to give *anjbn rather than *anzbn > azbn”. In
my view, this objection is not essential. The developments -j- > -z- in such a cluster
and *-Vnz > -Vz are unparalleled, but not impossible. I would even prefer to
eliminate the voicing; thus: *ant-s-mn > *ansmn > *asmn (for *-Vns > -Vs see
2.1.11). The shift *-mn > -bn (on which Greppin refers to Pedersen; cf. sksanim :
skizbn ‘begin’) and the origin of *-s- are more problematic. Furthermore, the
relationship between the Greek, Indo-Iranian and Albanian cognates and,
consequently, the existence of an etymon, are very uncertain; see Frisk 1: 183;
Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 58; Demiraj 1997: 166-167.
Olsen (1999: 369-370) independently suggests the same etymological connection.
She mentions only the Greek form and equates azbn with ἄσμα, assuming “an Arm.
sound change *-tm- (> *-ts
m-) > *-sm- (*-zm-) as in Gk., followed by the particular
development of *-m- > -b- as in skizbn”. On *-mn > -bn, she too refers to Pedersen.
I do not think *at-mn would yield Arm. azbn. For an earlier connection of azbn with
Gr. δίασμα comparing the ending -bn with that of skizbn see Mariès/Meillet apud
Minassian 1978-79: 21.
The etymology proposed by Bailey (1983: 1-3; the same year as Greppin’s
treatment) opens more perspectives. Bailey compares azbn to Khot. ysba = *(a)zbā-
‘reed’ and connects them to the PIE words for ‘branch’ and ‘bone’, which are
interpreted as variants of the same root with different suffixes; thus: *os-d/t- (=
*Hos-d/t, see s.vv. ost ‘branch’ and oskr ‘bone’). The Khotanese form under
discussion is derived from *os-b(h), and the Armenian azbn is considered an Iranian
loan in view of its vocalism.
However, there seems to be no evidence for an independent *Hos-, allegedly
reflected in CLuw. ḫāš- ‘bone’ (see Hamp 1984; Starke 1990: 120-124; Kloekhorst
2008: 325f), so one should perhaps reconstruct *Hos(d)-b(h)-. The Armenian form is
not necessarily an Iranian loan. The semantic shift ‘reed’ > ‘a part of a weaver’s
loom’ is possible; cf. the meaning of Arm. eɫēgn in Hamšen [HAB 2: 19a; Ačaṙyan
1947: 227] and Sebastia [HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 367b]. However, we do not know.
azdr
whether the word was part of the weaving terminology of any Iranian language.
Furthermore, azbn does not refer to a stick as a part of a loom (or as a weaver’s
instrument). So, a native origin of azbn should not be excluded. With a
generalization of the zero grade from the genitive, azbn might go back directly to
*h2sd-bh
-m̥ . It is remarkable that Arm. ost, -oy ‘branch’ originating from the fullgrade form of the thematized variant of the root under discussion, that is *Hosd-o-
(cf. Gr. ὄζος ‘bough, branch, twig’), is largely incorporated into the weaving
terminology; see HAB s.vv. ost and ostayn.
If the Khotanese form is indeed related, we are probably dealing with an
innovation by means of the determinative *-bh
- shared by Armenian and Iranian; cf.,
apart from skiz-b- ‘beginning’ (see above), also deɫ-b vs. deɫ-in ‘yellow’, surb ‘pure’
(see s.vv.). Since PIE *Hu̯ebh
- ‘to weave’ (cf. Skt. vabh- ‘to bind, fetter’, MPers.
waf- ‘to weave’, etc.) seems to be an enlargement of the synonymous *He/ou- (see
Gamkrelidze / Ivanov 1984: 581-585; Klimov 1989: 27; Mallory / Adams 1997:
572a), one may compare the *-bh
- to that of *H(o)sd-bh
-.
azdr (spelled also as astr), er-stem: GDSg azder, AblSg azder-ē; later also GDSg
azder-i, GDPl azder-a-c‘ ‘thigh’ (Bible+), ‘shoulder(-blade), etc.’ (Grigor
Narekac‘i, Nersēs Lambronac‘i, etc.).
●ETYM The connection with Skt. sákthi- n. ‘thigh’ (RV+), Gr. ἰσχίον n. ‘hip-joint, in
which the thigh turns’, etc., which involves a metathesis *sa- > as- and a voicing of
the stops (Meillet 1898: 277-278; Hübschmann 1899: 47; HAB 1: 86b; J̌
ahukyan
1967: 217; M. Hanneyan 1979: 173), is highly improbable. Greppin (1983: 262)
introduced the word in square brackets, as one of an uncertain origin.
J̌
ahukyan (1983: 86-87; 1987: 142, 184) derives azdr from PIE *Host- ‘bone’ (cf.
Gr. ὀσφῦς, -ύος f. ‘loin or loins, lower part of the back’, etc.; see s.v. oskr ‘bone’),
reconstructing *ost-dh
-ur > *ozdh
ur > azdr. Olsen (1999: 149) independently
suggests the same etymology, but points out that “the formal divergences are not
easily overcome”. The determinative *-dh
- is not corroborated by any cognate form,
and the vowel *o- cannot yield Arm. a- in a closed syllable. The latter problem
might be removed if one assumes a zero grade form: *h3st-dh
-. Further, compare asr
‘fleece’ and tarr ‘element’ (see s.vv.). Hamp (1984: 200) derives Gr. ὀσφῦς from
*Host-bh
u(H)- with φύω ‘to beget, grow, etc.’.
The PIE origin of the Armenian and Greek words and their appurtenance to the
PIE word for ‘bone’ is improbable. One may rather assume a Mediterranean-Pontic
substratum word *H(o)sdbh
u- or the like, though this is uncertain, too.
*azn-awor
●DIAL Arm. *aznawor ‘huge man, giant; supernatural being, spirit’ is present in the
dialects of Bulanəx, Xlat‘, Van, Nor Bayazet [HAB 1: 87b], Ararat [Amatuni 1912:
3], Sebastia [Gabikean 1952: 42], Alaškert [Madat‘yan 1985: 206a], Svedia, etc.
[HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 8a]. In a fairy-tale from Goris, the village of Yayǰi,
recorded in Yerevan in 1969 (HŽHek‘ 7, 1979: 507L11): min aznavur arč‘ “a giant
bear”.
S. Avagyan (1978: 176a) records aznaur ‘a mythical giant man’ in Arčak (close
to Van). On the road to Arčak – Van, there is a heap of stones called Aznavuri
kerezman “grave of Aznavur”, a few meters wide and as large as a cornfield.
*azn-awor
According to the traditional story, this is the grave of Aznavur, who was created by
Satana the very same day when the Lord created Adam (op. cit. 106).
Commenting upon a similar grave, aznawuri gerezman, in a Kurdish village close
to Manazkert, Abeɫyan (1899: 71, 711) points out that the word aznawur denotes
“die Urbewohner Armeniens” and is equivalent to dew.
For other textual illustrations, see Mik‘ayelyan 1980: 14aL16f, 15aL24 (Nor
Bayazet).
In Gomer, aznahur is recorded [HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 8a]. The -h- instead of
-w- is also seen in *anjnahur (see below).
In the meaning ‘nobleman’: Šatax äznävur [M. Muradyan 1962: 208a]; Akn
aznawur (as a personal-name) [Gabriēlean 1912: 233].
●ETYM According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 87b), Arm. azn ‘generation, nation, tribe’
(cf. azn-iw ‘noble’ in Bible+) has been borrowed into Georg. aznauri ‘nobleman’
and from Georgian re-borrowed into Arm. dial. *aznawor ‘huge man, giant;
supernatural being, spirit’. Given the fact that, in most of the dialects, Arm.
*azn-awor is not semantically identical with Georg. aznauri ‘nobleman’ and is
widespread in Armenian dialects, most of which are geographically very far from
Georgia, and the suffix -awor is very productive in Armenian, the interpretation of
Arm. *azn-awor as a Georgian loan is improbable.
The Armenian and Georgian words may be independent borrowings from Iranian,
but it seems more probable that Arm. *azn-awor ‘huge man, giant; supernatural
being, spirit’ is not related to Georg. aznauri ‘nobleman’ or to the other forms
[though a contamination is possible; cf. also Aznanc‘-ordi ‘valiant, brave man’ from
azn, see SasCṙ 2/2, 1951: 821; Petoyan 1965: 380], but rather continues ClArm.
anjn-awor ‘subsistent; breathing’ < ‘body/soul possessing’ (Eznik Koɫbac‘i, Philo,
etc.), a derivative of anjn ‘person, ipse; soul, spirit; body’ (Bible+; dial.); cf. also
Sasun anjnävur ‘animate, living, corporeal’, Moks anjnavur, anjnahur ‘animate;
giant, mighty’, Aparan anjnahur ‘a mythical being’, Gomer aznahur ‘giant’. Of
these forms, Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 204a) mentions only Aparan anjnahur ‘a mythical
being’, stating that it is a reshaped form of *aznawor < Georgian aznauri
‘nobleman’. As we saw, however, the form anjnawor is reliably attested both in old
literature and in dialects, and its semantics fits well into my proposal. See further
s.v. anjn.
Arm. dial. *azn-awor ‘huge man, giant; supernatural being, spirit’, thus, together
with Sasun anjnävur ‘animate, living, corporeal’, Moks anjnavur, anjnahur
‘animate; giant, mighty’, etc., belongs with ClArm. anjn-awor ‘subsistent;
breathing’ < ‘body/soul possessing’ < anjn ‘person, ipse’; soul, spirit; body’.
Typologically cf. Lat. animus ‘soul, mind; vital power’, anima ‘air, breeze, breath,
soul, life’ : animal n. ‘animal’, and, especially, Arm. dial. ǰanavar ‘(ferocious) beast’
: Pers. ǰān-vār ‘living, alive; animal; a fierce beast’, ǰān-āvar ‘alive; an imprudent
man’ from ǰān ‘soul, vital spirit; mind; self; life; spirit, courage; the father of
demons’ (see Steingass 352-353). Note also Turk. canavar ‘cruel, rude, uncivilized;
hero, etc.’ (Uwe Bläsing, p.c.). Ačaṙyan (1902: 216) treats Polis and other forms as
borrowings from Turkish.
Arm. dial. ǰanavar ‘beast’ can also refer to a small beast, as e.g. in Nor Bayazet
(see Mik‘ayelyan 1980: 9b, lines 8, 9, 22). In the same book (160b), ǰun-ǰanavar is
alawunk‘
glossed as ‘wild beast; huge man’. In Arčak (S. Avagyan 1978: 184a): ǰanavar
‘monster, imaginary ugly animal’. In a fairy-tale from Širak (HŽHek‘ 4, 1963:
154L-2f, 155L7): mek višap, mek dew, ya uriš me ǰanavar “a dragon, a devil, or
another ǰanavar”; oč‘ dew gtav, oč‘ višap, oč‘ ɛl uriš ǰanavar “He found neither
devil, nor dragon, and nor another ǰanavar”. Thus, ǰanavar refers to ‘wild beast (real
or imaginary)’. Note that Pers. ǰān-vār contains the same suffix as Arm. anjn-awor.
Turk. aznavɪr ‘vengeful, cruel, fierce, big and strong’ and Pers. āznāvur (in
Steingass 45a: aznāvur ‘a great lord’) are often treated as Armenian borrowings
[HAB 1: 87b; Dankoff 1995: 16; Baɫramyan 1974: 163]. This view is criticized by
Uwe Bläsing (p.c.), who argues that all the forms are borrowed (directly or
indirectly) from MPers. āznāvar ‘noble’.
alawunk‘, alawsunk‘ ‘Pleiades’.
In Vark‘ ew vkayabanut‘iwnk‘ srboc‘, Venice, 1874, vol. 1, p. 682 (apud HAB 3:
222a): Bayc‘ ayl asteɫk‘ < ... > orpēs aruseakn ew mazarovt‘n ew alawsunk‘n ew
Haykn. Attested also in Čaṙəntir and by lexicographers. The occurrrence of
‘Pleiades’ beside Hayk ‘Orion’ is very common, cf. Job 9.9, 38.31; Amos 5.8 –
bazmasteɫk‘ and Hayk, next to each other. In the dialect of Van this relationship has
created an interesting compound, viz. Xek‘-bazük‘ (perhaps to be corrected as
päzük‘) ‘Orion/Hayk and Pleiades’ (see Ter-Mkrtč‘yan 1970: 182-183) < *Hayk-k‘ +
Bazuk-k‘. About the association ‘Orion-Hayk’ in general, see A. Petrosyan 1991:
102-103; 1991a: 121; 1997: 22-23. On Orion and Pleiades, see 3.1.1-2, 3.1.4.
In Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ (see Amalyan 1975: 8Nr128), alawun, var. alasun, is rendered
by bazmastɫ or bazum astɫ or erroneously bazmataɫ (cf. HAB 1: 9, 92a) ‘Pleiades’.
Obviously here belongs also MidArm. alawun-k‘ attested in Yovhan Varagac‘i
and interpreted as ‘heavenly angels’ in MiǰHayBaṙ 1, 1987: 18a: Duk‘ alawunk‘
erknic‘ Hayoc‘ iǰēk‘ i dašt ənd is i koc “You, alawun-k‘ of the heaven of Armenia,
come down to mourn with me”.
●ETYM No etymology in HAB 1: 92a. J̌
ahukyan (1963a: 86; cf. 1987: 270, with
some reservation) connects the word to aɫawni ‘dove’ deriving both from *aləu-
‘white, shiny’ and comparing also *albho-, read *h2elbh
o-. This etymology is
uncertain, since the only (cited) evidence for *-əu-n- is taken from the Celtic
onomastics, and there are no strong semantic parallels. One might reformulate the
connection, deriving alaw(s)unk‘ directly from aɫawni, regardless of the ultimate
origin of the latter. However, neither this would be convincing because, first: -linstead of -ɫ- is not explained; second, the origin of -s- remains obscure; third,
aɫawni ‘dove’ is a derivative with -i suffix, but the expected (folk-etymological)
development would be ‘dove’ > ‘star’ and not the other way around. Finally, to the
best of my knowledge, in Armenian tradition, unlike in that of Greek (cf. Scherer
1953: 144; Puhvel 1991: 1244), the Pleiades are never interpreted as doves.
H. Suk‘iasyan (1979: 298-299; cf. 1986: 26-27, 69, 99, 136, 137) mentions
J̌
ahukyan’s etymology stating that the -s- is a determinative, and treating the -w- as
from the determinative *-bh
-. See also S. Grigoryan 1988: 192. None of the authors
specifies the origin of the -s-.
There is synonymous aɫabasar (only in P‘eštBaṙ apud HAB), on which nothing
certain can be based, however.
alewr
Since the semantic development ‘many’ > ‘Pleiades’ is one of the most
representative patterns for naming this star cluster (see 3.1.2), one may derive
alaw(s)unk‘ ‘Pleiades’ from y-olov ‘many’ (< *polh1us, cf. Gr. πολύς ‘many’, Skt.
purú-, etc.). It is remarkable that the Iranian (YAv. APl f paoiriiaēiniias <
*paruii ̯ ̯ainī-, NPers. parvīn, etc.) and the Greek (Πλειάδες) names seem to have been
based on the same PIE word. For a discussion and other opinions I refer to
Bartholomae 1904: 876; Pokorny 1959: 800; Bogolyubov 1987; Puhvel 1991:
1243-1244. Theoretically, we might be dealing with an isogloss shared by Armenian,
Greek, and Iranian.
This attractive etymology has been proposed by A. Petrosyan (1990: 234-236;
1991: 103; 1991a: 121; 1997: 22; 2002: 55192). However, he does not specify the
morphological background and phonological developments, and involves details
which seem to be improbable and unnecessary, such as the relation to aɫawni ‘dove’
(see above for the criticism) and Hurrian allae ‘lady, queen’ (pointing out that the
dove is the symbol of Mother-goddess), as well as an anagrammatic connection with
the IE name of the mythological snake *u̯el- (cf. Russ. Volosyni ‘Pleiades’, etc., see
Ivanov/Toporov 1974: 49-50, 200). Furthermore, one misses here the semantic
development ‘many’ > ‘Pleiades’, which, in my opinion, is essential. The secondary
correlation to the doves is based on folk-etymology and is confined to Greek.
Compare other “Umdeutungen” of Pleiades to ‘Schiffahrtsgestirn’ (after πλέω), etc.
[Scherer 1953: 143f; 1974: 18918].
Arm. alaw(s)unk‘ is an n-stem like harawunk‘ ‘arable land’ (q.v.). The -s- is
perhaps from a parallel form in the suffix *-ko- by regular palatalization of *k after
*u, cf. s.vv. araws (NB: next to the above-mentioned harawunk‘), boys, etc. The
initial a- beside -o- of y-olov ‘many’ might be explained by the ablaut within the PIE
paradigm (cf. the zero-grade of Skt. purú-, see also 2.1.20, 2.1.23) or by the
Armenian development o > a in pretonic open syllable within the Armenian
paradigm; see 2.1.3.
Celtic *lu-u̯ero- ‘viel’ from *pl̥h1u-u̯er-o- (see Zimmer 1997: 354-355) seems
particularly interesting. If containing the heteroclitic suffix *-u̯er/n-, it matches
alawunk‘ and helps to reconstruct a paradigm identical with that of harawunk‘, cf.
Gr. ἄρουρα f. ‘tilled or arable land; pl. corn-lands, fields’, etc.
At last, one might also take into consideration Karst’s (1948: 792) brief note in
which he compares alaw(s)unk‘ with Turan. Pers. alūs, ulus ‘troupe, foule’. This is
uncertain, however.
alewr, aliwr, GDSg aler (later also o-stem) ‘flour’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 1: 94b].
●ETYM Belongs with the family of aɫam ‘to grind’ (q.v.), cf. especially Gr. ἄλευρον
n., mostly in pl. ἄλευρα, also ἄλευρος f. ‘flour’ [Hübschmann 1897: 414; HAB 1:
94b].
Usually, *h2leh1-ur is reconstructed for the Armenian word [Beekes 1969: 234;
2003: 191; Eichner 1978: 152; Normier 1980: 20; Olsen 1999: 154, 156]. Hamp
(1970: 228a) reconstructs *h2(e)leh1uro-, which does not agree with Kortlandt’s
view on the loss of w (see 2.1.33.1). Eichner (ibid. 153-154) derives aliwr ‘flour’,
aɫbiwr ‘well, spring’, etc. from nominative *-ewr ̄ ̥, assuming a subsequent
development -iwr > -ewr analogically after the genitive -er, which in turn has
ali-k‘
derived, he says, from *-ewros, a replacement of an original *-ewnos. Clackson
(1994: 94) considers this explanation as entirely ad hoc, since the oblique stem of
the word for ‘spring’ must have been *bh
run-, cf. Goth. brunna, etc.; see s.v. aɫbewr
and 2.1.33.1 for more detail. He concludes that the -e- of aɫbewr comes from PIE
short *-e-, and that we must seek a different explanation for the -e- of alewr.
It has been assumed that alewr is a borrowing from Greek; see HAB 1: 94b for
the references. Hübschmann (1883: 17; see also 1897: 414) rejected this in view of
Arm. -l- instead of -ɫ-. Clackson (1994: 94-95) advocates the loan theory and argues
that the palatal -l- can be due to the environment of a front vowel, cf. balistr
‘catapult’, etc. He concludes that “either alewr is a loan, or it stems from a different
prototype from that ancestral to the Greek forms”. Even if the two nouns do both
continue the same formation with the meaning ‘flour’, he proceeds, it seems unlikely
that this is an innovation.
The loan theory is advocated also by Greppin (1986: 288), who argues that in the
Bible translation alewr mostly renders Gr. ἄλευρον, and concludes: “Clearly, the
appearance of Arm. alewr instead of *aɫewr is the result of learned tampering”.
One finds hard to accept that such a common item as ‘flour’ can be a borrowing
(HAB 1: 94b with references). Moreover, alewr is the principal word for ‘flour’
which is dialectally ubiquitous, so such a word could have hardly been borrowed
from (or influenced by) Greek. As a last resort, one might assume a very old
borrowing at the “Mediterranean” stage. In my view, the Greek and Armenian words
for ‘flour’ continue the same protoform, namely *h2leh1-ur̥. If the original form was
indeed alewr and not aliwr, one may posit a loss of the intervocalic laryngeal, see
s.v. yoyr. On -ewe- > -e- in GDSg aler see HAB 4: 628a, etc. (for more detail and
references, see 2.1.33.1).
ali-k‘1 (plurale tantum), ea-stem: GDPl ale-a-c‘, AblPl y-ale-a-c‘, IPl ale-a-w-k‘
(Bible+) ‘waves’; ali, GDSg al(w)-o-y (Paterica) ‘wave’ (Book of Chries, Ephrem,
Seal of Faith, etc.); see also s.v. ali-k‘2 ‘grey hair’.
●DIAL Ararat alik‘ ‘wave’ [HAB 1: 94a]. The old singular ali is seen in folklore (see
Amatuni 1912: 6b; cf. MiǰHayBaṙ 1, 1987: 18b for MidArm.). The ClArm.
compound alēkoc- ‘rise in waves, surge, billow’ is reflected in Łarabaɫ ələkɔcnə
(Lisic‘yan 1981: 67a, in the context of the sea at the 7th heaven); Ararat alɛkɔrcum
(Nawasardeanc‘ 1903: 6a), cf. alēkorcumn attested in Awgustinos Baǰec‘i (HAB 2:
616a).
●ETYM Arm. ali-k‘, ea-stem ‘waves’ and ‘grey hair’ derives from PIE *pel- ‘grey’
and is connected with Gr. πολιός, fem. πολιάς ‘whitish grey (of hair and of foaming
seas)’, Myc. po-ri-wa, Skt. palitá- ‘grey, grey of old age, aged’, MPers. pīr ‘old,
aged’ < *parya-, Kurd. pēl ‘wave, billow’, Lat. pallidus ‘pale’, palleō ‘to be/look
pale’, etc. (Bugge 1889: 9; Meillet 1894: 154; Hübschmann 1897: 412, 520; HAB 1:
93b; Ernout/Meillet 1959: 476b; Pokorny 1959: 804; Mallory/Adams 1997: 641-
642).
The problem of the vocalism (*pol- or *pl̥-) of the Armenian word is much
debated (see Grammont 1918: 223; Godel 1975: 72; Considine 1978-79: 357, 360;
Greppin 1983: 263; 1986: 287; 1989: 165-166, 168; C. Arutjunjan 1983: 259-260;
Saradževa 1986: 30-31; Ravnæs 1991: 11-12, 92; Witczak 1999: 176; Olsen 1999:
496-498; Beekes 2003: 156, 171). It has been suggested that the initial *h- of the
aloǰ
dialectal *halewor ‘grey-haired, old man’ is a relic of the IE initial *p- (see HAB 1:
94a; H. Muradyan 1982: 266, 277; 1982a; Greppin 1982-83; Kortlandt 1983: 9-11 =
2003: 39-40; Weitenberg 1986: 90-91). Polomé (1980: 27) assumes a merger of
PArm. *hali- < *pli̥̯- and *ol- < *pol-.
One may suggest the following tentative scenario: Arm. ali-k‘, -ea derives from
QIE *polieh2- (cf. Gr. πολιαί which stands for Arm. alik‘ e.g. in Proverbs 20.29) >
PArm. *(p)olíya- > *aliya-, with loss of *p- before *-o- as in otn ‘foot’ from *pod-
(vs. het from *ped-) and the development *-o- > -a- in a pretonic open syllable
(2.1.3). The form possibly betrays an earlier paradigm *pól-ih2- : *pl-iéh2- > *foli-
/(f)ali- : *faliya- > *al(i)- : *haliya-. From this we arrive at an analogical nominative
ali-k‘ vs. obl. alea- with a residual oblique h- reflected in *halewor.
ali-k‘2, GDPl ale-a-c‘ (Bible+), IPl ale-a-w-k‘ (Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, etc.)
‘grey hair; old age’ (Bible+); ali (Yovhannēs Erznkac‘i), AccSg y-alw-o-y (John
Chrysostom) ‘grey hair’; alewor, a-stem: GDPl alewor-a-c‘ ‘grey-haired; old man’
(Movsēs Xorenac‘i, Philo, John Chrysostom, etc.); aɫe/ē-bek in Movsēs Xorenac‘i
(see below) and Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i (NHB 1: 39a).
A few textual illustrations: p‘aṙk‘ ceroc‘ alik‘ : δόξα δὲ πρεσβυτέρων πολιαί
(Proverbs 20.29); ew əst kargi patuec‘er vasn aleac‘d “and you appropriately
honored [us] for these white hairs” (Eɫišē, Chapter 7, Ter-Minasyan 1989: 342L3;
transl. Thomson 1982: 217).
In a kafa to the Alexander Romance (H. Simonyan 1989: 76L19): cer aleawk‘ ew
šun mtawk‘ lit. “old with grey hair, and dog with mind”.
The compound aɫe-bek, with a dark -ɫ-, containing bek- ‘to break, cut, split’ is
attested in e.g. Movsēs Xorenac‘i 1.24 (1913=1991: 72L17; transl. Thomson 1978:
114): xarteašs ays ew aɫebek cayriw herac‘ “blond with grey-flecked hair”.
●DIAL The word alik‘ ‘grey hair’ has been preserved in phrases and proverbs from
T‘iflis (alik‘ə eresi vra tal “to show signs of discontent”) and a number of western
dialects, such as Xarberd and Sebastia (e.g. alik‘n anargel lit. ‘to disgrace one’s grey
hair’), often in apposition with mawruk‘ ‘beard’, cf. alik‘-mɔruk‘ mɛk ənɛl “to scold
an old man ignoring his grey hair and beard”, lit. “to make one’s grey hair and beard
one”; vɛr t‘k‘nɛm alik‘s ɛ, var t‘k‘nɛm mɔruk‘s ɛ “if I spit upwards, it is my grey hair,
if downward, it is my beard” [HAB 1: 94a; Hut‘Sam 1895: 354bL-19, 355L9;
Gabikean 1952: 43; Łanalanyan 1960: 74aL18]. Note also alik‘ ‘beard’ in Turkishspeaking Adana [HAB 1: 94a].
The word alewor ‘old man’ is widespread in the dialects, practically always with
an initial h-: Hamšen halivor, Muš halvor, Akn, Xarberd halvɔr [HAB 1: 94a],
Dersim alɛvɔr, hal(ɛ)vɔr [Baɫramyan 1960: 71], Tigranakert hälvur [Haneyan 1978:
181a], Zeyt‘un hälvüy, Hačən halivoy, Svedia hälivür [Ačaṙyan 2003: 295, 558],
Van xalivor [Ačaṙyan 1952: 242], Moks xälwur [Orbeli 2002: 241], Ararat alɛvɔr,
halivor [Markosyan 1989:296a], Łarabaɫ həlɛ́
vur, hilívɔ/ur, hilívəɛr [Davt‘yan 1966:
300], Agulis hlä́vür, gen. hələvä́ri [Ačaṙean 1935: 330], Maraɫa xälvir [Ačaṙean
1926: 381], etc. [HAB 1: 94a].
●ETYM See s.v. ali-k‘1 ‘wave’.
aloǰ ‘she-kid’ (Bible+).
axaz
●DIAL Van aloč [Ačaṙyan 1952: 242], Moks alüč‘ (Xrə/ɛb alüč), gen. alüč‘-u, pl.
älüč‘-tir ‘неродившая двухгодовалая коза’ [Orbeli 2002: 198], Šatax aloč‘
‘mayrac‘u ayc = a would-be-mother goat’ [M. Muradyan 1962: 191a], Ozim alüč‘
‘two-year-old female kid’ [Hovsep‘yan 1966: 234-235]. Svedia ilɛɔyč‘ ‘kid’
[Ačaṙyan 2003: 369, 387, 558]. For Musa-leṙ, Gyozalyan 2001: 61 records ulič‘
‘she-kid under one year’ vs. ul ‘ a newborn kid’.
●ETYM No satisfactory etymology (see HAB 1: 95b; Olsen 1999: 196). See s.v. ul
‘kid’.
axaz, GDPl axaz-a-c‘ ‘ermine, mustela alba’.
The only attestation mentioned in NHB and HAB is found in K‘aɫ. aṙ leh. [NHB
1: 14c]:
Nmanin oɫǰaxohk‘ axazac‘, ork‘ t‘oɫun zink‘eans əmbṙnil yorsordac‘ k‘an t‘ē
šaɫaxil “The righteous (people) resemble ermines, which prefer to let themselves be
caught by hunters rather than to sin”. The source, that is Kaɫ. aṙ leh., is missing in
the bibliographies of both NHB and HAB. Its author seems to be Simēon Lehac‘i
(17th cent.), of which I find another attestation of axaz in ‘Uɫegrut‘iwn’, in the
meaning ‘ermine-fur’; see Akinean 1936: 381L44, 421 (citing the Dictionary of
Step‘anos Ṙošk‘a, 17-18th cent.).
●ETYM The word is considered a dialectal form of ak‘is ‘weasel’ (q.v.); see also
HAB 1: 96b; J̌
ahukyan 1967: 307. J̌
ahukyan (ibid.) mentions the pair in the context
of the deviant alternation k‘/x, but offers no explanation or etymology.
In my view, axaz can be explained by a contamination of Arm. ak‘is ‘weasel’ and
Pahl. and NPers. xaz ‘marten’ (see MacKenzie 1971: 94). For a thorough discussion,
see s.v. ak‘is
acem ‘to bring, lead, move, beat, pour, etc.’, later also ‘to cut, shave; to play (a music
instrument); to lay an egg’, etc. (Bible+).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects, especially in the meaning ‘to lay eggs’; in the
Eastern peripheries (T‘iflis, Łarabaɫ, Agulis, J̌
uɫa, etc.): ‘to pour’, ‘to play a music
instrument’ [HAB 1: 102]. See also s.v. acu ‘garden-bed’. On the epenthetic -r- in
*arcu ‘garden-bed’ and *arceli (vs. ac-eli) ‘razor’, see 2.1.30.2.
●ETYM Since Windischmann and Gosche, connected with Skt. ájati, Av. azaiti, Gr.
ἄγω ‘to lead’, Lat. ago, etc. [Hübschmann 1896: 412Nr6; HAB 1: 101-102] : PIE
*h2eĝ- ‘to drive, lead’.
Given the absence of the initial h- as the expected reflex of the laryngeal,
Clackson (1994: 2183) points out: “Kortlandt’s rule that *h2e- goes to Armenian hadoes not explain acem ‘I bring’”. In fact, Kortlandt (1983: 14; 1996a: 56 = 2003: 44,
118; see also Beekes 2003: 175, 182) derived acem from *h2ĝ-es-, cf. Lat. gerō ‘to
bring’ (on which see Schrijver 1991: 18-19); see also Greppin 1983: 263.
Considering this etymology problematic, Clackson (2004-05: 155) prefers to
connect acem with the widespread thematic present *h2eĝe/o- and suggests that the
initial h- might have been lost “through influence from compound words ending in
-ac, which were synchronically associated with the verb acem (Olsen 1999:231-6)”.
The meaning ‘to play a music instrument’ is derivable from ‘to beat, sling’ (cf.
Skt. aj- ‘to drive, sling’, go-ájana- ‘whip, stick for driving cattle’, Arm. gawazan
‘id.’ from Iranian, etc.).
acu
See also s.v.v. acu ‘garden-bed’, aṙac ‘proverb’, art ‘cornfield’.
acu o-stem (lately attested); originally perhaps ea-stem ‘garden-bed’.
Sirach 24.31/41 (= Gr. πρασιά ‘bed in a garden, garden-plot’) [Clackson 1994:
117, 225123]; Movsēs Xorenac‘i 1.3 (1913=1991: 10; Thomson 1978: 69).
The only evidence for the o-declension comes from Middle Armenian: GDPl acuo-c‘, AblPl i yacuoc‘ [MiǰHayBaṙ 1, 1987: 21b; NHB 1: 21b]. See also below on the
dialects of Cilicia and Svedia. The MidArm. plural acu-k‘, not recorded in HAB, is
found in Smbat Sparapet (13th cent., Cilicia), see Galstyan 1958: 167. In this
passage, acuk‘ (in allative y-acuk‘) is opposed to aygi ‘garden’ and may therefore
refer to ‘kitchen-garden’. The form acuk‘ ‘kitchen-garden’ is totally identical with
the one found in the dialects of Zeyt‘un (Cilicia), Dersim, etc. (see below). Note that
Smbat Sparapet was from Cilicia.
●DIAL Preserved in Agulis, Van, Ozim, Alaškert [HAB 1: 102b]; in some dialects,
namely Hamšen [Ačaṙyan 1947: 219], Dersim [Baɫramyan 1960: 71b], Zeyt‘un
[Ačaṙyan 2003: 295], the plural form has been generalized: *acu-k‘
‘kitchen-garden’, which is attested in MidArm., in the 13th century (see above).
Next to ajuk‘, Zeyt‘un also has pl. ajvənak‘ [Ačaṙyan 2003: 152].
According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 102b), Kesaria has ajvik ‘kitchen-garden’,
although Ant‘osyan (1961: 180) cites only äjuk‘ ‘kitchen-garden’. The dialectal
form arcu(n) recorded in NHB (1: 21b) is now confirmed by Nor J̌
uɫa aṙcu
[HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 100a]. Given the etymology of the word, the -r- should be
seen as epenthetic; cf. also ac-el-i ‘razor’ : dial. *arceli (see 2.1.30.2).
Remarkable is the paradigm preserved in Zeyt‘un: NPl aju-k‘, GDPl ajv-ic‘
[Ačaṙyan 2003: 188]. The other classical words displaying such a paradigm are
baɫan-i-k‘ ‘baths’, harsan-i-k‘ ‘wedding’, vart-i-k‘ ‘trousers’ and mawru-k‘ ‘beard’
(ibid.). All these words, except for mawru-k‘ (GDPl mawru-ac‘), have classical -i-k‘
: GDPl -eac‘. Since the classical diphthong ea regularly yields i in Zeyt‘un (see
Ačaṙyan 2003: 85), the classical GDPl -eac‘ can be seen as directly continued by
Zeyt‘un GDPl -ic‘. This would imply that the Zeyt‘un word under discussion may
presuppose an alternating paradigm acu-(k‘) : *acu-i-k‘. I wonder whether the latter
form can be supported by Kesaria ajvik (if this is to be understood as *ajvik‘ rather
than a diminutive form in -ik). A theoretically possible paradigm would be NSg.
*acú-i (> class. acu), NPl *acu-í- (> class. NPl *acu-i-k‘, GDPl *acu-eac‘).
One would perhaps prefer a simpler, analogical solution, particularly given that
the word for ‘beard’ (ClArm. mawru-k‘, mawru-ac‘ : Zeyt‘un muyu-k‘, muyv-ic‘) is
irregular, too.1
However, this word seems analogical after acu-k‘ rather than other
body-part terms, which in Zeyt‘un display different GDPl endings, namely -uc‘ and
-oc‘ (see Ačaṙyan 2003: 188). The Zeyt‘un paradigm of acu-k‘ can therefore be
viewed as old. The reason for the analogical influence may have been the similar
ending of the stems of both words, namely the vowel -u-.
This hypothesis may be confirmed by the etymology; see below.
acuɫ
MidArm. GDAblPl (y)acuoc‘ (see above) may be seen in Svedia / Musa-Leṙ, in
the refrain of a famous dance-song (YušMusLer 1970: 222): Ku gir ənnir eēcuc‘ə,/
ərkə nauṙ kir eēr cuc‘ə “She was coming out of the kitchen-garden, and there were
two pomegranates in her bosom”.
●ETYM A derivative of acem ‘to bring; to lead; to move, etc.’ (q.v.) < PIE *h2eĝ-:
Skt. ájati, Gr. ἄγω ‘lead’ (Il.), etc. [HAB 1: 101-102]. Arm. acu is directly compared
with Gr. ἄγυια, pl. ἀγυιαί f. ‘street, road’ (Il.) and interpreted as a perfect participle
*-us-ieh2- (see J̌
ahukyan 1987: 241; cf. Clackson 1994: 225124).
After a thorough examination of the Greek word, however, Szemerényi (1964:
206-208) concludes: “It seems therefore clear that the connection of ἄγυια and ἄγω
is nothing more than popular etymology, probably overlying and obscuring an
indigenous word”, see also Beekes 1998: 25 and his forthcoming dictionary (s.v.).
How to explain, then, the similar pattern seen in Armenian acem ‘to lead’ : acu
‘garden-bed’, which are not mentioned in this context? Whatever the exact details of
their origin and development, the Greek and Armenian words under discussion seem
to belong together.
A hypothetical development of the paradigm would be as follows: NSg.
*aĝus-ih2- > PArm. *acú-i > ClArm. acu, NPl *aĝus-ih2-es > *acu-i-k‘, oblique
*aĝus-ieh2- > PArm. *acu-ia- > GDPl *acu-eac‘ (see above, in the discussion of the
dialectal forms). This implies that, of the two plural forms represented only in
dialects, *acu-i-k‘ is the original one, whereas *acu-k‘ is analogical after NSg acu
acuɫ, acux (o-stem according to NHB 1: 21b, but without evidence) ‘coal; soot’.
In Lamentations 4.8, acux renders Greek ἀσβόλη ‘soot’. The passage reads as
follows: Τ‘xac‘an k‘an zacux tesilk‘ iwreanc‘ : Ἐσκότασεν ὑπὲρ ἀσβόλην τὸ εἰ̃δος
αὐτῶν. RevStBible has: “Now their visage is blacker than soot”. In the other
attestations and in the dialects, the word mainly refers to ‘coal’.
In Agat‘angeɫos § 219 (1909=1980: 116L1f; transl. Thomson 1976: 223; see also
Norayr Biwzandac‘i 1911: 167): ew tesin zi t‘xac‘eal ēr marmin nora ibrew zacuɫ
(vars. zacux, zacuɫx, zarcui) sewac‘eal “and they saw that his body was blackened
like coal”. The place-name Acuɫ is found in Step‘anos Tarōnec‘i/Asoɫik (referring to
P‘awstos) and Vardan Arewelc‘i, in the forms Arjkaɫ-n and Arcuɫ-n, respectively; for
a discussion, see s.v. place-name Dalari-k‘.
In P‘awstos Buzand 3.20 (1883=1984: 45L-4f; transl. Garsoïan 1989: 97): Aɫē,
tesēk‘ acuɫ, orov erkat‘ šoɫac‘usc‘uk‘, zi zač‘s xaresc‘uk‘ zark‘ayis Hayoc‘. Ew
andēn berin acuɫ, orov xarēin zač‘sn Tiranay : “‘Now then! Bring [glowing] coals
with which to heat iron to the glowing point so as to burn out the eyes of the king of
Armenia’. And they immediately brought coals with which they burned out the eyes
of King Tiran”. For a discussion of the context and the place-name Acuɫ, see s.v.
place-name Dalari-k‘.
Yovhan Mandakuni (5th cent.) or Yovhan Mayragomec‘i (7th cent.) mentions acuɫ
in a list of sorceries, between aɫ ‘salt’ and asɫeni karmir ‘red thread’. This attestation
is not found in NHB or HAB s.v., although NHB (1: 314b) has it s.v. asɫeni. Here,
the word is cited with auslaut -x. The recent edition (2003: 1262bL5f), however, has
acuɫ. The underlying sorcery may be compared to the one applying sew acux “black
coal”, which has survived in Akn up to the pre-Genocide period, as described in
Čanikean 1895: 166; see also T‘oṙlak‘yan 1981: 147a on Hamšen.
acuɫ
In “Yačaxapatum” 6: acux seaw ē k‘an zstuer “the coal is blacker than the
shadow” [NHB 1: 21b].
In Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ (Amalyan 1975: 9Nr162), acux is rendered by gorceli ‘coal’ (on
this word see HAB 4: 646b), mur ‘soot’, and anjoɫ. On the last word, see below.
The verb acxanam (var. acɫanam) ‘to become coal or ash’ is attested in Philo
[NHB 1: 21a].
NHB (1: 21a) and HAB (1: 102b) record acx-a-kēz, the second member meaning
‘to burn’, attested in T‘ovmay Arcruni (9-10th cent.) 2.1. However, in V. Vardanyan
1985: 126L20, one finds astuac-a-kēz instead, with astuac ‘god’, and this is reflected
in the English translation by Thomson (1985: 145): ew hur krakaranin borbok‘eal,
astuacakēz ararin zna yormzdakan mehenin : “In the temple of Ormizd they had [the
marzpan] consumed by his god in the blazing fire of the pyraeum”.
●DIAL All the dialectal forms recorded by Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 103a), except for
Ṙodost‘o ajux, contain an epenthetic -n-: Łarabaɫ, Goris ánjuɫ, Šamaxi hanjuɫ (see
also Baɫramyan 1964: 185), Ararat ánjɔɫ, Nor Bayazet anjox, Hačən anjoɫ. Note also
Sasun anjux ‘coal, half-burnt wood’ [Petoyan 1954: 103; 1965: 443], and Łazax, etc.
(see HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 63b, with textual illustrations). Apart from ánjuɫ and
ánjɔɫ, Łarabaɫ has also ánjɔɫnə [Davt‘yan 1966: 301].
As reported by Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 103a), the form anjoɫ is attested in Ēfimērte
(17th cent.). He does not mention the testimony of Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘, where acux is
rendered by three synonyms: gorceli ‘coal’, mur ‘soot’, and anjoɫ (see above). Since
*anjoɫ is present in limited areas, namely in the Eastern (Łarabaɫ, Ararat, etc.) and
extremely South-Western (Sasun and Hačən) dialects, one may take this as an
example of affiliation of Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ with the Eastern dialects, especially
Łarabaɫ, etc. (H. Martirosyan 2008). Note that in an older lexicographic work
(abbreviated as HinBṙ), acux is glossed by gorceli and mur (see NHB 1: 21b), just as
in Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘; only anjoɫ is missing. If indeed the original gloss did not include
anjoɫ, this form may have been added by the compiler/redactor of Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘
(probably Eremia from Meɫri), for whom it was a living form. Note also that, in
manuscripts, one finds not only anjoɫ and anjōɫ, but also anjuɫ, which is reminiscent
of doublet forms in Łarabaɫ, namely ánjɔɫ and ánjuɫ.
●ETYM Since Tērvišean and Müller (see HAB 1: 103a ; apud Minassian 1978-79:
22; cf. Hübschmann 1877: 21, without the Armenian form), connected with Skt.
áṅgāra- m. ‘coal’ (RV+), Lith. anglìs m. ‘coal’, OCS ǫglь m. ‘coal’. Hübschmann
(1897: 412) rejects this etymology, since he considers acux (with final -x), attested
in Lamentations 4.8, to be the original form. Later, however, he (1904: 395, 3951)
assumes the opposite since, in cases with the alternation ɫ : x, the form with ɫ (> ɣ, x)
is the original one. Besides, the ɫ-form is found in P‘awstos Buzand, Agat‘angeɫos
(both 5th cent.), Yovhan Mandakuni/Mayragomec‘i (5th or 7th cent.; not cited in
NHB, Hübschmann, HAB), etc., and has, thus, more philological weight. Ačaṙyan
(HAB 1: 103a) follows Hübschmann, explicitly stating that the original form was
acuɫ and ascribing the final -x to the probable influence of cux ‘smoke’ (see also
J̌
ahukyan 1987: 183). Kētikean (1905), too, treats acuɫ as the original form.
Nevertheless, acux continues to be the main cited form, probably due to the Biblical
attestation (cf. Olsen 1999: 949), as well as to the fact that the modern literary
acuɫ
language has adopted it. Saradževa (1986: 46) deals with acux and dial. *anjoɫ, but
does not even mention acuɫ.
Mēnēvišean (apud Kētikean 1905: 347-348; see also Ačaṙyan 1967: 127) draws a
comparison with Russ. úgol’ and Germ. Kohle ‘coal’. Pedersen (apud Kētikean
1905: 348) is more inclined towards Germ. Kohle and Ir. gúal ‘coal’ than to the
Sanskrit and Balto-Slavic forms. In this case, however, the initial a- of Arm. acuɫ/x
remains unexplained, unless one postulates PIE *Hĝ(e/o)ul- (Witczak 2003: 83-84).
One might assume a contamination of the two words for ‘coal’, which would explain
the appearance of -c- (instead of -k-) and the absence of the nasal in Armenian, but
this is not convincing. For Germ. Kohle, etc., see also s.v. krak ‘fire’.
Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 103) does not accept any of the etymological attempts and
treats Laz (m)cola ‘soot’ and, with reservation, Udi cil ‘glowing coal’, as Armenian
loans. Olsen (1999: 949) puts acux in her list of unknown words. Greppin (1983) did
not include the word in his etymological dictionary.
The connection with Skt. áṅgāra-, Lith. anglìs, etc. ‘coal’ seems very plausible.
The scepticism of scholars is understandable, since the expected Armenian form
should have been *ank(V)ɫ. In order to solve the phonological problems, Saradževa
(1986: 46) assumes a by-form of the PIE root with *-ĝ- or *-gy
-. J̌
ahukyan (1987:
141, 183) suggests *angoli- > *angi̯ol-, with a metathesis of the -i-. This view
cannot be maintained on the following grounds: (1) *-gi̯- would have rather yielded
-č-; (2) the loss of the nasal in ClArm. is not explained; (3) such a metathesis is not
very probable. In the following, I shall offer an explanation of the apparent
phonological problems involving the development *HNgw
u- > PArm. *anw
k
w
u- >
*auk- > *auc-, with regular palatalization of *g before *u, as in awj ‘snake’,
awcanem ‘to anoint’, etc.; see s.v. awji-k‘ ‘collar’; cf. also 2.1.17.3.
If Lat. ignis m., Skt. agní- m., etc. ‘fire’ belong to this PIE word, they may be
derived from *h1ngw
ni- (cf. Derksen 2002-03: 10; *h1 in view of the laryngeal
colouring in Latin), whereas the Sanskrit and Balto-Slavic forms would reflect a full
grade *h1ongw
-(o/ō)l- [Schrijver 1991: 63-64, 416, 484, 497]. I propose to treat the
word for ‘coal’ as a HD l-stem (for the type, see Beekes 1995: 177): NSg
*h1óngw
-ōl, gen. *h1ngw
-l-ós.
From NSg *-ōl, one would expect Arm. *á(n/w)cul > *ac(u)ɫ. We can assume an
analogical restoration of -u- and/or a scenario comparable to that of ant‘ : anut‘
‘armpit’ (q.v.). Alternatively, a secondary thematization could be assumed based on
the nominative: *h1(o)ngw
-ōl-o-, cf. Skt. áṅgāra- (although the Sanskrit form may
reflect both *-ol-o- and *-ōl-o-; for *-ol- cf. Gr. ἄσβολος, ἀσβόλη ‘soot’, see s.vv.
ačiwn ‘ash’, askn ‘ruby’). This is attractive since it helps explain the loss of -w- by
the pretonic position: PArm. *a(w)cúɫ-o- > acuɫ, cf. ačem ‘to grow’ < PArm. *augi̯é-mi vs. Lat. augeō, etc.
Note that we are dealing with a case of anticipation of two possible labial
features: (1) labiovelar; (2) labial vowel -u- from *-ō-.
The nasal of dial. *anjoɫ may be secondary, as Ačaṙyan (2003: 139) states for
Hačən anjoɫ, drawing a comparison with cases such as masur ‘sweet-brier’ > Hačən
mansuy, mec ‘big’ > Zeyt‘un minj, šak‘ar ‘sugar’ > Zeyt‘un šank‘ɔy, etc. Also,
Šamaxi hanjuɫ is listed with examples of n-epenthesis [Baɫramyan 1964: 65]. For
Łarabaɫ ánju/ɔɫ (< acuɫ), Davt‘yan (1966: 77) cites the example of koriz ‘stone or
akanǰ 21
hard seed of fruits’ > Łarabaɫ kɔri/ɛnj in Martakert and north of Step‘anakert vs.
kɔrɛz and kɔrɛznə elsewhere. However, this example is ambiguous since it could
have resulted from *koriz-n.
Nevertheless, *anjoɫ is present in the Eastern (Łarabaɫ, Ararat, etc.) and
extremely South-Western (Sasun and Hačən) dialects and may therefore be archaic.
J
̌
ahukyan (1967: 204, 313) mentions this dialectal form, but does not specify the
origin of the nasal. Later, he (1972: 273; 1987: 141, 183, 233, 613) ascribes an
etymological value to it. If indeed original, the nasal may have resulted from a
generalization of the full-grade nominative *h1ongw
-ōl(-o)-, whereas the sequence
*h1ngw
ōl- would trigger the development above. However, as already stated, the
nasal could be epenthetic, albeit old. Besides, one may also assume an influence of
xanj-oɫ ‘half-burnt wood’ (from xanj- ‘to scorch, singe’, q.v.), attested from the
Bible onwards and dialectally present in the extreme NW (Trapizon, Hamšen, etc.),
SW (Syria), and SE (Łarabaɫ, etc.).
If *anjoɫ is original, xanj-oɫ may be treated as an analogical formation after it.
Compare also the discussion s.v. awji-k‘ ‘collar’.2
akanǰ, i-stem: LocSg y-akanǰ-i (Ephrem), ISg akanǰ-i-w (Paterica), IPl akanǰ-i-w-k‘
(Anania Širakac‘i, 7th cent., A. G. Abrahamyan 1940: 62L25); o-stem: ISg akanǰ-o-v
(Nersēs Lambronac‘i); akanǰ-k‘, a-stem: NPl akanǰ-k‘, APl akanǰ-s, GDPl
akanǰ-a-c‘, IPl akanǰ-a-w-k‘ (abundant in the Bible) ‘ear’.
●DIAL Dialectally ubiquitous, mostly with metathesis of the nasal: *ankaǰ [HAB 1:
104b]. On this and on Muš anganǰ, see 2.1.29. With unclear -o/u- instead of the
second -a-: Łarabaɫ anguč, anǰug, Šamaxi angɔǰ, J̌
uɫa angoč, etc. Unchanged:
Van-group akanǰ [Orbeli 2002: 199; Ačaṙyan 1952: 242; M. Muradyan 1962: 191a],
Akn agɔnǰ, pl. agəž-vi [HAB, ibid.]. The -vi is originally dual (see s.v. cung-k‘
‘knee’).
●ETYM Arm. akanǰ(-k‘) is originally the dual of unkn ‘ear’ (q.v.), and the ǰ is treated
as taken from ač‘ ‘eye’ (also a dual), with voicing after nasal [Meillet 1903: 147;
1936: 84; HAB 1: 104b]; further, see Mariès/Meillet apud Minassian 1978-79: 22.
Pisani (1950: 167) assumes *ousen-gw
n ̥ > unkn vs. *ausn̥-qw
-ī > akanǰ, with the
dual *-ī. Others directly posit *-n-ih1, without the velar between *n and *i (see
Greppin 1983: 264 and Lindeman 1982: 39 for references; cf. also Winter 1986:
22-23). Note that *h2(e)u̯s-n-ih1 (cf. e.g. Eichner 1978: 14717, 151) would yield Arm.
*(h)aganǰ. The same holds for *ə3ws-nt-yə1 [= *h3ws-nt-ih1], reconstructed by
Witczak (1999: 175). Lindeman (1980; 1982: 39) assumes *awsn̥-a (cf. Gr. οὔατα <
*owsn̥-t-a) > Arm. *aw(h)an-a + -č‘ from ač‘ ‘eye’ with subsequent voicing after
nasal. Arriving at *aganǰ, he, basing himself upon the idea of voiced aspirates in
Armenian, derives akanǰ from *aganjh < *agh
anjh through dissimilation of aspirates.
For other proposals/references, see J̌
ahukyan 1982: 22260; Rasmussen 1989: 158-
159, 170-17116; Viredaz 2001-02: 29-30, 302.
None of these solutions seems entirely satisfactory, and the form akanǰ-k‘ is
considered to be unclear by many scholars: J̌
ahukyan 1982: 119; Greppin 1983: 264;
akn
Kortlandt 1985b: 10 = 2003: 58. Beekes (2003: 189) notes that the *h2- of *h2us-n-
(> un-kn ‘ear’) “perhaps lives on in pl. ak-anǰk‘, whose further origin is unclear”.
I suggest the following solution: *h2(e/o)u̯s- > PArm. *ag- (cf. s.vv. ayg
‘morning’ and ēg ‘female’) + suffix -kn ̥ (as in akn ‘eye’) + dual *-ih1 = *agkanǰ >
*ak(k)anǰ > akanǰ.
According to Łap‘anc‘yan (1961: 93; 1975: 352; see also Abaev 1978: 48), Arm.
akanǰ has nothing to do with unkn and reflects Zan *q̯’wanǯ ‘ear’ from Kartv.
(unattested) *q̯war-, cf. Megr. q̯uǯ, etc. He (1975: 352) also assumes that Łarabaɫ
anguč, etc., with -u-, reflects the labial -w- of the Kartvelian form.3
This is
unconvincing and was rightly rejected by Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 104b). The resemblance
of akanǰ with some ECauc forms is probably accidental, too (J̌
ahukyan 1987: 611).
akn (singulative), gen. akan, instr. akam-b (Bible+), loc. y-akin (Yovhan Mandakuni);
pl. < dual ač‘-k‘ (q.v.) ‘eye’ (Bible+); akn, an-stem: GDSg akan, NPl akan-k‘ (also
akun-k‘), APl akan-s, GDPl akan-c‘, IPl akam-b-k‘ ‘gem, precious stone, jewel’
(Bible+); akn, an-stem: GDSg akan, AblSg y-akan-ē, NPl akun-k‘, APl akun-s,
AblPl y-akan-s ‘source, spring’ (Bible+).
For the paradigm of akn and ač‘-k‘ and a morphological discussion, see
Hübschmann 1894: 115; Meillet 1913: 56; Godel 1975: 33; Schmitt 1981: 104-107;
Olsen 1999: 170-171. For a discussion of compounds such as areg-akn ‘sun’ and
p‘ayl-akn ‘lightning’, see Meillet 1927a; Mariès/Meillet apud Minassian 1978-79:
23; Benveniste 1965; Watkins 1974a: 10; Weitenberg apud Beekes 1987: 18-19. For
an extensive treatment on the morphology and semantics of akn and ač‘-k‘ in Middle
Armenian I refer to Weitenberg 1995: 128-132.
The compound akn-a-včit ‘crystal-pure, limpid’ is attested twice in T‘ovmay
Arcruni [Ananun]: 4.4 and 4.7 (V. M. Vardanyan 1985: 428L-1, 450L-13; transl.
Thomson 1985: 340, 353 [here: 4.3 and 4.6]): əst nmanut‘ean erkuc‘ aknavčit
aɫberc‘ merjakayic‘ : “like two fountains near each other” (in this translation,
aknavčit is omitted); aɫbiwr aknavčit “a spring of crystal-pure water”.
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects mostly in the meanings ‘source, fountain-head’,
‘gem, precious stone, jewel’, ‘pit of ground-hearth’, ‘wheel’, etc. [HAB 1: 108-109].
The meaning ‘eye’ is rare: Agulis ɔ́
kən, compos. əknə- or əkná- (in C‘ɫna: ɔšk <
ač‘-k‘), Łarabaɫ ákə, áknə [HAB 1: 108-109; Ačaṙean 1935: 21, 331, 336; Davt‘yan
1966: 302]; Karčewan áknə ‘eye; division, share’ [H. Muradyan 1960: 209a]; in
Salmast: only in the curse formula ak-d kurná “may your eye become blind” [HAB
1: 109a].
Further data can be taken from derivatives: Xarberd *akn-ik ‘fried eggs
(unbeaten)’ (see Ačaṙean 1913: 64a) = akn ‘eye’ + diminutive -ik (semantically cf.
Russ. glazún’ya ‘fried eggs’ from glaz ‘eye’). Note also Zeyt‘un *akner (though
here the eggs are beaten). For aɫber-akn , GDSg -akan ‘fountain-head, source’ >
Bulanəx h‘aɫbərak, h‘aɫbərakan, etc., see s.v. aɫbewr ‘spring’.
In all the dialects, except for Łarabaɫ, Agulis, etc. (see above), the final -n has
dropped, but is preserved in derivatives. In some dialect, e.g. Van, Šatax, Moks, the
nasal is seen in oblique cases: GSg akan, AblSg akn-ɛn or akn-ic‘, NPl akn-er, etc.
[Ačaṙyan 1952: 124; M. Muradyan 1962: 102; Orbeli 2002: 199]. For textual
akut‘
illustrations of Moks AblSg akn-ɛn “from the fountain-head” cf. two proverbs in
Orbeli 2002: 124Nr206f.
In a Gavaš version of the epic “Sasna cṙer” told by Zardar Ter-Mxit‘aryan (SasCṙ
1, 1936: 881-882), one finds ak, pl. ak-n-er as a designation of a sacrificial
implement on which the idols are placed, and with which the neck of the victim was
cut. The word is identified with ak ‘wheel’ [SasCṙ 2/2, 1951: 965b].
●ETYM Derives from the PIE word for ‘eye’, *h3(o)kw
-. For the forms and
references, see s.v. ač‘-k‘ ‘eyes’. The vocalism and the -k- instead of -k‘- are
disputed.
The form ak-n has been explained as *ak‘ + singulative -n (see Winter 1965: 104;
1986: 20-21; cf. K. Schmidt 1987: 37-38). For a further discussion, see
Klingenschmitt 1982: 168; Greppin 1983: 265; 1988-89: 478; also Rasmussen 1989:
170-17116.
Kortlandt (1985b: 9 = 2003: 57-58) derives akn and ač‘- from PIE AccSg *okw
-m
and NDu *okw
-iH, pointing out that “the initial a- is the phonetic reflex of o- in open
syllables <...> and represents both the o-grade and the zero-grade vocalism of the
root”, and the expected NSg form was *ok‘ ”. Beekes (2003: 187) assumes *h3k
w
-
because akn has no h- (noting that it is another example of a prothetic vowel), but
does not exclude *h3okw
-. He (ibid.) points out that the a- of akn was taken from the
oblique case, cf. gen. akan.
On the other hand, the problem of the unaspirated -k- has been explained through
expressive or hypocoristic gemination seen also in Gr. ὄκκον ‘eye’ (Grammont 1918:
239; Mariès/Meillet apud Minassian 1978-79: 22-23). This idea is plausible, but in
Armenian the gemination is more likely caused by the suffix -kn (cf. J̌
ahukyan 1982:
114, noting also Gr. ὄκκον ‘eye’). The same suffix is also seen in armukn ‘elbow’,
mukn ‘mouse’, unkn ‘ear’, etc. (see s.vv.).
I conclude that Arm. akn is composed as PArm. *akh
- (< *h3k
w
-) + -kon (cf. Gr.
ὄκκον ‘eye’, Arm. un-kn ‘ear’, etc.) = *akh
kon > *ak(k)n > akn. For the phonological
development of such geminates, see s.vv. akanǰ ‘ear’, ak‘aɫaɫ ‘rooster’. An older
reflex of *-kw
- in this etymon may be seen, according to my etymological
suggestion, in y-awn-k‘, a-stem, i-stem ‘eyebrows’ (q.v.).
akn ‘source, spring’ (see s.v. akn ‘eye’).
●ETYM Witczak (1999: 176) compares Arm. akn ‘spring, source’ with Celtic *abon
‘river’ from IE *agw
on-. This is gratuitous since akn ‘spring’ clearly derives from
akn ‘eye’ (q.v.).
akut‘ ‘cookstove’, attested in Vardan Barjrberdc‘i (13-14th cent.), Canon Law, and
Yaysmawurk‘ (AblSg y-akut‘-ē). In Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ (see Amalyan 1975: 141Nr112),
akut‘ renders xaroyk ‘campfire’. In Canons by Dawit‘ Alawkay ordi (12th cent.,
Ganjak/Kirovabad): Ayl t‘ē i t‘ondruk‘ kam aṙ akut‘ merj gtani, <...> [A.
Abrahamyan 1952: 54L108f].
●DIAL Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 110a) only cites dialect records from J̌
uɫa, P‘ambak, and
Šamaxi. Meɫri and Areš must be added here [Aɫayan 1954: 260b; Lusenc‘ 1982:
195b]. The word also seems to be found in dialects of the Van-group: Šatax
h’ängyüt‘ ‘= ōǰax’ and Van angurt‘ ‘a portable oven made of clay’ (see M.
Muradyan 1962: 213a and HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 56b, respectively; akut‘ is not
aɫ
mentioned). The Šatax form can be derived from *y-angut‘. The same holds true for
Van, if the actual form has an initial ä-; cf. 2.3.1. The forms have an epenthetic -n-;
Van has also an -r-; both are common in these dialects, cf. M. Muradyan 1962: 64;
Ačaṙyan 1952: 101.
I conclude that the word represents an isogloss involving groups 6 and 7, as well
as the Eastern part of group 2. This seems to be partly confirmed by the geography
of literary attestations.
●ETYM No etymological attempt has been recorded in HAB.
J̌
ahukyan (1967: 151) lists akut‘ among words showing no consonant shift,
linking it with the PIE word for ‘oven’: *Hukw
: OIc. ofn, Gr. ἰπνός, etc. Greppin
(1983: 265) presents the entry in square brackets. The etymology is accepted in
Mallory/Adams 1997: 443b. Here akut‘ is derived from the delabialized (after *-u-)
variant *Huk-: Lat. aulla ‘pot’, Goth. aúhns ‘oven’, Skt. ukhá ‘cooking pot’.
However, this looks highly improbable, since the formal problems associated
therewith are insurmountable. For another IE etymology, see Witczak 2003: 84.
Jahukyan (1987: 472) draws a comparison with Akkad. akukūtu ‘half-burnt wood’,
considering the resemblance as doubtful or accidental.
For possible Caucasian parallels, see Nikolayev/Starostin 1994: 522.
aɫ, i-stem: GDSg aɫ-i, ISg aɫ-i-w (Bible+) ‘salt’; aɫ-i ‘salty’ (Bible+); late and dial. anal-i ‘not salty’; y-aɫem ‘to salt’ (Bible+); cf. also aɫ-u ‘sweet’ (Movsēs Xorenac‘i,
Book of Chries, etc.), see HAB 1: 115-116.
●DIAL The forms aɫ ‘salt’ and an-al-i ‘not salty’ are dialectally ubiquitous [HAB 1:
116b].
●ETYM Since Petermann and Windischmann, derived from the PIE word for ‘salt’,
cf. Gr. ἅλς, Lat. sāl, OCS solь, etc. (see Hübschmann 1897: 414; HAB 1: 116). See
s.v. aɫt ‘salt’ for more details.
aɫaxin, o-stem, a-stem; note also NPl aɫaxn-ay-k‘, APl aɫaxn-ay-s, GDPl aɫaxn-a(n)c‘
(on declension, see Meillet 1936c: 73; J̌
ahukyan 1959: 264; 1982: 94-95; Tumanjan
1978: 294-295) ‘female servant’ (Bible+).
●ETYM According to Marr, derived from aɫx, i-stem ‘lock; ring; furniture,
possessions; group of wayfarers, crowd’ (Bible+), in Samuēl Anec‘i (12th cent.):
‘tribe’, the original meaning of which is considered to be ‘house’. Next to the
meaning ‘possessions’, in Movsēs Xorenac‘i, aɫx sometimes seems to refer to (coll.)
‘entourage/tribe’, e.g. in 1.12 (1913=1991: 38L5, 40L1). See also s.v. aɫk‘at ‘poor,
beggar’. Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 118b) does not accept Marr’s etymology and leaves the
origin of the word open.
Meillet (1936c; cf. Mariès/Meillet apud Minassian 1978-79: 24) suggests a
derivation from aɫam ‘to grind’, treating the -x- as a suffixal element found also in
glux ‘head’, q.v.; see s.v. aɫiǰ ‘virgin, girl’. In view of the otherwise unknown suffix
-axin, Greppin (1983: 266) considers this problematic and prefers the loan origin.
Olsen (1999: 470, 770, 776, 836) draws a connection with Lat. alō ‘to nurse,
nourish’, etc., positing IE *(h2)l̥h-k-ih1no- with the complex diminutive suffix (cf.
Germ. *-ikīno- in Germ. Lämmchen, Engl. lambkin, etc.) and interpreting Arm. -xfrom *-h-k- by means of “preaspiration”. This etymology (see also s.v. aɫiǰ ‘girl’), in
aɫaɫak
particular the theory of “preaspiration” (on which see Olsen 1999: 773-775), is not
convincing.
According to D’jakonov (1971: 84; 1980: 359), aɫx “agnatisch verwandte
Familiengruppe” and aɫaxin are borrowed from Hurr. *all-aḫḫe ‘household’ /
‘хозяйское’ > allae ‘Herr, Herrin’ or Urart. *alāḫə > alae ‘Herr, Herrin’ (cf. also
Chechen æla ‘prince’, etc. [D’jakonov 1980: 103; Diakonoff/Starostin 1986: 50]).
On the other hand, Arm. aɫaxin has been compared with Akkad. alaḫḫinu(m)
‘miller’ (see J̌
ahukyan 1987: 472) and Hitt. alḫuešra- ‘eine Priesterin bzw.
Kultfunkzionärin’, etc. [van Windekens 1980: 40], and aɫx – with Arab. ’ahl ‘family,
tribe, people’ (see J̌
ahukyan 1987: 486). I wonder if the word in question has any
relationship with Elephantine Aram. lḥn ‘servitor’, etc. (on which see Degen apud
Ullmann 1979: 28ff).J̌
ahukyan (1987: 425) considers the etymology of D’jakonov as semantically
unconvincing. The following forms, however, seem to strengthen the semantic
correspondence: Hurr. allae-ḫḫinə ‘housekeeper’ > Akkad. allaḫ(ḫ)innu also ‘a kind
of serving girl of the temple personnel’, Aram. ləḥentā ‘serving girl, concubine’
[D’jakonov 1980: 359; Diakonoff/Starostin 1986: 50].
If the basic meaning of aɫx was indeed ‘house, household, possessions, estate’,
the derivation of aɫaxin from aɫx (Marr; cf. also J̌
ahukyan 1967: 121) going back to
Hurrian and/or Urartian (D’jakonov) is the best solution. For the semantic
development, cf. OPers. māniya- n. ‘household slave(s)’ from *māna- ‘house’:
OAv. dəmāna- n. ‘house’, Pahl., NPers. mān ‘house’, Parth. m’nyst’n
‘dwelling-place, monastery’, Skt. mā́na- m. ‘house, building, dwelling’ (RV+), etc.
(see Kent 1953: 202b; Mayrhofer EWAia 2: 348). Brandenstein and Mayrhofer
(1964: 132) note: “Der elam. Kontext bewahrt ein synonymes ap. Wort, *garda-“.
This word is *garda- ‘Diener, Hausgesinde, οἰκέτης’ > Bab. gardu, Aram. grd’, in
Elamitic transliteration kurtaš, cf. YAv. gərəδa- m. ‘house of daēvic beings’, Pahl.
gāl [g’l] coll. ‘the gang, the villeins labouring on the estates of the kings, the satraps,
the magnates, etc.’, Skt. gr̥há- m. ‘house, residence’ (RV+), Goth. gards m. ‘house,
housekeeping’, Arm. gerd-astan (prob. Iran. loan), etc. [Brandenstein/Mayrhofer
1964: 120; Nyberg 1974: 80; Olsen 1999: 333, 333290]; on kurtaš see also Funk
1990: 9ff. This brings us to another parallel for the semantic development ‘house,
household, estate’ > ‘servant’ in Armenian, that is gerd-astan ‘body of servants and
captives; possessions, estate, landed property’ (cf. gerdast-akan ‘servant, female
servant’, etc.), q.v.
I conclude that the IE origin of Arm. aɫaxin is not probable.
aɫaɫak, a-stem: GDSg aɫaɫak-i, ISg aɫaɫak-a-w (frequent in the Bible) ‘shouting’;
aɫaɫakem ‘to shout’ (Bible+); dial. *aɫaɫ-; interjection aɫē (Bible+).
●DIAL Zeyt‘un aɫaɫɔg [Ačaṙyan 2003: 296]; reshaped: Ararat aɫaɫ-ank‘ ‘cry,
lamentation, shout’ [HAB 1: 119a], according to Amatuni (1913: 17b) – ‘curse,
scold’. The original verbal root *aɫaɫ- has been preserved in Axalc‘xa aɫaɫel ‘to
weep, cry, shout’ [HAB 1: 119a]; according to Amatuni (1913: 17-18), ‘to tear, to
fill eyes with tears’.
●ETYM In view of the onomatopoeic nature of the word, Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 119a) is
sceptical about the numerous attempts to connect the Armenian words with Gr.
ἀλαλά (interjection) ‘cry of war’, ἀλαλαί pl. ‘(war)cries, shouting’, ἀλαλαγμός,
aɫam
ἀλαλαγή ‘shouting’, Skt. alalā, etc. However, the onomatopoeic nature of a word
does not necessarily imply that the word cannot be inherited. Positively: J̌
ahukyan
1987: 111 (cf. 447, 451).
As is pointed out by Olsen (1999: 251119), the complete formation of aɫaɫak,
a-stem ‘shouting’ may theoretically be identical with the cognate Greek noun
ἀλαλαγή ‘shouting’. Thus: Arm.-Gr. onomatopoeic *al-al- ‘to shout’, *al-al-ag-eh2-
‘shouting’.
aɫam, aor. aɫac‘-, imper. aɫa ‘to grind’ (Bible+).
In numerous late attestations, the compound ǰr-aɫac‘ ‘water-mill’ occurs with loss
of -r-: ǰaɫac‘, pl. ǰaɫac‘-ani, GDPl ǰaɫ(a)c‘-ac‘. This form is represented in NHB 2:
669b as a dialectal form. It is widespread in the dialects (see below).
See also s.v. aɫawri.
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects, mostly as aɫal. Note also Zeyt‘un and Hačən aɫɔl,
Tigranakert äɫäl. Łarabaɫ and Šamaxi have aɫil.
There are also forms with -an- and -ac‘-: T‘avriz aɫanal, Agulis əɫánil, C‘ɫna
əɫánal, Suč‘ava axc‘el, Ṙodost‘o axc‘ɛl. According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 118b), these
forms arose in order to distinguish the verb for ‘to grind’ from aɫem ‘to salt’ (cf.
Agulis áɫil [Ačaṙean 1935: 332], etc.). Then (ibid.), in Łarabaɫ, the opposite process
has taken place: next to áɫil ‘to grind’, aɫem ‘to salt’ has been replaced by the
compounded verbs áɫav ánil (ISg of aɫ ‘salt’ + ‘to do, make’) and aɫə tnil ‘to put into
salt(-water)’.
The word aɫ-un ‘wheat that is (ready to be) taken to water-mill’ (see Ačaṙean
1913: 80a) is attested in Oskip‘orik. In Łarabaɫ, one finds áɫumnə instead, cf. mrǰiwn
‘ant’ > mrǰɛ́
mnə [HAB 1: 118b], q.v.
The r-less form of ǰr-aɫac‘, namely ǰaɫac‘, ǰaɫac‘-k‘ (see above), is widespread in
the dialects; see Amatuni 1912: 573b; Ačaṙean 1913: 935. The spread of this form
and the operation of the Ačaṙyan’s Law, for example, in Łarabaɫ, Hadrut‘, Šaɫax
čɛ́
ɫac‘ (see Davt‘yan 1966: 464) and Van, Moks, Šatax čäɫac‘, čäɫäc‘ (see Ačaṙyan
1952: 290; M. Muradyan 1962: 164L9, 204b; Orbeli 2002: 126Nr26, 279), suggest an
early date. In Goris, the -r- has been metathesized: čaɫarc‘ (see Margaryan 1975:
361b).
●ETYM Since 1852 (Ayvazovsk‘i; see HAB), connected with Gr. ἀλέω ‘to grind’
(probably an athematic present), MInd. āṭā ‘flour’, Av. aša- (< *arta-) ‘ground =
gemahlen’, NPers. ārd ‘flour’, etc. [HAB 1: 118a; Hübschmann 1897: 414; Meillet
1924: 4-6; Pisani 1950a; Mayrhofer EWAia 1: 108; Cheung 2007: 166]; for Hindi
āṭā, etc. see also Scheller 1965, for Pers. ās, etc.: Bläsing 2000: 35-36.
Meillet (1924: 5) assumes a present nasal infix (*-ln- > Arm. -ɫ-) and treats aor.
aɫac‘i as secondary. Klingenschmitt (1982: 93; see also 107, 286) points out that
aɫam “kann entweder auf ein n-Infix-Präsens *h2l̥-n-ə1- zurückgehen [see also
Klingenschmitt apud Eichner 1978: 15337] oder aus einem athematischen
Wurzelpräsens *h2alə1-/*h2l̥h1- entstanden sein”. In the latter case, he reconstructs
*h2l̥h1-me and *h2l̥h1-te for 1PlPres aɫam-k‘ and 2PlPres aɫay-k‘, respectively, and
for the former alternative he mentions Iran. *arna-: Khot. ārr-, Pashto aṇəl
‘mahlen’. On the problem of *-ln- > Arm. -ɫ-, see op. cit. 242, as well as Clackson
1994: 21927 (with references). See also 2.1.22.8. Lindeman (1982: 40) argues against
the derivation of aɫa- from *h2l̥-n-ə1-, stating that aɫa- “may represent a
aɫač‘em
pre-Armenian (secondary) nasal present *alnā- (of the type seen in *barjnam >
baṙnam) which has ousted an earlier athematic present formation”; see also
Clackson 1994: 92, 21928.
With aɫam : Gr. ἀλέω ‘to grind’ also belong aɫawri ‘mill; female grinder (of
corn)’ : Gr. ἀλετρίς ‘woman who grinds corn’ and alewr ‘flour’ : Gr. ἄλευρον ‘id.’
(see s.vv.). Hamp (1970: 228) points out the remarkable agreement of Armenian and
Greek in this whole family of formations of aɫam = ἀλέω, which recurs only in Indic
and Iranian. After a thorough analysis, however, Clackson (1994: 90-95) concludes
that “the Greek and Armenian derivatives from the root *al- do not appear to
represent common innovations but common survivals or parallel derivations. <...>.
The scattered derivatives of this root in Indo-Iranian languages suggest that a
number of formations from the root *al- were at one time shared by the dialects
ancestral to Greek, Armenian and Indo-Iranian but were subsequently lost in most
Indo-Iranian languages”. Apart from some details, on which see s.vv. aɫawri and
alewr, I basically agree with this view.
aɫač‘em ‘to supplicate, beseech; to pray’ (Bible+); aɫawt‘, i-stem ‘prayer’ (q.v.).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects [HAB 1: 121-122]. The apparent nasal infix in
T‘iflis, Havarik‘, etc. aɫanč‘- (Greppin 1983: 268) should be regarded as an
epenthesis before the affricate, see 2.1.29, 2.1.30.1.
●ETYM Related with aɫawt‘-k‘, the latter being a deverbative noun probably in *-ti-
(Meillet 1936: 76-77), as well as with oɫok‘ ‘supplication’ (q.v.) and Lat. loquor ‘to
speak, talk, say; to mention’ (see Pedersen 1905: 218-219; 1906: 348, 389-390 =
1982: 80-81, 126, 167-168). Further see s.vv. aɫat- ‘lamentation, caress,
supplication’, aɫers ‘supplication’, oɫb ‘lamentation’, oɫoɫ- ‘lamentation’.
The connection of aɫawt‘-k‘ with aɫač‘em is accepted practically by everyone, but
the external etymology usually remained unspecified or the proposed explanations
were unconvincing, see also Charpentier 1909: 242; HAB 1: 121, 138a; Mariès /
Meillet apud Minassian 1978-79: 24 (with an obscure mention of *-py- > -c‘-);
Bediryan 1966: 217-218; Schmitt 1972-74: 23; Godel 1975: 80 (*-kt-); Greppin
1983: 267-268; Kortlandt 1983: 13 = 2003: 43, etc. Berbérian (1974) reconstructs
*aɫ- ‘to pray, supplicate’ for aɫ-ač‘em, aɫ-awt‘, and aɫ-ers, and compares this group
also to other words such as aɫamoɫ, aɫand, aɫawaɫ, aɫčat, etc.
Pokorny (1959: 306) places aɫawt‘-k‘, oɫb, oɫok‘, as well as aɫmuk ‘bustle,
turmoil, clamour’ under the ‘Schallwurzel’ *el-/*ol-, cf. Gr. ὀλολύζω ‘to cry out
loudly, call, moan’, etc. J̌
ahukyan (1987: 121; 1992: 20) derives aɫač‘em and aɫa-wt‘-k‘ from *olət-i̯e- and *olət-, respectively, assuming an epenthetic -w-, which is
untenable.
Winter (1965: 103-105, 114; see also Polomé 1980: 19; Greppin 1986: 2792)
derives aɫawt and aɫač‘- from *pl̥Oti- and *pl̥O-i̯e- (read *plh3-ti- and *plh3-i̯e-)
linking it with Lat. plōrō ‘to wail, weep’, implōrō ‘to invoke, entreat, appeal to; ask
for (help, protection, favours, etc.)’, which reflects an -s-present *pleh3-s-.
Klingenschmitt (1970; 1982: 60-611, 68, 93) derives Gr. ἱλάσκομαι ‘to appease,
be merciful’ from reduplicated present *si-sl̥h2-sk̂
e/o- and connects it with Arm.
aɫač‘em < *sl̥h2-sk̂
e/o-. However, this would yield *aɫac‘-, thus *-sk̂
-i̯e- is more
probable, see s.v. *can- ‘to know, be acquainted’ and 2.2.6.1 on čanač‘em <
QIE*ĝnh3-sk-i̯e-. For the formation of aɫawt‘, i-stem, see 2.1.22.12. For the problem of *-l̥HC- > aɫa, see Beekes 1988: 78; 2003: 194; Ravnæs 1991: 91, 99; Kortlandt
1991 = 2003: 96-97. For a thorough discussion, see Clackson 1994: 37, 173-174.
The root *selh2- may also be reflected in Lat. sōlārī, -ātus ‘to console’, etc.; for
more cognates and references, see Schrijver 1991: 126; Clackson 1994: 174;
sceptical: Greppin 1986: 2793, 289. On the whole, the etymology is quite plausible.
It is accepted in Olsen 1999: 80-81 and Beekes 2003: 194. However, the
interpretation of Winter is more attractive as far as the semantics is concerned.
aɫatel ‘to lament bitterly’ (Karapet Sasnec‘i, 12th cent.); dial. aɫat ‘caress;
supplication’.
●DIAL Van aɫatil ‘to supplicate’; Zeyt‘un, Hačən aɫəd ‘lamentation’; Ganjak aɫat
‘love, caress’, Łazax, Łarabaɫ aɫat-ov, aɫat-aɫat ‘bitterly (said of weeping)’, Łazax,
Łarabaɫ, Agulis aɫat-ov ‘bitterly (said of weeping)’, Łarabaɫ aɫat-ov linel ‘to love
very much, caress’; Łarabaɫ aɫat-paɫat ‘supplication’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 73-74; HAB 1:
122a].
●ETYM No etymology in HAB 1: 122a.
The word has been connected with aɫač‘em ‘to supplicate’ (q.v.), see J̌
ahukyan
1967: 303; 1987: 121, 164; Aɫayan 1974: 17; hesitantly: Greppin 1983: 268. The -atis not explained properly, however. It may be the iterative suffix seen e.g. in xac-atem vs. xacanem ‘to bite, sting’ (q.v.). Note especially some other verbs of the same
semantic sphere: gang-at- ‘to complain’, if the root is gang- ‘to sound’, and
especially paɫat- ‘to entreat, supplicate’. For references on -at, see s.v. hast-at ‘firm,
steady, solid’.
It seems most probable that aɫat- is a rhyming formation based on aɫač‘- and
paɫat- (q.v.), cf. the compound aɫač‘-paɫat- in a number of dialects (HAB 4: 14a)
and especially Łarabaɫ aɫat-paɫat (see above). Note also oɫok‘ ‘supplication’ vs.
boɫok‘ ‘complain’ (q.v.). Typologically compare Łarabaɫ anɛc‘k‘-pɫɛck‘ from anēc
‘curse’ (Martirosyan/Gharagyozyan FW 2003, Goris-Łarabaɫ).
For an uncertain IE etymology, see Witczak 2003: 84-85.
aɫawt‘-k‘ (pl. tant.) i-stem: GDPl aɫawt‘-i-c‘, IPl aɫawt‘-i-w-k‘ (abundant evidence in
the Bible, see Astuacaturean 1895: 42-44) ‘prayer’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects [HAB 1: 138a]. Some dialects have -c‘k‘ alongside
with the normal variants in -t‘k‘: Van aɫɔc‘k, Zeyt‘un äɫöc‘k‘ [HAB 1: 138a;
Ačaṙyan 1952: 243; 2003: 296]. In both dialects the development t‘ > c‘ is
exceptional and unexplained [Ačaṙyan 1952: 59; 2003: 100]. With a further
development -c‘k‘ > -sk‘ : Sivri-Hisar aɫɔsk‘ (see PtmSivHisHay 1965: 460a).
●ETYM The word is a deverbative noun based on aɫač‘em ‘to supplicate’ which may
be derived from QIE *sl̥h2-sk̂
-i̯e- or *plH-sk̂
-i̯e- or *H(o)l(ə)-sk̂
-i̯e-, see there for an
etymological discussion.
Arm. dial. (Van, Zeyt‘un, Sivrihisar) *aɫoc‘-k‘ < aɫōt‘-k‘ has not been explained.
One may assume a dissimilation -t‘k‘ > *-c‘k‘, or generalization of APl aɫōt‘-s >
*aɫoc‘. Alternatively, the -c‘- might be regarded as an archaic reflex of IE *-sk-form
(cf. the related verb aɫač‘em ‘to implore, supplicate’ from *-sk-i̯e-). In this respect
Georgian loch
va ‘prayer’ calls attention. This word is considered an Armenian loan,
although Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 138) does not accept it. P. Muradyan (1996: 120-121,
referring to Murvalyan) is more positive. The relation of Armenian and Georgian words becomes more probable in view of Arm. dial. *aɫoc‘-. For the absence of the
initial a- in Georgian cf. Georg. (a)ludi ‘beer’ vs. Arm. awɫi ‘a strong fermented
drink, intoxicating beverage’ < QIE *h2(e)lu-t-ii̯V-.
aɫawni, ea-stem: GDSg. aɫawn-oy (also aɫawnwoy, e.g. in Genesis 8.9, Zeyt‘unyan
1985: 179), GDPl z-aɫawni-s, GDPl. aɫawn-ea-c‘ (abundant in the Bible,
Astuacaturean 1895: 37-38) ‘pigeon, dove’.
The above-mentioned paradigm points to ea-stem. GDSg. aɫawn-oy is probably
due to haplology from the expected *aɫawənəwoy. The same paradigm is also
attested in later periods. For instance, in Book of Chries 5.5 (G. Muradyan 1993:
119-123; Russ. transl. 2000: 114-118), one finds the following attestations: GDSg
aɫawnoy (119L8, 119L14, 123L6), APl aɫawnis (123L26), GDPl aɫawneac‘ (122L7).
For other attestations and derivatives, see NHB 1: 35; Greppin 1978: 127-132.
●DIAL The dialectal evidence can be grouped as follows:
(1) Aṙtial (Hung., Pol.) aɫvɛnik‘ (< dimin. -ik), pl. aɫvɛnik‘-ner [Ačaṙyan 1953: 50,
257], Xarberd aɫvənigy
, Sebastia aɫvənig, Partizak ɛɫvənag, Alaškert yɛɫvəneg
(according to Madat‘yan 1985: 21, 180, aɫunig from *aɫōni-), Moks ɛɫvənik
(according to Orbeli 2002: 296, yɛɫvənik/k‘y
), Šatax yɛɫvənek [M. Muradyan 1962:
42, 191b], Muš ɛɫvənik [HAB 1: 123a], Sasun aɫvnig [Petoyan 1954: 101], Zeyt‘un
aɫvənə̀
,aɫvən(n)a, Hačən aɫväni (Ačaṙyan 2003: 84, 65, 296), Svedia aɫvən(n)a,
aɫvəṙna, aɫvəṙnag (Ačaṙyan 2003: 381, 397, 431 [on ṙ-epenthesis], 435 [on geminate
-nn-], 558). Polis aɫavni-xuš, only in religious stories (with Turk. quš ‘bird’; see
HAB ibid., also Ačaṙyan 1941: 44).
(2) Agulis əɫɔ́
ni [Ačaṙean 1935: 83], Van yɛɫunik (probably from *eɫōnik, see
Ačaṙyan 1952: 49, 243), Ozim yɛɫunɛyk [Ačaṙyan 1952: 243], Salmast yɛɫuniky
,Łarabaɫ yɛɫɔ́nɛygy (see also Davt‘yan 1966: 48, 303), Goris yɛɫunik (from *yɛɫɔnɛk <
aɫawni-ak, see Margaryan 1975: 68, 312a), Ararat, J̌
uɫa aɫunik, T‘iflis aɫunak [HAB
1: 123a], Meɫri əɫɔ́
nɛ [Aɫayan 1954: 62, 261a], Karčewan and Kak‘avaberd ɫúni [H.
Muradyan 1960: 45, 188b; 1967: 62, 165a].
The initial *e- of some dialectal forms is perhaps due to assimilation: *aɫōnek (< -
eak). Note e.g. Alaškert yɛɫvəneg vs. aɫunig (see above), Ararat aɫunik vs. yeɫunɛk
[Markosyan 1989: 296b].
The word aɫawni is exceptional in that it has not developed into *aɫōni.
4
It has
been assumed that aɫawni was pronounced as *aɫawəni, which is corroborated by
dial. aɫvəni, etc., whereas the alternant aɫawni itself is reflected in Agulis, Łarabaɫ,
Van, etc. *aɫōni (Hübschmann p.c. apud HAB 1: 123; Ačaṙyan 1935: 83; 2003: 84).
Similarly, Karst (1901: 28, § 14 = 2002: 37) posits *aɫawini in view of Aṙtial
aɫvɛnik‘. Note also the doublets of the river name nowadays called Hagari: Aɫawnoy
: Aɫuan (see J̌
ihanyan 1991: 230).
H. Muradyan (1982: 176-177), however, argues against this, positing instead a
development aɫawni > aɫəvni > aɫvəni. I find it hard to share this view, because the
monophthongization of aw (documented since the 9th century, see Weitenberg 1996)
seems to antedate the syncope of the medial -a- (12th cent. onwards; 10-11th century examples involve only declined forms, see H. Muradyan 1982: 86-87). The
explanation of Hübschmann and Ačaṙyan is therefore preferable.
The reason for the twofold reflection of aɫawni remains unexplained. I propose to
posit a productive i-derivation (which is frequent in particular with animal names),
based on an older n-stem: *aɫaw-(u)n, gen. *aɫawVn > *aɫawi/un-i. The derivation
from a single proto-paradigm may also explain the co-existence of the doublets
within the same dialects, e.g. Nor Naxiǰewan aɫvɛnik‘ vs. aɫunik‘ [HAB 1: 123a],
Alaškert yɛɫvəneg vs. aɫunig (see above). The same contrast is seen between very
close dialects, e.g. Van yɛɫunik vs. Šatax yɛɫvənek. Note that *yeɫunek (< eɫōnek)
cannot yield yɛɫvənek, pace M. Muradyan 1962: 42.
Furthermore, a possible archaic relic of the original i-less form may be found in
SW margin of the Armenian speaking territories. Beside äɫvənɛk, K‘esab also has
äɫvun [Č‘olak‘ean 1986: 194b]. Theoretically, this form may reflect an older
*aɫawun, cf. soɫun ‘reptile’ > juɫun, although ClArm. -un normally yields K‘esab -ɔn
(op. cit. 34).
Some forms point to an ending -ak rather than -eak or -ik. Beside Partizak ɛɫvənag
and T‘iflis aɫunak (see above), here belongs Ararat Hoktemberyan yɛɫunag
[Baɫdasaryan-T‘ap‘alc‘yan 1973: 304].5
This form too may testify to an original iless form *aɫaw(u)n.
The cumulative evidence thus points to *aɫawun, which later developed into
*aɫaw(u)n-i. This may further be corroborated by the etymology (see below).
●ETYM Since Bugge (1893: 1-2), connected with Gr. ἀλωφούς· λευκούς (Hesychius),
next to Gr. ἀλφός m. ‘dull-white leprosy’ (Hes.), Lat. albus ‘white, pale, bright,
clear’, OHG albiz ‘swan’, etc. (H. Suk‘iasyan 1986: 137) from PIE *h2elbh
o- ‘white’
(for a discussion of the vocalic problems, see Beekes 1969: 40; Schrijver 1991: 40,
66; Mallory/Adams 1997: 641b; Olsen 1999: 508). J̌
ahukyan (1982: 74; cf. Pokorny
1959: 30-31; J̌
ahukyan1967: 9521; J̌
ihanyan 1991: 228, 230) posits older *aɫəbh
ni- or
*aɫəu-ni-. Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 123a) does not accept the etymology and leaves the
origin of the word open.
This traditional etymology is difficult both formally and semantically (see
Greppin 1978: 131-132; 1983: 268-269). Klingenschmitt (1982, 6811, 165; see also
Matzinger 2005: 66) proposes a comparison with Lat. palumbēs, -is m. or f. ‘woodpigeon, ring-dove’, palumbus m. ‘id.’ (cf. also P. de Lagarde 1854: 28L768) and
reconstructs *pl̥h2-bh
-n-ih2-. Compare also Gr. πέλεια f. ‘wild pigeon’, OPr. poalis
‘dove’. These forms probably derive from PIE *pel- ‘grey’ (see Euler 1985: 95; de
Vaan 2008: 442), cf. also πολιός ‘grey, grey hair’, Arm. ali-k‘ ‘grey hair; waves’
(q.v.).
The same etymology has independently been considered by Witczak (1999: 177),
who, however, points out that -awni is unexplained and prefers to derive aɫawni
from IE *bh
alon-iyo- (cf. Lith. balañdis ‘dove, pigeon’, Ossetic balon ‘id.’), which
is improbable. It has been assumed that the form palumbus cannot have been formed after
columbus ‘pigeon’, because the old form of the latter was columba (Schrijver 1991:
375, with ref.). Schrijver (ibid.) adds that Latin palumb- “does not have a clear
etymology”.
In view of the discussion above (see the dialectal section), one might posit a nasal
stem paradigm: nom. *pl̥h2-bh
-ōn- (> PArm. *aɫawun), gen, *-bh
-n-os (> Lat.
*palumb-, for the metathesis cf. PIE *bh
udh
no- > Lat. fundus ‘bottom’, etc., see s.v.
andund-k‘ ‘abyss’). We are probably dealing with a Mediterranean word; cf.
hypothetical *k̂
ol(o)mbh
-(e)h2-: Lat. columba f. ‘dove, pigeon’ vs. Arm. salamb, astem ‘francolin’ (q.v.), also a Mediterranean word.
aɫawri, ea-stem: GDSg aɫawrw-oy, GDPl aɫawr-eac‘ ‘mill; female grinder (of corn)’
(Bible+) [NHB 1: 48c; Clackson 1994: 92, 21931]; later: ‘tooth’ (Grigor Narekac‘i
63.2). For possible evidence for Arm. *aɫawr ‘mill’, see Clackson 1994: 21931.
In Jeremiah 52.11: i tun aɫōreac‘ : εἰς οἰκίαν μύλωνος. Clackson (1994: 92) points
out that “the Armenian phrase could denote the house by its occupants”. For the
passages from Ecclesiastes, see Olsen 1999: 443510.
The meaning ‘tooth’ is found in Grigor Narekac‘i 63.2 (Xač‘atryan/Łazinyan
1985: 496L46; Russ. transl. 1988: 203; Engl. transl. 2001: 301): Or tas patanekac‘
aɫawris əmbošxnelis : “Ты, что юным даешь зубы жующие” : “You, who gives the
chewing teeth to the young”.
●ETYM Belongs with aɫam ‘to grind’ (q.v.); cf. especially Gr. ἀλετρίς ‘woman who
grinds corn’. (Hübschmann 1897: 414; HAB 1: 118a; Mariès/Meillet apud
Minassian 1978-79: 23-24). Usually derived from *h2(e)lh1trio- [Hamp 1970: 228;
Greppin 1983: 269]. As is shown by Greppin (1983c; 1983: 269; 1986: 28827; see
also Clackson 1994: 92), the frequently cited Gr. ἀλέτριος appears to be a
ghost-word. As aɫawri has an a-stem, one may reconstruct *h2(e)lh1-tr-ih2- (for a
discussion, see Olsen 1999: 443-444, espec. 444511), or, perhaps better,
*h2(e)lh1-tr-i(H)-eh2-. Normier (1980: 217) posits *h2lh1-tr-ih1ah2-, apparently with
the dual *-ih1-. This is reminiscent of Skt. aráṇi- f. (usually in dual) ‘piece of wood
used for kindling fire by attrition’ (RV+) [Mayrhofer EWAia 1: 108]. See also s.vv.
erkan, i- and a-stem ‘mill’ and lar-k‘, i-stem, o-stem and a-stem ‘reins, tendons’.
The medial laryngeal followed by a consonant cluster is regularly reflected as -a-
(see 2.1.20). Arguing against this, Lindeman (1982: 40) directly identifies aɫa- (in
aɫawri) with the verbal stem aɫa(-y), which is gratuitous.
It seems that PIE *-l- have yielded -l- rather than -ɫ- in *-lh1C/R, see s.vv.
alawun-k‘, alewr, yolov. If this is accepted, the apparent counter-example aɫawri
may be explained by the influence of the underlying verb aɫam ‘to grind’ (cf. Olsen
1999: 443-444, 776).
Arm. aɫawri matches Gr. ἀλετρίς ‘woman who grinds corn’ perfectly. However,
Clackson (1994: 92-93) derives aɫawri from an instrument noun *aɫawr with PIE
*-tr- (cf. arawr ‘plough’, q.v.), as opposed to agent nouns in *-tl- (cf. cnawɫ
‘parent’), assuming a semantic development ‘connected with a mill’ > ‘one who
grinds’. He concludes that the Greek and Armenian forms may be separate
developments. This seems unnecessary (cf. also the objections by Olsen 1999:
444511). In my view, both reflect a common proto-form, namely *h2(e)lh1-tr-i-,
which has developed into Armenian *h2lh1-tr-i(H)-eh2- (cf. sami-k‘, sameac‘).
aɫb, o-stem: GDSg aɫb-o-y, ISg aɫb-o-v (Bible), LocSg y-aɫb-i (Čaṙəntir), note also
AblSg y-aɫb-ē in Nersēs Lambronac‘i, 12th cent. (which is not compatible with ostem) ‘dung, excrement, filth, manure’ (Bible+), coll. aɫb-i-k‘ ‘place for garbage’
(Ephrem), aɫbem ‘to defecate’ (Matt‘ēos Uṙhayec‘i), ‘to fertilize the soil’
(Geoponica); see further s.v. aɫb-ew-k‘ ‘filth, garbage, dung-heap’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects, in the meanings ‘dung’, ‘excrement’, ‘garbage’,
‘manure’ [HAB 1: 125a].
●ETYM The etymological attempts presented in HAB 1: 124-125 (see also Pokorny
1959: 305, with aɫt ‘dirt, filth’, q.v.) are unconvincing.
Schindler (1978) connects aɫb, o- and i-stems, with Hitt. šalpa-, šalpi- c. ‘dung’?
(on the word see ChicHittDict vol. Š, fasc. 1, 2002: 107) reconstructing *sal-bh
oadj. ‘dirty’, with the suffix *-bh
o- frequently found in color adjectives (cf. Hitt. alpa-
‘cloud’, Gr. ἀλφός ‘dull-white leprosy’), and *sal-bh
-i- subst. ‘dirt, excrement’,
respectively. He derives the forms from the root *sal- ‘dirty, grey’: OWelsh pl. halou
‘stercora’, OIr. sal ‘dirt, filth’, OHG salo < *sal-u̯o- ‘dirty’, etc. (see Pokorny 1959:
879). This etymon is now reconstructed as *solH- ‘dirt, dirty’, and the Hittite word
is mentioned as a possible derivative of it [Mallory/Adams 1997: 160a]. See also
Greppin 1983: 270; 1986: 283; Witczak 1999: 177. Further see s.v. aɫt ‘dirt, filth’.
J̌
ahukyan (1979: 23-24; 1987: 146, 190, 592; cf. 1970: 146) earlier suggested the
same comparison, but he derives the Hittite and Armenian forms from PIE *selpo-:
Skt. sarpíṣ- n. ‘molten butter, lard’, Germ. Salbe ‘ointment’, etc. This etymology is
advocated by Olsen 1999: 37. The development *-lp- > Arm. -ɫb- (beside the regular
voicing after after r and nasals) is possible, although the evidence is scanty, cf. heɫg
‘lazy’ if from *selk-.
Compare also juɫb ‘roe, spawn’ (q.v.), if composed of *ju- ‘fish’ (see s.v. ju-kn
‘fish’) and aɫb ‘excrement, dung’.
aɫbewr, aɫbiwr, r-stem: GDSg aɫber, AblSg y-aɫber-ē, APl aɫber-s, GDPl aɫber-c‘, IPl
aɫber-b-k‘; in pl. obl. mostly -r-a-: GDPl aɫber-a-c‘ (Bible; P‘awstos Buzand 4.15,
1883=1984: 102L-16; Movsēs Xorenac‘i 1.16, 1913=1991: 51L4; Hexaemeron 4 [K.
Muradyan 1984: 107L13], etc.), IPl aɫber-a-w-k‘ (Grigoris Aršaruni, 7-8th cent.)
‘fountain, spring’ (Bible+). In derivatives, mostly aɫber-, cf. aɫber-akn , GDSg(Pl)
-akan(c‘), ISg(Pl) -akamb(-k‘), APl -akun-s, etc. ‘fountain-head, source’ (Bible+). In
Hexaemeron 4, e.g., one finds aɫber-akun-k‘ and aɫber-akan-c‘ (K. Muradyan 1984:
107, lines 3 and 9).
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects. The following dialects display an initial aspiration:
Nor Bayazet haxpur, Ozim haxp‘iur, Moks häxpür (HAB 1: 126a; Ačaṙyan 1952:
243; Greppin 1983: 271, cf. 1982/83: 146). To this, Šatax häxpür [M. Muradyan
1962: 191b] should be added.
In view of Šatax, etc. hä-, Van ä-, and Alaškert, Muš h‘axb‘ur (see HAB 1:
126a), Weitenberg (1986: 93, 97) reconstructs *y-aɫbiwr. This may have originated
from prepositional phrases, such as: in/on/at/to the spring. As we shall see, the word
does function mainly in such contexts.
For Moks (the village of Cap‘anc‘), Orbeli (2002: 199) records axpör ‘родник’,
belonging to the a-declension class: GSg axpr-a, DSg axpra, axprin, etc. [M.
Muradyan 1982: 143, 148]. Thus, without h-. In the folklore texts recorded by
Orbeli himself, however, we find attestations only with h-: häxprə
ɛ čambäx woskəp‘əṙic‘in “рассыпали по дороге к роднику золотые” [94L3f, transl. 163]; t‘əlc‘in
vär häxprə
ɛ čamp‘xin “бросили его на дороге к роднику” [95L11f, transl. 164 (cf.
1982: 99)]; nä lač tärek‘y
trɛk‘y
häxpür “понесите этого мальчика, положите
около родника” [98L5, transl. 166].
These attestations do not come from the village of Cap‘anc‘. One may therefore
think that the form without initial h- is found in Cap‘anc‘, and Moks proper has
h-form instead. On the other hand, all the passages have a locative or allative context
and can shed light on the process of the use and petrification of the preposition y-.
Another example: a saying from Moks [Orbeli 2002: 120Nr41] reads: Mart‘
häxpürəm čür xəmə
ɛ
, aɫɛk č‘ə
ɛ
́ k‘ar t‘älə
ɛ
hinə
ɛ
: “(When) one drinks water in a
spring, it is not nice that he throws a stone into it”. Clearly, häxpürəm means ‘in a
spring’ here.
ClArm. aɫber-akn, GDSg aɫber-akan has been preserved in Muš-Bulanəx, as
repetitively found, for example, in a fairy-tale recorded in the village of Kop‘ in
1908 [HŽHek‘ 10, 1967: 17-21]: h‘aɫbərakan, məǰ/vər (‘in/on’) h‘aɫbərakan, AblSg
h‘aɫbərak-ic‘. Cf. also Muš/Bulanəx or Sasun/Boɫnut vər h‘aɫbri akan “on the
source of the fountain” [HŽHek‘ 10, 1967: 65L-9,-13]; Ozim haxb‘rak [HAB 1: 109a;
Ačaṙyan 1952: 242]; Moks (the village of Cap‘anc‘) axpra-ak/k‘ ‘источник’ [Orbeli
2002: 199].
●ETYM Since H. Ebel, connected with Gr. φρέαρ, -ατος n. ‘an artificial well; spring;
tank, cistern’ [HAB 1: 125-126]. Beekes (2003: 191, 206; cf. also 1969: 234)
reconstructs *bh
reh1-ur. The oblique stem of the PIE word must have been *bh
run-,
cf. Goth. brunna, etc. [Schindler 1975a: 8]. The original PArm. paradigm would
have been, then, as follows: NSg *aɫbewr (< *bh
rewr) and GSg *aɫbun (< *bh
run-).
This paradigm has been replaced by NSg aɫbewr, GSg aɫber analogically after the
type of r-stems like oskr ‘bone’ : osker- [Godel 1975: 97], and GSg aɫber is
explained from *aɫbewer by regular loss of intervocalic *-w- before *-r, or by
contraction -ewe- > -e- (Meillet 1908/09: 355; HAB 4: 628a; J̌
ahukyan 1959:
172-173; 1982: 31, 92, 22120; Zekiyan 1980: 157; Aɫabekyan 1981: 104; Godel
1982a: 12; Clackson 1994: 94; Olsen 1999: 791). Others suggest a secondary
genitive *bh
rewros (Eichner 1978: 153-154), with the development *-ewrV- > Arm.
-er [Kortlandt 2003: 29-30, 103; Beekes 2003: 165]. For a discussion, see s.v. alewr
‘flour’ and 2.1.33.1; see also Matzinger 2005: 79-83.
For dissimilation r...r > l...r, see 2.1.24.2.
aɫb-ew-k‘, a-stem: GDPl aɫbew-a-c‘ (Bible+), LocPl y-aɫbew-s (Job 2.8) ‘filth,
garbage, dung-heap’; later aɫbiws-k‘, GDPl aɫbiws-a-c‘ seems to be a blend of
generalized APl forms aɫbew-s and aɫbi-s (beside coll. nom. aɫb-i-k‘), see HAB 1:
123-124.
A textual illustration from Job 2.8 (Cox 2006: 58): ew nstēr yaɫbews artak‘oy
k‘aɫak‘in “and he sat in filth (Gr. κοπρία ‘dung-heap’) outside the city”.
●ETYM Certainly an old derivative of aɫb ‘excrement, filth’ (q.v.). For the suffix, see
Greppin 1975: 92. Olsen (1999: 424) posits a neuter pl-coll. *sl̥petə2, which is
uncertain. One may assume that this -ew-k‘ is in a way related with coll. -oy-k‘,
which formally requires an older *-eu-.
aɫeɫn (GSg aɫeɫan) ‘bow; rainbow (Bible+)’; ‘a bow-like instrument used for combing
and preparing wool and cotton (a card)’ (Geoponica; dial.). For a thorough
description of the instrument, see Amatuni 1912: 30b.
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects, mostly in the meaning ‘bow’; also in the
compound *net-u-aɫeɫn ‘arrow and bow’, cf. Akn nɛdvaɫɛɫ, Van netvaneɫ, Ararat
nɛtvánɛɫ, T‘iflis nitvaniɫ, Zeyt‘un nidb‘aɫɛɫ, ləmb‘aɫɛɫ, etc. [HAB 1: 126b; Ačaṙyan
2003: 296].
Many dialects (Van, Moks, Ozim, Alaškert, Sebastia, T‘iflis, Axalc‘xa, Agulis
[HAB 1: 126b], etc.) have *aneɫ. Unlike Goris (hanɛɫ, anɛɫ, anəɫ, see Margaryan
1975: 312a), Łarabaɫ [Davt‘yan 1966: 304] has forms both with and without the
final -n, namely hánɛɫnə and (h)ánɛɫ. A trace of the final -n can be seen in GSg
anɫan in Van and Moks, as well as in Van ananak, Ozim anəɫnak, etc. from *aɫeɫnak
‘rainbow’ (see below). Note also the initial h- in Łarabaɫ and Goris.
Ačaṙyan (2003: 140) treats the b- of Zeyt‘un nidb‘aɫɛɫ as epenthetic. In my view,
we are here dealing with the sound change -dv- > -db- (assimilation of the
plosiveness), which is also seen in astuac ‘god’ > *as(t)pac > Zeyt‘un asb‘ɔj (vs.
Hačən asvɔj), GSg asuju (see Ačaṙyan 2003: 299) and Moks åspåc, GSg ås(c)u,
åstəcu (see Orbeli 2002: 206).
As to the other Zeyt‘un form, namely ləmb‘aɫɛɫ, Ačaṙyan (2003: 115, 135)
considers it strange, pointing out that ləm- is unclear. We might be dealing with
further development of -db-, involving, this time, dissimilation of the plosiveness:
-db- > -nb- (> -mb-). The process may have been strengthened by the assimilatory
influence of the initial nasal n-; in other words, we are dealing with a case belonging
with 2.1.25. Thus: *nedv- > *nidb- > *ninb- > *nimb- > *limb-. The last step
involves nasal dissimilation (cf. nmanim ‘to resemble’ > Nor-Naxiǰewan, Aslanbek,
Polis, Sebastia, Xarberd, Tigranakert, Maraɫa, Alaškert, Hamšen, etc. *(ə)lmanil
[HAB 3: 459b]), and/or the alternation n-/l-, cf. napastak : dial. *(a)lapastrak ‘hare’,
nuik/nuič : dial. *luič ‘a plant’, etc.
This scenario may have been supported/triggered by a contamination with lput
‘wool carder’ (in the dialects of Ozim, Muš, Bulanəx, Alaškert, see HAB 2: 306a). A
theoretically possible form in Cilicia/Syria would be *ləmbud, with nasal epenthesis,
cf. hapalas ‘bilberry’ (from Arab. ḥabb-al-ās) > Svedia həmbälus (see 2.1.30.1).
The meaning ‘a bow-like instrument used for combing and preparing wool and
cotton’ is present in Van, Loṙi (see Ačaṙean 1913: 97a), Muš, Širak, etc. *aneɫ (see
Amatuni 1912: 30b; HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 58a), Ṙodost‘o anɛɫnag [HAB 1:
126b], as well as Zeyt‘un aɫɛɫ (see Ačaṙyan 2003: 296). Orbeli (2002: 202) describes
this implement as follows: “орудие в виде лука для трепания шерсти”.
Since the craft of combing and processing of wool was most developed and
famous in the area of the Van-group-speaking dialects (especially Ozim and Moks),
and carders and felt-makers used to travel throughout Armenia, the Caucasus and
even farther (see Orbeli 2002: 19-21, 23), one may wonder if, for example, in Loṙi
and Širak, the semantic shift under discussion was motivated by the spread of the
Moks, Van, etc. designation of the instrument, namely aneɫ (GSg anɫan, see Orbeli
2002: 202). In this respect, a fairy-tale “in the dialect of Łazax”,6
recorded in 1894 (see HŽHek‘ 6, 1973: 318-329), is particularly interesting. There lived a wool-carder
(pürt‘ kyzoɫ) in the village of Van, who had to leave his city for four years, in search
of a living. His instrument is called first net u aɫeɫ (319L7-8), then pürt‘ kyzelu aneɫ
(316L3). For the question of interdialectal borrowings, see 1.5.
With the suffix -ak, *aɫeɫn-ak ‘rainbow’: Agulis əɫiyɔ́
kən (Ačaṙean 1935: 121,
332, assuming *aɫeɫnak > *aɫeɫakn), Alaškert anɛɫnag, Ozim anəɫnak, cf. Axalc‘xa
aɫɛɫnavɔr (as well as Ṙodost‘o anɛɫnag, referring to the above-mentioned
implement), see HAB 1: 126b. Interesting is Van ananak (not anank, as is
misprinted in HAB 1: 126b; see HAB-Add 1982: 6; Ačaṙyan 1952: 243) from
*ane(ɫ)nak. The dialectal form ananak is recorded already in NHB 1: 1015b,
correctly deriving it from *aɫeɫn-ak. Note also anana in a riddle from an unspecified
area (see S. Harut‘yunyan 1965: 15-16Nr134). See also s.v. ciacan ‘rainbow’.
The form *aneɫ(n)-(ak) < aɫeɫn-ak is due to dissimilation (see Ačaṙean 1935: 121)
or, perhaps better, to both assimilation and dissimilation: ɫ-ɫ-n > n-ɫ-n; cf. 2.1.25.
●ETYM Usually connected with the group of oɫn ‘spine, etc.’ (q.v.), see Lidén 1906:
128 (with references); HAB 1: 126b (sceptical, although without comments);
Pokorny 1959: 308; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 122. The details are not clear, however, so one
should join Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 126b), Greppin (1983: 271; 1986: 284) and Olsen
(1999: 409-410) in considering the etymology uncertain. J̌
ahukyan (1987: 122)
reconstructs *əlel- with a question mark. In view of the internal laryngeal (see s.v.
oɫn), the anlaut can only be explained if one assumes *HHl-el-. If my tentative
etymology of uɫeɫ with o-stem ‘brain; marrow’ (q.v.), which also contains -eɫ-, is
accepted, the connection of aɫ-eɫ-n with oɫn, uɫ-eɫ, etc., may become more probable.
Given the semantic fluctuation in, for example, Gr. βιός m. ‘bow’ and
‘bowstring’, one may wonder if aɫeɫn ‘bow’ derives from aɫi(-k‘) ‘intestine; string of
musical instruments’.
aɫers, i-stem, o-stem (late evidence) ‘supplication’ (Bible+), aɫersem ‘to supplicate’
(Bible+), aɫers-an-k‘, pl. tant. a-stem: GDPl aɫers-an-a-c‘ ‘supplication’ (John
Chrysostom, etc.).
●DIAL Muš aɫərsal ‘to supplicate’, aɫərsank‘ ‘supplication’ [HAB 1: 127a].
●ETYM Usually connected with aɫ-ač‘-em ‘to supplicate’, q.v. (see Bugge 1889: 36;
cf. Olsen 1999: 96). Also Berbérian 1974 derives aɫers from *aɫ- ‘to pray,
supplicate’ (cf. Clackson 1994: 174). The second component is identified with an
independently unattested PArm. *hers from PIE *perk̂
-: Lith. piršti
̃ , peršù ‘to ask
for a girl’s hand in marriage’, Lat. precor ‘to pray to, beseech, entreat’, etc. (see
Mariès/Meillet apud Minassian 1978-79: 24); for the etymon, see s.vv. harsn ‘bride,
daughter-in-law’, harc‘anem ‘to ask, inquire’. This interpretation is possible but
uncertain. Pedersen (1906: 389-390 = 1982: 16
aɫiǰ : Timothy Aelurus (6th cent.), Knik‘ hawatoy= “Seal of Faith” (7th cent., see
Ačaṙean 1908-09a, 1: 367b); aɫič (a-stem, cf. GDPl aɫič-ac‘ in Anania Narkac‘i, 10th
cent.): Eusebius of Caesarea, Anania Narekac‘i; aɫǰik, an-stem (GDSg aɫǰkan, ISg
aɫǰkaw or aɫǰkamb, NPl aɫǰkunk‘, GDPl aɫǰkanc‘, etc.): Bible+; MidArm. aɫǰkin
‘virgin, girl’; in Eusebius of Caesaria: aɫič ‘prostitute’ (see HAB 1: 129b for
semantic parallels). ●DIAL The form aɫǰik is ubiquitous in the dialects. Zeyt‘un axǰ‘gin, ašgi/ɛn, gen.
ašgənən, Hačən ač‘gin, Xarberd ač‘xin (see HAB 1: 130a; Ačaṙyan 2003: 296),
Kesaria ač‘ɫən, gen. ač‘ɫənən (Ant‘osyan 1961: 181) continue MidArm. aɫǰkin. For a
textual illustration of the Zeyt‘un (= Ulnia) form, see X. K‘. 1899: 18aL4.
In Muš, Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 130a) records a vocative form axǰ‘-i. In fact, this form
is also present in many other dialects and is widely used in the territory of Armenia
proper.
●ETYM Numerous etymologies have been proposed (see HAB 1: 129-130 and
Greppin 1983: 273; Ivanov 1974: 106), none of which is unproblematic. The
comparison with OIr. inalit ‘Dienerin’ from *eni-(h)altih2 (the root of Lat. alō ‘to
nurse, nourish’, etc.), as suggested by Olsen, is equally unconvincing (1999: 448).
The derivation from aɫam ‘to grind’ (see Meillet 1936c: 73-74 = 1978: 227-228) is
possible, since the labour of grinding was mainly performed by women (see e.g.
T‘emurčyan 1970: 88a); cf. also Gr. ἀλετρίς, -ίδος f. ‘female slave who grinds corn’,
from ἀλέω ‘to grind’, a cognate of Arm. aɫam. As pointed out by Greppin (1983:
273), the final -iǰ is unexplained. Hambarjumyan (1998: 29-33) advocates Meillet’s
etymology and identifies the suffix with -ič seen in kaw : kaw-ič, lu : lu-ič, etc. I
suggest to start with *aɫǰ- < *h2l-i(e)h2-. In this case, the form aɫiǰ would be
secondary. The connection with aɫaxin ‘female servant’ is improbable (see s.v.).
Likewise unconvincing is the derivation from *kw
li̥̯-, cf. Toch. A kuli, B klīye
‘woman’, Modern Irish caile ‘country woman, girl’, etc. (see Viredaz 2001-02: 34-
35 for references and discussion); first, the etymology of these words is uncertain
(the Tocharian probably derives from the PIE word for ‘woman’, see Adams 1999:
224-225), and second, I expect Arm. *k‘aɫǰ or *k‘yl from QIE *kw
li̥̯-.
J̌
ahukyan (1963a: 87-88; 1987: 145) derives *aɫ- from *pə-lo- (cf. ul ‘kid’) and
for -ǰ- compares erinǰ ‘heifer’ (q.v.) and oroǰ ‘lamb’. This is perhaps the most
probable etymology. For the -ǰ- see above.
According to Witczak (1999: 177-178), the primitive form *aɫǰi may be related to
two other Palaeo-Balkan words denoting ‘young girl’, namely Maced. ἀκρεία and
Phryg. (Hesychius) ἄκριστις. He reconstructs *akréyā f. ‘young girl’ and represents
the Armenian development (which he characterizes as “quite regular”) as follows: IE
*akréyā > *arKéyā (metathesis) > *aRGíyā (lenition) > *aɫǰi (palatalization) > aɫiǰ.
Consequently, he derives aɫǰikn from *akr(e)i-gon-.
This scenario is improbable. IE -kr- is not subject to metathesis. Besides, Arm. ɫ
instead of r is not explained. The expected form should be *awrē- or *awri-, so one
might rather think of Arm. awri-ord ‘virgin, young girl’, q.v.
Conclusion: PArm. *aɫǰ- ‘girl’ is an old feminine, which probably derives from
*h2l-i(e)h2- (or *plH-i(e)h2-) and basically means ‘female grinder’ (or ‘young
female’). The form aɫiǰ is secondary.
aɫi(-k‘), ea-stem: GDSg aɫw-o-y in Sirach, Gregory of Nyssa, aɫi-o-y in Grigor
Magistros, ISg aɫe-a-w in Severian of Gabala, GDPl aɫe-a-c‘ in Grigor Narekac‘i
26.3 (Xač‘atryan/Łazinyan 1985: 346L68) ‘intestine’ (Bible+, mostly in plural)
‘string of musical instruments’ (ISg aɫe-a-w in Severian of Gabala; in compounds:
Bible, Agat‘angeɫos, etc.).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects, as a frozen plural: *aɫi-k‘ ‘intestine’; in Agulis,
Łarabaɫ and Goris, with a nasal epenthesis: *aɫink‘. Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 129a) records no dialectal forms reflecting the “pure” singular (i.e. k‘-less) aɫi, apart from Sebastia
plural aɫe-stan. Nevertheless, one finds Ararat sambaɫi ‘a string of hair, or a thin
leather for tying the yoke pins’ [Markosyan 1989: 354b], which may be interpreted
as *sam(i)-aɫi “string/tie for the yoke pin (sami)”, with an epenthetic -b- after -m-, as
is clearly seen also in Łarabaɫ səmbɛ́
tan.
On Agulis gy
əráɫink‘y
and Łarabaɫ kiráɫɛy
nk‘y ‘rectum’ see HAB s.v. gēr ‘fat’.
●ETYM No etymology is accepted in HAB 1: 129a. J̌
ahukyan (1967: 269) hesitantly
connects with olor-k‘ ‘twist, circle’. This is uncertain. A better suggestion can be
found in his 1987 book (p. 296), where J̌
ahukyan, with reservation, treats aɫi-k‘ as
borrowed from Finno-Ugric *soliia̯ ̄, cf. Finnish suoli, Mari šolo ‘intestine’.
I alternatively suggest a comparison with Slav. *jelito ‘Weichen, Darm, Hoden’,
cf. Pol. jelito ‘Darm’, dial. ‘Wurst’, Pl. ‘Eingeweide’, Čakavian (a SCr. dialect) olìto
‘intestine’, etc. The Slavic points to *jelito or *h1elito- (R. Derksen, p.c.). The
Armenian form can be derived from *h1oliteh2- (or *ioliteh2-).
*aɫc- ‘filth’: aɫc-a-piɫc ‘filthy, abominable’ (a compound with piɫc ‘id.’), attested in
Movsēs Kaɫankatuac‘i/Dasxuranc‘i 2.32, 7/10th cent. (V. Aṙak‘elyan 1983: 212L17),
Yovhannēs Ōjnec‘i (8th cent.), etc., aɫcapɫc-ut‘iwn ‘uncleanliness’ (Book of Chries);
aɫcem ‘to defile’ (Canon Law), see HAB 1: 132a.
●ETYM See s.v. aɫt ‘dirt, filth’. For -c vs. -t cf. the above-mentioned piɫc ‘filthy,
abominable’ vs. pɫt-or ‘id.’ [HAB 4: 81-82, 91].
*aɫc- ‘salt’ in aɫc-eal ‘salted’ in Eusebius of Caesarea.
●ETYM Belongs with aɫt ‘salt’ (q.v.), see Hübschmann 1897: 414; HAB 1: 132a.
aɫkaɫk, a-stem: GDPl aɫkaɫk-a-c‘ (Grigor Astuacaban, Grigor Narekac‘i) ‘indigent,
poor, miserable’ ( Grigor Astuacaban, John Chrysostom, Xosrov Anjewac‘i, etc.);
aɫkaɫk-ut‘iwn in Philo, etc.
●ETYM Connected with Lith. elgetáuti ‘to beg’, OHG ilgi ‘famine’, Gr. ἄλγος n.
‘pain, grief’, etc. [Lidén 1906: 99-100; HAB 1: 132b; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 122]. For the
problems, see Beekes 2003: 188. According to Tumanjan (1978: 204), related to
aɫk‘at ‘pauper, beggar’ (q.v.); see also Greppin 1983: 271, 274. Uncertain.
The connection with Lat. algeō ‘to be cold, feel chilly, endure cold’ (see HAB 1:
132b) is considered not impossible [Mariès/Meillet apud Minassian 1978-79: 24].
*aɫǰ- ‘darkness, fog, twilight’: aɫǰ-ut‘iwn-k‘ ‘darkness’, only in Grigor Narekac‘i 6.4
(beg. of the 11th cent.), in an enumeration, followed by amprop-k‘ ‘thunder’
[Xač‘atryan/Łazinyan 1985: 269L84]; translated as ‘затмение’ [DarbinjanMelikjan/Xanlarjan 1988: 47] and ‘eclipse’ [Khachatoorian 2001: 37]; aɫǰ-aɫǰ ‘fog’
(AblSg y-aɫǰaɫǰ-ē in Gregory of Nyssa; according to HAB, GDSg -i), ‘dark, badly
organized (church)’ (Smbat Sparapet, 13th cent., Cilicia); aɫǰ-a-muɫǰ, i-stem or
a-stem: GDSg aɫǰamɫǰ-i (Bible, Anania Širakac‘i), ISg aɫǰamɫǰ-i-w (Yovhan
Mandakuni [2003: 1161aL14], Philo, Ephrem, Sargis Šnorhali), aɫǰamɫǰ-a-w (Grigor
Astuacaban Nazianzac‘i, Sargis Šnorhali Vardapet); also some derivatives, e.g.
aɫǰamɫǰ-in ‘dark’ in Yovhan Mandakuni [2003: 1165aL-3]: tartarosk‘n aɫǰamɫǰink‘ li
xawaraw. For -in cf. mt‘-in from mut‘(n) ‘dark’ (Bible+).
In Joshua 2.5: ənd aɫǰamuɫǰs aṙawōtin : ἐν τῷ σκότει. In Job 10.22: yerkir
aɫǰamɫǰin yawitenakan : εἰς γῆν σκότους αἰωνίου. In 2 Peter 2.17: oroc‘ aɫǰamuɫǰk‘ xawari(n) yawitean paheal kan : οῖς ὁ ζόφος τοῦ σκότους τετήρηται : “for them the
nether gloom of darkness has been reserved”. As we can see, in the Biblical
passages, aɫǰamuɫǰ mostly corresponds to Gr. σκότος ‘darkness, gloom (of death, the
netherworld, etc.)’, and once (as also in Philo) to ζόφος ‘nether darkness; gloom,
darkness; the West’.
The word (aɫǰamuɫǰ, var. aɫǰamɫǰak) also appears in Anania Širakac‘i (7th cent.) as
the name of the second nocturnal hour between xawarakan and mt‘ac‘eal (see A. G.
Abrahamyan 1944: 113; Aɫayan 1986: 80-81).
●DIAL Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 135b, 335-336) does not record any dialectal forms of
*aɫj-. In 2.1.33.2, I argue that aɫǰamuɫǰ has been preserved in Łarabaɫ žəmaž-ɛn-k‘. It
can also be found in some Western dialects: Muš, Xian, Č‘ɛnkilɛr *ašmuš ‘twilight’
[Ačaṙean 1913: 115b], Sasun ašmuš (glossed by aɫǰamuɫǰ) and verbal ašmšil
[Petoyan 1954: 103; 1965: 443]. This word is reminiscent of aɫǰamuɫǰ ‘darkness,
twilight’ and mšuš ‘fog’ (see s.vv. mšuš ‘fog’ and *muž ‘fog’). According to
Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 330b), Muš, etc. ašmuš ‘twilight’ belongs with aršalurš-k‘ (q.v.).
●ETYM Meillet (1898: 279) treats aɫǰamuɫǰ as a combination of two types of
reduplication, namely u- (cf. spaṙ-spuṙ ‘entièrement’, etc.) and m- (cf. arh-a-m-arh,
xaṙn-a-m-aṙn, etc.) reduplications, seen also in *heɫj-a-m-uɫj ‘drowning,
suffocation’, on which see s.v. heɫjamɫj-uk. The example of hawrut and mawrut is
wrong; these are Iranian loans (see HAB 3: 139-140). Meillet (ibid.) connects the
root *aɫǰ, found also in aɫǰ-aɫǰ, with Gr. ἀχλύς̄, -ύος f. ‘mist; darkness’ and OPr. aglo
n. (u-stem) ‘rain’. Discussing the palatalization of the gutturals, he (1900: 392)
posits *alghi-. See also Tumanjan 1978: 88.
Petersson (1920: 124-127) explains the structure of aɫǰamuɫǰ in the same way, but
reconstructs *a(l)gh-lu- for Armenian and the cognate forms, connecting the word
with Lat. algeō ‘to be cold, fill chilly, endure cold’, etc.
Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 335-336) rejects the etymology on the following grounds: (1)
arǰn ‘black’ and *aɫt- ‘dark’ are not taken into account, and their relationship is not
clarified; (2) *gh > Arm. ǰ is uncertain; (3) the connection between Gr. ἀχλύ̄ς and
OPr. aglo “is not firmly accepted”. These arguments are not strong, however. Arm.
arǰn ‘black’ (q.v.) and probably *aɫt- ‘dark’ are hardly related to *aɫǰ- [J̌
ahukyan
1967: 17125; 1982: 21669]. Further, Meillet’s etymology is nowadays accepted by
most of the scholars: Pokorny 1959: 8; Frisk 1: 201-202; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 58; 1987:
111 (for his view on the second component of the compound, see below); Kortlandt
1976: 94 = 2003: 4. See also Saradževa 1991: 171, 1714. Others consider the
connection of the Armenian word with OPr. aglo and Gr. ἀχλύς̄ to be either
conjectural [Toporov, PrJaz [1], A-D, 1975: 58-59] or difficult (Beekes/Adams apud
Mallory/Adams 1997: 477a; cf. Beekes 1977: 258). A connection with Norw. gluma
‘dunkel werden’, etc. has been assumed (Crepajac 1967: 196, without Armenian).
Pedersen (1906: 367 = 1982: 145), too, treats aɫǰamuɫǰ as m-reduplication,
comparable to arhamarhem ‘verachte’. These examples are usually compared with
sar-suṙ ‘Zittern, Beben’ [this example, in my view, is unclear], spaṙ-spuṙ ‘ganz und
gar’, aɫx-a-m-alx ‘Kramwaren, Trödelwaren’, arh-a-m-arh-em ‘verachten’, etc.
[Karst 1930: 109; Leroy 1986: 71-72]. Next to aɫǰ-a-m-uɫǰ, Pedersen and Karst also
cite aɫǰ-a-m-aɫǰ. I was not able to locate this form. If it really exists, one may link it directly to Łarabaɫ *žamaž-ayn-k‘ (see above). Otherwise, *žamuž-ayn-k‘ >
*žəməžáyn-, and the by-form *žəmáž- is secondary.
J̌
ahukyan (1967: 303) regards aɫtamuɫt vs. aɫǰamuɫǰ as a case of alternation t : ǰ,
giving no other examples and mentioning also arǰn ‘black’, although in 17125 and in
later works he rightly rejects the connection with arǰn. J̌
ahukyan usually cites arǰn as
meaning ‘black’ and ‘dark’. In fact, arǰn basically means ‘black’ and scarcely means
‘dark’ in the atmospheric sense; the only exception that can be found in NHB (1:
375a) is the compound arǰn-a-bolor referring to the night in “Čaṙəntir”. While
accepting Meillet’s etymology of *aɫǰ-, J̌
ahukyan treats *muɫǰ and *muɫt as
independent roots and connects them with Arm. *moyg ‘dark’, Russ. smuglyj, etc.
(1967: 171; 1982: 58; see also H. Suk‘iasyan 1986: 204 [see s.v. *muž]), and later
(J̌
ahukyan 1987: 138), although with reservation, with Arm. meɫc ‘soot’ (q.v.).
Greppin (1983: 272-273) considers Meillet’s explanation of aɫǰ-a-m-uɫǰ as less likely
and derives *amuɫǰ from PArm. *omulgh-: Gr. ὀμίχλη ‘fog’; Lith. miglà ‘fog’. This
seems impossible in view of the vocalism. One might rather think of Gr. ἀμολγός m.
‘darkness’.
The etymology of Meillet is very plausible. The metathesis of *-gh
l- is regular,
but -ǰ- requires *gh
i-. We have, thus, to assume either a by-form *h2egh
l-i-, or a
confusion with the paradigm NSg *-ō(i), obl. *-i- (since both *u and *ō yield Arm.
u), see 2.2.2.4. Most probably, we are dealing with a frozen locative in *-i, cf. the
ingenious explanation of ayg ‘morning’ from locative *h2(e)us(s)i, suggested by
Clackson (1994: 22398); see s.v. Another possible example of a frozen locative is
anurǰ-k‘ ‘dream’ (q.v.). The meaning ‘twilight, darkness’ is frequently used in
locative/adverbial meaning: “at dawn, at twilight”, cf. e.g. ənd aɫǰamuɫǰs aṙawōtin :
ἐν τῷ σκότει (Joshua 2.5), as well as dial. *žəmaž-ayn-k‘-in and axtamxt-in ‘at
twilight’ (see s.v. aɫtamuɫt ‘darkness, twilight’). Thus: loc. *h2(e)gh
l-i > PArm.
*agl-i > *alg-i (regular metathesis) > *aɫǰ-i.
The absence of an initial h- may be due to time constructions with z- and y-, and
the generalization of the zero grade of the oblique stem; see also s.v. ayg.
aɫt, o-stem: GDSg aɫt-o-y (Łazar P‘arpec‘i, John Chrysostom), AblSg y-aɫt-o-y, ISg
aɫt-o-v (Bible+), GDPl aɫt-o-c‘ (Grigor Narekac‘i), AblPl y-aɫt-o-c‘ (Hesychius of
Jerusalem); i-stem: ISg aɫt-i-w (Paterica), GDPl aɫt-i-c‘ (Anania Širakac‘i) ‘dirt,
filth, uncleanliness (also of soul)’ (Bible+), ‘skin enclosing the foetus, afterbirth’
(Deuteronomy 28.57, Cox 1981: 188-189, rendering Gr. χόριον); aɫt-eɫ-i ‘dirty,
filthy, foul’ (Bible+).
ISg aɫt-o-v and AblSg y-aɫt-o-y are attested in Job 9.31 and 14.4 respectively:
Sastkac‘eal aɫtov nerker zis : ἱκανῶς ἐν ῥύπῳ με ἔβαψας “you have dyed me
thoroughly with filth”; Isk ard ov ic‘ē surb yaɫtoy : τίς γὰρ καϑαρὸς ἔσται ἀπὸ ῥύπου
“Now, who can be free of filth?” [Cox 2006: 97, 118]. Arm. aɫt renders Gr. ῥύπος
‘filth, uncleanliness’.
For the formation of aɫt-eɫi see Greppin 1975: 81; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 250; 1998: 23;
Olsen 1999: 409.
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects [HAB 1: 136a].
●ETYM Since Bugge 1889: 35, compared with Arm. e/aɫtiwr ‘marsh-meadow,
swamp’, Gr. ἄρδα f. ‘dirt’, ἄρδαλος ‘dirty’. Ačaṙyan (1937a; HAB 1: 136a; cf.
Hübschmann 1897: 415) accepts the connection of aɫt with the Greek word and introduces also aɫc- ‘id’ (q.v.) with the alternation t vs. c seen also in meɫc/j ‘soot’
derived by him from *smerd- ‘to stink’. He (HAB 2: 24-25) leaves the origin of
e/aɫtiwr open. This etymology of aɫt, although advocated by C. Arutjunjan (1983:
262-263), is formally difficult (Clackson 1994: 103).
On the other hand, Arm. aɫt and e/aɫtiwr are linked with OIc. ū̆ldna ‘to mould’,
OHG oltar ‘Schmutzkrume’, Lat. alga ‘sea-weed; rubbish’, etc., Petersson 1916:
250-252; Pokorny 1959: 305; Solta 1960: 279f; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 121, 164; cf.
Schrijver 1991: 70. This comparison is possible if one posits a QIE *Hl̥-d- for
Armenian aɫt shared with Germanic.
Another possibility is to derive aɫt from *sal- ‘dirty, grey’ (cf. J̌
ahukyan 1987:
164): OIr. sal ‘dirt, filth’, OHG salo < *sal-u̯o- ‘dirty’, etc. (for a discussion of
cognate forms, see Schrijver 1991: 212-213). Further see s.v. aɫb ‘excrement, dung’.
It is possible that this Armenian word for ‘dirt’ and aɫt ‘salt’ flow together, cf. OPr.
saltan n. ‘grease, fat’, etc. (see Witczak 1999: 179-180; Olsen 1999: 182; cf.
Greppin 1983: 273-274, presenting aɫt ‘dirt’ and aɫt ‘salt’ in one entry). Note that
both words have variants with affricate -c instead of -t. For the dental determinative
cf. also Arm. cirt ‘dung’, dial. c‘ṙ-t‘- vs. c‘eṙ ‘liquid excrement, dung’ (see Amatuni
1912: 645; Ačaṙean 1913: 1058ab), etc.
For the structure of e/aɫtiwr and other etymological suggestions, see Hübschmann
1897: 415; HAB 2: 24-25; Mann 1963: 144; Eichner 1978: 152-153; Greppin 1983:
274; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 121, 164, 310, 374; Clackson 1994: 93, 22039; Beekes apud
Mallory/Adams 1997: 539b; Olsen 1999: 154-156; Witczak 1999: 179.
aɫt, i-stem: GDPl aɫt-i-c‘ (Bible), u-stem: GDPl aɫt-u-c‘ (inscription 1235 AD) ‘salt’
(Bible+), ‘salt-mine’ (zaɫts Koɫbay ‘the salt-mines of Koɫb’ in Yovhannēs
Drasxanakertc‘i, 9-10th cent.); aɫt-aɫt (Hexaemeron, Book of Chries, etc.), aɫt-aɫt-in
(Bible+) ‘salty, salted’; aɫt-aɫt-uk ‘salty, salted; saltland’ (Bible+, e.g. APl z-aɫtaɫtuks = Gr. ἁλμυρίδα in Job 39.6, Cox 2006: 250); see also s.v. *aɫc- ‘salt’.
In Genesis 14.3 (Zeyt‘unyan 1985: 203): Amenek‘ean sok‘a gumarec‘an i jorn
aɫi, or ē cov aɫtic‘ : πάντες οὑτοι ̃ συνεφώνησαν ἐπὶ τὴν φάραγγα τὴν ἁλυκήν (αὕτη ἡ
ϑάλασσα τῶν ἁλῶν).
According to the long recension of the 7th century Armenian Geography,
Ašxarhac‘oyc‘ [Soukry 1881: 30L5], the province of Barjr Hayk‘ ‘Upper Armenia’
uni ew ǰermuks ew aɫts ew zamenayn parartut‘iwns erkri “also has hot springs and
salt deposits and all the abundance of the earth” (transl. Hewsen 1992: 59). Some
manuscripts of the short recension, too, have the variant with -t-: APl aɫt-s or NPl
aɫt-k‘ [MovsXorenMaten 1865: 607L16, 6072], while others have aɫ-s [A.G.
Abrahamyan 1944: 349L8]. Also the version of T‘ovmas Kilikec‘i (14th cent.) has
reading variants aɫt-s and aɫ-s [Anasyan 1967: 281L15]. As has been pointed out by
Eremyan (1963: 91b), these salt deposits should be located in the district of
Mananaɫi, on the left side of the River Mananaɫi, nowadays T‘uzlu-č‘ay (‘Salty
River’), where the pre-revolutionary Russian map “of 10 verst” indicates
‘сол[яный] зав[од]’.
For the Biblical attestations of aɫt-aɫt-uk see also Olsen 1999: 587773f; for the
structure of the word, see Olsen 1999: 587.
●ETYM Since Hübschmann 1897: 414, Arm. aɫt and aɫ are derived from the PIE
word for ‘salt’ and reflect nom. *sā́l-d and gen. *sal-n-és, respectively. The form with -t < *-d- is directly comparable with Goth. salt n., OEngl. salt, OHG salz ‘salt’;
zero-grade forms: Norw. sylt, OEngl. sultia, OHG sulza ‘salty water, brine’, Germ.
Sülze, etc. (see also HAB 1: 136b; Meillet 1936: 38; Mariès/Meillet apud Minassian
1978-79: 23; on PIE, see Lehmann 1986: 294b with ref. ; cf. Beekes 1987c: 50-51).
Probably Lat. sallō, salsus ‘to salt’ belongs here, too (Pokorny 1959: 878; Lehmann
1986: 294b). The Germanic (OHG salzan, etc.) and Latin verbs may reflect *seh2l-dor *sh2el-d-; for the Latin verb zero grade is possible, too (see Schrijver 1991: 114).
For *sald-tos see Szemerényi 1996: 279.
The PIE word for ‘salt’ has been reconstructed by Kortlandt and others as a HD lstem: nom. *seh2-l-s > Gr. ἅλς, Lat. sāl, Lith. sólymas ‘brine’, etc.; acc. *sh2-él-m >
Gr. ἅλ-α, Lat. sal-em, cf. OCS solь; gen. *sh2-l-ós > Gr. ἁλός, Lat. sal-is, etc., for a
discussion and references, see Schrijver 1991: 98, 130, 111, 113-114; Beekes 1995:
177; Derksen 1996: 23-24, 144; Beekes apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 498.
Meillet (1936: 43, 47) reconstructs Arm. nom. aɫ with a regular final -ɫ vs. gen.
*al-i, which has been replaced by analogical aɫ-i. Note dial. an-ali ‘not salty’. For
nom. *sal-s > aɫ and a discussion, see Greppin 1986: 283-285, 288; Ravnæs 1991:
92; Olsen 1999: 86-87.
Klingenschmitt (1982: 149) interprets *aɫc- as reflecting an original *-i̯e/opresent. However, a QIE *sl̥d-i̯e- would rather yield Arm. *aɫče- (see 2.1.22.1). One
might posit an analogical nominative *aɫc < *sl̥d-s, compare anic ‘nit, louse egg’
from *(s)k̂
(o)nid-s, cf. Gr. κονίς < *κονιδ-ς, gen. -ίδος (see s.v.). For a discussion of
the problem, see also Greppin 1993; 1994; Kortlandt 1994=2003: 104-106.
It is remarkable that Arm. t-less form, viz. aɫ, is only found in the singular,
whereas aɫt (mostly APl aɫt-s and GDPl aɫt-i-c‘) is limited to the plural. It is
therefore tempting to reconstruct PArm. nom.sg. *sal-s vs. pl. *sal-d-. The element
*-d- seen in Armenian and Germanic may be interpreted then as a determinative
with a collective or similar function; note Arm. pl-coll. -ti, and the suffix -ut
‘abounding in’. Alternatively: PArm. nom. *sal-d-s vs. obl. *sal-d-i- > nom. *aɫc
beside aɫ (the latter from *sal-s or *salds, with loss of the cluster in absolute auslaut)
vs. obl. *aɫt-i-. This can explain why the Biblical place-names have been rendered in
Armenian by aɫt and not by the ‘normal’ word for ‘salt’ aɫ. See also above on
references to ‘salt mines’ and s.v. place-name Aɫt-k‘. We may conclude that the basic
meaning of aɫt is something like ‘salt deposits, salt mines, salty place’.
The suffix in aɫt-aɫt-in ‘salty, salted’ has been compared with that of Gr. ἅλινος
‘consisting of water’ (Olsen 1999: 468).
aɫt-a-muɫt ‘darkness, twilight’. Attested only in Ephrem/John Chrysostom, referring
to the evening twilight or darkness.
●DIAL Preserved in some Northern and Eastern dialects: Ararat, Loṙi, Širak aɫtamuɫt
‘morning or evening twilight’, adv. aɫtamɫt-in ‘at twilight’ [Amatuni 1912: 24a],
T‘iflis axtamuxt-in, axt‘umuxt‘-in ‘at twilight’, Axalc‘xa aɫtemɫt-in ‘at dawn’ [HAB
1: 336b], Łarabaɫ əɫtamuɫt, in a textual illustration: əxtamuxt-in ‘at dawn’
[HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 21a].
●ETYM See s.vv. *aɫǰ- and buzaɫt‘n.
aɫtiwr ‘marsh-meadow, swamp’.
See s.v. eɫtewr, eɫtiwr ‘id.’.
aɫuēs, u-stem: GDSg aɫues-u, GDPl aɫues-u-c‘ (Bible+), o-stem: GDSg aɫues-o-y
(Grigor Narekac‘i, 10-11th cent.) ‘fox’.
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects [HAB 1: 135a]. Karčewan áɫvɛst [M. Muradyan
1960: 188b] has an epithetic -t after the sibilant, cf. Axalc‘xa and Xotorǰur ak‘ist
from ak‘is ‘weasel’ (q.v.); see also 2.1.31.
●ETYM Since long (Rask, NHB, etc., see HAB 1: 135a; see also de Lagarde 1854:
27L742; Meyer 1892: 3281; Hübschmann 1897: 415), connected with Gr. ἀλώπηξ,
-εκος f. ‘fox’ and cognate forms continuing the PIE word for ‘fox’:
Skt. lopāśá- m. ‘a kind of jackal’, probably ‘fox’, Proto-Iranian *raupaśa- ‘fox’:
Sogd. rwps- f., Khwar. rwbs f., Shughni růpc(ak) f. [Morgenstierne 1974: 68a],
Ishkashimi urvesok, Yazghulami rəpc, rəbc, Yidgha rūso, Munji ráwsa, etc.
[Edelman 2003: 123];
Celtic *lop-erno-: Welsh llewyrn ‘fox’, Bret. louarn ‘fox’, etc. [Schrijver 1995:
61-62; 1998; Matasović 2009: 243].
Farther: Av. urupi- ‘dog’, raopi- ‘fox, jackal’, Khot. rrūvāsa- ‘jackal’ [Bailey
1979: 367a]; Lat. volpēs f. ‘fox’ (possibly from *u̯lp-eh1-, see Schrijver 1991: 377
for a discussion), Lith. lãpė, Latv. lapse ‘fox’, OPr. lape ‘fox’ [Bammesberger 1970;
Adrados 1985; Schrijver 1998; Blažek 1998-99; de Vaan 2000].
See Pokorny 1959: 1179; Fraenkel 1: 340; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 513-514
= 1995: 432-433; Euler 1985: 91; Toporov, PrJaz [L], 1990: 83-89; Mayrhofer
EWAia 2, 1996: 482-483; Mallory/Adams 1997: 212-213. For an extensive
discussion of the Armenian word, including the paradigmatic alternation nom. -ēs
vs. obl. -es- (cf. Gr. ἀλώπηξ vs. obl. -εκος, Meillet 1936: 49) and the u-declension
for animal designations, see Clackson 1994: 33-35; 95-96, 22149; Olsen 1999: 187-
188. For the archaeological background of this PIE term, see Mallory 1982: 204-
205; Mallory/Adams 1997: 213a. FUgr. *repä ‘fox’ is an Aryan loan [Rédei 1986:
46].
The Greek and Indo-Iranian forms presuppose *h2lōpe/ek̄ ̂
- and *h2le/oupek̄ ̂
-,
respectively, and the Armenian may be derived from both of them (cf. Clackson
1994: 96). This vocalic problem makes some scholars sceptical about the connection
between the Armeno-Greek and Indo-Iranian forms (Schrijver 1998: 431; de Vaan
2000: 287-288; 2008: 688). This position seems hypercritical to me. Despite the
vocalic problem, one should agree with Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 482 in that IndoIran. *Raupāća- is “nicht zu trennen” from Arm. aɫuēs and Gr. ἀλώπηξ. The abovementioned standard dictionaries and Clackson 1994: 96 are positive, too. Beekes
(1969: 40) points out that “the relation of ἀλώπηξ to the related words is not clear.
Arm. aɫuēs < *alōpek- cannot be separated from it, but allowance must be made for
the possibility of non-IE origin”. Euler (1985: 92) considers “ein altes Wanderwort
(wie für den Apfel)”. For a non-IE origin, see also Greppin 1983: 272; Olsen 1999:
187347; de Vaan 2000: 288.
I conclude that Arm. aɫuēs, obl. -es- ‘fox’, Gr. ἀλώπηξ, -εκος ‘fox’, and Indo-Iran.
*Raupāća- ‘fox’, prob. also ‘jackal’ are related; they are probably of non-IE origin;
the appurtenance of the other forms is possible but uncertain.
aɫk‘at, a-stem: GDSg aɫk‘at-i, GDPl aɫk‘at-a-c‘ (abundant in the Bible); o-stem: ISg
aɫkat-o-v (once in the Bible), GDSg aɫkat-o-y in BrsVašx (apud NHB 1: 45c) ‘pauper, beggar, homeless; indigent, needy’ (Bible+), ‘poor, miserable’ (Book of
Chries, Nersēs Lambronac‘i, etc.) (Bible+).
●DIAL Dialectally ubiquitous [HAB 1: 137b].
●ETYM Since Lidén (1906: 97-98), derived from PIE *(o)leig/k- ‘poor, miserable’:
Gr. ὀλίγος ‘little, small; weak’, λοιγός m. ‘ruin, havoc (of death by plague; by war;
of destruction of ships)’, Lith. ligóti ‘to be ill’, OIr. līach ‘elend, unglücklich’, OPr.
licuts ‘small’, etc., and containing the suffix -at as in hast-at ‘firm’ [HAB 1: 137b;
Pokorny 1959: 667; J̌
ahukyan 1967: 245; 1982: 134, 183; 1987: 135, 178; Beekes
1969: 42]. On Toch. *lyäk-, see Adams 1999: 568.
I agree with Greppin (1983: 274) in considering the etymology to be weak.
Basing himself upon OPr. licuts ‘small’, etc., Witczak (1999: 178) derives Arm.
aɫk‘at from *ə3likudā-, leaving the problem of Arm. -a- from *-u- without an
explanation. Tumanjan (1978: 204) connects with Arm. aɫkaɫk ‘indigent, poor,
miserable’ (q.v.). All uncertain.
Since Grigor Tat‘ewac‘i (14-15th cent.) and others (see HAB 1: 137b), interpreted
as aɫx, i-stem ‘lock; ring; furniture, possessions; entourage, tribe’ (see also s.v.
aɫaxin ‘female servant’) + privative -at from hat- ‘to cut, split, divide’ (q.v.). Thus:
*aɫx-hat ‘devoided of properties, having no possessions’. This etymology seems
preferable to me. The development x + h > k‘ is possible.
ačem ‘to increase, grow’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects [HAB 1: 141a].
●ETYM From PIE *h2eug- ‘to grow’, with loss of *-u-: Lat. augeō, augēre ‘to
increase, augment’, Goth. aukan ‘to increase, augment’, Lith. áugti ‘to grow’, etc.;
other forms reflect an original s-present: Gr. αὔξω ‘to increase, strengthen’, ἀ(F)έξω
< *h2u̯egs- ‘to increase, grow’, Skt. vakṣ-, pres. ukṣáti, 2sg.aor. áukṣīs, 3sg.perf.
vavákṣa ‘to grow, become big’, OAv. uxšiieitī ‘grows’, vaxšt ‘lets grow’, MPers.
waxšīdan ‘to grow’, Goth. wahsjan ‘to grow’, etc.; for the *s-less forms cf. Toch. B
auk- ‘to grow, increase’ vs. auks- approx. ‘to sprout, grow up’ (Adams 1999: 130-
131). For the etymology of Arm. ačem, see NHB 1: 48c; Pedersen 1906: 393-394,
396 = 1982: 171-172, 174; Lidén 1905-06: 503-506; Meillet 1908-09: 357; 1936:
29; HAB 1: 140-141 with lit.; Pisani 1950: 170; Kortlandt 1975: 44; 1980: 99; 1983:
13; 1986: 40 = 2003: 11, 27, 43, 70; Beekes 2003: 178, 204, 208.
This PIE etymon has been (Lidén ibid., HAB ibid., etc.) connected to the word
for ‘berry, fruit’: OCS agoda ‘fruit’, Russ. jágoda ‘berry’, SCr. jȁgoda ‘wild
strawberry, berry’, Lith. úoga ‘berry’, Latv. uôga ‘berry’, Goth. akran n. ‘fruit’, etc.
The standard dictionaries are inclined to represent two unrelated entries and to
connect the Armenian word to the ‘berry’ word (Pokorny 1959: 773;
ÈtimSlovSlavJaz 1, 1974: 57-59; Greppin 1983: 275; Mallory/Adams 1997: 63b; cf.
J̌
ahukyan 1987: 141, 183; for the etymon, see also Derksen 2008: 27). This is very
unlikely. Most probably Arm. ačem belongs with Lat. augeō, etc. and derives from
PArm. *awčémi < *aug-(i̯)e-mi = *h2(e)ug-(i̯)e-mi through loss of *-w- in pretonic
syllable, cf. QIE *h1ngw
-o/ōl-o- > PArm. *anw
cúɫ-o- > *a(w)cúɫo- > acuɫ ‘coal’
(q.v.). Note also the vacillation aw : a in e.g. ačaṙ vs. awčaṙ ‘soap’ (both forms
Bible+).
ačiwn, an-stem: ISg ačeam-b in Basil of Caesarea; also i-stem or o-stem: ačen-i or
ačiwn-o-y in Paterica, ISg ačiwn-o-v in Grigor Narekac‘i, etc. ‘ash’.
●ETYM Meillet (1908-09: 357) compared the word with Gr. ἄσβολος f. (m.) ‘soot’,
ἄζω ‘to wither’, Goth. azgo, OHG. asca ‘ashes’, for Armenian positing *azg-y- (cf.
Skt. ā́sa- m. ‘ashes, light dust’, etc.). Bugge (1892: 445; 1893: 1) connected Arm.
azaz- ‘to become dry’ to Gr. ἄζω, etc. Accepted by Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 82). Sceptical
Greppin 1981b: 3-4. Scheftelowitz (1904-1905, 2: 32) relates to Arm. ostin ‘dry
(land)’ (see HAB, s.v.), Gr. ἄζω, Czech ozditi ‘darren’, etc. Ačaṙyan (HAB s.vv.)
accepts this, too, although Meillet (1908/09: 357) is sceptical. For a discussion of
this PIE root, see Lubotsky 1985.
See also s.v. askn ‘a precious stone of red colour’, probably ‘ruby’.
ačuk ‘groin (the fold or depression on either side of the body between the abdomen
and the upper thigh); pubis; pelvis; thigh’.
Attested only in Nersēs Palienc‘ (14th cent.). NHB (1: 50b; 2: 1060b) presents it
as a dialectal word, synonymous to eran-k‘, c‘ayl-k‘, and Turk. /gasəg/. The
dialectal form is cited in plural: ačuk-k‘ (NHB 2: 1060b).
Now more attestations are found in MidArm. sources, such as “Bžškaran jioy”
(13th cent.), Č‘ugaszyan 1980: 154L-8, 158L9; 178 (note), etc.; MiǰHayBaṙ 1, 1987:
36a.
●DIAL In Polis, Aslanbek, Ṙodost‘o, Nor Naxiǰewan, Axalc‘xa, Hamšen, Ararat,
Karin, Xarberd, Akn, Arabkir, Adana, Zeyt‘un [HAB 1: 141-142]. In Muš and
Alaškert, in a compound with tak ‘under, below’: Muš ačəx-tək-ner, Alaškert
aǰəx-dag (HAB 1: 142a); cf. *y-ant‘Vtak, s.v. an(u)t‘ ‘armpit’. See also below, on
Sasun.
As is pointed out by Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 142a), the meaning slightly differs in
dialects; e.g., in Polis, it refers to the joint of the two thighs, where the genitals are
located (pubis; cf. also Amatuni 1912: 1b, as synonymous to agṙ-mēǰ), whereas for
Ararat and Axalc‘xa it is described as follows: “the little pits at the two sides
beneath the navel (i.e. groins)”. Malat‘ia aǰug denotes ‘pelvis’ (rendered ModArm.
konk‘) [Danielyan 1967: 185a], and Xarberd: ‘thigh’ [HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 46a].
Sasun aǰug ‘the joint between the abdomen and the upper thigh, groin; armpit’,
aǰɫ-dag ‘armpit’ [Petoyan 1954: 104; 1965: 443-444].
Dersim (Berri) aǰug əynil ‘to have pain in groins’ [Baɫramyan 1960: 112a].
Sebastia ačuk ‘the upper thigh; the lower part of the abdomen (= Turk. /gasəg/,
Fr. aine)’ [Gabikean 1952: 55].
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 141b) does not record any acceptable etymology.
J̌
ahukyan (1967: 169; 1982: 58; 1987: 142) connects with Skt. pājasyá- n. ‘belly,
loins’, Russ. pax ‘loins’, etc. (cf. Mallory/Adams 1997: 517-519), reconstructing
*pəgi̯o- for Armenian.
In view of the widespread belief that the groin relates to the process of child
growth, A.A. Abrahamyan (1958: 61-62) treats ačuk as a participial formation in -uk
from the verbal stem ač- ‘to grow’. J̌
ahukyan (1982: 21673) considers this less
probable. M. Hanneyan (1979: 173) mentions the former etymology (from *pəgi̯o-)
without a reference, then she presents Abrahamyan’s interpretation and considers it
more logical. In favour of Abrahamyan’s etymology, one notes the following arguments: (1)
the derivational suffix -uk fits in the interpretation; (2) the Armenian word is not
attested in the Classical period and does not look old; (3) there are formal problems
(one expects Arm. *ha-; the reconstruction of the PIE word does not seem very
secure); (4) the above-mentioned belief is indeed widespread and still vivid in
Armenia. If one, nevertheless, accepts the derivation from PIE *pəgi̯o-, the belief
and its influence must then be reckoned with.
am, a-stem: GDSg am-i, AblSg y-am-ē, LocSg y-am-i, GDPl am-a-c‘, IPl am-a-w-k‘
(widely attested in the Bible onwards) ‘year; age’.
●DIAL Preserved in the dialects of Ararat (Loṙi), Łarabaɫ and Goris in a derivative
form, namely amlik ‘a lamb or child of/ under one year aage’, q.v.
It is remarkable that there is Georgian erk’emali ‘a male sheep above one year of
age; ram’, attested twice in the 18th century and which, according to Šanije (pers.
com. apud HAB 2: 67b), was borrowed from Arm. erku ‘two’ + am ‘year’, formed
with the Georgian suffix -li-. Apparently, Arm. erkeam ‘of two years of age’
(Bible+) < erki- + am is meant here. In view of the existence of Arm. dial. amlik and
bearing in mind that Arm. diminutive -l-ik is quite productive (cf. barak ‘thin’ : dial.
(Ararat) baralik [HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 167], etc.), one may treat the Georgian
word as wholly borrowed from Armenian. Moreover, the -l- of amlik could be old;
see below.
●ETYM Since Hübschmann (1897: 416Nr17), am has been connected to Skt. sámā- f.
‘year, season’. The other forms have shifted the semantics to ‘summer’: YAv. ham-,
OIr. sam, etc.; cf. s.v. amaṙn. The semantic relationship between am ‘year’ and
amaṙn ‘summer’ is parallel to Russ. let : leto (cf. Saradževa 1986: 79, 88). The
remarkable correspondence of the meaning and of the stems of the Armenian and the
Sanskrit forms (cf. Tumanjan 1978: 204; Širokov 1980: 82) should be explained as
an archaism, rather than a shared innovation, since most of the cognates meaning
‘summer’ are derivations, and the direction of the semantic shift seems to be ‘year’
> ‘summer’, not the other way around. An old paradigm *s(e)m-eh2-/ *sm̥ -h2-ó- is
reconstructed, see Hamp 1981: 13; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 704; Olsen 1999: 60;
cf. also Frisk 1944: 32 (= 1966: 280); Tumanjan 1978: 204. The initial a- is due to
the generalization of the oblique stem: PIE *sRHV- > Arm. *aRV- (compare Beekes
1988: 78).
Among the derivatives, Greppin (1983: 276) mentions amanak ‘time’ (q.v.),
which, however, seems to be an Iranian loan.
The dialectal amlik (q.v.) can surprisingly be equated to the Scandinavian words
with the basic meaning ‘one-year-old animal’, which are of the same origin: OIc.
simull, Norw. simla, etc.; see Pokorny 1959: 905. The derivational basis could be
*sm̥ H-l-, whence Arm. dial. syncopated amlik < *amal-ik. Typlogically, compare
Lat. vitulus ‘calf’ and Gr. ἔταλον, ἔτελον n. ‘young animal, yearling’
(etymologically: ‘yearling’; cf. Gr. ἔτος n. ‘year’; Skt. vatsá- m. ‘calf’ (RV+), etc.),
with the same suffixal element *-l-. Note also Engl. yearling, Germ. Jährling ‘a
domesticated animal of one year of age’, and Ossetic diminutive suffix -ul, -yl,
particularly in animal-names (see Abaev 1965: 80).
OArm. (> Georg.) *am-a-li is parallel to *orb-o-li (> Georg. oboli ‘orphan’); see
s.v. orb ‘orphan’. Note that *am-a- and *orb-o- agree with the declension classes of am (a-stem) and orb (o-stem), respectively. However, Arm. orb is not attested with
such a suffix. See also s.v. *luc-ali and 2.3.1.
amanak, -i, -ac‘ ‘time’, attested since the 6th cent. (Philo, Yovhannēs Ōjnec‘i, etc.).
●ETYM Frisk (1944: 32 = 1966: 280) connects the word with am ‘year’ (q.v.)
through contamination with synonymous žamanak. This is accepted by Greppin
(1983: 276), who mentions amanak among other derivatives of am. Neither refers to
Ačaṙyan’s etymology, according to which amanak is an Iranian loan; cf. Pers. amān
‘time’ [HAB 1: 145]. J̌
ahukyan does not mention amanak in the list of old Iranian
loans [1987: 512-549]. The reason for this, I assume, is the fact that the word is not
attested in the oldest period of Armenian literature. L. Hovhannisyan (1990: 94-95;
cf. 1991: 26) rejects Ačaṙyan’s etymology, arguing that Pahl. unattested *amānak
would yield, as Ačaṙyan himself notes, Pers. *amāna, which does not exist.
However, this is not a solid argument since, for instance, in the case of žaman,
žamanak ‘time’, Persian has both zamān and zamāna; cf. Pahl. zamān, zamānak
[HAB 2: 222-223]. Further, Hovhannisyan assumes that amanak can be derived
from Arm. am ‘year’ under analogical influence of žamanak, without any reference
to Frisk or Greppin. In view of the weakness of the above-mentioned argument, I
think this is unmotivated. It is hard to imagine that Arm. amanak ‘time’ is not
connected to Pers. amān ‘time’.
Ačaṙyan rejects the Arabic origin of Pers. amān and treats it as a native Persian
word. He does not mention, however, any Iranian or Indo-European cognate. I
wonder whether it is related to OIr. amm ‘time’ which is mentioned by C.
Harut‘yunyan (Arutjunjan 1983: 275) in a different context; cf. HAB s.v. awr ‘day’.
amaṙn, an-stem: GDSg amaran (Cyril of Jerusalem, Yovhan Mamikonean), amaṙan
(according to NHB, but without evidence), APl amaruns (Philo) ‘summer’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Dialectally widespread. An initial h- is found only in Ozim, hamaṙ [HAB 1:
146; HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 47b], while in its closest dialects, that is Van, Moks
and Šatax, it is absent; see Ačaṙyan 1952: 243; M. Muradyan 1962: 191b. J̌
ahukyan
(1985: 156) treats it as a relic of IE *s-. According to others, however, this h- is
simply wrong; see Hovsep‘yan 1966: 234-235; cf. N. Simonyan 1979: 211, 213-214.
Łarabaɫ áməɛṙnə [Davt‘yan 1966: 306] and Goris amɛṙnə [Margaryan 312b] are
probably due to the influence of jmeṙn ‘winter’. This form may be seen in the placename Ameṙn-a-p‘or in Syunik‘, Sot‘k‘, as attested by Step‘anos Ōrbelean (see 4.9).
●ETYM Since Hübschmann (1897: 416Nr19), amaṙn is connected to the family of am
‘year’ (q.v.); cf. Skt. sámā-f. ‘year, season’; all the remaining cognates mean
‘summer’: YAv. ham-, Khot. hamāna-, MPers. hāmīn, OIr. sam, OHG sumar. The
suffixal element *-r- is present in Armenian and Germanic. The final -n of
Armenian is explained from *-om (cf. Pokorny 1959: 905; J̌
ahukyan 1967: 212;
1982: 115; 1987: 147) or from an old IE accusative *smh2er-m [Kortlandt 1985:
21Nr7]. The latter is more attractive. The idea about contamination of the two
alternants of the original heteroclitic paradigm, i.e. *-r- and *-n(t)- (see Mayrhofer,
KEWA 3, 1976: 437; Olsen 1999: 128, 141, 410, 855), is improbable; cf. also
Greppin 1983: 277: *sm̥ -r̥-n-.
Mentioning the plural forms of jmeṙn ‘winter’ and k‘irtn ‘sweat’ going back to
*-on(t)h2-, Olsen (1999: 128) writes: “No doubt amaṙn ‘summer’, which is accidentally not attested in the plural, is part of the same pattern”. However, we do
find an APl amaruns in Philo; see NHB 1: 52b.
For the analyses of amarayin (adj.) and amarani ‘in the summer, during summer’,
see Olsen 1999: 276-277 and 306, respectively.
amboɫǰ, i-stem: GDPl amboɫǰ-i-c‘ (Philo) ‘whole, integral, intact, pure’ (Philo, Book
of Chries, Paterica, etc.).
●DIAL Preserved only in Ozim amp‘uxč‘ [HAB 1: 152a]. Xosrov Anjewac‘i (10th
century), native of the area between the lakes Van and Urmia which roughly
coincides with the geographical distribution of the dialectal group of Van-Urmia, to
which Ozim belongs too, glosses the word amboɫǰ by his vernacular form hamboɫǰ
[HAB 1: 152a].
●ETYM Composed of oɫǰ ‘whole, integral, complete, solid; sound, healthy, unhurt’
(q.v.) and the prefix *amb- from PIE *h2mbh
i ‘around’: Gr. ἀμφί ‘on both sides,
around’, Lat. amb-, OIr. imb-, OHG umbi ‘around’, etc., see Meillet 1894: 236;
1896: 156; Hübschmann 1897: 416; HAB 1: 151-152; HAB-Add 1982: 4; Pokorny
1959: 34; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 50; Mallory/Adams 1997: 32a; for a discussion of the
etymon, see also Schrijver 1991: 59-60.
amik ‘one-year-old male kid or lamb’.
Attested in the Bible five times, once in NAccSg amik and four times in APl
amiks [Astuacaturean 1895: 55a]. Thus, no information about the declension class.
The only attestation outside the Bible is Ephrem.
●DIAL In the dialects, one finds am-l-ik, q.v.
●ETYM Obviously derived from Arm. am ‘year’ [HAB 1: 156b]; see s.vv. am and
dial. amlik.
amis, o-stem: GDSg ams-o-y, GDPl ams-o-c‘; also GDLocSg (y)amsean ‘month’
(Bible+).
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 1: 158b].
●ETYM Since Hübschmann (1897: 417), derived from PIE *meh1nsos ‘moon;
month’: Skt. mā́s-, Gr. μήν, Lat. mēnsis ‘month’, etc. See also Tumanjan 1978:
167-168; Gamkrelidze/ Ivanov 1984: 424; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 138, etc.
The initial a- of the Armenian form is explained by the influence of am ‘year’
(q.v.) [Ačaṙyan 1898b: 372; HAB 1: 158a]. Meillet (1936: 48 = 1988: 34) mentions
the problem without an explanation. Next to am, Winter (1965: 101) points to
another calendar unit and two names of heavenly bodies, all with an initial a-: awr
‘day’; arew ‘sun’ and astɫ ‘star’; cf. Hovdhaugen 1968: 120. Solta (1960: 6764)
thinks that the a- has been added in order to avoid the homonymy with mis ‘meat’.
This resembles the explanation of Mann (1963: 19) interpreting amis as am-mis
‘month of the year’; for a further discussion, see Olsen 1999: 48, 820; Viredaz 2005-
7: 1-2. J̌
ahukyan (1967: 245) treats this a- as a “prothetic” vowel before sonants
comparable to those found in eɫbayr and anic (q.v.), which is not true since there are
no parallels for the position before nasals, except anic, which is a different case
(q.v.). N. Simonyan (1979: 234-235) treats this “prothetic” vowel as an IE dialectal
isogloss. Saradževa (1986: 38, 361108) does not specify the origin of the vowel.
In my view, Ačaṙyan’s explanation is sufficient, since there is a common
phoneme in a-mis and am, that is m. An influence of this kind in the framework of a close semantic relationship is quite common in Armenian, so the statement of
Greppin (1983: 279) on the “insurmountable problems” of a- in amis seems to me
exaggerated.
The deviant GDLSg (y)amsean is interpreted by Tumanjan (1978: 168) from
*mēs-en; unconvincing. Olsen (1999: 48f, 386f, 772, 820) explains it as an adjective
formation in *-ih3no- with the basic meaning ‘monthly’; cf. Skt. māsīna-. See also
Clackson 1994: 63.
According to Beekes (1969: 22-23), a-mis is derived from *mēns with the recent
addition of a-, stating that *amēns would yield *ams, and the traditional *amēnsos
nowhere finds support. However, the thematic *meh1ns-o- seems to be confirmed by
Skt. mā́sa- (RV+), Dard., etc. māsa-, and the o declension of amis fits the protoform.
Much has been written on the reconstruction of the original paradigm of the PIE
word under discussion; see Specht 1947: 9-10, 233; Scherer 1953: 61-71; Beekes
1982; 1985: 62; apud Mallory / Adams 1997: 385a; Schrijver 1991: 159-160;
Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 352-353. Note that the Baltic evidence justifiably plays
a significant role here. Basing oneself largely on these investigations and paying
additional attention to Lat. mēnsis (-is rather than -us), one may perhaps reconstruct
the following tentative paradigm:
NSg. *méh1n-s-s
AccSg *m(e)h1n-és-m
GSg *m(e)h1n-s-ós.
This is an archaic subtype of the hysterodynamic declension, which is represented
by the word for ‘nose’, also an s-stem; see Beekes 1995: 175, 180. The double s of
the original nominative has been preserved (or secondarily restored?) in Lat. mēnsis
(cf. nāris ‘nostril’, pl. ‘nose’, alongside nās(s)us ‘nose’) and perhaps in Latv.
mẽnesis. In the next stage, the thematic form arose, from which Arm. a-mis, -oy and
IIr. *mās-a- have derived. In Indo-Aryan, there seems to be a semantic opposition
between *mās- ‘moon; month’ and *māsa- ‘month’; see Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996:
352; cf. Scherer 1953: 611. This is comparable to Armenian, where the thematization
is combined with the loss of the original meaning ‘moon’. In Iranian *māha-, the
meaning ‘moon’ could have been restored secondarily.
It is remarkable that the further developments of the Armenian and the Latin
forms are identical. They have both lost the meaning ‘moon’, replaced by
*louksneh2-; cf. Arm. lusin and Lat. lūna, as well as OCS luna.
I conclude, on the basis of PIE *meh1n-s-s ‘moon; month’ (cf. Lat. mēnsis), that a
dialectal (Arm. : IIr.) thematic form *meh1n-s-os ‘month’ arose, which created a
semantic opposition: A. *mēns(s) ‘moon’ : B. *mēns-os ‘month’. Indo-Iranian
retained both, while Armenian eliminated the variant A, replacing it by *louksneh2-
‘moon’, exactly like Latin did, although the latter derived from the older nominative
rather than from the thematic form.
amlik (dial.) ‘a lamb or child of / under one year of age’.
●DIAL The word is found in the meaning ‘little (lamb, child)’ in Loṙi (Ararat) and
Łarabaɫ; see HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 49b, as well as in Goris ämlik ‘a new-born
lamb’ [Margaryan 1975: 375a]. Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 156b) cites only Łarabaɫ ä́mligy ‘a
new-born little lamb’. It is also used in a famous fable of a modern fable-writer, Xnko-Aper: amlik gaṙ ‘amlik lamb’. In the fable it is stated that this lamb is under
one year of age.
Georgian erk’emali ‘a male sheep above one year of age; ram’, attested twice in
the 18th century, was borrowed from Arm. erkeam (Bible+) ‘of two years of age’ <
erki- + am with the same suffixal element, thus: *erki- + *amal-; see s.v. am for
more details.
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB1: 156b) places the Łarabaɫ form under Classical amik ‘a
one-year-old male kid or lamb’ (q.v.), which is obviously derived from Arm. am
‘year’ (< IE *sm̥ H-), but then he adds that it seems to have been borrowed from
Turk. emlik ‘sucking lamb’. I think this is unnecessary, since amlik can easily be
derived from Arm. am with the suffixal element *-li(h2)- and diminutive -ik:
*sm̥ H-l- > Arm *amal-ik > dial. amlik through syncope. An astonishing parallel is
found in the Scandinavian words with a basic meaning ‘one-year-old animal’, which
are of the same origin: OIc. simull, Norw. simla, etc.; see Pokorny 1959: 905. This
might be a late Indo-European innovation shared by Armenian and Germanic,
although one cannot perhaps exclude the possibility of independent developments.
See s.v. am for more details; cf. also Gr. δάμ-αλις, δαμ-άλη ‘young cow’ from
δάμνημι ‘to tame, subdue’, Germ. Jähr-ling.
If the Turkish word is indeed related and if it is not of native Turkic origin, it may
have been borrowed from Armenian.
The resemblance with Arm amaru ‘lamb’ (a Semitic loan) and amnos ‘lamb’ (<
ἀμνός) must be accidental.
*am-orj-i-k‘ ‘testicles’, recorded as a dialectal word in DialAdd apud NHB 2: 1060b
(see also 1: 699a s.v. erku-or-i-k‘ ‘testicles’: z-erku-or-e-a-c‘ in Deuteronomy 25.11,
Cox 1981: 174).
●DIAL Ačaṙyan HAB 3: 582b and Amatuni 1912: 27b record the word without
concrete dialectal data, referring only to NHB. Though still known to NHB (first
half of the 19th century), the word seems to be extinct by the 20th century. It is
present only in literary Modern Armenian: amorjik‘ ‘testicles’, amorj-at-el ‘to
castrate’, amorj-a-mašk ‘scrotum’ [Malxaseanc‘ HBB 1: 68c].
●ETYM Composed of the prefix am- ‘at, with, together’ and *orj-i- ‘testicle’, q.v.
(HAB 3: 582b).
amp (spelled also as amb), o-stem: GDSg amp-o-y, GDPl amp-o-c‘ [In 2
Paralipomenon 5.13-14 (see Xalat‘eanc‘ 1899: 61b), one finds GDSg amp-o-y, but
also IPl amp-a-w-k‘ – next to p‘aṙ-a-w-k‘ “with glory”] ‘cloud’, later also ‘lightning;
sponge’. In some derivatives, perhaps ‘sky’ (see s.v. ampar) and ‘thunder’; see NHB
1: 24 s.vv. ampaharim, ampaharut‘iwn, ampanman, ampawor, amporot. Bible
(numerous attestations), Agat‘angeɫos, etc.
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects, mostly with -b, meaning ‘cloud; rain; sponge,
etc.’. Note the by-form with n, namely anb in Ararat, Dersim and Karin (next to
amb), as well as in Ṙodost‘o [HAB 1: 165; HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 50a]. Note also
Dersim amb, anb ‘rain’ [Baɫramyan 1960: 73b].
●ETYM Hübschmann (1897: 417) connects amp in the first instance to Skt. abhrá- n.
‘thunder-cloud, rain-cloud, blanket of clouds’, Av. aβra- n. ‘cloud; rain’, etc., and
only thereafter mentions Skt. nábhas- n. ‘moisture, thunder-cloud, mass of clouds’, Gr. νέφος n. ‘cloud’, OCS nebo ‘sky’ and the others. See also Pokorny 1959:
315-316 (amp – under *m̥ bh
ro- in close relationship with Gaul. inter ambes ‘inter
rivos’, etc., both Armenian and Celtic being “ohne formantisches r”) and Mallory /
Adams 1997: 477.
The correlation with the latter group (i.e. Gr. νέφος, etc.) is considered by
Greppin (1983: 281) as puzzling. The reason for this confusion is that the Armenian
word does not have the suffix *-ro- and, having an o-stem, can regularly be derived
from PIE s-stem *nebh
os (cf. J̌
ahukyan 1959: 231; Tumanjan 1978: 159; Saradževa
1986: 38-39; Olsen 1999: 45; despite Frisk, according to whom the o-stem can be
secondary), but in the ablaut it has been influenced by the former group, namely
*n̥bh
ro-, which is continued in Arm. amprop ‘thunder(bolt)’ (q.v.). Thus, one might
accept the explanation of amp from *m̥ bh
os (< *n̥bh
os, through labial assimilation),
“a compromise between *m̥ bh
ró- and the original s-stem” [Olsen 1999: 45]. I,
alternatively, propose to assume a generalization of the zero-grade genitive of the
PD paradigm: NSg *nébh
os, GSg *nbh
és-s. This may be confirmed by another
atmospheric term, namely bark ‘lightning’, and, perhaps, by ayt ‘cheek’ (see s.vv.
and 2.2.2.1).
Skt. ámbhas- ‘water’ and Gr. ὄμβρος ‘shower’ remain obscure, see Szemerényi
1964: 241f; Beekes 1969: 74, 79, 92, 93, 140; Euler 1979: 110; Schrijver 1991: 64;
cf., however, Olsen 1999: 4589. Despite this criticism, Clackson (1994: 133) takes
Skt. ámbhas- as the representative cognate to Arm. amb, exactly like Pedersen
(1906: 361 = 1982: 139) did nearly one century ago. Širokov (1980: 82) does the
same, adding also Gr. ὀμφή· πνοή ‘whiff’ (Hesychius), which is semantically
remote. The relation between *Hnebh
- (but Gr. νέφος points to the absence of an
initial laryngeal) and *HVnbh
- can be confirmed when the so-called Schwebeablaut
is justified; Frisk (s.v.) and Mayrhofer (EWAia 1, 1992: 94, 101; 2, 1996: 13) are
more positive in this respect. For the criticism concerning Skt. ambu- n. ‘water’ and
Hitt. alpā- ‘cloud’, I refer to Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 100 and Puhvel HED
1,1984: 37-38, respectively.
For a further discussion of Skt. nabh-, etc., see Sani 1994.
Lat. nimbus ‘cloud’ and Iran. *nam(b)- ‘wet, moist’ (cf. Pahl. nam(b) ‘moist’ >
Arm. nam ‘id.’ [HAB 3: 425], as well as Sogd. nmp [namp/b] ‘dew’, see Gharib
1995: 240a) point to *nembh
- and may be regarded as a reduplicated formation *nenbh
-, or *ne-n-bh
-, with a nasal-infix (see Szemerényi 1964: 2421, 2431, with ref.), or
simply with a nasal-epenthesis. This is reminiscent of some forms of the PIE term
for ‘nit’, namely Lat. lens and Lith. glìnda from *gnind-, next to the basic *K/Gnid-
(see s.v. anic ‘nit, louse egg’).
Toch. B eprer ‘atmosphere, sky, firmament’, iprer ‘sky, air’ is said to belong to
the words under discussion (albeit considered uncertain in Adams 1999: 65, 90).
Regardless of whether this is true or not, it rather seems to be related to Skt.
ámbara- n. ‘Luftraum’ (not mentioned by Mayrhofer in the context of abhrá- and
others), and I wonder why this connection is unnoticed. The semantics is
straightforward; the anlaut could be explained from *Ho- (?); a trace of the nasal can
be found, cf. van Windekens 1941: 21 (“i < e prouve la présence originelle de la
nasale”). Although Arm. amb is the etymologically expected variant [HAB1: 163], in
reality, however, the older and main spelling is amp [Greppin 1983: 281; Olsen
1999: 4589, cf. also 70145, 97203]. Szemerényi (1964: 2422) tries to explain this by the
influence of əmpem ‘to drink’, which does not seem very probable to me. According
to Greppin (1983: 281), “the spelling discrepancy is based on the later erratic
voicing found in -NC- clusters”; cf. also Pedersen1906: 361= 1982: 139; Olsen
1999: 70145, 97203. This is not entirely satisfactory either, because of the absence of
such a discrepancy in other cases, cf. lamb ‘ring’, xumb ‘group’, kumb- ‘emboss’,
etc. It is remarkable that both Gr. ὄμβρος and amprop (as well as Skt. ambu- ‘water’
and ámbara- ‘Luftraum’?; see above) point to *b instead of *bh
. For the Greek word,
this is explained by regular deaspiration after the sonant in an accented syllable; cf.
Olsen 1999: 4589 in the context of the Greek word and Arm. amp (referring to
Schwyzer). This is often criticised; see the references above with respect to Greek.
Perhaps the assumption should be hypothetically restated as follows: the voiced
aspirated stops are deaspirated in a post-nasal position and before *r in Greek and
Armenian; thus, *-mbh
ro- > *-mbro- ( > Arm. *-mpro-, since p is the regular
outcome of *b). Whatever the details (note also the enigmatic initial o- in the Greek
form), if Arm. -p- can be explained this way, we could consider amp as influenced
by amprop, which would semantically be quite plausible.
One of the basic meanings of PIE *nebh
os is ‘sky’; cf. Hitt. nēpiš-, OCS nebo,
etc. , as well as some forms going back to *n̥bh
ro-: Oss. arv, Khot. LSg. o(r)ña. For
the semantic shift ‘cloud’ > ‘sky’, see Frisk 2, 1970: 310; Beekes apud Mallory /
Adams 1997: 110; Cheung 2002: 154. The underlying root is *nebh
- ‘befeuchten’
[Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 13]. Armenian may have preserved (or developed
secondarily) this meaning; see s.v. ampar.
ampar ‘planet’.
Mentioned only in Ališan 1910: 122: ampar asteɫk‘ ‘the seven planets’, from an
unspecified author, who in turn is said to have taken it from Eɫišē, probably
“Meknut‘iwn groc‘n cnndoc‘” (Commentary on Genesis), as is the previous citation
of Ališan’s text.
●ETYM The interpretation of the word as an-par ‘motionless’, suggested by the same
author, is not accepted by Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 163), who gives no comments. The
inclusion of par into this etymology seems attractive, since par refers to the
movement of the stars, too (see NHB 1: 383b; 2: 625b), and Ališan himself is aware
of that, cf. Ališan 1910: 118. However, the meaning ‘motionless’ is the opposite of
what one would use describing the planets. Note also anpar, denoting persons who
cannot dance properly, in Philo apud NHB 1: 229a. Thus, if ampar contains par, the
first part of the word should be identified as the prefix am- or something else, but
not as the privative an-.
I know of no other etymological proposals.
As we have seen, the postulation of par is possible. Nevertheless, I alternatively
propose a connection of ampar ‘planet’ with amp ‘cloud’ and amprop ‘thunder’
(q.v.). In the first instance, the relation seems semantically unmotivated. However,
one should bear in mind that some of the cognates, both with and without *-ro-
(Hitt. nēpiš-, OCS nebo, Oss. arv, etc), mean ‘sky’; so, according to this etymology,
the basic meaning of ampar would be ‘the heavenly one’ or ‘heavenly’; cf. OIc. himintungl ‘Himmelskörper’, OHG himilzungal ‘Gestirn’, etc. (see Scherer 1953:
35-36). Formed with the suffix -ar (or reshaped under its influence), for which cf.
especially asteɫk‘ molark‘ ‘planets’ and asteɫk‘ anmolark‘ ‘stars’ from mol-ar
‘erroneous’ (see NHB 1: 204b; 2: 293a; also anmolar asteɫk‘ used by Vanakan
Vardapet, 12-13th cent., see Xač‘ikyan 1941: 162aL8-9, 166aL1-2); perhaps also Pers.
axtar ‘star; horoscope; name of a lunar station’.
Other possible (albeit highly hypothetical) relics of the meaning ‘sky’ might be
seen in some derivatives, where the meaning ‘cloud’ of amp makes less sense:
amp-a-goyn ‘cloud-coloured’ or ‘cloud-like’ (in Greppin 1983: 281: ‘like a
cloud’). In 2 Maccabees 1.22, referring to šoɫ ‘ray’ of aregakn ‘sun’. Thus, amp
would make sense here with the meaning ‘shiny sky’ or the like. However, the
Greek text has ἐπι-νεφής ‘clouded, dark; bringing clouds’ (from νέφος ‘cloud’), and
amp-a-goyn may be created after the Greek. E.g., to my mother, Ženya Simonyan
(village Erazgavors, in the vicinity of Leninakan/Gyumri), dial. ambaguyn means
‘sky-blue’;
T‘ovma Arcruni (9-10th cent.) 2.7: AblSg y-amp-oy-n, translated in ModArm. as
‘from the sky’ (said of the falling snow) [V. Vardanyan 1985: 192/193]; this is
ambiguous, of course. Thomson (1985: 187) has “from the clouds”.
dial. ampažeṙ (Ararat) ‘light blue’ [HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 50b]; for the
component *žeṙ cf. karmr-žeṙ (Bulanəx of Muš), with karmir ‘red’ [S. Movsisyan
1972: 20a];
dial. ampik (Papen) ‘a kind of bluish grape’ (see HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 50b).
amprop, a-stem: GDPl amprop-a-c‘ in Job 38.25 (Astuacaturean 1895: 60a has
amprap-ac‘, but cf. Cox 2006: 245), Book of Chries, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i
‘thunder’.
Renders Gr. κυδοιμός ‘din of battle, uproar, hubbub’ in Job 38.25 (Cox 2006:
245). Attested also in Grigor Narekac‘i, “Čaṙəntir”, etc.
●ETYM From PIE *n̥bh
ro-: Skt. abhrá- n., rarely m. ‘thunder-cloud, rain-cloud,
blanket of clouds’, YAv. aβra- n. ‘rain-cloud’, Khot. ora- ‘sky’, Lat. imber, GSg.
imbris ‘shower’, etc. [Dervischjan 1877: 94; HAB 1: 163; Aɫabekyan 1979: 47, 55;
J
̌
ahukyan 1982: 37, 132, 218; Greppin 1983: 281-282]. For the cognates and a
discussion, especially of the internal -p-, see s.v. amp ‘cloud’. Since the connection
with amp is certain and is accepted by everyone including Ačaṙyan, one should note
that, in fact, the etymology was first recognized by NHB and J̌
axǰaxean.
The thematic vowel *-o- was accented [J̌
ahukyan 1982: 132], and the metathesis
of r is blocked by the preceding nasal (ibid. 218103). Not mentioning this analysis,
Olsen (1999: 72) cautiously proposed a different one: amp ‘cloud’ + IE *-(h)robah2-.
However, -ro- in amprop goes directly back to *n̥bh
ro- (a way-out for Olsen’s
proposal would be haplology of -ro-ro-).
Thus, the problem of the final -p remains. Perhaps it arose due to some kind of
“broken reduplication” inspired by the (seeming) analogy of andund ‘abyss’ (q.v.).
Furthermore, one should take into account the possible influence of another word of
closer semantics with a final -b/p, viz. t‘uɫb/t‘uxp ‘cloud; fog’. However, the
direction of the possible influence is hard to determine in view of the etymological
uncertainty of t‘uɫb/p. One may therefore merely assume a perseveration (see
2.1.28): PIE *n̥bh
ro- > PArm. *amb/pro- > ampro-p.
amul, o-stem: GDSg aml-o-y, GDPl aml-o-c‘ (Bible+) ‘sterile, childless’ (Bible+; 18
attestations in the Bible, Astuacaturean 1895: 58a), ‘barren’ (Agat‘angeɫos,
Yovhannēs Ōjnec‘i, Nersēs Šnorhali, Čaṙəntir).
●DIAL Karin, Muš amul, Sebastia amur with r due to contamination with amur
‘hard’ [HAB 1: 160b] (probably also with amuri ‘unmarried’).
●ETYM Composed of the privative prefix an- < PIE *n̥- and PArm. *fōl- ‘kid, child’,
cf. ul ‘kid’ (q.v.), Gr. πῶλος m. f. ‘young horse, foal; young girl, youth’, etc. (Meillet
1922c; 1930: 184; 1936: 48; Pokorny 1959: 843; J̌
ahukyan 1967: 236; 1987: 145,
487; Ravnæs 1991: 146-147; Praust 1996: 193-194; Mallory/Adams 1997: 56b;
Beekes 2003: 172; cf. Dumézil 1938: 241; Greppin 1983: 280). See further s.vv.
amuri ‘unmarried’, suk‘ ‘childless, sterile’.
The alternative derivation from IE *n̥-putlo- with Skt. a-pútra- ‘sonless’ (Olsen
1989: 235) is improbable; one rather expects Arm. *amuwɫ > *amuɫ from it. The
interpretation of Pisani 1944: 159 as an- + *mulo- (cf. Skr. mūla-m ‘root’, thus ‘rootless’) is untenable. I see no reason to abandon the etymology of Meillet, even though
it has not been accepted by Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 160).7
amuri, ea-stem: GDSg amurw-o-y (Job 24.21), GDPl amure-a-c‘ (1 Corinthians 7.8)
‘unmarried, single, widowed; unmarried woman’ (Job 24.21, 1 Corinthians 7.8),
‘wifeless’ (Nersēs Šnorhali, 12th cent.).
In 1 Corinthians 7.8 amuri and ayri render Gr. ἄγαμος ‘unmarried’ and χήρα
‘widow’, respectively: amureac‘n ew ayreac‘n asem : λέγω δὲ τοῖς ἀγάμοις καὶ ταῖς
χήραις.
In Job 24.21 we find amul and amuri rendering Gr. στεῖρα ‘infertile (woman)’ and
γύναιον ‘woman’, respectively: zi amloyn bari oč‘ arar, ew amurwoyn oč‘
oɫormec‘aw “for he did not treat well the barren woman, and had no pity on the
young one” : στεῖραν γὰρ οὐκ εὐ̃ἐποίησεν καὶ γύναιον οὐκ ἠλἐησεν (Cox 2006: 171).
●DIAL No dialectal record in HAB 1: 162a.
In the late medieval dictionary Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ (see Amalyan 1975: 219Nr410) one
finds moṙi rendering amuri; in some manuscripts (408410): moṙi· amuri, kam ankin
mard “unmarried, or wifeless man”. I think this form betrays a dialectal form in
Łarabaɫ and surroundings. The loss of the initial pretonic vowel (see 2.1.33.2) and
the sound change -ú- > -ɔ- are regular in this dialectal area. For some examples of
the development r > ṙ in Łarabaɫ and Meɫri, see Davt‘yan 1966: 68 and Aɫayan
1954: 93, respectively.
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 162a) rejects all the etymological suggestions and leaves
the origin of the word open. In Armeniaca Nr. 61 (HAB 4: 669) he claims that amuri
refers to ‘wifeless man’ and interprets it as *an-moyri, composed of the privative
prefix an- and an otherwise unattested word *moyri ‘wife, woman, girl’, cf. Gr.
μεῖραξ ‘girl’, Lat. marīta ‘wife’, Lith. mergà ‘girl’, martì f. ‘bride, young woman’,
etc., also Arm. mari ‘female bird, hen’ (q.v.).
However, the Biblical attestations seem to point to a basic meaning ‘unmarried or
widowed (woman)’; the meaning ‘wifeless’ is attested only in Middle Armenian.
The etymology should therefore be viewed as semantically improbable, unless one
assumes ‘husbandless’ starting with Skt. márya- m. ‘young man, young warrior’, Lat. marītus ‘married; husband, mate’, etc. Note, however, that the vocalism is
uncertain, too.
The derivation from *an-potro-iyo- (Adontz 1937: 12) or better *n̥-putr-iyo-
(Dumézil 1938: 241; Godel 1975: 79), with a semantic development ‘qui n’a pas
enfanté’ > ‘célibataire’ (Adontz ibid.) or ‘mâle sans enfant légal’ > ‘homme sans
famille propre, non marié’ (Dumézil ibid.) is largely accepted, see J̌
ahukyan 1987:
145, 188 (with hesitation); Ravnæs 1991: 146-147; Beekes 2003: 172. However, this
etymology is formally uncertain; Skt. putrá- ‘son’ is usually derived from *putlo-
(but note Lat. puer ‘boy’, cf. Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 142-143; for a critical
analysis of the etymology, see Olsen 1999: 447, cf. 446). Neither the semantics
seems to me convincing.
I tentatively suggest to interpret amuri as composed of the privative prefix anand PArm. (otherwise unattested) *wir- ‘man, husband’ (cf. Lith. výras ‘man,
husband’, OHG wer ‘man, husband’, Lat. vir ‘man, male; husband’, Skt. vīrá-
‘man’, etc. 8
In view of the absence of the development IE *-nu̯- > Arm. *-ng- we
may assume that the compound has been made at a later stage: *an-wir-íya-
‘husbandless’ > *am(w)uiríya- > amuri, -ea-. This proto-form is structurally and
semantically parallel to QIE *n̥-Hnēr-íeh2- ‘husbandless’ > PArm. *an(an)iríya- >
ayri, -ea- ‘widow’ (q.v.).
ayg, u-stem (cf. also -oy) ‘morning’.
Attested abundantly since the Classical period, also in many derivatives, such as
aygun, ayguc‘, y-ayg-u-ē, z-aygoy ‘in the morning’, c‘-ayg ‘night’ (< “till dawn”),
z-c‘ayg ‘at night’ (all attested in the Bible).
The word has mainly a u-stem. In the Classical period, a form of the o declension
is used by Agat‘angeɫos: ənd aygoyn aṙawōtanaln. In P‘awstos Buzand 4.10
(1883=1984: 86L-1; transl. Garsoïan 1989: 131): ənd aygs aygoyn “at early dawn”.
For z-aygoy ‘in the morning’, see Weitenberg 1989: 63, and below.
●DIAL Dialectally preserved almost exclusively in derivatives and compounds:
*ayguan, *ayguc‘, etc.; see HAB 1: 165-166; HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 52b. In
Hamšen äkvɔn, äkvənä, äkvənc‘u ‘in the morning’; ɛkuc‘, ɛk‘unc‘ ‘tomorrow’
[Ačaṙyan 1947: 220]. According also to HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 33a, Hamšen akvon
means ‘morning’, but the textual illustration has akvnc‘u (adv.).
In view of ClArm. y-ayg- and MidArm. y-eg-uc‘, J̌
uɫa h’ɛkuc‘ and Agulis
hɛɔ́
gy
üc‘, yɛɔ́
gy
üc‘ (HAB 1: 165-166) may be reconstructed as *y-ayg-uc‘.
The compound aygahoɫ is attested in Aṙak‘el Davrižec‘i (17th cent.) and is
represented in a number of dialects: Bulanəx ɛk‘hoɫ, Zeyt‘un, Muš, etc. ak‘ɔxk‘ <
*ayg-hoɫ-k‘ ‘ceremony at the next morning after the funeral’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 90b;
HAB 1: 165ab], Sivri-Hisar ɛk‘ɔxk‘ or agoɫk‘ [PtmSivHisHay 1965: 454, 460a].
Composed of ayg ‘morning’ and hoɫ ‘earth’ (HAB); cf. also MidArm. and dial.
hoɫ-k‘ ‘cemetery’ [HAB 3: 112a]. Some Eastern dialects have an epenthetic -n-:
Łarabaɫ ik‘návəɛɫ, Ararat ɛk‘nafɔ́
ɫɛk‘ (< *ayg-n-a-hoɫ-ay-k‘), etc.
Baɫramyan (1960: 110a) interprets Xarberd (K‘ɫi) akɔxk‘, agɔɫk‘ ‘ceremony at the
next morning after the funeral’ as composed of akn ‘eye’ and oɫok‘ ‘supplication’. This view cannot be accepted. The word is certainly identical with *ayg-hoɫ-k‘
above.
The initial nasal of J̌
uɫa nagnaxoɫ (see Ačaṙean 1940: 79, 159, 352) is perhaps due
to anticipation. Šamaxi ink‘nahɔɫ (HAB) may be explained by anticipation and/or
folk-etymological reinterpretation as containing ink‘(n) ‘himself’; the loss of the
inital in- in k‘nahɔɫ (HAB; Baɫramyan 1964: 186) may be due to reinterpretation, as
being composed of k‘un ‘sleep’ and hoɫ ‘earth’. Further, see 2.1.37.
For the epenthetic nasal also seen in Łarabaɫ ik‘nárɔt ‘taking the cattle to
pasturing before the dawn’ [HAB 1: 166a], see 2.1.30.1.
Remarkable is Van ɛk‘-parɛw < *ayg-barew “dawn-greeting”, which denotes the
following ritual: the morning following the wedding, the bride, the groom and the
musicians go onto the roof, singing and greeting the sunrise (see HAB 1: 166a;
Ačaṙyan 1952: 46, 244). The text of the song from the village of Artamet starts with
this line: ɛg barew, ɛg barew [Haykuni 1906: 30]. The variant recorded by
Ter-Mkrtč‘yan (1970: 183a) reads: ɛg pärew, a!y ɛg pärew. As is explicitly
interpreted by Ter-Mkrtč‘yan (1970: 183b), this should be understood as “O
Morning/Dawn, hail!” One may therefore assume that, here, ɛg-barew is not a
compound, and that we are in fact dealing with the only independent dialectal
testimony of the word ayg as an archaic relic preserved in this ritual formula. The
formula itself, thus, must be very old.
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 165b) mentions many etymological proposals, but does
not accept any of them. Among those proposals, one should mention that of
Patrubány (StugHetaz, 1905: 158), who suggested a connection with Gr. αἰών
‘Leben(szeit), Zeit(dauer), lange Zeit’, Skt. ā́yu- ‘lifetime’, etc. The phonological
development seems impeccable: PIE NSg*h2(e)iu̯̯-ōn > Arm. *aygu(n) > ayg, -u, cf.
LSg aygun ‘in the morning’ (cf. Olsen 1999: 108222; the origin of -un is not
specified). However, the semantics is not clear. Although the meanings ‘time’ and
‘day’ may relate to each other (cf. Arm. awr ‘day; (life)time’ and, if cognate, OIr.
amm ‘time’), I am not sure whether the direction ‘time’ > ‘day’ is probable. Besides,
ayg means ‘morning’ and not ‘day’. Thus, the etymology is uncertain.
J̌
ahukyan (1973: 17) derives ayg from IE *ai- (= *h2ei-) ‘to burn, shine’.
However, -g is unexplained. Later J̌
ahukyan himself seems to doubt the etymology,
since he excludes the word from the list of the native words (1987: 111-157) and
mentions it with a question mark in p. 295, where he hesitantly assumes that Finnish
aika ‘time’ may have been borrowed from Arm. ayg. Nor is this etymology certain.
Ačaṙyan compares ayg with Gr. Att. ἕως, Ion. ἠώς ‘dawn’, but rejects the
connection for phonological reasons. (On the other cognates and the reconstruction,
see s.v. aṙawawt ‘morning’). Clackson (1994: 22398) developed the same
connection, without a specific reference to Ačaṙyan’s comparison. He derives ayg
from the locative *h2(e)us(s)i, which is very plausible. One agrees with Kortlandt
(2003: 119) in characterizing this etymology as “highly attractive”.
In my own view, however, *h2(e)us(s)i should yield *(h)aw. The alternative
proposed by Olsen (1999: 108) involves a complicated development: *h2áuso ̯ ̄s >
*au̯hu- > *auu̯ ̯u- > (through dissimilation) > *aiu̯̯u- > *aygu-. This is not
convincing. Perhaps a later thematization would solve the problem: PArm. *awi̯o- >
ayg seems to be easier (cf. also s.v. ēg and 2.1.27.1). It would also explain the o-stem, which cannot otherwise continue a PIE *-os, since this word is not a neuter.
Cf. also (z)aygoy ‘in the morning’, which seems to be a secondary locative in *-i,
based on the same thematic form; thus, *aygo-i > z-aygoy, or simply GDPl
functioning as an “endungslos” locative without preposition i/y- cf. de Lamberterie’s
explanation of erekoy, q.v. The influence of erekoy ‘evening’ is perhaps not
excluded (cf. Olsen 1999: 108-109). Note, however, that the morphology of z-aygoy
and erekoy is synchronically different, since the former functions in the Classical
period as an adverb, while the latter does not. The more frequent u-stem may reflect
PArm. *awuh (> *aw- seen perhaps in aṙ-aw-awt, q.v.) from PIE NSg (HD)
*h2éu̯-s-ōs; cf. Clackson 1994: 226136.
The absence of an initial h- may be due to constructions with z- and y-, and the
generalization of the zero grade of the oblique stem; see also s.v. *aɫǰ-; cf.,
particularly, the above-mentioned hypothetical *h2usii ̯ ̯o- > Arm. *aygo-, a
thematization based on the old locative.
I conclude:
NSg *h2éu̯-s-ōs > PArm. *awu > *aw, u-stem (cf. aṙ-aw-awt)
GSg *h2u̯s-s-ós
LSg *h2u̯s-s-i > PArm. *aw(h)i > (thematization) *awi̯-o- > *aygo- > ayg, o-stem
>> u-stem, generalized from *aw-u.
See also s.v. anagan.
aygi, ea-stem: GDSg aygw-o-y, LocSg y-aygw-oǰ, GDPl ayge-a-c‘, AblPl y-ayge-a-c‘,
LocPl y-aygi-s (rich evidence in the Bible, see Astuacaturean 1895: 62-63); o-stem:
ISg aygwov (only 1 Maccabees 14.12) ‘vineyard; vine’ (Bible+); perhaps also
‘grapes’ (dial.); ayge- < *aygi-a- and ayg-a- in a number of compounds (Bible+).
Abundant in the Bible, rendering Gr. ἄμπελος f. ‘grape-vine, Vitis vinifera’ or
ἀμπελών m. ‘vineyard’. A textual illustration from Deuteronomy 8.8 (Cox 1981:
112): erkir c‘orenoy ew garoy aygeac‘ : γῆ πυροῦ καὶ κριϑῆς, ἄμπελοι. For the full
passage, see s.v. gari ‘barley’. For the meaning ‘grape-vine’, note Hosea 10.1: Aygi
taštawor ptɫalic‘ Israyēl : ἄμπελος εὐκληματοῦσα Ισραηλ.
Many compound place-names (see HayTeɫBaṙ 1, 1986: 226-229), based on the
dialectal variant *e/igi (see below). For the attestations of the forms aygi, ēgi, and igi
in inscriptions, etc., see H. Muradyan 1972: 93-94; Hobosyan 2004.
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects, mainly meaning ‘garden’: Erznka ɛk‘i
[Kostandyan 1979: 128a], Agulis ɛ́
gy
i (for the paradigm, see Ačaṙean 1935: 333), pl.
əgy
ənáni, əgy
ənä́nik‘, Aslanbek, Ṙodost‘o, Xarberd, Tigranakert, C‘ɫna ɛk‘i, Akn
ɛg‘i, Maraɫa, Salmast ɛk‘y
i, Hačən ɛg‘g‘i, Zeyt‘un ɛg‘ɛ, T‘iflis igi, J̌
uɫa ig‘i, Van iky
i,
Ararat ik‘i [HAB 1: 166b].
Next to Van ikyi one finds Ozim hɛ̃
gɛ [HAB 1: 166b; Ačaṙyan 1952: 244], Šatax
hikyi [M. Muradyan 1962: 191b], Moks hɛk
y
ə
ə
(see below), as well as Muš h’ɛg‘i
(HAB, ibid.), Aštarak hik‘i, which has been replaced by baɫ in the village of Ōšakan
(see Baɫdasaryan-T‘ap‘alc‘yan 1971: 218). These forms seem to point to a by-form
*y-aygi (see 2.3.1).
Moks hɛkyəə, GSg hɛky
ü, NPl hɛk
y
iky ‘виноградник; сад фруктовый’ [Orbeli
2002: 276]. In a Moks proverb the word seems to refer to ‘grapes’: Hɛk
y
ü sirun t‘up‘
kələzə
ɛ
[Orbeli 2002: 120Nr69]; Orbeli (op. cit. 182Nr100; 1982: 118Nr100) translates it as
follows: “Из любви к винограду лижет и куст!”. ●ETYM Connected with Gr. οἴη f. ‘service-tree’, Lat. ūva ‘grapes’, Russ. íva
‘willow’, Czech jíva ‘willow’, SCr. ȉva ‘willow’, Lith. ievà ‘bird-cherry’, etc. [Lidén
1905-06: 500-503; HAB 1: 166b]. The BSl. forms point to *h1eiH-ueh2- or
*h1eh1i-ueh2- [Derksen 1996: 139]. PArm. *ayg(a)- ‘grapes’ (cf. Ačaṙyan’s
considerations on ayg-a-wēt in HAB 1: 166b, as well as the meaning ‘grapes’ in
Latin and, probably, the Armenian dialect of Moks) probably goes back to PIE
*h1h1i-ueh2- or *h1oh1i-ueh2- or *h1oih1-ueh2-. On the vocalism, see 2.1.5. Arm.
ayg-i ‘vineyard, garden’ is thus an i-derivative of *ayg- ‘grapes, vine’. Typologically
compare xaɫoɫ ‘grapes’ : *xaɫoɫ-ut > Hamšen havöɫut ‘vineyard, garden’ (see
Ačaṙyan 1947: 233).
For the semantic development ‘(grape)vine’ > ‘garden’ cf. NPers. raz ‘grapevine’
next to Av. razura- ‘forest, thicket’ (< *‘branchy place’), Russ. lozá ‘vine’, etc. (see
Mallory/Adams 1997: 80b); cf. Sasun ṙäz ‘vineyard’ [Petoyan 1954: 155; 1965:
521], Moks ṙäz [Orbeli 2002: 318], borrowed from Persian (or Kurdish).
ayl, o-stem: GSg ayl-o-y, DLocSg ayl-um, AblSg y-ayl-m-ē, ISg ayl-o-v, GDPl ayl-oc‘, IPl ayl-o-v-k‘ ‘other; alien, foreign; also; but, however; then’ (Bible+).
For abundant evidence for ayl, ayl imn/inč‘/ok‘, and the like, for reciprocal or
distributive expressions ayl ayl, ayl ew ayl, ayl ayloy, ayl aylum, ayl ənd ayl, ayl ənd
ayloy (cf. Gr. ἄλλος ἄλλον, Lat. alius alius, alius alium ‘one another’, Skt. anyó
anyá-, etc., Mawet 1990: 64; 1992: 157), as well as for numerous derivatives and
compounds, see NHB 1: 82-90; Astuacaturean 1895: 64-66; Mawet 1990.
●DIAL Dialectally ubiquitous, used also as enclitic and proclitic [HAB 1: 168-169].
●ETYM Since Schröder, Awetik‘ean, NHB, etc., connected with Gr. ἄλλος ‘other’,
Lat. alius, -a, -ud ‘another’, OIr. aile ‘second, other’, alaile ‘other’, Toch. B alye-k
alle-k ‘other, another’, Skt. áraṇa- ‘strange, far’, áraṇya- n. ‘wilderness, desert,
jungle’, cf. anyá- ‘other, different, alien’, ārá- m. n. ‘distance’, etc. (Hübschmann
1897: 417; HAB 1: 168; Pokorny 1959: 25; Frisk 1: 75-77; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 132;
Mawet 1990; 1992; Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 80, 107-108, 173; Schrijver 1995:
19, 321-324; Mallory/Adams 1997: 64a, 411; Adams 1999: 28-29). For the adverbial
use in the meaning ‘but, however’ cf. Gr. ἀλλά (acc. pl. used as adverb) ‘but,
however’, Goth. alja ‘but’ (HAB 1: 168b; Godel 1975: 8165; Schmitt 1981: 161,
210; Lehmann 1986: 27b; Mawet 1990: 60).
On the problem of l : ɫ and the spelling variant ayɫ, see NHB 1: 83a; Meillet 1911:
209; 1936: 47; HAB 1: 168b; Aɫayan 1961: 75, 81; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 25.
For an extensive discussion and references on the problem of *-li̯- > -yl- instead
of *-ɫǰ-, see HAB 1: 168b; for a further discussion and other examples, see Schmitt
1981: 77; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 71-72; Ravnæs 1991: 33-36; Olsen 1999: 795-798;
Beekes 2003: 161-162, 211. According to Godel (1975: 81, 87; see also Greppin
1983: 283), this may have been the normal development after a. Compare oɫǰ
‘whole, sound’ (q.v.) from *ol-i̯o-, cf. OIr. uile ‘whole’. Further see s.vv. da(y)l
‘colostrum, beestings’, jayn ‘voice, sound’. Note, however, gaɫǰ ‘lukewarm’ if from
*ul̯̥-i̯V- vs. gol, possibly i-stem ‘id.’ (q.v.).
The IE cognate forms point to a full-grade *h2el-io- (Schrijver 1991: 40; Beekes
2003: 162, 211). This proto-form would yield Arm. *hayl, however. One may
assume a derivation from or contamination from *h2ol-io-, cf. Lat. ollus ‘ille’, uls ‘beyond’, ultrā ‘on the other side of, beyond’, OIr. ol ‘beyond’, etc. (on which see
Schrijver 1991: 51, 68, 317).9
For the declension of the Armenian word and especially for dat.-loc. ayl-um and
abl. y-ayl-m-ē, see Meillet 1913: 66; 1936: 90-91; Godel 1975: 35-36; Schmitt 1981:
126-127; Clackson 1994: 63, 21220. For an extensive philological (in particular,
semantic) discussion of Arm. ayl and the PIE term, see Mawet 1990 and 1992,
respectively.
ayc, i-stem: GDPl ayc-i-c‘ (Bible+); ayc-i (Cyril of Jerusalem, Yovhan Mandakuni/
Mayragomec‘i, Commentary on Genesis), pl. ayc-i-k‘ : GDPl ayce-a-c‘ (abundant in
the Bible) ‘goat’, more frequently ‘she-goat’; ayce-amn, GDSg ayceman ‘gazelle,
roe’ (Bible+); ayc-eni ‘of goatskin’ (Bible+).
GDPl ayceac‘ is attested in the Bible more than 30 times, whereas aycic‘ – only a
few [Astuacaturean 1895: 66ab], and NSg ayc-i occurs only in Cyril of Jerusalem,
Yovhan Mandakuni/Mayragomec‘i and in Commentary on Genesis, in all of them in
apposition with awdi ‘sheep’. Note that these are the only attestations also for sg.
awdi, which appears in the Bible always as pl. tant.: APl awdi-s and GDPl
awde-a-c‘ [Astuacaturean 1895: 1554b]. Further, *ayci- is seen in ayce-amn
‘gazelle, roe’, which renders Gr. δορκάς in the Bible and contains a suffix -(a)mn,
used in other animal names, too [Clackson 1994: 89].
For ayc-eni ‘of goatskin’ (Bible+) cf. Moks (see below).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects. In Zeyt‘un and Muš, as in ClArm., ayc refers to
the female (3+ years) [HAB 1: 170a]. The same holds for Šatax ɛc, which refers to
the mother-goat according to M. Muradyan (1962: 83), probably also for Moks ɛc,
glossed as ‘коза = nanny-goat’ in Orbeli 2002: 224.
Moks ɛcnə
ɛ ‘of goatskin’, found in a riddle describing the shoes (see Orbeli 2002:
126Nr16(44)), is comparable with classical ayceni ‘id.’.
●ETYM Since NHB (1: 90b), linked with Gr. αἴξ, αἰγός f. ‘goat’, YAv. īzaēna-
‘leathern’, etc. [Hübschmann 1881: 176-177; 1897: 417; HAB 1: 169b]. Probably
ayc, i-stem derives from fem. *h2(e)iĝ-ih2-, and ayci-k‘ (ea-stem) – from
*h2(e)iĝ-ieh2-; cf. Gr. (Laconian) *αἶζα, on which see s.v. tik ‘*goat’s skin’. For the
philological and etymological discussion I refer to Clackson 1994: 88-90. Note also
Alb. dhi f. ‘(she-)goat’, probably from *a(i)ĝ-ii̯eh2 [Orel 1994: 358; Demiraj 1997:
160]. See also s.v. gort and 3.5.2.1. Note that Arm. ayc mostly refers to ‘she-goat’ in
ClArm., and this meaning is still seen in the dialects of Zeyt‘un, Muš, Šatax and
Moks. The Armenian form, like the Avestan one, may have derived from zero grade
*h2iĝ- > *Hyĝ-, with -y- analogically after NSg *h2eiĝ- (see 2.1.5). We may be
dealing with a Kulturwort (for the discussion and references, see Kortlandt 1986: 38
= 2003: 68; Clackson 1994: 2183).
ClArm. ayc-eni and Moks ɛcnə
ɛ ‘of goatskin’ can be compared with YAv. īzaēna-
‘leathern’.
ayo ‘yes’ (Bible, Agat‘angeɫos, Ephrem, Dionysius Thrax, Grigor Narekac‘i, Grigor
Magistros, etc.); often accented ayó [NHB 1: 93a; Astuacaturean 1895: 66-67];
sometimes ayoy, e.g. in Daniel 3.91 (Cowe 1992: 176), Dionysius Thrax (also with an initial h-), etc. Already in the 12th century, ayo was an extinct form, replaced by
ha [HAB 1: 170b; 3: 3a], q.v.
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 170-171) considers ayo as an onomatopoeic word and
mentions similar forms in different languages. He also points out that the notion
‘yes’ has often a secondary origin or is simply absent from language inventories.
The onomatopoeic origin of ayo ‘yes’ is probable. Note that the synonym ha is
certainly onomatopoeic, cf. Georg. ho, Turk. he, etc. (HAB 3: 3a). Nevertheless, I
putatively propose to derive Arm. ayo ‘yes’ from PIE *h2oiu- ‘life, age, eternity’, cf.
Skt. ā́yu- n. ‘life, lifetime’, Av. āiiu- n. ‘life, lifetime, time’ (gen.sg. OAv. yaoš,
dat.sg. OAv. yauuōi, yauuē, YAv. yauue), OAv. yauuaē-jī- adj. ‘living forever’ (cf.
Arm. yawēž, i-stem, Iranian loanword), Gr. αἰών m. ‘lifetime, time, duration’, Lat.
aevum n. (also aevus m.) ‘lifetime, eternity’, etc. Intervocalic *-i̯- has been
preserved, perhaps due to (secondarily) onomatopoeic nature and/or the accent:
*h2oiu- > PArm. *ayú > ayó (*u > o due to lowering influence of *a).
For the typology of making words meaning ‘ever; yes’ and ‘never; no(t)’, see
Cowgill 1960; see also s.v. oč‘ ‘not’. Compare also Arm. Hung. *kenōk‘ (lit. IPl of
kean-k‘ ‘life’), Modern Colloquial Armenian kyank‘um ‘never’ (< *‘in the life, in
lifetime’).
Admitting the onomatopoeic origin of Arm. ayo, N. Mkrtč‘yan (1984: 81-82)
mentions Arab. aiu̯̯a, Coptic haio ‘yes’.
ay-s ‘this’, etc.
See s.v. *s(a/o)- ‘this’.
ays, o-stem (in Irenaeus: u-stem) ‘wind; (evil) spirit’ (Bible+).
Astuacaturean (1895: 67b) cites 46 attestations of ays in the meaning ‘spirit’ in
the Bible, whereas the meaning ‘wind’ occurs only once, in Psalms 10.7 (omitted in
Astuacaturean, ibid., although the passage is cited in 257a and 258a, s.vv. bažak and
bažin): ays mrrik bažin bažaki noc‘a (see Zōhrapean 1805, 3: 21). This passage
seems to correspond to Psalms 11.6 in RevStBibl (“a scorching wind shall be the
portion of their cup”) and 10.6 in Septuaginta (Rahlfs): πνεῦμα καταιγίδος ἡ μερὶς
τοῦ ποτηρίου αὐτῶν.
In his commentary on Psalms, Vardan Arewelc‘i (13th cent.) comments upon this
passage: ays, or ē hoɫm “ays, that is hoɫm ‘wind’”. Elsewhere in Psalms, namely
106.25 and 148.8, the same πνεῦμα καταιγίδος is rendered as hoɫm ew mrrik. In these
three passages, thus, πνεῦμα corresponds twice to hoɫm and once to ays. For the
parallelism between ays and hoɫm, cf. also Vardan’s commentary; see above.
The only other attestation of ays in the meaning ‘wind’ is found in the
well-known passage from Eznik Koɫbac‘i (5th cent.): Yoržam mek‘ asemk‘ t‘ē sik‘
šnč‘ē, storneayk‘ asen – ays šnč‘ē “Whereas we say sik‘ blows, the lowers (i.e.
southerners) say ays blows”. On storneayk‘ ‘lowers’ rather than asorneayk‘
‘Syrians’ see HAB 1: 172a; A. A. Abrahamyan 1994: 307-308185. In Blanchard/
Young 1998: 87, ays is rendered by ‘spirit’ vs. sik‘ ‘breeze’. Indeed, in the previous
sentence Eznik speaks of the fluctuation between the ideas of ‘wind’ and ‘spirit’:
aysn hoɫm ē, ew hoɫmn – ogi “the ays [‘evil spirit’] is hoɫm [‘wind’], and the hoɫm
[‘wind’] is ogi [‘spirit’]”. However, the rendering of ays as ‘spirit’ vs. sik‘ ‘breeze’
in the passage under discussion is not quite accurate since we are dealing with a lexical rather than semantic contrast, and the meaning ays ‘wind’ is reliable, albeit
rare. Also inaccurate is their note (8735): “The ‘southerners’, storneayk‘, are the
Syrians”, which is in conflict with the form storneayk‘ (and not asorneayk‘) they
themselves cite. Note also Schmid’s (1900: 75) translation: “Denn wenn wir sagen:
‘Der milde Wind weht’, so sagen die Syrer: ‘Der Geist weht’”.
This passage is a unique testimony of a dialectal feature in the 5th century; see
HAB 1: 171-172; Ačaṙyan, HLPatm 2, 1951: 125; J̌
ahukyan 1986: 9; Clackson
2004-05: 154. Clackson (ibid.) points out that “the Bible translation uses items from
different dialects”.
Given the facts that ays has been preserved only in Van (see below), an area that
is located in the South of the Armenian-speaking territory, and Eznik was native of
the northerly-located Koɫb, one may take this evidence as a historical testimony
reflecting the dialectal contrast between groups which might be conventionally
named as the Muš/Alaškert/Karin-group and the Van/Agulis/Łarabaɫ-group (see
1.1).
Among derivatives: ays-a-har ‘who is struck by an evil spirit’ (Bible+); cf. in
Vanakan Vardapet Tawušec‘i (13th cent.) [Xač‘ikyan 1941: 166bL12f]: hareal
yaysoyn č‘arē “struck by an evil spirit”.
See also s.v. zaysaysem.
●DIAL Preserved only in Van seɫan-ays (also seɫan-ak) ‘a whirling wind-storm,
twister’ [HAB 1: 172a], a compound with seɫan ‘table’ as the first member. In
Amatuni (1912: 585b): Van seɫanayt ‘twister’ (= satani k‘ami ‘wind of Satan’);
apparently a misprint for seɫanays. The sailors of Van Lake considered seɫanays to
be an evil spirit that came to wreck ships whenever it stormed [Garamanlean 1931:
512b].
On aysahar, see s.v. zaysaysem.
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 172a) rejects all the etymological attempts, including
those relating ays to Skt. ásura- m. ‘god, lord’ and Etrusc. ais ‘god’. J̌
ahukyan
(1983: 87-88; 1987: 450, 462-463; 1988, 1: 64) is inclined to connect the word with
Skt. ásura- m. ‘god, lord, name of a group of gods’, āsurá- ‘godlike; demonlike’
(RV+), Av. ahu- m. ‘lord, overlord’, Hitt. ḫaš- ‘to procreate, give birth’, PGerm.
*ansuz ‘Gott, Ase’, etc. For Armenian, he assumes *ans-i̯o- (> ays, with regular loss
of the sibilant before the nasal and with subsequent metathesis *asy- > ays),
although this is not corroborated by any cognate form. Then he mentions the
derivation of the PIE word from *h2enh1- ‘to breathe’ (on this, see e.g.
Mallory/Adams 1997: 330b) and states that this is corroborated by the semantics of
the Armenian word. On the other hand, J̌
ahukyan (1987: 450) also mentions Arab.
ḫanzab ‘devil’.
On the whole, the etymology is uncertain, but not impossible.
One prefers positing *h2(e)nsu-i̯o- [Olsen 1999: 958], although the expected
Armenian form seems to be *asú(yo).
Arguing against the idea that Arm. ays is related with Etrusc. ais ‘god’ and should
be seen as a MedPont word (on this, see 3.11), Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 172a) points out
that the original meaning of the Armenian was ‘breath’, of which ‘spirit, demon’ has
been developed. However, this does not automatically preclude the connection since,
at least theoretically, the Etruscan word may have been borrowed from Proto-Armenian, although, of course, the historical and chronological background of
such a relationship has to be established.
ayt-k‘, i-stem: GDPl ayt-i-c‘ in Nersēs Lambronac‘i (12th cent.), etc. ‘cheek’ (Bible+);
aytnum, aor. ayteay (Bible+) ‘to swell’.
Note also ayt-umn (Bible+), ayt-oyc‘ ‘swelling’ (John Chrysostom, Philo),
ayt-oc‘ (Mxit‘ar Herac‘i); later: aytuc‘anem (caus.), etc.
●DIAL No dialectal forms are recorded in HAB 1: 172b. In Svedia, however, one
finds utɛc‘/udɛc‘ ‘swelling, tumour’, utic‘il/udic‘il ‘to swell’, which Andreasyan
(1967: 265) derives from aytoc‘ (better: aytoyc‘) and aytoc‘il, respectively. Further:
K‘esab ütɛc‘ and ütɛsg (from aytoyc‘ and aytoyc‘-k‘), and verbal ütəc‘im (< aytuc‘-)
and utəc‘əsnim (< aytuc‘anem) [Č‘olak‘ean 1986: 195b]. Ačaṙyan 2003 vacat.
●ETYM Since de Lagarde, connected with Gr. οἰδέω ‘to swell’, οἶδος n. ‘swelling’,
OHG eiz ‘abscess, boil’ (from Germ. *aitaz ‘Geschwür, Gift’), OIr. óil ‘cheek’, etc.,
as well as (Meillet) Lat. aemidus ‘swollen’ (see HAB 1: 172; Pokorny 1959: 774).
Note also OIc. eista n. ‘testicle’; Lat. îkstis ‘kidneys’, Lith. ìnkstas ‘kidney’, Plb.
jaisto ‘kidneys’ from *h2(o)id-st- [Derksen 1996: 259-261]. Lat. aemidus ‘swollen’
probably reflects *h2eid-sm- [Schrijver 1991: 38]. Arm. ayt may be treated as a
regular s-stem like Gr. οἶδος n. and perhaps Germ. *aitaz ‘cheek’ (see Olsen 1999:
203). This can be accepted only if the i-declension is secondary.
For the vocalism, see 2.1.5.
ayr1, GDSg aṙn, AblSg y-aṙn-ē, ISg aram-b, NPl ar-k‘, APl ar-s, GDPl aran-c‘, Ipl
aram-b-k‘ (abundant in the Bible) ‘man; husband’.
Widely attested since the Bible. Classical derivatives based on both ayr- and aṙn-.
MidArm. ayr-ik ‘husband’. See HAB 1: 172-173.
●DIAL Not preserved in dialects independently. The derivative *ayr-ik (with
diminutive -ik) ‘husband’, identical with MidArm. ayr-ik ‘husband’, is present in
numerous Western dialects (kə-group), as well as in Maraɫa and Salmast [HAB 1:
174b]. Trapizon talar < *tal-ayr ‘husband’s sister’s husband’ is composed of tal
‘husband’s sister’ and ayr ‘husband’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 1008b; HAB 1: 174b]. Xarberd
aṙn-e/ank‘, Nor Naxiǰewan aṙn-ak‘ ‘husband’s relatives’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 133b], and
*aṙn-tak‘ ‘id.’ are considered by Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 174b) to be ‘new words’. The
fact that aṙn is not present in dialects rather suggests that these formations are
relatively old.
The archaic genitive aṙn has been indirectly preserved in Łarabaɫ gen. tɛ́
ṙnə <
ClArm. te-aṙn, GDSg of tēr < *ti-ayr ‘master, lord’ (see Davt‘yan 1966: 483). For a
clear textual illustration of this Łarabaɫ GDSg form, see Grigoryan-Spandaryan
1971: 422a, proverb Nr. 188.
●ETYM Bugge (1890: 52-53; cf. the earlier attempts listed in HAB 1: 173-174)
connected Arm. ayr with Gr. ἀνήρ (ἀνδρός, ἄνδρα, pl. ἄνδρες; ep. also ἀνέρα,
ἀνέρος, etc.) ‘man (opp. woman/god/youth); husband’; cf. also Lat. Nerō, neriōsus
‘strong’ [Schrijver 1991: 21], Skt. nár- ‘man, human, hero, warrior’ (RV+), etc.
Kuiper (1951) posits a Greek old abstract *ἄνερ, *ἄναρ ‘vital energy’ on the basis of
-ήνωρ and νῶρ-οψ (PIE *h2ner-; cf. Skt. sū-nára-, etc.); cf. Frisk 1: 107 (“wenig
wahrscheinlich”). Meillet (1896: 151; 1900: 181; 1936: 55, 83, 143, 149) correctly rejects the
alternative derivation of Arm. ayr from PIE *r̥sen-: Gr. ἄρσην, -ενος ‘male’, etc.
(Hübschmann 1897: 417-418) and equates Arm. NSg ayr, GDSg aṙn and APl ar-s
with ἀνήρ, ἀνδρός and PIE acc.pl. *anr̥ns respectively, assuming for ayr a
development comparable to that of Gr. ἦμαρ vs. Arm. awr ‘day’ (q.v.). Thus: PIE
*h2nēr (cf. Gr. ἀνήρ) > PArm. *anir > *aynr or *ay
n(i)r > ayr (Meillet, ibid.;
J
̌
ahukyan 1967: 237; 1987: 140; cf. 1959: 183-184 and 1982: 118-119; de
Lamberterie 1978: 243-244; Clackson 1994: 96; Beekes 2003: 169, 185, 205, 210).
For the anticipation/epenthesis, see 2.1.27.1. For the relative chronology of the loss
of the nasals in ayr and awr, see Kortlandt 1985: 20 = 2003: 64. The genitive form
aṙn implies a metathesis: *h2nr-ós (cf. Gr. ἀνδρός) > PArm. *anro- > *arno- > aṙn.
See further HAB 1: 173-174; AčaṙLiak 3, 1957: 439; Hamp 1966: 12-13; Greppin
1983: 285-286; Clackson 1994: 35, 195; Olsen 1984: 103; 1985: 5-6; 1999: 171-
172; Matzinger 2005: 128-131. For the metathesis, see also 2.1.26.3.
For the ‘prothetic’ a-, see Beekes 1969: 22, 45, 87; 2003: 182, 185; C. Arutjunjan
1983: 237; Kortlandt 1987: 62 = 2003: 76; Clackson 1994: 33-35. For the alternation
-r- : -ṙ- seen in ayr, aramb : aṙn, see J
̌
ahukyan 1967: 312; Clackson 1994: 132.
Hamp (1966: 12-13) proposed the following scenario. Genitive *arnos (< *anros,
cf. Gr. ἀνδρός) beside nominative *anēr would have been anomalous. Therefore, the
nominative *anēr was adjusted to *arēr > *arir. <...>. This new nominative could
have dissimilated (“perhaps aided by hayr, etc.?”) to *air > ayr. This is
unconvincing and unnecessary. For a morphological analysis, see Beekes 1969: 46;
see also s.vv. awr ‘day’ and anurǰ ‘dream’.
The connection of Arm. ayr ‘man’ with Ved. Skt. árya- m. ‘lord, master of the
house’, etc. (Mann 1963: 1; for earlier attempts, see HAB 1: 174) should be
abandoned since it does not account for the Armenian paradigm (cf. also Greppin
1983: 286), whereas the traditional etymology is quite convincing (pace C.
Arutjunjan 1983: 265-269, with a thorough but not very attractive scenario). A
contamination (cf. J̌
ahukyan 1982: 118; 1987: 182, 287; A. Petrosyan 2002: 85295) is
possible, albeit unnecessary.
ayr2, i-stem: GDSg ayr-i, AblSg y-ayr-ē, ISg ayr-i-w, LocSg y-ayr-i, GDPl ayr-i-c‘
‘cave’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Preserved in the dialects of Ararat, Muš, Alaškert as ɛr and in Van, Ozim,
Moks, Salmast as hɛr, with an initial h-; see HAB 1: 175a; Ačaṙyan 1952: 101, 244.
The origin of the initial h- is not clear. An old h- would have yielded x- in these
dialects. An initial y- seems better. The *ya- gives ä- in Van (Ačaṙyan’s Law), with a
loss of the secondary (voiced) h- which is usually preserved in Ozim, Moks and
Šatax; see 2.3.1 on y-. As has been demonstrated by Weitenberg 1999-2000: 7-15,
Ačaṙyan’s Law was anteriour to the development ay > e. It seems, thus, that in Van
hɛr < *y-ayr the initial h- has been preserved because Ačaṙyan’s Law did not operate
in this case.
Hačən k‘äyɔy is a compound with k‘ar ‘stone’ as the first member.
●ETYM Often compared with Gr. ἄντρον n. ‘Höhle, Grotte’, assuming *antr-iV- or
*antḗr for Armenian; see Pisani 1944: 161-162; Schmitt 1972-74: 23; de
Lamberterie 1978: 243-245; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 112, 258, 582-583; 1988: 150; 1992: 24 (equating also with Urart. theonym Airaini). For more references and a discussion,
see Clackson 1994: 98, who considers this etymology uncertain.
The connection with Hitt. ḫariya- ‘valley’ (see Greppin 1973: 69) is uncertain,
too.
Theoretically, the basic meaning of ayr ‘cave’ might have been ‘empty,
abandoned, uncultivated (land, place)’; cf. Germ. hohl ‘empty’ : Höhle ‘cave’; Engl.
hollow, etc. In this case Arm. ayri ‘widow’ (q.v.) should be regarded as a derivative
(etymologically meaning ‘abandoned’) from ayr ‘cave, empty’; for the semantic
field, see s.v. xort‘ ‘adulterine, counterfeit; hard, rough’.
ayrem ‘to burn’ (Bible+). Also z-ayr-anam ‘to be/become angry’. In Deuteronomy
28.27 (Cox 1981: 184), zayrac‘eal k‘osov renders Greek ψώρᾳ ἀγρίᾳ “with
malignant itch, scurvy”. For the passage, see s.v. k‘os ‘scab’.
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 1: 176a].
●ETYM Usually derived from *ayr- ’fire’ < *HeHter-, cf. Av. ātar- / āϑr- ‘fire’ (an
old neuter in -r̥), perhaps also Lat. āter ‘black, dark’, OIr. āith ‘furnace’, Welsh odyn
(< *āti-) ‘furnace’, Palaic hā- ‘to be hot’, etc., see de Lagarde 1854: 29L804;
Hübschmann 1897: 418; HAB 1: 175; Greppin 1983: 286-287; Beekes apud
Mallory/Adams 1997: 202b. On the morphology of Av. ātar- / āϑr- ‘fire’, see
Beekes 1988: 122-124; Hoffmann/Forssman 1996: 150-152. The Armenian verb is
denominative (see further Szemerényi 1977: 25, 28, 32).
Jasanoff (1979: 145; see also Viredaz 2005: 85) proposed a connection with Gr.
αἴϑω ‘to kindle; to burn (with light)’, Skt. edh- ‘to set alight, kindle; to shine’, etc.
from PIE *h2eidh
- (see Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 267; Cheung 2007: 157).
However, the sound development of Arm. -r- from PIE *-dh
- is uncertain; see also
s.v. ur ‘where (to)’. I would expect *ayd- from *h2eidh
- (see s.vv. awd ‘foot-wear’,
and awd ‘air’). One might rather assume a contamination between Arm. subst. *ayr-
‘fire’ and Iran. verbal *H(a)id- (-δ- > -r-), which has resulted in the Armenian verb
ayr-em (cf. Klingenschmitt 1982: 9816, assuming an Iranian loanword), but this is
uncertain.
ayri, ea-stem: GDSg ayrw-o-y, GDPl ayre-a-c‘ (abundant evidence in the Bible,
Astuacaturean 1895: 82-83) ‘widow’ (Bible+), ‘widower’ (hapax, in Ephrem; also in
some dialects).
●DIAL The compound *orb-ew-ayri ‘widow’ < *‘orphan-and-widow’, although
literarily unattested, is ubiquitous in the dialects. Note also Zeyt‘un ɛrigə́
nə́
g <
*ayri-knik, as well as folk-etymological ɛrig-gnig (< *ayrik-knik ‘husband-wife’ or
‘man(ly)-wife) ‘widow’ in Tigranakert [HAB 1: 176b].
Interesting is ɔrk‘əvɛri in the village of Cɔ̌ ́
šara of Hamšen vs. more normal
Hamšen ɔrp‘əvɛri. This can be explained through dissimilation of labiality: p‘əv >
k‘əv. Nor Naxiǰewan ɔrfari, ɔfari (older ɛrp‘ɛvari) is due to haplology.
As stated by Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 176b), *orb-ew-ayri refers to women. In a
fairy-tale recorded in Šuši (Łarabaɫ) in 1926, however, one finds ərp‘əveri referring
to a man (see HŽHek‘ 5, 1966: 59). One also finds Xnus-Bulanəx orbewari
‘widower’ (E. Melik‘ean 1964: 206L-14), as well as Muš orbevernal (said of a man)
‘to become a widower’ in a fairy-tale originated in the Muš-region [HŽHek‘ 12, 1984: 257L1]. Note also Zeyt‘un ayr-mard ‘a man whose wife has been died (=
widower)’ [HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 54a].
See also s.v. orb ‘orphan’.
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 176b) does not accept any of the etymological attempts,
including the one (Ēmin) that derives ayr-i from ayr ‘man, husband’. This idea
presupposes a basic meaning like ‘woman connected with a husband’ [Clackson
1994: 93, 219-22035]. It has been assumed that we are dealing with a privative
*n-formation based upon ayr, thus: *n̥-nēr-iyā ‘having no husband, manless’
(Dumézil 1940: 69; see also Saradževa 1986: 263-264; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 259, 260,
hesitantly; Olsen 1999: 446).
Schmitt (1972-74: 23) argues against this etymology that ayri is not only
feminine. However, the masculine meaning is clearly marginal and should be viewed
as secondary (compare skesr-ayr ‘husband’s father’ derived from skesur ‘husband’s
mother’). Greppin (1983: 287) argues that the stem for ‘man’ in Proto-Armenian had
prothesis: *anēr. This is not a decisive argument against the etymology. We can
assume a development QIE *n̥-Hnēr-ieh2- ‘(having) no husband’ > PArm. *ananiria- > ayri, ayrea- ‘widow’ through haplology and a subsequent sound change as in
ayr ‘man, husband’ (q.v.).
If Arm. ayr ‘cave’ (q.v.) basically meant ‘empty/ abandoned/ uncultivated (land,
place)’, ayri ‘widow’ might be seen as a derivative of it etymologically meaning
‘abandoned’. The etymology of Dumézil is more p
ayc‘ ‘visit, inspection, investigation’, mostly in verbal constructions as ayc‘ aṙnem,
etc. (Bible+); in Movsēs Xorenac‘i 3.27 (1913=1991: 288L12), ayc‘ ew xndir. Later,
verbs ayc‘em in John Chrysostom, Hesychius of Jerusalem, etc., ayc‘-el-em in
Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, etc., and derivatives based on ayc‘-el-. On -el, see s.vv.
argel, vayel.
●ETYM Since Pictet, Dervischjan, et al. (see HAB), connected with OHG eisca
‘question’, OCS iskati ‘to look for, seek’, Skt. icháti ‘to wish, strive after, seek’
(RV+), etc. [Hübschmann 1897: 418; Scheftelowitz 1927: 225]. Ačaṙyan (HAB 1:
177a; 3: 32b, pace Hübschmann) correctly identifies ayc‘ with hayc‘em, q.v.
According to Kortlandt (1984: 42 = 2003: 55; cf. Schrijver 1991: 38; Beekes
2003: 142, 182), ayc‘ and hayc‘ reflect o-grade (cf. OE ǣsce ‘question, search’) and
e-grade (cf. Lat. aeruscāre ‘to beg, ask for’), respectively. For a discussion, see
Joseph 1984: 46-47.
Alternatively, ayc‘ can be derived from zero-grade; see Greppin 1983: 287; 1988:
184; cf. Kortlandt 1983: 12-13 = 2003: 42. This seems more probable. For the
zero-grade cf. Skt. icháti, etc. One cannot reject this idea solely for the reason that
the expected reflex of *h2i- might be Arm. *hi-. PIE *h2is-sk- could be realized as
*h2i̯s-sk- > PArm. *ayc‘- analogically after full-grade hayc‘ from *h2eis-sk-; see
2.1.5.
anagan ‘late; evening (time)’ (Bible+). Interesting is the adverbial anagani ‘in the
evening’; on -i, see 2.2.1.5.
●DIAL Preserved in several dialects in the meaning ‘late’ and, only in Maraš,
‘evening’ (presumably, as an adjective) [HAB 1: 178a]. Next to forms with an initial a- (Suč‘ava, Xarberd, Maraš), there are particularly interesting ones the anlaut of
which allows to reconstruct a by-form *y-anagan (see Weitenberg 1986: 92-93, 96):
Van änkyän, Moks hänäkyän, Ozim hangyän [Ačaṙyan 1952: 244] (for the textual
evidence, see Ter-Mkrtč‘yan 1970: 151, 185a), Šatax h’änäkyän [M. Muradyan
1962: 33, 70, 192], Muš y’ank‘an [Baɫdasaryan-T‘ap‘alc‘yan 1958: 245a]. See 2.3.1
for more details.
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 178a) leaves the origin of the word open. J̌
ahukyan (1987:
113, 269) hesitantly connects to aganim ‘to spend the night’; very uncertain.
Clackson (1994: 223-22498) interprets it as a compound of the privative prefix anand agan ‘early’ (‘not-early’, thus) and connects the latter to ayg ‘morning’. This is
actually proposed first in NHB 1: 101a (oč‘ agan, oč‘ ənd aygn; oč‘ kanux).
However, agan (q.v.) is only used once, in a late mediaeval song, and, as stated
by Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 75a), means ‘zealous (child, pupil)’ rather than ‘early’.
analut‘, GDSg anlət‘oy, analut‘oy (Ašxarhac‘oyc‘) ‘a kind of deer, hind’; probably
‘fallow deer’.
Deuteronomy
The oldest attestation is found in Deuteronomy 14.5 (see Cox 1981: 136), in a list
of seven animals which are allowed to be eaten. The list is a part of the enumeration
of clean and unclean animals that is largely repeated in Leviticus 11. The Armenian
word analut‘ corresponds to Gr. καμηλο-πάρδαλις ‘giraffe’ and Hebrew zamr. The
latter cannot be identified with certainty. It, as well as the Peshitta equivalent, is
interpreted as rupicapra/chamois (see BiblSacrPolygl 1, 1657: 778;
NovVulgBiblSacr 1979: 266; Spinage 1968: 39). Targum Onqelos has ‘mountain
goat’ [Drazin 1982: 158] or ‘mountain sheep’ [Grossfeld 1988: 50], Targum Neofiti
1: ‘buffalo’ or ‘wild ox’ [McNamara 1997: 79, 7912]. Wevers (1995: 242) considers
Gr. καμηλο-πάρδαλις ‘giraffe’ as an odd translation and notes: “Obviously the
translator did not know the word”.
If the Armenian translator were blindly rendering Gr. καμηλο-πάρδαλις being
unaware what animal is dealt with he would have made a calque like uɫt-inj or
ənj-uɫt (which we do find in later literature, including Ašxarhac‘oyc‘, see below), as
in the following examples from the animal-lists in Deuteronomy 14 and Leviticus
11: ὀφιο-μάχης : ōj-a-mart, μυ-γαλῆ : mkn-ak‘is, χαμαι-λέων : getn-aṙewc. Instead,
the translator has chosen a rare and structurally/ etymologically opaque term
(analut‘), and this seems significant. One may treat this as a possible remnant of a
Syriac-based translation in the Armenian Bible (on the problem, see Cox 1981: 6f,
301-327; Cowe 1992: 5f, 229f, 419f).
A careful collation of the animal lists in Deuteronomy 14 and Leviticus 11 shows
that the Armenian Deuteronomy followed the Greek text less slavishly than the
Armenian Leviticus. Another interesting fact is that, in four cases, the Armenian
translators of Deuteronomy and Leviticus have chosen different synonyms for
rendering the same items, and the variants of Deuteronomy are mostly rare and
opaque: γρύψ, λάρος, κύκνος, κόραξ > Deut. korč, čay, p‘or, ori vs. Levit. paskuč,
oror, karap, agṙaw, respectively. In view of these considerations as well as the
analysis of the evidence from Ašxarhac‘oyc‘ and the etymology of the word analut‘
(see below), one may hypothetically assume that: (1) the translator of the Armenian Deuteronomy was different from that of
Leviticus;
(2) he was native of NW Armenia;
(3) analut‘ reflects a term different from Gr. καμηλο-πάρδαλις ‘giraffe’.
Ašxarhac‘oyc‘
Next, we encounter the word twice in the 7th-century Armenian Geography
(Ašxarhac‘oyc‘) by Anania Širakac‘i. Among the animals of Ethiopia, an animal is
mentioned as resembling analut‘ (Soukry 1881: 21L7f; Eremyan 1972-73, A: 230):
kendani inč‘ nman anlət‘oy, mardamart ew anušahot “a certain animal resembling
an(a)lut‘, “man-fighting” and aromatic”. In the short recension one finds the
following readings for anlət‘oy: y-analut‘ [MovsXorenMaten 1865: 599],
z-analut‘-oy (HAB 1: 179a, without an exact reference), z-analut (with an
unaspirated -t, that is printed in a different font [A. G. Abrahamyan 1944: 344L36]).
In the version of T‘ovmas Kilikec‘i (14th cent.): nalut‘ [Anasyan 1967: 282L-12].
Attempts have been made to emend or re-interpret the passage: “un animal
semblable à la girafe: ressemble au léopard; animaux belliqueux et suavéolents”
[Soukry 1881: 28]; “a certain animal resembling a giraffe; [and also other] ferocious
and gentle [animals]” [Hewsen 1992: 51]. The epithets mardamart and anušahot,
thus, are separated from the analut‘-like animal which is unfounded and
unnecessary. This is clearly corroborated by the short recension. I follow the
ModArm. translation by Abrahamyan and Petrosyan (1979: 279), which takes the
passage as it appears in manuscripts, without any emendations: analut‘i nman mi
kendani, orə mardamart ē ew anušahot. Note that Hewsen (1992: 51A) translates
the corresponding passage of the short recension in the same way, without
emendation: “an animal like a giraffe, that is ferocious but aromatic”.
For anlt‘oy, Hewsen (1992: 99112) reconstructs a NSg *analet‘ which is a mistake
or misprint. The correct form is certainly analut‘.
That analut‘ does not refer to ‘giraffe’ is corroborated by the fact that analut‘ is
also mentioned as an animal in the Armenian province of Gugark‘ [Soukry 1881:
34L-1 (French transl. “la girafe”, p. 46); MovsXorenMaten 1865: 610; A. G.
Abrahamyan 1944: 350L31; Eremyan 1963: 110; Hewsen 1992: 65, 65A]. The 1944
edition again has analut, with an unaspirated -t.
●DIAL As convincingly demonstrated by Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 179a; Ačaṙyan 1947: 12,
220; see also Eremyan 1963: 92a), Hamšen ɔnlut‘ (in Čanik: ɔnlut) ‘hind’
undoubtedly continues ClArm. analut‘. The word belongs to the 4th declension of
the dialect of Hamšen: GSg ɔnlutɔn, AblSg ɔnlutä [Ačaṙyan 1947: 46, 96, 220].
The GDSg form ɔnlut‘on occurs in a tale told by Arak‘si Łazaryan-P‘ač‘aǰyan (a
survivor of the Genocide, a former inhabitant of Trapizon) and recorded by B.
T‘oṙlak‘yan (1986: 35L20f) in 1966: ɔnlut‘on pes t‘ṙav gnac‘ tunə : “(he) flew like a
deer and went home”. Here (241b) ɔnlut‘ is glossed as eɫnik, paxra, ǰeyran.
As we have seen, analut‘ is attested in Ašxarhac‘oyc‘, among others, in readings
anlət‘-oy, with syncope of the medial -a-, and analut, with unaspirated -t. Both
features coincide with Hamšen ɔnlut. Here, thus, we are dealing with an interesting
case which can illustrate the relationship between the manuscript readings and the
real dialectal forms. This is also relevant for establishing certain phonological features within the framework of absolute chronology. Particularly interesting is the
metathesis, if my etymology is correct (see below).
●SEMANTICS ‘giraffe’ or ‘a kind of deer’?
analut‘ is taken by Soukry, Hewsen (see also 1992: 99112), and Greppin (1983a:
15) as meaning ‘giraffe’, which is based on the Biblical attestation and seems to be
wrong. More probably, the unspecified animal which is said to resemble analut‘
may have been the giraffe. It can be argued against this that the giraffe does occur
explicitly (əncuɫt) in the same passage. However, Anania Širakac‘i hardly ever saw a
giraffe, and he might have been unaware that the giraffe (the denotatum of əncuɫt) is
identical with the animal which according to his information resembled analut‘.
Indeed, ancient authors often describe the giraffe as a typically Ethiopian animal;
see Pliny, Nat. Hist. 8.27 (1947: 53); Spinage 1968: 51-52 et passim. Because of his
extraordinary appearance, the giraffe was mostly considered a ferocious beast,
although already Pliny (ibid.) and Strabo showed this being wrong [Spinage 1968:
41f, 73; Dagg 1982: 2f]. This explains the epithet mardamart. On anušahot, see
below.
Since the existence of giraffes in Armenia is excluded, the identification of
analut‘ is considered problematic (see Hewsen 1992: 204238, with references). It
probably denotes a kind of deer (cf. the Peshitta and Aramaic equivalents of analut‘
in the Biblical passage) familiar to Anania Širakac‘i as well as to the translator of the
Armenian Deuteronomy and somehow comparable or confused with the giraffe. In
this respect, the dialect of Hamšen provides us with an indispensable information.
Identification: ‘Fallow deer’
The main representative of Cervidae was certainly the red deer, i.e. Cervus
elaphus maral, which was ubiquitous in the historical Armenia and is represented by
eɫǰeru and eɫn. Next to this, Arm. erē is the generic term for ‘deer’. In the same list
(Deuteronomy 14), next to analut‘, one finds eɫǰeru rendering Gr. ἔλαφος. In
Ašxarhac‘oyc‘, we encounter erē several times, and eɫǰeru in the context of Barjr
Hayk‘. One may wonder why the author uses another word for the province of
Gugark‘. The answer may be twofold: analut‘ denoted a different kind of deer, or
analut‘ was dialectally confined to the area of Gugark‘.
The best candidate for the denotatum of analut‘ is, in my view, the fallow deer,
Dama dama. The Common (European) fallow deer Dama dama dama is native in
Europe and the Northern half of Turkey up to the Pontic area, excluding almost all
the territory of the historical Armenia; see Whitehead 1972: 86f, espec. maps 15 (p.
87) and 16 (p. 88). Thus, the NW margins of the historical Armenia (including
Hamšen and surroundings) are the only areas where the fallow deer is native. This
implies that the historical evidence from Ašxarhac‘oyc‘ on the attribution of analut‘
to the province of Gugark‘, as well as the fact that the word has been preserved only
in the dialect of Hamšen are not accidental. Unlike most kinds of deer, and amongst
them the red deer (maral) which normally hardly have any spots [Whitehead 1972:
71], the fallow deer is heavily spotted [Chapman/Chapman 1975: 22, 24]. This may
have been one of the reasons for confusing/comparing analut‘ with the giraffe.
Another remarkable thing is that in the long recension of Ašxarhac‘oyc‘ (Soukry
1881: 21) analut‘ and/or the Ethiopian animal resembling analut‘ is characterized as
anušahot ‘aromatic’. This too brings us close to the fallow deer which has several scent glands [Chapman/Chapman 1975: 78-81]. Here (p. 79) we read: “The presence
of interdigital or pedal glands has long been recognised: in medieval times the
fallow buck and doe were described as beasts of sweet foot (emphasis mine, HM).
At the base of each leg, in the mid-line immediately above the two cleaves of the
hoof, is a fissure or narrow pocket in the skin. On the hind feet a pale yellow, soft
waxy secretion, with a not unpleasant fatty-acid odour reminiscent of rancid butter,
can be seen adhering to the hairs lining the pocket. The strength of the smell, as
judged by the human nose, remains about the same throughout the year in both
sexes”.
One might even be tempted to emend anušahot to *anuš-a-ot “(having) sweet
foot”; but this is risky and cannot be verified. As for the peculiar scent of the giraffe,
I refer to Dagg 1982: 72f (with lit.).
In Stefano 1996: 317 we read: “All the known representatives of the genus Dama
prefer (or preferred) to live close to humid zones and open areas”. Concerning a
particular representative of the late Middle Pleistocene, namely Dama dama
tiberina, we learn that “it is characteristic of temperate-warm and rather humid
climates, similar to the environments favoured by the Clacton fallow deer. <...> it
prefers deciduous and opened wooded areas with oaks, beeches and other temperate
and mediterranean elements (evergreen oleander and strawberry trees); finally, this
fallow deer seems to be more distributed near the coasts <...>“ [Stefano/Petronio
1997: 71-72].
Being located in a coastal zone and abounding in humid forests, oaks and beeches
(see espec. T‘oṙlak‘yan 1982: 25f, 31, etc.), the Hamšen area would have provided
the fallow deer with these favourable conditions. The beech-tree (hačaracaṙ) is
mentioned in Ašxarhac‘oyc‘, next to analut‘, see below. As far as the oleander is
concerned, note that Arm. čp‘ni probably referring to ‘oleander’ (Galen, Geoponica,
etc.) seems to be dialectally present only in Trapizon (see HAB 3: 217b).
●ETYM To the best of my knowledge, analut‘ has not yet received an etymological
explanation (see HAB 1: 179a; Olsen 1999: 938).
I propose a connection with PIE *h1e/ol-Hn-ih2- ‘deer, hind’: OCS alъnii ‘doe’,
SCr. làne ‘doe’, Russ. lan’ ‘fallow deer, doe’, Lith. élnis ‘deer’, OPr. alne ‘Tier’
(see Toporov, PrJaz, a-d, 1975: 77; Euler 1985: 91), MIr. ailit f. ‘doe, hind’,
MWelsh elein ‘young deer, doe, hind-calf’, alanet ‘young deer, doe, hind-calf’, etc.
(see ÈtimSlovSlavJaz 6, 1979: 19-21; Adams 1985: 273-276; Schrijver 1995:
78-79). According to Schrijver (1995: 79), MIr. ailit reflects PIE *h1el-(H)n-t-iH- or
*h1el-en-t-iH-. The same dental determinative may be reconstructed also for the
Armenian, but the stem formation would be different: *-t-h2-o-; cf. Arm. ort‘ ‘calf;
fawn’ from *pórt-h2-u- vs. ordi ‘offspring, son’, awri-ord, a-stem ‘virgin’, Gr.
πόρτις, -ιος f. ‘calf, young heifer/young cow, πόρταξ f. ‘calf’, etc. (see s.vv. and
2.1.18.2).
The development was, then, as follows: PIE *h1(o)l-Hn-th2o- > PArm. *alanth
o-
> *alanth (apocope). The -u- in analut‘ can be explained as an analogical restoration,
as in ant‘ : anut‘ ‘armpit’ (see J̌
ahukyan 1983: 88).
This etymology involves a metathesis l...n > n...l, of which a few cases can be
found in the dialect of Hamšen (2.1.26.3). Remarkably, the same metathesis is seen
in a word that is etymologically related to analut‘, namely Gr. ἔνελος· νεβρός‘young of the deer, fawn’ (Hesychius). As I try to demonstrate in 2.1.26.3, in the
dialect of Hamšen 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 etymology of analut‘ < *alan(u)t‘ becomes
more significant since it represents an old dialectal word with the same metathesis
attested already in the Classical period.
We see that the historical evidence from Ašxarhac‘oyc‘ (i.e. the restriction of
analut‘ ‘*fallow deer’ to the province of Gugark‘) is corroborated by dialectological
(preserved only in Hamšen, very close to the Western border of Gugark‘) and
zoological (cf. the geographic distribution of the fallow deer) data. As is shown in
1.6 and 1.7, one can take Ašxarhac‘oyc‘ as a reliable source for identifying this kind
of old dialectal (or geographically restricted) words.
Conclusion
I conclude that analut‘ (o-stem in Ašxarhac‘oyc‘) refers to ‘fallow deer’, derives
from PIE *h1(o)l-Hn-th2o- (cf. Lith. élnis ‘deer’, Russ. lan’ ‘fallow deer, doe’, MIr.
ailit f. ‘doe, hind’, etc.) with metathesis (seen also in Gr. ἔνελος) that is peculiar to
Hamšen and adjacent dialects and already in the Classical period was dialectally and
zoologically restricted to NW of the Armenian speaking territory.
Recently, N. Mkrtčjan 2005: 257-258 treated analut‘ as a Semitic loan, cf. Akkad.
naiā̯lu, nālu ‘roe deer’ (see Landsberger 1950: 33; SemEtymDict 2, 2005: 223-224),
with the abstract suffix -ūtū. This comparison is quite attractive. The initial a- is
obscure, although this is not decisive. If this etymology is correct, the connection
with the PIE word for ‘deer’ should be abandoned. On the other hand, the alternation
Arm. eɫn : analut‘ vs. Gr. ἐλλός : ἔνελος : Welsh alanet remains attractive, too. If we
are not dealing with a European-Semitic migratory animal name, one may perhaps
assume a blend of PArm. (< IE) *alan-th
- or *anal-th
- and PArm. (< Sem.) *nalut-.
anari, ea-stem (GSg anarwoy in “Čaṙəntir”, GPl anareac‘ in Hexaemeron)
‘enormous’. Attested since the 5th century.
In Eznik Koɫbac‘i 1.25 (1994: 84): jkunk‘ anarik‘ covakank‘ “monstrous sea fish
(pl.)”.
In P‘awstos Buzand 5.37 (1883=1984: 202L16f; transl. Garsoïan 1989: 218):
zaynč‘ap‘ ayrn zanheded zanari “this man of enormous size”.
In Movsēs Xorenac‘i 1.11 (1913=1991: 36L2; transl. Thomson 1978: 87): nizak
anari “a monstrous lance”; 1.26 (76L4; transl. 116): isk errordn zvišap anari sanjeal
“but the third rode a monstrous dragon”; 3.9 (267L2; transl. 262): anari omn skay
vaṙeal “a fearsome armed giant”.
In Anania Širakac‘i (7th cent.) [A. G. Abrahamyan 1944: 228L34f], about a hunted
wild boar: ew vasn zi anari ēr tesleamb, kšṙec‘i “and since [the boar] was anari by
appearance, I weighed [it]”.
In Movsēs Kaɫankatuac‘i (1983: 329L20; transl. Dowsett 1961: 217): višapajukn
mi anari nman lerin “a dragon-fish as large as a mountain”.
Two later attestations quoted in NHB 1: 116b: orǰ višapi anarwoy “Lair of the
enormous dragon” (“Čaṙəntir”); spaṙazineal anari nizakōk‘ “armed with enormous
spears”. ●ETYM The word is analysed as distinct from an-ari ‘uncourageous’, which is
undoubtedly correct, and is derived from the Iranian form of ‘non-Aryan’, cf. YAv.
anairiia-, Pahl. anēr ‘non-Aryan, ignoble’ [HAB 1: 181-182]. Dumézil (1997: 3-4)
accepts this etymology and for the semantics compares Lat. in-gens ‘vast, huge’:
“was unserem Geschlechte nicht zustimmt, daher über die Grösse und Art unseres
Geschlechtes hinausgeht” (< Fick).
I alternatively propose to treat anari as an- + *ar- + -i, with the root *ar- that
may be identical with Arm. *ar- seen in y-arm-ar ‘fitting’, aṙnem (1SgAor arari) ‘to
make; to create’, y-arem ‘to put together’, ard ‘shape’, from PIE *h2er- ‘to fit’; cf.
Gr. ἀραρίσκω ‘to fit together, construct, equip’, etc. Thus, an-ar-i basically means
‘unshaped, deformed’; cf. an-ard-i(l), where *ar- is replaced by a derivative of the
same ard-.
10
*angi
●DIAL Łarabaɫ *angi ‘thin, emaciated’, also in a compound with lɫar ‘id.’ as the first
member: lɫar-angi. From the illustration given by himself (Inč‘ ē hac‘ č‘es utum,
angi es daṙel “Why don’t you eat; you have become an angi !”), Ačaṙean (1913:
95b) concludes that angi must have denoted a kind of unknown animal. Cf. also angi
ktrel ‘to become (lit.: to cut) thin’ [HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 56a]. For lɫar-angi
compare lɫar-mozi (pejor., colloquial) ‘thin calf’; Van parakik t‘osun tɫe mi “a boy
(that is like a) thin /cattle/arǰaṙ/” in a fairy-tale [HŽHek‘ 14, 999: 13-39] recorded in
1915 (p. 16).
●ETYM According to J̌
ahukyan (1972: 308), belongs to IE *h2(e)ngwhi- ‘snake’; cf.
s.v. awj. He does not give any details. The connection seems to be formally
satisfactory. The labiovelar is not palatalized because of the preceding nasal; cf.
*penkw
e > hing ‘five’, etc.
However, one has to account for the relationship between awj and *angi. The
strange shape of the former is usually explained by the influence of the labiovelar, as
in awcanem ‘to anoint’. This rule may have only functioned in the zero grade. The
IE word under discussion displays forms with both full (Lith. angìs, OPr. angis
‘snake’) and zero (OHG unc ‘snake’) grades, Lat. anguis ‘snake’ and OIr. esc-ong
‘eel’ (lit. ‘water-snake’) being ambiguous (see Schrijver 1991: 43-44, 60). One may
therefore reconstruct a HD i-stem: NSg. *h2éngwh-ōi, GSg. *h2ngwh-i-ós. The PArm.
paradigm would then be as follows: NSg. *(h)angu(i) > *ang-(i), GSg. *anw
giyo- >
awji (= ClArm. GSg.). Then the genitive has been generalized (with a new
nominative awj), while *ang-i has been preserved in Łarabaɫ. Note especially acuɫ
‘coal’ : Hačən – Łarabaɫ, etc. *ancuɫ (see s.v.). Uncertain.
See also s.vv. awji-k‘ ‘collar’, əngɫay-k‘.
angɫ1, GDSg angeɫ (Job 28.7), GDPl angeɫ-a-c‘ (Job 15.23, Hexaemeron), ang/keɫ-c‘
(Hesychius of Jerusalem, reading var. in Hexaemeron), NPl angeɫ-k‘ (Hexaemeron),
IPl ankeɫ-a-w-k‘ (Yaysmawurk‘) ‘vulture’.
Renders Gr. γύψ, γῡπός m. ‘vulture’ in the Bible (Leviticus 11.14, Job 15.23,
28.7, 39.27) and Hexaemeron 9 (see K. Muradyan 1984: 273L16, 278L6, Greek
match: 372a). ●DIAL Karin angɫ, Łarabaɫ ang [HAB 1: 184a], Goris ang [Margaryan 1975: 75,
111, 313a]. See further below.
●ETYM No etymology is accepted in HAB 1: 184a. J̌
ahukyan (1982: 105; 1987: 412;
see also A. Petrosjan 1987: 60-61) derives the word from *ank/g- (= *h2enk-) ‘to
bend’, motivating the semantics by the form of the beak. For the *-l- he compares
Toch. A oṅkaläm ‘elephant’, B oṅkolmo/a ‘id.’, Toch. A. añcäl ‘bow’. Different
etymologies have been suggested for PToch. *onkolmo, among them also a
derivation from PIE *h2enk- ‘to bend’: Gr. ἀγκύλος ‘curved, bent’, OIc. ǫngull
‘fishhook’, OHG angul ‘fishhook, prick, hinge’, etc. [Adams 1999: 113] (for the
root, see also s.v an(u)t‘ ‘armpit’).
The Greek and Germanic forms are formally and semantically close to Arm. angɫ
(ankɫ in Geoponica, APl angeɫ-s three times in Paterica) ‘handle of a pot or basket’.
This word is considered an Iranian loan by Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 184a), cf. Pers.
angal(a), angīl, angūl(a) ‘button, button-hole, loop’ (for the forms, see also
Steingass 115ab). In my view, Arm. angɫ ‘handle’ can better be derived from
*h2enk-u-l- and be thus connected with the Greek and Germanic forms (cf. some
earlier comparisons rejected in HAB). Remarkably, the Armenian dialectal forms of
this angɫ lack the final -ɫ, as those of angɫ ‘vulture’; cf. Zeyt‘un, Arabkir, Xarberd,
etc. *ang ‘handle of a pot’, Ararat ang ‘ring on the edge of a sack for wheat’ [HAB
1: 184b]. Important is Svedia üngüɫ ‘handle’ [HAB 3: 604a; Ačaṙyan 2003: 559] or
əngəɫ ‘the bowed handle of a pot or basket’ [Andreasyan 1967: 220, 353b].
I conclude that Arm. angɫ (APl angeɫ-s in Paterica; dial. *ang and *angɫ) ‘handle
of a pot or basket’ and Arm. angɫ ‘vulture’ (Bible+; dial. *ang and *angɫ) derive
from *h2enk-u-l-, cf. Gr. ἀγκύλος ‘curved, bent’, OIc. ǫngull ‘fishhook’, OHG angul
‘fishhook, prick, hinge’, etc. Pers. angal(a), angīl, angūl(a) ‘button, button-hole,
loop’ is semantically farther off from the Armenian. It can be related if the original
meaning was something like ‘ringed handle’ or ‘hinge’; cf. the meaning of Ararat
ang above.11 For the semantic shift ‘curved, bent’ > ‘vulture’ (i.e. ‘having a curved
beak, hook-beaked’) cf. kor(č) ‘curved’ > korč ‘gryphon, vulture’, which renders Gr.
γρύψ, -γρῡπός ‘gryphon, vulture’ in Deuteronomy 14.12. Note also dial. (Van)
kor-c‘ənənɛk ‘kite’ (see s.vv. korč ‘vulture’ and c‘in ‘kite’). The same semantics is
also seen in the above-mentioned Greek match of Arm. korč, namely γρύψ, which
also means ‘anchor’ or the like, and may be related or associated with γρῡπός
‘hook-nosed, curved, hooked, aquiline’.
angɫ2 ‘handle of a pot or basket’.
●ETYM See s.v. angɫ1.
angti ‘prostitute’.
Attested only in John Chrysostom: Zangtin ew zsamti anun koč‘es zbozn ew
zpoṙnikn; see HAB 4: 168b (in 1: 185b – poṙnikn). Not in NHB. In the above-cited
passage, angti and samti are taken as synonyms to boz and poṙnik, both meaning
‘prostitute’.
●DIAL No dialectal forms are recorded. I hypothetically suggest a connection with Moks ångy
üt [Orbeli 2002: 202],
ängy
ut ‘a fruit that has fallen from the tree’ [M. Muradyan 1982 /HBrbAtl/: 137]. M.
Muradyan (ibid.) treats it as composed of -ut, although this suffix usually expresses
the idea of having sth. or abounding in sth. (see J̌
ahukyan 1998: 35 for a list). The
same root, namely *ank- in ank-anim ‘to fall’, has formed another synonym in the
same dialect, namely ang(a)uk (see HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 56b), with the suffix
-uk.
●ETYM No etymological proposal is known to me.
In my view, angti may be derived from ankanim / anganim ‘to fall down’, which
also means ‘to sin, prostitute’ already in the classical period. The IE suffix
*-ti(i̯o/eh2)- appears in Armenian as -t‘i, -di (with voicing of the *-t- after resonants)
or -ti (under assimilatory influence of the preceding voiceless unaspirated stops; cf.
lkti ‘lewd, licentious’, apparently from lknim ‘to behave licentiously, etc.’ (see 2.3.1,
on *-ti-). Thus, ang-ti (originally *ank-ti, with secondary voicing like in
ankanim/anganim) actually meant ‘the fallen one’.
The synonymous samti (q.v.), also a hapax found next to angti, seems to contain
the same suffix, but the root *sam- is otherwise unknown.
and, in the Bible: mostly o-stem; several times i-stem (GDSg and-i, ISg and-i-w);
LocSg y-and-i ‘cornfield, arable field’, dial. also ‘pastureland’; and-astan, a-stem
‘cornfield; estate’ (Bible+). In Paterica, hand, with an initial h- (cf. the dialectal
forms).
On Loc. y-and-i, see below.
●DIAL Preserved mostly in the Northern and Eastern dialects, with an initial h-:
Karin, T‘iflis, Ararat hand, Axalc‘xa hant, Łarabaɫ händ, etc. [HAB 1: 186b].
Ačaṙyan (1913: 637a) cites only the meaning ‘cornfield, estate’. One finds
considerable evidence pointing also to ‘pastureland’ (for examples, see below). This
is corroborated by e.g. DialAdd apud NHB 2: 1064c as well: hand ‘a superficial
measure of pastureland that can be grazed in one day’.
Some of the compounds and derivatives deserve special attention: Łarabaɫ
händ-ä-vär ‘estate, landed property, house with all possessions’ and Muš
hand-a-vor-ɛk‘ ‘house-interior with courtyard, etc.’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 637ab; HAB 1:
186ab]. Further: Ararat, Muš, etc. (h)and u (h)andastan ‘cornfields, landed
property’, Ararat hand-awor ‘people working on cornfield’ [Amatuni 1912: 30b,
386a]. The textual illustrations by Amatuni corroborate that hand and its compounds
mainly refer to cornfields and pastureland (see also below) rather than to fields in
generic sense that are not involved in economy. Note also the description of hand as
‘групповой участок’ (Čajkend-Getašen) in Džejranov 1898: 69.
Udi händ ‘cornfield’ and händävär ‘surroundings’ are considered as Armenian
loans [HAB 1: 186b]. One can be more specific: they are obviously borrowed
directly from Łarabaɫ.
The word and is scarcely represented in the Western dialects. Ačaṙyan records
only Karin and, in a compound, Muš (see above). A further possible trace may be
seen in Sebastia: groɫin antə ‘cornfield/pastureland of the Otherworld’ [Gabikean
1952: 60, 157] (cf. the corresponding IE notion, Puhvel 1969).
Textual illustrations for Łarabaɫ händ-i ‘in a pastureland’: In HŽHek‘ 5, 1966:
538L16f: təesnum min händi min č‘oban vexč‘ar a ərəcc‘nəm : “sees (that) a shepherd grazes sheep in a pastureland”; at 540 and 609 – händin. In a riddle (Barxutareanc‘
1898: 51): Mi kov unem – handi a “I have a cow, (which) is in pastureland”. Further:
HŽHek‘ 7, 1979: 209L5, 215L3, 464L5. In a fairy-tale, it is told that a man goes to die
in the field – händi məeṙne [NmušLeṙnŁarab 1978: 81L6].
In Loṙi, e.g. in a fairy-tale from the village of Šnoɫ (recorded by Hm. Mažinyan;
see Nawasardeanc‘ 5, 1889: 64L-9, 69L4; = HŽHek‘ 8, 1977: 16L13, 19L2), where the
Calf (Mozi) gnum a handə racelu “goes to the pastureland to graze”.
The meaning ‘pastureland’ is also seen in Ł. Aɫayan 1979: 626L17: Mi aṙavot,
tavarə hand tanelu žamanak, <...> : “One morning, at the time of taking the cattle to
pastureland, <...>“.
●ETYM Usually connected with Toch. A ānt, B ānte ‘surface’ [Lidén 1937: 89-91],
Skt. ándhas- n. ‘sprout of the Soma-plant’, Gr. ἄνϑος n. ‘flower’, ἀνϑέω ‘to bloom,
blossom’, etc., see Pokorny 1959: 40; J̌
ahukyan 1963a: 89; 1987: 112, 157 (also
ənǰuɫ ‘calf’); Illič-Svityč 1964: 4; Greppin 1983: 288; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2:
873; Adams apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 207b; Matzinger 2005: 41.
However, Toch. A ānt, B ānte ‘surface; forehead’ is now derived from PIE
*h2ent-o- < *h2ent- ‘front, forehead’, cf. Skt. ánta- ‘end, limit’, Hitt. ḫant-, etc. (see
Adams 1999: 43, with lit.). Olsen (1999: 181-182) accepts the connection of Arm.
and with the Tocharian < *h2ent-o-.
Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 186a) notes that Łarabaɫ händ-ä-vär ‘estate, landed property,
house with all possessions’ and Muš hand-a-vor-ɛk‘ ‘house-interior with courtyard,
etc.’ point to a collective meaning ‘house and properties’. He (ibid.) takes and to be
identical with and- ‘door-frame, threshold, vestibule’ (q.v.) which has also
developed the meaning ‘house’, cf. dial. *andiwor ‘house-personal, family’.
Ačaṙyan’s interpretation seems preferable to me. A semantic expansion seems to
have taken place: ‘door-frame, threshold, vestibule’ > ‘court, courtyard’ > ‘estate;
household; family’; cf. OCS dvorъ ‘court, courtyard’, Lith. dvãras ‘estate’, Av.
duuar- ‘door, court’, etc., from the PIE word for ‘door’ (Arm. duṙn, dur- ‘door’, cf. i
dur-s ‘outdoors, outside’). Note also Av. aϑāhuua loc.pl. ‘house’ which probably
derives from the PIE word for ‘doorframe, doorposts’ (cf. YAv. ąiϑiiā- f.pl.
‘door-post’). Further, note Arm. and-i/-eay ‘cattle’ (q.v.). The ‘cornfield’ is taken,
thus, as ‘the outer part of estate/properties’; cf. e.g. Moks təṙnart ‘cornfields that are
close to the village’ (“близкие к деревне поля”) [Orbeli 2002: 335], obviously
composed of duṙn ‘door’ and art ‘cornfield’.
However, the word is inflected both as an o-stem and an i-stem, the former being
dominant. Note also Arm. und, o-stem, i-stem, a-stem ‘edible seed, grain’, with
initial h- in Nonnus, etc. and in most of the dialects (q.v.), as well as Sem. *ḥ-n-ṭ
‘grains’ which is usually compared with PIE *h2endh
-; see Illič-Svityč 1964: 4;
Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 873; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 450. Since the semantic
relationship ‘cornfield’ : ‘grains’ is plausible (cf. Av. uruuarā- ‘flora’, MIr. arbor
‘grain, corn’ vs. Gr. ἄρουρα ‘corn-lands, fields’, Skt. urvárā- ‘arable land, field
yielding crop’, Arm. harawunk‘ ‘sowing-field, arable land’, q.v.), one might suggest
a conflation of two PArm. words: *and-i-/-a- ‘doorframe, vestibule’ > ‘house with
landed properties’ vs. *(h)and, o-stem ‘cornfield, pastureland’ and *(h)und, o-stem
‘edible seed, grain’. Arm. *(h)und probably reflects *h2ondh
-os-, with h- from
zero-grade oblique stem. Alternatively: from Sem. *ḥunṭ-. According to N. Simonyan (1979: 219-220), the initial h- of hand ‘cornfield’
comes from a PIE laryngeal. This cannot be excluded. The forms hand and and may
reflect NSg *h2enHt- and obl. *h2nt- (or h2endh
- and obl. *h2ndh
-), respectively.
However, the vocalism of Łarabaɫ händ cannot be explained from *hand. I suggest
to derive it from *y-and or *y-(h)and, through Ačaṙyan’s Law, see 2.3.1. This form
may have arisen due to the generalization of the ClArm. locative y-and-i, seen in
Łarabaɫ händ-i (see above).
*and- ‘door-frame; threshold, vestibule’: dial. (Van, Surmalu) *andiwor ‘family;
(euphem.) wife, spouse’; and-astak ‘vestibule’ (John Chrysostom); probably also
dial. (Nerk‘in Basen, Alaškert) *and-kal ‘a beam under which big pillars were put’;
dr-and (prob. i-stem): NSg drand, APl z-drand-s, GDPl drand-i-c‘ (as a reading
variant); dr-and-i (ea-stem): GDSg drand-w-oy, LocSg aṙ drand-w-oǰ, NPl
drand-i-k‘, GDPl drand-e-ac‘ (all in the Bible) ‘space before a door, porch;
threshold’ (Bible); dial. (Muš/Bulanəx, Hamšen, etc.) *dr-and-i ‘the upper
horizontal part of the door-frame or at a balcony’, in Bulanəx also *dr-and-ay ‘id.’.
Here are some of the Biblical attestations of dr-and(-i).
NSg drand is attested only in Isaiah 6.4: verac‘aw drandn i jaynēn : ἐπήρϑη τὸ
ὑπέρϑυρον ἀπὸ τῆς φωνῆς (“the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of
him”).
In Astuacaturean 1895: 414b one finds no forms indicating the i-stem of drand.
The only evidence comes from Ezekiel 43.8 (NHB 1: 642c). Here, APl dr-and-s is
found next to GDPl drand-e-a-c‘, var. dr-and-i-c‘. If dr-and-i-c‘ is reliable, it would
point to an i-stem. Otherwise, one has to admit that the form drand is not found in
oblique cases.
In the same passage from Ezekiel 43.8, the word rendering Gr. πρό-ϑυρον
‘front-door, porch, space before a door’ is apposed with seam rendering φλιά
‘doorpost, jamb’. Compare a different contrast of these words in the dialect of
Muš/Bulanəx: drəndi ‘the upper part of the door-frame’ vs. šem-k‘ ‘the lower part of
the door-frame’; see below.
In Judges 19.26-27: ankaw aṙ drandwoy dran tan aṙnn <...:...> ew jeṙn iwr i
veray drandwoyn : ἔπεσεν παρὰ τὴν ϑύραν τοῦ πυλῶνος τοῦ οἴκου τοῦ ἀνδρός
<...:...> καὶ αἱ χεῖρες ἐπὶ τὸ πρόϑυρον (“fell down at the door of the man’s house
<...:...> with her hands on the threshold”). As we can see, here παρὰ τὴν ϑύραν τοῦ
πυλῶνος (with πύλη ‘house-door; entrance; one wing of a pair of double gates’) is
translated as aṙ drandwoy dran, and in the second part of the passage drandi
corresponds to πρό-ϑυρον.
In aṙ drandwoy dran, *dur- ‘door’ appears twice. The same is also seen in
dialects: Bulanəx dṙan dərəndi (see below). One may assume that the component
dur- ‘door’ in the compound dr-and-i is petrified.
NHB and HAB only give Biblical attestations for drand(i). Hübschmann (1897:
419) cites also Aristotle, De mundo 620.
and-astak ‘vestibule’, attested only in John Chrysostom, belongs here, too [HAB
1: 186b, 187-188]. According to NHB (1: 131), an a-stem, although none of the
three attestations cited in NHB provides information on the declension class.
●DIAL Muš/Bulanəx d‘ərəndi ‘the upper part of the door-frame’ [HAB 1: 186b;
Amatuni 1912: 172b], Van tərəndi [Ačaṙyan 1952: 257], Hamšen dɛrəndi ‘the horizontal beam at a balcony’ [Ačaṙyan 1947: 226] (according to T‘oṙlak‘yan 1981:
152b, terenti, terenta).
In Muš/Bulanəx one finds the following contrast: drəndi ‘the upper part of the
door-frame’ vs. šem-k‘ ‘the lower part of the door-frame’ [S. Movsisyan 1972: 15a].
See also HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 351b, where the meaning is represented as ‘the
upper wood of the door-frame’. This meaning of drəndi can be corroborated by
textual illustrations from folklore.
In a fairy-tale told by Fidan Makaryan (native of Muš/Bulanəx, the village of
Kop‘) in Leninakan in 1930-36, the spouses Nṙno and Dṙno close the door, put the
key “above the drndi of the door” (dṙan dərndu verew) and leave (HŽHek‘ 10, 1967:
365L12; cf. also 365L-8). Then someone approaches the door and stretches his hand
above the drndi (jeṙk‘ gerkənc‘u drəndu verew) and finds the key (365L-1f). In the
glossary of this collection of fairy-tales the word is represented as follows: dərnda ·
dṙan cɫxni “hinge of the door”. It is clear from the context, however, that the word
refers to the upper wood of the doorframe, lintel. This is clearly corroborated by a
passage from another fairy-tale told by the same person (op. cit. 85L4f): es kɛɫnim ɔj,
kə k‘ašvim dṙan drnden, axperd ɔr gika, zpučučak kə xet‘im, meṙc‘um “I will turn
into a snake, I’ll go to the drnda of the door. When your brother comes, I’ll bite his
occiput (back of the head) and kill him”.
As we have seen, the word is glossed as dərnda. In the above passages, the word
occurs in GDSg dərndu/drəndu and NALocSg drnde-n (with the definite article -n).
The former presupposes NSg *drand-i (thus, the classical form), and the latter
*drand-ay (that is, the form glossed in the fairy-tale collection).
Note dṙan drənd-, as in Judges 19.26-27: aṙ drandwoy dran (see above). Thus,
*dur- in the compound dr-and(-i) has become petrified. A similar passage is found
in a fairy-tale told by illiterate Nanuxas Aɫekyan (< Alaškert/Garak‘ilisa) and
recorded by Nazaret‘ Martirosyan in Yerevan in 1915 [HŽHek‘ 9, 1968: 201, lines
15 and 21], where also the key is put onto the lintel of the door: dṙan dərənt/din.
We may conclude that in Muš (Bulanəx, Alaškert) the meaning ‘the upper
horizontal part of the door-frame, lintel’ of drəndi (as correctly given by Ačaṙyan in
HAB) is reliable. A similar meaning is seen in Hamšen. As to the form, in
Muš/Bulanəx one finds both *dr-and-i and *dr-and-ay.
Melik‘ean (1964: 484b) represents the meaning of Xnus (also belonging to Mušgroup) drndi as follows: “threshold, wooden poles at the four sides of the door
(/č‘ardara/)”. The actual meaning seems to be, thus, ‘door-frame’.
In HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 350b, a nominative in drind is recorded, although in
the textual illustration one finds NALoc/AllSg drənti. If reliable, NSg *drind must
be due to a wrong restoration of -i-.
Note also Ararat, Loṙi, Širak drind, usually described as ‘the upper/inner, soft part
of the hand’ [Amatuni 1912: 171b; Ačaṙean 1913: 289a; HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001:
350b], of which no etymology is known to me. Perhaps from drandi, by a semantic
shift ‘upper-door’ > ‘upper-surface of hand’; cf. Moks ceṙac‘ tanis ‘поверхность
кисти руки’, lit. ‘roof of the hand’ (see Orbeli 2002: 253). Surmalu andəvor
‘family’, Van andivor ‘family’ > (euphem.) ‘wife, spouse’ [HAB 1: 186b]. A curse
formula from Van (Šērenc‘ VanSaz 2, 1899: 159L12f, cf. also 161L4f): Anɛck‘ k‘eo tan teɫac‘, anɛck‘ tand andiorac‘, jɛt‘in-pɛtin "Curse to your house and household, curse
to the family of your house, to the young and elder".
In Nerk‘in Basen, building of the roof started with the beams that were called
andkal, under which big pillars (i.e. the doorposts? – HM) were put [Hakobyan
1974: 123]. This word seems to be identical with Alaškert ant‘kal, the Bulanəx
equivalent of which is ankaǰ, lit. ‘(anatom.) ear’ (see S. Movsisyan 1972: 13b, with a
thorough description). I have been unable to find this word in dictionaries. S.
Movsisyan (ibid.) interprets ant‘kal as *anut‘-a-kal, composed of anut‘ ‘armpit’ and
kal- ‘to take, grasp, support’. This is not convincing. One may identify the first
component rather with *and- ‘door-frame, door-posts’. For the typology of a
compound with kal cf. Muš, Van Širak *erdis-kal ‘a cover for the roof-opening’
[Amatuni 1912: 178a].
Čanikean (1895: 275, Nr. 893) records a phrase from Akn: ɔxtə ond onc‘av,
which he interprets as follows: “(He/she) visited many houses door by door”, lit.
“(He/she) passed seven ond-s”. On ond Čanikean (ibid.) notes: “perhaps and”.
Unfortunately, he does not specify this and. The sound change an > on is regular in
the dialect of Akn, cf. onc‘av < anc‘aw ‘passed’ in the very same phrase. It is
tempting to assume that we are dealing with an indispensable evidence for the
independent root *and ‘threshold’. Compare also op. cit. 282L-7f; unclear.12
●ETYM Connected with Skt. ā́tā- f.pl. ‘door-frame, door-posts’, YAv. ąiϑiiā- f.pl.
‘door-post’ (only pl.), Lat. antae f.pl. ‘square pilasters, wall posts of a temple’, OIc.
ǫnd f ‘front room, corridor’ [Hübschmann 1897: 419; HAB 1: 186b; Meillet 1950:
65; Greppin 1983: 289]. The Sanskrit and the Latin words point to *h2(e)nHt-eh2-
(see Schrijver 1991: 311; Mayrhofer EWAia 1: 163). Here also probably Av.
(Pursišnīhā 36) aϑāhuua ‘house’, loc.pl. of aϑā- ‘house’, with extension of
‘doorposts’ to ‘house’ [de Vaan 2003: 136]. Note also Arm. dial. *dr-and-ay (see
below). Beekes (apud de Vaan 2003: 136) suggests a hysterodynamic paradigm
nom.sg. *h2énHt-h2, acc.sg. *h2nHt-éh2-m, gen.sg. *h2nHt-h2ós > PIIr. *ánti, *ātā́m,
*āt
h
ás. YAv. ąiϑiiā- would be then a derivative *antiā.
In view of the Skt. and Latin *ā stems, Godel (1975: 7254) points out that the iinflection of the Armenian “is certainly not the original one”. The Armenian form
seems closely related with the Iranian [Olsen 1999: 448]. For Armenian *dr-and-i- :
*dr-and-ea- I suggest an interchange *-ih2- : *-ieh2- or a hysterodynamic paradigm
NSg *h2énHt-ih2, AccSg *h2(e)nHt-ieh2-m, GSg *h2nHt-ih2-ós. Note that Arm.
by-form drand is not found in oblique cases (except in a variant reading).
Arm. *and- is usually said to be found only in the compound dr-and(i), the
meaning of which is represented as ‘doorposts’ or ‘threshold’. The dialectal material
helps to correct this view. Since drand(i) refers to either upper part of the
door-frame or to the threshold (in Xnus, ‘door-frame’), one may assume that the
basic meaning is ‘door-frame’, cf. Skt. ā́tā- ‘door-frame’. We have seen that PArm.
*and- is also found in other formations in dialects (perhaps even independently, in
Akn), as well as in and-astak ‘vestibule’ (John Chrysostom). Further, see s.v. and
‘cornfield’.
According to Olsen (1999: 67729, 768), the loss of the internal laryngeal in
Armenian may be compositional. However, as we have seen, PArm. *and- is found
not only in the compound dr-and(i). On the internal laryngeal, see 2.1.20. For the
discussion of dr-andi- (also with respect to the problem of nd), see also Clackson
1994: 36ff, 41, 56.
V. Aṙak‘elyan (1984: 88) takes -and in the word dr-and as a suffix, which is
untenable.
andi, o-stem: GSg and-w-o-y, GDPl and-w-o-c‘ (Bible+), andeay, mostly pl.
andeay-k‘ : APl andeay-s, GDPl and-ē-o-c‘ (Bible+), GDPl andeay-c‘ (Afrahat/
Zgōn), andē-i-c‘ (Aristakēs Lastivertc‘i) ‘cattle; cattle herd’.
In the Bible, we find a few attestations of GDPl andw-o-c‘ (also with prepositions
y-, z-); in Numbers, AblSg y-andw-o-y is attested many times, in the following
pattern: zuarak mi/erkus ‘one/two’ (or pl. zuarak-s) yandwoy [Astuacaturean 1895:
93a]. [Thus, andi (coll.) ‘herd’?]. As for andeay, the following forms are attested in
the Bible: NPl andeay-k‘, APl andeay-s, GDPl andē-o-c‘ [Astuacaturean 1895:
92-93]. For other forms, see NHB 1: 132. A collective form without the plural
marker -k‘ in the meaning ‘cattle herd’ is found in Genesis 18.7 (Zeyt‘unyan 1985:
219), in allative y-andeay: yandeay ənt‘ac‘aw Abraam ew aṙ ort‘ mi mataɫ ew bari :
καὶ εἰς τὰς βόας ἔδραμεν Αβρααμ καὶ ἔλαβεν μοσχάριον ἁπαλὸν καὶ καλὸν : “And
Abraham ran to the herd, and took a calf, tender and good”.
andē-ord, a-stem ‘herdsman’, usually occurring in apposition with hoviw
‘shepherd’, as in Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.38 (1913=1991: 164L1), in GDPl
andēord-a-c‘.
●ETYM According to NHB (1: 132a), derived from and ‘cornfields, etc.’. Ačaṙyan
(HAB 1: 188b) does not accept this explanation, but cites no other etymologies.
J̌
ahukyan (1963a: 89; 1987: 112, 157) develops the etymology of NHB; and for the
structure compares vayr ‘field, uncultivated grounds’ > vayr-i ‘wild’. See also s.v.
art-i-.
andruar ‘cart, wagon; horse or mule yoked to a cart’, attested in Agat‘angeɫos, Łazar
P‘arpec‘i, Severian of Gabala, John Chrysostom, etc. Spelled also as andr(u/a)var.
●ETYM Mentioning earlier attempts to explain andruar as containing var- ‘to lead,
etc.’, Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 192b) leaves the origin of the word open. Aɫayan (1974:
20-22) connects anur ‘ring’, which is implausible.
L. Hovhannisyan (1991a: 147) treats the word as composed of Iran. andar
‘interior’ and var ‘cover’ (seen also in žan-uar ‘palanquin’), thus: ‘a cart with
covered interior’. Being the best explanation known to me, it is unconvincing, too. I
propose an alternative etymology, although it is not entirely convincing either. Whether or not related (or contaminated) with var- ‘to lead, etc.’ or var- ‘to
cover’, the second component *war could be identical with that found in žan-uar
‘palanquin’ and eriw/var ‘fine horse’. As to *andr, one might assume that it meant
‘cart, wagon’ and is connected with Skt. ádhvan- m. ‘road’ (RV+), OAv. aduuan-,
YAv. aδβan- m. ‘road’ from PIE *h1ndh
-uen-; Skt. adhvará- m. ‘(Soma-)sacrifice,
ceremony’ (RV+) < *h1ndh
-uer- (probably, an original heteroclitic noun
*adhvar-/adhvan- ‘(holy) road’); cf. OIc. ǫndurr ‘snow-shoe’ < PIE *h1ondh
-ur-o-,
Gr. ἐνϑεῖν (aor.) ‘come’ < PIE *h1ndh
-e/o-.
Thus, perhaps, *h1ndh
-ur- ‘road’ > PArm. *and(u)r ‘cart, wagon’. For the
semantic relationship, cf. PIE *ueĝh
- (see Mallory/Adams 1997: 488a). Compare
especially OIc. ǫndurr ‘snow-shoe’ (< PIE *h1ondh
-ur-o-), which is close to
Armenian both formally (*-ur-) and semantically, since the essential part of both
snow-shoes and sleighs consists of a pair of wooden strips that enable gliding on
snow.
The basic meaning of the compound would be, then, ‘(attached to) cart/ wagon’.
Van *andrac‘ic‘ ‘a part of the wagon’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 97a; HayLezBrbBaṙ 1,
2001: 57b] seems to be composed of *andr + -a- + c‘ic‘ ‘pole’. The first component
could be the same *andr ‘cart, wagon’, unless it is identical with the prefix andra-
(cf. t‘erac‘ic‘, with t‘er ‘side’, etc., see Ačaṙean 1913: 358b). Uncertain.
andund-k‘, o-stem: GDPl andnd-o-c‘, frequent in the Bible; Tumanjan (1978: 161)
cites also GSg. andnd-i, adding that the word is an a-stem, too. However, she does
not specify her sources, and I could not find any trace of declensions other than the
o-type (cf. NHB; HAB; Astuacaturean 1895: 93; J̌
ahukyan 1959: 272; Olsen 1999:
28, 834) ‘abyss’.
●DIAL Preserved in a number of dialects; in some of them, as petrified plural. Some
dialects show alternations in the anlaut: Muš h’andə
unt, Alaškert h’antut (in HAB 3:
39a – h’andud), Šatax h’ändütk‘y, Moks händütk‘, Nor Bayazet handund, Agulis
á/ä́ndüntk‘, Salmast, Urmia (Xoy) ändütky
[HAB 1: 191a; Ačaṙyan 1952: 245; M.
Muradyan 1962: 94 (the paradigm of Šatax h’ändütk‘y),192a; M. Asatryan 1962:
191b].
According to Baɫdasaryan-T‘ap‘alc‘yan (1958: 245, 2451), Muš has h’andundk‘,
the use of which is restricted to a single expression. However, note HŽHek‘ 13,
1985: 11 (h’andundk‘) and 60 (andund). Next to Alaškert h’andədel ‘to get lost
underground’, Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 39a) also mentions Muš h’andəndel ‘to calm
down’, which, if indeed related, should be understood as *‘to get peace by getting
rid of smth./smb.’; cf. atak(v)el s.v. yatak ‘bottom’.
Some of the dialects represent forms without the second nasal: Alaškert h’antut
(in HAB 3: 39a: h’andud), T‘iflis andut‘k, Šatax h’ändütk‘y, Moks händütk‘,
Salmast, Urmia (Xoy) ändütky
[HAB 1: 191a; Ačaṙyan 1952: 245; M. Muradyan
1962: 94, 192a; Asatryan 1962: 191b]. Łarabaɫ əndóxtə [Davt‘yan 1966: 310] may
belong here, too (see below). The isogloss sets off the dialect group 7 (Van – Urmia
– Łarabaɫ area), and the Northern (T‘iflis) and Eastern parts of the dialect group 2
(the line runs between Muš and Alaškert; cf. Muš h’andundk‘ vs. Alaškert h’antut /
h’andud). Similar isoglosses often comprise group 6, too (I hope to discuss this issue
elsewhere), but in this particular case, a different development has taken place in the
dialects of the Meɫri area of group 6. It has been argued that, if initial ClArm. a- corresponds to Šatax h’ä-, Van ä- and
Muš h’a-, we may safely reconstruct an old by-form with an initial *y- (see 2.3.1). In
Weitenberg’s (1986: 96) list, *y-andund-k‘ is found, too. In this particular case, Van
only has andundk‘ (see Ačaṙyan 1952: 245). However, the remaining evidence
seems sufficient to corroborate the reconstruction. The forms with y- can be
explained from prefixation with y < PIE *h1en ‘in’; cf. Weitenberg 1986: 94. As
regards *y-andund-k‘, this is easy to understand since andund and other synonyms
discussed here 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 in abyss/hell”. The pattern is widespread. The preverb i/y- (cf.
Weitenberg 1986: 93-94) may also have played a role here; cf. *y-andndim ‘to get
lost underground, to get rid of smth., smb.’.
In a variant of the Armenian epic told by Kazaryan T‘aṙo of Hayoc‘ jor (Van) and
first published in 1909, we find hantüt‘k‘ [Sasna cṙer 1, 1936: 1062]. More evidence
is needed. If reliable, this h- requires a separate discussion since ya- and ha- yield
Van ä- and xa-, respectively. A few such examples can be found in Ačaṙyan 1952:
101. I wonder whether this issue can be discussed in terms of the twofold
development of the initial prevocalic y- as demonstrated by Weitenberg (1997).
In some of the dialects of the Meɫri area belonging to group 6 one finds *dund
instead of andund(k‘): Meɫri dünd [Aɫayan 1954: 295]; Karčewan dünd [H.
Muradyan 1960: 192a], Kak‘avaberd dund [H. Muradyan 1967: 169b].
Łarabaɫ (Martakert, Step‘anakert) əndɔ́
xtə, əndɔ́
xtnə and əndɔ́
xnə (see Davt‘yan
1966: 56, 310).
●ETYM Armenian andund-k‘, o-stem ‘abyss’ is a privative compound of PIE
*bh
udh
no- (probably from older *bh
udh
mno- which resulted from an original
paradigm NSg *bh
udh
-mēn, GSg *bh
udh
-mn-ós): Skt. budhná- m. ‘bottom, ground,
depth; lowest part of anything (as the root of a tree, etc.)’, OAv. būna- ‘ground’,
Pahl. bun ‘base, foundation, bottom’, Arm. bun ‘trunk of a tree; shaft of a spear’
(Iranian loanword), Gr. πυϑμήν, -ένος m. ‘bottom (of a cup or jar); base, foundation;
bottom of the sea, depth; stock, root of a tree; stem, stalk’, OHG bodam, etc., see
Meillet 1903c: 430 = 1978: 171; HAB 1: 190; Pokorny 1959: 174; Solta 1960: 285-
286; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984: 488-489 = 1995: 408; Pulju 1997: 390-396; cf. de
Lagarde 1854: 11L213f. Not included in Greppin 1983.
The metathesis *-dh
n- > -nd- may be old since it is also found in Lat. fundus
‘bottom’, OIr. bond ‘sole’, MInd., Dard., Prakr. bundha- n. ‘root’, FPerm. (< Iran.)
*punta- ‘ground, bottom’ [Schrijver 1991: 501; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996:
228-229; Olsen 1999: 2851] (Gr. πύνδαξ, -ακος m. ‘bottom of a jar, cup, or other
vessel’ is problematic).
Meillet (ibid.) explains the change of the initial *bh
- to Arm. *d- from
contamination with *dh
ubno- ‘deep’, although there is no trace of this adjective in
Armenian. With respect to this IE form cf. Pedersen 1906: 353 = 1982: 131;
J
̌
ahukyan 1987: 161. Note especially Welsh annwn ‘the otherworld’ < *‘sans fond’;
see Vendryes 1914: 307-309; J̌
ahukyan 1992: 20-21. For the discussion of Celt.
*an-dub-no- I refer to Lejeune 1982: 107-111; Eska 1992 (with bibl.; I am indebted
to P. Schrijver for this reference); Delamarre 2001: 42. This solution cannot be ruled out. More probable is, however, that an assimilation
has taken place: b...d > d...d, see Vendryes 1914: 309; Pokorny 1959: 174; Solta
1960: 285-286; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 117. The assimilation could be triggered by the
dental nasal of the privative prefix. In other words, we are dealing with an
assimilation nb...nd > nd...nd. This would imply that there was no PArm. *dund-,
and that the dialectal form *dund (Karčewan, Kak‘avaberd; see above) must be
considered secondary. There were two forms *bund- ‘bottom’ and *an-bund- >
an-dund-k‘ ‘bottomless’. Subsequently, *bund- was lost. In this respect, Olsen’s
(1999: 28) assumption that the “synchronically opaque” andund-k‘ is an old
privative compound PIE *n̥-bh
udh
no- comparable with Skt. a-budhná- ‘bottomless’
(RV 1.24.7; 8.77.5) seems plausible. Note also Pahl. a-bun [’bwn] ‘baseless,
bottomless’ (see MacKenzie 1971: 4). However, one cannot be absolutely sure
whether we are dealing with a shared innovation or independent developments in
Indo-Iranian and Armenian. Compare also Gr. ἄβυσσος ‘bottomless, unfathomed’,
subst. f. ‘the great deep; the abyss, underworld’ beside βυϑός m. ‘the depth (esp. of
the sea)’, βυσσός m. ‘depth of the sea’, although these forms are unclear (see below).
It may seem attractive to directly compare the dial. by-form *(y)an-dud, without
the nasal before the final -d, with Gr. ἄβυσσος ‘bottomless; abyss, underworld’
(possibly from *n̥-budh
-io-), cf. βυϑός m., βυσσός m. ‘the depth of the sea’.
However, the etymological relationship of these Greek forms with the PIE word
under discussion is unclear. As for the Łarabaɫ ən-dɔ́
xtə, its possible protoform
*an-duft- is reminiscent of Alb. det, dial. [de:t] m. ‘sea’ (< *‘Meerestiefe’) <
*dh
eub-eto-; cf. Goth. diupiþa ‘depth’ (see Huld 1984: 50; Beekes 1995: 261;
Demiraj 2001: 68). This is risky. The absence of the nasal may be due to a
dissimilatory loss, although I could not find any convincing parallels. Furthermore,
the Łarabaɫ form can be explained in a simpler way; see below.
The form *dund in the Meɫri area is probably secondary (i.e. a back-formation
from an-dund), since the original root-form should have been *bund, unless one
accepts the idea about the influence of *dh
ub-. I am not even sure that *dund belongs
to andundk‘. Muradyan does not specify the meaning of the forms of Karčewan and
Kak‘avaberd. As regards the Meɫri form, Aɫayan glosses it as meaning ‘small
hillock’ (stressing that this is the root of andund), and I do not understand the
semantic motivation. Note also Meɫri dend ‘hill’ [Aɫayan 1954: 295].
Łarabaɫ əndɔ́
xtə, əndɔ́
x(t)nə is explained by Davt‘yan (1966: 56) by a metathesis
-ndk‘ > -k‘dn, which seems improbable. Besides, we need not start with the Classical
form (pl. tant.) andund-k‘ since the plural marker is not lexicalized in the majority of
dialects (see HAB), among them also in Šamaxi (see Baɫramyan 1964: 187), which
is one of the closest to Łarabaɫ, also in Burdur (see N. Mkrtč‘yan 1971: 177a), the
speakers of which migrated from Łarabaɫ in the beginning of the 17th century. (The
word is not recorded in Goris; see Margaryan 1975). An alternative explanation that
Łarabaɫ *an-duft- goes back to a PArm. form which differs from that of andundcannot be ruled out completely, but it is unlikely and even unnecessary since a much
simpler solution can be offered. Łarabaɫ *əndoxt(n)ə and *əndox(t)nə might be
explained by a folk-etymological reinterpretation as *ənd oxt(n) *‘at the seven(th
layer of the Underworld)’. According to the Armenian folk-beliefs, the Underworld
consists of seven layers; cf. also the curse: getnin oxt ɫat‘ə anc‘nis ‘may you passinto the seventh layer of the earth (= hell)’ [S. Harut‘yunyan 2000: 11, 438]. The
occurrence of the preposition ənd in connection with Underworld can be illustrated,
for instance, by a prayer recorded in Šamšadin: ənd andunden and ənd andunds
[Xemč‘yan 2000: 246b]. The variant *əndox(t)nə shows an additional -n (for which
see Weitenberg 1985); cf. Łarabaɫ oxnə (< oxtə ‘seven’) ‘funerary rite on the seventh
day after the death’ (see Lisic‘yan 1981: 52; Davt‘yan 1966: 349). For the reflexes
of ənd in the dialect of Łarabaɫ, see HAB 2: 124b; Davt‘yan 1966: 352.
For further analysis, see s.v. yatak ‘bottom’.
aner, o-stem: GDSg aner-o-y (widespread in the Bible; Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.82),
GDPl aner-o-c‘ (Philo, for the passage, see NHB 2: 124a and HAB 3: 119b, s.v.
hor), later a-stem: GDSg aner-i (Nersēs Šnorhali, 12th cent.), GDPl aner-a-c‘
(Vahram Vardapet, 13th cent.) ‘father-in-law, wife’s father’ (Bible+), ‘in-law;
brother-in-law, wife’s brother’ (P‘awstos Buzand, Movsēs Xorenac‘i, etc.).
This is the principal Armenian word for ‘father-in-law, wife’s father’, widely
represented in the Bible (Astuacaturean 1895: 95a).
The meaning ‘in-law; brother-in-law, wife’s brother’ is found in P‘awstos Buzand
3.5 (1883=1984: 11L14; transl. Garsoïan 1989: 71): ew minč‘ deṙ vasn aynorik zzuēin
zna anerk‘ nora : “but while his in-laws oppressed him on account of this”. Other
attestations can be found in Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.82 (1913=1991: 225L2), etc.,
Vahram Vardapet (13th cent., Cilicia), and Step‘anos Ōrbelean (13th cent., Siwnik‘),
see NHB 1: 139b; HAB 1: 193a; for the attestation in Step‘anos Ōrbelean, see also
A. A. Abrahamyan 1985: 62-63. Combining the literary testimony from Cilicia and
Siwnik‘ in the 13th century with the dialectal distribution (Hačən, Zeyt‘un, Maraɫa,
etc.), we can assume that this meaning was present in SW and SE areas from at least
the 13th century up to the present time.
MidArm. aner-jag ‘brother-in-law, wife’s brother’ [MiǰHayBaṙ 1, 1987: 52a],
with jag ‘youngling, nestling’ as the second member.
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects, mostly in the meaning ‘father-in-law, wife’s
father’ [HAB 1: 193a]. In eastern peripheral dialects, Łarabaɫ, Goris, Šamaxi, Kṙzen,
etc., one finds hánɛr, with an initial h- [HAB ibid.; Baɫramyan 1961: 174b; 1964:
187; Davt‘yan 1966: 310; Margaryan 1975: 313b].
Maraɫa anɛr, Zeyt‘un anir, and Hačən aney refer to ‘brother-in-law, wife’s
brother’ (see above for literary testimony), whereas the meaning ‘father-in-law,
wife’s father’ is represented by kakɔ and Turk. kɛynat‘a in Maraɫa, and by
zək‘ənč‘bɔb (= zok‘anč‘ ‘wife’s mother’ + pap ‘father’) in Zeyt‘un [HAB 1: 193a;
Ačaṙean 1926: 383; 2003: 308]13. A textual illustration is found in a folk-tale told by
Nikoɫayos Petrosyan, an illiterate old man from Manazkert/Hasan-P‘aša, in 1912 in
Łaznafar [HŽHek‘ 9, 1968: 211L1f]: Ínč‘ anastvac mard en im anertik‘ “What kind
of ‘god-less’ people are my in-laws!”.
MidArm. aner-jag ‘brother-in-law, wife’s brother’ is present in Nor Naxiǰewan,
Polis, Arabkir [Ačaṙean 1913: 97b], Širak, Ararat, Muš, etc. [Amatuni 1912: 30-31].
Note Moks änɛrcäk‘y
, gen. änɛrcäk‘y
-u, pl. änɛrcäk‘y
-ir and -t-ir ‘шурин, сын
тестя’ vs. anir, gen. änir-uč‘, pl. änɛr-k‘y
-ir, gen.pl. änɛr-k‘y
-ir-u ‘тесть’ [Orbeli
2002: 202, 203].
●ETYM Dervischjan (1877: 35-36) connects aner with Gr. ἀνήρ ‘man, husband’, Skt.
nár- ‘man, human’, etc. (on this PIE word, see s.v. ayr ‘man, husband’). M. Schmidt
(1916) derives Arm. aner, o-stem, from QIE *an-ero-, a derivative of the PIE word
for ‘ancestor’ with the comparative *-ero- seen in Skt. ápara- ‘posterior, later,
following’ (cf. typologically Lat. mater-tera ‘mother’s sister’, etc.); thus, ‘someone
like the grandfather’. Olsen (32-33, 222, 848) posits a form with *-tero- (cf. Lat.
mater-tera), which is less probable. Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 192-193) rejects these and
other etymologies (including the untenable comparison with Gr. γαμβρός ‘son-inlaw, brother-in-law, sister’s husband’, Skt. jā́mātar- ‘son-in-law, daughter’s
husband’, etc., Bugge 1892: 444-445) and leaves the origin of aner open.14
Winter 1966: (206; see also Schmitt 1972-74: 23; Huld apud Mallory/Adams
1997: 196a) suggests a connection with Gr. πενϑερός ‘father-in-law, wife’s father;
brother-in-law, son-in-law’. In order to explain the formal difficulties, Winter (ibid.)
assumes an influence of hayr ‘father’. This etymology is untenable.
The etymology of M. Schmidt is the most probable and is accepted in Pokorny
1959: 37; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 111, 259, 260 (hesitantly); Olsen 1999: 32-33.
This etymology implies a connection with Arm. han(i) ‘grandmother’, cf. Gr.
ἀννίς ‘mother-in-law’, Lat. anus ‘old woman’, etc. That this PIE word for
‘ancestress, grandmother’ would develop a meaning ‘wife’s father’ is not
impossible, cf. Lith. anýta ‘husband’s mother’, OHG ano ‘ancestor, grandfather’ vs.
ana ‘ancestress, grandmother’, etc. (see Szemerényi 1977: 48).
A similar fluctuation is also seen in the PIE word for ‘grandfather’: Arm. haw
‘grandfather, ancestor; uncle’ (q.v.), Lat. avus ‘grandfather; ancestor, forefather’,
avunculus ‘maternal uncle; mother’s sister’s husband; great-uncle’, OIr. aue
‘grandson’, Lith. avýnas ‘maternal uncle’, Hitt. ḫuḫḫaš ‘grandfather’, etc. vs. Lat.
avia ‘grandmother’, Goth. awō ‘grandmother’, etc. (see Szemerényi 1977: 47Nr7,
48Nr8, 61; Lehmann 1986: 53; Huld/Adams apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 238a, 239a).
Compare also Bulg. djádo, dedá, dédo ‘grandfather; old man; father-in-law, wife’s
father’, d’ádọ ‘grandfather; father-in-law, husband’s father’, déda ‘elder sister’,
Maced. dedo ‘grandfather; old man; father-in-law, wife’s father’, Lith. dėd̃ ė, dėdis ̃
‘uncle’, Gr. τήϑη ‘grandmother’, τηϑίς ‘father’s or mother’s sister, aunt’, τηϑία ‘old
woman’, Lith. tetà, Russ. tetja ‘aunt’, etc. (see s.v. *tat(a) ‘grandmother; father’).
The eastern dialectal hanɛr probably preserves the initial h- seen in han-i and thus
reflecting the PIE laryngeal, cf. Hitt. ḫanna- ‘grandmother’. Note that these dialects
do not display a secondary non-etymological h- e.g. in cases with metathesis *CRV-
> RCV- > e/a-RCV-, where C = voiced or voiced aspirated stop; see s.vv. aɫbewr,
artasu-k‘, eɫbayr, erkan, etc.
*anēc-: anicanem, 3sg.aor.act. anēc, imper. anēc (Bible), 3sg.aor.mid. anic-a-w
(Grigoris Aršaruni) ‘to curse’ (Bible+); anēc-k‘ pl. tant. i-stem: gen.-dat. anic-i-c‘,
abl. y-anic-i-c‘, instr. anic-i-w-k‘ ‘curse, imprecation’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 1: 193b]. ●ETYM From PIE *h3neid-: Skt. ned-: pres. níndati, aor. ánindiṣur, desid. nínits- ‘to
revile; to blame; to mock’, YAv. 1sg.pres.act. nāismī ‘to curse’, Gr. ὄνειδος n.
‘reprimand, abuse’, Lith. níedėti ‘to despise’, Goth. ga-naitjan ‘to treat shamefully’,
OHG neizzan ‘torment’, etc. Bugge 1892: 450; 1893: 46; HAB 1: 193; Pokorny
1959: 760; Greppin 1983: 290-291; Lehmann 1986: 146; Ravnæs 1991: 18;
Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 54-55; Mallory/Adams 1997: 313a.
The explanation of Arm. -c- from *-di̯- (Scheftelowitz 1904-05, 2: 30; Polomé
1980: 21; Klingenschmitt 1982: 194-195; Olsen 1999: 88, 478, 763, 811) is
untenable; *-di̯- would rather yield -č- (see 2.1.22.1). One prefers assuming sigmatic
aorist: *-d-s- > -c-, cf. YAv. nāismī ‘to curse’ if from *nāid-s-mi (see Meillet 1918:
211; Pedersen 1924: 222a = 1982: 305a; Pokorny 1959: 760; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 74,
189; Kortlandt 1987a: 51; 1994: 28-29; 1996: 41-42 = 2003: 80, 104-105, 115;
sceptical Klingenschmitt 1982: 195; Greppin 1983: 290; Olsen 1999: 81055).
ant‘, anut‘, o-stem, i- or a-stem ‘armpit’, dial. also ‘embrace, grasp’, ‘bundle’,
‘shoulder, back’, etc. (Bible+). The o-stem is seen in Jeremiah 38.12: ənd ant‘-ov-k‘.
Next to o-stem, Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 207b) records also i-stem. The following forms
are attested: GDSg ant‘i, AblSg y-ant‘-ē (Paterica apud NHB 1: 220b); Loc/AllSg
y-ant‘-i, found in P‘awstos Buzand 3.18 (1883=1984: 41L4; transl. Garsoïan 1989:
93): mēn mi yant‘i harealk‘ : “each one taking one [of them] under his arm”; GDPl
ant‘-ic‘ in Łewond (see NHB 2: 1044b, in the appendix).
NAccSg anut‘ (also in y-anut‘) is attested in 2 Maccabees 12.40, Łazar P‘arpec‘i,
Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.85 (1913=1991: 230L13), etc. In oblique cases and derivatives,
as well as in the verb ant‘em, -u- is regularly syncopated (ant‘-). Later (Mxit‘ar
Herac‘i, “Čaṙəntir”), one finds NAPl ant‘/d-k‘, -s, without the -u-. According to
Vardanean (HandAms 1922: 280, see HAB s.v.], the form ant‘ is a corruption. As
correctly argued by Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 207c), however, the form ant‘ is corroborated
by the dialectal forms. In 1947: 35, Ačaṙyan states that Hamšen ɔnt‘ points to the
original form. Note also the newly found attestation in “Kc‘urdk‘” by Ephrem Asori:
NPl and-k‘ [L. Hovhannisyan 1987: 137].
Late ant‘-a-tak ‘armpit’ is given in NHB 2: 1043c as a dialectal word. Indeed,
this compound is recorded in a number of dialects; see below.
●DIAL Van, Moks hünt‘, Šatax hunt‘ ‘armpit’, compound with tak ‘below, under’:
Van (h)nt‘-i-tak, ənt‘-a-tak, verb hənt‘el, Moks hənt‘-ə-tak [HAB 1: 29, 130,
207-208; Ačaṙyan 1952: 245; M. Muradyan 1962: 192a], Bulanəx h’ant‘etak [S.
Movsisyan 1972: 71a]. According to Orbeli (2002: 226), Moks (the village of
Aṙnanc‘) ənt‘ətak refers to ‘ребро’ (= ‘rib’). For a textual illustration of Van ənt‘i
tak, see Ter-Mkrtč‘yan 1970: 149a. The voiced h’- in Bulanəx, Šatax, etc. point to
*y-, see 2.3.1
Zeyt‘un ɔnt‘ ‘embrace’, Hačən ɔnt‘ ‘bundle’, Maraš ɔnt‘ ‘shoulder, back’
[Ačaṙyan 2003: 298].
Hamšen ɔnt‘, ɔnt ‘embrace, grasp’, ɔnt‘uš, ɔntuš ‘to embrace’, ɔnt‘-t/dag ‘armpit’
(with tak ‘below, under’) [Ačaṙyan 1947: 12, 35, 177, 221].
Apart from Hamšen and Van-group, the compound ant‘-a/i-tak is also found in
Muš (h’and‘ɛtak) and Alaškert (h’antɛtak) [HAB 1: 208a]; according to
Baɫdasaryan-T‘ap‘alc‘yan (1958: 245b): Muš h’ant‘ɛtag. In view of the correspondence between Moks and Šatax h’- and Muš h’-, we may reconstruct
*y-ant‘Vtak (see 2.3.1).
The vowel -ü/u- in Van-group needs an explanation since the vocalic
development a > ü/u is exceptional for these dialects [Ačaṙyan 1952: 29; M.
Muradyan 1962: 34]. In Muš and Alaškert, the word an(u)t‘ is only found in the
compound *y-ant‘Vtak and has not been preserved independently (not in HAB,
Baɫdasaryan-T‘ap‘alc‘yan 1958 and Madat‘yan 1985); cf. Muš, Alaškert *ačuk-tak
(see s.v. ačuk ‘groin’). I assume that the word was also lost in Van-group, but then
secondarily restored after h’ənt‘Vtak, as if reflecting NSg *yunt‘ vs. oblique and
compositional *y(ə)nt‘-; see 2.3.1. It is hard to say whether the -u- of ClArm. anut‘
has played a role here.
●ETYM Bugge (1893: 2) derived the word from the PIE term for ‘axle’ (cf. Skt.
ákṣ-a- m., Lat. ax-is, Lith. aš-ìs, OHG ahsa f., etc.), assuming a development *ak̂
sn-
> *asn-ut‘. For the semantics, cf. Lat. axilla ‘armpit’, OHG uohsana, OEngl. ōxn
‘armpit’, etc. Although accepted by Pokorny (1959: 6) and, with some reservation,
by Greppin (1983: 292-293), the etymology causes phonological and morphological
problems and is rejected by Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 207b) and J̌
ahukyan (1983: 88).
J̌
ahukyan (1983: 88) compares Lith. añtis ‘bosom’, už-añtis ‘bosom; armpit’,
Latv. azuôts ‘bosom’, considering the -u- of NSg anut‘ an analogical restoration.
The Baltic word family has no further cognates (Fraenkel 1: 12). In order to explain
the aspirated dental -t‘- of the Armenian form, J̌
ahukyan reconstructs a by-form
*anthi- (next to *anti- > and) which is ad hoc. I therefore propose the following
solution.
In 2.1.18 and 2.1.22.12-13, I try to demonstrate that an aspirated dental stop that
follows -n- or -r- may be explain by additional factors such as the influence of a
following PIE laryngeal or the reconstruction of another consonant between the
sonant and the dental. The former factor would help to reformulate the etymology of
J̌
ahukyan by assuming a thematic formation based on fem. *h2(V)nt-eh2-. Thus:
*h2(V)nt-h2-o- > PArm. *anth
-o- vs. *h2(V)nt-i- or *h2(V)nt-eh2- > *and-i/a-; for
other examples and a discussion, see 2.2.2.6. On the other hand, one may take into
account the latter factor and alternatively derive Arm. ant‘ from PIE *h2enk- ‘to
bend, curve’: Skt. áñcati ‘to bend’, aṅká- m. ‘hook, clamp’, áṅkas- n. ‘curve’
(RV+), Gr. ἀγκ- ‘to curve’, ἀγκάλη f., mostly pl. ‘curved arm, armfull’, ἀγκύλος
‘curved, bent’, ἀγκών, -ῶνος m. ‘elbow’, Lat. ancus ‘with crooked arms’, OHG
angul ‘fishhook’, SerbCS ǫkotь ‘hook’ f., ORuss. f. ukotь ‘claw, anchor’, etc. (see
Schrijver 1991: 43, 51, 60; Mayrhofer EWAia 1: 52-53, etc.). Suffixed forms
*h2nk-ti- or *h2nk-to- ‘bending, bent arm’ would yield Arm. *an(k)th
- > ant‘
regularly; see 2.1.22.13. Note that the suffix *-ti- is frequently found in Sanskrit
body-part terms, cf. śúpti- ‘shoulder’ (RV), etc. [Mayrhofer EWAia 2: 647].
One wonders whether Lith. añtis, etc. point to a “primitive” root *h2en- from
which *h2en-k- has been derived. Cf. also *h2ens- > Lat. ānsa ‘handle, grip’, OPr.
ansis ‘hook of a kettle’, Lith. ąsà ‘ear of a jug, eye of a needle, button-hole’, Latv.
ùosa ‘handle, ear, eyelet’, etc. (on which see Toporov, PrJaz [1], A-D, 1975: 92-93;
Schrijver 1991: 61).
The meanings ‘armpit’, ‘shoulder’, ‘elbow’, and ‘knee’ can be grouped together
around the idea “des gekrümmten Gelenks”; see 3.7.2. The irregular labial vocalism of Van, etc. hünt‘ remains unexplained (see above).
Perhaps an influence of the form anut‘?
*ant‘a(y)r-: in Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘, one finds ant‘ayr ‘spark’ [Amalyan 1975: 21Nr455].
●DIAL No dialectal forms are recorded in HAB 1: 194a.
Dial. ant‘-r-oc‘ (see s.v. ant‘eɫ ‘hot coal, ember’) may belong here, too.
●ETYM Probably related with Gr. ἄνϑραξ m. ‘charcoal’, as a Mediterranean
substratum word. See s.v. ant‘eɫ ‘hot coal, ember’ for more detail. We can
reconstruct Arm. *anth
-ar-i. For the insertion of -i- into ant‘ayr compare žayn vs.
žani-k‘ (a-stem) ‘tusk, fang’; cf. 2.1.27.1.
ant‘eɫ ‘hot coal, ember’, attested in Łazar P‘arpec‘i /5th cent./ (y-ant‘eɫ ‘on ember’),
Hexaemeron (loc. y-ant‘eɫ-i), Cyril of Alexandria (ant‘eɫ harkanem). NHB (1: 151b)
also records dial. verbal antɫel < ant‘eɫel.
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects; also with the suffix -oc‘ : ant‘(-e)ɫ-oc‘ and
ant‘-r-oc‘ (both attested also in DialAdd apud NHB 2: 1060c). The variant
ant‘-r-oc‘ has been preserved in Bulanəx, Van, T‘avriz [HAB 1: 194a], Urmia,
Salmast [GwṙUrmSalm 1, 1897: 546]. See also s.v. ant‘ayr ‘spark’ (probably from
*ant‘-ar-i).
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 194a) treats the word as a Caucasian borrowing (cf.
Georg. ant-eba ‘to burn’) and considers the resemblance with Gr. ἄνϑραξ m.
‘charcoal’ accidental. Vogt (1938: 333) mentions both Greek and Georgian
connections. Łap‘anc‘yan (1961: 163-164) adds Hitt. ant- ‘warm’. See also Greppin
1978-79: 435, who points out that the function of the final -eɫ is not clarified.
Further, see Schultheiss 1961: 225-226.
J̌
ahukyan (1987: 112, 157, 592) reconstructs *anth
- for Armenian and Greek and
argues against Ačaṙyan’s view, pointing out that the Georgian word has no
Caucasian cognates, and adduces also Arm. ant‘ayr ‘sparkle’ (q.v.). On the other
hand, he (1983: 88-89; 1987: 592) alternatively treats ant‘eɫ as comprising the prefix
an- and t‘eɫ ‘pile, heap’ (q.v.). This is semantically unconvincing. Besides, the
etymology is in conflict with the dialectal variant *ant‘r-.
One wonders whether Hitt. ḫandāiš ‘warmth, heat’ can be connected, too (see s.v.
xand ‘envy, etc.’).
We are possibly dealing with an Armeno-Greek(-Hittite?) word of substratum
(“Mediterranean”) origin. For the suffixal element -ɫ, cf. other semantically similar
examples: Lat. candēla ‘candle’, Arm. xand-aɫ-, xanj-oɫ ‘half-burnt wood’ (Bible+),
etc. (see s.vv. xand, xanj-); Gr. αἰϑ-άλ-η ‘soot’ from αἴϑω ‘to kindle; to burn’; Arm.
gaz-aɫ ‘ash’ vs. *gaz- ‘to burn’ (q.v.). For the *-r- element seen in dial. *ant‘-r-, Gr.
ἄνϑ-ρ-αξ, and perhaps ant‘ayr, cf. xanj-r- (Agat‘angeɫos), xanj-aṙ ‘spark’ (Grigor
Magistros, “Geoponica”), see s.vv. xand, xanj-. Note also Muš pj-eɫ, Alaškert pɛj-il
‘spark’ from *pɛc ‘spark’ (see HAB 2: 507a) next to Van pc-aṙ ‘spark’ [Ačaṙean
1913: 908] : payc-aṙ ‘shiny, clear, splended’ (Bible+; dial.) [HAB 4: 17-18]; cf. also
acuɫ/x. Thus, ant‘-eɫ ‘ember’ and *ant‘-r- ‘spark’ may be seen as derivations from
substr. *anth
- with alternating *-l- and *-r- suffixal elements as in *xand-aɫ :
xanj-(V)ɫ/r-; Muš *pc-eɫ : Van *pc-aṙ.
anid ‘a bird’. Attested only in the long recension of Ašxarhac‘oyc‘, Armenian Geography of
the 7th century, among the grazing birds (hawk‘ čarakawork‘) of the province of
Barjr Hayk‘, i. e. Upper Armenia [Soukry 1881: 30 (Arm. text), 40 (French transl.)].
The short recension here mentions only haws pitanis APl ‘useful birds’ without a
specification [A. G. Abrahamyan 1944: 349].
Soukry translates anid as ‘aside’. He seems to consider it to be a corruption for
asid, but the latter birdname is merely a transliteration of the Hebrew word in Job
39.13 /Gr. ἀσιδα ‘stork’/ [HAB 1: 268b]; cf. Hewsen 1992: 59, 15324: zasid ‘stork’.
Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 195), Eremyan (1963: 96a, 106a, 107b), and Ananyan
(HayKendAšx 3, 1965: 296) do not specify the bird. Not mentioned in Greppin 1978.
●ETYM No etymology whatsoever has been proposed for the word.
I wonder whether one can connect it to PIE *h2(e)nHti- ‘duck’, cf. Skt. ātí- ‘a
water bird’, Lat. anas, GSg anatis (also anit-) ‘duck’, Lith. ántis ‘duck’, etc. For the
discussion of other possible, but problematic cognates I refer to Beekes 1969: 197;
1985: 63-64; Euler 1979: 132; Fulk 1988: 153-154, 170-171 (on PGerm. *anuδi-);
Schrijver 1991: 94-95; Rix 1991; M. Meier-Brügger 1993; Greppin apud
Mallory/Adams 1997: 171; Cheung 2002: 111, 149 (on Oss. acc/accæ ‘wild duck’),
etc. On the reconstruction of the PIE paradigm, see Beekes 1985: 63-64; Mayrhofer
EWAia 1: 163. The medial laryngeal is *h2 if Gr. νῆσσα, Boeot. νᾶσσα ‘duck’ is
related.
From the zero-grade form, one would expect Arm. *and-, cf. s.v. (dr)and-i
‘threshold’. In the hypothetical paradigm NSg *and, GSg *and-i, the nominative
might have been reshaped analogically (after words like ak‘is, GSg ak‘si ‘weasel’;
karič, GSg karči ‘scorpion’, etc.) to one of the possible forms, namely *anud or
*anid.
The semantic fluctuation between ‘grazing bird’ and ‘water bird’ can be
illustrated by araws ‘bustard; stork’. If araws is indeed related to arawš, one should
note that the latter is another hapax occurring in the same Ašxarhac‘oyc‘ passage,
beside anid. It is remarkable that in Movsēs Xorenac‘i 3.59 (1913=1991: 338), the
numerous hawk‘ čarakawork‘ (see above) are mentioned in (a part of) the same
province of Barjr Hayk‘, gawaṙ Karnoy, which abounds in water, marshes, reeds
and grasses. In such an environment, the above-mentioned fluctuation is even more
probable.
Although all the steps involved in this tentative etymology seem reasonable, on
the whole it remains uncertain.
anic, ISg anc-ov (late, once) ‘nit, louse egg’.
First attested in Grigor Narekac‘i 69.2 (Xač‘atryan/Łazinyan 1985: 522L24):
anick‘ ankerpawork‘ ‘shapeless nits’. Next, three times in the commentary on this
text, see NHB 1: 154a. In one of these passages, which is a list of small annoying
insects, anic (ISg ancov) appears after lu and oǰil and before kic (see s.vv.). For the
passages, see also Greppin 1990: 706, 707. For a semantic discussion, see below.
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects. As opposed to the variant with an initial a- found
in the majority of the dialects, some easterly located peripheral dialects show a
“prothetic” h- followed by either -a- or -ä-: initial ha-: Goris hanic, hanɛc [Margaryan 1975: 313b, 424a], Łarabaɫ hánic,
hánɛc [Davt‘yan 1966: 310], Šamšadin and Krasnoselsk hanic [Mežunc‘ 1989:
184a], Meɫri hánɛc [Aɫayan 1954: 262];
initial hä-: Karčewan, Kak‘avaberd, Hadrut‘ hä́nic [Muradyan 1960: 189a; 1967:
165b; Davt‘yan 1966: 310], Šamaxi, Areš hänic [Baɫramyan 1964: 187; Lusenc‘
1982: 197a].
Despite N. Simonyan (1979: 222-224), this h- must have an etymological value;
see below.15 An old by-form with the prefix y- does not seem probable. Firstly, it
would be unmotivated. Secondly, it is not yet certain whether Arm. y- would yield
h- in these Eastern dialects or not. Thirdly, there is no corroborating evidence neither
in Muš, etc., nor in Van and the related dialects, unlike in cases as anagan (q.v.); cf.
2.3.1. The ä- in Svedia änɛj [Andreasyan 1967: 354a] and Tigranakert änij is
irrelevant.
I conclude that the initial h- in EArm. *hanic may have preserved an archaic hwhich requires an explanation.
●SEMANTICS Greppin (1990: 69-70) points out that ‘nit, louse egg’ “is unlikely the
earliest meaning since Narekatsi clearly describes the anic as an insect which bites
and elsewhere the NHB classifies it as a biting insect along with the flea and distinct
from the louse”.
The former argument is not decisive since xoc‘oteal ccen “stinging they suck”,
appearing ten lines below, does not necessarily imply an immediate and specific
reference to anic. Rather, marmaǰoɫakan ‘itch-causing’, which appears immediately
after anic (in the line 26), can specify anic ‘nit, louse egg’.
The latter argument is based on the passage č‘arč‘arel (‘to torment, annoy’) luov,
oǰlov, ancov. This is unconvincing since anic ‘nit, louse egg’ here forms a logical
pair with oǰil ‘louse’. In both passages, thus, anic is represented as an annoying /
tormenting (specifically: “itch-causing”) insect and does not necessarily refer to a
biting one.
Also the epithet ankerpawor ‘shapeless’ in the passage of Narekac‘i, and ankerp
‘id.’ in the commentary, corroborate the meaning ‘nit’. Besides, the word clearly
refers to ‘nit, louse egg’ in Modern Armenian (see the standard dictionaries) and
dialects. Although the meaning is usually unspecified in dialectal literature, I am
sure that, at least in dialects I know, it is ‘nit’. This can also be corroborated e.g. by
dialectal anc-ot ‘full of nits (said of a head)’, as well as other derivatives denoting a
special comb or the process of combing the head that is full of nits (see Amatuni
1912: 33a; Ačaṙean 1913: 101ab).
●ETYM Since Pictet, anic is connected to Gr. κονίς, -ίδος f., etc. [HAB 1: 195;
Pokorny 1959: 608; Greppin 1983: 290-291]. Although undoubtedly related, the
cognates present problems in the reconstruction of the anlaut; cf. Alb. thërí/th(ë)ní f.
‘Nisse, Lausei’ [Huld 1984: 118-119; Demiraj 1997: 397], Skt. likṣā- f. (not in
Vedic) [Mayrhofer EWAia 3, 2001: 443] (in Mallory/ Adams 1997: 357b – under a
different root), Lat. lens, -dis f., Lith. glìnda, Russ. gnída [Derksen 1996: 258-259;
Saradževa 1986: 71-72, 3705], etc.
Lat. lens and Lith. glìnda point to *gnind- (see ÈtimSlovSlavJaz 6, 1979: 173-
174; Derksen 2002-03: 8-9, 98; cf. Mallory/Adams 1997: 357b), compare Lat.
nimbus ‘cloud’ and Iran. *nam(b)- ‘wet, moist’ next to PIE *nebh
-, see s.v. amp
‘cloud’.
For the initial alternation *k/gh-, cf. *p/bh
- in the word for ‘flea’ (see s.v. lu)
[Meillet 1922g].
The Armenian anlaut, too, is troublesome, since *k̂
nV- or *knV- would yield Arm.
*nV-.
Pedersen (1906: 343, 387 = 1982: 121, 165) treats a- as prothetic and assumes a
development *qo- > *ho- > o-, which is uncertain; cf. 2.1.6. (For his idea about the
possible folk-etymological influence of anēc-k‘, see below). Besides, in view of the
Albanian form, here we have *k̂
- rather than *k-, although J̌
ahukyan (1982: 73, 74;
in 1987: 133, with a question mark) reconstructs *knid-s for Armenian. Earlier
(1967: 245, 24569), he assumed loss of *k- followed by addition of the “prothetic” abefore the nasal. However, there is no evidence for “prothetic” non-etymological
vowels before nasals; cf. s.v. amis.
According to Beekes (1969: 290), the interchange k/zero in Greek and Armenian
points to a substratum origin. Noting the anlaut variation of the cognates, Derksen
(1996: 258-259) reconstructs *H(o)nid- for the Armenian.
The idea about the dissimilation of Arm. *s- < *k̂
- before the final affricate -c (see
Huld 1984: 119 with ref.) or, which practically amounts to the same, a dissimilatory
loss of *s- in *sanic < *k̂
anid-s [Mallory/Adams 1997: 357b] is not convincing.
Hamp (1983c: 39) suggests a complicated scenario starting with an ablauting
paradigm: *k̂
onid-/*k̂
nid- > *k̂
onid-/*kn̥̂nid- > *k̂
onid-/*n̥id. Then, *anid- (< *n̥id-)
is contaminated with anēc-k‘ ‘curse’ (*aneid-s-, sigm. aor.), as a result of which we
have anic, -c instead of -t. The contamination may have been additionally supported
by the resemblance of AccSg *anid-n with anicanem ‘I curse’.
A similar alternation *k̂
on-/*k̂
n- (the latter of which yielded *n- regularly) is
assumed by Kortlandt (1986: 39-40 = 2003: 69). Then he writes: “The zero reflex of
the initial stop was evidently extended analogically to the antevocalic position in
anic, probably at a stage when it still was a weak fricative”. He implicitly suggests, I
think, the following development: *ϑoni- > *oni- > *ani-. There remain some points
to be clarified. PIE *-o- yields Arm. -a- in a pretonic open syllable according to
Kortlandt’s formulation; see 2.1.3. It may have been generalized from the oblique
stem of the PArm.-PGr. paradigm (see below) rather than *konida ̂ ̄-, since the
nominative of the paradigm was *k̂
onid-s. Further, EArm. *h- requires an
explanation.
The final -c is correctly interpreted by Pedersen (1905: 206; 1906: 343, 387, 424=
1982: 68, 121, 165, 202) as coming from the nominative *-d-s (cf. Gr. κονίς <
*κονιδ-ς). The same is repeatedly stated by J̌
ahukyan (1987: 133; 1975: 37-39;
1967: 164, 216, 245; 1978: 125, 138; 1982: 73). See also 2.2.1.2. Pedersen admits a
folk-etymological influence of anicanem ‘I curse’ (see s.v. anēck‘) as well; cf. the
above-mentioned scenario of Hamp.
Partly based on some of the mentioned ideas, I would suggest the following
tentative scenario: NSg *sk̂
onid-s > *c‘ónic > > *sánic, analogically after the oblique stem, perhaps
also due to contamination with anicanem,
oblique *s(k̂
)nid- (loss of *-k̂
- in the cluster, as in Irish) > > *sonid- (with
analogical *-o- from the nominative, as in Gr. GSg κονίδος) > *sanítV- (pretonic
*-o- in open syllable > -a-, see 2.1.3).
Arriving at *sanic, we could assume a development to *hanic > anic, with a
normal loss of *s- as in aɫ, arbenam, e(a)wt‘n, etc., and with a residual *h- in the
Eastern peripheral dialects; see s.vv.
I must admit, however, that this, too, is complicated and not very credible. In any
case, I disagree with N. Simonyan (1979: 223223), who states that the addition of the
initial a- and, consequently, that of the dialectal h-, is posterior to the loss of *g/kand must be seen, therefore, as secondary.16
aniw, o-stem: GDSg anu-o-y, GDPl anu-o-c‘ (abundant in the Bible, Astuacaturean
1895: 100a); there is some evidence also for a-stem: GDSg anu-i, AblSg anu-ē,
GDPl anu-a-c‘ (NHB 1: 156bc; Ritter 1983: 1954) ‘wheel’ (Bible+), ‘axle of a
chariot’ (rendering Gr. ἄξων in Exodus 14.25, see NHB 1: 156b; Ritter 1983: 1941)
‘wheel as a torture instrument’ (Bible+, see below), ‘sun’ (Eznik Koɫbac‘i, etc., see
3.2 on ‘Wheel of the sun’), ‘a toy’ (John Chrysostom).
For a list of words with both o- and a-stems, see J̌
ahukyan 1959: 321-322.
●DIAL Preserved in Muš. The rest of dialects have replaced aniw by akn ‘eye, etc.’
or Turk. t‘ɛk‘ɛṙ, etc. [HAB 1: 109a, 196a; Ačaṙean 1902: 130].
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 196a) considers the resemblance of aniw with the PIE
word for ‘navel, nave’ accidental and leaves the origin of the Armenian word open.
The forms are: Skt. nā́bhi- f. ‘nave, hub of wheel; centre; navel (of the body or the
world); origin, relationship, family’, nábhya- n. ‘nave, hub of wheel’, *nabhā-
‘navel, blood relationship’ (in an anthroponym), YAv. nāfa- m. ‘navel, origin, blood
relationship’ (for the semantic relationship cf. Arm. port ‘navel’, ‘tribe, generation’),
OPr. nabis ‘hub, navel’, OHG naba ‘hub’, nabalo ‘navel’, Lat. umbilīcus m. ‘navel;
centre, middle’ < *h3nbh
- (Schrijver 1991: 61-62), Gr. ὀμφαλός m. ‘navel, umbilical
cord’, etc., see Pokorny 1959: 314-315; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 817 = 1995, 1:
716; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 13-14; Mallory/Adams 1997: 391.
This comparison was revived by Ritter 1983 who posits a vr̥ddhi-derivation
*h3nēbh
-o- (cf. Skt. nā́bh- f. RV 9.74.6), with a semantic shift ‘nave’ > ‘wheel’, thus
‘zur Nabe gehörig’, or ‘furnished with a nave’.
This etymology is accepted by a few scholars: Beekes 1987b: 6 (hesitantly: 2003:
186); Meid 1994: 61; Olsen 1999: 23. Olsen (1984: 106; 1985: 9; cf. Greppin 1988-
89: 477) posits *h3nēbh
-i- directly equating with Skt. nā́bhi- f. ‘nave’. However, the
Sanskrit form is usually derived from *h3nobh
-i- (cf. also Lubotsky 1988: 30),
which, as Adams apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 391 points out, would have yielded
Arm. *anow or the like. Nevertheless, this etymology of aniw is attractive, and the
assumption on *h3nēbh
- should be considered at least possible. The alternating o-
and a-stems may be derived from PArm. masculine thematic *-o- and fem. *-eh2-
proto-forms respectively. The initial *h3nV- regularly yields Arm. *anV- (pace
Lindeman 1997: 5646), see s.vv. anēc-k‘ ‘curse’, anun ‘name’, and 2.1.17.3. For the
semantic relation between ‘nave’ and ‘wheel’, see HAB 1: 593-594.
J̌
ahukyan (1971: 49; 1987: 149) assumes a derivation from PIE *sneh1u- ‘to turn,
bind’, cf. OIc. snūa ‘to wind, twist (yarn), twine (thread)’, etc. (on the etymon, see
Pokorny 1959: 977; Mallory/Adams 1997: 571b; see also s.v. neard ‘sinew,
tendon’). However, there are no semantic and structural matches in cognate
languages, and the initial a- is unexplained. This etymology is therefore rightly
dismissed by Ritter 1983: 1942.
Witczak (1999: 181) compares aniw with Skt. nemí- f. ‘felloe of a wheel’ positing
*əneimi-. This would yield Arm. *(a)nēm-, however. One might assume an original
HD i-stem with nom. in *-ōi (cf. 2.2.2.4): *Hnéim-ōi, gen. *Hnim-i-ós > PArm.
*ənéimw
(u)i, *ənim-í-o- 17 > *anēw, gen. *anim-i- >> aniw, gen. anu-i. But this is
still uncertain.
Culturological excursus: the wheel as a torture instrument
Arm. aniw ‘wheel’ refers also to a torture instrument’ (Bible+); cf. Lat. rota
‘wheel’, ‘a revolving wheel to which prisoners were bound as a form of torture’
(OxfLatDict); Hitt. ḫurkel- n. ‘a kind of crime’ or ‘abomination’, usually derived
from ḫurki- ‘wheel’ < PIE *Huerĝh
- ‘to twist, turn, wind’ and referring to a crime to
be punished on the wheel or rack; for a discussion, see Hoffner 1964: 336-337;
Puhvel 1971; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984: 4941, 719-720; Starke 1990: 343-345.
A rack is an old torture instrument, consisting (usually) of a frame having a roller
at each end; the victim was fastened to these by the wrists and ankles, and had the
joints of his limbs stretched by their rotation (see OxfEnglDict). A similar or the
same instrument appears in Armenian, in Agat‘angeɫos: gel-oc‘ and gel-aran, both
deriving from gel- ‘to twist; to squeeze’ (q.v.); see HAB 1: 530; 2: 404. As Hoffner
(1964: 337) points out, the rack was known only in the Middle Ages but not in
Greek, Roman or Near Eastern antiquity.
There also is some textual evidence for the killing at wagons. In P‘awstos Buzand
4.58 (1883=1984: 150L9f): Apa hraman tayr t‘agaworn Parsic‘ Šapuh, <...>, ew
zamenayn zkin ew zmanuk hanel ənd c‘ic‘ saylic‘ : “Then Šapuh king of Persia
ordered <...>, and all the women and children impaled on carriage-poles” (transl.
Garsoïan 1989: 178). The same formula is also found in P‘awstos Buzand 4.24
(120L-15; transl. 157). In Movsēs Xorenac‘i 3.35 (1913=1991: 300L7ff): Zors gereal
handerj ganjiwk‘n ew tiknawn P‘aṙanjemaw xaɫac‘uc‘in i yAsorestan; ew and ənd
sayli c‘ic‘ haneal satakec‘in “Taking them captive with the treasures and Queen
P‘aṙanjem they brought them to Assyria. And there they massacred them by
impaling them on wagon poles” (transl.: Thomson 1978: 293).
ankanim, aor. ank-a-, imper. ank-ir, partic. ank-eal (rich evidence in the Bible, see
Astuacaturean 1895: 100-104) ‘to fall down; to come down, hang down; to arrive,
come to end, cease, stop; to die, fall (especially in a battle); to fall morally, commit a
crime, sin, prostitute, etc.’ (Bible+); ank-ac ‘fallen, miserable’ (Bible+), ‘cadaver’
(John Chrysostom, etc.); ankanem ‘to weave’ (Bible+), ank-uac ‘the weaving, texture’ (Bible+); y-ang ‘(at/to) end’ (Bible+); c‘-ank/g ‘always, to the end’
(Bible+), see also s.vv. c‘ank/g ‘hedge’ and c‘ank(an)am ‘to lust’.
For the semantic field cf. e.g. Lat. cadō ‘to fall (down, from); to be killed, die,
perish; to be ruined, decay, abate; to happen; to end, close; to fall through, fail’,
cadāver, -eris n. ‘dead body, corpse’; see s.vv. *satak ‘corpse’, c‘acnum ‘to become
low, subside, cease’. See also s.v. ang-ti ‘prostitute’, etymologically perhaps ‘the
fallen one’.
●DIAL The verb ankanim ‘to fall down’ is ubiquitous in the dialects, mostly with
initial ə- or i- [HAB 1: 199b]. The initial h’ of Muš and Alaškert h’əngənel (perhaps
also Agulis həngy
ä́nil) may point to *y-ang-. Interesting are Ararat ang ‘invalid,
disabled’ [HAB 1: 199b]; Kesaria ank‘ina ‘weaving, texture, cloth’ [Ant‘osyan
1961: 250].
●ETYM Probably derived from IE *sn̥gw
- ‘to sink, fall’, cf. Goth. sigqan, OHG
sinke/an, Germ. sinken, Engl. sink, etc. (Meillet 1894b: 288; Hübschmann 1897:
419; HAB 1: 199; Pokorny 1959: 906; sceptical Beekes 2003: 204). The
appurtenance of forms outside Germanic is uncertain. Further see s.v. ənkenum ‘to
cause to fall, throw down’.
ankiwn, an-stem: GDSg ankean, AblSg y-ankiwn-ē (once), ISg ankeam-b, NPl
ankiwn-k‘, GDPl ankean-c‘; later also i-stem; in Grigoris Aršaruni (7-8th cent.):
angiwn ‘corner’ (Bible+).
In 2 Paralipomenon 9.18 ankiwn renders Gr. ἀγκών ‘elbow’. Based on this, NHB
1: 174c ascribes also the meaning ‘elbow (of an arm-chair)’ to Arm. ankiwn.
According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 200b), however, this is merely a transliteration of
the Greek word; the expected form *ankon or *ankovn has been confused with Arm.
ankiwn ‘corner’.
●DIAL Łarabaɫ ä́ngün ‘side’; in other dialects the following meanings are recorded:
Van ‘closet (in the wall)’, Xian ‘cellar’, Salmast ‘the bottom of a ground-hearth’
[HAB 1: 200b].
●ETYM From PIE *h2eng-: Lat. angulus m. ‘corner, angle’, Umbr. anglom (see
Untermann 2000: 101-102), OCS ǫgъlъ ‘corner’, OIc. ekkja ‘ankle, heel’, etc. The
connection with Lat. angulus was already noted by Klaproth (1831=1823: 100a) and
in NHB 1: 174c. See also Hübschmann 1897: 419-420; HAB 1: 200b (also with
forms that actually derive from *h2enk-, on which see s.v. an(u)t‘ ‘armpit’).
According to Kortlandt (2003: 27), the absence of the development to *awc-
“betrays a different ablautstufe”. As is pointed out by Beekes (2003: 204), however,
this is irrelevant since ankiwn does not have a labiovelar. For the suffix, see Olsen
1999: 489-490 and s.v. ariwn ‘blood’.
The Germanic, Slavic and Latin forms reflect full grade *h2eng-; for Lat. angulus,
zero grade is possible, but unverifiable; Lat. ungulus ‘ring (on the finger)’ and
ungustus ‘crooked stick’ derive from *h2ong- (Schrijver 1991: 43, 51, 60, 317; see
also Derksen 1996: 270-271). The absence of h- in Arm. ankiwn probably points to
zero grade. This may be due to the derivation.
anjaw, GDSg anjaw-i, LocSg y-anjawi, a-stem with compound k‘ar-anjaw ‘cave;
fortress; rock’ (Bible+). In the Bible: twice in LocSg y-anjawi (1 Kings 22.4, 5) and
once in LPl y-anjaws (1 Maccabees 9.43). GDSg anjawi is attested in Movsēs Xorenac‘i 1.16 (1913= 1991: 54L9f; transl.
Thomson 1978: 101), in the wonderful description of the rock of Van: Isk zənddēm
aregakan koɫmn anjawin, ur ew oč‘ gic mi erkat‘ov ayžm veragrel ok‘ karē, zayspisi
karcrut‘iwn niwt‘oy pēs pēs tačars ew seneaks ōt‘ic‘ ew tuns ganjuc‘ ew vihs erkars,
oč‘ gitē ok‘, t‘ē orpiseac‘ irac‘ patrastut‘iwn hrašakerteac‘ “Now on the side of the
rock that faces the sun, on which today no one can scratch a line with an iron point –
such is the hardness of the surface – [she had carved out] various temples and
chambers and treasure houses and wide caverns; no one knows how she formed such
wonderful constructions”.
In order to clarify the semantics, one needs a special treatment of the numerous
attestations (see NHB 1: 190b; 2: 996b) of anjaw and its compounds, especially the
one with k‘ar ‘stone’ as the first member, namely k‘aranjaw. My preliminary
impression is that the basic meaning must be formulated approximately as ‘cliffy,
precipitous place, high rocky shelter/fortress’ or ‘inaccessible cliff/cave (especially
as a shelter or fortress for people, natural or artificial)’. For the semantic field,
compare amur, ayr2 and daran (see HAB s.v.v). The context which unifies these
three words can be illustrated by a passage where paɫanjaw (a hapax composed of
pal/ɫ ‘immovable rock’ [HAB 4: 4a, 13, 90a], q.v., and anjaw) appears in an
impressive description of ‘inaccessible caves’ (yamur ayrs) of Mananaɫi; see
Movsēs Xorenac‘i 3.45 (1913= 1991: 314L7-19; Thomson 1978: 307-308).
The evidence for an a-stem comes from the numerous attestations of GDPl
k‘ar-anjawac‘; see NHB 2: 996b. Note also i sors k‘aranjawac‘ “in stony caves” in
P‘awstos Buzand 6.16 /5th cent./ (1883=1984: 230L-7; transl. Garsoïan 1989: 239).
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 202b) mentions the connection to anjuk ‘narrow’ (q.v.)
suggested implicitly in NHB 1: 190b. J̌
ahukyan (1967: 163; with a question mark,
1987: 112; 1990: 10) and Olsen (1999: 355f, 784f) are more positive, although
others (cf. Pokorny 1959: 42; Tumanjan 1978; Greppin 1983, etc.) do not mention
anjaw next to anjuk.
I see no serious semantic reasons to reject the etymology, since anjuk very often
refers to mountainous (narrow, cliffy, precipitous) places which are difficult to
traverse. A similar development is seen in cognate forms, too, such as Germ. Enge
and Lat. angustum. For the semantic field ‘Angst; Bedrängnis’ : ‘stony/cliffy place’,
cf. vax ‘fear’ vs. vax ‘precipitous/cliffy place’.
The problem of -aw is more intriguing. Basing herself on Skt. aṁhatí- f.
‘Bedrängnis, Not’ and OCS ozota ‘Enge’ and restoring an old “s/t-stem”, Olsen
(1999: 355-356, 784-785) derives anjaw < *anjawa- from *(h)anĝh
e/ota- through
vowel assimilation a-e/o-a > a-a-a. However, the formation of Skt. aṁhatí- is
“ungewöhnlich” [Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 38], and the alleged old “s/t-stem”
seems strange to me. Secondly, I am not sure about the development *-ota- > Arm.
-awa-. Furthermore, the explanation of J̌
ahukyan (1987: 112) from *anĝh
əu̯o- (why
-o-?), although with a question mark and without discussion, seems to me more
economical and plausible since it does not separate -w of anjaw from -u- of anju-k <
*h2(e)nĝh
-u-. Later, he (1990: 10) considered *-ə- less probable and assumed a
development *-ew- > -aw with the assimilatory influence of the word-initial a-.
Olsen, citing only the former version of J̌
ahukyan, argues against this point of
view with two objections: first, there is no external evidence for a root-final laryngeal; second, an intervocalic *-u̯- should be continued as Arm. *-g-. However,
-w is the regular development in the Classical auslaut; see 2.1.8. The PArm. form
could have been *h2(e)nĝh
-H-u-, probably analogical after the IE antonym *plth2-u-
‘wide’; see s.v. yaɫt‘. Next to PArm. *haɫt‘-u- from *plth2-us there may have existed
PArm. *haɫt‘-aw-V from e.g. *plth2-u-ih2-. QIE *h2(e)nĝh
-H-u- would yield PArm.
*anju-, which is continued in anjuk (q.v.), and the oblique stem *anjəw-i/a- may go
back to QIE *h2(e)nĝh
-H-u-eh2-, with analogical *-Hu̯V- > -aw- after unattested
*haɫt‘-aw-V. Compare y-olov, i-stem ‘abundant’ vs. Skt. purú-, f. pūrvī́
- ‘much,
abundant’ (RV+). For the development of the PIE interconsonantal laryngeals in
Armenian I refer to 2.1.20. Note that Armenian seems to have generalized such
feminines of PIE u-stems in making them Armenian i- or a-stems; see 2.2.3.
anjn, GDSg anjin, ISg anjam-b, NPl anjin-k‘, APl anjin-s (in Ep‘rem: anjun-s), GDPl
anjan-c‘ (cf. also mi-anjn, NPl -un-k‘) ‘person, ipse’; soul, spirit; body’ (Bible+).
For instance: nk‘oɫeal en anjink‘ mer : νυνὶ δὲ ἡ ψυχὴ ἡμῶν κατάξηρος (Numbers
11.6). For the paradigm of anjn as well as mi-anjn ‘moine’, lit. ‘qui est une personne
seule’, see Meillet 1903: 139ff; 1936: 77-79; Tumanjan 1978: 248, 270-271, 322;
J
̌
ahukyan 1982: 94, 109; Beekes 1995: 113-120; Olsen 1999: 119-120.
The meaning ‘body’ is seen, e.g., in derivatives like anjn-eɫ ‘large-bodied’ in
John Chrysostom, and koptar-anjn in Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.8 (1913=1991: 114L12),
translated by Thomson (1978: 141) as ‘monstrous’. It has been preserved in the
dialects (see below).
The derivative anjn-eay ‘personable, large-bodied’ is attested in 1 Kings 9.2
(rendering Gr. εὐμεγέϑης) and in Movsēs Xorenac‘i 1.12 (1913=1991: 41L5; transl.
Thomson 1978: 91): zayr sēg ew anjneay “a proud and personable man” (on Sisak);
also 1.10 (32L15; transl. 85): geɫapatšač ew anjneay “handsome and personable” (on
Hayk).
The meaning ‘ipse’ can be illustrated, e.g., by the following passages. In Łazar
P‘arpec‘i (5th cent.) 3.82 (1904=1985: 150L7; transl. Thomson 1991: 209): oč‘ tayr
dul anjinn “he permitted himself <...> no delay”. In T‘ovma Arcruni 2.7 /10th cent./
(1985: 192; transl. Thomson 1985: 188): Ew en gazanabaroyk‘, ariwnarbuk‘, aṙ
oč‘inč‘ hamarelov zspanumn eɫbarc‘ harazatac‘, na ew zanjanc‘ ews “They are
savage in their habits, drinkers of blood, who regard as naught the killing of their
own brothers and even of themselves”.
The derivative anjn-awor ‘subsistent; breathing’ (< ‘body/soul possessing’) is
attested in Eznik Koɫbac‘i, Philo, etc. In his “Refutation of the Sects”, Eznik
Koɫbac‘i (5th cent.) frequently uses the word referring to, for instance, mythical
beings (1.25; 1994: 82-86); for a discussion, see Abeɫyan 1941: 17-21.
●DIAL Preserved in numerous dialects, mainly in the meaning ‘body’ [HAB 1: 204a;
Gabikean 1952: 66]. A textual illustration can be found e.g. in a fairy-tale from
Łarabaɫ (HŽHek‘ 6, 1973: 636L2).
Van anj means ‘the vulva of a pregnant cow’ [Ačaṙyan 1913: 104a; HAB 1:
204a] or ‘the vulva of an animal’ [Ačaṙyan 1952: 245].
Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 204a) does not cite any dialectal form continuing ClArm.
anjnawor. He only mentions Aparan anjnahur ‘a mythical being’ stating that it is a
reshaped form of *aznawor (q.v.). The form anjnahur is also attested in the epic
“Sasna cṙer”. In SasCṙ 2/2, 1951: 821, 965a, it has been explicitly treated as a result of a wrong interpretation of anjov hreɫen ‘fiery with body’. Note also Gomer
aznahur ‘giant’ [HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 8a]. This seems unnecessary in view of the
following forms: Sasun anjnävur ‘animate, living, corporeal’ [Petoyan 1954: 103;
1965: 443]; Moks anjnavur, anjnahur ‘animate; giant, mighty’ [HayLezBrbBaṙ 1,
2001: 63b]. Also *azn-awor can be derived from anjnawor, with the sound
development -njn- > -zn-. See s.v. *azn-awor for more detail.
The internal -h- of the forms aznahur and anjnahur may be explained as a glide
(see 2.1.32) and/or due to contamination with huri ‘fairy’, on which see HAB 3:
125b; H. Mkrtč‘yan 1987: 56, 5617; cf. also dial. (Adana) hrɛik ‘giant’ (see Ačaṙean
1913: 676a), hurnik-hreɫen (cf. HAB 3: 126, s.v. hur ‘fire’). That huri not only
refers to female but also male supernatural beings is seen from e.g. the meaning
‘giant’ (Adana), as well as from Huri t‘ak‘avor “the king Huri” [HŽHek‘ 1, 1959:
120-136, 143-148, etc.; H. Mkrtč‘yan 1987: 57]. Note also Širak, etc. aǰbay-huri
(vars. havǰa-huri, abra-huri), an epithet of the rain-bringing doll Nuri(n) (see
Mxit‘areanc‘ 1901: 273; Ṙ. Grigoryan 1970: 325-326), obviously composed as
*ačp- or *aǰb- ‘amazement’ + -a- + huri ‘fairy’. This is implicitly suggested by
Abeɫyan (1941: 91) who renders aǰbahuri “wonderful fairy” (hrašali haveržahars);
see also HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 96a.
●ETYM Corresponds to OIc. angi, n-stem m. ‘smell, scent’, Dan. ange ‘Dampf’,
often derived from PIE *h2enh1- ‘to breathe’ (Lidén 1906: 38-40; HAB 1: 203b;
Pokorny 1959: 43; Greppin 1983: 292; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 112; Olsen 1999: 120; cf.
Winter 1965: 102). It has been assumed that Osc. aftiím ‘soul’ belongs here, too
(Knobloch 1974: 350; on this word see, however, Schrijver 1991: 30; Untermann
2000: 60).
If indeed from *h2enh1-ĝh
-, then anjn is another example of the loss of a laryngeal
before a stop (*-RHC-; see 2.1.20).
anjuk, o-stem: GDSg anjk-o-y (a homily ascribed to Eɫišē; “Yačaxapatum”), ISg
anjk-o-v (Łazar P‘arpec‘i, John Chrysostom, Grigor Narekac‘i); a-stem: ISg
anjk-a-w in Movsēs Xorenac‘i 3.68 (see below) and “Yačaxapatum” 6 (although in
10 and 11: GDSg anjkoy) adj. ‘narrow; difficult’; subst. ‘narrow passage;
mountainous place which is hard to traverse; anxiety, affliction; desire, longing’.
In Movsēs Xorenac‘i 3.68 (1913= 1991: 361L10; transl. Thomson 1978: 352):
Ayspiseaw anjkaw heɫjamɫjuk eɫeal, vtangim (var. p‘ɫjkim) karōtut‘eamb meroy hōrn
“Oppressed by such an affliction I suffer from the loss of our father”.
For the reference to ‘inaccessible, rocky place’ or ‘cave’, cf. Movsēs Xorenac‘i
3.44 (313L11; transl. 307): yanjuks Tayoc‘ k‘aranc‘ : “in the recesses of the caves of
Tayk‘”. Compare also P‘awstos Buzand 4.24 (1883=1984: 122L19; transl. Garsoïan
1989: 158). The evidence for the declension class comes from the substantive.
●ETYM Since de Lagarde (1854: 15L352) and Hübschmann (1897: 420Nr34), derived
from IE *h2(e)nĝh
-u- ‘narrow’: Skt. aṁhú-, MPers. *anzūk, Goth. aggwu, etc.; cf.
also PIE s-stem: Skt. áṁhas- n. ‘Angst, Bedrängnis’, Lat. angus-tus, etc.; see HAB
1: 204; Pokorny 1959: 42-43; Tumanjan 1978: 63, 74, 125; 156; Schmitt 1981: 48,
50, 62, 68; Greppin 1983: 292; Schrijver 1991: 43, 66; Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992:
38-39; Olsen 1999: 588, etc. The reconstruction of a PIE labiovelar instead of the
palatal (see Clackson 1994: 108 with lit.) seems unnecessary to me. On Armenian forms in -uk deriving from earlier *u-stems, see Clackson 1994: 121-122. See also
s.v. anjaw ‘cave’.
The native origin of Arm. anjuk is accepted almost by everyone, except for
Henning (followed by Mayrhofer, Salmons apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 391a), who
treats it as an Iranian loan. This is possible, but unmotivated and unnecessary, since
there is no reason to abandon the traditional point of view. In this respect, a few
words on the suffix are in order.
Meillet (1936: 29) points out that Arm. -k can only go back to *g and does not
correspond to the Slavic -k-; cf. also Pokorny 1959: 42. The compromise proposed
by Tumanjan (1978: 156), which presupposes a twofold reflex of *-k- in Armenian,
i.e. k and k‘, does not seem very attractive.
The suffix -(u)k is found not only in Iranian loans, but also in native words of
different morphological categories, e.g. gaɫt-uk ‘secretly’. Thus, regardless of its
origin (cf. Tumanjan 1978: 74, 125; 156; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 232, 356, 569; 1998: 33;
Olsen 1999: 584-590), one cannot reject the traditional view (according to which
anjuk is native), basing oneself solely on the suffix. To the contrary, anjuk mostly is
an o-stem, while Iranian loans in -uk are a-stems; cf. Olsen 1999: 589.
anǰrdi, o- or ea-stem ‘(adj.) arid; (subst.) arid place, desert’.
Abundant from the Bible onwards. In two of the Bible attestations, anǰrdin. The
only evidence for the declension class comes from AblSg y-anǰrdwoy and LocSg
y-anǰrdwoǰ, attested once each in the Bible.
●DIAL No dialectal forms are recorded in HAB. In 2003: 13, 298, Ačaṙyan mentions
Zeyt‘un forms continuing anǰrdi (anǰ‘əyd‘a ‘thirsty’, anǰ‘əyd‘il and anǰ‘əyd‘nɔl ‘to
get thirsty’), stating that the word is absent in other dialects. However, it has been
preserved in Goris: ančərdi, ančirdi (see Margaryan 1975: 314a).
●ETYM Certainly composed of the privative prefix an-, ǰur ‘water’ (q.v.) and the
suffix -di. Murvalyan (1955: 277) points out that this is the only example for the
suffix -di. Cf. also an-ǰur ‘ἄνυδρος’ and ǰrem ‘to water, irrigate’. Olsen (1999: 371)
hesitantly derives the suffix -di from IE *-tio- or *-dh
h1tio- (from *dh
eh1- ‘to put’).
The latter alternative does not seem very probable. As to the former, one can be
more positive here because of strong parallels such as yuṙt‘i ‘fertile, watered’ < y-
(<*h1en- ‘in’) + *uṙ- + -t‘i and nawt‘i ‘hungry’ < *n- + *aw- + -t‘i (q.v.). See also
2.3.1.
Compare also Svedia *an-apur-d/t ‘uninhabited (place)’, with apur- ‘to live’.
antaṙ, a-stem: GDSg antaṙ-i, LocSg y-antaṙ-i, GDPl antaṙ-a-c‘ (all attested in the
Bible; the alleged IPl antaṙ-o-v-k‘ in Job 40.17/22 is in fact antaṙ-a-w-k‘, see Cox
2006: 259); later i-stem: GDPl antaṙ-i-c‘ (Paterica), IPl antaṙ-i-w-k‘ (Nersēs
Lambronac‘i) ‘forest’ (Bible+).
●DIAL No dialectal forms are recorded in HAB and HayLezBrbBaṙ. But antaṙ is
present in a number of E dialects, e.g. Łarabaɫ ántaṙ [Davt‘yan 1966: 312]. Besides,
it is the principal word for ‘forest’ in Modern Armenian. Note also Meɫri place-name
Ándaṙ [Aɫayan 1954: 262b].
●ETYM The component *-taṙ has frequently been compared to IE *doru- ‘wood,
tree’ (see s.v.v. targal, tarr, toṙn, torg). Bugge 1890: 85-86 compares the
phonological alternation caṙ ‘tree’ vs. an-taṙ ‘forest’ (with an- from *sm̥ -; see also Saradževa 1986: 36735) with cic : tit ‘teat’ (q.v.). Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 671) connects
antaṙ directly to Gr. δένδρον, deriving the latter from *δένρον. J̌
ahukyan (1987: 118,
245, 258, 259; 1988, 2: 80) reconstructs *sm̥ -dəru- with a question mark. Earlier, he
(1967: 182, 303; cf. also NHB 1: 243a) equated the component *taṙ with Arm. caṙ
‘tree’, placing antaṙ in the list of words with alternation c/t.
The reconstruction of *sm̥ -dVru- would be possible if we assume a contamination
with caṙ ‘tree’. It is tempting to suggest a direct comparison with tarr/taṙ
‘elementum’ (q.v.), although here the alternant taṙ is relatively young. The semantic
relationship between ‘wood, material’ and ‘woods’ is well known, cf. Lat. silva,
Engl. wood(s), Russ. les(á), Fr. bois, etc. (see also s.v. mayri1). Arm. antaṙ itself is
attested in the meaning ‘ὕλη’ once (Basil of Caesarea).
One the other hand, one can alternatively suggest an etymological connection
with IE *H(o)nd-r- ‘rock; mountain’: Skt. ádri- m. ‘stone, rock; mountain (range)’,
MIr. ond, onn < *ondes- n. ‘stone, rock, mountain’ (for the etymon, see Pokorny
1959: 778; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984: 666; Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 65). As is
stated by Beekes (apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 547b), the IE root is "poorly attested
and uncertain".
If Arm. antaṙ is related to these words, one might interpret its meaning by the
semantic shift ‘mountain’ > ‘forest’, perhaps through intermediary ‘wooded
mountain = Bergwald’ (see 3.4.1). The Armenian form, like the Irish one, is perhaps
based on neuter *H(o)nd-es-; thus: *Hnd-(e/o)s-r-eh2- > PArm. *antaṙ-a- > Arm.
antaṙ, -ac‘. For the combination neuter *-s- + *-r- cf. *k̂
erh2-s-ro- > Lat. cerebrum
‘brain’ from the s-stem found in Skt. śiras ‘head’, Gr. κέρας ‘horn’ (see Schrijver
1991: 96). The auslaut of the Armenian word might have also been influenced by
caṙ ‘tree’.
Uncertain.
anun, an-stem: GDSg anuan, AblSg anuan-ē, ISg anuam-b, NPl anuan-k‘, GDPl
anuan-c‘ ‘name; fame’ (Bible+). In compounds: anun(-a)- and anuan-a-.
Among numerous Biblical illustrations (Astuacaturean 1895: 117-123), we find a
few attestations of the formula anun dnem ‘to put a name’. In view of some
examples (e.g. 4 Kings 17.34: orum ed anun Israyēl : οὑ̃ἔϑηκεν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ
Ισραηλ), one might assume a Greek calque. This is unnecessary because of other
examples, e.g. Genesis 4.17 (Zeyt‘unyan 1985: 162): Ew šinēr k‘aɫak‘ ew dnēr anun
k‘aɫak‘in yanun ordwoy iwroy Enok‘ay : καὶ ἠv ̃ οἰκοδομῶν πόλιν καὶ ἐπωνόμασεν
τὴν πόλιν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ Ενωχ. Furthermore, the formula is
corroborated by dialectal evidence.
●DIAL Dialectally ubiquitous [HAB 1: 208-209]. With generalization of the oblique
stem *anəw-: Van anun, GSg anvan, NPl anvəner, Ozim anəv-ɔv ‘famous’ (= ISg);
see Ačaṙyan 1952: 128, also 103, 245.
In some peripheral NE, E, SE dialects (T‘iflis, Ararat, Łarabaɫ, Goris, J̌
uɫa [HAB
1: 209a], Agulis [Ačaṙean 1935: 127, 335], etc.), one finds anum or anəm. Note also
anmani ‘famous’, etc. (HAB, ibid.).
anun dnel ‘to put a name’ in Polis, Nor Naxiǰewan [Ačaṙean 1913: 107a], and
elsewhere (HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 69a; Malxaseanc‘ HBB 1: 166ab). For a textual
illustration, see SasCṙ 1, 1936: 406L789. ●ETYM Since Klaproth, NHB, etc., linked with the IE forms of the word for ‘name’:
Gr. ὄνομα, -ατος n., Lat. nōmen, -inis n., Skt. nā́man- n. (RV+), MPers., NPers. nām,
Goth. namo, OCS imę, etc. [Hübschmann 1897: 420; HAB 1: 208].
The Armenian form could be explained by the following paradigm: PIE PD
n-stem NSg *h3néh3-mn > PArm. *anuwn > anun, obl. *h3nh3-mén- > *anumVn-, or
*h3n(e)h3-mn̥-t-os > *an(u)man(t), cf. Gr. ὄνομα, -ατος (on the latter view, see
Lindeman 1986; Stempel 1993: 150). For different views, references and a
discussion, see Schmitt 1967: 91562; Greppin 1983: 293-294; Clackson 1994: 33-34,
20612; Kortlandt 1984: 42; 1987: 63; 2001: 12 = 2003: 55, 77, 132; Beekes 1987b: 1-
6; 2003: 168, 186, 191; Stüber 1997; Olsen 1999: 132-133. For *-mn : *-wn
compare mrǰiwn : mrǰimn ‘ant’, paštawn, gen. pašt-aman ‘service’, etc.
Meillet (1936: 48) explains -un from*-uwn < *-omn, and (1903: 143) notes that
“m a dû subsister dialectalement aux cas obliques et ainsi on a pu rétablir anumn qui
existe encore dans divers dialectes, notamment celui de la plaine d’Ararat, sous la
forme anum”. According to J̌
ahukyan (1959: 177; 1985: 157; 1987: 278; see also
Davt‘yan 1966: 66; N. Simonyan 1979: 230-231), too, dial. *anum originates from
*anumn when the development *-umn > *-uwn > -un had not yet taken place. He
(ibid.) alternatively admits the possibility of a dissimilation anun > *anum which is
unconvincing.
The explanation of dial. *anum as a direct archaic reflex of *anumn does not
seem plausible. Given the fact that *-mn yields Arm. -wn in final position (cf.
paštawn vs. gen. pašt-aman ‘service’), I propose a paradigmatic solution (cf. 2.2.2).
The PArm. paradigm nom. *anuwn, obl. *an(V)man- was levelled into (1) *anuwn :
*anwan > ClArm. anun : anuan, with generalization of *-w-; (2) *anumn : *anman
> anum, with the generalization of *-m-.
The PIE formula *h3néh3-mn dh
eh1- [Ivanov 1964; 1976a: 41-48; 1981: 140-142,
148-149; 1983a; Mallory/Adams 1997: 438a] is reflected in Arm. anun dnem ‘to put
a name’.
The ‘name’ functions as an accusative of specification in constructions of the type
Skt. āsīd rājā Nalo nāma "there was a king Nala (his) name", etc. (see Hahn 1969;
Beekes 1973c). This construction is also found in the original Armenian literature
since the oldest period, e.g. in Koriwn (1981: 92L2f, transl. 277): Ew na aṙak‘ēr zomn
Vahrič anun "He then dispatched a man named Vahrič". For examples from Eɫišē,
P‘awstos Buzand, Łazar P‘arpec‘i etc., see NHB 1: 221a.
anur, o-stem: GDSg anr-o-y ‘ring, necklace, collar’ (Bible+); anr-ak, AblSg y-anrakē in Job 31.22 (Cox 2006: 201) ‘collarbone, clavicle’ (rendering Gr. κλείς
‘collarbone’ in Job 31.22).
A textual illustration from Job 40.26: Et‘e kapic‘es anur (= Gr. κρίκος ‘ring’) i
k‘it‘s nora “Will you attach a ring in its snout?” (Cox 2006: 260).
●ETYM Bugge 1893: 3 compares anur to Lat. ānus, ī m. ‘ring, circle; ring, link;
anus’18, OIr. áinne ‘ring’. Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 209b with ref.) rejects the comparison
on the ground of the reconstruction *anKno- for the Latin word (cf. also Zavaroni
2003: 230f). However, the etymology with the reconstruction of *āno- (= *h1eh2no-)is mostly accepted (see Pokorny 1959: 47; J̌
ahukyan 1967: 236; 1982: 34;
Aɫabekyan 1979: 65; Greppin 1983: 294; Schrijver 1991: 53; Mallory/Adams 1997:
486b; de Vaan 2008: 45). Also Hitt. anna- has been adduced (see
Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 817 = 1995, 1: 717 with references).
We may assume QIE *h1(e)h2no- > PArm. *an(o)- + the suffix -ur as in bl-ur
‘hill’, kt-ur ‘roof’, mr-ur ‘sediment’ (vs. mur ‘soot’), etc. J̌
ahukyan (1987: 112, 235,
439; cf.1998: 35-36) posits *anō-ro-, but the lengthening of the medial vowel is
unexplained. Olsen 1999: 33 starts with *-ur-o- as secondary thematization of an
original *uer/n-stem (cf. bl-ur ‘hill’ vs. OHG bilorn ‘tooth-gum’) but points out that
the stem formation is not corroborated by external evidence.
We may be dealing with a substratum word.
The connection of Arm. anur with Gr. οἶδος ‘swelling’, etc. (see s.v. ayt-k‘
‘cheek’) suggested by Aɫayan 1974: 20-22 is untenable.
anurǰ-k‘, i-stem: GDPl anrǰ-i-c‘ (Philo, Book of Chries, Gregory of Nyssa,
Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, etc.); o-stem: GDSg an(ə)rǰ-o-y (Paterica), GDPl anrǰo-c‘ (Grigor Narekac‘i) ‘dream, day-dream, prophetic vision, vision’.
The oldest attestation is found in Matthew 27.19: y-anurǰ-s ‘in a dream’.
The meaning ‘prophetic dream’ is seen e.g. in the Alexander Romance (H.
Simonyan 1989: 76L16f) and in Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.88 (1913=1991: 238L5; transl.
Thomson 1978: 243), in the derivative anrǰ-akan. Note also Book of Chries 8.2.2
(G. Muradyan 1993: 189L34; Russ. transl. 2000: 179): yastuacayin anrǰic‘n “в
божественных сновидениях”.
●ETYM Since NHB (1: 223c), connected with Gr. ὄναρ n. ‘dream’, especially
‘fortune-telling dream, vision’, ὄνειρος m. ‘god of dreams, dream’, Aeol. ὄνοιρος
m., Cret. ἄναιρον· ὄνειρον, ἄναρ· ὄναρ (Hesychius), Alb. âdërrë (Geg.), ëndërrë
(Tosc.) from *andërrë < *h3nr-i̯o- (Kortlandt 1986: 38, 44 = 2003: 68, 74). For
references and a discussion, see HAB 1: 209-210; Pisani 1934: 180-182; Clackson
1994: 182, 236339; Balles 1997: 150-152. Arm. anurǰ, o-stem, comes from QIE
*h3nōr-i̯o-. The alternative i-stem probably points to *-ih2-.
Beekes (1969: 46) reconstructs the following paradigm: nom. *-ōr, acc. *-ér-m,
gen. *-r-ós. See also s.vv. ayr ‘man’, awr ‘day’. As to the form in *-i̯o-, I assume
thematization based on a frozen locative in *-i- (cf. Hamp 1984a: *Hnen-i vs. nom.
*Hon-r ̥ > *Hneri > *Hneri̯o-, Helleno-Armenian thematization), cf. s.vv. *aɫǰ-
‘darkness’, ayg ‘morning’.
A possible trace of QIE *h3nor-ih2- may be seen in c‘nor-k‘, i-stem ‘fancy,
fantasy, day-dream; bad dream, apparition, bogy’.
ač‘-k‘, pl. tant. a-stem: gen.-dat. ač‘-ac‘, instr. ač‘-a-w-k‘, etc. (rich evidence in the
Bible, see Astuacaturean 1895: 140-143); i-stem: gen.-dat. ač‘-i-c‘ (Plato, Paterica,
Sargis Šnorhali, Nersēs Lambronac‘i, etc.) ‘eyes’ (Bible+); singulative akn ‘eye’
(q.v.).
●DIAL Almost everywhere NPl ač‘k‘ (also NDu *ač‘ui in Zeyt‘un; see Ačaṙean
1913: 117a; 2003: 133, 152, 298) has become singular, replacing akn (q.v.). The
latter, in the meaning ‘eye’, has been preserved in Agulis and some adjacent dialects,
whereas C‘ɫna has ɔšk, GSg, aški [HAB 1: 223a; Ačaṙean 1935: 21, 331, 336]. Hamšen *ač‘ōk‘ anel ‘to give (a sign with) a wink’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 117b] derives
from IPl ač‘awk‘. GDPl ač‘ac‘ is represented in Van ač‘ac‘-bažin ‘a small share of
food given just to ease the hunger a little bit’ (lit. ‘the share of the eyes’) and ač‘ac‘-
ulnik ‘eye-bead (amulet)’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 116b].
More abundant is the evidence for GDPl ač‘ic‘ (frequently assimilated to ač‘ič‘),
mostly in petrified expressions and derivatives: Hamšen ač‘ič‘ hilun ‘eye-bead
(amulet)’ [Ačaṙyan 1947: 221], Partizak ač‘ič‘ ‘a prayer against the evil eye’,
Č‘enkiler (Nikomidia) ač‘ič‘ əllal ‘to be struck by the evil eye’, K‘ɫi *ač‘ic‘-eɫuk
‘stricken by the evil eye’, *ač‘ic‘-ǰur ‘a kind of medicine for the disease of the eye’
[Ačaṙean 1913: 116b], Van ač‘ič‘-ulnik ‘eye-bead (amulet)’, Moks ač‘ič‘ t‘art‘ap‘
‘winking, moment’, Xotorǰur *ač‘ič‘a linel ‘to get sick being struck by the evil eye’
(see also YušamXotorǰ 1964: 429b), Karin, Balu *ač‘ič‘(-)hat (see s.v. hat), Xarberd
*ač‘ic‘ anel ‘to pray against the evil eye’, Sebastia *ač‘ic‘-erewut‘-k‘ ‘ghost’,
Łarabaɫ *ač‘ic‘ / ač‘oc‘ linel ‘to get sick being struck by the evil eye’
[HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 77a], Dersim ač‘ič‘ əllil ‘to become free of the evil eye’,
ač‘iǰag ‘small shell-amulets sewn on the hats of children against the evil eye’,
ač‘ic‘/č‘ ‘spectacles, eye-glasses’ [Baɫramyan 1960: 111b], Erznka ač‘ič‘ k‘ar ‘eyebead (amulet)’ [Kostandyan 1979: 151a]. Particularly rich material is recorded for
Sebastia by Gabikean (1952: 74-77). Note also Xarberd *ačič hanel ‘to fulfil one’s
wish’ (see HayLezBrbBaṙ 1: 2001: 45b).
Van ač‘ič‘ is still a part of the paradigm [Ačaṙyan 1952: 128]. Some illustrations
can be found e.g. in a folk-tale recorded in 1915 [HŽHek‘ 14, 999: 13-39]: meč‘
paṙvu ač‘ič‘ (18, 19) “into the eyes of the old woman”; ver mer ač‘ič‘, ver mer
gylxun (35) “onto our eyes, our head”. This GDPl ač‘ič‘ can hardly be secondary
since almost all the other examples of archaic GDPl forms of Van listed by Ačaṙyan
(1952: 128), even those not belonging to the a-declension, have -ac‘. The only
exception is ClArm. van-k‘, -ac‘, which has GDPl vanic‘ in the dialect of Van. For
ot-k‘, -ic‘ ‘feet’ (q.v.), another form continuing PIE dual, I would also expect a GDPl
form with -ic‘ in Van. The actual form is, however, votac‘, probably analogical after
ceṙac‘ < ClArm. jeṙac‘.
●ETYM Together with the singulative akn ‘eye’ (q.v.), derives from the PIE word for
‘eye’: Skt. ákṣi-, GSg akṣṇás n., NADu akṣ-ī́
n., YAv. NADu aši n., Gr. NADu ὄσσε
n., Lat. oculus m. ‘eye’, OCS NADu oči n., Lith. akìs ‘eye’, etc., see Hübschmann
1897: 413-414; HAB 1: 107-108, 222-223 with references; Pokorny 1959: 776, 785;
Mallory/Adams 1997: 188a. For more references and a discussion, see Godel 1975:
72, 82, 94; Eichner 1978: 14717; Schmitt 1981: 50, 89; Lindeman 1982: 38-39;
Mayrhofer 1986: 127118; Clackson 1994: 46-47, 111; Witczak 1999: 175.
Armenian dual ač‘- reflects the PIE dual form *h3(o)kw
-ih1 n. ‘both eyes’. It is
tempting to assume that Arm. *ač‘-i- (post-classical; dialects) directly continues the
PIE dual in *-ih1-, whereas classical ač‘-a- reflects the neuter plural in *-(e)h2-.
Further see s.v. singulative akn ‘eye’.
aǰ, o-stem: GDSg aǰ-o-y, AblSg y-aǰ-o-y, ISg aǰ-o-v; u-stem: GDSg aǰ-u, GDPl aǰ-uc‘; note also LocSg y-aǰ-u and y-aǰ-um, AblSg y-aǰ-m-ē (abundant in the Bible,
Astuacaturean 1895: 150-151) ‘right’. Derivatives: aǰ-oɫ ‘skilful, successful’, (y-)aǰ-oɫ-ak (Bible+), y-aǰ-oɫ ‘id.’
(Eusebius of Caesarea), (y-)aǰ-oɫ-em ‘to have success’ (Bible+), an-y-aǰ adv.
‘inappropriate’ (Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.8, 1913=1991: 114L17; transl. Thomson 1978:
141).
See also s.v. aṙaǰ ‘front’.
A textual illustration for aǰ-o-y and y-aǰ-m-ē in one and the same sentence can be
found in Movsēs Xorenac‘i 1.11 (1913=1991: 36L2f; transl. Thomson 1978: 87): ew
nizak anari i jeṙin iwrum aǰoy, ew yahekumn vahan, ew əntirk‘ yaǰmē ew i jax-m-ē
“A monstrous lance was in his right hand and in the left a shield. Chosen men stood
to the right and left”.
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects. In some dialects aǰ has been replaced by saɫ of
Turkish origin [HAB 1: 247a].
●ETYM Connected with Skt. sā́dhati ‘to succeed, reach the goal’, siddhá-, sidhrásuccessful’, sādhú- ‘straight, effective’, sídhyati ‘to succeed, be successful’ (for the
forms, see also Lubotsky 1988: 46, 113; Kulikov 2001: 482-483), etc. [Lidén 1906:
75-76; HAB 1: 246a; Meillet 1950: 86, also p.c. apud HAB 1: 246b; J̌
ahukyan 1982:
61-62, 132; 1987: 146; Greppin 1983: 296; Kortlandt 1994: 27 = 2003: 104;
Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 722-723; Mallory/Adams 1997: 228b; Olsen 1999: 186;
Beekes 2003: 199].
Recently this etymology has been criticized by Witczak 1999: 174-175. However,
the derivation *sHdh
-i̯o- or *seh2dh
-i̯o- ‘successful’ > Arm. aǰ, o-stem ‘right’ (cf. Skt.
sādhyá- m. ‘a class of divinities’) is impeccable both formally and semantically. For
the development *-dh
i̯- > Arm. -ǰ-, see 2.1.22.1. The alternative u-stem may be
compared with Skt. sādhú- (cf. Olsen 1999: 186 with references and a discussion).
Witczak claims that the ModArm. dial. form ĥač‘ “seems to have retained the
original shape”, which is unfounded. Then he reconstructs PArm. *hač‘ and derives
it from *patyo-, comparing with Hurr. pa(n)di/wa(n)di ‘right’ on the one hand, and
with Toch. A pāci ‘right’ on the other.
I do not know of a dialectal form that would be derivable from a PArm. *hač‘.
Even if there are dialectal forms with an initial h-, it might be regarded as a relic of
the IE *s- of our *s(e)Hdh
i̯o- (compare the cases of e.g. arb- ‘to drink’ and ali-k‘
‘waves’). Alternatively, it might be due to lexicalization of the y-prefixed forms.
Besides, the final voiced affricate -ǰ of the ClArm form regularly becomes unvoiced,
whereas an original -č‘ cannot yield voiced -ǰ in ClArm. I conclude that there are no
solid reasons to reject the traditional etymology and especially to derive Arm. aǰ
from *patyo-.
Pedersen (1906: 432 = 1982: 210) compares Arm. aǰ with Gr. ἄξιος ‘worth’,
which is untenable as well.
aṙ ‘at, by, to, nearby, in front, before, etc.’ preposition (Bible+, see NHB 1: 281) and
prefix, cf. aṙagast ‘curtain, etc.’, aṙac ‘proverb’, aṙak ‘fable’, aṙapar ‘craggy place’,
aṙaǰ ‘front’, aṙaǰin ‘first’, aṙaspel ‘myth, fable’, aṙastaɫ ‘ceiling’, aṙat ‘abundant’,
aṙatik ‘rope’, aṙark- ‘subject’, aṙawawt ‘morning’, aṙawušt ‘urinary bladder’, aṙeɫ
‘carriage-pole’, aṙēǰ ‘threads running along the length of cloth, warp’, *aṙič
‘village’, aṙik‘ ‘ceiling’, aṙoɫǰ ‘healthy’, *aṙ-orm-i ‘a log or wooden framework that
supports the wall or the ceiling of a house’, etc. For more examples and a discussion, see HAB 1: 247a; Meillet 1936: 94, 97, 99,
139, 150-151; M. Muradyan 1975: 58-61; T‘osunyan 1983 passim; Gyurǰinyan
1987; L. Hovsep‘yan 1987: 161, 164, 165 et passim; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 243-244, 358;
Olsen 1999: 754.
Further see s.vv. zaṙam ‘senile’ and zaṙanc‘em ‘to delire’, if containing z- and aṙ-.
Interesting are z-aṙ-i-vayr and z-aṙ-i-koɫ ‘precipitous’.
●DIAL Łarabaɫ áṙis, áṙɛs ‘at/with me’, áṙit, áṙɛt ‘at/with you’, áṙin, áṙɛn ‘at/with
him/her’, Hadrut‘, Šaɫax-Xcaberd áṙɛs, áṙɛt, áṙɛn [Davt‘yan 1966: 316], Łazax aṙis,
aṙit, aṙin ‘id.’ [HAB 1: 247b].
The first person form, viz. aṙis/aṙɛs, continues ClArm. aṙ is (cf. z-is, AccSg of es
‘I’). At a certain stage the final -s has been secondarily associated with the first
person deictic article -s. Based on this re-analysis, the second and third person forms
with -d and -n have analogically been created [HAB 1: 247b].
The prefixed forms see under corresponding entries.
●ETYM Since Meillet (1936: 99), connected with Gr. πάρα ‘besides, by, next to,
alongside, against’, πέρι ‘around, round, quite, by, at, concerning’, πέρυσι (Dor.
πέρυτι) ‘last year’, πόρσω, Att. πόρρω ‘forward, beyond, away’, πρό ‘forth, forward,
for, before’, πρωί̄, Att. πρῴ, compos. πρωΐ- ‘early, in the morning’, Skt. pára-
‘farther, utmost, highest, surplus’, parás ‘far, further’, párā ‘away, off’, prá ‘before,
forward, forth, in front’, pári ‘around, about, away from’, parut ‘last year’, purás ‘in
front, in advance, forward, before’, prātár ‘early, in the morning, the next day’, etc.
(for the forms and a discussion, see Pokorny 1959: 810-816; Beekes 1973b;
Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 86-87, 88-89, 91-92, 146-147, 173-174, 188;
Mallory/Adams 1997: 60-61, 173-174, 581b).
It is not entirely clear whether the second -a- of the by-form aṙa- has an
etymological value. A combination aṙ + conjunction -a- (Ravnæs 1991: 99), which
is very productive in compounds, is improbable. In a few words, the -a- may be
anaptyctic (see s.vv. aṙaspel ‘myth, fable’, aṙastaɫ ‘ceiling’). Different is the case of
aṙatik ‘rope’ (q.v.), which may contain tik ‘*goat’s leather’, and aṙapar ‘craggy
place’ (q.v.), if containing *par ‘foot’.
Different explanations for aṙ(a) have been proposed. IE *perə- (HAB 1: 247a) or
*prH- (Klingenschmitt 1982: 165; Hamp 1986: 293; 1996, see s.v. aṙaǰ;
Mallory/Adams 1997: 60b; cf. Clackson 1994: 38-39) would rather yield Arm.
*her(a)- or *(h)ar(a)-, respectively. That this cannot explain the trilled -ṙ- is rightly
stressed by Ravnæs 1991: 99. IE *porsō- (Pokorny 1959: 816 with Gr. πόρσω, Att.
πόρρω ‘forward, beyond, away’, Lat. porrō ‘onward, further (off), besides’; see also
J̌
ahukyan 1987: 143) would give Arm. *oṙ- (Ravnæs 1991: 991). One might posit
*pr̥s- (cf. Greppin 1983: 296, hesitantly), or *pors-V́- (in derivatives) > PArm. *oṙV́-
> aṙ-V- (for this vocalic change, see 2.1.3). A proto-form with *e-grade in the root
(loc. *pers-i) might explain Arm. heṙ-i ‘far’. However, the latter is usually derived
from *per-(e)ri-, cf. Goth. fairra ‘far’, OHG ferro ‘far’, etc. (Pokorny 1959: 811;
Jahukyan 1982: 42; 1987: 143; Lehmann 1986: 107).
Further see s.vv. era- ‘first, early, before’, haraw ‘south’, heṙi ‘far’, heru ‘last
year’.
aṙagast i- and a-stems ‘curtain, (nuptial) canopy; bridal chamber; tent; sail’, dial.
‘wine-press’ (< ‘room for wine-pressing’) (Bible+). In Movsēs Xorenac‘i 3.68 (1913=1991: 361L5f; transl. Thomson 1978: 352):
yusayak‘ harsaneac‘ parel, anveher eragut‘eamb krt‘ealk‘, ew aṙagasti asel ergs
“we hoped to dance at marriages, being bold and nimble of foot, and to sing
wedding songs”; cf. 2.50 (179L14).
For the meaning ‘tent’, see Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.46 (1913=1990: 172L13; transl.
Thomson 1978: 186).
In the atmospheric context, the verb aṙagastem occurs in “Yaɫags ampoc‘ ew
nšanac‘” by Anania Širakac‘i, 7th cent. (A. G. Abrahamyan 1944: 306, lines 22-21
and 38).
●DIAL Preserved only in the dialect of Ararat: əṙák‘ast [HAB 1: 249a]. Both
Ačaṙyan (1913: 130b; HAB 1: 249a) and Amatuni (1912: 55b) describe Ararat
aṙagast as a part of a hnjan (wine-pressing room) or a house where the grapes are
pressed to make wine. According to Baɫdasaryan-T‘ap‘alc‘yan (1971: 218), the
word hənjan in the village of Ōšakan is equivalent to aṙak‘ast in Aštarak. See also
s.v. hnjan.
●ETYM Composed as aṙ- + ag- ‘to put on (clothes)’ (see also s.v. awt‘oc‘) + -ast
[NHB 1: 281c; HAB 1: 248b; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 123]. Meillet (1936: 77) and
J
̌
ahukyan (1987: 240) derive the ending from a compound suffix *-s-ti-, whereas
Weitenberg (1980: 213, 214) assumes a suffix -st-, which has resulted from the
generalization of *-u-k-ti-.
One wonders if aṙ-agast is related with z-gest, u-stem ‘clothing’. The absence of
the initial laryngeal in *ues- (cf. Hitt. ú-e-eš-ta ‘wears’, Gr. ἕννυμι, -μαι ‘I clothe’)
seems to be an obstacle for the equation, unless one accepts the explanation given in
Kortlandt 2003: 43 (see s.v. aganim ‘to put on clothes’). Contamination is possible,
too. It is interesting that the i-stem of aṙagast agrees with what might be expected
for zgest (cf. Lat. uestis ‘cloth, garment’; Goth. wasti ‘garment, dress’), although the
evidence for the i-stem of zgest is late (Paterica+). In the 5th century the word is an
u-stem. On the other hand, the parallel a-stem of aṙagast is reminiscent of
formations like Gr. (Hesychius) γεστία ‘clothing’ < *ues-tih2- or ἐσϑής ‘clothing’ <
*ues-th2-(?) (cf. also ἔσϑος n.). One may therefore propose an alternative solution:
NSg *ués-t-eh2-, GSg *us-t-h2-ós (and/or NSg *ués-t-ih2-, GSg *us-t-ih2-ós) >
PArm. NSg *gest-a/i- (which would merge with z-gest, -u after the apocope), GSg
*wst- (with a w- after the nominative) > *gast- (for the anaptyctic -a- before the
sibilant, see s.v. aṙaspel). If this is correct, Gr. ἐσϑής (with a -ϑ- from *-t + H-?) has
arisen in the same scenario as Skt. pánthās (NSg *pónt-eh1-s, GSg *pnt-h1-ós, see
s.v. hun), and Gr. εστία goes back to *ués-t-ih2-. Arm. *gast is due to the
generalization of the oblique stem.
The semantic development taken place in this word is remarkable. It seems to
comprise two basic parts: A) ‘cover, curtain, sail, (nuptial) canopy’ > ‘bridal
chamber’ [broadening]; B) ‘room’ > ‘wine-pressing room’ > ‘wine-pressing basin’
[specialization, narrowing]. The neutral meaning ‘room’ is hardly attested, but it
must be posited in order to make a start for part B. One notes that in hnjan (if my
etymology is accepted; see s.v.), a similar development has taken place, albeit in the
opposite direction: ‘basin, font; a kind of bathing-vessel’ > ‘a wine-press basin’
[specialization] > ‘a room for wine-pressing’ [narrowing]; the basin of a fountain;
garden-basin’.
aṙac, o-stem and i-stem (both attested late) ‘proverb; vision, prophecy, prodigy, etc.’
(Bible+); cf. also aṙ-ac-im ‘to turn around’ (Eznik Koɫbac‘i, John Chrysostom).
In (late) medieval dictionaries, aṙac is glossed by the following words: patgam
‘command, etc.’, arhest ‘craft, skill, art’, margarēut‘iwn ‘prophecy’, ban ‘thing’,
tesil ‘vision’, xōsk‘ ‘speech, word’, azdumn ‘effect’ [Amalyan 1971: 189-192].
●DIAL Agulis, Axalc‘xa aṙac, Alaškert aṙaj [HAB 1: 249a]; Meɫri əṙáskav
‘metaphorically’ < *aṙac-k‘-ov ‘with proverb’ [Aɫayan 1954: 262b].
●ETYM Since Maksoudiantz 1911-12, Arm. aṙac is treated as composed of the prefix
aṙ- ‘at, to, near by, before, etc.’ and the verbal stem ac- ‘to bring, lead, drive, move,
encircle, beat, pour, etc.’ (q.v.), cf. Lat. adagiō, -ōnis f. ‘proverb’, adagium n.
‘proverb’ (cf. vetus adagio est in Varro), prōdigium n. ‘omen, portent, monster;
marvel, prodigy; monstruous creature’; further note Lat. aiō ‘to say, assent, affirm’,
Gr. ἠ̃(athematic imperfect) < *h1e-h1eĝ-t ‘he said’, and Arm. asem ‘to say, speak,
tell’ (q.v.), the -s- of which is usually explained from a perfect formation *Hĝ-t
(Walde/Hofmann 1, 1938: 12, 24-25; Ernout-Meillet 1959: 18-19; Pokorny 1959:
290; J̌
ahukyan 1967: 184, 308; 1987: 121, 163; Ravnæs 1991: 64; Schrijver 1991:
26-28, 31; Mallory/Adams 1997: 535a; Anttila 2000: 118; cf. Meillet 1892: 164;
Brugmann 1904: 506). Arm. -ac has been derived from *-h1oĝ- (Schrijver 1991: 26;
cf. Klingenschmitt 1982: 138).
According to another explanation, the *aĝ-, represented in Latin and Armenian,
derives from PIE *h2eĝ- ‘to drive, lead’. Benveniste (1969, 2: 260-263 = 1973: 513-
515) assumes that Lat. aiō refers primarily to the verbatim quotation of an
authoritative utterance, and originally prōdigium would have been the ‘prodigy’ of a
divine voice which made itself heard along with other signs. For an extensive
discussion on these and related issues, see Greppin 1975c: 62-63; 1983: 296-297,
302-303; de Vaan 2008: 31-32, and especially Anttila 2000: 113-121.
If the interpretation of Arm. tacem ‘to take care for, look after, nourish; to
cultivate’ from PArm. *(a)t- (cf. Lat ad ‘at, near by, about’ < IE *h2ed-) + *ac- is
accepted (see s.v.), then this verb should be regarded as an exact etymological match
to Lat. adagiō.
Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 249a) prefers interpreting aṙac as a derivative of aṙnum ‘to
gain, obtain, win, plunder, take, grasp, etc.’ in the suffix -ac, cf. arar-ac ‘created;
creature’; for the semantic development, see Gr. λῆμμα ‘acceptance, assumption;
proverb; inspiration, commission, prophecy’ from λαμβάνω ‘to take, grasp’. This
interpretation is followed by Klingenschmitt 1982: 1371382 and Olsen 1999: 23856.
However, the connection with Lat. ad-agiō is more attractive.
aṙapar, a-stem: ISg aṙapar-a-w, GDPl aṙapar-a-c‘ (Movsēs Xorenac‘i, etc.), AblSg
y-aṙapar-ē (Alexander Romance) ‘craggy place’ (Bible+).
For Biblical textual illustrations, see Job 39.6 and 40.20 [Cox 2006: 250, 258].
ISg aṙapar-a-w is attested in Movsēs Xorenac‘i 3.9 (1913=1991: 266L14f; transl.
Thomson 1978: 262): ew anti meržeal zŌšakan aṙaparawn “pushed them back from
there to the rocks of Ōšakan”; GDPl aṙapar-a-c‘ : Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.22
(1913=1991: 137L12); transl. ‘rocky places’ (Thomson 1978: 159).
●ETYM A word of unknown origin [HAB 1: 251a; Olsen 1999: 962].
I tentatively interpret the word as composed of aṙ(a) ‘at, by, in front’ (q.v.) and
the independently unattested root *par ‘foot’ from Parth. pāδ ‘foot’, which is also found in Arm. hrapar ‘rope, tie’, hapax attested in Agat‘angeɫos § 109 (see s.v. tik ‘a
vessel made of an animal’s skin’ for the attestation), with the Iranian prefix fra-
(HAB 3: 132b; Bolognesi 1995; Hamp 1997a: 19-20), and garšapar ‘heel, footstep’
(q.v.). This etymology, if accepted, can be important for establishing the status of
aṙa-, the by-form of aṙ-.
For the semantics cf. Arm. xoč‘-ənd-otn ‘stumbling block, hindrance,
impediment’, lit. ‘pointed stone or prickle under feet’, Lat. impedīmentum, Gr. ἐμποδ-ών, ἐμ-πόδ-ιος (Frisk 1: 507; 2: 587), Russ. pre-pjatstvie, etc. Note especially
Arm. aṙat‘ur ‘under feet’ (Bible+), composed of the same prefix aṙa- and an ECauc.
word for ‘foot’, cf. Udi t
h
ur ‘foot’, etc. (see HAB 1: 90a).
It is unclear whether aṙapar is in a way related with apaṙaž ‘rock, craggy place’
(Bible+; widespread in the dialects, HAB 1: 228b).
aṙaǰ ‘front part; front, anterior’; aṙaǰ-i ‘in front of, towards; against’; aṙaǰ-in ‘first,
prime, prior’ (all Bible+).
●DIAL Dialectally ubiquitous [HAB 1: 251-252].
●ETYM Since Petermann et al., interpreted as aṙ- ‘at, to, near by, before, etc.’ + aǰ
‘right’ [HAB 1: 245b, 251b; Greppin 1983: 296]. The complicated explanations
starting with *prHu̯- or the like (Klingenschmitt 1982: 165, 165-16610; Hamp 1996)
are improbable and unnecessary.
aṙaspel, a-stem: GDSg aṙaspel-i, GDPl aṙaspel-a-c‘ (Bible, Movsēs Xorenac‘i), ISg
aṙaspel-a-w (Plato), IPl aṙaspel-a-w-k‘ (Movsēs Xorenac‘i); *aṙaspel-i-k‘, GDPl
aṙaspeleac‘ in Agat‘angeɫos, Movsēs Xorenac‘i (reading variant) ‘myth, tale; fable;
proverb; riddle’ (Bible+). For the Biblical attestations, see Astuacaturean 1895: 162
and Lidén 1933: 46-47.
In plural sometimes -lea-, which presupposes a by-form *aṙaspeli. But such a
singular is not attested. Cases where sg. aṙaspel (without a final -i) co-occurs with
pl. -lea- in the same passages show that we are dealing with a secondary
phenomenon restricted to the paradigm of the plural; cf. e.g. in the Alexander
Romance (see below).
‘mythical story, fiction, tale’: ‘mythical untrue/unbelievable/unsensical story’;
‘fairy-tale = gratuitous talking’: 1 Timothy 1.4: Yaṙaspelac‘ paṙawanc‘ “from fables
of old women”. Agathangeɫos: aṙaspeleac‘ gri. Eznik Koɫbac‘i: Amenek‘ean
aṙaspels arkanen.
In Movsēs Xorenac‘i 1.6 (1913=1991: 226f; transl. Thomson 1978: 77): orum oč‘
zok‘ ənddimanal karcem i mits unoɫac‘n: bayc‘ et‘ē zčšmartut‘eann ok‘ xorhelov
k‘akel zoč yaṙaspels zčšmarit bans axorželov p‘op‘oxel p‘ut‘asc‘ē “I think that no
right-minded person will object to this; but if anyone is planning to upset the whole
system of truth, let him happily endeavor to change these true accounts into fables”.
GDSg aṙaspel-i and LocSg yaṙaspel-i are attested in a remarkable passage from
Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.61 (1913=1991: 192L8f; transl. Thomson 1978: 204), for which
see s.v. darbin ‘smith’.
Other attestations from Movsēs Xorenac‘i:
2.7 (1913=1991: 111L2f; transl. Thomson 1978: 138): T‘oɫum zaṙaspelac‘n (var.
zaṙaspeleac‘n) baǰaɫans, or i Hadamakertin patmin “I omit the nonsensical fables
that are recounted in Hadamakert”. 2.8 (115L12; transl. 142), the stories about the power of Turk‘ Angeɫeay are
characterized as follows: Oh!, kari ē aṙaspels, ayl ew aṙaspelac‘ aṙaspel “O, this
tale is too much – it is the tale of all tales”.
2.24 (140L12; transl. 161): Əndēr patrimk‘ zruc‘ōk‘ vaɫənǰuc‘ ew paṙaweal
aṙaspelōk‘ : “Why do we deceive ourselves with ancient tales and old wives’
fables?”.
2.42 (168L2f; transl. 183): Bayc‘ ays kam eɫic‘i sut ew aṙaspel, kam <...> : “But
this is either false and a fable or else <...>“.
In the Alexander Romance (H. Simonyan 1989: 173-174; Wolohojian 1969: 72;
Braccini 2004: 42V87f, 150-154), the bard Ismenias approaches Alexander “with
devilish words” (diwabnak baniwk‘), and Alexander becomes annoyed by all these
“fairy-tales” (aṙaspeleawk‘n) and says angrily: Aṙaspels xawsis “Are you telling
fairy-tales?”
In T‘ovmay Arcruni /Ananun/ 4.7 (V. M. Vardanyan 1985: 450L15; transl.
Thomson 1985: 352 [here: 4.6]): stayōd banic‘ pačučeal aṙaspels : “fables
elaborated from fictitious accounts”.
In a poem by Aṙak‘el Siwnec‘i /14-15th cent./ [Poturean 1914: 234, stanza 117],
the verb aṙaspelel occurs in an enumeration of pejorative designations for verbal
activities: barba[n]ǰel, xeɫkatakel, parap nəstel aṙaspelel.
‘infamous subject for public talkings’: In Gregory Nazianzenus (see NHB 1:
292c): Zi aṙaspel zis arasc‘ēs i kenc‘aɫums.
‘fable’: T‘ovmay Arcruni (9-10th cent., Vaspurakan) 1.10 (V. Vardanyan 1985:
108): Aṙ sa inj i čax elanē k‘ert‘oɫakan aṙaspeln or asē : bazum angam aɫuesk‘
t‘agaworel xorhec‘an, bayc‘ šunk‘ oč‘ aṙin yanjn : “In this regard the poetic fable
seems opportune to me, which runs: ‘Often the foxes planned to reign, but the dogs
did not agree’”. Here, V. Vardanyan (1985: 109) renders aṙaspel by aṙak, which in
ModArm. means ‘fable’. Thomson (1985: 131) similarly translates ‘fable’, noting: “I
have not identified this quotation”.
This fable is very short and formulaic and may be used as an illustration for the
interrelationship ‘fable’ : ‘proverb, saying’. For the meaning ‘fable’ in respect of the
relationship with the synonymous aṙak, cf. Sksayc‘ aṙak, oč‘ aṙaspelakan, ayl or ē
čšmarit aṙakeal (Philo).
‘proverb’: 1 Kings 24.14: Orpēs asē hin aṙaspeln, yanawrēn jeṙac‘ yelc‘ē vnas :
αϑὼς λέγεται ἡ παραβολὴ ἡ ἀρχαία Ἐξ ἀνόμων ἐξελεύσεται πλημμέλεια.
Movsēs Xorenac‘i 1.12 (1913=1991: 40L4f; transl. Thomson 1978: 90): Vasn oroy
t‘ui ardaranal aṙaspelin (dativus cum infinitivo), or asi i mēj geɫǰkac‘: “t‘ē k‘o
Šarayi orkorn ē, asen, mer Širakay ambark‘n č‘en” : “Therefore the proverb that
circulates among the villagers seems to be justified: “If you have the throat of
Sharay, they say, we do not have the barns of Shirak’’”. In Plato (6th century):
P‘ok‘r inč‘ ardeawk‘ aṙaspelaw varil part ē, et‘ē <... >.
‘enigma, riddle’: In Judges 14.12: Arkic‘ jez aṙaspel “Let me now put a riddle to
you” : Προβαλῶ ὑμῖν πρόβλημα. In Judges 14.18: oč‘ gtanēik‘ zaṙaspeln im “you
would not have found out my riddle” : οὐκ ἂν εὕρετε τὸ πρόβλημά μου. Adjectival
usage in Cyril of Jerusalem; cf. below on dialects.
On the notion of aṙaspel ‘myth’ : ‘fable’ : ‘proverb’ in Movsēs Xorenac‘i, see
Abeɫyan 1985: 72; Thomson 1978: 10-11. For the meaning ‘riddle’ of aṙaspel, aṙak and bankn (q.v.), see S. Harut‘yunyan 1960: 7-9; Mnac‘akanyan 1980: 6-7;
Ōdabašyan 1987: 6410.
Denominative verbs aṙaspelem, aṙaspelabanem, aṙaspelagorcem,
aṙaspelasteɫcem and numerous other derivations, like aṙaspelabar, aṙaspelaxaws,
aṙaspelakan, aṙaspelakoc, etc.
Some illustrations, beside the passage from Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2. 61, demonstrate
that the mythical tales were often performed by singing, cf. Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.50
(1913=1991: 179; transl. Thomson 1978: 192-193): Zays teɫi aṙaspelabanelov
vipasank‘n yergeln iwreanc‘ asen: < ... >. Doynpēs ew zharsaneac‘n aṙaspeleal
ergen, < ... > : “This episode the storytellers rehearse, as they sing their fables, in
the following way: <...>. Similarly they also sing in their fables about the wedding”.
The verb aṙaspelem occurs in Ašxarhac‘oyc‘ (Soukry 1881: 42).
In Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ (see Amalyan 1975: 31Nr724): aṙaspel· hrašaban, kam sut
patmut‘iwn “miraculous or false story”.
●DIAL Preserved in some dialects: J̌
uɫa ‘licentious story’ (according to T. Abgarean
1966: 93, ‘dishonourable word’); Ṙodost‘o, Tigranakert, Nor Naxiǰewan, etc.
‘immoral, indecent (words)’, e.g. Aṙaspel baner mi asil “Do not say indecent
things/words”; Karin, Sebastia, T‘iflis ‘stubborn’. The Turkish-speaking Armenians
of Angora use the word in the meaning ‘immoral word’ and ‘fairy-tale’ (the
rendering hēk‘eac is a misprint for hēk‘eat‘ ‘fairy-tale’, see HAB-Add 1982: 7)
[HAB 1: 254a].
Sebastia aṙəspel ‘extraordinary (blasphemy); licentious (girl)’ [Gabikean 1952:
80].
●ETYM The word is composed of the prefix aṙ- (rather than aṙa- as suggested in
Olsen 1999: 72), the anaptyxis -a- before s (cf. Greppin 1983: 297; J̌
ahukyan 1987:
243; see s.vv. aṙastaɫ and aṙ- ), and otherwise unattested root *spel-, which is
derived from PIE *spel-.
This etymology has been proposed by Lidén (1933: 46-49) and is generally
accepted (HAB 1: 253-254; Pokorny 1959: 985; Solta 1960: 288; Klingenschmitt
1982: 169f; Mallory/Adams 1997: 536; Olsen 1999: 72, etc.). Compare Goth. spill
‘story, fable’, Alb. fjálë f. (Sg, Pl) ‘word’ (Demiraj 1997: 134, in passing), Gr.
ἀπειλή ‘threat; promise’, ἀπειλέω ‘to threaten’, cf. Beekes 1969: 50, 85;
Mallory/Adams 1997: 536 (“if from *n̥-pelnō”). The appurtenance of Toch. B päl-
‘to praise, commend’ is uncertain [Adams 1999: 376-377]. According to Ačaṙyan
(HAB 1: 253-254), Tumanyan (1978: 204) et al., only the Germanic words are
related. Greppin (1981b: 3) notes that the correlation Arm. aṙaspel ‘boastful’ : Gr.
ἀπειλή ‘fable’ should not be rejected, although there is some semantic unbalance. (It
seems that Greppin confused here the meanings of the Armenian and the Greek
words). The formation of Arm. aṙaspel is parallel to that of OE bi-spell ‘fable’.
Compare also Arm. aṙac (HAB s.v.).
Arm. aṙ(-a)-spel is structurally, semantically, and, as far as the root is concerned,
etymologically identical with MHG, OHG bī-spel ‘belehrende Erzählung, Redensart,
Gleichnis, Sprichwort’, and OEngl. bi-spell, composed of MHG, OHG bī ‘bei’ and
Germ. *spella- n. ‘überlieferte Geschichte, Mythos’: Goth. spill ‘myth’ (Lehmann
1986: 320), OIc. spjall ‘Erzählung, Rede, Zauberspruch’, MHG, OHG spel
‘Erzählung’, OEngl. spell ‘Erzählung, Geschichte, Rede, Predigt, Botschaft’, Engl. spell ‘Zauberspruch’ (cf. also god-spell, lit. ‘gute Kunde, gute Botschaft,
Evangelium’); the actual meaning is ‘nebenbei Erzähltes, das dazu Erzählte’
(Kluge/Seebold 1989: 72a, 272b; HerkWört 1997: 71-72). See also s.v. aṙac
‘proverb; vision, prophecy, prodigy, etc.’.
See also s.v. paɫat- ‘supplication’
aṙastaɫ a-stem (GDPl aṙastaɫ-a-c‘ in Ephrem) ‘ceiling, roof’ (Bible+); later (also
dial.): ‘sky; palate’.
For the Biblical attestations, see Astuacaturean 1895: 162-163 and Lidén 1933: 41.
NHB and HAB record also the meaning ‘sky’, attested in “Meknut‘iwn
Awetaranin Yohannu” by John Chrysostom (2.1): Kamis tesanel zgeɫec‘ik aṙastaɫs?;
yoržam gišern žamanē, tes zardareal zerkins asteɫōk‘ “Do you want to see the
beautiful ceiling? When the night arrives, see the adorned sky with stars!” As Gohar
Muradyan (to whom I express my gratitude) kindly informs me, the corresponding
part of the Greek text has probably not been preserved. However, she points out to
another similar passage of the Greek text (PG vol. 59: 102.8), where the sky is
metaphorically associated with the ceiling, too. Thus, we seem to be dealing with a
metaphor or comparison rather than lexicalization of the meaning ‘sky’; cf. a similar
metaphor with the synonymous jeɫun (q.v.). Note also the remarkable association
‘ceiling’ : ‘starry sky’ in some dialects (see below).
The meaning ‘palate’ appears in several late attestations: Abusayid (12th cent.;
Cilicia) [S. Vardanyan 1974: 131L12, 194L13; in the glossary: 223]; “Bžškaran jioy
ew aṙhasarak grastnoy” (13th cent.): aṙastax-k‘ [Č‘ugaszyan 1980: 148L9; in the
glossary: 180]. For other attestations (Mxit‘ar Herac‘i, Oskip‘orik, Amirdovlat‘
Amasiac‘i), see NHB 1: 293c; MiǰHayBaṙ 1, 1987: 77a.
●DIAL Preserved in SW dialects: Akn aṙəsdax [HAB 1: 255a], Zeyt‘un ayəsdɔx
[Ačaṙyan 2003: 299], Aramo aṙstuɫ, NPl aṙstəɫna, K‘abusie aṙəstux [Łaribyan 1958:
28, 59a, 120b], Malat‘ia arəstaɫ [Danielyan 1967: 186b], K‘esab aṙəstuɔɫ/x/k ̂
[Č‘olak‘ean 1986: 196b], Svedia aṙəsduɫ, loc./all. eaṙəsdauɫ < *y-aṙastaɫ
[Andreasyan 1967: 33, 354b]. In these descriptions the semantics of the word is not
specified. Only Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 255a), citing the forms from Akn, Zeyt‘un, and
Svedia, records the meanings: (1) ‘ceiling’; (2) ‘palate’.
Borrowed into the Turkish dialects of Evdokia, Karin (Erzrum), Kesaria,
Sebastia, Tarente, Adana [HAB 1: 255a]. For the dialect of Sebastia, Arm. aṙastaɫ is
glossed in Gabikean 1952: 80 by Turk. arəstaɫ. Note also Turkophone Enküri
arəstak‘ ‘ceiling’ [S. Mxit‘arean 1898: 789a].
On Persian, see below.
In the Armenian dialects of Syria, aṙastaɫ ‘ceiling’ seems to have been
contaminated with astɫ ‘star’ (q.v.); for the association ‘ceiling’ : ‘palate’ : ‘sky’, see
3.7.1. A curious word is found in the dialect of Šatax (Van-group): astɫunk‘y,
glossed as katik, šnč‘ap‘oɫ, that is ‘uvula, windpipe’ [M. Muradyan 1962: 209a],
with no references to the origin or a ClArm. correspondence. Formally, this word is
identical with Van pl. astɫunk‘ ‘stars’ (see s.v. astɫ ‘star’). A semantic shift (or
confusion) between ‘palate’ and ‘uvula, windpipe’ seems conceivable. Thus, we
seem to be dealing with the development ‘starry sky’ > ‘palate, etc.’. Alternatively
(and, perhaps, more probably), astɫunk‘y ‘uvula, windpipe’ may be derived from
aṙastaɫ ‘palate’ with loss of -ṙ- and/or contamination with astɫunk‘ ‘stars’. In either case, the word should be discussed within the semantic framework of ‘ceiling’ :
‘palate’ : ‘(starry) sky’ (see 3.7.1).
●ETYM Another case of the composition of the prefix aṙ(a)- and an independently
unattested root (cf. s.vv. aṙ- and aṙaspel), i.e. *staɫ. The latter is connected
(Dervischjan 1877: 401 and Lidén 1933: 41-42, 45, independently) to OCS stelja
‘roof’ and the like (Pokorny’s *stel-2 ‘ausbreiten, flach hinbreiten’). Everyone
accepts this etymology (Pokorny 1959: 1018-1019; Solta 1960: 225ff; Tumanjan
1978: 204-205; Greppin 1983: 297-298; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 151; Olsen 1999: 208, etc.)
without mentioning the alternative proposed by Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 254), who prefers
connecting Arm. *staɫ with words presented in Pokorny 1959: 1019-1020 s.v.
*stel-3.
Both Ačaṙyan and Pokorny (“wohl”) point out the possibility that these two PIE
roots may be related to each other. However, we will continue dealing with a
“Wurzel-etymologie” until we recognize the direct association of Arm. *staɫ with
Gr. στήλη ‘block or slab used as a memorial; monument; gravestone; post, pillar;
boundary-post’ and OHG stollo, MHG stolle ‘Stütze, Gestell, Pfosten’. The
protoform of the Greek (*stalnā, cf. Dor. στᾱλᾱ́ , Lesb. Thess. στάλλᾱ, Rix 1992: 67)
is *stl̥neh2-, which is perfectly suitable for Arm. *staɫa- (aṙastaɫ has an a-stem). On
the development *-ln- > Arm. -ɫ-, see 2.1.22.8.
The basic meaning of Arm. aṙastaɫ ‘roof’ would then be ‘(that is leaned) on the
pillar’, cf. also s.vv. *aṙormi, dial. *aṙ-zel (Ačaṙean 1913: 132b).
In NHB 1: 293c, aṙastaɫ is glossed by Pers. aṙast‘ag, Gr. ὄροφος, Lat. tēctum
‘roof’. The Persian word, the meaning of which is not specified, seems interesting.
When reliable, it might be an Armenian loan. However, in Steingass (32a) I only
found ārāstagī ‘ornament, embellishment, decoration; order, arrangement’. Whether
or not this word is somehow related with Arm. aṙastaɫ ‘ceiling’ is uncertain. The
semantic relationship seems possible, cf. a(w)čaṙ ‘roof, ceiling’ vs. a(w)čaṙ
‘equipment, harness, make-up, ornament, material’.
*aṙati (dial.) ‘cord’.
●DIAL In the glossary of dialectal words, Aɫayan (1954: 297) records Meɫri əṙátɛ,
glossing by aṙatik ‘cord’, although the latter is missing in the vocabulary from
ClArm. to the Meɫri dialect.
●ETYM The word is probably composed of the prefix aṙa- ‘at, to, near by, before,
etc.’ and the word ti ‘tie’: *aṙa-ti > *aṙáti > əṙátɛ, for the development of the final
vowel -i > -ɛ cf. aceli ‘razor’ > cílɛ, anali ‘saltless’ > nä́lɛ, gōti ‘girdle’ > gútɛ, etc.
(see Aɫayan 1954: 38-42). The word can structurally be compared (or perhaps even
identified with) the synonymous aṙa-tik (q.v.).
*aṙatik (or *aṙatuk), a-stem: GDPl aṙatk-a-c‘ (Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i), IPl
aṙatk-a-w-k‘ (Agat‘angeɫos § 102, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i) ‘a cord for binding
up a criminal’s feet’.
The passage in Agat‘angeɫos § 102 (1909=1980: 61L16f; transl. Thomson 1976:
119) see s.v. olok‘ ‘shin’.
●DIAL No dialectal forms are recorded in HAB 1: 255-256; 4: 655. For Meɫri əṙátɛ,
see s.v. *aṙa-ti ‘cord’. ●ETYM According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 655), the word is composed as aṙa- ‘at, to,
near by, before, etc.’ + ti ‘tie’ + dimin. -ik. The same derivative without the
diminutive suffix is found in Meɫri, see s.v. *aṙa-ti ‘cord’.
It seems more likely, however, that the second component is tik ‘wineskin’.
Remarkably, both tik and *aṙatik are a-stems, and they both are used in
Agat‘angeɫos to refer to strong cords for binding up someone’s feet or shins (for the
passages, see s.vv. olok‘ ‘shin’ and tik ‘wineskin’).
For the problem of the medial -a-, see s.vv. aṙ- ‘at, etc.’, aṙaspel ‘myth, fable’,
aṙastaɫ ‘ceiling’, *aṙormi ‘a log or wooden framework that supports the wall or the
ceiling of a house’.
aṙawawt, i- and u-stems ‘morning’ (Bible+). Also: adj. aṙawawt-in (-tn-oc‘)
‘matutinus’, aṙawawt-u(n), -uc‘ ‘in the morning’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects. Many forms display contraction or allegrovariants, e.g. Nor Naxiǰewan aṙadun (next to aṙavdun), Van aṙatun, aṙat-man, etc.,
Polis aṙdu, etc. Šamaxi aṙɔɔt or aṙɔ̄r reflects a contraction peculiar to this dialect, cf.
baxtawor ‘lucky’ > Šamaxi baxtɔ̄r, etc. [Baɫramyan 1964: 35].
The Aṙtial forms show an irregular absence of the second -w-: aṙvadu(n)
(Suč‘ava, Hungary) and aṙvadanc‘ (Romania) [Ačaṙyan 1953: 50, 259]. Ačaṙyan
glosses these forms as corresponding to ClArm. (Loc. adverb?) aṙawawtu. He does
not cite any Aṙtial reflex of the “pure” form aṙawawt.
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 256) does not accept any of numerous etymological
proposals, of which only that of Patrubány (StugHetaz 1906: 341) is worth of
consideration. He analyzes the word as aṙ- + *aw- + -awt and compares the root
*aw- with Lat. aurōra f. ‘dawn’, Gr. ἕως, αὔως f. ‘dawn’, Skt. uṣás- f. ‘morning
light, morning, dawn’ (RV+), etc. This etymology is advocated by Dumézil (1938b:
49-50; Schmitt 1972-74: 23; Greppin 1983: 298 with references), and, with some
reservation, by J̌
ahukyan (1987: 114, 159, 383); cf. also Eichner 1978: 15234;
Clackson 1994: 22397, 22498; Olsen 1999: 95944. See also s.v. ayg ‘morning’.
Aɫayan (1974: 24-27) derives *aw- from the root of PIE *sāu-el- ‘sun’. This is
improbable, since, as stated by J̌
ahukyan (1987: 159), the “pure” root *sāu- is not
attested in any cognate language. Aɫayan (ibid.) identifies the -aw-awt with the
hapax awōt (meaning ‘time’ according to Ačaṙyan [HAB 1: 363a], and ‘the time of
sun-rise’ according to Ē. Aɫayan), also found in šaɫ-awōt (with šaɫ ‘dew’ as the first
member) and kam-awōt attested in Anania Širakac‘i (7th cent.) as the names of the
4th and 5th nocturnal hours respectively, aṙ-awōt itself being the 10th (see Aɫayan
1974: 24-26; 1986: 80-81, 83; see also Greppin 1983: 298). For the list of the
hour-names in Anania Širakac‘i, see A. G. Abrahamyan 1944: 113. For the suffix
-awt, see 2.3.1.
aṙawušt ‘urinary bladder; watery pustule, blister’.
Only one attestation is cited in NHB 1: 298a and HAB 1: 256a: Nemesius of
Emesa (or Gregory of Nyssa), “Yaɫags bnut‘ean mardoy”, in the meaning ‘urinary
bladder’.
I found another attestation in “Saks bac‘ayaytut‘ean t‘uoc‘” by Anania Širakac‘i
(7th cent.), published by A. G. Abrahamyan (1944: 237-250) on the basis of the
Matenadaran manuscript Nr 3710. Here (245L24) aṙawušt ǰroy (ǰroy = GSg of ǰur ‘water’) is mentioned as one of the 7 kinds of bodily excrements and probably
means ‘watery pustule, blister’.
●ETYM NHB (1: 298a) considers it identical with (noyn ənd) p‘amp‘ušt ‘urinary
bladder’. Dervischjan (1877: 80) takes aṙa- as a prefix and compares the second
component with Skt. vas-ti- ‘Blase, Harnblase’. Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 256a) does not
accept these suggestions and leaves the origin of the word open.
As far as the second component is concerned, the suggestion by NHB can be
revived. The word p‘amp‘ušt contains bušt ‘urinary bladder; blotch, pustule’ (q.v.).
The same holds for aṙawušt, since the intervocalic *-bh
- yields Arm. -w-. As for the
first part, see s.v. bušt.
*aṙ-zel (dial.).
●DIAL In DialAdd apud NHB (2: 1060c): aṙzēl “a bed for workers made at the
ceiling (aṙ jeɫunn) or with straw (ceɫiwk‘) in stables or cattle-sheds”, which is
identified with Muš, Aparan aṙzɛl [Amatuni 1912: 57a], or Van, Muš aṙzel, Aparan,
Bulanəx arcel [Ačaṙean 1913: 132b]. This dialectal word mainly refers to a high
wooden bed between two posts. According to Ačaṙyan (1913: 132b), it also means
‘a small and crooked chamber under the ceiling, = Fr. mansarde’, although in this
case the dialectal area is not specified.
Here belongs also Sasun äṙzel ‘an immovable wooden bed (t‘axt‘)’ (see Petoyan
1954: 104; 1965: 203, 444). The -č‘- in Sasun arč‘el [HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 99b]
must be a misprint for -z-.
●ETYM NHB implicitly suggests an interpretation as aṙ jeɫunn ‘at the ceiling’ (see
above). This is probable. ClArm. jeɫun ‘ceiling’, also with a o-vocalism, joɫunk‘ in
Severian of Gabala, etc. and in the dialect of Akn, contains *je/ol ‘log; pole’, cf.
Georgian jeli ‘log’ and Arm. joɫ ‘log; pole’, perhaps also *jil (in the verb jlem ‘to
plough’). For the pattern of naming the ceiling or another wooden structure with the
prefix aṙ and a word meaning ‘log, pole, etc.’, see s.v. aṙ-a-staɫ ‘ceiling’. For -ṙj- >
-ṙz- cf. arjak ‘free, loose, etc.’ > Łarabaɫ härzäk, etc.
aṙēǰ (spelled also aṙēč‘), o-stem: GDSg aṙiǰ-o-y (Leviticus 13.59), aṙič‘-o-y
(Hexaemeron, see K. Muradyan 1984: 190L1); i-stem: GDPl aṙič‘-i-c‘ (Plato), cf.
AblSg y-aṙiǰ-ē (Leviticus 13.56) ‘threads running along the length of cloth, warp’
(Bible+).
In Leviticus 13.48-59 aṙēǰ ‘threads running along the length of cloth, warp’
occurs several times beside t‘ezan ‘the weft, the transverse threads which are woven
across to make cloth using the warp as a base’. The two terms render Gr. στήμων and
κρόκη, respectively.
●DIAL Present in a number of dialects (in some of them, frozen NPl *aṙēǰ-k‘), with
different semantic nuances: ‘warp’, ‘twigs that are used to make the basic woven
framework of baskets, etc.’, ‘stamen’, ‘shuttle’, ‘spindle’ [HAB 1: 258a], ‘a
cylindrical part of the loom made of a reed’ [Gabikean 1952: 81].
In my opinion, here also belongs Moks häṙɛčk‘y
, Gen. häṙɛčk‘y
-əɛ, GPl häṙɛč-üc‘‘окно, window’ (which see Orbeli 2002: 275; a textual illustration in 82L-14, transl.
154: kənəɛk häṙɛčkvɛ irišic‘, k‘xə: ur yar č‘ə
ɛ "жена посмотрела в окошко, видит:
это не ее дружок"). At the first glance the semantic relation between ‘window’ and
‘warp’, ‘twigs that are used to make the basic woven framework of baskets etc.’ seems impossible. It should be borne in mind, however, that, according to
ethnographical records from various regions (see Lisic‘yan 1969: 99; Marutjan
1989: 89a), the roof-windows called erdik have been covered by woven frameworks,
gratings. That this is the case also in relation with Moks häṙɛčk‘y
, GPl häṙɛč-üc‘, is
directly corroborated by häṙɛč-üc‘ čaɫ referring to the window-grating, glossed as
‘оконная решетка (рама), заклеиваемая на зиму бумагой’ in Orbeli 2002: 275. It
is quite possible that Moks häṙɛčk‘y originally referred to the window-grating, that is
a woven framework that was used to cover the window.
The initial h- of the Moks form is voiced and has nothing to do with ClArm. hwhich is regularly reflected by x- in Moks and other dialects of the Van-group.
Together with Muš h’aṙɛčk‘ and Alaškert h’aṙɛčk it probably reflects an older *yaṙēǰ-k‘ (see 2.3.1. on y-).
●ETYM The word refers to the threads which gradually go down during the weaving
process and is therefore treated as composed of the prefix aṙ- ‘at, to, near by, before,
etc.’ and the verbal root ēǰ- ‘to go down’ (HAB 1: 257-258; Olsen 1999: 17).
*aṙič, *aṙinč ‘village, settlement’, only in a number of place-names (see Hübschmann
1904: 286, 289-291, 379-380 et passim; HAB 1: 258b).
●ETYM No etymology (Hübschmann 1904: 379; HAB 1: 258-259; J̌
ahukyan 1987:
336-337, 582).
I tentatively propose a composition of the prefix aṙ- ‘at, to, near by, before, etc.’
and *(h)ič- ‘site, settlement’, a derivative of PIE *sed- ‘to sit’ (Skt. sádana- n. ‘seat,
dwelling place’, etc., Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 692); for this etymon, see s.vv.
hecanim ‘to mount a horse’, nist ‘site, seat’.
PArm. *(h)ič- may reflect a QIE *sēd-i̯V- (cf. Lat. sēdēs ‘seat, abode, residence’
in lengthened grade, Schindler 1975b: 267, Schrijver 1991: 376; or stative present
*sēd-, Mallory/Adams 1997: 522) or, perhaps better, *si-sd-i̯e-, an intensive of the
type *dei-dik̂
-i̯e- ‘to display’: Skt. dediśyáte vs. dédiṣ-ṭe (on which Beekes 1995:
230); cf. also redupl. pres. *si-sd- s.v. nist ‘seat, site’. Thus: aṙ- + *hi(s)č- = aṙič.
Typologically compare the place-name Aṙ-nist.
aṙn ‘wild ram’ attested in Eznik Koɫbac‘i 2.11, 5th cent. (APl z-aṙin-s), Commentary
on Aristotle by Elias (as synonymous to šikeria ‘wild ram’), Commentaries on
Dionysius Thrax by Grigor Magistros and Yovhannēs Erznkac‘i (in an enumeration
of male animals, beside xoy ‘ram’, see Adonc 1915=2008: 239-240, also with
mention of šikeria ‘wild ram’), see NHB 1: 307c; HAB 1: 261a.
●ETYM Since Meillet (1916d; 1936: 46), connected with Gr. ἄρσην, -ενος, Att.
ἄρρην, Ion., Lesb., Cret. ἔρσην, Lac. ἄρσης adj. ‘male’, Av. aršan- m. ‘man, male’,
OPers. aršan- ‘male, hero, bull’, cf. Skt. r̥ṣabhá- m. ‘bull’, probably also Gr. ἀρνειός
m. ‘ram’ (see also HAB 1: 261; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 111; 1987: 123; Greppin 1983: 299).
Not to be confused (as it sometimes happens, see Hübschmann 1897: 417-418; HAB
1: 173b; È. Tumanjan 1978: 271-272, 305-306) with ayr, gen. aṙn ‘man’, which
derive from PIE nom. *h2nēr and gen. *h2nr-ós, respectively (see s.v.). For Old
Persian, see Kent 1953: 171b; Brandenstein/Mayrhofer 1964: 106. Possibly related
are also OIc. orri, OHG or(e)huon ‘capercaille’ (Pokorny 1959: 336, hesitatingly;
Mallory/Adams 1997: 363a; not included in Mallory/Adams 2006: 204) and Old
Swedish orne ‘boar’ (see Euler 1979: 182881 for references). In view of the vocalic discrepancy in the Greek forms ἔρσην and ἄρσην, two
different roots may be posited: *h1r̥s-en- (with Arm. aṙn and Indo-Iran. *Hr̥šan-)
and *h2u̯ŕ̥sen- (with Skt. vŕ̥ṣan- ‘manly; male animal, bull, stallion, etc.’, Lat. verrēs
‘boar’, Lith. veršis ̃ ‘bull, ox, ox calf’, etc.), respectively. For a discussion, see Frisk
s.v.; Chantraine 1968-80: 116a; Beekes 1969: 91; Benveniste 1969, 1: 21-25 = 1973:
19-22; È. Tumanjan 1978: 65, 271-272, 305-306; Euler 1979: 181-182; Peters 1980:
9; Schrijver 1991: 14; Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 260-261; 2, 1996: 575-576;
Mayrhofer 2005: 15Nr8.2, 3322; Lindeman 1997: 56-57; Vine 2005: 262-267. Note
that Arm. aṙn cannot be derived from *h2u̯ŕ̥sen- (I rather expect *gaṙ(i)n from it),
unless one assumes that the *-u̯- dropped in GDSg and plur. *aṙín- from PArm.
*ə(w)ars-én-V- due to contraction in a pretonic syllable (cf. 2.1.33.1).
Whether a QIE *h1r̥C- would yield Arm. *erC- or *arC- is uncertain. Kortlandt
(2001: 12 = 2003: 132) assumes a *h2- mentioning Gr. ἀρνειός ‘ram’. This leaves
Gr. ἔρσην unexplained. If we must reconstruct *h1-, the initial a- in Arm. aṙn would
favour the development *h1r̥C- > Arm. *erC-. In view of the absence of secure
examples, however, this must be regarded as uncertain. One might consider other
possibilities, such as assimilation (oblique *h1r̥s-n̥- > PArm. *aṙan- in ISg -b and
GDPl -c‘) or contamination with *h2ur̯̥sen-.
With few exceptions (e.g. Lindeman and Kortlandt), the Armenian aṙn and its
etymology by Meillet remained unnoticed by most of scholars outside Armenia. The
appurtenance of aṙn to IE *Hrsen- is beyond doubt. Georg. arni ‘wild sheep’ and
Syr. arnā ‘mountain goat’ are considered Armenian loanwords [HAB 1: 261b;
Greppin 1983: 299; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 467, 555]. If Skt. vŕ̥ṣan- and its cognates are
indeed unrelated, we are here dealing with a word belonging to the Armenian-GreekAryan group: *h1r̥s-en- ‘male, male animal (bull, stallion, ram)’: Arm. aṙn ‘wild
ram’, Indo-Iran. *Hr̥šan- ‘male, male animal’, Gr. ἔρσην vs. ἄρσην ‘male’.
aṙnem, 1sg.aor ar-ar-i, 3sg.aor. ar-ar, imper. ara ‘to make; to create’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects, in the forms *aynel, *enel, *anel, *arel, etc.
[HAB 1: 262b].
●ETYM From PIE *h2er- ‘to fix, put together’: Gr. ἀραρίσκω, aor. ἤραρον ‘to fit,
equip’, Av. arənauu-, etc.; see Hübschmann 1897: 420; Meillet p.c. apud HAB;
HAB 1: 262 with lit.; Klingenschmitt 1982: 162-163; Clackson 1994: 101-102. See
also s.v. ard ‘shape, order’. For the paradigm and a further morphological and
etymological discussion, see Łaragyulyan 1961: 151-153; Godel 1965: 34-36; È.
Tumanjan 1971: 378-381; Hamp 1975: 102; Viredaz 2005-07: 3-4.
aṙnum, 1sg.aor. aṙ-i, 3sg.aor. aṙ, 3pl.aor. aṙ-in, imper. aṙ (rich evidence in the Bible,
see Astuacaturean 1895: 180-186) ‘to gain, obtain, win, plunder, take, grasp, etc.’
(Bible+); aṙ, i-stem: ISg aṙ-i-w, GDPl aṙ-i-c‘ ‘gain, robbery, capture’ (Bible+).
A textual illustration from Genesis 32.22/23 (Zeyt‘unyan 1985: 299): Ew
yaruc‘eal i nmin gišeri aṙ zerkus kanaysn : ἀναστὰς δὲ τὴν νύκτα ἐκείνην ἔλαβεν τὰς
δύο γυναῖκας.
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects [HAB 1: 248b].
●ETYM Derived from PIE *h2r-nu-: Gr. ἄρνυμαι, aor. ἀρόμεν ‘to win, gain’, probably
also Av. ərənauu- ‘to grant, allot, provide’ (for which see de Vaan 2003: 371); the
appurtenance of other forms is uncertain; for the Armenian paradigm and anetymological discussion, see Hübschmann 1897: 420; HAB 1: 248; Meillet 1936:
105, 112, 114, 121-122, 127; Pokorny 1959: 61; Chantraine 1968-80; 112b; Godel
1975: 52, 125; K. Schmidt 1980a: 3; Schmitt 1981: 50, 53, 68, 137, 147; J̌
ahukyan
1982: 70, 127, 184; Klingenschmitt 1982: 247-248; Greppin 1983: 300; Rix 1992:
210; 1999: 88-89, 538, 650; Clackson 1994: 182, 2376.4; Matzinger 2000: 28726;
Beekes 2003: 166; cf. 1969: 35.
Arm. aor. aṙ- seems to point to sigmatic aorist (Kortlandt 1996: 41 = 2003: 115).
aṙogem (Paterica+), aṙoganem (Agat‘angeɫos /5th cent./, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i
/9-10th cent./, etc.), oṙogem, oṙoganem (Bible+) ‘to water, wet, sprinkle, irrigate’.
Once as a noun: aṙog ‘well, irrigating water’, in Knik‘ hawatoy(“Seal of faith”, 7th
cent.).
In Agat‘angeɫos § 103 and § 111 (1909=1980: 62L9, 65L15), oṙog- and aṙogappear as variant readings.
In Grigor Narekac‘i 9.2.34 (Xač‘atryan/Łazinyan 1985: 278): erkir oṙogeal
c‘awɫov : “the earth sprinkled by dew”.
For aṙoganem Greppin (1983: 301) also cites the meaning ‘to pronounce
carefully’, and among derivatives mentions aṙoganut‘iwn ‘prosody, pronunciation’.
These, however, belong to ogem ‘to speak, etc.’ (see HAB 3: 549a; A. Muradyan
1971: 139, 304-305; Weitenberg 2003: 421, 424).
●ETYM From PIE *srou- ‘to stream, flow’: Skt. srav- ‘to stream, flow’, OHG stroum
‘stream’, Lith. sravė́ti ‘to seep, flow slowly’, Gr. ῥέω ‘to flow, stream’, Gr. ῥόος
(Cypr. ῥόϝος) ‘stream’, etc. [Bugge (1892: 451-452; HAB 1: 263, 264]. According
to Witczak (1999: 184), a/oṙoganem “seems to be a denominative formation”, which
is improbable and unnecessary. For a morphological discussion, see Klingenschmitt
1982: 204. See also s.v. aṙu ‘brook, channel, ditch’.
The initial a- is prothetic, although this (together with aṙu) is the only
unambiguous case of a prothetic vowel before the trilled ṙ, aṙewc ‘lion’, probably
being of onomatopoeic origin. The absence of a prothetic vowel in ṙungn ‘nose,
nostrils’ suggests a loan or a substratum origin. It has been suggested that aṙu
derives from *eṙu (see Greppin 1983: 301), and the o- of oṙogem is due to
assimilatory influence of the root vowel, see Klingenschmitt 1982: 20452; Beekes
2003: 160-161 (from *e-ṙogem). The variant oṙog- is much better attested than
aṙog-, so one might think that it is due to the influence of aṙu. On the other hand, a
prothetic vowel a- with a labial vowel in the root is corroborated by aroyr ‘brass’ <
Iran. *rōδ (see 2.1.17.4). The fluctuation a...o and o...o is reminiscent of that seen in
oroč- vs. dial. *aroč (q.v.). However, *aroč is found in SE dialects (Agulis, Łarabaɫ,
etc.), where the prothetic vowel is a- even when the Classical Armenian and the
other dialects have e-. On these problems, see also 2.1.23 (vocalic assimilation) and
2.1.17 (prothetic vowel).
aṙoɫǰ (o-stem, i-stem, a-stem, all late) ‘sound, healthy, unhurt’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects [HAB 1: 263b].
●ETYM Composed of the prefix aṙ- ‘at, to, near by, before, etc.’ and oɫǰ ‘whole,
integral, complete, solid; sound, healthy, unhurt’ (q.v.), see HAB 1: 263b; 3: 558.
*aṙ-orm-i (dial.) ‘a log or wooden structure that supports the wall or the ceiling of a
house’. ●DIAL Ačaṙyan (1913: 136a; HAB 3: 583b) records dial. aṙ-orm-i as equivalent to
Turk. k‘iriš, not specifying the dialectal location. For the semantic description, see
Malxaseanc‘ HBB 1: 232c; Marutjan 1989: 72-74. The word is found in a number of
dialects with semantic nuances with respect to the exact place of the log in the
wooden framework of the house. The forms are:
Zangezur (Goris and surroundings) hərəhɔrmi, subdial. ṙahɔrmi, ṙafɔrmi ‘a
wooden structure at the wall’ (Lisic‘yan 1969: 100-101 with a thorough description),
Meɫri əṙəhurmɛ [Aɫayan 1954: 297], Muš (Bulanəx) *aṙormi [S. Movsisyan 1972:
13], Sasun aṙɔrmi [Petoyan 1954: 104; 1965: 444] or arɔrma [HayLezBrbBaṙ 1,
2001: 134a] ‘an angular log that supports the wooden framework of the ceiling’.
The Goris and Meɫri forms seem to point to *aṙa-orm-i > *aṙa-h-ormi, with the
glide -h- (on which see the discussion on the place-name K‘arahunǰ in 4.8). The byform aṙa- of the prefix may be corroborated by aṙaspel ‘myth, fable’ and aṙastaɫ
‘ceiling’ (see s.vv.). In these words, however, the -a- can be explained as an
anaptyctic vowel before -sC-. It is possible that *aṙormi has been replaced by *aṙhorm-i in Meɫri, etc. through restoration of the initial h- of the word for ‘wall’ in
Meɫri (hurm ‘wall’), and the cluster -ṙh- was simplified through insertion of an
anaptyxis. Nevertheless, there seem to exist also words with aṙa- where the second
-a- can hardly be of anaptyctic origin, but the etymology of these words (see s.v.
aṙatik ‘cord’) is uncertain.
Describing his paternal hut, Xač‘atur Abovyan (see G. D. Asatryan 1990: 50)
describes how the hail, rain, etc. penetrate i taneac‘ i yoɫormoc‘ i čeɫk‘ac‘ lusamtic‘
“from the roof, from the *oɫorm-k‘, and from the holes of the windows”. I was not
able to find this *oɫorm- or *(y)oɫorm- in dictionaries. Apparently we are dealing
with the oblique stem *aṙorm(w)o- of our word. For dissimilation r...r > ɫ...r, see
2.1.24.2.
●ETYM A derivative of orm ‘wall’, q.v. (see Ačaṙean 1913: 136a; HAB 3: 583b),
composed as *aṙ- ‘at, to, near by, before, etc.’ + orm ‘wall’ + -i. For the prefix aṙ-
(q.v.) in words that refer to the wooden structure of the home cf. aṙastaɫ ‘ceiling’ (cf.
Gr. στήλη ‘gravestone, post, pillar’), *aṙ-zel ‘a bed for workers made at the ceiling’
(cf. jeɫun ‘ceiling’).
The word aṙ-orm-i seems to be quite old since it is found in the dialects that differ
from each other both geographically and linguistically, and the suffix aṙ was more
productive at earlier stages of the development of the Armenian language. Moreover,
the root orm ‘wall’ itself has not been preserved in most of these dialects.
aṙu, i-stem, o-stem, a-stem ‘brook, tributary; channel; ditch, trench, furrow, passage’
(Bible+).
In Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.62 (1913=1991: 194 ̇ L9f): ew zaygin mec, yor mtanēr aṙun
get, haneal i covēn Gaylatuay. Thomson (1978: 206) translates the passage as
follows: “and the great vineyard wich is irrigated by the canal that branches out from
the lake of Gaylatu”. J̌
ihanyan (1991: 231) adheres to the view that aṙun, although
otherwise unattested as such, is a river name. The verb hanem ‘to take out, etc.’ is
transitive, however, and is never used, to my knowledge, as ‘to come out’ or the
like. It seems therefore more probable that aṙu(n) get refers to a large artificial
irrigating channel that is taken/drawn out from the lake of Gaylatu (nowadays
Balək‘č‘ay); this is exactly how Malxasyanc‘ (1990: 126) translates the passage. ●DIAL Preserved in numerous dialects: Nor Naxiǰewan, Aslanbek, Hamšen, Zeyt‘un,
Muš, Van, Agulis, Łarabaɫ, J̌
uɫa, etc. In all the dialects the meaning is ‘brook’, and
only in Nor Naxiǰewan ‘the path of rain or flood water’ [HAB 1: 265a].
Xarberd has aṙun, with an additional -n (ibid.). This form is also found in K‘esab
aṙṙɔn, see Č‘olak‘ean 1986: 20, 34, 47 (with many other examples), 197a. Note that
some of the examples for the epithetic -n in K‘esab go parallel with those in Xarberd
and others (see HAB s.vv.).
Some dialectal forms point to a prefixed formation, namely *y-aṙu : Muš,
Alaškert h‘aṙu, Van äṙu, Ozim häṙu [HAB 1: 265a; Ačaṙyan 1952: 247], as well as
Moks häṙu, GSg häṙvə
ɛ ‘канава, арык’; see Orbeli 2002: 275; a textual illustration:
118L15 (Russ. transl. – p. 179).
●ETYM Since Bugge (1892: 451-452; see also HAB 1: 263, 264), derived from PIE
*sr(e/o)u- ‘to stream, flow’: Gr. ῥέω ‘to flow, stream’, Gr. ῥόος (Cypr. ῥόϝος)
‘stream’, Skt. srav- ‘to stream, flow’, OHG stroum ‘stream’, Lith. sravė́ti ‘to seep,
flow slowly’, etc. See also s.v. a/oṙoganem ‘to water, wet, sprinkle’ (from *srou-).
The Armenian form presupposes *sr(o)u-i-o/eh2- (cf. Lith. sraujà, Latv. strauja
‘stream’, Russ. strujá ‘stream’, etc.), or *sru-ti- (cf. Skt. srutí-, Gr. ῥύσις, etc.), or
*sru-to- (cf. Gr. ῥυτός ‘flowing’), or *sroutos- n. (cf. Skt. srótas- n. ‘stream, current’
/RV+/, OPers. rautah- n., Pahl., NPers. rōd ‘stream’). Witczak (1999: 184) derives
aṙu from *srówos m., which is formally improbable. For the prothetic vowel, see
s.v. aṙog(-) and 2.1.17.4. According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 265a), Georg. ru, ruvi
‘brook, channel’ was borrowed from Armenian before the addition of the prothetic
vowel.
The dialectal prefixed *y-aṙu (with y- from *h1en- ‘in’) can be understood as
‘in-flux, in-flow’, cf. Lat. īn-flūxio ‘influx, tributary’, etc.
As we saw above, J̌
ihanyan (1991: 231) treats the word in the passage from
Movsēs Xorenac‘i as a river-name Aṙun, with an etymological -n, and derives it
from PIE *sruno/a- (cf. Av. rauuan-, etc.). It is tempting to identify this form with
Xarberd aṙun and K‘esab aṙṙɔn. However, one cannot be sure that the final -n of
*Aṙu-n is not the article -n. Furthermore, it may, together with the Xarberd and
K‘esab forms, merely reflect an additional -n, on which see 2.2.1.3.
See also s.v. getaṙ(u), GSg getaṙu-i in Łazar P‘arpec‘i.
aseɫn GSg asɫan (Bible), ISg asɫam-b (Ephrem), APl asɫun-s (“Čaṙəntir”) ‘needle’
(Bible+). Derivatives based on asɫan-, aseɫn-, asɫn-, etc. Also without -n :
asɫ-a-ktuc‘ ‘a kind of sea bird’, literally: ‘(having a) needle-beak’, in Anania
Širakac‘i, 7th cent. (see A. G. Abrahamyan 1944: 308L26; Abrahamyan / Petrosyan
1979: 3629); MidArm. asex, aseɫ [MiǰHayBaṙ 1, 1987: 81a]; perhaps also asɫ-ani
‘thread’ (Bible+) [Weitenberg 1985: 104], or asɫ-eni, which is attested in Yovhan
Mandakuni/Mayragomec‘i (2003: 1262bL5f), in a list of sorceries: asɫeni karmir ‘red
thread’, between acuɫ ‘coal’ and erkat‘ ‘iron’. Compare asɫanik‘n kaxardac‘ “the
threads of sorcerers” in John Chrysostom.
●DIAL Dialectally ubiquitous. All the forms lack the final -n except for Agulis
áysäɫnə (next to áysäɫ) [Ačaṙean 1935: 35, 337], Łarabaɫ ásɛɫnə (next to ásɛɫ)
[Davt‘yan 1966: 317]. Next to ásuɫ (see below), Meɫri has a trace of -n in the
derivative əsəɫnávur < aseɫnawor (see Aɫayan 1954: 263a). Other compounds,
namely əsɫ-á-bɛn and əsɫ-áman (loc. cit.), lack the -n-. Moks usually preserves the final -n of this type in the oblique stem, but in this particular case no trace is found:
NSg åseɫ or åsiɫ / åsəɫ, GSg åsɫəɛ (see Orbeli 2002: 205-206).
The vocalism of Agulis áysäɫ(nə) is irregular with respect to both vowels of the
word (see Ačaṙean 1935: 35, 49). For the initial vowel one may assume anticipation
of the front vowel e/i in the following syllable, as in calel ‘to fold’ > Agulis cáylil,
etc. However, the vowel -ä- remains unclear. One therefore may also think of
vocalic metathesis (see 2.1.26.4): *asiɫn (if this form is reliable; see below) >
*isaɫ(n), which would yield Agulis áysäɫ(nə), as can be seen from e.g. cicaɫ
‘laughter’ > Agulis cáycäɫ (see Ačaṙean 1935: 60).
Interesting is Nor J̌
uɫa asuɫ ‘needle’ (attested since 1788), the -u- of which is
irregular and is only paralleled by tašeɫ ‘woodshaving’ > Nor J̌
uɫa tašuɫ (see
Ačaṙyan 1940: 61). The third example is uɫeɫ ‘brain’ > əɫuɫ (next to əɫeɫ). One must
reckon with rounding effect of the final -ɫ on the preceding front vowel (Weitenberg,
p.c. and research in process). But it is unclear why we have doublet forms, since the
other words containing -eɫ(n) yielded -eɫ (see Ačaṙyan 1940: 61). A similar case is
found in Meɫri, Karčewan, and Kak‘avaberd, where we have ásuɫ [Aɫayan 1954:
263a; H. Muradyan 1960: 190a; 1967: 166b]. Next to åse/iɫ ‘needle’ (see above),
Moks has asuɫ, GSg äsuɫəɛ in different semantics, namely ‘two small planks that tie
the handle of a plough with the pole’ (see Orbeli 2002: 206).19 This word is identical
with the word for ‘needle’, as can be seen from Nor Bayazet *aseɫ, which denotes
the same part of a plough (see Ačaṙean 1913: 138-139 s.v. aseɫ ‘needle’, with a
detailed semantic description), as well as Muš (see HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 104a).
For the semantic development cf. t‘ur ‘sword’, which in some dialects seems to
denote the same or a similar part of a plough (see Amatuni 1912: 219b; Ačaṙean
1913: 379a; Bdoyan 1972: 209a, 218a, 220b, etc., especially 223ab). Note that
Ačaṙyan (1913: 140a) records Van *asoɫ “a part of the plough which elsewhere is
called t‘ur” and asks: “that is aseɫ?”. J̌
ahukyan (1972: 281) is more positive and
presents Van *asoɫ (not mentioning the others) as a dialectal by-form of aseɫn
‘needle’. Note also net ‘arrow’ > Moks nit ‘the pole of a plough’ (see Orbeli 2002:
299).
●ETYM Since de Lagarde (1868: 14) and others, connected with Lat. aciēs, -ēī f.
‘edge, point’, acus ‘needle’, etc. [HAB 1: 268]. For *-l-, cf. OCS osla ‘whetstone’,
Sln. ósla ‘whetstone’, OEng. egle ‘awn’, Germ. Achel ’tip of an ear’. The
explanation, according to which the Armenian form comes from an older *asiɫan (>
NSg aseɫn, GSg asɫan), which is allegedly corroborated by Slavic *os-i-la- (see
J
̌
ahukyan 1987: 157), cannot be maintained since, in fact, the Slavic has no *-i-; cf.
Kortlandt 1985: 22 = 2003: 65. Thus, Hübschmann (1897: 421Nr40) and Ačaṙyan
(HAB 1: 268) are right in reconstructing *ak̂
-l- (= *h2ek̂
-l-).
Since Arm. aseɫn appears in Agulis and Łarabaɫ with and without -n (see above,
also Weitenberg 1985: 104), whereas neighbouring dialects such as J̌
uɫa, Meɫri, etc.
(as well as Moks) have asuɫ, and since an original -e- would not disappear in the
oblique cases, one might offer the following solution. The IE word may be treated as
a HD l-stem (for the type, see Beekes 1995: 177): NSg *h2ék̂
-ōl > > *h2kô ̄l, with
zero grade in the root analogically after the oblique stem > Nor J̌
uɫa, Meɫri group, and Moks dial. asuɫ (see also s.v. acuɫ ‘coal’), AccSg *h2k̂
-él-m > aseɫn, GSg
*h2k̂
-l-ós-. This is reminiscent of the well-known case of the word for ‘milk’, where
Meɫri group and Agulis reflect the old, archaic form with the nominative *-s
(*kaɫc‘), whereas all the remaining dialects and Classical Armenian have the form
derived from the PIE accusative, namely kat‘n (q.v.). Remarkably, aseɫn and *asuɫ
are both represented in Moks, but with semantic differentiation: åse/iɫ ‘needle’ : asuɫ
‘two small planks that tie the handle of a plough with the pole’.
The vocalic loss in gen. asɫan and compositional asɫn- presupposes an analogical
nominative by-form *asuɫn (cf. dial. *asuɫ) or asiɫn (in HAB 1: 268a, as a variant
spelling of aseɫn). For *asiɫn, see also above, on Agulis.
asem, 1sg.aor. asac‘-i, 3sg.aor. asac‘, imper. asa, etc. ‘to say, tell, speak’ (Bible+).
One of the principal verbs for speaking. Also refers to the singing of birds, cf. i
žam hawun aseloy ‘in the time of speaking of the birds or the rooster’ (Łazar
P‘arpec‘i), cf. haw-a-xōs [Aɫayan 1986: 83, 85], dial. hav-xus-oc‘ (see Srvanjtyanc‘
1, 1978: 145), xoroz-xos [Lalayan 1, 1983: 249, cf. 243], etc. See also the dialectal
section.
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 1: 266-267].
The meaning ‘to sing’ is attested in the earlier versions (1890 and 1896) of the
poem entitled Loṙec‘i Sak‘on by H. T‘umanyan (3, 1989: 174L88, 186L157), a speaker
of the Loṙi sub-dialect (the village of Dseɫ), which belongs to the dialect of Ararat.
The poet himself glosses asel as ergel ‘to sing’ (ibid. 180).
The derivative an-as-un ‘animal’, lit. ‘not-speaking’, is widespread in the
dialects. In some of them it refers to ‘bird’ (Suč‘ava), ‘not-speaking, speechless’
(Axalc‘xa, Alaškert, Van, etc.), ‘child’ (Karin)20, ‘uninhabited place, desert’ (Van);
see HAB 1: 266-267. Particularly interesting is the meaning ‘uninhabited place,
desert’, which presupposes a semantic development based on the contrast ‘human
world’ vs. ‘non-human, wild world’.
The dialectal form asmunk‘ ‘phrase, word, speech’ (see Ačaṙean 1913: 140a) has
developed a religious meaning: ‘rite’ (in Urmia) [Asatryan 1962: 212b], ‘religious
service’ (Ararat, Łarabaɫ, Muš, Van) [HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 106a], and ‘magic
formula’ in Svedia (ɛ/äsmənk‘, see Andreasyan 1967: 219, cf. 354b).
The Hamšen aorist formation is remarkable: as-t-i, as-t-ir, as-t-av, as-t-ak‘, as-tik‘, as-t-in (see Ačaṙyan 1947:134-135); e.g. mɛk‘ astak‘ ‘we said’ [Ačaṙyan 1947:
245]. According to Ačaṙyan (1947:134-135), the -t- is an epenthesis of phonetic
nature. It is not clear, however, why it only functions in the aorist. Therefore a
phonetic explanation does not seem satisfactory. The paradigm is synchronically
irregular in three respects: 1) the ‘additional’ -t- is enygmatic; 2) for a verb of e-class
one would expect the following paradigm: -ec‘i, -ec‘ir, -ec‘, -ec‘ak‘, -ec‘ik‘, -ec‘in
(Hamšen Class 1); 3) the 3Sg -av is not at home in this paradigm.
It should be borne in mind that asem is irregular already in Classical Armenian,
thus 3sg.aor. is not *asec‘i but asac‘i. This implies that the verb could have been
incorporated into Class 3A, the type xaɫam ‘to move, play’: xaɫ(a)c‘i, xaɫ(a)c‘ir,
xaɫac‘, xaɫ(a)c‘ak‘, xaɫ(a)c‘ik‘, xaɫ(a)c‘in. The syncopated variant of the aorist
paradigm of asem would then be as follows: *asc‘i, *asc‘ir, *asac‘, *asc‘ak‘,*asc‘ik‘,*asc‘in. For an attestation of e.g. 3pl.aor. asc‘in in MidArm, see Yovhannēs
T‘lkuranc‘i, 14-15th cent. [Mnac‘akanyan 1941: 180a; Pivazyan 1960: 165L19f].
Assuming a phonological development -sc‘- > -st- (desaffrication), we arrive at
the actual paradigm, viz. as-t-i, etc. The only exception is 3Sg as-t-av instead of
*asac‘. An explanation for this form could be that the paradigm asti, astir, *asac‘
was odd, thus *asac‘ has been replaced by astav after the second subtype of Class 3.
The imperative forms asä and as-t-ek‘, as well as the past participle as-t-aj can
similarly derive from *as-a, *as-(a)c‘ēk‘ and *as-(a)c‘-ac, respectively; cf.
MidArm. asc‘ac in e.g. Law Code (1265 AD) of Smbat Sparapet [Galstyan 1958:
137a]. Compare xaɫ-a, xaɫ-(a)c‘ek‘ and xaɫ-(a)c‘aj.
21
For the development -sc‘- > -st- (desaffrication) compare šč > št found in šičuk
‘whey’ > Muš, Alaškert šdug. The distribution in Muš is remarkable: šiǰug and šdug.
Thus, the -d- is found only in the syncopated form, where it immediately follows the
sibilant š-.
●ETYM Usually compared with Gr. ἠ̃(athematic imperfect) < *h1e-h1eĝ-t ‘he said’,
Lat. aiō ‘I say’, etc. Probably from earlier perfect formations, with *-ĝt- > -st- and
generalisation of -s-; note also Arm. remarkable aorist with internal -a-, asac‘i. For a
discussion of phonological and morphological problems I refer to Meillet 1892: 164;
Brugmann 1904: 506; HAB 1: 266; Klingenschmitt 1982: 135, 137-138; de
Lamberterie 1980: 223; 1982: 26f and passim; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 55, 190; Greppin
1983: 302-303; Schrijver 1991: 26-28; Ravnæs 1991: 17, 64; Clackson 1994: 81; de
Vaan 2008: 31-32 (cf. also Hübschmann 1877: 25). See also s.v. aṙac ‘proverb’, with
the expected reflex of *aĝ- > Arm. ac-. For alternative etymological suggestions, see
Witczak 2003: 85-86.
The assumption that Arm. an-as-un ‘animal’ < ‘qui ne parle pas’ is a calque after
Greek ἄ-λογον ‘sans raison’ (Benveniste 1964: 37; see also Schmitt 1972-74: 23 for
a Georgian parallel with refer.) is highly improbable in view of the fact that anasun
is widespread in the dialects.
askn ‘a precious stone of red colour’, probably ‘ruby’.
Attested only in Severian of Gabala, twice, in a list of precious stones. After
discussing the list, Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 269) concludes that askn is equivalent to sutak
of the corresponding list in Exodus 48.17 (a misprint for 28.19; cf. also 39.12),
which is a kind of karkehan, found in both lists. Greppin (1983: 303) translates askn
as ‘garnet’. See also HAB s.v. sutak(n).
●ETYM The only etymology I know of is that of Aɫayan (1974: 29Nr13) who derives it
from PIE *h2eHs- ‘hearth; ash’. For the cognates, see s.v. azazim and ačiwn. With
the exception of Greppin (1983: 303), this etymology is unknown to the Western
scholars. Even in Armenia proper it remained unnoticed, except for Aɫabekyan
1979: 63. The word is absent in J̌
ahukyan 1987 and Olsen 1999. Greppin gives the
whole entry between square brackets.
Although not very clear, the etymology is, nevertheless, worthy of consideration.
For the semantics, cf. kayc ‘spark’ vs. ‘ruby’, Gr. ἄνϑραξ ‘charcoal’ vs. ‘ruby, carbuncle, etc.’. The absence of an initial h- is perhaps due to the zero-grade form
and the possible influence of ačiwn ‘ash’ (if this is indeed related), where the initial
syllable of the historically polysyllabic form was unstressed. The suffixal element
-k- can go back to QIE *-g- which is probably attested in OIc. aska ‘ash’, Gr.
ἄσβολος, ἀσβόλη ‘soot’ (if from * ἄσ(γ)βολ-); perhaps also in ačiwn < *aščiwn ‘ash’.
See also s.v. asči ‘food’.
The hypothetical preform of askn would then be *h2Hs-g-m. For *-g- cf. the
Germanic forms: Goth. azgo, OHG. asca ‘ashes’. For -n, see 2.2.1.3.
astem ‘to look for a bride, ask in marriage’ and ast-ōɫ ‘suitor, fiancé, bridegroom’,
both only in Timot‘ēos Kuz (Timothy Aelurus, 5th or 6th cent.) and in Knik‘
hawatoy (Seal of Faith, 7th cent.); the dictionary entitled Aṙjeṙn baṙaran (1865,
Venice) has hastim ‘to be engaged, be betrothed (said of a girl)’; see Ačaṙean 1908-
09a, 1: 368aNr7; HAB 1: 277b.
For attestations and a thorough philological discussion, see de Lamberterie
1992a: 92-99.
●ETYM No etymological attempt is recorded in HAB 1: 277b. A connection with
hastem ‘to affirm, assert, make hard, create’ (q.v.) has been suggested in Ačaṙean
1908-09a, 1: 368aNr7. For the semantics cf. Gr. πενϑερός ‘father-in-law, son-in-law’,
etc. from PIE *bh
n̥dh
- ‘to bind, fasten’.
Łap‘anc‘yan (1961: 105; see also Greppin 1991b: 724b) treats Arm. astem as a
loan from Hurr. ašti ‘woman; wife’. For the typology of the development *ast-
‘wife’ > the verb astem he compares Russ. žena ‘wife’ > ženit’sja ‘to marry’.
J
̌
ahukyan (1987: 426, 466) accepts the etymology and notes the Semitic origin of the
Hurrian word, cf. Akkad. aššatu(m) ‘wife’, aššutum ‘marriage’ and others, which
contain a nasal in the root. On the other hand, the Hurrian word has been connected
with Chechen stē ‘wife, female’, etc., and the initial a- is taken as prothetic
(Diakonoff/Starostin 1986: 39; cf. Cheung 2002: 234; Greppin 1991b: 724b).
For an extensive philological and etymological discussion I refer to Greppin
1990-91; Mahé 1990-91; de Lamberterie 1992a (with a thorough treatment in
relation with hastem ‘to affirm, fasten, etc.’).
Alternatively one may think of PIE *peh2ĝ/k̂
- ‘to make fast, fasten’, cf. Gr.
πήγνυμι to fix; to stick, join; to congeal, coagulate’, etc. (see Lubotsky 1981: 133;
1992: 266; Schrijver 1991: 97; Mallory/Adams 1997: 64b). Especially interesting
are the Latin cognates: paciscō ‘to arrange or secure by negotiation; to betroth (to)’,
paciscor ‘to negotiate, arrange; to make a settlement or come to terms; to engage
oneself in marriage to’, pactiō ‘agreement, compact; marriage settlement’
(OxfLatDict), pacta ‘fiancée, bride’ (Dvoreckij 1986: 546c). A QIE *ph2k̂
-ti(h2)- or
*ph2k̂
-teh2- ‘betrothal, engagement’, ‘betrothed (girl)’, ‘fiancée, bride’ would yield
PArm. *(h)ast-i- or *(h)ast-a-. On the institution of the marriage compact among
Armenians, see Xaṙatyan 1989: 15-16. The verb hastem ‘to affirm, assert, make
hard, create’ (q.v.) may be (folk-)etymologically related with *(h)ast- ‘to be
betrothed; fiancée, bride’.
The connection of Arm. astem ‘to look for a bride, ask in marriage’ and hastim ‘to
be engaged, be betrothed (said of a girl)’ with hastem ‘to affirm, assert, make hard,
create’ and/or the derivation from QIE *ph2k̂
-ti(h2)- or *ph2k̂
-teh2- (> PArm. *ast-
‘fiancée, bride’ is possible. If this is accepted, the connection with Hurr. ašti ‘woman; wife’ should be abandoned. It is tempting to derive the Hurrian form from
PArm. *ast- ‘bride’ (cf. especially the Latin forms above), but the Semitic forms
make this improbable.
astɫ, ɫ-stem: ISg asteɫ-b, NPl asteɫ-k‘, GDPl asteɫ-c‘ (George of Pisidia), IPl asteɫ-b-k‘,
etc.; a-stem: GDPl asteɫ-a-c‘, IPl asteɫ-a-w-k‘ ‘star’ (Bible+). Astɫik, GSg Astɫkan (in
“Patmut‘iwn srboc‘ Hṙip‘simeanc‘” : Astɫkay) ‘the planet Venus; the goddess of
love’.
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects.
Some dialects display a final -ə : Axalc‘xa, Ararat, Polis [HAB 1: 279a]; for Polis
this is not corroborated in Ačaṙyan 1941: 74, 90, 204: asx. The -ə probably betrays
an old -n, cf. especially Ararat astɫə : pl. astɫnɛr. The same holds for GSg astɫ-an in
Van [Ačaṙyan 1952: 124], although this is not corroborated by data from Moks: NSg
astəɫ, GSg astɫ-ə
ɛ
, NPl astɫ-ir (see Orbeli 2002: 206; a textual illustration for NPl:
74L6). Šatax has GSg astɫ-i [M. Muradyan 1962: 94], although NPl is astəɫ-ner (op.
cit. 87). A direct reflex of -n in the nominative is seen in Goris: astəɫnə alongside
with astəɫ [Margaryan 1975: 315a]. Clear traces of -n at least in Goris, Loṙi and Van
allow to postulate *astɫ-n before 1000 AD [Weitenberg 1985: 102].
For other possible traces of the -n, apart from the -ə in Axalc‘xa, etc., note also
Muš astɫan caɫik ‘a kind of flower’; Arabkir astɫntik‘ ‘étoile filante = falling star’;
Van, etc. pl. astɫunk‘ (see Ačaṙean 1913: 140b). Arabkir astɫntik‘ is cited by Ačaṙyan
as astɫ-ntik‘. The component -ntik‘ is unclear, however. I prefer to interpret the word
as a petrified plural astɫn-ti-k‘ (cf. below on Hamšen).
In some dialects, the dental was lost: Polis asx [Ačaṙyan 1941: 74, 90, 204],
Zeyt‘un ɔsɫ, Hačən ɔsx [Ačaṙyan 2003: 137, 299], Malat‘ia asəx [Danielyan 1967:
187a], Salmast asɫ‘ [HAB 1: 279a], Maraɫa ask [Ačaṙean 1926: 106, 123, 385;
Davt‘yan 1966: 318], etc. The sound change ɫ > k is apparently due to the
assimilatory influence of the preceding plosive t.
Remarkably, Hamšen has GDPl astɫɛc‘, although NPl asteɫ-k‘ has been petrified
into NSg astɛxk‘ [Ačaṙyan 1947: 93, 221]; cf. above on Arabkir.
Xarberd and Dersim have a variant with diminutive -ik [HAB 1: 279a; Baɫramyan
1960: 73b]. Compare the name of the goddess Astɫik, as well as the female personal
name Astɫik, e.g. Polis Asxig [Ačaṙyan 1941: 74, 90, 204]. For diminutive forms in
Svedia, etc., see the following.
For Svedia, next to usdɫ, Ačaṙyan (2003: 431, cf. 560) records a curious form,
aṙəsdɫag, which, as he points out, is unclear (“ori inč‘ linelə haytni č‘ē”). For astɫ in
this dialect, Andreasyan (1967: 354b) has usdɫ, but also arəsɫig from astɫ-ik, with the
same “epenthetic” -r-. Note also K‘esab aṙəstəɫɛk [Č‘olak‘ean (1986: 227], K‘abusie
arasɫ
̊
ək, pl. aras(ə)ɫ
̊
ənnir or -nnɔyr [Łaribyan 1958: 121a]. In Aramo, Łaribyan
(1958: 59a) records sg. astɫa and pl. aṙstɫəir. The same author has also sg. ustɫ, pl.
astɫəɛyr (op. cit. 27).
We see that the -r/ṙ appears in suffixed formations and in the plural, but not in the
“pure” NSg form corresponding to astɫ. This is reminiscent of other cases when the
epenthetic -r- is inserted (before sibilants and affricates) only in derivatives; see
2.1.30.2. One may also assume that in this particular case the epenthesis may have
been prompted by contamination with aṙastaɫ ‘ceiling’, taken metaphorically as
‘starry sky’; see 3.7.1. Remarkably, Č‘olak‘ean (1986: 227) derives K‘esab aṙəstəɫɛk ‘star’ from *aṙastaɫ-ik, although he does not mention explicitly that the word for
‘ceiling’ is meant.
The idea about contamination may be corroborated by the fact that this epenthesis
in the word for ‘star’ has taken place only in the dialects situated on the territory of
Syria (Svedia, K‘esab, K‘abusie, Aramo), and Arm. aṙastaɫ has been directly
recorded only in and around the same area, namely Syria and Cilicia. Thus, the
co-existence of forms like e.g. K‘esab aṙəstəɫ-ɛk ‘star’ vs. aṙəstuɔɫ ‘ceiling’, or of
such plurals like e.g. Aramo aṙstɫ-əir ‘stars’ vs. aṙstəɫ-na ‘ceilings’ is hardly due to
chance.
On Šatax astɫunk‘y ‘uvula, windpipe’, see s.v. aṙastaɫ ‘ceiling; palate’.
Also the final -a of Aramo NSg astɫa is interesting (unless it is a misprint). It
cannot go back to old *-a- since *astɫ-ay would yield Aramo *astɫɔu or *astɫuɔ, cf.
baklay ‘bean’ > pagluɔ, tɫay ‘child’ > dɫɔu, p‘esay ‘son-in-law’ > p‘isɔu (see
Łaribyan 1958: 59b,72b, 73a). Instead, it can reflect *astɫ-i, cf. agi ‘tail’ > akka,
aygi ‘garden’ > əkka, mak‘i ‘ewe’ > mäk‘a, oski ‘gold’ > əska, etc. [Łaribyan 1958:
20].
●ETYM Since Klaproth (1823=1831: 105b) and NHB (1: 319c), compared with Gr.
ἀστήρ, -έρος, Skt. NPl tā́raḥ (the absence of the s- is unexplained), instr. stŕ̥-bhiḥ,
Av. star-, Pahl. stārag, Pers. sitāra, Goth. staírno, Lat. stella < *stēr-lā or *stēl-nā,
etc. [Hübschmann 1897: 421; HAB 1: 278-279]. Hitt. ḫasterza /hsterz/ (see Watkins
1974a: 12-14) clearly points to PIE *h2ster- ‘star’, and the “prothetic” a- in Greek
and Armenian is the regular outcome of PIE *h2- [Olsen 1999: 763; Kortlandt 2003:
76; Beekes 2003: 185]. Therefore, this word cannot be interpreted as a
Greek-Armenian isogloss [Clackson 1994: 33-35, 183].
For the ɫ-stems and the paradigm of Arm. astɫ, see Meillet 1936: 81; Godel 1975:
96; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 92, 137; Olsen 1999: 159-161.
The r-l fluctuation (cf. Lat. stēlla and Arm. astɫ, pl. *asteɫ-a-) has been
interpreted in different ways. Following Meillet, Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 278b; see also
Bonfante 1937: 19) rejects *stēr-lā- and accepts *stēl-nā-, with the addition of *nas in Goth. staírno and Bret. sterenn. This view is accepted by Watkins (1974a:
10-11, 13). One might compare *louk-s-neh2- ‘moon’, see s.vv. lusn and lusin.
J̌
ahukyan (1982: 104-105; cf. also Olsen 1984: 104; 1985: 6-7) is inclined to an old
athematic l-stem (*əstēl-, GSg *əstel-os, NPl *əstel-es, cf. Gr. ἀστήρ, ἀστέρος,
ἀστέρες, respectively), although he does not exclude the alternative of *əstēl-nā-,
noting (22133) the development *-ln- > Arm. -ɫ- seen in *pelnumi > heɫum ‘to pour’.
Later, he (1987: 152, 195) seems to prefer, although with hesitation, *əster-l-. As for
the twofold plurals, cf. GDPl asteɫ-c‘ vs. asteɫ-a-c‘, the one with -a- is usually traced
back to an old collective, cf. Gr. ἄστρα [Meillet 1936: 81; Watkins 1974a: 10;
J
̌
ahukyan 1982: 105; 1987: 255; cf., however, Olsen 1999: 160302.
Olsen (1999: 159-160, 843) assumes “analogical influence from (the nom.acc. of)
the word for ‘Sun’” (cf. Lat. sōl, etc.), but she does not exclude the alternative of
*-ln- > -ɫ-, with a secondary addition of *-n- as in Germanic, etc. (160303). For the
influence of the word for ‘sun’, see also Tumanjan 1978: 289142.
As we see, scholars often find hard to choose between *h2ster-l- and *h2stel-n-.
Apart from the references already cited, see also Tumanjan 1978: 46, 289;
Aɫabekyan 1979: 98. Since the PIE word clearly had an original *-r-, I prefer the former alternative, namely *h2ster-l-. This solution is also advocated by others:
Mayrhofer 1952: 316; Bomhard 1986: 191 (Lat. < *ster-elā). For a discussion, see
also Scherer 1953: 25-27. Note Celt. *stīrlo- ‘iris of the eye; eye’ (OIr. sell, etc.)
from QIE *h2ster-lo-; cf. PCelt. *ster- ‘star’ (Schrijver 1995: 421-422, cf. 423Nr11).
For Armenian, we may reconstruct *h2stēr-l, a nominative, analogical after PIE
*seh2ul ‘sun’, and *h2ster-leh2-. For the influence from the nominative of the word
for ‘sun’ cf. the view of Olsen, although she assumes a substitution of original *r
with *l rather than *-rl-. However, she (op. cit. 159) prefers deriving the Latin word
from *h2ster-leh2-. This would separate the Armenian and Latin forms from each
other, which does not seem probable.
The derivation of Lat. stēlla and Arm. *asteɫ-a- from *h2ster-leh2- may be
corroborated by Lat. anguilla ‘eel’ and Arm. əngɫ-ay-k‘ (q.v.), possibly from IE
*H(V)ngh
ur-leh2-.
Arm. dial. *asteɫ-n (see above) may represent the old accusative *-m, see
Weitenberg 1985; Kortlandt 1985: 21, 23 = 2003: 65, 67; Beekes 2003: 142-143.
PIE *h2ster- ‘star’ has been compared with the Semitic word for ‘deified Venus’,
cf. Ištar, etc. [Illič-Svityč 1964: 6-7; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 685-686, 875,
876, 967; Takács 1997: 373-374]. On the other hand, it was also derived from PIE.
*ā̆s- (= *h2eHs-) ‘to burn’, with the suffix of nomina agentis *-ter/l-; thus: ‘the
burning/glowing object’. This view has more adherents; for a discussion, see Scherer
1953: 23, 26; Bomhard 1986; Beekes, Adams and Mallory apud Mallory/Adams
1997: 543; cf. Watkins 1974a: 13-14 (suffixes *-er- and *-el-, with the same
variation as in agentive *-ter/l-). According to Gamkrelidze/Ivanov (1984, 2: 8751,
876), the Semitic word may be borrowed from the IE one. This, if true, would
reconcile the two etrymologies. The postulation of the suffix *-ter/l (see also
Tumanjan 1978: 289142) would make the restoration of *h2stel- stronger.
asr (no evidence for oblique cases in the Biblical attestations, see Astuacaturean 1895:
201b), r/u-declension: GDSg as-u (Grigor Astuacaban, Anania T‘argmanič‘,
Xosrovik T‘argmanič‘), AblSg y-asu-ē (Basil of Caesarea); o-stem: AblSg y-asr-o-y
(Hexaemeron, Nersēs Lambronac‘i), ISg asr-o-v (Grigor Narekac‘i); r-stem: ISg
aser-b (Nersēs Šnorhali); u-stem: GDSg asr-u (Basil of Caesarea) ‘wool, fleece’
(Bible+).
The basic *asu- is also seen in as-u-i and asu-o-y (Bible+)22, as well as in the
derivatives asu-eay ‘woollen, of wool’ (Leviticus 13.52, 59) and asu-eɫ ‘shaggy,
woolly’ (said of a ram in Eznik Koɫbac‘i, A. A. Abrahamyan 1994: 126L17).
A number of derivatives with asr(-a)- [NHB 1: 334a].
●ETYM Since Bugge 1889: 11, connected to Gr. πόκος m. ‘plucked, shorn off sheep’s
wool, fleece’ and πέκος n. ‘fleece’ vs. πέκω ‘to comb, card, shear’, Lith. pešù ‘to
pluck, pull out’, MPers., NPers. pašm ‘wool’, Oss. fæsm/fans ‘wool’, fasyn/fasun ‘to
comb’, cf. Skt. pákṣman- n. ‘eyelash’, YAv. pašna- n. ‘eyelash’, etc. (for these and
more Indo-Iranian forms, see Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 62-63; Cheung 2002: 187);
further Skt. páśu-, paśú- n., paśú- m. ‘cattle’ (cf. Lubotsky 1988: 45 on these alternants), Av. pasu- m. ‘cattle’, Oss. fys/fus ‘sheep’ (Cheung 2002: 191), Lat.
pecus, -oris n. ‘cattle; herd, flock’, pecus, -udis f. ‘farm animal, sheep’, pecūnia f.
‘property, wealth’, Goth. faihu n. ‘property, money’, OHG fihu n. ‘cattle’, Lith.
pẽkus ‘cattle, small livestock’, etc. Hübschmann 1897: 421-422; Pedersen 1905:
230; 1906: 370 = 1982: 92, 148; HAB 1: 282-283; Pokorny 1959: 797;
Ernout/Meillet 1959: 491; È. Tumanjan 1978: 299-300; Aɫabekyan 1979: 95-96; on
the PIE etymon (without Armenian), see also Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 108-110;
Mallory/Adams 1997: 570a.
The problem with this etymology is that the best semantic match to Arm. asr, viz.
Gr. πόκος m., πέκος n. ‘fleece’ (cf. Meillet 1936: 142, assuming a special ArmenoGreek correspondence), morphologically disagrees with the Armenian word. The
latter belongs to the Armenian *r/u-declension, which originates from PIE neuter
*u-stems (for a discussion of this class, see Bugge 1889: 11; Pedersen 1905: 230-
231 = 1982: 92-93; Meillet 1913: 50-51; 1936: 76, 82; J̌
ahukyan 1959: 181, 184-
186, 260-261; 1982: 120-121; È. Tumanjan 1971: 228-230; 1978: 293-302; Godel
1975: 33, 95; 1978: 298-302; Schmitt 1981: 98; Hamp 1983: 9-10; 2001: 9-10;
Mawet 1993; Clackson 1994: 126-127, 160-161; Olsen 1999: 163-169; Beekes
2003: 156; Matzinger 2005: 59-64), cf. nom. cunr vs. cung-k‘ ‘knee’ from PIE
*ĝonu- n. ‘knee’ (q.v.); further see s.vv. artawsr ‘tear’, barjr ‘high’, caɫr ‘laughter’,
meɫr ‘honey’, tarr ‘substance’.
Thus, Arm. asr, gen. as-u morphologically corresponds to the u-stem neuter
forms Skt. páśu-, paśú-, OHG fihu, etc. ‘cattle’. However, the relation of this group
with Arm. asr ‘fleece’, Gr. πόκος m., πέκος n. ‘fleece’ and the verb *pek̂
- ‘to comb,
card’ is disputed (see Benveniste 1969, 1: 47-61 = 1973: 40-51). It is possible that
the Armenian term is a blend of *pe/ok̂
- ‘to comb, shear; fleece’ and *pek̂
u- n.
‘cattle’ (see Solta 1960: 125; È. Tumanjan 1978: 299-300; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 120), just
like meɫr ‘honey’ (q.v.). Or else, we are dealing with a metonymic development
‘fleece’ > ‘sheep’, and Arm. asr < *p(e/o)k̂
u- ‘fleece’ is to be regarded as archaism.
For an extensive discussion of these and related issues I refer to Clackson 1994:
159-162.
The Armenian vocalism has been explained from either *-o- or zero grade (for a
discussion, see Considine 1978-79: 357; van Windekens 1980: 41-42; Greppin 1983:
305; Peters 1986: 37853; Ravnæs 1991: 11-13; Olsen 1999: 202; Matzinger 2005:
60259; see also the references above and those s.v. alik‘ ‘waves’). One may depart
from a QIE PD neuter *pók̂
u-, gen. *pək̂
-óu-s > PArm. *ósu-r, gen. *(h)as-ú. The
nominative would then analogically become *asu-r > asr. A similar scenario may be
suggested also for barjr ‘high’, caɫr ‘laughter’, tarr ‘substance’ (see s.vv.)23.
Recently, a connection with Toch. B yok n. ‘hair; wool’ and Skt. yā́śu- n. ‘pubic
hair’ has been proposed, with a reconstruction like *iok ̯ ̂
u- or *i̯eh2k̂
u- n. ‘body hair’
(Stalmaszczyk/Witczak 1990: 372; Witczak 1991: 686; 1999: 184; Mallory/Adams
1997: 252a; Adams 1999: 508-509). This etymology is morphologically attractive,
and the loss of the inital *i̯- is probably correct (see 2.1.6). However, the meaning of
the Vedic word ‘pubic hair’ is conjectural. One rather assumes something like ‘Same, Samenerguß’ (Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 412). On the whole, this etymology is possible, but far from evident. Besides, there are no compelling reasons to
abandon the traditional etymology, although not everything is perfectly clear.
The assumption of a Hittite origin of asr (see Łap‘anc‘yan 1961: 166; van
Windekens 1980: 42; cf. Schultheiss 1961: 234) is untenable.
atamn, an-stem: GDSg ataman, NPl atamun-k‘, APl atamun-s, GDPl ataman-c‘, IPl
atamam-b-k‘ (rich evidence in the Bible, see Astuacaturean 1895: 201c) ‘tooth’
(Bible+).
●DIAL Present in Ararat, Muš, Van-group, Salmast, etc. In the other dialects the word
has been replaced by akṙay or keṙik‘ [HAB 1: 286].
●ETYM Derived from PIE *h3dont- ‘tooth’: Gr. ὀδών, gen. ὀδόντος m., Lat. dēns,
dentis m., Skt. dán, acc. dánt-am m., Lith. dant-ìs, etc. Hübschmann 1877a: 405;
1897: 422; Scheftelowitz 1904-05, 2: 26; HAB 1: 285-286; Pokorny 1959: 289. For
paradigms of this term in cognate languages and a morphological discussion, see
Beekes 1995: 179; Szemerényi 1996: 166-167; for the laryngeal, see Beekes 1986a:
72; 1987b: 6-7; Kortlandt 1987: 63; 1989: 50; 2001: 12 = 2003: 77, 94, 132;
Schrijver 1991: 23.
The Armenian word has been explained in different ways: *h1dn̥t-m ̥ > PArm.
*atanan > *ataman (“Anschluß an die m(a)n-Stämme und gleichzeitig Dentaldissimilation”) > atamn (Schindler 1975: 6132), or *odnm > *odmn > *otamn
(Beekes 2003: 186), or *h1dn̥t-m ̥ > PArm. *atand(a)m > *atanm > atamn, or *Vdn̥tmn ̥ > *atan(T)mn > atamn (see Ravnæs 1991: 95, 100). For a further discussion, see
Polomé 1980: 27-28; Greppin 1983: 305; 1988-89: 4771; Olsen 1988-89: 481-482;
1999: 505; Clackson 1994: 34-35, 210-21199; Viredaz 2005-07: 4-6.
The simplest solution seems to be the one suggested already by Hübschmann and
Scheftelowitz and accepted by Pokorny (see above; cf. also one of the alternatives
mentioned by Ravnæs): *ata(n) + -mn, cf. koɫ-mn ‘side’ vs. koɫ ‘rib’ (q.v.); see also
s.v. geɫmn ‘wool, fleece’.
atta (dial.) ‘mother, mummy’.
●DIAL Akn atta ‘mother, mummy’, cf. Muš, etc. adɛ, Zeyt‘un átɛ (vocative) ‘mum,
mother’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 46b].
●ETYM A nursery word, cf. Skt. attā ‘mother, older sister’ [J̌
ahukyan 1972: 300;
1985: 153; 1987: 113, 275]. Other comparable forms refer to ‘father, papa, daddy’:
Hitt. attaš, Gr. voc. ἄττα, Lat. atta, Goth. atta, etc. (see Pokorny 1959: 71;
Szemerényi 1977: 7; Schrijver 1991: 46; M. Huld apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 195a).
Though belonging to child language, this etymon may have existed already in
PIE. For a discussion of this term with particular attention to gemination in child
language see Meillet 1950: 58; Shields 1990; Szemerényi 1996: 110.
This etymon is considered as inherited from a Proto-Nostratic corresponding
nursery word, cf. Elam. atta ‘father’, Tamil attai f. ‘father’s sister, mother-in-law’,
Turkish ata ‘father, ancestor’, Etruscan ati f. ‘mother’, etc. (see Shields 1990: 3324;
Bomhard 2008, 2: 596-598). Note also Hurr. attai, Urart. ate ‘father’ [J̌
ahukyan
1987: 427].
aracem (trans.) ‘to pasture’ (Bible+), aracim (intrans.) ‘to browse, graze’ (Bible+);
arawt, i-stem (GDSg arawt-i in the Bible, GDPl arawt-i-c‘ in Yovhannēs
Drasxanakertc‘i /9-10th cent./) ‘pastureland’.
●DIAL Both arac- and arawt are widespread in the dialects [HAB 1: 294a, 349-350].
●ETYM Usually linked with Gr. τρώγω ‘to gnaw, nibble (especially of herbivorous
animals)’, τράγος m. ‘he-goat’ [Lidén 1906: 33-35; HAB 1: 293-294], perhaps also
Toch. trāsk, tresk ‘to chew’ (from *trek-sk); see Frisk 2: 939. Lidén also connects
Arm. t‘urc ‘cheek’, which is rejected by Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 210a), but accepted by
Frisk (ibid.), and, with some reservation, J̌
ahukyan (1987: 153, 197), who on p. 197
alternatively points to Lat. turgeō ‘to swell out, become swollen or tumid’. This idea
has been first proposed by Aɫayan (1974: 74) and seems most acceptable (see s.v.
t‘urc1). Aɫayan’s (op. cit. 25) analysis of arac-/arawt as containing the suffix -awt is
improbable, however. Hambarjumyan (1995: 234-235; 1998: 42-45) identifies arawt
‘pastureland’ (< *trəĝ-) with a non-existent art ‘to graze; pastureland’, distinct from
art ‘field’ (he refers to AčaṙLiak 3, 1957: 37, but there only aracel is mentioned),
and *art and *arc- appearing in xaw-art and xawarci in a mysterious passage
Movsēs Xorenac‘i 1.30 (see H. Martirosyan 1996), which is untenable.
The equation of Arm. arac- with Gr. τρώγω and τράγος would be possible if one
assumes *treh2ĝ- for Armenian (with a prothetic a- as in artawsr ‘tear’, q.v.; see also
2.1.17.4), *trh2ĝ- for τράγος, and *troh2ĝ- for τρώγω. Beekes (1973: 98) is against
reconstructing a laryngeal in this root. According to Greppin (1983: 307), the
etymology is “invalid phonetically since IE *tre- should yield Arm. *erd- or,
perhaps, *ert‘-”; see also Greppin 1987: 395. This objection cannot be maintained
because, unlike *Dr and *Dh
r, PIE *Tr is never metathesized, and the actual
outcome of *trV- is Arm. *VrV-, cf. *treies > erek‘ ‘three’, etc.
Some scholars try to separate arac-/arawt from Gr. τρώγω. Klingenschmitt
(1982: 153) interprets it as a compound of an unattested *ar- < *pr̥- (cf. aṙ-) and
*háuti- ‘flock of sheeps, etc.’ (see s.v. hawt). Olsen (1999: 92-93, 775, 811) derives
it from PIE *srHu-d-ie/o- (cf. Lat. servō ‘to serve, preserve; to protect; to keep,
observe; to look after’, Av. hauruua- ‘aufpassend’, etc. Both etymologies are
improbable, since neither the nature of *-d- nor the alternation c – wt is explained.
Furthermore, in my view, *-di̯- would yield Arm. -č- rather than -c-. See 2.1.22.1 for
more details.
For another, highly hypothetical alternative, see s.v. oroč- ‘to chew, ruminate’.
Whatever the etymological details, arac- and arawt cannot be separated from
each other. An economical explanation of the alternation -c- /-wt- would treat arawt,
an i-stem, as a deverbative noun in *-ti- based on verbal arac-. If, e.g., one accepts
the connection with Gr. τρώγω, Arm. arac- would derive from *treh2ĝ-, while arawt
(i-stem) would imply *trh2ĝ-ti- (cf. Gr. τρῶξ-ις f. ‘gnawing, biting’). This
mechanism helps explaining many unclear cases of this and similar types; see
2.1.22.12-13.
arahet, i-stem: IPl arahet-i-w-k‘ in Yovhannēs Ōjnec‘i (7-8th cent.) ‘road; path’.
Eznik Koɫbac‘i (5th cent.), Yovhannēs Ōjnec‘i (7-8th cent.), John Chrysostom, etc.
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 295a) treats it as a compound of ayr ‘man’ (in oblique
cases and in derivatives: ar-), conjunction -a- and het ‘trace’ (q.v.). Łap‘anc‘yan
(1945: 1062, 106-107) argues against this etymology that in compounds, ayr appears unchanged (which is true but not essential) and interprets the compound as “the trace
of Aray (the god)”. The same: G. Vardumyan 1991: 97b.
Perixanjan (1966: 27; 1993: 9, 22) notes that Ačaṙyan’s analysis is reminiscent of
a folk-etymology and treats arahet as borrowed from unattested Iran. (MMed.)
*arahēt(i), an old compound of *raϑa-/raϑai- ‘car’ and *iti-/yāti (from *yā-/i- ‘to
go’). She points out that the Armenian word has preserved the Iranian thematic
vowel -i in the declension. L. Hovhannisyan (1990: 262-263, 28779, 28780) mentions
this etymology and notes that it is not clear whether arahet is of Iranian or native
origin.
While P‘erixanyan’s etymology is not impossible, I see no reason to abandon that
of Ačaṙyan. A clear typological parallel to the compound ar-a-het “path of
men/people” is Šamšadin (Łarabaɫ-group) mərt‘əkəɛcan ‘path’ < *mard-a-kacan
which is found in a fairy-tale (HŽHek‘ 1980: 58L-6) and is composed of mard ‘man’
and kacan ‘path’.
arastoy (arazdoy, erastoy), APl arastoy-s, AblPl i yarastoy-c‘; NHB 1: 338c has
GDPl arastoy-i-c‘, but without evidence. Prob. ‘rock, stone’.
Occurs always as a specifier to vēm ‘hard stone’. APl arastoy-s is found in
Agat‘angeɫos § 767 (1909=1980: 398L10f; transl. Thomson 1976: 307): i glxoy leṙnēn
aṙeal vēms arastoys, antašs, ankop‘s, yaɫt‘s, <...> : “From the summit of the
mountain he took solid stones, unworked, unhewn, immense, <...>“. In Book of
Chries: AblPl i yarastoy-c‘ vimac‘. In Philo: arazdoy vēm. Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 297a)
cites also Eznik Erēc‘ (7th cent.) without giving the passage.
In Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i (9-10th cent.), one finds erastoy vimōk‘ [NHB 1:
671b], with an initial e-.
●ETYM No etymology is accepted in HAB 1: 297.
I propose to interpret the word as containing the suffix -oy-k‘, on which cf.
erek-oy, amōt‘-oy-k‘, bar-oy-k‘, etc. [J̌
ahukyan 1987: 356; 1998: 30; Greppin 1975:
122; Olsen 1999: 239-240, 511-515], and the root *arast- (*erast-) ‘rib,
mountain(-ridge)’, which may be identified with Arm. erast-an-k‘ ‘buttocks’, Skt.
pr̥ṣṭhá- n. ‘back, mountain-ridge, top’ (RV+), pr̥ṣṭí- f. ‘rib’, etc. See s.v. erastan-k‘
for further details. That a noun meaning ‘mountain, rock, etc.’ functions as an
attributive ‘solid, hard (rock)’ is not uncommon; cf. leaṙn ‘mountain’ : dial. (Ararat)
lɛṙ k‘ar ‘hard stone’ [Amatuni 1912: 246a]; pal/ɫ ‘rock, stone’ : pal pal k‘arer [HAB
4: 4a, 13a], etc. The word combination lɛṙ k‘ar is also found in the folklore of
different regions, e.g. in Širak, in a fairy-tale narrated by Garegin Harut‘yunyan
(migr. from Kars region) and recorded by V. Bdoyan in 1946 (HŽHek‘ 4, 1963:
182-183, three times).
arat, GSg aratay ‘stork’?
Attested only in Vardan Arewelc‘i (13th cent.), in the commentary on Psalms
103[104].17: Boyn aragli: Simak‘os (asē) ariovd aratay tun ē nora “(The) nest of a
stork: Simak‘os/Symmachos (says) ariovd aratay is his home”.
The corresponding passage of Psalms reads as follows (Rahlfs 1931: 259) :
16 χορτασϑήσεται τὰ ξύλα τοῦ πεδίου,
αἱ κέδροι τοῦ Λιβάνου, ἃς ἐφύτευσεν.
17 ἐκεῖ στρουϑία ἐννοσσεύσουσιν, τοῦ ἐρωδιοῦ ἡ οἰκία ἡγεῖται αὐτῶν.
The Armenian translation: < ... >, boyn aragli apawēn ē noc‘a.
Identifying ariovd with ‘the fir tree’ of the Hebrew text, Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 316b)
interprets aratay as GSg of arat ‘stork’ (=aragli, GSg of aragil ‘stork’), although in
1: 298a he puts a question mark and characterizes the word as uncertain. The
declension with GDSg -ay and GDPl -ac‘, apart from some proper names and
foreign words, is unknown in Armenian (see AčaṙLiak 3, 1957: 470-480; J̌
ahukyan
1959: 281-282; Weitenberg 1989: 57-58), so that aratay is puzzling (hardly a
corruption for GPl aratac‘?). According to J̌
ahukyan (1965: 251), it points to a
foreign origin of the word.
In the Greek text, τοῦ ἐρωδιοῦ (GSg) disagrees with αὐτῶν (GPl) in number. The
Armenian translation faithfully renders the Greek text. Modern translators usually
put both in the singular: “(as for) the stork, the junipers/firs are her/its home”; cf.
Dahood 1970: 32; Rosenberg 1991: 395; Bratcher/Reyburn 1991: 883. This is what
one finds in Vardan’s commentary, see above. Allen (1983) makes it plural: “storks
whose homes are the firs”.
Ačaṙyan’s cautious suggestion concerning ariovd is not based on any evidence. I
suppose there is no such a tree-name neither in Hebrew nor in Greek. The actual
solution can be simpler. In my view, ariovd is a mere transliteration of Gr. ἐρωδιός
‘heron’ which in the passage under discussion, as well as in Deuteronomy, Leviticus
and Galen, corresponds to Arm. aragil ‘stork’. In Codex Alexandrinus and in the
commentary of Hesych of Jerusalem, the Greek word is spelled with αρ- [Rahlfs
1931: 259]. The -i- in ariovd, if not a mere corruption, might have arisen in the
following way: Vardan also knew the variant of the Greek word with a iota
subscriptum (-ῳ-), which is not attested in the Septuagint though (see Frisk 1, 1960:
572), and erroneously inserted an -i- not after, but before ov=ω.
Thus, ariovd turns out to function here in the meaning ‘stork’, and this makes the
interpretation of arat, which is a hapax and has a strange genitive form, even more
complex.
●ETYM The only etymological attempt known to me is that of J̌
ahukyan (1965: 251;
1967: 207, 305; 1987: 113), who derives the word from IE *arəd- (*arōd-) with
some hesitation; cf. Gr. ἐρῳδιός ‘heron’, Lat. ardea ‘heron’, SCr. róda ‘stork’, OIc.
arta f. ‘kind of teal, garganey’ (see Pokorny 1959: 68). Then he mentions araws
‘bustard’ as a possibly related word, although the phonology is not quite clear to
him. For the connection of the Greek and the Latin words, see Łap‘anc‘yan 1945:
140 (without Armenian).
Schrijver (1991: 65) considers the Germanic forms semantically remote. Further,
he assumes that the Slavic word may be a loan from Latin. For a different etymology
of Lat. ardea (= *hardea, cf. Span./Portug. garza, etc.), see Vennemann 1998: 35319.
The IE forms have been compared with Turkic *örd/täk ‘duck’ [Šervašidze 1989:
82]. For a criticism of this view, see Tatarincev 1993, 1: 122. Sometimes, Hitt. arta-
‘a bird’ is added, too; see Puhvel HED 1-2, 1984: 175-176. Puhvel, as well as
Greppin (apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 268b) reconstruct a medial laryngeal
(according to Puhvel, *h2), whereas Schrijver does not. Thus, the reconstruction of
the PIE word under discussion cannot be viewed as established. According to
Beekes (2000: 27): “clearly non-IE”. If Arm. arat is indeed related, it can go back only to *h1reh2d-, since neither
*h1(e)r(ō)d- nor *h1rHd- would yield arat. In this case, one may posit *h1r(e/o)h2d-.
If we eliminate the less reliable cognates, the geographical distribution might point
to a Mediterranean source.
araws ‘virgin soil’, mentioned only in “Aṙjeṙn baṙaran”, in the meaning ‘unploughed
soil’. The verb arōsanam is attested in John Chrysostom, and in homilies attributed
to Yovhannēs Mandakuni (5th cent.) or Yovhannēs Mayragomec‘i (7th cent.).
●DIAL Preserved in the dialects of Alaškert, Axalk‘alak‘ (arɔs), and Baberd (harɔs),
in the meaning ‘a field that is left uncultivated for 5-6 years for strengthening’ [HAB
1: 349a].
●ETYM No acceptable etymology is recorded in HAB 1: 349a. The connection with
arawt ‘pasture-land’ (see s.v. aracem ‘to pasture’), suggested with some reservation
by J̌
ahukyan (1967: 184; 1972: 251), is formally problematic.
N. Simonyan (1979: 220) suggests a connection with Gr. ἄρουρα f. ‘tilled or
arable land; pl. corn-lands, fields’; MIr. arbor (< *arur̯̥), NPl arbanna, OIr. gen.
arbe (< *aru̯ens) ‘corn’; and Arm. harawunk‘ ‘arable land’ (q.v.), an old r/n-stem
noun based on the PIE verb *h2erh3- ‘to plough’. She derives Arm. araws from
*arəw-ns- (although the nature of *-s- is not specified), with regular loss of the
sibilant after the *-n-. As to the semantics, N. Simonyan mentions the Lithuanian
cognate meaning ‘superficially ploughed soil’. This word is not specified, but,
certainly, armenà ‘oberflächlich gepflügte Erdschicht’ (see Pokorny 1959: 62) is
meant. According to Derksen (1996: 154), Lith. armenà means ‘aufgepflügte
Schicht der Erdoberflächer’ (cf. also Armenà ‘right tributary of the Nẽmunas’) and
comprises the verbal root of árti ‘to plough’ (from the same PIE *h2erh3-) and the
suffix *-menā-. One may also point to the semantic development seen in Arm. dial.
c‘el ‘uncultivated soil that has been ploughed for the first time and left for the next
year’ from c‘el- ‘to tear’ (see HAB 4: 452-453).
On the whole, the etymology of N. Simonyan seems probable. The origin of the
*-s- is uncertain, however. I wonder if it can reflect the suffixal element *-k- ,
which, after *-u-, would regularly yield Arm. -s-, see s.vv. alaw(s)unk‘ ‘Pleiades’,
boys ‘plant’, loys ‘light’. The pair araws – harawunk‘ matches that of *alaws :
alawunk‘.
arawr (Bible+), harawr (Ephrem+), o-stem ‘plough’.
●DIAL In dialects: with an initial a-: Aslanbek, Sebastia, Ararat, Van (in the city);
with an initial h-: Xarberd, Karin, Hamšen, Alaškert, Muš, Zeyt‘un; as well as with
x- (from an earlier h-) in the Van-group: Šatax [M. Muradyan 1962: 193a], Moks,
Ozim, and in the villages of Van [HAB 1: 350b; Ačaṙyan 1952: 249; Greppin 1983:
308]. The evidence for the h- (also attested in the literature since Ephrem) is, thus,
quite solid.
●ETYM Since Hübschman (1897: 423Nr47; see also HAB 1: 350a), connected with
Gr. ἄροτρον n., Lat. arātrum, MIr. arathar, Welsh aradr, OIc. arðr, Lith. árklas,
OCS ralo, etc.
According to Kortlandt (2003: 42, 55, 73-74), the absence of the initial h- in Arm.
arawr (vs. harawunk‘ ‘arable land’, q.v.) points to the zero grade *h2rh3trom (also in
Gr. ἄροτρον; the zero grade of this type also seen in Lith. ìrklas ‘oar’ from *h1rh1-), whereas the variant harawr, as Lith. árklas and Lat. arātrum, adopted the e-grade of
the verb. This is accepted by Beekes (2003 1183, 193).24 Olsen (1999: 35, 765-769,
846) disagrees with this view and reconstructs a full grade of the root. One wonders
whether we can dismiss Celtic (from *h2erh3-tro- in Schrijver 1991: 108) and
Germanic forms as evidence for the full grade.
At any rate, Kortlandt’s explanation is preferable since it shows a motivated
distribution between the Armenian forms with and without the initial h-. If harawr
‘plough’ (with h-, the stability of which would be synchronically supported next to
harawunk‘, q.v.) were the original form, there would be no reason for the loss of its
initial h-, unless one assumes that araws ‘virgin soil’ (q.v.) was sufficient to cause
such a loss. Thus, the assumption of N. Simonyan (1979: 220) about preservation of
the PIE laryngeal in Arm. dial. *harōr should be reformulated as follows: arawr
‘plough’ is the original form, and the initial h- of the variant harawr is due to the
influence of the unpreserved verb and harawunk‘, which indeed reflects the PIE
laryngeal.
*arb- aorist stem of əmpem ‘to drink’ (q.v.), 3pl. arb-in, etc. (Bible+); arbenam,
3pl.aor. arb-ec‘-an ‘to get drunk’ (Bible+), participle arbeal ‘drunk’ (arbeal ic‘en =
μεϑύουσιν in the Bible, on this and on the -e- of arbenam, see Clackson 1994:
230207); ǰr-arb-i ‘irrigated’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects, always with an initial h-. Most of the forms
represent *harbim, but there are also forms that reflect *harbenam, such as Muš
harb‘ɛnal, Tigranakert härp‘ɛnal, Zeyt‘un hayb‘inɔl [HAB 1: 299b]. The initial x- in
Salmast and Maraɫa confirm the original h-.
Šatax čərärpin ‘irrigated soil’ continues ClArm. ǰr-arb-i [M. Muradyan 1962:
213b].
●ETYM Derived from PIE *sre/obh
-, *sr̥bh
- ‘to sip, drink, gulp’, cf. Gr. ῥοφέω ‘to
slurp, gulp’, Lat. sorbeō ‘to suck up, soak up, drink up, absorb; to engulf’, Lith.
surbiù ‘to suck’, OCS srъbati, Hitt. šarāp- ‘to sip’, Iran. *hrab ‘to sip, suck in’, etc.
(HAB 1: 299 referring to Müller; Pokorny 1959: 1001; Ernout/Meillet 1959: 636b;
Mallory/Adams 1997: 175b; Cheung 2007: 140).
The Armenian form derives from aorist in zero grade *(e-)sr̥bh
-e/o-, see
Hübschmann 1897: 423; Godel 1965: 27; 1975: 126; Saradževa 1986: 139; Praust
1996: 197-198. For an extensive discussion, see Klingenschmitt 1982: 272-273. It
has been suggested that the dialectal *h- is a relic of the IE initial *s- (see HAB 1:
299a; H. Muradyan 1982: 318-319; 1982a; Greppin 1982-83; Weitenberg 1986: 90-
91).
arbaneak, a-stem: ISg arbanek-a-w (Severian of Gabala, etc.) ‘servant, assistant,
successor’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Preserved only in Van *arbnik ‘assistant’ [HAB 1: 300a] or, more precisely,
ärpnɛk ‘assistant heir son’ [Ačaṙyan 1952: 248], and in Šatax hərpənɛ/ek ‘a child
that is capable of assisting’ [M. Muradyan 1962: 192b, 213b]. ●ETYM Compared with Arm. orb ‘orphan’ (q.v.), Skt. árbha- ‘small, young’, OCS
rabъ m. ‘servant, slave’, rabota ‘slavery’, ORuss. robota ‘work, slavery, captivity’,
Goth. arbaiþs f. ‘labour’, etc. (Hübschmann 1897: 423; HAB 1: 299b; Aɫabekyan
1979: 59; Greppin 1983: 308; Saradževa 1986: 289-290; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 141; for
the Slavic forms, see Derksen 2008: 373).
At first glance Arm. arbaneak looks Iranian, cf. e.g. dayeak ‘nurse, tutor’. Olsen
1999: 373, 868 treats arbaneak as a loan from an Iranian unattested correspondence
of Gr. ὀρφανός ‘orphaned’. This is not compulsory, however. The word can easily be
analyzed as an ak-diminutive of *arb-an-i ‘youth, orphan’, cf. e.g. ordeak from ordi
‘son’. As to -an-i, we can think of Arm. kus-an vs. koys ‘virgin’ and pat-ani and
parm-ani, both ‘youth, youngster’ on the one hand, and of Gr. ὀρφ-αν-ός ‘orphaned’
on the other. For the structure of arbaneak note especially the synonymous
pataneak.
The connection with arbun-k‘ ‘vigour, maturity (of age)’ (q.v.) suggested in NHB
1: 341c (“yarbuns haseal spasawor žir”) is worth of consideration.
arbun-k‘ (mostly pl. tant.), GDPl arbun-c‘, LocPl y-arbun-s, IPl arb[m]am-b-k‘
‘vigour, maturity (of age)’ (Movsēs Xorenac‘i, Book of Chries, Philo, Gregory of
Nyssa, Nilus of Ancyra, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, etc.); sg. uninflected arbun
(Philo, Grigor Narekac‘i, Čašoc‘).
For attestations and a philological discussion, see Weitenberg 1989a. GDPl
arbun-c‘ instead of an expected *arban-c‘ can be compared with the inflexion of the
adjective canr, canun-k‘, canunc‘ [Weitenberg 1989a: 109].
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 300-301) rejects all the etymological attempts, including
those connecting arbun-k‘ with Arm. arbaneak ‘servant’, orb ‘orphan’ (q.v.), Skt.
árbha- ‘small, young’, OCS rabъ m ‘servant’, etc. (on which see Mayrhofer EWAia
1, 1992: 119-120).
The word arbun-k‘ has been etymologized with Goth. abrs ‘strong’ as *abh
ro- =
*h2(e)bh
ro- (J̌
ahukyan 1982: 74; 1987: 111; cf. Weitenberg 1989a: 109-111).
Weitenberg 1989a suggests a connection of arbun-k‘ with buṙn ‘strong, violent’
positing *bh
ōrH-n- (sg.) and *bh
rH-on- (pl.), respectively, belonging with the root
*bh
erH-, cf. Skt. bhari ‘to move rapidly to and fro, hurry, quiver’, Skt. bhū́rṇi-
‘zealous, wild’, bhuraṇa- ‘active, quick, lively’, φυρμός ‘Verwirrung’, etc., for the
forms, see Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 250.
The etymology of buṙn is suggested by J̌
ahukyan 1987: 116, 160, 234. The
connection with OCS burja ‘storm’, etc. (Saradževa; 1986: 41-42, 361-362122; cf.
Jahukyan 1970: 8816) is unconvincing.
argand, a-stem (later also o-) ‘womb’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Akn, J̌
uɫa arg‘and‘, Alaškert arkant (according to HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001:
121b, also argan; Madat‘yan 1985 vacat), Agulis, T‘iflis, Šamaxi ark‘and (also with
an initial h-, see also Baɫramyan 1964: 59, 189), Axalc‘xa ark‘ant‘ [HAB 1: 303a].
Further, Łarabaɫ árgand (Mehtišen argánd) [Davt‘yan 1966: 319]. The d-less form
of Alaškert is also seen in another dialect of Muš-group, namely Bulanəx (the
village of Kop‘), as found in a fairy-tale recorded in Leninakan/Gyumri in 1930-36
[HŽHek‘ 10, 1967: 96L15]: im argan-en ‘from my womb’; glossed as argan· argand
(op. cit. 604a). In Łarabaɫ, one would expect *ärk‘änd, through Ačaṙyan’s Law and subsequent
change -rg- > -rk‘-, that was probably anterior to the consonant shift (g > k) as is
clear from the reflexes of e.g. the derivatives of ard ‘shape, order’ in Van and
related dialects, which participate in Ačaṙyan’s Law; cf. also examples in 2.1.39.2.
One might therefore consider árgand as being due to the literary influence. These
thoughts may be corroborated by ärk‘än which is found twice in a tale told in Berd
(Šamšadin) in 1981 by Lewon Virabyan (see Xemč‘yan 2000: 144a). In this tale, a
mare says to her foal: <...>, ēt kyngä [probably a misprint for kngyä ] ärk‘änəmn ēl
mi tɫa, im ärk‘änəmn ēl mi k‘uṙak : “<...>, in the womb of that woman (there is) also
a boy, in my womb, too, (there is) a foal”. Next to this archaic ärk‘än, the literary
argand is used in another story told in 1984 by Sumbat‘ Melik‘yan, in the very same
village of Berd (see Xemč‘yan 2000: 169aL12).
●ETYM Lidén (1906: 21; cf. Pedersen 1982 [< 1907]: 297b) derives it from IE
*arkw
-, cf. Welsh arffed ‘gremium, Schoss’, Gael. arcuinn ‘udder of a cow’. This
etymology is accepted by Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 303a), who also adds argahatem ‘to
pity, to feel sorry (for)’ as composed of *arg- ‘belly, intestines’ and hat- ‘to cut’,
and, with some reservation, by J̌
ahukyan (1987: 113, 159, and, for the suffix, 240).
Earlier, as well as later, J̌
ahukyan (1982: 71; 1983: 90; 1990: 5) connected *argwith Gr. ὀρύα ‘intestine’, restoring *(o)rwn̥t-.
Pedersen (1949: 1-2) proposed a connection with the Slavic *grǭdь ‘breast’:
Russ. grud’, etc., adducing parallels for the semantic relation between ‘belly; womb’
and ‘breast’ such as Fr. sein, etc. A protoform like *gwhr(V)ndh
- could indeed yield
Arm. argand or, perhaps better, *ergand (see below). This etymology has been
fairly popular, cf. Solta 1960: 406-407; Godel 1975: 75, 79; Hanneyan 1979: 183;
Hamp 1983: 7 (conflation with *gh
roudh
- ‘flesh’); Olsen 1999: 189; Beekes apud
Kortlandt 2003: 207. For various attempts to add more cognates, see Mann 1963:
122-123, 142; Toporov, PrJaz 2 (E-N), 1979: 286. As pointed out by Greppin (1983:
309), cognates like Gr. βρένϑος ‘arrogance’ and Lat. grandis ‘great’ (see Pokorny
1959: 485) make Pedersen’s etymology problematic since *gw
ra- would yield Arm.
*erka-. However, the Greek and Latin words are semantically remote. In
ÈtimSlovSlavJaz 7, 1980: 149, the connection of the Slavic word with Arm. argand,
Gr. βρένϑος and others is rejected on semantic grounds.
The “prothetic” vowel a- of Arm. argand is also unclear. Although Pedersen
adduces the example of artasu-k‘ ‘tears’, erkan-k‘ ‘millstone’ seems to be a strong
counter-example, since erkan and argand are both disyllabic, with an -a- as the root
vowel, and the protoform of erkan and the alleged protoform of argand both contain
a labiovelar stop. Thus, one wonders why we have argand and not *ergand (see also
2.1.17).
The most recent etymological proposal known to me is that of Witczak (1999:
183), who compares argand with Hitt. šarḫuwant- c./n. ‘uterus, placenta’ < IE
*sr̥Hu-wn̥t-h2, literally ‘full of sausages’, cf. Gr. ὀρύα ‘sausage’ (or ‘intestine’). [As
far as Greek is concerned, this etymology in fact coincides with that of J̌
ahukyan,
which he seems to have abandoned later (see above)]. However, *-r̥Hu- would yield
*-araw-, cf. haraw and harawun-k‘ (q.v.); see 2.1.20; cf. also Arm. orovayn.
I conclude that the etymology of argand remains uncertain. I here present some
thoughts in favour of *-nt- rather than *-ndh
-.How to explain the loss of the final -d in Šamšadin ärk‘än? One might think that
this is due to the final weakening as a result of the accent retraction. According to
HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 121b, however, a t-less variant argan is also found in
Alaškert, where we do not have a penultimate accent. Alternatively, *argan is the
archaic nominative with the loss of the final *-t in auslaut: NSg *argan, obl. and pl.
*argandV-; cf. salam vs. GDPl salamb-a-c‘ ‘francolin’ (q.v.). It is tempting to
reconstruct NColl. *-nt-h2, obl. *-nt-eh2-, which would explain both the a-stem and
the loss of the *-t- in the nominative. For *-ntH > Arm. -n, cf. hun and -sun. Olsen
(1999: 189), too, although with reservations, assumes a collective *-eh2. For *-nt-h2,
compare the solution of Witczak (1999: 183) above
argat ‘superfluous branches cut off from vine and used for kindling’.
MidArm. word according to Norayr. MiǰHayBaṙ vacat. In Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ it
glosses uṙ ‘branch’: uṙ · čiɫ kam argat [Amalyan 1975: 261Nr233].
In DialAdd apud NHB 2: 1060c: argat · uṙ hateal yort‘oy; čiwɫ yateal; yōt.
●DIAL Preserved only in the dialect of Ararat [HAB 1: 304a], according to Amatuni
(1912: 75a), also in Muš: ark‘at, ark‘ad, and used by modern Armenian writers Perč
Pṙošyan (1883-1918) and Step‘an Zoryan (1889-1967), born in Aštarak and
Łarak‘ilisa (later called Kirovakan, nowadays Vanajor), respectively
[HayLezBrbBaṙ1, 2001: 137]. For these and some other textual illustrations, see
Amatuni 1912: 75a. Further : Vaxt‘ang Ananyan (the village of Poɫosk‘ilisa, Diliǰan)
(see HayKendAšx 3, 1965: 432); Xažak Gyulnazaryan (1984: 85), all of them being
native speakers of the Ararat dialect. For K‘anak‘eṙ ark‘ad, see G. D. Asatryan
1990: 54.
●ETYM No etymology in HAB 1: 304a.
Łap‘anc‘yan (1961: 166) connects Hitt. ark- ‘to cut off, divide’, treating -at as a
suffix seen in arm-at ‘root’, etc. Given that the Hittite verb is glossed nowadays as
‘(Land) zerteilen, aufteilen’ rather than ‘to cut off, divide’, Greppin (1981a: 496)
considers the etymology unconvincing.
A. A. Abrahamyan (1958: 63-64) interprets argat as *arg- (cf. z-arg-anam ‘to
grow, improve’ + -at < -(h)at ‘cut’), basically something like ‘removed from
growth’; cf. ken-at ‘that which cuts the life’.
Aɫayan (1974: 30-31) derives argat from PIE *u̯reh2d- ‘branch; root’, cf. Gr.
ῥᾱδῑξ ́ ‘branch’, Lat. rādīx ‘root’, rāmus ‘branch’, MWelsh gwreid < *ur̯̥h2d-i̯o-
‘roots’, OIc. rót, Goth. waurts ‘root’, Alb. rrë́nj/ë, -a (Tosk.), rrã(n)jë (Gheg.) ‘root’
[Demiraj 1997: 350-351], Toch. B witsako (if from *ur̯̥di-k-eh2-, see Mallory/Adams
1997: 80; Adams 1999: 604-605), etc. For a discussion of OIr. frén ‘root’, Welsh
gwrysg ‘branches’, Gr. ῥάδαμνος ‘twig’ and others, see especially Schrijver 1991:
182-183; 1995: 173-175.
This etymology is the most probable one, although the evidence for *u̯rV- > Arm.
*VrgV- is scanty and inconclusive; see also J̌
ahukyan 1978: 135; 1982: 71; 1987:
156, 199, 263. However, it is almost never cited by scholars outside Armenia, except
for Greppin 1983: 309, with some reservations (putting the entry between brackets).
Discussing Arm. armat (next to armn) ‘root’, Olsen (1999: 335-337, 368-369,
496-497) suggests a contamination with *u̯reh2d- not mentioning Arm. argat.
The prothetic vowel a- in argat is remarkable since it is the expected variant in
Eastern dialects vs. e- in Classical Armenian and in the majority of the dialects, cf. PIE *gw
r(e)h2-n- > erkan ‘hand-mill’ (Bible+; widespread in the dialects) : EArm.
(Agulis, Łarabaɫ, J̌
uɫa, etc.; but Ararat itself has ɛ-); see Aɫayan 1965. See also
2.1.17.4.
Possibly a Mediterranean-European substratum word.
argel, uninflected [Greppin 1983: 309 gives -i, -oy, probably by mistake] ‘hindrance,
obstacle’ (Agat‘angeɫos, John Chrysostom, etc.), ‘ward, prison’ (Revelation 18.2,
rendering Gr. φυλακή ‘watching, guarding; ward, prison’); more frequent with verbs
such as aṙnem ‘to make’, linim ‘to be’, tam ‘to give’, etc. (Bible+); argelum ‘to
forbid, hinder, etc.’ (Bible+), argelem ‘id.’ (John Chrysostom, Paterica, etc.), argilel
‘id.’ (Paterica), argelanim ‘to be obstacled, hindered, held’ (Bible+), etc. Dial. *arg,
see below.
●DIAL The verb *arge/il-el has been preserved in Suč‘ava, Sebastia, Tigranakert,
Alaškert, Ozim, Ararat, Šamaxi. In Akn, the meaning is ‘to imprison’. The noun
ark‘el is found in Suč‘ava [HAB 1: 305a]. Western dialects have *argil-, which is
reminiscent of argilel, attested in Paterica and considered a dialectal spelling form
[NHB 1: 345a].
Amongst the dialects of the Van-group, Ačaṙyan (1952: 248) only records Ozim
arg‘ilil. M. Muradyan 1962: vacat (on Šatax). In my view, we do find a relic of the
word in Moks šəṙäky
lk‘y ‘задержание мочи’ (= ‘retention of the urine’); e.g.
šəṙäky
lk‘y ə
ɛ ‘у него задержание мочи’ (see Orbeli 2002: 302), which must be
interpreted as *šṙ-a(r)gil-k‘ = šeṙ ‘urine’ + argel-k‘, with loss of -r- (2.1.33.3) and
with a regular reflex of Ačaṙyan’s Law (2.1.39.2).
The root *arg is found in dial. bk‘-arg recorded in DialAdd apud NHB 2: 1061a
and interpreted (ibid.) as argeleal i bk‘oy ‘held/ hindered by snow-storm’. This
compound is present in Ararat, Nor Bayazet [Ačaṙean 1913: 212b; HAB 1: 304b],
according to Amatuni (1912: 121b), also in Muš. Amatuni (ibid.) further records
Ararat, Muš bk‘-argel ‘id.’.
●ETYM Since long, connected with Lat. arceō ‘to keep off, prevent; to protect’
(NHB 1: 344a, etc.), Gr. ἀρκέω ‘to ward off, keep off; to defend; to suffice’, ἄρκος
n. ‘defence’, OHG rigil ‘bolt’, Lith. rãktas ‘key’, Hitt. ḫar(k)-
zi ‘to hold, have, keep’,
etc. [Osthoff 1898: 54-64, 65; HAB 1: 304-305; Pokorny 1959: 66; J̌
ahukyan 1967b:
69; 1987: 113; Klingenschmitt 1982: 236-238]. On Hittite, see Kloekhorst 2008 s.v.
Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 304b) treats -el as a suffix comparable to -il. Greppin (1975:
79; 1983: 309) compares Lat. arcula ‘small box, casket’. J̌
ahukyan (1987: 113)
reconstructs *arkelo-, directly comparing the suffix seen in OHG rigil ‘bolt’, etc.
However, the appurtenance of the Germanic forms (as well as the Hittite, Baltic, etc.
ones) is not universally accepted; see Hübschmann 1897: 423 (mentions only the
Greek and Latin cognates); Klingenschmitt, ibid.; Mallory/Adams 1997: 270b;
Schrijver 1991: 66-67. It is often assumed that Arm. arg-el has been created on the
model of awelum ‘to add, increase’ [Klingenschmitt 1982: 235-238; Viredaz 2005:
94], but we may rather compare -el found in ayc‘-el- ‘visit’ and vay-el ‘proper’,
vayel-em ‘to enjoy’ (see s.vv.).
Kortlandt (1983: 12; 1986: 42 = 2003: 42, 71; see also Beekes 2003: 183, 188)
explains Arm. arg- (without an initial h-) from *h2rk- with Greek and Latin,
contrasting with *h2rek-l- seen in German Riegel ‘bolt’, cf. Lith. rãktas ‘key’. On
Germanic, see Lindeman 2003. For a discussion of the zero grade form *h2rk- with respect to Greek and Latin, see Schrijver 1991: 66-67; cf., however, Lindeman 2003:
96-972.
Kortlandt (1975: 44 = 2003: 11; see also Beekes 2003: 177) explains the absence
of palatalization of the velar by the analogy of a noun, cognate with Gr. ἄρκος. Arm.
dial. *arg may corroborate this assumption. Alternatively, -el- may be relatively
recent (cf. ayc‘-el- and vay-el- above).
ard1, u-stem ‘shape, order’; *ard(i), ea-stem ‘work’: ardea-w-k‘ ‘indeed’ (instrumental); ardiwn-k‘, APl ardiwn-s, GDPl ardean-c‘, IPL ardeam-b-k‘ ‘deed, work;
(earth) products’ (on which see Olsen 1999: 490) [cf. dial. *ard(i)umn ‘earth goods,
harvest’], ardeamb ‘indeed’ (instrumental).
All the forms: Bible+. Numerous old derivatives [HAB 1: 306-307], such as z-ard
‘ornament’, ard-ar ‘righteous’, z-ard-ar-em ‘to adorn’, etc. Note ardak ‘flat (adj.)’
Philo+, which formally coincides with dial. adverbial *ardak from the
etymologically related ard2 ‘(just) now’ (q.v.). The u-declension of ard (Eznik, 5th
cent.) is corroborated by z-ard ‘ornament’, which is a u-stem, too.
●DIAL The forms ardar and zardar- are widespread in the dialects. In some of them
(Łarabaɫ ärt‘är [Davt‘yan 1966: 319], Van ärtär [Ačaṙyan 1952: 248], etc.; Van,
Moks, Šatax zärtär- [Ačaṙyan 1952: 259; M. Muradyan 1962: 195b], etc.; cf.
Łarabaɫ zərt‘är- [Davt‘yan 1966: 350]) we can discern the effect of Ačaṙyan’s Law
in inlaut with subsequent assimilation: ardar > *artär > ärtär. Interestingly, Moks
and Šatax (see Ačaṙyan 1952: 248; M. Muradyan 1962: 192b) did not share the
assimilation with Van, having preserved the intermediate form *arẗar. The form is
also corroborated by the genuine data of Orbeli (2002: 208) collected in the Moks
area in 1911-1912. See also 2.1.39.2.
Ačaṙyan does not cite dialectal forms for ard and other derivatives. According to
Davt‘yan (1966: 319), here belongs Łarabaɫ, Hadrut‘ ä́rt‘/däk ‘completely’.
Margaryan (1975: 315b) glosses ardak as Goris ärt‘äk not specifying the semantics.
In Łarabaɫ there is təeɫen-ärt‘äk ‘completely’ (see HŽHek‘ 7, 1979: 736b). The same
expression is found in Meɫri, in a different meaning: teɫən ärdäk ‘immediately, on
the spot’ (see Aɫayan 1954: 292); see ard2. Their possible synchronic identity (or
contamination?) may be seen in Šamšadin/Diliǰan ärt‘(n)äk ‘completely;
immediately’ (see Mežunc‘ 1989: 201b).
The form ardiwn-k‘ has been preserved in Tarente *ardiwnk‘ gal ‘to serve to
something, be of use, be useful’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 145b; HAB 1: 309b]. Ararat ardum
‘earth goods, harvest’ (see HAB 1: 309b) points to *ard(i)umn. For -wn : -mn, see
2.1.22.11.
●ETYM From PIE *h2r̥-tu- and *h2r̥-ti- based on *h2er- ‘to fix, put together’: Skt.
r̥tú- ‘correct time; order’; Gr. ἀρτύς ‘σύνταξις’ (Hes.), ἀρτύω ‘to equip, prepare’;
Lat. artus ‘joint, limb’ [Hübschmann 1897: 423Nr52; HAB 1: 307-308;
Mallory/Adams 1997: 362b; 410]. For other alleged cognates, see Van Windekens
1980: 41. Arm. *ard(i) ‘work’ seems to go parallel with Lat. ars, GSg artis ‘art,
manner’. On Arm. ard-ar ‘righteous’ (cf. Skt. r̥tá- ‘truthful; (world-)order’), see
Hübschmann 1897: 423-424Nr53. Olsen (1999: 338303, 868) assumes that ard-ar more
probably is “a loanword from a MIr. counterpart of Av. arədra- ‘getreu,
zuverlässig’”, which seems unnecessary. Besides, I wonder if an Iran. -dr- would not
develop into -ϑr- > -hr-. For another attempt to interpret Arm. ardar as an Iranian loan (from *arta-δā-), see Considine 1979: 22612 (although with a sceptical
conclusion).
The absence of the initial h- may be due to zero grade seen in various *-tformations from *h2er- ‘to fix, put together’ (see Schrijver 1991: 68).
Arm. ardiwn-k‘, GDPl ardeanc‘ ‘(agricultural) products; deed’ may be seen in
the place-name Ardean-k‘ (q.v.)
ard2 ‘(just) now’ (Bible+). Also ardi ‘now (adv.); nowaday (adj.)’ (Bible+), ard-a-cin
‘new-born’ (Cyril of Alexandria), etc.
●DIAL No dialectal records in HAB 1: 309a.
Here, in my view, may belong Meɫri particle of time ärdäk, cf. teɫən ärdäk
‘immediately, on the spot’ (see Aɫayan 1954: 292); Karčewan ä́rdäk
y ‘immediately’
(see H. Muradyan 1960: 210a). Both forms are represented only in glossaries of
purely dialectal words. They may reflect *ard-ak; for the adverbial suffix cf. he/ēm
‘now’ – dial. (Polis, Akn, Sebastia) *himak [HAB 3: 78b; Ačaṙyan 1941: 179;
Gabikean 1952: 341]. Thus, it may be identical with ardak ‘flat (adj.)’ from ard1,
since the latter is etymologically related to ard2. For the semantics, cf. Germ. eben
‘flat’ and ‘just now’. The Meɫri expression teɫən ärdäk ‘immediately, on the spot’ is
also found in Łarabaɫ, in a different meaning: təeɫen-ärt‘äk ‘completely’ (see
HŽHek‘ 7, 1979: 736b); see ard1.
H. Muradyan (1960: 16, 190a; see also 219b) glosses ardi as Karčewan hä́rdä,
not specifying the semantics. This is identical with Meɫri hərdá ‘now’ (see Aɫayan
1954: 313, in the glossary of dialectal words). Note also Areš ärt‘ä ‘early’ [Lusenc‘
1982: 199a]. If Karčewan h- does reflect Class. y- (see H. Muradyan 1960: 62-63),
we can reconstruct *y-ard-ay; cf. i ver-ay ‘on, above’. For the adverbial -a(y)
compare also him-ay ‘now’; (h)ap-a ‘then, (immediately) afterwards’. Note the
parallelism him-ay, *him-ak and *ard-ay, *ard-ak.
In a Łarabaɫ fairy-tale recorded by Aṙak‘el Bahat‘ryan in 1860 (HŽHek‘ 6, 1973:
699L7): šemk‘in äṙt‘äk nstac “seated upright on a threshold”.
●ETYM Since NHB (1: 345c, 349a), compared with Gr. ἄρτι ‘just now’, etc.
[Hübschmann 1897: 423Nr51; HAB 1: 309a]. From IE *h2(e)rti : Gr. ἄρτι ‘just now’;
Lith. artì ‘near’ (referring to proximity of space rather than time). Probably, an
ancient locative formation from the root *h2er- ‘to fix, put together’ (see aṙnem,
ard1) with the original meaning ‘fittingly’. For a discussion, I refer to C. Arutjunjan
1983: 271 and especially to Clackson 1994: 103-104 and, on Lithuanian, 22389.
The absence of the initial h- may be due to zero grade possibly seen in ardi <
*ardíyoh < *h2rtii̯os : Gr. ἄρτιος ‘suitable; ready’ (see also Olsen 1999: 435) and in
derivatives. If we are dealing with the suffix *-ti- rather than with an i-locative from
*h2er-t-, than the problem becomes easier since derivatives in *-ti- generally have a
zero grade root. Also other *-t- formations from *h2er- ‘to fix, put together’ show
zero grade in the root [Schrijver 1991: 68]. The compound ard-a-cin (hapax) that is
frequently cited as a match to Gr. ἀρτιγενής ‘new-born’, can be a calque from Greek.
*areg- : *areg-i, old genitive of arew ‘sun’ (q.v.) reflected in: Areg k‘aɫak‘ ‘the city of
the Sun’ attested a few times in the Bible rendering Gr ‘Ηλίου πόλις, e.g. Genesis
41.45, 50 [Zeyt‘unyan 1985: 345, 346]: k‘rmi Areg k‘aɫak‘i : ἱερέως ‘Ηλίου πόλεως;
areg, gen. aregi ‘the 8th month’ (Bible+); areg ‘eastern’ (Agat‘angeɫos, Grigor Narekac‘i); areg-akn, an-stem: GDPl aregakan, AblSg y-aregakan-ē, ISg
aregakamb (Bible+), NPl aregakun-k‘ (epic song of Vahagn apud Movsēs Xorenac‘i
1.31 [1913=1991: 86L4], Eznik Koɫbac‘i, etc.; later AblSg y-aregakn-ē in Grigor
Narekac‘i 38, 10-11th cent. (Xač‘atryan/Łazinyan 1985: 403L45) ‘sun’ (Bible+); a
number of derivatives based on areg-, areg-n-a-, aregakn-a-.
For the attestations and a philological discussion, see NHB 1: 351-352;
Astuacaturean 1895: 214-216; HAB 1: 310-311; Benveniste 1965; Eichner 1972;
Clackson 1994: 228180; Olsen 1999: 67524. The compound areg-akn literally means
‘eye of the sun’ (rather than ‘sun-spring’), cf. p‘ayl-akn ‘lightning’, etc. For a
philological discussion of the pattern ‘eye of the sun’, see 3.2 and s.v. akn ‘eye’.
Note the denominative verb y-arag-em ‘to expose to the sun’ (2 Kings, Cyril of
Alexandria, Grigor Astuacaban, etc.) rendering Gr. ἐξ-ηλιάζω ‘hang in the sun’ in 2
Kings 21.6, 9, 13; for the vocalism, see below.
●DIAL The forms arew and areg-akn are ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 1: 313a].
The simplex areg has been preserved in Nor Bayazet areg! interjection of
astonishment [HAB 1: 312b].
There are a few derivatives, e.g. Trapizon, Arabkir, Akn, Dersim, Xotorǰur,
Kesaria *areg-i ‘sunny place, sunny side or slope’ (see Gabriēlean 1912: 242;
Ačaṙean 1913: 146a; Baɫramyan 1960: 73b; HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 122a).
●ETYM Arm. arew/g- ‘sun’ derives from IE *h2reu-i-: Skt. ravi- m. ‘sun, sun-god’
(Upaniṣad+), ravi-putra- m. ‘son of the Sun’ (Kāṭhaka-Brāhmaṇa); according to
Eichner 1978, here belongs also Hitt. ḫaru(u̯a)nae-zi ‘to become bright, get light,
dawn’. The phonological alternation -w vs. -g- seen in Arm. arew vs. gen. areg- is
comparable to kog-i ‘butter’ vs. kov ‘cow’ (q.v.). In view of the contrast with erek
‘evening’ < *h1regw
os-, the initial a- of arew/g- points to *h2-. This is corroborated
by Hittite ḫ-.
For an etymological discussion, see Meillet 1894: 164, 1642; Hübschmann 1897:
424; Grammont 1918: 225; HAB 1: 311-313 with older references; Scherer 1953:
51-52; Benveniste 1965; Schmitt 1967: 259; 1972-74: 23; Godel 1975: 83; Kortlandt
1976: 93; 1987: 62; 1993: 9-11 = 2003: 3, 76, 102-103; Greppin 1983: 311-312;
J
̌
ahukyan 1987: 108; 1992: 18-19; Ravnæs 1991: 17, 76-77; Clackson 1994: 127,
140, 228180; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 440; Olsen 1999: 675-676; Witczak 1999:
182-183; Beekes 2003: 164, 211; Kloekhorst 2006: 85; 2008: 317; Cheung 2007:
192.
In view of the -i of Sanskrit ravi-, Arm. arew, u-stem ‘sun’ and gen. areg < *aregi- may be interpreted as reflecting an old HD i-stem: nom. *h2réu-ōi- > PArm.
*arew-u(y) , gen. *h2r(e)w-i-ós (rather than *h2reu̯-os, as is frequently assumed) >
PArm. *areg-i- (see the attractive analysis in Olsen 1999: 109-110). Note, on the
other hand, that Armenian words ending in -w mostly belong to the u-declension
(J̌
ahukyan 1959: 253; for a discussion, see also È. Tumanjan 1978: 227-236; Olsen
1999: 109-110). Some scholars (Solta 1960: 407-408; Xač‘aturova 1979: 353, cf.
36062) ascribe a sacral function to the u-declension.
The assumption that Arm. arew has been borrowed from Aryan in the
middle of 2nd millennium BC (Porzig 1954: 162 = 1964: 239-240; Xačaturova 1973:
198; 1979: 353-356) is untenable since: 1) at that period the development PIE *e >
Aryan a had already taken place, as is seen in Mitanni panza ‘five’; 2) arew belongs with other poetic words that are culturally and/or semantically associated with each
other and are all Armeno-Indo-Aryan (or Armeno-Graeco-Aryan) correspondences,
and some of them clearly preclude the loan theory: arcui ‘eagle’, ji ‘horse’, c‘in
‘kite’, etc. For the association between ‘bird, eagle’, ‘horse’ and ‘sun’ in the poetic
language, cf. e.g. Skt. pataṅgá- adj. ‘flying’, m. ‘bird; flying horse; sun’ (RV+, see
Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 72-73).
Arm. arew probably reflects an IE or Armeno-Aryan poetically or sacrally
marked designation of ‘sun’ replacing the PIE unmarked profane word for ‘sun’,
*seh2ul-. This is reminiscent of the case of Arm. ji vs. Skt. háya- (see s.vv. ēš
‘donkey’, ji ‘horse’, and 3.12).
The assumption that Łarabaɫ rɛk‘nak is an archaic reflex of the IE proto-form
allegedly with an initial *r- (Ervandyan 2007: 26) is untenable. First, the IE root is
now reconstructed as *h2reu-i- rather than *reu-i-. Second, aregakn is reflected in
Łarabaɫ mostly as i
ə
rík‘nak, i
ə
ríhynak, ərɛ́
k‘nak, əríhynak [Davt‘yan 1966: 319].
Third, the reduction of the initial pretonic syllable of polysyllabic words is regular
(see 2.1.33.2). On dial. *are/ag-oǰ-, see 2.2.1.5.
The vocalism of y-arag-em ‘to expose to the sun’ (Bible+, rendering Gr. ἐξηλιάζω in 2 Kings 21.6, 9, 13) is remarkable. We may think of an o-grade
denominative verb of the IE type of *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 *uoĝh
o- ‘carrying’ (on this pattern, see Beekes 1995: 229-230;
Szemerényi 1996: 300; and especially Klingenschmitt 1982: 141-143); thus *Hrou̯-
eie- ‘to expose to the sun’ > PArm. *ərow-eye-mi > *ərowémi (through contraction
*-eye- > -e- as in PIE *treies > erek‘ ‘three’) > y-aragem (pretonic *-o- in open
syllable > -a-). As to the semantic relation, cf. Akn *arewel ‘to expose to the sun
(said of clothes and fruits to be dried)’ (Gabriēlean 1912: 242), which clearly derives
from arew ‘sun’.
Culturological excursus
We saw that Arm. arew/g- and Skt. ravi m. ‘sun, sun-god’ have been inherited
from the IE or Armeno-Aryan poetic language. Arm. Areg ‘Sun-god’ is indirectly
reflected not only in the month-name Areg (cf. MPers. Mihr ‘Mithra; sun; 7th
month’, MacKenzie 1971: 56), but also in Nor Bayazet areg! interjection of
astonishment, which betrays the deified *arew/g- ‘god’ or theonym Arew/g ‘Sungod’, compare also Akn *arew! an oath-exclamation [Gabriēlean 1912: 242], and an
oath formula from Łarabaɫ (Łaziyan 1983: 165bL-8f): ɛn irk‘ynakə “(may) that sun
(witness for me)”. Further note aregag < aregakn in a T‘iflis version of this type of
formulae (Tēr-Aɫek‘sandrean 1885: 198L11).
Most explicit is the following folk prayer from Łarabaɫ: Astco c‘ncuɫn tvac
ərignak, <...>, im eress k‘o otand takə, du im xoxek‘s pahes : “O! du göttlich
strahlende Sonne! <...>. Dein Fuss ruhe auf meinem Antlitz! Bewahre meine
Kinder” (Lalayan 2, 1988: 173, first published in 1897, transl. Abeghian 1899: 43 =
Abeɫyan 1975: 42). Compare a poetic association of arew ‘sun’ with ‘golden sieve’
in the Ascension Day folk-songs of the type ǰangyulum from Łarabaɫ (GrigoryanSpandaryan 1971: 165, Nrs. 998 and 999): Kyärmür arev, vəeski maɫ “Red sun –
golden sieve”; Lüs nan arew vəeskəmaɫ “Light and golden-sieve(d) sun”. For further evidence from folklore supporting the veneration of Arew and Aregak,
see Vardumyan/T‘oxat‘yan 2004: 90.
arew, u-stem: GDPl arew-u ‘sun; sunlight; life’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 1: 313a].
●ETYM See s.v. *areg ‘sun’.
ariwn, an-stem: GDSg arean, AblSg y-aren-ē, ISg aream-b, GDPl arean-c‘ ‘blood’
(Bible+). Note ariwn xaɫoɫoy ‘wine’, lit. ‘blood of grapes’ (Bible), ariwn ort‘oy
‘wine’, lit. ‘blood of vine’ (Ephrem). In compounds: ariwn-, arean-, and aren-.
●DIAL Dialectally ubiquitous [HAB 1: 317b].
●ETYM Connected with Gr. ἔαρ (also εἶαρ, ἦαρ) n. ‘blood’, Skt. ásr̥j- n., NSg ásr̥k
(RV+), GSg asn-ás (AV+) ‘blood’, etc. by Tērvišean and, independently, Bugge
(1889: 24), who compares garun ‘spring’ (q.v.) for the loss of the medial *-s-. The
following development has been assumed: *esar- > *ehar- > *ear- > *ar-
[Hübschmann 1899: 44; HAB 1: 317a] or *esar- > *ehar- > *ahar- > *ar-
[J̌
ahukyan 1990a: 11]. See also Kortlandt 1996a: 57 = 2003: 118; Olsen 1999:
490-491. Later, Kortlandt (2001 = 2003: 131-132; see also Beekes 2003: 160)
assumes vocalization of the medial laryngeal: *esHr > *esar > *ar-. Therefore, as he
points out, the epenthetic vowel in *wesar ‘spring’ must be of analogical origin.
Obviously, the influence of ašun ‘autumn’ is meant here. This is quite possible since
the names of seasons often influence each other, cf. amaṙn ‘summer’ and jmeṙn
‘winter’.
J̌
ahukyan (ibid.) alternatively suggests *əsr̥- (if, as he points out, Gr. ἤαρ is an
ancient form), and, for the word for ‘spring’, *wьsr̥-, with the shwa secundum *ь.
Hitt. ēšḫar n., GSg išḫanāš, points to *h1esh2r. What J̌
ahukyan in fact seems to
suggest, is *h1sh2r, although such a form is not found elsewhere. Lat. asser cannot
be used as evidence for *h1s- (see Schrijver 1991: 29). But the Armenian form
contains a suffix, and a derivational basis with zero grade is not excluded. Kortlandt
(2001: 12 = 2003: 132) rejects *ahar- > *ar- because vocalized *h1- yielded Arm.
e-. For an extensive discussion, see Viredaz 2000.
In order to explain the suffix -iwn here, Olsen (1999: 491) suggests a
contamination of *-r- and *-n-stem forms from the original heteroclitic paradigm,
and a contamination with an almost synonymous root *kreuh2-, cf. Gr. κρέατ-ος <
*kreuhn ̯ ̥t-.
The best solution seems to be: *h1esh2r > *ehar > *ar- + -iwn, although the
function/origin of the suffix is unclear.
For a thorough discussion on Arm. ariwn ‘blood’, see now Clackson 1999-2000.
arcat‘, o-stem: GDSg arcat‘-o-y, ISg arcat‘-o-v (rich evidence in the Bible) ‘silver;
silver ware; money; wealth’; arcat‘-i ‘silvery’; both forms, as well as a number of
derivatives, are abundantly attested in the Bible (Astuacaturean 1895: 220-222)
onwards (NHB 1: 360-361).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects [HAB 1: 318b].
●ETYM Since long (Awgerean apud HAB 1: 318a; Klaproth 1831: 105a; NHB 1:
360c; de Lagarde 1854: 30L811f, etc.), connected with the PIE word for ‘silver’: Lat.
argentum n. ‘silver’, Skt. rajatá- ‘silver-coloured, shining white, made of silver’, n.
‘silver’ (AV+), YAv. ərəzata- n., OPers. ardata- ‘silver’, etc., see Hübschmann 1897: 424; HAB 1: 317-318; Pokorny 1959: 64; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 713 = 1995,
1: 617; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 425-426; Mallory/Adams 1997: 518b.
The cognate forms point to a PIE *h2rĝ-nt-o- (see Schrijver 1991: 67-68 and
references above), which would yield Arm. *arcant > *arcan(d). Therefore, Ch. de
Lamberterie (1978: 245-246; see also Clackson 1994: 229186; Olsen 1999: 868)
explains arcat‘ ‘silver’ from Iran. > *ardzata- in the same way as arcui ‘eagle’, q.v.
(consonant shift as in partēz ‘garden’). Viredaz (2005: 8926) derives arcat‘ “from
*arcatta of a substrate language”.
The aspirated -t‘ coincides with the reflex of PIE *t and points to a rather old
period. One might also think of the influence of erkat‘ ‘iron’ (Hübschmann 1897:
424; HAB 1: 318b; Schmitt 1981: 75), although the etymology of this word is not
entirely clear. To conclude, there are two solutions, which seem to be equally
probable: 1) the PIE word for ‘silver’ yielded PArm. *arcant-, which became arcat‘
under the influence of erkat‘ ‘iron’; 2) arcat‘ is a very old Aryan (3rd-2nd millennium
BC) or an old Iranian (first half of the 1st millennium BC) borrowing.
arcui, ea-stem: GDSg arcu-o-y, NPl arcui-k‘, APl arcui-s, GDPl arcue-a-c‘ (Bible+) ‘eagle’.
For attestations, see NHB s.v. and Greppin 1978: 43-48. Later: arciw, a few times
in the Alexander Romance, see H. Simonyan 1989: 94L-1 (a late kafa-poem), 348
(twice), 428L1 (the earliest edition); also MidArm. (see Greppin 1978: 46, 48;
MiǰHayBaṙ 1, 1987: 93a).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects, reflecting *arciw [HAB 1: 320b].
●ETYM Derived from PIE *h2rĝipió-: Skt. r̥jipyá- ‘epithet of an eagle, Maruts,
racehorse, arrow’, m. ‘eagle’, YAv. ərəzifiiō.parəna- adj. ‘having eagle-feathers’,
MPers. ’’lwf ‘eagle’ (= phonetically /āluf/), āluh ‘eagle’, etc. (Hübschmann 1897:
424-425; Pedersen 1924: 224b = 1982: 307b; HAB 1: 320; Schmitt 1967: 259; 1970;
1971: 178-179; Ivanov 1974: 137; Greppin 1978: 48; Xač‘aturova 1979: 356-358;
Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 250-251; Balles 1997: 148-159; Mallory/Adams 1997:
173a, 191a, 194a, 469b).
Godel (1975: 76) treats arcui as a by-form of the original arciw. Arguing against
this point of view, de Lamberterie (1978: 25141) considers arciw to be analogical
from gen. arcuoy after t‘iv : gen. t‘woy ‘number’, etc.
For an extensive discussion, see de Lamberterie 1978: 251-262, regarding Arm.
arcui as an old Iranian borrowing (see s.v. arcat‘ ‘silver’); see also Mawet 1983:
182, 18915 with lit.
Georgian arciv- ̣ is borrowed from Armenian [HAB 1: 320b; Diakonoff 1971: 82;
Klimov 1993: 35]; according to Diakonoff/Starostin 1986: 45: from Armenian or
Urartian.
Arm. arcui has also been borrowed into Urartian Arṣibini (name of a horse), as
well as theonym Arṣibedini, the component *di- of which is taken as borrowed from
Arm. di-k‘ ‘god’ (J̌
ahukyan 1963: 133; 1967: 32861; 1976: 109; 1985a: 369; 1986a:
49, 50, 54, etc.; see also A. Petrosyan 2002: 67241; Ritter 2006: 414-415). One would
like to corroborate this theory “par d’autres bons exemples” (de Lamberterie 1978:
260). Another possible example of such borrowings may be Urart. ṣûə ‘(inland) sea’
(see below).
On the other hand, Arm. arcui has been treated as borrowed from Urartian
[D’jakonov 1983: 15112] (with a strange reasoning: “since it has also been preserved in other East Caucasian languages”) or East Caucasian (Diakonoff/Starostin 1986:
45; cf. also Nikolaev 1984: 71). The assumption on the Urartian origin of arcui and
the scepticism on its IE origin (Diakonoff 1971: 82; 1984: 185b22; 1985: 602;
Greppin 1991b: 725b, 725b51; for more references, see Schmitt 1972-74: 24) seem
baseless to me.25
Arm. arcui is the principal word for ‘eagle’ and largely functions in the cultural
context, e.g. in a poetic figure characterizing a swift horse, whereas the Urartian is
attested only as a horse-name, and there is no Hurrian match. The association
between ‘eagle, kite’ and ‘swift horse’ probably goes back to the Armeno-GraecoIndo-Aryan poetic language. In the famous epic description of the abduction by
King Artašēs of the Alan princess Sat‘inik (Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.50, 1913=1991:
179L3), the horse of King Artašēs is compared with arcui srat‘ew ‘sharp-winged
eagle’, cf. Skt. āśu-pátvā ‘swift-flying’ as epithet of śyená- ‘eagle’ (cognate with
Arm. c‘in ‘kite’, see below), Gr. ὠκυ-πέτης ‘swift-flying’ (used of horses and
hawks), ὠκύ-πτερος ‘swift-winged’; cf. also Av. ərəzifiiō.parəna- ‘eagle-feathered
(arrow)’, Lat. acci-piter ‘hawk’, etc. (see Watkins 1995: 170-172, 252-253).
The poetic figures ‘eagle-winged’ and ‘sharp-flying as an eagle’ are attested also
in other Armenian sources. Here are a few examples. In the famous Aždahak’s
dream, Movsēs Xorenac‘i 1.26 (1913=1991: 76L11f), the dragon-riding hero was
dashing with eagle’s wings: arcuoy imn ardarew slac‘eal t‘ewovk‘. In a kafa-poem
to the Alexander Romance (H. Simonyan 1989: 94L-1) we find srənt‘ac‘ arciw
‘sharp-riding eagle’. The horse of the Armenian epic “Sasna cṙer” is flying as an
aɫavnik ‘little dove’ (SasCṙ 1, 1936: 744L617). Note also Aristakēs Lastivertc‘i
(Yuzbašyan 1963: 64L25f).
It is remarkable that, as has been noted by de Lamberterie (1978: 26192), in RV
4.38.2, etc. (Elizarenkova 1989: 404, 746; Watkins 1995: 170) the horse Dadrikā́- is
compared with r̥jipyáṃ śyenám. Vedic r̥jipyá- is an epithet of śyená- ‘bird of prey,
falcon, eagle’, which is cognate with Av. saēna- ‘a big bird of prey’, Gr. ἰκτῖνος m.
‘kite’ and Arm. c‘in ‘kite’ (q.v.). Thus, both *rĝipio- ‘epithet of a bird of prey’ and
*tk̂
iH-(i)no- or *tk̂
iH-eno- ‘bird of prey’ belong to the Armeno-Graeco-Indo-Iranian
dialect group and can be ascribed to the Armeno-Aryan poetic language (together
with arew ‘sun’, ji ‘horse’, perhaps also surb ‘pure, holy’, see s.vv.; further see 3.2),
and I see no solid reason to separate Arm. arcui from here and treat it as an Urartian
or PECauc. borrowing.
I conclude that Arm. arcui regularly continues IE dial. *rĝipii̯o- (as a native word
or, less probably, through a very early intermediation of an Aryan branch), and the
Urartian and Georgian words have been borrowed from Armenian.
That Urartian borrowed Armenian words belonging to the cultural lexicon or to
the semantic field ‘physical words’ is not something unexpected. Since Msériantz
1904: 129, Arm. cov ‘sea’ is compared to Urart. ṣûə ‘(inland) sea’, which is
interpreted as cô(w) ̣ ə. Many scholars consider the Armenian word to be an Urartian
loanword (e.g. Łap‘anc‘yan 1951a: 323, 324; 1961: 137; Ivanov 1983: 37; Diakonoff 1985: 600b; Greppin 2008: 2). However, Arm. cov probably belongs to
the late IE language (or at least to the European substratum), compare Ir. gó ‘sea’
(cf. Ir. bó vs. Arm. kov ‘cow’, Stokes 1901: 191), OIc. kaf ‘sea’, etc. (see HAB 2:
468; Schmitt 1972-74: 25; Sausverde 1987; Gippert 1994: 121-122; Olsen 1999:
943). It therefore seems more likely that Urart. ṣûə has been borrowed from
Armenian. An example of cultural armenisms in Urartian may be Urart. burgana
‘fortress’, possibly borrowed from Arm. burgn ‘tower, pyramis’, which seems to be
a European substratum word, being itself a back loan from PIE (see s.v. durgn
‘potter’s wheel’ for more detail).
arm-anam ‘to be astounded’ (P‘awstos buzand, etc.), z-arm-anam ‘id.’ (Bible+),
ənd-armanam ‘to be astounded, stricken with amazement; to render senseless,
benumb, deaden’ (Bible+).
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 327) derives from armn ‘root’ (Bible+), cf. ModArm.
p‘ayt/k‘ar ktril ‘to be petrified’ < ‘to render wood/stone’. Although not impossible,
this interpretation is not evident either, since armn refers to ‘root’ (etymologically
perhaps ‘branch’), rather than ‘wood as material’. I therefore propose an alternative
etymology.
The verb may be regarded as a derivative of PArm. *arm- ‘to bind fast, tie, fit’
seen in y-arm-ar ‘fitting’, cf. Gr. ἁρμός ‘joint’, pl. ‘fastenings of a door’, ἁρμόζω ‘to
join, fit together; to bind fast’, etc. from PIE *h2er- ‘to fit’. For the semantics, cf.
papanjim ‘to grow dumb, speechless’: *panj- from QIE *bh
n̥dh
-s-.
armukn, an-stem (GSg armkan, ISg armkamb, NPl armkunk‘, GDPL armkanc‘)
‘elbow’ (Bible+). Spelled also as armunkn, armuk, etc.
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects, mostly as *armunk; a few SW peripheral dialects
have preserved the older, nasal-less form *armuk(n) : Tigranakert ärmug, Zeyt‘un
aymɔg, Hačən aymug [HAB 1: 330a; Haneyan 1978: 183a; Ačaṙyan 2003: 300].
●ETYM Since Hübschmann (1897: 425Nr59; see also Osthoff 1898: 60; HAB 1:
329b), connected with Skt.īrmá- m. ‘arm, shoulder (joint)’ (AV+), Oss. arm ‘arm;
shaft’ (see Cheung 2002: 153); Lat. armus m. ‘arm, shoulder, forequarter (of an
animal)’, Goth. arms ‘arm’, etc.; OPr. irmo ‘arm’, Lith. ìrm-ėdė f. ‘gout’ (literally
‘arm-eating’); SCr. rȁme ‘shoulder’, etc. (from PIE *h2(e)rH-mo-).
The circumstances of the loss of the internal laryngeal in Armenian are disputed
(see Winter 1965: 106; Hamp 1970: 228b; 1982: 187-189; Beekes 1988: 77; 2003:
192-193; Kortlandt 2003: 120; see 2.1.20 for more details). It has been assumed that
armukn is structurally closer to y-ar-m-ar ‘fitting’ belonging to PIE *h2er- ‘to fit
(together), to put together’ (cf. Arm. aṙnem ‘to make, prepare, create’, q.v.; Gr.
ἄρϑρον ‘joint; limb’, ἀρϑμός ‘union, friendship’, ἁρμή ‘junction’, etc.), and, thus,
has nothing to do with the PIE word for ‘arm’ or represents a synchronically
different formation of the same *h2er- ‘to fit’ (see Hamp 1982; J̌
ahukyan 1987:
112). A similar view is expressed by Adams (Mallory/Adams 1997: 26b) who,
commenting upon the PIE word for ‘arm’, writes: “Arm. armukn ‘elbow’ has also
been placed here; however, it is probably an independent creation”. However, I do
not see serious reasons to separate (synchronically or ultimately) armukn from the
PIE word for ‘arm’. ̌
ahukyan (1987: 112) reconstructs *ar-mo- [= *h2er-mo-], with a full grade in the
root and without an internal laryngeal. In view of the absence of an initial h-,
however, the Armenian form reflects the zero grade (see also Beekes 1988: 77, 78),
which is also found in Sanskrit and Baltic. The Germanic and Slavic forms reflect ograde, and Latin comes from either *h2rHmo-, or, more probably, *h2erHmo- (see
Hamp 1982; Schrijver 1991: 313-314, 318).
To explain the second part of the Armenian form, namely -ukn, scholars usually
treat armukn as a compound with mukn ‘mouse’ (Klingenschmitt 1982: 6811; Beekes
1988: 78; Olsen 1999: 590, 68138, 768), and the loss of the initial laryngeal is
ascribed to the compositional loss (Olsen). Hamp (1990: 22) proposes the following
scenario: *AorHmo-muHsm > *AerHmo-muHsm > *aramomuH(s)m >
*aramumuHn > *arumukn (syllabic haplology) > armukn (regular syncope). Then
he notes: “Because the *A here fails to appear as Arm. h- it must have been IE *h =
h4
; this did not colour an adjacent *o, and therefore the *e vocalism is to be
assumed”.
Some nuances are in need of clarification. A compound like ‘arm-mouse’ (cf.
‘Arm-Maus’ in Klingenschmitt 1982: 6811) does not seem very probable. It becomes
easier if one mentions mukn ‘muscle’ and mkan ‘back’ rather than mukn ‘mouse’,
although etymologically they are identical, of course. As pointed out by Olsen
(1999: 68138), Hübschmann was the first to involve mukn in the explanation of
armukn. But Hübschmann (1897: 425Nr59) did not treat the word as a compound. He
writes: “armukn ist im Suffix vielleicht von mukn (gen. mkan) ‘Maus, Muskel’ (s.
unten) beeinflusst”. Such an influence is probable.
Greppin (1983: 314) suggests a contamination with mukn. We can even postulate
that armukn is simply composed of Arm. *arm-o- ‘arm’ and the suffix -ukn. This is
exactly what Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 329b) suggests. The structure goes parallel with
krukn ‘heel’ (Bible+; widespread in the dialects), probably composed of *kur
‘*angled/curved body part, joint’ and -ukn (although the etymological details are
unclear, see s.v.). For the suffix -ukn, see Olsen 1999: 208, 590-592; cf. the variant
-kn which is found in body-part terms like the above-mentioned mu-kn ‘muscle’,
un-kn ‘ear’, etc. [J̌
ahukyan 1987: 238]; see also s.vv. akn ‘eye’; cung, dial. *cunkn
‘knee’.
aršalurš-k‘, aršaluš-k‘, ašalurǰ-k‘ ‘the last part of the night which is followed by the
dawn’, prob. ‘twilight’ (Bible+), ač‘/ǰ/šalurǰ-k‘ in Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.42
[1913=1991: 167L20: ənd ayganal ač‘alrǰac‘n (variants aǰalrǰoc‘n, ašalrǰoc‘n,
ač‘alrǰoc‘n, aǰalrǰuc‘n, agalrǰac‘): “at daybreak”, transl. Thomson 1978: 183];
aršaluš (Grigor Skewṙac‘i, 12-13th cent.), aršaloys, aršalus (Martiros Łrimec‘i,
Mkrtič‘ Naɫaš, see MiǰHayBaṙ 1, 1987: 96a), ašaloys, aršaloys (Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘, see
Amalyan 1975: 26Nr600, 39Nr937), ModArm. aršaluys ‘dawn’ [HAB 1: 330a].
●DIAL Next to Axalc‘xa aršalus-in ‘at dawn’, Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 330b) also
introduces Muš, etc. ašmuš ‘twilight’. The latter rather belongs with aɫǰamuɫǰ
‘twilight’ (q.v.).
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 330a) assumes that the Middle Armenian forms are due to
contamination with loys ‘light’, which is undoubtedly correct, and posits a
compound composed of arš- ‘beginning’ (?) and lurǰ ‘half-dark’ (q.v.). The first
component remains uncertain. Later, he (HAB 4: 655-656) posits arǰ(n) ‘black’ + lurǰ ‘blue’ (see s.vv.) comparing the compound with dial. *mut‘(n)-u-loys ‘twilight’
= mut‘(n) ‘dark’ + loys ‘light’. For the atmospheric sense of arǰn ‘black; dark’ cf.
arǰn-a-bolor ‘very dark’. [Alternative: *aɫǰ- ‘dark, darkness’ + lurǰ ‘light, bright’:
*aɫǰ-a-lurǰ-k‘ > *arǰalurǰk‘ through assimilation ɫǰ...rǰ > rǰ...rǰ].
Olsen (1999: 94319) cautiously suggests a compound with arus- (in Aruseak
‘Venus’, cf. Pahl. arus ‘white’) > *aruš- (distant assimilation). This suggestion
practically coincides with the etymology of J̌
ahukyan (1981: 21; see also L.
Hovhannisyan 1990: 234), who posits an unattested Middle Iranian by-form with -š
beside YAv. auruša- ‘white’, cf. Skt. aruṣá- ‘reddish, light red, glowing, firecoloured’, etc. (see Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 113; Cheung 2002: 233-234). This
etymology is slightly preferable to that of Ačaṙyan.
arǰ, o-stem: GDSg arǰ-o-y (Bible, Eznik Koɫbac‘i), GDPl arǰ-o-c‘ in the Bible (var.
arǰ-u-c‘) and Anania Širakac‘i (7th cent., A. G. Abrahamyan 1940: 39L3), AblPl yarǰ-o-c‘ (Grigor Narekac‘i 67.5, Xač‘atryan/Łazinyan 1985: 519L89); u-stem: GDSg
arǰ-u (Bible), GDPl arǰ-u-c‘ (Agat‘angeɫos); i-stem: GDPl arǰ-i-c‘ (Grigor
Magistros, 11th cent.) ‘bear’.
As an asterism, attested in Anania Širakac‘i (7th cent.), see A. G. Abrahamyan
1940: 39L3; 1944: 331L1.
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects [HAB 1: 334b]. For Van *arǰ-a-plo ‘ghost’ and
*arǰ-a-pap-o ‘bogy’, see s.v. * bo/u- ‘spider, ghost’. Tigranakert aṙč‘ refers to ‘male
cat’. Here, this designation for ‘bear’ has been replaced by ayu of Turkish origin,
found also in Polis and Nor Naxiǰewan [HAB 1: 334b]. See further 2.1.36 on tabu.
●ETYM Since long (Klaproth 1831: 99a; NHB 1: 374b; Hübschmann 1897: 425),
linked with the PIE word for ‘bear’: Gr. ἄρκτος f. ‘bear’, Lat. ursus ‘bear’, Skt. ŕ̥kṣam., YAv. arša- m. ‘bear’, Hitt. ḫartagga- ‘bear’ or ‘wolf’, etc. [HAB 1: 334]. The
word is now reconstructed as *h2rtk̂
o- (Schrijver 1991: 56, 68-69, 71-72; Mayrhofer
EWAia 1, 1992: 247-248). Despite the troublesome -ǰ-, probably to be explained by
tabu (see 2.1.36), the appurtenance of Arm. arǰ to the PIE word for ‘bear’ cannot be
rejected [Meillet 1906: 8]. On a discussion of -ǰ- by Pedersen and Meillet, see 2.1.12
(on ruki-rule). For a further discussion and references, see Greppin 1983: 315;
Clackson 1994: 233269; Olsen 1999: 184.
An influence of arǰn ‘black’ has been assumed (Pokorny 1959: 875). Earlier,
Scheftelowitz (1904-05, 1: 293, 2: 17) had connected arǰ ‘bear’ with arǰaṙ ‘cattle’
and arǰn ‘black’ (see s.vv.). Winter (1997) analyzes arǰ as an original feminine in
*-ih2- seen in Skt. r̥kṣī- ‘she-bear’, thus assuming *-rti̯- > -rǰ.
The IE cognate forms of this word for ‘bear’ appear also as the asterism Ursa
Maior and Minor (see Scherer 1953: 131-134, 139, 176-178). For the Armenian
equivalent, see above.
arǰaṙ, o-stem (paradigm abundantly attested in the Bible, see Astuacaturean 1895:
231bc); a-stem: GDPl arǰaṙ-a-c‘ in Eznik Koɫbac‘i (5th cent., but the form is
considered an emendation, HAB 1: 335a) and Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i (9-10th
cent.) ‘cattle’.
An illustration of the semantics: Isaiah 7.21: erinǰ mi yarǰaṙoc‘ : δάμαλιν βοῶν.
Arm. arǰaṙ corresponds to Gr. βοῦς and clearly refers to ‘neat, bovid, any bovine animal’ as a generic term, whereas erinǰ renders δάμ-αλις ‘young cow’ and, in this
context, refers to one young cow taken from/of bovids.
●DIAL Nor Bayazet arč‘aṙ, Maraɫa arč‘ar (with preservation of the medial -r),
Hamšen, Nor Naxiǰewan, Šamaxi, J̌
uɫa ač‘aṙ, Muš, Alaškert, Ozim ačaṙ, etc., all
meaning ‘male calf of two years, young bullock that has not yet been yoked’ [HAB
1: 335a]. The medial -ä- in Moks ačäṙ, gen. -u ‘бык, двухгодовалый, еще не
холощеный’ [Orbeli 2002: 201], Šatax ačäṙ ‘a bull of two to three years’ [M.
Muradyan 1962: 83, 193a], Van äčäṙ [Ačaṙyan 1952: 248], and Mužambar (T‘avriz)
aǰɛṙn [HAB 1: 335a], is due to Ačaṙyan’s Law (see 2.1.39.2).
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 335a) rejects all the etymological suggestions and leaves
the origin of the word open. It is still considered of unknown etymology [J̌
ahukyan
1990: 71; Olsen 1999: 938]. However, the derivation from arǰ-n ‘black’
(Scheftelowitz 1904-05, 1: 293, 2: 17; see s.vv. arǰn ‘black’ and arǰ ‘bear’) is
possible; for the semantics cf. Skt. babhru- ‘a reddish-brown cow’, Arm. dial. borek
‘a dark-complexioned cow’, OHG bero ‘bear’, etc. (see s.v. *bor ‘brown animal’).
For -aṙ cf. kayt-aṙ ‘vivid, agile; animal’ (J̌
ahukyan 1987: 129, 173), payc-aṙ ‘bright’
(vs. dial. *payc ‘spark; shine’, cf. Ačaṙean 1913: 908ab), etc. For other examples and
a discussion of -aṙ, see Greppin 1975: 50-51.
Some resembling forms are found in East Caucasian languages: Andi Rajč’ ‘calf’,
etc. (see Starostin 1985: 76Nr4 for the forms). According to J̌
ahukyan (1987: 613),
they have been borrowed from Armenian.
arǰasp (spelled also aṙǰasp), i- and a-stem in HHB, o-stem in NHB; the following
forms are attested: ISg arǰasp-o-v in Yovhannēs Erznkac‘i (Pluz), 13th cent.;
arǰaspn, AblSg y-aṙǰaspn-ē in Mxit‘ar Aparanc‘i (15th cent.), compounds with
arǰ(a)spn-a- (see HAB 335a; MiǰHayBaṙ 1, 1987: 97a) ‘vitriol, sulphate of iron or
copper, used especially as black ink’.
Attested since the 7th century, in Vrt‘anēs K‘ert‘oɫ, in an enumeration of scribal
liquids: deɫ groc‘ ē arǰasp, ew gxtor, ew kṙiz [NHB 1: 375a]. Also in compounds:
arǰasp-a-nerk ‘painted with vitriol’ in “Tōmar”, arǰaspn-a-goyn ‘vitriol-coloured’ in
Grigor Tat‘ewac‘i (14-15th cent.), etc.
●DIAL Alaškert aṙčasp, Moks aṙčäsp, Salmast äṙčasp, Ozim arǰaps, Muš aṙčaps
[HAB 1: 335b; Ačaṙyan 1952: 248], Šatax arčäps [M. Muradyan 1962: 64, 193a].
According to Orbeli (2002: 208), also Moks has metathesized forms: arčäp‘s, arčäfs
“купорос (медный). Употреблялся как краска (для кожи и шерстяных
материалов). Из него получали черный и синий цвета”.
●ETYM Contains arǰ-n ‘black’ (q.v.) [HHB and NHB]. Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 335ab)
accepts this and compares Lat. āter ‘black’ > ātrāmentum ‘writing-ink; blacking’,
noting that the component *asp is unknown. See also J̌
ahukyan 1981: 21-22; 1987:
517, 609. Georgian arǰasp’i and Tušian arǰam ‘vitriol’ are considered Armenian
loans (see HAB 1: 335b).
Since Arm. arǰasp(n) denotes ‘vitriol, sulphate of iron or copper’, I propose to
treat *asp(n) as borrowed from the Iranian word for ‘iron’: Sogd. ’spn- ‘iron’
[MacKenzie 1970: 47], Shughni sipin ‘iron’ < *āspanya- [Morgenstierne 1974:
74b], Pashto ōspana, ōspīna ‘iron’, Khwar. ’spny ‘iron’, Av. *hu-safna- ‘steel’, a
metathesized form from *hu-spana-, Oss. æfsæn ‘ploughshare; iron’, Pahl. āsin,
āsen and Pers. āhan ‘iron’ (< *ā-sana), etc., from Iran. *spana- < Ar. *su̯ana- (see Abaev 1963; 1985: 12-13; Danka/Witczak 1997; Cheung 2002: 156-157). Abaev
(ibid.) compares the Iranian word with Gr. κύανος ‘dark-blue enamel; lapis lazuli;
blue copper carbonate; sea-water; the colour blue’, etc., from *k̂
ew- ‘to shine’ (cf.
Pokorny 1959: 594). According to Laufer (1919: 515), the Iranian word is connected
with Chinese pin ‘iron’.
The Armenian word can be derived from Parth. *span- (with anaptyctic a in
Armenian, cf. s.vv. aṙaspel ‘myth, tale, fable’ and aṙastaɫ ‘ceiling’) or *ā-span-. The
form arǰaspn should be considered original, so that we are dealing with loss of the
final -n in the 7th century.
arǰn ‘black’. Independently attested only in P‘awstos Buzand 3.14 [HAB 1: 335b;
Hovhannisyan 1990a: 151]; not in NHB. The passage reads as follows (1883=1984:
32L-2; transl. Garsoïan 1989: 87): yankarcōrēn jiwnn c‘amak‘ arǰn linēr aṙaǰi nora :
“the snow suddenly became black earth before him”. Greppin (1983: 316) sees here
a compound c‘amak‘-arǰn ‘utterly black’. Also found in several compounds (see
also MiǰHayBaṙ 1, 1987: 97a). See also s.v. arǰasp(n) ‘vitriol’.
The compound arǰn-a-bolor ‘very dark’ refers to the night in Čaṙəntir(see NHB 1:
375a) and is the only case in NHB where arǰn appears in the atmospheric sense.
●DIAL No dialectal forms of arǰn are recorded in HAB 1: 336b.
I wonder whether Van *arǰ-a-plo and *arǰ-a-pap-o ‘bogy’ contain arǰn ‘black’ or
arǰ ‘bear’ (see s.v. *bo/u- ‘spider; ghost’).
●ETYM Scheftelowitz (1904-05, 1: 293, 2: 17) connects arǰn ‘black’ with arǰ ‘bear’
and arǰaṙ ‘cattle’ and links them with Gr. ὀρφνός ‘dark, murky’, ὄρφνη f. ‘darkness,
murk, night’, ὀρφν-αῖος ‘dark, murky’, ὄρφν-ινος ‘dark colour, dark red’. The
appurtenance of the Greek word to ἔρεβος ‘the dark of the underworld’ (see s.v. erek
‘evening’) and Toch. B erkent- ‘black’ is uncertain (see Pokorny 1959: 334, 857;
Frisk s.vv.; Adams 1999: 95). Theoretically, Arm. arǰ- should reflect QIE *Hrgwh-e-,
*Hrdh
-i̯-, or *Hr-i̯-, thus a direct connection with erek, etc. is hardly possible. Arm.
arǰ-n and Gr. ὀρφ-ν- may reflect *h3rgwh-(e)n-. One might think of an Iranian
mediation, cf. Khot. rrāṣa ‘dark-coloured’, etc. (Bailey 1979: 362; Mayrhofer
EWAia 2, 1996: 424), or OAv. rajiš- n. ‘darkness’ (Mayrhofer op. cit. 426), but this
is less probable. The inner-Armenian relation with arǰ ‘bear’ and arǰaṙ ‘cattle’ is
possible.
Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 335-336; cf. AčaṙHLPatm 1, 1940: 181) connects Arm. arǰn
‘black’ with *aɫǰ- and *aɫt- ‘dark’ and assumes a borrowing from North Caucasian
languages: Chechen ‘ärži, Ingush arǰi, Tušian arǰi, ‘arči ‘black’, etc. (cf. Greppin
1983: 315-316). These are considered of Iranian origin (see J̌
ahukyan 1981: 21-22;
1987: 517, 609). The appurtenance of *aɫǰ- and *aɫt- is improbable (see s.v. *aɫǰ-).
art, o-stem ‘cornfield, tilled field’ (Bible+). In Psalms 106.37 (APl art-s) renders Gr.
ἀγρός ‘field’. It occurs with the synonymous agarak (q.v.) in Isaiah 27.4: pahel zoč
artoy yagaraki : φυλάσσειν καλάμην ἐν ἀγρῷ. Coll. art-or-ay, mostly with plural -k‘
(Bible+); GDPl artoray-oc‘ is attested in Łazar P‘arpec‘i (5th cent.) 3.81
(1904=1985: 148L35; transl. Thomson 1991: 208): ew kamec‘ealk‘ yezer heɫeɫatin aṙ
vayr mi hangč‘el, ur ew hnjoɫk‘n artorayoc‘n šurǰ zteɫōk‘n gorcēin : “they wished to
rest for a while at the edge of the ravine where the harvesters were working in the
fields round about”. Later also arto/ōreay(k‘). ●DIAL Widespread in the dialects. All the dialectal material (including also
derivatives and compounds; see Ačaṙean 1913: 154-155; HAB 1: 337b; Amatuni
1912: 74b; HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 135-136) known to me points to the meaning
‘cornfield, tilled field’. This is corroborated by endless illustrations from folklore,
whereas one can hardly find unambigous evidence for the meaning ‘uncultivated
field’. Here are some examples.
Moks art/aṙt is glossed by ‘поле, нива, пашня’ in Orbeli 2002: 205. Textual
illustrations: aṙt värəc‘in “вспахали поле” (58L-7, transl. 133); taran c‘anic‘in aṙtə
ɛ
mɛč‘ “понесли, посеяли на ниве” (59L2f, transl. 134); aṙt xasɛr ɛr; məšakun ɛsac‘:
‘ky
ənä aṙt ənjə
ɛ
’ – “Поле поспело, он сказал батраку: ‘пойди сожни поле’” (80L6f,
transl. 152).
For attestations with a clear reference to ploughing or sowing or
mowing/harvesting, see e.g. HŽHek‘ 6, 1973 (Łarabaɫ/Tavuš region): 184L11f, 289L4
(mi tap‘ a varum, art anum “ploughs a field and makes it a cornfield”), 529L12f,
584L14, etc.
●SEMANTICS The meaning of Arm. art is usually given as ‘field’. More precisely, it
means ‘cornfield, tilled field, arable land’. Greppin (1987: 394-395) discusses only
two attestations of the meaning ‘tilled field’, in John Chrysostom and Grigor
Narekac‘i, treats them as not reliable and concludes: “Arm. art is clearly a rare word
of the fifth century only”. In fact, more attestations of the meaning (also in
compounds) are cited in HAB. Note also the passage from Łazar P‘arpec‘i (5th cent.)
above. More importantly, the dialectal evidence, usually ignored by scholars,
undoubtedly proves the meaning ‘cornfield, tilled field’.
●ETYM Meillet (1896: 150) connects art ‘cornfield’ with Gr. ἀγρός ‘field’ (“avec t
énigmatique au lieu de c”) and treats Arm. art-ak‘- ‘dehors/outside’ (Bible+) as a
locative of it, as Lith. loc. laukè ’draußen, im Freien, außerhalb’ from laũkas ‘field’.
Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 337a [the missing part added in HAB-Add 1982: 4], 338a) accepts
this etymology and for the derivation of art- ‘outside’ from art ‘cornfield’ compares
also OIr. mag ‘cornfield’, im-maig ‘outside’, etc. See also J̌
ahukyan 1990a: 11.
A *h2eĝ-ro- (cf. also Skt. ájra- m. ‘field, plain’, Lat. ager m. ‘field’, etc.) would
yield *harc-. The absence of the initial h- may be due to the influence of
etymologically related acem ‘to lead’ and acu ‘garden-bed, kitchen-garden’ which
probably reflect *h2ĝ- (see s.vv.). The QIE (analogical) proto-form of Arm. art
might then have been *h2ĝro-. On the semantics and the problem of derivation of
*h2eĝ-ro- from *h2eĝ- ‘to drive’, see Pokorny 1959: 6; Frisk 1: 16; Euler 1979:
109-110; Saradževa 1980a: 55; Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 52; Anttila 1986: 15ff;
Greppin 1987; Levin 1995: 86163.
The final -t instead of -c is unclear. Perhaps *-cr- (= tsr-) > -tr- (see Schmidt
1964: 89, with references; Hamp 1983c: 38); typologically cf. Normier 1981: 226
(?). Sceptical: Greppin 1987: 3952. [Note, however, PIE *meĝh
(s)r-i > Gr. μέχρι and
Arm. merj ‘near’, q.v.]. The same anomaly is seen in barti ‘poplar’ (q.v.) from PIE
*bh
(e)rHĝ- ‘birch’. In both cases, thus, we are dealing with *rc > rt, with *c
originally following the laryngeal (if one accepts what has been said above on QIE
*h2ĝro-): *-rHĝ- or *Hĝr- > Arm. *art. It is difficult to assertain, however, whether
or not the neighbouring *r and *H played a role here. For a different kind of *c : t
alternation, see 2.1.22.12. If *art- in the above-mentioned art-ak‘- ‘outside’ has a different origin, the t of art ‘cornfield’ may be due to contamination with art-ak‘-
‘outside’; for the semantic association ‘outdoors’ : ‘cornfield’, see s.v. and
‘cornfield’.
On the (alleged) Semitic parallels and Sumer. agar ‘field’, see Levin 1995: 86-93.
Compare Arm. agarak ‘landed property, estate‘ (q.v.).
Greppin (1991b: 724b) rejects the IE origin of Arm. art and treats it as a loan
from Urart. ardi-ne ‘town’, Hurr. arde ‘id.’, cf. Chechen urd ‘peasant’s share of
land’, Ingush urd ‘district’. This is semantically improbable. Nikolaev 1984: 70
considers art a NCauc. loanword.
artawsr (uninflected), NPl artasu-k‘, a-stem (GDPl artasu-a-c‘) ‘tear’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects, all reflecting *artasu-n-k‘ [HAB 1: 345a].
●ETYM Since Hübschmann (1897: 425-426; see also HAB 1: 344-345; Greppin
1983: 316-317), derived from the PIE word for ‘tear’: Gr. δάκρυ n., OHG zahar
(beside trahan), etc., and without the initial consonants: Skt. áśru- n., YAv. asrū- n.
pl., Lith. ãšara, ašarà f., Toch. A ākär. As pointed out by Greppin (1983: 317), one
would expect an additional prothetic e- rather than a-, cf. erkan ‘handmill’ (q.v.). On
the case of artewanunk, see Clackson 1994: 109. For a suggestion, see 2.1.17.4. For
the nominative -r in words derived from PIE *u-stem neuters, see Clackson 1994:
126; Olsen 1999: 166-169, and on the plural stem *artasu-a- reflecting an old neuter
plural *drak̂
u-h2, see Clackson 1994: 47-48, 20852, 229202; Olsen 1999: 167-168.
Klingenschmitt (1982: 153-154 ; see also Hamp 1984: 198; Viredaz 2001-02: 29)
treats the -w- of artawsr as an “u-Epenthese nach betontem a der ursprünglichen
Pänultima”, thus: artawsr ‘tear’ < *drák̂
ur vs. artasu-k‘ (pl.); see also Olsen 1984:
113. A better alternative is suggested by Kortlandt (1985a = 2003: 60-62) who
reconstructs the following paradigm: sg. *drak̂
ru- > *artawr (cf. mawru-k‘ ‘beard’
next to Skt. śmáśru- n. ‘beard’), pl. *drak̂
u- > artasu-k‘. The form *artawr seems to
have adopted the -s- of the plural.
arti, artik ‘wild sheep’. Attested twice only:
In Hexaemeron 9 [K. Muradyan 1984: 306]: Aycak‘aɫk‘ ew artikk‘ bazum angam
erkuoreaks cnanin : “Goats and sheep frequently beget twins”. Arm. artik renders
Gr. προβάτιον ‘little sheep’ (op. cit. 372b) and is probably a diminutive as is the
Greek equivalent; cf. eɫn ‘hind’ : dial. eɫn-ik.
In Ašxarhac‘oyc‘, the 7th-century Armenian Geography [Soukry 1881: 30 (Arm.
text), 40 (French transl.)]: Uni erēs, eɫǰeru, ayc ew k‘aɫs, aṙn ew arti : “Parmi les
animaux, on y voit le cerf, la chèvre, le bouc et le mouflon, la brebis”, in the context
of the province of Barjr Hayk‘ = Upper Armenia. The corresponding passage in the
short recension only has erēs (APl) bazum ‘many kinds of deer’; see A. G.
Abrahamyan 1944: 349. As aṙn means ‘wild male sheep’, it seems that the pair aṙn
and arti, like that of k‘aɫs (APl) and ayc, represents a contrast between the male and
the female, respectively. Consequently, arti is usually interpreted as ‘wild female
sheep’ [Soukry, ibid.; Eremyan 1963: 92a; Hewsen 1992: 15318]. This seems
attractive, since there are some other designations of female animals formed with the
suffix -i < *-ieh2-, see s.vv. -i, ayc(i), mak‘i, etc. In view of the lack of other
attestations of the word under discussion, the idea can be verified only by means of
etymology. ●ETYM The word is derived from art ‘arable land, cornfield’ in NHB 1: 382b
(“sheep of art, that is wild”), which does not cite the attestation of Armenian
Geography. Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 343) mentions this interpretation without comments
and leaves the origin of arti(k) open.
In view of the idea that at prehistoric stages the semantics of art may have been
generic (cf. Skt. ájra- m. ‘Ebene, Fläche, Flur’ (RV), etc., see s.v. art for the
discussion), the derivation art-i could actually mean ‘wild, undomesticated’ (exactly
like the Greek cognate ἄγριος ‘wild’ < ἀγρός ‘Feld, Acker’; see Frisk 1: 16),
referring particularly to animals for hunting, cf. vayr ‘field’ : vayri ‘wild’ > ‘wild
sheep’, dial. (Zeyt‘un) ‘hind’ [HAB 4: 300-301], also verik‘ ‘wild sheep’ in the epic
“Sasna cṙer”. Note in Psalms 103[104].11 [Rahlfs 1931: 258]: τὰ ϑηρία τοῦ ἀγροῦ
‘wild animals’, literally ‘beasts of the field’; see Dahood 1970: 38. Cf. also Hitt.
gimraš ḫuitar ‘animals of the fields’ [Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 469]. Further,
see 3.5.2.3.
Thus, the interpretation of NHB, according to which arti(k) is derived from art
‘field’ and basically means ‘wild sheep’, is still valid. The formation with *-i̯omight be parallel to that of Gr. ἄγριος ‘wild’, which is etymologically related.
However, one cannot be sure whether we are dealing with the suffix -i derived from
*-io- (cf. kogi, -woy, -wov ‘butter’ : Skt. gávya-, gavyá- ‘aus Rindern bestehend’,
etc.) or *-ieh2- (cf. *h1oiHu-ieh2 > aygi, -woy, -eac‘ ‘grape-vine; grape-garden’, etc.)
unless new evidence is found. The above-mentioned parallel vayr-i represents the
latter type, in view of GDPl vayreac‘. Another important parallel is *and-i / andeayk‘ ‘cattle’ (q.v.) from and ‘field’, a synonym of art, so we have an interesting
contrast between domesticated and wild animals within the framework of the
semantic expression ‘animals of the (household/wild) field’.
The semantic development under discussion can also be traced in a few dialectal
expressions (HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 135b), in which art functions in the basic
meaning of “(animal) of art, belonging to art”, that is ‘wild, undomesticated
(animal)’:
artn ənkac šun (Łarabaɫ) lit.: “a dog that wanders in art”, refers to an indecent,
wandering, undomesticated woman;
arti xoroz (Sebastia) ‘dragon-fly’, lit. “rooster of art” (cf. Lat. agrion virgo
‘damsel-fly’);
arti muk (dialectal area not indicated) ‘field-mouse’.
Note also in a curse: tunt-teɫt art əlla ‘may your house and place become
field/wilderniss’.
ark‘ay, i-stem ‘king’ (Bible+).
More than a thousand attestations in the Bible (see Astuacaturean 1895: 234-241,
derivatives 241-243). The root *ark‘- is found in derivatives such as ark‘-uni
‘royal’, ark‘un-akan, ark‘-akan ‘id.’, etc. (HAB 1: 346a; see also Matzinger 2000:
285).
●DIAL Akn, Xarberd ark‘eni ‘strong/broad limbed’; cf. ark‘eni ‘well-grown (plant)’
in Geoponica (13th cent.). The derivative ark‘ay-ut‘iwn ‘heavenly kingdom’ (literary
loan) is widespread [HAB 1: 347a]. Further, see below.
●ETYM Since long (Acoluthus /1680/, Schröder, Klaproth, NHB, etc.), linked with
Gr. ἀρχός m. ‘leader’, ἀρχή f. ‘beginning, origin’, ἄρχων, -οντος m. ‘commander, archon’, ἄρχω ‘to be the first’ (see HAB 1: 346-347; Ačaṙyan himself rejects the
etymology). J̌
ahukyan (1987: 272) points out that the IE origin of Arm. ark‘ay is
highly doubtful. Matzinger (2000) posits *h2er-s-ke/o- ‘Akt des Fügens’ which is
formally uncertain (I would expect Arm. *arc‘- from *h2rsk-) and semantically
unattractive. A similar form has been reconstructed by Klingenschmitt (1974: 2741;
see also Matzinger 2000: 28827; Vine 2005: 260) for Gr. ἄρχω, deriving it from a
root to which ἄριστος ‘the best, first, noblest’ belongs. This is semantically
plausible, but the formal objection concerning the Armenian form remains valid.
In view of -ay, ark‘ay is considered to be a Greek loan via Syriac (Schmitt 1980:
1412; see also J̌
ahukyan 1987: 43922, 463; Olsen 1999: 612, 931).
One may alternatively assume that Arm. ark‘ay and its Greek match, which has
no established etymology, reflect a common borrowing from a Mediterranean
source: *arkh
- or *arχ-. For Arm. -ay, Patrubány (StuHetaz 1908: 152a) compares
Arm. caṙay ‘servant’. Other examples of -ay referring to age, size and other
characteristics of persons can be found in Pedersen 1906: 398 = 1982: 176 (cf.
Matzinger 2000: 288-289).
Arm. *ark‘-un may be equated with ἄρχων, -οντος, from *arkh
-ont. Compare
Arm. cer-un ‘old’ (also cer-un-i) : Gr. γέρων ‘old man’ (see s.v. cer ‘old’).
According to Ačaṙyan (1913: 155b; not in HAB 1: 347a), Gr. ἀρχ- ‘to begin’ can
be connected with Łarabaɫ *arc‘ ‘the beginning of a weaving’, *arc‘el ‘to begin
weaving’ from older *arj-. For the phonological correspondence, cf. Arm. orj >
Łarabaɫ vəɛrc‘ vs. Gr. ὄρχις ‘testicle’. Neither the semantics is problematic, cf. the
semantic field of ἀρχή : ‘beginning, origin; first principle, element; end, corner, of a
bandage, rope, sheet, etc.; origin of a curve’. It is theoretically possible that Gr. ἀρχή
and Arm. *arj-a- (survived in Łarabaɫ) derive from QIE *arĝh
-eh2- ‘beginning’,
whereas Arm. *arkh
- belongs with the same Greek root at a younger period.26
awaz, o-stem (later also ISg -aw) ‘sand; dust’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects. Łarabaɫ has hávaz, with an initial h- [HAB 1:
351b; Davt‘yan 1966: 322].
●ETYM Connected with Gr. ἄμαϑος f., ψάμμος f. ‘sand’, Lat. sabulum ‘sand’, OHG
sant, MHG. sampt ‘sand’, etc. (see HAB 1: 351; Normier 1980: 19; J̌
ahukyan 1987:
116; Olsen 1999: 24, 782; Witczak 1999: 184-185; Viredaz 2005: 85). Probably of
non-IE origin [Beekes apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 499b]. J̌
ahukyan (1987: 601)
points out the correspondence between IE and WCauc. forms (Abkhaz saba ‘dust’,
etc.). For the problem of the initial h- in Łarabaɫ as a reflex of IE *s-, see
AčaṙHLPatm 2, 1951: 411 (with a question mark); N. Simonyan 1979: 211, 213
(sceptical).
However, the connection of Arm. awaz is often considered uncertain (see
Greppin 1983: 317-318; 1989: 167; Beekes apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 499b). For
the problem of z, see also s.v. ezr ‘edge’. In my view, awaz may be an Iranian loan,
cf. Sogd. (Man.) ’’wzy ‘Seen, Teich’, NPers. āwāze ‘swamp’ (see Bailey 1979: 478-
479; Colditz 1987: 282), if the semantic shift ‘swamp’ > ‘silt’ > ‘sand’ is possible. If
this is accepted, awaz is connected with awazan, a-stem ‘Wasserbehälter, Teich, Badewanne, Taufbecken’ (Bible+), which has probably been borrowed from the
same Iranian word through Syriac (avzānā ‘font = Taufbecken’) mediation; cf. also
NPers. āb-zan ‘a particular kind of bathing-vessel; the basin of a fountain’ (see
Hübschmann 1897: 111-112; HAB 1: 352; and, especially, J̌
ahukyan 1987: 517,
where Sogd. /āwaza/ ‘lake’ is mentioned, too).
I wonder if these words are related with Arab. (> Turk.) havz ‘basin’, borrowed
into Arm. dialects: Polis havuz, Łarabaɫ hɔvuz, Van avuz (see Ačaṙean 1902: 210).
Even if not, a contamination seems probable, cf. J̌
uɫa havizaran ‘font = Taufbecken’
next to hɔvz ‘garden-basin’ (see HAB 1: 352b; Ačaṙyan 1940: 355a). The initial hin Łarabaɫ hávaz ‘sand’ may also be explained in a more or less similar way. We
arrive, then, at a theoretically possible form *ha/ovzan, which can indirectly be
corroborated by Arm. hnjan ‘wine-press’ (q.v.).
awd1, o- and i-stem ‘footwear’ (John Chrysostom, Romance of Alexander, etc.). For
the generic semantics ‘footwear’ as opposed with the specific kawšik ‘shoes’, cf.
T‘ovma Arcruni 2.7 /10th cent./ (1985: 192; transl. Thomson 1985: 187): awd otic‘n
hnaraworen zjew kawškac‘ “for footwear they use a form of boot”.
●ETYM Apparently related to Lith. aũtas ‘foot-cloth, rag’, Latv. àuts ‘cloth,
bandage’ [HAB 4: 607b-608a; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 123, 159]; see s.v. aw-t‘-oc‘ ‘cover,
coat, garment; blanket’. The underlying verb is seen in Arm. ag-anim ‘to put on’ and
several cognate forms meaning ‘put on footwear’: Lith. aũti, OCS obuti, Lat.
induere. Note also Umbr. anouihimu ‘an sich nehmen, sich (etwas) anlegen,
anziehen’ < *an- + verbal stem *ou̯-ē- or *ou̯-ī- “mit der Wz. *ə1eu̯- oder *ə3eu̯-
‘(Bekleidung) anziehen’” [Untermann 2000: 112].
Arm. awd goes back to QIE *H(V)u-dh
-. Av. aoϑra- ‘footwear’ hardly bears
testimony for the voiced aspirated suffixal element, most probably reflecting
*Hou-tleh2- (cf. Lat. subūcula ‘woolen undertunic’, Lith. aũklė ‘shoe-lace, cord,
foot-cloth’, etc.; see Mallory/Adams 1997: 109a). It has been assumed that Arm.
awd contains the suffix *-dh
- also found in Gr. ἔσϑος n. (cf. ἐσϑής f.) ‘clothing’
[Klingenschmitt 1982: 173-174; Clackson 1994: 22499].
If reliable, this explanation of d can serve as a counter-example for the sound
development Arm. -r- < PIE *-dh
- (see s.v. ayrem ‘to burn’). The same also holds for
awd ‘air’ (q.v.).
awd2, o-stem: GDSg awd-o-y, ISg awd-o-v, GDPl awd-o-c‘ in the Bible (Astuacaturean 1895: 1554), Hexaemeron (K. Muradyan 1984: 43L2f, 195L6), frequent in
“Yaɫags ampoc‘ ew nšanac‘” by Anania Širakac‘i, 7th cent. (A. G. Abrahamyan
1944: 304ff); later also i-stem; ‘air’, dial. also ‘breath’ and ‘wind’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Preserved in Axalc‘xa, Karin, Muš, Alaškert, J̌
uɫa, etc. (also in the compound
*ōd-u-hava ‘weather’); cf. also Van *tak‘-ōd-k‘ (with tak‘ ‘warm’) ‘fever’, Nor
Bayazet *ōd kpnil ‘to catch a cold’ [HAB 4: 609a], Łarabaɫ hɔt‘k‘ (erroneously
printed čɔt‘k‘, see HAB-Add 1982: 19) < *y-ōd-k‘ ‘the warm breath/expiration of
the mouth’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 807a; HAB 4: 609a]. J̌
uɫa h’ɔt‘ (see Ačaṙean 1940:
98-99, 161, 390) may continue the prefix y- ‘in’ seen in the reflex of the Łarabaɫ
form. This by-form *y-awd would have basically meant ‘inhalation’ with a
subsequent development to ‘breath’. The compound *bal-ōd preserved in Bulanəx b‘alɔt‘ ‘wind accompanied by
snow(-storm)’ (HAB 1: 383b; see s.v. bal ‘fog’) seems to comprise the word awd
‘air’ as the second component. The latter functions here in the meaning ‘wind’.
●ETYM Since Klaproth (1823=1831: 103a), compared with IE forms going back to
*aw- (*h2ueh1-, cf. Gr. ἄημι, etc.) ‘to blow’ (see HAB 4: 608-609). Patrubány
(StugHetaz 1908: 214b) points to the dental determinative *-t- found in Gr. ἀϋτμή f.,
ἀϋτμήν, -ένος m. ‘breath; scent’. Petersson (1920: 66) reconstructs *audh
ocomparing Lith. áudra, audrà ‘storm (usually accompanied by rain or snow)’ <
*audh
-rā-, OIc. veđr n. ‘Wind, Luft, Wetter’, OHG wetar ‘Wetter, Witterung, freie
Luft’ (< *uedh
-ro-), etc., and suggests a connection with Oss. ud/od ‘spirit, soul’.
The etymology of the Ossetic word is considered uncertain (see Cheung 2002: 233).
On the Armenian form, Cheung (ibid.) notes: “borrowing?”.
The reconstruction *audh
o- (= *h2eu(h1)-dh
-o-) is commonly accepted [HAB 4:
608; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 48]. Olsen (1999: 56) points out that a relation of Arm. ōd
(=awd) with the root *h2ueh1- ‘to blow’ seems inevitable, but “the derivational
process is rather obscure”. Then she suggests a proto-form *h1su-h2uh1-to-. This
seems, however, unnecessary.
If Av. aodar ‘Kälte’, probably a neuter r-stem (on the morphology of the word,
see Beekes 1988b: 122-124; Hoffmann/Forssman 1996: 150-151), Lith. áudra,
audrà ‘storm’, etc. are related, they may contain *-dh
- (as the above-mentioned
Germanic forms) rather than *-d-, providing us with more evidence for the
reconstruction *h2eu(h1)-dh
-. For the problem of the internal laryngeal, see 2.1.20.
One may reconstruct a neuter s-stem *h2eudh
-os (yielding regularly Arm. awd,
o-stem) beside the r-stem neuter represented in Iranian, cf. the case of get, o-stem
‘river’ (q.v.) from *uedos- vs. PIE *ued-r/n-.
On the problem of the -d, see also s.v. awd ‘foot-wear’
awt‘, i-stem, GDSg awt‘-i (Ezekiel 23.17 = καταλύοντων), GDPl awt‘-i-c‘ (Movsēs
Xorenac‘i 1.16) ‘sleeping place, lodging place, spending the night; evening, night’
(Bible+), awt‘ev/wan < *awt‘i-a-van or -awan ‘lodging place, inn’ (Bible+); erekawt‘, i-stem: IPl erekawt‘-i-w-k‘ ‘passing the night’ (Agat‘angeɫos, Movsēs
Xorenac‘i, etc.); awt‘-ek and awt‘-ekan ‘stale, food which remained from a previous
day’ (Canon Law, see Weitenberg 1996: 99, 1156); deverbative verb awt‘em or
awt‘im, imper. awt‘ea ‘to spend the night’ (Yovhannēs Ōjnec‘i, Gregory of Nyssa,
etc.); compound verbs awt‘-aganim, etc. (Bible+), with aganim ‘to spend the night’
GDPl awt‘-i-c‘ is attested in Movsēs Xorenac‘i 1.16 (1913= 1991: 54L9f; transl.
Thomson 1978: 101): pēs pēs tačars ew seneaks ōt‘ic‘ ew tuns ganjuc‘ “various
temples and chambers and treasure houses” (see s.v. anjaw for the full passage).
IPl erek-awt‘-i-w-k‘ is found in Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.66 (1913= 1991: 202L1f;
transl. Thomson 1978: 213): əndunic‘in hiwrk‘ erekōt‘iwk‘ “be received as guests
for the night”. Further attestations of this compound: erekōt‘s arareal and ōt‘evans
narareal (in Patmut‘iwn srboc‘ Hṙip‘simeanc‘, see MovsXorenMaten 1865: 300L13
and 301L4f, respectively); ew and erekawt‘s arareal in Yovhan Mamikonean (A.
Abrahamyan 1941: 113L2). For the attestations of a compound with c‘ayg ‘night’, c‘ayg-awt‘, see in the
addendum apud NHB 2: 1059c27.
In the late medieval dictionary Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ we find aṙōt‘ glossed as minč‘ew
erekoy ‘till the night’ (Amalyan 1975: 32Nr759), which is correctly interpreted by
J
̌
ahukyan 1976a: 41 as composed of aṙ ‘at, by, to, before’ and awt‘ ‘spending the
night, evening, night’.
●DIAL The verb awt‘il ‘to spend the night’ is present in Akn ɔt‘il [HAB 4: 610b]. An
illustration of imperative ɔt‘ɛ (cf. the literary awt‘ea) can be found in an incantation
(Čanikean 1895: 167; S. Harut‘yunyan 2006: 153Nr205A): S. Sargis, mer tunə ɔt‘ɛ “S.
Sargis, spend the night in our house”.
Under the entry awt‘ek(an) ‘stale, food which remained from a previous day’
NHB 2: 1024a records dial. ōt‘eki kerakur ‘yesterday’s food, stale food’. This form
is identical with Meɫri ɔ́
t‘ɛk
y ‘id.’ (Aɫayan 1954: 291a, cf. 336; Weitenberg 1996:
99); cf. Łarabaɫ ɔ́
t‘ɛ/i [HAB 4: 610b; Davt‘yan 1966: 501], Hadrut‘ ɔt‘ɛ [A.
Poɫosyan 1965: 31], Goris ɔt‘i [Margaryan 1975: 501a]. Note also Łazax ɔt‘ánal ‘to
become stale, old’ [HAB 4: 610b], which is formally identical with awt‘anal attested
in Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i as a reading variant (see NHB 2: 1023c).
Durean 1933: 114 records an illness caused by the demon (dew) called gišerōt‘ik,
lit. ‘who dwells/lodges in the night’.
●ETYM A *-ti-derivative of ag- ‘to spend the night’ (Müller 1890: 8; Bugge 1892:
446; Hübschmann 1897: 411-412 with hesitation; HAB 4: 610; Schmitt 1981: 52,
54H).
The underlying PIE verb seems to be found exclusively with *-s-, thus *h2ues-. A
QIE *h2(e)us-ti- would yield Arm. *awsti-. One may therefore assume an innerArmenian formation with PArm. *aw(s)- or *ag- (< *h2(e)us-) and the suffix *-tiwhich remained productive in different stages of Armenian. Further see s.v. aganim
‘to spend the night’.
awt‘-oc‘, a-stem (GDPl awt‘oc‘-ac‘ in Plato) ‘cover, coat, garment; blanket’ (Bible+).
●ETYM Related with ag-anim ‘to put on’ and awd ‘shoes’ (q.v.), cf. Lith. aũtas
‘foot-cloth, rag’, aũti ‘to put on footwear’, Latv. àuts ‘cloth, bandage’ [Ačaṙean
1908: 121a; Lidén 1933: 41; HAB 4: 609b]. From IE *H(V)u-to- (see Olsen 1999:
536).
awcanem, 3.sg.act awc, imper. awc, 3.sg.pass. awc-a-w, etc. ‘to anoint; to cover by a
thin layer of gold, etc.’ (Bible+), also with z- (Bible+); awcem, imper. awcea ‘to
anoint’ (Ephrem+), awc ‘anointment, unguent’ (Paterica, etc.; cf. dial. Maraɫa).
●DIAL The verbal forms *ōcel (widespread) and *ōcanel (T‘iflis, Muš, Svedia,
Zeyt‘un, J̌
uɫa, Salmast) are considered literary loans. The noun ōc ‘anointment,
unguent’ is present in Maraɫa. Note also Van *ōc-uk ‘baptized, anointed; Armenian’
[HAB 4: 611b].
Zeyt‘un presents structural and semantic contrast: uznɛl ‘to smear, grease’ <
ōcanel vs. ujil ‘to anoint, baptize’ < ōcel (Ačaṙyan 2003: 143, 344). ●ETYM Since Windischmann, etc. (see HAB 4: 611), connected with Skt. añj- ‘to
anoint, smear’, pres. VII 3sg.act. anákti, 3pl.act. añjánti, áñjas- n. ‘anointment’,
ā́ñjana- n. ‘ointment, fat’, Lat. unguere ‘to anoint’, OIr. imb ‘butter’ and Bret.
amann ‘id.’ from Celt. *amban < *h3ngw
-n̥ (see Schrijver 1991: 50, 62; 1995: 351),
OHG ancho ‘butter’, etc.
The Armenian form is explained by a transfer nasal infix > nasal suffix and a
phonological development *n̥gw
- (*h3ngw
-) > *Hnw
g- > *auĝ-, see Meillet 1892a:
59; 1936: 37, 44, 106-107; Hübschmann 1897: 426; Pedersen 1906: 358, 409 =
1982: 136, 187; HAB 4: 611; Dumézil 1938a: 100-101; Pokorny 1959: 779; Hamp
1975; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 178-180; Klingenschmitt 1982: 164-229 (on awcanem : 180-
182); Ravnæs 1991: 12, 40-41; Clackson 1994: 84-85. For further references and a
discussion, see s.v. awj ‘snake’ and 2.1.27.1.
awj, i-stem: GDSg awj-i, GDPl awj-i-c‘, AblSg y-awj-i-c‘ ‘snake’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Dialectally ubiquitous [HAB 4: 612b]. For Łarabaɫ ɔxcə, etc., see Weitenberg
1996: 94ff.
●ETYM Since long (NHB, Windischmann, etc., see HAB 4: 612), connected with
Lat. anguis m.f. ‘snake’, Lith. angìs f. ‘snake’, etc. One assumes a development PIE
*angwh-i- (read *h2engwh-i-) > PArm. *anw
gi > *awĝh
i (with *gh > *ĝh
before *u/w) >
*awj-i-, see Hübschmann 1877: 26; 1897: 426; Meillet 1892a: 59; 1936: 154; HAB
4: 611-612; Dumézil 1938a: 100; Pisani 1950: 191; Pokorny 1959: 43; J̌
ahukyan
1982: 43, 57; Ravnæs 1991: 40-41; Clackson 1994: 54, 107-108; Olsen 1999: 7828.
For this development, see 2.1.27.1. In this particular case, the involving of the tabu
(HAB 4: 612a; AčaṙLiak 6, 1971: 722; J̌
ahukyan 1992: 21; see on tabu 2.1.36) is
unnecessary because the phonological explanation is satisfactory.
This development has taken place probably only in zero grade (see Beekes 2003:
204-205, 208-209; cf. Kortlandt 1980: 99 = 2003: 27), cf. OHG unc ‘snake’ <
PGerm. *ung- < IE *h2ngwh- (see Schrijver 1991: 43-44, 60; for a discussion, see
also Lubotsky 1988: 29). The full-grade *h2enĝh
- would yield *hanj-.
For a further discussion, see s.v. iž, i-stem ‘viper’ which belongs to the nasalless
PIE by-form of ‘snake’ reflected in Skt. áhi- m. ‘snake, adder’, YAv. aži- m. ‘snake,
dragon’, Gr. ὄφις ‘snake’, ἔχις m.f. ‘adder’, etc. (see Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992:
156). For an extensive treatment of the PIE word for ‘snake’, see Katz 1998. See
also s.v. əngɫay prob. ‘eel’.
The remarkable resemblance of Arm. awj with Toch. B auk ‘snake, serpent’ (see
Pisani 1941-42: 180-182; 1950: 188, 191-192) has probably been resulted from
convergent developments; cf. Adams 1999: 129-130: *h1ógwhi- > PToch. *ekw >
*ewk (metathesis).
awji-k‘ pl. tant., ea-stem: APl awji-s, IPl awje-a-w-k‘ (Bible+), GDPl awje-a-c‘ in
Nersēs Lambronac‘i; awj, i-stem: IPl awj-i-w-k‘ only in Yovhannēs
Erznkac‘i/Corcorec‘i (13-14th cent.) ‘collar’. Bible, Ephrem, etc.
●DIAL No dialectal forms in HAB 4: 612b.
According to Andreasyan (1967: 389b), Svedia anjənäk‘ represents ClArm.
awjik‘. Note also K‘esab anjnek, glossed by ōjik‘ [HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 63b].
●ETYM No etymology is accepted in HAB 4: 612b.
Adontz (1937: 10; see also Pisani 1950: 188-192) connects with Gr. αὐχήν, -ένος
m. ‘neck, throat; isthmus’ (Il.), Aeol. literary ἄμφην, -ενος ‘neck’. The relationship
between these words has been disputed. The following solutions have been
proposed: (1) all the three words are derived from a root *anĝh
w- or *angwh- (for the
phonological development, see e.g. s.v. acuɫ ‘coal’; (2) Arm. awj-i-k‘ is a derivation
of awj ‘snake’; (3) Gr. ἄμφην may be connected to OHG anka, anca ‘back of the
head, limb’, etc.; (4) the two Greek words may be borrowings from a lost source.
For a discussion, I refer to Morani 1981; Clackson 1994: 107-109, 224106.
The derivation from awj ‘snake’ (see NHB 2: 1026c; Hiwnk‘earpēyēntean apud
HAB 4: 612b) is uncertain [Clackson 1994: 108].
De Lagarde (1854: 26L682) and Scheftelowitz (1927: 249) connected Arm. viz (<
*vēĝh
-) ‘neck’, gen. vz-i, with Gr. αὐχήν. This etymology is largely forgotten, and viz
is still considered to be a word of unknown origin [HAB 4: 337-338; J̌
ahukyan
1990: 71, sem. field 4]. However, it is worth of consideration. Note also dial. *xizin Agulis xáyzak ‘back of the head’, and, in compounds, *xiz or *xuz in Łarabaɫ, etc.,
*xoyz or *xiwz in J̌
uɫa *xuz-a-tak. See s.v. viz.
I tentatively suggest to treat Gr. αὐχήν and Arm. awj-i-k‘ and viz (dial. also *xiz,
*xuz/xoyz/xiwz) as words of substratum origin, tentatively reconstructing something,
which in Indo-European terms can be represented as NSg *h2uēĝh
-, obl. *h2uĝh
-. The
form *h2uĝh
- (>> *h2wĝh
-, with *-w- analogical after the nominative) would explain
Arm. awj-i-k‘ (perhaps also dial. *xuz, via an unknown language) whereas nom.
*h2uēĝh
- may have yielded Arm. viz through an unknown intermediary source (note
the loss of the initial laryngeal in this position in most of IE languages). Another
form with a pharyngeal fricative (an unattested Anatolian form?), something like
*ḫuēz, may be responsible for *xiz and *xoyz. For the vocalic fluctuation, cf. višap :
*yušap ‘dragon’, etc. See also s.vv. yogn-, xonǰ ‘tired’.
The relation with Aeol. ἄμφην, -ενος ‘neck’ remains unclear. It is tempting to
derive it from *angwh-en- connecting with Arm. dial. (Svedia, K‘esab) *anj-Vn-.
Arm. j points to *ĝh
, however. One may tentatively reconstruct the following
paradigm: nom. *h2éngwh-, obl. *h2ngwh-; the latter (zero grade) developed into
*h2nw
gwh- > PArm. *augh
- (with regular palatalization of the velar after -u-) > Arm.
awj-, whereas the former retained the nasal and can be seen in Gr. ἄμφην and Arm.
*anjVn-. Arm. -j- is analogical after *awj-. This is reminiscent of Arm. acuɫ ‘coal’ <
*aucúɫo- from *h1(o)ngw
-ōl-o- (cf. Skt. áṅgāra-, etc.) vs. dial. *anjoɫ (see s.v. acuɫ
‘coal’). If Gr. ἄμφην and Arm. *anjVn- are not related to Gr. αὐχήν and Arm.
awji-k‘, Arm. j can be explained by contamination.
awɫi (GDSg awɫwoy in NHB 2: 1027b, but without references) ‘a strong fermented
drink, intoxicating beverage’ (Bible+); in Modern Armenian = araɫ and Russ. vódka.
In Judges 13.4,7,14 and Luke 1.15: gini ew awɫi : οἰ̃νον καὶ σίκερα.
Later: uɫi in Knik‘ hawatoy(Seal of Faith), 7th cent.; eawɫi in “Girk‘ t‘ɫt‘oc‘”
[HAB 4: 613a]. Compounds in Canon Law: ambraw-awɫi (with ambraw ‘date’) and
meɫr-awɫi (with meɫr ‘honey’).
The actual source of the compound gar-awɫi ‘beer’, lit. ‘barley-liquor’
(Malxaseanc‘ HBB 1: 416b; mentioned also by Mann, 1963: 4, 33, without any
reference) is unknown to me. ●ETYM Ačaṙyan (1908: 121a) compares awɫi with Balto-Slavic and Germanic words
for ‘beer’ (cf. Lith. alùs ‘beer’, etc.) but notes that the relationship is uncertain. He is
also sceptical in HAB 4: 613b. The same comparison has independently been
proposed by Mann (1963: 4, 33; see also Toporov, PrJaz A-D, 1975: 80), who
derives awɫi from *oluii ̯ ̯o- or *aluii ̯ ̯o-. These forms would yield Arm. *oɫgi or *aɫgi,
however. Olsen (1999: 443, 799) suggests a better analysis: *(h)alu- > Arm. *awɫ- +
derivational suffix *-io- or *-iah2- > -i. The sound change *alu- > Arm. *awɫ- may
be due to w-epenthesis [Beekes 2003: 205] or, perhaps better, metathesis.
J̌
ahukyan (1990: 71, sem. field 5) considers awɫi to be a word of unknown origin.
In my view, the above etymology is worth of consideration, and awɫi is best derived
from *alut- + -i. It must be emphasized that (1) the words that belong here refer not
only to ‘beer’, but also to ‘a strong fermented drink’, ‘mead’, etc. (note especially
that both Arm. awɫi and Russ. CS olъ correspond to Gr. σίκερα ‘a kind of fermented
drink’); (2) they point to *alut-: Oss. æluton ‘a kind of beer’, Georg. (a)ludi ‘beer’,
PSlav. *olъ ‘a kind of fermented drink’, Russ. CS olъ ‘хмельной напиток из ржи,
ячменя и т.п.’, OPr. alu ‘mead’, OEngl. ealu(þ), Engl. ale ‘beer’, Finn. olut (prob.
from Germ.) ‘beer’ (see Abaev 1949: 338-347; 1964: 96; 1965: 11, 63; Pokorny
1959: 33-34; Otrębski 1966: 51-52; Dumézil 1967a: 30; Toporov, PrJaz A-D, 1975:
79-81; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 932 = 1995: 825; Xač‘aturova 1987;
Mallory/Adams 1997: 60; ÈtimSlovSlavJaz 32, 2005: 76, 80-81).29
*awn ‘property’, only gen. awn-o-y found in the compound awnoy-tēr ‘lord of
property, proprietor, owner’ in Agat‘angeɫos § 376 (emended as aygwoy tēr ‘Lord of
the vineyard’ in 1909=1980: 188L15 and Thomson 2001: 108) and John
Chrysostom; ‘legitimate husband of a woman’ (Yačaxapatum); MidArm. unetēr
‘owner’ (Law Code by Smbat Sparapet); unclear is ger-awneal corresponding to Gr.
ἐπιπολάζων.
For a philological analysis, see Norayr Biwzandac‘i 1911: 168; HAB 1: 361-362;
Lindeman 1978-79: 412; Greppin 1983: 321-322.
MidArm. unetēr ‘owner’ may contain un- ‘to take, have’, MidArm. ‘to possess’
(q.v.). ●DIAL No dialectal record in HAB 1: 362a.
It is unclear whether hɔn/yɔn/ɔn ‘individual share of a mower’ (Amatuni 1912:
401-402; Ačaṙean 1913: 667; M. Asatryan 1962: 224b) belongs here and reflects
*hawn, *(y)awn.
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 361-362) connects awn with Skt. ápnas- n. ‘produce,
property, possession’, YAv. afnaŋv
haṇt- ‘rich in property’, Gr. ὄμπνη ‘food, corn’,
ὄμπν(ε)ιος ‘pertaining to corn, nutritious, fruitful’, OIc. efni ‘material, goods’, efna
‘to carry out, work’, Lat. opēs f. pl. ‘wealth; resources, assistance’, etc. (see also
Aɫabekyan 1979: 58; hesitantly J̌
ahukyan 1987: 141, 267).
This PIE etymon may be linked with *h3ep-: Skt. ápas- n. ‘work, action’, Lat.
opus, -eris n. ‘work, effort’, opulentus ‘wealthy; abounding with resources;
sumptuous’, opulentia ‘riches, wealth; sumptuousness’, OHG uoben ‘to start to
work, practice, worship’, Hitt. ḫāppar- ‘trade, business’, ḫappinant- ‘rich’, etc., for
the forms and a discussion, see Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 746 = 1995, 1: 649-650; Melchert 1987: 21; Lubotsky 1990: 131; Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 84-85, 88;
Lindeman 1997: 50; Mallory/Adams 1997: 637b (*h2-); Viereck/Goldammer 2003:
407-408; Kloekhorst 2006: 92.
A QIE *opn- would yield Arm. *own > *un (cf. J̌
ahukyan 1972: 259; Lindeman
1978-79: 41). To solve the vocalic problem one may assume PD n. gen. *h3pn-e/os-s
> Arm. awno-y (note that the word is attested only in the genitive). If dial. *hawn
belongs here, it may point to *h3epnos- with analogical -a- after the oblique stem.
An Iranian intermediation has been considered as a possibility (J̌
ahukyan 1987:
267).
The connection of Arm. awn to Gr. ἄφενος ‘wealth’ (Lindeman 1978-79; 1990:
201; cf. also references in Greppin 1983: 321-322) is doubtful (Clackson 1994: 181),
as is the appurtenance of this Greek word to *h3ep- (see the references above). See
also s.v. ap‘ ‘palm of the hand’.
On the whole, the etymology of Ačaṙyan can be regarded at least as possible. It
should be borne in mind, however, that the philological status of the word is
uncertain; a thorough examination is needed.
awr, gen. awur, instr. awur-b, etc. ‘day; time, age’ (Bible+).
For the meaning ‘age’ note e.g. P‘awstos Buzand 3.12 (1883=1984: 26L-1f; transl.
Garsoïan 1989: 83): Zi awurbk‘ manuk, tiōk‘ aṙoyg : “For he was young in years,
vigorous”.
●DIAL Dialectally ubiquitous [HAB 4: 617a].
●ETYM Connected with Gr. ἦμαρ, Arc. ἆμαρ, -ατος n. ‘day’, ἡμέρα, Dor., etc. ἀμέρα
‘id.’; *āmōr > PArm. *amur < *aw
mur > *awur (see Meillet 1922d: 59; 1936: 55;
HAB 4: 616-617; Clackson 1994: 96-97; Olsen 1999: 176-177). Probably to be
reconstructed as *Heh2m-ōr. For further discussion and references, see s.vv. ayr
‘man’, anurǰ ‘dream’.
*awre(a)r, GDPl awrer-a-c‘ ‘disgrace, insult, taunt, curse’.
Attested only in P‘awstos Buzand 5.3 (1883=1984: 160L2f; transl. Garsoïan 1989:
188):
Apa patmec‘aw t‘agaworin Papay yaɫags ōrerac‘n (var. ōrinac‘n), zor ed Hayr
mardpetn tiknoǰn P‘aṙanjemay, mōr t‘agaworin Papay, t‘šnamans jaɫanac‘ i
berdargel pašarmann; zi ibrew zboz mi, aynpēs t‘šnamaneac‘ zna i žamanaki, ibrew
emut andr gaɫtuk, ew ed anargans tiknoǰn, ew ekn el anti ew p‘axeaw; etun zays
amenayn zroyc‘ t‘agaworin : “Then King Pap was told of the curses of the hayr
mardpet against King Pap’s mother, Queen P‘aṙanjem; of his taunts during the siege
of the fortress, when he had berated her like a harlot at the time that he had secretly
entered [into the fortress], insulted the queen, come out, and fled. They related all of
this to the king”.
Garsoïan, thus, translates the word *awre(a)r as ‘curses’. Malxasyanc‘ (1987:
293) renders it as viravorank‘ ‘insult’.
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 617b) rejects all the etymological attempts, including the
comparison with Gr. ἀρά ‘prayer, curse’ suggested in NHB 2: 1032b. J̌
ahukyan
1990: 72 (semantic field 21) considers a word of unknown origin.
The interpretation of NHB is worth considering. We can treat the word as
composed of an otherwise unattested *aru/w- ‘curse’ (cf. Gr. Att. ἀρά, Ion. ἀρή f. ‘prayer, curse’ < PGr. *arua ̯ ̄́ < *h2ru-éh2-)
30 and the plur.-coll. -ear, found in e.g.
ban-ear ‘calumny’ (attested amongst others in the very same source, P‘awstos
Buzand, see s.v. ban ‘speech, word’).
An *h2ru̯- or *aru̯- would yield Arm. *arg-. One may therefore posit a QIE fem.
or coll. *h2(o)ru-h2- (beside *h2eru-eh2- in Greek), or an old *u-stem *h2(e/o)r-u- or
Mediterranean substratum *arw-. Thus *aru/w- > *aur- + -ear = awrear. For the
development *aRu- > *awR-, see s.vv. ayr ‘man’, awɫi ‘a strong fermented drink,
intoxicating beverage’, awr ‘day’.
The Greek word (cf. also the verb ἀράομαι ‘to pray’) has been compared with
Hitt. aruu̯ae-zi ‘to prostrate oneself, bow, make obeisance’ and Umbr. arves
‘precibus’ (for references and a discussion, see Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 802 =
1995, 1: 703; Starke 1990: 447, 4471612; Kloekhorst 2006: 83-84; 2008: 213).
Less probable is the connection of the Greek word with CLuw. ḫirun, ḫirut- n.
‘oath’ (Vine 2005: 260-261 with references and a discussion; Starke 1990: 572-576
on the CLuw. forms). This etymology has been rejected by Lindeman (1997: 82,
8280).
awriord, a-stem: GDSg -i in EpArm.; GDPl -ac‘ in Nersēs Šnorhali (12th cent.); IPl
-aw-k‘ in Grigor Skewṙac‘i (12-13th cent.) [NHB 2: 940c, s.v. p‘esawēr] ‘virgin,
young girl’ (Bible+). In fact, the oldest attestation is found twice in pre-Christian
epic songs (GDSg ōriord-i), recorded by the great Armenian historian Movsēs
Xorenac‘i (2.50 : 1913=1991: 178L20, 179L4; transl. Thomson 1978: 192).
●ETYM Łap‘anc‘yan (1961: 121-122, 134) interprets as composed of *awri- ‘lord’
(< Urart. euri ‘lord’) and *ord- ‘offspring, son/daughter’ (see s.v. ordi). Ačaṙyan
(HAB 4: 619b) rejects this and other etymologies leaving the origin of the word
open. J̌
ahukyan (1987: 424, 428; 1988: 142) presents Łap‘anc‘yan’s etymology with
hesitation. Positively: Diakonoff 1971: 84.
According to Olsen (1999: 531), the second component in awri-ord is the suffix
-ord (verbal noun/adj.), and *awri- may derive from *atrii ̄ ̯o- ‘fire-’ as a parallel of
Lat. ātriensis ‘house servant’ from ātrium. The compound would correspond, as she
points out, to Av. ātrə-kərət- ‘der sich mit dem Feuer zu tun macht, dabei tätig ist’.
As far as the second component is concerned, Łap‘anc‘yan’s etymology seems
semantically more probable. As for the first component *awri-, one may suggest an
old borrowing from Iran. *ahur-i- ‘lordly’ (cf. YAv. āhūiri- adj. ‘with regard to
Ahura(mazdā), stemming from Ahura(mazdā)’ vs. ahura- m. ‘god, lord’: *ahur-i-
‘lordly’ or GSg *ahuríyo- ‘of lord’ > OArm. *a(h)uri- > Arm. *awri-. The Urartian
comparison should not be excluded; for e : a, see 2.1.1. In either case, the basic
meaning of the compound is ‘lordly offspring’.31 For the semantic shift, see 3.8.1.
ap‘, o-stem: GDSg ap‘-o-y, GDPl ap‘-o-v ‘palm of the hand; handful’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects [HAB 1: 364a]. The vocalism of Van äp‘s ɛt‘al (frozen APl ap‘-s) ‘to go on one’s hands and
knees’ (Ačaṙyan 1952: 97) is remarkable, since the word ap‘ is normally reflected in
the Van-group, viz. Van, Moks, Šatax, Ozim as ap‘, with no change in vocalism (see
HAB 1: 364a; Ačaṙyan 1952: 25a, 249; M. Muradyan 1962: 193a; Orbeli 2002:
208). The form äp‘s may then be interpreted as *y-ap‘-s ‘on hands’ through
Ačaṙyan’s Law; cf. y-ap‘-s-i-t‘er-s (Bible+), č‘orek‘-y-ap‘-k‘ (Alexander Romance),
etc.
Some dialects have forms with -uṙ, Axalc‘xa ap‘-uṙ, Łarabaɫ, Hadrut‘, Goris
háp‘-uṙ [HAB 1: 364a; Davt‘yan 1966: 322]. Compare t‘at‘-uṙ from t‘at‘ ‘paw’ (on
which see HAB 2: 138-139; Lusenc‘ 1982: 147, 206b). One may also think of
contamination with ClArm. buṙn ‘palm of the hand, handful’ (widespread in the
dialects; Łarabaɫ has the verbal form: p‘ṙn-); further note ClArm. aguṙ ‘palm of the
hand, handful’ (preserved in Xotorǰur).
For the initial h- of Łarabaɫ, etc. háp‘uṙ cf. hab in the glossary of Autun
(Weitenberg 1983: 19; 1986: 98; H. Muradyan 1985: 221b, 226a). This h- probably
has an etymological value (see below).
●ETYM Since NHB 1: 397a, connected with Gr. ἅπτω ‘to touch’, ἁφή ‘(sense of)
touch, the grip’, ἅψος n. ‘join’ (Pedersen 1906: 428 = 1982: 206; Meillet 1929; 1935
= 1978: 62; HAB 1: 363-364 with references; HAB-Add 1982: 4; C. Arutjunjan
1983: 275-276; Ravnæs 1991: 129; sceptical Greppin 1983: 322), which
presupposes *s/Haph
- or *s/Hap-s-.
Recently the Armenian and Greek forms have been linked with Skt. ápsas- n.
‘breast, forehead, front side’, Toch. A āpsā ‘(minor) limbs’, Hitt. ḫappeššar- ‘limb,
part of the body’ (see Stalmaszczyk/Witczak 1990: 39; Witczak 1991: 71; Clackson
1994: 101). This etymology is worth of consideration, although the semantic
relationship is not straightforward, and the root shape *h2eps- appears to be aberrant.
For an extensive critical analysis, see Clackson 1994: 98-101; see also Olsen 1999:
50.
Since NHB 2: 79b, etc. (see HAB 3: 72b; J̌
ahukyan 1967: 242), Arm. hapax
*hap‘ap‘em ‘to kidnap’ (q.v.) has been derived from ap‘ ‘palm of the hand, handful’;
note the initial h- in Łarabaɫ, etc. (N. Simonyan 1979: 221). The relation with unim
‘to take, have’ (J̌
ahukyan 1967: 242; C. Arutjunjan 1983: 276) is uncertain (see also
Greppin 1983: 322).
*ap‘i, *ap‘u, etc. (dial.) ‘father’.
●DIAL Ararat (Ōšakan, P‘arpi) ap‘i ‘father’ [Amatuni 1912: 77b], Agulis ap‘i
‘father’ [M. Zak‘aryan 2008: 60], Meɫri äp‘i ‘id.’ [Aɫayan 1954: 292], Łarabaɫ ap‘i
honouring address to old people; Łazax, Ararat etc. ap‘u voc. ‘father’, ap‘un ‘father’
[Ačaṙean 1913: 160ab; HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 139-140], Širak, Muš, Alaškert, Xoy
ap‘ɔ [Amatuni 1912: 77b; Ačaṙean 1913: 161a]; Łazax api(n) voc. ‘father’ [Ačaṙean
1913: 127b]; Agulis apar ‘elder brother’ [M. Zak‘aryan 2008: 56], Ararat, Nor
Bayazet ap‘ɛr ‘father’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 160a].
●ETYM J̌
ahukyan (1972: 300; 1987: 56, 112, 275) interprets these forms as nursery
words of IE origin, cf. Gr. ἀπφῦς hypocoristic ‘daddy’, ἄπφα, a hypocoristic
addressing form between brothers and sisters, and beloved ones, also other
hypocoristic forms, ἀπφίον, ἀπφάριον, ἀπφίδιον, ἀπφία. Note unaspirated ἄππα
‘father’, Toch. B āppo ‘father’, dimin. appakke ‘dear father’ (for the forms see Frisk 1: 126, 127; Chantraine 1968-80: 99a, 100a; Adams 1999: 16, 44; cf. Beekes 1977:
256). Further, note Kurd. abu ‘father’, āp ‘uncle’ etc. (see Ačaṙean 1913: 44,
considering the resemblance accidental). For some East Caucasian comparable
forms see J̌
ahukyan 1987: 608.
The onomatopoeic-elementary character of these words makes a direct equation
rather difficult. Nevertheless, I see no reason to treat these nursery formations, Arm.
ap‘i, ap‘u, etc. vs. Gr. ἀπφία, ἀπφίον, ἀπφῦς, etc., as independent creations.
The forms apar, ap‘ɛr and the like probably represent a blend of ap‘i/u ‘father’
and apɛr etc. < eɫbayr ‘brother’, cf. Ačaṙean 1913: 44, considering the resemblance
with Kurd. abu ‘father’, āp ‘uncle’ etc. accidental. On the other hand compare Gr.
ἀπφάριον.
ak‘aɫaɫ, o-stem: GDPl ak‘aɫaɫ-o-c‘ (Hamam, Hesychius of Jerusalem) ‘rooster’
(Bible+); agaɫaɫ ‘id.’ (Ašxarhac‘oyc‘); ak‘alal (Samuēl Anec‘i, 12th cent.).
●DIAL Various forms: T‘iflis, Hamšen, etc. ak‘lar (Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘, Amalyan 1975:
44Nr1069, glossed by ak‘aɫaɫ and xoroz), Axalc‘xa, Ararat ak‘lɔr, Van ayhlör, etc.
[HAB 1: 369b]. The form *ak‘lor may be due to contamination with lor ‘quail’.
●ETYM Patrubány (1906-08 /1908/: 152b) treats the word as composed of *k‘ak‘ (cf.
French coq ‘cock’) and aɫaɫ- ‘shout’ (q.v.), thus “shout of a cock”, which is
untenable. Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 368-369) posits broken reduplication from *k‘aɫ-k‘aɫ >
*k‘aɫaɫ and compares the root with Gr. καλέω ‘to call, summon; to invite; to invoke;
to name’, Skt. uṣā-kal-a- ‘rooster’, OIr. cailech ‘rooster’, cf. Gr. ἠϊκανός· ὁ
ἀλεκτρυών ‘rooster’ (Hesychius), lit. ‘early-singer’ (see also Solta 1960: 29-31;
Olsen 1999: 204). On these IE designations of ‘rooster’ mostly containing the root
*klh1-, see Schrijver 1991: 95, 185, 206, 222, 427; 1995: 141, 281, 323; and
especially Schlerath 1994.
The initial a- is reminiscent of the obscure a- of substratum origin in some birdnames (see Schrijver 1997: 310-313; 2001: 419). On the other hand, one may
assume a compound with PArm. *ag- or ayg ‘morning’ from *h2(e)us- (see s.v. ayg
‘morning’), cf. the Sanskrit and Greek forms above with uṣā- and ἠϊ, both cognate
with Arm. ayg-. The Armenian compound *a(y)g-k‘aɫ- would develop to *ak‘k‘aɫ- >
*ak‘aɫ-, cf. *h3(e)kw
- + -kn > PArm. *ak‘-kn > *akkn > akn ‘eye’. See also s.v.
k‘akor ‘dung’.
ak‘is, i-stem ‘weasel’ (Bible+), dial. also ‘rat’. In Leviticus 11.29, where it is listed
among unclean animals, the word renders Gr. γαλῆ ‘weasel’; cf. also mkn-ak‘is in
Leviticus 11.30, the exact match (perhaps a calque) for μυγαλῆ ‘field mouse’ in the
corresponding Greek passage (see Wevers 1986: 131; 1997: 154). The counterpart
of the latter in the Hebrew and Aramaic Bibles is interpreted, it seems, as ‘gecko’
and ‘hedgehog’, respectively. In Galen, ak‘is stands for γαλέη [Greppin 1985: 29].
The only evidence for the declension class is GDAblPl (y-)ak‘s-i-c‘, found in
John Chrysostom: Zmardik i kṙoc‘, ew yak‘sic‘, ew i kokordiɫosac‘ zercuc‘anel. As
stated in NHB 1: 398b, ak‘is corresponds to ‘cat’ in the Greek original. For the
semantic relationship between the cat and the mustelids, cf. Arm. kuz (HAB s.v.).
Ereweal ōj, kam mukn, kam ak‘is (Nonnus of Nisibis).
In Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ (see Amalyan 1975: 44Nr1068), ak‘is is glossed as follows:
titeṙn, kam mknak‘is, kam getnaṙiwc, kam xlurd. Surprisingly, this is in fact a section of the text of Leviticus 11.30 which follows ak‘is ‘weasel’ and mukn ‘mouse’,
containing names of animals certainly different from ak‘is, and not an interpretation
of the meaning of ak‘is by means of synonyms.
Attested also in a fable of Olympian, see 3.5.2.9.
●DIAL Preserved in a few dialects: Van äk‘yis, Moks ak‘y
is ‘weasel’ [Acaṙyan 1952:
25, 249]; with a final -t : ak‘ist ‘weasel’ (Xotorǰur),‘rat’ (Axalc‘xa) [HAB 1: 370a;
YušamXotorǰ 1964: 432a; HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 140b] (for the epithetic -t, see
2.1.31).
In Turkish-Armenian dictionary (c. 1720 AD) by Eɫia Mušeɫyan Karnec‘i
(Karin/Xotorǰur) one finds agist rendering Turk. xaxum [Č‘ugaszyan 1986: 52Nr14].
Č‘ugaszyan (op. cit. 97) points out that ak‘ist is found in the dialect of Axalc‘xa.
One should also add Xotorǰur (see above). Note that Eɫia Mušeɫyan was born in
Karin, and that Axalc‘xa is closely related to the Karin dialect. However, Eɫia’s
father was from Xotorǰur, and in this dialect the word denotes ‘weasel’ rather than
‘rat’, as in Axalc‘xa. Therefore, one may directly identify this recording with the
Xotorǰur form. For Turkish qāqum and the Iranian forms, see below.
For the semantic relationship ‘mouse; rat’ : ‘weasel’ (the latter is the smallest of
all the mustelids; it is smaller than the rat, Ananyan, HayKendAšx 1, 1961: 164-166,
168); see below; also s.v. *č‘asum.
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 370a) does not accept any of the etymologies he mentions.
No etymology has been proposed in recent times either, so the word is not
mentioned at all in Tumanyan 1978, Greppin 1983 and Olsen 1999. On account of
the i-stem, J̌
ahukyan (1987: 440) listed it among the theoretically possible
candidates for Urartian loans, which is unnecessary, since the declension class i is
firmly represented in the native heritage of Armenian.
Arm. ak‘is ‘weasel’ can be compared with Skt. kaśīkā́- f., which is attested in RV
1.126.6 in the possible meaning ‘Ichneumonweibchen’ [Geldner 1951, 1: 175;
Elizarenkova 1989: 158, 622] or ‘weasel’ (see Monier-Williams 1899/1999: 265a;
Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 330), and is considered a derivation from *kaśī- f.
[Wackernagel/Debrunner 1954: 428f]. Here belongs also káśa- ‘weasel’.
The connection of the Sanskrit words to Lith. šẽškas ‘Iltis’ [Zupitza 1904: 401,
402, 404; Scheftelowitz 1929: 196] is viewed as uncertain; see Pokorny 1959: 543
(with a question mark); Fraenkel 2, 1965: 976-977; Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 330.
More positive Mallory/Adams 1997: 439b.
The existence of and the relation to Toch. *kiś, the alleged source of Turk. *kīš/
*kīl ‘Zobel’ is quite doubtful [Šervašidze 1989: 85].
If Arm. ak‘is is related, one might reconstruct a QIE *Hkek̂
-ih2- (or *Hkek̂
-i-).
The initial laryngeal can be neither verified nor disproved since there are no Greek
and Hittite cognates. The absence of palatalization of *-k- before a front vowel is
perhaps due to dissimilative influence of the palatal *-k̂
-: *k – k ̂ > k‘ – s (instead of
č‘ – s); see 2.1.14.
The feminine suffix is reflected in the i-stem; cf. s.vv. ayc ‘goat’, gort ‘frog’.
The only phonological problem is the medial -i- instead of -e-. This can be
explained by reconstructing NSg *Hkek̄ ̂
-s alongside of the oblique *Hkek̂
-. The
former has been generalized in Armenian, while Indo-Aryan has chosen the latter.
For the mechanism, see Clackson 1994: 95-96 (further, see s.v. aɫuēs ‘fox’). A similar problem of Arm. iž ‘viper’ (q.v.) can be solved in the same way. Note
that both ak‘is and iž are i-stems, so the rise of *e to i may also be due to
generalization of genitive *-i̯o-, cf. mēǰ ‘middle’; see also 2.1.2. Thus, ak‘is may be
traced back to monosyllabic root nouns (cf. Beekes 1995: 189-190): NSg *Hkek̄ ̂
-s,
obl. *Hkek̂
-. See further s.v. iž ‘viper’.
Whether the *-k̂
- of the word was a suffixal element or was reanalyzed as such at
a certain stage is hard to assess. This probable correspondence might also be
regarded as a substratum word. Note particularly other animal-names confined to
Armenian and a few IE and/or non-IE languages which contain *-k̂
- or *-ĝh
-,
especially those which are to some extent comparable to mustelids, or are chthonic;
see HAB s.vv. aɫuēs ‘fox’, lusan- ‘lynx’, inj ‘panther’ (Arm.-IAr. *sinĝh
o-), kuz ‘cat;
marten’, moɫ-ēz ‘lizard’, xl-ēz ‘lizard’, etc.; see 2.3.1.
Bearing in mind these considerations, one might have a fresh look at Arm. axaz
‘white weasel = mustela alba’, a late hapax (q.v.), which is considered a dialectal
form of ak‘is. If the two are indeed related, one can postulate a non-IE source,
approximately reconstructable as *Hkh
Vk̂
/ĝh
-, from which Arm. ak‘is and Indo-Ar.
*kaś- regularly derive, whereas axaz may reflect a lost form of some IE or non-IE
language of the Balkans or Asia Minor or Eastern Europe, where the initial *Hyielded so-called “prothetic” a-, the aspirated *-kh
- (cf. s.v. t‘uz ‘fig’) is spirantized
to *-x-, and the medial vowel became -a-. J̌
ahukyan (1967: 307) mentions the pair
ak‘is and axaz in the context of the deviant alternation k‘/x. He does not offer any
etymology or explanation. It seems important to note that there is a certain
alternation k/x in words of Iranian or Caucasian origin, e.g. xoz : xoč- : koč- ‘pig’,
and next to Arm. kngum, k‘ak‘um, and Pahl. kākom, etc., there is Turk. qāqum
recorded by Eɫia Karnec‘i as xaxum (see below). Thus, in an Iranian language, next
to Indo-Ar. *kaś-, there may have existed *xaz- ‘(a kind of) weasel’ from which
Arm. a-xaz has been borrowed. The initial a- is perhaps due to contamination with
ak‘is. Indeed, one finds Pahl., NPers. xaz ‘marten’ (see MacKenzie 1971: 94), which
seems to corroborate my etymology.
If the word derives from *H(e)kh
-, one may wonder whether this is somehow
related with Tsez. *ʔãq̇
w
V ‘mouse’ (see Nikolayev/Starostin 1994: 523), Skt. ākhú-
‘mole (RV +); mouse (Lex.)’, Hebr. ‘aqbār ‘mouse’ (cf. Arm. ak‘bak‘, in Baṙgirk‘
hayoc‘; see s.v.), etc. In theory, ākhú- could be a reduplication of the type babhru- ‘a
kind of ichneumon’, also ‘a reddish-brown cow’ from PIE *bh
e-bh
ru- (see s.v. *bor),
thus: *He-Hk-u- > ākhú-. The semantic relationship ‘mouse, rat’ : ‘weasel’ is
impeccable, cf. above, on the dialect of Axalc‘xa; Gr. γαλέη ‘weasel’, Skt. giri(kā)-
‘mouse’ (Lex.), etc.; see also below on *č‘asum. The whole idea, however, is very
hypothetical.
To my knowledge, Pahl. kākom [k’kwm] ‘stoat = the European ermine especially
in its brown summer coat’ (cf. kākom ī spēd ‘ermine, white weasel’; see MacKenzie
1971: 48) has not been yet discussed in this context; cf. Arm. kngum (only in
P‘awstos Buzand 6.2: kngmeni ‘fur of kngum, Hermelinpelz’) and unattested
k‘ak‘um [Hübschmann 1897: 278Nr166; HAB 2: 607; 4: 568b]. For Turk. qāqum
recorded by Eɫia Karnec‘i as xaxum, see above. The initial kn- in kngum is puzzling;
perhaps, contamination with Iran. *gauna-ka- ‘haarig, farbig’ > Gr. γ/καυνάκης
“Bezeichnung eines persischen Pelzes”, Assyr. gunakku “N. eines Kleidungsstückes”, etc. (see Frisk 1, 1960: 292; Toporov, PrJaz (I-K) 1980: 280).
Or, perhaps, it is a mere nasal epenthesis, on which see 2.1.30.1.
In my opinion, Pahl. kākum can be derived from a centum form of the
hypothetical *Hkek̂
-Vm. Amazingly, the existence of such a proto-form and,
consequently, the reconstruction of this late IE (of substratum origin) animal-name
may be corroborated by its regular satəm reflex in Iranian *ča/āsum, hypothetically
reconstructed by me on the basis of Arm. *č‘asum (prob.) ‘mole-rat’, q.v.
The nature of -um is not very clear. It is reminiscent of the Armenian -mn in
several animal-names, see s.vv. ayc, lusan-, and 2.3.1. As for the vocalism of the
suffix, J. Cheung points out to me that the -u- in this environment can go back to
*-e/o-. One may also think of the final -ū in NPers. rāsū ‘weasel’, as well as an
Armenian u-stem which is very productive in animal-names (cf. aɫuēs, -es-u ‘fox’,
etc.).
babič‘ ‘sorcerer’, only in medieval glossaries (see Amalyan 1971: 266). Not in NHB
and HAB.
●ETYM No etymological attempt is known to me. I propose to treat the word as
composed of *bab-, a reduplication of the verb ba-m ‘to speak, tell’, and the agent
suffix -ič‘, cf. t‘ov-ič‘ ‘sorcerer’ from t‘ovem ‘to practise sorcery’, etc. For the
possible ancient meaning ‘to practise sorcery, prophesy, whisper incantations’ of
PArm. *ba- cf. the Slavic cognates: SCr. bȁjati ‘to practise sorcery, exorcize’, Bulg.
bája ‘to whisper incantations’, CS basnь ‘tale’, Russ. básnja ‘fable’, SCr. bȁsma
‘incantation’, Bulg. básnja ‘fantasy, fable’, etc. (see s.vv. bam ‘to speak, say’, bankn
‘myth, fairy-tale, riddle’).
bal, i-stem, o-stem (both attested late) ‘mist, fog’, dial. also ‘white fleck’.
The oldest appearance in the compound bal-a-jig ‘fog-bringing’ (Hexaemeron,
see K. Muradyan 1984: 195L21). Independently attested in the Alexander Romance,
Sebēos (7th cent.), Yovhannēs Erznkac‘i (13th cent.) [A. G. Abrahamyan/Petrosyan
1987: 61, 76], etc.
In the earliest edition of the Alexander Romance, AblSg i balēn (see H.
Simonyan 1989: 439L15): i balēn oč‘ karēak‘ tesanel zmimeans “because of the fog
we could not see each other”. A similar attestation is found ibid. 439L-6. On the next
page (440L8), the very same context is represented by synonymous vasn šamandaɫin.
According to NHB and HAB, bal is an i-stem: GDPl bal-i-c‘ in Aristakēs
Lastivertc‘i (11th cent.), Chapter 10 [Yuzbašyan 1963: 56L2]; cf. AblSg i bal-ē in the
Alexander Romance. One also finds GDSg bal-o-y (o-stem, thus) in Anania
Širakac‘i /7th cent./, see A. G. Abrahamyan 1944: 319L4, as well as in the title of one
of the following chapters: Yaɫags baloy “About the bal” (op. cit. 319L32).
In Gregory of Nyssa (translated by Step‘annos Siwnec‘i in the 8th cent.):
bal-a-jew, var. baɫ-a-jew ‘fog-like’ (with jew ‘shape’).
In the dictionary by Rivola (1633: 52, see HAB 1: 383a): bal-ēš ‘humidity
originated from (or caused by) fog’. For the suffix, cf. perhaps xarteaš (Bible+), xarteš (John Chrysostom), xartēš (Łazar P‘arpec‘i) ‘light brown, fallow’ (see also
s.v. *law/p‘- ‘flat’. I wonder whether there is an etymological or a folk-etymological
connection with the place-name Baɫēš. According to a traditional story, the
place-name has been named *paɫ-ēš, literally “frozen donkey” (and later > Baɫēš),
after a donkey which was stuck and frozen in the snow (see Łanalanyan 1969:
160Nr411). For the alternation -l/ɫ- cf. baɫ-a-jew next to bal-a-jew (see above). Since
bal ‘fog’ also functions in the context of the snow-storm (see below for the
testimony from Bulanəx), the motif of the donkey which was frozen in the snow can
be significant. It is tempting to speculate that the story originally implied a
folk-etymological play with *bal/ɫēš ‘fog, foggy weather’ and only later was
re-interpreted as “frozen donkey”. A similar folk-etymological traditional story is
found in Łanalanyan 1969: 153-154Nr395B on Muš, as if named after the fog (mšuš,
muž) made by the Goddess Astɫik.
In Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ bal is glossed by gišer ‘night’ (see Amalyan 1975: 46Nr49).
●DIAL Preserved in Alaškert b‘al ‘eye-fog’, Van pal ‘white dirt on one’s tongue
when one is ill’ (for the semantics, cf. dial. man ‘fog’ and ‘white dirt on one’s
tooth’) [HAB 1: 383b; Ačaṙyan 1952: 249], Sebastia bal (and baṙ) ‘white dirt on
one’s tongue when one’s stomach is disordered’ [Gabikean 1952: 101]. Ačaṙyan
(1952: 19) mentions Van pal as one of the few exceptions to Ačaṙyan’s Law. One
expects *päl. The compound *bal-ōd preserved in Bulanəx b‘alɔt‘ ‘wind
accompanied by snow(-storm)’ (see HAB 1: 383b) seems to comprise the word awd
‘air’ (q.v.) as the second component.
As we can see, the forms are restricted to the Western (mostly to Muš and Van)
areas, and the atmospheric context has not been preserved in the dialects
independently. In this respect, particularly interesting is the newly-found testimony
from K‘y
ärk‘y
änǰ (Šamaxi), in the extreme east of the Armenian-speaking territory,
where we have pal, as well as päl (with Ačaṙyan’s Law), see Baɫramyan 1964: 190.
Here the semantics is not specified. In a small dialectal text, however, we find päl
four times clearly referring to the fog or cloud, and glossed by Baɫramyan (op. cit.
283) as t‘uɫb ‘rain-cloud’ and amp ‘cloud’.
●ETYM Since Patrubány (HandAms 1903: 150) and Scheftelowitz (1904-05, 2: 37),
connected with Gr. φαλός· λευκός ‘white’ (Hesychius), φαλιός ‘having a patch of
white’, Lith. bãlas ‘white’, Latv. bā̀ls, bãls ‘pale’, Lith. báltas ‘white’, OCS blato
‘swamp’ (from *bh
olH-), OCS bělъ, Russ. bélyj ‘white’ (from *bh
ēlH-, see also s.v.
bil ‘light blue’), Lith. balà ‘swamp’ (from *bh
olH-eh2-), Bel. bel’ ‘swampy
meadow’, etc. For the semantic relationship ‘white, pale’ : ‘swamp’, see Pârvulescu
1989: 294.
The etymology is accepted by Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 383) and J̌
ahukyan (1987: 115,
from *bhəli-).
Arm. bal (i-stem) goes back to PIE *bh
lH-i-. If the o-stem is old, it
may be interpreted as a by-form from *bh
lH-o-.
Arm. bal and the cognates are sometimes mentioned in connection with Skt.
bhāla- ‘shine; forehead’ (cf. bhā́ti ‘to shine, be bright’ from PIE *bh
eh2-), see HAB
(ibid.); in more recent times, e.g., Springer 1987: 376-377. This would imply that
Arm. bal must be traced back to PIE *bh
(e)h2l-i/o-. However, *bh
eh2- seems to be a
different root (see HAB s.v. banam). Note that Arm. bil cannot be derived from a
root with an internal *-h2-. See also s.v. bil.
baxem ‘to beat (said of breast, wave, etc.); to knock (at a door); to strike’ (Bible+).
Also reduplicated babax- (Bible+). The noun bax ‘stroke’ is attested only in
Socrates.
Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.61 (1913=1991: 192L9f; transl. Thomson 1978: 204):
bazumk‘ i darbnac‘, <...> baxen zsaln “many smiths, <...> strike the anvil”.
Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 389b) argues that the late spelling baɫx- reflects an emphatic
/baxx-/, where -ɫ- corresponds to /ɣ/ rather than to *l. Compare dial. (Łarabaɫ) uxay,
interjection of joy (Ačaṙean 1913: 866b), which is found in the form Uɫxay
numerous times in e.g. HŽHek‘ 6, 1973: 633-636.
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 389b) does not accept any of the etymological suggestions
and leaves the origin open. Schultheiß (1961: 221) compares Hitt. u̯alḫ- ‘schlagen’.
J̌
ahukyan (1987: 317) rightly rejects the comparison since the initial u̯- does not
correspond to Arm. b-, and the -ɫ- of the Armenian form is recent and has no
etymological value (see above).
Strangely enough, the obvious onomatopoeic origin of bax- (suggested in NHB 1:
423c) is largely ignored. Onomatopoeic are perhaps also Laz and Megr. bax(-) ‘to
beat’, although Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 389b) treats them as Armenian borrowings.
Łap‘anc‘yan (1975: 353) considers this view to be unverifiable and points out the
onomatopoeic character of the word. Note also Russ. bac, babax(-), Engl. bang, etc.
baɫbaǰ-an-k‘ (APl baɫbaǰ-an-s in Severian of Gabala), baɫbanǰ-umn (GDPl baɫbanǰman-c‘ in Anania Narekac‘i) ‘senile fables, sorcerous or delirious talk, nonsense (of
fables), silly prattle, maundering’; baɫbaǰem (Grigor Magistros), baɫbanǰem
(Matt‘ēos Uṙhayec‘i) ‘to talk nonsense, chatter, jabber, etc.’
●ETYM Onomatopoeic word [HAB 1: 397b]. Further see s.vv. barba(n)ǰ ‘senile
fables, sorcerous or delirious talk, silly prattle, maundering’ and *bl-bl-am ‘to
chatter, jabber, babble, prattle, talk nonsense’.
bam ‘to speak, say’ (Bible+). The verb rarely occurs independently. One mostly finds
the present singular forms bam bas bay in conjunction with the verb asem ‘to say’.
For instance, in Deuteronomy 32.26 (Cox 1981: 207): asac‘i bam c‘ruec‘ic‘ znosa :
εἰ̃πα Διασπερῶ αὐτούς. For other examples, see Meillet 1913: 116. A relic of this
usage is seen in the conjunction bay, ba- ‘that’ (see NHB 1: 430-431 and HAB 1:
383-384 for more material and a discussion), which has been preserved in the
dialects, see e.g. V. Aṙak‘elyan 1979: 41; cf. also ba, bas ‘of course, then, thus’
(Ačaṙean 1913: 162a; HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 142, 165b). Note especially the
expression ba č‘es asi? lit. ‘wouldn’t you say?’, which is reminiscent of the abovementioned classical usage of ba- in conjunction with asem.
For the rich evidence of this verb and its derivatives (bambas-, bay, ban, bankn,
baṙ, barbaṙ, see s.vv.), see NHB 1: 430-437, 439, 442; Astuacaturean 1895: 260-
265, 269, 272-273; HAB 1: 383-386.
●DIAL See s.vv. bambas-, ban, bankn, baṙ.
For ba(s), see above. Beside bas ‘of course, then, thus’ there is also dial. bas
‘conversation; secret, reason; argument’ (HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 165-166);
compare however Kurd. bahs, bás (f.), bās ‘рассказ, разговор; спор’ considered an
Arabic loanword (se Cabolov 1, 2001: 110). ●ETYM Since Windischmann et al., linked with PIE *bh
eh2-: Gr. φημί ‘to say,
explain, argue’, προ-φήτης ‘announcer, seer, prophet’, Lat. fārī ‘to say’, fāma
‘rumour, fame’, RussCS bajati ‘to tell fables’, etc., see Hübschmann 1897: 427-428;
HAB 1: 386; Meillet 1936: 154; Pokorny 1959: 105; Frisk 2: 1009-1010, 1058-
1059; Walde/Hofmann 1: 458; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 115; Mallory/Adams 1997: 535a.
See also s.vv. babič‘, bambasem, bay1, ban, bankn, baṙ, barbaṙem.
bambasem ‘to malign, backbite, gossip’ (Bible+), bambas ‘backbite, gossip’ (John
Chrysostom, Nersēs Šnorhali, etc.), bambas-ank‘ ‘backbite, gossip’ (Bible, Movsēs
Xorenac‘i, Gregory of Nyssa, Grigor Narekac‘i, etc.). For attestations and
derivatives, see NHB 1: 430; Astuacaturean 1895: 260.
●DIAL Dialectally ubiquitous: Zeyt‘un b‘ambasil, Hačən b‘ambasel [Ačaṙean 2003:
301], Van pambasel, Ozim b‘ämbasil [Ačaṙean 1952: 250], Moks pämbäsil, 3sg.aor.
pämbäs-ic‘ ‘злословить’ [Orbeli 2002: 309], Łarabaɫ pəmbásɛl [Davt‘yan 1966:
324], etc. [HAB 1: 401b]. For compounds, see HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 156a.
●ETYM Composed of 1sg.pres. bam and 2sg.pres. bas of the verb bam ‘to speak, say’
(q.v.), cf. bay-ban-ear ‘argument’ (see s.vv. bam, bay1, ban), dial. asɛ-kɔsɛ (3sg.pres.
of asem ‘to say’), əsi-əsav (1sg.aor. + 3sg.aor. of asem ‘to say’), etc. [HAB 1: 385,
401b].
bay1, i-stem: GDSg bay-i-c‘ (Dawit‘ Anyaɫt‘, Nersēs Lambronac‘i, etc.), IPl bay-i-wk‘ (Sargis Šnorhali, Grigor Tɫay) ‘speech, word, verb’ (further attested in Movsēs
Xorenac‘i, Philo, Cyril of Alexandria, Dionysius Thrax, etc. For bay-ban-ear
‘argument’ (John Chrysostom) and the conjunction bay, see s.vv. bam ‘to speak,
say’, bambasem ‘to malign, backbite, gossip’, ban ‘speech, word’.
For the paradigm of bay, see Matzinger 2005: 57.
●DIAL See s.v. bam ‘to speak, say’.
●ETYM From PIE *bh
h2-ti-, a derivative of PIE *bh
eh2- ‘to speak’, cf. Gr. φάσις,
φάτις f. ‘declaration, enunciation, rumour’ vs. φημί ‘to say’ [Hübschmann 1897: 428;
HAB 1: 386a; Meillet 1936: 154; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 46, 125]. See s.v. bam ‘to speak,
say’.
bay2, according to NHB 1: 431a, i-stem; but there is only LSg. i bayi (12th cent.) ‘den,
lair (especially of bear)’.
In “Oɫb Edesioy” of Nersēs Šnorhali (12th cent., Cilicia) [M. Mkrtč‘yan 1973:
73L466]: Aṙiwc goč‘ēr i yantaṙin, ew gišaxanj arǰn – i bayin “A lion was roaring in
the forest, and the flesh-longing bear – in the lair”. Spelled bah in Vardan Aygekc‘i
(13th cent., also Cilicia). Older attestations: bay-oc‘ ‘lair (of a bear)’ (Eznik
Koɫbac‘i, 5th cent.).
●DIAL According to NHB 1: 431ab and Jaxǰaxean – dial. bay and bah. Ačaṙyan
(HAB 1: 402b) does not report any dialectal material. Now we can introduce
Xotorǰur bayil ‘to hibernate (of bear)’, bayoc‘ ‘hibernation place of bear’ (see
YušamXotorǰ 1964: 433a; HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 156, 157). Note that the latter
form is completely identical with bayoc‘ of Eznik Koɫbac‘i (of Koɫb). Further: Sasun
päh ‘den, lair, cave of a bear’ [Petoyan 1954: 152; 1965: 516].
Since both “pure” root forms bay and bah (considered dialectal!) are attested in
authors from Cilicia, and bayoc‘ (Eznik of Koɫb) has been preserved in Xotorǰur, we may hypothetically assume that bay is an old dialectal word restricted to the Western
(kə) speaking areas.
●ETYM No acceptable etymology is recorded by Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 402b).
V. Aṙak‘elyan (1979: 37; 1981: 77) assumes that bay-oc‘ is identical with dial.
(Ararat) bay! ‘hushaby’ and means ‘sleep’ rather than ‘den, lair’. This is improbable.
Moreover, bay-oc‘ ‘den, lair’ is directly corroborated by the dialect of Xotorǰur (see
above).
Aɫayan (1974: 35-36) connects the word with OIr. both ‘hut’, Welsh bod
‘dwelling’; Lith. bùtas ‘house’, etc. from *bh
(e)uH- ‘to be’; see s.vv. boyn ‘nest;
den, lair; hut’, boys ‘plant’, etc. According to J̌
ahukyan (1987: 116, 160), the IE
proto-form may have been *bh
ua̯ ̄-t- (= *bh
u̯eH-t-), and the closest cognate – Alb.
bót/ë, -a f. ‘Lehmsorte (zum Polieren); Boden; Erde; Welt’ (< *bh
ue̯ ̄/ā-tā-). On the
latter, see Demiraj 1997: 107.
Not all the formal details are clear. For the semantic field, cf. the etymologically
cognate Arm. boyn ‘nest; den, lair; hut’, Skt. bhúvana- n. ‘Wesen; Welt’ (RV+), etc.
ban, i-stem: GDSg ban-i, ISg ban-i-w, GDPl ban-i-c‘, IPl ban-i-w-k‘ (rich evidence in
the Bible, Astuacaturean 1895: 260-265) ‘speech, word; Logos; thing; precept,
commandment, etc.’ (Bible+).
Plural ban-ear, o-stem (characterized in NHB and HAB as dialectal) ‘calumny’ in
P‘awstos Buzand (see below), Łazar P‘arpec‘i (acc. z-baner-d) and Vardan
Arewelc‘i (banear); ‘quarrel‘ (Ephrem), baner-oɫ ‘pugnatious, quarrelsome’
(Ephrem), bay-banear ‘quarrel, argument’ (John Chrysostom) [NHB 1: 432a, 436c437a; HAB 1: 385]. In P‘awstos Buzand 3.5 (1883=1984: 11L15; transl. Garsoïan
1989: 71, see also note 24812): azateal linēr Yusik i baneroyn : “Yusik was delivered
from calumny”.
Note also the verb banim ‘to work’ (Ignatius, HAB 1: 403b), and banim in Timot‘ēos Kuz (Timothy Aelurus, 5th or 6th cent.), see Ačaṙean 1908-09a, 1: 368bNr11.
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects: ban ‘work, business; thing; subject’, banel ‘to
work’, in some dialects also ‘to weave, embroider’, with derivatives and a
considerable number of phrases Amatuni 1912: 85-89; Ačaṙean 1913: 169-175;
HAB 1: 403; HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 157-161, 162a, 163-164.
In Nor Naxiǰewan, Polis (Ačaṙean 1913: 169b), as well as in contemporary
dialects and in the modern colloquial language, ban is used as a euphemism for
‘penis’ (and ‘vulva’).
●ETYM Belongs with bam ‘to speak, say’ (q.v.), from PIE *bh
eh2-: Gr. φημὶ ‘to say’,
etc. Derived from *bh
eh2-ni-, cf. OIc. bōn ‘request, prayer’, OE bēn ‘request,
prayer’, see Hübschmann 1897: 428; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 46, 125; Klingenschmitt 1982:
84, 90; Saradževa 1985: 79-80; Olsen 1999: 79. Compare also *bh
eh2-sni-, cf. OCS
basnь ‘tale’, Russ. básnja ‘fable’, etc.
bankn ‘myth, fairy-tale’ in John Chrysostom (spelled also bangn), Barseɫ Čon; APl
bankun-s (Parapm. apud NHB 1: 437a s.v. ban-ik ‘little word’, but according to
HAB 1: 408a belongs here); bankn-ark-em ‘to tell fables, myths’ (Eusebius of
Caesarea); bunkn ‘idle talk’ (Mxit‘ar Aparanc‘i, see HAB 1: 408a). In Turkish-Armenian dictionary (c. 1720 AD) by Eɫia Mušeɫyan Karnec‘i
(Karin/Xotorǰur) one finds bunk which, together with sṙnǰut‘iun, renders Turk.
hegiat‘ ‘fairy-tale’ (Č‘ugaszyan 1986: 54Nr42, 105, 162).
●DIAL Van päyns, päns ‘myth, tale’ < *bank/gn-s (Ačaṙean 1952: 64, 99, 250; cf.
Srvanjtyanc‘ 1, 1978: 167), Loṙi bungl, bunkl, ‘riddle’ [Amatuni 1912: 117a;
HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 222a; HAB 1: 408a], Łarabaɫ, Hadrut‘, Šaɫax-Xcaberd
pə́
ngəl ‘riddle’ [Davt‘yan 1966: 324]32, J̌
uɫa b‘ungn ‘fairy-tale’, Xian banklik ‘story,
tale, narrative; fable’ [HAB 1: 408a; Gabikean 1952: 106], Xarberd ‘id.’
[HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 162b].
The development ba/unkn > bunkl is reminiscent of damon ‘plum’ > Loṙi dambul
‘id.’, etc. (HAB 1: 618b), eɫungn ‘nail’ > Goris ɫɛngəl (see s.v.). The labial vocalism
is probably secondary, cf. gayl ‘wolf’ vs. goyl, Łarabaɫ k
y
ül, etc. For a semantic and
philological discussion, see S. Harut‘yunyan 1960: 7-9.
●ETYM Since long (NHB 1: 437a; Dervischjan 1877: 11), linked with bam ‘to speak,
say’, ban ‘word, speech’ (q.v.). Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 408a) leaves the origin of the word
open. J̌
ahukyan (1987: 115; cf. H. Suk‘iasyan 1986: 145) reconstructs *bh
ən-u̯- and
marks only the Germanic cognates. Beside OHG bannan ‘befehlen’, Germ. bannen
‘durch Zauberkraft vertreiben oder festhalten’, etc. note also Skt. bhánati ‘to speak,
sound’, Khot. ban- ‘to cry out, complain’, etc. (see Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 244;
HerkWört 1997: 62b); see also s.v. ban ‘word, etc.’.
The Armenian word may contain the suffix -kn, see s.vv. akn vs. ač‘ ‘eye’, aɫǰikn
vs. aɫiǰ ‘girl, virgin’, armukn ‘elbow’, jukn ‘fish’, mukn ‘mouse’, etc.
For the semantics, cf. RussCS bajati ‘to tell fables’, Ukr. bájati ‘to tell, narrate; to
practise sorcery’, SCr. bȁjati ‘to practise sorcery, exorcize’, Sln. bájati ‘to talk idly;
to prophesy; to practise sorcery’, Bulg. bája ‘to whisper incantations’; CS basnь
‘tale’, Russ. básnja ‘fable’, SCr. bȁsma ‘incantation’, Bulg. básnja ‘fantasy, fable’,
etc. (ÈtimSlovSlavJaz 1, 1974: 138-140, 161-162; Derksen 2008: 34; see also
Saradževa 1985: 79-80; 1986: 192-193). See also s.v. bab-ič‘ ‘sorcerer’.
According to Russell (1985-86: 5 = 2004: 59), Arm. bankn (referred only to
Bedrossian’s New Dictionary) is probably only a transliteration of NPers. bāng
‘voice, cry’ (cf. Arm. vank ‘syllable’, an earlier Iranian loanword, Pahl. vāng). This
view (cf. also Hiwnk‘earpēyēntean, rejected in HAB 1: 408a) is untenable because:
1) the Armenian word is an old and vivid word and cannot be regarded as a mere
transliteration; 2) its semantics (‘myth, fable; fairy tale; riddle’) is remote from that
of the Persian word (voice, cry, syllable); 3) the etymological connection with native
words ban, etc. seems quite secure.
baǰaɫ-im ‘to tell fables, talk nonsense, talk idly, chatter, jabber, etc.’ (Movsēs
Xorenac‘i, Hexaemeron, Hesychius of Jerusalem, Nersēs Lambronac‘i, Vanakan
Vardapet, etc.), baǰaɫ-an-k‘ (APl baǰaɫ-an-s in 4Kings 9.11 rendering Gr. ἀδολεσχία,
Eznik Koɫbac‘i, Movsēs Xorenac‘i, John Chrysostom, etc.), a-stem: GDPl baǰaɫ-ana-c‘ (Yovhannēs Ōjnec‘i), baǰaɫ-umn, ISg baǰaɫ-mam-b (Hesychius of Jerusalem),
NPl baǰaɫ-mun-k‘ (Vardan Arewelc‘i), APl baǰaɫ-mun-s (John Chrysostom), GDPl baǰaɫ-man-c‘ (Hesychius of Jerusalem, etc.) ‘sorcerous or delirious talk, nonsensical
fables, garrulity, silly prattle, maundering, bagatelle’.
A textual illustration from Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.7 (1913=1991: 111L2f; transl.
Thomson 1978: 138): T‘oɫum zaṙaspelac‘n aǰaɫans “I omit the nonsensical fables”.
●ETYM Onomatopoeic word according to HAB 1: 412-413 (with a number of
examples for -aɫ-). Further see s.vv. baǰaṙel- and especially barba(n)ǰ ‘id.’.
baǰaṙel, only in a late medievel glossary, glossed by aṙaspelel ‘to tell myths, fables’
[Amalyan 1971: 266].
●ETYM Amalyan (1971: 266) hesitantly links the form with baǰaɫ- (q.v.). Further see
s.v. barba(n)ǰ.
baṙ, i-stem: GDSg baṙ-i (Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i), IPl baṙ-i-w-k‘ (Dionysius the
Areopagite, Yačaxapatum) ‘word’ (Philo, Dawit‘ Anyaɫt‘, Dionysius Thrax),
‘language, speech’ (Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, Yačaxapatum), ‘melody, tune’
(Paterica), etc.
●DIAL T‘iflis (Sayeat‘-Nova) baṙ, J̌
uɫa b‘aṙ, Moks päṙ [HAB 1: 413a], Zeyt‘un b‘ɔṙ
[Ačaṙean 2003: 301], Šatax päṙ [M. Muradyan 1962: 193b], Ararat, Muš, Łarabaɫ,
etc. *baṙ ‘word, speech, talk; the way of singing’ [Amatuni 1912: 90b;
HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 165a].
According to Ačaṙyan (1952: 53, 250), Van p‘aṙ is a loan from the literary
language of Polis, hence the initial aspirated p‘-.
●ETYM Related with bam ‘to speak, say’ (q.v.); perhaps from *bh
eh2-s-ri- [J̌
ahukyan
1982: 126]. One may wonder whether there is a connection between this *bh
eh2-sand Skt. bhiṣáj- m. ‘healer, physician’, etc. (on which see Mayrhofer EWAia 2,
1996: 264-265). Semantically compare Slav. *badlьji : OCS balii; bali ‘physician’,
ORu. balii; balija ‘physician, enchanter’, SCr. bȁjalo m. ‘sorcerer’, Russ. dial.
bájala ‘talker, chatterer, story-teller’, Lat. fābula ‘story, tale, fable, play talk’, etc.,
from the same PIE root *bh
eh2- (ÈtimSlovSlavJaz 1, 1974: 150; Derksen 2008 s.v.).
See also s.v.v. babič‘ ‘sorcerer’, bankn ‘myth, fairy-tale, riddle’, barbaṙ ‘human
voice, speech, word’.
baṙnam, 3sg.aor. e-barj, 3pl.aor. barj-in ‘to lift, lift up, extol, raise, bear away’
(Bible+).
●DIAL The verb baṙnal (somewhere also *barj-) is widespread in the dialects. In
some of them it has been contaminated with beṙn ‘load’ [HAB 1: 415a].
●ETYM See s.v. barjr ‘high’.
barbaǰ (Hexaemeron), barbaǰ-an-k‘, APl -an-s (Eznik Koɫbac‘i, John Chrysostom,
Philo, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i), barbaǰ-umn, APl barbaǰ-mun-s in Movsēs
Xorenac‘i 2.70 (1913= 1991: 206L12) and Gregory of Nyssa; barbanǰ (Hexaemeron, Yovhan Mandakuni, John Chrysostom), barbanǰ-an-k‘ (Grigor Vkayasēr),
APl barbanǰ-an-s (John Chrysostom), a-stem: barbanǰ-an-ac‘ (Book of Chries,
Hesychius of Jerusalem), barbanǰ-umn (Yaysmawurk‘), NPl barbanǰ-mun-k‘ (Łazar
P‘arpec‘i, Grigor Narekac‘i, etc.), APl barbanǰ-mun-s (Philo), GDPl barbanǰ-man-c‘
(Łazar P‘arpec‘i, Yačaxapatum) ‘senile fables, mythic stories, whisper of sorcerers,
sorcerous or delirious talk, nonsense (of fables), silly prattle, maundering’; the verb:
barbaǰem (John Chrysostom, Philo, Hesychius of Jerusalem, etc.), barbanǰem (Eznik Koɫbac‘i, John Chrysostom) ‘to tell fables, talk nonsense, chatter, jabber,
etc.’.
Figura etymologica in Yovhan Mandakuni/Mayragomec‘i (5th/7th cent.), in a list
of sorceries (2003: 1262bL5f): zsatanayakan barbanǰs barbanǰel (alongside with
yuṙut‘s yuṙt‘el). Here the word refers, thus, to ‘sorcerous or delirious words’.
●ETYM Treated as an onomatopoeia by Ačaṙyan [HAB 1: 419-420]. In my opinion,
the onomatopoeic nature does not exclude a connection with Arm. *ba- ‘to speak,
say; to tell fables’ (see s.vv. babič‘, bam, ban, bankn, baṙ, barbaṙ) as has been
suggested by Dervischjan (1877: 11), or with Gr. βάρβαρος ‘foreign(er), non-Greek;
uncivilised, raw’, Skt. barbara- ‘stammer’, etc. (Petersson 1920: 74-75).
For forms with *-l- instead of *-r- cf. Skt. balbalā (with kar-), Czech blblati
‘stammeln’, Lat. balbūtiō ‘to stammer, stutter; to speak obscurely, babble’, Engl.
babble, etc. (see Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 217-218), see s.vv. baɫba(n)ǰ-
‘sorcerous or delirious talk, nonsense (of fables), silly prattle, maundering’, *bl-blam ‘to chatter, jabber, babble, prattle, talk nonsense, sing (said of nightingales),
etc.’.
One might suggest a further tentative derivation of *baɫǰ- (a hypothetical root of
baɫba(n)ǰ-) from IE *bh
eh2-dh
l-: Lat. fābula ‘story, tale, fable, play talk’; Slav.
*badli- m. ī ‘enchanter, healer, physician’: OCS balii ‘physician’, ORuss. balii;
balija ‘physician, enchanter’, cf. also SCr. bȁjalo ‘sorcerer’, Russ. dial. bájala
‘talker, chatterer, story-teller’, etc. (on which see ÈtimSlovSlavJaz 1, 1974: 137-138,
150; Derksen 2008: 32-33, 34 s.v.). A QIE fem. *bh
eh2-dh
l-ieh2- would yield PArm.
*baɫdi̯a- (through regular metathesis) > *baɫǰ- (*-dh
i̯- > Arm. -ǰ-, see 2.1.22.1).
Reduplicated *baɫ-baɫǰ- might yield *baɫbaǰ- through possible loss of -ɫ- before an
affricate (see 2.1.22.9).
The simplex *ba(ɫ)ǰ- ‘mythic story, fable, sorcerous or delirious talk, garrulous
talk’ may also be seen in baǰ-aɫ-im ‘to tell fables, talk nonsense, talk idly, chatter,
jabber’ and baǰ-aṙ-el ‘to tell myths, fables’ (see s.vv.).
barbaṙ, o-stem: GDSg barbaṙ-o-y, ISg barbaṙ-o-v (rich evidence in the Bible,
Astuacaturean 1895: 272-273) ‘human voice, speech, word’ (Bible+), barbaṙem,
barbaṙim ‘to speak, shout’ (Bible, Eɫišē, Ephrem etc.).
●DIAL No dialectal forms are recorded in HAB 1: 420a. According to Ačaṙyan
(1952: 53), Van p‘aṙp‘aṙ is a loan from the literary language of Polis, hence the
initial aspirated p‘-.
●ETYM A reduplicated form of baṙ ‘word, speech’ [HAB 1: 385b; Schmitt 1981:
87], see s.v.v. bam ‘to speak, say’ and baṙ ‘word, speech’.
bard, GDPl bard-i-c‘ ‘heap of corn or grass’ (Bible+), secondary denominative verb
bardem ‘to pile’ (Paterica, etc.).
●DIAL Axalc‘xa, Ararat, Muš, Bulanəx, Širak, Aparan, etc. bard ‘heap of corn or
grass consisting of 30, 36, or 30-40 bunches’, Muš, Aparan, Sip‘an, Van bardoc‘
‘heap of corn or grass’ [Amatuni 1912: 91; Ačaṙean 1913: 177a; HAB 1: 421-422];
Šatax pärt‘, pärt‘oc‘ ‘heap of 20 bunches’ [M. Muradyan 1962: 193b, 215a], Van
päṙt‘, Moks pärt‘, Ozim b‘ärt‘uc‘ [Ačaṙean 1952: 250]; on Van, see below.
Č‘arsančag *bard ‘30 eggs’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 177a]. ●ETYM Derived from PIE *bh
r̥-ti-: Skt. prá-bhr̥ti- f. ‘offering’ (RV+), bhr̥tí- f.
‘support, maintenance’, Lat. fors, fortis f. ‘fortune, chance, accident’, Germ. ge-burt,
etc.; from the verb seen in Arm. berem ‘to bring, bear’, Skt. bhárati ‘to carry,
maintain, foster, bring’, Gr. φέρω ‘to carry, bear’, Lat. ferō ‘to carry, bear’, Goth.
bairan ‘to carry’, etc. (Meillet 1936: 155; Schmitt 1981: 53, 58, 59; J̌
ahukyan 1982:
125, 173; Olsen 1999: 81). For further references see HAB 1: 421b; see further s.v.
berem ‘to bring, bear’.
For the semantic relationship ‘to bear a child’ : ‘to bear fruit’, note that Arm. dial.
Van päṙt‘ refers to a heap that consists of 30 bunches, and a mother which bore 15
children is called kɛs päṙt‘ ‘half heap’ [Ačaṙean 1952: 2501].
bark ‘bitter’ (Agat‘angeɫos), ‘angry’ (John Chrysostom+), ‘loud (about talking,
especially laughing’, John Chrysostom+; on MidArm. attestations, see MiǰHayBaṙ 1,
1987: 117b), ‘lightning’ (Bible+), ‘fiery, very hot’ (Geoponica+); barkanam ‘to be
angry’ (Bible+), etc.
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects (mostly of the kə-class), especially in the meaning
‘strong, hot, ignite (fire, sun)’ [Amatuni 1912: 92; HAB 1: 425; HayLezBrbBaṙ 1,
2001: 171a]. A textual illustration can be found in a lullaby from Akn: bark arewik
(the latter word means ‘little sun’) [Palean 1898: 602aL-12 = Ṙ. Grigoryan 1970:
54Nr23]. Note also Xarberd barkank‘ ‘passion, strong desire’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 178b],
Sebastia bark ‘very hot, strong, bitter (vinegar, pepper, etc.)’ [Gabikean 1952: 110].
Papen barak ‘(strong) desire’, barak-barak ‘with a strong desire’ (see
HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 167b), if not a secondary creation based on barak(a)c‘aw
‘tuberculosis’, lit. ‘thin illness’ (on which see HAB 1: 418a; HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001:
167b), this word may belong here, although the second -a- is not clear (see below on
barak ‘lightning’).
●ETYM The connection with Skt. bhrāj- ‘to shine, to beam, to sparkle’ and Gr.
φλέγω ‘entzünden, verbrennen, erleuchten; brennen, flammen, leuchten, glänzen’
and many other etymological attempts are rejected by Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 424-425).
Lidén (1906: 57-60) compares Gr. (Cretan) φάγρος ‘whetstone’. Clackson (1994:
182) and Salmons/Niepokuj (apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 510a) are sceptical about
this etymology, although Frisk (2: 980) is more positive. (This could be promising if
one assumes ‘thunderbolt’ as the basic meaning).
Scheftelowitz (1904-05, 1: 307) proposed to derive bark from PIE *bh(o)rgʷ-
‘unfriendly’, cf. OIc. berkja ‘poltern, toben’ (< Germ. *barkjan ‘prahlen, poltern’),
Latv. bar̂gs ‘streng, hart, unfreudlich, unbarmherzig’, etc., for the semantic
development comparing Engl. rough ‘rauh, unsaft, streng, scharf, herb’. This
etymology is accepted by Pokorny (1959: 163); Mallory/Adams (1997: 22b), as well
as, albeit with some reservations, by J̌
ahukyan 1987: 117, 161. He seems to separate
bark ‘hot, angry, etc.’ from bark ‘lightning’, since the latter is treated by him (op.
cit. 476, 483) as a loan from an early Aramaic barqā ‘lightning’. The Aramaic word
is cognate with Hebrew bārāq ‘lightning’ (cf. also Arab. barq ‘lightning’) which is
reflected as barak in the encomium on Maštoc‘ by Karapet Sasnec‘i (12th cent.):
barak yarp‘woyn), interpreted in the margin as p‘aylakn ‘lightning’ (see HAB 1:
418-419; the missing part of the text of HAB is added in HAB-Add 1982: 5).
Obviously, we are dealing with Sem. *b-r-q ‘glänzen, blitzen’ (cf. also HAB s.v.
zmruxt ‘emerald’). There are no strong reasons to treat bark ‘hot, angry, etc.’ and bark ‘lightning’ as
separate words. We are dealing with a natural semantic development ‘hot, ignite,
fiery, shining’ > ‘angry’ (in other words, transition from physical to emotional
aspect, as in ayrem ‘to burn’ – z-ayr-anam ‘to be angry’, etc. The basic semantics of
bark could have been ‘(heavenly) light, fire; shining, fiery’ (see also s.v. šant‘). I
propose to include Skt. bhárgas- n. ‘radiance, splendour, light’ (RV+), which may
be connected with OEngl. beorht ‘Glanz, Helligkeit, Licht’. The neuter s-stem can
belong to a PD paradigm with NSg *bh
érg(w)-os and oblique *bhrg(w)-és-. Arm. bark
may have generalized the zero-grade of the oblique stem, exactly like in the case of
another s-stem neuter (PD), also with atmospheric semantics, almost synonymous
amp/b ‘cloud; (late) lightning (and/or ‘thunder’)’, q.v. A similar case may be seen in
ayt ‘cheek’ (cf. Gr. οἶδος, etc.; see s.v.); see 2.2.2.1.
According to an alternative etymology, Skt. bhárgas- n. ‘radiance, splendour,
light’ belongs with Lat. fulgur, -uris n. s-stem ‘lightning’. This brings the semantics
of the Armenian word even closer, but the *-l- is an obstacle. One cannot rule out
the possibility of early Aryan borrowings into Armenian (H. Martirosyan 1993,
unpublished). In this case, Indo-Aryan *bh
argas- might have been borrowed into
Arm. bark regularly. The consonant shift (unvoicing) is seen, e.g., in some old
Iranian borrowings like partēz ‘garden’.
I wonder if Indo-Aryan *bh
argas- ‘radiance, splendour, light’ and Sem. *b-r-q
‘glänzen, blitzen’ may be related. Perhaps an old Armenian – Aryan – Semitic
correlation?
barjr, r/u-declension: GDSg barj-u, NPl barjun-k‘, APl barjun-s, GDPl barjan-c‘,
etc. ‘high’ (Bible+); *-berj ‘high’ in compounds (q.v.); baṙnam < *barjnam, aorist
*barj-: 3sg e-barj, 3pl barj-in ‘to lift, lift up, extol, raise, bear away’ (Bible+).
For attestations and a philological discussion, see de Lamberterie 1986a.
●DIAL The forms barjr and baṙnam are widespread in the dialects [HAB 1: 415a,
427b].
●ETYM Since Gosche 1847: 72Nr201, etc. (see HAB 1: 414-415, 427a), connected
with cognate forms representing the PIE word for ‘high’, *bh
erĝh
-, *bh
r̥ĝh
-u-, *bh
r̥ĝh
-
(e/o)nt-: Hitt. parku- ‘high’, Skt. br̥hánt- (f. br̥hatī́
-) ‘large, wide, abundant, lofty,
high, strong, dense, loud’, YAv. bərəzaṇt- (f. bərəzaitī-) ‘rising high, high, loud’,
Oss. bærzond ‘high’, MPers. buland ‘high, big’, Germ. Burgund, etc., see
Hübschmann 1897: 428; Pokorny 1959: 140-141; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 232;
Mallory/Adams 1997: 269ab; Cheung 2002: 173.
PArm. *barj-u is comparable with Hitt. parku-, and the nasal stem is in a way
comparable with the Indo-Iranian, etc. For the heteroclitic r/u-declension, see s.v.
asr ‘fleece’. For a discussion of this and related issues, as well as for -berj, see
Meillet 1930a; 1936: 62; Godel 1975: 33, 95; È. Tumanjan 1978: 300; Schmitt 1981:
53, 98, 159, 187-188, 200; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 120-121; Klingenschmitt 1982: 108-109;
de Lamberterie 1986a; Saradževa 1986: 29-30; Stempel 1993: 147 (< 1987); Olsen
1989: 224, 232; Hamp 1990-91; Mawet 1993: 301; Matzinger 2005: 50, 60, 62-63.
For *-berj cf. Skt. -bárhas- ‘firmness, strength’ in Vedic compounds ádri-barhas
‘felsenfest’, dvi-bárhas ‘doppelte Stärke habend’ (cf. Hamp 1990-91: 9; Matzinger
2005: 50; for the forms, see Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 212). For the present baṙnam < *barj-nam vs. aor. barj-, see Hübschmann 1897: 428
and apud HAB 1: 414b; Meillet 1936: 54, 111, 118, 130; Schmitt 1981: 45-46, 137,
147, 200; Klingenschmitt 1982: 107-110; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 170, 183-184, 188, 195;
Clackson 1994: 21928.
Further, see s.vv. burgn ‘tower’ and durgn ‘potter’s wheel’.
barti ‘poplar’; Nersēs Šnorhali (12th cent., Cilicia; see below on Arevordik‘)+.
In Amirdovlat‘ Amasaiac‘i (medical scholar, 15th cent.), barti ‘poplar’ is equated
with č‘inar ‘plane’ (see Vardanjan 1990: 91, 268, 466); on the correlation between
the poplar and the plane, see below.
●DIAL Preserved in Alaškert, Muš, Ararat, Van group, Xarberd, Zeyt‘un; in some of
the dialects refers to built materials cut off from the poplar (see HAB 1: 430b, 540a);
see s.v. *joɫ(-a)-har-.
●ETYM Lidén (1905-06: 490-491) compares Slav. *bersto- ‘elm’ (cf. Russ. bérest,
etc.) and derives barti from *bh
rstiia ̥ ̯ ̄-, assuming a development -rst- > -rt-. He does
not cite any parallel for this development, however. Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 430) rejects
the connection. In my view, PIE *-rst- would rather yield Arm. -ṙt‘-; see 2.1.22.13
and s.v. yuṙt‘i. One might start from *bh
rHĝ-t-, since Slav. *bersto- is considered a
derivative of PIE *bh
(e)rHĝ- ‘birch’: Skt. bhūrjá- m. ‘a kind of birch’ (KS+), Oss.
bærz/bærzæ ‘birch’ (on this and other Iranian forms, see Morgenstierne 1974: 20b;
Oranskij 1975; 1977; Mayrhofer 1979 (< 1971): 128; Cheung 2002: 173), Lith.
béržas, Russ. berëza, SCr. brȅza ‘birch’, OHG birka ‘birch’, MoHG Birke ‘birch’,
etc. According to the material presented in 2.1.22.13, however, *-R(H)ĝt- would
produce -arct- > -ar(c)t‘. J̌
ahukyan (1975: 35; 1982: 57; 1987: 116 /with a question
mark/, 299) directly derives barti from *bh
rĝ-ii̯o-, listing the word among other
examples with an aberrant -t- (instead of -c-) from PIE *-ĝ-, cf. art ‘arable land,
corn-field’ (q.v.), etc. On barti, see also Saradževa 1981: 165-166; 1986: 67-68;
Normier 1981: 26-27; Peters 1988: 377.
The problem of the dental stop of the Armenian form may be due to
contamination with other tree-names from the Mediterranean and Near East areas:
Gr. βράϑυ n. ‘savin, Juniperus sabina; Juniperus foetidissima’ (also βόρατον n.,
βορατίνη); Lat. bratus (Pliny) ‘an Anatolian cypress’; Aram. be
rāt, Hebr. be
rōš,
Assyr. burāšu ‘cypress’ < Proto-Semitic *brāϑu (see Huld 1981: 303). See also
1.12.1 on bṙinč‘ ‘snowball-tree’.
The semantic shift in Lat. fraxinus ‘ash’ (for an etymological discussion, see
Szemerényi 1959/60: 225-232; Schrijver 1991: 106-107, 186-188, 489), like the
total loss in Greek, was possibly due to the relative scarcity of the birch in the
Mediterranean climes (except in some highland niches), see P. Friedrich 1970: 29;
Mallory 1989: 161; P. Friedrich apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 65b-66a. The semantic
shift can also be seen in Alb. bredh, -i m. ‘Tanne, Pinus abies’, dial. also ‘Fichte;
Lärche; Buche’ (see Demiraj 1997: 107-108).
For the semantic fluctuation between ‘birch; elm; linden’ and ‘poplar; aspen’ cf.
t‘eɫi ‘elm’ (q.v.), Gr. πτελέ-α, Ion. -η ‘elm, Ulmus glabra’, Lat. tilia ‘linden’ > Gr.
(Hesychius) τιλίαι· α ἴγειροι ‘poplar’ (see HAB 2: 171b); Bolgar. dial. jasika ‘aspen;
a kind of poplar; birch’ (see Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984: 626). See also s.v. karb
‘aspen’. In order to broaden the semantic field around the poplar, aspen, linden, and the
like, one should include the plane. It must be borne in mind, first of all, that the
semantic fluctuation between ‘poplar, aspen’ and ‘plane’ is frequent, see H.
Martirosyan 2008. For the testimony of Amirdovlat‘ on barti, see above. These trees
seem also to display a similar etymological pattern involving a semantic derivation
from ideas like ‘shiny, bright’ and ‘pure’. For a possible association with *bh
reHĝ-
‘to shine’ (cf. Skt. bhrāj- ‘to shine, beam, sparkle’, etc.), I refer to Mayrhofer
EWAia 2, 1996: 270, 280 (with literature). The connection is based on the bright
whiteness of the birchbark. A similar semantic development may also be seen in my
tentative etymologies of čandari ‘plane-tree; poplar’ and saws(i). See also below, on
the cultural data demonstrating an association of the poplar with the ideas ‘shining,
purity, virginity, innocence, holiness’ and the Sun. The association ‘Sun’ : ‘poplar’
indirectly seen in the cult of Arewordik‘ (see below) can be compared with Heliades,
the daughters of the Sun in Greek mythology, which have been transformed into
poplars (Ovid. Met. 2: 340-366; see Taxo-Godi apud MifNarMir 1, 1980: 271a).
Both the aspen and the plane are considered demonic trees. A reason for this
could be the fact that the leaves of these trees tremble in the slightest wind (note the
English expression to quake/tremble like an aspen leaf). On the association of the
aspen, and, in particular, its reddish wood and trembling leaves, with the demonic
and chthonic (especially female) personages, see Toporov apud MifNarMir 2, 1982:
266-267. On the medieval sect in Armenia called Arew-ordi-k‘ “Children of the
Sun” in general and on the demonic association of barti ‘poplar’ in their beliefs in
particular, see Ališan 1910: 79-80, 100-104; Karst 1948: 69-70; Bartikjan 1967;
Russell 1987: 530.
As noted by P. Friedrich (1970: 157-1581; apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 65b), in
some IE traditions the birch, the poplar/aspen, the linden, and the willow are
feminine grammatically, lexically, and culturally, and the birch also figures as a
symbol of young, virginal femininity. There are fixed phrases in the Baltic folklore
where the word for ‘birch’ is taken to express the meaning ‘purity, innocence’ (of
maidens and young men): e.g. Latv. brūte vēl bę̃rza galā “bridegroom and the top of
the birch tree” (see Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984: 620). Russian častuški about the
birch reflect almost all the nuances of feelings and emotions of girls [Kulagina 1999:
98]. The following častuška (ibid.) can be compared with the above-mentioned
Latvian phrase:
Ja na beluju berezku
Sjadu pokačajusja.
S kotoroj miločkoj guljaju -
S toj i povenčajusja.
In the Armenian tradition, too, we find relics of a similar association of the poplar
with the ideas of virginity, purity, motherhood, etc. In Nerk‘in Basen the poplar was
venerated by girls and women, and was believed to bestow love and children (G.
Hakobyan 1974: 265). It is told (see Ōdabašyan 1987: 70) that in Zeyt‘un there was
a huge protective poplar close to the church of the Holy Mother, and the Holy
Mother with Jesus on her lap was seen on top of the tree. Note also the motif of the
bride on the poplar or plane in fairy-tales. In a fairy-tale from Loṙi (Noyemberyan)
[HŽHek‘ 8, 1977: 651-669], the bride of a prince, who was born in a forest, in a hollow of a tree and was protected by a bear (arǰ) and the Holy Mother Mary
(Mayram astvacacin), loses her sight and is cured by the Holy Mary, who visits the
bride first in a dream, then in a tree-garden, near a spring under the poplar trees
(bardi caṙer). Again, we are dealing with the motif /bride and the tree barti/.
This preliminary discussion shows that the semantic relationship between the
poplar and some other trees, as well as the derivation of Arm. bart-i ‘poplar’ from
PIE *bh
rHĝ- ‘birch’, should be viewed in a larger culturological framework. Further,
see H. Martirosyan 2008.
bawiɫ, a-stem according to NHB 1: 478, but without references (spelled also as bawil,
baweɫ) ‘labyrinth’ (Eusebius of Caesarea, Grigor Narekac‘i), ‘a dark, covered place’
(John Chrysostom+); bawɫ-ak ‘a dark, covered place’ (John Chrysostom), bawɫak-ajew ‘bawɫak-shaped’ (Eusebius of Caesarea).
In Grigor Narekac‘i 40.2 (Xač‘atryan/Łazinyan 1985: 409L17; Russ. transl. 1988:
143; Engl. transl. 2001: 199): Oč‘ bawiɫk‘ xoršic‘, oč‘ štemarank‘ yarkac‘ : Ни
ходы сокрытые, ни клети жилищ : “Nor secret passages, nor living quarters”. In
Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ (Amalyan 1975: 53Nr236f): baweɫ · šinuac patuacoyk‘; bawiɫ · k‘iw
teɫi. This seems to reflect an attestation from the Commentary on Narek (cf. NHB 1:
478c).
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 433b) rejects all the etymological attempts, including the
connection with Babylon proposed by Hyunk‘earpēyēntean, and leaves the origin of
the word open.
J̌
ahukyan (1991: 36-37) derives the forms baweɫ and bawiɫ from QIE *bh
əu̯-elā
and *bh
əu̯ī-lā respectively, from PIE*bh
(e)uH- ‘to be’, linking the Armenian word
with Gr. φωλεός, φωλεά ‘den, lair’ etc. (see s.v.v. bay ‘den, lair’, boyn ‘nest; den,
lair’). However, the semantics is not evident, and the phonological details are not
explained. One might posit QIE *bh
ou(H)-l-eh2- > PArm. *baw(a)ɫ(a), whence a
secondary nominative bawiɫ in a way more or less comparable with the explanation
of lusin ‘moon’ and kaɫin ‘acorn’ (q.v.). However, Gr. φωλεός ‘den, lair’ and OIc.
ból ‘id.’ have been derived from *bh
ō-lo- (cf. Alb. botë ‘earth, world’ < *bātā, see
Rix 2003: 365), which makes the explanation of Arm. bawiɫ more difficult.
Recently, the old connection of bawiɫ with Babylon has been revived (Arcrun
Sahakyan apud L. Abrahamyan 2004: 17, 179; L. Abrahamian 2006: 217; A.
Petrosyan 2007: 18-21). Note also babēɫ glossed as šp‘ot‘umn, xaṙnakumn
‘confusion’ in Onomastica sacra (Wutz 1914: 966Nr97). For the notion of Babylon
‘labyrinth’, see L. Abrahamyan 2004: 179 (with lit.); de Freitas 1987: 413b; and
especially A. Petrosyan 2007: 18-1950 with extensive literature. This etymology is
more attractive, though the time (in relation with the chronology of the sound
change intervocalic *-b- > -w-) and ways of borrowing need clarification.
bekanem, 3sg.aor. e-bek, imper. bek ‘to break’ (Bible+); iterative bek-t-em (Bible+);
bek ‘broken, mutilated’ (Bible+).
●DIAL According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 437a) here belongs Łarabaɫ pɛk ‘pit; ruined
place’. Margaryan (1971: 218-219; cf. 1975: 317a, 458a) adds also Goris päk ‘ruin,
a destroyed and ruinous place; outdoor latrine’, and, rejecting Ačaṙyan’s
interpretation, derives both forms from bak ‘courtyard, sheepfold’, which is semantically improbable. We may be dealing with two homonymous (and
contaminated) words.
On T‘iflis *bokel ‘to fist, punch; to push’ (Ačaṙean 1913: 200), see below.
●ETYM From PIE *bh
eg- ‘to break’, nasal present *bh
-n-eg-: Skt. bhañj-, bhanákti
‘to break, shatter’, ManMidPers. bxt-gyh ‘opposition, division, conflict’, ManSogd.
βxt-wnyy ‘internal conflict, schism’, OIr. bongid, -boing ‘breaks’, etc. For the
etymology and for the morphology of Armenian nasal-suffixed presents vs. PIE
nasal-infixed presents, see Hübschmann 1897: 429; HAB 1: 436-437 with
references; Kuiper 1937: 117, 123, 150; Pokorny 1959: 114; Hamp 1975: 104, 106;
Schmitt 1981: 135, 141; Klingenschmitt 1982: 184-185; Clackson 1994: 85;
Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 242-243; Mallory/Adams 1997: 81a; Cheung 2007: 3-4.
For the morphology, see also s.v. awcanem ‘to anoint’.
According to J̌
ahukyan (1985: 155; 1987: 115, 255), T‘iflis *bokel ‘to fist, punch;
to push’ belongs here too, reflecting o-grade; cf. OIr. bongid ‘breaks’, Dutch bonken
‘schlagen, prügeln’, etc. However, the appurtenance of the Irish word is uncertain
(see Schrijver 1995: 306; Matasović 2009 s.v. *bu-n-g-o- ‘to break’), and Dutch
bonken is considered onomatopoeic (de Vries/Tollenaere 1993: 90b)
beɫ-un, o-stem: GDSg beɫn-o-y ‘product, harvest, semen, fruit’ (Book of Chries, Philo,
Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, Vardan Arewelc‘i), glossed by sermn ‘semen, seed’ and
ptuɫ ‘fruit’ in Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ (Amalyan 1975: 55Nr274), adj. ‘fertile’ only in
ModArm., an-beɫun ‘fruitless’ (since Łazar P‘arpec‘i, 5th cent.), bazm-a-beɫun
‘fecund, fertile’ (Book of Chries, etc.); beɫn glossed by berk‘ ‘harvest’ in Baṙgirk‘
hayoc‘ (Amalyan 1975: 55Nr272), beɫn-awor ‘fecund, fertile, fruitful’ (Book of
Chries, Philo), beɫnaworem ‘to fecundate, impregnate’ (John Climachus, Nersēs
Lambronac‘i); beɫ-mn, GDSg beɫman ‘semen, sperm’ (Timot‘ēos Kuz = Timothy
Aelurus), beɫmn-a-ber ‘fecund, fertile, abundant’ (T‘ēodoros K‘ṙt‘enawor), beɫmnawor ‘fecund, fertile, abundant’ (Philo), beɫmnaworem ‘to fecundate, impregnate’
(Grigor Narekac‘i); later bazm-a-beɫ ‘fecund, fertile’ (Ganjk‘, Karapet Vardapet).
According to Ačaṙyan HAB 1: 439a, the root beɫ in bazm-a-beɫ (with bazum
‘many, abundant’) is made up on the basis of a wrong interpretation of beɫ-un in
synonymous bazm-a-beɫun as an adjective. However, there is nothing against
postulation of a noun beɫ ‘product, harvest, semen, fruit’ in bazm-a-beɫ exactly as the
noun beɫ-un in bazm-a-beɫun.
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 439a) accepts none of the etymologies and leaves the
origin of the word open. Adontz (1937: 9) derives the word from PIE *bh
el- ‘to
blow, grow, swell’, cf. Gr. φαλλός m. ‘penis’, φαλλαρίζω ‘to have an obscene
conduct’ (Chantraine 1968-80: 1175), OIc. boli ‘bull’, etc.33 Further see s.v. bolor
‘whole, entire; round, spherical; circle; bud, etc.’.
The independently unattested root *beɫ may be regarded as a noun (see above)
meaning ‘product, harvest, semen, fruit’ and derived from QIE *bh
el-no-; note Gr.
φαλλός, which points to zero grade, however. For synonymous beɫ(-n) vs. beɫ-mn cf.
koɫ vs. koɫ-mn ‘side’, ǰer vs. ǰermn ‘warm(th)’, etc. If one prefers to posit an
underlying PArm. verbal *beɫ- ‘to impregnate, fertilize’, a nasal present *bh
el-ne- may be posited. For beɫ-mn ‘semen, sperm’ compare especially ser-mn ‘semen, seed’
vs. ser ‘tribe, birth, generation’ and verbal sere/im ‘to grow, multiply, etc.’.
berd, a-stem: GDSg berd-i, ISg berd-a-w; i-stem: ISg berd-i-w, GDPl berd-i-c‘, IPL
berd-i-w-k‘ ‘fortress’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Present in a number of dialects [HAB 1: 443a].
●ETYM The Indo-European origin and the connection with *berj- and barjr ‘high’
(for references and a discussion, see HAB 1: 442-443; Schmitt 1972-74: 9, 24) are
untenable. Most probably berd is a Semitic loan, cf. Aram. bīrtā, Akk. birtum (see
HAB 1: 442b; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 476). Further, see Ravnæs 1991: 97-98.
The connection with Syriac merdā ‘castle’ is rejected by Hübschmann (1897:
301) because of the anlaut. Eilers (1953: 731; 1971: 62114) discusses this in the
context of b-/v- alternation. On the other hand, he (1971: 62114; 1974: 4969) involves
Iran. bard ‘stone’.
berem, 3sg aor. e-ber ‘to bring, bear, give fruit’ (Bible+).
For an extensive treatment of the paradigm of berem in the historico-comparative
context, see Meillet 1936: 155-157; Łaragyulyan 1961: 80, 87-108, 146-148 et
passim. Further see Ravnæs 1991: 51, 74-76.
●DIAL Dialectally ubiquitous [HAB 1: 441b].
●ETYM Since Acoluthus (1680 apud HAB 1: 441a), etc., linked with the PIE term for
‘to bring, bear’, *bh
er-: Lat. ferō ‘to carry, bear’, Gr. φέρω ‘to carry, bear’, Skt.
bhárati ‘to carry, maintain, foster, bring’, Goth. bairan ‘to carry’, etc. [HAB 1: 440-
441; Hübschmann 1897: 429; Pokorny 1959: 128, 129; Schmitt 1981: 48; Mayrhofer
EWAia 2, 1996: 246-249; Mallory/Adams 1997: 56].
For 3sg.aor. e-ber < *é-bh
er-et, also present in a number of dialects such as Moks,
etc., cf. Skt. á-bhar-at, Gr. ἔ-φερ-ε.
-berj ‘high’ in compounds barjr-a-berj ‘very high’ (Bible+), erkn-a-berj
‘himmelhoch’ (Eznik Koɫbac‘i, Agat‘angeɫos, etc.), leṙn-a-berj ‘berghoch’ (Eznik
Koɫbac‘i), etc.
In the late medieval dictionary Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ [Amalyan 1975: 55Nr271] we find
berj glossed as barjr ‘high’ and šēn ‘building, village’.
●ETYM See s.v. barjr ‘high’
bzzel (John Chrysostom), bzzal (Grigor Magistros) ‘to buzz’, said of flies, bees,
beetles and other insects. Deverbative nouns bzz-ank‘ and bzz-umn (Nersēs
Šnorhali).
●DIAL The verb bzzal is widespread in the dialects [HAB 1: 445a; HayLezBrbBaṙ 1,
2001: 189b].
●ETYM According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 444b), this is an onomatopoeic verb which is
etymologically unrelated with other similar forms found in IE (Engl. buzz, etc. ) and
non-IE (for Caucasian parallels, see J̌
ahukyan 1987: 588, 602) languages. However,
the onomatopoeic nature of the word cannot categorically exclude the etymological
connection. Further see s.v. bzē/iz ‘beetle’.
bzēz, o-stem: GDSg bzez-oy in Geoponica; i-stem: GDSg bzez-i Oskip‘orik (both
attestations are late) ‘beetle, dung-beetle’ (APl bzēz-s in Hexaemeron, see K. Muradyan 1984: 259L4); bziz, o-stem: GDPl bzz-o-c‘ in Grigor Magistros (11th
cent.) ‘id.’ (attested also in Canon Law).
The Armenian word renders Gr κάνϑαρος ‘a kind of (dung-)beetle, Scarabaeus
pilularius’ in Hexaemeron [K. Muradyan 1984: 259L4, 372b].
●DIAL Muš bzɛz, Xarberd b‘zɛz [HAB 1: 445a], Sebastia bzɛz [Gabikean 1952: 116],
etc.
●ETYM Certainly related with bzz- ‘to buzz’ (q.v.). Mentioned in Greppin 1990: 70
without an etymological note. Regardless of the obvious onomatopoeic nature of this
insect-name (cf. also Engl. buzz, etc.), one might nevertheless suggest a further
tentative analysis.
If Lat. fūcus, -ī m. ‘drone’, Slav. *bučati ‘to buzz, hum’, OCS *bučela ‘bee’, etc.
go back to IE *bh
(o)ukw
- ‘a kind of buzzing insect’ (see Gamkrelidze Ivanov 1984,
2: 6022 = 1995, 1: 51681), one may assume that the same etymon yielded *bus
through regular palatalization of the velar after *-u-. The sibilant would easily
become voiced through contamination with the onomatopoeic bzz- ‘to buzz’. We
arrive at a PArm. hypothetical *buz, which strikingly coincides with Partizak,
Manišak (< Hamšen) buz ‘an insect which badly bites cows’, glossed by p‘ɛk‘ɛlɛk
(see Tēr-Yakobean 1960: 472); perhaps ‘drone’ or ‘hornet’. The ending -ēz is also
found in some insect- and lizard-names, such as xlēz and moɫēz/s ‘lizard’ (HAB
s.vv.), dial. dzɛz ‘beetle’ (HAB 1: 445a), *dɫ-ez ‘bee, bumble-bee’ (q.v.).
bil ‘light-blue’ (?).
Attested only in Step‘annos Siwnec‘i (8th cent.), denoting a kind of fish.
●ETYM NHB (1: 489b; cf. 2: 652c) takes the word to mean ‘light-blue’ and
compares it with Arm. dial. pluz ‘blue’, Ital. blù, etc. Abeɫyan and Ačaṙyan (see
HAB 1: 450) reject the meaning ‘light-blue’. After an extensive discussion,
however, Aɫayan (1974: 44-47) advocates the basic meaning ‘light-blue’, which has
developped into the fish-name (cf. the fish-name kapoyt which follows bil in the
list). Then he connects bil with OCS bělъ, Russ. bélyj ‘white’, etc. from PIE
*bh
ēlH-, see also s.v. bal ‘mist, fog; (dial). white fleck’. The same etymology has
been proposed independently by Saradževa (1976: 191; 1980c; 1986: 97-98). The
etymology is accepted by J̌
ahukyan (1987: 115, 160, 270). For the semantics cf.
lurt‘/ǰ ‘light, shiny; light-blue’. Saradževa (1986: 37518) wonders if Arm. pluz ‘blue’
(Ararat pliz, Agulis plɔz, see HAB 4: 87b) is related to Engl. blue, etc.; cf. the idea
of NHB above.
Compare also *bɫ-ēt (see HAB 1: 456a).
*bl-bl-am ‘to chatter, jabber, babble, prattle, talk nonsense, sing (said of nightingales),
etc.’.
●DIAL Ararat, Łoṙi, Łazax, Łarabaɫ, Muš blbl-al, blbl-ac‘nel, see Amatuni 1912:
104b; Ačaṙean 1913: 192-193 (with derivatives).
●ETYM Onomatopoeic verb, cf. Engl. babble, etc. See also s.vv. baɫba(n)ǰ-,
barba(n)ǰ ‘sorcerous or delirious talk, nonsense (of fables), silly prattle,
maundering’.
blit‘, a-stem in NHB, but without ref. ‘a roundish soft bread’ (Bible+); blt‘-ak ‘lobe of
the ear’ (Bible); ‘lobe of the liver’ (Gregory of Nyssa). In Dawt‘ak (7th cent.) apud
Movsēs Kaɫankatuac‘i 2.35 (1983: 228L23): blt‘aks oč‘xarac‘ “soft meat of sheep” (oč‘xarneri p‘ap‘uk mis) [V. Aṙak‘elyan 1969: 178)] or “choice morsels of sheep”
[Dowsett 1961: 147].
●DIAL Preserved in the dialects of Xarberd, Xotorǰur, T‘iflis, Axalc‘xa (b‘lint‘),
Łarabaɫ, Van, Moks, etc., basically meaning ‘a kind of cake’ [HAB 1: 454]. The
meaning in Moks (pəlit‘, GSg pəlt‘ə
ɛ
) is thoroughly described in Orbeli 2002: 312.
Remarkably, Ararat, Moks, etc. also have the meaning ‘a small swelling’ [Amatuni
1912: 105a].
●ETYM No acceptable etymology is recorded in HAB 1: 454a. J̌
ahukyan (1971: 49-
50; 1987: 117, 161) derives from PIE *bh
l-ei- ‘to swell’ (cf. Gr. φλιδάω, etc.). This
proto-form would yield Arm. *e-ɫbi-, however. Olsen (1999: 244, 948) places blit‘
in the list of words of unknown origin, not mentioning any etymology.
The semantics of blit‘ ‘a roundish soft bread; lobe of the ear or the liver; (dial.)
swelling’ is remarkably close to that of boy-t‘ ‘lobe of the ear or the liver; thumb;
hump’; ‘young of a frog’ (q.v.). The basic meaning is ‘a soft lump of something;
swelling; a roundish projecting part of the body’ < ‘swollen, grown’. One may
therefore derive bl-it‘ from *bul < PIE *bh
uH-l-, from the root *bh
euH- ’to grow’.
The full grade is reflected in boyl (q.v.). Note that both bl-it‘ and boyt‘ (if from
*bu-it‘) contain the suffix -it‘ (see 2.3.1). Since boyl is an i-stem comparable with
IIran. *bh
ūr-i- ‘abundant’), one wonders whether the vocalism of the suffix in bl-it‘
can be explained by the same *-i-; thus: *bul-í-th
V- > blit‘.
blur, o-stem: GDSg blr-o-y (frequent in the Bible; also e.g. in Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.39,
2.86, 1913=1991: 165, lines 3 and 11, 233L9), LocSg i blr-i, IPl blr-o-v-k‘, GDPl blro-c‘ (abundant evidence in the Bible, Astuacaturean 1895: 296); a-stem: IPl blr-a-wk‘, var. blērōk‘ (Zeno, see Xač‘ikyan 1949: 81bL11); r-stem: GDSg bler (Zenob,
Yovhan Mamikonean: HAB 1: 455b), ISg bler-b (Oskip‘orik) ‘hill’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Muš, Alaškert, Ararat b‘lur, Zeyt‘un b‘ülür [HAB 1: 456a] or b‘ülüy
[Ačaṙyan 2003: 302].
●ETYM Since Thomaschek (see HAB) and Petersson (1916: 260-262), linked with
OIc. bali ‘Erhöhung entlang dem Uferrande; kleine Erhöhung auf ebenem Boden’,
Welsh bâl f. ‘Erhöhung, Berggipfel’. Accepted in HAB 1: 455-456; J̌
ahukyan 1987:
115, 235 (on the suffix), 582-583. See Pokorny 1959: 120-122, the root *bh
el- ‘to
grow, swell’, with Arm. beɫ-un ‘fertile’. Arm. bl-ur is considered to reflect *bh
ōl-.
For the formation, see s.v. anur ‘ring’ and Olsen 1999: 33.
Uncertain.
*bɫ- ‘to shout’ (dial.): Van *bɫal ‘to cry loudly (said of children)’ [Ačaṙean 1913:
195a], Łarabaɫ, Ararat, etc. *bɫ-bɫ-al, *bɫ-ɫ-al, *bɫ-aw-el ‘to shout (said of animals
and people)’ [Amatuni 1912: 106-107; Ačaṙean 1913: 195ab].
●ETYM No etymology is known to me.
See s.v. boɫ-ok‘ ‘loud complaint, cry’. The form *bɫ-aw- is reminiscent of
Łarabaɫ, Ararat onomatopoeic kṙ-av-el ‘to croak’ (said of crows) vs. dialectally
widespread kṙ-kṙ-al ‘id. (said of birds, particularly crows, as well as of frogs, snakes,
buffalos, etc.)’; see HAB s.vv. agṙaw ‘crow’, ka(r)kač‘, and kṙunk (q.v.).
bolor, o-stem: ISg bolor-o-v (8 times in the Bible, Astuacaturean 1895: 301c), i-stem:
ISg bolor-i-w (Plato), GDPl bolor-i-c‘ (Book of Chries, Grigor Narekac‘i) ‘whole,
entire; round, spherical; circle’ (Bible+), ‘calyx of a flower, husk, rosebud, an ornament’ in IPl bolor-i-w-k‘ (Wisdom 2.8, rendering Gr. κάλυξ, and Book of
Chries), bolor-ak ‘round, circular’ (Bible+), bolorem ‘to twist round, coil, plait,
gather’ (Bible+); bolor-ek‘-ean/-in, -ec‘-un(-c‘), -ek‘-um-b-k‘ ‘the whole of’ (Eznik
Koɫbac‘i, Eɫišē, Philo, Book of Chries, etc.); bolor-ši ‘round, circular, revolving,
versatile’ (Bible+).
●DIAL The form bolor(-k‘) is widespread in the dialects, in meanings ‘around’,
‘round, circular’, ‘whole’, etc. [HAB 1: 462a]. Hamšen pɔlɔydik‘ ‘environs,
neighbourhood, surroundings’ is from *bolor-ti-k‘ [HAB 1: 462a; Ačaṙyan 1947:
223], cf. Akn bɔlɔrtik‘ or bɔlərti ‘id.’ [Gabriēlean 1912: 248]. See also s.v. *boyl
‘ball of dough’.
●ETYM Since long (see HAB 1: 461-462 with references; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 115),
derived from PIE *bh
el- ‘to blow, grow, swell’, cf. Gr. φαλλός m. ‘penis’, OIc. boli
‘bull’, OSax. bula ‘id.’, bulluc ‘young bull’, Engl. bull ‘id.’, Lat. follis ‘leather bag
filled with air, ball’ (on which see Schrijver 1991: 177, rejecting the comparison
with Lat. flāre ‘to blow’, OHG blāen ‘id.’ < *bh
leh1-ie/o-, OHG blāsan ‘id.’ <
*bh
leh1-s-, etc.), OIr. ball ‘body part’, OHG bolla f. ‘Wasserblase, Fruchtbalg oder
Knoten des Flachses’, bilorn ‘gum (in mouth)’, Sax. bealluc m. ‘testicle’ < *bh
ol-n-,
OIc. bǫllr ‘ball, testicle’, Old Swedish bu/olde ‘swelling, abscess, tumour’, bu/olin
‘aufgeschwollen’, etc.
Standard dictionaries (Pokorny 1959: 120-122; Mallory/Adams 1997: 71b)
mention under this root only Arm. beɫun ‘product, harvest, semen, fruit’ (q.v.),
etymologized by Adontz (1937: 9). Further see s.vv. blur ‘hill’, boɫǰ ‘swelling,
tumour, wound’, *boyl ‘ball of dough’.
For the structure of bol-or(-) and Hamšen *bolor-t-i-k‘ ‘surroundings’ compare
ol-or(-) nd olor-t ‘winding, etc.’; for bol-or-ši cf. gol-or-ši ‘vapour, steam’ vs. gol
‘warm’ (q.v.), layn-ši vs. layn ‘broad’, see HAB 1: 461; 3: 551-552; Greppin 1975:
116, 130; J̌
ahukyan 1998: 29; Olsen 1999: 509-510, 524-526. The pattern bol-or :
blur ‘hill’ is reminiscent of kotor : ktur ‘cut’ [Olsen 1999: 525661].
According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 461b), here belongs also MidArm. and dial.
Axalk‘alak‘, Širak, Ararat, Muš, Van pl-or ‘testicle’ (Amatuni 1912: 27b; Ačaṙean
1913: 913b), cf. OIc. bǫllr ‘ball, testicle’, etc. The Armenian form points to *b-, thus
one may think of Skt. buli- f. ‘buttocks; vulva’, Lith. bulìs (-iẽs), bùlė, bulė̃
‘Hinterer, Gesäß’; cf. also MidArm. plpl-k-el ‘to blossom, bud’, Erznka pllik
‘vulva’, Łarabaɫ, Ararat pupul ‘penis’, etc. The fluctuation b-/p- (PIE *bh
-/b-) may
be due to soundsymbolic nature of words, note further pɫpǰak ‘bubble’ vs. boɫboǰ
‘blossom, sprout’.
*boxi, *buk‘i ‘hornbeam’ (dial.).
●DIAL Loṙi, Łazax boxi, Łarabaɫ pɛxi, rural pǘk‘i ‘hornbeam’ (Amatuni 1912: 112a;
Ačaṙean 1913: 200a; Ališan 1895: 96), Burdur bɛxi ‘id.’ [N. Mkrtč‘yan 1971: 198].
Łarabaɫ pö́xi/ɛ and pɛ́
xi (Davt‘yan 1966: 328) regularly reflect *boxi by Ačaṙyan’s
Law (see 2.1.39.1), whereas pǘk‘i presupposes *buk‘i.
●ETYM Connected with Gr. φηγός f. ‘oak’, Lat. fāgus f. ‘beech’, OIc. bók ‘beech’,
OHG buohha ‘beech’, Goth. boka ‘letter’, etc. (J̌
ahukyan 1972: 317, referring to
Ačaṙyan). The appurtenance of Slav. *buzь ‘elder’ and Kurd. büz ‘elm’ is uncertain.
For a discussion of the IE forms, the vocalic problem and the ‘beech’-argument, see
Osthoff 1905: 249-258; Thieme 1953: 546; Eilers/Mayrhofer 1962; Lane 1967; P. Friedrich 1970: 106-115; Krahe 1970: 55-56; ÈtimSlovSlavJaz 1, 1974: 172;
Henning 1977; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 621-623 = 1995: 533-535; P. Friedrich
& Mallory apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 58-60; Blažek 2002; de Vaan 2008: 199.
J̌
ahukyan (1972: 31767) points out that the appurtenance of the Armenian form to
this term is doubtful because of the vocalism. Note, however, that some cognate
forms show possible traces of -u after the root vowel. As for the -x- and -k‘- instead
of the expected -k-, I propose to posit forms with tree-suffixes -x-i (see s.vv.
kaɫamaxi, meɫex, and 2.3.1) and -k‘-i (cf. Loṙi kaɫnə-k‘-i vs. ClArm. kaɫn-i ‘oak’).
This Armenian word is confined to the N, NE and E peripheries. This is in
agreement with the geographical spread of the beech-tree (see literature above,
particularly the map in Mallory/Adams 1997: 59). For the semantic relationship
‘beech’ : ‘hornbeam’, see P. Friedrich 1970: 99-101; Mallory/Adams 1997: 273.
I conclude that Arm. *boxi and *buk‘i may be traced back to *bo(k)-x-i and *bukk‘-i, respectively. The reconstruction of the QIE form (*bh
eHug-, *bh
oh2g-?) remains
unclear .
*boxoxič, Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ (Amalyan 1975: 113Nr95), ənkičeal (unclear word, see HAB
2: 129) is glossed as follows: xrtuilak, kam xočič, kam boxoy xēž (var. xič). As is
clear from the equivalents xrtuilak and xočič (also as a separate gloss: Amalyan
1975: 145Nr224), boxoy xič must have meant ‘scarecrow’.
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 462b) posits *boxoxič and does not record or offer any
etymology of the word.
I propose to interpret it as composed of *bo- ‘bogy’ and *xoxič. The latter is
reminiscent of xočič ‘scarecrow’, mentioned in the same gloss. This is linked with
xučič, attested in Evagrius of Pontus. The by-form *xox-ič may be corroborated by
Sebastia xɔxɔǰ. See 1.12.4 for more details.
bok adj. and adv. ‘barefoot’ (Bible+), bokanam ‘to become barefoot’, bokac‘eal
(Bible); bok-otn ‘id.’ (Grigoris Aršaruni, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, etc.), a
compound with otn ‘foot’; MidArm. bok-ik ‘barefoot’ (MiǰHayBaṙ 1, 1987: 128a).
●DIAL The pure forms bok and bok-ik are not recorded. The MidArm. diminutive
form *bok-ik yielded *bobik in practically all the dialectal areas (in a few of them:
*bob-l-ik), and tɛ́
pɛgy in Łarabaɫ (HAB 1: 463a). The form *bobik is explained
through a simultaneous process of assimilation and disimillation, and Łarabaɫ *topik
reflects a further development, perhaps prompted from the compound *otn-a-bobik
(see 2.1.25).
The MidArm. and dialectal diminutive forms bok-ik and *bob-ik are recorded
already in NHB 1: 503c.
●ETYM Derived from PIE *bh
oso-, cf. Lith. bãsas, OCS bosъ ‘barefooted’, OHG bar
‘naked, bare’, etc. (Hübschmann 1897: 430; HAB 1: 462-463; Pokorny 1959: 163;
Mallory/Adams 1997: 45b). For a discussion of the -k, see s.v. merk ‘naked’.
boɫ ‘a kind of plant’ (Galen, etc.).
●DIAL In several dialects, in the meaning ‘a kind of bitter field-plant, = Turk.
/č‘ašur/’ [HAB 1: 464b]. The plant plays an important role in the epic song “Karos
xač‘” (see Harut‘yunyan/Xač‘atryan 2000, passim). In a Moks version: pɔɫɛ xač‘
[Yovsēp‘eanc‘ 1892: 12]. In Orbeli 2002: 315, Moks pöɫ is glossed in square brackets as ‘граб’ = ‘hornbeam’. This seems to be due to confusion with *boxi
‘hornbeam’ (q.v.).
●ETYM See s.v. boɫk.
boɫboǰ, o-stem: GDPl boɫboǰ-o-c‘ (Agat‘angeɫos, Book of Chries), IPl boɫboǰ-o-v-k‘
(Agat‘angeɫos, 5th cent.); i-stem: GDPl boɫboǰ-i-c‘ (Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i), IPl
boɫboǰ-i-w-k‘ (Gregory of Nyssa, and a homily attributed to Movsēs Xorenac‘i); astem: GDPl boɫboǰ-a-c‘ (Gregory of Nyssa), IPl boɫboǰ-a-w-k‘ (Hexaemeron: K.
Muradyan 1984: 129L8, and Gregory of Nyssa) ‘sprout, offshoot, blossom, bud’
(Bible+); denominative verbs boɫboǰem ‘to germinate, bud, sprout’ (Bible+),
boɫboǰanam ‘id.’ (Philo, Gregory of Nyssa).
In Job 15.30 (Cox 2006: 127) and Song of Songs 2.13 Arm. boɫboǰ renders Gr.
βλαστός and ὄλυνϑος, respectively.
●DIAL No dialectal record in HAB 464-465.
V. Aṙak‘elyan (1984a: 142) derives dial. (the village of Kotayk‘/Elkavan)
bhəxpuč ‘bubble-like formation on the bread called lavaš; bubbled bread’ from
boɫboǰ, and pəɫɔčak ‘bubble’ from pɫpǰak, and states that boɫboǰ and pɫpǰak are
confused in HAB. Indeed, Ačaṙyan lists this and related forms below under the entry
pɫpǰak ‘bubble’, HAB 4: 91a. The thing is that it is not always easy to distinguish
between these forms because such consonant clusters must have been subject to
assimilatory and dissimilatory processes. Further on the fluctuation b-/p- see in the
etymological section.
The noun *bxbuč is also found in Nor Bayazet (Ačaṙean 1913: 194a); note also
the verb bxbč- ‘to bud, germinate’ (of flowers), for a textual illustration see
P‘iloyeanc‘ 1888: 25L-8. Further cf. some forms recorded in Ačaṙean 1913: 194a.
Probably here belongs also Łarabaɫ pxpxótil ‘to germinate, bud’ (cf. HAB 1: 481b).
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (Adjarian 1918: 162; HAB 1: 464-465; see also J̌
ahukyan 1987:
115; cf. Olsen 1999: 9363) treats boɫboǰ as a reduplication of the type of doɫdoǰ
‘quivering’, from the root seen in boɫ ‘a plant’, boɫk ‘radish’ (q.v.), as well as with
Lat. folium n. ‘leaf; petal (esp. of a rose)’ and Gr. φύλλον n. ‘leaf’.
The etymology is quite acceptable. In my opinion, Arm. boɫboǰ is to be treated as
a reduplication of *boɫǰ- from QIE *bh
ol-i̯o-, cf. Lat. folium and Gr. φύλλον,
probably from the o-grade form, too (see Beekes 1990a: 378; Mallory/Adams 1997:
348a; for discussion on this etymon see also Schrijver 1991: 131, 177); note Lat.
flōs, flōris m. ‘blossom, flower; youthful prime’, etc. Further see s.v.v. boɫk ‘radish’,
boɫǰ ‘swelling, tumour’. Thus: *boɫ-boɫǰ > boɫboǰ.
There seems to be some kind of relationship between boɫboǰ ‘blossom, sprout’
and pɫpǰak ‘bubble’Interesting are p(l)pluk ‘bud, gemma’, Trapizon bumbulak <
*pumpul-ak ‘bud’, etc., astonishingly reminiscent of Lith. bum̃bulas ‘bud’, etc. The
fluctuation b-/p- (IE *bh
-/b-) may be, apart from reasons mentioned in the dialectal
section, due to soundsymbolic origin; cf. Engl. bubble, etc.
boɫk ‘radish’. In the later literature: Galen (= Gr. ῥαφανίς [Greppin 1985: 95]),
Geoponica, etc.; see NHB 1: 504a; Ališan 1895: 98-99; Norayr Biwzandac‘i 1923:
503-504 (according to him, = Fr. raifort).
The oldest appearance of the root is seen in boɫk-uk, with a diminutive suffix -uk,
attested in Hexaemeron (K. Muradyan 1984: 304L5): boɫkukk‘ eɫǰerac‘ ort‘uc‘ kam gaṙanc‘ “little horns of calves or lambs”. Here boɫkukk‘ has no correspondent form
in the Greek text; boɫkukk‘ eɫǰerac‘ renders Gr. τὰ κέρατα [NHB 1: 504a; K.
Muradyan 1984: 372b]. Arm. boɫk-uk should be interpreted as ‘newly grown horn’
(as is suggested by Ačaṙyan [HAB 1: 465a]) rather than ‘radish-like small horn’ (as
in NHB 1: 504a). This might imply an etymological meaning ‘*growing’.
●DIAL boɫk ‘radish’ is ubiquitous in the dialects. In Muš and Alaškert, one finds
b‘oɫ, without the final -k [HAB 1: 465a; Madat‘yan 1985: 185a]. Łarabaɫ pəɔxk/pöxk
and pɛxk (see HAB and Davt‘yan 1966: 328), Moks pöɫk (see HAB; Ačaṙyan 1952:
251; Orbeli 2002: 315), etc. point to Ačaṙyan’s Law and subsequent consonant shift
(see 2.1.39.1).
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 464-465) derives boɫk from *boɫ ‘plant, sprout’ (see s.vv.
boɫ and boɫboǰ), which he connects with Lat. folium n. ‘leaf’, flōs, -ōris m. ‘blossom,
flower’, etc., for the semantic development comparing with Fr. radis ‘radish’, etc.
from Lat. rādīх ‘root’. He (op. cit. 465) points out that the resemblance with Syriac
pūglā is accidental and treats Georg. bolok’i ‘radish’, Oss. bulk ‘id.’, etc. as
Armenian loans. H. Suk‘iasyan (1986: 90,146-147) interprets -k as a determinative,
but the etymological treatment of most of her examples is not convincing.
Adonc‘ (1938: 457 = 1972: 391) hesitantly compares the Armenian and Georgian
words with Akkad. puglu ‘radish’. On the other hand, he points out that Arm. boɫk
can be originally identical with Gr. βολβός m. ‘onion; purse-tassels, Muscari
comosum’ and Lith. bumbulỹs ’Steckrübe, Wasserblase, Kalbsauge’. The latter
etymology is represented in Pokorny 1959: 103. J̌
ahukyan (1987: 115, 461-462,
467) accepts Ačaṙyan’s etymology, but also mentions the Semitic parallels. Then (p.
462) he asks: “is it possible to suggest a Semitic loan from Armenian?”.
Further, see s.v. boɫ.
boɫok‘, o-stem: GDSg boɫok‘-o-y, ISg boɫok‘-o-v in Łazar P‘arpec‘i; a-stem: GDPl
boɫok‘-a-c‘ in “Ganjaran” ‘loud complaint, cry’ (Bible+); boɫok‘em ‘to cry,
complain loudly’ (Bible+), ‘declamation of a herald’ (Athanasius of Alexandria);
dial. (Hamšen) *bolok‘- ‘to shout loudly’ (with -l-).
●DIAL Ararat bɔɫɔk‘ɛl ‘to complain’, Ozim b‘ɔɫək‘-ič‘ ‘complainer’, etc. [HAB 1:
466a].
In his ClArm. > Hamšen glossary, Ačaṙyan (1947: 223) does not record
boɫok‘em. In the glossary of purely dialectal words in Hamšen, he (op. cit. 259)
records Hamšen pɔlɔkuš ‘to shout loudly (said of both people and animals)’ deriving
it from *bolok‘el (with -l-), with no further comment. The appurtenance to boɫok‘em
seems obvious to me.
●ETYM Connected with OIc. belja ‘to roar’, OHG bellan ‘to bark, resound’, etc.; see
Meillet 1900: 391-392; Petersson 1920: 74-75 (together with baɫba(n)ǰ ‘delirious
talking’). Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 465-466) does not accept the comparison and leaves the
origin open. J̌
ahukyan (1987: 115) is positive, representing boɫok‘, baɫba(n)ǰ, and
dial. *bl-bl-al ‘to babble’ under the entry *bh
el-6 of Pokorny 1959. One might also
think of Arm. dial. (Van, Łarabaɫ, Ararat, etc.) *bɫ-, *bɫ-bɫ-, *bɫaw- ‘to shout’, q.v.
boɫǰ ‘swelling, tumour, wound’, bɫǰ-un ‘having a swelling’; boɫǰn ‘ball’ (all MidArm,
see HAB 1: 466a; M. Muradyan 1972: 188; MiǰHayBaṙ 1, 1987: 128).
●DIAL Tigranakert boɫǰ-oc‘ ‘swelling, tumour, wound’ [HAB 1: 466a]. ●ETYM No etymology in HAB 1: 466a. J̌
ahukyan (1965: 252; 1987: 115; see also H.
Suk‘iasyan 1986: 147-148) derives the word from IE *bh
el- ‘to blow, swell’, whence
also bol-or ‘whole; round, spherical’ (q.v.). For boɫǰ he reconstructs *bh
oldh
i̯o- or the
like, cf. Old Swedish bu/olde ‘swelling, tumour’, etc. Further see s.v. *boyl ‘ball of
dough’.
*bo(y/v), *bu(y/v) ‘spider, tarantula; ghost’: Łarabaɫ *bov ‘spider’ [Ačaṙean 1913:
202b]. Next to bov – also bo, see HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 211a (with a textual
illustration). Davt‘yan (1966: 392) presents Łarabaɫ, Hadrut‘, Šaɫax, Maraɫa böv as
equivalent to ClArm. karič ‘scorpion’; cf. Areš böv, bövä ‘an animal resembling the
scorpion’ [Lusenc‘ 1982: 201b]. One may also add Polis pü (spelled piw) ‘ghost’ =
Nor Naxiǰewan pi ‘a poisonous spider’ (see HAB 2: 229b, 369a);
*b/polo : Van *p(o)lo ‘insect, bogy, monster’, *arǰ-a-plo ‘ghost’ (according to
Durean 1933: 110, arǰablɔ ‘a čiwaɫ = monster’), Surmalu *boloy ‘insect’. Next to
*arǰ-a-plo, Van also has *arǰ-a-pap-o ‘bogy’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 154a]. Ačaṙyan does
not specify *arǰ- and *pap-. The latter is, apparently, identical with pap
‘grandfather’, cf. *pap-uk ‘old man’ > Van, Alaškert ‘an insect’ (see Ačaṙean 1913:
896b). The component *arǰ- can be equalled with arǰn ‘black’ or arǰ ‘bear’. The
latter alternative seems more probable; cf. Russian Veles, the adversary of the
thunder-god, which is associated with the bear and lešij, the forest spirit (Uspenskij
1978: 114-125).
*bol/ɫol-: Van *bololan, T‘iflis *boɫolay ‘bogy, ghost’;
*bo-bo : Ararat, Igdir, Baɫeš, Nor Bayazet bobo ‘bogy, ghost’;
*bo-bol/ɫ : Alek‘sandrapol, Širak bobol, T‘avriz, J̌
uɫa bobox ‘ghost’, Ganjak
*boboɫ ‘insect’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 197b, 200-201; HAB 2: 229b, 369a; 4: 95a]
(according to HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 192b, 204a: Łarabaɫ, Ganjak biboɫ, boboɫ,
bobox ‘silkworm’); cf. also Tigranakert babula ‘bogy’ (see Haneyan 1978: 202).
*b/p(o)loč, *b/p(o)ɫoč : Ararat, Astapat *bloǰ, Širak bɔlɔč, Loṙi, Muš *boɫoč
[Amatuni 1912: 105b], Akn *ploč, Baɫeš, Van *poloč, Łarabaɫ *pɫoč ‘insect, beetle’,
Nor Naxiǰewan *poɫoč ‘bogy’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 913a, 919a].
All these forms are dialectal, except for poloč ‘insect, worm’, which is attested in
“Lucmunk‘ sahmanac‘n” [HAB 4: 95a].
A trace of *bo- ‘scarecrow’ may be seen in *bo-xoxič (q.v.).
●ETYM According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 95a; cf. also 2: 229a and Ačaṙean 1913:
201a), the root is *bol- which is a Caucasian loan; cf. reduplicated forms Georg.
boboli ‘a large worm’, Laz boboli ‘insect’.
This solution is too narrow and unsatisfactory. First of all, *bo/u- ‘spider,
tarantula; scorpion; ghost’, ranging from Polis and Nor Naxiǰewan to Łarabaɫ, Areš,
etc., which Ačaṙyan mentions only as a semantic parallel, seems to be related, too.
Note also the reduplicated *bo-bo, which is not necessarily a reduced form of
*bo-bol/ɫ. Secondly, the spread of this word in the neighbouring languages, as we
shall see, is much wider. Thirdly, these words may all be onomatopoeic.
Klimov (1998: 145) represents Kartvel. *oboba- ‘spider’: Georg. oboba- ‘spider’,
Megrel. bo(r)bolia- < *bo(r)bo-, with dimin. -ia, Laz bobon·va- < *bobo-, Svan
*opopa, wopopä, etc. Amirdovlat‘ Amasiac‘i (15th cent.) mentions Turk. /pō/ as an equivalent of Arm.
mor ‘tarantula, phalangium’ (see S. Vardanjan 1990: 134, § 616). This Turkish word
is compared with Arab. bū, abū ‘tarantula’ [S. Vardanyan 1990: 613, note 616/2].
Slav. *bǫba : Bulg. búba ‘a worm; bug; bogy’, dial. ‘cocoon of the silkworm’,
Maced. buba ‘insect’, etc. (see ÈtimSlovSlavJaz 2, 1975: 229-230), Lith. bam̃balas
‘May-bug’, Latv. bam̃bals, bambala ‘beetle’, Gr. βομβυλός, βομβύλιος m. ‘buzzing
insect, humble-bee, gnat, mosquito; cocoon of the silkworm’, Gr. βόμβυξ, -υκος m.
‘silkworm’, βομβύκιον ‘cocoon of the silkworm’, etc.
Further, see Nocentini 1994: 401 ff.
For the semantics, see 3.5.2.1.
boyt‘1, a-stem (Bible), o-stem (Ephrem); boyt‘n, GDSg but‘in, AblSg i but‘anē, ISg
but‘amb (“Maštoc‘” of J̌
ahkec‘i, 14th cent.) ‘thumb’; *boyt‘ ‘a soft lump of flesh,
lobe’, in lerd-a-boyt‘ ‘lobe of the liver’ (Bible+), unkan-a-boyt‘ ‘lobe of the ear’
(Cyril of Jerusalem).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects, in the meaning ‘thumb’; only in Agulis (büt‘) and
Kak‘avaberd (b/püt‘), ‘finger’ (for Kak‘avaberd, see H. Muradyan 1967: 167b).
Ararat and J̌
uɫa have b‘it‘; note also T‘iflis bit‘ next to but‘, as well as Xotorǰur bit‘
[YušamXotorǰ 1964: 434b]. The form boyt‘n can be traced in Łarabaɫ püt‘nə and in
Akn b‘ət‘n-üg (see HAB 1: 466b). Commenting upon J̌
uɫa b‘it‘, Ačaṙyan (1940: 87;
see also 356b) states that there is no other example with -oyt‘. Note, however, čkoyt‘
‘little finger’ > J̌
uɫa ck-ik, rural čfkit‘ [HAB 3: 205a; Ačaṙean 1940: 375a].
Bearing in mind the classical meaning ‘a soft lump of flesh, lobe’, one may add
more dialectal evidence: Muš but‘-ik gdal ‘young of a frog’ (with gdal ‘spoon’);
Ararat, Łarabaɫ but‘ ‘hump’, Ararat, Łazax but‘-ik ‘hump-backed’ (see Ačaṙean
1913: 204a).
In Łarabaɫ, püt‘nə seems to refer also to ‘(round) hill or rock’, as attested in a
folk-tale (L. Harut‘yunyan 1991: 52L16f): K‘yənum ən, tem əɫnum min saru, k‘šanum
min cör, min pülür püt‘nav pat tam, min k‘rəčeɫk‘av ni mnnum tap‘en takə “They go,
encounter a mountain, come down into a ravine, go around a round hill/rock, enter
under the ground through a stone-chink”. Note also Łarabaɫ *xul-u-boyt‘n ‘rugged’
with xül ‘rugged’ < xoyl ‘swelling, spot’, q.v. (see Ačaṙean 1913: 488b; HAB 2:
392a) and cited as xləput‘nə ‘rugged’ in L. Harut‘yunyan 1991: 362. The component
*boyt‘n may be identified with püt‘nə ‘hill or rock’ < boyt‘n ‘thumb’. For the
semantics compare matn ‘hill’ vs. matn ‘finger’ (q.v.).
●SEMANTICS The semantic range [‘lobe (of the ear or the liver)’; ‘thumb’; ‘hump’;
‘young of a frog’] suggests a basic meaning ‘a soft lump of flesh; a roundish
projecting part of the body’, which usually derives from ‘swollen, grown’.
●ETYM Meillet (1903c: 431 = Meye 1978: 171-172) connects boyl, i-stem ‘group’.
Basically meaning ‘swollen, grown, fat, strong’, boyt‘ can easily be derived from
PIE *bh
euH- ’to grow’. For the meaning ‘thumb’, cf. OIc. þumall, OHG dūmo, etc.
‘thumb’ from PIE *teuH- or *teHu- ‘to swell; crowd, folk; fat; strong’. Ačaṙyan
(HAB 1: 466b) is sceptical and leaves the origin of the word open. J̌
ahukyan (1965:
252-253; 1987: 114-115) accepts the etymology, mentioning cognates with dental
determinatives such as Engl. pout ‘to thrust out or protrude the lips, esp. in
expression of displeasure or sullenness’, etc., and Arm. poytn ‘pot’, although these
forms presuppose *b-. See also s.vv. boyt‘2 ‘felloe’ and boyl ‘group’. The suffixal element *-t- is also found in Gr. φῠτόν n. ‘plant’, Skt. bhū́-ti-, bhū-tíf. ‘Wohlsein, guter Zustand, Gedeihen’, prá-bhūta- ‘abundant, much, considerable,
great’, etc. On the other hand, one may also consider the synchronic suffix -t‘- in
body-part terms like *kuṙ-t‘-n ‘back’ next to kuṙn ‘back; arm’ (see 2.3.1). Note
especially bl-it‘ ‘a roundish soft bread; lobe of the ear or the liver; (dial.) swelling’
(q.v.), with a similar semantic field and perhaps of the same origin : *bh
uH-l- + -it‘.
Similarly, boyt‘ is probably composed of *bu- (from *bh
uH-) and -it‘. The same
suffix is also found in čkoyt‘ ‘the little finger’ next to ck-ik, etc. (see 2.3.1, 1.12.5).
boyt‘2 ‘felloe’. Attested only in Step‘anos Siwnec‘i (8th cent.), as a synonym of hec‘
‘felloe’ (q.v.).
●ETYM No etymology is recorded in HAB 1: 467a. According to J̌
ahukyan (1965:
252), the word may have resulted from a semantic development of boyt‘1, although
he does not specify the motivation. For a suggestion, see 3.9.4.
boyl, i-stem: GDPl bul-i-c‘ in Łazar P‘arpec‘i, 5th cent.; MidArm. a-stem ‘group (of
people, deers, stags, etc.)’; MidArm. boyl-k‘ ‘Pleiades’.
5th century onwards. In Łazar P‘arpec‘i, 5th cent. (1904=1985: 10L31f; transl.
Thomson 1991: 43): ew aylk‘ zhet bulic‘ eɫǰeruac‘n ew eɫanc‘ jiarjak eɫeal “others
gallop after herds of stags and hinds”. A MidArm. a-stem is seen in bulk‘ i bul-a-c‘,
see MiǰHayBaṙ 1, 1987: 130a.
●DIAL Akn b‘ɔl ‘group’; Alaškert, Ararat, Tigranakert, Xarberd, Širak, etc. *boylk‘
‘Pleiades’ (see also Nždehean 1902: 269; Amatuni 1912: 80b), Zeyt‘un b‘li ‘a star’
[HAB 1: 468a]; Širak bulk‘ ‘Ursa Major’ [Mxit‘areanc‘ 1901: 308; Amatuni 1912:
116a], Sasun pulk‘ ‘Pleiades or Ursa Major’ [Petoyan 1954: 153; 1965: 340, 518],
Xotorǰur *boylk‘ ‘a group of stars’ [YušamXotorǰ 1964: 435a]; Hamšen pulk‘, pulk
(from boyl-k‘), GSg pəlkɔn ‘shrub’ [Ačaṙyan 1947: 73, 223], Muš, Alaškert, Bulanəx
b‘ul ‘shrub’ [HAB 1: 468a].
The astral term boylk‘ is reflected in the dialect of Malat‘ia as p‘ɔrk‘, with regular
developments b- > p‘- and -oy- > -ɔ- [Danielyan 1967: 43, 188b], Sasun > T‘alin
purk‘ (Martirosyan/Gharagyozyan FW 2003, September 6); see also HayLezBrbBaṙ
1, 2001: 220a (burk‘). The only irregularity is the -r-. As pointed out by Danielyan
(op. cit. 63), this is the only case for the development l > r in this dialect. According
to the same author, the meaning is ‘constellation’.
According to Ačaṙyan (1913: 204b), Ararat bulk‘ ‘avalanche’ belongs here, too.
He mentions this form also in HAB 1: 468a (s.v. boyl), but derives it from p‘ul ‘fall,
ruins’, p‘/blanim ‘to fall’ (q.v.).
See also s.vv. boɫǰ ‘swelling, wound’, *boyl ‘ball of dough’.
●SEMANTICS The meanings ‘group’, ‘shrub‘ (< *‘growing), perhaps also ‘avalanche’
(< ‘a mass of snow’) suggest a basic semantics like ‘mass, abundance; growing’.
●ETYM Meillet (1903c: 431 = Meye 1978: 171-172) links boyl, i-stem with Skt.
bhū́ri- ‘much, abundant, numerous, great, mighty’ (RV+) (cf. OAv. būiri-
‘abundant’), and Goth. uf-bauljan ‘aufblasen’, as well as Arm. boyt‘ ‘thumb’ (q.v.).
Petersson (1916: 276-277) accepts this etymology and adds also Lith. būrỹs
‘multitude, crowd’, Latv. bũris ‘heap, mass’. J̌
ahukyan (1987: 114) follows Meillet,
although Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 466b, 467-468) is sceptical. The semantics of Arm. boyl in general and the meaning ‘shrub’ of dial *boyl(k‘)
in particular agree also with OCS bylije ‘herbs, plants, grass’, Czech. býlí ‘weed’,
SCr. bīlje ‘plants, grass’ (Slav. < *bh
Hu-l-io-) and Gr. φῦλον n. ‘race, tribe, class’,
φῡλή f. ‘tribe, group of tribes, community’, as the l-suffixation of PIE *bh
euH- or
*bh
Hu-, cf. Gr. φύομαι ‘I grow, I become’, φῠτόν n. ‘growth, plant’ < *bh
Hu-to-;
Arm. boyn, o-stem ‘nest; den; hut’, boys, o-stem ‘plant’ (q.v.) from *bh
euH-ko-, etc.
For the problem of the laryngeal in this root, see Schrijver 1991: 512-518, 534. Arm.
boyl, i-stem derives from *bh
euH-l-i-. The diphthong oy, seen also in boys and boyn,
points to *bh
euH- rather than *bh
Hu-.
If indeed from PIE *teuH- ‘to swell, abound’, Arm. t‘up‘ ‘shrub’ (dial. also
‘flourishing, thriving’) provides us with another example of the semantic
development ‘to grow, swell’ > ‘plant, shrub’.
For the semantic development ‘many’ > ‘Pleiades’, see 3.1.2; among other
examples, note Skt. bahulá- ‘thick; many’, f. pl. ‘Pleiades’, which also shows a
formal resemblance with Arm. boyl. The resemblance is, however, accidental.
Zeyt‘un b‘li is glossed by Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 468a) as ‘a star’. The semantics of
boyl suggests, however, that it denotes ‘Pleiades’ or a constellation. It may be
derived from *bh
uH-l-i(e)h2- or *bh
Hu-l-i(e)h2-. The zero grade is also represented
by bl-it‘ (q.v.); see also s.v. boyt‘. For other asterisms in the suffix *-l-ih2-, see 2.3.1
on -(a)li, and s.vv. luca[t]li, sayl.
The -r- in Malat‘ia p‘ɔrk‘ < *boyr-k‘ ‘*Pleiades’ is remarkable. Since it cannot be
explained within the dialect, one may ascribe an etymological value to it. There are
two possibilities: 1) in contrast with boyl < *bh
euH-l-, *boyr-k‘ reflects an old *-rsuffixation seen also in Lith. būrỹs ‘multitude, crowd’, Latv. bũris ‘heap, mass’; 2)
*boyr-k‘ is borrowed from MIran. *būr-, cf. OAv. būiri- ‘abundant’. The latter
alternative seems more probable.
See also s.vv. boɫǰ ‘swelling, wound’, *boyl ‘ball of dough’.
*boyl (dial.) ‘ball of dough’.
●DIAL Łarabaɫ, Hadrut‘, Šaɫax-Xcaberd pül ‘ball of dough’ [Davt‘yan 1966: 329].
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 461b, 462a) presents this dialectal word as bul ‘ball’ and
derives it from *bh
ol- ‘to swell’, together with bol-or ‘whole; round, spherical’. To
these have been connected also MidArm. boɫǰ ‘swelling, tumour, wound’ and boɫǰn
‘ball’, q.v. (see M. Muradyan 1972: 188; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 115). However, Łarabaɫ,
etc. pül rather requires *bul or *boyl. It is therefore preferable to follow Davt‘yan
(1966: 329) in deriving pül from boyl ‘group’, dial. ‘avalanche’, ‘shrub’, ‘Pleiades’
(q.v.), unless one assumes *bh
ol-i̯V- > *boyl as in ayl ‘other’ vs. Lat. alius. The form
boɫǰ points to *bh
ol-i̯V- or, less probably, or *bh
olĝh
i̯V-, which see Mallory/Adams
1997: 45a, 561a. It is unclear whether Arm. boɫboǰ ‘blossom, sprout’ is related with
these words.
For the semantic relationship cf. gund ‘ball (also of dough and the like)’ vs. gund
‘group’ (see HAB 1: 593-595), perhaps also xoyl ‘swelling, tumour, gland’ vs. xoyl
‘army’ (q.v.).
Arm. boyl, i-stem ‘group’ probably derives from QIE *bh
euH-l-i- (see s.v.). If
indeed belonging here, boɫǰ(n), bɫǰ- may reflect a thematic *bh
euH-l-i̯o- or fem.
*bh
euH-l-i̯eh2- > *boyɫǰ-.
*boyc-: bucanem ‘to feed’ (Bible+); -boyc (as the second member of a number of
compounds, e.g. ənd-a-but, which see s.v. und); but ‘food’ (Bible+), on which the
denominative btem ‘to feed’ (Ephrem+) is based.
●DIAL Ačaṙyan (1953: 193) mentions Aṙtial bužanɛl ‘to feed’ < *pužanel, which, as
he points out, agrees with bucanem semantically but disagrees formally.
The form but has been preserved in the dialects of Moks and Bulanəx, meaning
‘hibernal food for domesticated animals’ [HAB 1: 487b].
●ETYM Since Hübschmann (1897: 430), derived from PIE *bh
eug- ‘to enjoy’: Skt.
bhoj- ‘to (make) enjoy; to make use of’ (RV+), bhóga- m. ‘Genuß, Freude, Nutzen’
(RV+), bhukti- f. ‘Genießen’ (Br.+), OAv. būǰ- f. ‘penalty’, Khot. būjsana-
‘feasting’, haṃbujs- ‘to enjoy’, Lat. fungor ‘to enjoy; to suffer’. Mayrhofer (EWAia
2, 1996: 275-276) does not mention the Armenian form, although the connection of
the latter is formally impeccable. As for the semantics, note that the Sanskrit verb,
too, is largely used in respect to eating; see EWAia (ibid.); Cardona 1987: 65, 68-69.
For the semantic relationship, cf. also Skt. bhakṣá- m. ‘Essen, Trank, Speise, Genuß’
(RV+). For Iranian forms, see also Cheung 2007: 19 (with Armenian). For a further
analysis, see Benveniste 1966.
As I try to demonstrate in 2.1.22.12, but ‘food’ (vs. boyc- ‘to feed’ <*bh
eug- ) is
best explained by *bh
ug-ti-, cf. Skt. bhukti- f. ‘Genießen’ (Br.+).
I wonder whether Aṙtial *pužanel ‘to feed’ (see above) may be considered an old
Iranian loan with a consonant shift.
boyn, o-stem: GDSg bun-o-y, LocSg i bn-i (Bible) ‘nest; den, lair; hut’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects [HAB 1: 469a].
●ETYM Since long connected with words deriving from PIE *bh
euH- ‘to be, grow’,
see HAB 1: 470 (Ačaṙyan himself does not accept the etymology); Pisani 1934: 186;
J
̌ahukyan 1987: 116. Note Skt. bhúvana- n. ‘Wesen; Welt’ (RV+), etc.; see s.vv. bay
‘lair’, boys ‘plant’, boyt‘ ‘thumb; a soft lump of flesh, lobe’, etc.
boys, o-stem: ISg bus-o-v, GDPl bus-o-c‘ (Hexaemeron) ‘plant’ Bible+; busanim ‘to
grow, germinate, originate, be produced’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects, especially as a verb, with or without the nasal
suffix: *bus-n- (Polis, T‘iflis, Hamšen, Cilicia, Łarabaɫ, Van, etc.) : *bus- (Ararat,
Muš, Alaškert, Ozim). Next to verbal b‘usnil, Xarberd has a participle buss-aj
‘grown’, with a geminate -ss- [HAB 1: 470b].
●ETYM Since NHB (1: 505b), connected with Gr. φύομαι ‘to grow, become’, φῠτόν
n. ‘plant, growth’, φύσις f. ‘growth, descent, nature, being’, etc. from PIE
*bh
euH-ko- (see Hübschmann 1899: 47; HAB 1: 470; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 116). Perhaps,
PIE *(-)VuHC > Arm. -VūC rather than with vocalization of the laryngeal (see s.vv.
boyl, boyn).
bosor ‘blood-red, crimson’ (Cyril of Jerusalem, Grigor Narekac‘i, Nersēs Šnorhali,
etc.).
●ETYM The word bosor has been connected with boc‘ ‘flame’ and Lat. focus
‘fireplace, hearth, fireside’ (Petersson 1916: 285; Pokorny 1959: 162, etc.), see s.v.
boc‘ ‘flame’ for more detail. Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 473; AčaṙHLPatm 1, 1940: 181),
however, separates bosor from boc‘ and identifies it with the Biblical place-name
Bosor, Bosoray, transliterated from Greek Βοσόρ, cf. Genesis 36.33 (Zeyt‘unyan 1985: 318): Yobab ordi Zarehi i Bosoray : Ιωβαβ υἱὸς Ζαρα ἐκ Βοσορρας. For other
Biblical attestations, see Astuacaturean 1895: 302. Note especially Isaiah 63.1:
karmrut‘iwn jorjoc‘ iwroc‘ i Bosoray : ἐρύϑημα ἱματίων ἐκ Βοσορ.
For the association with the notion ‘dark, red’ and for the testimony from
medieval literature and glossaries, as well as for the derivatives of bosor and Bosor,
see NHB 1: 505-506; HAB 1: 473; Wutz 1914: 870Nr167; Amalyan 1971: 108, 112.
For bosor-ac‘i see Olsen 1999: 344320. For a further discussion on bosor, see
Greppin 1980b; Weitenberg 1989: 601; L. Hovhannisyan 2001: 183-184.
*bor *‘brown animal’; ‘brown or motley/spotted’ (> ‘leprosy’).
This word is not attested independently. I tentatively reconstruct it on the basis of
some dialectal evidence (see below) and its hypothetical connection with bor
‘leprosy’ and boreni ‘hyena’ (q.v.).
●DIAL Karin borek is described by Ačaṙyan (1913: 203b) as “t‘ux, čermak goynov
kov”, that is, a cow, which is dark-complexioned (t‘ux), but also of white colour
(spitak goynov). It is not quite clear what he exactly means; perhaps ‘a
dark-complexioned cow with white spots’.
Loṙi borex-a-muk ‘mole’ [Amatuni 1912: 115a]; the second member of the
compound is mukn ‘mouse’. According to the description of Ananyan (HayKendAšx
1, 1961: 90-91), the mole has a dark plushy fur.
Muš bor hort‘ik, Bor ez (HŽHek‘ 13, 1985: 161ff).
●ETYM One may connect with *bor-i ‘a brown, dark-complexioned animal’ >
‘hyena’ (see s.v. boreni ‘hyena’). The form borek ‘dark-complexioned or motley
cow’ comes from *boreak < *bori-ak.
Compare Iranian *bōr-: Pahl. bōr [bwl] ‘reddish-brown, bay, chestnut (horse)’
[MacKenzie 1971: 19], also referring to cattle (cf. Bōr-gāv), bōrak ‘borax, nitre’
[Nyberg 1974: 48b] (> Arm. borak ‘nitre’, see HAB 1: 475), Kurd. bōr ‘grey;
brown’ [Cabolov 1, 2001: 206-207], Pers. bur ‘blond, reddish brown, bay-horse’,
Sogd. βwr [βōr] ‘blond’ [Gharib 1995: 115a], etc. (see Maciuszak 1996: 29), cf.
YAv. baβra- m. ‘beaver’, Skt. babhrú- ‘reddish brown, brown; a kind of
ichneumon; a reddish-brown cow’’ < PIE *bh
ebh
ru-: OHG bibar ‘beaver’ < PGerm.
*ƀeƀru-; OHG brūn ‘brown’ (< PIE *bh
ruH-no-); for *bh
er-u- or *bh
er-o- cf. also
Lith. bė́ras ‘brown’, OHG bero ‘bear’, etc. For the Iranian forms and etymology, see
ÈtimSlovIranJaz 2, 2003: 151-154.
Further, see s.v. boreni ‘hyena’.
bor ‘leprosy’; late attested. Much older and widespread is bor-ot ‘leprous’ (Bible+) >
‘bad; unpure, dirty; heretic’ (for the semantic field, see 3.5.2.2).
●ETYM Considered to be a loan from Iran. *bor ‘leprosy’, only preserved in Sogd.
βr’wk’ /βarūkə/ ‘leprous’34 [HAB 1: 474b; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 520]. Bearing in mind
the Iranian alternation b- : v- (cf. e.g. the word for ‘violet’, see 2.3.1 on -awš, see
also s.v. mrǰiwn ‘ant’), one may assume that Arm. uruk ‘leprous’, which, to my
knowledge, has not received an etymological explanation, is borrowed from Iran.
*vorūk- through an intermediary *wuruk.
It seems that the forms are related to *bor ‘brown or motley/spotted’ (q.v.). For
the semantics, cf. Arm. pisak ‘spotted; leprous’, dial. of Van and Łarabaɫ p‘is ‘dirty’
: Pers. pīs ‘leprous; dirty’ (see HAB 4: 84b; Ačaṙean 1902: 352); cf. also Gr. ἀλφός
m. ‘dull-white leprosy’ (Hes.) from ‘white’ (cf. Lat. albus ‘white, pale, bright,
clear’, etc.). The above-mentioned Sogdian form may be derived from *bh
er-u- (or
*bh
e-bh
r-u-?). For more details, see s.vv. *bor ‘brown animal’, boreni ‘hyena’.
borb ‘bright, aflame, burning, abundant’ in a few late compounds (HAB 1: 475b);
independently only in Anania Širakac‘i (A. G. Abrahamyan 1940: 40L23): borb šoɫ
lusoyn "bright shine/ray/reflection of the light" (cf. ModArm. translations in HAB 1:
475b; Abrahamyan/Petrosyan 1979: 98); borb-ok‘ ‘aflame’ (Movsēs Xorenac‘i 1.1,
1913=1991: 6L4 and the Letter to Sahak, NHB 1: 507c), ‘kindling, flame’ (Aristakēs
Lastivertc‘i, see Yuzbašyan 1963: 78L14, 80L19); borbok‘em ‘to set on fire, kindle,
inflame; to fan the flame’ (abundant in the Bible and following literature).
●DIAL The verb borbok‘el is present in a number of dialects. Some dialects have a
form with nasal epenthesis, e.g. Van borbonk‘, Nor Bayazet b‘ɔrb‘ənk‘ɛl. The noun
borb has been preserved in Ararat b‘ɔrp‘ [HAB 1: 476b], cf. Areš -bɔrb [Lusenc‘
1982: 201b]. For Łarabaɫ pɛ́
rp‘ɛl ‘to fan the fire, provoke’, see below.
●ETYM Since long, connected with Lat. fervere, -ēre ‘to steam, burn, glow, be
heated, ferment’, etc. from *bh
er-u- (for a discussion of these forms, see Schrijver
1991: 252-256). This is followed by Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 476a). Pisani (1944: 162-
163) independently assumes the connection with fervere and interprets the Armenian
form through ‘broken reduplication’ as in Gr. πορφύρω ‘to surge, boil, be stirred’.
Dumézil (1938b: 52) assumes an enlargement of the same root, *bh
o-bh
r-o-.
It seems best to interpret bor-b as a broken reduplication, cf. PIE *n̥bh
ro- >
ampro-p ‘thunder’, *pter- > t‘er-t‘ vs. t‘er ‘leaf’ (see s.v.v.); for -ok‘, compare e.g.
atok‘ ‘full, fat’, barwok‘ ‘good, well’, etc; note also the verbs keɫek‘em ‘to tear,
rend’, oɫok‘em ‘to supplicate’ (see s.v.v.).. Alternatively, QIE *bh
or-bh
or- >
*borbo(r)-k‘-.
Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 476a; AčaṙLiak 3, 1957: 56) points out that borb represents an
*o-grade root whereas the *e-grade is seen in Łarabaɫ pɛ́
rp‘ɛl. This view is widely
accepted (J̌
ahukyan 1972: 278; N. Simonyan 1979: 247; Ervandyan 2007: 29). As
has been shown by A. Xač‘atryan 1984: 321-322, however, this form is to be
explained from borb- through Ačaṙyan’s Law (see 2.1.39.1).
boreni, wo-stem: GDSg borenwoy in Jeremiah 12.9; AblSg i borenwoy (Paterica);
borean, i-stem: GDPl borenic‘ in P‘awstos Buzand 4.13, etc.; borē (Grigor
Magistros, etc.) ‘hyena’ (Bible+). In P‘awstos Buzand 4.13 (1883=1984: 95L8f): ew
dadark‘ gazanac‘ ew orǰk‘ gazanac‘ ew orǰk‘ borenic‘ “lairs and dens for wild
beasts and hyenas”, translated by Garsoïan (1989: 138L4f).
Further, Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 477a) cites boray (Physiologus). According to
Weitenberg (p.c.), however, the actual form is AccSg z-boray-n, with a hypercorrect
ay after boren/*borēn < borean. The same *borēn was synchronically analyzed as
borē-n, with the article. Thus, there is no reason to posit a variant boray, and the
form borē is secondary.
●DIAL Ararat bor-ani ‘coat of a fur of hyena’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 203a; HAB 1: 477b;
HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 211b]. ●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 477) and, independently, J̌
ahukyan (1965: 253; see also
1987: 116, 160) derive the word from the o-grade of PIE *bh
er- ‘brown’ (also
characterizing animals), cf. Lith. bė́ras ‘brown’, OHG bero ‘bear’, etc. The only
cognate in o-grade cited by Ačaṙyan and J̌
ahukyan is Slav. *bobr- ‘beaver’, but this
in fact is a reduplicated form. J̌
ahukyan (1972: 284; 1987: 116) adds here also dial.
(Karin) borek ‘grey, white cow’ (see s.v. *bor ‘brown animal, etc.’).
J̌
ahukyan (1987: 160; cf. Olsen 1999: 414) alternatively suggests an Iranian
origin of boreni, cf. YAv. baβra- m. ‘beaver’. As is pointed out by J̌
ahukyan, the
Iranian word is semantically remote. However, this is not a serious problem, since
the other meanings may have been lost in Iranian. It must be borne in mind that Skt.
babhru- refers to other animals, too, cf. ‘a kind of ichneumon’, ‘a reddish-brown
cow’ (compare the meaning of Arm. dial. borek ‘a dark-complexioned cow’), etc.
For other possibly related Armenian forms, see s.v. *bor.
P. de Lagarde derived bor-eni ‘hyena’ from bor ‘leprosy’ (q.v.), for the semantics
mentioning Hebr. ṣābō‘a ‘hyena’ < ‘coloured’ (see HAB 1: 477b; Ačaṙyan does not
accept the idea). J̌
ahukyan (1965: 253) rejects this etymology for the reason that bor
‘leprosy’ is of Iranian origin. This is a strange argument. For the semantic
relationship between boreni ‘hyena’ and bor ‘leprosy’, cf. Sarikoli pis, Wakhi pəs
‘leopard’, which is compared with Skt. piśa- ‘deer’, piśáṅga- ‘tawny’ (RV+), Av.
paēsa- ‘scab’, Kurd. pīs ‘dirty’ (see Morgenstierne 1974: 61b), with the basic
meaning ‘spotted, multicoloured’ (see HAB 4: 84-85, s.v. pisak ‘spot; leprous’). For
an interchange between designations of the hyena and the leopard or panther and the
like, see s.v. lusan ‘lynx; marten; hyena’. But in the case of *bor- *‘brown animal;
brown or motley/spotted’ (q.v.) (cf. also bor ‘leprosy’?) > boreni ‘hyena’, the
semantic development probably went through the notion of ‘(reddish) brown’ rather
than ‘spotted’, since the spotted hyena seems to have been present in Armenia only
in the Tertiary period (see Ananyan, HayKendAšx 1, 1961: 420).
Since the animal names are often used to denote the fur of that animal (see HAB
e.g. s.vv. samoyr, tik, etc.), one may assume that bor-eni contains the “skin/fursuffix” -eni (cf. Olsen 1999: 414) and originally meant ‘fur of hyena’. This may be
corroborated by the dialectal evidence (see above). In view of cases like aštē, ašteay
< from Iran. *a(r)šti- (cf. Av. aršti- f. ‘spear, lance’, Ved. r̥ṣṭí- ‘id.’), bazē vs. bazay
‘falcon‘, kray vs. dial. *kur-i ‘tortoise’, etc., the variant borē may presuppose an
earlier *bor-i. Weitenberg offers a different explanation for borē (see above).
Nevertheless, *bor-i may be corroborated by the following.
To my knowledge, NAccSg borean is only attested in Paterica. We have better
evidence for GDPl borenic‘ (P‘awstos Buzand+), which I tentatively interpret as a
form with the plural/collective suffix -an(i) : *borean-k‘ = *bori- + -an(i), cf. iš-ank‘ (APl iš-an-s), although its GDPl is iš-an-c‘ (Łazar P‘arpec‘i) rather than *iš-anic‘.
35 Thus, NAccSg borean can be either a back-formation after boren-ic‘, or a
misinterpretation of boreni.
I tentatively conclude that the original name for the hyena may have been *bor-i,
and bor-eni originally meant ‘ hyena fur ’ (cf. Ararat dial. bor-ani ‘coat made ofhyena fur’); or else, we might posit a petrified adjective like Av. baβraini- ‘of
beaver’, cf. J̌
ahukyan 1987: 160; Olsen 1999: 414.
Of some interest may also be Oss. bi/eræğ ‘wolf’. It has a certain resemblance
“with Turkic ‘wolf’, cf. Chagatay, Turkm. böri, etc., but final -æğ does not have a
reflex in any Turkic language” [Cheung 2002: 173]. Abaev suggested a borrowing
from Khotanese birgga < PIr. ur̯̥ka-. However, the Khotanese -gg- = [g] does not
agree well with Oss. fricative -ğ- (ibid.).
Conclusion: Iranian *bōr- ‘brown, multicoloured, etc.’ (< PIE *bh
ebh
ru-) has
been borrowed into Armenian *bor ‘brown animal; brown or motley/spotted’, bor
‘leprosy’, and bor-eni or *bor-i ‘hyena’. The Iranian form, from which Arm. bor
‘leprosy’ is derived (cf. Sogd. βr’wk’ /βarūkə/ ‘leprous’), does not explain Arm. -o-
(unless one assumes Sogd. *baru- from *bauru). There is no vocalic problem in all
the forms within Armenian. If, nevertheless, Arm. bor ‘leprosy’ is originally distinct
from Armenian *bor ‘brown animal’ and boreni ‘hyena’, in explaining the vocalism
one should reckon with the possible influence of those Armenian words. Note also
what has been said above on ‘hyena fur’.
boc‘, o-stem: GDSg boc‘-o-y, AblSg i boc‘-o-y, ISg boc‘-o-v ‘flame’, widely attested
in the Bible (Astuacaturean 1895: 304a), rendering Gr. φλόξ ‘flame, burning fire’.
AblSg i boc‘-o-y occurs also in the famous epic song Birth of Vahagn in Movsēs
Xorenac‘i 1.31 (1913=1991: 86L2). Gen. boc‘-w-o-y in John Chrysostom, if reliable,
points to a nom. *boc‘-i. A metaphorical usage is found in John Climachus: ‘energy,
fire of love, spiritual light’. Further attestations: Eznik Koɫbac‘i, Nilus of Ancyra;
numerous derivatives [NHB 1: 508-510; HAB 1: 478a].
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects [HAB 1: 478b; HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 212]. A
few derivatives: Xarberd, Muš *boc‘el ‘to kindle’, Širak boc‘-kltal ‘to blaze up,
suddenly inflame’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 203b], Ararat boc‘-a-xorov ‘half-cooked, roasted
on flame’ [Amatuni 1912: 115b], Areš-Havarik‘ böc‘i‘dry twigs, firewood’ [Lusenc‘
1982: 201b] or bɔc‘i (in a folk-tale, see Tēr-Pɔɫosean 1921-22: 172aL14 = HŽHek‘ 6,
1973: 581L5), Łarabaɫ, *boc‘-i ‘id.’, etc. [HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 212]. Possibly,
Meɫri bünc‘ ‘the thin smoke of a sunk oven’ also belongs here [Aɫayan 1954: 265b].
●ETYM Patrubány (1902-03a: 163) links Arm. boc‘ with Lat. focus, -ī m. ‘fireplace,
hearth; hearth, fireside (as the symbol of home-life); home; family, houshold;
brazier; sacrificial hearth or altar’ and posits *bh
ok-sk-o-. Petersson (1916: 285)
accepts the comparison and includes also Arm. bosor ‘blood-red, crimson’, deriving
boso-r from *bh
ok̂
o- and boc‘ from *bh
ok̂
-so-; see also Pokorny 1959: 162;
Aɫabekyan 1979: 65; Olsen 1999: 51, 51105. The connection between Arm. boc‘ and
Lat. focus is accepted also in Schmitt 1981: 217; Ivanov 1983: 38 (assuming a
substratum word related with Yeniseian bok ‘fire’ through North Caucasian
mediation). J̌
ahukyan (1987: 117, 218 [15.66], 236, 269; cf. 1982: 131, 22473)
accepts the reconstruction *bh
ok-so- for boc‘ and is hesitant on the appurtenance of
bosor. Olsen (loc. cit.) alternatively assumes *bh
ok̂
-i̯o-, which is improbable.
Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 478; see also È. Tumanjan 1978: 156; H. Suk‘iasyan 1986:
149) prefers a connection of Arm. boc‘ to Gr. φάος, φῶς ‘light’, etc., which is
untenable. The word bosor seems to be unrelated (see s.v.).
M. de Vaan (2008: 228-229) considers the connection of Lat. focus with Lat. fax
‘torch’ and Lith. žvãkė ‘candle’ as formally impossible, and the interpretation offocus as a back-formation to foculus ‘small stove’ < *fweklo- < *dh
gwh-e-tlo- as
chronologically difficult. He leaves the origin of the Latin focus open. Schrijver
(1991: 277-278, 448) treats fōculum ‘fire-pan’ as a deverbative of fovēre ‘to warm’ <
*dh
ogwh-ei-ō, cf. Skt. dāháyati ‘to cause to burn’, Lith. dègti ‘to burn’.
In my opinion, the best solution for Lat. focus is linking it with Arm. boc‘
‘flame’. They may be regarded as substratum words as e.g. Lat. faber ‘craftsman,
smith’ and Arm. darbin ‘smith’ (q.v.).
Nikolaev 1984: 70 considers boc‘ a loan from NCauc. *bōncc’ʌ ‘flame’.
However, there are no compelling reasons to abandon the IE etymology. The North
Caucasian forms, if related, may be treated as borrowed from Armenian. For the
epenthetic -n-, compare Arm. dial. bünc‘.
brdoṙ ‘lammergeyer / Gypaetus barbatus’ (Greppin).
Attested only in Vanakan Vardapet Tawušec‘i (13th cent.): Ayl haw kay, brdoṙ
asen, or zayn jagn (ənkec‘eal yarcuoy) aṙnu ew snuc‘anē [NHB 1: 518b] : “They
say there is another bird, the brdoṙ, which takes in and nourishes the young (which
the Eagle casts out).” [Greppin 1978: 40]. Or rather – “There is another bird, which
is called brdoṙ, <...>“.
●ETYM Greppin (1977: 206-207; 1978: 40-42, 47; 1978b: 153; 1979: 215-216)
introduces parallels and specifies brdoṙ as ‘lammergeyer’. For the synonym ephenē
= Gr. ἡ φήνη, appearing in the relevant passage from Hexaemeron, see also
Hübschmann 1897: 349Nr124; HAB 2: 73a; K. Muradyan 1984: 272, 36050, 373b.
Greppin (1978: 41, 42; cf. also 1979: 216) suggests a derivation from brdem ‘to
shutter, crumble’. Then he notes that the suffix -oṙ is unknown, and brdoṙ should be
derived “from the unknown Armenian substratum”. (Against this etymology:
Hovsep‘yan/Simonyan 1981: 220b). Elsewhere, Greppin (1977: 205-206; 1983:
6633) suggests a comparison with Rum. barză ‘stork’.
These suggestions seem unnecessary, since brdoṙ is transparently composed of
burd ‘wool’ and oṙ ‘buttocks’, meaning in fact ‘with wooly buttocks’; see HAB 1:
489a, 3: 564a.
buzaɫt‘n, only in Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘, glossed by aɫǰamuɫǰ ‘darkness’ (see Amalyan 1975:
58Nr373). Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 479a) identifies it with bazoxt ‘darkness’
(P‘ēštəmalčean’s dictionary) and another gloss from Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘, namely bazuit
· aɫǰamuɫǰ. For the latter, the reading bazuxt‘ is preferred in the critical edition
(Amalyan 1975: 46Nr35).
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 479a) wonders if these are misreadings of balut ‘foggy’
(see s.v. bal ‘mist, fog’), and records no other etymological attempts.
The same Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ also has bazekac‘, bezek, and buzi (var. bozi), all
glossed by aregakn ‘sun’ (see Amalyan 1975 s.vv. ; J̌
ahukyan 1976a: 4). According
to Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 435b, 460a), these forms are linked with bezak ‘lightning, sun’
(Evagrius of Pontus, Grigor Magistros) and Hebrew bāzāq ‘lightning’. Łap‘anc‘yan
(1975: 368-369; see also J̌
ahukyan 1973: 18; 1987: 594, 597) treats bozi as a
West-Kartvelian borrowing, cf. Megr. bža-, Georg. mze-, etc. ‘sun’. Note also
Georg. dial. bze- (see Klimov 1964: 133-134; 1998: 121).
Whatever the origin of bo/uz- ‘sun’, one may interpret buzaɫt‘n as composed of
*bo/uz- ‘sun, light’ and *aɫt‘- ‘darkness’ (on which see s.v. aɫt-a-muɫt). In this case, we are dealing with a compound of the type mut‘-u-lus (dial.) ‘twilight’, lit.
‘dark-and-light’.
buc, a-stem: GDPl bc-a-c‘ (Genesis 31.7, 31.41, Zeyt‘unyan 1985: 288, 293), o-stem:
GDPl bc-o-c‘ (Ephrem) ‘lamb’.
In the Bible (Genesis 31.7, 41 and Ezekiel 46.13) buc renders Gr. ἀμνός m.f.
‘lamb’. In Grigor Magistros, commentary on Dionysius Thrax, buc is listed with
animal-names of neutral semantics (see Adonc 1915=2008: 241L4, cf. bzak ‘he-goat’
in 240L15, an Iranian loanword, see HAB 1: 444b). For the meaning ‘lamb’ note also
Georg. buc’i ‘lamb’, considered an Armenian loanword (see below).
●ETYM Since de Lagarde (1854: 27L733), connected with Av. būza- ‘he-goat’ (de
Vaan 2003: 288), MPers., NPers. buz ‘goat’ (MacKenzie 1971: 20; cf. Arm. bzak
above), OIc. bukkr ‘buck’, OEngl. bucca, Engl. buck < Germ. *bukka- probably
from *bh
uĝ-no-, OIr. boc, MIr. bocc, MWelsh bwch, etc. ‘buck’ (Schrijver 1995: 26)
< Celt. *bukko- ‘goat’ < *bug-ko- (possibly from Germanic, Matasović 2009: 83),
cf. Skt. Lex. bukka- ‘goat’, etc.; see Hübschmann 1897: 430; HAB 1: 482a; Pokorny
1959: 174 (misprinted buz); J̌
ahukyan 1982: 56, 129; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1998, 2:
586 = 1995, 1: 501; Mallory/Adams 1997: 229.
In view of parallel o- and a-stems of Arm. buc (cf. J̌
ahukyan 1959: 321a; 1982:
129; È. Tumanjan 1978: 162), one may posit PArm. *buc-o- vs. *buc-a- originally
from IE masc. *bh
uĝ-o- and fem. *bh
uĝ-eh2-, respectively.
This IE word is probably related with some North Caucasian forms, such as Lak
buxca prob. from *buc-xa ‘young he-goat’, Nakh *b‘ok’ ‘male goat’; cf. also
Burushaski buc (Witzel 2003: 21-22). One may wonder whether the Caucasian
forms are old borrowings from Armenian (cf. HAB 1: 482a). Note also Georg. buc’i
‘lamb’, an obvious Armenian loanword [HAB 1: 482a; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 555].
bušt, o-stem (GDSg bšt-oy in Yakob J̌
ahkec‘i), cf. also GDSg p‘aɫap‘št-i in Abusayid
(see below) ‘urinary bladder; blotch, pustule, abscess; bubble’:
‘urinary bladder’ (Plato); ‘blotch, pustule’ (Kirakos Ganjakec‘i, 13th cent., Ganjak
[Melik‘-Ōhanǰanyan 1961: 40L8] = Russ. ‘прыщ’ [Xanlarjan 1976: 59], etc.);
‘bubble’ (Yakob J̌
ahkec‘i); bštim ‘to swell’ in Aṙak‘el Davrižec‘i (17th cent.,
Tabriz); p‘ošt ‘the inner bag of testicles’ (LcNiws, etc.).
In the 5th century, only in the composite p‘amp‘ušt, p‘anp‘ušt ‘urinary bladder’
(Eznik Koɫbac‘i, Anania Širakac‘i, etc.), next to which there is a late attested
synonym in numerous variant spellings: baɫab/p‘ušt, p‘al/ɫabušt, p‘al/ɫap‘ušt
‘urinary bladder’. Of this term, three attestations are cited in NHB 1: 426c and HAB
1: 485a: Nersēs Palianc‘, 14th cent. (baɫabušt), Oskip‘orik (baɫap‘ušt), Grigor
Tat‘ewac‘i (p‘alabušt). Older attestations may be found in Abusayid (12th cent.;
Cilicia), see S. Vardanyan 1974: 134L18, 164 (p‘aɫap‘ušt, GDSg p‘aɫap‘šti), 205
(p‘alap‘ušt, GDSg p‘alap‘ušti), in the glossary: 230; see also S. Vardanyan 1971:
209. In Grigoris, one finds p‘aɫaybušt (see MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 410a).
Still another variant (unknown to NHB and HAB) of the compound is attested in
two works of Amirdovlat‘ Amasiac‘i (15th cent.; Amasia): halabušt, GDSg halabšt-i
‘urinary bladder’ [MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 5a]. The word is also attested in “Bžškaran
əntreal tarrakan maxc‘i” by Yovasap‘ Sebastac‘i (16th cent., Sebastia): halabušt,
GDSg halabšt-i (see D. M. Karapetyan 1986: 306; in the glossary: 313, marked as “Armenian”). This variant seems thus to be confined to the extreme NW of the
Armenian speaking territory (Sebastia, Amasia), which is corroborated by the
dialectal testimony from Sebastia (see below).
On aṙawušt ‘urinary bladder; watery pustule, blister’, see below and s.v.
●DIAL Numerous dialects preserve bušt ‘abscess, swelling’ and bštim ‘to swell’.
T‘iflis bušt means ‘urinary bladder’. Remarkable is Muš p‘alamp‘ušt ‘urinary
bladder’ [HAB 1: 485b]. On Hamšen pšt-ig ‘abscess’, see Ačaṙyan 1947: 14.
Neither p‘amp‘ušt, nor p‘alap‘ušt (etc.) are recorded in the dialects. However,
Muš p‘alamp‘ušt remarkably combines the features of these synonymous
compounds, namely the nasal of the former and the -la- of the latter. One also finds
Balu balabušt [Sargisean 1932: 366].
Among new derivatives, Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 485b) mentions alabušt not specifying
the meaning, the dialectal area and the component ala-. The word must be identified
with Sebastia alabušt, Ewdokia alap‘ušt ‘a blister caused by burning’ (see Gabikean
1952: 43; HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 11b). Note also Sebastia halabušt ‘urinary
bladder’ (see Gabikean 1952: 324), which is identical with the above-mentioned
literary halabušt ‘urinary bladder’ not only formally and semantically, but also
geographically, since halabušt is attested in the medical literature (15th cent.
onwards) by authors that are native of Sebastia and Amasia; see above.
●ETYM Arm. bušt and p‘amp‘ušt have been compared with Lith. bum̃buras,
bum̃bulas ‘Knospe, knotenartige Verdickung, Kugel’, bumbulỹs ‘Steckrübe,
Wasserblase, Kalbsauge’, bùmbulis ‘Pupille, burbulas ̃ ‘water bubble’, Latv.
bum̃burs ‘eine harte Hervorragung der Höcker, Auswuchs, Ball’, Pol. bąbel
‘Wasserblase’, Gr. βομβυλίδας· πομφόλυγας (Hesychius) ‘water bubbles’, Lat. bulla
‘water bubble’, etc., and, on the other hand, Lith. pam̃pti ‘to swell’, CS pupъ ‘navel’,
SCr. pȗp ‘bud’; Lat. pustula ‘blister, pimple, pustule’, etc. (see HAB 1: 484; 4: 475;
J
̌ahukyan 1967: 61, 94, 255-256; 1987: 114, 159). On Baltic, see Derksen 1996:
276, 281. These words mainly denote round, globular objects. The exact
reconstruction is impossible in view of its expressive and onomatopoeic nature, and
perhaps also of the reduplication. Arm. p‘amp‘ušt is interpreted as *p‘amp‘ + bušt
(HAB; Saradževa 1986: 134).
According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 485b), Georg. bušti ‘urinary bladder; bubble’ and
Laz busti ‘urinary bladder’ are borrowed from Armenian.
Arm. aṙawušt ‘urinary bladder; watery pustule, blister’ (q.v.), in my view,
belongs with bušt, with intervocalic -b- yielding Arm. -w-. The first component is
perhaps identical with the prefix aṙ-a-. One might alternatively assume: (1) an old
variant with *-r- as in Lith. burbulas ̃ ‘water bubble’; (2) an Iranian or Caucasian
form *arabušt as a rhotacized variant of Arm. *(h)alabušt, with *-ara- > Arm. -aṙaas in Iranian loans such as paṙaw ‘old woman’ (cf. Pers. pārāv), etc. In this case, we
might be dealing with a back-loan. But this is all uncertain.
Compare also pɫpǰak ‘bubble’.
buṙn (i-stem, cf. adv. bṙn-i-w ‘violently’ in Eusebius of Caesarea) ‘strong, violent’,
‘violently’, ‘violence, strength; tyrant’ (Bible+).
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 486; see also Olsen 1999: 123-124) equates this word with
buṙn, -in/-an-stem ‘hand, fist’ (Bible+, widespread in the dialects) and does not
accept any of the etymologies. More probably, buṙn ‘strong, violent’ is related with Skt. bhū́rṇi- ‘zealous, wild’, etc. (J̌
ahukyan 1987: 116, 160; Weitenberg 1989a); see
s.v. arbun-k‘ ‘vigour, maturity (of age)’. The comparison seems to be valid, although
the vocalism is not quite clear.
burgn, GDSg brgan (Grigor Narekac‘i, “Čaṙəntir”), APl brguns (Bible) ‘tower;
pyramis’ (Bible+).
●ETYM For the etymology and a discussion, see s.v. durgn ‘potter’s wheel’.
*galoroč
●DIAL Sebastia galɔruč ‘small shell that is used to adorn the horse or mule harness’
[Gabikean 1952: 131].
●ETYM No etymological attempt is known to me.
Probably composed of *gal- or galar- ‘winding, twisting’ + oroč ‘shell-bead’:
*galar-oroč > *gal-oroč (-ro-ro- > -ro- through haplology). Originally, thus, it had
referred to the shell-fish with a spiral shell. See also s.v. gaɫtakur.
gaɫjn ‘a kind of convolvulus’ (Agat‘angeɫos, Yovhan Mandakuni, etc.).
●ETYM See s.v. geɫj ‘id.’.
gaɫǰ (i-stem according to NHB 1: 524b but without evidence) ‘warmish, lukewarm’
(Revelation 3.16, Elias on Aristotle), gaɫǰanam ‘to become lukewarm’ in Nersēs
Šnorhali (12th cent.), Vanakan (13th cent.), caus. gaɫǰac‘uc‘anem (Philo).
The meaning is very clearly seen in Revelation 3.16: gaɫǰ es, ew oč‘ ǰerm, ew oč‘
c‘urt “you are lukewarm, and neither warm nor cold”. Arm. gaɫǰ stands for Gr.
χλιαρός ‘lukewarm’.
●ETYM See s.v. gol ‘lukewarm’
gaɫtakur, LocSg i gaɫtakr-i in Čaṙəntir ‘shell-fish’ (Alexander Romance, Gregory of
Nyssa, Eusebius of Caesarea, Philo; gaɫtakray, AblSg i gaɫtakray-ē in Sargis
Šnorhali Vardapet (12th cent.), GDPl gaɫtakray[i]c‘ in Gregory of Nyssa ‘shell-fish’;
gaɫtakr-akan ‘pertaining to the shell-fish’ (said of the pearl) in John Chrysostom.
In the oldest manuscript (Nr 10151 of Matenadaran; 13th cent.), which is the
initial edition of the Alexander Romance (see H. Simonyan 1989: 426L-14): berin inj
ew erku gaɫtakur, yoroy mēǰ lini margaritn “they also offered me two shell-fish in
which the pearl is (produced)”. In the corresponding passage from the other edition
(297L8; Engl. transl. Wolohojian 1969: 131): APl gaɫtakurs.
●ETYM According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 506-507), contains gaɫt ‘hidden, secret’. He
does not specify the second component. In my view, *kur, *kray ‘shell’ is identical
with *kray found in kray-a-kir ‘a kind of mollusc’ (Grigor Magistros), etc., and kray
‘tortoise’. As to the first component, cf. dial. *gl-t-or-em ‘to roll’, also Sebastia
galɔruč ‘small shell that is used to adorn the horse or mule harness’ [Gabikean 1952:
131], which may have been composed of *gal- or galar- ‘winding, twisting’
(etymologically related with gil, *gltorem) + oroč ‘shell-bead’, see s.v. *gal-oroč.
Originally, thus, it referred to the shell-fish with a spiral shell.
gam, supplet. aor. ek- (q.v.) ‘to come’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 1: 501a].
●ETYM Usually interpreted as an athematic verb *u̯eh2(-dh
)-mi, cf. Hitt. uu̯ami ‘to
come’, Lat. vādere ‘to go, walk, rush’, vadāre ‘to wade through, ford’, vadum ‘ford’,
Welsh go-di-wawd ‘overtook’ < *u̯eh2dh
-, OIc. vaða, OHG watan ‘to advance, wade’
< *u̯h2dh
- (for the forms and a discussion of the laryngeal, see Schrijver 1991: 170),
see Meillet 1936: 134-135; Pokorny 1959: 1109; Godel 1965: 23; J̌
ahukyan 1982:
74; cf. Clackson 1994: 80-81. The appurtenance of the Hittite word is uncertain (cf.
Kloekhorst 2008: 992).
The comparison with Gr. κιχᾱνώ ‘to reach, arrive, meet’ (Hübschmann 1897: 441;
Klingenschmitt 1982: 86) is untenable since this root has an initial palatovelar *ĝh
-,
cf. YAv. za-zā-mi ‘to leave’, Skt. já-hā-ti ‘to leave, abandon’, etc. (see Mayrhofer
EWAia 2, 1996: 813-814).
gayl (spelled gayɫ in the famous palimpsest of Agat‘angeɫos, see Galēmk‘earean 1911:
128bL2f), o-stem: GDPl gayl-o-c‘ (Bible), u-stem: GDSg gayl-u (Movsēs Xorenac‘i
2.70, 1913 = 1991: 207L3), AblSg i gayl-u-ē (Vark‘ Grigori Astuacabani) ‘wolf’
(Bible+), ‘muzzle, cover for nose and mouth, bit’ (Bible; Agat‘angeɫos § 69,
1909=1980: 39L3).
For the semantics cf. Lat. lupus ‘wolf’, ‘a bit with jagged teeth’, lupātus ‘a
jagged-toothed bit for less tractable horses’, etc. [HAB 1: 511-512].
●DIAL Dialectally ubiquitous [HAB 1: 512b].
Most of the eastern peripheral dialects display forms with irregular vocalism.
Šamaxi and Madrasa k
y
ul (vs. regular k
y
ɛl in the village of K‘y
ärk‘y
änǰ) represents an
exceptional sound change ay > u [Baɫramyan 1964: 33, 192]; cf. also K‘y
ärk‘y
änǰ
p‘ɔc‘ɛx from p‘aycaɫn ‘spleen’ (q.v.). Almost everywhere in Łarabaɫ one finds this
form with irregular vocalism, k
y
ül, kül, next to regular k
y
ɛl and k
y
il in a few locations
only [Davt‘yan 1966: 45, 332]. Further: Meɫri, Kak‘avaberd, Karčewan gül [Aɫayan
1954: 60, 265a; H. Muradyan 1960: 45, 191a; 1967: 61, 168a].
This EArm. dialectal form is testified in the form goyl (beside goṙn vs. gaṙn
‘lamb’, q.v.) by the 13th century author Vardan Arewelc‘i, who was native of Ganjak
or surroundings (see J̌
ahukyan 1954: 247). Note also gul in the famous material of
Schröder (see Patkanov 1868: 54; Sargseanc‘ 1883, 1: 23).
Aɫayan (1954: 85) explains this aberrant form through tabu and compares it with
Meɫri ɔṙǰ (beside the regular form aṙǰ ‘bear’), which was used by hunters, or by
people when supposing a danger; for a further discussion, see 2.1.36.
MidArm. gayl-agṙaw ‘a kind of black raven, Corvus corone’ [MiǰHayBaṙ 1,
1987: 138a] is continued in Łarabaɫ k
y
ülükṙáv, k
y
uláklav, kəṙáklav [Davt‘yan 1966:
332].
MidArm. mard-a-gayl ‘hyena’, lit. ‘man-wolf’ (cf. were-wolf), attested in Fables
by Mxit‘ar Goš [MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 116-117], is present in Axalk‘alak‘, Ararat,
Łarabaɫ, Van [Ačaṙean 1913: 761-762], Bulanəx, Alaškert, etc. [Amatuni 1912:
467a]. The hyena was considered a werewolf and was also called k‘awt‘aṙ-k‘osi
‘hyena; old witch’ (see Ananyan HayKendAšx 1, 1961: 421-433). For the werewolf
and other related issues, in particular on gayl-ǰori, gayl-ǰorek ‘hyena’ in Amirdovlat‘
Amasiac‘i and dial. (Büt‘ania/Nikomedia) *gayl-ǰori ‘a kind of predator’ composed
as gayl ‘wolf’ + ǰori ‘mule’, see 3.5.2. Muš pl. g‘il-an, g‘il-an-k‘ [HAB 1: 512b].
●ETYM Since Müller et al., derived from the PIE word for ‘wolf’, *ul̯̥k
w
o-: Gr. λύκος,
Skt. vŕ̥ka-, YAv. vəhrka-, MPers., NPers. gurg, Lith. vilkas ̃ , OCS vlьkъ, Goth. wulfs,
Toch. B walkwe, etc. [HAB 1: 512; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 1: 270]; for the IE
forms (not mentioning the Armenian) see Pokorny 1959: 1178-1179; Mayrhofer
EWAia 2, 1996: 570-571; Adams 1999: 582. However, the development *-l̥k
w
- >
*-l̥ɣ- (or *-lχ
w
-) > *-li̯-, with lenition of the intervocalic velar stop (Pedersen 1906:
364, 406 = 1982: 142, 184; Grammont 1918: 237-239; Pisani 1934: 182; Winter
1962: 261; Kortlandt 1976: 95; 1980: 103-105; 1985b: 9-10; 1985: 20 = 2003: 5, 30-
32, 58, 64; Lehmann 1986: 412) is doubtful in view of the absence of reliable
parallels (see also Ravnæs 1991: 103, 1431). I rather expect *gaɫb or the like. The
derivation of gayl from *ul̯̥p- (Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 492 = 1995, 1: 413)
does not solve the problem. Neither *ul̯̥k
w
i̯- (HAB 1: 512 with ref.; cf. the feminine
form, Lindeman 1982a: 159-160) is plausible; it would probably give *gaɫč‘ or
*gaɫǰ.
In order to explain -yl satisfactorily we have to start with *uli ̯̥̯o- or *u̯ai-lo-. It is
therefore preferable to link Arm. gayl with MIr. fáel ‘wolf’ (Hübschmann 1897: 431
referring to Fick Wb. II, 259; Mann 1963: 132; Mallory/Adams 1997: 647a;
hesitantly: J̌
ahukyan 1982: 35, 41). Arm. gayl and Celtic *u̯ay-lo- are usually
interpreted as ‘the howler’ and derived from PIE *u̯ai-, cf. MIr. fae ‘alas’, MWelsh
gwae ‘woe’, Arm. vay ‘woe, etc.’ (see Pokorny 1959: 1111; Frisk 2: 143-144;
J
̌
ahukyan 1982: 41; Olsen 1999: 34, 848; Matasović 2009 s.v. *waylo-). Note also
OIr. foilan, failen ‘gull’, MWelsh gwylan ‘gull’, etc. probably from *u̯ail-an-
‘wailer’ (Schrijver 1995: 115-116).
It is remarkable that both the Armenian and Celtic terms formed anthroponyms,
cf. Arm. Gayl, Gayl-uk, etc. (AčaṙAnjn 1, 1942: 445-446) and Gaul. Vailo, Vailico,
OIr. Failan, etc. (Pokorny 1959: 1111).
Arm. gayl cannot have been borrowed from Georg. (m)gel- ‘wolf’, etc. because
of the vocalism. Besides, the IE origin of gayl is obvious. For a discussion, see
Hübschmann 1897: 431; HAB 1: 512-513; Meščaninov 1925: 406; Klimov 1964:
130; Kortlandt 1976: 95 = 2003: 5; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 496 = 1995, 1:
416; Ravnæs 1991: 1031. Note that Arm. *gel, represented in a considerable number
of dialects (HAB 1: 512b), clearly derives from gayl through regular development ay
> e. Thus, the Kartvelian forms, if related with the Armenian word, should be
regarded as armenisms.
Adontz (1937: 8) separates Arm. gayl ‘muzzle, cover for nose and mouth, bit’
from gayl ‘wolf’ and connects the latter with Skr. valga ‘bride’, Latv. valgs ‘cord’,
Lat. valgus ‘bow-legged’ (cf. Schrijver 1991: 464; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 517,
526), which is untenable.
One may conclude that PIE *ul̯̥k
w
o- ‘wolf’ has been replaced by (or contaminated
with) *u̯ai-lo- possibly ‘howler’ in Armenian and Celtic for reasons of tabu (cf.
HAB 1: 512a; Solta 1960: 32f; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 155, 198; 1992: 21; Olsen 1999: 34).
For tabu, see also in the dialectal section, on dial. goyl.
On the wolf in the IE cultural context, see Ivanov 1975; 1977; 1977b; Mallory
1982: 202-204; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 493-497 = 1995, 1: 413-417; Mallory /
Adams 1997: 647-648. On the wolf in Armenian tradition, see A. S. Petrosyan 1989. For the werewolf, see in the dialectal section. For the wolf as ‘outlaw’ and the phrase
‘to become a wolf’ with possible IE parallels, see 3.5.2. Note also the Armenian
river-name Gayl.
gan, i-stem: GDSg gan-i, ISg gan-i-w, IPl gan-i-w-k‘ ‘beating, blow’ (Bible+),
MidArm. ‘wound’; ganem ‘to beat, strike, whip’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Only gan ‘wound’ in a few dialects [HAB 1: 515a].
●ETYM From PIE *gw
hen- ‘to strike’: Hitt. kuenzi, kunanzi ‘to kill, slay, ruin’, Skt.
hánti ‘to strike, slay, kill’, Gr. ϑείνω ‘to kill’, φόνος m. ‘murder’, -φόντης
‘murdering’, etc.; see Hübschmann 1877: 24; 1897: 431-432; Patrubány 1904: 427-
428; HAB 1: 514, 127b; Pokorny 1959: 492; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 125; 1987: 130;
García-Ramón 1998: 14212. Further see s.vv. ǰin ‘staff, beating stick’, *ǰinǰ- ‘to
annihilate, destroy, wipe clean’.
Arm. gan, i-stem, has been derived from *gwhn̥-(n)i- or *gwhn̥-ti-. Since *gwhn-ti-
(see Winter 1966: 206; Viredaz 2005: 97) would rather yield *gand- (k‘san ‘twenty’
is not a decisive counter-example since it may be due to the influence of -sun in
eresun ‘thirty’, etc.), the former solution seems more probable. The verb ganem is
likely deverbative.
Some scholars treat Arm. gan as an Iranian loanword (see Benveniste 1957-58:
60-62; Schmitt 1981: 76; Olsen 1999: 872; cf. 1989: 221, 222). Against this, see L.
Hovhannisyan 1990: 213; Viredaz 2005: 9765. The Iranian origin is improbable and
unnecessary.
gaṙn, in/an-stem: GDSg gaṙin, ISg gaṙam-b, NPl gaṙin-k‘, APl gaṙin-s, GDPl gaṙanc‘ (rich evidence in the Bible, see Astuacaturean 1895: 321-322) ‘lamb’ (Bible+).
●DIAL The principal Classical Armenian words for ‘lamb’ and ‘kid’, viz. gaṙn and
ul, both of IE origin and practically ubiquitous in Armenian dialects, in the dialect of
Hamšen have been replaced by ɣuzik and ɔɣlaɣ, borrowed from Turk. quzə and
oġlaq respectively (Ačaṙyan 1947: 188). Some eastern dialects have an unexplained
o-vocalism: Agulis-C‘ɫna kɔ́
ṙnə, Meɫri gö́ṙnə, etc. [HAB 1: 519b; Aɫayan 1954:
265b]. The EArm. and Zeyt‘un *goṙn is recorded as goṙn by Vardan Arewelc‘i, 13th
cent., Ganjak (J̌
ahukyan 1954: 247); see also s.v. gayl ‘wolf’.
●ETYM Since long (NHB 1: 1023b; de Lagarde 1854: 27L732), connected to cognate
forms going back to the PIE word for ‘lamb’, *ur̯̥h1ēn, gen. *ur̯̥h1no-: Skt. úran-,
nom. úrā, acc. úraṇam m. ‘lamb’, NPers. barra ‘lamb’ < PIr. *varn-aka-, Gr. ἀρήν
m., ϝαρην ‘lamb’, πολύ-ρρην-ες ‘possessing many lambs’ < IE *-urh1-n-, etc., see
Hübschmann 1897: 432; Meillet 1903: 141; HAB 1: 519; Pokorny 1959: 1170;
Hoffmann 1982: 83-86; Meier-Brügger 1990a; Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 225-226;
Mallory/Adams 1997: 511a
Meillet 1936: 43 derives the Armenian form from *wo
ren- and considers the
trilled -ṙ- analogical after the nominative gaṙn where it is due to the following nasal.
In other examples, as he points out, no analogical influence has taken place, cf. arar- vs. aṙnem ‘to make’, dur-k‘ vs. duṙn ‘door’ (see s.vv.); for a further discussion,
see s.vv. aṙn ‘wild ram’ and jeṙ- ‘hand’ (both with original trilled *-rr- reflecting PIE
*-rs- and *-sr-, respectively). The derivation of gen. gaṙin and instr. gaṙam-b from
*u̯ar-en-os and *u̯ar-n̥-bh
i, respectively (see Stempel 1993 < 1987: 149) are not thus
satisfactory. It seems better to posit PArm. *ur̯̥r(e)n < *u̯rH(e)n- (*-rH(n)- > Arm. -ṙ-?) in a way comparable to the Proto-Greek form (cf. also Meier-Brügger 1990a)
and Iran. *varna- > *varra-; for a discussion, see Hübschmann 1897: 432; Schmitt
1981: 53; Clackson 1994: 38, 20731, 20860, 2376.4; Olsen 1999: 120-121; Beekes
2003: 154, 193.
gari, ea-stem: GDSg garw-o-y (or garoy, see below), ISg gare-a-w, GDPl gare-a-c‘
(abundant in the Bible); o-stem: ISg garw-o-v (once in the Bible), GDPl garw-o-c‘
(as a measure, in Anania Širakac‘i, 7th cent.) ‘barley’.
Attested in the Bible (see Astuacaturean 1895: 322c; Olsen 1999: 439), Eusebius
of Caesarea (garwoy), etc.
In Deuteronomy 8.8 (Cox 1981: 112): erkir c‘orenoy ew garoy aygeac‘ ew
nṙneneac‘ : γῆ πυροῦ καὶ κριϑῆς, ἄμπελοι, συκαῖ, ῥόαι.
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects [HAB 1: 522b].
Next to the regular Łarabaɫ k
y
ä́ri, one finds k
y
ɔ̈́rɛ/i, with an irregular labial vowel,
in the village of T‘aɫot [HAB 1: 522b], as well as, according to Davt‘yan (1966: 24,
28, 332), in most of the villages of Hadrut‘. Not mentioned in Poɫosyan 1965: 16, in
the list of Hadrut‘ words displaying an irregular development á > ɔ́
. The same
inexplicable labial vowel is found in J̌
uɫa g‘ori [Ačaṙean 1940: 52, 357b].
●ETYM Connected with Gr. κριϑ-ή f. ‘barley-corns’, usually pl. ‘barley’, from an
original root noun *κρῑϑ > Ep. κρι̃n. (Awgerean, Klaproth, etc., see HAB 1: 522),
probably also Alb. drithë ‘cereals, wheat’, Lat. hordeum ‘barley’, OHG gersta
‘barley’ [Bugge 1893: 5; Hübschmann 1897: 432; Frisk 2: 18-19], and Hitt. karaš n.
‘wheat, emmer-wheat’ (see Kloekhorst 2008 s.v. for references and a discussion).
The Armenian word is not mentioned in Pokorny 1959: 446 and Mallory/Adams
1997: 51a.
Further, compared with Basque gari ‘wheat’, garagar ‘barley’ and Georg.,
Megrel., etc. k
h
eri ‘barley’, see Bugge 1893: 5; Marr apud HAB 1: 522b; Uhlenbeck
1942: 339 (the Armenian is not mentioned); J̌
ahukyan 1987: 598; V. Sargsyan 1988:
70b; Furnée 1989: 116-117; Braun 1998: 33, 53, 85, 98. For possibly related NorthCaucasian forms, see Chirikba 1985: 101-102Nr74. Further on the Basque and other
forms, see Witzel 2003: 22, 31.
The Armenian and Greek forms presuppose something like *gh
riV-/*gh
rīdh
-
whereas the rest of cognates are usually derived from *ĝh
ersdh
- or *ĝh
erdh
- (see the
above references, also J̌
ahukyan 1982: 133; 1987: 128, 310; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov
1984, 2: 656). Arm. gari is explained from the Lindeman variant *gh
r̥iom [Olsen
1999: 439], through depalatalization *ĝh
r- > *gh
r- [Gamkrelidze/Ivanov, ibid.]. In
view of formal difficulties, one may assume a Mediterranean substratum word.36
garš, i-stem: GDPl garš-i-c‘ in John Chrysostom ‘abominable’ (Bible+), pl.
‘abominable thing or person’ (Philo, John Chrysostom); garšim ‘to abominate,
loathe, be disgusted’ (Bible+).
●ETYM Dervischjan (1877: 78) compares garšel ‘horrere’ with gagaš- ‘wahnsinnig,
geil (Greis)’ and Skt. harṣ- ‘sich freuen; geil werden’. Meillet (1894b: 280; 1936:
39-40) accepts this, mentioning further the Sanskrit by-form ghr̥ṣu- ‘excited’, and
adds Lat. horreō ‘to bristle; to have a rough appearance; to shiver, tremble; to shudder at’. In 1896: 151, he mentions Lith. garssus with a question mark. Pedersen
(1906: 413 = 1982: 191) explains Arm. -rš- from *-rsi̯- (: Skt. hr̥ṣyati), comparing
t‘arš- : Skt. tŕ̥ṣyati (see s.v.). This is accepted by Meillet (1950: 85). See, however,
2.1.12.
In view of formal (Arm. g instead of j) and semantic problems, Hübschmann
(1897: 432) considered the connection with the Sanskrit and Latin words as
uncertain. Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 523b) agrees with this and links these forms with Arm.
jaṙ ‘curved, ugly’. According to Pokorny (1959: 445), these forms belong with Arm.
jar ‘hair’, whereas Arm jaṙ, although with reservations, is linked with Skt. híra-ḥ m.
‘Band’, hirā́ f. ‘Ader’, Gr. χορδή f. ‘guts, tripe’. As to garšim, Ačaṙyan (ibid.)
accepts the connection with Lith. garssus (Meillet; see above) and with Germ.
garstig, suggested by Bugge (1893: 35). The same is seen in Pokorny 1959: 445. For
a discussion, see also J̌
ahukyan 1987: 171.
The formal argument against the connection of garšim with the Sanskrit and Latin
forms is not crucial. In Indo-Iranian one finds *ǰ
h
arš- and *gh
arš-, probably due to
conflation of two roots; cf. Skt. harṣ- vs. ghr̥ṣ-; Av. zarəšiiamna- ‘excited’, Pashto
ziž ‘rough, stiff’ and Khot. ̣ ysīra- ‘rough’ vs. Parth. gš- ‘to be happy’ and Sogd. wɣš
‘to be glad’ [Mayrhofer EWAia 2: 807-808]. It has been assumed that the variant
*gh
arš with an initial velar stop arose after depalatalisation of the palatovelar in the
zero-grade *ĝh
rs- (Weise’s Law), and Arm. garšim is an Iranian loanword (see
Cheung 2007: 471).
The Sanskrit verb (hárṣate, hr̥ṣyati) displays the following semantic range: ‘to be
delighted, excited or impatient; to thrill with rapture, rejoice, exult, be glad or
pleased; to become erect or stiff or rigid, bristle (said of the hairs of the body, etc.);
to excite violently’, harṣaṇa- ‘causing the hair of the body to stand erect, thrilling
with joy or desire; bristling, erection’. In RV 10, it refers to excitement of two kinds,
i.e. produced by fear and by lust (see Kulikov 2001: 492).
I conclude that Arm. jaṙ and garšim are native words originating from conflated
*ĝh
rs- and *g(w)hrs-, respectively.
As we have seen, Iranian displays a semantic distribution: *z-variant: ‘rough,
stiff’ vs. *g-variant: ‘to be glad, happy’. If a reverse distribution, namely MIran.
*garš- ‘rough, stiff’, is also possible, one might treat it as the source of *garš- seen
in the compound garš-a-par ‘heel’ (q.v.).
For the ruki-rule in Armenian, see 2.1.12.
garšapar, a-stem ‘heel, footstep’ (Bible+).
●ETYM No acceptable etymology is recorded in HAB 1: 524a. But in HAB-Add
1982: 5, the component *par is taken as a loan from Iranian word for ‘foot’, and
*garš- is left without an explanation. The same etymology is independently
proposed by Perixanjan (1993: 43-45) and J̌
ahukyan (1995: 183) who identify *par
with Parth. pāδ ‘foot’. For the meaning ‘footstep’ J̌
ahukyan (ibid.) compares Av.
paδa- ‘footstep’. He leaves the origin of *garš open.
For the component *garš-, Perixanjan (1993: 43-44) suggests a comparison with
MIran. hypothetical *garš- ‘rough, stiff’, on which see s.v. garš ‘abominable’. The
basic meaning of the compound would be, then, “the rough/hard part of the foot”.
garun, GDSg garn-an (more often: garnayn-o-y) ‘spring, springtime’ (Bible+);
*garn-ayin, GDSg garnayn-o-y ‘vernal’ (Bible+), garn-ani, GDSg garnanw-o-y
(Agat‘angeɫos), garnan-o-y (Eusebius of Caesarea, etc.), *garnan-ayin, GDSg
garnanayn-o-y (Łazar P‘arpec‘i) ‘vernal’, etc.
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects; some of them have a frozen plural *garun-k‘
[HAB 1: 525a].
●ETYM Derived from the PIE word for ‘spring’, heteroclitic neuter *ues-r̥, *ves-n-:
Gr. ἔαρ n., Lat. vēr, vēris n. (with unexplained lengthened grade, see Schrijver 1991:
128), MPers. wahār, Pers. bahār, OIc. vár ‘spring’, Lith. vãsara ‘summer’, OCS
vesna ‘spring’, etc.; *u̯es-r ̥ > *gehar > *gar-, see Hübschmann 1897: 432-433;
Pedersen 1906: 416 = 1982: 194; Grammont 1918: 247; HAB 1: 524 with
references; Pokorny 1959: 1174; Szemerényi 1959-60a: 109, 1092; Aɫabekyan 1979:
87-88; Ravnæs 1991: 102; Viredaz 2000: 292, 301-302; see also s.v. ar-iwn ‘blood’.
It has been assumed that Arm. gar-un derives from *gar- and the suffix *-ont-, as
in Skt. vasantá- m. ‘spring’ (RV+); see Stempel 1993 < 1987: 151-152; Olsen 1989:
224-225; 1999: 41-42 with lit. If one expects *garund-, the loss of -d- may be
explained by *garun-k‘. Perhaps a better alternative is *-ōn or *-ōn(t) as in Gr.
χειμών, -ῶνος m. ‘winter’. We can also posit an old by-form *garun-n (cf. Viredaz
2000: 302) < acc. *wesar-on-m̥ , which would explain the oblique and compositional
garn-an(-).
*gez ‘road, way’.
●ETYM Unattested. J̌
ahukyan (1991: 37-38) reconstructs a PArm. *gez-a- < QIE
*u̯eĝh
-eh2- from PIE *u̯eĝh
- ‘to move, drive’, cf. Skt. váhati ‘to carry, drive’, YAv,
vaz- ‘to move, carry, drive (a chariot)’, OHG wagan ‘cart’, weg ‘way’, Alb. údhë f.
‘road, way’ (on which see Demiraj 1997: 400-401), etc.; on the PIE etymon, see
Pokorny 1959: 1118-1120; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 535-537; Mallory/Adams
1997: 91a, 488a; Cheung 2007: 429-432. The PArm. word is indirectly confirmed,
he assumes, by Georg. gza- ‘way, path’, Megr. za-, Laz (n)gza- ‘id.’ (Georgian-Zan
*gza- ‘way, path’, Klimov 1998: 30), presumably borrowed from Armenian.
Uncertain.
gelum ‘to twist; to squeeze’ (Bible+). In Agat‘angeɫos § 69 (1909=1980: 39L5):
gel-oc‘ and gel-aran, GDPl gelarana-ac‘, ‘rack’; see HAB 1: 530; 2: 404.
In T‘ovmay Arcruni /Ananun/ 4.7 (V. M. Vardanyan 1985: 450L-16f): zi ayr
arcat‘asēr orov gelul zparanoc‘n lawagoyn hamari, k‘an et‘ē dang mi tužel
yarcat‘oyn. Thomson (1985: [4.6] 353) translates the passage as follows: “An
avaricious man considers it preferable to be decapitated than to pay one penny of his
silver as a fine”. In the published editions, the word orov (thus in the manuscript)
that means ‘with/by which’ has been replaced by srov, as ISg of sur ‘sword’.
Thomson departs apparently from this reading and therefore renders gelul as “to
decapitate”, omitting the word paranoc‘ ‘neck’. However, the verb gelum refers to
‘twist, squeeze’, and paranoc‘ ‘neck’ should not be left out of consideration. I
therefore follow V. Vardanyan’s (1985: 451, 52811) translation: “to twist the neck”.
●DIAL The verb has been preserved in Muš gelel ‘to press/squeeze something
putting it between two hard things’, and gelaran is found in geləṙnak (see DialAdd apud NHB 2: 1061b) = gelaran-ak (Norayr, = Fr. ‘bille’), and Moks k
y
älärän [HAB
1: 531a].
●ETYM Arm. gelum, and g(i)l ‘to roll’ (q.v.) are compared with Gr. ἐλύω ‘to roll
round’, εἰλύω to enfold, enwrap’, ‘to press, squeeze’, εἴλω ‘to press; to contract his
body, draw himself together’ (said of a man or an animal, e.g. an asp in Ilias
20.278), εἴλῡμα ‘wrapper’, Lat. volvō ‘to roll, roll over; to cause to roll, wrap up; to
turn around’, con-volvō ‘to roll together or round, writhe’, con-volvulus ‘bindweed,
convolvulus’, etc. [Meillet 1894: 163; Hübschmann 1897: 433, 435; HAB 1:
530-531, 555; Pokorny 1959: 1141]. Lat. volvō, like the Armenian and Greek verbs,
reflects e-grade *uelHu- [Schrijver 1991: 470]. Note also Gr. εἰλέω ‘to wind, turn
round; to roll up tight; to bind fast’, εἰλεός m. ‘intestinal obstruction; lurking place,
den, hole’, ἕλιξ, -κος f. ‘anything which assumes a spiral shape; whirl, convolution;
tendril of the vine, or of ivy (a climbing evergreen shrub, Hedera Helix); coil of a
serpent; convolution of a spiral shell’, ἑλίκη ‘winding; convolution of a spiral shell;
of the bowels’, in Arcadia: ‘crack willow, Salix fragilis’.
Arutjunjan (1983: 278, 342239) takes Arm. plant-name geɫj ‘bindweed,
convolvulus; yew-tree’ (q.v.) and Gr. ἕλιξ, ἑλίκη as a Greek-Armenian lexical
isogloss noting four correspondences: (1) e-grade; (2) stem-formant *-i-; (3) suffixal
guttural; (4) semantics. Clackson (1994: 181) is sceptical and considers the
etymology doubtful.
None of the correspondences noticed by Arutjunjan is convincing: (1) the e-grade
is the basic form of the verb not only in Greek and Armenian but also in the other
cognates (see HAB, Pokorny); (2) I fail to see a trace of the *-i- in Arm. geɫj.
Arutjunjan (1983: 342238) asserts that gayl, gayl-uk ‘bindweed’ corroborates the
development *li > Arm. ɫ in geɫj. However, a trace of *i in gayl would not
necessarily imply its presence also in geɫj, since they can be different formations.
Besides, and more importantly, gayl found in gayluk and other plant names is
obviously identical with gayl ‘wolf’ [Ališan 1895: 106-108, Nrs. 409-418; HAB 1:
512a]; (3) the suffixal elements are different; on Arm. -j-, see below; (4) various
plant names are derived from the verb in other languages, too (see HAB).
Clackson’s scepticism is thus justified, as far as the idea of an isogloss is
concerned. The etymological connection of the words, however, should not be
rejected, as long as they belong to the same root ‘twisting (plant)’. The Armenian
suffix -j- (or -z-) is found in many plant-names; see 2.3.1. QIE *uel-ĝh
- may be
corroborated by the Germanic word for ‘willow’; see s.v. geɫj ‘bindweed,
convolvulus; yew-tree’.
For gelumn = Lat. volūmen = Gr. εἴλῡμα, see Olsen 1999: 595-596.
geɫ, o-stem ‘beauty’ (Bible+); ‘(beautiful) appearance, look’ in Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i (9-10th cent.) and Grigor Narekac‘i, as well as in compounds. E.g., in Movsēs
Xorenac‘i 2.8 (1913=1991: 114L12), Turk‘ is desribed as xožoṙ-a-geɫ, translated by
Thomson (1978: 141) as ‘deformed’. Then, the historian states that Turk‘ was called
Angeɫeay because of his great ugliness (vasn aṙawel žahadimut‘eann), and the name
of his family (Angeɫ tun “the house of Angɫ”) derives from it. Movsēs assumes, thus,
an appellative an-geɫ ‘not beautiful’, which is indeed attested in Nersēs Lambronac‘i
(see NHB 1: 125a). Further on this, see below. In Yovhan Mandakuni/Mayragomec‘i (5th/7th cent.) [2003: 1164bL15f]:
zvayelč‘ut‘iwn geɫoyn.
Movsēs Xorenac‘i has yet another compound (also a hapax): bare-geɫ
‘good-looking’ (1.12: 41L5).
In Sebēos/Ananun 1 (Abgaryan 1979: 51L4f): yoyž tṙp‘eal ēr i véray anjin ew
geɫoy nora geɫec‘kut‘eann : (literal transl.) “[The queen Šamiram] very much lusted
for his [of Aray Geɫec‘ik] person/body and for the look of his handsomeness”.
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 532-533) derives from PIE *uel- ‘to see’, cf. Lat. voltus,
vultus, -ūs m. ‘countenance, facial expression; face; looks, features’, Bret. guelet ‘la
vue’, etc. See also Olsen 1999: 51.
As we have seen, Thomson (1978: 14117) considers Movsēs’ etymology of
Angeɫeay as “fanciful”. However, mythical creatures and giants are often
characterized as ‘unshaped, deformed’ or the like, containing the privative prefix
an-, cf. e.g. s.v. ard. The basic meaning of *geɫ is ‘appearance, shape; seeing’ (cf.
PIE ‘to see’), and the interpretation of Angeɫeay as ‘shapeless, deformed’ or ‘not
having an appearance’, whether etymological or folk-etymological, is not
necessarily a product of Movsēs’ fantasy.
The formation of *an-geɫ may also be understood as ‘the Un-seen’; cf. Gr. ’Αίδης,
etc.
*geɫ- ‘to sing’: geɫ-awn ‘song’ (John Chrysostom); geɫgeɫem ‘to sing beautifully,
quiver, vibrate’ in Hexaemeron (said of čpuṙn, next to the participle geɫgeɫ-eal, see
K. Muradyan 1984: 279, lines 12, 14-15), Severian of Gabala, Vardan Arewelc‘i,
etc.; participle geɫgeɫ-eal in Hexaemeron 4, referring to singing and musicians:
jaynk‘ ergč‘ac‘n pēspēs nuagawk‘ geɫgeɫealk‘ (K. Muradyan 1984: 101L5f), for other
passages, see above, as well as in 132L3. For the passage from P‘awstos, see below;
nouns geɫgeɫ, o-stem: ISg geɫgeɫ-o-v in Canon Law; geɫgeɫ-an-k‘, a-stem: GDPl
geɫgeɫ-an-a-c‘ in John Chrysostom.
A passage from P‘awstos Buzand 4.15 (1883=1984: 103L18f; transl. Garsoïan
1989: 144), not cited in NHB and HAB: jayniwk‘n mrmnǰoc‘n i veray spaneloyn i
mēǰ kocoyn barbaṙēin geɫgeɫeal xandaɫatut‘eamb : “They sang with moaning voices
in the midst of their laments, quavering with compassion over the victim”.
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 534) derives from PIE *gh
el- comparing with OIc. gala ‘to
call, sing’, OHG galan ‘to sing’, naht-gala ‘nightingale’, etc. Accepted in J̌
ahukyan
1982: 172; 1987: 127. On the other hand, the Armenian word has been considered a
Hittite loan, cf. galgal-ināi- ‘to make a musical sound’ (see Greppin 1981b: 8, with
refer.).
Native origin seems more likely. The absence of palatalization may be due to
onomatopoeic nature of the word; cf. gl-gl-. See 2.1.14.
geɫj ‘bindweed, convolvulus; yew-tree’.
Attested in Nahum 1.10 rendering σμῖλαξ ‘yew, or bindweed, or holm-oak’, and
in Book of Chries. According to Béguinot/Diratzouyan 1912: geɫj ‘convolvulus’ (81,
Nrs. 385-386), geɫj-i ‘yew-tree, Taxus baccata L.’ (30Nr15), geɫj barjrajig ‘Smilax
excelsa L.’ (34Nr55).
●ETYM From PArm. *gel- ‘to twist; to squeeze’ (q.v.) < PIE *uel- ‘to twist, wind,
turn’, cf. Lat. con-volvulus ‘bindweed, convolvulus’, etc. [Hübschmann 1897: 433]; also Arm. gaɫjn ‘id.’; see s.v., and HAB 1: 505-506, 534b. On the semantics, see V.
Aṙak‘elyan 1984a: 146-147. For the discussion, in particular on -j-, see s.v. gelum
‘to twist’. QIE *uel-ĝh
- may be corroborated by the Germanic word for ‘willow’:
MDutch wilghe (13th cent.), Dutch wilg, OLG wilgia, OEngl. welig, NEngl. willow,
etc., derived from the same root *uel- ‘to twist, wind, turn’ (see Vries/Tollenaere
1993: 430a).
geɫj-k‘ ‘glands’. Attested only in Gregory of Nyssa (twice).
●ETYM Connected with Slav. *želza ‘gland’ and Lith. gẽležuonys ‘submaxillary
gland’ (Bugge 1892: 448-449; 1893: 5-6; Hübschmann 1897: 433; 1899: 45; HAB
1: 535ab; Pisani 1950: 175; Saradževa 1986: 132-133; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 127). Meillet
(1900: 392-393) points out that this etymology is impeccable both semantically and
phonologically except for the absence of the palatalization of the initial guttural.
Then he adds that any such correspondence that involves only two cognate
languages cannot be considered as certain. Later (1905-06: 243-245), he explains the
phonological problem by dissimilation of the two palatalized occlusives. For other
examples and references, see 2.1.14.
Sometimes connected with geɫj ‘strong desire’ and gel- ‘to twist; to squeeze’ (see
Bugge 1893: 6; Hübschmann 1897: 433; 1899: 45; HAB 1: 534b); see s.vv. Against
the connection with geɫj-k‘ ‘glands’: Arutjunjan (1983: 342239).
geɫmn, an-stem: GDSg geɫman, GDPl geɫman-c‘ ‘wool, fleece’ (Bible+).
●ETYM Derived from PIE *h2ulh1-no/eh2- ‘wool’: Hitt. ḫulana-, Skt. ū́rṇā- f., YAv.
varənā- f. ‘wool’, Gr. λῆνος n. ‘wool, wool fibre’, Lat. lāna f. ‘wool’, Goth. *wulla,
OHG wolla ‘wool’, Lith. vìlna f., SCr. vȕna f. ‘wool’, etc., see Hübschmann 1883:
24; 1897: 434; HAB 1: 536a; Pokorny 1959: 1139; Peters 1980: 41; 1987; 1988:
375; Lehmann 1986: 412; Lindeman 1990a; Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 243
(without Armenian); Mallory/Adams 1997: 648b.
PIE *HulHn- was usually syllabified as *(H)ul̯̥Hn-, cf. Lat. lāna , Lith. vìlna, etc.
The Celtic forms may have preserved the archaic syllabification *HulHn- > Celt.
*ulan-: OIr. olann f., MWelsh gwlan m., Bret. gloan m. (*ulan- > *u̯ulan- > *u̯lan-)
‘wool’, etc. (Schrijver 1995: 177).
Armenian has full grade, as Lat. vellus n. ‘fleece’ does (see HAB 1: 536a; È.
Tumanjan 1978: 255-256; Aɫabekyan 1979: 84; Lehmann 1986: 412; Beekes 1988:
949; 2003: 187, 193; Schrijver 1991: 179-181; Lindeman 1997: 9699). For the full
grade J̌
ahukyan (1987: 198-199) also compares OEngl. wil-mod ‘spinning wheel’.
It is tempting to reconstruct a QIE *Huel(H)-mn- (cf. Olsen 1999: 504) for
Armenian and Latin (cf. also Grammont 1918: 242); perhaps NSg *h2uelh1-men-,
obl. *h2ulh1-mn-os- >> PLat. *vel(m)no-, cf. Gr. πυϑμήν ‘bottom’ vs. Skt. budhnáand Lat. fundus (see s.v. andund-k‘ ‘abyss’). Schrijver 1991: 181 assumes *u̯eld-mn̥.
For *-men- in a synonymous word cf. MPers., NPers. pašm ‘wool’, Oss. fæsm
‘wool’ vs. Skt. pákṣman- n. ‘eyelash’, YAv. pašna- n. ‘eyelash’, etc. (for the etymon,
see s.v. asr ‘fleece’). Note also *Hdn̥(t)-mn > PArm. *ata(nt)mn > atamn ‘tooth’
(q.v.).
*ge-n/c‘- ‘to put on clothes’, *gest ‘dress, garment, clothes’ (dial.).
See s.v. z-genum ‘to put on clothes’, z-gest ‘dress, garment, clothes’.
get, o-stem ‘river’ (Bible+); pl.-coll. get-oray ‘rivers’ (Socrates apud HAB 1: 537a),
get-oray-k‘ (Alexander Romance, see H. Simonyan 1989: 475L5).
●ETYM From PIE *u̯ed-os- n. ‘water’: Gr. ὕδος n. ‘water’, cf. Skt. útsa- m. ‘spring,
fountain’ (RV+) < *ud-s-o- [Meillet 1894: 154; 1936: 74; Frisk 2: 958-959;
J
̌
ahukyan 1959: 232; 1982: 130; Tumanjan 1978: 64, 159, 334; Euler 1979: 210;
Olsen 1999: 45-46]. With relation to the stem-formation of the Armenian, Phryg.
βεδυ (see J̌
ahukyan 1982: 22369; cf. Tumanjan 1978: 170-171; Saradževa 1986: 27,
35750) seems irrelevant to me. As to the e-grade, cf. also CLuv. adj. u̯ida(/i)- ‘wet’
[Starke 1990: 567-568], etc. (see below).
The PIE root is mainly represented in heteroclitic *u̯od-r, GSg *u̯ed-n-s: Hitt.
ua̯ ̄tar/u̯eten- n. [Starke 1990: 565-568], Gr. ὕδωρ -ατος, etc. In this respect, Arm.
getoray seems important to me since, if from *u̯ed-or-eh2-, it can shed some light
upon the origin of the Arm. coll. -oray(-k‘)
getaṙ(u), GDSg getaṙ-i, getaṙu-i ‘river-bed; river-shore; outbranching river’.
Not in NHB. Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 537) only cites Step‘anos Orbelean 42
(1250/60-1303/5): i Halēic‘ getar‘in. Amatuni (1912: 129a) translates getaṙ as ‘the
former river-bed which is ploughed’, which coincides with his record for the dialects
of Muš and Ōšakan. This is accepted by Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 537). Elsewhere, Ačaṙyan
records other semantic nuances in Ararat (and J̌
uɫa); see below. “Aṙjeṙn baṙaran”
interprets as get-ezr ‘river-shore’. This agrees with the testimony from the dialects of
Ararat and Meɫri (see below). A. A. Abrahamyan (1986: 211) translates as
jor-a-hovit ‘ravine-valley’.
In Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ (Amalyan 1975: 183Nr222), getaṙ glosses an otherwise
unattested word hawaṙi (vars. hawar, hawari, hawareli; see 396222). Here, Ačaṙyan
(HAB 3: 69a) points out that in the dialects of Ararat and J̌
uɫa getaṙ means ‘a mother
river of which a brook/rivulet branches out’.
The earliest attestation of the word (not mentioned in NHB and HAB; see L.
Hovhannisyan 1990a: 156) is found in Łazar P‘arpec‘i (5th cent.) 3.82 (1904=1985:
150L9; transl. Thomson 1991: 209): karcēr i teɫisn urek‘ anyayts getaṙuin (var.
getaṙ) t‘ak‘č‘el “he planned to hide in some concealed spot beside the river”. B.
Ulubabyan (1982: 365) renders the word with ModArm. get-a-vtak ‘tributary of a
river’.
There are several place-names (one of them being attested in Ptolemy as Γαιτάρα)
which obviously contain this word; see s.v. Getaṙ(u).
●DIAL Ararat getaṙ ‘river-shore’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 224a]; Meɫri gɛtaṙnə ‘river-shore’
(see Aɫayan 1954: 293, in a glossary of purely dialectal words); Muš, Ōšakan getaṙ
‘the former river-bed which is ploughed’; Ararat and J̌
uɫa getaṙ ‘a mother river, of
which a brook/rivulet branches out’ (see above).
Both literary (since Łazar P‘arpec‘i, 5th cent.) and dialectal attestations are
confined to the Eastern area. Thus, we may be dealing with a word dialectally
restricted to Eastern Armenia since the 5th century.
In DialAdd apud NHB (2: 1061b) one finds getṙil, getaṙil, a verb that refers to
darkening or confusion of eyes when one crosses a river. The -aṙ- here is different
from that found in get-aṙ and probably derives from aṙnum ‘to take’, as is suggested
in NHB (aṙnul getoy zač‘s). ●ETYM There can be no doubt that getaṙ derives from get ‘river’ (q.v.). Ačaṙyan
(HAB 1: 537) does not specify the component -aṙ. All the meanings can
theoretically presuppose a basic semantics ‘to flow, stream’. A river-bed is the bed
or channel in which a river flows; a river-shore is the land that is watered by the
river; an outbranching “mother-river” is a river that makes flow a rivulet from itself.
The component -aṙ can be derived from PIE *sr(o)u- ‘to stream, flow’, cf. Skt. srav-
‘to stream, flow’, Russ. strujá ‘stream’, Lith. sraujà, Latv. strauja ‘stream’, etc. In
this case, it is identical with Arm. aṙu ‘brook, tributary; channel; ditch, trench,
furrow, passage’ (q.v.). The fact that in the oldest attestation we find getaṙu, with
final u-, makes the connection even more transparent. The semantic development ‘to
stream, flow’ > ‘irrigated, watered land’ is also seen in Russ. ostrov ‘island’ from
the same PIE *sr(o)u-.
The ORuss. river-name Дънѣстръ (cf. Δάναστρις, etc.) has been interpreted as of
Iranian origin, containing the word for ‘river’, cf. Av. dānu- f. ‘river, stream’, Oss.
don ‘river; water’ [Abaev 1949: 162; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 671]. I wonder if
the second component can be identified with PIE *sr(o)u-. In this case, the pattern
(with the etymologically identical second component) would be comparable to that
of PArm. *wed(V)-sru-.
The word haw-aṙ-i which is represented in Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ as synonymous to
getaṙ (see above) seems to follow the same pattern, with the same *aṙ. I suggest to
derive the first component *haw from PIE *h2ep- ‘river, water’: Luw. ḫāpa/i-
‘river’, Skt. áp- ‘water’ (cf. dvīpá- ‘island, island in a river, sandbank’ (RV+) <
*dui-h2p-ó-, lit. ‘having water on two sides’), Toch. AB āp f. ‘water, river, stream’,
etc.
Note also kawaṙn ‘brook, canal’ (Cyril of Alexandria; several dialects [HAB 2:
561b]), if composed of kaw (= the word for ‘clay’?) and *aṙ-.
getin, o-stem: GDSg getn-o-y, AblSg i getn-o-y, AllSg i getin, LocSg i getn-i (rich
evidence in the Bible, see Astuacaturean 1895: 328c), a-stem: ISg getn-a-w
(Hexaemeron, see K. Muradyan 1984: 276L9), IPl getn-a-w-k‘ (Agat‘angeɫos); APl
getin-s (Grigor Narekac‘i) ‘earth, ground’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 1: 538b].
●ETYM Scheftelowitz 1904-05, 2: 44 suggests a connection with Gr. οὖδας ‘ground’.
Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 538) rejects this and other etymological suggestions and leaves
the origin of the word open.
A very attractive etymology is proposed in Götze/Pedersen 1934: 79-80, who
connect Arm. getin to Hitt. utnē < *-nēi, obl. utni- n. ‘land’, deriv. utnii̯ant- c.
‘people, population’.37 The connection of this Hittite word to CLuw. *u̯atna- ‘land’
in Kizzuu̯atna-, Lyc. wedre/i- ‘city, country?’ is uncertain. For the forms, attestations
and morphological discussion see Neu 1974: 109-114; Starke 1990: 4681705;
Melchert 1994: 161; Kloekhorst 2006: 90; 2008: 933-934. J̌
ahukyan 1987: 155, 198
accepts the etymology, but later on (1990: 71, sem. field 1) he considers getin a
word of unknown origin. Since the Hittite word is neuter, we may tentatively reconstruct a PD neuter nstem (for this declension see Beekes 1995: 186): nom. *u̯éd-n, obl. *ud-én-. This
paradigm would develop into PArm. *wéd-an, obl. *udén >> *wéd(a)n, *wedén,
whence *wedén-o- with secondary thematization: *ued-én-os : *ued-en-ósyo- >
Arm. *getín(o) : *get(i)nó(yo) > ClArm. getin : getnoy. For a discussion on -in see
s.vv. lusin ‘moon’, kaɫin ‘acorn’; further cf. Olsen 1999: 464-465. If Gr. οὖδας
‘ground’ is related, we might reconstruct *h3u(e)d-, but this is uncertain (see
Kloekhorst ibid.).
The Armenian (see Patrubány StugHetaz 1908: 152a) and Anatolian forms may
be derived from the PIE neuter word for ‘water’, cf. OCS voda ‘water’, etc. (see s.v.
get ‘river’), thus ‘water-land, land neighbouring with water’ (see Pisani 1957: 552;
Melchert 1994: 161). In this case the appurtenance of the Greek form becomes even
more problematic.
The singular forms of Arm. getin, o-stem are abundantly attested in the Bible, but
in the Concordance we find no testimony for plural forms. The only attestations for
the a-stem are found with instrumental: sg. getn-a-w (Hexaemeron) and pl. getn-aw-k‘ (Agat‘angeɫos). It is tempting to explain this a-stem from IE neuter plural *-h2.
Apart from this attestation of IPl, we find no plural forms in NHB, leaving aside
APl getin-s in Grigor Narekac‘i (10-11th cent.). Note the absence of dialectal forms
in a frozen plural even when used in apposition with pl. tant. erkin-k‘ ‘sky’. In folk
texts from Nor Naxiǰewan, for example, we often find kɛdin contrasted with ɛrgink‘
‘sky’ (P‘ork‘šeyan 1971: 92aNrs7-8, 106bL13), also in a compound form ɛrgink‘-kɛdin
‘sky-earth’, with the verb in singular (op.cit. 32aNr3).
ger ‘above, higher, over, more than’ (Book of Chries, Porphyry, Yovhannēs Ōjnec‘i,
Xosrovik T‘argmanič‘, Anania Narekac‘i, etc.); the oldest attestation is ger i veroy in
Eznik Koɫbac‘i (5th cent.), John Chrysostom [HAB 1: 539a].
Widely used as a prefix in the hellenophile style (NHB 1: 542-549; HAB 1: 539;
A. Muradyan 1971: 141-142; J̌
ahukyan 1993a: 10).
●ETYM Probably derived from IE *h2uer-, cf. Gr. ἀείρω ‘to raise (up)’; for
references to Meillet (BSL 26, p. 9) et al. and for a discussion, see HAB 1: 539-540;
Chantraine 1968-80: 22-23 (hesitantly Hübschmann 1897: 495). Further see
Kortlandt 1976: 94-95 = 2003: 4; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 156, 199. The relation with PIE
*u̯ers- (cf. Skt. várṣman- n. ‘height, peak, top’, Lith. viršùs ‘top, peak’, OCS vrьxъ
‘upper end, top, point’, etc., see Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 523; Mallory/Adams
1997: 416a).
If this Greek verb is etymologically identical with homonymous ἀείρω ‘to bind
together’ (see Beekes 1969: 57; Chantraine 1968-80: 23-24), then Arm. ger is related
with geri ‘captive’ (q.v.).
The connection with Arm. ver ‘above’ is untenable since a PIE *(h)u̯- cannot
yield Arm. v-; this word regularly derives from *upéri (see also Ravnæs 1991: 69-
70). See s.v. ver for more detail.
geran, a-stem (later: ISg geran-i-w) ‘beam, log’ (Bible), ‘a kind of meteorological
phenomenon’ (Philo+). For the latter meaning, Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 540a) only cites
Philo, but it seems to be present also in two other later attestations cited in NHB (1:
545b) without semantic specification: du geraniwd kurac‘eal es “you have become blind by that geran” (Yovhannēs Erznkac‘i); ibrew zgeran hreɫēn “like a fiery
geran” (Vardan Arewelc‘i). For the semantic shift, cf. hecan ‘log, beam’, later ‘a
kind of meteorological phenomenon’; note the same ending -an.
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects [HAB 1: 540b].
●ETYM Lidén (1905/06: 485-487) connects with Celt. *vernā- (cf. Bret. f. gwern
‘mast; alder’, MIr. fern ‘alder’, NIr. fearn ‘mast; alder’, etc.) and Alb. verrë f. (<
*u̯ernā-) ‘white poplar’. Petersson (1916: 290-291) connects with geran-di ‘scythe;
sickle’ and derives the words from PIE *uer- ‘krümmen’; see also s.v. gerandi.
The etymology of Lidén is commonly accepted; see HAB 1: 540a; Pokorny 1959:
1169; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 156; Olsen 1999: 297. In order to explain Arm. -a-, unclear
forms are reconstructed: *uer-nna ̥ ̄-, *uerьnā-. Probably reshaped under the influence
of the suffix -an (on which see J̌
ahukyan 1998: 11-12; Olsen 1999: 287-301).
gerandi, a-stem (ISg gerandeaw in Łazar P‘arpec‘i, 5th cent.) ‘scythe; sickle’
(Bible+). Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i (9-10th cent.) has IPl gerandiwk‘ (1912=1980:
310L-5), which formally presupposes NSg *gerand (i-stem), but is probably a
contracted form of *gerandeaw-k‘. Note that the -i form is attested by the same
author (223L-10).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects: Hamšen, Axalc‘xa, Muš, Van, Salmast, Łarabaɫ,
etc. [HAB 1: 540b].
According to Baɫramyan (1961: 177b), Kṙzen k‘y
äränt‘i is a back-loan from
Azerbaijani. Similar explanations can be offered for some other forms below. For
back-loans, see 1.10.
Hamšen has gɛrəndi and k‘ɛrɛndi. On the former, see 1.5, and the latter (that is,
the variant with an initial aspirated k‘-) can be compared with Laz k
h
erendi, which is
considered to be an Armenian loan [HAB 1: 540b].
Łarabaɫ has k
y
ara ̈ ̈́ndi and kɛrándu, with a final -u [Davt‘yan 1966: 333];
according to Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 540b), kɛrändǘ. Compare Iǰewan/Šamšadin märändu
vs. Arm. dial. märändi ‘the biggest kind of sickle’ (see below). The -u may be
analogical after the oblique stem, cf. the case of agi ‘tail’ in Łarabaɫ (see s.v.).
●SEMANTICS Originally, gerandi probably referred to a cutting, mowing implement
in general, either a sickle or scythe. Later, the semantics became specific: ‘scythe’,
as opposed to mangaɫ ‘sickle’. This specification is seen already in the 5th century,
cf. Łazar P‘arpec‘i 88 (1904=1985: 159L8f): mangaɫaw ew gerandeaw zxot
harkanic‘en. In dialects, gerandi always refers to the scythe (see Bdoyan 1972:
364-368).
●ETYM NHB (1: 545c) suggests a derivation from geran ‘beam’. The same idea has
been developed by Petersson (1916: 290-291), who assumes a basic meaning
‘krumm’ and derives the words from PIE *uer- ‘krümmen’. Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 540b)
does not accept these and other etymologies and leaves the origin of gerandi open.
J
̌ahukyan (1987: 156) does not mention gerandi next to geran, and takes gerandi to
be of unknown origin (1990: 72, sem. field 8).
Olsen (1999: 439) compares with Gr. χεράς, χέραδος n. ‘Geröll, Kies, Geschiebe’
(in Liddell/Scott/Jones ‘silt, gravel, and rubbish, brought down by torrents’) and
reconstructs *gh
ern̥
́t-iom for Armenian, assuming “a substantivized adjective of
material”. This etymology is semantically improbable. Also the absence of
palatalizion of the velar is problematic (cf. 2.1.14). In my view, the derivation of gerandi ‘scythe; sickle’ from geran ‘beam, log‘ is
plausible. Similarly, hecanoc‘ ‘a kind of winnowing-fan’ (Bible+), which has no
acceptable etymology in HAB 3: 76a, may be derived from hecan ‘log, beam; a kind
of meteorological phenomenon’ (with the ending -an as in geran), as is suggested by
J
̌
ahukyan (1979: 27-28).
As to the second component -di, I suggest a comparison with IIr. *daH- ‘to mow,
cut off’ (presumably from PIE *deh1-): Skt. dā- ‘to mow, cut off’, dā́tra- n. ‘scythe,
sickle’ (RV+), Bengali dā ‘sickle’, Pahl., NPers. dās ‘sickle’ (< SWIran *dāça- <
Iran *dāϑra-), Parači dēš ‘sickle’ (< Iran *dāϑrī-), etc.; see Mayrhofer EWAia 1:
716; ÈtimSlovIranJaz 2, 2003: 438-441. PIE *deh1-V- would yield Arm. *ti-V- > *ti.
In PArm. *geran-ti-, -t- may have become voiced due to the preceding nasal, cf.
ank-/ang- ‘to fall’.
Alternatively, one might suggest an Iranian loan: *dāϑrī- ‘sickle’ > *da(h)i :
*geran-da(h)i > gerandi. But this is less probable.
The basic meaning of Arm. geran-di would be, thus, ‘log/stick-sickle’, that is ‘a
mowing implement with wooden handle’.
The word gerandi is reminiscent of a rhyming synonymous word in Arm.
dialects, namely märändi ‘the biggest kind of sickle’ (Iǰewan and Šamšadin
märändu), which is considered to have been introduced by Persian Armenians (see
Bdoyan 1972: 348b21, 352, 356-357, 367a).
gerdastan, a-stem ‘body of servants and captives’ (Luke 12.42; John Chrysostom),
‘possessions’ (Cyril of Jerusalem), ‘estate, landed property’ (Yovhannēs
Drasxanakertc‘i); gerdast-akan, gerdastan-ik ‘servant, female servant’ (John
Chrysostom). Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 541a) records EArm. gerdastun and explains its
vocalism by folk-etymological reshaping as if composed of tun ‘house’.
In Luke 12.42, the word renders Gr. ϑεραπεία (in coll. sense) ‘body of attendants,
retinue’: i veray gerdastani iwroy : ἐπὶ τῆς ϑεραπείας (Nestle/Aland 203).
●DIAL Alaškert, Axalc‘xa g‘ɛrd‘astan, etc.; according to Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 542a),
from the literary language.
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 541) derives from PIE *gh
erdh
-: Skt. gr̥há- m. ‘house,
residence’ (RV+), YAv. gərəδa- m. ‘house of daēvic beings’, Goth. gards m.
‘house, housekeeping’, etc. As he points out, the absence of palatalization of the
initial guttural is problematic (on this, see 2.1.14), and -stan (of Iranian origin) is
also found with native roots, cf. and ‘cornfield’ : and-astan, etc.
It has been assumed that Arm. gerd-astan derives from the same PIE word, but
via Iranian mediation [Brandenstein/Mayrhofer 1964: 120; Nyberg 1974: 80;
Perixanjan 1983: 309-31019, cf. 58; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 171, 272, 520; Olsen 1999: 333,
333290]. For the semantic development ‘house, household, estate’ > ‘servant’, cf.
especially OPers. *garda- ‘Diener, Hausgesinde, οἰκέτης’, Pahl. gāl [g’l] coll. ‘the
gang, the villeins labouring on the estates of the kings, the satraps, the magnates,
etc.’; see s.v. aɫaxin ‘female servant’.
geri, ea-stem: GDSg gerw-o-y, GDPl gere-a-c‘ (Bible+) ‘captive’, gerem ‘to capture,
take prisoner’ (both are richly attested in the Bible, see Astuacaturean 1895: 330);
late diminutive gerēk ‘miserable, poor’ (Yaysmawurk‘, see HAB 1: 543b). Some textual illustrations: in P‘awstos Buzand 5.44 (1883=1984: 218L8f; transl.
Garsoïan 1989: 229): zi oɫormēr aɫk‘atac‘, tnankac‘, gereac‘, amayeac‘, ōtarac‘,
pandxtac‘ : "For he comforted the poor, the homeless, the captive, the abandoned,
the stranger, the wanderer"; in Genesis 34.29 (Zeyt‘unyan 1985: 308): zkanays
noc‘a gerec‘in : τὰς γυναῖκας αὐτῶν ᾐχμαλώτευσαν.
The verb gerem and the compound gerevar, a-stem ‘captor’ (= geri ‘captive’ +
-a- + var- ‘to lead’) co-occur in Job 1.15: Ew ekin gerevark‘ ew gerec‘in znosa : καὶ
ἐλϑόντες οἱ αἰχμαλωτεύοντες ᾐχμαλώτευσαν αὐτὰς : "And captors came and carried
them off" (Cox 2006: 52).
●DIAL Van, Moks, Salmast, etc. [HAB 1: 544b]. According to Ačaṙyan (1913: 226a;
HAB ibid.), Manisa, Č‘enkiler, Č‘arsančag, Tarente *gerek-nal ‘to beg, supplicate’
derives from geri. If this is true, the verb may be derived from the diminutive gerēk
‘miserable, poor’ (see above), basically meaning ‘to supplicate miserably, like a
miserable person’.
●ETYM Lidén (1906: 106-108) links Arm. geri with Gr. εὑρίσκω ‘to find’, OIr. -fúar
‘I found’ < IE *u̯e-u̯r-, pass. -frīth ‘inventum est’ < IE *u̯rē-to-, etc., assuming that
the original meaning of the Armenian word is ‘nehmen, ergreifen’. Though largely
accepted (Pokorny 1959: 1160; Frisk, s.v.; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 156; M. Niepokuj apud
Mallory/Adams 1997: 202a), this etymology is problematic both formally and
semantically. See also Olsen 1999: 439.
A preferable but largely forgotten etymology has been proposed by Ačaṙyan
(HAB 1: 544), who connects Arm. geri to Gr. ἀείρω ‘to bind together’, συν-ωρίς, -
ίδος f. ‘two-horse team’, Lith. virvė ‘string’, OCS ̃ obora (< *ob-vora) ‘string’, etc.
The same has independently been suggested by Olsen (1999: 439, 763). For a further
discussion, see Barton 1989: 15460. For the semantic relationship compare MPers.
band-ak ‘servant, slave’ from band-, bastan ‘to bind, fetter, fasten’, cf. Skt. bandh-
‘to bind, fasten’, bandhá- m. ‘bond, fetter’ (RV+), etc. (see ÈtimSlovIranJaz 2,
2003: 68-80), as well as Arm. bant ‘prison’ (Iranian loanword), on which see HAB
1: 409-410. See also s.v.v. pind ‘firm, dense, fastened’, papanjim ‘to grow dumb,
speechless’. Note also Georg. geri ‘stepson’ and an identical form in the Armenian
dialect of T‘iflis (HAB 1: 544b). For WCauc. forms possibly borrowed from
Armenian, see J̌
ahukyan 1987: 602.
Further, see s.v. ger ‘above, higher, over, more than’
gēǰ, o-stem: GDSg giǰ-o-y, GDPl giǰ-o-c‘ (Philo, Aristotle, Gregory of Nyssa), LocSg
i giǰ-i (Bible+) adj. ‘moist; lascivious’, subst. ‘moisture’ (LocSg i giǰ-i). In the verb
giǰanam and in the compound giǰ-akn(-eay), refers to eye-pus.
In Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.6 (1913=1991: 108L5; transl. Thomson 1978: 135): i giǰin
ew i maṙaxlut teɫis mayreac‘ ew i lōṙawēts “to the wet and foggy regions of forests
and moss”.
●DIAL Muš, Bulanəx, T‘iflis, Łarabaɫ, Moks, Hačən: ‘moist’. Łazax gɛǰ means ‘very
dirty’, and Xian gɛǰṙil ‘to mould’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 227b; HAB 1: 551a].
●ETYM From QIE *gwhe/oidh
-io-, cf. Russ. žídkij, SCr. žídak, etc. ‘liquid, watery’
[Lidén 1906: 74-75; HAB 1: 551a; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 62; 1987: 128]. The connection
with Gr. δεῖσα f. ‘slime, filth’ is phonologically problematic and is therefore
disputed (cf. Frisk s.v.; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 172). Pokorny (1959: 469) and Adams (apud
Mallory/Adams 1997: 490a) do not mention the Armenian form next to the Greek, Slavic and Germanic cognates.38 Note also Russ. žíža < *židi̯ā, as well as several
dialectal forms with the root žid- referring, as the Armenian cognate, to dirt; see
SlovRusNarGov 9, 1972: 168-169. I wonder if Russ. dial. žídi pl. ‘forest demons;
heretics’ (ibid. 169a) is related, too. The basic meaning is, thus, ‘liquid; (liquid) dirt;
moral dirt’.
For the Armenian word, usually an e-grade is reconstructed, see J̌
ahukyan 1975:
39; 1982: 62; 1987: 128; Kortlandt 1994: 27 = 2003: 104; Olsen 1999: 811. An
o-grade (see HAB) would better explain the absence of palatalization of the initial
guttural, unless one assumes dissimilation as in geɫj-k‘ ‘glands’, ak‘is ‘weasel’, keč‘i
‘birch’ (see 2.1.14), which seems plausible.
Armenian *žiž- in žžak (T‘ovmay Arcruni 1.3 – 9-10th cent.), žižmak, ž(i)žmunk‘,
*žžuank‘ ‘insects, worms; hallucination, mirage; nightmare’ and žiži ‘dragon-fly’ is
considered to have onomatopoeic origin by Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 229-230). I tentatively
propose an alternative etymology. If gēǰ indeed reflects an o-grade, one may assume
that *žiž- is related and goes back to *gwh(e)idh
-i(e)h2-. For the ž, cf. iž ‘viper’, etc.
(see s.v. and 2.1.2). Note also the semantic field discussed in 3.5.2 (*čipṙ, čpuṙ
‘eye-pus’ : čpuṙn ‘dragon-fly’, etc.).
*gēt- ‘to know’: gitem, aor. 1sg. git-a-c‘-i, 3.sg git-a-c‘ ‘to know, be acquainted with;
to be able; to copulate’ (Bible+), ‘to consider’ (Agat‘angeɫos, etc.); -(a-)gēt as the
second member of a number of compounds (Bible+); gēt, a-stem: GDPl git-a-c‘
(Bible+); i-stem: GDPl git-i-c‘ (Eusebius of Caesarea) ‘wizard, magician, sorcerer’
(Bible+).
●DIAL The verb is ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 1: 552b].
In a folk-tale from Łarabaɫ recorded by M. Mxit‘aryan in 1961 (HŽHek‘ 6, 1973:
103L8) one finds a numeration of various specialists, sorcerers and hakeems/medics,
which tried to cure the mute princess: häk‘yim, gyidac‘oɫ, derviš, p‘alč‘i mart‘ik‘y.
Of these, gyidac‘oɫ reflects *git-ac‘-oɫ and can be compared with ClArm. gēt
‘wizard, magician, sorcerer’.
●ETYM From PIE *ueid- ‘to know, be acquainted with’: Skt. ved- ‘to know, be
acquainted with’, Goth. wait ‘he knows’, etc. Hübschmann 1897: 435; HAB 1: 552;
Pokorny 1959: 1125. The Armenian verb is derived from PIE perfect *u̯oid-h2e, cf.
Skt. perfect véda, Gr. οἴδα, Goth. wait. For a discussion, see Meillet 1936: 112; K.
Schmidt 1980: 43; 1985: 86; Schmitt 1981: 52, 134, and especially Peters 1997.
On the relation between the two PIE roots *u̯id- ‘to know’ and ‘to find’ as well as
on the phrase ‘to find favour’, see de Lamberterie 1978-79 (on the phrase, see also
Clackson 1994: 180-181); Saradževa 1986: 163-164.
gi, o-stem: GDSg gi-o-y ‘juniper’ (Bible+); with h-glide gi-h-i ‘id.’ (lex.).
●DIAL Zeyt‘un g‘ɛ ‘juniper’, Binkean g‘i ‘cypress’ [Ačaṙyan 2003: 107-108; HAB 1:
554b]; Xotorǰur g‘ihi ‘juniper’ ’[HAB 1: 556b; Ačaṙyan 2003: 108; YušamXotorǰ
1964: 437b]; *gi-h-eni > Łarabaɫ kɛ́
nɛ, Loṙi kɛni, etc. [HAB 1: 554b]. For the latter
form cf. gin glossed as geni caṙ in the glossary Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ (Amalyan 1975:
66Nr183). Amalyan (op. cit. 357183) identifies this tree with gi, gieni.
Ananyan (1984: 241, 320, 430, 481-482, 486) describes Ararat kɛni as an
evergreen conifer with very oily pitch and easily kindling ‘needle-leaves’. He
mentions gihi and keni side by side in the same context, as similar but different trees
(op. cit. 49, cf. 355). Zangezur kɛni is said to have thorny branches [Lisic‘yan 1969:
100]. According to Malxaseanc‘ HBB 1: 435b, gi, gihi refers to ‘yew, taxus’. For a
further discussion, see Ališan 1895: 122-123.
●ETYM Derived from PIE *u̯ei(H)-t-: IIr. *uai ̯ ̯-t-: Gr. ϝῑτέα ‘willow’, Skt. vetasá- m.
‘Calamus Rotang or another kind of similar reed’, vaitasá- m. ‘Rohrstock’ (=
‘penis’), vetra- m. ‘a big kind of Calamus’, YAv. vaētay- f. ‘Weide, Weidengerte’
(Bartholomae 1904: 1314), Pashto vala < *uaitii ̯ ̯ ̯ā-, Pahl. wēd [wyt], NPers. bēd
‘willow’ (see MacKenzie 1971: 89), Kurd. bī, bīd ‘тополь = poplar’ (Kurmanji),
‘willow’ (Cabolov 1, 2001: 197-198), Lat. uītis ‘vine, vine-branch; centurion’s
staff’, OHG wīda ‘willow’, Germ. Weide, etc., see Lidén 1905-06: 494-498; HAB 1:
554; 4: 627; on the etymon, see also Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 628, 649-650;
Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 578-579; Mallory/Adams 1997: 571a, 643a.
The Armenian word is often mentioned under the derivative *u̯ei-s- (Pokorny
1959: 1133; Mallory/Adams 1997: 644a). In fact it belongs with *u̯ei(H)-t- (thus
also P. Friedrich 1970: 55; Campbell 1990: 174).
Klimov (1989: 23-24; 1994: 76-78; 1998: 226-227) relates this IE tree-name with
Kartv. *ɣwi- ‘juniper’ considering the cluster *ɣw- as a reflex of PIE *Hu̯-. More
probably, the Kartvelian word is an Armenian loanword, as is stated by Ačaṙyan in
HAB 1: 554b; 4: 627 for Georgian ɣvi-a, etc. The semantics corroborates this
assumption. Klimov 1994: 77 rejects the direct comparison on phonological
grounds. However, Kartv. *ɣw- can be regarded as the reflex of PArm. *gw
i- < IE
*u̯i(H)-. Exactly the same is seen in another early armenism in Kartvelian: *ɣwino-
‘wine’ < Arm. *gw
inio-: gini, gen. ginwoy ‘wine’, cf. Gr. (ϝ)οἶνος, Lat. vīnum, Hitt.
uii ̯ ̯an-, etc. Besides, Klimov’s idea on Kartv. *ɣw- vs. PIE *Hu̯- is unconvincing
because neither of these PIE lexemes has in fact an initial laryngeal.
gil, o-stem or a-stem: IPl gl-o-v-k‘, var. gl-a-w-k‘, in Yovhan Mamikonean (A.
Abrahamyan 1941: 199L5: k‘arambk‘ ew glovk‘/glawk‘ yanxnay kotorec‘in); APl
gil-s in 1 Maccabees 2.36 ‘stone for throwing’; gil ‘rolling’ (Grigor Narekac‘i., etc.);
glem ‘to roll’ (Bible+), frequently referring to rolling of rocks [vēm] or stones [k‘ar],
see NHB 1: 559b (vēms glel also in Anania Širakac‘i, see A. G. Abrahamyan 1944:
321L3); gl-or-em ‘to roll; to stumble, fall down’ (Bible, Agat‘angeɫos, etc.);
gayt‘-a-gɫ-im ‘to roll, stumble, fall down; to err’ (Bible+); gl-an ‘cylinder’
(Aristotle). Also geɫ-a-hmay-k‘ ‘a kind of sorcery’, attested in Yovhan
Mandakuni/Mayragomec‘i (5th/7th cent.), is considered to belong here, as a sorcery
by throwing stone/dice. The word is usually represented as giɫahmay-k‘, with -i-
[NHB 1: 552a; HAB 1: 555a; A. Petrosjan 1987: 57]. The actual form is, however,
geɫahmay-s, as in NHB 2: 475b, s.v. šeɫǰaxtirk‘, as well as in the recent editon (2003:
1264aL-16).
In Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ (Amalyan 1975: 66Nr179): gil· virg. Amalyan (op. cit. 357179)
notes that the gloss is found in this form in a number of old manuscripts.
●DIAL The verb glor- ‘to roll’ is widespread in the dialects. In some of them (Polis,
Ṙodost‘o, Aslanbek, Xarberd, Zeyt‘un, Salmast), one finds an epenthetic -d-,
*gl-d-or- from *gl-t-or- [HAB 1: 555a, 556a]. Note also Łarabaɫ *gl-an ‘a wooden cylinder for transporting stones by rolling upon it’, Hamšen *gl-il ‘to glide’ [HAB 1:
556a]. For the latter, cf. gayt‘-a-gɫ-im ‘to roll, fall down; to err’ (Bible+).
Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 556a), with reservations, also mentions Van *gil ‘a kind of soft
stone’. (Ačaṙyan 1952: 253 vacat). Note also Kṙzen gy
il ‘a stone to wash with’
[Baɫramyan 1961: 177b], Areš gil ‘id.’ [Lusenc‘ 1982: 202a], both represented as
from ClArm. gil. Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 556a) alternatively compares Pers. gil ‘clay’.
This is more probable, since V. Ananyan (1978: 105; 1984: 447-448, 456, 463),
native of Diliǰan region, repeatedly and thoroughly describes gil as a sticky, clayey
substance which serves as soap.
●ETYM Probably belongs with gelum ‘to twist, etc.’ (q.v.); for the semantics, cf.
Russ. valun ‘boulder’ [Hübschmann 1897: 435; HAB 1: 555]. Olsen (1999: 954,
95438) is sceptical concerning the derivation of gil (1 Maccabees 2.36 -s) ‘stone for
throwing’ from the root for ‘to roll’ and takes as an isolated word of unknown
origin. I see no reason for this.
According to M. Muradyan (1975: 57), the root is also seen in əngɫayk‘ (q.v.),
which is improbable. A. Petrosjan (1987: 57) mentions geɫahmay-k‘ as belonging to
the root *u̯el-, to which he ascribes an exaggerated value.
gin, o-stem: GDSg gn-o-y, GDPl gn-o-c‘, IPl gn-o-v-k‘ (Bible+); later also i-stem: IPl
gn-i-w-k‘ (Nersēs Lambronac‘i, 12th cent.) ‘price, purchase price; buy; hiring price’
(Bible+).
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 1: 557a].
●ETYM Since long (Tērvišean apud HAB; Bugge 1889: 24; Hübschmann 1883: 24-
25; 1897: 434), derived from PIE *u̯es-no-: Skt. vasná- n. ‘puchase price’, Lat.
vēnum n. in the formula vēnum dare ‘to put up for sale’, cf. Gr. ὦνος ‘purchase
price’ and the verbal form in Hittite, u̯āš- ‘to buy’, see HAB 1: 556-557; Pokorny
1959: 1173; Mayrhofer KEWA 3, 1976: 177; EWAia 2, 1996: 535; Mallory/Adams
1997: 185a; Olsen 1999: 29.
The Armenian form is usually derived from *ue̯ ̄sno-, but this seems unnecessary;
gin can be regarded as the regular outcome of *u̯esno- (see Ringe 1984: 51; Morani
1991: 178-179; Beekes 2003: 170; cf. Ravnæs 1991: 7; Clackson 1994: 111).
gind, a-stem: GDPl gnd-a-c‘ (Bible+); later: o-stem: IPl gnd-o-v-k‘ in John
Chrysostom (see Hac‘uni 1923: 132-133), i-stem: GDPl gnd-i-c‘ (Čaṙəntir) ‘earring’
(Bible+); gnd-ak ‘vine’ in Genesis 49.11 (z-gndak-ē, Zeyt‘unyan 1985: 385),
Hexaemeron (K. Muradyan 1984: 145L11, 147L5), Philo, etc.
17 attestations in the Bible (Astuacaturean 1895: 333c). Textual illustrations from
Movsēs Xorenac‘i: 2.47 (1913=1991: 174L5f; transl. Thomson 1978: 187-188): gind
yerkosin akanǰsn, <...;...>, bayc‘ miayn yerkuc‘ gndac‘n : “rings for both ears,
<...;...>, except for the two [ear]rings”. For the context, see Xalat’janc 1896, 1:
256ff; Hac‘uni 1923: 84; Thomson 1978: 1883. For attestations in Agat‘angeɫos,
Eɫišē, John Chrysostom, etc., see Hac‘uni 1923: 96, 110, 116, 132-133, 220, 298.
●DIAL The form gind is present in Muš, Alaškert, Ararat, Van-group, Salmast, etc.
[HAB 1: 558a]. A textual illustration in a folk-song from Muš (Ṙ. Grigoryan 1970:
169Nr284): gnder akənǰin ‘(wearing) rings on his ear(s)’.
●ETYM From QIE *u̯endh
-eh2-: OEngl. windan ‘to wind’, Germ. winden ‘to wind’,
OHG winda, Germ.Winde ‘bindweed, convolvulus’ (< ‘die Sichwindende, HerkWört 1997: 815b; cf. Arm. gnd-ak ‘vine’), Skt. vandhúr- m. ‘seat of carriage, framework
of carriage’, vandhúra- n. ‘framework of carriage’ < *vandh- ‘to plait, wind’ (cf.
Iran. *vand- > Arm. vand-ak ‘plaited net, basket, cage’, HAB 4: 304-305), etc., see
Lidén 1906: 5-8; HAB 1: 557; Pokorny 1959: 1148; Schmitt 1981: 61; Ravnæs
1991: 69, 71; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 503 (without Armenian); Mallory/Adams
1997: 607a; Olsen 1999: 70; Viredaz 2005: 97, 9764. Hamp 2001: 9 adduces also
Alb. veth, pl. vath ‘earring’ (sceptical Kortlandt 1986: 41 = 2003: 70).
gini, wo-stem: GDSg ginw-o-y, AblSg i ginw-o-y, ISg ginw-o-v, LocSg i ginw-o-ǰ; eastem: ISg gine-a-w, GDPl gine-a-c‘, IPl gine-a-w-k‘ (rich evidence in the Bible, see
Astuacaturean 1895: 334-335) ‘wine’ (Bible+); a number of compounds with ginand gine- < *gini-a-
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 1: 559a].
●ETYM Since long (NHB 1: 553c; Hübschmann 1883: 25; 1897: 434-435),
connected with Gr. (ϝ)οἶνος m. ‘wine’ and Lat. vīnum ī, n. ‘wine’; note also Alb.
vérë/vẽnë ‘wine’, Hitt. uii ̯ ̯an- c. ‘wine’, CLuw. uinii ̯ ̯a- ‘of wine’, HLuw. wii̯an(i)-
‘vine’, etc. See HAB 1: 558-559; Pokorny 1959: 1121; Beekes 1987a;
Mallory/Adams 1997: 644; Demiraj 1997: 414; Olsen 1999: 439-44039.
The word for ‘wine’ has been treated as non-IE (see HAB 1: 558-559 with
literature and a discussion; Krahe 1970: 86-87; Greppin 2008a). According to
Meillet (1908-09b: 163; 1936: 143; see also Meillet/Vendryes 1924: 16-17), we are
dealing with a Mediterranean word. Ačaṙyan (1937: 3; AčaṙHLPatm 1, 1940: 103)
treats Arm. gini and Gr. οἶνος as borrowed from Phrygian, or from the
Mediterranean or Aegean civilization. J̌
ahukyan (1987: 49, 155, 307, 309, 450)
mentions Indo-European, Mediterranean, and Semitic theories. Further see
Otkupščikov 1985: 102.
The PIE origin of ‘wine’ is more probable (see Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 647-
648 = 1995: 557-558; Otkupščikov 1985; Beekes 1987a). For a discussion, see also
Bonfante 1974; Schmitt 1981: 52, 68-71; Mallory/Adams 1997: 644-646; Matzinger
2005: 20, 66. One now reconstructs an n-stem < *u(e)ih1-on-, see Beekes 1987a;
Kloekhorst 2008: 1012; cf. Gippert 1994: 11916.
Kartv. *ɣwino- ‘wine’: Georg. ɣvino-, Megr. ɣvin-, Laz ɣ(v)in-, Svan ɣwin-e/äl is
treated as a loan from PArm. *ɣw
eini̯o- < *u̯e/oi(H)ni̯o- through the development
Arm. g- < *ɣw
- < PIE *u̯-, see NHB 1: 553c (explicitly deriving the Georgian form
from Armenian); Bugge 1893: 83 with ref.; Hübschmann 1897: 397, 434-435;
Pedersen 1906: 458 = 1982: 236; HAB 3: 558-559; Illič-Svityč 1964: 512, 8;
J̌
ahukyan 1967: 53; Kortlandt 1976: 95; 1989: 44 = 2003: 4, 89; for a critical
analysis, see Ravnæs 1991: 851.
Klimov (1964: 203-204; 1989: 23, 25; 1994: 78-82, cf. 106-108; 1998: 227)
repeatedly rejects the Armenian origin of the Kartvelian word and treats the latter as
a very early Indo-European loanword. However, his assumption on the development
PIE *Hu̯- > Kartv. *ɣw- is uncertain especially as far as this particular word is
concerned because this PIE word has no initial laryngeal, whereas the development PIE *u̯- > PArm. *ɣw
- > Kartv. *ɣw- is practically impeccable. Note also PIE *u̯i(H)-
> Arm. *ɣw
i- ‘juniper’ > Kartv. *ɣwi- ‘juniper’ (see s.v. gi ‘juniper’).
For further references and a discussion on Armenian and Kartvelian forms and
related issues, see Dumézil 1967a: 29-302; Greppin 1997a: 384; Takács 1997: 374;
Witzel 2003: 2288; Viredaz 2003: 6843, and especially Gippert 1994: 117-121 and
Greppin 1998; 2008a.
gišer, o-stem: GDSg gišer-o-y and LocSg gišer-i or i gišer-i (abundant in the Bible,
see Astuacaturean 1895: 336); a-stem in adverbial forms: ISg gišer-a-w (Eɫišē, 5th
cent.; Aristakēs Lastivertc‘i, 11th cent.), GDPl gišer-a-c‘ (Isaiah 26.9, Gr. ἐκ νυκτὸς)
‘night’ (Bible+); gišer-ayn adv. ‘at night’ (Bible+); Gišer-a-var (later also Gišer-avaṙ, folk-etymologically associated with vaṙ- ‘to light up, kindle’) ‘planet Venus,
Evening Star’ (Job, Cyril of Jerusalem, etc.; renders Gr. ἕσπερος ‘Evening-Star,
Venus’ in Job 9.9 and 38.32, see Cox 2006: 93, 247; see also 3.1.5).
On genitive gišer-oy vs. locative and adverbial gišer-i, see Clackson 1994: 63;
Olsen 1999: 179, 179331. For the parallelism between o- and a-stems, see below.
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 1: 560b]. Interesting are Meɫri k‘šan-raku
‘morning-evening’, k‘šan-k‘šɛrav ‘early morning’, k‘šanə, k‘šanac‘ ‘in the morning’
[Aɫayan 1954: 335-336], practically the same in Karčewan [H. Muradyan 1960:
234a], Kak‘avaberd k‘išánac‘ ‘in the morning’ [H. Muradyan 1967: 208b].
●ETYM Connected with Gr. ἕσπερος m. ‘evening; evening-star, Venus; of or at
evening; Western’, ἑσπέρα, Ion. -ρη f. ‘evening; the Western Empire’, Lat. vesper,
-eris, -erī ‘evening; evening-star; west’, vesper-e, vesper-ī ‘in the evening’, vespera
f. ‘evening’, Lith. vãkaras m. ‘evening’, OCS večerъ, etc.; see Klaproth 1831: 99a
(kšer); Hübschmann 1897: 435; HAB 1: 559-560; Mladenov 1937: 99;
Mallory/Adams 1997: 184a. For a sceptical discussion, see Brugmann 1902-03: 157-
163.
It has been assumed that Welsh ucher derives from *woik̂
sero-, which, as far as
the *-s- is concerned, is compared to BSl. *veskeras, reconstructed as such in view
of Bulg. dial. (Vinga) uščer (see Loewenthal 1928, with refer.). According to Winter
(1966: 207), precisely the same source form can be reconstructed for Arm. gišer.
Pisani (1950: 170-171) assumes *sk > š before front vowels. Schrijver (1995:
159-160; see also Beekes 1996: 23210) posits *ue(k)speros for Welsh, etc. and shows
that there is no solid evidence for *-i- apart from Arm. gišer. The Armenian
vocalism can be explained through the secondary development *geš- > *geiš- (see
Beekes 2003: 203). The vocalic development e > i has been explained by the
following palatal š, see 2.1.2. However, the š remains unexplained. Earlier, Beekes
(2000: 24, 27) mentioned the irregular correspondence *-sp- : *-k- and derived Arm.
gišer from *ue/oik̂
- (with a question mark); see also Pokorny 1959: 1173 with ref.
For *ue(i)k̂
uero-, see Katz 2000: 7210 with references. Blažek 2004: 66 posits
*ue̯ ̄k
w
ero- and compares with the case of iž ‘viper’ (q.v.). J̌
ahukyan 1984a: 160
posits *u̯eiskh
ero-, with *-skh
- > Arm. -š-, but this is unfounded.
One also assumes *-ksp- > *-kš(p)- comparing with veštasan ‘sixteen’ (Normier
1981: 23-2417; Beekes 2003: 201; 2004). However, this would result in Arm. -šp-, as
the very same veštasan shows; see 2.1.12. I therefore assume *ueksepero- through
contamination with *ksep-r/n- ‘night’ (cf. YAv. *xšapar-, xšafn-, Skt. kṣáp- f., Hitt. ispant- ‘night’, etc.; cf. also Puhvel 2003: 348), thus: *ueksepero- > PArm.
*we(k)še(w)ero- > *geišero- > gišer.
The assumption of a compound (see Hamp 1966: 13-15; Olsen 1999: 179332 with
ref.) comprising *ueik/g- ‘Wechsel, unit of time’ and *ksperos ‘night’ is improbable.
Against the *-i-, see above. For a further discussion of this IE term in the context of
an ancient European substratum, see Beekes 1996: 232-23310.
The parallelism of o- and a-stems of gišer is comparable with that of Gr. ἕσπερος
: ἑσπέρα and Lat. vesper : vespera [Olsen 1999: 179].
*git- in gtanem (aor. gt-i, e-git) ‘to find’ (Bible+); giwt, i-stem ‘finding, invention’
(Bible+); git ‘finding, gift’ (IPl gt-i-w-k‘ in Hamam Arewelc‘i, 9th cent.; a hapax).
The i-stem of giwt is based on: GDSg giwt-i (Agat‘angeɫos, Łazar P‘arpec‘i),
GDPl giwt-i-c‘ (Agat‘angeɫos), IPl giwt-i-w-k‘ (Agat‘angeɫos, Philo).
●DIAL The verb gtanem is widespread in the dialects.
In the Van-group, we find *gntn-.
According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 564b), here also belonged Akn git ‘the time of
abundant food, when everything is found in abundance’. Gabriēlean (1912: 251)
records git in the same dialect, as the root of gtanem, “more original than the form
giwt”. It appears in git ē “is found”.
●ETYM From PIE *u(e)id-: Skt. aor. ávidat (= e-git ‘he found’), pres. vindáti ‘to
find’ (RV+), Pahl. wind- ‘to find; to desire’, Lat. uidēre ‘to look, to see’, etc.
[Hübschmann 1897: 437; HAB 1: 564; Schmitt 1981: 49, 54].
According to Meillet (1936: 44), giwt (i-stem) derives from *uind-. For this and
the “epenthetical” explanations I refer to Clackson 1994: 108, 22155 and, especially,
155. Olsen (1999: 182-183) relates the u-epenthesis to *uid-tu-, continued in Lat.
vīsus ‘look’. Beekes (2003: 205) points out that giwt “clearly belongs to the root git-,
and it is quite possible that the epenthesis was caused by a following u, but it cannot
be demonstrated”.
Winter (1962: 261) explains giwt from PIE *uid-ti-, with a development of *-dtto -wt-. Clackson (1994: 155) considers this explanation the most preferable. See
2.1.22.12 for more details. In this case, Arm. an-giwt adj. ‘not found’ (Koriwn,
P‘awstos, Łazar P‘arpec‘i, Eɫišē) would match Skt. á-vitti- f. ‘not-finding’ (AV).
It is tempting to compare Arm. dial. *gntn- with Skt. vindáti ‘to find’ (RV+),
Pahl. wind- ‘to find; to desire’, etc. More probably, however, it is due to anticipation
of the nasal of gtanem.
giwɫ, ǰ/i-stem [see below] ‘village’. Widely represented at all the stages of Armenian.
Much has been written about the anomalous paradigm and the variety of the
spellings (giwɫ, gewɫ, geawɫ, geōɫ, guɫ, geɫ) of the word; cf. A. A. Abrahamyan 1976:
57; Schmitt 1981: 95, 108; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 96, 118, 119; L. Hovhannisyan 1991:
16-17, etc. In general, I accept the paradigm reconstructed by V. Aṙakelyan (1984:
25-26), based on solid textual evidence (cf. also Meillet 1913: 58; Olsen 1999: 172):
NSg ge(a)wɫ, GSg geɫǰ, GDPl giwɫic‘, although I disagree with his diachronic
interpretation of -e- in geɫǰ and -iw- in giwɫic‘ directly from the -eaw- of the
nominative form, as well as with *geweɫ-ǰ > geɫǰ, suggested by Ačaṙyan (HAB 4:
628a) and J̌
ahukyan (1982: 119), and gewɫ > geɫ, assumed by S. Avagyan and H.
Muradyan (see below). The -a- of geawɫ may be secondary, see s.v. e(a)wt‘n ‘seven’, so that the idea of
H. Muradyan (1982: 149) about the sound shift -eaw- > -ew- in pretonic position is
irrelevant here. One should perhaps assume that geawɫ/geōɫ is merely a variant
spelling of what was pronounced as /güɫ/. A question arises, however, why all the
dialectal forms derive from geɫ, whereas in the case of the word for ‘seven’, eawt‘n
seems to be the only form present in dialects. The reason for this may be, as we shall
see, that the -w- in gewɫ did not originally belong to the etymon.
I agree with V. Aṙak‘elyan that giwɫ is analogical after GDPl giwɫic‘. According
to Astuacaturean (1895: 332), the latter is attested in the Bible four times rather than
three times, as Aṙak‘elyan says, although in the fourth attestation, namely Acts 4.34,
one finds gewɫic‘ cited in NHB 1: 559a. It is important to note that, except for this
ambiguous case, *gewɫic‘ is not attested in the Bible, so giwɫic‘ seems to be the
actual Classical form for GDPl. The pair gewɫ : giwɫic‘ leads to an opposition
-éw-/-iw-( ́), on which see Meillet 1913: 17-18; Weitenberg 1993a: 67. Compare e.g.
aṙewc vs. oblique aṙiwc- ‘lion’. See also s.v. ewɫ ‘oil’. If GDPl geɫic‘ is reliable (see
below), it could have been older than giwɫic‘ : geɫic‘ > *gewɫic‘ (analogically after
NSg ge(a)wɫ) > giwɫic‘.
It has been customary to treat geɫ as a dialectal form. However, in NHB 1: 534c
one finds a special entry geɫ, with six attestations (geɫs, geɫic‘, geɫiwk‘, etc.), two of
them already in the Classical period (Eɫišē and Eusebius of Caesarea). Besides,
according to Astuacaturean (1895: 332a), geɫ is found twice in the Bible, namely in
Nehemiah 6.2 (i geɫ) and Mark 11.2 (i geɫ-d). V. Arak‘elyan (1984: 26) notes this,
not specifying the locations, and states that this geɫ is dialectal. The latter attestation
seems to have a variant reading i geawɫ-d, see NHB 1: 559a, where, moreover, Luke
13.22 is cited, too, with variants ənd geɫs/ gewɫs/geawɫs.
More examples can be added. Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.57 (1913=1991: 187) has IPl
geɫiwk‘, next to GDPl giwɫic‘ (2.56: 186) and nom/loc. geōɫ = geawɫ (i geōɫn
T‘ordan “in the village of T‘ordan”, in 3.11: 269L15). IPl geɫ-i-w-k‘ is also attested in
Eɫišē (1989: 138L4). In the oldest manuscript (Nr 10151 of Matenadaran; 13th cent.)
of the Alexander Romance, which is the initial edition, one finds NPl geawɫ-k‘ and
IPl geɫ-iw-k in one and the same sentence (see H. Simonyan 1989: 384). For the
description of this important, hitherto unpublished manuscript, see op. cit. 14-16,
49-50. In the Alexander Romance, one also finds examples of the opposition
between ge(a)wɫ and giwɫic‘ (H. Simonyan 1989: 126, 128). GDPl geɫ-i-c‘ is also
attested in Book of Chries 8.6.2 (G. Muradyan 1993: 198L7).
Note also some derivatives:
geɫak‘aɫak‘ : κωμόπολις (Mark 1.38); k‘aɫak‘ageɫ-ǰ (GSg), composed of the same
components as the previous compound, but with a reverse order: ew anun
k‘aɫak‘ageɫǰn koč‘ec‘aw T‘əmnis “and the name of the κωμόπολις was called
T‘əmnis” (in “Patmut‘iwn srboc‘ Hṙip‘simeanc‘”; see MovsXorenMaten 1843: 300);
geɫastaneayk‘ (Movsēs Kaɫankatuac‘i); geɫōrēk‘ (Mxit‘ar Goš, Law Code, 12th cent.;
cf. dial. (Goris) k
y
üɫ-ar-ank‘, etc.; see below). A number of derivatives with geɫ- is
found in MidArm.; see MiǰHayBaṙ 1, 1987: 141-143; geɫ-a-bnak ‘villager’, lit.
‘dwelling in a village’ (Paterica 19).
I shall try to bring these data into a coherent set below. ●DIAL Dialectally ubiquitous. Remarkably, almost all the forms (including also, I
think, Tp‘ɫis giɫ and Tigranakert k‘iɫ) derive from geɫ, showing no traces of the -w-.
Svedia g‘iɫ (or kiɫ), too, represents geɫ, since giwɫ would not develop into *giɫ; cf.
čiwɫ ‘branch’ > ǰɛuɫ, šiwɫ > šɛɔɫ (note also ewɫ ‘oil’ > iɫ, q.v.) [Ačaṙyan 2003: 399;
Andreasyan 1967: 26, 32, 357a]. The form *güɫ is found only in some extreme
Eastern dialects: Goris k
y
üɫ , k
y
üɫarank‘ (see Margaryan 1975: 320a), Areš
gyuɫarank‘ [Lusenc‘ 1982: 202a], Šamaxi k
y
üɫ [Baɫramyan 1964: 192]. According to
S. A. Avagyan (1973: 201), guɫ is also present in Iǰewan-Šamšadin, although for this
subdialect, Mežunc‘ (1989: 186a) only has k
y
ɛɫ. In Łarabaɫ, Hadrut‘, and Šaɫax, giwɫ
has been replaced by šɛn, whereas Č‘aylu, Maraɫa and Mehtišen have k
y
ɛɫ [Davt‘yan
1966: 335]. Goris k
y
üɫarank‘ seems to be a collective form (cf. geɫōrēk‘ above).
The variant geɫ, attested in inscriptions since the late 10th century (also in the
Classical literature; see above), is considered a secondary development from gewɫ
due to simplification of the diphthong ew or the triphthong eaw [S. A. Avagyan
1973: 203-204; H. Muradyan 1972: 106-107; 1982: 148-149, 193-196]. This is
unsatisfactory since the complete loss of the labial element of the diphthong is
irregular; cf. H. Muradyan 1982: 187f; Haneyan 1985; see also HAB s.vv. e/iwɫ
(q.v.), čiwɫ, hiwɫ and xuɫ.
In Zeyt‘un, the classical AblSg i geɫǰē has been preserved as g‘eɫǰ‘ɛn [Ačaṙyan
2003: 190].
●ETYM Since Gosche (1847: 6498), Dervischjan (1877: 65Nr62), and others (see HAB
1: 563), giwɫ has been repeatedly connected with the words going back to PIE
*u̯(e/o)ik̂
-: Skt. víś- f. ‘settlement, dwelling-place, community, tribe’, OCS vьsь f.
‘village, terrain’, Lat. vīcus ‘village; district of Rome; street’ (from *uoik ̯ ̂
-; see
Schrijver 1991: 471), and, especially, vīlla ‘rural dwelling with associated farm
buildings’. It is uncertain whether Lat. vīlla reflects *ueik ̯ ̂
-s-leh2- (cf. Goth. weihs,
s-stem neuter ‘village’) or *ueik ̯ ̂
-sleh2- [Casaretto 2000: 222-223]. See also s.v. the
place-name Gis.
Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 563; cf. also Saradževa 1986: 400119) rejects the etymology
without any comments and leaves the origin of the word open. Tumanjan (1978:
295) states that the IE origin of the word is dubious.
J̌
ahukyan (1982: 22259; cf. also 1985: 158; 1987: 272, 413) considers the
derivation of gewɫ from *uoik ̯ ̂
-s-lā- doubtful because of the -w-, although the latter,
he adds, might be epenthetic like in some other cases.40 However, the development
*-k̂
(s)l- > -wɫ is not irregular; see s.vv. mawruk‘ ‘beard’ and 2.1.22.7. In the case
one accepts this etymology, Arm. giwɫ, in view of the i-stem, should be derived from
fem. *u̯e/oik̂
(s)-l-ih2-.
Pedersen (1906: 456-458 = 1982: 234-236; cf. Peters 1980: 39, 41) suggests a
connection with Gr. αὐλή f. ‘open court before the house, courtyard; steading for
cattle; hall, court (also of a temple); any dwelling, abode, chamber’, αὐ̃λις, -ιδος f.
‘tent or place for passing the night in’; see s.v. aganim2 (q.v.). With respect to the
connection with αὐ̃λις, Schindler (p.c. apud Peters 1980: 39) prefers restoring PArm.
*u̯esetlī, *uesetlia ̯ ̥̯ ̄s. Arm. gewɫ has also been treated as an East-Caucasian borrowing, cf. Tabasaran
г/къул ‘village’, Agul гъул ‘id.’ [Šaumjan 1935: 423; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 609, 60913]. If
gewɫ is of native origin, the direction of the borrowing might be reconsidered. The
resemblance with Finn. kyla ‘village’ is probably accidental; cf. J̌
ahukyan 1987:
296. The connection with Oss. qæw/ǧæw ‘village, settlement’, Skt. ghóṣa- ‘village’,
etc. (see Cheung 2002: 214) is uncertain.
The problem with all these etymologies is that no satisfactory and economical
explanation is offered for the isolated paradigm and for the phonological problems
of gewɫ.
Meillet (1894: 157-158) explains Arm. geɫǰ from *gewlyos treating the i-stem as a
relic of the old locative (see also Clackson 1994: 21337). He (1911: 210) considers
the origin of the w to be obscure and points out: “on est tenté de l’attribuer à
l’influence de ɫ”, which, he admits, is obscure, too. This view had been developed by
Pedersen (1906: 402-403 = 1982: 180-181). The etymology of the word is
considered by Meillet (1936: 85) unknown. Godel (1975: 88) points out that the
epenthetic -w- in gewɫ and some other words still awaits an explanation. Feydit
(1979: 60) assumes gen. *gyeɫ, with a hiatus, with a subsequent addition of ǰ “for the
sake of clearness”. Neither this analysis is convincing.
The isolated paradigm ge(a)wɫ, geɫǰ, giwɫic‘ is ingeniously interpreted by
Klingenshmitt (1982: 154) and, independently, by Rasmussen (1985 [1987]: 31-34 =
1999: 105-109) as reflecting a PIE HD i-stem with an old NSg in *-ōi, gen. *-i-ós.
Thus, Arm. gen. geɫǰ easily derives directly from *gelyo-, rather than from *gewlyos,
as Meillet had to assume. See also Clackson 1994: 64, 68, 127, 21337; Kortlandt
1996a: 57 = 2003: 118; Olsen 1999: 172, 828 (see s.v. caɫr ‘laughter’). For other
possible examples of the type, see 2.2.2.4 and s.v. tal. For a discussion of the
epenthetic w and the morphology of the word, see also Olsen 1999: 799-800, 828.
Rasmussen derives the word from IE *u̯el- ‘zusammendrängen’: Gr. εἰλέω
‘zusammendrängen, -drükken, -ziehen, einengen, einschließen’ (cf. s.v. gelum),
ἁλίη, Dor. ἀλία ‘assembly of people’, (ϝ)άλις adv. ‘in crowds, in plenty’ (< *ul̯̥-i-s,
vocalized according to Lindeman’s Law, or, as Hamp assumed, due to a laryngeal),
ἴλη, Dor. ἴλᾱ ‘band, troop of men’, Russ. válom ‘in Menge’ (see Frisk 1, 1960:
71-72, 74, 117, 456-457, 722). Thus: NSg *u̯él-ōi > *gelu(i) > gewɫ, GDSg *u̯el-i̯-ós
(with analogical full grade) > geɫǰ. Developing this etymology, Hamp (1994)
reconstructs a *-Héi- suffix.
The etymology is plausible, although, to my knowledge, the existence of the
etymon is not well-established. The semantic shift ‘crowd’ > ‘village’ is possible, cf.
Skt. grā́ma- m. ‘procession, military host, village community, inhabited place’, Gr.
ἀγείρω ‘to gather’, Russ. gromáda ‘big heap’, Pol. gromada ‘multitude, heap,
village community’, etc. [Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 507-508]; Kurd. gund
‘village’ vs. Pers. gund ‘crowd, army’ (see Cabolov 1, 2001: 404) and Arm. gund
‘id.’ [HAB 1: 594-595], etc.
If the etymology is correct, one may perhaps revive the connection of gewɫ to
Urartian ueli ‘crowd, detachment of an army’ (see Meščaninov 1978: 322 and N.
Arutjunjan 2001: 470b for this word), proposed by Łap‘anc‘yan (1961: 139; cf. also
A. Petrosyan 1987: 6660; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 429; 1988: 143). In this case, the Urartian,
which remarkably represents an intermediate stage in the semantic development of gewɫ coming from IE ‘assembly of people’, should be seen as borrowed from PArm.
*wel-i- at a very early stage of the relationship between Armenians and Urartians
before the sound change *u̯- > Arm. g- 41 (cf. Uelikuni : Geɫak‘uni), that is, before
the 8th century BC.
Regardless of the ultimate origin of PArm. *wel-i-, the following original
paradigm can be established:
NSg *wél-ōi > *geɫu or *geɫ
w > allophonic variants A. geɫ and B. gewɫ
(through anticipation)
GSg *wel-i̯-óh > geɫǰ
GDPl *wel-i-sko- > geɫic‘
IPl *wel-i-bh
i- > geɫiwk‘.
All the forms without asterisks are attested. At some point, the -w- of the
nominative form was perhaps a facultative feature of the final -ɫ. Later, it was
phonologized and spread throughout the paradigm. One may assume that this
process was mainly confined to the learned tradition. This scenario can account for
the diversity of the forms, as well as for the remarkable fact that almost no trace of
-w- is found in the dialects. If Rasmussen’s etymology is accepted, PArm. *wel-iwith the original meaning ‘crowd’ might have been borrowed into Urartian ueli
‘crowd, detachment of an army’.
glux, o-stem: GDSg glx-o-y, ISg glx-o-v, GDPl glx-o-c‘ (rich evidence in the Bible,
see Astuacaturean 1895: 344-347) ‘head; end, summit; chief’ (Bible+).
For an extensive philological analysis, see Bolognesi 1986: 11-15.
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 1: 565-566].
●ETYM Fick 1877: 173 derives glux from *galu-ka- linking it with the Balto-Slavic
word for ‘head’: OCS glava ‘head, chapter’, Russ. golová, Lith. galvà, etc.; for other
references, see HAB 1: 565b; Ačaṙyan himself does not accept the comparison and
leaves the origin of the word open.
Pedersen 1924: 224b = 1982: 307b assumes a suffixal -x. Meillet (1935 = 1978:
62; 1936: 36; 1936c; see also Pisani 1950: 188) posits *gh
ōlu-kh
o- > *g(u)luxotreating the -x- as a suffixal element found also in aɫaxin ‘female servant’ (see,
however, s.v.). Saradževa (1986: 124-125) posits *gh
ōlu-k(h)- for Armenian. Beekes
2003: 202 considers the comparison as quite uncertain. For a further discussion, see
Olsen 1999: 43-44. Even more uncertain is the appurtenance of Gr. χέλυς, -υος f.
‘tortoise; lyre’. This word is considered of non-IE origin, see Furnée 1972: 247
(“pontisch-balkanisches Sprachgut?”); Beekes 1977: 257, 260.
To conclude: the connection of Arm. glux with BSlav. ‘head’ is possible, but
details are uncertain. The underlying QIE form may be reconstructed as *gh
olHu-
(e)h2- and, for Armenian, something like *gh
olHu-k-h2-o- (with inclusion of a
suffixal element *-k- and thematization) or simply *gh
olHu- + substratum suffix
*-xo- (cf. e.g. the tree-names kaɫamax, meɫex, tawsax) > *gouluxo- (with
anticipation of the labial vowel, see s.vv. acuɫ ‘coal’, awr ‘day’, etc.) > *g(u)lúxo- >
glux, obl. glx-o-. Perhaps a European substratum word.
go- ‘to be, exist’ (defective; no aorist): 3sg.pres. goy (Bible+), 1pl.pres. gom-k‘ ‘John
Chrysostom), etc.; 3sg.impf. goyr (Agat‘angeɫos, Eznik Koɫbac‘i, Eɫišē, Movsēs
Xorenac‘i, etc.), gol infinitive ‘to be, exist’ (Philo, Cyril of Alexandria, etc.); goy, istem ‘essence; God; property’ (Bible+).
For the paradigm, see Meillet 1913: 92-93; Łaragyulyan 1961: 171; Godel 1975:
41; A. A. Abrahamyan 1976: 209; Schmitt 1981: 139-144, 153.
●ETYM Derived from PIE *h2ues-: Hitt. ḫu̯išzi ‘to live’, Skt. vasati, ávasat, vásant-
‘to stay, dwell, spend the night’, Goth. wisan ‘to be’, etc.; the o-vocalism points to
perfect *u̯ose, cf. Goth. was ‘I was’; see Meillet 1894: 155; 1936: 112, 117, 132;
Hübschmann 1897: 435-436; HAB 1: 576-577; Pokorny 1959: 1170; Aɫabekyan
1979: 94; Godel 1975: 112; Polomé 1980: 28; Schmitt 1981: 134-135, 153;
Klingenschmitt 1982: 260-261; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 169, 173; K. Schmidt 1985: 86;
Clackson 1994: 22396; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 531-532; Mallory/Adams 1997:
171b; Olsen 1999: 89.
Kortlandt (1998a = 2003: 125; cf. also Beekes 2003: 187) argues against this
etymology pointing out that “it remains unclear why the perfect should have
replaced the original present tense in this verb” and derives Arm. go- from *up(o)-eose ‘suberat’. However, *upV- would have yielded *vV-, as we can see in ver from
*uperi ‘above’ (q.v.).
gog- (defective verb), imper. gog, gog-ēk‘, gog-ǰ-, subj. gog-c‘- (Bible+), instr. case of
infinitive gogel-o-v (Cyril of Alexandria) ‘to say’ (Bible+).
●ETYM From PIE *h1uogwh-eie- with Lat. voveō ‘to vow solemnly, pledge’, vōtīvus
‘offered in fulfilment of a vow’, cf. Umbr. VUFRU ‘votivum’, Skt. vāghát- m.
‘singer, priest’, óhate 3pl. ‘to praise, announce’, óhas- n. ‘praise’, Gr. εὔχομαι ‘to
proclaim, promise solemnly, pray’, etc.; the laryngeal depends on the connection
with Gr. εὔχομαι, which is disputed. For the etymology and a discussion of the
laryngeal, see Meillet apud HAB 1: 570a; Pokorny 1959: 348; Kortlandt 1976: 965;
1983: 13; 1987: 62 = 2003: 55, 43, 76; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 48-49, 59; Schrijver 1991:
76, 279, 450; Ravnæs 1991: 69; Mallory/Adams 1997: 449b; Viredaz 2001-02a: 5-6;
Beekes 2003: 187; Cheung 2007: 169-170; de Vaan 2008: 691.
For a further discussion on this PIE etymon, see Schmitt 1967: 261-262; Euler
1979: 215-216; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 803 = 1995, 1: 704; Mayrhofer EWAia
1, 1992: 283; 2, 1996: 539. For the paradigm and a morphological discussion of the
Armenian verb, see Meillet 1936: 135; Łaragyulyan 1961: 171-172; Klingenschmitt
1982: 275.
godi, ea-stem: GDSg god(w)oy in Paterica, GDPl gode-a-c‘ in Canon Law, Kirakos
Ganjakec‘i (Melik‘-Ōhanǰanyan 1961: 324L13) ‘leprous person’ (attested also in
Athanasius, Vardan Arewelc‘i, Yaysmawurk‘).
●DIAL Muš g‘ɔd‘i ‘leprous; bedridden, weak, flaccid; ugly’, Ararat g‘ɔt‘i ‘lazy’, Van
ky(ɛ)ɔti, kɔti ‘disabled, invalid; useless, good-for-nothing’ [HAB 1: 570-571;
Ačaṙyan 1952: 55, 254], Šatax gyɔt ‘paralytic’ (with no consonant shift, Muradyan
1962: 45, 209b), Xotorǰur godi ‘illy; stupid’ [YušamXotorǰ 1964: 438b], Akn *godi
‘lazy’ [Gabriēlean 1912: 252], Arabkir id. (Ačaṙean 1913: 247a), Atap‘azar
*got‘enal ‘to boast’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 247a], etc. [HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 275-276]. Sometimes used pejoratively, with an expressive geminate, e.g. Sebastia goddi
[Gabikean 1952: 148]
In a folk-tale from Muš-Bulanəx (HŽHek‘ 10, 1967: 136-143), got‘i is used
several times in the meaning ‘lazy, idle’ (see also the glossary, op. cit. 605a). The
word may also be associated with the meaning ‘light-minded, crazy’, cf. very clear
attestations of xelaṙ-got‘i (op. cit. 141, lines -6 and -15) and xṙpuk-got‘ec‘uk (34L13),
which contain xelaṙ ‘mad, crazy’ and xṙpuk ‘mad, senile’ respectively.
In Turkish-Armenian dictionary (ca. 1720 AD) by Eɫia Mušeɫyan Karnec‘i
(Karin/Xotorǰur), Turk. ǰutam is glossed by gōt‘i, čutam, etc. [Č‘ugaszyan 1986: 76].
Č‘ugaszyan (op. cit. 134) identifies ǰutam with Arab., Pers., Turk. djudham ‘leprosy,
leprous’.
●ETYM No etymology is accepted in HAB 1: 570b.
If this word is not a borrowing (cf. Arab., Pers., Turk. ǰudam ‘leprosy, leprous’,
cf. NHB 1: 566b; see also above), one may assume a connection with *godi ‘the
female personage of the rain-invoking ritual and the doll personifying her’,
‘Regenmädchen’, and *got‘/di in caṙ-a-got‘i ‘tree-worshipping’ (Movsēs
Kaɫankatuac‘i 2.40, see V. Aṙak‘elyan 1983: 240L19f; transl. Dowsett 1961: 155,
1555). See s.vv. for a tentative etymology.
*godi ‘the female personage of the rain-invoking ritual and the doll personifying her’,
‘Regenmädchen’.
●DIAL Present in rain-invoking songs from Łarabaɫ (godi, Łaziyan 1983: 156aNr1;
see also T‘. Hayrapetyan 2004: 220-221) and Kapan (gödi, K‘aǰberuni 1902: 116).
●ETYM No etymological attempt is known to me.
For a suggestion, see s.vv. godi ‘leprous person’ and *got‘/di ‘worship, sorcery’.
*got‘i, *godi, only in a compound caṙ-a-got‘i (vars. caṙaygot‘i, caṙoy got‘i, caṙagodi,
caṙakodi, etc.) ‘tree-worshipping’, attested twice in Movsēs Kaɫankatuac‘i 2.40 and
2.41: K‘anzi satanayakur caṙagot‘i molorut‘eambn aɫčateal azgn ayn, <...> : “For
that tribe, demented in their satanically deluded tree-worshipping errors <...>“ (V.
Aṙak‘elyan 1983: 240L19f; transl. Dowsett 1961: 155, 1555); Ew baṙnam zkarcis
srtic‘ jeroc‘ ew zcaṙagot‘i molorut‘iwnd, or oč‘ inč‘ isk en “I shall dispel the doubts
of your hearts and your tree-worshipping error concerning things which are nothing
in themselves” (V. Aṙak‘elyan 1983: 254L17f; transl. Dowsett 1961: 163, 1631). NHB
vacat; found by Ačaṙyan [HAB 1: 571b].
●ETYM No etymology in HAB 1: 571b.
I tentatively assume a connection with godi ‘leprous’, which displays a range of
meanings in the dialects: ‘bedridden, weak, flaccid’, ‘lazy, idle’, ‘light-minded,
crazy’, ‘ugly’, ‘boasting’ (unless this is a loan, see s.v.); and dial. *godi ‘the female
personage of the rain-invoking ritual and the doll personifying her’,
‘Regenmädchen’ (q.v.)42. Bearing in mind the semantic field ‘witch, sorceress,
demon, fairy’, ‘hyena’,‘leprous’, ‘heretic’, ‘bad, useless’, etc. (see 3.5.2.2), one may
posit a hypothetical PArm. *god-i- ‘worship, pagan cult’ (cf. the attestation in
Movsēs Kaɫankatuac‘i) > ‘pagan goddesss, witch, sorceress, mythical being, fairy’ (hence ‘rain-bride, female demon’), which might develop into ‘leprous’, ‘lazy, idle’,
‘light-minded, crazy’, etc.
PArm. *god-i- ‘worship, pagan cult’ may be derived from PIE *gwhe/odh
-: Gr.
ϑέσσασϑαι ‘to ask, pray’, denominative ποϑέω ‘to desire, long for, miss’, OIr. guidid
‘to ask, pray’, OCS žędati ‘to wish, long for, desire’, 1sg. žęždǫ, YAv. jaδ- ‘to ask,
demand’, OPers. jad- ‘to pray, ask’, etc. (see Kent 1953: 184b; Pokorny 1959: 488;
Brandenstein/Mayrhofer 1964: 127; Chantraine 1968-80: 432-433; Rix 1992: 97;
Mallory/Adams 1997: 449-450; Cheung 2007: 220-221). For the Armenian form one
may posit a QIE nominal *gwhodh
-ieh2-, cf. Gr. ἐπι-ποϑ-ία ‘longing’ and OIr. guide f.
‘prayer’, as well as Gr. πόϑος m. ‘desire, longing, love’, ποϑή f. ‘id.’, etc.
On the other hand, compare OHG guot ‘good’, OCS godъ ‘time, suitable time,
holiday, year’, Czech hod ‘religious holiday’, hody ‘feast’, Pol. gody ‘feast’, Lith.
guõdas ‘honour, worship, hospitality’, etc. (see Derksen 1996: 67).
Uncertain.
gol, prob. i-stem or a-stem (GDSg gol-i in NHB 1: 566b, but without references)
‘warmth, lukewarmness’ (John Chrysostom), ǰerm-a-gol ‘warmth, heat’
(Agat‘angeɫos, 5th cent.); *gol ‘lukewarm; steam’ (see dial.), gol-a-xaṙn ‘warmish’
(Ephrem, etc.), golanam ‘to grow warm’ (John Chrysostom); golo(r)ši, ea-stem:
GDSg golo(r)š-o-y (from the expected *golo(r)šwoy, unless one posits *golorš, ostem) in Gregory of Nyssa, AblSg i goloršoy in Eznik Koɫbac‘i /5th cent./, GDPl
golo(r)še-a-c‘ in Philo, AblPl i gološeac‘ in Paterica; (w)o-stem: GDSg golo(r)š-o-y
(see above), IPl gološ-o-v-k‘ in Gregory of Nyssa ‘vapour, steam’ (Bible+).
●DIAL The form gol is widespread in the dialects, in the meanings ‘steam on
windows and glasses’ (Suč‘ava, Axalc‘xa, Ararat, Muš, Xarberd, etc.), ‘lukewarm’
(T‘iflis, Ararat), ‘vernal equinox’ (Muš), ‘burning, flaming’ (Hamšen [köl, Ačaṙyan
1947: 225], Ṙodost‘o, Tigranakert, Sebastia), etc. (see Ačaṙean 1913: 247; HAB 1:
572a; for some illustrations, see Amatuni 1912: 147a);
*gol-k‘: Aslanbek ‘warmth (of sun or fire)’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 247b], Hamšen kölk‘,
kölk ‘heat of flame’ (Ačaṙyan 1947: 225; JaynHamš 2, 1979: 220a).
Trapizon and Hamšen *gol(a)nal ‘to grow warm’ vs. *golel ‘to burn’, *golil ‘to
be burnt, kindle’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 247a]. A textual illustration from Hamšen folklore
(JaynHamš 2, 1979: 11L-9): Arevə t‘öx zis kolä “May the sun burn me down”.
Further illustrations: op. cit. 14L-2, 16L-4, 30L-7 (infinitive koluš), 49L-2 (kol-oɫ
‘burning’); T‘oṙlak‘yan 1986: 31L-12 (siyt koloɫ krak “heart-burning fire”, glossed in
228b, inf. koluš); JaynHamš 3, 1989: 218L4.
Compounds with amp ‘cloud’ and arew ‘sun’: Polis, Č‘arsančag, Arabkir *ampgol ‘cloudy and warm summer day’ (= Van *amp-šoɫ, with šoɫ ‘ray, shine;
warm(th)’); Nor Naxiǰewan *arew-gol ‘lukewarm (said of e.g. water)’; Č‘enkiler
(Nikomidia) *arew-eɫk-ik ‘lukewarm (said of e.g. water)’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 88a, 147-
148]. Reduplication: Muš *gol-gl-uk ‘warmish (e.g., rays)’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 247a].
●ETYM Since Bugge and Scheftelowitz (see HAB 1: 571-572), connected with OIc.
vella ‘to bubble, boil’, ylr ‘warmth’, OHG walm ‘zeal, heat’, walī ‘lukewarmness’,
Goth. wulan ‘to be aglow with, seethe’, Lith. vil̀dėti ‘to make lukewarm’, etc.
(Pokorny 1959: 1140, cf. 1142; Lehmann 1986: 411b; Joe Salmons apud Mallory /
Adams 1997: 264a). The Lithuanian form is not found in Fraenkel or elsewhere.
Pokorny probably meant vìldyti (also vildỳti, vildõ , vildẽ ) ‘to chill, let something cool’ (Rick Derksen, p.c.). There is no agreement on the appurtenance of some
cognate forms.
Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 506a, 571-572) also adds Arm. gaɫǰ ‘warmish, lukewarm’
(q.v.), not specifying “the determinative (ačakan)” -ǰ. According to J̌
ahukyan (1987:
199), the latter comes from *-k- (cf. *uelk/g- ‘wet, damp’, Pokorny 1959: 1145-
1146) or *-t-. However, none of these determinatives would yield Arm. -ǰ, and the
semantic relation is not evident.
If Arm. gol was indeed an i-stem (or an a-stem, see above), one may posit a
collective/feminine *uol-ih2- (or *uol-eh2-, or *uol-i-), compare OHG walī ‘lukewarmness’ (cf. Aɫabekyan 1998: 73; Olsen 1999: 642; Viredaz 2001-02: 30). This is
attractive since it may explain gol and gaɫǰ within a single paradigm, treating gaɫǰ as
a frozen genitive. If we posit a PIE PD ih2-stem (cf. Beekes 1995: 185), nom. *vólih2, gen. *ul̯̥-i̯éh2-s (alternatively, HD i-stem, cf. Beekes 1995: 180-181: *uól-(ō)i :
*ul̯̯
̥-iós̯), the paradigm would yield PArm. *gól-(u)i, gen. *galyV́- > gol : *gaɫǰ-. For
this kind of paradigmatic solution, see 2.2.2.4. As to the o-grade, note three other
Armenian words that refer to the ideas of ‘warmth’ and ‘shine’, but have no reliable
etymology: šog, šoɫ, c‘ol.
NHB (1: 566b, 2: 487c) identifies golo(r)ši with šogoli ‘steam’ (Philo, etc.). In
fact, the latter is a derivative of šog, o-stem ‘heat; steam’, cf. also Muš dial. šog‘-ilk‘ ‘steam’ [HAB 3: 528b]. As to -orši, Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 571b) compares it with
bolor-ši ‘round’ from bolor ‘whole, entire; circle’, layn-ši from layn ‘broad’. The
evidence for this ‘suffix’ is meagre, however, and it points to -ši rather than -orši
(see also Olsen 1999: 509-510). I tentatively suggest to treat golorši as a compound
with *Hue/ors-: Hitt. u̯arša- ‘fog, mist’, Gr. ἐέρση, ἀέρση, ἔρση f. ‘dew’, etc. (for the
root, see s.v. yuṙt‘i ‘watered, irrigated, fertile’). Thus: QIE *uol-HuVrs-ieh2- ‘warm
vapour’ > PArm. *wol-ə(w)oršíya- > golorši, -ea-c‘ ‘vapour, steam’, with the rukirule (see 2.1.12)
gom, a-stem: AblPl i gom-a-c‘ in 1 Paralipomenon 17.7; o-stem: AblPl i gom-o-c‘ in
John Chrysostom43 ‘fold/stall for sheep or cattle’ (Bible+; dialect of Hamšen); later
restricted to ‘stall for cattle’.
Astuacaturean (1895: 354c) cites five attestations, of which once NPl gom-k‘ and
four times APl gom-s. The only Biblical evidence for the declension class
(mentioned in HAB; unknown to NHB and Astuacaturean) is found in 1
Paralipomenon 17.7 (Xalat‘eanc‘ 1899: 33a): i gomac‘ i makaɫateɫē xašanc‘ : ἐκ τῆς
μάνδρας ἐξόπισϑεν τῶν ποιμνίων.
In Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.6 (1913=1991: 108L9; transl. Thomson 1978: 135), gom
seems to refer to some flat and wooded areas with mountains, which the king
Vaɫaršak arranges as hunting places. I therefore wonder whether the semantics of the
word was confined to the human activities.44 As a component in place-names, see Hübschmann 1904: 382 (also s.vv.);
J
̌
ahukyan 1987: 414-417.
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects. Hamšen kum is a generic term for all kinds of
stall/fold [HAB 1: 574-575].
●ETYM Usually derived from IE *gh
om-, only found in Germanic (gemination
presumably from *-mn-): Dan. gamme ‘sheepfold’, Swed. dial. gamme ‘crib,
manger’, OIc. gammi m. ‘Lappenhütte, Erdhütte’, Swiss gämmeli ‘Viehhütte’, etc.
[Lidén 1906: 14-16; HAB 1: 574-575; Pokorny 1959: 452; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 128].
The etymology has been doubted, since the expected reflex is *gun (J̌
ahukyan
1987: 171, cf. 254) or *gum (Olsen 1999: 198). Olsen (ibid.) reconstructs
*gh
os-mo-/-eh2-, connecting Skt. ghas- ‘to eat’, etc., and assuming an original
meaning ‘eating place’. For the phonetic development, see s.v. hoyn/hon
‘cornel-tree’.
One may assume that the vocalic development has been blocked by gemination
(*-mn- > *-mm-?), or by the lowering influence of the a in the following syllable:
*gh
om-eh2- > PArm. *goma-, cf. don ‘a kind of bread’, if from PArm. *dona- < PIE
*dh
oH-neh2- ‘grain; bread’ (see s.v.). Of borrowings, note com ‘fasting, abstinence
from food’ < Syriac ṣōm or ṣōmā. We may assume a European substratum word
*gh
om(m)-.
On possible Armenisms in Caucasian and other languages, see HAB 1: 575a;J
̌ahukyan 1987: 602, 60210.
45
goč‘em, 3sg.aor. goč‘eac‘, imper. goč‘ea ‘to shout, cry out, call out; to bellow, roar; to
murmur, purl’ (Bible+), goč‘iwn, GDSg goč‘man, ISg goč‘mam-b ‘cry, sound,
roaring’ (Bible+), goč‘ ‘shout’ (Simēon Aparanc‘i, 18th cent.).
●DIAL Axalc‘xa, Xarberd g‘ɔč‘al ‘to murmur, purl’. In other dialects: compound
goṙum-goč‘um ‘shouting’ [HAB 1: 580b].
●ETYM From QIE *u̯okw
-i̯e-: Lat. vocō, -āre ‘to call, call upon, summon’, vōx, vōcis
f. ‘voice, sound, word, speech’, Skt. vívakti, aor. ávocat ‘to speak, say, call’, vā́c- f.
‘voice, sound, word, speech’, Gr. ὀπ- f. ‘voice, sound, word’, ὄσσα f. ‘(prognostic)
voice, rumour’, etc., see Meillet 1911-12c: 285; 1950: 110; HAB 1: 580a with more
references to Meillet and others; Pokorny 1959: 1135-1136; Godel 1965: 24; 1975:
82; Schmitt 1981: 64, 172; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 59, 171; Kortlandt 1987a: 51 = 2003: 81;
Clackson 1994: 2119; Mallory/Adams 1997: 535a; Olsen 1999: 488, 811; Beekes
2003: 201; for the etymon, see also Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 489-491, 539-540.
Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 580a) does not accept the etymology and treats the Armenian
word as an onomatopoeia. The derivation of goč‘em from *u̯okw
-i̯e- is impeccable,
however. For the o-grade and *i̯e-present compare the synonymous verbs koč‘em ‘to
call, invoke’ < *gw
ot-i̯e-, yorǰorǰem ‘to call’, see s.vv. and 2.2.6.1. On goč‘-iwn <
*-imn vs. gen. goč‘-man, see Meillet 1936: 48; Olsen 1999: 485-488.
govem ‘to praise’, govim ‘to boast’ (Bible+); gov, i-stem: GDPl gov-i-c‘ in Paterica
and Gregory of Nyssa ‘praise’ (Philo, Plato, etc.).
●DIAL The verb is widespread in the dialects. The noun: Adana (Turkish-speaking
Arm.) ɫɔv ‘praise’ [HAB 1: 583a].
●ETYM Meillet (1894b: 280) connected Lat. faveō, favēre ‘to favour, befriend’ and
OCS gověti ‘to revere, live a god-fearing life’; cf. also Russ. govét’ ‘to fast’, Czech
hověti ‘to satisfy, show indulgence’, etc. (see ÈtimSlovSlavJaz 7, 1980: 72-73).
Latin favēre probably reflects *gwhou-eie- [Schrijver 1991: 441-442].
Pedersen (1905: 199 = 1982: 61) is sceptical about the appurtenance of the
Armenian verb. Then he notes that one can, “wenn die Gleichung überhaupt richtig
sein sollte, von dem Subst. gov ‘lob’ ausgehen”. The reason for this is that,
according to his rule (op. cit. 196 = 1982: 58), the intervocalic *-w- “erscheint als
arm. v wo es auslautend geworden ist, sonst aber als g” (see also 2.1.8). Following
Pedersen, Kortlandt (1993: 10 = 2003: 102) treats the verb govem as a derivative of
gov. Pedersen (ibid.) adds that the Slavic perhaps belongs to Lat. gaudeō and Gr.
γαίων. Elsewhere (1906: 389 = 1982: 167), he suggests a connection with goh
‘satisfied’, comparing with the case of aruest vs. arhest ‘art’.
All these suggestions must be abandoned since, as is convincingly shown by
Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 582b), Arm. govem is an Iranian loan; cf. Pahl. guftan, gōb- ‘to
say, tell, utter, pronounce, recite’, OPers. gaub- ‘sich nennen, sich feierlich
bekennen’, Sogd. ɣwβ ‘rühmen, preisen’, etc. On the Iranian forms, see
Brandenstein/Mayrhofer 1964: 121; MacKenzie 1971: 38; Nyberg 1974: 85; Cheung
2007: 113-114. For the semantics of the Armenian word, cf. Sogd. ɣwβ ‘to praise’,
Khwar. ɣwβ(y)- ‘to boast’, ɣw(y) ‘to praise’ (on which see MacKenzie 1970: 56).
Accepted by J̌
ahukyan (1987: 521).
Unfortunately, Ačaṙyan’s etymology has remained outside the scholarly attention,
and Arm. govem is still frequently linked with Lat. faveō, favēre ‘to favour,
befriend’ and OCS gověti, see Schrijver 1991: 442; Mallory/Adams 1997: 418a;
Olsen 1999: 789 (although in 416-417 and 873 govest ‘praise’ is treated as an
Iranian loan), etc. The Armenian is rightly excluded in Pokorny 1959: 453;
Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984: 803-8043. For a discussion of Arm. gusan and Parth.
gōsān ‘minstrel’, see HAB 1: 597-598; 4: 629-630; Boyce 1957.
gorc, o-stem ‘work, labour’ (Bible+), gorcem ‘to work, labour; to make; to produce;
to influence; to cultivate; to weave’ (Bible+); gorci, ea-stem: ISg gorce-a-w, IPl
gorce-a-w-k‘ (Bible+); wo-stem: IPl gorcw-o-v-k‘ (Philo, Čaṙəntir) ‘tool, instrument;
means’ (Bible+).
●DIAL The noun is widespread in the dialects, mainly in the meaning ‘work, labour’
[HAB 1: 584a]. The verb is seen in Hamšen kɔyjuš, caus. kɔyjɛc‘ənuš ‘to weave’,
Agulis gy
áṙcil ‘to weave’ [Ačaṙean 1935: 66, 345; 1947: 225; HAB 1: 584a]. Agulis
has gy
uṙc ‘weaving, embroidery’ vs. gɔrc ‘work, opus, composition’, the latter being
a literary loan (see Ačaṙean 1935: 64-65, 345), cf. 2.1.38.
●ETYM From PIE *u̯e/orĝom, cf. Gr. ϝέργον n. ‘work, labour, work of art’, OHG
werc ‘work’, Av. vərəz- ‘to do, work’, etc. (perhaps also Lith. vargas ̃ ‘hardship,
misery’, etc.; see Derksen 1996: 73-74); see de Lagarde 1854: 16L375; Hübschmann
1897: 436; HAB 1: 584a; Pokorny 1959: 1168; Mallory/Adams 1997: 649a. Meillet (1922i; cf. 1936: 105) treats the vocalism of gorc as taken from the verb
gorcem, which "apparaît ainsi comme un ancien itératif, non comme un
dénominatif"; cf. Goth. waurk and waurkjan vs. OEngl. werk, OHG werc, Gr.
ϝέργον, etc.; further, cf. Schmitt 1981: 135; Klingenschmitt 1982: 142; Olsen 1999:
440; Viereck/Goldammer 2003: 405-406. See also 2.2.6.4.
On gorci, ea-stem ‘tool, instrument’, see Olsen 1999: 440.
Arm. vard-, varž ‘tuition, instruction’ and varj ‘reward, wages, hire’ are Iranian
loans; see Hübschmann 1897: 245; HAB 4: 318-321, 322; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 545-
546; Olsen 1999: 909. For the Iranian etymon, *u̯arz- ‘to do, work, till the land’, see
Cheung 2007: 425-427.
gort, i-stem, o-stem (both Bible+); later also u-stem, e.g. GDSg gort-u in Step‘annos
Siwnec‘i /8th cent./ (see Adonc 1915: 186L20f); MidArm. gortn, GSg gortan, NPl
gortun-k‘ (Mxit‘ar Goš, etc.) ‘frog’; in MidArm.: gort (in a compound: gortn-) ‘the
roundish part of the hoof’, gortn ‘a swelling or fold under the tongue’ [Č‘ugaszyan
1980: 187], gortən-burd/t‘ ‘a plant’ (lit. ‘frog’s wool’), gortan mamuṙ ‘green moss
on the surface of morass’ (lit. ‘frog’s moss’), gortn-uk ‘wart’ [MiǰHayBaṙ 1, 1987:
154-155].
Frequent in the Bible [Astuacaturean 1895: 363b], rendering Gr. βάτραχος. In
Exodus 8, one finds both an i-stem (ISg gort-i-w : 8.2) and an o-stem (GDSg
gort-o-y : 8.12). GDPl gort-o-c‘ is found in Wisdom 19.10, as well as in the later
literature: Yovhannēs Ōjnec‘i (8th cent.) and Nersēs Lambronac‘i (12th cent.). ISg
gort-i-w : also in Psalms 77.45. Note also GDSg gort-i in a homily ascribed to Eɫišē.
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects; in the Eastern dialects (Łarabaɫ, Goris, Agulis,
etc.), as well as in the extreme SW (Zeyt‘un) : *gortn-uk [HAB 1: 585b]. For this
*gortn-, cf. the MidArm. evidence above, as well as several compounds in various
dialects [Ačaṙean 1913: 252-253; HAB 3: 244b] and the genitive of dialectal forms
in the Van-group: Van kyöṙt, gen. kyöṙt-an [Ačaṙyan 1952: 125], Moks k
y
ürt/ky
öṙt,
gen. k
y
ürtan or k
y
örtə
ɛ [Orbeli 2002: 272].
Note the formal identity between MidArm. gortn-uk ‘wart’ and dial. *gortn-uk
‘frog’. This can be observed even synchronically: Łarabaɫ kɛrt‘nuk means both
‘frog’ and ‘wart’ (see Ačaṙean 1913: 252b). Compare especially the
folk-belief/saying, recorded by L. Harut‘yunyan (1991: 161Nr5): kyert‘nuk spanoɫen
cerk‘en kyert‘nuk ver kkya : “a wart will appear on the hand of the one who kills a
frog”.
Ačaṙyan (1913: 252b) records Manisa (close to Zmüṙnia/Izmir) kɔrcnc‘úc‘ ‘a
wart on the hand’, which he derives from *gortn-c‘oyc‘, apparently assuming c‘oyc‘
‘show’ as the second member (assimilation t > c or influence of kocic?). If this is the
case, one can compare the folk-practice of curing the warts by spells and “showing”
the moon to the person (see S. Movsisyan 1972: 55b). If the underlying form is
rather *gortn-cuc, then it can be compared with Dersim (K‘ɫi) kɔrtənjij ‘wart’
[Baɫramyan 1960: 146a], which seems to derive from *gortn-cic ‘frog-nipple’. For
the semantics, cf. Germ. Warze ‘wart’ : ‘nipple’.
Dersim (K‘ɫi) kɔrdənpurt‘ and kɔrdənp‘ərp‘ur ‘water-plant’ [Baɫramyan 1960:
145b] are from gortn-burd, lit. ‘frog’s wool’ and *gortn-p‘rp‘ur, lit. ‘frog’s foam’.
●ETYM Since de Lagarde (1854: 29Nr780) connected with Lith. varlė, ̃ varl
̃ė ‘frog’,
Latv. vardẽ ‘id.’ and Gr. βάτραχος m. ‘frog’. The appurtenance of the Greek word is rightly rejected in Hübschmann 1897: 437 (earlier, in 1883: 25, with a question
mark); see also HAB 1: 585; Fraenkel 2, 1965: 1200-1201; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 157;
Saradževa 1991: 173; Olsen 1999: 182. The acute tone in Latvian is probably
original because of Winter’s Law and points to IE *uord-, and the Lithuanian
circumflex can be explained by positing a formation *vard-líaH [Derksen 1996: 58].
The derivation of Arm. gort from the PIE word for ‘water’ (cf. Skt. udrá- m.
‘fish-otter’, YAv. udra- m. ‘otter’, Gr. ὕδρος m. ‘watersnake’, ὕδρα f. ‘watersnake’,
OHG ottar ‘otter’, etc.) suggested by Dervischjan (1877: 89) would be possible if
one posits *uod-rV-. However, the other etymology seems preferable.
It has been assumed that Arm. gort, i-stem ‘frog’ (note ISg gort-i-w) and ayc
‘goat’ (q.v.) derive from the IE feminine in *-iē or *-iā-, and that Arm. *gort-icorresponds to Latv. varde
̃ even with respect to the stem [Meillet 1896: 150; 1936:
76; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 125; Clackson 1994: 48, 88-90]. Thus: *vord-iH > gort, i-stem.
For the feminine connotation of gort ‘frog’ within the cultural framework, see
3.5.2.1.
Adams (apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 214b, 523a) connects these words with the
word for ‘wart’ or ‘abscess’: OEngl. wearte, etc. ‘wart’, Latv. ap-virde
̃ ‘abscess’,
Russ. véred ‘abscess, ulcer’, Pers. balū ‘wart’, reconstructing *uorHd- and referring
to the popular association of warts and frogs. However, at least some of these forms
may rather belong with Skt. vardh- ‘to grow, increase, become big’, etc. (see
Vasmer s.v.). Note especially Pers. balū ‘wart’ vs. Pers. bālīdan, MPers. wālīdan ‘to
grow, to prosper’.
For the association ‘frog’ : ‘wart’, note, for instance, the well-known passage
from ‘Tom Sawyer’ by Mark Twain (1993: 53): I play with frogs so much that I’ve
always got considerable many warts. On this association in the Armenian tradition,
see Abeghian 1899: 31; see also above, on Łarabaɫ.
Olsen (1999: 182) notes: “The original derivational type underlying gort is
obscure (root noun?)”. J̌
ahukyan (1987: 157) mentions only the o-stem and
reconstructs *uordo-.
According to Kipšidze, Megrel. gordi ‘frog’, Tuš. *ɣ/q’wart’i ‘frog’ and Georg.
mɣ/q’ari ‘toad’ are borrowed from Arm. gort (see HAB 1: 585b).
In view of the absence of cognates outside Armenaian and Baltic, Łap‘anc‘yan
(1975: 354; 1961: 80, 320) considers the IE etymology of gort unconvincing, argues
against Ačaṙyan’s (in fact, Ačaṙyan refers to Kipšidze) view, according to which the
Kartvelian forms are borrowed from Armenian, and treats all these words as of
Caucasian origin and of onomatopoeic character.
grē or greay ‘crane’, only attested in Grigor Magistros (11th cent.), GDPl grē-i-c‘
[NHB 1: 587a; HAB 1: 605b; Greppin 1978: 103].
●ETYM Since NHB 1: 587a, linked with Gr. γέρανος, Lat. grūs, and Arm. kṙunk
‘crane’ (q.v.). In view of the absence of the consonant shift in Arm. *gre(a)y,
Greppin (1978: 103; Greppin apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 140b) assumes an
intermediation of MPers. unattested *grī or another neighbouring language.
Uncertain.
gun ‘effort’, in the idioms gun gorcem, gun dnem ‘to make an effort’ (Bible,
Agat‘angeɫos, etc.). ●ETYM Derived from IE *uen- ‘to win, usurp’: Skt. vanóti ‘to win, usurp’ (RV+),
MPers. wānīdan ‘to conquer, usurp, destroy’ (> Arm. vanem ‘to drive away’), etc.,
see Petersson 1916: 255; HAB 1: 592-593, 4: 302; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 156; Olsen 1999:
211.
Though sometimes unified, the etymons for ‘to strive’ (cf. Skt. vánate ‘to love,
desire’, etc.) and ‘to win, usurp’ should be kept apart (see Mayrhofer EWAia 2,
1996: 499 and 501). A derivation QIE *u̯on(H)os ‘striving’ (see Olsen ibid.) > Arm.
gun ‘effort’ is quite possible.
The connection with vandem ‘to drive away, destroy’ (q.v.) is uncertain.
dada, dado (dial.) ‘sister, elder sister; uncle’s wife; nurse, midwife, tutor;
grandmother’, ‘father’.
●DIAL Nor Naxiǰewan, T‘iflis, Karin, Tigranakert, Van, etc. *dada, Van, Muš, etc.
voc. dád-ɛ, Moks, Salmast, etc. *dado ‘sister’, espec. ‘elder sister’; Muš, Van, Sasun
‘grandmother’, Van-Papen, etc. ‘father’, ‘uncle’s wife’, ‘nurse, female tutor’, Muš
‘midwife’, T‘iflis ‘wise’; Xizan voc. dadɔ ‘father’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 262a;
HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 297a]; Sasun dadɛ ‘mother; grandmother’ [Petoyan 1954:
114; 1965: 459]; Xoy-Urmia dädɛɔ ‘sister, elder sister’ [M. Asatryan 1962: 214a].
●ETYM Nursery word probably of IE origin (see J̌
ahukyan 1972: 300); for IE and
non-IE comparable forms and a discussion, see s.v. *tat(a) ‘grandmother; midwife;
father, etc.’.
dal (no evidence for the declension class) ‘colostrum, beestings’ in Ephrem, Vardan
Arewelc‘i [NHB 1: 590c], Amirdovlat‘ Amasiac‘i (see S. Vardanjan 1990, p. 46 §
90, p. 98 § 426, p. 163 § 799); spelled also as dayl (NHB and HAB, without
specified references).
●DIAL Present in a considerable number of (mostly of kə-class, but also Ararat and
J̌
uɫa) dialects [Amatuni 1912: 158a; HAB 1: 612a; HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 298],
among others: Nor Naxiǰewan, T‘iflis dal, Ararat, Muš, Sebastia, etc. d‘al [HAB 1:
612a], Ozim d‘äl, Van täl [Ačaṙyan 1952: 255], Moks täl, gen. -ə
ɛ
, pl. -ir [Orbeli
2002: 330], Šatax täl [M. Muradyan 1962: 194b], Hamšen tal [Ačaṙean 1947: 225;
Bläsing 1992: 73], J̌
uɫa dal (with an initial d-, not d‘-, Ačaṙean 1940: 95, 358b), etc.
Moks dahl (!) is recorded in HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 298a.
Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 611b; cf. J̌
ahukyan 1987, etc. below) points out that dayl is the
original form, and that the by-form dal originated from dayl. However, the evidence
for dayl is uncertain (see above). Furthermore, the by-form *dayl is not specifically
supported by dialectal material. Although the change ay > a is regular for Middle
Armenian (Karst 1901: 23-24) and many dialects, a considerable number of dialects
display another development, viz. ay > ɛ (see H. Muradyan 1972: 90-94; 1982: 155-
162). Note that Van, Moks, etc. täl regularly reflects dal through Ačaṙyan’s Law and
the subsequent consonant shift. Bearing in mind that there is no dialectal *dɛl, we arrive at the following conclusion: both literary and dialectal attestations point to a
basic dal. The existence of a by-form dayl is uncertain.
In Hamšen, the yellowish milk produced by a cow for the first two or three days
after a calf is born is called talnkat‘, a compound with kat‘ ‘milk’, whereas tal refers
to a a hard product made of cooked talnkat‘ (see T‘oṙlak‘yan 1981: 145b with a
thorough description of preparing this food; for the compound, see also
HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 299b). In a number of dialects one finds a semantic
contrast: xiž ‘colostrum’ vs. dal ‘a food made of cooked colostrum’ (Amatuni 1912:
158a, 278b; Ačaṙean 1913: 469a; Martirosyan/Gharagyozyan 2003 FW passim; see
also Nawasardeanc‘ 1903: 25; HAB 1: 612a; Gabikean 1952: 159; HayLezBrbBaṙ 1,
2001: 298; 2, 2002: 325a).
Derivatives: Moks, etc. *dal-eni ‘ferment for cheese’ (Amatuni 1912: 158a; see
also Malxaseanc‘ HBB 1: 482c); Karin, J̌
avaxk‘ dal-ot ‘thick and fat (milk)’
[Malxaseanc‘ HBB 1: 483a; HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 299b]; Ararat, Karin, etc.
di/alama, Polis, Partizak deleme ‘ferment for cheese’ [HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001:
299a], Moks däläma ‘молоко, затвердевающее в процессе варки сыра, перед тем
как он сварится’ [Orbeli 2002: 217], probably a back loan from Turkish dialects (cf.
Bläsing 1992: 73 on Sivas tel-me).
●ETYM Since long (de Lagarde 1850: 352-353; 1854: 14L306f; Hübschmann 1883:
26; 1897: 437; HAB 1: 611-612, 668), connected with Skt. dháyati (RV+) ‘to suck,
drink mother’s milk’, etc. and Arm. diem ‘to suck, drink mother’s milk’, dayeak
‘nurse, tutor’. See Pokorny 1959: 241-242; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 570 =
1995: 487; Mallory/Adams 1997: 382a, 556a. Arm. dayeak (q.v.) is an Iranian
loanword.
The PIE verbal root is reconstructed as *dh
eh1-. The cognate l-formations are:
Umbr. FELIUF ‘lactentes’, Latin fīlius ‘son’ from *dh
(e)h1-i-l-io- [Schrijver 1991:
242; de Vaan 2008: 219-220]; MIr. del ‘nipple’, OIr. deil ‘female pig of two years
old’, delech ‘having udders, milch cow’ from *dh
eh1-l-; Gr. ϑηλή ‘mother’s breast’
from *dh
eh1-l-éh2-; Lith. dėlė, dial. ̃ dielė̃‘leech’, pirm(a)dėlỹs ‘first-born (of animals
and fruits)’, pirm(a)dėlẽ ‘cow which bears a calf for the first time’, Latv. dêle ‘leech’
beside dêt ‘to suck’ and dîlît ‘to suck’ (see Fraenkel s.v.; Derksen 1996: 60), dę̂ls
‘son’ from *dh
eh1-li- vs. dîle ‘sucking calf’ from *dh
h1-i-l-eh1-; OHG tili f. < *delio̯ ̄,
tila f., OEngl. delu, etc. ‘teat’, probably from *dh
eh1-l-éh2- [Schrijver 1991: 139,
242, 344-345, 352]; Kurd. dēl, dālik f. ‘female; female dog’ (> Arm. dial. del
‘female dog’, Ačaṙean 1913: 271b), etc., probably from an old *-lu-formation (see
Hübschmann 1883: 26; Cabolov 2001: 301-302; ÈtimSlovIranJaz 2, 2003: 447)46;
Skt. dhārú- adj. ‘sucking’, possibly from *dh
eh1-lú-: Gr. ϑῆλυς ‘feminine’, etc.
(Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 789 with literature); Alb. dele f. ‘sheep, ewe’ from
*dh
eh1i̯l-i̯eh2- > PAlb. *deiilia ̯ ̯ ̄ [Demiraj 1997: 127-128].
As we can see, there are l-formations based on both *dh
eh1- and *dh
eh1-i-. The
latter probably represents an i-present (see Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 776 with a
discussion and literature). Orel (1994: 357) compares the Albanian form (PAlb *daila ‘sheep’ < ‘suckling’)
in particular with Arm. dayl ‘beestings’ from *dh
h1ilo-. On the other hand, the
Armenian form has been derived from *dh
h1-l-i̯- (Schrijver 1991: 344). Arm. da(y)l
is formally and semantically comparable with Albanian (see Pedersen 1905: 201 =
1982: 63; HAB 1: 668b; Kortlandt 1986: 41 = 2003: 70-71; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 303):
Tosk dhállë, Gheg dhállt(-i) ‘skim milk; churning’ (for references, see Toporov
PrJaz a-d, 1975: 285), cf. Alb. djathë ‘cheese’, originally ‘aus saurer Milch
gemachter Quark’, Skt. dádhi n. ‘sour milk, whey’, OPr. dadan ‘milk’ (Toporov op.
cit. 284-286; EWAia 1, 1992: 692; Demiraj 1997: 135-136).
The form dal points to a QIE *dh
h1-l-i(e)h2- or, possibly, *dh
h1-l-i(e)h2-; for the
problem of the palatal -l, see Ravnæs 1991: 90-92. The by-form dayl, if reliable,
may be derived from *dh
h1-l-i̯eh2- > *daly through metathesis or y-epenthesis
(compare ayl, o-stem from *al-i̯o-: Lat. alius, etc.; for a discussion, see Godel 1975:
87; Ravnæs 1991: 33-35; Olsen 1999: 796, 79644). The formation is comparable to
that of Lat. fīlia ‘daughter’ and Alb. dele f. ‘sheep, ewe’; for the semantics note also
Alb. dhállë ‘skim milk; churning’. As far as dayl is concerned, the possibility of
*dh
h1-i-l- (cf. *dh
əi-li- in J̌
ahukyan 1987: 119) should not be ruled out completely.
The presence of the doublet formations *dh
(e)h1-l- and *dh
h1-i-l- in one and the same
language is not impossible, cf. Latv. dę̂ls ‘son’ vs. dîle ‘sucking calf’ (Schrijver
1991: 242). However, it is not certain whether *dh
h1-i-l- would be realized as PArm.
*dəi̯l- or *d(H)il-.
The semantics has developed in three basic directions: 1) ‘to suck(le)’ > ‘one
who/which sucks, suckling, infant, calf, etc.’; 2) ‘to give milk’ or ‘to milk’ > ‘one
who/which gives milk or is milked, dairy cow, nipple, etc.’; 3) ‘to feed with milk,
nurse’ > ‘one who nurses, wet-nurse’. For an extensive semantic discussion, see
Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 570-5711 = 1995: 48742.
dalar, o-stem (Bible+) ‘green, fresh’; dalar-i, dalarw-o-y, -o-ǰ ‘greenery, grass, herb’
(Bible+).
Some textual illustrations:
dalar-o-y in Job 39.8, Cox 2006: 250.
dalari, LocSg dalarwoǰ, in Movsēs Xorenac‘i 3.68 (1913=1991: 359L1; transl.
Thomson 1978: 350): i vayri dalarwoǰ “in a verdant place”.
In Grigor Narekac‘i 63.2 (Xač‘atryan/Łazinyan 1985: 496L43; Russ. transl. 1988:
203; Engl. transl. 2001: 301): Or busuc‘anes yerkrē dalari : “Tы, что растишь
зеленую поросль из <...> земли” : “You, who grows the green sprouts from the
<...> earth”.
GDPl dalare-a-c‘ in Book of Chries 8.7.3 (G. Muradyan 1993: 200L11).
See also s.vv. acuɫ ‘coal’ and place-name Dalari-k‘.
●DIAL dalar is widespread in the dialects [HAB 1: 613a].
●ETYM Connected with Gr. ϑάλλω ‘to bloom, flourish, grow’, ϑάλος n. ‘sprout’,
ϑαλλός m. ‘green twig, esp. of the olive, sprout’, Welsh dalen ‘leaf’, Alb. dal ‘to
sprout’, etc. Arm. dalar is to be compared with Gr. ϑαλερός ‘blooming, fresh’,
probably from QIE *dh
lh1ro- (see Mayrhofer 1986: 127118 and references below).
Probably related to Arm. dalukn ‘jaundice’, deɫ ‘herb’, deɫ-in ‘yellow’. For thorough
philological and etymological discussions, see HAB 1: 612-613, 647-650; Clackson
1994: 118-120. For dalukn, see Mawet 1993: 304-305 and, especially, Olsen 1994. For *-lh1- > Arm. -l- (not -ɫ-), see s.vv. alawunk‘ ‘Pleiades’, yolov ‘many’, etc.
If the PIE origin is not accepted, one might think of Mediterranean substratum
(see 3.11).
To explain Arm. deɫ, one may perhaps assume an old n-stem: nom. *dh
él(H)-n-,
gen. *dh
l-nós. Arm. deɫ ‘herb’ and ϑαλλός m. ‘green twig, sprout’ have generalized
the nominative and oblique stems, respectively. See 2.2.2.3.
dalukn ‘jaundice’ (Bible+).
See s.v. dalar ‘green, fresh’.
daku, a-stem: GDPl daku-a-c‘ in T‘ovmay Arcruni 1.1, 9-10th cent. (1985: 28L-1;
transl. Thomson 1985: 78) ‘adze, axe’ (John Chrysostom, Socrates, Čaṙəntir).
NHB 1: 592a cites dakur, with no attestation, cf. dagur ‘plane’ in Koylaw’s
dictionary [HAB 1: 613b]. See below on a dialectal correspondence.
●DIAL Akn dakur [HAB 1: 614a], Sebastia dakur, also dakurag [Gabikean 1952:
159], from *dakur-urag (with urag ‘adze’) through haplology. Note also t‘aguǰak
(HAB ibid.; uncertain).
●ETYM Since Lidén (1906: 55), derived from *dh
āg-u-, cf. Gr. ϑήγω, Dor. ϑάγω̄ ‘to
sharpen, whet’, ϑηγάνη ‘whetstone’. For other (alleged) correspondences, a
discussion and references, see HAB 1: 613-614; Arutjunjan 1983: 278-279;
J̌
ahukyan 1987: 119, 162, 302; and especially Clackson 1994: 116-118.
The connection with the Greek word is possible but uncertain; the appurtenance
of daku to the ‘Wanderwort’ Late Latin daga, Engl. dagger, etc. is semantically
more satisfying [Clackson 1994: 116-118]. The by-form dakur may be due to
analogy of (or contamination with) sakur ‘battle-axe’ and čkuṙ ‘axe’. Note also
Ararat akur ‘pick, hoe’ (see HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 33b)
damban, prob. i-stem or a-stem: AblSg i damban-ē, which precludes the o-declension
(Grigor Narekac‘i, 10-11th cent.), LocSg i damban-i in T‘ēodoros K‘ṙt‘enawor, 7th
cent. (NHB 2: 1050a), Grigor Narekac‘i ‘tomb, grave’; a few derivatives: dambanakan ‘mourning song’ in Dionysius Thrax (6-7th cent.): ew zdambanakann užgnaki :
τὰ δὲ ἐλεγεῖα λιγυρῶς (AdonDion 2008: 2L21f), see also A. Muradyan 1971: 159-160;
dambaran ‘tomb, grave’ in Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i (9-10th cent.), etc.
●ETYM Since Lidén (1906: 41-43; sceptical Meillet 1910-11: 218-219), connected
with Gr. ταφή f. ‘interment’, τάφος m. ‘funeral rites; grave, tomb’, τάφρος f. ‘ditch,
trench’, ϑάπτω ‘to bury’ (from *dh
m̥ bh
-io̯ ̄, see Rix 1992: 90), Old Pruss. dambo
‘ground’, etc. One reconstructs *dh
m̥ bh
- (HAB 1: 618a; Pokorny 1959: 248; Mann
1963: 61; Rix 1992: 90). For other (alleged) cognates and references, see Clackson
1994: 120-121; Rix 2003: 372, 38060.
This Armeno-Greek correspondence has been regarded as a technical funeral
term, and the appurtenance of other cognate forms are considered uncertain (see
Toporov, PrJaz 1 [a-d], 1975: 294-295 with literature), although Clackson (1994:
121) is positive on especially Old Pruss. dambo ‘ground’.
The suffix -aran is certainly Iranian, whereas -an can be of both native and
Iranian origin (for the material, see Clackson 1994: 110-112, 121)47. V. Chirikba (p.c.) suggests a connection of the Armenian word with Abkhaz adamra ‘tomb, grave, dolmen’. A loss of -an is not easy to explain, therefore he
assumes an old borrowing from Arm. *damb(a)r-. One may assume that PArm.
*dh
ambh
-ro-/-reh2- ‘tomb’ (cf. Gr. τάφρος f. ‘ditch, trench’) has been borrowed into
Abkhaz a-damra at an early stage. Later, *damb(a)r- was replaced by dambaran
under the strong influence of -aran, a suffix which makes depository and similar
terms.
I conclude that Arm. damban and *dambar ‘tomb, grave’ and the related Greek
(perhaps also some other European) forms represent a cultural word belonging to the
Mediterranian-Pontic substratum (see 3.11). Abkhaz a-damra ‘tomb, grave, dolmen’
is a very old armenism and probably corroborates the MedPont origin (cf. other
technical terms such as kamurǰ ‘bridge’, q.v.).
Further, note Arm. t‘umb ‘mound; fence, wall around a house’, Gr. τύμβος m.
‘mound, burial mound, grave’, etc. (see HAB 2: 206). If these words belong with
damb-an, Gr. ταφή, etc., we may assume another Mediterranean cultural term with
aberrant u-vocalism, cf. burgn ‘tower’, durgn ‘potter’s wheel’ (see s.v.v.). Note that
Arm. t‘umb, if interpreted correctly, must belong to a younger period in view of t‘-
instead of d-.
dayeak, a-stem: GDSg dayek-i (P‘awstos Buzand), GDPl dayek-a-c‘ in the Bible and
Eɫišē [Ter-Minasyan 1989: 404L8] ‘nurse; wet-nurse; tutor’ (abundant in the Bible,
etc., Astuacaturean 1895: 375; NHB 1: 593); dial. ‘midwife’.
Abundantly attested in the Bible, etc., also in compounds: dayek-(a-), see
Astuacaturean 1895: 375; NHB 1: 593. Apart from the Bible, the meaning ‘tutor’
occurs in e.g. Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.43 (1913=1991: 168L9; transl. Thomson 1978:
184). MidArm. dayek ‘nurse, wet-nurse’ [MiǰHayBaṙ 1, 1987: 164b].
●DIAL The MidArm. form dayek is present in a number of kə-dialects, in the
meaning ‘midwife’. In Polis, Axalc‘xa, Karin, Sebastia and Akn, one finds *dahek,
with the glide -h- [Ačaṙean 1913: 265a; HAB 1: 619a].
●ETYM Since long, linked with Arm. diem ‘to suck, drink mother’s milk’, Pers.
dāyah ‘wet-nurse’ (Gēorg Dpir, NHB 1: 593a), Skt. dháyati ‘to suck, drink mother’s
milk’, Arm. da(y)l ‘beestings’, etc. (de Lagarde 1850: 352-353; 1854: 14L306f;
Hübschmann 1883: 26; 1897: 437). Arm. dayeak is put in this context as a native
word, see Hübschmann ibid.; Pedersen 1905: 204; 1906: 405 = 1982: 66, 183 (*dayi-, or *-ti-formation); Pokorny 1959: 241-242 (*dh
ə-ti- > Arm. *day-); Schrijver
1991: 344 (*dh
h1i̯-).
In fact, Arm. dayeak should be regarded as an Iranian loanword, cf. Pahl. dāyag
‘(wet-)nurse’, etc. (HAB 1: 618-619, 668a; Malxaseanc‘ HBB 1: 485a; Schmitt
1972-74: 24; Perixanjan 1983: 125, 327192; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 162, 522, 551; L.
Hovhannisyan 1990: 216-217; cf. Ravnæs 1991: 143). On the Iranian etymon, see
ÈtimSlovIranJaz 2, 2003: 445-448; Cheung 2007: 47.
dayl ‘colostrum, beestings’ (NHB and HAB, without specified references).
For dialectal forms and an etymological discussion, see s.v. dal ‘colostrum,
beestings’
daylayl-ik-k‘ ‘twitter, trembling song’ (Grigor Astuacaban Nazianzac‘i, John
Chrysostom, Plato, Grammarians). Spelled also as dala(y)lik-k‘ and dēlēlik-k‘. On
ModArm. daylayl(ik) ‘twitter’ and daylaylel ‘to twitter’, see Malxaseanc‘ HBB 1:
485b.
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 619b) treats the word as reduplication of a root *dayl,
which he, with some reservation, considers onomatopoeic.
The root *da(y)l is homonymous to da(y)l ‘colostrum’ (q.v.). On the strength of
typological parallels for the poetic association ‘cow, milk’ : ‘song, stanza’ or ‘stream
of milk’ : ‘stream of speech’ (see Ivanov 1979a: 13-14; Ivanov apud MifNarMir 2,
1982: 5-6; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 567-568, 5694, 571; Lubotsky 2002b: 35),
one is tempted to assume that the resemblance of these two words is not a mere
chance. Note also Vedic dhénā- f. ‘stream of milk, nourishing stream’ : ‘stream of
speech’ (Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 797; cf. Humbach 1982: 107-111), which is
etymologically related with Arm. da(y)l ‘colostrum’. The idea is highly uncertain,
however, and the onomatopoeic origin of *dayl ‘twittering song’ is more probable.
daṙnam, 3sg.aor. darj-a-w ‘to go/come back, return; to turn, become’ (Bible+); darj,
i-stem: GDSg darj-i, LocSg i darj-i (Bible), AblSg i darj-ē (Philo), IPl darj-i-w-k‘
(Grigoris Aršaruni, 7-8th cent.) ‘return, departure; turning’ (Bible+).
●DIAL The verb daṙnam is ubiquitous in the dialects. The stem darj- is seen in J̌
uɫa
d‘aṙc‘nel, Polis daṙc‘unɛl, etc. [HAB 1: 639b].
●ETYM Arm. *dar(j)-nam has been connected to Alb. dredh, aor. dródha ‘to turn,
wind’ on the one hand, and to Gr. τρέχω ‘to run’, τροχός m. ‘wheel; potter’s wheel’,
OIr. droch ‘wheel’, and Arm. durgn ‘potter’s wheel’ on the other, for other (alleged)
forms, references and a discussion, see Lidén 1906: 101-104; HAB 1: 639; Pokorny
1959: 258 and 273; Chantraine 1968-80: 1135-1136; Demiraj 1997: 143-144;
Mallory/Adams 1997: 491b, 640b; 2006: 249-250, 399-400; Olsen 1999: 193, 954-
955.
These forms are often represented under two different lexemes. In view of the
obvious parallelism between daṙnam < *dar(j)nam ‘to turn’ vs. durgn ‘potter’s
wheel’ on the one hand, and baṙnam < *barj-nam ‘to lift’ vs. burgn ‘tower’ on the
other, one rather assumes that daṙnam and durgn are outcomes of one and the same
root *dr(e)ĝh
-, although details are disputable. It is remarkable that both burgn and
durgn are cultural terms derived from verbal stems and displaying the same kind of
phonological irregularities, viz. *-ur- and *-gh
- vs. *-r(V)- and *-ĝh
-, respectively.
Besides, these cultural terms have related forms in non-Indo-European languages of
Near East and Caucasus. For a further discussion and references, see s.v. durgn
‘potter’s wheel’.
darbin, a-stem: GDSg darbn-i (Job 32.19 [Cox 2006: 210]), GDPl darbn-a-c‘ (Job
41.16 [Cox 2006: 264], Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.61, Response to Sahak’s letter, Grigor
Narekac‘i) ‘blacksmith’ (Bible+); darbnem ‘to forge’ (John Chrysostom, Gregory of
Nyssa, Paterica); coll. darbn-ay-k‘ (“Čaṙəntir”). According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 636a), the basic and oldest meaning is ‘artisan,
craftsman’, which is seen in darbin pɫnjoy ew erkat‘oy (Genesis 4.22, see now in
Zeyt‘unyan 1985: 163). However, the Greek text here has χαλκεὺς χαλκοῦ καὶ
σιδήρου, and Arm. darbin simply renders Gr. χαλκ-εύς m. ‘metal worker,
coppersmith, blacksmith’.
The word darbin is mentioned in an interesting passage describing the cult
ceremonies related with Artawazd, imprisoned in mountain Masis (Ararat): Movsēs
Xorenac‘i 2.61 (1913=1991: 192L8f; transl. Thomson 1978: 204): Vasn oroy ew aṙ
meroy isk žamanakaw bazumk‘ i darbnac‘, zhet ert‘alov aṙaspelin, yawur
miašabat‘woǰ eric‘s kam č‘oric‘s baxen zsaln, zi zōrasc‘in, asen, šɫt‘ayk‘n
Artawazday. Bayc‘ ē čšmartut‘eamb ayspēs, orpēs asac‘ak‘s veragoyn : “Therefore,
even in our own time many smiths, following the fable, on the first day of the week
strike the anvil three or four times so that the chains of Artavazd may be
strengthened, as they say. But the truth of the matter is as we said above”. A couple
of lines further: Ew zays noyn ergič‘k‘n yaṙaspelin asen ayspēs “This the same
singers express in the fable as follows”.
In Patasxani t‘ɫt‘oyn Sahakay (Response to the letter of Sahak) ascribed to
Movsēs Xorenac‘i (MovsXorenMaten 1843: 294-295; see also Ališan 1910: 42-43;
Russell 1987: 250, 404), mention is made of a shrine of the goddess Anahit in a
place in the district of Anjewac‘ik‘ called Darbnac‘ k‘ar ‘stone of blacksmiths’.
Here the blacksmiths (attested forms: APl darbin-s, GDPl darbn-a-c‘) are explicitly
described in the context of a heathen cult and are called gorcōneayk‘ č‘arin
“ministers of evil”. The shrine of Anahit was replaced by a small church Surb
Astuacacin, and the place was renamed Hogeac‘ vank‘ (ibid.), note traditional
stories (Łanalanyan 1969: 246-247) where we also encounter the Kaɫ dew ‘lame
demon’ (cf. Russell 1987: 205), the demon called Kudrut‘, and a bear. On
Hogeac‘/Hogwoc‘ vank‘, see Hübschmann 1904: 342-343.
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects: Sebastia, Karin, Muš, J̌
uɫa d‘arb‘in, Ararat
d‘arp‘in, Łarabaɫ tárpin, Alaškert d‘aṙpin, T‘iflis dárp‘un (!), etc. [HAB 1: 636b].
Van, Moks, Salmast tärpin, Ozim d‘ärpɛyn [HAB ibid.; Ačaṙyan 1952: 255] and
Šatax tärpin [M. Muradyan 1962: 195a] display a regular reflex of da- through
Ačaṙyan’s Law.
●ETYM Since Meillet (1894: 165), connected with Lat. faber, fabrī m. ‘craftsman,
workman, artisan; metal worker, smith’ and derived from PIE *dh
abh
- ‘to put
together, fit’: Goth. ga-daban ‘to be suitable’, OEngl. ge-dæfte ‘mild, gentle’ <
‘*fitting, becoming’, OCS dobrъ ‘ἀγαϑός, καλός’, etc. (Hübschmann 1897: 438;
HAB 1: 636; Pokorny 1959: 233-234; Lehmann 1986: 134-135). J̌
ahukyan (1982:
74; 1987: 119) accepts the connection with Lat. faber and OCS dobrъ and follows
Pokorny in reconstructing *dh
abh
rino- for Armenian.
The relatedness of Arm. darbin and Lat. faber with the other forms is uncertain
(see Schrijver 1991: 102; Kuiper 1995: 66; de Vaan 2008: 197). According to
Mallory/Adams (1997: 139a), although IE *dh
abh
ros ‘craftsman’ is attested in only
two stocks, “the geographical distribution of those attestations strongly suggests PIE
status”. More probably, however, this is a non-IE word (Beekes 1996: 230; cf. also
Kuiper 1995: 66) and belongs with the Mediterranean-Pontic substratum (see 3.11). The reconstruction of *-ino- (see above) is improbable. One might rather assume
coll./fem. *-neh2- (see Olsen 1999: 471) or *-sneh2-, cf. Gr. τέχνη f. ‘craftmanship,
handiwork, art’ vs. Skt. tákṣati ‘to form by cutting; to fashion, form’, etc. (see s.v.
*t‘eši ‘spindle’). For a possible original n-stem, cf. hiws-n ‘carpenter’ vs. hiwsem ‘to
weave’ (q.v.). PArm. *dabr-(s)na- ‘forging’ would develop into darbin, a-stem
‘forger’ as in lusin ‘moon’ from *louk-sneh2-, kaɫin ‘acorn’ from *gw
lh2eno- (q.v.).
For the suffix -in, see J̌
ahukyan 1987: 234; Olsen 1999: 463-473. Note especially
aɫx : aɫaxin ‘female servant’ (q.v.). For the development ‘craft’ > ‘craftsman’ cf.
OIr. cerd ‘craft; poetry’ > ‘craftsman, artisan, gold- and silversmith; poet’ (see s.v.
k‘erday ‘scribe’).
Alternatively, Arm. darbin has been linked with Skt. dr̥bháti ‘to tie together’,
Lith. dárbas ‘work’, dárbti ‘to work’, etc. (Mann 1963: 58, 94; Blažek 2008: 77,
79). Note especially Lith. dial. darbinỹkas ‘worker’ (on this and related forms and
on the suffix -i/enỹkas, see Derksen 1996: 48, 99, 185-186; cf. Fraenkel s.v.), which
has been linked with darbin, Lat. faber and others already in HAB 1: 636a; see also
Aɫabekyan 1979: 56. However, this is less probable.
Gordon Whittaker (2004: 38913; 2005: 414, 4146)
48 compares Arm. darbin and
Lat. faber with Sumerian tabira ‘joiner’ and Hurrian tabiri ‘Metallgießer’, probably
also ‘smith’. Ilya Yakubovich (apud Blažek 2008: 792) independently suggests the
same comparison, but proposes to derive Arm. darbin from the Hurrian word,
borrowed into Sumerian tabira, tibira ‘metal worker’. However, I see no serious
reasons to abandon the connection of Arm. darbin with Lat. faber. According to
Whittaker (ibid.), the Sumerian word (tabira ‘artisan, joiner’, not ‘metal worker’) is
not related with the Hurrian, but is rather a loan from PIE *dhabh-ro-.
Leaving the Sumerian word out of consideration, I assume that Hurrian tabiri
could be borrowed in the 2nd (or 3rd) millennium from the Proto-Armenians which
may have been settled at that time in the NW parts of the historical Armenia, in and
around Hai̯aša, ‘*the land of metal/iron’ (see s.v. Hay-k‘ ‘Armenia’).
The proto-form that underlies Arm. darbin with Lat. faber may be reconstructed
as a QIE HD r-stem: nom. *dh
abh
-ḗr, acc. *dh
abh
-ér-m, gen. *dh
abh
-r-ós (type
‘father’, see Beekes 1995: 177). 49
The passages from Movsēs Xorenac‘i, etc. (see above) seem to reveal the
meaning ‘heathen priest; poet’ or the like, which possibly originates from the IndoEuropean tradition, cf. OIr. cerd ‘craftsman, artisan, gold- and silversmith; poet’
(see s.v. k‘erday ‘scribe’), fabbro del parlar in Dante; OIc. ljoðasmiðr ‘poet’ and
galdrasmiðr ‘Verfasser von Zauberliedern’ vs. smiðr ‘artisan, smith’, etc.50 For
these and other data on the relation between ‘smith’, ‘forger, sorcerer’ and ‘poet,
forger of words and songs’, see Durante 1968: 270-271 (< 1960: 236-237);
Ivanov/Toporov 1974: 148-149, 158-163, 172-173; Ivanov apud MifNarMir 2: 21;
Mallory/Adams 1997: 139ab. For an extensive study of IE ‘smith’, see Blažek 2008
and forthc. The Lame Demon, which functions in the context of Darbnac‘ K‘ar ‘stone of
blacksmiths’, may reflect the IE divine smith, which was lame, too (on the latter, see
Ivanov apud MifNarMir 2: 22b; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 7151).
darj, i-stem ‘return, turn’ (Bible+), and aor. stem of daṙnam ‘to go/come back, return;
to turn, become’ (q.v.).
●ETYM See s.v. daṙnam ‘to return, turn’.
deɫ, o-stem: ISg deɫ-o-v (Bible), GDPl deɫ-o-c‘ (Łazar P‘arpec‘i, Movsēs Xorenac‘i);
a-stem: IPl deɫ-a-w-k‘ (see below) ‘herb; medicine; poison, etc.’ (Bible+); deɫem ‘to
cure, poison’ (e.g. P‘awstos Buzand, see below), deɫ-in (gen. deɫn-i) ‘yellow’ (Plato,
John Chrysostom, etc.); deɫ-j ‘peach’ (Paterica, Geoponica, etc.), karmr-a-deɫj ‘red
peach’ (Agat‘angeɫos).
In Łazar P‘arpec‘i, 5th cent. (1904=1985: 9L33f; transl. Thomson 1991: 42): And
gtanin ew azgi azgi armatk‘ busoc‘ i pēts ōgtakarut‘ean deɫoc‘, əst čartaragēt
čanač‘oɫut‘ean stugahmut bžškac‘n yōrinuacoc‘n : “There are found every sort of
root and plant useful for the needs of medicine; they are prepared according to the
knowledgeable skill of the most expert physicians”.
In P‘awstos Buzand 4.15 /5th cent./ (1883=1984: 104; transl. Garsoïan 1989: 145)
one finds IPl deɫ-o-v-k‘ and deɫ-a-w-k‘ “by poison” in the same passage; see the
lines -10 (figura etymologica: deɫel zna mahuan deɫōk‘n “to infect her with a deadly
poison”) and -15.
In Movsēs Xorenac‘i 1.11 (1913=1991: 37L7f; transl. Thomson 1978: 88): Bayc‘
zdiakn Belay pačučeal deɫovk‘ (var. deɫōk‘, see readings at pp. 37 and 418a), asē,
hramayē Hayk tanel i Hark‘, ew t‘aɫel i barjrawandak teɫwoǰ, i tesil kananc‘ ew
ordwoc‘ iwroc‘ “But Hayk 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”.
GDPl deɫ-o-c‘ is found in Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.31 (1913=1991: 149L9f; transl.
Thomson 1978: 169): vasn bžškut‘eand, or lini i jeṙs k‘o aṙanc‘ deɫoc‘ ew armatoc‘
“and about the healing that was accomplished through you without medicines or
drugs”.
See also Yovhan Mandakuni/Mayragomec‘i (5th/7th cent.), 2003: 1164b, lines -14,
-16.
●DIAL All the forms are widespread in the dialects [HAB 1: 649b, 651].
According to J̌
ahukyan (1972: 280; 1987: 119, 255, 277; see also H. Suk‘iasyan
1986: 155), here also belongs Van *deɫ-d ‘the root of a plant used in hair-washing’
(on which see Ačaṙean 1913: 272a).
Further, see s.v. deɫ-b ‘yellow’.
●ETYM See s.v. dalar ‘green, fresh’.
deɫb ‘yellow’ in Anania Širakac‘i (7th cent.), NHB 1: 609a. In the edition of A. G.
Abrahamyan (1940: 40L7), one finds deɫin ‘yellow’ instead.
The variant deɫb is not necessarily a corruption. A similar variation is also seen in
the case of the preceding word of the same passage: lurt‘ (NHB) vs. lurǰ
(Abrahamyan’s edition); both alternants are reliably attested elsewhere, see s.v. lurǰ
‘shiny; blue’. Besides, as Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 650a) stresses, the existence of deɫb is corroborated by deɫb-a-goyn (attested by the same author, Anania Širakac‘i) and
dial. *deɫb-el (see below).
The compound deɫb-a-goyn, lit. ‘yellow-coloured’, occurs in the Long Recension
of Ašxarhac‘oyc‘ by Anania Širakac‘i, 7th cent., see HAB 1: 650a. Ačaṙyan refers to
Soukry 1881: 45L1 (transl. of the passage Hewsen 1992: 75), but here geɫbagoyn is
printed.
●DIAL Muš d‘ɛxb‘ɛl ‘to grow yellow by dirt (said of clothes)’ [HAB 1: 650b].
According to J̌
ahukyan (1972: 280; 1987: 119, 255, 277, 305; see also H.
Suk‘iasyan 1986: 155), here also belongs Akn *dl-b-ik ‘a branch with fruits’ (on
which see Ačaṙean 1913: 279b).
G. Gyozalyan (2001: 17) records Svedia (Musa-leṙ) txp‘ina ‘a plant with grapesized yellow sticky fruits’. I wonder if this word derives from our deɫb ‘yellow’. It
may reflect *deɫb-eni.
●ETYM According to Ačaṙyan (1898b: 371b; HAB 1: 648b, 650; J̌
ahukyan, ibid.),
deɫb is composed of *deɫ (see HAB s.v. deɫ ‘herb’ and deɫ-in ‘yellow’) and the
determinative -b.
The -l- of dl-b-ik perhaps points out to an independent formation *dal- ‘fresh
branch, herb’ (cf. dal-ar ‘fresh plant’) + the same determinative -b-.
*d(e)ɫ-ez ‘bee; bumble-bee’.
●DIAL Muš, Van, Sip‘an dɫɛz ‘bee; bumble-bee (“wild bee”)’ [Amatuni 1912:
166-167]. According to Ačaṙyan (1913: 1033b), Van tɫɛz ‘stinged bee; bumble-bee;
spider; (secret language) gold’, with a regular shift d > Van t.
One expects voiceless t- also in Šatax. However, M. Muradyan (1962: 209b)
records Šatax dɛɫɛz· išameɫu ‘bumble-bee’ in her glossary of purely dialectal words.
Van/Arčak (the village of Šahgeldi) dɫez occurs, e.g., in the following saying (V.
Ananyan 1980: 379L8): Matd mi tana dɫezi ponin “Do not take/put your finger (on)to
the bee-nest”. In a footnote, the author (3791) renders dɫez by ModArm. meɫu ‘bee’.
●ETYM No etymology is known to me.
I wonder if the word derives from *deɫ- ‘yellow’ (see s.vv. deɫin, deɫj). For the
semantics cf. Šatax zəṙ-kɛt‘ ‘bumble-bee’ and dial. zṙ-kēc ‘yellow bumble-bee’, if
containing zaṙ ‘yellow’ (see s.v. kēt̏2). The suffix -ɛz may be compared with the -j
found in deɫ-j ‘yellow’ and many other words, as well as with -(ē)z in animal- and
plant-names (see 2.3.1).
dzi ‘horse’, only commentaries on Dionysius Thrax: Step‘annos Siwnec‘i, as
synonymous to ji ‘horse’, and in Grigor Magistros, listed with semantically neutral
horse-designations (see Adonc 1915=2008: 209L16, 241L8).
●ETYM Probably to be identified with ji ‘horse’ (q.v.), see NHB 1: 611c; J̌
ahukyan
1967: 184; sceptical HAB 658c.
*di-di-k? ‘newborn, child’.
●DIAL Sivri-Hisar tɛtik‘ ‘newborn, child; pupil of the eye’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 1025a; N.
Mkrtč‘yan apud PtmSivHisHay 1965: 455].
●ETYM N. Mkrtč‘yan (PtmSivHisHay 1965: 455) compares Russ. temu (written in
Armenian characters) ‘children’. Obviously, this form is a misprint for Russ. deti =
дети, caused by the formal similarity of the handwritten Russian characters т and и
with Latin m and u. Note the shift d > Sivri-Hisar t. N. Mkrtč‘yan (ibid.) notes that the word cannot be considered a Russian loan and derives directly from
Indo-European.
PSlav. *dětę (: Russ. ditjá ‘child’, Czech dítě, Bulg. deté ‘id.’, etc.) goes back to
*dh
eh1-t-, from PIE *dh
eh1- ‘to suck’; cf. Latv. dę̂ls ‘son’, Lat. fīlius ‘id.’, etc.
[ÈtimSlovSlavJaz 5, 1978: 12-13]; see s.v. diem ‘to suck’. IE *dh
eh1-t- would yield
PArm. *di, with loss of *-t-. Sivri-Hisar tɛtik‘ ‘newborn, child’, if related, may be
interpreted as reduplicated *di-di- with the diminutive suffix -ik and/or due to
influence of pɛpɛk‘ (Nor Naxiǰewan) ‘child’ < Turk. bebek (on which see Ačaṙean
1902: 291). Alternatitevely, an onomatopoeic formation.
diem, caus. di-ec‘-uc‘anem ‘to suck, drink mother’s milk’ (Bible+).
●ETYM Since Bötticher (de Lagarde), connected with Skt. dháyati (RV+), etc.; also
Arm.da(y)l ‘beestings’, dayeak ‘nurse, tutor’ [Hübschmann 1883: 26; 1897: 437;
HAB 1: 668]. Godel (1975: 88-8975) directly equates diem with the Sanskrit verb
and writes: “The parallel implies divergent developments of the PIE present stem
*dhəye-. I assume that PA *ə changed to i before *y, by progressive assimilation,
while in Skt. it opened to a through the opposite process. This enables us to account
for the puzzling etymological relation of Arm. ji ‘horse’ to Skt. háya- ‘id.’ by
positing a prototype *ĝhə́
yo-”.
However, Skt. dháyati may be derived from *dh
eih1-e- (see Mayrhofer EWAia 1,
1992: 776; or, rather, *dh
h1-eie-), and there is no laryngeal in the root of háya- (see
s.v. ji ‘horse’). Armenian has more possibilities, such as *dh
eh1-, *dh
eh1-i-, *dh
ih1-,
etc. (see HAB 1: 668b). J̌
ahukyan (1987: 119) reconstructs *dheī̯e- = *dh
eh1-ie.
See also s.v. *dal.
di-k‘, GDPl di-c‘, IPl di-a-w-k‘ ‘god’ (Bible+).
●ETYM Since Müller (1890: 2), compared with Gr. ϑεός ‘god’ [HAB 1: 672-673].
Arm. di-k‘ (< pl. *dh
ēses) derives from the full-grade *dh
eh1s- : Lat. fēriae < OLat.
fēsiae ‘festival days’, fēstus ‘festive’, Osc. FÍÍSNÚ ‘templum’, Umbr. FESNAF-E <
*fēsnā ‘in templum’, whereas Gr. ϑεός ‘god’, compositional ϑεσ-, Lat. fānum <
*fas-no-m ‘hallowed place’, and Skt. dhíṣ-ṇiya- ‘Götter geneigt machend’ represent
the zero-grade *dh
əs- = *dh
h1s-, see Hübschmann 1899: 45 (earlier, 1897: 438-439,
he was sceptical); Pokorny 1959: 259; Rix 1969/1972: 179-180; Mayrhofer 1986:
127; Schrijver 1991: 92, 139; Mallory/Adams 1997: 231a; Untermann 2000: 281-
283, West 2007: 121]. On Lindeman’s (1982: 45; 1987: 104) scepticism, see below.
As is pointed out by Lubotsky (1988: 129), Greek has preserved the athematic
noun in compounds (ϑεσ-), so that ϑεός is a Greek denominal formation. The PIE
may be interpreted as an original HD s-stem (cf. Schrijver 1991: 92; see also below),
or as a HD root-noun (for the type, see Beekes 1995: 189-190): NSg *dh
ēh1s-s, GSg
*dh
h1s-ós. Both *dh
ēh1s-s and *dh
eh1s-s would result in Arm. di-k‘.
The derivation of the Greek and the Armenian words from *dh
(e)ues- ‘to
dissipate, blow’ (cf. Lith. dvasià ‘breath, spirit, soul’, etc.; see Pokorny 1959: 269;
Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984: 466; see also references in Frisk, s.v.) must be
abandoned, in particular, because of Myc. te-o [Schwartz 1992: 392]. As far as
Armenian is concerned, Lindeman (1982: 45) is positive about this etymology and
explains Arm. di-k‘ as reflecting the lengthened grade *dh
wēs-. He admits, however, that the Greek word can hardly belong here. This would imply separating Arm. di-k‘
from Gr. ϑεός, which is improbable and unnecessary.
According to Georgiev (1974: 11-14; 1975: 19, 35; see also Blažek 2001: 355),
Thracian δεσα-, δισα-, διζα- ‘god’, as well as the second component of the Thracian
name Ζηλυ-δηζη f. belong to the Greek and Armenian words. He (1974: 12) is
inclined to the derivation of Gr. ϑεός from *dh
weso-s and treats Arm. di-k‘ and
Thracian δεσα- as a contamination of *dh
weso- and *diw- (on which see HAB s.v.
tiw ‘day’). In general, this is implausible (see above on Myc. te-o) and unnecessary
since the paradigm *dh
eh1s-s, GSg *dh
h1s-ós offers a satisfactory explanation.
However, a similar contamination might be viable with respect to Arm.
compositional diwc‘-. According to Hübschmann (1897: 439), the epenthetic -w- in
diwc‘- is due to contamination of dic‘- ‘god-’ with diw- ‘demon-’, cf. e.g.
diwc‘-a-pašt vs. dic‘-a-pašt ‘Götter-verehrer’ : diw-a-pašt ‘Dämonen-verehrer’. If
the PIE word had an original s-stem with NSg *dh
eh1-s-ōs, the “epenthetic” -w- of
Arm. diwc‘- could somehow reflect PArm. hypothetical NSg *di(h)-u. One might
also think of contamination with PArm. *tiw ‘god’ (see s.vv. ciacan ‘rainbow’, kaɫin
‘acorn’, tiw ‘day’).
It has been assumed that Arm. di-k‘ ‘god’ is reflected in the Urartian theonym
Arṣibe-di-ni (see s.v. arcui ‘eagle’).
dnem, 1sg.aor. e-di, 3sg.aor. e-d, imper. di-r ‘to put, lay; to make, build; to suppose,
assume’ (Bible+), ‘to close the door’ (P‘awstos Buzand, etc.); di-r, i-stem ‘position,
site; order’ (Bible+), ‘cemetery’ (Łazar P‘arpec‘i, Movsēs Xorenac‘i, Canon Law,
Plato, etc.).
●DIAL The verb dnem ‘to put’ is ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 1: 676].
In Agulis, dnem has been replaced by dril (C‘ɫna t
y
əril), which also means ‘to
suppose, assume’, e.g. drik‘y
t‘ä ‘let us suppose/assume that’, cf. ClArm. dic‘uk‘ t‘ē
[HAB 1: 676ab; Ačaṙean 1935: 347]. As has been pointed out by Ačaṙyan (1935:
125), in Agulis the verb has been reshaped after the root dir.
The aorist paradigm in K‘esab is as follows: sg. dərä, dəri, idɛj; pl. dərunk‘,
dərɛk‘, dərɛn (Č‘olak‘ean 1986: 154, for -j from -c‘ in the 3sg form, see 44).
Whereas the root *di- has been replaced by *dir throughout the paradigm, the 3sg
form seems to reflect *e-dic‘. This form is reminiscent of 3sg.aor e-li-c‘ vs. pres. *linu- > lnum ‘to fill’.
T‘iflis ju dnel means ‘to lay eggs’, cf. Germ. legen [Ačaṙean 1913: 281b], see
below on the Latvian parallel from the same PIE verb. J̌
uɫa d‘irk‘ ‘coffin’ is
comparable to ClArm. dir-k‘ ‘cemetery’ [HAB 676b].
●ETYM Derived from PIE *dh
eh1- ‘to put, lay; to make, produce’: Skt. dhā- ‘to put,
place, make, produce’, Gr. τίϑημι ‘to put down, ground, create’, Lat. con-dere ‘to
build, found; to compose, make’, fē-cī ‘I have made’, OHG tuon ‘to do’, Lith. dė́ti
‘to lay, put’, Latv. dêt ‘to lay eggs’ (cf. Arm. dial. T‘iflis), etc. See Hübschmann
1897: 439; HAB 1: 675-676; Pokorny 1959: 236; Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 783-
786; Viereck/Goldammer 2003: 408.
Arm. dnem is composed as *di- + pres. suffix *ne- seen in e.g. aṙ-ne-m vs. aor.
ar-ar- ‘to make’ (q.v.), see also s.v. əmpem ‘to drink’; the aorist forms 1sg. e-di and
3sg e-d are derived from *é-dh
eh1-m (cf. Skt. ádhām) or sigm. *e-dh
eh1-s-om (cf.
OCS děchъ) and *é-dh
eh1-t (cf. Skt. ádhāt), respectively; di-r is comparable with e.g. li-r (see s.v. li ‘full’). For the paradigm and a discussion, see Meillet 1910-11a:
243; 1913: 105; 1936: 19, 122-123, 132; Łaragyulyan 1961: 153-155; È. Tumanjan
1971: 381-383; Ant‘osyan 1975: 213-214, 219; Godel 1975: 53, 114, 117, 126-127;
Schmitt 1981: 153-154; Klingenschmitt 1982: 132, 163; K. Schmidt 1985: 86.
don ‘a kind of bread’, attested only in Yaysmawurk‘. In Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘, don renders
pak‘simat [Amalyan 1975: 273Nr227]. In this form, the word has been preserved only
in the dialect of Łazax (see below).
In Knik‘ hawatoy= “Seal of Faith” (7th cent.), one finds doniw hac‘iwk‘, where
hac‘iwk‘ is IPl of hac‘ ‘bread’. Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 683b), with some reservation,
identifies this don-i-w as the instrumental form of dun (John Chrysostom, Philo,
etc.) or doyn (Grigor Narekac‘i +) ‘little, few’. However, dun or doyn would yield
dn- or dun- in oblique cases, although this is not crucial (see s.v. hoyn ‘cornel’). One
wonders if doniw is rather the instrumental of don ‘a kind of bread’, which here
specifies hac‘ ‘bread’; thus: doniw hac‘iwk‘ would be translated as “with
don-breads, with breads of the don type”. If this is accepted, we are dealing with the
oldest attestation of the word and with the only evidence for the declension class
(ISg don-i-w would point to an i-stem).
●DIAL Łazax dɔn [Amatuni 1912: 173b], Širak dɔnik ‘a longish thick bread’ (=
matnk‘aš hac‘) [Mxit‘areanc‘ 1901: 311], Muš, Bulanəx donik ‘a kind of longish
bread with a hole in the middle’ [HAB 1: 679b], Šatax tonik (M. Muradyan 1962:
216b, in the glossary of dialectal words; explained as t‘onran bok‘on), Sasun donig
‘soft, fresh bread’ [Petoyan 1965: 461].
Amatuni (1912: 173b) records Van dɔɫik ‘a kind of longish bread with a hole in
the middle’ (mentioned as tɔɫik by G. Srvanjtyanc‘ in his “Groc‘u broc‘”, see 1,
1978: 40). As far as semantics is concerned, this form is reminiscent of Muš,
Bulanəx donik. However, doɫik derives from Van doɫ ‘frame around a wheel’
[Ačaṙean 1913: 282-283].
T‘emurčyan (1970: 86b and 92b10, respectively) records Sebastia donpik ‘a kind
of bread’ and Arabkir (rural) doni ‘cooked and dried juice of mulberry or grape’ (=
Kyurin k‘esme). The former is also found in Gabikean 1952: 170: dompik· nkanak,
pztik sōmin. Besides, Gabikean (ibid.) separately gives Sebastia don ‘thick liquid
food for shepherd’s dogs, made of barley flour’. It is uncertain whether these words
are related with each other and with don ‘a kind of bread’.
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 679-680) connects Skt. dhānā́- f. pl. ‘roasted grains’
(RV+), Khotanese dānā- ‘corn’, MPers. dān, dānag ‘seed, corn’, NPers. dāna ‘seed,
corn’ (> Arm. dial. dan ‘grain’), Lith. dúona ‘bread, corn, grain’, Latv. duõna ‘slice
of bread’, etc. (from PIE *dh
oH-neh2-). Note also Toch. B tāno f. ‘seed, grain’
[Adams 1999: 286].
J̌
ahukyan (1987: 162-163) presents three objections to this etymology: (1) PIE
*dh
ōnā- would yield Arm. *dun, (2) the Armenian meaning is remote, (3) the word
is attested only in late texts. The third objection is not essential. Also the second is
surmountable in view of the Baltic semantics. The only serious problem is the
vocalism. A potentially similar case is found with gom ‘fold for sheep or cattle’
(q.v.). J̌
ahukyan (1987: 254) interprets these two and some other words as reflecting
an old dialectal variation next to the regular development *e/oN > Arm. i/uN. He
also compares don with Hurr. tuni (see below). I wonder if the development *-ōn- > Arm. -on- may be explained by lowering
under the influence of the -a- if the following syllable: PArm. *duna > *dona- >
don. Compare also gom, a-stem ‘sheepfold, stall’, if from *gh
om(m)ā- (see s.v.).
Since Arm. don is not attested in the oldest period of Armenian literature, one may
alternatively place don in the list of words showing an unclear substitution ay/a : o.
In this case, the proto-Armenian reconstruction would be *dan-, from the zero grade
*dh
H-neh2-, also found in Toch. B tāno f. ‘seed, grain’ (Lubotsky, p.c.).
PIE *dh
oH-neh2- ‘grain; bread’ has been compared with Sem. *duḫn- ‘millet’ (see
Illič-Svityč 1964: 5; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984: 873; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 450; cf. Cuny
1937: 229-231).
Pârvulescu (1988: 51) derives the PIE word from *dh
eh1- ‘to put’, with the basic
meaning ‘wealth, treasure’ from earlier ‘what is put, deposited’. Thus: *dh
oh1-neh2-.
This idea has been considered semantically unlikely [Mallory/Adams 1997: 237a;
Adams 1999: 286].
J̌
ahukyan (1987: 426) points out that Arm. don resembles Hurr. tuni ‘a kind of
bread’, but is sceptical about this comparison, since: (1) Ačaṙyan is inclined to
ascribe native (< IE) origin to Arm. don, (2) Hurr. tuni may be derived from tuni
‘Fußschemel’; thus “baked in the shape of tuni”. He refers to Haas/Wilhelm 1974,
not indicating the page. This work, however, is missing in J̌
ahukyan’s bibliography.
I assume that he meant the same Haas/Wilhelm 1974 as is found in the bibliography
of my present study. In this book, one finds Hitt. tūni- ‘ein bestimmtes Brot’, NINDAdūni- c. ‘ein Gebäck’ (pp. 12, 104, 1061, 150-151, 179, 286b) and Hurr. tūni
‘Fußschemel’ (104, 1061). There is also Hitt. NINDAtunik n. / tunink-, which is
interpreted as (n)k-derivation from NINDAduni- [Neu 1970: 5737; Haas/Wilhelm 1974:
179].
J̌
ahukyan’s objections are not decisive. Firstly, the meaning ‘a kind of bread’
could be original. Then, tūni ‘Fußschemel’, if indeed related, may be seen as
“shaped as tuni-bread”. Remarkably, next to the very Arm. don ‘bread’, one finds
don ‘an architectural ornament/detail’, probably ‘architrave’, attested twice in
Zak‘aria K‘anak‘eṙc‘i (17th cent.), in the description of the monastery
Yovhannavank‘. Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 680) treats this word as metaphorically
belonging to don ‘a kind of bread’. This can serve as a (typological, at least) parallel
to tūni ‘Fußschemel’ < tūni- ‘a kind of bread’. Secondly, the relatedness of Arm.
don ‘a kind of bread’ with Hitt. NINDAdūni- c. ‘ein Gebäck’ does not necessarily
contradict the native origin of the Armenian word. Secondly, if one accepts the IE
origin of Arm. don, then Hitt. NINDAdūni- might, at least theoretically, be considered
as a loan from Armenian. I admit, however, that the question of such loans is very
far from established.
I conclude: the relationship between the Armenian and the Hittite/Hurrian words
may be explained in three ways: (1) Arm. don, dial. *donik ‘a kind of bread’ derives
from PIE *dh
oH-neh2- ‘grain; bread’ (although the problem of Arm. -o- needs
further examination), and Hitt. NINDAdūni-, NINDAtunik ‘ein Gebäck’ is borrowed from
Armenian; (2) Arm. don/donik derives from PIE *dh
oH-neh2-, but its resemblance
with Hitt. NINDAdūni-/tunik is accidental; (3) Arm. don/donik has been borrowed
from Hitt. NINDAdūni-/tunik and has nothing to do with PIE *dh
ōnā- (note that the
Hittite word cannot be derived from PIE *dh
oH-neh2- in view of its vocalism). At this stage of research, it is hard to choose between these possibilities. The second
one does not seem probable to me.
du 2sg.pers.pron. ‘thou’ (Bible+), dun (Timothy Aelurus); pl. du-k‘ (Bible+). For
oblique forms, see s.vv. k‘o, k‘ez, jez and jer. For references to the paradigm and a
discussion, see 2.2.5.
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects. Many of them display forms reflecting dun,
Suč‘ava, Nor Naxiǰewan, T‘iflis, Muš, Polis, Hamšen, Akn, Xarberd, Sebastia,
Tigranakert, Zeyt‘un, Maraɫa, etc. [HAB 1: 681b; AčaṙLiak 2, 1954: 58-59].
●ETYM From PIE 2.sg.pers.pron. *tuH ‘thou’: Skt. t(u)vám, Gr. σύ, Dor. τύ, Hom.
also τύνη, Lac. τούνη, acc. σέ, gen. σέο, σεῖο, Lat. tū, Goth. þu, Lith. tù, OCS ty, etc.,
see Hübschmann 1883: 28, 40; 1897: 440; HAB 1: 681 with references. The d- in du
‘you’, anaphoric da (mostly enclitic) and demonstrative ay-d (= accented *ái- +
*to-) instead of t‘- has been explained by the unaccented position; cf. the Germanic
and Celtic parallels (Meillet 1908-09a: 91-93; 1936: 33-34, 92; cf. 1962: 295 =
1978: 295; AčaṙLiak 2, 1954: 44; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 147; 1987: 197; cf. Hübschmann
1897: 440).
It has been assumed that du-k‘ substituted *ǰu-k‘ (from PIE *iuH-: Skt. yūyám,
Lith. jũs, Goth. jūs, etc.), and jez represents *jeji < *ǰeji < *i̯eĝh
i- through
assimilation, see Meillet 1920: 251; AčaṙLiak 2, 1954: 56-57; J̌
ahukyan 1967:
264;1982: 147; 1987: 173; Schmitt 1981: 117; Ravnæs 1991: 65, 651; cf. Godel
1975: 110; for du-k‘, see also O. Haas 1940: 98; Stempel 1994: 15. For a discussion
see also Pisani 1950: 180-181; Pokorny 1959: 513; Winter 1965: 113-114; Stempel
1994: 15-16; Aɫabekyan 1998: 72. However, the development *i̯- > Arm. ǰ- is
disputed (see 2.1.6), thus one may alternatively posit *yeji > *jeji > jez.
On AblPl jēn-ǰ, see s.v. mek‘ ‘we’.
One may wonder whether the by-form du-n (attested in Timothy Aelurus and
present in a considerable number of dialects) can be compared to Gr. τύνη, etc.
duṙn, GDSg dran, AblSg i dran-ē, ISg dram-b; Npl drun-k‘, APl drun-s, LocPl i
drun-s, GDPl dran-c‘, AblPl i dran-c‘, IPl dram-b-k‘; plur. dur-k‘, acc. dur-s, gen.-
dat. dr-a-c‘, abl. i dr-a-c‘, instr. dr-a-w-k‘ (rich evidence in the Bible, see
Astuacaturean 1895: 407-410) ‘door; palace’ (Bible+), ‘pass’ (Eɫišē, Movsēs
Xorenac‘i, etc.), ‘retinue’ (P‘awstos Buzand 4.15 [1883=1984: 99L-1], Eɫišē, etc.); i
dur-s ‘outside’ (Bible+); dr-and(-i) ‘space before a door, porch; threshold’ (see s.v.
*and- ‘door-frame; threshold, vestibule’); drac‘-i (based on GDPl dr-a-c‘), ea-stem:
GDSg drac‘w-o-y, GDPl drac‘e-a-c‘ ‘neighbour’ (Bible+); dran-ik, GDPl drank-ac‘ ‘palace guardian’ in Movsēs Xorenac‘i 3.37, 1913=1991: 303L1 (cf. Bediryan
1962: 141-142); droyl ‘yard-keeper’ (Basil of Caesarea); a number of compounds
with dṙn(-a)- or dr- as the first member, or -duṙn as the second member.
●DIAL The form duṙn, mostly with loss of the final nasal (except for Łarabaɫ, Goris,
Šamaxi), is ubiquitous in the dialects; dur-s is widespread [HAB 1: 685-686]. A
frozen pl. durk‘ ‘door’ has been preserved in Agulis [Ačaṙean 1935: 347; M.
Zak‘aryan 2008: 89], Meɫri [Aɫayan 1954: 267b], Karčewan [H. Muradyan 1960:
192a], Kak‘avaberd [H. Muradyan 1967: 107, 112, 169b, 211L11]; also as the first
member of compounds, dərk‘-á- (e.g. in Karčewan, see H. Muradyan 1960: 212b). Some plural forms represent a dual dṙ-vi (also MidArm., see MiǰHayBaṙ 1, 1987:
181b), referring to the two leaves of a door, e.g. Hamšen tṙvi (Artašes Ēk‘suzean p.c.
apud Ačaṙyan 1947: 86), Svedia təṙva [Hananyan 1995: 72], Akn dṙvi (attested e.g.
in a lullaby, see Čanikean 1895: 408L6; Ṙ. Grigoryan 1970: 53Nr17), etc. Interesting is
the paradigm of Svedia: NSg tauṙ, AccSg z-tauṙ, GDSg trun, NPl tṙva (Andreasyan
1967: 56); according to Ačaṙyan 2003: 464: NSg d‘ɔṙ, GDSg d‘ṙɔn, ISg d‘ṙn-um.
Muš dṙverk‘ ‘the threshold with the yard and surroundings’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 288b]
comprises not only the original dual *-u-, but also coll.-pl. -er and -k‘.
●ETYM Since long (Acoluthus 1680, Awetik‘ean 1815, etc., see HAB 1: 685b),
connected with cognate forms of the PIE word for ‘door’, *dh
u(o)r-: Skt. dvā́r- f.,
NADu dvā́rā, dvā́rau, APl dúras ‘door, gate, the two leaves of a door’, dvā́ra- n.
‘id.’, dvārī- f. (with aberrant d-), YAv. duuar- ‘gate’, MPers. NPers. dar, Parth. bar
‘door’ (Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 764-765), Gr. ϑύρα, Ion. ϑύρη f. ‘door, doorleaf’, mostly in. pl. ‘double or folding doors’, NPl ϑύραι f. ‘door’, Lat. foris f. ‘door,
gate’, pl. forēs ‘the two leaves of a door, entrance’, forās adv. ‘out of doors, abroad,
forth, out’, forum, ī n. ‘forum, open square, market, court of justice’, forus, ī m.
‘gangway in a ship, row of benches erected for spectators at games’ < *dh
uor-
(Schrijver 1991: 471-472), OIr. dorus ‘gateway, doorway’, Welsh dor ‘door’ <
*dh
u(o)r-eh2-, Goth. daur ‘gate’, OEngl. door ‘door, gate, pas’ < *dh
ur-om, Lith. NPl
f. dùrys, dial. dùres, Latv. NPl f. dùrvis, OCS dvьrь, NPl dvьri ‘door’, dvorъ ‘courtyard’, Alb. dérë f. ‘door’ (Demiraj 1997: 129-130), Toch. B twere ‘door’ < *dh
uor-o-
(Adams 1999: 323-324), Hitt. andurza ‘inside, indoors’ prob. from *h1(e)n-dh
ur-s
‘indoors’ (Kloekhorst 2008: 188); see Hübschmann 1877: 24; 1883: 28; 1897: 440;
HAB 1: 684-685; Pokorny 1959: 278-279; Frisk 1: 695-696; Mallory/Adams 1997:
168-169.
The forms dur-k‘, dr-a-w-k‘ show that the nasal of duṙn is an original singulative,
and the form cannot go back to an old n-stem; duṙn reflects PIE acc. *dh
úr-m ̥
(Schmitt 1981: 199; Kortlandt 1985b: 9; 1985: 19, 23 = 2003: 57, 63, 67; Beekes
2003: 166) or *dh
uor-m ̥ (Viredaz 2001-02: 25), the -n was spread throughout the
paradigm (see HAB 1: 684-685 with a discussion and literature; Meillet 1936: 84,
93; AčaṙLiak 3, 1957: 414; Ravnæs 1991: 101; Ē. Mkrtč‘yan 1992: 71-72).
As is suggested by Hübschmann (1894: 115; see also O. Haas 1940: 98), Arm.
dur-k‘, as Skt. dvā́rau, may go back to the old dual. For different views, see
Saradževa 1986: 225; Olsen 1999: 129-130. It is tempting to compare MidArm. and
dial. dual *dṙ-u-i with Skt. dvā́rau. PArm. *dur-a- appears only in plural and points
to fem.pl. *dh
ur-eh2-, cf. Gr. fem. ϑύρᾱ, ϑύρη, pl. ϑύραι, etc. (see Frisk ibid.; Beekes
2003: 174).
The hapax droyl ‘yard-keeper’ has been interpreted as a derivative of dur- ‘door,
yard’ with *-tel-, *dh
uro-tel- (Aɫayan 1974: 62; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 120, 163, 240; 1994:
15-16; 1998: 29-30).
dustr, GDSg dster, NPl dster-k‘, GDPl dster-c‘ or dster-a-c‘, IPl dster-aw-k‘
‘daughter’ (Bible+).
●DIAL In almost every dialect replaced by aɫǰ-ik ‘girl’. Preserved only in Suč‘ava:
d‘ustrə, GSg d‘əsder, or d‘rusd, GSg d‘ərəsder ‘daughter’ [HAB 1: 686b].
●ETYM Since Klaproth (1831: 105b), equated with the PIE word for ‘daughter’: Skt.
duhitár-, Gr. ϑυγάτηρ f., Lith. duktė̃f., etc.; NSg *dh
ugh2-tēr > PArm. *dust(i)r, NPl*dh
ugh2-ter-es > dster-k‘ [Hübschmann 1897: 440; HAB 1: 686]. For the declension,
see also s.v. k‘oyr ‘sister’. For the laryngeal loss, see Hamp 1970; Matzinger 1997:
11; Olsen 1999: 148, 148280; see also 2.1.20. For the problem of -st-, see 2.1.22.12.
durgn, GDSg drgan (Bible), MidArm. AblSg i drgan-ē ‘potter’s wheel’.
In the late medieval dictionary Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ one finds drgan glossed as brti
č‘arx “potter’s wheel” (Amalyan 1975: 82Nr274; MiǰHayBaṙ 1, 1987: 184a), formally
identical with the genitive of durgn (cf. Amalyan 1975: 362274).
●DIAL According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 687b), Ganjak turg perhaps belongs here,
although its exact meaning is not known. It occurs in Mamikonean 1895: 80, where
it is told that the channel (aṙu) turned the water-mill, then šuṙ ēr talis ankanə u turgə
banec‘noɫ p‘ṙṙanə u čaxarakə “turned the ankan and p‘ṙṙan which makes the turg
work, and the čaxarak (‘spinning-wheel’)”. The word ankan is here identified with
the meaning ‘mortar’ [HAB 1: 197]. Or else, it denotes a kind of spinning implement
or a part of it, probably derived from ank- ‘to fall, etc.; to spin, weave’ (q.v.) with the
‘instrument-suffix’ -an, cf. top‘-an ‘beetle for beating clothes’ from top‘em ‘to beat’
(q.v.), as well p‘ṙṙ-an which appears in the same sentence we are discussing. The
latter in Łarabaɫ means ‘scraper’ (= šṙnč‘an, fərəltax, see Ačaṙean 1913: 1086b).
Also turg probably denotes a kind of turning implement.
To this Ačaṙyan does not add any other dialectal evidence.
Now the word is found in extreme NW and SW. Xotorǰur has durg ‘the main tool
of a potter’ (see YušamXotorǰ 1964: 442a, with the names of its parts). Č‘olak‘ean
(1986: 200a) glosses ClArm. durgn by K‘esab dörg, not specifying the meaning.
The word is probably found also in Ararat, dərg, see Ananyan 1984: 353L2.
●ETYM Related with Gr. τροχός m. ‘wheel; potter’s wheel’ and OIr. droch ‘wheel’,
cf. also Gr. τρέχω ‘to run’, Arm. darj-, daṙnam ‘to turn’, etc. [NHB 1: 156b (s.v.
aniw); Hübschmann 1897: 440; HAB 1: 687; van Windekens 1986: 222]. Arm.
durgn is formally problematic. In order to explain it, a form with lengthened grade
has been assumed, with a subsequent metathesis: *dh
rōgh
- > *drug- > *durg-
(Hübschmann; HAB; Makaev 1974: 57). However, such a metathesis is difficult to
explain [Meillet 1894: 155]. *dru- > *dur- is not probable for Armenian. One would
rather expect *dru- > *(V)rdu-. To avoid this problem, Hamp (1982a: 145-146;
1983b: 65) reconstructs nom. *dh
rōgh
-s > *Vrdu, acc. *dh
rogh
-m > *Vrdogn >
*Vrdugn (analogically after the vocalism of the nominative), gen. *dh
rgh
-os >
*darg-, assuming that a subsequent metathesis of ru > ur “would have both
preserved the parallelism of *darg- and avoided the paradigmatic anomaly of
metathesis of initial *dr-”.
The best option seems to be the *dh
ōrgh
-, see Clackson 1994: 20963; cf. also
J̌
ahukyan (1987: 120, 253-254), who hesitantly tries *dh
ōrgh
- and *dh
r̥gh
-. For the
vocalic problem and the “Gutturalwechsel” in the context of the obvious parallel of
burgn ‘tower’ : *berj ‘high’, baṙnam ‘to lift’, see Eichner 1978: 14719; de
Lamberterie 1980; Clackson 1994: 20963, 226146, 233273; Olsen 1999: 950-951, 954-
955. The word is considered an extended grade form from an earlier root noun (see
Eichner 1978: 14719; Clackson 1994: 20963). Trying to reconcile this view with that
of Hamp, one may treat the word as a consonant stem of HD declension, of the type
*kê̄r-d ‘heart’, GSg *k̂
r-ed-s (see Beekes 1995: 190). Thus: NSg *dh
ōr-gh
, GSg *dh
r-ogh
-s. The nominative is seen in Arm. *durg-, whereas Greek and Celtic have
generalized the oblique stem.
Starostin (1985: 85-86) compares PNCauc *tirungV- ‘spindle’ (cf. Dargin durug
‘spindle’, PLezg. *tinug ‘axis of a spindle’, Abxaz a-dardə, etc.) with PIE *te/ork-
‘to turn’ (cf. Skt. tarku- ‘spindle’ from tark- ‘to turn, to move to and fro’, Lat.
torquēre ‘to turn, twist; to spin, whirl; to wind (round)’, Hitt. tarku- ‘to turn oneself;
to dance’, etc.). I wonder if the Caucasian is rather related with PIE *dh
ōrgh
/*dh
rogh
-
‘wheel’51. Nikolaev (1985: 72) considers Gr. ἄτρακτος m. (f.) ‘spindle’ and Skt.
tarku- ‘spindle’ as borrowed from the same Caucasian word.
Arm. burgn (GSg brgan) ‘tower; pyramis’ (Bible+) is compared with Gr. πύργος
m. (also φύρκος) ‘tower’ (NHB and Petermann; see HAB 1: 488b). Adonc‘ (1938:
465 = 1972: 389-390) compares Arm. burgn with Urart. burgana ‘fortress’ and
assumes a word of “asianic” origin that has been penetrated into the Mediterranean
area. On the other hand, Arm. burgn is considered as borrowed from Aram. būrgā
‘tower’, see Hübschmann 1897: 392-393 (with reservation); HAB 1: 488. In view of
the final -n, J̌
ahukyan (1985a: 366; 1987: 430-432 and espec. 43213, 466 /with
reservation/; 1988: 141, 14124, 14126) prefers tracing burgn to Urart. burgana
‘fortress’; see also D’jakonov 1983: 165. Diakonoff (1971: 8489) also mentions Udi
buruḫ, burɣ ‘Berg’. Further, compared with Caucasian languages: Inkhoqwari beɣ
‘stable’, Akhwakh borɣo ‘shed’, Karata beɣwa ‘shed’, Abkhaz a-bā < *baɣa
‘fortress’, Kab. baq ‘shed’ [Diakonoff/Starostin 1986: 18]. I wonder, however,
whether these words are not in a way related with Arm. bak ‘yard; shed’, Georg.
bak’i ‘hedged stable; yard’, Laz baki, Svan bog ‘stable’ (see HAB 1: 390-391),
and/or with Georgian-Zan *baga- ‘sheep-pen, goat-pen, crib’ (on which see Klimov
1998: 6, with no relatives outside Kartvelian).
In an additional note, Diakonoff and Starostin (1986: 99ADD3) point out that Urart.
burg-ana means rather ‘pillar, column’, and the comparison with the abovementioned Caucasian forms cannot be upheld.
However, the opposite direction of the borrowing is possible too. As we have
seen, burgn is related with *bar(j)-nam exactly as durgn with *dar(j)-nam. The
strange vocalism of burgn is comparable with the irregular -u- in Gr. πύργος and
φύρκος ‘tower’ (see also Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 744-745 = 1995, 1: 648).
These circumstances suggest that we may be dealing with a ‘Wanderwort’ ultimately
of IE origin; the Armenian, Greek, and Near Eastern forms may reflect an IE centum
form (perhaps back loans from indigenous Mediterranean and/or European
languages). The Armenian origin of Urart. burgana cannot be excluded (cf. also
Diakonoff 1985: 602-603).
ezn, GDSg ezin, NPl ezin-k‘, APl ezin-s, GDPl ezan-c‘, IPl ezam-b-k‘ ‘bullock, ox’
(Bible+).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects. Traces of the final -n are seen in Łarabaɫ, etc.
yɛ́
znə, Agulis íznə, Hamšen yiz, gen. ɛzɔnə, T‘iflis yízə, etc. [HAB 2: 6a].
Łarabaɫ *astucoy ezn ‘Lady-bug’. Names of the Lady-bug usually display a
feminine connotation (see 3.5.2.1). In this respect, Łarabaɫ *astucoy ezn seems
peculiar. One might suggest that ezn earlier had feminine (or generic) semantics.
This might be supported by Van, Moks *le/izn ‘female buffalo’ (if my interpretation
is accepted; see 2.1.7) and by the etymology (see below).
It has been assumed that Hamšen ɛzni is a dual form, ‘a pair of bullocks’ (Artašes
Ēk‘suzean, apud Ačaṙyan 1947: 86).
●ETYM Since long (de Lagarde, Müller, etc.; see HAB 2: 5-6), connected with Skt.
ahī́
- f. (vr̥kī-inflection) ‘cow, female of an animal’ (RV), Av. azī- (devī-inflection)
‘milking (of cows and mares)’; the appurtenance of OIr. ag n. ‘cow, cattle’ (<
*aĝh
es-) is uncertain; see Mayrhofer EWAia 1: 156, without the Armenian cognate,
although it is mentioned in KEWA 1: 68.
Hübschmann (1899: 47) points out that the Sanskrit word is uncertain, and Av.
azī- is only an epithet of the cow, meaning something like ‘milchend’. Positive:
Meillet 1898: 278; HAB 2: 5-6.
The IE cognates appear to designate a female bovine. For possible dialectal relics
of the older feminine semantics of ezn, see above.
The vocalism of the Armenian word does not match that of Celtic; cf. Greppin
1980: 133; Hamp 1986a: 641. Olsen (1999: 121) assumes a lengthened grade of the
root *h2ēĝh
-(V)- > *iz-V- (Eichner’s Law) with subsequent dissimilatory umlaut
*izin- > *ezin-, which is not convincing. In view of the development CHC > Celt.
CaC and HHC > aC (see Beekes 1988: 93), one may hypothetically assume the
following original paradagm: nom. *h2h1éĝh
- (> IIr. and Arm.), obl. *h2h1ĝh
- (>
Celt.).
Arm. ezn (cf. gen. ezin) may be seen as a frozen accusative *(H)h1eĝh
-ih2-m
(devī-inflection).
ezr, r-stem: numerous attestations in the Bible: NomSg ezr, GDSg ezer, AllSg y-ezr,
LocSg y-ezer, IPl ezer-b, APl ezer-s [Astuacaturean 1895: 422ab]; note also IPl.
ezer-a-w-k‘ in Gregory of Nyssa and Vardan Arewelc‘i, ezer-o-v-k‘ in Sargis
Šnorhali Vardapet, which point to a- and o-stems, respectively; ‘edge (of cloth,
ravine, city, sea, river, etc.)’.
That ezr refers to various (watery and non-watery) objects can be seen from the
attestations in the Bible (see Astuacaturean, ibid.). In Movsēs Xorenac‘i, it mostly
(but not always) has “watery” semantics: 1.16 (1913=1991: 51L11; transl. Thomson
1978: 99): y-ezr covakin aɫwoy; <...> aṙ ezerb covun “at the edge of the salt lake.
On the shore of the lake <...>”, also y-ezr covun (51L16), zezerb covakin (53L12); in
1.12 (39L16 and 42L3f; transl. 90 and 92): aṙ ezerb getoyn “on the bank of the river”;
in 2.50 (178L12): y-ezr getoy “to the river-shore”; 3.59 (338L15; transl. 332): zezerb mōrin : “along the edge of the marsh”; 3.32 (296L10f): aṙ ezerb p‘osoyn “by the edge
of the ditch”.
In 2.8 of the same author (114L10, 115L7; transl. 141), ezr refers both to the edge
of the world and to the sea-shore. Note also the compound cov-ezer-eayk‘ “those
who dwelt by the see” (2.53: 182L18; transl. 195). Referring to ‘plain’: aṙ <...>
ezerōk‘ daštin : “at <...> edges of the plain” (1.12: 39L2).
In Łazar P‘arpec‘i (5th cent.) 3.81 (1904=1985: 148L35; transl. Thomson 1991:
208): yezer heɫeɫatin “at the edge of the ravine” (for the full passage, see s.v. art
‘cornfield’).
●DIAL Preserved in several dialects. In some of them, with metathesis: Maraɫa,
Salmas yɛrz, Ararat yɛrzə [HAB 2: 6b]. Both watery and non-watery aspects are seen
in the derivatives (see Ačaṙean 1913: 292a; HAB 2: 6-7).
In a folk-prayer from Muš/Bulanəx (S. Movsisyan 1972: 55a, 130aNr10), h’ezr
refers to the edge of the world (ašxark‘/axšark‘).
●ETYM Since de Lagarde (1854: 35L983f), connected with Lith. ežià
‘boundary(-strip)’, etc. [Meillet 1898: 282; Hübschmann 1899: 47; HAB 2: 6b;
Beekes 2003: 181]. The BSl. forms derive from *h1eĝh
- ‘balk, border’: Lith. ežė̃
‘border, frontier’, Latv. eža ‘boundary(-strip)’, Russ. ëz, ORuss. ězъ ‘fish weir’,
Czech jez ‘mill-pond, dam, weir, dike’, SCr. jāz ‘drain (at a dam or weir), mill-pond,
dike’, etc.
Beekes (apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 343b) considers the connection between BSl.
*h1eĝh
-er- (not mentioning Arm. ezr) and Lith. ežià, etc. uncertain. There seems to
be no solid ground for this opinion. Meanings such as ‘mill-pond’, ‘drain, canal’ and
‘brook’ form a semantic link between *jěž-/jež- ‘dam, weir’ and *jezero ‘lake’.
Besides, the Armenian word is an intermediary form, since it is semantically
identical with Lith. ežià, but formally closer to Lith. ẽžeras ‘lake’, OCS jezero n.
‘lake’, etc. [Pokorny 1959: 291-292; Toporov, PrJaz [1], 1975: 131-133;
ÈtimSlovSlavJaz 6, 1979: 33-34, 59-60; Saradževa 1986: 26-27; J̌
ahukyan 1987:
163; Olsen 1999: 146-147; Derksen 2002: 10-11; Blažek 2003: 246-247].
The connection with the Greek mythological river Ἀχέρων seems very uncertain
[Beekes apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 343b]. The basic meaning of Arm. ezr must
have been ‘edge of lake, river, etc.’.
Alternatively, Arm. ezr has been connected with Germ. edara- ‘edge’, etc.
[Normier 1980: 19; Viredaz 2005: 85]. It has been assumed that the regular outcome
of the intervocalic *-dh
- is Arm. -z- (see Normier 1980: 19; Olsen 1999: 782;
Viredaz 2005: 85). Some of the examples (suzanem, eluzanem) are better explained
from the sigmatic aorist (see Kortlandt 2003: 80-81, 115; see also Viredaz 2005:
852); on awaz ‘sand’, see s.v. Besides, as Rémy Viredaz points out to me (p.c.), the
German match of Arm. ezr is semantically inadequate (the German word originally
meant ‘plank’, see Kluge/Seebold 1989, s.v. Etter).
I conclude that there is no serious reason to abandon the traditional etymology.
PArm. pl. *ezer-a- (cf. IPl. ezer-a-w-k‘) possibly points to neuter pl. in *-h2.
elanem, 3sg.aor. el, 3pl.aor. el-in, imper. el, pl. elēk‘ (rich evidence in the Bible, see
Astuacaturean 1895: 423-431) ‘to come/go out; to rise, ascend, mount; to go forward
or before, advance; to emanate, proceed, originate’ (Bible+); caus. *eluzanem,
unattested in the classical language, but note the compound mard-eloyz ‘man-kidnapper’ in 1 Timothy 1.10 (GDPl mardeluz-a-c‘) and Grigor Narekac‘i, y-el/ɫuzak, a-stem: GDPl -a-c‘ ‘robber’ (Movsēs Xorenac‘i, etc.); the meaning ‘to extract,
produce, make come up (of plants)’ (cf. Dionysius Thrax) is seen in eluz-umn
‘shoot, sprout’ (NPl eluzmunk‘ in Book of Chries); ənd-eluzanem ‘to discover, make
come out’ (T‘ovmay Arcruni), ‘to fasten or join together, bind together’ (Bible+);
caus. eluc‘anem ‘to make ascend’ (Plato); el, i-stem: GDPl el-i-c‘ ‘egress, departure;
ascent, advancement, course; issue; end’ (Bible+); elust, gen.-dat. elst-ean ‘egress,
the going out, ascent, growing of plants’ (Philo, Gregory of Nyssa, etc.).
●DIAL The verb is ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 2: 9b].
●ETYM Compared to Gr. ἐλεύσομαι ‘to come, go’, ἔπ-ηλυς ‘immigrated, foreigner’,
etc. (HAB 2: 8-9 with lit.; Pokorny 1959: 306). However, the derivation of Arm.
eluz- from *h1leu-gh
- or *h1leudh
- or sigm. aor. *h1leudh
-s- is uncertain, and, on the
whole, the etymology is doubtful (Ravnæs 1991: 19; Clackson 1994: 20618; Olsen
1999: 89180; cf. also Hübschmann 1897: 441). For an etymological and
morphological discussion and for the problem of the laryngeal (cf. 2.1.17.1), see
Pedersen 1906: 424-425 = 1982: 202-203; Beekes 1969: 289; Jasanoff 1979: 144;
Weitenberg 1980: 211; Normier 1980: 19; Greppin 1981: 134-136; 1986: 287;
Klingenschmitt 1982: 263; Kortlandt 1987: 62; 1987a: 51; 1994: 29; 1996: 41; 1999:
47-48; 2001: 12 = 2003: 76, 80, 105, 115, 129, 132; Ravnæs 1991: 19; Olsen 1999:
763-764; Viredaz 2001-02a: 5, 523; Beekes 2003: 185.
The comparison with Lat. amb-ulō ‘to go about, take a walk’, etc. (see HAB 2:
9a) is untenable; cf. Schrijver 1991: 40, 400.
ek-, suppl. aor. of gam ‘to come’: 1sg. eki, 2sg. ekir, 3sg. ekn, 3pl. ekin, etc., imper.
ek, ekay-k‘ (Bible+); ek, a-stem: GDSg ek-i, GDPl ek-a-c‘ (Bible), IPl ek-a-w-k‘
(Movsēs Xorenac‘i 1.10) ‘stranger, proselyte’ (Bible+); i-stem: GDPl ek-i-c‘ (Łazar
P‘arpec‘i) ‘advent, the coming’ (P‘awstos Buzand, Łazar P‘arpec‘i, Philo, Anania
Širakac‘i, etc.); ek-k‘ ‘event’ (Philo+), ‘income’ (Paterica).
The verb is widely represented in the Bible (Astuacaturean 1895: 309-316). Two
textual illustrations of the noun ek, a-stem ‘stranger, proselyte’ from Movsēs
Xorenac‘i: 1.10 (1913=1991: 33L7f; transl. Thomson 1978: 85): ew aylovk‘
əndocnōk‘ ew ekōk‘ “and [with] other domestic servants and the outsiders”. 1.3
(12L2f; Thomson 1978: 70): óv ok‘ i c‘eɫic‘s orošeloc‘ əntani ew merazneay, ew óyk‘
omank‘ ekk‘ əntanec‘ealk‘ ew meraznac‘ealk‘ : “which of the various tribes are
indigenous and native and which are of foreign origin but naturalized”.
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 2: 12a]. Some dialects have preserved the
archaic paradigm, e.g. Łarabaɫ aor. yɛ́
kɛ, yɛ́
kɛr, yɛ́
kə < eki, ekir, ekn, imper. yɛk < ek,
etc.
●ETYM From PIE *gw
em-: Skt. gam-, pres. gácchati, aor. ágamam, ágan ‘to move,
go, come’, OAv. 3.sg.aor. jə̄n ‘to go, come’, gata-‘gone, come’, pres. jasaiti (ja-s-a
instead of *ga-s-a- < PIE *gw
m̥ -ske/o- with secondary j- from the aorist) ‘to go’, Gr.
βαίνω ‘to go’, Lat. veniō ‘to come’ < PLat. *vemi̯ō, Goth. qiman ‘to come’, etc., see
Hübschmann 1897: 441; HAB 2: 11-12; Pokorny 1959: 464; for the Greek and IndoIranian forms, see Frisk 1: 208-210, 279; Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 465-466;
Cheung 2007: 93-94, 98-101.
Arm. 3.sg. aor. ekn reflects the original root aorist PIE *h1é-gw
em-t, cf. Skt. ágan,
with g- analogically after the present. Other cognate forms are based on *gw
eh2- (on which see below), cf. aor. Ved. á-gāt, Gr. ἔ-βη. The Armenian aorist augment e- had
spread throughout the paradigm and became a part of the root52. For the suppletive
paradigm gam vs. aor. ek-i and an etymological discussion, see Pedersen 1905: 212-
213, 2121 = 1982: 74-75, 741; Meillet 1913: 105; 1936: 57, 125, 134-135;
Łaragyulyan 1961: 162-163; È. Tumanjan 1971: 395-396; Godel 1975: 53, 114;
Schmitt 1981: 155-156; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 188-189; Kortlandt 1981: 31; 1987a: 49-51;
1995; 1996: 40; 1999: 48 = 2003: 36, 79-81, 107-109, 114, 129; Klingenschmitt
1982: 86, 95, 263; Lindeman 1986; Barton 1989: 14638, 14945; Clackson 1994: 56;
Beekes 2003: 181. On of the noun ek, a-stem ‘stranger, proselyte’, see Olsen 1999:
62.
It has been assumed that Arm. ka- ‘to stay, stop, rest, stand, dwell’ belongs here
too and reflects *gw
eh2- (cf. above), with an original meaning ‘to step, put the foot,
arrive, establish oneself’, cf. Skt. gā-: pres. jígāti, aor. ágāt, perf.opt. jagāyāt ‘to put
down the foot (while going), step, stride’, Gr. βιβᾱς́ ‘going on, continuing’, ἔβην ‘to
get ready to go’, βῆμα n. ‘step, rostrum’, βωμός m. ‘raised platform, stand, base (of a
statue), altar’ (for the semantic development, see Beekes 1969: 290), Lith. dial. góti
‘to go’, at-góti ‘to arrive’, etc., see Scheftelowitz 1904-05, 2: 15; Pedersen 1906:
481 = 1982: 259; Pokorny 1959: 463; Godel 1965: 23, 35, 37; 1975: 124; Aɫabekyan
1979: 101; Klingenschmitt 1982: 85, 87-89; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 175-176; 1990: 65 with
hesitation; Olsen 1999: 295; for the forms, see also Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 482.
Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 504-505) does not accept this etymology of ka-m and leaves
the origin of the word open53. Schmitt 1981: 202 takes kam as an etymologically
unclear word. Nevertheless, the etymology is quite attractive. The present kam and
aorist ka-c‘- reflect QIE *gw
eh2-mi (athematic present) and *gw
eh2-ske-,
54
respectively, and the deverbative noun kay, i-stem ‘standing place, station, site’
clearly derives from *gw
h2-ti- (cf. Olsen 1989: 222; 1999: 783); cf. Gr. βάσις ‘step,
base’, Skt. gáti-, Goth. qumþs from *gw
m̥ -ti- (see e.g. Rix 1992: 89, 146).
For a discussion of the PIE verbs *gw
em- and *gw
eh2- and the meaning ‘to step,
put the foot, arrive, establish oneself’, see Lubotsky 2001b.
*e(h/y)am or *i(h/y)am ‘to go’.
●DIAL Akn, Van, T‘iflis ɛhal, Partizak iyal (see also Tēr-Yakobean 1960: 498),
Aslanbek, Byut‘ania, K‘ɫi, Moks ial ‘to go’ [Ačaṙean 1898: 32a, 35a; 1913: 396a;
HAB 2: 54a]. For numerous textual illustrations from Aslanbek, see Ačaṙean 1898:
85ab, 87a. Partizak iyank‘ ‘may we go’, k-iyas ‘you are going’ [Tēr-Yakobean 1960:
265L-13f, 415L-2].
It seems that Moks has *ya-. In folklore-texts from Orbeli 2002 one finds the
following forms: inf. yäl (123Nr142), yä (66L9, 78L-2); pres. yä (93L1); subjunctive
present: 1sg yäm (93L-12, 95L-14, 96L17, 99L5), 2sg yäs (97L-9, 98L-4), 3sg yä (55L17,
58L4, 63L17, 64L-4, 80L7), 1pl yänk‘ (58L-4, 62L18, 66L3, 68L12, 70L13, 86L-14), 3pl yän
(86L14, 95L14); subjunctive past: 1sg yäm (74L9), 3sg yɛr [from *yayr] (66L10,11, 93L-3), 3pl yɛn [*yayin] (62L19); with particles: 1sg tə-yäm (58L11, 60L4, 68L10, 81L-15,
97L10,-11, 120Nr64), 2sg tə-yäs (68L8, 75L1, 96L3), kə-yäs (74L-15), 3sg kə-yä (86L5),
t‘əx-yä (58L4), 3pl tə-yän (86L8); pres.: 3sg kə-yä (86L4), 1pl kə-yänk‘y (57L-11), 3pl
kə-yän (57L12, 67L8); neg. 1sg č‘ə-yäm (77L-7).
With particles (especially with t‘əx ‘let’ and neg. č‘ə) one often finds forms with
a vowel -i-: t‘əx-iyä (56L1), 3sg k-iyä (91L-9, 93L11,-4, 127Nr45,47), 3pl k-iyan (95L16),
1sg č‘əm íyä, 2sg č‘əs íyä (81, lines -6 and -8, cf. 1sg č‘əm ɛ́
rt‘a, in line -13), 3sg
č‘-iyä (127Nr36,47). These forms cannot be used as evidence for the form *ial since
this -i- hardly belongs to the verbal stem. Thus, the verb in Moks is *ya- rather than
*i(y)a-.
In Moks, the synonymous verb ert‘am is often used in the same texts next to *ya-,
sometimes even in the same or neighbouring sentences, e.g. 56L1 (3sg t‘əx-ɛrt‘a ‘let
him go’ vs. t‘əx-iyä ‘id.’ in the same sentence); 57L-10f (1pl k-ɛrt‘ank‘y vs. kə-yänk‘y
in the same sentence); 67Nr40 (3pl k-ɛrt‘an in line 4 vs. kə-yän in line 8); 81L-6,-13 (1sg
č‘əm íyä vs. č‘əm ɛ́
rt‘a), etc.
Neither ert‘-, nor *ya- are used to make aorist in Moks; gam ‘to come’ (in the
dialect: ‘to go’; see s.v.) is used instead; e.g., in a tale (op. cit. 70, lines 2, 13, 15),
one finds 3pl.pres. k-ɛrt‘an and 1pl.subj. yänk‘y vs. 3pl.aor. k
y
äc‘in.
Ačaṙyan (1898: 35a) points out that Aslanbek ial is pronounced as ihal or iyal
which resulted from the combination of two vowels. He suggests, thus, a
hiatus-glide, on which see 2.1.32.
T‘iflis ɛhal ‘to go’ is attested in the work of the 18th-century famous poet
Sayat‘-Nova, who spoke and wrote in the dialect of T‘iflis (see K‘oč‘oyan 1963:
71). The form suggests *eham, cf. erkat‘ ‘iron’ > T‘iflis ɛ́
rkat‘, eraz ‘dream’ > ɛ́
raz
(see Ačaṙean 1911: 53).
I conclude that the verb appears in the following basic forms: *e(h/y)am,
*i(h/y)am, *yam. The -h/y- is a hiatus-glide.
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 54a) places the word s.v. ert‘am ‘to go’. Earlier, he did the
same in his study on the dialect of Aslanbek (1898: 32a, 35a; see also Vaux 2001:
51, 617,11, 6393). Tomson (1890: 33, § 61.1) cites T‘iflis k-ɛham ‘I shall go’ as
belonging to ert‘am.
On the other hand, Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 54a; see also 1913: 396a) mentions
the etymology suggested by Tērvišean 1887: 911, linking *ial with Skt. éti ‘to go’,
etc., but does not specify his opinion. Elsewhere (HAB 4: 12b), he, albeit with a
question mark, mentions ert‘al > ɛhal as a parallel for partēz ‘garden’ > pahēz. The
development -rt‘- > -h or zero is uncertain, however (pahēz may be a back-loan, see
1.10).
The etymology of Tervišyan deserves more attention. This dialectal word may be
derived from PIE *h1ei- ‘to go’: Skt. éti ‘to go’, Gk. εἶμι ‘to go’, Lith. eĩti ‘to go’,
etc. See s.v. ēǰ, iǰanem ‘to go down’. Note also PIE *h1i̯-eh2- (derived from *h1ei-):
Skt. yā- ‘to drive (fast), speed’, 3sg.act. yā́ti (RV+), 3sg.med. ī́
yate, Lith. jóti ‘to
drive, to go’, ToA yā- ‘to go, to travel’, etc. Armenian, as Sanskrit and Baltic, shows
reflexes of both *h1ei- (T‘iflis ɛhal, etc.) and *(h1)i̯-eh2- ( Moks *yal). The former is
probably represented in two variants: *e-am from *h1ei-eh2- > *e(i)ami (with loss of
intervovalic *-i-, see, e.g., s.v. erek‘ ‘three’); *i-am from *ē-am < *h1ei-, with a
regular change of unstressed ē (< *ei) to i. I conclude that Tervišyan’s etymology is worth of consideration, and Armenian
may have preserved both *h1ei- and *(h1)i̯-eh2- (cf. Skt. éti vs. yā́ti), although,
admittedly, one needs further philological evidence for the establishing and precise
reconstruction of the Armenian by-forms.
eɫbayr, GSg eɫbawr, NPl eɫbar-k‘, GDPl eɫbar-c‘, etc. ‘brother’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects. Practically all the dialect forms (not just many, as
is put in Viredaz 2003: 76) go back to *aɫbayr, with initial a-. To the forms recorded
in HAB 2: 16b (and Greppin 1981: 138) we can now add Dersim axp/bar, a(ɫ)bar,
Mirak‘ aɫbär [Baɫramyan 1960: 78a], Malat‘ia axp‘ar [Danielyan 1967: 190a],
Svedia axb‘ar [Ačaṙyan 2003: 565]. Beekes (2003: 143) notes that “Class. eɫbayr
stands against axpar of all modern dialects”. In reality, not all the dialects have
axpar, but all the dialectal forms can be derived from *aɫbayr (see also Greppin
1981: 138; Clackson 2004-05: 157).
The form *aɫbayr (aɫbayr, aɫbar, aɫbēr) is attested since the 12th century in
MidArm. sources [HAB 2: 16b], as well as since 11th century in colophons and
inscriptions [S. A. Avagyan 1973: 103-104; H. Muradyan 1982: 127].
The only dialect representing the form eɫbayr, with the initial e-, is Zeyt‘un:
ɛxb‘äy (cf. also Maraš ɛxpɛr [Galustean 1934: 377]), vs. Hačən axb‘ay, GSg axb‘ɛy
[HAB 2: 16b; Ačaṙyan 2003: 39, 80, 307]. This ɛ- of the Zeyt‘un/Maraš form seems
to be secondary (see 2.1.17.4 for the prothetic vowel).
●ETYM Since Petermann, derived with the PIE word for ‘brother’ with regular
metathesis, dissimilation r...r > l...r (2.1.24.2) and subsequent addition of prothetic
e- before ɫ : Skt. bhrā́tar-, Lat. frāter ‘brother’, Gr. φράτηρ ‘member of a
brotherhood’, etc., [Hübschmann 1897: 441-442; HAB 2: 16a]. Nom. *bh
reh2tēr >
eɫbayr, gen. *bh
reh2tr-ós > eɫbawr.
eɫeamn, an-stem (GSg eɫeman, ISg eɫemamb) ‘hoarfrost’ (Bible+). In “Yačaxapatum”
and Vardan Arewelc‘i (13th cent.), dial. eɫemn. A meteorological description of
eɫeamn (vars. eɫemn, eɫeam) is found in Anania Širakac‘i, 7th cent. (A. G.
Abrahamyan 1940: 32L15).
●DIAL Hamšen ɛɫim ‘icicle’, Łazax eɫm-a-kal-el ‘to be covered by hoarfroast’ [HAB
2: 17a; Ačaṙean 1947: 227]; Xotorǰur eɫim ‘hoar-frost’ [YušamXotorǰ 1964: 459].
Also Dersim yɛɫyam [Baɫramyan 1960: 78b].
●ETYM No acceptable etymology is recorded in HAB 2: 16-17. Aɫayan (1980: 142)
analyzes as *eɫi-amn, for the formation comparing ayceamn ‘gazelle, roe’ < *ayci- +
-amn (see s.v. ayc(i) ‘goat’ and 2.3.1). Olsen (1999: 376, 943) mentions it as a word
of unknown origin, containing the suffix -eamn.
I propose to compare Arm. *eɫi- with BSl. *h1iH-ni- ‘hoar-frost, rime’ (cf. Beekes
apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 287a): Russ. ínej, Czech jíní, SCr. īnje, Bulg. ínej, Lith.
ýnis (dial.), etc. The full grade of the word, namely *h1eiH-ni-, may have yielded
PArm. *eiəni- > *e(i)eni- > *eni-, with assimilation (see 2.1.23) and subsequent loss
of *-ə-. Alternatively, one may assume a zero-grade root: *h1iH-ni- > PArm.
*ini-ámVn > *(i)ɫiamn (with dissimilation n ... n > ɫ ... n, and loss of word-initial
pretonic i-, see 2.1.33.2) > e-ɫeamn, with a regular prothetic e- before ɫ. For the
suffix cf. saṙamanik‘ ‘ice’. Thus: *eni-am(a)n > eɫeamn with nasal dissimilation.
eɫn, NPl eɫin-k‘, GDPl eɫan-c‘ ‘deer-cow, hind’ (Bible+); eɫn-ort‘, u-stem: GDPl
eɫnort‘-u-c‘ (Mxit‘ar Gōš, 12-13th cent.) ‘young of the deer, fawn’ (Evagrius of
Pontus, Grigor Narekac‘i, etc.).
The word renders Gr. ἔλαφος m. f. ‘deer; deer-cow, doe’ in the Bible (for a textual
illustration, see Job 39.1, Cox 2006: 249) and Hexaemeron (K. Muradyan 1984:
295L10, glossed in 373a).
●DIAL Goris yɛ́
ɫnə ‘deer-cow, hind’, buɫa-yɛɫnə ‘stag’ (with buɫa ‘ox’ from Turkish,
cf. Ačaṙean 1902: 297) [HAB 2: 22a; Lisic‘yan 1969: 141]; with the diminutive
suffix -ik, Axalc‘xa, Karin ɛɫnik, Ṙodost‘o, Akn ɛɫnig, Sebastia yɛɫnig ‘deer-cow,
hind’ [HAB 2: 22a], Goris yɛɫn-ik ‘deer, hind’ [Lisic‘yan 1969: 141], Van yeɫnik and
Ozim yɛɫnɛyk adj. ‘young’ [Ačaṙyan 1952: 257].
The place-name Yɛɫin axpür < *Eɫin aɫbiwr, lit. ‘spring of hind’ (Łarabaɫ, close to
the village of Kusapat, see Lisic‘yan 1981: 56b, 59) may be regarded as a relic of the
classical genitive eɫin.
Interesting is also Č‘arsančag *eɫnar [HAB 2: 22a] = yɛɫnar ‘deer-cow, hind’
[Baɫramyan 1960: 78b]. In a colophon from the same region, Akn (1676 AD), we
find a female anthroponym Eɫinar (Čanikean 1895: 91; cf. also Eɫnar in a folk-song,
Ṙ. Grigoryan 1970: 81Nr70), which must be identified with the local dialectal yɛɫnar
‘deer-cow, hind’ [AčaṙAnjn 2, 1944: 118; J̌
ahukyan 1984: 39]. The initial h- of the
by-form Heɫnar [AčaṙAnjn 3, 1946: 81] seems to be due to influence of Heɫinē.
Note also Heɫnar, a widespread cow-name in Hamšen (see T‘oṙlak‘yan 1981: 144a).
The second part of yɛɫnar ‘deer-cow, hind’ is unexplained. I wonder if the word is
composed of eɫn and *nar, the latter probably from Persian, cf. gavazn-e-nar with
gavazn ‘fallow deer, doe, elk, stag’ (on which see Eilers DeutPersWört 1, 1967:
462).
●ETYM From PIE *h1el-(h1)en-: Gr. ἐλλός ‘deer-calf’ < *h1el-no-, ἔλαφος m. f. ‘deer;
deer-cow, doe’ < *h1el-n̥-bh
o-; cf. also *h1e/ol-Hn-ih2- ‘deer, hind’: OCS jelenь
‘deer’, alъnii ‘doe’, SCr. làne ‘doe’, Russ. lan’ ‘fallow deer, doe’, olén’ ‘deer, stagbeetle’, dial. elén’ ‘deer, stag-beetle’ (for the comparison with Russian, see already
NHB 1: 656a), Lith. élnis ‘deer’ (see de Lagarde 1854: 28L749), MIr. ailit f. ‘doe,
hind’ < *h1el-(H)n-t-iH- or *h1el-en-t-iH-, Gr. Hesychius ἔνελος· νεβρός ‘young of
the deer, fawn’ probably from *el-en-os through metathesis (for the forms and a
discussion, see ÈtimSlovSlavJaz 6, 1979: 19-21; Adams 1985: 273-276; Schrijver
1995: 78-79; Derksen 2002: 6); see Hübschmann 1897: 442; HAB 2: 21-22;
Pokorny 1959: 303; Ravnæs 1991: 90; Mallory/Adams 1997: 154b; Olsen 1999:
142-143.
The Armenian expected form *elin- < *h1el-(h1)en- became eɫin, with a dark -ɫ-,
analogically after the nominative eɫn (see Meillet 1936: 47, 80), perhaps also a
theoretical by-form *eɫ- from *h1el-no- (cf. Gr. ἐλλός) through the development *-ln-
> Arm. -ɫ-. Further see s.v. analut‘ ‘a kind of deer, hind’.
The PIE term probably referred to ‘red deer, Rothirsch, Cervus elaphus’ [Mallory
1982: 211-212, 216-217; Mallory/Adams 1997: 154-155].
eɫtiwr-k‘, eɫtewr-k‘ (mostly in pl., acc.-loc. (y-)eɫtiwr-s), a-stem: GDPl eɫtiwr-a-c‘
(John Chrysostom), AblPl y-eɫter-a-c‘ (Sargis Šnorhali, 12th cent.) ‘marsh-meadow,
swamp, moist or irrigated place’, attested also in Isaiah 35.7 (with reading variants
aɫtiwr, aɫter-), Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom [NHB 2: 657c; HAB 2: 24b]. Singular eɫtiwr is glossed in the medieval dictionary Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ as ‘moist
place, watered soil, small spring’ [Amalyan 1975: 88Nr126].
The oldest attestation is found in Isaiah 35.7: Eɫic‘i anǰurn yeɫtewrs (vars.
yaɫtiwrs, yaɫters) : καὶ ἡ ἄνυδρος ἔσται εἰς ἕλη.
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 24-25) rejects all the etymological suggestions and leaves
the origin of the word open. For a discussion and references, see s.v. aɫt ‘dirt, filth’.
The ending -ewr probably points to an old neuter, cf. alewr ‘flour’ vs. Gr. ἄλευρον
n., mostly in pl. ἄλευρα ‘flour’ (q.v.); aɫbewr ‘fountain, spring’ vs. Gr. φρέαρ, -ατος
n. ‘an artificial well; spring; tank, cistern’ (q.v.). I tentatively assume an underlying
*e/aɫ-o- derived from PIE neuter s-stem *sél-e/os-: Gr. ἕλος n. ‘marsh-meadow,
swamp’, Skt. sáras- n. ‘lake, pool’, cf. sarasī́
- f. ‘Teich, Pfuhl, Sumpf’, etc. (see
Euler 1979: 213; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 708; Beekes apud Mallory/Adams
1997: 370b). A theoretical *e/alewr ‘marsh-meadow’ may have been replaced by
e/aɫtewr based on a form with a dental determanitive, *aɫ-t- formed as (or
etymologically identical with) aɫt ‘dirt, filth’ (q.v.).
Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 25a) claims that the doublets e- and a- point to a prothetic
vowel. If the reading variant aɫtiwr proves reliable, and if my interpretion above is
accepted, one may explain the alternation e : a in PArm. *el-t- : *al-t- through the
underlying case forms of the PIE PD neuter paradigm: nom. *sél-os, gen. *sl-és-(o)s
> *sel- vs. *sl- >> Parm. *el-t-, *al-t-.
The a-stem in plural of e/aɫtewr ‘marsh-meadow’ and aɫbewr ‘spring’ (GDPl -ac‘) may go back to the neuter plural *-h2, cf. Gr. ἄλευρα ‘flour’, etc.
eɫungn, an-stem: ISg eɫngam-b (Paterica, spelled as əɫəngamb), NPl eɫngun-k‘, APl
eɫngun-s (Bible), IPl eɫngam-b-k‘ in Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.8 (1913=1991: 115L5f)
‘nail’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 2: 23b].
Some dialects display forms with vocalic aberration, which seems to be due to
metathesis e...u > u...e, cf. Łarabaɫ ɫɛ́
ngnə, ɫɛ́
ynə [Davt‘yan 1966: 344], Goris ɫɛngəl
(on which see s.v. bankn ‘myth, fairy-tale’), Dersim əɫing vs. əɫung, ɫung
[Baɫramyan 1960: 78b], etc. This vocalism is attested already in Middle Armenian,
cf. e.g. IPl reading variants əɫəngam-b-k‘, ɫengambk‘, ɫeng/kamk‘, etc. in Nersēs
Šnorhali, 12th cent., Cilicia (see K‘yoškeryan 1987: 250L27). For a further
discussion, see s.v. cung-k‘ ‘knee’.
The by-form *a-ɫung (see AčaṙHLPatm 2, 1951: 415; Aɫayan 1965: 8; Peters
1986: 37853) is not supported by unambiguous evidence. Further, note Hačən äɫung,
Zeyt‘un ɔɫung [Ačaṙyan 2003: 39, 307], Malat‘ia uɫung [Danielyan 1967: 190a], etc.
[HAB 2: 23b].
●ETYM Derived from PIE *h3nogwh- or *h3nogh
-u- ‘nail’: Gr. ὄνυξ, -υχος m. ‘talon,
claw (of the eagle, falcon, beasts of prey); nail; veined gem, onyx, dardonyx’, Lat.
unguis m. ‘nail (of a human finger or toe); claw, talon, hoof’, ungula f. ‘hoof’, OHG
nagal ‘nail’, Toch. A maku, B. mekwa ‘nails’ < PToch. *mekwā < *nekwā through
assimilation (see Krause/Thomas 1, 1960: 66; Szemerényi 1960: 4611; Adams 2999:
467; cf. Blažek 2001a; compare Arm. magil ‘claw’, on which see below), etc.; see
HAB 2: 23a with lit.; Pokorny 1959: 780; Ernout/Meillet 1959: 747; Lehmann 1986:
145-146. The appurtenance of eɫungn to this PIE etymon is accepted practically by
everyone, though details are unclear. One often assumes *nogh
-lo- > *longh
othrough metathesis > *e-ɫung-, with prothetic e- automatically before the initial ɫ-
(HAB 2: 23a; Aɫayan 1961: 79, 80; 2003: 96, 100; J̌
ahukyan 1967: 23648; 1982:
114-115). Bugge 1889: 34-35 assumes *ungɫ- > *(e)ɫung.
Szemerényi 1964: 240 offers the following scenario: *nogh
- > *e-nogh
- (with no
explanation for the prothetic vowel *e-) > *e-nogh
n (with *-n so frequent in names
of parts of the body) > *enongn (anticipation) > *enungn > eɫungn (dissimilation).
Beekes (1987b: 7) writes: "perhaps from *enong- < *onong-, which could be a
contamination of *onog- and *ong- from *h3nogwh-, *h3ngwh-". For a further
discussion on phonological problems concerning the Armenian and cognate forms,
see Solta 1960: 147-148; Rix 1970: 96, 10879; Beekes 1971 (on μώνυχες ἵπποι);
1972: 129 (against the dissimilation in *-nungn- > *-lungn, noting that there was no
such dissimilation in anun ‘name’); Schrijver 1991: 62-63; Blažek 2001a: 193.
The apparent disagreement between Arm. e- and Gr. o- puzzles scholars (see e.g.
Hovdhaugen 1968: 121; Beekes 1969: 47; 1971: 141; Olsen 1984: 110; 1985: 13;
1999: 138; Ravnæs 1991: 18), and they often (e.g. Rix 1970: 10879; Olsen ibid.;
Clackson 1994: 34) return to the idea on *eɫ- < eɫǰewr ‘horn’ first proposed by
Osthoff. Greppin (1988-89: 478) points out that the etymology is obscure.
I find Osthoff’s solution unattractive. The vocalic discrepancy may become
irrelevant if we treat Arm. e- as a secondary prothesis before a PArm. initial *l- (cf.
above). We can start from PArm. *unug-n with a final nasal frequent in body-part
terms (probably from acc. *-m̥ ). This form developed into *unungn through nasal
anticipation (cf. e.g. krunkn vs. krukn ‘heel’) > *(u)núngn (loss of pretonic *u-) >
*lungn (dissimilation, see above) > e-ɫungn. Compare the scenario proposed by
Meillet (1936: 47-54-55; cf. above on Szemerényi’s view; also Frisk 2: 398-399).
Arm. magil, a-stem ‘claw’, too, has been derived from this etymon, see
Hübschmann 1877: 35-36; Bugge 1889: 34-35; 1903 (cf. Bugge 1893: 85 and HAB
3: 219b on Caucasian origin of the Armenian word). For a discussion and more
references, see Hübschmann 1883: 41; 1897: 471; HAB 3: 219-220. For -il and a
general discussion, see Olsen 1999: 452-453. Olsen (1984: 110; 1985: 13) explains
the initial m- (instead of n-) by strong influence of matn ‘finger’. Alternatively, we
can assume assimilation (see above on Tocharian). For a further discussion on this
and the problem of the laryngeal, see 2.1.17.3.
em, pres. sg. em es ē, pl. emk‘ ēk‘ en ‘to be’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 2: 26a].
●ETYM From the PIE athematic present *h1es-mi, *h1es-si, *h1es-ti, 3pl.pres. *h1sénti, etc., cf. Sg. ásmi ási ásti, 3pl. sánti, OAv. ahmī, həṇtī, Gr. εἰμί, εἶ (Dor. ἐσσί),
ἐστί, Hitt. ešmi ešši ešzi, Lat. sum est sunt, OCS jesmь, OLith. esmì, etc.; for the
Armenian paradigm and an etymological discussion, see Hübschmann 1897: 442;
HAB 2: 25-26; Meillet 1936: 163 (index); Godel 1965: 23; 1975: 40-41, 72, 112,
116-117, 124; Schmitt 1981: 65, 139; Olsen 1999: 10, 44.
eṙand, AblSg y-eṙand-ē (which precludes an o-stem), GLocSg (y/z)eṙand-i, etc.
(Bible+) ‘the day before yesterday’. Astuacaturean 1895: 445b cites 20 attestations in the Bible, all of them but one
reflecting y- or z-forms. This holds true also for the rest of the evidence, except for
an attestation in John Chrysostom [NHB 1: 662ab]. Note also y-eṙand adv. ‘the day
before yesterday’ in Paterica, and y-eṙandean adj. ‘of the day before yesterday’ in
Paterica, Grigor Magistros and Čaṙəntir [NHB 1: 662b; 2: 355b], y-eṙand-ust ‘since
the day before yesterday’ in Ephrem [HAB 2: 31b]. This may lead to two
assumptions:
1) we cannot be sure whether the original anlaut of the word was *e- or *he- since
the initial h- would drop in y- and z-forms: *y-he- > y-e-, *z-he- > z-e-;
2) the dialectal form hɛṙand in Moks, with an initial voiced h- (note that ClArm.
h- would normally yield Moks x-), may reflect an older *y-eṙand, although this
cannot be proven in view of the absence of evidence in other dialects such as those
of the Muš group (see 2.3.1 on y-).
●DIAL Van yɛṙand, Moks hɛṙand [Ačaṙyan 1952: 257], cf. also hɛrɛk č‘ɛ hɛṙand
‘позавчера’ [Orbeli 2002: 277]; Maraɫa yaṙand (with a sound change eṙ- > yaṙ seen
also in eṙam > Maraɫa yaṙṙal ‘to boil’), gen. yaṙatva ‘the day before yesterday’
[Ačaṙean 1926: 39, 90-91, 392], Salmast yɛṙand [HAB 2: 32a].
●ETYM Since NHB 1: 662a, derived from eṙ- < err- (Movsēs Xorenac‘i, Philo, etc.,
see s.v. erek‘ ‘three’), cf. Gr. τρίτη ἡμέρα, Lat. nudius tertius ‘it is the third day since,
three days ago, i.e. the day before yesterday’. Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 32a) hesitates to
accept this because the form eṙ- does not occur in the so-called Golden Age; he
leaves the origin of the word open. Greppin (1975: 40) points out that, at the
nominal level, the Armenian suffix -and can be related to MPers. -and. But this can
hardly be the case, he proceeds, with the adverbial -and found in eṙ-and ‘two days
ago’. Olsen (1999: 304) accepts the connection with the numeral ‘three’ but
considers its construction problematic.
The connection with ‘three’ is possible but not entirely satisfactory. I therefore
tentatively propose an alternative etymology. Arm. eṙand ‘the day before yesterday’
may be in a way related with PIE *per- ‘through, forward’, which displays various
derivatives, such as Gr. πρό ‘forth, forward, for, before’, πόρσω, Att. πόρρω
‘forward, beyond, away’, Lat. porrō ‘onward, further (off), besides’, Arm. aṙ ‘at, by,
before’, heṙ-i adv. ‘far (of time and space)’, heru ‘last year’, heruin- ‘two years ago’
(see s.vv.). The trilled -ṙ- as in aṙ and heṙ- points to IE *-rs-. For the suffix we can
compare time-terms such as Gr. χειμών vs. Skt. héman- and hemantá- ‘winter’, Hitt.
išpant- ‘night’, etc. See also s.vv. ašun ‘autumn’, garun ‘springtime’, erek(o)y, erikun ‘evening’.
If we assume a QIE *pers-on(t), PArm. *heṙ-and-i (cf. loc. (y/z-)eṙ-and-i) may
reflect QIE *pers-n̥t-i-. On the initial *h-, see above.
es, acc. z-is, gen. im, dat. inj, abl. y-inēn, instr. inew 1sg.pers.pron. ‘I’ (Bible+).
For references to the paradigm and a discussion, see 2.2.5.
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 2: 33a].
●ETYM Derived from PIE 1sg.pers.pron. *h1eĝh
-H-om : *h1eĝ-oH, cf. Skt. ahám,
OAv. azə̄m, YAv. azəm, Gr. ἐγώ, Lat. egō, Goth. ik, OCS azъ, etc. (see Hübschmann
1877: 24; 1897: 442; HAB 2: 32b with references; Pokorny 1959: 291; Mallory/
Adams 1997: 454; for the forms, see also Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 155). Scholars usually assume that PArm. *ec or *ez has become es in the position
before words with initial stops (Meillet 1892: 164; 1936: 57, 92; AčaṙLiak 2, 1954:
44; J̌
ahukyan 1967: 18469; Godel 1975: 110; Schmitt 1981: 75, 116). Others posit a
by-form *ek̂
-, cf. OPr. e/as, Lith. eš (J̌
ahukyan 1967: 18469 with refer.; Toporov
PrJaz [a-d] 1975: 113-116; Saradževa 1986: 286-287). Further, an influence of the
1sg. s-deixis has been assumed, cf. 2sg. d-deixis vs. du ‘you’ instead of *t‘u (Godel
1975: 110; H. Petrosyan 1976: 57; 1987: 408). At last, Arm. es has been considered
to be in a way related with Urart. ieše ‘I’ (see HAB 2: 32-33 for references;
Łap‘anc‘yan 1961: 324; J̌
ahukyan 1963: 8, 69; 1967: 18469; cf. AčaṙHLPatm 1,
1940: 172; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 429).
Gen. im and possessive im, -oy reflect *h1me- and *h1mos, respectively, cf. Gr.
ἐμέ, gen. ἐμέο, poss. ἐμός, etc., with *h1- > *e- in Armenian and Greek, note also
Alb. im and Hitt. obl. amm-, see (Kortlandt 1986: 39, 45; 1987: 62; 2001: 12 = 2003:
69, 74, 76, 132; Beekes 1987b: 7-12; 1995: 207; 2003: 168; Schrijver 1991: 17;
Kloekhorst 2006: 77-78; for a critical discussion, see Lindeman 1990: 28-30; 1997:
131; Clackson 1994: 34).
Dat. inj derives from *h1m(e)-ĝ(h)i, cf. Hitt. ammuk, Venetic mego, Lat. mihī,
Goth. mi-k, OHG mi-h, etc., further cf. Gr. ἐμε-γέ; the same particle is also found in
*tu̯e-ĝh
i > k‘ez ‘dir’, cf. Hitt. tuk, Goth. þuk, OHG dih (see Pedersen 1905: 226 =
1982: 88; Meillet 1936: 28; AčaṙLiak 2, 1954: 45, 56; Pokorny 1959: 702;
Ernout/Meillet 1959: 391b; Schindler 1966b: 7322; Schmitt 1981: 115-117; Hamp
1981: 13-14; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 141-142, 147; Viredaz 2005: 95; Kloekhorst 2008,
chapter 2.1). It has been assumed that these forms are all modified on the analogy of
nom. *eĝō (Szemerényi 1996: 213-214).
Acc.-loc. is derives from *in-s < *im-s, in -s with nom. es due to influence of the
deictic particle -s (Godel 1975: 110, see above) or through a development *ins <
*inc < *h1m(e)-ĝi. The *in- here was extended to abl. y-in-ēn and instr. in-ew. For a
discussion of these issues, see Meillet 1936: 92; AčaṙLiak 2, 1954: 45, 56; Pokorny
1959: 418, 702; J̌
ahukyan 1967: 18470; 1982: 147; Godel 1975: 110; Schmitt 1981:
115-116; Klingenschmitt 1982: 212; Ravnæs 1991: 19; Beekes 2003: 168; Viredaz
2005: 95. On the other hand, abl. y-inēn is considered to represent earlier *imēn, cf.
Goth. gen. meina of ik ‘I’ (see Pedersen 1905: 226 = 1982: 88; AčaṙLiak 2, 1954: 56;
Kortlandt 1984a: 104 = 2003: 50).
etɫ, gen. eteɫ ‘site, place’ (Bible+); zeteɫem, caus. zeteɫec‘uc‘anem ‘to put in a
particular place, establish a dwelling for someone, collocate’ (Bible+), z-eteɫ-im ‘to
rest, repose, be established in a rest-place’ (Bible+), zeteɫ ‘established, constant’
(John Chrysostom, Book of Chries); later with assimilation zt- > st-: steɫem ‘to take
a rest’ (Paterica), steɫanam ‘id.’ (Gregory of Nyssa).
●ETYM See s.v. teɫ(-i) ‘site, place’.
era- ‘first, early, before’, in era-xayri-k‘ (var. ere-) ‘first fruit or harvest, early ripened
fruit’ (Bible+).
●ETYM Linked with aṙ- ‘at, by, to, nearby, before, etc.’ (q.v.) by Ačaṙyan (Adjarian
1918: 163; HAB 2: 35-36). J̌
ahukyan (1987: 143, 186) departs from *prō- ‘early’
(cf. Gr. πρωί̄, Att. πρῴ, compos. πρωΐ- ‘early, in the morning’, Skt. prātár ‘early, inthe morning, the next day’, etc.) and posits *prə- (= *prH-) for Armenian. Note also
Lat. prae ‘before, in front of’, from the locative *preh2-i (see Beekes 1973b).
The second component of era-xayri-k‘, viz. xayri ‘fruit, harvest’, is hardly of IE
origin. An Arabic etymology has been proposed (N. Mkrtč‘yan 1984: 74-75;
J
̌ahukyan 1987: 486 hesitantly).
erastan-k‘, a-stem: GDPl erastan-a-c‘ ‘buttocks’. Several attestations in the Bible,
rendering Gr. ἕδραι : ἕδρα ‘seat; rump’. Singular usage: in Philo.
●ETYM Compared with Gr. πρωκτός m. ‘anus’, Skt. pr̥ṣṭhá- n. ‘back,
mountain-ridge, top’ (RV+), pr̥ṣṭí- f. ‘rib’ (RV+), cf. YAv. paršta- m. ‘back, spine,
support in the back’, paršti ‘back’, etc. [Bugge 1889: 12-13; Osthoff 1898: 60;
Hübschmann 1897: 443; HAB 2: 41-42; AčaṙHLPatm 1, 1940: 86b; Meillet 1936:
142; Hanneyan 1979: 182; Arutjunjan 1983: 280; Olsen 1999: 320]. For other
references, see below.
The vocalism of the IIr. forms is incompatible with that of Gr. πρωκτός. Most of
the scholars, therefore, focus on the Armeno-Greek correspondence. J̌
ahukyan
(1967: 16510) accepts the connection between the Armenian and Aryan but changes
his view to the opposite in 1987: 145. A contaminaton is possible.
Different proto-forms have been suggested: *prok̄ ̂
to- : *prək̂
to- [Pokorny 1959:
846; Frisk 2: 608; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 145]; nom. *proHk̂
t- vs. obl. *prək̂
t-, type
*pónt-eH-; Arm. -n from acc. *-m (see Hamp 1983b; 1991); *prok̄ ̂
t-s : *prk̥ ̂
t-ós
[Beekes 1969: 247]; *perh3k̂
t- [Beekes 1988: 77]; *preh2k̂
t- : *proh2k̂
t- [Beekes
2003: 152, 166, 171, 173, 191, 195]. Hamp (1991) argues against *perh3k̂
t- in view
of the absence of Arm. initial h-, and alternatively assumes *pr(e)Ok̂
t- (=
*pr(e)h3k̂
t-). Noting that *prh3k̂
t- would yield rather Arm. *(h)arast- (cf. haraw
‘south’, etc.), Olsen (1999: 320) assumes the influence of eran-k‘ ‘thigh, loins’.
Clackson (1994: 167) argues against Hamp’s analysis of the final -n pointing out
that one would expect *erastun-k‘, and prefers to compare -an-k‘ with eran-k‘
‘thigh, loins’, and srb-an ‘anus’. The latter is attested in Zgōn (Afrahat) and is found
in a number of dialects, as a frozen plural: *srban-k‘ ‘placenta; prenatal liquid of a
cow’ (see s.v. surb ‘pure; holy’). For further analysis and references I refer to
Clackson 1994: 166-167.
There can be no serious objection to the following paradigm: nom. *pre/oHk̂
t- :
*prHk̂
t- > PArm. *erust- : *(h)arast- (or *erast- : *(h)arast-, if it was *-e/oh3-).
From here, one easily arrives at erast-an-k‘ by levelling, and influence of eran-k‘.
The form *(h)arast- may be seen, in my view, in arastoy (also erastoy) ‘solid, hard
stone’, q.v.
erbuc, o-stem ‘breast of animals’.
Frequent in the Bible, referring to the breast of sacrificial animals and rendering
Gr. στηϑύνιον (dimin.) ‘breast’. For apposition with βραχίων = eri ‘shoulder of
animals’, see there.
●ETYM No etymology is accepted in HAB 2: 42b.
Lidén (1937: 92) derives from IE *bh
ruĝo- or *bh
rugo- with Gr. φάρυγξ, gen.
-υγος, -υγγος ‘throat; dewlap of a bull’, and Lat. frūmen ‘throat’ < *frū̆g-smen. He is
sceptical about Goth. brusts ‘breast’, Russ. brjúxo ‘belly’, etc. The etymology is accepted in J̌
ahukyan 1987: 116, 262; Olsen 1999: 49. The metathesis *bh
r- > Arm.
erb- is regular, see 2.1.26.1.
Olsen (ibid.) derives erbuc from nom. *bh
rug/ĝ-s assuming that *ĝ and *ĝs would
merge in Arm. c. If the -c‘ in erēc‘ ‘elder’ (q.v.) reflects *sgw
- (cf. Gr. πρέσβυς), the
-c of erbuc must rather be explained from the non-nominative forms. In view of the
absence of other examples, however, this is uncertain.
The Greek form is considered to be of non-IE origin (see Beekes 1969: 197, with
ref.). We may be dealing with a Mediterranean (or, if the Germanic and Slavic
words are related, European, see 3.11) substratum word.
Hardly any relation with eri ‘shoulder of animals’ (q.v.).
erg, o-strem: GDSg erg-o-y, GDPl erg-o-c‘, IPl erg-o-v-k‘ ‘song; poem’ (Bible+),
‘playing (music)’ (Bible), ‘scoff, derision, scoffing song’ (Habakkuk 2.6, John
Chrysostom, etc.); ergem ‘to sing; to play a musical instrument’ (Bible+), ‘to praise’
(Philo).
The late medieval dictionary Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ glosses erg and ergem as par
‘dance’ and parel ‘to dance’, respectively (Amalyan 1975: 92Nr233f). For the semantic
syncretism, cf. xaɫ ‘mockery, scoff, play’, ‘song’, ‘dance’.
●DIAL Ačaṙyan HAB 2: 43a considers the dialectal forms as literary loans.
●ETYM Since long (de Lagarde 1854: 15L332, see further HAB 2: 42-43;
Hübschmann 1897: 443), connected with Skt. arká- m. ‘ray, light, shine; song,
magic song’, cf. also ŕ̥c- f. ‘song of praise, poem, stanza, verse’, árcati ‘to shine; to
sing, to praise’. To this PIE etymon belong also OIr. erc ‘sky’55, Toch. A yärk, B
yarke ‘worship, reverence’, Hitt. ārku-zi
, arku- ‘to chant, intone’ (see DuchesneGuillemin 1940: 172; Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 114-115, 249-250; Adams 1999:
484; Kloekhorst 2008: 205.
Arm. erg, o-stem and Skt. arká- derive from thematic *h1erkw
-o-. The Armenian
word is regarded as an inheritance from the IE poetic language (see Schmitt 1967:
259-260; Saradževa 1986: 195-196; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 108). The assumption that Arm.
erg is a loan (see Xačaturova 1973: 194-195; 1979: 359; Bailey 1979: 25a) is
improbable and unnecessary (see also L. Hovhannisyan 1990: 214, 215).
erek ‘evening’ (Job 7.4, rendering Gr. ἑσπέρα in contrast with tiw vs. ἡμέρα, see Cox
2006: 83), ‘west’ (Philo), ‘Evening Star’ (George of Pisidia); ereak ‘evening’
(Paterica+); prepositional constructions such as aṙ ereks ‘at/towards evening’ in
Genesis 49.27 (Zeyt‘unyan 1985: 388) rendering Gr. εἰς τὸ ἑσπέρας in contrast with
z-ayg-un vs. τὸ πρωινὸν, and in Deuteronomy 16.6 (Cox 1981: 143) rendering
ἑσπέρας, and ənd erek-s ‘at/towards evening’ rendering πρός ἑσπέραν in Exodus 12.6
(further see de Lamberterie 1990, 2: 162); c‘-erek ‘day’ < ‘until evening’ (Bible+);
erek-awt‘, i-stem: IPl erekawt‘-i-w-k‘ ‘passing the night’ (Agat‘angeɫos, Movsēs
Xorenac‘i, etc.); ere/ikanam ‘to spend the night; to stay by the evening’ (Bible+);
erek-oy, GDSg erekoy-i, LocSg y-erekoy-i ‘evening’ (Bible+), ere/ik-un ‘evening; in
the evening; of the evening’ (Leviticus, Eɫišē, John Chrysostom, Philo, etc.); ereko-r-i, GDSg erekorw-o-y, GDPl erekore-a-c‘ ‘evening’ and a few derivatives based on
*ereko-r- (Bible+); see also s.v. erēk ‘yesterday’.
For some Biblical attestations and derivatives of ereko(oy), see Olsen 203, 436,
469, 511-512, 532.
●DIAL The form erikun > *irikun is ubiquitous in the dialects. A few of them display
nasalless forms: Akn and Ṙodost‘i irigu beside irigun, Nor J̌
uɫa y’araku, Łaradaɫ
əráku, etc. [HAB 2: 46a]. Interesting is especially Nor J̌
uɫa y’araku (Ačaṙean 1940:
56-57, 137-138, 360b; for a textual illustration from a folk-song, see Eremean 1930:
56L6) with prothetic y’- and a-vocalism. This y’, together with Muš, Alaškert and
Moks h’- and Havarik‘, Ozim h- probably points to a prefixed by-form, frozen
locative *y-ereku(n).
●ETYM Since long (de Lagarde 1854: 16L370f; Dervischjan 1877: 68; Hübschmann
1883: 30; 1897: 443; Pedersen 1924: 222a, 223b = 1982: 305a, 306b), connected
with Skt. rájas- n. ‘dust, mist, vapour, gloom, dirt’, rajasá- ‘unclean, dark’ (AV),
OAv. rajiš- n. ‘darkness’, Gr. ἔρεβος n. ‘the dark of the underworld’, Goth. riqis n.
‘darkness, twilight’; here belongs also Arm. erēk ‘yesterday’, q.v. (first suggested in
NHB 1: 682c). See HAB 2: 45-46, 52a; Mladenov 1937: 99-100; Pokorny 1959:
857; Frisk 1: 550; Schmitt 1981: 64, 68; Lehmann 1986: 286; de Lamberterie 1990,
2: 162; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 426; Huld apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 147a;
Olsen 1999: 203; Matzinger 2005: 42. On Goth. riqis/z n. and OIc. røkkr n.
‘darkness’ < PGerm. *rekw
iz-, see Lehmann 1986: 286; Casaretto 2000: 230-231.
Meillet (1927: 129, 131) states that, in view of the Sanskrit and Gothic cognates,
the initial *e- of the Armenian and Greek forms must be regarded as prothetic; see
also Bonfante 1937: 19. More probably, however, Gr. ε- and Arm. e- point to PIE
initial *h1-, although the evidence for this development is meagre (see Beekes 1969:
36, 87-88; 1987b: 6-7; 2003: 177, 185; Hovdhaugen 1968: 122; Kortlandt 1980:
103; 1987: 62-63; 2001: 12 = 2003: 30, 76-77, 132; Mayrhofer 1986: 126115; cf. also
Winter 1965: 101; Polomé 1980: 18). Note especially the contrast *h1re- : *h2re- >
Arm. ere- : are- in erek ‘evening’ vs. arew ‘sun’ (q.v.). Sceptical: Schmitt 1981: 68,
77AE; Klingenschmitt 1982: 10527; Olsen 1984: 112; 1985: 12; Lindeman 1990: 28-
30; 1997: 131; Clackson 1994: 33, 183. For a further discussion and references, see
s.vv. areg- ‘sun’, elanem ‘to come/go out, rise, ascend’, es ‘I’, inn ‘nine’, and 2.1.17.
The PIE reconstruction would then be *h1regw
-e/os-, s-stem neuter. Toch. A
orkäm ‘darkness; dark’ and B ork(a)mo ‘id.’ reflecting a PToch. *orkmo from QIE
*h1(o)rgw
-mon- may belong to this etymon, too [Adams 1999: 123]. For a discussion
of the Iranian facts, see Bailey 1961: 77-78 (on this, see s.v. arǰn ‘black’).
Arm. erekoy, i-stem ‘evening’ is interpreted as an original genitive of time (de
Lamberterie 1990, 1: 162, 16221; Clackson 1994: 223-22498; Olsen 1999: 511-512;
Matzinger 2005: 23111, 42)56. The form ere/ikun may have been composed as (or
influenced by) ayg-u-n from ayg, u-stem ‘dawn’ (q.v.). We also may think of PArm.
*erekoh + *-n-, cf. Gr. Aeol. ἐρεβεννός ‘dark’ < *h1regw
es-no-, ἐρεμνός ‘id.’ <
*h1regw
-no- (for these forms, see Frisk 1: 550). For further Armenian and Greek
parallels for time-derivatives with the nasal element, see s.v. heru ‘last year’. On theother hand, one might think of *-e/ont- seen in time-terms such as Hitt. ispant-
‘night’. It is tempting to interpret PArm. *ereko-r-ia- (cf. erekor-i, -ea-c‘ ‘evening’)
as composed of PArm. neuter *ereko(h) and QIE fem. *-r-ieh2-; structurally compare
another time-word, Gr. ὀπώρα f., Lac. ὀπάρα ‘end of the summer, beginning of
autumn; harvest, fruit’ < *op-osar-eh2-, a fem. to *h1os-r ̥ ‘after the summer’. Further
note Gr. χειμών ‘winter’ vs. Arm. jm-eṙ-n ‘winter’; Gr. ἔαρ n., OCS vesna ‘spring’,
Skt. vasantá- m., etc. vs. Arm. gar-un ‘spring’ (q.v.). Note also Arm. coll. -or-ay-k‘.
If all these tentative suggestions are accepted, one might posit PArm. *ə1reko-r-iavs. *ə1rekōn reflecting *-r-ieh2- vs. *-e/on(t) more or less like Gr. ἑσπέ-ρ-α f.
‘evening’ vs. YAv. *xšap-ar-, xšaf-n-, Skt. kṣáp- f. and Hitt. isp-ant- ‘night’ (on this
etymon, see s.v. gišer ‘night’).
The vocalism of erik-un ‘evening, in the evening’ and erēk ‘yesterday’ < ‘at
evening’ vs. regular erek(o-) < *h1regw
os is synchronically inexplicable. I assume an
anticipation of the locative marker -i, or simply a frozen locative *erek-i > *ereik :
*erik- (gen. ere/ik-i and Łarabaɫ, etc. loc. *er(e)k-i, see s.v. erēk ‘yesterday’) just like
in Arm. ayg, u-stem ‘morning’ (q.v.): LocSg *h2u̯s-s-i > PArm. *aw(h)i >
(thematization) *awi̯-o- > *aygo- > ayg, o-stem >> u-stem, generalized from old
nom. *aw-u. For other time-words reflecting frozen i-locatives, see s.vv. *aɫǰ-
‘twilight, darkness’ and anurǰ ‘dream’. On the i-locative reflected also in the dialect
of Łarabaɫ, see 2.2.1.5.
erek‘, inflected only in plural: APl eri-s, GDPl eri-c‘, IPl eri-w-k‘ ‘three’ (Bible+).
The form *eri- is found in e.g. eric‘s (or eric‘s angam) ‘three times’ (Bible+). In
Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.61 (1913=1991: 192L10; transl. Thomson 1978: 204): eric‘s kam
č‘oric‘s baxen zsaln “strike the anvil three or four times”. Compare erkic‘s from
erku ‘two’, q.v.
On erir ‘third; for the third time’ (Bible+) and erek‘-kin ‘threefold, triple, three
times’ (Bible+), see below, also s.v. krkin.
In later compounds: eṙ- < err- (Movsēs Xorenac‘i, Philo, etc.), e.g. eṙ-a-yark in
Movsēs Xorenac‘i 1.16 (1913=1991: 53L5f; transl. Thomson 1978: 100): aparans
<...> krknayarks ew eṙayarks “palaces <...> of two and three stories”. The form eṙis derived from err-, as in tarr ‘element’ > taṙ [HAB 2: 50b]. I wonder whether it
can be analogical after k‘aṙ- (q.v.).
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects. Note Antiok‘ ərk‘ and Hačən žek‘ (cf. Nor
Naxiǰewan žɛk‘) vs. Zeyt‘un iyik‘ [Ačaṙyan 2003: 307]. The Hačən form is
exceptional since there are no other examples of the development VrV > žV (cf. erēk
‘yesterday’ > Hačən iyɛg, etc.) [Ačaṙyan 2003: 130], whereas it is regular in Nor
Naxiǰewan (see Ačaṙean 1925: 53, 154-155).
Sivri-Hisar šɛk/šɛk‘ ‘three’ (see PtmSivHisHay 1965: 469a; N. Mkrtč‘yan 1995:
207, 210). N. Mkrtč‘yan (1995: 210) takes this word as one of the isoglosses shared
by the dialects of Nor Naxiǰewan and Sivri-Hisar.
On Moks irik‘y
in ‘for the third time’ (apparently a relic from ClArm. erek‘-kin
‘three times’) and irik‘y
ir ‘id.’, see s.v. krkin.
ClArm. erek‘in, erek‘ean ‘all the three’ (Bible+) has been preserved in Łarabaɫ
ərɛ́
k‘an, irɛ́
k‘an [Davt‘yan 1966: 347], Meɫri irik‘k‘ɛ́
n [Aɫayan 1954: 179-180,
268a], Karčewan irik‘y
ɛ́
n [H. Muradyan 1960: 110, 192b], Kak‘avaberd irɛ́
k‘kan [H. Muradyan 1967: 127-128, 170a]. See also AčaṙLiak 1, 1952: 325-326]. On these
forms, see 2.2.4.2.
●ETYM From PIE *treies m. ‘three’: Skt. tráyas, Gr. τρεῖς, Lat. trēs, Lith. trỹs
‘three’, etc.; cf. also Arm. APl eris < *trins : Goth. þrins, instr. *eri-w- < *tri-bh
i- :
Skt. DAblPl tribhyás [HAB 2: 50-51]. PIE *trins > Arm. e-ris shows that the rise of
the prothetic vowel was posterior to the loss of the vowel of the last syllable [Meillet
1900: 394; Beekes 2003: 153-154].
It has been assumed that erir ‘third’ continues the inherited *triyo- influenced by
*(kw
)turo- ‘fourth’, i.e. a contaminated *triro- [Szemerényi 1960: 95; Kortlandt
2003: 101]. On erkir ‘second’, erir ‘third’, etc., see also Meillet 1911-12c: 294
(comparing Tocharian r); J̌
ahukyan 1982: 22366, and s.v. krkin.
erēk, i-stem: GSg erek-i in Joshua 3.4 (rendering Gr. ἀπ’ ἐχϑὲς), Psalms 89.4 (awr
ereki : ἡ ἡμέρα ἡ ἐχϑές), in homilies by Eusebius of Nemesa (found by L.
Hovhannisyan 1987: 132), erik-i (Cyril of Alexandria), cf. also z/y-erek-i (Cyril of
Jerusalem, Zgōn-Afrahat, Severian of Gabala), AblSg y-erek-ē, y-erik-ē (a few times
in the Bible, e.g. Exodus 4.10, y-ere/ik-ē : πρὸ τῆς ἐχϑὲς) ‘yesterday’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 2: 52]. Some E and SE peripheral dialects
have forms reflecting er(e)k-i, Havarik‘ hɛrɛki, J̌
uɫa ərkɛ́ [HAB 2: 52b], Agulis
yərkɛ́
, C‘ɫna ərkɛ́ [Ačaṙean 1935: 45, 349], Łarabaɫ ərɛ́
k/g-i and yərk/gy
-ɛ́ [Davt‘yan
1966: 200, 347].
●ETYM Derived from erek(oy) ‘evening’ (q.v.). Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 52a) adduces a
number of semantic parallels for the development ‘evening’ > ‘yesterday’ from IE
and non-IE languages and mentions also Arm. dial. T‘iflis irigun ‘yesterday
evening’. Compare also ayg ‘morning’ > *ayg-un/c‘ ‘tomorrow’ (q.v.).
L. Hovhannisyan 1987: 132 treats ereki as an old dialectal form and compares it
with Łarabaɫ yərkɛ, etc. In my opinion Łarabaɫ ərɛ́
k/g-i and yərk/gy
-ɛ́ (Davt‘yan
1966: 200, 347) point to *erék-i and *er(e/i)kí, respectively, and the form erek-i
(beside o-stem erēk) should be regarded as a frozen locative (see s.v. erek ‘evening’
and 2.2.1.5; cf. also the cases of *aɫǰ- ‘twilight, darkness’, ayg ‘morning’, anurǰ
‘dream’).
erēc‘, GDSg eric‘-u, AblSg eric‘-u-ē, NPl eric‘-un-k‘, GDPl eric‘-an-c‘ [Astuacaturean 1895: 460ab]; a-stem: ISg eric‘-a-w as a variant reading in Movsēs Xorenac‘i
3.63 (1913=1991: 347L22); o-stem: GDPl eric‘-o-y in Eɫišē and Łazar P‘arpec‘i
[NHB 1: 683a]; pl. eric‘-unik‘, -un-eac‘ in Canon Law [HAB 2: 52b]; for the -u/-n
declension (cf. the type of k‘ar, -i, -in-k‘, -an-c‘ ‘stone’), see Meillet 1913: 56-57;
Tumanjan 1978: 295; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 95, 122; Olsen 1999: 105, 124, 163, 166, 170,
186. ‘(adj.) elder; presbyter’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Preserved in several kə-dialects [HAB 2: 53a]. Note Moks ɛrɛc‘, gen. iric‘-u
‘священник, поп’ [Orbeli 2002: 224]; Hamšen ɛrɛc‘, ɛric‘, gen. iric‘-u [Ačaṙyan
1947: 91, 227].
In the Eastern areas, the word is only found in the compound *eric‘-a-kin ‘wife of
the priest’: Agulis ərc‘ä́kin [HAB 2: 53a; Ačaṙean 1935: 349]. A possible trace of
the unstressed *ərc‘- is also found in the toponym Arcvanik < Eric‘-van-ik (Kapan
region), see s.v. the place-name Arciw. ●ETYM Connected with Gr. πρέσβυς m. ‘old man; the elder; ambassador; president’,
perhaps also Lat. prīscus ‘ancient’, see Bugge 1889: 12; Meillet 1894b: 296;
Hübschmann 1897: 444; HAB 2: 52-53; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 72, 122; 1987: 143, 186
(the Greek cognate is considered doubtful); Olsen 1999: 166, 170. (On Greek, see
also Bloomfield 1908). For a philological and etymological discussion, I especially
refer to Clackson 1994: 165. For the problem of -c‘, see also s.v. erbuc ‘breast of
animals’
ert‘(an)am ‘to go; to set off’. The indicative of the aorist is supplied by č‘ogay, but
the moods are formed from ert‘-, see Meillet 1936: 135; Szemerényi 1964: 55
(Bible+). The substantive ert‘, i-stem ‘going, journey’ is attested in John
Chrysostom (GDSg ert‘i), Łazar P‘arpec‘i (GDPl ert‘ic‘), Movsēs Xorenac‘i, and
Grigoris Aršaruni [NHB 1: 683a].
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects [HAB 2: 54a]. Karin ɛrt‘-u-gal ‘the going and the
coming’ (see HayLezBrbBaṙ 2, 2002: 34b; HŽHek‘ 4, 1963: 120).
See also s.v. *e(h/y)am.
●ETYM Usually linked with Gr. ἔρχομαι ‘to set out; to walk; to come or go’, for
which different proposals have been made: *h1er- or *h1r-th
-sk- or *ser- + *-th
-,
*-dh
-, *-gh
-, or *-kh
- (see Meillet 1898: 276-277, 278; 1936: 135; Hübschmann 1899:
47; HAB 2: 53-54). For *h1r-sk- cf. Skt. r̥ccháti ‘to reach, come towards, meet
with’, Hitt. ar-šk- iter. ‘wiederholt gelangen, Einfälle machen’, etc. Since the
sequence *-rt- yields Arm. -rd-, a *-th
- suffix is usually reconstructed for Arm.
ert‘am. For the etymological details and other views, see HAB 2: 53-54; Frisk 1,
1960: 572; Barton 1963; Szemerényi 1964: 4-5; Klingenschmitt 1982: 96-104;
J
̌
ahukyan 1982: 68; 1987: 165; Matzinger 2000: 285. However, there are no cognate
forms with a dental suffixal element *-th
-. Besides, such a phoneme is commonly
considered to be absent from the standard PIE phonemic inventory. The etymology
is, then, problematic. No wonder that Clackson (1994: 181) considers it as doubtful.
I propose to treat ert‘am as a denominative verb derived from ert‘, -i ‘going,
journey’, which in turn may be a *-ti-suffixed form based upon *h1r-sk- (originally,
perhaps, iterative or inchoative): *h1r-sk-ti- > PArm. *er-c‘-t‘i > ert‘, -i. For the
phonological development of the consonant cluster, see 2.1.22.13. Many scholars
would expect *HrC to yield Arm. *arC-. It is possible, however, that the laryngeal
*h1 is regularly reflected as Arm. e, especially when the following syllable contains
a front vowel (cf. 2.1.17).
eri, ea-stem: GDSg erw-oy three times in the Bible, IPl ere-a-w-k‘ in Philo
[Astuacaturean 1895: 465b; NHB 1: 683c]; GD ere-a-c‘ according to HAB 2: 54b,
but without evidence ‘shoulder of animals’ (dial. also for humans); aṙ eri (also y-eri)
‘near, at the side’ (Ašxarhac‘oyc‘, Eusebius of Caesarea).
In Deuteronomy 18.3, the priest shall receive the following parts of a sacrificed
ox or sheep: eri, cnōt-k‘, xaxac‘oc‘ (see Cox 1981: 149) = Gr. βραχίων ‘(upper) arm;
shoulder of beasts’, σιαγόνια ‘the parts under or near the jaw’, ἔνυστρον ‘fourth
stomach of ruminating animals’, respectively. In some passages on the sacrificial
instruction, a reference is made to the right eri = βραχίων : Exodus 29.22, Leviticus
7.32, 33, 8.25, 26, 9.21, Numbers 18.18. In Exodus 29.27, Leviticus 9.21, and Numbers 18.18, eri = βραχίων occurs in
apposition with erbuc = στηϑύνιον (dimin.) ‘breast’.
●DIAL Ararat ɛri, Łarabaɫ, Maraɫa hɛ́
ri, Salmast nɛri (sic! n- is reliable? – HM);
Łarabaɫ hərat‘at‘ < *er-a-t‘at‘, with t‘at‘ ‘arm, paw’ as the second member [HAB 2:
55a]. For Łarabaɫ hrət‘at‘umə ‘in/on the back, shoulder-blade’, see Łaziyan 1983:
146bL-18, glossed as hərat‘at‘ ‘shoulder-blade, back’, hərt‘at‘-en (186b). In another
illustration from this book (85aL17), a man puts the yaba (a pitchfork) onto his
*hrat‘at‘ (hərt‘at‘-en). Here, the word clearly refers to ‘shoulder(-blade)’. The same
is found in L. Harut‘yunyan 1991: 33L8, where the hero is seated on the hrət‘at‘en of
a dragon.
In a story written in 1884, Ł. Aɫayan (1979: 623L-6f) describes a buffalo named
Dursun as having horns stretching along the neck and reaching the ērat‘at‘-s.
Probably, Xotorǰur *ɛrelt‘at‘ ‘shoulder-blade’ [YušamXotorǰ 1964: 447b]
belongs here too, although the nature of the internal -l- is obscure.
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 54-55) derives from *perə- (in modern terms: *p(e)rh2-)
‘before, in front’. Lidén (1937: 88-89) prefers a connection with Lith. ríetas m. [o]
‘thigh, loin’, Latv. riẽta f. [ā] ‘thigh, haunch’, CS ritь ‘buttocks’, Czech řit’ ‘id.’,
ORuss. ritь ‘hoof’, etc., reconstructing *rēito-, *rēitā-. This etymology is largely
accepted: Pokorny 1959: 863; Solta 1960: 418; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 145, 189; Olsen
1999: 444.
If the initial h- in Łarabaɫ, etc. indeed has an etymological value, one should give
preference to Ačaṙyan’s etymology.
erinǰ, o-stem: GDPl ernǰ-o-c‘ (5x in the Bible), IPl ernǰ-o-v-k‘ (in Genesis 41.3, see
Zeyt‘unyan 1985: 339); u-stem: GDSg ernǰ-u (4x in the Bible), GDPl ernǰ-u-c‘
(once in the Bible, also in the Commentary upon Judges ascribed to Eɫišē); a-stem:
ISg ernǰ-a-w (Philo) ‘heifer, young cow; cow; bride’ (see also s.v. ernǰnak) (Bible+).
In Isaiah 7.21: erinǰ mi yarǰaṙoc‘ “one young cow from/of bovids” : δάμαλιν βοῶν.
See also s.v. arǰaṙ.
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects. With initial ɛ-: Nor-Naxiǰewan, Axalc‘xa,
Hamšen, Karin, Ararat, Alaškert, Muš, Van, Moks (see also Orbeli 2002: 225),
Šatax (see M. Muradyan 1962: 195b), Salmast; diphthongized yɛ-: Ozim, Šamaxi,
J
̌
uɫa; hɛ-: Łarabaɫ, Goris, Mužambar (a village of T‘avriz/Tebriz) [HAB 2: 56b]; hɛis also found in Kṙzen [Baɫramyan 1961: 180b], Meɫri [Aɫayan 1954: 268a],
Karčewan [H. Muradyan 1960: 192b], Kak‘avaberd [H. Muradyan 1967: 170a],
although Agulis, closely associated with the Meɫri group, has ä́rinǰ [HAB 2: 56b;
Ačaṙean 1935: 44, 349].
In all the dialects, erinǰ refers to ‘a two-year old female calf’ [HAB 2: 56b],
Ararat ɛrinǰ also to ‘a three-year-old sprout of grapes which is replanted separately’
(see Amatuni 1912: 182a; HAB 2: 56b). For the semantic shift, see 3.5.1.
●ETYM Patrubány (1906-08 /1908/: 152a) derives from QIE *qrendh
i̯o-, connecting
OHG hrind ‘bovine animal’, Germ. Rind ‘id.’, etc. See also Adontz 1937: 7-8.
Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 56b) rejects this etymology (as well as all the others), because the
Germanic form derives from the PIE word for ‘horn’, with initial *k̂
-. This is not a
decisive argument since the initial palatovelar in *k̂
rV- would be depalatalized (see
2.1.22.7), and *krV- would yield PArm. *(w)ri- or *(u)ri- and, with a subsequent addition of a prothetic vowel e- before anlaut r, *e-ri-. It is possible that both *krVand *k̂
rV- are merely simplified to *rV-. J̌
ahukyan (1987: 132) posits *krenti ̂ ̯o-.
Petersson (1916: 257-258) links erinǰ with Gr. ἔριφος m. f. ‘kid’, Lith. ė́ras, dial.
jė́ras m. ‘lamb’, Latv. jēre ‘one-year-old sheep, mother lamb’, OPr. eristian (see
Euler 1985: 87), OIr. heirp f. ‘deer’, erb ‘cow’ < *er-bh
-, Lat. ariēs, -etis m. ‘ram’,
etc. For Arm. -ǰ, he compares oroǰ ‘lamb’ (probably belonging to the same etymon,
assimilated from *eroǰ) and aloǰ ‘female kid’ (q.v.). This etymology found more
acceptance, see Pokorny 1959: 326; Frisk, s.v. ἔριφος; Eilers 1974: 18; Euler 1985:
87; Schrijver 1991: 65; Mallory/Adams 1997: 511a; Olsen 1999: 185. Lat. ariēs,
-etis m. ‘ram’, with unexplained a-, and Umbr. AccSg ERIETU ‘arietem’ may
reflect *h1riet- [Schrijver 1991: 65-66].
In view of the acute intonation, the Baltic forms may be separated from these
words and go back to *ieh1-ro-, cf. ORuss. jara ‘spring’, OHG jār ‘year’, Av. yārn. ‘year’, Gr. ὥρᾱ ‘time, season’, etc. (Derksen, p.c.; see also Toporov, PrJaz (2),
E-H, 1979: 72-75).
Arm. erinǰ may be derived from QIE fem. *h1eri-nih2- [Olsen 1999: 185] or
*h1ri-Hn-i̯eh2-, composed as *h1ri- (seen in Gr. ἔρι-φος m. f. ‘kid’ and Lat. ariēs,
-etis m. ‘ram’) + *-Hn-i(e)h2-, exactly like PIE *h1e/ol-Hn-ih2- ‘deer, hind’: OCS
alъnii ‘doe’, SCr. làne ‘doe’, Russ. lan’ ‘fallow deer, doe’, Lith. élnis ‘deer’,
MWelsh elein ‘young deer, doe, hind-calf’, etc. (see s.v. analut‘ ‘deer’).
For -nǰ, cf. other animal-names, xɫunǰ-n ‘snail’, dial. *mormonǰ ‘ant’, etc., all
probably original feminines (cf. s.vv. morm ‘tarantula’, mrǰiwn ‘ant’, and 3.5.2.1; on
xɫunǰ-n ‘snail’, see also 2.3.1, under the suffix -j/z.
Megrelian oriǰi, orinǰi ‘neat’, orǰi ‘cow’ are considered Armenian loans (see HAB
2: 56b with ref.). If this is correct, and if the labial initial does not have an
inner-Megrelian explanation, one is tempted to compare it with the OArm.
hypothetical *u/wrinǰ- (see above).
The initial h- in the Eastern dialects may be explained through contamination
with heru ‘last year’, which underlies a few derivatives meaning ‘a male or female
calf between one and two years old’ mostly in Van and the adjacent dialects (see
Ačaṙean 1913: 657b).
Alternative 1): Ararat ɛrinǰ ‘a three-year-old sprout of grapes which is replanted
separately’ is reminiscent of Gr. ϑρινία· ἄμπελος ἐν Κρήτῃ ‘vineyard’ (Hesychius),
perhaps from *trisnii̯eh2-, cf. Alb. trishe < *trisi̯eh2- ‘offshoot, seedling, sapling’
and SCr. trs < *triso- ‘grapevine, reed’ (see Mallory/Adams 1997: 644b). This may
be a word of substratum (Mediterranean/Pontic) origin. The Armenian word may be
identical with the protoform of the Greek: *trisnii̯eh2- > Arm. *e-rinǰ is formally
impeccable.
Alternative 2): Arm. erinǰ ‘young cow’ belongs with the above-mentioned Lith.
ė́ras ‘lamb’, etc. and may be derived from *h1(e)Hr-ini̯e2-, cf. Skt. paryāríṇī- f. ‘cow
which has its first calf after a year’.
erkan, i-stem, a-stem : GDSg erkan-i (Bible), GDPl erkan-i-c‘ (Yovhannēs Erznkac‘i,
13-14th cent.), ISg erkan-a-w (Vardan Arewelc‘i, 13th cent.), erkan-a-c‘ (Grigoris
Aršaruni, 7-8th cent.) ‘(hand-)mill’ (see Clackson 1994: 92) (Bible+). ●DIAL Preserved in numerous dialects; everywhere as a frozen plural *e/arkan-k‘,
except for Agulis árkan [HAB 2: 61b; Ačaṙean 1935: 349]. The a- is only found in
E and SE margins, Agulis, Łarabaɫ, J̌
uɫa, etc.
●ETYM Since Bugge (1889: 15), connected with Skt. grā́van- m. ‘pressing-stone,
stone used to press Soma’ (RV+), Toch. B kärweñe ‘stone’, OIc. kvern ‘hand-mill’,
Lith. gìrna, gìrnos ‘millstone’, OCS žrьny, Russ. žërnov m., žërna f. ‘hand-mill’,
Czech žernov, žerna, etc. [Hübschmann 1897: 444-445; HAB 2: 61].
Meillet (1894: 159-160) suggested a complicated scenario: *gw
erwnā > Arm.
*kergan > *kerkan > erkan. Later he rejected this view (apud HAB 2: 61a) and
derived erkan from *gw
rāwanā with the development *-awa- > -a- [Meillet 1908-09:
354-355]. The protoform *erkawan is unnecessary, since, in view of Lith. gìrna,
etc., Arm. erkan can go back to PIE *gw
r(e)h2-n-. On the prothetic vowel, see
2.1.17.4.
Arm. erkan is an i-stem and/or an a-stem. I wonder if it can be derived from PIE
dual *-ih1-. See also s.v. aɫawr(i).
erkayn, i-stem (GDPl erkayn-i-c‘ in Philo) ‘long’ (in both temporal and spatial
aspects) (Bible+). Both aspects are illustrated by passages from the Bible, e.g.:
erkayn paranaw : σχοινίῳ μακρῷ (Isaiah 5.18); erkayn awurbk‘ : μακρότητα ἡμερῶν
(Psalms 20.5).
In Movsēs Xorenac‘i 1.16 (1913=1991: 51L11f; transl. Thomson 1978: 99):
erkaynajew blur mi “a long hill”; hovit imn daštajew ew erkaynajig “a wide meadow
like a plain”.
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects. Šatax hɛrkɛn [M. Muradyan 1962: 195b], Moks,
Ozim hɛrkɛn, and Muš, Alaškert h’ɛrgɛn (HAB 2: 61a; Ačaṙyan 1952: 258; Orbeli
2002: 277, textual illustrations from the folklore: 96L18, 125, Nrs. 1, 11, 13) point to
*y-erkayn; see 2.3.1. None of the dialects (including Łarabaɫ, etc.) has an initial
(voiceless) h-.
●ETYM See s.v. erkar ‘long’
erkar, a-stem according to NHB, with no references; Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 61b) cites two
late attestations (both in Elias, comm. on Aristotle): ISg erkar-i-w (i-stem), GDPl
erkar-a-c‘ (a-stem) ‘long’ (in both temporal and spatial aspects) (Bible+). In
Lamentations 5.20 (and not 7.20 as in NHB and HAB): minč‘ew erkar žamanaks :
εἰς μακρότητα ἡμερῶν.
For the spatial aspect, cf. the following passages from Movsēs Xorenac‘i: vihs
erkars “wide caverns” (1.16 – 1913= 1991: 54L9f; transl. Thomson 1978: 101; see
s.v. anjaw for the full passage); merj i leaṙn mi erkar yerkrē barjrut‘eamb “near to a
mountain that rose high from the earth” (1.26: 75L11; transl. 115); andamovk‘ erkar
“with long limbs” (2.5: 107L6).
y-erkar ‘long time’ (Bible+). In Movsēs Xorenac‘i 3.12 (1913=1991: 270L14;
transl. Thomson 1978: 265): yerkar hiwandac‘eal vaxčanec‘aw : “after a long illness
he died”.
●DIAL Ararat, T‘iflis, Ṙodost‘o ergar ‘long’, Haštarxan erkar ‘far away’, J̌
uɫa
y’etkar or yetkar ‘far away’ [HAB 2: 61b; Ačaṙean 1940: 361a]. Ačaṙyan does not
account for the abnormal -t- in the J̌
uɫa form. In 1940: 55, he compares the development ye- > y’e- to that found in yet ‘back, behind’ > y’et, but does not
specify the origin of -t-.
●ETYM Since Meillet (1924: 1-4), connected with Gr. δηρός, Dor. δᾱρός ‘lasting
long’, Lat. dūrō ‘to make/become hard; to endure, last out, survive’, Skt. dūrá- ‘far’
(RV+), etc., through the sound change *dw- > Arm. -rk- (< *dueh2-ro-); also related
with erkayn ‘long’ (see HAB 2: 60-61; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 75), cf. Gr. δήν ‘long, far’ <
*δϝᾱν- [de Lamberterie 1992: 257]. However, the sound change is uncertain (see
2.1.22.6), and -ar and -ayn are said to possibly reflect the Armenian suffixes; for a
discussion, see also Clackson 1994: 112-115; Olsen 1999: 198-199, 204, 280-284,
772 (who considers the etymology indisputable and prefers restoring *duh2-ro-);
Kortlandt 1989: 47-50 = 2003: 92-95; Harkness 1996: 13-14; Beekes 2003:
199-200; Viredaz 2003: 6313 (who, like Olsen, prefers *duh2-ro-; see also HAB s.v.
tew ‘duration’).
Szemerényi (1985: 794-795) derives Arm. erkar from *eri-dwāros (cf. Gr. ἐρι-
‘very’, etc.). The other etymology which connects erkar with Lith. erdvas
̃ ‘wide,
spacious’ (Meillet 1896: 150) is favoured by Kortlandt 2003: 95 (an addendum to
his 1989 paper). However, the etymology is uncertain since the Lithuanian accent
and Skt. árdha- ‘side, part, region’ point to a *-dh
- [Clackson 1994: 113; Beekes
2003: 200].
Pisani (1934: 184; 1950: 1783) derives Arm. erkar and erkayn from *grā- (cf.
Lat. grandis) and compares the formation of erkayn with that of layn ‘broad’.
Sceptical: Clackson 1994: 113. Cf. also Kortlandt 2003: 93, 95. The irregular -t- in
J
̌uɫa y’etkar or yetkar ‘far away’ strikingly reminds the initial *d- of the PIE
proto-form. However, there can hardly be any relation with it. The -t- must rather be
interpreted as secondary (perhaps contamination with y-et ‘back, behind’).
erkiwɫ, i-stem: ISg erkiwɫ-i-w, GDPl erkiwɫ-i-c‘, etc. ‘fear’ (Bible+). There are variant
spellings with -iw/ew alternation, or without -w-. For instance: ISg erkiɫiw (vars.
erkiwɫiw, erkewɫiw) in Deuteronomy 28.22 (Cox 1981: 184): harc‘ē zk‘ez t[ē]r <...>
ew xt‘iwk‘ ew erkiɫiw (vars. erkiwɫiw, erkewɫiw) ew xoršakaw : πατάξαι σε κύριος
<...> καὶ ἐρεϑισμῷ καὶ φόνῳ καὶ ἀνεμοφϑορίᾳ. For the full passage, see s.v. xēt‘
‘bite, pain’. Here, Arm erki(w)ɫ seems to render Gr. φόνος ‘murder, slaughter; death
as a punishment’ and, therefore, implies a meaning like ‘death threat, fear for
death/murder, etc.’.
●DIAL Salmast yɛrkuɫ, J̌
uɫa yerguɫ, Ararat yɛrguɫ, T‘iflis yírguɫ, Muš y’ɛrguɫ, Ozim
yɛrkɔɫ [HAB 2: 65b; Ačaṙyan 1940: 361a; 1952: 258]. (Some of) the dialect forms
may be literary loans, as is suggested for e.g. J̌
uɫa yerguɫ (see Ačaṙean 1940: 56).
●ETYM Belongs to erkn ‘labour pains; fear’ (q.v.). Klingenschmitt (1982: 79, 8223)
derives erkiwɫ, i-stem ‘fear’ from *dwi-tl-i-, and de Lamberterie (1992: 257) from
*dwi-tlo-, whereas Olsen (1999: 101-102, 270164) prefers reconstructing *du(e)i-ploor *dui-pli- (cf. the Germanic word for ‘doubt’: OHG zwīfal, etc.), which is more
attractive.
See also s.v. erku ‘two’ and 2.1.22.6
erkn, mostly pl.: NPl erkun-k‘, APl erkun-s, GDPl erkan-c‘ ‘labour pains, pang (of
childbirth); fear, grief, sorrow’; erknem ‘ὠδίνω’; erknč‘im ‘to fear’ (aor. erkeay,
imper. erkir); erk-č‘-ot ‘coward’. See also s.v. erkiwɫ ‘fear’ (Bible+). For the two basic meanings of erkn cf. e.g. the following passages: orpēs erkn yɫwoy : ὥσπερ ἡ
ὠδὶν τῇ ἐν γαστρὶ ἐχούσῃ (1Thessalonians 5.3); šurǰ eɫen zinew erkunk‘ mahu :
περιέσχον με ὠδῖνες ϑανάτου (Psalms 17.5).
Apart from the passage from 1Thessalonians 5.3 (see above), the singular form
erkn is found, together with the verb erknem, in the famous epic song (with
wonderful alliteration of the sequence erk-) on the birth of Vahagn recorded by
Movsēs Xorenac‘i (1.31: 1913=1991: 85-86; transl. Thomson 1978: 123): Erknēr
erkin, erknēr erkir, erknēr ew covn cirani; erkn i covun unēr ew zkarmrikn eɫegnik :
“Heaven was in travail, earth was in travail, the purple sea was also in travail; in the
sea travail also gripped the red reed”.
●ETYM As is shown by Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 65a), all these words contain a root *erkwhich he, following Dervischjan (1877: 68), connects with Gr. δέος n. ‘fear’, δεινός
‘fearful’, δείδω ‘to fear’, Lat. dīrus ‘fearful’, Skt. dvéṣṭi ‘to hate’, Av. duuaēϑā
‘threat’, MPers. bēš- ‘grief, sorrow, enmity’, etc. For -nč‘- cf. mart-nč‘-im ‘to fight’
vs. mart (i-stem) ‘fight, war’ (both Bible+), etc. On the verb morphology, see
Tumanjan 1971: 337; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 182; Klingenschmitt 1982: 78-79.
Pedersen (1906: 398-399 = 1982: 176-177) rejects the connection and derives
erkn-č‘im from PIE *pergw
-, cf. OHG furhten ‘to fear, be frightened’. This
etymology is accepted by Kortlandt (2003: 7, and, with hesitation, 95). The anlaut
*pe- would yield Arm. *he-, however (cf. Clackson 1994: 224-225118, with
references; Harkness 1996: 14; Viredaz 2003: 63-6417).
Frisk (1966: 259-262 = 1944: 11-14) and Schindler (1975; see also Arbeitman /
Ayala 1981: 251; Klingenschmitt 1982: 238-239; de Lamberterie 1992: 257) connect
Arm. erkn with Gr. ὀδύνη ‘pain’ and OIr. idu ‘pain’. Sceptical: Beekes 2003: 199;
for the discussion, see Clackson 1994: 123-124; Harkness 1996: 14; Viredaz 2003:
6314. The search for alternative etymologies seems unnecessary. PIE *du̯ei- ‘to fear’
is considered a derivation of the word for ‘two’; similarly, Arm. *erk(-n-) ‘fear;
labour pains’ is best derived from erku ‘two’ (q.v.); see the references at HAB 2:
64-65, as well as Meillet 1894a: 235; Kortlandt 1989: 47, 51 = 2003: 91, 95;
Clackson 1994: 116; cf. Viredaz 2003: 6212. For a semantic analysis, see Benveniste
1954: 254-255. Note also numerous Armenian formations meaning ‘to doubt’ which
are derived from erku ‘two’ (see s.v.). Further, cf. Toch. AB wi- ‘to frighten’
[Schindler 1966a; Adams 1999: 599].
Clackson (1994: 116) states that Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 64-65) connected the nouns
erk, o-stem ‘work, labour’ (Bible+) and erkn ‘(labour) pains’. In reality, Ačaṙyan
(HAB 2: 58a, 64-65) rejects this connection suggested by NHB, Bugge, Pedersen,
and Frisk, and treats the latter as an Iranian loan, cf. Pahl. ’rk ‘work, labour’, etc.
(see also Szemerényi 1985: 795; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 163, 525; Viredaz 2003: 6527).
However, the connection is semantically possible; cf. Lat. labor, Engl. labour,
travail, etc. Viredaz (ibid.) suggests the same origin also for Arm. herk ‘tilth’ (q.v.).
erku (NPl erku-k‘, APl erku-s, GDPl erku-c‘, IPl erku-k‘) ‘two’ (Bible+).
Numerous derivatives, some of them meaning ‘to doubt’: y-erkuanam ‘to doubt,
hesitate’ (Bible+), y-erku-umn ‘doubt’, (y-)erku-an-k‘ ‘doubt’ (John Chrysostom),
y-erku-akan ‘doubtful’ (Eznik Koɫbac‘i), erk-mt-em ‘to doubt, hesitate’ = erk- ‘two’
+ mit ‘mind’ (Bible+), etc. One might consider these forms with the meaning
‘doubt’ to be calqued from Gr. διστάζω ‘to hesitate, be uncertain, doubt’ (cf. Skt. dvi-ṣṭh-a- ‘double’, etc.); cf. e.g. Matthew 28.17: yerkuac‘an = ἐδίστασαν =
dubitaverunt [Nestle/Aland 87]. However, the evidence is rich, and the forms are
also attested in non-translational works (Eznik Koɫbac‘i, Movsēs Xorenac‘i, etc.), so
that we are rather dealing with the same semantic pattern. The same erk- is also
found in erkewan ‘fearful doubt’ (John Chrysostom, Philo, etc.), and, probably,
erknč‘im ‘to fear’, erkiwɫ ‘fear’, etc. (s.vv.). The meaning ‘fearful doubt’ unifies the
meanings of the two sets of words, namely ‘doubt’ and ‘fear’. Note also
y-erkuan-ōk‘ erkiwɫali “with fearful doubts” (John Chrysostom [NHB 2: 358b]).
In derivatives: *erko- in erko-tasan ‘twelve’; *erki-, cf. erkeam < *erki-am ‘two
years’ (Bible+), erkeriwr < *erki-hariwr ‘two hundred’ (Bible+), erkewan (see
above), etc.
On erkic‘s ‘twice, again’ (Bible+), see s.v. kic‘ ‘conjoined’. On erkir ‘second’
(Dionysius Thrax, Philo; the dialect of Moks?), see s.v. krkin.
For erk-ti and erk-ōr, see s.v. ti ‘day’.
●DIAL erku is ubiquitous in the dialects. When declining, the Western dialects use
erku-k‘, and the Eastern ones erku-s [HAB 2: 67b]. For Maraš, Mēlik‘-Dawit‘pēk
(1896: 230a) records erku ‘two’, irkušabt‘i ‘Monday’, as well as harku, which he
considers to be “another distortion (aɫawaɫumn) of the numeral erku”.
In definite usage: Łarabaɫ *erku-n-; e.g. in HŽHek‘ 5, 1966: 425L1f: ink‘ aṙ im
t‘ep‘uṙneras ɛrkunə “take two of my feathers”.
On Moks ɛrkvin (and *ɛrkir?) ‘for the second time’, see s.v. krkin.
ClArm. erkok‘in, erkok‘ean ‘both’ (Bible+) has been preserved in Łarabaɫ
ərkɔ́
k‘an, ɛ/urkɔ́
k‘an, Meɫri ərkɔ́
k‘ɛn [AčaṙLiak 1, 1952: 325-326; Davt‘yan 1966:
348; Aɫayan 1954: 179-180, 268a]. Karčewan has yərkɛ́
n [H. Muradyan 1960: 110,
193a]. On these forms, see 2.2.4.2.
●ETYM From the PIE word for ‘two’: Gr. δύο, Skt. dva-, etc.; the final -u points to a
dual form *duo-h1, cf. Skt. NADu dvā́ m. ‘two’ (RV+), or *duōu, cf. Skt. NADu
d(u)váu m. ‘two’ (RV+); *erko- (in erko-tasan ‘twelve’, erkok‘in or erkok‘ean
‘both’) and erki- (see above) go back to *duo- and *dui- respectively [HAB 2:
66-67; J̌
ahukyan 1959: 253; 1982: 75, 127; 1987: 119]. On erko-, see also Meillet
1903: 227; Viredaz 2003: 6210. Weitenberg (1981: 87-88) assumes that erko- is an
inner-Armenian development from *erku-tasan, as əntocin from *əntucin (see s.v.).
The development of PIE *dw- in Armenian has been extensively discussed; see
2.1.22.6. Bugge (1889: 42; 1890: 1211; 1892: 457; 1899: 61; positively: Meillet
1894: 160) assumed that PIE *duō yielded Arm. *ku, to which er- from erek‘ ‘three’
was added; see also Pisani 1934: 185; Szemerényi 1985: 790-792, 794. Meillet
(ibid.) also connects krkin ‘double, again’ and kuɫ ‘Doppelung, das Doppelte’ (q.v.).
Others postulate a sound change *dw- > Arm. -rk- with subsequent regular addition
of prothetic e-, assuming that in krkin a metathesis -rk- > kr- (or a dissimilation)
took place [Meillet 1900: 393-394; 1908/09: 353-354; 1936: 51; HAB 2: 66-67,
681].
Kortlandt severely criticizes this view and advocates *dw- > *k-. Viredaz (2003:
6316) points out, however, that ‘two’ hardly ever undergoes contamination from
other numerals. For a discussion, see 2.1.22.6; see also s.vv. erkar, erkn, kēs, koys2,
krkin, krtser, kuɫ, kic‘.
On erkic‘s ‘twice, again’ and erkir ‘second’, see s.vv. kic‘ and krkin respectively.
*ernǰak ‘spider’.
●DIAL Axalc‘xa *ernǰak ‘spider’ [Amatuni 1912: 149b], Karin ɛrnǰak ‘id.’
[HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 392a]; cf. also Erznka ɛrunǰɛk ‘spider-web’ [Kostandyan
1979: 152b].
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 68b) cites s.v. erinǰ ‘heifer, young cow’ (q.v.), not
specifying the semantic motivation.
If indeed from erinǰ, *ernǰ-ak ‘spider’ may refer to the Mother Goddess
Anahit-Astɫik, which was associated with heifers, probably also, like the Greek
Athena, with weaving; cf. the Lydian Arachne, metamorphosed into a spider by
Athena (see e.g. Weinberg/Weinberg 1956; Taxo-Godi apud MifNarMir 1: 98b);
Arm. dial. *mam-uk ‘spider’, derived from mam ‘mother; grandmother’ (see
3.5.2.1).
Alternative: PArm. *erVnǰ- ‘spider’ from a Mediterranean substratum, cf. Gr.
ἀράχνη f. ‘spider; spider’s web’, Lat. arāneus m. ‘spider’, arānea f. ‘spider; cobweb,
spider’s web’, perhaps also OEngl. renge, rynge ‘spider; spider’s web’ < *rəknia (on
these forms, see Beekes 1969: 34). One reconstructs substr. *(a)rVkh
n-(i)eh2- or
*(a)rVk(s)n-(i)eh2-. Arm. *e-rVnǰ may reflect *raKn-i̯eh2- > *ra(K)nǰ- > *e-ranǰ,
with regular prothetic e- before initial r-. Attractive, but risky.
Other alternatives: Compare Pahl. ēraxtan, ēranǰ- ‘to inflict damage, or loss; to
blame, condemn, damn’, ērang ‘blame, condemnation; error, heresy’ (see
MacKenzie 1971: 30; Nyberg 1974: 71-72). The spider may be seen as ‘harmful’ or
‘heathen, demonic, abominable’, see 3.5.2. Further, compare Xotorǰur *xranǰ
‘spider, etc.’, see 3.5.2.5.
ernǰ(n)ak (spelled also as ernǰay, ernǰan, ernčnak, erinčan, erinčak, erižnak) ‘a
thorny edible plant’. MidArm. medical literature (see HAB 2: 68; MiǰHayBaṙ 1,
1987: 203-204).
●DIAL Relatively widespread in the dialects, mostly reflecting the forms *ernǰn-ak
and *ernǰn-uk (Ararat also ɛrənǰanuk), see HAB 2: 68b; also Moks ɛrənǰinak
‘съедобное колючее растение’ [Orbeli 2002: 225]. For the semantic description,
see Amatuni 1912: 184 (also 177a, s.v. eṙšnak?); HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 392a. On
Axalc‘xa ernǰak ‘spider’, see s.v. *ernǰak.
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 68b) derives from erinǰ ‘heifer, young cow’, introducing
semantic parallels from Turkish and Megrelian. Compare also Gr. ἐρίφιον (gloss)
‘Rubus agrestis’ [blackberry or the like], dimin. of ἔριφος ‘kid’, possibly related to
Arm. erinǰ (q.v.).
ewt‘n (secondary eawt‘n), an-stem: GDPl e(a)wt‘an-c‘ ‘seven’ (Bible+); e(a)wt‘anasun, i-stem: GDPl -asn-i-c‘ ‘seventy’ (Bible+); e(a)wt‘n-erord, a-stem: GDSg -i,
GDPl -a-c‘ ‘seventh’ (Bible+).
●DIAL The form eawt‘n = eōt‘n is ubiquitous in the dialects, and eōt‘anasun is
widespread [HAB 2: 74]. A considerable number of dialects have a final -xt, on
which see AčaṙHLPatm 2, 1951: 403; Weitenberg 1996: 96-99; Ervandyan 2007: 33.
●ETYM Derived from PIE *septm ̥ ‘seven’: Skt. saptá, YAv. hapta-, MPers. haft, Gr.
ἑπτά, Lat. septem, Goth. sibun, etc., Klaproth 1831: 107b; NHB 1: 706b;
Hübschmann 1897: 445; HAB 2: 74; Pokorny 1959: 909; Ravnæs 1991: 100;
Mallory/Adams 1997: 402. The origin of Arm. -a- is not entirely clear. For phonological problems, in
particular for a discussion of ew : eaw, see HAB ibid.; Meillet 1936: 32, 45-46;
Greppin 1975a: 50-51; Aɫayan 2003: 101, 259-262. Winter 1966: 202 assumes a
blend of ewt‘n and *awt‘n, not specifying *awt‘n (sceptical Greppin 1975a: 51). The
latter is now interpreted as PArm. ordinal *(s)awt‘n- from *sptmó- ‘7th’ (Kortlandt
1994a: 254 = 2003: 99; Beekes 1995: 214, 216).
Note that the form ewt‘n has not been preserved in any form of Armenian, and the
non-classical eawt‘n can be considered as the outcome of a regular phonetic
development seen also in geawɫ ‘village’, čeawɫ ‘branch’ (see Weitenberg 1996: 96-
99). That the ordinal has played a role should also be taken into consideration. For
further references on phonological problems of this word, in particular the initial *s-,
see s.v. hin ‘old’.
ewɫ, o-stem: GDSg iwɫ-oy ‘oil’ (Bible+); dial. almost exclusively *eɫ.
Some Biblical attestations taken from critical or diplomatic editions (I first cite
the form found in the basic text of these editions and then the variant readings):
Genesis: AccSg iwɫ in 28.18 (var. ewɫ, 3x eɫ) and 35.14 (2x eɫ), see Zeyt‘unyan
1985: 274, 311.
Deuteronomy: AccSg eɫ in 28.51and 32.14 (vars. ewɫ, iwɫ), z-ewɫ in 7.13 and
11.14 (vars. z-iwɫ, z-ewɫ), GSg eɫ-u in 8.8 (var. iwɫoy, once eɫwu), z-eɫoy in 14.22
(vars. zewɫoy, zewɫwoy, ziwɫoy, ziwɫo) and 18.4 (vars. zeɫwoy, zewɫoy, ziwɫoy), ISg
iɫov in 28.40 (vars. ewɫov, iwɫov), see Cox 1981: 187, 205, 109, 124, 112, 137, 149,
186, respectively.
Daniel: ISg ewɫov in 10.3 [Cowe 1992: 209].
It appears that Deuteronomy is more inclined to NAccSg eɫ and GSg eɫ-u or eɫoy.
In view of the form *eɫ in almost all the dialects, one is tempted to treat eɫ- as
archaic. But it is not certain that the manuscripts which underly the basic text of Cox
are reliable. It is remarkable, for instance, that the basic text in Cox 1981: 214-215
has iwr ‘his own’ in Deuteronomy 33.24, although the variant reading allative yiwɫ/y-ewɫ appears to be original since it exactly corresponds to ἐν ἐλαίῳ of the Greek
text. Further, note the conflicting evidence within the same text: gen. eɫ-u vs. gen. (z-
)eɫ-o-y and instr. iɫ-o-v. The only occurrence of eɫ-u is in 8.8 (Cox 1981: 112): erkir
jit‘eneac‘ eɫu ew meɫu : γῆ ἐλαίας ἐλαίου καὶ μέλιτος. One might think of the
influence of meɫ-u ‘of honey’ in the same passage. Gen. eɫ-u is also found in Nersēs
Šnorhali (12th cent.).
The classical paradigm is usually reconstructed as follows: nom. éwɫ, gen. iwɫóy
[Meillet 1913: 18, 180a; 1936: 63; Matzinger 2006: 72]. See also s.v. giwɫ ‘village’.
For a discussion of related orthographic problems, see Weitenberg 1993a: 67; 2006.
●DIAL Dialectally ubiquitous. All the forms represent *eɫ, apart from J̌
uɫa uɫ [HAB
2: 252].
●ETYM Since NHB, Petermann, Windischmann and others, connected with Gr.
ἐλαίᾱ, Att. ἐλᾱ́α, Ion. ἐλαίη f. ‘olive-tree; olive’, ἔλαιος m. ‘wild olive’, ἔλαιον n.
‘olive-oil; anointing-oil; any oily substance’ and Lat. olīva [HAB 2: 252a].
Hübschmann (1897: 393-394; see also Olsen 1999: 954) places this correspondence
in the list of loans of uncertain origin, pointing out that the Armenian word cannot
have been borrowed from Greek. Then he adds: “Gehören sie überhaupt zusammen
und wie?”. Usually regarded as a Mediterranean word [HAB 2: 252a; Frisk 1: 480; J̌
ahukyan
1985: 158]. Ačaṙyan (1937: 3) treats the Armenian and the Greek words as
borrowed from Phrygian or from the Aegean civilization. Mentioning the
Mediterranean theory, J̌
ahukyan (1987: 307, 3079, 466, with ref.) also notes Akkad.
ulû(m) ‘fine oil, butter’.
As is shown by Lat. olīva, the Greek word must be reconstructed as *ἐλαιϝ- [Frisk
1: 480]. One wonders, thus, if the Armenian can derive from something like
*el(e/a)iw- through metathesis or anticipation. See also Beekes 2003: 205 and
Clackson 2004-05: 157.
Matzinger (2006) rejects the connection with Gr. ἔλαιον and derives the
Armenian from QIE *se/oib-lo-, a derivative of PIE *seib- ‘to pour, rain, sift’, cf.
Gr. εἴβω ‘to drop’, Toch. A sep-, sip- ‘to anoint’ and especially sepal ‘Salbe, Fett’.
On this root, see also s.v. hiwt‘ ‘moisture’. However, one might expect metathesis
*-bl- > Arm. -ɫp-, although all the known examples are with *-r- (see J̌
ahukyan
1982: 73-74; Beekes 2003: 206-207). It is easier to assume *se/oip-lo- relying upon
the IE by-form *seip- (see Pokorny 1959: 894).
Kortlandt 2008 identifies ewɫ with Gr. ἔλπος, Alb. gjälpe ‘butter’, Skt. sarpíṣ- n.
‘molten butter, lard’, Germ. Salbe ‘ointment’, Toch. A ṣälip, B ṣalype, “with regular
loss of *p before *o” between stages 10 and 12 of his chronology (Kortlandt 2003:
28f). However, I know of no secure examples for the development *po > o in a noninitial position.
On the whole, the Mediterranean origin (with Gr. ἔλαιον ‘oil’) of Arm. ewɫ seems
more plausible, although the details remain unclear.
zaysaysem ‘to fear’, attested only in Timot‘ēos Kuz (Timothy Aelurus), see Ačaṙean
1908-09a, 1: 370aNr18. According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 78a), identical with zaysel,
which is found in Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ rendered as zangitel, kam apšil, kam yimaril (see
Amalyan 1975: 98Nr21). This implies that zaysaysem is a reduplicated form.
●ETYM No etymological attempt is known to me.
In my view, zaysem and zaysaysem are composed as follows: z-ays-em and
z-ays-ays-em, respectively. The root can be identified with ays ‘an evil spirit,
demon’ (q.v.). This is corroborated by z-ays-ot, which is glossed in Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘
by ClArm. diw-a-har ‘struck by a demon’ (see Amalyan 1975: 98Nr24), and
ays-a-har ‘id.’, ays-ot, glossed as div-a-har and diw-ot, respectively (ibid. 17Nr353f).
That the striking by a demon causes fear is clearly seen from, e.g., Srvanjteanc‘ 2,
1982: 389. The very word ays-a-harim ‘to be struck by a demon’ (ClArm.), although
not recorded in dialectological dictionaries and Ararat/Loṙi glossaries that are
available to me, is still in use in Loṙi and in colloquial Armenian of, for example,
Kirovakan (nowadays named Vanajor), in the meaning ‘to be frightened’. See also
s.v. *t‘it‘ɫ-ot
zaṙam, a-stem: GDPl zaṙam-a-c‘ ‘senile’ (Book of Chries, Paterica, “Čaṙəntir”).
Derivatives: in Ephrem, Yovhannēs Ōjnec‘i, Alexander Romance, etc. ●ETYM Interpreted as prefix z- + prefix aṙ- + am ‘year, age’ (q.v.); similarly:
zaṙanc‘em ‘to be delirious (of drunkenness or especially of senility)’ = z- + aṙ- +
anc‘- ‘to pass’ [HAB 1: 143a, 213a; 2: 80b; M. Muradyan 1975: 63, 64; J̌
ahukyan
1987: 243].
It is possible that zaṙam contains am ‘year; age’. Similarly, zaṙanc‘- may contain
anc‘- ‘to pass, surpass, be destroyed, etc.’ (Bible+; dialectally ubiquitous);
typologically cf. anc‘eal zawurbk‘ ‘become old, aged’, rendering Gr. προβεβηκότες
ἡμερῶν in Genesis 18.11, προβεβηκυῖα ἐν ἡμέραις in Luke 1.18 and 2.36. Besides,
next to zaṙanc‘ there are also other formations such as z-anc‘- and aṙ-anc‘- (see
HAB 1: 213a).
Nevertheless, the first part *zaṙ (especially in zaṙam ) is unlikely to be a
combination of the prefixes z- and aṙ-. It could rather mean ‘old’; cf. cer-awurc‘ ‘of
old days/age’ (Ephrem, see NHB 1: 1014b). One may therefore revive the old
attempts (rejected in HAB 2: 80b), interpreting Arm. zaṙam as borrowed from the
Iranian word for ‘old, senile, decrepit’, cf. Pahl. zarmān ‘old man; old age,
decrepitude’, Oss. zærond ‘old’, etc. Probably, the Armenian forms comprise that
Iranian word, but have been reinterpreted as containing the prefixes z- and aṙ-.
zaṙanc‘em ‘to be delirious (of drunkenness or especially of senility)’, attested in
P‘awstos Buzand, Philo, John Chrysostom, etc.
In P‘awstos Buzand 5.35 (1883=1984: 200, lines 2ff; transl. Garsoïan 1989: 216):
k‘aǰ arbeal ic‘ē ew mtōk‘ zaṙanc‘eal yarbec‘ut‘enē <...>. Ew eɫew ibrew anc‘in
zaṙanc‘in i ginwoyn, əst č‘ap‘ anc‘anelov, <...> : “has drunk a great deal and that
his mind is overcome with drink, <...>. And it so happened that they were overcome
with wine, having gone beyond measure, <...>”.
●ETYM See s.v. zaṙam.
zatik, a-stem: GDSg zatk-i, abundant in the Bible [Astuacaturean 1895: 508-509];
only in Cyril of Jerusalem: GDPl zatk-a-c‘ ‘sacrifice; Passover; Resurrection feast,
Easter; feast’; dial. also ‘ladybug’ (Bible+). According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 82b),
the original meaning is ‘sacrifice’, attested in John Chrysostom. L. Hovhannisyan
(1990: 240) accepts this, although his textual illustrations are not convincing.
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects, also in the meaning ‘ladybug, Coccinella septempunctata’. The general meaning ‘feast’ seems to be present in Aynt‘ap (Turkishspeaking Arm.) *sarp‘inayi zatik (see Ačaṙean 1913: 958b).
●SEMANTICS For a deeper understanding of the semantic field of zatik, one should
consider the following two patterns of the formation of ladybug-names: (1) ‘cow of
God’: Russ. bož’ja korovka, Lith. diẽvo karvýtė; Roman. vaca domnului, etc.; (2)
‘(bug of the) Virgin Mary’: Lith. diẽvo marýtė; Germ. Marienkäfer, Engl. ladybug,
etc. (see Toporov 1979; 1981a; and Toporov apud MifNarMir 1: 181-182).
Both patterns are represented in Armenian dialects: (1) Łarabaɫ *astucoy
kov/eznak [Ačaṙean 1913: 141]; (2) Arčak (Van) mayram xat‘un ‘the Lady Mariam’
[Ser. Avagyan 1978: 150].
Concerning the evidence from Łarabaɫ, the following must be taken into account.
The expression *astcu kov/ezn is recorded by Lalayan (2, 1988: 23, 169). First, he
mentions astcu kov, astcu ezn, zatik in his list of insect(-names) (p. 23). One might
think that these are different insects, but they are not. Then (p. 169), he states that the insect called astcu kov or zatik is venerated, and no one kills it. Here the Russian
equivalent (bož’ja korovka) is mentioned, too. Since Lalayan’s work is first
published in 1897-1898, one might wonder whether the expression has been calqued
by Lalayan himself, and Ačaṙyan has taken it from Lalayan. This is improbable,
however. Besides, note the variant with ezn ‘bullock’. Finally, there is also Łarabaɫ
kavkav [Martirosyan/Gharagyozyan, FW 2003].
Comparing these data with the semantic field of zatik and bearing in mind the
well-known sacred heifers of Anahit, I conclude that the Armenian word originally
meant ‘sacrificial animal (particularly cow or heifer) devoted to / representing the
Goddess; spring festival of the cow sacrifice’. In earlier times, zatik was indeed a
public mataɫ; cf., e.g., Lisic‘yan 1969: 272.
●ETYM Since Anania Širakac‘i (7th cent.), associated with zat(an)em ‘to divide,
separate’ (a z-prefixation of hatanem ‘to cut’, q.v.), with different semantic
motivations such as: separating from the heathen; passover, etc.; see HAB 2: 82-83.
Olsen (1999: 459, 459545) advocates this etymology, treating zatik as a verbal noun
(“gerundial derivative”) with the suffix -ik; cf. martik, a-stem ‘fighting / contesting
place, stadium (John Chrysostom); fighter, warrior’ from martnč‘im ‘to fight’. I
accept this analysis, although the type is rare. However, the semantic development is
not explained properly. No wonder that Ačaṙyan leaves the origin of the word open.
I accept the interpretation of J̌
ahukyan (1991: 38-39), who compares the semantic
field of tawn ‘feast’ < *‘sacrificial animal/meal’ (q.v.).
According to Hovhannisyan (1990: 240), zatik ‘sacrifice’ is an Iranian borrowing;
cf. Pahl. zadan, zan- ‘to hit, beat, strike, smite’, the present stem zan of which is
seen in Arm. zenum ‘to slaughter an animal, to sacrifice’. In HAB, a different
etymology for zenum is given: YAv. ziiānā- f. ‘Schaden’, Pahl. zyān ‘loss, harm,
damage’ (on these, see MacKenzie 1971: 100; Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 602-603).
z-genum, 3sg.aor. zge-c‘-a-w, imper. zgec‘-ir ‘to put on clothes’ (Bible+); z-gest, ustem: GDSg zgest-u, AblSg i zgest-ē, IPl zgest-u-k‘ (Bible), GDPl zgest-u-c‘ (Łazar
P‘arpec‘i); i-stem: ISg zgest-i-w (Grigor Narekac‘i), GDPl zgest-i-c‘, IPl zgest-i-w-k‘
(Paterica+); o-stem: ISg zgest-o-v (Pataragamatoyc‘k‘, Grigor Narekac‘i) ‘dress,
garment, clothes’ (Bible+); dial. *ge-n/c‘- ‘to put on clothes’, *gest ‘dress, garment,
clothes’
●DIAL Šamaxi skɛst, Suč‘ava sg‘esd ‘church garment’, J̌
uɫa əsg‘ic‘ ‘id.’; Agulis
əsky
änil, Łarabaɫ, Łazax kɛnal ‘to put on clothes’, imper. kɛ́
c‘, Šamaxi kɛc‘(v)il ‘id.’;
Alaškert, Muš, Xlat‘, Nor Bayazet g‘est [HAB 2: 88b].
●ETYM From PIE *ues- ‘to be dressed’: Skt. váste ‘to be clothed, wear’, Hitt. u̯eš-
‘to be dressed’, etc., see Hübschmann 1897: 446; HAB 2: 88 with references;
Grammont 1918: 243; Pokorny 1959: 1172; Aɫabekyan 1979: 93; Ravnæs 1991: 7-8;
Mallory/Adams 1997: 109; Matzinger 2005: 59. For a thorough analysis, see
especially Clackson 1994: 178-180.
The verb (z-)ge-nu- derives from IE *ues-nu-, cf. Gr. ἕννυμι ‘to clothe’ (Meillet
1936: 112, 115-116; K. Schmidt 1980a: 3); the noun (z-)gest, u- and i-stem points to
*ues-tu- and *ues-ti(h2)- f., cf. Lat. vestis, is f. ‘garments, clothing; clothes; cloth’,
Goth. wasti ‘garment, dress’, Gr. Hesychius γεστία ‘clothing’, etc. Further see s.vv.
aganim ‘to put on clothes’, aṙagast ‘curtain’, zgest ‘dress’.
zgest ‘dress, garment, clothes’
See s.vv. zgenum ‘to put on clothes’ and aṙ-ag-ast ‘curtain’.
zign ‘a kind of marine predator’.
Only in Hexaemeron; see K. Muradyan 1984: 245, 25770, 373b.
●ETYM J̌
ahukyan (1967: 183, 308) derives it from IE *ǵh
iu̯- (as opposed to *ǵh
iu̯ ̄-;
cf. s.v. jukn ‘fish’) in the context of a deviant development of the PIE palatal *ǵh
into Armenian fricative z. However, zign is merely a transliteration of its equivalent
in the Greek original, namely: ζύγαινα (see K. Muradyan 1984: 373b). Thus, the
etymology must be abandoned.
zist, a-stem: GDSg zəst-i, AblSg i zəst-ē, IPl zst-a-w-k‘ (Bible+), o-stem: IPl zst-o-v-k‘
(Philo) ‘the fleshy parts between the loins and knee’ in Genesis 32.25/26-32/33
(Zeyt‘unyan 1985: 299-301) and Leviticus 3.10; ‘seat in a boat’ (Grigor Narekac‘i).
●ETYM Meillet p.c. apud HAB 2: 96b interprets zist as z- + *hisdo- < IE *si-sd-o-,
redupl. of *sed- ‘to sit’ seen in nist ‘seat, site’ (q.v.). The connection with nist has
been suggested already in NHB 1: 736c. Further see Olsen 1999: 72. Compare also
*pi-sd-o-: OPr. peisda ‘ass’, Russ. pizdá ‘vulva’, etc. (Mallory/Adams 1997: 507b).
zut, o-stem: ISg zt-o-v (3 Kings 6.21) ‘clean, pure, unmixed’ said of gold, thoughts,
etc. (Bible, Agat‘angeɫos, John Chrysostom, Nersēs Lambronac‘i, etc.), ztem ‘to
cleanse, purify; to test by fire, purify by melting (said of metals, etc.)’ in Job 22.25
(see below), Lamentations 4.7, Agat‘angeɫos, Eznik Koɫbac‘i, John Chrysostom,
etc.).
In Job 22.25: Ew eɫic‘i Amenakaln awgnakan k‘ez i t‘šnameac‘, ew ystak hatusc‘ē
k‘ez ibrew zarcat‘ zteal : ἔσται δε σοι ὁ παντοκράτωρ βοηϑὸς ἀπὸ ἐχϑρῶν, καϑαρὸν
δὲ ἀποδώσει σε ὥσπερ ἀργύριον πεπυρωμένον “And the Almighty will be a help to
you from enemies, and he will render you pure as silver tried by fire” [Cox 2006:
163].
●DIAL Axalc‘xa, Ararat, Muš zut, Sebastia, Tigranakert zud [HAB 2: 109a], Alaškert
zud and zudər [HAB ibid.; Madat‘yan 1985: 188b], Karin, etc. zudr [HayLezBrbBaṙ
1, 2001: 425b]57. The verb in Tigranakert has a geminate -dd-, zddɛl [HAB 2: 109a],
but Haneyan (1978: 185b) records only zədil.
The basic meaning of dial. and ModArm. zut(r) is ‘pure, unmixed’ said of e.g.
silver, gold, spirit, etc. (Malxaseanc‘ HBB 2: 37b; HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 425b),
and the verb ztel means ‘to purify, cleanse; to purify by melting or straining,
filtering’ (Malxaseanc‘ HBB 2: 39a). The final -r of *zut-r is unclear. If the meaning
‘pure, unmixed’ was used also pertaining to ‘honey’, the form *zutr can be
analogical after meɫr ‘honey’.
A different meaning is found in Hungarian, zutr ‘always, continuously’ [HAB 2:
109a].
●ETYM No etymology in HAB 2: 109a; Olsen 1999: 962.
J̌
ahukyan (1967: 184, 307-308) derived zut from QIE *ĝh
u-d-o-, cf. Lat. fundō,
fūdī ‘to pour out, shed; to cast (metals)’, in-fundō ‘to pour in’, etc.; for the etymon
cf. Gr. χέω ‘to pour, spill’, χυτός ‘spilled’, etc., see s.v. jew ‘shape’. For the initial z- instead of j- J
̌
ahukyan (ibid.) lists some comparable examples, such as the dialectal
doublets joɫ and zol ‘stripe of leather’ (on which see Ačaṙean 1913: 323; HAB 3:
157b). The example of zign ‘a kind of marine predator’ should be abandoned (see
s.v.).
Though not maintained in J̌
ahukyan 1987, this etymology is worth of
consideration. Details remain unclear, however. One may also think of
contamination with a MIran. form belonging to the same PIE etymon, cf. Av. ā-zuitif. ‘clarified butter, sacrificial fat’ vs. Skt. ā́-huti- f. ‘offering’ (RV+), havíṣ- n.
‘libation, sacrificial liquid, sacrificial substance’ (RV+), hav-, pres. juhóti ‘to
sacrifice, offer, pour (an oblation, ghee, etc.)’.
Ē
ēg, i-stem: GDSg ig-i, several times in the Bible; GDPl ig-i-c‘ in Ephrem, Plato;
a-stem: GDPl ig-a-c‘ in “Šarakan” (note that GDSg ig-i presupposes an i- or a-stem,
and GDPl ig-i-c‘, pointing to an i-stem, is better attested) ‘female’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects. Note also T‘iflis *ɛg hac‘ ‘a kind of ritual bread
for New Year’ [HayLezBrbBaṙ 2, 2002: 7b], Van ɛk‘y, gen. ɛk‘yu or ik‘yu ‘female
buffalo’ [HAB 2: 116a; Ačaṙyan 1952: 119, 259].
●ETYM Considered to be a word of unknown origin [HAB 2: 116a; J̌
ahukyan 1990:
71 (sem. field 2); Olsen 1999: 946].
I suggest a comparison with Skt. yóṣā- f. ‘girl, young woman’ (RV+), yoṣít- f.
‘id.’ (RV), MInd. yosiā- f. ‘woman’; of unclear origin (connection with yúvan-
‘young’ is doubtful, see Mayrhofer EWAia 2: 421). PArm. *eig-i- can be derived
from *ieus-i(e)h2- or *ieus-it-: > *yew(h)-i- > *yeyw-i- > *eyw-i- > ēg, ig-i, with
anticipation of *-i-; see s.v. ayg. For loss of the initial *y-, see 2.1.6.
ēš, o-stem (abundant evidence in the Bible), u-stem (scarce evidence) ‘donkey’.
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 2: 118a].
●ETYM Connected with Skt. áśva- m. ‘horse, steed’, áśvā- f. ‘mare’, áśv(i)ya-
‘pertaining to a horse, consisting of horses; possession of horses’, YAv. aspa- m.
‘horse’, Lat. equus m. ‘horse’, etc., from PIE *h1ek̂
uo- ‘horse’, see Pedersen 1905:
197-198, 205; 1906: 404, 447-449 = 1982: 59-60, 67, 182, 225-227; Ačaṙean 1908-
09: 243; HAB 2: 117-118; Mann 1963: 9, 102; Toporov, PrJaz [A-D], 1975: 137;
Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 5441 = 1995: 4631; Mallory/Adams 1997: 274a;
Blažek 1998; Viredaz 2005-07: 7-9. Not included in the thorough list of cognates by
Meid 1994: 54.
Watkins (1970: 7; see also de Lamberterie 1978: 262-266; 2006: 213-223; cf.
Godel 1975: 85) envisages the semantic shift ‘horse’ > ‘donkey’ in the context of the
semantic hierarchy between two words for ‘horse’, Arm. ēš : Skt. áśva-
(semantically unmarked; "language of men") vs. Arm. ji : Skt. háya- (semantically
marked; "language of gods"). See 3.12 for references on "language of men" vs.
"language of gods".
Hurr. ešši, iššii̯a- ‘horse’ has been compared with the PIE word for ‘horse’
(J̌
ahukyan 1963: 132; Diakonoff/Starostin 1986: 34; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 560, 915 = 1995: 478 with references, 809; Blažek 1998: 21-22, 24; A. Petrosyan
2002: 23). J̌
ahukyan (1963: 132, 132244) links the Hurrian word with the derivatives
Skt. áśv(i)ya- ‘pertaining to a horse’, Gr. ἵππιος ‘belonging to a horse’.
For the archaeological background, see Mallory 1982: 209-211. For Caucasian
and Eurasian parallels, see Blažek 1998: 26-27; Witzel 2003: 17-18, 20.
Dial. NPl *iš-uan(-k‘) seems to be a blend of gen. išu- and pl. iš-an(k‘).
Alternatively, the part *iš-v- may presuppose a form with -vi, originally dual (cf. šnvi : šun ‘dog’ etc., see Karst 1901: 190-192, §§ 245-246). Thus: *iš-v(i) + -an(k‘).
Compare the compounded plural marker -və-ner in the dialect of Van (see Ačaṙyan
1952: 109).
*ēǰ- ‘to come/go down, descend; to stay overnight; to calm down’: iǰanem, 1sg.aor. iǰi, 3sg.aor. ēǰ, imper. ēǰ (rich evidence in the Bible, see Astuacaturean 1895: 619-
621); iǰ-awor ‘guest’ (Bible); ēǰ, i-stem: GDSg iǰ-i, GDPl iǰ-i-c‘, IPl iǰ-i-w-k‘ ‘the
coming/going down, descent’ (Koriwn, Ephrem, etc.), ‘page (of a book), column’
(Jeremiah 36.23); see also s.v. aṙ-ēǰ ‘threads running along the length of cloth,
warp’.
●DIAL The verb is ubiquitous in the dialects. Kusget (Motkan) išvil refers ‘to go’,
since the area ist mountainous, and going is equivalent to going down [HAB 2:
119b; 4: 655b].
●ETYM Probably from PIE *h1e/oi-gh
--: Gr. οἴχομαι ‘to go (away), leave, disappear’,
οἰχνέω ‘to go, come, walk, approach’, Lith. eigà ‘course’, OIr. óegi ‘guest’ < *oigh
-
ēt-, perhaps also OCS iti, 1sg. idǫ ‘to go’, etc. (see s.v. *e(h/y)am or *i(h/y)am ‘to
go’). The Armenian nasal present is probably an innovation based on an older
present in *-e- or *-i̯e-, cf. Gr. οἰχνέω vs. οἴχομαι. For the etymology and a
discussion, see Scheftelowitz 1904-05, 1: 311; Pedersen 1906: 425 = 1982: 203;
HAB 2: 119a, 4: 655b; Pokorny 1959: 296; Frisk s.v.; Klingenschmitt 1982: 207-
208; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 59; 1987: 121, 436; Beekes 2009 s.v..
Armenian demonstrates a semantic shift ‘to go’ > ‘to go down’, cf. the abovementioned dialectal (Kusget) meaning. If the latter does not reflect the original
meaning, this dialect represents the result of a twofold semantic shift: PIE ‘to go’ >
Arm. ‘to go down’ > ‘to go’.
əmpem (spelled also as ənp/bem several times in Ephrem), suppletive aor. arb-i ‘to
drink’ (Bible+; for the paradigm, see Łaragyulyan 1961: 165-166), *ump in the
compound t‘er-ump/b with t‘eri ‘incomplete’ (Canon Law); ump subst. ‘drink,
drinking’ (Dionysius Thrax, 6-7th cent., see Adonc‘ 1915=2008: 12).
●DIAL Xarberd, Nor Naxiǰewan umb ‘sip, drink’ [HAB 3: 600a], Arabkir *ump
‘drop’, *əmp-ik > əmbig ‘a small drop’ [Dawit‘-Bēk 1919: 68; HAB 3: 600a], Svedia
(nursery words) əmb-äg, əmbu ‘drink’ [HAB 3: 600a; Andreasyan 1967: 220, 360a].
●ETYM Meillet 1892: 164 derives əmpem from IE *pimbō ‘to drink’ with Skt. píbati,
Lat. bibō, OIr. ibid (reduplicated thematic present of the word for ‘to drink’, cf. Gr.
πίνω ‘to drink’, etc.) considering the nasal to be secondary as in Lat. rumpō ‘to burst, break down’ vs. Goth. raupjan ‘to pluck’. In 1896: 155, he posits *ənd-hipem
with a question-mark. Similarly, J̌
ahukyan (1987: 144, 187; see also N. Simonyan
1991: 291) assumes *pibeti > *hipeti and a subsequent addition of ənd, thus: *əndhipe- > əmpe-. For a criticism of this view, see Klingenschmitt 1982: 156; Ravnæs
1991: 1611. On the other hand, *en-pib-e/o- has been posited, cf. Lat. im-bibō ‘to
imbibe’, etc. (Praust 1996: 193-199; Viredaz 2003: 76, 7685). Later, Meillet 1936:
134 regards əmpem as an obscure present, which is difficult to separate from Skt.
píbati, Lat. bibō, etc.
Charpentier 1909: 249-251 starts with the noun ump deriving it from *pō-p-mo-
(based on a reduplicated form of the same verbal stem, cf. Gr. πῶμα < *pō-mn ̥
‘drink’ vs. πίνω ‘to drink’) > *pōmpo- (metathesis) and treating əmpem as a
denominative verb. Hamp 1967: 15-16 (cf. Schmitt 1981: 58; Praust 1996: 188-189)
suggests a nasal-infix present *pōmb- from an earlier *pōb-, the latter being a cross
of the perfect vocalism πω- with an original *pib-: Skt. píbati, etc. Later he (1975:
107-109) treats əmpem as an ancient IE reduplication with a nasal formation in
Armenian.
The appurtenance of əmpem to the PIE word for ‘to drink’ is also accepted in
Pokorny 1959: 840; Ernout/Meillet 1959: 70; Schmitt 1981: 157; Mallory/Adams
1997: 175b. For further references and other etymological suggestions, see HAB 3:
599-600; Schmitt 1972-74: 25; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 22825; Clackson 1994: 181. Ačaṙyan
(HAB ibid.) does not accept any etymology and leaves the origin of the word open.
For an extensive etymological treatment, see Praust 1996.
The derivation of əmpem from *pimb- reflecting the reduplicated present *pi-ph3-
with analogical nasal infix is largely accepted (see Hamp 1975: 107-109;
Klingenschmitt 1982: 79, 85, and especially 156; Kortlandt 1987a: 50 = 2003: 80;
Beekes 1988: 61; 2003: 163, 172; Ravnæs 1991: 1611; Clackson 1994: 216-217106;
Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 113). One may assume (basically following Hamp 1975:
108) that, at a certain age, the morphology of the reduplicated present *hipem
became opaque; in order to emphasize the suppletive contrast with aor. arb-i, a
present marker, viz. the nasal suffix -ne- has been added (cf. pres. aṙ-nem vs. aor. arar-i ‘to make’; pres. dnem < *di-ne-mi vs. aor. ed-i ‘to put’; see also s.v. lsem ‘to
hear’). Thus: *(h)ip-nemi > *inpém(i) with metathesis as in *n̥-budh
no- > an-dund-k‘
‘abyss’ (q.v.). The loss of *h- is difficult, however; it may be due to the pretonic
position. Alternatively, one may think of ənd or *h1en- (see above).
The vocalism of PArm. *(h)imp- is in conflict with ump (late literary attestations
and a few dialects), as has been pointed out by Hübschmann 1897: 447; 1899: 45.
However, ump may be analogical (see Meillet 1892: 164; Vogt 1938: 337;
Klingenschmitt 1982: 156; Ravnæs 1991: 1611; N. Simonyan 1991: 291; Clackson
1994: 235314; Praust 1996: 188-189; cf. e.g. nunǰ vs. ninǰ and nnǰem ‘to sleep’, ǰunǰ
vs. ǰinǰ and ǰnǰem ‘to clean’.
For a discussion of the problem of *-b- (> Arm. -p-) in the thematic present
*pibeti < *pi-ph3-e-ti, see Beekes 1981-82: 113; 1988: 61; 1989: 25; Mayrhofer
1986: 100, 143, 143185, 174-175; Schrijver 1991: 412, cf. 147; Lindeman 1997: 120,
174, 184.
For the reduplicated present of this type, see also s.v. yɫp‘anam ‘to be filled to
repletion, be overfilled, be satiate’ (q.v.), if from QIE *h1en-pi-pl(e)h1- or *h1en-pi-pl(h1)-ne- (cf. the nasal epenthesis or infix in Gr. πί-μ-πλη-μι and ἐμ-πίμπλημι ‘to
fill’, which is reminiscent of that in əmpem ‘to drink’).
əngɫay-k‘ ‘a sea-monster or -devil’ (probably female) or ‘eel’, ‘water-snake’.
The only attestation is found in John Chrysostom: Ibrew zdews halacakans: ibrew
zəngɫayk‘ covu vnasakars. The word renders Gr. Ἐρινύες, the name of female
avenging chthonic deities.
●ETYM The etymological proposals are unconvincing. NHB 1: 764b and others (see
HAB 2: 122a) suggest a connection with ənkɫmem, ənklnum ‘to sink into the water’.
Ačaṙyan (HAB ibid.) leaves the origin of the word open. The root is considered
identical with gil/giɫ- ‘to roll, stumble’ (q.v.) by M. Muradyan (1975: 57). A.
Petrosyan (1987: 59, 61, 70) sees in əngɫay the conjectural theonym *Geɫ- (cf.
Angeɫ-), which is interpreted by Petrosyan himself as a reflex of the IE theonym
*u̯el- (on which see especially Ivanov/Toporov 1974). According to Łap‘ancyan
(1975: 365), əngɫay derives from Akkad. Nik(k)al. For a further discussion, see
Russell 1987: 455.
I propose to revive the comparison with Lat. anguilla ‘eel’ (possibly from
*angulla, influenced by anguis ‘snake’), suggested by Durean (1933: 118) in
passing, with a question mark. Compare Gr ἔγχελυς, ἴμβηρις, Lith. ungurỹs m. ‘eel’,
Russ. úgor’ m., etc. For a discussion of this etymon I refer to Walde/Hofmann 1,
1938: 48; Toporov, PrJaz 1, 1975: 88f; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984: 5261 = 1995:
44443; Mallory/Adams 1997: 176; Katz 1998. Note also Georg. anḳara-
‘grass-snake’ (Orbeliani) which has been compared with this IE word (Klimov 1994:
169-170, with ref.). For the semantic association between ‘grass-snake’ and
‘water-snake’ cf. lortu. If the initial vowel was *a- =*h2(e)-, the Arm. ə- is parallel
to ənkenum, next to ankanim (q.v.). If *h1e- or *Ho-, note that the loss of a pretonic
i/u is completely regular: *inguɫa- or *unguɫa- would both yield *əng(ə)ɫa-.
Preciser, perhaps, NSg *h2óngʷ
h
-ur/l- > PArm. *ung(u)ɫ, pl./coll. *ung(u)ɫ-áy-k‘ >
əngɫ-ay-k‘. The r-l fluctuation can perhaps be solved by assuming IE
*H(V)ngh
ur-leh2-, cf. Lat. stēlla and Arm. astɫ ‘star’ (q.v.), probably from
*Hster-l(-)eh2-, cf. Arm. Pl *asteɫ-a-. Otherwise, substratum vacillation *-r/l-?
Arm. əngɫayk‘ can be explained either as a collective formation in -ay-k‘ on the
basis of *a/unguɫ-, or as an archaic fem. plural like kanayk‘ ‘women’, see s.v. kin.
The latter alternative is risky, but attractive. First of all, əngɫayk‘ renders Gr.
Ἐρινύες, the name of female chthonic deities, so it might denote female
sea-monsters. Next, in the Armenian folk tradition recorded in Łarabaɫ [Lalayan 2,
1988: 170], the eel is a metamorphosed pipe of Gabriel hreštak, which swims
around singing, and the fishers listen to this sound when hunting it.58 The feminine
nature is not explicit here. However, the association with the sirens is quite obvious.
Furthermore, in Roman tradition the eel was believed to be purely female
[Mallory/Adams 1997: 176a]. It is interesting that when migrating from the Atlantic
Ocean, the females actively swim the rivers upstream, the males mostly remaining in
the brakish water of the estuary.
For the singing pecularity ascribed to the eel, see 3.5.2.8 (on aɫanak, etc.). One might wonder whether the Armenian word can have been borrowed from
Latin. This seems less likely, albeit possible. However, would the Armenian
translator use the Latin word for ‘eel’ to render Gr. Ἐρινύες? Note that the Greek
Ἐρινύες, to my knowledge, do not have anything to do with water. They are female
furious chthonic deities with “snaky-hair” (and sometime metamorphosing into a
snake), patronizing the Motherhood. This reminds the Armenian (< Iran.) al-k‘,
which, too, are female chthonic deities with “snaky-hair”, also connected with the
idea of Motherhood, although they, on the contrary, are hostile to mothers and
new-born children.
ənder-k‘ (spelled also as ənter-k‘), pl. tant. a-stem: GDPl ənt/der-a-c‘, IPl -a-w-k‘
‘entrails, intestines, bowels’ (Agat‘angeɫos, John Chrysostom, Philo, Gregory of
Nyssa, Grigor Narekac‘i, etc.).
●ETYM Derived from PIE *h1enter-h2, cf. Gr. ἔντερα n.pl. ‘intestines, bowels’ (=
Arm. *inder-a- ‘id.’), Russ. játro n., pl. játra ‘entrails, eggs, testicles’, jadró ‘kernel,
testicle’ from Slav. *jęt/drо (see ÈtimSlovSlavJaz 6, 1979: 65-66, 72), Skt. ántara-
‘interior’, āntrá- n. ‘intestine’, etc., see NHB 1: 771a; Hübschmann 1897: 447-448;
HAB 2: 125; Pokorny 1959: 313; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 36; Clackson 1994: 183;
Mallory/Adams 1997: 179b; Olsen 1999: 809; Beekes 2003: 146, 173, 204.
ənkenum ‘to cause to fall, throw down’ (Bible+); cf. also z-ənkenum in Job 40.8
(Cox 2006: 256): mi zənkenur zdatastan im “do not shrug off my judgement”.
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 128b) connects the verb with ankanim ‘to fall down’ <
*sn̥gw
- (q.v.) and derives it from PArm. *ink- < full-grade QIE *sengw
-. Godel (1965:
26, 37; 1975: 74, 125, 126; 1982: 10) derives ənkenum from caus. *songw
-eye- (with
trans.-caus. present *-nu- as in lnum ‘to fill’, etc.), vs. ank-anim ‘to fall down’, with
mediopassive inflection ank-ay (q.v.), derived from aor. *sn̥gw
-, the genuine present
*sengw
-e/o- being preserved in the Germanic languages, cf. Goth. sigqan. Also
Barton (1989: 145, 14534, 149) assumes a root aorist middle in zero grade *sn̥gw
-.
For the aor. ənke-c‘- from *songw
e(i̯e)-ske/o-, see Godel 1975: 128. Further see
Hamp 1975: 101, 1064; Kortlandt 1980: 99; 1987a: 811; 1996: 41 = 2003: 27, 811,
115.
Frisk (1944: 20-25 = 1966: 268-273) and Klingenschmitt (1982: 249) analyze
ənkenum as composed of ənd and *ke-, deriving the latter from PIE *ges-, cf. OIc.
kasta ‘werfen’ and Lat. gerere, gessī ‘to carry on’. This is not convincing. Because
of ankanim ‘to fall’, Viredaz (2003: 7686) rightly prefers the former explanation of
ənkenum.
ənt/d-o-cin, a-stem (later also o-stem) ‘a slave that is born in the house of his master’
(rendering Gr. οἰκογενής), opposed to arc‘at‘-a-gin ‘(slave) bought with money’ in
Genesis [Weitenberg 1981], and to ek ‘outsider’ (< ‘comer’) in Movsēs Xorenac‘i
1.10 (1913=1991: 33L7f; transl. Thomson 1978: 85): ew aylovk‘ əndocnōk‘ ew ekōk‘
“and [with] other domestic servants and the outsiders”.
●ETYM Composed of *ənd- (cf. Gr. ἔνδον ‘within’) and *cin- ‘to give birth; to be
born’ (q.v.); for a thorough philological and etymological analysis I refer to
Weitenberg 1981.
t‘aṙam ‘withered’ in Łazar P‘arpec‘i (5th cent.) and Sargis Šnorhali (12th cent.), ant‘aṙam ‘unwithered, evergreen’ from the Bible (three times) onwards, t‘aṙamim ‘to
wither’, late attestations, apart from the participle t‘aṙameal (1x in the Bible, and in
Paterica) and caus. t‘aṙamec‘uc‘- (1x Bible); *t‘aršam – unattested, priv. ant‘aršam (in older period, only Agat‘angeɫos), t‘aršamim ‘to wither’ (Bible 3x, Łazar
P‘arpec‘i, Movsēs Xorenac‘i, Paterica, Nilus, etc.); t‘oṙmil ‘id.’ (Geoponica, 13th
cent.), t‘o[r]š(o)mil ‘id.’ (Mandakuni, Geoponica).
A textual illustration: In Movsēs Xorenac‘i 3.68 (1913=1990: 363L6f; transl.
Thomson 1978: 353): et‘ē zis, eraštac‘eal ew t‘aršameal pask‘ut‘eamb arbuc‘manc‘
xratu “Or myself, dried out and dessicated by thirst for the waters of his advice?”.
●DIAL *t‘aṙam- (Hačən, Tigranakert, Xarberd, Agulis, Šamaxi),*t‘oṙom- more
widespread: Polis, Axalc‘xa, Hamšen, Sebastia, Karin, Muš, Van, Moks, Ararat,
Maraɫa, etc. ‘to wither’ [HAB 2: 156b]; an-t‘aṙam ‘a flower’ in Zeyt‘un, Ararat
[Ačaṙean 1913: 98a], Muš [Amatuni 1912: 31], etc. The by-form *t‘aršam- is not
recorded, but its presence may be proven by e.g. Svedia t‘išmil, although Ačaṙyan
(2003: 396, 416, 568) derives this form from t‘ōšnil.
In a prayer from J̌
avaxk‘, one finds an adjectival an-t‘aṙ-akan (see Lalayeanc‘
1892: 10L8 = 1, 1983: 340). Formally, it represents the pure root *t‘aṙ-, although one
cannot be sure that it is not a recent analogical formation. Note that prayers often
preserve archaisms.
●ETYM Since long connected with Skt. tarṣ-: tŕ̥ṣyant- ‘to be thirsty, to crave’, YAv.
taršu- ‘dry, not fluid’, Gr. τέρσομαι ‘to become dry’, Hitt. tarš- ‘to dry’, etc. (see
HAB 2: 155-156).
Pedersen (1906: 413 = 1982: 191) explains Arm. -rš- from *-rsi̯- (: Skt. tŕ̥ṣyati),
comparing garš- : Skt. hr̥ṣyati (see s.v.), which is accepted by Meillet (1950: 85).
See, however, 2.1.12.
The twofold reflex of PIE *rs in t‘aršamim : t‘aṙamim ‘to wither’ is considered to
be one of the oldest traces of early dialectal diversity. In order to evaluate this reflex,
one should try to establish the philological background of the distribution.
The adjectives t‘aṙam and ant‘aṙam, as well as the verb t‘aršamim are reliably
attested since the 5th century, whereas the adjective an-t‘aršam is found only once in
the old period, *t‘aršam is not attested at all, and the verbal t‘aṙam- is found only in
the participle and causative, each of them once in the Bible. That the verb t‘aršamim
is old and archaic may be indirectly corroborated by its disappearance from the
modern dialects and its replacement by t‘aṙam-. We may hypothetically reconstruct
the following original distribution: PArm. *t‘áṙam (adj.) : *t‘aršam-émi (verb). This
seems to fit into my reformulation of the ruki-rule in Armenian, see 2.1.12.
On the other hand, one may also assume the influence of Iran. *tarš- ‘to be
thirsty’ (cf. Av. taršna- m. ‘thirst’, etc., for the forms see Cheung 2007: 383-384),
although this is probably unnecessary. Note also Arm. dial. K‘esab täštia ‘arid, not
watered’ (see Č‘olak‘ean 1986: 317a), possibly reflecting an Iranian -ti-formation.
t‘arp‘ ‘a large wicker fishing-basket, creel’, in Anania Širakac‘i (A. G. Abrahamyan
1944: 228L23), allative/directive i t‘arp‘ : Ew or yuṙkanēn zercaw, i t‘arp‘ ənkaw : “and which (of the fish – HM) got rid of the fishing-net, fell into the fishing-basket”;
t‘arb ‘a framework of wooden bars, a wooden trellis-work’, in Movsēs
Kaɫankatuac‘i/Dasxuranc‘i 2.51 (V. Aṙak‘elyan 1983: 283L17f, with no variant
readings): AccSg t‘arb and AblSg t‘arb-ē. For the latter passage, its translation and
semantic discussion with references, see HAB 2: 162b; Dowsett 1961: 183, 1833; V.
Aṙak‘elyan 1969: 220.
●DIAL Muš, Alaškert, Ararat (see also Nawasardeanc‘ 1903: 39-40), Maraɫa, Xoy
t‘arp‘ ‘a large wicker fishing-basket, creel’ (for a thorough description, see Amatuni
1912: 206b; Ačaṙean 1913: 352a), Zeyt‘un t‘ɔyp‘ ‘a hunting basket or net (for fish,
fox, etc.)’ [HAB 2: 162b; Ačaṙyan 2003: 131, 310]. It is practically impossible to
determine whether the forms point to t‘arb or t‘arp‘ since the voiced b is usually
aspirated after r. Only Zeyt‘un seems to be relevant, since here rb mostly yields yb’
(although the evidence is not entirely straightforward, see Ačaṙyan 2003: 91). This
dialect, thus, probably points to t‘arp‘.
As we have seen, the word is attested only twice in the literature, and one of the
attestations comes from Anania Širakac‘i, native of Širak. The dialectal dictionaries
do not record the word in the Karin-speaking areas (Karin, Širak, Axalk‘alak‘, etc.).
Nevertheless, it seems to have been present in Nerk‘in Basen; see Hakobyan 1974:
143, where the author, describing fish-catching baskets, brackets the word t‘arp‘.
One might postulate, thus, the presence of the word in Karin/Širak speaking areas
for at least 13 centuries.
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 162b) connects Gr. τάρπη ‘large wicker basket’, also
ταρπός, τερπός m., ταρπόνη f. ‘id.’. The Greek and Armenian words are usually
derived from PIE *tu̯(e)r-p- : *tu̯erH- ‘to grab, enclose’, cf. Lith. tvérti ‘to seize,
form’, OCS tvoriti ‘to do, make’; see Pokorny 1959: 1101 (without Armenian);
J
̌
ahukyan 1987: 154, 302. According to Clackson (1994: 183), we are probably
dealing with a common borrowing from a lost source.
The QIE cluster *-rp- regularly yields Arm. -rb-. In this case, the by-form t‘arp‘
presents us with the problem of -p‘. One might assume a non-IE *tarph
-, with
aspirated *-ph
-, or assimilation t‘...b > t‘...p‘, especially after r (on the latter
circumstance, see above). However, the by-form with -b seems to be reliable. I
therefore propose an alternative solution, which can explain the allophones p‘ : b.
Gr. τάρπη derives from QIE *t(a)rp-eh2-. If we may posit a HD laryngeal-stem,
the paradigm would have been as follows: nom. *tórp-eh2- (or *terp-eh2-, if the
vocalism of τερπός is old), gen. *tr̥p-h2-ós. This would yield PArm. *th
V́rb-a-, gen.
*th
arph
ó- ‘large wicker basket’. Then the oblique stem *th
arph
- would be
generalized. One might also posit a thematic *trpH-ó-, as in Gr. ταρπός; but Arm.
abl. t‘arb-ē precludes the o-declension. For this kind of paradigmatic solutions, see
2.2.2.6. I must admit that this analysis is highly hypothetical.
In view of the limited geographical distribution and the cultural character of this
lexeme, one should consider it to be a non-IE word of Mediterranean origin (cf. the
above-mentioned assumption of Clackson). In this case, the vowel *a and the
Armenian vacillation p‘/b may be seen as substratum features, although the non-IE
origin does not automatically exclude the paradigmatic solution proposed by me.
Should the borrowing be ascribed to a very early period of the development of Proto-Armenian and Proto-Greek, the word may have been adjusted to the
corresponding morphological system inherited from Indo-European.
t‘ezan, o-stem: AblSg i t‘ezan-o-y (Leviticus 13.56); later a-stem: GDSg t‘ezan-i
(Cyril of Alexandria, Čaṙəntir), GDPl t‘ezan-a-c‘ (Čaṙəntir) ‘the weft, the transverse
threads which are woven across to make cloth using the warp as a base’ (Bible+),
‘long sleeve’ (Čaṙəntir); t‘ezan-i-k‘, ea-stem: GDPl t‘ezan-e-a-c‘ (Paterica, Grigor
Narekac‘i), IPl t‘ezan-e-a-w-k‘ (Nersēs Lambronac‘i) ‘long sleeve’ (also John
Chrysostom, etc.).
The word t‘ezan ‘weft, threads which are woven across’ (rendering Gr. κρόκη)
occurs several times in Leviticus 13.48-57, in contrast with aṙēǰ ‘threads running
along the length of cloth, warp’ (Gr. στήμων).
●DIAL The syncopated form t‘ɛznik‘ ‘long sleeve’ is found in a number of western
dialects: Nor Naxiǰewan, Trapizon, Muš, Zeyt‘un, etc. [HAB 2: 168a]. Note also
Moks t‘ɛznink‘y ‘широкий, длинный, открытый (распоротый) обшлаг рукава’
[Orbeli 2002: 230].
●ETYM The derivations from IE *tek- (Lat. texō ‘to weave’, NHB 1: 803c) and
*(s)tegh
- ‘stitch’ (see Saradževa 1986: 230, 235-236, 402142 with ref.; cf. also stec
‘weaver’s vertical stick’) are rejected because of the -z- which requires a palatovelar
*-ĝh
-, and the word is considered to be of unknown origin [HAB 2: 168a; Olsen
1999: 300, 947].
t‘eɫawš ‘holm-oak; cedar, pine’.
NHB, HAB and Astuacaturean (1895: 568a) cite only two attestations: Isaiah
44.14 and 2 Paralipomenon 2.8. On the latter, see also Xalat‘eanc‘ 1899: 57a.
The word is also attested in Agat‘angeɫos § 644 (1909=1984: 330L11), in an
enumeration of tree-names, between yakri and kaɫamax. In “Bžškaran” (apud NHB
2: 995a; cf. S. Vardanjan 1990: 86, § 356), where k‘araxunk is described as t‘eɫōš
caṙoyn xiž patuakan “valuable pitch of the tree t‘eɫōš”. It is remarkable that in the
7th-century Armenian Geography (Ašxarhac‘oyc‘ by Anania Širakac‘i), k‘araxunk is
the only product mentioned for the province of Arc‘ax, which roughly represents the
territory of Łarabaɫ, and it is not mentioned in any of the other provinces, and that
the word t‘eɫawš has been preserved only in Łarabaɫ.
In Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ (see Amalyan 1975: 118Nr100), which seems to show special
affinities to the dialects of Łarabaɫ and adjacent areas (see H. Martirosyan 2008),
t‘eɫōš is used to gloss t‘eɫi ‘elm-tree’: t‘eɫi .
caṙ anptuɫ, or ē t‘eɫōš “a fruitless tree
that is t‘eɫōš”.
In Turkish-Armenian dictionary (c. 1720 AD) by Eɫia Mušeɫyan Karnec‘i
(Karin/Xotorǰur), Turk. č‘am yemiši is glossed by t‘ēɫōšea, t‘ēɫōši [Č‘ugaszyan
1986: 72Nr65].
●DIAL Ačaṙyan (1913: 357b; HAB 2: 172a) records only Łarabaɫ t‘ɛɫúši ‘a kind of
mountainous tree’. Davt‘yan (1966: 356) cites Łarabaɫ t‘ɛɫúši and t‘əɫɔ́
ši, as well as
t‘ɛɫúši in Hadrut‘ and Šaɫax-Xcaberd (other dialects in the territory of Łarabaɫ). He,
too, does not specify the meaning. HayLezBrbBaṙ (2, 2002: 99a) has Łarabaɫ t‘eɫmši
‘a kind of mountainous tree’. This seems to reproduce the entry t‘eɫōši in Ačaṙyan
1913: 357b, with a misprinted -m- instead of -ō-. In this case, however, the
alphabetical order would be disturbed. If t‘eɫmši is correct (which is very uncertain), one would be tempted to compare it with Georg. t
h
elamuši ‘elm’, on which see
below.
I express my gratitude to Armen Sargsyan for supplying me with further
information. His informants were Step‘an Dadayan (born in Šuši in 1946), the
pro-rector of Step‘anakert University, whose parents are born in Zardarašen (a small
village in the district of Martuni, close by T‘aɫavard) where they lived by 1945, and
Hät‘äm, the forest-guard of the village Kusapat, who in 2003 was ca. 55 years old.
According to them, Łarabaɫ t‘əɫuší denotes a kind of t‘eɫi ‘elm-tree’ (q.v.) with
yellowish wood (which is good as fuel) and leaves that are smaller than those of the
t‘eɫi and, when green, serve as fodder for the goats. It is present in Xcaberd,
T‘aɫavard, Martakert. Armen Sargsyan himself saw one near the spring called
Čiráknə (5-6 km up from Kusapat).
In the dictionary by Malxaseanc‘ (HBB 2: 96a-b), t‘eɫōš is identified with
Quercus Pontica and is described as follows: “a beautiful tree belonging to the genus
of the oak, with very hard, unrottable, heavy, elastic wood and dark green longish
oval leaves; it is long-lived, and grows slowly; produces big non-edible acorns”.
●SEMANTICS The tree-name seems to have, thus, two basic meanings: (1) a kind of
oak, the holm-oak or the evergreen oak (Quercus Ilex), a native of Italy and other
Mediterranean countries; (2) cedar, pine.
●ETYM Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ (see above), NHB (1: 806a), and Uɫurikean (see HAB 2:
172a) treat t‘eɫawš as identical with or a kind of t‘eɫi (note also the description of
t‘eɫōš by informants from Łarabaɫ as a kind of t‘eɫi), assuming, apparently, an
etymological identity. This is accepted by J̌
ahukyan (1987: 145) with some
reservations, and by P. Friedrich (apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 178b), where teɫōš is
represented as meaning ‘wood’, which is incorrect. Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 172a),
however, leaves the origin of t‘eɫawš open. Olsen (1999: 938) gives t‘eɫōš as
meaning ‘oak’ or ‘pine’ and as a word of unknown origin.
J̌
ahukyan (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 vs.
dandaɫ ‘slow’, etc.
Perhaps pteləw- + -š-i (cf. Myc. pte-re-wa), see s.v. mori/*mo(r)-š. For this and
for the suffix -awš in general, see 2.3.1.
t‘eɫi ‘elm’. Late and poorly attested (see HAB 2: 171; Greppin 1982: 350; 1985: 93).
The variant *t‘eɫ-eni (preserved in the dialects of Ararat and Zeyt‘un) appears in the
place-name T‘eɫenik‘ (11th cent.+), see Hübschmann 1904: 430.
●DIAL Preserved in the dialects of Hamšen, Ararat, Łarabaɫ, Van, Muš, Zeyt‘un
[HAB 2: 171b].
●ETYM Bugge (1893: 39) connected t‘eɫi ‘elm’ with Gr. πτελέ-α, Ion. -η ‘elm, Ulmus
glabra’. Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 171b) considers the anlaut problematic (see also
Hübschmann 1897: 449) and prefers linking t‘eɫi with Lat. tilia ‘linden’. The sound
change *pt- > Arm. t‘-, however, seems to be valid [Greppin 1982; Clackson 1994:
169]. Some scholars are more positive about the Greek correspondence (see Solta
1960: 420; Greppin 1982: 350; C. Arutjunjan 1983: 286; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 145, 188,
302 – with some reservation), although others (Aɫabekyan 1979: 65; Clackson 1994:
169; Beekes 2003: 171-172) include Lat. tilia too. Hübschmann (1897: 374-375, 449) is often said to have considered t‘eɫi as a
Greek loanword. However, Hübschmann, in fact, considers only Arm. pt(e)ɫ- ‘elm’
(HAB 4: 111b) a Greek loan, and mentions the connection of Arm. t‘eɫi with Gr.
πτελέα, not accepting it. Although Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 171b) already showed the
misunderstanding, the idea still remains ascribed to Hübschmann (as in P. Friedrich
1970: 89; Greppin 1982: 350; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 188; Clackson 1994: 234283).
According to P. Friedrich (1970: 89), both the Latin and Armenian forms are
borrowed from Greek. Pokorny (1959: 847) only accepts the Greek-Latin connection
and treats Arm. t‘eɫi as borrowed from Greek. The latter point is correctly rejected
by J̌
ahukyan (1967: 9623). Probably we are dealing with a common borrowing from
a lost Mediterranean source, see Clackson 1994: 169, 183, 234283; Beekes 2003:
171-172; cf. Greppin 1982: 350 (“from the Aegean substratum”).
According to Bugge (1893: 39), Georg. t
h
ela and Tush t
h
el ‘elm’ are borrowed
from Armenian. Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 172a) adds Georg. t
h
elamuši ‘elm’. See also s.v.
t‘eɫawš.
*t‘eɫik
●DIAL Only in Zeyt‘un t‘əɫək ‘snow-pile, avalanche’ [Allahvērtean 1884: 186;
Ačaṙean 1913: 368b].
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (2003: 287) hesitantly reconstructs *t‘eɫik and treats the word as of
completely unknown origin.
I think Zeyt‘un *t‘eɫik reflects an -ik suffixation of Arm. t‘eɫ ‘pile’ (see HAB).
*t‘en (dial.) ‘vulva of a cow’.
●DIAL Sebastia t‘ɛn ‘ vulva of a cow’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 363a; Gabikean 1952: 202];
Gor. t‘in, t‘än ‘ vulva of female animals’ [Margaryan 1975: 392a].
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (1913: 363a) does not mention any etymology. J̌
ahukyan (1972:
310) derives from IE *tu-ēn- (from *tēu- ‘to swell’) comparing Gr. σάϑη f. ‘penis’,
σάννιον ‘id.’ and Lith. tvainýtis ‘scharwenzeln, buhlen; sich unkeuschen Gelüsten
hingeben’. Hanneyan (1979: 174) accepts the etymology and takes it as an
Armeno-Greco-Baltic isogloss.
However, the word is probably a Persian (or Turkish?) loan.59 I propose a
connection with Pers. tan ‘body, person’; cf. YAv. tanū- f. ‘body, person’, Skt. tanū́-
f. ‘body, self’ (RV+), etc. (see OsnIranJaz-Sr 1981: 29; OsnIranJaz-Nov 1, 1982:
59). Note also Arm. dial. (Hamšen) t‘ɛn ‘body’, which, according to Ačaṙyan (1947:
189, 267b), is borrowed from Turkish. For the semantic shift cf. Arm. marmin
‘body’ > dial. ‘vulva’ (Karin), ‘vulva of an animal (Nor Bayazet)’, anjn ‘person;
body’ > Van anj ‘ vulva of a pregnant cow’, etc.
*t‘eši(k)
●DIAL Ararat t‘ɛši ‘spindle’ [Nawasardeanc‘ 1903: 41a], Axalc‘xa, Karin t‘ɛšik ‘id.’
(Ačaṙean 1913: 357b; also Mxit‘areanc‘ 1901: 306, glossing Širak aṙč‘kan
‘spindle’). For attestations of t‘ɛši and gen. t‘ɛšu, see Amatuni 1912: 57a.
●ETYM Amatuni (1912: 57a) marks t‘ɛši as from Kurdish (abbrev. k‘t), not
specifying the Kurdish form. He obviously means tešī, tešū ‘spindle’, cf. also tešīle
‘bobbin’, tešīṛēs ‘пряха, fem. spinner’; tešwē ‘тесло’ = ‘adze’ (see Kurdoev / Jusupova 1983: 154b). Ačaṙean (1913: 357b) equates Arm. *t‘eši(k) with East
Turkish /t‘ɛšɛ/.
Obviously, all these forms belong with Pers. taš ‘hatchet, axe’ [Steingass 302a],
Sogd. tš ‘axe’ [Gharib 1995: 392a], Khot. ttäṣ- ‘to cut’, Arm. (Iranian LW) tašem ‘to
hew’, Skt. tákṣati ‘to form by cutting; to tool, hammer; to fashion, form, prepare’,
etc. (see HAB 4: 370; Bailey 1979: 129-130; Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 612-613;
Cheung 2007: 384-385). Note also A. Petrosyan 2002: 49170, mentioning Arm. dial.
t‘eši(k) in this context.
Formally, Arm. *t‘eši(k) can be regarded a Persian loanword. Although the
semantic relationship between the weaving and hewing activities is possible
(compare OHG dehsa ‘axe’ vs. MHG dëhse ‘spindle’ [Mallory/Adams 1997: 37-38],
noted by A. Petrosyan 2002: 49170; see also s.vv. hiwsem ‘to weave, plait’ and hiwsn
‘carpenter’), the semantic difference between Pers. taš ‘hatchet, axe’ and Arm. *t‘eši(k) ‘spindle’ may be explained by the appurtenance of the two terms to the same
PIE root rather than by considering the Armenian word as a Persian loanword. Note
that the Indo-Iranian verbal root under consideration exclusively refers to cutting
and hewing, and all the Iranian implement designations (apart from Kurdish tešī,
tešū ‘spindle’, the Armenian origin of which cannot be excluded) formed from this
root denote only ‘hatchet, axe’ or ‘adze’. Also the productive -i suffix seems to
favour this solution.
If Arm. *t‘eš-i(k) is a native word, its proto-form cannot be structurally identical
with that of the Indo-Iranian because the latter derives from a reduplicated *te-tk̂
-(see the literature above), which would not yield Arm. *t‘eš-. If at least some IE
cognate forms point to a PIE *tek̂
s- (see Mallory/Adams 1997: 37-38), this protoform might also explain the Armenian form through the ruki-rule (see 2.1.12): QIE
*tek̂
s-ii̯V- > Arm. *t‘eš-i. Otherwise, the Armenian form is indeed an Iranian loan.
*t‘er (dial., widespread) ‘leaf (also of dough)’, *t‘el (dial.) ‘id.’; *t‘er earlier probably
also *‘wing, feather’; t‘ert‘, i-stem: ISg t‘ert‘-i-w in Vardan Arewelc‘i, IPl t‘ert‘-iw-k‘ (var. t‘ɫt‘-o-v-k‘) in Paterica, GDPl t‘ert‘-i-c‘ in Grigor Magistros ‘leaf of a
flower, plant; plate, etc.’ (Philo, Paterica, etc.).
*t‘er ‘leaf’ is found in the compound mi-a-t‘er-i ‘having one leaf or petal’ –
Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ [Amalyan 1975: 215Nr307].
●DIAL Hamšen, Trapizon t‘ir ‘leaf’, Łarabaɫ, Ararat, J̌
uɫa t‘ɛr ‘petal, leaf’, Axalc‘xa
t‘ɛr ‘petal, leaf of paper or dough’, Ewdokia, Sebastia t‘ɛr ‘leaf of dough’ [HAB 2:
176a]. There is also a variant with -l : Agulis bxkát‘il ‘leaf of radish’ < *boɫk-a-t‘el,
which corresponds to Łarabaɫ pxkát‘ɛr [HAB 2: 176a] and Ararat boɫkat‘er ‘id.’ (see
Amatuni 1912: 112b). Note also Nor Naxiǰewan *t‘el-bac‘ ‘thin leaf of dough’ (see
Tigranean 1892: 111; Amatuni 1912: 209a; HAB 2: 176a).
The form t‘ert‘ is present in: Alaškert t‘ert‘ ‘petal’, Ararat t‘ɛrt‘ ‘leaf of paper’,
Xarberd t‘ɛrt‘ ‘leaf of cabbage’, etc. [HAB 2: 176a].
●ETYM Together with t‘er ‘side’, ‘t‘iṙ- ‘to fly’, and t‘it‘eɫ/ṙn ‘butterfly’ (see s.vv.),
from PIE *pter- ‘feather; wing’, probably derived from *pet- ‘to fly’ (see Bugge
1893: 40; Ačaṙyan 1918: 161; HAB 2: 175-176, 183, 184-186; Pokorny 1959: 826;
Greppin 1982: 348-349; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 144), cf. Gr. πτερόν n. ‘feather (mostly in
pl.); bird’s wing; wings of a bat and of insects; any winged creature, as the Sphinx; a
beetle’, πτέρυξ f. ‘wing of a bird; winged creature, bird’, Gr. πέτ-ο-μαι, πτ-έ-σϑαι ‘to fly’, etc. The meaning ‘wing’, which is dominant in Greek, is absent in Armenian.
However, t‘er ‘side’, in my view, presupposes an earlier meaning ‘wing’, cf. the
semantic field of Engl. wing, as well as of Arm. kuṙn ‘back’, dial. also ‘arm’, ‘side’.
See also HAB 2: 185a on this. Further, note that, according to Aɫayan (1974: 70-71),
and, independently, to Olsen (1999: 51-52, also citing a suggestion by Rasmussen),
Arm. t‘ew (o-stem) ‘wing; arm, etc.’ (q.v.) is derived from the same *pet-. Accepted,
albeit with some reservations, by J̌
ahukyan (1987: 144, 187).
In view of the semantic field ‘feather; leaf’ : ‘wing’ represented by this set of
words, one wonders whether t‘ew ‘arm, ving’ is somehow related with Moks t‘av,
gen. t‘av-əɛ, pl. t‘av-ir ‘лист = leaf’, äkänǰəɛ
t‘av ‘барабанная перепонка =
ear-drum’ (see Orbeli 2002: 199, 228). For textual illustrations, see Orbeli 2002: 61,
Nr. 26 (referring to leaves of pumpkin) and Nr. 27; Yovsēp‘eanc‘ 1892: 12L5, gloss:
122. Also in Van, Sasun, Muš (Ačaṙean 1913: 352b).
t‘er, i-stem according to NHB 1: 806a, but only AblSg i t‘er-ē (Eznik Koɫbac‘i, Cyril
of Alexandria) is attested, ‘side’. Numerous compounds (Bible+).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects [HAB 2: 174-175].
●ETYM See s.v. *t‘er ‘leaf’
t‘ew, o-stem: GDPl t‘ew-o-c‘ (very frequent), ISg t‘ew-o-v, IPl t‘ew-o-v-k‘ (Bible);
also IPl t‘ew-ō-k‘ (formally: a-stem – t‘ew-a-w-k‘), twice in the Bible, as well as in
Grigor Narekac‘i, etc. ‘wing; arm’.
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects [HAB 2: 177-178].
t‘ew ‘shoulder’: in a Moks version of the epic (SasCṙ 1, 1936: 61L65f):
Jenöv Hövan tɫi anun idi Davit‘;
Tɫen aṙic‘, idi t‘orben, ɛt‘al t‘iv.
“Jenöv Hövan named the child Davit‘; he put the child into the bag and threw (the
bag) onto his shoulder”. The word t‘iv here clearly means ‘(onto the) shoulder’, as
was correctly translated by Melik‘-Ōhanǰanyan (SasUdal 2004: 56aL5: “через
плечо”) and L. Petrosyan (1968: 37: usin).
In a Łarabaɫ fairy-tale recorded by Aṙak‘el Bahat‘ryan in 1860 (HŽHek‘ 6, 1973:
658L12), the king of Underworld pulls out one of the t‘ev-s of Hndk-a-hav, lit.
‘Indian bird’, and gives it to the hero. Then, the bird takes the hero out of the
Underworld. Here, t‘ew cannot refer to ‘wing’ since the bird cannot fly with one
wing. It must mean ‘feather’.
●ETYM See s.v. *t‘er ‘leaf’, etc
t‘it‘eɫn1 ‘leaf of metal’ (Bible+: NSg t‘it‘eɫn, APl t‘it‘ɫuns). Greppin (1982: 349) says
that the meaning of t‘it‘eɫn is obscure, but it might mean ‘gold leafing, gold’, and the
word is known from the Middle Armenian lexicographers. However, the word does
occur in the Bible (Exodus 28.36, 29.6; Leviticus 8.9, etc.) clearly rendering Gr.
πέταλον n. ‘leaf; leaf of metal’.
●ETYM See s.v. t‘it‘eɫn2.
t‘it‘eɫn2, t‘it‘eṙn ‘butterfly’.
The only attestation mentioned by Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 183a) comes from the fables
by Mxit‘ar Gōš (12-13th cent.). Here the word is used in NPl t‘it‘ɫunk‘, which, as Ačaṙyan points out, presupposes NSg *t‘it‘eɫn [and/or *t‘it‘iɫn, cf. the problem of
aseɫn ‘needle’].
Now we find this form in poems by Yovhannēs T‘lkuranc‘i (14-15th cent.;
T‘lkuran in Mesopotamia, between Amid and Hṙomkla): zēt/k‘an əzt‘it‘eɫ/xn ‘like a
butterfly’ (see Pivazyan 1960: 132L13, 155L40). The two passages (Mxit‘ar Gōš and
Yovhannēs T‘lkuranc‘i) are cited in MiǰHayBaṙ 1, 1987: 259a.
Attested also in a medieval riddle written by Nersēs Šnorhali (12th cent., Cilicia)
[Mnac‘akanyan 1980: 279-280Nr149f]. Mnac‘akanyan (ibid. 499a) correctly glosses
t‘it‘eɫn with ‘butterfly’. Further, in a poem by Aṙak‘el Siwnec‘i (14-15th cent.); see
Poturean 1914: p. 206, stanza 10.
The form t‘it‘eṙn (with -ṙ-) is only found in Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘, where t‘it‘eɫn is
glossed as follows: t‘it‘ramay, kam t‘it‘eṙn, or ē t‘it‘eṙnik (see Amalyan 1975:
120Nr155; MiǰHayBaṙ 1, 1987: 259a). This is mentioned by Greppin (1982: 3496) as
the only evidence for t‘it‘eɫn ‘butterfly’ (with -ɫ-), which is incorrect.
The anthroponym T‘it‘eɫnik (11th cent.; see below) is in fact the oldest attestation
of the word.
Greppin (1990: 70) cites t‘it‘ɫum ‘butterfly’, the source of which is unknown to
me.
●DIAL There are two basic forms for ‘butterfly’ in the dialects: *t‘it‘eṙn and
*t‘it‘eɫn.
*t‘it‘eṙn
The unsuffixed form *t‘it‘eṙ is present in Muš [Amatuni 1912: 6b;
Baɫdasaryan-T‘ap‘alc‘yan 1958: 255a]; Alaškert [Madat‘yan 1985: 189b]; Hamšen
[Ačaṙyan 1947: 229; Bläsing 1992: 78Nr137]; Ararat [HAB 2: 183b]; Karčewan [H.
Muradyan 1960: 193b]; Kak‘avaberd (here, t‘ít‘ɛṙnə) [H. Muradyan 1967: 171b];
Burdur [N. Mkrtč‘yan 1971: 182a].
The suffixed forms are:
*t‘it‘eṙn-uk : Agulis t‘t‘ä́ṙnük [Ačaṙyan 1935: 57 (§ 57), 353]; Dersim t‘ət‘əṙnug
[Baɫramyan 1960: 14]; cf. Xarberd t‘əṙt‘əṙug [HAB 2: 183b];
*t‘it‘eṙn-e/ik : Muš and Alaškert t‘itəṙnek/g [Amatuni 1912: 6b; HAB 2: 183b;
Baɫdasaryan-T‘ap‘alc‘yan 1958: 255a; Madat‘yan 1985: 189b]; Dersim t‘it‘ɛṙnig
[Baɫramyan 1960: 80b]; Erznka t‘it‘ɛṙnik [Kostandyan 1979: 134a]; Ararat t‘it‘ɛṙnɛk
[Markosyan 1989: 301b]; Ozim t‘ət‘əṙnɛyk, cf. Van t‘əṙt‘əṙnɛk [Ačaṙyan 1952: 261],
Šatax t‘ərt‘ənek [M. Muradyan 1962: 196b]; Svedia t‘it‘əṙnäg [Ačaṙyan 2003: 379,
567]; Adana t‘ət‘eṙnik (meaning ‘light-minded person’) [HAB 2: 183b; Ačaṙyan
2003: 310]; Sasun t‘it‘eṙnik ‘a kind of sheep illness, when worms arise in the liver of
sheeps’ [Petoyan 1954: 122].
*t‘it‘eṙn-ak : Č‘aylu and Maraɫa (in Łarabaɫ) t‘it‘ɛṙnák [Davt‘yan 1966: 357].
Dersim t‘it‘gṙna [Baɫramyan 1960: 80b] probably reflects a metathesis of the ṙ
and g. Perhaps this has been supported by the folk-etymological association with
gəṙnag (see Baɫramyan 1960: 88a) from kuṙn ‘back’, dial. also ‘arm’, ‘side’. For the
auslaut, cf. also Dersim (K‘ɫi) t‘it‘xna (see below).
*t‘it‘eɫn
Zeyt‘un t‘it‘ɛx [Ačaṙyan 2003: 13, 122, 310]; Svedia t‘it‘ix ‘butterfly of the
silkworm’ [Andreasyan 1967: 224, 361b]; K‘esab t‘it‘iex [HayLezBrbBaṙ 2, 2002:
110a]; Akn t‘ət‘ɛx [HAB 2: 183b; Gabriēlean 1912: 268]; Xarberd [HayLezBrbBaṙ2, 2002: 110a] and Xotorǰur t‘it‘eɫ [YušamXotorǰ 1964: 451b] (both meaning ‘a lung
illness of animals’); Č‘ɛnkilɛr (Nikomidia) t‘t‘ɛɫ [HAB 2: 183b] (meaning ‘butterfly
of the silkworm’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 363a]); Meɫri t‘ɛ́
t‘axnə < t‘it‘eɫn [Aɫayan 1954: 92,
269b].
The ending of Dersim (K‘ɫi) t‘it‘xna [HayLezBrbBaṙ 2, 2002: 110b] is not clear
to me; cf. also Dersim t‘it‘gṙna (see above).
With the suffix -e/ik: Muš t‘itəɫnik, cf. the form recorded by Rivola, namely
t‘it‘xnik [HAB 2: 183b]; Aparan, Moks t‘it‘xnek [Amatuni 1912: 6b]; Tigranakert
t‘ɛt‘ɛɫig [HAB 2: 183b; Haneyan 1978: 186b].
On the meanings ‘a kind of illness’ and ‘spirit’ and on t‘it‘ɫ-ot, see below.
It is remarkable that some dialectal areas (Svedia, Xarberd, Muš, Agulis and
Kak‘avaberd vs. Meɫri, etc.) represent both the ṙ- and ɫ-forms side by side. The
ṙ-variant (Ararat, Agulis, etc.) may have once been present in Łarabaɫ and adjacent
dialects, too; cf. also Burdur (t‘it‘ɛṙ), the speakers of which have migrated from
Łarabaɫ in the 17th century. It has been preserved in *t‘it‘eṙ-maɫi : Łarabaɫ
t‘it‘irmáɫɛ, t‘ət‘ərmáɫi/ɛ, in Mehtišen : t‘ət‘əṙmáɫi [Davt‘yan 1966: 357], Goris
t‘it‘rimaɫi, t‘ət‘ərmaɫi, t‘it‘ilmaɫi [Margaryan 1975: 327a], Karčewan and
Kak‘avaberd t‘it‘iṙmáɫi with semantic nuance ‘a butterfly that flitters around the
light’ [H. Muradyan 1960: 214a; 1967: 192b]. Particularly transparent is Ararat
t‘it‘ɛṙmaɫi [Markosyan 1989: 301b]. Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 183b) treats *t‘it‘eṙ-maɫi as a
compound containing t‘it‘eṙ ‘butterfly’ and maɫ- ‘to sift’ and compares it with
Łarabaɫ, etc. *aliwr-maɫ(ik) ‘butterfly’ = aliwr ‘meal’ + maɫ- ‘to sift’ (see Ačaṙyan
1913: 51-52, 365a; HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 18a). Note an interesting word-play
found in a folk-song of the type ǰangyulum (see Grigoryan-Spandaryan 1971:
105Nr612):
Amaṙn a t‘ət‘ərmaɫi,
Axči er allür maɫi,
K‘u ɫäšängy türür kyälət
Siroɫ səerts kədaɫi.
“It is summer, (there is) a butterfly,
Girl, get up (and) sift meal;
Your beautiful shaking
Will burn my loving heart”.
The semantic motivation is, he explains, the “flour-like” dust on the wings of
butterflies. This is quite conceivable.60 For the examination of t‘it‘irmaɫi and the
like, particularly interesting is t‘it‘ramay which is used in Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ alongside
t‘it‘eṙn(ik) to render t‘it‘eɫn (see Amalyan 1975: 120Nr155). Another trace might be
Łarabaɫ (Ganjak) t‘it‘ṙa, used as an epithet to ɫuš ‘bird’ in meaning ‘light’ (see
HayLezBrbBaṙ 2, 2002: 110b) or ‘fluttering’ and the like.
On the other hand, given the existence of t‘it‘eɫn in Meɫri (t‘ɛ́
t‘axnə), one might
look for traces of the form also in Łarabaɫ.
61 Indeed, on a cross-stone in the vicinity
of the village of Dahrav there is an inscription from 1071 AD (ŠI/520 + 551 = 1071)
where one finds a female anthroponym T‘it‘eɫnik (see M. Barxutareanc‘ 1995 <
1895: 101; AčaṙAnjn 2, 1944: 309; DivHayVim 5, 1982: 144Nr486): Es Ohan
kangnec‘i zxač‘s inj ew amusin im T‘it‘eɫnikay: aɫawt‘s yišec‘ēk‘ “I, Ohan [=
Yovhannēs/John – HM], erected this cross to myself and to T‘it‘eɫnik, my spouse;
remember/mention in your prayers”.
Moks t‘əxt‘əmurik/k‘ (GSg t‘əxt‘əmorkə
e
, NPl t‘əxt‘əmorkətir (-kənir), see Orbeli
2002: 231) is considered by Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 183b; cf. also Ačaṙyan 1952: 261) as
isolated and independent. Ačaṙyan does not specify its structure. Given the
association between the butterfly and the meal (aliwr), one may suggest that
t‘əxt‘əmurik is a folk-etymological reshaping of an underlying *t‘ət‘ər-maɫ-ik or
*t‘ət‘əɫ-maɫ-ik under the influence of Moks t‘əxt‘əmur ‘дрожжи, закваска теста’ =
‘yeast, leaven’ (see Orbeli 2002: 230-231). Here it is difficult to give preference to
one of the varinats *t‘ət‘ər- and *t‘ət‘əɫ-. The latter explains the anlaut better
(*t‘ət‘ɫ- > t‘əxt‘-, with the same contact metathesis as is seen in t‘əxt‘əmur ‘yeast,
leaven’ < t‘t‘xmor). Alternatively, one may assume the following scenario:
*t‘ət‘ər-maɫ-ik > *t‘ət‘əɫmarik (with distant metathesis of r and ɫ, cf. uɫarkem ‘to
send’ > Moks höröɫkil, hōreɫbayr ‘father’s brother’ > Łarabaɫ ɫɔ́
rp‘ɛr; pɫtor ‘dirty’ >
Łarabaɫ, Goris, Agulis *prtoɫ, etc.) > *t‘xt‘əmorik. For *t‘ət‘əɫ-, cf. also Goris
t‘it‘ilmaɫi. It should also be borne in mind that the form with -ɫ- does occur in Moks
(t‘it‘xnek [Amatuni 1912: 6b]), although both Orbeli and Ačaṙyan record only
t‘əxt‘əmurik/k‘.
Despite the variation seen in the forms of such closely related dialects as Van
(t‘əṙt‘əṙnɛk), Ozim (t‘ət‘əṙnɛyk), Šatax (t‘ərt‘ənek) and Moks (t‘it‘xnek,
t‘əxt‘əmurik/k‘ ), two features seem common in all these forms: they have the suffix
-ek, and they all represent the -ṙ- variant of the word (in this respect, Moks is
ambiguous, see above). Nevertheless, here too, one can find relics of the form with
-ɫ-. To my knowledge, Van and Ararat *t‘it‘xot ‘angry, quick-tempered’ (see
Amatuni 1912: 165-166; Ačaṙean 1913: 365b; HayLezBrbBaṙ 2, 2002: 110b) has
not received an etymological explanation. Compare Xotorǰur t‘it‘xot ‘a kind of
poisonous herb that is harmful to the lungs of animals’ [YušamXotorǰ 1964: 451b],
from t‘iteɫ ‘a lung-illness of animals’. The form obviously contains the suffix -ot
which is usually used in adjectives “especially describing physical diseases <...>, or,
mostly unpleasant, moods or spiritual qualities” (see Olsen 1999: 520; see also
J̌
ahukyan 1998: 30-31). The same suffix is seen in synonyms diw-ot and k‘aǰ-ot
mentioned by Amatuni (1912: 165-166) next to t‘it‘xot. These formations contain
the words dew and k‘aǰ (both meaning ‘spirit, demon’), respectively. Note also
Łarabaɫ *k‘aǰk‘-ot ‘angry, quick-tempered; lunatic’ (see Ačaṙean 1913: 1099a). For
a textual illustration, see Ananyan 1978: 359 (k‘aǰkot). In Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ one finds
ays-ot and z-ays-ot glossed as diw-ot and diw-a-har ‘stricken by a demon’,
respectively (see Amalyan 1975: 17Nr354, 98Nr24). The forms are composed of ays ‘an evil spirit, demon’ and the same suffix -ot. All these examples suggest that t‘it‘x-ot,
too, can contain a root that means ‘spirit, demon’. Bearing in mind the semantic field
expressed by words like Arm. xipilik ‘a (night-)spirit; nightmare; butterfly’ and Gr.
ψῡχή ‘soul; departed spirit, ghost; butterfly or moth’, one may safely interpret
t‘it‘xot (< *t‘it‘ɫ-ot) as an ot-suffixation based on *t‘it‘eɫ(n) ‘butterfly’, here meaning
‘spirit, demon’.
According to Norayr (s.v. French douve; see HAB 2: 183b), t‘it‘eɫ, t‘it‘ɫnek
means ‘a wingless worm that arises in the heart or the liver62 of the sheep as resulted
from eating too much trefoil’. Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 183b) compares this form to Mush
t‘itəɫnik. The link is semantic, too, since Muš t‘it‘eɫnik, t‘it‘ɫənek also means ‘a kind
of worm in the liver of the sheep’ according to HayLezBrbBaṙ 2, 2002: 110a. Cf.
also Sasun t‘it‘eṙnik ‘a kind of sheep illness, when worms arise in the liver of
sheeps’, Xarberd and Xotorǰur t‘it‘eɫ ‘a lung illness of animals’. The information
reported by Norayr (aee above) may help to understand why in the dialect of
Hamšen (see HAB 2: 369b; Ačaṙyan 1947: 234) the word xipilik ‘a (night-)spirit;
nightmare; butterfly; beautiful girl; doll’ refers to the trefoil. For the semantic field,
cf. Slavic *motyl’, which displays meanings like ‘moth; butterfly; a tapeworm in the
liver of sheeps; sheep illness; Cyperus flavescens’ (according to a folk-belief, this
plant is harmful to the sheep) [ÈtimSlovSlavJaz 20, 1994: 84ff]. Note also Gr. ψῡχή
‘soul; departed spirit, ghost; butterfly or moth; sea-starwort, Aster Tripolium’
(mentioned also by Ačaṙyan, HAB 2: 369b).
In Sip‘an, *t‘it‘eɫn is found in the compound maškat‘it‘eɫ ‘butterfly’ (see Amatuni
1912: 6b). See s.vv. maškat‘ew and *maškat‘it‘eɫ/ṙn.
●ETYM The lexicographers and scholars usually cite t‘it‘eṙn ignoring t‘it‘eɫn
‘butterfly’. Whenever they mention the form t‘it‘eɫn, they mean the one which
means ‘leaf of metal’ (see t‘it‘eɫn1). Of the two forms meaning ‘butterfly’, only the
latter, namely t‘it‘eɫn is attested in the literature. The form t‘it‘eṙn is a reduplication
on the basis of *t‘er- < *pter- ‘feather; wing’; see there for a discussion and
references.
The etymological relation between t‘it‘eṙn ‘butterfly’, t‘iṙ- ‘to fly’, and t‘er(t‘)
‘leaf’ and Gr. *πτερ- ‘wing of a bat, birds and insects’ is obvious, as is the reduplicated nature of t‘it‘eṙn. In the Armenian dialects of Van and Xarberd, the reduplication has become full, namely *t‘ṙtṙ- [HAB 2: 185a]. The use of t‘r/ṙt‘ṙ- ‘to flutter,
tremble, vibrate’ (see Malxaseanc‘ HBB 2: 127c, 130-132) referring to birds or
butterflies is common in the dialects and Modern Armenian. A couple of random
illustrations will suffice. In a story recorded in Šuši (Łarabaɫ) we read: “<...> the
heart of Simon <...> is fluttering like a bird (ɫuši mnan t‘ərt‘əṙəm)”
[Grigoryan-Spandaryan 1971: 307L25]. In the variant of the famous fairy-tale
“Hazaran Blbul” written by Xnko Aper, t‘rt‘ṙal appears alongside t‘it‘eṙ ‘butterfly’.
A question arises: what about t‘it‘eɫn? Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 182ff) admits the
etymological identity of t‘it‘eɫn ‘leaf if metal’ and t‘it‘eṙn/t‘it‘eɫn ‘butterfly’.
Further, he (HAB 2: 183ab) twice states that *t‘it‘eɫn ‘butterfly’ (derivable from NPl
t‘it‘ɫunk‘) is secondary. Similarly, J̌
ahukyan (1984: 36, 42) treats the anthroponym T‘it‘eɫnik (11th cent.) as a dialectal (SW) variant of t‘it‘eṙnik reflecting the
sound-change ṙ > ɫ. However, the female anthroponym T‘it‘eɫnik is also attested in
Łarabaɫ at the same period (see above), and the sound-change ṙ > ɫ is not specified
any further. The priority of t‘it‘eṙn seems to function even in such an early attempt
as that of Gabriēlean (1912: 268), who assumes that Akn t‘t‘ex comes from older
*t‘rt‘-ex, with the suffix -ex also found in other animal-names. To my knowledge,
t‘it‘eɫn ‘butterfly’ is nowhere else mentioned when t‘it‘eṙn is discussed, see (apart
from references already cited) Pedersen 1982: 126-145 (= 1906: 348, 145);
Tumanjan 1978: 257-258; Greppin 1981b: 5; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 72; 1987: 144; H.
Suk‘iasyan 1986: 163, etc.
The dialectal spread of t‘it‘eɫn ‘butterfly’ is not smaller than that of t‘it‘eṙn.
Moreover, t‘it‘eɫn is the only variant attested (although late) in the literature. In
NHB, we find neither t‘it‘eṙn nor t‘it‘eɫn ‘butterfly’. Only the former is recorded in
an addendum of dialectal words, s.v. t‘it‘eṙn(ik) (see NHB 2: 1062b). For NHB,
thus, the -ṙ- variant is dialectal. I therefore fail to see criteria which would
demonstrate that t‘it‘eɫn is secondary. The only argument in favour of the priority of
t‘it‘eṙn seems to have been the etymological relatedness with *t‘iṙ- ‘to fly’.
However, the very fact that the relation was and still is transparent suggests that
t‘it‘eṙn (although not necessarily) can be secondary, whereas t‘it‘eɫn can not, since
there is no synchronical basis for such a reshaping (in other words, there are neither
a verbal *t‘eɫ- ‘to fly, flutter’, nor *t‘eɫ- ‘wing’). Instead, one finds some sporadic
evidence for *t‘el ‘wing’ and *t‘el ‘leaf’; see s.v. *t‘er/l ‘leaf (also of dough)’. The
obvious parallelism between *t‘er ‘leaf’ and *t‘el ‘leaf’ is comparable to that of
*t‘er ‘leaf of dough’ and *t‘el ‘id.’ (ibid.). These are rather archaic relics which,
together with the cognates in *-l- such as Gr. πτίλον (mentioned also by Ačaṙyan
himself) and others strengthen the status of t‘it‘eɫn.
For t‘it‘eɫn ‘butterfly’ we have first to mention Gr. πτίλον n. ‘soft feathers, down;
wing (properly of insects); the wing-like membrane in a kind of serpents’, probably
with a hypocoristic -ιλο suffix, which may be linked with the Armenian suffix -il/ɫ
(on which see e.g. HAB 2: 479a). However, this suffix added to a verbal basis *pt- is
improbable. In that case, one may treat *ptilom as a word of substratum origin (cf.
siwn, etc.), which has later been contaminated with the native PArm. *t‘er- < PIE
*pter-. The form *ptil(o)m would yield Arm. *t‘eɫn (from *t‘iɫn; cf. aseɫn ‘needle’
from older *asiɫn) and, with subsequent reduplication, *t‘i-t‘eɫn. Note that, both
formally and semantically, t‘it‘eɫn corresponds to πτίλον just like t‘it‘eṙn does to
πτερόν. In the case the second component of Lat. vespertīliō ‘bat’ is cognate, the
semantic side of the etymology would become much stronger, since denotations of
the butterfly and the bat are very often related to each other (see s.v.
*maškat‘it‘eṙ/ɫn). Note also Gr. τίλα f. ‘plucking; (pl.) flocks or motes floating in the
air’, τιλ[λ]ά · πτερα (Hesychius).
Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 182ff) identified t‘it‘eɫn (APl t‘it‘ɫuns) ‘leaf of metal’ with
t‘it‘eɫ/ṙn ‘butterfly’. Petersson (1916: 259) derives t‘it‘eɫn from IE *tel- ‘flat, flat
ground, board’, cf. Gr. τηλία f. ‘board or table with a raised rim or edge, baker’s
board, etc.’, Lat. tellūs, -ūris f. ‘Erde’, etc. Pokorny (1959: 1061) is sceptical about
the etymology (“sehr unsicher”), but J̌
ahukyan (1987: 153, 186-187) accepts it.
Earlier, he (1982: 112) was inclined to the etymology proposed by Bugge (1893: 40) who brought t‘it‘eɫn into connection with Gr. πέταλον n. (also πέτηλον) ‘leaf; leaf of
metal’. The Greek word, as well as OHG fedel-gold ‘Blattgold’, are represented in
Pokorny 1959: 824 under the root *pet- ‘ausbreiten’. Olsen (1999: 410) suggests
that t‘it‘eɫn “may once have been an instrument noun *pt(h)etlo- deformed by such
factors as dissimilation, reduplication (cf. titeṙn ‘lizard’, siseṙn ‘chick-pea’) and
secondary n-stem inflection”.
I prefer Ačaṙyan’s etymology. The semantics of t‘it‘eɫn ‘leaf of metal’ is close to
that of t‘er-t‘ ‘leaf of a flower, plant; leaf of metal, etc.’, dial. (widespread) *t‘er
‘leaf (also of dough)’, and t‘it‘eɫn is formally identical with t‘it‘eɫn ‘butterfly’, so
there is no need to separate these words.
Arm. t‘it‘eɫn1 ‘leaf of metal’ (q.v.) occurs several times in the Bible, rendering
Gr. πέταλον n. ‘leaf; leaf of metal’. Remarkably, in Leviticus 8.9 one finds the
Georgian p’ep’ela-, which is the usual word for ‘butterfly’: p’ep’eli igi okrojsaj
‘golden butterfly’ (see Klimov 1964: 153). The passage, in fact, refers to the golden
plate (see RevStBible p. 83a; cf. Gr. τὸ πέταλον τὸ χρυσοῦν : Arm. zt‘it‘eɫnn oski)
and has nothing to do with the butterfly.
One can offer two explanations for this problem:
(1) the Georgian translator has translated the text from (or has consulted) the
Armenian Bible and confused Armenian t‘it‘eɫn ‘leaf (of metal)’ with the
homonymous and etymologically identical word for ‘butterfly’. This would imply
that the meaning ‘butterfly’ of Arm. t‘it‘eɫn was already present in the time of the
Georgian translation. That the Georgian Bible has originally been translated from
Armenian is well known (see H. Anasyan, HaykMaten 2, 1976: 321-328; Cowe
1992: 239ff);
(2) there was a Georgian word for ‘plate, leaf (of metal)’ homonymous to the
butterfly-word; in this case, the Georgian word would provide us with a parallel for
the twofold semantics of Arm. t‘it‘eɫn. This alternative is less probable.
We encounter a similar problem in a medieval song entitled “Govasanut‘iwn
Soɫomoni tačarin” : “Praise of the Solomon’s temple”, known from an 18th-century
manuscript (Matenadaran Nr 2939: 438b; see K‘yoškeryan 1981: 18, 232-234, 279).
Here (op. cit. 233L20) we read: Haw t‘it‘ɫuns aṙnēr zayn margartašarern. We are
obviously dealing with APl t‘it‘ɫuns of t‘it‘eɫn ‘plate, leaf (of gold)’ which indeed is
attested three times (3Kings 6.22, 32, 35) in the description of the building of the
Solomon’s temple, referring to (golden) plates. But what does the word haw (‘bird’)
have to do with the above-mentioned passage from the medieval song? Probably,
t‘it‘eɫn ‘plate’ has been confused with t‘it‘eɫn ‘butterfly’, which in a certain way is
associated with the compounded designation of the bat, cf. mašk-a-t‘it‘eṙ ‘bat’
(q.v.). It is remarkable that mašk-a-t‘it‘eṙ occurs in a folk version of the story about
the building of the temple (here, a fortress to be made of feathers) by Solomon, see
Łanalanyan 1969: 343-344Nr794F.
Lith. petelìškė, peteliùškė, peteliuškà, patelìškė ’butterfly’ (also ‘flatterhaftes,
leichtsinniges Mädchen’) and Latv. petelîgs ‘beweglich, lebhaft, flatterhaft’ are
usually derived from *pel-tel- (with the root *pel- ‘to fly, flutter’). On the strength
of the pair *pet-Vr- (cf. Skt. pátra- n. ‘wing (of a bird), feather’, LAv. patarə-ta-
‘winged’, Hitt. pattar n. ‘wing’, gen.sg. paddan-aš, Arm. p‘etur ‘feather’, with
phonological problems; from NSg n. *-ōr?) next to *pter- (cf. Arm. t‘er(t‘), Gr. πτερόν, πτέρυξ), one might perhaps revive the derivation of the Baltic form from
*pet-el-. In this case, Lith. petelìškė ‘butterfly’ would be an important cognate of
Arm. t‘it‘eɫn ‘butterfly’.
*t‘it‘ɫot ‘angry’.
●DIAL Van t‘it‘xot (see Ačaṙean 1913: 365b), Ararat (HayLezBrbBaṙ 2, 2002:
110b), etc.
●ETYM See above, s.v. t‘it‘eɫn2, t‘it‘eṙn ‘butterfly’. For the suffix, cf. *diw-ot ‘mad’
from dew ‘demon’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 279b], k‘aǰk‘-ot ‘id.’ from k‘aǰk‘ ‘demon’,
(z)ays-ot from ays ‘demon’ (q.v., see also s.v. zaysaysem). Further: Van *ayc-ot-im
‘to be angry’, lit. ‘to become “goaty”’ (from ayc ‘goat’) [Ačaṙean 1913: 92a].
On ‘butterfly’ : ‘soul; spirit’, see HAB s.v. xipilik.
*t‘iṙ- ‘to fly’, independently only in Step‘anos Ōrbelean: t‘iṙ (noun) ‘flying’; t‘ṙ-č‘-im
‘to fly’ (Bible+), t‘ṙ-an-im ‘id.’ (Proverbs, etc.), t‘ṙ-n-um ‘id.’ (Cyril of Alexandria,
etc.).
●ETYM See s.v. *t‘er ‘leaf’, etc
t‘ɫk‘i, dɫk‘i ‘maple’, spelled also as t‘ɫk(en)i, t‘xki, dɫk‘i, txki [Ališan 1895: 190Nr794].
According to Béguinot/Diratzouyan (1912: 66, Nrs 303 and 304), t‘ɫki/txki (with
synonymous bicɫi) denotes ‘Acer campestre’, whereas ‘Acer platanoides’ is
represented by *kat‘n-terew/b-i, on which see 2.1.15. See also Malxaseanc‘ HBB 4:
418a.
NHB (2: 1061c), only in the dialectal addendum: dɫki ‘a tree with valuable wood
of which spoons are made’.
According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 188b), attested in “Yaɫags caṙoc‘” (“On trees”), in
the form dɫk‘i. I cannot identify this source, since it is absent from the bibliography
of HAB.
●DIAL Loṙi, Łazax, Łarabaɫ, Łaradaɫ t‘xki, Łazax t‘ɫk-eni, Muš, Bulanəx dxki
‘maple’ (with an initial d- rather than d’-, as Ačaṙyan points out) [HAB 2: 188-189],
Dersim t‘əɫ̊
zi (perhaps a misprint for t‘əɫ̊
gi), t‘əɫ̊
ki, t‘əkɫ
̊
i [Baɫramyan 1960: 80b].
Although almost unattested in the literature and more widespread in the Eastern
dialects (cf. also Ališan 1895: 190Nr794), the word is also present in the Western
dialectal area (Muš-Bulanəx and Dersim) and may be thus old.
●ETYM No etymological attempt is recorded in HAB 2: 188-189.
The word may be analized as *t‘i/uɫ- + the tree-suffix -k‘i/-ki (cf. hačar-k/k‘-i
‘beech’, dial. kaɫnək‘i vs. class. kaɫni ‘oak’, etc.). The root resembles *t‘eɫ- found in
t‘eɫi ‘elm’ and t‘eɫawš (see s.vv.). For a semantic association, cf. Oss. wis-qæd
‘maple’ from PIE *u̯inĝ- ‘elm’ (see P. Friedrich apud Mallory/Adams 1987: 178b;
see also s.v. knjni ‘elm’), if the connection is accepted.
In this case, Dersim t‘əkɫ
̊
i (next to t‘əɫ̊
ki) would be considered a metathesized
form of t‘ɫk‘i, which seems strange. Therefore, one may alternatively assume that
t‘ɫk‘i is a metathesized form of *t‘k-ɣ/xi, preserved intact only in Dersim. Bearing in
mind that the maple belongs to the family Aceraceae, one can think of Bacbian
stagar and Chechen stajr ‘Acer platanoides’, which have been connected with Hurr.
tas̄kar-innə ‘box-tree’ (see Diakonoff/Starostin 1986: 25). Perhaps, a Caucasian
form of the type *təgər/l- is responsible for the Armenian word. The latter may have been formed with the suffix found in tree-names like kaɫamaxi, tawsax(i), etc. (see
2.3.1).
The alternation t‘-/d- is reminiscent of the case of t‘awt‘ap‘em and p‘lanim (see
Weitenberg 1992).
Alternatively, t‘ɫk‘i ‘maple’ can be compared with Oss. tulʒ/tolʒæ ‘oak’ and
Hung. tölgy ‘oak’ (on which see Cheung 2002: 232). For the semantics, cf. Basque
azkar, which, depending on the dialect, denotes ‘maple’ or ‘oak’ (see P. Friedrich
1970: 66).
t‘uz, o-stem: GDSg t‘z-o-y, AblSg i t‘z-o-y (Bible); i-stem: GDPl t‘z-i-c‘ (Plato) ‘fig’
(Bible+), ‘a fig-like tumour’ (“Bžškaran” apud NHB 1: 820c) [cf. Gr. σῦκον ‘fig; a
large wart on the eyelids, also tumours in other places’]; dial. also ‘vulva’, see
below; t‘zeni, ea-stem: GDSg t‘zenw-o-y, AblSg i t‘zenwoy, LocSg i t‘zenwoǰ, ISg
t‘zene-a-w ‘fig-tree’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects. With -n : T‘iflis t‘uzə, gen. t‘zan, Agulis, Łarabaɫ,
etc. t‘ɔ́
znə. The -n is seen in t‘z-n-eni ‘fig-tree’, attested in 1788 [HAB 2: 202a].
Note also Loṙi t‘z-(e)n-k‘-i ‘fig-tree’ e.g. in a fairy-tale from the village of Šnoɫ
(recorded by Hm. Mažinyan; see Nawasardeanc‘ 5, 1889: 67, lines 9, 15 = HŽHek‘
8, 1977: 17L-2, 18L3): t‘znk‘u terew “leaf of fig-tree”.
No trace of -n in the Van-group; see Ačaṙyan 1952: 261 (not listed in 124-126,
under an-declension); M. Muradyan 1962: 196b, cf. 102; Orbeli 2002: 232.
In Aslanbek and Ozim, t‘uz also means ‘vulva’; cf. Gr. σῦκον ‘fig; pudenda
muliebria’, Germ. Feige.
●ETYM Since de Lagarde (1854: 30L820f), compared with Gr. σῦκον, Boeotian τῦκον
n. ‘fig; a large wart on the eyelids, also tumours in other places; pudenda muliebria,
female genitals’, συκῆ, Dor. σῡκέα, Heraclean Dor. σῡκία f. ‘fig-tree, Ficus Carica’.
The Armenian and the Greek words cannot be separated from Lat. fīcus, ī and ūs, f.
‘fig-tree’ and, in view of phonological irregularities, are treated as words of
Mediterranean (or Asia Minor) rather than of Indo-European origin [Meillet
1908-09b: 163; Meillet/Vendryes 1924: 17; HAB 2: 202a; Frisk 2: 818; P. Friedrich
1970: 150 (also with Burushaski pfak); J̌
ahukyan 1987: 307, 309, 466; Mallory /
Adams 1997: 433b; Olsen 1999: 936 (“a cultural loan”)].
Patrubány (1908: 278a) derives the Armenian and the Greek words (as well as
Slav. *tyky, cf. Russ. týkva ‘pumpkin’) from PIE *tū- ‘to swell’ and presents Lat.
fīcus separately (in the previous entry), from PIE *dh
ē- ‘to suck’.63 This view cannot
be maintained. The connection with Gr. σίκυς ‘cucumber’, Slav. *tyky ‘pumpkin’,
etc. (on which see s.v. sex ‘melon’) is untenable; see also Walde/Hofmann 1, 1938:
492. Gr. συκῆ and Mycenean su-za < *sukya have been compared with Hitt. šigga-
‘a plant’ without a mention of Boeotian τῦκον and the Armenian and the Latin forms
(see Hoffner 1967: 4358). This is not convincing either.
The phonological correspondences, in particular Arm. -z vs. Gr. and Lat. *-k̂
-, and
Lat. fī- vs. Arm. and Gr. *tu-, are not easily explicable. De Lagarde (1854: 30L820f)
compares the case of Arm. xoz ‘pig’ vs. Pers. xūk ‘id.’. Patrubány (1908: 278a)
assumes that Arm. *t‘us- yielded t‘uz under the influence of ənkoyz ‘walnut’. The correspondence Gr. τ- : Lat. f- betrays a “phonème étranger”, also found in Gr. λίτρα
‘pound; a silver coin of Sicily’ : Lat. lībra < *līfrā ‘Roman pound; level; balance;
scales’ [Meillet 1908-09b: 163]. Morani (1991: 175) treats Arm. t‘uz next to Lat.
fīcus, etc. as borrowed from a substratum and posits an initial *þ-. One may posit a
*th
- with facultative voicing and aspiration (cf. Beekes 2008: 46 on Pre-Greek).
J̌
ahukyan (1987: 307) points out that Arm. t‘uz cannot be derived from Greek,
and that it implies a source form of the type *tugh
-, with an impossible root structure
for an Indo-European word (a combination of a voiceless stop and a voiced aspirated
one), unless *-gh
- is a determinative. He (op. cit. 466) also mentions the Semitic
parallels (Akkad. tīttu(m), Aram. tēn/ttā, Arab. tīn, etc.; cf. Adonc‘ 1938: 460-461 =
1972: 385-386) considering them to be formally remote.
In view of the Latin vocalism, one may tentatively reconstruct Mediterr. *th
uoik̄ ̂
-
or *tū(i)k̂
-. The final voiced -z of Arm. t‘uz points to (or has been influenced by) the
suffixal element j/z which abounds in plant-names, animal-names, etc. (see 2.3.1).
Alternatively: *thyuk̄ ̂
-, which would also explain the Greek anlaut vacillation t-/s- (cf.
Beekes 2008: 48, 52).
Arm. dial. (T‘iflis, Loṙi, Agulis, Łarabaɫ, etc.) *t‘uzn probably reflects *t‘uz-(o)m
‘fig’ (the fruit), cf. Gr. σῦκον n. ‘fig’ (the fruit) vs. συκῆ, σῡκέα, σῡκία f. ‘fig-tree’.
See also s.v. mor ‘blackberry’.
t‘umni, Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘: t‘umni ‘darkness’ (var. t‘urmn), t‘umnanal ‘to become dark’
(see Amalyan 1975: 123Nr223f); cf. also t‘uz ‘night’ or ‘dark’, t‘usi ‘darkness’ (ibid.
Nrs. 216, 227; see also p. 373).
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 210b) only records the existence of Pers. tum ‘dark’ and
leaves the origin of the Armenian word open.
Probably from PIE *te/om-(e)n- ‘dark’; see s.v. place-name T‘əmnis.
t‘uš, a-stem ‘cheek’.
13th century onwards.
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects, in the meaning ‘cheek’. In Xarberd, Polis and
Suč‘ava: ‘the soft part of the chin’; in Tigranakert: ‘the cheek from inside’ [HAB 2:
207b].
The Tigranakert meaning, I think, allows to consider another possible cognate,
namely Moks t‘uš ‘bite, biting’ (= ‘прикус, откус’), on which see Orbeli 2002: 233;
a textual illustration is found in 101L-16. Note that one of the possible meanings of
t‘uṙ ‘cheek’ (q.v.) is ‘bite = a piece bitten off to eat; a mouthful’.
In ModArm., t‘uš also refers to the soft part of the buttocks (oṙi t‘uš); see Aɫayan
1974: 73 (footnote), 74.
●ETYM No etymology is mentioned in HAB 2: 207-208.
Aɫayan (1974: 71-74) connects t‘uš with t‘uṙ (q.v.), pointing out that the basic
meaning is ‘swelling’, exactly like in ayt ‘cheek’ (q.v.). Then, he derives them from
*tu-r-so- (cf. Gr. σωρός m. ‘heap, especially of corn’, etc.) < PIE *teuH- or *teHu-
‘to swell; crowd, folk; fat; strong’, for the semantics mentioning especially OIc. þjō
‘Oberschenkel, Arschbacke’. For the twofold development of *-rs- as -ṙ and -(r)š
Aɫayan mentions t‘aṙam-/t‘aršam- (see s.v. and 2.1.12).
In order to approach the semantic development, one needs a closer look at
Balto-Slavic *tu(o)rH-: ORuss. tvorъ ‘appearance’, Pol. twór ‘creation, creature’, Lith. ãptvaras ‘fence’, etc.; OCS tvoriti ‘do, make’: Russ. tvorít’, Czech tvořiti ‘to
create, do’, etc.; Lith. tvìrtas ‘strong, firm, solid’; OCS tvrьdъ ‘firm, solid’ <
*turH-dh
o-; *tuōrH-eh2-: OCS tvarь f., SCr. tvār ‘creation, creature’, Sln. tvār
‘matter’, Lith. tvorà ‘fence’, etc. Note the remarkable semantic identity of Czech
tvář, Pol. twarz, Slk. tvár ‘face, cheek’ with Arm. t‘uṙ, t‘uš ‘cheek’.
The semantic basis of t‘uš might have been ‘appearance’ (cf. ORuss. tvorъ
‘appearance’), which would then have developed into ‘face’ (cf. Arm. eres ‘face’, if
indeed related with erewim ‘to appear’) > ‘cheek’. However, the whole semantic
field seems to be as follows: ‘to grow, swell; to be(come) solid, firm, srong; to make
solid, strengthen, fasten; to create’. Thus: ‘a swollen part of the body’. This may be
corroborated by other Armenian possible cognates, namely t‘oṙ ‘lobe of the ear’ and
t‘ort‘oš ‘ripened; fat; swollen’ (q.v.). For the semantic field, see s.v. boyt‘ ‘lobe (of
the ear or the liver); thumb; hump; young of a frog’, suggesting a basic meaning like
‘a soft lump of flesh; a roundish projecting part of the body’.
It is difficult to establish the exact protoform(s) of the Armenian words. The
proto-form *tu-r-so- suggested by Aɫayan (ibid.) and accepted by scholars from
Armenia proper (Suk‘iasyan 1986: 164; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 154), to the best of my
knowledge, is not corroborated by cognates. However, such a proto-form might have
been created at an early stage of Armenian: from verbal *tuHr- (or *turH-) ‘to swell,
etc.’ an s-stem neuter was formed meaning ‘swelling; cheek’ (cf. Gr. οἶδος n.
‘swelling’, Arm. ayt ‘cheek’ from verbal οἰδέω ‘to swell’ and Arm. ayt-n-um ‘to
swell’). From this *tuHr-os n., a form with *-s-o- was created as in Skt. útsa- m.
‘spring, fountain’ < *ud-s-o- from PIE *u̯ed-os- n. ‘water’ (cf. Gr. ὕδος n. ‘water’,
Arm. get, o-stem ‘river’, q.v.). Thus: *tuHr-so-.
Alternatively, t‘uṙ (but not t‘uš) may have been formed by the suffixal element
*-r- on the basis of *t(o)uH-s- (cf. Skt. táviṣī- f. ‘strength, power’, etc.). Thus:
*t(o)uH-s-r- > t‘uṙ (and, perhaps, *touH-s-r- > PArm. *to(w)əṙ > t‘oṙ). For other
possible cases of such formations, see s.vv. antaṙ, getaṙ.
t‘uṙ probably ‘cheek’ and/or ‘bite, a mouthful’, ‘swelling, fullness’.
Attested in Philo. In compounds: t‘ṙ-a-lir (with lir‘ ‘full, replete’) and hask-a-t‘uṙ
(with hask ‘ear (of corn)’), both in Agat‘angeɫos. For a philological discussion I
refer to HAB 2: 208a; Aɫayan 1974: 71-74. In Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘: t‘uṙs· t‘ušs (see
Amalyan 1975: 123Nr225). Here, thus, t‘uṙ is taken as synonymous to t‘uš ‘cheek’.
Some lexicographers present t‘uṙ as meaning (also) ‘a bite = a piece bitten off to
eat; a mouthful’ (see HAB, ibid.). Here again, there is parallelism with t‘uš; note the
semantics of Moks and, partially, in Tigranakert.
●ETYM No etymology in HAB (2: 208a).
See s.v. t‘uš.
t‘urc1 o-stem in NHB (without ref.) ‘cheek’.
The oldest attestation is found in P‘awstos Buzand 5.37 (1883=1984: 204L18;
transl. Garsoïan 1989: 219).
●ETYM Usually linked with arac- ‘to browse, graze’ and Gr. τρώγω (see s.v. for
more detail). More probably, t‘urc ‘cheek’ is comparable to Lat. turgeō ‘to swell
out, become swollen or tumid’ and the other Armenian words for ‘cheek’, namely t‘uš and t‘uṙ [Aɫayan 1974: 74; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 197], q.v. (see also s.v. t‘urc-2). For
the semantic development ‘swollen’ > ‘cheek’, see above s.v. t‘uš ‘cheek’.
t‘urc-2 ‘to burn bricks or pots of clay in order to harden them’.
The verb t‘rcem is attested from the Bible onwards. In Genesis 11.3: t‘rcesc‘uk‘
zayn hrov = ὀπτήσωμεν αὐτὰς πυρί. StRevBible translates: “let us <...> burn them
(i.e. the bricks) thoroughly”. Independently attested in John Chrysostom+, as
adjective: t‘urc ‘hardened (in fire)’.
●DIAL The verb is widespread in the dialects.
●ETYM No acceptable etymology is recorded in HAB 2: 210a.
I hypothetically propose a connection with Lith. tvìrtas ‘strong, firm, solid’, OCS
tvrьdъ ‘firm, solid’, etc., from PIE *turH-t/dh
-. The Armenian form would require,
then, *turH-d-s- (from the sigmatic aorist?) or *turH-ĝ-, cf. Lat. turgeō ‘to swell out,
become swollen or tumid’. In the latter case, t‘urc- is identical with t‘urc2 ‘cheek’
(q.v.).
t‘uk‘, o-stem ‘spit, saliva’; t‘k‘anem ‘to spit’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Dialectally ubiquitous [HAB 2: 212b].
●ETYM Compared with Lat. spuō, Goth. speiwan, Gr. πτύ̄ω, etc. ‘to spit’, the
proto-form of which is difficult to establish (see HAB 2: 212; Pokorny 1959:
999-1000; Mallory/Adams 1997: 538a). Discussing the anlaut correspondence
between Arm. t‘- and Gr. πτ- (see also s.v. t‘eɫi ‘elm’), Greppin (1982: 351) also
introduces Arm. t‘uk‘ and Gr. πτύ̄ω. According to Clackson (1994: 169), however,
“the two languages have most likely made separate onomatopoeic creations or
reformations”. For a further discussion, see Hamp 1985; Orel 1994a: 39-40.
The -k‘ may be in a way related with coll.-pl. -k‘ found in šuk‘ ‘shade’, c‘amak‘
‘dry; earth, dry land’, p‘uk‘ ‘bellows’, etc.
*i- ‘thing’ and interrogative indefinite pronoun ‘what’: acc. z-i, gen. ē-r, dat.-loc. i-m,
hi-m, abl. i-m-ē, instr. i-w; pl. i-k‘, gen. i-r-i-k‘, dat.-loc. i-m-i-k‘, abl. y-imek‘-ē (and
imek‘ in Eznik Koɫbac‘i, see Meillet 1913: 63), instr. i-w-i-k‘ (an interesting form is
imik‘i var. lect. in Sirach 41.19, see HAB 2: 254-255) ‘something’; i-mn, abl. yimemn-ē ‘a thing’; in-č‘, obl. ənč‘-i- ‘a thing, something’, inč‘-k, i-stem: GDPl ənč‘-
i-c‘ ‘property, possessions’; i-r, a-stem: GDPl ir-a-c‘, IPl ir-a-w-k‘ ‘thing,
something’ (note also frozen instr. ir-a-w, pl. ir-a-w-k‘ as adv. ‘truly, indeed’; cf. yir-aw-i ‘id.’, as well as iraw- in compounds); *hi- in hi-m ‘why’ (Bible+) and in a
few post-classical derivatives.
All the forms are widely attested since the oldest stage of Classical Armenian.
●DIAL The forms ik‘ (also ir-k‘ through contamination with ir) and inč‘ (in Łarabaɫ,
etc. with an initial h-) are widespread in the dialects [HAB 2: 245, 250b, 255b];
*iraw ‘true, truly’ has been preserved in Ararat, Ozim, and in a number of NW, W
and SW dialects [HAB 2: 251a]; *ēr is present in a few SE peripheral dialects:
Maraɫa, T‘avriz hɛr and Astapat nɛr ‘why’; cf. also Ararat xi and Łarabaɫ xɛ ‘why’
[HAB 2: 119b; 3: 92a]. The initial h- of Łarabaɫ hinč‘ ‘what’ and Maraɫa hɛr ‘why’ is probably related
with that of ClArm. hi- ‘why’. In view of Astapat n-ɛr, one may also think of *y- and
*n- forms of ur ‘where’ (see there for more detail). The ultimate origin of ClArm. hand dialectal x- is unclear.
●ETYM Usually derived from PIE *kw
i-. Compare structurally o-mn, o-r, o-k‘; for the
material, references and a discussion, see HAB 2: 235, 242b, 250, 251a, 254-255; 3:
92-93. For references to the paradigms and a general discussion, see 2.2.5. The form
inč‘ has been directly compared with Skt. kíṁ-cit (Meillet 1892: 1621; Pedersen
1924: 224b = 1982: 307b; Tedesco 1945: 13218; Pisani 1950: 166-167; Ravnæs
1991: 138, 147). For the typology of -k‘, o-k‘ and the like cf. Lat. quis-quam ‘any,
any one, anybody, anything’, quis-quis whoever, whatever’, Gr. ὅσ-τε, etc.
(J̌ahukyan 1982: 149). On relation with i-br, iw-r, etc., see Meillet 1896b: 53.
The development of initial *kw
- is problematic, however. For the initial h- and x-,
see the dialectal section. For a further discussion, see s.vv. pronouns o- and u-r.
On the other hand, Arm. i-r ‘thing’ has been treated as a loan from Part. īr [‘yr]
‘thing, matter’ (Benveniste 1957-58: 57; 1964: 11-12; Schmitt 1972-74: 25;
Perixanjan 1983: 126, 3272; for the Parthian form, see also Boyce 1977: 24)). The
resemblance is remarkable. However, the inner-Armenian interpretation and the
parallelism between the sets of forms based on pronominal i- and o- make the
Iranian interpretation improbable and unnecessary (cf. L. Hovhannisyan 1990: 213,
215; further cf. Olsen 1999: 883-884)64. Theoretically, the Parthian form may have
been borrowed from Armenian.
iž, i-stem: GDSg iž-i, GDPl iž-i-c‘ ‘viper’ (Bible+).
For a philological discussion, see s.v. k‘arb ‘basilisk, asp’.
●DIAL Alaškert iž ‘poisonous (snake)’, Sebastia iž ‘a malicious person’ [HAB 2:
239a].
●ETYM Related to Gr. ἔχις, -εως, GPl ἔχεων m. (f.) [GSg ἔχιος; plural: dat. ἐχίεσσι,
gen. ἐχίων, acc. ἔχιας (also ἔχεις); cf. also ἔχιδνᾰ f.] ‘viper; name of a monster’, Skt.
áhi- m. ‘snake, adder’ (RV+), YAv. aži- m. ‘snake, dragon’, MP až ‘dragon’ (LW
from Avestan), etc.; cf. also Gr. ὄφις, gen. ὄφεως, -εος, Dor. and Ion. ὄφιος m.
‘serpent’ [Hübschmann 1897: 450; HAB 2: 238-239; Meillet 1936: 75; Pokorny
1959: 44; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 112].
Compared with Gr. ἔχις first by de Lagarde 1854: 29L779. For the problem of *é
vs. *o in Arm. iž vs. Gr. ὄφις, see Schindler 1994: 398.
Hardly of Iranian origin (see L. Hovhannisyan 1990: 215).
In view of the Armenian ž, the PIE root probably had labiovelar *-gwh- rather than
palatovelar *-ĝh
-. The association with ozni ‘hedgehog’ will then be secondary. The
sibilant -ž- of Arm. iž instead of the expected affricate -ǰ- is troublesome. The
vocalism is usually considered to point to lengthened grade: *h1ēgwh-i- (see the
references above). This is possible, cf. the alternation *-ē- : *-e- seen in the
following animal-names: Gr. ἀλώπηξ, -εκος f. ‘fox’ vs. Arm. aɫuēs ‘fox’, obl. aɫues-;
Arm. ak‘is ‘weasel’ vs. Skt. kaśīkā́- f. ‘Ichneumonweibchen’ or ‘weasel’, káśa-
‘weasel’ (see s.vv.). We may explain QIE *h1ēghw-i- by positing an older monosyllabic root noun (cf.
Beekes 1995: 189-190): nom. *h1ēgwh-s, obl. *h1egwh-. This is uncertain, however.
Besides, the actual evidence points to a PIE i-stem. I am inclined to the explanation
of Pedersen (1905: 205 = 1982: 67), which has been developed by de Lamberterie
(1978: 266, 281) as follows: *egwhi- > *eǰi- > *eyǰi- > *ēž, cf. *medh
-io- > Arm. mēǰ,
cf. Lat. medius ‘mid, middle’, see also s.vv. ēš ‘donkey’ and gišer ‘night’, as well as
2.1.2.
The sibilant ž instead of the affricate ǰ in intervocalic position (cf. Meillet 1936:
28) is not explained satisfactorily. I therefore propose to start with a PIE HD i-stem:
nom. *h1égwh-(ō)i-, gen. *h1(e)gwh-i̯-ós, cf. Gr. gen. ἔχιος. An assibilation *-gwhi̯- >
-yǰy- > -yžy- seems very likely. We arrive at PArm. nom. *e(y)ǰ-i-, gen. *ēžyo- > >
*ēž(i) : *iž- > > iž, obl. iž-, with the nominative iž analogically reshaped after the
oblique iž-, as has explicitly been pointed out by de Lamberterie (1978: 266, 281).
The last step can probably also help to understand the vocalism of ji ‘horse’ (q.v.).
For a further discussion on the labiovelar, see Speirs 1978: 7; Viredaz 2005-07: 9-
10.
As is well known, the designations for ‘snake’ are liable to tabu-changes (see
2.1.36). In this particular case, however, the phonological explanation seems
satisfactory.
il, o-stem (Proverbs 31.19 = Gr. ἄτρακτος ‘spindle’), il-ik (ISg il-k-aw in Kanonagirk‘)
‘spindle’.
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects, mostly in the form il-ik. The root seems to be
present in the Łarabaɫ compound (ə)ləpútik tal ‘to walk continuously’ < *il-a-putik
tal ‘to twist like a spindle’ [HAB 2: 239b].
According to J̌
ahukyan (1972: 282; 1987: 122, 214, 277), Maraš65 illel ‘to twist’
(see Ačaṙean 1913: 396b; Galustean 1934: 387L-4) belongs here, too, as an archaism.
Note also K‘esab illil ‘to wind, reel; to turn’, ilvil ‘to turn around oneself’
[Č‘olak‘ean 1986: 241]. Č‘olak‘ean (ibid.), however, derives illil from *ol-el, not
specifying the latter form. He probably means olorem, which, indeed, is regularly
reflected as illel or illil in the dialects of Cilicia and Svedia, see HAB 3: 552a;
Ačaṙyan 2003: 66, 332, 383, 582. Andreasyan (1967: 226-227, 378a), however,
presents illil ‘to twist’ and its derivatives in the purely dialectal glossary, rendering
ClArm. olorel as Svedia uləril, cf. Maraš ɔlrel [Danielyan 1967: 204a].
Several dialects have a homonymous ilik in meanings ‘spine’, ‘marrow’, etc.:
Polis ‘marrow/moelle d’un os’, Łarabaɫ (iligy) ‘spinal column’ [Ačaṙean 1902: 141],
Ararat, Karin, Xarberd, etc. ‘spinal column’, Hamšen ‘stomach’ [HayLezBrbBaṙ 2,
2002: 166a]. Note also Van xaṙam-ilik ‘moelle épinière’ [Ačaṙean 1902: 141].
The Armenian dialects of Polis and Akn have ilikə-clikə ‘the essence of the
subject (with all the subtle details)’ (see Ačaṙean 1913: 396b; HayLezBrbBaṙ 2,
2002: 166). Ačaṙyan (ibid.) does not specify the components. In view of the
existence of the synonymous uɫn u cucə ‘the true nature, the essence’ (Modern
Armenian; see Malxaseanc‘, HBB 3: 597a), literally “the brain and marrow” (see
uɫeɫ), one may identify the components of ilikə-clikə as ilik ‘spine, marrow’ and cl-ik
‘clitoris’ (see Ačaṙean 1913: 516b). The latter is a diminutive form of cil ‘sprout,shoot, bud’. In the corresponding expression from Sebastia (see Gabikean 1952:
216), one finds ilə cilə ‘every detail’. The semantic shift ‘marrow’ > ‘essence; basis’
is well known, cf. Engl. marrow, Germ. Mark, Fr. moelle.
According to N. Mkrtč‘yan (1971: 202), the second meaning of Burdur ilik
‘spindle’ is ‘marrow’ (oɫnacuc). Ačaṙyan (1902: 141; see also HAB 3: 594b),
however, considers Arm. ilik ‘marrow/moelle’ as a loan from Turk. ilik
‘marrow/moelle’. See also below.
●ETYM Lidén (1906: 130-131) compares il with Lith. leñkti ‘to bend, walk around’;
Skt. āṇí- m. ‘axle-pin, linch-pin; part of the leg above the knee’ (RV+); Gr. ἠλακάτη
f. ‘spindle’, and connects il ‘spindle’ with oɫn ‘spine, etc.’ and uln ‘neck’ (q.v.).
Comparing the semantic development seen in Gr. σφόνδῠλος m. ‘vertebra; (pl.)
backbone, spine; neck; joint; circular whorl which balances and twirls a spindle’,
etc., he points out that the older meaning of il(ik) could have been ‘spine, spinal
column’. Pokorny (1959: 307-309, s.v. *el-8 ‘to bow, bend; elbow’) and J̌
ahukyan
(1987: 122, 437) accept this etymology. Others are mostly sceptical about it, see
HAB 2: 239; Olsen 1999: 955. It is remarkable that next to Arm. ilik ‘spindle’, there
is yet another ilik (in a number of dialects; see above) in the meanings ‘marrow’,
‘spinal column’, etc., which is considered a loan from Turk. ilik ‘marrow/moelle’
(Ačaṙean 1902: 141; HAB 3: 594b). Is the resemblance accidental? Turk. and Azeri
ilik cannot be an Armenian borrowing because it is a native Turkic word, namely
PTurk. *jilik ‘marrow’, cf. OTurk. jilik (OUygh.), Turkm. jilik, Uzb. ilik, Bashk.
jelek, etc. (see EtymDictAltLang 2003, 2: 865).
The connection of il ‘spindle’ with oɫn ‘spine, etc.’ and uln ‘neck’ can be
accepted only if the internal laryngeal of the PIE root (see s.v. oɫn) is a *-h1-
(*Heh1l- > Arm. il), which is uncertain.
iɫj, i-stem: GDPl əɫj-i-c‘ in Daniel 2.27 (Cowe 1992: 160); a-stem: ISg əɫj-a-w in
Eusebius of Caesarea, ‘desire’ (Movsēs Xorenac‘i 1.18, Book of Chries, etc.),
‘witch, sorcerer’ (Bible+); əɫjam, əɫjanam ‘to desire, pray; to cast a spell’ (Bible+).
For the semantic shift of iɫj, cf. Skt. yā- ‘to request, implore’ > yātú- m. ‘sorcery,
witchcraft’ (RV+), Arm. ǰatuk ‘sorcerer’ (Iranian loan).
●DIAL Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 241a) questions the appurtenance of Łarabaɫ *iɫj-ot-v-il ‘to
be angry with someone’. One may assume that the word originally referred to the
ecstatic fury of prophets or sorcerers.
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 240b) rejects all the etymologies including those
comparing iɫj with Skt. eh- ‘to strive for, desire’ (AV+), YAv. iziieiti ‘to desire’,
aēzah- n. ‘desire’, Gr. ἰχαίνω, etc. This etymology is worth of consideration. Arm.
iɫj, i- or a-stem ‘desire’ may be derived from *Hiĝh
-l- > PArm. *(h)ij-l- > iɫj through
regular metathesis. The absence of cognates with *-l- is not a decisive argument
against the etymology, since iɫj may have been influenced by synonymous baɫj (also
i-stem) and geɫj.
im ‘my’, etc.: see s.v. es ‘I’.
inn, NPl in(n)un-k‘ in Luke 17.17, GDPl inun-c‘ in Genesis 17.24 (vars. inuc‘, innuc‘,
ənnuc‘, etc., see Zeyt‘unyan 1985: 218), IPl innam-b-k‘ (John Chrysostom); GDPl
inn-u-c‘ (Grigor Narekac‘i), AblPl y-inn-u-c‘ (Grigor Astuacaban), IPl innu-k‘
(Eusebius of Caesarea); sg. rare and late: gen. inan(n) (Socrates, Elias on Aristotle), loc. y-inann (Socrates) ‘nine’ (Bible+); inn-erord, a-stem: GDSg innerord-i, AblSg
y-innerord-ē (Bible+), ISg innerord-a-w (Eusebius of Caesarea) ‘ninth’ (Bible+);
inn-ew-tasn or inn-u-tasn ‘nineteen’, lit. ‘nine and ten’ (Bible+); inn-sun ‘ninety’
(q.v.).
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects, mostly as *inə or *innə [HAB 2: 244a].
●ETYM From PIE *h1neun ‘nine’: Skt. náva, YAv. nauua, Gr. ἐννέα, Lat. novem,
Goth. niun, OHG niun, OCS devętь, Alb. në́ntë/ nãntë, etc. Hübschmann 1897: 450-
451; HAB 2: 243-244 with lit.; Pokorny 1959: 318; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 24-
25; Mallory/Adams 1997: 403a. For Albanian, see Kortlandt 1986: 45 = 2003: 74;
Demiraj 1997: 294-295; 1997a.
The Armenian form has been explained from *h1neun, *h1nun- (see Beekes 1969:
45-46; Schrijver 1991: 17, 449; cf. Schmitt 1981: 130)66. Olsen 1988-89: 481-482
suggests a metathesis *neun ̯ ̥ > *enun̯ ̥-. The proto-form *enu̯n (see Audouin 1892:
64; Hübschmann ibid.; HAB ibid.; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 71; Olsen 1999: 6) is untenable,
since it would yield Arm. *ing(a)n. Winter 1965: 101; 1966: 203 starts with *Enewn
(*E = *h1) > *inowan reduced to *inown under the influence of tasn ‘ten’ (but note
that these two numerals are inflected differently). Eichner 1978: 15235 assumes a
restructuring *-un ̯ ̥ > *-un (see also Olsen 1999: 801, 805). For a critical discussion
of these and other views, see Kortlandt 1976: 943; 1987: 62 = 2003: 33, 76; Ravnæs
1991: 18, 77-78; Clackson 1994: 124-126.
An interesting and plausible scenario has been proposed by Peters (1991; see also
Viredaz 2001-02a: 1-2; sceptical Clackson 1994: 225-226134): *h1néun ̯ ̥ > *inowan >
inoan > ínon (contraction and subsequent fixation of the penultimate accent) > inn.
Beekes 2003: 165 posits *h1neun (not *-u̯-) > *eneun > inn with loss of the
diphthong in last syllable. However, the simplest solution is to start with PArm.
*enun- < *h1nun-o-, with the zero grade vocalism taken from the ordinal (Kortlandt
1993: 11; 1994a: 255 = 2003: 103, 100). Such an influence of ordinals is also seen in
other numerals, such as vec‘ ‘six’ and tasn ‘ten’, perhaps also e(a)wt‘n ‘seven’ (see
s.vv.).
The ‘prothetic’ vowel *e- in the Greek and Armenian forms (*en- > Arm. in-) is
now taken as a reflex of *h1-, Winter 1965: 101 (see above); Beekes 1969: 45-46;
1987b: 7; 2003: 165, 180; Rix 1970:101; Mayrhofer 1986: 126115; Kortlandt 1987:
62; 2001: 12 = 2003: 76, 132; Greppin 1988-89: 479; Viredaz 2001-02a: 1; for a
critical discussion and further references, see Olsen 1988-89: 481-482; 1999: 6, 763-
764; Lindeman 1990: 28-30; 1997: 131; Clackson 1994: 124-126; Mayrhofer
EWAia 2, 1996: 24. For a discussion of the ‘prothetic’ vowel, see also Audouin
1892: 61-62, 64; Meillet 1927: 132-133; 1936: 143; Winter 1989: 34.
inn-sun, i-stem: GDSg innəsn-i (Philo), ənnsn-i (Nersēs Šnorhali), GDPl innsn-i-c‘
(Plato) ‘ninety’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects [HAB 2: 244b]. In a number of kə-dialects (Nor
Naxiǰewan, Polis, Hamšen, Karin, Xarberd, Zeyt‘un, Van, etc.) innsun has been
replaced by dɔxsan < Turk. doqsan [Ačaṙean 1902: 342; HAB 2: 244b]. Goris
innássun, Maraɫa innanac‘c‘un and others are analogical after eawt‘anasun
‘seventy’ and vat‘sun > vac‘c‘un ‘sixty’. ●ETYM The decimal form of inn ‘nine’, cf. Gr. ἐνενήκοντα ‘ninety’ (on which see
Chantraine 1968-80: 349b), Lat. nōnāgintā ‘id.’, etc., see HAB 2: 244; Meillet 1936:
100-101. The Armenian form points to QIE *h1nunek̄ ̂
omth2. PArm. *in(u)nísun with
penultimate accentuation would probably yield *innísun. The medial *-i- may have
dropped due to re-analysis as inn + -sun. Compare yisun ‘fifty’, vat‘sun ‘sixty’,
ut‘sun ‘eighty’. Further, see s.v. inn ‘nine’.
ink‘n, GDSg ink‘ean, ISg ink‘eam-b, NPl ink‘ean-k‘, GDPl ink‘ean-c‘ ‘self’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 2: 246a].
●ETYM See s.v. iwr ‘his own’.
irear, y-/z-irear, gen.-dat. irer-a-c‘, instr. irer-a-w-k‘ recipr. ‘each other’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects, also with prepositions: Łarabaɫ, Agulis, J̌
uɫa, etc.
*(ən)d-irear, Moks *z-irear [HAB 2: 252]. Muš, Alaškert h’irar (HAB ibid.) and
Moks h’irar (Orbeli 2002: 278) point to *y-irear.
●ETYM No etymology is accepted in HAB 2: 251a; AčaṙLiak 2, 1954: 118-131.
Rasmussen (1985: 46-48 = 1999: 124-127) suggests *eter-eter-ā-, cf. OCS eterъ
‘someone’, Skt. yatará- m. ‘which of the two’, Gr. ἕτερος ‘one of two’, Lat. cēterus
‘the other’, cēterī ‘the others’, etc.; typologically compare Latin alter alterum, etc.
The vocalic problem may be solved by assuming an underlying *iter- comparable
with Skt. ítara- ‘another, the other’ (Olsen 1999: 392). Thus, we may posit *iter-itereh2- > *irer-a- through haplology and loss of the intervocalic *-t-, although details
remain unclear. The -ear may be identified with (or have been re-interpreted as
containing) the collective marker -ear (cf. AčaṙLiak 2, 1954: 118).
iwr, GSg iwr-o-y, DSg iwr-um, ISg iwr-o-v, GDPl iwr-o-c‘, IPl iwr-o-v-k‘ refl. pron.
‘his own, etc.’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 2: 254b].
●ETYM Continues PIE refl. *seu̯e/o- ‘sich’, cf. Gr. ἕ, ἑέ, Lat. suus, sē, gen. suī, Goth.
sik, etc.; derived from *seu̯e/o-ro-, see Hübschmann 1897: 451; Pedersen 1905a: 22
= 1982: 26; Grammont 1918: 244; HAB 2: 253-254 with references; AčaṙLiak 2,
1954: 117-130; Pisani 1950: 185-186; Pokorny 1959: 882; Eichner 1978: 15339;
Schmitt 1981: 117; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 39, 147-148; 1987: 146; for the forms, see also
Rix 1992: 180; Beekes 1995: 209-210; Szemerényi 1996: 220-221.
The element -r- was probably taken from the other pronouns (cf. 1-2pl.pers.pron.
me-r and je-r, see s.v. mek‘ ‘we’) and added to the PIE genitive *seu̯e at a relatively
younger stage; iwr probably represents the unstressed form of *ew-r (for a
discussion of these issues, see Meillet 1936: 45, 92; Godel 1975: 111-112; Schmitt
1981: 117-118; Weitenberg 1983a: 118-119; Kortlandt 1983: 11; 1993: 11 = 2003:
41, 103). See also s.v. hi/ewr ‘guest’.
Also the -k‘(e)- of in-k‘-n, in-k‘e-an ‘self’ has been connected with this etymon
(deriving it from *su̯e-, cf. Skt. svá- ‘his, his own’, etc.), although details remain
unclear; see HAB 2: 245-246 with references and a discussion (Ačaṙyan himself
does not accept the etymology); AčaṙLiak 2, 1954: 118-120; Pokorny 1959: 882;
Klingenschmitt 1982: 28-29 (“wohl *im sue̯ ̄m ‘ihn selbst’”); J̌
ahukyan 1982: 148;
1987: 146.
lanǰ-k‘, a-stem ‘breast’ (Bible+), ‘mountain-slope’ (Łazar P‘arpec‘i; dial.).
GDPl lanǰ-a-c‘ in Job 39.20 (Cox 2006: 253), referring to the breast of a horse;
GDPl lanǰ-a-c‘ in Movsēs Xorenac‘i 1.11 (1913=1991: 36L1), referring to ‘breast (of
a man)’; IPl lanǰ-a-w-k‘ in Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.85 (1913=1991: 230L16), referring to
the chest of a horse. GDPl lanǰ-a-c‘ occurs also in the letter from Bishop Giwt (5th
cent.) to Vač‘ē (king of Aɫuank‘) apud Movsēs Kaɫankatuac‘i 1.11, referring to
‘breast (of a man)’ [V. Aṙak‘elyan 1983: 23L5].
●DIAL Present in several dialects, in the meanings ‘bosom, lap’, ‘mountain-slope’,
‘precipice’, etc. [HAB 2: 265b].
●ETYM Probably from QIE *h1ln̥gwh-ieh2-, cf. Gr. ἐλαχύς ‘small, short, mean, little’,
ἐλαφρός ‘light (in weight)’, OIc. lunga ‘lung’, etc., see Meillet 1894: 165; HAB 2:
264-265; AčaṙLiak 6, 1971: 543; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 135; Olsen 1999: 65-66.
Alternatively: QIE dual *(h1)lngwh-ih1- (cf. Beekes 2003: 178, 190). For a discussion
of the anlaut, see 2.1.17.2.
lar, o-stem: GDSg lar-o-y (Čaṙəntir), ISg lar-o-v (once in the Bible); i-stem: GDSg
lar-i (Nersēs Lambronac‘i), ISg lar-i-v (Ephrem, Grigor Narekac‘i), GDPl lar-i-c‘
(Paterica; Yovhannēs Erznkac‘i); a-stem: GDPl lar-a-c‘ (Grigor Aršaruni), IPl lara-w-k‘ (T‘ovmay Arcruni) ‘rope, rein, cable, cord, string’ (Bible+), ‘plumbline of
stone-masons’ (Agat‘angeɫos+), ‘snare’ (Paterica, Grigor Narekac‘i), ‘mile’
(Alexander Romance), ‘tendons of the neck’ (Philo), ‘string of a musical instrument’
(Nersēs Lambronac‘i, Yovhannēs Erznkac‘i), etc. [NHB 1: 879-880]. Refers to the
rope of a bridge in T‘ovmay Arcruni 2.3 (1985: 150L18; transl. Thomson 1985: 161):
hramayeac‘ zlar kamurǰac‘n ktrel : “he ordered the rope of the bridge to be cut”. See
also HAB s.v. lar ‘a snake’. Verbal larem ‘to stretch, extend’ (Bible+).
For the o-stem, cf. Georgian laro ‘cord, rope, snare’ beside lari ‘string, etc.’, both
borrowed from Armenian (HAB 2: 268a).
●DIAL The noun lar is widespread in the dialects [HAB 2: 267b]. Verbal larel means
‘to line, make a row’ in Suč‘ava [Ačaṙyan 1953: 267] and ‘to chase away’ in Muš,
Alaškert, Aparan, Xoy [Amatuni 1912: 241-242].
●ETYM Compared with Gr. εὔληρα, Dor. αὔληρα, Hesychian ἀβληρά ‘reins’ and Lat.
lōrum, -ī, n. ‘thong, rawhide whip, rein’ [Lidén 1906: 100-101; HAB 2: 267b;
Pokorny 1959: 1143]. The Greek, Latin and Armenian forms are usually derived
from *u̯lēr-, *u̯lōr-, and *u̯lər-, respectively. Now reconstructed as *h1ul(e/o)h1ro-
(see Beekes 1988: 71; Schrijver 1991: 74-75, 122-123; Clackson 1994: 39; Olsen
1999: 30, 769, 847, with *h2-). A QIE *h1ulh1ro- would develop to PArm. *uláro- >
lar, o-stem. Beside this form, one also may posit a dual *h1ulh1r-i(h1) > lar-k‘, -i-c‘
‘reins, tendons’. See also s.vv. aɫawri ‘mill; female grinder’, erkan ‘mill’.
In view of phonological difficulties (see Beekes 1969: 64-65; Clackson 1994:
20732 with references and a discussion; de Vaan 2008: 349), I posit a Mediterranean
substratum term (see 3.11).
*law-/lap‘-, *la/ow-, *lup‘ ‘flat (hand, stone, etc.)’ (dial.), MidArm. lawš ‘a thin flat
bread’ (Geoponica+, see MiǰHayBaṙ 1, 1987: 315), dial. *law(a)š ‘a thin flat bread’. In Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ (Amalyan 1975: 181Nr166, 252Nr208), lōš glosses hasteay and
šōt‘, respectively.
●DIAL The forms for ‘palm, flat of the hand’: Muš *lup‘, Ozim *lap‘, Akn *lov-az,
etc. [Ačaṙean 1913: 439b].
Širak lap‘uk, Ararat lep‘(uk) ‘a flat, polished stone for playing’ [Amatuni 1912:
243a], Kotayk‘/Elkavan lɛp‘uk < *lap‘uk ‘a palm-sized flat stone’ (see V.
Aṙak‘elyan 1984a: 147), etc. DialAdd apud NHB (2: 1062c) has lēp‘ and lep‘ ‘flat
roundish stone’ as connected with Lat. lapis ‘stone’.
Van *law-az, *lawaz-ik ‘very thin’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 414a], Moks läväzik/k‘
‘хворый, исхудалый, тощий’ = ‘ailing, gaunt, barren’ [Orbeli 2002: 237].
Both *lawš and *lawaš ‘a thin flat bread’ are widespread in the dialects (DialAdd
apud NHB 2: 1062c; HAB 2: 308b). In some of these, *lawš also refers to ‘broad
(ear)’ (HAB ibid.).
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (1913: 439-440; see also Saradževa 1986: 130) connects *lup‘/lap‘
and *lov-az ‘palm’ with Goth. lofa ‘flat of the hand’, OHG lappo ‘palm, blade of an
oar’, Lith. lópa, Latv. lãpa ‘paw’, Russ. lápa ‘paw’, etc. (see ÈtimSlovSlavJaz 14,
1987: 26-27; Saradževa 1986: 130), Kurd. lap m. ‘lap’, Zaza lap/b, etc. (see Cabolov
1, 2001: 577). J̌
ahukyan (1972: 297; 1987: 136, 276) adds *lap‘-uk ‘flat stone’ here.
In this connection the following words seem to be relevant: Lat. lapis m. ‘stone,
milestone’ (see the dialectal section), Gr. λέπας n. ‘bare rock, mountain’, etc.,
especially Ibero-Romance *lappa ‘stone plate’ (formally and semantically identical
with Arm. *lap‘- ‘flat stone’). These forms are considered to be of non-IE origin (for
references see Hamp 1967: 16, without Armenian).
Also *law-az ‘very thin’ may belong here, though J̌
ahukyan (1987: 135)
represents it separately. Note the same suffix in *lov-az ‘palm’.
Various etymologies have been proposed for *law(a)š ‘a thin flat bread’ (HAB 4:
639; N. Mkrtčjan 2005: 248-249; A. Petrosyan 2007: 8-10); none of them is entirely
convincing. Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 308a) notes that the form *lavaš is found in Persian,
Kurdish, Turkish, Georgian, etc. It is unknown, he proceeds, whether Arm. *lawaš
or Pers. lavāš is the source of all these. According to Cabolov (1, 2001: 595), Kurd.
lōš/lawāš and Pers. lavāš (the Armenian forms are not mentioned) are loans from
Turk. lavaš.
I tentatively suggest a derivation of *law-aš from *law- ‘flat’ connecting with our
dialectal words above. Semantically this is conceivable since this bread is
specifically flat and thin. For the suffix, cf. matɫ-aš from mataɫ ‘young, fresh’, etc.
(see HAB 3: 267b). Note that both *law-aš and matɫ-aš are attested since Geoponica
(13th cent.) and are represented in dialects.
If this interpretation is correct, the Armenian should be regarded as the source of
the others. This is probable since, as Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 308a) informs, *lavaš is
considered to be Armenian bread in both Yerevan and Iran (being opposed with
sangak for Turks and Persians), and in Tehran this bread is called nūn-i armanī
‘Armenian bread’. Similar data can be found also for other regions. In Dersim, for
instance, lavaš is seen as characteristic for Armenian hospitality whereas the
Kurdish entertain with sači hac‘ [Halaǰyan 1973: 294b].
Almost all of the Armenian forms seem to point to PArm. *lo/aw-/lap‘- ‘flat’, and
Muš has *lup‘. European cognates point to PIE *loHp-eh2- or *leh3p-eh2-. One may hypothetically reconstruct a HD h2-stem: nom. *lóHp-eh2- or *léh3p-eh2-, gen. *lHph2-ós. This would yield PArm. nom. *luv-, obl. *lap‘-. Of these, analogically: *lup‘,
*law-, etc. This is, of course, highly hypothetical. We may be dealing with a
substratum word.
For the phonological treatment of the alternation -w/p‘-, see Weitenberg 1992.
leaṙn, GDSg lerin, LocSg i lerin, AllSg i leaṙn, AblSg i leṙn-ē, ISg leram-b, NPl
lerin-k‘, APl lerin-s, GDPl leran-c‘, AblPl i leranc‘ (e.g. i leranc‘ ənjuc‘ : ἀπὸ
ὀρέων παρδάλεων in Song of Songs 4.8), IPl leram-b-k‘ (abundant evidence in the
Bible, see Astuacaturean 1895: 643-647); APl leṙun-s (Apocrypha) ‘mountain’
(Bible+).
●DIAL Present in Muš, Alaškert, and in a number of dialects of NW, W and SW
peripheries. The other dialects use sar instead [HAB 2: 270b]. Ararat lɛṙ refers to
‘hard stone’ [HAB 2: 270b], lɛṙ-k‘ar ‘hard stone’ [Markosyan 1989: 303a]; cf. also a
textual illustration for Širak lɛṙ-k‘ar [Mxit‘areanc‘ 1901: 180L3]. For the typology of
this type of compounds, see s.v. pal ‘rock’.
●ETYM The connection with Gr. κλῑτύς, ύος f. ‘slope, hill’, Lat. clīvus, ī m. ‘sloping
ground, slope’, etc. (Bugge 1889: 7-8; Ernout/Meillet 1959: 127-128; cf. Pisani
1950: 179-180) is uncertain (see Hübschmann 1897: 451-452). These words belong
with PIE *k̂
lei- ‘to lean, incline’ (cf. Mallory/Adams 1997: 348b without Armenian),
and the Armenian word has been derived from *kleitr ̂ ̥- with hesitation, cf. Goth.
*hleiþra ‘booth, tent’, OHG (h)leitar ‘ladder’, etc. (Pokorny 1959: 601; Solta 1960:
39-40; Schmitt 1972-74: 25; Lehmann 1986: 187b; Saradževa 1986: 20; J̌
ahukyan
1987: 132, 258). Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 270) rejects this and other etymological
suggestions and leaves the origin of leaṙn open.
Hamp 1967: 16-17 compares leaṙn with OIr. líe and Gr. λᾶας m. ‘stone’. For the
Armenian form he posits *lēsə-re/ēn, “which would be a nominalization in -en of
*lēsə-ro- ‘stony’ ”. Olsen 1999: 122 accepts the comparison and assumes a heteroclitic *-ser/sen-stem where the -n of the oblique cases (loc. -en) has somehow been
added to the NAccSg *lḗh2sr̥. She points out that the exact procedure cannot be
determined.
Neither this etymology is convincing. It becomes slightly more probable if we
consider also Alb. lérë f. ‘Steinhalde, Geröllhalde; Felssturz’, ler m., lére f. ‘id.’
(derivative leránë f. ‘Steinhalde, Steinfeld; steiniger Bach’), which has been derived
from *leh1-ur or *leu̯-r ̥ (see Demiraj 1997: 237-238). We may be dealing with a
Mediterranean-European substratum word.
leard, i- or a-stem: GDSg lerd-i in Grigor Narekac‘i and Grigor Magistros, AblSg i
lerd-ē in Bible and Gregory of Nyssa; o-stem: GDSg lerd-o-y twice in Plato, ‘liver’
(Bible+); derivatives, e.g. lerd-a-boyt‘ ‘lobe of the liver’ (Bible+); see s.v. boyt‘1. In
a list of gems by Anania Širakac‘i (7th cent.), one finds a compound that is not
recorded in NHB and HAB, namely lerd-a-goyn ‘having the colour of liver’ (A. G.
Abrahamyan 1944: 260L12). Here, the gem called eɫungn (cf. Gr. ὄνυξ, see s.v.
eɫungn ‘nail’) is described as spitak (‘light, white’) lerdagoyn. Compare the dialectal
meaning ‘light, bright red’ of leard.
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects, in the meanings ‘liver’ (Muš, Alaškert, T‘iflis),
‘light, bright red’ (Van, Xarberd; cf. lerd-a-goyn above), and, especially, ‘clot of blood’ [HAB 2: 271a]. For the semantics, cf. Russ. péčen’ ‘liver’ : dial. ‘clot of
blood’, pl. ‘internal organs of the body (heart, lungs, liver)’; see SlRusNarGov 26,
1991: 348-349.
In Karin, lɛrt‘ refers to clotted blood [HAB, ibid.; H. Mkrtč‘yan 1952: 146a].
According to HayLezBrbBaṙ 2, 2002: 222a (with two textual illustrations), in this
dialect it is also a body-part term meaning ‘back’. Another textual illustration can be
found in a folk prayer from J̌
avaxk‘ [Lalayeanc‘ 1892: 7 = 1, 1983: 336], where
Mary is described as having Xač‘m srtin, xač‘m lerdin : “a cross on her breast, a
cross on her back”.
For the semantic shift from an internal body-part to an external one, cf. sirt
‘breast’ < ‘heart’ in the passage just mentioned.
●ETYM Since Petermann, de Lagarde, Dervischjan et al. (see HAB), connected with
Skt. yákr-/yakn- n. (RV+), NAccSg yákr̥t (AV) ‘liver’, YAv. yakarə n. ‘liver’ (on
the vocalism, see de Vaan 2003: 68-69), NPers. ǰigar ‘id.’, Gr. ἦπαρ, -ατος n. ‘liver’,
OCS ikra ‘roe’, Russ. ikrá ‘roe, spawn, caviar; calf of leg’, etc. [Hübschmann 1897:
452; HAB 2: 270-271]. For the semantic relationship ‘roe, spawn’ : ‘calf of leg’, see
3.7.3. The PIE word is heteroclitic: *Hiekw
r(-t), gen. *Hiekw
n-ós.
On the final *-t, see Clackson 1994: 55-56. On the loss of the intervocalic *kw
,
see Kortlandt 1980: 102 = 2003: 30.
The initial l- is troublesome. It is reminiscent of the problem of luc ‘yoke’. The
phonetic solution (see 2.1.7) is not convincing. It has been suggested that leard is
connected or has been contaminated with Gr. λιπαρός ‘oily, shiny with oil, anointed;
fatty, greasy’, λιπαρία f. ‘fatness’, OIc. lifr ‘liver’, etc., and luc ‘yoke’ has been
influenced by lucanem ‘to loosen’ (see Hübschmann 1893: 32Nr120; HAB 2: 271a;
J̌
ahukyan 1982: 40; Clackson 1994: 21097; Kortlandt 1998: 15-16 = 2003: 122;
Beekes 2003: 162]. Arm. leard is also compared with Hitt. lišši n. ‘liver’ [Schindler
1966; Olsen 1999: 191-192].
Alternatively, one may explain the initial l- of leard by influence of leɫi ‘gall,
bile’, although the origin of this word is obscure, and/or lanǰ ‘breast’, etymologically
‘lung’.
lezu, a-stem: GDSg lezu-i, AblSg i lezu-ē, ISg lezu-a-w, GDPl lezu-a-c‘, IPl lezu-a-wk‘ (rich evidence in the Bible, see Astuacaturean 1895: 647-648); o-stem: GDSg
lezu-o-y and ISg lezu-o-v (Judges 7.5/6, Ephrem, Grigor Narekac‘i, etc.) ‘tongue;
speech, language’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects. Some of them represent *lizu instead of lezu [HAB
2: 272b].
●ETYM The word is a blend of PIE *dnĝh
u(e)h2- ‘tongue’ (OIr. tengae, Goth. tuggō,
OHG zunga, Skt. jihvā́-, juhū́- f., Av. hizuuā-, hizū- m., etc.) and PIE *leiĝh
- > Arm.
lizem ‘to lick’ (q.v.); cf. especially Lat. lingua vs. OLat. dingua and Lith. liežùvis
‘tongue’. See Hübschmann 1877: 25; 1897: 452; Pedersen 1906: 419 = 1982: 197;
Meillet 1910-11a: 240; HAB 2: 272 with more references; Pokorny 1959: 223;
Hilmarsson 1982: 356, 358; Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 591-593; Mallory/Adams
1997: 594; Olsen 1999: 67-68.
For a discussion of the vocalism of dial. *lizu vs. ClArm. lezu, see Meillet 1894:
164; 1896b: 53; 1936: 11, 55; Pedersen 1906: 419 = 1982: 197; HAB 2: 272b; Kortlandt 1987: 62 = 2003: 76; Olsen 1999: 67. For a critical discussion of the
problems of the initial l-, the medial -z- and the vocalism, see Winter 1982: 171-173.
The QIE reconstruction of the Armenian words may be *l(e)nĝh
u-eh2- > PArm.
*l(e)nju-a- ‘tongue’ and *leiĝh
- > *leiz- ‘to lick’.
lerk (i-stem in Gram.) ‘hairless’, dial. ‘smooth’ (Bible+). In “Adamgirk‘” (Aṙak‘el
Siwnec‘i, 15th cent.): lek (with loss of -r-; cf. dial.).
●DIAL Alaškert lerk ‘*smooth (leather or mountain)’; Alaškert, Xotorǰur, Xoy, Van
lek ‘thin, smooth skin of sheep, leather’. For the semantic development cf. Alban.
l’akur ‘naked’ : l’kur ‘leather’ [HAB 2: 277b].
●ETYM Together with oɫork (i-stem in Philo) ‘smooth, polished’ (Bible+), derived
from PIE *le/orgw
-, cf. MIr. lerg f. ‘sloping expanse, hill-side, bank, plain, surface’
< *lergā, less-lergg ‘pasture’, NIr. learg ‘a plain; field’, MWelsh llwrw ‘track, trail,
path’, etc.; the initial o- in oɫork is traced to *po- [Lidén 1906: 60-64; HAB 2: 277;
3: 556; Pokorny 1959: 679; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 136]. Makaev (1974: 59-60) considers
the correspondence “more than doubtful” and proposes a derivation from
*(s)legw
-ro- < PIE *sleig- ‘slimy; to glide’ (on which see Pokorny 1959: 663-664).
The fact that the word occurs only in Armenian and Celtic casts doubt on the
etymology. Admittedly, one needs a third cognate to consider the connection as
certain (cf. Olsen 1999: 965). However, I see no other significant reasons to abandon
the etymology. The semantic relationship ‘smooth, polished’ : ‘flat surface, plain,
pastureland, field’ is unobjectionable, cf., e.g. tap‘(-) ‘flat, plain, smooth’ : ‘field,
plain’, ‘pastureland’ (cf. tuarac-a-tap‘, dial. naxr-a-tap‘, etc.; see s.v. place-name
Tuaracatap‘). Note that one of the semantic nuances of the MIr. word is ‘sloping
expances, hill-side’, which ia practically identical with ‘pastureland’ (at least for
Armenia, where pasturelands are always on sloping fields, hill-sides). MIr. lerg may
be separated from the Celtic word for ‘track’, as suggested by Schrijver (1995: 62),
but the correspondence between Arm. lerk /oɫork ‘smooth’ and MIr. lerg f. ‘sloping
expanse, plain, pastureland, surface’ deserves consideration.
The only formal problem with oɫork is the initial o-. Lidén’s explanation is
uncertain (Makaev, Schrijver). The fact that o- only occurs in the form with o-ablaut
is suggestive of the following idea. If Arm. lanǰ-k‘ ‘breasts’ is connected with Gr.
ἐλαχύς and ἐλαφρός, one can assume that in the PIE initial cluster *h1l-, the initial
*h1- drops in Armenian when followed by a non-labial vowel, and yields o- (through
assimilation) when followed by a labial vowel (in this case the *l is realized as a
dark lateral ɫ); see 2.1.17.2. The reconstructed form would be, then, *h1lergw
-. This
is, of course, hypothetical.
See also s.v. merk ‘naked’.
*lēz- ‘to lick’: liz(an)em, lizum ‘to lick’ (Bible+); *lez- in lezum ‘id.’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 2: 278].
●ETYM From PIE *leiĝh
- ‘to lick’: Skt. reh-/leh-, YAv. riz-, Gr. λείχω, Lith. liẽžti,
OCS lizati, ližǫ, Lat. lingō, etc., see NHB 1: 886b; Hübschmann 1877: 25; 1897:
452; Meillet 1910-11a: 239-242; HAB 2: 278a with more references; Pokorny 1959:
668; Saradževa 1986: 140; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 463; Mallory/Adams 1997:
351-352; Beekes 2003: 157; Cheung 2007: 310-311. The verbal variant lezum is due to influence of lezu ‘tongue’ (Hübschmann 1897:
452). Further see s.v. lezu ‘tongue, language’.
li (o-stem, NHB 1: 884c) ‘full, abundant; perfect, whole’, adv. ‘fully, completely,
firmly’ (Bible+); lir, i-stem: ISg lr-i-w ‘plenitude’ (Bible+); lnum or lnanim 1sg.aor.
lc‘-i, 3sg.aor. e-lic‘, med. lc‘-a-, imper. lic‘, partic. lc‘-eal ‘to fill; to fill oneself, be
filled’ (Bible+); li-anam ‘to be filled to repletion, be overfilled, be satiate, luxuriate’
(Yovhannēs Ōjnec‘i /8th cent./, Grigor Narekac‘i, Nersēs Lambronac‘i); MidArm.
lman, i lman ‘entire; entirely, fully’, various verbal forms in lmn- ‘to fill, fulfil, etc.’
(MiǰHayBaṙ 1, 1987: 279, 308-309; marked as “mostly dialectal” in NHB 1: 891a).
●DIAL The forms *li-k‘ and *lin-k‘ ‘full’ and the verbal *lc‘(-n)- ‘to fill’ are
widespread in the dialects. Remarkable are Van ilin [Ačaṙyan 1952: 263], Šatax h’lin
[M. Muradyan 1962: 197a] (note also hlin in a riddle, S. Harut‘yunyan 1965:
9bNr67Ae), Polis, Nor Naxiǰewan ilink‘, Zeyt‘un illɛnk‘ə, etc. ‘full’, which point to a
prepositional *i lin(-k‘). The preposition i is also seen in Sebastia illɛnal = i + the
verb lianal (cf. Polis lɛnal from lianal), Muš, etc. h’əlnal, Sivri-Hisar əllul, Nor
Naxiǰewan ilink‘c‘nɛl, etc. Further note Polis, Ṙodost‘o lman ‘entire’, etc. [HAB 2:
279-280].
●ETYM Since NHB 1: 884c, etc. (see HAB 2: 279), compared with Gr. πίμπλημι, -
αμαι ‘to fill, make full’, intr. ‘to fill oneself, be/become full’, πλήρης ‘full’, πλέως,
Ion. πλέος ‘full’, Lat. plēre ‘to fill’, plērus(que) ‘most of, majority, composing the
greater part’, Skt. pari
‘to fill’, pres. píparti, *píprati (cf. 3sg.impf.med. ápiprata
‘hat gefüllt’), participle prātá- ‘filled’, MPers. hambārīdan ‘to fill’, etc. The verbal
stem is reconstructed as PIE *pelh1- : *pleh1- (see Schrijver 1991: 139-140;
Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 89-90; Mallory/Adams 1997: 201b; Rix 2003: 373;
Cheung 2007: 295-297).
Arm. li, o-stem, and li-r derive from *pleh1-(i)o- or *pleh1-to- (cf. Gr. πλέος
‘full’, Skt. prātá- ‘filled’), and *pleh1-r- (cf. Gr. πλήρης ‘full’, Lat. plērus),
respectively. For li-r vs. verbal *li-n- cf. di-r vs. d(i)-n-em ‘to put’. See Hübschmann
1897: 452; HAB 2: 279; Pokorny 1959: 799; Aɫabekyan 1979: 87; J̌
ahukyan 1982:
126; 1987: 143, 185; Olsen 1999: 39. For lnum with *-nu- see, apart from the
references already mentioned, see Godel 1965: 26; 1975: 52, 69, 125; J̌
ahukyan
1982: 184, 195; Klingenschmitt 1982: 253-255; Olsen 1999: 801, 805. Compare
heɫum ‘to pour’ < *pel(H)-nu- (q.v.), probably belonging to the same verbal root.
See further s.vv. aṙnum ‘to take’, zgenum ‘to clothe’, ənkenum ‘to cause to fall,
throw down’. For the aorist e-lic‘ < *e-plē-ske (with *-ske/o- added to the old root
aorist *plē-(s)-, cf. Ved. áprās, Gr. ἔπλησε, etc.), see Godel 1965: 37; 1975: 127.
The dialectal construction *i-lin / y-lin is etymologically identical with y-ɫi
‘pregnant’, q.v. (for a discussion, see Weitenberg 1986: 96, 9615, 9718). Both contain
reflexes of PIE *h1en- ‘in’. The derivatives are thus comparable with Lat. im-pleō
‘to fill, fulfil; to make pregnant’, etc. (see also s.vv. yeɫc‘ ‘full’, yɫp‘anam ‘to be
filled to repletion, be overfilled’, yolov ‘much, plenty’, all probably from the same
etymon).
As to the form *lin, it is tempting to link it with Lat. plēnus ‘full’. The latter form
derives from *pleh1-no-, which reflects the PIE *plh1-no- (cf. Skt. pūrṇá-, Lith.
pìlnas, etc.) analogically reshaped after the full-grade *pleh1- > plēre (Schrijver
1991: 184, 341, cf. 182). A similar process may be responsible for Arm. *lin. MidArm. and dial. lman ‘entire; entirely, fully’ is reminiscent of Skt. párīmaṇ-
‘completely, wholly’.
*lik‘- : lk‘anem, 1sg.aor. lk‘-i, 3pl.aor. lk‘-in (Bible+), 3sg.aor. lik‘ in Nersēs
Lambronac‘i (no evidence for e-lik‘ in NHB 2: 908c), imper. lik‘ (Ephrem) ‘to leave,
let go, release, abandon’ (Bible+); lk‘anim, 1sg.aor. lk‘-a-y, 3sg.aor. lk‘-a-w, 3pl lk‘-
a-n (Bible+) ‘to be left, become weak or depressed, be dissolved, be desperate,
desert’ (Bible+), cf. also lik‘ linel (Ephrem); lk‘anam ‘to become weak or depressed’
(Zgōn-Afrahat); das-a-lik‘, i-stem: ISg dasalk‘-i-w (Ganjk‘), dasalk‘-i-c‘ (Philo)
‘deserter’ (Book of Chries, John Chrysostom, Philo, etc.).
●DIAL The form lk‘anam has been preserved in Łazax lk‘anal ‘to become weak, be
depressed with pain’ [HAB 2: 288a]. Ačaṙyan HAB ibid. hesitantly adduces also
Ararat, Łazax, Šulaver lk‘-lk‘al ‘to become frightened, start trembling’, lk‘-lk‘-oc‘
‘tremble, fear’.
●ETYM From PIE *l(e)ikw
- ‘to leave’: Skt. rec-, pres. riṇákti ‘to leave, let, release’,
Iran. *raič ‘to leave, let, abandon’, Gr. λείπω, λιμπάνω ‘to let, leave’, Lat. linquō,
līquī ‘to leave, quit, forsake; to abandon’,67 OIr. léicid ‘leaves’ (see McCone 1998),
etc. See Hübschmann 1883: 34; 1897: 455; HAB 2: 287-288; Pokorny 1959: 669;
Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 457-458; Mallory/Adams 1997: 348-349; Cheung 2007:
307-308.
PIE nasal-infixed present *li-n-kw
- was remodeled to *likw
-n̥- > Arm. pres.
lk‘anem. 3sg.aor. (e-)lik‘ is derived from thematic aorist *é-likw
-e-t, cf. Gr. ἔλιπε, and
the imperative lik‘ reflects IE *líkw
e, cf. Gr. λίπε. For a discussion on these and
related issues, see Hübschmann ibid.; HAB ibid.; Meillet 1936 104, etc. passim (see
the index in 174-175); Kuiper 1937: 113, 117; Vaillant 1938: 26-27; Godel 1975:
117; Hamp 1975: 104, 106; Jasanoff 1979: 133; Kortlandt 1980: 102; 1996: 41 =
2003: 30, 115; K. Schmidt 1980: 42; 1980a: 2-3; 1985: 86; Schmitt 1981: 135, 145,
152; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 178-179; Rix 1992: 216; Clackson 1994: 84-85; McCone
1998; Olsen 1999: 782; Viredaz 2001-02: 32-33; Beekes 2003: 177.
loganam ‘to bathe, wash (the body)’ (Philo, Alexander Romance, etc.), caus. logac‘-
uc‘-anem, 3sg.aor. logac‘oyc‘ (P‘awstos Buzand 5.7, 1883=1984: 174L-10); logank‘, a-stem: logan-a-c‘ (Alexander Romance), IPl logan-a-w-k‘ (Philo) ‘bath,
washing’
●DIAL The verb loganam is present in a few W and SW dialects [HAB 2: 291a]. In
Muš and Van groups we find a blend with loɫ- ‘to swim’: Muš, Alaškert lɔɫgənal,
Moks löɫkanal vs. lökänal ‘to bathe’, etc. [HAB 2: 291a; Orbeli 2002: 239]; Moks -
kä- is from -ga- through Ačaṙyan’s Law.
●ETYM Related with Gr. λούω, λο(ϝ)έ-σαι ‘to bathe, wash (the body)’, Lat. lavō,
lavere ‘to wash; to bathe, soak’, lavāre ‘to bathe’, etc., see Hübschmann 1897: 452;
HAB 2: 291; Pokorny 1959: 692; Mallory/Adams 1997: 108b.
For a phonological and morphological discussion, see Winter 1965: 108; Beekes
1969: 22, 232; Kortlandt 1976: 93; 1983: 10 = 2003: 3, 40; Eichner 1978: 15027,
151; Klingenschmitt 1982: 115-118; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 184; Beekes 2003: 157. The
PIE proto-form is usually reconstructed as *louh3- (or *louh1-, see Schrijver 1991: 396-398, 444-446 with an extensive discussion). Further see s.v. luanam ‘to wash,
bathe’.
*loyc (seen in imperative and 3sg.aor. e-loyc, as well as in a number of compounds) :
luc-anem ‘to unbind, loosen; to dissolve, liquidate; to absolve’ (Bible+); loyc
‘liquid, soft, dissolute’ (Eznik Koɫbac‘i, Łazar P‘arpec‘i, Hexaemeron, etc.).
Illustration: In Łazar P‘arpec‘i 1.16 (1904=1985: 27L15f; transl. Thomson 1991:
63): i loyc aṙaǰnordac‘ “through dissolute leaders” (see the passage s.v. meɫk ‘soft,
weak, slack’).
●DIAL J̌
uɫa lucel, Axalc‘xa, Ararat lucɛl (verb; said of the stomach); in
Turkish-speaking Adana: ‘to melt in water’ [HAB 2: 294b].
●ETYM Since NHB 1: 894c, compared with Gr. λύω ‘to unbind, unfasten; to unyoke,
unharness; to release; to resolve’, λῦσ(ι)-, etc., Lat. luō, perf. lūī ‘to pay, acquit
oneself’, so-luō ‘to loosen, unbind; to dissolve; to melt; to release’, etc. The
determanative *-g- is considered to be found only in Armenian [HAB 2: 293-294].
The cognates point to a root with a laryngeal [Schrijver 1991: 246, 517-518,
523-524]. Klingenschmitt (1982: 184) accepts the connection and posits a nasal
present *lu-n-g- seen in Celt. *lung- ‘loslassen freilassen’ (cf. the structure of Skt.
yunáj- : yuj- ‘to yoke, harness, join’; see also s.v. luc ‘yoke’).
On the other hand, Arm. *loyc has been derived from PIE *leuĝ-: Skt. rujáti : roj-
‘to break (open)’, Iran. rauǰ- ‘to break, burst’, Lith. láužti ‘to break’, etc. (see
Pokorny 1959: 686; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 136, 178; Cheung 2007: 318; cf. Pedersen
1906: 359 = 1982: 137). J̌
ahukyan (1987: 178) points out that a contamination is
possible.
loys, o-stem ‘light’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Dialectally ubiquitous [HAB 2: 296a].
●ETYM Since Awetik‘ean (1815, apud HAB 2: 296), connected with Lat. lūx, lūcis,
f. ‘light’, Gr. λευκός ‘clear, white’, Skt. róka- m. ‘light’, OPers. raucah- n. ‘day’,
etc. (see Hübschmann 1897: 453; HAB 2: 296; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 463-
464). See also s.vv. lusn ‘white spot’, lusin ‘moon’.
*loyc‘-: pres. luc‘anem, 1sg.aor. *luc‘-i, 3sg.aor. e-loyc‘, 3pl.aor. luc‘-in (Bible,
Astuacaturean 1895: 657) ‘to light, kindle, ignite, set on fire’ (Bible+); luc‘ki, eastem: GDPl luc‘ke-a-c‘ (Yovhanēs Drasxanakertc‘i, 9-10th cent.) ‘burning material,
fuel, warming material, poultice’ (Eɫišē, Afrahat/Zgōn, Nersēs Šnorhali, etc.); luc‘-
umn (Barseɫ Čon), GDSg luc‘-man (Nersēs Lambronac‘i, Yovhannēs Erznkac‘i),
ISg luc‘-mam-b and NPl luc‘-mun-k‘ (Grigor Narekac‘i) ‘lighting, kindling, ardour’;
-loyc‘ in compounds (Zgōn-Afrahat, Movsēs Kaɫankatuac‘i, etc.).
●DIAL Preserved in peripheral NW dialects: Hamšen luc‘-uš ‘to burn, kindle’,
1sg.aor.act. luc‘-uc‘-i, imper. luc‘-ir, participle luc‘-aj ‘burnt, kindled’,
mediopassive lus-n-uš < *luc‘-(a)n- ‘to be burnt, kindled’, 1sg.aor.med. luc‘-a
[HAB 2: 297a; Ačaṙean 1947: 68, 130, 232]; Xotorǰur luc‘unul, imper. luc‘-ur;
luc‘nil, 3sg.aor.med. luc‘-a-w [YušamXotorǰ 1964: 459].
●ETYM Together with loys, o-stem ‘light’ (q.v.), connected with Skt. rócate, aor.
aroci, rucāná-, arociṣṭa ‘to shine, be bright, be radiant’, róka- m. ‘light’ (see
Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 463-464), Gr. λευκός ‘clear, white, bright’, Hitt. lukk- ‘to light; to set fire’, etc. (see HAB 2: 296-297 with lit.; Saradževa 1986: 45;
Mallory/Adams 1997: 505a).
Hübschmann 1897: 455 posits *louk-s- or inchoative *l(o)uk-sk- and compares
with harc‘anem ‘to ask, question’ (q.v.). The former solution is accepted in HAB 2:
296-297. Others prefer the *-sk- inchoative or present (Meillet 1936: 107; Pokorny
1959: 687; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 74, 179, 22945; 1987: 136, 178). In the case of
harc‘anem, the *-sk- is assured by cognate forms: Ved. prccha ̥ ̄́mi, Lat. poscō, etc.
(see s.v.), whereas for luc‘anem no such corroborative evidence is found. I am
therefore inclined to the sigmatic aorist *leuk-s- (see Pedersen 1906: 425 = 1982:
203; Kortlandt 1987a: 51; 1994: 29; 1996: 42; 1999: 47 = 2003: 80-81, 105, 115-
116, 129).
The derivation from *louk̂
-i̯e- (Godel 1975: 82; Klingenschmitt 1982: 83; Olsen
1999: 51105, 197-198, 23647, 534, 811, 81362) is untenable.
losdi ‘salmon’, unattested. According to Norayr, a MidArm. word (see HAB 2: 297a,
without any further data or comment). Ališan (1920: 53) mentions losdi ‘saumon’ as
a man-sized fish which enters up the rivers Kur and Erasx/Arak‘s from the Caspian
Sea.
●ETYM No etymological attempt is recorded in HAB 2: 297a.
According to Mann (1963: 3), derives from the PIE word for the salmon(-trout):
OIc. lax, Lith. lãšis, etc.; cf. also Toch. B laks ‘fish’. For Oss. læsæg (D.), see
Cheung 2002: 200-201. The Armenian word is included into Mallory/Adams 1997:
497a (cf. also Lane 1970: 86). Absent in J̌
ahukyan 1987. The PIE form is
reconstructed with either *-a- (see Pokorny 1959: 653; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2:
536) or *-o- (see Mallory/Adams 1997: 497; Adams 1999: 544).
PIE *lok̂
s- would yield Arm. *loc‘-, and before a dental stop, *los- or, perhaps
better, *loš-, as in veštasan ‘sixteen’. The element -di is identified by Mann with
Arm. di ‘body’. However, I do not see the motivation of such a compound. Besides,
Arm. di rather means ‘corpse’. It is likewise uncertain whether the component -di
has any relation with that of aw-di ‘sheep’. I conclude, that the IE origin of Arm.
losdi, which is, moreover, unattested, is questionable.
lor, i-stem according to NHB 1: 892c (but without ref.) ‘quail’ (Hexaemeron,
Aristakēs Lastivertc‘i, etc.); lor-a-marg, i-stem (ISg loramarg-i-w (Zak‘aria
Kat‘oɫikos, 9th cent.); o-stem: GDSg loramarg-o-y (Philo), lor-a-marg-i ‘a quail-like
bird’ (both Bible+).
In Hexaemeron (NPl lor-k‘), rendering Gr. ὄρτυξ m. (f.), -ῠγος ‘quail, Coturnix
vulgaris’ (see K. Muradyan 1984: 137L16, index 374a). The compound lor-amarg(-i) renders Gr. ὀρτυγο-μήτρα f. ‘a bird which migrates with quails, perhaps
corncrake, landrail, Rallus crex’ in the Bible. For attestations and a philological
discussion, see Greppin 1978: 79-82.
It has been assumed that loramarg(i) refers to ‘quail’ and is thus synonymous to
lor [HAB 2: 297b; Greppin 1978: 79-80]. The compound loramarg(i) has been
interpreted as ‘meadow-quail’, containing, thus, marg ‘meadow’ [NHB 1: 892c;
Greppin 1978: 79]. One expects *marg-a-lor, however. More probably, as has been
shown by Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 276a; see also Olsen 1999: 689), the second component
is *marg ‘bird’ (Iranian loan, cf. YAv. mərəɣa-, Oss. marǧ, etc. ‘bird’, see Cheung 2002: 202-203), also found in siramarg ‘peacock’. The actual meaning of the
compound is then ‘a quail-like bird’ or ‘a bird that is associated with the quail’.
Typologically compare Pers. ušturmurɣ, šuturmurɣ ‘ostrich’ < ‘camel-bird’, cf.
Arm. ištrmuɫ ‘id.’ (13th cent.+) [HAB 2: 247-248], Khwar. ’šmɣ [*ušmuɣ], etc.
[Teubner 1974: 301-302].
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects [HAB 2: 298a].
In a number of the Eastern dialects, with “prothetic” (h)ü- or (h)ə-: Areš hülör
[Lusenc‘ 1982: 210b]; Šamaxi həlör, (Meysari) hülör [Baɫramyan 1964: 201]; Goris
lör, əlör, ülör [Margaryan 1975: 330a].
On orlor, see V. Aṙak‘elyan 1984a: 145-146.
●ETYM Related with Gr. λάρος m. ‘a ravenous sea-bird, perhaps sea-mew, gull’,
λαρίς, -ίδος f. ‘id.’, cf. also σισίλαρος· πέρδιξ. Περγαῖοι (Hesychius) ‘partridge’;
considered to be of IE, onomatopoeic origin, related with Arm. lam ‘to weep, cry’;
see Lidén 1906: 49-50; HAB 2: 297-298 (lam – separately); Pokorny 1959: 650 (the
Armenian: “unklar”); J̌
ahukyan 1987: 134, 260 (with a question mark); Greppin
apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 249b. Clackson (1994: 182) considers the etymology
doubtful.
The IE origin of Arm. lor and Gr. λάρος, λαρίς is indeed improbable. Most
probably we are dealing with a Mediterranean word (see Greppin 1978: 82, with
ref.). For the vocalic fluctuation a : o compare another Mediterranean animal-name,
namely Arm. karič ‘scorpion’, dial. also ‘crayfish’ : Gr. κᾱρίς ‘Crustacea’ vs. Arm.
kor ‘scorpion’ : Gr. κουρίς, κωρίς ‘Crustacea’ (see s.vv.).
The meaning of Hitt. lari(i̯a)- c. is unknown (ChicHittDict [l-n] 1989: 46b); it has
been conjectured that the word refers to a sea-bird and is related with Gr. λάρος
(see Tischler HethEtymGlos 2.5-6, 1990: 44 with lit.; Watkins 1995: 14116). If this is
accepted (which is far from certain), one is tempted to posit an i-stem
Mediterranian-Anatolian bird-name probably of substratum origin, *lo/ar-i-: Arm.
lor, i-stem, Gr. λαρίς, Hitt. lari-.
EArm. *(h)ülor, *(h)əlor : Lusenc‘ (1982: 159) mentions the Areš form in the list
of very archaic words deriving it from *olor, but he does not offer any motivation.
Baɫramyan (1964: 65) lists the Šamaxi form amongst cases showing additional hbefore an initial vowel. However, there is no vocalic anlaut in lor. Margaryan (1975:
106) assumes that the addition of the initial ə/ü- of the Goris form is due to the
“much softening” of the l-. Neither is this convincing, since it is not clear why this
did not happen in other similar cases.
The problem may be solved, I think, by contamination with oror ‘gull’, urur
‘kite’, cf. especially Malat‘ia ulurik, with dissimilation r...r > l...l. See also s.v. orlor
‘a kind of bird’. [Is the vocalism of lor also due to contamination with oror?]. In
view of the Greek word, the etymological meaning of Arm. lor may be ‘sea-gull’,
thus the contamination may have taken place at a relatively old stage when lor
denoted ‘sea-gull’. Since we are dealing with a Mediterranean word, it is attractive
to assume that Armeno-Greek *lor/lar- referred to ‘sea-gull’, and Armenian has
shifted the meaning to a non-aquatic bird in relation with the migration of
Proto-Armenians to their historical homeland with no sea-borders.
lsem, aor. lu-a-, imper. lu-r (very rich evidence in the Bible, Astuacaturean 1895:
667), new aor. lseac‘ > lsec‘ Grigor Narekac‘i (10th cent.), etc. ‘to hear, listen; to obey’ (Bible+), ls-u ‘obedient’ in Timot‘ēos Kuz = Timothy Aelurus, 5th or 6th cent.
(Ačaṙean 1908-09a, 1: 371aNr24), Grigor Narekac‘i; lu aṙnem ‘to make hear,
proclaim’, lu linim ‘to be heared, proclaimed’ (both Bible+); lu i lu ‘in hearing, to
one’s hearing, hearable’ (Bible+), e.g. Job 13.17 (Cox 2006: 115): zi patmec‘ic‘ jez
lu i lu “for I will declare in your hearing” : ἀναγγελῶ γὰρ ὑμῶν ἀκουόντων); h-lu
‘obedient, compliant’ (Bible+), an-lu ‘disobedient’ (Cyril of Jerusalem, Dionysius
the Areopagite); lu-r ‘hearing, fame, report, preaching, obedience’ (q.v.); lu-ṙ, astem: GDPl lṙ-a-c‘ (Book of Chries) ‘silent’, lṙem ‘to be silent’, luṙ-luṙ ‘silent,
silently’ (all Bible+), luṙ-muṙ ‘silent, silently’ (John Chrysostom).
For the paradigm pres. lsem vs. aor. lu-a-, see Meillet 1913: 105; Łaragyulyan
1961: 157-158; È. Tumanjan 1971: 385-388; Godel 1975: 53; Schmitt 1981: 154-
155; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 188-189, 198; Kortlandt 1996: 36 = 2003: 111.
●DIAL The verb lsem with a generalized paradigm is ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB
2: 307b]. The root *lu has been preserved in Łarabaɫ lü ‘listen, wait!’, e.g. lǘ kac‘, lǘ
asem ‘listen, wait, let me say’ (HAB 2: 307b); according to Davt‘yan 1966: 368: lú
kɛnal, imper. lú kac‘.
See also s.v. luṙ ‘silent’.
●ETYM Since long (see HAB 2: 307 for references), derived from PIE *k̂
leu- ‘to
hear’: Skt. śrav-, aor. á-śravam, á-śrot ‘to hear’, śru-tá- ‘heard, famous’, Gr. κλύω
‘to hear, obey’, κλυτός ‘famous’, Lat. clueō ‘to be called, be named, be reputed’,
OCS sluti ‘be called’, etc., Hübschmann 1883: 33; 1897: 453-454; Meillet 1908-09c;
Pokorny 1959: 605; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 666-667; Mallory/Adams 1997:
262b.
The present form *lu-s- is considered to represent PIE *k̂
lu-s- > *k̂
lu-k̂
- through
assimilation like in skesur ‘husband’s mother’, cf. luṙ which requires *k̂
lu-s-r- vs.
lu-r- from *k̂
lu-ro- (Meillet 1908-09c: 338; HAB 2: 307a; Pokorny 1959: 605). The
derivation from *k̂
lu-sk- (Hübschmann 1897: 453-454 with hesitation) is untenable;
one expects *luc‘- from it. Others explain *lus- from a present form *k̂
lu-k- with the
regular develupment *-uk- > PArm. *-uk̂
-, and the aorist lu-a- is treated as inherited
root or sigmatic (with loss of intervocalic *-s-) aorist (see Meillet 1936: 133; Godel
1975: 78, 114, 122; Schmitt 1981: 154; Klingenschmitt 1982: 157-159; J̌
ahukyan
1982: 73, 171; Kortlandt 1995: 15 = 2003: 108); for a discussion and further
references, see Clackson 1994: 86, 217120, 217121; on the *-k-present, see also
Weitenberg 1980: 209, 211-212; Beekes 1995: 231.
According to an ingenious explanation of Kortlandt (1987a: 50; 1996: 40-41;
1999: 48 = 2003: 80, 114, 130), lsem represents a sigmatic aorist stem with a secondary nasal infix *k̂
lu-n-s-, just as əmpem ‘to drink’ (q.v.). We can also start with an
old present *k̂
l(e)u-s- (see Beekes 1995: 231) with addition of another present
marker, infix *-n-, at a relatively younger stage, when the function of the present
*-s- had become opaque. Typologically compare reduplicated present *pi-ph3-e-ti >
*(h)ipem > new present *(h)ip-ne-mi > əmpem ‘to drink’; *sk-present *ĝnH-sk- +
present *-i̯e- > čanač‘em vs. aor. can-i ‘to know, be acquainted’ (see s.vv.).
Arm. hṙč‘ak ‘fame’ has no satisfactory etymology (cf. HAB 3: 128b; Aɫayan
1974: 41). Olsen (1999: 251, 960) takes it as a word of unknown origin with “a
suggestively Iranian appearance”. I tentatively suggest a derivation from an
unattested Iranian *hu-srutya- ‘of good repute, famous’, cf. Αv. hu-srauuah-, MPers. hu-sraw ‘of good repute, famous’, Skt. su-śrávas- ‘id.’, śrútya- ‘to be heard, famous,
glorious’, su-śrótu- ‘gern erhörend’, su-śrúṇa- ‘gute Erhörung findend’, Gr. εὐκλεής
‘of good repute, famous’, etc. (for the forms, see Schmitt 1967: 81-93; Mayrhofer
EWAia 2, 1996: 666-667). In view of the sound development *-sr- > Arm. -ṙ-, which
is characteristic of native Armenian words but not for Iranian loanwords, as well as
*-tyV- > -č‘-, one may assume a very old Iranian borrowing, compare the wellknown problems of arcat‘ ‘silver’ (q.v.), partēz ‘garden’, etc. Thus: *hu-srutya-ka-
‘good repute, fame’ > Arm. *huṙuč‘áka- > hṙč‘ak ‘fame’. Structurally compare also
h-lu ‘obedient’ (q.v.) composed of *hu- < *su- ‘good’ and *lu- ‘hearing, heard’ from
*k̂
lu-tV-, although the semantic correspondence is not straightforward.
Further, see s.vv. *lu ‘hearing’, luṙ ‘silent’, lur ‘hearing, fame, obedience’.
lu, o-stem: GDSg lu-o-y (1 Kings 24.15, Grigor Narekac‘i), AblSg i lu-ē (Fables by
Vardan Aygekc‘i), ISg lu-o-v var. lw-o-v in Eznik Koɫbac‘i (A. A. Abrahamyan 1994:
118L-2); NPl lu-an-k‘ (Aṙak‘el Siwnec‘i, 14-15th cent.) ‘flea’ (Bible+).
Renders Gr. ψύλλος ‘flea’ in the only Biblical attestation, viz. 1 Kings 24.15.
MidArm. lv-ič ‘a kind of parasitic insect’ in Geoponica (MiǰHayBaṙ 1, 1987: 314a).
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects. Xarberd has lu-n, gen. lv-an, pl. lu-n-ɛr, cf. also
Nor Naxiǰewan lu, pl. lu-n-ɛr [HAB 2: 299b]. T‘iflis lvánir (HAB ibid.) probably
reflects pl. *lu-an (cf. MidArm. lu-an-k‘ above) + the usual pl. marker -(n)ɛr.
●ETYM Since Hübschmann (1883: 33; 1897: 453), derived from the PIE word for
‘flea’: Skt. plúṣi- m. ‘flea’, Gr. ψύλλα f. < *psul-i̯a, Lat. pūlex f. (*pusl-), OHG flōh
m., Lith. blusà, Russ. bloxá ‘flea’, etc. (Pokorny 1959: 102; Mayrhofer EWAia 2,
1996: 197-198; Mallory/Adams 1997: 206a).
As far as the anlaut is concerned, Skt. plúṣi- is the closest to the Armenian form
(Bugge 1889: 11); cf. also ψύλλα f. < *psul-i̯a which seems to reflect *plusi̯a. Since
*bh
lus- or *blus- would yield Arm. *əɫbu- and *əɫpu-, respectively, Arm. lu, o-stem,
is derived from QIE *pluso- (Meillet 1922g; cf. 1936: 47; HAB 2: 299; J̌
ahukyan
1982: 72; Olsen 1999: 20). For an o-stem insect-name, possibly feminine in origin,
and for -ič, see s.v. mun ‘itch; gnat, midge’; for the problem of gender compare also
nu ‘daughter-in-law’, q.v. (see Meillet 1922g: 143; Olsen 1999: 820).
For the irregular alternation *p/bh
- (cf. Lubotsky 1988: 30) compare *k/gh
- in the
word for ‘nit’ (see s.v. anic ‘nit’); cf. Meillet 1922g: 143.
Formally, Arm. lu ‘flea’ may also be derived from the word for ‘louse’: OHG,
OEngl. lūs f. ‘louse’, MWelsh lleu ‘lice’, Lith. liū̃lė ‘louse’, Russ. voš’, Skt. yūkā-
‘louse’, Shughni ǰūg ‘plant-louse’, etc. (on this PIE etymon, see Pokorny 1959: 692;
Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 535 = 1995, 1: 453; Schrijver 1995: 332-333;
Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 415; Mallory/Adams 1997: 357). However, the
derivation of Arm. lu ‘flea’ from *pluso- ‘flea’ is impeccable.
*lu ‘hearing, heard’, see s.v. lsem ‘to hear’.
●ETYM Usually derived from PIE *k̂
lu-to-, cf. Skt. śrutá- ‘heard, famous’, Gr.
κλυτός ‘famous’, Lat. in-clutus ‘renowned, celebrated’, OIr. -cloth ‘was heard’
(Hübschmann 1897: 453; Meillet 1936: 174; Schmitt 1981: 59, 61, 69; Kortlandt
1986: 39, 41 = 2003: 69, 71; Beekes 2003: 167, 174, 175, 206; Mallory/Adams
1997: 262b; Olsen 1999: 200-201), although *k̂
lu-ti- (cf. Skt. śrutí- ‘hearing’) is considered possible too (Hübschmann 1897: 453; Godel 1975: 78). Further see s.v.
lsem ‘to hear’
luanam, 3sg.aor. luac‘, imper. lua ‘to wash; to bathe’ (Bible+); luali, GDSg lualw-oy, GDPl luale-a-c‘ ‘bath, bathing site’ (Bible+; for the structure, see Olsen 1999:
228).
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 2: 300b]. Some dialects display forms with
metathesis, *vlal (see 2.1.26.3).
●ETYM Mostly derived from PIE *pleu- ‘to wash’: Gr. πλύνω ‘to wash, to clean’,
πλυτός ‘washed’, πλύσις f. ‘washing’, πλέω ‘to sail, swim’, Skt. plávate ‘to float,
swim’, Lith. pláuti ‘to rinse, wash off’, etc., see Gosche 1847: 68141; Hübschmann
1897: 454 (hesitantly); HAB 2: 300 with more references; Meillet 1936: 111;
Pokorny 1959: 836; Hamp 1975: 103-104 (assuming *plu-ə-, resyllabified from
*pluH-, see Clackson 1994: 44, 20743 with criticism); Klingenschmitt 1982: 115-
116; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 184; Clackson 1994: 44, 182; Mallory/Adams 1997: 561a.
Alternatively, luanam is connected with Gr. λούω, λο(ϝ)έ-σαι ‘to bathe, wash (the
body)’, Lat. lavō, lavere ‘to wash, bathe’, etc. and thus identified with Arm. loganam
‘to bathe’, see NHB 1: 893c; Hübschmann 1897: 454 (hesitantly); HAB 2: 300b
with more references; Klingenschmitt 1982: 116-117; Clackson 1994: 44. For the
alternation -u- : -og- cf. č‘uem vs. č‘og- ‘to go, set off’ (q.v.).
luc, o-stem (Bible+); a-stem: ISg lc-a-w in Cyril of Alexandria, IPl lc-a-w-k‘ in Plato;
i-stem: IPl lc-i-w-k‘ in Ephrem ‘yoke; burden; beam of the balance of which the
scales are suspended’ (Bible+), ‘the constellation Libra’ (Zak‘aria Kat‘oɫikos, 9th
cent.), ‘pair’ (Geoponica); lcem ‘to yoke’ (Bible+).
luc-l-il-k‘ ‘a pair of veins of brains’ (Oskip‘orik).
●DIAL luc ‘yoke’ and lcem ‘to yoke’ are dialectally ubiquitous. In Łarabaɫ, luc also
refers to ‘the beam of a balance of which the scales are suspended’ [HAB 2: 301b].
Further, see 3.1.4.1.
●ETYM Since long, linked with Skt. yugá- n. ‘yoke, team, race, tribe’ (RV+), Gr.
ζυγόν n. (also ζυγός m.) ‘yoke of a plough of a carriage; beam of the balance; the
constellation Libra’, Lat. iugum n. ‘yoke (for oxen), team; pair (of horses, etc.)’, etc.
(see HAB 2: 301). The initial l- has been explained by influence of *loyc- : luc-anem
‘to unbind, loosen; to dissolve, liquidate; to absolve’, q.v. [Bugge 1893: 8-9;
J
̌
ahukyan 1982: 40-41, 57, cf. 21339; 1987: 173]. See also s.v. leard ‘liver’ and 2.1.7.
Some of the cognate languages have derivatives in *-lo- or *-leh2-: Skt. yugalam., yugalā- f. ‘pair, couple’, Lat. iugula f. ‘a part of the constellation Orion, Orion’s
belt, a short line of three bright stars across the middle of Orion’ [Scherer 1953:
222-223], Gr. ζεύγλη f. ‘loop attached to the yoke, through which the beast’s heads
were put’, etc. These derivatives have been compared with Kartvelian *uɣ-el-
‘yoke’: Georg. uɣel-, Megr. uɣu-, Svan u/ūɣwa, uɣwal, cf. also the derivatives
Georg. uɣleul- : Megr. uɣul- ‘team of oxen’, Georg. me-uɣl-e ‘spouse’; see
Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 723, 7231; Klimov 1994: 68-72 (with references and a
discussion, treating the IE and Kartvel. *l-formations as independent); cf. Klimov
1998: 196.
Arm. luc-l-il-k‘ ‘a pair of veins of brains’ (Oskip‘orik) with double l is
reminiscent of Georg. uɣleul- ‘team of oxen’. Compare Arm. suffixes -il (kat‘-il ‘drop’, etc.) and -(a)li- (am-li-k ‘one-year-old child or lamb’, tam-a-li ‘roof’, etc.),
see 2.3.1.
On the strength of all these data, one may interpret Arm. luc-a[t]li ‘the
constellation Orion’ (q.v.) as composed of luc ‘yoke’ and the suffix -(a)li, possibly
from fem. *-lih2-, cf. Lat. iugula f. ‘a part of the constellation Orion, Orion’s belt’,
with fem. *-leh2-. Note that another asterism, namely sayl, i-stem ‘wagon; Ursa
Major and Minor, Arcturus’ : Hesychian σάτιλλα (perhaps Thracian), probably
contains the same suffix *-lih2-; compare also Georg. etli (see s.v. sayl).
luca[t]li ‘the constellation Orion=Hayk’.
●DIAL Only in “Aṙjeṙn baṙaran” (a dictionary published in Venice in 1865), see
HAB 2: 301b.
●ETYM According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 301b), composed of luc ‘yoke; Libra, Orion’
and unknown -atli.
In view of the resemblance between the Armenian characters a and t, lucatli may
be hypothetically emended into *luc-ali, as composed of luc ‘yoke’ and the suffix
-(a)li perhaps from fem. *-lih2-, cf. Lat. iugula f. ‘a part of the constellation Orion,
Gürtelsterne’; see s.v. luc ‘yoke’.
lu-ṙ, a-stem: GDPl lṙ-a-c‘ (Book of Chries) ‘silent’, lṙem ‘to be silent’, luṙ-luṙ ‘silent,
silently’ (all Bible+), luṙ-muṙ ‘silent, silently’ (John Chrysostom).
For derivatives (apart from NHB and HAB), see Olsen 1999: 394-395, 456.
●DIAL Axalc‘xa luṙ u munč, T‘iflis lur ‘silent’, Xarberd lṙ-ank‘ ‘patience’, Zeyt‘un
ləṙil ‘to be silent’ [HAB 2: 302b]. Interesting is Xian an-lṙ-ti ‘garrulous, chattering,
talkative’ < ‘who does not become silent’ (Ačaṙyan 1913: 100a); for -ti compare lk-ti
‘licentious’ from lknim ‘to be licentious’, an-ǰr-di ‘arid, not watered’, etc.
●ETYM From QIE *k̂
lu-s-r-, see Bugge 1893: 9; Hübschmann 1897: 454; Pokorny
1959: 606; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 73; Olsen 1999: 198. Compare the structure of baṙ
‘word’ (q.v.).
Further see s.v. lsem ‘to hear’
*lusan-n or *lus(e)amn ‘lynx; hyena; marten’.
Attested only in the final edition of the Alexander Romance (NPl lusanunk‘), in a
list of wild animals, after varazk‘ ‘wild boars’ and followed by injk‘ ‘panthers’,
vagerk‘ ‘tigers’, etc. (see H. Simonyan 1989: 287L1). In the corresponding passage
(op. cit. 423) the earliest edition has no animal-name in the corresponding place, that
is, between varazk‘ and injk‘. The English translation of the passage see in
Wolohojian 1969: 126: boars, lynxes, leopards, tigers. According to Ačaṙyan (HAB
2: 302-303), the NSg must have been *lusan-n, and the word corresponds to λύγξ
‘lynx’ of the Greek text.
Treated as synonymous to k‘awt‘ar ‘hyena’ (see HAB 2: 302b; Dashian p.c. apud
Hübschmann 1897: 454). The textual correspondence with Gr. λύγξ ‘lynx’ and the
etymology presuppose rather ‘lynx’. Nevertheless, there seems to be dialectal
testimony for ‘hyena’, too.
●DIAL Łazax lisam ‘a fox-like animal with whitish fur, black round spots and a long
thin tail’ [Amatuni 1912: 249b], Łarabaɫ lǘsemnə ‘marten’ [HAB 2: 303a].
According to Ačaṙyan (HAB, ibid.), Łazax lisam, apart from ‘marten’ (for this
meaning he cites Amatuni, but the description of the latter seems to point rather to ‘lynx’), also means ‘a white quick mythical beast which kills people by cutting their
throats’. Goris lisɛmnə ‘a wild animal smaller than the fox’ [Margaryan 1975: 398a].
In a tale written by V. Ananyan (1984, 3: 69L9), lisam seems to refer to ‘lynx’; in
the footnote, glossed by lusan ‘lynx’. This is explicitly corroborated by Ananyan,
HayKendAšx 1, 1961: 214, 227.
Alongside of ‘lynx’ and ‘marten’, the word seems to refer also to ‘hyena’ (see
also above). The vocalism of the form lisam may be due to contamination with lis <
loys ‘light’. Compare a fairy-tale from the village of Ak‘ori (Loṙi, district of
Alaverdi) told by Gyozal Xač‘atryan and recorded by E. Pezazyan in 1915 (HŽHek‘
8, 1977: 318-323), where lisam refers to a cannibal beast living in a cave and having
a fur that lis a tali “gives light/shine”. It was the mother (see 322L1f) of the fairy
named Gyulp‘eri (or Soylamaz) xanum living in Sew cov = ‘Black sea’. We are
probably dealing, thus, with “hyena : female devil”, cf. *k‘awt‘aṙ, etc. (see 3.5.2).
The meaning ‘hyena’ is clearly confirmed by the following. In the tale “Bruti
tɫan” (“The potter’s son”) written in 1931/1933 by Aksel Bakunc‘ (1976: 225, 229),
a native speaker of the Goris dialect, lisemnə is represented as an animal with curly
hair, walking like a wolf and laughing like a man.
In Turkish-Armenian dictionary (ca. 1720 AD) by Eɫia Mušeɫyan Karnec‘i
(Karin/Xotorǰur), lusam renders Turk. varšaɫ (vāshaḳ) [Č‘ugaszyan 1986: 81, 118-
119].
●ETYM Since Müller 1890: 3, connected with Gr. λύγξ, GSg λυγκός (-γγός) ‘lynx’,
Lith. lū́šis, dial. (Žem.) lųnšis, lųnši, OPr. luysis (Euler 1985: 91), Russ. rýsь, MIr.
lug, OHG luhs ‘id.’, etc.; perhaps also Khowar ruṣk ‘marten’ and Yidgha ḷuū, lū
‘marten’ [Hübschmann 1897: 454; HAB 2: 303a; Mallory/Adams 1997: 359-360].
For the meaning of the latter forms (on which see also Bailey 1968:159), viz.
‘marten’, cf. the dialectal meaning in Łarabaɫ and Łazax. The connection of these
forms with Lat. lupus ‘wolf’, etc. (Speirs 1984: 411-412) can hardly be maintained.
Ačaṙyan (ibid.) derives Łarabaɫ lǘsemnə from *lus-emn < *lus-amn. Compare
Łarabaɫ xašemnə vs. Loṙi, Łazax xašam ‘dry leaves’ (see Amatuni 1912: 266a). Note
also Łarabaɫ sä́lämnə, sä́lɛmnə, Goris sälämnə vs. ClArm. salam(b) ‘a kind of
partridge, francolin’ (q.v.). According to Łap‘anc‘yan (1961: 330), here we are
dealing with the same suffix as is seen in ayceamn < *ayci-amn ‘roe-buck’ (see s.vv.
ayc ‘goat’, mrǰiwn, mrǰimn ‘ant’, and 2.3.1). < *ayci-amn (see s.v. ayc ‘goat’ and
2.3.1).
It has been suggested that the Armenian n-formation is somehow connected with
the nasal infix seen in Gr. λύγξ and Lith. (Žem.) lųnšis (Frisk 2: 142; see especially
Weitenberg 1984, Stelling Nr. 9, where dial. *lus-amn is mentioned in this context).
If the Armenian reflects the original *luk̂
-(V)n-, the literary lusanunk‘ must be
treated as the original n-stem plural form, and EArm. *lus(e)amn is a recent creation
after animal-names in -mn. However, this is not a productive suffix in eastern
dialects but rather an old Armenian heritage (see 2.3.1). Besides, the spread of the
suffix over the animal-names must have started from somewhere. One may therefore
look for an alternative scenario.
In case the PIE *-nk̂
- yielded -s- in Armenian, as *-ns- did, one may also
reconstruct *lunk̂
- for Armenian. We can tentatively assume a QIE *lunk̂
-mn- or
*luk̂
-mn-, with loss of the *-m- everywhere but in EArm. *lisamn. Compare the case of *bh
udh
-men- : *bh
udh
-(m)no- (see s.v. andund ‘abyss’). For an archaic -mpreserved in EArm. dialects but lost in ClArm. as well as in all the remaining
dialects cf. EArm. *anu/əm versus ClArm. anun ‘name’ (q.v.).
It has been suggested that the PIE word for ‘lynx’ derives from PIE *leuk- ‘to
see’, which itself may be a semantic specialization of *leuk- ‘to shine, illuminate’
(see Mallory/Adams 1997: 360a, 505a; cf. Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 512). Arm.
*lusamn may reflect, then, the *-men-form also found in Skt. rukmá- m. ‘golden or
silver plate which is worn as an ornament’ (RV+), rúkmant- ‘glänzend’, OIc. ljōmi
‘Glanz, Licht, Schwert, Zwerg’ < *leuk-mVn-, etc., or Lat. lūmen ‘light, daylight;
lamp, torch; glory’ < *leuk-s-men-. The latter can be linked with Av. raoxšna- adj., n.
‘light’, Lat. lūna f. ‘moon’, OCS luna ‘moon’ , Gr. λύχνος ‘lamp’ which would then
be derived from *louk-s-(m)neh2- and *luk-s-(m)no-.
It can be argued that the guttural *-k- of the verbal root *leuk- conflicts with the
palatal *-k̂
- of the word for ‘lynx’. Note, however, the fluctuation seen in Skt.
rúśant- ‘shining, brilliant, bright, light’. Besides, the association might have been
folk-etymological (especially if one accepts the Nostratic origin of the animal-name,
see Illič-Svityč 1976: 34-35). Formally, such a contamination would be very easy for
Armenian, cf. lusn ‘a white spot on eye’ < *‘white(ness), white/shining (thing)’ next
to loys ‘light’, Gr. λεύκωμα ‘whiteness; a white spot in the eye’, etc.; cf. also the
bird-name haw-a-lusn ‘pelican’ (see s.v. lusn). Compare further the Armenian
dialectal evidence above, on lisam the fur of which lis a tali “gives light/shine”. A
similar contamination is seen in Russ. rýsь ‘lynx’ the initial r- of which is explained
by the influence of *rysъ ‘blond, light brown’.
This animal-name is more likely a European substratum word (Furnée 1972: 121-
122). In this case, the association with ‘shine, light’ must indeed be folketymological. As to the formation of Arm. lus-an-un-k‘, one may compare e.g. msan-un-k‘ ‘the fleshy part of loins’ from mis ‘flesh, meat’ (q.v.). Note also other
animal-names with a comparable suffix such as Hitt. ulipp-ana- ‘wolf’ and
parš(a)na- ‘leopard’.
Among amazing and man-eating beasts of Libya, the long recension of the 7th
century Armenian Geography, Ašxarhac‘oyc‘, mentions lingnas (Soukry 1881:
19L6). Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 284a) considers this word an unknown foreign animalname. Hewsen (1992: 50, 9740) translates as ‘Lynx’ without any comment. Arm.
lingnas possibly reflects an otherwise unattested Gr. *λυγγνας < *lungnas. For the
semantics note the dialectal (Łazax) meaning of the Armenian word. If this
interpretation is accepted, we can posit a *lunĝ/k̂
-n- which is to be compared with
PArm. *lu(n)s-n-.
That Anania Širakac‘i testifies a Greek animal-name that has not been preserved
in Greek itself is not impossible, cf. e.g. p‘osuṙay ‘glow-worm, firefly’ (A. G.
Abrahamyan 1940: 40L7) obviously reflecting an otherwise unattested Gr. *φωσουρά
‘id.’, lit. ‘light-tailed’ (NHB 2: 954c; Hübschmann 1897: 387; HAB 4: 518a).
I conclude that this is an animal designation belonging to the European
substratum, *lu(n)k̂
/ĝ-(n)-, and the association with ‘shine, light’ (an animal with
shining eyes or a shinig fur) is folk-etymological. A by-form *lu(n)k̂
-mn may be
posited for EArm. *lus(e)amn.
lusin ‘moon’ (Bible+; dial.); ‘month’ (Movsēs Xorenac‘i, Vardan Arewelc‘i; dial.), istem: GDPl lusn-i (abundant in the Bible, Astuacaturean 1895: 657), ISg lusn-i-w
(Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.77 [1913=1991: 216L9], Movsēs Vardapet on Xosrov
Anjewac‘i); o-stem: AblSg i lusn-o-y (Eznik Koɫbac‘i), ISg lusn-o-v (Jeremiah 8.2);
a-stem [not in NHB]: ISg (z-)lusn-a-w in Anania Širakac‘i (7th cent., A. G.
Abrahamyan 1940: 58L20f). Note that GDSg lusn-i may point to both i- and a-stems.
The originality of the a-stem may be corroborated by the etymology (see below).
Combinations: beside ISg lusn-a-w (see above) and GDSg lusn-i (58L25f and
several times in 40), Anania Širakac‘i has GDSg lusn-o-y on the same page, 58L8.
Similarly, in Hexaemeron (K. Muradyan 1984: 176, lines 2 and 13) one finds both
lusn-i and lusn-o-y on the same page.
The meaning ‘month’ is seen in Movsēs Xorenac‘i 1.6 (1913=1991: 26L6; transl.
Thomson 1978: 80): dadarē aṙ getovn erklusneay awurs “he lingered by the river
for two months”; also in Vardan Arewelc‘i, 13th cent. (see NHB 1: 902b). Further,
see on the dialects.
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects [HAB 2: 296a]. See also s.v. lusnakay.
In Meɫri, one finds lüsɛn ‘moon’ and lìsnìgəlɔ́
x ‘the end of a lunar month’ (see
Aɫayan 1954: 271b, 301). The latter, a compound with glux ‘head’, points to the
meaning ‘month’ of lusin, as we have seen in Vardan Arewelc‘i (13th cent.; Ganjak,
Tavuš, Cilicia) and Movsēs Xorenac‘i.
●ETYM Related to loys ‘light’ and lusn ‘white spot’ (q.v.). For lusin, Hübschmann
(1897: 453; see also HAB 2: 296; Schmitt 1981: 52, 63; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 136)
reconstructs *loukeno-, cf. Skt. rocaná- n. ‘luminous sphere, firmament’ (Lubotsky
1988: 111), YAv. raocana- adj. ‘shining, light’ (see Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996:
463-464). However, semantically more attractive is the derivation from *louksneh2-
suggested by Meillet (1936: 21), cf. Lat. lūna, f. ‘moon, month’, Russ. luna ‘moon’,
etc. (see also s.v. lusn ‘white spot’). Scholars often link lusin with Lat. lūna, etc., but
they usually cite lusin only as an o-stem (Solta 1960: 40-41; Tumanjan 1978: 66;
Aɫabekyan 1979: 57; Saradževa 1986: 33). As we have seen, however, Arm. lusin is
also attested as an i- and an a-stem. One may therefore directly derive lusin, a-stem,
from PIE *louksneh2- ‘moon’. As to the problem of -i-, I follow the explanation of
Morani (1987: 680) and Clackson (1994: 135), who treat -i as analogical; see also
s.vv. kaɫin ‘acorn’, place-name Duin, etc.
lusn, NPl lusun-k‘ ‘a white spot on one’s eye’ (Bible+); haw-a-lusn ‘pelican’
(Bible+); Lusn-t‘ag ‘the planet of Jupiter’, lit. ‘light-crown’, or, as a bahuvrīhicompound, ‘der mit der Lichtkrone’ (see Eilers 1976: 3986, 65, 83, 85).
●ETYM Connected with Av. raoxšna- adj., n. ‘shining, light’, Lat. lūna ‘moon’, OPr.
lauxnos ‘Gestirne’, Russ. luná ‘moon; (dial.) ray of light, firmament, echo’, Czech
luna ‘moon; month’, Pol. ɫuna ‘reflection, glow, moon, flame’, etc. (see HAB 2:
294-296; ÈtimSlovSlavJaz 16, 1990: 173-174; PrJaz L, 1990: 179-188); see also
s.vv. loys ‘light’, lusin ‘moon’. For the semantics cf. Gr. λεύκωμα ‘whiteness; a
white spot in the eye, caused by a thickening of the cornea’ from the same root.
The root lusn is also seen in Arm. haw-a-lusn ‘pelican’, a compound with haw
‘bird’. For lusn here, cf. especially Slav. *lunь ‘a bird’, of the same origin (see
ÈtimSlovSlavJaz 16, 1990: 176-177). Note also Lith. laũkas ‘having a white
forehead or snout, having a bald forehead, bald’, dial. Žem. láukas, Latv. làuks‘having a white spot on the forehead, blazed’, làucis ’Pferd, Ochs mit Blesse auf der
Stirn, schwarzes Bläß-, Wasserhuhn’, etc. (see Derksen 1996: 221-222).
lusnakay ‘moonlit night’ (Eznik Koɫbac‘i, Anania Širakac‘i); MidArm. lusnika
(Nahapet K‘uč‘ak), lusnkay (Geoponica, Nahapet K‘uč‘ak) ‘moon’, lusnkay
‘moonshined (night)’ (Geoponica) [MiǰHayBaṙ 1, 1987: 313b].
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects [HAB 2: 296a].
In folklore, lusnkay frequently refers to the full moon. In a wonderful Ascension
folk-song (“ǰangyulum”) from Łarabaɫ (probably Šuši) [Grigoryan-Spandaryan
1971: 219, Nr 1348]:
Lüsnəngyän ɛl ašk a tiräl
Lüs čəkatis vəeske p‘oɫin.
“And the Moon has put his eye
On the golden coin of my forehead”.
In a traditional story [Grigoryan-Spandaryan 1971: 339L1f], a girl named
Vart‘it‘er is described as resembling tasnəhing ɔrva püllörvac lüsnəngyi “the
rounded moon of 15 days”. Then (340L21), Arsen was working lüsnəngyin lüsin takin
“under the light of the moon”; and (340L-2f), lüsningyä and the stars make a wedding
for Arsen and Vart‘it‘er.
In a folk-song (Ṙ. Grigoryan 1970: 352Nr752):
- Lusunka k‘eṙi, uskuc‘ kugas?
- Abrahamu covu veren.
- Dun deɫin, jinəd deɫin,
- Moruk‘d ɛker goteteɫin.
“- Uncle Lusunka, where are you coming from?
- From over the sea of Abraham.
- You [are] yellow, your horse [is] yellow,
- Your beard has come down to your girdle-place”.
That lusnkay can refer to ‘the full moon’ is also seen, e.g., in a folk-song where
Lusənka is described as being klorik ‘(diminutive) round’, and having eyes like
black raisins [Ṙ. Grigoryan 1970: 300Nr637].
In a song from Partizak [Tēr-Yakobean 1960: 314L-4], as an adjective: Lusnkay u
erkan gišer : “moonlit and long night”. As a noun, op. cit. 375L-2.
As is pointed out by Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 296a), Nor Naxiǰewan has preserved the
semantic distribution between lusin and lusnakay : lusin ‘moon’ : lusinga, lusninga,
luslinga, lustnga ‘moonlit night’. In this very dialect, lusinka/lusninga also refers to
the Moon as the sister of the Sun, as is seen in children folk-songs (Ṙ. Grigoryan
1970: 297-298, Nrs. 631-632a; P‘ork‘šeyan 1971: 32Nr3).
Meɫri lìsnɛ́
kɛ ‘moon’ [Aɫayan 1954: 301]; cf. lüsɛn < lusin (op. cit. 271b).
Sebastia *arew-lusinka č‘i tesnel ‘to be locked at home’, etc. [Gabikean 1952: 90].
●ETYM Probably composed of lusin ‘moon’ and kay ‘station’, cf. arew-kay, parz-kay
(see HAB 2: 504a).; kay belongs with the verbal root ka- ‘to stand, be, stay’
probably from PIE *gw
eh2- ‘to come, step’, and reflects a deverbative *gw
h2-ti-. For
the typology of the compound, cf. Gr. λυκάβας, -αντος probably ‘new moon’, Skt.
svargá- m. ‘heaven’ from *sh2ul-gw
m- ‘going to the sun’. For the morphology
compare barjr-a-gnay lusin, lit. ‘high-going moon’ in a late medieval folk-song (see
Abeɫyan 1940: 111Nr165). Note also lus-a-čem (with čem- ‘to walk’), the name of the 9th nocturnal hour followed by aṙawōt ‘morning’ (Anania Širakac‘i, 7th cent.; see A.
G. Abrahamyan 1944: 113). A variant of the hour-name lus-a-čem is lus-a-gay, from
the root ga- ‘to come’ [Aɫayan 1986: 80-81].
lu-r, imperative of lsem ‘to hear’ (q.v.); also o-stem: GDSg lr-o-y (Bible), ISg lr-o-v
(Nersēs Lambronac‘i); GSg lr-i (NHB 2: 903b without evidence) ‘hearing, fame,
report, preaching, obedience’ (Bible+).
●ETYM From QIE *k̂
l(o)u-ro-, see s.v. lsem ‘to hear’; comparable to tu-r (cf. Gr.
δῶρον n. ‘gift, present’) vs. tam ‘to give’; cf. also di-r vs. dnem ‘to put’, li-r vs.
lnum ‘to fill’ (Hübschmann 1897: 453-454; Meillet 1908-09c: 338; Schmitt 1981:
197; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 73). The derivation from *k̂
lu-trom (Olsen 1999: 35) is less
probable because it isolates lu-r from the parallels above.
lurǰ *‘light, shiny’ [see below on lrǰac‘uc‘anem, see also s.v. aršalurš/ǰ-k‘ ‘darkness
before dawn, twilight’]; ‘cheerful, awake, sober, bright-minded, serious’ (Job 33.26,
Philo, Ephrem, John Chrysostom, etc.); lrǰanam ‘to be/become awake, serious,
sober, bright-minded’ (Eɫišē, John Chrysostom); caus. lrǰac‘uc‘anem ‘to make
serious or cheerful (said of a face)’ (Sirach 7.14), ‘to light up, lighten, enlighten (the
sad night with a camp-fire)’ (Wisdom 17.5); i lrǰē (John Chrysostom, Evagrius of
Pontus), i lrǰeac‘ (Eznik Koɫbac‘i /5th cent./, “Čaṙəntir”), i lrǰuc‘ (Oskip‘orik) ‘in
one’s waking hours’; cf. also lrǰ(-a)-mit adj. & adv. ‘serious/sober/bright-minded’
(John Chrysostom), lrǰ-a-mt-ank‘ (Severian of Gabala), lrǰ-mt-ut‘iwn ‘cheerfulness,
light-heartedness, sober-mindedness’ (Romans 12.8, Łazar P‘arpec‘i, Eɫišē, Movsēs
Xorenac‘i, John Chrysostom, Ephrem, Paterica, etc.); ač‘-a-lurǰ ‘serious-eyed’ in
John Chrysostom, etc.; lurǰ ‘light blue’ (Plato, Paterica, etc.), ‘blue’ in Anania
Širakac‘i, 7th cent. (A. G. Abrahamyan 1940: 40L12; NHB 1: 903c has lurt‘ in this
passage; cf. s.v. deɫb ‘yellow’), several times in Aṙak‘el Dawrižec‘i, 17th cent.
[Xanlaryan 1990: 447 (lines 18, 19, 26), 450 (lines 29, 31), 451L4]; lurt‘ ‘blue’ in
Anania Širakac‘i (see above), Mambrē; lrt‘anam ‘to grow (greyish-) blue’ in
Hexaemeron and Anania Širakac‘i; compounds: lrt‘-a-loys (with loys ‘light’ as the
second member), var. lrt‘-a-goyn, with goyn ‘colour’, in Hexaemeron (K. Muradyan
1984: 43L3); lrt‘-n-a-tesil, with tesil ‘vision’ (T‘ovmay Arcruni), etc. [NHB 1:
907b].
In Job 33.26: Yaɫač‘el iwrum aṙ Tēr ənduneli eɫic‘i nma: mtc‘ē lurǰ eresawk‘,
dawanut‘eamb “When he prays to the Lord, it will be acceptable to him; he will
enter with a serious look, with a declaration” : εὐξάμενος δὲ πρὸς κύριον, καὶ δεκτὰ
αὐτῷ ἔσται, εἰσελεύσεται δὲ προσώπῳ καϑαρῷ σὺν ἐξηγορίᾳ [Cox 2006: 215].
As is correctly assumed in NHB 1: 266a and HAB 1: 330a, the compound
ač‘alurǰ in Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.42 is distinct from the homonymous ač‘-a-lurǰ
‘serious-eyed’ and rather belongs with aršalurš/ǰ-k‘ (q.v.).
●DIAL The form lurǰ has been preserved in a 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’ [HAB 2: 304]
(compare literary i lrǰuc‘ above).
In Syria: Svedia lɔṙč‘ ‘blue’ [Ačaṙyan 2003: 570], or laurč/č‘ ‘violet (colour)’
[Andreasyan 1967: 149, 363b]; K‘esab lɔrǰ ‘light blue’ (also in derivatives) [Č‘olak‘ean 1986: 204a, 244]; Aramo laurč ‘blue’ [Łaribyan (1958: 54, 65a]. The
Muš form has probably been borrowed from the Syrian dialects, see 1.5.
Meɫri lərǰɛ́
, lìrǰí ‘in one’s waking hours’ < *lrǰ-i [Aɫayan 1954: 271b]; compare
literary i lrǰē and i lrǰeac‘ above.
●ETYM No acceptable etymology is recorded in HAB 2: 304b. Still considered a
word of unknown origin in J̌
ahukyan 1987: 436; 1990: 63, 72 (semantic field 15).
Olsen (1999: 205-206, 771) derives lurǰ from PIE *k̂
leuH-: Lat. cluere, cloāre (both
only attested by grammarians) ‘to clean’, Welsh clir ‘light, bright, clear, clean,
joyful’ < *k̂
luH-ro-, Lith. šlúoti ‘to wipe’, Gr. κλύζω < *klu-d-io ̯ ̄ ‘to wash (of the
sea), cleanse’, etc., positing QIE *k̂
luh1r-i̯o-, or *k̂
luh1r-ih2-, or *k̂
luh1tr-i̯o/ih2-. I
find this etymology attractive, but the alternative in *-tr- seems gratuitous, and *-h1-
is not motivated (unless it is based on her idea on *-h1t- > Arm. -t‘-, on which see
below). Other cognates: Goth. hlutrs (only APl m. hlutrans) ‘pure, clean’, OHG
luttar, hlūtar ‘bright, limpid, clear, pure’ < *k̂
luH-d-ro-, OIc. hlēr ‘sea’ (see Pokorny
1959: 607; Lehmann 1986: 188b; Schrijver 1991: 394, 447-448; Mallory/Adams
1997: 108b).
For the variant lurt‘, Olsen (1999: 206389, 846) posits *k̂
luh1tro-. This is
improbable because: (1) the suffix *-tro- is not motivated here; (2) there are no
cognate forms in *-tro-; (3) this proto-form would yield Arm. *lu(w)r, cf. *ph2tr-os
> hawr, gen. of hayr ‘father’ (q.v.). To solve the latter problem, Olsen (1999: 774)
envisages a sound change *-h1t- > Arm. -t‘-, a view which I do not share. One may
rather start with *k̂
luH-d-ro- (cf. the Germanic forms), which would yield Arm.
*lurt. Subsequently, *lurt might become lurt‘ under the influence of art‘- ‘awake’,
zuart‘ (beside zuarč) ‘joyful, cheerful’, lazuart‘ (beside laǰ/čuard) ‘azure stone’. On
the other hand, the alternation lurǰ : lurt‘ is reminiscent of that of šurǰ ‘around;
circle’ : šurt‘n ‘lip; edge’ (if these words are related with each other, as is assumed
in HAB 3: 538-540).
I conclude that Arm. lurǰ ‘light, shiny; light blue, blue; cheerful, awake, brightminded’ may be derived from QIE *k̂
luH-r-i̯o- or *k̂
luH-r-i̯eh2- ‘light, bright, clear,
clean, joyful’. The by-form lurt‘ (not found in the old literature and the dialects) is
not entirely clear; perhaps *k̂
luH-d-ro- > *lurt > (secondarily) lurt‘.
xacanem ‘to bite, sting’, iterative xac-at-em (Bible+).
Often refers to biting of snakes and beasts (see NHB 1: 912ab, s.v. xacanem and
derivatives). A textual illustration from Deuteronomy 8.15 (Cox 1981: 113): ur ōjn
xacanēr ew karičn : οὑ̃ὄφις δάκνων καὶ σκορπίος.
●DIAL Widespread in the kə-dialects. The verbal suffix -(a)n- is missing in Axalc‘xa,
Karin, Alaškert, Hamšen, Polis, Ṙodost‘o and Sebastia xaznɛl, 1sg aor. xaji [HAB 2:
318a; Ačaṙyan 1941: 144, 216].
●ETYM Connected with Skt. khā́dati ‘to chew, bite, eat, devour’, perfect cakhāda
(3sg.act.), YAv. vī-xada- ‘to squeeze apart’, Baluchi khāδaγ ‘to eat’, Gr. κνώδαλον
‘wild or harmful animal’, Lith. ką́sti, kándu ‘to bite’, etc. (HAB 2: 317-318, with
references). The appurtenace of the non-Aryan forms is uncertain (see Mayrhofer EWAia 1,
1992: 451-452; cf. Pedersen 1906: 424 = 1982: 202; Pokorny 1959: 560, 634;
J̌
ahukyan 1987: 134, 177). The -c- of the Armenian form may be explained by the
sigmatic aorist form *-d-s-, see Pedersen 1905: 206; 1906: 424 = 1982: 68, 202;
J
̌
ahukyan 1982: 48, 74, 180; Kortlandt 1987a: 51; 1994: 27-28; 1996: 41-42 = 2003:
80-81, 104-105, 115-116. This might be corroborated by Parth. x’z- ‘to devour’
(Boyce 1977: 99), probably from *xād-s-, as well as by Skt. 3pl.aor.act. a-khāt-s-ur.
However, Skt. akhātsur seems to belong with Skt. khidáti ‘to tear; to press down’
and PIran. *xad- ‘to beat, strike, inflict a wound, hurt’ (Cheung 2007: 445;
Lubotsky, p.c.). On the other hand, Skt. khidáti has been linked with Lat. caedō ‘to
cut, hew’, etc. (cf. Klingenschmitt 1982: 210-211), see s.v. xayt‘ ‘sting, bite’.
In order to explain the voiceless affricate -c- of Arm. xac- ‘to bite, sting’,
Klingenschmitt (1982: 210) suggests a few possibilities: *-ĝ-; *-di̯-; an Iranian
loanword, cf. Parth. x’z- ‘to devour’. The first one is hardly possible, because we are
dealing with a root in *-d-. A sequence *-di̯- would yield Arm. -č- (see 2.1.22.1).
Also the loan theory should be given up (the expected Armenian form is *xaz-),
unless one assumes a very old borrowing with consonant shift *j > c, cf. the wellknown case of partēz ‘garden’.
Armenian has xaz ‘line, writing mark, line in hand, scratch’, dial. also ‘parting
line of hair’, xazem ‘to draw a line (also with a plough), scratch’ (late attest.;
widespread in the dialects), dial. xaz-xz-, etc. ‘to scribble’; see NHB 1: 910bc;
Ačaṙean 1913: 445ab; HAB 2: 310. Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 310b) treats xaz as a
Caucasian borrowing, cf. Georg. xazi ‘line, row’, Udi xaz ‘line’, etc. In fact, Arm.
xaz may belong with the above-mentioned PIran. *xad- ‘to beat, inflict a wound,
hurt’ and Skt. khidáti ‘to tear; to press down’, going back to Iran. sigmatic aorist
*xad-s- > *xaz- (cf. Skt. a-khāt-s-ur).
xayt‘ ‘sting, bite’ (only in 2 Corinthians 12.7), xayt‘em ‘to bite (of insects and
snakes)’, xayt‘oc‘ ‘bite, sting’ (Bible+).
●DIAL The verb xayt‘em ‘to bite’ is widespread in the dialects (in Moks, in the
meaning ‘to torment’) [HAB 2: 325a]. Note also Sasun xet‘ug ‘bitten by a snake’,
xit‘uc‘ ‘bite (of a snake)’ (see Petoyan 1954: 129, 130; 1965: 481, 483). The latter
continues ClArm. xayt‘oc‘.
●ETYM Since Scheftelowitz (1904-05: 312), connected with Lat. caedō ‘to cut; to
hew, lop, fell; to slaughter; to murder’, as well as MHG heie, hei f. ‘Rammblock’,
MDutch heien ‘schlagen, rammen’, perhaps also Skt. khidáti ‘to press down’ [HAB
2: 325a; Pokorny 1959: 917; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 147, 191; Clackson 1994: 224112]. The
initial x- of the Armenian points to IE *kH- (see Kortlandt 2003: 1). The
etymological connection, although considered “not compelling” by Olsen (1999:
211), seems to be acceptable, see Schrijver 1991: 266-267, who reconstructs *kh2eiand excludes Skt. (s)khidáti. The latter is considered unrelated since it seems to
belong to Skt. khād- ‘to chew, to bite, to eat, to digest’ (see Schrijver 1991: 266-267;
otherwise: Klingenschmitt 1982: 210-211) and Arm. xacanem ‘to bite’ (q.v.).
There are other Armenian words which are undoubtedly related with xayt‘,
although the ablaut alternations are not quite clear (see HAB 2, s.vv.; J̌
ahukyan
1987: 147, 191; on xit‘, see also Olsen 1999: 210), namely: xit‘, o-stem ‘pain, colic, twinge; rock, reef; (Paterica+) crocodile’, xt‘em ‘to bite;
to goad, push, shove’ (Bible+), dial. ‘to poke, shove’;
xet‘em ‘to bit; to push, shove’ (Ephrem), xet‘ ‘scowling gaze’ (Bible+), xet‘-k-em
‘to bit; to bite; to butt’ (Bible; Eznik), xet‘umn ‘bite of conscience’;
xēt‘, i-stem ‘bite of conscience (Buzand+); pain in the stomach (Bible+); doubt,
fear (Ephrem); scowling gaze, spite, hate (Bible+); danger, obstacle, impediment
(Agat‘angeɫos+)’, dial. ‘scowling (gaze)’, xit‘am ‘to worry, fear’ (Bible+);
xawt‘ ‘ill, sick (of body, eye, or ear)’ (Bible+), dial. *xōt‘-ik ‘a kind of wound’;
xot‘(ot)em ‘to look with a scowling gaze; to bite, shove’ (Philo, Ephrem,
Eusebius of Caesaria, etc.), dial. ‘to poke’;
xut‘, o-stem ‘impediment (under feet); reef’ (Bible+), xoyt‘ ‘crocodile (Paterica),
Łarabaɫ xüt‘ (< xoyt‘) ‘hillock’. See s.vv.
Also in Sanskrit there are similar forms with unclear vocalic alternations. Next to
the above-mentioned khidáti ‘to press down; to tear’ and khā́dati ‘to chew, bite, eat,
devour’ (see s.v. xacanem ‘to bite, sting’), here one finds khud- ‘hineinstoßen [des
Penis]’ (RV, AV+), with no secure etymology (see Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992:
456); for the labial vowel cf. Arm. xot‘- ‘to bite, shove, poke’.68
The meaning ‘crocodile’ (Paterica+) of xit‘ and xoyt‘ is corroborated by Georgian
xvith
k
h
i ‘crocodile; lizard’, which is considered an Armenian loan, and by the same
semantic relationship seen in Gr. κροκόδῑλος ‘lizard, crocodile’, composed of (or
folk-etymologically reinterpreted as such) of κρόκη ‘Kies’ und δρῖλος ‘Wurm’ (thus,
“Kieswurm”, see Frisk, s.v.), perhaps also in Skt. kr̥kalāsá m. ‘a lizard, chameleon’
[HAB 2: 364a, 365a, 414ab, 619b]. Another clear example is k‘ar-a-t‘ot‘oš (or
k‘ar-a-t‘oš, k‘ar(-a)-t‘ōš) ‘lizard’ (see HAB 2: 192), which contains k‘ar ‘stone’.
In view of the -t‘- of xayt‘, scholars usually postulate a protoform with the
determinative *-t- (instead of *-d- seen in Lat. caedō), which is attested nowhere
else. This would be unnecessary, however, if one assumes a solution similar to that
of maɫt‘em, p‘ut‘am, etc. (see 2.1.22.12-13), according to which xayt‘ (with an
unknown declension class), xit‘ (o-stem), xēt‘ (i-stem), and xut‘ (o-stem) can be
interpreted as verbal nouns in *-ti- and *-to-, and xayt‘em is a denominative verb
based on xayt‘, etc., or, alternatively, the old verb *xaytem became xayt‘em by the
influence of xayt‘, etc. Thus: *kh2eid-t- > PArm. *xay(t)-t‘V- > xayt‘; *kh2id-to- >
PArm. *xi(t)-t‘o- > xit‘ (o-stem). The ablaut degrees of the other forms are difficult
to explain. Compare also pairs like mayri : mori ‘forest’. One wonders if xawt‘ in a
way derives from *kh2(e)d-t-.
The words xayt‘em ‘to bite (of insects and snakes)’ and, especially, its ablauted
form xit‘, o-stem ‘pain, colic, twinge’ can also be connected with *šit‘(-) ‘bite;
wound’ (q.v.), cf. šit‘-oɫ (present participle) ‘biting’ (5th or 7th cent.+), šit‘eal ‘biten’
(Paterica), šit‘-oc‘ ‘bite (of a bee)’ (11th cent.+), šit‘ *‘pain of a (swollen) wound’
(Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ and the dialect of Łarabaɫ). On the alternation š- / x- cf. 2.1.22.3. If
this is true, šit‘ comes from *skh2i(d)-t-, as xit‘ (o-stem) from *kh2i(d)-to-.
xand, i-stem in Movsēs Xorenac‘i (see below); later o-stem ‘a strong emotion (with
love, mercy, envy or other passions)’; xandam ‘to envy, be jealous’ (John
Chrysostom, Movsēs Xorenac‘i).
Mostly in derivatives including also those based on xand-aɫ- and xand-aɫ-at-
(Bible+); for -at cf. xanj-at-em ‘to burn’ (Bible), hr-at ‘bonfire’ from hur ‘fire’
(Bible+). Spelled also as xant.
GDPl xand-i-c‘ “of the affection” is attested in Movsēs Xorenac‘i 3.68
(1913=1990: 363L4; transl. Thomson 1978: 353).
Verbal xandam : Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.53 (1913=1991: 183L10; transl. Thomson
1978: 195): ənd or xandayrn Artawazd “Artavazd became jealous at this”.
In P‘awstos Buzand 4.15 /5th cent./ (1883=1984: 103L18f; transl. Garsoïan 1989:
144): geɫgeɫeal xandaɫatut‘eamb : “quavering with compassion”; see the full passage
s.v. geɫ- ‘song’.
See also s.v. xanj.
●DIAL Dialectal forms only with xanj (q.v.).
●ETYM Usually connected with Gr. κάνδαρος· ἄνϑραξ ‘charcoal’ (Hesychius), Skt.
cand- (also ścand-) ‘to shine, glitter’, candrá- adj. ‘shining, light’, Lat. candor, -ōris
m. ‘dazzling whiteness, brightness; beauty; candour, brilliancy’, candeō ‘to be of
brilliant whiteness, shine; to become/be hot’, candēla ‘candle’, in-cendō ‘to set fire
to, kindle; to inflame; to aggravate’, incendium n. ‘fire, fiery heat; passion’, etc., see
Dervischjan 1877: 29 (with šant‘, which see s.v.); HAB 2: 330a.
J̌
ahukyan (1987: 130, 318) presents this etymology with a question mark,
pointing out that the aspirated *kh
- is nowhere attested, and comparing xand with
Hitt. ḫandāiš ‘warmth, heat’, not specifying the relationship. On the Hittite word,
see s.v. ant‘eɫ.
The final -j of xanj is difficult to explain. Theoretically, it may have resulted from
*-dh
-s-. Lat. candor, -ōris is masculine, thus it may belong to PIE HD s-stem (on
this, see Beekes 1995: 180; for the early intrusion into the nominative -s of -rdeveloped from intervocalic -s-, see Szemerényi 1996: 175): NSg *kh
V́nd-ōs >
PArm. *xV́nd-u, GSg *kh
nd-s-ós > PArm. *xanjó-. But xand is an i-stem.
See also s.v. šant‘/d.
xanjem ‘to scorch, singe’, xanj-oɫ ‘half-burnt wood’ (Bible+), xanj-r- (Agat‘angeɫos),
xanj-aṙ ‘spark’ (Grigor Magistros, “Geoponica”).
See Olsen 1999: 633.
●DIAL Ubiquitous [HAB 2: 331].
For xanj-oɫ, Ačaṙyan (1913: 451a; HAB 2: 331) records only Łarabaɫ compounds
*xanjoɫ-a-kot‘ ‘half-burnt wood, one edge of which is not yet burnt’ (with kot‘
‘handle’) and *xanjoɫ-a-mayr ‘ember buried in ashes to be used for making fire next
day’ (with mayr ‘mother’/‘wood, material’, q.v.), and Mɛrtɛköz (a village of
Nikomidia), Trapizon *xanjoɫ-at ‘half-burnt wood’, with -at as in xand-aɫ-at.
Although not recorded in Ačaṙyan 1913 and 1947, *xanjoɫat seems to be present
also in Hamšen: xonjoɫod ‘scorched wood’ (glossed in JaynHamš 2, 1979: 220a).
One also finds independent evidence for xanjoɫ in various dialects: Łarabaɫ
xánjuɫ(nə) [Davt‘yan 1966: 370], Goris xanjuɫ [Margaryan 1975: 331a]; K‘esab
xɛ̂ncüɫ [Č‘olak‘ean 1986: 204b]. Thus: xanjoɫ (Bible+) is dialectally present in
extreme NW (Trapizon, Hamšen, etc.), SW (Syria), and SE (Łarabaɫ, etc.).On Łarabaɫ -ǰ-, see s.v. xonǰ ‘low, down; inside’.
●ETYM See s.v. xand.
xawt‘ (i-stem according to NHB, but without ref.) ‘ill, sick (of body, eye, or ear)’
(Bible+).
●DIAL Akn, Arabkir xɔt‘ig ‘a kind of wound’ [HAB 2: 432b], apparently from
*xōt‘-ik.
●ETYM See s.v. xayt‘
xaws-k‘, i-stem ‘speech; words’, xawsim ‘to speak, say, tell; to sing (of a rooster)’
(Bible+).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects. In Van, Maraɫa and Nor Naxiǰewan only refers to
the singing of a rooster [HAB 2: 434b]. Note also Sivri-Hisar *xōs-oɫ ‘rooster’ and,
with an initial k-, Zeyt‘un *kus-oɫ ‘id.’ (see Ačaṙean 1913: 161b, 607b).
●ETYM The etymological attempts implying IE origin (see HAB 2: 434; Frisk 1,
1960: 803-804; Olsen 1999: 90) are unsatisfactory.
According to J̌
ahukyan (1995: 183), borrowed from Iran. *vaxša- ‘speech’, with
metathesis v – x > x – v (cf. Sogd. ɣuš, ɣwoš ‘to speak’) and with the (Scythian?)
change š > s.
*xet‘-: xet‘em ‘to bit; to push, shove’ (Ephrem), xet‘ ‘scowling gaze’ (Bible+),
xet‘-k-em ‘to bit; to bite; to butt’ (Bible; Eznik), xet‘umn ‘bite of conscience’.
●DIAL See s.vv. xēt‘ and xayt‘.
xeɫ ‘mutilated, lame (Bible+); sore (eye); abominable’. Numerous derivatives:
xeɫut‘iwn ‘mutilation’, xeɫat‘iwr ‘crooked (also morally)’, xeɫandam ‘mutilated’,
xeɫ(a)katak ‘mime, buffoon’, etc.
●DIAL In the dialects, mostly in verbal usage: ‘to become spoilt, undisciplined’
(Akn, Xotorǰur), ‘to make silly jokes’ (Č‘arsančak‘ xeɫktal), ‘to scoff, ridicule
grimacing’ (Zeyt‘un) [HAB 2: 356b]. Although not recorded in HAB, also the
adjective xeɫ seems to be present in the dialects, cf. in the epic “Sasna cṙer” (SasDav
1989: 379, 421b). Note also Sasun xeɫ-aǰ ‘crookedly sewed cloth’ (see Petoyan
1954: 130; 1965: 482); the second component, namely -aǰ, is not clear to me.
●ETYM See s.vv. šeɫ ‘slanting, crooked, oblique’ and *keɫ ‘crooked’
xēt‘, i-stem [oblique stem variants: xit‘-, xēt‘-, xet‘-] ‘bite of conscience (P‘awstos
Buzand+); pain in stomach, irritation (Bible+); doubt, fear (Ephrem); scowling gaze,
spite, hate (Bible+); danger, obstacle, impediment (Agat‘angeɫos+)’, xit‘am ‘to
worry, fear’ (Bible+).
In Deuteronomy 28.22 (Cox 1981: 184): harc‘ē zk‘ez t[ē]r tarakusanōk‘ ew
ǰermamb ew sarsṙov; ew xt‘iwk‘ (vars. xet‘iwk‘, xēt‘iwk‘) ew erkiɫiw (vars. erkiwɫiw,
erkewɫiw) ew xoršakaw ew gunov : πατάξαι σε κύριος ἀπορίᾳ καὶ πυρετῷ καὶ ῥίγει
καὶ ἐρεϑισμῷ καὶ φόνῳ καὶ ἀνεμοφϑορίᾳ καὶ τῇ ὤχρᾳ [RevStBible has: “The Lord
will smite you with consumption, and with fever, inflammation, and fiery heat, and
with drought, and with blasting, and with mildew”]. Arm. xēt‘ (or xit‘, as
presupposed by xt‘iwk‘) renders Gr. ἐρεϑισμός ‘irritation, provocation’.
In Canticum 1.5/6: vasn zi xet‘iw hayec‘aw yis aregakn : ὅτι παρέβλεψέν με ὁ
ἥλιος. Here xet‘iw hayim ‘to scowl, look/regard with hate, suspicion, etc.’ renders
Gr. παραβλέπω ‘to look aside, take a side look; to see wrong; to overlook; to despise’. The same is also found e.g. in Movsēs Xorenac‘i 3.43 (1913=1991: 312L12;
transl. Thomson 1978: 306): ənd orum xet‘iw hayēr Aršak : “Aršak regarded him
[Sahak] with suspicion”.
In P‘awstos Buzand 3.17 [and not in 4.17, as is misprinted in NHB 1: 943a]
(1883=1984: 39L-8f): holaneal gorcēin zmeɫs hamarjakut‘eamb, aṙanc‘ xit‘i
yamenayn č‘aris darjealk‘ : “they committed sins openly and insolently” (transl.
Garsoïan 1989: 92). Here xēt‘ clearly refers to “bite/sting of conscience”, as is
correctly given in NHB and HAB, and in ModArm. translation of P‘awstos by
Malxasyanc‘ (1987: 73): xɫči xayt‘.
Looking through the attestations of the word in NHB 1: 942-943, one notes that
nom.-acc. mostly occurs with -ē- (xēt‘, xēt‘-k‘/s), whereas the oblique stem chiefly
appears as xet‘-. This is reminiscent of cases like aɫuēs, nēr, etc. (2.2.1.2). Thus:
nom.acc. xēt‘, obl. xet‘-. Since the classical pattern is -ḗ- : -i-V́, obl. *xet‘-i- is
sometimes replaced by analogical xit‘-i (as, e.g., in the passage from P‘awstos
Buzand 3.17 cited above).
●DIAL J̌
uɫa xɛt‘ ‘spite, vengeance’; J̌
uɫa, T‘iflis, Axalc‘xa, Ararat, Łarabaɫ, Šamaxi,
Salmast *xet‘ ‘scowling (gaze)’; T‘iflis xit‘il ‘to scowl’ [HAB 2: 361-362].
●ETYM See s.v. xayt‘.
xit‘, o-stem ‘pain, colic, twinge; rock, reef; (Paterica+) crocodile’, xt‘em ‘to bite; to
goad, push, shove’ (Bible+), xt‘-an ‘goad’ (Bible+).
On IPl xt‘-i-w-k‘ in Deuteronomy 28.22, see s.v. xēt‘.
In Grigor Narekac‘i 26.3 (Xač‘atryan/Łazinyan 1985: 346L67): xit‘-k‘ c‘awoc‘
“twinges of pains”.
●DIAL Xian xit‘ ‘pain in flank or waist’, T‘iflis xit‘-k‘ ‘pain in stomach’, Van xt‘el
‘to poke, shove’, etc. [HAB 2: 364-365].
●ETYM Related with xayt‘ ‘sting, bite’ (see HAB 2: 364b; Olsen 1999: 210), q.v. For
xt‘-an, see Clackson 1994: 112, 224112.
*xilt‘ ‘knag on a tree, a swelling in tree’.
●DIAL Ačaṙyan (1913: 469a) records xilt‘ ‘knag on a tree, remnant of a branch that
has been cut off’ not specifying the dialect location. The word is present in Loṙi
(J̌
ahukyan 1972: 280). I can testify that in this subdialect, the word xil, xilt‘ also
refers to ‘rough, gland/tumour-like substance in wood’, which is to be understood as
‘a gland or tumour of a tree’, see s.v. xoyl, dial. xil.
Note also Ganjak xilt ənknel ‘to stumble’ (probably to be understood as ‘to
become knotted’ said of feet), xilt‘ ‘very dense, crowded’ [HayLezBrbBaṙ 2, 2002:
325b].
●ETYM Obviously belongs with xoyl ‘swelling, gland’ (q.v.), dial. xil ‘knag on a
tree’ (J̌
ahukyan 1967: 109, cf. 116; 1972: 280; 1985: 154; 1987: 131, 174, 255; see
also N. Simonyan 1979: 242; H. Suk‘iasyan 1986: 174-175). For -t‘- cf. e.g. kṙ-t‘-
un-k‘ ‘back’ vs. kuṙn ‘back’.
xot‘(ot)em ‘to look with a scowling gaze; to bite, shove’ (Philo, Ephrem, Eusebius of
Caesaria, etc.).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects, in the meaning ‘to poke’ (also ‘to eat to much’)
[HAB 2: 384b].
●ETYM See s.v. xayt‘.
xolorj in Mxit‘ar Goš, 12-13th cent. (NHB 1: 957b) and Davit‘ Salajorc‘i, 17th cent.
(UšMǰnHayBnst 2, 1987: 355L80), xolorjn, GDSg xolrjan (in the song by Grigor
Narekac‘i called Saylik ‘Little wagon’, K‘yoškeryan 1981: 61L18, 64L49) ‘orchis’.
Corresponds to Orchis, Russ. ятры́
шник, Germ. Knabenkraut (Caturyan 1970:
84; Ṙ. Łazaryan 1981: 42aNr489), Modern Armenian orj-armat (lit. ‘male root’ or
‘testicle-root’), xol-orj laynaterew ‘Orchis latifolia L.’ (Béguinot/Diratzouyan 1912:
35). According to other information, it denotes ‘Vicia’ (Ališan 1895: 258, having
violet flowers), ‘Vicia tenuifolia Roth.’ (Béguinot/Diratzouyan 1912: 60-61), ‘Vicia
cracca’ (HAB 2: 385b with ref.). According to Ačaṙyan (1913: 481a), the dialectal
meaning is ‘a plant which animals are fond of, with bluish flowers ’, and in Hamšen
it denotes the plant called K‘ara yɔnča.
I am not sure whether the MidArm. plant-name xoyl prob. ‘Hesperis matronalis
(see Č‘ugaszyan 1980: 200; MiǰHayBaṙ 1, 1987: 347a) is related.
●DIAL Hamšen, Xarberd *xolorj (HAB 2: 385b; for the meaning see above); Muš,
Aparan, Širak xɔlɔrs (Amatuni 1912: 287a, with a thorough description); Sebastia
*xolorj, *xoylorj ‘Vicia sepium’ [Gabikean 1952: 255], Balu xolorj ‘a plant’
[Sargisean 1932: 429]. Further see HayLezBrbBaṙ 2, 2002: 346b.
●SEMANTICS The Middle Armenian and dialectal designations for species of this
plant mostly contain ‘testicle’ as a compound member:
aɫves-a-ju-k‘, aɫvesi juk‘, lit. ‘testicles of fox’ in Amirdovlat‘ Amasiac‘i, 15th cent.
(see S. Vardanjan 1990: 182-183, § 940; MiǰHayBaṙ 1, 1987: 33b);
šan-juk‘, lit. ‘testicles of dog’ in Amirdovlat‘ Amasiac‘i (see S. Vardanjan 1990:
183, § 941; MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 208a); according to Béguinot/Diratzouyan (1912:
35), refers to ‘Orchis palustris Jacq.’ and corresponds to ModArm. orj-armat.
These designations are calques from (or typologically comparable with) the
Arabic terms literally meaning ‘testicles of fox’ (Orchis hircina crants’, ‘Orchis
antropophora L.’, or ‘Tulipa Gesneriana L.’) and ‘testicles of dog’ (‘Orchis morio
L.’, or ‘Orchis papillionacea L.’), which are transliterated by Amirdovlat‘ as xusat‘-
əl-saylap and xusat‘-əl-k‘alp, respectively, see S. Vardanjan 1990: 636, notes to §§
940, 941.
Note also ɫoč‘i plur ‘Orchis laxiflora Lam.’, lit. ‘testicles of ram’ (Béguinot/
Diratzouyan 1912: 35).
For a discussion of these designations, see also Ališan 1895: 28-29, 482. Ališan
(1895: 322, Nr 1446) records another designation of Orchis, viz. kolor/ṙčik,
suggesting a derivation from klor ‘round’ because of its ‘testicle-like roots’ (juajew
taker). Typologically compare dial. papke-plor ‘a plant with blue seed-like grains’
(Ališan 1895: 523; Ačaṙean 1913: 896a), lit. probably ‘grandfather’s testicles’. For
other names of Orchidaceae, see Suk‘iasyan 1967: 268c; Ṙ. Łazaryan 1981: 42aNr489.
For orj-a-tak and orj-armat (both basically meaning ‘having testicle-like roots’) and
the corresponding denotata, see Malxaseanc‘ HBB 3: 584-585.
The pattern is also seen in other languages, cf. e.g. Russ. jatrýšnik, jadríšnik
‘Orchis mасulаtа’ from játro n., pl. játra ‘entrails, eggs, testicles’, jadró ‘kernel,
testicle’ from Slav. *jęt/drо, cf. Vedic Skt. āṇḍá- n. ‘egg’, dual āṇḍaú m. ‘testicles’,
āṇḍī́
- f. ‘testicles’ (see Vasmer s.vv.; ÈtimSlovSlavJaz 6, 1979: 65-66, 72; Mayrhofer
EWAia 1, 1992: 162; Černyx 1999, 2: 466-467). A well-known example is Gr. ὄρχις
m. ‘testicles’, ‘the plant orchid (because of the shape of the root)’, ‘a kind of olive (because of the shape of the fruit)’, which is most probably etymologically identical
with the second component of Arm. xol-orj(-n), see below.
●ETYM No etymology in HAB 2: 385b.
In view of the material presented in the semantic section, Arm. xol-orj(-n) seems
to comprise *orj(i)- ‘testicle’ (q.v.), cf. Gr. ὄρχις ‘testicles; orchid’. As to the first
component, we can think of xo(y)l ‘swelling, tonsil, gland’, which may have once
referred to ‘testicle’ as well (especially if its connection with Russ. šuló, šuljá
‘testicle’, etc. is accepted, see s.v. xoyl). PArm. *orj ‘orchis’ may have been
lexicalized early (possibly an Armeno-Greek shared innovation). If this is true, the
compound *xol-orj- is to be understood as something like ‘testicled or glanded
orchis’, that is ‘a kind of orchis that resembles or has testicle- or gland-like parts’
xoyl, i-stem according to NHB 1: 961a, but without evidence (spelled also as xol)
‘swelling, tumour, gland’ (this is the basic meaning of the word, see below on
MidArm. and dial.), ‘spot, stain, blot’ perhaps from ‘spherical spot’ (Anania
Širakac‘i, 7th cent., see below), ‘a swelling of the lymphatic glands, scrofulous
gland’ in (Step‘annos Lehac‘i, 17th cent., glossed by Lat. strūma and scrōfula, NHB
1: 961b); MidArm. xul ‘swelling, tumour, gland’ in Bžškaran jioy (twice xul and
once xoyl, Č‘ugaszyan 1980: 91, lines 1-4) and Grigoris [MiǰHayBaṙ 1, 1987: 353a],
xoyl-ik and xul-ik ‘a kind of plague’ in Smbat Sparapet and Samuēl Anec‘i, perhaps
also Matt‘ēos Uṙhayec‘i [HAB 2: 391; MiǰHayBaṙ 1, 1987: 347]; MidArm. adj. xolayin ‘swollen’ in Mxit‘ar Herac‘i [MiǰHayBaṙ 1, 1987: 346b]; xol-xec‘geti ‘ulcer,
cancer (in a woman’s breast)’ (Paterica), a compound with xec‘geti ‘crayfish’ [NHB
1: 957a]. See also s.v. xol-orj ‘orchis’.
Anania Širakac‘i (7th cent.) compares the spots of the moon with xoyl-k‘ of pits
(xoṙoč‘ac‘) of a gem (A. G. Abrahamyan 1940: 40L19f). Here xoyl may be understood
as ‘asperity, roughness of surface, a rough spot’ (cf. ModArm. xordubordut‘yun in
the translation by Abrahamyan/Petrosyan 1979: 98; note also the semantics in the
dialects of Goris and Łarabaɫ), or simply ‘spot, stain, blot’. Given the range of
meanings displayed by xoyl in other literary sources and dialects, we should perhaps
posit a basic meaning ‘ball, gland; spherical spot’ or the like.
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects, mostly in the meaning ‘gland’ 9HAB 2: 392a].
Note also Sebastia xul ‘gland; Fr. fagoue, amygdale’ [Gabikean 1952: 259], Balu xol
‘gland’ [Sargisean 1932: 429], Akn xɔɛl ‘ganglion’ [Gabriēlean 1912: 282]. With
other semantic nuances: Agulis xuyl ‘swelling’ [HAB 2: 392a; Ačaṙean 1935: 358];
Adana, Hačən xil ‘a swelling in flesh’; Łazax, Kot‘, Ganjak xil ‘swelling on a tree’
[Amatuni 1912: 291a; Ačaṙean 1913: 469a; 2003: 315; HAB 2: 392a; HayLezBrbBaṙ 2, 2002: 325a]; see also s.v. xilt‘ ‘a knag on a tree, a tumour in wood’.
Goris xül displays several meanings: ‘a small oval swelling’, ‘a rugged swelling,
projection’, ‘dry twig’ [Margaryan 1975: 403b], and adj. ‘rugged’, cf. also Łarabaɫ
xül ‘rugged’, and the compound *xul-u-boyt‘n ‘rugged’ (see Ačaṙean 1913: 488;
HAB 2: 392a), cited as xləput‘nə ‘rugged’ in L. Harut‘yunyan 1991: 362ab; see s.v.
boyt‘(n) ‘thumb’. Textual illustrations for Łarabaɫ xül in the meaning ‘swelling in the
body’ can be found in a proverb (L. Harut‘yunyan 1991: 211L7: ǰanen ‘in the body’),
and in a phrase (225L8: əngučumə ‘in the ear’). The meaning ‘a swelling on a tree’
(see above) is represented in another phrase: kaɫnɛ xul ‘stubborn’ (231L-3), with kaɫnɛ
‘oak’ (unless one sees here xul ‘dumb’). A meaning ‘asperity, roughness of surface, a rugged swelling’ or the like seems to
unite the semantics of the Goris and Łarabaɫ forms with the literary testimony of
Anania Širakac‘i (see above). Note also Loṙi xilt‘ ‘rough, gland/tumour-like
substance in wood’ (q.v.).
●ETYM Petersson (1916: 277) compares Arm. xoyl with Russ. šuló, šuljá ‘testicle’,
pl. šuljáta ‘testicles’, Byel. šuljáty ‘id.’, etc. (see also Vasmer s.v., considering all the
etymologies of this Russian, etc. words uncertain). This etymology is recorded in
Pokorny 1959: 588. It is possible that Arm. xoyl had a meaning ‘testicle’ as well, see
s.v. xol-orj ‘orchis’. If the connection is accepted, one may assume an ArmenoSlavic correspondence perhaps of non-IE origin. The Armenian word formally
requires *kh
eul- (or *kh
o/uli̯-, cf. ayl vs. Lat. alius) or the like.
Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 391b) suggests a connection with Gr. κήλη, Att. κάλη f.
‘tumour; rupture, hernia’, OIc. haull m., OHG hōla f. ‘groin rupture’, Russ. kilá
‘id.’, also ‘knag on a tree’, Lith. kū́la ‘thickening, swelling, knag’, etc. (on this
etymon, see Pokorny 1959: 536-537; Chantraine 1968-80: 524-525; on Lat. cūlus
‘arse’, OIr. cúl ‘back’, etc. from *kuHlo-, see Schrijver 1991: 232; 1995: 193).
This latter etymology is accepted by J̌
ahukyan (1987: 131, 174, 255), who points
out that this correspondence, despite the problematic vocalism, is obvious. He also
adds xil-t‘ ‘a swelling on a tree’ (see s.v. for other references). The cognate forms
probably derive from IE *k(e)h2u-l-eh2-. The Armenian form may go back to a zerograde feminine *kh2ul-ieh2- > PArm. *kh
ul-i̯a- (for *kH > Arm. x, see 2.1.18.1) >
*xuyl (cf. ayl vs. Lat. alius), graphically = xoyl.
In Bžškaran jioy (13th cent.) one also finds xoyl ‘army’, which has been treated as
an Arabic loanword (Č‘ugaszyan 1980: 44L18, 200; MiǰHayBaṙ 1, 1987: 347a). One
may wonder whether this word is related with our xoyl ‘swelling, tumour, gland,
spheric spot’; for the semantics cf. Arm. gund ‘sphere, ball’ vs. gund ‘group, army’
(for a discussion of these two homonymous words of Iranian origin, see HAB 1:
593-595), and Łarabaɫ pül ‘ball of dough’ from. boyl ‘group’ (see Davt‘yan 1966:
329). If this is true, the IE etymology of xoyl must be given up.
The derivation from IE *skūli- with Swedish skyl ‘haycock’ (Mann 1963: 132) is
untenable.
The relationship with xlurd ‘mole’, ‘tumour, ulcer’ (on which see HAB 2: 374) is
unclear.
xonǰ1 ‘tired, exhausted’, xonǰim ‘to be tired’ (Bible+), xonǰ ‘tiredness, fatigue’
(Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i), xonǰ-an-k‘ ‘id.’ (Grigor Magistros), etc.
●DIAL The verb has been preserved in Arabkir, Xarberd, Manisa xɔnǰɛnal,
Tigranakert xɔnǰɛnäl [HAB 2: 394a; Haneyan 1978: 188a]. Next to xɔnǰɛnal, Dersim
also has xɔnǰɛl (verb) and xɔnǰ.
●ETYM No etymology is accepted in HAB 2: 394a. Considered to be of unknown
origin [Olsen 1999: 963].
One wonders whether xonǰ1 ‘tired, exhausted’ can be derived from xonǰ2 ‘low,
down’ (q.v.). For the semantic development, see s.v. nk‘t‘em ‘to starve, faint from
hunger’.
Karst (1911: 425) compares xonǰ with yogn- ‘to be tired’ (q.v.). This is possible if
one assumes a non-IE source such as *h/xogh
n-. From here: (1) *xogh
n- > *xong-yV-
(with metathesis) > xonǰ, (2) *y-(h/x)og-Vn- > y-ogn, pl. y-og-un-k‘.
xonǰ2 ‘low, down’ (attested only in Eusebius of Caesarea), ‘inside’ (only in “Aṙjeṙn
baṙaran”, 1865, without textual evidence).
●DIAL No dialectal evidence in HAB 2: 394a.
According to Davt‘yan (1966: 375), Łarabaɫ, Hadrut‘, Šaɫax xənǰ/č‘-ə-xárav
‘roasting inside’ is composed as xonč ‘inside’ + -a- + xorov ‘roast’. This is
attractive, but risky. The first component may rather be identified with xanj- ‘to
scorch, singe’ (q.v.). Although, according to HAB (2: 328-331), the root xanjdisplays literary and dialectal (amongst others, also in the Łarabaɫ-area and the
surroundings) forms only with (or derivable to) -j-, one does find -ǰ- forms in the
Łarabaɫ area, cf. Hadrut‘ xənǰəṙ-á-vəɛt ‘smell of roasting/barbecue’, with vəɛt < hot
‘smell’ as the second member [A. Poɫosyan 1965: 69; Davt‘yan 1966: 370], Łarabaɫ
*xnǰṙ-n-a-vet ‘id.’, *xnǰ-p‘ut‘ut‘ ‘strong burning’ [HayLezBrbBaṙ 2, 2002: 342b].
In DialAdd apud NHB 2: 1063b, one finds dial. xunč‘ ‘trunk of a tree’. In view of
the semantic field of e.g. PIE *bh
udh
no-: Gr. πυϑμήν ‘bottom; base, foundation;
depth; stock, root of a tree; stem, stalk’, Skt. budhná- m. ‘bottom, ground, depth;
lowest part of anything (as the root of a tree, etc.)’, Pahl. bun ‘base, foundation,
bottom’, Arm. (< Iran.) bun ‘trunk of a tree; shaft of a spear’ (see s.v. andund-k‘
‘abyss’; cf. also some Iranian forms referring the trunk of root of a tree
[ÈtimSlovIranJaz 2, 2003: 187-189]), one may identify xunč‘ ‘trunk of a tree’ with
xonǰ ‘low, down’.
●ETYM No etymology is accepted in HAB 2: 394a.
See s.v. xonǰ1 ‘tired, exhausted’.
Hardly related to xonarh ‘low, down; humble; miserable, poor’ (Bible+;
widespread in the dialects), an Iranian loanword [Nyberg 1974: 101b; J̌
ahukyan
1987: 527; Olsen 1999: 885]
xort‘ o-stem, i-stem, u-stem ‘stepson, adulterine’ (Movsēs Xorenac‘i, Ephrem, John
Chrysostom, etc.), ‘(adj.) counterfeit’ (Dawit‘ Anyaɫt‘, Plato), ‘hard, rough, stony’
(in this meaning, also *xort-, see below).
Evidence for declension: GDPl xort‘-o-c‘ in Movsēs Xorenac‘i 3.68 (1913=1991:
359L10); GDPl xort‘-i-c‘ in Severian of Gabala (see the attestation in NHB 2: 381c,
s.v. yōray); GDSg xort‘-u (“Naxadrut‘iwnk‘” Leviticus).
The meaning ‘hard, rough, stony’, recorded only in “Aṙjeṙn baṙaran”, is
corroborated by xort-a-bort-k‘ ‘hard, rough, stony places’ in Movsēs Xorenac‘i 3.55
(1913=1991: 330L17f; transl. Thomson 1978: 324): aršawel ənd xortaborts ew ənd
vimut teɫis “rode into difficult and rocky parts”. See below.
Among derivatives: ōtar-a-xort‘ ‘foreign/alien and step-’, in Eɫišē (5th cent.),
Ephrem, Sargis Šnorhali Vardapet (12th cent.).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects, mostly in the adjectival meaning ‘step-’. In Ararat
and Łarabaɫ: xort‘(-u)-p‘ort‘ ‘step-’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 485-486; HAB 2: 408a;
HayLezBrbBaṙ 2, 2002: 361a]. Clear textual illustrations can be found in a fairy-tale
recorded in Debed, a village in Loṙi, in 1978 (T‘. Geworgyan 1999: 45a, lines 15-16
and 31), where xort‘-u-p‘ort‘ refers to ‘step-(sisters), not from the same mother or
father’.
Maraɫa xurt‘əbə
i
rt ‘rough’ [Ačaṙean 1926: 63-64, 400; HAB 2: 408a; Davt‘yan
1966: 376] is identical with xort-a-bort-k‘ ‘hard, rough, stony places’ (Movsēs Xorenac‘i 3.55; see above). Thus, the compound *xort‘-bort‘ appears in the dialects
in both meanings: ‘rough, stony’ and ‘step-’.
I wonder if we can also add the following words: Muš, Xian xort‘ ‘young (man)’,
Sasun xort‘ ‘a brave, valiant, heroic, heroic person’ (see Ačaṙean 1913: 486a; in
Petoyan 1954: 132; 1965: 486: Sasun xoṙt ‘young’). This connection is in fact
already suggested by Baɫdasaryan-T‘ap‘alc‘yan (1958: 258b), who glosses ClArm.
xort‘ by Muš xort‘ ‘orphan; courageous’. In Moks, we find ‘daring, courageous,
valiant, violent’: xoṙt ‘самомнящий, смелый, дерзкий’, xor/ṙtut‘in ‘насилие,
беззаконие’, xortut‘növ ‘насильно’ [Orbeli 2002: 249]. A textual illustration: mɛk
xoṙt t‘äky
äworəm ‘один сильный царь’ (op. cit. 98L18, transl. 166L-5).
●SEMANTICS The dialectal meanings ‘orphan’, ‘young (man)’ are remarkable. The
basic semantics is ‘rough, stony, uncultivated, abandoned (place)’, from which two
meanings are developed: ‘step-, alien’ and ‘hard, rough, violent’.
●ETYM No acceptable etymology is recorded in HAB 2: 407b.
J̌
ahukyan (1967: 117) proposed a connection with OIc. skratti ‘Zauberer, Troll’,
skrydda ‘alte Lederjacke’, Germ. *skrattaz ‘Schrat, Waldteufel’, Lith. skriaudùs
‘beleidigend, kränkend, klagend; reißend, fließend; rauh, steil’, etc., from PIE
*(s)ker- ‘schrumpfen, runzeln, Schorf, Kruste, vertrocknet, mager’, which is
uncertain. From the same root, he (op. cit. 146-147) also derives kord ‘unploughed
(land, ground)’ (q.v.). In 1987: 317, J̌
ahukyan rejects the comparison with Hitt.
ḫartuwa- ‘generation’ in view of the semantic difference.
Since the meaning ‘step-, alien’ derives from ‘hard, rough, etc.’, and Movses
Xorenac‘i has xort‘ for the former and *xort- for the latter, one may explain xort‘
from *xor(t)-t‘. See 2.1.22.13.
xstor, i-stem: ISg xstor-i-w (Zgōn/Afrahat); o-stem: ISg xstor-o-v (Nersēs
Lambronac‘i); attested also in Numbers 11.5 and Mxit‘ar Gōš; later: sxtor, attested
in Geoponica (13th cent.) and Galen [NHB 1: 988c; 2: 718b; Greppin 1985: 102]
‘garlic’.
In Numbers 11.5: zsox ew zsxtor : τὰ κρόμμυα καὶ τὰ σκόρδα.
●DIAL The later form, namely sxtor, marked in NHB and HAB as ‘dialectal’, is
widespread in the dialects, whereas the older form xstor is restricted to Aslanbek
(extreme NW) and Łarabaɫ, Goris (extreme SE) [HAB 2: 428a].
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (1908: 123b; HAB 2: 428a) connects Gr. σκόρ(ο)δον n. ‘garlic’ and
Alb. húrdhë, also húdhër (Schriftsprache) f. ‘garlic’. As Ačaṙyan points out, the
comparison with the Greek word seems to have been suggested already in NHB 1:
988c; 2: 718b. According to J̌
ahukyan (1987: 302), we may be dealing with
common (probably independent) borrowings.
Ačaṙyan’s etymology has largely remained unknown to the Indo-Europeanists,
with a few exceptions (e.g. Mann 1963: 172). The Greek and Albanian forms are
usually taken together, without a mention of the Armenian [Frisk 2: 738; Pokorny
1959: 941; Demiraj 1997: 204-205]. Similarly, Beekes (2000: 21) states that the
word only occurs in Greek and Albanian.
Pokorny (ibid.) derives the Greek and Albanian *skor-d- from PIE *(s)ker- ‘to
cut’, “nach den gespaltenen Wurzelknollen”. The Armenian form is troublesome,
however, and one agrees with Olsen (1999: 936) in that Arm. xstor/sxtor “cannot simply be derived from *ske/ord-, so we are probably faced with a cultural loan”.
This seems to be a word of Mediterranean origin.
Ačaṙyan (ibid.; cf. also 2003: 422) reconstructs *skodoro- > *sxtor (if reliable,
Alb. húdhër, too, points to this form) with subsequent metathesis to xstor and then
back to sxtor. This cycling double-change is not economical and does not seem very
probable. Nevertheless, it can be true. I propose the following scenario.
First, Mediterranean *skodoro- or rather *skh
odoro- yielded PArm. *kh
s(o)dorowith a metathesis which is probably seen e.g. in another Mediterranean word,
namely Arm. sunkn vs. Gr. σπόγγος, etc. (q.v.). For the metathesis, cf. also *šeɫb-ik
> Cilicia xšbig (see HAB s.v. šeɫb ‘knife-blade’). Then xstor became sxtor probably
due to association with sox ‘onion’ (cf. the Biblical passage above; proverbs with
sox : sxtor in e.g. Čulartean 1880: 147; Čanikean 1895: 265Nr764; Łanalanyan 1960:
21a, 144a; YušMusLer 1970: 240; a folk-song sung by Mannik Hayrapet, Svazlyan
1994: 143b; a Partizak jocular dancing song, Tēr-Yakobean 1960: 360L4,9; a
superstition, Durean 1933: 149, etc.), but has been preserved in the opposite corners
of the Armenian-speaking territory, namely Aslanbek and Łarabaɫ.
Alternative: the form sxtor, albeit late and poorly attested, is present in the
overwhelming majority of dialects and can be treated as archaic. In this case, the
metathesis xs- > sx- has taken place independently in Aslanbek and Łarabaɫ. This
solution , albeit economical, seems less probable.
For a thorough discusion on Arm. xstor, see now Greppin 1998a.
*xt-iɫ- ‘to tickle; to excite’: xt-ɫ-em (Ephrem), xt-ɫ-t-em (Bible/Sirach 43.18/20, Eznik
Koɫbac‘i, Eusebius of Caesarea, etc.), xtɫ-t-k-im (Grigor Magistros), xt-t-ɫ-em (Jacob
of Nisibis/Afrahat, John Chrysostom, Ephrem, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i /9-10th
cent./), xt-t-ɫ-ot-em (Jacob of Nisibis/Afrahat), etc.; also deverbative nouns in -an-k‘
and -umn. The stem *xt(-t)-iɫ- is seen in a compound with akn ‘eye’, akn-a-xtiɫ
(Book of Chries, T‘ovmay Arcruni, Step‘anos Ōrbelean), and in the noun *xt(t)iɫ,
o-stem (ISg xtɫ-ov and xt-t-ɫ-ov in Ephrem).
The only Biblical attestation (Sirach 43.20) reads as follows: geɫec‘kut‘iwn
spitakut‘ean nora xtɫtē zač‘s : κάλλος λευκότητος αὐτῆς ἐκϑαυμάσει ὀφϑαλμός.
The compound akn-a-xt-it and some dialectal forms (see below) point to a ɫ-less
stem *xi/ut-.
According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 428b), Udi xitiɫ ‘tickling’ is an Armenian loan.
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects. Verbal: Ararat, Xarberd, Polis, Hačən *xt-xt-,
Suč‘ava xototel, Aslanbek, Sebastia *xt-ɫ-il. Nominal: Ararat xut-ut, T‘iflis ɫut-ut,
Muš, Alaškert, Nor Naxiǰewan *xt-i(k), Šamaxi ɫəd-əɫ, Łarabaɫ ɫldi, ɫldik, Agulis
ɫldik [HAB 2: 428b]. Note also Salmast ɫ‘di ɫ‘di and Polis gədəgədə́ (ibid.), which
seem to be “tickling-interjections”, as I frequently hear in e.g. my native city
Kirovakan (nowadays Vanajor): xətəɫətə or ɫədəɫədə. On Polis g-, see below.
It is not always easy to determine whether the formations like *xtxt- represent
reduplicated *xt-xt- or a t-formation *xtɫ-t-. Still, there are forms that reliably point
to a ɫ-less stem *xit- or *xut-.
One wonders if Łarabaɫ, Agulis ɫldi(k) can be explained as follows: *xtɫ-i > *xtl-i
(cf. maṙaxl- vs. maṙaxuɫ ‘fog’, etc.) > *xlt-i (late metathesis) > ɫld-i, through
voicing, on which cf. *šil-ti(k) > Łarabaɫ, etc. šildi(k) (see s.v. šil ‘squint-eyed’). Next to xədxədal, Polis also has gədəg ənɛl, which is reminiscent of Turk.
gədəq-lamaq.
●ETYM No acceptable etymology is recorded in HAB 2: 428b.
Together with kt-ɫ- ‘burning desire’ and kataɫim ‘to be furious’, J̌
ahukyan (1967:
140, 306) connects with OIc. hvata ‘anreizen, sich eilen’, etc. from *kw
ed-. The
comparison with kt-ɫ- is possible, although that with kataɫim is highly improbable.
More attractive is PGerm. *kit-l- ‘to to tickle’. For further discussion, see s.v. *kic-
‘to bite’.
xut‘, o-stem ‘impediment (under feet); reef’ (Bible+); xoyt‘ ‘crocodile’ (Paterica). See
also s.v. place-name Xoyt‘/Xut‘.
●DIAL Łarabaɫ xüt‘ ‘hillock’ [HAB 2: 414b; Davt‘yan 1966: 376]. The -ü- points to
xoyt‘.
●ETYM See s.v. xayt‘.
xuc‘, i-stem: GD xc‘-i, LocSg i xc‘-i, ISg (uncertain) xc‘-i-w ‘small chamber, cell’,
attested in Paterica, Sargis Šnorhali, etc. (for a philological discussion of uncertain
attestations in a homily ascribed to Eɫišē and in John Chrysostom, see HAB 2: 422b
with references); xc‘-ik, an-stem: GDSg xc‘k-an (P‘awstos Buzand /5th cent./, John
Chrysostom), LocSg i xc‘k-an (Eɫišē), AblSg i xc‘k-an-ē (Kirakos Erznkac‘i) vs. i
xc‘k-ē (Paterica) ‘small chamber, cell; hut’
●DIAL Suč‘ava, Nor Naxiǰewan, Axalc‘xa, Ewdokia, Sebastia, Muš, Zeyt‘un, J̌
uɫa,
etc. xuc‘ ‘cell’. With r-epenthesis: Akn xurc‘; with an epenthetic nasal: Ozim, Sip‘an
[HAB 2: 422-423], Hamšen xunc‘ [Ačaṙyan 1947: 234], Moks xunc‘, gen. xənc‘ə
ɛ
‘келья’ [Orbeli 2002: 250].
The main meaning is ‘cell, a small chamber in a church or in the yard of a
church’. Also other meanings are found: Sip‘an xunc‘ ‘a part of a room for the
young couple separated by a curtain’ [Amatuni 1912: 292a]; Hamšen xunc‘ ‘school’,
etc. [HAB 2: 423; Ačaṙyan 1947: 234].
●ETYM The connection with OHG hūs ‘house’, Lat. cutis ‘skin’, cūria ‘senatehouse’, Gr. κεύϑω ‘to conceal’, etc. (Pátrubany 1902-03a: 163; Petersson 1916: 282-
283; Pokorny 1959: 951; J̌
ahukyan 1967: 11886) is uncertain. The explanation of
Mann (1963: 84; cf. J̌
ahukyan 1967: 17327, 2167; 1982: 21778) assuming *-tVs > *-ts
> Arm. -c‘ is improbable, see -T(i) (2.3.1).
The Germanic word for ‘house’ has been compared with Yeniseian qus ‘tent,
house’ (see Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 7421, 939 = 1995, 1: 6455, 832 with ref.).
Arm. xuc‘ might be related with Germ. *hūs if one posits a QIE *kh
ut-s- of
substratum origin. J̌
ahukyan (1980, 1: 117) hesitantly posits *kh
u-sk-. Olsen (1999:
811) derives xuc‘ from *kh
uh1ti̯ah2-, cf. Germ. Hütte. However, *-ti̯- would give
Arm. -č‘- rather than -c‘- (see 2.1.22.1).
More probably, however, Arm. xuc‘ is a Semitic loanword, cf. Assyr. ḫuṣṣu
‘hedge; an additional part of a building’, Hebr. xūṣ ‘das Draussen, Strasse, Gasse,
was ausserhalb der Stadt liegt’, Arab. xuṣṣ ‘hut made of reeds’, etc. (Ačaṙyan 1935a;
HAB 2: 422-423; J̌
ahukyan 1967: 329; 1987: 192, 462). D’jakonov (1981: 61, 75)
assumes an Aramaic rather than Akkadian origin, cf. Aram. ḥūṣ- ‘hut, cell’.
*caɫ- ‘flower, blossom’ (see on the dialects); caɫik, an-stem: GDSg caɫk-an, NPl
caɫk-un-k‘, GDPl caɫk-a-n-c‘ in Agat‘angeɫos §§ 643, 645 (1909=1980: 329-330),
etc.; a-stem: AblSg i caɫk-ē and IPl caɫk-a-w-k‘ in the Bible, etc.; o-stem: GDPl
caɫk-o-c‘ in Cyril of Alexandria ‘flower, bloom’.
●DIAL Dialectally ubiquitous [HAB 2: 438-439]. In Nor Naxiǰewan, Crimea: ‘ash’
[Amatuni 1912: 301a]; already in DialAdd apud NHB 2: 1063b, glossed as the word
for moxir ‘ash’ among the Armenians of K‘erson. The same meaning is also present
in Zeyt‘un [Ačaṙean 1913: 504b, 505b; 2003: 316].
Łarabaɫ caɫk‘, caxk‘ ‘the blossoming of fruit-trees’ is interpreted by Davt‘yan
(1966: 380) as *caɫ-k‘. Compare Meɫri caxk ‘blossom (only of a tree)’ (see Aɫayan
1954: 304). Aɫayan (ibid.) derives this word from *caɫ-k‘ not specifying the root
*caɫ. This might be an important evidence for the root *caɫ- ‘to blossom’, unless it is
a back-formation after cáx/ɫkɛl < caɫkel (*caɫik-el) ‘to blossom’, thus *cax(k)-k‘.
Further possible traces for the root *caɫ-. Goris xənjaɫi/xənjaɫa, Łarabaɫ xənjaɫa
‘snowdrop’ is derived from jn-caɫik ‘id.’, lit. ‘snow-flower’, through c- > x by
assimilatory inluence of ɫ [Margaryan 1973: 133-134]. (I prefer positing a
simultaneous process of assimilation and dissimilation; see 2.1.25). The older,
non-assimilative form is seen in Goris c‘ənjaɫi ‘snowdrop’ [Margaryan 1975: 487a].
Margaryan (1973: 133-134) assumes a loss of the final -k, and a vocalic change -i >
-a, which (especially the latter) are uncertain.
Muš aɫberanc‘ caɫu ‘a flower’, literally: ‘flower of the brothers’ [Amatuni 1912:
20a].
●ETYM NHB (1: 1003c, 1015c) suggested a connection between caɫik ‘flower’ and
caɫr, cicaɫ ‘laughter’. In NHB 1: 1001c (s.v. caɫik ‘flower’) we read: orpēs t‘ē
cicaɫik; orpēs vardn yayl lezus ē ibr caɫrik : “as cicaɫik (dimin. of cicaɫ ‘laughter’);
as the rose in other languages is caɫr-ik (dimin. of caɫr ‘laughter’)”.
Petersson (1916: 289-290), too, argued for the connection of caɫ-ik ‘flower’ with
*caɫ- ‘laugh’ (see s.v. caɫr ‘laughter’) by comparing the Hesychius gloss γελεῖν·
λάμπειν, ἀνϑεῖν : ‘shine’, ‘bloom’; see also Pokorny 1959: 366; J̌
ahukyan 1967: 160
(in 210, an alternative connection with dalar ‘green, fresh’, etc., which is
gratuitous); 1982: 56; 1987: 125, 167; Clackson 1994: 128; Olsen 1999: 459.
caɫr, GSg caɫ-u (later also caɫer and caɫr-u) ‘laugh, laughter; joke, mockery’ (Bible+);
caɫrem (Łazar P‘arpec‘i, Movsēs Xorenac‘i), caɫr aṙnem (Bible+) ‘to deride, mock,
ridicule, laugh at; to joke’.
See also s.vv. caɫracu ‘mime, buffoon; mocking (words)’ and ci-caɫ ‘laughter’.
The compound k‘m-caɫrel ‘to smirk, simper’, attested in Smbat Sparapet
[MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 445b] and “Vark‘ Ilarioni”, contains k‘im-k‘ ‘palate’ as the
first member and actually means ‘to smile/laugh in the palate, under the nose’; cf.
k‘m-cicaɫ ‘smirk, simper’ in ModArm. [HAB 4: 579b] and dialectal forms below.
Compare k‘m-a-cṙil ‘to smile, simper’, with cṙ- ‘to curve’, found in TurkishArmenian dictionary (ca. 1720 AD) by Eɫia Mušeɫyan Karnec‘i (Karin/Xotorǰur),
and k‘m-cṙ-el ‘to grimace mockingly’ in the dialect of Manisa [Č‘ugaszyan 1986:
42Nr22, 173]. In Aṙak‘el Siwnec‘i (14-15th cent.) one finds the compound with a reversed order
of the components: 3pl.pres. caɫr-a-k‘əm-in (see Poturean 1914: 235L123.1). This
form is present in the dialect of Moks; see below.
*k‘mk‘-a-cicaɫ : In a fairy-tale from Łarabaɫ recorded by Aṙak‘el Bahat‘ryan in
1860 (HŽHek‘ 6, 1973: 80L-6f), k‘mk‘əcicaɫ refers to a smile with opening of the
teeth. Further, of a woman who tries to seduce: xuselis teɫn ɛl k‘əmk‘əcecaɫ talav :
“and smiling while speaking” (rec. by M. Mxit‘aryan in 1961; see HŽHek‘ 6, 1973:
192L22).
●DIAL While cicaɫ(-) is dialectally ubiquitous (see s.v.), caɫr is recorded in several
dialects only: Van-group [Ačaṙyan 1952: 267; M. Muradyan 1962: 198a], Muš,
Alaškert, Ararat, Axalc‘xa [HAB 2: 440a]. In Łarabaɫ, etc. found in the compound
caɫr-a-teɫ ‘an object of derision, mockery’ (Łarabaɫ, Łazax, Ararat), with teɫ ‘place,
spot’ as the second member [Ačaṙean 1913: 505b]. Independently: Łarabaɫ cáɫər
‘mockery’ [Davt‘yan 1966: 380], Goris caɫrə [Margaryan 1975: 334a].
In DialAdd apud NHB 2: 1063b, one finds a bird-name caɫrik haw (“bird caɫr-ik”,
dimin. of caɫr), glossed as azg čayi “a kind of mew-gull”, and by Turk. /mart‘i,
mart‘ə gušu/.
69 On /mart‘i/ ‘mouette’, see HAB 3: 372a, s.v. mrtimn. Ačaṙyan
(1913: 505b) has exactly the same: *caɫrik haw “a kind of mew, /mart‘i/”, but
specifying the dialect: Muš. In HAB 2: 440a he translates it as ‘martin-pêcheur’, i.e.
‘halcyon, kingfisher’.
For the above-mentioned k‘m-caɫrel ‘to smirk, simper’ and ModArm. k‘m-cicaɫ
‘smirk, simper, ironical smile’ note the following forms: Ararat and Łarabaɫ
*k‘mcicaɫ, *k‘mk‘acicaɫ [Amatuni 1912: 675a], Goris k‘əmk‘əcicäɫ [Margaryan
1975: 371b]; Muš k‘njɫtal = Axalk‘alak‘, Axalc‘xa, Alek‘sandrapol (Leninakan/
Gyumri), Širak k‘əməc‘əxtal < *k‘m-cicaɫ-ot- ‘to smirk, smile ironically’ [HAB 2:
456a; 4: 580a].
The opposite, namely caɫr-a-k‘əm- (Aṙak‘el Siwnec‘i; see above), is present in
Moks: cäɫräk‘y
åmə
ɛ ‘улыбка, насмешка’, cäɫräk‘y
amil, aor. cäɫräk‘y
m-åv
‘улыбаться’ (see M. Muradyan 1982: 137; Orbeli 2002: 252).
See also s.v. caɫracu.
●ETYM Since Brosset, connected with Gr. γελάω ‘to laugh’, γέλως m. ‘laughter’,
γέλασμα ‘laughing’, γελαστός ‘laughable’, γαλήνη f. ‘stillness of the sea’, γαληνός
‘still’, etc., and with Arm. ci-caɫ ‘laughter’ [Hübschmann 1897: 455; HAB 2:
439-440; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 120; 1987: 125].
One may reconstruct an animate s-stem for Greek and Armenian: NSg *ĝélh2-ōs
(cf. Gr. γέλως m.), GSg *ĝlh2-s-ós (cf. Gr. *γελασ-); see Klingenschmitt 1982: 147;
Kortlandt 1996a = 2003: 117-119; Olsen 1999: 169; Beekes 2003: 193-194; cf. also
Pokorny 1959: 366; Frisk 1: 295; Francis (unpublished thesis) 1970: 181, as cited in
Clackson 1994: 129. The original PArm. paradigm can be reconstructed as follows:
NSg *cél-u, obl. *cal-ah-. Arm. *caɫu- must have generalized the vocalism of the
oblique stem.
Alternatively, one posits an old u-stem with NSg *-ōu(s). For an extensive
philological and etymological discussion I refer to de Lamberterie 1978: 269-276;
Clackson 1994: 126-132; Meissner 2006: 134-136. Gr. γαλήνη ‘calm’ and γλήνη ‘eyeball’, perhaps also γελάω ‘to shine’ as in Iliad
19.362-3, may point to an original root meaning ‘shine’; for the semantic connection
between ‘shine’ and ‘laugh’ cf. Latin verb renideō ‘shine’ : ‘laugh’, and Engl. beam
[Clackson 1994: 131]. Here we may be dealing with a synaesthetic transfer from the
visual perception to the aspect of hearing or mood (cf. Arutjunjan 1983: 290; the
appurtenance of some cognates mentioned here is uncertain).
The root *caɫ- is seen in caɫel ‘to deride, laugh at’ (HHB), caɫ-k-u ‘buffoon’
(John Chrysostom), caɫ-bast ‘laughable’, if these forms are reliable, as well as in
ci-caɫ ‘laughter’ (q.v.) [HAB 2: 439a]. NHB (1: 1001c, 1003c, 1015c) suggested a
connection between not only caɫr and cicaɫ, but also with caɫik ‘flower’ and jaɫ
‘derision, mockery’ (see s.vv.). For a possible dialectal evidence for the root *caɫ-
‘to blossom’, see s.v. caɫik.
caɫracu ‘mime, buffoon’; dial. ‘mystery, riddle’ (John Chrysostom+). In expressions
like caɫracu bank‘, the word seems to have adjectival meaning ‘mocking (words)’;
cf. katak ‘play, ridicule, joke’, which in P‘awstos Buzand 3.19 refers to ‘buffoon’
(see Garsoïan 1989: 94); see also s.v. šišaɫ.
●DIAL No dialectal forms are recorded in HAB 2: 440a.
In a fairy-tale recorded by V. Bdoyan in the village of Oɫǰaberd (in Kotayk‘) in
1945 (see HŽHek‘ 1, 1959: 561-571), where the king wants to find out why the fish
laughed, caɫracu is found several times referring to the mystery/riddle of the
laughing fish: the king says: Ari ɛs jkan caɫracun xán “Come (and) solve (literally:
take out) the caɫracu of this fish!” (567L-16); t‘oɫ gan, jkan caɫracun xanen “let them
come (and) solve the caɫracu of the fish” (567L-13); jkan caɫracun dus beri “(that he)
solves (literally: takes out) the caɫracu of the fish” (568L7); es kpatmem jkan
caɫracun “I will tell you the caɫracu of the fish” (569L10); ɛt jkan caɫracun jeṙ k‘aša
“give up the caɫracu of that fish” (569L-8f). The meaning of the word can be, then,
‘mystery, riddle’ or ‘riddle-solution’ or ‘(the reason of the) laughter’.
●ETYM Composed as caɫr ‘laughter; ridicule, mockery’ + -ac- ‘to bring’ + -u, thus:
‘laughter/ridicule bringing person or words’. For the structure and semantics, cf.
*aṙ-ark-ay/u ‘subject, argument’. For the semantic development ‘joke, ridicule’ :
‘riddle’ cf. dial. *han-ak.
*can- ‘to know, be acquainted’: caus. can-uc‘-anem (Bible+), canawt‘, i-stem
‘known person, acquaintance, relative; known, acquainted, aware’ (Bible+), ‘pupil’
(Philo); čanač‘em (< *canač‘em), aor. caneay, imper. canir ‘to know, be
acquainted, aware’, q.v.
For Biblical references, see Astuacaturean 1895: 722c, 940-942; Olsen 1999:
98207.
●DIAL The verb čanač‘em (q.v.) is dialectally ubiquitous, whereas canawt‘ is
recorded only in Maraɫa. In this dialect, the synonyms čananč‘ and canɔt‘
‘acquainted’ make a contrastive pair: čananč‘ ‘acquainted (with a Turk)’ vs. canɔt‘
‘acquainted (with an Armenian)’ [Ačaṙean 1926: 410; HAB 3: 182b]. Ačaṙyan
(HAB 3: 182b) points out that this distinction is also present in the local Turkish.
●ETYM PIE*ĝnh3-sk-i̯e- > *canač‘em > čanač‘em (see Meillet: 1936: 109; Clackson
1994: 40); on canawt‘ cf. 2.1.22.12.
Possible traces of the meaning ‘sign, omen’ (cf. Russ. znak ‘sign’, etc.): ciacan, a-stem ‘rainbow’ (Bible+), if from *ti-a-can ‘divine sign’ (see s.v.);
can-ak(-) ‘disgrace’ (Bible+; dialect of Alaškert), probably from *can- ‘sign,
spot’; for the semantics cf. xayt ‘spotted’ : xayt-aṙak ‘disgrace’, niš ‘sign, spot’ :
nšawak ‘disgrace’.
canakSee s.v. *can- ‘to know, be acquainted’.
cer, o-stem ‘old man; old’ (Bible+), cer-un (Book of Chries), cerōn (Philo) ‘old’,
cer-uni (ea-stem) ‘old’ (Bible+), cer-anam ‘to become old’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects [HAB 2: 452b].
●ETYM Since Klaproth, Brosset and NHB, connected with Gr. γέρων ‘old man’, etc.,
from *ĝerH-, cf. Skt. jari ‘to age, grow old’, járant- ‘old’, YAv. zar- ‘id.’, Oss.
zærond ‘old’ [Hübschmann 1897: 452; HAB 2: 457-458; EWAia 1, 1992: 577-578;
Cheung 2002: 254-255; 2007: 469-470]. For cer-un : Gr. γέρων cf. *ark‘un : Gr.
ἄρχων (see s.v. ark‘ay ‘king’).
ciacan, a-stem: GDSg ciacan-i (Łazar P‘arpec‘i, Philo apud NHB 1: 338c s.v.
Aramazday gōti), ISg ciacan-a-w (Cyril of Alexandria) ‘rainbow’.
The oldest attestation is found in Revelation 10.1 (rendering Gr. ἶρις).
The well-known passage from Genesis 9.13 reads (Zeyt‘unyan 1985: 184):
Zaɫeɫn im edic‘ yamps ew eɫic‘i i nšanak yawitenakan uxtin ənd is ew ənd amenayn
erkir “I shall place my bow in the clouds, and it shall be a sign of the eternal
covenant between me and the earth”. Here, Arm. aɫeɫn ‘bow’ (rendering Gr. τόξον)
stands for the rainbow which is to serve as a divine sign, nšanak ‘sign’ (rendering
Gr. σημεῖον ‘sign, mark’). Remarkably, both aɫeɫn and nšanak came to denote the
rainbow in Armenian dialects. For the former cf. *aɫeɫn-ak ‘rainbow’ (see s.v. aɫeɫn
‘bow’); as for the latter, note Akn nšanak ‘rainbow’ [HAB 3: 461a; Gabikean 1952:
425]. See also Andranik 1900: 170 (Dersim); Mxit‘areanc‘ 1901: 193 (Širak); G.
Hakobyan 1974: 276 (Nerk‘in Basen); Gyozalyan, 2001: 227 (Musa Leṙ).
Quoting this passage, T‘ovmay Arcruni (9-10th cent.) adds (V. Vardanyan 1985:
32L-6f; transl. Thomson 1985: 81): or ē ciacand, zor omank‘ hur mekneal yampoy
asac‘in, ew ordik‘ tarrapaštic‘n – gōti Aramazday “which is the rainbow (ciacan).
Some say that it is fire emerging from cloud, and those who worship the elements
(say it is) the belt of Aramazd”. Aramazday gōti is attested in Philo (apud NHB 1:
338c; see also Thomson 1985: 813).
In Ēfimērtē, ciacan ‘rainbow’ is put in contrast with ciacand ‘atmospheric
phenomenon’, the latter being mentioned 13 times [HAB 2: 454b]. The final -d is
perhaps due to misinterpretation of a usage with the article -d as in the passage from
T‘ovmay Arcruni (see above); cf. also ciacan-d in Hin baṙk‘ apud NHB 1: 1015b,
and especially ISg ciacanaw-d (Cyril of Alexandria, ibid.).
●ETYM Considered to be a word of unknown origin; see HAB 2: 454b; J̌
ahukyan
1990: 71 (sem. field 1); Olsen 1999: 943. Olsen (1999: 299) lists ciacan among
nouns in -an with an obscure etymological background.
On the strength of Armenian dialectal designations of the rainbow such as
‘Mary’s belt’, ‘St. Karapet’s belt’, ‘Rain’s Bride’, *Covean ‘lightning/thunder
Goddess of the celestial Purple Sea’, *Orot-ik ‘little Thunder’, etc. (Haneyan 2001),
as well as the above-mentioned gōti Aramazday ‘the belt of Aramazd’ in Philo and T‘ovmay Arcruni, I propose to interpret ciacan ‘rainbow’ as *Ti(w) ‘Sky-god,
Thunder-god’ (from PIE *dieus) + the conjunction -a- + *can- ‘*sign, omen’, thus:
‘the sign of the Sky/Thunder-god’. For this meaning of *can- cf. Russ. znak ‘sign’,
etc., from the same PIE verbal root; another possible trace is can-ak(-) ‘disgrace’,
see *can- ‘to know’. That the rainbow has been regarded as an omen is not
surprising, compare dial. nšanak and the Biblical passage above.
The initial c- instead of t- may be due to assimilation t...c > c...c, cf. taracem ‘to
spread, stretch’ > Van crnjel ‘to spread a news’, with assimilation t...c > c...c,
epenthetic nasal and the voicing -nc- > -nj- (see Ačaṙean 1952: 61, 86, 294). If
*cirani-gōti ‘rainbow’ (lit. ‘purple belt’, see 2.1.26.3) is old, it may have supported
the development *ti-a- > ci-a-.
cic ‘bosom’ (Geoponica, etc.), cuc ‘substance to be sucked’ (Bible+), dial. ‘marrow’,
ccem ‘to suck’ (Bible+).
●DIAL cic and ccem are widespread in the dialects; cuc – in the meaning ‘marrow’
[HAB 2: 472a].
●ETYM According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 471b), a Caucasian borrowing; cf. Georg.
juju ‘teat’, etc. See, however, s.v. tit ‘teat’. Note also Hurr. zizzi ‘mamma, female
breast’, zizz-u/oḫḫə, zuzz-u/oḫḫə ‘spouted jar’, Chechen cuz-am ̣ ‘spout’, etc. (see
Diakonoff/Starostin 1986: 44); Akkad. zīzu, dīdā (J̌
ahukyan 1980, 2: 102; 1987:
448).
*cicaɫ ‘laughter’ (in the dialects, see below); cicaɫim ‘to laugh’ (Bible+).
The noun cicaɫ is practically unattested in the literature. I only find it in Grigor
Narekac‘i (10-11th cent.), in the alliterative play with cov ‘sea’ and cawal
‘spreading’ [K‘yoškeryan 1981]: ǰur manuacoy cicaɫ cawal (69L43); cawal cov cicaɫ
(114L15).
●DIAL According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 456a), the verb cicaɫim is dialectally
ubiquitous, whereas the noun cicaɫ is present in several dialects only. On k‘m-cicaɫ
‘smirk, simper, ironical smile’ and comparable forms, as well as on synaesthesia, see
s.v. caɫr ‘laughter, mockery’.
●ETYM On the etymology, see s.v. caɫr ‘laughter; mockery’. On the type of
reduplication cf. Latv. paîpala ’Wachtel’ from *pelpalo, etc. (see Meillet 1903b:
2171; Klingenschmitt 1982: 147-148; Clackson 1994: 127-128). Note also aquatic
bird-names of onomatopoeic nature such as Lith. gaĩgalas ’Enterich, Erpel’, Latv.
gaigals ’mew’, etc., which are structurally (and etymologically?) comparable with
Arm. ci-caɫ ‘laughter’ (cf. Meillet 1903b: 2171; Toporov, PrJaz 2, 1979: 188). Note
also caɫrik haw ‘a kind of mew/gull’ (see s.v. caɫ-r ‘laughter’). For another
bird-name of the same type of reduplication cf. Arm. ci-ce/aṙn ‘swallow’ (q.v.).
As we have seen, the noun cicaɫ is practically unattested in the literature and is
present in several dialects only (note also that cicaɫ is represented in NHB 1: 1015b
as a dialectal [ṙamkōrēn] word), whereas the verb cicaɫim is widely attested since
the oldest period of the classical literature (e.g., 25x in the Bible; see Astuacaturean
1895: 733-734) and is dialectally ubiquitous. However, the reduplication of the type
Ci-Ce/aR is found mostly with nouns (see 2.3.2), and one would rather expect cicaɫ
to be original. This seems to be corroborated by the fact that the noun cicaɫ is
represented in the Northern (kə-class: Suč‘ava, Nor Naxiǰewan, Axalc‘xa; um-class: T‘iflis), Eastern (um-class: Ararat, Łarabaɫ, Šamaxi, Agulis, J̌
uɫa), and
South-Western (kə-class: Hačən) peripheries and should be treated as an archaism.
On the other hand, one may think of a reduplicated present *ĝi-ĝlH-, see s.v.v.
əmpem ‘to drink’, nist ‘seat’. Alternative: cicaɫ is an onomatopoeic word, cf. Megr.
ʒic-, Laz ʒic-, etc. ‘to laugh’ (on which see Klimov 1998: 268).
cicaṙn ‘swallow’. For attestations, see Greppin 1978: 180-182.
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 2: 456-457].
Perhaps also *cicVɫnik. Note cicɫnik, in a children song rhyming with t‘it‘ɫnik
‘butterfly’; see Ṙ. Grigoryan 1970: 165Nr273; cf. 163Nr266 (t‘it‘eṙnik – ciceṙnik; from
Muš). The form with -ɫ- can be due to rhyming influence of t‘it‘ɫnik (on which, see
s.v. t‘it‘eṙ/ɫn). No independent evidence is known to me. Note, however, MidArm.
cɫni ‘a kind of sea-bird resemblig swallow: alcyon’ (Norayr 41a apud HAB 2: 463b),
of which no evidence and etymology is known to me. It may reflect *c(i)cɫni.
●ETYM Usually connected with Gr. γῆρυς f. ‘voice, speech’, etc. For the type of
reduplication (*ĝoi-ĝar-n-), see AčaṙLiak 3, 1957: 91, with parallels. Note čičṙunk‘
‘twittering of swallows’, with c : č [J̌
ahukyan 1967: 307]. Greppin (1978:182) notes
that Solta (1960: 164-165) considers the reduplication pattern as typically IE but can
offer no other example of IE origin in Armenian. Nevertheless, the pattern does exist
in PArm., cf. t‘it‘eṙn ‘butterfly’ (note ciceṙn ‘swallow’ vs. cicaṙn), cicaɫ ‘laughter’
(q.v.) and perhaps dial. *titrak from ‘turtle-dove’. Elsewhere, Greppin (1981b: 6-7)
is positive on the example of siseṙn ‘chickpea’ vs. Lat. cicer, etc. Here (p. 5) he
notes that *ĝoi-ĝar-n- is possible, “though it smacks root etymology”. Against the
etymology he (ibid.) also argues that “swallows are perhaps not best known for their
lung power”. One may disagree with this.
Note čičṙunk‘ ‘twittering of swallows’, with c : č [J̌
ahukyan 1967: 307].
cil, verbal clem (Geoponica, etc.), ciɫ, o-stem, i-stem (Step‘anos Tarōnec‘i /10-11th
cent./) ‘sprout, bud, haulm’, cɫ-awt, i-stem, u-stem ‘haulm’ (Dawit‘ Anyaɫt‘, etc.),
ciwɫ (in Eɫišē, as a reading variant, and with uncertain meaning), ənc/jiwɫ ‘blossom,
sprout’, ənci(w)ɫem, etc. ‘to germinate’ (Bible+).
In Eɫišē 2 (Ter-Minasyan 1989: 104L23f, ModArm. transl. 105; Engl. transl.
Thomson 1982: 104) : ciwk‘ (vars. ciwɫk‘, ciwrk‘, civk‘, cirtk‘) ew k‘akork‘ i krak mi
ekesc‘en : “Excrement and dung shall not be thrown into fire”. The word ciw ‘dung’
is also found in Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ (ciw · c‘an, see Amalyan 1975: 152Nr65) and is
considered a loan from Georg. c’iva ‘dried dung’ [HAB 2: 461a]. But the alternative
reading ciwɫ found in the passage from Eɫišē is taken as an independent word
meaning ‘brushwood’ [HAB 2: 455a]. The existence of the form may be corroborated by J̌
uɫa cuɫ ‘a piece of straw’ (as Ačaṙyan stresses in HAB 2: 455b), and,
if related, by ən-c/jiwɫ ‘blossom, sprout’ and čiwɫ ‘branch’. Further, in the following
entry of the same Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ (Amalyan 1975: 152Nr66) one finds ciwɫ · xot kam
čeɫ “grass or branch”.
●ETYM IE proposals are not convincing (see HAB s.v.). On possibly related
Caucasian forms, see J̌
ahukyan 1987: 597, 611 (with hesitation).
On the ending of cɫawt, see Olsen 1999: 93-94.
*cin-: cnanim, 3sg.aor. cn-aw ‘to give birth, procreate; to be born’ (Bible+); cin,
i-stem ‘birth, origin; base; womb; spot, sign’ (Bible+): IPl cn-i-w-k‘ in Movsēs
Xorenac‘i 1.12 (see below); in Bible: AblSg i cn-ē [Astuacaturean 1895: 734a;
Olsen 1999: 99209]; cnoɫ or cnawɫ, a-stem ‘parent’ (Bible+); cn-und, o-stem, also
cnnd-ean ‘birth, origin, generation’ (Bible+); -cin as the second member of
numerous compounds.
In the meaning ‘base’, cin (IPl cn-i-w-k‘) is attested in Movsēs Xorenac‘i 1.12
(1913=1991: 39L2; transl. Thomson 1978: 89): aṙ sahmanōk‘ noc‘a, cniwk‘ lerambk‘
ew ezerōk‘ daštin : “At the borders by the base of the mountains and edges of the
plain”.
ənt/d-o-cin, a-stem (later also o-stem) ‘a slave that is born in the house of his
master’ (rendering Gr. οἰκογενής); see s.v.
●DIAL The verb is widespread in the dialects: *cnil (without a trace of -an-). The
transition *cnanim > *cnim can hardly have been motivated by syncope of -abecause: (1) there are no Western forms with geminated -nn- (cf. spananem ‘to kill’
> *spannel, klanem ‘to swallow’ > *klnel > *kllel, etc.); (2) at least some of the
Eastern dialects might have preserved the internal -a-; e.g. in ankanim ‘to fall’ most
of the dialects have the syncopated form *ənknil, but some Eastern dialects have
preserved the -an-, cf. Meɫri nánil [Aɫayan 1954: 262a], Areš ənganɛl [Lusenc‘
1982197a], J̌
uɫa ənganel [1940: 353a], Agulis (h)əngy
ä́nil [Ačarean 1935: 335; HAB
1: 199b].
In ClArm., cnanim has both transitive and intransitive meanings; 3sg.aor. cnaw
means, thus, ‘he was born’ or ‘he gave birth’ (see AčaṙLiak 4b, 1961: 315); cf. e.g.
Polis jnil which has both transitive and intransitive meanings [Ačaṙyan 1941: 220]
whereas e.g. in J̌
uɫa we see a formal distinction: trans. cnel (aor. cn-ec‘i) vs.
intransitive cn-v-el (aor. cn-v-ec‘-i) [Ačaṙean 1940: 367b].
The noun cin is found in several meanings: ‘birth of each year started with the
fourth (of cow)’ (Karin, Bulanəx, Alaškert, Van, Ararat, etc.), ‘four-year-old cow or
bullock’ (Karin), ‘womb of a cow’ (Łarabaɫ), ‘birth-mark’ (Alaškert, Van), ‘a kind
of spotted wound’ (Van), ‘time for giving birth (of cow)’ (Nor Naxiǰewan), ‘age of
cattle’ (Łarabaɫ) [HAB 2: 458a; Amatuni 1912: 308a], ‘skin enclosing the foetus,
afterbirth (of animals)’ (Ararat) [Amatuni 1912: 308a; Ananyan 1984: 457L5,
Chapter 3.16].
●ETYM Since NHB (1: 1016b), linked with Skt. jan- ‘to be born; to produce, create’
(spelled in NHB as čan-), Gr. γένεσις, etc., see Hübschmann 1897: 456; HAB 2:
457-458. The noun cin is usually derived from PIE *ĝenh1os, s-stem neuter ‘birth,
origin, race’: Gr. γένος, Lat. genus, Skt. jánas- (see Meillet 1936: 41; Pokorny 1959:
375; Schmitt 1981: 49; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 35, 56; 1987: 125; Mallory/Adams 1997:
192b; Beekes 2003: 167, 175, 192; Meissner 2006: 45, 54). If this is true, the i-stem
of Arm. cin instead of the expected o-stem must be treated as secondary, unless one
assumes a derivation from *ĝenh1-ti-, cf. Gr. γένεσις (for a discussion, see J̌
ahukyan
1982: 127; Matzinger 2005: 48-49; Olsen 1999: 99-100). Alternatively, Olsen ibid.
assumes an influence of a compositional i-stem, cf. mi-a-cin = Gr. μονογενής.
However, miacin is an a-stem: GDSg miacn-i (Bible), ISg miacn-a-w (John
Chrysostom, Yovhannēs Ōjnec‘i); cf. also ənt/docin (see above, and s.v.). Arm. cnawɫ ‘parent’ is usually derived from *ĝenh1-tlo- (J̌
ahukyan 1987: 125,
240; Matzinger 1997: 11). The word is an a-stem, however, and presupposes
*ĝenh1-tl-eh2-. In this case, it may have originally been feminine referring to
‘mother’. As to the variation -awɫ and -oɫ, it has been noticed that, in our oldest
texts, agent nouns have -awɫ, and adjectives show -oɫ (see Weitenberg 1996: 95,
with lit.). J̌
ahukyan ibid. points out that the variants -awɫ and -oɫ may be due to early
monophthongization of -aw- or a conflation of *-ātlo- > -awɫ and *olo- (cf. Gr.
-ολης).
cung-k‘ (pl.), a-stem (Bible+); later o-stem: IPl cnk-ov-k‘ twice in Grigor Narekac‘i,
10-11th cent. (in his famous “Matean”: 14.2 [1985: 297L21]); uninflected cunr
(Bible+; later also cundr); dial. also cungn (GSg cngan), seen in late attested
compounds as well (HAB 2: 472b; MiǰHayBaṙ 1, 1987: 370a); MidArm. and dial.
pl. (< dual) cn(k)vi ‘knee’.
Spelled also as cunk-k‘. It is hard to determine which of the two (cung- or cunk-)
is the original spelling (see Meillet 1903: 147). According to the Bible Concordance
(Astuacaturean 1895: 742ab), the attested forms mainly display the following
distribution: NPl cunk-k‘, APl cunk-s : GDPl cng-a-c‘. In this case, cung- is the
original form, and the devoicing of -g- is due to the influence of -k‘/-s (see also
Pedersen 1906: 341 = 1982: 119; HAB 2: 473a).
GDPl cnk-a-c‘ : P‘awstos Buzand 5.3 (1883=1984: 160L-7; transl. Garsoïan 1989:
189): i nerk‘oy cnkac‘ nora “under his knees”. In Anania Širakac‘i, cng-a-c‘ (A. G.
Abrahamyan 1944: 329L28).
In “Bžškaran jioy” (13th cent.): pl. cnkvi [Č‘ugaszyan 1980: 93L-4f].
●DIAL Widespread [HAB 2: 473b]. The final -n is seen in Łarabaɫ, Goris, etc., as
well as in the paradigm of Van cungy, GSg cngyän [Ačaṙyan 1952: 125], Moks
cungy
, GSg cəngy
än, NPl cəngy
nir [Orbeli 2002: 255], Šatax cungy, GSg cəngyän
(M. Muradyan 1962: 198b; the genitive is not recorded here, but it is found e.g. in a
folk-song in 163L9).
Zeyt‘un jung, NPl jə̀
ngvə̀
(nə̀
/a) [Ačaṙyan 2003: 152]. Polis jung, NPl jəngvənɛr
[Ačaṙyan 1941: 108].
Sebastia cunk, also cuy – in the expression cuy mə, ērku cunk aɫōt‘k‘ ‘a few
prayers’, glxun-cəywun cecel ‘to lament’, lit. ‘to beat one’s head and knees’
[Gabikean 1952: 279-280]. The latter expression presupposes a dual *cəywi.
Next to cúndər < cunr, and cungy
, in Agulis one finds cɛ́
ynə [HAB 2: 473b;
Ačaṙean 1935: 361]. Ačaṙyan (1935: 111) derives cɛ́
ynə from cunkn, although this
development is exceptional; cf. eɫungn ‘nail’ > ɛ́
ɫunk‘, sunk/gn ‘mushroom’ >
sɔngən. In p. 73 he notes that the development u > ɛ is found only in cunk > céynə,
and p‘unǰ ‘stalk; bunch’ (Genesis 41.5, 22, etc.; dial.) > p‘ɛnǰ. The vocalism of the
latter may be due to the influence of the hushing affricate ǰ, cf. examples with č‘, š,
ž, etc. (Ačaṙean 1935: 77). Besides, it may somehow be compared with that of p‘inǰ
‘stalk, stem’, as well as Skt. piñju/ūlám ‘a bunch of stalks or grass’ next to puñjīlam
‘id.’ and puñja- ‘a heap, mass, quantity, multitude’, although the etymology of the
Sanskrit (see Mayrhofer, KEWA s.vv.) and Armenian (HAB, s.vv.) words is
uncertain. Note also Turk. pinçak, etc., considered to be Armenian loans (Dankoff
1995: 152), Tat p‘enǰak ‘heap of 5 or 10 bundles’ (Ananyan 1978: 96, deriving the
word from p‘enǰ ‘five’); Łarabaɫ Arm. p‘änǰak‘ (L. Harut‘yunyan 1991: 10L22). Thus, Agulis p‘ɛnǰ does not seem to be a good parallel to cɛ́
ynə. Note also that
cunkn ‘knee’ and sunkn ‘mushroom’ yielded Łarabaɫ cɔ́
ngnə/cúynə and
sɔ́
ngnə/sɔ́
ynə, respectively [Davt‘yan 1966: 385, 472], thus Agulis cɛ́
ynə ‘knee’ vs.
sɔngən ‘mushroom’ may be remarkable, although one must admit that here we are
on shaky grounds, and other explanations may be possible too. As for eɫungn ‘nail’
> Łarabaɫ ɫɛ́
ngnə/ɫɛ́
ynə (see Davt‘yan 1966: 344), we are dealing perhaps with
metathesis e...u > u...e. Here Agulis has ɛ́
ɫunk‘ rather than *(u)ɫeng(n), so the
vocalism of cɛ́
ynə can hardly be interpreted by the influence of an unattested Agulis
*ɫɛynə.
●ETYM Since the dictionary by Gēorg Dpir (publ. in 1826) and NHB, compared with
Pers. zānū, Gr. γόvυ, etc.; cf. Skt. jā́nu-, MPers. zānūg, Lat. genū, Goth. kniu ‘knee’,
etc. (see Hübschmann 1897: 457; HAB 2: 473). Meillet (1903: 147; 1936: 84)
derives *cung- from PIE nom.acc. dual neuter *ĝonu-i- or *ĝonu-ī- (that is,
*ĝonu-ih1). See also AčaṙLiak 3, 1957: 442; Eichner 1978: 14717, 151; Clackson
1994: 47, 125. The idea that Arm. -k/g- comes from a guttural determinative (cf. Gr.
γνύξ ‘with bent knee’, MPers. zānūg, etc.) is unconvincing and unnecessary. Note
e.g. the vocalic differences of the compared Greek and Iranian forms [J̌
ahukyan
1987: 168].
According to Meillet (1903: 147-148), MidArm. and dial. dual *cnu-i is
composed of *cnu- (< *ĝonu- + coll. -i and can be regarded as the starting point of
the dual ending -ui. On the other hand, one also thinks of the final *-u of Skt. NADu
d(u)váu m. ‘two’ (RV+) and Arm. erku ‘two’ (q.v.); cf. Karst 1901: 191-192, § 246;
Meillet 1903: 146; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 375.
Arm. cunr, Gr. GSg *γόνϝ-ατος (if from *ĝonu̯-n̥t-) and Skt. GDu jā́nunoḥ seem
to point to a heteroclitic declension (see Meillet 1903: 144), albeit at the PArm.
rather than the PIE level, since the -r is found only in Armenian. One might assume
that dial. GSg *cngan reflects the same PIE oblique stem in *-n. The theoretical
PArm. paradigm would have been then: NSg *cún(u)r, GSg *c(u)ngán. Then the old
NSg cunr has been replaced by analogical *cungn. Alternatively, *cungn merely
contains an additional n- after body-part terms like armukn, GSg armkan ‘elbow’,
etc.; or perhaps better: the original form was *cung-kn, with the same suffix as in
akn ‘eye’, mukn ‘mouse’, unkn ‘ear’, etc. (see s.vv.).
If Agulis cɛ́
ynə ‘knee’ reflects an old e (which is very uncertain; see above), one
may compare it with Hitt. UZUgenu- ‘knee’ and Lat. genū.
ka-: 1sg.pres. ka-m, 3sg.pres. ka-y, 1sg.aor. ka-c‘-i, 3sg.aor. e-kac‘, 3pl.aor. kac‘-in,
imper. ka-c‘, plur. ka-c‘-ēk‘, 3.sg.impf. kay-r (rich evidence in the Bible, see
Astuacaturean 1895: 744-747) ‘to stay, stand, halt; to stop, rest; to wait; to appear; to
dwell’ (Bible+); kay, i-stem ‘standing (still), place to stand, station, site’ (Bible+);
kay-an, i-stem: GDSg kayan-i (Esayi Nč‘ec‘i), LocSg i kayan-i (Bible), GDPl
kayan-i-c‘ (Gregory of Nyssa, Yačaxapatum, etc.), IPl kayan-i-w-k‘ (Book of Chries)
‘standing (still), place to stand, station, site’ (Bible+); kayanam ‘to stand, stand still,
halt, establish oneself’ (Philo, Paterica, Grigor Narekac‘i, etc.). ●DIAL The verb kam kas kay is ubiquitous in the dialects. Many dialects have also
*kenal < *kay(a)nal [HAB 2: 505a].
●ETYM See s.v. ek- aor. ‘to come’
kat‘n, GDSg kat‘in, AblSg i kat‘an-ē, ISg kat‘am-b (all in Bible) ‘milk’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects. The nasal is seen in Suč‘ava gat‘ə, gen. gat‘ni,
T‘iflis kát‘ə, gen. kát‘ni, Łarabaɫ, Goris, Šamaxi kát‘nə [HAB 2: 481a], Loṙi kat‘ə
[M. Asatryan 1968: 80, 184b].
Remarkable are Agulis kaxc‘ (also in a number of compounds: kxc‘-), Havarik
kaxs [HAB 2: 481a; Ačaṙean 1935: 362], Areš kaxs [Lusenc‘ 1982: 214a], Meɫri
kaxc‘ [Aɫayan 1954: 81, 274b], Karčewan kaxc‘ [H. Muradyan 1960: 196b]. In
Kak‘avaberd, kaxc‘ is found only in the village of Varhavar, whereas the other three
villages have kát‘nə [H. Muradyan 1967: 80, 174b].
●ETYM Since long, connected with Gr. γάλα, γάλακτος n. ‘milk’, Lat. lac, lactis n.
‘milk’ (see HAB 2: 480-481). Baṅgāṇī lɔktɔ ‘milk’ (Zoller 1989: 198; see also
Schrijver 1991: 480) is unreliable [Driem/Sharmā 1996: 135]. The various
reconstructions with initial *ĝ- (based on Nūristāni *dzara ‘milk’, see
Mallory/Adams 1997: 381-382), or *d (see Hamp 1998: 242; cf. Szemerényi 1977:
90358), or *m- (Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 1: 981) should be rejected particularly in
view of the Armenian, which is neglected in these works.
One reconstructs *gl̥gt-, without an internal laryngeal; see Schrijver 1991:
479-480. According to Szemerényi (1977: 90, 90358), Lat. lact- was borrowed from
Gr. γαλακτ-. Schrijver (ibid.), however, takes the Latin word as native. The
appurtenance of Hitt. galaktar n. ‘soothing substance, balm, nutriment’ (see
Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 568; Mallory/Adams 1997: 381-382; cf. Szemerényi
1977: 90358) is uncertain. On the etymology of this Hittite word, see Kloekhorst
2008 s.v. The peculiar structure of *gl̥gt ‘milk’, as well as its restriction to Greek,
Latin and Armenian point to Mediterranean origin. For a further discussion on this
etymon, see Orel 1994a: 39. Note also Chinese *lak ‘Kumys’ (Furnée 1972: 379;
Witzel 2003: 1763).
The -x- of some SEArm. dialects (Agulis, Meɫri, etc.) is remarkable. Gr. Vanc‘ean (1899-1901, 1: 149a; see also N. Simonyan 1979: 19924) assumed that Agulis
kaɫc‘ is older than ClArm. kat‘n, but he does not offer an explanation. H. Muradyan
(1960: 55, 67) interprets the x of the Karčewan form as an epenthesis before dentals,
as in eawt‘n ‘seven’ > yɔxt, etc., and assumes xt‘ > xt > xc‘. However, in these cases
we are dealing with the development -aw- > -ox- before a voiceless dental stop or a
dental affricate (see Weitenberg 1996), which is not the case in kat‘n. The correct
explanation of the -x- is given by Ačaṙyan (1901: 79-80; 1935: 23; HAB 2: 480-481;
AčaṙHLPatm 2, 1951: 430-431). He convincingly showed that the development a >
Agulis ɔ has been blocked in position before ɫ, and Agulis kaxc‘ derives from *kaɫc‘;
otherwise we would have *kɔxc‘. He correctly treats the ɫ as an archaic relic of the
IE *-l- seen in the Greek and Latin forms; see also J̌
ahukyan 1959: 187-188; 1972:
272; 1985: 157; 1987: 126, 254; N. Simonyan 1979: 232; A. Xač‘atryan 1982: 51.
The development t‘ > c‘ is exceptional in these dialects (see Ačaṙean 1935: 99; H.
Muradyan 1967: 80). Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 480-481; AčaṙHLPatm 2, 1951: 431)
assumes *kaɫt‘ > *kaɫc‘ comparing with cases like xayt : xayc (q.v.), etc.; see also N.
Simonyan 1979: 232. J̌
ahukyan (1987: 126), with reservation, reconstructs *galkti̯-. However, *-ti̯- would probably yield Arm. č‘ rather than c‘. One therefore prefers
the ingenious explanation of Weitenberg (1985: 104-105; see also Kortlandt 1985:
22 = 2003: 65; Schrijver 1991: 480; Beekes 2003: 166) who derives ClArm. kat‘n
and EArm. dial. *kaɫc‘ from acc. *gl̥gt-m and nom. *gl̥gt-s respectively.
It remains unclear why the *l has been preserved in *kaɫc‘, but dropped in kat‘n.
Kortlandt (1987a: 521 = 2003: 811) takes kat‘n as a case of loss of -ɫ- before an
aspirate. I tentatively propose the following solution. In 2.1.22.13, I argue that *RCt
yields Arm. Rt‘. Next to this, there is some (albeit scanty and uncertain) material that
points to the loss of *l before affricate c‘ (see 2.1.22.9). If these developments are
correct, the word for ‘milk’ would have had the following PArm. paradigm: nom.
*gl̥kt-s > *kac‘ vs. acc. *gl̥kt-m > *kaɫt‘-n. In ClArm., the paradigm *kac‘ : *kaɫt‘n
was levelled into *kac‘ : *kat‘n, and the accusative was generalized, whereas in the
SE periphery the opposite development has taken place: the paradigm was levelled
to *kaɫc‘ : *kaɫt‘n, and the nominative was generalized.
*kakal(ay) (dial.) ‘walnut; testicle, etc.’.
●DIAL *kakal ‘walnut (together with the shell)’: Karin, Xotorǰur, Hamšen, T‘iflis (in
T‘iflis – also ‘eye-ball’) [Ačaṙean 1913: 540a], also Ararat, Urmia, Sebastia
[HayLezBrbBaṙ 3, 2004: 21a].
*kakalay : ‘walnut; testicle’ (Karin) [Ačaṙean 1913: 540a]; ‘testicle’ (Polis, K‘ɫi,
Amasia), ‘unripe fruit’ (Sebastia), etc. [HayLezBrbBaṙ 3, 2004: 21-22].
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (1913: 540a) compares with Georg. ḳaḳali ‘piece’ and Kurd. /kaklɛ/
‘the kernel of the walnut’, not specifying the nature of the relationship. According to
Łap‘anc‘yan (1961: 90; 1975: 369), the Armenian has been borrowed from
Laz-Megrelian.
Arm. *kakal and the Kartvelian forms (Georg. ḳaḳal- ‘walnut’, Laz ḳaḳal-
‘walnut’, Megr. ḳaḳal- ‘grain; piece’, etc.) may be treated as a reduplication of *kal-;
cf. dial.*popok‘, see also s.v. kokov-. In that case, *kal- ‘round small object; walnut,
etc.’ may be related with the PIE word for ‘acorn’ (*gw
lh2-(e)n-; cf. Alb. gogël f.
’acorn; small and round object’, if indeed belonging to this IE werd); see s.v. kaɫin
‘acorn’.
Since the form *kakal is found in a number of dialects mostly in the meaning
‘walnut’ whereas *kakal-ay mainly refers to ‘testicle’, one may treat the latter as a
dual or collective in -ay.
Perhaps unrelated with dial. (Agulis, Łarabaɫ, Loṙi, Łazax) *kaɫaɫ ‘unripe, green
walnut to make sweets with’, q.v.
kaɫaɫ, i-stem or a-stem according to NHB 1: 1036c, but only LocSg i kaɫaɫ-i (Movsēs
Xorenac‘i 2.77) is cited ‘den, lair’.
Movsēs Xorenac‘i, Philo, Irenaeus, Aristakēs Lastivertc‘i, etc. Often in apposition
with synonymous orǰ, etc. (see NHB 1: 1036-1037).
In Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.77(1913=1991: 216L1f; transl. Thomson 1978: 224):
orǰac‘eal yamurn Ani, ibr i kaɫaɫi handartut‘ean ɫōɫeal “He had ensconced himself
in the fortress of Ani, as if hidden in a tranquil lair”. Attested also in Chapter 23 of
the “History” of the 11th-century author Aristakēs Lastivertc‘i (see Yuzbašyan 1963:
129L11f). ●ETYM Probably with the suffix -aɫ (cf. kenc‘-aɫ ‘living’, etc.) and the root *kaɫconnected with Lith. guõlis ‘den, lair, (coll.) bed’, gùltas ‘bed, lair’, gultĩ ‘to lie
down, fall ill’, Latv. guõļa ‘nest, den, lair, (coll.) bed’, etc., probably also Gr. γωλεός
m. ‘hole’ [Lidén 1906: 48-49; Petersson 1916: 280; HAB 2: 492a; Pokorny 1959:
402; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 126, 169]. Arm. *kaɫ- is usually derived from a zero-grade
*gьl-. Perhaps better *guol-, with the loss of *u (cf. jayn, i-stem ‘voice, sound’ vs.
OCS zvonъ ‘sound’) and the development *o in open syllables > Arm. a (on which
see 2.1.3).
See also s.v. koɫ ‘rib, side’
*kaɫaɫ (dial.) ‘unripe, green walnut to make sweets with’.
●DIAL Agulis, Łarabaɫ [Ačaṙean 1913: 541b], also Łazax and Loṙi [Amatuni 1912:
326a].
●ETYM No etymological attempt is known to me.
It is hard to determine whether there is a relation with kaɫin ‘acorn’ and/or *kakal
‘walnut’ (see s.vv.).
Perhaps more promising is to compare Pers. čaɣāla ‘unripe fruit’ (on which see
Monchi-Zadeh 1990: 12Nr27).
kaɫamax (Isaiah 41.19, 2 Paralipomenon 2.8), kaɫamax-i, ea-stem: GDPl kaɫamaxeac‘ (Hosea 4.13), NPl kaɫamaxi-k‘ (Hexaemeron); ‘white poplar, Populus alba;
aspen, Populus tremula’, probably also ‘pine’.
In Isaiah 41.19 and Hosea 4.13, Arm. kaɫamax(i) renders Gr. λεύκη ‘white poplar,
Populus alba’.
In 2 Paralipomenon 2.8 (Xalat‘eanc‘ 1899: 57a): Ew tac‘es berel inj p‘ayts
saroyn mayr ew kaɫamax i Libanan leṙnē : 2.7 καὶ ἀπόστειλόν μοι ξύλα κέδρινα καὶ
ἀρκεύϑινα καὶ πεύκινα. Thus: Arm. saroy, mayr, and kaɫamax match Gr. κέδρος
‘cedar-tree’, ἄρκευϑος ‘juniper, Juniperus macrocarpa’, and πεύκη ‘pine’,
respectively. If this set of correspondences is original, Arm. kaɫamax here refers to
‘pine’, thus. This seems to be corroborated by Hexaemeron (K. Muradyan 1984:
142L17, cf. also 144L8) where kaɫamaxi, according to the editor’s comment (K.
Muradyan 1984: 34057), corresponds to Gr. πεύκη ‘pine’.
In Agat‘angeɫos § 644 (1909=1984: 330L11), kaɫamax (vars. kaɫamaɫ, kaɫmax,
kamaɫax) is found in an enumeration of tree-names, between gi ‘juniper’ and uṙi
‘willow’.
Further: kaɫamah/x in Galen (rendering Gr. λεύκη, see Ališan 1895: 285-286;
Greppin 1985: 71), and kaɫmxi (syncopated) in Geoponica.
●DIAL Muš kaɫmxi, Xotorǰur gaxmxi [HAB 2: 492b]. Ararat kalama caṙ, k‘alambəṙ
[Markosyan 1989: 305a].
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 492) treats as borrowed from an unattested Urartian
source and mentions Salmast Turk. k‘älämbär or k‘älämbur ‘aspen’, T‘avriz/Tebriz
Turk. qälämä ‘poplar’, as well as in Daghestan languages: Lak kalaxi, Rutul kalax
‘aspen’. Then he notes that the homeland of this tree is not known, and posits an
eastward spread in view of Tehran Persian täbrizi ‘aspen’, lit. ‘of/from Tebriz’.
Now we can add two Hesychian glosses: καλαμίνδαρ· πλάτανος ἡδονιεῖς ‘plane’,
obviously with *dar ‘tree’, καλαδία· ῥυκάνη ‘plane’, see Saradževa 1981a (referring to J̌
ahukyan p.c. for καλαμίνδαρ). See also J̌
ahukyan 1987: 310, 437, 612 (Lezg.
къавах ‘aspen’, etc.). For the possible tree-suffix -ax, see 2.3.1.
Olsen (1999: 936) cites no etymology and considers kaɫamax to be of unknown
origin.
For the semantic relationship ‘poplar, aspen’ : ‘plane’, cf. čandar ‘poplar’,
‘plane’ (see HAB 3: 183-184), which obviously contains the same component *dar
‘tree’ we saw above, and op‘i ‘poplar, aspen’ : Łarabaɫ *hop‘i ‘plane’ (see HAB 3:
619-620); see H. Martirosyan 2008.
That καλαμίνδαρ contains *kalam- and *dar ‘tree’ is seen in Arm. Ararat kalama
caṙ, which is taken as equivalent to k‘alambəṙ (see above). The form must be
closely linked with Salmast Turk. k‘älämbär or k‘älämbur ‘aspen’. Probably an
assimilation has taken place: *kalam-dar > *kalam-bar.
Conclusion: kaɫam-ax(-i) ‘white poplar, aspen’ is a Mediterranean/Pontic treename composed of *kalam- (cf. Hesychian καλαμίν-δαρ ‘plane’, Turk. qälämä
‘poplar’, etc.) and the tree-suffix -ax.
kaɫin, o-stem ‘acorn’ (Bible+); kaɫn-i ‘oak-tree’ (Bible; P‘awstos Buzand, etc.).
Note ark‘ayakan kaɫin (Cyril of Jerusalem), ark‘a-kaɫin (Galen) ‘hazel-nut’,
literally ‘royal acorn’; xoz-kaɫin *‘pig-acorn’, in Asar Sebastac‘i (16-17ch cent.), see
D. M. Karapetyan 1993: 211; in the glossary: 349. See also Ališan 1895: 65-66,
287-288.
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects [HAB 2: 496a].
Next to kaɫin ‘acorn’, which is usually considered xoz-kaɫin, that is acorn for pigs,
in the dialect of Łarabaɫ one finds tkɔ́
ɫɛn ‘hazel-nut’ (and metathesized ktɔ́
ɫɛn, cf.
Łaradaɫ t‘ákuɫnə), with an unexplained t- and with irregular change of a to ɔ (see
HAB, ibid.; Ališan 1895: 342, 611, treating Łarabaɫ tkoɫin as synonymous to
ark‘akaɫin, on which see above). Also Hadrut‘ təkɔɫɛn ‘id.’ [Poɫosyan 1965: 16].
For Svedia, Ačaṙyan (HAB, ibid.) cites gaɫɛɔn (read /gaɫön/). Later, he (2003:
573) also records gy
äɫɛɔnd, noting (p. 378) that the change ClArm. i > Svedia ɛɔ is
irregular in this position. This form with epithetic -d is corroborated by other
authors: gäɫɛnd or gäɫund (see Andreasyan 1967: 36 and 367a, respectively), gäɫɛnd
[Hananyan 1995: 53, 187b]; K‘esab käɫɛnt vs. käɫɛn [Č‘olak‘ean 1986: 206b].
The final d is exceptional since the other examples of the epenthetic or epithetic d
(Ačaṙyan 2003: 431; see also Hananyan 1995: 53) apply to specific conditions: -nr >
-ndr and -s(-) > -sd(-). Andreasyan (1967: 36, 373b) adds another example: čapaɫ
‘spread’ > Svedia ǰäbuɫd, cf. verbal ǰäbɫil and ǰabəddil. The latter form is probably a
misprint for *ǰabəɫdil (note the resemblance of the Armenian characters for d and ɫ);
cf. K‘esab čaɫpətil ‘to spread, scatter’, perhaps also čəpəɫtil ‘to scratch with nails’
(see Č‘olak‘ean 1986: 261 and 262, respectively). The -d- here may be identified
with the verbal intensive -t-, cf. bek-t- ‘to break repeatedly’ (see HAB 1: 436b).
●ETYM Since Ayvazovsk‘i, Pictet, et al., connected with Gr. βάλανος f. ‘acorn’, Lat.
glāns, glandis f. ‘acorn, beach-nut; missile discharged from a sling’, Russ. žëlud’,
SCr. žȅlūd ‘acorn’, Lith. gìlė, dial. gylė ‘acorn’, Latv. ̃ zĩle ‘acorn’, etc. [HAB 2:
495-496].
Arm. dial. *kakal ‘walnut; testicle’ (q.v.) must be related with Georg. ḳaḳal-
‘walnut’, Laz ḳaḳal- ‘walnut’, Megr. ḳaḳal- ‘grain; piece (Russ. ‘штука’)’, etc. (on
which see Klimov 1964: 105). If we are dealing with reduplication of *kal-, one wonders if it can be connected with PIE *gw
lh2- ‘acorn’ (cf. Alb. gogël f. ’acorn;
small and round object’). Note, however, Georgian ḳaḳa- ‘grain, kernel (of fruit)’,
etc. from Georgian-Zan *ḳaḳa- ‘stone, kernel (of fruit)’, which is “a sound symbolic
designation of a solid and, as a rule, round article” (see Klimov 1998: 85). For both
Kartvelian words Klimov assumes a derivation from *ḳaḳ- ‘to knock, pound’. For
the semantic field, see s.v. hat ‘grain, piece’, etc.
The l-less form seems to be found also in Armenian dialects (Ararat, Alaškert,
T‘iflis, Van, Sebastia, Partizak, etc.): kaka ‘fruit; eye, etc.’ (see Amatuni 1912:
325b; Ačaṙean 1913: 540a; HayLezBrbBaṙ 3, 2004: 21a).
The connection of kakal, etc. with the PIE word for ‘acorn’ is thus possible, albeit
yet unclear. Note that, at least in the case of *kaka, we are dealing with a Lallwort.
For a possible trace of Arm. *čeɫ- from *gw
elh2- (cf. Russ. žëlud’, SCr. žȅlūd
‘acorn’, etc.), see s.v. *čɫopur ‘walnut’.
It has been assumed that the initial t- of Łarabaɫ tkɔ́
ɫɛn ‘hazel-nut’ reflects ti- ‘big’
(J̌
ahukyan 1972: 278; cf. 281). This etymology should be abandoned since the
hazel-nut, in the contrary, is smaller, and the vocalic change remains unexplained.
J
̌
ahukyan (1985: 155; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 129, 255) treats *tkoɫin as an old dialectal
variant with a different ablaut. On the archaic nature of the form, see also N.
Simonyan 1979: 194 (without an explanation).
I assume that the form reflects PArm. *tukaɫin > *tukuɫin (vocalic assimilation,
on which see 2.1.26.4) and can be derived from QIE *diuos *gʷl̥h2-eno- ‘divine
acorn’, cf. Gr. *διϝός βάλανος ‘chestnut’ and Lat. iūglāns ‘walnut’ (on which see
Walde/Hofmann 1, 1938: 727; Schrijver 1991: 273). On *tu/tw-, see HAB s.v. tiw
‘day’; see also s.v. ciacan ‘rainbow’. As is pointed out by Laufer 1919: 369, 3691,
the pattern of Gr. Διός βάλανος “acorn of Zeus” is comparable to that of Pers.
šāh-bal(l)ūt ‘the edible chestnut’ < “acorn of the Shah, royal acorn”; cf. Pahl.
šāh-balūt ‘id.’, Arm. šahpalut ‘id.’, an Iranian loan, Łarabaɫ šmbálut‘ ‘chestnut’
[Hübschmann 1897: 272; HAB 3: 486a]. Compare also ark‘a-kaɫin above. For
vocalic assimilation *tukáɫin > *tukúɫin cf. erdumn ‘oath’ > Łarabaɫ ǘrt‘ümnə.
Unlike in *tukaɫin, with voiceless stops, here we are dealing with voiced d,
consequently, with Ačaṙyan’s Law: rdu > rdü > rt‘ü (see 2.1.39.2).
It is tempting to identify the final dental stop of Arm. Svedia gy
äɫɛɔnd (on which
see above) with that seen in Russ. žëlud’, SCr. žȅlūd, etc., and Lat. glāns, glandis.
Alternatively, one might assume a contamination with Svedia hɛɔnd from Arm.
(h)und ‘edible seed, grain’ (q.v.), although this seems less probable.
kaɫkanjel ‘to yelp, make a supplicating yelp as of hunger (said of dog)’ (Lex., see
NHB 1: 1037c), MidArm. kaɫkancel, kaɫknjal ‘id.’ (MiǰHayBaṙ 1, 1987: 378a),
kaɫkanj-oɫ-akan ‘yelping’ (Grigor Narekac‘i 35.4, see Xač‘atryan/Łazinyan 1985:
394L75); knj-a-jayn ‘with voice of a fawning dog’ (Yovhan Mandakuni/
Mayragomec‘i); MidArm. kz-kncal and knj-kɫal ‘to yelp (said of wolf)’ in Fables by
Vardan Aygekc‘i (MiǰHayBaṙ 1, 1987: 395a, 402a).
●DIAL Muš, Alaškert kɔɫgənjal ‘to yelp (said of dog)’, T‘avriz kɫknjal ‘to murmur,
mutter’, Akn kaɫkənjel ‘to speak timidly and unclearly when beseeching for
something’; Ararat kɔnjal, kɔnjkɔnjal, Łarabaɫ kənjkɔnjal, T‘iflis, Karin, Van, J̌
uɫa
kənjkənjal, etc. ‘to yelp’ [HAB 2: 496]. NHB 1: 1037c records dial. *kaɫknjel and
*knjknjal. ●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 496a) treats the verb as a reduplication and offers no
external comparanda.
It is tempting to follow Aɫayan (1974: 86-87) in comparing the word to Skt. RV
garh-, 3pl.pres.med. gr̥hate ‘to complain’, gr̥hú m. ‘beggar’, Av. root present gərəz-
‘to lament, weep’, MPers. garz- ‘id.’, OHG klagon ‘to bewail, complain’, Germ.
klagen ‘to complain’, OIr. glám ‘shouting, curse’ (for the forms, see Pokorny 1959:
350-351; Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 475, 495-496; Mallory/Adams 1997: 247a;
Cheung 2007: 111-112).
Formally these forms presuppose *gVlĝh
- and *gl(a)ĝh
-. The vocalism probably
points to an onomatopoeic origin. PArm. forms may be reconstructed as *kaɫkanjand *kaɫkunj- and derived from redupl. *gə-gl(o)ĝh
- > *kaɫka/unj- through regular
metathesis and with nasal epenthesis; for this type of iterative/expressive
reduplication cf. e.g. karkut ‘hail’ vs. OCS gradъ, Lat. grandō, etc. ‘hail’ (see s.v.).
The further comparison with koɫ-koɫ- ‘to weep, etc.’ (Bible+; dial. Zeyt‘un gɔɫal
‘to weep, lament’) suggested by Aɫayan (ibid.; see also N. Simonyan 1979: 243-244)
is uncertain. The -ɔ- in Muš and Alaškert kɔɫgənjal may be due to contamination
with this koɫ- ‘to weep, lament’.
kaɫǰin, vars. kaɫčin, kaɫč‘in (MidArm.) ‘mortar / Mörtel, a kind of clayey soil’;
attested only in Geoponica (see HAB 2: 496b; MiǰHayBaṙ 1, 1987: 378a).
●DIAL Preserved in the dialects of Muš, Alaškert, Karin, Van, Ozim, Moks; with
some deviations: Xarberd gaɫǰi (cf. Dersim gaɫǰi ‘yellow clayey soil’ and [Berri]
gaɫǰel, Baɫramyan 1960: 85b; 119b), Nor Bayazet and Šatax kavčin, Maraɫa
karčənkav (a compound with kaw ‘clay’), Salmast karčin. In Akn we have gaɫǰin and
gap‘ǰin (> Turk. dial.) as names for different types of soil [HAB 2: 496b].
Note the meaning ‘clay’ of Kurd. kaxčin, which is considered a loan from
Armenian (see HAB 2: 496b). The form kavčin is due to contamination with kaw
‘clay’ and kawič ‘chalk’. The meaning of Šatax kavčin is ‘white clay of which pots
are made’ [M. Muradyan 1962: 212b].
●ETYM No etymological attempt is recorded in HAB 2: 496b.
The word may have been composed of an otherwise unattested root *kaɫǰ- and the
suffix -in (in Xarberd one finds -i). For the latter compare parallels, also pertaining
to the concept of soil: ostin adj. ‘arid’, subst. ‘arid place, soil’ (as an adjective - also
in the dialects of Ararat, Van, Muš); anǰrdi(n) ‘id.’ (q.v.); ǰrarbi(n) ‘well-watered’ in
Hexaemeron [Muradyan 1984: 162] and Šatax čərärpin ‘irrigated soil’ [M.
Muradyan 1962: 213b]. As regards the root *kaɫǰ-, it might originate from IE *gli̯eh2- ‘sticky stuff, clay’, cf. Gr. γλία f. ‘glue’, next to the more common γλοιός m.
‘any glutinous substance, gum’, Ukr. glej ‘glue; clay’, OEngl. clǣg < Germ.
*klaii̯az, Engl. clay, etc. (see Pokorny 1959: 362-364; Chantraine 1968-80: 227-
228). Probably here belongs also Lyd. kλida ‘earth’, with *-y- > -d- (Melchert
1994a: 184).
There are forms in the nasal suffix *-neh2-, too: Russ. glína ‘clay’, Gr. γλίνη ‘any
glutinous substance, gum’ (Derksen 2008: 164). Therefore, one might even consider
the suffix -in of the Armenian form as being original, too. If we assume that
Armenian, exactly like Greek and Slavic, had forms both with and without the nasal
suffixal element, that is *kalin- and *kalǰ-, it would be possible to explain kaɫǰin as a
contaminated form. Strictly speaking, the IE *gli-neh2- would develop into PArm.*aɫkin. However, a contamination presupposes a mutual influence. Thus, the anlaut
of PArm. *kalin is perhaps influenced by *kalǰ.
I cannot offer an explanation for -r- of the dialectal (Salmast, Maraɫa) form
*karčin. Perhaps, cf. Lat. crēta ‘clay, clayey soil; chalk’, Fr. craie, Germ. Kreide.
kamurǰ, a-stem: GDSg kamrǰ-i (Bible+), GDPl kamrǰ-a-c‘ in Agat‘angeɫos § 33,
kamurǰ-a-c‘ in T‘ovmay Arcruni 2.3 (10th cent.) ‘bridge’ (Bible+). In 2 Kings 23.21,
kamurǰ seems to denote a wooden construction (see Clackson 1994: 227153). Later
also karmunǰ/č and karmuǰ.
In Agat‘angeɫos § 33 (1909=1980: 22-23), one finds several attestations of
kamurǰ, including GDSg kamrǰ-i, and, twice, GDPl kamrǰ-a-c‘.
In T‘ovmay Arcruni 2.3 (1985: 150L17f; transl. Thomson 1985: 161): Ew Xosrov
ark‘ay p‘axstakan gnac‘, ew anc‘eal zDekɫat‘aw i Vehkawat, hramayeac‘ zlar
kamurǰac‘n ktrel : “King Xosrov fled. Crossing the Tigris at Vehkawat he ordered
the rope of the bridge to be cut”.
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects (Sebastia, Muš, T‘iflis, Ararat, Łarabaɫ, Agulis,
J
̌
uɫa, Moks, etc.), only in the form *karmunǰ (see HAB 2: 503b), with an anticipation
of the r and an epenthetic -n-. Rare exception: Kak‘avaberd, where, next to kármunǰ,
H. Muradyan (1967: 104, 175a) records also kármiǰ in the village of Varhavar. It is
tempting to treat kármiǰ as an archaic, non-epenthesised form, although an internal
explanation seems possible, too. The vowel -i- instead of the -u- may be explained
by anticipative influence of the palatal ǰ : *karmuǰ > *karmuiǰ > kármiǰ, cf. PIE
*medh
-io- > PArm. *meiǰ- > mēǰ (see 2.1.2).
Xotorǰur *kamurǰ is described (YušamXotorǰ 1964: 468a) as follows: “a wood in
water that serves as a base for the wheel”.
Hamšen (Čanik) karmunǰ (read garmunǰ, Ačaṙyan 1947: 236) means ‘a long thick
pole with teeth on one side, used as a ladder’ (see KiwlHamš 1899: 753b, cf. 1900:
62b). One also finds Hamšen gärmäǰ ‘a pole of a fence’, used three times in a
traditional story recorded in Krasnodar region and published by Andranik
Zeyt‘unyan (see JaynHamš 2, 1979: 30, glossed in 219b). The vocalism of the latter
form is unclear to me.
●ETYM Since Müller, connected with Gr. γέφῡρα f. (Boeot. βέφυρα, Cret. δέφυρα,
Lac. /Hesychius/ δίφουρα) ‘bridge’ [HAB 2: 503]. According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 2:
503a), the development *gʷebh
- > Arm. *kam- (instead of *kew-) involves an
unknown change *-b/w- > -m-, as well as the change e > a by the influence of the u
in the following syllable, cf. *vet‘sun > vat‘sun ‘sixty’ (vs. vec‘ ‘six’). In view of
PIE *peruti > Arm. heru ‘last year’, however, Kortlandt (2003: 118; see also Beekes
2002 [2004]: 19) rejects this rule; see also 2.1.1. Elsewhere, Ačaṙyan (AčaṙLiak 6,
1971: 722) explains the phonological irregularity by tabu, which is unlikely (cf.
2.1.36); cf. also Clackson 1994: 135. Viredaz (2001-02: 293; 2005-07: 10-11)
assumes that *kawurǰ became kamurǰ through an influence of kamar ‘arch, vault’,
which is possible, but unsatisfactory.
J̌
ahukyan (1987: 308, 310) treats the Armenian and Greek words as
belonging to the Mediterranean substratum and containing the alternation φ/m,
which is “peculiar to Mediterranean”, and considers the IE origin less convincing.
For the alternation φ/m, he (see also J̌
ahukyan 1967: 127, 291-292; cf. 1994: 15)
compares with awr ‘day’ : Gr. ἦμαρ n. ‘day’, which is, however, a different case (see Clackson 1994: 96-97). Thus, the sound correspondence, as J̌
ahukyan (1987: 308)
admits, is difficult to explain. Feydit (1980: 47) posits an intermediary *kamburǰ.
For the discussion of phonological problems I refer to C. Arutjunjan 1983: 293-294;
Clackson 1994: 134-135; Olsen 1999: 66; Beekes 2002 [2004]: 19-20. For a survey
of etymological attempts, see HAB 2: 503; Schmitt 1972-74: 25; Clackson 1994:
227154; Beekes 2002 [2004]. See also Hooker 1979; Hamp 1997. For *-ri̯- > Arm.
-rǰ-, see already Bugge 1889: 22. Further, see J̌
ahukyan 1987: 128, 171-172.
Also Beekes (1969: 194; 2002 [2004]; see also 2003: 153) assumes that Gr.
γέφῡρα and Arm. kamurǰ are of substratum origin. Showing that the older meaning
of γέφῡρα is ‘beam’, he puts forward Furnée’s (1972: 223) suggestion about the
connection with Hattic ḫamuru(wa) ‘beam’. In order to explain the nasal -m- in the
Hattic and Armenian forms, Beekes invokes the phenomenon of ‘nasalization’ in
Greek substratum-words. As pointed out by Olsen (1999: 66), a by-form in *-mbh
-
would yield Arm. -m- as in camem ‘to chew’.
On the other hand, Hatt. ḫamuru(wa) ‘beam’ (see Dunaevskaja 1961: 88) has
been connected with CAbkhaz *qw
ə(m)bələ-ra ‘beam over the hearth; cross-beam’
[Ardzinba 1983: 170; Chirikba 1996: 423], cf. Abkhaz (Bzyp) a-xw
blarə, a-xw
bərlə,
a-xw
bəlrə, Abaza (Tapanta) qw
əmblə, Abaza (Ashkar) qw
əblə, etc. (Chirikba, p.c.).
To my knowledge, this comparison remained beyond the scope of the scholars who
have been concerned to the problem of Gr. γέφῡρα and Arm. kamurǰ. With the basic
meaning ‘beam’ and with the -mb-, the Abkhaz form, probably derived from
something like *qw
əmbər-, can be crucial for the discussion.
In the Imeretian and Rachan dialects of West Georgian there is a word k’ip’orč’i
‘a log that serves as a bridge’, which is compared with Arm. kamurǰ [Beridze 1912:
23a]. According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 503b), k’ip’orč’i is borrowed from an older
form of Arm. kamurǰ with the labial stop. This involves the development *gʷebh
- >
Arm. *kam- (see above), which is problematic. In view of what has been said above,
one may prefer the postulation of doublets with and without the nasal -m-. Next to
*g/qw
əmbh
ər > PArm. *kəm(m)ur-ǰ > kamurǰ, there was perhaps a by-form
*g/qw
əbh
ər > PArm. *kəbur-ǰ > Georg. *kəpurǰ > dial. k’ip’orč’i. Alternatively, one
might think of Turkic *köpür / *köp(ü)rüg ‘bridge’ (treated as borrowed from Gr.
γέφῡρα, see Šervašidze 1989: 79; sceptical – Tatarincev 1993, 1: 126). The affricate
-č’- of the Georgian dialectal form, however, seems to corroborate the Armenian
origin.
I conclude: Gr. γέφῡρα ‘beam; bridge’, Arm. kamurǰ ‘bridge’ (perhaps of
wood, cf. 2 Kings 23.21; cf. also dial. Xotorǰur ‘a wood in water that serves as a
base for the wheel’), Hamšen ‘a pole used as a ladder; a pole for a fence’, Hattic
ḫamuru(wa) ‘beam’, Abkhaz *qw
əmbər- ‘beam’, and West-Georg. k’ip’orč’i ‘a log
that serves as a bridge’ have a common origin and point to a Mediterranean/Pontic
cultural term. Whether the ultimate source is one of these languages or an unknown
language of Asia Minor or neighbouring areas is uncertain. One may posit doublet
forms with and without the nasal -m- side by side. The former, namely *g/qw
əmbh
ər,
developed the Hattic, the Armenian, and the Abkhaz forms, whereas the latter
represents the Greek. Abkhaz has forms both with and without the nasal -m-.
Armenian also had the nasalless variant, if West-Georg. k’ip’orč’i ‘a log that serves
as a bridge’ is indeed an Armenian loan. The Greek and the Armenian seem to represent a common borrowing since they agree in both semantics (‘beam’ >
‘wooden bridge’) and morphology (*-ih2-, see Olsen 1999: 66). Thus, *g/qw
ə(m)bh
ər
‘beam’ > PGr. and PArm. *gw
ə(m)bur-ih2- ‘beam, log serving as a bridge’ > Gr.
γέφῡρα ‘beam; bridge’ and Arm. kamurǰ ‘(wooden) bridge’.
The PArm. by-form *kaburǰ- may have been reflected in Urart. qaburzani
possibly meaning ‘bridge’ in a recently discovered inscription (Armen Petrosyan
p.c., referring to M. Salvini, Corpus dei testi urartei, vol. 1. Roma, 2008, pp. 545-
546).
The Iranian etymology suggested by Mušeɫyan 2003: 183-184 for kamurǰ is
gratuitous.
kayt prob. ‘mark on marble’, attested only in Barseɫ Maškeronc‘i/Čon (13-14th cent.):
NPl kayt-er.
●ETYM In NHB 1: 1046c, a connection with kayc ‘spark’ is suggested. Ačaṙyan
(HAB 2: 509b) mentions this suggestion with a question mark and leaves the origin
of the word open.
I propose a connection with xayt ‘mark; spotted’ and kēt ‘point, dot’, q.v. The
above-mentioned kayc ‘spark’ may be related, too. For further discussion, see s.v.
*kic- ‘to bite’.
kask ‘chestnut’ in Evagrius of Pontus; T‘ovmas Kilikec‘i (see Ališan 1895: 303;
Anasyan 1967: 283L-2; Hewsen 1992: 323), kask-eni ‘chestnut-tree’ in Fables by
Mxit‘ar Goš (HAB 2: 533b; MiǰHayBaṙ 1, 1987: 385ab).
●ETYM The comparison with Gr. κάστανον n. ‘chestnut’, καστανέα f. ‘chestnut-tree’
(de Lagarde 1886: 51; for other references to de Lagarde, see HAB 2: 533b) is
considered uncertain (see Hübschmann 1897: 166, 394; HAB 2: 533b). More
positively: Laufer 1919: 3691; P. Friedrich 1970: 149Nr7; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 310 (with
ref. – as a common borrowing from a language of Asia Minor).
An obvious reason for scepsis is the internal -k- which is, however, easily
explicable. In my view, kask-eni is composed as *kast-(u)k-eni > *kas(t)keni, cf.
Łarabaɫ, Loṙi *hačar-k-i ‘beech-tree’ from hačar-uk (see 2.3.1).
A plausible case of Mediterranean/Pontic plant-name.
karb ‘aspen’, attested in a medical work [Ališan 1895: 306, Nr 1358; HAB 2: 547b].
●ETYM No etymological attempt is recorded in HAB 2: 547b.
I tentatively propose a connection with Russ. grab ‘hornbeam’, Lith. skrúoblas
‘hornbeam’, skirpstas ̃ ‘elm’, Lat. carpinus ‘hornbeam’, etc.; perhaps also Hitt. GIŠkarpina- ‘a kind of tree’ (see P. Friedrich 1970: 99-106; P. Friedrich apud
Mallory/Adams 1997: 273; Schrijver 1991: 430). If Lith. skirpstas ̃ ‘elm’ is indeed
related, it can help to elucidate the semantic shift seen in the Armenian, cf. Slav.
*bersto- ‘elm’ and Arm. bart-i ‘poplar/aspen’ (q.v.) from PIE *bh
rHĝ- ‘birch’.
In view of anomalous correspondences and limited spread, this tree-name may be
of substratum origin.
Alternatively, Arm. karb can be linked with Hitt. GIŠharaw- ‘poplar, aspen’ (on
which see Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 636, with refer.). This is semantically better,
but formally very difficult.
kardam ‘to shout, call, recite loudly’ (Bible+), ‘to read’ (Łazar P‘arpec‘i+). ●DIAL Widespread in the dialects, in the meanings ‘to read’ and ‘to learn’ [HAB 2:
549b]. Note Łarabaɫ kárt‘a/il 1. ‘to sing (said of birds)’ [HAB 2: 549b]; 2. ‘to sing a
religious song for magic purpose’; cf. *ganj kardal : hanc‘u sadanan hürt‘ävə tüs
kya/k‘yinä: “so that the Satan goes away through the roof-window” [HŽHek‘ 7,
1979: 359]; 3. ‘to recite a magic spell to revive a dead man /”without a paper”/’
[HŽHek‘ 5, 1966: 372, 374].
Aṙtial g‘ard‘al ‘to read’, g‘ard‘alu (Pol.), kardal (Hung.) ‘to sing’ [Ačaṙyan
1953: 272]. This is interesting with respect to ‘sing’ : ‘dance’. For bird-singing, see
also Srvanjtyanc‘ 1, 1978: 259.
●ETYM Meillet (1896: 150) compares with OPr. gerdaut ‘dire’. Hübschmann (1897:
458) adds Lith. girsti
̃ ’vernehmen’ and girdė́ti ‘to hear’, but treats the etymology as
uncertain. Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 549) points out that OLith. gerdas ‘rumour, prank,
messenger’ and other cognates corroborate the etymology. Nevertheless,
Klingenschmitt (1982: 105) still considers kardam as etymologically unclear.
We are dealing with PIE *gw
(e)rH- ‘to praise; to sing; to shout, recite’: Skt. gari
‘to praise, honour, welcome’ (RV+), gír- f. ‘song of praise, invocation’ (RV+),
OAv. gar- f. ‘song of praise’, Lith. giriù, gýriau, gìrti ‘to praise, boast’, etc. Arm.
kardam probably derives from *gw
rH-dh
h1-, cf. Skt. giró dhā-, OAv. garō dā- ‘to
offer songs of praise’, Celtic *bar-do- ‘poet’ [Watkins 1995: 117]. For the
morphology, see Barton 1990-91: 33 and cf. mnam ‘to remain’ (q.v.).
Łarabaɫ – Aṙtial; if the meaning ‘to sing’ is directly comparable to the IE
cognates, one should treat this as a semantic archaism preserved in Łarabaɫ and
Aṙtial rather than a shared innovation.
kart‘ i-stem ‘fish-hook; leg’ (Bible+). It corresponds to Gr. σκέλος ‘leg’ in Leviticus
11.21 (in Zōhrapean edition: 11.31): Ayl zayn utic‘ēk‘ i zeṙnoc‘ t‘ṙč‘noc‘ or
gnayc‘en i č‘ors, oroy ic‘en kart‘k‘ i veroy k‘an zotsn, ostostel nok‘ōk‘ yerkrē. For
this contextual meaning of the Greek word, see Wevers 1997: 150. Arm. kart‘
probably functions here as ‘a hook-like projection on the legs of birds or insects’.
Later (Gregory of Nyssa, Ephrem, etc.): ‘tendons of the leg; leg, shank’. This
meaning is also supported by Georgian k’arth
i, k’arsi ‘tendon; calf of leg’, which is
considered an Armenian loan (see HAB 2: 550b).
●DIAL Preserved in the dialect of Ozim: kart‘ ‘fish-hook’ [HAB 2: 550b].
●ETYM Since Lidén (1906: 36-38), treated as a *-ti- formation of the verbal root
*ger-b-, cf. Lith gárbana, garbanà ‘Haarlocke’, Russ. gorb ‘hump’, dial. ‘back’,
górbit’ ‘to arch, hunch, become bent’, Czech hrb ‘hump, mound, lump’, Sln. gr̂b m.,
gŕba f. ‘hump; back; wrinkle’, OHG krapfo ‘Haken, Kralle, Krapfen, Widerhaken’,
etc., thus: *gr(b)-ti- > Arm. *kar(p)th
i- > kart‘, i-stem; see also HAB 2: 550;
J̌
ahukyan 1987: 125 (next to keṙ and *koṙ ‘curved’, q.v.); Pokorny 1959: 387;
Fraenkel 1, 1962: 135; Olsen 1999: 81. On Slavic forms and their connection with
Ic. korpa ‘wrinkle, fold’, etc., see ÈtimSlovSlavJaz 7, 1980: 187-200. See also s.v.
kṙt‘unk‘ ‘back’.
On the reflex of the consonant cluster, see 2.1.22.13.
karič, a-stem: GDSg karč-i, GDPl karč-a-c‘, IPl karč-a-w-k‘ (Bible+) ‘scorpion’
(Bible+), ‘the zodiacal constellation Scorpio’ (Eznik Koɫbac‘i, Hexaemeron,
Nonnus). ●DIAL Widespread in the dialects. Łarabaɫ kári/ɛč (see also Davt‘yan 1966: 392)
refers also to ‘crayfish’ [HAB 2: 551b]. For the distribution of synonymous karič
and kor, see 1.8.
●ETYM According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 551; 1937: 4), borrowed from a language of
Asia Minor, cf. Gr. κᾱρίς, -ίδος, -ῖδος (also κουρίς, κωρίς) f., probably a general
term for small crustaceans, incl. shrimp (Crangon) and prawn (Palaemon); cf. the
meaning ‘crayfish’ in Arm. dialect of Łarabaɫ. For the semantics cf. Arab. ‘aqrab
‘scorpion’ : ‘aqrab-al-ma ‘crayfish’ = ‘water-scorpion’, Lat. nepa ‘scorpion;
crayfish’, etc. (Ačaṙyan ibid.). The etymology is accepted by Meillet (letter from
08.12.1930 to Ačaṙyan, see HAB 2: 551b). Arm. č is probably from *-di̯- (see
J̌
ahukyan 1978: 128-129; 1982: 64).
Olsen (1999: 939, cf. 462) places karič in her list of words of unknown origin not
mentioning any etymological suggestion.
Bearing in mind that Gr. κᾱρίς, -ί/ῖδος is feminine, and Arm. karič has a-stem, as
well as that Arm. -č-, in view of Gr. -δ-, points to *-di̯-, one can reconstruct PArm.
fem. *karid-i̯eh2-. For the structure compare another Mediterranean insect/
bogy-name: *mormon- (cf. Gr. Μορμώv, -όνος f. ‘she-monster, bogy’) > Arm. dial.
*mormonǰ ‘ant’ < *mormon-i̯eh2-, next to morm ‘tarantula’ : Gr. Μορμω ‘bogy,
bugbear’, etc. See s.v. morm ‘tarantula’ and 3.5.2.1.
See also s.v. kor. For a/o fluctuation in animal-names of non-IE origin, see 2.1.3.
karkut, i-stem: GDSg karkt-i, ISg karkt-i-w (Bible+); later o-stem: ISg karkt-o-v in
Nersēs Lambronac‘i (12th cent.) ‘hail’; verbal karkt-č‘-em (Philo).
●DIAL Dialectally ubiquitous. On Aslanbek gargünd, see below.
●ETYM Since Klaproth (1831: 101b), connected with OCS gradъ ‘hail’, SCr. grȁd
‘id.’, Lith. grúodas ‘frozen dirt or earth’, Lat. grandō, -inis f. ‘hail, hail-storm’, etc.
Tervišean (see HAB) and Meillet (1898: 280) independently interpreted the
Armenian form from reduplicated *ka-krut < *ga-grōdo- (cf. mamul, etc., see 2.3.2),
through regular metathesis. This is largely accepted, see HAB 2: 556a; Pokorny
1959: 406; J̌
ahukyan (1987: 126, from *gə-grōdo-). Hübschmann (1899: 48) is
sceptical about *ka-krut > karkut for unspecified reasons. Rasmussen (1999:
153-154) assumes *gr̥-gróhd-i- > *kar-k(r)ut-i, through dissimilation rather than
metathesis.
The PIE root is reconstructed with an internal laryngeal: *groHd- or *greh3d-; the
Latin may be derived from *grH-n-d- or *greh2-n-d-, with a nasal infix [Schrijver
1991: 223]. Rasmussen (1999: 153) assumes *grād-n-.
The root structure with two voiced stops is impossible in PIE. In this particular
case this restriction is perhaps invalid since we may be dealing with an
onomatopoeia. One can also consider the following alternative. Skt. hrādúni- f.
‘hail-stones, hail’ (RV+), Sogd. žyδn ‘hail’, etc. are formally problematic. If related,
they point to *ĝh
roHd- or *ĝh
reh3d-. The initial *ĝh
- would be depalatalized due to
the following *r as in mawru-k‘ ‘beard’ and Lith. smãkras, smakrà ‘chin’ vs. Skt.
śmáśru- n. ‘beard’ (see s.v.). The only remaining problem is that an IE *gh would
yield Arm. g. Neither this obstacle is crucial, however. The root of the structure
*gh
...d- might yield *g...d- in Armenian through assimilation, cf. e.g. Arm. kacan
‘path’ : Skt. gā́hate ‘to wade in’, SCr. gȁziti ‘to step, trample, wade’, etc. Besides, a
reduplicated word in the meaning ‘hail’, even if not originally onomatopoeic, could be realized as such, and k...t should not be considered problematic; compare also
Arm. onomatopoeic k(n)t-nt-oc‘ ‘plectrum, fiddlestick’ (Philo, Gregory of Nyssa,
Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, etc.; see HAB 2: 611a), dial. kt-kt- (see Amatuni 1912:
376a; Ačaṙean 1913: 619a; Malxaseanc‘, HayBac‘Baṙ 2: 497b; Aɫayan 1976, 1:769)
and *kt-kut- (HayLezBrbBaṙ 3, 2004: 180-181) ‘sound of intensive beating’.
Aslanbek gargünd with -n- is reminiscent of the Latin form. Ačaṙyan (HAB 2:
556b) considers the resemblance accidental and explains the Aslanbek form through
folk-etymological association with gund ‘ball’.70
keam, 3sg.aor. e-keac‘, 3sg.subj. kec‘-c‘ē ‘to live’ (Bible+); derivational base kec‘-,
and -keac‘ as the second member of a number of compounds (Bible+); kean-k‘, pl.
tant. a-stem: acc. kean-s, loc. i kean-s, gen.-dat. ken-a-c‘, instr. ken-a-w-k‘ ‘life;
living, manner of life; the course of a life; existence; property, wealth’ (Bible+);
derivatives based on ken- (Bible+), ken-s- (Agat‘angeɫos, Łazar P‘arpec‘i, etc.),
ken-c‘- (Movsēs Xorenac‘i, Eɫišē, Book of Chries, John Chrysostom, Philo, etc.);
ken-d- in kend-an-i, ea-stem: GDSg kendanw-o-y, ISg kendane-a-w, GDPl
kendane-a-c‘, IPl kendane-a-w-k‘ adj. ‘living, alive; life-giving, refreshing’, subst.
‘being, animal’ (Bible+), kendan-anam ‘to come to life again, revive’ (Bible+), a
number of compounds based on kendan-.
●DIAL The forms keank‘ and kendan(i) are widespread in the dialects [HAB 2:
566b].
●ETYM From PIE *gw
eih3-, *gw
ih3- or *gw
h3i- ‘to live’: Skt. jī́
vati ‘to live’, jīrá-
‘quick, active’, YAv. jira- ‘active, quick to understand’, Skt. gáya- m. ‘life, vital
strength, live stock, possessions, property, residence’ and Av. gaiia- m. ‘life, vital
strength’, YAv. gaiia- ‘name of the first man’ < *gw
oih3-o-, Gr. fut. βείομαι, athem.
aor. ἐβίων, βιῶναι ‘to live’, βίος ‘life’, βίοτος m., βιοτή f. ‘life’, Lat. vīvere ‘to live’,
vīvus ‘alive, living, lively’, Osc. BIVUS, OCS živǫ ‘to live’, OIr. biu, beo, Welsh byw
‘alive’, etc.; cf. *gw
i̯eh3-: Gr. ζώω, ζῶ ‘to live’, ζῷον ‘living being, animal’, Toch. A
śo-, B śāw- < PToch. *śāw-. See Hübschmann 1897: 459; HAB 2: 565-566 with lit.;
Pokorny 1959: 469; Mayrhofer EWaia 1, 1992: 467-468, 593-595; Mallory/Adams
1997: 356b; for a discussion of the Greek facts, see Chantraine 1968-80: 176-177,
402-403; Klein 1988; Adams 1999: 627-628.
Arm. kea-m probably reflects (athematic) *gw
eih3- together with Gr. βείομαι,
although further details are unclear (see Klingenschmitt 1982: 85 with references;
Klein 1988: 258, 272; Clackson 1994: 183, 21693). A direct derivation *-eih3- > Arm.
*-e(i̯)a- is difficult, so the a-conjugation seems to be secondary, unless one assumes
*gw
ii̯h3- or the like (cf. Hübschmann 1883: 35; 1897: 459; Meillet 1936: 45; Schmitt
1981: 64; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 60, 176; Lindeman 1981; Olsen 1999: 772).
The absence of palatalization of *gw in Armenian is unclear (see J̌
ahukyan 1975:
37; Clackson 1994: 55). Kortlandt (1975: 45; 1980a: 248 = 2003: 11-12, 17; Beekes
2003: 177) argues that both the Balto-Slavic and the Italo-Celtic evidence point to an
IE root *gw
h3i- (see also Schrijver 1991: 245, 248-249, 526), which would also
explain the absence of palatalization of the initial labiovelar in Armenian. Later (2003: 12) he derives keam from *gw
u̯ih3- with metathesis from *gw
h3iu-.
Klingenschmitt 1982: 1488 assumes an analogical influence of the nominal forms
such as Skt. gáya-, etc. 71
For a discussion of kea-n-k‘, obl. ke-n-a- < *-neh2- and derivation of ke-nd- from
*-nt-, see J̌
ahukyan 1982: 135; Olsen 1989: 225-226, 231, 233, 233-23426; 1999:
305-308, 318-319, 772; Clackson 1994: 111, 207-20845A
keɫ, o-stem: GDSg keɫ-o-y, ISg keɫ-o-v (Bible+). Later: IPl keɫ-ō-k‘ (Sargis Šnorhali
/12th cent./ and “Taɫaran”), which formally presupposes a-stem (-a-w-k‘) ‘wound,
sore, ulcer’ (Bible+); keɫem ‘to torment, torture, afflict’ (Bible+): renders Gr.
κατοδυνάω ‘to afflict grievously’ in Exodus 1.14; keɫ-ek‘-em ‘to tear, rend’
(Bible+): renders Gr. διασπάω ‘to tear asunder’ in Hosea 13.8.
In Deuteronomy 28.27 (Cox 1981: 184): harc‘ē zk‘ez t[ē]r keɫov egiptac‘oc‘n :
πατάξαι σε κύριος ἐν ἕλκει Αἰγυπτίῳ. Arm. keɫ renders Gr. ἕλκος ‘wound; sore, ulcer’.
The compound č‘ar-a-keɫ is mentioned in P‘awstos Buzand 4.13 (1883=1984:
95L-15f) as synonymous to žant : Ew sksaw hatanel zor č‘arakeɫn imn koč‘en, isk
kēsk‘n žand anuanēn; elanēr i veray mardkann ew anasnoc‘n “What some call evil
pustules and other plague began to strike, and they appeared on men and beasts”;
translated by Garsoïan (1989: 138).
For -ek‘- Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 567b) compares barek‘- (< bari ‘good’ + -ak‘-) and
armat-ak‘-i (with armat ‘root’). Note especially boɫ-ok‘-em ‘to complain’, oɫ-ok‘-em
‘to supplicate’.
●DIAL According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 567b), preserved in Łarabaɫ kəɛɫ ‘the outer hard
part of a wound’, kəɫ-ə-kalel ‘to become covered with keɫ ’.
●ETYM Since Meillet (1894: 165; 1894b: 283), connected with Lith. gélti ‘to hurt
severely’, gėlà ‘acute pain’, gelonìs ‘der verhärtete Eiter im Geschwür’, Russ. žal’
‘pity’, Czech žal ‘grief, pain’, OHG quelan ‘Schmerz empfinden, leiden’, OS quāla
‘pain, torture’, etc. [Hübschmann 1897: 459; Pokorny 1959: 471]; cf. also, perhaps,
Gr. βέλος, -εος n. ‘missile, especially arrow, dart; weapon; the sting of a scorpion’,
βέλεμνον ‘arrow, javelin’, βελόνη ‘needle’, βλῆμα ‘throw, throwing weapon;
wound’, βάλλω ‘to throw, hit’, etc. [HAB 2: 567b; Toporov, PrJaz 2, 1979: 142-145,
335-336].
Lith. gélti points to a laryngeal after *-l-. If the Greek forms are related, one
assumes *gʷelh1- ‘hit by throwing’. For the semantic development ‘to hit, strike’ >
‘wound’, see s.vv. xayt‘, xit‘, etc. Note also hatanem ‘to strike’, pertaining to
č‘ar-a-keɫ in the above-mentioned passage from P‘awstos Buzand 4.13.
Arm. keɫ, o-stem, may be derived from IE s-stem neuter, cf. Gr. βέλος, -εος. If from
*-lh1- one expects Arm. l rather than ɫ, one may explain the -ɫ- as analogical after the
verb keɫem from a nasal present *gw
el-n-H-, cf. Ion.-Att. βάλλω and Arc. δέλλω, with
geminate -λλ-. (For *-ln- > Arm. -ɫ-, see 2.1.22.8). See also Olsen 1999: 52.
According to J̌
ahukyan (1963a: 91; 1967: 197; 1982: 60 [misprinted as keɫer];
1987: 128 [with a question mark]), *keɫerǰ ‘complaint, grievance, pain’ (q.v.)
belongs here too. For the semantics he compares Russ. žáloba ‘complaint,
grievance’ vs. žalét’ ‘to begrudge, pity’ and žálit’ ‘to bite, sting’. If indeed related,
keɫ-erǰ may be derived from *gw
elH-r-i(h2)- or *-r- i̯eh2-. For the meaning of Łarabaɫ kəɛɫ ‘the outer hard part of a wound’, cf. Lith. gelonìs
‘der verhärtete Eiter im Geschwür’.
The absence of palatalization of the initial velar in Armenian makes the
etymology problematic. J̌
ahukyan (1982: 59-60), however, considers the
palatalization of *g and *k to be facultative.
Earlier attempts treating keɫ as borrowed from Gr. κήλη, Att. κάλη ‘tumour,
especially rupture, hernia; hump’ are rightly rejected by Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 567b). A
word which is richly attested in a variety of forms (keɫ-ek‘-, *keɫ-erǰ, etc.) and has
been preserved in an extremely Eastern dialect can hardly be a Greek loan
*keɫ ‘crooked’, only in the compound keɫ-a-karc ‘doubtful’, attested in Yovhannēs
Ōjnec‘i (8th cent.) onwards. Spelled also as kaɫ-a-karc.
●ETYM According to NHB (1:1081b), keɫ-a-karc, kaɫ-a-karc is composed of kaɫ
‘lame’ (cf. xeɫ ‘mutilated, lame, crooked’) and karc ‘opinion, supposition’: xeɫ kam
kaɫ karceōk‘. Basically the same is assumed by Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 490-491), who
treats the compound as containing *keɫ ‘crooked’, identical with kaɫ ‘lame’ and
etymologically perhaps related with xeɫ and šeɫ (see s.vv.), and karc. For the vocalic
difference he mentions Georg. k’eli ‘lame’ which he takes as a loan from Armenian
kaɫ ‘lame’ and *keɫ ‘crooked’. Viredaz (2003: 6422) does not mention this view. He
points out that the first element of the component is of unknown meaning, and
questions: “cf. keɫc ‘false’?”.
Pedersen (1906: 379 = 1982: 157), with reservation, identifies *keɫ with the PIE
word for ‘two’ with the sound change *dw- > k-. This is accepted by Kortlandt
(2003: 92, 95) who reconstructs *dwel-. However, there is no trace of Arm. *keɫ
‘two’ or ‘double’ elsewhere, and PIE *dwel- is not corroborated by any cognate
form. The “internal” etymology (NHB, Ačaṙyan), therefore, seems preferable.
See also s.v. erku ‘two’ and 2.1.22.6.
*keɫerǰ probably ‘complaint, grievance, pain’: only in keɫerǰ-akan, which is frequent
in Grigor Magistros (11th cent.).
●ETYM See s.v. keɫ ‘wound, sore’.
*keč‘i ‘birch’, perhaps also ‘larch’.
As a dialectal word in DialAdd apud NHB 2: 1064a. In Galen, keci/keč‘i
corresponds to Gr. λάριξ ‘larch, Larix europaea; Venice turpentine; coagulum’ (see
Ališan 1895: 310; Greppin 1985: 69).
●DIAL Ararat, Loṙi, Łarabaɫ (kič‘i), Širak, Muš [Amatuni 1912: 337b; Ačaṙean 1913:
563b]. See also Ališan 1895: 310 (also keci).
Perhaps here belongs Sasun genč‘eni or genč‘ani ‘a kind of tree with reddish bark
that kindles like a candle’ (see Petoyan 1954: 111; 1965: 95, 454). For the epenthetic
nasal frequent before affricates, see 2.1.29 and 2.1.30.1. That the bark of the tree
keč‘i kindles easily is seen in e.g. G. Hakobyan 1974: 264.
●ETYM J̌
ahukyan (1987: 296, cf. 264) considers *keč‘i to be a loan from a FinnoUgric source, cf. Finn. dial. kaski ‘offshoot of birch’, Karel. kaški ‘birch’, Udmurt.
kyž-, etc. This is uncertain. The meaning ‘birch’ is recent here (Petri Kallio, p.c.).72 alternatively propose a derivation from PIE *gw
etu- ‘resin’: Skt. jatu- n. ‘lac,
gum’, NPers. dial. žad ‘gum’, Pashto žāwla ‘resin’, Lat. bitūmen (< dial.) ‘a kind of
mineral pitch found in Palestine and Babylon’, PWGm. *kw
eδu-: OEngl. cwidu
‘resin’, Germ. Kitt, etc. (see Pokorny 1959: 480; Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 565;
Mallory/Adams 1997: 500a), and especially OIr. beithe ‘box-tree’ [Kelly 1976: 115]
< *betui̯̯ā, MWelsh bedw ‘birches’ < *betu̯a < *betuia̯ ̄ (Pokorny ibid.; Schrijver
1995: 326), Welsh bedwen, Breton bezvenu ‘birch’, Lat. (< Gaul.) bētul(l)a ‘birch’,
Alb. blétεzε (see P. Friedrich 1970: 149).
Arm. *keč‘-i may derive from QIE *gw
et(u)-i̯ieh2-, cf. the Celtic form. For *-ti̯-
Arm. *-č‘-, see 2.1.22.1; for the absence of palatalization of the initial labiovelar, see
2.1.14. The Armenian form is close to the Celtic both formally and semantically.
Compare also kiw ‘tree pitch, mastic, chewing-gum’ which too (1) comes from an
old *u-stem; (2) belongs to the same semantic sphere; (3) is related with Celtic (and
Slavic) closely (see s.v.).
Sasun ǰedu ‘pitch produced on the stalk of a thorny plant called p‘šagaz which is
gathered, dried and used as glue’ [Petoyan 1954: 154; 1965: 519] may be a recent
borrowing from Persian (see above) or Kurdish.
keṙ ‘curved, crooked’, in MidArm.; cf. also kṙ-a-cag ‘with curved edge (of a beak)’ in
Grigor Narekac‘i, and kṙ-a-poz ‘with curved horns’ in Grigor Magistros), etc. [HAB
2: 574a], which presuppose *kiṙ or *kuṙ.
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects [HAB 2: 574a].
●ETYM See s.v. kor ‘curved, crooked’.
ker-, suppletive aorist of utem ‘to eat’ (q.v.): 1sg ker-a-y, 3sg ker-a-w and e-ker (rich
evidence in the Bible, see Astuacaturean 1895: 1222-1226; Klingenschmitt 1982:
279), ker-oɫ, -awɫ ‘eating, devouring’ (Bible+, for a discussion, see Clackson 1994:
21463; Olsen 1999: 649-650); ker, o-stem: GDSg ker-o-y, GDPl ker-o-c‘ ‘food
(especially of animals); bait’ (Agat‘angeɫos, John Chrysostom, Philo, Zgōn-Afrahat,
T‘ovmay Arcruni, Aristakēs Lastivertc‘i, Nersēs Lambronac‘i, etc.); -ker in a
number of compunds; kerakur, o-stem: GDSg kerekr-o-y, ISg kerakr-o-v, GDPl
kerakr-o-c‘, IPl kerakr-o-v-k‘ ‘food’ (Bible+), kerakrem ‘to feed’ (Bible+); kur
‘food (of animals)’, also -kur as the second member of a number of compounds
(Bible+).
●DIAL Aor. ker-a- and the nouns ker and kerakur are ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB
2: 576a]. Some dialects (Muš, Alaškert, Moks, Salmast, etc.) have kerakul instead of
kerakur, the final -l being due to contamination with kul- ‘swallow’ [HAB 2: 576a]
(typologically cf. Toporov PrJaz [e-h], 1979: 349). Textual illustrations for kerakul
and a denominative verb keraklel can be found e.g. in a Muš folk-tale racorded in
Alek‘sandrapol in 1915 (HŽHek‘ 13, 1985: 218, lines 1, 17, 26).
●ETYM Derived from PIE *gw
erh3- ‘to swallow, devour’: Gr. βορά ‘fodder (of a
predator)’, βιβρώσκω ‘to devour’, Lat. vorō, -āre ‘to devour, engulf, eat greedily’ (a
denominative, see Schrijver 1991: 217), Skt. gari
, giráti ‘to devour, swallow’, YAv.
garō f.pl. ‘throats’, aspō.garəm nərə.garəm ‘who swallows horses (and) who
swallows men’ (for Iranian forms, see Cheung 2007: 109), Lith. gérti, geriù ‘to
drink’, OCS po-žrěti ‘to eat (of animals), devour’, ORuss. žьrati,1sg. žьru, Russ.
žrat’, žru ‘to eat (of animals), gobble’, etc., see Hübschmann 1897: 459-460; HAB2: 575-576 with references; Pokorny 1959: 474; Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 469-
470; Mallory/Adams 1997: 175b.
Arm. aor. ker-a- has been derived from the IE athematic root aorist *gw
erh3-: 3sg
e-ker < *e-kera(-th
) < *e-gw
erh3t, and 3sg ker-a-w is considered analogical after the
medial aorists (Klingenschmitt 1982: 21166, 279, 2791; Kortlandt 1987a: 50 = 2003:
80; Weitenberg 1989a: 112; differently Lindeman 1982: 40). On the other hand, eker is taken as reflecting a thematic *e-gw
erh3-e-t (Beekes 1969: 234; Lindeman
1982: 40; K. Schmidt 1990: 4342; Olsen 1999: 650). Further see s.v. utem ‘to eat’.
Arm. ker, o-stem ‘food’ derives from *gw
orh3-o-: Skt. gará- m. ‘drink, liquid’; cf.
also Gr. βορά ‘fodder (of a predator)’. The -e- of the Armenian noun may have been
taken from the verb. This would explain the absence of palatalization of the initial
labiovelar, which was preserved in the noun and extended to the verb (cf. Meillet
1936: 73; Kortlandt 1975: 44 = 2003: 11). Further on *gw unpalatalized in Armenian,
see Clackson 1994: 55.
The reduplicated form ker-a-kur ‘food’ probably reflects an older iterative
reduplication of the type of aɫǰ-a-m-uɫǰ ‘darkness, twilight’ (q.v.), etc., see
Klingenschmitt 1982: 211-21266; Weitenberg 1989a: 111-112 (a slightly different
type is reflected in karkut ‘hail’, mamul ‘press’, mamuṙ ‘moss’), thus *gw
er3-gw
ōrh3-
> kera-kur, or first *ker-kur with a subsequent adjustment to the productive type of
compounds with the a-conjunction. The underlying pattern may be seen in Greek
ἐδωδή ‘food, meal’ (see s.v. utem ‘tom eat’). Further see Olsen 1999: 757 and 757107,
with a comparison with Skt. garagir- and an explanation of kur through the
rounding of *-r̥- caused by the neighbouring labiovelar *gw
, as in kul ‘swallow’. For
a further discussion on kerakur and kur cf. mamul and *mul/ɫ (see s.v. malem ‘to
grind, crush’).
A reduplication of the zero-grade root (cf. Gr. βορά, etc.) is seen in kokord
‘throat’, which can be derived from *gw
o-gw
orh3-t/dh
(r)V- or the like, cf. OHG
querdar ‘bait’, Gr. βάραϑρον n. ‘gape, cleft, gorge’; further note Czech hrdlo, Russ.
górlo, etc. ‘throat’ from *gw
rh3-tlóm, etc. (Hübschmann 1897: 460; HAB 2: 619a;
Greppin 1981b: 5; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 129; Pokorny 1959: 474; Olsen 1999: 189,
189350). The appurtenance of Gr. βάραϑρον to this PIE etymon is doubted, however
(see Beekes 1969: 193, 233-234).
kēs, o-stem: GSg kis-o-y, GPl kis-o-c‘, LocSg i kis-um (Eznik Koɫbac‘i, 5th cent.);
later also i-stem: GDPl kis-i-c‘ (Grigor Magistros, 11th cent.) ‘half’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects. In Havarik‘, Maraɫa, Č‘aylu: kɔsɔ́
r < kēs-ōr
‘midday’ [HAB 2: 582b; Davt‘yan 1966: 395], with a vocalic assimilation.
●ETYM Pedersen (1906: 398, 400 = 1982: 176, 178) derives from the PIE word for
‘two’ reconstructing *dwoik̂
o-, next to *dwoukâ̄- > Arm. koys ‘side’. This is not
accepted by Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 582a), and the word is mostly viewed as of unknown
origin [J̌
ahukyan 1987: 269; 1990: 72 (sem. field Nr 13); Olsen 1999: 963].
Kortlandt (1989: 48, 50 = 2003: 92, 95) is more positive and takes the word as
another case reflecting the development *dw- > Arm. k- (on this see 2.1.22.6).
The semantic relationship ‘side, part, region’ : ‘half’ is possible, cf. Skt. árdha-
‘side, part, region’ : ardhá- ‘half’ (RV+). However, this etymology is improbable in
view of the absence of cognate forms which would corroborate the reconstructton.
Furthermore, koys ‘side’ (q.v.) is an Iranian loan and has nothing to do with the word for ‘two’. The same perhaps holds for kēs, although no Iranian correspondent
is indicated [Viredaz 2003: 6422]. Earlier, J̌
ahukyan (1967: 143) suggested a
derivation from PIE *ken- ‘to rub, scrape off’, which is untenable.
kēt1, i-stem : GDSg kit-i in Agat‘angeɫos, Plato; GDPl kit-i-c‘ in Dionysius Thrax and
Grigor Magistros (here, in the same passage, -kit-o-v-k‘ in compounds [NHB 1:
1094c]) ‘point, dot (in varous senses, such as of time, appointment)’ (Agat‘angeɫos,
Eɫišē, etc.), ‘goal, purpose’ (Philippians 3.14 = Gr. σκοπός), ‘target’ (Book of
Chries), ‘centre’ (Plato), ‘odd’ (Aṙak‘el Vardapet, 15th cent.); kit-uac, o-stem
‘stigma, dotted ornament’ (IPl kituac-o-v-k‘ in Canticum 1.10/11: handerj kituacovk‘
arcat‘oy : μετὰ στιγμάτων τοῦ ἀργυρίου); kitak ‘canon, rule’ (Dawit‘ Anyaɫt‘), etc.
●DIAL J̌
uɫa kɛt ‘time’ (e.g. č‘ur ɛs kɛts ‘by now’); Łarabaɫ kəɛt, Zeyt‘un, Suč‘ava gɛd
(the meaning is not specified; I assume ‘point, dot’; for an illustration in Łarabaɫ, see
Davt‘yan 1966: 395); Akn kɛt ‘obstacle’; Bulanəx ket ‘odd’ (cf. kēt ‘odd’ attested in
Aṙak‘el Vardapet, 15th cent.), in Northern and Eastern dialects (T‘iflis, Loṙi, Ganjak,
Łarabaɫ, etc.) with an epenthetic -n-: kent ‘odd’; cf. also Georgian k’ent’i ‘odd’, etc.
[HAB 2: 583b]. Nor Naxiǰewan *ket-ik ‘appointed time’ (see Ačaṙean 1913: 565b).
●ETYM See s.vv. kēt2 ‘a kind of biting fly’and *kic- ‘to bite’.
kēt2 ‘a kind of fly that bites donkeys and cattle’.
Attested only in the fabels by Mxit‘ar Goš (12-13th cent., Ganjak).
●DIAL Łarabaɫ kɛt ‘a kind of fly that chases calfs’, Łarabaɫ, Ganjak kɛt anɛl ‘to run
away suddenly (said of calfs)’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 565b; HAB 2: 583b], Goris kɛt ‘a
kind of fly’ and kɛt anɛl ‘to run away (to avoid the bite of kɛt)’ [Margaryan 1975:
411b]. For Meɫri, Aɫayan (1974: 275b, 307) records kɛ́
ttil ‘to run away swiftly’, with
geminate -tt-, and kəɛ́
til.
Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 583b) questions: “is it identical with Muš knet ‘biting fly’?”
M. Muradyan (1962: 210a) records Šatax zəṙkɛt‘· išameɫu ‘bumble-bee’ in her
glossary of purely dialectal words; see also HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 409b. I think
this is a compound with kēt ‘a biting fly’. The first member can be identified with
dial. zəṙ ‘rude, uncivilized’ (HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 409b), meaning also ‘step-’ in
e.g. Moks zəṙ-bab ‘step-father’ (which, see Orbeli 2002: 222, 250). The basic
meaning of the compound would be, then, something like ‘wild or fierce
bumble-bee’. Note also dial. zṙ-ik ‘male ass’ found in Malxaseanc‘ HBB 2: 38b. If
this word is relevant, the compound would parallel the synonym iš-a-meɫu
‘bumble-bee’, literally ‘donkey-bee’.
Next to zəṙkɛt‘ one also finds dial. zṙkēc ‘yellow bumble-bee’, with a final -c
(Malxaseanc‘, HayBac‘Baṙ 2: 38b). Apparently, the first component is taken by
Malxasyanc‘ as identical with zaṙ ‘yellow’ (see s.v. *deɫ-ez ‘bee, bumble-bee’).
Note also kov-a-kēz ‘a kind of bright-coloured beetle, Buprestis mariana’ (op. cit.
473b).
●ETYM Found and interpreted (with the dialectal material) by Ačaṙyan [HAB 2:
583b]. He does not mention any etymological attempt. According to J̌
ahukyan, the
word belongs with kēt1 ‘point, dot, etc.’ and *kic- ‘to bite’ (see s.vv.).
Note that dial. zṙkēc ‘bumble-bee’, with a final -c, can be seen as an interesting
intermediary between kēt ‘a biting fly’ and *kic- ‘to bite’ (unless it has been
influenced by dial. *kɛc < kayc ‘spark’). Note also kic ‘an annoying insect’.
*kt‘- ‘to faint, become weak, feeble’: kt‘-uc‘eal ‘weak, feeble, faint’ (Bible+), ‘to
faint from thirst’ (Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i), kt‘-ot ‘feeble, weak’ (Bible+); dial.
‘to become tired’.
●DIAL Maraɫa k‘it‘el ‘to become tired’ (Garegin k‘h. Petrosean apud Ačaṙean 1926:
100 and HAB 2: 584a).
●ETYM No acceptable etymology (see HAB 2: 584a; J̌
ahukyan 1967: 301; 1987:
262).
Perhaps related with nk‘t‘em ‘to starve, faint from hunger’ (q.v.).*kic-, kcanem, 3sg.aor. (e)kic, imper. kic ‘to bite; to sting’ (Bible+), kcem ‘to feel
sting/pain’ (Eznik Koɫbac‘i, 5th cent.), ‘to torment’ (Nersēs Lambronac‘i, 12th cent.),
‘to bite, sting’ (Paterica); kic ‘strong itching’ (Anania Širakac‘i /7th cent./, etc.), ‘an
annoying insect’ (ISg kc-o-v, see s.v. anic); -kic, as a second member of numerous
compounds; kskic (from reduplicated *kic-kic) ‘pain’ (Ephrem, John Chrysostom; in
verbs and derivatives – Bible+); kc-u ‘bitter, sharp, cruel, etc.’ (Ephrem, John
Chrysostom, etc.); z-kc-im ‘to become angry, etc.’ (Bible+); dial. kič ‘sting of
scorpions, serpents, etc.’ in Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘, rendering xayt‘-oc‘ (see Amalyan 1975:
138Nr45); MidArm. kc/čmt‘el ‘to pinch’ (see s.v. čm- ‘to squeeze, press’); dial. čič
‘the sting of a mosquito’, etc.
●DIAL *kcel ‘to bite’ and kc-u ‘bitter, sharp’ are widespread in the dialects. Note
also Axalc‘xa, Muš, Sebastia, etc. *kič ‘sting of scorpions, serpents, etc.’. The verb
*kčel is present in Axalc‘xa, Hamšen, Polis, Ṙodost‘o, Sebastia, Zeyt‘un; in Nor
Naxiǰewan it means ‘to burn (e.g. by cold)’; Ararat čič ‘the sting of a mosquito’, etc.
[HAB 2: 587ab].
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 587) accepts none of the numerous etymologies, including
the one suggested by Scheftelowitz (1904-05, 1: 308; 2: 31) who connected with
Arm. kit-uac, o-stem ‘stigma, dotted ornament’ (Canticum), kitak ‘canon, rule’
(Dawit‘ Anyaɫt‘) and Germanic word for ‘to tickle’: OIc. kitla, OHG kizzilōn, Engl.
kittle, etc.; as well as with Arm. kayc ‘spark’, kaytaṙ ‘vivid, energetic’, OIc. heitr
‘hot’, hiti, hita ‘heat’, Lith. skaidrùs ‘hell, klar’, etc. The second set of comparison
(i.e. OIc. heitr ‘hot’, etc.) is also problematic with respect to the Armenian anlaut.
On the Armenian forms with -t, see s.v. kēt1 ‘point, etc.’.
Arm.-Germ. *geid- ‘stechen, kitzeln’ is accepted in Pokorny 1959: 356; J̌
ahukyan
1965: 256; 1967: 174, 197 (with alternative etymologies); 1972: 286; 1982: 60, 61,
64; 1987: 124; Olsen 1999: 544 (who stresses kituac as directly derived from *kit- <
*g(w)id-). All of these scholars follow Scheftelowitz also in deriving Armenian -c
from *-dy-, which in fact, I believe, would yield č; for c one needs *ĝ or *ds. Thus,
only čič and kič fit in this explanation (cf. J̌
ahukyan 1982: 59). Theoretically, the
absence of palatalization in the anlaut of kič might be explained by dissimilatory
influence of -č, see 2.1.14.
According to J̌
ahukyan (see the references above), here belongs also kēt2 ‘a kind
of biting fly’ (q.v.). The connection of this word with *kic- ‘to bite’ makes sense at
least from the semantic point of view. Note especially dial. zṙ-kēc ‘bumble-bee’,
with a final -c.
In view of the formal problems (note also the root structure – with two voiced
unaspirated stops) and the absence of cognates outside Armenian and Germanic, I
conclude that the etymology is uncertain, although it is worth of further consideration. I would also introduce kt-ɫ- ‘to burn with desire’ (John Chrysostom,
Book of Chries, Severian of Gabala) and especially xt-ɫ(-t)- ‘to tickle’ (Bible+;
widespread in the dialects); see s.vv. The -ɫ- of these forms may be seen as a
(typological, at least) match to *-l- of OIc. kitla, etc. ‘to tickle’. As my colleague
Guus Kroonen suggests to me, Proto-Germanic *kit-l- may be “a novel root based
on the cuchy cuchy (Dutch kiele kiele) speech act that is performed when people are
threatening to tickle someone”. The words meaning ‘tickle’ are often of
onomatopoeic origin, cf. Engl. tickle, Alemannic dial. zicklen, etc. (a metathesized
form of *kit-l-), Gr. γαργαλίζω, etc. This phenomenon may have played a role in
forming Arm. kt-ɫ- and, especially, xt-ɫ-t- (nowadays the Armenian pronounce e.g.
xətəɫətə! when tickling the children; see s.v. *xt-iɫ), although it cannot explain the
whole group of words, to which one also may add kayt ‘spot’ : kayc ‘spark’ : kt-(u)t-
‘to torment’ (Bible, Agat‘angeɫos, etc.; dialects of Hamšen, Łazax, etc.). Note also
Georgian-Zan *ɣiṭin- ‘to tickle’ which, according to Klimov (1998: 229-230),
“contains an element of sound symbolism” and can be compared with Arm. xitil
(read xtiɫ) and Udi xiṭik.
Though some formal details are not clear, the group kēt ‘point, dot’ : *k(i)c- ‘to
bite, sting; to torment; pain; bitter, sharp’ : kayc ‘spark’: kt-ɫ- ‘burning desire’ :
kt-(u)t- ‘to torment’ : kayt- ‘vivid, energetic’ : kayt ‘mark’ : PGerm. *kit-l- ‘to tickle’
seems to correspond both formally and semantically to the following group: xayt :
xayc : *xayt-ut- ‘spot, etc.’ : xt-ɫ- ‘to tickle; to excite’, dial. xut-ut ‘tickle’, etc.
According to the etymology proposed by Lidén (1934a: 1-4) and reflected in
Pokorny 1959: 356 (see also J̌
ahukyan 1982: 60 and 61, representing both
etymologies), Arm. *kic- ‘to bite’ derives from PIE *geiǵ-: Oss. änɣezun ‘gären’,
lith. gìžti ‘sauer werden’, gaižùs, gižùs ‘ranzig, bitter, mürrisch’, gaĩžti ‘bitter
werden’, etc. Neither this is totally convincing. The semantics matches kc-u ‘bitter’.
However, this is an u-derivation from *kic- ‘to bite’. On the formal side cf. what has
been said above on the other etymology.
If the connection of kēt ‘point, dot, etc.’ with the other words is not accepted, one
might treat it as borrowed from an unattested Iranian *kēt, cf. Skt. keta- ‘mark, sign’,
ketú- m. ‘appearance, mark’ (RV+). Note also Arm. kayt (prob.) ‘mark on marble’
(hapax, 13-14th cent.). In view of the vocalism, this form, if related, may
theoretically have been borrowed from Mitanni-Aryan *kait- (cf. éka- ‘one’ vs.
Mitanni aika-). See also s.v. *kit ‘shine’ or ‘clear’.
kin, GDSg knoǰ, AblSg i knoǰ-ē, ISg kn-a-w, NPl kan-ay-k‘, APl kan-ay-s, GDPl kanan-c‘, IPl kan-am-b-k‘ (rich evidence in the Bible, see Astuacaturean 1895: 784-
790); GDPl kan-a-c‘ (Book of Chries, etc.); ISg kn-oǰ-a-w, GDPl kn-oǰ-an-c‘ (John
Chrysostom) ‘woman; wife’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects, everywhere (apart from Svedia gɛn) hypocoristic
kn-ik [HAB 2: 590a].
●ETYM From PIE *gw
én-(e)h2-, gen. *gw
n-éh2-s ‘woman’: Skt. jáni- f. ‘woman,
wife’, OAv. jə̄ni- f. ‘woman, wife’, YAv. jaini- f. ‘woman, wife’, MPers. NPers. zan
‘wife’, Parth. jn, pl. jnym ‘wife’ vs. Skt. gnā́- f. ‘divine female, mistress, lady’, OAv.
gənā- f. ‘woman’, YAv. ɣənā- f. ‘woman’ (Indo-Iran. *ǰanH-s, gen. *gnaH-s), Gr.
γυνή, gen. γυναικός, voc. γύναι < *γυναικ, Boeot. βανά f. ‘wife, woman’, OIr. ben,
gen. mná ‘woman, wife’, Goth. qino f. ‘wife’ < *gw
en-eh2-n-, OCS žena ‘woman,wife’, Russ. žená ‘wife’, Luw. vana- ‘woman’ (Gusmani 1985), Toch. A śäṃ, B śana
f. ‘woman, wife’ vs. Toch. A kuli, B klīye ‘woman’ (Adams 1999: 224-225, 621), etc.
Hübschmann 1883: 881; 1897: 460; HAB 2: 589-590 with lit. (the earliest reference
is to Awetik‘ean 1815, with comparison to the Greek and Persian forms); Pokorny
1959: 473; Toporov PrJaz [e-h] 1979: 207-210; Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 503-504,
568-569; Huld apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 648.
The stem *-eh2- is reflected in ISg kn-a-w and GDPl kan-a-c‘ vs. kan-an-c‘,
which is analogical after ayr, aran-c‘ ‘man’. PArm. *kan-ay- is most probably
identical with Gr. γυναι-κ- and may be derived from *gw
n(e)h2-i(h2)-, *gw
n̥nh2ei̯- or
the like. For a discussion of these and related issues, see Hübschmann ibid.; Meillet
1894: 155; 1936: 84; Meillet p.c. apud HAB 2: 589a; Pedersen 1906: 398 = 1982:
176 (treating NPl kanay-k‘ as originally a singular collective in *-āti-); Charpentier
1909: 252-254; HAB 2: 588-589; Pisani 1950: 170, 182-183; J̌
ahukyan 1959: 182-
183, 264; Hamp 1959-60: 200-203; 1979; Solta 1960: 168f; Frisk 1: 334-335; van
Windekens 1964; Chantraine 1968-80: 242-243; Beekes 1969: 14765, 177; 1976: 16-
17; 1995: 185; Godel 1975: 74; Szemerényi 1977: 74275; Schmitt 1981: 107;
Bonfante 1981: 64; Klingenschmitt 1982: 1488; C. Arutjunjan 1983: 294-295;
Saradževa 1986: 241-242; Ē. Mkrtč‘yan 1992: 72-74; Rix 1992: 148-149; Stempel
1994: 10; Clackson 1994: 72 and espec. 136-137; Olsen 1999: 172-174; Matzinger
2005: 83-84.
For a discussion on kn-oǰ, see Meillet 1936: 84; HAB 4: 628a; Godel 1975: 104;
Kortlandt 1984a: 100 = 2003: 47; Clackson 1994: 63-64, 21337, 21339; Olsen 1999:
173-174; Matzinger 2005: 83-84, 107-108.
According to Kortlandt (1975: 44 = 2003: 11; see also Klingenschmitt 1982:
1488; Beekes 2003: 177), the unpalatalized initial k- was taken from the plural
kanayk‘ or from the oblique cases of the singular.
*kit ‘shine’ or ‘clear, limpid’: akan-a-kit ‘clear, limpid (of water, pearl, star, light,
words, instruction)’.
5th cent. onwards. E.g., in Łazar P‘arpec‘i (5th cent.) 1.16 (1904=1985: 27L14f;
transl. Thomson 1991: 62-63): ystak ew akanakit vardapetut‘iwn srboy ew
aṙak‘elanman hayrapetin Grigori : “the pure and limpid instruction of the holy and
apostle-like patriarch Gregory”. In Movsēs Xorenac‘i 1.12 (1913=1991: 39L1; transl.
Thomson 1978: 89): akanakit aɫbiwrk‘ “limpid streams”. In “Yaɫags vardavaṙin
xorhrdoy” attributed to Movsēs Xorenac‘i: akanakit aɫberac‘ [MovsXorenMaten
1865: 328L-1]
●ETYM The compound akan-a-kit is taken as ‘shiny like a jewel’ and, thus, derived
from akn in the meaning ‘jewel, gem’ [NHB 1: 22a; HAB 1: 107b; 2: 592b],
whereas the synonymous akn-a-včit ‘clear, limpid’, attested twice in T‘ovmay
Arcruni /Ananun/ referring to aɫbiwr ‘spring, fountain’ (see s.v. akn ‘eye; jewel;
source, etc.’), is considered a derivative based on ‘spring, source’ [NHB 1: 26a;
HAB 1: 107b], basically meaning, thus: ‘having a limpid source/spring’. In fact,
akan-a-kit could also be based on akn (oblique akan-, e.g. AblSg y-akan-ē) ‘spring,
source’. Given the structural and semantic parallelism between akan-a-kit and
akn-a-včit, one may interpret them as reflecting ‘limpid as a spring’.
Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 592-593) assumes that *kit means ‘shine, reflection’ and does
not offer an etymological explanation. J̌
ahukyan (1967: 187) suggests a connection with Skt. śvetá- ‘white, bright’ (RV+), etc. listing *kit among words that, according
to him, show an aberrant absence of palatalization of *k̂
-, which is not convincing.
I hypothetically propose a complete parallelism between not only the compounds
akan-a-kit and akn-a-včit, but also a semantic and possibly also etymological
identity of their second members *kit ‘shiny, limpid’ and včit, both ‘limpid’. The
latter has been treated as an Iranian loan (cf. Pahl. vičītak ‘chosen’), although the
etymology is uncertain [HAB 4: 346b; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 510, 565]; cf. also MPers.
and Parth. wcyd ‘chosen’, Pahl. vicītan ‘to separate, distinguish’; see Nyberg 1974:
211a (with Arm. včit); Boyce 1977: 90. Theoretically, thus, the synonyms *kit and
*čit- may be seen as unpalatalized and palatalized reflexes of a single root.
Further, note OCS čistъ ‘clean, pure’, Sln. céstiti ‘castrate, tear off’, Lith. skýstas
‘thin (of liquids)’, skaistùs ‘bright’, Latv. šķîsts ‘liquid, thin (of fabric), clean, clear’,
etc. < *(s)kid-to-, from *skid- ‘to split’: Lat. scindō ‘to split, cleave, tear apart; to
separate’, etc. (see ÈtimSlovSlavJaz 4, 1977: 121-122, with lit.); cf. Skt. ví-chitti- f.
‘interruption, disturbance’ (KS+), Pahl. wsstn’ /wisistan/ ‘to break, split’, etc. (on
the latter, see also Périkhanian 1985: 78; Hovhannisyan 1990: 261).
Alternatively, *kit is somehow related with Skt. keta- ‘mark, sign’, ketú- m.
‘appearance, mark’ (RV+), Arm. kayt ‘mark on marble’, etc. (see s.v. *kic- ‘to
bite’)?
Uncertain.
kic‘ ‘together, united, conjoined’ (Bible+), ‘close, near’ (Cyril of Alexandria); kc‘em
‘to join, unite’ (Bible+). Later: kuc‘ ‘handful, two palms joined’ (Yaysmawurk‘; see
also dial.).
●DIAL The verb is present in numerous dialects. As for kic‘ and kuc‘, the former has
been preserved in Hamšen, Łarabaɫ, Łazax, Muš, Akn, Sebastia (in Muš: kic‘k‘, a
frozen plural; Łarabaɫ has both kic‘ and *kic‘-k‘ > kisk‘), whereas the latter – in Van,
Moks, Ozim, Maraɫa, Akn, Aparan, Łazax. All mean ‘handful, two palms joined’
[HAB 2: 596-597].
●ETYM Usually (Meillet, Pedersen, Kortlandt, etc.) derived from *dui-sk- (cf. OHG
zwisk ‘double’); for the discussion, see Kortlandt 2003: 91-95; Olsen 1999: 269-271.
For objections on the semantics, see Viredaz 2003: 6422. Discussing the
counter-evidence for the development *dw- > Arm. -rk-, Beekes (2003: 200)
considers kic‘ < *dui-sk- “most convincing” and takes erkic‘-s ‘twice, again’ (see
s.v. erku ‘two’) as ‘modernized’ after the new form of the word for ‘two’ (i.e. erku)
and points out that kic‘ “therefore developed a more remote meaning (from ‘*two
together’)”.
The derivation from *gw
i-sk̂
- [J̌
ahukyan 1987: 249] < PIE *gw
ei-
‘zusammendrängen, einschließen, einpferchen’ (cf. OIc. kvīa ‘einpferchen’, etc.) is
improbable since it is semantically remote, and the status of the PIE word is
uncertain. Elsewhere (op. cit. 609-610) J̌
ahukyan treats kic‘ as an ECauc borrowing,
cf. Tindi кицIв ‘knot’, etc.
kiw, o-stem ‘tree pitch, mastic, chewing-gum’, perhaps also ‘pine-tree’ (see below);
ku-eni ‘pine-tree, larch’: Galen (= Gr. πίτυς), Geoponica, etc. [NHB 1: 1101a,
1122ab; Ališan 1895: 335; HAB 2: 597a; Greppin 1985: 90]. The only cited independent evidence for kiw is ku-oy kṙēz “pitch of kiw” in a
medieval dictionary. Since kṙēz means ‘pitch’, ku-oy kṙēz should be interpreted as
“pitch of pine-tree”. Now we also find ISg ku-o-v in Geoponica (see MiǰHayBaṙ 1,
1987: 398b).
●DIAL Axalc‘xa kiv, Xotorǰur, Hamšen giv ‘chewing-gum’; the tree: Hamšen gəvəni,
Trapizon *kueni ‘= Turk. /sagəz aɫačə/’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 600-601; 1947: 238, 239];
Xotorǰur kui ‘Abies excelsa, = Turk. /sagəz aɫač/’ [YušamXotorǰ 1964: 473a], or, more
precisely, gvi [HAB 2: 597a]. In Xotorǰur, the tar of this tree is called *p‘is.
●ETYM Lidén (1906: 68) derived from *gieu- ‘to chew’: Slav. *žьvati, Pers. jāvīdan
‘to chew’, etc. Note especially Russ. živíca, etc. ‘tree pitch, soft resin’ [Saradževa
1981: 162; 1986: 64] and OIr. bī ‘tree pitch’ < *gʷīu̯ī- [Thurneysen 1937: 301-302;
Pokorny 1959: 400, 482; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 129]. The connection of Arm. kiw with the
Slavic and the Celtic is attractive, although it is uncertain whether they all belong
with *gieu- ‘to chew’. P. Friedrich and Adams (apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 500a)
assume *gw
ih3u̯o- ‘pitch’ and note: “presumably a derivative of *gw
i̯eh3- ‘live’ as the
tree’s ‘living matter’”.
If an old *u-stem (*gw
iH-u-), note synonymous PIE *gw
et-u- ‘resin’, on which see
s.v. *keč‘-i ‘birch’. Pisani (1950: 170) derives Arm. kiw from *gw
itu-.
J̌
ahukyan (1975: 37) mentions kiw among cases displaying absence of
palatalization of velars. If this word is indeed related with the PIE verb for ‘live’, the
absence of palatalization might be explained by the influence of the etymologically
related (or folk-etymologically associated; note Russ. živica ‘tree pitch, soft resin’
vs. živoj ‘living’) keam ‘to live’. Alternatively: a substratum word.
*klmp/b-
●DIAL Łarabaɫ *klmbos (jocular) ‘a rich man’; Trapizon *klmpur, Hamšen *klinpur
‘a chain hanging down from the ceiling on the hearth’; Van klmpoz ‘beet’.
●ETYM These three words are recorded by Ačaṙyan (1913: 574a) as separate entries.
J̌
ahukyan (1972: 287-288; 1987: 124, 275) connects them to each other, as well as
with dial. *kl-or ‘spheric, ball-shaped; round’ (q.v.), etc. and derives from *gel-,
‘clamp, clasp’. Uncertain. For a further discussion, see Bläsing 1995: 64.
On the other hand, note Pers. kulunba ‘almond-cake; a ball’, Afgh. Pers. kulumba
‘dicker, dickbäuchiger Mensch’, etc. (on which see Monchi-Zadeh 1990: 63, 79).
knjni ‘Ulmus campestris L.’ (according to Béguinot/Diratzouyan 1912: 37Nr81),
attested only in Hexaemeron (see K. Muradyan 1984: 144L7, 374b). Ališan (1895:
320) also mentions knj-eni ‘elm’.
●DIAL Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 609b) does not record any dialectal forms. There is Sasun
knjni ‘a kind of tree with hard wood’ (see Petoyan 1954: 136; 1965: 491; according
to HayLezBrbBaṙ 3, 2004: 120b, also a shrub) which, I think, may be identical with
ClArm. knjni. The consonant shift having taken place in Sasun (see Petoyan 1954:
13, 20ff) implies, however, that Sasun knjni, if reliable, presupposes an older *gnj/cni. It is uncertain whether Havarik‘ knjin ‘the core of an acorn or a walnut’
(see HayLezBrbBaṙ 3, 2004: 120a) is related.
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 609b) does not mention any acceptable etymology.
According to Mann (1963: 156), from *u̯inĝ-, *u̯iĝ- ‘elm’: Lith. vìnkšna, Slav.
*vęzъ (Russ. vjazъ, Pol. wiąz ‘Ulmus campestris’ ), OEngl. wīce ‘Bergulme’, Alb.
vidh (< *u̯inĝo-) ‘elm’, Kurd. vīz ‘a kind of elm’ (see Pokorny 1959: 1177; P.
Friedrich 1970: 82-83), perhaps also Oss. wis-qæd ‘maple’ (see P. Friedrich apud
Mallory/Adams 1987: 178b). J̌
ahukyan (1967: 270) mentions this etymology as one
of the possible cases showing an irregular reflex of PIE *u̯. J̌
ahukyan 1987 vacat.
Ališan (1895: 3201; see also J̌
ahukyan 1967: 270157) noted the resemblance with
Irish oinsean, uinsean.
On the semantics of the Ossetic form, see s.v. t‘ɫk‘i ‘maple’ (from ‘elm’?).
A PIE *u̯inĝ- would yield Arm. *ginc/j. One would expect, thus, *g(i)ncni or
*g(i)njni. Sasun knjni (see above), possibly from an older *gnj/cni, is remarkable in
this respect. On the whole, the etymology seems probable, although the anlaut of the
Classical form remains problematic. One may assume an assimilation *ginc- >
*kinc- with a subsequent voicing nc > nj due to the nasal, and/or by the influence of
the plant-suffix -j/z, on which see 2.3.1.
kogi, (w)o-stem: GDSg kogw-o-y, ISg kogw-o-v (Bible+) [in NHB – also GDPl kogea-c‘, with no evidence] ‘butter’.
●DIAL No dialectal forms are recorded in HAB 2: 613a.
In a small list of dialectal words from Partizak (in the Nikomidia region) recorded
by Tēr-Yakobean (1960: 472), one finds kogi ‘butter’ without any comment.
●ETYM Derived from the word for ‘cow’ [NHB 1: 1108c], see s.v. kov ‘cow’. From
PIE adj. *gw
ou̯-io- (or *gw
h3eu̯-io-): Skt. gávya-, gavyá- ‘consisting of cattle’ (RV+),
‘coming from or belonging to a cow (as milk, curds, etc.)’, YAv. gaoiia- ‘coming
from cattle, consisting of cattle’, Gr. -βο(ϝ)ιος, see Hübschmann 1897: 461; HAB 2:
612-613; Pokorny 1959: 483; Euler 1979: 80; cf. Bonfante 1937: 19.
*koko(v) (dial.) ‘testicles; round; eye; walnut, etc.’, kokov-ank‘ ‘testicles’ (LcNiws
according to HAB 2: 618b); kōklvin ‘testicles’ (Physiologus).
●DIAL Xarberd, Polis, Ṙodost‘o, Sebastia, Suč‘ava gɔgɔv ‘testicles’ (pl. kɔyvəni
[Ačaṙean 1913: 588a]); without the final -v : gɔgɔ ‘testicles’ (Nor Naxiǰewan), ‘eye’
and ‘walnut’ (Akn), ‘fruit’ (Sivri-Hisar), ‘cheese’ (T‘iflis), ‘round’ (Xarberd) [HAB
2: 618b]. Ačaṙyan (HAB, ibid.) points out that the meaning ‘round’ is the original
one, and for the semantic development compares with kakal and plor.
The meaning ‘walnut’ is also found in: Šatax kɔk‘yɔv [M. Muradyan 1962: 213a],
Moks kɔk‘y
ɔv [Orbeli 2002: 273].
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 618b) considers the resemblance with Ital. coglioni
‘testicles’ (NHB) as accidental and leaves the origin of kokov open.
One may compare with Arm. ən-koy-z and Pers. gōz ‘walnut’, interpreting them
as *gou-z = *gou- + -z “plant-suffix” (on the latter, see 2.3.1). See also *koč-. With
reduplication: *go-gou- > kokov. For the semantic field (cf. also Monchi-Zadeh
1990: 11-12Nr2) and reduplication, see s.v. *kakal(ay) (dial.) ‘walnut; testicle’ and
below. If the absence of the final -v in dial. gɔgɔ is not due to loss, one may treat koko-v
‘testicles’ as from *koko ‘round; walnot, etc.’ with the dual suffix *-v(i), on which
see the following.
The form kōklvin ‘testicles’ (attested in Physiologus) may have resulted
from contamination with kakal ‘walnut; testicles’ (q.v.). Alternatively: *kokol- (cf.
kakal) + dual *-vi- > *koko(l)vi-. Note also kl-or ‘round’. For the semantics cf. Pahl.,
NPers. gund ‘testicle’, Xurāsānī Pers. gond ‘testicle’ vs. *gund- ‘round’ (see
MacKenzie 1971: 38; Monchi-Zadeh 1990: 63) > Arm. gund ‘sphere, ball, wheel,
etc.’ (HAB 1: 593-594).
Further, note Alb. gogël f. ’acorn; small and round object’.
See also s.vv. kakal, kaɫin.
kokov-an-k‘, a-stem: IPl kokovan-a-w-k‘ ‘boastful/vainglorious words’ (John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria). Verbal kokov-t-el is found in Baṙgirk‘
hayoc‘, glossed as čoxabanel ‘to speak eloquently’ [Amalyan 1975: 169Nr395].
●ETYM No etymological attempt is recorded in HAB 2: 618b. The comparison with
Skt. śváyati ‘to swell, become strong’ [J̌
ahukyan 1967: 188] must be given up.
I propose to treat kokov- as a reduplication of *kov- which can be connected with
Skt. gav- ‘to call, invoke, praise’ (RV+), intensive jóguve ‘to call, to announce’,
jógu- ‘singing loudly, singing songs of praise’ (RV), Germ. *kawjan ‘to call’, OCS
govorъ ‘noise, shout, rumour, murmur’, Russ. góvor ‘sound of voices, talk’, etc.,
perhaps also Gr. γοάω ‘to groan, weep’, γόης, -ητος m. ‘sorcerer’. For the structure,
see 2.3.2.
koɫ, i-stem ‘rib; side (of a mountain, etc.)’ (Bible+), ‘spouse’ (Ephrem, Vardan
Arewelc‘i, etc.); a-stem (once in the Bible: GDPl koɫ-a-c‘, see NHB 1: 1111a); later
o-stem: ənd koɫ-o-y in Zak‘aria Kat‘oɫikos (9th cent.); *koɫn : IPl koɫambk‘ (or
koɫmambk‘) in Ezekiel 34.21, APl koɫun-s in Zak‘aria Kat‘oɫikos (9th cent.); also
seen in derivatives, e.g. an-koɫin ‘bed’; koɫmn, an-stem: GDSg koɫman, AblSg
koɫman-ē, NPl koɫman-k‘, GDPl koɫman-c‘, etc. ‘side, region’ (Bible+), ‘rib-bone’
(Ephrem).
In the Bible, koɫ occurs always in plural (apart from Genesis 2.22): nom. koɫ-k‘,
acc. koɫ-s, gen.dat. koɫ-i-c‘, instr. koɫ-i-w-k‘ [Astuacaturean 1895: 795c]. Renders
Gr. πλευρά ‘rib, side’. Here are some of the Biblical attestations.
In Genesis 2.21 (Zeyt‘unyan 1985: 154): ew aṙ mi i koɫic‘ nora ew elic‘ ənd aynr
marmin : καὶ ἔλαβεν μίαν τῶν πλευρῶν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀνεπλήρωσεν σάρκα ἀντ’ αὐτῆς
“and took one of his ribs and closed/filled up its place with flesh”.
In Ezekiel 34.21: koɫambk‘ (or koɫmambk‘) ew usovk‘ jerovk‘ : ἐπὶ ταῖς πλευραῖς
καὶ ταῖς ὤμοις ὑμῶν “with your ribs/sides and shoulders”.
For koɫ ‘rib, side’ : an-koɫin ‘bed’ cf. the passage from Proverbs 22.27: zankoɫins,
or ənd koɫiwk‘ k‘ovk‘ kayc‘en : τὸ στρῶμα τὸ ὑπὸ τὰς πλευράς σου “that bed (that is)
under your ribs/sides”.
●DIAL koɫ(k‘) is widespread in the dialects, while ankoɫin and koɫmn are present in a
few of them [HAB 1: 201a; 2: 621a, 622b]. J̌
uɫa koɫ means both ‘rib’ and ‘side’
[Ačaṙean 1940: 370b; HAB 2: 622b]. Some forms of ankoɫin are without the prefix an-: Karin gɔɫink‘, Axalc‘xa
g‘ɔɫink‘, T‘iflis gɔɫɛnk‘, Van gy
ɔɫvɛnk‘y
. N. Simonyan (1979: 242-243) takes these to
be “root” (armatakan) forms as opposed with the classical one. As is demonstrated
already by Ačaṙyan (1952: 64), however, the initial voiced g- clearly indicates that
these forms derive from *angoɫin-k‘, with regular voicing -nk > -ng, through the loss
of the prefix.
Georgian logini ‘bed’ is considered an Armenian loan [HAB 1: 201], although
Ačaṙyan does not specify the details. If this is true, the Georgian form should be
derived from *goɫin through metathesized *ɫogin. Remarkably, such a metathesis is
indeed seen in Zeyt‘un (Cilicia) uɫungan ‘bed-blanket’ (see Ačaṙyan 2003: 137,
298). The borrowing must have taken place at an old stage anterior to the
development *l > Arm. ɫ.
●ETYM Meillet (1911-12c: 294) connects koɫ(mn) with Toch. kalymi ‘direction’.
This is accepted in HAB 2: 621a; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 126, 169. However, Toch. A
kälyme, B kälymiye ‘direction’ are now derived from PIE *k̂
li-men-, cf. Gr. κλίμα n.
‘inclination, region, geographical zone’ [Adams 1999: 176]. If this is correct, the
etymology of the Armenian must be abandoned. (Note also that koɫmn is compared
with Gr. κλίμα in NHB 1: 1112b).
Olsen (1999: 91-92, 147, 506) does not mention Meillet’s etymology and relates
koɫ/koɫmn with koɫr ‘branch’ (q.v.). This is possible if one views the correspondence
within the semantic relationship ‘(rib-)bone’ : ‘stem, stalk, pole’. On the i-stem of
koɫ in relation with *-i/r- paradigm, see s.v. koɫr.
Patrubány (StugHetaz 1908: 153) derives koɫ from PIE *gol-: Gr. γωλεός ‘hole’,
Lith. guõlis ‘den, lair, (coll.) bed’, etc. See s.v. kaɫaɫ ‘den, lair’. This is accepted in
N. Simonyan 1979: 242-243. This contradicts to the direction of the semantic
development since the meanings ‘bed’ and ‘to lie’ are clearly secondary in
Armenian: koɫ ‘rib, side’ > (ən)koɫnim ‘to lie down’ (John Chrysostom, etc.); cf.
paṙak ‘rib, side’ > paṙakim ‘to lie down’; note also paṙak ‘sheepfold’ from “a place
to lie in” [HAB 4: 27-28]. Thus, the etymology can be accepted only if the following
is possible: PIE *gol- ‘rib’, ‘branch’ (Arm. and Slav.) > ‘a place to lie on/in’ > ‘bed;
den, lair’ (Greek, etc.; also Arm.).
koɫr, no attestations are cited for GDPl koɫer-c‘ and koɫer-a-c‘ [NHB 1: 1113c]; the
only attested form (apart from NSg koɫr) is APl koɫer-s in Leviticus 23.40, “Yaɫags
vardavaṙin xorhrdoy” attributed to Movsēs Xorenac‘i [MovsXorenMaten 1865:
330L1] and Vardan Arewelc‘i (13th cent.) ‘branch’.
In Leviticus 23.40: koɫers yarmaweneac‘ : κάλλυνϑρα φοινίκων “branches of
palm trees”. Here koɫr renders, thus, Gr. κάλλυνϑρον ‘sweeper, duster made of
palm-leaves’ (cf. κάλλυντρον ‘broom, brush’). Astuacaturean (1895: 795c) gives the
entry as koɫer which is not correct. APl koɫer-s is regular for NSg koɫr.
In Hexaemeron, homily 5 (K. Muradyan 1984: 145L10f): armatk‘ ew uṙk‘, koɫr ew
terew, xawaraci ew caɫik, <...> : “roots and branches, koɫr and leaf, xawaraci and
blossom, <...>“. Here, uṙ and xawaraci render Gr. κληματίς ‘vine-branch; branch’
and βλαστός ‘offshoot’, respectively, and koɫr has no Greek match [K. Muradyan
1984: 374-377].
●ETYM Meillet (1900b: 185) connected with Slavic *golьje (cf. Russ. gol’já ‘twig’,
Sln. goljè ‘twigs without leaves’, etc.) assuming heteroclitic *i/r stem from earlier *r/n, cf. Skt. nákti- vs. Gr. νύκτωρ, etc. The only problem is, as he points out, the
absence of the word in other IE languages. See also HAB 2: 624b; Pokorny 1959:
403; Saradževa 1986: 60; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 126. In ÈtimSlovSlavJaz 7, 1980: 18, the
Slavic is derived from *golъ ‘naked’, and the Armenian word is not mentioned.
It has been assumed that the Armenian and Slavic words are related with Arm.
koɫ ‘rib, side’ [Olsen 1999: 147], q.v. The i-stem of koɫ seems to corroborate
Meillet’s *-i/r-.
It is uncertain whether there is any relation with Zaza kōlī ‘Holz, Brennholz’ (on
this word, see Bläsing 2000: 39)
*koč-: koš-koč-em (< *koč-koč-) ‘to beat, break’ (Bible+), koč ‘stem of cabbage’
(Yaysmawurk‘), ‘ankle’ (Alexander Romance, Paterica, etc.), koč(-ɫ) ‘beam,
door-post, trunk of a tree’ (Bible+), koč-ak ‘button’ (Nersēs Lambronac‘i; -ēn in the
Bible) [HAB 2: 624-626, 627-628].
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects in various meanings: ‘beam’, ‘trunk’, ‘button’,
‘ankle’, etc. [HAB 2: 626a].
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 625b) treats the resemblance with Pers. gūzak, Kurd.
gū/ōzak ‘ankle(-bone)’ (on which see Cabolov 1, 2001: 410) as accidental and leaves
the origin of the word open. The Iranian forms are derived from IE *guĝ-, cf. Lith.
gū̃
žė ‘head of cabbage’ (cf. Arm. ‘stem of cabbage’ in Yaysmawurk‘), Latv. gũža
‘thigh, ham’, etc. The Armenian form would require *go(u)ĝ-i̯V-, which is uncertain.
If the connection is accepted, it cannot explain the whole semantic field. One
needs to establish the internal etymology first. The basic meaning is ‘to beat, break’.
One may therefore derive *koč- from koc- ‘to beat’, ‘to lament by beating one’s
breast’ (both Bible+) assuming a reduplicated present in o-grade with the present
suffix *-i̯e- (see 2.1.22.1 and 2.2.6.1).
koys, a-stem ‘side’ (Bible+).
●DIAL J̌
uɫa kus (cf. nes-kus < ners koys) ‘inside’, Łarabaɫ küs, Šamaxi güs, Łzlar gus
(cf. min gus ‘aside’); also in T‘iflis, only in a proverb [HAB 2: 630b].
According to Ačaṙyan (HAB), Łarabaɫ küs is found only in the following
pronouns: ɛs-küs ‘this side’ (< ays koys), ɛn-güs ‘that side’ (-nk- > -ng-), maš-k‘üs
‘inside’ (*mēǰ-koys : -ǰk- > -šk‘-). Several illustrations from folklore show, however,
that küs does exist independently; cf. baɫes č‘ors kyüsə vart‘ a “in the four sides of
my garden there is rose” [Grigoryan-Spandaryan 1971: 15Nr26]. Other attestations:
č‘ork‘ kyüsə “the four sides” (op. cit. 15Nr29, 58Nr305), čors kyüsän “from the four
sides” (427bNr372), sarin kyüsə “at the side of the mountain” (92527), ɛn kyüsümə “at
that side” (401bNr51).
Textual illustrations for mač‘-kyüs ‘inside’: HŽHek‘ 6, 1973: 220L-14, 693L2,
glossed in 761b; HŽHek‘ 7, 1979: 732a; Łaziyan 1983: 12aL-13, 108bL-4; L.
Harut‘yunyan 1991: 94L6, 213L-1. One also finds tyus kus-an “from outside”
[Łaziyan 1983: 61bL-2].
Łarabaɫ and Šaɫax-Xcaberd küs is recorded also by Davt‘yan (1966: 399).
●ETYM Pedersen (1906: 398, 400 = 1982: 176, 178) derives from the PIE word for
‘two’ restoring *dwoukâ ̄-, next to *dwoik̂
o- > kēs ‘half’. This etymology is not
accepted by Meillet (1908/09: 353) and Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 630b). Kortlandt (1989: 48, 50 = 2003: 92, 95) is more positive and takes the word as yet another case
reflecting the development *dw- > Arm. k- (on this, see 2.1.22.6).
However, koys is an Iranian borrowing, cf. Parth. kws [kōs] ‘district, region,
countryside’ (see Nyberg 1974: 121b; Boyce 1977: 53), Sogd. kws ‘side’, etc.; see
HAB 2: 630b (although Ačaṙyan does not accept it); Benveniste 1945: 73-74;
Russell 1980: 107 (= 2004: 1); J̌
ahukyan 1987: 574 (though not included into the list
of Iranian loans); 1995: 184; Hovhannisyan 1988: 132; 1990: 244-245, 266c; Olsen
1999: 888; Viredaz 2003: 6422. See also s.v. kēs ‘half’.
koč‘em ‘to call, invite, invoke’; to name’ (Bible+); koč‘ ‘call, invitation’ (Łazar
P‘arpec‘i, Movsēs Xorenac‘i, Philo, John Chrysostom, etc.).
●DIAL Only in a few derivatives [HAB 2: 635b].
●ETYM Lidén (1906: 68-70) derives from *gw
ot-i̯-, connecting with PGerm. *kweþan
‘to say, speak, call, name’: Goth. qiþan, OIc. kveða, OEngl. cweþan, etc. He (op. cit.
69) is sceptical about the appurtenance of Skt. gádati ‘to speak articulately, say,
relate, tell’ < *gad-. Meillet (1936: 108; 1950: 110) accepts the connection and
posits a *i̯e-present: *gw
ot-i̯e- > koč‘em (see 2.1.22.1 and 2.2.6.1).
Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 635) rejects the etymology and treats Arm. koč‘em as an
onomatopoeic word comprising the elements k- and -č‘-, cf. kanč‘-, ka(r)kač‘-, etc.
However, the onomatopoeic character of a word should not automatically exclude
the possibility of external comparison.
The etymology is generally accepted [Pokorny 1959: 480-481; J̌
ahukyan 1975:
38; 1982: 62, 171; Greppin 1993: 16, 19; Kortlandt 1994: 27 = 2003: 104]. The
appurtenance of the Sanskrit verb, albeit accepted by Pokorny and J̌
ahukyan, is
uncertain [Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 460] or unacceptable [Greppin 1993: 228];
one expects *gátati. Olsen (1999: 811) takes koč‘em as the only serious example for
*-ti̯- > -č‘- and treats it as influenced by goč‘em ‘to shout’ < *uokw
i̯e-. For *-ti̯- >
-č‘-, see 2.1.22.1, however.
The noun koč‘ is “eine postverbale Bildung” (Lidén 1906: 68).
kostɫ ‘twigs on which bird-lime is smeared to entangle birds’ (Lex.), MidArm. ‘cover
of a book’ (MiǰHayBaṙ 1, 1987: 406b).
●DIAL On Ararat kɔstɫ and vɔstɫ (HAB 2: 639a) see s.v. ost ‘branch’.
●ETYM Usually connected to ost(ɫ) ‘branch’ (q.v.), although there is no consensus on
the initial k- (for different views, see HAB 2: 639a; J̌
ahukyan 1967: 272; Aɫayan
1974: 87-88; Saradževa 1986: 124). One may think of ORuss. kostýl’ (косты́ль)
‘rod, stick or spike with a curved edge’, Russ. ‘rod, stick’, dial. ‘stalk of sorrel with
raceme’, Sln. kostílja ‘Celtis australis; whip-handle made of this tree’, etc. (for the
forms, see ÈtimSlovSlavJaz 11, 1984: 167), though the nature of relationship is not
quite clear. Further, see s.v. kostɫ-i ‘aquifolium (holly), ilex (holm-oak)’.
kostɫi ‘aquifolium (holly), ilex (holm-oak)’, only in Step‘anos Ṙošk‘a, 17-18 cent.
(see Ališan 1895: 330; HAB 2: 639a).
●ETYM No etymology in HAB 2: 639a.
This tree-name can be interpreted as composed of kostɫ ‘twigs on which bird-lime
is smeared to entangle birds’ and the tree-suffix -i. The semantic relation is
impeccable since the bird-lime is a sticky substance prepared from holly-bark or
mistletoe berries’. Both the holly and mistletoe have berries, red and white, respectively. Also the
cherry is placed in connection with the bird-lime, cf. Russ. višnja ‘cherry’ and OHG
wīhsila ‘black cherry’ beside Gr. ἰξός ‘mistletoe, mistletoe berry; bird-lime prepared
from it; sticky substance’ and Lat. viscum ‘mistletoe; bird-lime’ (see Pokorny 1959:
1134; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 6442 = 1995: 55552; P. Friedrich apud Mallory/
Adams 1997: 384a). Note also sinj ‘sticky substance’ vs. sin(j) ‘sorb, service-berry’
(q.v.).
Arm. kostɫi is reminiscent of Sln. kostílja ‘Celtis australis; whip-handle made of
this tree’, etc. (see s.v. kostɫ ‘twigs on which bird-lime is smeared to entangle birds’).
If the Slavic word is indeed related, one may assume a Substratum word of a
relatively younger period, note Arm. k- vs. *k as in other substratum tree-names,
kask and kaɫamax(i), see s.vv. and 3.11.
kov, u-stem: GDPl kov-u-c‘ ‘cow’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Dialectally ubiquitous [HAB 2: 639b].
●ETYM Since long, connected with Skt. gaúḥ, acc. gā́m, DSg gáve, GPl
gávām/gónām, etc. ‘cow, bull’ (RV+), Gr. βοῦς f.m., AccSg βῶν, GSg βοϝός ‘bovid,
cow, bull, ox’, Lat. bōs, gen. bovis (a loan from an Italic language, see Schrijver
1991: 447), Latv. gùovs ‘cow’, OCS gov-ę-do, etc. [Hübschmann 1897: 461; HAB
2: 639; Pokorny 1959: 482].
The PIE form has been interpreted as PD u-stem [Kuiper 1942: 32-33; Beekes
1973a: 240], and the root may have been *gʷeh3- seen in Gr. βόσκω ‘to graze’, βοτόν
‘head of cattle’; thus: nom. *gʷeh3-u-s, gen. *gʷh3-eu-s [Lubotsky 1990: 133-134;
Schrijver 1991: 447; Nassivera 2000: 57]. For references to discussion of the
paradigm, particularly of the accusative form, see s.v. *ti- ‘day’. The oblique stem
*gʷh3-eu- explains Skt. gav-V-, Gr. βοϝ-, etc., as well as Arm. kov : kog-i (q.v.).
The PArm. paradigm may have been: nom. *kuw, obl. *kow- > *kog-. The
shortening of the vowel of *kuw to -o- is perhaps an inner-Armenian development
(note the absence of ClArm. words ending in -uw), unless one assumes an influence
from obl. *kow-.
kovadiac‘ (Leviticus 11.30), kovidiac‘ (Commentary on Leviticus), ‘a kind of lizard’;
according to NHB 1: 1117b: = dōdōš, etc. ‘toad’.
In Leviticus 11.30, kovadiac‘ and mo/uɫɛz render Gr. καλαβώτης ‘spotted lizard,
gecko’ and σαύρα f. ‘lizard’ (see Wevers 1997: 154), respectively.
In later literature (Nonnus, Galen) and dialects replaced by kov(a)cuc ‘a kind of
lizard’, composed of kov ‘cow’ and cuc ‘sucking’. In Amirdovlat‘ Amasiac‘i (15th
cent.), kovrcuc (with an epenthetic -r-), as equivalent to Turk. k‘art‘ank‘alay and
Pers. sōsmar (see Basmaǰean 1926: 511, Nr 3035). See below, on dialects.
●DIAL In dialects, replaced by kov(a)cuc (see above): Axalc‘xa and Nikomidiaregion *kov-cuc, Muš *kov-cc-uk, Arabkir *korcuc ‘a large greenish lizard, toad’;
Karin ‘a kind of harmful animal’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 596a], Sasun govjuj ‘a green lizard
which is supposed to give poison to the snake’ [Petoyan 1954: 113; 1965: 457]. In
Turkish-Armenian dictionary (c. 1720 AD) by Eɫia Mušeɫyan Karnec‘i (Karin /
Xotorǰur): k‘alt‘ank‘araz yēšil · kōvcuc, salamandr [Č‘ugaszyan 1986: 85Nr36].
According to Bläsing (1992: 50), Turkish dialect of Hamšen govćuḉ ‘a kind of
salamander’ is borrowed from WArm. govajuj. A corresponding form in Arm. Hamšen, namely gɔvjud ‘green lizard’, is recorded in Ačaṙyan 1947: 261. The final
-d of the Hamšen form is printed in bold type (see s.v. tit on this).
In Xotorǰur: kopcuc ‘green lizard’ [YušamXotorǰ 1964: 472a; HayLezBrbBaṙ 3:
2004: 150a].
The form with an epenthetic -r-, namely kovrcuc, is recorded in NHB 1: 1117b as
a dialectal counterpart to kov(a)cuc and kovadiac‘ ‘a lizard’. Sebastia kovrcuc, with
a “parasitic” -r-, as is pointed out by Gabikean (1952: 311); Xarberd, Partizak
*kovṙcuc [HayLezBrbBaṙ 3, 2004: 154b]. Dersim gɔvəṙjuj ‘a big lizard’ [Baɫramyan
1960: 125a]. For this form, Baɫramyan (ibid.) records also a second meaning
described as follows: mi karič, kanač‘ moɫes “a scorpion, green lizard”. If this is
reliable, Dersim gɔvəṙjuj denotes, thus, ‘toad’ and ‘scorpion’.
According to Sargisean (1932: 457), Balu *kovrcuc denotes a large poisonous
lizard that jumps onto a human face and will not go away until seven buffaloes
bellow. This is reminiscent of the folk-belief recorded in Łarabaɫ on *ēš-xṙanǰ ‘a
poisonous insect’ (see 3.5.2.5). The description seems to corroborate the meaning
‘toad’. See also Martirosyan/Gharagyozyan FW 2003 Łarabaɫ, on jumping
kəṙnək‘yala ‘toad’.
They say, as Sargisean (ibid.) informs, that the snake takes his poison from
*kovrcuc. Compare Sasun above. See 3.5.2.7 on this.
Arabkir *korcuc, if reliable, derives from *kovrcuc with loss of -v-.
The form *kov-r-cuc is found, thus, in a small group of adjacent dialects:
Sebastia, Partizak (migrated from the province of Sebastia beg. 17th cent., see TērYakobean 1960: 16), Arabkir, Dersim, Xarberd, Balu. It is no surprising that the
form is used by Amirdovlat‘ Amasiac‘i (15th cent.), native of Amasia, which is very
close to Sebastia.
●ETYM A derivative of kov ‘cow’, q.v.
The compound is closely associated with Skt. godhā́- f. ‘Iguana, a species of big
lizard’ (RV) < ‘*cow milker/sucker’, which has been compared with Lat. būfō ‘toad’
(see Lüders 1942: 44 = 1973: 511; Specht 1944; Mayrhofer EWAia, s.v.). The
appurtenace of Russ. žába ‘toad’, etc. is uncertain. Compare e.g. Xurāsānī Pers.
boččoš (= preverb bi + čōš- ‘Sauger’) ‘eine Art Eidechse, die nach dem
Volksglauben nachts in die Hürden schleicht und den Ziegen am Euter saugt’; see
Monchi-Zadeh 1990: 45-46, mentioning the Sanskrit and Armenaian words, as well
as some parallels from other languages of the pattern ‘goat biter/sucker’ > ‘a kind of
lizard’.
On semantic parallels and corresponding folk-beliefs, see 3.5.2.7.
Arm. kovadiac‘ may reflect an older *kov-di-a- < QIE *gw
ou-dh
eh1-eh2- (cf. Skt.
godhā́- f.), reshaped after the most productive model of compounds, that with the
conjunction -a-. One may also treat the Armenian and Sanskrit as independent,
parallel creations, although this seems less probable. For the typology of -ac‘, cf.
*di-ac‘, see also the other compounds, perhaps also Arm. dial. *(x)m-ac‘-ōj, from
the same semantic sphere (see 3.5.2.7).
kor ‘curved, crooked’ (Bible+). Perhaps also *kuṙ ‘id.’ (see s.v. keṙ), and korč
‘curved, crooked, rough’ (Gram.).
●DIAL *koṙ, with final -ṙ, in several dialects [HAB 2: 645a]. ●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 574a, 644-645) connects with keṙ ‘curved, crooked’ (q.v.)
rejecting all the external comparisons, including that with Gr. γῡρός ‘round, curved’,
γῦρος m. ‘rounding, circle’. One is more positive about the latter comparison, for
Armenian positing *gou-e/oro- [Pokorny 1959: 397; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 126, 169] or
*gouh1-ro- [Olsen 1999: 199]. For *gouh1-ro- > PArm. *kouəro- > *ko(w)oro- >
kor, see 2.1.33.1.
Aɫayan (1967; 1974: 105-106) derives keṙ, kor and dial. koṙ from QIE *ger-s- (cf.
OHG kresan ‘to creep, crawl’, etc.; for the root, see s.v. kart‘ ‘fish-hook’). J̌
ahukyan
(1987: 125) accepts this etymology of keṙ and *koṙ, but separates kur from these
(see above). However, the Germanic cognates are remote both formally and
semantically.
Uncertain. See also s.vv. kart‘ ‘fish-hook’, kṙt‘unk‘ ‘back’, etc.
See also s.vv. kor(č) ‘scorpion’ and korč ‘vulture’.
kor, i- or a-stem: GDSg kor-i (Anania Širakac‘i, 7th century); u-stem: GDSg kor-u
(Amirdovlat‘ Amasiac‘i, 15th cent.); AblSg i kor-ē (Geoponica, 13th cent.) can
belong to any of these stems; ‘scorpion’.
NHB (2: 1118b) has it as a dialectal word and refers only to Geoponica (13th
cent.). Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 643b) cites also Fables by Vardan Aygekc‘i (12-13th cent.,
Tluk‘, Cilicia), and Anania Širakac‘i (7th cent., Širak) noting that the corresponding
parts of the latter seem to have been added later.
In MiǰHayBaṙ 1, 1987: 407b one finds passages for kor from Geoponica (13th
cent.) and Amirdovlat‘ Amasiac‘i (15th cent., Amasia); on the latter, see also S.
Vardanjan 1990: 193, § 1061.
In a medieval riddle [Mnac‘akanyan 1980: 261Nr112] written by Nersēs Šnorhali
(12th cent., Cilicia), the Northern cold wind parxar is said to bite the eye of the man
as a kor (xayt‘ē zmardoyn ač‘k‘n zed kor); see the full text of the riddle in 1.9.
Mnac‘akanyan (op. cit. 500b) glosses kor as kuyr (mžɫuk) “a little mosquito”. In
fact, I think, this is our word for ‘scorpion’.
The edition of Anania Širakac‘i cited by Ačaṙyan is not available to me. I find
kor, GDSg kor-i ‘a constellation’ in A. G. Abrahamyan 1944: 329L10, 330L12.
Obviously refers to the Scorpio. But in the same as well as in the preceding and
following chapters (pp. 323, 327 and 330ff) one finds Karič ‘Scorpio’. The
equivalence of Kor and Karič is also corroborated by the fact that they both (Karič –
323L13, 330L18f; Kor – 329L10 ) are mentioned in the same place of the list of the
zodiacal constellations, between Kšiṙ ‘Libra’ and Aɫeɫnawor ‘Sagittarius, Archer’.
Note especially the occurrences of Kor and Karič in almost neighbouring sentences,
330L12, 330L18, respectively. Given the parallel occurrences of Kor and Karič in the
same text, Aɫayan (1986: 90) disagrees with Ačaṙyan’s assumption that “these parts
seem to have been added later” and assumes that Kor was a vivid term for the
constellation Scorpio in the vernacular of Anania Širakac‘i who uses it in parallel
with the standard Karič.
●DIAL Present in Xarberd, Zeyt‘un, Hačən, Akn Arabkir, Maraɫa, etc. Ačaṙyan
(HAB 2: 644a) especially calls attention to Č‘arsančak‘ gɔrč‘, not commenting upon
it. Note that in Dersim one finds both gɔr ‘scorpion’ and gɔrǰ ‘scorpion’ (see
Baɫramyan 1960: 87b, 125a). Perhaps cf. also Urmia, Salmast korməžik, rendered as šanačanč ‘bumble-bee,
dog-fly’ and mžeɫ ‘a small mosquito’ [GwṙUrmSalm 2, 1898: 96], which is
apparently composed of kor ‘*biting insect’ and məž-ik, the latter being
etymologically identical with mž-eɫ. This mžik is represented in the next entry of the
same glossary, rendered as čanč ‘fly’.
Thus, kor ‘scorpion’ has been mostly preserved in some W and SW dialects:
Cilicia, Svedia, Xarberd, Akn, Arabkir. This is in agreement with literary
attestations which are restricted to the Western and South-Western areas of
kə-dialects, from Karin/Širak and surroundings (Anania Širakac‘i, etc.) to Cilicia
(Nersēs Šnorhali, Vardan Aygekc‘i); see 1.8. Despite the dialectal restriction, the
word may be archaic since it has also been preserved in extremely SE areas (Maraɫa,
Salmast). Note also the derivative *kor-agi ‘scorpion’(Svedia and Łarabaɫ) below.
●ETYM According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 644a), from kor ‘crooked’, a tabu-substition
of the word for ‘scorpion’; compare Łarabaɫ kəṙəhák‘i ‘scorpion’ < *ke/oṙ ‘curved,
crooked’ + -a- + agi ‘tail’ (cf. Pers. kaž-dum ‘id.’). Note also Svedia gürgür aka
‘scorpion’ = kor-kor agi [Andreasyan 1967: 160]. Further: Dersim, Č‘arsančak‘
*kor-č ‘scorpion’ vs. korč ‘curved, crooked, rough’ (Grammarians) and korč
‘gryphon, vulture’ < ‘having a curved beak, hook-beaked’ (q.v.).
Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 551ab) rejects the connection of kor ‘scorpion’ with karič
‘scorpion’ (Łarabaɫ also ‘crayfish’), since the latter must be connected with Gr.
κᾱρίς, -ί/ῖδος ‘Crustacea’ and treated as borrowed from a language of Asia Minor.
However, I find it hard to separate Arm. kor and *kor-č ‘scorpion’, ‘animal with a
crooked body-part’, from karič ‘scorpion’ < *karid-i̯a and Gr. κᾱρίς, -ί/ῖδος
‘Crustacea’, which also displays forms with a labial vowel, namely κουρίς, κωρίς
(see s.v. karič ‘scorpion’). The vacillation o : a is also found in other words of
non-IE origin; see 2.1.3.
If kor ‘scorpion’ is indeed a derivation of kor ‘crooked’, one may wonder whether
Gr. κουρίς/κωρίς has not been borrowed from (or contaminated from) Arm. kor,
perhaps *kor-u- (if GDSg kor-u is old).
kord, o-stem (only later; AblSg i kordoy) ‘unploughed (land, ground)’ (Bible+).
A nominal meaning ‘meadow; uncultivated ground/earth’ can be assumed by the
indirect evidence from Georg. k’ordi and Kurd. kord, considered as Armenian loans
(see HAB 2: 646b; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 598).
●DIAL Preserved in Van, Moks (see also Orbeli 2002: 272: verbal kurt‘il, kurt‘
väril), Muš, Xarberd, Salmast, Loṙi, Ganjak, etc., basically meaning ‘unploughed,
hard (ground); hard’ [HAB 2: 646b]; also in Xotorǰur [YušamXotorǰ 1964: 472].
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 646) rejects all the etymological attempts including the
comparison with Germ. hart, etc. and the place-name Korduk‘ (Tervišyan).
J̌
ahukyan (1985a: 367; 1987: 432, 598; 1990: 68.), albeit with hesitation, treats Arm.
kord and its Kartvelian correspondents as borrowed from Urart. quldi/e(ni) ‘id.’.
Olsen (1999: 953) mentions kord in her list of words of unknown origin.
Bearing in mind the alternation k : x, one may try a connection with xort‘
‘stepson; ‘hard, rough, stony’ (q.v.).73 In view of the vocalism it is hard to relate kord with MPers. ’gyrd ‘unbearbeitet,
unbestellt (Land)’, ManParth. ’qyrd ‘verlassen, vernachlässigt, verwildert’ (on
which, see Colditz 1987: 281). Similarly uncertain is kor-ēk‘ (hapax; see HAB 2:
647-648).
korč ‘gryphon, vulture’.
Renders Gr. γρύψ, -γρῡπός ‘gryphon, vulture’ in Deuteronomy 14.12,
corresponding to paskuč in Leviticus 11.13 (see NHB 1: 1120b; Adontz 1927:
187-188; see also s.v. analut‘ ‘deer’).
●ETYM According to NHB (1: 1120b), derived from Arm. kor ‘curved’ (Bible+; dial.
koṙ); see also J̌
ahukyan 1967: 146. Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 652a) leaves the origin open.
Adontz (1927: 188) connects to the component *kuč of the synonymous paskuč,
which is not convincing.
The derivation from kor ‘curved’ is worth of consideration. Compare also korč
‘curved, crooked, rough’ (Grammarians), and *kor(č) ‘scorpion’, q.v. For the
semantic shift ‘curved, bent’ > ‘vulture’ (i.e. ‘having a curved beak, hook-beaked’)
cf. Gr. γρύψ, -γρῡπός ‘gryphon, vulture’ : ‘anchor’, see s.v. angɫ ‘vulture’.
Olsen (1999: 958) mentions korč in her list of words of unknown origin.
kṙt‘-un-k‘ (pl.), gen. kṙt‘-an-c‘ ‘(anatom.) back’ in Zeno (transl. into Armenian prob.
in 6-7th cent.), Anania Širakac‘i (7th cent.), etc.; dial. *kṙt‘n-il ‘to lean, recline,
incline the body against an object for support’.
Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 669b) cites only NPl kṙt‘-un-k‘ in “Tōnakan matean”, and
GDPl kṙt‘-an-c‘ in Anania Širakac‘i (7th cent.) [A. G. Abrahamyan 1944: 329L6].
Further attestations of NPl kṙt‘-un-k‘ are found in Zeno [Xač‘ikyan 1949: 84aL2],
rendered as ‘спина’ by Arewšatyan (1956: 325), and in “Vasn ənt‘ac‘ic‘ aregakan”
(“On the course of the sun”) by Anania Širakac‘i [A. G. Abrahamyan 1944: 316L12].
In all the attestations from Zeno and Širakac‘i, kṙt‘unk‘ is mentioned as the body
part associated with the constellation Kše/iṙ ‘Libra’.
●DIAL Akn, Polis (according to Amatuni 1912: 372b, also Ararat and Nor
Naxiǰewan) kṙt‘n-il ‘to lean, recline, incline the body against an object for support’,
Ararat knt‘ṙnil [HAB 2: 669b].
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 669b) posits an unattested nom. *kiṙt‘n or *kuṙt‘n and
offers no etymology.
Next to kṙt‘nel, Amatuni (1912: 372b) cites also Loṙi kṙnɛl and points out that the
root of kṙt‘nel seems to be identical with kuṙn ‘back’ (q.v.). This suggestion, not
mentioned by Ačaṙyan, is plausible. Aɫayan (1974: 106-107), independently, offers
practically the same explanation. He posits *kuṙ-t‘-n < *gōrptə, connecting with ker,
koṙ ‘crooked’, kart‘ ‘fish-hook’, etc. (q.v.). Aɫayan’s *gōrptə is not convincing.
More probably, *kuṙt‘-n : kṙt‘unk‘ is directly comparable with kuṙn ‘back’, with
suffixal element -t‘-, on which see 2.3.1.
kṙ-kṙ-al ‘to croak (said of birds, particularly crows, as well as of frogs, snakes,
buffalos, etc.)’ in MidArm. [MiǰHayBaṙ 1, 1987: 413b], widespread in the dialects
[Ačaṙean 1913: 613b]; kṙ-č‘- ‘to croak, shriek (said of cranes, crows, and other
birds)’ in Agat‘angeɫos, Philo, etc.; dial. Łarabaɫ kṙč‘-kṙč‘-al ‘id.’, etc. [HAB 2:
670]; kṙ-nč‘- ‘to shriek, cry, etc.’ (Bible+), Muš, Alaškert kṙinč‘ ‘croak of a crow’
[HAB 2: 669-670].
●ETYM Onomatopoeic verb [HAB 2: 669-670]. For IE comparable forms, see
Pokorny 1959: 383-385. Further see s.v. kṙunk ‘crane’.
kṙunk ‘crane’ (Hexaemeron, Yovhannēs Erznkac‘i); dictionaries have also kṙunkn,
gen. kṙnkan, both without attestations. MidArm. kṙ̇
uk, kṙunk‘ (Vardan Aygekc‘i, see
MiǰHayBaṙ 1, 1987: 414a).
For attestations and a philological discussion, see Greppin 1978: 100-103.
●DIAL Axalc‘xa kṙunk, Muš, Alaškert, Salmast kəṙung, T‘iflis krung, Van, Moks
kṙungy
, Ozim kṙɔnky
, Xarberd, Nor Naxiǰewan, Ṙodost‘o gṙung. In Nor Naxiǰewan
the word refers to a different bird. Interesting is Ararat kṙlung [HAB 2: 673b].
●ETYM Since NHB 1: 1128c, linked with Gr. γέρανος m., Lat. grūs m., and other
forms continuing the PIE word for ‘crane’: OHG krani/uh m., Lith. gérvė, Latv.
dzẽrve ‘crane’, ORuss. žeravlь, Czech žeráv ‘crane’, etc. [Hübschmann 1897: 461;
HAB 2: 673a; Pokorny 1959: 383-385; Greppin 1978: 103; Greppin apud
Mallory/Adams 1997: 140b]. The forms derive from *gerh2-no- or *gerh2-(ō)u-,
whereas Lat. grūs, GSg gruis f. ‘crane’ is based on *grh2-u- metathesized to *gruh2-
[Schrijver 1991: 246].
QIE *geru-n-g-, *guron-g, and similar proto-forms have been assumed for
Armenian kṙunk (see references above). According to Kortlandt (1985b: 10-11;
1986: 42 = 2003: 58-59, 71), kṙunk ‘crane’ may be derived from the metathesized
form of AccSg *gruHnm (cf. OHG krani/uh ‘id.’), with oralization of the laryngeal
as in jukn ‘fish’ and mukn ‘mouse’; see s.vv. and 2.1.19. In order to explain the
absence of metathesis of *gr- in Armenian, he (ibid.) assumes an analogical
lengthened grade *-ē- as in Gothic qēns ‘wife’, etc. He also proposes a similar
analysis for srun-k‘ ‘shin’ (q.v.).
Other explanations assume closer relationship with Gr. γέρανος rather than with
Lat. grūs. Olsen (1989a: 18) reconstructs *gē/ōrAōn- (= *gē/ōrh2ōn-) explaining the
-ṙ- by a neighbouring laryngeal. Ravnæs (1991: 158, cf. 881) posits *gēron-g-.
It should be borne in mind, however, that the word for ‘crane’ must have been
strongly influenced by dialectally widespread onomatopoeic kṙ-kṙ-al ‘to croak (said
of birds, particularly crows, as well as of frogs, snakes, buffalos, etc.)’ (q.v.). The
final -k may be in a way comparable to not only the Germanic cognate (OHG
krani/uh, etc.), but also Skt. krúñc- m. ‘Kranich, Wanderkranich’, which is “sicher
lautnachahmend” [Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 413], and Pahl. kulang ‘crane’
[MacKenzie 1971: 52]. On the other hand, J̌
ahukyan (1980, 2: 103) compares Arm.
kṙunk with Akkad. kurukku ‘a kind of bird’. One may also think of a ‘broken
reduplication’ seen e.g. in Arm. ampro-p ‘thunder’ (q.v.) from PIE *n̥bh
ro-: Skt.
abhrá- ‘thunder-cloud, rain-cloud’, YAv. aβra- ‘rain-cloud’, Lat. imber ‘shower’,
etc.
See also s.v. grē or greay ‘crane’.
ktɫim, spelled also as ktɫm- ‘to burn with furious desire’ (John Chrysostom, several
times), ktɫ-an-k‘ ‘burning desire’ (GDPl ktɫ-an-a-c‘, in Book of Chries), ktɫ-uc‘-k‘
‘id.’ (Severian of Gabala).
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 677a) does not accept the connection with kataɫim ‘to
fury’ (Philo, Severian of Gabala, etc.; widespread in the dialects) and *xtiɫ- ‘to
tickle’ (Bible+; widespread in the dialects). For an etymological discussion, see s.vv.
*kic- ‘to bite’ and *xtiɫ- ‘to tickle’.
krak, a-stem according to NHB 1: 1132b, but only the following oblique case-forms
are attested: GDSg krak-i (Eɫišē, Łazar P‘arpec‘i, etc.), AblSg i -krak-ē (Eusebius of
Caesarea), LocSg i krak-i (Bible, see Astuacaturean 1895: 814a) ‘fire’.
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 2: 679a].
●ETYM Lidén (1906: 123-124) proposed a connection with Germ. Kohle ‘coal’ and
Ir. gúal ‘coal’ (< *ge/ou-lo-), assuming an interchange of the suffix *-lo- : *-ro-, or a
reshaping of Arm. *kul- to *kur- due to influence of hur ‘fire’; see also Pokorny
1959: 399; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 126, 169 (with reservation); Kluge/Seebold 1989: 388.
This etymology is improbable since the explanation of -r- is not convincing, and the
ending -ak points rather to Iranian origin. Besides, the Germanic, etc. are probably
related with Skt. jvar/l- ‘to burn, glow’: jválana- m. ‘fire’, jūrṇí- f. ‘glow, glowing
fire’, jvālá ‘coal’ [Lubotsky 1988: 38; 1992: 262-263], Pers. zuvāl ‘a live coal,
firebrand’ and Oss. ævzaly/u ‘coal’ from Iran. *zuār [Cheung 2002: 167] and,
therefore, presuppose an initial *ĝ-, which would yield Arm. c- (see also s.v. acuɫ
‘coal’).
More probably, krak is an Iranian loan, cf. Pers. kūra ‘furnace, fire-place’, etc.
[Eilers 1974: 317-318, cf. 321; Ivanov 1976: 8152]; on Sem. and other forms, see
Cabolov 1, 2001: 572, and especially HAB 4: 595, s.v. Arm. k‘(u)ray ‘furnace,
oven’ (John Chrysostom, etc.; dialects). Especially interesting is Xotorǰur k‘urak‘ ‘a
small hearth of stone, buried in the ground’, recorded by Ačaṙyan s.v. k‘uray [HAB
4: 595b], as well as in YušamXotorǰ 1964: 524a (k‘urag; in the illustration –
k‘urak‘), in a somewhat different and more thorough semantic description. The form
is also found in Zangezur (k‘urak), referring to a pit at the side of t‘ɔrɛn < t‘onir (see
Lisic‘yan 1969: 104). Note also Georg. ḳera-, ḳira-, ḳeraḳ- ‘hearth’ [Klimov 1994:
180].
krkin, o-stem (ISg krkn-o-v, loc. i krkn-um-n) ‘double, twice, again’; krknem ‘to
double, repeat’ (Bible+). Numerous textual passages illustrating the meaning ‘again,
one more time’ (krkin, krkin angam) are cited in NHB 1: 1134-1135. Note e.g. in
Grigor Narekac‘i 71.2 (Xač‘atryan/Łazinyan 1985: 528L44; Russ. transl. 1988: 225):
ənd kangneln – ew krkin glorim “having hardly stood up on my feet, I fall down
again” (“я падаю вновь”). In his English translation, Khachatoorian (2001: 338)
omitted the word ‘again’.
●DIAL Ararat krkin anel, Łarabaɫ krknel ‘to return (of the illness)’; Xarberd krknel
‘to roll up one’s sleeve or the hem of the skirt’, T‘iflis ‘to be suffocated’ [HAB 2:
681b]. The semantic motivation of T‘iflis is not clear to me.
●ETYM Assuming that the original Armenian form of *duō- ‘two’ was *ku wich
subsequently took over the initial er- of erek‘ ‘three’ (see s.v. erku ‘two’), Bugge
(1890: 1211; 1892: 457; cf. 1889: 42) reconstructs *kir < *du̯itero-s in erkir ‘der Zweite’ and in krkin < *kir-kin. Kortlandt (2003: 98; cf. also Pisani 1934: 185)
thinks “that krkin ‘double’ from *kirikin replaced *kin ‘double’ after the rise of
*erikin ‘triple’, which was replaced by erek‘kin after syncope”. Discussing the
counter-evidence for the development *dw- > Arm. -rk-, Beekes (2003: 200)
considers krkin “quite convincing” noting that *kir is also found in erkir ‘second’.
Others start with a sound change *dw- > Arm. -rk- and interpret krkin as *erk-kin
through dissimilation (Meillet 1908-09: 353-354; 1936: 51; cf. Olsen, below) or
metathesis -rk- > kr- [HAB 2: 66-67, 681; J̌
ahukyan 1974: 526]. For other references
and a discussion, see HAB 2: 67; Schmitt 1972/74: 25; Szemerényi 1985: 791-792;
Leroy 1986: 6719; Kortlandt 2003: 92-93, 95. Viredaz (2005: 8927) points out that
“other analyses are possible than *kir- < *dwis”.
Attempts have been made to start with reduplicated *dwi-dwi(s)-no-; see Viredaz
2003: 64-65,73 (with references). Olsen (1989: 7f; 1999: 502) interprets krkin as a
reduplicated version of *dwis > erkir suggesting the following scenario:
*dwi-dwi(s)-(i)no- > *(V)rkrkino- > (dissimil.) krkin. Harkness (1996: 12) points out
that this dissimilation “would be completely unremarkable”. Viredaz (2003: 6420)
rejects Olsen’s *erki-erki- as krkin has no e’s. The ghost word krkn ‘twenty’ in
Harkness 1996: 12 must be krkin ‘double’ [Viredaz 2003: 6420].
If the original meaning of krkin was ‘again’ rather than ‘double’, one might
wonder whether krkin is not merely derived from krukn ‘heel’ (q.v.); cf. Lith. péntis
‘backside of an axe, part of a scythe near the handle; (dial.) heel’ : at-pent ‘again’,
Russ. pjatá ‘heel’ : o-pjat’ ‘again’, etc. (see Vasmer, s.v. опя́
ть). Compare also the
dialectal meaning ‘to return’ of krknel with Xarberd (Berri) gərəngɛl ‘to turn back
on one’s heel’ which is derived from krukn ‘heel’. It is hard to decide whether krkin
contains the suffix -(e)kin (on which see Greppin 1975: 78; J̌
ahukyan 1998: 22;
Olsen 1999: 404-405, 502) or, as suggested by Olsen (1999: 502), it is the starting
point of the suffix.
On erkir ‘second’, etc., see also s.v. erek‘ ‘three’.
Moks ɛrkvin ‘вторично, во второй раз’ (‘for the second time’) [M. Muradyan
1982: 137; Orbeli 2002: 225] seems remarkable. It may represent the unattested
*erk-kin > *erkin > (reshaped after ɛrku ‘two’) *erku-in. In the same dialect one also
finds irik‘y
in ‘for the third time’ [M. Muradyan 1982: 137], apparently from
erek‘-kin ‘threefold, triple, three times’ (Bible+). Orbeli (2002: 236) has irik‘y
ir ‘в
третий раз’ instead, with a final -r. If not a misprint, irik‘y
ir may go back to
*erek‘-ir, which can be interpreted as reshaped after ClArm. er-ir ‘third; for the third
time’ (Bible+) or analogical after erkir ‘second’ (Dionysius Thrax, Philo). This
would imply that er-ir ‘third’ and/or erk-ir ‘second’, albeit not recorded in the
dialects, once has/have been present in (an older form of) the dialect of Moks
krukn an-stem (GSg krkan, NPl krkunk‘, GDPL krkanc‘) ‘heel’ (Bible+). Spelled also
as kruk and krunk(n).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects, mostly as *krunk, with anticipation of the nasal;
the older, non-anticipated form krukn seems to have been preserved in Łarabaɫ,
which, alongside with krɔ́
ynə and kúrɛngy (for more variants, see Davt‘yan 1966:
404), has also kṙɔgy
nə [HAB 2: 684a]; note also Akn pl. gərəy-vi (ibid.), a dual form.
Xarberd (Berri) gərəngɛl means ‘to turn back on one’s heel’ [Baɫramyan 1960:
123a]. ●ETYM Composed of *kur and -ukn. The root is compared with Gr. γῡρός ‘round,
curved’, γῦρος m. ‘rounding, circle’; Arm. kuṙn ‘back’ (q.v.), etc., although the
etymological details are not clear, see HAB 2: 684a (with literature); Aɫayan 1974:
88-91, 102-108; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 126, 169; Olsen 1999: 208.
According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 684b), Laz ḳur ‘heel’, borrowed from Armenian,
shows that the root of krukn is *kur. In view of Urart. qurə and Hurrian ukrə ‘foot’,
which, according to Diakonoff/Starostin (1986: 57), are connected with Proto-EastCaucasian *ḳwirV (apart from Laz ḳur, here represented with the meaning ‘foot,
hoof’, cf. also Archi ḳwiri ‘animal’s foot’, etc.), the relationship between the
Armenian and Laz words seems to be deeper, however.
See also s.v. armukn ‘elbow’.
*kul-: klanem (aor. kl-i or kl-ay, 3sg e-kul, imper. kul), kl-n-um ‘to swallow’;
ən-kl-n-um (3sg.aor ənklaw, etc.) ‘to sink’, ən-kl-uz-anem ‘to make sink’,
ən-kɫ-m-em ‘to sink’ (all Bible+). Apart from aor. e-kul and imper. kul, the root *kul
is also found as the second part of several classical compounds, in i kul tal ‘to
swallow’ (late attested), and variously in the dialects.
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects: *kul tal, *kl(a)n- ‘to swallow’; in Łarabaɫ, Łazax,
Agulis, etc.: *kul ‘gullet, throat’ [HAB 2: 655-656].
Compare also klat‘an ‘throat’, etc. See J̌
ahukyan 1972: 286.
●ETYM Since long, connected with Lat. gula ‘gullet, throat’, Slav. *glъtъ ‘gullet’,
Gr. δέλεαρ, -ατος n. ‘decoy’, etc. [Hübschmann 1897: 460-461; HAB 2: 655]. The
vocalism of the Armenian is troublesome. The following solutions have been
proposed: ablaut *gw
el- :*gw
ul-, cf. Lat. gula (see HAB, ibid.; Klingenschmitt 1982:
211-212: “lautsymbolische Wortschöpfung”); zero-grade (Godel 1975: 126;
J̌
ahukyan 1982: 179, 21553; 1987: 124). Olsen (1999: 157, 757107, 778, 806) derives
from *gw
l̥h1-, explaining -u- by a rounding effect of the labiovelar. However, as she
admits (p. 778), this is at variance with kaɫin ‘acorn’ and karik‘ ‘need, trouble’. The
other examples are not strong: kerakur ‘food’ is a kind of reduplication, and the
etymology of k‘uɫ ‘thread’ is doubtful (see s.v.).
The appurtenance of ənkɫmem ‘to sink’ is disputed; see J̌
ahukyan 1987: 124, 167
(with references and a discussion). Klingenschmitt (1982: 21165) accepts the
connection with *kul- ‘to swallow’ and assumes a denominative to *ənd-kúl-mo-
‘hinunter verschlungen, untergetaucht’.
kuɫ, GSg kɫi or kɫoy according to NHB, but without evidence ‘(braided/plaited) cord,
string, lace, thread’.
The word is usually taken as meaning ‘fold, bend, ply’ (NHB, HAB) or ‘double’
(Bugge: ‘Doppelung, das Doppelte’; Pedersen: ‘verdoppelung’; Beekes: ‘double’).
However, a closer look to the evidence helps to revise the semantics.
Independently the word is attested in later literature. In Grigor Narekac‘i /10-11th
cent./ 71.2 (Xač‘atryan/Łazinyan 1985: 528L43; Russ. transl. 1988: 225; Engl. transl.
2001: 338): ənd kuɫs bareac‘n č‘aris hiwsem : “в крученую [нить] добра я
вплетаю и зло” : “the braided thread of good I interlace with evil”.
In Mxit‘ar Aparanc‘i (15th cent.) apud NHB 1: 1122c, kuɫ refers to the cord of a
fish-hook: kuɫ kart‘in. The oldest attestation of the word is in the compound erek‘-kuɫ or erek‘-kɫ-i, in
Ecclesiastes 4.12: aṙasan erek‘kuɫ (vars. erek‘-kɫ-i, erek‘-kin) oč‘ vaɫvaɫaki xzesc‘i :
καὶ τὸ σπαρτίον τὸ ἔντριτον οὐ ταχέως ἀπορραγήσεται : “a threefold cord is not
quickly broken”. Arm. erek‘-kuɫ could actually mean ‘(consisting of) three threads’,
and aṙasan erek‘kuɫ can be understood as “a three-threaded cord”. Nersēs
Lambronac‘i (12th cent.) seems to have understood it the same way since he
rephrases the passage as follows (NHB 1: 1122c): zayspisi šaramaneal erek‘ kuɫs
oč‘ karē vaɫvaɫaki xzel “(one) cannot break such plaited three threads quickly”.
Combining this with the dialectal evidence (see below) I conclude that the basic
meaning of the word is ‘(braided/plaited) cord, string, lace, thread’ rather than ‘fold,
ply’.
●DIAL In dialects mainly refers to ‘lace of foot-wear’ (Łarabaɫ) or ‘a tie/cord of
plough (samii p‘ok)’; also Łarabaɫ kəɫ-án ‘a leather strap, thong (to tie the yoke to
the plough or wagon)’ [Davt‘yan 1966: 401], Ararat, Bulanəx, Xian kɫel ‘to fold the
cord’, etc. [Ačaṙean 1913: 578b, 603b; HAB 2: 657a; HayLezBrbBaṙ 3, 2002: 109,
206a].
V. Aṙak‘elyan (1979: 43-44) argues that both in the literature and the dialects kuɫ
basically refers to ‘rope, cord’ rather than ‘fold, twisting, plait’.
●ETYM Bugge (1889: 42; 1892: 457) derives kuɫ ‘Doppelung, das Doppelte’ from
*duoplo- (cf. Lat. duplus, etc.). Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 657a) does not accept the
etymology leaving the origin of the word open. The connection is adopted by
Pedersen (1906: 398 = 1982: 176), Kortlandt (1989: 48, 50 = 2003: 92, 95), Beekes
(2003: 200).
Since the basic meaning of kuɫ seems to be ‘rope, cord, string, etc.’ (see above,
also V. Aṙak‘elyan 1979: 43-44), and in view of the resemblance with k‘uɫ ‘(plaited)
thread’ (Bible+); dial. also ‘cord; lace’, I consider the derivation of kuɫ from
*duoplo- as improbable. The connection between kuɫ and k‘uɫ has been suggested by
Dervischjan (1877: 37-38). The alternation k : k‘ favoursa loan origin.
See also s.vv. erku ‘two’, erkiwɫ ‘fear’, and 2.1.22.6.
*kumb ‘emboss (of a shield)’: kmb-eay ‘enbossed (shield)’ (John Chrysostom);
oski-kmb-ē in P‘awstos Buzand 5.32 (1883=1984: 196L-15; transl. Garsoïan 1989:
214): oskikmbē vahanōk‘n “with gold-embossed shields”; cf. oskekmbeay vahanōk‘
in the letter from Bishop Giwt (5th cent.) to Vač‘ē (king of Aɫuank‘) apud Movsēs
Kaɫankatuac‘i 1.11 [V. Aṙak‘elyan 1983: 21L14]. The compound is also attested in
John Chrysostom; in published editions: IPl oski gmb-ē-i-w-k‘, GDPl oski
gmb-ē-i-c‘. Further: kmbrawor or kmrbawor, perhaps for *kmb-awor ‘embossed
(shield)’ in Mxit‘ar Goš (Law Code, 12th cent.), Smbat Sparapet (Law Code, 13th
cent.).
●DIAL Preserved only in Bulanəx gəmb ‘hump on the neck/back of people and
especially of an ox or buffalo’ (S. Movsisyan, p.c. apud HAB 2: 659a). That in this
dialect a word has no “full” vowel is not uncommon; cf. šələk‘ from šli-k‘ ‘neck’
(q.v.).
If reliable, the reading variant in g- (John Chrysostom, see above) can be
compared to the Bulanəx form. An influence of gmbet‘ ‘cupola’ (Hexaemeron, etc.,
widespread in the dialects; Iranian loan) is possible, too. ●ETYM Probably from *gumbh
-: MHG kumm(e) f. ‘rundes, tiefes Gefäß, Kufe,
Napf’, Germ. Kumme ‘tiefe Schale’, Pers. gumbed ‘Wölbung, Kuppel, Becher’
[Scheftelowitz 1904-05, 1: 308] (cf. Arm. gmbet‘ ‘cupola’, see above), Lith. gum̃bas
m. ‘Wölbung, Geschwulst, Knorren’, Latv. gum̃ba ‘Geschwulst’, OCS gǫba
‘sponge’, Russ. gubá ‘lip’, Czech houba ‘mushroom, tree-fungus’, huba ‘snout,
mouth’, SCr. gȕba ‘mushroom, tree-fungus, leprosy, snout’, etc. [HAB 2: 658-659].
For a discussion, see J̌
ahukyan 1987: 169 (cf. 126).
One wonders whether we are dealing with a word of substratum origin, which can
also be compared with Gr. κύμβαχος ‘head-foremost, tumbling; crown of a helmet’,
next to κύμβη ‘head’, etc. (cf. Furnée 1972: 176, 284-285; de Vaan 1999: 11).
kuṙn, GDSg kṙan ‘(anatom.) back; side’ (Canon Law, John Chrysostom, etc.), ‘joint
between the shoulder and arm’ (Grigor Tat‘ewac‘i); dial. also ‘arm’, ‘pelvis’, etc.
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects, in the meanings ‘back’, ‘arm’, ‘pelvis’, etc. [HAB
2: 663-664]. Clear textual illustrations for the meaning ‘arm’ of kuṙ, pl. kəṙnɛr can
be found, e.g., in a folk-tale from Iǰewan, the village of Uzunt‘ala (A. Karapetyan <
Hambarjum Karapetyan, 1959: HŽHek‘ 6, 1973: 416-417).
●ETYM If the basic meaning is ‘curved/bending body-part’, the word may be related
(see Aɫayan 1974: 88-91, 102-108) with kor ‘curved, crooked’, kṙ-t‘-un-k‘ ‘back’,
krukn ‘heel’ (see s.v.v.), although the vocalism is not quite clear. For the semantics,
see 3.7.2.
ha ‘there!’ (John Chrysostom+), ‘now!, now then!’ (Paterica+), ‘yes’ (Dionysius
Thrax+). See also s.v. ayo ‘yes’.
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects: há ‘yes’; with regular sound changes: Agulis hɔ́ and Van-group xá [HAB 3: 3a].
●ETYM Onomatopoeic word. See s.v. ayo ‘yes’
hamr, GDPl hamer-c‘ ‘dumb, mute’ (Bible+).
●ETYM Of unknown origin [HAB 3: 29a; Olsen 1999: 964].
The word may have been composed of the prefix ham- (< *sm-) and *mu-r
‘mute’, from PIE *mu-, see s.v. munǰ ‘dumb, mute’; cf. especially Greek forms with
*-r-: μυναρός, μυρικᾶς.
On the other hand, cf. Pahl. xāmōš ‘silent’ (see MacKenzie 1971: 93)
hay, o-stem ‘Armenian’ in Nersēs Lambronac‘i (GDSg hay-o-y), Nersēs Šnorhali; hay
adj. ‘Armenian’ (Revelation, Łazar P‘arpec‘i, Movsēs Xorenac‘i, Anania Širakac‘i,
Grigor Narekac‘i); hay-er, o-stem: coll. ‘Armenians’ in Łazar P‘arpec‘i and, gen/dat.
hayer-o-y, in Yovhan Mamikonean; hayerēn ‘Armenian’, adv. (Esther 2.16, Eznik
Koɫbac‘i, Eusebius of Caesarea, etc.), adj. (Koriwn, Łazar P‘arpec‘i, etc.); Hay-k‘,
o-stem: gen-dat. Hay-o-c‘ (Bible [Astuacaturean 1895: 828a; Olsen 1999: 946]+);
sg. Hayastan ‘Armenia, Armenian (world)’ (Agat‘angeɫos, P‘awstos Buzand,
Koriwn, etc.). This is the principal word for ‘Armenian’ and ‘Armenia’. For attestations and
derivatives, see NHB 2: 29-32; Hübschmann 1904: 443. Note also the theonym and
asterism Hayk ‘Orion’, see 3.1.1-3.1.4.
●ETYM The connection between hay, Hay-k‘ and Hayk is obvious, although there is
no consensus on the nature of this relationship. Thomson (1978: 886), for instance,
points out that the origin of Hay-k‘ ‘Armenians’ is obscure, and its etymology from
Hayk is impossible. However, Hay-k can easily be derived from hay/Hay-k‘ with the
suffix -ik. For references and a general discussion of the relationship with Hayk, the
eponymous ancestor of the Armenians, see Durean 1933: 87-93; AčaṙAnjn 3, 1946:
31-36; Eremyan 1963: 62a; Adontz 1970 passim; Garsoïan 1989: 379, 480-481;
Hewsen 1992: 187165; Olsen 1999: 946.
As for the origin of Hay-k‘, derivations from Hatti and Hai̯aša- have been
proposed. Jensen (1898: 109; 1904: 182aNr7; 1911: 333; see also Pedersen 1906:
452; 1924: 220a = 1982: 230, 303a) derives hay and Hay-k from *Hat(i)os and
interprets the final -k in Hayk as diminutive (on the suffix, see also A. Petrosyan
2006: 100).74 On the origin of Hay-k‘ and its relationship with Hayk, Hai̯aša-, Hatti,
see Kretschmer 1933; Austin 1942: 23; Łap‘anc‘yan 1947; Nalbandian 1948;
J
̌
ahukyan 1961; 1964; 1967b: 59; 1987: 279-285; 1988, 1-2; 1994: 12; D’jakonov
1968: 235-237; 1971: 1010; 1983; 1984: 179-180, 200-201; Schmitt 1972-74: 40-41;
Greppin 1981c: 1212; A. Petrosyan 2002: 53-63, 159-163, 173-178; 2003 passim;
2004: 2075; 2007a passim). The most recent and comprehensive overview on this
subject can be found in A. Petrosyan 2006, especially 70-88, 99-142.
The theory on the relation between Hay-k‘ and Hai̯aša- (N. Martirosyan 1972:
164-166 < 1921-22; Roth 1927: 743; J̌
ahukyan 1961: 386-389, see also references
above; for a comprehensive bibliographical survey, see A. Petrosyan 2006: 118-119)
has been met with hypercriticism. I admit that there is no physical linguistic
evidence in favour of the presence of an Armenian population of Hai̯aša-, but there
is no reason to exclude it either, since nothing from the language(s) of Hai̯aša- has
come down to us apart from some onomastic and toponymic evidence (D’jakonov
1984: 46). Some traces of Indo-European, particularly Aryan elements can be found
in Hai̯ašan onomasticon:
Marii̯a- (see V. Xač‘atryan 1988) : Skt. (RV+) márya- m. ‘young man, young
warrior’ (see J̌
ahukyan 1961: 369-370; 1964: 35-37; 1976: 94-95; 1987: 327; 1988,
1: 65-66; Ivanov 1979; cf. Weidner 1917: 55; Diakonoff/Starostin 1986: 21);
Takšanaš ‘Weather-god’ : Skt. tákṣan- m. ‘wood-cutter, carpenter’ (RV+), Av.
tašan- m. ‘creator (of cattle)’ (see Hrach Martirosyan 1993: 56-57; A. Petrosyan
2002: 49; on the PIE background of this term, see s.v. hiwsn ‘carpenter’). The Hittite
theory on the origin of this theonym (Forrer 1931: 8; J̌
ahukyan 1964: 54-55; 1976:
95) is semantically less attractive.
For a possible trace of the Armenian language in the Hayašan onomasticon, note
the theonym Terittituniš, which has been interpreted as ‘a deity with three tails’,
composed of *tri- ‘three’ and ttun ‘tail’, cf. also Gr. Τριτών, etc. (Łap‘anc‘yan 1947:
94-95; J̌
ahukyan 1961: 355, 378-379; 1976: 96-97; 1988, 1: 61, 66-67; Toporov
1977: 104-105; A. Petrosyan 2002: 36121). In what follows I briefly summarize my provisional view which is based on my
unpublished study, Hrach Martirosyan 1993.
The kingdom (according to D’jakonov 1984: 46, tribal confederation) of Hai̯ašais attested only in Hittite texts from 14-13th centuries BC. It is located in NW
peripheries of the historical Armenia, probably in the valley of the river Čorox and
its surroundings (Forrer 1931; Łap‘anc‘yan 1947: 9-64; J̌
ahukyan 1961: 356-361;
1964: 15-22; D’jakonov 1984: 45-46, 149-150, 191; IstDrevVost 2, 1988: 144).
The territory of this land roughly coincides with that of the Chalybes in Pontus,
who were famous for the preparation of steel (Gr. χάλυψ ‘hardened iron, steel’), οἱ
σιδηροτέκτονες χάλυβες (see Latyšev 1947, 2: 327; Arešyan 1975: 22).
75 According
to D’jakonov (1984: 117, 162103, cf. also 172225, 18415, 19481), Chalybes is actually
not a real ethnonym but means ‘steel makers’ or ‘iron miners’.
In these areas, the iron metallurgy is known from the 2nd millennium or perhaps
even earlier (for references and a discussion of this issue, as well as of Hatt. ḫapalkiand Akkad./Hurr. ḫabalginnu ‘iron’, see Xaxutajšvili 1974; 1988; Ivanov 1976: 82;
1977a: 27-2876; 1983b: 53-56; Toporov, PrJaz (2), e-h, 1979: 200-203; Vartanov
1983; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 7101; IstDrevVost 2, 1988: 254). That the
Armenians were in a close relationship with the Chalybians is witnessed by the term
Armenochalybes (Adontz 1970: 47-48; Eremyan 1970: 53; Tirac‘yan 1985: 201).
On the strength of this, I propose to revive the comparison of Hai̯aša- with the
PIE word for ‘metal, copper, iron’, proposed by J̌
ahukyan (1961: 388-389; 1964: 67,
especially 67122; cf. 1987: 283-284; see also A. Petrosyan 1997: 93-94). We are
dealing with PIE *h2ei-e/os-, s-stem neuter: Skt. áyas- n. ‘Nutzmetall’ [in contrast
with híraṇya- ‘Edelmetall’], ‘copper’, later ‘iron’, āyasá- adj., f. āyasī́
- ‘made of
copper/iron’ (RV+), OAv. aiiah- n. ‘ordeal metal (at the last judgement)’, YAv. aiiahn. ‘metal’, Lat. aes, aeris n. ‘copper ore, copper; bronze’, Goth. aiz ‘bronze’, etc.
(see Schrijver 1991: 39; Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 104). It is well known that PIE
s-stem neuters are reflected as Armenian o-stems (see 2.2.2.1). PIE *h2ei-e/oswould regularly yield Arm. *hay, -oc‘. The Hittite rendering Hai̯aša- may reflect the
Aryan oblique *Hayasa- (unless it contains the suffix -ša-). That the vocalic shift
PIE e/o > Aryan a had already taken place at the Mitanni period is clearly seen from
panza- (Kikkuli) vs. Skt. páñca ‘five’. Thus, Hay-k‘, Hai̯aša- may have actually
meant ‘the land of metal or iron’, and Arm. hay referred to an inhabitant of the land
of metal/iron’; compare the case of Gr. χάλυψ ‘hardened iron, steel’, the appellative
of the Chalybes.
The Armenian h- instead of x- (cf. Hrozný 1921-22 p.c. apud N. Martirosyan
1972: 164-165; D’jakonov 1984: 191b) is not problematic, since the native origin of
Hay-k‘ implies that Hai̯aša- with ḫ represents the Hittite reflection of the vernacular
Armenian form and not the other way around (see also A. Petrosyan 2002: 178;
2006: 125-126). For Armenian h- as the regular outcome of PIE initial laryngeal
followed by a vowel, see 2.1.16.1.
In respect with this theory, it is noteworthy that the Aryan word for ‘metal, iron’ is
considered to be reflected in Abkhaz ajḫa ‘iron’ (Uslar (1887: 132). In recent times, both Indo-Aryan (Šagirov/Dzidzarija 1985: 59) and Iranian (Ardzinba 1988: 267)
solutions have been proposed. According to Colarusso (1997: 144), Abkhaz a-ayxa
and Abaza ayxa ‘iron; metal’ go back to PNWCauc. *a-yəx̂a, which he relates to our
PIE word (here reconstructed as *ə̯4ay-so-/*ə̯4y-əs- < *(h)ayx̂a) in terms of ProtoPontic.
Note also Arm. darbin ‘smith’, probably a cultural term of MedPont origin (cf.
Lat. faber ‘craftsman, artisan; metal worker, smith’), which has possibly been
borrowed into Hurrian tabiri ‘Metallgießer’, probably also ‘smith’ (see s.v. darbin
‘smith’).
Other names of the Аrmenians
For literature and a discussion on armen ‘Armenian’, see D’jakonov 1968: 234-
235; Schmitt 1980; 2008; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 285-288; A. Petrosyan 2006: 1032. Other
names: somexi by Georgians and fla by Kurds (D’jakonov 1968: 234; J̌
ahukyan
1987: 279); cf. also geɫni and gɫnik glossed by hay in Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ (HAB 1: 536a;
Amalyan 1975: 64Nr121, 67Nr210; cf. S. Petrosyan 1976: 193; A. Petrosyan 1987: 67-
68)76; Arm. dial. of Aṙtial Kabzan ‘Armenian’ (Ačaṙyan 1953: 195).
hayt‘- ‘to attach, adjust, put together’ (Lex.), hayt‘ayt‘em (or hayt‘-hayt‘em in Yovhannēs Ōjnec‘i) ‘to devise, contrive, concoct, find a solution or pretext, make an
effort’ (Philo, Book of Chries, Gregory of Nyssa, etc.), hayt‘ayt‘-an-k‘, a-stem:
GDPl -an-a-c‘, IPl -an-a-w-k‘ ‘contrivance, way out, effort’ (Eznik Koɫbac‘i, Eɫišē,
Movsēs Xorenac‘i, Łazar P‘arpec‘i, John Chrysostom, etc.); probably also privative
an-het‘et‘ or an-heded ‘deformed, shapeless, hideous, monstrous; gigantic,
enormous’ (Eznik Koɫbac‘i, P‘awstos Buzand, Movsēs Xorenac‘i, Łazar P‘arpec‘i,
Book of Chries, John Chrysostom, etc.).
●SEMANTICS The meaning ‘to attach, adjust, put together’, though recorded only by
lexicographers, seems to be original. The semantic development into ‘to devise,
contrive, find a pretext, etc.’ presupposes an intermediary ‘to tie a lie, concoct a way
out or a pretext’. For such a figurative usage, compare ClArm. niwt‘em ‘to twine,
braid, spin’ > ‘to devise, contrive’ (Dowsett 1965: 120); yawdem ‘to tie, form, adjust,
put together’ > ‘to concoct a lie’ (HAB 3: 412b).
The form an-het‘et‘/an-hedede, if related (the vocalism and the vacillation -t‘/dare unclear, HAB 1: 202a), presupposes a basic meaning ‘deformed’ < ‘un-shaped,
un-formed, un-adjusted’ or the like, compare the synonymous an-ard-il (with ard
‘shape’, q.v.), found alongside anheded in Book of Chries 5.5.8 (G. Muradyan 1993:
120L35; Russ. transl. G. Muradjan 2000: 115). Alongside anheded is found also anar-i ‘monstrous’ (q.v.) in P‘awstos Buzand 5.37 (1883=1984: 202L16f), composed of
the privative prefix an- and the root *ar- ‘to put together’.
Next to the meaning ‘shapeless, ugly’, anhet‘et‘/anheded displays a further
semantic development into ‘gigantic, enormous’. Here is a clear textual illustration
from Sebēos (7th cent.), Chapter 20 (Xač‘atryan/Eɫiazaryan 2005: 104L1f; transl.
Thomson 1999: 39): Ew ēr sa ayr anheded (var. anhet‘et‘ in 1851: 89L-2) anjamb ew
geɫec‘ik tesleamb, ew barjr ew layn hasakaw, ew buṙn ew c‘amak‘ marmnov "He was a man gigantic in stature and handsome of appearance, strong and of solid
body".
●ETYM No etymology in HAB 3: 30.
J̌
ahukyan (1963a: 92; 1987: 146) derives *hayt‘- from PIE *səi-t- (see below on
this etymon). He is sceptical on the appurtenance of an-het‘et‘ (J̌
ahukyan 1990: 74,
noting only the privative prefix an-). This etymology is quite acceptable, though it
has remained unknown to Indo-Europeanists.
The PIE word is now reconstructed as *séh2i-, *sh2i̯-: Skt. pres. syáti, sinā́ti, perf.
ā́ siṣāya, aor. sāt, caus. sāyáyati ‘to bind, fasten, fetter’, sitá- ‘bound’, setár- m.
‘binding; fetter’, Av. hi- ‘to chain, bind’, Khot. hīyā adj. ‘bound’, Hitt. išḫāi, išḫianzi
‘to bind, wrap’, OHG seid n. ‘cord’, Lith. siẽti ‘to bind, tie’, saĩtas, siẽtas ‘cord, tie’,
Latv. sìet ‘to bind, tie’, saĩte ‘cord, cuff’, OCS sětь ‘snare, trap’, Russ. set’ ‘net’, Old
Czech sít ‘twinning’, etc.; cf. also *séh2i-tu-: Skt. sétu- m. ‘band, fetter, dam,
bridge’, YAv. haētu- m. ‘dam’, Khot. hī ‘bridge’, Oss. xid/xed ‘bridge’, etc. For the
forms and a discussion on this etymon, see Pokorny 1959: 891-892; Fraenkel 2,
1965: 756, 783; Lubotsky 1988: 47; Schrijver 1991: 519-520; Mayrhofer EWAia 2,
1996: 720-721, 745; Derksen 1996: 118-119, 205; Kulikov 2000; 2001: 506-508;
Cheung 2002: 248; 2007: 135-136; Kloekhorst 2008: 391-393; Derksen 2008: 448;
cf. Mallory/Adams 1997: 362a.
Arm. hayt‘em and reduplicated hayt‘-(h)ayt‘em are thus denominative verbs
based on an otherwise unattested noun *hayt‘- < *sh2i̯-ti- or *s(e)h2i-tu-.
In my opinion, this PIE verb is reflected in Arm. hi-anam ‘to be astounded,
stricken with amazement, terror or admiration’ < ‘to be bound’ (q.v.).
A highly hypothetical trace of PArm. *hayt‘- ‘cord, tie’ may be seen in ClArm.
orogayt‘ ‘snare, trap’, if this is composed of *orog- ‘net, spider-web’ (cf. *orog-al- >
Svedia vurukal ‘trap, spider-web’, see Andreasyan 1967: 277, 378b) and *hayt‘-
‘cord, snare’, cf. OCS sětь ‘snare, trap’, Russ. set’ ‘net’; thus: ‘net-trap, net-snare’.
On the other hand, orogayt‘ may contain gayt‘ ‘delusion; trap’.
Another possible trace may be seen in dial. *jmet‘ or *jmayt‘ ‘snow blindness’
(q.v.), if composed of *j(i)m- ‘snow’ and *hayt‘- ‘bond’.
hayim ‘to watch, look at, wait’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Preserved in some W and SW dialects: Xarberd, Tigranakert, Cilicia,
Van-group, etc. More widespread is the derivative hay-eli ‘mirror’ [HAB 3: 29-30].
Moks infinitive xil, 1sg.pres. kə-xim ‘I see’ [Orbeli 2002: 248]; for textual
illustrations, see op. cit. 104f (imper. xiya), 120Nr57 (3sg.pres. kə-xə
ɛ, neg. č‘ə́-xə
ɛ).See also s.v. *hes- ‘to see’.
●ETYM Scheftelowitz (1904-05, 2: 33) compares with Skt. pāyú- ‘guard, protector’,
Gr. ποιμήν m. ‘herdsman’, etc. See also s.vv. hoviw ‘shepherd’, hawt ‘flock, group’,
hawran ‘flock of sheep or goats; sheepfold’. Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 29b) does not accept
this etymology and leaves the origin of the word open. Aɫayan (1974: 92-93)
independently proposed practically the same etymology. J̌
ahukyan (1990: 72, sem.
field 15) places hayim in his list of words of unknown origin. However, the
derivation PIE *peh2i- (or *ph3i-) > Arm. hay- does not seem impossible. For the
semantics cf. Sogd. ’’p’y- ‘to watch, observe’ (see MacKenzie 1970: 42; Mayrhofer
EWAia), Czech pásti ‘pasture, watch’. Patrubány (1897: 139) interprets hay ‘Armenian’ as “Wächter, Hüter” identifying
it with hayim ‘to look at, watch’. He (ibid.) derives Hayk from the ethnonym hay
with the suffix -k. J̌
ahukyan (1987: 284-285) independently suggests a semantically
similar explanation, deriving hay ‘Armenian’ from PIE *pōi-/pəi- ‘to pasture, guard,
keep’. J̌
ahukyan based this etymology upon Herodotus 5.49 where the Armenians
are characterized as “having plenty of sheep” (πολυπρόβατοι). The passage reads as
follows: Κιλίκων δὲ τῶνδε ἔχονται ’Αρμένιοι οἵδε, καὶ οὑτοι ̃ ἐόντες πολυπρόβατοι.
For a ModArm. translation and commentary, see Krkyašaryan 1986: 305, 60339.
If one accepts the derivation of hayim ‘to watch’ from PIE *p(e)Hi- ‘to guard’,
then J̌
ahukyan’s etymology practically coincidies with that of Patrubány.
Earlier, J̌
ahukyan (1967: 106) suggested a connection with Arm. hoy ‘fear’ and
hi-anam ‘to admire’ (q.v.), deriving all from PIE *kw
ei- (cf. Skt. cay-/cāy- ‘to
perceive; to observe’, Gr. τίω ‘to esteem, deeply respect’, etc.). which cannot be
accepted.
See also s.vv. y-ay-t, nayim, vayel.
hayr, GSg hawr, ISg har-b, NPl har-k‘, GDPl har-c‘, har-an-c‘ ‘father’ (Bible+).
Numerous derivatives with hayr or hawr-.
Alongside with ham-a-hayr ‘having one father’ and ham-a-mayr ‘having one
mother’, there is also ham-hawr-eay = f. ὁμο-πατρία in Leviticus 18.11: hamhōreay
k‘oyr k‘o ē : ὁμοπατρία ἀδελφή σού ἐστιν. The same structure is found in
ham-mawr-eay (cf. ὁμο-μητρία), only in Mxit‘ar Goš (Law Code, 12th cent.),
apparently analogical after ham-hawr-eay, since the passage is identical: hammōreay
k‘oyr k‘o ē.
In Mxit‘ar Goš (Law Code, 12th cent.) one also finds hawr-u ‘stepfather’ (in
genitive hōru-i).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects. In some dialects replaced by pap ‘grandfather’ or
by recent borrowings. ClArm. hōr-eɫbayr ‘paternal uncle’, hōr-a-k‘oyr ‘paternal
aunt’, etc. are represented by variegated types of allegro-forms; see 2.1.35.
Interesting is *hayr-a-hot ‘father-like’, lit. ‘of paternal odour’: Moks xɛräxut [M.
Muradyan 1982: 137]. Widespread in the epic “Sasna cṙer”.
The word hawru ‘stepfather’ has been preserved in Hamšen hɔru [Ačaṙyan 1947:
12, 242].
●ETYM From PIE *ph2tēr, gen. *ph2tr-ós ‘father’: Skt. pitā́, AccSg pitáram, VocSg
pítar, DSg pitré, NPl pitáras, DPl pitŕ̥bhyas (Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 128-129),
Gr. πατήρ, AccSg πατέρα, GSg πατρός, Lat. pater, patris, Goth. fadar, OHG fater,
Toch. A pācar, B pācer, etc.; see Hübschmann 1897: 463; HAB 3: 31-32 with
references; Pokorny 1959: 829; Mallory/Adams 1997: 194-195.
On the paradigm and a discussion of gen. hawr < *ph2trós, instr. har-b < *ph2tr̥-
bh
i- and other case forms, see Grammont 1918: 236; Meillet 1936: 81-82; Schmitt
1981: 73-75, 100, 110, 112; Olsen 1999: 150-151; Matzinger 2005: 20, 104, and
espec. 126-131.
MidArm. *hawr-u ‘stepfather’ (genitive hōru-i, hapax, 12th cent.) is considered
analogical after mawru ‘stepmother’ (q.v.); cf. Gr. πατρωός, πατρυιός m.
‘stepfather’. It has been preserved in the dialect of Hamšen. See also s.v. yawray
‘stepfather’.
hayc‘em ‘to ask, supplicate’ (Bible+), ‘look for, demand’ (John Chrysostom, etc.);
hayc‘ in hayc‘ ew xndir linem ‘to look for’ (Hexaemeron).
●ETYM See s.v. ayc‘
han, o-stem: GDAblSg han-o-y (Movsēs Xorenac‘i, Canon Law, etc.; cf. below)
‘grandmother’ (attested also in John Chrysostom, Philo); han-i; wo-stem: LocSg i
hanw-o-y, var. i han-o-y (2 Timothy 1.5, Grigor Narekac‘i), IPl hanw-o-v-k‘ in the
letter from Bishop Giwt (5th cent.) to Vač‘ē (king of Aɫuank‘) apud Movsēs
Kaɫankatuac‘i 1.11 (V. Aṙak‘elyan 1983: 20L14) ‘id.’; hypocoristic han-ik, GDSg
hank-an (in a colophon; cf. the dialect of J̌
uɫa) ‘id.’ (Ephrem, Vardan Arewelc‘i,
Yaysmawurk‘).
In 2 Timothy 1.5: bnakec‘aw i hanwoy (var. hanoy) k‘um "dwelt in your
grandmother" (said of the faith); locative i hanwoy = ἐν τῇ μάμμῃ. In Grigor
Narekac‘i 36 (1985: 397L46; reading variants: 770b): han-oy-n, vars. hanwoyn,
hangoyn, etc. NHB (2: 45c) also cites Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.22 for han-i, GDSg
hanwoy. In the critical edition (1913=1991: 138L5), however, one finds the passage
in 2.23, in the form han-oy-n, with no reading variants.
●DIAL The form han-ik has been preserved in the dialect of J̌
uɫa: xanik
‘grandmother’ [HAB 3: 33b], with a regular shift h > x [Ačaṙean 1940: 112];
belongs to the 4th (-an) declension class of the dialect: GSg xang-a, AblSg
xang-an-ic‘, ISg xang-an-ɔv, NPl xanək-nɛr [Ačaṙean 1940: 190, 372a]. Compare
hankan above.
●ETYM Connected with Gr. ἀννίς ‘mother-in-law’, Lat. anus ‘old woman’, Lith.
anýta ‘husband’s mother’, etc. [Hübschmann 1897: 463; Szemerényi 1977: 48]. The
alternative etymology linking Arm. han with hin ‘old’ as an Iranian loan (cf. YAv.
hanā- ‘old woman’, Skt. sána- ‘old’) is considered improbable [HAB 3: 33].
Arm. han(i) and Hitt. ḫanna- ‘grandmother’ point to *h2en- [Schrijver 1991: 45].
The by-form han-i may derive from *h2en-iH-, cf. Lith. anýta.
On the initial h-, see s.v. haw ‘grandfather’ and 2.1.16.1.
*hang ‘breath, rest’ (dial.); hangč‘im, 3sg.aor hang-e-aw ‘to rest’; hangi-st, GDSg
hangst-ean ‘rest, peace; resting place, grave’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Both hangč‘im and hangist are widespread in the dialects. The root-form is
represented in Aparan, Alaškert, Ararat hank‘, Muš hang‘, Moks xangy
, Van xank‘y
,
etc. ‘breath, rest’ [HAB 3: 35-36]. The meaning ‘grave’ of hangist can be seen e.g.
in Ṙ. Grigoryan 1970: 320L-7. For the semantic shift ‘rest’ > ‘grave’ cf. e.g. andorr
‘quiet’ > Areš ändörk‘ ‘the Otherworld’ [Lusenc‘ 1982: 197a].
●ETYM A connection with Lat. quiēscō ‘to rest’ was suggested by Pedersen (1905:
219 = 1982: 81). Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 35b) mentions Pedersen’s comparison but leaves
the origin of the word open. Meillet (1936a) independently suggests the same
comparison convincingly deriving PArm. *hangi- from *sm̥ -kw
iH-, cf. Lat. quiēs,
-ētis f. ‘rest, quiet, peace; sleep; death’, quiēscō ‘to rest’. For the absence of
palatalization of the labiovelar after nasal he compares Arm. hing ‘five’ from
*penkw
e. For references and a discussion on hangi-st, -ean, see Olsen 1999:
480-482.
Lat. quiēs, -ētis derives from *kw
ieh1-ti-, cf. Av. šāiti- f. ‘happiness’, OPers.
šiyāti- f. ‘Glück, Glückseligkeit, Wohlfahrt’, Av. šyātō ‘happy’ < *-to-, etc. [Brandenstein/Mayrhofer 1964: 143; Schrijver 1991: 140; Rix 2003: 368]; cf. Arm.
šat, an Iranian loan [HAB 3: 498-499].
Remarkably, *sm̥ -kw
iH- is found also in Iranian languages: Oss. æncad ‘quiet,
tranquil, quietly’ from *ham-čyāta, Sogd. ’nc’y ‘to stay, remain’, and Khwar. hncy-
‘to rest, repose’ (see Cheung 2002: 160). For the structure of these forms and Arm.
hangist cf. also the Iranian source (*han-dr̥-ta-) of Arm. handart ‘quiet’ [HAB 3:
38-39].
hanem, 3.sg.aor. e-han ‘to take out, take off, draw out, remove, bring outside, bring
forth, grab’ (Bible+).
For some Biblical attestations, see Klingenschmitt 1982: 131.
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 3: 34b].
●ETYM Etymology uncertain. For a comparison with Skt. sanóti ‘to win, gain’, etc.,
see s.v. unim ‘to take, have, obtain’. On the other hand, a relation with Hitt. ḫan- ‘to
draw, scoop’ has been proposed, see Łap‘anc‘yan 1961: 187-188; Schultheiss 1961:
225; Greppin 1973: 71; Polomé 1980: 21.
hask, i-stem: GDPl hask-ic‘ in Book of Chries and Cyril of Alexandria; loc. i hask-i in
Hexaemeron (K. Muradyan 1984: 135L12); a-stem: GDPl hask-a-c‘ in Hexaemeron
(K. Muradyan 1984: 128L12) ‘ear of corn’.
Many attestations in the Bible, but not in oblique cases [Astuacaturean 1895:
853-854]. The passage from Job 24.24 illustrates the semantic contrast hask =
στάχυς ‘ear’ vs. c‘awɫun = καλάμη ‘stalk, stubble’: kam ibrew zhask ink‘nin ankeal i
c‘awɫnoy “or as an ear of corn, fallen off the stalk of itself”: ἢ ὥσπερ στάχυς
αὐτόματος ἀποπεσών ἀπὸ καλάμης (Cox 2006: 172); according to Rahlfs: ἢ ὥσπερ
στάχυς ἀπὸ καλάμης αὐτόματος ἀποπεσών.
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects [HAB 3: 48b]. The Van-group has with an
irregular -š-: Van, Moks, Ozim xašk [Ačaṙyan 1952: 274], Šatax xašk [M. Muradyan
1962: 57, 200a]. Orbeli (2002: 243) has Moks xäšk, GSg xåškə
ɛ
, NPl xåškir ‘колос
(головка)’. Ačaṙyan (1952: 85) hesitantly assumes an influence of Pers. xūša, Pahl.
xōšak ‘ear of corn’.
●ETYM No acceptable etymology is recorded in HAB 3: 48b. J̌
ahukyan (1967: 241)
derived from *ak̂
- ‘sharp’ connecting with Arm. aseɫn ‘needle’ (q.v.), cf. Gr. ἀκοστή
f. ‘barley’, Goth. ahs n., OHG ahir n., etc. ‘ear of corn’, etc. Later he abandoned the
etymology since it is not included in J̌
ahukyan 1987, and the word is considered to
be of unknown origin in 1990: 72 (sem. field 8). Olsen (1999: 953), too, lists hask as
a word of unknown origin.
Nevertheless, the etymology is worth of consideration. The PIE root is *h2ek̂
-
‘sharp’ which would yield Arm. *has-. For the semantics cf. also OEngl. egl f.
‘awn’ < *h2ek̂
-ileh2-, Gr. ἀκή f. ‘point’, Lat. aciēs f. ‘sharp edge’, Lith. akúotas
‘awn’, etc. Most of these cognates are feminines, thus the i- and a-stems of Arm.
hask probably point to fem. *-ih2- and *eh2-. Goth. ahs, OHG ahir n., etc. ‘ear (of
corn)’, Lat. acus, -eris n. ‘husks of grain or beans, chaff’, indirectly also Gr. ἀκοστή
f. ‘barley’ reflect a neuter s-stem: *h2ek̂
-es- (see Casaretto 2000: 219-221).
For the -k- alternative solutions can be offered: (1) derivaton on *h2ek̂
-u-, cf. Lat.
acuō, -ere ‘to sharpen’, Lith. akúotas ‘awn; fish-bone; cutting edge’ (from *ak̂
u-ōtor *ak̂
-ōt-, R. Derksen, p.c.; the absence of palatalization is unclear), etc.; thus: *h2ek̂
-u̯- > *hask-; (2) an old suffix *-k-, cf. Lith. ãšaka ‘fish-bone; bran’, Russ.
osóka ‘reed grass’, etc.; even the absence of cognates with *-k- would not be a
decisive counter-argument since the *-k- functioned also in inner-Armenian
creations such as boys ‘plant’ from *bh
eu(H)-; thus: *h2ek̂
-k- > hask; (3) a
“plant-suffix” -k-, cf. tatask ‘thistle’, kask ‘chestnut’, etc. (see 2.3.1). Note that the
second and third solutions may be identical.
For the problem of -sk from *-kû̯-, see 2.1.21.
hast ‘firm, steady, standing still, tough’ (Bible, Severian of Gabala, John Chrysostom,
Ephrem, etc.), ‘thick, dense, broad’ (see the dialectal section); hast, i-stem: GDPl
hast-i-c‘ (Dionysius the Areopagite), IPl hast-i-w-k‘ (Cyril of Alexandria, George of
Pisidia, Anania Narekac‘i), loc. i hast-i (Severian of Gabala, John Chrysostom) and i
hast-oǰ (John Chrysostom) ‘firmness, the standing still, strength’; hastem ‘to affirm,
assert, make hard, create’ (Bible+), hast-ič‘ ‘creator’, etc.; numerous compounds
[HAB 3: 49a]. On hast-a-m-est, see de Lamberterie 1992a: 103-105.
See also s.vv. hastatem ‘to affirm, assert, reinforce; to build, found, set up, settle,
establish a dwelling place; to create’, hastoyr ‘decisive’, hasteay attested only in
APl (z-)hasteay-s ‘a kind of pastry’.
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 3: 49b]. Especially widespread is the
meaning ‘thick, dense, broad’, also in many compounds (see Ačaṙean 1913: 639-
640; Malxaseanc‘ HBB 3: 60-62; HayLezBrbBaṙ 3, 2004: 246-247). This meaning is
attested in Yaysmawurk‘ and is marked as dialectal (ṙmk.) in NHB 2: 54b.
●ETYM Since Hübschmann (1883: 38), linked with the Germanic word for ‘hard,
steady, strong, firm, dense’: OIc. fastr, OHG festi, fasti, Engl. fast, etc. (Pedersen
1924: 224b = 1982: 307b), subst. OHG festī ‘firmness, strength; shelter, stronghold,
fortress’, Germ. Feste, Festung, probably also Skt. pastyà- n. ‘Wohnsitz,
Wohnstätte, Aufenthalt, Haus’ < ‘fester Wohnsitz’, pastyā̀- f. ‘Wohnsitz, Haus,
Hausgemeinschaft’ (according to some scholars, ‘Strom, Fluß’), and some less
probable cognates [Hübschmann 1897: 464; Osthoff 1898: 1-2; HAB 3: 49; Pokorny
1959: 789; Klingenschmitt 1982: 165; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 7441 = 1995, 1:
64810; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 111; HerkWört 1997: 184b; Mallory/Adams
1997: 204b; Olsen 1999: 201, 850].
The Armenian i-declension is secondary (see J̌
ahukyan 1982: 126-127; cf. 1987:
142), unless it points to an older *past-i(h2)- in a way reflected in OHG festi, festī,
and/or Skt. pastyà-, pastyā̀-.
In view of the limited distribution (see also Salmons apud Mallory/Adams 1997:
204b) and the vowel *-a-, we are hardly dealing with a PIE word. One may posit a
European substratum word shared by Armenian, Germanic, possibly also IndoAryan. In view of the semantics of the Germanic and Indic cognates, as well as that
of Arm. hastatem ‘to affirm, assert, reinforce; to build, found, set up, settle, establish
a dwelling place’, one may posit a substratum technical term with an original
meaning ‘foundation, settlement, fortified dwelling place, fortress’.
For an extensive philological and etymological discussion and for the relation
with astem ‘to look for a bride, ask in marriage’, hastim ‘to be engaged, be betrothed
(said of a girl)’, see de Lamberterie 1992a. Olsen (1999: 201379) alternatively
assumes a *ph2k̂
-to-. A contamination is more probable. For more detail, see s.v.
astem. Łap‘anc‘yan (1961: 188-189) connects Arm. hast to Hitt. ḫaštai- ‘bones;
strength’. This is untenable.
hastat ‘firm, steady, steadfast, solid, constant, sure, valid; certainly, surely, truly,
really’ (Bible, Canon Law, Ephrem, Grigor Narekac‘i, etc.’; hastatem ‘to affirm,
fasten, assert, reinforce; to build, found, set up, settle, establish a dwelling place; to
create’ (Bible+).
Rich material in the Bible [Astuacaturean 1895: 854-857].
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects, in the meanings ‘firm, steadfast, solid, well-built,
valid’ [HAB 3: 50a]. Aslanbek hasdad ‘thick’ semantically replaced hast (see HAB
3: 49b).
●ETYM Derived from hast ‘firm, steady, standing still’ (q.v.). For the suffix -at, see
Pedersen 1906: 475-476 = 1982: 253-254; Greppin 1975: 55; J̌
ahakyan 1998: 16;
Olsen 1999: 335-337.
hasteay attested only in APl (z-)hasteay-s ‘a kind of pastry’.
NHB and HAB cite only one attestation: ararak‘ nma hasteays ew karkandaks
“we made cakes for her” (Jeremiah 44.19).
Another attestation is found by L. Hovhannisyan (1991a: 152; 2000: 218) in
Ephrem Asori: Ew aṙnun zmarminn surb: uten zhasteays ənd šišaɫs ew ənd surbs
zsrbut‘iwnn “And they take the holy body: (they) eat the hasteay-s with demons
(šišaɫ-) and the holiness with saints”.
In Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ (Amalyan 1975: 181Nr166), hasteays (APl) is glossed as barak
hac‘, kam lōš “thin bread, or lōš”. Not mentioned in NHB and HAB.
●ETYM The etymology is uncertain. Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 50) hesitantly compares with
Gr. ἀκτή ‘corn’ and πάστη > Lat. pasta > Fr. pâte, both of unknown origin. One may
also consider Lat. pānis ‘bread’ < *pāstni- and diminutive pastillum ‘a form of
sacrificial cake’ from *peh2s-t-, probably containing the root *peh2s-: Lat. pascō ‘to
feed, pasture; to provide food for; to nurture (ground, crops, etc.); to gratify hunger’
(see Schrijver 1991: 144 with references, mentioning also Arm. hac‘ ‘bread’ < *paski- with a question-mark).
Arm. hasteay(-k‘) may be alternatively linked with Gr. ἄζω ‘to dry, parch’, Czech
ozd ‘dried malt’, ozditi ‘to dry malt’, Arm. ostin ‘dry’, ačiwn ‘ash’ (q.v.); it can be
derived from PIE *h2Hs-d- or *h2es-d-, or a deverbative noun *h2H(e)s-ti-. For the
semantics compare Lat. fer(c)tum ‘a kind of sacrificial bread’ vs. Skt. bhr̥jjáti ‘to fry,
roast (grains, etc.)’, bhr̥ṣṭa- ‘fried, roasted, baked’ (Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2:
643, 699; Schrijver 1991: 255; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 278).
Structurally, hasteay-k‘ may be interpreted as *hasti- + the collective suffix -ay(-
k‘). The ultimate origin of *hasti- remains obscure. The possibilities are: QIE *h2ek̂
-
t-i(h2)-, cf. Gr. ἀκτή ‘corn’; QIE *peh2s-ti-, cf. Lat. pānis ‘bread’ < *pāstni-,
pastillum ‘a form of sacrificial cake’; QIE *h2(H)es-d-i(h2)- or *h2H(e)s-ti-, cf.
Czech ozd ‘dried malt’, etc. Also possible is *has(i/u)t- or *hac‘(i/u)t- + -eay (for
this suffix, see Olsen 1999: 377-385).
Finally, one may assume a loan from Hitt. NINDAḫaz(z)ita- ‘a kind of cake’. On
this word, see s.v. hac‘ ‘bread’.
hastoyr, only in John Chrysostom, rendering Gr. καίριος ‘coming at the right place,
decisive, deadly’ [NHB 2: 56c]. ●ETYM Derived from hast ‘firm, steady, standing still’, q.v. [HAB 3: 49a]. For the
suffix -oyr, see J
̌ahukyan 1987: 236; 1998: 30.
Compared with Urart. mountain Haštarae, Hitt. city Hašter(i)a (J̌
ahukyan 1988:
153; cf. N. Arutjunjan 1985: 228). Uncertain.
hat, o-stem (later also i-) ‘grain, seed; piece, cut, fragment, section’ (Bible+);
hatanem ‘to cut, split’ (Bible+); z-atem, z-atanem ‘to divide’ (Bible+); y-atem,
y-atanem ‘to cut off branches from trees and especially from vine’ (Bible+), y-awt
‘cut-off branch’ (Ezekiel 15.4), on which the denominative verb y-awtem (Paterica+)
is based. Later also hawt ‘cut-off branch of vine’ (Geoponica), hawtem (Čaṙəntir).
See also s.v. hawt, i-stem ‘flock of sheep, etc.’.
hatanem ‘to strike’ (about plague) in P‘awstos Buzand 4.13 (1883=1984: 95L-15f);
for the passage, see s.v. keɫ.
The meaning ‘to end, expire’, widespread in the dialects (see HAB 3: 52a), can be
seen in, e.g., Movsēs Xorenac‘i 3.68 (1913=1990: 365L12): hēnk‘ ekeal anhatk‘
“Brigands have come in abundance” (transl. by Thomson 1978: 354).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects in practically all the basic forms including hat
‘grain, seed; piece’ and yawt- (note also the curious compound *ort‘-(y)awt
‘branches cut off from the vine’, composed of ort‘ ‘vine’ and yawt ‘cut-off branch’)
[HAB 2: 82; 3: 52a, 386].
●ETYM No etymology is accepted in HAB 3: 51-52. According to Klingenschmitt
(1982: 213-214), hatanem is composed of the prefix *ha- (< *sn̥, cf. Gr. prep. ἄτερ
‘without, far from’ < *sn̥-tér) and *tane- < *dā-ne/o- ‘teilen’, which is improbable.
Aɫayan (1974: 95-98) links the words with yatak ‘bottom’, (h)und ‘seed’ and hunj
‘mowing, harvest(-time)’ and traces *hawt- to PIE *peu- ‘to hit’, pres. *pəu-d-, cf.
Lith. pjáuju, pjáuti (*pēui̯̯ō) ‘to cut, mow’, Lat. paviō, -īre ‘to hit’, pavīmentum n.
‘paved surface or floor’, from d-pres., probably: pudeō ‘to be ashamed’, etc. The
form *hawt is taken, thus, as original, and the loss of the -w- in hat is not explained.
Olsen (1999: 90) mentions hatanem as “etymologically unclear”. She (op. cit. 17),
like practically everyone, accepts the internal connection between hat ‘grain, seed;
piece’ and hatanem ‘to cut’.
The best etymology seems to be the one proposed by Poetto (1976 apud
Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 655 = 1995: 564; Clackson 1994: 171), and,
independently, by Morani (1991: 176-178). According to it (see especially Morani),
hat, o-stem ‘grain, seed’ goes back to PIE *h2edos- n. ‘sort of cereal, grain’: Lat.
ador, -ōris n. ‘coarse grain, spelt’, Goth. atisk (*ades-ko-) ‘cornfield’, OHG ezzisca
(pl.) ‘Saat’, etc., probably also Av. *āδū-, Sogd. (Buddh.) ’’dw-k ‘grain’, Hitt. ḫat-,
if basically meaning ‘dried grain’. See also Pokorny 1959: 3; Watkins 1973; 1975a;
Greppin 1983a: 13; Schrijver 1991: 38. On the connection of the Armenian word
with the Hittite, see Wittmann 1964 apud Oettinger 1976: 14752 (see also below). On
Gothic, see Ramat 1974: 77-78. For further discussion and literature, see
Szemerényi 1977: 29. Greppin (1983a: 13-14) adds Arm. hačar ‘spelt’ (Bible;
Łarabaɫ, etc.). For the latter compare Hitt. ḫattar, possibly ‘spelt’ (on which, see
Watkins 1975: 184ff), although Arm. -č- is unclear.
As Morani (ibid.) explicitly points out, the original meaning of Armenian hat is
‘grain’, from which the meaning ‘cut, section, piece, fragment’ developed
secondarily. On the other hand, hatanem ‘to cut’ is linked with Hitt. ḫattāi- ‘to cut’ either as a
native word (see Beekes 2003: 182) or as a loan (see J̌
ahukyan 1987: 314; 1988, 2:
84). For Hittite, see the references above (especially Watkins 1973 and 1975a) and
Oettinger 1976: 126. The -tt- points out to PIE *-t- rather than *-d-. Thus, if Arm.
hat- indeed belongs to PIE *h2edos-, the Hittite verb is not related (unless one
considers it an Armenian loan).
Citing reliable semantic parallels for ‘to cut, divide’ > ‘a division of the flock’ >
‘flock of sheep’ (3.9.1), A. Xač‘atryan (1993: 107) convincingly connects hawt,
i-stem ‘flock of sheep, etc.’ (q.v.) with hatanem ‘to cut’ and y-awt ‘cut-off branch’.
Morani (1991: 178) cautiously mentions the alternative i-stem of Arm. hat in
relation with Toch. āti ‘grass’, which is usually taken as cognate with Lat ador and
others. If the i-stem proves reliable, one might derive Arm. yawt and hawt (i-stem)
from an old PIE HD paradigm: NSg. *h2éd-ōi (> PArm. *hatu(i) > hawt), GSg.
*h2d-i-ós. This is attractive since an original PArm. genitive *hač- (with a regular
-č- from *-di̯-) would also explain Arm. hač-ar ‘spelt’ (on which see above). The
final -ar is reminiscent of jawar ‘boiled and crushed wheat, barley or spelt’
(Geoponica; numerous dialects). However, y-awt and hawt seem to be deverbative
nouns. One therefore may explain the form as containing the deverbative suffix *-ti-:
*h2d-ti- > PArm. *hawt-i- > hawt, i-stem (see 2.1.22.12).
Conclusion
Arm. hat, o-stem ‘grain, seed; piece, cut’ may be derived from IE *h2edos- n.
‘sort of cereal, grain’. The verb hatanem ‘to cut’ should not be separated from hat.
Not everything is clear, however. Synchronically, hat would be better understood as
a deverbative noun (also Viredaz, p.c.). Neither the relation with the Hittite verb is
clear. The forms y-awt and hawt, i-stem (both expressing the basic meaning ‘cut,
division’) are clearly deverbative nouns. Therefore, the internal -w- points to a
derivational pattern rather than a mere epenthesis. One may hypothetically derive
hawt (i-stem) and y-awt from *h2d-ti- through PArm. *hawt-i-.
The suffix -awt (i-stem), perhaps with a basic meaning ‘division, cut’, may
originate from hawt (i-stem) / y-awt, see 2.3.1.
For the semantic field ‘to cut, split, strike’ : ‘grain’ : ‘piece/Stück’ cf.
Georgian-Zan *ḳaḳ- ‘to knock, pound’, Georgian ḳaḳa- ‘grain, kernel (of fruit)’,
ḳaḳal- ‘walnut’, Laz ḳaḳal- ‘walnut’, Megr. ḳaḳal- ‘grain; piece’, etc. (see Klimov
1964: 105; 1998: 85); on these words, see s.v. kaɫin ‘acorn’.
See also s.v. zatik.
haraw, o-stem ‘South; Southern wind’. In the second meaning, the word seems to
have been borrowed into Georgian aravi ‘Southern (wind)’ or ‘NE wind’ (see HAB
3: 57a) (Bible+).
●DIAL Preserved in the dialects of Sebastia, Muš, Karin, T‘iflis, Axalc‘xa, Ararat,
J̌uɫa, Salmast, etc. [HAB 3: 56-57].
●ETYM No acceptable etymology is recorded in HAB 3: 56b.
J̌ahukyan (1973: 20-21; 1986-1987: 30; 1987: 143, 186) suggests a connection
with Skt. pū́rva- ‘being before, going in front, first, former; eastern’ (RV+), OAv.
pouruuiia- ‘first, intial, former’, YAv. pauruua-, paouruua-, pouruua- ‘being in
front, first, former’; OCS prьvъ ‘first’, etc. Accepted (with the note “probably”) by
Olsen (1999: 26). In Old Persian the word also means, as in Sanskrit, ‘östlich’,whereas in Young Avesta – ‘südlich’ (see Bartholomae 1904: 871a). The same
distribution is also found in another derivation of the same PIE root, cf. Skt. prā́ñc-
‘directed towards, directed forwards; eastern’ vs. Sogd. (Bud.) βr’š kyr’n ‘south’
(see Cheung 2002: 216). In his table, J̌
ahukyan (1987: 143, 186) notes the semantic
identity of the Armenian and the Iranian words. Elsewhere, he (1986-1987: 30)
writes: “Selon certains linguistes, la signification de l’avestique paurvatémoignerait du déplacement des tribus iraniennes vers le sud; mais il paraĩt plus
simple d’y voir un phénomène d’orientation: on regarde devant soi vers le point où
apparaît le solei de midi”. On the discussion involving the movements of
Indo-Iranian tribes see, in particular, Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984: 915, 920-921), and
of Armenians – S. Petrosyan 1976: 196-197; 1977: 214-216.
Interpreting haraw as etymologically meaning, thus, “côté du devant”, J̌
ahukyan
(1986-1987) treats hiwsis ‘north’ (q.v.) as “côté inverse”, deriving it from PIE
*seukoi-k̂
i(y)o-, with the basic meaning “qui se trouve á l’opposé”.
On the reflex of the internal laryngeal, see 2.1.20.
harawunk‘ ‘sowing, seeds; sowing-field; arable land’, attested (Bible+) in APl
harawun-s. See also s.v. haruanc‘.
●DIAL Muš harvɔnk‘, Maškert, K‘ɫi harmunk‘ ‘soil that has been softened by rains in
spring and autumn and can be ploughed’ [HAB 3: 57a; Baɫramyan 1960: 147a], also
Sasun harvɔnk‘ ‘the appropriate time for sowing’ and a verb harvɔnk‘il ‘to prepare
the soil for sowing’ (Petoyan 1954: 139; 1965: 495). For a thorough description, see
Gabikean 1952: 332 (with Turk. hɛrnik as an equivalent), where the author also
mentions that, in autumn, they first water the soil (if they cannot do so, they wait for
a rain), slightly plough it, and then they sow.
●ETYM Bugge (1893: 14) suggests a connection with Arm. (h)arawr ‘plough’ (q.v.)
and derives harawunk‘ from *aramon-, citing Lat. aramentum 77 as a cognate.
Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 57a) does not accept this and other attempts which, too,
considered a derivation from PIE *h2erh3- ‘to plough’ (see, among others,
Scheftelowitz 1904-1905, 2: 58), and leaves the origin of harawunk‘ open. J̌
ahukyan
(1967: 241; 1987: 113), Aɫabekyan (1979: 61) and N. Simonyan (1979: 220-221),
however, are right in accepting the etymology. N. Simonyan (ibid.) treats it within
the framework of the heteroclitic *h2erh3-uer/n-, cf. Gr. ἄρουρα f. ‘tilled or arable
land; pl. corn-lands, fields’; Skt. urvárā- f. ‘arable land, field yielding crop’, Av.
uruuarā- f. pl. ‘food plant, plant, ground covered with plants, flora’; MIr. arbor, NPl
arbanna, OIr. gen. arbe ‘grain, corn’, etc. She also adds Arm. araws ‘virgin soil’
(q.v.; not mentioned by J̌
ahukyan), as a semantic parallel noting Lith. armenà
‘aufgepflügte Schicht der Erdoberflächer’ (cf. also Armenà ‘right tributary of the
Nẽmunas’) from PIE *h2erh3-menā- (see Derksen 1996: 154).
Apparently, the initial h- of harawunk‘ directly reflects the PIE laryngeal (*h2e- >
Arm. ha-, see 2.1.16.1), see N. Simonyan 1979: 220-221; Kortlandt 2003: 42, 55,
73-74; Beekes 2003: 182-183, 192-193, 195. On the development of the
interconsonantal laryngeal, see 2.1.20. Stating that in the Bible harawunk‘ is attested in the meaning ‘sowing, seed time’,
Lindeman (1982: 18) rejects its connection with PIE *h2erh3- ‘to plough’. Noting the
same semantics, Olsen (1999: 613), however, correctly points out that the general
meaning is ‘tilled land, fields’, “which makes the etymological derivation from the
root *h2arə3- ‘plough’ fairly obvious”. The idea of sowing is inseparable from that
of ploughing/cultivating. Note, e.g., Gr. ἄρουρα f. ‘tilled or arable land; pl.
corn-lands, fields’, which metaphorically refers also to a woman as receiving seed
and bearing fruit. Even if the temporal aspect were indeed dominant in harawunk‘, it
could be easily explained by the semantic passage from the spatial aspect (cf. 3.3.1).
Besides, the dialectal data which seem to be neglected by everyone strongly
corroborate the spatial aspect. The basic meaning of the Armenian and Greek words
may be, thus, ‘sowing/tilled/arable-land’.
Arm. haraw-un-k‘ may derive from PIE *h2erh3-uon-. Olsen (1999: 613-614,
768-769) considers this equation less appealing because of “the preservation of *-u̯-
between homorganic vowels”. Interestingly, she (ibid.) suggests a direct derivation
from *h2erh3-mon- (cf. Lith. armuõ ‘arable land’) instead, not citing the dialectal
*har(a)munk‘ which would make the etymology much stronger . This is, in fact, an
old suggestion, see Walde/Hofmann 1, 1938: 71: “oder aus *arā-mōn dissilimiert?”
To my knowledge, however, such a dissimilation is unparallelled.
The above-mentioned argument of Olsen is not essential, since harawunk‘ (pl.)
can be analogical after the unpreserved NSg *harawr (cf. Gr. ἄρουρα). Furthermore,
the development *haramunk‘ > *harawunk‘ is not easy to explain. One might
involve a comparison with the paradigm of paštawn – paštamunk‘ ‘service; religious
ceremony’ (perhaps also mrǰiwn, NPl mrǰmunk‘ ‘ant’, q.v.), but here, unlike in the
case of harawunk‘, the plural (as well as the oblique forms in singular) has only -m-.
I therefore offer the following two scenarios:
(1) Arm. harawunk‘ derives from PIE *h2erh3-uon-, and dial. *har(a)munk‘ is
due to a later reshaping after the paradigm of paštawn – paštamunk‘ ‘service;
religious ceremony’; or else: har(a)wunk‘ > dial. *har(a)munk‘, (C)w...n > (C)m...n
(assimilation of nasalization), cf. Kaɫz(o/a)wan > Kaɫ(i)zman (on which see
HayTeɫBaṙ 2, 1988: 908-909);
(2) Arm. harawunk‘ and dial. *har(a)munk‘ are parallel formations based on PIE
*h2erh3- ‘to plough’; the former derives from PIE *h2erh3-uon-, whereas the latter
reflects *h2erh3-mon- and is comparable with Lat. ar(a)mentum (if related) and/or
Lith. armuõ ‘arable land’ (cf. the above-mentioned interpretation of Bugge), armenà
‘aufgepflügte Schicht der Erdoberflächer’.
The latter solution seems to be slightly preferable.
harsn, GDSg harsin, AblSg i hars-n-ē, NPl harsun-k‘, GDPl harsan-c‘ ‘bride;
daughter-in-law’ (Bible+); harsan-i-k‘, pl. tant. ea-stem: GDPl harsane-a-c‘
‘nuptial, wedding ceremony’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Both harsn and harsanik‘ are ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 3: 62b].
Łarabaɫ has vocative hä́s-i vs. nominative hárt‘nə. The pl. tant. harsani-k‘ is
represented in the Van-Maraɫa group as a frozen APl *xarsni-s. Note in this relation,
that ALocPl harsani-s is found seventeen (of the thirty in total) times in the Bible
(see Astuacaturean 1895: 866).
●ETYM See s.v. harc‘anem ‘to ask, question, inquire’.
harc‘anem, 1sg.aor. harc‘-i, 3sg.aor. e-harc‘, imper. harc‘ (rich evidence in the Bible,
see Astuacaturean 1895: 866-868) ‘to ask, question, inquire’ (Bible+); harc‘-uk, astem: GDPl harc‘k-a-c‘ (Canon Law) ‘sorcerer, magician’ (Bible+); harc‘, i-stem:
GDSg harc‘-i, GDPl harc‘-i-c‘ ‘question, inquiry, interrogation’ (Agat‘angeɫos,
Philo, Severian of Gabala, Gregory of Nyssa, etc.).
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 3: 63b]. T‘iflis has harc‘nɔɫ ‘magician’, cf.
ClArm. harc‘uk ‘sorcerer, magician’ [HAB 3: 63b].
●ETYM From PIE present *prk̥ ̂
-ske/o-: Ved. prccha ̥ ̄́mi, MPers. pursīdan ‘to ask’, Lat.
poscō ‘to ask, demand’, etc.; Arm. 3sg.aor. e-harc‘ derives from thematic imperfect
*e-prk̂
-sk̂
-et, cf. Skt. ápr̥cchat. Note also Arm. imper. harc‘ vs. Skt. pr̥cchá. The
noun harc‘, i-stem ‘question, inquiry’ probably reflects QIE fem. *prk̥ ̂
-sk-ih2- (next
to *-sk-eh2-: Skt. prccha ̥ ̄-, OAv. f(ə)rasā- f. ‘question’, OHG forsca ‘question’, etc.;
see Pokorny 1959: 822; Schmitt 1981: 53)78.
Here belongs also Arm. harsn ‘bride’ (q.v.), cf. Lat. procus, ī m. ‘suitor, wooer’,
Lith. реršu ‘to ask for a girl’s hand in marriage’, OCS prositi ‘to ask’, Skt. praśnám. ‘question, point at issue, inquiry’, YAv. frašna- m. ‘question’, etc. See also s.v.
p‘esay ‘bridegroom, son-in-law’.
For an etymological discussion, see Meillet 1910-11a: 246; 1936: 106-107, 114,
119; Pokorny 1959: 821-822; Mayrhofer 1961: 188-189; Godel 1975: 113, 115-116;
K. Schmidt 1980: 42; 1980a: 2; Schmitt 1981: 53, 135; 1985: 86; Klingenschmitt
1982: 60-63; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 189; Kortlandt 1989: 44; 1996: 40-43 = 2003: 89, 114-
116; Ravnæs 1991: 147; Clackson 1994: 105, 173; Beekes 1995: 230; Mayrhofer
EWAia 2, 1996: 183-185; Mallory/Adams 1997: 33a, 369b, 468b; Olsen 1999: 90,
125.
For the meaning of harc‘-uk ‘sorcerer, magician’ and dial. T‘iflis harc‘nɔɫ
‘magician’ compare OEngl. freht f. ‘Wahrsagung’ (J̌
ahukyan 1992: 19; cf. Saradževa
1985: 79).
hac‘, i-stem: GDSg hac‘-i, AblSg i hac‘-ē, ISg hac‘-i-w, AblPl i hac‘-i-c‘, IPl hac‘-iw-k‘ (rich evidence in the Bible, Astuacaturean 1895: 868-870) ‘bread; food, meal’
(Bible+).
●DIAL Dialectally ubiquitous [HAB 3: 65a]. Interesting is J̌
uɫa axanc‘ from an-hac‘
‘bread-less, without bread’, with metathesis (see Ačaṙean 1940: 162, 373a). On the
compound hac‘-a-han see 2.1.33.2.
In Łarabaɫ (Ačaṙean 1913: 647a) and Modern Armenian (Malxaseanc‘ HBB 3:
76b), hac‘ refers also to ‘honey with honeycomb’; cf. also *meɫr-a-hac‘ ‘id.’,
composed of meɫr ‘honey’ and hac‘ ‘bread’ (Ačaṙean 1913: 768b; Malxaseanc‘ HBB
3: 302). The same semantic shift is seen in pan ‘a kind of round bread’, which in the
dialects of Cilicia and surroundings is synonymous to meɫr-a-hac‘. This shift is quite
old since it is attested by Nersēs Lambronac‘i (12th cent., Cilicia) and others [HAB
4: 20a].
●ETYM Most of the etymological explanations (on which see HAB 3: 64-65;
Charpentier 1909: 241-242; Clackson 1994: 231219), including those connecting hac‘
‘bread’ with Skt. sasyá- n. ‘corn, grain’ (Bugge 1889: 17; 1893: 41; rightly rejected
in Hübschmann 1897: 465 and Pedersen 1905: 209 = 1982: 71) or with Gr. πατέομαι
‘to dine, eat and drink; to enjoy’ and Goth. fodjan ‘to feed’ (*pat-ti- > Arm. hac‘,
Pedersen 1906: 432 = 1982: 210) are untenable. Of these the two are worth of
consideration.
Since long (for references, see HAB 3: 64), Arm. hac‘ is linked with cognate
forms deriving from PIE *pekw
- ‘to cook, bake’: Skt. pac- ‘to cook; to ripen’ (see
Kulikov 2001: 300-304), YAv. pač- ‘to cook’ (see Bailey 1979: 199-200; Cheung
2007: 286-287), Lat. coquō ‘to cook, boil, fry, bake, parch’ < *kw
ekw
ō < *pekw
ō (see
Schrijver 1991: 466), Gr. πέσσω ‘to bake, cook; to ripen’, OCS pekǫ ‘to bake’, etc. A
*-ti-derivative QIE *pokw
-ti- has been assumed, cf. Gr. πέψις f. ‘the cooking; the
ripening’, Ved. Skt. paktí-, pákti- f. ‘cooking, cooked meal’, etc. (Charpentier 1909:
241-245; Pokorny 1959: 798 (hesitantly); J̌
ahukyan 1982: 73; 1987: 142
(hesitantly); Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 699 = 1995, 1: 604. Arm. hac‘ is not
mentioned in Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 64; Mallory/Adams 1997: 125.
This etymology presents us with a number of difficultes: 1) the vowel *-o- cannot
yield Arm. -a- in closed syllables; 2) the sound change *-kti- > Arm. -c‘- is
untenable; 3) *-ti-derivatives usually require zero grade in the root. The explanation
of Mann (1963: 83-84; cf. J̌
ahukyan 1982: 21778) assuming *-t(V)s > Arm. -c‘ is
improbable; for the counter-evidence, see -T(i). Likewise untenable is *pokw
-s-om
‘baked’ assumed by Patrubány (apud HAB 3: 64b). Olsen (1999: 83, 827; 2000:
404) posits *pək
w
-tih2- > *-ti̯a-, a vr̥kī́
-derivative, with *-kw
ti̯- > -c‘ as “a potential
parallel of the regular development *-ti̯- > -c‘-”. I believe, however, that a *-ti̯-
would yield Arm. -č‘- rather than -c‘- (see 2.1.22.1). Furthermore, *kw
ti̯- is more
likely to develop into Arm. -wč‘- beside the regular change *-pt- and *-kt- > Arm.
-wt‘, cf. eawt‘n ‘seven’, ut‘ ‘eight’, etc.
According to the etymology suggested by Patrubány 1902-03a: 163; 1904: 428
(accepted in Pedersen 1905: 209 = 1982: 71 and Meillet apud HAB 3: 65a; for
further references, see Schrijver 1991: 144, mentioning also Arm. hac‘ ‘bread’ <
*pas-ki- with a question-mark), Arm. hac‘ ‘bread’ derives from *pāsk-i or *pə-sk-i-
(read *p(e)h2-sk-i-), with the inchoative present suffix *-sk-, and is linked with Lat.
pānis ‘bread’ < *pāstni-, pastillum ‘a form of sacrificial cake’, pascō ‘to feed,
pasture; to provide food for; to nurture (ground, crops, etc.); to gratify hunger’ (see
s.v. hasteay ‘a kind of pastry’). More probably, Arm. hac‘ may reflect an old
nominative *pāst-s (see below).
Recently A. Petrosyan (unpublished) derived hac‘ from PIE *h2Hs-k-, a
derivative of *h2eHs- ‘to dry, parch’. To the best of my knowledges, however, there
are no cognates pointing to a form with *-k-. The Germanic forms (OHG asca
‘ashes’, etc.) and Arm. ač-iwn ‘ash’ and askn ‘ruby’ point to *-g-. Nevertheless, this
etymology is worth of consideration. One may assume a suffix *-sk-, on which see
J
̌
ahukyan 1987: 235-236. The semantic development ‘baked, cooked’ > ‘bread, cake’
is natural. One also may think of ‘(baked by placing under) ashes’, cf. Arm. nkan ‘a
kind of bread’ < ‘bread that is baked by placing it under ashes’ (HAB 3: 455-456);
Partizak, Manišak < Hamšen moxrac (moxrat‘aɫ) karkandak ‘*ashed cake’ (see TērYakobean 1960: 464); Tavuš kərkeni ‘a cake’ that is baked moxri mič‘in “in the
ashes” (Xemč‘yan 2000: 217bNr19). Compare also hasteay ‘a kind of pastry, cake’ (q.v.), possibly from the same etymon (if derived from *has-t- ‘ash’ rather then
having resulted from a semantic development ‘to parch, burn, etc.’ > ‘cake’).
According to J̌
ahukyan (1987: 318, 320), Arm. hac‘ ‘bread’, if indeed of IE
origin, may have been borrowed into Hitt. NINDAḫaz(z)ita- ‘a kind of cake’ (cf. also
Hitt. NINDAḫarzazu- ‘a kind of oily bread’). I suggest a connection between Hitt. NINDAḫaz(z)ita- ‘a kind of cake’ and Arm. hasteay ‘id.’ (q.v.).
To conclude, an IE origin of Arm. hac‘ ‘bread’ is possible though the etymology
is not entirely clear. The most popular theory, viz. the one positing *pokw
ti- (or
*pək
w
-tih2-), is untenable. The derivation from QIE *h2Hs-(s)k- is quite possible. The
most probable source for hac‘ is, in my opinion, QIE *p(e)h2s(-sk)-. If Lat. *pās-tand Arm. hac‘ (possibly also hasteay ‘a kind of pastry’) do not derive from PIE
*peh2s- ‘to feed, graze’, they may point to a Mediterranean *pāst- ‘a kind of bread
or cake’. Whether of PIE or substratum origin, Arm. hac‘ may reflect an old
nominative *pāst-s, cf. Arm. anic ‘nit, louse egg’ from QIE *s(k)onid-s vs. Gr. κονίς
< *κονιδ-ς (see s.v.). The consonant stem *pāst- was changed to an i-stem of hac‘,
cf. Arm. sirt, i-stem ‘heart’ (q.v.).
hac‘i, ea-stem: GDSg hac‘w-o-y (Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, 9-10 cent.), GDPl
hac‘eac‘ (in place-names, see there) ‘ash-tree’; hac‘-ut ‘ place abounding in ashtrees’, hac‘ut purak called Hac‘eac‘ Draxt ‘Ash Grove’ (P‘awstos Buzand 3.14,
1883=1984: 33L17).
●DIAL The forms hac‘-i and hac‘-eni ‘ash-tree’ are widespread in the dialects [HAB
3: 65b]. Note also Ozim xac‘əcáṙ [Ačaṙyan 1952: 275]. For Salmast xac‘iky
(HAB
ibid.) with a diminutive suffix, see s.v. place-name *Hac‘eak-k‘. The -w- in Muš,
Alaškert hac‘vɛni (HAB ibid.) reflects the old genitive stem hac‘w-.
●ETYM Connected with OIc. askr, OGH asc, OEngl. æsc ‘ash-tree’, Alb ah ‘beech’,
perhaps also Hitt. ḫaš(š)ik n., ḫaššikka- c. ‘ein Obstbaum und seine Frucht’; without
the *-k-: Lith. úosis ‘ash-tree’, SCr. jȁsēn ‘ash-tree’, Lat. ornus f. ‘mountain-ash’ <
*oseno-, OIr. uinnius m. ‘ash-tree’ < *osno-, etc. [Bugge 1893: 14-15; Hübschmann
1897: 465; HAB 3: 65b; Pokorny 1959: 782; Fraenkel 2: 1167; P. Friedrich 1970:
92-98; ÈtimSlovSlavJaz 1, 1974: 78-80; Normier 1981; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984,
2: 625-626 = 1995: 537-538; P. Friedrich apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 32]. For Alb
ah ‘beech’ from *osk-, see Kortlandt 1986: 42-44 = 2003: 72-73; Demiraj 1997: 73
(with lit.). For Hittite, see Tischler 1, 1983: 200-201; Kloekhorst 2008 s.v.
The root is usually reconstructed as *Hh3-e/os-, beside full-grade *Heh3-s- in BSl.
(see Schrijver 1991: 77-78, 187, 327; 1995: 39, 455; Derksen 2008 s.v.; de Vaan
2008: 435). Arm. hac‘i, ea-stem, reflects *Hh3os-k-ieh2- > PArm. *hoskíyā, with
pretonic *-o- > -a- (on which see 2.1.3), or zero-grade (possibly also Germanic, see
Schrijver 1991: 77-78), *HHs-k-ieh2-. Olsen (1999: 813) posits *-ssk-, which is
improbable and unnecessary.
For Gr. ὀξύα, -η ‘beech, spear’, see s.v. uši, probably ‘storax-tree; holm-oak’. The
form with *-en- is probably reflected in Arm. hoyn ‘cornel’ (q.v.).
haw1, u-stem: GDSg haw-u, GDPl haw-u-c‘ (rich evidence in the Bible, see
Astuacaturean 1895: 870), (also a- and o-stems in NHB 2: 71b without evidence)
‘bird’ (Bible, Łazar P‘arpec‘i, Eusebius of Caesarea, Porphyry), ‘rooster’ (Bible),
‘hen’ (Bible). For a thorough philological analysis, see Strohmeyer 1983 who concludes that, in
contrast with the generic term t‘ṙč‘un ‘bird, any living thing which flies’, haw has a
more complex, although smaller, semantic range which primarily includes birds
which are useful to men.
For the semantic development cf. Gr. ὄρνις ‘bird’, ‘rooster’, ‘hen’.
●DIAL The word is widespread in the dialects as *haw ‘hen’, whereas the frozen
plural *haw-k‘ (T‘iflis, Muš, Van, etc.) means ‘bird’ [HAB 3: 66b].
According to Orbeli 2002: 245, Moks xafk‘y
/xavk‘y
, gen. xafk‘y
-u refers not only
to ‘bird’ (see also 63L14,17 and 116L11 for textual illustrations), but also to ‘ястреб =
hawk’. For the semantic shift compare Gr. αἰετός ‘eagle’ from the very same PIE
etymon ‘bird’ (see below). Moks also has xav, gen. xav-u ‘hen’ [Orbeli 2002: 244].
●ETYM Since NHB 2: 71b, etc. (see HAB 3: 66), connected with Lat. avis, -is f.
‘bird’ (see also Hübschmann 1897: 465) and other words belonging to the PIE word
for ‘bird’: Gr. αἰετός < *awi-etos m. ‘eagle’, Skt. váy-, NSg véḥ/víḥ, AccSg vím, GSg
véḥ, NPl váyaḥ, IPl víbhiḥ m. ‘bird’, YAv. vaii- m. ‘bird’, NSg vīš, NPl vaiiō, GPl
vaiiąm ‘bird’, etc. (see Meillet 1894: 154; HAB 3: 66a; Pokorny 1959: 86;
Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 537 = 1995, 1: 454-455; Mallory/Adams 1997: 66a).
The word is reconstructed as a PD i-stem: nominative *h2éu-i- (cf. Lat. avis ‘bird’
and Arm. haw ‘id.’) vs. genitive *h2u̯-éi-s (see Kuiper 1942: 61-62 = 221-222;
Beekes 1969: 57, 128; 1985: 81-82; 1995: 175; Schrijver 1991: 30, 47; for a
discussion, see also Schindler 1969: 146-148; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 507-508;
Olsen 1999: 110230)
79.
The initial h- has been treated as non-etymological (Meillet 1892: 162; 1936: 38;
Ernout/Meillet 1959: 58). However, the PIE full grade nominative *h2éu-i- (cf. Lat.
avis ‘bird’) would yield Arm. haw, and the initial h- can reflect the laryngeal
(Greppin 1973: 73; Polomé 1980: 25; Kortlandt 1983: 12; 1986: 43 = 2003: 42, 73;
Schrijver 1991: 30, 47; Lindeman 1997: 39; Beekes 2003: 182).
The u-declension is due to the stem-final -w (Meillet 1936: 76; J̌
ahukyan 1982:
127; Olsen 1999: 109-110, 790, 828); note also that the u-stem is frequent with
animal names, cf. aɫuēs ‘fox’, arǰ ‘bear’, gayl ‘wolf’, inj ‘panther, leopard’, ul ‘kid’,
etc. On u-stem animal names, see A. A. Abrahamyan 1976: 42-43; J̌
ahukyan 1982:
127; Olsen 1999: 105. The u-declension includes a considerable number of animalnames in the dialects. Tarōnean (1961: 33), for instance, presents a list of 54 such
animal designations in Baɫeš-Bitlis.
haw2, o-stem: GDSg haw-o-y (Movsēs Xorenac‘i, Eusebius of Caesarea), IPl haw-ov-k‘ in the letter from Bishop Giwt (5th cent.) to Vač‘ē (king of Aɫuank‘) apud
Movsēs Kaɫankatuac‘i 1.11 [V. Aṙak‘elyan 1983: 20L14]; u-stem: GDSg haw-u
(Plato, John Chrysostom) ‘grandfather, ancestor’ (Bible+).
In some colophons, also ‘uncle’ [Mahé 1986-87a]; see below.
●ETYM Connected with Lat. avus ‘grandfather’, OIr. aue ‘grandson’, Goth. awo
‘grandmother’, Lith. avýnas ‘maternal uncle’, OPr. awis ‘id.’, Russ. uj, Pol. wuj
‘maternal uncle’, Hitt. ḫuḫḫaš ‘grandfather’, etc. (NHB 2: 71b; HAB 3: 67a;
Mallory/Adams 1997: 238a). On the meaning ‘(maternal) uncle’ in some languages, see Benveniste 1969, 1:
223ff; Beekes 1976a; Toporov, PrJaz 1, 1975: 179-180. As has been shown by Mahé
(1986-87a), also Arm. haw appears in the meaning ‘uncle’ in some colophons.
In view of Hitt. ḫuḫḫaš and SCr. ȕjāk, one reconstructs two laryngeals: *h2euH-
[Schrijver 1991: 48]. The initial h- of the Armenian form, as well as that of han
‘grandmother’ (q.v.), although in both cases it corresponds to Hitt. ḫ-, is considered
“une aspiration secondaire due à un phénomène récent” [Benveniste 1969, 1: 224].
See, however, 2.1.16.1. The alternative derivation of Arm. haw from *papos
[Pokorny 1959: 89] is gratuitous (see also Szemerényi 1977: 47).
Remarkable is the absence of Greek and Aryan cognates next to the Armenian
form (cf. however Szemerényi 1977: 47-48, 56-61).
hawaṙi, see s.v. getaṙ(u)
hawt, i-stem ‘flock of sheep, etc.; group’ (Bible+). GDPl hōt-i-c‘ is attested in the
Bible, as well as in P‘awstos Buzand 4.13 (1883=1984: 95L8): čarak hōtic‘ “pastures
for flocks” [Garsoïan (1989: 138L4]. From hawt several designations for ‘shepherd’
have been formed: hōt-arac (Łazar P‘arpec‘i+), hōt-erēc‘ (Philo, “Vkayk‘
arewelic‘”, etc.), as well as dial *hōt-aɫ.
●DIAL Dialectally attested only in *hōt-aɫ ‘shepherd’ (see s.v. *hawt-aɫ).
●ETYM Usually derived from PIE *peh2- ‘to protect, keep’ with *-d- as in Pers. pāda
‘flock’ and in Lat. pecus, -udis f. ‘farm animal; sheep’ (see Meillet 1903c: 430;
HAB 3: 138-139, 139b); see s.v. hawran ‘flock of sheep or goats’. J̌
ahukyan (1987:
142) put a question mark on the reconstruction *pā-d-. Klingenschmitt (1982:
153-154) tries to explain the obvious formal problems by starting with NSg
*pah2dō(i̯), which is not convincing; see 2.1.22.12. Olsen (1999: 95; 2000: 406)
alternatively derives hawt from *pek̂
u-d- (cf. Lat. pecus, -udis) > *hawut-, but this is
improbable.
The best solution is offered, I think, by A. Xač‘atryan (1993: 107), who derives
hawt from hatanem ‘to cut’ (q.v.). For the semantic relationship, see 3.9.1.
*hawt-aɫ ‘shepherd’.
●DIAL In the dialects of Axalc‘xa, Loṙi, Ararat, Łarabaɫ, Van, Alaškert, Muš
[Ačaṙean 1913: 676-677; HAB 3: 139a], Bulanəx, Širak, Aparan [Amatuni 1912:
407-408]. A secondary meaning is ‘ploughman’, also in the compound (Baberd)
*hōtaɫ-k‘ar, with k‘ar ‘stone’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 676-677; HAB 3: 139a].
Ararat, Sip‘an *Hōtaɫ-astɫ ‘Evening Star’, lit. ‘shepherd-star’ [Amatuni 1912:
408a], called so because its appearance marked the return of flocks from pastures
[Ačaṙean 1913: 677a; HayLezBrbBaṙ 3, 2004: 305a]. On Hotɫi astɫ = Lusastɫ
‘Venus’ pictured on a New year ritual cake named Tari ‘year’ from the village of
Abul of Axalk‘alak‘, see Bdoyan 1972: 441a. According to G. Hakobyan (1974:
275), Nerk‘in Basen Hotɫi astɫ refers to the planet Mars. According to Nždehyan
(1902: 270, with a corresponding traditional story; see also Łanalanyan 1969: 9Nr6),
Alaškert Gɔdi hɔtɫu astɫ ‘star of the lazy herdsman’ refers to Erewak ‘Saturn’.
The word hɔtaɫ functions also as a star of the constellation Ursa Major, or Libra,
or Orion, this time in the meaning ‘ploughman’; see 3.1.4.1.
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 139a) derives from Arm. hawt ‘flock of sheep, etc.’ (q.v.),
which is undoubtedly correct, but does not specify the ending -aɫ. One cannot exclude the possibility that we are dealing with a suffix; cf. e.g.
kenc‘-aɫ ‘living’. Nevertheless, I tentatively propose a derivation from PIE *peh2(s)-
‘to protect, pasture’, cf. OCS pasti ‘to pasture’, Lat. pāscō ‘to pasture’, Hitt. paḫš-
‘to protect’, etc. This verbal root is found in Arm. hoviw ‘shepherd’ (q.v.). A suffixed
*peh2-lo- (cf. Skt. avipālá- ‘shepherd’, gopālá- ‘cowherd’) would yield Arm.
*(h)aɫ-. Thus: *hawt-aɫ ‘shepherd’ < “sheepflock pasturer”.
That the word is not attested in the literature does not necessarily imply that it is
recent. The dialectal spread and the fact that hawt ‘sheepflock’ has not been
preserved in the dialects independently suggest that *hōtaɫ may be old.
For *hōtaɫ(i)-astɫ ‘Evening Star’, lit. ‘shepherd-star’, note an astonishing parallel
in Old English: swán(a)-steorra ‘Evening Star’, lit. ‘shepherd-star’; the motivation
is explained in the same way: “weil bei seinem Sichtbarwerden die Hirten
heimtreiben” (Scherer 1953: 84). The same pattern of naming the planet Venus is
also seen among Turkic peoples (Turkish çobanyɪldɪzi, Turkmen Чобан йылдызы,
etc.), although in this case the designation refers to the Morning Star (see Karpenko
1981: 79).
hawran, a-stem in NHB, but without evidence ‘flock of sheep or goats’ (Bible+),
‘sheepfold’ (Philo+).
●ETYM The independently unattested *hawr- is taken as meaning ‘shepherd’ and is
derived from *peh2-tro- ‘guarder, protecter, keeper’ < PIE *peh2-; cf. Skt. pā- ‘to
protect, keep’, pātár- m. ‘defender, protector’ (RV+), YAv. pāϑra-uuaṇt- ‘granting
protection’, Khot. pā-, Pahl. pādan ‘to protect, watch’, pās ‘guard, watch’, pahrēz
‘defence, care’ (see MacKenzie 1971: 62, 64), OCS pasti ‘to pasture’, etc.; also
PArm. *-wa- in hoviw ‘shepherd’ [Lidén 1906: 26-27; HAB 3: 139b; J̌
ahukyan
1987: 142]. The inclusion of Arm. hawt ‘flock, group’ is not convincing (see s.v.).
See also s.v. hayim ‘to watch, look, wait’.
Smbat Sparapet (13th cent., Cilicia) used a hapax, namely pahran, which seems to
mean ‘pastureland’: ‘Weide’ (Karst) = ‘пастбище’ (Galstyan); see HAB 4: 12b;
Galstyan 1958: 167. Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 12b) mentions/offers no etymology.
J
̌ahukyan (1967: 305) cites pahran next to hawran as an example of the alternation p
: h and supplies no explanation.
I propose to treat Arm. pahran as a loan from the above-mentioned Iran. *pahr-
‘protection, care’. The meaning ‘to pasture’ (cf. OCS pasti ‘to pasture’, etc.) is not
attested with IIr. *pāt(a)r-, but it does appear in Arm. hawran ‘flock of sheep and
goats’ derived from the same *peh2-tro-. Note also that both forms have a final -an.
The basic meaning of hawran and pahran seems to be ‘pasturing, pastured’, whereas
the suffix *-tro- would point to ‘pasturer’. This is not a decisive obstacle since the
difference between the one who pastures and the one who is pastured is not
significant. Besides, a pastureland might also be seen as a ‘valley of the pasturer’
(see s.v. Tuarac-a-tap‘). One may, thus, reconstruct a MIran. *pahran ‘pasturing’ as
a semantic and formal (including not only the *-tr- but also, perhaps, the nasal
suffix) correspondence to Arm. hawran, and as the source of Arm. pahran.
hawru ‘stepfather’.
●DIAL Hamšen hɔru ‘stepfather’ [Ačaṙyan 1947: 51, 242], Xotorǰur hɔru
[YušamXotorǰ 1964: 479a]. ●ETYM See s.v. mawru ‘stepmother’.
*hap‘ap‘em ‘to kidnap’, hapax 3sg.aor. hap‘ap‘ec‘aw ‘she was kidnapped’ in
Eusebius of Caesarea
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 72b) assumes a reduplication of an otherwise unknown
*hap‘-. Further see s.v. ap‘ ‘palm of the hand, handful’.
hecan, a-stem: ISg hecan-a-w (a few times in Grigor Narekac‘i, 10-11th cent.) ‘beam;
log; staff, mace’ (Bible+), later ‘a kind of meteorological phenomenon’.
●DIAL Preserved in a few extremely W and SW dialects [HAB 3: 75b].
●ETYM No acceptable etymology in HAB 3: 75b. Olsen (1999: 299, 951) presents
hecan as an etymologically obscure word.
Bediryan (1956: 44-45) and J̌
ahukyan (1979: 27-28) independently derive hecan
from hecanim ‘to mount’ < ‘to sit’ (q.v.) from PIE *sed- ‘to sit’. They treat hecanoc‘ ‘a kind of winnowing-fan’ (Bible+) as a derivative of hecan ‘beam, log’. In my
view, this is parallel to the derivation of gerandi ‘scythe; sickle’ from geran ‘beam,
log‘ (see s.vv.). Note that both geran (a-stem) and hecan display the same suffix -an,
and the same semantic development (‘beam, log’ > ‘a kind of meteorological
phenomenon’). For a discussion of -oc‘ and -anoc‘, see Greppin 1975: 43-44, 113;
J̌ahukyan 1998: 13, 31; Olsen 1999: 311-313.
hecanim, 3sg.aor. hec-a-w ‘to mount a horse, etc.; to come on board’ + i ‘in, on’
(Bible+), heceal, o-stem: ISg hecel-o-v, GDPl hecel-o-c‘, IPl hecel-o-v-k‘
‘horseman, rider, cavalryman’ (Bible+), hecel-a-zawr ‘cavalry’ (Bible+); MidArm.
hec-n-um ‘to mount a horse’ (Barseɫ Čon, 13th cent., see NHB 2: 82b), hej-n-um
‘id.’ (Grigoris, 13th cent.), hecne/il ‘id.’ (12th cent.+), hecman ‘horseman’ (Bžškaran
jioy, etc.), hecel ‘cavalry; cavalryman’ (abundant in MidArm.), etc. [MiǰHayBaṙ 2,
1992: 32-33].
For attestations of the verb and derivatives, see Astuacaturean 1895: 878; NHB 2:
81-82; Klingenschmitt 1982: 19543; Barton 1989: 147. For 3sg.aor. hec-a-w
‘mounted (a horse)’ and 2sg.subj. hec-c‘-i-s (et‘ē du yors hecc‘is “if you [mount to]
go hunting”) in the famous epic fragments, see Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.50 and 2.61
(1913=1991: 179L2, 192L2f; Thomson 1978: 192, 203).
●DIAL The verb is widespread in the dialects [HAB 3: 75]. Next to the basic
meaning ‘to mount a horse’ one also finds sporadic data with different semantic
nuances. For instance, in a folk-tale from the Karin-Ērzrum region (Basen, NarmanĒk‘rek) told by Hakob Sanosyan and recorded by Ervand Pezazyan in
Alek‘sandrapol-Gyumri in 1915 (HŽHek 4, 1963: 269L19) we find hecan gyamiin
‘they came on board of the ship’.
Derivatives include *hecel ‘robber’ (Van), ‘army’ (Aṙtial), *hecelwor ‘soldier’
(Aṙtal), etc. [HAB 3: 75].
●ETYM Derived from PIE *sed- ‘to sit’, cf. Gr. ἔζομαι, Lat. sedēre, Goth. sitan, Lith.
sėdė́ti, etc. (HAB 3: 75a; Pokorny 1959: 885; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 692-693);
further see s.vv. nist ‘seat, site, location, abode’, teɫ ‘site, place’.
The etymology presents no serious difficulties (pace Kortlandt 1983: 11 = 2003:
41). For a discussion on the initial h- from word-initial *s- or from a prefix, see
Pedersen 1905: 2061 = 1982: 681; Greppin 1975a: 47-48; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 39; Klingenschmitt 1982: 195-196; Kortlandt 1983: 11; 1987a: 51 = 2003: 41, 80;
Ravnæs 1991: 107, 168-169.
The affricate -c- points to the sigmatic aorist *sed-s- (Pedersen 1905: 206 = 1982:
68; Pokorny 1959: 885; J̌
ahukyan 1967: 216; 1982: 74; Kortlandt 1987a: 51; 1994:
28-29 = 2003: 80, 105; Barton 1989: 147, 14843; Olsen 1999: 81055), cf. Skt.
3sg.subj.act. sátsat, etc. (for the forms see Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 692).
The explanation from pres. *sed-i̯e/o- (Klingenschmitt 1982: 195-196; see also
Ravnæs 1991: 36, 168-169) has been criticised by Barton 1989: 147, 14741 in the
morphological context. Besides, *sed-i̯e/o- would yield Arm. *heč- rather than hec-
(see 2.1.22.1, 2.2.6.1).
See also s.vv. hecan ‘beam, log’ and hecanoc‘ ‘winnowing fan; Milky Way’.
hecanoc‘, a-stem: GDSg hecanoc‘-i (Grigor Narekac‘i, 10-11th cent.), ISg hecanoc‘-
a-w (Šarakan, Čaṙəntir) ‘winnowing fan’ (Bible, Hexaemeron, John Chrysostom,
etc.), ‘Milky Way’ (Ališan 1910: 129-130 without source indication).
As is pointed out by Ališan ibid., the second meaning must be due to the
association of the Milky Way with ‘straw’ (see 3.1.3).
●ETYM No etymology in HAB 3: 76a and J̌
ahukyan 1987. Olsen 1999: 955 lists
hecanoc‘ among words of unknown origin.
See s.v. hecan ‘beam, log’.
heɫjamɫjuk ‘drowned, suffocated, oppressed’, attested in Agat‘angeɫos, Łazar
P‘arpec‘i, Movsēs Xorenac‘i, Hexaemeron, etc.
In Movsēs Xorenac‘i 3.68 (1913= 1991: 361L10; transl. Thomson 1978: 352),
Ayspiseaw anjkaw heɫjamɫjuk eɫeal, vtangim (var. p‘ɫjkim) karōtut‘eamb meroy hōrn
: “Oppressed by such an affliction I suffer from the loss of our father”.
In Movsēs Kaɫankatuac‘i/Dasxuranc‘i 3.22/23 (V. Aṙak‘elyan 1983: 339L9f;
transl. Dowsett 1961: 225): bazumk‘ xoršakahar ew heɫjamɫjuk satakec‘an : “many
perished by fire and drowning”. This passage is not cited in NHB and HAB.
The suffix-less form heɫjamuɫj is attested in Kirakos Ganjakec‘i, 13th cent. [HAB
3: 332b].
●ETYM Belongs with heɫj- ‘to drown, suffocate, strangle’ (Bible+); cf. also xeɫd-
‘id.’ (Bible+; dialectally ubiquitous). The IE etymological attempts (see HAB 2:
357; 3: 78a; J̌
ahukyan 1967: 107, 112) are unconvincing. For the combined
reduplication (u-type and m-type), cf. aɫǰamuɫǰ ‘darkness, twilight’ based on *aɫǰ-, a
word of IE origin (q.v.). If this interpretation is correct (Ačaṙyan is sceptical, HAB
3: 332), the independently attested mɫj(u)k- ‘to strangle’ (P‘awstos Buzand, John
Chrysostom, etc.) should be regarded as secondary.
heɫum, 3sg.aor. e-heɫ ‘to pour, fill, flow over’ (Bible+), heɫeɫ, a-stem: GDSg heɫeɫ-i,
AblSg i heɫeɫ-ē, ISg heɫeɫ-a-w, GDPl heɫeɫ-a-c‘ ‘flood, torrent’ (Bible+), heɫeɫat, astem: GDSg heɫeɫat-i, AblSg i heɫeɫat-ē, LocSg i heɫeɫat-i, ISg heɫeɫat-a-w, GDPl
heɫeɫat-a-c‘, IPl heɫeɫat-a-w-k‘ ‘torrent, the place of a torrential stream, ravine’
(Bible+); z-eɫum ‘to pour, pour out, shed; to flow out, be overfilled’ (Bible+); see
also s.v. oɫoɫ(an)em ‘to overflow, inundate, flood; to rinse’ (Bible+).
A textual illustration for the verb heɫum from Eɫišē, Chapter 5 (Ter-Minasyan
1989: 214L25f): minč‘ew hraman tueal erknayin covun heɫul i veray c‘amak‘is “He even ordered the sea of heaven to flow over the dry land” (transl. Thomson 1982:
158-159).
That heɫeɫ-at refers not only to ‘torrent’ but also ‘ravine, torrent-bed’ is seen e.g.
from the following attestations: Job 28.4 (Cox 2006: 182): zxram heɫeɫati i p‘ošwoy
“a cleft of a ravine, away from dust”; in Łazar P‘arpec‘i (5th cent.) 3.81 (1904=1985:
148L35; transl. Thomson 1991: 208): yezer heɫeɫatin “at the edge of the ravine” (for
the full passage, see s.v. art ‘cornfield’).
●ETYM The verb heɫum is usually derived from QIE *pel(H)-nu-mi (cf. Lith. pilù,
pìlti ‘to pour’, etc.) and connected with reduplicated heɫeɫ and oɫoɫ- (Bugge 1893:
15; Meillet 1916e: 171; Meillet 1916g; 1919: 187; 1936: 48, 112, 114; HAB 3: 76-
77; Pokorny 1959: 798; hesitantly: Hübschmann 1897: 466). For a discussion, see
Klingenschmitt 1982: 244-246; Saradževa 1986: 24-25; Olsen 1999: 406435. Further
see s.v. li ‘full’ (note the verb lnum ‘to fill’ with the same verbal suffix *-nu-).
Greppin (1981b: 6) notes that a proto-form *peln-peln- is not agreeable. The
solution may be simpler, however: reduplication of heɫ- ‘to pour’ on the Armenian
ground (cf. Meillet 1936: 38; Klingenschmitt 1982: 24419; Olsen 1999: 72, 406; on
heɫeɫ-at, see Olsen 1999: 335). Elsewhere Greppin (1981c: 1213) notes the
derivation heɫum < *pel-nu-mi and adds: “However, an o-grade form, Arm. oɫoɫ
‘inundation’, might be derived from Hitt. alalam(m)a- ‘roar (of a river)’”. However,
the Armenian forms are not of onomatopoeic nature. I see no reason to separate heɫeɫ
from oɫoɫ-. The latter may be regarded as an o-grade verbal iterative-extensive
reduplication (cf. Klingenschmitt 1982: 24419), cf. kokov- ‘to boast’, yorǰorǰem ‘to
call, name’.
*heṙ- ‘far’: heṙ-i adv. ‘far (of time and space); isolated, foreign’, adj. ‘distant, far off,
of long duration’ (Bible+), ‘without, except’ (Movsēs Xorenac‘i, Gregory of Nyssa),
heṙ-ust, i heṙ-ust adv. ‘from a distance, at long range’ (Bible+), heṙ-oy ‘far’ (John
Chrysostom), dial. *heṙ-u ‘far’ (NHB 2: 89a; see also the dialectal section);
heṙanam, 3sg.aor. heṙac‘-aw, 3pl.aor. heṙac‘-an ‘to leave, go away, move off, be
far’ (Bible+); heṙ-awor, a-stem: GDPl heṙawor-a-c‘ adj. ‘distant, far off, of long
duration’ (Bible+), heṙewor < *heṙi-awor ‘id.’ (Ephrem), heṙastan adj. ‘distant, far
off, of long duration’, i heṙastan-ē adv. ‘far, far off/away, from a distance, at long
range’ (Bible+).
●DIAL The forms heṙi and heṙu are widespread in the dialects. With a final nasal:
Xarberd häṙun (beside häṙi), Muš, Alaškert hɛṙun, Aslanbek häṙün, abl. hɛṙəvän, cf.
Akn hɛṙvɔnc‘, etc. Ṙodost‘o hɛṙung with the suffix -unk, cf. xor-unk ‘deep’, etc.
[HAB 3: 82a]. The dialectal form heṙu is recorded already in NHB 2: 89a.
●ETYM Since de Lagarde 1854: 14L295f et al. (HAB 3: 82a) connected with Goth.
fairra ‘far’, OHG ferro ‘far’, Skt. parás ‘far, further’, etc. See Klingenschmitt 1982:
12117, 165 on the morphology of heṙ-i (derived by him from *persii̯o-) and the verb
heṙ-anam. For references and a discussion, see s.v. aṙ ‘at, by, to’.
*hes-
●DIAL Meɫri hísnil ‘to look at’ [Aɫayan 1954: 314].
●ETYM According to Aɫayan (1954: 314; 1974: 146-147), from PIE *(s)pek̂
- ‘toobserve, see’: Skt. (s)paś- ‘to see (paś-); to observe, to watch, to spy (spaś-)’, spaṣṭá- ‘(clearly) perceived, clear, visible’, Gr. σκέπτεται ‘to look around, to look
at’, Lat. speciō ‘to see’, etc. See also s.v. p‘ast ‘proof, etc.’.
This etymology is attractive. However, I wonder if Meɫri hísnil ‘to look at’ is not
simply due to contamination of hayim ‘to watch, look at’ (which would be
contracted in Meɫri to *hi-; cf. hayeli ‘mirror’ from the same verb > Meɫri híllɛ
[Aɫayan 1954: 277a]) with tesanem ‘to see’ (> Meɫri təɛ́
snil [Aɫayan 1954: 288a]).
het, o-stem: GDPl het-o-c‘ ‘foot’ (rare), ‘footstep, footprint, track; after’ (Bible+),
‘with, together’ (Eɫišē, John Chrysostom, etc.); heti (adv.) ‘on foot’ (Bible+); y-et, yet-oy ‘behind, after, afterwards’ (Bible+); *et, only in expressions et ənd et
‘immediately’ (Eznik Koɫbac‘i, 5th cent.; T‘ēodoros K‘ṙt‘enawor, 7th cent.), et z-et-ē
‘one after another’ (Gregory of Nyssa); cf. het-z-het-ē (John Chrysostom), yet-z-yetē (Naxadrut‘iwnk‘).
Textual illustrations for yetoy and heti : Genesis 18.10 [Zeyt‘unean 1985: 220]:
Ew Sarra unkn dnēr aṙ dran xoranin, k‘anzi yetoy nora kayr : Σαρρα δὲ ἤκουσεν
πρὸς τῇ ϑύρᾳ τῆς σκηνῆς, οὐ̃σα ὄπισϑεν αὐτοῦ. Arm. yetoy renders Gr. ὄπισϑεν
‘(from) behind, at the back, afterwards’. Eɫišē (Ter-Minasyan 1989: 404L23; transl.
Thomson 1982: 246): bok ew heti “without shoes and on foot” (cf. Hac‘uni 1923:
145).
●DIAL The form het ‘together’ is ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 3: 84b]. The
meaning ‘footprint, track’ is represented by Hamšen hɛd, hid [Ačaṙyan 1947: 241],
Svedia hit‘k‘ [HAB ibid.; Ačaṙyan 2003: 576]; note also Tavuš hɛt as attested in folk
texts, Xemč‘yan 2000: 36bL-17 (orsi heter lit. ‘tracks of hunt’), 212aL2 (hetəmə ‘in
the track’), 236aNr74 (het ‘track’).
Relics of the original meaning ‘foot, footstep’ may be seen in the derivative *hetik ‘ski-like shoes to walk on snow’ in Dersim (hɛtik, see Andranik 1900: 114),
Hamšen, etc. (Bdoyan HayŽoɫXaɫ 2, 1980: 214 with thorough descriptions and
drawings); Partizak, Manišak (< Hamšen) hetik ‘an implement for walking on snow’
[Tēr-Yakobean 1960: 472].
The meaning ‘time’ (attested in Šapuh Bagratuni: aṙaǰin het ‘first time’, HAB 3:
83a) is present in some eastern dialects, such as Goris hɛti [Margaryan 1975: 425b].
Note also Loṙi *ayl-het ‘another time, again’, *ays-het ‘this time’, etc.; a textual
illustration from a folk-tale from the village of Igahat (Loṙi, district of Alaverdi) told
by D. Poɫosyan-Šahverdyan and recorded by E. Lalayan in 1915 (HŽHek‘ 8, 1977:
70L-11f): Gnac‘ ɛlet biju kuštə; asav: ‘Bijá, ɛs het ɫrkum en <...>’ : “He went again to
the old man and said: ‘Old man, this time they are sending me to <...>’”.
●ETYM See s.v. ot- ‘foot’.
*hert‘ ‘turn, queue’ (see dial. section); MidArm. hert‘-ov adv. ‘in turn, by turns, in
consecutive order’ (Grigor Tat‘ewac‘i, see MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 36a).
●DIAL Ararat hɛrt‘ [Amatuni 1912: 169b], T‘iflis, , Łazax, Łarabaɫ *hert‘ [Ačaṙean
1913: 656b].
●ETYM According to J̌
ahukyan 1972: 314, derived from PIE *ser- ‘to put/bind
together, link together in a series’ (cf. Lat. serō ‘to string together, put in a row’,
seriēs ‘row, succession, series’, etc.) and thus related with y-eṙum ‘to tie, fasten or
join together, link together in a series’ (q.v.). For the determinative -t‘, see e.g. s.vv. boyt‘ ‘thumb, lobe’ probably from PIE
*bh
euH- ‘to grow’, xil-t‘ ‘knag on a tree, a swelling in tree’ vs. xoyl ‘swelling,
tumour, gland’, kṙ-t‘-unk‘ ‘back’ vs. kuṙn ‘back’. In these dialects the sequence -rt‘-
may reflect both -rt‘- and -rd- (see Tomson 1890: 66; Davt‘yan 1966: 55; M.
Asatryan 1968: 63; Markosyan 1989: 66). The OArm. form may have been, then,
*her-th or *her-d < QIE *ser-t-.
heru ‘last year’ (Severian of Gabala, John Chrysostom, Paterica, John of Damascus,
etc.); i herun hetē ‘since last year’ (2 Corinthians 8.10 and 9.2, rendering Gr. ἀπὸ
πέρυσι, Ephrem Commentary on 2 Corinthians); heruin am ‘two years ago’ (John of
Damascus), MidArm. heruni am ‘two years ago’ (a colophon of 14th cent.,
MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 36b); herwic‘ i ver ‘since last year’ (in a late medieval folksong, Abeɫyan 1940: 99Nr134).
●DIAL The basic form heru is widespread in the dialects [HAB 3: 89a]. Some forms
display a nasal element and/or a locative -i, such as Agulis hä́rvi, C‘ɫna hɛ́
rvi
[Ačaṙean 1935: 370; M. Zak‘aryan 2008: 185], Areš-Havarik‘ hɛrunəi [Lusenc‘
1982: 220b], Łarabaɫ həṙnɛ́
, həṙnú vs. hɛ́
ru [Davt‘yan 1966: 412], Goris həṙnɛ
[Margaryan 1975: 343b], etc., cf. also T‘iflis hɛru, gen. hɛrvan [HAB 3: 89a], Moks
xɛru, gen. xɛrvan, abl. xɛrvənɛ [Orbeli 2002: 246], Maraɫa xɛɔrü, gen. xɛɔrva
[Ačaṙean 1926: 44, 408], Aṙtial Suč‘ava hɛru, Polish hɛru-s with the deictic article,
gen. hɛrɔvan [Ačaṙyan 1953: 46, 138, 181, 276].
The form heru ‘last year’ underlies a few derivatives basically meaning ‘a male or
female calf between one and two years’: Širak hɛrvnek (ɛrinǰ ‘heifer’) [Mxit‘areanc‘
1901: 281-282], Sasun hervänig ‘one-year-old (animal)’ [Petoyan 1954: 139; 1965:
496], Šatax xɛrvənek ‘a calf of one to two years’ [M. Muradyan 1962: 83], BaɫešBitlis xɛrvənɛk [Tarōnean 1961: 33], Van, etc. xɛṙnik and xɛṙ ‘a male or female calf
between one and two years’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 657b], Moks xeṙnik, gen. xeṙnək-u, pl.
xeṙnək-tir ‘годовалый теленок’, ‘молодая миловидная баба’ [Orbeli 2002: 245].
Interesting is Van, Moks, Salmast, Maraɫa, etc. *herznam ‘two years ago’, which
can be compared with heruin am ‘two years ago’ and heruni am ‘two years ago’ and
interpreted as *herun-z-am or *heruin-z-am (q.v.).
●ETYM Old adverb from PIE *peruti ‘last year’, cf. Gr. πέρυσι, Dor. πέρυτι, Skt.
parut ‘last year’, OIc. fjorð, MHG vert ‘last year’, etc. (see Hübschmann 1897: 467;
Meillet 1936: 101; HAB 3: 89a with earlier references to Windischmann, de
Lagarde, Müller; Pokorny 1959: 1175; Olsen 1999: 209): *peruti > PArm. *herúi̯i >
heru (Meillet 1936: 57; Klingenschmitt 1982: 98).
The PIE adverb *peruti derives from an earlier phrase with the locative *pér u̯eti,
with *per- ‘forward, through’ and *u̯et- ‘year’ (Pokorny 1959: 1175; Schindler 1967:
3001; Brandenstein 1967: 18; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 94-95; Baldi apud
Mallory/Adams 1997: 654a) which has been reduced to *uti when unaccented, cf.
*me-ĝh
sr-i (> Arm. merj ‘near’, q.v.) from the phrase *me ĝh
es(e)ri, see Clackson
1994: 150-152 for a thorough discussion.
The Armenian literary forms heruin and heruni, although attested late, may be
regarded as reliable and old in view of dialectal forms ranging from the southwestern to eastern and north-eastern peripheries, cf. Sasun hervänig, Baɫeš, Šatax,
etc. xɛrvənɛk on the one hand, and Areš-Havarik‘ hɛrunəi, Łarabaɫ həṙnɛ́
, etc. on the
other. The forms may be directly compared with Gr. περυσινός ‘from last year, last-yearly’ (on which see Frisk 2: 518-519; Chantraine 1968-80: 889-890): *perutinos >
PArm. *heruwíno- > heruin, loc. *perutin-í > PArm. *heruw(i)ní > *heruní. For the
accented locative marker -i > Łarabaɫ -ɛ́
, see 2.2.1.5.
For other adjectives and adverbs of place with -in from IE *-ino- or *-īno- such as
aṙaǰ-in adj. and adv. ‘first’, aṙawawt-in ‘pertaining to morning’, erekoy-in
‘pertaining to evening (adj.)’, ‘in the evening (adv.)’, etc., see Meillet 1936: 76;
Greppin 1975: 101; J̌
ahukyan 1998: 26; Olsen 1999: 466-468.
Next to *per- + *u(e)t- ‘year’ one also reconstructs *per- + *h1(e)n- ‘year’: Lith.
pérnai ‘last year’, MHG vern ‘id.’, etc. (Huld apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 654).
Further see s.v. (y)eṙand ‘the day before yesterday’.
*herun-z-am or *heruin-z-am (dial.) ‘two years ago’.
●DIAL Van xɛrznäm [Ačaṙyan 1952: 275], Salmast xɛ́
rznam, Ozim xərznam [HAB 3:
89a], Maraɫa *herznam ‘two years ago’; ablative *herznmanē, Xizan *herznm-uk
‘two-year-old colt’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 656b], Moks xɛrznäm, gen. xɛrznämvan, abl.
xɛrznäm(vən)ɛ ‘позапрошлый год’ [Orbeli 2002: 246].
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (1913: 656b; HAB 3: 89a) derives *herznam ‘two years ago’ from
heru ‘last year’ (q.v.), which is undoubtedly correct, and considers it a new word
offering no explanation for its structure.
In my opinion, the word is closely related with the expressions with am ‘year’,
heruin am ‘two years ago’ (John of Damascus) and heruni am ‘two years ago’ (a
colophon of 14th cent., MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 36b). The only difference is the
‘epenthetic’ -z-, which seems to be identical with the preposition-prefix z- frequently
found in expressions of time, compare z-ayg-oy, z-ayg-u-ē ‘in the morning’ from ayg
‘morning’ (q.v.), z-tiw ew z-gišer ‘day and night’, etc., cf. ORuss. za-utra ‘tomorrow’
< ‘tomorrow morning’. Typologically compare also zaṙam ‘senile’ (q.v.), if
composed of (or re-analyzed as such) z- and am ‘year’.
Thus: *herun-z-am or *heruin-z-am ‘two years ago’ > *her(w)ənzam > *herznam
through metathesis.
hec‘, i-stem in NHB (only GSg hec‘-i is attested) ‘felloe’.
Eznik (5th cent.), Anania Širakac‘i (7th cent.), Step‘anos Siwnec‘i (8th cent.), etc.
In Eznik, with an initial x-: xec‘.
●DIAL Muš hec, Bulanəx hec‘ ‘the first and the third of the three wooden parts of a
wheel’, Salmast xec‘ ‘the wooden rim of a wheel, felloe’ [HAB 3: 89b].
●ETYM No acceptable etymology is recorded in HAB (3: 89b).
The genitive hec‘-i implies that the word had either i- or a-stem. If i-stem (as
stated in NHB), one may link hec‘ with other formations with the suffixal -c‘ (< PIE
*-sk-) like harc‘, i-stem ‘question, inquiry’ (Agat‘angeɫos+) and c‘oyc‘ (i-stem)
‘show, indication, example, proof’ (Bible+). I propose a derivation from PIE *pelk̂
-:
OHG felga, OEngl. felg(e) ‘felloe’, etc. (< Germ. *felg- ‘to turn, wind’). It has been
assumed that *pel-k̂
- is a form of *plek̂
- ‘to plait’: Gr. πλέκω, OHG flehtan, ‘to
plait’; Russ. plesti, etc. [Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 7061]. For the semantic shift
‘to wind, plait’ > ‘felloe’, see 3.9.4.
Arm. hec‘ can be derived from *pelk̂
-sk- (for *-sk-, see above) or a PArm.
secondary nominative *pelk̂
-s (cf. 2.2.1.2). Both would result in *heɫc‘. For the loss
of the lateral followed by an affricate -c‘, see 2.1.22.9. Given the spelling xec‘, as well as the alternation h/x, one might alternatively
propose a connection with Arm. xec‘ ‘pot; shell (of molluscs, etc.)’, if the basic
meaning of the latter was ‘turning, twisting’; cf. gaɫt-a-kur (q.v.).
hianam, 3sg.aor. hiac‘-a-w, 3pl.aor. hiac‘-an ‘to be astounded, stricken with
amazement, terror or admiration’ (Bible+); a deverbative noun hiac‘-umn
‘astonishment, numbness, terror, etc.’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Nor Naxiǰewan, T‘iflis hiac‘k‘ ‘admirable’ [HAB 3: 92a].
●ETYM No acceptable etymology is recorded in HAB 3: 92a.
J̌
ahukyan 1967: 106 suggests a connection with hoy ‘fear’ (q.v.), which is
possible but uncertain; his ultimate derivation of them from PIE *kw
ei- (cf. Skt. cay-
/cāy- ‘to perceive; to observe’, Gr. τίω ‘to esteem, deeply respect’, etc.) is untenable.
Aɫayan 1974: 102 connects hi- to Lat. pīus ‘pious, religious, faithful, faithful,
devout; dutiful’, etc. This etymology is unconvincing both formally (the Latin word
seems to reflect *puī̯os < *pHuio-, see Schrijver 1991: 322-323, cf. 247) and
semantically. Neither convincing is the derivation from *hi ‘what?’ < *kw
id,
suggested by Klingenschmitt 1982: 126.
I propose a derivation from PIE *séh2i-, *sh2i̯- ‘to bind’, cf. Av. hi- ‘to chain,
bind’, Khot. hīyā adj. ‘bound’, Skt. syáti ‘to bind, fasten, fetter’, sitá- ‘bound’, Lith.
siẽti ‘to bind, tie’, etc.; for the forms, see s.v. hayt‘- ‘to attach, adjust, put together’.
The Armenian intransitive verb hi-anam may be based on an original transitive verb
meaning ‘to bind, chain’. An Iranian origin may not be ruled out; cf. Av. hi- ‘to
chain, bind’. Alternatively, we may posit an underlying PArm. *hi- ‘bound, numb’
derived from < QIE *sh2i-i̯o-/-to- or *sih2-i̯o-/-to-.
The semantic development is trivial, cf. e.g. Russ. o-cepenét’ ‘to grow torpid,
freeze with e.g. fear’ < cep’ ‘chain’. Note also Arm. arm-anam ‘to be astounded’,
ənd-armanam ‘to be astounded, stricken with amazement; to render senseless,
benumb, deaden’ (q.v.), if from PArm. *arm- ‘to bind fast, tie, fit’ (cf. y-arm-ar
‘fitting’, Gr. ἁρμόζω ‘to join, fit together, bind fast’, etc.). Further, see s.v. papanjim
‘to grow dumb, speechless’.
hin, o-stem: GDSg hn-o-y, ISg i hn-o-y, GDPl hn-o-c‘, etc. ‘old, ancient, worn-out’
(Bible+), note loc. i hnumn in Eznik Koɫbac‘i, Eɫišē, John Chrysostom, etc. (see
NHB 2: 98b; Meillet 1936: 91); hn-anam ‘to become old’ (Bible+), a denominative
verb on which see J̌
ahukyan 1982: 183; Klingenschmitt 1982: 120.
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects [HAB 3: 94b].
●ETYM From PIE o-stem *seno- ‘old’: Skt. sána- ‘old’, YAv. hana- ‘old, grey’, Gr.
ἕνος ‘last year’s, old’, cf. Lat. senex ‘old, aged; old man, aged person’, senior
‘older’, etc., Hübschmann 1897: 467; HAB 3: 94 (with references to Windischmann,
de Lagarde, Müller, etc.); Meillet 1936: 73; Pokorny 1959: 907 (mentioning also
hanapaz ‘always’, which is an Iranian loanword); J̌
ahukyan 1982: 129-130;
Clackson 1994: 168; Mallory/Adams 1997: 409b; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 695;
Olsen 1999: 11, 20, 235, 820, 826.
Hübschmann (1897: 467) and Meillet (1919: 187, 188; 1936: 38) rightly reject
the Iranian origin of hin (Müller) on the ground of the vocalism, but Meillet ibid.
explains the initial h- by an Iranian influence (see also HAB 3: 94b). It seems more
likely, however, that the h- is the regular reflex of PIE *s- before front vowels, as is also seen in e.g. hecanim ‘to mount a horse’, heɫg ‘lazy’, himn ‘foundation’, hiwt‘‘sap’. For a discussion of this development, see Greppin 1975a: 47, 52; Godel 1975:
68, 77; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 39; Klingenschmitt 1982: 196; Kortlandt 1983: 11 = 2003:
41; Olsen 1999: 7669; Beekes 2003: 169.
hing (mostly uninflected, Meillet 1936: 100; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 66), i-stem:
GDPl hng-i-c‘ (Bible+), IPl hng-i-w-k‘ (Eusebius of Caesarea); later also IPl hng-aw-k‘ (Šarakan) ‘five’, hingerord, gen.-dat. hingerord-i ‘fifth’; hnge-tasan ‘fifteen’,
hngetasan-erord ‘fifteenth’ (all Bible+).
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 3: 95b].
●ETYM From PIE *pénkw
e ‘five’: Skt. páñca, YAv. paṇca, MPers. panǰ, Gr. πέντε,
Aeol. πέμπε, Lat. quīnque, Goth. fimf, etc.; the *-e- is seen in Arm. hnge-tasan
‘fifteen’, cf. Skt. páñca-daśa, etc.; see Meillet 1896: 157-159; 1936: 31;
Hübschmann 1897: 467; HAB 3: 95 (with references to Klaproth, Brosset, NHB,
etc.); Pokorny 1959: 808; Szemerényi 1960: 94-95; Kortlandt 1994a: 254 = 2003: 99
(assuming a restoration of the final velar on the basis of the ordinal *pnkw
o-);
Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 65-66; Mallory/Adams 1997: 401-402, 404a.
See also s.v. yisun ‘fifty’.
hiwt‘, o-stem: GDSg hiwt‘-o-y, GDPl hiwt‘-o-c‘ [later also i-stem] ‘moisture, sap;
deepness; element, matter, essence’.
Attested in the Bible, Eznik Koɫbac‘i, Agat‘angeɫos, etc. For attestations,
derivatives and a thorough semantic discussion, see Dowsett 1965: 120-124. For
Biblical attestations, see also Olsen 1999: 53110.
●DIAL Alaškert, Muš hut‘ ‘material, substance’, said of e.g. wheat, grapes: “The
wheat/grave is p‘uč (‘empty’), there is no hut‘ in it”; “The wheat has ripened, it has
obtained hut‘” [HAB 3: 99a].
●ETYM Meillet (p.c. apud HAB 3: 99a) rejects the comparison (proposed by
Tērvišean) with Skt. sutá- ‘pressed out’, etc. Pedersen (1906: 437 = 1982: 215)
connects hiwt‘ with OHG fūht ‘damp, wet’, etc.
Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 98-99; cf. also J̌
ahukyan 1967: 213; 1982: 39, 73, 131; 1987:
146; Kortlandt 1983: 11 = 2003: 41) derives hiwt‘ from QIE *sip-to-, from PIE
*seip/b- ‘to pour, rain, sift’, cf. Gr. τρύγ-οιπος ‘straining-cloth for wine’, εἴβω ‘to
drop’, OEngl. sīpian ‘durchsickern, tröpfeln’, Toch. A sep-, sip- ‘to anoint’, etc. On
this root, see Pokorny 1959: 894; Frisk, s.v. τρύγοιπος. See also s.v. ewɫ ‘oil’. Olsen
(1999: 52) points out that *sib-to- (> *sip-to-) is possible too. See 2.1.22.12,
however.
Not mentioning the etymology of Ačaṙyan, Dowsett (1965: 126) rejects
Pedersen’s interpretation and proposes a derivation from QIE *pi-n-t-, cf. Skt.
pinvita- ‘swollen (with liquid)’. He assumes a phonological development as in giwt
‘find’ (allegedly) from *ui-n-d-. On giwt, however, see s.v. *git- : giwt and
2.1.22.12. Klingenschmitt (1982: 180) prefers another derivation of the same PIE
root *pei(H)-, namely *pi-tu-, cf. Skt. pitú- m. ‘nourishment, food’ (on which see
Lubotsky 1988: 45), Lith. piẽtūs ‘dinner’, etc. This etymology is favoured in
Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 130; Olsen 1999: 52-53. Beekes (2003: 205) considers
the etymology as semantically doubtful. Neither formally is it impeccable; I rather
expect Arm. *hiw- from *pi(H)tu-. I conclude that the best etymology is that of Ačaṙyan: hiwt‘, -o- < QIE *sip-to-.
For the problem of the relation with niwt‘ ‘matter, material, etc.’, see Pedersen,
ibid.; HAB 3: 455; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 245; Olsen 1999: 55; and, especially, Dowsett
1965.80
hiws, i-stem (IPl hiws-iw-k‘ in Bible) ‘plait’ (Bible+), hiwsem ‘to weave, plait’ (John
Chrysostom; “Zgōn”; Movsēs Xorenac‘i), hiwsum (Bible), hesum (Paterica). See
also s.v. *hiwsi(n) ‘avalanche’.
Numerous derivatives. Ephrem has hews and yusanem. The initial y- is also found
in Paterica.
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects [HAB 3: 101b]. Nor Naxiǰewan attests fsɛl, and
Łarabaɫ has lüsil, with an initial l-.
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 101b) accepts none of the numerous etymological
attempts. He (ibid.) explains the initial l- of Łarabaɫ lüsil as resulted from
contamination with the unpreserved *lesem ‘to weave’ < PIE *plek̂
-, cf. Gr. πλέκω,
OCS plesti, OHG flechtan ‘to plait’, etc. According to J̌
ahukyan (1987: 265), Arm.
*les- ‘to plait’ has been left out due to homonymy with lesum ‘to crush, splinter,
squeze’. It is also possible to treat Łarabaɫ lüsil as a result of contamination of
hiwsem ‘to weave, plait’ with lesum, note especially Muš losel ‘to whet (a scythe
and the like); to comb’. For the semantic correspondence one might compare Russ.
kosá ‘plait’ which is equated by some scholars with kosá ‘scythe’. For the anlaut
alternation y – l, see also 2.1.7.
Under the word hiwsn ‘carpenter’, Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 102) accepts its connection
with hiwsem, mentioning Lat. texō, etc. (see below) for the semantic development.
Winter (1962: 262; 1983) connects with Skt. tákṣati ‘to form by cutting, tool,
hammer; to fashion, form, make, prepare’ (RV+), Lat. texō ‘to weave; to plait
(together); to construct with elaborate care’, etc., and Arm. hiwsn ‘carpenter’,
directly equated with Skt. tákṣan- m. ‘wood-cutter, carpenter’ (RV+) and Gr. τέκτων
m. ‘carpenter, artist’; see also Mayrhofer 1986: 155. For the root, see s.v. *t‘ɛši(k)
‘spindle’ and HAB s.v. t‘ek‘em ‘to fashion, forge, make’. J̌
ahukyan (1987: 81, 265,
436, 440) rejects the etymology and treats the Armenian words as potential Urartian
loans. Olsen (1999: 126-127) revised the etymology, trying to solve the obvious
phonological obstacles. Klingenschmitt (1982: 133-134, 217) treats hiwsem as
reduplicated present (*pi-pk̂
-e/o-) of PIE *pek̂
-, cf. Gr. πέκω, Lat. pectō ‘to comb’,
Lith. pešù, pèšti ‘rupfen, ausreißen, an den Haaren ziehen’, etc., and then proposes
an alternative derivation from PIE *peuk̂
-, cf. Av. pus-ā- ‘Diadem’, Arm. psak (<
Iran.), Gr. πυκνός ‘dense, solid’, etc. The latter etymology is also discussed by de
Lamberterie who assumes a regular development of inherited *-eu- to -iw- rather
than -oy- (on this, see Clackson 1994: 233-234277, with ref.).
The connection with PIE *peuk̂
- is the most acceptable of all the etymologies.
However, I alternatively propose to derive hiwsem from PIE *seuk-, cf. Lith. sùkti
‘drehen, wenden, kehren, betrügen, betören’, Slav. sukati ‘to turn’, ORuss. sъkati
‘zwirnen, aufwickeln’, russ. skatь (sku, skešь) ‘aufwickeln (Fäden), zwirnen’, Russ. sukatь ‘zwirnen, drillen, spinnen’, etc. This etymology seems preferable since it is
semantically attractive and phonologically possible (though the ambiguity of -iwstill remains), and it presupposes an internal connection with another Armenian
word, namely hiwsis(i) ‘north’ (also with -iw-), if the etymology of this word
suggested by J̌
ahukyan (1986-1987) is acceptable (see s.v.). One may be tempted to
explain the -iw- by assuming a reduplicated present, namely *si-suk-. The
palatalization of *-k- after *-u- is regular in Armenian.
*hiwsi(n) ‘avalanche’.
In Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.62 (1913=1991: 194 ̇ L12): ew meṙaw i čanaparhi jean
hiwsoy (vars. zhiwsisoy, hissoy, hiwsioy, etc.) kaleal. Apparently, Thomson (1978:
206) based himself on the readings zhiwsisoy, etc. (confused with hiwsis ‘north’)
since he translates the passage as follows: “and died on a journey, overwhelmed by
northern snow”. The critical text, however, shows that zhiwsisoy and the others are
not the most reliable readings, and the meaning ‘avalanche’ makes more sense in the
context, so one should follow Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 101b) in positing here the word for
‘avalanche’, which is attested in some later sources too (in the spelling forms
hosi(n), etc.), and is reliably represented in the dialects.
In colophons (15th cent.) one finds usi and usin (NHB, HAB), which are
reminiscent of the dialectal forms of the Van-group in having no initial h-, and those
of Muš and Bulanəx in having a final -in [Ačaṙyan 1952: 65].
●DIAL Preserved in a number of dialects of the kə-class: Xotorǰur husi (according to
YušamXotorǰ 1964: 478b, hüsi /hiwsi/), Muš, Bulanəx husin, Van usi, Ozim ɔwsɛ
y,Moks usə́ (according to Orbeli 2002: 305, usə/usə
ɛ, GSg usu, NPl usik‘y, GPl
usə-k‘-tir-u) [HAB 3: 102a; Ačaṙyan 1952: 276], Šatax usi [M. Muradyan 1962: 68,
200b].
Uwe Bläsing informs me that in Hamšen there are several place-names containing
the Armenian plural marker -er, among them Hus-er. I assumed that the root can be
identified with Arm. *hiwsi ‘avalanche’, which has been preserved in a dialect
neighbouring with Hamšen, that is Xotorǰur, in the form of husi. Bläsing considers
this idea as probable since Huser is an area with precipitous places abounding in
snow. The place-name Huser, thus, can be used as a probable piece of evidence for
the existence of the independently unattested Hamšen *husi (see 4.8).
●ETYM No etymology is accepted in HAB 3: 101-102. NHB (2: 102a) places hiws
‘avalanche’ under the word hiws, i-stem ‘plait’ (q.v.) and interprets it as follows:
hiwsuac jeanc‘ dizac‘eloc‘ i lerins, ew hoseloc‘ yankarc i vayr “plaiting of snow
having been piled in mountains and flowing/gliding down”. Here, thus, a connection
with both hiwsem ‘to weave, plait’ (q.v.) and hosem ‘to make flow, pour down,
winnow’ (Bible+; dial.) is suggested’. The latter is interesting especially if one takes
into account the forms with the u-vocalism in Xotorǰur, etc., as well as the meaning
‘snow-storm’ of Ararat fɔsan (see HAB 3: 315a). However, the former alternative
seems better both formally and semantically.
The idea that the abundance of snow is expressed through ‘weaving, plaiting’ is
corroborated by the following spectacular passage from P‘awstos Buzand 3.14
(1883=1984: 32L-4f; transl. Garsoïan 1989: 87): yoržam kuteal dizeal zmecut‘iwn
bazmut‘iwn t‘anjrut‘ean jeanc‘n kutakeal hiwseal jeanc‘n i veray jmerayin leranc‘n : “when a great thickness of snow was piled on the wintery mountains”. For the
semantic relationship, see 3.9.3.
I conclude that *hiwsi(n) ‘avalanche’ derives from hiws, i-stem ‘plait’ (Bible+),
hiwsem ‘to weave, plait’ (q.v.).
hiwsis (spelled also as hiwsiws, hiwsiwsi, hisis, etc.), o-stem: GDSg hiwsis-o-y; istem: ISg hiwsis-i-w; hiwsisi, ea-stem: GDSg hiwsis(w)-o-y, ISg hiwsise-a-w ‘north;
northern wind’ (Bible+).
A textual illustration from Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.39 (1913=1991: 165L4f; transl.
Thomson 1978: 181): ew i daṙnahot p‘č‘manē hiwsisoy paɫac‘eal juleal vtakn : "the
stream froze over from the bitter north winds".
●DIAL Axalc‘xa, Karin, Salmast hüsis; T‘iflis, Ararat husis; Sebastia hüsüs; Muš
husus; Xarberd hisis [HAB 3: 102a].
●ETYM No acceptable etymology is recorded in HAB 3: 102a.
S. Petrosyan (1977: 215) derives the word from PIE *seu- ‘left’, also mentioning
Russ. séver ‘North’ and Lith. šiáurė ‘North’. However, the Balto-Slavic forms
belong with a root with an initial *k̂
- (see s.v. c‘urt ‘cold’). Further on *seu-, see
below.
J̌
ahukyan (1986-87; 1992: 18-19) derives hiwsis(i) ‘north’ from *seukoi-k̂
i(y)o-, a
compound of PIE *seuk-e/oi- (the locative form of *seuk-o-, cf. Lith. sùkti ‘to wind,
turn’, Slav. sukati ‘to turn’; see s.v. hiwsem ‘to weave, plait’ on the etymon) and PIE
*k̂
ei- ‘se trouver’ (cf. Gr. κεῖμαι ‘to lie, be somewhere’; thus "qui se trouve á
l’opposé". He treats it as "cõté inverse", in opposition with haraw ‘south’,
etymologically "cõté du devant" (q.v.). Olsen (1999: 960) lists hiwsis among the
words of unknown origin and does not mention Petrosyan’s and J̌
ahukyan’s
etymologies.
The interpretation of J̌
ahukyan is plausible. Nevertheless, the derivation from PIE
*seu- ‘left’ (: Skt. savyá-, YAv. haoiia-, ORuss. šujь, etc., see Gamkrelidze/Ivanov
1984, 2: 783; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 716) seems worth of consideration, too.
The left side is associated with ‘north’ (Volpe apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 349,
concerning also the etymon *seu-), cf. also MIr. tūath ‘left; northern’ (see Pokorny
1959: 1079-1080). The second part of the Armenian word may be equated with
*keik- ‘cold wind; northern wind’ (: Russ. číčer ‘cold wind; northern wind’, Gr.
καικίας, -ου ‘northeastern wind’, etc., see ÈtimSlovSlavJaz 4, 1977: 132). The
vocalic alternation seems to point to a substratum word. Thus: QIE *seu-keik-i-
(perhaps based on locative) ‘northern cold wind’ > PArm. *seu-k̂
eikiV- (with regular
palatalization of the velar after *-u-) > *seu-keik ̂ ̂
-i- (assimilation of velars) > *hewseisi- > hiwsis(i) ‘northern wind’. This is, of course, highly hypothetical.
hiwsn (an-stem: GSg hiwsan, NPl hiwsunk‘, GDPl hiwsanc‘) ‘carpenter’ (Bible+).
MidArm. hus(n), pl. huser [MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 50a].
In Movsēs Xorenac‘i 1.32 (1913=1990: 88L5f; transl. Thomson 1978: 124): Oč‘
unimk‘ asel, imastun kam anhančar astanōr linel mez hiwsn, patkanawor kam oč‘,
zaynoc‘ik ayžm uremn zkni heɫuselov bans, zkareworsn ew meroys aržani
šaradrut‘eans : “I cannot say whether we are here acting like a wise or like an
unskilled workman, one competent or not, in adding now at the end these stories,
which are important and worthy of our history”. ●DIAL Dial. xus is attested in an inscription from 1591. Present in Van xus, GSg
xsan, NPl xsner, Ozim xɔws, Salmast xus [Ačaṙyan 1952: 108, 125, 276; HAB 3:
102b].
●ETYM See s.v. hiwsem ‘to weave, plait’.
hiwr or hewr, o-stem: GDSg hiwr-o-y (Bible), GDPl hiwr-o-c‘ (Yačaxapatum), later
GDSg hiwr-i ‘guest’ (Bible+).
●DIAL T‘iflis, Ararat hur, Van xur, gen. xr-u [HAB 3: 102b; Ačaṙyan 1952: 120,
276], Šatax xur [M. Muradyan 1962: 200b], Moks xur (in a folk-song, see
Yovsēp‘eanc‘ 1892: 26L-9); in a compound with harsn ‘bride’: Bulanəx harsn-xur,
Salmast xarsi-xur [HAB 3: 102b].
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 102b) rejects all the etymological attempts and leaves the
origin of the word open. J̌
ahukyan (1963a: 93; 1982: 39; 1987: 146) develops the
idea of Halačean apud HAB on the connection with iwr ‘his own, etc.’ (q.v.) and
posits QIE *seu̯ero- or *setro- for hi/ewr. For the semantics he notes Lith. svẽčias
‘guest’ < *su̯e-t-, etc. (see Otrębski 1967: 77 for the forms). For the problem of h-,
see s.v. hin ‘old’. The etymology is possible, but details are unclear.
Arm. hiwr has been considered a loan from Iran. *frī-vara- ‘friend’, a derivative
of the root *fray-/frī- ‘to bless, etc.’ (Isebaert 1979: 366-367; Olsen 1999: 891; for
the Iranian root, see Cheung 2007: 87-88). This etymology is untenable.
hlu, a-stem: GDPl hlu-a-c‘ (Grigor Narekac‘i, 10-11th cent.) ‘obedient, compliant’
(Bible+).
●ETYM Composed of *hu- < *su- ‘good’ and *lu ‘hearing’ (Hübschmann 1897: 130;
HAB 3: 103a); compare an-lu ‘disobedient’. Further see s.v. lsem ‘to hear’.
hnjan, a-stem [according to Olsen (1999: 299, 956), i-stem, but see below for instr.
hnjan-a-w(-k‘) in Agat‘angeɫos] ‘a basin to squeeze grapes in, a wine-press basin; a
room for wine-pressing’ (Bible+). Spelled also as hncan.
Several attestations in Agat‘angeɫos, referring to special wine-pressing
buildings/rooms in gardens in NE side of Vaɫaršapat=Norak‘aɫak‘ (nowadays
Ēǰmiacin):
mtanēin i hnjanayarks aygestanwoyn, or kan šineal i hiwsisoy yarewelic‘ kusē
(1909=1980: 85L15f, § 150);
gteal linēin nok‘a i hnjans šinuacoc‘n (90L1, §161);
hasuc‘anēin aṙ durs hnjanin, ur ēin vank‘ noc‘a artak‘oy k‘aɫak‘in (91L18f, §
166);
ert‘eal aṙ hnjanōk‘n (= hnjan-a-w-k‘-n; vars. hnj/canawn), ur ēinn isk yaṙaǰ vank‘
iwreanc‘ (104L9f, § 192);
ew mi omn or andēn i nerk‘s spanin i hnjani and, ur ēin vank‘ noc‘a (108L3f, §
201);
ew amp‘op‘eac‘, aṙ gnac‘ i hnjann, ur vank‘n isk leal ēin noc‘a (118L1f, § 224).
On the ancient wine-presses of Armenia, see Tiracjan 1983: 57-58.
●DIAL Ararat, Muš, Bulanəx hnjan, Agulis ənjun, Meɫri ənján (see Aɫayan 1954:
243, 278a), Zeyt‘un ɔnjɔn, all meaning ‘grapes basin, wine-press’; Xarberd, Akn,
Tigranakert (h)ənjan ‘garden-hut’; Ararat hnjanapat ‘ruin of a wine-pressing
building’ [HAB 3: 105-106]. Note that Ararat aṙagast is a part of a hnjan, but, according to Baɫdasaryan-T‘ap‘alc‘yan (1971: 218), in Aštarak aṙak‘ast is
synonymous to Ōšakan hənjan (see s.v. aṙagast).
In a fairy-tale recorded by Sero Xanzadyan in Goris in 1947 (HŽHek‘ 7, 1979:
414L22f), hnjan and hovuz are used in the same sentence, as by-forms meaning
‘swimming-pool’. If reliable, this is remarkable in respect with my etymological
suggestion below. Note also Hnjan, the name of a fountain in the vicinity of
T‘amzara, in the Šapin-Garahisar region, in the basin (awazan) of which, according
to a tradition, a guarding snake lives’ (see Łanalanyan 1969: 105Nr284).
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 105b) mentions only the connection with hunj ‘*mowing’
suggested in NHB, pointing out that it is semantically remote, unless hnjan
previously had a different meaning. According to J̌
ahukyan (1987: 314, 315; 1988,
2: 84), borrowed from Hitt. GIŠhanza(n) ‘a kind of implement’. Olsen (1999: 299,
956) represents hnjan as a word of unknown origin in -an.
I tentatively propose to treat hnjan as borrowed from an Iranian or Semitic
theoretical form, namely *ha/ovzan ‘font = Taufbecken; a kind of bathing-vessel;
the basin of a fountain; garden-basin’ (see s.v. awaz), with the n-epenthesis (on
which, see 2.1.30.1).
For the semantics, see s.v. aṙagast.
hnoc‘, a-stem: GDSg hnoc‘-i, AblSg i hnoc‘-ē, ISg hnoc‘-a-w ‘oven, furnace’
(Bible+).
Two textual illustrations in combination with hur ‘fire’: Job 41.12: hnoc‘i hroy
kaycakanc‘ “of a fiery furnace of burning coals” : καμίνου καιομένης πυρὶ ἀνϑράκων
(Cox 2006: 263); in the letter from Bishop Giwt (5th cent.) to Vač‘ē (king of
Aɫuank‘) apud Movsēs Kaɫankatuac‘i 1.11 (V. Aṙak‘elyan 1983: 21L14): i hur hnoc‘in
lit. ‘in fire of furnace’.
●DIAL No dialectal record in HAB 3: 106. According to V. Aṙak‘elyan (1984a: 144),
*hun ‘fire’ has been preserved in the village of Kotayk‘/Elkavan, in the compound
xunt‘urc ‘glowing ash applied on the wound’, which he interprets as *hun-t‘urc,
with t‘urc- ‘to burn bricks or pots of clay to make them stiff’ as the second member.
Attractive but uncertain.
●ETYM Derived from the old oblique stem *hu-n- of heteroclitic hu-r ‘fire’ (see there
for more detail).
Recently A. Petrosyan 2007: 10-11 proposed an alternative etymology deriving
Arm. hun from PIE *Hopn- with Hitt. ḫappina- ‘baking kiln, fire-pit’, OEngl. ofen
‘oven’, etc. The Hittite form points to *h3ep-n- (see Kloekhorst 2008: 297), which
would indeed yield Arm. *hun-. Nevertheless, the etymology is improbable because:
1) I see no solid reasons to abandon the traditional etymology; 2) the derivational
suffix -oc‘ (on which see Olsen 1999: 533-536) will be unmotivated in the
interpretation of hn-oc‘ ‘oven’ as *hun- ‘oven’ + -oc‘, whereas *hun- ‘fire’ + -oc‘ =
hn-oc‘ ‘*fire-place’ is quite natural. For -oc‘ cf. a synonymous word t‘rc-oc‘
‘furnace’ from verbal t‘urc- ‘to burn bricks or pots of clay to make them stiff’.
*hol(-an)- ‘uncovered, naked’: hol-ani ‘uncovered, bare, naked’, hol-an-e/im ‘to
bare, uncover’ (both Bible+), hol-on- ‘id.’ (John Chrysostom, T‘ovmay Arcruni,
Mesrop Erēc‘, Nersēs Šnorhali); hol-a-t‘ew-em ‘to stretch one’s arms’ (Sahak
catholicos Jora/op‘orec‘i, 7th cent., etc.), etc. holani renders Gr. ἀκατα-κάλυπτος ‘uncovered’ in e.g. 1 Corinthians 11.13
(referring to a woman), and the verb holane/im – ἀπο-καλύπτω ‘to uncover’ in 2
Kings 6.20, 22; further: holaneal = adv. ἀ-κάλυπτως in 3 Maccabees 4.6.
The form holaneal ‘openly, uncovered’ is also found in e.g. P‘awstos Buzand
3.17 (1883=1984: 39L-8f): holaneal gorcēin zmeɫs : “they committed sins openly”
(transl. Garsoïan 1989: 92). For the full passage, see s.v. xēt‘ ‘bite, pain, etc.’. For
holanem ‘to strip naked’, see e.g. P‘awstos Buzand 4.58 (150L15; transl. 178).
●ETYM Since Meillet (1894: 154), connected with OCS polje, Russ. póle ‘field’,
pólyj ‘open, bare, empty’, etc., and Arm. hoɫ ‘earth, ground’. See s.v. hoɫ for more
detail.
hoɫ, o-stem ‘earth, ground, soil; burial plot, cemetery’ (Bible+); ‘plot, estate’ in
P‘awstos Buzand 5.31 (1883=1984: 194L-9f; transl. Garsoïan 1989: 212), and
Step‘anos Ōrbelean. MidArm. derivatives in the meaning ‘cemetery’: hoɫ-va(y)r-k‘,
hoɫ-vrd-i, etc. [MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 45b].
As a component in place-names, see Hübschmann 1904: 384; J̌
ahukyan 1987:
413.
●DIAL Dialectally ubiquitous. In Suč‘ava, Karin, Sebastia, Akn, Hačən, Ararat: with
initial f-; in Van-group (Van xoɫ, gen. xuɫ-u [Ačaṙyan 1952: 120, 276] vs. Moks xuɫ,
gen. xuɫəɛ
, pl. xuɫir [Orbeli 2002: 250]), J̌
uɫa, Salmast, Maraɫa, Svedia, Polis,
Tigranakert, Hamšen, T‘iflis, etc.: initial x-; in Łarabaɫ and Goris: v-. The rest: h-
[HAB 3: 111b].
The x- in Van and adjacent dialects regularly comes from h-. In others: through
assimilation h...ɫ > x...ɫ, see e.g. Ačaṙyan 1947: 51 and 2003: 411, for Hamšen and
Svedia, respectively.
●ETYM Since Meillet (1894: 154), connected with OCS polje, Russ. póle, etc.
‘field’, Russ. pol m. ‘floor’, ORuss. polъ m. ‘foundation’, Russ. pólyj ‘open, bare,
empty’, which are usually derived from PIE *pelh2- ‘wide and flat’, cf. Hitt. palḫi-
‘wide’, OHG feld ‘field’, Lat. palam ‘overt, publicly’ (on this word, see Schrijver
1991: 209-210), plānus ‘level, flat, plane, even’, Lith. plónas, Latv. plãns ‘thin, flat’,
Lith. plóti, Latv. plãt ‘to flatten’, Sorbian pɫoń ‘Ebene’, Sln. plân, f. plána ‘frei von
Baumwuchs’, plánja ‘offene, freie Fläche’, SCr. planína ‘Bergwald’ (< Slav.
*pol-no-), etc.; see HAB 3: 109, 111; Pokorny 1959: 805; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov
1984, 2: 781; Saradževa 1986: 19-20; Angela Della Volpe apud Mallory/Adams
1997: 133b (OCS polje and Arm. hoɫ : “distantly related”), etc. For Arm. hoɫ
different protoforms have been assumed: *polo- [J̌
ahukyan 1987: 143]; *pólnos, cf.
Slavic [Klingenschmitt 1982: 165; Olsen 1999: 53, with ref.]; *pólh2os (Olsen,
ibid.).
Meillet (1894: 154), followed by Ačaṙyan (HAB), Saradževa and J̌
ahukyan
(ibid.), connected also Arm. hol-an-i ‘uncovered, bare, naked’, verbal hol-an- ‘to
bare’ (both Bible+), later hol-on-; see s.v. *hol(-an-)-. Olsen (1999: 310) considers
holani to be etymologically unclear.
As is clear from het : otn ‘foot’ (q.v.), PIE *p- yields Arm. h- when followed by
*e and is lost before *o. This makes the etymology of hoɫ problematic. Discussing
this phonological development, Pedersen (1906: 370 = 1982: 148) rejects Meillet’s
etymology and suggests a connection with Lat. solum, -ī n. ‘base, foundation; earth,
ground, soil; sole of the foot or shoe’. Klingenschmitt (1982: 165) independently suggests the same comparison, with a question mark. If the Latin comes from
*sue/ol-, Arm. hoɫ cannot belong to it since *su̯- would yield Arm. k‘- [HAB 3:
111b; Olsen 1999: 53112].
The traditional etymology may be justified if one accepts the following
explanation for the problem of Arm. h-. Lat. plānus probably reflects an original
*plh2-nó-, a no-adjective with a zero-grade root, whereas Lith. plónas and Latv.
plãns introduced full grade *pleh2- from the verbal forms [Mayrhofer 1987: 103,
10373a; Schrijver 1991: 182, 357, 497]. The form *plh2-nó- would yield Arm.
*halan- as in haraw ‘south’, q.v. The absence of h- in alaw(s)unk‘ ‘Pleiades’ (q.v.)
may be analogical after y-(h)olov, q.v. Then Arm. *halan- and *oɫ ‘earth’ <
*pol(h2/n)- may have become holan- and hoɫ through mutual influences. Compare
cases like ort‘ vs. dial. hort‘ ‘calf’, etc. (see 2.1.16.2). For holan-i cf. kend-an :
kend-an-i ‘living, alive’.
According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 112a), Kurd. xōl(ī) ‘soil, earth’ can be an old loan
from Armenian. This is improbable. The Kurdish word rather belongs to the Iranian
word for ‘ash’, for which see Bläsing 2000: 43-44.
hoɫm, o-stem ‘wind’ (Bible+); also *hoɫmn, NPl hoɫmunk‘ frequently in Aristotle
[NHB 2: 117c]; In view of the absence of compounds which would corroborate
*hoɫmn, Ačaṙyan (AčaṙHLPatm 2, 1951: 428) considers the -n to be secondary.
●ETYM Usually derived from PIE *h2onh1mo-: Gr. ἄνεμος m. ‘wind’, Lat. animus m.
‘soul, mind, spirit’ (< *anamo, cf. Osc. anamúm-), etc. (see HAB 3: 112 with
literature; *-nm- > -ɫm- through dissimilation, cf. nman ‘like’ > dial. lm-); see also
Meillet 1936: 48; Pokorny 1959: 39; Mallory/Adams 1997: 82a (< *honm);
Matzinger 2005: 20; de Vaan 2008: 43. The anlaut is problematic, however (Frisk 1:
105; cf. Untermann 2000: 98). Kortlandt (1980b: 127) is inclined to disagree both
with Ruijgh’s *h2onh1mos and with Beekes’ *h2enh1mos and to posit *h2nh1emos.
See also Schrijver (1991: 91, 311, and espec. 316-318, with thorough discussion).
Kortlandt (ibid.) notes that “Arm. hoɫm is probably of non-IE origin”.
Beekes (1972: 129) points out that the etymology would imply *h2onh1mo-, and
adds: “However, it would require a dissimilation nm > lm, which cannot be
demonstrated elsewhere (though it cannot be refuted either by a case with -nmpreserved)”. Schindler (1994: 397) derives hoɫm from *h2onh1mo-, and compares it
with the case of hoviw ‘shepherd’ (q.v.).
Van Windekens (1961: 547-548) links hoɫm with Toch. B on-olme ‘être vivant’
(on the latter, see Adams 1999: 115). For other etymologies, see Schmitt 1972: 26.
One wonders if a contamination of *h2onh1mo- with Skt. ánila- m. ‘wind, air’ <
*h2enh1-lo- (cf. Bugge 1892: 442) may have occurred.
hoy ‘fright, fear’, independently only in 1 Maccabees 3.25, with synonymous ah
‘fear’, together rendering Gr. φόβος. According to a suggestion by Grigor Magistros
(11th cent.), appellative for the masculine anthroponym Hoy (Hoy hrašakertn
tesleamb), see AčaṙAnjn 3, 1946: 94. In compounds: hoy-a-kap ‘superb,
wonderfoul, famous, praiseworthy’, with kapem ‘to tie, construct’ (Bible+);
hoy-anun ‘famous’, with anun ‘name’ (Book of Chries). For the semantics of hoy-a-kap Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 113a) compares ah-a-gin
‘terrible; enormous’ from ah ‘fear, terror’. Note the use of ahagin and hoyakap side
by side in Book of Chries.
In T‘ovmay Arcruni (9-10th cent.) one frequently finds with an initial x- [NHB 1:
961a], e.g. in 2.1 (V. Vardanyan 1985: 128L17; transl. Thomson 1985: 146): xoyakap
ew yakanawor k‘aǰamartut‘eamb “with splendid and outstanding bravery, fought
<...>”.
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 113) considers the resemblance with Pers hōy, hūy ‘fear,
dread; breath; sigh; a word used in exciting attention’ (see Steingass 1519a; cf. also
huyū‘ ‘fearing, being afraid’, op. cit. 1521b) to be accidental, noting that this word is
an onomatopoeia or interjection, and leaves the origin of the Armenian word open.
The Persian word, however, may be worth of consideration.
Later, Ačaṙyan (1937: 4) expresses his surprise about the fact that PIE *poti-s
‘master, host, owner’ is unknown only to Armenian, and sees its relic in the
compound hoy-a-kap ‘superb’, with kapem ‘to tie, construct’, assuming an original
meaning “bâti par un prince, princier”; cf. Germ. herr-lich. He (ibid.) points out that
*hoy is the regular reflex of *poti-s. However, this is in conflict with otn ‘foot’ (vs.
het ), ali-k‘ ‘wave’, etc.81 Furthermore, this etymology forces us to abandon the
derivation of hoy-a-kap from hoy ‘fear’ (demonstrated by Ačaṙyan himself; see
above), which seems improbable and unnecessary.
J̌
ahukyan (1967: 106, 10648) considers Ačaṙyan’s etymology as doubtful and
connects hoy with hayim ‘to observe’ and, with reservation, with hi-anam ‘to
admire’ (q.v.), deriving all from PIE *kw
ei-: Skt. cay-/cāy- ‘to perceive; to observe’,
Gr. τίω ‘to esteem, deeply respect’, etc. The connection with hi-anam is interesting
(see s.v.), but the rest is improbable, particularly in view of h- and the vocalism.
According to Olsen (1999: 960), hoy is a word of unknown origin.
I propose a comparison with Lat. paveō, pāvī ‘to be frightened or terrified at’
(probably not related with Lat. paviō, -īre ‘to hit’), OIr. úath ‘fear’ < *pou-to-,
Welsh ofn ‘fear’ < *pou-no- (see Schrijver 1991: 256, 446), although the type of
derivation of the Armenian is difficult to establish. QIE *peu-t- would probably
yield *hoyt‘. One may hypothetically assume that the deverbative *hoyt‘ lost its *-t‘-
analogically after the unattested verb *huyem ‘to fear’ which can be interpreted as a
*-i̯e-present with zero-grade in the root, of the type Gr. βαίνω ‘to go’ and Lat. veniō
‘to come; to go’ from *gʷm̥ -i̯e- (see also 2.2.6.1); thus: *pu-i̯e-mi > *huyem.
Uncertain.
hoyl, i-stem: GDPl hoyl-i-c‘ in Plato ‘group (of people, animals, etc.)’.
Plato, Łewond, etc. As the second member of compounds: Hexaemeron+. Later
also hol-, holon- ‘to collect, gather, assemble’.
●ETYM Scheftelowitz 1904-05, 2: 33 derives hoyl from PIE *plh1- ‘full, abundant’
(on which see s.v. yolov). Petersson (1916: 276-277) assumes the same for holem,
but separates hoyl from hol- and compares it with Latv. pũlis ‘Haufe, Herde’, etc.
The separation of hoyl from hol- can hardly be accepted. Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 113-114)
rejects these and other etymologies and leaves the origin open.
Olsen (1999: 778, 808) treats holonem ‘to collect, gather’ as a denominative from
*pl̥h1no- ‘full’ not making any reference to ClArm. hoyl. This is improbable since
holon- is a later and poorly attested derivation from ClArm. hoyl ‘group’, and the
assumed development (*-l̥h1C- > Arm. -oloC-) is uncertain; see 2.1.20.
J̌ahukyan (1987: 145) links with hewam, p‘č‘em, etc., reconstructing *peu(s)-lfor hoyl, cf. Lith. pūslė ‘blister, bladder’, Russ. ̃ púxlyj ‘chubby, pump’, Skt. púṣyati
‘to thrive, flourish’, etc.
The idea about PIE *plh1- ‘full, abundant’ can be maintained only if one attempts
a derivation from PIE feminine *plh1-u-ih2- (cf. Skt. f. pūrvī́
-), assuming a
metathesis. Thus: *pelh1-u-ih2- > PArm. *heləw-i- > *hewl-i- > hoyl (i-stem); see
also s.v. yolov. Uncertain.
hoyn, i-stem: GDPl hun-i-c‘ (Grigor Magistros) ‘cornel, Cornus mas L.’
(Agat‘angeɫos+). Spelled also as hiwn (Grigor Magistros). For Galen, see Greppin
1985: 56.
In Agat‘angeɫos § 644 (1909=1984: 330L8), hoyn is found in an enumeration of
fruit-names, following nuṙn ‘pomegranate’ (the fruit) and t‘ut‘ ‘mulberry (the fruit)’.
Thus, hoyn denotes the fruit rather than the tree. Lexicographers record hun-i, hon-i,
hn-i, hon-eni ‘cornel-tree’ [Ališan 1895: 268-269, 374; HAB 3: 114a]. Attested also
in T‘ovma Kilikec‘i’s addendum to Ašxarhac‘oyc‘ (Armenian Geography), as a
product of Cilicia (A. Anasyan 1967: 283; Hewsen 1992: 323). Also *hiwn-i in the
place-name Hiwneac‘ jor in Siwnik‘ (see Hübschmann 1904: 445).
●DIAL T‘iflis, Łazax hun, Goris, Łarabaɫ hün, Ararat fɔn, Hačən hin. The tree:
Łarabaɫ hǘni, Ararat fɔ́
ni, Hačən hn-ən-i [HAB 3: 114a].
Hačən hin [Ačaṙyan 2003: 89, 324] could also be from hiwn, cf. jiwn ‘snow’ >
Hačən j‘in, etc. (see Ačaṙyan 2003: 87-88). Note that ClArm. *ho- regularly yields
Hačən fɔ- [Ačaṙyan 2003: 106-107] or fuɛ- (Gasparyan 1966: 41, 56). Two
possibilities: (1) Hačən hin derives from *hiwn and therefore does not show the
sound change ho- > fo-; (2) Hačən hin derives from hoyn, and the sound change ho-
> fo-postdates the development of the diphthong -oy-.
Hamšen ɔni ‘a kind of tree (= Russ. grab)’ is mentioned by Y. Muradean (1901:
121). Russ. grab means ‘hornbeam (Carpinus betulus)’. I wonder if this Hamšen
word reflects Arm. honi, with loss of the initial h- as in hačari ‘beech’ > ažri.
Phonologically this is not problematic, cf. kori > gɔri, mozi > mɔzi, oǰil > ɔč‘il, ozni
> ɔzni, etc.
The dialectal distribution (Cilicia, Hamšen, T‘iflis, Loṙi, Łarabaɫ) corroborates
the botanic evidence (compare FlTurk 4, 1972: 539-541, 497Map74, 549Map75).
●ETYM No etymology in HAB 3: 114a. J̌
ahukyan 1987 vacat.
I propose to derive Arm. hoyn ‘cornel’ from PIE *Hos-eno- (or perhaps better:
*Hh3es-eno-) ‘ash-tree’: Lat. ornus f. ‘mountain-ash’ < *ŏsĕno-, cf. OIr. uinnius
‘ash-tree’ < *ŏsno-, Balto-Slavic *HoHs- ‘ash’: Lith. úosis, Russ. jásen’, etc. For
references and a discussion of this tree-name, see s.v. hac‘i ‘ash-tree’. A
development *Hh3es-eno- > PArm. *hohéno- > *ho(h)ín(o) > hoyn is formally
impeccable. If the i-declension is old (which is uncertain), one might posit a QIE
feminine *Hh3es-en-ih2-.
The semantic shift ‘ash’ > ‘cornel’ may be explained by functional and cultural
similarities; compare OIc. askr m. ‘ash-tree; spear’, OHG asc m. ‘ash-tree; spear’, OEngl. æsc ‘ash-tree; spear’ on the one hand, and Gr. κράνον, n. ‘cornelian cherry’,
κράνεια f. ‘cornelian cherry, Cornus mas’ also meaning ‘spear’, on the other. Note
especially kṙan ‘cornel; ash’ (late attestations; probably preserved in the dialect of
Muš), which must be be compared with Gr. κράνος, Hom. κράνεια ‘cornel’ as a
Greek loan or a Mediterranean substratum word. For the semantic relationship, see
also s.v. meɫex ‘handle of an axe’.
If the form hon (lexicographers and dialect of Ararat) is old, one may posit
*Hh3os-n-V- (cf. the Celtic forms) > PArm. *ho(s)n-.
hoviw, a-stem: GDSg hovu-i, GDPl hovu-a-c‘ (Bible+), IPl hovu-a-w-k‘ [Job 24.2,
Cox 2006: 167] ‘shepherd’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Preserved in Hamšen, Svedia, Muš, Van, Ararat, etc. [HAB 3: 118a]. In
Č‘arsančag one finds hɔvig (ibid.; Baɫramyan 1960: 90a).
In chapter 3 of the famous fairy-tale “Anahit” by Ł. Aɫayan (1979: 349L4f), the
difference between hoviv and naxrč‘i is explained as follows: the hoviv pastures only
goats and sheep, whereas the naxrč‘i – everything.
●ETYM Since long (see HAB 3: 117-118), derived from *h3eui-peh2-, a compound of
PIE *h3eui- ‘sheep’ (cf. Skt. ávi-, Luw. haū̯i-, Gr. ὄϊς, ὄϊος and οἰός ’sheep’, Lat.
ovis, etc.) and *peh2(s)- ‘to protect, pasture’ (cf. OCS pasti ‘to pasture’, Lat. pāscō
‘to pasture’, Hitt. paḫš- ‘to protect’, etc.). For the compound, cf. Skt. go-pā́- m.
‘herdsman’ < ‘*cowherd’ (Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 499-500), avi-pālá-
‘shepherd’, perhaps also *hawt-aɫ (q.v.).
Alhough much debated, the etymology cannot be abandoned. Schindler (1994:
397) reconstructs strong *h2óu̯i- vs. weak *h2áu̯i- (acrostatic), deriving Toch. B
ā(u)w, awi ‘ewe’ from the latter form, and for the Armenian h- comparing the case of
hoɫm ‘wind’ (q.v.). On Toch. B ā(u)w ‘ewe’ and eye ‘sheep’, see Adams 1999: 35,
92; Kim 2000.
The vocalism of hoviw is in contrast with the rule according to which *o in initial
*Ho-, *so-, po- becomes a in open syllables unless in was followed by a syllable
containing another *o (see 2.1.3). Kortlandt (1983: 10 = 2003: 40; see also Beekes
2003: 157) adds another condition: unless it was followed by the reflex of *w, as
examples noting hoviw ‘shepherd’ and loganam ‘to bathe’. J̌
ahukyan (1990a: 5)
assumes an influence of the once-existing word *hovi- ‘sheep’ from *houiyo-.
However, the PIE word is represented in the form *h3euis and there are no cognates
which would point to *h3eui-o-. If J̌
ahukyan means the genitive form, neither this
solves the problem since, in either cases, PIE *-u̯- would yield Arm. -g-.
The paradigm of the Armenian word for ‘sheep’ should be reconstructed as
follows: nom. *how (orthographically: *hov), gen. *hogi. It seems therefore more
natural to assume that the -w- was restored analogically after Arm. *how- ‘sheep’
(on which see also Kortlandt 1993: 10 = 2003: 102) before this ceased to exist.
Alternatively: *w > *g was blocked by assimilatory influence of the w in the
following syllable. For *h3e- > Arm. ho-, with h- as the reflex of the PIE laryngeal,
see Kortlandt 1983: 12 (= 2003: 42); Beekes 1985: 82; 2003: 183; Lubotsky 1988:
29; 1990: 130; Schrijver 1991: 50; see also 2.1.16.1. For Anatolian, dissimilation of
labiality has been assumed [Lindeman 1990].
hot, o-stem ‘smell, odour’ (Bible+); hotim ‘to smell’ (Bible+); also redupl. hotot- ‘id.’
(Bible). As pointed out by Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 118a), both in ClArm. and dialects,
except for the dialect of Polis where the meaning is generic, the verb hotim refers to
the bad smell. On the verbal morphology, see Meillet 1916f: 175. On the noun hot,
see below.
●DIAL The noun is ubiquitous in the dialects, in the generic sense ‘odour (pleasant or
unpleasant)’. Hamšen hɛ(ɔ)d refers to ‘bad smell’, opposed to hɔm ‘pleasant odour’
< ham (q.v.); see HAB 3: 118b; Ačaṙyan 1947: 240-241. On the semantics of the
verb, see below.
●ETYM Since NHB (1: 123b), connected with Gr. ὀδμή ‘smell’, Lat. odor, odōris m.
‘smell, scent, odour; perfume’, etc. [HAB 3: 118; Hübschmann 1897: 468]. Earlier,
Hübschmann (1883: 39) considered the etymology “fraglich” because of the initial
h-, pointing out that one expects *ot. It has been assumed that Arm. ho- reflects PIE
*h3e- in contrast with *Ho- > o-; see Kortlandt 1980b: 128; 2003 (<1983+): 42, 55,
73; Schrijver 1991: 48-49, 50; Beekes 2003: 183). See also 2.1.3.
It has been suggested that Arm. hot (o-stem) reflects an original s-stem seen in
Lat. odor, odōs [Meillet 1894: 54; Hübschmann 1897: 468; Kortlandt 1980b: 128;
Schrijver 1991: 48; Olsen 1999: 47]. This would be possible if the Latin was
originally neuter (see Olsen 1999: 4795). A neuter s-stem would corroborate the
e-vocalism (see Kortlandt 2003: 55; Beekes 2003: 183).
Redupl. hot-(h)ot-: In a paper where he rejects the IE background of Armenian
reduplication, Greppin (1981b: 6) notes: “hototim is probably derived in the
preliterate period from the noun hot. Otherwise we would expect *hohotim”.
However, here we are dealing with the full rather than partial reduplication; cf. Gr.
ὀδωδή f. ‘smell’ derived from the perfect. Thus: *hot-(h)ot- > hotot-. See also 2.3.2.
hor, i-stem ‘son-in-law, daughter’s husband’, twice in a homily by Philo: NPl hor-k‘
and GDPl hor-i-c‘ (for the passage, see NHB 2: 124a; HAB 3: 119b).
●ETYM No acceptable etymology in HAB 3: 119b.
J̌
ahukyan (1987: 146, 259, 436) hesitantly derives hor from the PIE reflexive
pronoun *s(e)u̯e- (Arm. iwr) and posits a QIE *sou̯o-ro-. This is uncertain.
Recently, the word has been derived from IE *sio̯ ̄(u)ro-, cf. Skt. syālá- m. ‘wife’s
brother’ and OCS šurь, šurinъ ‘wife’s brother’ [Huld apud Mallory/Adams 1997:
84-85, 85b; Mallory/Adams 2006: 215, 217]. For a discussion of this Indo-Slavic
correspondence, see Pokorny 1959: 915; Szemerényi 1977: 94, 198; Gamkrelidze/
Ivanov 1984, 2: 7612 = 1995, 1: 66335; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 782. This
etymology is semantically attractive, but formal details are unclear.
hruandan a-stem in NHB 1: 143b, but without evidence ‘rocky sea-shore’ (Book of
Chries), ‘an open balcony’ (Zak‘aria Sarkawag/K‘anak‘eṙc‘i, 17th cent.).
●ETYM Glossing the word as hrajew gahawandk‘ i covap‘uns, NHB (1: 143b)
suggests a derivation of hur ‘fire’, which is improbable. Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 138a)
does not accept the connection with Pers. farvān ‘upper floor’ and leaves the origin
of hruandan open. He also notes that the resemblance with Gr. πρών m. ‘protruding
rocks, mountaintop’ and Skt. pravaṇá- ‘abfallend, geneigt, abschüssig’ is accidental.
According to Karst (see M. Muradyan 1972: 281b), borrowed from Pers. farāvand. The meaning of farāvand or farvand(a) is ‘the bar of a door’ (Steingass). L.
Hovhannisyan (1990: 267b) places hruandan in his list of Iranian loans.
S. Petrosyan (1979: 54; 1981: 84-85; cf. S. Harut‘yunyan 2000: 104-105, also
mentioning Gr. πρών, on which see above) suggests a connection with the
mountain-name Aruandu (in Media) and derives both from PIE *peru̯-n̥-to-, cf. Skt.
párvata- ‘rocky, rugged; (m.) mountain, mountain-range’ (RV+), YAv. pauruuatāf. ‘mountain-range’, etc. This is phonologically improbable; one rather expects
*hergan(d).
Given the shape of the word, the Iranian origin is very probable (see also
J
̌
ahukyan 1987: 558), although the details are not clear. A theoretical *fr(a)wan-
‘rock’ (cf. the above-mentioned Gr. πρών, etc.) is thinkable. If one starts with the
meaning ‘balkony’, one may assume an Iranian formation with the prefix *fra- and
b/wand- ‘to bind, weave’, borrowed into Arm. vand(an)ak ‘net, basket, cage‘, and,
especially, ‘upper floor, terrace’. Note also Goris and Łarabaɫ čəṙavand ‘thick beams
of the ceiling’, which probably derives from *(aw)čaṙ-a-wand, see 2.1.33.2. A trace
of Iran. *fra-band- may be found in ÈtimSlovIranJaz 2, 2003: 71. For a designation
of an upper construction in a house based upon a pillar as containing the prefix ‘at,
by, for, before’ cf. YAv. fra-skəmba- m. ‘porch’ next to Skt. skambhá- m. ‘prop,
support, pillar’ (RV+) and Arm. pat-šgam ‘balcony’ (borrowed from Iranian, cf.
MPers. pdy-škmb ‘space’, NPers. pa-škam ‘sommer-house’), as well as Arm.
aṙa-staɫ ‘ceiling’ < *‘at/on the pillar’ (q.v.).
hu ‘purulent blood’; hapax, in Mxit‘ar Herac‘i, 12th century: Apa t‘ē iwr ēut‘iwnn
awiri, na herje zeraksn ew i yandam min vat‘i, hu ew šaraw Encayi iwrmēn (see
HAB 3: 120b; MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 48b).
●ETYM Since Müller 1890: 4, compared with Skt. pū́ya- ‘pus’, pū́ti- (AV) ‘stinking,
putrid’, Gr. πύος n. ‘purulence’, Lat. pūs, pūris n. ‘pus’, pūteō ‘to rot’, Lith. pū́ti ‘to
rot’, etc. This etymology is accepted by Hübschmann (1897: 468). However,
Ačaṙyan (1897a: 169b; 1898b: 371b; HAB 3: 120-121) considers Arm. hu a loan
from Pers. hū ‘pus’ (cf. Kurd. heu ‘gangrene’).
Hübschmann (1899: 45, and p.c. apud HAB 3: 121a) agreed with Ačaṙyan and
revised his opinion. This revision has generally remained unnoticed by scholars (see
Pokorny 1959: 849; Ernout/Meillet 1959: 547a; Solta 1960: 174; Schrijver 1991:
534; Adams apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 471; Olsen 1999: 91383; Meissner 2006: 64-
65), with the exception of Clackson (1994: 45). If the Persian and Kurdish words do
not have an acceptable etymology, one might assume that they are borrowed from
Armenian, and that the latter is of native origin.
hum (o-stem in NHB 2: 124b without evidence) ‘raw, uncooked’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 3: 122a].
●ETYM Connected with Gr. ὠμός ‘raw, uncooked’ (already in NHB 2: 124b), Skt.
āmá- ‘raw, uncooked’, Khot. hāma- ‘raw, unbaked, uncooked’, Sogd. x’m, NPers.
xām ‘raw’, OIr. om ‘raw, MWelsh of ‘id.’, etc. Hübschmann 1897: 468 (earlier,
1883: 39, he was sceptical about the etymology because of the Armenian initial h-);
HAB 3: 121-123; Pokorny 1959: 777; Bailey 1979: 477b; Mayrhofer EWAia 1,
1992: 170; Mallory/Adams 1997: 478a; Olsen 1999: 195.The assumption that PArm. *um took the initial h- from Iranian (Meillet 1919:
187; cf. HAB 3: 121b) is not compelling. We can rather assume a reflex of the PIE
laryngeal. One reconstructs PIE *h2eh3-mo- or *h3eH-mo- (for a discussion, see
Kortlandt 1983: 12; 1986: 43 = 2003: 42, 73; Schrijver 1991: 77, 347-348, 350-351;
1995: 39; Beekes 2003: 183).
hun (i-stem: GDSg hun-i or hn-i in NHB 2: 124b without testimony; AblSg i hn-ē
attested in Dawit‘ Anyaɫt‘ precludes an o-declension; see further Olsen 1999: 194
and foot-notes) ‘ford, shallow’ (Genesis 32.22/23 and Joshua 2.7 rendering Gr.
διάβασις, Łazar P‘arpec‘i, Zgōn/Afrahat, etc.), adj. ‘shallow’ (T‘ovmay Arcruni 3.8),
‘passage, way’ (Evagrius of Pontus, Dawit‘ Anyaɫt‘, Book of Chries), ‘opening, gap’
(P‘awstos Buzand 3.1, see below);
an-hun, i-stem: anhn-i-c‘ (Dawit‘ Anyaɫt‘), loc. anhn-i (Porphyry, Dawit‘
Anyaɫt‘); also GDPl anhun-c‘ (Dawit‘ Anyaɫt‘) ‘unfordable, impassable,
inaccessible; bottomless; broad, wide; infinite, endless, countless’ (Amos 5.24
rendering Gr. ἄβατος, Agat‘angeɫos, Movsēs Xorenac‘i, John Chrysostom, Ephrem,
Łewond, Anania Narekac‘i, etc.), adv. ‘infinitely, limitlessly, without restraint’
(Movsēs Xorenac‘i 3.63, see below).
The two Biblical attestations of hun are found in:
Genesis 32.22/23 (Zeyt‘unyan 1985: 299): Ew yaruc‘eal i nmin gišeri aṙ zerkus
kanaysn ew zerkus aɫaxnaysn ew zmetasan ordis iwr ew anc‘ ənd hunn Yobokay :
ἀναστὰς δὲ τὴν νύκτα ἐκείνην ἔλαβεν τὰς δύο γυναῖκας καὶ τὰς δύο παιδίσκας καὶ τὰ
ἕνδεκα παιδία αὐτοῦ καὶ διέβη τὴν διάβασιν τοῦ Ιαβοκ.
Joshua 2.7: zčanaparhn Yordananu i hunn “the way of Jordan through the ford” :
ὁδὸν τὴν ἐπὶ τοῦ Ιορδάνου ἐπὶ τὰς διαβάσεις. Compare hunn Yordanan getoy in
Zgōn/Afrahat [NHB 2: 124b].
The word occurs in Sebēos (7th cent.) several times [G. Xač‘atryan 2004: 284
s.v.], very clearly referring to ‘ford, a shallow place in a river where it can be
crossed’. In Chapter 17 (Xač‘atryan/Eɫiazaryan 2005: 96; Chapter 3.7 in 1851: 84;
transl. Thomson 1999: 35): i bac‘ ənkec‘in zkamurǰn ew amrac‘ealk‘ yanjukn pahēin
zteɫi kamrǰin. Kayin aṙ getezerbn ew xorhēin, t‘ē zínč‘ aržan ē aṙnel. Ew ibrew oč‘
gtin hun, <...>, asen nma: “C‘óyc‘ mez zhun getoys, apa t‘ē oč‘ spanc‘uk‘ zk‘ez”.
Ew nora aṙeal zzawrn, ec‘oyc‘ zhunn i nerk‘oy and : “They destroyed the bridge,
and posted themselves at the defile to defend the site of the bridge. They [the
Greeks] stopped at the river-bank and pondered what they should do. Since they did
not find a ford, <...>, said to him: ‘Show us the ford over the river, otherwise we
shall kill you’. He led the army and pointed out the ford below”.
Two more attestations in Sebēos, Chapter 38 (Xač‘atryan/Eɫiazaryan 2005:
174L18f, 176L17f; transl. Thomson 1999: 82, 83): anc‘anē ənd hun getoyn Erasxay,
yawann Vrnǰunis ew banakin yandastans nora “he crossed the ford of the Araxes
river at the town of Vrnjunik‘ and camped in its fields”; anc‘eal ənd Širak hasanē i
hun getoyn Erasxay, ew anc‘ ənd getawn aṙ Vardanakertawn awanaw “Passing
through Shirak, he reached the ford of the Araxes river; having crossed the river by
the town of Vardanakert”.
In Chapter 2 of the 8th century History of Łewond (NHB 2: 124b): anc‘uc‘anēin
ənd getn Erasx, ənd hunn J̌
uɫayu “they made them cross the River Erasx (Araxes) through the ford of J̌
uɫa”. Arzoumanian (1982: 50) translates hun as ‘strait’. For a
ModArm. translation of this passage, see Ter-Łewondyan 1982: 20.
The adjectival meaning ‘shallow’ is attested in T‘ovmay Arcruni 3.8, 9-10th cent.
(V. Vardanyan 1985: 260L-8; transl. Thomson 1985: 232): Ew ē zi i nurb ew i hun
teɫis ǰurc‘n ankeal, i nmin xreal kan anšarž, ew diwraw ankanic‘i i jeṙs orsordac‘ :
“And it happens that collapsing in narrow and shallow places in the water one may
remain stuck there immobilised, and easily fall into the hands of hunters”.
Aṙnč/ǰoy hun and Evanakac‘ hun, villages in Geɫark‘unik‘, in the province of
Siwnik‘, attested in Step‘anos Ōrbelean (A. A. Abrahamyan 1986: 397ab; see
Hübschmann 1904: 384, 402, 426). The meaning ‘opening, gap’ is attested in
P‘awstos Buzand 3.1 (1883=1984: 5L-5f): Bayc‘ zi mí i miǰi meroy patmut‘eans
əndhat erewesc‘i hun mi, nšanakec‘ak‘; zor ōrinak aɫiws mi kargac i mēǰ ormoyn
šinuacoy, i katarumn bovandakut‘ean “But, lest a gap appear in the midst of our
narrative, we have noted [it], as a brick is set in the wall of a structure for the
completion of the whole” (Garsoïan 1989: 67, see also 2192; cf. Malxasyanc‘ 1987:
13).
The derivative an-hun ‘unfordable, impassable; bottomless, broad; infinite,
endless, limitless’ is first attested in Amos 5.24: ibrew zheɫeɫ anhun ὡς χειμάρρους
ἄβατος.
A number of attestations are to be found in Movsēs Xorenac‘i 1.4, 1.10, 3.63
(1913=1991: 14L2f, 32L20f, 346L12f; transl. Thomson 1978: 71, 85, 339): <...>, zugeal
hamematē anhun t‘woc‘ aṙarkut‘eanc‘s aṙ i hawasarel čšmartut‘eann “<...>, could
he make them equal to the limitless numbers of these proposals”; i mēǰ bazmakoyt
skayic‘n, anhun xōlac‘ ew užaworac‘ “amid the multitude of infinitely ferocious and
strong giants”; anhun sksaw oɫoɫanel yanaṙak c‘ankut‘iwns, minč‘ew taɫtkanal i
nmanē amenayn naxararac‘n “begun to plunge without restraint into licentious
pleasures to the extent that all the princes became disgusted with him” (in the last
attestation anhun is taken as an adverb, ‘infinitely, limitlessly, without restraint’).
In Book of Chries 8.7.2: covu anhun lineloy cancaɫi anbaž ew vimac‘ : “так как
море бездонно, лишено мелей и скал” (G. Muradyan 1993: 200L3; transl. 2000:
189); for genetivus absolutus here, see G. Muradyan 1993: 309106.
In later literature we find hun-awor ‘limited, having a limit’, in contrast with anhun ‘limitless’ (Oskip‘orik, see NHB 2: 124c).
●DIAL Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 123a) records an independent hun, with unspecified
semantics, in Muš and Bulanəx. Baɫdasaryan-T‘ap‘alc‘yan (1958: 262b) glosses
Muš hun as geti hun ‘ford of a river’ (or perhaps ‘riverbed’). She also ascribes a
meaning ‘voice, sound’ found only in the expression hun u mun č‘ka “there is no
information (about smb. or smth.)”. This is rather reminiscent of hun(k‘)-u-bun(k‘),
on which see below.
According to Eɫišē Melik‘ean (1964: 510b), Xnus-Bulanəx hun refers to ‘ford,
shallow of a river’. Note also the compound naxr-hun ‘ford for cattle, herd’ in
Melik‘ean 1964: 293L22f: hasank‘ getap‘ə ew naxrhunēn getə anc‘nelov mtank‘
K‘arablurneru mēǰ : “we reached the river-bank and, crossing the river through the
cattle-ford, entered the ‘Stone-hills’”. The meaning ‘ford’ is also present in Akn. According to Čanikean (1895: 31),
here they say that the river Ep‘rat-Euphrates has a ford (hun uni) in the vicinity of
Erēz.
In Modern Armenian one finds the meanings ‘ford, shallow’, ‘bottom of the sea,
lake or river’, ‘riverbed’, ‘dried riverbed’, ‘way, direction, course’ [Malxaseanc‘
HBB 3: 137b; Aɫayan 1976, 1: 910c]. The meaning ‘ford, shallow’ is seen e.g. in the
proverb Hunə č‘gitc‘ac getə mtnel “To enter the river not knowing the ford”
[Malxaseanc‘ HBB 3: 137b].
The meaning ‘way, direction, course’ is particularly seen in phrases such as huni
meǰ dnel ‘to put into the right order or course, to give an adequate course or
direction’, huni meǰ ənknel ‘to fall onto the right direction, to begin with an ordered
work’, hunic‘ hanel ‘to take out of the right order’, etc. [HayLezDarjBaṙ 1975: 374].
T‘iflis hunk‘-u-bunk‘, Ararat hunk‘ u b‘unk‘, Širak unn u b‘unə, Van un-bun,
Łazax unk‘-u-bunk‘, ‘the essence of something, all the details of a deed; the entire
tribe and origin of somebody’ [Amatuni 1912: 405; Mxit‘areanc‘ 1901: 179L-6f;
HAB 1: 484b; 3: 123a].
The derivative an-hun ‘unfordable; bottomless; endless(ly)’ is found in a late
medieval folk-song (Abeɫyan 1940: 111Nr165):
Im barjragnay lusin,
Yu?
r kert‘as gišerəd anhun.
Literal translation: “My high-going moon, where are you going at that
limitless/deep night?”.
This word is represented in the dialects mostly with an unclear medial -a-: Dersim
anahun [Baɫramyan 1960: 73a], Xarberd anahun ‘bottomless (sea)’, Aparan,
Bulanəx ‘limitless (God)’ [HAB 3: 123a], Širak anahun ‘large, wide, broad,
limitless’ [Mxit‘areanc‘ 1901: 306; Amatuni 1912: 29b]. Here hun displays the
meanings ‘bottom’ and ‘limit, border, end, top’, the latter being present in Sebastia,
particularly in expressions such as hunə garun hanel “to accomplish, fulfil smth.”
(see Gabikean 1952: 350), lit. “to make the end/top of a work to springtime”; cf. Van
xun xanel < hun hanel ‘to supplement, accomplish’ [Ačaṙyan 1952: 276]. See also in
what follows.
Akn, Ewdokia, Muš, Č‘enkiler-Nikomidia hun elnel ‘to vanquish, surmount’,
Ewdokia hun-avor-il, Sebastia hn-avɔr-il (according to Gabikean 1952: 350,
hunavɔril) ‘id.’, Van *hun-awor-uil ‘to settle, establish a dwelling, settlement’
[Ačaṙean 1913: 673a; HAB 3: 123a], cf. Van *hnaworuil ‘to cope with everybody’
HAB 3: 105a, s.v. hnar ‘means’ (perhaps contamination; cf. anhun anhnarin in
Ephrem, NHB 1: 188c).
Comparable dial. (ṙmk.) forms are recorded in NHB 2: 124bc: hun-awor ‘limited,
having a limit or border’ in contrast with an-hun ‘limitless’ (Oskip‘orik), and a dial.
phrase i hun elanel ‘to cope with, succeed in’ (124bc) with two illustrations from the
same source, viz. Oskip‘orik: mard het lezuani knoǰ oč‘ elanē i hun “one cannot
cope with a quarrelsome woman”; bṙnut‘eamb ban i hun č‘elanē “one cannot
succeed by force”. The former illustration is similar to that from the fables of Vardan
Aygekc‘i (see MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 49b). ●SEMANTICS The basic meaning ‘ford’, that is ‘a shallow place in a river where it
can be crossed’, is securely attested in the literature since the Bible and has been
preserved in the dialects. All the other meanings are derivable from this meaning.
The derivative an-hun ‘bottomless’ implies that hun refers also to ‘bottom of the
sea or river’; for the semantic development cf. Lat. vadum ‘shallow, ford’, ‘bottom
of the sea’. Hence we arrive at ‘bottom, base’, which is clearly seen in dial. hun-k‘-
u-bun-k‘ ‘the essence of something, all the details of a deed; the entire family/tribe
and origin of somebody’, with bun ‘stem of a tree, base, bottom, origin, armysettlement’ as the second member. The basic meaning of the compound is thus
‘bottom and base’. A clear semantic parallel to this is dial. *azg-u-tak ‘the entire
family, tribe’, lit. ‘tribe and bottom’, with tak ‘bottom, base, root, tribe’ (see HAB 1:
85a; 4: 360). A meaning ‘settlement’ is seen in Van *hun-awor-uil ‘to settle,
establish a settlement’.
The second meaning of an-hun, viz. ‘endless, limitless’, implies a semantic
development ‘bottom’ > ‘limit, border, end’, ‘top’. The latter meaning may also be
seen in dialectal expressions such as hun elnel ‘to vanquish, surmount’, which is to
be understood as ‘to come up to the top’; typologically compare dial. glux elnel ‘to
succeed; to vanquish, surmount’, lit. ‘to come up to the top, head’ (Ačaṙean 1913:
238), glux hanel/berel ‘to cope with, successfully accomplish’, lit. ‘to take/bring to
the top/head’ (Amatuni 1912: 138ab). Note also hun-awor ‘limited, having a limit or
border’.
The phrase i hun elanel ‘to cope with, succeed in’ may be understood as ‘to come
up to the top, to a successful accomplishment’. On the other hand it may imply an
underlying meaning ‘way, manner’, compare dial. yɔla gnal/ert‘al ‘to cope in a way’
vs. yɔl ‘way, road’ from Turk. yol ‘way; manner’ (see Ačaṙean 1902: 251;
HayLezBrbBaṙ 4, 2007: 117); cf. also Engl. way ‘way, road’ : ‘way, manner’.
●ETYM Since long (Meillet 1892: 161; Bugge 1893: 71-72; Hübschmann 1897: 468-
469, etc., see HAB 3: 123a; Pokorny 1959: 809; Godel 1975: 75; Polomé 1980: 26;
Mallory/Adams 1997: 27b, 202a, 487b), connected with Skt. pánthās, AccSg
pánthām, GAblSg pathás, LSg pathí, NPl pánthās, APl pathás (RV+) ‘road, path,
course’, OAv. AblSg paϑō, LocSg paiϑī, APl paϑō, GPl paϑąm, IPl padəbīš, YAv.
paṇtā̊
, ISg paϑa, OPers. AccSg pϑim ‘road’, Khot. pande ‘road, path’, MPers.,
NPers. pand ‘path; counsel, advice’, Gr. πάτος m. ‘road’, πόντος m. ‘sea’, Lat. pons,
pontis m. ‘bridge across a river or sim.; plank, etc., bridging the gap between
buildings, walls, and the like, gangway; platform, floor, deck’, OCS pǫtь m. ‘road’,
OPr. pintis ‘road’, etc.
The PIE word was a hysterodynamic h1-stem: NSg *pónt-eh1-s, GSg *pnt-h1-ós.
The -th- in Sanskrit has been generalized from the oblique cases (see Beekes 1972a:
32; 1989a; 1995: 181; Schrijver 1991: 371-372; with *-h2-: Mayrhofer EWAia 2,
1996: 81-83, with rich literature; Mayrhofer 2005: 120; cf. Lehmann 1952: 80). For
different explanations of the voiceless aspirate, see Szemerényi 1996: 168; Elbourne
2000: 3, 14, 16, 20-25.
In view of the initial h- we have to assume that the development *po- > Arm. o-
(cf. otn vs. het ‘foot, trace’) was posterior to *-oN- > -uN-, see Kortlandt 1983: 10 =
2003: 40; Olsen 1999: 202 and 202383; Beekes 2003: 171. It is remarkable that Kartvelian languages (Georg. ph
oni, etc., see HAB 3: 123a)82 have borrowed the
Armenian word at a very old period, having preserved PArm. *fon- (see Vogt 1958:
157; Aghayan 1985: 24; cf. Matzinger 2005: 26125).
The absence of a reflex of PIE *-t- in Armenian is much debated; see Olsen 1989;
Clackson 1994: 56; Beekes 2003: 173-174. A derivation of hun, i-stem (NB no
evidence for the declension class) from *pont-i- beside Lat. pons, pontis and OCS
pǫtь (see e.g. Aɫabekyan 1979: 53) is uncertain. Note that the Latin form has been
derived from *-eh1-. It is possible to derive Arm. hun from analogical *pont-HV- (>
*ponth
-), with generalization of the oblique stem exactly like in Sanskrit, assuming
that the aspirated dental dropped after a nasal (see Pisani 1941-42: 269; Meillet
1936: 36; Olsen 1984: 115; 1999: 194-195, 67729, 770). This is perhaps confirmed
by *-k̂
omtH > Arm. -sun (in ere-sun ‘thirty’, etc.). For a discussion, see Ravnæs
1991: 53-54, 55, 1491, 17948a; Viredaz 2005: 91-92, 97.
The variety of meanings represented by cognate forms and the semantic nuances
of Skt. pánthā- point to an original meaning ‘tortuous path, forcing, forced crossing,
traverse or passage by/into an unknown and/or hostile spot’ (see Benveniste 1954:
256-257; cf. Saradževa 1986: 115-116). Mallory/Adams 2006: 250 posits ‘(untraced)
path’. The PIE word has been regarded as a derivative of a verb *pent- ‘to find one’s
way’ (see Benveniste ibid.; Bammesberger 1971: 48, 4812; Mallory/Adams 1997:
202a).
*huṙ- prob. ‘gilded, adorned by gems, linked together in a series, encrusted,
embroidered’ or the like (rather than ‘hem of a skirt, lap’, as in HAB 3: 124-125),
only in compounds with oski ‘gold’ and margarit ‘pearl’: oske-huṙ, oske-huṙn
‘gilded, adorned with gold’ said of garment, coat, silk, cover, collar, tassels, etc.
(Bible, Łazar P‘arpec‘i, Eɫišē, John Chrysostom, Ephrem, Philo, Hesychius of
Jerusalem, etc.), margart-a-huṙn ‘adorned with pearls’ (Paterica).
●DIAL No dialectal record in HAB 3: 124-125.
According to Lusenc‘ 1982: 152-153, 221b, 229b, here belong Areš huṙ ‘bracelet’
and ɔskiyahuṙ. The latter obviously continues the Classical Armenian compound
oskehuṙ(n) < *oski-a-huṙ(n), with secondary restoration of the conjunction -a-.
●ETYM No etymology in HAB 3: 124-125. See s.v. yeṙum ‘to tie, fasten or join
together, link together in a series, string together, put around (said of gems, etc.)’.
hur (singulative), o-stem: gen.-dat. hr-o-y, instr. hr-o-v (rich evidence in the Bible, see
Astuacaturean 1895: 898-901), cf. instr. hur-b (a few attestations in the Bible) ‘fire’
(Bible+); hr-at, GSg hrat-i (Eusebius of Caesarea, Socrates, Aristakēs Lastivertc‘i)
‘camp-fire’ (Bible+), ‘the planet Mars’ (Anania Širakac‘i, etc.).
●DIAL Mostly preserved in derivatives, phrases and sayings [HAB 3: 126].
Independently present in T‘iflis hur, Polis hur-k‘ ‘burning pain of wound’, Ewdokia,
Akn, Ararat, Łazax hur-k‘ ‘reflex of fire’ [HAB 3: 126], Sebastia hur-k‘
‘inflammation; passion; fever’ [Gabikean 1952: 351]. The suffix -at in Ararat,
Łarabaɫ redupl. hur-hr-at- ‘shining’ is reminiscent of ClArm. hr-at ‘camp-fire’. ●ETYM Since Hübschmann 1881: 176-177 and 1897: 469,83 the singulative hur and
oblique *hun- ‘fire’ (in hn-oc‘ ‘oven, furnace’, q.v.) are derived from the PIE
heteroclitic PD neuter *péh2-ur, *ph2-uén-s ‘fire’: Hitt. paḫḫur, GSg paḫḫuenaš
‘fire’, Gr. πῦρ, πῠρός n. ‘fire’, πυρ-ᾱ, Ion. ́ -ή f. ‘fireplace, pyre’, OHG fuir, Goth. fon,
OPr. panno ‘fire’, etc., see HAB 3: 106, 125-126; Pokorny 1959: 828; Beekes apud
Mallory/ Adams 1997: 202b. For a morphological and etymological discussion of
the PIE word, see Rix 1992: 126-127; Beekes 1995: 187; Lindeman 1997: 108-110;
Kloekhorst 2008: 613.
Also Germanic languages have preserved both stems, cf. OIc. fūrr, fȳrr m. ‘fire’,
OHG fuir, German Feuer, etc. beside Goth. fōn < *puo̯ ̄n, gen. funins ‘fire’, OIc. funi
m. ‘fire’, OHG funcho ‘spark’, German Funke ‘spark’ (see Lehmann 1986: 120; K.
Schmidt 1987: 4518; Matzinger 2005: 61). For a discussion of the Germanic material
and, in particular, of the etymology of Funke ‘spark’, see Beekes 1996a.
For a discussion of the generalized NAccSg form in *-r (cf. Gr. πῦρ, πῠρός ‘fire’,
Rix 1992: 126-127) and the transfer of the Armenian singulative hur into the odeclension (note Arm. older instr. hur-b vs. widely attested thematic hr-o-v), for the
old oblique plural *hun- and for hn-oc‘ based on this *hun- and other related
problems, see Meillet 1920: 250-251; 1936: 82-83; Godel 1975: 97; Schmitt 1981:
57; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 101, 121; K. Schmidt 1987: 37-38; Clackson 1994: 45, 97;
Olsen 1999: 48-49, 49102, 533-536; Matzinger 2005: 21107, 61, 81364.
jag, u-stem: GDPl jag-u-c‘ (Bible) ‘youngling, nestling’ (Bible+), ‘a little bird,
sparrow’ (Job 40.29 [Cox 2006: 260] and Luke 12.6-7, rendering Gr. dimin.
στρουϑίον); MidArm. ‘bird; child’ (MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 55a).
MidArm. aner-jag ‘brother-in-law, wife’s brother’ [MiǰHayBaṙ 1, 1987: 52a], lit.
‘father-in-law’s youngling’.
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects [HAB 3: 142a]. Beside the basic meaning
‘youngling, nestling’, the word appears with a number of semantic nuances: Svedia
‘bird’ [Andreasyan 1967: 160, 250]; Ewdokia ‘bird’ [Gabikean 1952: 354-355];
Xnus-Bulanəx jag generic term for ‘child, young’ said of people, animals and birds
[Melik‘ean 1964: 511a]; Xotorǰur pl.-coll. jagus [YušamXotorǰ 1964: 479b],
probably from a frozen accusative jag-oy-s.
For dialectal evidence of MidArm. aner-jag ‘brother-in-law, wife’s brother’ cf.
e.g. Moks änɛrcäk‘y
, gen. änɛrcäk‘y
-u ‘шурин, сын тестя’ [Orbeli 2002: 202];
further, see s.v. aner ‘father-in-law, wife’s father’.
Sivri-Hisar jgnil < *jag-n-il ‘to bear a youngling’ [PtmSivHisHay 1965: 468a].
●ETYM Connected with Alb. zog ‘bird of small species; young animal; nestling’,
probably also ManMPers. and ManParth. zhg [zahag] ‘offspring, progeny; child’
(Boyce 1977: 104), Pahl. zhk, z’hk [zahag], NPers. zah ‘child, offspring’
(MacKenzie 1971: 97), see HAB 3: 141-142 for early references; further, Pedersen 1900: 341; 1906: 454 = 1982: 2, 232; Pokorny 1959: 409 (Iranian loanword);
Kortlandt 1986: 40 = 2003: 70; Demiraj 1997: 429-430; Olsen 1999: 110-111.
Perhaps a substratum word of the shape *ĝh
āgh
- or the like.
jagar, a-stem according to NHB 2: 144c, but without evidence ‘funnel’; attested in
Agat‘angeɫos § 109 (1909=1980: 65L2); for the passage, see s.v. tik ‘winebag’. In
"Čaṙəntir": Jagar edin i beran nora "They put a funnel into his mouth".
●DIAL Preserved in a number of kə-dialects [HAB 3: 142b].
●ETYM No acceptable etymology is recorded in HAB 3: 142.
J̌
ahukyan (1987: 128) derives jagar from PIE *ĝh
eu̯- ‘to pour’, see s.v.v. jew,
joyl. For the semantics, cf. e.g. Lat. in-fundibulum ‘a funnel for pouring liquids’
from in-fundō ‘to pour in’, Gr. χόϝανος, χώνη ‘smelting furnace, funnel’, all based
on the same *ĝh
eu̯- ‘to pour’. Arm. jagar may be derived from PArm. *jawar- <
*jəw-árV- or *jow-árV-; for the suffix, see J̌
ahukyan 1987: 235; 1998: 16f; Clackson
1994: 118f; Olsen 1999: 337f.
Ačaṙyan (HAB ibid.) considers the resemblance with Georg. jabri ‘funnel’ as
accidental. According to him, T‘iflis jabri has been borrowed from Georgian. This is
possible. However, the resemblance between Arm. jagar and Georg. jabri is
remarkable, and a connection cannot be excluded. If the Indo-European origin of the
Armenian word is accepted, one might regard Georg. jabri as a loan from PArm.
*jaw(a)r- > *jab(a)r-; for *w > b, compare, perhaps, MPers. babr ‘tiger’ vs. MIr.
*vagr, Arm. vagr, Skt. vyāghrá- ‘tiger’.
jaɫ (u-stem in NHB 2: 145b, but without evidence) ‘derision, mockery’ (Łazar
P‘arpec‘i, John Chrysostom, etc.), jaɫ-an-k‘, a-stem ‘id.’, jaɫem ‘to deride’ (Bible+),
‘to conquer’ (Eusebius of Caesarea).
GDPl jaɫan-a-c‘ is attested in Jeremiah 51.18 (not 11.18, as is misprinted in
HAB), John Chrysostom, Yovhannēs Ōjnec‘i, etc., as well as (not cited in NHB) in
P‘awstos Buzand 5.3 (1883=1984: 160L4; transl. Garsoïan 1989: 188): t‘šnamans
jaɫanac‘ i berdargel pašarmann “of his taunts during the siege of the fortress”; see
the full passage s.v. *awre(a)r.
●ETYM The connection with caɫr ‘laughter’, etc. suggested in NHB (see s.v. caɫr) is
rejected in view of the unagreement of the initial affricate [Meillet 1898: 280].
Meillet (ibid.) prefers connecting with Gr. χλεύη ‘joke, jest’, OIc. glaumr
‘jubilation’, OE glēam ‘jubilation, joy’, OCS glumъ ‘idle talk, boasting’, Russ.
(dial.) glum ‘stupidity, mockery, joke, noise’. Ukr. hlum ‘mockery’, Pol. gɫum
‘mockery, torture, misfortune’, Czech hluma ‘mime, actor, comedian’, Bulg. glumá
‘joke’, etc. On Slavic and its alternative etymologies, see ÈtimSlovSlavJaz 6, 1979:
147-152.
The appurtenance of the Armenian is accepted by Hübschmann (1899: 48: from
*g1
hl̥lu- with a question mark), Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 143b), J̌
ahukyan (1987: 127: from
*ĝhlō- with a question mark). In etymological dictionaries, however, the PIE form is
usually reconstructed as *gh
le/ou-, with a non-palatalized guttural, and the Armenian
form is not included (see Pokorny 1959: 451; Mallory/Adams 1997: 255-256).
J̌ahukyan (ibid.), albeit with reservation, includes also jɫmem ‘to watch’ (only in
HHB and Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ [HAB 3: 155b; Amalyan 1975: 194Nr49, 39849]), which is
highly improbable.
jaɫk, a-stem: ISg jaɫk-a-w (Eusebius of Caesarea); later: i-stem (GDPl jaɫk-i-c‘ in
Mxit‘ar Anec‘i, 12-13th cent.) and o-stem (ISg jaɫk-o-v in Čaṙəntir) ‘rod, stick, staff,
whip, switch (often for beating)’ (John Chrysostom, Eusebius of Caesarea, Dawit‘
Anyaɫt‘), ‘twig, branch’ (Mxit‘ar Anec‘i), subst. ‘beating, whipping’ (in a homily
ascribed to Eɫišē).
The word occurs also as an adjective: ‘straight, upstanding, tense’ said of her
‘hair’ (Gregory of Nyssa apud NHB 2: 146a) or maz ‘hair’ (Zeno, Xač‘ikyan 1949:
84bL25, rendered as ‘прямой’ by Arewšatyan 1956: 326); cf. the compounds jaɫk-aher (Severian of Gabala) and jaɫk-a-maz (Plato) ‘having jaɫk hair’.
In the oldest stage of Classical Armenian we only find the verb jaɫk-em ‘to beat
with a rod’, jaɫk-im ‘to be beaten’ (2 Corinthians 11.25, also in Eusebius of
Caesarea, Čaṙəntir, Žamagirk‘). The attestation in 2 Corinthians 11.25 reads: eric‘s
jaɫkec‘ay : τρὶς ἐρραβδίσϑην “three times I was beaten with rods”. Though attested
late and absent in the dialects, the noun jaɫk is original, and the verb jaɫk-em is
clearly denominative exactly like Gr. ῥαβδ-ίζω ‘to beat with a rod’ from ῥάβδος ‘rod,
twig, staff’. This is corroborated also by the etymology of jaɫk. Note that this very
same Greek verb corresponds to Arm. jaɫkem in the passage from 2 Corinthians
11.25.
●DIAL The verb is widespread in the dialects, meaning ‘to beat wool with a rod to
make it soft’ [HAB 3: 144a]. Other semantic nuances: ‘to beat someone’ in Sebastia
[Gabikean 1952: 355] and Svedia [Andreasyan 1967: 250, 372b]; ‘id.’ and ‘to beat
the branches of a tree for making walnuts and the like fall down’ in Arabkir
[Ačaṙean 1913: 679a] and Partizak [Tēr-Yakobean 1960: 509]; ‘to shake’ in
Atap‘azar [Ačaṙean 1913: 679a].
Further see s.v. *jaɫ-t-el ‘to beat’.
●ETYM Since Bugge 1889: 18, linked with Lith. žalgà ‘long, thin stake’, Goth. galga
‘stake, cross’, OIc. galgi ‘gallows’, gelgja ‘pole, stake’, OHG galgo, OEngl. gealga,
Engl. gallows (see also Hübschmann 1897: 469; HAB 3: 143-144; Solta 1960: 314-
315; Pokorny 1959: 411; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 97 = 1995, 1: 84;
Mallory/Adams 1997: 442b).
The forms are usually derived from IE *ĝh
algh
-. In view of the vocalism and the
restriction of the word to Baltic, Germanic, and Armenian, one may assume a
European substratum word.
On the other hand, it has been assumed that these forms are related with Lith.
žúolis and Arm. joɫ ‘pole’, etc., which is possible. For references and a discussion,
see HAB 3: 144a; Lehmann 1986: 142b; H. Suk‘iasyan 1986: 194; J̌
ahukyan 1987:
170-171. An original paradigm of jaɫk, etc. is reconstructed with nom. *ĝh
olgh
- vs.
gen. *ĝh
l̥gh
-n-, and the Arm. jaɫk with a-vocalism and -k- instead of -g- is explained
from the genitive. For the vocalic problems and a further discussion, see s.vv. je/oɫun
‘ceiling’, jlem ‘to furrow’, joɫ ‘pole’.
The above-mentioned solution for the problem of the Armenian -k- is not entirely
satisfactory (see also Mallory/Adams 1997: 442b). One may rather think of a
determinative -k- (possibly of iterative function, cf. e.g. dial. cec-k-el vs. ClArm.
cecem ‘to beat’) in a way reflected also in e.g. har-k-anem ‘to beat’ (cf. H.
Suk‘iasyan 1986: 90-91). A form *jaɫg-k- would be simplified to jaɫk-. Note also
another iterative form of this word, *jaɫ-t-el ‘to beat’ (q.v.)Arm. jaɫk, a-stem, points to fem. *ĝh
(a)lgh
-eh2-, cf. OIc. gelgja ‘pole, stake’ from
*-ieh2-.
IE *ĝh
algh
- ‘long thin pole’ has been borrowed into PFUgr. *śalka, Finn. salko,
Mordvin salgo (Koivulehto 2001: 238; Witzel 2003: 11)
*jaɫ(k)-t-el (dial.) ‘to beat, whip’.
●DIAL Karin (j‘aɫdɛl, H. Mkrtč‘yan 1952: 157a), Alek‘sandrapol, Arabkir, etc.
*jaɫtel ‘to beat wool with a rod to make it soft’, jaɫt-ič‘ ‘rod’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 679a;
HAB 3: 144a; Gabikean 1952: 355; HayLezBrbBaṙ 3, 2004: 319a].
●ETYM Belongs with jaɫkem ‘id.’ (HAB 3: 144a) and is possibly related also with joɫ
‘pole’, etc. (see s.vv.).
In order to explain the -t- in *jaɫ-t-el, J̌
ahukyan (1972: 281) relates the word to
Goth. gilþa ‘sickle’ (probably composed of *ĝh
el- ‘to cut’ and *-(e)tā-, see Ramat
1974: 78-79; Lehmann 1986: 156a) or posits *ĝh
l̥-d- (1987: 127, cf. 170-171, 256).
In my opinion, however, *jaɫ-t-em is in closer relationship with jaɫkem and may be
derived from *jaɫk-t-em, with the iterative -t- seen e.g. in bek-t-em vs. bek-anem ‘to
break’.
jayn, i-stem ‘voice, sound’ (Bible+); later: ‘speech, word’ (John Chrysostom, etc.);
dial. also ‘noice; rumour’.
●DIAL Dialectally ubiquitous [HAB 3: 144b]. For the semantic development cf. e.g.
Moks cɛn ‘голос; шум; звук’ [Orbeli 2002: 254]. It also refers to ‘rumour’: cen
əngy
äv ‘слух дошел (до)’ (op. cit. 98L18, transl. 166L-5). Another textual illustration
is found e.g. in a fairy-tale from Łarabaɫ recorded by Aṙak‘el Bahat‘ryan in 1860
(HŽHek‘ 6, 1973: 687L7).
●ETYM Numerous attempts of connecting with OCS zvonъ ‘sound’ are rejected on
formal grounds (see HAB 3: 144b). More positive: Pokorny 1959: 490; J̌
ahukyan
1982: 71-72, 75; 1987: 129 (deriving from *ĝh
un̯ ̥-i̯i-); Olsen 1999: 100.
One may assume a *-ni- formation as in synonymous ban, i-stem ‘speech, word’
from ba-m ‘to speak’ < PIE *bh
eh2-: Gr. φημί ‘to say’. For the anticipation of *-i-
(cf. J̌
ahukyan 1982: 71-72; Beekes 2003: 162), see 2.1.27.1. The reason that no
anticipation is seen in ban may be that the latter derives from *bh
eh2-sni-, cf. OCS
basnь ‘tale’, Russ. básnja ‘fable’, etc. For the loss of *-u- (see J̌
ahukyan 1982: 75;
Kortlandt 2003: 6, 18, 86, 122; Beekes 2003: 209) cf. perhaps kaɫaɫ ‘den’, probably
from *guol-.
*je- obl. stem of du-k‘ pl. ‘you’: acc.-dat. jez, gen. jer, abl. i jēnǰ, instr. je-w-k‘
See s.v. du ‘you’.
jeɫun, an-stem: GDSg jeɫuan in Eznik Koɫbac‘i, Gregory of Nyssa, Eusebius of
Caesarea, etc. ‘ceiling; palate’.
In the main meaning (‘ceiling’), jeɫun is attested since the Bible. For references
and a discussion see Thomson 1992: 198.
ISg jeɫmamb (Anania Sanahnec‘i, 11th cent.) presupposes a (probably the original)
by-form *jeɫumn [NHB 2: 149c; HAB 3: 148a]. For -u/wn : -mn, see 2.1.22.11.
In John of Damascus, jeɫun refers to ‘palate’: verin jeɫunk‘ beranoy “upper ceiling
of the mouth”. In Eznik Koɫbac‘i 1.3 (1994: 12), the sun is metaphorically described as črag mi i
meci tan i mēǰ jeɫuan ew yataki “a candle in the big house between the ceiling and
the floor”. A similar usage is found in Gregory of Nyssa (NHB 3: 2: 149c; 1010b):
erkin <...> zōrēn jeɫuan “the sky <...> like a ceiling”.
The by-form joɫun-k‘ is attested in Severian of Gabala, as well as, in APl joɫun-s
(var. jeɫun-s), in “Vark‘ S. Gēorgay zōrawarin”. It matches the form of the dialect of
Akn (see below).
●DIAL Akn j‘ɔɫunk‘ (see also Gabriēlean 1912: 309), Trapizon c‘xink‘ [HAB 3:
148b], Hamšen c‘xink‘, gen. c‘xənk‘-i [Ačaṙyan 1947: 35, 242]. On
Trapizon/Hamšen, see below.
●SEMANTICS For ‘palate’ : ‘ceiling’ : ‘sky’, see 3.7.1.
●ETYM The connection with. Gr. χελύνη ‘lip, jaw’ (see Adontz 1937: 9; Pokorny
1959: 436; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 127, 170-171; cf. Olsen 1999: 133) is doubtful. The
meaning ‘palate’ (< ‘ceiling/roof of the mouth’) is clearly secondary, see 3.7.1. I
prefer the connection with Georgian ʒeli ‘log, bar’ [HAB 4: 657] and Arm. joɫ ‘log;
pole’ (see Bediryan 1955: 103; Aɫayan 1974: 108-111). Klimov (1998: 285)
reconstructs a Georgian-Zan *ʒ1el- ‘tree, wood’, cf. also Megr. ǯa-, pl. stem ǯal-
‘tree, wood’, etc. See also s.v. *aṙ-zel . Note the intermediary form joɫunk‘ (Severian
of Gabala, etc.; dialect of Akn). For the suffix -un cf. c‘awɫ-un ‘stalk, straw’, q.v.
For an attempt of reconstructing the original paradigm, see s.v. joɫ.
According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 148b), Megr. cxve/ini ‘ceiling’ is borrowed from
Armenian and resembles especially the Trapizon/Hamšen form c‘xink‘.
However, the Megrelian continues a Georgian-Zan lexeme *sqwen- ‘ceiling,
roof’, and Arm. dial. c‘xin-k‘ is considered a Zan loanword (see Klimov 1998:
171-172). A Georgian-Zan borrowing from Armenian *c‘ɫ/xwin-k‘ (a contamination
of jeɫun and c‘uik‘) would be impossible since Arm. -x- comes from -ɫ- which is not
compatible with Kartvelian *q (note that the Georgian word is attested in the oldest
literature, see Klimov 1964: 167).
Thus, Arm. dial. (Trapizon/Hamšen) c‘xin-k‘ ‘ceiling’ should be separated from
jeɫun ‘ceiling’ and be treated as borrowed from Megr. cxwen(d)-, cxwin(d)- ‘ceiling’.
*jeṙ-: NAccSg jeṙ-n, AllSg i jeṙ-n, GDSg jeṙ-in, LocSg i jeṙ-in, AblSg i jeṙ-an-ē, ISg
jeṙ-am-b (note an archaic instr. jer-b- in compounds); plur. a-stem: NPl jeṙ-k‘, AccPl
z-jeṙ-s, LocAllPl i jeṙ-s, GDPl jeṙ-a-c‘, AblPl i jeṙ-a-c‘, IPl jeṙ-a-w-k‘ (extremely
rich evidence in the Bible, see Astuacaturean 1895: 921-930) ‘hand’ (Bible+).
A number of derivatives with jeṙ-n-, jeṙ-n-a-, jeṙ-a-, and jer-b-a-.
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects, mostly as a frozen plural jeṙk‘ [HAB 3: 149b].
●ETYM From Pie *ĝh
es-r- ‘hand’: Hitt. keššar, kiššer-, kišr- ‘hand’, Gr. χείρ, Dor.
χήρ, gen. χειρός, Dor. χηρός f. ‘hand’84, Toch. A tsar, Toch. B ṣar ‘hand’, Alb. dórë,
-a f. ‘hand’, etc. Hübschmann 1877: 25; 1883: 40; 1897: 470; HAB 3: 148-149;
Pokorny 1959: 447; Mallory/Adams 1997: 254b; Adams 1999: 649-650. The root is
seen in *ĝh
és-to-: Skt. hásta- m. ‘hand’, Av. zasta-, OPers. dasta- m., MPers. dast
‘hand’, dastak ‘bunch, bundle’ (> Arm. dastak ‘wrist’, HAB 1: 626b), etc., see
Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 812. Arm. singulative jeṙn derives from PIE acc. *ĝh
ésr-m̥ . The trilled -ṙ- is not due to
the following nasal but reflects *-sr-, as is clearly seen from pl. jeṙ-k‘ < *ĝh
esr-es.
The old genitive *jeṙ- < *ĝh
esr-os (cf. Hitt. kišraš, Gr. χειρός, Dor. χηρός) has been
reshaped after n-declension. Archaic instr. *jer-b continues *je(h)ar-b < *ĝh
esr̥-bh
i.For these and other issues, see Meillet 1936: 78, 83-84; Schmitt 1981: 45, 62, 72-73,
78, 81-82, 102, 199; Kortlandt 1985b: 9; 1985: 19, 23 = 2003: 57, 63, 67; Ravnæs
1991: 101-102; Olsen 1999: 174-175; Viredaz 2000. For a discussion of the PIE
paradigm, see Beekes 1973: 90.
Arm. plur. jeṙ-a- may be explained by the original feminine gender (Olsen 1999:
175); for a possible *ĝh
es-r-eh2- cf. Alb. dórë, -a f. ‘hand’ (on which see Pedersen
1900: 341 = 1982: 2; Kortlandt 1986: 40 = 2003: 70; Demiraj 1997: 140-141).
jet, o-stem: GDSg jet-o-y (Proverbs 26.17), ISg jet-o-v (Step‘annos Siwnec‘i), GDPl
jet-o-c‘ (Judges 15.4) ‘tail’ (Bible+), MidArm. ‘penis’.
The word refers to the tail of a dog and a fox in Proverbs 26.17 and Judges 15.4,
respectively, rendering Gr. κέρκος ‘tail of an animal’ in both passages. In Eusebius
of Caesarea and Step‘annos Siwnec‘i it refers to the tail of a dog and a lion,
respectively [NHB 2: 154b].
The passage from Proverbs 26.17 reads: or buṙn harkanic‘ē zšan jetoy : ὥσπερ ὁ
κρατῶν κέρκου κυνός.
The MidArm. meaning ‘penis’ is attested in Datastanagirk‘ (Law Code, 1265
AD) of Smbat Sparapet. One of the two attestations (MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 58-59)
reads as follows: “<...> they cut off the testicles (z-ju-k‘-n) and the penis (z-jet-n) of
the abductor” [Galstyan 1958: 103].
●ETYM Connected with Av. zadah- m. ‘Steiß, Hinterbacken’, cf. further Skt. hádati
‘to defecate’, Gr. χέζω ‘to defecate’ < *ĝh
ed-i̯o-, -κέχοδα, χόδανος ‘Steiß’, Alb. dhjes
‘to defecate’, OIc. gat ‘hole, opening’, Russ. zad ‘rump’, etc., Hübschmann 1877:
25; 1883: 40; 1897: 470; HAB 3: 150a with references to Müller and Justi; Pokorny
1959: 423; Chantraine 1968-80: 1249-1250; Euler 1979: 227; Saradževa 1986: 132;
Olsen 1999: 54, 44, 47, 854. See also, without the Armenian form, Demiraj 1997:
161-162; Adams apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 187a. Greppin (1985a: 463) notes:
“Alb. dhjes ‘defecate’, IE *ĝh
ed- is absolutely not related to Arm. jet ‘tail’ ”.
The Armenian word is usually derived from s-stem *ĝh
edos- (see especially
Matzinger 2005: 44). Armenian o-stems regularly continue PIE s-stem neuters (see
2.2.2.1). Note, however, that the Avestan cognate is masculine (see Bartholomae
1904: 1657; Hintze 1994: 461). J̌
ahukyan (1987: 127) posits *ĝh
ed-o-.
For the semantic shift ‘rump’ > ‘tail’ cf. Gr. ὄρρος ‘rump’, οὐρά ‘tail’, OEngl.
ears ‘arse’, OIr. err ‘tail, back of chariot’, etc. (see s.v. oṙ ‘rump’). For ‘tail’ : ‘rump’
: ‘penis’ cf. ÈtimSlovIranJaz 2, 2003: 479-481, s.v. Iran. *dum(b)a- ‘tail’. Note also
MidArm. ag-at ‘castrated’ (Grigor Tat‘ewac‘i, see MiǰHayBaṙ 1, 1987: 12b) from
agi ‘tail’ (q.v.).
jew, o-stem: GDPl jew-o-y (Bible+), ISg jew-o-v (John Chrysostom, Sargis Šnorhali),
later also i-stem ‘shape, fashion, form, mould, pattern’ (Bible+), ‘clothes, vestment’
(John Chrysostom), jewem ‘to form, shape’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Both the noun and the verb are widespread in the dialects. The verb refers to
‘form, cut out (said of clothes) [HAB 3: 150b]. ●ETYM Since Meillet (1896b: 54), jew ‘shape, form’ and joyl ‘molten (mass)’ are
connected with Gr. χέϝω, -ομαι ‘to pour, spill, gush, shed, douse’, χόϝανος m.
‘smelting furnace; funnel’, χώνη f. ‘funnel; smelting furnace’, χῡλός m. ‘juice (of
plants), barley-slime, broth’, χύδαν ‘in streams, by heaps, disorderly’, χυδ-αῖος
‘abundant, ordinary, common’, Lat. fundō, fūdī ‘to pour out, shed; to cast (metals)’,
in-fundō ‘to pour in’, Skt. havíṣ- n. ‘libation, sacrificial liquid, sacrificial substance’
(RV+), hav-, pres. juhóti ‘to sacrifice, offer, pour (an oblation, ghee, etc.)’, etc., from
PIE *ĝh
eu̯- ‘to pour’ [Hübschmann 1897: 469; Petersson 1920: 106-107; HAB 3:
150; Pokorny 1959: 447; Klingenschmitt 1982: 57; Mallory/Adams 1997: 448a;
Olsen 1999: 36, 47]. Arm. jew, o-stem, may derive from s-stem neuter *ĝh
eu̯-os
[Olsen 1999: 47] or thematic *ĝh
eu̯-o-.
See also s.vv. zut ‘pure’, jagar ‘funnel’, joyl ‘molten (mass)’, jor ‘ravine’.
ji, o-stem: GDSg ji-o-y, ISg ji-o-v, GDPl ji-o-c‘, IPl ji-o-v-k‘ (abundant in the Bible,
Astuacaturean 1895: 932-933) ‘horse’ (Bible+).
See also s.v. dzi ‘horse’.
●DIAL Dialectally ubiquitous [HAB 3: 152].
●ETYM Since Windischmann et al. (HAB 3: 151-152), connected with Skt. RV+
háya- m. ‘horse’ (see also Gosche 1847: 72Nr201; de Lagarde 1854: 27L737;
Hübschmann 1877: 17, 25; 1897: 470; Meillet 1936: 142).
Arm. ji ‘horse’ and Skt. háya- m. ‘horse’ < ‘*Anspornung’ are usually derived
from PIE *ĝh
ei- ‘to drive; to throw’: Skt. hinóti (3sg.act., present V), 3sg.act.perf.
jighāya ‘to impel, set in motion; to hurl; to help’, OAv. zaēman- n. ‘state of waking’
(‘Wachsein’), Pahl. zēn ‘armour, weapon’, etc. (see Pokorny 1959: 424;
Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 522, 544-5451 = 1995: 440-441, 4631; Lubotsky 1988:
68; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 802-803; Mallory/Adams 1997: 274b; Cheung 2007:
461-462).
The vocalism of the Armenian form is problematic. Hübschmann (1899: 45)
reconstructs *ĝh
ēyo- for Armenian and *ĝh
eyo- or *ĝh
əyo- for Sanskrit. Godel (1975:
88-8975) assumes *ĝh
ə́
yo-, read *ĝh
H-io-. See, however, s.v. diem ‘to suck’. One
might also think of *ĝh
eiH-o-, with loss of the laryngeal as in Skt. páyas- n. ‘milk’
(RV+) from *peiH-os-. The problem with these explanations is that Skt. háya- is
usually derived from hay- vs. hinóti ‘to impel, set in motion; to hurl; to help’, which
does not have a laryngeal in the root. For other views, see Ravnæs 1991: 30-31.
I propose the following tentative explanation. A QIE *ĝh
ei-o- would yield Arm.
*jē = *jei-. But there are no Armenian words (particles and conjunctions apart) of
the type Cē. Probably, the original nominative *jē has become ji analogically after
the genitive *jēyó(s)yo- > ji-oy. A similar analysis has been applied to iž ‘viper’
(q.v.).
A substantivized *-to-participle *ĝh
i-to- as opposed to Skt. háya- < *ĝh
oi-os (or
*ĝh
oiH-os considering the absence of Brugmann’s law) has been assumed by de
Lamberterie apud Olsen 1994: 40; see also Viredaz 2005-07: 7-9.
Arm. ji ‘horse’ and Skt. háya- m. ‘horse’ represent a poetic word, belonging to the
“language of gods”, as opposed to the PIE word for ‘horse’, viz. *h1ek̂
uo- > Arm. ēš
‘donkey’ (Güntert 1921: 160; Watkins 1970: 7); for more detail, see s.v. ēš ‘donkey’
and 3.12.
See also s.v. ǰori ‘mule’.
jir, i-stem: GDSg jr-i, ISg jr-i-w, GDPl jr-i-c‘ (Grigor Narekac‘i) ‘gift; favour, grace,
boon, recompense’ in Eznik Koɫbac‘i, 5th cent. (jir aṙnuc‘u ‘take a gift’, see de
Lamberterie 1978-79: 37; Clackson 1994: 181), John Chrysostom, Book of Chries,
Nersēs Lambronac‘i, Sargis Šnorhali, etc.; jerem (Ephrem), jirem in Timot‘ēos Kuz
(6th cent.), T‘ēodoros K‘ṙt‘enawor (7th cent.), Anania Narekac‘i (10th cent.), Xosrov
Anjewac‘i (10th cent.), etc., jrem (Grigor Skewṙac‘i, 12-13th cent.) ‘to donate, gift,
endue, do favour’; jr-i, ea-stem: GDSg jr(w)oy (Cyril of Jerusalem), GDPl jre-a-c‘
(Anania Širakac‘i apud NHB 2: 161c, but Šir. yɫ. kenac‘ iwroc‘ is not found in the
list of bibliographical abbreviations) ‘gift, present, favour’; jr-i adv. ‘without
payment, freely, for nothing; in vain’, abundant in the Bible, 5th cent. (rendering Gr.
δωρεάν ‘freely’), also attested in Eznik Koɫbac‘i (5th cent.), Eɫišē (de Lamberterie
1978-79: 40; Clackson 1994: 236328), John Chrysostom, Grigor Narekac‘i, Xosrov
Anjewac‘i, etc.
●ETYM Since long (NHB 2: 158a; Hübschmann 1897: 470), connected with Gr.
χάρις, -ιτος ‘grace, beauty; delight, enjoying; boon, gratefulness’ and Lat. grātia
‘grace, good-will, favour’. The appurtenance of the latter is now rejected. We are
dealing with a PIE root *ĝh
er- ‘to yearn for’; further cognates are Gr. χαρά f. ‘joy’,
χαίρω < *χαρι-ω ‘to rejoice, be glad’, Lat. horior ‘to encourage, urge’, OEngl.
giernan ‘to yearn’ > Engl. yearn, Skt. háryati ‘to enjoy, like’, Toch. B ker(y)- ‘to
laugh’, etc. [HAB 3: 153-154]. See also Pokorny 1959: 440-441; Mayrhofer EWAia
2, 1996: 804; Mallory/Adams 1997: 158a; Adams 1999: 197; Kulikov 2001: 487-
491 (the Armenian form is not mentioned in these works).
Arm. jir, i-stem, is both semantically and formally close to Gr. χάρις, -ιτος. The
forms may reflect *ĝh
ēr-i- and *ĝh
r-i- respectively [Hübschmann 1897: 470; HAB 3:
153-154]. For a further discussion on this word and on the phrase ‘to find favour’ I
refer to de Lamberterie 1978-79; Clackson 1994: 180-181. In this context, Arm. jir :
Gr. χάρις is equivalent to Arm. šnorh ‘gift, grace, favour’, an Iranian loanword. Note
Van dial. šnoxk‘ ‘a good-natured sprite, house-sprite, brownie, goblin’ (see Xaratjan
1989 42b with ref.), which is to be derived from pl. šnorh-k‘ and interpreted as
personified ‘the Graces’ comparable to Gr. Χάριτες ‘the Charites’ and Lat. Grātiae
‘the Graces’.
Arm. jri, -(w)oy, -eac‘ may be derived from QIE *ĝh
ēr-i-to-: Gr. χάρις, -ιτος
(Hübschmann ibid.), or *ĝh
ēr-ieh2-. The adverb jr-i has been derived from *ĝh
ēriom,
possibly a vr̥ddhi derivative [Olsen 1999: 449]. On the semantics of the adverb jr-i
‘without payment, freely, for nothing’ cf. Lat. grātīs ‘without payment, for nothing’
vs. grātia ‘grace, good-will, favour’. For a thorough discussion of the whole
semantic field, see Benveniste 1969, 1: 199-202 = 1973: 159-162.
jiwn, an-stem: GDSg jean (Bible+), AblSg i jiwn-ē (John Climachus), IPl jeam-b-k‘
(Hexaemeron) ‘snow’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 3: 155a]. In Suč‘ava and Nor Naxiǰewan,
jiwn ‘snow’ has been replaced by b‘uk‘ and p‘uk‘ ‘snow’, respectively, which
continue ClArm. buk‘ ‘snow-storm’ [HAB 1: 490a; 3: 155a; Ačaṙyan 1953: 261].
●ETYM Together with jmeṙn ‘winter’ (q.v.), derived from the PIE word for ‘winter,
snow’: Gr. χιών, -όνος f. ‘snow’, χεῖμα, -ατ-ος n. ‘winter, storm’, χειμών, -ῶνος m.
‘id.’, χειμ-έριος ‘hibernal, stormy’, -ερινός ‘concerning the winter, hibernal’, Skt.
himá- m. ‘cold, frost’, hímā- f. ‘winter’ (both RV+), OAv. GSg zimō ‘winter’, YAv. NSg m. ziiā̊
, AccSg ziiąm(ca), GSg zəmō, zəmahe ‘winter’, Oss. zymæg/zumæg
‘winter’, Pashto žə́
may ‘winter’ (Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 815), Pahl. zm [zam],
Parth. zmg ‘winter’ (MacKenzie 1971: 97), Wakhi zam, Sarikoli *zima ‘snow’
(Morgenstierne 1974: 108a), Pers. zam ‘cold; a biting wind; wound’ (Steingass
620b), Hitt. gimmant- c. ‘winter’, Lat. hiems, -emis, hiemps, -emis f. ‘winter; stormy
weather’, OCS zima ‘winter’, Lith. žiemà, Latv. zìema ‘winter’, etc. Hübschmann
1877: 24; 1883: 40; 1897: 470-471; Meillet 1936: 27; Pokorny 1959: 425;
Mallory/Adams 1997: 504b.
The PIE word is reconstructed as a HD m-stem: nom. *ĝh
éi-ōm (Arm. jiwn, Gr.
χιών ‘snow’, Av. ziiā̊
‘winter’, Lat. hiems ‘winter’), acc. *ĝh
i-ém-m (Gr. χι-όν-α, Lat.
hiem-em), gen. *ĝh
i-m-ós (Av. zimō, Gr. χι-όν-ος, Lat. hiem-is, Arm. jean), loc. *ĝh
im-i (Hitt. gim-i, Lat. hiem-i ‘in the winter’), see Beekes 1995: 178; cf. Szemerényi
1959-60a: 122; for Hittite, see Kloekhorst 2008: 475.
Arm. nom. jiwn ‘snow’ matches Gr. χιών ‘snow’ both formally and semantically
(Meillet 1936: 142; C. Arutjunjan 1983: 295-296; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 301). Clackson
1994: 137-138 argues that this agreement is an archaism rather than an innovation;
the basic meaning of the PIE word may have been ‘snow’ > ‘snow-time’; cf.
Szemerényi 1959-60a: 109, 123.
Both languages have generalized -n < nom. *-m throughout the paradigm. The
genitive jean has been compared with Gr. χιόνος (Meillet 1894: 154). In the oblique
cases Greek has generalized the o-grade but Armenian has generalized the zero
grade (Meillet 1936: 45; Clackson 1994: 117). One may assume that the original
gen. *ĝh
im-ós has analogically been replaced by *ĝh
iim̯ ̥ -os after the nominative jiwn
< *jiwun or *jiyun < *ĝh
(e)i̯-ōm and instr. jeam-b < *ĝh
iim̯ ̥ -bh
i. For a further
discussion, see Grammont 1918: 244; J̌
ahukyan 1959: 176; Szemerényi 1959-60a:
1092; È. Tumanjan 1978: 264-265; Schmalstieg 1980; Ravnæs 1991: 99-100;
Stempel 1993 < 1987: 151; Olsen 1999: 135; Matzinger 2005: 22108, 103. Further
compare šun ‘dog’, stin ‘breast of a woman’, tun ‘house’.
Arm. jmeṙ-n ‘winter’ < *ĝh
im-er- is comparable to Gr. χειμερ-ινός
‘hibernal’ and Lat. hībernus ‘of winter, wintry’; compare also Arm. am ‘year’ and
amaṙn ‘summer’ (q.v.) vs. Skt. sámā- ‘year, season’ and OHG sumar (for a
discussion, see Hübschmann 1897: 470-471; HAB 3: 156a; Szemerényi 1959-60a;
Aɫabekyan 1979: 86; Stempel 1993 < 1987: 151-152; Olsen 1989: 225; 1999: 128,
276-278; Clackson 1994: 137-138); Vanséveren 1998.
The PArm. original genitive *jim- < PIE *ĝh
i-m-ós may have been preserved in
dial. *jm-et‘ or *jm-ayt‘ ‘snow blindness’ (q.v.).
*jlem ‘to furrow’, attested only in Commentary on 1 Timothy by John Chrysostom, in
infinitive jlel [NHB 2: 159a]. Another manuscript has c‘elul instead, thus Ačaṙyan
(HAB 3: 155a) considers jlel an uncertain word.
●ETYM Connected with Skt. m. n. hala- ‘plough’ by de Lagarde 1854: 20L494.
Hesitant are Hübschmann 1883: 13; 1897: 471; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 808. The
Armenian and Sanskrit words have been linked with Lith. žúolis ’dickes Stück Holz,
Baumstamm’, Arm. joɫ ‘log, pole’, jeɫ-un ‘ceiling’, Goth. gilþa ‘sickle’, etc.
(Pokorny 1959: 434; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 56; 1987: 127, 171; Mallory/Adams 1997:
435a; sceptical: HAB 3: 155; Olsen 1999: 54114); on Gothic see Ramat 1974: 78-79;
Lehmann 1986: 156a. The Armenian verb jlem ‘to furrow’ may be regarded as a denominative based on
*jil- or *jul- ‘plough’, cf. arawr ‘plough’ > arawrem ‘to plough’. The Armenian and
cognate forms possibly point to a HD l-stem with nom. *ĝh
oh1-(ō)l (cf. Lith. žúolis,
possibly also Arm. *jul-), acc.*ĝh
h1-el- (cf. Skt. hala-, Arm. *jeɫ-, perhaps also Goth.
gil-þa), probably also analogical *ĝh
h1-ol- (cf. Arm. joɫ). For further details, see s.vv.
jaɫk ‘rod, branch’, jeɫun ‘ceiling’, joɫ ‘log, pole’.
The semantic relationship between ‘pole, branch’ and ‘plough’ is impeccable, cf.
e.g. Skt. śā́khā- ‘branch, twig’, Goth. hoha ‘plough’, Lith. šakà ‘branch’, Russ. soxá
‘plough’, Arm. c‘ax ‘branch’, dial. *c‘ak‘ ‘harrow’.
It should be borne in mind, however, that jlem is an uncertain word.
*jmet‘ or *jmayt‘ ‘snow blindness’ (dial.).
●DIAL Baɫeš, Nor Bayazet *jmet‘ [Ačaṙean 1913: 691a], Xotorǰur jimɛt‘
[YušamXotorǰ 1964: 480a], Xnus-Bulanəx jmɛt‘ [Melik‘ean 1964: 512a]. K‘ɫi cmat‘
[HayLezBrbBaṙ 2, 2002: 415b], Urmia, Salmast cmɛt [GwṙUrmSalm 2, 1898: 97].
K‘esab cəmɛt‘ < *cm-oyt‘ ‘pinch’ vs. cəmət‘il ‘to pinch’ [Č‘olakean 1986: 249]
obviously belongs to kcmt‘el, kčmt‘el ‘to pinch’ (see s.v. čm- ‘to squeeze, press’) and
is hardly related with our word for ‘snow blindness’.
●ETYM Obviously derived from PArm. original genitive *jim- < PIE *ĝh
i-m-ós of the
word for ‘snow, winter’, see s.v. jiwn ‘snow’ (J̌
ahukyan 1972: 281; 1987: 127). The
component *-et‘ or *-ayt‘ remains unclear.85
jmeṙn, GDSg jmeran (Paterica, T‘ovmay Arcruni), GDPl jmeran-c‘ (var. lect. in
Eɫišē), NPl jmerun-k‘ in John Chrysostom and Grigor Narekac‘i and LocPl i jmeruns in Ephrem (these two forms are found with the meaning ‘snow-storm’), *jmer- in
GDPl jmer-a-c‘ (var. lect. in Eɫišē, see below), loc. adv. jmer-i ‘in the winter’ jmer-i
(Pitaṙut‘iwnk‘, NHB 2: 160a) ‘winter’ (Bible+), ‘snow-storm’ (John Chrysostom,
Philo, Ephrem, Grigor Narekac‘i, etc.).
Derivatives include: *jmer-ay(i)n, gen. jmeryn-o-y, loc. i jmerayn-i ‘winter, cold
season, snow-storm’ (Bible+); jmer-ayin or jmeṙ(n)-ayin, gen. -aynoy ‘hibernal’
(Łazar P‘arpec‘i, Movsēs Xorenac‘i, John Chrysostom, Severian of Gabala, etc.);
jmerani adv. ‘in the winter’ (Bible+); MidArm. jmer-uk ‘water-melon’ (q.v.).
A few textual illustrations:
Bazum jmerac‘ (vars. jmeranc‘n, jmeranc‘) halec‘an saṙnamanik‘ : “The ice of
many winters melted” (Eɫišē, see Ter-Minasyan 1989: 408L4; transl. Thomson 1982:
247).
Hraman tay jean t‘e ler yerkri ew jmeraynoy anjrewac‘ əst zorut‘ean noc‘a “He
orders the snow, ‘Come upon the earth!’, and the winter rains according to their
power” (Job 37.6, see Cox 2006: 236).
K‘anzi ēr heṙac‘eal getn Erasx, ew i yerkarel jmeraynoyn, ew i daṙnahot
p‘č‘manē hiwsisoy paɫac‘eal juleal vtakn, <...> : “for the river Araxes had shifted to
a distance, and in the long winter and when the stream froze over from the bitter north winds <...>“ (Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.39, 1913=1991: 165L4f; transl. Thomson
1978: 181).
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 3: 156b].
Next to cmɛṙ ‘winter’, the regular reflex of jmeṙn (gen.-dat. cmṙɔn, cmɛṙvɔn, abl.
cmṙənä, Ačaṙyan 1947: 94-95, 242), Hamšen also has zemer ‘December’ (see
T‘oṙlak‘yan 1986: 219a).
●ETYM Since NHB 2: 159b, compared with Gr. χειμών, Lat. hiems, Skt. hímā-, Russ.
zima, etc. ‘winter’. Note especially Gr. χειμερ-ινός ‘hibernal’ and Lat. hībernus ‘of
winter, wintry’. For more details, see s.v. jiwn ‘snow’.
jmeruk, gen. jmerk-i ‘water-melon’ (MidArm.), see MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 61b.
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects [HAB 3: 157a]. Agulis cmbä́rük, gen. cmbərä́k-i,
cmbərk-i, pl. cmbər(n)ä́tik‘y [HAB 3: 157a; Ačaṙean 1935: 148, 372; M. Zak‘aryan
2008: 156] has an epenthetic -b- after -m-, cf. hamarem ‘to count’ > Agulis, etc.
hmbáril.
●ETYM Derived from jmer-, oblique stem of jmeṙn ‘winter’ (q.v.); cf. Georg.
sazamth
ro, etc. (see HAB 3: 157a).
joɫ, o-stem ‘log, bar; pole’. Later, in Grigor Magistros (11th cent., Bǰni) and
Yovhannēs Erznkac‘i (13th cent.), also ‘a stripe of leather’ (Bible+). MidArm.
(Smbat Sparapet, 13th cent., Cilicia) *joɫi, in ISg joɫw-o-v, cf. the dialectal forms
below.
●DIAL Preserved in several dialects. The meaning ‘a stripe of leather’ (Grigor
Magistros+) is found in Axalc‘xa, Axalk‘alak‘, Ganjak, Łarabaɫ, as well as (see
Aɫayan 1954: 315) in Meɫri. Axalc‘xa j‘ɔɫ means ‘back (of the human body)’.
*joɫi : Ararat joɫi [HAB 3: 157b], Meɫri júɫɛ < joɫi [Aɫayan 1954: 278b].
●ETYM Probably connected with Lith. žúolis ’dickes Stück Holz, Baumstamm’ and
Skt. m. n. hala- ‘plough’ (Gobh+), as well as with Arm. jlem ‘to furrow’ (hapax;
uncertain), and, especially, with jeɫun ‘ceiling’. For the literature, see HAB 3: 155,
157b; Fraenkel 2, 1965: 1323; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 808. Mayrhofer (ibid.)
does not mention Arm. joɫ. Fraenkel (ibid.) is sceptical to this view, and, with some
reservation, connects Lith. žúolis to žãlias ‘grün, roh, ungekocht’ and žélti ‘grünend
wachsen, bewachsen, aufgehen (von Pflanzen)’.86 He considers the etymology
“unsicher”.
On the strength of the relatedness of Arm. joɫ ‘log; pole’ with jeɫun ‘ceiling’,
joɫunk‘ (Severian of Gabala; dialect of Akn), and, possibly, Georgian jeli ‘log, bar’
etc, one may tentatively propose the following reconstruction: NSg *ĝh
oh1-(ō)l (>
Lith. žúolis ’dickes Stück Holz, Baumstamm’; probably also Arm. *jul ‘plough’ (>
jlem ‘to furrow’; cf. arawr ‘plough’ > arawrem ‘to plough’); AccSg *ĝh
h1-el- > Skt.
m. n. hala- ‘plough’; Arm. *jeɫ- ‘log (supporting the ceiling)’, and, with o-grade, joɫ
‘log; pole’ (from analogical *ĝh
h1-ol-). Skt. hala- ‘plough’ and Arm. *jeɫ- ‘log’, joɫ,
o-stem ‘log; pole’ can be interpreted as a shared innovation by means of the
thematic *-o-: *ĝh
h1e/ol-o-, cf. the cases of erg ‘song’ and surb ‘pure’. For the
semantics cf. Russ. soxá, etc., see s.v. Arm. c‘ax
*joɫ(-a)-har-i ●DIAL Meɫri jəɫhárɛ ‘a kind of poplar-tree’ [Aɫayan 1954: 278b, 314], Karčewan
jəɫhári ‘a tall tree of which logs/beams (joɫ) are made’ [H. Muradyan 1960: 221a].
Among the villages of the district of Ewaylax (in the province of Siwnik‘)
Step‘anos Ōrbelean (1250/60-1303/5) mentions Jɫahayreank‘, of which no
etymological explanation is known to me. It seems to reflect the above-mentioned
Meɫri form: *jəɫahari + -an-k‘.
●ETYM Aɫayan (1954: 278b) reconstructs *joɫhari not specifying the structure and
the origin.
As is implicitly suggested by H. Muradyan (see above), the compound seems to
contain joɫ ‘log; pole’ (> Meɫri júɫɛ). The second component is har- ‘to beat, strike’,
represented in another compound, namely Meɫri *tìrìvhárɛ [Aɫayan 1954: 332],
Kak‘avaberd tirivhári ‘a sharp instrument for cutting off leaves and/or branches of
mulberry-trees’ [H. Muradyan 1967: 206b] < *terew-har-i ‘leaf-cutter’. As we see,
in both compounds the compositional element -har-i demonstrates precisely the
same underlying meaning, namely ‘to cut’, although *terew-har-i has, unlike
*joɫ-har-i, an agentive meaning. The actual meaning of *joɫ-har-i would be ‘of
which logs/poles are cut’. That the poplar can figure in this context is clear from
barti ‘poplar’ (q.v.).
joyl (spelled also as joyɫ, jiwl), o-stem: GDSg juɫ-o-y (Genesis 24.22, see Zeyt‘unyan
1985: 247: note joyl vs. juɫoy in the same sentence), i-stem: IPl jul-i-w-k‘ (Hamam
Arewelc‘i, 9th cent.), cf. LocSg i jul-i (julealk‘ i julin in 3 Kings 7.24) ‘molten, solid,
cast (in particular said of metals); molten mass’ (Bible+), julem ‘to smelt, cast; to
make solid’ (Bible+), julacoy ‘molten’ (Bible+).
Some textual illustrations: ew oɫn iwr joyl (= Gr. χυτός) erkat‘oy “and its spine is
of cast iron” (Job 40.18, see Cox 2006: 258); in Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.39
(1913=1991: 165L4f; transl. Thomson 1978: 181): i daṙnahot p‘č‘manē hiwsisoy
paɫac‘eal juleal vtakn : “the stream froze over from the bitter north winds”. For
further references and philological analysis, see Olsen 1999: 36.
●DIAL Muš cul, only said of silver and blood [HAB 3: 158a]. A textual illustration is
found in a Van lullaby (Ṙ. Grigoryan 1970: 359): Arewn iǰav ver covun, / Covikn
ktrav jol arun “The sun set upon the sea, the little sea became solid/molten blood”.
●ETYM For etymology and references, see s.v. jew ‘shape, form, mould’. For -l see
further Klingenschmitt 1982: 57; J̌
ahukyan 132; Clackson 1994: 229190; and
especially Olsen 1999: 36, with an elaborate discussion on alternative solutions with
*-lo- or *-tlo-. Both jewem and julem are denominative verbs [J̌
ahukyan 1982: 173;
Olsen 1999: 36, 47].
jor, o-stem: GDSg jor-o-y, GDPl jor-o-c‘, IPl jor-o-v-k‘ ‘ravine, valley, bed of torrent’
(Bible+).
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 3: 158b].
●ETYM Usually derived from PIE *ĝh
eu- ‘to pour, spill’: Gr. χέϝω, -ομαι ‘to pour,
spill, gush, shed’, etc., see s.vv. jew ‘shape, form, mould’, joyl ‘molten (mass)’:
*ĝh
ou̯ero- > *ĝh
ou̯oro- > jor, with loss of *-u̯- as in e.g. nor ‘new’, sor ‘cave’
(Petersson 1920: 106-107; Pokorny 1959: 447; Eichner 1978: 15027; J̌
ahukyan 1987:
128; 1990a: 9). Despite the scepticism of Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 158b) and Olsen (1999: 31, 943-944),
I find this etymology quite attractive. For a formal discussion, see especially s.v. sor,
o-stem ‘cave, hole’ < *k̂
ouH-r-o-. The semantic development ‘to pour, spill, gush’ >
‘bed of torrential stream, ravine’ goes parallel with heɫum ‘to pour, fill, flow over’,
heɫeɫ ‘flood, torrent’ > heɫeɫ-at ‘torrent, the place of a torrential stream, ravine’ (q.v.).
Note also corem ‘to flow’ > cor-cor ‘ravine’.
One might alternatively think of a relation with Gr. χῶρος m. ‘(free, empty)
space, region, land’, χώρα f. ‘(free, empty) space, interspace, region, estate, land’,
Toch. B kāre ‘pit, hole’, etc. from *ĝh
oh1ro- ‘gap, empty space’ (Mallory/Adams
1997: 534b; Adams 1999: 153-154). For the semantic relation cf. Arm. jor ‘empty
space’, ‘belly’, ‘ravine’, ‘district, region’ (see HAB 4: 518-519). The only problem
is the vocalism; one expects Arm. *jur, or, from a zero-grade form, *jar. Perhaps
Arm. jor is a blend of *ĝh
e/ou- and *ĝh
oh1ro-. However, this solution is less
probable than the former etymology.
ju, o-stem: GDPl jw-o-c‘ (Deuteronomy 22.6, Cox1981: 162), AblPl i ju-o-c‘ (Łazar
P‘arpec‘i); a-stem: IPl ju-a-w-k‘ (Zgōn-Afrahat) ‘egg’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects. MidArm. juaceɫ, juvajeɫ, jvazeɫ ‘omelet’
(MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 62-63) is widespread in the dialects as well [HAB 3: 159b]. In
MidArm. ju also refers to ‘testicle’ [MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 62-63]; see also s.v. xol-orj
‘orchis’.
●ETYM Since long, derived from the PIE word for ‘egg’ (see HAB 3: 159 for
references), cf. Gr. ᾠόν n., Lat. ōvum n., Celt. *āwyo- ‘egg’ (Matasović 2009: 50),
OCS aice, Russ. jajcó, Pers. xāya, etc. Hübschmann (1883: 40; 1897: 471) rightly
considers the etymology uncertain because the initial j- is unexplained. Ačaṙyan
(HAB 3: 159) is sceptical, too.
The PIE word for ‘egg’ is now interpreted as a vr̥ddhi-formation derived from the
word for ‘bird’ (see s.v. haw ‘bird’): *h2ōuiom. The Armenian form is usually
explained from *i̯ō(w)i̯o-, with assimilatory addition of *i̯- (see Pedersen 1906: 406
= 1982: 184; Pisani 1950: 180, 182; Henning 1954; Pokorny 1959: 784; Frisk 2:
1150; Schindler 1969: 160; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 132, 147; 1987: 142, 184; Schrijver
1991: 30, 126, 299-300; Greppin apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 176b; Olsen 1999: 54,
787). Nevertheless, the initial j- remains unclear.
For the egg in Armenian folk-beliefs, see A. Israyelyan 1999. On the egg in IndoEuropean traditions, see Cimino 1994.
jukn, an-stem: GDSg jkan, ISg jkam-b, NPl jkun-k‘, APl jkun-s, GDPl jkan-c‘, IPl
jkam-b-k‘ (abundant in the Bible, Astuacaturean 1895: 935) ‘fish’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Dialectally ubiquitous. Eastern peripheral dialects have preserved the final
nasal: Łarabaɫ cüknə, Šamaxi cügy
nə, etc. [HAB 3: 160a].
MidArm. jkn-kul, lit. ‘fish-swallower’, refers to ‘cormorant’, [Greppin 1978: 10],
or ‘Ardea cinerea’ [MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 61a], GDSg jəknkl-u, is found in Govank‘
t‘ṙč‘noc‘ ‘Praise of birds’ by Kirakos Episkopos, prob. 13-14th cent. (Mnac‘akanyan
1980a: 251L198f; MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 61a; transl. Greppin 1978: 11). It is present in a
few dialects: Ararat jknkuli [Ačaṙean 1913: 690b], jknakuli (used by Perč Pṙošyan,
native to Aštarak, see Amatuni 1912: 417b and Greppin 1978: 127 for the passage),
Širak, Van jknkul [Mxit‘areanc‘ 1901: 323; Amatuni 1912: 417b], Xnus-Bulanəx knkul [Melik‘ean 1964: 512a], Hamšen cgəngul [Ačaṙyan 1947: 242]. For a
description of this bird, see Ananyan HayKendAšx 3, 1965: 404-415. Note also
Šulaver jklkuli ‘tadpole’ [HAB 3: 160a].
The word jukn ‘fish’ is also found in a few compounds meaning ‘calf of leg’, see
3.7.3 and s.v. olok‘ ‘shin’.
●ETYM Since de Lagarde (Bötticher) et al. (see HAB 3: 160a), connected with the
Baltic and Greek words for ‘fish’: OPr. suckans, Lith. žuvìs, Latv. zuvs, Gr. ἰχϑῦς, -
ύος m. ‘fish’ [Hübschmann 1877: 25; 1897: 471; Meillet 1936: 142; Pokorny 1959:
416; Mallory/Adams 1997: 205].
Winter (1965: 104) points out that the -k- cannot go back to an IE velar *-k/kw
- or
*-g/gw
- because in the position after *-u- the (labio)velar would be replaced by the
reflex of a palatovelar, and concludes that “it seems impossible not to connect it with
the Proto-Indo-European laryngeal reflected by the vowel length of Gr. ἰχϑῦς”. A
similar analysis has been given by Kortlandt (1985b: 9 = 2003: 57; see also Beekes
2003: 196) who derives Arm. jukn ‘fish’ from PIE AccSg *dĝh
uH-m. The laryngeal
origin of -k- is unconvincing. Likewise implausible is the assumption on acc.
*ĝh
eu̯hm ̥ vs. gen. *ĝh
hu-es > PArm. *jegan vs. *ju- (see Eichner 1978: 15234). For a
further discussion, see Lindeman 1987: 97-98; 1997: 154-157; Rasmussen 1989:
158, 170-17116; Ravnæs 1991: 1432. The simplest and most attractive explanation is
*ju- + the suffix -kn (see 2.1.19).
For a discussion of the relation between Arm. jukn ‘fish’ (< *ʒutH-? cf. Lith. dial.
žutis ‘little fish’, Latv. zutis ‘eel’) and Georg., Megr. zutx ‘sturgeon’, see J̌
ahukyan
1967a: 81, 18564; Klimov 1994: 178-180; Greppin 1997a: 3845.
juɫb ‘roe, spawn’.
Unattested. Used only by Kleopatra Sarafyan, Banali gitut‘yan, Sankt-Peterburg,
1788: 64 (in the form cuɫp ‘икра’), see HAB 3: 160b; J̌
ahukyan 1967: 100; 1991:
41. Compared with Arm. ju-kn ‘fish’ (Tašean apud references above).
J̌ahukyan (1991: 41-42) compares the component -ɫb with MIr. reduplicated lelap,
lenap/b ‘kleines Kind’, allegedly from IE *(s)leb/p- ‘to hang down loosely’: Skt.
rámbate, lámbate ‘to hang down limply (said of penis, breasts, etc.)’, MHG limpfen
‘to limp’, Engl. limp ‘schlaff herabhängend’, etc. (cf. Pokorny 1959: 655-657, 959;
Schrijver 1991: 179; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 436-437). The appurtenance of the
Irish word to these IE forms is semantically improbable, so J̌
ahukyan (ibid.)
separates it from them and reconstructs an IE *lebh
- ‘youngling, nestling, child’ for
Celtic and Armenian. He derives Arm. ju-ɫb from QIE *ĝh
ū-lebh
- ‘*fish-youngling’.
I tentatively propose to derive *-ɫb from aɫb ‘excrement, dung’. For the semantics
cf. dial. c‘ṙ(-t‘)- ‘liquid excrement, dung’ vs. ‘to bear, give birth (said of animals)’,
‘to miscarry (said of animals)’, ‘small fish’, etc. (see Amatuni 1912: 645; Ačaṙean
1913: 1058ab), cirt ‘dung (of birds and flies)’ vs. crt- ‘to spawn’ (see HAB 2: 460b).
čanač‘em, aor. caneay, imper. canir ‘to know, recognize; to be acquainted, aware’
(Bible+); see also s.vv. *can- ‘to know’, can-ak ‘disgrace’, ciacan ‘rainbow’. ●DIAL The verb čanač‘em is ubiquitous in the dialects. Apart from Karin, Axalc‘xa
čanč‘el and Hamšen ǰɔnč‘uš, there are two basic forms: *čananč‘el (n-epenthesis, on
which, see 2.1.29, 2.1.30.1; infinitive in -el ): T‘iflis, Ararat, Łrabaɫ, Agulis, J̌
uɫa,
etc.; and more widespread *čanč‘nal (+ -n-; infinitive in -al) in the rest. On
Aslanbeg, see below. T‘iflis has both: čanánč‘il and čánč‘nal [HAB 3: 182b].
The form *čanč‘nal seems to represent *čanač‘anal or *čanač‘enal. The latter is
attested in Cyril of Alexandria (see NHB 2: 169b, with a note ṙmk. = ‘dial.’).
Dial. secondary c‘-aorist is already attested in John Chrysostom (see NHB 2:
169b, with a note ṙmk. = ‘dial.’).
Ačaṙyan (1898: 32bL1, 35a, 85a) represents Aslanbek köšnal (aor. köšc‘a <
čanč‘c‘a) as showing exceptional developments a > ɛɔ (= ö), and č > k. In HAB 3:
182b, he has gɛɔšna[l]. See also Vaux 2001: 41, 42, 50: göšnal, aor. göšc‘a.
Ačaṙyan does not specify the origin of the initial guttural.
Ačaṙyan (HAB, ibid.) notes that in this meaning (i.e. ‘to recognize, be
acquainted’ – HM) g‘idänil < gitenal ‘to know’ is used in Svedia.
On Maraɫa canɔt‘, see s.v. *can- ‘to know, be acquainted’.
●ETYM Since NHB (2: 169ab), linked with Gr. γιγνώσκω, γῑνώσκω ‘to come to
know, perceive’, Lat. co-gnōskō ‘to learn, get to know’, Skt. jñā- ‘to know,
recognize’ (RV+), etc. Remarkably, Skt. čnat‘i is mentioned in NHB 1: 1009c;
obviously jñāti- m. ‘close relative’ (RV+) is meant. Meillet (1894b: 296; 1936: 29)
is undoubtedly right in deriving čanač‘em from *canač‘em, through assimilation.
Hübschmann (1897: 455-456) rejects this and separates čanač‘em from Arm. *can-,
Skt. jñā-, etc. However, Meillet’s interpretation is commonly accepted (see HAB 2:
443-444; 3: 182; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 168, 180; 1987: 125, etc.).
Meillet (1936: 109; 1950: 110) links the present -č‘- with Gr. -σκ- and Lat. -sc- of
cognate forms and assumes a combined *-sk-ye-. J̌
ahukyan (1982: 180-181) points
out that the -č‘- can go back to either *-ki̯- nor *-ti̯- but not to *ski̯-. In view of the -t‘
of canawt‘, he is inclined to *-t-i̯e-. However, *ĝnh3-sk-ie- > *canač‘em > čanač‘em
seems to be the best solution (see also Kortlandt 1991: 2; 1994: 28-29 = 2003: 96,
105; Clackson 1994: 40; Beekes 2003: 194, 201).
Alternatively, *canač‘em and canawt‘, i-stem, may be derived from QIE *ĝnh3-kie- and *ĝnh3-k-ti-, respectively (Pedersen 1906: 348 = 1982: 126; Godel 1975: 80;
Weitenberg 1980: 212). J̌
ahukyan (1987: 168) points out that in this position *-kshould drop. With loss of the intervocalic laryngeal, *ĝn(h3)k-ti- would yield Arm.
*cant‘(i), see 2.1.22.13. However, the intervocalic laryngeal seems to have been
preserved before a cluster (see 2.1.20).
The connection of canawt‘ with Skt. jñapti-ḥ ‘Erkenntnis, Kunde’ (Pokorny
1959: 376-377 and J̌
ahukyan 1987: 125, 168, with refer.) is improbable.
*čɫo/upur ‘walnut’.
●DIAL Łarabaɫ *čɫopur ‘walnut (ripe, with hard shell)’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 723a], or
čoɫopur (also in Nuxi), čɫupur [Amatuni 1912: 151a, 439a]. The actual forms are:
Łarabaɫ čəɫɔ́
pur, čəɫúpur, čuɫúpur, Hadrut‘, Šaɫax čuɫúpur, Mehtišen čəɫupúr
[Davt‘yan 1966: 352]; Goris čəɫupɛr, čuɫupɛr [Margaryan 1975: 433a].
●ETYM Łap‘anc‘yan (1961: 76, 90; 1975: 369-370) treats as a loan from Megr.
čubur- ̣ , Laz čubu(r)- ̣ , čubr- ̣ ‘chestnut’ (cf. Georg. cabl- ̣ ‘chestnut’), offering no satisfactory explanation for *č- > *čɫ-. Klimov (1964: 247; cf. also 1998: 305-306)
mentions the comparison with reservation. He was more positive in 1971: 225-226.
For the addition of -ɫ- one might think of contamination with unattested *čeɫ-
‘acorn’ from *gw
elh2-: Russ. žëlud’, SCr. žȅlūd ‘acorn’, etc. (vs. *gw
lh2-: Lith. gìlė,
Arm. kaɫin, q.v.); this is highly hypothetical.
J̌
ahukyan (1967: 167) mentions čolopurt ‘орех’ next to kaɫin, in the list of words
with alternation k : č.
*čm- (< *čim-) ‘to squeeze, press’; dial. also ‘to knead’, ‘to trample down’, etc.
čm-l-em ‘to squeeze, press’ (Bible+).
●DIAL čm-l-em has been preserved in Suč‘ava, Moks, Tigranakert; with metathesis:
Muš člmil. Widespread is *čm-ṙ-(t‘-)em (with metathesis: Aslanbek, Sebastia, Akn
*ǰəṙmɛl; Salmast mčṙel (for mč-, see also below, on *čmuṙ); with epenthetic -b-:
T‘iflis čmbril) [Ačaṙean 1913: 725-726; HAB 3: 207a]. Also widespread is the noun
*čmuṙ. In Xarberd, Baberd, T‘iflis, Loṙi, Łarabaɫ: čəmbuṙ, with epenthetic -b-
[Ačaṙean 1913: 725]. In Maraɫa, Moks, Ṙštunik‘: mčuṙ, with metathesis; cf. Salmast
mčṙel above. The verb *čm-ṙ-el is, then, denominative. See also below, on a
secondary denominative verb Łarabaɫ *čm-uṙ-el.
Some other forms which belong here too: Łarabaɫ *čm-il ‘to bend down under a
burden’ (see below), Łazax *čm-ṙ-u-il ‘to stretch oneself’; Van *čmk‘il ‘to be
pressed’; Ararat, Łarabaɫ, Muš čm-l-k-(o)t- next to Ararat, Łazax, T‘iflis člm-k-ot-
(with metathesis) ‘to stretch oneself’; Łarabaɫ *čmp‘el ‘to seize, snatch something
out of smb.’s hand’ (on the semantics, see below), etc. [Ačaṙean 1913: 718b,
724-726]. Compare also Van, Bulanəx, etc. kčmt/t‘el and Ararat čmkt‘el, čmtk‘el
(Amatuni 1912: 348b) which, together with MidArm. kcmt‘el, kčmt‘el, kmčt‘el ‘to
pinch’ (also kčmtil in Grigoris, see MiǰHayBaṙ 1, 1987: 401a), are derived from
kic-/kič- ‘to bite, sting’ [HAB 3: 587ab], but some of the forms, especially čm-t‘-el
and čm-k-t‘-el, may in fact belong to (or influenced by) čm- ‘to squeeze, press’.
Łarabaɫ, Hadrut‘, Šaɫax, Mehtišen čəm-ɛl or čəm-il (see Davt‘yan 1966: 421)
represents the “pure” stem. According to HayLezBrbBaṙ 3, 2004: 383b), the form is
also found in a number of the Western dialects. It is still in use in Armenia, e.g. in
my mother’s village Erazgavors.
Ačaṙyan (1913: 725a) records Łarabaɫ čmɔṙil ‘to trample down’ as identical with
*čm-ṙ-el, distinguished with a semantic nuance. Strictly speaking, this form reflects
*čm-uṙ-el (with regular development -ú- > Łarabaɫ -ɔ́
-) and is secondarily based on
the noun *čm-uṙ : Łarabaɫ čəmɔ́
ṙ(nə) [Davt‘yan 1966: 421]. Since Łarabaɫ has both
the verbs čəmṙɛ́
l (Davt‘yan 1966: 421) and čmɔṙil and the noun *čm-uṙ, the
relationship of the forms should be explained as follows: Łarabaɫ čəmṙɛ́
l reflects the
old, dialectally widespread *čm-ṙ-el, which is probably a denominative verb based
on *čm-uṙ (also present in Łarabaɫ) and comes therefore from *čmuṙ-el, whereas
čmɔ́
ṙil must be treated as due to secondary restoration of the vowel -u- (> -ɔ-).
●ETYM Pedersen (1906: 393 = 1982: 171) connects čmlem ‘to press’ and čim, čem
‘Zaum’ with each other and with Gr. γέντο ‘he took’, ὕγ-γεμος· συλλαβή, OCS žьmǫ,
žęti ‘to squeeze, press’, MIr. gemel ‘fetter’; cf. also OIc. kumla ‘quetschen,
verwunden’, Norwegian kumla ‘Klumpen; kneten, zusammenpressen’, etc.: PIE
*gem- ‘to seize, take; to squeeze, press’. Rejected by Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 207a) but
accepted by Pokorny (1959: 368) and J̌
ahukyan (1987: 125).
ma (dial.) ‘mother’, ‘food, eating’ (a nursery word).
●DIAL Van (voc.) ma ‘mamma’; Polis ma ‘eating’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 740a, 747b];
Partizak, Hamšen, Karin, Muš, Moks ma ‘mamma’ [HayLezBrbBaṙ 4, 2007: 7a].
●ETYM A nursery word probably of IE origin, cf. Skt. mā ‘mother’, Gr. μᾶ ‘mother’,
NEngl. ma, etc. See s.v. mam(a) ‘mother’.
mal ‘bullock, cattle’, in a list of male animal names after duar ‘cattle’ (Grigor
Magistros’s commentary on the Armenian translation of Dionysios Thrax, see
Adonc‘ 1915=2008: 239L20).
The meaning ‘ram’ (NHB 2: 189a) or ‘sheep’ (modern literature, see below) is
conditioned by the wrong etymological association with Gr. μῆλον ‘sheep’. The
dialectal evidence clearly points to ‘cattle’.
●DIAL Axalc‘xa, Karin mal ‘cattle’ [HAB 3: 224b]; the same is found in many other
dialects [HayLezBrbBaṙ 4, 2007: 10b].
●ETYM The comparison with Gr. μῆλον ‘small cattle, sheep and goats’, Celt. *mīlo-
‘animal’, OIc. smali ‘small domesticated animals, esp. sheep’, Dutch maal ‘young
cow’, etc. (NHB 2: 189a; Scheftelowitz 1904-05, 2: 46; Pokorny 1959: 724; Frisk 2:
226-227; Mallory/Adams 1997: 23b) is untenable. Likewise untenable is the
connection with Gr. μαλλός ‘flock of wool, fleece’ (Greppin 1981d; for a discussion
cf. Hamp 1982c). The Armenian word refers to ‘cattle’ rather than to ‘sheep’, as is
frequently cited. Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 224; see also Clackson 1994: 182, 232250)
convincingly identifies the word with MidArm. mal ‘property, possession; cattle’
(MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 97-98) treating it as borrowed from Arab. māl ‘possession’.
malem ‘to grind, crush, break’ (Daniel 2.40 [Cowe 1992: 162], Seal of Faith, Zak‘aria
Kat‘oɫikos, Gregory of Nyssa, etc.), ‘to castrate’ (Bible+); *mul- ‘to grind; to rub’ in
ml-aɫac‘ (a-stem in NHB 2: 283a without evidence) ‘miller, corn-grinder’, a
compound with aɫ- ‘to grind’ (Ephrem, Nersēs Lambronac‘i), and in ml-ml-em ‘to
rub’ (Nilus of Ancyra, Paterica).
See also s.vv. mamul ‘pressing machine’; *ml-i/uk, *ml-ak ‘midge; bed-bug;
nit’; maɫ ‘sieve’; mɫ(m)eɫ ‘chaff, midge, etc.’, *muɫ ‘the grinding of corn’, *mɫmo/uɫ
‘moth’
●DIAL HAB has no dialectsl records for malem, mamul, mlmlem, ml-aɫac‘.
According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 225a), here belongs Maškert (Xarberd-Arabkir
region) muɫ ‘the grinding of corn’ (see also Gabikean 1952: 412).
●ETYM Derived from PIE *melH-: Skt. mari
, mr̥ṇā́ti ‘to crush’, Gr. μύλη ‘handmill,
mill; (the lower) millstone’87, Lat. molere ‘to grind’, OIr. meilid ‘to grind’, Goth.
malan, OHG malan ‘to grind, mill’, melm ‘dust’, OEngl. melu ‘meal’, Lith. málti ‘to
grind, mill’, mõlė ‘grist’, Latv. malt̃ ‘to grind, mill’, OCS mlěti, meljǫ ‘to grind,
mill’, Russ. molót’, meljú ‘to grind, mill’, Hitt. malla-i ‘to mill, grind’, CLuw. mal(ḫ)u- ‘to break’, mammal(ḫ)u- ‘to crush, break’, etc., see Hübschmann 1883: 41;
1897: 471; 1899: 45-46; Meillet 1924: 4-6; HAB 3: 225 with references, 327-328;
Pokorny 1959: 716-718; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 137-138; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 319-
320; Mallory/Adams 1997: 247a.
Lith. málti and Skt. mr̥ṇā́ti < *ml-né-H-ti point to a laryngeal, which is usually
considered to be *h1- on the ground of Gr. μάλευρον ‘flour’ (with a- probably taken
from ἄλευρον ‘flour’), Myc. mereuro ‘flour’, meretriya ‘females who turn the mill’
(Chantraine 1968-80: 662a, 721; Klingenschmitt 1982: 1454; Schrijver 1991: 103,
394). However, the Luwian evidence points to *-h2- (see Kloekhorst 2008: 547).
Meillet 1922m: 259 points out that the vocalism of Umbr. maletu agrees with that
of Gaul. malu and Arm. malem ‘je mouds’ and not with that of Lat. molitum (see
also Speirs 1984: 62-63; for a discussion of the Italic and Celtic forms, see Schrijver
1991: 103; 394, 445; 1995: 81-82). Thus malem can be derived from *ml(H)-e- or
*ml(H)-eie- (for a discussion, see Klingenschmitt 1982: 145-147).
The noun mamul ‘press’ represents an iterative reduplication of the type of karkut
‘hail’, see Meillet 1898: 280; HAB 3: 243-244. Hübschmann 1899: 46 is sceptical
on the etymology because of the semantic difference; note however the semantic
development seen in Toch. B mäl- ‘to crush, repress, oppress’, mely- ‘to crush,
squeeze, lay waste’ (on which see Adams 1999: 456-457, 470). For the reduplication
type, see further s.vv. aɫǰ-a-m-uɫǰ ‘darkness, twilight’, mamuṙ ‘moss’, cf. also
kerakur ‘food’ from ker- ‘to eat’ (q.v.).88 The simplex *mul/ɫ may be regarded as a
secondary creation based on ma-mul. On the other hand, one may think of an old
derivative *mlH- (or *molH-, with o-vocalism as in loganam ‘to bathe’, q.v., see
Schrijver 1991: 394 and espec. 445) with an obscure *-u- (perhaps due to the labial
*m- before a syllabic resonant; cf. Olsen 1999: 779), compare Gr. μύλη ‘handmill,
mill’. Some scholars posit *mu(e)lH-, with an old *-u- (Rasmussen 1985: 39-41 =
1999: 115-117; Olsen 1999: 27, 953). At any case, the group of *me/al-, mamul and
*mul/ɫ is structurally in a way comparable to kerakur and kur vs. ker- ‘to eat’ (q.v.).
If indeed belonging here, maɫem ‘to sieve’ can be derived from *ml-n- (cf. Skt.
mr̥ṇā- and PToch. *ml-nH-ske/o-, see Adams 1999: 456-457) with analogical (n)econjugation (cf. aṙnem ‘to make’ vs. aor. ar-ar, k‘amem ‘to press’, etc.), unless one
treats it as a denominative verb based on maɫ, i-stem ‘sieve’ < *ml(H)- + *-ni-, cf. istems ban ‘word’, jayn ‘voice’, etc. The basic meaning of maɫem ‘to sieve’ would
then be ‘to pulverize’ < ‘to crush’.
It is not certain that PIE *melH- ‘to grind’ is identical with *melh2- ‘soft’: Gr.
μαλακός ‘weak, soft, tender’, etc. (Schrijver 1995: 78; cf. Beekes 1969: 198), on
which see s.vv. meɫk ‘soft, weak, slack’, meɫm ‘soft, mild, gentle’. At any case, there
are forms which probably show an association (either etymological or
contaminational) between these two sets of words, see s.vv. meɫm ‘soft, mild, gentle,
calm; softly, gently’, dial. *m(e)ɫmeɫ ‘quiet, calm, fine; moth, midge’, mɫ(m)eɫ ‘fine
chaff, dust’, *mɫ-mo/uɫ ‘moth, clothes moth’.
mah, u-stem: GDISg mah-u; an-stem: GDSg mah-u-an, AblSg i mah-u-an-ē, ISg
mah-u-am-b, NPl mah-un-k‘ (abundant evidence in the Bible, Astuacaturean 1895: 956-959) ‘death’, ‘massacre; pestilence’ (Bible+); marh ‘death’ (several times in
Ephrem, see HAB 3: 233b); mah-oy ‘mortal’ (in a homily attributed to Eɫišē, see
HAB 3: 233b).
For a morphological discussion, see J̌
ahukyan 1959: 265, 326; 1982: 96, 122-123;
Godel 1975: 106; È. Tumanjan 1978: 231, 296.
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects. A genitive *mah-man is present in Polis and Akn
[HAB 3: 234a].
●ETYM Arm. mah has been considered a native word related with Skt. mr̥tyú- m.
‘death’, Av. mərəϑiiu- m. ‘death’, Goth. maurϑr ‘murder’, etc. (Hübschmann 1897:
472; Pokorny 1959: 735; Aɫabekyan 1979: 93-94); for the forms, see Mayrhofer
EWAia 2, 1996: 371-372; Lehmann 1986: 249). Further see mard ‘human being’,
meṙanim ‘to die’.
However, Arm. mah, u-stem ‘death’ is obviously an Iranian loanword, going back
to a form derived from *mr̥-tu- or *mr̥-ti-u- (or *mr̥tro-), see HAB 3: 234a and
J̌
ahukyan 1959: 265, both with hesitation; Bailey 1930-31: 62; Bolognesi 1960: 17-
19; Benveniste 1964: 2; Schmitt 1967: 69424; 1983: 94; Godel 1975: 64; J̌
ahukyan
1982: 123, 22363; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 181, 533, 55172, 560, 562; L. Hovhannisyan 1990:
250-251; Olsen 1999: 859, 893.
maɫ, i-stem: GDSg maɫ-i (Plato), IPl maɫ-i-w-k‘ (Paterica); n-stem: i maɫin-s (Sirach
27.4/5); o-stem: GDPl maɫ-o-c‘, IPl maɫ-o-v-k‘ (several attestations in Hexaemeron
with the meaning ‘honeycomb’, see K. Muradyan 1984: 263-266) ‘sieve, winnowing
basket’ in Sirach 27.4/5 (corresponding to Gr. κόσκινον) and Paterica, ‘basket’ in
Plato, ‘honeycomb’ in Hexaemeron (see above), Evagrius of Pontus, John
Chrysostom, Grigor Astuacaban; maɫem ‘to sieve’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 3: 237a].
●ETYM Tērvišean and Müller (see HAB 3: 237a) connected maɫ to the group of
malem ‘to grind, crush, break’ (see there for more detail). Ačaṙyan (HAB ibid.) does
not accept the comparison and leaves the origin of the word open.
maɫt‘, i-stem ‘prayer, supplication’ (IPl maɫt‘-i-w-k‘ in Plato and Nersēs Šnorhali);
maɫt‘em ‘to implore, prey’, in Wisdom 13.18 (rendering Gr. ἱκετεύω), etc (Bible+).
In ModArm., maɫt‘el means ‘to wish something to someone’ [Malxaseanc‘ HBB
3: 244a]. According to A. A. Abrahamyan (1970: 100-101, with discussion; 1994:
88/89), this meaning occurs in a troublesome passage from Eznik Koɫbac‘i 1.27.
Schmid (1900: 86) renders by begünstigen.
●ETYM Bugge (1889: 15) connected with Lith. maldýti ‘to implore’. This and other
cognates which are added later (OCS moliti ‘to ask, pray’, Hitt. māld-i
/mald- ‘to
recite, make a vow’, OS meldōn ‘to report, tell’, etc.) point to *me/oldh
- or *-d-;
therefore for Armenian a different form is postulated, namely *mel-th- [Meillet
1898: 277; Benveniste 1932; Szemerényi 1954: 164-165; Solta 1960: 260-261].
According to J̌
ahukyan (1967b: 7147; cf. also 1987: 138, 181), the form maɫt‘ beside
PIE *mel-dh
- implies that either the Armenian word is a loan, or the *-dh
- is a
determinative, and Arm. -t‘- goes back to a parallel form with *-th-.
However, the existence of this PIE phoneme is usually rejected, and the
restoration of a determinative *-th- is uncertain. Furthermore, the problem of the
vocalism is stil unsolved. I propose to treat maɫt‘em as a denominative verb based on maɫt‘, i-stem, wich
can be explained as a *ti-deverbative with a regular zero-grade: *mldh
-ti- > PArm.
*maɫ(d)th
i- > maɫt‘, -i. See 2.1.22.13.
mam, u-stem ‘grandmother’ (Middle Armenian), hypocoristic mam-ik [HAB 3: 242a;
MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 194]; dial. mam(a), mam-i(k) ‘grandmother, mother’.
The plant-name mamxopop mentioned here by Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 242a) belongs
rather with mamux ‘a kind of wild plum’.
●DIAL The forms mam, mama, mami, mamik are widespread in the dialects, mostly
meaning ‘grandmother’. In some dialects: ‘grandmother’, ‘nurse, midwife’, ‘old
woman’, etc. Note voc. forms: Van máma, Muš, Byut‘ania mámɔ, etc. [Amatuni
1912: 456b; Ačaṙean 1913: 747-748; HAB 3: 242-243; HayLezBrbBaṙ 4, 2007: 19].
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 242) considered a borrowing from Gr. μάμμη ‘mother,
mother’s breast, grandmother’. This view is untenable since such a widespread
nursery word would hardly be a Greek loan. One rather posits a nursery word of IE
origin [J̌
ahukyan 1972: 300; 1987: 56, 136, 179, 275, 427; Huld apud
Mallory/Adams 1997: 386a]89, cf. Lat. mamma ‘mother, nurse, grandmother,
mother’s breast’, Lith. mamà, Russ. máma, Welsh mam ‘mother’, NPers. mām
‘mother’, etc. For further IE and non-IE forms and a discussion, see HAB 3: 242;
Pokorny 1959: 694; Szemerényi 1977: 8; Huld apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 386a.90
Note also ma ‘mother; food’ (q.v.), comparable with Skt. mā ‘mother’, Gr. μᾶ
‘mother’, NEngl. ma, Chinese mā ‘mother’, etc. Further see s.vv. mama ‘food,
bread, eating’ and *mam-uk ‘spider’.
mama (dial.) ‘food, bread, eating’.
●DIAL Polis mam(m)a ‘food’, Ararat mama ‘eating’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 747b], Sebastia
mama ‘bread’ [Gabikean 1952: 386], etc. [HayLezBrbBaṙ 4, 2007: 19b].
●ETYM A nursery word probably of IE origin. Further see s.vv. mam(a)
‘grandmother, mother’, p‘ap‘a ‘bread, food’.
*mam-uk (dial.) ‘spider’.
●ETYM Composed of mam ‘mother, grandmother’ (cf. also mam-ik ‘id., see s.v.) and
the diminutive suffix -uk. For the dialectal forms and for other examples of the
semantic development ‘grandmother’ > ‘spider’ or ‘scorpion’ or ‘snail’, see 3.5.2.1.
mamul (o-stem: GDSg maml-o-y, GDPl -o-c‘ NHB 2: 200c without evidence)
‘squeezing implement, pressing machine’ (Agat‘angeɫos, Anania Širakac‘i, etc.), ‘the
essence or purpose of a book’ (Evagrius of Pontus, etc.).
●ETYM See s.v. malem ‘to crush, grind’.
mamuṙ (o-stem according to NHB 2: 200c without evidence) ‘moss’ (Hexaemeron,
Gregory of Nyssa, Paterica, etc.); mamṙ-a-xndir ‘moss-searching’ in Łazar P‘arpec‘i
(1904=1985: 10L2).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects [HAB 3: 244b]. In a fairy-tale based on a folk-motif and written by H. T‘umanyan (5, 1994:
227L16), native of Loṙi, one finds muṙ referring to the green moss on stones in a river.
●ETYM Since Bugge 1893: 17, connected with OIc. mosi m. ‘moss, moorland’, OHG
mos n. ‘moss, marsh’, Russ. mox ‘moss’, Lith. mūsaĩ pl. m. ‘mould’, mùsos ‘id.’,
Lat. muscus m. ‘moss’, etc. HAB 3: 244 with references (Ačaṙyan himself does not
accept the etymology); Pokorny 1959: 742; cf. Mallory/Adams 1997: 385b without
Armenian.
Greppin (1981b: 6) considers the etymology as “impossible since Armenian does
not show evidence for rhotacism”. In fact, the Armenian form is usually explained as
a reduplication of *muṙ < *mus-ro- (Bugge 1893: 17; Pokorny 1959: 742; J̌
ahukyan
1987: 139, 182). The addition of *-ro- may have been triggered by an influence of
mawr ‘mud, marsh’91, which is often taken as etymologically identical with mamuṙ
(cf. J̌
ahukyan 1982: 70); note especially Russ. murók ‘meadow grass’, SCr. múra
‘mud, clay’, Lith. máuras ‘mud’, mauraĩ ‘duckweed, silt, mud’, Latv. maũrs ‘grass,
lawn’, etc. (for the forms, see ÈtimSlovSlavJaz 20, 1994: 191-195; Derksen 2008:
331). Most interesting is the direct equation of PArm. *mus-r- with Slav. *mъx-r-
‘thin moss on trees and stones’ explicitly stated in ÈtimSlovSlavJaz 20, 1994: 215-
216, 217.
For the type of reduplication cf. ka-rkut ‘hail’ vs. OCS gradъ ‘hail’, ma-mul
‘squeezing implement, pressing machine’ from malem ‘to crush, grind’ (see s.vv.).
If reliable, dial. muṙ may be an archaic relic of the simplex *muṙ < from *musro-.
*mayem ‘to bleat (of the sheep)’ (Lex).
●DIAL Preserved in Axalc‘xa, Karin, Van, as well as in the meaning ‘to mew (of the
cat)’ – in Zeyt‘un, Karin (with -ä-), Van (mayuyel), Akn (mɛ*yan ‘a cat that mews a
lot’), Šamaxi mäyvɔ*c‘ ‘miaow’ [HAB 3: 245a]. The Van form has an initial p-:
payel (see also Ačaṙyan 1952: 279), which represents bayel (cf. HayLezBrbBaṙ 1,
2001: 156b) and may be linked with /sheep-imitating/ baaa, beee.
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 245a) correctly treats the word as onomatopoeic.
Consequently, he considers the resemblance with Skt. mā-: mímāti ‘brüllen, blöken,
meckern’, ámīmet ‘brüllte’, mémyant- ‘meckernd’, mayu ̄ ̄́- m. ‘das Blöken, Brüllen’
(RV+); Gr. μηκάομαι ‘bleat (of sheep)’ and others as accidental, which is not
necessarily true. Cf. Mallory/Adams 1997: 394b (with the Armenian form). Note
also YAv. anu-maiia- ‘blökend (vom Schaf); Schaf’.
Despite the onomatopoeic character of the root, I tentatively reconstruct *meh2-i-.
From this one may perhaps derive IIran. *maišá- ‘sheep’ (Skt. meṣá- m. ‘ram, male
sheep’, f. meṣı̄́
- ‘female sheep’; YAv. maēša- m. ‘sheep’), of which no deeper
etymology is recorded in Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 380 (the cognate forms have
secondary semantics: ‘skin of sheep’). IIran. *maišá- ‘sheep’ can reflect *meh2i-so-.
For a possible k-suffixation, see s.v. mak‘i.
mayr1 : GDSg mawr, ISg mar-b, NPl mar-k‘, GDPl mar-c‘, IPL mar-b-k‘ ‘mother’
(Bible +).
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 3: 247a]. ●ETYM From PIE *meh2ter- f. ‘mother’: Skt. mātár, GSg mātúr, Gr. μήτηρ, μητέρ-α,
Dor. μάτηρ ‘mother’, Lat. māter, OEngl. mōdor, Lith. mótė ‘wife; (dial.) mother’,
etc., see Hübschmann 1897: 472; HAB 3: 246-247 with lit.
See also s.vv. mawru ‘stepmother’ and mayr2 ‘cedar, etc.’.
mayr2, i-stem: GDPl mayr-i-c‘, IPl mayr-i-w-k‘ ‘cedar; pine’, prob. also ‘juniper’, etc.
(Bible+).
In Biblical attestations Arm. mayr frequently corresponds to Gr. κέδρος ‘cedar’,
κέδρινος ‘of cedar-wood’. In an enumeration of tree-names from 2 Paralipomenon
2.8 (Xalat‘eanc‘ 1899: 57a), Arm. mayr seems to render ἄρκευϑος ‘juniper,
Juniperus macrocarpa’ (see s.v. kaɫamax for the passage). Elsewhere in
Paralipomenon, however, it corresponds to Gr. κέδρος ‘cedar’, κέδρινος ‘of cedarwood’: p‘ayt mayr : ξύλα κέδρινα in 1 Paralipomenon 14.1, i tačars mayrakop‘eays :
ἐν οἴκῳ κεδρίνῳ in 17.1, tačars mayrakop‘s : οἰ̃κον κέδρινον in 17.6, p‘aytamayr :
ξύλα κέδρινα in 22.4, zmayr p‘aytn : τὰς κέδρους in 2 Paralipomenon 1.15, etc.
(Xalat‘eanc‘ 1899: 28a, 32b, 33a, 40b, 56a).
The word sometimes renders Gr. πεύκη ‘pine’, e.g. erkus durs i p‘aytic‘ mayric‘ :
δύο ϑύρας ξύλων πευκίνων (3 Kings 6.32); eɫewnap‘aytiwk‘ ew p‘aytiwk‘ mayric‘ :
ἐν ξύλοις κεδρίνοις καὶ ἐν ξύλοις πευκίνοις (3 Kings 9.11).
In Psalms, Arm. mayr corresponds to Gr. κέδρος ‘cedar’ (28.5, 36.35, 79.11,
91.13, 103.16, 148.9). It is therefore clear that mayr, -i-c‘ ‘cedar’ is distinct from
mayri, -e-a-c‘ ‘woods’ both formally and semantically, note gtak‘ zna i dašts
mayreac‘ : εὕρομεν αὐτὴν ἐν τοῖς πεδίοις τοῦ δρυμοῦ (Psalms 131.6). Here thus
mayri = Gr. δρυμός ‘bush, thicket’. In Hexaemeron homily 5, however, mayr occurs
three times, rendering Gr. κέδρος ‘cedar’, δρυμός ‘bush, thicket’, and πίτυς ‘pine, fir,
spruce’, see K. Muradyan 1984: 142L17, 151L5 (on these passages see 34057, 34172),
162L7; glossed 375b.
●ETYM The connections with OCS smrēča ‘juniper’ and smřča ‘cedar’ (Bugge 1893:
17-18; see also Hübschmann 1899: 48 and HAB 3: 248a with references to Pictet
and Brugmann) and Latv. mītra ‘box-tree’, etc. (Lidén 1905-06: 493-494) are
formally difficult. In the additional list of possible correspondences, in the last
chapter of his book on PIE trees, P. Friedrich (1970: 151Nr20, cf.45) links Arm. mayr
with Latv. mītra ‘box-tree’, OCS smrēča ‘juniper’, smřča ‘cedar’. These forms have
been compared with Proto-Finno-Ugric *mor3 ‘tree species’, Proto-Lapp *mōre
‘tree’, Hungarian mór ‘spruce’, as well as with Tungus dialects mar ‘spruce’
(Campbell 1990: 163); cf. also Egypt. mrw ‘Lebanese cedar’, etc. (see Illič-Svityč
1976: 45; Bomhard 2008, 2: 819-820).
J̌ahukyan (1987: 137, 212, 231, 398) keeps citing the word as mayri (semantic
paragraph 8.64), and once (264) – mayr(i). In fact, the word (denoting a kind of tree)
only appears as mayr, and the form with -i refers to ‘woods’ and ‘den, lair’, see s.vv.
mayri1 and mayri2, respectively.
Many attestations show that the wood of the tree mayr was used as buildingmaterial. One therefore connects the word with Lat. māteria, māteriēs ‘material,
building materials; timber; subject-matter’ and Arm. mayri ‘forest, woods’ (q.v.),
deriving them, as has been suggested by Müller 1890: 4, from the IE word for
‘mother’ (cf. mayr1 ‘mother’, q.v.), see also HAB 3: 247-248; Olsen 1999: 83-84.
The basic meaning is thus ‘timber, wood’ > ‘woods’. On the strength of the semantic and formal resemblance of mayr ‘cedar, pine’
with Proto-Finno-Ugric *mor3 ‘tree species’, Hungarian mór ‘spruce’, Tungus
dialects mar ‘spruce’, Egypt. mrw ‘Lebanese cedar’, etc., as well as the Armenian
forms with aberrant vocalism mori ‘forest’ (q.v.) which seems to somehow
correspond to the labial element of some non-Armenian forms, one may assume a
PArm. *marw ‘cedar, pine, etc.’ or the like, a wandering tree-name, with a
subsequent contamination with mayri ‘timber, wood; woods’.
mayri1, ea-stem: GDPl mayre-a-c‘ (Bible+), cf. also DLocSg mayr-w-oǰ (Alexander
Romance) ‘woods, forest, thicket’ (Bible+).
Some textual illustrations:
In Deuteronomy 19.5 (Cox 1981: 152): ew or ok‘ mtanic‘ē ənd ənkeri iwrum i
mayri harkanel p‘ayt “and when a man goes into the forest with his friend to cut
wood”. In Psalms 131.6: gtak‘ zna i dašts mayreac‘ : εὕρομεν αὐτὴν ἐν τοῖς πεδίοις
τοῦ δρυμοῦ.
In Eɫišē (Ter-Minasyan 1989: 46L19f; transl. Thomson 1982: 77): leranc‘ ew
daštac‘ ew mayreac‘ “on the mountains and plains and forests”.
In Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.41 (1913=1991: 166L14): Tnkē ew mayri mec <...>. Ew
anuanē zantaṙn Cnndoc‘ : “He also planted a great forest <...>. And he called the
forest Cnndoc‘ (Genesis). Thomson (1978: 182) translates mayri as ‘forest of fir
trees’. However, mayri is a generic term for ‘forest’. Note that according to P‘awstos
Buzand 3.8 (see Garsoïan 1989: 75) this forest appears to be of oak (kaɫin).
Similarly, the passage from 2.49 (177L1), Jeṙntu lini nma ew Erasx p‘aytiwk‘
mayreac‘, is translated by Thomson (1978: 190) as follows: “The Araxes [river]
provided him with pine wood”. In fact, p‘aytiwk‘ mayreac‘ should be understood as
“with wood of forests”. Note also 2.6 (1913=1991: 108L5), i giǰin ew i maṙaxlut teɫis
mayreac‘, correctly translated by him (p. 135) as “to the wet and foggy regions of
forests”.
The word mayri ‘woods, thicket’ seems to be identical with mayri ‘den, lair’
(q.v.). Note that both have aberrant alternative form mori (q.v.). For the contextual
basis of this relation note e.g. the following attestations from the Alexander
Romance (H. Simonyan 1989: 423L12, 463L-2, 476L14): gazank‘ bazumk‘ elin i
mayrwoc‘n “numerous beasts came out of the woods”; p‘axean ew mtin i mēǰ
mayroǰn “they ran away and enter into the forest”; banakec‘an i mēǰ mayrwoǰ mioy
“they camped in a forest”. Note also Job 38.40 (Cox 2006: 248).
●DIAL Preserved in the dialects of Aṙtial, Xotrǰur, Karin, Alaškert, T‘iflis, Ararat,
Moks [HAB 3: 248b]. Of these the Aṙtial form mɔri deserves particular attention. It
is recorded from Suč‘ava, Poland (see Ačaṙyan 1953: 279), and Hungary (p. 194).
For textual evidence, see op. cit. 251 (twice). The development ay > ɔ is not regular
for Aṙtial (cf. Ačaṙyan 1953: 46-49). Interestingly, this dialectal form seems to be
attested in this dialectal area since the 16th-century. For this and other MidArm. and
dialectal attestations, see s.v. mori1 ‘woods’.
In other dialects the word has been preserved in compounds, e.g. *mayri-a-haw
lit. ‘bird of woods’ > Łarabaɫ mir(i)háv, Hadrut‘ miriháv [Davt‘yan 1966: 423], and
Goris mə/irhav [Margaryan 1975: 443a], probably referring to ‘a kind of pheasant’
(Ananyan HayKendAšx 3, 1965: 184; Margaryan 1975: 443a; Bakunc‘ 1, 1976: 72ff, 177ff, note by Ṙ. Išxanyan in 630) or ‘heath-cock, black-cock’ (see Lisic‘yan
1969: 14158, glossing mirhav by Russ. тетерев).
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 247b) compares the word with Lat. māteria, māteriēs
‘material, building materials; timber; subject-matter’, which is possibly derived from
the IE word for ‘mother’ (see s.v. mayr1 ‘mother’). For this explanation of the Latin
word (without Armenian), see Ernout/Meillet 1959: 390; Schrijver 1991: 384; de
Vaan 2008: 367.
For the semantic development cf. also Pahl. mādag ‘essence, substance’ from
mād ‘mother’, cf. mātak ‘female’, Arm. matak, etc. (see MacKenzie 1971: 53;
Nyberg 1974: 128-129; HAB 3: 266-267). Note also Gr. μήτρα, Ion. -η f. ‘womb’ >
‘core, heart-wood of trees’.
For ‘wood’ > ‘forest’ cf. Fr. bois, Engl. wood-s (see s.v. an-taṙ ‘forest’; further see
J
̌
ahukyan 1987: 137; Olsen 1999: 441). For the semantic relationship ‘pine-tree’ :
‘pinewood’ : ‘pine forest; coniferous forest; forest’ cf. OCS borъ and relatives (see
Tolstoj 1969: 22-43; ÈtimSlovSlavJaz 2, 1975: 216-217). Another example can be
found in Chirikba 1985: 102Nr79.
The Latin word vacillates between the iē- and iā-declensions (for a discussion,
see Steinbauer apud Mayrhofer 1986: 133, 133150; Schrijver 1991: 367-370). If one
assumes -ia < *-i(e)h2- and -iēs > *-ieh1-, the Armenian forms may be explained as
follows: *meh2ter-ieh1- > PArm. *máyrī- ‘wood (as building material)’ > Arm. mayr,
i-stem (tree); *meh2ter-ieh2- > PArm. *mayrí(y)ā- ‘wood (as building material);
woods, forest’ > Arm. mayri, -eac‘.
Arm. mayri2 ‘den, lair’ (q.v.) is equated with mayri1 ‘woods’< ‘woods as
dwelling-place for beasts’ (see HAB 3: 247b). It has a parallel classical form mori2
‘den, lair’ (q.v.). The vocalic correspondence ay vs. o is not clear (for a suggestion,
see s.v. mayr ‘cedar, pine’). Arm. mori1 ‘woods’ (q.v.) seems to be an important
intermediary between class. mayri ‘woods’ and mayri/mori ‘den, lair’
mayri2, ea-stem: GDAblPl (i) mayr-e-a-c‘ (e.g. i mayreac‘ aṙiwcuc‘ : ἀπὸ μανδρῶν
λεόντων in Canticum 4.8) ‘den, lair’ (Bible+).
●ETYM Probably derived from mayri1 ‘woods’ (q.v.). The basic meaning of mayri2
(and mori2) ‘den, lair’ is, then, ‘woods as dwelling-place for beasts’.
Alternatively, mayri ‘den, lair’ may be regarded as a substratum word, cf. Gr.
μάνδρᾱ f. ‘fold, pound, stable’ (also ‘cloister’ in ἀρχι-μανδρίτης ‘chief of a cloister,
abbot’) and Skt. mandirá- n. ‘dwelling, house’, mandurā́ f. ‘stable’; cf. the
phonological correspondence between Gr. ἄντρον ‘cave’ and Arm. ayr2 ‘cave’ (q.v.).
This is uncertain, however.
maškat‘ew, an epithet of the bat (č‘ɫǰikan) in Hexaemeron, homily 8, as an adjective
describing the bat (see K. Muradyan 1984: 259L2) or a wing of the bat: t‘aɫant‘ard
maškat‘ew t‘ewovk‘ (ibid.: 276L11). Later it comes to denote ‘bat’. This meaning is
recorded in “Bžškaran” and Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ (see Amalyan 1975: 209Nr137, 264Nr38f).
Its only attestation is found, according to HAB 3: 261a, in Aṙak‘el Siwnec‘i (15th
cent.). In fact, it is much older. I find it in the earliest edition of the Alexander
Romance, in the oldest manuscript (Nr 10151 of Matenadaran) from the 13th century
(see H. Simonyan 1989: 423L-3). On this manuscript representing the hitherto
unknown original edition, see op. cit. 14-16, 49-50, 364. In the final edition maškat‘ew has been replaced by the “more normal” čəɫǰikan (op. cit. 290L-3); some
verses further (op. cit. 291L8): t‘ew maškē unein “they had winges of skin”. It is also
attested in “Govank‘ t‘ṙč‘noc‘” (see Mnac‘akanyan 1980: 252L222), written,
according to Mnac‘akanyan 1980, by Kirakos Episkopos (13-14th cent.):
Maškat‘ewin p‘etur č‘kayr,
Zinč‘ or gorcē zsēkn kawškar.
Further: in Asar Sebastac‘i (16-17ch cent.), see D. M. Karapetyan 1993: 211L9; in
the glossary: 364.
●DIAL No dialectal forms are given in HAB. However, the word maşketep ‘bat’
recorded in the Turkish dialect of Hamšen, as shown by Uwe Bläsing (1992: 58Nr85),
allows to postulate the existence of the word in the Armenian Hamšen. Bläsing says:
“Für das Armenische von Hemçin ist dieses Wort nicht belegt, <...>”. However, we
do find it in a fable in the form maškənt‘ew; see Ačaṙyan 1947: 213, although it is
not listed in the glossary of the monograph. See also s.v. *maškat‘it‘eṙ/ɫn. Note also
Xotorǰur maškt‘ep‘ ‘bat’ (see YušamXotorǰ 1964: 487a). Compare the Turkish -p.
As Uwe Bläsing points out to me, it cannot be explained within the Turkish dialects.
For the epenthetic n, see 2.1.30.1.
●ETYM The compound mašk-a-t‘ew means ‘(having) a wing of skin’; cf. dial.
kaš-a-t‘ew (Van) and sek-e-muk (Ewdokia); see Ačaṙean 1913: 549a and 959b,
respectively.
The word seems to have been borrowed into Georgian (mač
hkhathela) and Udi
(mäškätil) [HAB 3: 261a; AčarHLPatm 1, 1940: 206-207; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 591].
Ačaṙyan does not explain the -l-. One might presume that the Georgian and Udi
forms betray an Armenian *mašk-a-t‘el, with a theoretical *t‘el ‘wing’ instead of the
regular t‘ew ‘wing’. This is probable since next to Arm. *t‘er (< *pter-) ‘wing; leaf’
(q.v.) there is also a variant in *-l-. Moreover, Sip‘an mškat‘el-uk ‘bat’ (see Amatuni
1912: 485a) directly proves the existence of the Armenian *mašk-a-t‘el. One can
also think of *mašk-a-t‘(i)t‘eɫ, with *t‘it‘eɫn ‘butterfly’ (dial. *t‘t‘eɫ) as the second
member; see s.v. *maškat‘it‘eṙ/ɫn.
*maškat‘it‘eṙn ‘bat’, *maškat‘it‘eɫn ‘butterfly’.
●DIAL The word is found in a traditional story (see Łanalanyan 1969: 343-344Nr794F).
The place is not specified; the analysis of the text shows, I think, that it originates
from Bulanəx. Here the bat appears in the form of mašk-a-t‘it‘eṙ, with t‘it‘eṙ
‘butterfly’ as the second member. In Sip‘an one finds maškat‘it‘eɫ in the meaning
‘butterfly’ (see Amatuni 1912: 6b). For the relationship between names of the bat
and the butterfly cf. Łarabaɫ alakuškuš (see HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 12a, 18a). Note
also that Gr. πτερόν n. ‘feather; bird’s wing (< PIE *pter- ‘wing’, see s.v. t‘er) refers
to wings of both the bat and insects.
●ETYM The compound *mašk-a-t‘it‘eṙ/ɫn is composed of mašk ‘skin’ and t‘it‘eṙn or
t‘it‘eɫn ‘butterfly’ (q.v.). This is reminiscent of mašk-a-t‘ew ‘bat, literally: ‘(having)
a wing of skin’ (q.v.). On Georgian mačhkhathela and Udi mäškätil, see s.v.maškat‘ew.
mat- in matč‘im, matnum ( aor. mateay) ‘to approach, come close’ (Bible+); mawt
‘near, close’, also i mawtoy and mawtim ‘to approach’ (Bible+). matoyc‘ (cf. caus.
matuc‘anem) is found in numerous derivatives, also as the second member of compounds, such as džuar-a-matoyc‘ ‘hard to access’ (Bible+). For matoyc‘ (GSg
matuc‘-i) ‘access’, see s.v. matn2.
●DIAL mōt (=mawt) is widespread in the dialects [HAB 3: 373].
●ETYM Linked with OIc. mōt n. ‘Zusammentreffen, Begegnung’, OEngl. mōt
‘Gesellschaft, Versammlung, Zusammenkunft, feindliche Begegnung’, etc. [HAB 3:
266, 373]. See 2.1.22.12.
matn1, GDSg matin, ISg matam-b, NPl matun-k‘, GDPl matan-c‘ ‘finger; toe’
(Bible+).
●DIAL Dialectally ubiqitous. In Agulis, the meaning ‘finger’ is represented by büt‘ <
boyt‘ ‘thumb’ (q.v.) [HAB 3: 270b].
●ETYM Usually compared with the Celtic word for ‘thumb’: Welsh maut, Bret. meut
‘thumb’ (see HAB 3: 270). Considered doubtful (see Makaev 1974: 58-59). The
Celtic word is derived from PIE *meh1- ‘to measure’ (see Pokorny 1959: 703-704).
The Armenian word would require *mh1-d-. Uncertain. If this is accepted, note the
semantic relationship ‘finger’ : ‘thumb’ seen also in Agulis.
matn2 ‘hill-side’; dial. ‘hill; slope’. Geoponica (13th cent.).
According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 271a), the oldest attestation of teh root is found in
Joshua 15.7: iǰanen i Gaɫgaɫ, or ē handēp matuc‘in Odomimay : καὶ καταβαίνει ἐπὶ
Γαλγαλ, ἥ ἐστιν ἀπέναντι τῆς προσβάσεως Αδδαμιν. RevStBible here has: “turning
toward Gilgal, which is opposite the ascent of Adummim”. Ačaṙyan points out that
matoyc‘ corresponds to Hebr. ‘ascent’ and therefore means zaṙiver ‘precipice,
ascent’. However, Arm. matoyc‘ (GSg matuc‘-i) renders Gr. πρόσ-βασις f. ‘access’
and belongs with Arm. mat-č‘-im (mat-uc‘-) ‘to approach’, as correctly suggested in
NHB 2: 215c (“yaṙaǰ matč‘umn”).
●DIAL Preserved in Loṙi mat, Zeyt‘un mɔd ‘hill’, Č‘arsančag mad ‘slope of a
mountain’ [HAB 3: 271]. Ačaṙyan (2003: 13) mentions the Zeyt‘un form in his list
of MidArm. : Zeyt‘un correspondences.
●ETYM No acceptable etymology is recorded by Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 271a). He points
out that the resemblance with Arab. matn ‘plateau’ and Syr. maϑā ‘earth, land’ is
accidental. Bediryan 1956: 43 derives matn from mat- ‘to approach’, which is
semanticall unattractive. J̌ahukyan (1972: 282; 1973: 21) compares matn with Avest. mati- ‘Vorsprung des
Gebirges’, which derives from PIE *mn-t-, cf. Lat. mons, GSg montis ‘mountain’,
Alb. mat m. ‘Ufer; Sandstrand’ (see Demiraj 1997: 50, 256).
I wonder whether the word is not identical with matn1 ‘finger’ (q.v.). The
semantic transfer from body-part terms into topographical ones is trivial. Note that
in one of the passages from Geoponica matn-er occurs with koɫ-er, which actually is
identical with koɫ ‘rib’, and tap‘er. A comparable semantic relationship may be seen
in PIE *pr-sth2- ‘standing before’: Lith. pirštas ̃ ‘finger’, OCS prьstъ ‘finger’ : Skt.
pr̥ṣṭhá- n. ‘back, mountain ridge’ (RV+), YAv. paršta- m. ‘back, spine, support in the
back’ (see s.v. erastan-k‘). Note also Arm. Łarabaɫ püt‘nə ‘hill or rock’ (L.
Harut‘yunyan 1991: 52L17) vs. boyt‘n ‘thumb’ (q.v.).
mard, o-stem: GDSg mard-o-y, GDPl mard-o-c‘, pl. more frequently mardik, gen-dat.
mardk-an, abl. i mardkan-ē (abundant evidence in the Bible, Astuacaturean 1895:
979-986) ‘man, human being’ (Bible+). In the Bible, Arm. mard usually renders Gr. ἄνϑρωπος ‘man’, but in Job it several times stands for βροτός ‘mortal man’ (NHB 2:
219b; Cox 2006: 92 et passim).
●DIAL Dialectally ubiquitous [HAB 3: 279-280]. Next to the meaning ‘man, human
being’, widespread is also ‘husband’ [Amatuni 1912: 196, 467a; Ačaṙean 1913: 761-
763; HayLezBrbBaṙ 4, 2007: 34b].
●ETYM From IE *mr̥-tó- ‘mortal’: Gr. βροτός ‘mortal’, cf. Av. maš(ii)a- ‘man’, Skt.
mr̥tá- ‘died, dead’, a-mŕ̥ta- ‘immortal’, etc., Hübschmann 1897: 472-473; Pokorny
1959: 735; Meillet 1936: 74; Clackson 1994: 2374; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 318;
Mallory/Adams 1997: 150a, cf. 366b. Here seems to belong Jatvingian mard ‘man’,
unless this is to be identified as a variant of Old Polish smard ‘plebeius’ (see
Schmalstieg 1986).
For a discussion of this PIE term, see also Thieme 1952: 15-34; Euler 1979: 125;
H. Katz 1983. For a discussion on pl.-coll. mard-ik(n), see Meillet 1913: 54, 70-71;
1936: 85; Jokl 1984: 20; Olsen 1999: 460-461. Further see s.vv. meṙanim ‘to die’,
mah ‘death’.
The word seems formally ambiguous, therefore one alternatively assumes an
Iranian intermediation: loan or calque (see West 2007: 127 referring to Durante).
However, I see no reason to reject the traditional interpretation. The voiced -d and
the o-declension favour the native origin.
mari, ea-stem: GDPl mare-a-c‘ (Proverbs 30.31) ‘female bird, hen’ (Proverbs 30.31,
Zgōn-Afrahat, Cyril of Jerusalem), MidArm. ‘female bee’ (Geoponica).
●DIAL Goris, Łarabaɫ mári ‘female turkey’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 763b; HayLezBrbBaṙ 4,
2007: 37b] or ‘female bird’ [HAB 3: 284b; Margaryan 1975: 348a].
●ETYM Since Patrubány (StugHetaz 1906: 344a), connected with Gr. μεῖραξ ‘girl’,
Lat. marītus ‘married’, ‘husband, mate’, marīta ‘wife’, Lith. mergà ‘girl’, martì f.
‘bride, young woman’, Welsh morwyn, OCorn. moroin ‘girl, maiden’, Skt. máryam. ‘young man, young warrior’, etc.
The Armenian form can be derived from *mərih2-teh2- (J̌
ahukyan 1987: 139; cf.
HAB 3: 284a) or *mərieh2- > *məríya-. In view of the Italic and Celtic forms
possibly pointing to o-grade (see Schrijver 1991: 459-460; 1995: 248, 356-357), one
may alternatively posit *morieh2- or *mori(h2)-teh2- > PArm. *maríya- > mari, -ea-.
See also s.v. amuri ‘wifeless’.
mawru, a-stem: GSg mōru-i (Severian of Gabala, Philo), AblSg mōru-ē (Plato),
mōr-oǰ-ē (Yaysmawurk‘), GDPl mōru-ac‘ (Basil of Caesarea: “T‘uɫt‘k‘”)
‘stepmother’. (Severian of Gabala, Eusebius of Caesarea, Plato, Aristotle, Philo,
John Chrysostom, etc.)
●DIAL Šatax muru mɛr ‘stepmother’, Muš muri ‘step-’, Muš, Bulanəx xort‘umuru (<
*xort‘-u-mōru) [HAB 3: 247a, 375b]. The type of the compund *xort‘-u-mōru can
be seen in *orb-ew-ayri.
As we see, all the evidence points to adjectival meaning ‘step-’. However, we do
find the original form in Hamšen mɔru ‘stepmother’ [Ačaṙyan 1947: 12, 246], and
Xotorǰur *moroy ‘grandmother’ and moru ‘step-mother’ (see YušamXotorǰ 1964:
490b and 491b, respectively). *moroy seems to be a “quasi-grabar” representation of
the dialectal form the precise shape of which is unknown. It may reflect *mōrū; cf.
saroy ‘cypress’ next to Pers. sarū (see HAB 4: 189-190). ●ETYM From IE *meh2trui(e)h2-, cf. Gr. μητρυιᾱ́ ‘stepmother’, OEngl. mōdrige
(n-stem) ‘mother’s sister’, etc. (see Hübschmann 1897: 472; HAB 3: 246b;
Szemerényi 1977: 60). For a discussion I refer to Beekes 1976a: 55-58; Clackson
1994: 145-147.
For the element *-u- cf. Arm. GPl mi-a-mōr-uc‘ (see HAB 3: 246b).
See also s.v. yawray ‘stepfather’.
mawruk‘, a-stem: GDPl mawru-a-c‘ (Bible+); muru-k‘ (P‘awstos Buzand, 5th cent.),
gen-dat. muru-a-c‘ (Łazar P‘arpec‘i, 5th cent.; Ephrem, etc.), also MURUC (in Latin
alphabet) in the early 10th-century Autun dictionary (Weitenberg 1997c: 342), rarely
singular mo/ōru (Weitenberg 1997c: 340) ‘beard’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects [HAB 3: 375b]:
mɔruk‘ in Polis, Xarberd, Sebastia, Tigranakert, etc. (also Zeyt‘un and Hačən
muyuk‘ probably represents mawruk‘, Ačaṙyan 2003: 84).
muruk‘ in Muš, Alaškert, Šamaxi; see also below.
miruk‘ in Aṙtial, Axalc‘xa, T‘iflis, Hamšen, Karin, J̌
uɫa.
The dialectal form *miruk‘ is found in inscriptions since the 13th century: miru(k‘),
IPl miru-a-w-k‘ (S. A. Avagyan 1973: 190-191), as well as in Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘
(1975: 220Nr425): morus· miruk‘. Given the fact that Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ abounds in
dialectal forms peculiar to Łarabaɫ and adjacent areas one may treat miruk‘ of this
gloss as the regular proto-form of Łarabaɫ mərɔk‘, etc. Note that these areas have
penultimate accent, and mərɔ́
k‘ presupposes *miruk‘ or *muruk‘ rather than
mawruk‘.
As has been shown by Ačaṙyan (1935: 60, 84), Agulis máyruk‘ comes from an
old dialectal *miruk‘ rather than mōruk‘. Similarly, Meɫri mɛruk‘ points to miruk‘
[Aɫayan 1954: 63]. Nor Naxiǰewan has both miruk‘ and mürük‘ [Ačaṙean 1925: 65-
66]. For a thorough philological analysis I refer to Weitenberg 1997c: 343-345, who
concludes that miruk‘ is of respectable antiquity and may represent the e-grade
*smek̂
ru-.
Beside Aṙtial miruk‘ (also Hung.), Ačaṙyan (1953: 279) also mentions Pol. mirug
‘chin’ glossing it by Arm. cnawt ‘chin’, Pol. broda, Fr. menton ‘chin’.
Van-Parskahayk‘ group has a frozen accusative: Van murus, Ozim mɔrɔs
[Ačaṙyan 1952: 281]; Šatax murus [M. Muradyan 1962: 202a]; Moks murus (in the
village of Aṙnanc‘, mɔrus), gen. murus-ə
ɛ
, pl. murus-k‘y
-ir, murus-nir [Orbeli 2002:
294]; Maraɫa mürǘs [Ačaṙean 1926: 78, 414; Davt‘yan 1966: 433], Č‘aylu murús
[Davt‘yan 1966: 433]; Salmast mrüs [HAB 3: 375b]; Urmia-Xoy mərüs [M.
Asatryan 1962: 202b].
It is remarkable that in the famous epic songs recorded by Movsēs Xorenac‘i in
Goɫt‘n (a district that is geographically very close to the region Van-Parskahayk‘),
one finds frozen nominative used as accusative, z-mēǰ-k‘ ‘back’, also allative i mēǰk‘ (Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.40, 1913=1991: 179L4f; see AčaṙHLPatm 2, 1951: 72;J̌ahukyan 1987: 368, 376-377), whereas the word for ‘beard’ is found in the ‘correct’
accusative form mawrus (Movsēs Xorenac‘i 1.31/32, 1913=1991: 86L3). Now,
modern dialects almost ubiquitously have a frozen nominative mēǰ-k‘ (though in
some of them -k‘ is frozen only with respect to nom-acc., cf. Van mɛč‘k‘ vs. gen.
mɛčac‘, etc., HAB 3: 313b), whereas in the Van-Parskahayk‘ area, as we have seen,
the accusative form is petrified. The epic songs thus witness this contrast already in the pre-Classical period. Note that the narrative tradition (19th and early 20th cent.) of
the epic “Sasna cṙer” was in a way related with the wool-makers of the Van and
adjacent regions. It is attractive to regard these two traditions within a single
unbroken continuity.
Of special interest is Moks, the village of Kyumir, mauran [Orbeli 2002: 294],
which has neither -k‘ nor -s. One wonders if this represents an old collective
*mawru-an.
●ETYM Since de Lagarde (see HAB 3: 375), connected with Skt. śmáśru- n. ‘beard’
(RV+), Lith. smãkras, smakrà ‘chin’, Alb. mjekër ‘chin, beard’, Hitt. zama(n)kur
‘beard’, etc. Irish smech ‘chin’ from *smekā-.
The Armenian -w- resulted from the depalatalization of *-k̂
- before *-r-, seen also
in Baltic and Albanian (Kortlandt 1985b: 10; 1985a: 59; 1986: 41 = 2003: 58, 60,
71; Beekes 2003: 175). For the meaning ‘chin’ in Celtic and Albanian cf. Arm.
dialect of Aṙtial (see above).
The by-form muru-k‘ may reflect PIE *smok̂
r-u- > PArm. *mowru- (see Pedersen
1906: 351 = 1982: 129; Weitenberg 1997c: 342). Also miruk‘ is of respectable
antiquity and may represent the e-grade *smek̂
ru- (cf. Celtic e-grade), see in the
dialectal section. The form moruk‘, with simple -o-, most probably is a secondary
form which developed from mawruk‘ [Weitenberg 1997c: 341].
The origin of the vowel -a- of the basic form mawru-k‘ is much debated and is
still unclear (see Weitenberg 1997c: 345).92 I tentatively propose the following
scenario: nom. *smok̂
ur vs. pl. *smok̂
ru-eh2- > PArm. nom. *mach
ur (with a from
*o in open syllable, see 2.1.3) vs. pl. *mok̂
ru-a- (to be developed to *mas(u)r :
*mowr-u-a-). Then the a of the (subsequently lost) singular was generalized into
mawru-k‘ (oblique -u-a-), whereas the old dial. *muru-k‘ perhaps directly reflects
the original pl. *mowru-a-.
mak‘i, ea-stem ‘ewe’. (Bible, Eznik Koɫbac‘i, Hexaemeron, etc.)
In a 14-15th-century addendum (describing Cilicia) to Ašxarhac‘oyc‘ written by
T‘ovma Kilikec‘i we read that Cilicia has mak‘is vayri (APl.) ‘wild sheep’ (see
Anasyan 1967: 283L4; Hewsen 1992: 322). One concludes from this that for the
author mak‘i rather denoted the sheep in general. This is directly corroborated by the
actual semantics of mak‘i in the dialects of Cilicia and surroundings; see below.
Also in the attestation of Eznik the general semantics is possible: Oč‘ gaylk‘ mak‘is,
ew oč‘ mak‘ik‘ aɫuēss [cnan].
●DIAL Widespread: *mak‘i. For the -g‘- of the form of Svedia (mag‘a), see Ačaṙyan
2003: 428. According to Andreasyan (1967: 374b), however, it is maka. In the
meaning ‘ewe’: Muš, Alaškert, Karin, Ararat, Ararat, Van, Ozim, Šatax (see M.
Muradyan 1962: 202a; for the semantics, 83), Salmast, Maraɫa (cf. Davt‘yan 1966:
426), whereas Zeyt‘un [Ačaṙyan 2003: 327], Svedia [Ačaṙyan 2003: 579],
Tigranakert and Moks have the general meaning ‘sheep’; see HAB 3: 291b.
According to Orbeli (2002: 288), however, the Moks meaning is ‘ovca dojnaja’
(‘milch sheep’). In his glossary of purely dialectal words in the Šamaxi dialect, Baɫramyan (1964:
243) records mak‘y
aǰin ‘female wild boar’. One wonders whether it is related with
mak‘i.
●ETYM Since Diefenbach (see HAB 3: 291; Pokorny 1959: 715), connected with Gr.
μηκάς, -άδος f. ‘bleating one; goat’, μηκάομαι ‘bleat (of sheep)’. Cf. also Skt.
makamakāy- (Class.) ‘quaken’, meka- (Lex.), Germ. meckern, MHG mecke
‘Ziegenbock’, Lat. micciō ‘meckere’, etc. Outside IE: Kannaḍa mē ‘the bleating of
sheep or goat(s)’, mēke ‘she-goat’. The absence of palatalization of the velar in
Armenian is not explained; cf. Olsen 1999: 808. The solution may lie in the
onomatopoeic character of the root, see 2.1.14. Note onomatopoeic mk(m)kal (of
goat, kid) [Ačaṙyan 1913: 785a; J̌
ahukyan 1972: 299; 1987: 137]. Alternatively, one
may assume a feminine *méh2k-eh2- (cf. Gr. μηκάς), gen. *mh2k-h2-ós. The -i is
secondary. See also below.
Formally, Arm. mak‘i and Gr. μηκάς can derive from *meh2-k-, whereas the
others may continue *m(e)h2-i-k- or *mek-. The underlying root may be *meh2(-i)-
(see s.v. *mayem, with parallels for the semantic development ‘bleating (one)’ :
‘sheep or goat’). Given the onomatopoeic character of the root, however, any
reconstruction is risky. J̌
ahukyan (1987: 137) posits *mek- / *məkii̯a- > mak‘i, which
is unconvincing.
As mak‘i generally denotes the female sheep, it can be linked with other
designations of female animals in -i such as ayc(i), mari, etc. However, we should
not exclude the alternative according to which the general meaning ‘sheep’ (see
above) would be the original one, having subsequently developed into ‘female
sheep’. In this case, mak‘i can be seen as an i-derivation from onomatopoeic *mVk-
‘to bleat’; thus: *‘bleating one’. Cf. typologically the i-derivation expressing the
semantic development ‘field’ > ‘wild animal’ (see s.vv. art-i, and-i; cf. also vayr-i in
Zeyt‘un).
*mglamandi ‘spider-web’.
●DIAL I find the word only in Goris məkləmandi < *mglamandi ‘spider-web’
[Margaryan 1975: 440a]. There are also forms with a final -l, see
Martirosyan/Gharagyozyan FW 2003, Goris and Łarabaɫ.
●ETYM No etymological attempt is known to me.
I propose to treat the word as follows: *mgl- ‘mould/Schimmel’ (see s.v.
*mglim1) + -a- + *mandi ‘yarn or web’, probably a -di- < *-tii̯V- formation based on
manem ‘to spin’ (class., widespread in the dialects, among them also in Goris). The
voicing *t > d after -n- and -r- is regular; see s.vv. anǰrdi, ordi, etc.; cf. also spand,
i-stem vs. spananem ‘to kill’), all being composed of the same suffix. Compare also
sard, i-stem ‘spider’. The spider-web is taken to be, then, a mould-like yarn/web,
which is quite conceivable.
If this etymology is accepted, one should consider *mglamandi as archaic, since
the formation is old, and Goris only has *mglim2 ‘to scorch, singe’ (in the compound
*mglahot), which can eventually be connected to *mglim1.
Alternatively, one might think that the first component of *mglamandi
‘spider-web’ is *mglim2 ‘to scorch, singe’, having developed into ‘(sooty)
spider-web’; cf. unǰ3 ‘soot’ (q.v.), which refers to to the (sooty) spider-web in
Łarabaɫ, Hin J̌
uɫa, probably also Goris and Šamaxi. The semantic relationship ‘soot’ ‘spider-web’ is also paralleled by Akn mlul/r [HAB 3: 352b]. However, this seems
more complex and unnecessary.
The forms muknumandil, etc. may be regarded as folk-etymological reshaping as
‘kerchief of a mouse’.
*mglim1 ‘to rot, spoil, mould (verschimmeln)’.
Only attested in the compounds mglahot (Geoponica, 13th cent.) and mgṙahot
(Aṙakel Dawrižec‘i, 17th cent.), both meaning ‘smelling like mould’ (adj.). The
former is also found in “Bžškaran jioy” (13th cent.) in the meaning ‘smell of mould’
(subst.); see Č‘ugaszyan 1980: 82L-7, 216; MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 121. It is preserved in
Muš mək‘lahod (see Baɫdasaryan-T‘ap‘alc‘yan 1958: 264b; the meaning is not
specified), and in Łarabaɫ, etc. in a different meaning, see s.v. *mglim2.
●DIAL Preserved in the dialects of Suč‘ava, Nor Naxiǰewan, Polis, Ṙodost‘o,
Aslanbek, Sebastia, Akn, Xarberd, Hamšen, Karin, Alaškert (for Muš, see above),
Axalc‘xa, Ararat, Zeyt‘un, Hačən (mäg‘lel) [HAB 3: 293a], as well as in Arabkir,
Xian and Sivri-Hisar [Ačaṙean 1913: 765]. For Svedia, see Andreasyan 1967: 374b
(the meaning is not specified). In Axalc‘xa, Atap‘azar, Polis, etc., one finds
*mgl-ot-im [Ačaṙean 1913: 765b].
In Xotrǰur one finds aregkmel, aregmknel ‘to rot, to spoil under the sun’
[HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 122a], the second component of which might be related,
too.
Another interesting and unexplained compound is Goris məkləmandi <
*mglamandi ‘spider-web’ [Margaryan 1975: 440a]; see s.v. *mglamandi. It may
have been composed as *mgl- ‘mould/Schimmel’ + -a- + *mandi ‘yarn or web’,
probably a -di- < *-tii̯V- formation based on manem ‘to spin’. If this etymology is
accepted, one should treat *mglamandi as archaic, since the formation is old, and
Goris only has *mglim2 ‘to scorch, singe’ (in the compound *mglahot), which can
eventually be connected to*mglim1.
In Turkish-Armenian dictionary (c. 1720 AD) by Eɫia Mušeɫyan Karnec‘i
(Karin/Xotorǰur) one finds muk‘l with borbos ‘mould’ and ort‘ rendering Turk. k‘uf
‘mould, rust’ [Č‘ugaszyan 1986: 86Nr50, 140]. Č‘ugaszyan (ibid.) does not identify
muk‘l. I propose to treat it as a back-formation from the verb mglim ‘to rot, mould’.
●ETYM According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 293a), related to *mglim2 ‘to scorch, singe’
and *mglim3 ‘to cloud’ with the basic meaning ‘to become black’. The connection
with mglim4 suggested in NHB 2: 234a is semantically problematic.
*mglim2 ‘to scorch, singe’.
●DIAL Only in dial. compound *mglahot ‘smell of singeing’: Łarabaɫ [HAB 3: 293a;
Davt‘yan 1966: 426], Goris [Margaryan 1975: 348a, 440a], Šamšadin and
Krasnoselsk [Mežunc‘ 1989: 212b]. For written attestations of mglahot with a
different meaning, see s.v. mglim1.
●ETYM According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 293a), related to *mglim1 ‘to rot, spoil,
mould (verschimmeln)’ and *mglim3 ‘to cloud’ with the basic meaning ‘to become
black’.
*mglim3 ‘to cloud’.
●DIAL Preserved in the dialects of Šulaver, Ararat, Nor Bayazet, Van, Ozim, Moks,
Šatax, Muš, Alaškert [HAB 3: 293a; Ačaṙyan 1952: 280; Muradyan 1962: 6, 202a]. In some of them a dental suffix appears: *mgl-t- (Alaškert, Nor Bayazet) and
*mgl-ot- (Muš).
●ETYM According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 293a), related to *mglim1 ‘to rot, to spoil, to
mould (verschimmeln)’ and *mglim2 ‘to scorch, singe’ with the basic meaning ‘to
become black’. Only *mglim3 ‘to cloud’ has an external etymology. It is connected
to mēg ‘fog’ (q.v.); cf. Skt. meghá- m. ‘cloud, gloomy weather’, Av. maēɣa- m.
‘cloud’, etc. PArm. *mig-la- ‘cloud, fog’ may be derived from IE *h3migh
-leh2-, cf.
Gr. ὀμίχλη ‘fog’, OCS mьgla ‘mist, haze’, Lith. miglà ‘fog’, Dutch dial. miggelen
‘staubregnen’.
The absence of metathesis of *-gh
l- suggests perhaps an older *mig-il or -ul,
perhaps from HD l-stem with NSg *-ōl, see 2.2.2.5. Alternatively, one may assume
that the metathesis was blocked by the sensed association with the unsuffixed form
mēg. For the structure of the derivation cf. an example with the same semantics: Gr.
νεφ-έλη ‘cloud’ next to νέφος n. ‘id.’. One also might think of the verbal -l- seen e.g.
in čm-l-em ‘to squeeze, press’ (see s.v.). Further note the -l- of the Dutch verb.
The archaic nature of Arm. -l- is suggested by Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 311b; see also
N. Simonyan 1979: 241; Aɫayan 1986: 61-6252; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 137, 180), who uses
this, as well as the semantic difference between Arm. mēg and its Iranian cognates,
to prove the native origin of the Armenian forms. The semantic argument is not
decisive, however, since the difference is very slight, and the meaning ‘fog, mist’ is
present in Iranian, too; see Cheung 2002: 204.
According to Greppin (1983: 272-273), here also belongs Arm. *amuɫǰ found in
aɫǰamuɫǰ ‘darkness, twilight’, which is improbable; see s.v. *aɫǰ-.
The meaning ‘to cloud’ might have developed into ‘to become dark’. Since a loss
of the atmospheric context is possible, it is not very hard to get from here the
meanings ‘to rot, spoil, mould (verschimmeln)’ and ‘to become black (as a result of
scorching, singeing, rusting)’. Compare color-based designations of the mould such
as Russ. plesen’, etc.
mglim4 ‘to struggle’.
Only attested in John Chrysostom: Oč‘ ogoric‘i ew oč‘ ǰanayc‘ē, ew oč‘ mglic‘i,
ayl diwraw heštaw imn zmarmin t‘oɫuc‘u.
●ETYM In NHB 2: 234a, the above-cited passage is represented under mglim1 ‘to rot,
to spoil, to mould (verschimmeln)’, although the connection seems to be rejected.
Indeed, the semantics is problematic. Doubtful is the comparison (op. cit.) with
maglc‘em ‘to climb’ and mak‘aṙim ‘to struggle’, too.
mec, a-stem: GDSg mec-i, ISg mec-a-w, GDPl mec-a-c‘, etc. adj. ‘great, big, large’,
adv. ‘much’ (Bible+); mec-ar-em ‘to honour, esteem highly’, mecar-an-k‘, a-stem:
GDPl mecaran-a-c‘ ‘honour’, mecar-oy ‘much respected, honorable’ (all Bible+; see
Astuacaturean 1895: 997; Clackson 1994: 230206; on mecar-oy, see Olsen 1999:
514).
For a considerable number of attestations of mec and its derivatives in the Bible
and following literature, see NHB 2: 234-243; Astuacaturean 1895: 992-998; HAB
3: 295a.
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects. A number of N, NW, SW and SE peripheral
dialects display forms with an epenthetic -n-: *menc [HAB 3: 295-296]. Next to menj J
̌
uɫa has also venj, the initial v- of which may be due to nasal dissimilation
[Ačaṙean 1940: 125, 376a]. Goris and Łarabaɫ have forms with geminate -cc [HAB
3: 295b; Margaryan 1975: 348].
In some eastern dialects an exceptional vocalic reflection is seen: Meɫri mɔc
[Aɫayan 1954: 35, 279b], Karčewan muc [H. Muradyan 1960: 29, 200b],
Kak‘avaberd muc (in Varhavar), mɔc (in Agarak) [H. Muradyan 1967: 32, 179b],
parts of Hadrut‘ məɔc, mɔc [Davt‘yan 1966: 29, 426] (A. Poɫosyan, 1965: 17,
records only mə
ɛ
c).
These forms can hardly be explained from mec through an internal development
and possibly point to an older *moc. Of course, a secondary origin cannot be ruled
out; for instance, one may think of vocalic labialization after m-. However, there are
many counter-examples.
The verb mecarem has been preserved in T‘iflis mɛjril ‘to honour, entertain’
[HAB 3: 295b]. Interesting is also T‘iflis minja-minja (ibid.).
●ETYM Since long (Klaproth 1831: 101a; NHB 2: 234b; Gosche 1847: 72Nr201, etc.,
see HAB 3: 295b), connected to the cognate forms going back to the PIE word for
‘great’: Skt. NAccSg máhi n. ‘great’, mahā́nt- ‘great, dense, extensive, mighty,
important’, Gr. μέγας ‘big’, μέγα n. ‘big’, Lat. magnus ‘great, large; much; noble,
grand; mighty’, Hitt. mekki ‘much’, etc., see Hübschmann 1897: 473; HAB 3: 295;
Pokorny 1959: 708; Mallory/Adams 1997: 344a; Cabolov 1, 2001: 632.
Arm. *mec-a- reflects PIE *meĝh2-, with *-h2- > -a- (Olsen 1999: 65; Beekes
2003: 189; Matzinger 2005: 55). The PIE paradigm is reconstructed as follows:
nom. *meĝ-h2-s, acc. *mĝ-éh2-m, gen. *mĝ-h2-ós, dat. *mĝ-h2-éi, cf. Skt. NAccSg
máhi, DSg mah-é < *m(e)ĝ-h2-éi, hence also -h- in mahā́- from *meĝ-oh2-, Av. maza
‘big, spacious’, Gr. μέγα ‘big’, adv. ἄγᾱν ‘much’, Hitt. mekki ‘much’ < *meĝ-h2-
i(h2)- (for a discussion, see Beekes 1988b: 115; 1995: 144, 198; Mayrhofer EWAia
2, 1996: 337-339; 2005: 10764, 116; Lindeman 1997: 148-150, 184; Oettinger 1997;
Sims-Williams 1997: 319; Kloekhorst 2008: 572).
J̌
ahukyan (1987: 137, 180) introduces also Arm. post-classical *moz ‘great, much,
mighty, increased’, positing *moĝh
- with a question-mark. One may assume that the
genitive *mĝ-h2-ós developed into a secondary o-grade form *moĝH- through a
procedure that is reminiscent of the scenario described e.g. in Gamkrelidze/Ivanov
1984, 1: 152ff. On the other hand one recalls the synonymous *polh1u- (see s.v. yolov ‘much, plenty’). The PIE paradigm nom. *meĝ-h2-s vs. gen. *m(o)ĝ-h2-ós may
have developed into PArm. nom. *méc-a- (> ClArm. mec, a-stem) vs. gen. *moz-ó-
> post-classical *moz, as well as EArm. *moc (on which see the dialectal section)
with -c- after the nominative. It should be borne in mind, however, that *moz is not
reliable, and *moĝH- would rather yield *moj (something like *moĝh2i̯o- may be
assumed, cf. comp. μέζων from *meĝh2i̯os/n-, Beekes 1976b: 90). Thus, the whole
idea is highly hypothetical.
The dialectal form *menc may be explained by a nasal epenthesis (e.g. Ačaṙean
1940: 159), which is very frequent in particular before dental stops and affricates
(see 2.1.30.1). Nevertheless, it is tempting to alternatively posit an old *mec-n in a
way comparable to Lat. magnus ‘great, large’, etc. Note that the form *menc is
found in various peripheral dialects and may be archaic, although the epenthesis can
also be explained through independent processes in individual dialects. For references and a discussion of the equation Arm. mecarem ‘to honour’ : Gr.
μεγαίρω ‘to grudge’ < ‘*to regard as too great’, see HAB 3: 295b; Pokorny 1959:
708; C. Arutjunjan 1983: 296-297, and especially Clackson 1994: 149-150.
meɫex, o-stem: ISg meɫex-o-v (Ephrem); i-stem in NHB 2: 247b with no evidence, but
cf. AblSg i meɫex-ē (Deuteronomy 19.5, “Naxadrut‘iwnk‘” Ecclesiastes), which
cannot belong with o-stem, ‘the handle of an axe’.
In Deuteronomy 19.5 (Cox 1981: 152): ew ankanic‘i erkat‘n i meɫexē : καὶ
ἐκπεσὸν τὸ σιδήριον ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου. Arm. meɫex renders Gr. ξύλον ‘wood; piece of
wood; peg, lever; cudgel, club’ (here, said of ἀξίνη = p‘aytat ‘axe’) and refers thus
to a ‘handle of an axe’.
In Ephrem meɫex refers to the handle of a tapar ‘axe’.
●ETYM No acceptable etymology is recorded in HAB 3: 299b. J̌
ahukyan (1987: 355,
438), with reservation, treats it as comprising PIE *mel- ‘to hit grind’ (cf. Russ.
mólot ‘hammer’, etc.) and the Urartian suffix -ḫi/ə. However, meɫex specifically
refers to the handle, wooden part of the axe rather than to the axe in general or its
metallic part. I therefore propose an alternative etymology.
Arm. meɫex may reflect PArm. *meɫ(i) ‘ash-tree’ related with Gr. μελία, Ep. -ίη f.
‘manna ash, Fraxinus ornus; ashen spear’ from QIE *mel-ih2-. For the semantic
development cf. the Germanic forms of the PIE term for ‘ash-tree’: OIc. askr, OHG
asc, OEngl. æsc ‘ash-tree; spear’; Gr. ὀξύα ‘beech; spear-shaft made from its wood,
spear’; see s.vv. hac‘i, hoyn, uši/*hoši. See especially Dumont 1992: 32618.
The Greek word has no secure etymology (see Frisk 2: 201-202). PArm. *meɫ(i)
‘ash-tree’ and Gr. μελία ‘id.’ may be regarded as a Mediterranean word.
According to Dumont (1992: 325-327), Gr. μελία ‘manna ash, Fraxinus ornus’
derives from μέλι ‘honey; sweet gum collected from certain trees, manna’. Then he
(op. cit. 327) states: “whether or not ash trees and honey are related etymologically,
the connection in mythology is definite”. If the derivation is accepted, the Greek and
Armenian may be treated as a shared innovation based on the PIE word for ‘honey’;
cf. Arm. meɫr.
The Armenian tradition usually relates manna with tamarisk, cf. Amirdovlat‘
Amasiac‘i (S. Vardanjan 1990: 190, § 1012). This also follows from the origin of
the term gaz-pēn ‘manna’ < MPers. ‘*tamarisk-honey’ (see HAB 1: 499b). In
ethnographical descriptions of Sasun, however, we learn that there is also another
kind of manna which is set on leaves of lɔɫp‘i ‘oak-tree’ and other trees [K‘alant‘ar
1895: 30-31; Petoyan 1965: 101-102]. Also in Dersim the kazpe ‘manna’ is said to
set on oak-trees [Halaǰyan 1973: 57a].
meɫc/j probably ‘soot’; only in hapax yolov-a-meɫc/j, with yolov ‘much’ as the first
member, in Grigor Narekac‘i 48.5 [Xač‘atryan/Łazinyan 1985: 435L140]: yolovameɫj
(vars. -meɫc, -miɫj, -merj, see p. 798a) cux, šogi c‘ndeli : “дым с копотью, пар
испаряющийся” [Darbinjan-Melikjan/Xanlarjan 1988: 160]; “heavy smoke,
evaporating mist” [Khachatoorian 2001: 229].
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 300a) rejects all the etymological attempts. Later he
(1937a) proposed a derivation from PIE *smerd- ‘to stink’, cf. Lith. smìrdžiu,
smirdė́ti ‘to stink’, etc., for the phonological problems comparing with aɫt/aɫc vs. Gr.ἄρδα f. ‘dirt’. However, this is improbable, as is the etymology of aɫt/c (q.v.). On
J
̌ahukyan’s view, see s.v. *aɫǰ- ‘dark’.
meɫk, i-stem in NHB, but without evidence ‘soft, weak, slack’: Eznik Koɫbac‘i (5th
cent.) onwards; meɫkanam ‘to grow weak, loose, dissolute’ (Bible+), rendering
ἐκ-λύω in Jeremiah 4.31: meɫkasc‘i = ἐκλυϑήσεται; meɫkim ‘id.’, meɫkem ‘to make
loose, soft’: Bible (in Joshua 18.3: minč‘ew yerb meɫkic‘ēk‘ : ἕως τίνος ἐκλυϑήσεσϑε
: “how long will you be slack?”), Łazar P‘arpec‘i (5th cent.), etc.; intensive z-meɫkim
or s-meɫkim (Vardan Arewelc‘i, 13th cent., NHB 2: 724a).
In Łazar P‘arpec‘i 1.16 (1904=1985: 27L15f; transl. Thomson 1991: 63): K‘anzi
aha deṙ t‘ulac‘eal meɫki i loyc aṙaǰnordac‘ knik‘ awandoc‘ anarat k‘arozut‘ean
srboyn : “For behold, the seal of the tradition of the saint’s unsullied preaching has
already grown weak and slack through dissolute leaders”.
Imperative meɫkea is attested in Movsēs Xorenac‘i 1.11 (1913=1991: 34L7; transl.
Thomson 1978: 86): ayl ǰeṙuc‘eal meɫkea zc‘rtut‘iwn saṙuc‘eal k‘o hpartac‘eal
baruc‘d : “now warm and melt the freezing cold of your haughty conduct”.
●ETYM Related with Skt. mr̥dú-, fem. mr̥dvī́
- ‘delicate, weak, soft, mild’ (AV+), Lat.
mollis ‘weak, soft’ < *moldu-i-, etc.; see Hübschmann 1897: 473; HAB 3: 300b;
Pokorny 1959: 718; Mallory/Adams 1997: 532b. As is shown by Meillet (1900: 394;
1936: 51, 184), meɫk derives from *meldwi-; see 2.1.22.6; see also J̌
ahukyan 1982:
75; 1987: 137; Weitenberg 1984a: 211; Szemerényi 1985: 791-792; Olsen 1999:
270164; Viredaz 2003: 64. Lat. mollis is explained as "Umbildung eines u-Stammes
auf Grund des Femininums (*ml̥d-u̯-ī )" (Solta 1966: 46; cf. Schrijver 1991: 20). If
the i-stem of Arm. meɫk proves reliable, we can interpret it the same way; see 2.2.3.
Further see s.v. malem ‘to grind, crush, break’.
meɫm, o-stem: GDSg meɫm-o-y, ISg meɫm-o-v ‘soft, mild, gentle, calm; softly, gently’
(Bible+); dial. *m(e)ɫmeɫ ‘quiet, calm, fine; moth, midge’; cf. also mɫ(m)eɫ ‘fine
chaff, dust’ (q.v.).
●DIAL The form meɫm has been preserved in Muš, Moks, as well as in a Łarabaɫ and
Łazax derivative mɛɫm-ɛr-ɛ/uc‘ ‘softly burning’ [HAB 3: 301a].
For a deeper relation, note Agulis *mɫmeɫ ‘moth’ (HAB 3: 225ab; for the
correction to 225a, see HAB-Add 1982: 14) or məɫməɫ ‘gnat, midge’ vs. mɫmɛɫ
‘quiet, calm’ (M. Zak‘aryan 2008: 224); Łarabaɫ *mɫmeɫ ‘softly, quietly (said e.g. of
the blowing of a wind and of the process of boiling’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 786b]; cf.
Ararat mɫmɛɫ ‘very fine straw; the smallest kind of mosquito, midge’ [Amatuni 1912:
483b].
Compare *mɫ-mo/uɫ ‘moth, clothes moth’ (see s.v. *muɫ- ‘grinding, crushing’).
●ETYM According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 225ab), belongs with malem ‘to crush,
grind’, mɫ(m)eɫ ‘chaff’, etc. (see s.vv.). Olsen 1999: 27 posits muelə1-mo-.
The Agulis and other forms corroborate (both formally and semantically) the
etymological or folk-etymological association between meɫm ‘soft, quiet’ and
*mɫme/o/uɫ ‘moth, midge; fine straw, chaff; quiet, calm’.
meɫr, r/u-declension: GDSg meɫ-u (Bible); r-stem: GDSg meɫer (Hexaemeron, see K.
Muradyan 1984: 263L16, 265L1, 265L18, 266L18); later also: o-stem: ISg meɫr-o-v;
*meɫu, GDSg meɫu-i, ISg meɫu-a-w (cf. as-u-i vs. asr, gen. as-u ‘fleece’, q.v.)
‘honey’ (Bible+). ●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects. In a number of N, NW, W and SE peripheral
dialects a metathesis has taken place: Aslanbek mɛrɫə, Axalc‘xa, Karin, Xarberd
mɛrɫ, Sebastia mɛṙɫ, Salmast merɫ, Maraɫa məɛrɫ. Some dialects display forms with a
final -ə, Suč‘ava méɫrə, Aslanbek mɛrɫə, Zeyt‘un méɫṙ/r/yə, Goris, Šamaxi mɛ́
ɫrə
[HAB 3: 303a].
Hamšen *xelaṙ meɫr or *xent‘ meɫr ‘wild intoxicating poisonous honey’ (lit.
‘crazy honey’) made of *eɫri, a shrub with yellow flowers resembling laši (Ačaṙean
1913: 295b, 459a, 463b). It is remarkable that already ancient authors testify such
honey in these areas. For instance, in Xenophon, Anabasis 4.8.20 (2001: 375; Arm.
transl. 1970: 107; note by S. Krkyašaryan 26548) the Greeks who had eaten honey
somewhere between the lands of Macronians and Colchians seemed like
exceedingly drunk or even crazy.
●ETYM Derived from the PIE word for ‘honey’, *meli-t-, cf. Hitt. militt-/malitt- n.,
CLuw. mallit- n., Gr. μέλι, -ιτος n., Lat. mel, mellis n., OIr. mil, Goth. miliþ, Alb.
mjáltë, etc., see Hübschmann 1897: 473; HAB 3: 302; Pokorny 1959: 723; Starke
1990: 190-193; Mallory/Adams 1997: 271a; Demiraj 1997: 105, 270-271;
Kloekhorst 2008: 580. One usually reconstructs a heteroclitic paradigm nom. *mel-it, obl. *mel-n- (cf. Lat. gen. mellis), for a discussion and references, see Pokorny
1959: 723; Frisk 2: 201; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 603 = 1995, 1: 517; Olsen
1999: 169.
In order to explain the r/u-declension (on which see s.v. asr ‘fleece’) of the
Armenian word one assumes a blend of *meli- ‘honey’ and *medh
u- n. ‘mead, sweet
drink, honey’93: Skt. mádhu- n. ‘sweet drink, anything sweet, honey, soma’, YAv.
maδu- n. ‘wine made of berries’, Gr. μέϑυ n. ‘intoxicating drink, wine’, Toch. B mīt
n. ‘honey’, OHG mito ‘mead’, OCS medъ ‘honey’, etc. (Meillet 1890: 401; Gauthiot
1910-11: 2681; HAB 3: 302; Pokorny 1959: 723; J̌
ahukyan 1959: 185; 1982: 120,
135; Solta 1960: 182-184; È. Tumanjan 1978: 300-301; Clackson 1994: 126, 161;
Olsen 1999: 168-169; Matzinger 2005: 59256; for *medh
u-, see also Mayrhofer
EWAia 2, 1996: 302-303; Mallory/Adams 1997: 271; Adams 1999: 461).94
The direct derivation of Arm. *meɫu- from *medh
u- (see Matzinger 2005: 59256
with refer.) is untenable.
meɫu, a-stem: GDSg meɫu-i (Gēorg 13th cent.), GDPl meɫu-a-c‘ (twice in the Bible)
‘bee’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects. In T‘iflis, Ararat and Łarabaɫ meɫu has been
replaced by *meɫr-a-čanč lit. ‘honey-bee’; note also Ozim meɫri tɫɛz vs. Van tɫɛz
‘bumble-bee’ [HAB 3: 301b]. Maraɫa has diminutive forms mɛɫ-uk, mɔɫ-iky [Ačaṙean
1926: 412], cf. also Salmast meɫr-uk, through contamination with meɫr ‘honey’
[HAB 3: 301b], Kak‘avaberd mɛ́
ɫ-ak ‘wild bee’ [H. Muradyan 1967: 179b].
●ETYM Derived from meɫr, gen. meɫ-u ‘honey’ (q.v.). For meɫ-u ‘bee’ vs. meɫ-r, gen.
meɫ-u ‘honey’ compare eɫǰer-u ‘stag’ vs. eɫǰewr ‘horn’ (see HAB 2: 24a; J̌
ahukyan
1982: 135; Clackson 1994: 117); compare also *asu, gen. asu-i vs. asr, gen. asu ‘wool, fleece’ (q.v.). For a discussion, see also Olsen 1999: 540, 542. Further note
ac-u ‘garden-bed’ (q.v.).
Arm. meɫu, a-stem ‘bee’ may reflect a QIE feminine *melit-eh2- (cf. Gr. μέλισσα,
-ττα f. ‘bee’, possibly from *melit-ih2-, see Frisk 2: 201) through analogical *melutāafter PArm. *meɫu- ‘honey’ and/or after the pattern of eɫǰer-u ‘stag’ vs. eɫǰewr ‘horn’.
meɫ(-k‘) a-stem (mostly pl. tant.) ‘sin, crime’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Dialectally ubiquitous [HAB 3: 299a].
●ETYM Probably connected with Gr. μέλεος ‘idle, useless; (after Homer) unhappy,
miserable’, βλασφημέω ‘to speak profanely of sacred things; to slander’, Lith. mẽlas
‘lie’ (Žem. mãlas ’Lüge’ and Latv. màlds ’Irrtum’ may reflect *mol-, see Schrijver
1991: 457), OIr. mell ‘destruction’, MIr. mell ‘fault, sin’, etc. (Bugge 1893: 18;
Hübschmann 1897: 473Nr281; HAB 3: 298b; Makaev 1974: 61; Klingenschmitt 1982:
81-83; Schrijver 1991: 457). Derived from *mel-s-eh2- (see Olsen 1999: 64-65).
Probably related with Arm. *mol(-or)- ‘to err, to be confused, mistaken; to become
mad’ (q.v.), as is suggested by Meillet (1894b: 279); see also HAB 3: 339b-340a
(Ačaṙyan is sceptical about the connection with *mol-); J̌
ahukyan 1987: 138; Olsen
1999: 64-65, 338. For the o-grade cf. also the Baltic evidence.
According to Bugge (1893: 18), here also belongs meɫmex/ɫ. Rejected by Ačaṙyan
(HAB 3: 301b); accepted in J̌
ahukyan 1987: 138; Olsen 1999: 64-65.
meṙanim, 3sg.aor. meṙ-a-w, partic. meṙ-eal ‘dead’, etc. (abundant evidence in the
Bible, Astuacaturean 1895: 1006-1010) ‘to die’ (Bible+); an-meṙ ‘immortal’
(Agat‘angeɫos).
●DIAL Dialectally ubiquitous [HAB 3: 304b].
●ETYM Since Klaproth, NHB, Petermann, etc. (see HAB 3: 304b), linked with
cognate forms deriving from PIE *mer- ‘to disappear, vanish’, ‘to die’, cf. Skt. mar-
‘to die’, Hitt. mer-zi, pret. 3sg. me-ir-ta ‘to disappear, vanish’, etc. (from an active
root aorist 3sg. *mér-t, Oettinger 1979: 104-106; Barton 1985: 13; 1989); pres. *mrie- > PIIr. *mr̥ya-: Skt. mriyáte ‘to die’ vs. caus māráyati ‘to kill’, Av. miriia-, Oss.
mælyn/mælun ‘to die’, Lat. morior, OCS mrěti, etc., see Hübschmann 1897: 473;
HAB 3: 304; Pokorny 1959: 735; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 318; Mallory/Adams
1997: 150a; Cheung 2007: 264-265; Kloekhorst 2008: 577.
The ‘unexpected’ trilled -ṙ- (Clackson 1994: 226145; Ravnæs 1991: 881) most
probably comes from sigmatic aorist meṙ- < *mer-s- (Klingenschmitt 1982: 221,
242, 277; Barton 1989: 146-149; Kortlandt 1996: 41 = 2003: 115; cf. J̌
ahukyan
1982: 181; 1987: 138, 181; differently or alternatively: Meillet 1892: 165; 1936: 54,
109; Schmitt 1981: 136; Klingenschmitt 1982: 220-221; Barton 1989: 145-146), cf.
Skt. mr̥ṣ-i 1.sg.inj. ‘ich möchte sterben’ (see Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 318).
merk, o-stem: GDSg merk-o-y, GDPl merk-o-c‘ (Bible+); GDPl merk-u-c‘ in Mark
14.51 (Astuacaturean 1895: 1012c; Olsen 1999: 54), later also a-stem ‘nude, naked;
mere, bare’ (Bible+).
●DIAL The basic form merk is present in Nor Naxiǰewan, Axalc‘xa, Karin, Ararat,
Moks, Hačən, etc.; Svedia and Zeyt‘un have *merk-ik, with the diminutive suffix -ik
[HAB 3: 308b].
A compound *mawr-ē-merk ‘completely naked’ is found in Polis, Xarberd,
Č‘arsančag [Ačaṙean 1913: 804a], Van, Nor Naxiǰewan, Sebastia, Aslanbek; cf. Adana *merk i mōrē ‘poor’ [HAB 3: 308b]; compare Muš, Xian *matorean
‘completely naked’ from Persian mādar ‘mother’ + ūryān ‘naked’ through haplology
(Ačaṙyan 1913: 804a).
The Armenian compound literally means ‘naked (as born) from the mother’;
compare P‘awstos Buzand 4.59 (1883=1984: 152L1f; transl. Garsoïan 1989: 179):
merkac‘uc‘in zna ibrew i mōrē “stripped her naked as she had come from her
mother’s [womb]”; 5.3 (160L-8f; transl. 189): Et hraman <...> unel zna, ew merkanal
ibrew i mōrē : “ordered to seize him, strip him naked as he had come from her
mother’s [womb]”.
●ETYM Related to PIE *negw
-no-: Skt. nagná- ‘naked’ (RV+), YAv. maɣna- ‘naked’
(< *magna-), Khot. būnaa-, Oss. bægnæg ‘naked’ (< *bagnaka-), Gr. γυμνός ‘naked,
unarmed’ (from *nogw
-no-, with -υ- due to the following labiovelar), Lith. núogas
‘naked’, etc. [HAB 3: 308; Pokorny 1959: 769; Frisk 1: 332-333; Mayrhofer EWAia
2, 1996: 5-6]. The *e-grade is seen in Hitt. nekumant- ‘naked’ (for references, see
below). The PIE word is considered to have had a static inflection: nom. *nogw
-s,
Gen. *negw
-s (see Beekes 1992: 18312; 1994: 91-94; 1995: 196, 198).
The initial m- of Arm. merk has been linked with the Iranian (Meillet 1921: 227;
1922l: 227; see also Walde/Hofmann 2, 1954: 185; for other references, see HAB 3:
308b; Solta 1960: 228-229; on Petersson’s view, see below), and the -r- is explained
by restoring a QIE *megw
-ro- (HAB 3: 308; Frisk 1: 333; Olsen 1999: 54-55). In
view of the absence of cognate forms with the suffix *-ro-, however, Meillet (1930:
186) welcomes the hypothesis of Benveniste (1930: 187), who derives merk from
*megw
(e)do-: Lat. nūdus, etc. involving a development comparable to that of *dw >
rk and a subsequent metathesis -kr > -rk (see also Solta 1960: 228-229; de
Lamberterie 1992: 257; sceptical: Olsen 1999: 55115; Viredaz 2003: 7158). For a
further discussion on the PIE etymon, see Grammont 1909; Janda 1996: 89-92.
The Avestan form is explained through dissimilation n...n > m...n, although
Meillet (1930: 186) considers this hypothesis as ‘téméraire’ because there are no
other examples. Since all the Iranian forms, except for the Avestan, point to initial
*b-, Cheung (2002: 172; cf. Szemerényi 1966: 217) reconstructs PIr. *bagna-, for
the Avestan form assuming a (partial) assimilation: b...n > m...n. On the other hand,
the theory on dissimilation *negw
no- > *megw
no- would be comparable with
*negw
no- > *negw
mo- seen in Hitt. nekumant- ‘naked’ (see Tischler HEG 2.7, 1991:
307-309; Kloekhorst 2008: 602-603; cf. Lindeman 1965: 32). One may also think of
a labial assimilation, cf. PIE *h3nogwh- ‘nail’ > Toch. *mekwā ‘nails’, perhaps also
Arm. magil ‘claw’.
Arm. merk may be somehow associated with lerk ‘hairless’. From PIE *negw
-nowe might arrive at a PArm. *lerk through dissimilation n...n > l...n (cf. Gr. λυμνός),
with -r- as in merk. For literature and a discussion, see also Petersson 1920: 87-89;
Makaev 1974: 59-60. Further see s.v. lerk ‘hairless’.
The complex relationship between merk, lerk, as well as bok ‘barefoot’ (< *bh
oso-,
cf. Lith. bãsas, OCS bosъ ‘barefooted’, etc.) is discussed by Winter 1980. A
contamination of PArm. *nok- (< *nogw
-, cf. Lith. núogas, OCS nagъ ‘naked’) and
*boho- ‘barefoot’ would result in bok more easily if one takes into account also
another theoretically possible form, viz. PArm. *be/okno- (cf. Iran. *bagna). Hamp
(1986-87) treats bok ‘barefoot’ as *bh
oso-gw
o-, a compound with *-gw
o- ‘going’ (cf. Olsen 1999: 208, 700, 786; Beekes 2003: 160, 170). For the contraction *-oso- >
*-oho- > -o-, see Clackson 1994: 53.
Bearing in mind what has been said on Greek and Iranian forms, one may perhaps
try to introduce another form wich, as far as I am aware, has not received an
etymological explanation, that is Arm. dial. *tkl-or and *tkl-oz ‘naked’ (see Ačaṙean
1913: 1031b): QIE *nogw
-no- > PArm. *nuk-no- > *tukno- > *tklor. Alternatively:
*nogw
e/odh
os- (cf. Lat. nūdus, OIr. nocht, OHG nackt, etc., see Walde/Hofmann 2,
1954: 185; Schrijver 1991: 274-275; Beekes 1994: 93-94; 1994a: 7) > PArm.
*nuk(V)to- > *lukto- with l- as in (or from) lerk ‘hairless’ and Gr. λυμνός. This
etymology is, of course, highly hypothetical.
Orel 1994a: 38 derives Arm. merk from IE *merəg- ‘shine, shimmer’ (cf. Lith.
márgas ‘motley’, etc.), which is unconvincing.
merj ‘near’, merjim, merjenam ‘to approach, touch’ (Bible+).
For Biblical attestations and a philological discussion, see Clackson 1994: 150,
230207.
●ETYM Since Meillet and others, connected with Gr. μέχρι ‘as far as; up to, about,
nearly; until; as long as, wilst’ (see HAB 3: 308-309). PArm. *merji is seen in
merjenam < *merji-anam (see HAB ibid., and especially Clackson 1994: 230207).
Adontz (1937: 10-11) assumes *me-ĝh
r-i, a compound of *me- ‘in’ and the locative
of the word for ‘hand’, thus ‘at hand’. In view of Hitt. keššar ‘hand’ (cf. loc.
kiš(še)ri), one has to start with *me-ĝh
sr-i (Frisk 2: 222; sceptical: Hamp 1983: 7).
For a thorough discussion, see Clackson 1994: 150-152.
The proto-form *me-ĝh
sr-i helps to explain the absence of depalatalization of
*-ĝh
- before *-r- in Armenian [Kortlandt 1985b: 10; 1986: 42 = 2003: 58, 71;
Beekes 2003: 176, 207]. See also2.1.22.7.
mek‘, gen. mer, acc.-dat. mez, abl. i mēnǰ, instr. me(a)wk‘ ‘we’ (Bible+); *mer- in
compounds [HAB 3: 309b].
The Armenian translator of the Grammar of Dionysius Thrax records a dual
monk‘ ‘we both’ (Adonc‘ 1915=2008: 28; see also J̌
ahukyan 1954: 98). According to
Karst (1901: 134-1353 = 2002: 13525), monk‘ in fact must be seen as a plural form
found in the dialect of Łarabaɫ as munk‘.
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects, mostly with a nasal epenthesis, *menk‘ [HAB 3:
3109; AčaṙLiak 2, 1954: 58, 60]. The nasalles form is found in Hamšen mek‘, mɛk/k‘
(e.g. mɛk‘ astak‘ ‘we said’, see Ačaṙyan 1947: 72, 245), Agulis mik‘y [Ačaṙean 1935:
147, 374], Meɫri mɛ‘/ik‘y [Aɫayan 1954: 181, 280a], Šamaxi mɛk‘ [Baɫramyan 1964:
105, 214]; note also Hadrut‘ and Šaɫax-Xcaberd muk‘ vs. Łarabaɫ munk‘ [Davt‘yan
1966: 427]. Further see H. Muradyan 1982: 327-328.
On Łarabaɫ munk‘ (Patkanov 1869: 69; Davt‘yan 1966: 427; cf. Cirbied 1823:
753), see also above. The labial vowel may have been taken from duk‘ pl. ‘you’;
typologically compare OCS my next to Lith. mẽs and Arm. mek‘, with -y taken from
vy pl. ‘you’ (cf. Lith. jū̃
s, etc.).
●ETYM Compared with Lith. mẽs; Latv. mẽs, OCS my, etc., see Meillet 1894: 161;
1936: 92; Hübschmann 1897: 474; HAB 3: 309b with further references; Schmitt
1981: 115, 117; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 141, 147. For a further discussion, in particular of
the relationship with PIE ‘you’ and the analogical nature of m-, as well as on *n̥s-me,etc., see Rix 1992: 178-179; Beekes 1995: 208-209; Szemerényi 1996: 217-219;
Mallory/Adams 1997: 454-455; Matzinger 1997a.
For a discussion on *-ro- of me-r and je-r (cf. Lat. nostrum, etc.; see also s.v.
iw-r), see Meillet 1927b: 2; 1936: 92; Schmitt 1981: 117; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 147, 150;
Weitenberg 1983a: 1131, 115-117; Kortlandt 1984a: 100 = 2003: 47.
The -ǰ in 1pl.abl. mēn-ǰ and 2pl.abl. jēn-ǰ is hardly related with -ǰ in kn-oǰ and mioǰ, as is assumed in Charpentier 1909: 253; AčaṙLiak 2, 1954: 57; J̌
ahukyan 1982:
150. According to an ingenious explanation of Kortlandt (1984a: 103-104 = 2003:
50; cf. Beekes 1995: 117-118), it continues earlier *-i̯- from a PIE ending *-ios seen
in AblPl *bh
-ios vs. *-bh
os.
mēg, o-stem: ISg mig-o-v in the Bible (three times); Movsēs Kaɫankatuac‘i (7th cent.)
[V. Aṙak‘elyan 1983: 188L9]; Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i (9-10th cent.); i- or a-stem:
GDSg mig-i in the Bible (twice); IPL mig-ō-k‘ [= -a-w-k‘] (Grigor Narekac‘i), if
reliable, points to a-stem. LocSg i mig-i (Bible, four times, and Grigor Magistros)
does not necessarily point to i- or a-stem. For locatives in -i, also with o-stems, see
2.2.1.5. Note that in Job one finds both ISg mig-o-v and LocSg i mig-i. See also
Olsen 1999: 183, 183339. ‘mist, fog, darkness’ (Bible+).
In Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.86 (1913=1991: 232L11; transl. Thomson 1978: 239):
koč‘ē zmēg barbaṙov “He summons the mist with [his] voice”; cf. Job 38.34:
koč‘ic‘es zmēg barbaṙov : καλέσεις δὲ νέφος φωνῇ. Here mēg renders Gr. νέφος
‘cloud’.
●DIAL See s.v. *mg-l-im3 ‘to cloud’.
●ETYM Since Klaproth 1831: 103b, NHB 2: 258c, and others, linked with Skt.
meghá- m. ‘cloud, gloomy weather’, Av. maēɣa- m. ‘cloud’, Gr. ὀμίχλη ‘mist, fog’,
Lith. miglà ‘fog’, Dutch dial. miggelen ‘staubregnen’, etc. [Hübschmann 1883: 42;
1897: 474; Kern 1894: 108; Meillet 1936: 28; HAB 3: 311-312; Pokorny 1959: 712;
Solta 1960: 186; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 107; 137, 180]. From *h3meigh
-o- or
*h3meigh
-eh2-. Olsen (1999: 183) suggests to explain the apparent vacillation
between o- and (probably) a-stems from an old pattern masculine : collective (like
Lat. locus : loca).
Hübschmann (1897: 474, s.v. mēz ‘urine’) points out that Arm. mēg may also be
an Iranian loan. Benveniste (1957-58: 60) is inclined to the Iranian origin. See also
Schmitt 1983: 108, 109; L. Hovhannisyan 1990: 213 (with reservation); Olsen 1999:
183. In view of the absence of a “prothetic” vowel in Armenian (cf. Hovdhaugen
1968: 120, 130), the loan theory becomes more widespread: Austin 1941: 88;
Beekes 1969: 22; 2003: 168; Beekes apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 110b. Greppin
(1981a: 505) also treats mēg as an Iranian loan and notes that the expected form
would be *amēg.
Dial. *mg-l-im3 ‘to cloud’ (q.v.), which is mentioned only by scholars from
Armenia, favours the native origin in view of its internal -l- that is reminiscent of the
Greek and Balto-Slavic forms.
I hypothetically propose the following solution for the lack of an initial vowel in
Armenian: *h3m- > PArm. *om- > *(u)m-V́- (see 2.1.17.3).
mēǰ, o-stem: GDSg miǰ-o-y, LocSg i miǰ-i, etc. (Bible+); later also a-stem: ISg miǰ-aw in Plato (cf. also GDPl miǰ-a-c‘ in a number of dialects) ‘the middle; (anatom.) back’ (Bible+), ‘mid, middle’ (Agat‘angeɫos, Paterica); ənd mēǰ, i mēǰ ‘in the
middle, amid’ (Bible+).
●DIAL The forms mēǰ ‘middle’ and frozen pl. mēǰk‘ (anatom.) ‘back’ are ubiquitous
in the dialects [HAB 3: 313b]. Remarkably, the frozen mēǰk‘ is attested already in
the oldest epic fragments as accusative z-mēǰ-k‘ and allative i mēǰ-k‘ (Movsēs
Xorenac‘i 2.40, 1913=1991: 179L4f), but in some dialects one still finds GDPl *miǰa-c‘ next to the nominative *mēǰ-k‘. For more detail on these and related issues, see
s.v. mawru-k‘ ‘beard’.
Hamšen has preserved the old singular mēǰ (anatom.) ‘back’ > mɛč‘ [Ačaṙyan
1947: 245]. Traces of the old paradigm may also be found, cf. e.g. Sasun > T‘alin
mičvu ‘of my back’ attested in a famous folk-song (see Ṙ. Xač‘atryan 1999: 118a,
three times) vs. ClArm. gen. miǰ-o-y. The -v- of this form may be analogical after -vi
(original dual) frequent in body-part names.
In some dialects, the form mēǰ ‘in the middle’ is found with a nasal epenthesis.
For this form and Romani mindž ‘female genitals’ as a borrowing from Armenian,
see Clackson 2004.
●ETYM From PIE *medh
i̯o-: Skt. mádhya- adj. ‘middle, located in the middle’, subst.
n. ‘the middle’ (RV+), madhyā́ adv. ‘in the middle’ (Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996:
303), OAv. maidiia-, YAv. maiδiia- ‘middle, the middle’, Gr. μέσος, Aeol. μέσσος,
Cret. Boeot. μέττος ‘middle’ (Rix 1992: 90), Lat. medius adj. ‘mid, middle’, medium
n. ‘middle’, Goth. midjis, OHG mitti ‘located in the middle’, Russ. mežá ‘boundary’,
etc.
Arm. mēǰ derives from *medh
i̯o- > PArm. *meidi̯o- through regular palatalization
*-dh
i̯- > -ǰ- (2.1.22.1) and anticipation of of *-i- or development *-e- > *-ei- before
palatal (2.1.2). For the etymology and a phonological discussion, see Klaproth 1831:
103a; NHB 2: 259a; HAB 3: 313 with lit.; Meillet 1936: 52, 73-74, 101; Pisani
1950: 179; Pokorny 1959: 706; Clackson 1994: 60, 2119; Mallory/Adams 1997:
380b; Olsen 1999: 25, 811, 830, 911.
PArm. *meidya- > *miǰ-a- ‘the back’ (vs. *-yo- ‘middle’), pl. tant. in practically
all the dialects, possibly points to a neuter noun (cf. Skt. mádhya- n. ‘the middle’,
Lat. medium n. ‘middle’) and may be derived from neuter plural *medh
i(e)h2-. Less
probably, it can be traced back to fem. *medh
i̯eh2-, cf. Russ. mežá ‘boundary’, etc.
mi, gen. mi-o-y, dat.-loc. mi-um, instr. mi-o-v; also gen.-loc. mi-o-ǰ, abl. mi-o-ǰ-ē ‘one’,
‘a’ (Bible+); compositional mi-a- (Bible+), me- < *mi-a- in me-tasan, i-stem: GDPl
metasan-i-c‘, IPl metasan-i-w-k‘ ‘eleven’ (Bible+), me-kin ‘single, only, simple,
mere, clear, explained’ (Hexaemeron, John Chrysostom, Evsebius of Caesarea,
Severian of Gabala, Cyril of Jerusalem, Book of Chries, Anania Širakac‘i, George of
Pisidia, etc.), meknem ‘to divide, separate, isolate, stretch, explain’ (Bible+); mews,
miws, gen. miws-o-y, dat. miws-um (Agat‘angeɫos, Evsebius of Caesarea, Gregory of
Nyssa, etc.) ‘another, the other’ (Bible+) (= mi + ews, NHB 2: 282c); mianam ‘to be
united’ (Bible+); miayn ‘only’ (Bible+), compositional men-a- (Bible+); miayn-ak
‘alone’ (Movsēs Xorenac‘i, etc.); *mimean- ‘each other’, acc. mimean-s, gen.-dat.
mimean-c‘, instr. mimeam-b-k‘ (Bible+); miak (Movsēs Xorenac‘i, Philo, etc.), mēk
(Plato, Mxit‘ar Goš, etc.) ‘one’; mi-n ‘one’ (George of Pisidia, Grigor Narekac‘i,
Nersēs Lambronac‘i, etc.), minawor ‘isolated’ (Agat‘angeɫos+); hellenophile mu
‘one’. For the paradigm and a morphological discussion, see Meillet 1913: 66-68; 1936:
90-91; Schmitt 1981: 128; Weitenberg 1984a; Clackson 1994: 64-67.
●DIAL Ararat mi, Akn postposed indefinite article mi. Reduced indefinite article mə
(m’ before a vowel) in Polis, Hamšen, Sebastia, Xarberd, Tigranakert, Zeyt‘un, etc.;
note also postposed -əm in Axalc‘xa and Karin. The form min is found in Łarabaɫ,
J
̌
uɫa, Polis, etc. The forms mēk ‘one’ and miaynak > *menak, etc. ‘alone’ are
ubiquitous [HAB 3: 319a]. Interesting is J̌
uɫa mekn ‘correctly, right, upright’,
referring e.g. to the way of sitting or holding a book (Ačaṙean 1940: 376a).
An exceptional and obscure form is found in Agulis, muyn, C‘ɫna mun, which is
not explained by Ačaṙyan (1935: 60, 375; HAB 3: 318b; for textual illustrations, see
M. Zak‘aryan 2008: 228). The vocalism here can hardly be due to influence of the
labial nasal m-, cf. mis ‘meat’ > mays, mit-k‘ ‘mind’ > maytk‘, etc. The final -an
yields Agulis -un, but this does not solve the problem either because the Agulis form
is muyn, and a proto-form *mian would be obscure. Nor do we have evidence for -
ayn > Agulis -uyn, thus min > *mayn > *muyn is uncertain, too. One is tempted to
consider Łarabaɫ mu- in mu-xrɛk ‘a bit’, which Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 319a) hesitantly
compares with literary mu. If this proves to be correct, the form mu should be
regarded as more than an artificial hellenizing creation. This is reminiscent of the
case of Łarabaɫ munk‘ and hellen. monk‘ vs. basic mek‘ ‘we’ (q.v.).
●ETYM Connected with Gr. μία f. ‘one’ < *smih2-, Alb. një ‘one’ (see Kortlandt
1986: 40 = 2003: 70; Clackson 1994: 175) vs. Gr. εἱ̃ς ‘one’ < *sem-s, cf. Toch. A sas,
B ṣe ‘one; same’, in pl. ‘some’ (see Hilmarsson 1984; Adams 1999: 658-659), Gr.
ἅμα ‘at the same time, together’, ὁμός ‘one and the same’, Skt. samá- ‘the same’,
Av. hama-, MPers., NPers. ham ‘the same’, Lat. semel ‘once, a single time’, etc.
Hübschmann 1883: 43; 1897: 474; HAB 3: 317-318 with rich lit.; Pokorny 1959:
902; Mallory/Adams 1997: 399a.
The PArm. original paradigm *hem- < *sem- (masc.) vs. *miya- < *smii̯eh2-
(fem.) was probably reshaped into *miyo- (masc.) *miya- (fasc.), cf. gen. mioy, etc.;
traces of *miya- > *mea- may be seen in mekin ‘single’ and metasan ‘eleven’, see
Hübschmann ibid.; HAB ibid.; Meillet 1978: 69-71 < RevEtArm 5, 1925: 1-4; 1936:
99-100; Schmitt 1981: 128, 131; for further references and a discussion, see
Clackson 1994: 46-47, 175-176, 20850; cf. Kortlandt 1994a: 253, 253 = 2003: 98,
101; Olsen 1999: 174, 812, 826-827; Beekes 2003: 190. On mi-ayn, see Meillet
1922h.
It has been argued that the oblique forms mioy and mium on the one hand and
mioǰ on the other represent the original masc. and fem. sets of pronominal endings,
respectively (Kortlandt 1984a: 100-101; 1994a: 253 = 2003: 47-48, 98; Weitenberg
1984a; 1989: 68-69). For a critical analysis of this view, see Clackson 1994: 63-67.
The alternant form mi-n may reflect the accusative of mi (Kortlandt 1994a: 253, 256
= 2003: 98, 101, see also 59).
It is tempting to regard the dialectal (Axalc‘xa, Karin) postposed form -əm ‘a’ as
a relic of PArm. *(h)im < *sem- ‘one’.
mi prohibitive particle ‘not’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects; Łarabaɫ has mí, mír, məɛ́
r, míl, mɛ́
l (see Davt‘yan
1966: 428), pl. mrɛ́
k‘; with a final -n : Agulis, Meɫri mä́n [HAB 3: 316a].All the forms cited by Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 316a) are accented except for the m’-
forms before words with an initial vowel.
●ETYM From PIE *meh1 prohibitive particle: Skt. mā́ (RV+), Av. mā, Gr. μή, Alb.
mo; cf. also Toch. mā ‘not’, not a prohibitive particle. If the word originally meant
‘not’ and later obtained the function of the prohibitive, we are dealing with an
Armeno-Greek-Alb.-Indo-Iranian grammatical isogloss. In the tables of J̌
ahukyan
(1987: 99, 137), Toch. and Phryg. or Thrac. are included, too.
mic, AblSg i məcē (Philo) ‘(fetid) mud’ (Philo, Gregory of Nyssa, Dawit‘ Anyaɫt‘);
mceal ‘dirty, dark’ (in the dictionary entitled Aṙjeṙn baṙaran, Venice, 1865); with
expressive z-: z-mc-eal ‘impure, sinful’ in 2 Paralipomenon 27.2 (Xalat‘eanc‘ 1899:
96b): ew takawin žoɫovurdk‘n zmceal ēin : καὶ ἔτι ὁ λαὸς κατεφϑείρετο. For
philological analysis of this Biblical form (unknown to NHB and Astuacaturean
1895), see Ačaṙean 1908a: 14-15; HAB 3: 321.
According to HAB 3: 321a, here belongs also mjut‘iwn ‘duskiness, darkness (of
smoke)’ in the letter from Bishop Giwt (5th cent.) to Vač‘ē (king of Aɫuank‘) apud
Movsēs Kaɫankatuac‘i 1.11, the passage see NHB 2: 286a. The critical text by V.
Aṙak‘elyan (1983: 22L4) has here mɫj-k-ut‘iwn (var. mɫjut‘iwn), however. The
passage runs as follows: zmɫjkut‘iwn cxoyn i spitakut‘iwn šušani šrǰec‘er “you
turned <...> the darkness of the smoke into the witeness of a lily” (transl. Dowsett
1961: 13). We may posit thus a by-form *miɫj- probably metathesized from *mic-ɫ-
(or contaminated with mɫj-k- ‘to strangle, suffocate’, on which see s.v. heɫj-a-mɫj-uk
‘drowned, suffocated, oppressed’); see also s.v. *meɫc/j prob. ‘soot’.
●ETYM Scheftelowitz (1904-05, 2: 30) compares mic with Saxon smitta ‘dirt, spot’,
OHG smiz ‘spot’, etc., positing *smid-i̯o- for Armenian. This is accepted in Pokorny
1959: 966, listing these Armenain and Germanic forms under *smei-d- ‘to smear’
and adding OCS smědъ ‘dark, swarthy, dusky’ (see also Saradževa 1986: 95). Adams
apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 528b considers this connection uncertain.
The sound development *-di̯- > Arm. -c- is untenable. One rather expects -č- (see
2.1.22.1). More probably, mic, if etymologized correctly, reflects an analogical
nominative *(s)mid-s (see 2.2.1.2). One may also consider an influence of other
synonymous words such as aɫc- vs. aɫt ‘dirt, filth’, piɫc ‘filthy, abominable’ vs. pɫt-or
‘id.’. One may also assume a connection to (or contamination with) Arm. *meɫc/j
prob. ‘soot’ and PIE *smerd- ‘to stink’, cf. Lith. smìrdžiu, smirdė́ti ‘to stink’, etc.
(see above on the by-form *miɫj-).
mis, o-stem: GDSg ms-o-y, AblSg i ms-o-y (abundant evidence in the Bible, see
Astuacaturean 1895: 1018-1019), a-stem: GDPl ms-a-c‘, AblPl i ms-a-c‘ (Plato,
Yovhannēs Sarkawag) ‘flesh, meat’ (Bible+); ms-an, an-stem: IPl msan-am-b-k‘ (a
few attestations in Leviticus, rendering Gr. μηρίον, and once in Gtregory of Nyssa)
‘the fleshy part of loins’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Dialectally ubiquitous [HAB 3: 324a].
●ETYM Since long (Schröder, Klaproth, NHB, etc., see HAB 3: 324a), connected
with the PIE word for ‘meat’, *mēmso-: Skt. māṃsá- n. (vs. mā́s, acc.sg. n.), Goth.
mimz, OCS męso, OPr. menso, mensā, Toch. B mīsa n., f. pl. tant., Alb. mish, etc.
(Hübschmann 1897: 474; HAB 3: 323-324; Pokorny 1959: 725; J̌
ahukyan 1987:
138; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 343-344; Demiraj 1997: 269-270; Mallory/Adams 1997: 374-375; Adams 1999: 464; Olsen 1999: 22, 299; Beekes 2003: 168-169). For
the development *-Ns > Arm. -s, see 2.1.11.
For the form *ms-an-n compare mkan-un-k‘, mkan-an-c‘ ‘back’ (for a discussion,
see Olsen 1999: 298-299); cf. also lusanunk‘ which presupposes a NSg *lus-an-n
‘lynx’ (q.v.). One may think of QIE *mē(m)s-n- seen in Gr. μῆνιγξ ‘skin, cuticle’, but
the appurtenance of this Greek word is disputed.
According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 323b), Arm. mrc‘-an-unk‘, attested only in
Oskip‘orik, is an erroneous form. In the case the form is reliable, one is tempted to
posit an older *mirs- < *mis-r- from *mēms-r-, cf. Gr. μηρός m. ‘the upper fleshy
part of the shank’, Lat. membrum n. ‘limb’, etc. This is, of course, highly
conjectural.
Arm. mis has two stems: o- and a- (cf. J̌
ahukyan 1959: 321b). It is remarkable
that none of the 70 Biblical attestations listed in Astuacaturean 1895: 1018-1019 is
in plural. Besides, the o-declension is not found in plural, whereas the evidence for
a-declension comes almost exclusively from the plural. This makes me assume that,
next to PArm. neuter singular *mis-o- (reflected in GDSg ms-o-y), there was a
PArm. neuter plural or collective *mis-a- (reflected in GDPl ms-a-c‘) deriving from
PIE *mēms-h2- (cf. Specht 1947: 50 and Adams 1999: 464 on Baltic, Tocharian,
etc.).
mit, a-stem; frequently in pl. mit-k‘, GDPl mt-ac‘; NHB cites no attestations for
singular oblique cases apart from loc. i mt-i and ISg mt-aw (only in z-mtaw acem ‘to
consider’) ‘mind, intelligence’ (Bible+).
Among numerous phrases mit dnem ‘to consider, attend; to view or contemplate
attentively’, i mti dnem ‘to decide, confirm in one’s mind’ < *‘to put in(to) one’s
mind’ (Bible+) deserves particular attention. In MidArm. we find mitk‘ dnel ‘to pay
attention, be attentive’ in Amirdovlat‘ Amasiac‘i (15th cent.) [MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992:
138a], and in ModArm.: mitk‘(ə) dnel, mtk‘in dnel, mtk‘um (loc.) dnel ‘to decide,
intend, aim’ [Malxaseanc‘ HBB 3: 339-340; HayLezDarjBaṙ 1975: 436a, 444,
445a]. See also on dialects.
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects, mainly as frozen *mit-k‘. Alongside with *mit-k‘,
some dialects, such as T‘iflis, Ararat, Agulis, Polis, have also mit [HAB 3: 325-326].
Frozen IPl mtok‘ (< mt-a-w-k‘) is attested in the work of the 18th-century famous
poet Sayat‘-Nova, who spoke and wrote in the dialect of T‘iflis (see K‘oč‘oyan
1963: 16, 131).
Nor Naxiǰewan, Polis mitk‘ə dnel ‘to intend, decide to do smth.’ [Ačaṙean 1913:
782b].
●ETYM Related to Gr. μήδεα ‘counsels, plans, arts’ (pl. of the unattested *μῆδος,
-εος, s-stem neuter), μέδω ‘to protect, rule over’, μέδομαι ‘to provide for, be mindful
of; to plan, contrive, devise’, μήδομαι ‘to be minded, intend; to take care, keep
watch’, Lat. medeor ‘to heal, cure’, Umbrian mers ‘law, justice’ < *medos, etc.
(Hübschmann 1883: 43; 1897: 474-475; HAB 3: 325). From PIE *med-: *mēd- or
*meh1d-; for a discussion, see Beekes 1973: 92; 1988a: 30; Clackson 1994: 147-149;
Meissner 2006: 72-73, 80-83. Arm. mit(-k‘) has been explained from a PIE s-stem
neuter, and the a-stem declension may be built upon the neuter plural-collective
*mēd-es-(e)h2- (Hamp 1983: 5-6; Clackson 1994: 229202). The phrase ‘to put (in) mind’ (mit dnem, etc.) which is present in ClArm,
MidArm., ModArm. and dialects, seems to continue PIE formula *mens- dh
eh1- ‘to
put in the mind’, replacing the first member by mit < *mēd-.
*ml-i/uk, *ml-ak (dial.) ‘midge; bed-bug; nit’
●DIAL Merteköz-Nikomidia mlug ‘nit’, T‘iflis, Ararat mlak ‘midge’, Nor Naxiǰewan
mlag ‘mosquito’, Łarabaɫ mlak‘ ‘bed-bug’, Muš mlig, Van mlik ‘bed-bug’ [HAB 3:
328b], Moks məlik [Orbeli 2002: 290].
●ETYM Together with mlmlem ‘to rub’, etc., related with malem ‘to crush, grind’
(q.v.), see Lidén 1906: 82-83; Meillet 1924: 4-5; HAB 3: 328b; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 138.
mɫeɫ ‘dust, chaff, ash’ in Isaiah 5.24 (rendering Gr. χνοῦς ‘dust’), Philo, Gregory of
Nyssa, Paterica), mṙeɫ ‘id.’ (Paterica, Geoponica) through metathesis (cf. *baṙeɫn <
baɫeɫn ‘bindweed’); mɫeɫem ‘to make turn to dust, incinerate, destroy’ (Yovhan
Ōjnec‘i, Gregory of Nyssa, Colophons); dial. *mɫ-meɫ ‘chaff’.
●DIAL Muš, Alaškert mɫeɫ, mṙeɫ, Xarberd mrɛɫ, Hačən maɫoɫ ‘chaff’ [HAB 3: 332a],
Moks məṙɛɫ, gen. məṙɫan, pl. məṙeɫ-k‘y
ir ‘самая мелкая мякоть соломы’ [Orbeli
2002: 291]; reduplicated: J̌
uɫa mɫmeɫ, Ararat mɫmɛɫ ‘chaff’ [HAB 3: 332a]; Xarberd
mreɫel ‘to annihilate, destroy’, Zeyt‘un mreɫil ‘to vanish, be annihilated, be
destroyed’ [HAB 3: 332a].
●ETYM Probably belongs with malem ‘to crush, grind’ (q.v.), cf. OHG melm ‘dust,
sand’, MHG malmen ‘to crush’, etc. (see HAB 3: 331-332 with references).
Hesitantly Olsen 1999: 953. See also s.v. *muɫ- ‘grinding, crushing’, *mɫmeɫ, *mɫmo/uɫ ‘moth, clothes moth’.
mnam, 1sg.aor. mnac‘-i, 3sg.aor. mnac‘, imper. mna (rich evidence in the Bible, see
Astuacaturean 1895: 1024-1025) ‘to remain, stay, wait’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects. Interesting are: T‘avriz, T‘ehran mnna- with
geminate nasal; Muš, Alaškert aor. mac‘i, imper. manc‘í [HAB 3: 333b].
●ETYM From PIE *men- ‘to remain, stay’: Skt. man- ‘to wait, remain’, YAv. mān-
(mąn-) ‘to remain, dwell’, MPers. NPers. māndan ‘to wait’, Gr. μένω ‘to stay, wait’,
Lat. maneō, ēre ‘to stay, remain; to await; to last, endure’ < *m(o)n-ē- < stative
*m(o)n-eh1- (Beekes apud Schrijver 1991: 457-458; de Vaan 2008: 362; cf. Rikov
1998: 33-34, positing *mn̥h1-eh1-), etc.; the Armenian form reflects *minam < *menā-i̯e-, cf. iterative Gr. ἐπι-μεμηνάκαντι, etc.; 3.sg.aor. mnac‘ ‘he remained’ <
*(e-)menask ̄ ̂
et.
For the etymology and a morphological discussion, see NHB 2: 286c;
Hübschmann 1897: 475; 1899: 46; Grammont 1918: 246; HAB 3: 333b with
references; Meillet 1936: 48, 103, 110; Pokorny 1959: 729; Ernout/Meillet 1959:
383; Łaragyulyan 1961: 55-56, 75-76; Aɫabekyan 1979: 67; K. Schmidt 1980: 42;
1980a: 1-2; Klingenschmitt 1982: 91-92; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 166-168, 176, 186-187,
190-192; Clackson 1994: 80, 106; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 306-307;
Mallory/Adams 1997: 482a; Cheung 2007: 73-74.
mšuš ‘fog’, a MidArm. word [HAB 3: 336a; MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 142b]. Recorded in
Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ [Amalyan 1975: 219Nr391]. In this dictionary it is found also as mšōš,
rendering maṙaxuɫ ‘fog’ (209Nr147). As is pointed out by Amalyan (1975: 405Nr147), this is a dialectal form. One may assume that mšōš reflects an Eastern dialectal
(probably Łarabaɫ, etc.) form with u > ɔ, although the word is not recorded here.
●DIAL Van [Ačaṙean 1913: 789], Ararat [Amatuni 1912: 485b], Sebastia [HAB 3:
336b]; for a possible indirect evidence in Łarabaɫ or surroundings, see above.
Note in a fairy-tale from Iǰewan, the village of Uzunt‘ala (A. Karapetyan <
Hambarjum Karapetyan, 1959: HŽHek‘ 6, 1973: 421, lines 2-3, 9, p. 422, line -13).
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 336b) calls attention to Syriac miš ‘fog’, Assyrian mušu
‘night’, etc. but leaves the origin of the Armenian word open. J̌
ahukyan (1967: 203,
309) compares with Arm. dial. *muž ‘fog’ and mēg ‘fog’ (q.v.), alternatively
pointing out to IE *meis- ‘twinkling, mist’ (for mšuš) and *smeug(h)- ‘smoke’ (for
*muž). These comparisons are uncertain and are not mentioned in his 1982 and
1987. In 1990: 71 J̌
ahukyan mentions mšuš as a word of unknown origin. See also
s.v. *muž ‘fog’.
Is there any relation with Arm. dial.*ašmuš ‘twilight’ (see s.v. *aɫǰ- ‘darkness,
twilight’)?
*moz ‘great, much, mighty, increased’, only in the verb mozanam ‘to become large or
mighty, increase’ (John Chrysostom, Eusebius of Caesarea), caus. mozac‘uc‘anem
(John Chrysostom).
The evidence is scarce, and there are reading variants with -ɫ- and -ṙ- instead of
-z-. Therefore the word should be regarded as uncertain [HAB 3: 337-338].
●ETYM No etymology is accepted by Ačaṙyan [HAB 3: 338a].
See s.v. mec ‘great, big, large’.
mol-im ‘to become mad’ (Bible+), mol-or-im ‘to err, to be confused, mistaken; to
become mad’ (Bible+), in the dialect of Svedia ‘to see badly’, mol-ar ‘erring,
deceiving’ (see Olsen 1999: 338), mol-i ‘mad, furious’ (Bible+), in Eznik Koɫbac‘i
1.22 (5th cent.): ‘a kind of sorcerer’ (see Garamanlean 1931: 646, espec. note 19, and
HAB 3: 339b, referring to the ecstatic fury of the sorcerer or the prophet, mol-ič‘
(prob.) ‘sorcerer’ (Yovhan Mandakuni; see NHB 2: 294a). In P‘awstos Buzand 6.8:
Molis du, dew uremn haraw i k‘ez? “Are you mad, has some devil gotten into you?”
(transl. Garsoïan 1989: 236L-1). For the semantic field cf. šišaɫ. On the ecstatic fury
of the the prophet and/or poet, see Thieme 1968 (< 1954); Schmitt 1967: 302ff;
Gamkrelidz/Ivanov 1984: 835-836; Toporov 1995: 60711.
In T‘ovmay Arcruni (9-10th cent.) 2.1 [V. M. Vardanyan 1985: 124L-1f]: šinen
<...> zormzdakan meheann, ew zkrakapaštut‘ean molut‘iwn borbok‘en i nma : “they
built <...> a temple to Ormizd and lit therein the fire of their erring worship” (transl.
Thomson 1985: 144). A more literal translation would go as follows: “<...> and
kindled therein the erring/fury of fire-worship” (cf. the ModArm. translation in V.
M. Vardanyan 1985: 125).
●DIAL The verb molorim is ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 3: 340]. For the
meaning in Svedia, see above.
●ETYM Compared with Dutch mal ‘foolish, funny, crazy, cracked, mad’, Skt. malvá-
‘unbesonnen, töricht’ (cf., however, Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 334), etc. [HAB 3:
339-340; Finck 1903]. See also meɫ(-k‘).
moš ‘tamarisk; blackberry, bramble’: moš-a-vayri ‘wild tamarisk’ in Jeremiah 17.6,
rendering Gr. ἀγριο-μυρίκη f. ‘tamarisk’ (lit. ‘wild-tamarisk’), also in Commentaryon Genesis by Vardan Arewelc‘i (in contrast with moreni ‘bramble’), moš vayri ‘id.’
(“Girk‘ t‘ɫt‘oc‘”); moš-i ‘tamarisk’ in Galen rendering Gr. murik = μυρίκη ‘tamarisk’
[NHB 2: 297a; Greppin 1985: 78], in MidArm. mostly ‘bramble, blackberry-bush’,
cf. gen. sew mošoy ‘of black bramble’ in the 13th-century “Bžškaran jioy”
[Č‘ugaszyan 1980: 125L1], and moš described as mirg seaw ‘black fruit’ of the
thorny shrub moši in Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ [Amalyan 1975: 219Nr412]; moš also in
Geoponica; moš-eni, GDPl mošeneac‘ ‘bramble, blackberry-bush’ (“K‘art‘lis
c‘xovreba”). See also Ališan 1895: 443; Malxaseanc‘ HBB 3: 358b.
●DIAL Agulis, Łarabaɫ mɔ́
ši ‘bramble, blackberry-bush’, Agulis, Łarabaɫ, Łaradaɫ,
Łarak‘ilisa, Šamaxi mɔš ‘blackberry’; Muš mɔši ‘a bush from twigs of which
besoms are made’, Xarberd mɔši ‘a kind of tree’ [HAB 3: 346a]. The actual meaning
in Xarberd may be identical with that of Muš, namely ‘a bush from twigs of which
besoms are made’ (cf. Baɫramyan 1960: 154b on Dersim). Sasun moš-i seems to
refer to ‘bramble’ since it is described as giving the fruit/berry moš (see Petoyan
1954: 146; 1965: 506).
The frequently cited mošay seems to be a ghost form deduced from moša-vayri.
Note, however, that Haneyan (1978: 193a) glosses ClArm. mošay by Tigranakert
mɔšɛ. The final -ɛ in this dialect can hardly reflect ClArm. -i, cf. leɫi ‘gall’ > lɛɫi, oski
‘gold’ > ɔsgi, p‘oši ‘dust’ > p‘ɔši, etc. (see Haneyan 1978: 38). It rather points to
*mošeay. Compare also Georg. t
h
uth
-a vs. Arm. t‘ut‘, Aram. tūtā, etc. ‘mulberry’, as
well as Hamšen mɔra vs. mor ‘blackberry’ (see s.v.). Further, note the following.
Ačaṙyan (1925: 61-62; HAB 3: 346a) notes that Nor Naxiǰewan mušay (with final
-y) ‘a kind of herb grazed by livestock’, albeit remarkable, must be a Tatar loan and
has nothing to do with moš, which is a bush. I am not sure whether the Tatar word is
of Turkic origin. Since the cognates of moš/mor- ‘blackberry’ mostly refer to
‘mulberry’ in Greek, Latin, etc., and the leaves of the mulberry are used for
livestock feed (see Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 646 = 1995: 556), one wonders if
Nor Naxiǰewan mušay (and its Tatar match?) actually means ‘mulberry’ and is
somehow related with this mulberry/blackberry term.
●SEMANTICS Since MidArm. and dial. moš-i refers mostly to ‘bramble,
blackberry-bush’, and the meaning ‘tamarisk’ occurs practically only in the
compound moš-a-vayri (Jeremiah 17.6 and one or two Bible-depending texts), one
might assume that the basic meaning of Arm. moš-i is ‘bramble, blackberry-bush’,
and the compound moš-a-vayri ‘tamarisk’ should be understood as ‘wild bramble’.
Syntactically, the compound moš-a-vayri is reminiscent of iš-a-vayr-i ‘onager’
(Eznik Koɫbac‘i, Movsēs Xorenac‘i, John Chrysostom, Paterica, etc.), cf. ὄναγρος =
ὄνος ἄγριος. Its Greek match ἀγριο-μυρίκη, however, reflects a reversed order of the
components.
●ETYM No etymology is recorded in HAB 3: 345-346.
J̌ahukyan correctly connects with mor ‘blackberry’, q.v.
moṙanam, 1sg.aor. moṙac‘-a-y, imper. moṙa ‘to forget’ (Bible+).
On moṙac‘-awn-k‘ ‘oblivion’ (Bible+), see Olsen 1999: 652-654, 840.
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 3: 346b].
In a few W and SW dialects one finds -a- instead of -o-: Zeyt‘un maṙnɔl (vs.
Hačən mɔrnɔl, mɔynɔl), Svedia maṙnil, Xarberd maṙnal [HAB 3: 346b], Dersim
mäṙnal [Baɫramyan 1960: 93a]. This -a- is difficult to explain within the dialects (cf. e.g. Ačaṙyan 2003: 75 and 388 for Zeyt‘un-Hačən and Svedia, respectively); further,
see below.
●ETYM Derived from PIE *mers- ‘to forget’: Skt. marṣ-, pres. mŕ̥ṣyate ‘to forget’,
MPers. fra/ā-muštan, fra-mōšīdan, NPers. farā-muštan ‘to forget’ (MacKenzie
1971: 32), Lith. už-miršti
̃ ‘to forget’, Toch. AB märs- ‘to forget’ < *mers-, etc., see
Bugge 1889: 23; 1892: 446; Hübschmann 1897: 475; HAB 3: 346 (referring also to
Tērvišean); Pokorny 1959: 737; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 332; Mallory/Adams
1997: 209b; Adams 1999: 455-456; Cheung 2007: 268-269.
Arm. moṙana- has been compared to Toch. A pres. märsnā- ‘to forget’ (Adams
1999: 455-456), thus *me/orsna- > PArm. *moṙna- or *mor(š)na > *moṙna- (cf.
Meillet 1936: 40, 185; Kortlandt 1983: 10 = 2003: 40; Beekes 2003: 157) >
moṙanam as (or after the type of) loganam ‘to bathe’ < *louH-, cf. Gr. λούω, λο(ϝ)έσαι, Lat. lavō, lavere ‘to wash; to bathe, soak’, lavāre ‘to bathe’, etc.
On the other hand, the o-grade has been explained from an underlying unattested
noun *morso- ‘einer, der vergißt’ (Klingenschmitt 1982: 126-127) seen in Lith.
maršas
̃ ‘oblivion, forgetfulness’, Skt. dur-márṣa- ‘unforgettable’, etc. (cf. also Skt.
marṣana- ‘enduring, forgiving’, see Olsen 1999: 653-654, 840); note goɫanam ‘to
steal’ vs. goɫ ‘thief’ and gaɫem ‘to hide, conceal’. In view of the absence of a noun
*moṙ, this solution is less probable.
According to N. Simonyan 1979: 247-248, the Armenian dialectal by-form *maṙ-
(a)n- (see the dialectal section) derives from an IE zero-grade form *mr̥s-. If this is
accepted, one is tempted to treat this dialectal form as an archaic relic of the zerograde present seen in e.g. Skt. pres. mŕ̥ṣyate. However, the dialectal -a- may still be
secondary, even though it is not easily explicable at this stage.
mor1 ‘blackberry (the fruit of bramble)’, GDSg mor-i in Cyril of Alexandria, mor-eni
‘bramble, blackberry (the plant, shrub)’ (Bible+), mor-i ‘bramble’, GDSg morw-o-y
in Thomas Aquinas, Book of virtues (transl. into Arm. in the 14th cent. by Yakob
J̌
ahkec‘i); morm-eni (recorded in NHB 2: 298a as a dialectal form of moreni)
‘blackberry’ in Amirdovlat‘ Amasiac‘i (15th cent.) with equivalent designations in
other languages and described as resembling the black mulberry (see Vardanjan
1990: 142, § 667, 322, § 2030; comment: 616, 710); the meaning ‘blackberry’ is
corroborated by Malxaseanc‘ (HBB 3: 360c, referring also to Sepetčean) and by
dialectal evidence (see below); morm ‘strawberry’ in Simēon Kam(a)rkapc‘i, 17th
cent. [Ališan 1895: 445, Nr 2116; HAB 3: 347a]; according to Galen, ‘nightshade,
hound’s berry, or the like’, corresponding to Gr. στρύχνον, τρύχνον (see NHB 2:
298c; Ališan 1895: 445, Nr 2117; Béguinot/Diratzouyan 1912: 82; Malxaseanc‘
HBB 3: 360c; Greppin 1985: 104, 108).
Arm. mor-eni (GDSg morenw-o-y, LocSg i morenw-o-ǰ) frequently occurs in the
Bible always rendering Gr. βάτος f., m. ‘bramble, Rubus ulmifolius’.
In Exodus 3.2-4: morenin : ὁ βάτος and i miǰoy morenwoy : ἐκ τοῦ βάτου (each:
twice; cf. Acts 7.30). In Job 31.40: p‘oxanak c‘orenoy busc‘i eɫič, ew p‘oxanak
garwoy – moreni : ἀντὶ πυροῦ ἄρα ἐξέλϑοι μοι κνίδη, ἀντὶ δὲ κριϑῆς βάτος. In
Deuteronomy 33.16 (Cox 1981: 213): i morenoǰ (var. i morenwoǰ) : ἐν τῷ βάτῳ. In
Mark 12.26: i morenwoǰ : ἐπὶ τοῦ βάτου. In Luke 6.44: oč‘ i morenwoy kt‘en xaɫoɫ :
οὐδὲ ἐκ βάτου σταφυλὴν τρυγῶσιν. In Luke 20.37: i morenwoǰ : ἐπὶ τῆς βάτου. In
Acts 7.35: i morenwoǰn : ἐν τῇ βάτῳ ●DIAL Widespread in the dialects. When the meaning is not specified, it is likely to
be ‘blackberry’.
Sasun mor-i (the plant), mor-ig (the fruit) [Petoyan 1965: 506].
Moks murunik ‘blackberry’, see Orbeli 2002: 294 (= ‘ежевика’); M. Muradyan
1982: 136; HAB 3: 347b; Muš, Alaškert *morenuk (HAB ibid.).
Ganjak, Łazax, Šamšulde mɔṙ ‘blackberry’, Łarak‘ilisa (Loṙi) mɔr ‘raspberry’,
Ararat, Goris mɔ́
ri, Łarabaɫ mɔ́
rɛ ‘strawberry’ [HAB 3: 347b].
Hamšen mör, gen. mər-i ‘blackberry’ (the berry), mɔrəni (the shrub) [Ačaṙyan
1947: 245]. According to HAB 3: 347b: mɔra. This form seems reliable since it is
also found in a song from Trapizon (see T‘oṙlak‘yan 1986: 135, Nr 241): Partezis
meǰə mora : “In my garden (there is) mora”. In the glossary of this folklore
collection (233b), mora is glossed by elak ‘strawberry’. [The final -a is somehow
reminiscent of Georg. t
h
uth
-a vs. Arm. t‘ut‘, Aram. tūtā, etc. ‘mulberry’ (see HAB 2:
202)].
Zeyt‘un muy, mur ‘blackberry’ (the berry) vs. məyminɛ (the shrub) from mormeni
[Ačaṙyan 2003: 329]. The same distribution: Tigranakert mɔṙ vs. mɔṙmɛni [Haneyan
1978: 193a].
The form *mormeni is also seen in Polis mɔṙmɛni which denotes both the berry
and the shrub [HAB 3: 347b; Ačaṙyan 1941: 93, 102, 232]. The trilled ṙ of this form
is strange since, as Ačaṙyan (1941: 93) assures, “the pronunciation of r as ṙ is very
odd for this dialect” whereas the opposite, namely ṙ > r is very common and tends to
be generalized even in the position before the nasal n. In this particular case,
Ačaṙyan (ibid.) explains mormeni > Polis mɔṙmeni (borrowed into Turk. mormeni)
by influence of Turk. /mɔṙ/ ‘dark blue’. This is not impossible. More probably,
however, one can assume that Polis had *mɔṙ (the berry) vs. *mormeni (the shrub)
which was levelled to mɔṙ vs. mɔṙmɛni (exactly like in Tigranakert above).
Subsequently, *mɔṙ was lost in Polis. Note that mɔṙ seems to be the only case of r >
ṙ in Tigranakert except for the position before a consonant (see Haneyan 1978: 51,
62, and the glossary). I posit an old *moṙ since it is found in peripheral dialects from
both Western and Eastern areas.
In Svedia, next to mərmina (the shrub), the form for the berry has been replaced
by a compound mərmən-t‘ü/öt‘ [Andreasyan 1967: 375b; Ačaṙyan 2003: 580], with
t‘ut‘ ‘mulberry’ as the second member.
According to Ačaṙyan (1941: 102), the medial -m- in Polis mɔṙmɛni is an
epenthesis which originates from the influence of the initial m- and the -n- of the
final syllable. This is unclear and unnecessary since the literary and dialectal forms
morm, mormik, mormorik, etc. as well as some North Caucasian forms like Lak.
mamari ‘blackberry’, etc. (see below) clearly show that the second m has an
etymological value.
Further: Atap‘azar mɔmlig ‘blackberry’ (both the berry and the shrub), Č‘ɛnkilɛr
(Nikomidia) *moremuk glossed by šn-xaɫoɫ, lit. “dog-grapes”, Muš *moremuk
‘bramble’ (or *morimuk, see Amatuni 1912: 489a), Akn *morm-ik ‘raspberry’,
Binkean, Mɛrtɛköz (Nikomidia) *mormorik ‘blackberry’, Aslanbek mərm, məmr
‘blackberry’, mərmi p‘üš ‘blackberry, bramble (the shrub)’, lit. ‘thorn of blackberry’
[HAB 3: 347b].
In Hamšen, also ‘wild strawbwerry; wild grapes’ (see Ačaṙean 1913: 793b). In a folk-song of the “Antuni” type from Akn (see Palean 1898a: 394aL1f) one
finds moṙ :
Inci ur gini pitnar,
Es tatis karsɛn xmɛi:
<...>:
Inci ur xaɫoɫ pitnar,
Es mɔrs moṙɛn k-utɛi.
“When I needed wine, I would drink from the jar of my grandmother; when I
needed grapes, I would eat from the moṙ of my mother”.
Ačaṙyan (1913: 793a; see also Malxaseanc‘ HBB 3: 358b) considers this to be an
unknown word. In my view, it belongs to the plant-name under discussion. That it
pertains to (a kind of) grapes (or to a related idea) coincides with the
above-mentioned evidence from Hamšen. Compare also Č‘ɛnkilɛr (Nikomidia)
*moremuk “dog-grapes”, as well as *mori xaɫoɫ ‘a kind of grapes’ (see Amatuni
1912: 489a).
On Arabkir mamuṙ ‘bramble, wild mulberry’, see below.
●ETYM Since NHB 2: 298a, linked with the Greek and Latin words for ‘mulberry,
blackberry’: 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’, Welsh mer-wydden ‘mulberry, blackberry’, OIr. smér, etc., mostly as
a native Armenian word; see HAB 3: 347a; Pokorny 1959: 749; Gamkrelidze/
Ivanov 1984, 2: 645-646 = 1995: 555-556; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 139. Analyzing the
Celtic evidence (cf. especially OIr. smér) as well as Romanian zmeură ‘raspberry’,
Modern Greek σμεῦρο, etc., Hamp (1973; see also Schrijver 1991: 123-124)
tentatively proposes a South European word *(s)mō
̆r- and a Central European
(Carpathian?) *smi(i̯)or-.
J̌
ahukyan (1987: 72, 139, 255) adds also dial. *moš (< *morš-) and *moṙ deriving
them from *mor-s-, but does not specify the origin of *-s- and the distribution of ṙ :
(r)š. On this, see below. It should be noted that *moš ‘tamarisk; blackberry’ is not
purely dialectal (see s.v.).
Arm. mor has been compared with Lezg. mer ‘малина; ежевика’ [Šaumjan 1935:
423]. J̌
ahukyan (1987: 605) places this comparison into Nostratic context noting also
(p. 588) Georg. marcq̣ w- ̣ , Svan basq ̈ ̣
(i)- (< *marcq̣ w- ̣ ). On the alleged Nostratic
*marja ‘berry’, see Illič-Svityč 1976: 43-44; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 72, 294. On Kartv.
*marcq̣ w- ̣ ‘strawberry’, see Klimov 1998: 115 where no forms are cited outside
Kartvelian.
Next to the above-mentioned Lezg. mer ‘малина; ежевика’, there are other North
Caucasian forms: Lak. mamari ‘blackberry’, Darg. *mVmVrV (Chir. mimre)
‘raspberry’, Chechen mürg ‘guelder rose, snowball-tree’ < PNakh. dimin. *mor-iḳ
probably > Oss. murḳæ ‘guelder rose’, further: Kab. mārḳ
w
a ‘strawberry,
blackberry’, Abaza maraḳ
w
a ‘mulberry’, etc. [Nikolayev/Starostin 1994: 804-805].
Some further possibly related forms: Hittite mu-uri-uš ‘grape’; Finno-Ugr. *murå
‘berry’, PU *mora ‘raspberry, cloudberry’, FUgr. *marja ‘berry’, etc. [Campbell
1990: 165-166]; Burushaski biranč, Basque martśuka ‘mulberry’ [P. Friedrich 1970:
150]. The appurtenance of Gr. μορίαι f. pl. (with or without ἐλαῖαι) ‘the sacred olives in
the Academy’, generally ‘olives that grew in the precincts of temples’, and μυρίκη f.
‘tamarisk’ is considered to be questionable (Heubeck 1949-50: 282, 28277; see Frisk
s.vv.; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 6461 = 1995: 55654). In view of the semantic
relation ‘tamarisk’ : ‘blackberry’ reliably testified by Arm. moš, the derivation of Gr.
μυρίκη ‘tamarisk’ from QIE *mor-/*mōr- ‘blackberry, black mulberry’ seems
probable. The aberrant vocalism of μυρίκη points to non-IE origin and can be
compared with that of Finno-Ugr. *murå ‘berry’, probably also Hittite mu-uri-uš
‘grape’.
Structurally, Gr. μυρ-ίκ-η ‘tamarisk’ may be compared with PNakh. dimin.
*mor-iḳ ‘guelder rose, snowball-tree’ and Arm. dial., e.g. Sasun mor-ig ‘blackberry’
(on this diminutive plant-suffix, see 2.3.1).
The reduplicated forms like Lak. mamari ‘blackberry’ are reminiscent of Arm.
dial. *mor-mor-i, etc. Note also Finn. maamuurain, etc. ‘a kind of blackberry, Rubus
arcticus’, from where Russ. mamúra ‘id.’ (see Fasmer s.v.). The latter has been
compared with North Turk. mamur ‘a kind of plant’ (see HAB 3: 244ab, with ref.).
From this NTurk. word Ačaṙyan (HAB, ibid.) derives Arm. dial. Arabkir mamuṙ
‘bramble, wild mulberry’ (for which see also Ačaṙean 1913: 748b). If this is true, the
corresponding meaning of the Turkish word can be considered to be certain.
Regardless of the details, then, the appurtenance of these forms to our ‘mulberry,
blackberry’ term is obvious.
Lat. mōrum, ī, n. ‘fruit of the black mulberry’ and mōrus, ī, f. ‘black
mulberry-tree’ are regarded as ancient forms in -m meaning ‘fruit, berry’ and in -s
meaning ‘tree, plant’, respectively [Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 645 = 1995: 556].
Compare also Gr. βάτος f., m. ‘bramble, blackberry (the plant, shrub)’ vs. βάτον n.
‘blackberry’. I think, traces of this distribution may also be seen in Armenian.
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-ia- derived from
*mor-s-íeh2- (ruki-rule in internal position, see 2.1.12. See also 2.3.1 on -awš and -š.
Note Gr. μορέα, -έη f. ‘mulberry-tree’, if from *mor-es-(e)h2-. The form for ‘fruit,
berry’, namely *mor-(o)m, may be seen in dial. *moṙ(n) and older *mor-m- of which
mor-m-eni (the plant) is formed.
The dial. *moṙ might be considered to be due to contamination with the Turkish
word for ‘dark blue’ (see above). More probably, however, it is old. My hypothetic
analysis according to which *moṙ is old and specifically denoted the berry-name
rather than the plant/bush is corroborated by the following: (1) the form is found in
both Eastern (Ganjak, Łazax, Šuši) and Western (Tigranakert, Akn) peripheries; (2)
it indeed refers to a berry; (3) there is no designation for the plant based on *moṙ, in
other words, no *moṙ-i (this corroborates the original distribution: *mor-om (or
simply Arm. *moṙ-n, with additional -n, on which see Weitenberg 1985) for the
berry vs. *mor-ieh2- > mor-i and *mor-s-ieh2- > *moš-i for the bush); (4) *moṙn
finds possible matches in *murun-ik and *moren-uk.
The latter forms can hardly be based on the bush-designation mor-en-i, because:
(1) the diminutive suffix is usually attached to the root (cf. hačar-uk ‘beech’, etc.,
see 2.3.1); (2) other forms have internal -m- instead of -n-, cf. *mor-em-uk, etc.
Consequently, they can be regarded as diminutive forms based on *mor-n. Frisk (2: 256) sees Greek as a possible source for the Armenian word. This is
highly improbable since the latter is widespread in the dialects (unless one assumes a
prehistoric borrowing). Hübschmann (1897: 394) treated the Armenian and Greek
words as borrowed from an unknown source. Schrijver (1991: 123), citing also the
Latin and Celtic forms, points out that this term “definitely reflects a substratum
word”. Mediterranean origin (see Hamp 1978 with references) seems very plausible.
The black mulberry (Morus nigra L.) is a common fruit tree in the Mediterranean
and Southwestern Asia; its original centre of dispersal is considered to be the Near
East (see Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 646-647 = 1995: 556-557, with ref.).
Conclusion:
We are dealing with a non-Indo-European plant-name *mor-/mōr-/mur-
‘mulberry; blackberry; tamarisk’ (> also ‘raspberry, strawberry; grapes’) represented
in Greek, Latin, Celtic and Armenian, probably Hittite, as well as in Caucasian and
Finno-Ugric languages. The term, both linguistically and botanically, is centered in
Mediterranean/Pontic areas. There are diminutive forms in both Armenian and
Caucasian languages, partly also, perhaps, in Greek. The Armenian forms probably
point to the following original distribution: *mor- and *moṙ for the berry (the latter
– from neuter *mor-(o)m) vs. fem. *mor-ieh2- > mor-i and *mor-s-ieh2- > *moš-i for
the bush; compare Gr. μόρον n. ‘black mulberry; blackberry’ vs. μορέα, -έη f.
‘mulberry-tree’, Lat. mōrum, ī, n. ‘fruit of the black mulberry’ vs. mōrus, ī, f. ‘black
mulberry-tree’.
It is remarkable that the type mor : mor-m (probably, broken reduplication) is also
seen in another Mediterranean word, mor : mor-m ‘tarantula’, q.v.95
mor2 ‘tarantula, phalangium’ in Amirdovlat‘ Amasiac‘i (15th cent.), see S. Vardanjan
1990: 134, § 616; comment: p. 613; MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 145b), mor-a-har ‘bitten
by a tarantula’ in Geoponica /13th cent./ [MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 145b], mur ‘a kind of
harmful insect’ (Ališan 1910: 170, from an unspecified source); dial. *mori ‘spider’
(see below); morm ‘id.’ in the fables by Vardan Aygekc‘i /12-13th cent./ [HAB 3:
347b; MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 146a]. morm ‘a small lizard’ (Step‘anos Lehac‘i),
mentioned in NHB 2: 298c s.v. plant-name morm (q.v.), probably belongs here, too.
●DIAL Ararat mɔrm, J̌
uɫa morm [HAB 3: 347b]. According to Amatuni (1912: 489),
Ararat morm denotes ‘a large, black and reddish poisonous insect resembling the
spider’ and is synonymous to Łzlt‘amir (a village in the vicinity of Ēǰmiacin) ɫṙišun.
The latter seems to be composed as ɫṙi šun ‘dog of stony places’; cf. iric‘i šun
‘caterpillar’, lit. “dog of a priest” (see Ł. Aɫayan 1979: 641L-4, footnote 6411).
Andreasyan (1967: 252) records Svedia čičə-mura, ǰiǰə-mura ‘spider’,
č/ǰič/ǰəmurə payn ‘spider-web’, lit. ‘the nest (boyn) of a spider’. He (ibid.)
reconstructs *čči-mori, composed of čči ‘insect, beetle, worm’ and mori ‘forest’, as
if based on the resemblance of the legs with forest. This interpretation is
unconvincing. I posit *mor-i > Svedia mura as a derivation of our MidArm. mor ‘tarantula’. For this i-form cf. perhaps Georg. morieli ‘scorpion’ which, according to
G. Asatur (p.c. apud HAB 3: 347b), is borrowed from Arm. mor ‘tarantula’.
●ETYM Łap‘anc‘yan (1927: 108; 1961: 359-360) derives from IE *mer- ‘to die’
linking with Pers. mār ‘snake’. Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 347b) does not accept this
etymology and leaves the origin of the Armenian word open.
As we have seen, MidArm. mor/morm ‘tarantula’ is dialectally represented in
extreme peripheries: SW (Svedia/Syria) mor vs. E (Ararat, J̌
uɫa) morm. The word
may thus be old.
M. Aɫabekyan (1980: 162-167) proposed a connection with mrǰiwn ‘ant’ (q.v.),
cf. especially dialectal forms such as Loṙi mɔrmɔnǰ, etc. I accept this connection in
terms which will be discussed further. More closely, I think, Arm. morm ‘tarantula’
may be linked with Gr. Μορμώ, -όος -οῦς, Μορμώv, -όνος f. ‘she-monster, bogy’
(also used by nurses to frighten children), generally ‘bugbear’, and Lat. formīdō, inis
f. ‘fear, terror; a thing which frightens, bogy’. For the semantic relation ‘spider,
insect’ : ‘bogy, ghost’, see s.v. *bo-/bu-, and 3.5.2.1.
The Greek and Latin words are related, either etymologically or secondarily, with
the word for ‘ant’, cf. Lat. formīca f. ‘ant’, Gr. μύρμηξ, -ηκος, Dor. μύρμᾱξ, -ᾱκος m.
‘ant; fabulous animal in India’ (by-forms: μύρμος, βύρμαξ, βόρμαξ, ὅρμικας), etc.,
probably also with *morā-: OIc. mara, OHG mara ‘nightmare’, etc. (see Nocentini
1994: 399-401; cf. Frisk 2: 255). This connection or conflation becomes quite
transparent in view of the following forms and meanings: μυρμήκ-ειον n. a species
of φαλάγγιον, the latter being ‘a kind of venomous spider, especially Lathrodectus or
malmignatte’, μυρμήκ-ιον n. ‘a species of spider’; note also μόρμορος and μύρμος,
both glossed by φόβος ‘panic fear’ in Hesychius.
Arm. Polis/Stambul *moṙmoṙoz, Crimea and Nor Naxiǰewan *mṙmṙas ‘Easter
bogy’ (see Ačaṙean 1913: 54a), of which no etymological attempt is known to me,
strikingly resemble μόρμορος ‘panic fear’ (see also Durean 1933: 102). One might
treat these Armenian dialectal forms as recent loans from Greek. However,
μόρμορος is a Hesychian gloss, and I doubt that it exists in Modern Greek. Besides,
the Armenian forms have specific ritual meaning and function. The connection may
be old, therefore. Arm. dial. *mor-mor-oz can easily be interpreted as reduplication
of *mor- (identical with μόρμορος, thus) + the suffix -(e/o)z, seen also in e.g.
denotations for ‘lizard’, see 2.3.1.
Of Armenian dialectal forms of the word for ‘ant’, Šamaxi mɔrmɔrinǰ (full
reduplication of *mor-, see above) and Loṙi mormonǰ deserve particular attention;
see s.v. mrǰiwn ‘ant’. Since Gr. Μορμώv is feminine, one can identify it with Loṙi
mormonǰ which probably reflects QIE fem. *mormon-i̯eh2-. For the structure
compare another insect-name of Mediterranean origin: karič, a-stem ‘scorpion’ <
*karid-i̯eh2-, cf. Gr. κᾱρίς, -ί/ῖδος f. ‘Crustacea’ (q.v.).
The association ‘ant’ : ‘bogy, ghost’ is not surprising. According to e.g. Armenian
folk-beliefs, the ant, sometimes called ‘devil’, is a fearful evil night-animal
alongside with the snake, frog and the like, and causes the skin-disease called mrǰmuk ‘little ant’ [Abeghian 1899: 31] (cf. mrǰm-oc‘, on which see a thorough comment
in Č‘ugaszyan 1980: 219). For the latter cf. Gr. μυρμηκ-ία ‘wart that spreads under
the skin, also the irritation caused thereby, which was compared to the creeping of
ants’ < μύρμηξ, -ηκος ‘ant’. If the appurtenance of OIc. mara, OHG mara ‘nightmare’, etc. is accepted, Arm.
mor ‘tarantula’, together with these words for ‘nightmare’, can be regarded as the
basic form, whereas Arm. morm, Gr. Μορμώ and the rest will represent the so-called
broken reduplication, for which compare another Mediterranean word, mor : mor-m
‘bramble, etc.’ (q.v.). Hesychian μόρμορος ‘panic fear’ and Arm. dial. *mor-mor-oz
‘Easter-Bogy’ and *mor-mor-inǰ ‘ant’ reflect full reduplication.
mori1 ‘woods, forest’ Step‘annos Siwnec‘i (8th cent.), MidArm. and dial.
Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 247b) mentions mori ‘den, lair’ linking it with mayri ‘den, lair’
(q.v.) and does not present a record of mori ‘woods, forest’. One finds some literary
and and dialectal evidence for this form. Step‘annos Siwnec‘i (8th cent.) mentions
mori in the following list: <...>, draxt, antaṙ, mori, čaɫag, art, <...> [Adonc‘
1915=2008: 210L24f]. The rest of evidence comes from the Middle Armenian period.
One finds mori and pl.-coll. more-stan ‘woods’ in a versified lamentation on the
Armenians of Ōlaxac‘ erkir (the country of Olax’s = Walachia, in Romania) written
by the 16th-century emigrant poet Minas T‘oxat‘c‘i (UšMiǰnHBnst 1, 1986: 429L97,
431L134, 431L138).
This is corroborated by two straightforward attestations in Simēon Lehac‘i, lit. ‘of
Poland’, 17th cent. (SimLehUɫegr 1936: 200L159f): Isk morin amēnn eēmiš ē: xncor,
tanc <...>. “And the forest is completely (full of) fruit: apple, pear, <...>”; (201L180):
Ew ayl i vayr en xoru mōrik‘ ew lerink‘, or en Sasunk‘ “And in the place there are
also deep forests and mountains, which are Sasunk‘”. Glossed by Akinean
(SimLehUɫegr 1936: 442) as mōṙi, mori ‘forest’. Note also a direct dialectal
evidence from Aṙtial (Suč‘ava, Poland, Hungary), mɔri, see s.v. mayri ‘woods’.
Further attested in medieval folk-songs recorded by Xač‘gṙuz Łrimec‘i, of
Crimea (early 17th cent., Matenadaran, manuscript Nr. 7709), with spelling variants
mori and mōri (Mnac‘akanyan 1956: 124L11f, 126L9), as well as in Govank‘ t‘ṙč‘noc‘
(Mnac‘akanyan 1980a: 249L133), Nahapet K‘uč‘ak (MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 146a).
In Oɫb Edesioy by Nersēs Šnorhali (12th cent., Cilicia): Aṙiwc goč‘ēr i yantaṙin,
ew gišaxanj arǰn – i bayin (see M. Mkrtč‘yan 1973: 73L466). The word bay means
‘den, lair (especially of bear)’. In some manuscripts (Kesaria-group) it has been
replaced by antaṙ ‘forest’, in others (Karin-group) – by mori (LocSg i morin). Since
Karin (Erzrum) is geographically very close to Hamšen and Dersim, this indirect
evidence can be relevant for the geographical spread of this form, as well as for the
semantic association ‘forest’ : ‘den, lair’ (see below).
●DIAL Apart from Aṙtial mɔri ‘forest’ (see above), here belong also Hamšen mɔri (in
a folk-song: kac‘in aṙa mta morin “I took an axe and entered the forest”,
T‘oṙlak‘yan 1986: 88L1; the context with blood from the tree points to a medieval
song of the type Awetis, see Mnac‘akanyan 1956: 333-334, cf. 590-594); Dersim
mɔri ‘id.’ (Baɫramyan 1960: 28, 93a), Erznka mɔri ‘small forest’ (Kostandyan 1979:
142a), Svedia mira ‘id.’ (Andreasyan 1967: 331, 375b). Łaribyan (1958: 58b)
glosses ClArm. antaṙ ‘forest’ by Aramo mura, murastɔ̈ün. Apparently, mura
continues mori (or mōri, see op. cit. 21), and murastɔ̈ün is the plural-collective form
morestan attested in Minas T‘oxat‘c‘i, 16th cent., see above.
The literary and dialectal evidence points to NW and SW peripheries of the
Armenian speaking territories.
●ETYM See s.vv. mayri1 ‘woods, forest’, mayri2 ‘den, lair’, and mori ‘den, lair’.
mori2, AblSg i morw-o-y, LocSg i morwoǰ and i mori-s ‘den, lair of beasts, especially
of lions’ (Bible+).
For the attestations in the Bible (Astuacaturean 1895 vacat), Eznik Koɫbac‘i and
Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, see NHB 2: 298.
Further attestations: Dawt‘ak (7th cent.) apud Movsēs Kaɫankatuac‘i 2.35 (1983:
226L13; transl. Dowsett 1961: 146): orpēs zaṙiwc i morwoǰ “like a lion in his lair”;
according to T‘ovmay Arcruni (9-10th cent.) 3.29 (1985: 392; transl. Thomson 1985:
316), there were lairs (mori-k‘) of boars and lions in the banks of the river Araxes.
●ETYM See s.vv. mayri1 ‘woods’, mayri2 ‘den, lair’, mori1 ‘woods’.
mṙmṙam, mr/ṙmṙem ‘to murmur’ (John Chrysostom, Movsēs Kaɫankatuac‘i, etc.).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects, mostly as *mṙmṙal, as well as *mṙ(ṙ)al [HAB 3:
366a].
●ETYM Identical with Lat. murmurō ‘to hum, murmur, mutter; to roar’, etc. The
direct connection is usually rejected in view of the onomatopoeic nature of the word
[Hübschmann 1897: 476; HAB 3: 366a; Greppin 1981b: 6]. However, this view
cannot be maintained since the onomatopoeic nature does not automatically preclude
the etymological connection. See also J̌
ahukyan 1987: 139, 448.
mrmunǰ, o-stem: GDPl mrmnǰ-o-c‘ in P‘awstos Buzand (5th cent.), John Chrysostom
(note also late IPl mrmnǰ-ōk‘ = -a-w-k‘ in Grigor Narekac‘i, formally pointing to astem) ‘mutter, maundering, lamentation, mourning song, whispered song’ attested in
P‘awstos Buzand, Eɫišē, John Chrysostom, Eusebius of Caesarea, Grigor Magistros,
etc. (NHB 2: 308b), also in Dionysius Thrax and in the Commentary on it by Dawit‘
P‘ilisop‘ay (see Adonc 1915=2008: 59L5, 79L13); mrmnǰem ‘to moan, mutter,
maunder, mourn, say or sing in an undertone’ (Bible+), later also mrmnǰal ‘to sing a
magic song, recite a magic spell’ (see below).
In P‘awstos Buzand 4.15 (1883=1984: 103L18f; transl. Garsoïan 1989: 144):
jayniwk‘n mrmnǰoc‘n “with moaning voices”, in the context of lament-singing (see
the full passage s.v. *geɫ- ‘to sing’).
In the late medieval dictionary Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ edited/compiled by Eremia of
Meɫri (Amalyan 1975: 221Nr462) mrmnǰal is glossed as kardal ‘to shout, call, recite
loudly; to read’, which in the dialect of Łarabaɫ refers to ‘to sing (said of birds)’, ‘to
sing a religious song for magic purpose’, ‘to recite a magic spell’ (see s.v.).
That mrmnǰal refers to ‘to recite or whisper a magic spell’ is also seen e.g. in the
story by Hovhannes T‘umanyan (native of Loṙi) entitled ‘Gelə = ‘The wolf’, see H.
T‘umanyan 5, 1994: 106L11).
●DIAL No dialectal record in HAB 3: 369-370. However, the word has been
preserved in e.g. Goris (Margaryan 1975: 350b); in an incantation from Kapan, the
same dialectal area as Goris, mrmunǰ refers to the hissing of a snake (Ark‘ayik 1910:
115aL13; S. Harut‘yunyan 2006: 85aNr27). Combining these data with the evidence
from Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ and Hovhannes T‘umanyan (see above), we may tentatively
posit an EArm. form mrmnǰal ‘to recite or whisper a magic spell’
The word is also recorded in HayLezBrbBaṙ 4, 2007: 89a with no indication as to
the dialectal distribution. Amatuni 1912: 492a and Ačaṙyan 1913: 803a record only a
homonymous word referring to the pain of a wound. The two forms may eventually
be related with each other; for the parallelism of these two meanings cf. mṙmṙal. ●ETYM NHB 2: 308b and Dervischjan 1877: 33-34 compare mrmunǰ with munǰ
‘dumb, mute, silent, speechless’ and its cognate forms (see s.v. munǰ for more
detail). Godel 1975: 81 suggests a *i̯e-present, *murmun-i̯e- > *murmunǰe-, with a
regular development *-ni̯- > Arm. -nǰ-. For -nǰ compare semantically close words
such as barbanǰ- ‘senile fables, mythic stories, whisper of sorcerers, sorcerous or
delirious talk, nonsense (of fables), silly prattle, maundering’, ššu-nǰ vs. ššu-k
‘whisper’. For further examples of -nǰ-, see HAB 3: 369b, where Ačaṙyan treats
Arm. mrmunǰ as an etymologically isolated onomatopoeic word. In my opinion,
however, the relation with munǰ ‘dumb, mute; mutter, murmur’ is at least quite
plausible.
For the semantic field of mrmnǰ- ‘to moan, mutter, maunder, mourn, say or sing in
an undertone; to sing a magic song, recite a magic spell’ and its IE cognate forms in
meanings ‘to moan, mutter’, ‘to entreat, pray’, etc. note the well-known fact that
magic spells and incantations must be recited or crooned in a low voice, or
whispered (see Brown 1947: 14-15 with examples of Hermes the Whisperer and old
Germanic runes ‘magic formulae of various sorts, including love-spells’), cf. OIc.
rūn ‘secret, magic sign, rune’, rȳna ‘sich vertraulich unterhalten; Runenzauber
ausüben’, OEngl. rūnian ‘flüstern; sich verschwören’, OHG rūna ‘confidential talk,
secret, whisper, advice’, OIr. rūn ‘secret’, etc. (see Pokorny 1959: 867-868;
Lehmann 1986: 287-288; HerkWört 1997: 576a, 605). Note also Pers. zamzam ‘a
low, whispering, buzzing sound made by the fire-worshippers’ (see Steingass 621b).
On the semantic field of PIE *mū-, see Toporov 1988: 6083.
mrǰiwn : NAccSg mrǰiwn (Proverbs [twice], Philo, John Chrysostom), GDSg mrǰean
(Eznik Koɫbac‘i, Hexaemeron, Anania Širakac‘i), AblSg i mrǰen-ē (Anania
Širakac‘i), GDPl mrǰean-c‘ (“Čaṙəntir”); mrǰimn : NAccSg mrǰimn (Oskip‘orik, cf.
MidArm. mr/ṙǰum, see MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 155b, 159b), NPl mrǰmun-k‘ (Eɫišē,
Ašxarhac‘oyc‘, Vardan Arewelc‘i), APl mrǰmun-s (Anania Širakac‘i), GDPl
mrǰman-c‘ (Paterica) ‘ant’ (Bible+).
In order to reconstruct the original paradigm, we must look for a distribution of
nom.acc. vs. oblique or singular vs. plural forms. NAccSg mrǰiwn is reliably attested
whereas mrǰimn : mr/ṙǰum is Middle Armenian. On the other hand, plural forms are
based exclusively on the -mVn-, the only exception being GDPl mrǰean-c‘ in
“Čaṙəntir”.
The original distribution thus may have been: sg. mrǰiwn (< *mrǰimn, gen.
*mrǰman, although analogically replaced by mrǰean) : pl. mrǰmun-k‘. The obvious
reason for this is that the final *-mn yields -wn in Armenian, cf. paštawn vs.
paštamun-k‘ ‘service’ (see 2.1.22.11).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects, mostly as *mrǰiwn or *mrǰi/um [HAB 3: 371b].
Next to the initial m-, Łarabaɫ also has remarkable forms with v- (South) and b-
(North): və/irč‘ɛ́
mnə, burč‘úmnə, bərč‘ɛ́
mnə (see Davt‘yan 1966: 64-65, 433). Note
also bərč‘im, NPl bərč‘imni (next to the variant mɔrmɔnǰ) in a fairy-tale recorded in
Šamšadin in 1979; see Xemč‘yan 2000: 38a. See below for the IE comparable
cognates.
Aṙtial (Hung.) mərǰ‘əb‘un, too, is remarkable; see HAB 3: 371b. Ačaṙyan (1953:
127) assumes that this word of strange formation is actually the compound mrǰboyn
‘ant-nest’ with semantic shift to ‘ant’. I alternatively propose the following interpretation. The plural form of *brǰimn (present in Łarabaɫ) was *brǰmun-k‘.
Analogically after this, a secondary nominative *mrǰbun has been formed, which in
turn could yield Aṙtial mərǰ‘əb‘un through metathesis.
Zeyt‘un mɔṙč/ǰ‘ɔm, Hačən märǰ‘im, Adana mərǰǰəm, Svedia mṙǰ‘ɔm are irregular
[Ačaṙyan 2003: 88, 329, 399, 580]. They probably reflect what was pronounced as
/mrǰ(i̯)um/ rather than /mrǰium/ or /mrǰiwm/. For ClArm. -um > Svedia -ɔm cf. hum
‘raw’ > hɔm, ddum ‘pumpkin’ > d‘əd‘d‘ɔm, erdumn ‘oath’ > ufd‘ɔm [Ačaṙyan 2003:
391-392]. The form under question is also seen in MidArm. (see above) and in the
dialects of Hamšen, Xarberd, Nor Naxiǰewan, etc. In AblSg mṙǰumē it is attested in a
late medieval folk-song recorded by Xač‘gṙuz Łrimec‘i (early 17th cent.,
Matenadaran, manuscript Nr. 7709): Šēk mṙǰumē aǰərē dəgal [Mnac‘akanyan 1956:
114L36].
Further: Šamaxi mɔrmɔrinǰ ‘ant’ [Baɫramyan 1964: 215], Loṙi mɔrmɔnǰ ‘ant’ [M.
Asatryan 1968: 60, 188b], Meɫri murinǰ ‘a small greyish ant’ [Aɫayan 1954: 319].
●ETYM Since long (see HAB 3: 371), connected with the PIE word for ‘ant’: Gr.
μύρμηξ, -ηκος, Dor. μύρμᾱξ, -ᾱκος m. ‘ant; fabulous animal in India’ (by-forms:
μύρμος, βύρμαξ, βόρμαξ, ὅρμικας), Lat. formīca f. ‘ant’, Skt. vamrá- m. ‘ant’ (RV+),
YAv. maoiri- m. ‘ant’, MPers., NPers. mōr ‘ant’, etc. One usually assumes tabuforms *u̯orm- : *moru̯- (cf. J̌
ahukyan 1982: 109). Loṙi mɔrmɔnǰ is particularly
interesting (see Aɫabekyan 1980: 162-167; J̌
ahukyan 1985: 157; 1987: 139, 276).
Further, see s.v. morm ‘tarantula’; on tabu, see 2.1.36.
The triple representation in Łarabaɫ, m-/v-/b-, is reminiscent of e.g. the word for
‘violet’: Arm. manušak < *manawšak < MPers. *manafšak : Zoroastrian vanafša,
Pahl. vanafšag : Pers. bunafša, Kurd. banafš (see 2.3.1, on -awš). In this particular
case, namely the word for ‘ant’, note Gr. μύρμηξ, Arm. mrǰiwn, *mormonǰ : Skt.
vamrá-, Gr. ὅρμικας : Gr. βύρμαξ, βόρμαξ.
*muž (dial.), *muɫǰ ‘fog’ (?).
●DIAL Xarberd muž-ik ‘fog’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 795a], Manisa (close to Zmüṙnia/Izmir)
mž-ik ‘fog’ (op. cit. 778-779), Moks məž-maṙamux ‘fog’ (HAB 3: 262b; see s.v.
maṙaxuɫ ‘fog’), [mə
ɛž/məž], GSg məɛžəɛ, NPl məɛžir ‘fog’ [Orbeli 2002: 290]; məž,
recorded in the prison of Van (T‘ōxBaṙ apud Amatuni 1912: 703a). Perhaps also
Č‘ɛnkilɛr (Nikomidia) *mžal ‘to rain slightly’, Xarberd *mžel, Maškert *mžužel ‘to
knead preliminarily and slightly (immediately after pouring water into flour)’
[Ačaṙean 1913: 778].
Note also Moks məžɫävil ‘затуманиться; ослабнуть, терять остроту (о зрении)’
[Orbeli 2002: 290], according to Ačaṙyan (1913: 813a): Moks *mžɫawil and *nžwaɫil
(with initial n- and different order of of -w- and -ɫ-) ‘to grow dim, gloomy (said of
light, star)’. This Moks word can be explained, I think, through contamination of
*muž ‘fog’ and nuaɫim ‘to become dim; to faint, swoon, grow weak’ (Bible+;
dialects of T‘iflis, Ararat, Agulis, Maraɫa), a metathesized form of which (*nɫawil) is
found in the dialects of Loṙi, Łazax, etc.
●ETYM H. Suk‘iasyan (1986: 88, 204) connects *muž with *muɫǰ found in aɫǰ-a-muɫǰ
‘darkness, twilight’ but treats these two words as different formations of a single
root: *(s)mu-gh
-l- (cf. Russ. smuglyj ‘dark’; suggested by J̌
ahukyan, see s.v. *aɫǰ-) >
*muɫǰ vs. *mu-s- > *muž. The latter is impossible, however. Dial. *muž might rather
derive from *muɫǰ, which seems to have been lexicalized from aɫǰamuɫǰ, a reduplication of *aɫǰ- (see s.v.). However, an Iranian origin seems more probable (cf.
Kurd. mɪž < muǰ, etc., J. Cheung, p.c.). On J̌
ahukyan’s view, see s.v. mšuš ‘fog’.
*mul- ‘to grind; to rub’
●ETYM See s.v. malem ‘to crush, grind’.
mux, o-stem: GDSg mx-o-y (Matt‘ēos Uṙhayec‘i, 12th cent.) ‘smoke’ (Philo, Sebēos,
Matt‘ēos Uṙhayec‘i, Mixayēl Asori).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects [Ačaṙean 1913: 795b; HAB 3: 353b].
●ETYM Related with MIr. múch ‘smoke’, Welsh mwg ‘fire’, MBret. mog, moug
’hearth’, MHG smouch ‘smoke’, OEngl. smoca ‘smoke’, smēocan ‘to smoke’,
NEngl. smoke, Gr. σμύχω̄ ‘to cause to carbonise, be consumed in a slow fire,
smoulder away’, less probably Russ. smúglyj ‘dark-complexioned’, etc., see de
Lagarde 1854: 29L805; Bugge 1889: 18; 1893: 20; Meillet 1894b: 294; 1935 = 1978:
62; Hübschmann 1897: 475; HAB 3: 353a; Pisani 1950: 188; Pokorny 1959: 971;
Makaev 1974: 60-61; Saradževa 1986: 45-46, 94; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 149; Mallory/
Adams 1997: 529.
This etymon presents as with difficulties concerning the vocalic length and the
velar. We may be dealing with a European substratum word *(s)m(e)u/ūK/G(h)-.
mukn, an-stem: NPl mkun-k‘, GDPL mkan-c‘ ‘mouse’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 3: 355a].
●ETYM From PIE *muHs-: Skt. mū́ṣ- m. f. ‘mouse, rat’ (RV), Gr. μῦς m. ‘mouse’,
Lat. mūs, mūris m. ‘mouse’, etc.; see Hübschmann 1897: 475; HAB 3: 354-355 with
literature; Pokorny 1959: 752-753; Mallory/Adams 1997: 387a.
Kortlandt (1985b: 9 = 2003: 57; see also Beekes 2003: 196) derives Arm. mukn
from PIE AccSg *muHs-m. The explanation as *mu(h)- + -kn (see 2.3.1) seems
preferable, see 2.1.19.
For a possible relic of the Armenian name for the Milky Way, containing the
word for ‘mouse’, see 3.1.3.
*muɫ- ‘grinding, crushing’; *mɫmeɫ, *mɫ-mo/uɫ ‘moth, clothes moth’ (dialectal).
●DIAL For muɫ ‘the grinding of corn’, see s.v. malem ‘to crush, grind’.
Łarabaɫ, Łazax məɫmɔɫ ‘moth’ [Ačaṙyan 1908-09: 244; 1913: 787a; HAB 3:
225ab]. According to Amatuni (1912: 484a): Łarabaɫ, Łazax, Zangezur, Łap‘an
mɫmɔɫ vs. Bananc‘ (a village in Ganjak) mɫmuɫ. The latter form is also seen e.g. in a
curse from Tavuš-Šamšadin [Xemč‘yan 2000: 229b, Nr. 113/1051]: Oskoṙnik‘d
məɫmuɫn uit : “May the məɫmuɫ eat your bones”. From the material represented in
Ačaṙean 1913: 787a one concludes that the concrete meaning is ‘clothes moth’. In
the curse formula from Tavuš-Šamšadin it probably refers to ‘worms’.
For Agulis *mɫmeɫ ‘moth’, etc., see s.v. meɫm ‘soft, fine, calm’.
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (see the references above) treats *mɫmo/uɫ as a reduplication of
*moɫ and links with malem ‘to grind, crush’ (q.v.), for the semantics comparing OCS
molь ‘moth’, Goth. malo ‘moth’, OIc. mǫlr ‘moth’, etc. He (1908-09: 244) points
out that Łarabaɫ məɫmɔɫ represents *moɫmoɫ according to the law of reduplication of
Łarabaɫ. An alternative *m(u)ɫmuɫ is possible, too. See also s.vv. mɫeɫ ‘dust, chaff, ash’,
mɫeɫem ‘to make turn to dust, incinerate, destroy’, meɫm ‘soft, fine, calm’, *mɫmeɫ
‘chaff; quiet, calm’.
*muɫt- ‘fog, darkness’, Only in derivatives and compounds, as mɫt-ut‘iwn ‘darkness’
in Anania Širakac‘i (7th cent.), etc. See also s.v. aɫt-a-muɫt ‘darkness, twilight’.
●DIAL See s.v. aɫt-a-muɫt.
●ETYM For the etymology, see s.v. *aɫǰ-.
mun, o-stem: ISg mn-o-v in Deuteronomy 28.27 (see below), Eznik Koɫbac‘i (A. A.
Abrahamyan 1994: 118L-1), GDPl mn-o-c‘ in Grigor Narekac‘i 67.5 (Xač‘atryan
Łazinyan 1985: 519L94); cf. also GDSg mun-i (in a work attributed to Eɫišē) ‘itch;
gnat, midge’ (Bible+).
In Deuteronomy 28.27 (Cox 1981: 184): harc‘ē zk‘ez t[ē]r keɫov egiptac‘oc‘n
<...>, ew mnov : πατάξαι σε κύριος ἐν ἕλκει Αἰγυπτίῳ <...> καὶ κνήφῃ. Arm. mun
renders Gr. κνήφη ‘itch’. For the complete passage, see s.v. k‘os ‘scab, itch’.
Elsewhere (Exodus 8.16-17 = 8.12-14 in Septuaginta, Wisdom 19.10), mun refers to
‘gnat’ or the like and corresponds to Gr. σκνίψ.
●DIAL The form mun is present in various semantic nuances: Zeyt‘un (mə̀
n), Ararat,
Łarabaɫ, Goris ‘small louse or the like’, T‘iflis, Moks ‘a kind of small fly’ (according
to Orbeli 2002: 294, Moks mun ‘клещ = tick’), Alaškert ‘a small insect’ [HAB 3:
358b]; Polis, Axalc‘xa, Karin dimin. m(u)n-ik ‘nit, small louse, etc.’ [HAB 3: 358b].
Interesting are Polis mn-eɫ ‘small louse’ and mnič ‘a kind of louse’ (ibid.; also
J
̌
ahukyan 1972: 280), Sasun mun-iǰ ‘ant’ [Petoyan 1965: 506], Urmia, Salmast mnuč‘, glossed as hawu, aɫawnoy oǰil ‘louse of hen or pigeon’ [GwṙUrmSalm 2, 1898:
98]. For -ič cf. insect-names such as gruič, luič, xaṙnič, karič, utič, etc.; for -eɫ cf.
boreɫ, mžeɫ, etc.
Orbeli 2002: 291 records Moks məndüt ‘древесный червь, arboreal worm’
without a comment on its origin. Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 474b; 1952: 252) hesitantly
mentions this form under the word botot ‘worm, belly-worm, wood-moth’, which is
present in Van, a dialect closely related to Moks and Šatax. The same does M.
Muradyan 1962: 58, 64, 70, 193b for Šatax məndüt, assuming a nasal epenthesis. If
this is correct, one may suggest the following scenario: botot > *bontot (nasal
epenthesis) > *bundot (voicing of -t- after the nasal) > *m(u)ndut (nasal assimilation
b...n > m...n) > məndüt (Ačaṙyan’s Law). Some of these developments are certainly
correct, but on the whole this scenario cannot be regarded as satisfactory. In view of
the presence of mun ‘tick, small fly’ in the dialect of Moks, the form məndüt is likely
to be a blend of mun and botot.
96
●ETYM From QIE *mus-no-, a derivative of PIE *mus- ‘fly, midge’: Gr. μυῖα f. ‘fly’;
Lith. musė ‘fly’; Russ. ̃ múxa ‘fly’, dial. ‘bee’, ‘gad-fly’, OCzech múcha ‘fly,
mosquito’, etc. (ÈtimSlovSlavJaz 20, 1994: 170-171-174), Lat. mus-ca f. ‘fly’, etc.,
see Bugge 1893: 20-21; Hübschmann 1897: 476; HAB 3: 358; Pokorny 1959: 752;Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 534 = 1995, 1: 452; Mallory/Adams 1997: 207b;
Clackson 1994: 45; Olsen 1999: 29.
Meillet 1936: 74 points out that Arm. mun, o-stem, may have been feminine as
the other cognate forms, and compares the problem of nu ‘daughter-in-law’ (q.v.).
Remarkably, mun is also attested in GDSg muni, which, if old and reliable, points to
*moyn/mun, i-stem or a-stem, from QIE *m(o)us-n-ih2- or *m(o)us-n-eh2-
respectively, compare Gr. μυῖα and Lith. musė for the former option, and Russ. ̃ múxa
and Lat. musca for the latter.
For the semantic development ‘an insect, gnat, louse, etc.’ > ‘itch’ cf. e.g. Gr.
σκνίψ (corresponding to Arm. mun in a number of Biblical attestations, see above)
and ψώρα ‘itch, scurvy; a disease of trees, scab; moth’.
Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 358b) treats Georg. muni ‘itch, scab’ as an Armenian loanword
and points out that the resemblance with Georg. mumli ‘a small fly, flea’ (cf. NHB 2:
300a) is accidental. I am not sure whether there is any relation between Arm. mun
and Akkad. mūnu ‘caterpillar’ (on which see Landsberger 1950: 32).
munǰ ‘dumb, mute, silent, speechless’ (Zgōn-Afrahat, Barseɫ Čon, Čaṙəntir), dimin.
mnǰ-ik (Eɫišē), mnǰ-uk (Irenaeus); prob. also *munǰ- ‘to mutter, murmur’ in k‘rt‘-
mnǰ-em ‘to mutter, murmur, to complain whispering’ (Bible+), with an obscure
k‘rt‘- (cf. Dervischjan 1877: 33-34, comparing it also with mrmunǰ ‘mutter,
maundering, lamentation, mourning song, whispered song’)97.
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects [HAB 3: 359b]. Note also Axalc‘xa luṙ u munč
[HAB 2: 302b] with luṙ ‘silent’ (q.v.).
●ETYM Related with Gr. μύνδος, μύδος, μυκός, μυττός ‘dumb’, Lat. mūtus ‘silent,
dumb, mute; speechless’, Skt. mū́ka- ‘dumb, mute, silent’, múñjati ‘to sound’, etc.,
perhaps also Gr. μύζω ‘to mutter, moan’, Lat. mūgiō ‘to low, bellow, roar; to make a
loud deep noise’, Hitt. mūgae- ‘to invoke, evoke, entreat’, etc., all probably from a
sound-symbolic *mū- (see Bugge 1893: 21; HAB 3: 359, 361; Pokorny 1959: 751;
Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 803 = 1995, 1: 703; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 362,
365; Mallory/Adams 1997: 149b; Kloekhorst 2008: 585).
According to Bugge and HAB ibid. (see also Petersson 1920: 108-109), here
belongs also the synonymous muṙ (q.v.), which can be regarded as a rhymeformation from luṙ ‘silent’, cf. luṙ-muṙ ‘silent, silently’; note also mṙmṙam ‘to
murmur’ (q.v.).
Arm. munǰ ‘dumb, silent’, probably also *munč‘ ‘mutter’ and munč‘ ‘fool’ (q.v.)
have been derived from QIE *mund/t-i̯o- (for a discussion, see HAB 3: 359; Pisani
1950: 178; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 139, 182; Ravnæs 1991: 1692; cf. Schmitt 1972-74: 10).
More attractive is the derivation of munǰ from *muni̯o-, a thematization of *muniseen in Skt. múni- ‘ecstatic person, ascetic, hermit (especially one who has taken the
vow of silence)’, cf. also Czech muňa ‘speechless, fool’ (Schmitt 1981: 70; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 362). For -nǰ cf. also barbanǰ- ‘whisper of sorcerers,
sorcerous or delirious talk, maundering’, ššu-nǰ vs. ššu-k ‘whisper’. As to munč‘ and
mnč‘em, note a number of onomatopoeic verbs with -nč‘- [HAB 3: 359a].
See also s.v. mrmunǰ ‘mutter, maundering, lamentation, mourning song,
whispered song’ and the corresponding verb mrmnǰem, which has been derived from
present *murmun-i̯e- (Godel 1975: 81)
*muṙ only in the compound luṙ-muṙ ‘silent, silently’ (John Chrysostom, see HAB 3:
361a); MidArm. mṙel ‘to listen, obey’ attested in Frik, Vardan Aygekc‘i, Maɫak‘ia
Abeɫa, 13th century colophons, Kostandin Erznkac‘i (MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 155a), in a
medieval folk-song (Abeɫyan 1940: 195, Nr. 349L2); in Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ (Amalyan
1975: 221Nr443) it is glossed as ansal.
●DIAL The verb mṙel is present in Ararat and in a few NW dialects – Polis, SivriHisar, Kesaria, Akn, etc.; note also Baberd mṙ-uk ‘obedient’, Baberd, Polis,
Aslanbek xɔsk‘-mṙuk ‘obedient, who listens to someone’s word and obeys’, with
xōs-k‘ ‘word’ (HAB 3: 361). A textual illustration for mṙ-ɔɫ can be found in a
Trapizon proverb (Łanalanyan 1960: 277a). T‘iflis has munǰ u mṙunǰ, a rhyming
compound with the synonymous munǰ (HAB 3: 361b).
●ETYM See s.v. munǰ ‘dumb, mute, silent, speechless’.
yaɫt‘ ‘wide, large, broad, spacious (land, space, territory)’ (Bible+), ‘mighty’
(Agat‘angeɫos+); y‘aɫt‘em ‘to conquer, win, defeat’ (Bible+); yaɫt‘-k-u ‘victorious,
mighty’ (Philo+), yaɫt‘-u ‘id.’ (e.g., in Grigor Maškuori, 12th cent.), an-yaɫt‘-u
‘unconquerable’ (Alexander Romance, see H. Simonyan 1989: 77L11).
According to NHB 2: 315c, i- or o-stem, but the only evidence is with the
substantive yaɫt‘ ‘victory’: skizbn aṙnu yaɫt‘oyn i yasparizin (Grigor Skewṙac‘i,
12-13th cent.).
Some attestations:
In Deuteronomy 8.7: tēr astuac k‘o tarc‘i zk‘ez yerkirn i bari ew i yaɫt‘ [Cox
1981: 112]: ὁ γὰρ κύριος ὁ ϑεός σου εἰσάγει σε εἰς γῆν ἀγαϑὴν καὶ πολλήν. Here yaɫt‘
renders πολλή. The basic meaning seems to be ‘wide, broad spacious (land, space,
territory)’; cf. also anc‘in ənd covn yaɫt‘ “(they) passed the broad/spacious sea”
(Agat‘angeɫos, see NHB 2: 315c), etc.
In Agat‘angeɫos § 767 (1909=1980: 398L10f), yaɫt‘ refers to ‘immense (stones)’;
see the passage s.v. arastoy.
In Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.37 (1913=1991: 162L6), Eruand is described as srteay ew
andamovk‘ yaɫt‘ “courageous and strong limbed” (transl. by Thomson 1978: 179).
Here, yaɫt‘ may also refer to ‘broad’; cf. layn ‘broad’ used next to yaɫt‘ in
Agat‘angeɫos § 123 (1909=1980: 71L12f) describing the king Trdat: buṙn oskerōk‘ ew
yaɫt‘ marmnov, <...>, barjr ew layn hasakaw; cf. also yaɫt‘ahasak, yaɫt‘amarmin,
yaɫt‘andam. Compare with layn ‘broad’ in, e.g., layn-a-t‘ikunk‘ ‘broad-backed’
[MiǰHayBaṙ 1, 1987: 299b], etc. In Book of Chries 8.3.1 (G. Muradyan 1993: 190L34f; Russ. transl. 2000: 180):
yaɫt‘ marmnov “исполинского телосложения”.
●DIAL The verb yaɫt‘em is ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 3: 379b].
●ETYM Scheftelowitz (1904-05, 2: 27) compares yaɫt‘ with Skt. pr̥thú-, f. pr̥thvī́
-
‘broad, wide, expansive, big, numerous, large, extensive’, Av. pərəϑu-, f. pərəϑβī-
‘broad, wide’, Gr. πλατύς ‘wide, broad, flat’, Lith. platùs ‘broad, wide, extended’,
etc. Meillet (1950: 81) and Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 379) are sceptical because of the
semantic difference. For a discussion on -ɫt‘ and for other references, see Lidén
1933: 44, 443. For a discussion on the laryngeal in this PIE etymon, see Elbourne
2000: 17. Beekes (2003: 202) represents this etymology of y-aɫt‘ and notes: “The
analysis of the Armenian word is uncertain”.
Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 633-634) proposes a connection with Lat. saltō ‘to dance,
jump’, saltus m. ‘leap, spring, jump’, īn-sultō ‘to leap, jump; to behave insultingly,
mock (at)’, assultō ‘to jump at; to attack’, assultus ‘atack, assault’, etc. Greppin
(1983b) accepts the etymology and interprets the development *sl̥-t- > *haɫt‘ > yaɫt‘
as a hypercorrection, which is not probable.
Olsen (1999: 964) mentions no etymology, presenting the word as of unknown
origin.
I see no formal or semantic reasons to reject the comparison with PIE *plth2-ú-:
Skt. pr̥thú-, etc. The semantic development ‘wide, broad spacious (land, space,
territory)’ > ‘mighty, victorious’ > ‘to win, defeat’ is more probable than ‘jump’ >
‘attack, assault’ > ‘victorious, mighty’ > ‘broad, spacious’ involved in Ačaṙyan’s
etymology. The initial y- is the productive prefix seen in numerous words of similar
semantics, namely ‘many, abundant, plenty, fat, etc.’ (see 2.3.1; see also Godel
1975: 7457). Even if one accepts the derivation from *sl-t-, the initial y- should be
identified with the prefix; cf. Lat. īn-sultō.
One wonders if yaɫt‘-u (cf. also yaɫt‘-k-u), albeit poorly attested, goes back to PIE
fem. *plth2-u-ih2-: Skt. pr̥thvī́
-, Av. pərəϑβī-. (In J̌
ahukyan 1987: 241: *-usia̯ ̄-). See
2.1.18.
yayt, i-stem: GDPl yayt-i-c‘ in Grigor Skewṙac‘i (13th cent.), “Tōnac‘oyc‘”, Mxit‘ar
Aparanc‘i ‘known, evident, clear, visible’ (John Chrysostom, Ephrem, etc.); yayt
aṙnem/acem ‘to make public, make appear’, yaytnem ‘to make public, known; to
inform’, etc. (Bible+). Numerous compounds.
●DIAL The verb yaytnem is present in Suč‘ava, Karin, Ararat, Šamaxi, Agulis, as a
literary loan, as Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 382a) points out. He (ibid.) then notes Zeyt‘un
ayid ɛnel ‘to make known/visible’. In 2003: 329 he marks it as Turkish.
●ETYM No etymology is accepted in HAB 3: 382a.
J̌ahukyan (1987: 245) hesitantly interprets as containing the prefix y- < *h1enand PIE *ai- ‘to birn, shine’, or, the root of ayc‘ ‘visit, inspection’. Olsen (1999:
208) connects with *aū ̯is- ‘obvious’ assuming “*en- + *-ā-u̯id with secondary
association to *u̯id- ‘know’, or even *en- + *-aū̯i-u̯id (*-iu̯i- > -i-), in both cases
with dissimilation of *-u̯- > -y-“, though, as she admits, the details remain obscure.
I propose to treat the word as follows: y- + *hay- ‘to see, watch’ + *-ti-. For the
semantics and the suffix, see s.v. p‘ast, i-stem ‘proof, argument’, and 2.3.1.
yatak, a-stem ‘bottom (of sea, underworld, hell)’, dial. also ‘hell; abyss’ (Bible+). A
Biblical attestation unknown to Astuacaturean 1895: yatakac‘ erkri in 1
Paralipomenon 19.13 [Xalat‘eanc‘ 1899: 36b]; see Ačaṙean 1908a: 25.
●DIAL In dialects, mostly replaced by synonymous tak. Preserved in Loṙi atak,
Axalc‘xa hatak, Xarberd adag ‘bottom’, etc. [HAB 3: 387a] Further, see below.
According to Andreasyan (1967: 376a), yatak is continued by händey in Svedia.
However, this seems to be the dialectal andi(n) ‘otherworld’ (see HayLezBrbBaṙ 1,
2001: 57a) with the prefix y-, although the conditions of the development of the
initial y- into Svedia h- are not clear; cf. Andreasyan 1967: 33, 376.
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 386b) derives yatak from PIE *pe/od- ‘foot’. This
etymology does not seem convincing. The semantic relationship is not
straightforward (though Ačaṙyan compares Gr. δάπεδον ‘bottom’, etc.; cf. also
Saradževa 1986: 225-226), and the formal obstacles are not easy to surmount.
Neither is Aɫayan’s (1973: 20-21; 1974: 95-98) derivation from the verb
hatanem/yat(an)em ‘to cut’ convincing; the meaning is remote, despite the parallel
development as given by Aɫayan: Lat. pavīmentum ‘a paved surface or floor,
pavement’ < paviō ‘to thump, pound, strike; to ram down (earth, etc.)’. The suffix
-ak, generally restricted to Iranian loans, also makes both etymologies dubious.
J̌
ahukyan (1987: 142, 185, 551) mentions Ačaṙyan’s etymology with a question
mark and prefers the (old) connection with tak ‘bottom; depth; root’, which is of
Iranian origin. L. Hovhannisyan (1990) did not include yatak in his list of Iranian
loans. Although not everything is clear in the Iranian material (cf. Hübschmann
1897: 110Nr71; HAB 3: 386-387; Olsen 1999: 248102), I do not see any reason to
separate Arm. yatak from tak.
In order to explain the first -a-, J̌
ahukyan and Olsen reconstruct an Iranian form
with the prefix ā-. I would prefer to treat the Iranian protoform as a privative
compound; cf. the synonymous Pahl. a-bun ‘bottomless’. Thus, yatak is composed
of y- and Iran. priv. *a-tā
̆k ‘bottomless’, exactly like *y-an-dund-k‘ (see s.v.
andund-k‘).
The textual parallelism between the two Armenian synonyms is obvious. The
basic meaning of (y)andundk‘ is ‘abyss’. In Armenian folklore it refers to one of the
lowest parts of the Underworld, as well as to the Abyssal ocean – Sew ǰur ‘Black
water’ [S. Harut‘yunyan 2000: 9-12, 16-17]. Moks handü(n)d(k‘), too, appears in
such contexts; see e.g. in the epic Sasna cṙer 1, 1936: 14, 131, 436 (in the latter
passage – with Siv ǰür ‘Black water’, for which cf. also 282), 1062 (Van hantüt‘k‘).
For a similar use, see HŽHek‘ 1, 1959: 328 (Ararat, village of Ōšakan): covi
andundə ‘(to) the abyss of the sea’; HŽHek‘ 13, 1985: 11, 60: Muš h’anundk‘,
andund.
Similarly, yatak ‘bottom’ can be used in relation with: (1) the Underworld, cf.
yataks džoxoc‘ (with džox-k‘ ‘hell’) = εἰς πυϑμένα ᾅδου in Proverbs 14.12 and 16.25;
(2) a river, cf. i yatakac‘ Yordananu in BrsMrk apud NHB 2: 538c; or (3) a sea, see
NHB 2: 538c, s.v. yatak-a-bac‘ ‘of which the bottom is open; by opening of the
bottom’; in two passages (Nanay, 9th cent., and “Čaṙəntir”), yatakabac‘ refers to
andndayin cov ‘abyssal sea’. For such a joint occurrence of the two synonyms note
also yataks andndoc‘ and anyatakeli andundk‘ in Grigor Narekac‘i 25.3 and 48.5
[Xač‘atryan/Łazinyan 1985: 341L59, 435L151]; on an-yatakeli ‘the bottom of which cannot be found’, see below. Also MidArm. atak referred to the sea-bottom (see
MiǰHayBaṙ 1, 1987: 85b).
From the dialectal data recorded by Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 387a), the Zeyt‘un
denominative atkenal ‘to dive’ is worth mentioning; cf. also Svedia äggil ‘to dive’ <
*yatakel [Andreasyan 1967: 376a]. Further, Ačaṙyan says that Udi atak ‘hell’ seems
to have been borrowed from Arm. yatak. This can be directly corroborated by Meɫri
étak ‘underworld; hell’ [Aɫayan 1954: 280b] and especially Łarabaɫ atak ‘hell,
underworld’ [HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 116a] and Šamšadin-Diliǰan atak ‘abyss’
[Mežunc‘ 1989: 201b], which were unknown to Ačaṙyan.
The Łarabaɫ word is illustrated in HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 116a by atakə k‘ənac‘
‘he went to hell’; cf. also the curse: ətaken takə k‘yinis [Łaziyan 1983: 164a] ‘may
you go to the bottom of the Underworld’. Here, ətaken takə is equivalent to antak
covi takn et‘as (see HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 67b) ‘may you go to the bottom of the
bottomless sea’. In a fairy-tale told by one of the most wonderful Armenian
story-tellers Mrs. Łumaš Avagyan and recorded by M. Grigoryan in Šuši (1922),
səev atak ‘Black Underworld’ appears in a very impressive enumeration of words
denoting ‘hell’, next to ǰəhändäm-gyoṙ and istibuǰaɫ (see HŽHek‘ 5, 1966: 37).
The verb atak(v)el ‘to get lost (into hell)’ is recorded in Łarabaɫ and Sasun; cf.
also atakuk ‘lost, vanished’ and atakum ‘peace, riddance’ [HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001:
116b].98 The semantic field of this denominative is comparable with h’andə(n)del.
Compare Russ. za-propast-ít’sja ‘to get lost’ from própast’ ‘abyss’.
Arm. dial. *an-tak ‘bottomless’, with the Armenian privative prefix an- and the
same root tak, is a perfect typological match of the Iranian *a-tak ‘bottomless’. It
can mean both ‘very deep, bottomless (sea)’ (Nor Naxiǰewan, Karin, Ararat,
Łarabaɫ, Van, Muš) and ‘sea-bottom; abyss’ (Ararat, Van) [Ačaṙean 1913: 110b;
HAB 1: 190b; HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 67b]; see also S. Harut‘yunyan 2000: 20-21.
With respect to the parallelism between Iranian *a-tak ‘bottomless’ and Arm. dial.
*an-tak ‘bottomless’ particularly interesting is the curse antak covi takn et‘as (see
HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 67b) ‘may you go to the bottom of the bottomless sea’,
which is to be compared to Łarabaɫ ətaken takə k‘yinis [Łaziyan 1983: 164a] ‘may
you go to the bottom of the Underworld’. Note the basic pattern: “the bottom (tak)
of the Bottomless (an-tak) or of the Underworld/Abyss (Iran. *a-tak, etymologically
– ‘Bottomless’)”. The same is found also with *y-an-(y)atak : Sew yanatəki tli takn
ert‘as [S. Harut‘yunyan 2000: 11] ‘may you go under the mud of the
Black-Bottomless’ (yanatak ... tak).
Also Arm. yatak ‘bottom’ is found in a secondary privative prefixation: an-yatak
‘bottomless’ (see Nonnus of Nisibis apud NHB 1: 207b) and an-yatakeli ‘the bottom
of which cannot be found’ (in Grigor Narekac‘i, with andund-k‘ ‘abyss’; see above);
MidArm. anatak ‘bottomless’, twice with cov ‘sea’ [MiǰHayBaṙ 1, 1987: 47b]; dial.
(Ararat, J̌
avaxk‘, Sivri-Hisar) an-atak ‘bottomless’, also anatakə gnal, anatakvel ‘to
disappear’ [HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 55a]. Note *sew-anatak ‘Black-Bottomless’ in
curses of allative structure from Karin [H. Mkrtč‘yan 1952: 177b] and Bulanəx of
Muš [Movsisyan 1972: 131a]; cf. *sew ǰur and *sew atak. Remarkably, *an-(y)atak is also found with the prefix y-: *y-an-(y)atak adj.
‘bottomless (sea)’; subst. ‘abyss; a part of the Underworld’, Sew yanatak ‘Black
Bottomless’ (also in curses of allative structure) [S. Harut‘yunyan 2000: 10-12].
Note that spells and curses of allative structure (cf. i yan(y)atak covn ‘to the
bottomless sea’ [Ōdabašyan 1976: 121; S. Harut‘yunyan 2000: 12]) could have
played an important role in the process of the prefixation.
yawn-k‘, a-stem: GDPl yawn-a-c‘ (Philo, Severian of Gabala), IPl yawn-a-w-k‘
(Isaiah 3.16 [var. yawn-i-w-k‘], Ephrem); i-stem: GDPl yawn-i-c‘ or yun-i-c‘
(Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.42 [1913=1991: 167L10], Nonnus, Grigor Narekac‘i, etc.), IPl
yawn-i-w-k‘ (see above on Isaiah 3.16); rarely singular, a-stem: ISg yawn-a-w
(Grigor Astuacaban) ‘eyebrows’ (Bible+).
Spelled also as yun-k‘ (in the later literature; see also in the dialectal section).
●DIAL Dialectally ubiquitous. A number of forms presuppose an older *yun-k‘. Note
also *yō/unk‘-vi, originally dual [HAB 3: 414a].
●ETYM No acceptable etymology is recorded in HAB 3: 414a. Considered to be a
word of unknown origin in J̌
ahukyan 1990: 71 (sem. field 4), 72 (noting that this is a
basic term which has neither native Armenian nor borrowed synonyms) and Olsen
1999: 941.
I propose to treat yawn-k‘ as composed of the prefix y- ‘in, on, at’ and *aw-n-
‘eye’ from PIE *h3kʷ-n-. For the *-n- cf. Skt. ákṣ-i-, GSg akṣ-ṇ-ás ‘eye’, ‘head’, etc.
(see also s.v. u-n-kn ‘ear’). We might alternatively posit *-(s)neh2-. The i-declension
may be explained through PIE dual *-i(h1).
For the semantic pattern cf. Slav. *nad-očъje, *nad-oči and *ob-očъje, *ob-oči
‘eyebrows’, which are composed of *nad- (cf. OCS nadъ ‘over, above’, Russ. nad
‘over, above, on’) or *ob- (cf. OCS o(b/bi) ‘about, at, during’) (see ÈtimSlovSlavJaz
22, 1995: 11; 28, 2001: 126) and the word for ‘eye’, basically meaning, thus,
‘on/at/above eyes’.
Typologically compare also Shughni bůn ‘beard’, if from *upā(ha)nā-, cf. YAv.
ā̊
ŋhan- ‘mouth’ [Morgenstierne 1974: 19-20], or with OPr. po-nasse ‘upper lip’, cf.
Gr. ὑπήνη f. ‘moustache’, if from ‘*[that] below the nose’; see s.v. unč‘-k‘
‘moustache, etc.’.
For the typology of such a pattern cf. further dunč‘ ‘the projecting part of the
head, including the nose, mouth and jaws’ (Maɫak‘ia Abeɫa or Grigor Akanec‘i, 13th
cent.), etc.; widespread in the dialects), if from *ənd-unč‘, as is interpreted in
Margaryan 1971: 219-221.
yawray, i-stem in NHB, but only GSg yōray-i (Severian of Gabala) is attested
‘stepfather’; attested in Movsēs Xorenac‘i 3.68 (1913=1991: 359L11), Severian of
Gabala, Philo.
●ETYM Connected with Skt. pitr̥vya- ‘father’s brother, paternal uncle’, πάτρως ‘male
relative, esp. father’s brother’, Lat. patruus ‘father’s brother’, etc., Hübschmann
1897: 463, 477; HAB 3: 414b; Bonfante 1984: 28.
Arm. yawray is treated as a native term (see Clackson 1994: 146) that has later
been replaced by hōru (hapax, 12th cent.), analogical after mawr-u ‘stepmother’
(Hübschmann and HAB, ibid.); see s.vv. hayr and mawru. The connection with hayr ‘father’ (GSg hawr) cannot be doubted, although, as Clackson (1994: 147) points
out, “an exact morphological analysis is extremely difficult”.
Two things are puzzling: the inital y- and the ending -ay. The derivation of
yawray and Gr. πάτρω- from *ph2tr̥-h3i̯- (Normier 1981: 2740; Clackson 1994: 39) is
not certain. The assumption that y- is an alternative reflex of h- is hardly probable.
The semantic derivation may have been expressed by the prefix y- ‘in’ (see 2.3.1).
The -ay can be identified with abstract and/or collective -ay(k‘) probably based on
PIE *-eh2-. Note Gr. πάτρ-α, Ion. -η f. ‘*väterliche Abstammung, Sippe; Vaterstadt,
-land, Heimat’. Thus, *hawr-ay would have meant ‘fatherhood, paternity’, and
y-awr-ay (lit. ‘in fatherhood, paternity’) refers then to a person who is in fatherhood
(in paternal relations) with a child.
One wonders whether the -ay here is identical with that in ark‘ay, i-stem ‘king’,
caṙay, i-stem ‘servant; captive’, p‘esay, i-stem ‘bridegroom; son-in-law’ (q.v.); see
also 2.3.1.
yeɫc‘ ‘full’ (a medieval dictionary), yeɫc‘eal ‘filled’ (Book of Chries), -yeɫc‘ ‘full of’ as
the second member of a number of compounds (Hexaemeron, Philo, John
Chrysostom, etc.).
●ETYM Bugge 1893: 15 connects yeɫc‘ with heɫum ‘to pour, fill’ (Hübschmann 1897:
466 with hesitation; H. Suk‘iasyan 1986: 207), see s.v. li ‘full’ for more detail on the
etymon. For the final -c‘ cf. li-c‘, which, like yeɫ-c‘, appears as the second member
of numerous compounds (on li-c‘, see HAB 2: 278-279; Olsen 1999: 744-745). For
the y-, see s.v. yɫp‘anam ‘to be filled to repletion, be overfilled, be satiate, luxuriate’.
yeṙum, imper. yeṙ (= Gr. περίϑου in Proverbs 7.3), partic. yeṙeal, GDSg yeṙ-el-oc‘
(Bible+), 1sg.aor.act. yeṙ-i (Severian of Gabala), 3.sg.aor.pass. yeṙ-a-w (Čaṙəntir),
instr. of inf. yeṙ(u)l-o-v (Philo) ‘to tie, fasten or join together, link together in a
series, string together, put around (said of gems, etc.)’ (Bible+), yeṙum zban ‘to
compose, put together word/speech’ (Severian of Gabala, John Chrysostom,
Eusebius of Caesarea); later yeṙem ‘to tie, fasten or join together’ (Ban xratu
attributed to Grigor Narekac‘i; Nersēs Lambrinac‘i, etc.), yeṙ adj. ‘joined together,
stringed’ (Tōnakan matean).
●DIAL No dialectal forms are recorded in HAB 3: 396a.
I wonder if Van *eṙ ‘line’ (gic), *eṙel ‘to draw a line’ (see Ačaṙean 1913: 296ab;
Amatuni 1912: 176a, 690; HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 370ab; Srvanjtyanc‘ 1, 1978:
570) belongs here.
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 396a) derives yeṙum from PIE *ser- ‘to put/bind together,
link together in a series’: Gr. εἴρω ‘to knit together’, Lat. serō ‘to string together, put
in a row; to join, engage (in)’, seriēs ‘row, succession, series’, etc., positing QIE
*ser-s- for the Armenian verb (see also J̌
ahukyan 1967: 212; 1987: 147; Greppin
1975a: 5022; Barton 1989: 150-152). For the PIE etymon (without Armenian), see
Pokorny 1959: 911; Chantraine 1968-80: 325; Mallory/Adams 1997: 354a .
For y-eṙ- with y- from *h1en- cf. Gr. ἐν-είρω ‘to fit together’, ἔν-ερσις ‘das
Hineinfügen, Hineinstecken’, Lat. īn-serō ‘to put in; to insert’, īn-sertō ‘to thrust in,
introduce’ (see HAB 3: 396a; Klingenschmitt 1982: 241-242; Barton 1989: 150-151,
15050). Arm. *(h)eṙ- with trilled -ṙ- points to *ser-s-, for which Ačaṙyan (ibid.) compares
Gr. ἔνερσις. The latter comes from *-ti-, however (J̌
ahukyan 1987: 190-191). One
might assume an s-present or sigmatic aorist (see also the discussion s.v. meṙanim
‘to die’). The u-conjugation points to u- or nu-present (on these, see Klingenschmitt
1982: 229-259). The latter option presupposes a development *-rn- > -rr- > -ṙcomparable to *-ln- > *-ll- > -ɫ-. In that case the preservation of the nasal in aṙ-num, ǰeṙ-nu-m, etc. may be due to secondary restoration. Note that the present suffix -
nu- is analysable in cases such as ənke-nu-m vs. aor. ənke-c‘-, z-ge-nu-m vs. z-ges-t.
In yeṙum the nasal was probably not restored on the strength of the absence of the
simplex *yer (unlike the pairs such as aṙ-nu-m and ǰeṙ-nu-m vs. aṙ and ǰer,
respectively). For a further analysis, see Barton 1987; 1989: 150-152.
For yeṙum zban ‘to compose word/speech’ cf. Gr. εἰρομένη λέξις (HAB 3: 396a;
Barton 1989: 15151).
From the same etymon are, probably, orm, o-stem ‘wall, fence’ from IE *sor-mo-
(cf. Gr. ὅρμος m. ‘chain, necklace, lace’), and *her-t‘ ‘turn, queue’ (see s.vv.). Here
may belong also, in my opinion, PArm. *huṙ- prob. ‘gilded, adorned by gems, linked
together in a series, encrusted, embroidered’ or the like (q.v.), preserved in ClArm.
oske-huṙn ‘gilded, adorned with gold’ said of garment, coat, silk, cover, collar,
tassels, etc. (Bible+) and possibly reflecting a QIE *sōr-s-, which would be
somehow comparable to the lengthened grade seen in e.g. utem ‘to eat’ (q.v.).
According to Lusenc‘ 1982: 153, here belongs also y-uṙ-ut‘ ‘incantation’, which he
interprets as ‘magic beads’. The form y-irem ‘to join together, insert, etc.’ (q.v.)
theoretically requires *sēr-.
yisun, i-stem: GDSg yisn-i, AblSg i yisn-ē (Bible), IPl ysn-i-w-k‘ (Ephrem); GDPl
yisn-i-c‘ is cited in NHB 2: 361b, but without evidence; later: yisun-c‘, etc. ‘fifty’
(Bible+).
●DIAL Dialectally ubiquitous. The forms with -t‘s-, -c‘c‘-, -jj-, etc., as well as those
with geminate -ss- are analogical after vat‘sun ‘sixty’ and ut‘sun ‘eighty’ [HAB 3:
400b]. ●ETYM Since Petermann and others, derived from the PIE word for ‘fifty’
[Hübschmann 1897: 477; HAB 3: 400], *penkw
ek̄ ̂omth2: Gr. πεντή-κοντα, Lat.
quīnquāgintā, Skt. pañcā-śát- f., etc. For a discussion, see 2.3.1.
yirem ‘to join together, insert, etc.’ (Philo, Gregory of Nyssa, etc.).
●ETYM No etymology in HAB 3: 400b. J̌
ahukyan (1987: 147) connects yirem with
the synonymous yeṙum, q.v. (cf. NHB 2: 361c), hesitantly positing a lengthened
grade *sēr-. The connection is plausible, but the vocalism remains uncertain.
yɫi, ea-stem: GDSg yɫw-o-y, GDPl yɫe-a-c‘ ‘pregnant’ (Bible+), yɫ-ut‘iwn, GDSg
yɫut‘ean, GDPl yɫut‘ean-c‘ ‘pregnancy’ (Bible+), yɫ-anam and yɫ-enam < *yɫi-anam
‘to become pregnant (both Bible+, see Klingenschmitt 1982: 12117).
●DIAL Agulis yɛ́
ɫɫa, yəɫá, yaɫá, the verb yɫanam > yəɫánil [Ačaṙean 1935: 123, 124,
377; HAB 3: 401a], J̌
uɫa h’uɫí [Ačaṙean 1940: 66, 126, 377b], Łarabaɫ yəɫí, yəɫɛ́ ‘pregnant (said of animals)’ [Davt‘yan 1966: 66, 436], Kak‘avaberd yəɫɛ [H.
Muradyan 1967: 93, 180a], Goris yəɫɛ/i [Margaryan 1975: 110, 351a], Zeyt‘un [hɫi],
Svedia aɫɫa [Ačaṙyan 2003: 114, 330, 415, 581], Hamšen, Van, etc. əɫi, Muš h’əɫi,
etc. [HAB 3: 401a]. The initial y- of the eastern dialectal forms (Łarabaɫ, Goris, etc.) is remarkable
(see the references above). For the anlaut of this word, see also H. Muradyan 1982:
226-229; Weitenberg 1986: 96, 9615, 9718; L. Hovhannisyan 1991: 251.
Danielyan 1967: 168, 213 records Malat‘ia analɔk‘ ‘pregnant’ as a purely
dialectal word with no comment as to its origin. See below on this form.
●ETYM Composed of the prefix y- ‘in’ < PIE *h1en ‘in’ and PArm. *li- ‘full’ from
PIE *pleh1-. For other views and a discussion, see Meillet 1930: 184-185; HAB 3:
401a; Pokorny 1959: 843; J̌
ahukyan 1967: 236, 23648; Ravnæs 1991: 91; Olsen
1999: 448-449. See further s.v. li ‘full’. For the semantics, Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 401a)
compares French pleine ‘full’ and ‘pregnant’. A perfect etymological match would
be Lat. im-pleō ‘to fill’, ‘to make pregnant’. See also s.vv. yeɫc‘ ‘full’, yɫp‘anam ‘to
be filled to repletion, be overfilled’, yolov ‘much, plenty’.
Malat‘ia analɔk‘ ‘pregnant’ obviously contains the suffix -ɔk‘ ‘with, having’ <
ClArm. IPl -awk‘ (see Danielyan 1967: 180 on the suffix). I wonder if we can posit
an underlying *anal(i)- which would be composed of a preposition and the word li
‘ful’. The preposition may be identical with ClArm. an(a)- (on which see J̌
ahukyan
1987: 245, cf. Gr. ἀνά ‘up along’, Av. ana, OPers. anā ‘on, along’, etc.) or with an ograde (cf. Beekes 1995: 221) or zero-grade form of *h1en ‘in’. Alternatively, the root
may be identical with PArm. *al- ‘kid’, on which see s.vv. aloǰ and ul. This
explanation is, of course, highly hypothetical.
yɫp‘anam ‘to be filled to repletion, be overfilled, be satiate, luxuriate’ (Bible+); yɫp‘-
ut‘iwn ‘satiety, repletion, abundance’ (Bible+).
A textual illustration for the secondary meaning ‘to delight, enjoy, luxuriate,
relish’ from Book of Chries 8.6.2 (G. Muradyan 1993: 198L14; Russ. transl. 2000:
188): yɫp‘anayi erǰankut‘eamb “наслаждался счастьем”.
●ETYM No etymology is accepted in HAB 3: 401a.
I tentatively suggest a derivation from PIE *pleh1- ‘to fill’. The underlying *hiɫp‘-
probably reflects the reduplicated present *pi-pleh1- seen in Skt. píparti, *píprati
and Gr. πίμπλημι, -αμαι (see s.v. li ‘full’ for more detail on this etymon). The initial
y- can easily represent the prefix y- < PIE *h1en- ‘in’, cf. Lat. im-pleō ‘to fill, fulfil’
and especially Gr. ἐμ-πίμπλημι ‘to fill’; see also s.vv. li, dial. *i-lin ‘ful’, yeɫc‘ ‘full’,
yɫi ‘pregnant’, yolov ‘much, plenty’.
The problem with this etymology is that the cluster *-pl- would yield Arm. -wɫrather than -ɫp‘- with metathesis and aspirated -p‘-. In order to explain the problem
one may assume a slightly different type of reduplication, *pi-plh1-e-mi, cf. *pi-ph3-
e-mi ‘to drink’ (see s.v. əmpem ‘to drink’), with simplification of the cluster to
*-lpH- (for *pH > Arm. p‘, see 2.1.18.2). Needless to say, this explanation is highly
hypothetical. Alternative: *pi-pl(H)- + pres. suffix -ne-, as in the same əmpem ‘to
drink’ (cf. Gr. πίμπλημι, whether with nasal infix or epenthesis). Another possible
example of a similar reduplication is ci-caɫ- ‘to laugh’ from *ĝ(e)i-ĝlH- (q.v.).
yogn (spelled also yok‘n): APl yog/k‘un-s in Book of Chries, Grigor Narekac‘i; GDPl
yog/k‘un-c‘ in Grigor Narekac‘i ‘numerous, much, plenty, abundant’ (John
Chrysostom, Xosrov Anjewac‘i, etc.); derivatives: yogn-a-goyn ‘very many’
(Agat‘angeɫos+), yogn-a-xumb ‘with many groups’ (Book of Chries+), etc.; yognim
(spelled also yok‘n-) ‘to be/become tired, exhausted, discouraged’ (Numbers 21.4, Book of Chries, Sebēos, etc.), ‘to be zealous for, to pursue with zeal’ (Timothy
Aelurus, 6th cent.).
In Numbers 21.4: yognec‘aw žoɫovurdn i čanaparhin : ὠλιγοψύχησεν ὁ λαὸς ἐν τῇ
ὁδῷ : “the people became discouraged on the way”. Arm. yognim renders Gr.
ὀλιγοψῡχέω ‘to be faint; to become discouraged’.
●ETYM Since Lidén (1906: 76-77), interpreted as *y-o-gn = prefix/preposition y- +
*o-gwhhon- or *o-gwhno- (cf. Skt. ā-hanás- ‘schwellend, üppig’, Pers. āganiš ‘full’),
from *gwhen- ‘to swell, abound’: Skt. ghaná- ‘compact, solid, hard, firm, dense’, m.
‘any compact mass or substance’, Gr. εὐϑενής ‘in abundance’, Lith. ganė́ti ‘to
suffice’, OCS goněti ‘to suffice’, etc. [Pokorny 1959: 280, 491; J̌
ahukyan 1967: 59,
9116; 1987: 129]. This etymology is possible. For *o-, see J̌
ahukyan 1987: 246.
Nevertheless, the formation y-o-gn is not entirely clear (see Beekes 1992: 1742). One
therefore might seek for an alternative.
As is pointed out by Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 402b), the semantic development of the
Armenian is comparable to that seen in Gr. ὄχλος m. ‘crowd, throng; mass,
multitude’ : ‘annoyance, trouble’, ὀχλέω ‘to be crowded’ : ‘to move, disturb; to
trouble, importune’, ἐν-οχλέω ‘to trouble, annoy; to be troubled, annoyed; to be
unwell, overburdened with work’. One wonders whether the Armenian and Greek
can also be related etymologically. This has been suggested by Hiwnk‘earpēyēntean
but rejected by Ačaṙyan (ibid.) without comment.
To the best of my knowledge, the origin of the Greek is uncertain. I
hypothetically assume a common borrowing of substratum origin, from a *(H/w)ogh
-
or *(H/w)ogwh-. The Armenian prefix y- < PIE *h1en- ‘in’ is frequent in words
expressing the idea of ‘multitude, etc.’ (see 2.3.1). Note the structural, semantic (and
etymological?) identity of Arm. *y-ogn ‘plenty’, ‘to be tired, overburdened’ and Gr.
ἐν-οχλέω ‘to trouble, annoy; to be troubled, annoyed; to be unwell, overburdened
with work’.99
Arm. yogn- ‘to be tired’ resembles xonǰ1 ‘tired’. If they are related, this would be
another argument against the IE etymology of yogn. See s.v. xonǰ1 ‘tired’. Compare
the case of viz : Agulis, Łarabaɫ, J̌
uɫa, etc. *xi/uz ‘neck’ (see s.v. awji-k‘).
yolov, i-stem: GDPl yolov-i-c‘ in Movsēs Xorenac‘i (see below), Movsēs
Kaɫankatuac‘i/Dasxuranc‘i 1.27 (see below), Grigor Astuacaban, Xosrov Anjewac‘i;
IPl yolov-i-w-k‘ in Book of Chries [NHB 2: 366b]; GDPl yolov-i-c‘ is also found in
a colophon by Dawit‘ K‘obayrec‘i from 1178 AD [HayJeṙHiš V-XII, 1988: 222L15]
‘much, plenty, numerous; many people’ (Bible+).
In Movsēs Xorenac‘i 3.67 (1913=1991: 357L9; transl. Thomson 1978: 348-349):
minč‘ew yolovic‘ mkrtel anhawatic‘ “so that many of the unbelievers were
baptized”. In 3.68 (1913=1991: 365L12f; transl. Thomson 1978: 354): hēnk‘ ekeal anhatk‘ ew yolovic‘ koɫmanc‘ “Brigands have come in abundance and from all
sides”. Another attestation of yolov-i-c‘ : Movsēs Xorenac‘i: 2.7 (109L19).
In Movsēs Kaɫankatuac‘i/Dasxuranc‘i /7-10 cent./ 1.27 (V. Aṙak‘elyan 1983:
97L4; transl. Dowsett 1961: 55): Ew yolovic‘n linēr bžškut‘iwn i teɫwoǰn : “Many
were healed in this place”.
●DIAL No dialectal forms are recorded in HAB 3: 403a.
The word is found in Xotorǰur (see YušamXotorǰ 1964: 491b): ɔlov ‘abundant’,
with the following illustration: ǰurn ɔlov a “the water is abundant”; also verbal
*yolovnal, caus. *yolovc‘nul.
●ETYM Since Tervišean, Bugge, etc., connected with Skt. purú-, f. pūrvī́
- ‘much,
abundant’ (RV+), purú (adv.) ‘often, very’ (RV+), OAv. pouru- ‘much’, Gr. πολύς
(adj.) ‘much’, etc. [Meillet 1894b: 2802; Hübschmann 1899: 48; HAB 3: 402-403].
Bugge (1893: 22) assumes a vocalic assimilation *yolev > yolov. Meillet (1894b:
2802) derives yolov from *polowi- assuming that “l’o persiste devant v” (cf. govem,
q.v.), and “le premier o est conservé sous l’influence du second; cf. kotor, molor,
bolor”. Similarly, J̌
ahukyan (1987: 143) derives it from *pol-ou-. Elsewhere (1990a:
8), he writes that “*poleu- should be reconstructed, *plou- seems less plausible; in
the first case progressive and in the second case regressive assimilation is present”.
Olsen (1999: 778, 808) explains yolov from the zero-grade *-pl̥h1bh
i (cf. Skt.
pūrbhis ‘in Fülle’), assuming that the vocalism -o- has been conditioned by the
labial *p-. This idea can hardly be accepted; cf. 2.1.20.
I propose a direct derivation from *polh1u-s (cf. Gr. πολύς ‘much’, on which see
Kuiper 1942: 34; Beekes 1992: 183-184; cf. Rix 2003: 373, 38063): *poləw- >
PArm. *(p)oləw > y-olov. For the assimilation, implied also in Meillet’s, Bugge’s
and J̌
ahukyan’s explanations, see 2.1.20, 2.1.23. Note especially that alawunk‘
‘Pleiades’, which apparently derives from the zero-grade of the same PIE word (cf.
YAv. *paruii ̯ ̯ainī-, NPers. parvīn, Greek Πλειάδες), corroborates the idea about the
dissimilation (see s.v.).
For the prefix y-, see 2.3.1.
The i-stem of yolov may be compared with Skt. f. pūrvī́
- from PIE *plh1-u-ih2-.
See 2.2.3. See also s.v. hoyl, i-stem ‘group’.
yoɫdoɫdem ‘to shake, move, cause to totter, waver’ (Nahum 3.10, John Chrysostom,
Ephrem, etc.), yoɫdoɫd, a-stem: GDPl yoɫdoɫd-a-c‘ (2 Peter 2.14, Alexander
Romance) ‘not firm, tottering, unstable, mutable, vacillating, wavering, fickle’ (2
Peter 2.14, 3.16), John Chrysostom, Hesychius of Jerusalem, T‘ovmay Arcruni,
etc.).
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 403b) treats this verb as a reduplication of an otherwise
unattested *yoɫd- and does not record any acceptable etymology.
The basic meaning seems to be ‘to move’. Note the apposition anšarž himn
‘immovable base’ : anyoɫdoɫdeli vēm ‘immovable wall’ in John Chrysostom apud
NHB 1: 209a. Thus, an-šarž ‘immovable’ is synonymous to an-yoɫdoɫd-eli. Note
Agat‘angeɫos § 767 (1909=1980: 398L11f), where the huge blocks of stone are said to
be impossible to move (šaržel); cf. dial. J̌
avaxk‘ an-žaž from the above-mentioned
an-šarž : anžaž k‘ar ‘immovable stone’ (see Lalayeanc‘ 1892: 11L2 = 1, 1983:
341L2). I propose a tentative connection with Gr. πέλομαι (intrans.) ‘to move’, Skt. cárati
‘to move, wander’, vi-cālayati ‘to shake’, etc. The Armenian verb may be regarded
as an archaic formation with the prefix *h1en- ‘in’ based on a reduplicated present in
o-grade. Further, see s.v. y-orǰ-orǰem ‘to call’ and 2.2.6.1. As for -d-, one could
compare with Gr. τελέϑω < *kw
elh1-dh
e/o- vs. τέλομαι (see Harðarson1995: 206). We
are probably dealing with another trace of the old present suffix *-dh
-, cf. πλήϑω ‘to
fill’ (see Beekes 1995: 231). Thus QIE *h1en-kw
olh1-dh
- > PArm. *iŋ(g)old- > y-ołd-
(cf. s.v. yisun ‘fifty’).
yoyr, i-stem: GDPl yoyr-i-c‘ in Dionysius Thrax ‘fat’.
Attested in Movsēs Xorenac‘i 3.59 (1913=1991: 338L19), John Chrysostom,
Dionysius Thrax.
●ETYM Scheftelowitz (1904-05, 2: 34) connects with Skt. *pī- ‘to swell, be fat’, Av.
paeman ‘milk’, etc. Not accepted in HAB 3: 405-406. The etymology is worth of
consideration. I propose a close connection with Skt. pī́
van- adj. m.n., pī́varī- f. ‘fat,
swelling’ (RV+), pī́varī- noun f. ‘fat, swelling’ (RV+); Gr. πίων adj. m.n., πίειρα
adj. f. ‘fat, fertile, rich’.
Theoretically, a feminine form with full grade in the root and zero-grade in the
suffix might be responsible for the Armenian word: *peiH-ur-ih2- > PArm.
*he(i)ur-i- (loss of the intervocalic -i-) > *hoyr-i- > y-oyr, i-stem. For the
generalization of the feminine form in Armenian, see 2.2.3. For the abundance of
words with y- in this meaning, see 2.3.1.
Alternatively, one might think of a connection with gēr ‘fat’, if this reflects an
older *ueir-. For the anlaut, cf. yoyg vs. vēg ‘knucklebone’, *yušap vs. višap
‘dragon’, yušk-a-parik vs. všk-a-pari-k‘ ‘a mythical being; ass-fairy’, etc. (see also
s.v. *orj-i- ‘testicle’).
y-orj, i-stem: IPl y-orj-i-w-k‘ (Hosea 5.6) ‘male sheep, ram’ in Hosea 5.6
(corresponding to Gr. πρόβατον) and Yovhan Mandakuni/Mayragomec‘i [NHB 2:
372b].
●DIAL Ararat, Širak, Muš, Van *orj ‘a two-year-old male sheep’ [Amatuni 1912:
534a].
●ETYM From Armeno-Greek *h1en-h3orĝh
i- ‘uncastrated, male (ram or buck)’: Gr.
ἔν-ορχις ‘provided with testicles, uncastrated’, cf. ἔν-ορχ-ος, ἐν-όρχ-ης meaning also
‘buck’. Further see s.v. *orj-i- ‘testicle’.
yorǰorǰem ‘to name, call’ (Movsēs Xorenac‘i, Eusebius of Caesarea, Ephrem, etc.);
yorǰorǰ-an-k‘ (Hesychius of Jerusalem), APl -an-s (Severian of Gabala), a-stem:
GDPl yorǰorǰ-an-a-c‘ (Eusebius of Caesarea), IPl [> adv.] yorǰorǰ-an-a-w-k‘ (Cyril
of Jerusalem) ‘name, naming’, yorǰorǰ-umn ‘name’ (Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.63
[1913=1991: 196L5], etc.), yorǰorǰ ‘id.’ (Nersēs Šnorhali /12th cent./).
In Movsēs Xorenac‘i 1.4 (1913=1991: 16L8; transl. Thomson 1978: 73): Ew əndēr
ardeōk‘ zsa miayn ordwoy anuamb yorǰorǰeac‘? “Why then did [Scripture] bestow
on him alone the name of son” (concerning Noah). Further: or Ewt‘aɫios yorǰorǰēr :
“which was named Euthalius” (2.80: 219L16); oroy koč‘mamb yorǰorǰec‘an ew
baɫanik‘n : “by which name the baths were also called” (2.88: 238L14f; transl. 244).
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 408b) treats this verb as a reduplication of an otherwise
unattested *yorǰ- and does not record any acceptable etymology. J̌
ahukyan (1990: 76) points out that yorǰorǰ is obviously a reduplication, but the origin of the root is
unknown.
I propose a connection with Gr. εἴρω < *ϝείρω ‘to say, speak, tell’ and Hitt.
uerii ̯ ̯a- ‘to call, name, summon’, reflecting a i̯e-present of the root *u̯er- (see
Pokorny 1959: 1162-1163; Frisk s.v.; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 1: 231, 3611;
Mallory/Adams 1997: 535a). The Armenian verb probably contains the prefix y- <
PIE *h1en- ‘in’; typologically cf. Lat. in-vocō ‘to call upon, invoke’, OPr. enwackē
‘to call, invoke’ (see Toporov, PrJaz 2, 1979: 59-60); also Lat. in-titulāre, Engl. entitle, etc.
Thus: QIE *h1en-u̯or-i̯e- > PArm. *iŋgorǰ- > *i(ŋ)orǰ- > *yorǰ-, cf. yisun ‘fifty’
(q.v.) vs. hing ‘five’ from PIE *penkw
ek̄ ̂
omth2 ‘fifty’ and *penkw
e ‘five’,
respectively. For *i̯e-present in o-grade cf. synonymous koč‘em ‘to call, invite,
invoke’ from QIE *gw
ot-i̯e- (cf. PGerm. *kweþan ‘to say, speak, call, name’: Goth.
qiþan, OIc. kveða, OEngl. cweþan, etc.), as well as goč‘em ‘to shout’ from *uokw
i̯e-.
Another type of reduplication in o-grade is represented by the following words
also expressing speaking activities: t‘ot‘ov- ‘to speak unclearly’ < redupl. from
t‘ovem ‘to cast a spell’; kokov-an-k‘ ‘boastful/vainglorious words’, kokov-t-el ‘to
speak eloquently’ (q.v.). In this case only the first consonant of the root is
reduplicated, cf. Skt. intensive jóguve ‘to call, to announce’ from gav- ‘to call,
invoke, praise’ (RV+), which, according to my etymology, may be connected with
Arm. ko-kov-.
Further, compare verbal koškočem < *koč-koč-em ‘to beat, break’ < *koc-koci̯e-mi, from koc- ‘to beat; to lament by beating one’s breast’, probably a reduplicated
present in o-grade with the present suffix *-i̯e-. See also 2.2.6.1.
yuṙt‘i ‘watered, irrigated, fertile’ (Genesis 13.10, Gregory of Nyssa, Grigor
Narekac‘i, etc.), yuṙt‘anam ‘to increase’ (Nersēs Šnorhali); without the initial y-:
uṙt‘em ‘to sprinkle, irrigate’ (Łazar P‘arpec‘i, 5th cent.), uṙt‘anam ‘to be watered,
prosperous’ (Anania Narekac‘i, 10th cent.).
In Genesis 13.10 (Zeyt‘unyan 1985: 201): zamenayn koɫmans Yordananu, zi
amenayn yuṙt‘i ēr : πᾶσαν τὴν περίχωρον τοῦ Ιορδάνου ὅτι πᾶσα ἠ̃ν ποτιζομένη.
Arm. yuṙt‘i renders Gr. ποτιζομένη, from the verb ποτίζω ‘to give to drink; to water,
irrigate’.
In Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘: uṙt‘i · parart [Amalyan 1975: 261Nr227]. Compare also urd·
lc‘eal [‘filled’] (op. cit. 262Nr242); but see s.v. urd.
●DIAL Nor Bayazet əṙt‘ənal ‘to become fertile by watering (said of a cornfield)’
[HAB 3: 410a].
●ETYM No etymology is accepted in HAB 3: 410a.
The word is certainly composed of the prefix y- ‘in’ and PIE *-ti-o-/-eh2-, found
also in an-ǰr-di ‘arid, vot-watered’ (with privative an- and ǰur ‘water’), n-aw-t‘i
‘hungry, fasting’ < ‘not having eaten/drunk’, etc.; see s.vv. and 2.3.1, on -ti.
Typologically compare OHG durst ‘thirst’ from Germ. *þurs-ti- ‘thirst , drought’.
Whether the root is identical with uṙ-č- ‘to increase’ (cf. J̌
ahukyan 1967: 304) or uṙ
‘to swell’ is uncertain.
I tentatively propose a derivation from PIE *Huers-: Skt. varṣ- ‘to rain’, vr̥ṣṭí- f.
‘rain’ (RV+), Hitt. u̯arša- ‘rain-shower’, Luw. u̯arša- ‘drips’, Gr. ἐέρση, ἀέρση, ἔρση
f. ‘dew’, οὐρέω ‘to urinate’, MIr. frass ‘rain-shower, torrent’, etc. (see Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 522-523). Arm. y-uṙ-t‘ can be derived from QIE *h1en-h1urs-ti-V-;
for the structure cf. Skt. vr̥ṣ-ṭí-, as well as MIr. frass < *h1urs-t- (see Schrijver 1991:
497-498). A PIE *-rs-t- would yield Arm. -(r)št-. One may therefore treat y-uṙ-t‘i as
reshaped with the same suffix *-ti- which remained productive at later stages (see
2.3.1).
It is uncertain whether there is any relation with Arm. *vaṙ in vard-a-vaṙ ‘folk
festivity of water-pouring’ (see also s.v. urd ‘a small canal/brook to water gardens
with’).
nayim ‘to look, observe; to perceive by the mind, apprehend’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Preserved in some extremely NW (Suč‘ava, Nor Naxiǰewan, Polis, Ṙodost‘o,
Partizak, Aslanbek, Sebastia) and E (Ararat, Agulis) dialects [HAB 3: 427b].
●ETYM Compared with hayim ‘to watch, look’ (q.v.) since NHB (2: 404b) and
Patkanov (1864: 14); see also other references in HAB 3: 427a, as well as Patrubány
1897a: 234 (from *ni-hayim) and Dumézil 1997: 3 (from *(i)n-hayim). Ačaṙyan
(HAB) and J̌
ahukyan (1987: 245) accept the derivation from *ni- ‘down’, seen also
in ni-st.
nan, nana, voc. nan-ɛ, nɛnɛ, nan-i (dial., nursery word) ‘mother’, ‘grandmother’,
‘lullaby, sleep’.
●DIAL Ararat, Łazax nan ‘mother’, Łarabaɫ ‘grandmother’; Alaškert, Muš, Surmalu
nan-ɛ voc. ‘mother’, Xnus-Bulanəx nan-ɛ ‘grandmother’ [Melik‘ean 1964: 547a];
Ararat, Loṙi, Łazax, Van nan-i voc. ‘mother’; Ararat, Van, etc. nana ‘mother;
grandmother; lullaby, sleep’, nana-xat‘un ‘grandmother’; Polis, Ewdokia, Akn, Muš,
Łarabaɫ, etc. nɛnɛ ‘mother’, etc. (see Amatuni 1912: 3a, 500b; Ačaṙean 1913: 809-
810; HayLezBrbBaṙ 4, 2007: 137-138).
●ETYM A nursery word possibly of IE origin [J̌
ahukyan 1972: 300-301; 1987: 56,
140, 182, 275], cf. Pers. nana ‘mother, mamma’ (Steingass 1428a), Shughni nān
‘mother; grandmother’, Khot. nāni ‘mother’, Skt. nanā́- ‘mother, mum’, SCr. nana,
nena ‘mother’, Gr. νάννη ‘aunt’, Alb. nëne ‘mother’, Welsh nain ‘grandmother’, etc.
(Morgenstierne 1974: 49b; Bailey 1979: 179b; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 9-10;
Huld apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 386a). Of non-IE languages cf. Abkhaz nan
‘mother’, Kabardin nan ‘grandmother, old woman’, Chechen, Ingush nana ‘mother’,
etc. [J̌
ahukyan 1987: 602, 608].
The form is probably a reduplication, cf. OHG ana ‘grandmother’, etc. (see s.v.
han-i ‘gtandmother’). Note also Turk. ana, anne ‘mother’, cf. Arm. dial. ana-xat‘un
‘snail’, fem. anthroponym Ana-xat‘un, etc. (see 3.5.2.1). For the reduplicational
pattern cf. Arm. mam(a) ‘mother, grandmother’, pap(a) ‘father, grandfather’, tat(a)
‘grandmother, father’, etc. (see s.vv.).
naw, a-stem: GDSg naw-i, AblSg i naw-ē, LocSg i naw-i, AllSg i naw, ISg naw-a-w,
GDPl naw-a-c‘, AblSg i naw-a-c‘, IPl naw-a-w-k‘; u-stem: ISg naw-u, LocSg i nawu, GDPl naw-u-c‘, IPl naw-u-k‘; o-stem: GDPl naw-o-v-k‘ (rich evidence in the
Bible, see Astuacaturean 1895: 1118) ‘boat, ship; battleship, trireme; navigation,
seafaring’ (Bible+), ‘winepress basin (of stone)’ (Canon Law); nawem ‘to navigate’
(Bible+).
●DIAL Suč‘ava, Nor Naxiǰewan, T‘iflis, Ṙodost‘o, Alaškert, J̌
uɫa, Maraɫa nav ‘boat,
ship’ [HAB 3: 433b]. In Karin, Xotorǰur, Muš, Ararat, and in a number of E and SE
dialects we find nav (Agulis and Łarabaɫ nɔv) referring to ‘mill-race’, ‘gutter’,
‘tube’, ‘basin or drain of a fountain’, ‘trough’ and the like (Amatuni 1912: 605b;
Ačaṙean 1913: 810a; YušamXotorǰ 1964: 492a; Margaryan 1975: 449b;
HayLezBrbBaṙ 4, 2007: 141-142). Most of these meanings should be regarded as
recent cultural innovations taken from Persian (HAB 3: 433-434; for the Iranian
forms see below). However, one cannot exclude the possibility that the meaning
‘basin; trough’ has been developed within Armenian, cf. the literary meaning
‘winepress basin’ attested in Canon Law.
●ETYM Derived from the PIE word for ‘boat’: Skt. náu- f. ‘boat’, Oss. naw/nawæ
‘boat’, Khot. no ‘boat’, Gr. ναῦς f. ‘ship’, Lat. nāvis, is f. ‘ship’, OIr. nau ‘ship’,
OIc. nōr ‘ship’, etc. Considered native Armenian in Hübschmann 1883: 45; HAB 3:
433ab; Ernout/Meillet 1959: 432a; Kortlandt 1980: 104 = 2003: 31; Mallory/Adams
1997: 28; Beekes 2003: 164, 211. The native origin is disputed, however, because
naw can also be regarded as an Iranian loanword; see Hübschmann 1897: 16-17,
201; HAB 3: 433 with lit.; Pokorny 1959: 755; Schmitt 1981: 54; 1987: 446b;
J̌
ahukyan 1987: 182, 551.
On the ground of the a-stem, Olsen 1999: 896-897is inclined to the loan theory.
This argument is not compelling, however. The PIE form *neh2u-s must have been
feminine; there seems to be some Indo-Iranian evidence also for a secondary
feminine *neh2u-eh2-, cf. Skt. AccSg nāvām, MidInd. Pāli, etc. nāvā-, Oss.
naw/nawæ ‘boat’, etc. (Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 59; Cheung 2002: 60, 208). A
similar formation possibly underlies PArm. *naw-a-.
The PIE word has been interpreted as an old u-stem of HD declension: nom.
*néh2-u-s, acc. *nh2éu-m, gen. *nh2u-ós (see Beekes 1985: 83; Nassivera 2000: 61-
62; for a discussion, see also Schindler 1973: 148; Schrijver 1991: 129-131, 269;
Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 59). If the derivation from PIE *(s)neh2- ‘to swim’ (see
Mallory/Adams 1997: 74a; 2006: 249) is accepted, the assumption that the PIE term
is a loan from Sem. (< Afr-As.) *’-n-w- ‘jar, vessel; boat’ (Illič-Svityč 1964: 6, 8;
Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 874-875; 1995, 1: 771-772) should be given up.
Arm. nawaz ‘boatman’ is certainly an Iranian loan, cf. Parth. nāwāz ‘skipper’,
YAv. nauuāza- m. ‘id.’, Skt. nāvājá- m. ‘skipper, boatman’, etc.; see Hübschmann
1883: 45; 1897: 17, 201; HAB 3: 434a; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 38. For the
recent technical meanings in the Armenian dialects, compare NPers. nāv ‘trough,
canal, aqueduct, roof-gutter, the sluice of a mill-dam, boat’ (Steingass 1382a),
Pashto nāwá ‘gutter, tube’, Ormuri nāwa ‘valley’, Parachi nāx ‘roof-gutter’, Oss.
nuk/nokæ ‘gutter’ prob. from *nau̯(a)kā-, Munji nawago, Yidgha nawogṓ ‘millrace’ (see Cheung 2002: 209). Georg. navi ‘boat’, Svan näv ‘id.’, etc. are considered as borrowed from
Armenian (HAB 3: 434a; Illič-Svityč 1964: 617, 8).
nawt‘i, ea-stem according to NHB and HAB, but only APl nawt‘i-s is attested
(Bible+); anawt‘i (John Chrysostom, Paterica, etc.) ‘hungry, fasting’.
Renders Gr. νῆστις ‘not eating, fasting’; for illustrations, see Weiss 1994: 91.
●DIAL The form anawt‘i, although later attested, is ubiquitous in the dialects,
whereas nawt‘i is seen only in Łarabaɫ nɔ́
t‘əɛ [HAB 3: 478a]. However, this form
cannot be treated as a direct reflex of the archaic nawt‘i since the pretonic vowel
(and even syllable) of trisyllabic words is lost in Łarabaɫ and adjacent dialects which
have penultimate accent. A trace of the initial a- can be seen in the following
by-forms: Łarabaɫ ənɔ́
t‘i [Davt‘yan 1966: 313], Goris ənɔt‘i [Margaryan 1975:
314b].
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 477-478) treats as composed of a root *nawt‘ and the
suffix -i (cf. also Frisk 2: 319) seen in e.g. bar-i ‘good’, and rejects all the
etymologies of the word. More accurately: *-ti-o-; see below.
Since Bugge (1889: 22), connected with Gr. νήφω, Dor. νάφω ‘to be sober, drink
no wine’, νῆψις f. ‘sobriety’, νήπ-της ‘sober, discreet, νηπ-τικός ‘sober’
[Hübschmann 1897: 479 (with reservation); Pokorny 1959: 754; Frisk 2: 318-319].
One reconstructs *nagwh-tii̯o- [J̌
ahukyan 1982: 43, 218104; 1987: 140] or *nābh
tio-
(see Olsen 1999: 437, with hesitation); see also Pedersen 1906: 349 = 1982: 127.
Klingenschmitt (1982: 167) derives nawt‘i from *n̥-h1t
s
tii̯o- < *n̥-h1d-ti-, cf. Gr.
νῆστις, -ιος, -ιδος ‘not eating, fasting (of persons); causing hunger, starving’; see
also Beekes 1988: 78 (with a question mark). Sceptical: Olsen 1999: 437493.
100 This
is semantically preferable since both nawt‘i and νῆστις mean ‘not-eating’ whereas
Gr. νήφω refers to abstaining from alcoholic drink [Clackson 1994: 155; Weiss
1994: 91] and may be derived from *ne- + *h1e(h1)gwh- ‘not-drinking’, cf. Lat.
ēbrius ‘drunk; intoxicated’, Toch. AB yok- ‘to drink’, etc. (see Winter 1980a: 470;
Puhvel 1985; Schrijver 1991: 45, 54, 139; Weiss 1994; Adams 1999: 510; Kim
2000), although Doric νάφω points to *h2 [Schrijver 1991: 54, 139] (but on Doric
see Kim 2000: 163-164). According to Seebold (1988: 506), Gr. ā is “wohl aus einer
partizipialen Bildung *n̥-(a)gwh-ont- entwickelt”, and Arm. nawt‘i “ist unklar”.
For other possible/alleged cognates (e.g. OHG nuohturn ‘sober’), for a discussion
and other references or proposals, see HAB 3: 477-478; Dumézil 1997: 2-3; and
especially Clackson 1994: 154-156.
If the cluster *-dt- would rather yield Arm. -wt-, with unaspirated dental stop (see
2.1.22.12), one could maintain the connection of Arm. nawt‘i with Gr. νήφω
(whether with. Lat. ēbrius and others or not) and derive it from *n-H(H)gwh-ti-o-.
According to Pedersen (1906: 343 = 1982: 121), the initial a- of the Armenian
by-form a-nawt‘i is prothetic and can be compared with that of anic (q.v.). J̌
ahukyan
(1987: 254) treats a-nawt‘i vs. nawt‘i (cf. a-nawsr : nawsr) as dialectal variants. In
fact, anawt‘i can be treated as analogical after the privative prefix an-, see
Klingenschmitt 1982: 16713 (“eine Verdeutlichung als negativer Begriff nach
Komposita mit an- privativum < *n̥-“); Clackson 1994: 155, 231222; Beekes 1988:
78. The derivational type in *-ti-o-/-eh2- finds parallel in other Armenian words of
the same semantic field: an-ǰr-di ‘arid, vot-watered’ (with privative an- and ǰur
‘water’), y-uṙ-t‘i ‘watered, irrigated, fertile’; see s.vv. and 2.3.1. It is uncertain
whether there is any connection with nk‘t‘em ‘to starve, faint from hunger’.
neard-k‘, obl. ne(a)rd-, nard- [or nom. nēard-k‘ in Agat‘angeɫos vs. obl. niard- in
Gregory of Nyssa]; i-stem: GDPl nerd-i-c‘ (twice in Plato), nard-i-c‘ (Nersēs
Lambronac‘i), niard-i-c‘ in Gregory of Nyssa (but here also niard-a-c‘, which points
to a-stem), IPl neard-i-w-k‘ (Cyril of Jerusalem) ‘sinew, tendon’.
Agat‘angeɫos+. In derivatives: Bible+.
In Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.85 (1913=1991: 230L11, 231L1; transl. Thomson 1978:
237), nerd-eay ‘made of sinew’, referring to a strap.
●ETYM Connected with Gr. νευρά f. ‘string, sinew’, Lat. nervus m. ‘sinew, nerve,
string’ (since NHB 2: 417b, s.v. nerd-eay), Skt. snā́van- n. ‘sinew’ (AV+), YAv.
snāvarə.bāzura- ‘having sinews as arm’, Oss. nwar/nawær ‘sinew, tendon’ (see
Cheung 2002: 209), Hitt. išḫunau̯ar n. ‘sinew, string’, etc. [Hübschmann 1883: 45;
1897: 478; HAB 3: 438b; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 149]. From PIE neuter heteroclitic
*s(h2)neh1ur/n-. For -d, see s.v. leard ‘liver’. Thus: *sneh1ur-t- (cf. Olsen 1999:
3460, 156, 192) > *ne(H)ur̥-t- > *ne(w)r̥-t- > neard. See 2.1.33.1. On *-ti-, the loss
of -w-, influence of leard, etc., see Clackson 1994: 55, 97, 21997; Kortlandt 1980:
102; 1993: 10; 2001: 11 = 2003: 30, 102, 131.
net, i-stem: ISg net-i-w, GDPl net-i-c‘, IPl net-i-w-k‘ ‘arrow’ (Bible+); on MidArm.
verbal netem, see below, in the dialectal section.
●DIAL Preserved in a number of dialects, basically in the meaning ‘arrow’: Agulis
nɛt, Muš ned, Moks, T‘iflis nit, Zeyt‘un nid, etc. [HAB 3: 442b]. In Łarabaɫ and
Goris, the word denotes a wooden part of the loom, see HAB 3: 442b; Lisic‘yan
1969: 156-158. Moks nit , GSg nitə
ɛ
/nətån, NPl nətk‘y
ir ‘the pole of a plough’ (see
Orbeli 2002: 299).
Šulaver *net-ōj ‘a kind of snake’, lit. ‘arrow-snake’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 811b; HAB
3: 442b], cf. Dersim (K‘ɫi) nɛd-ig ‘a poisonous snake’ (see Baɫramyan 1960: 155a),
on which, see 1.3.
MidArm. (Smbat Sparapet, etc.) denominative verb netem ‘to throw (arrow, etc.)’
is present in many kə-dialects [HAB 3: 442-443].
On the compound *net-u-aɫeɫn ‘arrow and bow’, see s.v. aɫeɫn ‘bow’.
●ETYM Since de Lagarde (1866: 67L3f; see also Hübschmann 1897: 478; HAB 3:
442b), derived from IE *nedo- ‘reed’: Skt. naḍá- ‘reed’, ManMPers. n’yPahl. n’d
‘reed, cane; tube, pipe, flute, clarion’, Parth. nd ‘pipe, flute; cane, rod’, NPers. na/āy
‘reed, cane; flute, pipe’, etc. [Pokorny 1959: 759; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 7-8;
Cheung 2007: 276-277].
As is pointed out in Mallory/Adams 1997: 481a, “the Armenian meaning
reflects the widespread use of of certain kinds of reeds for the making of
arrowshafts”. The meaning ‘arrow’ is also found, probably, in Hittite: nāta- c. ‘reed,
arrow, drinking straw’ (cf. CLuw. nātatta- n. ‘Rohr’, see Starke 1990: 201665, 418).
Next to this form, going back to QIE *nód-o-, once we find AccSg nati-n, pointing
to an i-stem nati- (see Kloekhorst 2008: 597; see also Puhvel 2007). If this form is
old, we might think of Armenian and Anatolian *ned-i- ‘reed; arrow’. Alternatively, PArm. *net-i- may be derived from QIE fem. *ned-ih2-, cf. Skt. nāḍī́
- ‘pipe, flute,
vein’ (for a discussion, see Olsen 1999: 84).
nert‘akn ‘rat’.
Not attested. Only in K‘aǰuni [HAB 3: 446a].
●ETYM No etymological attempt is known to me.
The status of the word is uncertain. Nevertheless, it seems obvious that nert‘akn
is a compound the second member of which is t‘akn ‘mouse’. Ačaṙyan (HAB 2:
142b) considers t‘akn to denote an unknown animal. He fails to note the fact that in
one of the few attestations t‘akn renders Greek ‘mouse’ [NHB 1: 792-793]. Under
this light the connection of t‘akn with Georgian t
h
agu ‘mouse’ suggested by Maṙ
becomes more probable.
As to the first component, it is tempting to equate it with ner ‘husband’s brother’s
wife’ (q.v.). For the semantic relationship, see s.v. ak‘is and 3.5.2.9.
nēr, i- or a-stem: GDSg nir-i in Ruth 1.15, AblSg i ner-ē in Ephrem; o-stem: AblSg i
ner-o-y in Ephrem ‘husband’s brother’s wife; husband’s the other wife’.
NSg nēr and GDSg nir-i are attested in Ruth 1.15, rendering Gr. σύννυμφος
‘husband’s brother’s wife’. For the passage, see Schmitt 1996: 22. In Ephrem one
finds two conflicting ablative forms, namely i ner-ē and i neroy. Philo has APl ner-s.
According to HAB 3: 443a, there is also a NSg reading variant near in Philo.
Tumanjan (1978: 165) lists ner with the words with o-stem citing GSg ner-oy and
notes that later the word also has i-stem. This is not quite accurate. As we have seen,
neroy is attested only once, in Ephrem, whereas nir-i is older since it is attested in
the Bible. Besides, AblSg i ner-ē in the very same Ephrem precludes an o-stem.
These two attestations point to i- or a-stem (thus, not necessarily i-). Although the
evidence is not sufficient to reconstruct the original paradigm with safety, the
attested forms seem to point to NSg nēr vs. oblique ner-. GDSg nir-i (as well as dial.
*nir-oǰ) and NSg ner are analogical after NSg nēr and oblique ner-, respectively.
The word nert‘akn ‘rat’ (only in K‘aǰuni) probably comprises Arm. ner
‘husband’s brother’s wife’ and t‘akn ‘mouse’ (cf. Georgian t
hagu ‘mouse’); see s.v.
and 3.5.2.9.
●DIAL Widespread in the kə-dialects. Zeyt‘un (and Hačən) ney (with diphthong e) is
irregular; one expects *niy [Ačaṙyan 2003: 42]. One might derive ney from nēr
rather than ner, although this does not solve the problem entirely since -ēr usually
yields -ɛy and not -ey, cf. gēr ‘fat’ > Zeyt‘un g‘ɛy, tēr ‘lord’ > Zeyt‘un dɛy (ibid.).
NSg nēr : GSG *nir-oǰ, cf. Zeyt‘un ney : nüyüč‘, Xarberd nɛr : nirɔč‘ [HAB 3:
443; Ačaṙyan 2003: 187].
Svedia has niṙ and vocative *ner-tikin (with tikin ‘mistress, lady’) > nir/ṙdəgɛn
[Ačaṙyan 2003: 581, 589] or nirdigɛn [Andreasyan 1967: 260, 376b] or nerdigayn
[Gyozalyan 2001: 144]; K‘esab niɛr : nartəkɛn [Č‘olak‘ean 1986: 213a].
●ETYM Since Tērvišean and Bugge, connected with the PIE word for ‘husband’s
brother’s wife’: Gr. εἰνάτερες f. pl. ‘wives of brothers or of husbands’ brothers,
sisters-in-law’, NSg ἐνάτηρ, voc. εἴνατερ, gen. εἰνάτερος, Skt. yātar- ‘id.’, Pers. yārī
< *yāϑr-ī-, Lat. pl. ianitrīcēs, Lith. jentė (17th cent.), ìntė ‘husband’s brother’s wife,
wife’s sister, daughter-in-law’, Latv. iẽtaļa, etc. (HAB 3: 443a; Pokorny 1959: 505; Huld apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 522a; for some other references, see Szemerényi
1977: 92365). On Latin ia-, see Schrijver 1991: 107-108.
In view of the apparent phonological problems, the appurtenance of the Armenian
has been considered uncertain [Hübschmann 1897: 478; Frisk 1: 464] or forced and
impossible (Łap‘anc‘yan 1951b: 582-583; 1961: 109; see below). Not included in
Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 760. The following solution has been suggested:
*yineter > *inéy(e)r > nēr [Bugge 1889: 37; HAB 3: 443a]. For other references, see
J
̌
ahukyan 1982: 21442. J̌
ahukyan (1982: 41, 49, 21442; 1987: 130) assumes the same
but with zero-grade *in- and not *yen-. As is clear from Greek and Baltic, however,
the word contained an internal laryngeal, which, in view of Greek -α-, must be *-h2-
(see Beekes 1969: 195; Schrijver 1991: 97), thus one expects Arm. *nayr, gen.
*nawr. Hamp 1966: 11-12 assumes *i̯enatēr > * i̯(i)nayr > *ni̯ayr > nēr.
Schmitt (1996) independently suggests a scenario similar to that of Bugge and
Ačaṙyan (HAB), but he derives *yenetēr from *yenatēr assuming an assimilation.
(See also Matzinger 1997: 11). Kortlandt (1997 = 2003: 120-121) treats this
assimilation as ad hoc, and, basing himself upon Beekes’ rule for the vocalization of
medial laryngeals in Armenian before clusters (see 2.1.20), assumes the following
paradigm: nom. *indir, acc. *inderan, gen. *anawro, instr. *anarbi. Then he notes
that “this paradigm could not survive”, and “the loss of *t before syllabic *r
provided a good motivation for eliminating the dental obstruent from the paradigm
altogether”. He therefore reconstructs *inir, *iner- beside *mayir, *ma(w)r-
‘mother’ and *xw
eur, -xw
e(h)r- ‘sister’, and suggests a regularization of the paradigm
which produced the pre-apocope NSg *ineyir.
Kortlandt’s explanation does not explain all the details satisfactorily. It is not
clear, for instance: (1) why the *-w- has survived in mayr, whereas it disappeared in
nēr completely? (2) how exactly do we arrive at NSg *ineyir? (3) how to explain the
actual ClArm. paradigm, which, despite the scarce evidence, seems to point to NSg
nēr vs. oblique ner-? I therefore offer some considerations not pretending to give the
final solution.
In 2.1.23, I try to demonstrate that an unaccented *ə (from PIE interconsonantal
laryngeal) is assimilated.101 Thus, Schmitt’s idea on assimilation is worth of
consideration. A paradigm nom. *ienh2-tēr (cf. Gr. ἐνάτηρ): acc. *ienh2-tér-m would
give PArm. *inə́
tēr > *inayr : *inətérn > *ine(t)érn, whence analogical nom.
*ine(t)ēr > *neyr > nēr. This way we can understand the paradigm nom. nēr vs. obl.
ner-. GDSg nir-i is analogical after the well-known classical rule -ḗ- : -i-V́-. The
original oblique stem in *-ter- rather than *-tr- parallels Gr. f.pl. εἰνάτερες, gen.
-τερος. For -ete- > -e- cf. *treyes ‘three’ > erek‘ ‘id.’.
Alternative suggestions. The Armenian form had an i- or an a-stem, cf. GDSg
nir-i in Ruth 1.15, AblSg i ner-ē in Ephrem. For a certain stage, thus, one may
reconstruct an (old or recent) feminine in *-ih2-, namely *(H)ienh2-ter-ih2-; cf. Iran.
*yāϑr-ī-. Note the unspecified *neteri- in Hübschmann 1897: 478; J̌
ahukyan 1959: 278a. IE *ienh2-ter-ih2- would produce PArm. hypothetical *inətéri and would
strengthen the basis for the unaccented *ə (see above).
The evidence for the o-stem is meagre: AblSg i ner-o-y in Ephrem next to AblSg
i ner-ē (which suits i-, a- or other stems but not o-) in the same passage. If it is,
nevertheless, reliable, it can be related with the feminine o-stem seen e.g. in nu and
aɫaxin .
Nom. -ē- vs. obl. -e- is reminiscent of the paradigm of aɫuēs, obl. aɫues ‘fox’, etc.
One may also assume a secondary compensatory lengthening caused by the
nominative marker *-s, cf. 2.1.2 and 2.2.1.2.
In view of phonological problems, Łap‘anc‘yan (Kapancjan 1951b: 582-583;
1961: 108-110) rejects the IE etymology of Arm. ne/ēr and compares it with Hurr. SALne-e-ra, which he interprets as a common noun meaning ‘husband’s brother’s
wife’ rather than an anthroponym, as well as with Lyc. nere/i-, a kinship term. The
fact that Arm. ne/ēr is mainly represented in Western and Southern dialects
corroborates, he claims, the Asia-Minor origin of the word. J̌
ahukyan (1985a: 366;
1987: 423, 425) is justifiably sceptical about this connection. Since ner, despite the
scepticism of Łap‘anc‘yan, is certainly of PIE origin, the resemblance with the
Hurrian word should be treated as accidental.
nist, o-stem: GDSg nst-o-y (Gregory of Nyssa, Step‘annos Ōrbelean), i- or a-stem:
GDSg nst-i (Gregory of Nyssa) ‘seat, site, standing, situation, location, abode, base,
estate’ (Deuteronomy 11.30 [Cox 1981: 126], 4 Kings 19.27, Movsēs Xorenac‘i,
Ephrem, etc.), ‘royal residence, capital, royal palace’ (Agat‘angeɫos, Asoɫik, etc.);
nstim, 3sg.aor. nst-a-w, imper. nist and nstaruk‘, etc. (rich evidence in the Bible,
Astuacaturean 1895: 1139-1143) ‘to sit, be seated; to rest’ (Bible+).
For the paradigm of the verb and a morphological discussion, see Meillet 1913:
98, 201a; 1936: 108; Łaragyulyan 1961: 73, 79, 109; Godel 1975: 39, 51, and
especially 122; A. A. Abrahamyan 1976: 134, 153, 180; Schmitt 1981: 136, 146;
J
̌ahukyan 1982: 168, 174, 197; Klingenschmitt 1982: 274; Kortlandt 1981: 33 =
2003: 38.
For some Biblical attestations, see Klingenschmitt 1982: 886.
●DIAL The verb is dialectally ubiquitous. Zeyt‘un də
asdəal is due to assimilation n...d
> d...d (HAB 3: 454a; Ačaṙyan 2003: 114).
In the dialect of Hamšen the paradigm of the verb is synchronically aberrant and
certainly archaic, cf. aorist nsta, nstar, nstav, nstak‘, nstäk‘, nstɔn < nstan,
imperative nist, nstɛk‘ [Ačaṙyan 1947: 134].
In Hamšen one finds *alnist ‘a kind of drowsiness-somnolence caused by a spirit’
(HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 17a); compare the semantics of a Turkish dialectal word
going back to Arm. xipilik in the same dialect of Hamšen: ‘beklemmender Zustand
in einer Art Halbschlaf mit dem Gefühl zu ersticken, Alpdruck’ (see Bläsing 1992:
84-85Nr153). The word seems to be composed of al ‘a female spirit supposed to settle
on young people and suffocate them’ (see Ačaṙean 1913: 53b) and nist ‘sitting,
settling’; cf. Lat. incubō ‘to lie in or on; to sit upon; to brood over’ vs. incubō and
incubus ‘a spirit supposed to settle on people in their sleep and suffocate them by its
weight’ (further see Garamanlean 1931: 655-657; note also Engl. night-mare ‘a
female spirit or monster supposed to settle on and produce a feeling of suffocation in
a sleeping person or animal’, OxfEnglDict). On the other hand, Hamšen *alnist is reminiscent of derivatives of the same spirit-name *āl- such as Tadjik al-masti, albasti, Shughni al-masti, Azeri and Kurd. hal-anas-, Turk. al-ana, etc. (see Basilov
apud MifNarMir 1: 58; ÈtimSlovIranJaz 1, 2000: 309). A direct borrowing of the
Hamšen form from one of these forms is difficult to assert. If nevertheless the
connection is accepted, one may assume a folk-etymological re-interpretation as
‘(somnolence caused by) the sitting of the nightmare-spirit’.
●ETYM Since long (for numerous references, see HAB 3: 454a), linked with words
belonging with PIE *sed- ‘to sit’ (see s.v. hecanim ‘to mount a horse’), cf. Skt. nīḍám.n. ‘nest, lair, bird’s nest’, Lat. nīdus m. ‘bird’s nest, residence’, OHG, OEngl. nest
‘nest’, etc. < *ni-sd-o- on the one hand, and verbal Gr. ἵζω ‘to sit down’, Skt. sī́dati,
MPers. nišastan ‘to sit’, etc. on the other (Hübschmann 1897: 178; Meillet 1936: 39,
108; HAB 3: 453-454; Pokorny 1959: 885, 887; Łaragyulyan 1961: 73; J̌
ahukyan
1982: 67, 129; 1987: 146; Greppin apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 393a).
It has been assumed that Arm. verbal nist-, Skt. sī́
dati, etc. reflect *ni- +
reduplicated present *si-sd-, see Godel 1975: 122; 1982: 20-21; Barton 1989: 148,
14843; Ravnæs 1991: 106; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 693; Adams apud
Mallory/Adams 1997: 522; Beekes 2003: 160, cf. 167. For further references and a
discussion, see J̌
ahukyan 1982: 22829; Godel 1982: 20-214a; Klingenschmitt 1982:
85, 88, 217, and especially 129-131.
Some scholars assume structurally different proto-forms and derive the noun nist
and the primary verb nstim from *ni-sd-o- and *ni-si-sd- (> *nihist- > nist-),
respectively (see e.g. Schmitt 1981: 66, 73, and especially 205). Since the meaning
of nist is not ‘bird’s nest’, it may be treated as a deverbative rather than a direct
continuation of *nisdos (Godel 1982: 20-21; Olsen 1999: 1730, 22423; cf. also
Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 50).
Further see s.vv. *aṙ-ič ‘settlement, village’, z-ist ‘the fleshy parts between the
loins and knee’. Note also unǰ3, dial. also *uč ‘soot, rust’ (q.v.), if from *sōd-i̯V-
‘soot, sediment’.
nu, o-stem: GDSg nu-o-y (a number of attestations in the Bible), AblSg i nu-o-y in
Severian of Gabala, ISg nu-o-v in Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i (9-10th cent.); a-stem:
ISg nuaw in Movsēs Xorenac‘i 3.67 (1913=1991: 356L7), Yovhannēs
Drasxanakertc‘i (9-10th cent.); n-stem: NPl nu-an-k‘, APl nu-an-s (Ruth 1.6-8), APl
nov-an-s in John Chrysostom (HAB 3: 467a) ‘daughter-in-law’.
Further attestations: NAccSg nu is widely attested in the Bible onwards. NPl nuk‘ is found in Philo. NAPl nu-an-k‘/s are found three times in Ruth 1.6-8, in
juxtaposition with erkok‘/sin ‘both’ [Astuacaturean 1895: 1137b; NHB 2: 447ab];
here the Armenian word renders Gr. νύμφη, not νυός.
●DIAL No dialectal forms are recorded in HAB 3: 467a. Possibly related are Kesaria
nunug ‘the elder daughter-in-law in the house’ [Ant‘osyan 1961: 289], Malkara
nunuk glossed by harsn-uk ‘little bride or daughter-in-law’, Xarberd nunu ‘tender’
(epithet to harsnuk) [Ačaṙean 1913: 816b], Sebastia, Akn nunuk ‘a plant’
[HayLezBrbBaṙ 4, 2007: 178b], Sebastia nunuk glossed by harsnuk, lit. ‘little bride’
[Gabikean 1952: 426].
Further, see s.vv. nuik ‘arum’, *nuin ‘(nuptial) bed’, *nurin ‘Rain-Maiden’.
●ETYM Since long (NHB 2: 447a; de Lagarde 1854: 31L864; Hübschmann 1897: 479;
HAB 3: 467a), connected with the IE word for ‘daughter-in-law’: Gr. νυός f. ‘daughter-in-law; bride’, Lat. nurus, ūs f. ‘daughter-in-law; young woman’, Skt.
snuṣā́- f. ‘daughter-in-law’, etc.
One usually reconstructs an original feminine, PIE *snusós ‘daughter-in-law’,
which was transferred to the common feminine class in *-eh2- independently in a
number of cognate languages: Skt. snuṣā́- f. ‘daughter-in-law’, Sogd. šwnšh, NPers.
suna, sun(h)ār, OEngl. snoru, SerbCS snъxa, Russ. snoxá, etc. ‘id.’. An u-stem is
seen in Lat. nurus (if not analogical after socrus ‘mother-in-law’) and OHG snur
(dat. snuri). For a discussion, see Pedersen 1905: 228, 228-2291 = 1982: 90, 90-911;
Meillet 1936: 74; J̌
ahukyan 1959: 183; 1982: 118, 129; 1987: 149; Frisk 2: 328;
Godel 1975: 78; Szemerényi 1977: 68-69; Tumanjan 1978: 62; Schmitt 1981: 50;
Rix 1992: 136; Clackson 1994: 156; Beekes 1995: 174; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996:
771; Olsen 1999: 186; Matzinger 2005: 26-27.
Scholars practically always present Arm. nu only as an o-stem. However, it also is
an a-stem: ISg nu-a-w (see above; also Matzinger 2005: 26-27130). Armenian thus
has both *-o- and *-eh2-. The alternative n-stem (NAPl nu-an-k‘/s in Ruth 1.6-8,
with erkok‘/sin ‘both’) may be analogical after the plural type kus-an-k‘ of koys
‘young girl, maiden, virgin’ (for references and a discussion, see Matzinger 2005:
26-27130, 122549), although kusank‘ reflects the suffixed form kus-an ‘young girl,
maiden, virgin’ (see Olsen 1999: 298). Olsen (1999: 186, 820, 833) assumes an
individualizing secondary suffix corresponding to the Germanic feminine type in -
ōn- < *-ān- (vs. masculine -an- < *-on-, found in the type Arm. erēc‘ ‘elder’, pl.
eric‘unk‘; for this paradugm, see Tumanjan 1971: 231). In what follows I
nevertheless offer a tentative explanation of the nasal stem of nu.
The connection of this PIE term with Gr. νύμφη f. ‘young wife, bride;
marriageable maiden; daughter-in-law; nymphe’, Lat. nūbō, -ere, -sī, -ptum ‘to
marry (a husband)’, OCS snubiti ‘lieben, freien’, Czech snoubiti ‘freien, verloben’,
Alb. nuse ‘bride’, etc., and the reconstruction of *(s)neubh
- (Walde/Hofmann 2: 183-
184; Frisk 2: 325-326; Otrębski 1967: 76-77; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 7611 =
1995, 1: 66334; Pokorny 1959: 977-978; Mallory/Adams 1997: 148a, 369ab; cf.
Demiraj 1997: 302-303) is uncertain.
Regardless of its relationship with Lat. nūbō, etc. on the one hand, and with PIE
*snusós, on the other, Gr. νύμφη may be linked with an Armenian theoretical form
*nuw-n- reflecting a QIE *nubh
-n-: nom. *nubh
-ōn > PArm. *nuwu(n) > nu, gen.
*nubh
-n-ós > Gr. *numph
-. It is possible that this *nubh
-n- ‘bride’ was of substratum
origin and has been contaminated with PArm. *nu(h) < PIE *snusós ‘daughter-inlaw’. Compare another possible substratum word with the same paradigmatic
explanation: nom. *pl̥h2-bh
-ōn- > PArm. *aɫawun, gen, *-bh
-n-os > Lat. *palumbwith metathesis as in Gr. *numph
- (see s.v. aɫawni ‘pigeon, dove’).
The PIE term has been derived from Proto-Nostratic *nusy
- ‘woman, female; any
female connected by marriage; wife, bride, daughter-in-law’, cf. Proto-Afrasian
*nusy
- ‘woman, female’ (Bomhard 2008, 2: 888-889; cf. Diakonoff/Starostin 1986:
37). Some interesting IE loans are found in Caucasian indigenous languages:
Kabardian, Adyghe nəsa ‘(father’s) brother’s wife’, Laz nusa, nisa ‘daughter-inlaw’, Avar, Chechen, etc. nus ‘daughter-in-law’, Andi nusa ‘daughter-in-law’, etc.
(see Bomhard 2008, 2: 889, 935 with references). According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 467a; see also J̌
ahukyan 1987: 601Nr12, 607Nr29), Kabardian nəsə, Laz nusa and
others have been borrowed from PArm. *nus-.
A possible derivative of Arm. nu ‘daughter-in-law’ is nu-ik ‘arum, arum lily,
Arum dracunculus L.’ (q.v.). If we may indeed assume a PArm. *nuw-n- as cognate
to νύμφη f. ‘bride; daughter-in-law; nymphe, goddess of lower rank’, then the
connection between Arm. nu-ik ‘arum, arum lily, Arum dracunculus L.’ and Gr.
νυμφ-αία f. ‘water-lily’ would not be merely a semantic one.
The comparison of Arm. nu ‘daughter-in-law’ with nor ‘new’, nuēr ‘gift’, nuaz
‘little’, etc. (S. M. Grigoryan 1999: 329-330) cannot be upheld.
nuik, nvik, nuič ‘arum, arum lily, Arum dracunculus L.’, only in late medieval
medical writings: Kamarkapc‘i, Amirdovlat‘ Amasiac‘i, etc. (NHB 2: 451a; Ališan
1895: 467-468; S. Vardanjan 1990: 165, § 810; MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 200).
In Armenian sources, Dracontium or Arum dracunculus (a plant with snakelike
rhizome, OxfLatDict) is described as resembling the hide of snakes (see references
above; cf. the same on synonymous šawašariwn, NHB 2: 474b). According to
Amirdovlat‘ Amasiac‘i, from this plant they made an ointment, which was supposed
to prevent one from being bitten by snakes; a species of this plant is called in
Turkish yilan kavi, lit. ‘snake’s tinder’ [S. Vardanjan 1990: 165, 626810.3]. According
to a folk-belief recorded in Arčak (S. Avagyan 1978: 45a), snakes settle in the
neighbourhood of nvik.
●DIAL Van, Moks nvik [Ačaṙyan 1952: 283], Arčak nvik [S. Avagyan 1978: 45a
(with a through description), 78a], Šatax nəvik [M. Muradyan 1962: 202b], Zeyt‘un
nə̀
və̀
g [Ačaṙyan 2003: 331], Gamirk‘ nvič [T‘emurčyan 1970: 91a], Ararat nvik,
Sebastia, Muš, Alaškert nvig, Aslanbek, Partizak, Akn lviǰ, Xarberd lvinǰ, etc. [HAB
3: 470b], Sasun nvig [Petoyan 1965: 97, 509], Sasun nviǰ [Petoyan 1954: 148],
Kesaria nəvig [Ant‘osyan 1961: 289], Dersim nəvinǰ, ləvinǰ [Baɫramyan 1960: 94b];
see also HayLezBrbBaṙ 4, 2007: 177a. For a description and textual illustrations, see
Amatuni 1912: 506a. For description of various denotata of nuik/č and the
synonymous šawašariwn (on which see below), see Malxaseanc‘ HBB 3: 483b, 508-
509.
Svedia lväg < *luik is described as a plant belonging to the family of šušan ‘lily’
with flowers resembling šušan [Andreasyan 1967: 152-153]. According to
Č‘olak‘ean (1986: 244), the roots of K‘esab ləvɛk was used against biting of
poisonous insects (cf. Ačaṙean 1913: 816a on Muš and K‘ɫi). Urmia, Salmast nuik
refers to a plant that was used as spice [GwṙUrmSalm 2, 1898: 98]. Sebastia nəvik
‘arum’ was used for making a fasting dish [Gabikean 1952: 426].
The sound change n- > l- is seen in a number of cases in different conditions:
ClArm. napastak (Bible+; dial. of Sebastia) : MidArm. and dial. *lapastak,
*(a)lapastrak ‘hare’ [HAB 3: 428-429]102;
MidArm. narinǰ ‘orange’ > Svedia laṙanǰ (nasal dissimilation, Ačaṙyan 2003:
415); as is pointed out by Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 431b), this sound change is totally
identical with that in Spanish naranja, laranja;
ClArm. neṙn ‘antichrist’ : dial. Łaradaɫ lɛṙ [HAB 3: 441-442]; ClArm. nig ‘bolt, bar of a door; crowbar’ > dial. ling ‘id.’: 1) nasal epenthesis; 2)
nasal dissimilation [HAB 3: 450-451];
Gr. Νότος ‘south(-west) wind’ : Turk. lodos ‘id.’, Arm. Polis, Karin lotos ‘warm
south wind’ (Ačaṙean 1902: 153; HayLezBrbBaṙ 2, 2002: 244b).
In the case of nuik, one may also assume a contamination with Arab. lūf.
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 470b) rejects all the etymological attempts, including the
comparison with Arab. lūf (Ališan 1895: 467), and leaves the origin of the word
open. I propose to interpret nu-ik as a native Armenian word. It is interesting to note
that nvik is called Hayoc‘ banǰar, lit. ‘Armenian herb’ (Ališan 1895: 358Nr1622;
Malxaseanc‘ HBB 3: 483b; HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 163a).
The word nu-ik is obviously composed of a stem *nu and the productive
diminutive suffix -ik. For the by-form in -ič cf. aɫawn-ič ‘a plant’ from aɫawni ‘dove’
[HAB 1: 122b]; boɫ-ič the resin of the plant boɫ [HAB 1: 464a]; daṙn-ič ‘a plant’
from daṙn ‘bitter’ [HAB 1: 624-625], etc.; from other semantic fields: kaw-ič
‘chalk’, čah-ič ‘morass’, etc. (HAB s.vv.).
In order to identify the root *nu, we must consider other designations of this and
other flowers, which are formally or culturally associated with the arum, e.g. arum
lily, water-lily, etc. We start with Arm. šawa(r)š-ariwn ‘arum, arum lily, Arum
dracunculus L.’, lit. ‘blood of Siyāvuš’, reflecting the name of the resurrecting hero
of the Iranian epic, viz. Siyāva/uš; cf. Pers. xūn-i-siyāvuš(ān) ‘Dragon’s Blood;
Brazilian wood, a sort of gum produced in Abyssinia’ (Steingass 488b); in other
languages: ‘blood of brothers’ or ‘blood of dragon’ [Hübschmann 1897: 213; HAB
3: 505].
The prince Siyāvaš was desired by her stepmother, but he rejects her advances;
the stepmother succeeds in turning the king against his son; Siyāvaš is exiled and
eventually becomes the ruler of his own territory (see Skjærvø 1998); he is closely
associated with the horse; he is regarded as a resurrecting divinity reborn as Arum
dracunculus or lilies; hi is honoured the first day of the year, the vernal equinox (M.
D’jakonov 1951; Rapoport 1971: 20-21, 83-84, 115-117; Lelekov apud MifNarMir
2, 1982: 441). All these motifs are characteristic of dying and resurrecting
mythological figures of the type Attis/Mithra, Armenian Mihr/Artawazd, as well as
the prominent hero of the epic “Sasna cṙer” (Daredevils of Sasun), Dawit‘.
Sahak Movsisyan (Bense) has recorded a traditional story, according to which the
flower nunufar ‘water-lily’ originated from the blood of Davit‘, which was killed by
Č‘mškik Sult‘an in the river Meɫraget (see Łanalanyan 1969: 113Nr313; S. Movsisyan
1972: 51b). That nunufar is an aquatic plant is clearly illustrated by late medieval
folk-songs (see Abeɫyan 1940: 142, Nrs. 232 and *232; MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 198b,
201a).
In “Govasank‘ caɫkanc‘” (Praise of flowers) by Davit‘ Salajorc‘i, 17th cent.
(UšMǰnHayBnst 2, 1987: 357L112f) we read:
Ayn nunufar caɫikn or kay, busni yezers ǰrerun,
Ōjern zink‘n ku pahen, mard č‘i k‘aɫel noc‘a ahun.
“That flower nunufar grows on shores of waters;
the snakes guard it, and people cannot pluck them for fear of them”.
As we can see, these two flower-names, viz. nuik ‘arum, arum lily’ and nunufar
‘water-lily’, are related not only by the motif, but also by the association with snakes. A number of designations of the arum reflect the patterns ‘blood of brothers’
and ‘blood of dragon’. The underlying myth seems to have had also a variant where
the brothers had a loving sister (see Ananyan 1987: 150-153; cf. Łanalanyan 1969:
113Nr312A on lala ‘tulip, poppy’, always crying for the brothers). Note that Svedia
lväg < *luik is described as a plant belonging to the family of šušan ‘lily’, which
also occurs as a female anthroponym in the same mythological context (for more
detail on Dawit‘, Šušan, etc., see Martirosyan/Gharagyozyan 2007). Note also Gr.
νυμφ-αία f. ‘water-lily’ from νύμφη f. ‘young wife, bride; marriageable maiden;
daughter-in-law; nymphe, goddess of lower rank, esp. of springs; doll, puppet;
pupa’.
Further typological parallels: Muš nor-a-harsuk ‘a flower resembling the poppy’,
lit. ‘newly married little bride’, Turk. kɛlinčik č‘ič‘ɛyi [Amatuni 1912: 505b]; Xian
arus-uk ‘a kind of plant’ (as synonymous to kakač‘in, cf. kakač‘ ‘poppy’) from arus
‘bride, ritual doll’ (see Ačaṙean 1913: 153b, 535b; Petoyan 1965: 446;
HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 137b), compare Arab. ’arūs an-Nīl ‘lotus’ (Uwe Bläsing,
p.c.); Sebastia nunuk glossed by harsnuk, lit. ‘little bride’ [Gabikean 1952: 426];
Łarabaɫ ərana hart‘nə, or č‘olen hart‘nə, lit. ‘bride or daughter-in-law of the wild
fields’ (L. Harut‘yunyan 1991: 84-85Nr55).
On the strength of this evidence, one may identify the stem *nu of Arm. nu-ik
‘Arum dracunculus L.’ with nu, o-stem, a-stem ‘daughter-in-law’ (from PIE *snusos,
cf. Gr. νυός f. ‘daughter-in-law, bride’, Lat. nurus, ūs f. ‘daughter-in-law, young
woman’, etc.; see s.v.).
*nuin (dial) ‘(nuptial) bed’.
●DIAL Šatax nəvin ‘(bride-)bed, nuptial bed’ [M. Muradyan 1962: 214b]; Moks
nəvin, gen. nəvnəɛ, pl. nəvən-k‘y
-ir ‘все постельные принадлежности, постель, но
не постланная’ [Orbeli 2002: 299]; Sasun nvin ‘bed’ (glossed by ankoɫin) [Petoyan
1954: 148]. Textual illustrations from Šatax folklore are found in LalVasp 2, 1914:
76: maǰ nəvnin ‘in the bed’, nəvəni takin ‘under/in the bed’. Glossed also in SasCṙ
2/2, 1951: 783b. The meaning ‘nuptial bed’ is found also in Moks, Van and Sasun
(see HayLezBrbBaṙ 4, 2007: 177a, with an epic attestation illustrating that
meaning).
●ETYM No etymological explanation is known to me.
If the hypothesis on the theoretical Armenian *nuw-n- ‘bride, daughter-in-law’ vs.
Gr. νύμφη f. ‘young wife, bride; marriageable maiden; daughter-in-law; nymphe’
(see s.v. nu ‘daughter-in-law’) is accepted, and if the Šatax meaning ‘nuptial bed’ is
original, one may posit an old Armenian *nu(w)in and derive it from *nuw-n- (for
the -i- compare the cases of lusin ‘moon’ and kaɫin ‘acorn’, see s.vv.). An interesting
parallel would be Gr. νυμφών, -ῶνος m. ‘bride-chamber’, derived from the same
νύμφη (see Frisk 2: 326). This is, of course, highly hypothetical.
*nurin (dial.) ‘the female personage of the rain-invoking ritual and the doll
personifying her’, ‘Regenmädchen’.
●DIAL Ararat, Łarabaɫ [Amatuni 1912: 507; Ačaṙean 1913: 816b; HayLezBrbBaṙ 4,
2007: 179b], Širak [Mxit‘areanc‘ 1901: 273], Alaškert, Č‘aharmahal [Ṙ. Grigoryan
1970: 324-325]. In ritual songs nurin often rhymes with its epithet aǰb-a-huri
‘wonderful fairy’, consisting of *ačp- or *aǰb- ‘amazement’ and huri ‘fairyFor a collection of versions of this ritual song, see Ṙ. Grigoryan 1970: 324-326.
For a description and a discussion, see further Abeghian 1899: 93-94 = 1975: 77-78;
Abeɫyan 1941: 89-91; Bdoyan 1972: 491-493; P‘iliposyan 2005, 2: 90-91.
●ETYM Abeɫyan (1941: 90) states that the etymology of nurin and its other
synonyms is not known. The connection with Gr. Nereus, Arm. Covi-nar, etc., with
-a- > -u- resulted from rhyming influence of huri ‘fairy’ in the following line of the
‘rain-song’ (Łap‘anc‘yan 1945: 86-871; see also Bdoyan, HayŽoɫXaɫ 1, 1963: 163-
164; Bdoyan 1972: 493b, 495b; A. Petrosyan 2002: 8,816) is uncertain. Likewise
uncertain is the Sumero-Akkadian etymology (N. Mkrtč‘yan 1979: 219; cf.
D’jakonov 1981: 69).
Given the fact that most of the names of this personage and its ritual
representative actually mean ‘the bride (of Rain)’ (of other languages cf. e.g. Kurd.
buka barane ‘the bride of the rain’, Abeɫyan 1941: 91), Arm. *nurin may be derived
from Arm. nu ‘daughter-in-law, bride’ (q.v.); for the semantic development cf. also
Gr. νύμφη f. ‘young wife, bride; marriageable maiden; daughter-in-law; nymphe,
goddess of lower rank, esp. of springs; doll, puppet; pupa’. The final -n may be
secondary, and the -ri- due to influence of the synonymous pup-ri-k (which is
perhaps in a way related with Lat. pūpa f. ‘girl, doll’, etc. , see Abeɫyan 1941: 901),
and the rhyming influence of huri ‘fairy’ (see above). Uncertain.
nk‘t‘em ‘to starve, faint from hunger’ (Bible+). For instance, in Genesis 25.29-30
(Zeyt‘unyan 1985: 258): Ew ēr ep‘eal Yakobay t‘an, ew ekn Esaw i daštē nk‘t‘eal.
<...>. Tur inj čašakel i šikat‘anēd yaydmanē, zi nk‘t‘eal em : ἥψησεν δὲ Ιακωβ
ἕψεμα. ἠ̃λϑεν δὲ Ησαυ ἐκ τοῦ πεδίου ἐκλείπων. <...> Γεῦσόν με ἀπὸ τοῦ ἑψέματος τοῦ
πυρροῦ τούτου, ὅτι ἐκλείπω. Here nk‘t‘eal em renders Gr. ἐκλείπω ‘to leave out; to
die; to faint’.
●DIAL No dialectal forms are recorded in HAB 3: 477a.
According to V. Aṙak‘elyan (1979: 38), here belongs Ararat (Abovyan, the
village of Kotayk‘) *nəxt(ə), as the root of nk‘t‘em, occurring in the expression nəxtə
kədərvel ‘to faint, become weak from hunger’, lit. “one’s *nəxt be cut”. This could
be possible only if *nik‘t‘- or *nuk‘t‘- have basically meant something like ‘vital
power, strength, essence’ or the like, but this is improbable. Typologically, cf. a
different kind of semantic shift: oyž ‘power’ : *z-oyž > žoyž ‘endurance’. Dial. nəxtcan rather be derived from Arm. niwt‘ ‘element, material, subject, properties’, dial.
‘sap; nourishment; subject; essence’. This is corroborated by Urmia/Xoy nüt‘ə
kətəṙvel ‘to be/become exhausted’ (see M. Asatryan 1962: 229b) which is identical
with Kotayk‘ nəxtə kədərvel ‘to faint, become weak from hunger’.
●ETYM Meillet (1908-09: 356) connects nk‘t‘em ‘to starve, faint from hunger’ with
nk‘oɫim ‘to be dried, parched, tired, unwell (e.g. as resulted from hunger)’ deriving
them from PIE *nī-k-: Skt. nīcā́ ‘downwards’, OCS nicь ‘face downwards’, ORuss.
ničati ‘to bend, bow, droop’, Byel. dial. nícy ‘болезненный, слабый’ = ‘ailing,
sickly, weak’ (see ÈtimSlovSlavJaz 25, 1999: 109-110). Not accepted in HAB 3:
477ab, and not included in J̌
ahukyan’s monographs and Olsen 1999.
The etymology is worth of consideration. For the semantics cf. the Byel. form;
see also Arm. xonǰ ‘tired, exhausted’ vs. xonǰ ‘low, down’ (see s.vv.). Formally
Arm. nk‘t‘em can be interpreted as *nikh
-t- (with intensive -t-) > *nik‘t‘- through
assimilation. On the other hand, nk‘t‘em can be regarded as containing the prefix *ni- and
*k‘t‘-, the latter being related with *kt‘- ‘to faint, become weak, feeble’ (q.v.); cf.
n-k‘oɫ- if from *ni- + *suol- (see s.v.). Hardly related to nawt‘i ‘hungry’, q.v.
nk‘oɫim ‘to be dried, parched, tired, unwell (e.g. as resulted from hunger)’.
In Numbers 11.6: nk‘oɫeal en anjink‘ mer; ew oč‘ urek‘, bayc‘ miayn i mananayn
en ač‘k‘ mer : νυνὶ δὲ ἡ ψυχὴ ἡμῶν κατάξηρος, οὐδὲν πλὴν εἰς τὸ μαννα οἱ ὀφϑαλμοὶ
ἡμῶν. Here Arm. nk‘oɫeal renders Gr. κατά-ξηρος ‘very dry, parched’. In 1 Kings
30.13, the Armenian verb renders Gr. ἐν-οχλέω ‘to be troubled, annoyed; to be
unwell, overburdened with work’: nk‘oɫec‘ay es ays errord ōr : ἠνωχλήϑην ἐγὼ
σήμερον τριταῖος.
The form nk‘oɫ-eal is also attested in Paterica, and nk‘oɫ-umn occurs in
Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i.
●ETYM Meillet (1908-09: 356) connects with nk‘t‘em, q.v. Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 477b)
leaves the origin open.
I suggest a tentative comparison to EBalt. *svel- ‘to burn, smoulder, steam’ (Lith.
svìlti, etc., see Derksen 1996: 203, 287), OIc. svelta ‘sterben, hungern’, OEngl.
swelan ‘to burn’, OHG swelzan ‘to burn’, Gr. ἕλη ‘heat of the sun’, etc., probably
also Arm. k‘aɫc‘ ‘hunger’. Arm. n-k‘oɫ- may derive from *ni- + *svol-. Compare
also Arm. suaɫ- ‘to starve’?. For an alternative, see s.v. yogn ‘plenty; to be tired’.
šaɫiɫ, o-stem: ISg šaɫɫ-o-v (Eznik Koɫbac‘i, John Chrysostom); a-stem: GDPl šaɫɫ-a-c‘
(late, in Oskip‘orik) ‘raw flesh, body, corpse’ attested in Exodus 21.34, Eznik
Koɫbac‘i, Hexaemeron, etc.
●ETYM Müller (WZKM 10: 277, see HAB s.v.) connected with Skt. śárīra- n. ‘the
body, bodily frame, solid parts of the body’ (RV+). Hübschmann (1897: 479)
derives the Sanskrit from *k̂
alīlo- and rejects the connection with Arm. šaɫiɫ in view
of š. Also sceptical: Boisacq 1911-12: 113-114; HAB 3: 490a.
On semantic grounds Mayrhofer (EWAia 2: 617-618) treats the derivation of Skt.
śárīra- from śar- ‘zerbrechen, zertrennen, zerschmettern’ to be uncertain. He does
not mention the Armenian form.
Olsen (1999: 94116) points out that Müller’s suggestion “may be revived if we
assume borrowing through an unknown (Iranian?) source”. The Iranian would have
an initial s, however. I hypothetically assume an old Aryan borrowing at the Mitanni
period, perhaps even earlier if the o-stem corresponds to the Aryan proto-form:
*śálīlo- > Arm. *šalílo- > šaɫiɫ, obl. šaɫ(i)ɫo-. Note that also the synonymous
marmin, o-stem ‘flesh, body’ can be regarded as an Aryan loan.103
šaɫim ‘to be mistaken, confused’. Nersēs Lambronac‘i (12th cent.). ●DIAL T‘iflis, Ararat, Agulis, Łarabaɫ *šaɫ- ‘to err, to be mistaken, confused; to see
badly; to become spoiled (of milk)’ [HAB 3: 508a].
●ETYM See s.v. šeɫ ‘slanting, crooked, oblique’.
šant‘, i-stem (ISg šand-i-w in a homily ascribed to Eɫišē, IPl šant‘-i-w-k‘ in
Yaysmawurk‘ and Vardan Arewelc‘i, GDPl šant‘/d-i-c‘ in Philo and Movsēs
Kaɫankatuac‘i 2.40 [1983: 241L1); šant‘i, a-stem (GDPl šant‘/deac‘ in Philo+)
‘lightning, thunderbolt; spark, fiery iron’ (Bible+).
Spelled also as šand(i). Borrowed into Georg. šanth
i ‘fiery iron’. For the verbal
šant‘em ‘to strike, thunder, overthrow’ (Eɫišē; dialects), see below.
The meaning ‘(fiery) bolt’ is seen e.g. in Job 41.11 (Cox 2006: 263). For the fiery
connotations of šant‘, cf. also Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘, Nrs. 49-52 (see Amalyan 1975: 247):
šant‘· hrac‘eal erkat‘n ē “(this) is the fiery iron”; šant‘agoyn· hragoyn “of fiery
colour”; šant‘ahar· erknahar, kam kaycaknahar “struck by heaven or lightning”;
šant‘ik‘· kaycak, kam xaroyk “lightning, or camp-fire”. See also Abeghian 1899: 89
(“vom Himmel herabgestiegenes Feuer und Eisen, ferner glühendes Eisen und auch
Dreifuss”).
Among compounds: šant‘-a-har in Movsēs Xorenac‘i 3.37 (1913=1990: 304L19f):
orpēs zšant‘ahar yerkir korcanēr zk‘aǰn “smote the brave warrior to the ground as if
he had been struck by a thunderbolt” (transl. by Thomson 1978: 298).
Anania Širakac‘i (A. G. Abrahamyan 1944: 321L7f) enumerates the following
atmospheric visual phenomena: šant‘, kayc ‘spark’, hur ‘fire’, p‘aylakn ‘lightning’,
siwn hroy ‘pillar of fire’, yardagoɫ ‘Milky Way’. Here, thus, šant‘ and p‘aylakn are
taken as non-identical notions.
●DIAL The dialects have only the verb *šant‘em : Hačən ‘to strike (of devils)’,
Ararat, Agulis ‘to bite, cause a burning pain’, Šulawer ‘to burn’ [HAB 3: 494b;
Ačaṙyan 1935: 379; 2003: 99, 331]. According to Amatuni (1912: 510b), Ararat
šant‘el refers to the biting of snakes and scorpions.
The verb *šant‘em is not recorded in NHB or HAB. One finds it, however, in
Eɫišē (1989: 32), in the meaning ‘to thunder or strike’ (of a snake) (or ‘to be furious’
or ‘to thunder/strike furiously’, cf. bark, q.v.), pertaining to an impious ruler (anōrēn
išxan). The passage seems to be formulaic since it strikingly resembles the
description of the Evil Eye in spelling formulae. In this respect, the meaning ‘to
strike (of devils)’ (in the dialect of Hačən) is particularly interesting.
I conclude that the basic meaning of šant‘ was ‘stroke’ referring to lightning, as
well as to devils, snakes and the like (originally, perhaps, to the mythological
Thunder Dragon), which has developped to ‘lightning-stroke, thunderbolt’,
‘lightning’, ‘fiery iron; burn’, etc. Or, alternatively, ‘burning (by
lightning-stroke)’.104
●ETYM Usually derived from PIE *kun ̯̂ ̥ti- (< *k̂
eu- ‘to shine; bright’, cf. Skt. śóṇa-
‘red, purple’, etc.), see Petersson 1916: 47; Pokorny 1959: 594; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 132,
258, 319 (with reservation); 1988, 2: 71. Olsen (1999: 944) places the word in her
list of words of unknown origin. In a footnote (op. cit. 94425), she states: “The derivation from *kun ̯̂ ̥ti- would seem to be phonetically impossible”. For the problem
of anlaut, see 2.1.21.
Since Jensen (1898: 117-119, 153-155, 160-163, 180-181, 186, 188; 1904:
184bNr41, cf. 272bNr59), Arm. šant‘ is discussed in connection with the Luwian
theonym Šanta, see also Roth 1927: 744; N. Martirosyan 1972: 165, 175; Schultheiß
1961: 221; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 319, 424. If of IE origin, Arm. šant‘/d may be regarded
as the source of Šanta (J̌
ahukyan 1992: 22-23).
Luw. Šanta (vocative DŠantaš, see Starke 1990: 34) is found in personal names
from Kültepe and directly attested in the well-known ritual of Zarpiya where he and
Innarawantes-deities are invoked (see Hutter 2003: 228 with ref.). In personal names
the theonym is joined to typically Luwian elements, and the cult of this “Asianic”
god was maintained over a rather extensive area and is met with even in Lydia
[Houwink ten Cate 1961: 136-137, 201].
The theonym Santas (next to Kupapa) is perhaps attested also in a charm from the
“London Medical Papyrus”, an Egyptian medical text dating to about 1200 BC (see
Billigmeier 1981). It also seems to underlie the name Ζας, *Ζαντ- used by
Pherecydes (see West 1971: 50-52; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984: 903). One cannot
give much weight to the initial Z- of this name since it is associated with Zeus.
Also Hurr. Šantaluggan is cited in this context [Łap‘anc‘yan 1951b: 592-593;
1961: 120]. Pointing out that Arm. šant‘/d, being probably of native origin, may be
seen in the basis of Šanta, J̌
ahukyan (1988, 2: 71, 72, 73, 81, 82-83; see also 1987:
424) adds some more Near Eastern theonyms (e.g. Hurr. Šantaluggan, the second
component of which may be compared with Hitt. lukke- ‘to shine’, Lat. Lūcetius,
etc.) and toponyms which possibly contain the same Armenian word. Greppin
(1978-79: 9-10) is sceptical, since the logogram ‘lightning’ has been removed from
Šanta- and applied to Tarḫu-, and “it appears most unlikely that Šanta has anything
to do with weather” (see also Tirac‘yan 2006: 191-19235; 2008: 832). In 1978a,
however, Greppin examines the new material introduced by Salvatori and concludes
that the god is characterized as ‘brilliant’, and its name may therefore be related with
Arm. šant‘. Indeed, the lightning is not necessarily the crucial point in the
comparison.
As we have seen above, the basic meaning of šant‘ may have been something like
‘lightning-stroke; heavenly fire; demon striking (thunderbolt)’, etc. Furthermore,
Luw. Šanta is equated with Marduk, identified by Arameans with Baal of Tarsus
and in the Hellenistic period is continued (Sandon/Sanda) as “mit dem Bogen
bewaffneten” Herakles (see Haas 1994: 370-371, 408, 467, 468, 569-570; Hutter
2003: 229). Santa, as also Yarri, is considered a god of war and pestilence armed
with a bow, and he (written MARDUK) causes an epidemic, see Gurney 1977: 16,
301 (for this reference I am indebted to Armen Petrosyan). A connection of Yarri
with the Babylonian Erra (a god of war and pestilence) and with Apollo as archer
has been suggested (see Gurney 1977: 163 with lit.). Apollo is a dragon-slayer
archer, and he causes pestilence, too [Losev apud MifNarMir 1, 1980: 92-95].
Hence, the relation between an archer god (cf. Hayk = Orion, see 3.1.1-2, 3.1.4) and
the devil-striking may be treated within this framework as well. Note also that Sanda
can be compared with the Armenian dragon-slayer thunder-god Vahagn in that they
both are equated with Herakles in the Hellenistic period. In one of his papers on šant‘ and Santa, Greppin (1978-79: 1010) mentions Hitt.
šānt- ‘erzürnt’ (on which see Starke 1990: 5482029) in a footnote without any further
comment. Hutter (2003: 228) points out that “as a war-god Santa can be dangerous
to his enemies, and therefore it makes sense to derive his name as a participle from
šā(i)- ‘being angry’”. I wonder if it may be brought into connection with Arm.
šant‘/d and or Luw. Šanta-. The semantic relationship between ‘furious, angry’ and
‘fiery, hot, ignite’, which can also develop to ‘(heavenly) fire, shining; lightning’, is
parallel to that of Arm. bark (q.v.). Theoretically, Anatol. *šant- ‘to be
angry/furious’ could yield Arm. *šand-, and a deverbative noun in *-ti- might be
responsible for the aspirated -t‘, thus: *šand-ti- > šant‘, i-stem (cf. maɫt‘, etc., see
2.1.22.13). Note that the suffix *-ti- remained productive also in recent stages of
Armenian (see 2.3.1).
Alternatively: bearing in mind the fiery connotation of šant‘, one may revive the
older etymology which brought šant‘ together with Gr. κάνδαρος· ἄνϑραξ ‘charcoal’
(Hesychius), Skt. cand- (also ścand-) ‘to shine, glitter’, candrá- adj. ‘shining, light’,
Lat. candor, -ōris m. ‘dazzling whiteness, brightness; beauty; candour, brilliancy’,
candeō ‘to be of brilliant whiteness, shine; to become/be hot’, etc. (Bugge 1893: 57).
According to Hübschmann (1897: 479) this is uncertain. Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 494)
rejects the etymology, stating that these words correspond to Arm. xand ‘a strong
emotion (with love, mercy, envy or other passions)’ < *‘burning’ (q.v.). In view of
pairs like xeɫ vs. šeɫ, etc. (cf. 2.1.18.1 and 2.1.22.3), the connection between xand
and šand/t‘ should not be ruled out. The vacillation -d/t‘ may be explained in a way
described above: on the basis of the originally verbal *šand- ‘to burn (by
lightning-stroke)’ a deverbative noun in *-ti- may have been formed. Thus,
*skh
nd-ti- > šant‘, i-stem. For the semantics, see also s.v. bark.
If the basic meaning of šant‘ was ‘stroke; lightning-stroke, thunderbolt’ rather
than ‘burning (by lightning-stroke)’, the semantic relationship can be compared to
that of PIE *per- ‘to hit, strike’ > ‘thunder’, cf. Lith. perti
̃ ‘to beat’, etc. – Ukr.,
Czech perun ‘thunder’, Slav. *Perunŭ ‘Thunder-god’, Lith. Perkū́nas ‘id.’, etc.;
compare har(k)- ‘to beat, strike’, orot ‘thunder’ (q.v.).
Conclusion:
Arm. šant‘, basically meaning ‘lightning-stroke, thunderbolt’ or ‘burning (by
lightning-stroke)’ and referring also to devils, snakes and the like (originally,
perhaps, to the mythological Thunder Dragon), may be compared with Luwian
Šanta, the “brilliant” one, a god of war (armed with a bow) which can cause
pestilence and in the Hellenistic period is equated with Herakles. It seems more
likely that the theonym derives from the appellative. If the existence of Armenian
loans in Anatolian languages proves acceptable, the Luwian theonym may be treated
as borrowed from Arm. šant‘ ‘lightning-stroke; heavenly fire’. This would imply
that Arm. šant‘ was deified by the Armenians in the 2nd and 1st millennia BC. In the
period of the Iranian influx, the Armenian god *Šant‘ has been replaced by Vahagn
which subsequently, exactly like Luwian Šanta, was identified with Herakles. The
appellative šant‘ itself may be of PIE origin, although the etymological details are
not entirely clear.
šeɫ ‘slanting, crooked, oblique’, šeɫem ‘to crook’, šeɫim ‘to go astray’ (derivatives:
šeɫič‘, šeɫut‘iwn, etc.). Mostly late attestations. First attested in aṙ(-i)-šeɫ
‘sloping(ly), crooked(ly)’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Polis, Axalc‘xa šɛɫ [HAB 3: 508a; Ačaṙyan 1941: 235]; Moks šex ‘slanting,
skew’, šex-å-ky
ə
ɛ
‘obliquely’ (šexåky
ə
ɛ
ɛrt‘äl ‘to go obliquely’) [Orbeli 2002: 301]. In
view of the Moks k
y
, it seems that the second component, namely *ky
ə
ɛ
, represents
the hypothetical *gi- ‘to go’. More probably, however, šex-å-ky
ə
ɛ
reflects the
Modern Armenian šeɫaki ‘obliquely’ (see Malxaseanc‘ HBB 3: 510c), and the k
y is
erroneous or of other nature.
●ETYM Together with xeɫ ‘mutilated, lame; sore (eye); crooked (also morally);
abominable’, dial. *xeɫ- ‘to become spoilt, undisciplined; to make silly jokes; to
scoff, ridicule grimacing’; šil ‘squint-eyed’, dial. ‘mad’, Łarabaɫ ‘mistake’, *šil
ənknel ‘to be mistaken, confused; to err’;*šaɫ- (12th cent.; dial.) ‘to err, to be
mistakenn, confused; to see badly; to become spoiled (of milk)’; sxal ‘mistake,
failure; crime’, sxalem, sxalim ‘to err, be mistaken; to stumble; to fail, miss’
(Bible+; widespread in the dialects) (see s.vv.), connected with Lat. scelus, GSg
sceleris n. ‘misdeed, crime’; Gr. σκέλος n. ‘leg (from the hip downwards)’, σκελλός
‘crook-legged’, σκολιός ‘wicked, crooked’; Skt. skhálati ‘to stumble, stammer, fail’,
MPers. škarwīdan, NPers. šikarfīdan ‘to stumble, stagger’; OIc. skjalgr, OHG
scelah ‘squint-eyed’, etc. (Bugge 1893: 57; HAB 2: 356; 3: 490a, 508a, 517a; on
*sx-, see Meillet 1903a: 18; on Iran. *skarf- ‘to stumble’, see Cheung 2007: 346-
347). The original meaning would be ’Krümmung, Biegung’ (see Frisk, s.v.).
Ačaṙyan (HAB 2: 490-491) also compares, albeit with some reservation, with kaɫ
‘lame’, *keɫ ‘crooked’ (q.v.). The alternation x : k, however, does not apply normally
to native words. The meaning ‘mistake’ of Łarabaɫ of šil is remarkable since it
combines the form šil (‘squint-eyed’) with the semantics of sxal (cf. J̌
ahukyan 1972:
292; 1987: 278). Elsewhere, J̌
ahukyan (1987: 148) separates šil ‘squint-eyed’
(grouped with šeɫ ‘crooked’, etc.) from Łarabaɫ šil, connecting the latter only with
Arm. sxal and Skt. skhálati. This is improbable.
If the etymology is accepted, we must reconstruct a root *skh1el-, in view of Skt.
skh- and Arm. sx- (see Schrijver 1991: 433; cf. also Kortlandt 2003: 1, 6, 31), as
well as Arm. š-. According to Olsen (1999: 195, 813), Arm. šil ‘squint-eyed’ is a
vr̥ddhi derivative *skēlo- or *skēli-. Given the possible reconstruction with an
internal laryngeal, one might alternatively suggest an ablaut form *skeh1l-. In this
case, the initial š- would be analogical after šeɫ and others, if the š- in these forms is
from *skH-.
According to another etymology, Arm. sxalim and Skt. skhálati belong to a
different root, namely *skw
h2el- (or *sgwhh2el-, Cheung 2007: 347 with ref.), together
with Gr. σφάλλω ‘to overthrow, bring down’; Gr. σφάλλομαι ‘to fall, to stumble, be
mistaken’ (see Hübschmann 1897: 490-491Nr369; HAB 4: 224-225; Xačaturova 1979:
365; Klingenschmitt 1982: 144, 169; Viredaz 2005: 91). Sometimes an exclusively
Armeno-Indoaryan isogloss is suggested, see Pokorny 1959: 929; J̌
ahukyan 1987:
148; Olsen 1999: 195362; Beekes 2003; 169, 202, 211. Beekes (op. cit. 202) notes:
“very doubtful Gr. σφάλλω, which would require -kw
-“. It is uncertain, however,
whether the outcome of PIE *skw
H- would be distinct from that of *skH-. The twofold development of *skH- as Arm. š- and sx- is puzzling. J̌
ahukyan
(1987: 192) assumes that *skh- yielded Arm. š- before front vowels, and sxelsewhere. Olsen (1999: 195362) only speaks of the development *sk- (unaspirated) >
š- before a front vowel. Kortlandt (2003: 10) mentions šeɫ (with Gr. σκέλος, etc.) in
his list of words that represent the regular palatalization. However, the normal
outcome of *ske/i- is Arm. *c‘e/i- (see 2.1.22.3; also Beekes 2003: 179, 198). I
therefore assume the following distribution: *skV- > Arm. *c‘V- vs. *skHV- > *skh
V-> Arm. *šV-. Arm. sxalim is the only case demonstrating the development *skh
- >
Arm. sx-, and, therefore, may be an old Aryan borrowing (see J̌
ahukyan 1987: 192).
In page 551, J̌
ahukyan (op. cit.) places this case in Iranian context. The Iranian
forms, however, have an initial sk- (see above), so the best solution is the one
suggested by Xačaturova (1979: 365-367, 370, 375), who treats sxalim as a loan
from the Indo-Aryan language of Near East. It is interesting to note that Vogt (1938:
333) compares Skt. skhálate and Arm. sxalim to Georg.-Zan *sxal- : sxl̥ (on which
see Klimov 1964: 167, comparing with PIE *(s)lei-dh
- ‘slippery, to slide’, Pokorny
1959: 960-961). Klimov (1993: 32) rejects any dependence from Armenian since the
Kartvelian Armenisms are ascribed to a period not earlier than 7-6th cent. BC. This
presumption has to be proven, however.
The distribution *kH > Arm. x vs. *skH > Arm. š, reflected in the pair xeɫ and šeɫ,
can be corroborated by xayt‘/xēt‘/xit‘ vs. šit‘- ‘to bite’ (see s.vv.).
The problem of šeɫ – šil is different from that of aseɫn / *asiɫn (GSg asɫan), etc.,
since neither šeɫ nor xeɫ appear in vocalism -i-. Note also the alternation ɫ-l.
Since the semantic field here is ‘crooked, twisting, bending’ (also referring to
body parts), one may derive Arm. šl(n)-i ‘neck’ (q.v.) from *šil- ‘twisting’; see also
3.7.2.
See also s.v. šišaɫ ‘a kind of demon’.
šerep‘, o-stem (only ISg šerep-o-v in Geoponica, 13th cent.) ‘ladle’.
A few late attestations and derivatives. With an unaspirated -p- in Geoponica.
Can this be supported by the loan into Laz /šerepi/? In Yaysmawurk‘: printed -b-; cf.
on Muš and Alaškert below.
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects with an aspirated -p‘; in Muš and Alaškert one
finds GSg šɛrb‘i next to NSg šɛrep‘; see HAB 3: 511a. Baɫdasaryan-T‘ap‘alc‘yan
1958 vacat.
●ETYM No acceptable etymology is recorded by Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 511a). J̌
ahukyan
(1967: 261) connects to Russ. čerep ‘scull’, čerpát‘ ‘to scoop, draw, ladle (out),
čerpak ‘scoop, ladle’, etc. from PIE *(s)ker-p- ‘to chop, cut’ (see s.v. k‘er-, k‘er-b-,
k‘er-p‘- ‘to scratch, chop, carve’). The comparison is interesting, but the
phonological details are unclear. Later he (J̌
ahukyan 1990: 71, sem. field 5)
considered the word to be of unknown origin.
The initial š- instead of c‘- or k‘-, as well as the final -ep‘ might argue in favour
of substratum origin: *skh
ereph
-; see also s.vv. šert, še/ēr. However, the derivation
from PIE *(s)ker-p- might be possible if one assumes initial metathesis*sk- > *ksand ruki-rule (see 2.1.12). Thus: *kser-eph
- > šerep‘. In either case, the -ep‘ can be
compared with another tool-name, namely šaɫap‘ ‘borer, gimlet’. Note the
dependence of the vowel before *ph upon the root vowel: šer-ep‘ vs. šaɫ-ap‘ (cf.
2.1.23). The root may be identical with še/ēr ; thus: ladle made of storax-wood.
šert, i-stem: GDPl šert-i-c‘ (3 Kings 18.34) ‘split wood, piece of wood, splinter’,
attested in 3 Kings 18.33-38 (a few times, rendering Gr. σχίδαξ ‘id.’); later also
‘slice of cheese, etc.’, and šertem ‘to slice’.
●DIAL The forms šert ‘slice’ and šertel ‘to slice, split, break’ are present in several
dialects: Ararat, Muš, Alaškert, Tigranakert, Svedia, Moks, etc. [HAB 3: 512].
●ETYM See s.v. *c‘it- ‘to cut, split, scratch’.
šēr, šer ‘storax-tree’, possibly also ‘manna-ash’.
The only classical attestation is found in Genesis 30.37 [Zeyt‘unyan 1985: 286]:
Ew aṙ Yakob gawazan šēr (vars. šer, šert, ššēr, er) dalar ew ənkuzi ew sawswoy ew
keɫeweac‘ znosa Yakob, ew eɫew spitak, ew ek‘erc zdalarn i gawazanac‘n, ew
erewēr i gawazansn spitakn, zor k‘ercoyr, nkarēn : “Then Jacob took fresh rods of
poplar and almond and plane, and peeled white streaks in them, exposing the white
of the rods” (RevStBible).
The relevant part of the Greek text reads: ῥάβδον στυρακίνην χλωρὰν καὶ
καρυίνην καὶ πλατάνου “a fresh/green rod of storax-tree, and of nut-tree, and of
plane-tree”. Arm. šēr renders Gr. στύραξ, -ᾰκος ‘storax-tree, Styrax officinalis; the
fragrant gum-resin of the storax-tree’.
In Yaysmawurk‘, the Biblical passage is rephrased as follows: Aṙnul p‘ayt dalar
ənkuzi, uši ew sōsi. Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 606b) points out that uši does not have a
correspondent form here and is therefore unknown. This is somewhat surprising
because the collation of the set šēr : ənkuzi : sawsi with ənkuzi : uši : sōsi points to
identification šēr = uši, although the order is not the same. See s.v. uši.
●ETYM No acceptable etymology is recorded in HAB 3: 510b.
I wonder if somehow related with the first component of šērxišt (Amirdovlat‘
Amasiac‘i) or širixišt (Mxit‘ar Herac‘i) ‘manna’ [Seidel 1908: 210-211; HAB 3:
515b; S. Vardanjan 1990: 346, § 2206; MiǰHayBaṙ 215a, 217a]. It has been assumed
that Pers. šīr-xi/ušt ‘manna’ is composed of Xurāsānī kšīru ‘a tree resembling the
ash’ and vxišt ‘gum’ [Seidel 1908: 210-211; HAB 3: 515b].
If this is accepted, one can compare Arm. šēr ‘storax-tree’ with kšīru ‘*ash-tree’,
The association can easily be explained by two factors: (1) both the storax-tree and
the ash-tree have valuable wood of which spears or other implements are made, cf.
Gr. στύραξ, -ᾰκος ‘storax-tree’ which also refers to ‘spike at the lower end of a
spear-shaft’; on ‘ash-tree’ > ‘spear, handle, shaft’, see s.vv. hac‘i, hoyn, espec.
meɫex; note also Arm. šer-ep‘ ‘ladle’ which can derive from šēr/šer- ‘storax-tree’;
(2) Gr. στύραξ ‘storax-tree’ produces fragrant gum-resin, and Gr. μελία ‘manna ash’
is etymologically and/or mythologically related with μέλι ‘honey; sweet gum
collected from certain trees, manna’ (see s.v. meɫex ‘handle of an axe’). See also s.v.
uši/*hoši.
*šit‘(-) ‘bite; wound’, the oldest attestation comes from šit‘-oɫ ‘biting’ (present
participle), in homilies attributed to Yovhannēs Mandakuni (5th cent.) or Yovhannēs
Mayragomec‘i (7th cent.). “Vark‘ haranc‘” (Paterica) has šit‘-oɫ, as well as šit‘eal
‘bitten’. The latter is rendered in Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ by hareal ‘struck; bitten’ (see
Amalyan 1975: 249Nr111). This (late) medieval dictionary also has the only evidence
for the noun šit‘, rendered as c‘aw aytuc‘eal, literally: “pain swollen” (see Amalyan 1975: 249Nr113).105 The noun šit‘ has been preserved in the dialect of Łarabaɫ (see
below). Combining the evidence from Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ with that of the dialect of
Łarabaɫ one may represent the semantics of šit‘ as *‘pain of a (swollen) wound’.
Aristakēs Lastivertc‘i (11th cent.) has šit‘-oc‘ ‘bite (of a bee)’.
●DIAL Preserved only in the dialect of Łarabaɫ: šit‘ ‘the warmth of a wound’ [HAB
3: 516b], see above.
●ETYM NHB (s.v.) seems to identify with xayt‘em. Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 516b)
mentions only this, leaving the origin of the word open.
In view of the alternation š- / x- (see s.vv. šeɫ, xeɫ, etc.), one may indeed connect
with xayt‘em ‘to bite (of insects and snakes)’ and, especially, its ablaut form xit‘,
o-stem ‘pain, colic, twinge’ (see s.v.). Note that *šit‘(-) ‘bite; wound’ practically
combines the meanings of xayt‘em and xit‘, and šit‘-oc‘ ‘bite (of a bee)’ goes
parallel with xayt‘-oc‘ ‘bite, sting’.
šil ‘squint-eyed’; šl-anam ‘to become squint-eyed’ (both Bible+).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects, in the meaning ‘squint-eyed’. In Łarabaɫ: šil
‘mistake; disorder’, *šil ənknel ‘to be mistaken, confused; to err’. In some other
dialects – ‘mad’: J̌
uɫa [HAB 3: 517a; T. Abgarean 1966: 94]; Meɫri [Aɫayan 1954:
322]. Illustrations from Łarabaɫ/Goris, e.g. in HŽHek‘ 7, 1979: 464, lines 10, -1
(‘disorder, confusion’).
Among new dialectal words, Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 517a) mentions verbal šluil ‘to
become squint-eyed’, and adj. šil-ti, šil-t-ik, šl-t-ik ‘squint-eyed’. The latter form is
found in Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ and in the dialects of Ararat and T‘iflis [Ačaṙean 1913:
831b]. In some dialects the -t- is voiced: Łarabaɫ šildi, Šulaver šildik [Ačaṙean 1913:
829a], Ararat and Łalt‘aɫč‘i šldik [Amatuni 1912: 515b]. For the voicing cf. also
Łarabaɫ, Agulis ɫldi(k) ‘tickle’, if from *xtɫ-i > *xtl-i > *xlt-i (see s.v. *xtiɫ ‘to
tickle’).
I wonder if *šil-ti can be viewed as a deverbative formation in -ti (see 2.3.1).
●ETYM See s.v. šeɫ ‘slanting, crooked, oblique’.
šiɫšay-k‘, in Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ (see Amalyan 1975: 249Nr114), šiɫšayk‘ is rendered by
ays-k‘ ‘demons’.
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 518a) takes šiɫšay as the NSg form and compares it with
Syriac šīlāsā ‘weasel, marten’, without any conclusion and further remarks. This
would make sense if one takes into account the superstitious association of the
weasel with the devils (see Ananyan, HayKendAšx 1, 1961: 163-164; see also s.v.
*č‘asum). However, the word šišaɫ ‘a kind of demon’ (q.v.) newly found by L.
Hovhannisyan (1987: 131; 1991a: 151-152; 2000a: 218) in the homilies of Eusebius
of Emesa and Ephrem Asori sheds new light on šiɫšay-k‘.
The form šiɫšayk‘ should be interpreted as a metathesized collective form of šišaɫ
in -ay-k‘ (see s.vv. darbin ‘smith’ - darbn-ay-k‘; əngɫ-ay-k‘ ‘sea-monster’ or ‘eel,
siren, Nymphe-Snake’). Thus: šiš(a)ɫ-ay-k‘ > *šišɫ-ay-k‘ > šiɫšayk‘.
šišaɫ ‘a kind of demon’, not in dictionaries. The word has been found by L.
Hovhannisyan (1987: 131; 1991a: 151-152; 2000a: 218) in the homilies of Eusebius of Emesa and Ephrem Asori. The passages read respectively: Zdews halaceac‘,
zšišaɫs xṙoveac‘ “(he) drove away the devils, harassed the šišaɫ-s”; Ew aṙnun
zmarminn surb: uten zhasteays ənd šišaɫs ew ənd surbs zsrbut‘iwnn “And they take
the holy body: (they) eat the hasteay-s with šišaɫ-s and the holiness with saints”. For
the form šiɫšay-k‘, see s.v.
●ETYM No acceptable etymology is known to me (see also s.v. šiɫšayk‘).
In my opinion, šišaɫ is a reduplicated form of the root *šaɫ- (< PIE *skHl-) ‘to err,
to be mistakenn, confused; to see badly’, cf. šeɫ ‘slanting, crooked, oblique’, šeɫem
‘to crook’, šeɫim ‘to go astray’, xeɫ ‘mutilated, lame; sore (eye); crooked (also
morally); abominable’, dial. *xeɫ- ‘to become spoilt, undisciplined; to make silly
jokes; to scoff, ridicule grimacing’, sil ‘squint-eyed’, dial. ‘mistake; mad’ (see
especially s.vv. šeɫ and šaɫim). The type of reduplication is identical with that found
in cicaɫ ‘laugh’, cicaṙn ‘swallow’, etc. (see s.vv.). The semantic development
involved here can be represented as ‘crooked, abominable, erroneous, or crazy
words/things; crookedness’ > ‘crooked, abominable person’ (typologically cf. katak
‘play, ridicule, joke’, which in P‘awstos Buzand 3.19 refers to ‘buffoon’; see also
s.v. caɫracu). For the semantic field cf. molim ‘to become mad’ (Bible+), mol-or-im
‘to err, to be confused, mistaken; to become mad’ (Bible+), in the dialect of Svedia
‘to see badly’, moli ‘a kind of sorcerer’ (Eznik Koɫbac‘i), etc. (see s.v. *mol-).
šl(n)i, probably *šil, GDPl šəl-a-c‘ ‘neck’, a MidArm. word in forms of šlni, GDSg
šln-oy, šlli, pl. šlni-k‘ (APl šlin-s and šlin-k‘-s, GDPl šlnic‘), šli-k‘ (GDPl šlec‘),
šlnestan, etc. [HAB 3: 522b; Łazaryan/Avetisyan, MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 218]; on
šlnestan, prob. collective, see Weitenberg 1997: 330.
Here must belong also GDPl šəl-ac‘, found in a competition-joke by Nersēs
Šnorhali (12th cent., Cilicia): Bṙnem šəlac‘d ew tam olor “(May) I take (subj.) your
neck and twist it” [Mnac‘akanyan 1980: 342L10].
The form šlli (also widespread in the dialects) comes from šlni. The nasalless
forms šli-k‘, šlec‘ (apparently from *šleac‘), and šəlac‘ seem to be old rather than
simplifications of the geminate -ll-. Theoretically, one may reconstruct *šil or *šul
(a-stem, cf. šəl-a-c‘, with subsequent reshaping as of n-stem (cf. synonymous ul-n
‘neck’, q.v.), as well as -i-k‘ formations based on both *šl- and *šl-n-.
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects: šlli (Akn), šlink‘, šllink‘, šllik‘, šlnis (Rivola), etc.
‘neck’ [HAB 3: 522b], Bulanəx šələk‘ [S. Movsisyan 1972: 71a]. Interesting is
Hamšen šnlik‘, šnlink ‘face’ [Ačaṙyan 1947: 73, 248]; for the metathesis, see
2.1.26.3. Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 658a) describes the meaning of Bulanəx šələk‘ as
follows: “the lower part of the occiput, that is already the back” (thus: “the upper
part of the neck” in HAB 3: 522b and in S. Movsisyan 1972: 71a seems to be
erronous).
●ETYM A connection with Lat. collum, collus ‘neck’ is suggested in NHB 2: 480a
and J̌
ahukyan 1967: 262. Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 522b) mentions the assumption of NHB
not accepting it, and adds no further notes or etymologies.
I propose to reconstruct a PArm. *šil- ‘crooked, twisting (body part)’ and relate it
with šil, etc.; see s.vv. šeɫ, šil, and, for the semantics, 3.7.2.
šun, GDSg šan, NPl šun-k‘, GDPl šan-c‘ ‘dog; adulterer, adulteress, whore’ (Bible+). Interesting are pl. šn-ui (a reading variant in Eusebius of Caesarea, see NHB 2:
486c; HAB 3: 534a with ref.) and MidArm. švin ‘dog’ in Fables of Vardan Aygekc‘i,
12-13th cent. (MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 225b). On the asterism ‘Dog-Star’, see below.
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 3: 535a].
Remarkable is Kurd-P‘alan (Nikomidia) šəvən [HAB 3: 535a]. Note also Dersim
šun, Mirak‘ sun, pl. səv-di, səv-ni [Baɫramyan 1960: 95b]. On this form, on šun in
folk-games and on ‘Dog-Star’, see below.
●ETYM Since long (NHB 2: 490b; de Lagarde 1854: 27L736; for more references, see
HAB 3: 534), derived from PIE *k̂
uon-‘dog’: Skt. śván- m., NSg. śvā́, AccSg
śvā́nam, GSg śúnas, śván- f. ‘dog’, YAv. span-, Lat. canis m.f., Gr. κύων, GSg.
κυνός ‘dog’, OIr. cú, GSg. con, Lith. šuõ, OPr. sunis, songos (Euler 1985: 85), etc.,
see Hübschmann 1987: 480; Pokorny 1959: 632-633; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996:
674-675; Mallory/Adams 1997: 168.
Arm. skund ‘dog’ (11th cent.+) is usually considered to belong here, too. One may
assume the following distribution: šun < *šuun < PIE *kuo ̂ ̄n and skund ‘dog, puppy’
< *kû̯on-to/ā-. For a discussion, other proposals and references, see Lidén 1911:
381-385; Bonfante 1937: 21; Pisani 1950: 172; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 69, 75, 134, 218107,
218-219108;1987: 134. Further see 2.1.21 and s.v. skund ‘dog, puppy’.
Godel (1975: 85) points out that “the oblique case stem šan- is the outcome of
some unknown analogical process”. One may assume that the original genitive
*k̂
un-ós (the Armenian reflex of which would be identical with the nominative šun)
has been reshaped as *kû̯ən-ós analogically after the nominative šun < *šuun < PIE
*kuo ̂ ̄n; note also ISg *šan-b < *kun ̯̂ ̥-bh
i. For a discussion, see J̌
ahukyan 1959: 175;
1982: 108; Schindler 1975: 55; de Lamberterie 1978: 263105; Greppin 1984: 92-95;
Stempel 1993 < 1987: 150-151; Olsen 1999: 133-134; Matzinger 2005: 71323). A
similar explanation may be assumed for jiwn ‘snow’, tun ‘house’, etc. Compare also
the problem of Lat. canis ‘dog’ (see Schrijver 1991: 461).
Arm. dial. Kurd-P‘alan (Nikomidia) šəvən has been treated as an archaic form
(J̌
ahukyan 1972: 273; 1985: 157; 1987: 254); note also MidArm. švin and dial.
Dersim pl. səv-ni (see above). It is tempting to assume a relic of an old intermediary
form *šuwn̥- or a relation with e.g. Skt. śván-.
On Nostratic *ḲüjnA ‘wolf, dog’, see Illič-Svityč 1971: 361-362; Ivanov 1977:
206; Manaster Ramer 1997: 90-91; Bomhard 2008, 2: 416-417. A comparison
between the PIE term and Old Chinese kooʔ ‘small dog’, keenʔ ‘dog’ has been
proposed (Zhou Jixu 2002: 3Nr12; 2003: 8Nr31, a discussion on 8-9). The Germanic
forms with a dental (Goth. hunds, OFris. hund ‘dog’) are linked with OChin.
*koond, *koonʔ ‘big dog’ [Zhou Jixu 2003: 8Nr32].
Culturological excursus
Arm. pl. šn-u/wi comes from dual (see J̌
ahukyan 1987: 375). Originally it may
have referred to the two dogs of the Dying-Rising God (compare the two dogs
Zangi-Zrangi, aṙlez-s, etc.), cf. Skt. dual śvānau, referring to the two dogs of Yama
in RV X.14.10-12 (see Ivanov 1977: 189, with a Germanic parallel).
The asterism Šn-astɫ, lit. ‘dog-star’, mentioned by Anania Širakac‘i in the list of
stars or constellations which indicate zanjrewac‘ sastkut‘iwn “abundance of rains”
(A. G. Abrahamyan 1944: 331L1f), must be identified with Sirius, the star of Orion’s
dog (see Scherer 1953: 109-116); note also dimin. Šn-ik (Ališan 1910: 137-138). This asterism is also present in modern dialects. According to Mkrtumjan 1974: 78b,
Syunik‘ Šani astɫ refers to ‘Polar star’.
In folk-games šun refers to a playing dice (stone), see Ačaṙean 1913: 840-841;
Bdoyan, HayŽoɫXaɫ 3, 1983: 204-205, 209; HayLezBrbBaṙ 4, 2007: 290a.
Combining this to the dialectal expression šan baxt uni ‘he/she is very successful’,
lit. ‘has a dog’s fortune’ (HayLezBrbBaṙ 4, 2007: 295a), one may think of a
comparison with Skt. (RV+) śva-ghnín- ‘winning player, winner in the dice-game’, a
derivative of *śva-ghn-á- ‘slaying of the dog’ (Ivanov 1977: 199-201, with parallels
from other IE traditions; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 5912; Falk 1986: 100-101,
108-111, 188; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 674).
šunč‘, o-stem: GDSg šnč‘-o-y, ISg šnč‘-o-v, GDPl šnč‘-o-c‘ (Bible+); i-stem: GDPl
šnč‘-i-c‘ (Plato) ‘breath; soul, person; blowing, wind’ (Bible+); šnč‘em ‘to breathe,
blow’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects [HAB 3: 535b]. Some of them (Polis, Karin,
Ararat, Muš, etc.) display forms with initial s-, which is due to dissimilation š...č‘ >
s...č‘.
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 535b) treats šunč‘ as an onomatopoeic word composed of
š- and the suffix -nč‘ which is frequent in onomatopoeic words.
Though this is basically correct, the connection with cognate forms should not be
excluded, cf. Skt. śvasiti ‘to hiss, pant, snort’, Lith. švañkšti ‘to wheeze’, OIc. hvæsa
‘to hiss, snort’. For a discussion, see Meillet 1898: 278; Pedersen 1905: 198 = 1982:
60; Lidén 1911: 385; Grammont 1918: 252; Pokorny 1959: 632; Klingenschmitt
1982: 69; Ravnæs 1991: 147, 1661; Olsen 1999: 1626; for Sanskrit, see Mayrhofer
EWAia 2, 1996: 677. On the anlaut, see also 2.1.21.
The Armenian root is perhaps *šu- rather than *š-. The words ššu-nǰ and ššu-k
‘whisper’ can be regarded as reduplicated forms of *šu- containing -nǰ (see s.v.
munǰ- ‘to mutter, murmur’) and the diminutive -(u)k, respectively.
*o- interrogative indefinite pronoun (cf. o ok‘, etc. Agat‘angeɫos+), gen. o-yr, dat. um, abl. y-um(m)-ē, plur. nom. oy-k‘, gen.-dat. oy-c‘ ‘who’; o-v uninflected ‘who’,
also ov ok‘ ‘who, which person’; o-r, gen. or-o-y, dat. or-um, abl. y-or-m-ē, instr. oro-v, plur. gen.-dat. or-o-c‘, instr. or-o-v-k‘ ‘which’; o-v uninflected ‘who’; o-k‘, gen.
u-r-u-k‘, dat. u-m-e-k‘, abl. y-umek‘-ē (plural is based on omn) ‘someone, a person’;
y-o, a prepositional accusative-allative ‘where to’
All the forms are widely attested since the earliest stage of Classical Armenian.
A remarkable textual illustration abounding in these and other pronominal forms
is found in Movsēs Xorenac‘i 1.3 (1913=1991: 11L17f; Thomson 1978: 69-70): erkar
ew šahawor gorcov zazgis meroy kargel zpatmut‘iwnn čšdiw, zt‘agaworac‘n ew
znaxararakanac‘ azgac‘ ew tohmic‘, t‘ē óv yummē, ew zínč‘ iwrak‘anč‘iwr ok‘ i
noc‘anē gorceac‘, ew óv ok‘ i c‘eɫic‘s orošeloc‘ əntani ew merazneay, ew óyk‘
omank‘ ekk‘ əntanec‘ealk‘ ew meraznac‘ealk‘ : “to write the history of our nation in
a long and useful work, to deal accurately with the kings and the princely clans and families: who descended from whom, what each one of them did, which of the
various tribes are indigenous and native and which are of foregn origin but
naturalized”.
●DIAL The forms ov and or are ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 3: 572a, 575a]. The
‘pure’ form *(h)o has only been preserved in Łarabaɫ hu ‘who’ and Nor Naxiǰewan
rural vɔ, only in vɔ gina ‘who knows?’ [HAB 3: 549a]. Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 571-572)
points out that the Łarabaɫ pair hu before a consonant vs. huv before a vowel reflects
the original distribution of the OArm. forms o and ov. In Alaškert and Muš, ov ‘who’
has been replaced by v/wor [HAB 3: 549a].
Šatax, Moks, Muš vir, and Meɫri hür ‘whose’ reflect ClArm. oyr (see M.
Muradyan 1962: 121 and 1982: 154 with the whole Šatax and Moks paradigms;
Weitenberg 1986: 91, 97, 99 with paradigms and an extensive discussion). Also
Łarabaɫ has hür ‘whose, whom’, see textual illustrations in Grigoryan-Spandaryan
1971: 24L1 (hür heti ‘for whom?’), 326 (hur ‘to whom?’), 331L14 (hür ci ‘whose
horse?’), 331L-11 (hür ‘to whom?’).
The form omn has been preserved in J̌
uɫa mi vomn ‘someone’ [HAB 3: 559b;
Ačaṙean 1940: 380].
The form ok‘ has not been preserved independently. It is reflected in the
following forms: T‘iflis ɔk‘min, metathesized ɔmk‘in, Ararat ɔk‘min, metathesized
ɔk‘nim < ok‘ min ‘someone, a person’; J̌
uɫa vorɔk‘ < or ok‘ ‘whichever’; Sebastia
vɛč‘ vɛk‘ < oč‘ ok‘ ‘nobody’; cf. also Agulis úxman, úhman, úman, Meɫri únk‘ɛn,
etc., probably blends of ok‘(-min) and omn [HAB 3: 620b].
ClArm. y-o ’where to’ is reflected in Svedia yɛɔ ‘where to’ (see HAB 3: 549a,
613b; Ačaṙyan 2003: 581; in Andreasyan 1967: 376, yɛu).
●ETYM Usually derived from PIE *kw
o-; for the Armenian material, an etymological
discussion and references, see HAB 3: 548-549, 559b, 571-572, 574-575, 620. More
probably, however, it reflects PIE *i̯o-. For o-r cf. Goth. ƕar ‘where’, etc. (Meillet
1927b). For a further philological and etymological discussion and for the problem
of the initial h-, see s.vv. i- ‘thing, what’, ur ‘where’.
ozni, ea-stem (only GDPl ozne-a-c‘ in Vardan Barjrberdc‘i, 13-14th cent.) ‘hedgehog’
(Bible+). Arm. ozni renders Gr. ἐχῖνος ‘hedgehog’ in the Bible and in Hexaemeron
(K. Muradyan 1984: 298L14, glossed in 376a). Later: kozni ‘id.’ (Vkayabanut‘iwn S.
Yovsimiosi).
In the late medieval dictionary Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ we find xozni glossed by kozni
(Amalyan 1975: 144Nr201). This form is hardly erroneous since it stands in its
alphabetically correct place, and there are no reading variants.
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects, in many of them with the diminutive suffix -ik
[HAB 3: 550a].
Some eastern dialects display forms with an initial k-: Agulis kɔ́
zni, kúzni
[Ačaṙean 1935: 381], Tavuš kuzni ‘hedgehog’ [Xemč‘yan 2000: 222bNr203], Łarabaɫ
kɔ́
zni, Łazax kuz, J̌
uɫa konjni, Loṙi kunjina, etc., as well as kuzni in Sarafean 1788
apud HAB 3: 550a. Ačaṙyan (1935: 149; HAB 3: 550a) explains the initial kthrough metathesis from diminutive ozni-k (note Šamaxi kuznigy
, with both the
prothetic k- and the diminutive -ik), which is unconvincing. J̌
ahukyan (1972: 272;
1985: 157) suggests that the initial k- and x- represent an Indo-European laryngeal, which is lost everywhere. For a discussion of this highly improbable view, see the
etymological section.
I think the forms ko/uzni and xozni are due to contamination with other
‘culturally’ related animal names, viz. kuz ‘marten’ (cf. especially Łazax kuz
‘hedgehog’, formally identical with kuz ‘marten’; for similar suggestions, see
Musheghian 2000: 64; Ervandyan 2007: 35), and xoz, koč- ‘pig’. One important
reason for the association with the marten could be the fact that the marten and its
close relatives, such as the polecat and the weasel, like the hedgehog, kill
(poisonous) snakes (see Ananyan HayKendAšx 1, 1961: 162, 166). As to the pig,
compare Pahl. xūkar(ag) ‘hedgehog’ from xūg ‘pig’ [MacKenzie 1971: 94], English
hedgehog vs. hog, etc.
Note also a widespread Armenian proverb: “They put the head of the pig on the
table, but it rolled down and fell into the garbage”; “The head of a pig will not stay
on a carpet/rug” [Łanalanyan 1960: 46a]. In the Ararat, Agulis, and Łarabaɫ versions
of this proverb we find *kozni ‘hedgehog’ instead of xoz ‘pig’ [Amatuni 1912: 351a;
Łanalanyan 1960: 46b]. This proverb is present in Tavuš with both xoz ‘pig’ and
kuzni ‘hedgehog’, see Xemč‘yan 2000: 221bNr154f and 222bNr203, respectively106.
As to the vocalism of the Agulis and Łarabaɫ forms, Ačaṙyan 1899: 84 notes the
absence of o- > vəɛ- in Łarabaɫ which would imply that the k- is old; otherwise we
would have *kəɛ́
zni. But this cannot explain the Agulis vocalism. Ačaṙyan 1935: 70
points out that the expected forms of *kozni or (k-)ozni in Agulis would be *ka/äzni
or *kɛzni. In the dialect of Agulis the accented u in monosyllabic and dissyllabic
words regularly yields ɔ (sometimes u), cf. kupr ‘tar’ > kɔpr, mut‘ ‘dark’ > mɔt‘,
mukn ‘mouse’ > mɔknə, nuṙn ‘pomegranate’ > nɔṙnə, urag ‘adze’ > óragy
, urax
‘happy’ > órax, unim ‘to have’ > ónim, uṙi ‘willow’ > óṙi, utel ‘to eat’ > ótil, etc. (see
Ačaṙean 1935: 72, 76-77). This holds also for Łarabaɫ (see Davt‘yan 1966: 41-42).
Hence, in my opinion, Agulis and Łarabaɫ kɔ́
zni, kúzni reflects *kuzni, which
corroborates the association with kuz ‘marten’.
Some dialects display forms with an affricate j-: Alaškert ɔcni, Muš ɔjni [HAB 3:
550a] and Bulanəx ɔjni [S. Movsisyan 1972: 72b, cf. 52a]; or -nj-: Moks wonjnə
[Ačaṙyan 1952: 285; Orbeli 2002: 339], J̌
uɫa konjni, Loṙi kunjina, etc. [HAB 3:
550a].
According to Ačaṙyan (1940: 72, 101), J̌
uɫa konjni does not directly come from
ClArm. ozni but reflects an old dialectal by-form. A similar view is expressed by
J̌
ahukyan 1972: 272 who assumes an IE by-form with a ‘supplementary’ -n-. At the
first glance this seems true since the development -nzn- > -njn- is more difficult than
the opposite (cf. e.g. sinj-n ‘sorb, service-berry, haw’ < Łarabaɫ sɛ́
znə, etc.).
However, this is not sufficient enough to consider kɔnjni archaic because such
developments are often ambiguous, and the other features, viz. the nasal anticipation
(cf. J̌
ahukyan 1972: 272) and the prothetic k- are certainly recent. The affricate -jmay be explained by the influence of awj = ōj ‘snake’, which is particularly clear
from Muš, etc. ɔjni. For the association of the hedgehog with the snake, see the
etymological section. Lexicographers record a plant-name oznkan, which is represented in HAB 3:
550b without an etymology. I wonder whether this derives from dial. *oznik
‘hedgehog’ (cf. Van voznik, gen. vozənkan or voznəkan, see Ačaṙyan 1952: 126;
Šērenc‘ VanSaz 2, 1899: 100L5), compare the Greek plant-name ἐχίνιον derived from
ἐχῖνος ‘hedgehog’.
●ETYM Since long (NHB, Pictet, etc., see HAB 3: 550a), connected with the word
for ‘hedgehog’: Gr. ἐχῖνος m. ‘hedgehog; sea-urchin’, Phryg. εζις ‘hedgehog’, Lith.
ežỹs ‘hedgehog’, Russ. ëž ‘id.’, OHG igil ‘id.’, Oss. wyzyn/uzun ‘hedgehog’, etc., see
Hübschmann 1877: 25; 1897: 481; HAB 3: 549-550; Pokorny 1959: 292. For Oss.
wyzyn/uzun, see Cheung 2002: 245.
Arm. ozni has been derived from *ozini (Hübschmann 1899: 46), with
intervocalic *ĝh > Arm. z (see Clackson 1994: 107). One may also assume that the
change of *-ĝh
- to -z- is regular in intervocalic position and before a nasal (see
Meillet 1896b: 54, with ozni as an example of *-jn- > -zn-). For a further discussion
on this issue and on the Armenian vocalism, see Considine 1978-79: 357; Greppin
1988-89: 479; Ravnæs 1991: 11, 381; Olsen 1999: 508-509. The prot-form would be
*h1oĝh
īnii̯o-s (Matzinger 2005: 20) or, perhaps better, *h1oĝh
i-Hn-ieh2-, with the
‘Hoffmann-suffix’ *-Hn-. Olsen 1999: 508 assumes a diminutive *-(i)h1no-, which is
uncertain. Clackson (1994: 124) points out that the *l-suffix of Germanic may have
replaced an earlier *n-suffix, and the different vocalism of Greek and Armenian
argues against a shared innovation.
The IE word for ‘hedgehog’ may be associated with ‘snake’ and is usually
interpreted as ‘snake-killer’ or ‘snake-eater’, and this reputation is supported
zoologically (Specht 1947: 39; Mallory 1982: 198-199; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984,
2: 526 = 1995: 444; Mallory/Adams 1997: 264-265). A direct derivation of the word
for ‘hedgehog’ from ‘snake’ would imply that Gr. ἔχις ‘viper’ is not cognate with
YAv. aži-, Skt. áhi-, and Arm. iž (q.v.) since these forms point to *-gwh- (cf. Lubotsky
1988: 297). This is not very probable, however, and the association between
‘hedgehog’ and ‘snake’ may be secondary (see Mallory/Adams 1997: 264b).
Also in the Armenian tradition we find evidence for this association, both cultural
and linguistic (cf. Muš ɔjni, etc. in the dialectal section; see also S. Movsisyan 1972:
52a). In a folk-tale recorded by Aṙak‘el Bahat‘ryan in 1860 (HŽHek‘ 6, 1973: 77-
78), a young bride puts on the hide of a hedgehog before going to his husband Ōc‘-
manuk ‘Snake-child’. They argue with mutual demands to take off their hides.
Subsequently, the snake turns into a man, and they become spouses. This motif is
found in many other versions, e.g. in Van (Šērenc‘ VanSaz 2, 1899: 99-105). Note in
particular a version originated from the Manazkert region (see HŽHek‘ 9, 1968:
231-237), where the hedgehog is represented by ɔcni < *ojni, the form known from
the whole Turuberan area.
The assumption that the initial k- and x- of the Armenian dialectal by-forms
ko/uzni and xozni represent an Indo-European laryngeal (see the dialectal section) is
highly improbable since: 1) the regular outcome of *h2- and *h3- is Armenian h-; 2)
Gr. ἐχῖνος shows that here we are dealing with *h1-, which is regularly lost even in
Armenian and Anatolian; 3) the solution can be much simpler (see the dialectal
section).
oloṙn, an-stem (obl. -an(c‘), NPl -ṙunk‘) ‘pea, been; globule’ (Bible+). In Paterica:
oleṙn (cf. dial.).
●DIAL The plant-name has been preserved in several dialects: Muš ɔloṙ, Nor
Naxiǰewan uṙɛl, rural ulɛṙ, Xotorǰur ɔṙɛl, Goris hǘlɛɔṙnə, Łarabaɫ hǘlɛṙnə (cf. also
üllɛ́
ɔṙnɛ
y
gy ‘a kind of abscess (palar)’. Most of the forms are identical with oleṙn
attested in Paterica. Ačaṙyan questions whether J̌
uɫa (rural) hoṙal ‘a kind of plant
resembling oloṙ’ = Pers. holar belongs here too [HAB 3: 551b]. Other forms, if
related, have an initial x- or k‘-: Dersim (K‘ɫi) k‘əlur ‘a kind of corn resembling
oats’ [Baɫramyan 1964: 175b], Dersim, Balu xəlɔr ‘millet-sized hail; a kind of
millet-sized useless grain’ [Sargisean 1932: 426; Baɫramyan 1964: 140b] (see N.
Mkrtč‘yan 1983: 31-32).
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 551b) rejects all the etymolgies (among them also the
comparison with Gr. ὄλυραι f. pl. ‘spelt, etc.’).
Olsen (1999: 139, 778, 808) proposes (with reservation) a connection with olor
‘twisting’ and derives them from PIE *kw
lh1-r-n-, as an old heteroclitic from
*kw
elh1- ‘to twist, turn’. This view is hard to accept since the assumed development
*-l̥h1C- > Arm. -oloC- is uncertain, and olor ‘twisting’ is probably of a different
origin. Besides, the plant-name has been compared with Semitic formes: Akkad.
ḫallūru, ḫi/ullūru, Aram. ḫurlā, Arab. ḫullar, ḫarul, Hebr. ḫarūl, also Pers. heler
[Adonc‘ 1938: 463 = 1972: 388; N. Mkrtč‘yan 1983: 31-32; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 459,
470; Greppin 1989a: 79].
If Gr. ὄλυραι is also connected, as Adonc‘ (ibid.) suggests, we are dealing with an
old cultural word of Mediterranean and Near-Eastern areas. Note also another
synonym of Mediterranean origin, namely siseṙn ‘pea’ (see s.v.).
In view of related forms in different languages with alternating vocalism as well
as with the sequene r...l, it is difficult to assess the nature and exact origin of the
forms oleṙn (Paterica; dialects) and *oṙel (Xotorǰur, Nor Naxiǰewan). An influence
of siseṙn, GSg sis(e)ṙan ‘pea’ (Agat‘angeɫos+; widespread in the dialects) should be
taken into asccount, too.
olok‘, a- or o-stem: GDSg olok‘-i (Agat‘angeɫos+), GDPl olok‘-ac‘ in Agat‘angeɫos
(as a reading variant, see below), Plato; olok‘-oc‘ (Philo), APl z-olog-s and
z-olok‘-un-s (both in Yaysmawurk‘) ‘shin’.
In Agat‘angeɫos § 102 (1909=1980: 61L16f; transl. Thomson 1976: 119): Ew et
hraman berel kočeɫs p‘aytic‘, ew aṙnel əst olok‘i (var. olok‘ac‘) xotc‘ac‘ (vars.
xotoc‘oc‘, xotc‘oc‘, xotoc‘ac‘n, xoc‘ac‘, etc.) otic‘ nora; ew dnel ew pndel užgin
aṙatkōk‘ : “He commanded that blocks of wood be brought and fixed to his shins
and feet and tightened with strong cords”. Ter-Łewondyan (1983: 69) translates
olok‘i xotc‘ac‘ by ModArm. srunk‘neri oskorneri “of the bones of the shins”. This
would imply that xotuc‘ refers to the lower part of the leg in general, whereas olok‘
to a part of it, perhaps ‘shinbone’.
In Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘: ōlox . čuṙ [Amalyan 1975: 338Nr29].
●DIAL Preserved in the dialects of Muš, Axalc‘xa, Nor Naxiǰewan, J̌
uɫa, etc. The
semantics in the literary attestations are specified as ‘the part of the leg between the
knee and the heel’, while in the dialects ‘the part of the leg between the knee and
ankle’ [HAB 3: 552; Ačaṙean 1925: 444; 1940: 380]. In the 19th-century dictionaries
of K‘aǰuni and Gabamačean the word means ‘stalk of a flower’, which can be compared with the meaning of the dialect of Bulanəx, namely ‘stalk of wheat’ (see
HAB 3: 552).
Ararat ɔlɔrk‘ ‘shinbone’ and Adana (Turkish speaking) əlɔrk‘ ‘shin’ (see HAB 3:
552ab) have an epenthetic -r-.
Particularly interesting is cok-olok‘ ‘(anat.) calf’ in the dialect of Ozim (see
Ačaṙean 1913: 522b; HAB 3: 552b). Ačaṙyan (1913: 522b), with some reservation,
treats it as a compound with cak ‘hole; hollow’ (*cak-olok‘). This is possible; cf.
Nor Bayazet *cak-oskor, lit. ‘hollow bone’, described by Ačaṙyan (1913: 503b) as
“a part of flesh/meat [= a body-part? – HM]; voracious person, who is recovering
after an illness”; also verbal *cak-oskor-el. The latter is also present in my mother’s
village Erazgavors: cagɔskəṙɛl ‘to be/become voracious’. Nor Bayazet cak-oskoṙ
occurs also in P‘iloyeanc‘ 1888: 39L-6, referring to a body-part of a buffalo . The
word *cak-oskoṙ is also found e.g. in a saying from Nor Naxiǰewan (P‘ork‘šeyan
1971: 113b): Jak ɔskoṙov lvanal “to make an end to the greediness”, lit. “to wash
with the hollow-bone”.
The compound, actually meaning ‘hollow bone’, must have referred to a bony
body-part. Indeed, it has been recorded in Moks in the meaning “pelvic bone”:
cak-woskor ‘тазовая кость’ [Orbeli 2002: 252].
Ozim cokolok, however, refers to ‘calf’, a fleshy part of the shin. Therefore, I
alternatively identify the first component of the compound with jukn ‘fish’.
According to Ačaṙyan (1952: 277; HAB 3: 160a), the Ozim form of jukn is j‘öuk. N.
Hovsep‘yan (1966: 232-233), however, is of the opinion that the postulation of
voiced aspirated stops in the dialect of Ozim is wrong, and that the Classical
Armenian b/d/g/j/ǰ regularly yielded p/t/k/c/č. In this case, the Ozim form of the
word for ‘fish’ would have been *cöuk. Thus, cok-olok‘ ‘(anat.) calf’ can easily be
interpreted as a compound of cöuk ‘fish’ and olok‘ ‘shin’. For the semantics, see
3.7.3.
●ETYM Compared with OCS lakъtь, Russ. lókot’, Czech loket ‘elbow’, etc.; Lith.
alkū́nė, elkū́nė ‘elbow’, Latv. ę̀
lks ‘elbow, bend’ ę̀
lkuons ‘elbow, bend’; Gr. ὠλένη
‘elbow’, etc. (see Lidén 1906: 95-97; HAB 3: 552; Pokorny 1959: 308; Saradževa
1986: 131-132; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 122; 165); see also s.vv. oɫn ‘spine, uln ‘neck’, etc.
Skt. r̥kṣálā- f. ‘the part of an animal’s leg between the fetlock joint and the hoof’ is
uncertain.
The Balto-Slavic forms derive from *HHol-k- or *Hh3el-k-. Next to this, there is
also a Baltic form with acute intonation (Lith. úolektis, Latv. uôlekts ‘ell’), which
requires *HoHl- or *Heh3l-. Note that this alternation of *-o- and *-ō- is also seen in
olok‘ ‘shin’ and uɫuk (in Łarabaɫ, also *(h)uɫuk‘, with an aspirated -k‘) ‘palm,
distance from the thumb to the little finger’ (q.v.), which both are formed with a
guttural suffixal element -k‘/-k, comparable to the *-k- of the Balto-Slavic and
perhaps some other cognate forms. The same is found also in oɫn and uln (q.v.),
which are considered etymologically related with ol-ok‘ and uɫ-uk. Theoretically, a
PIE k-stem might look as follows: nom. *HóHl-ōk (or *Héh3l-ōk), acc. *HoHl-ók-m,
gen. *HHl-k-ós (cf. the HD paradigm of *nép-ōt ‘grandson’, a t-stem, Beekes 1995:
178). From PArm. nom. *uluk‘ and acc. *ulok-, as well as from a by-form with the
stem *HHol- or *Hh3el-, uɫuk/k‘ and olok‘ have developed. One may alternatively consider the possible dependence of an unstressed vowel on the stressed one (see
2.1.23).
oɫb, mostly plural, o-stem: GDSg oɫb-o-y, GDPl oɫb-o-c‘, IPl oɫb-o-v-k‘ ‘wail,
lamentation’ (Bible+), oɫbam ‘to wail, lament’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects. In Sivri-Hisar, it means ‘to long for’ [HAB 3:
553].
●ETYM Connected to Lith. ulbúoti ‘to call, sing’, Gr. ὀλοφύρομαι ‘to wail, lament,
bewail, bemoan’, ὀλοφυδνός ‘lamenting, wailing’ (with a secondary -o-, see Beekes
2009 s.v.); see Hübschmann 1883: 46; 1897: 481; HAB 3: 553a with lit.; J̌
ahukyan
1987: 121, 164; sceptical: Clackson 1994: 182.
The Armenian form may reflect *Hol-bh
- or *h3l-bh
-; for a discussion, see
Kortlandt 1987: 62 = 2003: 76; Beekes 1987b: 6-7; 2003: 188; Greppin 1988-89:
479; Lindeman 1990: 28-30; Derksen 1996: 1106; Olsen 1999: 37.
oɫoɫ-anam ‘to wail, lament’ (John Chrysostom), oɫoɫ-anim ‘id.’ (John Chrysostom),
oɫoɫ-ank‘ ‘wail, lamentation’ (Ephrem); dial. ulul- ‘to lament, cry’.
●DIAL Axalc‘xa ululal ‘to weep, cry, lament (said of women)’; Erznka ulul-ik anel
‘to cry, shout’ [HAB 3: 555b]. The appurtenance of dimin. ɔɫ-ik is uncertain (see
Amatuni 1912: 527a; Ačaṙean 1913: 1134b; HAB 3: 555b; Ž. Xač‘atryan 1975: 56b,
56b67). NHB 2: 511a suggests a relation between ɔɫik and ClArm. oɫok‘
‘supplication’.
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 555) interprets the verb oɫoɫ- as reduplication of *ol- and
connects it to Gr. ὀλολύζω ‘to cry out loudly, call, moan’ (said especially of
women), ὀλολυγ-ή f. ‘loud outcry’; forms with *u- (for the etymon, see Mayrhofer
EWAia 1, 1992: 230-231; Mallory/Adams 1997: 66b, cf. 412a): Skt. ululí- ‘crying
loudly’, úlūka- m. ‘owl’, Lat. ululāre ‘to howl, yell, shriek’, ulula f. ‘the tawny owl’,
Lith. ulūlóti ‘to shout’, etc.
Further, see Aɫayan 1974: 17, 62-63; N. Simonyan 1991: 303-304. The
appurtenance of Arm. dial. ulul- has been suggested by Manandean p.c. 1899 in
Ēǰmiacin (apud HAB 3: 593a). J̌
ahukyan (1987: 121, 154, 164) separates *ul- from
*oɫ-, but this is not compelling; the vocalic vacillation may be due to the
onomatopoeic nature of the etymon. The etymology of Arm. *oɫ-/*ul- remains
unknown to scholars outside Armenia.
For the structure of Arm. dial. ul-ul-ik ‘cry, shouting’ and Gr. ὀλ-ολ-υγή f. ‘loud
outcry’, cf. Gr. ἀλ-αλ-αγή ‘shouting’ vs. Arm. aɫ-aɫ-ak ‘shouting’ (q.v.).
oɫoɫem ‘to overflow, inundate, flood; to rinse’ (Bible+), oɫoɫanem ‘id.’ (Bible+),
oɫoɫanim ‘to plunge (into licentious pleasures)’ (Movsēs Xorenac‘i, etc.), oɫoɫeal
‘licentious’ (John Chrysostom); oɫoɫ ‘inundation, flood’ (Agat‘angeɫos).
For the moral context of the verb cf. Movsēs Xorenac‘i 3.63 (1913=1991: 346L12f;
Thomson 1978: 339): anhun sksaw oɫoɫanel yanaṙak c‘ankut‘iwns “begun to plunge
without restraint into licentious pleasures”.
In Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ (Amalyan 1975: 254Nr40f) oɫoɫ and oɫoɫel are glossed by heɫeɫ
‘flood’ and oṙogel ‘to irrigate’, respectively.
●DIAL The verb oɫoɫem is widespread in the dialects [HAB 3: 555a].
●ETYM Belongs with heɫum ‘to pour, fill’ and heɫeɫ ‘flood, torrent’ (q.v.).
oɫorm o-stem: ISg oɫorm-o-v in Yovhan Mandakuni ‘compassion; supplication’
(Bible+); oɫormim (Bible+).
●DIAL The verb is widespread in the dialects (note also the deverbative noun
ɔɫɔrmis, which reflects the frozen APl form oɫormi-s), but the noun is not recorded
in HAB 3: 557a. Traces of the latter may be found in Łarabaɫ, e.g. in the formula (L.
Harut‘yunyan 1991: 307L4) Astvac uɫurmə təni mart‘in srtumə “May God put the
compassion into the heart of the man”.
●ETYM Compared with OHG arm ‘poor, miserable’, etc., as from reduplicated
*or-orm- (see Hübschmann 1899: 48-49; HAB 3: 556-557; Pokorny 1959: 306;
Solta 1960: 427f). J̌
ahukyan (1987: 121, 164), however, prefers the connection to
eɫeṙn ‘trouble’, etc. (from PIE *el-5). (One might also consider *el-4). Olsen (1999:
961) mentions as a word of unknown origin.
If, nevertheless, the derivation from *or-orm- is accepted, one notes a remarkable
resemblance with the dissimilation which has probably taken place in *(y)oɫorm
from *aṙ(a)-orm-i (q.v.). See also 2.1.24.2 on this kind of dissimilation (saɫawart,
etc.).
oɫok‘, o-stem: GDSg oɫok‘-o-y, ISg oɫok‘-o-v (Agat‘angeɫos, P‘awstos Buzand) ‘supplication; fawning, flattery’ (Bible+), oɫok‘em ‘to supplicate, flatter, coax’ (Bible+),
oɫok‘-an-k‘, pl. tant. a-stem: GDPl oɫok‘-an-a-c‘, IPl oɫok‘-an-a-w-k‘ ‘supplication;
flattery’ (Bible+).
●ETYM Pedersen (1906: 389-390 = 1982: 167-168) connects oɫok‘ with Lat. loquor
‘to speak, talk, say; to mention’; further, see HAB 3: 557b. The Latin word may be
derived from *tlokw
- (see Schrijver 1991: 476; cf. Mallory/Adams 1997: 535b).
More probably, oɫok‘ derives from PArm. *oɫ-/aɫ- ‘to supplicate, pray, lament’
(see s.v.v. aɫač‘em ‘to supplicate, beseech, pray’ and oɫoɫ- ‘to wail, lament’, cf.
Pedersen ibid.; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 121, 164; Clackson 1994: 174). For a vocalic
discussion, see Kortlandt 1983: 10, 13 = 2003: 40, 43; Beekes 2003: 157. The -ok‘
probably points to a rhyming formation next to boɫok‘ ‘complain’ (q.v.). Note also
borb-ok‘-em ‘to set on fire, kindle, inflame’ vs. borb ‘bright, aflame, burning’, and
keɫ-ek‘-em ‘to tear, rend’ (see s.v.v.).
oɫn GDSg oɫin, in Elias (6th cent.) oɫan, ISg oɫamb, NPl oɫunk‘, GDPl oɫanc‘ ‘spine,
back(bone); spine with spinal marrow; marrow’; dial. also ‘hill-side, etc.’ (Bible+).
Mxit‘ar Herac‘i (12th cent.) has oɫ-o-šar ‘spinal column’, which is considered
dialectal by Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 554a).
If the placenames Oɫ-akan and Oɫin (q.v.) belong here, the meaning ‘hill-side,
etc.’, although attested only in the dialects, must be considered very old.
●DIAL Muš, Alaškert ɔɫ (GSg ɔɫan or ɔɫni) ‘back; slope of a mountain’ (cf. Muš,
Sasun vər ɔɫan ‘on back’); Xotorǰur vɔɫ ‘slope of a mountain’; Hamšen (y)ɛɔɫ, yɔx
(GSg ɔɫɔn < oɫan, NPl ɔɫnunk) ‘long hillock’ (according to KiwlHamš 1899: 560a,
eoɫn ‘high summit of a hill’), etc. [HAB 3: 554b; Ačaṙyan 1947: 12, 24, 248]; Meɫri
úɫnə ‘the upper part of a hill’ [Aɫayan 1954: 45, 282b].
The an-stem seen in GDSg oɫan in Elias corresponds to data from Muš, Sasun,
and Hamšen. Muš, Bulanəx, Aparan ɔɫm-(k-)il ‘to lie, lean on one’s arm’. Ačaṙyan
(HAB 3: 554b) compares this *oɫ-m- to ənd-oɫm-eal (John Chrysostom), although in
the lexicological section he points out that əndoɫmeal should be read as əndoɫneal. One wonders if the forms *oɫmil and *əndoɫmil reflect a contamination with the
synonymous koɫmanim and ən-koɫman-im (with the root koɫmn ‘side’).
In sayings from the village of Xult‘ik (Baɫeš), AblSg yim yoɫnɛn ‘from my back’
is used referring to a mule and a donkey (see Tarōnean 1961: 183).
According to Hananyan (1995: 195ab), Svedia (Xtrbek) has ɫɛuɫ for uɫeɫ, and
ɫəɫɫäg for oɫn. Formally, ɫəɫɫäg, too, seems to derive from uɫeɫ. The form is
mentioned s.v. oɫn because ɫəɫɫäg, probably, meant ‘marrow’ rather than ‘brain’.
This is merely a guess; Hananyan, unfortunately, does not specify the semantics.
Something similar is seen in Andreasyan 1967: 378ab (for Svedia/Yoɫun-ōluk),
where Arm. oɫn and uɫeɫ are glossed as ɫɛuɫ and ɫəöɫ, respectively. Here again, both
forms are practically identical and clearly represent uɫeɫ. In page 250, Andreasyan
(1967) mentions only one ɫɛuɫ (ɫuɫ), meaning ‘marrow in bones and skull’, vs. bɛyn
‘mind, brains’ (< Turkish < Arab. beyn [Ačaṙean 1902: 290]). In his description of
the dialect of Svedia, Ačaṙyan (2003: 373, 583) represents (ə)ɫɛɔɫ, ɫüɫ ‘marrow’ s.v.
uɫeɫ, in the same opposition with bɛn < Arab. beyn ‘brain’.
Akn ɔɫəšar ‘spinal column’ reflects MidArm. oɫ-o-šar ‘spinal column’ (see
above). Note also ōɫašar found in Turkish-Armenian dictionary (ca. 1720 AD) by
Eɫia Mušeɫyan Karnec‘i (Karin/Xotorǰur) [Č‘ugaszyan 1986: 41Nr33, 175].
The curious compound Bulanəx šarɔɫ ‘spinal column’ (see S. Movsisyan 1972:
71a) must represent the opposite order of the components: *šar-oɫ(n).
●ETYM Despite the semantic difference, derived from the PIE word for the elbow:
Gr. ὠλένη f. ‘elbow, underarm’; Lat. ulna f. ‘elbow’; OIr. uilen ‘angle’ < *ol-ēn-;
OIc. alin, OHG el(i)na f. ‘ell’ < PGerm. *alin- < *ol-en-; Lith. úolektis, Latv.
uôlekts ‘ell’, etc., as well as Arm. uln (GDSg ulan, NPl ulunk‘, GDPl ulanc‘) ‘neck’
(Bible+; dialect of J̌
uɫa), uɫuk ‘palm, distance from the thumb to the little finger’
(Bible+; dialect of Łarabaɫ, with an initial h-), and il(ik) ‘spindle’ (q.v.), see Lidén
1906: 127-131; HAB 3: 554, 592; Pokorny 1959: 308; Schrijver 1991: 78-79, 339,
352.
Olsen (1999: 125-126) points out that the semantic divergence between ‘spine’
(something twisting or turning) and ‘elbow’ (something bending in an angle) is
considerable, which seems exaggerated to me. The spine and neck can not only twist
and turn, but also bend in an angle. Besides, the shoulder, also a bending body part,
is semantically often related with the back (see 3.7.2). Note also that, in the dialect
of J̌
uɫa, the actual meaning of uln ‘neck’ (q.v.) may be ‘elbow’ (or ‘shoulder). The
basic meaning of the PIE word might have been, thus, ‘joint, a moving (twisting
and/or bending) body part’. This can be corroborated by šl(n)-i ‘neck’, if indeed
related with *šil- ‘crooked, twisting/bending’; see also s.v. šeɫ and 3.7.2.
Important is also Muš paṙeki hulunk‘ ‘spinal column’ which actually means
‘vertebrae of back’ and can be considered an important intermediary between oɫn
and uln, see s.v. uln.
Because of the above-mentioned semantic divergence, Olsen (1999: 125-126,
806) prefers a connection with Lat. collus ‘neck’, etc. (*kw
ol(h1)-so- > PArm. *oɫ-),
assuming a contamination “with the almost homonymous word for ‘elbow’”. This
seems unnecessary. Besides, the development *kw
o- > Arm. o- is uncertain.
The ablaut *ol- vs. *ōl- seen in IE forms (see especially Schrijver 1991: 78-79) is
reflected in Armenian oɫn < *Hh3el-en- or *HHol-en- vs. uln < *Heh3l-en- or *HoHl-en-. See also olok‘ and uɫuk. The connection with il(ik) ‘spindle’ can be
accepted only if the internal laryngeal of the PIE root is a *-h1- (*Heh1l- > Arm. il),
which is uncertain. It is remarkable that next to ilik ‘spindle’ (q.v.), there is a
homonymous dialectal word meaning ‘marrow’, which, however, can be a Turkish
borrowing.
PArm. *ol/ul- *‘spine with neck; marrow’ might have also developed into uɫ-eɫ
‘brain; marrow’ (q.v.). See also aɫeɫn ‘bow; rainbow (Bible+)’; ‘a bow-like
instrument used for combing and preparing wool and cotton (a card)’ (Geoponica;
dial.).
If these words are related with olok‘ ‘shin’ (q.v.), one might assume the following
semantic development: ‘*hollow bone’ > ‘shinbone’ and ‘marrow’.
Another etymology: Aɫayan 1974: 19
oɫǰ, o-stem: GDPl oɫǰ-o-c‘ (Bible+); GDSg oɫǰ-i (Paterica) ‘whole, integral, complete,
solid; sound, healthy, unhurt’ (Bible+); aṙ-oɫǰ ‘sound, healthy, unhurt’ (q.v.).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects [HAB 3: 558b].
●ETYM Meillet (1894: 154; 1936: 52) derives Arm. oɫǰ from *ol-i̯o-, cf. OIr. (h)uile
‘all, whole’, MWelsh holl < *(s)ol-i̯o- (unless from *sol-no- with Lat. sollus
‘complete’, as is alternatively assumed by Schrijver 1995: 323). This is accepted in
Pokorny 1959: 979; Godel 1975: 81; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 41. The derivation from *solu̯-
i̯o- is unconvincing. For a discussion, see Müller 1890: 5Nr45; Hübschmann 1897:
481; Pisani 1934: 180-182; 1950: 178; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 213; Ravnæs 1991: 35, 1071;
Olsen 1999: 26, 798; Beekes 2003: 162. For a discussion of -ɫǰ-, see also s.v. ayl
‘other, alien’.
For the semantic relationship ‘whole, integral, complete, solid’ vs. ‘sound,
healthy’, see Toporov 1979a: 218-220. See also s.v. amb-oɫǰ ‘whole, intact’.
oč‘ ‘not’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Preserved in Zeyt‘un, Muš, Hamšen, T‘iflis, Ararat, Łarabaɫ, Agulis, etc.
Note also Muš məč‘ only in a proverb (cf. on-c‘ ‘how’ > dial. *monc‘). More
widesapread is č‘-ē [HAB 3: 562a].
●ETYM Since NHB (2: 516a), linked with Gr. οὐκ, οὐκί, οὐχί ‘not’ <*h2oiu-k
w
i(d).
See also Meillet 1936: 143; Cowgill 1960; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 134, 177; Kortlandt 2003
+ Beekes 2003 passim (see the index). For a critical discussion, see Clackson 1994:
158; 2004-05: 155-156, who treats o-č‘ as an inner-Armenian creation: pronoun o-
(as in o-k‘ and o-mn ‘someone’) + simple negative č‘ < *kwid, originally used in
conjunction with *ne which later fell out of use; cf. the fossilised phrase č‘-ik‘
‘(there is) nothing’. Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 561b < Meillet) connects the first component
o- of oč‘ ‘not’ with Skt. áti ‘beyond, over’, etc.
The inner-Armenian interpretation is most probable. That č‘ functioned as a
negative also without the o- is seen not only in č‘-ik‘ but also in č‘ē ‘not’ which is
dialectally ubiquitous.
oṙ, i-stem in Geoponica, ‘rump’ (Paterica, Geoponica, etc. HAB 3: 564a; MiǰHayBaṙ
2, 1992: 231-232).
●DIAL Dialectally ubiquitous. In the village of Hasknǰaws of Moks, yɛṙ, which, as is
pointed out by Ačaṙyan, is reminiscent of PIE e-grade, cf. the Celtic form below
[HAB 3: 564b]. Svedia vəṙṙ ‘vulva (/bunoc‘/)’ [Ačaṙyan 2003: 436, 583]. ●ETYM Since NHB (2: 517c), compared with PIE*h1ors(o)-: Gr. ὄρρος m. ‘rump’,
οὐρά f. ‘tail’, OIc. ars, OHG ars ‘arse, buttocks, backside’, OEngl. ears ‘arse’, Engl.
arse, OIr. err f. ‘tail, back of chariot’ < *ersā, probably also Hitt. ārra-, ārri-, arru-
‘rump’ (Hübschmann 1897: 482; Bugge 1889: 23; 1892: 446; HAB 3: 564; Pokorny
1959: 340; Hanneyan 1979: 171; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 817 = 1995: 717;
Mallory/Adams 1997: 88b).
For Lat. dorsum, see s.v. *toṙ ‘neck’.
oski, wo-stem (and ea-stem; see below) ‘gold’.
wo-stem: GDSg oskw-o-y, AblSg y-oskw-o-y, ISg oskw-o-v, NPl oski-k‘, AccSg
oski-s, IPl oskw-o-v-k‘. All these case forms, except for IPl oskw-o-v-k‘ (once, in 1
Maccabees 4.57), are abundantly attested in the Bible, see Astuacaturean 1895:
1173-1175. Instead of GDPl *oskw-o-c‘, however, we find here only oske-a-c‘
(Judges 8.26; Songs 5.15), which points to ea-stem. If these forms are reliable, we
are dealing with a mixed declension wo + ea (cf. J̌
ahukyan 1959: 237-238).
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects:
with anlaut diphthongization: dialects with penultimate accentuation (Łarabaɫ
vəɛ́
skɛ, Goris vɛ́
skɛ, Ararat, Šamaxi vɔski, etc.) and Van-Salmast group (Van, J̌
uɫa,
Salmast voski, etc.);
without diphthongization: Nor Naxiǰewan, T‘iflis, Hamšen, Karin, Muš,
Tigranakert ɔski, Hačən, Polis, Sebastia ɔsgi ;
with ɔ- and vɔ- doublets: Akn (v)ɔsgi, Suč‘ava (v)ɔsg‘i (HAB 3: 566-567; for a
discussion and chronology, see Weitenberg 1996: 100-103, 110-112; 2001: 71).
Agulis áski (see Ačaṙean 1935: 63) seems to show that the change ClArm. o- >
Agulis a- in disyllabic words antedates the diphthongization.
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 565-566) rejects all the etymological attempts, including
those comparing Arm. oski with Sumer. guškin ‘gold’ (Patkanean 1880: 97; Bugge
1892: 444; Jensen 1898: 108; Vycichl 1965)107, Finn. vaski ‘copper’, etc., as well as
that of Patrubány (1908: 278a) who links oski with Lat. aurum, etc., deriving the
Armenian form from *aus-g-iyos, a derivative of PIE *au̯es- ‘to light, shine’ (read
*h2(e)us- ‘to shine’, cf. Lat. aurōra, etc. [Pokorny 1959: 87; Mallory/Adams 1997:
148], see s.v. ayg ‘morning’), and considers Finn. vaski ‘copper’ and Hung. vas
‘iron’ as loans from PArm. *u̯oski. Ačaṙyan (ibid.) leaves the origin of Arm. oski
open. He does not mention the Armenian word in AčaṙHLPatm 1, 1940: 11 (with
Lat. aurum, etc.) and 68 (in the complete list of Armenian words of IE origin), and
suggests an Urartian origin in 182. J̌
ahukyan (1987: 296, 452) treats oski as
borrowed from Finno-Ugric languages and mentions the Sumerian form.
The IE forms of this word for ‘gold’ are Latin aurum, Lith. áuksas, Old
Lithuanian ausas, and Old Prussian ausis, from IE *h2eus- (Schrijver 1991: 47), and
Toch. A wäs m., B yasa n. ‘gold’ < PToch. *w’äsā f., from IE *h2u̯ɛs-eh2- (see
Adams 1999: 487), unless a loan from Samoyed (see Schrijver 1991: 47 with refer.).
This term is usually treated as a migratory word related with Finno-Ugric *vaś/ske
‘copper, bronze’ and Sumer. guškin ‘gold’. For a discussion and references, see
Aalto 1959; Pokorny 1959: 87; Lane 1970: 76, 81; Toporov, PrJaz [a-d] 1975: 168-170; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 711, 713, 932, 939 = 1995: 615, 618, 825-826,
831; Rédei 1986: 42; Mallory/Adams 1997: 234; Carpelan/Parpola 2001: 127.
The appurtenance of Arm. oski to this term is accepted practically by everyone.
However, the derivational basis is unclear. The proto-form *aus-g-iyos assumed by
Patrubány (cf. also *au- > Arm. o- in Lane 1970: 81) would yield Arm.
*a(w)skí(yo)- or *a(w)sčí(yo)-. The interpretation of the word as (v)oski from *vask
(e.g. Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 713, 932) does not clarify much. Note that *Hu̯Vyields Arm. gV-, and the initial v- of the dialectal forms is secondary (see above).
Olsen (1999: 441, 803, 831) assumes dissimilatory umlaut u-i > o-i and putatively
posits a substantivized *h2ustu̯io- ‘leuchtungsfähig’, cf. Skt. kr̥tvya- (trisyllabic)
‘leistungsfähig, arbeitsvoll’. The development *-stu̯- > Arm. -sk- is not impossible
(see 2.1.22.6), but the structural analysis is not convincing. More probably, the -kiis a non-IE suffixal element seen also in Finno-Ugric and Sumerian forms, as well as
in other metal-names, such as Hatt. ḫapalki-, Akkad./Hurr. ḫabalginnu ‘iron’,
Georg. rḳina ‘iron’, etc. The nature of -k- in Lith. áuksas ‘gold’ which is absent from
the other Baltic forms and after which the -s- has not become -š-, is unclear (see
Toporov, op. cit. 168).
One might derive Arm. oski from *əwoskíya, with vocalic assimilation and loss of
intervocalic -w- in pretonic position, see 2.1.23 and 2.1.33.1 respectively. If we are
dealing with a word of substratum rather than a PIE word, the formation can be
compared with that of ozni ‘hedgehog’, also a European substratum word with ograde.
oskr (mostly in plur.), er-stem: ISg osker-b (Commentary on Judges by Eɫišē) NPl
osker-k‘, GDPl osker-a-c‘, IPl osker-a-w-k‘ (Bible+) ‘bone’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 3: 567-568].
●ETYM Derived from the PIE word for ‘bone’: Skt. ásthi, asthnás n. ‘bone’, Gr.
ὀστέον n. ‘bone’, Lat. os, ossis n. ‘bone, leg’, Hitt. ḫaštāi, ḫašti- n. ‘bone;
(metaphorically) strength; a measure of length’, CLuw. ḫāš- ‘bone’, see
Hübschmann 1897: 482; HAB 3: 567; Pokorny 1959: 783; Mayrhofer EWAia 1,
1992: 150-151; Mallory/Adams 1997: 77a.
Arm. oskr points to *Host-u̯er- (Meillet 1936: 51; Clackson 1994: 44; Olsen
1999: 147), and the plural stem -a- probably reflects the IE neuter pl. *-h2 (Olsen
ibid.). One reconstructs *h2- (Mayrhofer EWAia ibid.; Mallory/Adams ibid.; Olsen
1999: 147) or *h3- (Kloekhorst 2006: 92; 2008: 325). For a discussion, see also
Greppin 1988-89: 479; Lindeman 1997: 47-48. The absence of an initial h- points to
*Host- for Armenian. On the -i/n- declension in relation with the problem of the
laryngeal, see Beekes 1987c; Elbourne 2000: 17-18.
Hamp (1984) argues against reconstruction of a velar suffix in Armenian and
Celtic, and denies the relation between ‘bone’ and ‘branch’ (ost, q.v.). He (op. cit.
198) explains Arm. oskr ‘bone’ through the following development: *ostur ̯̥ > *oskar
> *oska
r > oskr. For a discussion, see also Polomé 1980: 26; van Windekens 1990-
91. Viredaz (2003: 73, 7370) derives oskr from *ost-wr ̥ and notes: “*-wr ̥ probably
added on the model of *ghrewr ̄ ̥ ‘horn’ (eɫǰewr) because *ost was too short a word (or
was about to be reduced to *os). Hitt. ḫastwer ‘weed, waste’ is unrelated”.
ost, o-stem: GDPl ost-o-c‘, IPl ost-o-v-k‘ ‘branch’ (Bible+). ●DIAL Preserved in several dialects in the meaning ‘remnant of a cut-off branch’.
Ararat has vɔst-ɫ and kɔst-ɫ, and Sebastia has ɔst-ṙ- [HAB 3: 569a]. For the obscure
k- in Ararat cf. kostɫ ‘a twig on which bird-lime is smeared to entangle birds’ (HAB
2: 639a; for an explanation, see Aɫayan 1974: 87-88).
●ETYM Connected with Gr. ὄζος m. ‘branch, twig, bough, offshoot; knot or eye on a
tree’, Goth. asts, OHG ast ‘branch’, MDutch ōst ‘knot in wood’, etc. Hübschmann
1883: 46; 1897: 482; Meillet 1922j: 212 (on -st); HAB 3: 568-569 with lit.; Pokorny
1959: 785; Mallory/Adams 1997: 80a; Olsen 1999: 19. The analysis *o-sd-o-, with
the root of ‘to sit’ is untenable; one now reconstructs *Hosdo- (Beekes 1992: 172;
cf. Olsen 1999: 1933). The appurtenance of Hitt. ḫašduer- is uncertain (see
Kloekhorst 2006: 87; 2008 s.v.).
The connection between the words for ‘branch’ and ‘bone’ (Bailey 1983: 2) has
been rejected by Hamp 1984.
*ot- ‘foot’: sg. ot-n, gen.-dat. otin, loc. y-otin, abl. y-otan-ē, instr. otam-b; plur. ot-k‘,
i-stem: acc. ot-s, gen.-dat. ot-i-c‘, abl. y-ot-i-c‘, instr. ot-i-w-k‘ (Bible+; rich
evidence in the Bible, see Astuacaturean 1895: 1177-1179); MidArm y-ot-a-c‘,
pointing to a-stem (see below, the dialectal section); het ‘footstep, track’ (q.v.).
The paradigm richly attested in the Bible points to a clear restriction of the forms
otn and ot-i- to singular and plural, respectively. The same forms are attested also in
the original literature. We find GDPl ot-i-c‘ in Agat‘angeɫos §§ 102, 103, 221
(1909=1980: 61L17, 62L1, 62L8, 116L15) next to singular otn, e.g. zmioy otanēn
(41L16f). In Sebēos Chapter 20 (Xač‘atryan/Eɫiazaryan 2005: 104L1f; transl. Thomson
1999: 39-40), one finds GDSg ot-i-n and ISg otam-b on the one hand, and APl ot-s
and IPl ot-i-w-k‘ on the other. The plural forms thus lack the nasal; further, see the
Concordance of Sebēos (G. Xač‘atryan 2004: 357-358).
IPl ot-i-w-k‘ is attested in P‘awstos Buzand 5.37 (1883=1984: 202L14; transl.
Garsoïan 1989: 218): zi otiwk‘n c‘awac ēr “because his feet hurt”; also in Eɫišē (TerMinasyan 1989: 382L7, 390L14), Movsēs Kaɫankatuac‘i 2.41 (V. Aṙak‘elyan 1983:
253L8).
In compounds ot sometimes displays o-stem forms, cf. stor-ot ‘foot (of a
mountain)’: ISg storot-o-v, several times in the Bible (Astuacaturean 1895: 1376a),
IPl storot-o-v(-k‘) in Movsēs Xorenac‘i 1.12: 1913=1991: 38L18 (aṙ storotovk‘
leranc‘n), 2.49: 176L11; cf. aṙ otamb lerinn (1.12: 41L17f) and i leṙnotin mium (1.10:
33L9). Paterica has i koɫmn storot-i lerinn (NHB 2: 751c).
●DIAL The forms ot and frozen pl. otk‘ are widespread in the dialects. Zeyt‘un Akn,
etc. have dual *ot-u-i. Note the paradigm of Polis: NSg ɔt‘k‘, pl. ɔdvi, ɔdvənɛr. The
final nasal of otn is present in Agulis, Łarabaɫ, etc. [HAB 3: 574a].
The ClArm. GDPl ot-i-c‘ has been preserved in Malkara [Ṙodost‘o], in a frozen
substantive meaning ‘shoes’ (see Ačaṙean 1913: 857b). Instead of this form (cf. Van
GDPl ač‘ič‘ < ač‘ic‘, see s.v. ač‘-k‘), Van represents MidArm. ot-a-c‘, which is
probably analogical after ceṙac‘ < ClArm. jeṙ-a-c‘ vs. jeṙn ‘hand’ (see Ačaṙyan
1952: 128-129). The form otac‘ is also found in Zeyt‘un and Nor Bayazet in the
meanings ‘pants’ and ‘women underwear’, respectively, as well as in compounds
like Č‘arsančag *otac‘-šor ‘pants’ and *otac‘-aman ‘shoes’ (see Ačaṙean 1913: 856-
857). ●ETYM From PIE *pe/od- ‘foot’: Skt. pád- ‘foot’, YAv. pad- m., Oss. fad, MPers.
NPers. pāy, Parth. pāδ ‘foot’, Gr. πώς m., gen. ποδός ‘foot’, Lat. pēs, gen. ped-is m.
‘foot’, OEngl. NPl. fēt < PGm *fōt-iz ‘foot’, etc.; here belongs also het ‘foot,
footstep, footprint, track’ (q.v.) < *pedo- n. ‘footstep, footprint, track’: Skt. padá- n.
‘id.’, YAv. paδa- n. ‘footstep’, OIc. fet ‘step’, cf. Gr. πέδον n. ‘floor, ground’, Hitt.
pedan ‘place’, etc.; see Hübschmann 1897: 466-467, 482; Walde/Hofmann 2, 1954:
293-295; Pokorny 1959: 790-791; Frisk 2: 587-588; Lubotsky 1988: 78; Mayrhofer
EWAia 2, 1996: 77-79; Mallory/Adams 1997: 27b, 208-209, 595b; Cheung 2007:
305.
The PIE word is reconstructed as a root noun of static inflexion: nom. *pōd(s)
‘foot’ vs. acc., etc. *ped-: Gr. πούς, ποδός, Lat. pēd, pedis, etc., see Beekes 1995:
189; cf. Schrijver 1991: 121, 135; for the paradigms and a discussion, see
Szemerényi 1996: 164-166.
The Armenian singulative ot-n reflects PIE acc. *pód-m̥ , cf. Gr. πόδ-α, etc.; pl. otk‘ has been derived from *pod-es = Gr. πόδ-ες (Meillet 1894: 156-157; 1916h: 188;
1936: 83-84; Grammont 1918: 224; Schmitt 1981: 53, 199; K. Schmitt 1987: 37;
Ravnæs 1991: 100-101; Olsen 1999: 21, 175, 435; Matzinger 2005: 69-70, 89, 92).
Hübschmann 1897: 482 assumes an original dual, cf. Gr. πόδ-ε. The i-declension
remains unexplained, however. The explanation on the basis of GDAblPl *pod-isk̂
o-
> otic‘ (Olsen 1999: 175) is not convincing. I tentatively posit PArm. dual *ot-i- <
QIE *pod-ih1, where the *-ih1 was taken from neuter duals denoting body-part terms
such as ač‘-k‘ ‘eye’ < PIE *h3(o)kw
-ih1 n. ‘both eyes’: Gr. ὄσσε, OCS oči, etc. Thus,
singulative ot-n vs. pl.tant. ot-k‘, -i goes parallel with ak-n ‘eye’ vs. ač‘-k‘ (see
s.vv.). It is tempting to compare Arm. dial. dual *ot-u-i with Skt. dual pā́dau.
Further, see s.v. het ‘foot, footstep, footprint, track’ (< neuter *pedo-, see above).
For heti ‘on foot’ cf. Lat. pedes, -itis m. ‘pedestrian, foot-soldier’, OCS pěšь
‘pedestrian, on foot’, etc.; for het ‘after’ and y-et ‘after’, cf. Gr. πεδά ‘after, with,
amid’, etc.
orb, o-stem ‘orphan’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects [HAB 3: 575b]. On *orb-ew-ayri ‘widow’ <
*‘orphan-and-widow’, see s.v. ayri.
●ETYM From PIE *Horbh
-o-: Lat. orbus ‘orphaned, parentless; childless; bereaved;
deprived or destitute (of anything)’, orbō ‘to bereave (of parents, children, etc.),
deprive (of)’, Gr. ὀρφανός ‘orphaned’, ὀρφο- (in compounds), etc. [Hübschmann
1897: 482; HAB 3: 575]. Finno-Ugric *orpa- ‘orphan’ (Finn. orpo, etc.) is
considered a borrowing from an IE (most probably, Aryan) language; see
Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 940-941; Rédei 1986: 46; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 295 (with
ref.); Viereck/Goldammer 2003: 406. According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 575b), Georg.
ob-oli ‘orphan’ is an Armenian loan. Compare am, am-l-ik (q.v.). Also Abxaz a-iba
‘orphan’, etc. are considered as borrowed from Arm. orb [J̌
ahukyan 1987: 602].
Arm. orb and the others are usually connected with Skt. árbha- ‘small, young’,
arbhaká- adj. ‘small, weak, young, being the age of a child’ (RV+); OCS rabъ m.
‘servant, slave’, Czech m. rob ‘slave’; Hitt. ḫarp- ‘sich absondern’, ḫarpu-
‘gesondert’ (on which see Weitenberg 1984: 100-101; Olsen 1999: 1831), etc.; as
well as Arm. arbaneak, a-stem ‘servant’ (Bible+), q.v. [HAB 1: 299-300; 3: 575; Pokorny 1959: 782; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 747-748; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 141,
164]. Hübschmann (1897: 423) represents Arm. arbaneak in a separate entry.
Olsen (1999: 373, 868) derives arbaneak ‘servant’ from the Iranian
correspondence of Gr. ὀρφανός ‘orphaned’. In view of complete structural and
semantic parallelism with pataneak, a-stem (next to patani ‘youth; servant’, Bible+),
probably of Iranian origin (though the etymological details are unclear; cf. Olsen
1999: 310240, 901), Iranian origin should be viewed as possible. However, the
Iranian forms are not attested (apart from the personal names *arbakka-,
*arba-miša-, etc., ÈtimSlovIranJaz 1, 2000: 215), and the meaning of arbaneak is
not identical with that of Sanskrit. Therefore, arbaneak can be treated as a native
Armenian word formed as (or analogically after) pataneak vs. patani.
If all these forms are related, one may assume that the meanings ‘servant’ and
‘young’ derive from original ‘bereaved, orphaned’. Alternatively: ‘small, young’ >
‘orphan’ (see, for instance, ÈtimSlovIranJaz 1, 2000: 215) and ‘servant’. In this case,
Lat. orbō would be denominative.
ordi, wo-stem: GDSg ordw-o-y, GDPl ordw-o-c‘, IPl ordw-o-v-k‘ (abundant in the
Bible, Astuacaturean 1895: 1181-1204); rarely a-stem: GDPl orde-a-c‘ (NHB 2:
529b) ‘generation, sun/daughter’, espec. ‘son’ (Bible+). On y-ordwoǰ ‘in the son’
(Eznik), see Clackson 1994: 61.
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects [HAB 3: 577a].
●ETYM From PIE *por-ti-o-, cf. Gr. πόρτις, -ιος f. ‘calf, young heifer (younger than
δαμάλη), young cow [rarely masculine]; (metaphorically) young maiden’, etc. (see
HAB 3: 576; Olsen 1999: 441-442). On the connection with Lat. partus, -ūs m.
‘bringing forth, birth; foetus, embryo; offspring, progeny’, etc., see Schrijver 1991:
195-197, 211.
See also s.vv. ort‘ ‘calf’, urǰu ‘stepson or stepdaughter’, and awri-ord ‘virgin’.
ort‘, u-stem ‘calf; fawn’ (Bible+). In Genesis 18.7 it renders Gr. μοσχάριον (see also
Clackson 1994: 153). In Canticum 2.9, 2.17, 8.14: ort‘uc‘ eɫanc‘ = Gr. νεβρῴ
ἐλάφων. That ort‘ also refers to the young of eɫn(ik) ‘hind’ is corroborated by later
attestations too, see, e.g., Mnac‘akanyan 1977: 12, 14, 18. Cf. also eɫn-ort‘ in
Evagrius, etc. In the Alexander Romance: y-eɫn-ort‘-unc‘ [H. Simonyan 1989:
172-8].
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects (mainly with dimin. -ik or -uk) with initial: (1) v- :
Moks, Van, Salmast, Łarabaɫ, Maraɫa; (2) h- : Aslanbek, Hamšen, T‘iflis, Axalc‘xa,
Ardvin, Karin, Xarberd, Muš, Alaškert, Svedia; (3) f- : Suč‘ava, Nor Naxiǰewan,
Sebastia, Ararat [HAB 3: 579a].
Agulis áṙt‘uk reflects *ort‘uk, cf. otner ‘feet’ > átnar, oski ‘gold’ > áski [Ačaṙean
1935: 63].
Kak‘avaberd has hɔ/urt‘ in three villages and vəɛrt‘ only in Agarak [H. Muradyan
1967: 181b]. Karčewan has vəɛrt‘ [H. Muradyan 1960: 202b].
Ardvin hort‘ refers to ‘bear-cub’ [HAB 3: 579a].
●ETYM Compared with Arm. ordi, GDSg ordwoy ‘son, etc.’ (q.v.) and Gr. πόρτις,
-ιος f. ‘calf, young heifer (younger than δαμάλη), young cow [rarely masculine];
(metaphorically) young maiden’, πόρις, -ιος ‘id.’, πόρταξ f. ‘calf’, Skt. pr̥thu-ka- m.
‘boy, the young of any animal’, etc., see de Lagarde 1854: 27L730f; Hübschmann 1897: 483 (“unsicher”); Pedersen 1905: 202; 1906: 360, 370 = 1982: 64, 138, 148;
HAB 3: 578-579; Lidén 1933: 44; Saradževa 1980b: 232; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 143, 186.
Arm. ordi matches Gr. πόρτις, -ιος. The connection of ort‘ is problematic since the
aspirated dental in ort‘ vs. regularly voiced -d- in ordi is unclear, and the Skt. word
is young; see Mayrhofer 1961: 180-181 (with mention of the connection with ort‘
‘vine’ suggested by Paul de Lagarde).
To explain the aspirated -t‘ in ort‘, one has to start with *portH-, although Skt.
pr̥thu-ka- is not reliable; see Kortlandt 2003 (< 1976): 1-2; Beekes 2003: 202. I
hypothetically reconstruct a PIE HD *-h2-stem feminine: NSg *pórt-eh2-, GSg
*prt-h2-ós > PArm. *órd-a-, obl. *harth
-. The Arm. nominative (as well as Skt.
pr̥thu-ka-, if indeed related) took over the aspirated *-th
- from the oblique stem
exactly like in the PIE word for ‘path, road, ford’: NSg *pónt-eh1-s, GSg *pnt-h1-ós
: Skr. pánthās, Arm. hun < *pontH- (q.v.). For more examples of such a
paradigmatic leveling in PIE H-stems, see 2.2.2.6. For other views, see Ravnæs
1991: 130, 147, 152; Elbourne 2000: 17. For Arm. suffixal *-th resulting from PIE
*-t- + *-h2- cf. especially analut‘ ‘a kind of deer, hind’, which is semantically close
to ort‘ ‘calf; fawn’ (see s.v. and 2.3.1).
Arm. fem. *ord-a- may still be seen in awri-ord, a-stem ‘virgin’ (Bible+), q.v.
As we have seen, dial. *hort‘, with an initial h-, is present in numerous dialects
ranging from extreme NW (Aslanbek, Hamšen) and N (T‘iflis, etc.) to extreme SW
(Svedia) and SE (Kak‘avaberd), as well as to the centre (Alaškert, etc.). If the initial
f- goes back to h- (see 2.1.16.2), the spread of the h-form becomes overwhelming.
We are left with a small group of SE dialects which belong to the 7th group. Note
that almost all of these dialects, except for Łarabaɫ, etc., would have *xort‘ from
*hort‘ [H. Muradyan 1982: 271]. The initial h-, thus, must be taken seriously. I
assume that the above-mentioned PArm. paradigm (NSg ort‘ < *ord-a-, obl. *harth
-)
was still alive at a period prior to the 5th century. The h- of the oblique stem has been
eliminated in the classical language and in most of the SE dialects, whereas the other
dialects have generalized it.
If this analysis is accepted, we are dealing with a remarkable case of two
chronologically different processes of generalization of the oblique stem: (1) PArm.
*órd-, obl. *harth
-; the aspirated *-th
- spreads over the nominative: *ord- > ort‘; (2)
proxi-Classical ort‘, obl. *hart‘-; the initial h- spreads over the majority of the
dialects.
ori, wo- or ea-stem: GSg. orwoy in Hexaemeron 8 (according to NHB 2: 531a, also
GDPl ore-a-c‘, but without ref.) ‘raven’ (Bibe+).
Gr. κόραξ ‘raven’ is rendered by agṙaw, the principal Armenian word for ‘raven’,
in Leviticus 11.15 (Zōhrapean 1805: 213; Wevers 1986: 127; cf. 1997: 148), but by
the rare synonym ori in Deuteronomy 14.14 (Cox 1981: 136; Wevers 1977: 195;
1995: 246); cf. also s.v. analut‘ ‘a kind of deer’.
A few attestations in Hexaemeron: NSg ori, GDSg (z-)orw-o-y, NPl ori-k‘ (K.
Muradyan 1984: 273L11, 280L14, 268L1, 268L6 respectively). Also here ori renders Gr.
κόραξ ‘raven’ (K. Muradyan 1984: 35941).
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 580b) rejects all the comparisons, including the one with
Goth. ara ‘eagle’ (Pictet), and leaves the origin open. Compare Gr. ὄρνις m. ‘bird’,
Goth. ara, OIc. ǫrn ‘eagle’, OIr. irar ‘eagle’, Lith. erẽlis ‘eagle’, OCS orьlъ ‘eagle’, Hitt. ḫāraš, ḫaran- c. ‘eagle’ (Adams apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 173a, for the
semantic field cf. čay, HAB s.v.). Further, see Beekes 1969: 140; Greppin 1978:
197-198; 1988: 1851; Polomé 1980: 26.
One may reconstruct an original root noun of static inflexion (cf. PIE nom.
*pōd(s) ‘foot’ vs. acc., etc. *ped-: Gr. πούς, ποδός, Lat. pēd, pedis, Arm. het vs. ot-,
etc.; PIE nom. *uōk
w
-s ‘voice’ vs. *uokw
-: Lat. vōx vs. Gr. acc. ὄπα, dat. -ί, see
Beekes 1995: 189, cf. Schrijver 1991: 121, 135): nom. *h3ōr-s, obl. *h3er-. The
paradigm would yield PArm. *ur vs. *hor- > > *ur vs. or-. The old nominative has
been preserved in Arm. reduplicated urur, and the oblique *h3er- is seen in IE nstem ‘eagle’ and BSlav. *h3er-il-, as well as in Armenian reduplicated oror. In view
of the absence of corroborative evidence outside Armenian, however, this must be
regarded as highly hypothetical.
orlor ‘a kind of bird’, only in Commentary on Genesis by Vardan Arewelc‘i (13th
cent.).
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 581a; cf. V. Aṙak‘elyan 1984a: 145-146) wonders whether
orlor is a corruption for or lor “that <...> lor ‘quail’” and mentions no etymological
attempt.
The form is not necessarily a corruption. We may be dealing with conflation of
oror ‘gull’ and lor ‘quail’ (q.v.), cf. Areš hülör, Šamaxi həlör, Goris ülör, as well as
Malat‘ia ulurik. An alternative comparison with BSlav. *or-il- ‘eagle’ (see s.v. ori
‘crow’), applying a metathesis r...l > l...r, would be uncertain.
*orj-i- ‘testicle’: orj, i-stem: GDPl orj-i-c‘ (Geoponica, 13th cent.) ‘male’ said of
people and animals (Bible+), ‘very hard, rugged, fruitless’ (Step‘anos Ōrbelean, etc.,
cf. also orj-a-k‘ar below); mi-orj-i ‘having one testicle’ (rendering Gr. μόνορχις in
Leviticus 21.20); y-orj, i-stem: IPl y-orj-i-w-k‘ (Hosea 5.6) ‘male sheep, ram’ in
Hosea 5.6 (corresponding to Gr. πρόβατον) and Yovhan Mandakuni/Mayragomec‘i
[NHB 2: 372b]; orj-i-k‘ ‘testicles’ in Ašxarhac‘oyc‘ (Soukry 1881: 44L-6); MidArm.
orj-i-k‘ ‘uncastrated men’ in Mxit‘ar Goš, ‘uncastrated animals’ in Geoponica [NHB
2: 532b; HAB 3:m 582b; MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 236b]; xol-orj(n) ‘orchis’ (q.v.); dial.
*am-orj-i-k‘ ‘testicles’ (q.v.).
The compound orj-a-k‘ar ‘hard stone’, with k‘ar ‘stone’, is attested in the Bible,
Zgōn-Afrahat, Vardan Arewelc‘i [NHB 2: 532b], and Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.8, 2.42,
(1913=1991: 115L4, 168L1f, 241L20).
●DIAL The adjective orj ‘male’ is dialectally ubiquitous [HAB 3: 583a]. In Łarabaɫ
and Karin it refers to ‘hard (of radish used as seeds)’ and ‘hard, rugged (said e.g. of a
woman)’, respectively [HAB 3: 582b]; cf. *orj-a-tu, lit. probably ‘given to the male’
or perhaps better ‘(hard plant) given as seed’, is found in Łarabaɫ vərc‘átu ‘a fruit
tree that has become fruitless’ (Davt‘yan 1966: 448; cf. Ačaṙean 1913: 864a), and
Meɫri əṙjɛ́
tu ‘fruitless, sterile’ (Aɫayan 1954: 283a). Moks wɔrc‘ means ‘озорник,
mischievous person’ [Orbeli 2002: 340].
Ararat, Širak, Muš, Van *orj ‘a two-year-old male sheep’ [Amatuni 1912: 534a]
may be compared with ClArm. y-orj ‘ram’ (see below and s.v.).
Zeyt‘un *orj is the name of a star = Turk. ɛrk‘äk‘ [Ačaṙean 1913: 863-864]. On
literary testimony for orj ‘male’ and ēg ‘female’ stars, see NHB 2: 532b. In a version of the epic Sasna cṙer (SasCṙ 2/2, 1951: 657), a thin but very strong
brook that penetrates throughout the river Murad-Aracani is characterized as vörc‘
ǰur ‘male water’.
ClArm. orj-a-k‘ar ‘hard stone’ is represented in extremely eastern and western
dialects: Łarabaɫ, Hadrut‘, Šaɫax-Xcaberd vərc‘ák‘ar, Mehtišen vəɛrc‘ak‘ár
[Davt‘yan 1966: 448], Goris vərc‘ak‘ar [Margaryan 1975: 356b], Sebastia, Karin
*orj-k‘ar [Gabikean 1952: 447; HayLezBrbBaṙ 4, 2007: 358b].
●ETYM Since Hübschmann (1877: 23, 25, 33; 1897: 483), derived from the PIE
word for ‘testicle’: Gr. ὄρχις, -εως, Ion. -ιος, NPl Att. ὄρχεις, Ion. ὄρχιες m.,
frequently in plural ‘testicles’ (in females ‘ovaries’)108, Av. ərəzi m. dual ‘testicles’
(Bartholomae 1904: 352), Hitt. arki-, NPl ar-ki-i-e-eš ‘testicle’, ārk-i
/ ark- ‘to
mount sexually’, OIc. argr ‘indecent, bad, libidinous, passive homosexual’ (on this
and other words, see especially Watkins 1975: 14ff; Puhvel 1982: 182-183; Polomé
1998; Petit 2006; cf. Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 249), Lith. eržilas ̃ , dial. aržilas ̃
‘stallion’ vs. dial. eržùs, aržùs ‘ardent, voluptuous, lustful’, Russ. ërzat’ ‘to fidget,
abrade’, Alb. herdhë f. ‘testicle’, MIr. uirgge f. ‘id.’, Toch. B erkatstse adj.
‘testiculate’ < *erk- ‘testicle’, etc. (see Pokorny 1959: 782; Watkins 1975;
Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 4981, 817 = 1995, 1: 4187, 716; Mallory/Adams 1997:
507a, 508b; 2006: 184; Adams 1999: 95).
Slavic *kъ(r)norzъ ‘boar’ has been interpreted as composed of *kъrn(o)-
‘maimed, mutilated’ (secondarily associated with *krH- ‘to cut’, see Derksen 1996:
226-227) + independently unattested *orzъ ‘testicle’, thus ‘with amputated testicles’
(see ÈtimSlovSlavJaz 13, 1987: 234-235 with literature and a discussion; cf. Petit
2006: 356, 359-360). In view of the semantic controversy, ‘(uncastrated) boar’ vs.
‘castrated’, Bańkowski 1989 is sceptical about the first component of the compound.
Compare, however, Georg. werʒ- ‘ram’, dial. ‘a sexually immature or a castrated
ram’ (see below).
Hittite arki- is derived from *h3orĝh
-i- (for a discussion and references, see
Puhvel 1982: 182-183; HED 1-2, 1984: 142-143; Kimball 1987: 186, 189, 1906;
Melchert 1987: 20f; Eichner 1988; Vine 2005: 274-275, 27581; Kloekhorst 2006: 85-
86; 2008: 203) or, more probably, in view of its consistent short a- from zero-grade,
*h3rĝh
i- (Kloekhorst 2006: 89; cf. Lindeman 1997: 5141 with ref). The verb ārk-i
/
ark- ‘to mount sexually’ reflects *h3orĝh
- / *h3rĝh
- (Kloekhorst 2006: 89; 2008:
203). The reconstruction *h1orĝh
i- (see Watkins 1975; Lindeman 1997: 50-51; Olsen
1999: 195) is less probable (on the problem of Lith. e-, see Kloekhorst 2006: 89 and
2008: 203 with references).
Alb. herdhë f. ‘testicle’ reflects *e-grade (Hirt 1899: 58) and is now mostly
derived from *h3erĝh
- (for references and a discussion, see Kortlandt 1986: 40, 44 =
2003: 70, 73; Beekes 1988: 101; Demiraj 1997: 199). The reconstruction of a *h4-
(Adams apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 507b, 508a; Adams 1999: 95) seems
unnecessary.
In view of the absence of an initial h- (see 2.1.16), Arm. orj-i reflects *h3rĝh
-i-
(Beekes 1988: 77) or, more probably, *h3orĝh
-i-, as Gr. ὄρχις, OIr. uirgge, etc. (see
Rix 1970: 93-94; Kortlandt 1983: 12; 1986: 40, 44 = 2003: 42, 70, 73; Greppin
1988-89: 479; Beekes 1988: 101; 2003: 157, 184, 188). Hübschmann (1877: 251; cf.
J
̌
ahukyan 1982: 124) explains Arm. orj ‘male’ as ‘qui testiculos habet’. Olsen (1999:
195) assumes a *bh
orós-derivative, *h1orĝh
ós ‘mounter’ (on which see also Watkins
1975: 15), based on the verb which is reflected in Hitt. ark- ‘to mount sexually’, etc.
In order to explain the preservation of -i- in orj-i-k‘ one may assume an influence
of the productive suffix -i-k‘ (on which see Greppin 1975: 99; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 231;
1998: 28; Olsen 1999: 493-499). It is tempting to alternatively assume an underlying
PArm. dual *orj-i from IE *h3(o)rĝh
-ih1, cf. Av. ərəzi m. dual ‘testicles’. The form
orji-k‘ is to be derived then from QIE *h3(o)rĝh
-ih1-es > *orj-í-eh (with penultimate
accentuation) > orj-i-k‘.
Georgian-Zan *werʒ1- ‘male, ram’: Georg. werʒ- ‘ram’ (corresponding to Gr.
κριός and Arm. xoy ‘ram’ in Leviticus 5.15 and 5.18)109 and Megr. erǯ- ‘male, ram’
(with Zan consonant shift ʒ1 > ǯ), has been compared to PIE *u̯ers- ‘male’ (Klimov
1964: 84; 1994: 108-110; 1998: 52). According to J̌
ahukyan (1987: 555, 590, 5912;
1988, 2: 68-69), it may be treated as borrowed from Arm. orj ‘male’. For the
puzzling vocalism of the Georgian-Zan form J̌
ahukyan compares Georgian-Zan
*werc1xl- ‘silver’ which seems to be in a way related with Arm. arcat‘ ‘silver’ (q.v.).
One may tentatively derive Georgian-Zan *werʒ1- ‘male, ram’ directly from Arm.
y-orj ‘ram’ < ‘testicled, male’ (cf. also dial. Ararat, Širak, Muš, Van *orj ‘a two-yearold male sheep’, Amatuni 1912: 534a). This seems more satisfying both formally
and semantically. Arm. /iorj/ may have been realized as /uirj/ or /werj/, cf. Arm.
xoyt‘ [xuyt‘] vs. Georg. xvith
k
h
i ‘crocodile’ [HAB 2: 414]. One finds a similar kind
of anlaut alternation in a few lexical pairs: yoyg vs. vēg ‘a playing bone’, *yušap vs.
višap ‘dragon’, yuškaparik vs. vškaparik ‘a mythical being’, etc. Note that the loss of
the word-initial w- in Megrelian needs an explanation (Klimov ibid.). Perhaps this
too can be explained by the anlaut of Arm. yorj ‘ram’. The assumption on the
Armenian origin of the Georgian-Zan term for ‘ram’ (or the Georgian and Megrelian
words taken separately) is not something unexpected. Note Georg. arni ‘wild sheep’
and buc’i ‘lamb’ which have been borrowed from Arm. aṙn ‘wild ram’ and buc
‘lamb’ respectively, the Armenian forms being of IE origin (see s.vv.; cf. J̌
ahukyan
1987: 555).
Arm. y-orj, i-stem ‘male sheep, ram’ (Hosea 5.6), with the prefix y- from PIE
*h1en- ‘in’, perfectly matches Gr. ἔν-ορχις ‘provided with testicles, uncastrated’, cf.
ἔν-ορχ-ος, ἐν-όρχ-ης meaning also ‘buck’. We can posit an Armeno-Greek *h1enh3orĝh
i- ‘uncastrated, male (ram or buck)’.
Gr. ὄρχις ‘testicle’ denotes also the plant ‘Orchis papilionacea, Orchis
longicruris’, so called from the form of its root. Remarkably, PArm. *orj-i- ‘testicle’
too is found in a compound designation of this plant, see s.v. xol-orj ‘orchis’. Here
again we may be dealing with an Armeno-Greek innovation, although one cannot
exclude the possibility that the semantic shift has taken place in two languages
independently.
orm, o-stem: GDSg orm-o-y, ISg orm-o-v, GDPl orm-o-c‘, IPl orm-o-v-k‘ (abundant
in the Bible, Astuacaturean 1895: 1205); ormn (1 Kings 18.11), NPl ormun-k‘ ‘wall’
(Sirach 23.26), APl ormun-s (Paterica) ‘wall’; *orm dial. ‘fence’.
Derivatives: orm-ac ‘fence’ in P‘awstos Buzand 4.15 (1883=1984: 102L-16; transl.
Garsoïan 1989: 143): mot yormacs argeloc‘ac‘n orsoyn ērioc‘n “near the fence
enclosing the hunting [ground]”; orm-z-orm-ayn adv. ‘from one wall to another’ in
Cyril of Jerusalem; ormem ‘to encircle with a wall’ in Xosrov Anjewac‘i, etc. [NHB
2: 532-533; HAB 3: 583].
Probably the place-name Orm-ē, Orm-i (q.v.), a town with a fortress west of Lake
Urmia, belongs here as well. Note that both the location of this town-fortress and the
dialectal distribution of the appellative orm ‘wall, fence’ point to the SE of the
historical Armenia.
●DIAL Moks worm ‘wall’, espec. ‘wall of a garden’, J̌
uɫa vorm, Xotorǰur vɔrm,
Agulis úrman [HAB 3: 583b], Meɫri hurm [Aɫayan 1954: 45, 96, 283a], Karčewan
həɛ́
rmə [H. Muradyan 1960: 37, 66, 202b], Kak‘avaberd húrmə, hɛ́
rmə [Muradyan
1967: 50, 98, 182a]. Note that the last three dialects show an initial h-. The
Karčewan, Kak‘avaberd, and Agulis forms point to *(h)ormn.
See also s.v. *aṙormi (dial.) ‘a log or wooden framework that supports the wall or
the ceiling of a house’.
●ETYM No acceptable etymology is recorded in HAB 3: 583b. A derivation from
*ork-mo- (cf. Lat. arceō ‘to keep off, prevent, protect’, etc., see s.v. argel
‘hindrance; prison’; cf. Osthoff 1898: 54-64) has been suggested (see Pokorny 1959:
66; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 113, 233-234; Olsen 1999: 27, 765f). Olsen (ibid.) posits
*h2ork-(s)mo- with a question-mark. This etymology is uncertain.
J̌ahukyan (1987: 552) states that the IE origin of orm seems more probable to him
than the Iranian one, although he does not specify the latter etymology. Probably he
means the etymology of Bailey (1979: 226a), according to which Arm. orm ‘wall’
and Georg. ormo ‘hole, pit’ (on the latter, see also HAB 3: 583b, sceptical) are
Iranian loanwords, cf. Oss. wærm/wærmæ ‘hole-pit; cellar’ (on which see Cheung
2002: 241).
J̌ahukyan (1990a: 3-4) alternatively derives Arm. orm from QIE *sork-mo-, cf.
Gr. ὅρκος, ὁρκάν ‘fence’, etc. (on PIE *se/ork- ‘make a circle/hedge’, see
Mallory/Adams 1997: 108a, 629a). This etymology is semantically more probable
than the others.
None of these etymologies is entirely convincing. I propose to revive the
etymology of Bugge (1893: 22-23; cf. also Hiwnk‘earpēyēntean apud HAB s.v.)
who links Arm. orm, o-stem ‘wall, fence’ with OCS xramъ ‘temple’ and Gr. ὅρμος
m. ‘chain, necklace, lace’ (cf. also ὁρμαϑός m. ‘row, string, chain’) and reconstructs
a PIE *sor-mo-. For Armenian he assumes a basic meaning ‘der
zusammengeflochtene, zusammengefügte’. This form derives from the verbal root
*ser- ‘to line up, string’: Gr. εἴρω ‘to knit together’, Lat. serō ‘to line up, join, link’,
OIr. sernaid ‘arranges’, sreth (< *srtḁ ̄-) ‘row’, etc. (see s.v. yeṙum ‘to line up’).
Hübschmann (1897: 483) rejects this etymology pointing out the problem of the
Slavic initial x- and not mentioning Gr. ὅρμος m. ‘chain, necklace, lace’. Ačaṙyan
(HAB 3: 583b) likewise rejects the etymology and leaves the origin of Arm orm
open. Presenting the etymology of Bugge, Ačaṙyan confused this Gr. ὅρμος ‘chain, necklace’ with the homonymous ὅρμος ‘anchorage, roadstead, harbour’, the origin
of which is uncertain (see Frisk s.v.; Lubotsky 1988: 133).
I conclude that PArm. *ormo- ‘wall, fence; row, string, circle’ (> orm, o-stem
‘wall, fence’) goes back to IE *sor-mo- (cf. Gr. ὅρμος m. ‘chain, necklace, lace’).
For the semantic relationship cf. ModArm. and dial. Nor Bayazet patašar ‘waller’
(Malxaseanc‘ HBB 4: 58a; Ačaṙean 1913: 899b) from pat šarel ‘to line up a wall’,
pat ‘wall’, in Łarabaɫ: ‘coil, skein, row’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 898a; HAB 4: 33b].
In general, the additional -n is not necessarily old (cf. Weitenberg 1985). In the
case of ormn, however, the following consideration may suggest that we are dealing
with an Armeno-Greek rather than inner-Armenian innovation, although this is
difficult to prove.
The initial h- in some peripheral eastern dialects might be a relic of IE *s-. I
therefore tentatively assume that beside PArm. *ormoy vs. Gr. ὅρμος there also was
pl. *her-mun-k‘ < *hermn < QIE *ser-mn, cf. Gr. ἕρματα pl. ‘earhangers; sling’ from
*ser-mn̥-t-h2. Subsequently, *her-mn (pl. -mun-k‘) was analogically replaced by
ormn (pl. ormun-k‘) and dial. *hormn.
oročam, oroče/im ‘to chew, ruminate’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects mostly as *oročal. Some peripheral dialects have
initial a-: Ararat, T‘iflis árɔč, Agulis, Łarabaɫ áruč [HAB 1: 584-585].
●ETYM Patrubány (1908: 26a) connected with Skt. rádati ‘to gnaw, bite, dig,
scratch’, Lat. rōdere ‘to gnaw’, rādere ‘to scratch, shave, smooth’, etc. The
Armenian form has been explained by *rod-i̯e-, see HAB 3: 584b (with some
reservation); J̌
ahukyan 1982: 62; 1987: 145, 188; Kortlandt 1994: 27 = 2003: 104.
Olsen (1999: 764) considers the connection to be phonetically impossible “as *-di̯-
regularly yields -c-”. However, I subscribe to the view of J̌
ahukyan and Kortlandt
who consider *-di̯- > Arm. -č- to be the regular development (see 2.1.22.1).
Lubotsky (1981: 134, 136) reconstructs PIE *reh2d- and explains the short vowel
of the Sanskrit by loss of the laryngeal before voiced/glottalic stop plus consonant,
cf. Vedic athematic imperative rátsi (on which see Baum 2006: 53-54, 157). In view
of this, Kortlandt (1987: 63 = 2003: 77) considers the appurtenance of the Armenian
to be difficult. Schrijver (1991: 309-310) eliminates Lat. rādō and reconstructs
*Hreh3d- for Lat. rōdere and Skt. rádati. Lubotsky and Schrijver do not mention the
Armenian verb.
On the whole, the derivation *Hreh3d-i̯e- ‘to gnaw’ > oročem, oročam ‘to chew,
ruminate’ (EArm. dial. *aroč) is possible, albeit difficult. The vocalism remains
unclear, but this does not seem to be a decisive argument against the etymology.
Perhaps the internal -o- of *oroč/aroč instead of *aruč is due to lowering influence
of *a- onto *-u-. On the initial a- in *aroč, see s.v. aṙog(-) and 2.1.17. As far as the
semantics is concerned, however, note that the Sanskrit verb basically refers to ‘to
dig, furrow (a way), scratch’ (Lubotsky, p.c.; see also Baum 2006: 53-54, 157).
[Vedic rátsi is the athematic imperative of the sigmatic aorist and may therefore
be old (Lubotsky, p.c.). I wonder whether Arm. arac- ‘to pasture; to browse, graze’
(q.v.) belongs to this PIE root reflecting QIE sigm. aor. *Hr(e)Hd-s-.
orot ‘thunder’ (Zak‘aria kat‘oɫikos, 9th cent.; “Paterica”, etc.); orotam ‘to thunder’
(Bible+). ●DIAL Preserved in numerous dialects, of both kə- and um-classes. Polis has ɔrɔdum,
ɔrɔrdum ‘noise, fight’ [HAB 3: 587b; Ačaṙyan 1941: 237]. Further, note Svedia
giṙdil, Łarabaɫ and Goris ərɔ́
tal, and Agulis ərətɔ́
l [HAB 3: 587b; Ačaṙyan 2003:
583]. According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 587b), the initial g- of the Svedia form is the
frozen k-particle of the indicative present. I wonder, however, whether it has not
resulted from contamination with goṙam ‘to dare, fight’ (Bible+), in the dialects: ‘to
shout loudly’ and, especially, ‘to thunder’. Note especially Zeyt‘un (which is very
close to Svedia) g‘əṙdadil ‘to thunder’, which Ačaṙyan (2003: 304; HAB 1: 581a)
derives from goṙam.
For textual passages, see in a fairy-tale from Łarabaɫ (HŽHek‘ 5, 1966: 370L1,15,
372L-4): ergyink‘yə ərotac‘ “the sky thundered”.
On Agulis, see below.
●ETYM Lidén (1906: 88-91) links with Slav. *Perunŭ ‘Thunder-god’, Ukr., Czech
perun ‘thunder’, Lith. Perkū́nas ‘Thunder-god’, perti
̃ ‘to beat’, Skt. pŕ̥t- m. ‘battle,
strife, fight’, YAv. pərət- f. ‘battle’, etc. (see Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 160, with
no Armenian form), etc. He reconstructs *or-at- < *por-ad(o)-, comparing the -at
with Goth. lauhat-jan ‘blitsen’, and points out that the vowel of the suffix is due to
assimilatory influence of the root-vocalism (on this, see 2.1.23). He also mentions
the iterative -ot (cf. xoc‘-ot-em ‘wiederholt schlagen’) and treats orot as “eine
postverbale Bildung zu orotam”.
This etymology is accepted by Meillet, Petersson (see HAB 3: 587b); Pokorny
1959: 819; P. Friedrich 1970: 134; J̌
ahukyan (1987: 144, 258, with reservation). For
a further extensive discussion, see de Lamberterie 2006: 223-231.
orǰ, i-stem: GDPl orǰ-i-c‘ (in Vkayk‘ arewelic‘), AblPl y-orǰ-i-c‘ (Gregory of Nyssa,
Yovhannēs Ōjnec‘i); o-stem (NHB 2: 537c without evidence) ‘den, lair’ (Bible+);
denominative verbs orǰanam ‘to live in a hole, hibernate, hide oneself as if in a lair’
(Movsēs Xorenac‘i, Philo, Gregory Nazianzenus, etc.), orǰem ‘id.’ (Paterica), orǰim
‘id.’ (Mxit‘ar Gōš).
Some textual illustrations: P‘awstos Buzand 4.13 (1883=1984: 95L8f): ew dadark‘
gazanac‘ ew orǰk‘ gazanac‘ ew orǰk‘ borenic‘ “lairs and dens for wild beasts and
hyenas”, translated by Garsoïan (1989: 138L4f).
In Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.77(1913=1991: 216L1f; transl. Thomson 1978: 224):
orǰac‘eal yamurn Ani, ibr i kaɫaɫi handartut‘ean ɫōɫeal “He had ensconced himself
in the fortress of Ani, as if hidden in a tranquil lair”.
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 587-588) rejects the comparison (Dervischjan 1877: 84)
with Gr. λοχή, λόχμη ‘lair of wild beasts’, λόχος m. ‘ambush, childbed’, Germ.
Lager, OCS lože ‘bed, den’ from *logh
-io-, SCr. lȏg ‘lair, den, riverbed’, etc. (on
which see ÈtimSlovSlavJaz 15, 1988: 245-250; 16, 1990: 124-128) and leaves the
origin of the Armenian word open.
The etymology of Derviscjan is indeed untenable. The forms derive from IE
*legh
- ‘to lie’ (Mallory/Adams 1997: 352a). A QIE *logh
-io- (cf. OCS lože ‘bed,
den’) or fem. *logh
-i(e)h2- (cf. Gr. λοχή ‘lair’) would yield Arm. *e/o-ɫoǰ-. One
might assume a back loan from a substratum language with *-l/r- vacillation and
speculate on a HD i-stem: nom. *rógh
-ōi, gen. *rgh
-i-ós > PArm. *ərowg-u, gen.
*ərǰ- >> *or(u)ǰ- (cf. 2.2.2.4), but this is, of course, highly uncertain.More promising is the etymology by Olsen (1999: 192-193) who posits QIE
*por-io- or *por-ih2-, derived from IE *per- ‘to get through’, cf. Gr. πείρω ‘to
perforate, pierce, pervade’, πόρος m. ‘passage, ford, narrowing’, etc. Since Arm. orǰ
has i-stem, we may assume *pór-ih2-, obl. *p(o)r-iéh2- > PArm. *or-i-, obl. *orǰ-a-
>> *orǰ-i-. The etymology may be considered at least as possible.
ors, o-stem: GDSg ors-o-y, ISg ors-o-v (Bible, Łazar P‘arpec‘i, etc.); later also i-stem:
GDPl ors-i-c‘ (Aristotle) ‘hunt, catch; hunted animal, game’ (Bible+), orsam ‘to
hunt’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Preserved in the dialects of Muš, Hamšen, Agulis, Łarabaɫ, etc. T‘iflis has
hurs and vurs, Ararat – fɔrs < *hɔrs. The verb: Svedia irsil ‘to hunt’ [HAB 3: 588b].
Note also Šamšadin, Krasnoselsk və
ɛ
rs vs. Iǰewan, Diliǰan fə
ɛ
rs, fɔrs [Mežunc‘ 1989:
196a]. For Šamšadin, Xemč‘yan (2000: 301b) records fors in the glossary, but in her
texts hors is more frequent.
●ETYM The connection with Gr. πόρκος ‘a kind of fish-trap’ (Plato+) proposed by
Patrubány (1904: 428) is adopted by Solta (1960: 428), Greppin (1974: 70), and
Olsen (1999: 13), but Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 588a) and J̌
ahukyan (1987: 144, 187) accept
it with reservation.
Clackson (1994: 164) criticizes the etymology and advocates the suggestion of
Ačaṙyan, who connected ors with Lat. porcus ‘pig’, etc. (see HAB 3: 588, with
criticism of Meillet). The semantic development would have been ‘(young pig)’ >
‘animal for hunting’, or ‘game’ (preserved only in Armenian) > ‘(young) pig’ (see
Clackson, ibid.).
I propose an alternative etymology which seems semantically more attractive.
Arm. ors (o-stem) may be connected with the Greek and Celtic words for ‘roe’: Gr.
δορκάς, -άδος f. (Herodotus 7.69), ζορκάς (Herodotus 4.192), δόρξ, δόρκος, ζόρξ,
ἴορκος, etc. ‘a kind of deer, roe, antelope, gazelle’; Corn. yorch ‘roe’, MWelsh iwrch
‘roe-deer (caprea mas)’. The Greek d- and i-forms may be explained as being due to
folk etymology after δέρκομαι and as a Celtic (Galatic) loan, respectively (see
Schrijver 1995: 61; Beekes 2000: 22, 27). Vennemann (1998: 353-355) treats the
Greek and Celtic words as loans from Vasconic languages, cf. Basque orkatz ‘deer,
Pyrenean chamois’. For the semantics of the Greek, namely ‘roedeer’ : ‘antelope’,
see Adams 1985: 276-278). On this Graeco-Celtic name for ‘roe deer, Capreolus
capreolus’ and on the archaeological evidence for its denotatum, see Mallory 1982:
212, 216-217.
If one assumes a QIE *iork ̯ ̂
-o- (with a palatalized *-k̂
-), Arm. ors, -o- would be a
probable match. For the loss of the initial PIE *i̯- in Armenian, see 2.1.6. The basic
meaning of the term would have been ‘wild animal, animal for hunting’. For the
semantic restriction ‘wild animal’ > ‘(a kind of) deer’ seen in Greek and Celtic
compare Engl. deer. Another example for the semantic field: Pahl naxčīr, Parth.
nxcyr ‘game, quarry, chase’ [MacKenzie 1971: 58] > Arm. naxčir ‘slaughter (in
hunt of war)’ (P‘awstos Buzand, Eɫišē, etc.) [HAB 3: 422a] : Pers. naxčīr ‘hunting,
the game; prey, chase, a wild beast; a mountain-goat’ [Steingass 1391b]. Wakhi
nəxčir, naxšir ‘fox’ borrowed from Tajik naxčir ‘wild animal’ (for these and other
Iranian forms, see especially Edelman 2003: 122, 123).
*č‘asum probably ‘blind mole-rat’.
●DIAL I find the word only in the dialect of Svedia: č‘ässɛum. According to
Andreasyan (1967: 161-162), it reflects Armenian (otherwise unknown) *č‘asum
and denotes a mouse-like animal bigger than the mouse but smaller than the rat,
which, unlike the rat, has a short tail, burrows like the mole, gathering the dug-out
earth here and there in earth-heaps, and feeds on vegetables and crops. Very often it
is used to reprove children caressingly, as well as in a curse. Further, Andreasyan
points out that few people saw or can specify *č‘asum, so this animal is considered
mostly as mysterious.
I think, this animal fits in well with the description of the kind of mouse called
kuramuk (see Ananyan, Hay KendAšx 2, 1962: 74-78) literally ‘blind-mouse’,
which lives underground and burrows like the mole, making earth-heaps on the
ground, feeds on plants, and, according to the three pictures (which, however, are
ambiguous, since in the first two of them no tail is seen, and in the third one the tail
is not drawn completely), probably has a short tail. Cf. k‘ōṙamuk, in Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘
as synonymous to z/šiwš and xlurd ‘mole’ [Amalyan 1975: 103Nr153, 368Nr153];
*koyr-muk ‘mole’, lit. ‘blind mouse’ (Sebastia), cf. Kurd. məškikor [Ačaṙean 1913:
591b]. For the semantic relationship between ‘mouse and the like’ and ‘mole’ cf.
also ambewt, wich in Xotorǰur means both ‘mole’ and ‘field-mouse’.
I conclude, that *č‘asum probably means ‘blind mole-rat’.
●ETYM Stating that this animal is in fact unknown and mysterious to many people,
Andreasyan (1967: 161-162) suggests a connection to Arm. ǰasm, a hapax used in
Anania Narekac‘i (10th cent.), itself of uncertain meaning (probably ‘a mythic being,
ghost’) and of unknown origin (see HAB 4: 123b). Furthermore, it is semantically
remote and phonologically incompatible.
The animal under discussion is obviously distinct from the weasel. For the
description of the latter I refer to Ananyan, HayKendAšx 1, 1961: 163-171. In some
respects, however, such as the size (both are smaller than the rat; pertaining to the
weasel, see Ananyan, op. cit. 164), there is a certain resemblance. If *č‘asum refers
indeed to the ‘blind mole-rat’, one might add more resembling characteristics such
as being fierce and having a (more or less) valuable fur. For the semantic
relationship between ‘mouse; rat’ and ‘weasel’ cf. ak‘is ‘weasel’, dial. also ‘rat’,
also mkn-ak‘is, the exact match (perhaps a calque) for μυγαλῆ ‘field mouse’; see s.v.
ak‘is.
Bearing in mind what has just been said, I propose to relate *č‘asum to *Hkek̂
-
‘weasel’ (late IE and/or of substratum origin), from which, I think, Arm. ak‘is and
OInd. kaśīkā-, káśa- originated. Pahl. kākum ‘white weasel’ (cf. also Arm. kngum
and k‘ak‘um) may be derived from the same etymon via a centum intermediary. For
more detail, see s.v. ak‘is. The regular Iranian satəm outcome of this *(H)kek̂
Vm
would be *časum, which amazingly coincides with Arm. *č‘asum. Even if no trace
of such a satəm form is found in Iranian languages, Arm. (< Iran.) *č‘asum would
prove the existence of the Iranian form and may testify the reconstruction of *Hkek̂
- based on the Armeno-Indo-Iranian material, as well as on the indirect centum
evidence. (Cf. Arm. vaz- vs. va(r)g- ‘to run’).
One wonders why the velar is palatalized in Iranian, whereas in Armenian and
Indo-Aryan it is not. The answer might be that in Armenian and Indo-Aryan, the
palatalization was blocked by dissimilatory influence of the palatal *-k̂
- at later
stages of the independent development of the latter languages, after separation of
Indo-Iranian.
č‘ir ‘dried fruit’ (only in a medieval glossary); č‘or, o-stem: AblSg i č‘or-o-y
(Aristotle), GDPl č‘or-o-c‘ (Philo); i-stem: GDPl č‘or-i-c‘ (Ephrem) ‘dry’ (Bible+).
● dial Both č‘ir and č‘or are widespread in the dialects [HAB 4: 629, 630b].
●ETYM Since NHB (2: 576a, 577b) and Dervischjan (1877: 87), č‘ir and č‘or are
connected with each other, as well as with Gr. ξερόν n. ‘terra firma’, ξηρός ‘dry;
withered, lean; fasting’, Skt. kṣāra- ‘caustic, biting, corrosive, acrid, pungent,
saline’, etc. (see Hübschmann 1897: 485; Pedersen 1906: 429 = 1982: 207;
Grammont 1918: 215; HAB 4: 629, 630; Kortlandt 1995: 15 = 2003: 108).
Hübschmann (with a question mark) and Ačaṙyan (ibid.) posit *ksēro- and
*ksoro-. The etymology has been doubted because one traditionally expects Arm. c‘
from PIE *ks or *sk (see Olsen 1999: 965, 96561). Clackson (1994: 182), too,
considers the etymology to be doubtful. In order to solve the problem, J̌
ahukyan
(1987: 133, also with a question mark) posits *k(s)iē̯ro- and *k(s)i̯oro-, which is not
corroborated by any cognate form. Mayrhofer (EWAia 1, 1992: 430) considers the
connection of the Sanskrit with the Greek to be “unglaubhaft”. For a further
discussion on this etymon, see Schrijver 1991: 338-339.
In my view, there is no solid reason to doubt the connection of the Armenian
forms at least with the Greek. In 2.1.12 I try to demonstrate that č‘- is the expected
reflex of the PIE/QIE initial *ks-.
č‘ogay, see s.v. č‘u.
č‘or-k‘ (pl. tant.), acc. č‘or-s, gen.-dat. č‘or-i-c‘ (Bible+), IPl č‘or-i-w-k‘ (Eusebius of
Caesarea) ‘four’ (Bible+); frozen acc. č‘ors ‘four’ (Cyril of Jerusalem, etc.); č‘or-ir
‘fourth’ (Ezekiel 5.12, etc.), č‘or-r-ord, a-stem: gen.-dat. č‘orrord-i, instr. č‘orrorda-w, loc. i č‘orrord-um ‘fourth’ (Bible+); compositional č‘orek‘-, č‘ork‘- (Bible+),č‘ors- (Anania Širakac‘i, etc.); k‘aṙ- ‘four’ and k‘aṙasun ‘forty’ (q.v.).
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects, mostly as a frozen acc. č‘ors. The form č‘ork‘ is
reflected in Antiok‘ č‘uk‘, J̌
uɫa č‘ok‘, Łarabaɫ č‘örk‘, Agulis, Meɫri č‘urk‘ [HAB 3:
632a]. ●ETYM From PIE *kw
etuores ‘four’: Skt. NPl. m. catvā́ras (-ā- due to Brugmann’s
Law), APl catúras, NAPl n. catvā́ri, NAPl f. cátasras < *kw
etesres, YAv. caϑβārō,
ManSogd. čtf’r, Buddh. čtβ’r, MPers. NPers. čahār, Toch. A śtwar and B śtwer <
PToch. *ś(ä)twer, Gr. τέσσαρες, Dor. NWGr. τέτορες, Lat. quattuor, OIr. ceth(a)ir,
Goth. fidwor, Lith. keturì, OCS četyre; note also Arm. k‘aṙ- (q.v.). See Klaproth
1831: 107a; NHB 2: 580a, 990c; Hübschmann 1897: 485, 503; Charpentier 1909:
244; HAB 3: 631-632 and 4: 555-556 with rich lit.; Pokorny 1959: 643; Mayrhofer
EWAia 1, 1992: 526-527; Mallory/Adams 1997: 401; Adams 1999: 641-642. For a
general discussion of this PIE word, see Beekes 1987d. For a discussion of č‘or-k‘ < *kw
etuores ‘four’ vs. k‘aṙ- < *kw
tu̯r- (q.v.), the
development *-es > -k‘ in erek‘ ‘three’ and č‘ork‘ ‘four’ and other issues, see, apart
from the references above, Meillet 1892: 162; 1936: 70, 79, 100; O. Haas 1940: 101;
Pisani 1975: 96; Stempel 1994: 8; Kortlandt 1975: 43; 1983: 14; 1994a: 254-256;
1996a: 57 = 2003: 10, 44, 99-101, 118; Ravnæs 1991: 89, 99; Clackson 1994: 183;
Olsen 1999: 54, 482 (on č‘orir), 628, 786; Beekes 2003: 176, 190, 194, 199. We may
posit *kw
etores with dissimilatory loss of *-u̯- as in Gr. Dor. NWGr. τέτορες (Schmitt
1981: 129). For the archaic vocalism of č‘orek‘-, see Schmitt 1981: 129. The ideclension is due to influence of erek‘ ‘three’ (Meillet 1936: 100; Schmitt 1981:
129).
PArm. zero-grade form *kw
tu̯r- > *k‘aṙ- is best explained through influence of the
ordinal, cf. Ved. turī́
ya- ‘fourth’, etc.; note also Arm. vat‘-sun ‘sixty’ vs. vec‘ ‘six’
(Kortlandt, see the references above).
In order to explain the trilled -ṙ- of k‘aṙ-, Kortlandt 1994a: 254 = 2003: 99
assumes an underlying *-rs- taken from k‘aṙ-ameay ‘quadrennial’ (attested in
Eusebius of Caesarea) = *kw
tu̯r- + *sm̥ h2- (> Arm. am vs. Skt. sámā-). Others posit a
‘long sonant’ *-r̥̄- (for references and a discussion, see Clackson 1994: 37-38, 41,
47). None of these explanations is satisfactory. J̌
ahukyan 1982: 42 does not offer a
clear explanation. One might consider an influence of fem. *kw
etesres.
č‘u, o-stem: LocSg i č‘u-i in Łazar P‘arpec‘i (5th cent.), GDPl č‘u-o-c‘ in Grigoris
Aršaruni, 7-8th cent. [NHB 2: 580b], Grigor Narekac‘i 25.2 [Xač‘atryan/Łazinyan
1985: 340L35], IPl č‘u-o-v-k‘ (var. č‘wovk‘) in Hexaemeron 8 [K. Muradyan 1984:
260L6] ‘setting out, departure; campaign, expedition; military camp; journey’
(Bible+), ‘transmigration of birds’ (Hexaemeron, see above, also 278L16); č‘uem,
3sg.aor. č‘ueac‘, 3pl.aor. č‘uec‘in ‘to go, set off, set forth, march off, break camp’
(Bible+); č‘og-, suppletive aorist of ert‘am ‘to go; to set off’ (q.v.): 1sg č‘ogay
(Paterica), imper. č‘og (John Chrysostom); secondary 1sg.pres. č‘ogam (Plato), inf.
č‘ogal, etc.
According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 632a; see also J̌
ahukyan 1959: 321), č‘u is an astem (later: o-stem). He obviously took into account IPl č‘uōk‘ (= č‘uawk‘) in
Hexaemeron and LocSg i č‘u-i in Łazar P‘arpec‘i (see NHB 2: 580b). However, the
critical edition of Hexaemeron has only č‘u-o-v-k‘, var. č‘wovk‘ (see above), and
loc. i č‘u-i is also compatible with o-declension.
●DIAL Xarberd č‘vil, Sebastia (crypt.) č‘vɛl ‘to go, set off’ [HAB 3: 633a].
●ETYM Since long (Dervischjan 1877: 12, etc.), connected with Skt. cyav- ‘(to start)
to move, stir; to undertake’, cyautná- ‘undertaking, action, act, work’, hásta-cyuti- f.
‘quick movement of the hand’, OAv. š́auuaitē ‘to move’, YAv. fra-š́ūiti- f.
‘approach’, OPers. šiyav- ‘to set forth, go, march’ (see Kent 1953: 211a;
Brandenstein/Mayrhofer 1964: 143), Gr. σεύομαι ‘to be in violent motion; to walk,
rush (to)’. Arm. č‘uem, č‘og- and č‘u are usually derived from *ki̯eu-, *ki̯ou- and
*ki̯u-ti-, respectively [Hübschmann 1883: 48; 1897: 485-486; HAB 3: 632b;
Pokorny 1959: 538-539; Schmitt 1981: 63, 70; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 131; Mayrhofer
EWAia 1, 1992: 552-554; Mallory/Adams 1997: 506b; Cheung 2007: 40-42]. On
č‘og-, see further Klingenschmitt 1982: 277; Olsen 1999: 3258, 788.
Arm. č‘u is usually derived from *ki̯u-ti- (apart from the references above, see
also J̌
ahukyan 1982: 58, 21557; Beekes 2003: 206). In view of o-stem, however, one should posit *ki̯u-to- (see also Olsen 1999: 41 and 4182, 783, 849, with literature and
a discussion). Even an OArm. *č‘uw- must have been reflected in writing as č‘u.
A QIE thematic *ki̯eu-e-mi would hardly yield Arm. č‘uem. If the original aorist was
athematic (see Klingenschmitt ibid.), one might posit a PArm. athematic present
(analogical after the athematic aorist) *č‘eu-mi > č‘oy-mi from QIE *ki̯eu-mi. In the
course of thematization, *č‘oy-émi would give č‘uem through the regular
development pretonic -oy- > -u-.
An Armenian-Indo-Iranian-Greek isogloss based on PIE *kei-.
pal ‘rock’, only in “Hawak‘aban anuanc‘ kat‘uɫikosac‘ Aɫt‘amaray”: GDSg pali(-n)
[HAB 4: 4a]; *paɫ ‘stone, rock’ (confused with paɫ ‘ice, cold’ in NHB 2: 589b,
correctly in HAB 4: 13), only in a compound with anjaw ‘cave’ as the second
member: paɫ-anjaw ‘stone-cave’, attested in Movsēs Xorenac‘i 3.45 (1913= 1991:
314L11f; Thomson 1978: 307): ew aṙaǰi drac‘ ayrin sep ēr uɫɫord miapaɫaɫ. ew i
verust paɫanjaw k‘uawor, or hayi yandunds xorajoroyn : “In front of the entrance to
the cave there was a massive, vertical cliff, above which an overhanging grotto
looked into the depths of the valley”; pɫ-pɫ-a-k‘ar ‘immovable stone, rock’ in Nersēs
Lambronac‘i (12th cent.), with reduplication, see HAB 4: 90a; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 114,
251.
●DIAL Muš, Bulanəx, Arčeš, Aparan, Nor Bayazet, Van, Old J̌
uɫa pal ‘large,
immovable (stone, rock)’; pal-pal k‘arer ‘large, immovable stones, rocks’; Bulanəx
pal čakat ‘large, projecting forehead’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 890; HAB 4: 4a]. Also ‘rock’
(subst.); see below.
Since all the three literary attestations as well as the dialectal evidence display
more or less straightforward association with the areas around Lake Van and SW of
Armenian speaking territories, one may assume that pal/ɫ is a dialectally restricted
word since the Classical period.
●SEMANTICS Ačaṙyan (ibid.) mentions only the adjectival meaning of pal, whereas
Amatuni (1912: 546b) records Muš, Bulanəx, Alaškert, Aparan, Širak, Sip‘an, Van
pal (subst.) ‘large stone, rock; cliff’. Glossed as ‘rock’ also in SasCṙ 2/2, 1951:
791a; SasCṙ 2000: 276; Madat‘yan 1985: 236b. Textual illustrations for this
substantival meaning: Haykuni 1902: 189L14; Baɫdasaryan-T‘ap‘alc‘yan 1958: 2451;
SasCṙ 2000: 156, 240 (several times); Amatuni, ibid.
I conclude that the basic meaning of dial. pal is ‘rock’, which is corroborated by
the literary attestations of pal and *paɫ. That a noun which means ‘rock’ can
function as an attributive in the meaning ‘large, immovable (stone, rock)’ or the like,
is not surprising; cf. žayṙ ‘rock’ : dial. žeṙ-k‘ar, leaṙn ‘mountain’ : dial. lɛṙ-k‘ar, vēm
‘hard stone’ : dial. vɛm-k‘ar [HAB s.vv.; Amatuni 1912: 246a]. Remarkably, our
word, pal, appears not only as the attributive member of this construction (pal-k‘ar),
but also as the nominal one, cf. Alaškert žeṙ pal in SasCṙ 2000: 156L-2.
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 4a) connected Arm. pal/ɫ with Skt. bála- n. ‘power,
strength, vigour’, Lat. dē-bilis ‘weak, feeble’, Gr. βέλτερος ‘better’, OCS bolijь‘bigger’ (cf. Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 215, with lit.), OIr. ad-bal ‘mighty’, Alpian (preRomance) pala, balú ‘rock’, etc.
This etymology, although accepted by J̌
ahukyan (1987: 114), is not attractive. As
we have seen, the basic meaning of the Armenian term is ‘rock’. The only form
semantically matching the Armenian is pre-Romance pal(l)a ‘rock’. More probably,
the latter belongs with OIr. ail (< *pal-i-?) ‘cliff’, MIr. all (*pl̥so-), OIc. fell
‘mountain, rock’, OHG felisa ‘rock, cliff’ (< *palis-?), and Gr. πέλλα· λίϑος
(Hesychius), which is usually derived from PGr. *πελσᾱ and linked with Skt.
pāṣāṇá- m. ‘stone, rock’, Kati parši ‘cliff, mountain’, etc. [Specht 1947: 24, 153,
156; Frisk 2: 499; Pokorny 1959: 807; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 7442;
Mayrhofer EWAia 2: 125; Beekes apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 548a; Beekes 2000:
26Nr51, 30].
Beekes (2000: 26Nr51, 30) notes that Gr. πέλλα ‘rock’ and φελλεύς m. ‘stony land’
point to a non-IE origin and treats them as European substratum words linked with
the Germanic, Celtic, and pre-Romance words. He mentions the following
irregularities: p/bh
, l/ll, e/a. The Armenian forms, which remain unknown to scholars
outside of Armenia, might belong here too. Note that a PIE *p- would not yield
Arm. p-. I conclude that we are dealing with a Mediterranean and/or European
substratum term. If Celtic *pal-i- and Germanic *pal-is- are reliable reconstructions,
Arm. pal/ɫ- could be derived from PArm. *pal-i- (cf. GDSg pal-i), reflecting QIE
*pal-i(s)-.
The vocalism of Arm. *pɫ- requires an explanation. Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 90a)
assumes a difference in ablaut. Similarly, J̌
ahukyan (1987: 114) envisages zerograde *-l̥- for pal/ɫ and *-ē- or *-ō- for *pɫ-: *piɫ- or *puɫ, thus. However, this is
improbable. Since pɫpɫak‘ar in fact is a Middle Armenian form (Nersēs
Lambronac‘i, 12th cent.), one should rather look for an inner-Armenian explanation.
In Middle Armenian one sometimes finds morphological or compositional
polysyllables with syncope of two or even three -a-s, cf. e.g. gangat-awor
‘complainant’ > ganktvor, datastanel ‘to judge’ > dat(ə)stnel, vačaṙakan ‘merchant’
vačṙkan, obl. vačṙkn- (see Karst 1901: 42 f = 2002: 48f; MiǰHayBaṙ 1, 1987: 139a,
167-168; 2, 1992: 355a), erasanak ‘bridle’ > ersnak [Č‘ugaszyan 1980: 72, several
times], pakasuc‘anel ‘to diminish’ > pksuc‘anel, Hayrapet > Hrpet [H. Muradyan
1972: 75]. Therefore, pɫpɫak‘ar may simply come from *paɫ-paɫ-a-k‘ar. Compare
dial. pal-pal k‘arer ‘large, immovable stones, rocks’ (see above).
paɫat1 ‘entreaty, supplication’ in Ephrem and dial. (see also s.v. paɫat2); paɫatim ‘to
entreat, supplicate’ (Bible+); paɫatank‘, GDPl paɫatan-a-c‘ ‘entreaty, supplication’,
prob. also ‘prayer; solemn assembly, religious service’ (Bible+).
paɫatim and paɫatank‘ are abundantly attested from the Bible onwards.
The “pure” root paɫat is found in Ephrem: aɫač‘ank‘ ew paɫat.110 In this form, it
has been preserved in the dialects of Č‘aylu and Maraɫa; elsewhere in the dial.
compounds aɫač‘-paɫat and aɫat-paɫat.
In classical sources such as the Bible and Agat‘angeɫos (§ 773), paɫat- is
frequently used next to aɫōt‘k‘ ‘prayer’ (etymologically related with aɫač‘-, perhaps
also with aɫat-); cf. also aɫōt‘s ew paɫatans matuc‘anēin aṙaǰi srbuhwoyn (“Patmut‘iwn srboc‘ Hṙip‘simeanc‘”; see MovsXorenMaten 1843: 299); zaɫōt‘əs
surb zor paɫatik‘ (“Taɫaran”), etc. From these and some other passages (see NHB 2:
589-590) one may conclude that paɫat- also referred to ‘prayer’. The association
between ‘supplication’ and ‘prayer’ is trivial.
In Joel 1.14 and 2.15, paɫat-an-k‘ refers to ‘solemn assembly, religious service or
ceremony’. These two similar passages read as follows: k‘arozec‘ēk‘ paɫatans : Gr.
κηρύξατε ϑεραπείαν [in RevStBible: “call a solemn assembly”]. Here Arm.
paɫat-an-k‘ renders Gr. ϑεραπεία ‘service, attendance’. This usage seems to be
parallel with that of the hitherto unnoticed paɫat2 (q.v.), which, if my interpretation is
correct, should join paɫat1.
One finds paɫēt twice in “Zgōn”/Afrahat: zpaɫēt aɫač‘anōk‘ and zǰermeṙand
paɫētn xndruacovk‘; note the parallelism of the synonyms aɫač‘ank‘ and xndruac
(both in IPl). It also appears as scribal variants to paɫat in Ephrem. The -ēt can be
explained by contamination with aɫēt ‘grief, disaster, compassion’.
●DIAL Preserved in the dialects of Nor Naxiǰewan, T‘iflis, Axalc‘xa, Ararat, Šamaxi,
Łarabaɫ, Č‘aylu, Maraɫa, Salmast, J̌
uɫa, Svedia, Sebastia. For (aɫač‘-)paɫat, see
above. The “pure” root paɫat is only recorded in Č‘aylu and Maraɫa; see Davt‘yan
1966: 456. Compare also Łarabaɫ *anēck‘-pɫēck‘ ‘curses’. See s.v. aɫat- ‘to lament,
supplicate’.
●ETYM No acceptable etymology is recorded in HAB 4: 14a.
Łap‘anc‘yan (1951b: 593-594; 1961: 115) compares with Hurr. pal- ‘to ask’.
J
̌ahukyan (1987: 423, 425) rejects it arguing that the Hurrian word appears to mean
‘to know’. Earlier, however, he himself suggested basically the same connection but
with a different, complicated scenario: paɫat is a deviant form with absence of the
consonant shift, going back to IE *(s)pel- (see s.v. aṙaspel), and the latter is
connected with Hurr. and Urart. pal- ‘to know’; see J̌
ahukyan 1967: 128, 128128;
1967a: 24, 17815. This all is uncertain.
paɫat2 prob. ‘religious / ceremonial recitation’.
Only in “Patmut‘iwn srboc‘ Hṙip‘simeanc‘” (see MovsXorenMaten 1843=1865:
301): ew nok‘a gnac‘in i glux lerinn Paɫatoy, zor asēin sastik yoyž i nma leal
divac‘n, tun Aramazday ew Astɫkay mecarēin. Ew yačax paštamambk‘ tōn kardayin,
or ē Paɫat : “And they went to the summit of the mountain of Paɫat which, they said,
abounded in devils, [and] they worshiped the sanctuary [lit. house] of Aramazd and
Astɫik. And they frequently recited ceremonial recitation (with religious service),
which is (called) Paɫat”.
Ališan (1910: 53; see also Russell 1987: 159) cites the passage with significant
differences. Here Paɫat is replaced by Pašat, which, according to Ališan, seems to
be the correct reading. Russell (op. cit. 17930) notes that tawn is “probably a scribal
error for tun ‘house’”, which seems unnecessary. The same has been suggested by
Ališan (ibid.) who wrote kam tun “or tun” between brackets.
One might conclude from the passage that paɫat2 refers to ‘(a kind of)
ceremonial/solemn recitation’ or ‘religious service performed by recitation’.
The word is mentioned neither in NHB nor in HAB.
●ETYM Probably to be connected with paɫat1 ‘entreaty, supplication; prayer’ (q.v.),
which in Joel 1.14 and 2.15 seems to refer to ‘solemn assembly, religious service or
ceremony’. The semantic shift ‘prayer’ > ‘religious service performed by recitation’ is
typologically comparabe to that of tawn ‘feast’ (q.v.). The original meaning of the
latter must have been ‘sacrificial meal’ (cf. OIc. tafn ‘sacrificial animal’, etc.). In the
above-mentioned passage from “Patmut‘iwn srboc‘ Hṙip‘simeanc‘”, tawn, directly
equated to paɫat2, is used with the verb kardam ‘to recite’ and, therefore, refers to
the religious service performed by recitation.
Note the mountain-name Paɫat of the same passage. Russell (1987: 17931) follows
Ališan in treating Pašat as the correct reading and interprets it as *pašt-šat
‘abounding in worship’. Note that the Armenian characters š : ɫ are similar.
Eremyan (1963: 36a, 77a), too, accepts the reading Pašat identifying the
mountain with Assyrian Paṣatu and modern Bašet‘-daɫ.
pap, a-stem: GDPl pap-a-c‘ (Philo), u-stem: GDSg pap-u (twice in Law Codex by
Mxit‘ar Goš, 12-13th cent.) ‘grandfather’ (Philo, Yovhan Mamikonean, etc.),
‘patriarch, pope, etc.’ (Paterica, etc.); papay (Step‘anos Ōrbelean, 13th cent.); voc.
pápa ‘father’ (Paterica); apopap ‘third grandfather’ (Mxit‘ar Goš, Grigor Tat‘ewac‘i)
[HAB 1: 236b; 4: 25-26]; dial. *pap, pap-i(k), etc. ‘grandfather, father’.
●DIAL The form pap ‘grandfather’ is widespread in the dialects. It refers to ‘father’
in Alaškert, Zeyt‘un, Tigranakert, etc. Note Alaškert pab ‘father’ vs. pabɛ
grandfather’. Vocative: Goris pápi, Łarabaɫ pápə
ɛ, Agulis pɔ́
pi [HAB 4: 25b].
●ETYM Considered a loan from Middle Persian (cf. Pers. bāb < *pāb ‘father’, bābā
‘father, grandfather’, Pahl. pāpak ‘father’, etc.) and, in the religious sense, from Gr.
πάππας. The form apopap reflects Gr. ἀπό-παππος ‘third grandfather’ [NHB 2:
1045a; Hübschmann 1897: 221, 341, 370, 514; HAB 1: 236b; 4: 25-26; J̌
ahukyan
1987: 582; L. Hovhannisyan 1990: 269a].
The forms apopap, pap in religious sense, and voc. pápa in Paterica obviously
come from Greek. The Iranian origin of the rest is possible but improbable and
unnecessary. Arm. pap(a/i) should be regarded as a nursery word of IE origin. That
similar forms are found in many languages is already noted in NHB 2: 599c. Apart
from the Iranian forms, note also Gr. πάππα voc. ‘father’, πάππος ‘grandfather,
ancestor’, Lat. pāpa ‘father; food’, Pal. papaš ‘father’, etc. (see Pokorny 1959: 789;
Szemerényi 1977: 7-8; M. Huld apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 195a).
For the semantic fluctuation between ‘father’ and ‘grandfather’ and for the
reduplicational pattern of nursery kinship terms, see s.vv. mam(a) ‘grandmother,
mother’, nan(a) ‘mother, grandmother’, tat(a) ‘grandmother, father, etc.’. See also
s.v. dial. p‘ap‘a ‘bread, food’.
papanjim ‘to grow dumb, speechless’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects [HAB 4: 26b]. On the nasal epenthesis of Goris
pəmbanjvɛl [HAB, ibid.; Margaryan 1975: 358b], see 2.1.30.1. Aslanbek baɫbənjil
[HAB, ibid.] is perhaps due to contamination with paɫ ‘cold’.
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 26a) treats as reduplication of *panj- ‘to bind’ linking it
with pind ‘tight’, pndem ‘to tie, fasten’ (q.v.), cf. Skt. bandh- ‘to bind, fasten’,
bandhá- m. ‘bond, fetter’ (RV+), Pahl. band-, bastan ‘to bind, fetter, fasten’, etc.
For j he mentions cases like xand- : xanj ‘to singe’, xeɫd- : heɫj- ‘to drown’, etc. but
does not specify the origin of j. ̌
ahukyan (1982: 60-61) posits *bh
n̥dh
-i̯- or *bh
n̥dh
-s-. I think the former
alternative is improbable. A possible trace of PIE *bh
n̥dh
-s- may be seen in Iran.
*bad-s-, cf. Khwar. passive fsȳ-, βsȳ- < *bad-s-ya-, pcβsȳ- < *pati-bad-s-ya- ‘to
be/become bound’ (see ÈtimSlovIranJaz 2, 2003: 69, 72).
One might also hypothetically posit a trace of reduplicated desiderative with -sfound in Indo-Iranian and Celtic (for a discussion and references, see Kulikov 2005:
441). I wonder if Skt. bibhantsa- can corroborate my suggestion, although it is found
only by lexicographers. I am indebted to L. Kulikov for checking the Sanskrit form
and for a reference to his paper.
For the semantics cf. arm-anam ‘to be stounded’ (q.v.), if from PArm. *arm- ‘to
bind fast, tie, fit’ seen in y-arm-ar ‘fitting’, cf. Gr. ἁρμόζω ‘to join, fit together; to
bind fast’.
pind, o-stem: ISg pnd-o-v (John Chrysostom); a-stem: ISg pnd-a-w (Philo) ‘firm,
dense, tight, strong, fastened’ (Bible+); pndem, 1sg.aor. pnd-ec‘-i, 3sg.aor. pndeac‘
‘to affirm, make firm, fasten’ (Bible+), pndim, 3sg.aor. pndec‘-a-w ‘to become firm,
be encouraged’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects, mostly in the meaning ‘firm, strong’; in Ṙodost‘o
it means ‘dense’, said of e.g. porridge [HAB 4: 83a].
●ETYM Connected with Skt. bandh- ‘to bind, fasten’, bandhá- m. ‘bond, fetter’
(RV+), Pahl. band-, bastan ‘to bind, fetter, fasten’, band-ak ‘servant, slave’, Parth.
bnd, bndyst’n ‘prison’ (see Nyberg 1974: 43-44), Gr. πεῖσμα < *-sma- n. ‘rope,
cord’, OHG bintan ‘to bind’, Goth. bandi ‘fetter, bond’, etc.; see also s.v. papanjim
‘to grow dumb, speechless’ < ‘to be/become bound, tied up’; see HAB 4: 82-83 with
references; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 115-116.
The initial p- points to Grassmann’s Law. Although we have no further secure
examples of this law in Armenian (for a discussion, see J̌
ahukyan 1969: 66; 1978:
17613; further, see 2.1.24.1), I see no compelling reasons for rejecting this
etymology.
On the other hand, Arm. pind is considered an Iranian loan, cf. Khot. piṇḍaa-
‘lump’ (see Bailey 1955-56: 74-75; Perixanjan 1983: 53; Witzel 2003: 33). This is
less probable (cf. L. Hovhannisyan 1990: 216-217). Olsen 1999: 965, 96563 puts
Arm. pind in her list of words of unknown origin and adds: “Probably Iranian”.
ptuk o-stem (later GSg ptkan [HAB 4: 646a]) ‘bud; nipple’; ptke/im ‘to bud,
germinate’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects, mostly in the meaning ‘nipple’ or ‘the uddar of a
cow’. Van, Goris, Łarabaɫ: ‘bud’. Nor Naxiǰewan, Polis, Ṙodost‘o, and Turkishspeaking Adana have *ptuɫ ‘nipple’ or ‘the uddar of a cow’. Note also Urmia,
Salmast ptuɫ ‘nipple’ [GwṙUrmSalm 2, 1898: 97]. According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 4:
112a; 1941: 69147), this is due to contamination with ptuɫ ‘fruit; pupil (of the eye);
fingertip, pinch, etc.’ (q.v.), which is probable. However, the two are formally and
semantically close, and one might prefer to derive them from a single root *put-
‘swelling, bud, drop, nipple’. In this case, *ptuɫ ‘nipple’ or ‘the uddar of a cow’ can
directly belong to ptuɫ (q.v.).
●ETYM According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 112a), from PIE *bud- ‘to swell’, cf. Engl.
bud, etc. See above, and s.vv. ptuɫ and put.ptuɫ, o-stem: ‘fruit (Bible+); pupil (of the eye); grape, etc.’. Nerses Lambronac‘i (12th
cent., Cilicia), etc. have a form with -n (GDSg ptɫan, AblSg i ptɫanē), in the meaning
‘fingertip, pinch’. Given the existence of Hačən (Cilicia) bädeɫ < *pteɫ ‘id.’, one
may reconstruct *pteɫn (see HAB 4: 112b).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects, mainly referring to ‘fruit’ and ‘eye-apple, pupil’.
Polis buduɫ (on which see below) also means ‘bubble’. In Svedia (bdɛɔɫ) the
meaning ‘fruit’ has been specialized to ‘olive-fruit’ [Ačaṙyan 2003: 586].
Ačaṙyan (HAB; Ačaṙyan 1947) does not record any form in Hamšen. One may
wonder, however, if Hamšen *piteɫ ‘fruit of wild trees; wild acorn’ (see Ačaṙean
1913: 910b) belongs here. See above for *pteɫn.
For the semantic field particularly interesting are the data from Moks. Ačaṙyan
(1952: 289) records Moks ptuɫ not specifying its meaning, probably because he only
knew the basic meaning ‘fruit’, which is represented by the corresponding form in
Van (caṙ-a-)ptuɫ ‘(tree) fruit’ (ibid.). But Moks pətuɫ (NPl pətəɫnir) also refers to
‘pupil of the eye’ (ač‘ič‘ pətuɫ ‘глазное яблоко’) and ‘rain drop’, pətuɫ-əm ‘a little
bit (of liquid)’ (see Orbeli 2002: 204, 314). We see here the semantic identity with
put ‘drop; dot, spot’ (q.v.) > Moks put ‘drop’, put-əm ‘a little bit (of liquid)’ (op. cit.
316), for instance: put-put årun (= ClArm. ariwn blood’) (op. cit. 101L-4). Given the
meaning ‘dot, spot’ of put, as well as the above-mentioned by-form *pteɫ(n) of ptuɫ,
one can also introduce another word from Moks, namely pəteɫ, GSg pətɫəɛ
, NPl
pətəɫ-nir/-k‘y
ir ‘a spot from splashed boiling food in oil’ (see Orbeli 2002: 314).
Note also Šatax pətɫel ‘to bud, germinate’ (see M. Muradyan 1962: 215b).
Moks *pteɫ basically means ‘dirty spot of boiling, bubbling oil’. A similar
meaning can be seen in verbal *ptɫ-t-al (Van, Širak, etc.) referring to the appearance
of bubbles of oil on surface of food or water (see Amatuni 1912: 570b). Note also
Ganjak *ptɫ-ot-el ‘to feel sick/nausea’ [Amatuni 1912: 570b]. Polis bt‘xil (< ptɫil)
has two meanings: ‘to darken (of eye)’, and ‘spread on paper (of ink)’ [Ačaṙyan
1941: 240]; cf. Sebastia *ptɫil [Gabikean 1952: 478]. This verb presupposes here a
nominal root *ptuɫ ‘eye-pupil; ink-spot’. Polis also has buduɫ (< ptuɫ) ‘nipple’ and
‘fruit’, usually represented as belonging to different lexical items (see HAB 4: 112a;
Ačaṙyan 1941: 69147, 240). All the three, however, may belong to one word. For
*ptuɫ ‘nipple’ (also in other dialects), see ptuk. Note also Sebastia *ptuɫ ‘pupil (of
the eye); nipple’ [Gabikean 1952: 478].
●ETYM See above, and s.vv. ptuk and put.
Next to ptuɫ, as we saw, there is some evidence for *pteɫ(n) – Nerses Lambronac‘i
(12th cent., Cilicia) *pteɫn and Hačən bädeɫ ‘fingertip, pinch’; Moks pəteɫ ‘a spot
from splashed boiling food in oil’; and, perhaps, Hamšen *piteɫ ‘fruit of wild trees;
wild acorn’. Old, hypothetical paradigm: NSg -ōl > ClArm. ptuɫ; AccSg *-el-m >
*pteɫn. See s.vv. acuɫ ‘coal’, aseɫn ‘needle’, and 2.2.2.5. The root is, perhaps, put
(q.v.), with the basing meaning ‘a small round formation (of water, plant, or other
substance’). For the association ‘fruit’ : ‘drop’ : ‘(oily) splash’, see especially Moks
data above. Note especially that, in both cases, the etymological doublets going back
to different case forms of the original paradigm have been semantically
differentiated: pətuɫ ‘fruit; rain drop’ : pəteɫ ‘a spot from splashed boiling food in
oil’; åse/iɫ ‘needle’ : asuɫ ‘two small planks that tie the handle of a plough with the
pole’.
put1 o-stem ‘poppy (= Gr. ἀνεμώνη); a sky-blue lily, etc.’. John Chrysostom, etc. (see
HAB 4: 102-103). In Galen, Gr. ἀνεμώνη ‘poppy, Anemone coronaria’ is rendered
by put and ōj-kakawi (vars. ōjakayi, ōjkakwi, ōjktawi, ōjkakōp‘, etc. (see Ališan
1895: 653Nr3247; Greppin 1985: 10). Vanakan Vardapet (13th cent.) has put in
meaning ‘a kind of wild herb’. This is to be compared with DialAdd apud NHB (2:
1066b), where put refers to a kind of edible plant.
●DIAL Muš, Alaškert, Xotorǰur, T‘iflis, Ararat, Salmast put. In Łarabaɫ – tɔp, with
metathesis (see especially Margaryan 1977: 161-164), see also 2.1.26.2.
The meaning ‘poppy’ of Łarabaɫ tɔp (see Ačaṙean 1913: 1042a) can be
corroborated by folklore texts. In a fairy-tale (see HŽHek‘ 7, 1979: 116L17) it is
narrated that a boy sees a beautiful, red poppy (min ɫäšängy, kärmür top) and asks
his sister, who must be killed by the brother, to pluck the poppy for him. In the
glossary of this collection of fairy-tales (p. 736b), top is rendered as ‘drop’ (for a
textual illustration, see p. 63L16: min top ärün “one drop of blood”) and ‘poppy’. In
an Ascension-Day ritual song of the type ǰangyulum (see Grigoryan-Spandaryan
1971: 57Nr299): K‘anc‘ topə kyärmür č‘ika, /Pəec‘ anis səertə sev a. – “Nothing is
redder than the poppy; but when you open (it, you will see that) the heart is black”;
cf. also 157Nr950. The context clearly shows that this is the poppy; see also in the
glossary (p. 471b). Compare Mxit‘areanc‘ 1901: 277: sewsirt-karmir kakač‘ ‘black
hearted red poppy’. In other ǰangyulum-s one finds a reduplicated form, namely toptop: Sareran top-top k‘aɫim “May I pluck (a) poppy from the mountains” (ibid.
179Nr1093; cf. also 190Nr1159). This is identical with Łaradaɫ *tuptup, recorded in
Ačaṙean 1913: 1042a.
It is not excluded, however, that in Łarabaɫ the word also refers to some other
flowers. Ališan (1895: 613Nr2975) states, that top is a word used in Eastern Armenia,
and it denotes harsnuk or eric‘uk.
Širak has a reduplicated form, namely putput ‘a kind of edible poppy’
Mxit‘areanc‘ 1901: 277L1, 331; Amatuni 1912: 566b. Note T‘iflis pučpuča ‘a flower
(digitalis)’ (see Ačaṙean 1913: 925b), ‘poppy’ (< Georg.), attested by the 18thcentury famous poet Sayat‘-Nova, who spoke and wrote in the dialect of T‘iflis (see
K‘oč‘oyan 1963: 18, 155).
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 103a) links put with poytn ‘pot’ and mentions the folkbelief, according to which if someone plucks this flower, all the pots in his house
will break down; cf. synonymous amankotruk, etc. But which one was original, the
name, or the folk-belief? Ačaṙyan prefers the former solution. This implies that at a
certain stage the flower-name put has been folk-etymologically associated with
poytn (dial. put-uk, etc.), and this created the folk-belief.
However, one cannot exclude the opposite solution. This would go parallel with
another designation of the flower, namely cap‘(cap‘), which is derived from cap‘
‘pot’ (see HAB 2: 451a).
For the etymological examination of such botanic terms one should also note that
they often are reduplicated, and they may have onomatopoeic origin. As far as the
above-mentioned cap‘ is concerned, one notes cap‘ ‘clap (of hands)’ (Bible+;
widespread in the dialects). Compare synonymous kakač‘. One may also assume,
that the idea of breaking originated from bursting open of buds, flowers; cf. Skt.
utpala ‘the blossom of the blue lotus (Nymphaea Caerulea); any water-lily; any flower’, nīlotpala ‘blue lotus, Nymphaea Cyanea’, probably from ut-paṭ ‘to tear up
or out, pluck, pull out, break out; to root up, eradicate, extirpate’ (< *pal/paṭ ‘to
burst open’).
In this case, Arm. put1 ‘poppy; a sky-blue lily’ derives from put3 ‘a small
swelling’ and is etymologically identical with pt-uk ‘bud, gemma’ and ptuɫ ‘fruit;
pupil (of the eye), etc.’, which are probably connected with Engl bud ‘bud’, Skt.
budbuda-ḥ ‘Wasserblase, Blase’, etc. (see Petersson 1916: 252-254; HAB 4: 103b,
111-113; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 115), as well as, perhaps, with Arm. put2 ‘drop; dot, spot’.
For the association ‘fruit’ – ‘drop’ : ‘(oily) splash’, see especially Moks data s.v.
ptuɫ. The basing meaning of Arm. *put (from PIE *b(e)u-d- ‘to swell’) would have
been ‘a small round/swollen formation (of water, plant, or other substance)’.
put2 ‘drop; dot, spot’.
In the meaning ‘drop’: Aṙak‘el Davrižec‘i (17th cent.). In Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ (see
Amalyan 1975: 249Nr112), put and tup (with metathesis) are mentiond as synonyms
of šit‘ and kat‘(il) ‘drop’. The second meaning is represented in reduplicated tptpik
‘spotted’ (cf. dial. tptp-ur-ik), attested in Aṙak‘el Siwnec‘i (14-15th cent.), see HAB
4: 103a; 3: 457b.
●DIAL Nor Naxiǰewan, Polis, Ṙodost‘o, Alaškert, Muš – ‘drop’; Xarberd – ‘dot’;
T‘iflis, Polis – ‘a bit’ [HAB 4: 103]. Łarabaɫ has tɔp < *tup, with metathesis, in both
meanings. In the glossary of HŽHek‘ 7 (1979: 736b), top is rendered as ‘drop’; for a
textual illustration, see p. 63L16: min top ärün “one drop of blood” (=
NmušLeṙnŁarab 1978: 16 /lines 1 and 3 from the bottom/; glossed in 218b). In
HŽHek‘ 7, 1979 (189, 736b), one finds təptəporigy ‘spotted’. See also Ačaṙean
1913: 1043b (s.v. tptpurik), where only Łarabaɫ is mentioned. Further attestations: L.
Harut‘yunyan 1991: 264L20: Aškan top č‘i kat‘um “No drop is dropped from his eye”
(proverb); Xemč‘yan 2000: 210bNr156 (Tavuš / Šamšadin) – tptpurik boɫaz “spotted
throat” (of a goose).
As we saw above, the word is not attested in Classical Armenian. NHB (2:
1066b) represents it as a dialectal word: put ‘drop; spot; a kind of edible plant’ (the
3rd meaning apparently belongs to put1, q.v.). However, the dialectal spread from
extreme North/East to extreme East suggests that the word may be quite old.
The metathesized variant *tup and its reduplicated form *t(u)p-t(u)p- are confined
to Łarabaɫ. See also s.v. put1. Note that the only attestation comes from Aṙak‘el
Siwnec‘i, who is from Siwnik‘ and, therefore, a speaker of what will become the
(sub)dialects of Łarabaɫ and Goris. This allows to date the metathesis at a stage
anterior to the 15th century. See also Ačaṙean 1913: 1043b (s.v. tptpurik), where only
Łarabaɫ is mentioned. Further attestations: L. Harut‘yunyan 1991: 264L20: Aškan top
č‘i kat‘um “No drop drops from his eye” (proverb); Xemč‘yan 2000: 210bNr156
(Tavuš / Šamšadin): tptpurik boɫaz “spotted throat” (of a goose).
●ETYM See s.v. put1.
put3 *‘a small swelling’; attested only in Norayr as a MidArm. word, s.v. French
bouton (see HAB 4: 103b).
●DIAL Sebastia bud ‘bread with burnt bubbles’; Łarabaɫ püt ‘fried wheat flour that
has been kneaded with honey, and dried in the form of fist-sized balls’ [HAB 4:
103b]. According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 103b), both forms come from put. The -ü- of the Łarabaɫ form, however, points rather to *poyt. A *put would give *pɔt in
Łarabaɫ.
●ETYM The combined evidence from MidArm. and dialects, as well as the semantics
of the two previous homonymous words, namely put1 ‘poppy, etc.’ and put2 ‘drop;
dot, spot’, and that of pt-uk ‘bud, gemma’and ptuɫ ‘fruit; pupil (of the eye), etc.’,
allow to reconstruct the following semantic basis: ‘a small round/swollen formation
(of water, plant, or other substance). See s.v. put1.
puc‘ ‘vulva’ (according to Norayr, MidArm. word).
●DIAL Nor Naxiǰewan, Polis, Ararat, Łarabaɫ *puc‘ ‘vulva’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 926b].
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 105) derives from QIE *bul-sk-, cf. Skt. buli- f. ‘buttocks;
vulva’, Lith. bulìs (-iẽs), bùlė, bulė ’Hinterer, Gesäß’, as well as Arm. Erznka ̃ pllik
‘vulva’. For the loss of *-l- before the affricate, see 2.1.22.9.
ǰan, i-stem: IPl ǰan-i-w (Bible+), GDPl ǰan-i-c‘ (Hexaemeron, Movsēs Xorenac‘i, etc);
o-stem in Book of Chries, Evagrius of Pontus; u-stem in Book of Chries, John
Chrysostom, Paterica, etc. ‘zeal, effort, labour’; ǰanam ‘to zeal, labour, make effort’
(Bible+).
●DIAL The verb has been preserved in Suč‘ava ǰ‘anal, J̌
uɫa ǰ‘ananal. Note also
Suč‘ava glxi ǰanal ‘to do harm, damage’, with glux ‘head’; T‘iflis ǰan-k‘aš ‘diligent,
zealous (person)’, lit. ‘zeal or effort taker/puller’ [HAB 4: 122b].
●ETYM Connected with Gr. ζῆλος m. ‘zeal, emulation, jealousy’, Dor. ζᾶλος, Skt.
yas- ‘to boil, become hot’ (RV+), etc. Meillet 1936: 52; HAB 4: 122; Pisani 1950:
180). This etymology is largely accepted, although the Greek and Armenian words
are now separated from *ies- ‘to boil’ and are derived from *ieh2- ‘to strive’, cf. Skt.
yā- ‘to request, implore’ (RV+), yātú- m. ‘sorcery, witchcraft’ (RV+), etc. Pokorny
1959: 501; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 40; 1982: 130; Klingenschmitt 1982: 90; Olsen 1999:
90; Cheung 2007: 174).
The development *i̯V- > Arm. ǰV- is uncertain, however, unless we assume an
Iranian intermediation; cf. Arm. ǰatuk ‘sorcerer’ from the same Iraninan root. I
therefore tentatively propose to treat Arm. ǰan as a loan from the Iranian forms
deriving from the same *ieh2- (a different etymology is represented in
Brandenstein/Mayrhofer 1964: 155), cf. Av. yāna-, OP yāna- ‘request, favour’. The
Armenian meaning is remote. However, it may reflect an unattested MIran. form
with closer semantics, cf. YAv. auua-iiā- f. ‘penance’, Gr. ζῆλος ‘zeal’, ζημία ‘loss,
damage, penalty’, etc. Interesting is the meaning ‘to do harm, damage’ in the dialect
of Suč‘ava.
ǰer, o-stem: GDSg ǰer-o-y (John Chrysostom) ‘warmth; warm and bright weather’
(Bible+), ‘warm’ (Eznik Koɫbac‘i), ǰeranim ‘to come down with fever, be fevered
with disease; to burn with fever (said also of lust)’ (Bible+; for attestations see, apart
from NHB and Astuacaturean s.v., Barton 1989: 15049), ǰerim ‘to lust’ (Anania
Narekac‘i); ǰeṙnum or ǰeṙanim, 1sg.aor. ǰeṙ-a-y, 3sg.aor. ǰeṙ-a-w ‘to be/become
warm, burn’ (Bible+); ǰerm, o-stem ‘warm; warmth, warm weather’ (Bible+), ǰerm-uk, a-stem: GDPl ǰermk-a-c‘ ‘hot spring’ (Hexaemeron, Eusebius of Caesarea,
Ašxarhac‘oyc‘, etc., see below), ǰermn, an-stem: GDSg ǰerman, ISg ǰermam-b
‘fever’ (Bible+).
ǰermn : ISg ǰermam-b = Gr. πυρετῷ in Deuteronomy 28.22 (Cox 1981: 184). For
the full passage, see s.v. xēt‘ ‘bite, pain’.
According to the 7th century Armenian Geography Ašxarhac‘oyc‘ [Soukry 1881:
30L5; MovsXorenMaten 1865: 607; A. G. Abrahamyan 1944: 349L8; Hewsen 1992:
59, 59A, 15325], the province of Barjr Hayk‘ ‘Upper Armenia’ has ǰermuk-s ‘hot
springs’. Certainly the same location is meant in Sebēos (7th cent.) Chapter 17 (G.
Xač‘atryan 2004: 387 s.v.; Xač‘atryan/Eɫiazaryan 2005: 94L-3f; Thomson 1999: 34),
where ǰermuk (allative i ǰermuk and loc. i ǰermk-i [var. i ǰerm-i, 1851: 83]) refers to a
hot spring with healing mineral water close to Karin (see also Thomson 1999: 34221).
These springs are attested by ancient authors in the location called Elegia and are
still observable nowadays in Iliǰa (Eremyan 1963: 98a; Hewsen 1992: 15325).
●DIAL The form ǰer ‘warm; warmth, warm and bright weather’ and corresponding
verbal forms have been preserved in Muš ǰ‘ɛr ‘warm and bright weather’, Van čɛr
‘bright night’, Loṙi čɛr ‘id.’; Van čɛrel ‘to become bright and clear (said of weather)’
[HAB 4: 126a; Ačaṙyan 1952: 289], Šatax čɛr ‘bright, clear’ [M. Muradyan 1962:
204b]; T‘iflis ǰiranal ‘to become warm’ [HAB 4: 126]; Svedia čir ‘warm (weather)’
[Andreasyan 1967: 37, 272, 381b].
The form ǰerm ‘fever’ is found in Nor Naxiǰewan, Aslanbek, Axalc‘xa, Karin,
Sebastia, Agulis, Šamaxi; Łarabaɫ and Goris have čɛrmɛl ‘to have fever’; note also
Evdokia ǰɛrmug ‘hot spring’ [HAB 4: 126].
●ETYM Since long (Klaproth 1831 < 1823: 106a, etc.), linked with the cognate forms
belonging to PIE *gw
er(-mo)- ‘warm’: Skt. háras- n. prob. ‘flame, glow’, ghr̥ṇá- n.
‘heat, glow, blaze of the sun’, gharmá- m. ‘glow, heat, warmth, hot pot with milk’,
Av. garəma- ‘warm’, n. ‘heat’, MPers., NPers. garm ‘warm, hot’, Gr. ϑερμός
‘warm’, Lat. formus ‘warm’, OIc. varmr, OEngl. wearm ‘warm’, etc., see
Hübschmann 1883: 48; 1897: 486; Pisani 1950: 175; Pokorny 1959: 493; Toporov
PrJaz [e-h] 1979: 278; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 683 = 1995: 589; Saradževa
1986: 40-41; Schrijver 1991: 317, 420; Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 513, 515-516; 2,
1996: 804; Joe Salmons apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 263b, cf. 125b.
Arm. ǰer, o-stem ‘warmth, warm and bright weather’ continues PIE s-stem neuter
*gwher-os ‘warmth’: Skt. háras- n. prob. ‘flame, glow’, Gr. ϑέρος n. ‘summer;
harvest’ (Meillet 1936: 28; Pokorny 1959: 493; È. Tumanjan 1978: 182; Euler 1979:
224; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 1: 418 = 1995, 1: 365; K. Schmidt 1987: 37;
Matzinger 2005: 50; cf. also Godel 1975: 75; Stempel 1994: 1115).
For a discussion of the verbal forms ǰeṙnum < *gwher-nu-,
111 aor. ǰeṙ-a- from
*gwher-s-, ǰeṙanim, and ǰeranim, see Hamp 1975: 103; K. Schmidt 1980a: 3-4;
Klingenschmitt 1982: 160, 224, 248, 257, 278; Barton 1989: 149-150 with
footnotes; Clackson 1994: 179-180; Kortlandt 1996: 41 = 2003: 115. Compare *uesnu-mi in Gr. ἕννυμι ‘to clothe’ and z-genum ‘id’ (q.v.).
ǰil, ǰiɫ, a-stem: IPl ǰl-a-w-k‘ (Bible 2x, Ephrem), GDPl ǰɫ-a-c‘ (Eɫišē, Yovhannēs
Ōjnec‘i); i-stem: ISg ǰɫ-i-w, IPl ǰɫ-i-w-k‘ (Plato) ‘sinew, tendon’; a number of
derivatives, with either l or ɫ
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects. We find ǰil in T‘iflis, Axalc‘xa, and a number of E
and SE peripheral dialects, whereas the rest have ǰiɫ. Interesting is Muš ǰ‘eɫ vs. ǰ‘il-k‘
[HAB 4: 127b].
With a semantic shift: Maškert (Xarberd-Arabkir region) and Akn ǰeɫ ‘shin,
shank’, Svedia pl.-dual ǰ‘iɫva ‘the part of the leg above the knee’ [HAB 4: 127b;
Ačaṙyan 2003: 586].
●ETYM Müller 1890: 6 suggests a comparison with OCS žila, Russ. žíla ‘vein, sinew,
tendon’, SCr. žȉla ‘tendon, vein, root’, Lith. gýsla ‘vein’, Latv. dzî(k)sla ‘vein’, OPr.
*gislo ‘id.’.
Here belongs also Lat. fīlum, ī n. ‘thread, cord, string; a filament spun by a spider;
a thread-like part of a plant, a vegetable fibre; texture’, see Hübschmann 1897: 486;
HAB 4: 127; Meillet 1936: 28, 47; Ernout/Meillet 1959: 235a; Godel 1975: 75;
Toporov PrJaz [e-h] 1979: 250; Aɫabekyan 1979: 65; Schmitt 1981: 51; Saradževa
1986: 122; Schrijver 1991: 242; de Vaan 2008: 220. The appurtenance of Alb. dell
‘sinew, tendon; string’ is improbable (see Demiraj 1997: 128 with a different
etymology).
Arm. ǰil, -a- derives from *gwhiH-(s)leh2- (Stempel 1994: 12-13). There is also
some evidence for an i-stem. In order to explain the -l/ɫ alternation and the twofold
declension, one may tentatively posit a neuter NSg *gwhiH-(s)lo- as in Lat. fīlum vs.
neuter plural *gwhiH-(s)l-h2-, or feminine *gwhiH-(s)l-eh2- as in Balto-Slavic > PArm.
*ǰil-a- > Arm. ǰiɫ (with a final dark -ɫ due to the following back vowel,*-slo- or *-
slā-) vs. fem. *gwhiH-(s)lih2- (or dual *-ih1?) > *ǰil-i-, with a palatal -l- between front
vowels112.
As far as the problem of ɫ vs. l is concerned, one might also assume the following
original distribution: -ɫ in nom. ǰiɫ with addition of a secondary nom. *-s vs.
intervocalic (especially next to front vowels) -l- in oblique forms, cf. an-ali vs. aɫ
‘salt’ (q.v.). In this respect it is interesting to note that in all the ten Biblical
attestations, listed by Astuacaturean 1895: 1299c, the word is always found in plural
and with l, nom. ǰil-k‘, acc. ǰil-s, instr. ǰl-a-w-k‘. Four of these attestations can now
be verified by critical editions: Zeyt‘unyan 1985: 387 (Genesis 49.24), Cox 2006:
101, 195, 258 (Job 10.11, 30.17, 40.17). However, the rest of the evidence in NHB
does not support the distribution, thus we must await an up-to-date lexical corpus
with a thorough philological analysis. The dialectal data may be relevant, too; cf.
e.g. Muš ǰ‘eɫ vs. ǰ‘il-k‘.
ǰin, a-stem: IPl ǰn-a-w-k‘ ‘staff, stick for beating’ (Philo); ǰnem ‘to beat’ (Book of
Chries, Timothy Aelurus, Grigor Narekac‘i, etc.); o-ǰin ‘bunch of sticks’ (Paterica).
●ETYM Since Patrubány (1904: 427-428), connected with ǰinǰ ‘to annihilate, destroy’
(q.v.).
The anlaut of o-ǰin is unclear, cf. (h)o-sin vs. sin ‘empty’ (q.v.). One may tentatively
assume an old and unproductive prefix *o- from *h2po-, cf. Gr. ἀπό ‘from, awayfrom’, OCS po ‘after, by, at’, etc. An interesting typological match for o-ǰin would
then be Russ. pó-sox ‘staff’ from soxá ‘wooden plough’. Thus: QIE *h2po-gwhen-V-
> *əwoǰínV- > *o(w)oǰin- > oǰin.
*ǰinǰ- ‘to annihilate, destroy’: ǰnǰem ‘to efface, wipe clean; annihilate, destroy’
(Bible+), -ǰinǰ as the second member of a number of compounds (Bible+); ǰinǰ
‘clean’ (Bible+); -ǰunǰ ‘annihilated, destroyed’ in a few post-classical compounds
(John Chrysostom, Yovhan Mandakuni/Mayragomec‘i, etc.).
●DIAL The verb ǰnǰel is widespread in the dialects [HAB 4: 128b].
●ETYM Since Patrubány (1904: 427-428), linked with ǰin ‘staff, stick for beating’
and gan ‘beating, blow’ (see s.vv.); the verbal stem *ǰinǰe- is derived from PIE
present *gwhen-i̯e/o- ‘to slay’: Gr. ϑείνω ‘to kill’, Lith. geniù ‘to prune, hem’; for the
PIE root cf. Hitt. kuenzi, kunanzi ‘to kill, slay, ruin’, Skt. hánti ‘to strike, slay; to
kill’ (RV+), OAv. jaidiiāi ‘to kill’, YAv. jaiṇti ‘to slay, kill’, -jan- ‘breaking’, MPers.,
NPers. zadan, zan- ‘to strike, to hit’, Parth. jn- ‘to strike’, OCS žęti ‘to reap, mow’,
etc.; see also HAB 4: 127-128; Meillet 1936: 107; Pokorny 1959: 492; Toporov
PrJaz [e-h] 1979: 344; Mallory/Adams 1997: 548b; García-Ramón 1998; Cheung
2007: 103.
Beekes (2003: 161) presents the Armenian verb ǰnǰem ‘to wipe clean’ in this
context, but then notes: “etym. unknown (not cognate with Gr. ϑείνω, Lith. geniù)”.
I wonder, as Clackson 2004-05: 157 does, what is the reason for this. Perhaps the
scepticism is due to the semantics (cf. Godel 1965: 248). The meaning ‘to clean’ is
secondarily derived from the widely attested meaning ‘to annihilate, destroy; to
efface, wipe clean’.
If the vocalism of -ǰunǰ ‘annihilated, destroyed’ is relatively old, one may assume
an underlying o-grade form *gwhon-ieh2- > *gunǰ- or the like (cf. Gr. φόνος m.
‘murder’, -φόντης ‘murdering’) with a subsequent analogical change to -ǰunǰ.
*ǰmar ‘male person’.
●DIAL Łaradaɫ ǰmar (Ačaṙean 1913: 938a, glossed as ayr mard ‘male person’).
J
̌ahukyan (1972: 282) has “Łarabaɫ”, not indicating the source. However, he
obviously took the word from Ačaṙean 1913, so the -b- in Łarabaɫ must be a
misprint.
●ETYM J̌
ahukyan (1972: 282) compares with Skt. jā́mātar- ‘son-in-law, husband of
the daughter’ (RV+) from PIE *ĝemH-. For the phonetic side he (op. cit. 2826)
compares with the case of ǰambem, implicitly and hesitantly suggesting, thus, an
Indo-Aryan borrowing. This is uncertain, however. The loss of intervocalic -t- is an
old feature, occurring in words of PIE origin (hayr ‘father’, etc.), whereas the initial
ǰ- (without consonant shift) points to a relatively young period.
Perhaps borrowed from Persian ǰawān-mard ‘a young man; a generous youth;
brave, generous, manly’, ǰū-mard(um) ‘a liberal or generous man’ (see Steingass
376b, 379a); cf. also Arm. dialect of Ararat ǰomard ‘generous’ (see Nawasardeanc‘
1903: 102a). For loss of the final -d cf. argand ‘womb’ > Šamšadin ärk‘än and
Alaškert argan (see s.v.).
ǰori, wo-stem: LocSg i ǰorw-o-ǰ, GDPl ǰorw-o-c‘, IPl ǰorw-o-v-k‘ (abundant in the
Bible, Astuacaturean 1895: 1300), ea-stem: GDPl ǰore-a-c‘ (Paterica), IPl ǰore-a-wk‘ (P‘awstos Buzand 5.4, 1883=1984: 166L-6) ‘mule’. In the Bible and Hexaemeron ǰori renders Gr. ἡμί-ονος ‘mule’, cf. Arm. iš-a-kēs
‘half-ass’ describing ǰori in Hexaemeron (K. Muradyan 1984: 226L7, glossed in
377a).
Pl.-coll. ǰore-an (Matt‘ēos Uṙhayec‘i, 12th cent.).
●DIAL Dialectally ubiquitous [HAB 4: 132].
●ETYM Considered a word of unknown origin (HAB 4: 132; J̌
ahukyan 1990: 71;
Olsen 1999: 939).
I tentatively suggest a derivation from *ji̯or-i composed of PArm. *ji-o- ‘horse’
(see s.v. ji ‘horse’) and the comparative suffix *-ero- seen in Skt. ápara- ‘posterior,
later, following’ (cf. s.v. aner ‘father-in-law, wife’s father’) or, perhaps better, *-tero-
, as Skt. aśva-tará- ‘mule’ < ‘a better horse’ or ‘horse-nature’, cf. Khot. khaḍara-
‘mule’ < *xara-tara- from xara- ‘ass’, Lat. mater-tera ‘mother’s sister’ (see Bailey
1979: 70-71; Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 140; Szemerényi 1996: 201).
For the sound change *jy- > Arm. ǰ-, see 2.1.22.2. For the development *-etor- >
-or- cf. Arm. č‘or-k‘ ‘four’ from *kw
etuores. The final -i may be identical with the
suffix -i frequent in animal-names such as ayci ‘goat’, mari ‘female bird’, mak‘i
‘ewe’, etc. In view of the evidence pointing to ea-stem (see above), one may also
posit a feminine *-ter-ieh2-, cf. Skt. AV+ aśvatarī́
- f. ‘female mule’. Thus: *ĝh
io-teri(h2)-os and *-ieh2- > PArm. *j(i)yorio- and *j(i)yoria- > ǰori, wo- and ea-stems.
On ǰoreak ‘locust’ and ‘hyena’, see 3.5.2.2.
*ṙungn, an-stem: only ISg ṙənk/gam-b in Šarakan apud NHB 2: 682a; also -ṙungn as
the second member of a few compounds (such as šn-ṙungn in John Chrysostom, etc.,
with šun ‘dog’); pl. tant.: nom. ṙng-un-k‘ (Philo), acc. (also with prepositions) ṙngun-s (6 times in the Bible, see Astuacaturean 1895: 1309c and Clackson 1994: 176,
as well as in Eɫišē and Mxit‘ar Gōš), IPl ṙng-am-b-k‘ (Eɫišē, Philo, Yovhannēs
Ōjnec‘i); *ṙung-k‘, a-stem: GDPl ṙng-a-c‘ (Philo, Grigor Magistros, Sisianos,
Yovhannēs Sarkawag, Mxit‘ar Gōš) ‘nostrils’.
●DIAL Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 148a) wonders whether Agulis ṙung ‘the edge of a roof’
(see also Ačaṙean 1913: 948b; Ačaṙean 1935 vacat) is related. For the semantic shift
cf. pṙu(n)k/g ‘lip’ > ‘edge’. Note, however, Meɫri (ə)ṙəngn-a-k‘ar ‘corner-stone’, and
some other compounds in (ə)ṙəngn-a- with bänd ‘tie’ and kap ‘id.’ as the second
member, recorded by Aɫayan (1954: 297, 327) in the glossary of dialectal words,
without any reference to a ClArm. correspondence (in 297: from unspecified
*ṙōngun).
The Meɫri compound clearly reflects *ṙungn ‘corner-stone’, an epenthetic variant
of Arm. *ṙo/uk‘(u)n (Łewond) < Arab. rukn ‘corner-stone’ [HAB 4: 149a], cf. Arm.
dial. *ṙuk‘ ‘corner’ (Alaškert), ‘the corner of a wall from outside’ (Aparan,
Bulanəx), ‘corner-stone’ (Łarabaɫ) [Ačaṙean 1913: 949a]: Łarabaɫ ṙɔk‘, ṙuk‘, Hadrut‘
ṙuk‘ ‘corner-stone’ [Davt‘yan 1966: 466], Goris əṙɔk‘ ‘corner-stone’ [Margaryan
1975: 362b, 513b]. That the nasal before the velar is epenthetic is corroborated by Karčewan (a
dialect that is practically identical with Meɫri) uṙɔ́
k‘nə ‘the big corner-stone of the
wall’; in compounds: əṙək‘n-a- (see H. Muradyan 1960: 213, 232a).
Since Agulis is closely related to Meɫri, Agulis ṙung ‘the edge of the roof’ can
hardly be separated from Meɫri *ṙungn ‘corner-stone’. For the meaning in Agulis cf.
Aparan, Bulanəx *ṙuk‘ ‘the corner of a wall from outside’.
I conclude that the Agulis and Meɫri forms derive from *ṙo/u(n)k‘-n ‘cornerstone’ and are thus unrelated with ṙungn ‘nose, nostrils’, although contamination is
possible.
●ETYM Since long (Gosche 1847: 24; Müller 1890: 6Nr55; for further references, see
HAB 4: 148a), connected with Gr. ῥύγχος, ῥύγχεος n. ‘snout of a pig, snout, muzzle,
beak’. Gr. ῥ- and Arm. trilled ṙ- point to a proto-form *srungh
-; for a discussion and
for other forms, the appurtenance of which is less certain, see Hübschmann 1897:
486-487; HAB 4: 147-148; Pokorny 1959: 1002; Solta 1960: 429; Winter 1962: 260;
J̌
ahukyan 1982: 114-115; Arutjunjan 1983: 302; Olsen 1999: 139; and especially
Clackson 1994: 176-177113.
In view of the limited geographical distribution and the absence of a prothetic
vowel in Armenian (cf. a-ṙu ‘brook’ from the PIE root *sreu-)
114 one may assume a
common or independent borrowing from a non-IE language (see J̌
ahukyan 1987:
302; Clackson 1994: 177). Thus, this is a possible candidate for a Mediterranean
substratum word.
The Armenian form has transferred to the n-declension which is frequent with
body-part terms (J̌
ahukyan 1982: 114-115; Clackson 1994: 177; Olsen 1999: 123,
614). The original Proto-Armenian form may have been a neuter *ṙungo- from
*srungh
-e/os- (cf. Gr. ῥύγχος, -εος n.). It is tempting to assume that the Armenian
form without the final -n, viz. *ṙung-a- pl. tant., cf. gen.-dat. ṙng-a-c‘ (Philo+),
reflects an old neuter plural *srungh
-(e)h2-.
*s(a/o)- ‘this’ (with reference to the speaking person), *d(a/o)- ‘that’ (with reference
to the addressed person), *n(a/o)- ‘that’ (with reference to a third person): dem.
pron.; in:
sa ‘is (hic)’, da ‘is (istic)’, na ‘is (illic)’: acc. z-sa z-da z-na, gen. sora dora nora,
dat. sma dma nma, abl. i smanē i dmanē i nmanē, instr. sovaw dovaw novaw; plur.:
nom. sok‘a dok‘a nok‘a, acc. z-sosa z-dosa z-nosa, gen.-dat. soc‘a doc‘a noc‘a, abl.
i soc‘anē i doc‘anē i noc‘anē, instr. sok‘awk‘ dok‘awk‘ nok‘awk‘
soyn ‘idem (hic)’, doyn ‘idem (istic)’, noyn ‘idem (illic)’: acc. z-s/d/noyn, gen.
s/d/norin, dat. s/d/nmin, abl. i s/d/nmin, instr. s/d/novin or s/d/novim-b; plur.: nom.
s/d/noyn-k‘ or s/d/nok‘in, gen.-dat. s/d/noc‘in or s/d/noc‘un(c‘), acc. z-s/d/noyn-s or
z-s/d/nosin, abl. i s/d/noc‘unc‘, instr. s/d/nok‘im-b-k‘ or s/d/novim-b-k‘ays ‘hic’, ayd ‘iste’, ayn ‘ille’: acc. z-ay/s/d/n, gen. ays/d/n-r or -orik, dat.
ays/d/n-m or -mik, abl. y-ays/d/n-m or -manē, instr. ays/d/n-u or -uik; plur.: ays/d/nk‘ or -ok‘ik, acc. z-ays z-ayd z-ayn-s or z-ays/d/nosik, gen.-dat. ays/d/n-c‘ or -oc‘ik,
abl. y-ays/d/n-c‘(-anē) or y-ays/d/n-oc‘ik, instr. ays/d/nok‘i-w-k‘ or -m-b-k‘
anaphoric articles -s, -d, -n
All Bible+.
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 1: 167a, 170, 171b, 609a; 3: 416b; 4: 150-
151; AčaṙLiak 2, 1954: 188-240].
●ETYM From PIE *k̂
o- along with *k̂
i-: Hitt. kā-, ki- ‘this here’, Gr. κι- ‘here, this’,
cf. τήμερον, σήμερον < *κι-άμερον ‘this day’, Lat. ci-s ‘on this side of, within’, OCS
sь, f. si, n. se ‘this’, Lith. šìs, Goth. hi- ‘this’; PIE *to-: Skt. tá- ‘this’, Av. ta- ‘this’,
Gr. τό ‘the’, Goth. þa-, Lith. tàs ‘the, this’, etc.; PIE *(h2e)no-, cf. Skt. aná- ‘this’,
OCS onъ, f. ona, n. ono ‘he, she, it’, Lith. anàs ‘that’, prob. Hitt. uni, ini ‘that (one)’,
etc.
For Armenian paradigms, cognate forms and an etymological discussion, see
Hübschmann 1897: 437, 478, 487; Meillet 1897 = 1962: 5-35 and 1978: 291-319;
1913: 59-62; 1936: 88-89; Pedersen 1905a; HAB 1: 167a, 170a, 171b, 609a, 679; 3:
416b, 465; 4: 150, 242b; AčaṙLiak 2, 1954: 173-188; Pokorny 1959: 285, 286, 320,
609, 1086; Godel 1975: 107-108; A. A. Abrahamyan 1976: 79-85; Schmitt 1981:
119-122; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 144, 146, 148-150; Weitenberg 1983a; Kortlandt 2003 (<
1983): 52-53; Adams apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 457-458. For more references to
the Armenian and PIE pronouns, see 2.2.5. For a general discussion on the articles -
s, -d, -n, see H. Petrosyan 1976; Weitenberg 1994; J. Klein 1996. For the problem of
the voiced d-, see s.v. du ‘you’.
The particle *ay- has been compared to Skt. ay- ‘this here, he’, e-ṣá, e-tá- ‘this
here’, OPers. ai-ta, Slav. jino- ‘other’, perhaps also Goth. jains, Hitt. uni, ini ‘that
(one)’, etc., though the Armenian vocalism is not clear: *h1(o)i̯-k̂
- > ays etc., or
derived from (or contaminated with) *ani̯o-, cf. Skt. anyá- ‘other’, or *seh2-?; for a
discussion and cognate forms, see Meillet 1962: 18-19 < 1897 = 1978: 303-304;
1916a: 52; Pedersen 1905a: 11-12, 17-18, 26-27, 34-35; 1905: 240 = 1982: 15-16,
21-22, 30-31, 38-39, 102; AčaṙLiak 2, 1954: 180-181; Godel 1975: 107103; Schmitt
1981: 120-121; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 148; Greppin 1983: 282-283, 284-285; Kortlandt
2003 (< 1983): 52; Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 69, 103, 272-273; Adams apud
Mallory/Adams 1997: 457-458.
The *-in in the forms so-yn etc. is perhaps related with Gr. ἔνη, cf. especially
deictic pron. ἐκεῖνος < *e-k̂
e-enos (see Pokorny 1959: 286, 320 with refer.; for
Greek see Rix 1992: 185; cf. HAB 3: 416a); thus: *k̂
o-(h1)eno- > so-yn. On the other
hand it is compared with Gr. -ῑν in οὑτοσ-ῑ́ν from οὗτος ‘this, this/that one’ (see
Meillet 1936: 88; AčaṙLiak 2, 1954: 181-182; Schmitt 1981: 122). For other innerArmenian forms with -in and for further discussion see Meillet 1962: 22 < 1897 =
1978: 307; 1936: 88; Pedersen 1905a: 18-25; 1906: 402 = 1982: 22-29, 180; HAB 1:
679; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 148-149; Olsen 1999: 280-281, 428, 518.
The element -m- in dat. sma < *sum-a < *so-m-a vs. gen. so-r-a is related with
PIE *-sm-: Skt. tá-sm-ai ‘diesem’, Goth. þa-mm-a ‘them’, etc. (Schmitt 1981: 119,
cf. 122, 126); cf. also ays-m etc. (Meillet 1894: 161).
sag, a-stem: GDPl sag-a-c‘ (Hexaemeron and Philo) ‘goose’ Łazar P‘arpec‘i
(1904=1985: 10L27), Hexaemeron (K. Muradyan 1984: 277L14), Philo, and Middle
Armenian.
For the attestations, see Greppin 1978: 28-30.
●ETYM Since long (Hübschmann 1877: 26; Pedersen 1906: 454; 1982: 232, cf. also
275; see HAB 4: 152 for further references), Arm. sag has been derived from the
PIE word for ‘goose’, through metathesis *gas < *gans < PIE *ĝh
h2(e)ns-: Skt.
haṃsá- m. ‘goose’, Gr. χήν, Dor., Boeot. χάν m. ‘goose’, Lat. ānser m.f. ‘goose’,
OHG gans ‘goose’, OE gōs, pl. gēs > NEngl. goose, pl. geese, Lith. žąsìs, Latv.
zùoss, Russ. gus’, etc. (for this PIE etymon, see Pokorny 1959: 412; Schrijver 1991:
113; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 799; Greppin apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 236a;
Derksen 2008: 184).
This etymology is not attractive because it presupposes not only an unclear
metathesis, but also ‘Gutturalwechsel’ (Lidén 1906: 80-81; Ravnæs 1991: 77).
Hübschmann himself did not include it in his fundamental 1897. Ačaṙyan HAB 4:
152 does not accept it either.
Lidén 1906: 81-82 derives Arm. sag, -a- from IE *kaua ̂ ̯ ̄- with Russ. sová, Czech
sova, SCr. sóva sȍva, etc. ‘owl’, Welsh cuan, Bret. kaouenn, kaouann ‘owl’, Lat.
cavannus ‘owl’ (Celtic loanword), cf. also OHG hūwo ‘owl’; he assumes an
onomatopoeic root seen in Lith. šaũkti ‘to cry, call out, name’, etc.; thus, both the
goose and the owl are named as ‘crying/shouting bird’. For this etymon in general
(without Armenian) and for a discussion of the vocalism, see Schrijver 1995: 99-
100, 335; Greppin apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 412a. One also compares Skt. śúkam. ‘parrot’ and Khot. sūch- ‘to call, name’, see Pokorny 1959: 536; Bailey 1979:
426b (mentioning also Arm. sag ‘goose’); Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 644; cf.
Lubotsky 1988: 68.
This etymology is accepted in HAB 4: 152a; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 41, 135; 1987: 131,
etc. Eichner 1978: 151 and Olsen 1999: 788 posit *kau ̂ ̯Hah2. Positive is also Ravnæs
1991: 77, 80, who discusses the problem of the Armenian -g instead of -w. Because
of this phonological obstacle Kortlandt 1993: 11 = 2003: 103 rejects the etymology
and prefers the derivation of sag from *gans assuming a depalatalization of the
initial obstruent before a laryngeal.
On the whole, the etymology of Lidén seems more plausible, although the
problem of the velar needs further examination. One may posit an onomatopoeic
*kau ̂ ̯-eh2- (or perhaps *k̂
óu̯-eh2-, obl. *kû̯-h2- > PArm. nom. *sówa- vs. obl. *sag-V́-
> analogically sag, sag-a-). If Skt. śúka- ‘parrot’ and others are not related, then we
might be dealing with a European substratum word.
sal, i-stem: GDSg sal-i (Bible+), GDPl sal-i-c‘, IPl sal-i-w-k‘ (Łazar P‘arpec‘i) ‘a
large flat block of stone; anvil’ (Bible+); salanam ‘to be as of stone, turn to stone’
(Bible+); sal-(a-y)ark ‘paved with stones’ (Bible+); sal-a-yatak ‘paved with stones’
in Eɫišē, Anania Širakac‘i [A. Abrahamyan 1940: 9L17], etc. On *sal-ar-, in
compound salar-a-kap ‘paved with stones’ (Yaysmawurk‘, Minas Vardapet
Hamdec‘i), see below.
Some illustrations: in Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.61 (1913=1991: 192L9f; transl. Thomson 1978: 204):
bazumk‘ i darbnac‘, <...> eric‘s kam č‘oric‘s baxen zsaln “many smiths, <...> strike
the anvil three or four times”.
The verb salanam : in P‘awstos Buzand 4.15 (1883=1984: 101L-12; transl.
Garsoïan 1989: 143): Isk t‘agaworn salac‘eal, oč‘ inč‘ lsēr : “But the king, turning
to stone, heard nothing”.
In 2 Paralipomenon 7.3 (Xalat‘eanc‘ 1899: 65a): sal-a-yark (with yatak-a-c‘ :
yatak ‘bottom, floor’), rendering λιϑό-στρωτος ‘paved with stones’. The second
component is y-ark, from ark- ‘to throw, put, stretch, etc.’ (see HAB 1: 320-321).
Later: sal-ark- ‘id.’, salark-em ‘to pave with stones’ [NHB 2: 684a].
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects, mostly meaning ‘a large flat block of stone’.
Other meanings: ‘anvil’ (Zeyt‘un), ‘a wine-press basin made of solid stone’
(Aynt‘ap), ‘a flat, hard layer of cheese or yoghurt’ (Łarabaɫ), etc. [Ačaṙean 1913:
950; HAB 4: 155b]. Note also Van, Sip‘an, Ṙštunik‘, Aparan sal ‘the back of a
knuckle-bone’ [Amatuni 1912: 581a]. The verb *salel ‘to pave with stones’ is found
in Łazax [Ačaṙean 1913: 950b]. One also finds Maraš *salel ‘to become silent, to
cut the voice of himself’ in Ačaṙean 1913: 951a, without comment; not mentioned in
HAB. I think this derives from *sal-il ‘to turn to stone, become speechless (by
astonishing, etc.)’; cf. *k‘ar ktril (see Ačaṙean 1913: 1101b).
Moks sal1, GSg sal-ə
ɛ
, NPl sal-ir ‘плиты на крыше’; sal2, GSg sal-ə
ɛ
, NPl sal-ir
‘ручная наковальня в виде молота’ [Orbeli 2002: 320]. A clear illustration for the
latter is found in a proverb (see Orbeli, op. cit. 119Nr21). For sal1, I find two
illustrations (64Nr34, 116L18) where, especially in the latter, sal refers to a ‘(flat)
stone’ in generic sense. Also, e.g. in a Muš fairy-tale racorded in Alek‘sandrapol in
1915 [HŽHek‘ 13, 1985: 212L3f].
Van salars ‘paved with stones’, salarsel ‘to pave with stones’ [Ačaṙean 1913:
950b; Amatuni 1912: 581]. According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 155a), the compound
salar-a-kap ‘paved with stones’ (with kap ‘to tie, bind, build’), attested in
Yaysmawurk‘ and Minas Vardapet Hamdec‘i, is an erroneous form made after
sal-ark ‘id.’. Then he compares Van salars without further comments on the -s and
the loss of -k-. He (ibid.) also cites an interesting passage in the dialect of Van from
a collophon (1591 AD) by Barseɫ Varagec‘i: salars (either singular or plural, as he
points out).
One may assume that we are dealing with a noun *sal-ar- ‘flat stone (for paving)’
and Van *sal-ar-s reflects a frozen APl *sal-ar-s, see 2.2.1.7.
●ETYM Since Bugge (1893: 24; see also Meillet 1936: 43), connected with Skt. śilā́-
‘stone, rock, crag’ (AV+), perhaps also with OIc. hella ‘flat stone’ < Germ. *halljōn,
hallr ‘stone’ < *halluz, Goth. hallus ‘reef’; see HAB 4: 155b; Pokorny 1959: 542;
J̌
ahukyan 1987: 131 (the Germanic cognate – with a question mark); Olsen 1999:
100-101; cf. Wagner 1984a: 282. For the semantic shift ‘stone’ > ‘anvil’ cf. Skt.
áśman- m. ‘stone’, Av. asman- ‘stone, heaven’, Lith. akmuõ, -eñs ‘stone’, etc. vs.
Gr. ἄκμων ‘anvil; meteoric stone; pestle’.
The Armenian word has been borrowed into Georgian sali ‘rock’ and sala ‘a flat
roundish stone to play with’ [HAB 4: 155-156]. The -a of the latter seems to point to
PArm. *sal-a-, which matches the Sanskrit form perfectly: *k̂
Hl-eh2- (see J̌
ahukyan
1987: 590). In Łazar P‘arpec‘i, however, sal has i-stem, which points to another feminine form: *k̂
Hl-ih2-. If these data prove reliable, we may be dealing with an
interchange between *-eh2- and *-ih2- feminines.
The Germanic form, if related, may derive from *k̂
Hl-n-. One wonders whether
the Armenian district-name Saln-a-jor contains PArm. *sal-n- ‘stone, rock’ (see
s.v.).
salam (Middle Armenian), u-stem: GDSg salam-u in Mxit‘ar Herac‘i, 12th cent. [HAB
4: 156a]; *salamn : NPl salamun-k‘ (Philo, see NHB 2: 683c; Greppin 1978: 97);
salamb, a-stem: GDPl salamb-a-c‘ in Łazar P‘arpec‘i, 5th cent. (1904=1985: 10L24)
‘a game bird, a kind of partridge’, probably ‘francolin’
It is generally accepted that salam(b) refers to ‘francolin’ (see HAB 4: 156;
Greppin 1978: 85; MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 305a). According to Ananyan (HayKendAšx
3, 1965: 89-90, especially 891), however, it refers to the grey partridge, i.e. ‘Perdix
perdix’. For attestations, see Greppin 1978: 85-86; MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 305a; in
“Govank‘ t‘ṙč‘noc‘” (Praise of birds): Mnac‘akanyan 1980a: 255L330.
Beside salam, “Govank‘ t‘ṙč‘noc‘” has also šalam, a singing and dancing bird
resembling the young of a camel [Mnac‘akanyan 1980a: 253250f], perhaps ‘francolin’
[MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 202b]. No etymology in HAB 3: 481a. Perhaps originally
identical with salam(b) (cf. Greppin 1978: 86).
●DIAL Łarabaɫ sä́lämnə, sä́lɛmnə [Davt‘yan 1966: 466], Goris sälämnə [Margaryan
1975: 362a]. Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 156b) records only Muš compound salam-kak‘av
(with kak‘aw ‘partridge’), in the expression salam-kak‘vu pɛs man kig‘a “(she) is
walking like the francolin-partridge”. Orbeli (2002: 320) records Moks saläm
kak‘y
av ‘птица вроде курочки, но вдвое больше, пестрая, вкусная, живет на
горах’, and (in the village of Aṙnanc‘) sälämp‘arɛz ‘язычник’ (noun ‘heathen’).
In a folk-song (Ṙ. Grigoryan 1970: 142Nr204): Saric‘ sar es ɛrt‘əlu, / Salam-kak‘av
berelu “You will go from mountain to mountain, to bring a francolin-partridge”. In
another folk-song entitled “K‘ele, Sat‘o” (“Come on, Sat‘o”), which I heard, in
particular, from my maternal grandfather Andranik Simonyan: salam-kak‘avi pes
p‘arvaz es anum.
●ETYM No etymology in HAB 4: 156 and Greppin 1978: 85-86. The word is not
listed in the indices of J̌
ahukyan 1987; L. Hovhannisyan 1990; Olsen 1999.
Lat. columba f. ‘dove, pigeon’ and columbus, -ī m. ‘male pigeon’, of which
columba is the old one, have been derived from *kol-on-bh
- and hesitantly compared
with Lat. calidus ‘with a white spot on the forehead’ [Schrijver 1991: 375, 427].
Greppin (apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 169a) points out that Gr. κόλυμβος ‘waterbird,
especially the grebe’ is clearly related to Lat. columba but does not share the same
semantics”.115
On the other hand, Lat. columba has been linked with PSlav. *golǫbь ‘pigeon,
dove’: OCS golǫbь, Russ. gólubь, Czech holub, etc. (see ÈtimSlovSlavJaz 6, 1979: 215-217; Toporov, PrJaz E-H, 1979: 274-275; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 1: 6021;
Derksen 2008, s.v).
I prefer to connect Lat. columba (perhaps also Gr. κόλυμβος) with the Armenian
word under discussion. Lat columba and Arm. salamb, a-stem point to
Mediterranean *k̂
ol(o)m̥ bh
-(e)h2- > PArm. *salámba- (on *-o- > Arm. -a-, see 2.1.3).
Remarkably, there is yet another possible Mediterranean bird-name of a similar
structure, shared by Armenian and Latin; see s.v. aɫawni ‘dove’.
sayl, i-stem: GDSg sayl-i, GDPl sayl-i-c‘ (Bible+); o-stem: ISg sayl-o-v (“Čaṙəntir”),
IPl sayl-o-v-k‘ (Movsēs Xorenac‘i 3.32) ‘wagon’ (Bible+), ‘Ursa Major and Minor,
Arcturus’ (Job 9.9, Philo, Anania Širakac‘i), ‘north pole’ (Aristotle), ‘north’
(Philo+), ‘axle’ (Gregory of Nyssa).
IPl sayl-o-v-k‘ is attested in Movsēs Xorenac‘i 3.32 (1913=1991: 296L9). Despite
the fact that the overwhelming majority of manuscripts has saylovk‘ whereas the
reading saylōk‘ (cf. also sayɫawk‘) is found only in a few manuscripts, one keeps on
following NHB citing IPl -ōk‘ = -awk‘ (HAB 4: 169a; J̌
ahukyan 1959: 310a).
In Job 9.9, Gr. Πλειάδες ‘Pleiades’, ῞Εσπερος ‘evening-star, Venus’, and
’Αρκτοῦρος ‘the star Arcturus, Bearward’ are rendered by Arm. Bazmasteɫ-k‘,
Gišer-a-var, and Sayl, respectively (Cox 2006: 93).
In Anania Širakac‘i (7th cent.): saylk‘ asteɫac‘d (in relation to the North Pole), see
A. Abrahamyan 1940: 38L11f. Elsewhere (62L13), Sayl is said to comprise seven stars,
which points to the famous ladle of Ursa Major. Sayl is also mentioned in the
context of navigation (A. G. Abrahamyan 1944: 331L6). Next to Sayl, Anania
Širakac‘i also mentions miws Sayl “the other Sayl” (331L1), probably referring to
Ursa Major and Minor. But in the same list one also finds Arǰ, cf. arǰ ‘bear’.
●ETYM Compared with 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, given that σ- vs. Arm.
s- probably points to a satəm feature, Thracian (Schmitt 1966) origin. See also
J
̌
ahukyan 1987: 311, 346; Olsen 1999: 956.
Arm. sayl, i-stem, and Hesychian σάτιλλα (perhaps Thracian) can be derived from
Mediterranean-Pontic substratum *k̂
ati-lih2-. For *-lih2-, see s.vv. luc ‘yoke; the
constellation Libra’, luc-a[t]li ‘the constellation Orion’ and 2.3.1 s.v. -(a)li. For the
loss of intervocalic *-t-, see 2.1.13.
On the fluctuation between the meanings ‘Ursa Major’ and ‘Pleiades’, see 3.1.2.
Adontz (1937: 5-6) connects also Georg. etli ‘wagon; constellation’. This may be
an old independent borrowing from the same unknown source, with the development
*s > *h > zero. The latter, regular for Armenian words of PIE inheritance (cf. aɫ
‘salt’ vs. Lat. sāl, OCS solь, etc.), did not take place in sayl. This implies that the
original form contained an initial palatal comparable to PIE *k ̂ (cf. Arm. siseṙn
‘chick-pea’ vs. Lat. cicer n. ‘id.’, also a Mediterranean word), unless one considers
the Armenian to be a relatively recent borrowing.
Even if the etymological connection with Georg. etli is rejected, the comparison
is still interesting with respect to the semantics and the suffix -li.
V. Hambarjumyan (1998: 34-38) rejects the connection with σάτιλλα without
serious argumentation and treats Arm. sayl as a native word derived from PIE *kw
el- ‘wheel’ (cf. OIc. hvél ‘wheel’, Gr. κύκλος m. ‘circle, ring, wheel’, Skt. cakrá- n.,
rarely m. ‘wheel’, etc.), which is unacceptable.
sanduɫ-k‘, APl sanduɫ-s (spelled also as sandux-k‘, -s); o-stem (GDPl sandɫ-o-c‘)
according to NHB 2: 693c, but without evidence ‘ladder, stairs’, 5 attestations in the
Bible; Eɫišē (see NHB 2: 693-694; Astuacaturean 1895: 1318c); sg. sanduɫ in Grigor
Narekac‘i 92.11 (Xač‘atryan/Łazinyan 1985: 618L198); sandux in Paterica; with
epithetic -t : sanduɫd, sanduxt, sandux-t-k‘ (and APl -s) in Cyril of Alexandria and
in Middle Armenian (and GDPl sandɫd-o-c‘, sandxt-o-c‘ in Yaysmawurk‘, see NHB,
ibid.); sanduɫx and sanduxɫ in Ephrem, etc. (HAB 4: 173b; MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992:
311). A number of derivatives, in sandɫ-a- (NHB, ibid.).
A textual illustration from Genesis 28.12 (Zeyt‘unyan 1985: 273): Ew etes tesil;
ew aha sanduɫk‘ (vars. sanduxk‘, sanduɫxk‘, santuɫk‘) hastateal yerkri, oroy glux iwr
hasanēr minč‘ew yerkins, ew hreštakk‘ Astucoy elanēin ew iǰanēin ənd na : καὶ
ἐνυπνιάσϑη, καὶ ἰδοὺ κλίμαξ ἐστηριγμένη ἐν τῇ γῇ, ἡ̃ς ἡ κεφαλὴ ἀφικνεῖτο εἰς τὸν
οὐρανόν, καὶ οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ ϑεοῦ ἀνέβαινον καὶ κατέβαινον ἐπ’ αὐτῆς.
●DIAL sanduɫ > Zeyt‘un sandɔx, Hačən sandux [Ačaṙyan 2003: 78, 337]. From
petrified plural sanduɫ-k‘ : J̌
uɫa sanduk‘; Svedia sandɔɫ‘ (HAB 4: 173b; cf. Ačaṙyan
2003: 414, 586), or sant/dâug/ɫ‘ [Andreasyan 1967: 273, 382a], or (sub-dialect of
Xtrbek) sandɔux [Hananyan 1995: 197b]; K‘esab santɔɫ/x/k ̂ [Č‘olak‘ean 1986:
216b]. Note also Goris sandux-k‘, referring to wooden or stony staircase leading
from garden to second floor or balkony [Lisic‘yan 1969: 106, 108].
NHB (2: 693-694) presents sanduɫ-t (see above for literary evidence) as a
dialectal form. This is seen in the T‘iflis dialect sánduxt. According to Ačaṙyan
(HAB 4: 173b), the meaning of the dialectal forms is “movable staircase”, i.e.
‘ladder’. As is explicitly described by Andreasyan (1967: 273), the Svedian form
refers to ‘wooden ladder’, and gädvə sandauɫ‘ lit. ‘cat’s ladder’ refers to a kind of
chain-like embroidery.
●ETYM Since Dervischjan (1877: 27), connected to Lat. scālae, -ārum f.pl. (rarely
sg. scāla, -ae) ‘ladder; a scaling ladder; flight(s) of steps in a building stairway(s)’,
scandō ‘to climb, mount, ascend’, ascendō, -ere ‘to go up (on foot or in a vehicle),
climb, mount, ascend’, Skt. 3sg.pres.act. skándati ‘to leap, spring, fall off, squirt out,
to run out’, etc. In view of MIr. scendid ‘to jump’, etc., Lat. scandĕre could be
reconstructed as *skend- [Schrijver 1991: 431-432; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996:
749].
Alhough accepted by Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 173), this etymology of Arm. sanduɫ-k‘
remains largely unknown to Western scholars. The word is considered to be of
unknown origin in J̌
ahukyan 1990: 72, sem. field 7; Olsen 1999: 951. Nevertheless,
the etymology is worth of consideration.
Arm. sanduɫ- probably comes from *(s)k̂
nd-sleh2- (cf. Lat. scāla ‘ladder, etc.’) or
*sk̂
nd-(s)l-o- > PArm. *sand-(a)ɫ-a/o-. The nominative in -u- might be from QIE
HD NSg *-ōl, analogically after acuɫ ‘coal’, etc. (see 2.2.2.5). We might be dealing
with an Armeno-Italic isogloss (based on verbal *sk̂
end-), belonging to the stage of
MedPont cultural terms.
saṙn, GDSg saṙ-in (several times in the Bible, Astuacaturean 1895: 1319b), ISg
saṙam-b (Theophilus, Yovhannēs Erznkac‘i [or saṙ-mam-b], Taɫaran), GDPl saṙan-c‘ (Oskip‘orik) ‘ice’ (Bible+), later ‘cold’ (Nersēs Lambronac‘i, 12th cent., etc.), saṙaman-i-k‘ (pl.) ea-stem: GDPl saṙamane-a-c‘ (Theophilus), IPl saṙamane-a-w-k‘
(Čaṙəntir) ‘ice, frost’ attested also in APl saṙamani-s in Job 37.10 (rendering Gr.
πάγος ‘ice, frost’, see Cox 2006: 237) and Eznik Koɫbac‘i (in meaning ‘cold wind’);
saṙ-n-aman-i-k‘, ea-stem: GDPl -eac‘ ‘ice, frost’ (Agat‘angeɫos, Eɫišē, Movsēs
Xorenac‘i, Aristotle, Anania Širakac‘i, etc.), rarely in sg., instr. ISg saṙnamane-a-w
(Barseɫ Čon); saṙim (Bible+), later also saṙnum and saṙ-č‘-im ‘to freeze’; saṙnanam
‘to grow cold’ (Nersēs Lambronac‘i, Vardan Marat‘ac‘i, etc.); caus. saṙ-uc‘-anem
(Eɫišē); saṙ-oyc‘ ‘ice’ (John Chrysostom, Anania Širakac‘i); saṙ ‘cold’ (gen. saṙ-i in
Barseɫ Čon); numerous derivatives [NHB 2: 695-696; HAB 4: 176b].
A few textual illustrations for saṙn-aman-i-k‘ ‘ice’:
in Eɫišē (Ter-Minasyan 1989: 408L4; transl. Thomson 1982: 247): Bazum jmerac‘
(vars. jmeranc‘n, jmeranc‘) halec‘an saṙnamanik‘; ehas garun : “The ice of many
winters melted; spring arrived”;
in Movsēs Xorenac‘i 1.26 (1913=1991: 75L11f; transl. Thomson 1978: 115): oroy
gagat‘nn sastkut‘eamb saṙnamaneac‘ t‘uēr pateal “whose peak appeared enveloped
in thick ice”.
●DIAL J
̌
uɫa saṙn, Łarabaɫ, Goris sáṙnə ‘cold’, Agulis sɔ́
ṙnə ‘id.’, Ararat sáṙə, T‘iflis
sárə ‘id.’; verb: Łarabaɫ, Goris, Šamaxi, Ararat *saṙč‘-, T‘iflis sáril and sárč‘il
[HAB 4: 177], Agulis səṙṙɔ́
nil ‘to freeze, grow cold’, sṙṙáhac ‘frozen’ (Ačaṙean
1935: 387; M. Zak‘aryan 2008: 283 with textual illustrations); Mehtišen saṙuc‘
[Davt‘yan 1966: 468], Axalc‘xa saṙuc‘ ‘ice’; Muš suṙ ‘cold’, Ganjak suṙ ‘shiny
icicle’; Muš saṙnamani [HAB 4: 177b].
Łarabaɫ, Goris sáṙnə is also a noun, ‘ice’ [Davt‘yan 1966: 468; Margaryan 1975:
466b]. A textual illustration is found in Łarabaɫ folk-songs of the type ǰangyulum
(Grigoryan-Spandaryan 1971: 219Nr1353, 220Nr1357): Arev ɔzec‘i, saṙnə tvin “I asked
sun, but they gave ice to me”.
●ETYM Connected with OIc. hjarn n. < *her(z)na- ‘frozen snow’, OHG hornung
‘February’, Russ. serën, serená ‘crust over snow’, séren’, Ukr. serén ‘frozen hard
snow’, Lith. šerkšnas ̃ m. < *k̂
(e)r-sno- ‘hoarfrost’, adj. ‘grey, whitish’, šarmà <
*k̂
or-meh2- ‘frost’, etc. [Hübschmann 1883: 48; 1897: 488; Meillet 1936: 30; HAB
4: 176-177; Pokorny 1959: 573; Saradževa 1986: 34-35; Derksen 1996: 89; Beekes
apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 287b].
It is uncertain whether the *-l- forms (Lith. šálti ‘to freeze’, šalnà ‘hoarfrost’,
etc.), often brought into connection, are related or not. Likewise uncertain is the
appurtenance of the Indo-Iranian forms (compared with Arm. saṙn since de Lagarde,
1854: 14L303f; cf. also Dervischjan 1877: 48): Skt. śiśira- m. ‘Vorfrühling, kühle
Jahreszeit’, ep.+ śiśira- m.n. ‘Kälte, Frost’, YAv. sarəta- ‘cold’ < *k̂
olh1to- (cf. Lith.
šáltas ‘cold’, de Vaan 2003: 589), etc. (see Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 641;
Mallory/Adams 1997: 112b), cf. MPers., NPers. sard ‘cold’, sard-īh ‘coldness’,
sarmāg ‘coldness’ [MacKenzie 1971: 74].
Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 177a) hesitantly compares the *-l-form *k̂
el- to Arm. dial. *sɫin, *sɫ-on ‘ice, frost’ (q.v.). J̌
ahukyan (1972: 293; 1985: 153; 1987: 131, 275)
hesitantly posits redupl. *k̂
i-k̂
lu- (cf. Skt. śiśira-) for *slul ‘coldness’ (q.v.), and *kê̄l-
(cf. OIc. hēla ‘frost’, OHG hāli ‘smooth, slippery’, Dutch hal n. ‘frozen ground’) for
*sɫ-on (or *sɫ-awn with the suffix -awn, on which see J̌
ahukyan 1998: 19). The form *sɫin is derived from QIE *kê̄l-eno- and compared with Lith. šalnà ‘hoarfrost’, SCr.,
Bulg. slána ‘hoarfrost’, etc. [J̌
ahukyan 1972: 293; 1987: 131]. Though details are
unclear, this etymology of the Armenian dialectal forms is possible, unless the
meaning ‘cold, freezing’ points to a recent derivation from dial. *sl- ‘to blow (of
wind), whistle’, or ‘to glide’, or ‘to shine’ (on which see Amatuni 1912: 592;
Ačaṙean 1913: 972-973; cf. HAB 4: 242). Further, note seɫē/i or seɫay ‘hoarfrost’ in
"Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘" (Amalyan 1975: 286Nr143), which is considered to be an Arabic
loanword, see Amalyan 1972:141; 1975: 428Nr143.
If we assume an IE term with a basic meaning ‘cold, coldness, frost’ for Arm.
saṙn separating it from colour words (cf. for a discussion Pokorny 1959: 573-574;
Derksen 1996: 87-90) and from *-l-forms, then we are left with Armenian,
Germanic and Balto-Slavic (see Beekes apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 287b: “of late
IE status”). Possibly an Armenian-European isogloss or a substratum word. The
Armenian form may be derived from *kr̥̂s-en-: nom. *kr̥̂s-ē(n) > *sáṙi(n) > saṙ-n,
gen. *kr̥̂s-en-os > *saṙ-ín(-oh) > saṙin. The reconstructions *kr̥̂-no- (J̌
ahukyan 1987:
132), or PD *k̂érōn vs. loc. *kr̥̂én (Olsen 1999: 137), or *k̂
rH- (Beekes 2003: 194)are less probable. Note the compositional saṙ-V- and oblique saṙi/an-, always with
trilled -ṙ- pointing to an older *-rs-, unlike e.g. amar- (oblique and compositional)
vs. nom. amaṙn ‘summer’, where the -ṙ- of the nominative is due to the following
nasal (see s.v., and HAB 1: 146a). If this interpretation is accepted, Arm. saṙn is to
be closely linked with OIc. hjarn n. < *her(z)na- ‘frozen snow’ and Lith. šerkšnas ̃
m. < *k̂(e)r-sno- ‘hoarfrost’.
It is remarkable that Armenian shares four terms for ‘ice, cold, (hoar)frost’ with
Balto-Slavic and Germanic or Celtic:
Arm. eɫeamn ‘hoarfrost’ vs. BSl. *h1iH-ni- ‘hoarfrost, rime’ (the etymology is
uncertain, see s.v.);
Arm. oyc ‘cold’ vs. Lith. áušti ‘to become cold’, OIr. ūacht (subst.) ‘cold’;
Arm. saṙn ‘ice, frost’ vs. OIc. hjarn ‘frozen snow’ and Lith. šerkšnas ̃ ‘hoarfrost’;
Arm. dial. *sɫ-in ‘ice, frost’ vs. OIc. hēla ‘frost’, Lith. šalnà ‘hoarfrost’, SCr.,
Bulg. slána ‘hoarfrost’, etc.
For the suffixal element *-(a)man- in Arm. saṙ(n)-aman-i- cf. a number of words
belonging to the same semantic sphere: eɫeamn ‘hoarfrost’, ǰer and ǰer-m ‘warm,
warmth’ vs. ǰer-mn ‘fever’ (see s.vv.).
*satak ‘corpse’ (preserved only in the dialects, see below); satakem ‘to kill; to
destroy, annihilate, exterminate, spoil’, satakim ‘to die miserably, suffer a bitter
death’ (Bible+), satak-ič‘ ‘destroyer, killer’, satak-umn ‘dying miserably’ (all
widely attested since the Bible, NHB 2: 697-698; Astuacaturean 1895: 1320-1323);
satak-a-mah ‘dying miserably’ in 2 Maccabees 9.28, John Chrysostom (see NHB 2:
697c; Mladenov 1937: 101; Olsen 1999: 695).
●DIAL The noun *satak is recorded in NHB 2: 697c as a dialectal word meaning
‘corpse; dead body of an animal or an unbeliever’.116 It has been preserved in some
Western kə-dialects: Karin, Polis, Č‘enkiler ‘dead body or corpse of a Turk’;
Nikomidia ‘ghost appearing as a corpse’; Aynt‘ap ‘a weak, idle person’ [Ačaṙean
1913: 955b]. According to Ačaṙyan (1941: 240), Polis sadag is pejorative. Further: Sebastia *satak ‘dead body (pejor.); dead body of a Turk’ [Gabikean 1952: 490];
Dersim sadag ‘dead body of a Turk’ [Baɫramyan 1960: 99b].
The verb satakim is widespread in the dialects, in the meaning ‘to die (about
animals); to die (pejorative)’. Turkish speaking Adana has sadgil ɔlmak‘ ‘id.’ [HAB
4: 179a].
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 179a) rejects the connection with Lat. cadō ‘to fall (down,
from); to be killed, die, perish; to be ruined, decay, abate; to happen; to end, close; to
fall through, fail’, cadāver, -eris n. ‘dead body, corpse’, Skt. śad- ‘to fall out; to
decay’, etc. (Dervišean, Müller) and leaves the origin of the Armenian word open.
These IE forms are probably cognate with Arm. c‘acnum ‘to become low, subside,
cease’ (q.v.).
The same etymology has independently been proposed by Mladenov (1937: 100-
101), who considers satak as a derivative in -ak. However, this suffix (for which
Mladenov refers to Meillet 1913: 100) is diminutive, whereas the final -ak of our
word is not analysable synchronically (in other words, there is no ClArm. *sat-) and
is hardly diminutive.
Nevertheless, the etymology should not be abandoned solely on the grounds of -
ak. Since practically all the Armenian words with non-analysable (non-diminutive) -
ak are Iranian loanwords, we can assume here a loan from an unattested Iranian
source (cf. e.g. nirh ‘dormancy, slumber’) at a very early stage, with the consonant
shift d > t, cf. the well-known example of partēz ‘garden’ from Iran. *pardēz-). For
the pattern of making a denominative verb ‘corpse’ > ‘to make/become a corpse’ cf.
diakn ‘corpse’ > diakn-anam ‘to be(come) a corpse, fall as a corpse’, see HAB s.v.
di(akn) ‘corpse’. For the semantic shift ‘to fall’ > ‘corpse’ cf. Lat. cadō : cadāver
(see above), Gr. πίπτω ‘to fall’ : πτῶ-μα n. ‘fall, plunge; the fallen, corpse’, Russ.
padat’ ‘to fall’ : padal’ ‘corpse’ (Mladenov, ibid.), Arm. ank/ganim ‘to fall; to die
(especially in battle, war)’ : ank-ac ‘corpse’ (see NHB 1: 168a).
sar, o-stem: GDSg sar-o-y and AblSg i sar-o-y ‘tip, end; top, summit; ascent; summit
of a mountain; mountain’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects [HAB 4: 183b]. For the problem of the trilled ṙ in
Maraɫa saṙ, see Ačaṙean 1926: 125-130. Hamšen sar refers to ‘forest’ [Ačaṙyan
1947: 253]. For the semantic development ‘mountain’ > ‘wooded mountain’ >
‘woods, forest’, see 3.4.1117.
●ETYM Since long (see HAB 4: 182-183 for references), linked with IE cognate
forms going back to the PIE word for ‘head’: Skt. NAccSg śíras-, obl. śīrṣán- (ISg
śīrṣṇā́, GAblSg śīrṣṇás, LocSg śīrṣán, LocPl śīrṣásu) n. ‘head, top’, YAv. sarah- n.
‘head’, MPers., NPers. sar ‘head’, Oss. sær ‘head, top’, Gr. κάρ n. indecl. ‘head’,
κάρᾱ, GSg κρᾱατος ́ n. ‘head’, pl.n. κάρηνα ‘head, top’, κέρας n. ‘horn’, Lat.
cerebrum n. ‘brain’ < *k̂
er2-s-ro-, OHG hirni < *k̂
erh2-s-nio-, etc. For the forms and
a discussion of the original paradigm *k̂
(e)rh2-os, gen. *kr̥̂h2-s-n-ós, see Frisk 1: 784-785, 788, 825-827; 2: 6-7; Euler 1979: 238-240; Ringe 1988a; Beekes 1981-82:
111-113; 1989b; Schrijver 1991: 96; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 638-639; Cheung
2002: 223.
Hübschmann (1883: 49; 1897: 236, 489) treats sar ‘tip, top; mountain’ as a native
Armenian word directly comparable with Skt. śíras- n. ‘head’, etc., whereas for
*sar- ‘head’ in late compounds such as aɫand-a-sar ‘head of sectants’, kaxard-a-sar
‘head of wizards’ (HAB 4: 183b) he assumes an Iranian origin.
The native origin of sar ‘tip, mountain’ is largely accepted: HAB 4: 182-183;
Pokorny 1959: 574; Solta 1960: 204-205; Mann 1968: 10 (confused with sar-k‘, ustem ‘armour, equipment, furniture’); Godel 1975: 76; Nussbaum 1986: 111;
J̌
ahukyan 1987: 132; Beekes 2003: 194. For PIE s-stem neuters regularly yielding ostems in Armenian, see 2.2.2.1; see also Matzinger 2005: 31, 45. The assumption on
an s-less form *kr̥̂r-o- (Frisk 1: 785) is improbable and unnecessary.
Others treat the Armenian word as an Iranian loan (Meillet p.c. apud HAB 4:
183a; Bolognesi 1986: 1-11; Olsen 1999: 906). Indeed, the shape of Arm. sar is
ambiguous (see also Euler 1979: 240; Matzinger 2005: 45). The semantics and the
o-declension favour the native origin. The assumption that the Armenian o-inflection
somehow reflects an Iranian word-final *-ah (Rasmussen apud Olsen 1999: 860) is
unconvincing.
Admittedly, each of these arguments, taken individually, cannot be viewed as
decisive. Note in particular that MPers. sar referred also to ‘top, summit of a
mountain’ (HAB 4: 183a; Bolognesi 1986: 5-6; for the forms, see MacKenzie 1971:
74; Nyberg 1974: 173b). Nevertheless, I do not share the view of Bolognesi (1986:
1-11) who, after a thorough and useful analysis of Armenian and Iranian materials,
comes to a clearcut conclusion that the Armenian word is definitely an iranism.
I conclude that Arm. sar, o-stem ‘tip, end; top, summit; mountain’ may reflect
PIE s-stem neuter *k̂
rh2-e/os- ‘head, top’ exactly like Skt. śíras-, etc., although the
Iranian origin cannot be excluded either.118
sarem
●ETYM See s.v. sari-k‘
sarik ‘starling’ (Hexaemeron, see below), ‘blackbird’ (Philo, rendering keṙnex in the
margin); MidArm. sarek ‘starling’ (see NHB 2: 700bc; MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 316b);
MidArm. c‘ax-sarek ‘a small kind of singing bird, Troglodytes troglodytes’
containing c‘ax ‘shrub’ (MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 401a).
Attested twice in Hexaemeron alongside with synonymous tarm-a-haw (K.
Muradyan 1984: 260L1f, 279L4, cf. 35824, index: 377ab), see s.v. tarm ‘flock of birds,
starling’. For a philological analysis, see Greppin 1978: 187-189, who concludes
that sarik refers to the Rose-Colored Starling.
The Modern Standard Armenian form sareak is only found in dictionaries [HAB
4: 187a]. ●DIAL Van, J̌
uɫa sarɛk, Muš, Alaškert sareg, Xarberd sarɛk‘y
[HAB 4: 187b], Dersim
sarɛg [Baɫramyan 1960: 99b], Sebastia *sarek [Gabikean 1952: 491].
Some dialects have compounds with sew ‘black’ or t‘ux ‘dark, blackish’: Moks
sivsärik, gen. sivsärk-u, pl. sivsärkətir ‘скворец или дрозд’ = ‘starling or blackbird’
[Orbeli 2002: 326] < *sew-sarek [HAB 4: 187b]; Svedia txsäräg, t‘əxsäräg reflects
*t‘ux-sarek ‘dark starling’ (see Andreasyan 1967: 161, 163, 382b), note also SvediaMusa-Leṙ dɔxäräk which refers to a blackish bird presumably from the family of
starlings (Gyozalyan 2001: 85).
NHB 2: 700b records dial. čarek as equivalent to sari/ek. This is identical with
Muš čareg ‘a kind of starling’ and may be interpreted as *čay-sarek, a compound
with čay ‘gull’ [HAB 3: 181a]119. For this type of compounds cf. Zeyt‘un ǰagṙav ‘a
bird’ probably composed as *čay ‘gull’ + agṙaw ‘raven’ [HAB 3: 181a; Ačaṙyan
2003: 325]; Muš, Alaškert c‘urur [HAB 3: 618b], possibly composed as c‘in + urur.
Alternatively, čareg reflects *čṙ-sarek, with čṙ ‘wild’, cf. Muš *čiṙ-kak‘aw ‘a kind of
bird’, with kak‘aw ‘partridge’ (see Ačaṙean 1913: 716a).
●ETYM Since Gēorg Dpir and de Lagarde (HAB 4: 187b), connected with Pers. sār,
sārak, sāraǰ, sārī ‘starling’, Pahl. *sār ‘kite’ (cf. sār-ī-gar ‘a bird of prey’ < ‘kite of
mountain’, Nyberg 1974: 174a); cf. Skt. śā́ri- ‘a kind of bird’ (YV+), śārikā-
‘Predigerkrähe, preacher crow’ (Ep.), Lith. šárka ‘magpie’, SCr. svrȁka, Russ.
soróka ‘magpie’, Alb. sorrë ‘crow’. The appurtenance of the Balto-Slavic form is
uncertain (see Derksen 2008: 477), and the Albanian probably belongs with Skt.
kr̥ṣṇá- ‘black’, etc. (see Demiraj 1997: 355).
The Armenian word has been treated as an Iranian loanword (Hübschmann 1897:
236-237; HAB 4: 187; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 543, 569, 571; Perixanjan 1993: 26;
Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 630). Others directly link it with Skt. śā́ri-, Russ.
soróka, etc. (Petersson 1916: 270; Pokorny 1959: 569). One should at least be aware
that the Iranian origin of sareak is not compulsory (see also L. Hovhannisyan 1990:
216-217; cf. ǰahukyan 1987: 208, with a question-mark), unlike dayeak ‘nurse’,
which most certainly is an Iranian loanword. For Iranisms in -ik and -eak, see
J̌
ahukyan 1987: 569; 1993: 263. An Armenian origin is probable for arbaneak
‘servant’ and tatrak ‘turtle-dove’ (q.v.).
Greppin (1978: 189; apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 362a) distinguishes two
Armenian words, sarik ‘starling’ and sarek ‘blackbird’, and assumes that sarek
directly derives from IE, whereas sarik came via Iranian. However, the semantic
distribution between the Armenian forms is not straightforward since sarik refers to
‘blackbird’ too (in the margin of Philo), and MidArm. sarek seems to denote
‘starling’. Besides, these formations may easily be explained within Armenian.
PArm. *sar-i- may be derived from *k̂
ori- (cf. Skt. śā́ri-), *k̂
rH-i(h2), *k̂
eh2ri(h2)-, or *k̂
Hr-i(h2)-. ClArm. sarik consists of *sar- or *sari- and the diminutive
suffix -ik, and MidArm. sarek derives from *sareak < sari- + dimin. -ak. Note other
such diminutive formations based on Armenian bird-names that are definitely of
non-Iranian origin, e.g. *aɫawne-ak, *aɫun-ak, *aɫun-ik, *aɫawən-ik, etc. from
aɫawni ‘pigeon, dove’; *ciceṙn-ak and *ciceṙn-ik from cice/aṙn ‘swallow’. I conclude that there are no solid grounds for assuming an Iranian origin,
although it cannot be excluded either. We may posit an Armeno-Indo-Iranian birdname.
On the other hand, Arm. sar-ik is reminiscent of Gr. ψάρ, gen. ψᾱρός, Ion. ψήρ,
gen. ψηρός m. ‘starling’, Hesychian ψάρις ‘a kind of sparrow’, etc. Ačaṙyan (HAB
4: 187b) points out that the resemblance is accidental, which is not necessarily the
case. The Greek word may be regarded as a metathesized form of the words for
‘sparrow’: OIc. spǫrr, OHG sparo, OEngl. spearwa, Engl. sparrow, Gr. σπαράσιον,
etc. (Frisk 2: 1130; Chantraine 1968-80: 1286; Greppin apud Mallory/Adams 1997:
543b, cf. 534b; for the forms, see also Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 541 = 1995, 1:
458). At any case, it seems to be a substratum word (see Beekes 1977a: 5). For such
a metathesis cf. another substratum word, Arm. sunkn ‘mushroom’, probably from
*psong- vs. Gr. σπόγγος, σφόγγος ‘sponge’, Lat. fungus ‘fungus, mushroom’ (q.v.).
On the whole, however, this explanation of sareak is less convincing than the former
one.
sari-k‘, ea-stem (there is also IPl sar-i-w-k‘, as a spelling var. of sar-ea-w-k‘) ‘chain,
fetters, bands’.
5th cent.+. In P‘awstos Buzand 4.16: kapēr patēr erkat‘i sareōk‘ “he chained and
bound it with iron bands” (transl. Garsoïan 1989: 147); P‘аwstos Buzand 5.7: ew
arjakeac‘ zAršak <...> ew yanroc‘ paranoc‘ēn šɫt‘ayic‘n sareac‘n “And he freed
Aršak from <...>, and from the bonds of the iron yoke upon his neck” (transl.
Garsoïan 1989: 199).
●ETYM Usually linked with Gr. καῖρος m. ‘the row of threads connecting the
warp-threads to the loom’, κειρία (also καιρία, etc.) f. ‘girth of a bedstead;
swathing-band, bandage’, καιροσέων (Homer) ‘close-woven’, καιρόω ‘tie the καῖροι
onto the loom’; Skt. śr̥ṅkhalā- ‘chain, fetter’, śr̥ṅkhala- ‘a chain, fetter (esp. for
confining the feet of an elephant); a man’s belt; a measuring chain’; Alb. thur
‘fence, knit’, as well as with Arm. sard, i- stem ‘spider’ (Bible+; dial.), see HAB 4:
187-188; Pokorny 1959: 577-578; Frisk 1: 756; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 132, 175. On Skt.
śr̥ṅkhalā-, however, see Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 374, 652.
Clackson (1994: 139-140) points out that the semantic connection between the
Armenian and Greek words is not strong, and the reconstruction of a root *k̂
er- ‘to
weave’ rests on very slender evidence. However, Arm. sar-i-k‘ is connected with the
verb sarem, which is largely known in the literature (though not at the earliest stage)
and has been preserved in numerous dialects in meanings ‘to form, make; to equip,
prepare; to stretch; to weave, etc.’; note also sar-k‘, u-stem ‘armour, equipment,
furniture, etc.’ (see HAB 4: 183-184, 188a). Besides, M. Schwartz (1986: 359-360)
adds an Iranian cognate to these IE words, namely verbal *sar- ‘to tie, attach, link’
(on this etymon, see also de Vaan 2003: 99-100; Cheung 2007: 337). The relation of
sar-k‘ with aspar ‘shield’ is doubtful.
I conclude that the restoration of *k̂
er- ‘to tie, bind, attach; to weave’ is probable.
Arm. sar-i-k‘ and Gr. καῖρος, κειρία can be derived from the following paradigm:
NSg *k̂er-ih2-, GSg *k̂
r-ih2-ós. In view of its vocalism, Arm. sarem may be a
denominative verb. It may also have resulted from contamination with the
above-mentioned Iran. *sar- ‘to tie, attach, link’. Arm. sard, i- stem ‘spider’ (Bible+; dial.) is usually treated as a *-ti- derivative:
*k̂r-ti- > sard, obl. sard-i(-). This “would imply a semantic transfer from abstract to
concrete” [Olsen 1999: 193]. For the semantic fluctuation between ‘spider’ and
‘spider’s web’ cf. sard. Olsen (1999: 193) points out that there are other
possibilities, such as e.g. *kr̥̂-dh
h1o-. Perhaps better: *kr̥̂-dh
eh1- > PArm. *sar-di-.
If IPl sar-i-w-k‘ (next to sar-ea-w-k‘) is reliable, it would imply the existence of
*sar, i-stem next to sari-k‘, ea-stem, and sar-k‘, u-stem [HAB 4: 187b]. In this case,
one may suggest the following scenario: NSg *-ui (< *-ōi), obl. *-i-, see s.v. giwɫ .
This is, however, uncertain.
sex, o-stem: GDSg sex-o-y only in Hexaemeron (see K. Muradyan 1984: 134L18), but
the attestation is not reliable, see NHB 2: 704c; ‘melon’.
Attested in Numbers 11.5, Ephrem, Zgōn/Afrahat (seɫx), Mxit‘ar Goš, Galen (seɫx
or sexɫ), etc. Derivatives: sex-eni, GDPl se(ɫ)xene-a-c‘ (Bible+) and later sex-astan =
Gr. σικυ-ήλατον ‘patch of gourds, cucumbers’. GDSg seɫxen-o-y is attested in Book
of Chries 6.4.7 (G. Muradyan 1993: 144L3f; Russ. transl. 2000: 136): zōrēn seɫxenoy
zeresōk‘ erkri taraceal i koxumn : “лежит подобно дыне, под ногами”.
●DIAL Aṙtial/Suč‘ava sex (with a diphthongal /ie/, see Ačaṙyan 1953: 285, cf. 25f),
Nor Naxiǰewan, Sebastia (also Gabikean 1952: 491), Axalc‘xa, Karin sɛx [HAB 4:
198a].
●ETYM Since NHB 2: 704c (see also HAB 4: 197b; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 310; Olsen
93710), linked with Gr. σικύα, Ion. -ύη f. ‘bottle-gourd, Lagenaria vulgaris; round
gourd, Cucurbita maxima; gourd used as a calabash’, σέκουα ‘id.’ (Hesychius),
σίκυος, σικυός m., σίκυς f. ‘cucumber’, σίκυος πέπων ‘a kind of gourd or melon, not
eaten till quite ripe’; cf. also Lacon. σεκουάνη ‘a kind of olive’ (Hesychius). Further,
cf. Slav. *tyky, cf. Russ. týkva ‘pumpkin’. Treated as a loanword from Thracian or
Phrygian (see HAB 4: 197b, with refer.) or an unspecified source; for a discussion,
see Frisk 2: 704. The vocalic variation of the Greek forms points to Pre-Greek
[Furnée 1972: 251, 357].
The appurtenance of the Slavic is uncertain, and the Armenian form (not
mentioned by Frisk and Furnée) renders it even more difficult.
Probably MedPont *si/ekh
u-. Irregularities from an Indo-European point of view:
(1) vocalic alternation *-e/i-; (2) *s- > Arm. s-; (3) a voiceless aspirate.
ser ‘cream of milk, skin on milk or sour clotted milk’, attested in Zgōn-Afrahat, and in
Middle Armenian: Geoponica, Minas T‘oxat‘c‘i, Grigor Tat‘ewac‘i, Yovhannēs
T‘lkuranc‘i, Nahapet K‘uč‘ak [NHB 2: 708b; HAB 4: 321b; MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992:
321b].
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects [HAB 4: 204b]. In some dialects replaced by eres
‘face’ (Łarabaɫ írɛs, Agulis kxc‘-íris lit. ‘milk-face’) and recent loanwords such as
xaymax, ɫaymaɫ, əražan (see HAB 4: 204b; Ačaṙean 1902: 162; Davt‘yan 1966: 469,
etc.). Orbeli (2002: 326) glosses Moks sir as ‘пенки, сливки молочные’. According
to Nawasardeanc‘ 1903: 106a, Ararat sɛr refers to ‘cream on sour clotted milk’; cf.
also the attestation from Yovhannēs T‘lkuranc‘i (see below for references).
Axalk‘alak‘ sɛruc‘ ‘thick skin on milk when being warmed’ [Ačaṙean 1913:
961a], Aslanbek sɛrünc‘, sɛrüsg [HAB 4: 204b], Ararat sɛrusk beside the simple sɛr
[Markosyan 1989: 315a], and ModArm. seruc‘k‘ ‘cream of milk, skin on warmed orboiled milk’ [Malxaseanc‘ HBB 4: 205c] point to ser-oyc‘, ser-oyc‘-k‘, cf. saṙ-oyc‘
‘ice’ vs. saṙ(n) ‘cold; ice’ (q.v.).
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 204b) rejects the connections with Lat. serum ‘whey’
(NHB 2: 708b) and Skt. sāra- ‘cream’ (Dervischjan 1877: 99) and leaves the origin
of the Armenian word open. Note that the initial *s- would drop in Armenian. One
might assume a substratum origin (cf. the s- of sex ‘melon’, q.v.).
I tentatively suggest a connection to Skt. śáras n. ‘cream, skin on milk’, a word of
obscure origin (see Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 617). An *s-stem neuter *k̂
er-e/oswould regularly yield Arm. ser, o-stem (see 2.2.2.1). The inflection-class of ser is
unknown. The only inflected form known to me is the ISg ser-o-v in Yovhannēs
T‘lkuranc‘i, 14-15th cent. (Pivazyan 1960: 222L1, Russell 1987a: P App. III) and
Nahapet K‘uč‘ak apud MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 321b), which would point to o-stem.
However, -ov has become the most dominant instrumental ending in Middle
Armenian (Karst 1901: 146-149, 153, 156, etc.; L. Hovsep‘yan 1975: 74-76; Ē.
Mkrtč‘yan 1980: 124-127), and an attestation from the 14/15th century cannot be
taken as secure evidence of an original o-stem, although this remains a possibility.
Thus: Arm. ser ‘cream of milk, skin on milk or sour clotted milk’ and Skt. śáras
n. ‘cream, skin on milk’ may be regarded as an Armeno-Indo-Aryan word reflecting
a late IE *k̂
er-e/os- n. ‘cream of milk’. If no other cognate forms are found, one may
assume a cultural loan of substratum origin, although there are no specific formal
reasons for that.
sin1, o-stem: AblSg i sn-o-y ‘empty’ (John Chrysostom, Ephrem), snanam ‘to become
empty’ (Bible+), sn-oti, wo-stem: GDPl snotw-o-c‘, IPl snotw-o-v-k‘; ea-stem: GDPl
snote-a-c‘, IPl snote-a-w-k‘ (both Bible+) ‘empty, hollow; vain’; sin or osin ‘thin,
blighted’ said of hask ‘ear of corn’ (Genesis 41.6,7,27, see Zeyt‘unyan 1985: 339,
342); *hosin in denominative verb hosnil (Grigoris Aršaruni’s Commentary on Cyril
of Jerusalem) and in the dialects (see below).
For attestations and derivatives of sin, see Clackson 1994: 139.
●DIAL Muš, Bulanəx hɔsin ‘unmown dried grass’, verb hɔsnil ‘to wither’ [HAB 4:
215a; Melik‘ean 1964: 510b].
Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 215a) does not record any dialectal forms of sin. One finds
evidence from some eastern peripheral dialects. According to Aɫayan 1954: 286b,
here belongs Meɫri sɛn ‘empty, unused pot’. Baɫramyan 1961: 199b records Kṙzen
sin not specifying the semantics. Margaryan 1977: 159-160 introduces Goris sɛn
‘empty, useless, lean’ mostly said of milk.
●ETYM Derived from QIE *k̂
eno- with Gr. Att. κενός, Hom. κενε(ϝ)ός, Ion. κεινός
‘empty, idle’ [Hübschmann 1897: 490; HAB 4: 215a with references; Pokorny 1959:
564; C. Arutjunjan 1983: 302-303; Mallory/Adams 1997: 179a].
Greek and Armenian seem to show disagreement in the suffixation. The Greek
word may be regarded as a thematized u-stem*kenu ̂ ̯-o-, which would yield Arm.
*sing or *sin-r (for a discussion, see Chantraine 1968-80: 514b; Eichner 1978:
15235; Clackson 1994: 138-139). Perhaps a Mediterranean substratum word (cf.
J̌ahukyan 1987: 301). The Armenian form points to *k̂
eno- or *keneu ̂ ̯o- (or *-au̯o-,
Viredaz 2001-02a: 2; 2005: 94-95) through contraction, cf. another Mediterranean
word with a similar problem, Arm. t‘eɫ-i ‘elm’ vs. Gr. πτελέ(ϝ)α ‘elm’.
The anlaut of (h)o-sin is unclear, cf. o-ǰin vs. ǰin ‘staff’.
sin2 ‘sorb, service-berry’ (“Bžškaran”), sinj ‘sorb, service-berry; haw, etc.’
(Geoponica, Yaysmawurk‘, Amirdovlat‘, etc.).
Mostly attested in medical and botanical literature. The tree: snj-i or snj-ni.
●DIAL The form sinj has been preserved in numerous dialects, mostly in extreme E
and SE (Łazax, Šamaxi, Łarabaɫ, Agulis, J̌
uɫa, Moks, etc.) and SW (Cilicia, Svedia)
[HAB 4: 217a]. In the forms with additional -n (or the tree-suffix -ni) one finds a
development -nj- > -zn-.
Svedia has snjäg (the berry) and sənjgina (the tree) (HAB, ibid.), the guttural
suffix of which can be identified with hačar-uk, hačar-k-i ‘beech’ (see 2.3.1).
●ETYM The forms sin and sinj, albeit in HAB represented as separate entries, must
be connected to each other (see various attempts recorded in HAB 4: 215a, 217a), as
well as with Pers. sinjid ‘jujube’, Bundahišn *sinčat ‘jujube’ and synk (*sinak)
‘sorb’ [Bailey 1985: 27-28]. Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 217a), albeit with reservation,
compares with Arm. sinc/j ‘sticky substance’ (Philo+). On the plant-suffix -j/z, see
2.3.1.Further, compare Sumer. šennur prob. ‘medlar’, and šinig ‘tamarisk’ (on which
see Hoffner 1974: 118-119).
siseṙn (GSg siseṙan in Fables of Mxit‘ar Goš; also sisṙan in NHB 2: 714b, but with no
evidence) ‘chick-pea’, attested in Agat‘angeɫos, Paterica, Galen; sisaṙn in the Fables
of Vardan Aygekc‘i (13th cent.).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects [HAB 4: 218]. The final -n is seen in Łarabaɫ,
Hadrut‘, etc. sísɛṙnə, sísɛṙ [Davt‘yan 1966: 470], Agulis sáysäṙn [Ačaṙean 1935:
388], as well as in the paradigm of Van: siseṙ, gen. sisṙan [Ačaṙyan 1952: 126].
●ETYM Connected with Gr. κριός ‘chick-pea’, κίκερροι, Lat. cicer n. ‘chick-pea’,
OPr. keckers ‘chick-pea’ [HAB 4: 218a; Pokorny 1959: 598; Toporov, PrJaz [3], IK, 1980: 302-304; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 132], Alb. thjer(r), thíerr ‘lentil, Ervum lens’
(Demiraj 1997: 398-399, with ref.). The connection with the Latin word is suggested
since NHB (2: 714b). Note also Russ. čečevíca ‘lentil’, etc. (Pisani 1974).
The reconstruction of the vocalism of this term presents us with difficulties: *-e/i-.
For Armenian, *-ei/oi- has been assumed [Hübschmann 1883: 13; 1897: 490; HAB
4: 218a; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 112]. In view of irregular phonological correspondences,
this etymon should be treated as non-Indo-European [J̌
ahukyan 1987: 49]. Beekes
(2000: 29) mentions the irregular alternations k/k̂
, e/i. One might assume a
borrowing from a ‘Mediterranean’ source [Clackson 1994: 143]. For possibly related
North Caucasian forms, see J̌
ahukyan 1987: 601, 612.
On the reduplication, see Greppin 1981b: 6-7; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 112-113; Olsen
1999: 410.
sirt, i-stem: GDSg srt-i, AblSg i srt-ē, ISg srt-i-w, AllSg i sirt, LocSg i srt-i, GDPl srti-c‘, IPl srt-i-w-k‘, AllLocPl i sirt-s (rich evidence in the Bible, see Astuacaturean
1895: 1344-1350) ‘heart’; srt-mt-im, 3sg.aor. srtmtec‘-a-w (with mit ‘mind’) ‘to
grow indignant, become angry’ (Bible+); srtnum ‘to grow indignant’ (John
Chrysostom), srtnim ‘id.’ (Nersēs Lambronac‘i).
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 4: 221]. A huge number of phrases and
derivatives: Amatuni 1912: 590-591, 601-602; Ačaṙean 1913: 966-971, 987-989;
HayLezBrbBaṙ 5, 2008: 334-353, 398-402. ●ETYM Since long, derived from the PIE word for ‘heart’, *kê̄rd, *kr̥̂d-ós (or PD
*k̂
r-ed-s), *kr̥̂d(i)-: Hitt. ker, kard(-i)- ‘heart, core’, HLuw. zart(i)- n. ‘heart’, CLuw. UZUzārt- ‘heart’ (cf. however Starke 1990: 6311), Gr. κῆρ n. ‘heart’, καρδία, Ion.
κραδίη f. ‘heart; soul, spirit’, metaphorically ‘soul, spirit; heart of wood’, Lat. cor,
cordis n. ‘heart; mind’, OIr. cride n. ‘heart’ < *k̂
r(e)di̯o- (see Schrijver 1995: 319-
320), OCS srъdьce, Russ. sérdce ‘heart’, Lith. širdìs ‘heart’ (cf. OCS srěda ‘middle,
community, Wednesday’, Lith. šerdìs f. ‘core, kernel, pith’, etc.), Goth. hairto n.
‘heart’; with unclear anlaut: Skt. hŕ̥daya- n. ‘heart’, su-hā́rd- ‘with a good heart,
friendly’, OAv. zərəd- n. ‘heart’, YAv. zərəδaiia- n. ‘heart’, Parth. zyrd, Oss. zærdæ
‘heart’, etc. vs. Skt. śraddhā́- ‘confidence, devotion’, Av. zrazdāiti- f. ‘trust,
confidence, believe’, cf. Lat. crēdere ‘to trust, believe’, etc. from *k̂
red-dh
eh1- ‘to
trust, believe’ < ‘to put heart’ (on which see the excursus below), Hübschmann 1897:
490; HAB 4: 220-221; Pokorny 1959: 579-580; Frisk 1: 787-788;
Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 800-8011 = 1995, 1: 7011; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996:
663, 818; Mallory/Adams 1997: 262-263.
For the reconstruction of the PIE paradigm and related problems, see Szemerényi
1970; Rix 1970: 81; Eichner 1978: 15444; Beekes 1987c: 51-53; 1990: 39, 397; 1995:
190; Schrijver 1991: 134-135, 484. The i-stem of Arm. sirt is compared with Hitt.
kardi-, Gr. καρδία, κραδίη, OIr. cride, etc. (apart from the references above, see also
Hamp 1984: 200; Saradževa 1986: 134; cf. Szemerényi 1970: 515, 523, 526). For
Arm. srt-mt-im ‘to grow indignant, become angry’ and semantically comparable
derivatives in cognate languages, see Szemerényi 1970: 517-519.
Excursus: ‘to put in one’s heart’
In the Bible one finds a considerable number of attestations of the formula dnem i
sirt or i srti ‘to put in one’s heart’. Some of them may represent Greek calques, but
this can hardly hold true for others. Here are a few random examples without a
philological analysis: Job 11.13: Isk et‘e du surb edir zsirt k‘o “If you have made
your heart pure” : εἰ γὰρ σὺ καϑαρὰν ἔϑου τὴν καρδίαν σου (Cox 2006: 105).
Deuteronomy 11.18 (Cox 1981: 124-125): ew diǰik‘ zbans zays i sirts jer “and you
shall put these words in your hearts” : καὶ ἐμβαλεῖτε τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα εἰς τὴν καρδίαν
ὑμῶν. Ezekiel 3.10: dir i srti k‘um : λαβὲ εἰς τὴν καρδίαν σου. Revelations 17.17:
astuac ed i sirts noc‘a : ὁ γὰρ ϑεὸς ἔδωκεν εἰς τὰς καρδίας αὐτῶν.
The formula is also found in Middle Armenian, e.g. Vardan Aygekc‘i: i srtums dri
zk‘o xōsk‘d “in mein Herz habe ich deine Rede niedergelegt” (transl. Karst 1901: 4).
In view of the locative form in -um, this passage is frequently cited as an example of
early EastArm. dialectal features in Vardan (Yovnanean 1897, 1: 254; Karst 1901: 4
= 2002: 14-15; H. Muradyan 1972: 15).
In the late medieval dictionary entitled Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ [Amalyan 1975:
296Nr422], the verb sp‘op‘em ‘to comfort, console’ is rendered by sirt dnel and
kazdurel (see also MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 329b). Note also ModArm. sirt(ə) dnel ‘to
hide emotions in oneself; to be devoted to something, work zealously’
[HayLezDarjBaṙ 1975: 523b, 525a] and dialectal sirt dnel ‘to encourage’ (Akn,
Malat‘ia, Łarabaɫ), ‘to work zealously’ (Xarberd), ‘to satisfy’ (Nor J̌
uɫa), see
HayLezBrbBaṙ 5, 2008: 335a.
A textual illustration for *sirt dnel can be found in a Łarabaɫ folk-tale (1929,
Šuši) in the meaning ‘to give hope, encourage’: Iti ink‘ə ürän səert tinelav əspasəm darvišin “In this way giving herself hope (lit. putting heart), (she) is waiting for
the darviš” [HŽHek‘ 5, 1966: 164]. See also L. Harut‘yunyan 1991: 307L4: Astvac
uɫurmə təni mart‘in srtumə “May God put the compassion into the heart of the
man”.
Naturally, a careful philological analysis of this phrase is beyond of my scope
here. Nevertheless, these examples taken from different stages of the history of
Armenian can lead to a tentative reconstruction *sirt dnem or i srti dnem ‘to put
(hope, trust, belief, zeal, compassion) in one’s heart’.
The heart was obviously regarded as the organ of belief and spirit in both
historical and recent times, cf. Agat‘angeɫos § 690 (1909=1980: 358L8; transl.
Thomson 2001: 223): tal zHogin Astucoy bnakel i sirts mardkan “to make the Spirit
of God dwell in men’s hearts”. According e.g. to a 20th century record from Arčak,
Van-region (S. Avagyan 1978: 105a), one believed that hisani xokyin səṙti tayn i “the
soul of a person is under his heart”.
Remarkably, this was the case also in the period of PIE, as is clear from a similar
formula that is securely reconstructed as PIE *k̂
red-dh
edh1- ‘to put heart’, ‘sein Herz
setzen auf etwas’, cf. Skt. śrád dhā ‘to trust’, śraddhā́- f. ‘confidence, devotion’,
Lat. crēdō, crēdere ‘to believe, trust; to entrust’, etc. For other forms and a
discussion, see Schmitt 1967: 18, 216-219; Benveniste 1969, 1: 171-179 = 1973:
138-144 (sceptical); Ivanov 1976a: 259; 1981: 143-148; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984,
2: 800-801, 833-834 = 1995, 1: 701-702, 732; Schrijver 1991: 134-135; Mayrhofer
EWAia 2, 1996: 663; Mallory/Adams 1997: 263a120.
sirt or sird (vars. sēron-sirt, seron-sird) ‘hoarfrost bringing wind’, only in Anania
Širakac‘i, 7th cent, with meteorological description (HAB 4: 220a; A. G.
Abrahamyan 1940: 32L15).
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 220a) rejects the connection with Pers. sard ‘cold’ on
formal and semantic grounds and leaves the origin of the word open. The Persian
word belongs with YAv. sarəta- ‘cold’, Lith. šáltas ‘cold’, etc. from IE *k̂
olh1to-
(see s.v. saṙn ‘ice’ on this word).
One may assume a connection with OCS sěverъ ‘North, north wind’, Lat. caurus
m. ‘north-western wind’, etc. For the determinative -t- cf. Arm. c‘urt ‘cold’ (q.v.),
probably belonging here too. The determinative -t- may be derived from IE *-dseen e.g. in Oss. særd/særdæ ‘summer’, YAv. sarəd- f. ‘year’, Skt. śarád- f.
‘autumn; year’, possibly from ‘warm season’ if a derivative in *-(e)d- from *k̂
lh1-:
Lat. calēre ‘to be warm’, etc. (see Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 616; Cheung 2002:
223; cf. Schrijver 1991: 206-207)121.
Arm. sirt may be derived from QIE *k̂
eh1uer-d- through contraction *-ēwe- >
*-iwe- > -i- (cf. 2.1.33.1), and a zero-grade form QIE *k̂
h1ur-d- could be reflected in
c‘urt. Note that in the latter case we may be dealing with the possible development
*k̂
H > Arm. c‘ (see 2.1.18.1). Needless to say, this interpretation is highly
hypothetical, particularly because sirt/d is a hapax.
siwn, an-stem: GDSg sean, ISg seam-b, AblSg siwn-ē (Exodus 26.32), NPl siwn-k‘,
APl siwn-s, GDPl sean-c‘, IPl seam-b-k‘ (the paradigm is abundantly represented in
the Bible), AblSg i siwn-ē also in Paterica; i-stem: ISg siwn-i-w in Paterica;
‘column, pillar’.
Attested also in Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.33 (1913=1991: 152L10; transl. Thomson
1978: 171): GDSg sean.
●DIAL Agulis sün [Ačaṙean 1935: 88, 388], Łarabaɫ, Č‘aylu, etc. sün [Davt‘yan
1966: 470], Hadrut‘ sün [A. Poɫosyan 1965: 34], Hačən sin [Ačaṙyan 2003: 88, 338],
Svedia sayn [Ačaṙyan 2003: 399, 587], or säyn (see Andreasyan 1967: 383a, but cf.
32), or sɔyn (see Hananyan 1995: 197b), Loṙi sin [M. Asatryan 1968: 60, 192a],
Ararat sun [Baɫdasaryan-T‘ap‘alc‘yan 1973: 38, 343; Markosyan 1989: 315a]. The
form sun is found in most of the Western dialects (kə-branch); Xarberd has sɔn
[HAB 4: 222a]. Dersim: sun, sin, sɔ̈n [Baɫramyan 1960: 99b].
●ETYM Connected with Gr. κί̄ων, -ονος ‘column, pillar’ [NHB 2: 716b; Dervischjan
1877: 102]. Three reconstructions have been proposed: *k̂
ī(i̯)ōn [Hübschmann 1897:
490; HAB 4: 221b; Pokorny 1959: 598; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 43, 108, cf. 22243;
Mallory/Adams 1997: 28, 29 (otherwise: 442a)]; *k̂
ī(u̯)ōn [Hübschmann 1883: 49;
J
̌
ahukyan 1987: 132; Clackson 1994: 140-143; Mallory/Adams 1997: 442a (see
below); Olsen 1999: 135; Lubotsky 2002a: 323b; Beekes 2003: 165, 175; Matzinger
2005: 73]; *k̂
īsōn (for the references, see HAB 4: 222a; Clackson 1994: 140). In
view of Myc. ki-wo-qe ‘and a pillar’ (see Clackson 1994: 140), *k̂
īuo̯ ̄n should be
regarded as the correct reconstruction.
It has been assumed that the -w- was lost before -u-: acc. *siwon-n >*siwun >
siwn [Kortlandt 1993: 101 = 2003: 1031, with ref.; Beekes 2003: 165]. Beekes (ibid.)
notes that the -w- in siwn (= *siun) does not continue the original *-w-. For a
discussion and references, see especially Clackson 1994: 140-141.
Clackson (1994: 141-142) reconstructs NSg *k̂
īwōm, NPl *k̂
īwm̥ mes or NDu
*k̂
īwm̥ m(e)h1, assuming that the plural (dual) form might be reflected in Arm. seamk‘ (pl.) ‘doorpost’. Beekes (2000: 211) points out that the reconstruction *k̂
īwm̥ mes
for seam-k‘ is unacceptable, and that “it may have generalized am < m ̥ before
consonant”. Then he notes that the absence of the w could be analogical after the
nominative siwn (= *siun, cf. above).
The attempts to find an Indo-European etymon for *k̂
īuo̯ ̄n were unsuccessful (see
Clackson 1994: 141-142, with a thorough critical analysis). Likewise unconvincing
is the assumption that *k̂
iH-u̯on- “derived ultimately by laryngeal metathesis from
*k̂Hi-u̯on- which would derive from *k̂
eH(i)- ‘sharpen’, i.e., a pointed pole or stake”
[Volpe/Adams/Mallory apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 442a].
According to Clackson (1994: 141, 142-143), *k̂
īuo̯ ̄n represents a borrowing into
Greek and Armenian from a lost non-Indo-European source. Another possible trace
of this word in the Balkan area may be seen in Roumanian ṭiu (see J̌
ahukyan 1987:
298-300, 304, with ref.). The correspondence between Gr. κ- and Armenian ssuggests that the borrowing took place at a quite early period, before the Armenian
‘palatalization’ (i.e. assibilation of PIE *k̂
- into Arm. s-), see Clackson 1994: 142-
143; cf. also J̌
ahukyan 1978: 129; Arutjunjan 1983: 303; Beekes 2000: 211.
Recently, however, K. Praust (apud Lubotsky 2001b: 14; 2002a: 323b; accepted
in Beekes 2003: 152-153, 165) suggested to derive Gr. κί̄ων and Arm. siwn from PIE *(s)kiHu- ‘shin’: Russ. cévka ‘bobbin; (esp. hollow) bone; (dial.) shinbone’,
OEngl. scīa ‘shin, leg’, Indo-Iranian *Hast-čiHu̯a-: Skt. aṣṭhīvá(nt)- ‘shin, shank’
and Av. ascuua- ‘shank’ (cf. Arm. čiw ‘shank, leg’, probably borrowed from an
independently unattested Ir. *čīva- ‘shank’, see Martirosyan 2005). On this PIE
term, see Lubotsky 2002a.
slak‘, a-stem: IPl slak‘-a-w-k‘ (P‘awstos Buzand 5.35 and Sebēos 11), AblSg i slak‘-ē
(Grigor Narekac‘i); later o-stem: ISg slak‘-o-v (Epiphanius of Cyprus, Čaṙəntir)
‘arrow, pointed arrow, javelin, pike, point of arrow or lance’.
Attested in Proverbs 25.18, Psalms 54.22/23, P‘awstos Buzand 4.51, 5.35
(1883=1984: 137L4, 200L17; transl. Garsoïan 1989: 168, 217), Movsēs Xorenac‘i 1.11
(1913=1991: 36L20; transl. Thomson 1978: 87-88), Sebēos 11
(Xač‘atryan/Eɫiazaryan 2005: 72L8; transl. Thomson 1999: 22), Ephrem, etc.
●ETYM Since long (Dervischjan 1877: 4; Lidén 1906: 78-80), derived from PIE
*k̂
úH-lo-: Skt. śū́la- m. n. ‘spear, javelin, roasting-spit’ (RV+), Lat. culex ‘mosquito,
gnat, midge’, OIr. cuil ‘mosquito, gnat’, Welsh cylion ‘midges’; accepted by Meillet
p.c. 1931 apud HAB 4: 224a; Ačaṙyan HAB ibid.; Pokorny 1959: 626; J̌
ahukyan
1987: 133; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 651-652; Mallory/Adams 1997: 537a. The
form *kŭl- with a short vowel seen in Latin and Celtic may reflect *k̂
Hul-, but a
secondary shortening is possible too (Schrijver 1991: 239, 527).
Arm. slak‘ may be interpreted as PArm. *sulo- > *sul- + -ak‘ or *sula- (from QIE
fem. *k̂
(o)ul-eh2-) + -k‘ < *-k-eh2-. For the suffix -(a)k‘, see e.g. s.v. c‘amak‘, a-stem
‘dry, dry land’. Further see Olsen 1999: 70 who compares the structure of slak‘ with
that of Lat. culex.
*slul (dial.) ‘cold, coldness’.
●DIAL Ararat, Van, Muš, Č‘enkiler-Nikomidia slul, Širak slɔl subst. ‘cold, coldness’
[Amatuni 1912: 592b; Ačaṙean 1913: 972a]; Ararat, Van sll-a-tar ‘sensitive to cold,
chilly (person); damaged by cold’ [Amatuni 1912: 592a; Ačaṙean 1913: 972a], lit.
‘taken by cold’.
●ETYM See s.v. saṙn ‘ice’.
sxal ‘mistake, failure; crime’, sxalem, sxalim ‘to err, be mistaken; to stumble; to fail,
miss’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects. In some dialects (Ararat, T‘iflis, J̌
uɫa, Maraɫa):
sɫal, with voicing of the -x-. Akn and Nor Naxiǰewan have zɫal, with an initial zɫ-; cf.
also Muš verbal zaɫlel ‘to be mistaken’ (a misprint for zɫalel?) [HAB 4: 225a]. On
the literary evidence for zɫ-, as well as the semantics of the Nor Naxiǰewan form, see
s.v. sxalak.
Ačaṙean (1926: 96) points out that the development x > Maraɫa ɫ is exceptional.
Tigranakert zələxvil ‘to glide, stumble’ is represented by A. Haneyan (1978: 207)
in the list of purely dialectal words, without a reference to any classical form. It may
derive from *zɫal-v-il, with metathesis.
●ETYM See s.v. šeɫ ‘slanting, crooked, oblique’.
sxalak ‘drunken, tipsy’ (Isaiah 24.20), sxalakim ‘to become drunken, tipsy,
inebriated’ (Philo), sxaɫakim ‘id.’ (P‘awstos), zxaɫakanam (John Chrysostom), etc. In Isaiah 24.20: ibrew zarbealn ew zsxalak “like a drunken man” (= Gr. ὡς ὁ
μεϑύων καὶ κραιπαλῶν).
In P‘awstos Buzand 4.14 (1883=1984: 97L-12f; transl. Garsoïan 1989: 139): Isk
yoržam arbec‘aw sxaɫakec‘aw “and when he had drunk and become inebriated”.
●DIAL Preserved in the dialect of Nor Naxiǰewan: zɫalɛl ‘to become drunken, tipsy’
[HAB 4: 225a]. For the initial z- cf. zxaɫakanam (Chrysostom), as well as the
dialectal forms s.v. sxal.
●ETYM Belongs with sxal (q.v.). According to Menevischean (1889: 62),
“wahrscheinlich dem griech. μεϑυ-σφαλέω nachgemacht”. As demonstrated by
Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 225a), however, the dialectal (Nor Naxiǰewan zɫalɛl ‘to become
drunken, tipsy’) evidence suggests an inner-Armenian semantic development rather
than a literary influence.
sxtor ‘garlic’ (Geoponica, Galen).
●ETYM See s.v. xstor ‘garlic’.
skesur, a-stem: GDSg skesr-i, AblSg i skesr-ē (Bible+), ISg skesr-a-w (John
Chrysostom, Philo) ‘husband’s mother’ (Bible+); kesur in Eznik Koɫbac‘i is usually
taken as a dialectal form (NHB 2: 719b, cf. 1: 1089c; HAB 4: 228a; L.
Hovhannisyan 1991: 26); skesr-ayr (according to NHB, also skesr-eay), GDSg
skesrayr-i (1 Kings 4.21), AblSg i skesr-ayr-ē (Barseɫ Čon) ‘husband’s father’
(Bible+).
●DIAL The forms skesur and kesur ‘husband’s mother’ are widespread in the dialects
[HAB 4: 228b].
For ‘husband’s father’ Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 228b) mentions J̌
uɫa skesrɔr and Xarberd
gɛsar. In other dialects it has been replaced by recent compounds, such as Zeyt‘un
ɔsgɔsuy-bɔb ‘husband’s father’ = *skesur-pap lit. ‘father at husband’s mother’ vs.
zək‘ənč‘-bɔb ‘wife’s father’ = zok‘anč‘ ‘wife’s mother’ + pap ‘father’, thus ‘father at
wife’s mother’ (HAB 1: 193a; Ačaṙyan 2003: 308, 338).
●ETYM Belongs with PIE *suek ̯ ̂
ru-h2- f. ‘mother-in-law’: Skt. śvaśrū́-, NPers. xusrū,
Pashto xwāše, Gr. ἑκυρά, Lat. socrus, OHG swigar, OCS svekry, etc.
Arm. skesur, -a- and Gr. ἑκυρά derive from QIE fem. *suek ̯ ̂
ur-(e)h2-, with *-urwhich has been taken from the PIE form for ‘father-in-law’, *suek ̯ ̂
ur-o-: Skt.
śváśura-, YAv. x
v
asura-, MPers., NPers. xusur, Pashto sxar, Gr. ἑκυρός, Lat. socer,
OLat. socerus, OHG swehur, CS svekrъ (*sweśur- was replaced by *swekr <
*swek̂
r- analogically after svekry ‘mother-in-law’, see Derksen 2008: 475), Lith.
šẽšuras, etc. The Armenian, Indic and Baltic forms are explained through a distant
assimilation *s...k ̂ > *k̂
...k̂
. The Armenian word for ‘father-in-law’ was replaced by
skesr-ayr, a compound with ayr ‘man, husband’; cf. Lat. socer-pater, Germ.
Schwiegervater, etc.
For the etymology and a discussion of various issues related with this term, see
Meillet 1896: 152; Hübschmann 1897: 491; Scheftelowitz 1904-05, 1: 290-292;
Lidén 1911: 381-384; HAB 4: 228 with more references; Kortlandt 1976: 96-97 =
2003: 6 (with a thorough description within the chronological framework);
Szemerényi 1977: 63-67; Greppin 1984: 94; Saradževa 1986: 257-258; Pârvulescu
1989a: 79-88; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 675-676; Olsen 1999: 189; Viredaz 2003:6838 (*swekura ̂ ̄ > *sweśura > *śweśura > skesur). For the problem of *kû̯- > sk-, see
also 2.1.21.
skund, a-stem (NHB 2: 722a without evidence) ‘dog, puppy’ (Grigor Magistros,
Nersēs Šnorhali).
●DIAL Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 231a) hesitantly mentions Ewdokia kondik ‘puppy’.
●ETYM Compared with OHG hunt, Germ. Hund ‘dog’, etc., from *kû̯on-to-, cf. also
Arm. šun ‘dog’ (Hübschmann 1877: 17, 211; Lidén 1911: 381-385; HAB 4: 230b
with more references; Meillet 1936: 50-51; Specht 1947: 32, 221; Solta 1960: 57,
574; Hanneyan 1998: 160-161); for references and a discussion of the anlaut
problem, see 2.1.21. For non-IE comparable forms (e.g. OChin. *koond ‘big dog’)
see s.v. šun ‘dog’.
Alternatively, Arm. skund is compared with Slav. *ščen- ‘puppy’, Wakhi skən,
skön ‘puppy’, etc. (see Pedersen 1905: 197; 1906: 422 = 1982: 59, 200; Grammont
1918 HAB 4: 230b; Abaev 1965: 14, 21-22; Kortlandt 1976: 96 = 2003: 6; sceptical:
Greppin 1984: 93-94; Ravnæs 1991: 141-142, 166; cf. Schrijver 1991: 461).
*sɫ- (dial.) ‘ice, frost’.
●DIAL Dial. *sɫ-on ‘ice pieces on river’ [DialAdd apud NHB 2: 1066c], Muš sɫɔn
‘id.’ [Amatuni 1912: 594a]; *sɫ-i(n) ‘ice pieces on river, icy layer on river,
hoarfrost’: Muš sɫi, Margari-Ēǰmiacin sɫin ‘ice pieces on river’ [Amatuni 1912:
594a], Nor Bayazet sɫin ‘very thin icy layer on river or water’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 974b],
Alaškert (Aparan-Aragac) səɫin ‘ice, hoarfrost’ [Madat‘yan 1985: 239b]. Amatuni
(1912: 705b) records also sɫin ‘frozen fruit (said of apple, pear, grapes)’ in the
village of Zeyva, Ēǰmiacin district.
●ETYM See s.v. saṙn ‘ice’.
smk‘im ‘to grow dry’; Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 234-235) only cites dialectal forms and
MidArm. caus. smk‘ec‘uc‘anem ‘to make dry’ (Geoponica, 13th cent.). He does not
accept the connection with c‘amak‘- suggested in NHB 2: 724a and leaves the origin
of the word open.
●ETYM For other MidArm. attestations, dialectal forms and etymology, see s.v.
c‘amak‘ ‘dry; earth’.
soɫim ‘to crawl, creep; to move smoothly on, steal, glide’ (Bible+), soɫam ‘id.’ (John
Chrysostom, Nersēs Šnorhali, “Čaṙəntir”, etc.), soɫ-m-im ‘id.’ (hapax, John
Chrysostom); soɫun, o-stem ‘reptile’ (Bible+; see Olsen 1999: 602-606), soɫ-osk-, in
the verb soɫoske/im ‘to glide, steal’ (Gregory of Nyssa, Paterica, Grigor Magistros,
Nersēs Lambronac‘i, etc.) and a number of derivatives (Philo, Anania Narekac‘i,
Grigor Magistros, Nersēs Lambronac‘i, etc.); soɫ ‘creeping’ (noun) in Łazar
P‘arpec‘i (5th cent.), ‘creeping’ (adj.) in the Alexander Romance.
●DIAL The verb soɫam is widespread in the dialects. The root soɫ is present in Łazax,
in the compound verbs *soɫ linel ‘to glide’, *soɫ tal ‘to creep’. Hačən turkized
sɔɫulmiš nɔl ‘to creep’ (or suɫulmiš nɔl, see Ačaṙyan 2003: 338). Derivatives: Van
*soɫ-an ‘creeping (animal)’, Van *soɫ-soɫ-ik ‘lizard’, Łarabaɫ, etc. *p‘or-a-soɫ
‘creeping on one’s belly’ [HAB 4: 240-241].
According to Andreasyan (1967: 35), Svedia has c‘uɫil, with an unclear c‘-. This
is hardly a misprint (though in 383a one only finds s-) since the form is mentioned in a list of words which display irregular consonantal correspondences. Moreover, this
form is corroborated by K‘esab juɫum ‘to crawl, creep’, juɫun ‘reptile’ (see
Č‘olak‘ean 1986: 40, 217b), which presupposes an older *c‘- or j-.
●ETYM Petersson (1916: 256) links with Skt. tsárati ‘to steal, sneak; to stalk, creep
up on’, tsáru- m. ‘a crawling animal (snake)’, derived from *(H)d (cf. Lat. ad ‘to’) +
*sel- (cf. Lith. selė́ti ‘to creep’, etc.); see Pokorny 1959: 900; J̌
ahukyan 1967: 251;
Mayrhofer EWAia 1: 687 (with reservation); Mallory/Adams 1997: 141a. Later,
Petersson (1920: 84) proposes another, less probable etymology.
The root underlying Skt. tsárati, etc. may be reconstructed as *tsel- (Lubotsky,
p.c.). In this case, we are dealing with a development *tsV- > Arm. *sV- (cf.
2.1.22.5). As to the o-grade, one may tentatively assume that the original unattested
PArm. verb *sel- took it from the deverbative soɫ ‘creeping’ attesteed in Łazar
P‘arpec‘i (5th cent.) and in the Alexander Romance, and preserved in the dialect of
Łazax. Compare gaɫ- ‘to hide, conceal’ (late attestations; dialects) vs. goɫ ‘thief’ and
goɫanam ‘to steal’ (both: Bible+, widespread in the dialects), goɫem ‘to hide’
(Afrahat/Zgōn, Paterica, Michael the Syrian). Or else, the verb soɫ- is an old
iterative, as gorcem ‘to work’ (q.v.), on which see Meillet 1922i.
It is attractive to interpret Svedia and K‘esab *c‘oɫ- as an archaic reflex of IE *ts-.
Alternatively, the Armenian word may belong to PIE *k̂
el-: Skt. śárman- n.
‘cover, shelter, protection’, OIr. celid ‘to hide’, Lat. cēlāre ‘to hide’, etc. (see
Schrijver 1991: 124-125; Mayrhofer EWAia 2: 620); for the semantics compare
Yazgh. sar-/sard ‘to creep, steal, sneak up to, lie in ambush, spy upon’, if indeed
belongs here (see Morgenstierne 1974: 75a).
sosord, o-stem: ISg sosord-o-v ‘throat’ (Severian of Gabala, Gregory of Nyssa, etc.);
sos(o)r ‘id.’ (Galen); dial. *sor-sor-ik ‘belly of animals’.
●DIAL Bulanəx sor-sor-ik ‘belly of animals’ [HAB 4: 244b].
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 244) rejects all the etymological suggestions, among them
also the connection with sor ‘hole, cave’ (q.v.) suggested by Lidén 1906: 134. This
etymology can be taken seriously especially if one accepts the appurtenance of Toch.
B kor n. ‘throat’ to this PIE etymon (see Adams 1999: 203-204 for Tocharian).
In view of late sos(o)r and dialectal sor-sor-ik, we may tentatively posit a PArm.
reduplicated *so(r)-sor ‘throat’, which later became sosord through contamination
with kokord ‘throat’.
sor, o-stem: GDPl sor-o-c‘ (Jeremiah 48.28) ‘cave, hole, hollow; den, lair’ (Bible+);
sorem ‘to go into (a cave, etc.)’ (Bible+), sor-sor-em ‘to be dispersed’ (Bible+), etc.
A few textual illustrations:
In P‘awstos Buzand 6.16, 5th cent. (1883=1984: 230L-7; transl. Garsoïan 1989:
239): i sors k‘aranjawac‘ “in stony caves” ); k‘ar-anjaw is composed of k‘ar ‘stone’
and anjaw ‘cave’.
In Grigor Narekac‘i 40.2 (Xač‘atryan/Łazinyan 1985: 409L16; Russ. transl. 1988:
143; Engl. transl. 2001: 199): Oč‘ p‘apark‘ p‘osic‘, oč‘ sork‘ heɫeɫac‘ : Ни впадины
ям, ни русла потоков : “Nor cavities of pits, or beds of streams”.
In Sebēos (7th cent.), Chapter 20 (Xač‘atryan/Eɫiazaryan 2005: 102L-6; transl.
Thomson 1999: 39): ew ink‘eank‘ aysr ew andr sorsoreal xusap‘ēin “Then they
dispersed here and there and stole away”. ●DIAL Preserved in a few dialects referring to the continuous outflow of something
from a hole [HAB 4: 246a]. T‘iflis soro ‘hole, den, nest’ is a back loan from Georg.
soro ‘hole, den, lair’ < PArm. *soro- [HAB 4: 246].
●ETYM Related with Gr. κύαρ n. ‘a hole, as the eye of a needle; orifice of the ear’,
Lat. caverna ‘cavern, grotto, cave, hole’, Skt. śū́na- n. ‘emptiness’, YAv. sūra-
‘lacuna’, etc., see Meillet 1898: 278; Hübschmann 1899: 49; HAB 4: 246a; Pokorny
1959: 592-593; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 650 (without the Armenian form);
Mallory/Adams 1997: 96a122.
Arm. sor is usually derived from QIE *k̂
ouH(e)ro- through vocalic assimilation
and loss of -w-; for a discussion and various views, see Pisani 1950: 185; J̌
ahukyan
1959: 233; 1990a: 9-10; Eichner 1978: 15027; È. Tumanjan 1978: 183; Aɫabekyan
1979: 86-87; Kortlandt 1980: 102; 1993: 10-11 = 2003: 29-30, 102-103; Ravnæs
1991: 81; Mallory/Adams 1997: 96a; Adams 1999: 204.
An alternative etymology has been proposed for the Iranian word: MPers. sūrag
‘hole, burrow’, MPers., NPers. sūrāx ‘hole’ [MacKenzie 1971: 78], Zor. Pahl. sūrāk
‘hole’, Pashto sūrai ‘hole’ < *subra-ka-, cf. NPers. surb ‘cavern’, Skt. śvábhra- n.
‘Grube, Kluft, Erdspalte’, etc. (see Wikander 1974; Bailey 1979: 11b; Lubotsky
1988: 92; Lubotsky 2001a: 52-53; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 675).
According to Adams (1999: 203-204), PIE *k̂
uHr ‘hole, opening’ may be
reflected also in Toch. B kor n. ‘throat (both internal and external)’. If this is
accepted, one is tempted to consider also Arm. sosord ‘throat’, dial. sor-sor-ik ‘belly’
(q.v.).
Arm. sor may reflect QIE *k̂
ouH(e)ro- or, perhaps better, if the PIE word
belonged to the *-r/n- heteroclitic declension, old nominative *k̂
ouH-r (cf. Gr. κύαρ
n. ‘hole’) + thematic *-o-, as Arm. hur, o-stem ‘fire’ (q.v.). Thus: *k̂
ouH-r > PArm.
*sówər > *so(w)or through assimilation and subsequent loss of -w-; or, less
probably, *sow-r > sor, with -wr > -r (see 2.1.23, 2.1.33.1). For the loss of *-u̯- in
similar conditions, see s.vv. alewr ‘flour’, jor ‘ravine’, nor ‘new’
spṙik ‘completely, perfectly’. Only in Socrates (see HAB 4: 266-267).
●ETYM According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 266-267; see also J̌
ahukyan 1959: 234),
belongs with MidArm. sprkik ‘clean, pure’ and ClArm. surb (q.v.). In my view, it
rather derives from Pahl. spurrīk ‘entire, complete, perfect’ (for which see
MacKenzie 1971: 76; Nyberg 1974: 179a). Compare also Arm. spaṙ and spuṙ [HAB
4: 260-261].
stin, an-stem: GDSg stean, AblSg i sten-ē, ISg steam-b, GDPl stean-c‘, AblPl i steanc‘, IPl steam-b-k‘ ‘breast of a woman’ (Bible+); stn-di, -deay, -deac‘ ‘milk-drinking
(baby)’ (Bible+).
●ETYM Connected with Skt. stána- m. ‘breast of a woman, mother’s breast, nipple’
(the comparison already in NHB 746a), viśvá-psnya- ‘providing milk/food to all’,
YAv. fštāna- m ‘breast of a woman’, MPers., NPers. pestān ‘breast’, Gr. στήνιον·
στῆϑος (Hesychius), Lith. spenỹs ‘nipple’, etc., cf. also Gr. στῆϑος, -εος n. ‘breast (of
both sexes)’. See Hübschmann 1897: 493; Meillet 1978 (< 1923, BSL 23: 96): 192; HAB 4: 275a with more references; Pokorny 1959: 990; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996:
752; Mallory/Adams 1997: 81-82.
The anlaut of the PIE word (perhaps simplified from *spt-, *pst- or the like) and
the an-declension of the Armenian word are troublesome. For a discussion see, apart
from the references above, Pedersen 1906: 415 = 1982: 193; J̌
ahukyan 1959: 177-
178; Ravnæs 1991: 7, 171; Clackson 1994: 99; Olsen 1999: 135-136; Beekes 2003:
198.
The IE by-form *psten- is considered a lexical agreement which unites IndoIranian, Greek and Armenian (see Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 1: 418 = 1995, 1: 365;
Clackson 1994: 2376.4). However, here belongs also, most probably, Toch. A päśśäṃ,
B päścane dual ‘woman’s breasts’ < PToch. *päścäne < PIE thematic dual *pstenō,
cf. Skt. dual stánā (Duchesne-Guillemin 1940: 169; Mallory/Adams 1997: 81b;
Adams 1999: 382).
sring (or srink), a-stem: GDSg srng/ki, GDPl srng-a-c‘, IPl srng-a-w-k‘ (Bible+); gen.
srnk-i, with -k-, is attested a few times in Daniel 3.5-15 (see Cowe 1992: 165-166),
and in Plato; ‘pipe, fife’ (Bible+).
●ETYM Since HHB and NHB, compared with Gr. σῦριγξ, -ιγγος f. ‘shepherd’s pipe,
panpipe’, which is considered to be of Phrygian or Mediterranean origin (see
thoroughly HAB 4: 283-284; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 310; Greppin 1990b: 351). Gr. σῦριγξ
and the synonymous σάλπιγξ, -ιγγος f. ‘war-trumpet’ and φόρμιγξ, -ιγγος f. ‘lyre’, all
containg the same ending *-ing, are considered to be non-IE – Mediterranean or
oriental loans (see Meillet, p.c. from 04.12.1931 apud HAB 4: 283b; Frisk 2, s.vv.).
Ačaṙyan (1937: 3) treats Arm. sring and Greek σῦριγξ as borrowed from Phrygian,
pointing out that the Armenian “ne peut pas être emprunté au grec, mais précisément
au phrygien”. Olsen 1999: 928 considers sring to be a Greek loanword.
Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 284a) notes that Arm. sring might also be connected with
Skt. śŕ̥ṅga- n. ‘horn’ (RV+) < *k̂
r-n-g(w)o-, a derivative of PIE *k̂
er(h2)- ‘horn’, but
sound correspondences are irregular. On this and other issues, see Greppin 1990b
and 1990c. One might assume *k̂
r(H)-en-g- or the like (cf. Skt. pataṅgá- adj.
‘flying’, m. ‘bird; flying horse; sun’ from heteroclitic *pat-r- : *pat-an-g-, see
Nussbaum 1986: 13; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 72-73, 75). On this and other
issues, see Greppin 1990b and 1990c. Further, see s.v. srun-k‘ ‘shin’.
To conclude, Arm. sring and Gr. σῦριγξ reflect a non-Indo-European
Mediterranean cultural term, which may be of an ultimate IE origin. If the latter
statement is accepted, we may be dealing with a late IE cultural back loan
comparable to the cases of agarak ‘landed property, estate’, burgn ‘tower, pyramis’
and durgn ‘potter’s wheel’ (see s.vv.)
srun-k‘ i-stem: GDPl srōn-i-c‘ (note -ō-, = -aw-) once in the Bible and in Paterica;
n-stem: GDPl sruan-c‘ (twice in Nonnus of Nisibis), sran-c‘ (John Chrysostom,
Anania Širakac‘i), o-stem: GDPl srn-o-c‘ (Anania Širakac‘i), etc. ‘shin, shank; the
leg’, in Acts 3.7, perhaps, ‘ankle’, see Olsen 1999: 79 (= Gr. σφυδρά) (Bible+).
Spelled also as srungn, srunkn, srōn-k‘ (in Vardan Aygekc‘i; see above on GDPl
srōn-ic‘), etc. The compound sṙn-a-pan-k‘ ‘greaves’ (for the structure, see Olsen
1999: 322-323) is attested first in 1 Kings 17.6, in the story of David and Goliath:
sṙnapank‘ pɫnjik‘ i veray barjic‘ noray = Gr. καὶ κνημῖδες χαλκαῖ ἐπάνω τῶν σκελῶναὐτοῦ “And he had greaves of bronze upon his legs” (note barj ‘thigh, leg’ = Gr.
σκέλος). Note also the denominative verb srng-em in different meanings.
●DIAL Preserved only in Moks: srungy ‘the stem ends of wheat remaining attached
to the soil after mowing (stubble)’ [HAB 4: 286a] (see also Orbeli 2002: 325,
sərungy
). Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 286a) questions whether Karin, Axalc‘xa srnk‘-t-il ‘to
slip and fall down’ belongs here, too.
●ETYM Hübschmann (1881: 176; 1897: 493-494Nr382; see also Scheftelowitz
1904-05, 1: 285) derives from PIE *krû ̄s-ni-, connecting with Lat. crūs ‘shank’.
Treated as an Armeno-Italian isogloss [Hanneyan 1979: 183; Aɫabekyan 1979: 65,
75, 124]. A contamination with PIE *k̂
louni- has been assumed, cf. Skt. śróṇi- f.
(most in dual) ‘buttock, hip, loin’, YAv sraoni- f. ‘buttock, hip’, NPers. surūn
‘buttock’; Lat. clūnis ‘buttock, club, tail-bone’; Lith. šlaunìs ‘hip, thigh’; Gr. κλόνις,
-ιος f. ‘os sacrum (Steißbein)’, κλόνιον n. ‘loin(s), hip-joint’, etc. [HAB 4: 285-286;
Olsen 1999: 79].123 One alternatively considers Arm. srun-k‘ an Iranian loan,
although in this case the semantics is remote (see J̌
ahukyan 1981: 27-28; 1987: 176,
551; L. Hovhannisyan 1990: 215; Beekes 2003: 175, 196). For a discussion of the
anlaut, see Kortlandt 1985b: 10-11; 1985a: 61; 1986: 42 = 2003: 58-59, 61-62, 71
(see also s.v. kṙunk ‘crane’); Clackson 1994: 44, 233262; Olsen 1999: 79.
The hollow shinbone was used for making flutes and other implements (e.g.,
bobbins) in and around the house, see 3.9.2. Bearing this in mind, one may wonder
if PArm. *sru-n ‘shin, shank’ is related with sru-il ‘a kind of musical instrument’
and sring ‘pipe’ (q.v.). In view of synonymous words containing the suffix -un (see
s.v. c‘awɫ, c‘awɫ-un ‘stem, stalk; straw’), one may interpret Arm. srun-k‘ as *sru-un
or *sru-wn. In this respect, note especially GDPl sruan-c‘, which presupposes nom.
*sru-w/mn (see 2.1.22.11).
sulem ‘to whistle’ (Philo, Yovhannēs Ōjnec‘i, etc.), slem ‘id.’ (Grigor Magistros).
●DIAL Zeyt‘un, Svedia, Hamšen redupl. sl-vl- ‘to whistle’, Sved. sl-vl-uk ‘flute’, Van
sul-sul- ‘to whistle’ [HAB 4: 242]. Hamšen slvluš refers to the whistling or hissing
of people, birds and snakes [Ačaṙyan 1947: 253].
●ETYM Compared with Skt. śvasiti ‘to hiss, pant, snort’, Lith. švañkšti ‘to wheeze’,
OIc. hvæsa ‘to hiss, snort’, Engl. whistle, etc., as well as Arm. šunč‘ ‘breath,
blowing, wind’ (q.v.); a possible proto-form of Arm. *soyl- is QIE *k̂
eul-; see
Petersson 1916: 255; Pokorny 1959: 632; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 133.
Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 242a) does not accept the etymology and leaves the origin of
the word open. He points out that the resemblance with Georg. sivili ‘whistling or
hissing of arrows, snakes’ is accidental. This word is reminiscent of Arm. dial. slvl-,
although the nature of relation is hard to determine.
sunkn, sungn, sunk, sung ‘tree-mushroom’ in Geoponica (13th cent.), Galen,
Amirdovlat‘ Amasiac‘i (15th cent.), etc.; ‘mushroom-like abscess’ in Galen,
Amirdovlat‘ Amasiac‘i, etc.; GSg snkan in “Tōnanamak” and Yaysmawurk‘ (both –
in the second meaning) [NHB 2: 732a; MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 339a]. Dial. ‘(tree-
)mushroom’. ●DIAL Dialectally ubiquitous. The final nasal has been preserved in J̌
uɫa sungn,
Ararat sungə, Agulis sɔ́
ngən, Łarabaɫ sɔ́
ngy
nə, sɔ́
ynə. In a number of Western
dialects: sunk/g [HAB 4: 252a]. The final -n is also absent from the paradigm in
Van-group, cf. Moks sungy
, GSg səngy
-ə
ɛ
, NPl səngy
-ir [Orbeli 2002: 326].
Ararat (Vaɫaršapat/Ēǰmiacin, Borč‘alu/Loṙi) sokon [Amatuni 1912: 595b];
according to Nawasardeanc‘ (1903: 108b), also sɔkɔ. Borrowed from Georg. soḳo
‘mushroom’ [HAB 4: 252a].
●ETYM Connected with Gr. σπόγγος, σφόγγος m. ‘sponge; any spongy substance,
e.g. tonsils’, Lat. fungus m. ‘fungus, mushroom’ [Bugge 1889: 22; Pedersen 1982:
62, 292; HAB 4: 251-252]. For the fluctuation -nk- : -ng- (cf. Scheftelowitz 1904-
05, 1: 283) compare e.g. ank/g- ‘to fall’.
According to Lidén (1933: 51-52), the abnormal sound correspondences (on
which, see Furnée 1972: 164, 232, 360) point to a Wanderwort, the source of which
is unknown. In order to explain the anlaut of the Armenian form, he (Lidén op. cit.
521; see also J̌
ahukyan 1967: 214-215; 1982: 22252) assumes a metathesized
*psongos. See s.v. xstor ‘garlic’ and 2.1.22.5. Also Frisk (2: 770) identifies the
Greek, Latin and Armenian forms as “altes Wanderwort”. We are probably dealing
with a common borrowing from a lost source [J̌
ahukyan 1982: 113; Clackson 1994:
183]. Beekes (2003: 197-198) notes: “this is no doubt a non-IE word”.
Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 252a) treats Georg. soḳo ‘mushroom’ as an Armenian loan, and
Arm. dial. sɔkɔn as a back-loan from Georgian. However, the word is present in all
Kartvelian languages: *soḳo- ‘mushroom’: Georg. (not in OGeorg.), Megrel., Laz
soḳo, Svan soḳ(w) ‘id.’; as well as in Nakho-Dagestanian languages: Bezhta, Hunzib
zoḳo, etc. (see Klimov 1964: 165). J̌
ahukyan (1990: 68; cf. 1987: 309-310) points
out that the Kartvelian forms are borrowed from IE, or they, together with the IE
forms, go back to a common source, probably Mediterranean. In view of the anlaut
*(p)s- and the voiceless velar, one might treat Kartvel. *soḳo- ‘mushroom’ as an old
Armenism. However, the absence of the nasal requires an explanation. Possibly
related forms are to be found in Uralic languages: Mordvin pango ‘mushroom’, etc.
(see Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 932, with lit.; Rédei 1986: 74-75).
Arm. spung ‘sponge’ (Bible+; dialect of Suč‘ava) is a Greek loan [NHB 2: 740a;
Hübschmann 1897: 381; HAB 4: 266b; Olsen 1999: 927].
I conclude that Arm. sunk/g(n), Gr. σπόγγος, σφόγγος, Lat. fungus, as well as
related Caucasian and, perhaps, Uralic forms, point to Medit/Pont. *sp/ph
ongo-
/*(ph
)songo- (and *(ph
)so(n)go-?) ‘mushroom, fungus; sponge’.
Medit/Pont. *sph
ong- ‘mushroom, fungus’ is somehow reminiscent of
*swomb/bh
- (cf. Gr. σομφός ‘spongy, loose, porous’, OHG swam(b) ‘mushroom,
etc., see Pokorny 1959: 1052; Salmons apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 539a). The latter
has been interpreted as a European substratum word [Beekes 2000: 30]. Klimov
(1991; 1994: 158-162) compares *swomb/bh
- with Georgian-Zan cumb/p ̣ ̣
- ‘to
saturate with water, get soaked’.
sut, o-stem (Bible, Philo, etc.), i-stem (Philo, Mxit‘ar Goš; cf. also AblSg i stē in
Movsēs Xorenac‘i) ‘false; falsehood, lie’ (Bible+). Verb stem ‘to lie’ (Bible+).
In compounds, not only with st-, but also sut- (as sut-ak ‘lying, liar’, etc.; see also
Aɫayan 1964: 306), which presupposes a radical *soyt.
●DIAL Dialectally ubiquitous. [HAB 4: 253b]. ●ETYM Connected with Gr. ψεύδομαι ‘to lie’, ψεῦδος n. ‘lie’, also ψύδος, ψύϑος
[Bugge 1893: 25-26; HAB 4: 253], as well as, perhaps, Slovak. šudit’ ‘to deceive’
[Beekes 2000: 31; 2003: 198]. If from PIE *psu- ‘to blow’, an important
Greek-Armenian isogloss [Clackson 1994: 168-169]. According to Beekes (2000:
31; see also 2003: 152, 198), however, both δ/ϑ and ψ point to a non-IE form.
Clackson (1994: 168) derives the Armenian adjective from a zero-grade, thematic
form *psudo-, pointing out that one would rather expect an *e grade form. Then he
involves the radical *soyt (cf. sutak, etc.) from *pse/oud-. Olsen (1999: 47-48)
suggests a contamination of the s-stem noun and the zero-grade *-ro-adjective
known from Gr. ψυδρός.
I propose the following scenario. The old verbal stem was *soyt- = Gr. ψεύδομαι,
and the zero-grade of the adjective is taken from the nominative. The latter (i.e.
Arm. sut, o-stem) can be directly compared with Gr. ψεῦδος n. ‘lie’, which also has
a zero-grade form : ψύδος. One can reconstruct a PD neuter s-stem paradigm (NSg
*pséudos, GSg *psud-és-os) assuming that Armenian has generalized the oblique
stem. See 2.2.2.1 for other possible examples. The original verb *soyt was replaced
by denominative stem.
surb, o-stem ‘pure, clean; holy’ (Bible+); *supr (see below for a discussion); srb-an
‘anus’ in Zgōn (Afrahat), dial. *srb-an-k‘ ‘placenta’.
For a non-religious context, see e.g. Hexaemeron [K. Muradyan 1984: 76L19]. For
a general discussion of literary and dialectal data, see Mesropyan 2001.
In atmospheric context, surb ‘clean, bright’ is frequent in “Yaɫags ampoc‘ ew
nšanac‘” by Anania Širakac‘i, 7th cent. (A. G. Abrahamyan 1944: 304ff).
MidArm. sprkik, sprik, spkik, srbkik, etc. (Nersēs Lambronac‘i, Ansizk‘, etc.)
[NHB 2: 740ab; HAB 4: 256a; MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 344ab]. In “Bžškaran jioy” (13th
cent.), e.g.: spkik (Č‘ugaszyan 1980: 66 [three times], 71L16, 110 [twice]); sprkik
(52L-4); in the glossary: p. 238. Of these forms, srb-k-ik can be the original spelling.
We are dealing with double diminutive. In this case, *srpkik yielded sprkik through
metathesis, to simplify the odd cluster srpk-.
Remarkably, one finds supr in the Latin-Armenian glossary of Autun
[Weitenberg 1983: 18]. See below for a discussion.
●DIAL Dialectally ubiquitous [HAB 4: 256b].
*srb-an-k‘ ‘placenta’ in Łarabaɫ [Ačaṙean 1913: 986a], Alaškert, Aparan, Sip‘an,
Širak [Amatuni 1912: 308a], Bulanəx [S. Movsisyan 1972: 71b]. According to
DialAdd apud NHB 2: 1067a: dial. srban-k‘ ‘prenatal liquid of a cow’.
In Sivri-Hisar124 one finds *surb ‘a kind of small frog that lives in humid holes’
[Ačaṙean 1913: 981b]. Obviously, Ačaṙyan considered the resemblance with surb
‘pure; holy’ to be accidental since he does not mention this dialectal animal-name in
HAB 4: 256b, s.v. surb. On the contrary, N. Mkrtč‘yan (PtmSivHisHay 1965: 455;
N. Mkrtč‘yan 2006: 152, 584; cf. also Mesropyan 2001: 119) identifies surp‘ ‘frog,
toad’ with surp‘ < ClArm. surb ‘pure; holy’ treating the animal-name as a relic of an
archaic beleif. Note Partizak mariam-gort ‘a big frog’ [Tēr-Yakobean 1960: 512],
containing the name of the Virgin Mary. On this issue, see 3.5.2.1.
Xut‘ *srb-or-ēk‘ ‘saints’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 986b], probably from coll. srb-or-ay-k‘ . ●ETYM Connected (since de Lagarde and Müller) with Skt. śubhrá- ‘shining,
glimmering, beautiful’, śobh-/śubha- ‘to be beautiful; to shine’, śúbh- f. ‘beauty,
splendour, ornament’ (all RV+), as well as Skt. śodh-/śudh- ‘to purify, cleanse; to
be/make clean’ (RV+), and derived from PIE *k̂
eu-2 ‘to shine; bright’ : *k̂
u-bh
-ro-.
Mostly treated as a native Armenian word [Hübschmann 1883: 50; 1897: 492; HAB
4: 256; Pokorny 1959: 594; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 132; 1992: 21; Stempel 1988; L.
Hovhannisyan 1990: 213-214, 215; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 647, 658; Olsen
1999: 31; Beekes 2003: 206]. Also Hitt. šuppi- ‘purified, sacred’ has been connected
to these forms (see J̌
ahukyan 1967b: 73). This is attractive, albeit uncertain. On
some other uncertain cognates (Lycian, Phrygian), see e.g. Bugge 1897-1901, 1: 40;
D’jakonov 1981: 71-72; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 291.
On the other hand, Arm. surb is regarded as borrowed from a lost Iranian form
*subra-; see Benveniste 1964: 2; Schmitt 1983: 109; De Vaan 1999: 11. In view of
the o-stem and regular metathesis *-bh
r- > -rb-, Xač‘aturova (1973: 192) treats surb
as an old inheritance rather than an Iranian borrowing or Armeno-Aryan isogloss.
More probably, I think, the addition of two elements, namely *-bh
- and *-ro-, points
to a shared innovation. Later, Xač‘aturova (1979: 368) is inclined to the loan theory.
J
̌
ahukyan (1987: 551) mentions the metathesis and the semantic difference between
the Sanskrit and Armenian words, and considers the native origin of surb as more
probable. Note the absence of metathesis in Iranian loans such as atr-, čaxr-, vagr,
Tigran, etc. For a further (especially semantic) analysis, see Stempel 1988. For the
semantics, see also Abaev 3, 1979: 189.
A possible trace of OIr. *subra- is found in Khotanese suraa- ‘clean, pure’
(Emmerick/Skjærvø 1997: 155; see also Lubotsky 2001a: 5151; Cheung 2007: 368).
Since the root structure T...Dh is impossible in PIE, Lubotsky (1998a: 78-79;
2001a: 51) assumes a root with s-mobile, *(s)kubh
-ró- : *(s)kubh
- ‘clean, beautiful’,
and connects the root with PIE *(s)keu(h1)- ‘to observe’: Gr. κοέω ‘to notice’, OHG
scouwōn ‘to look at’, Goth. skauns ‘beautiful’. He (ibid., especially 2001a: 5151)
treats Arm. surb as an Iranian loanword.
The form supr in the Latin-Armenian glossary of Autun deserves particular
attention. Weitenberg (1983: 18) notes: “showing metathesis?”. Such a metathesis
would seem strange and unmotivated, however. One must take also MidArm. sprkik,
sprik, spkik, srbkik, etc. into consideration. The glossary is older than the MidArm.
period (it has been compiled in or before the 9th century, see Weitenberg, op. cit.
13-14), so one might think that MidArm. sprkik directly reflects an OArm.
unmetathesized by-form *subr-, cf. Skt. śubhrá-. Since the development *-bh
ro- >
Arm. -rbo- is unobjectionable and unvariable, one has to assume a by-form like
*k̂
ubh
-r̥, or an unattested Iranian cognate *subr (compare the case of vagr ‘tiger’). A
simpler solution would be to regard supr as a back formation based on sprkik, the
latter reflecting srb-k-ik (simplification of the cluster).
According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 266-267), hapax spṙ-ik ‘completely’ (in Socrates)
belongs here, too. In my view, it rather derives from Pahl. spurrīk ‘entire, complete,
perfect’ (for which see MacKenzie 1971: 76; Nyberg 1974: 179a). Compare also
Arm. spaṙ and spuṙ [HAB 4: 260-261].
I conclude that Arm. surb, o-stem ‘pure, clean; holy’ and Skt. śubhrá- ‘shining,
glimmering, beautiful’ (probably also Khotanese suraa- ‘clean, pure’), go back to *(s)ku-bh
-ro- rather than *k̂
u-bh
-ro-, and represent an Armenian-Indo(-Iranian)
isogloss. Iranian origin of Arm. surb (an old borrowing with metathesis?) is not
compelling.125 For the anlaut development of Arm. surb from *(s)ku-bh
-ro- compare
Arm. sanduɫ-k‘ ‘ladder, stairs’ vs. Lat. scālae ‘ladder’, scandō ‘to climb, mount,
ascend’, etc. (see s.v.; compare also 2.1.22.5).
suk‘ ‘childless, sterile’, once in Zgōn-Afrahat said of a man, in contrast with amul
‘id.’ said of a woman: ayr suk‘ ew kin amul. For a philological analysis, see HAB 4:
257.
●ETYM The word was found by Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 257), who does not record any
etymology for it. The connection of suk‘ with Gr. αὐχμός ‘drought’, Russ. suxoj
‘dry’, etc. suggested by J̌
ahukyan (1967: 252) must be considered untenable. It is not
included by J̌
ahukyan in his fundamental 1987.
I tentatively propose a comparison with Skt. sū́te ‘to give birth, beget’, sū́- f.
‘mother; birth’, sū́ti- f. ‘birth, origin’, sū́tu- m. ‘pregnancy’, OIr. suth ‘birth, fruit’,
etc. For the forms, see Pokorny 1959: 913-914; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 714;
Mallory/Adams 1997: 56b; see also s.v. ustr ‘son’. Arm. suk‘ may be treated as a
privative formation: n̥-suH-, cf. Skt. a-sū́- ‘nicht gebärend’.
Normally, a syllabic nasal gives Arm. an-. The absence of an a- here may be due
to early loss of the initial syllabic nasal (on which see 2.1.11), although I know of no
other example for this development. For the final -k‘ compare e.g. atok‘ ‘full, fat’,
barwok‘ ‘good, well’.
Thus: QIE *n̥-suH-k- ‘sterile, not capable of begetting or impregnating’ > *ə(n)suk
h
- > suk‘ ‘sterile’. Due to the loss of the privative *n- the word became opaque
early, and its privative structure was not sensed anymore. Probably this was the
reason why no secondary an- forms have been re-made on the basis of *su-.
Compare amul ‘sterile, childless’ from a frozen privative formation *n̥-pōlo- vs. ul
‘kid’, and ayri, ayrea- ‘widow’ which synchronically seems to reflect an i-derivative
of ayr ‘man, husband’ but should in fact be regarded as ‘husbandless’: *n̥-Hnēr-ieh2-
> PArm. *ananir-ia- > ayrea-.
V
vat‘sun, i-stem: GDPl vat‘sn-i-c‘ ‘sixty’ (Bible+).
●DIAL See s.v. vec‘ ‘six’.
●ETYM Belongs to vec‘ ‘six’ (q.v.) probably from QIE *suwek̂
s. The explanation of
the change e > a through the lowering influence of the u in the following syllable
(Meillet 1936: 55; de Lamberterie 1978 271; Ravnæs 1991: 13; Clackson 1994 126-
127, 20621, 226135) is disproved by PIE *peruti > Arm. heru ‘last year’ (q.v.); for
further references and a discussion, see s.vv. asr ‘fleece’, caɫr ‘laughter, mockery’,
kamurǰ ‘bridge’, tasn ‘ten’. Most probably, the vowel -a- can be explained by
assuming a zero-grade form taken from the ordinal, see Kortlandt 1994a: 255-256;
1996a: 57 = 2003: 100-101, 118; Beekes 2002 [2004]: 19; 2003: 156.
vay, i-stem: GDSg vay-i (Ezekiel 7.26, John Chrysostom, etc.), ISg vay-i-w (vay zvayiw twice in Patmut‘iwn srboc‘ Hṙip‘simeanc‘, see MovsXorenMaten 1865:
302L11f), IPl vay-i-w-k‘ (Agat‘angeɫos, Łewond, Aristakēs Lastivertc‘i, Grigoris
Aršaruni); o-stem: GDSg vay-o-y (Agat‘angeɫos, John Chrysostom), GDPl vay-o-c‘
(Paterica) ‘cry of woe, disaster’ (Bible, Agat‘angeɫos, Eɫišē, John Chrysostom, etc.);
váy ‘ah! alas! woe!’, abundant in the Bible (Astuacaturean 1895: 1391-1392),
attested also in Eusebius of Caesarea, Hesychius of Jerusalem, Nersēs Lambronac‘i,
etc.; vayem ‘to lament, utter a woe’ in the Bible, P‘awstos Buzand, Paterica, etc.
[NHB 2: 775-776, 777-778].
A textual illustration of IPl vay-i-w-k‘ from Agat‘angeɫos § 33 (1909=1980: 23L6f;
transl. Thomson 1976: 49): Ew ink‘eank‘ andrēn darjeal, vayiwk‘, čč‘ovk‘ ew
oɫbovk‘, ew amenayn erkirn žoɫoveal zt‘agaworn ašxarēin : “They themselves then
returned with cries of woe and lamentation, and the whole land gathered to mourn
the king”.
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects [Ačaṙean 1913: 992-993].
●ETYM Not recorded in HAB and HAB-Add 1982.
An onomatopoeic word found in many languages (cf. NHB 2: 775c), probably
inherited from PIE: Gr. οὐαί ‘alas!’, Lat. vae ‘ah! alas! woe!’, MIr. fae ‘alas’, Goth.
vai ‘alas’, etc. The preservation of *u̯- in Armenian and Greek is undoubtedly due to
the onomatopoeic/expressive nature of the word (Pokorny 1959: 1110; J̌
ahukyan
1987: 198; Ravnæs 1991: 69; Mallory/Adams 1997: 313; Olsen 1999: 34, 787).
Arm. gayl ‘wolf’ (q.v.), possibly belonging here as ‘the howler’, represents the
regular sound change *u̯- > Arm. g-.
vayel ‘decent, worthy, proper’, vayel ē (+ dat.) ‘it is proper’ (Bible+), vayel-k‘
‘enjoyment, delight’: i-stem: GDPl vayel-i-c‘, IPl vayel-i-w-k‘ (Book of Chries,
“Yačaxapatum”, Grigor Narekac‘i, etc.), ‘use’ (Eznik Koɫbac‘i); vayel-em ‘to enjoy’
(Bible+), vayel-uč‘ ‘decent; pleasant, delightful’ (Bible+); for -uč‘, see Olsen 1999:
616, with references and a discussion.
●DIAL The verb *vayel-el ‘to enjoy; to suit, be proper’ is widespread in the dialects,
mostly in contracted vɛl-. In Maraɫa and Salmast: lɛvɛl metathesized from *vɛlɛl
[HAB 4: 300a; Ačaṙean 1926: 76, 424]. On the metathesis, see 2.1.26.3.
●ETYM Compared with Skt. vayi
‘to pursue, seek, strive after, seek or take eagerly,
accept, enjoy’ [Dervischjan 1877: 49-50], Av. vaiia- ‘wish’, Gr. ἵεμαι ‘to strive
after; to wish, hurry’, etc. [Scheftelowitz 1904-05, 2: 42-43]; cf. also YAv. vaiieiti
‘pursues’, Oss. wajyn/wajun ‘to hurry’, Lith. výti ‘to drive, pursue, chase’, etc. (see
Mayrhofer EWAia, s.v.). This etymology is rejected by Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 299-300),
who leaves the origin of the word open. A reason for this is that the initial *u̯- would
yield Arm. g-. J̌
ahukyan (1967: 265), therefore, lists this word as an example of the
irregular reflex *u̯- > Arm. v-. One may treat vay-el as an (old) Iranian loan. For
-el(-) compare ayc‘ ‘visit, inspection, investigation’ (Bible+) : ayc‘-el-em in
Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, etc., and derivatives based on ayc‘-el-; arg-el
‘obstacle’, argel-um ‘to forbid’ (Bible+; cf. dial. *arg); see s.v. The comparison of
these examples is already suggested by Pedersen (1906: 354-355 = 1982: 132-133). Olsen (1999: 394) interprets vayel as containing a suffix -el-, of which no other
examples are cited. She points out that “the stem vay- is probably an old compound
of *upo- + hay-, cf. hayim ‘look, see’”. For an earlier attempt to link with hayim, see
Pedersen 1906: 438 = 1982: 216. Uncertain.
vandem ‘to drive away, destroy’ (John Chrysostom, Book of Chries).
●ETYM The verb has been compared with Goth. wunds ‘wounded’, etc. from *u̯en-
‘to hit, wound’, see Scheftelowitz 1904-05, 2: 21, 43, 62; Pisani 1950: 185.
Although accepted in Pokorny 1959: 1108 and Mallory/Adams 1997: 549a, the
etymology is improbable. In view of the anlaut, the Armenian word can hardly be a
native word (see HAB 4: 304b; Ravnæs 1991: 71).
veš-tasan, i-stem: GDPl veštasan-i-c‘ ‘sixteen’ (Bible+).
●ETYM See s.v. vec‘ ‘six’ probably from QIE *suwek̂
s. The development *-k̂
s-t- >
Arm. -št- in veštasan ‘sixteen’ should be explained in terms of the ruki-rule, see
2.1.12.
ver ‘upper brim’ (John 2.7, etc.), i ver ‘above, up, upwards’ (Bible+); i ver-a-y ‘on,
over’ (Bible+), cf. pl. ver-ay-s/c‘ (late); i ver-o-y ‘above, on top, from the top’
(Bible+); ver-in, o-stem: GDSg vern-o-y adj. ‘upper, supreme’, ver-ust adj. ‘situated
above’, i verust adv. ‘at/to a higher level, above, from above’, adv. verst-in ‘again,
for the second time’ (all Bible+); veranam ‘to ascend, vanish’ (Bible+).
For the semantic contrast between i veroy ‘above, on top’ and i veray ‘on’ note
Genesis 1.7 vs. 1.11 (Zeyt‘unyan 1985: 146, 147): i mēǰ ǰroyn, or i veroy
hastatut‘eann (‘above the firmament’) : ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ ὕδατος ἐπάνω τοῦ
στερεώματος. <...> i veray erkri ‘upon the earth’ : ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. For further attestations
see AčaṙLiak 5, 1965: 174-177.
●DIAL ClArm. i ver and i veray are very widespread in the dialects (HAB 4: 331b;
AčaṙLiak 5, 1965: 127, 176), but the preposition i has been lost almost everywhere,
except for Svedia i vir and ərva (HAB 4: 331b; Ačaṙyan 2003: 588; Hananyan 1995:
198b) or yərvan (Andreasyan 1967: 384a), K‘esab i vir, ərvä(n) (Č‘olak‘ean 1986:
218a). For textual illustrations, see Svazlyan 1984: 181a (irva-s ‘on me’ in two oath
formulae).
A number of dialects have also *verew, cf. stor-ew ‘below’, etc. [HAB 4: 331b].
Particularly interesting are Łarabaɫ, Hadrut‘, Goris, etc. yɛr and yəra, yə/irä, yɛ́
rɛ/i
[Davt‘yan 1966: 69-70, 477; Margaryan 1975: 95]. This development v- > y- is
irregular [Ačaṙean 1899: 131] and is not easily explicable through a recent process,
although there are also a few other examples, such as Verginē > Yɛrgy
inä [Davt‘yan
1966: 70], vayri ‘wild’ > Goris yɛri vs. vɛri, vec‘ ‘six’ > Xnjoresk yɛc‘c‘ vs. the basic
Goris form vɛc‘(c‘) [Margaryan 1975: 95]. One might think of such examples as
yoyg vs. vēg ‘a playing bone’, *yušap vs. višap ‘dragon’, etc. On the other hand, it is
tempting to treat Łarabaɫ, etc. yɛr as an archaic reflex of i ver > *i(w)er (cf. A.
Poɫosyan 1974: 129-131).
●ETYM Since long (HAB 4: 330-331 with rich literature and a discussion),
connected with Skt. upári ‘above, over, upwards’, úpara- ‘below, nearer’, YAv.
upara- ‘upper, higher’, Gr. ὕπερ ‘over, plenty; beyond; above’, ὑπέρα, pl. -αι f.
‘upper ropes on the sails’, Lat. s-uper ‘above, on, over’, superus ‘upper; heavenly,
celestial’, suprā ‘above, over, on the upper side of; beyond; earlier than; more than’, OHG ubir ‘over’, OEngl. ufera ‘higher’, etc. (see Bugge 1889: 24; 1893: 56; Meillet
1936: 49-50; Pisani 1950: 184-185; Pokorny 1959: 1105; Schmitt 1981: 76, 189,
211; Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 220-221).
Also Arm. ger ‘above, higher, over, more than’ has been linked with these words
(so also Meillet 1936: 49-50, although earlier, 1892: 164-165, he derived ver and ger
from *u̯er-; hesitantly Hübschmann 1897: 495; for further references, see HAB 4:
330-331).
For ver-in, i veroy, and ver-ust, see Olsen 466-468, 512, 620-621; for ver-ay/oy
Schmitt 1981: 189, 211.
For the structure of i ver and i veray, compare Lat. in-super adv. ‘on top, above,
in addition’, prep. ‘on to the top of, upon, over, above’, and in-suprā adv. ‘in
addition, besides’.
verǰ, i-stem: GDSg verǰ-i (Eɫišē), AblSg i verǰ-ē (Bible+), GDPl verǰ-i-w-k‘ (see on
verǰ-k‘); o-stem: i verǰ-oy(s) (Book of Chries, John Chrysostom) ‘end, limit, edge’
(Bible+); verǰ-k‘, i-stem: IPl verǰ-i-w-k‘ in Exodus 28.22, Movsēs Xorenac‘i 1.11
[1913=1991: 35L20, Thomson 1978: 87] pl. ‘tassels, fringe’ (Exodus 28.14, 22, 30),
‘plumes (of a helmet)’ (Movsēs Xorenac‘i 1.11); verǰ-ay-k‘ ‘the last days of one’s
life’ (Sirach 2.3, 30.1: i verǰaysn k‘o : ἐπ’ ἐσχάτων σου; i verǰaysn nora : ἐπ’ ἐσχάτων
αὐτοῦ); verǰin, o-stem: GSg verǰn-o-y, AblSg i verǰn-um, GDPl verǰn-o-c‘ ‘last,
latter, utmost’ (Bible+). If reliable, urǰ ‘end’ (only in Aṙjeṙn baṙaran, Venice, 1865;
see HAB 3: 618b) may belong here (J̌
ahukyan 1967: 264135).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects [HAB 4: 332b].
●ETYM No etymology is accepted in HAB 4: 332b. J̌
ahukyan 1987 vacat. Godel
(1975: 81) and Klingenschmitt (1982: 165-16610) independently connect verǰ with
ver ‘upper brim’, i ver ‘above, up, upwards’ from *upéri (the same comparison has
been suggested earlier by Patrubány and Pedersen, see HAB 4: 332b) and posit
*uperi̯o- for verǰ.
This etymology seems quite acceptable both phonologically, as far as *uper- >
ver- is concerned, and semantically (‘upper brim’ > ‘end’). As to *-i̯o-, note that verǰ
basically has an i-stem, although there is also some evidence for o- and a-stems.
Olsen (1999: 84) posits a vr̥kī́
-derivative *uperih2 based on the thematic stem
*upero-. This can explain the i-stem, and the ending -rǰ would be due to influence of
the oblique *-ri̯eh2- or the parallel formation *uperi̯o- > verǰ-o-.
One may also think of an old dual in *-ih1 referring to the two edges/tassels of
something (cf. acc. erku-s verǰ-s vs. Gr. δύο κροσσωτὰ in Exodus 28.14, instr. verǰ-iw-k‘ in 28.22), and the -ǰ- of the i-stem verǰ may be due to a possible influence of
aṙaǰ-in ‘first’.
For verǰin, -ǰnoy ‘last, latter, utmost’ from *-ino- (cf. Lat. supernus ‘situated
above’), see Olsen 1999: 466-468; cf. also aṙaǰ-in ‘first, prime, prior’ from aṙaǰ
‘front part, front’, q.v. (see also Kortlandt 1994a: 253 = 2003: 98). For verǰ-ust, cf.
ver-ust (see s.v. ver ‘up’).
Arm. coll. verǰay-k‘ ‘the last days of one’s life’ probably derives from *uper-ieh2-i > *uweri̯ai, cf. Gr. ὑπέραι f. pl. ‘upper ropes on the sails’. The only structural
difference between the Armenian and Greek formations is that the former is based
on the locative form *uperi. It is possible that the original form was *ver-ay-(k‘),
exactly like Greek, and this form was analogically replaced by verǰ-ay-k‘. The derivation of ver and verǰ from PIE *u̯er- and their connection with ger
‘above, higher, over, more than’ (J̌
ahukyan 1967: 267, 305) is untenable.
vec‘ (generally uninflected, rarely i-stem) ‘six’ (Bible+), note also vec‘ic‘s ‘six times’
in Job 5.19 (Cox 2006: 75); veš-tasan, i-stem: GDPl veštasan-i-c‘ ‘sixteen’ (Bible+);
vat‘sun, i-stem: GDPl vat‘sn-i-c‘ ‘sixty’ (Bible+).
●DIAL The form vec‘ is ubiquitous in the dialects. In the dialects of Svedia, Maraɫa,
Salmast, Łarabaɫ, and Goris, thus in SW, SE and E peripheries we find forms with a
final geminate -c‘c‘ [HAB 4: 333b]; vat‘sun is ubiquitous too [HAB 4: 294a], but
veštasan has been replaced by forms such as tasn-vec‘.
●ETYM Derives from the PIE word for ‘six’: Skt. ṣáṭ, ṣáṣ-, Pāli+ cha, YAv. xšuuaš,
MPers., NPers. šaš, Gr. ἕξ, Dor., etc. ϝέξ, Lat. sex, etc., see NHB 2: 817b;
Hübschmann 1897: 495; HAB 4: 333; Charpentier 1909: 243-244; Meillet 1922f:
140; Pisani 1950: 184; Pokorny 1959: 1044; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 681-682;
Mallory/Adams 1997: 402a.
The anlaut of this PIE word in general and the Armenian form in particular is
troublesome. The proto-forms *suek̂
s, *sek̂
s, and *uek̂
s would yield Arm. *k‘ec‘,
*ec‘, and *gec‘, respectively. Lubotsky 2000 reconstructs Proto-Indo-Iranian *šuac ̯ ́š.
For a discussion of the Armenian form see, apart from the references above,
Szemerényi 1960: 78-79; Klingenschmitt 1982: 60-611, 84, 117; Winter 1989: 34-
35; Aɫabekyan 1998: 58 (assuming a loan from an IE language), etc.
The development *suek̂
s > *suuek ̯ ̂
s > vec‘ suggested by several scholars is
plausible, but one must find a motivation for it. Szemerényi 1960: 78-79 starts with
*uek̂
s assuming a secondary *s- added on the analogy of *septm̥ ‘seven’. More
probably, we may posit *suu̯ek̂
s as a Lindeman form or with a secondary *u from
the ordinal *suk̂
so-, seen in OPr. uschts ‘sixth’ (cf. Kortlandt 1983: 14-15; 1994a:
254 = 2003: 44, 99; Beekes 2003: 165). For an extensive discussion, see Viredaz
1997.
See also s.vv. vat‘sun ‘sixty’ and veštasan ‘sixteen’.
viz, i- or a-stem: GDSg vz-i in Gregory of Nyssa, AblSg vz-ē in Eusebius of Caesarea
and Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.79 (see below) ‘neck’ (Movsēs Xorenac‘i, John
Chrysostom, Philo, etc.); ənd-vz-im ‘to rebel’ (Bible+), ənd-vz-em ‘to twist and
crash one’s neck’ in Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.79 (see below), etc.
In Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.79 (1913=1991: 218L2f; transl. Thomson 1978: 226): zvzē
ewet‘ kaleal yaɫt‘ēr “who used to win by a neck grip”. In a couple of lines below one
also finds the verb əndvzem : t‘ap‘eac‘ handerj əndvzeal ǰaxǰaxmamb (218L5).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects [HAB 4: 338a].
Next to viz, some Eastern dialects have also forms with an initial x-, which, as
Ačaṙyan hesitantly notes, may be identical with viz : Agulis xáyzak ‘back of the
head, occiput’, also compounds Łarabaɫ *xz-a-kot‘ (with kot‘ ‘handle, stem’),
Łarabaɫ, Agulis, Šamaxi, Łazax *xz-a-tak (with tak ‘under, bottom’), Łazax
*xz-i-tak, J̌
uɫa *xuz-a-tak, next to “normal” vz-a-kot‘ and vz-a-tak in other dialects
[HAB 4: 338a].
Agulis xáyzak presupposes *xizak, cf. siseṙn ‘pea’ > sáysäṙn, spitak ‘white’ >
spáytäk, cicaɫ ‘laughter’ > cáycäɫ, etc. (see Ačaṙean 1935: 61-62). Łarabaɫ, etc. *xz- implies *xiz or *xuz. J̌
uɫa *xuz-a-tak points to *xoyz [xuyz], *xiwz or *xuz, unless
the form is due to contamination with xuz ‘to cut hair’.
●ETYM See s.v. awji-k‘ ‘collar’.
*ta- / *tu- ‘to give, bestow; to hand; to pay, etc.’ (Bible+): 1sg.pres. ta-m, 3sg.pres. tay, 1sg.aor. e-tu, 2sg.aor. e-tu-r, 3sg.aor. e-t, 1pl.aor. tu-a-k‘, 3pl.aor. e-tu-n, 1sg.subj.
ta-c‘, 3sg.subj. ta-c‘-ē, imper. tu-r, pl. tu-k‘ (extremely rich evidence in the Bible,
see Astuacaturean 1895: 1412-22); tu-r (imper., see above), tur, mostly pl. tur-k‘, ostem: GDPl tr-o-c‘ (Bible+); i-stem: GDPl tr-i-c‘ (Basil of Caesarea, Paterica,
Nersēs Lambronac‘i), IPl tr-i-w-k‘ (Nersēs Lambronac‘i) ‘gift, giving, present,
donation’ (Bible+); -tu(r) ‘-giver, -bestower’ as the second member of a number of
compounds (Bible+), for the material, see Olsen 1999: 740.
A textual illustration from Genesis 3.12 (Zeyt‘unyan 1985: 156-157): Kins, zor
etur ənd is, sa et inj i caṙoy anti ew keray : “This woman whom thou gavest to be
with me, she gave me [fruit] of the tree, and I ate”.
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 4: 358a].
●ETYM From PIE *deh3- ‘to give’: Skt. dá-dā-ti ‘to give, present, offer’, MPers.
NPers. dādan ‘to give’, Gr. δίδωμι ‘to give’, δόσις f. ‘gift’, Lat. dō, dare, datum ‘to
give’, dōs, dōtis f. ‘gift, talent, dowry’, Lith. dúoti ‘to give’, OCS dati, SCr. dȁti ‘to
give’, etc., probably also Hitt. dā- ‘to take’; see Klaproth 1831: 101a; NHB 2: 842b;
HAB 4: 357 with lit.; Pokorny 1959: 223-225; Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 713-715;
Mallory/Adams 1997: 224b.
Arm. ta- and tu- reflect PIE zero-grade *dh3- and full-grade *deh3-, respectively;
cf. Lat. dă-re vs. Lith. dúoti ‘to give’, Gr. δόσις ‘gift’ vs. δίδωμι ‘to give’, etc. (see
Schrijver 1991: 99, 147, 402). Meillet 1936: 132-133 derives tam from PIE pres.
*də-i̯e-, cf. OCS 1sg.pres. dajǫ. Godel (1965: 23, 237 with ref.) alternatively
assumes an athematic present *də-mi (= *dh3-mi); see also Clackson 1994: 80-81.
Arm. subj. ta-c‘ reflects *dh3-sk- and corresponds to Greek δόσκον iterative of
δίδωμι (Clackson 1994: 82). The form tu-r, o-stem ‘gift’ corresponds to Gr. δῶρον n.
‘gift, present’, OCS darъ ‘gift’; for other examples, see s.v. lu-r ‘hearing’. Further
note 1.sg.aor. e-tu < *e-dōsom, cf. OCS daxъ ‘he gave’; 3.sg.aor. e-t, cf. Skt. ádāt <
*e-dōt. For the paradigm of tam and a discussion of these and related issues, see
Grammont 1918: 213; Meillet 1936: 133; Łaragyulyan 1961: 155-156; Godel 1965:
27, 36, 38; 1975: 117-118, 126-127; È. Tumanjan 1971: 383-385; Klingenschmitt
1981: 85-86, 278; Schmitt 1981: 44, 50, 51, 54, 60, 149, 154 and especially 156;
Saradževa 1986: 293-294.
The compositional *-tu(r) ‘giver, bestower’ may be derived from IE *deh3-tōr, cf.
Gr. δώτωρ ‘giver’, Skt. dā́tar-.
tal ‘husband’s sister’, attested only in Yovhannēs Erznkac‘i (13th cent. Gram., NHB 2:
837c) and in a 15th cent. colophon (MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 371a, GDSg tal-i). There is
no reliable evidence for the declension class. According to (NHB 2: 837c), the word
has an i-stem (cf. also HAB 4: 356b; Saradževa 1986: 259), and this is sometimes (cf. Tumanjan 1978: 218; Eichner-Kühn 1976: 29, 31) adopted without any remark
of caution. Strangely enough, J̌
ahukyan (1967: 182; 1987: 125, 167) repeatedly
treats tal as an o-stem.
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects [HAB 4: 357]. In some of them (Muš, Bulanəx,
Alaškert, T‘avriz, Moks, Van, Salmast), one finds *talw; in Moks – taləv [M.
Muradyan 1982: 139; Orbeli 2002: 330]. Metathesized in Maraɫa: tavl (not in
Davt‘yan 1966: 479).
J̌
uɫa has taln. Next to dal, Hamšen also has dalnug (with the diminutive suffix
-uk) which appears in a proverb, rhyming with haysnug < harsn-uk ‘little bride or
daughter-in-law’ (see Gurunyan 1991: 258). This might be taken as evidence
corroborating J̌
uɫa taln. However, dalnug should be considered analogical after
haysnug (note the rhyming context of the proverb), unless new evidence is found.
Svedia has dul and vocative *tal-tikin (with tikin ‘mistress, lady’) > daldə/igɛn
[Ačaṙyan 2003: 588; Andreasyan 1967: 277, 384b] or daldigayn [Gyozalyan 2001:
144].
●ETYM Since Bugge (1893: 27-28), connected to the PIE word for ‘husband’s
sister’: Gr. γάλως, Phryg. γέλαρος· ἀδελφοῦ γυνή, Φρυγιστί (Hesichius; perhaps to be
read as *γέλαϝος), Lat. glōs, OCS zъlъva, Russ. zolóvka, etc. The expected form
*cal was influenced by ta(y)gr ‘husband’s brother’ (Bugge ibid.; Meillet 1936: 144).
Beekes (1976: 13-16; cf. also Schrijver 1991: 131-132) reconstructed a PIE HD
u-stem: NSg *ĝélh2-ōu-s, GSg *ĝlh2-u̯-ós. As for the laryngeal, others prefer *h3, cf.
Huld apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 521-522.
Next to this, there is some evidence for an i-stem, which seems to corroborate
Arm. tal, -i : Gr. γάλις · γαλαός (Hes), Skt. giri- f. ‘sister-in-law’, see especially
Eichner-Kühn 1976: 28-32; Szemerényi 1977: 90-91; Mayrhofer 1986: 104; EWAia
1, 1992: 487-488, where *gl̥h2-i- is reconstructed. In order to explain the
unpalatalized g-, Eichner-Kühn (op. cit. 30-31) assumes that the PIE etymon had
*g-, and the Slavic z- is due to contamination with the word for ‘Schwiegersohn’, cf.
Russ. zjat’. However, the dental t- in Arm. tal would be easily explained from *cal
with a dental affricate rather than from *kal. Moreover, Skt. giri- ‘sister-in-law’
seems to be nonexistent (Griffiths/Lubotsky 2009).
The Armenian word is almost exclusively recorded in the dialects. Here we find
two groups, representing *tal and talw. According to Ačaṙyan (1940-1951, 2: 427;
1952: 101), the auslaut -w of the latter form arose to distinguish the word from tal
‘to give’ and is of unknown origin. Others see it as an archaic relic of *-(ō)u̯-
(Tarōnean 1961: 341; J̌
ahukyan /1972: 272; 1985: 157; 1987: 167, 254; N. Simonyan
1979: 227; A. Xač‘atryan 1985: 116). Certainly, -w has an etymological value.
However, it is not entirely clear why it has been preserved in some dialects and lost
in others. (J̌
ahukyan’s and Simonyan’s statement that the dialectal form with -w is
more archaic than that of the Old Armenian is not technically accurate since the
word is attested since the 13th century). One should look for a distribution.
I see two possibilities:
(1) NSg *ĝ(é)lh2-ōu-s > PArm. *táluw > *talw; in this case, however, the absence
of -w in tal would be hard to explain. From GSg *ĝlh2-u̯-ós one expects Arm.
*talaw(o). (2) NSg *ĝl̥H-ōi > *tálu(i) > *talw, oblique *ĝl̥H-i- > *tal(i-) (see 2.2.2.4).
However, the evidence for PIE i-stem is scanty and unreliable, and there are no
attestations for the declension class of Arm. tal. Furthermore, the development
*-Vlu(i) > *-Vlw/v- is uncertain, although this is reminiscent of Arm. (< Iran., cf.
Pers. sarū) saroy ‘cypress’ (Bible+) vs. Pers. sarv, Turk. selvi (see HAB 4:
189-190).
In either case, *talw represents the original nominative. This is attractive since, as
informed by Ačaṙyan (1952: 101), talw is confined to the nominative in the dialect
of Van. The same holds for Šatax talv, gen. taloč‘ [M. Muradyan 1962: 108, 205],
and Moks taləv (NPl talv-ir), GSg talüč‘ (see Orbeli 2002: 330), and not *talvüč‘. I
conclude that Arm. *tal(u)w reflects the PIE nominative *ĝ(é)lh2-ōu-s; the form tal
may be explained by loss of -w or from the alternative i-stem (if Gr. γάλις and Skt.
giri-, as well as the i-stem of Arm. tal prove reliable).
Gr. γαλέη ‘weasel, marten’, Lat. glīs, -īris m. ‘dormouse’ and Skt. giri(kā)-
‘mouse’ (Lex.) are usually derived from the etymon under discussion, although
details are not clear. For the semantic association, see 3.5.2.9. If the basic meaning
indeed was ‘young girl (as a potential bride)’, one may equate the semantic
development to that of e.g. Turk. gelin ‘bride’, diminutive gelincik ‘little bride, little
young woman; weasel’.
tac (i-stem in NHB 2: 838c without evidence) ‘care, nourishment, remedy, cultivation’
(Philo, Book of Chries, Yovhannēs Sarkawag), tacem ‘to take care for, look after,
nourish (e.g. animals, soil, widows and orphans); to cultivate; to spend (a season)’
(Eznik Koɫbac‘i, Movsēs Xorenac‘i, Philo, Grigor Narekac‘i, Grigor Magistros,
Xosrov Anjewac‘i); agent noun tac-ič‘ (Eusebius of Caesarea, Philo, Paterica,
Taɫaran); action noun tac-umn, ISg tac-mam-b, GDPl tac-man-c‘ (Movsēs
Xorenac‘i, Book of Chries, Grigor Narekac‘i).
Textual illustrations from Movsēs Xorenac‘i:
1.16 (1913=1991: 51L9; transl. Thomson 1978: 99): ew zayls ews eris orošmuns
ōdoc‘n zovut‘ean tacic‘emk‘ i Ninuē “and the other three cooler seasons we shall
spend in Nineveh”.
The action noun tac-umn is attested in 3.20 (279L20f; transl. Thomson 1978: 274-
275): Sahmanē ew yamenayn giwɫs vans šinel, zi linic‘in ōtaranoc‘k‘, ew teɫi
snndean orboc‘ ew ceroc‘, ew anunoɫac‘ tacumn : “He also prescribed that lodgings
be built in every village to serve as inns for strangers, and hospices for orphans and
the aged and for the care of the poor”.
The word also appears as a reading variant in 3.68 (358L16f; transl. Thomson
1978: 350, cf. foot-note 5 on this paragraph): Oč‘ ews tesanem zbanawor k‘o hōt i
vayri dalarwoǰ ew oč‘ i ǰurs hangstean sneal (vars. sneals, taceal, taceals) “No
longer do I see your rational flock pastured in a verdant place and by peaceful
waters”.
●ETYM No acceptable etymology in HAB 4: 360a. J̌
ahukyan 1987 vacat.
I tentatively assume a derivative of the verb acem ‘to bring, lead, drive, move,
encircle, beat, pour, etc.’ (q.v.) with the IE preposition-prefix reflected in Lat. ad ‘at,
near by, about, before, to’, etc., etymologically identical with Lat. adagiō, -ōnis f.
‘proverb’, adagium n. ‘proverb’ (see s.v. aṙ-ac ‘proverb’). The Latin word seems
semantically remote; but cf. below on aṙ-acim. Note another (though highly hypothetical) similar Armeno-Italic correspondence with the same preposition: Lat.
dorsum ‘back’ (if from *d-h1orso-) vs. Arm. dial. *toṙ ‘neck’ (q.v.).
Here the verb acem figures with the meaning ‘to move (around), encircle’, cf.
also aṙ-ac-im ‘to turn around’, y-ac-im ‘to move in a circle, walk around’; compare
Lat. circum-agō, with the verb agō etymologically identical with Arm. acem. The
basic meaning of *t-ac- would be, then, something like ‘to move nearby, serve
standing or moving around, surround someone with care’. As further semantic and
structural parallels note Iran. *pari-štā- ‘to stand around’, composed of *pari-
‘around’ and *stā- ‘to stand’ (Cheung 2007: 358-360) > Arm. paštem ‘to serve, care,
worship’ (see Meillet 1922k: 217; HAB 4: 23-24), as well as Gr. ἀμφίπολος, Lat.
anculus, Skt. abhi-cara-, pari-cará-, all meaning ‘servant’ and composed of a
preposition ‘at, around’ and the IE root *kw
e/olH- ‘to move, walk around, wander’.
taɫ, i-stem: GDSg taɫ-i (Nersēs Šnorhali, see V. Łazaryan 1991: 220L12), ISg taɫ-i-w
(Nersēs Šnorhali, see NHB 2: 839bc), GDPl taɫ-i-c‘ (Philo, Yovhannēs Erznkac‘i),
ISg taɫ-i-w-k‘ (Book of Chries 2.4.2); later a-stem: IPl taɫ-a-w-k‘ in a kafa-poem to
the Alexander Romance, in juxtaposition with aṙaspel ‘myth, fable’ (H. Simonyan
1989: 170L11) ‘poem; song, melody; epic song’.
In Dionysius Thrax (6-7th cent.): ew ztaɫn k‘aǰoloraki : τὸ δὲ ἔπος εὐτόνως
[AdonDion 2008: 2L23]. Arm. taɫ renders Gr. ἔπος ‘word, speech; song, epic poem’.
In 58L1 taɫ is glossed as č‘ap‘ov greal, which points to the meaning ‘poem’.
In Book of Chries 2.2.1 (G. Muradyan 1993: 47L13, cf. 27121; Russ. transl. 2000:
49): yiwr diwc‘azanakan taɫsn “своими героическими поэмами”. IPl taɫ-i-w-k‘ is
found in 2.4.2 (51L19f).
IPl taɫ-i-w-k‘ in Grigor Narekac‘i 61.1 (NHB 839b) is in fact tawɫ-a-w-k‘, IPl of
tawiɫ ‘harp’ (see Xač‘atryan/Łazinyan 1985: 486L5, a thorough discussion in 10692).
For other attestations and a discussion, see AdonDion 2008: cxxxvii-cxxxviii; A.
Muradyan 1971: 160-161. On the meaning of taɫ, see also T‘ahmizyan 1985: 94-95,
116.
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects [HAB 4: 362b].
●ETYM Scheftelowitz (1904-05, 2: 27) presents the word as taɫ ‘Einprägung,
Eindruck, Zeichen, Vers’, thus confusing it with the homonymous taɫ ‘mark (made
by burning)’ and connects it with Lat. dolāre ‘to hew or chop into shape; to inflict
blows on, batter’ and Gr. δαιδάλλω ‘to work artfully, decorate, embellish’, δέλτος
‘writing tablet’. The same confusion has taken place also in Pokorny 1959: 194,
Makovskij 1986: 136, and HerkWört 1997: 823b. Arm. taɫ, daɫ ‘mark’ has been
borrowed from Pers. dāɣ ‘mark’ and is thus unrelated (see HAB 4: 362-363;
MiǰHayBaṙ 1, 1987: 163b).
Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 362) rejects all the etymological proposals and leaves the origin
of taɫ ‘song, poem’ open. The appurtenance of Arm. taɫ with Gr. δαιδάλλω126, Lat.
dolāre, etc. (on which see Pokorny 1959: 194-196; Schrijver 1991: 215-216, 400; de
Vaan 2008: 176-177) is uncertain. A better match is found in Germanic: OHG zala
‘Zahl; Menge; Aufzählung; Bericht; Rede’, OIc. tal ‘Zahl; Erzählung’, OEngl. talu, Engl. tale ‘Erzählung’, Dan. tale ‘Rede’, Dutch taal ‘language’, etc., OHG irzellen,
etc., displaying the following semantic development: ‘aufzählen’ > ‘in geordneter
Folge hersagen, berichten’ > ‘erzählen’ (HerkWört 1997: 823-824; Kluge/Seebold
1989: 188a, 804b; cf. also Polomé 1983: 226-2276).
The etymology has been proposed by Aɫayan (1974: 137-140) and is accepted by
Ačaṙyan (p.c. apud Aɫayan 1974: 14034). He further assumes a connection with
another Armenian word, toɫ, i-stem ‘line, rank, row of pearls, people, words, etc.’,
toɫem ‘to line up, organize in rows, plait together’, said of e.g. aɫōt‘s ‘prayers’,
aṙaspels ‘mythic stories’, bans ‘words’, etc. (q.v.). Further, Arm. taɫ, toɫ, and the
Germanic word have been compared to Hitt. tulii̯a ‘assembly’ (see J̌
ahukyan 1987:
117, 161, 319-320; cf. Łap‘anc‘yan 1961: 200-201). Note also Hitt. tallii̯e/a-zi ‘to
pray to, evoke (a deity)’ (J̌
ahukyan 1987: 320-321), which is compared to OIc. telja,
OEngl. talian ‘to tell’, Gr. δόλος ‘list’ (see Kloekhorst 2008: 819), or with OIc. þulr
‘Kultredner, Dichter’ (see Polomé 1975: 660-662; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2:
8081 = 1995, 1: 70814; Tangherlini 1990: 88-89).
The semantic field (cf. Aɫayan 1974: 138) can be represented as follows: ‘line of
words’, ‘enumeration of deeds’, ‘count, account’, ‘narration, story, epic’, ‘epic song,
song’. Compare Arm. t‘iw ‘number; epic story, narrative’; Gr. στείχω ‘to march in
(in order), στίχος ‘file, rank (of words, soldiers, trees, etc.), line (in verse and
prose)’, στοῖχος ‘file or column of soldiers, choir members, ships, row of trees,
poles, etc.’, στοιχεῖον ‘letter; line; (physical) element’; Lat. putō ‘to prune (trees),
scour (wool); to make up (accounts), think, reckon’, computare ‘to calculate,
reckon’, Engl. count vs. account, etc.
Arm taɫ and toɫ may be derived from *dl-(s)nih2- and *dol-(s)nih2-, respectively;
cf. ban, i-stem ‘word, thing’ vs. ba-m ‘to speak’, Russ. basnja ‘fable’, etc.
For another Armeno-Germanic correspondence within the semantic field of
‘story, narrative, myth, etc.’, see s.v. aṙaspel ‘fable, myth, proverb’.
tamal, GDSg tamal-o-y or ISg tamal-i-w in the Alexander Romance, GDSg tamal-oǰ
in Proverbs 25.24; probably also tamali ‘roof, house-top; building’ (also ‘ruins’?).
In Proverbs 25.24: Law e bnakel aṙ ankean tamaloǰ <...> : κρεῖττον οἰκεῖν ἐπὶ
γωνίας δώματος ἢ μετὰ γυναικος λοιδόρου ἐν οἰκίᾳ κοινῇ. In RevStBible: “It is better
to live in a corner of the housetop than in a house shared with a contentious
woman”.
In the Alexander Romance: z-tamaloyn kayr [NHB 2: 842c]: “stood on the
roof-tops” [Wolohojian 1969: 73]; “sui tetti stava” [Braccini 2004: 190]. H.
Simonyan (1989: 175L5; see also Braccini 2004: 44V132, 190) here has ztamaliwn
kayr. The Greek text has τῶν ἐρειπίων ἑστώς, on which see Braccini 2004: 190. I
wonder if this correspondence with Gr. ἐρείπια ‘ruins’ allows to postulate a similar
meaning in Armenian too. This meaning perhaps fits also in another passage from
the Alexander Romance (i tamalss, var. i tamaks), on which see HAB 4: 367a, with
Ačaṙyan’s general contextual translation “in unknown marginal regions”
(yancanōt‘s cayragawaṙnerum).
NHB and HAB also cite tamali (GSg tamalwoy). J̌
ahukyan (1987: 462) even has
GDPl -eac‘. However, no attestations are referred to. Olsen (1999: 952) cites
tamalwoǰ for the Biblical passage, but NHB and Astuacaturean (1895: 1425c) have tamaloǰ instead. Nevertheless, the form *tamali- may be corroborated by the
following:
Step‘anos Ōrbelean (1250/60-1303/5) three times mentions a village close to the
monastery of Tat‘ew, named Tamalek-k‘. Nowadays, the ruins of the village are
called Tembäläsk [A. A. Abrahamyan 1986: 470677] (perhaps better: Təmbäläsk).
This toponym could be interpreted as *tamali-ak. For APl -ek-s (in place-names) >
-esk cf. Xnjoresk < APl *xnjori-ak-s (see 4.8). I think the stem *tamali- may be
etymologically identical with tamal ‘roof’. The appellative meaning of this
place-name might have been ‘ruins’ or ‘building’ (see below).
In Turkish-Armenian dictionary (c. 1720 AD) by Eɫia Mušeɫyan Karnec‘i
(Karin/Xotorǰur), Turk. gumpēt‘ is rendered by Arm. gmpēt‘ and tamali tun
[Č‘ugaszyan 1986: 42Nr26].
●DIAL No dialectal form is cited in HAB 4: 367a.
In Goris it is probably found in the place-name Təmbäläsk, see above.
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 367a; see also J̌
ahukyan 1980, 1: 110) rejects the
connection with Gr. δῶμα n. ‘house, living, temple’, Arm. tun ‘house’, tani-k‘
‘roof’, etc. (NHB, Dervišyan) and treats as a Semitic loan, cf. Assyr. tamlū
(corrected in HAB-Add 1982: 18) ‘terrace’ < ‘filling’. Olsen (1999: 952) places the
word in her list of words of unknown origin mentioning only the etymology of
Ačaṙyan.
I agree with J̌
ahukyan (1987: 462) who considers the former etymology (< PIE
*dom- ‘house’, *dem(ə)- ‘to build’) more probable. J̌
ahukyan (ibid.) also mentions
the place-name Tamatta in Hayasa (see also 1988, 1: 76, referring to HLuw tam- ‘to
build’, etc.). Note that in Proverbs 25.24 tamal renders Gr. δῶμα. The PIE root is
*demH- ‘to build’ (probably with *-h1-, see Beekes 1969: 291): Gr. δέμω ‘to build’,
Myc. demeote ‘those who will build’, HLuw. tam- ‘to build’, PGerm. *tim(b)ra-
‘building wood’ (cf. OIc. timbr, OHG zimbar, etc.) from *demh1-ro-, etc. Arm.
*tamal(i) may reflect *dm̥ h1-l(i)-. For the suffix -al(i), -li, see 2.3.1. The basic
meaning is, then, ‘building, structure, house’, from which the meaning ‘roof’ may
have derived exactly like tan-i-k‘ ‘roof’ from tun (GSg tan) ‘house’, q.v. Also the
appellative *tamal(i)- seen in the place-name Tamal-ek-k‘, as well as the (possible)
meaning ‘ruins’ (in the Alexander Romance) seem to be better understood with this
basic semantics.
One wonders whether there is a relation with Sarikoli tom ‘roof’, on which see
Morgenstierne 1974: 80b, without any indication on the etymology. Note also Turk.
tam rendered by Arm. words for ‘roof’ in Turkish-Armenian dictionary (c. 1720
AD) by Eɫia Mušeɫyan Karnec‘i (Karin/Xotorǰur), see Č‘ugaszyan (1986: 82Nr25).
ta(y)gr, er-stem: NPl taygerk‘ (var. tagerk‘), ISg tayger-b-k‘ (var. tagerbk‘), both in
Movsēs Xorenac‘i (5th cent.); pl. a-stem: GDPl tager-a-c‘ in Commentary on
Matthew (13-14th cent.); dial. *taygr (gen. *tayger), perhaps also *tagr (the possible
original paradigm: nom. *táygr, gen. *tagér) ‘husband’s brother’.
In Movsēs Xorenac‘i 3.32 (1913=1991: 296L16f; transl. Thomson 1978: 289-290):
Ew k‘anzi ēin dsterac‘ nora taygerk‘ i mec naxararut‘eanc‘n, i korovi ew i k‘aǰ
azgēn Apahuneac‘, <...> : “And because the brothers-in-law of his daughters were
there, great princes of powerful and valiant Apahuni family, <...>”. The
overwhelming majority of manuscripts has taygerk‘, whereas the reading tagerk‘ is found only in five manuscripts of the Amsterdam group (between 1665 and 1675
AD) and in Kareneanc‘ Collation 2 (1694 AD). Once (1689 AD): taykerk‘ (see
1991: 471b).
ISg tayger-b-k‘ (vars. tagerbk‘, etc.) is attested in Movsēs Xorenac‘i 3.68
(1913=1991: 359L13).
According to NHB 2: 837b, GDPl tager-a-c‘ is attested in Commentary on
Matthew by Yovhannēs Erznkac‘i/Corcorec‘i (13-14th cent.).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects. Most of the forms clearly point to taygr rather
than tagr [HAB 4: 356]. Some forms seem to represent tagr, but they in fact go to
taygr. Let us consider, for instance, Svedia dak‘r, vocative däk‘rärɛ (Ačaṙyan 2003:
589; according to Andreasyan 1967: 277, 384b: dakr : voc. däkrɛri, for the
paradigm, see 55; in Gyozalyan 2001: 144: däkrärə; cf. K‘esab tägər : tɛ̂grɛ̂riv
[Č‘olak‘ean 1986: 218b].
Since the accented a yields Svedia u, ü or ö, whereas the development ay >
Svedia a is quite regular, the form dak‘r must reflect taygr rather than tagr (see
Ačaṙyan 2003: 354-356, 394).
Some dialectal forms are ambiguous (cf. e.g. Kak‘avaberd tä́gir, H. Muradyan
1967: 60; on Łarabaɫ, see below). A few of them may go back to tagr. For instance,
Agulis tágir (see Ačaṙean 1935: 391) seems to reflect tagr, because Agulis accented
a is not a regular reflex of ClArm. ay (see Ačaṙean 1935: 79-81).
Several dialects preserve the classical declension, e.g. Van tɛk‘yr, gen. tɛkyɛr
(secondarily also tɛk‘yroč‘) [Ačaṙean 1952: 47, 56, 294], Nor J̌
uɫa tɛk‘r, gen. tɛg‘er
[Ačaṙean 1940: 94, 386a]. Note that these nominatives have -k‘r, whereas in the
genitive forms, ClArm. -g-, being in intervocalic position, has regularly yielded -ky
-
ansd -g‘- respectively.
Further, note Maraɫa nominative tɛk‘y
ɛr (from ClArm. gen. tayger), gen. tɛk‘y
er-i,
with addition of the new genitive marker -i (Ačaṙean 1926: 172); Łarabaɫ nom.
ták‘ir [HAB 4: 356b] or täk‘y
ə/ir, gen. tɛk‘ɛr or tak‘ɛr, Northern tak‘ɔr (Davt‘yan
1966: 103, 480).
I conclude that dialectal forms mainly represent taygr, but a few of them (e.g.
Agulis and Łarabaɫ) possibly point to tagr. Remarkable is the vocalic contrast in
Łarabaɫ between the nominative and oblique forms.
Andreasyan (1967: 277) points out that, in Svedia, a bride (hars) would never
address her husband’s brother without the vocative. This vocative form, däk‘rärɛ
(see above), I think, contains ayr ‘man’ (cf. tal-tikin, voc. of tal ‘husband’s sister’,
with tikin ‘Lady’). The final -ɛ seems to reflect an older -ē (cf. the material in
Ačaṙyan 2003: 375). For the -ē-vocative, see 2.2.1.1. Thus: vocative *taygr-ayr-ē.
●ETYM Since long (NHB 2: 837b; Lagarde [Boetticher] 1850: 362Nr256; Dervischjan
1877: 541; Hübschmann 1881: 176; 1883: 52Nr268; 1897: 496), taygr is linked with
IE forms of the word for ‘husband’s brother’: Gr. δᾱήρ m. Acc. -έρα, voc. δᾶερ (but
see Szemerényi 1977: 87344 on this form), GPl δᾰέρων , Skt. devár-, Lat. lēvir, OHG
zeihhur, OCS děver-ь, diẽveris, etc. (see also Pokorny 1959: 179; Huld apud
Mallory/Adams 1997: 84b).
The PIE term is usually reconstructed as *deh2i-uer-; for a discussion and the
literature, see Szemerényi 1977: 87; Schrijver 1991: 269; Mayrhofer EWAia 1,
1992: 743-744. For Germanic, see Szemerényi, ibid.; Lindeman 1987: 97-98. Summarizing the literary and dialectal evidence, I hypothetically reconstruct the
following original paradigm: nom. *táygr, gen. *tagér from PArm. *dáywēr, gen.
*da(y)wéros. Hence the vacillation between -ay- and -a-. For a similar scenario
involving the change of pretonic *-aw- to -a-, see s.v. acuɫ ‘coal’.
taṙatok, a-stem: ISg taṙatok-a-w ‘a garment, cloak, coat’, attested only in Judges
3.16, rendering Gr. μανδύας.
●ETYM Hac‘uni 1923: 159 interprets the word as composed of tarr ‘element’ and
tok- ‘to endure’. Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 377a) does not accept this etymology and leaves
the origin of the word open.
Aɫayan 1974: 141-143 treats taṙatok as composed of *taṙ < *dr̥-s- (see s.vv. teṙ
‘veil, coat’ and teṙem ‘to flay’) and *tok, an ablaut variant of tik ‘wineskin’. The first
part of this etymology seems quite possible, but the interpretation of tok is
untenable.
Olsen (1999: 947) places the word in her list of words of unknown origin not
mentioning any etymological suggestion.
tasn, i/u/an-stem: GDSg tasin (Šarakan), AblSg i tasan-ē (Ephrem), NPl tasun-k‘
(Theophilus), APl tasun-s (John Chrysostom), GDPl tasan-c‘ (Bible); i-stem: GDPl
tasn-i-c‘ (Grigor Magistros, 11th cent.); -tasan in me-tasan ‘eleven’, erko-tasan
‘twelve’, etc. (see Meillet 1936: 100; Schmitt 1981: 130-131); tasnerord, GDSg
tasnerord-i, LocSg tasnerord-um in the Bible (a-stem according to NHB 2: 849a, but
no evidence for GDPl tasnerord-a-c‘) ‘tenth’ (Bible+); tasanord, a-stem: GDPl
tasanord-a-c‘ ‘tenth part; tithe’ and denominative verb tasanordem ‘to tithe’
(Bible+).
●DIAL The form tasn is ubiquitous in the dialects. In most of the dialects the final -n
is represented as -ə and is restored as -n before a vowel. J̌
uɫa has preserved tasn
intact. A number of dialects have a geminate -ss-: Karin, Ararat, Łarabaɫ, etc. tássə,
Agulis tɔ́
ssə, Svedia dússə, etc. [HAB 4: 379a].
●ETYM From PIE *dekm ̂ ̥ ‘ten’: Skt. dáśa, Av. dasa, Parth. das, MPers. dah, Gr. δέκα,
Lat. decem, cf. also *dekm̂ ̥ -t- in Skt. daśát- f. ‘a number of ten, decade’, Lith.
dẽšimt, dešimtìs ‘ten’, OCS desętь, Russ. désjat’, gen. desjatí, Alb. dhjétë, Goth.
taihun ‘ten’, etc. Hübschmann 1897: 496; 1899: 46; HAB 4: 378; Pokorny 1959:
191-192; Schmitt 1981: 53, 61, 130; Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 708-709;
Mallory/Adams 1997: 403b; Demiraj 1997: 162-163; Viredaz 2001-02: 25. The
comparison is first suggested in Klaproth 1831: 107b and NHB 2: 848b.
Hübschmann ibid. derives tasn from *tesn with the unexplained development *e
> a, on which see 2.1.1. Many scholars assume an assimilation *tesan > tasan, cf.
s.v. garun ‘spring’. More probably, however, tasn reflects a zero-grade form taken
from the ordinal *dk̂
mto-, cf. also the compositional -tasan (for a discussion, see
Pedersen 1906: 416 = 1982: 194; Grammont 1918: 245-246; Meillet 1936: 42;
Szemerényi 1960: 21, 103-104; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 37, 2109; Kortlandt 1994a: 255 =
2003: 100; Clackson 1994: 20621).
tat (dial.) ‘scorpion’.
●DIAL Meɫri, Karčewan, and Kak‘avaberd, tat ‘scorpion’ [Aɫayan 1954: 331; H.
Muradyan 1960: 231a; 1967: 206a]. ●ETYM This word is recorded in glossaries of purely dialectal words without any
remark on the origin (see references above). In view of the material presented in
3.5.2.1, one can identify this word with tat ‘grandmother’ (q.v.).
*tat(a) ‘grandmother; midwife; father, etc.’ (see dial. section); tat-ik in a colophon
from 1693 AD [HAB 4: 379a], fem. anthroponym Tat-ik (1683 AD), etc. [AčaṙAnjn
5, 1962: 140].
●DIAL Ararat, Łazax, Łarabaɫ tat ‘grandmother’, Łazax voc. tati ‘id.’, Ararat tatik
‘grandmother’, Tigranakert tata ‘grandmother’; Akn, Adana tat ‘father’; T‘iflis tat
‘midwife’; Svedia tata ‘elder brother’, voc. tatə́
y [Ačaṙean 1913: 1016-1017];
Svedia dud ‘father’ < tat [Andreasyan 1967: 385a]; K‘esab tätɛ [Č‘olak‘ean 1986:
218b]. Widespread is also the compound *tat-mayr ‘midwife’, with mayr ‘mother’
[Ačaṙean 1913: 1017a; HAB 4: 379b]. See also dada ‘sister, etc.’.
Also tat ‘scorpion’ must belong here, see s.v. and 3.5.2.1.
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (1913: 1016b; HAB 4: 379) links the word with IE and non-IE
nursery words: Skt. tatá- m. (RV+), Gr. τατᾶ, Lat. tata, Luw. tati(i̯a)-, Lyc. tedi,
ddedi, Lith. tėtis̃ , all meaning ‘father, daddy’, Alb. tát/ë,-a ‘father, grandfather’, etc.;
OCS dědъ ‘grandfather’, Czech děd ‘grandfather; forefather; old man’, děda m.
‘grandfather, old man’, děda f. ‘old woman’, Russ. ded ‘grandfather’, djadja ‘uncle’,
Bulg. djádo ‘grandfather; old man; father-in-law, wife’s father’, dedá, dédo
‘grandfather; old man; father-in-law, wife’s father’, d’ádọ ‘grandfather; father-inlaw, husband’s father’, déda ‘elder sister’, Maced. dedo ‘grandfather; old man;
father-in-law, wife’s father’, SCr. djȅd ‘grandfather’, dédo, djédo hypocoristic
‘grandfather; father-in-law, husband’s father’, Dédo anthroponym, dial. dȅda ‘father;
grandfather; father-in-law, wife’s father’, Lith. dėd̃ ė, dėdis ̃ ‘uncle’; Gr. τήϑη
‘grandmother’, τηϑίς ‘father’s or mother’s sister, aunt’, τηϑία ‘old woman’, Lith.
tetà, Russ. tetja ‘aunt’ (on these forms, see Pokorny 1959: 1056; Szemerényi 1977:
61-62; ÈtimSlovSlavJaz 4, 1977: 227-228; Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 616; Demiraj
1997: 382-383; Huld apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 195); Georg. deda ‘mother’, Turk.
dada ‘nurse’, etc.
Obviously related is also Arm. dial. dada ‘(elder) sister, uncle’s wife, nurse;
grandmother; father’ (q.v.). The consonantal (d vs. t) and semantic fluctuation is not
unusual with nursery words, see the above-listed IE and non-IE parallels. We can
assume an IE inherited nursery word. Compare also Skt. attā ‘mother, older sister’
and Arm. dial. atta ‘mother’ (q.v.) vs. Hitt. attaš, Gr. voc. ἄττα, etc. ‘father, papa,
daddy’. Remarkably, all the three Anatolian nursery words for ‘father’, viz. Hitt.
attaš, Luw. tatiš, Pal. papaš (see Szemerényi 1977: 7; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2:
7652 = 1995, 1: 66744) have comparable (mostly dialectal) forms in Armenian: atta
‘mother’, tat(a) ‘grandmother; father’, papa ‘father’.
In certain cases influence by (or borrowing from) neighbouring languages is
possible. For instance, Ačaṙyan (1902: 332, 334) treats Arm. dial. Polis tata ‘wetnurse’ and tɛtɛ ‘grandfather’ as recent loans, cf. Turk., Pers. dada ‘wet-nurse’ and
Turk. dede ‘grandfather’, respectively.
Some Germanic forms refer to ‘female breast, nipple’: Norwegian, Swedish tātte
‘Frauenbrust, Zitze’; cf. forms with *-i- and *-u-: Saxon titt ‘nipple, udder of a cow’,
MHG zitze ‘Zitze’, Swedish titta ‘aunt’, MHG zutzel ‘Sauglappen’, Swedish tytta
‘old woman, aunt’, OHG tutta, tuta ‘nipple’. These forms are reminiscent of Arm. cic ‘bosom’, cuc ‘substance to be sucked’, tit ‘teat, bosom’ and titan ‘nurse’ (see
s.vv.).
Note also homophonous nursery words with tat- in different meanings, e.g.
‘standing’, ‘start walking’ (both said of a baby), ‘food’, ‘book’, etc. [Ačaṙean 1913:
262a, 1016-1017].
tatrak, a-stem: GDSg tatrak-i, GDPl tatrak-a-c‘ (Bible+); MidArm. GDSg tatrak-u
‘turtle-dove, Columba livia’.
Attested abundantly in the Bible (Astuacaturean 1895: 1431c) and once in
Hexaemeron (K. Muradyan 1984: 272, 377b; see also Greppin 1978: 65-66, 135)
rendering Gr. τρυγών, -όνος f. ‘turtle-dove’, as well as in the native literature of
different periods; see especially Greppin 1978: 134-136. The oldest native
attestation found in Agat‘angeɫos §655 (1909=1980: 339L12; see also Greppin 1978:
97, 134, 180-181) shows that tatrak is a seasonable bird, thus different from the
Pigeons and the Collared Turtle-dove (Greppin 1978: 134). This attestation, as well
as Middle Armenian tatr-ik (see Greppin 1978: 19) and tatərk-ik (see below) are not
cited in NHB and HAB.
Also attested in Book of Chries 5.5.20 (G. Muradyan 1993: 123L22); rendered by
Russian горлица ‘turtle-dove’ (G. Muradjan 2000: 117). For other attestations, see
NHB 2: 850a
The bird tatrak ‘turtle-dove’ is a renowned singer. In a song by Grigor Narekac‘i,
10-11th cent. (K‘yoškeryan 1981: 144L49): tatrak k‘aɫc‘raxaws “sweet-speaking
turtle-dove”. In Aristakēs Lastivertc‘i, 11th cent., tatrak appears as a singer beside
aɫawni ‘dove, pigeon’ (Yuzbašyan 1963: 56L13; 1968: 80; Greppin 1978: 134). In
“Govank‘ t‘ṙč‘noc‘” (Praise of birds), composed by Kirakos Episkopos (13-14th
cent.) rather than by Yovhannēs Kiprac‘i or Tēr Yovhannēs, tatərkik, with
diminutive -ik, is described as a messenger that spoke sweetly and joyfully,
prophesying the Spring (Mnac‘akanyan 1980a: 256L338f; MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 380b;
Greppin 1978: 136, with English translation). The same context is seen in a song by
Simeon Aparanc‘i, 16th cent., gen. tatrak-u [Mnac‘akanyan 1956: 639]. In a folksong in Ṙ. Grigoryan 1970: 355Nr759, tatrak-ik and artut-ik (artoyt ‘lark’) are
mentioned as sweet singers. Compare the descriptive name arteri ašəɫ ‘a
singer/minstrel of the fields’ given to the larks and turtle-doves in Nerk‘in Basen
[Hakobyan 1974: 86].
●DIAL Moks tatrak, Muš tadrag, Ararat tatarak (if the second -a- is not a misprint).
With an epenthetic -u-: Zeyt‘un daduyɔg (see also Ačaṙyan 2003: 126, 340),
dadurog [HAB 4: 381b]. With an aberrant vocalism, tɛ́
trak, in Łarabaɫ [Ačaṙean
1899: 45], Hadrut‘, Šaɫax [Davt‘yan 1966: 24, 482], Goris [Margaryan 1975: 366b],
Šamaxi [Baɫramyan 1964: 18, 227]; see also HAB 4: 381b. Note that in the
overwhelming majority of examples for this aberrant development in these dialects,
the vowel -a- > -ɛ- follows a voiced consonant and may thus be explained through
Ačaṙyan’s Law. It is therefore probable that this EArm. dial. form *tetrak is old.
MidArm. GDSg tatrak-u (see above) occurs e.g. in a number of versions of a
famous proverb from the Muš and Van regions (see Łanalanyan 1960: 229a; Orbeli
2002: 121Nr107). In the Šatax version of this proverb: tatrak-i (M. Muradyan 1962:
172). MidArm. diminutive tatrak-ik is seen in Svedia dädərgäg (Ačaṙyan 2003: 365, 379,
589), although Andreasyan (1967: 385a) and Hananyan (1995: 199a) record only
dädrəg. Note also Aslanbek dadərdig < *tatrtik < tatr(a)k-ik [HAB 4: 381b] which
may have resulted from a simultaneous process of assimilation and dissimilation
(see 2.1.25): t-t-k-k > t-t-t-k.
●ETYM Since de Lagarde (1866: 227), Bugge (1889: 33; 1893: 70) and others (see
HAB 4: 381), the word is compared with Skt. tittirá- m. ‘partridge’, tittíri m. ‘id.’,
Iran. *tadarg (or *tatraɣ?) > Arab. tadruj ‘Fasan’, NPers. taδarv (Eilers 1971: 585;
according to Steingass 290b: NPers. taẓarv ‘a cock pheasant, the jungle cock’), Gr.
τέτραξ, m. -ακ/γος ‘black-cock’ or ‘guinea-fowl’ or ‘large bustard’, τέτριξ, -ιγος f. ‘a
bird’ and other bird-names from Hesychius, such as τετρά(δ)ων, τετραῖον, τατύρας,
etc., Russ. téterev ‘Birkhahn’, etc.
The appurtenance of tatrak to this PIE bird-name of onomatopoeic origin (cf. Gr.
τετράζω ‘to cackle’, etc.) as a native Armenian word is accepted in Bugge 1893: 70
(assuming an assimilation *tetrak > tatrak); Pokorny 1959: 1079; Saradževa 1980:
106; 1986: 71; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984: 541 = 1995: 459; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 154,
208 (reconstructing *tьtēr-, with a question mark). The onomatopoeic nature of the
PIE (see also Frisk 1: 886; Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 645-646) and Armenian
(HAB 4: 381a; Greppin 1981b: 6Nr19; Leroy 1986: 72) terms is accepted practically
by everyone. Pedersen (1906: 374, 416 = 1982: 152, 194) separates Arm. tatrak
from Skt. tittirá- and others and treats it as “eine andere onomatopoietische Bildung
(eine noch andere ist gr. τρυγών)”.
However, the correspondence *t : Arm. t is not regular [Greppin 1981a: 505;
1981b: 6Nr19]. J̌
ahukyan (1967: 99; 1982: 51; 1987: 197) explains this by
onomatopoeic character of the word, while Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 381), noting also the
ending -ak, follows Hübschmann (1897: 395Nr10) in treating tatrak as borrowed from
Iran. *tatur-ak, cf. Med. τατύρας ‘pheasant’ (τατύρας· ὁ φασιανὸς ὄρνις) attested in
Athenaeus 9.387. Greppin (apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 217a) states that Arm. tetrak
(perhaps a misprint for tatrak, although such a form does exist in Łarabaɫ and
vicinities) is a loan, but he does not specify the source. Hovhannisyan (1990: 270c)
places tatrak in his list of Iranian loans. Olsen (1999: 254, 939) mentions Gr. τέτραξ
and Med. τατύρας, and considers the precise origin of Arm. tatrak to be unknown.
The Iranian origin is possible in view of not only the unaspirated t and the ending
-ak, but also the root vowel -a-, though, individually taken, none of these arguments
is of decisive significance. There are some native Armenian designations of birds or
flying insects with diminutive -ak, e.g. t‘it‘eɫ/ṙn ‘butterfly’, cice/aṙn ‘swallow’
(q.v.), although in the case of tatrak, no independent *tat(u)r- is attested (but cf.
below on Zeyt‘un). Also the onomatopoeic nature of the word does not allow to take
a clearcut decision.
According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 381a), Łarabaɫ, etc. tɛ́
trak, comparable with Gr.
τέτραξ, derives from an unattested ClArm. form which has been borrowed from a
corresponding Median form. Since ClArm. stressed i yields Łarabaɫ, etc. ɛ́ (cf. cicaɫ
‘laughter’ > cɛ́
caɫ, ciran ‘apricot’ > cɛ́
ran, hing ‘five’ > hɛngy
, tiz ‘tick’ > tɛz, etc.,
see Davt‘yan 1966: 35 and in the glossary, and HAB s.vv.), one may alternatively
posit an old Armenian by-form *tit(ə)r- which can directly be linked with Skt. tittirá- (or a corresponding unattested Iranian form) and/or be interpreted as a
reduplication of the type cicaṙn ‘swallow’, see 2.3.2.
If the -u- in Zeyt‘un daduyɔg is not an epenthesis (for some not very impressive
examples, see Ačaṙyan 2003: 138; tatrak is not mentioned here), one might posit an
older *tatur(a)- comparable with the above-mentioned τατύρας ‘pheasant’.
targal ‘spoon’; attested in Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.47 (1913=1991: 174L5f; transl.
Thomson 1978: 187): targal unel oski ew pataṙak‘aɫ : “[the right] to have a golden
spoon and fork”. For the context, see Xalat’janc 1896, 1: 256ff; Thomson 1978:
1883.
Later forms: trgal in Step‘annos Siwnec‘i, 8th cent. [Adonc‘ 1915=2008: 190L6],
t/drgal in later Grammarians, Canons attributed to Sahak, and in Middle Armenian:
drgal in Geoponica and ISg drgal-ov in Alēk‘sianos (see also HAB 4: 644b), dgal in
Amirdovlat‘ Amasiac‘i, etc., dk‘al in a 14th century colophon and a 16th century
inscription [MiǰHayBaṙ 1, 1987: 171a, 184ab].
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects, almost everywhere with loss of the -r-. The only
exception is Tigranakert t‘ərk‘y
äl [HAB 385a; Haneyan 1978: 47, 197b]. The forms
are: Aṙtial (Hung., Pol.) d‘ig‘al [Ačaṙyan 1953: 23, 287], Polis, Nor Naxiǰewan
t‘k‘al, Xarberd d‘g‘al [HAB 4: 385a], K‘esab dəguɔl [Č‘olak‘ean 1986: 200a],
Svedia d‘ig‘ul [Ačaṙyan 2003: 589], Agulis dügül, instr. dügül-äv [M. Zak‘aryan
2008: 88], etc. The other dialects display a metathetic form: *gdal [HAB 4: 385a].
●ETYM From PIE *dóru, gen. *dréu-s, n. ‘wood’: Skt. dā́ru-, GSg dróṣ, drúṇaḥ, ISg
drúṇā n. ‘wood’, dárvi f. ‘spoon’, darvī́ f. ‘spoon’, dróṇa- n. ‘wooden vessel,
trough, bucket’, YAv. dāuru, GSg draoš n. ‘piece of wood, tree-trunk’, OPers. dāruv
‘wood’, MPers., NPers. dār ‘wood, tree’, Gr. δόρυ, gen. δόρατος n. ‘wood, treetrunk, spear’, δρῦς, δρυός f. ‘tree’, oak’ (Frisk 1: 411-412, 421-422), OEngl. trēo(w)
= Engl. tree, OCS drъva n. pl. ‘wood’, drěvo n. ‘tree’, Alb. dru/drũ m. ‘wood; tree;
stem, trunk’ < *druua ̯ ̄(Demiraj 1997: 146-148), etc. Dervischjan 1877: 541;
127 Lidén
1906: 66; HAB 4: 384-385; Pokorny 1959: 214; Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 704,
721, 761; Mallory/Adams 1997: 598.
According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 421b, 422; see also Saradževa 1986: 66;
J̌ahukyan 1987: 118, 162), here belong also toṙn ‘pestle’ and torg ‘loom, weaving of
spider-web’. Meillet (p.c. apud HAB 4: 421b) accepted the etymology of toṙn. As is
correctly pointed out by Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 422b), the original meaning of torg was
‘wooden framework, loom’ (cf. the dialectal evidence), and the meaning ‘weaving,
fabric, net’ (attested in Hexaemeron) has secondarily been derived from ‘wooden
framework’ > ‘woven framework, weaving’.
Skt. dárvi f. and darvī́ f. ‘spoon’ are formally and semantically comparable to
Arm. torg ‘wooden framework, loom’ and targ-al ‘spoon’ (HAB 4: 384b; J̌
ahukyan
1982: 71). We can reconstruct Armeno-Aryan fem. *doru̯-i(h2)- vs. oblique and
compositional *dru̥ ̯- which would yield Arm. torg and targ-, respectively. On the
other hand, Arm. torg ‘wooden framework, loom’ is amazingly close to HLuw. tarwi(i̯a)- prob. ‘wooden beam’ (see below), both formally and semantically.
The semantic shift ‘wood’ > ‘spoon’ is quite natural. In Svedia (Musa-leṙ = Musa
Dagh), for instance, up to the Armenian Genocide in 1915, spoons were made only of wood, mainly of ash-tree and box-tree (see Gyozalyan 2001: 17-18, 88). Spoons
and ladles were made of wood also in Zangezur (Lisic‘yan 1969: 164-165), Sasun
(Petoyan 1965: 158), etc. (HAB 4: 384b; Lisician 1955: 195; Marutjan 1989: 135b).
Usually no cognate forms are cited for Arm. -al- in targal. Eichner 1978: 151
posits *dru̥ ̯-ah2- + *-lah2-, citing no cognates with *-l-. Klingenschmitt 1982: 238
posits *dru̥ ̯-ālo-. One may think of Maced. δάρυλλος f. ‘oak’ (on which see Pokorny
1959: 215), but this is not very impressive. In my opinion, Arm. targal is
astonishingly identical with Hitt. GIŠtaru̯-āli- n., which refers to an implement used
for grinding or crushing, probably something like ‘pestle’, ‘Mörser’, ‘Stößel’, cf.
CLuw. taruu̯al- ‘Mörser’ (see Hoffner 1967a: 357a; Starke 1990: 336; Rieken 1999:
434), itself a derivative of tāru- n. ‘wood’, cf. CLuw. GIŠtāru- n. ‘wood’, dāruš- n.
‘statue’, HLuw. *taru- n. ‘wood’, tarw-i(i̯a)- prob. ‘wooden beam’, tarut- n. ‘statue’
(see Kloekhorst 2008: 849). For *-al(i) in designations for implements or the like cf.
e.g. Hitt. GIŠḫulāli- n. ‘distaff’ (see Starke 1990: 300-343; Rieken 1999: 434); Arm.
tam-al(i) ‘building, roof’ probably from QIE *dmh1li(h2)-.
As to toṙn ‘pestle’, note especially Skt. dróṇa- n. ‘wooden vessel, trough, bucket’
(HAB 4: 421b). The Armenian word may be derived from *doru-no- ‘wooden
implement’ (J̌
ahukyan 1982: 111), with analogical o-grade from nom. *doru. One
may also think of *doru-n-t- (cf. Gr. gen. δόρατος, if from *dorun̯ ̥-to-). For the
meaning ‘pestle’ cf. Hitt. GIŠtaru̯-āli-.
To conclude: PIE neuter *doru ‘wood’ is largely involved in Armenian craft
terminology. Here we find remarkable correspondences between Armenian, Aryan
and Anatolian:
Arm. torg ‘wooden framework, loom’ : Skt. dárvi f. and darvī́f. ‘spoon’ : HLuw.
tarw-i(i̯a)- prob. ‘wooden beam’;
Arm. toṙn ‘pestle’ : Skt. dróṇa- n. ‘wooden vessel, trough, bucket’;
Arm. targ-al ‘spoon’ : Hitt. GIŠtaru̯-āli- n. ‘pestle’ or the like.
See also s.v. tarr ‘element, substance, principle’.
*tart‘ (dial.) ‘stiff manure briquettes used for heating’, ‘thick layer of dirt on a body’.
●DIAL Baberd, Ararat, Nor Bayazet, Łarabaɫ, Surmalu, Van ‘stiff manure briquettes
used for heating’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 1018a], Muš, Alaškert, Bulanəx ‘id.’ [Amatuni
1912: 619-620]; Xarberd, Van ‘thick layer of dirt on a body’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 1018a].
●ETYM J̌
ahukyan (1972: 285; 1987: 118) connects *tart‘ with teṙem ‘to flay’ or ‘to
become callous, be covered with hard layer of skin’ (q.v.) , comparing with OEngl.
tord ‘dirt’, etc. and hesitantly positing *dr̥-th
-. Since in the majority of dialects the
sequence -rt‘ may also go back to -rd, we can tentatively reconstruct *tard and
derive it from QIE *dṙ̥-tV-, cf. Skt. dŕ̥ti ‘leather bag’, Gr. δαρτός, etc. For the suffix
or determinative -t‘, on the other hand, see e.g. s.vv. *xil-t‘ ‘knag on a tree, a
swelling in tree’ and *her-t‘ ‘turn, queue’. Uncertain.
*tarm, i-stem: GDSg tarm-i in Dawt‘ak (7th cent.) apud Movsēs Kaɫankatuac‘i 2.35
(1983: 229L10; Dowsett 1961: 148; Dowsett 1992: 156-157), Nersēs Šnorhali (12-
13th cent.), GDPl tarm-i-c‘ in Grigor Narekac‘i 67.5, Xač‘atryan/Łazinyan 1985:
519L98), Esayi Nč‘ec‘i (13-14th cent.) ‘flock of birds’ (Grigoris Aršaruni, 7-8th cent.,
etc.), ‘swarm of gad-flies’ (Grigor Narekac‘i 67.5, see above); ‘starling’ in Nersēs
Šnorhali etc., cf. tarm-a-haw ‘id.’ (twice in Hexaemeron alongside with synonymous sarik, rendering Gr. ψήρ ‘starling’ and σελευκίς ‘a bird which eats locusts, Pastor
roseus, the Rose-coloured Pastor’, K. Muradyan 1984: 260L1f, 279L4; index: 377ab);
reduplicated adverb tarm-a-tarm ‘by flocks (said of birds)’ in Eznik Koɫbac‘i (5th
cent.), cf. adv. tarm tarm ‘id.’ (Ephrem); tarm-a-ǰur ‘mythological water which is
followed by flocks of locust-chasing birds’ (Vardan Arewelc‘i etc.).128
The adverb tarm-abar is attested in Dionysius Thrax, 6-7th cent. [AdonDion
2008: 31L25].
According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 387a, 422b), here belongs also *torm ‘group of
ships’ (q.v.).
●DIAL Agulis tɔrm ‘a bird’, with regular vocalic development [Ačaṙean 1935: 22,
392], Balu damr ‘a bird of passage resembling the swallow’ (Sargisean 1932: 133-
134, 537; HAB 4: 387a), T‘iflis tarb ‘a locust-killing bird of Masis’ (cf. Georg.
t’arbi, HAB 4: 387a).
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 387a; 422-423) lists a few etymological suggestions, but
does not accept any of them.
J̌
ahukyan (1991: 42-43) derives Arm. tarm and *torm from QIE *dr̥gh
-(s)mo- and
*dorgh
-(s)mo- respectively, connecting with MIr. dremm, NIr. dream ‘Schar,
Abteilung von Menschen’ (*dr̥gh
-smo-), Bret. dramm ‘Bündel, Garbe’, Gr. δράγμα
‘handfull, esp. of (stalk of) corn’, δράσσομαι ‘to grasp, take handfulls’, etc., derived
from PIE *dergh
- ‘to grasp’ (see Pokorny 1959: 212-213). Perhaps a European
substratum word.
tarr, pl. tant. in the Bible: loc. i tarer-s, gen.-dat. tarer-c‘, instr. tarer-b-k‘
(Astuacaturean 1895: 1433c); NSg tarr, GDSg tarer (Eznik Koɫbac‘i, Agat‘angeɫos,
Barseɫ Kesarac‘i, Anania Širakac‘i, Grigor Narekac‘i, etc.); i-stem: GDSg tarr-i
(Hamam Arewelc‘i), AblSg i tarr-ē (Grigor Narekac‘i), GDPl tarr-i-c‘ (Plato, etc.);
a-stem: ISg tarer-a-w (Nersēs Lambronac‘i), GDPl tarer-a-c‘ (Book of Chries
5.5.16, 6.4.2); NPl tarear-k‘, GDPl tarear-c‘ (Vardan Arewelc‘i) ‘element, matter,
substance, body, principle’ (Bible+); taṙ, i-stem ‘element; letter’ (see below).
Apart from the Biblical evidence, the word is attested several times in Eɫišē,
Chapter 7 (Ter-Minasyan 1989: 350-352; transl. Thomson 1982: 221-222), APl
tarer-s and GDPl tarer-c‘, referring to elements, in particular the four basic
elements. GDPl tarer-a-c‘ is found in Book of Chries 5.5.16, 6.4.2 (G. Muradyan
1993: 122L27, 142L26; Russ. transl. 2000: 117).
Anania Širakac‘i (7th cent.) describes the moon as follows (A. G. Abrahamyan
1940: 39L17): lusinn tarr ē seɫm, xist, mak‘ur, gndajew. It seems naural to follow the
ModArm. translation of Abrahamyan/Petrosyan 1979: 97: “the moon is a dense,
hard, spherical body”. Thus, tarr is here to be understood as ‘substance, body’.
taṙ ‘element; letter’: GDPl taṙ-i, GDPl taṙ-i-c‘ in Dionysius Thrax, 6-7th cent.
[AdonDion 2008: 4L11, 40L24]. Here we read on the connection between tarr and taṙ
(4L21f): Na ew noynk‘ isk taṙk‘ koč‘in, vasn zi unin tarrumn imn ew dasut‘iwn : Τὰ δὲαὐτὰ καὶ στοιχεῖα καλεῖται διὰ τὸ ἔχειν στοῖχόν τινα καὶ τάξιν. Arm. taṙ-k‘ and
tarrumn correspond to στοιχεῖα ‘letters; lines; (physical) elements’ and στοῖχος ‘file
or column of soldiers, etc., row of trees, poles, etc.’ respectively. Also in Step‘annos
Siwnec‘i [AdonDion 2008: 199L4f].
On tarr and taṙ, see further AdonDion 2008: cxlvi-cxlviii; J̌
ahukyan 1954: 127-
130, 149, 189, 251; 1967: 11; Xač‘eryan 1962: 346-347; and especially A.
Muradyan 1971: 181-183. Further, see Ravnæs 1991: 88. On the notion of tarr, pl.
tarer-k‘ ‘element’, see Thomson 1992: 195, 201. For the alternation tarr : taṙ cf. eṙfrom err- ‘three-’ [HAB 2: 50b].
●ETYM Considered to be a word of unknown origin [HAB 4: 388b; Olsen 1999: 149,
961]. J̌
ahukyan 1982: 106 in passing suggests a derivation from PIE *doru ‘wood’
and reconstructs *dəruro-. Later he was apparently unsatisfied with this etymology
since he did not include it in his fundamental 1987.
Nevertheless, the etymology is worth of consideration. Rather than a suffix *-ro-,
we may assume a nominative -r after the type of neuters following the r/udeclension, cf. cun-r vs. *ĝonu- ‘knee’, etc. A number of such words display zerograde roots, see s.vv. asr ‘fleece’, barjr ‘high’, caɫr ‘laughter’, etc. For a discussion
of the r/u-declension, see especially s.v. asr ‘wool, fleece’. See also s.vv. artawsr
‘tear’, meɫr, meɫ-u ‘honey’.
We may start with nom. *dóru-r, obl. *dr-(e)u-. The nominative becomes *dəru-r
> tar(u)r with analogical zero-grade. That the r-stem word has been generalized
early and thus belongs to an r-stem instead of the expected r/u-declension (which
presupposes gen. *taru-) is not a decisive counter-argument, cf. e.g. hur, o-stem
‘fire’ (q.v.). Also in Greek, the PIE PD neuters of heteroclite *-r/n- declension are
reflected in different declension classes, note ὕδωρ, -ατος ‘water’ and ἦπαρ, -ατος
‘liver’ on the one hand, and πῦρ, πῠρός ‘fire’ on the other (see Rix 1992: 126-127).
For the semantic development compare Gr. ὕλη ‘wood, timber’, ‘material, matter’
> Arm. hiwɫ(ē) ‘matter, element, substance, principle’
tawn, i-stem ‘feast’ (Bible+). See s.v. paɫat2.
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects. [HAB 4: 442b]
●ETYM Connected with Lat. daps, -pis f. ‘sacrificial meal’, Gr. δάπτω ‘devour’, etc.,
see HAB s.v.; Pokorny 1959: 176-177; Gamkrelidze / Ivanov 1984: 701;
Mallory/Adams 1997: 496b. For the semantic field and cultural background, see
Benveniste 1969: 1: 74-77; 2: 226-229 (= 1973: 61-63, 484-486); Mallory/Adams
1997: 496-497. Watkins (1976; see also Corthals 1979: 229; Matasović 1996: 151)
adds Irish dúan ‘poem’ (< *dapnā-) to these words. Toch. B tāpp- ‘to eat’ is
uncertain [Adams 1999: 286-287]. See also Pedersen 1924: 224b = 1982: 307b;
J
̌ahukyan 1992: 20.
The Armenian prototype may have been *dh2p-ni- or *dh2p-nih2-, for which there
is no direct comparative evidence; cf. Lat. damnum n. ‘financial loss’ and OIc. tafn
‘sacrificial animal’, both from *dap-no-, as well as Gr. δαπάνη f. ‘cost, expenditure’.
Olsen (1999: 101) alternatively suggests a closer parallelism with Lat. daps, “in
which case the i-stem would have to be a contamination between the acc.sg. in -n
and an i-stem as the usual substitution of an older root noun”. I would prefer a direct
association with the above-mentioned cognates with the nasal suffixal element, and a subsequent morphological reformation after words like ban, jawn, etc. The
etymological meaning of Arm. tawn ‘feast’ is, then, *‘feast with sacrificial meal’.
Note also Gr. δεῖπνον n. ‘meal’, which is usually regarded as a Mediterranean
cultural word probably reflecting *daip-n-; its relationship with δαίς, δαίτη is not
clear; the whole group may be of a substratum origin (see Frisk 1: 358; van
Windekens 1966: 96; Chantraine 1968-80: 258; Furnée 1972: 325-326; 3392, 352;
Beekes 1975: 80).
Further, note Arm. tuar ‘neat, cattle’ (dial. ubiquitous *tawar, see HAB 4: 424b)
in tuarac = tuar ‘cattle’ + arac ‘pasturing’ through haplology, meaning ‘pasturing’
(Eusebius of Caesarea: i tuarac-i) and ‘pasturer, herdsman’ (in a homily ascribed to
Eɫišē), cf. also tuarac-akan ‘herdsman’ Bible+ [NHB 2: 890bc]; see also s.v. placename Tuarac-a-tap‘. Usually compared to OEngl. tīber, tīfer n. ‘sacrificial animal,
sacrifice’, OHG zebar ‘id.’, late MHG ungezībere, Germ. Un-ge-ziefer n.
‘schädlisches Kleingetier: vermin’, actually, ‘impure animal, not fit for sacrifice’,
OIc. tīvurr m. (if meaning ‘offering’ and not ‘god’), Goth. *tibr ‘offering’, etc.; see
Lidén 1906: 8-10; HAB 4: 424; Pokorny 1959: 222; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 118;
Mallory/Adams 2006: 142. For a further discussion on this etymon, see Scardigli
1961: 138, 1384; Hamp 1973: 322; Polomé 1975: 659-660; Lehmann 1986: 344;
Pfeifer 1989, 3: 1873. This etymon has been compared to Semitic (< Afro-Asiatic)
*ḏ-b-ḥ ‘to sacrifice’: Ugar. dbḥ ‘sacrifice’, Hebr. zǣḇaḥ ‘sacrificial animal’, Arab.
ḏ-b-ḥ ‘to sacrifice’, ḏibḥu ‘sacrifice’; etc. (see Illič-Svityč 1964: 6Nr19); note possible
Kartvelian parallels: Svan tbəl- ‘to sacrifice’, etc. (ibid. 619). On the other hand, the
Armenian dialectal form *tawar is reminiscent of Semitic *táwar- ‘bull’.
The relationship between all these IE and non-IE words is not quite clear.
Regardless of the ultimate origin of the etymon and further details, one may
tentatively posit a Mediterranean-Pontic-Neareastern cultural word *de/aip-n- or
*deip-r- ‘sacrificial animal, sacrificial meal’.
teɫ, a-stem: GDPl teɫ-a-c‘, IPl teɫ-a-w-k‘ (also o-stem in NHB 2: 862c without
evidence) ‘site, place’ (Koriwn, Eɫišē, Aristotle, Zenob, etc.); teɫi, ea-stem: GDSg
teɫw-o-y, LocSg i teɫw-o-ǰ, AblSg i teɫw-o-ǰ-ē, ISg teɫe-a-w, AccSg teɫi-s, GDPl teɫea-c‘ (rich evidence in the Bible, see Astuacaturean 1895: 1434-1436) ‘id.’; see also
s.v. etɫ, GDSg eteɫ ‘id.’ (Bible+).
For the paradigm of teɫi and the locative in -oǰ, see Charpentier 1909: 252-256;
Meillet 1936: 21, 65-67, 73, 91, 93; Clackson 1994: 61-62; Matzinger 2005: 108-
109.
●DIAL The form teɫ is ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 4: 394a].
●ETYM Pedersen 1906: 373-374 = 1982: 151-152 derives etɫ and teɫi from PIE *sed-
‘to sit’ comparing with Lat. sella ‘seat, chair, stool’. One usually reconstructs *sedlo- (HAB 4: 393b; Pokorny 1959: 886; J̌
ahukyan 1959: 243; Aɫabekyan 1979: 64;
Volpe apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 505a). However, *sed-lo- would yield Arm.
*(h)eɫt-. It is therefore better to reconstruct a *sed-el(o)- > etɫ (see È. Tumanjan
1978: 289-290; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 105; 1987: 146; cf. Matzinger 2005: 73).
We can explain the forms etɫ and teɫ(i) from an ablauting paradigm: HD *séd-ōl
vs. acc. *sd-él-m, or PD *sed-l- (>> *sed-el-) vs. gen. *sd-él-s > PArm. *(h)et-ɫ >
*steɫ- >> etɫ vs. gen. eteɫ and *teɫ-. PArm. *téɫ-a- (cf. GDPl. teɫ-a-c‘, etc.) and *teɫí-a- (cf. teɫi and obl. teɫ-e-a-) point to *s(e)del-h2 (cf. Lat. sella ‘seat’ from *sed-l-h2)
and *s(e)del-ieh2-, respectively.
For the etymon, see further s.vv. hecanim ‘to mount a horse’ and nist ‘seat’.
teṙ (i-stem according to NHB 2: 865c without evidence) ‘veil, coat’ (Genesis 38.14,
Movsēs Xorenac‘i 1.26, John Chrysostom).
The passage in Genesis 38.14 (Zeyt‘unyan 1985: 328) reads as follows: ehan
zhanderjs ayrut‘ean iwroy yink‘enē, arkaw teṙ ew zardarec‘aw “she put off her
widow’s garments, put on a veil (= Gr. ϑέριστρον) and adorned herself”.
In Movsēs Xorenac‘i 1.26 (1913=1991: 75L13f; transl Thomson 1978: 116): kin
omn ciranazgest, erknagoyn unelov ziwreaw teṙ “a woman dressed in purple and
wrapped in a veil the color of the sky”. For testimony from John Chrysostom and for
compounds, see NHB 2: 865; Hac‘uni 1923: 130-131; HAB 4: 395a.
●ETYM For the etymology, see s.v. teṙem ‘to flay’. Olsen (1999: 947) places the
word in her list of words of unknown origin not mentioning any etymological
suggestion. According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 395b), Georg. t’eri ‘all kind of cover,
rug, mattress, etc.’ is an Armenian loanword.
teṙates, GDSg teṙates-i (Leviticus 15.33) ‘having an issue of blood’, said of
menstruation (Bible+).
●DIAL No dialectal record in HAB 4: 395b. NHB 2: 865c informs that teṙates
dialectally (ṙamkōrēn) refers to haemorrhoids of men.
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 395b) derives this compound (with tes- ‘to see’) from
teṙem ‘to flay’ or ‘to become callous, be covered with hard layer of skin’ (q.v.) and
points out that the semantic relationship is difficult to explain. Aɫayan (1974: 141-
142) explains the semantics through the meaning ‘veil, cloth’ referring to the usage
of a piece of cloth for menstruation, cf. dial. šɔr and halav referring to
‘menstruation’ (on these words, see AčaṙLiak 6, 1971: 762).
Olsen (1999: 966) places the word in her list of words of unknown origin without
mentioning any etymological suggestion.
teṙem ‘to flay’ or ‘to become callous, be covered with hard layer of skin’ (Eɫišē,
Vardan Arewelc‘i), oɫn-teṙ ‘wound on the back of a horse resulted from rubbing’
(Geoponica, see NHB 2: 508b), teṙ, IPl teṙ-i-w-k‘ ‘callus on skin of sole’ (Ptm. aṙ
leh apud NHB 2: 865c, bibliography vacat); teṙ-a-zerc aṙnem ‘to plunder, rob,
despoil’ (Eznik Koɫbac‘i, Eusebius of Caesarea, Canon Law), lit. ‘to flay, make
skinless’, cf. the semantic development in Arm. dial. plɔkɛl, etc. [HAB 4: 395b], teṙa-zercem ‘id.’ (Book of Chries); tṙn-awor ‘callous’ (Gregory of Nyssa).
A textual illustration from Eɫišē, Chapter 7 (Ter-Minasyan 1989: 354L5f; transl.
Thomson 1982: 223): Jeṙk‘ mer p‘apareal en i kac‘ni, ew oɫunk‘ mer teṙeal en i
p‘aytakri “Our hands have become calloused from the axe and our backs worn from
carrying wood”.
●ETYM Since Meillet 1894: 165 (for the comparison with Greek, see already NHB 2:
865c), connected with Lith. derù, dirti
̃ ‘to flay’, OCS derǫ, dьrati ‘to flay’, Czech
dráti ‘to tear’, Gr. δέρω ‘to flay’, δέρας ‘skin, leather’, Skt. dar- ‘to crack, split,
break, burst’, MPers., NPers. darrīdan ‘to tear up’, etc. The Armenian verb is
derived from *der-s- (see HAB 4: 395b; Pokorny 1959: 206, 210; J̌
ahukyan 1987:
118). For the forms, see also Frisk 1: 368-370; Chantraine 1968-80: 265-266; ÈtimSlovSlavJaz 4, 1977: 209; 5, 1978: 218-219; Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 701-
702; Mallory/Adams 1997: 567b.
In view of the cognate forms referring to ‘leather garment’, ‘coat’, etc., Ačaṙyan
(HAB 4: 396a; see also J̌
ahukyan 1987: 118) identifies this teṙ- ‘*skin, leather’ with
teṙ ‘veil, coat’ (q.v.). Further note teṙates ‘having an issue of blood’ said of
menstruation (Bible+), which seems to contain *teṙ ‘cloth’ (see s.v.), as well as taṙa-tok ‘coat’ (q.v.), probably composed of *taṙ- from zero-grade form *dr̥sV- and an
obscure *tok. Note also toṙn ‘rope’ (q.v.) probably derived from *dor(s)-n-. Finally,
dial. tart‘ ‘stiff manure briquettes used for heating’, ‘thick layer of dirt on a body’
(q.v.) has been connected to these words as well.
According to Aɫayan (1974: 142-143), tṙn-awor ‘callous’ (see above) contains
*tiṙn or *tuṙn from *dērs-en or *dōrs-en, respectively. The vocalism remains
uncertain.
Olsen 1999: 780 derives teṙem from *derh2e- (cf. Gr. δέρας ‘skin, leather’)
assuming a development *-rh2V- > -ṙ(V)-, which I do not share because none of the
examples is unambiguous and convincing, see s.vv. kṙunk ‘crane’, an onomatopoeia,
and meṙanim ‘to die’, probably from sigmatic aorist *meṙ-s-; further see Ravnæs
1991: 881.
More probably, Arm. teṙ- reflects *der-s- (see above), which may be identified
with the sigmatic aorist *der-s-, cf. Skt. subj. darṣasi, etc. If the trilled -ṙ of the noun
teṙ ‘veil’ is not due to association with the verb teṙem, then one might think of *ders-i-, cf. Gr. δέρρις f. ‘skin, leathern covering’. However, this Greek word seems to
reflect *der-ti- (see Clackson 1994: 54).
*ti ‘day’, only in erk-ti ‘two days’, attested in John Chrysostom, Commentaries on
Philippians (twice), Colossians (once), Ephesians (three times); note also erk-tiw
‘id.’ in the same Commentary on Colossians
For the typology of the compound cf. dial. Muš ɛrkɔr < *erk-ōr ‘(for) two days’
e.g. in a fairy-tale recorded in Alek‘sandrapol in 1915, see HŽHek‘ 13, 1985: 221L1:
ɔr ma k‘elec‘in, kam ɛrkɔr “they walked for one day or two”. Note also Moks ɛrkɔr
found in a tale (Orbeli 2002: 58L-5 [Nr 15]; transl. 134): ɛrkɔr mnac‘ “прошло два
дня”. In a folk epic from Xarberd (Hut‘Sam 1895: 356L-22): ɔr mə ɛrkɔr anc‘av “one
or two days passed”.
●ETYM Obviously related with tiw ‘day’ (q.v.). The loss of -w is not explained by
Ačaṙyan [HAB 4: 403a, 410a]. The form is reminiscent of the accusative forms Skt.
dyā́m, Gr. Ζῆν, Lat. diem < *diēm, OIr. dé, cf. the PIE word for ‘cow’ (see s.v. kov
‘cow’): *gʷeh3-u- ‘cow’: Skt. gaúḥ , acc. gā́m, Gr. βοῦς, acc. βῶν. For a discussion
of the aberrant accusatives *diēm and *gw
ōm (with loss of *-w-), see Schindler 1973:
152-155; Watkins 1974; Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 479-480, 750-752; Schrijver
1991: 120, 129; 1995: 109-110; Szemerényi 1996: 181-182; Nassivera 2000: 59ff.
Beekes (1990: 42, cf. 50) argues for an accusative with lengthened grade *diēum
rather than *dieum. Lat. diēs ‘day’ is based on AccSg *diēm (Schrijver 1991: 120).
Arm. *ti- ‘day’, as Lat. diēs, may be derived from PArm. nom. *tīh < QIE *diēs,
with loss of the *-w- analogically after the accusative.129For a possible trace of PArm. *ti- ‘god’ or ‘Sky-god’, see s.v.ciacan ‘rainbow’.
The PIE u-less form (Skt. diām, Lat. diem, Gr. Ζῆν) has been compared to Old
Chinese *thiim, *thiin ‘sky’; *tjaus ‘shine’; *tos ‘day’; *tees ‘God, the god who
knows everything, whose name (*tees) means ruling the world under heaven’, from
an original meaning ‘heaven’ (see Zhou Jixu 2002: 3Nr12; Zhou Jixu 2003: 9-10, 14-
15; and especially Zhou Jixu 2005).
*ti (or *tin) prob. ‘fat’.
MidArm. xoz-ti, GDSg xoztui or xoztini ‘fat of swine’ is attested in Geoponica
and “Bžškaran jioy” (13th cent.) [HAB 2: 382b; Č‘ugaszyan 1980: 104L-1,-3, 200;
MiǰHayBaṙ 1, 1987: 346a]. Derived from xoz ‘swine’, but the component *ti is not
specified (ibid.). The latter is hardly identical with the pl./coll. marker -ti. It
probably is an otherwise unknown word meanig ‘fat’.
Another possible trace of the hypothetical *ti ‘fat’ may be seen in kaɫti. This word
is found in Yovhan Mandakuni/Mayragomec‘i (5th or 7th cent.), in a list of some
dairy and fish products for fast of Nawakatik‘. Of these words, kaɫti and bacin are
unknown, and xer and ščuk, both being dairy products, are very rare in the literature
and present in a few dialects (see HAB s.vv.). The word kaɫti is listed between kogi
‘butter’ and bacin and may denote a kind of dairy product. It may be interpreted as
*kaɫ(t‘) ‘milk’ (see s.v. kat‘n ‘milk’) + *ti ‘fat’, thus: ‘fat of milk’, that is a kind of
butter or sour cream or the like.
Note also dial. kz-ti ‘a dairy product’, on which see HAB 2: 497a.
●ETYM No etymology of *ti (or *tin, if the nasal in GDSg xoztini is old) ‘fat’ is
known to me. One may hypothetically compare it with Gr. δημός m. ‘fat of animals
and men’ (cf. Frisk 1: 381) and/or Luw. tā(i̯)in- n. ‘oil, fat’ (on which see Starke
1990: 239-242).
tik, a-stem: ISg tk-a-w (Agat‘angeɫos), AblSg i tk-ē (Genesis 21.15, see Zeyt‘unyan
1985: 235), GDPl tk-a-c‘ (Agat‘angeɫos), LocSg i tk-i (Sargis Šnorhali) ‘wineskin, a
vessel made of an animal’s skin (for wine, oil, water, etc.)’ < ‘goat, skin of goat’
(Bible+).
GDPl tk-a-c‘ and ISg tk-a-w are found in a passage from Agat‘angeɫos § 109
(1909=1980: 65L1f; transl. Thomson 1976: 123): Ew sastkac‘eal t‘agaworin, et pndel
zots nora i hrapoyrs (var. hrapars) tkac‘, ew kaxel zna glxivayr; ew et dnel jagar i
nstoy teɫwoǰ nora, ew arkanel ǰur tkaw yorovayn nora : “The king, even more
incensed, ordered his feet to be bound with cords of wineskins and him to be hung
upside down. And he had a funnel placed in his bottom and had water poured from a
wine-skin into his belly”. Also Bolognesi (1995: 5) translates hrapoyrs/hrapars
tkac‘ as “cords of wineskins”. The reading hrapar-s must be the correct one (see s.v.
aṙapar ‘craggy place’). Norayr (see HAB 3: 132b) identifies the word with hrapoyr
found in P‘awstos Buzand 4.55 (see also Thomson 1976: 465109). Garsoïan (1989:
176), however, takes the latter as identical with hrapoyr ‘charm, allurement,
seduction, indulgence’ (Bible+).
MidArm. dimin. tk-ik, tk-čor, dimin. tkčor-ak ‘id.’ [MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 391b].
See also s.v. aṙatik ‘rope, cord’.
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects [HAB 4: 406a]. The irregular gy in Agulis tagy
, taygy
points to an older *tig [Ačaṙean 1935: 115].
Note also Łarabaɫ tɛk
y
, tɛgy
, tɛygy
[Davtayan 1966: 483].
MidArm. tk-čor is reflected in Hačən dägǰoy, Zeyt‘un dɛɔgǰüy/r [HAB ibid.;
Ačaṙyan 2003: 340]; cf. also Łarabaɫ *tk-čṙ-v-il ‘to swell’ (see HAB 4: 406a).
●SEMANTICS The leather vessels called tik, etc. were made of skin of various
animals: goats, oxen, calfs, buffaloes (Marutjan 1989: 129a with references). In
literary and ethnographical attestations tik mostly refers to the the winebag made of
skin of goat. Here are a few examples. It says in a riddle by Nersēs Šnorhali, 12th
cent., Cilicia, that the he-goat (k‘ōš) has nice winebags for wine: ginoy uni aɫuor
təker (A. Mnac‘akanyan 1980: 287). Abraham Kretac‘i (18th cent.) mentions watercontainers called tik made of skins of sheeps and goats (1870: 16, see L. Petrosyan
1968: 37). In a versified saying recorded in T‘iflis (Tēr-Aɫek‘sandrean 1885: 52Nr69):
Ul ɛir u tik daṙar “You were a kid, but turned into a wineskin”. A few lines below
tkčur is mentioned too.
It is not surprizing then that Arm. tik originally referred to ‘goat’ (see below). For
examples from other languages displaying the same semantic development, see
HAB 4: 405b.
●ETYM Since Lidén (1906: 10-14), connected with Germ. *tigō ‘goat, he-goat’ (cf.
OHG ziga, Germ. Ziege, etc.) and Gr. Laconian δίζα· αἴξ. Λάκωνες (Hesychius). Alb.
dhi f. ‘(she-)goat’ (see Kortlandt 1986: 38 = 2003: 68, with ref.) rather belongs with
ayc ‘(she-)goat’ [Orel 1994: 358; Demiraj 1997: 160] (q.v.).
The Germanic form is derived from QIE *digh
- (Pokorny 1959: 222), which
would yield Arm. *tig, whereas the Laconian presupposes *διγ-ϳα <*dig-ih2-.
However, δίζα may be a corruption for *αἶζα (see Kortlandt 1986: 381 = 2003: 681;
Clackson 1994: 89, with ref.). The Armenian form requires a QIE *dig- (see
Pokorny 1959: 222, hesitantly assuming “tabuistische Entstellung”; cf. J̌
ahukyan
1987: 118), which, with its two voiced stops, has an impossible root structure. Given
the restriction of the word to Armenian, Germanic, perhaps also Greek, we may
assume a substratum origin with a vacillation *-gh
-/*-g-, unless one prefers an
assimilation *digh
- > PArm. *dig- > Arm. tik (see further s.v. karkut ‘hail’). It is
tempting to explain EArm. *tig- (reflected in Agulis, etc.) from the proto-form
*digh
-.
On the other hand, the Armenian form is usually explained by linking it with
Germanic diminutive geminate in -kk-: OHG zicki, OEngl. ticcen ‘Zicklein’, etc.
(Lidén ibid.; Meillet 1908-09: 356; Olsen 1999: 61, 826). For the issue, see also s.v.
buc ‘lamb’.
Nikolaev (1985: 72) compares PIE *digh
- with PAndi *t’uka and PTsez *t’iga
‘he-goat’ and OTurk. teka and points out that it is difficult to determine the primary
source. On the other hand, he (ibid.) separates Gr. τράγος m. ‘goat’ from τρώγω ‘to
nibble’ (see s.v. aracem ‘to pasture’) and considers it a Caucasian loan, which is
phonetically improbable. One may wonder if the ECauc. forms are borrowed from
Armenian. A larger areal context is assumed by J̌
ahukyan 1987: 607. On Georg.
t’ik’i, etc. which are treated as Armenian loanwords, see HAB 4: 406a; Matzinger
2005: 26125.
*tit ‘teat, bosom’; only in merk-a-tit, in P‘awstos Buzand 4.15 /5th cent./ (1883=1984:
102L-6; transl. Garsoïan 1989: 144). The passage reads as follows: Isk kinn spaneloyn P‘aṙanjemn zhanderjsn pataṙeal, zgēss arjakeal, merkatit i mēǰ ašxaranin kocēr :
“As for P‘aṙanjem, the wife of the slain, rending her garments and loosening her
hair, she lamented with bosom bared among the mourners”. The text does not cite
any reading variant for merkatit, but Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 404a) notes that in a variant
one finds merkatik.
In the homilies by Yovhan Mandakuni (5th cent.) or Yovhan Mayragomec‘i (7th
cent.) one finds merkatik. In NHB (2: 255b) the passage is referred to Mand. c‘ank.,
but this is not found in the list of abbreviations. In NHB (ibid.) the word is read as
merkatit and identified with the above-mentioned merkatit of P‘awstos, and is
interpreted as ‘with bosom bared’. Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 404a, 409a), however, reads
the compound as merk-a-tig (with tig ‘arm’), considering tit ‘bosom’ to be a
ghost-word. This is possible, albeit unnecessary. The interpretation suggested in
NHB finds some etymological (see below) and culturological support; note the habit
of lamentation by women with bosom bared known from the ancient traditions, see
e.g. Herodotus 2.85 (φαίνουσαι τοὺς μαζούς), and Vardiman 1982: 292, 296, and the
inset following p. 128 (= Russ. transl. 1990: 288, 292, inset following p. 192).
●ETYM For Ačaṙyan’s opinion and a philological discussion, see above. Bugge
(1890: 85-86) compares the correspondence cic : (merka)tit with caṙ ‘tree’ vs. an-taṙ
‘forest’.
Together with titan ‘nurse’ (Plato+), as well as cic ‘bosom’ (late attest.;
widespread in the dialects), cuc ‘substance to be sucked’ (Bible+), dial. ‘marrow’,
ccem ‘to suck’ (Bible+), perhaps also tat ‘grandmother’ (widespread in the dialects)
[see s.vv.], derived from PIE *ĝeid- ‘to suck’ and/or *tēta, cf. Lith. žį́sti, zîdu ‘to
suck’, OEngl. titt, Engl. teat, Germ. Zitze, etc. [J̌
ahukyan 1967: 133142, 174, 17430,
182, 302; 1982: 61, 21780; 1987: 153, 196, 593]. For the comparison with the
Germanic, see already Bugge 1890: 85.
For similar “Lallwörter” in Caucasian languages, see HAB 2: 471b; J̌
ahukyan
1987: 593, 608.
If the final -d in Hamšen gɔv-jud ‘green lizard’ (cf. kov-cuc, lit. ‘cow-sucker’) is
reliable (see s.v. kov-a-diac‘ ‘a lizard’), one can regard the proto-form *cut as an
intermediary between cic/cuc and tit (cf. also the above-mentioned PIE *ĝeid- ‘to
suck’).
Note also CunLuw. titan- n. ‘(weibliche) Brust, Zitze (bei Tieren)’, titant(i)-
‘säugend’, on which see Starke 1990: 229-230. It is uncertain whether there is any
connection between Arm. titan ‘nurse’ and the Luwian words. Further, see s.v.
*tat(a) ‘grandmother; midwife’.
titan, a-stem (with no evidence for the declension class) ‘nurse’ (in Plato and Grigor
Magistros); titani, ea- stem (AblPl i titaneac‘ in Plato) ‘wet-nurse’; titanem ‘to
nurse, nurture’ and titanean dayeak ‘nurturing nurse’ (Grigor Magistros).
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 409b) asks: “Made from Gr. τίτϑη, τιτϑίον ‘nurse’?” Note
also τιϑήνη ‘id.’.
For a further discussion, see s.v. tit ‘bosom’ (q.v.). If there was also a verbal *tit-
‘to nurture’ (cf. Luw. *tit(a)i̯i- ‘säugen’, titan- n. ‘(weibliche) Brust, Zitze (bei
Tieren)’, titant(i)- ‘säugend’, etc. [Starke 1990: 229-230]), one might interpret tit-an
as a deverbative noun with the suffix -an.
tiw, GDLocSg tu-ənǰ-ean, LocSg i tuənǰean, i tu-ē (Bible+); later o-stem: ISg təw-o-v
(Žamagirk‘) ‘day’ (Bible+); tuənǰean ‘morning’ (Hexaemeron); tuənǰen-akan
‘daily’ (Philo, Anania Širakac‘i, etc.), tuənǰen-ayin ‘daily’ (Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.39
[1913=1991: 165L18], etc.).
Frequently: i tuē ew i gišeri “at day and at night” in the Bible (see Astuacaturean
1895: 1157-58) and the following literature, e.g. in Yovhan
Mandakuni/Mayragomec‘i, 5th/7th cent. [2003: 1159bL5] (mišt i tuē ew i gišeri layi
andadar “I always cried, at day and at night continuously”); Movsēs
Kaɫankatuac‘i/Dasxuranc‘i 1.21 (V. Aṙak‘elyan 1983: 70L1).
●ETYM From PIE *dieus ‘heaven, day, Sky-God’: Skt. NSg dyáuḥ, AccSg dyā́m,
LocSg dyávi, diví ‘heaven; Sky God, Father Sky; day’, dívā ‘by day’, Gr. Zεύς, voc.
Ζευ̃, gen. Δι(ϝ)ός, dat.loc. Δι(ϝ)ί, dat. also Διϝεί, acc. Ζῆν, etc., Lat. diēs, ēī m. ‘day’,
in diem ‘each day’, etc., see Hübschmann 1897: 498; HAB 4: 410 with lit.; Pokorny
1959: 185; Mallory/Adams 1997: 149b.
For a discussion of tu(ə)nǰean, the final -w and other issues, see Charpentier
1909: 252-253; Meillet 1936: 85; Pisani 1950: 183; Godel 1975: 35; J̌
ahukyan 1982:
123; Kortlandt 1984a: 100; 1989: 49 = 2003: 47, 93; Clackson 1994: 140, 163,
21337; Olsen 1999: 176; Beekes 2003: 161, 164, 203-204; Matzinger 2005: 84. It is
tempting to derive tuənǰean from PArm. *tiw-ini̯- < *diu̯-(e)n-i- in a way comparable
to cognate formations in *-n- as Hitt. šiu-n(i)-, šiunii̯a- ‘divine’, etc. (for a
discussion of these forms, see Watkins 1974: 104ff; Neu 1974: 122ff; Starke 1990:
167551).
The derivation of Arm. di-k‘ ‘god’ (q.v.) from this PIE word (O. Haas 1940: 104)
is untenable, although a contamination is possible (cf. the epenthetic -w- in diw-c‘-).
For possible traces of PArm. *Tiw ‘Sky-god’, see s.vv. ciacan ‘rainbow’, kaɫin
‘acorn’. Further, see s.v. *ti ‘day’.
toɫ, i-stem: GDSg toɫ-i in Aristakēs Lastivertc‘i (11th cent.) and Yovhannēs Erznkac‘i,
ISg toɫ-i-w in Grigor Narekac‘i (10-11th cent.) ‘line, rank; row of pearls, people,
words, etc.’ (John Chrysostom etc.); toɫem ‘to line up, align, organize in rows, plait
together’, said of e.g. aɫōt‘s ‘prayers’, aṙaspels ‘mythic stories’, bans ‘words’, etc.
(Agat‘angeɫos, Eusebius of Caesarea, Severian of Gabala, etc.).
For attestations and a semantic analysis, see Aɫayan 1974: 139-140.
●DIAL Muš, Alaškert toɫ, Axalc‘xa, Ararat tɔɫ, Suč‘ava dɔɫ ‘line’; Nor Naxiǰewan
*toɫ ‘ruler (for drawing straight lines)’; Bulanəx, Č‘arsančag toɫ ‘necklace’ [HAB 4:
418b].
●ETYM Since Scheftelowitz (1904-05, 2: 28) and Pedersen (1906: 372 = 1982: 150),
connected with OHG zala, Germ. Zahl, OIc. tal ‘Zahl; Erzählung’, Engl. tale, etc.
(see also Pokorny 1959: 193). Aɫayan (1974: 138-140) connects these Armenian and
Germanic forms with Arm. taɫ ‘poem; song, melody; epic song’ (q.v.) and stresses
the semantic identity of toɫ with Saxon toel, talu ‘row’. Ačaṙyan (1908: 122b; HAB
4: 418) links toɫ with Georg. t’olo, t’oli ‘equal, resembling’ and assumes a common
borrowing from an unattested Urartian source form. On this see, however, Aɫayan
1974: 138-140.
*toṙ ‘neck’.
●DIAL A dialectal word recorded only in the (sub)dialect of Axta/Hrazdan, as
informed by Sofia Ačaṙyan, the wife of H. Ačaṙyan (see HAB 4: 658a). Used only in
phrases: toṙə lc‘vel ē “his neck is thickened (lit. filled)”; toṙə hastac‘rel ē “he has
thickened his neck”.
Sofia Ačaṙyan was a native speaker of the Axta/Hrazdan (sub)dialect [G.
Step‘anyan 1976: 84], and sometimes provided her husband with unique dialectal
words (see e.g. AčaṙHLPatm 2, 1951: 388).
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 658a) connects with Lat. dorsum, ī n. ‘back; slope of a
hill, ridge’, for the semantic shift comparing with šlni ‘neck’ : ‘face’ (Hamšen),
‘upper-back’ (Bulanəx), q.v. For more examples, see s.vv. oɫn ‘spine, back’, uln
‘neck’, and 3.7.2. Lat. dorsum has been interpreted as *d-h1orso- (see Adams apud
Mallory/Adams 1997: 88b), see s.v. oṙ ‘rump’. See also s.v. tac ‘care, nourishment,
remedy, cultivation’.
toṙn1 ‘pestle’ (Nersēs Lambronac‘i); sand-a-toṙn or sand-i-toṙn, ISg sanditoṙam-b
(Čaṙəntir) ‘pestle of mortar’ attested in Proverbs 23.31 (rendering Gr. ὕπερον
‘pestle’), Evagrius of Pontus, Čaṙəntir.
●ETYM See s.v. targal ‘spoon’.
toṙn2, an-stem: ISg toṙam-b, NPl toṙun-k‘, APl toṙun-s (Bible+); z-toṙan-ē (Hamam
Arewelc‘i, 9th cent.) ‘rope, cord, noose’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Muš, Bulanəx tɔṙ ‘leash, lead tied to a dog’ [HAB 4: 421b; Melik‘ean 1964:
538b], Alaškert, Ṙštunik‘ tɔṙ ‘id.’ [Amatuni 1912: 634a].
●ETYM Usually derived from *dor(bh
)-n-, cf. Skt. dr̥bháti ‘to tie together, tie in a
bundle’, darbhá- m. ‘tuft of grass, bunch of grass’, OHG zerben ‘to turn about’, etc.,
Petersson 1916: 258-259; Pokorny 1959: 211-212; J̌
ahukyan 1967: 62, cf. 136;
1987: 118; Mallory/Adams 1997: 607a; Olsen 1999: 140, 839. For a further
discussion on the PIE etymon, see Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 703-704.
Aɫayan 1974: 149 derives toṙn from PIE *der- ‘to flay’ (see s.v. teṙem ‘to flay’)
but reconstructs *dorbh
n-, thus confusing it with the above etymon. The derivation
of toṙ-n ‘rope’ < ‘*leather rope’ from QIE *dor- (cf. Gr. δορά f. ‘flayed skin’, δορός
m. ‘leather sack’, etc.) is plausible. For the final -n, see 2.2.1.3.
torg ‘*wooden framework’: torg sardi ostayni ‘weaving or framework of spider-web’
in Hexaemeron, where torg renders Gr. ὕφασμα ‘weaving, fabric’ (K. Muradyan
1984: 189L17f, glossed in 377b).
●DIAL Łarabaɫ and Łarak‘ilisa (= Kirovakan-Vanajor) *torg ‘wooden framework on
which rug is woven’ [HAB 4: 422b]; Goris tɔrk‘, tɔ̈rk‘ (Margaryan 1975: 367b,
485b). A textual illustration is found in a story by Aksel Bakunc‘, native of Goris
(Bakunc‘ 1, 1976: 176): mankamard mi aɫǰik tork‘i aṙaǰ gorg ēr gorcum “a young
girl was weaving a rug in front of the loom (tork‘)”. For more details on Zangezur
tɔrk‘, see Lisic‘yan 1969: 158-159. A textual illustration from Tavuš folklore can be
found in Xemč‘yan 2000: 173bL17, glossed in 299a. Šamaxi tolk shows unclear
sound developments [Baɫramyan 1964: 42, 63, 228].
In the dictionary of Koylaw (Venice, 1889) one finds torg ‘a cylindrical wood
used for lifting heavy things’ [HAB 4: 422b].
●ETYM See s.v. targal ‘spoon’.
*torm ‘group of ships, fleet’, only in naw-a-torm, with naw ‘ship’ (Philo), naw-atorm-il (Philo), torm-iɫ and naw-a-torm-iɫ ‘id.’ (Eusebius of Caesarea).
●ETYM See s.v. tarm ‘flock of birds’.
top‘em ‘to beat with a beetle’ (Eusebius of Caesarea), ‘to beet with feet’ (Yovhannēs
Erznkac‘i), tp‘el (Yaysmawurk‘); top‘an, a-stem (ISg top‘an-a-w) ‘beetle for
beating clothes’ (Eusebius of Caesarea+); top‘ič‘, a-stem (IPl top‘č‘-a-w-k‘) ‘id.’
(Gēorg vardapet Skewṙac‘i, 13th cent., Cilicia).
●DIAL The verb has been preserved in Sebastia, Alaškert, Axalc‘xa, Ararat, Łarabaɫ,
Van, Moks, in the form *tp‘em ‘to beat’. The noun top‘an is present in Muš,
meaning ‘beetle for beating the roof to make it flat’ [HAB 4: 431b].
●ETYM Compared with Gr. δέφω, δέψω ‘to stamp, knead’, SCr. dépati ‘to butt,
slay’, Pol. deptać ‘to tread’ [Petersson 1916: 285; HAB 4: 431b; J̌
ahukyan 1987:
118]. According to Clackson (1994: 224112), the etymology is not completely
certain. For the problem of the aspirated p‘ in the neighbourhood of *s, see Clackson
1994: 100, 22268; cf. also op‘i ‘poplar’ (see Witczak 1991). One should also take
into account the possibility of an onomatopoeic word; see J̌
ahukyan 1987: 319,
introducing, albeit with reservation, Luw. dup(p)i- ‘to beat’. Perhaps related with
tap‘ ‘earth, ground’.
For the formation of top‘-an, see Clackson 1994: 112, 224112.
tuar ‘neat, cattle’, see s.v. tawn ‘feast’.
tun, an-stem: GDSg tan, LocSg. i tan, AblSg i tan-ē, ISg tam-b, GDPl tan-c‘, IPl tamb-k‘ ‘house; stanza; family, tribe; land, region’ (Bible+); tan-i-k‘, pl. tant. ea-stem:
acc. tani-s, loc.-all. i tani-s, gen.-dat. tane-a-c‘, instr. tane-a-w-k‘ ‘roof’ (Bible+);
əntani, ea-stem: GDSg əntanw-o-y, GDPl əntane-a-c‘ ‘domestic; family’ (Bible+).
●DIAL The word tun is ubiquitous in the dialects; tani-k‘ is present in several
dialects, in some of them reflecting a frozen APl tanis or coll. *tanear [HAB 4:
428b]; əntani(k‘) is found in a number of dialects, in euphemistic usage for ‘wife’
[HAB 2: 132a].
●ETYM From PIE *dṓm, gen. dém-s ‘house’: Skt. dám-, GPl dam-ā́m, GSg *dám-s
in pátir dán ‘master of the house’, Av. dam-, GSg də̄ṇg, LocSg dąm, YAv. LocSg
dąmi ‘house’, Gr. δῶ n. ‘house’, δῶμα n. ‘house, temple’, δεσ-πότης ‘master of the
house, lord’ (cf. Skt. dám-pati-, Av. də̄ṇg pati-); cf. also Skt. dáma- m. ‘house’, Gr.
δόμος m. ‘house, room’, Lat. domus f. ‘house, household’, OCS domъ ‘house’, etc.
Klaproth 1831: 101b; NHB 2: 891b; Hübschmann 1883: 53; 1897: 498; HAB 4:
427-428 with lit.; Pokorny 1959: 198; Szemerényi 1977: 95-96; Mayrhofer EWAia
1, 1992: 697, 699; Mallory/Adams 1997: 281b.
From *dom-o- or the like we would have Arm. *tum. One therefore derives Arm.
tun from nom. *dōm or acc. *dom-m̥ . Unlike Greek, Armenian has generalized *-n
(from *-m) throughout the paradigm. Compare jiwn, jean ‘snow’ vs. Gr. χιών, -όνος
‘snow’. For a discussion, see Schmalstieg 1980; Schmitt 1981: 51; Kortlandt 1985:
21, 23 = 2003: 65, 67; Saradževa 1986: 244, 282; Stempel 1993 < 1987: 150-151;
Ravnæs 1991: 99-100; Clackson 1994: 137; Olsen 1999: 134; Beekes 2003: 157,
168; Matzinger 2005: 21-22108, 71323, 72326. For a further discussion of the
declension, see s.vv. jiwn ‘snow’, šun ‘dog’.
See also s.v. tamal ‘roof’.
t-k‘un ‘awake, sleepless’ (Grigor Tat‘ewac‘i, 14-15th cent.), t-k‘nim ‘to be awake,
sleepless’ (Bible+), t-k‘n-ut‘iwn ‘sleeplessness’ (Bible+), adv. tk‘n-abar (John
Chrysostom), etc. [NHB 2: 900bc; Astuacaturean 1895: 1475c].
●DIAL Hačən däg‘g‘un ‘awake, sleepless’ [HAB 4: 592b]; Svedia dk‘nil ‘to be
awake, sleepless’ [Andreasyan 1967: 386a].
●ETYM Composed of the privative prefix t- and k‘un ‘sleep’ (q.v.).
c‘ax, o-stem: ISg c‘ax-o-v several times in Geoponica (13th cent.); i-stem: ISg c‘ax-i-w
in Nersēs Palienc‘ (14th cent.) ‘fresh branch with leaves’ (Geoponica, Nersēs
Palienc‘, “Bžškaran jioy” [Č‘ugaszyan 1980: 128L-10]), ‘a kind of tree, maple [NHB
2: 904b] or ash [HAB 4: 446a]’; c‘axem ‘to harrow’ in Xosrov Anjewac‘i [NHB 2:
904c]; c‘ax-ut ‘brushwood’ in Geoponica [MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 401a]. On c‘agan
‘harrow’ (Grigor Tat‘ewac‘i), see below. Dial. c‘ax ‘branch; firewood; brushwood’,
c‘ak‘ ‘a thorny plant; harrow’.
In Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ (Amalyan 1975: 318), c‘ax is represented in three meanings:
(1) a coniferous tree, probably ‘fir, spruce’: caṙn mar <...> kam eɫewin, (2)
‘brushwood, woods, forest’: mac‘aṙ, kam antaṙ, (3) ‘fuel (firewood)’: vaṙeli.
A thorny place in the Goris region called C‘ak‘ut is mentioned in Step‘anos
Ōrbelean (A. A. Abrahamyan 1986: 226). On corroborative dialectal evidence, see
below.
●DIAL c‘ax : Van, Alaškert, Ararat ‘brushwood, small dry branches broken off from
trees or bushes and used as firewood’ [Amatuni 1912: 640a]; Hamšen ‘brushwood,
bush; a shrub and the broom made of it’; T‘iflis ‘dry branches’; Ararat ‘firewood’;
Łarabaɫ, Sɛɔlɛɔz (Nikomidia) ‘bush or branches for silkworm’ (note the Georgian
semantics below); Binkean (Sebastia, Tevrik region) ‘leaves of juniper used as
fodder’; Zeyt‘un c‘ɔx, c‘ox ‘leaf, especially of vine’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 1051a; HAB 4:
447a]; Svedia c‘üx ‘twigs to be burnt in sunk oven’ [Ačaṙyan 2003: 589].
A compound: Van, Muš, Bulanəx, Alaškert, Širak, Aparan, Ararat *c‘ax-awel
‘broom made of branches’ [Amatuni 1912: 640]. Agulis c‘ɫávil shows an
exceptional and unexplained sound change -x- : -ɫ- (Ačaṙean 1935: 108, 393). This
may probably be explained by contamination with ǰah ‘a kindling oily stick, torch’,
cf. T‘iflis, Šamaxi čaɫ [HAB 4: 119b; Baɫramyan 1964: 223]. The same
contamination may also explain the hushing č- in Łarabaɫ čxɛ́
vül, perhaps also
Georg. č
h
axi vs. c
h
axi ‘branches of mulberry for silkworm’; cf. also Georg. c
h
axe ‘a
bush, былинка’ (see HAB 4: 447a).
Derivative: Hamšen (c‘axud), Trapizon *c‘ax-ut ‘woods, forest’ [Ačaṙean 1913:
1051b; HAB 4: 447a], also ‘mountain’ (see 3.4.1). On c‘ax-an, see below.
c‘ak‘: Łarabaɫ (c‘äk‘y in HAB 4: 447a and 452a, but c‘ak‘ in Davt‘yan 1966:
487), Łaradaɫ, Agulis, Loṙi ‘thorn; a thorny shrub, the branches of which are used
for making hedges’ [HAB 4: 447a]; Van, Muš, Bulanəx, Sip‘an, Aparan ‘harrow
made of thorny bushes or tree-branches’ [Amatuni 1912: 642a]; Moks c‘ak‘y
‘борона из хвороста’ (Orbeli 2002: 338; a textual illustration in 63Nr31, Russ. transl. 138); Łarabaɫ, Łazax, Loṙi, etc. c‘ak‘-i ‘a thorny wild plant, Paliurus aculeatus’
[HAB 4: 447a].
Łarabaɫ c‘ak‘-an (c‘ä́k‘y
än, Davt‘yan 1966: 487) ‘harrow made of thorny bushes
or tree-branches’ [Amatuni 1912: 642a] (this word, in variants c‘ak‘an and c‘axan,
is recorded in DialAdd apud NHB 2: 1067b). Šatax cäky
än presupposes an older
c‘agan, which is corroborated by an attestation in Grigor Tat‘ewac‘i, 14-15th cent.
[HAB 4: 446a]. Moks has c‘aky
än [Orbeli 2002: 337]. This -g- vs. -k‘- : -x- is
unclear. Note also Xotorǰur *c‘agi ‘a thorny shrub’ [YušamXotorǰ 1964: 516a].
Łarabaɫ, Łazax, Loṙi c‘ak‘-at ‘branch-cutter’ = c‘ak‘ + hat- ‘to cut’; Muš,
Bulanəx, Aparan, Sip‘an, Łarabaɫ c‘ak‘el ‘to harrow’ (cf. Moks c‘ak‘y
il ‘боронить’,
Orbeli 2002: 338); Łarabaɫ, Łazax, Širak c‘ak‘-ut ‘place abounding in thorny
bushes’ [Amatuni 1912: 642]. The latter is also a place-name on the river Orotan:
C‘ak‘ut [Amatuni 1912: 642b]. This is identical with the above-mentioned C‘ak‘ut
attested in Step‘anos Ōrbelean (see HayTeɫBaṙ 5, 2001: 155b). Also in Tavuš,
c‘ak‘ut refers to ‘brushwood’ or ‘woods’. Textual illustrations can be found in fairytales from HŽHek‘ 6, 1973; for instance: məer tan ɫak‘i c‘ak‘utəmə vaz-vaz a anəm :
“(she) is running to and fro in the c‘ak‘ut which is in front of our house” (492L-6).
A compound with the copula u ‘and’: Ararat, Borč‘alu (Loṙi) c‘ax-u-c‘ak‘ ‘dry
branches’ [Amatuni 1912: 640b].
●ETYM Since long (de Lagarde [Boetticher] 1850: 363Nr268; 1854: 23L592;
Hübschmann 1883: 53; 1897: 499), compared with Skt. śā́khā- f. (RV+) ‘branch,
twig’; Sogd. (Man.) š’ɣh ‘branch’, Oss. sagoj/sagojnæ ‘hay-fork’, sag ‘deer’ (<
*šāka- lit. ‘forked, having branches’, see Cheung 2002: 222; see also s.v.
xač‘eneak); Goth. f. hoha ‘plough’; Lith. šakà ‘branch’, šãkė ‘fork, pitchfork,
dungfork’; Russ. soxá ‘(wooden) plough’, ORuss. soxá ‘stake, club, brace, plough’,
Pol. socha ‘two-pronged fork’, Czech socha ‘statue, sculpture’, Bulg. soxá ‘stick
with a fork’, Sln. sóha ‘pole with a cross-beam’, SCr. sòha ‘stick with a fork’, Slk.
socha ‘column’, etc. (see also Pokorny 1959: 523; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 628;
Mallory/Adams 1997: 80a).
Since PIE *k ̂ regularly yields Arm. s, here one has assumed a QIE *k̂
h
- (perhaps
secondary, through assimilatory influence of the *-kH- in the root) or *sk-, with smobile (for a discussion, see Scheftelowitz 1904-05, 1: 288-289; Pedersen 1905:
204-205 = 1982: 66-67; Petersson 1920: 98) or *k̂
s- (Meillet 1936: 36). The fricative
-x points to *-k- + *-H-, see Kortlandt 1976: 91 = 2003: 1; Lubotsky 1989: 56;
Beekes 2003: 202 (see also 2.1.18.1). Lubotsky (1988: 104) reconstructs PIE
*k̂
ok(w)-eh2-, gen. *k̂
ok(w)-h2-os. Skt. -kh- and Arm. -x have resulted from
generalization of the oblique stem. Sceptical: Elbourne 2005: 10-11. For a
discussion, see also Ravnæs 1991: 128-129.
As we have seen in the dialectal section, both c‘ak‘ and c‘ax are widespread in
Armenian dialects. One of the meanings of the former is ‘harrow’ (compare ‘plough’
in Slavic and Gothic). The doublet -k‘ : -x (cf. J̌
ahukyan 1987: 130, 253) points to an
archaic distribution between the nominative and oblique stems of the original
paradigm: PIE nom. *k̂
ók-eh2-, gen. *k̂
k-h2-ós. The PArm. paradigm was as follows:
nom. *sókā-, gen. *c‘axó- (from *k̂
h
axó- [with assimilation, see above] < *k̂
ək-h2-ós,
with an anaptyctic shwa in the cluster) > > *c‘ak‘ : *c‘ax. Then these forms have
been generalized into two forms with a semantic contrast: c‘ax ‘branch; firewood; brushwood’, c‘ak‘ ‘a thorny plant; harrow’. If one prefers the solution with smobile: PIE nom. *sk̂
ók-eh2-, gen. *(s)k̂
ək-h2-ós > PArm. nom. *c‘ókā-, gen. *saxó-
> > *c‘ak‘ : *c‘ax. The s-mobile has been lost in the initial cluster of the genitive,
but Armenian has restored it from the nominative.
c‘ac, o-stem (GDSg c‘ac-o-y in John Chrysostom), according to NHB 2: 904c also istem (but there is only GDSg c‘ac-i in Sargis Šnorhali, 12th cent., which points to
either i- or a-stem) ‘low; modest, moderate, obedient’ (Bible+); c‘acnum (aor.
c‘aceay) ‘to become low; to subside; to cease, become calm’; c‘ac-un ‘modest,
calm’ (Bible+; on this derivative, see Klingenschmitt 1982: 25716; Olsen 1999: 602,
604), o-stem: GDSg c‘acn-o-y in Eusebius of Caesarea, John Chrysostom, GDPl
c‘acn-o-c‘ in John Chrysostom.
●DIAL The form c‘ac is widespread in the dialects (mostly kə-group, but also Ararat,
Salmast). In Van-group, T‘iflis, Ararat: c‘acr, analogically after barjr ‘high’. Maraɫa
distinguishes between c‘ac adv. ‘low’ and c‘ánjər ‘low; modest’ [HAB 4: 447b].
Polis has c‘aj and the verb c‘aznal, 1sg.aor. c‘acca [Ačaṙean 1941: 142, 144, 245].
●ETYM Scheftelowitz (1904-05, 1: 287) compares Arm. c‘acnum with Lat. cadō,
cadere ‘to fall (down, from); to die, perish, end, close’, Skt. śad- ‘to fall out; to
decay’ (perf. śaśāda, fut. śatsyanti), parṇa-śadá- m. ‘fall of leaves’ (see Mayrhofer
EWAia 2, 1996: 607, without Iranian and Armenian). Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 447b) is
sceptical since, as he explicitly states, one expects Arm. *sat or *sac. This is not
decisive since the Proto-Armenian form can be explained by a form with s-mobile
(see Mladenov 1937: 100; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 130).
In order to explain the affricate -c- of the Armenian form, Scheftelowitz (ibid.)
posits *k̂
ad-yo-, which is accepted in Pokorny 1959: 516; Illič-Svityč 1971: 349;
J
̌ahukyan 1982: 61; 1987: 130 (sceptical: Klingenschmitt 1982: 25819). However, *-
dy- would yield Arm. -č- rather than -c- (see 2.1.22.1). A better solution would be to
envisage a sigmatic aorist formation *-d-s- (cf. J̌
ahukyan 1982: 185).
The Indo-European root is reconstructed as *k̂
eh2d-, with loss of the laryngeal in
Aryan (see Lubotsky 1981: 134). If this is accepted, Lat. cadō reflects *k̂
h2d-
[Schrijver 1991: 100]. The Proto-Armenian form would go back then to QIE sigm.
aor. *sk̂
(e)h2d-s-.
See also s.v. satak ‘corpse’.
Olsen (1999: 772, 80248, 966), with reservation, derives Arm. c‘ac from *(h)utih3k
w
V-ti̯o- or the like, assuming dissimilation from *c‘ac‘, cf. Skt. ava- ‘off, away,
down’, Gr. αὔσιος ‘in vain’, Goth. auþja ‘desert’. This is gratuitous.
c‘amak‘, a-stem: GDSg c‘amak‘-i, LocSg i c‘amak‘-i, ISg c‘amak‘-a-w (no evidence
for the plural) ‘dry; earth, dry land’ (Bible+); c‘amak‘im ‘to grow dry’ (Bible+). On
the denominative verb c‘mk‘-, smk‘- ‘to grow dry; to shrivel, shrink’ (MidArm. and
dialects), see below.
A few textual illustrations for the two meanings:
In Job 24.19: Erewesc‘i tunk noc‘a i veray c‘amak‘ erkri “May their plants appear
on dried-out earth” : ἀναφανείη δὲ τὰ φυτὰ αὐτῶν ἐπὶ γῆς ξηρά (Cox 2006: 171).
In Genesis 1.10 (Zeyt‘unyan 1985: 146): Ew koč‘eac‘ Astuac zc‘amak‘n erkir :
καὶ ἐκάλεσεν ὁ ϑεὸς τὴν ξηρὰν γῆν. In Jonah 1.9 (Weitenberg 1992a: 10): Asē c‘nosa. caṙáy teaṙn em es, ew ztēr
astuac erknic‘ paštem or arár zcov ew zc‘amak‘ : καὶ εἰ̃πεν πρὸς αὐτούς Δοῦλος
κυρίου ἐγώ εἰμι καὶ τὸν κύριον ϑεὸν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἐγὼ σέβομαι, ὃς ἐποίησεν τὴν
ϑάλασσαν καὶ τὴν ξηράν.
An illustration for the verb c‘amak‘im from Genesis 8.14 (Zeyt‘unyan 1985:
180): c‘amak‘ec‘aw erkir : ἐξηράνϑη ἡ γῆ.
●DIAL The noun c‘amak‘ is ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 4: 448b], mainly in the
meaning ‘dry’ [Amatuni 1912: 640b; Ačaṙean 1913: 1051-1052].
A denominative verb is found both with initial c‘- and s-: Nor Naxiǰewan c‘mk‘il,
Polis c‘amk‘il, Hamšen c‘ɔmk‘uš ‘to grow dry’ [HAB 4: 448b], Muš, Alaškert
c‘mk‘il ‘to shrivel, shrink from fear’, Širak smk‘il ‘id.’ [Amatuni 1912: 594], Polis,
Łarabaɫ *smk‘il ‘to grow dry’, Arabkir, Ewdokia ‘to shrivel, shrink’, etc. [Ačaṙean
1913: 975b]. In Grigoris, a 13th-century medical writer, we find both smk‘- and
c‘mk‘- ‘to grow dry’, in both cases said of a breast’ (see MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 333b,
404b). The desaffrication of c‘- into s- in the initial cluster is conceivable, and I see
no solid reason to follow Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 234-235) in separating smk‘im (q.v.)
from c‘amak‘.
●ETYM Since de Lagarde (1854: 19L461f) and others (Bugge 1889: 18; Pedersen
1905: 204 = 1982: 66), Arm. c‘amak‘ is interpreted as composed of the suffixal
element -k‘ (from IE *-k- or *-tu̯-) and a root which is cognate with Skt. kṣám- f.
‘earth, surface of the earth’, NSg kṣā́s, GAblSg jm-ás and gm-ás, kṣamā́ ‘on the
floor’, dual-dvandva dyā́vā-kṣā́mā ‘heaven and earth’, MPers. zamīk ‘earth’, Gr.
χϑών, gen. χϑονός ‘earth’, χαμαί ‘on the earth’, Hitt. tēkan n. ‘earth’, Toch. A tkaṃ
‘earth’, B keṃ ‘earth’ (< PToch. *tken-, Adams 1999: 192), Lat. humus f. ‘earth,
soil, ground’ (for the vocalism cf. Schrijver 1991: 204), Lith. žẽmė ‘earth, land’,
OCS zemlja ‘earth, land’, Czech země, etc. (Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 424-425;
Derksen 1996: 63-64; for the Vedic inflection, see Kuiper 1942: 86-91 [246-251]).
The initial cluster rather represents a *dh
ĝh
- (see Euler 1979: 167; Beekes 1995:
133-134). In Armenian, PIE *dh
ĝh
- and *tk̂
- merged into a c‘- (cf. Klingenschmitt
1982: 191, 19135, operating with *ĝh
þ and *k̂
þ), see also s.v. c‘in ‘kite’. Compare,
however, jukn ‘fish’ (q.v.).
This PIE word is an old HD m-stem: nom. *dh
éĝh
-ōm (Hitt. tēkan, Skt. kṣā́-s, Gr.
χϑών), acc. *dh
ĝh
-ém-m (Gr. χϑόν-α, Lith. žẽm-ė), gen. *dh
ĝh
-m-ós (Hitt. takn-aš,
Skt. jm-ás, Gr. χϑον-ός), see Beekes 1995: 178. Skt. kṣamā́ and Gr. χαμαί are
derived from an ending-less locative *dh
ĝh
m-eh2 of a h2-collective/abstract
formation, probably via a Lindeman-variant *dh
ĝh
m̥ meh2 (see Hajnal 1992,
especially 213-217, 21537).
According to Klingenschmitt (1982: 19135; see also Olsen 1999: 71, 776-777),
Arm. c‘amak‘, a-stem may be derived from *ĝh
þm̥ a-ko/ā- ‘auf der Erde befindlich’;
for the suffix, see J̌
ahukyan 1987: 232; Olsen 1999: 71147, 852-854. I would prefer a
form QIE *dh
ĝh
m̥ m-eh2-k-eh2-, with coll. -k‘. The collective nature of the word is
corroborated by the fact that no plural forms are attested.
On the other hand, Arm. c‘amak‘ has been linked with Skt. kṣāmá- ‘versengt,
ausgedörrt’, kṣā́mavant- ‘verbrannt, verkohlt’ (YV+), etc. (on which see Mayrhofer
EWAia 1, 1992: 430), with or without the words for ‘earth’, Bugge, Pedersen (see
references above); Hübschmann 1897: 499; Pokorny 1959: 624; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 133, 176, 259, 462 (with hesitation). They usually reconstruct initial *ks-. However,
*ks- would probably yield Arm. č‘-, see s.v. č‘ir ‘dried fruit’, č‘or ‘dry’ (cf. Gr.
ξερόν ‘terra firma’, ξηρός ‘dry; withered’, Skt. kṣāra- ‘caustic, pungent, saline’, etc.)
and 2.1.12.
Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 448) rejects the IE origin of Arm. c‘amak‘ and treats it as a
Semitic loanword, cf. Hebrew ṣmq ‘to dry’, etc. This is less probable.
I conclude that Arm. c‘amak‘ ‘dry; earth, dry land’ derives from the PIE word for
‘earth’ (cf. Skt. kṣám-, MPers. zamīk, Gr. χϑών, Hitt. tēkan, etc.). The only difficulty
is that the semantic development ‘dry’ > ‘dry land, earth’ is more probable than the
opposite one. However, this is a minor problem and may have resulted from a
secondary association (cf. Skt. kṣāmá- ‘versengt, ausgedörrt’).
c‘ayem ‘to rinse’, MidArm. according to Norayr (HAB 4: 449a).
●DIAL Nor Naxiǰewan, Č‘enkiler (Nikomidia), St‘anoz, Xarberd, Sivrihisar c‘ayɛl
‘to rinse’ (according to Amatuni 1912: 553b, also in Van); Baberd, Sebastia c‘ay-uk‘ ‘rinsed water’. In Axalk‘alak‘ and Alek‘sandrapol (Leninakan, now Gyumri),
c‘ayel ‘to walk coquettishly’ [HAB 4: 449a].
●ETYM No etymology in HAB 4: 449a. M. Aɫabekyan (1980: 159-162) links c‘ayem
with Lat. skateō ‘to gush out, to jump up (of water out of a well)’, etc., see s.v.
c‘aytem ‘to sprinkle, spray, strew, splash (on)’.
c‘aytem ‘to sprinkle, spray, strew, splash (on)’ (4 Kings 9.33, Dawit‘ Anyaɫt‘), ‘to
sparkle, twinkle, flash’ (Nersēs Lambronac‘i, 11th cent.); c‘ayt-k‘ pl. ‘splash, spray’
(Canon Law); c‘ayt-uk ‘splash, spray’ (Nersēs Lambronac‘i, 11th cent.); c‘ayt-umn
‘splash, spray; sparkle, flash’ (Łazar P‘arpec‘i /5th cent./, etc.). With aspirated dental
stop: c‘ayt‘- ‘to (be)sprinkle’ (Yovhannēs Vanandec‘i Benik Vardapet, Nersēs
Šnorhali, etc.), ‘to sparkle, flash’ (Eɫišē), ‘to shine, rise (said of the sun)’
(Geoponica, etc.); without -y-: MidArm. c‘at‘el ‘to rise (said of the sun)’, c‘at‘il,
aor. c‘at‘ec‘ay ‘to rise (of the sun); to ray, radiate, send out shine or reflection’
[MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 401a]. In Amirdovlat‘ Amasiac‘i (15th cent.): c‘at‘-k-el ‘to
jump down’ [MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 401a].
In 4 Kings 9.33: c‘aytec‘aw yarenē nora zormovk‘n ew zjiovk‘n : ἐρραντίσϑη τοῦ
αἵματος αὐτῆς πρὸς τὸν τοῖχον καὶ πρὸς τοὺς ἵππους.
●DIAL The verb c‘a(y)t- (with non-aspirated -t-) has been preserved in the dialect of
Ewdokia: c‘atel. Beside the forms with initial c‘- (Sebastia c‘at‘ɛl, etc., there are
also forms pointing to initial c-, Polis jat‘il, Zeyt‘un cɛt‘il, Svedia j‘id‘il ‘to rise (of
the sun); to shine’, etc. These forms reflect MidArm. cat‘il (attested in Kostandin
Erznkac‘i), which, according to Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 449b; Ačaṙyan 2003: 130, 422), is
a blend of c‘ayt- ‘to jump’ and cag- ‘to rise (of the sun)’. Alternatively, one may
assume a metathesis of aspiration: c‘ayt- > cayt‘- with a subsequent assimilation to
c‘ayt‘.
The basic meaning may be described as *‘to jump (said of water and light)’.
●ETYM Linked with Lat. skateō ‘to gush out, jump up (of water out of a well)’, Lith.
skàsti (skantú, skataũ) ‘to jump’, etc. (Meillet apud HAB 4: 449b; see also
Aɫabekyan 1980: 159-162); on the vocalism of the Baltic (*skot-) and Latin
(possibly *sket-) forms, see Schrijver 1991: 432), and, on the other hand
(Dervischjan 1877: 47), with Skt. skándati ‘to leap, spring, fall off’, Lat. scandō ‘to climb, mount, ascend’, MIr. scendid ‘to jump’, etc., see s.v. sanduɫ-k‘ ‘ladder,
stairs’. None of the etymologies is formally satisfying. One might assume that
PArm. *c‘at‘- and *c‘a(n)t- have produced c‘ayt/t‘- through influence of *c‘ayem
from *skot-é-mi, with *-o- > -a- in the pretonic open syllable. Note MidArm. and
dial. c‘ayem ‘to rinse’ (see Aɫabekyan 1980: 159-162), q.v.
c‘ank/g, o-stem: GDSg -o-y, ISg -o-v, GDPl -o-c‘ ‘hedge, fence’ (Bible+), ‘list, table
of contents’ (Psalms, Movsēs Xorenac‘i, see NHB 2: 908a); c‘ank/gem ‘to hedge,
fence’ (Agat‘angeɫos, Philo, Ephrem, etc.).
●DIAL No dialectal forms are recorded in HAB 1: 197-199; 4: 450b. In 1913: 1052b,
however, Ačaṙyan himself cites the verb *c‘ankel ‘to fence’ in Akn (cf. *c‘ankac
partēz ‘fenced garden’). The noun c‘ank is found in an expression from Xian: *K‘o
c‘ankn em kotrer, k‘o aygin em mter? “Have I broken your fence? Have I entered
into your garden? [What a damage have I caused to you?]” (ibid. 90a), as well as in
the dial. (the dialectal location not specified) compound *c‘ank-a-cak-i ‘a small bird
that can even pass through the holes of a fence’, as a synonym of Łarabaɫ ‘halfTurkish’ č‘əp‘ə-cák-ɛ (see Ačaṙean 1913: 1052), probably to be read as č‘əp‘ər-cákɛ, with č‘ap‘ar ‘fence’.
●ETYM Usually interpreted as c‘- ‘to’ + ank/g- ‘to fall’ and identified with c‘-ank/g
‘always’ (cf. also y-ang ‘end’), thus: ‘hedge’ is seen as the end, edge, border (NHB
2: 908a; HAB 1: 197-198; 4: 450b). Olsen (1999: 754) interprets the word as c‘- +
*ank/g- < *pak̂
/ĝ- (see Pokorny 1959: 787-788), which is improbable. Likewise
improbable is the connection with Skt. śaṅkú- m. ‘pointed peg’, etc. proposed by
Scheftelowitz (1904-05, 1: 287-288).
The interpretation c‘- ‘to’ + ank/g- ‘to fall’ is possible but not evident. I
alternatively propose a connection with the Celtic-Germanic word for ‘hedge,
fence’: MWelsh cae m. ‘hedge, fence, enclosure, field; clasp, brooch; chaplet,
diadem, garland’, Late Cornish ke, British kae m. ‘hedge’, etc. < Late Proto-British
*kai < PCelt. *kaɣi̯o- < Pre-Celt. *kagh
-; OEngl. hecge, MDutch hegghe, OHG
hegga, hecka < WGerm. *haɣjō, OEngl. haga ‘fence’, OIc. hagi n-stem ‘fenced
land, meadow’ < *haɣōn (see Schrijver 1995: 306), OHG hagan ‘brier’, MHG
hagen ‘fencing’ < PGerm. *hag-na-, probably also Welsh caen f. ‘Bedeckung, Haut’
< *kagh
-nā- (Pokorny 1959: 518).130 The Armenian form may be derived from *skagh
-no-. The oldest form is thus c‘ang. We seem to be dealing with a European
substratum word.
c‘ankam or c‘ankanam ‘to long for, lust’ (Bible, Eznik Koɫbac‘i, etc.); c‘ank-ut‘iwn
‘wish, lust, desire’ (Bible+), c‘ank ‘lust’ (Philo).
●DIAL Šamaxi c‘anganal ‘to long for’ [Baɫramyan 1964: 228], Xarberd c‘anganal
‘to lust’, Muš c‘angutɛn ‘wish’ < c‘ank-ut‘iwn [HAB 4: 450b].
●ETYM No etymology is accepted in HAB 4: 450b.
One may wonder whether c‘ank(an)am is composed of the prefix c‘- and ankanim
‘to fall down’, which also means ‘to sin, prostitute’ (q.v.). See also s.vv. ang-ti
‘prostitute’ and c‘-ank ‘hedge, fence’ (q.v.).
c‘awɫ (Hexaemeron, Ephrem; dial.), c‘awɫ-un, o-stem: GDPl c‘oɫn-o-y (Bible+)
‘stem, stalk; straw’. The form c‘awɫ-un (spelled also as c‘oɫun) is more frequent in
the literature (Bible, Agat‘angeɫos, Hexaemeron, etc.), whereas c‘awɫ/c‘oɫ is attested
only in Hexaemeron (see K. Muradyan 1984: 134-135) and Ephrem [HAB 4: 466b].
The semantic distribution of the two forms is represented in HAB as follows: c‘awɫ
‘stem, stalk’, c‘awɫ-un ‘straw’. However, c‘awɫun can also mean ‘stalk’, as is clearly
seen in Job 24.24 (Cox 2006: 172), where a reference is made to hask ‘ear of corn’
(= στάχυς ‘ear’) fallen off the stalk (c‘awɫun = καλάμη ‘stalk; stubble’); for the full
passage, see s.v. hask ‘ear of corn’. Besides, dial. *c‘oɫ (see below) refers both to the
stalk and straw. Consequently, the meaning of c‘awɫ2, c‘awɫ-un should be
represented as ‘stem, stalk; straw’ indiscriminately.
●DIAL In the dialects of Ararat, Van, Muš, Bulanəx, Alaškert: *c‘oɫ ‘stalk; straw’
[HAB 4: 466b]. According to Ačaṙyan (1952: 49, 296), Van has both forms, with
and without -un, namely c‘ɔɫ and c‘ɔɫun. Note also Moks c‘ɔɫ ‘millet-straw’, GSg
c‘ɔɫəɛ
, NPl c‘ɔɫir [Orbeli 2002: 339]. On the importance of the Van and Moks forms,
see below.
●ETYM The evidence from the dialect of Van may be important as to the question of
the original vocalism since it regularly distinguishes the ClArm. vowels ō (= aw)
and o, reflecting them as ɔ and o [wo], respectively (see Ačaṙyan 1952: 38-39,
48-49). As we saw above, the literary forms of the word for ‘stalk; straw’ show a
fluctuation between ō (= aw) and o. Ačaṙyan (op. cit. 49; see also 296) explicitly
points out, that Van c‘ɔɫ and c‘ɔɫun, despite the fluctuation shown by their literary
counterparts, always have an ɔ. This implies that the spelling variant with the ō (=
aw), which is also better attested, is the original one.
Next to the well-attested o-stem, c‘awɫun also has an an-stem in Neɫos (GDSg
c‘oɫuan and ISg c‘ōɫuamb) [NHB 2: 922a]. For this ambiguity cf. srun-k‘ ‘shank’ (in
Moks: ‘stubble’). The root of the latter word is *sru- (cf. Lat. crūs ‘shank’; note also
sru-il ‘a kind of musical instrument’), so the suffix can be the same -un. Unlike
c‘awɫun (o-stem), srun-k‘ has an i-stem, which is perhaps due to contamination with
(the Iranian cognate of) PIE *krû ̄s-ni-, cf. Skt. śróṇi- f. (most in dual) ‘buttock, hip,
loin’, YAv sraoni- f. ‘buttock, hip’, NPers. surūn ‘buttock’; Lat. clūnis ‘buttock,
club, tail-bone’; Lith. šlaunìs ‘hip, thigh’, etc. It may also have been a dual form. For
the suffix cf. also kot‘ ‘stem, stalk; handle, shaft’ – kot‘-un ‘id.’; joɫ ‘log, pole’ –
jeɫun/joɫun-k‘ ‘ceiling’ (q.v.).
There is no evidence for the declension class of c‘awɫ. The absence of -n- in the
paradigm of Moks shows that the form c‘ɔɫ did not have a nasal stem.
I conclude that the original form is c‘awɫ, which, albeit poorly attested in the
literature, is the basic form represented by the dialects; cawɫ-un is its derivative in
the suffix -un, found in a number of semantically close words.
No acceptable etymology is recorded in HAB 4: 466b. J̌
ahukyan (1967: 180)
derives the word from PIE *k̂
olH- ‘stubble’, cf. καλάμη ‘stalk; stubble’, etc. (see
Schrijver 1991: 327). The vocalism, however, does not suit, because the original
Armenian form is c‘awɫ(un). One may consider a connection with *keh2ulo-: Gr.
καυλός m. ‘stem, pole’; Lat. caulis m. ‘stem (of a plant), stalk, cabbage’; OIr. cúal f. ‘faggot, bundle of sticks’; Lith. káulas m. ‘bone’, Latv. kaũls m. ‘bone, stem’ (see
Schrijver 1991: 268-269; on the suffix *-lo-, see Lubotsky 1988: 132).131
The only problem with this etymology is the absence of the s-mobile, wich would
explain the initial c‘- (instead of the expected k‘-). The same holds for J̌
ahukyan’s
etymology. In the latter case we are dealing with a PIE *k̂
- rather than a *k-. This is
not relevant here, however, since both *sk ̂ and *sk result in Arm. c‘. The PIE
s-mobile is very unstable, thus we cannot rule out its postulation in c‘awɫ(un) and
some other words even if there are no traces of it in cognate languages (see also
Jahukyan 1967: 177ff). Thus: QIE *(s)keh2u-lo- ‘stem (of a plant); bone’ > Arm.
c‘awɫ ‘stem, stalk; straw’. We may be dealing with a Mediterranean-European
substratum word.
*c‘eṙ (dial.) ‘liquid excrements’; *c‘er-d- ‘id.’, probably also ‘placenta, menstruation’
or the like (> ‘miscarriage, misbirth’).
●DIAL The dialectal word c‘ɛṙ (recorded already in DialAdd apud NHB 2: 1067bc)
is present in Polis [Ačaṙean 1913: 1055a], Sebastia [Gabikean 1952: 541], Moks
[Orbeli 2002: 338], Goris [Margaryan 1975: 368a], etc.; verbal c‘ṙel in many
dialects [Ačaṙean 1913: 1058a]. Akn c‘eṙ refers to ‘uncooked egg’ [Ačaṙean 1913:
1055a].
Some verbal forms have a dental determinative: c‘ṙ-t‘- or c‘r-d- and means also
‘to give birth (said of animals or, pejoratively, of women)’ and ‘to have miscarriage,
give misbirth (said of animals)’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 1058a].
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 634) and, independently, J̌
ahukyan (1963a: 95; 1972: 280;
1985: 153; 1987: 148, 275) derive Arm. c‘ɛṙ from PIE *sk̂
er-, cf. *sok̂
-r-/-n-
‘manure, dung’: Hitt. šakkar, šaknaš ‘excrement, dung, faeces’, Av. sairiia- ‘dung’,
Gr. σκῶρ, σκατός n. ‘excrement’, Lat. -cerda ‘dung’, OIc. skarn ‘dung, manure’ <
PGerm. *skarna-, Russ. sor ‘filth, litter’, Latv. sãrņi ‘dung’, Lith. šárvas ‘placenta,
menstruation’ (for the meaning ‘placenta’ compare the Armenian dialectal
meanings), etc.
A semantically, formally and morphologically similar form *k̂
okw
-r-/-n- is
reflected in Skt. NAccSg śákr̥t n. (RV+), GSg śaknáḥ (AV+) ‘dung, faeces’, MPers.
sargēn ‘manure, dung’ Gr. κόπρος f. ‘manure, dung, faeces’, etc. This PIE word is
probably a derivative of the root *k̂
ekw
- found in Lith. šìkti ‘to shit’. For the forms
and the morphology of these PIE synonymous words, both being neuters of *-r/nheteroclitic declension, see Schindler 1966b: 74-75; 1975: 4, 5; Mayrhofer EWAia 2,
1996: 602; Derksen 1996: 219-220; Mallory/Adams 1997: 186b.
Arm. c‘ɛṙ derives from *sk̂
er-no- (J̌
ahukyan ibid.). For *c‘eṙ-T- < *sk̂
er-Tcompare Skt. śákr̥t, Lat. -cerda, etc.
Further note MidArm. cirt ‘dung (mostly of birds)’ and ClArm. crtem ‘to defecate
(said of birds)’ (Bible+), ‘to spawn’ (Hexaemeron); both forms are widespread in the
dialects [HAB 2: 460b]; no etymology in HAB ibid. If we derive this word from our
etymon, the initial c- instead of c‘- and the vowel -i- will be aberrant. We might
tentatively posit *skê̄r-d- > cirt through assimilation c‘...t > c...t.
c‘in, o-stem: AblPl i c‘n-o-c‘ (Philo) ‘kite’ (Bible+); MidArm. c‘inayn and c‘nin ‘kite’
(HAB 4: 455a; MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 404b).
Arm. c‘in renders Gr. ἰκτῖνα ‘kite’ in Deuteronomy 14.13 (Cox 1981: 136; Wevers
1977: 195; Wevers 1995: 245) and in Leviticus 11.14 (Zōhrapean 1805, 1: 214;
Wevers 1986: 127; Wevers 1997: 148). In Isaiah 34.11 it corresponds to Gr. ἴβις
‘ibis, Egyptian bird’. Further attested in Zgōn-Afrahat, Philo, etc. (NHB 2: 913b;
Greppin 1978: 52-54). In a kafa to the Alexander Romance c‘in appears as sew haw
‘black bird’ (H. Simonyan 1989: 229L4).
●DIAL Agulis c‘ayn [Ačaṙean 1935: 394]; Van kor-c‘ənənɛk ‘kite’ (HAB 4: 455b;
Ačaṙyan 1952: 37, 296) probably containing kor ‘curved, crooked’, for the
semantics, see s.vv. angɫ ‘vulture’, korč ‘gryphon, vulture’. The form -c‘ənənɛk and
c‘nəni (Rivola) must be identified with MidArm. c‘inayn and c‘nin ‘kite’. Muš and
Alaškert c‘urur is unclear; perhaps a blend of c‘in and the synonymous urur ‘kite’
[HAB 3, 618b; 4: 455b]. For this type of blended bird-names, see s.v. sarik ‘starling,
blackbird’.
●ETYM Since de Lagarde [Boetticher] 1850: 363Nr269; 1854: 10L167f; Müller 1870:
454; Dervischjan 1877: 22, 48 et al., connected with Skt. śyená- m. ‘bird of prey,
falcon, eagle’, Av. saēna- ‘a big bird of prey’, Gr. ἰκτῖνος m. ‘kite’; the troublesome
anlaut has been explained from *ks-, *k̂
y-, *kþ-, etc., see Hübschmann 1883: 53;
1897: 499; Meillet 1900c: 317; 1936: 40; Pedersen 1905: 209; 1906: 397; 1924:
223b = 1982: 71, 175, 306b; Charpentier 1909: 243; HAB 4: 455; Pokorny 1959:
416, 417; Schmitt 1981: 51, 54D; Olsen 1999: 197-198. J̌
ahukyan 1987: 174 assumes
*ski̯- > c‘- since *ki̯- would yield, he claims, Arm. č‘. However, also *ski̯- seems to
produce Arm. č‘, as in čanač‘em ‘to know’.
The word is now reconstructed as *tk̂
iH-(i)no- or *tk̂
iH-eno-, and the Armenian
c‘- is plausibly explained from *tk̂
- > *th
s-; see Clackson 1994: 45-46, 143-144
(with a thorough discussion); Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 662; Beekes 2003: 195,
196, 200; cf. also Greppin 1978: 54-55. One also may think of the ‘Hoffmann-suffix’
*-Hn-.
The MidArm. and dial. *c‘nin(i) is difficult to explain. One may speculate on an
underlying *c‘in-i < *tk̂
iHn-ieh2- (compare Arm. ozni ‘hedgehog’ (q.v.) < *h1oĝh
iHn-ieh2- vs. Gr. ἐχῖνος ‘id.’ < *h1oĝh
i-Hn-os) and an additional -n probably from
acc. *-m (on which see 2.2.1.3).
Xač‘aturova 1987 suggests a comparison of the Armenian and Aryan words with
Georgian cxeni ̣ ‘horse’. For the association between ‘eagle or kite’ and ‘horse’, see
s.v. arcui ‘eagle’. The resemblance with Megr. čxwiḳ-, Georg. čxiḳw-, dial. čxwinḳ-,
etc. ‘jay’ (on which see Klimov 1984: 222) seems to be accidental.
J̌
ahukyan (1987: 612) points out that the resemblance between Arm. c‘in and
some ECauc forms meaning ‘eagle’ (Avar цIцIун, etc.) is accidental if the Armenian
word is of IE origin. One may perhaps treat these forms as borrowed from PArm.
*th
ćin-. An opposite direction of borrowing (Nikolaev 1984: 71, *cc’iHmʌ) is
impossible in view of the impeccable IE origin of c‘in.
c‘iṙ, o-stem: GDSg c‘ṙ-o-y (Job 11.12 [Cox 2006: 105], Canon Law, Grigor
Narekac‘i), GDPl c‘ṙ-o-c‘ in P‘awstos Buzand 4.13 (see below), T‘ovmay Arcruni
3.29 (V. Vardanyan 1985: 392L14); u-stem: GDPl c‘ṙ-u-c‘ (Isaiah 32.14, Ephrem,
Physiologus) ‘onager, wild ass’. Several attestations in the Bible (Astuacaturean 1895: 1483b), where c‘iṙ renders
Gr. ὄναγρος ‘onager, wild ass’, e.g. Psalms 103.11, Daniel 5.21 [Cowe 1992: 189],
or ὄνος ἄγριος ‘wild ass’, e.g. Job 6.5, 39.5 [Cox 2006: 78, 250]. In Job 11.12:
hangoyn ē c‘ṙoy anapatakani “is like a wild desert ass” : ἴσα ὄνῳ ἐρημίτη [Cox
2006: 105]. In Job 24.5: Dipec‘an ibrew zc‘iṙs i vayri “They proved to be like
donkeys in a field” : ἀπέβησαν δὲ ὥσπερ ὄνοι ἐν ἀγρῷ [Cox 2006: 168].
In P‘awstos Buzand 4.13 (1883=1984: 95L13; transl. Garsoïan 1989: 138L8f):
čarakk‘ c‘ṙoc‘ “pasture for wild asses”.
In the 7th-century Armenian Geography (Ašxarhac‘oyc‘) by Anania Širakac‘i (see
Soukry 1881: 32), certainly referring to the onager, wild ass (see Eremyan 1963:
99a; Hewsen 1992: 179143).
According to T‘ovmay Arcruni (9-10th cent.) 3.29 (1985: 392; transl. Thomson
1985: 316), there were herds of onagers (eramakk‘ c‘ṙoc‘) on the banks of the river
Araxes, SE to the mountain Masis.
●DIAL No dialectal forms are recorded in HAB 4: 455b.
Zeyt‘un *c‘ṙptuk is mentioned by Ačaṙyan (1913: 207b; HAB 1: 490b) as
synonymous to bṙinč‘, dial. *bṙo/ōš-, *bɫinč‘/ǰ- ‘snowball-tree, guelder rose
(Viburnum opulus) and/or Celtis australis or occidentalis’, and dial. tartaɫan without
any comment on its origin and composition. It seems to have been composed of
*c‘əṙ (a negative characterizer of plants, see Ačaṙean 1913: 1055a, 1058ab) and ptuk
‘shoot, a plant’ (see Ačaṙean 1913: 931b; HAB 4: 111-112).
However, Zeyt‘un bɔdug (< ClArm. ptuk, q.v.) only means ‘nipple’ (see HAB 4:
112a; Ačaṙyan 2003: 336). I therefore alternatively interpret *c‘ṙptuk as c‘iṙ
‘onager’ + ptuk ‘nipple’, thus: ‘onager’s nipple’. An interesting parallel can be found
in Caucasian languages. Next to Lak. mamari ‘blackberry’, Darg. *mVmVrV (Chir.
mimre) ‘raspberry’, Chechen mürg ‘guelder rose, snowball-tree’, etc. (see s.v. mor
‘blackberry’), Archi has a word mam ‘raspberry’, usually in the combination
gw
ac:ilin mam, lit. ‘mare’s nipple’ (see Nikolayev/Starostin 1994: 804).
●ETYM No acceptable etymology is recorded in HAB 4: 455b. J̌
ahukyan 1987 vacat.
According to Olsen (1999: 939), a word of unknown origin.
I tentatitvely propose a connection with Ir. cíar ‘dark brown’ < *k̂
h1ei-ro- (the
evidence for *h1 is based only on this Irish form); Slav. *xoiro- ‘grey’ < PIE
*k̂
Hoiro-: RuCS sěrъ, Ru. séryj, Ukr. síryj, OCzech šerý, etc.; OIc. hárr, OEngl. hār
‘grey’ < *k̂
h1oi-ro-; OPr. sasins ‘hare’; Skt. śáśa- ‘hare’ < *k̂
h1-es-; Lat. cānus
‘white, hoary, grey; old, aged’ < *kasnos, cascus ‘old’, Paelign. casnar ‘senex’, etc.
(for a discussion, see Lubotsky 1989: 56-57; Schrijver 1991: 86, 91, 109; Derksen
2008: 445). Further, see s.v. the mountain-name Sim.
Since PIE *k ̂ regularly yields Arm. s, here the initial c‘- requires an explanation.
One possibility would be to assume s-mobile. Alternatively, Arm. c‘ may be due to
*k̂
h
- from *k̂
H- (see 2.1.18.1 and s.v. c‘ax ‘branch’). This goes parallel with the
development PIE *kH > Arm. x beside *k > Arm. k‘, respectively. Thus: QIE
*k̂
He/oi-ro- + secondary *-ro- or *-so- > Arm. c‘iṙ ‘onager’ < ‘*the grey or brown
one’. If, however, the Slavic form has been borrowed from Germanic (see Vasmer
s.v. for references), the reconstruction of the laryngeal becomes problematic.
*c‘it- ‘to cut, split, scratch’: c‘tem ‘to cut, tear, scratch (the skin with a knife, nails,
etc.)’ (Bible+); danak-a-c‘it ‘cut with a knife’ (Movsēs Kaɫankatuac‘i). For Biblical
attestations, see Astuacaturean 1895: 1487a; Klingenschmitt 1982: 144.
●DIAL Xarberd c‘dil ‘to be cut, torn (said of the body, skin)’ [HAB 4: 456a].
●ETYM Connected with Skt. chinátti, pass. chidy- ‘to split, break, cut off’, Gr. σχίζω
‘to split, cut, separate’, Lat. scindō, scidī, scissum ‘to split, cleave, tear apart; to
separate’, Lith. skíedžiu ‘to separate, divide’, Latv. šķiêst ‘to scatter, spill, cut’, etc.
Meillet 1894b: 296; HAB 4: 455-456; Pokorny 1959: 920; Mallory/Adams 1997:
144a; Olsen 1999: 813-814.
The IE etymon is often reconstructed as *skei-d-. The problematic anlaut of Gr.
σχ- and Skt. ch-, however (see Hiersche 1964: 250-251; Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992:
561 with references) points to a voiceless aspirate (Szemerényi 1996: 69). Rix 1992:
84-85 posits *sĝh
.
Klingenschmitt (1982: 83, 144-145) reconstructs *sk̂
h
ide/o- or *sk̂
h
idei̯e/o- for
Armenian. However, Arm. c‘- points to *sk- or *sk̂
- [HAB 4: 456a]. A voiceless
aspirate *k̂
h
-, whether of substratum origin or due to a neighbouring laryngeal (see
2.1.18), would yield Arm. š- (see 2.1.22.3). I do not share the view (see Olsen 1999:
91, 813-814 concerning this etymon) that *sk- yields Arm. š- before a front vowel.
Arm. šert ‘split wood, piece of wood, splinter’ has been compared to this etymon
(cf. especially Lith. skiedarà ‘chip, sliver, splinter’, Latv. skaîda ‘id.’, šķiêdra
‘Holzfaser’, etc.) with hesitation, because the initial *sk- is regularly reflected as c‘-
in c‘tim (Hübschmann 1897: 480; HAB 3: 511-512 with an extensive literature and
discussion; cf. also L. Hovhannisyan 1990: 214, 215). If the reconstruction *skeh1id- (Mallory/Adams 1997: 144a; against the laryngeal Elbourne 2000: 10) is
accepted, one is tempted to posit ablaut *sk- vs. *skH- reflected in Armenian c‘it- vs.
šert. The latter may be derived from *skh
eid-r- > *šeidr-i- > šert, -i, through
simplification of the diphthong before cluster (cf. HAB 3: 512a) and through regular
metathesis.
Other explanations have been offered for šert, however. Aɫayan 1974: 128-129
derives it from PIE *(s)ker- ‘to scratch’, cf. Engl. shard, sherd ‘a fragment of broken
earthenware; a fragment (of other material)’, shear ‘to cut with a sharp instrument’ <
*sker- ‘to cut, divide, shear, shave’, cf. OEngl. sceard ‘cut, notch’, etc.; but this does
not solve the problem of the š-, however. Others assume a borrowing (see
Łap‘anc‘yan 1961: 136; Schultheiss 1961: 221).
Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 512a) points out that the resemblance with Syriac šərat ‘to tear’
is accidental. Note also Akkad. šertu (GÍR.GAL) ‘a weapon’ (see Landsberger 1950:
48), which matches Arm. šert ‘axe’ both formally and semantically. However, the
meaning ‘axe’ of šert is found only in Aṙjeṙn baṙaran 1865 and is unattested.
To conclude: Arm. c‘tem ‘to cut, tear, scratch’ derives from IE *ske(h1)i-d-. The
etymology of šert ‘split wood, piece of wood, splinter’ is uncertain. If its
appurtenance with this etymon is accepted, one may assume *skh1eid-r- with *skh1-
taken from a zero-grade form *skh1id-. At any case, the resemblance with Lith.
skiedarà ‘chip, sliver, splinter’, etc. is remarkable (a substratum intermediation?).
c‘ncam ‘to joy, rejoice’ (Bible+); ‘to shine’ (dial.).
●DIAL T‘iflis c‘njal ‘to joy, rejoice’, Muš c‘njum ‘joy’; Ararat c‘njin tal ‘to shine
with a beautiful colour’, said of the cornfield. In metaphorical or jocular usage: Polis, Karin, Sebastia, Moks, Zeyt‘un, Łarabaɫ, J̌
uɫa, etc. ‘to pay’ [HAB 4: 459].
Note also Zeyt‘un c‘ɔnjɔl ‘to joy’ [Ačaṙyan 2003: 341].
There is no evidence for the vocalism of the verbal stem, which may have been
either *c‘inc- or *c‘unc-. In this connection Zeyt‘un c‘ɔnjɔl seems relevant. The
infinitive ending -ɔl of the Zeyt‘un regularly derives from -al. Note that the verb
c‘ncam (inf. c‘ncal) belongs to a-conjugation both in ClArm. and in all the dialects.
The vocalic development *c‘ncɔl > c‘ɔnjɔl is regular too, cf. targal ‘spoon’ > Zeyt‘un d‘ɔg‘ɔl, xndal ‘to joy’ > Zeyt‘un xɔndɔl, merkanal > Zeyt‘un mɔygɔnɔl vs. merk
‘naked’ > miyg, etc. (see Ačaṙyan 2003: 24-25, 146, 198-201). This implies that
Zey-t‘un c‘ɔnjɔl cannot be taken as evidence for the original vocalism of the verbal
stem.
●ETYM Scheftelowitz (1904-05, 1: 293) links with Skt. chand- ‘to appear (good); to
please’ (RV+), chándu- ‘pleasing’ (RV), YAv. saδaiieiti ‘to appear’, etc. and derives
the Armenian from *sk̂
end-i̯o-.
Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 459a) does not accept this and the other etymologies and leaves
the origin of the word open.
The etymology of Scheftelowitz is possible, although the semantic relationship is
not straightforward. The protoform *sk̂
end-i̯o-, however, would yield Arm.
*c‘(i)nč-. I propose to derive *c‘inc- from the sigmatic aorist form *skend-s-, cf. Skt.
(RV) 3sg.act. achān, 3pl.act. áchāntsur, subj. chantsat, imper. chantsi (see
Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 555-556; Lubotsky 2001a: 32; Baum 2006: 110). Note
also Skt. (ś)cand- ‘to shine, glitter’, candrá- ‘shining, light’, hári-ścandra-
‘glittering as gold’, probably belonging to the same root (cf. Lubotsky 2001a: 49-
50). The meaning ‘to shine’ agrees with that of the Armenian dialect of Ararat. For
the regular development *-ds- > Arm. -c-, see 2.2.1.2.
c‘nor-k‘, i-stem: GDPl c‘nor-i-c‘ (Bible+), IPl c‘nor-i-w-k‘ (Agat‘angeɫos+) ‘fancy,
fantasy, day-dream; bad dream, apparition, bogy’ (Bible+); c‘norim ‘to be mad or
furious, act crazily’ (Agat‘angeɫos, Eznik Koɫbac‘i, Eɫišē, Movsēs Xorenac‘i, John
Chrysostom, Evagrius of Pontus, etc.).
In an appendix apud Aṙak‘el Dawrižec‘i /17th cent./, c‘nork‘ seems to
contextually correspond to vat eraz ‘bad dream’ (see Xanlaryan 1990: 452, lines 9
and 26).
●DIAL The verb is widespread in the dialects, in the meaning ‘to grow decrepit, grow
mad as a result of senility’ [HAB 4: 459b].
●ETYM Pedersen (1906: 480 = 1982: 258) treats c‘nor as composed of *c‘in-,
comparable with Goth. skeinan, and the suffix -or. Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 459b) rejects
this comparison and leaves the origin of the word open.
I tentatively propose to treat the word as c‘- ‘to, up to’ from *h1esk(w)eh1 (see
2.3.1) + *h3nor-i(h2)- ‘to/at dream, fantasy’ (see s.v. anurǰ-k‘, i-stem ‘dream, daydream, prophetic vision, vision’). Thus: *h1esk(w)eh1-h3nor-i(h2)- > PArm. *skē-
(H)nor-i- > *c‘inór-i- > c‘nor, i-stem.
c‘urt, o-stem: GDSg c‘rt-o-y (Bible, Eznik Koɫbac‘i); i-stem: GDSg c‘rt-i (John
Chrysostom, Paterica), ISg c‘rt-i-w (Paterica) ‘cold; cold water’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects [HAB 4: 464a]. ●ETYM The word has been compared with Pers. sard, Arm. saṙn ‘cold’ (q.v.), see
apart from old attempts recorded in HAB 4: 463-464, also J̌
ahukyan 1967: 180. On
the other hand, it is compared with OCS sěverъ ‘North, Northern wind’, SCr. sjȅvēr
‘North’, Lith. šiáurė f. ‘North’ < *k̂
eh1uer-o-; Lat. caurus m. ‘northwestern wind’ <
*k̂
h1uer-o- (see HAB ibid. for references; for a discussion, see Schrijver 1991: 597;
Olsen 1999: 42, 771, 812, 814, 852; de Vaan 1999a; Derksen 2008: 448-449).
If the latter etymology is accepted, we have another possible example for the
hypothetical development *k̂
H > Arm. c‘ (see 2.1.18.1). Thus: QIE *k̂
h1ur-do- >
c‘urt. Further, see s.v. sird/t ‘hoarfrost-bringing wind’.
ut‘, i-stem: GDPl ut‘-i-c‘ ‘eight’ (Bible+); ut‘sun, i-stem: GDPl ut‘sn-i-c‘ ‘eighty’
(Bible+); ut‘erord, a-stem: GDSg ut‘erord-i, GDPl ut‘erord-a-c‘ ‘eighth’ (Bible+).
●DIAL The form ut‘ is ubiquitous in the dialects; ut‘sun is widespread, but in some
dialects it has been replaced by sɛk‘sɛn of Turkish origin [HAB 3: 591].
●ETYM Derived from PIE *H(o)k̂
t- ‘eight’: Skt. aṣṭā́(u), Gr. ὀκτώ, Lat. octō, OIr.
ocht, etc. The absence of palatalization of the *-k̂
- in Armenian is due to influence of
*septm ̥ > ewt‘n ‘seven’; cf. the Greek by-form ὀπτώ. See Hübschmann 1897: 483-
484; HAB 3: 590-591; Meillet 1936: 32; Pokorny 1959: 775; Schmitt 1981: 75;
Mallory/Adams 1997: 402-403.
It has been assumed that the absence of an initial h- in Armenian points to a zerograde *h3k̂
t- taken from the ordinal (Kortlandt 1983: 14; 1994a: 255 = 2003: 44, 99-
100; Beekes 1987b: 7). This is plausible, although *Hok̂
t- perhaps remains a
possibility (cf. Schrijver 1991: 49, 147).
ul, o-stem: GDPl ul-o-c‘ (Bible+); u-stem: GDSg ul-u (once in the Bible and in
Commentary on Genesis), GDPl ul-u-c‘ (Gregory of Nyssa) ‘kid’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects; in Łarabaɫ, Goris, etc., with initial h- [HAB 3:
592].
●ETYM Since Patrubány (see HAB 3: 592-593), connected with Gr. πῶλος m. f.
‘young horse, foal, filly’, secondarily also of other young animals, metaph. ‘young
girl, youth’, Goth. fula, OHG folo ‘id.’.
In order to explain the Greek ō we can either posit a “lengthened grade of a root
noun, or, more plausible perhaps, reconstruct for Greek *poHlo- and postulate a
laryngeal metathesis in Germanic (*pHl- > *plH-)” [Lubotsky 1988: 132]. Beekes
(1995: 36, 189-190; 2003: 171) posits a HD root noun: PIE nom. *pṓlH-s, gen.
*plH-ós.
Arm. ul ‘kid’ and al-oǰ ‘female kid’ (q.v.) may have belonged to the same
original paradigm: nom. *pṓlH-s > PArm. *húl, gen. *plH-ós > PArm. *al-ó-.
132 For
*pō- > Arm. *hu- cf. *pont(e)H- > hun ‘ford’. The initial h- has been lost due to
generalization of the oblique stem, but the Łarabaɫ and adjacent dialects have retained it. For *plH- > Arm. *al(V)- cf. *plh1u- ‘many’ > alaw-unk‘ ‘Pleiades’
(q.v.). The ending -oǰ- is unclear; perhaps due to influence of oroǰ ‘lamb’; cf. also
aɫič/ǰ ‘virgin, girl’.
Hamp (1990: 21-22) assumes *plH- > *polH- > *pōl-.
uln (GDSg ulan, NPl ulunk‘, GDPl ulanc‘) ‘neck’ (Bible+). Spelled also as uɫn and
oln. Norayr records MidArm. yulanc‘ tal ‘to push (Fr. pousser)’ (see HAB 3: 592b).
●DIAL Ačaṙyan records only J̌
uɫa ulanc‘ tal ‘to push with one’s arm’ [HAB 3: 592b],
which is identical with the MidArm. form of Norayr (see above). In Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘
(see Amalyan 1975: 191Nr453), hrel is interpreted as meržel, kam k‘ṙi tal, kam ulans
tal.
Note also Muš paṙeki hulunk‘ ‘spinal column’ glossed in HŽHek‘ 12, 1984: 641a.
Since paṙek-i means ‘of back’, uln here seems to refer to ‘vertebra’; see below.
●ETYM Derived from PIE *Heh3l-en- or *HoHl-en-: Gr. ὠλένη f. ‘elbow, underarm’;
Lat. ulna f. ‘elbow’; OHG el(i)na f. ‘ell’, etc., as well as Arm. oɫn (GDSg oɫin, ISg
oɫamb, NPl oɫunk‘, GDPl oɫanc‘) ‘spine, back(bone); spine with spinal cord;
marrow’ (q.v.). As to the semantic difference, one should pay attention to MidArm.
yulanc‘ tal ‘to push’. Naturally, one cannot push with one’s neck. In the dialect of
J̌
uɫa, the exact meaning of this expression is ‘to push with one’s arm’. Actually, one
pushes with one’s elbow (or shoulder). Here, thus, one might see the underlying
meaning ‘elbow’, which is identical with the semantics of the PIE word. As to the
association between Arm. oɫn ‘spine, backbone, etc.’ and uln ‘neck’, cf. Gr.
σφόνδῠλος m. ‘vertebra; (pl.) backbone, spine; neck; joint, etc.’. Note that the neck
is, in fact, a part of the spinal column. Finally, Muš paṙeki hulunk‘ ‘spinal column’
actually means ‘vertebrae of back’ and can be considered an important intermediary
between oɫn and uln.
Lidén (1906: 129-130), albeit with some reservation, connects uln ‘neck’ with the
homonymous uln (NPl ulunk‘, GDPl ulanc‘) ‘a piece of pearl or glass, bead;
knucklebone; collarbone, clavicle’ (Bible+). See also J̌
ahukyan 1987: 165
uln (NPl ulunk‘, GDPl ulanc‘) ‘a piece of pearl or glass, bead; knucklebone;
collarbone, clavicle’ (Bible+); in Grigoris Aršaruni (7-8th cent.): IPl ul-ov-k‘ (thus,
ul, o-stem). APl uluns is found in Yovhan Mandakuni/Mayragomec‘i (5th/7th cent.),
in a list of sorceries (2003: 1262bL5f).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects, mostly in the meaning ‘beads’.
●ETYM See s.v. uln ‘neck’.
uɫeɫ, o-stem: GDAblSg (y-)uɫɫ-o-y in Eznik Koɫbac‘i, Grigor Narekac‘i; GDPl uɫɫ-o-c‘
in Hebrews 4.12, Anania Širakac‘i [NHB 2: 544ab]; IPl uɫɫ-o-v-k‘ in Eɫišē (see
below); some late evidence points to an a-stem: GDSg uɫɫ-i, uɫiwɫ-i, AblSg y-uɫɫ-ē,
ISg uɫɫ-a-w (Plato apud NHB, ibid) ‘brain’ (Eznik Koɫbac‘i, P‘awstos Buzand, etc.),
‘marrow’ (Bible+; renders Gr. μυελός ‘marrow’).
Biblical attestations:
In Genesis 45.19 (Zeyt‘unyan 1985: 365): ew keriǰik‘ zuɫeɫ erkris : καὶ φάγεσϑε
τὸν μυελὸν τῆς γῆς. In Job 21.24: uɫiɫ nora ščesc‘ē “his marrow will become liquified” : μυελὸς δὲ
αὐτοῦ διαχεῖται [Cox 2006: 156].
That uɫeɫ also refers to the marrow of animals is exemplified by e.g. the passage
from Eɫišē (Ter-Minasyan 1989: 404L25): sneal ēin uɫɫovk‘ zuarakac‘ “had been
raised on the marrow of the steers” (transl. Thomson 1982: 246).
Spelling variants: uɫiɫ, uɫiwɫ, yɫiɫ, yɫeɫ, əɫuɫ, əɫeɫ.
●DIAL The dialects have two basic forms: uɫeɫ and *uɫu/oɫ. The latter variant which
contains a labial vowel in the second syllable is also attested in later literature (see
above). For Svedia (ə)ɫɛɔɫ, ɫüɫ ‘marrow’, see oɫn. The initial u of the form *uɫuɫ is
mostly reduced to ə or zero. It has been preserved (or secondarily restored as in ptuɫ
‘fruit’ > Maraɫa putuɫ, etc.?) in Maraɫa and Č‘aylu ɔɫɔ́
ɫ (see Ačaṙyan 1926: 70, 107,
418; Davt‘yan 1966: 449), Urmia (Xoy) ɔɫɔɫ [M. Asatryan 1962: 204a],
Kak‘avaberd uɫɔ́
ɫ (in two villages; in the other two – ɫɔɫ) [H. Muradyan 1967: 182a];
Nor-Naxiǰewan ɔɫɔɫ ‘marrow’ (see Ačaṙean 1925: 446; in 64 – as an exception to the
rule u /unstressed/ > ə > zero). There are alternating forms with and without an
initial h- (Łarabaɫ əɫɔ́
ɫ, həɫɔ́
ɫ, huɫúɫ [Davt‘yan 1966: 449]; Karčewan əɫɔ́
ɫ, həɫɔ́
ɫ [H.
Muradyan 1960: 202b]), and y‘- (Muš y‘ɫeɫ next to uɫeɫ).
Hamšen has uɫɛɫ and ɛɫu (GSg uɫɛɫi, ɛɫvi) for ‘brain’, and (ɔskri) yɛɫ for ‘marrow’
[Ačaṙyan 1947: 27, 54, 250].
The “pure” root *uɫ ‘brain’ is found in Modern Armenian uɫn u cucə ‘the true
nature, the essence’ (see Malxaseanc‘, HBB 3: 597a), literally: “the brain and
marrow” (cf. s.v. ilik). Malxasyanc‘ (ibid.) also introduces the variant uɫɫ. However,
one cannot be sure whether this is a really existing form or a mere theoretical
construction to illustrate the intermediary stage in the development uɫe/iɫ > uɫ. At
any rate, *uɫ is found only in the expression uɫn u cucə and seems to be merely a
reduced form from uɫeɫ.
●ETYM No acceptable etymology is recorded in HAB 3: 594. Considered to be a
word of unknown origin, see J̌
ahukyan 1990: 71 (sem. field 4), 72 (noting that this is
a basic term which has neither native Armenian nor borrowed synonyms).
In view of GSg uɫɫoy, the older NSg can be reconstructed as *uɫiɫ [Meillet 1913:
20].
The variants with a labial vowel in the second syllable, namely *uɫuɫ, and perhaps
also uɫiwɫ [= /uɫüɫ/?], need an explanation. In view of the absence of reliable
examples, Ačaṙyan (1926: 70) points out that the sound change seen in Maraɫa ɔɫɔ́
ɫ
cannot be specified. H. Muradyan (1960: 30) explains the Karčewan form (h)əɫɔ́
ɫ
from uɫeɫ by regressive assimilation (uɫeɫ > *uɫuɫ) and change of the pretonic u to ə.
One may also think of vocalic metathesis (see 2.1.26.4). In either case, however, one
has to explain why the same dialects have both variants side by side: Van uɫeɫ and
uɫoɫ, J̌
uɫa əɫeɫ and əɫuɫ (HAB), Mehtišen əɫɛ́
ɫ, əɫɔ́
ɫ [Davt‘yan 1966: 449]. Besides, the
variant *uɫuɫ is widespread in many dialects ranging from Nor-Naxiǰewan and T‘iflis
to Syria, Persia and Łarabaɫ, and the spelling variant uɫiwɫ seems to have solid
philological basis (cf. Olsen 1999: 56-57120). J̌
ahukyan (1987: 374), with some
reservation, sees in uɫiwɫ a vowel palatalization. Olsen (ibid.) even treats uɫiwɫ as the
original form, ascribing etymological value to -w-. She suggests a compound of uɫi
‘road’, here in the meaning ‘tube’ > ‘hollow bone’ (cf. in particular OPr. aulis ‘shinbone’) + *-plh1o- ‘fill’, so the original meaning would be ‘bone-filler’ [Olsen
1999: 56-57].
The reconstruction of such a compound, however, does not seem probable.
Furthermore, this interpretation exaggerates the role of the form uɫiwɫ and ignores
the other forms, of which uɫeɫ is indispensable. Therefore, one may tentatively
suggest the following paradigm: NSg *uɫ-uɫ, Obl. *uɫ-eɫ-. These doublets can
theoretically betray an IE l-stem with *-ōl in the nominative and *-el- elsewhere, cf.
acuɫ ‘coal’, aseɫn ‘needle’, etc. (see 2.2.2.5). It is interesting, that both aseɫn/*asuɫ
and uɫeɫ/*uɫuɫ are represented in certain dialects by semantic differentiation. For
aseɫn, see s.v. As for uɫeɫ, note Van uɫeɫ ‘brain’ vs. uɫoɫ ‘marrow’ [HAB 3: 594b];
Hamšen ɛɫu ‘brain’ vs. yɛɫ ‘marrow’ [Ačaṙyan 1947: 27, 54, 250]. The semantic
details of the correspondent pair in J̌
uɫa and Mehtišen are not known. In Muš, such a
semantic differentiation is represented by the doublets differring in anlaut: y’ɫeɫ
‘brain’ vs. uɫeɫ ‘marrow’ [HAB 3: 594b].
If my analysis is accepted, one may tentatively connect the root *uɫ- ‘marrow;
brain’ with oɫn (GDSg oɫin, ISg oɫamb, NPl oɫunk‘, GDPl oɫanc‘) ‘spine,
back(bone); spine with spinal cord; marrow’ (Bible+; dialects). The latter, despite
the semantic difference, is usually derived from PIE *Heh3l-en-: Gr. ὠλένη f.
‘elbow, underarm’; Lat. ulna f. ‘elbow’; OHG el(i)na f. ‘ell’; Lith. úolektis, Latv.
uôlekts ‘ell’, etc., as well as Arm. uln (GDSg ulan, NPl ulunk‘, GDPl ulanc‘) ‘neck’
(Bible+; dialect of J̌
uɫa) and uɫuk ‘palm, distance from the thumb to the little finger’
(Bible+; dialect of Łarabaɫ, with an initial h-), see Lidén 1906: 127-130; HAB 3:
554, 592; Pokorny 1959: 308; Schrijver 1991: 78-79, 339, 352; Olsen 1999:
125-126.
Unlike the cases of aseɫn and acuɫ, however, there is no ground for a PIE l-stem
here. If the PIE word did have l-stem (*HVH-l-, see Schrijver 1991: 78-79), it is
already reflected in Arm. *uɫ-. The ending of the Armenian form can be a suffix. It
is worth mentioning that Gr. μυ-ελός m. ‘marrow’ (Homer+), all the etymological
attempts of which deal with the root *μυ- (see Frisk 2: 264; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov
1984: 818 with ref.; Watkins 1995: 5317, 535-536), has the same suffix *-elo-. Note
also Gr. σφόνδ-ῠλος m. ‘vertebra; (pl.) backbone, spine; neck; joint; circular whorl
which balances and twirls a spindle’. The Armenian by-form *uɫ-uɫ, then, can be due
to influence of the proto-paradigm of aseɫn, etc. See also aɫeɫn.
I conclude: next to oɫ-n ‘spine; marrow’ and ul-n ‘neck’, there was also *uɫ-
‘spine’, which, with the suffix *-elo-, formed uɫ-eɫ, o-stem ‘brain; marrow’.
How to explain the later literary forms yɫiɫ and yɫeɫ, as well as dial. (Muš) y‘ɫeɫ
(next to uɫeɫ), the initial h- Łarabaɫ and some adjacent dialects? Since the initial u- is
in a pretonic syllable, it can have replaced an older *uy- (in terms of the ClArm
orthography, oy-). We arrive, then, at a *uyɫíɫo-. In some of the dialectal areas and/or
at some stages, the initial *uy- might yield ü and/or yu-. In this particular case,
however, one may prefer restoring of a by-form with the prefix y- < *h1en- ‘in’ (see
2.3.1). The etymological meaning of uɫ-eɫ (if indeed related with oɫ-n ‘spine, etc.) is
‘spine’. In *y-uɫeɫ ‘marrow; brain’, then, the marrow (or brain) is seen as substance
which is in the spine (or in the skull).
uɫuk ‘palm, distance from the thumb to the little finger’ (Bible). Also uɫk-ean
‘handbreadth’ (Bible+), see Olsen 1999: 501-502. ●DIAL Łarabaɫ həɫɔ́
k, həɫɔ́
k‘, Mehtišen həɫuk [HAB 3: 597; Davt‘yan 1966: 449].
Davt‘yan (ibid.) cites k
y
ɛɫ, kɛɫ, as well as t‘iz under the lemma uɫuk, as if they are
semantically identical. According to Malxaseanc‘ (HBB 3: 600a), the unit of length
uɫuk denotes not only the palm, but also the distance between the thumb and the
forefinger (index finger), or the distance of four fingers. In Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ (see
Amalyan 1975: 260Nr208), uɫuk is glossed by t‘iz and ɫuk. This implies that, in the 17th
century, ɫuk was a living form [HAB 3: 597b]. Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ also has uɫkēn,
rendered as t‘zaw, ISg of t‘iz (see Amalyan 1975: 260Nr202), which should be linked
with uɫkean.
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 597) connects with Lat. ulna ‘elbow; ell’; Goth. aleina ‘ell
(distance from elbow to finger tips)’, etc. (see s.vv. oɫn and uln). This is accepted by
J̌
ahukyan (1987: 122). Olsen (1999: 941), albeit referring to HAB 3: 597, does not
mention this etymology and places uɫuk in the list of words of unknown origin. For
the semantics, cf. PToch. *ale(n) ‘palm of the hand’ (see Hilmarsson 1986:
231-232).
In view of the cognate forms with a *-k-, namely Lith. úolektis, Latv. uôlekts
‘ell’; Lith. alkū́nė ‘elbow’, Latv. ę̀
lkuonis ‘elbow, bend’, etc. (see s.v. olok‘), one
wonders if a PArm. *uɫ-k‘- underlies uɫuk. The unaspirated -k could be due to
contamination with -k-ean (cf. vayr-(i)k-ean ‘moment’). If this is correct, the
word-final -k‘ in Łarabaɫ həɫɔ́
k‘ may become significant, and the internal -u- in uɫuk
should be treated as secondary, unless uɫuk is from *HoHl-ōk. Note also the identity
of the root vocalism with the vowel preceding the -k/k‘ in il-ik, ol-ok‘, and uɫ-uk (cf.
2.1.23). If the word-initial aspiration of Łarabaɫ həɫɔ́
k/k‘ is old, the corresponing
EArm. proto-form would be *h3eHl- (vs. uɫuk < *HoHl-?). See also s.vv. olok‘ and
oɫn.
Compare Oss. *ulVng ‘distance between the thumb and the index finger’, which
is described by Gatuev (1933: 146) as follows: улынг ‘мера длины, равная
расстоянию между концами растянутых большого и указательного пальцев’
(vs. удисн ‘мера длины, равная расстоянию между концами растянутых
большого пальца и мизинца’).
unayn, i-stem and o-stem (some evidence from John Chrysostom and Philo,
respectively) ‘empty, hollow, void; vain; empty-handed’ (Bible+).
●ETYM Related with Skt. ūná- ‘deficient, not sufficient, less, too small’, YAv. ūna-
‘deficient’, Lat. vānus ‘empty, hollow; vain, idle’, vāstus ‘empty, desolate’, Goth.
wans, OEngl., OHG wan ‘wanting, deficient’, etc., see Hübschmann 1883: 47; 1897:
484; HAB 3: 600b with lit.; Pokorny 1959: 345; Mallory/Adams 1997: 179a.
The root is reconstructed as *ueh2- or, if Gr. εὖνις ‘desolate, empty’ is related,
*h1ueh2, cf. Skt. vā- ‘to wane, disappear, diminish’, etc. (for a discussion, see
Schrijver 1991: 146, 308; Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 241; 2, 1996: 538;
Mallory/Adams 1997: 179a; cf. Speirs 1984: 123, 147). The derivation of the
Armenian root *un from *(h1)e/ouh2-n- (> *oyn-, HAB 3: 600b) is improbable; the
behaviour of the medial laryngeal in Armenian and Greek is uncertain (cf. Schrijver
1991: 308), whereas a zero-grade form *(h1)uh2-n- implies an unchanged stem *un-,
which is possible, cf. sut-ak(-) vs. sut ‘lie’, etc. For a further discussion, see
Clackson 1994: 45-46. For -ayn, see Greppin 1975: 68; Clackson 1994: 44;
J
̌ahukyan 1998: 10.
und, o-stem: ISg ənd-o-v in Yovhan Mandakuni (2003: 1172aL16); IPl ənd-o-v-k‘ (var.
ənd-a-w-k‘) in Ephrem. ‘edible seed, grain’ (Bible+). In Daniel 1.12 and 16: APl
und-s, AccSg und [Cowe 1992: 154], rendering Gr. σπέρμα ‘seed; seed-time,
sowing; germ; race, origin, descent’. With an initial h-, hund, o-stem, i-stem,
attested in Nonnus of Nisibis (GSg hnd-o-y) and Plato. In NHB 2: 124c, o-stem;
Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 601a) also has an o-stem, but he cites GDPl hnd-i-c‘ (Nonnus),
which points to i-stem. In John Chrysostom: deɫ-a-hund ‘herb-seed’.
Compounds: ənd-a-but ‘feeding on seeds, herbs’ (P‘awstos Buzand 6.16),
und-a-ker ‘id.’ (Agat‘angeɫos), etc.
●DIAL The form hund is widespread in the dialects: Aslanbek, Axalc‘xa, Muš,
Cilicia, Ararat, etc. Without the initial h-: Xarberd and T‘iflis [HAB 3: 601b].
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 601) rejects all the etymological attempts including those
connecting with Skt. ándhas- and Gr. ἄνϑος (Canini, Müller) and leaves the origin
of the word open. J̌
ahukyan (1990: 72, sem. field 8) considers a word of unknown
origin.
The connection with Skt. ándhas-, etc. cannot be ruled out; see s.v. and
‘cornfield’.
unim, 1sg.aor. kal-a-y, imper. kal ‘to take, hold, have, obtain’ (Bible+); ənd-unim,
aor. *ən(d)-kal-: 1sg.aor. ənkal-a-y, imper. ənkal ‘to take (up), receive, accept’
(Bible+); late oyn ‘possessed vigour, condition, state, valour’ (Dionysius Thrax,
Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, Grigor Magistros, Mxit‘ar Anec‘i, etc.), un ‘id.’
(Ganjk‘); MidArm. unenal, unnal ‘to possess, bear, sense’ (MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992:
241ab).
For the ClArm. suppletive paradigm unim vs. aor. kal-a-, see Łaragyulyan 1961:
167-168; È. Tumanjan 1971: 401-402. Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 602a) considers the noun
oyn/un a Greek calque, cf. ἕξις from ἔχω. Note, however, the dialectal evidence.
●DIAL The verbal forms unim and unenal are widespread in the dialects [HAB 3:
602b].
Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 602b) records no dialectal form of the noun. According to
Baɫramyan 1960: 96b here belongs Dersim un ‘handful; vigour’.
●ETYM Connected with Skt. āpnóti ‘to reach, gain’, Av. apāna- ‘erreicht habend’,
āpana- n. ‘gain, reaching’, Hitt. 3sg.pres.act. e-ep-zi, 3pl.pres.act. ap-pa-an-zi ‘to
grab, catch’, Lat. apīscor ‘to reach, obtain, receive, grab’, perf. co-epī < *co-ēpī ‘to
begin, undertake’ (see Scheftelowitz 1904-05, 2: 34; Charpentier 1909: 246-248;
Meillet 1929; Pokorny 1959: 51; Mallory/Adams 1997: 563b). One assumes a
reduplicated *h1e-h1p- in Indo-Iran. āp-, Hitt. ēp- and Lat. ēp- (for the forms and a
discussion, see Schrijver 1991: 28-29; Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 167; Vine 1999:
5247; de Vaan 2003: 135, 159). Kloekhorst 2008: 242f reconstructs a normal root
present *h1ép-ti, *h1p-énti for Hittite.
The Armenian vocalism has been explained from *ōp-ne- (= *h1op-ne-), cf. the
type of utem ‘to eat’ (Meillet 1929 = 1978: 2161936: 47-48; Beekes 1973: 95-96).
For more references and a discussion, see s.v. utem ‘to eat’ and J̌
ahukyan 1982:
22831. Schrijver 1991: 29 posits a perfect stem *h1e-h1op- reflected in Arm. unim
and Av. āpana-. For oyn vs. unim and a further extensive discussion I refer to de
Lamberterie 1978: 278-282; Isebaert 1982. On the other hand, the Armenian word has been derived from PIE *senh2-, perf.
*(se-)sonh2e ‘ich erlangte’, cf. Skt. sanóti ‘to win, gain’, OAv. hanaēmā(cā) ‘mögen
wir gewinnen’, Hitt. šanḫ- ‘to seek, look for’, Gr. ἁνύω, ἀνύω, ἄνυμι ‘to complete,
accomplish, bring to an end’, OHG sinnan ‘to strive after’, etc., see Schindler 1976;
Schmitt 1981: 134, 157; K. Schmidt 1985: 86. For the PIE etymon (without
Armenian), see Pokorny 1959: 906; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 1: 198 = 1995: 170;
Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 696-697; Mallory/Adams 1997: 3b. This etymology is
less plausible. I see no solid reasons to abandon the traditional etymology.
PIE *senh2- is taken as reflected in Arm. hanem ‘to take out, draw out, take off,
bring outside, bring forth, grab’ (q.v.), Meillet apud HAB; Hübschmann 1899: 48;
see HAB 3: 33-34 for the material and references. Ačaṙyan himself does not accept
the etymology. Sceptical is also Klingenschmitt 1982: 131-132, who identifies this
verb with henum ‘to weave’.
unkn (singulative; spelled also as ungn), an-stem: GDSg unkan (abundant in the
Bible), AblSg y-unkan-ē (Bible, Ephrem), ISg unkam-b in “Šarakan” (in plural, only
GDPl unkan-c‘ in “Taɫaran”) ‘ear’; unkn dnem ‘to listen (to)’ (Bible+), e.g. in
Genesis 18.10 [Zeyt‘unean 1985: 220]: Ew Sarra unkn dnēr aṙ dran xoranin :
Σαρρα δὲ ἤκουσεν πρὸς τῇ ϑύρᾳ τῆς σκηνῆς. unkn ‘handle of pitchers, cups, etc.’:
APl unkun-s several times in Paterica).
●DIAL Preserved in numerous dialects, in the meaning ‘handle’: Hamšen, T‘iflis,
Ararat, Alaškert ung, Axalc‘xa vɔng, Akn unk‘, Svedia üng, etc. [HAB 3: 604a], J̌
uɫa
ungn, gen. əngn-i [Ačaṙean 1940: 381a], Łarabaɫ ɔ́
ngnə, ɔ́
ynə [Davt‘yan 1966: 450].
Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 604a) points out that the basic meaning of the word, namely
‘ear’, has been preserved only in Šatax unk‘y
tal ‘to hear, give importance,
appreciation to what has been said’. In her ClArm. > Šatax vocabulary, M.
Muradyan (1962: 203b) glosses unk [read unkn? – HM] by Šatax ungy ‘attention’.
For the semantics cf. Arm. uš from the Iranian cognate of this PIE word (see below).
Thus, Šatax unk‘y
tal ‘to hear, give importance/appreciation to what has been said’
can be treated as unk‘/gy
tal ‘to give ear/attention’, with tal ‘to give’.
●ETYM Since long (NHB 2: 551a; Bugge 1889: 24; Meillet 1936: 84), derived from
the PIE word for ‘ear’: Gr. οὖς, GSg ὠτός, NAPl ὦτα, also GSg οὔατος, pl. -ατα;
Dor. and Hellenistic NSg ὦς; ἆτα (Tarentinian gloss) n. ‘ear; handle of pitchers,
cups, etc.’, Av. uši (dual) ‘ears’, Pahl. ōš, ōš-īh, ManMPers. and NPers. hōš
‘consciousness, intelligence’ (see MacKenzie 1971: 61), Arm. uš ‘mind,
intelligence, consciousness, attention’ (Iranian loanword; for the semantics, see
above on the Šatax dialect), Lat. auris f. ‘ear’, aus-cultāre (> Fr. écouter ) ‘to hear’,
OIr. áu, GSg aue n. ‘ear’ (s-stem), Lith. ausìs f., OCS uxo n., gen. ušese ‘ear’
(s-stem), etc. [HAB 3: 603-604; Pokorny 1959: 785; Mallory/Adams 1997: 173b].
The Armenian form is derived from *(H)us-n-, with the nasal seen in Gr. GSg
οὔατος < *-n̥-t-, Germ. *ausōn, Goth. gen. ausins, OPr. ausins, etc., and with the
suffix -kn as in akn ‘eye’, armukn ‘elbow’, etc. [Bugge 1889: 24; Hübschmann
1897: 484; HAB, ibid.; Pisani 1950: 167; Lindeman 1980: 60-62]. A diminutive
*us-on-ko-m has been assumed (Osthoff, Pokorny; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 52, 113-114;
1987: 142). According to Meillet (1896a: 369, 3691), the *-n- is comparable with the
nasal found in other body-part terms such as Skt. ákṣi-, GSg akṣṇás ‘eye’, śíras,
śīrṣṇás ‘head’, etc. Compare also Arm. y-awn-k‘ ‘eyebrow’, if it reflects PArm. *aw-n- ‘eye’ from *h3k
w
-n- (see s.v.). According to Kortlandt (1985b: 10 = 2003:
58), unkn consists of un- < AccSg *us-m, and -kn taken from akn ‘eye’, and the
plural akanǰ-k‘ remains unexplained.
Greek has o-vocalism whereas e.g. Lat. auris points to *h2eus- [Beekes 1969:
168]. It has been assumed that the Greek has taken *o- from the word for ‘eye’, and
the original anlaut is maintained in Tarentinian ἆτα < *ἄϝατα [Schrijver 1991: 47].
Given the abundance of body-part terms with o-grade in the root, *h2ous- may be
reconstructed with more confidence. One wonders if we are dealing with nom. *o
vs. (acc./)gen. *e as is assumed (e.g. in Beekes 1995: 188-189) for the words for
‘knee’ and ‘foot’. Arm. unkn may reflect either o- or zero-grade. Beekes (2003: 189)
assumes *h2us-n-.
Further, see s.v. akanǰ ‘ear’. For the meaning ‘handle of pitchers, cups, etc.’ of
unkn compare the Greek cognate.
unč‘-k‘, a-stem ‘nose; the part between the nose and the mouth; moustache’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Preserved in the Łarabaɫ expression *unč‘ə č‘ē ‘he does not care’, lit. “it is
not (of) his nose/moustache” [HAB 3: 604b].
●ETYM Considered to be a word of unknown origin, see HAB 3: 604b (rejecting all
the etymological attempts, as well as the connection with the PIE word for ‘nose’:
Skt. nás-, nā́sā- f., Lat. nāris f., NPl nārēs, Lith. nósis, etc.); J̌
ahukyan 1990: 72
(noting that this is a basic term which has neither native Armenian nor borrowed
synonyms); Olsen 1999: 941.
Given that Arm. unč‘-k‘ is the principal (and the only) term for ‘the part between
the nose and the mouth; moustache’ (for ‘nose’ there is k‘it‘, also of unknown
origin), its native origin is highly plausible. The semantics of the word points to two
possible basic meanings: ‘[that] below the nose’ or ‘[that] above the mouth’
(typologically cf. s.v. y-awn-k‘ ‘eyebrows’). I tentatively propose a derivation from
QIE *upo-(H)neh2s- ‘*[that] below the nose’, cf. Gr. ὑπήνη f. ‘moustache’ (though
there are formal problems), OPr. po-nasse ‘upper lip’ (see Adams apud
Mallory/Adams 1997: 395a).
It is difficult to determine the exact type of derivation for the Armenian. One
might assume QIE *upo-(H)neh2s-ieh2-, or dual *-ih1-eh2- ‘below the nostrils’,
developing into PArm. *upun-i̯a- (regular loss of *-s- and haplology of *-eh2-) >
*uwunǰ- > *unǰ-. Compare lanǰ-k‘, a-stem ‘breast’, also a dual. The final -č‘ instead
of *-ǰ- may be due to influence of pinč‘ ‘nostrils’ (Damask., etc.; in derivatives: John
Chrysostom, Dawit‘ Anyaɫt‘, etc.; widespread in the dialects, also meaning ‘nose’,
‘muzzle’, etc.), and dunč‘ ‘the projecting part of the head, including the nose, mouth
and jaws’ (Maɫak‘ia Abeɫa or Grigor Akanec‘i /13th cent./, etc.; widespread in the
dialects), unless this comes from *ənd-unč‘, as is interpreted in Margaryan 1971:
219-221. Otherwise: QIE *upo-(H)neh2s- > PArm. *upún(a)- > *un- + -č‘
analogically after the above-mentioned dunč‘ and pinč‘.
Alternative: QIE *up-ōs-nieh2- ‘that above the mouth’ (: Shughni bůn ‘beard’, if
from *upā(ha)nā-, cf. YAv. ā̊
ŋhan- ‘mouth’; see s.v. yawn-k‘.
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. In P‘awstos Buzand 4.18 (1883=1984: 109L9f): zi ēr hareal zxorann i jor yunǰ
berdin : “for the tent was pitched in the gorge beneath the fortress” (transl. Garsoïan
1989: 149L3f). In 4.8 (82L-6f; transl. 128): APl unǰ-s ‘roots’ and ənǰ-ov-in ‘with roots’.
In 4.54 (143L-11f): ənd unǰ “into the earth”. Further, see 4.8 on the place-name
K‘ar(ah)unǰ.
L. Hovhannisyan (1990a: 153) has found an-unǰ ‘bottomless’ (not in NHB)
attested in Agat‘angeɫos. Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 604b) records the word referring to
“Aṙjeṙn baṙaran” (1865) but not mentioning any literary attestation.
●ETYM No acceptable etymology is recorded in HAB 3: 604b.
See s.vv. unǰ2 ‘treasure’, unǰ3 ‘soot’, and 1.12.6.
unǰ2 prob. ‘treasure, treasury, granary, barn’.
In P‘awstos Buzand 5.6 (1883=1984: 171L17f): i gawaṙn Ayrayratu i mec i gewɫn
ənǰin ark‘uni, orum Ardeansn koč‘en. Garsoïan (1989: 196, cf. also 3122, 444-445)
translates as follows: “to the large village named Ardeans, at the royal [fortress] of
the district of Ayrarat”. Malxasyanc‘ (1987: 313) renders ənǰ-in by ModArm. kalvac
‘estate’.
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 605a) identifies with Georg. unǰi ‘treasure’, of which
unǰ-eba (verb) is derived, corresponding to Arm. ganj-em in the Bible. Then he
(ibid.) notes that he does not know whether there is a connection with unǰ1 ‘depth,
bottom’ (q.v.). I think the connection is very plausible. The semantic development
would have been ‘*bottom, depth, the underground’ > ‘buried/underground treasure
or granary’. Note that unǰ is attested in P‘awstos Buzand in various senses: ‘bottom,
below’, ‘depth’, ‘root’ (see s.v. unǰ1), and ‘treasury, granary, barn’ (see the passage
above). For semantic (cf. ganj) and etymological discussion, see 1.12.6. See also s.v.
unǰ3.
In the passage from P‘awstos, thus, Ardeans is said to be a village of the royal
treasury or, perhaps better, of the royal granary/barn. This may be corroborated by
the etymology of the place-name (q.v.).
unǰ3 ‘soot (in stoves; resulted by smoke); rust’.
Two late attestations only: “History of the nation of the Archers (i.e. the
Mongols)” by Maɫak‘ia Abeɫa or Grigor Akanec‘i (13th cent.), and Oskip‘orik.
●DIAL Preserved in some (mainly eastern) peripheral dialects, as unǰ or ɔnǰ (without
an initial h-): Šamšadin/Diliǰan [Mežunc‘ 1989: 196a]; Areš [Lusenc‘ 1982: 230a];
Šamaxi [Baɫramyan 1964: 220], Kṙzen [Baɫramyan 1961: 197a], Łarabaɫ [Davt‘yan
1966: 459], Goris [Margaryan 1975: 356], Meɫri [Aɫayan 1954: 283], Karčewan
[Muradyan 1960: 202b], Kak‘avaberd [Muradyan 1967: 182a]. The basic meaning is
‘soot’.
Ačaṙyan specifies the semantic chain found in Łarabaɫ etc. as follows: ‘soot;
iron-rust; sooty spider-web near stoves’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 867b; HAB 3: 605a].
Concerning the spider-web, see below (Hin J̌
uɫa); cf. also s.v. *mglamandi. The
semantic relationship ‘soot’ : ‘spider-web’ parallels Akn mlul/r [HAB 3: 352b]. In
Areš the meaning is ‘iron-rust’. Important is the meaning in Kṙzen: ‘rust; sediment’
(see below). Amatuni (1912: 536b) records Van unǰ ‘rust of metals’. He refers to the
word-collection of T‘ōxmaxean compiled in the prison of Van, and one is not sure
whether he had also an independent information for this word.
Šatax uč ‘soot’ (see M. Muradyan 1962: 203b) and Moks (the village of Sip) auč
‘soot’ (see HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 137-138), both unnoticed by Ačaṙyan, seem to
be very important. According to M. Muradyan 1982: 135, the meaning is ‘wet soot’.
Some other forms appear with an initial m-: Hin J̌
uɫa munǰ ‘spider-web’, Van and
Maraɫa munǰ-kat‘/muč-kat‘ ‘dropping of sooty water from the chimney; sooty water
that drops from chimneys’, Ararat mnǰ-ot ‘sooty’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 796b; Ačaṙyan
1952: 43, 82, 101, 286; HAB 3: 605a]. Ačaṙyan (1952: 43) explains this m- by a
confusion with munǰ ‘dumb’ (q.v.), which is semantically improbable. I think it
should rather be explained by the influence of or contamination with mur and
*murč- ‘soot’, as well as mocir/močir ‘ash’. For munǰ-kat‘/muč-kat‘ cf. the
synonymous mr-kat‘ in Alaškert (see Ačaṙean 1913: 802b). The variant muč-kat‘
can provide us with additional (indirect) evidence for the nasalless form *uč (Šatax,
Sip).
For an alternative explanation for the initial m-, see below.
●ETYM No etymological attempt is known to me.
The word may be related with unǰ1 ‘bottom, depth’ (> unǰ2 ‘treasure’). Its basic
meaning would then be ‘sediment/Bodensatz’ (< ‘settling, sinking down’); cf. mur
‘soot’ vs. mrur ‘sediment’. Remarkably, Kṙzen unǰ refers to not only ‘rust’ (žang),
but also ‘sediment’ (mrur). The semantics is corroborated by maɫ-unč‘ ‘sediment of
grain left on the bottom of a sieve’ (with the first component maɫ ‘sieve’), attested in
Oskip‘orik (probably by Grigor Tat‘ewac‘i, 14-15th cent.). According to HAB (3:
604b), this compound contains unǰ1 ‘bottom’. This can serve as a semantic
intermediary between unǰ1 ‘bottom’ and unǰ3 ‘soot (< sediment)’. Also the following
seems relevant for the connection: unǰ3 ‘soot (< sediment)’ has been preserved only
in SE dialects (Goris, Łarabaɫ, etc.), and unǰ1 ‘bottom’ is absent in the dialects.
However, the latter is found in a number of place-names located in Goris and
adjacent areas (cf. K‘ar(ah)unǰ), and Grigor T‘at‘ewac‘i (see above on maɫ-unč‘) has
lived in Tat‘ew, in vicinity of Goris.
The etymology is uncertain. Besides, unǰ3 ‘soot’, being basically a dialectal word,
has a by-form *uč in Šatax and Sip (as well as, indirectly, in Van and Maraɫa),
which seems to be older, because the addition of an epenthetic -n- is quite
widespread in Armenian dialects (see 2.2.1.3), while a loss of an etymological -n- is
hardly probable. M. Muradyan (1962: 53, 62) assumes that in Šatax uč the nasal has
dropped. This is not convincing, because the only other example, that is knunk‘
‘baptism’ > kənuk‘y, has a secondary -unk‘, and knuk‘ (attested literarily, too) can be
seen as another analogical creation deduced from knk‘em ‘to stamp; to baptize’; the
root knik‘ ‘stamp; baptism’, with an etymological -i-, is not preserved in the dialects.
On the contrary, the addition of the nasal is quite frequent in Šatax; see M.
Muradyan 1962: 64.
Arm. *uč ‘soot’ can go back to IE *sōd-i̯V- ‘soot’: PSlav. *sadi̯a (OCS sažda
‘ἄσβολος’, Czech saze, Russ. saža, etc.), Lith. súodžiai pl., OIc, OEngl. sōt, Engl.
soot, OIr. sūide f. (< *sodia ̄ ̯̄-) (see Pokorny 1959: 886; Fasmer 3, 1971: 544);
Mallory/Adams 1997: 522b). This is derived from *sed- ‘to sit’ and basically means ‘sediment/Bodensatz’. Thus, Arm. unǰ1 ‘bottom, depth’ might be cognate, too.
Compare e.g. MWelsh sawdd ‘Tiefe, Absinken’, also from *sed- ‘to sit’.
On the other hand, unǰ ‘soot; rust’ is reminiscent of Arm. dial. *banǰ ‘mould;
rust’: Xarberd, Manisa, K‘ɫi banǰotil ‘to mould’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 174b; Gabikean
1952: 107], Xarberd, Berri, Balu banǰ ‘mould’ and derivatives [Sargisean 1932: 368:
Baɫramyan 1960: 114a; HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 163ab]. The meaning ‘rust’ is
present in Xarberd and Balu [HayLezBrbBaṙ 1, 2001: 163b].
Ačaṙyan (1913: 174b) notes that the root is unknown to him.
Bearing in mind the Iranian anlaut fluctuation v-/b-/m-, one may tentatively
connect *banǰ ‘mould; rust’ (from an Iranian unattested form?) with unǰ3 (dial. also
*munǰ) ‘soot; rust’. For the semantics, see s.v. mglim.
133
uši, *ho/uši probably ‘storax-tree’ and ‘holm-oak’. Attested only in Yaysmawurk‘,
probably as equivalent to šēr = Gr. στύραξ ‘storax-tree, Styrax officinalis’, which is
a resiniferous tree (q.v.).
●DIAL Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 606b) records only Muš hɔši ‘a shrub with leaves
resembling those of the willow’; according to others, as he points out: ‘a kind of
oak-tree growing in forests, the leaves of which serve as fodder for sheep in winter’.
One finds the word also in other dialects:
Sasun hoši, hoš-k-i ‘oak-tree’ [Petoyan 1954: 140; 1965: 140]. According to
K‘alant‘ar (1895: 53), the leaves of Sasun hɔši and lɔɫp‘i [also the latter refers to
‘oak’, see Petoyan 1965: 477] serve as fodder for sheep in winter.
Dersim (K‘ɫi) hɔšgi ‘oak of sun-side’ (aregdemi kaɫni) [Baɫramyan 1960: 148b].
Sasun and Dersim forms presuppose *hoš-k-i, with the tree-suffix -k on which see
2.3.1.
●SEMANTICS The term seems to represent three denotata: (1) a kind of resiniferous
(and coniferous?) tree, since it corresponds to Gr. ‘storax-tree’; (2) a willow-like
shrub or tree; (3) a kind of oak.
A probable basic candidate may be the holm-tree which, with its evergreen
foliage, may be related with resiniferous and/or coniferous trees. Compare t‘eɫawš
that refers to ‘holm-oak’ on the one hand, and to ‘cedar, pine’ on the other (q.v.).
The Łarabaɫ term continuing t‘eɫawš, namely t‘əɫuší, is said to denote a kind of tree
the leaves of which serve as fodder for goats. This matches the description of Muš,
Sasun hɔši above.
As for the association with a willow-like tree, see the material s.vv. aygi
‘vineyard’ and gi ‘juniper’. Compare also Gr. σμῖλαξ ‘yew, or bindweed, or
holm-oak’ rendered by Arm. geɫj ‘bindweed, convolvulus; yew-tree’ (q.v.).
●ETYM No etymology in HAB 3: 606b.
J̌
ahukyan (1967: 255; in 1987: 141, with a question mark) connects with Lith.
úosis ‘ash-tree’, etc., and Arm. hac‘i ‘ash-tree’, positing *ōskh
iia̯ ̄-. The *-skh
- (next
to *-sk- in hac‘i ‘ash-tree’) is not clear, however. One may assume that the
Armenian form reflects a metathesized form found also in Gr. ὀξύα, -η ‘beech;
spear-shaft made from its wood, spear’. The vowel -u- in the Greek form is probably
due to the etymological or folk-etymological relation with ὀξύς ‘sharp’ (see P. Friedrich 1970: 95-96). For QIE *ks- > Arm. -š- (ruki-rule in internal position), see
2.1.12. Next to Cheremis oško ‘ash’, note Erzamordvin uks(o) ‘elm, ash’ (see
Normier 1981: 23-24). Thus: QIE *h3ek-s-ieh2- > PArm. *hošíya- > *hoši. On the
other hand, the by-form uši, if old, points to QIE *Hōks- from *HoHs- (cf. Lith.
úosis ‘ash-tree’, etc.); see s.vv. hac‘i and hoyn.
For the semantic shift ‘ash’ > ‘storax-tree’ and ‘(holm-)oak’ the following is
relevant. Both the ash and the storax (1) have valuable wood of which spears or
other implements are made; (2) produce manna or gum-resin. Note that in Sasun the
manna is found on leaves of oak-trees, and this tree is here called hɔši (which is our
word) or lɔɫp‘i. For more details, see s.vv. meɫex, šēr.
us, o-stem ‘shoulder’ (Bible+); ‘flank of a mountain’ (Movsēs Xorenac‘i, see below);
the latter meaning is present in the dialect of Łarabaɫ; note also us, us-ak ‘hill’
(Step‘anos Ōrbelean, Siwnik‘) [HAB 3: 609b].
In Movsēs Xorenac‘i 1.30 (1913=1990: 83L7f; transl. Thomson 1978: 120):
yareweleay usoy meci lerinn minč‘ew i sahmans Goɫt‘an “from the Eastern flank of
the great mountain as far as the borders of Goɫt‘n”.
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects. With initial h’-: J̌
uɫa h’us [Ačaṙean 1940: 381a];
y-: Agulis yɔns [HAB 3: 609-610]. Two textual illustrations of the Agulis form,
transcribed as eɔns, can be found in Patkanov 1869: 27.
Frozen plural instrumental: Łarabaɫ ɔs-uk‘ : min xurǰin ɔsuk‘ə k‘əc‘ac ‘a dubblebag on/around the shoulders’ [HŽHek‘ 5, 1966: 398L2]; xurǰinə <...> ɔsük‘ə k‘c‘-
(ibid. 109L14, 111L3). The same expression is found in singular: xurǰinə <...> ɔsavə
k‘c‘- [HŽHek‘ 5, 1966: 647L8].
●ETYM Since long (de Lagarde 1854: 26L689; Dervischjan 1877: 96; Hübschmann
1883: 47; 1897: 484), connected with Gr. ὦμος m. ‘the shoulder with the upper
arm’, Lat. umerus, ī m. ‘shoulder’, Skt. áṃsa- m. ‘shoulder’ (RV+), Hitt. anašša-
‘part of the back’, Goth. APl amsans ‘shoulder’, etc. [HAB 3: 609b].
The loss of *n before *s in Arm. us ‘shoulder and amis ‘month’ (q.v.) was
posterior to the development *s > h, to the assibilation of PIE *k ̂ to *ś and to the
raising of *o to u before a nasal consonant (Kortlandt 1976: 92; 1980: 101 = 2003:
2, 29; cf. Beekes 2003: 180, 209). It seems impossible to determine whether Arm. us
continues the full grade as Skt. áṃsa-, or the lengthened grade as Gr. ὦμος [Olsen
1999: 21]. The vocalism of the Greek is troublesome (see Beekes 1972: 127;
Nassivera 2000: 6516 with ref.).
In view of Toch. A es, B āntse ‘shoulder’ probably pointing to *h2emso-, as well
as the lack of initial aspiration in Arm. us and Hittite anašša-, one reconstructs PIE
*h2omso- rather than *h3emso- [Lubotsky 1988: 75; Schrijver 1991: 51; Beekes
2003: 168-169]. Adams (1999: 43) assumes *h1/4ōm(e)so-. On the alternative
*h1eh3ms- and a discussion of some related issues, see Nassivera 2000: 65-6716.
Lat. umerus, ī m. ‘shoulder’ may point to QIE *Homes- [Schrijver 1991: 51;
Adams 1999: 43]. In view of the Latin as well as Gr. Hesychian ἀμέσω· ὠμοπλάται
‘shoulder-blades’, one posits a PIE s-stem *h2om-s- : *h2m-es-, although the Greek
form is considered uncertain (given the preserved -σ-, probably of non-Greek
origin), and the Latin -e- has been treated by others as an anaptyctic vowel; for
references and a discussion, see Beekes 1972: 127; Nassivera 2000: 6516. I assume that the PIE word for ‘shoulder’ may reflect HD s-stem of the subtype 4,
like the word for ‘nose’: nom. *néh2-s-s, acc. *nh2-és-m, gen. *nh2-s-ós [Beekes
1995: 180]. The nominative might have been *h2om-s-s. At a later stage of IE, the
word may have shifted its declension type into *h2omso- under the influence of PIE
*Horso- ‘buttocks, on which see s.v. oṙ ‘id.’. Thus: nom. *h2óm-s-s, acc. *h2m-és-m,
gen. *h2m-s-ós. Compare the word for ‘mouth’, another s-stem probably with ograde in the nominative, although this is a neuter and should belong to PD type:
nom. *HóH-os, gen. *HH-és-(o)s, cf. Skt. ā́s- n., Lat. ōs, ōris n., Hitt. a-i-iš(-), etc.
In what follows I argue that, apart from Lat. umerus and Hesychian ἀμέσω, *h2més- may be corroborated also by Arm. dial. (Agulis) *uns.
According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 609b), the nasal in Agulis yɔns is a an important
archaic relic of the *-m- of the Indo-European form. The development *-Ns > Arm. -
s is Pan-Armenian, however, and is reflected in ClArm. and in all the dialects,
including Agulis (see 2.1.11). The assumption that Agulis *uns continues the same
proto-form as ClArm. us does, namely PIE *Homso-, and has preserved the nasal
whereas it has been lost everywhere else is thus untenable. I assume that PArm.
hypothetical paradigm nom. *u(m)s : acc. *umes- (probably from older *ames-,
analogically after nom. *um- < *h2om-) has been preserved up to the earliest stages
of the classical period, and the nominative has generalized the nasal of the
accusative. This interpretation of the Agulis archaism in terms of (mutual)
relationship between the old nominative and accusative parallels that of Agulis
*kaɫc‘ vs. ClArm. kat‘n ‘milk’ (q.v.).
In such cases, a word of caution is always in order. One should first try to
“exhaust” all the easier and secondary possibilities. For instance, many Armenian
body-part terms have -un- in their forms (t‘ikunk‘ ‘back, shoulder’, cung ‘knee’,
srunk‘ ‘shinbone’, elungn ‘nail’, yawn-k‘ / *un-k‘ ‘brow’, etc.), which could have
influenced the Agulis form.
Note also Oss. Iron on, Digoron onæ, ionæ ‘shoulder blade’ (on the vocalism, see
Cheung 2002: 211-212). The initial i- in Digoron is compared with the article or the
prefix *u̯i- (see Abaev, 2: 227-228; ÈtimSlovIranJaz 1, 2000: 152), and the final -æ
perhaps points to an old dual *-ā [Cheung 2002: 211-212]. One may wonder, thus, if
yɔns can be explained by contamination with Oss. or Alan *(w)ion-. Further, cf. dial.
*omuz/umuz ‘shoulder’ from Turkish.
Nevertheless, my explanation in paradigmatic terms seems to be the most
plausible, especially in view of what has been said on Agulis *kaɫc‘ vs. ClArm.
kat‘n ‘milk’.
ustr, GSg uster, APl uster-s, GDPl *uster-a-c‘ ‘son’ (Bible+). Often used in
opposition to dustr ‘daughter’. For textual illustrations, see NHB (s.v.) and Olsen
1999: 149281.
Independently of dustr, e.g. in P‘awstos Buzand 4.15 /5th cent./ (1883=1984:
104L18f; transl. Garsoïan 1989: 145): Bayc‘ cnaw apa P‘aṙanjem t‘agaworin ustr mi,
ew koč‘ec‘in zanun nora Pap “But then P‘aṙanjem bore a boy to the king and he was
called Pap”.
●ETYM Probably from PIE *su(H)k- ‘to suck’: OEngl. sūcan ‘saugen’, Latv. sùkt ‘to
suck’, sunkà ‘juice’ (see Derksen 1996: 307), Lat. sūcus ‘juice, sap; vital fluid in
trees and plants’ (next to sūgō ‘to suck’, presupposing PIE *-g-), etc. [HAB 611-612]. The semantic development ‘sucker’ > ‘son’ is common; cf. Latv. dę̂ls
‘son’, Lat. fīlius ‘son’, etc. The *-ter- in the Armenian is usually considered
analogical after dustr ‘daughter’. Alternatively: *suH- (cf. Gr. υἱός m. ‘son’, Skt.
sūnú- ‘son’, etc.); see Pokorny 1959: 914; Szemerényi 1977: 19 (and 1961 with lit.);
Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984: 423, 765; Olsen 1999: 149. The analogical influence
with dustr may have been mutual.
utem ‘to eat’ (Bible+). Alongside utem we have the suppletive aorist ker-a-. For the
paradigm and a discussion of its origin, see Łaragyulyan 1961: 164-165; Barton
1989: 147, 147-14842, 149-150, 152.
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 3: 613a].
●ETYM Since long (Klaproth, NHB, Petermann, Gosche, etc., see HAB 3: 612-613),
connected with Gr. ἔδω, Lat. edō, Skt. ad-, pres. átti, adánti ‘to eat’, OCS jasti ‘to
eat’, Goth. itan ‘to eat’, etc. from PIE *h1ed- ‘to eat’ (see Hübschmann 1897: 485;
Meillet 1916h: 188-189; Pokorny 1959: 287; Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 61;
Mallory/Adams 1997: 175a).
The Armenian form requires QIE *h1ōd-e/o- in lengthened grade, the origin of
which is disputed. Meillet (1929; 1936: 47-48, 134; see also HAB 3: 612b) posits
*ōd- seen also in the Greek reduplicated noun ἐδωδή ‘food, meal’ and compares
with unim ‘to have, hold’ (q.v.) from *ōp-ne- vs. Hitt. ep-mi. Hamp 1967: 15
mentions this view and adds that “the vocalism of utem is reminiscent of a sort of
perfect, as well as a nominal formation”. For his further analysis, see s.v. əmpem ‘to
drink’. Beekes (1973: 95-96; 1974: 183; cf. 1972: 127) posits a PD
(proterodynamic) perfect ablauting paradigm with *ō in singular and *e in plural and
compares with unim ‘to have, hold’.
According to Godel (1965: 26; 1975: 123), utem, substituted to the old athematic
present *h1ed-mi (cf. Skt. ádmi, etc.), seems traceable to an iterative-durative present
*ōdeye/o- (for the *-ō- cf. the instances like Gr. ὠϑέω ‘I thrust, push’, etc.); see also
Melchert 1979: 268; Schmitt 1981: 157; Klingenschmitt 1982: 157. J̌
ahukyan (1982:
172, 22826; cf. Saradževa 1986: 138) derived utem from PIE *ōd-mi (with
subsequent thematization > *ōd-e-mi), citing Godel’s view without further comment.
Kortlandt (1986: 40; 1998a: 20 = 2003: 70, 125; see also Beekes 2003: 181)
suggests a formation with the prefix *som- (cf. Ved. sám-ad-; Spanish como < comedo ‘I eat’).134
On the whole, the explanation through a perfect formation seems the most
probable, although some of the other explanations (e.g. the assumption on an
iterative-durative present) are worth of consideration, too. As to the comparison with
the Greek reduplicated noun ἐδωδή ‘food, meal’, note Arm. ker-a-kur ‘food’ and
denominative kerakrem ‘to feed’ (see s.v. ker- ‘to eat’).
ur ‘where, where to’ (interrog.), ‘wherever’ (Bible+). As explicitly pointed out by
Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 613a), the older distinction (ur static vs. yo allative/directive) has
been removed at later stages. An old *y-ur may be reconstructed on the basis of the dialectal forms.
In Nersēs Lambronaci (12th cent.), as well as in the dialect of J̌
uɫa (h’ur, see
below), ur is used in the meaning ’why?’ [HAB 3: 613b].
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects [HAB 3: 613b]. Note Suč‘ava, etc. urux and T‘iflis
uruk‘-min ‘at some place’.
The initial h’- in Alaškert, Muš, Moks, J̌
uɫa, as well as, perhaps, h- in Łarabaɫ,
may testify for an old *y-ur (see 2.3.1). Zeyt‘un yɔy and Hačən yuy (see HAB 3:
613b; Ačaṙyan 2003: 334) may also continue *y-ur, although this is uncertain, since
these dialects display various reflexes for the initial y-, namely h-, y-, and zero (see
Ačaṙyan 2003: 113-114). For J̌
uɫa h’- < y-, see Ačaṙean 1940: 125-127.
Hamšen nir, nɛr, nɛɔr, nür, nur (see Ačaṙyan 1947: 250) and Agulis nɔr (see
Ačaṙean 1935: 383) represent an initial n-. On this, see below.
●ETYM Compared with Lith. kur ‘where’ (adv.), or with IIran. ̃ *ku-tra: Skt. kútra
(adv., in questions later) ‘where, somewhere (indef.)’ (RV+), OAv. kuϑrā (adv.)
‘where, where to’, YAv. kuϑra ‘ob wohl (in questions)’ (see Hübschmann 1897:
481; HAB 3: 613). For a discussion of the -r- and related problems, see Vanséveren
1995; Hamp 1997a: 20-21. Viredaz (2005: 85-86) proposes a derivation from PIE
*kʷu-dh
e ‘where’ (interrog.): Skt. kúha ‘where’, OCS kъde ‘where, when’, etc.
However, the development of Arm -r- from intervocalic *dh
is uncertain.
It is better to link the pronominal stem o- ‘who, etc.’ and ur ‘where’ with PIE
forms with an initial *i̯- rather than *kw
- (cf. Skt. yá- ‘who, which’, etc.; note Pol.
jak ‘how’ beside Russ. kak ‘how’), see Kortlandt 1983: 11; 1997: 7; 1998 = 2003:
41, 120, 122-124; Weitenberg 1986: 91; Clackson 1994: 52; Beekes 2003: 162-163.
The final -r in ur > is also found in i-r ‘thing’ and o-r ‘which’ (see Hübschmann
1897: 481 and especially HAB 3: 613). That these do not have locative function is
not a problem since relative and interrogative pronouns often interchange, e.g., the
meanings ’where’ and ’who’, cf. the cases of *kw
or and *kwu(r) (see
Mallory/Adams 1997: 456b). Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 548a) points out that Arm. o- (q.v.)
has locative (allative) function in y-o (< *i-o, a prepositional accusative) ‘where to
(interrog.)’ (Bible+; the dialect of Svedia). Besides, whatever the origin of Arm. -r,
one sees internal parallel formations on the basis of o-, u-, and i-: o-r, u-r, i-r, o-mn,
i-mn, etc. Furthermore, ur also has a non-locative meaning, namely ‘why?’ (Nersēs
Lambronac‘i, 12th century; J̌
uɫa h’ur [HAB 3: 613b]).
Next to a number of dialects showing probable reflexes of *y-ur, as we saw
above, Hamšen nir, nɛr, nɛɔr, nür, nur (see Ačaṙyan 1947: 250) and Agulis nɔr (see
Ačaṙean 1935: 383) represent an initial n-. For other cases of addition of an initial nin these dialects, see Ačaṙyan 1947: 73 (eraz ‘dream’ – Hamšen nɛraz) and 1935:
147 (verbs starting with a vowel), without an explanation. Note also Astapat nɛr
‘why?’ next to Maraɫa, Van, etc. hɛr from ēr (see HAB 2: 119b; Ačaṙyan 1952: 101,
259).135 Since the above-mentioned preposition y- derives from PIE *h1en- ‘in’, one
is tempted to treat this n- as an archaic reflex of the nasal in *h1en- ‘in’, thus:
*h1en-(i)ur > PArm. *inur > *nur. It is even possible to derive *y-ur and *n-ur from *h1en-kw
ur > PArm. *iŋur (cf. yisun ‘fifty’ from *penkw
.); on this, see 2.3.1.
Alternatively, one may treat *n-ur as *ənd-ur > *ənnur > *(ə)nur.
136
I conclude that next to ur there was an old by-form *y-ur.
urd, lately: i-stem ‘a small canal/brook to water gardens with’; attested in Philo,
Gregory of Nyssa, and Paterica. Note also urd· lc‘eal (‘filled’) in Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘
[Amalyan 1975: 262Nr242], which Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 410b) places s.v. yuṙt‘i (q.v.).
●DIAL J̌
uɫa urd, Agulis ɛɔṙd [öṙd], Salmast yürt‘ (> Turk. dial. yŭrt), Muš urd‘,
Alaškert uṙt‘; according to Amatuni (1912: 538a), also urc‘ (in the village of
Mastara), and Van compound *urd-kap [HAB 3: 616b]. Now we can add Goris hɔrt‘
‘water way; pool; brook-mouth’ (also ‘belly’?) [Margaryan 1975: 357b, 429a]; Meɫri
örd ‘water way’ [Aɫayan 1954: 283b].
Note also Urmia, Salmast urj ‘an island or peninsula in a river’ [GwṙUrmSalm 2,
1898: 98]. For the semantic derivation ‘water(ed)’ > ‘island’, see 3.4.2. The affricate
-j can be compared with Mastara urc‘ above.
●ETYM No acceptable etymology is recorded in HAB 3: 616a. The derivation from
*ud-ro- from the PIE word for ‘water’: Skt. udrá- m. ‘fish otter’, YAv. udra- m.
‘otter’, Gr. ὕδρος m. ‘watersnake’, ὕδρα f. ‘watersnake’, OHG ottar ‘otter’, etc. (see
Dervischjan 1877: 89; Łap‘anc‘yan 1961: 151-152) is not convincing since the
expected form is Arm. *urt-. Iranian borrowing is not plausible either since the
semantics is remote, and e.g. vagr ‘tiger’ and the name Tigran display no
metathesis.
Aɫayan (1974: 64) connects with Lat. portus ‘gate’ (cf. portus, -ūs m. ‘harbour,
haven, port; mouth of a river’), Gr. πόρος ‘ford, ferry; narrow part of the sea, strait;
bridge; passage, opening’, etc., and Arm. erd, dial. *yurd ‘roof-window’. This is
possible, but uncertain.
I alternatively propose a connection with Alb. húrdhë f. ‘pond, pool; swamp’ (on
which see Demiraj 1997: 205) < PAlb. *urδā- < IE *uh1r̥-d(h)eh2-, from *ueh1r-
‘water’: Skt. vā́r-, vāri- n. ‘water’, YAv. vāra- m. ‘rain’, Parth. w’r ‘drip of rain’,
MPers. wārān, Pers. bārān ‘rain’ (cf. also, perhaps, Arm. etymologically obscure
varar ‘abundant (water, river)’, and vard-a-vaṙ ‘folk festivity of water-pouring’),
Luv. u̯a-a-ar ‘water’, OIc. vari m. ‘liquid, water’, OPr. wurs ‘pond, pool’, etc.
Perhaps composed as PIE *uh1r- ‘water’ + *dh
eh1- ‘to put, make’ (cf. Skt. dhā-
‘to put, place, make, produce’, etc.; see s.v. dnem ‘to put; to make, build’):
*uh1r-d(h)eh2-. We may be dealing with an Armeno-Albanian innovation.
Alternatively: an old Balkan substratum/cultural word.
Mastara urc‘ ‘canal’ and Urmia, Salmast urj ‘an island or peninsula in a river’ (<
‘watered’), with a final affricate, may be hypothetically derived from (analogical)
nominative *urd-s (see 2.2.1.2).
urǰu, a-stem ‘stepson or stepdaughter’; attested in Severian of Gabala (GDPl
ərǰu-ac‘), Eusebius of Caesarea.
●ETYM Bugge (1892: 451; 1893: 23) derives from *ordi-u, composed of ordi
‘generation, son/daughter, espec. son’ and the suffix -u as in mawr-u ‘stepmother’.
Ačaṙyan (HAB 3: 618-619; 4: 641-642) rejects the connection and derives the word
from PIE *putro- (cf. Skt. putrá- m., Av. puϑra- m. ‘son, child, young of an animal’,
etc.), treating the -ǰ- as a genitive as in geɫ-ǰ (see s.v. giwɫ ‘village’), cf. geɫ-ǰ-uk
‘peasant’. One misses here the origin of -ǰ-.
This etymology would become easier if one assumes an i-stem or *-io- suffix (cf.
*putri̯o- mentioned in J̌
ahukyan 1987: 186 sceptically), or an original feminine:
*putr-i(e)h2- > PArm. *u(w)r-ǰ-. The final -u is readily explained as analogical after
mawr-u ‘stepmother’.
J̌
ahukyan (1987: 143, 186) accepts Bugge’s etymology with reservation and
considers the other one as less probable. Then he (op. cit. 259-260) points out that
the PIE origin of urǰu is doubtful. The word has been explained as a vr̥ddhiderivative from ordi [Pedersen 1906: 360 = 1982: 138; Olsen 1989a: 21; 1999: 2134,
2237]. Note that Olsen (1989a: 21) derives *ōrtyo- > urǰu from the root of Gr. ὄρνυμι
‘rise’, but in 1999: 441-442 accepts the derivation of ordi from *portio-. The
connection with ordi is accepted also by Clackson (1994: 147), although, as he
points out, “an exact morphological analysis is extremely difficult”.
p‘aycaɫn, an-stem: GDSg p‘aycaɫan (Plato), p‘aycɫan(n) (Geoponica), ISg
p‘aycaɫam-b (Socrates); spelled also as p‘ayjaɫn (Socrates); p‘ayceɫn (Grigor
Tat‘ewac‘i, Amirdovlat‘ Amasiac‘i) ‘spleen’.
Attested in John Chrysostom, Philo, Plato, Grigor Magistros, etc. [NHB 2: 930b;
HAB 4: 477; MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 411a].
●DIAL Agulis p‘áycäɫn, p‘áycäɫ, Šamaxi p‘ayc‘ax, Łarabaɫ p‘ácɛɫnə, p‘ácəɫnə, Moks
p‘acɛɫ (according to Orbeli 2002: 341, p‘acex, pl. p‘acexk‘y
ir), Muš, Alaškert p‘ajeɫ,
Ararat p‘ɛc‘ɛɫ, p‘ijɛx, J̌
uɫa p‘iceɫ, Łazax p‘íc‘ax, T‘iflis p‘iciɫ, p‘íc‘ax, Xotorǰur sipɛx,
etc. ‘spleen’ [HAB 4: 478a].
Šamaxi has p‘a(y)c‘ax, p‘acɛɫnə; in the village of K‘y
ärk‘y
änǰ: p‘ɔc‘ɛx, with an
exceptional sound change ay > ɔ [Baɫramyan 1964: 33, 229].
According to Hačean (YušamXotorǰ 1964: 508a), Xotorǰur sipɛx refers to
‘kidneys’. On the formal problems of the Xotorǰur, see below.
●ETYM Since long (de Lagarde [Boetticher] 1850: 363Nr270; 1854: 26L702f;
Dervischjan 1877: 4), compared with the PIE word for ‘spleen’: Skt. plīhán- m.,
YAv. spərəzan- m., MPers. spurz, spul < SWIr. *spr̥dan-, NPers. sipurz, Gr. σπλήν
m. (cf. also σπλάγχνον n., pl. σπλάγχνα ‘inward parts, esp. the heart, lungs, liver,
kidneys; sacrificial feast’, metaph. ‘the seat of the feelings, affections’), Lat. liēn (<
*lihēn?, see Schrijver 1991: 122), OIr. selg, SerbCS slězena, Latv. liêsa, etc. [Walde
1909; HAB 4: 477-478; Pokorny 1959: 987; Klingenschmitt 1982: 166-167;
Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2: 815; Ravnæs 1991: 120; Mallory/Adams 1997: 538b;
Beekes 2003: 197]. Sceptical: Hübschmann 1876: 777 (1897 vacat).
Despite formal problems, which are usually explained through tabuistic soundreplacements (see Meillet apud Vendryes 1914: 310 and references above), all these
forms obviously point to a PIE term. Frisk (2: 770) rightly notes: “Mehrere der idg.
Benennungen der Milz zeigen trotz großer lautlicher Variation eine unverkennbare Ähnlichkeit, die nicht zufällig sein kann”. One usually reconstructs *spelĝh
-,
*splĝh
en-, etc.
According to de Lagarde (1854: 26L702f), Arm. p‘aycaɫn derives from older
*p‘ɫaican. Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 477b) posits Arm. p‘aycaɫn and *p‘acayɫn coming
from older *p‘ayɫcan. J̌
ahukyan (1987: 150) prefers *p‘aɫcayn and reconstructs
*ph
əlĝniḁ ̯ ̄- with a question mark.
If the Sanskrit and Latin forms allow reconstructing a by-form with internal *-i-
(which is uncertain), it may also account for the internal -y- of the Armenian,
although details remain unclear.
According to J̌
ahukyan (1967: 154225), the internal -c‘- in some dialects, going
back to *-j- < *-ĝh
-, points to secondariness of -c- in ClArm. p‘ayc‘aɫn. One may
rather assume an assimilation p‘...c > p‘...c‘, cf. p‘etur ‘feather’ > Maraɫa p‘ut‘ur,
Łarabaɫ t‘ɛp‘uṙ, etc.
Ačaṙyan (ibid.) derives the dialectal forms from p‘aycaɫ[n] and *p‘acayɫ[n] >
*p‘acēɫ, with the exception of Xotorǰur sipɛx. According to him, the latter goes back
to OArm. *sipeɫn or *sipayɫn, an archaic form which is different from the classical
one and goes back to a QIE form with *sp- rather than *sph
- (the latter being
responsible for the initial aspirated p‘- of the classical form p‘aycaɫn), and with loss
of *-ĝh
- as in Gr. σπλήν. This is accepted by J̌
ahukyan (1982: 111), who posits dial.
*spayɫn, and H. Suk‘iasyan (1986: 231), who treats Xotorǰur sipɛx as a root variant,
without the determinative *-ĝ-.
The analysis of Ačaṙyan is not convincing. There is no evidence for variation *sp-
: *sph
-. Alongside PIE *pV- > Arm. (h)V-, we can speak of *sp- > Arm. sp- and
*(s)p- > Arm. p‘- (for the material and a discussion, see Hiersche 1964; J̌
ahukyan
1982: 47-48, 66-67; Beekes 2003: 197). Besides, the Xotorǰur form, in my view,
may be explained in a more plausible and attractive way.
Cappadocian Greek (Phárasa) πεϊσάχι ‘spleen’ is considered to be an Armenian
loan; see Karolidēs (Καρολιδης) 1885: 96; de Lagarde 1886: 60b; Bugge 1893: 11;
Dawkins 1916: 196, 632-633; HAB 4: 478a. This form may have been borrowed
into Xotorǰur sipɛx through metathesis /labial...dental/ > /dental...labial/, cf. put
‘poppy’, ‘drop’ > Łarabaɫ tɔp ‘id.’, p‘etur ‘feather’ > dial. (Zeyt‘un, Xarberd,
Hamšen, Karin, Alaškert, Łarabaɫ, Agulis, J̌
uɫa, etc.) *tep‘ur, perhaps also Arm.
*t‘epēk ‘ape; jackal’ if borrowed from Gr. πίϑηκος ‘ape’ (see 2.1.26.2). Xotorǰur
sipɛx ‘spleen’, thus, may be regarded as a back-loan: Arm. p‘aycaɫn ‘spleen’ >
Cappadocian Greek πεϊσάχι ‘id.’ > Xotorǰur sipɛx ‘id.’ (on back-loans, see 1.10).
Arm. dial. Akn, Č‘arsančag, Tivrik *kayc-aṙ ‘tongs, fire-tongs’ [Ačaṙean 1913:
544b] has been borrowed into Cappadocian (Phárasa) καϊζάρ ‘tongs’ (see HAB 2:
507b for references and a discussion); according to Dawkins (1916: 605b): καϊτσάρι.
Arm. -ayc- is reflected here as -αϊζ- or -αϊτσ-, in contrast with -εϊσ- in the word for
‘spleen’. The reason for this may be that Cappadocian πεϊσάχι ‘spleen’ has been
taken over from Arm. dial. *p‘ɛyc‘ex/*p‘ic‘ex (with aspirated -c‘-; see above). One
might posit the following distribution: Arm. non-aspirated -c- (> voiced -j- in the
relevant dialectal areas) : Cappadocian affricate -ζ- or -τσ-; Arm. aspirated -c‘- :
Cappadocian sibilant -σ-. Laz ph
anc’ala ‘spleen’ (next to Georg. ph
ac’ali/a ‘id.’), which is considered to be
an Armenian loan (see HAB 4: 478a), seems to point to QIE *(s)p(l)nĝ-, cf. Gr.
σπλάγχνον.
See also s.v. p‘ɫj-uk ‘bitterness of heart’. p‘ayt, i-stem: GDSg p‘ayt-i, AblSg i/z- p‘aytē, ISg p‘ayt-i-w, LocSg i p‘ayt-i, GDPl
p‘ayt-i-c‘, AblPl i/z- p‘ayt-i-c‘ (rich evidence in the Bible, Astuacaturean 1895:
1492-1493) ‘wood, piece of wood; tree; gallows’ (Bible+).
Some textual illustrations for different semantic nuances: Deuteronomy 19.5 (Cox
1981: 152): mtanic‘ē ənd ənkeri iwrum i mayri harkanel p‘ayt “goes into the forest
with his friend to cut wood”. Job 30.4 (Cox 2006: 192): zarmats p‘aytic‘ camēin i
sastik sovoy “chewed on tree roots out of great hunger”. 2 Kings 23.21: p‘ayt kamrǰi
(see Clackson 1994: 227153, and s.v. kamurǰ ‘bridge’). Genesis 40.19 (Zeyt‘unyan
1985: 337): kaxesc‘ē zk‘ez zp‘aytē, ew keric‘en t‘ṙč‘unk‘ erknic‘ zmarmin k‘o i k‘ēn
“(he) will hang you on a tree, and the birds will eat the flesh from you”.
Agat‘angeɫos 102 (1909=1980: 61L16): kočeɫs p‘ayt-i-c‘ ‘blocks of wood’ (see the
passage s.v. olok‘ ‘shin’). Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.49 (1913=1991: 177L1): Jeṙntu lini
nma ew Erasx p‘aytiwk‘ mayreac‘ “The Araxes [river] provided him with wood (of
forests)”; for a discussion of this passage, see s.v. mayri ‘woods’. The meaning ‘a
piece of wood (as a lot)’ is found in Eɫišē (Ter-Minasyan 1989: 102L19; transl.
Thomson 1982: 102): p‘ayt ənkenuin ew vičaks arkanēin “they threw sticks and
drew lots”; cf. dial. č‘ɔp‘ k‘c‘ɛl and Pers. čōb andāxtan (HAB 4: 478a; Thomson
1982: 1028).
In Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.6 (1913=1991: 109L6; transl. Thomson 1978: 135) one
finds a derivative an-p‘ayt ‘unwooded’.
●DIAL Dialectally ubiquitous [HAB 4: 478].
Interesting is Muš, Alaškert p‘ic‘uk (ibid.), Van, Aparan p‘icuk (Amatuni 1912:
651b) < *p‘it-(a)c‘-uk ‘dead’ (said of animals)’, based on the denominative verb
p‘it-n-al ‘to die (said of animals)’, lit. ‘to turn wood’; cf. p‘aytanam ‘to freeze’
attested in Zgōn-Afrahat and Paterica [HAB 4: 478]. Compare Meɫri p‘ɛ́
c‘i ‘having
paralysed hands’ (Aɫayan 1954: 333), which seems to reflect *p‘ayt-ac‘i.
Unclear is Hamšen p‘ɛc ‘board’ (see T‘oṙlak‘yan 1981: 148b); possibly a backformation after the participle *p‘ayt-(a)c‘-ac. Note also the infinitive p‘icɛl, p‘icul in
Muš, Alaškert, etc. (Amatuni 1912: 269b), but this may be due to a wrong analysis.
The Amatuni’s textual illustrations point to causative (kə p‘ic‘u ‘will kill’) and past
participle (bicac ‘killed’).
●ETYM No acceptable etymology is recorded in HAB 4: 478b.
Belardi (1950: 148-149) proposed a connection with Skt. sphyá- m. ‘shoulderblade’, Gr. σπάϑη- f. ‘rowing blade, flat rib, shoulder-blade’, σφήν ‘wedge’, Ic.
spoekja ‘trunk’, and posited *ph
əi-d-i- for Armenian. Further note Germanic forms
corroborating the dental determinative, OEngl. spade, spadu ‘spade’ (pointing to
*sph2-dh
- together with Gr. σπάϑη-, see Frisk 2: 755; Chantraine 1968-80: 1031b;
Vine 2002: 289-290), Norwegian spita ‘Pflock’, as well as forms with *-k-: Lat.
spīca f. ‘ear of corn’, spīculum n. ‘sting; javelin; arrow; sharp point of a weapon’,
Latv. spikis ‘bayonet’, OHG speihha ‘Speiche, Strahl’, Arm. p‘k‘in ‘arrow’, q.v. (see
Petersson 1916: 267; Pokorny 1959: 981; J̌
ahukyan 1967: 65, 89; 1982: 34, 48; 1987: 149). Olsen 1999: 937, however, places Arm. p‘ayt in her list of words of
unknown origin.
Skt. sphyá- is related with Shughni f(i)yak ‘shoulder-blade, wooden shovel’,
Sogd. βyk- ‘shoulder’, Khwar. fyk ‘rudder’, Khotanese phvai ‘spade, shovel’, etc.;
for these forms (without Armenian), see Morgenstierne 1974: 34b; Bailey 1979:
106b, 264a; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 779.
A proto-form *ph2(e)i-d- is likely for Arm. p‘ayt. The *-d- seems to be found also
in Germanic (cf. Norwegian spita ‘stake, picket’, OHG spiz ‘Bratspieß’, Sax. spitu
‘id.’).
See also s.v. p‘k‘in ‘javelin’.
p‘ast, i-stem (GDPl p‘ast-i-c‘ in Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i) ‘proof, argument,
reason, true cause’; attested in Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i (9-10th cent.), etc. Earlier
and more frequently found in compounds: Philo, John Chrysostom, Movsēs
Kaɫankatuac‘i, etc.
●ETYM No etymology is accepted in HAB 4: 484a. The connection with Gr. φά-σις
f. ‘utterance, expression; statement; mere assertion, without proof’, Lat. fās ‘divine
law; right; obligation’, fāsti ‘list of festivals; calendar’, etc. from PIE *bh
eh2- ‘to
speak’ (J̌
ahukyan 1967: 122-123) is problematic both formally and semantically.
From the semantic point of view, the other Greek φά-σις, meaning ‘denunciation,
information laid; appearance’, would match better. Bailey (1986: 7) compares with
Oss. fāst, fārst(ā) ‘question, counsel’, from Iran. fras- ‘to question’ (cf. YAv.
frašna- m. ‘question’, Khot. braṣṭa- ‘questioned’, etc.). Neither this is convincing.
Patrubány (1908: 152a) derives Arm. p‘ast (i-stem) from QIE *(s)pək̂
-ti-, a
*-ti-derivation from *(s)pek̂
- ‘to observe, see’, linking with spasem ‘to wait, serve’
and asem ‘to say’. This etymology, albeit rejected by Ačaṙyan (HAB, ibid.), is worth
of consideration.
The PIE root is represented by Skt. (s)paś- ‘to see (paś-); to observe, watch, spy
(spaś-)’, spaṣṭá- ‘(clearly) perceived, clear, visible’, Gr. σκέπτεται ‘to look around,
to look at’, Lat. speciō ‘to see’, etc. (See also s.v. *hes-). Armenian spasem is an
Iranian loan, but asem is hardly related. The i-stem of Arm. p‘ast is thus old. See
2.3.1 on *-ti-. The etymological meaning of p‘ast would be ‘what is seen, evident’;
cf. c‘oyc‘ (i-stem) ‘show, indication, example’ (Bible+) : ‘proof’ (Philo, Athanasius
of Alexandria, etc.), also apa-c‘oyc‘ : ἀπό-δειξις ‘showing forth, making known,
exhibiting’ (on the latter correspondence, see Weitenberg 1997a: 449).
A possible parallel, both for the semantic development and the suffix *-t(i)-, may
be yayt, i-stem ‘known, clear, evident’, if composed of y- and hay- ‘to see, watch’
(see s.v.).
p‘ap‘a (dial.) ‘bread, food’.
●DIAL Muš, Van, Agulis, Ararat p‘ap‘a, T‘iflis baba ‘bread’, nursery words
[Ačaṙean 1913: 1066a]. Note also T‘iflis p‘ap‘a ‘a kind of porridge made of
wheaten groats’, considered a loan from Georg. ph
aph
a [Ačaṙean 1913: 1066a].
●ETYM A nursery word probably of IE origin, cf. Lat. pāpa, pappa ‘food’ [J̌
ahukyan
1985: 153; 1987: 56, 142, 275]. Of non-IE languages cf. Georg., Zan papa-
‘(milk-)porridge’, etc. [J̌
ahukyan 1987: 589]. Note homophonous nursery words
with different semantics, e.g. Sebastia p‘ap‘a ‘wound, pain’ [Gabikean 1952: 546]. Further see s.v. pap, papa ‘father, grandfather’.
p‘esay, i-stem ‘bridegroom; son-in-law’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Dialectally ubiquitous [HAB 4: 497b].
●ETYM No acceptable etymology is recorded in HAB 4: 497b. Patrubány (1908:
277b) treats as composed of *(s)bh
endh
-s (cf. Gr. πενϑερός, etc.) and the ending -ay,
seen also in caṙay, i-stem ‘servant; captive’. J
̌
ahukyan (1967: 123) repeats this
etymology, but gives it up later (1987: 260), stating that the origin of the word is
unknown.
Winter (1966: 203-205) links the word with Lat. procus, ī m. ‘suitor, wooer’,
deriving it from a base *perk̂
- rather than *prek̂
- (cf. Lith. реršu ‘to ask for a girl’s
hand in marriage’), and cites ark‘ay ‘king, ruler’ as containing the same suffix; see
also Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 1: 237. However, the loss of r (see 2.1.33.3), the
suffix , and the initial p‘- are not clear. The ending -ay is probably somehow related
with that of yawr-ay ‘stepfather’ (q.v.). Normier (1980: 22; see also Ravnæs 1991:
1201) suggests a derivation from *spek̂
- ‘to look at’ semantically comparing Germ.
Braut-schau, or an Iranian loan, cf. Manich. Sogd pyš’k ‘bridegroom’. Olsen (1999:
946) considers p‘esay as a word of unknown origin.
Hardly related to Pahl., NPers. pus, pusar, ManMPers. pwsr ‘son’ (see the word
in MacKenzie 1971: 69). On p‘esawēr, see Olsen 1999: 913.
p‘ɫj-uk (spelled also as p‘ɫcuk, p‘ɫjuk‘) ‘bitterness of heart’ (John Chrysostom, Vardan
Arewelc‘i, etc.); p‘ɫj-k-am (p‘ɫj-k-ac‘-eal and p‘ɫj-k-al-ov in Łazar P‘arpec‘i, 5th
cent.), p‘ɫj-k-im (Movsēs Xorenac‘i, John Chrysostom, Ephrem), ‘to distress
oneself, grieve, begin to sob’; p‘ɫj-k-umn (Łazar P‘arpec‘i, etc.). For the attestation
in Movsēs Xorenac‘i 3.68 (1913=1991: 361L10), see s.vv. anjuk and heɫjamɫjuk.
The compound p‘ɫjk-a-lic‘ ‘full of sobbing/grieve’ (used with šogi ‘steam’) and
the derivative p‘ɫc-un are attested in Anania Širakac‘i (A. G. Abrahamyan 1944:
319, lines 23 and 28) metaphorically, in atmospheric context.
●DIAL Muš p‘xckal ‘to prepare oneself for sobbing’, Šamaxi p‘xckil, T‘iflis p‘xc‘kil
‘to distress oneself’ [HAB 4: 506b].
●ETYM No acceptable etymology is recorded in HAB 4: 506b.
J̌ahukyan (1967: 104) proposed a connection with Gr. πλήσσω ‘to beat’, πληγή,
Dor. πλᾱγά f. ‘blow, stroke; (metaph.) blow, stroke of calamity, esp. in war’, Lat.
plangō ‘to strike, beat; to beat the breast in mourning, mourn for’, Russ. plákat’ ‘to
cry’, etc. This comparison is formally problematic; *plVk/g- and *pl̥k/g- would yield
Arm. *lVk‘/k- or *haɫK, respectively. The semantic development is perhaps possible
but not attractive since the Armenian word basically refers to the state of bitterness
or willing to cry rather than to the process of crying. No wonder that J̌
ahukyan did
not include this etymology into his monumental 1987.
I propose a derivation from PIE *sp(e)lĝh
-, the word for ‘spleen’, see s.v.
p‘aycaɫn ‘spleen’. A lengthened QIE *(s)pēlĝh
- would yield Arm. *ph
iɫj-, of which
regularly – p‘ɫj-uk and p‘ɫj-k-a/im. For the semantics note that the spleen is regarded
as the seat of melancholy or morose feelings (OxfEnglDict). Compare also Gr.
σπλάγχνον n., pl. σπλάγχνα ‘inward parts, esp. the heart, lungs, liver, kidneys;
sacrificial feast’, metaph. ‘the seat of the feelings, affections’ (next to σπλήν m.
‘spleen’), from the same PIE term for ‘spleen’.
p‘oyt‘, o-stem: GDSg p‘ut‘-o-y, ISg p‘ut‘-o-v ‘zeal, diligence’ (Bible+), ‘haste (Eznik
Koɫbac‘i [aṙ p‘ut‘-i], Nersēs Šnorhali); adj. i-stem: GDPl p‘ut‘-i-c‘ (John
Chrysostom) ‘zealous, diligent’ (Movsēs Xorenac‘i, Hexaemeron, Yovhan
Mandakuni/ Mayragomec‘i, etc.); adv. ‘hastily’ (Movsēs Xorenac‘i, Grigor
Magistros, etc.), also in ənd p‘oyt‘ (John Chrysostom), p‘oyt‘ ənd p‘oyt‘ (Movsēs
Xorenac‘i, etc.), p‘oyt‘ p‘oyt‘ (Anania Širakac‘i), p‘oyt‘ i p‘ut‘oy (Ephrem); p‘ut‘am
‘to hasten, hurry, strive’ (Bible+); adv. p‘ut‘an-aki ‘hastily’ (Bible+, for a
discussion, see Olsen 1999: 267), p‘ut‘-a-pēs ‘hastily’ (Bible+).
●ETYM Since long (cf. NHB 2: 953a; Dervischjan 1877: 4, etc.), connected to Gr.
σπουδ-ή f. ‘haste, zeal’, σπεύδω ‘to hasten, hurry, strive’, MPers., NPers. pōy- ‘to
run’, ManParth. pwd- ‘to hasten’, etc., despite the obscure -t‘ instead of -t, see
Hübschmann 1883: 54; 1897: 501; Bugge 1892: 455; Meillet 1898: 277; 1935 =
1978: 63; HAB 4: 515-516; Mallory/Adams 1997: 284b, 471b; Olsen 1999: 14. For
Iranian, see Cheung 2007: 302. In view of the disagreement of the Arm. t‘ with PIE
*-d-, Beekes 2003: 197 assumes that the word may be non-Indo-European. He also
points out that the etymology can hardly be rejected.
The problem of Arm. -t‘ can be solved by positing *(s)peud-to- (Klingenschmitt
1982: 167; Clackson 1994: 155; cf. Petersson 1920: 61-62; Hiersche 1964: 237). For
the simplification *-eud-t- > -oy(t)t‘, see 2.1.22.12-13. For a discussion of the initial
p‘-, see Hiersche 1964: 237; Klingenschmitt 1982: 165-172; Ravnæs 1991: 120-121.
p‘os, o-stem (Bible, Movsēs Xorenac‘i, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i), i-stem
(Agat‘angeɫos, Grigor Narekac‘i) ‘furrow, trench; hollow; channel’ (Bible+). The
word (GDPl p‘os-i-c‘) is found in the place-name Drunk‘ P‘osic‘ (> Gr. φοσέων
πύλας [HAB 4: 518a]) which is attested in Agat‘angeɫos § 36 [1909=1980: 24], in a
passage that also contains the verb p‘osem. This toponym is located in a place
which, as testified in the same passage, was called Soyz, identical with soyz ‘depth;
hollow, den, lair’ (Anania Širakac‘i, Philo [NHB 2: 727c]).
In Movsēs Xorenac‘i 3.32 (1913=1991: 296L10f; transl. Thomson 1978: 289): aṙ
ezerb p‘osoyn “by the edge of the ditch”.
●DIAL Dialectally ubiquitous [HAB 4: 517b].
●ETYM Since long, considered borrowed from Gr. φόσσα (< Lat. fossa ‘ditch,
trench’, from fodiō ‘to dig (up); to stab’) [Hübschmann 1897: 387; HAB 4: 517b;
Olsen 1999: 928]. The Armenian o-stem is also seen in Georgian ph
oso, which is
considered an Armenian loan [HAB 4: 517b; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 590].
However, the word is very widespread in the dialects which is unusual for a
Greek loan. Given this circumstance, as well the o- and i-stems of p‘os (note also
Georgian ph
oso), and the resemblance with p‘or ‘hole; belly’, J̌
ahukyan (1967: 123,
123-124125) derives p‘os from PIE *bh
edh
- (cf. Lat. fodiō ‘to dig’), which is
impossible. Later, he (1987: 620) represents the Greek etymology (from φόσσα, that
is) with a question mark.
One may alternatively consider a comparison with OEngl. furh ‘Furche, Graben’,
Lith. pra-paršas ‘ditch’, Lat. porca ‘ridge between furrows’, Skt. párśāna-
‘precipice, chasm’ (RV), etc. There are two problems here: the initial *p- would not
develop into Arm. p‘-, and the loss of *-r- is not clear. PIE *pork̂
- would yield Arm.
*ors. Both problems are also seen in the etymology of p‘esay ‘bridegroom;
son-in-law’ (see s.v. and 2.1.33.3)Hardly any relation with Pahl. pusyān ‘womb’.
p‘orj, o-stem: ISg p‘orj-o-v (3Kings 10.18, reading variant p‘orjel-ov), AblSg i p‘orjo-y (John Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, etc.); i-stem: GDSg p‘orj-i and AblPl i
p‘orj-i-c‘ (Philo), AblSg i p‘orj-ē and Isg p‘orj-i-w (Naxadrut‘iwnk‘) ‘proof, assay,
attempt, test, experience; tried, assayed, experienced’ (Bible+), late ‘adventure,
trouble’; p‘orjem ‘to try, assay, test, attempt, prove, approve’ (Bible+); p‘orj-an-k‘,
a-stem: GDPl p‘orjan-a-c‘, IPl p‘orjan-a-w-k‘ ‘trial, experiment, experience, test,
trouble, temptation’ (Bible+).
●DIAL The verb p‘orjem and the noun p‘orjank‘ are widespread in the dialects; p‘orj
has been preserved in Aslanbek, Karin, Maraɫa [HAB 4: 521a].
●ETYM Since NHB 2: 955c and 956b, connected with Gr. πεῖρα f. ‘test, research,
experience’, πειράζω ‘to tempt, put the test, assault’, πειρ-ασμός m. ‘temptation’,
Lat. perī-tus ‘experienced, practised, skilful, expert’, perī-culum ‘trial, proof,
attempt; danger, peril’, ex-perior ‘to make trial of, put to the test; to attempt; to
experience’, etc., see Meillet 1935: 110 = 1978: 61; HAB 4: 520b; Pokorny 1959:
818; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 129; 1987: 143; Mallory/Adams 1997: 36a. This etymology is
semantically attractive but formally problematic. The assumption of a *porh2i̯o-
(Olsen 1999: 14) does not solve the problems.
On the other hand, one links Arm. p‘orj with Skt. sparh-, pres. spr̥hayanti ‘to be
eager, strive after, desire’, OAv. aspərəzatā prob. ‘strives after’, Gr. σπέρχομαι ‘to
rush’, see Müller 1890: 8; Normier 1980: 20-21; for the Indo-Iranian forms, see
Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 775; Cheung 2007: 353. Contrary to the former
etymology, this interpretation is formally plausible (we can easily posit an o-grade
deverbative noun *(s)porĝh
-o-, *-ih2- > p‘orj, -o-, -i-), but the semantic relationship
is not evident. A contamination seems possible. For a further discussion I refer to the
thorough analysis of de Lamberterie 1982a; 2006: 226.
p‘ul ‘fall, ruins’ (not in 5th cent.); p‘lanim ‘to fall’ (Bible+); later also bl- ‘to fall,
ruin’.
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects: p‘ul gal, *p‘/blil, p‘/bl-č‘-il, etc. [HAB 4: 522b].
For the thorough representation of the dialectal forms and an analysis of the initial
p‘-/b- alternation (as an inner-Armenian development rather than a result of the
Siebs’ Law), see Weitenberg 1992.
According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 1: 468a, s.v. boyl), Ararat bulk‘ ‘avalanche’ belongs
here, too. Earlier (1913: 204b), he linked the form to boyl (q.v.).
●ETYM Usually connected with Germ. *falla- ‘to fall’, Lith. pùlti ’fallen, über jmd.
herfallen, ihn angreifen’, etc. [Bugge 1893: 28-29; Hübschmann 1897: 501; HAB 4:
522; Pokorny 1959: 851; Mallory/Adams 1997: 191b], probably reflecting PIE
*ph3l(H)- (see Klingenschmitt 1982: 164-165, 171-172; Kortlandt 1976: 92 = 2003:
2; Weitenberg 1992: 308, 313; Beekes 2003: 202; cf. Elbourne 2000: 11).
According to Klingenschmitt (op. cit. 172), the original present PArm. *paln̥- <
PIE *ph3lnH- has been replaced by *ph
ulani- < PArm. *poln̄ ̥- analogically after aor.
*ph
ul(a)- < PArm. *pōla-. However, neither PArm. *pa- nor *pō- would yield *ph
V-.
In order to explain the aspirated stop p‘- in the Armenian form, one needs an
unambiguous sequence *pHV-. The reconstruction of *ph
ōl- (see Pokorny 1959:
851; J̌
ahukyan 1982: 48, 181; 1987: 145) does not help much because, apart from the fact that the existence of the PIE series of aspirated voiceless stops is not
commonly accepted, the Armenian form is the only form suggesting such a stop. An
alternative *pHōl- is cited in Mallory/Adams (1997: 191b), with a question mark.
This too is unclear. Therefore, I tentatively propose an alternative explanation.
The nominal p‘ul is not attested in the 5th century. Nevertheless, it is not
necessarily young. In 2.2.2.5 I tried to demonstrate that some Armenian words seem
to continue the PIE HD l-stem paradigm. Based on this pattern, one may reconstruct
the following paradigm at a certain age of Proto-Armenian:
NSg *péh3-ōl,
AccSg *ph3-él-m,
GSg *ph3-l-ós.
Then, PArm. *pōl became *ph
ōl > p‘ul analogically after the accusative *ph
ol-n
(for *pH > Arm. ph
, see 2.1.18.2). For the interrelationship between the nominative
and accusative forms, see 2.2.1.3. The initial p‘- of the verbal *ph
ōla- is due to
influence of the nominal *ph
ōl. However, the IE root is verbal, and it is very risky to
reconstruct an old nominative based solely on Armenian. The explanation, thus, can
be true only if the existence of the paradigm in Prot-Armenian will be proven.
p‘k‘in, a-stem: ISg p‘k‘n-a-w, IPl p‘k‘n-a-w-k‘ ‘javelin’ (Bible+).
Renders Gr. σχίζα ‘split wood, piece of wood; shaft, javelin’ in the Bible.
●ETYM The connection with Pers. paykān ‘arrow’ (NHB 2: 966a; Hac‘uni 1923:
159) is untenable for chronological reasons; p‘k‘in is attested since the 5th century,
whereas the Iranian word reflects an older *patkān- > Arm. patkan- (see Dervischjan
1877: 6; HAB 4: 44a, 536b). Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 536b) rejects this and other
etymologies including the comparison with Lat. spīca f. ‘ear of corn’, spīculum n.
‘sting; javelin; arrow; sharp point of a weapon’, Latv. spikis ‘bayonet’, etc.
suggested by Petersson (1916: 267; Pokorny 1959: 981).
The latter etymology is worth of consideration. Probably a European substratum
word.
Further see s.v. p‘ayt ‘wood’.
k‘akor, o-stem: gen. k‘akor-o-y in Nersēs Lambronac‘i (11th cent.) ‘dung’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Moks k‘y
akur, Van k‘y
akoṙ, Salmast k‘akoṙ, Maraɫa k‘akɔṙ, Łarabaɫ k‘ák‘uṙ,
Łaradaɫ k‘ák‘uṙnə ‘dung’ [HAB 4: 539b].
●ETYM From PIE *kakka- ‘to defecate’ (a “nursery word”, “Lallwort der
Kindersprache”): Gr. κάκκη ‘human ordure’, κακκάω ‘to defecate’, OIr. cacc f. <
PCelt. *kakkā, etc. (Meillet 1908-09c: 339-340; HAB 4: 539; Pokorny 1959: 521;
J̌
ahukyan 1987: 130; Adams apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 187a). Arm. -k- points to
gemination (see also Olsen 1999 183, 585-586; cf. s.v. ak‘aɫaɫ ‘rooster’ on geminates). From the non-geminate: Lat. cacāre, Russ. káka, Pers. kaka, kakī,
137
Arm. k‘ak‘ ‘human ordure, excrement’ (q.v.), etc.
Concerning the suffix -or, see Dervischjan 1877: 17; Pedersen 1906: 480 = 1982:
258; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 439; Olsen 1999: 524-525. Compare especially ktit ‘dung’,
dial. ktt-or (see HAB 2: 677a). On the other hand, -or is reminiscent of another PIE
word of the same semantics, namely Hitt. š/zakkar ‘excrement, dung’, Gr. σκῶρ n.
‘muck, excrement’, Arm. c‘eṙ ‘liquid excrement’, etc.
k‘aɫak‘, a-stem ‘city’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Dialectally ubiquitous [HAB 4: 543a].
●ETYM The connection with Gr. πόλις, πτόλις f. ‘citadel, fort, city’ and Skt. pūr
(Winter 1965: 105) is untenable. The Armenian word is obviously a Semitic or
Iranian loanword (see HAB 4: 542-543; Bailey 1979: 50b, 398a; Clackson 1994:
39). For other references, see Schmitt 1972-74: 27; Matzinger 2005: 55233.
k‘aɫirt‘, a-stem ‘stomach of animals’ (Bible+). Spelled also as k‘aɫert‘ (Gregory of
Nyssa) and k‘aɫird. For the latter, NHB has attestations from the Bible (once, in gen.
k‘aɫrd-i), Hexaemeron and Geoponica. The critical text of Hexaemeron, however,
has k‘aɫirt‘ (in GDPl k‘aɫrt‘-ac‘); no manuscript has -rd-, which appears only in
Venice edition [K. Muradyan 1984: 308L5].
●DIAL Preserved in Cilicia: Zeyt‘un k‘aɫəyd‘, k‘aɫərd‘, Hačən k‘aɫeyt‘ [HAB 4:
544a]. The -u- in Zeyt‘un k‘uɫəyd‘ cited in Ačaṙyan 2003: 343 must be a misprint
since the word is not mentioned in Ačaṙyan’s (op. cit. 26-27) exhaustive list of the
exceptions to the rule ClArm. a > Zeyt‘un a in the first syllable of disyllabic words.
Indeed, in p. 100 one finds k‘aɫəyd‘.
●ETYM Dervischjan (1877: 78) compares with Gr. χολάδες ‘bowels’ and Lat. hira,
hilla ‘id.’, treating -irt‘/d as from *-tro- by metathesis. PIE *-tro-, however, would
yield Arm. -wr- (see 2.1.26.2). Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 544a) rejects the connection and
leaves the origin of the word open. J̌
ahukyan (1967: 124) mentions the etymology
(adding also Russ. želúdok ‘stomach’) as an example of irregular aspiration of the
dental. Lidén (1934b: 23-25) compares with Gr. καλίδια· ἔντερα. Κύπριοι
(Hesychius) and Lit. skilvis ̃ ‘Bauch, Magen’, with -rd after leard ‘liver’ (not
mentioned in HAB); see also Frisk, s.v. Olsen (1999: 942) places k‘aɫirt‘ in her list
of words of unknown origin.
Pokorny (1959: 435) presents Gr. χολάδες, χόλικες f. (m.) pl. ‘bowels’ and Slav.
*želǫdъkъ ‘stomach’ (cf. Russ. želúdok, Pol. žoɫądek, etc.) under the root *gh
el-
(o)nd-. Beekes (2000: 31) connects these Greek forms with Gr. κόλον n. ‘large
intestine’, καλίδια ‘intestines’, γάλλια ‘intestines’, and Arm. k‘aɫirt‘, noting that “Gr.
-αδ- < *-n̥d- should be given up”. In view of phonetic irregularities (*gh
/k/g, e/o/a,
l/ll), he assumes non-IE, substratum origin. This, in fact, combines the etymologies
of Dervischjan and Lidén.
The ending of Arm. k‘aɫirt‘ needs a closer examination. Gr. καλίδια seems to be
the best match. The Armenian aspirated -t‘- goes back to *th rather than*d or *t (in latter cases we would have had *k‘aɫirt and *k‘aɫiwr, respectively). The scholars
usually operate with k‘aɫird (Lidén, Frisk, Beekes) and assume an influence of leard
‘liver’. This is improbable since the spelling k‘aɫird is secondary. I propose to start
from a substratum proto-form *kalith
- > Arm. *kh
aɫith
-. The ending *-rā- has been
taken from ənder-k‘ (a-stem) ‘intestines’ (cf. Gr. ἔντερα, etc.), q.v. Then, *k‘aɫíth
-rawas metathesized into k‘aɫirt‘, a-stem.
If this is a substratum word, one may look for correspondences in neighbouring
non-IE languages. Such a correspondent may be seen in Assyrian kalîtu ‘kidney’,
regarded as a seat of the feelings (see Meek 1913: 16, 55; see also Delitzsch’s note
in 133).
*k‘aṙ- ‘four’: k‘aṙasun, i-stem: GDPl k‘aṙasn-i-c‘ ‘forty’ (Bible+); k‘aṙ-a-kus-i
‘four-square’ in Revelations 21.16 (rendering Gr. τετράγωνος), Euclid, etc., with
koys ‘side’ as the second member; k‘aṙ-ameay ‘quadrennial’ (Eusebius of Caesarea),
k‘aṙeam = *k‘aṙi-am ‘quadrennium’ (Movsēs Xorenac‘i, John Chrysostom); a
number of other compounds with k‘aṙ- (Book of Chries, Philo, Anania Širakac‘i,
etc.); k‘aṙ, i-stem, a-stem, ea-stem ‘four’ (Philo, T‘ovmay Arcruni, Grigor
Narekac‘i, Grigor Magistros, etc.).
●DIAL The numeral k‘aṙasun ‘forty’ is ubiquitous in the dialects. There are forms
with geminate -ṙṙ- (Łarabaɫ, Goris, Šamaxi) or -ss- (Agulis) [HAB 4: 556-557].
●ETYM See s.v. č‘or-k‘ ‘four’.
k‘ar, GDSg k‘ar-i, ISg k‘ar-i-w, NPl k‘ar-in-k‘, APl k‘ar-in-s, GDPl k‘ar-an-c‘, IPl
k‘ar-am-b-k‘ (rich evidence in the Bible, see Astuacatrurean 1895: 1540-1541), NPl
k‘ar-k‘ (a reading variant in Ephrem) ‘stone’ (Bible+).
For the declension type, see s.v. erēc‘ ‘elder, presbyter’.
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 4: 559].
MidArm. k‘ar-a-tak ‘rock’, attested in the fables by Vardan Aygekc‘i (12-13th
cent., Cilicia) [MiǰHayBaṙ 2, 1992: 436a], is continued in a few dialects: Zeyt‘un
*k‘ar-tak ‘a big rock’ [Ačaṙean 1913: 1106a]; Karčewan, Kak‘avaberd k‘ərátak ‘the
bottom af a stone/rock; a small cave’ [H. Muradyan 1960: 234a; 1967: 208a], Goris
k‘əratak ‘a cave carved in a rock’ [Lisic‘yan 1969: 96-98, 105; Margaryan 1975:
498b].
●ETYM See s.v. mountain-name K‘ark‘-ē.
k‘arb, i-stem: GDSg k‘arb-i, GDPl k‘arb-i-c‘ (Bible+) ‘basilisk, asp’.
In Psalms found twice with the synonymous iž : GDSg iži ew k‘arbi (57.5); GDPl
ižic‘ ew k‘arbic‘ (90.13). In the former attestation the pair iž : k‘arb renders Gr. ὄφις
‘serpent’ : ἀσπίς ‘the Egyptian cobra, Coluber haie’, whereas in the latter: ἀσπίς
‘Egyptian cobra’ and βασιλισκός ‘a kind of serpent, basilisk, perhaps Egyptian
cobra’.
In Hexaemeron, the same pair (GDPl ižic‘ ew k‘arbic‘) renders Gr. ἔχις ‘viper’
and ἀσπίς ‘Egyptian cobra, Coluber haie’; see K. Muradyan 1984: 313L14, 373b,
378a. Note also ižic‘ ew k‘arbic‘ in a kafa-poem to the Alexander Romance (H.
Simonyan 1989: 236L4).
In P‘awstos Buzand 4.15 one finds k‘arb ōj, with awj ‘snake’ (1883=1984:
101L-3): ibrew ōji k‘arbi. Garsoïan (1989: 143) translates “a deaf asp”, although the Armenian text has no word for ‘deaf’.138 Note also ōjk‘ ižk‘ ew k‘arbk‘ in 5.27
(187L23). Garsoïan (1989: 207) translates “adders, asps and basilisks”, as if three
different kinds of snakes are ment. More probably, awj is and functions here as a
generic term for ‘snake’, whereas iž and k‘arb are specifiers; thus: *iž-awj,
*k‘arb-awj. Note also in Nersēs Šnorhali (12th cent., Cilicia): ižic‘n ew əzk‘arbic‘n
ōjic‘ (see K‘yoškeryan 1987: 251L50); in Step‘anos Keɫec‘i, prob. 16th cent. [H.
Sahakyan, UšMǰnHayBnst 1, 1986: 374L31]: t‘iwnawor k‘anc‘ k‘arbi ōji “(more)
poisonous than k‘arb-ōj”. Compare iž mi k‘arb in Hexaemeron, with iž ‘viper’[K.
Muradyan 1984: 314L1], which should be understood as somethng like an iž of the
kind of k‘arb. Typologically compare dial. *šah-mar ōj ‘basilisk-snake’ (with šah
‘king’): Łarabaɫ šahmar ɔxcə (HŽHek‘ 5, 1966: 23 /twice/); Van šaxmar oc‘ (in a
proverb from Arčak it is poisonous, see S. Avagyan 1978: 157b), etc.
That *k‘arb-awj has been lexicalized is also clearly seen from the dialect of
Svedia (see below).
In Dawt‘ak (7th cent.) apud Movsēs Kaɫankatuac‘i 2.35 (1983: 228L14; transl.
Dowsett 1961: 147): t‘oynk‘ k‘arbic‘ “venom of aspics”.
In Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ (Amalyan 1975: 128Nr50), iž, as female, is contrasted with
k‘arb, a male.
●DIAL Preserved in Svedia, in a compound with ōj ‘snake’: k‘y
ärb‘(ə)uc‘ [HAB 4:
561a] or k‘ärpəuc (< *k‘arbi ōj) or k‘arp‘a, k‘arp‘əuc ‘a kind of very poisonous
snake of gray colour with white spots, of the size to 1,5 m, = Turkish /boz yəlan/’
[Andreasyan 1967: 163, 388b] (with a small head and narrow neck – Ačaṙyan). For
the compound *k‘arb-ōj cf. the above-mentioned attestations in P‘awstos Buzand,
etc.
●ETYM Derived from IE *(s)ker- ‘to cut’, see s.vv. k‘er-(t‘)-, k‘er-b/p‘- ‘to scratch,
chop, carve’; the closest cognate is Gr. σκορπίος m. ‘scorpion; a sea-fish’, σκορπίς,
-ίδος f. ‘a sea-fish’ [HAB 4: 561a; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 148, 192]. The comparison with
the Greek is first proposed by Dervischjan (1877: 17).
Frisk (2: 739) assumes an “Entlehnung aus einer Mittelmeersprache”. Olsen
(1999: 101) notes that there is no sufficient basis for determining the original
derivational type, and, following Frisk, assumes common borrowing from an
unknown source. Note another possibly Mediterranean word, namely Gr. κᾱρίς,
-ίδος ‘Crustacea’ : Arm. karič ‘scorpion’, dial. ‘crayfish’ (q.v.), which is
typologically comparable with σκορπί(ο)ς : k‘arb in several respects: (1) -ίς, -ίδος
(for -ič in Arm. karič cf. also perhaps *k‘arb-ič-, see s.v. *k‘arpičon); (2) the same
semantic field; (3) restriction to Greek and Armenian.
The comparison of Arm. k‘arb with Pers. karva (NHB, Hiwnk‘earpēyēntean),
albeit rejected by Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 561a), is worth considering. In Steingass
(1025-1026) one finds Pers. karava ‘an animal whose bite is said to be worse than
that of a serpent’. Probably ‘scorpion’ is meant. Compare Arab. ‘aqrab ‘scorpion’,
Gr. κᾱ́ραβος m. ‘horned or cerambycid beetle; a prickly crustacean, crayfish’,
κᾱραβίς, -ίδος f. ‘id.’, diminutive κᾱράβιον = ἐφόλκιον n. ‘small boat towed after a ship’ (Hesychius), κηραφίς , -ίδος f. ‘a kind of locust’, etc. For the semantic relation
‘scorpion’ : ‘crayfish’, see s.v. karič ‘scorpion’. Further, see s.v. *k‘arpičon.
It is not clear whether or not all of these words are related with Gr. σκορπίος
‘scorpion; a sea-fish’ and Arm. k‘arb ‘basilisk, asp’. The appurtenance of at least the
following three forms seems plausible: Pers. karava (prob.) ‘scorpion’, Arab. ‘aqrab
‘scorpion’, and Gr. κᾱ́ραβος m. ‘a prickly crustacean, crayfish’. One can posit
MedPont *(s)kVr(V)p/b- ‘а biting insect or reptile’.
Though of substratum rather than of ultimately IE origin, Gr. σκορπίς, σκορπίος
and Arm. k‘arb, i-stem, might reflect a common source form, which had the
following paradigm at an early stage, when the IE pattern of HD declension was still
operating: NSg *skórp-i-, GSg *(s)kr̥p-i-ós. The Greek and Armenian forms can be
explained as a generalization of the nominative and the oblique cases, respectively.
See 2.2.2.4; cf. especially s.v. *angi, if related with awj ‘snake’. Note that awj and iž
have also i-stem inherited from PIE. The absence of the s-mobile in Armenian is
perhaps due to simplification of the consonant cluster *skrp-. Alternatively, one may
think of substratum *-a/o- vacillation seen in some other animal designations of
Mediterranean origin; see s.vv. lor ‘quail’ and karič/kor ‘scorpion’.
*k‘arp/bičon prob. ‘scorpion’ or ‘horned beetle’.
●DIAL Trapizon *k‘arpičon ‘an uncertain kind of horny insect’ [Ačaṙean 1913:
1106a]. One finds the word in a riddle recorded in Trapizon [Haykuni 1906: 351L-1f;
= S. Harut‘yunyan 1965: 79bNr799]:
Kov mə unim ɔni-ɔni,
Kɔtošvənin cərcərɔni.
The answer is k‘arpinčɔn, described as a eɫǰiwrawor bzēz “horny beetle”.
It seems that the informant spoke the dialect of Hamšen rather than
Trapizon. First of all, the -p- of k‘arpičon is strange since the dialect of Trapizon
lacks the voiceless series (though it does have a k in Turkish loans [AčaṙHLPatm 2,
1951: 344]). Although the recorder seems to follow the literary orthography keeping
the voiceless stops unchanged, this is perhaps irrelevant for k‘arpičon because the
word is quite unique and is not present in the literary language. The plural form
kotoš-və-ni, too, is present in Hamšen: gɔdɛšvəni [Ačaṙyan 1947: 84]. The tree-name
cərcəroni is identified with coreni, a thorny shrub [S. Harut‘yunyan 1965: 793]. This
is quite possible since cor ‘barberry’, although not recorded in Hamšen, is present in
the other side of the river Čorox, namely in Baberd, also in a reduplicated form
jɔrjɔr [HAB 2: 469a].
ɔni-ɔni must continue hani-hani ‘guess-guess!’ from hanem ‘to take out/off’ (a
frequent pattern of Armenian riddles; cf. also haneluk ‘riddle’ from the same root).
For the loss of the initial h- in Hamšen cf. hačari ‘beech’ > ažri, hapa > aba
[Ačaṙyan 1947: 51]. The sound change an > ɔn is restricted to few dialects, among
them Hamšen (see Baɫramyan 1965: 80-81); Trapizon is not mentioned in this
context; cf. also AčaṙHLPatm 2, 1951: 343-345. A quick look at the texts in the
Trapizon dialect [Ačaṙean 1911: 180-183] is sufficient to see that the sound change
is not found here. It seems to have operated in the villages of Trapizon; cf.
Baɫramyan 1965: 90. Ačaṙyan (1911: 178; 1947: 5) informs, however, that the
villages of Trapizon belong to the Hamšen dialect. The form k‘arpičon can continue *k‘arbičon (or *k‘arbičawn). An old -p- would
yield -b-, but a -rb- could indeed become -rp- in Hamšen; cf. Ačaṙyan 1947: 41-42.
The -č- perhaps remained voiceless due to the assimilatory influence of the -p-.
●ETYM The word is rendered as ‘an uncertain kind of horny insect’ [Ačaṙean 1913:
1106a; Harut‘yunyan 1965: 792]. It can refer to horned beetle or to a kind of
scorpion with thorny “horns”. *k‘arb-ič-on can be derived from k‘arb, i-stem
‘basilisk, asp’ (Bible+; dial. of Svedia) with the suffix -ičon, cf. bad ‘duck’ :
badičon [Greppin 1978: 30-31]. The most remarkable thing is that the closest
cognate of k‘arb, namely Gr. σκορπίος m., means ‘scorpion’. Further, note Gr.
κᾱραβος ́ m. ‘horned or cerambycid beetle; a prickly crustacean, crayfish’, Arab.
‘aqrab ‘scorpion’. For -ič cf. Arm. karič ‘scorpion’, dial. ‘crayfish’ vs. Gr. κᾱρίς, -
ίδος ‘Crustacea’ (see s.v.).139
k‘ac‘ax, o-stem: ISg k‘ac‘ax-o-v (three times in the Bible), LocSg i k‘ac‘ax-i (Ruth
2.14) ‘vinegar (made from wine, etc.)’, attested in the Bible (9 times, rendering Gr.
ὄξος ‘wine vinegar’), Plato, Barseɫ Čon; k‘ac‘axem, caus. k‘ac‘axec‘uc‘anem ‘to
make sour’ (Paterica, Grigor Narekac‘i, Barseɫ Čon).
Some biblical illustrations: in Numbers 6.3: k‘ac‘ax i ginwoy : ὄξος ἐξ οἴνου
"vinegar made from wine" and i c‘k‘woy : ἐκ σικερα "made from strong drink"; in
Ruth 2.14: t‘ac‘c‘es zpataṙ k‘o i k‘ac‘axid "dip your morsel in your wine vinegar" :
βάψεις τὸν ψωμόν σου ἐν τῷ ὄχει.
●DIAL The noun k‘ac‘ax ‘vinegar’ is widespread in the dialects. The verb *k‘ac‘axil
‘to turn sour (said of e.g. stomach)’ is present in Suč‘ava, T‘iflis, Polis, Aslanbek,
Sebastia, Xarberd, Agulis [HAB 4: 565b]. Other semantic nuances: Sebastia k‘ac‘ax
‘very sour, leavened (dough)’, k‘ac‘xil, k‘asxil ‘to be leavened’, m-reduplication
k‘ac‘x-ɛ-mc‘xil, k‘as-msxil, k‘ac‘/sxmil ‘to become sour (said of heart)’ [Gabikean
1952: 567]; Ararat k‘ac‘axɛl means ‘to be very angry’ [Amatuni 1912: 671b], etc.
●ETYM No etymology in HAB 4: 565b.
J̌
ahukyan (1967: 229; 1982: 74; 1987: 133, 236; hesitantly: 1990: 75) derives
k‘ac‘ax from IE *kua̯ ̄t-so-: OCS kvasъ ‘leaven, fermented drink, kvass’, Czech kvas
‘id.’, Sln. kvȃs ‘leaven, ferment’, SCr. kisati ‘to turn sour, boil’, kȉsati ‘to rise (said
of dough), pickle’, OCS kysělu ‘sour’, etc.; Lat. cāseus m. ‘cheese’. The relation of
these forms with Skt. kvathi ‘Blasen werfen, aufwallen, aufschäumen’, Goth. ƕaþiþ
‘to foam, froth’, etc., is uncertain; for the forms and a discussion, see Pokorny 1959:
627-628; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 1: 31 = 1995, 1: 28; Lehmann 1986: 199;
ÈtimSlovSlavJaz 13, 1987: 151-159, 268-275; Schrijver 1991: 251-252; Mayrhofer
EWAia 1, 1992: 420; Mallory/Adams 1997: 199-200; Derksen 2008: 258, 266-267.
With few exceptions (e.g. Olsen 1999: 94931), the Armenian word is unknown to
scholars outside Armenia. The connection of k‘ac‘ax with at least the Slavic word is semantically
impeccable, cf. Arm. dial. ‘leaven’ vs. ClArm. ‘wine vinegar, etc.’ on the one hand,
and SCr. dial. kvàsina ‘vinegar’ (ÈtimSlovSlavJaz 13, 1987: 152) vs. ‘leaven,
ferment, kvass’ in other Slavic languages, on the other. The appurtenance of the
Latin form is possible too. Olsen (1999: 94931) hesitantly posits *ku̯at(h)ih2ko- for
Armenian. This is phonologically impossible. Most probably, k‘ac‘ax is to be linked
with the Slavic and Latin forms with the suffixal element *-s-. As to the suffix -ax,
J̌
ahukyan (1990: 70-75; cf. 1987: 354) lists some other examples and assumes a
substratum (cf. Urart. -ḫi/e) origin.
Whether with Urartian intermediation or not, the suffix -ax probably points to a
Mediterranean-European substratum origin, cf. kaɫam-ax ‘aspen’ vs. Hesychian
καλαμίν-δαρ ‘plane’, meɫ-ex ‘the handle of an axe’ (if related with Gr. μελία ‘manna
ash, ashen spear’), possibly also šaɫax ‘mortar, solute’, tawsax ‘box-tree’, etc.
According to Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 565b), Laz k
hacháxi, khacháxuri ‘sour water of
unripe grapes (azox) that is used in food as vinegar’140 and Georg. k’ac’axi ‘sour,
unripe’ are Armenian loanwords. J̌
ahukyan (1987: 607; cf. 1967: 22935) relates Arm.
k‘ac‘ax ‘vinegar’ with Avar etc. къанцIа ‘vinegar’ (mentioned also by Ačaṙyan,
HAB 4: 565b) and other North-East Caucasian forms in terms of IE-Cauc. areal (or
Nostratic) relationship. Klimov (1994: 180-181) suggests a comparison between
Georg. ḳvet- ‘ferment’ (‘сычуг, закваска’) and IE *ku̯at(h)-.
To sum up, Arm. k‘ac‘-ax ‘wine vinegar’, dial. ‘very sour, leavened (dough)’,
verbal k‘ac‘ax- ‘to make/turn sour, be leavened’ most probably derives from a
cultural term of Mediterranean-European substratum origin, *ku̯ats- or *kuac ̯ ́s-
‘ferment, leaven, sour wine’, reflected also in Slavic (OCS kvasъ ‘leaven, fermented
drink, kvass’, Sln. kvȃs ‘leaven, ferment’, SCr. dial. kvàsina ‘vinegar’, etc.), Lat.
cāseus m. ‘cheese’, and in some Caucasian words. The appurtenance of the other IE
forms is uncertain. The suffix -ax occurs also in a few other words of substratum
origin. Note another cultural term of a similar areal distribution and belonging to the
same semantic field: Arm. awɫi ‘a strong fermented drink, intoxicating beverage’,
Russ. CS olъ ‘a kind of fermented drink’, Lith. alùs ‘beer’, Pruss. alu ‘mead’,
OEngl. ealu(þ), Engl. ale ‘beer’; Oss. ælūton ‘a kind of beer’, Georg. (a)ludi ‘beer’,
etc.
k‘ak‘ ‘human ordure, excrement’ (late, Norayr apud HAB 4: 567b).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects: Nor Naxiǰewan, Polis, Axalc‘xa, Akn, Muš,
Moks, Hačən, Svedia, Salmast, Ararat, Łarabaɫ, etc. [HAB 4: 567b].
●ETYM Connected with the PIE Lallwort for ‘excrement’: Russ. káka, Pers. kaka,
Gr. κάκκη, etc. [Ačaṙean 1908: 121b]. Similar words are found also in non-IE
languages [HAB 4: 567b]. For a further discussion and references, see s.v. k‘akor
‘dung’.
k‘ez, acc. and dat. of du sg. ‘you’ (q.v.).
●ETYM From PIE *tue-ĝh
i. For a discussion, see s.vv. du ‘you’, es ‘I’, k‘o ‘your’.
k‘eni ‘wife’s sister’ (Łazar P‘arpec‘i, Canon Law, Matt‘ēos Uṙhayec‘i).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects [HAB 4: 570a].
●ETYM Related with Lith. sváinė ‘wife’s sister’, sváinis ‘wife’s sister’s husband’,
Latv. svaîne ‘wife’s sister’, ORuss. svestь ‘wife’s sister’, Russ. dial. svest’, svestka
‘id.’, Russ. svojak ‘wife’s sister’s husband’, OHG ge-swīo ‘Schwager’, MHG geswīe ‘Schwägerin’, etc. HAB 4: 569-570; Bonfante 1984: 27; Saradževa 1986: 260-
262. For the cognate forms (without Armenian), see Pokorny 1959: 884; Szemerényi
1977: 45-46, 94.
The comparison is most probably correct; especially remarkable is the formal and
semantic resemblance with Lith. sváinė ‘wife’s sister’. There is no consensus on
reconstruction of the Proto-Armenian vocalism, however. The proto-forms such as
*suenii ̯ ̯o- (HAB 4: 569b), *suenii ̯ ̯eh2- (J̌
ahukyan 1987: 146), *suoinii ̯ ̯eh2- (Huld
apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 85ab, 521-522) or the like would probably yield Arm.
*k‘ini-. Hübschmann therefore posits *k‘eani < *svesanyo- (1897: 503), or
*sveyenyā- or *sveynya ̥ ̄- (1899: 46).
k‘eṙi, ea-stem: GDSg k‘eṙw-o-y (Leviticus 20.20), AblPl i k‘eṙe-a-c‘ (Movsēs
Xorenac‘i 3.48, 1913=1991: 319L16) ‘mother’s brother, maternal uncle’ (attested also
in Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, Law Code by Mxit‘ar Goš, etc.).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects [HAB 4: 570b].
●ETYM Since Awetik‘ean 1815, etc. (see HAB 4: 570a for references), derived from
k‘eṙ, the genitive form of k‘oyr ‘sister’ (q.v.). Hübschmann 1883: 55 mentions this
view with hesitation and notes also OSax. swiri m. ‘cousin’.
Later Hübschmann (1897: 504) rejects the etymology for semantic reasons.
Indeed, the Armenian word refers to ‘mother’s brother, maternal uncle’. Benveniste
(1969, 1: 231 = 1973: 185) points out that the maternal uncle, *swesriyos, is literally
designated as ‘he of the sister’ (‘celui de la soeur’), after his sister, who is the mother
of ego. The same has been suggesed earliaer by Ačaṙyan (Armeniaca apud HAB 4:
666-667; see also Olsen 1999: 443, 443509). This is somewhat unexpected, however;
‘celui de la soeur’ could only refer to ‘sister’s son’, i.e. ‘nephew’ (Skt. svasrī́
ya- m.
‘sister’s son, nephew’ YV+, see Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 796; cf. also OSax. swiri
m. ‘cousin’); to indicate ‘mother’s brother’ one rather expects ‘celui de la mère’
[Beekes 1976a: 52; Szemerényi 1977: 192-193], cf. e.g. Skt. mātula- m. ‘maternal
uncle’ (Br.+) from the word for ‘mother’ (see Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 345,
347)141.
The explanation can be that this word, originally meaning ‘sister’s son’, was not
only used by women and could then, on the basis of reciprocality, come to denote
the other member of the relation, the uncle; cf. e.g. MHG vetere, originally ‘father’s
brother’, which refers to both ‘uncle’ and ‘nephew’ > Germ. Vetter ‘cousin’ (Beekes
1976a: 52; Szemerényi 1977: 193; Huld apud Mallory/Adams 1997: 521a). For a
discussion, see also Pârvulescu 1989a: 75-76, who links Arm. k‘eṙi closely with
OSax. swiri m. ‘Vetter’, OFris. swire f. ‘Vetterschaft’, etc., all going back to *su̯esri̯a (cf. above on Hübschmann 1883: 55).
k‘erda(y) ‘scribe’. Only in Baṙgirk‘ hayoc‘ (Amalyan 1975: 333Nr111, see also note
442111): k‘erda· gragir. Reading variants: k‘erday, k‘erdoy, k‘erdoyn.
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 572a) mentions no etymological suggestion. Amalyan
(1975: 442111) assumes that k‘erda(y), k‘erdoy(n) is a corruption for k‘erd/t‘oɫ.
However, this is not corroborated by any manuscript. The appurtenance to k‘er-t‘-
‘to scratch, chop, carve’ is possible. For -ay in person-designations, see s.vv. ark‘ay
‘king’, yawray ‘stepfather’, p‘esay ‘bridegroom’, cf. caṙay ‘servant’. Compare also
darbn-ay-k‘, coll/pl. of darbin ‘smith’ (q.v.).
It is tempting to compare Arm. k‘erday/k‘erdoy ‘scribe’ with Welsh cerdd ‘craft;
poetry, poem’, OIr. cerd ‘craft; poetry’, ‘craftsman, artisan, gold- and silversmith;
poet’ from QIE. *kerdā-, cf. Gr. κέρδος n. ‘gain, profit, desire to gain, cunning,
wiles’ (see Brown 1947: 22-23; Watkins 1995: 75-76, 117; Mallory/Adams 1997:
139ab). Uncertain.
k‘erem ‘to scratch, rub, chop, skin’ (Bible+), ‘to write, carve’ (Grammarians,
Ephrem, Nersēs Šnorhali); k‘er-t‘-em ‘to rub, chop, remove the skin from’ (Nersēs
Šnorhali), ‘to write a poem’ in Plato, etc. (in derivatives - also Movsēs Xorenac‘i,
Book of Chries, Philo, etc.); k‘er-c-, 3sg.aor. e-k‘erc ‘to scratch, rub, chop’ (Bible+);
k‘er-b-em ‘to rub, chop, remove the skin from’ in Parakanon šarakanner (cf. dial.
Ewdokia k‘erp‘el, see HAB 4: 572b); k‘or ‘itch’ (Girk‘ molut‘eanc‘), k‘orem ‘to
scratch, itch’ (Severian of Gabala, John Chrysostom, Evagrius of Pontus, etc.),
redupl. k‘or-k‘orem (Aṙak‘el Dawrižec‘i).
On k‘erel : grel ‘to write’ see AdonDion 2008: 4L14f; k‘erakanut‘iwn = Gr.
γραμματική in Dionysius Thrax, 6-7th cent. [AdonDios 2008: 1L1f]. Note also k‘er-din a number of derivatives in Dionysius Thrax [Adonc‘ 1915=2008]: k‘erd-oɫ (= Gr.
ποιητής ‘creator, producer, poet’), a-stem: GDPl k‘erdoɫ-a-c‘ (1L5, 2L29), k‘erd-oɫakan [zruc‘atrut‘iwn əst nergoys k‘erdoɫakan yeɫanaks : ἐξήγησις κατὰ τοὺς
ἐνυπάρχοντας ποιητικοὺς τρόπους, 1L11f], k‘erd-ac (= Gr. ποίημα ‘poem’), a-stem:
GDPl k‘erdac-a-c‘ (1L21f, 2L6, 4L4), APl k‘erdac-s (4L9), k‘erd-ut‘iwn = Gr. ποίησιν
(2L24f, cf. 31L22), k‘erd-oc‘-eal = Gr. ποιηϑέν (16L1), k‘erdeal = Gr. πεποιημένον
(21L18). Also in Commentary by Step‘annos Siwnec‘i, see Adonc‘ 1915=2008:
186L10, 190L19, 191L14f, etc.
On k‘er(d/t‘)- in grammatical sense, see further AdonDion 2008: cxxiv-cxxxiii;
J
̌ahukyan 1954: 38, 160-163, 178-179; A. Muradyan 1971: 161, 168-170, 175, 228-
229, 286-287. Note also k‘erday ‘scribe’ (q.v.); for -ay, cf. e.g. darbn-ay-k‘ (see s.v.
darbin ‘smith’).
●DIAL The verbal forms k‘er- and k‘ert‘- are ubiquitous in the dialects; k‘erc- is
present in Axalc‘xa, Ararat, Łarabaɫ; the forms k‘or and k‘orem are widespread
[HAB 4: 572a, 573ab, 589a]; on k‘erp‘-, see above. See also J̌
ahukyan 1972: 280.
●ETYM From PIE *(s)ker- ‘to cut, split’: Gr. κείρω ‘to cut (off), shave, mow off,
ravage’, OHG sceran ‘to cut’, Lith. skiriù, skìrti ‘to separate’, etc.; see HAB 4: 571,
572-573, 589 with literature; Pokorny 1959: 941; Mallory/Adams 1997: 143b.
For k‘er-t‘/d-, cf. Skt. kart- ‘to cut, cut off, split, break’, YAv. kart- ‘to cut’, OHG
scrinden ‘to split’, Lith. kertù ‘to fell, cut down’, Slav. *čьrta ‘line’, *čьrtati ‘to
scratch, engrave; to draw’, *čьrtiti ‘to charm’, etc. (see ÈtimSlovSlavJaz 4, 1977:
75-76, 161-163, 164-166; Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 315-316; Cheung 2007: 243-
244). See also s.v. k‘erda(y) ‘scribe’. The development *-rt- > Arm. -rd- is regular. The by-form with -rt‘- may be from *k(e)rt-tV-, cf. Skt. kr̥ttá-, etc. (see 2.1.22.13).
Arm. k‘erc- (aor. e-k‘erc) possibly reflects sigm. aor. *kerd-s-.
The form k‘er-b/p‘- points to PIE *(s)ker-p- ‘to chop, cut’: OHG scirbi
‘potsherd’, Lat. carpere ‘to pick, pluck’, Lith. kirpti ̃ ‘to chop, cut’, Latv. cìrpt ‘to
shave’, Czech čerep (arch., dial.) ‘broken piece of pottery’, Russ. čerep ‘scull’,
čerpát‘ ‘to scoop, draw, ladle (out), čerpak ‘scoop, ladle’, etc. (see ÈtimSlovSlavJaz
4, 1977: 70-74). See also s.v. k‘arb ‘basilisk, asp’.
According to Kortlandt 1975: 44 = 2003: 11, the unpalatalized initial k‘- was
taken from k‘orem ‘to scratch’. The latter, with iterative-prone semantics, continues
an iterative formation *(s)kor(H)-ei̯e-, see Klingenschmitt 1982: 142; Barton 1989:
153. For a further discussion, see Pisani 1950: 165f; Ravnæs 1991: 136; Olsen 1999:
80651.
k‘ist, o-stem: ISg k‘st-o-v in Hexaemeron (K. Muradyan 1984: 135L12) and Ephrem
‘seta (of wheat)’; attested in Koriwn, Hexaemeron, Ephrem, etc.; later also k‘is
(Grigor Tat‘ewac‘i); k‘st-umn ‘bristling’ (Eznik Koɫbac‘i), k‘st-mn-im ‘to bristle
from terror, be terrified’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Preserved in several dialects, generally meaning ‘seta (of wheat)’, apart from
Ganjak, where k‘ist denotes ‘fish-bone or snake-sting’. In Muš, Moks, Xarberd,
Svedia: *k‘is. Ararat k‘istɫ and J̌
uɫa k‘ɛstx (rural k‘istx) point to *k‘ist-ɫ [HAB 4:
580b].
I wonder whether the following forms belong here, too:
Hamšen k‘ist ‘weaver’s comb’ (see Ačaṙean 1913: 1115b). Łarabaɫ k‘ist ‘the penis
of a child’ (see Ačaṙean 1913: 1115b). Note that Ganjak, where k‘ist means also
‘fish-bone’, belongs to the dialect-group of Łarabaɫ. We may be dealing, thus, with
the semantic field reflected e.g. in cognate forms deriving from PIE *keh2ul-: Lat.
caulis m. ‘stem (of a plant), cabbage; penis’; Gr. καυλός m. ‘stem, pole’; OIr. cúal f.
‘faggot, bundle of sticks’; Lith. m. káulas ‘bone’, Latv. kaũls m. ‘bone, stem’, etc.
(see s.v. c‘awɫ-un ‘stem, stalk; straw’).
●ETYM Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 580b) does not accept any etymological attempt.
Arm. k‘ist is reminiscent of Slav. *kistь displaying the following meanings:
‘raceme’, ‘seta’, ‘brush’, ‘bunch’, ‘cluster’, ‘wrist’, etc. (see ÈtimSlovSlavJaz 13,
1987: 276-277). Uncertain.
k‘irtn, an-stem: AblSg i k‘rtan-ē, GDPl k‘rtan-c‘, IPl k‘rtam-b-k‘ (Bible+), NPl
k‘rtun-k‘ (Luke 22.44), APl k‘rtun-s (P‘awstos Buzand, Paterica), NPL also k‘rtin-k‘
(John Chrysostom, Plato) ‘sweat’, metaphorically ‘toil, hard labour’ (Bible+);
denominative verb k‘rtnem, 3sg.aor. k‘rtneac‘ (Nersēs Lambronac‘i, Nersēs
Šnorhali), 2pl.aor. k‘rtnec‘ik‘ (Nersēs Šnorhali), k‘rtnim, 1sg.aor. k‘rtn-ec‘ay
(Grigor Narekac‘i), 3sg.aor. -ec‘aw (Ephrem, Nersēs Šnorhali), 3pl.aor. -ec‘an
(Łazar P‘arpec‘i), 3sg.subj. k‘rtnes-c‘i (Agat‘angeɫos, Nersēs Lambronac‘i) ‘to
sweat; to toil, labour hard’ (5th cent.+: Agat‘angeɫos, Łazar P‘arpec‘i, etc.), k‘rtnam
(k‘rtnal-ov in Philo), k‘rtanel inf. (Zak‘aria Catholicos, 9th cent.) ‘id.’; 3sg.caus.
k‘rtnac‘uc‘anē (Agat‘angeɫos).
●DIAL The frozen plural k‘rtink‘ ‘sweat’ is widespread in the dialects [HAB 4:
581a]. Hamšen has k‘əydink‘ and k‘əydnink [Ačaṙyan 1947: 258]. Some E and SE
peripheral dialects display forms reflecting k‘rt(n)unk‘ : Agulis k‘ṙt‘unk‘ and J̌
uɫa k‘rt‘unk‘ through assimilation k‘...t > k‘...t‘ [Ačaṙean 1935: 136, 398; 1940: 146,
390a; M. Zak‘aryan 2008: 329]; Łarabaɫ, Goris k‘rtnɔnk‘ [HAB 4: 581a]. Note also
Łarabaɫ k‘əṙ(t)nɔnk‘, k‘ərt‘nunk‘, etc. vs. k‘ərt‘nink‘y
, k‘əṙtink‘y [Davt‘yan 1966:
498], Šamaxi k‘əṙt‘nənk‘ vs. k‘rtink‘/k‘y [Baɫramyan 1964: 231].
Denominative verbal forms: Maraɫa k‘əṙnɛl (vs. subst. k‘əṙt‘ink‘y
) [Ačaṙean 1926:
122, 430; Davt‘yan 1966: 501], Łarabaɫ k‘ər/ṙtənk‘ɛl, k‘ərt‘ənk‘ɛl, k‘əṙənk‘ɛl,
k‘əṙhynɛl, k‘əšnənk‘ɛl [Davt‘yan 1966: 501], Šamaxi k‘ərt‘ənk‘il [Baɫramyan 1964:
232]; Hamšen k‘əydnuš, k‘əydənk‘uš, caus. k‘əydnɛc‘ənuš [Ačaṙyan 1947: 258]. For
other verbal forms and for derivatives, see Ačaṙyan 1913: 1129-1130.
●ETYM From PIE *su̯id-r-: Gr. ἱδρώς, -ῶτος, ep. acc. ἱδρῶ ‘sweat’, Latv. pl. sviêdri
‘id.’, Alb. djérsë f. ‘perspiration, sweat’, djers ‘to sweat’; stem *su̯eid-: Skt. sved-
‘to sweat’, svéda- m. ‘sweat’, YAv. x
v
aēδa- m. ‘sweat’, MPers. xwistan ‘to sweat’,
xwē̆y ‘sweat’, NPers. xway ‘sweat’, Oss. xīd/xed ‘sweat’, Lat. sūdō, -āre ‘to sweat,
perspire’, sūdor, -ōris m. ‘sweat, perspiration; toil, exertion’ (cf. the semantic
development of the Armenian word), OHG sweiz ‘sweat’, Latv. svîstu ‘to sweat’, etc.
Hübschmann 1883: 55; 1897: 503; Meillet 1894: 156-157; HAB 4: 581a with lit.;
Rudnicki 1938; Pokorny 1959: 1043; Kortlandt 1986: 43 = 2003: 72;
Mallory/Adams 1997: 560a; Beekes 2003: 197, 206; for the cognate forms, see also
Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 798-799; for an etymological discussion of the Albanian
form, see Rix 1985: 340; Demiraj 1997: 139-140; Kortlandt 2003: 119.
Beekes 1972a: 35-36 reconstructs HD r-stem: nom. *su̯e/oid-ē/ōr (cf. Latv.
sviêdri), gen. *su̯id-r-ós, cf. Arm. k‘irtn, Gr. ἱδρώς. The Greek and Armenian forms
represent a combination of r-stem and s-stem possibly seen in Lat. sūdor, -ōris m.
‘sweat’ (cf. Chantraine 1968-80: 456; for Latin, see Rix 1985)142. Most probably,
Arm. k‘irtn reflects QIE accusative *su̯idr-os-m̥ , cf. Gr. acc. ἱδρῶ prob. from -όα <
*-os-m ̥ (see Kortlandt 1996a: 58 = 2003: 119; Viredaz 2001-02a: 4). On the other
hand, one assumes a transfer to n-declension by analogy of n-stem body-part
designations (see J̌
ahukyan 1982: 114; cf. Schmitt 1981: 71, 103; Rix 1985: 340).
For a further discussion of these and other views, see Clackson 1994: 226136; Olsen
1999: 128-129.
For the regular metathesis *-dr- > Arm. -rt-, see 2.1.26.2.
k‘n-ac, i-stem: k‘nac-i-c‘ ‘id.’ (John Chrysostom, Evagrius of Pontus, Yovhannēs
Erznkac‘i), k‘nēac ‘sleepy, drowsy’ (Bible+), k‘n-ac-u ‘somniferous’ (Eznik
Koɫbac‘i, 5th cent.; Maštoc‘ J̌
ahkec‘woc‘, 14th cent.).
●ETYM Composed of k‘un ‘sleep’ (q.v.) and the participle ending -ac, originated
from acem ‘to lead’. The form k‘n-ac ‘sleepy, drowsy’ may be directly compared
with Skt. á-svapnaj- ‘schlummerlos’ (see Olsen 2000: 403; Rasmussen 2003: 355).
k‘o, gen. of 2.sg.pers.pron. du ‘you’ (q.v.); 2.sg.poss.pron. k‘o, gen. k‘oy, k‘oyoy
‘your’.
●ETYM The forms k‘o (gen. of 2sg.pers.pron.) and k‘oy (gen. of 2.sg.poss.pron.)
derive from *tu̯e/o(so) and *tuosi ̯ ̯o, respectively, with the regular sound change *tu̯-
> k‘-, cf. Skt. tvá-, Gr. σός, Lat. tuus ‘thy’, etc. (Hübschmann 1897: 504; Pedersen
1905: 197-198 = 1982: 59-60; Grammont 1918: 251-253; AčaṙLiak 2, 1954: 45, 56;
Godel 1975: 111; Schmitt 1981: 116-117; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 154; Ravnæs 1991: 167-
168; Weitenberg 1999-2000: 18; on PIE, see Szemerényi 1996: 220). For forms and
a further discussion, see s.vv. es ‘I’ and du ‘you’.
k‘ot‘anak ‘linen garment’ (Evagrius of Pontus, Philo, etc.).
●ETYM No acceptable etymology is recorded in HAB 4: 585b. The word has been
linked with Skt. kanthā ‘cloth made of patches’, Pāli kaṭhina-, Lat. centō ‘garment
made of several patches’, OHG hadar ‘rags’ (see Ravnæs 1991: 1301 for the
reference to Belardi 1958: 29ff, in Ricerche linguistiche 4). This etymology is
widely accepted: Pokorny 1959: 567; Ravnæs 1991: 130 (“this can possibly be a
migratory word, but it can nevertheless be IE of origin”); Schrijver 1991: 432-433
(assuming a *kot(H)- for the Armenian and OHG forms); Mallory/Adams 1997:
110a.
Since NHB 2: 1010a (also HAB 4: 585b; J̌
ahukyan 1987: 464), however, Arm.
k‘ot‘anak ‘linen garment’ has been correctly compared with the word for ‘linen,
linen garment, cotton, cloth’ widespread in the Near East and Europe: Phoen. ktn
‘linen garment’ (> Gr. χιτών ‘chiton’), Akkad. kitū(m), Pers. katān, Engl. cotton, etc.;
as well as Arm. ktaw ‘linen, cloth, linen garment’143 (Bible+; widespread in the
dialects), MidArm. and dial. k‘(a)t‘an ‘linen’, k‘t‘et‘ ‘linen garment’ (see
Hübschmann 1897: 308; Ačaṙean 1902: 356; 1913: 1111; HAB 2: 675-676; 4: 577;
J̌ahukyan 1987: 452, 464, 467; Greppin 1989a: 77, 80). Whether the IE forms above
(Skt. kanthā ‘cloth made of patches’, OHG hadar ‘rags’, etc.) are related with this
migratory term is uncertain.
k‘oyr, GDSg k‘eṙ, AblSg i k‘eṙ-ē, ISg k‘er-b, NPl k‘or-k‘, APl k‘or-s, GDPl k‘er-c‘
(rich evidence in the Bible, see Astuacaturean 1895: 1548-1549); later: GDSg k‘uer,
k‘əwer (Paterica, Step‘anos Taronec‘i Asoɫik, Nersēs Lambronac‘i), k‘ōr (Law Code
by Mxit‘ar Goš), ISg k‘uer-b (Law Code by Mxit‘ar Goš), NPl k‘eṙ-i-k‘ (Canon
Law), APl k‘eṙ-s (Ephrem), etc. ‘sister’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 4: 587a]. Beside the nominative k‘ur,
Łarabaɫ has a vocative á-k‘ɛr, genitive k‘əvɛr, k‘uver, k‘əvɔr, etc. (HAB 4: 587a;
Davt‘yan 1966: 53, 79, 500, and especially, with paradigms, 108-109, 112). For the
Agulis paradigm (k‘vir, etc.), see Ačaṙean 1935: 209.
●ETYM Derived from PIE *suesor- ‘sister’: Skt. svásar- f. ‘sister’ (RV+), YAv.
x
v
aŋhar- f. ‘sister’, Gr. (Hes.) ἔορ̣ ϑυγάτηρ, ἀνεψιός, Lat. soror ‘sister’, OIr. siur,
gen. sethar (instead of *sesar in analogy to máthair, máthar, etc.), Goth. swistar,
Lith. sesuõ ‘sister’, OCS sestra, etc. Hübschmann 1897: 504; HAB 4: 586-587 with
lit.; Pokorny 1959: 1051; Szemerényi 1977: 32-47; Mallory/Adams 1997: 521.
Arm. nom k‘oyr, gen. k‘eṙ, instr. k‘er-b and nom.pl. k‘or-k‘ derive from PIE
*suesōr (> *-ehu- > *-eu- > -oy-)
144, *suesr-ós, *sues-r̥-bh
i, and *suesor-es,
respectively; for a discussion see, apart from the references above, Hübschmann
1883: 55, 87; Meillet 1936: 39; J̌
ahukyan 1959: 169-171; Kortlandt 1980: 100-101; 1984a: 101; 1985: 20-21, 23 = 2003: 28-29, 48, 64-65, 67; Schmitt 1981: 105; K.
Schmidt 1987: 36; 1992: 38; Clackson 1994: 53, 21077; Olsen 1999: 153; Viredaz
2000; Beekes 2003: 170, 197, 209, 211.
The secondary forms GDSg k‘u-er, NAPl k‘uer-k‘/s, GDPl k‘uer-c‘ have been
explained through an adaptation to -er-declension (cf. dustr, gen. dster ‘daughter’),
and the forms k‘ɔr and k‘vɔr (next to NSg k‘ur) may be analogical after ClArm. pl.
k‘or-k‘, as well as genitives hawr ‘of father’, eɫbawr ‘of brother’, etc. (for a
discussion, see AčaṙLiak 3, 1957: 539-540; Aɫayan 1958: 72-74; 2003: 78-80, 120;
J
̌ahukyan 1959: 170; È. Tumanjan 1971: 226, 226106; A. A. Abrahamyan 1976: 56;
Ervandyan 2007: 37).
The vocalism of Łarabaɫ nom. k‘ɛr and k‘ir may be taken from the vocative ák‘ɛr. Here the change -oy- > -ɛ- may be due to the unaccented position.145
See also s.v. k‘eṙi ‘maternal uncle’.
k‘os, o-stem: ISg k‘os-o-v in Deuteronomy 28.27; IPl k‘os-o-v-k‘ in Čaṙəntir;
uncertain: Hexaemeron 5 (K. Muradyan 1984: 150L11; note: 34171), ‘a kind of
leprosy, scab, itch’ (Bible+).
In Deuteronomy 28.27 (Cox 1981: 184): harc‘ē zk‘ez t[ē]r keɫov egiptac‘oc‘n ew
t‘anč‘iwk‘ ew zayrac‘eal k‘osov, ew mnov, zi mí karasc‘es bžškel : πατάξαι σε κύριος
ἐν ἕλκει Αἰγυπτίῳ ἐν ταῖς ἕδραις καὶ ψώρᾳ ἀγρίᾳ καὶ κνήφῃ ὥστε μὴ δύνασϑαί σε
ἰαϑῆναι [RevStBible has: “The Lord will smite you with the boils of Egypt, and with
the ulcers and the scurvy and the itch, of which you cannot be healed”]. Here
ψώρᾳ146 ἀγρίᾳ “with malignant itch/scurvy” is rendered by zayrac‘eal k‘osov.
Refers also to a disease of trees (Evagrius) and to “stone-moss” (k‘ar-a-k‘os in
Agat‘angeɫos+).
●DIAL Widespread in the dialects [HAB 4: 588a]. On *k‘awt‘aṙ-k‘osi, see 3.5.2.2.
●ETYM The etymology of k‘os is uncertain; derived from *kosso- (cf. Lith. kasýti ‘to
scratch constantly’, etc.) or compared with Arm. k‘or ‘scratch, itch’ (see HAB 4:
588a; J̌
ahukyan 1967: 124105; Olsen 1999: 44).
k‘san, mostly uninflected (some evidence for i-stem) ‘twenty’ (Bible+).
●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects. Maraɫa and Agulis have geminate -ss- [HAB 4:
599a].
●ETYM From PIE *u̯īkn̥̂ti ‘twenty’ < *dui-dk̂
mt- ‘two tens’: Skt. viṃśatí- f., YAv.
vīsaiti, MPers. wīst, NPers. bīst, Gr. εἴκοσι147 < *euīkosi, cf. Dor. ϝίκατι, Lat. uīgintī,
OIr. fiche, gen. fichet < *u̯ikant-s, *-os, MWelsh ugeint, etc. from *u̯ikantī (Schrijver
1995: 159), Toch. A wiki and B ikäṃ < PToch. *wīkän, etc.; PArm. *gisan > *gsan >
k‘san through unvoicing of *g- before the sibilant -s-. See Hübschmann 1883: 55;
1897: 504; Meillet 1910-11: 217; 1936: 40; HAB 4: 598-599 with lit.; Pokorny
1959: 1177; Szemerényi 1960: 23-24; Schmitt 1981: 131; Clackson 1994: 46;
Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 550-551; Mallory/Adams 1997: 404b; Adams 1999: 61-
63; Olsen 1999: 628. Winter 1965: 106-107 explains the Armenian aspirated k‘- instead of g- as a
reflex of PIE Xw-. A somewhat similar explanation has been offered by Kortlandt
(1976: 965; 1983: 14; 1994a: 255-256 = 2003: 5, 43, 100-101): *e- in Greek *euīkosi
reflects the glottal element of the (preglottalized) d, of which the obstruent, the
plosive element, disappeared through dissimilation; the glottal stop was vocalized
into an e- in Greek, exactly as happened with *h1- (see also Beekes 1989:28; 1995:
213-214; Schrijver 1991: 83, 182; also lit. in Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 551); in
Armenian it devoiced the following *u ̯ in the same way as *h- from *s-, e.g. in k‘oyr
< *sueso ̯ ̄r ‘sister’. For further references and a discussion on this issue I refer to
Huld 1980a. In my opinion, the traditional explanation (*gisan > *gsan > k‘san) is
more plausible.
The loss of the dental in the expected PArm. *k‘sand(i) may be analogical after
the higher decades in -sun < *k̂
omth2, compare a similar influence responsible for
the vowel -o- of the Greek form. For a different explanation of the Armenian
auslaut, see Olsen 1989: 221-222.
k‘un, o-stem: GDSg k‘n-o-y, ISg k‘n-o-v (Bible) ‘sleep’ (abundant in the Bible,
Astuacaturean 1895: 1549-1550); k‘nem ‘to sleep’ (Porphyry); k‘unem ‘to sleep’
(Proverbs 3.24; John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, etc.; see below for an
illustration from Book of Chries), ‘to die’ (Bible), ‘to have a sexual relation’ + ənd
‘with’ (Bible, Astuacaturean 1895: 1550a); k‘nēac see also s.vv. t-k‘un ‘sleepless’,
k‘un-k‘ ‘temple (of head)’, k‘n-(ē)ac ‘sleepy’.
A textual illustration for k‘unem ‘to sleep’ in a xrat (gnome, aphorism) from Book
of Chries 2.0 (G. Muradyan 1993: 44L5f; Russ. transl. 2000: 47): Oč‘ ē part
zamenayn gišern k‘unel : “Не следует спать всю ночь”. For the Greek passage, see
G. Muradyan 1993: 2702).
The derivative k‘n-aran ‘place to sleep, bed; grave’ (Grigor Narekac‘i, etc.)
contains the suffix -aran of Iranian origin (on which see Greppin 1975: 48-49;
J
̌
ahukyan 1998: 17; Olsen 1999: 339-341).
●DIAL The noun k‘un is dialectally ubiquitous [HAB 4: 592b]. Numerous
derivatives and phrases [Amatuni 1912: 675; Ačaṙean 1913: 1117b, 1123; Gabikean
1952: 576].
The verb k‘unel ‘futuere’ (noted also in NHB 2: 1012b): Polis k‘un-v-il, iterative
k‘un-v-t-il, coll. noun k‘un-v-t-uk‘, caus. k‘un-c‘n-el, Łarabaɫ iterative k‘un-k‘un-atel, abusive compounds starting with *k‘unac-a- [Ačaṙean 1913: 1124a], Goris
*k‘unac-a- ‘id.’ [Margaryan 1975: 497a], Sebastia k‘unel ‘futuere’, k‘un-ič‘ ‘penis’
[Gabikean 1952: 576], etc. It is widespread in contemporary dialects and in the
modern vulgar language in not only in abusive expressions but also as the principal
verb for ‘futuere’.
The word k‘n-ap‘ ‘slumberous, somnolent’, attested in Grigor Tat‘ewac‘i (14-15th
cent., Syunik‘), is present in the same area of Syunik‘ and surroundings: Goris
k‘ənap‘ [Margaryan 1975: 496b], Łarabaɫ *k‘nap‘ [Ačaṙean 1913: 1117b], k‘unap‘
[L. Harut‘yunyan 1991: 381].
●ETYM Since Petermann, Windischmann et al. (see HAB 4: 592), linked with the
PIE word for ‘sleep’, *suop-no-: Skt. svápna- m. ‘sleep, dream’, Av. x
v
afna- m.
‘sleep, dream’, Gr. ὕπνος ‘sleep’, Lat. somnus ‘sleep’, Lith. sãpnas ‘dream’, OCS
sъnъ ‘sleep’, etc. (Hübschmann 1897: 504; Meillet 1936: 32; Benveniste 1967: 12-15; Schindler 1966b: 73; Clackson 1994: 111; Mayrhofer EWAia 2, 1996: 791-792;
Olsen 1999: 29).
For the aberrant vocalism of k‘unem beside the regular k‘nem see Hübschmann
1897: 504; de Lamberterie 1978: 281; Clackson 1994: 168, 234278; Olsen 1999: 15.
A. Petrosyan (2007: 11-12) assumes that the meaning ‘futuere’ has been resulted
from contamination with PIE *keh2- ‘love’: Skt. kā- ‘to desire, like’, kā́ma- m.
‘wish, desire’, Lat. cā-rus ‘dear, costly; precious, loved’, Goth. ho-rs ‘adulterer’,
OEngl. hōr ‘adulterer’, hōre ‘whore’, NEngl. whore, etc. (see Schrijver 1991: 95,
112; Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 334, 338-339; Mallory/Adams 1997: 357b). The
appurtenance of Arm. k‘unem to this etymon is formally improbable. Note that Toch.
B kāñm- ‘to play’ and its derivation from *kōm-ne/o- is uncertain (Adams 1997:
150). Besides, the Armenian form k‘unem is not limited to the meaning ‘futuere’,
and the semantic shift intrans. ‘schlafen’ > trans. ‘beschlafen’ (see Gabikean 1952:
576) is quite possible.
k‘un-k‘ ‘temple (of head)’ (Gregory of Nyssa, etc.).
●DIAL Replaced by various compounds with k‘un ‘sleep’ as the first member
[Amatuni 1912: 675b; Ačaṙean 1913: 1117b; HAB 4: 592b], also k‘n-er-k‘ in
DialAdd apud NHB 2: 1067c.
●ETYM Since NHB 2: 1012b, derived from k‘un ‘sleep’, cf. Czech spánky, Germ.
Schläfe, etc. [Pedersen 1906a: 2371 = 1982: 1051; HAB 4: 592-593].
PLACE-NAMES
Aɫtk‘ or Tuzasar, a village in the vicinity of Sebasta [Gabikean 1952: 673].
●ETYM From aɫt ‘salt’ (q.v.). This is corroborated by the alternative name of the
village Tuz-a-sar, lit. ‘mountain of salt’, with Turk. tuz ‘salt’ (cf. Arm. dial. t‘uz,
Ačaṙean 1902: 137). This place-name must be old because aɫt ‘salt’ has not been
preserved in the dialects.
Ardean-k‘ (APl Ardean-s) a large village in the province of Ayrarat, attested only in
P‘awstos Buzand 5.6 (1883=1984: 171L17f). The passage reads: i gawaṙn Ayrayratu i
mec i gewɫn ənǰin ark‘uni, orum Ardeansn koč‘en : “to the large village named
Ardeans, at the royal treasury/barns of the district of Ayrarat”. The name appears in
APl Ardean-s and implies NPl Ardean-k‘ [Garsoïan 1989: 444-445].
●ETYM No etymology is known to me.
In the passage from P‘awstos, Ardeans is said to be a village of the royal treasury
or, perhaps better, of the royal granary/barn (see s.v. unǰ2 ‘treasure, granary’).
Bearing this in mind, one may derive Ardean-s from Arm. *ard(i), ea-stem ‘work’:
ardea-w-k‘ ‘indeed’ (instrumental); ardiwn-k‘, APl ardiwn-s, GDPl ardeanc‘ ‘deed,
work; (earth) products’ (Bible+), dial. *ard(i)umn ‘earth goods, harvest’ (see s.v.
ard1). Note that the latter has been preserved in the dialect of Ararat, which is
roughly spoken in the Eastern part of the province of Ayrarat. Ardean-k‘ is
composed of *ardi ‘work, goods’ and the suffix -an-k‘, cf. apr-an-k‘ ‘products,
properties’ from verbal *apur- ‘to live, survive’.
The exact location of Ardean-s is unknown. It is tempting to locate it in Širak, a
district in Ayrarat, the famous barns of which are mentioned in the old saying
recorded in Movsēs Xorenac‘i 1.12 (1913=1991: 40L
; transl. Thomson 1978: 90): t‘ē
k‘o Šarayi orkorn ē, asen, mer Širakay ambark‘n č‘en : “If you have the throat of
Sharay, they say, we do not have the barns of Shirak”; for the full passage and the
context, see s.v. aṙaspel. The high quality and abundance of bread in Širak was
famed even in the 20th century, cf. e.g. the story “Gelə” (“The wolf”) written in 1913
by H. T‘umanyan (5, 1994: 118L12f). A similar fame is traditionally ascribed to
Basen, another district of Ayrarat; see Hakobyan 1974: 6, 14.
That a place abounding in corns, fruits, etc. and/or having famous barns can be
named ‘barns, granary’ and the like is not unusual, cf. Mayeak in Moks < mayeak
‘barn’ (see HAB 3: 245a).148 In this respect the following seems interesting.
The territory of the province of Moks roughly coincides with the Urartian country
of Aiduni/Ai̯adu, South of Lake Van, the name of which has survived in the
district-name Aytu-an-k‘. In Aiduni/Ai̯adu there is a place-name Ardiunak which,
according to J̌
ahukyan (1988: 157, 159-160), derives from Arm. ardiun-k‘ ‘earthproducts’. If this is correct, one wonders whether Urart. Ardiunak is identical with
Arm. Mayeak, both names reflecting synonymous appellatives meaning ‘earth
products, barns’. In this case we are dealing with continuation of the toponymical
pattern: *Ardiwn- has been replaced by Mayeak. For such a replacement, see 4.3. At
any case, Mayeak and, possibly, Ardiunak can serve at least as typological parallels
for the origin of the place-name Ardean-k‘ < ‘*earth goods, barns’.
Aracani, Eastern Euphrates, Assyr. Arṣania, ancient Arsanias (Pliny 5.20), now
known as Murad-su, see Hübschmann 1904: 204, 361, 404; Adontz 1970 (< 1908):
14, 16, 29-32, 241, et passim; Eremyan 1963: 38b; Hewsen 1992: 15642, 16464. Not
attested in the 5th century. In P‘awstos Buzand (5th cent., several times) and
Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i (9-10th cent., T‘osunyan 1996: 38L-6, 178L3) this river is
referred to as Ep‘rat, which is the principal name of the (Western) Euphrates (see
Hübschmann 1904: 426-427; Garsoïan 1989: 461-462).
Aracani occurs in the long recension of Ašxarhac‘oyc‘, the 7th century Armenian
Geography by Anania Širakac‘i, in the description of the province of Cop‘-k‘
[Soukry 1881: 30L17f]: Dēgik gawaṙ, <...> Gawrēg gawaṙ, ənd ors ekeal Aracani
xaṙni yEp‘rat i k‘aɫak‘n Lusat‘aṙič "the district of Dēgik, <...> the district of
Gawrēg, through which flows the Aracani [River] which joins the Euphrates at the
city of Lusat‘aṙič" (cf. Hewsen 1992: 59). Then Aracani is mentioned three times in
the context of the province of Ta(w)ruberan [Soukry 1881: 31; Hewsen 1992: 63].
The beginning of Aracani is described in the context of the province of Ayrarat
[Soukry 1881: 34L5f]: Ew Aracani zskizbn uni i Caɫkotnē, i teɫwoǰēn or koč‘i Oskik‘,
ew gnalov ənd hiwsiwsi patelov zNpatakan lerambn, aṙ Bagwan deɫwoǰn, xaṙni i
Bagrewan get "The Aracani begins in Caɫkotn at the place called Oskik‘, then flows
north around Mount Npat near the village of Bagwan and enters the River
Bagrewan" [Hewsen 1992: 65]. Further, abl. y-Aracanw-o-y is attested in Soukry
1881: 38L-14; Hewsen 1992: 71.
Several attestations in Yovhan Mamikonean: gen.-dat. Aracn-o-y, vars. Aracanoy,
Arcnoy, Arcnwoy, Araca(y)nu (A. Abrahamyan 1941: 113L9, 210L8, 233L9, 263L7,
270L5); ənd yAracni (vars. ənd Arcni, ənd Aracani, etc.) ‘through Aracani’ (op. cit.
200L5f).
Aracani, gen. Aracanoy, is attested in the Alexander Romance, rendering
Euphrates, also as the source of Ep‘rat (see H. Simonyan 1989: 199L-3, 200 three
times, 206L8, 396 three times, and the note 564-565234). It is also found in Łewond
(see Ter-Łewondyan 1982: 119; Arzoumanian 1982: 136, 19044).
●ETYM No etymology in Hübschmann 1904: 404 (considered ‘vorarmenisch’).
Together with *Arč-ēš (probably due to assimilation from *Arc-ēš), Aracani has
been derived from PIE *h2(e)rĝ- ‘shiny, whitish’, cf. arcat‘ ‘silver’ (see J̌
ihanyan
1991: 232, 233-234; S. Petrosyan 1991: 129-131; A. Petrosyan 2006: 12-14).
Possible cognate place-names: Arga in Spain, Argà or Arge in Lithuania, Gr. Ἄργος,
Thrac. Ἄρζος, Illyr. Argya, etc. (see Krahe 1955: 94; 1963: 292, 2922, 315-316;
Pârvulescu 1989: 290-291), as well as Av. ərəzī- f. ‘Name eines Zuflusses des Sees
Kąsaoiia’ in Yt 19.67g (see Hintze 1994: 416). For the typology, compare Arcat‘-
aɫber-k‘, a plain in Basean, literally: ‘Silver Springs’ (Hübschmann 1904: 404),
attested in Łazar P‘arpec‘i (5th cent.) 3.79 [1904: 146L9]: i daštin aɫberakanc‘, zor Arcat‘aɫbersn koč‘en "in the plain of springs which is called ‘Silver Springs’"
(transl. Thomson 1991: 204).
Although not attested in the 5th century, the river-name Aracani must be very old
since it is attested in the form *Arcani- in Assyrian sources onwards.149 The form
Aracani vs. *Arcani- and the ending -ani have not received a proper interpretation.
In what follows I offer a tentative explanation for them.
The cognate forms of the PIE appellative point to:
*h2(e)rĝ-: Hitt. ḫarki- ‘white, bright’, Skt. r̥jrá- ‘shining reddishly,
brightcoloured; quick’, Gr. ἀργός ‘shining white; quick’ (Caland-system *-i- vs.
*-ro-, Collinge 1985: 23-27; Beekes 1995: 170; Szemerényi 1996: 193-194;
Kloekhorst 2008: 307; see also Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 253-254);
*h2erĝ-u-: Toch. A ārki, B ārkwi ‘white’ < PToch. *ārkw(ä)i < *h2erĝ-u(i)-n- (cf.
Toch. A ārkyañc), Skt. árjuna- ‘light, white, silver-coloured’, Gr. ἄργυρος m.
‘silver’, ἄργυφος ‘silver-shining’, etc. (Specht 1947: 113-115; Huld/Adams apud
Mallory/Adams 1997: 641b; Adams 1999: 49-50, and references below);
*h2(e)rĝ-n̥t-: YAv. ərəzata- n., OPers. ardata- ‘silver’, Lat. argentum n. ‘silver’,
etc. (see s.v. arcat‘ ‘silver’); on Skt. rajatá-, see below.
The PIE hypothetical paradigm *h2erĝ-u- vs. *h2rĝ-e/ont- might produce PArm.
nom. *(h)arc-u-r (cf. also Gr. ἄργυρος ‘silver’) vs. oblique and compositional
*arcan(t) ‘white, silver-shining’. Both forms may be seen in river-names, *Arcanand *Arcur- (q.v.). For the paradigm, compare barj-r, GDSg barj-u, NPl barjun-k‘,
GDPl barjan-c‘ ‘high’ vs. Hitt. parku- ‘high’ : Skt. br̥hánt- (f. br̥hatī́
-), YAv.
bərəzaṇt- (f. bərəzaitī-), Oss. bærzond, etc. ‘high’ (see s.v. barjr ‘high’). Note
especially the ‘Old European’ hydronym Brigantia (on which see Krahe AltFluß 3,
1951-52: 225-227; 1963: 322). Note also other European hydronyms in -(a)nt-,
-antia and the like, especially Argantia (see Krahe AltFluß 3, 1951-52: 1ff, 236ff; 4,
1953: 37ff, 243; Krahe 1959: 11-12; 1963: 316a).
Next to the root form *h2(e)rĝ- (see above), in Indo-Iranian one also finds *h2reĝ-
: Skt. rajatá- ‘silver-coloured, shining white, made of silver’, n. ‘silver’ (cf.
Mallory/Huld 1984: 4-5150; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 1: 229 = 1995, 1: Mayrhofer
EWAia 1, 1992: 116; 2, 1996: 425-426). If the theory on early Iranian or Aryan
borrowings in Armenian is accepted (see s.vv. arcat‘ ‘silver’, arcui ‘eagle’), one
may tentatively assume that the Armenian by-form *Aracan- (vs. regular *Arcan-) is
due to influence of an Aryan unattested *raj-(a)nt- ‘silver-coloured, shining white’.
Arciw, a village in the province of Siwnik‘, close to the monastery of Tat‘ew; next
there is also Arciw-a-katar, lit. ‘eagle-summit’ (both in Step‘anos Ōrbelean, died in
1303/5); also other derivatives [Hübschmann 1904: 404-405]. Note also *Arcəvboyn, lit. ‘eagle’s nest’, cf. Arcə[v]bunoy S. Astuacacni vank‘ in Ṙštunik‘ (see
Oskean 1939a: 162f). This compound toponym structurally parallels Persian Alamūt,a fortress in the mountains of Rūdbār, lit. probably ‘nid de l’aigle’ (for a discussion
of this Persian toponym, see Huart 1908-09).
●ETYM = arcui, arciw ‘eagle’ from *h2rĝipió-: Skt. r̥jipyá-, etc.; cf. Av. ərəzifiia-,
see Hintze 1994: 416; for Iranian and other parallels, see Eilers 1987: 26 (note
especially Indian mountain-name Gr̥dhra-kūta m. ‘Geierspitze’, structurally
comparable with Arm. Arciw-a-katar).
There are many Armenian place-names based on arcv- ‘eagle’ (see HayTeɫBaṙ 1,
1986: 451-454). One of them (also in Siwnik‘) deserves a closer look: Arcvanik, a
village located 16 km NE to Kapan. It seems that this place-name too contains arciw
‘eagle’. In fact, the older, historical version of this toponym is Eric‘-vanik (from the
anthroponym Eric‘-ak < erēc‘ ‘priest’, see AčaṙAnjn 2, 1944: 143) and modern
Arcvanik should be seen as its modification (Abrahamyan/Šahinyan 1975: 116; A.
G. Abrahamyan 1978: 182-183; A. A. Abrahamyan 1986: 431200; HayTeɫBaṙ 1,
1986: 452), perhaps through contamination with arciw ‘eagle’
Arcurak, a river in the vicinity of Xarberd, paired with Sew getak ‘Black River’ (see
Srvanjtyanc‘ 1, 1982: 362).
●ETYM In view of the contrast with Sew get-ak ‘Black River’, Arcur-ak may contain
a PArm. *arcur- ‘white, shiny’, derived from PIE *h2(e)rĝ- (S. Petrosyan 1991: 129-
130; A. Petrosyan 2002: 67240). Note especially Gr. ἄργυρος m. ‘silver’, and Av.
ərəzura-, arəzūra- name of a mountain (see Hintze 1994: 416; Eilers 1987: 12).
Further, see s.v. Aracani.
Getaṙ(u), Ge/ētaṙu, a river (= Agri-č‘ay) and a district in Aɫuank‘, attested in Ptolemy
5.11.2 (Γαιτάρα) and Ašxarhac‘oyc‘ [Eremyan 1963: 47b, 105aL15f; HayTeɫBaṙ 1,
1986: 845c]. Read differently in Ašxarhac‘oyc‘: Dēgaṙu [Soukry 1881: 29L8; in the
French transl. Degarou (p. 39)]; A. G. Abrahamyan 1944: 348L26. See also Hewsen
1992: 143-144, 14575f. Eremyan (1963: 47b) also cites a spelling Dedaṙu, not
specifying the manuscript. MovsXorenMaten 1865: 606 vacat.
Getaṙ, Getaṙ-Č‘ay, a river in contemporary Armenia traversing the capital
Yerevan, a left tributary of the river Hrazdan [HayTeɫBaṙ 1, 1986: 845b-c; G. D.
Asatryan 1990: 6-7, 17].
Getaṙ-su (Gadar-su), a river in the Urmia basin, probably identical with Arasx
[HayTeɫBaṙ 1, 1986: 845c; Hewsen 1992: 178137].
Getaṙ, a village in vicinity of Kars [HayTeɫBaṙ 1, 1986: 845c].
●ETYM Hewsen (1992: 178137) interprets the river-name Getaṙ-su (Gadar-su) as get
‘river’ + Ar[asx] (?). Ih my view, this and the others contain the appellative getaṙ
‘river-bed; river-shore; outbranching river’ (in Łazar P‘arpec‘i: getaṙu), q.v.
Gēn, *Gēn (Ginay get “the river of *Gēn”), close to Artašat (Movsēs Xorenac‘i).
Perhaps identical with Gēn mentioned by Anania Širakac‘i (7th cent.) [A. G.
Abrahamyan 1944: 228L33f] in an arithmetical excercise, as the hunting place of the
Kamsarakan family.
Note also Gin-akan get, a village (but with get ‘river’) in the district of Ewaylax
(in the province of Siwnik‘) mentioned by Step‘anos Ōrbelean (1250/60-1303/5), as
well as Ginoy blur, a hill in front of Duin (see Hübschmann 1904: 419).
●ETYM If originally a hydronym, Gēn may be derived from PIE *ueis- ‘to flow’ (cf.
Lat. vīrus n. ‘slimy liquid; venom; poisonous fluid’, OIc. veisa ‘Schlamm, Sumpf’, OEngl. wāse ‘Schlamm, Sumpfland’ < Germ. *waisō, Av. vīš n. ‘poison, venom,
poisonous juice’, etc.) which is found in numerous river-names such as Celtic *Vis-,
Lat. Vistula, Russ. Vechra, etc. (see Pokorny 1959: 1134) [J̌
ihanyan 1991: 240]; see
also HAB s.v. gēš ‘corpse; bad’.
As pointed out by J̌
ihanyan (ibid.), *Gēn (a-stem) structurally corresponds to Lat.
vēna ‘blood-vessel, vein; artery; (underground) stream’ < PIE *ueis-nā-. For the
semantic field ‘to stream’ : ‘/river-name/’ : ‘blood-vessel, vein’ cf. IIran. *rasā́- f.
‘name of a mythical stream’ (RV), Skt. rása- m. ‘juice (of plants), liquid’, PIran.
*raha-ka- ‘blood-vessel, vein’, OCS rosa ‘dew’, etc. (cf. the Armenian river-name
Erasx, on which see J̌
ihanyan 1991: 241-244).
Gis, a village in the extremely Eastern province of Uti-k‘ attested only in Movsēs
Kaɫankatuac‘i/Dasxuranc‘i /7-10th cent./, several times [Hübschmann 1904: 419].
According to this source, the first church of this region has been founded here.
According to Yampol’skii (apud Dowsett 1961: 5-65), Gis must be identified with
Kiš (north of present-day Nukha), where he himself investigated an ancient
(“round”) church. V. Aṙak‘elyan (1969: 27770, without any references) states,
however, that this Gis should not be confused neither with K‘iš close to Nukha, nor
with Giš in Łarabaɫ (in the district of Martuni). See also Ulubabyan 1971: 176-177.
In Movsēs Kaɫankatuac‘i/Dasxuranc‘i 1.27 (V. Aṙak‘elyan 1983: 95L12f;
ModArm. transl. 1969: 70): Anc‘anelov ənd Hayastan, čanaparhordē hasanel i
sahmans arewelic‘, i gawaṙn Utiakan. Ew mteal bnakēin i čaxčaxut teɫis ew i
lōṙaboys mōrsn, aṙ teɫeawn, orum Gisn koč‘en : “he passed through Armenia into
the Eastern regions to the province of Uti; and he [in the text: pl. – HM] dwelt
among marshy places and moss-covered swamps in the place called Gis” (transl.
Dowsett 1961: 54).
The attested forms are: accusative Gis (95L15, 97L7), allative/directive and locative
i Gis (10L18, 201L19, 213L1, 214L19, 344L8), genitive Gis-o-y (275L1).
●ETYM No etymological attempt is known to me. Hübschmann (1904: 419) points
out that Gis does not belong with gi ‘juniper’. One should agree with this since
GDSg Gis-oy points to a root *gis-, with etymological s, rather than to a frozen APl
*gi-s.
I propose a derivation from PIE *u̯(e/o)ik̂
-: Skt. víś- f. ‘settlement,
dwelling-place, community, tribe’, OPers. viϑ- ‘house, royal house, royal clan,
court’, Pahl. vīs ‘manor-house with adjacent village; village’ (see Kent 1953: 208a;
Brandenstein/Mayrhofer 1964: 154; Nyberg 1974: 214a), Gr. οἶκος ‘house,
dwelling-place; one’s household goods, substance; a reigning house’, Lat. vīcus
‘village; district of Rome; street’ (from *uoik ̯ ̂
-), vīlla ‘rural dwelling with associated
farm buildings’, OCS vьsь f. ‘village, terrain’, etc. (See also s.v. giwɫ ‘village’).
PIE *uik̯ ̂
- ‘manor, estate, manor-house’, ‘royal house’, ‘settlement, village’ >
PArm. *gis- is phonologically impeccable. For the semantics compare Agarak, a
very frequent place-name from agarak ‘estate, a landed property, house with all
possessions, village’, see Hübschmann 1904: 393-394; HayTeɫBaṙ 1, 1986: 17-20
(45 place-names); Giwɫ-ik, diminutive from giwɫ ‘village’ (Hübschmann 1904: 419),
etc.
Dalari-k‘, a village probably in the district of Turuberan (APl Dalari-s, allative i
Dalari-s, GDPl dalarea-c‘ in P‘awstos Buzand 3.20; see below); Dalarink‘ : a
village in Čahuk, in the province of Siwnik‘, attested in Step‘anos Ōrbelean
(1250/60-1303/5) [A. A. Abrahamyan 1986: 404a; Ališan 1893: 480a].
According to Hübschmann (1904: 420), the first place-name was situated in
Apahuni-k‘ (in the province of Turuberan). However, the passage from P‘awstos
Buzand 3.20 (1883=1984: 45-46; transl. Garsoïan 1989: 97) reads as follows: <...>,
xaɫac‘uc‘in yerkrēn Apahuneac‘. Ibrew ekin hasin i gewɫ mi, orum anun Dalaris
koč‘ēin; yoržam ekn emut zōravarn Parsic‘ i nerk‘s i gewɫn Dalaris, acēr kapeal
zark‘ayn Tiran ənd iwr : “<...>, and carried of from the land of Apahunik‘ <...>.
When they reached a certain village called Dalarik‘, the Persian commander entered
into the village of Dalarik‘ and took the chained King Tiran with him”. The village,
thus, may be located in vicinity of Apahunik‘ rather then in it.
Then we read: Ew asē Varaz: Aɫē, tesēk‘ acuɫ, orov erkat‘ šoɫac‘usc‘uk‘, zi zač‘s
xaresc‘uk‘ zark‘ayis Hayoc‘. Ew andēn berin acuɫ, orov xarēin zač‘sn Tiranay :
“And Varaz said: ‘Now then! Bring [glowing] coals with which to heat iron to the
glowing point so as to burn out the eyes of the king of Armenia’. And they
immediately brought coals with which they burned out the eyes of King Tiran”. The
text proceeds as follows: “Then Tiran himself began to speak and said: ‘in exchange
for the darkening of the light of my two eyes in this place, let its name be changed
for eternity from Dalarik‘ [‘Green’] to Acuɫ [‘Coals’], and let this remain as a sign in
remembrance of me”. In this last sentence, the toponym is put in GDPl dalareac‘ :
p‘oxanak Dalareac‘s anuan “instead of this name of Dalarik‘”.
●ETYM Derived from dalar ‘young, fresh; grass, herbs’, dalari ‘grass, herbs’
[Hübschmann 1904: 420].
The two names of a place in the passage from P‘awstos (see above) are treated as
symbolic and fictitious [Garsoïan 1989: 26418, 458]. The symbolic contrast in the
text is obvious, but this does not necessarily imply that the author made up these
toponyms. Note that Step‘anos Tarōnec‘i/Asoɫik (10-11th cent.) has Arjkaɫ-n instead
of Acuɫ, although he refers to P‘awstos, and Vardan Arewelc‘i (13th cent.) – Arcuɫ-n
[Hübschmann 1904: 395]. As for Dalarik‘, the appellative dalar(i) ‘herbs’ is a quite
plausible base to build a toponym upon, and is indeed found in another toponym,
namely Dalarink‘ (in Siwnik‘). Furthermore, one may assume that Dalarik‘ was
situated in the district of Dalaṙ, bordering with Apahunik‘ in the north-west, and its
name was identical with that of the district. I conclude that P‘awstos adjusted (one
of) the names of the village into his symbolic interpretation rather than made it/them
up. On the -r- in Arcuɫ, see 2.1.30.2.
Duin a city in the province of Ayrarat.
Attested since Łazar P‘arpec‘i (5th cent.): Loc. i Duni in 3.77 [1904: 141L14], 3.82
[149L28], and abl. i Dunay – 3.71 [1904: 128L29]. Sebēos (7th cent.) has Dəvin,
Dəvnay, i Dəvnay (3.1, see 1851: 48); Dəwni (Abgaryan 1979: 67L1, 91L21), Dəwnay
(74L24, 111L28), etc. In T‘ovmay Arcruni (9-10th cent.): Dvnay (3.9), Duni (3.22);
Ananun: Dunay (10); Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i (9-10th cent.): Dvnay [1912=1980:
333L6], etc.; Ašxarhac‘oyc‘” : Dunay k‘aɫak‘ [A. G. Abrahamyan 1944: 350L40]. The oblique stem Dun- should probably be read as Dəvn- or Dwən-. However, the
attestations in folklore (Duna k‘aɫak‘, see below), if reliable, can imply that the
pronunciation dun- was possible too.
There is no record of any settlement at Duin in P‘awstos Buzand (3.8), which
refers to the site as Blur ‘hill’ (1883=1984: 16): minč‘ew i daštn Mecamōri i blurn
or anuaneal koč‘i Duin: or kay i hiwsisoy koɫmanē k‘aɫak‘in meci Artašatu “to the
hill in the plain of the Mecamōr called Duin, which is on the Northern side of the
great city of Artašat” (transl. Garsoïan 1989: 75). According to Movsēs Xorenac‘i
3.8 (1913=1991: 265L12f), King Xosrov P‘ok‘r (Kotak) transferred the Armenian
capital from Artašat to Duin (probably in the second half of the fifth century)
because of its healthier climate: veroy antaṙin yost mi, aparans hovanawors šineal,
or əst parskakan lezuin Duin koč‘i, or t‘argmani blur “to a spot above the forest and
built a shady palace. The place is called Duin in Persian; in translation it means
‘hill’” (transl. by Thomson 1978: 261).151 On Blur lit. ‘hill’, see T‘ovmay Arcruni
(9-10th cent.) 2.1, 3.22, and the footnotes by V. M. Vardanyan (1985: 127) and
Thomson (1985: 1451).
See also Hübschmann 1904: 422; Thomson 1978: 2617; Garsoïan 1989: 460-461.
●DIAL In a fairy-tale told in Aštarak in 1912 by Geworg Geworgyan, an illiterate old
man, one finds several times (see HŽHek‘ 1, 1959: 392-393, 398) Duna k‘aɫak‘,
considered a city of royal residence (t‘agavoranist). On the vocalism in Dun-, see
above. One wonders whether the narrator indeed pronounced as /duna/, or it is a
result of learned tampering.
●ETYM According to Movsēs Xorenac‘i (see above), Duin is from Persian and
means ‘hill’. Hübschmann (1904: 422) considers Duin as of unknown etymology.
He states that the etymology of Movsēs Xorenac‘i is “ein Irrtum, der durch die
Quelle des Moses, FB. 18-21 [that is P‘awstos – HM], veranlaßt is”. This is not
necessarily true.
Minorsky (1930: 117-120) identifies the underlying Persian word with -duvīn
which is “pleinement attesté dans la toponymie de la région clairement délimitée au
sud-est de la mer Caspienne”.
The testimony of Movsēs is placed under new light by the comparison with Irish
dūn ‘hill’, OEngl. dūn ‘mountain’, etc., from PIE *dh
eu- (see J̌
ahukyan 1963a:
96-97; 1987: 584, developing the idea of Norayr Biwzandac‘i; K‘oč‘aryan 2000).
Despite the absence of direct evidence from Indo-Iranian languages,152 thus, Movsēs
may be right. If the Iranian origin is not accepted, one might think of a European
substratum word shared by Armenian, Celtic and Germanic (cf. the synonymous
blur ‘hill’, q.v.), or of an IE term with an origin meaning ‘burial hill’, cf. Lat. fūnus
‘funeral; corpse; death’ (see Pokorny 1959: 260, 263; Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 2:
745 = 1995, 1: 649; Mallory/Adams 1997: 150b, 210a). In the latter case we are
dealing with an innovation shared by the three dialects. The Celtic and possibly the
Armenian forms may reflect a technical term meaning ‘fortified/enclosed high place,
fort on top of a hill, city’: PArm. *doyn/duin ‘city on a hill’, OIr. dūn ‘fort’, Welsh
din, dinas ‘fort’; cf. also a Celtic loan in Germanic: OEngl. tūn ‘enclosed place,
homestead’, Engl. town, OHG zun ‘fence, hedge’, etc. (see the references above).
An Iranian *dūn or QIE *dh
eun- would yield Arm. *doyn (or *dun). The form
Duin may be explained by a process in a way comparable to that involved in
Clackson’s interpretation of lusin ‘moon’ and kaɫin ‘acorn’ (q.v.); cf. also the
hill-name Lsin and village-name Oɫin (q.v.).
T‘əmnis, a village in Korčayk‘, close to the mountain of Sararad = Judi-Dagh upon
which Noah’s Ark is said to have come to rest. Attested in “Patmut‘iwn srboc‘
Hṙip‘simeanc‘” [MovsXorenMaten 1843: 300 = 1865: 301; Ališan 1910: 63-64]. In
the long recension of Ašxarhac‘oyc‘: T‘man [Soukry 1881: 32; Eremyan 1963:
108a; Hewsen 1992: 63]. Nowadays called Bētmānīn or Heštāne. See Hübschmann
1904: 333-334 (= 1907: 202-203); Eremyan 1963: 53b; Hewsen 1992: 1702,
174-175116.
●ETYM In “Patmut‘iwn srboc‘ Hṙip‘simeanc‘” (see above), the origin of the
place-name is traditionally related with the Flood story told among Syrians (asi
yAsorwoc‘) and is interpreted as ut‘ ogik‘ elin i tapanēn “acht Seelen stiegen aus der
Arche” (cf. Arab. ϑamānūna ‘eighty’); compare the modern names of the village:
Karye i Thmānin, i.e. “Dorf der Acht”, Kurd. Heštāne, i.e. “achtzig” [Hübschmann
1904: 333-334].
However, this traditional interpretation may be folk-etymological. There are
variants of the story of Noah’s Ark in relation with other montains of the Armenian
Highland, and these traditional stories too are involved in folk-etymological
interpretations; cf. Naxč-awan, re-interpreted as Nax-iǰewan “erste Station”
[Hübschmann 1904: 455; 1901: 73-79 = 1990: 99-105] (for the corresponding story,
see Łanalanyan 1969: 157Nr402); Aṙnos as if from *aṙ (z)Noys “take this Noah!”
(Łanalanyan 1969: 24Nr51), etc.
The native Armenian origin of the toponym is not impossible. That the mountains
of Ararat in the Bible version of the Flood story refer to Armenia is clear e.g. from
the Chronicle by Eusebius of Caesarea (3-4th cent.) [1818, 1: 36-37]: Ew i navēn ur
[or or] č‘ogaw dadareac‘ i Hays, ew c‘ayžm sakaw inč‘ masn i Korduac‘woc‘ lerinn
i Hayoc‘ ašxarhin mnal nšxar asen : “and from the ship where/which rested in
Armenia, and they say that a small part of it till now remains (as a relic) in the
mountain of Kordu-k‘ in the world of Armenia”.
J̌
ahukyan (1987: 416) derives T‘əmnis from PIE *tem(ə)- ‘dark’, cf. MIr. temen,
Russ. temnyj, etc. Mountain-names are frequently named ‘dark’ or ‘black’ (see 4.6).
I think, this etymology becomes more probable under the light of Arm. (Baṙgirk‘
hayoc‘) t‘umni ‘darkness’, t‘umnanal ‘to become dark’ (see Amalyan 1975:
123Nr223f), q.v.
The IE root is also found in the suffixal element *-r-, cf. *temH-s-reh2-
‘darkness’ (: Skt. támisrā- f. ‘dark night’, etc.) > Lat. *temafrā- > tenebrae f.pl.
‘darkness’. Especially important is Illyr. Τόμαρος, which is a mountain-name, too
(see Mallory/Adams 1997: 147a). One may also wonder if Aɫ-t‘amar (a rocky island
and fortress in Van Lake) is composed of *Aɫ(i) ‘Van Lake’ and *t‘amar
‘mountain’, identical with Illyr. Τόμαρος.
In these areas there was a district named Tmorik‘ (see Hübschmann 1904:
336-337). According to Hewsen (1992: 170-175), this name is related with T‘man/T‘əmnis. If this is true, for the element -r- cf. the above-mentioned Illyr.
mountain-name Τόμαρος.
Lsin, a locality in the neighbourhood of Šahapiwan, probably a hill (or at a hill), close
to the enclosed hunting grove called *Siws. Attested only in P‘awstos Buzand 4.15
(1883=1984: 102L21; see Ačaṙyan 1925a: 169; Garsoïan 1989: 143, 476).
●ETYM No etymological attempt is known to me. I assume a basic meaning ‘wooded
hill’, ‘grove’, ‘enclosed forest’ or the like and suggest a comparison with Lat. lūcus
m. ‘sacred grove, wood’, Lūcīna ‘cognomen of Jūnō, invoced by women when
giving birth’ from PIE *louko- m. ‘open space in the woods’: Skt. roká- m. ‘open
space’ (RV+), Lith. laũkas ‘field, open air’, OHG lōh ‘grove, wood, tanning-bark’,
etc. (see Derksen 1996: 212; de Vaan 2008: 350) ; cf. also Welsh llwyn m. ‘bush,
shrub, grove’, possibly from *luk-no- (see Schrijver 1995: 357, 431-432 for a
discussion).
For -in, see s.vv. Duin and Oɫin.
Kogovit, Kogayovit, GDSg. Kogayovti; a district in the province of Ayrarat, on
western slopes of the mountain Masis. Attested in Movsēs Xorenac‘i 3.23, 3.37,
"Ašxarhac‘oyc‘", etc.
●ETYM Composed of *kog- and hovit ‘valley’. According to Hübschmann (1904:
441), Kog (GSg Kogay) is the oldest name of the district, and the original Kogay-
(h)ovit has been contracted into Kogovit. However, there is no independent evidence
for *Kog. I propose to treat Kog-ovit as composed of kog- (GSg of kov ‘cow’, q.v.)
and hovit ‘valley’, thus: ‘valley/pastureland of cow’. At a certain stage, the
component kog became semantically opaque (which is quite obvious since kog- is
the archaic, etymological genitive), and the place-name has been reshaped as Kogay-
(h)ovit. For the toponymical pattern, cf. Ernǰ-a-tap‘ = erinǰ ‘heifer’ + tap‘ ‘plain’,
etc. (see 4.4, also s.v. Tuarac-a-tap‘). Note also Skt. gávyūti- f. ‘pasture, cattlemeadow’, Skt. gávyūti- f. ‘pasture, cattle-meadow’, YAv. gaoiiaoiti- f. ‘pasture’.
Koɫb, a village in Ayrarat, in the district of Čakatk‘, now Tuzluca [Hewsen 1992:
211Nr5]; also *Koɫb- in Koɫb-a-k‘ar and Koɫb-o-p‘or (in Gugark‘), compounds with
k‘ar ‘stone’ and p‘or ‘belly, womb; ravine’ (both very frequent in compound
place-names). Attested in the 5th century onwards [Hübschmann 1904: 441].
●ETYM Comparing with the first part of Urart. Qulbi-tarrini, J̌
ahukyan (1986a: 51,
5126) proposed a connection with Gr. γλάφυ n. ‘hollow, cavern’, γλαφυρός
‘hollow(ed)’. J̌
ihanyan (1991: 248) independently suggests the same etymology
referring to PIE *gelebh- ‘schaben, schabend aushöhlen, hobeln’ (‘geglättete Stange,
Balken’), see Pokorny 1959: 367. However, this etymology is uncertain, and the
vocalic relationship between the Greek and Armenian is not clear.
I suggest a comparison with Gr. δελφύς, -ύος f. ‘womb’, δολφός· ἡ μήτρα
(Hesychius) which comes from PIE *gw
elbh
u- ‘womb’, cf. Skt. gárbha-, Av. garəβam. ‘womb’, with o-grade (Mayrhofer EWAia 1, 1992: 474-475; for o-grade, see also
Oettinger 2000: 3967). The toponymical value of the word is corroborated by Gr.
Δελφοί (pl.) name of the inhabitants of Delphi and of the town itself. It has been
assumed that the place was originally *Δελφύς after the form of the land (see Frisk
s.v.); Beekes 2009 s.v.; Gindin 1977: 113-115). The derivation *gw
olbh
- > Arm. Koɫb is formally impeccable. The meanings
‘womb’, ‘belly’ and the like form place-names very frequently. Therefore, we are
dealing with a strong candidate for an old native Armenian place-name shared by
Greek.
Hay-k‘ ‘Armenia’: see s.v. hay ‘Armenian’.
*Hac‘eak-k‘, gen.pl. Hac‘ek-ac‘, in Tarōn (Koriwn+); *Hac‘i-k‘ in Vayoc‘ jor
(Step‘anos Ōrbelean, see Hübschmann (1904: 444); Hac‘eac‘ in various placenames (see below).
In Koriwn 3: <...> ēr Mašt‘oc‘ anun, i Tarōnakan gawaṙēn, i Hac‘ekac‘ geɫǰē,
ordi aṙn eranelwoy Vardan koč‘ec‘eloy. “Mashtots was the name <...>. He was from
the province of Taron, the village of Hatsekats, son of a blessed man named
Vardan”. Xas geɫ and Xasik are the Kurdish variants of the name of the village; the
village Xas geɫ was still in existence up to the Armenian Genocide (see Hübschmann
1904: 326; Pivazyan 1981: 84, 275, 30851, 33758, 3575). Also in Movsēs Xorenac‘i
3.47: <...> Mesropay, or ēr i Hac‘ekac‘ Tarōnoy [1913=1991: 316L11f; Thomson
1978: 309]. The GDPl Hac‘ekac‘ presupposes NPl unattested *Hac‘eak-k‘
(Hübschmann 1904: 444). According to Inčičean (see Hübschmann 1904: 326 =
Hiwbšman 1907: 190; Łanalanyan 1969: 275Nr739b), also the Kurdish population of
the village venerated the church calling it Ziarēt‘ ēl-Xasik ‘uxt of Xasik ’ or Tēr ēlXasik ‘church of Xasik ’. The grave of Maštoc‘ is said to be in this church, although
Maštoc‘ is actually buried in Ōšakan, a village in the vicinity of Aštarak in Armenia
proper.
The village is also mentioned in P‘awstos Buzand 3.19 (1883=1984: 42): <...>,
ayl ēr nora [i.e. Papay – HM] harč mi i gawaṙēn Tarōnoy, i Hac‘eac‘ geɫǰē
karčazatac‘n; ew mnac‘ or i harčē anti Hac‘ekac‘woyn, orum anun iwr ordwoy
harčin Vrik koč‘ēr. It seems that Hac‘eac‘ and Hac‘ekac‘i are alternating names of
the same village and, as Malxasyanc‘ (1987: 426-42757) points out, are reminiscent
of the village of St. Maštoc‘, Hac‘ekac‘. In her translation of the passage, Nina
Garsoïan (1989: 94) omits the variant Hac‘eac‘: “But he [i.e. Pap – HM] had a
concubine from the *karčazat village of Hac‘ekac‘ in the district of Tarōn, and he
left a son named Vrik by his concubine”. For her, too, in this passage we are dealing
with the village of Hac‘ekac‘, the birthplace of St. Maštoc‘ (ibid. 26210, 427, 467).
On Hac‘eac‘ draxt, see below. Hac‘eac‘ vank‘ in Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, 9-10th
cent. (T‘osunyan 1996: 48L2).
●ETYM Hübschmann (1904: 444) interprets Hac‘ekac‘ as GDPl of *hac‘eak-k‘ (=
*hac‘i-ak-k‘), namely ‘village of small ash-trees’. N. Garsoïan (1989: 467) translates
Hac‘ekac‘ gewɫ as ‘Ash Village’, suggesting that thae underlying word is hac‘i ‘ashtree’ (q.v.). For the form with a diminutive suffix note Salmast xac‘iky (see HAB 3:
65b), cf. hačar-(u)k-i ‘beech-tree’. For the typology of a place-name of the structure
/tree-name + diminutive suffix/ one may compare the names of villages such as
Tanjeak = tanji ‘pear-tree’ + -ak, T‘eɫeak = t‘eɫi ‘elm-tree’ + -ak, etc. [Margaryan
1992: 137-138]. Note especially Xnjoresk, also formed with a plural marker: =
xnjori ‘apple-tree’ + -ak + APl -s (see 4.8).
This analysis becomes even more transparent when we take into account the
alternative name of the village, Hac‘eac‘, which reflects GDPl hac‘eac‘. In the same district of Tarōn, about one stone’s throw (k‘arəngēc‘) below the site of the famous
temple of Heraklēs = Vahagn (and Anahit and Astɫik, see Agat‘angeɫos § 809,
1909=1980: 422) at Aštišat, where St. Grigor first laid the foundations of the holy
church, there was a small wood of ash trees (hac‘ut purak) called Hac‘eac‘ Draxt
‘Ash Grove’; at this place were situated the spring at which St. Grigor had baptized
a great host, as well as St. Daniēl’s cell/cave, see P‘awstos Buzand 3.14
(1883=1984: 33L17, 37L19; Garsoïan 1989: 87, 90, 467). See also Movsēs Xorenac‘i
3.14 [1913=1991: 272L18; Thomson 1978: 2677].153
According to HayTeɫBaṙ (3, 1991: 396a), Hac‘eac‘ draxt, abounding in manna,
probably was a heathen cult place, the homonymous monastery is identical with S.
Karapet. Note the association of the ash-tree with mann in IE tradition (see Dumont
1992).
Since at Aštišat there were also the shrines of Anahit and Astɫik (divinities,
nymphs), one may hypothetically assume a connection between the Nymph(s) and
the ash-trees, exactly like the Nymphs of the ash-tree in Greek mythology, see TaxoGodi apud MifNarMir 2: 219, 549.
Remarkably, a similar association is seen in Łarabaɫ, district of Martuni, where
there is a spring called Anahiti axpur “spring of Anahit” in the village of Hac‘i. Here
the king Vač‘agan met for the first time the beautiful and wise Anahit, an inhabitant
of the village of Hac‘i (see Łanalanyan 1969: 98Nr264 referring to Avagyan 1966, in
“Hayrenik‘i jayn”, Nr 32 [n.v.]).
Another traditional story on this spring is recorded in NmušLeṙnŁarab 1978: 141,
where Anahit was not only very beautiful and wise, but also skilful in making rugs.
In a Łarabaɫ folk-tale entitled ‘Anahit’ (HŽHek‘ 7, 1979: 54-56), she used writing
ornaments on her rugs. This is reminiscent of another folk-tale recorded by M.
Grigoryan in 1928 in Č‘anaxč‘i (Avetaranoc‘), where Aždahak (Dragon) enters the
room of a dragon (ɔšap‘) in the Underworld (see HŽHek‘ 5, 1966: 421) and sees a
beautiful girl, and on the wall, a rug (gyaba), on which the story of the girl is
narrated in old Armenian language (k‘yohnä hay lüzvav).
From a traditional story recorded in 1958 in the same village of Hac‘i (see L.
Harut‘yunyan 1991: 89Nr66), we learn that here there was a church named Anahit,
and this place was venerated in the context of rain-bringing rites. The text reads as
follows: Hac‘va kleran ten, Ərvaluk‘ saran mote min vank‘ a əläl, anumə Anahit.
Vank‘ə ɛn a əläl Ərbanun tap‘umə. Koxke hɫəc‘en ɛl əseis ən əläl Ərbanun hɫe.
Hac‘va Anahitin əxpran knanek‘ə kužavur ən əläl tneis, vank‘en k‘arerə lvənayis,
hanc‘u t‘oṙ kya. Arašt taren ver vank‘en k‘arerə lɫəc‘ral ən, t‘oṙ a ekal.
One might think that this Anahit is merely taken from the famous fairy-tale
“Anahit” by Ł. Aɫayan, 1881. In fact, this tale is based on the folklore (see H.
T‘umanyan 6, 1994: 367-369). Thus, we seem to be dealing with an EArm. relic of
the ancient Armenian goddess Anahit. In the village of Hac‘i there is a Surb
Astuacacin church [M. Barxutareanc‘ 1895/1995: 81]. One may assume a shift of
the worship of Anahit onto Mary. I conclude that we can consider an old female divinity and a water-nymph (to be
identified with Astɫik, a theonym of native origin later replaced by the famous
Iranian Anahit), which was skilful in rug-making (like Athena) and was associated
with ash-trees (like Nymphs).
Meɫ, a left tributary of Euphrates/Aracani, the main river of the district of Tarawn (in
the province of Turuberan); the more recent and common Armenian name is
Meɫr-a-get, lit. ‘honey-river’; = Turkish Kara-su, lit. ‘black water’ [N. Sargisean
1864: 226; Hübschmann 1904: 323; J̌
ihanyan 1991: 252-253]. Usually identified
with Τηλεβόας mentioned in Xenophon, Anabasis 4.4.3 [2001: 326/327]; see
Markwart, Philologus 10/1: 236 (n.v.); Eremyan 1963: 70b; Krkyašaryan 1970:
26017; Hewsen 1992: 16565.
In the long recension of Ašxarhac‘oyc‘ we read on the district of Tarawn: yorum
gay getn Meɫ ew ankani yEp‘rat : “par où passe le fleuve de Megh (Meɫ ) qui tombe
dans l’Euphrate” [Soukry 1881: 31L5, French transl. 41; Engl. transl. Hewsen 1992:
63L2.
●ETYM 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. (see
S. Petrosyan 1991: 130-131; J̌
ihanyan 1991: 252-253; A. Petrosyan 2003: 207, 213,
215). On the Thracian, Pamphylian, and Kappadocian river-name Μέλας usually
identified with Gr. μέλας ‘black’, as well as for numerous parallels and semantic
discussion, see Pârvulescu 1989. Remarkably, the etymological semantics of Arm.
meɫ is corroborated by the modern Turkish name: Kara-su, lit. ‘black water’ (see
J̌
ihanyan, ibid.). Thus, the more common Armenian name, namely Meɫr-a-get, lit.
‘honey-river’, must have been resulted from folk-etymology.154
Oɫakan, the main fortress of the Mamikonean family in the district of Tarōn, on the
bank of the Ep‘rat/Aracani (mod. Murad-su) East of Aštišat [Hübschmann 1904:
326, 459-460; Eremyan 1963: 74b; Garsoïan 1989: 485]. Nowadays: village of
Axkan (Eremyan, ibid.). Usually identified with ’Ολανή (pro ’Ολα[κα]νή) in Strabo
(Geogr. 11.14.6); cf. also Volandum (Tacitus, Ann. 13.39). But Strabo’s ’Ολανή is
located near Artašat (see Ačaṙyan 1940a: 59, 117; for a discussion, see H. P. TērPōɫosean 1944: 9-14, 19, 30). Thus, only the name can be identical.
The ruins of the fortress are still seen on precipitous rocks on the bank of Aracani
[Tomaschek 1896: 11; Hübschmann 1904: 460]. Cuinet (2, 1891: 586-587)
describes the place as follows: “A l’extrémité occidentale de cette plaine (i.e. the
plain of Muš – HM), se trouvent deux grands rochers hauts de 60 mètres, au milieu
desquels l’Euphrate oriental passe avec fracas dans sa course rapide vers le sandjak
voisin. Au sommet de l’un de ces rochers, situé sur la rive droite, et entouré d’eau de
trois côtés, il existe une plate-forme de 140 pas sur 120 où subsistent encore
quelques restes du château-fort ‘Oghgan’”. Attested in P‘awstos Buzand 5.3 (1883=1984: 160); Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.84
(1913=1991: 228L5); Eɫišē (1989: 138L1), etc. In Yovhan Mamikonean: Oɫkan, with
syncope (see A. Abrahamyan 1941 passim).
For Oɫkan, see also Srvanjtyanc‘ 1: 72; Petoyan 1965: 365-366; the map apud
Petoyan 1954; Hewsen 2001: 55 (map 48 A5).
●ETYM Composed of an unclear *oɫ and the suffix -akan [Hübschmann 1904: 460].
By characterizing the fortress as ‘rundlich’, Tomaschek (1896: 11) probably
suggests a compound with Arm. ōɫ ‘ring’ which would be impossible in view of the
vowel difference [Hübschmann 1904: 460].
J̌
ahukyan (1987: 416) points out that the suffix -akan (of Parthian origin) occurs
very seldom with native Armenian stems, and among examples mentions Oɫ-akan.
He, thus, assumes a native Armenian appellative *oɫ not specifying it.
The stem *oɫ- may be derived from Arm. oɫ(n) ‘spine, back’ which in the dialects
(including Muš, located on the same territory of Tarōn) refers to ‘a slope of a
mountain’, ‘a long hillock’, ‘the upper part of a hill’ (see s.v.).
Alternatives:
(1) from PIE *p(o)lh1-: Gr. πόλις f. ‘fortress, stronghold’, Skt. pū́r ‘rampart, wall
made of mud and stones, fortification, palisade’ (RV+), purī ‘stronghold, fortress,
town’, Lith. pilìs ‘castle, stronghold’, etc. Note also URUPulii̯a(ni/a), a placename in
the Western part of the country of Habḫi (south of Lake Van) attested in Assyrian
sources from 9-8th centuries (see N. Arutjunjan 1985: 160), which may be related to
this IE form whether or not it is identical with Arm. Oɫ-. An underlying *poli(V)n
can be compared with Arm. Oɫin (q.v.); note that the loss of *p- before the vowel -ois regular in Armenian.
(2) cf. Gr. Ὄλυμπος, name of mountains in Greece and Asia Minor.
Oɫin, a village probably in (or in vicinity of) Aršamunik‘, attested in Łazar P‘arpec‘i
(5th cent.) 3.83 (1904=1985: 150L26f; transl. Thomson 1991: 210).
●ETYM No etymology is known to me. Hübschmann 1904 vacat.
I suggest a tentative comparison with Arm. oɫ-n ‘spine, back(bone)’; dial. also
‘hill-side, etc.’ (q.v.); see s.v. Oɫ-akan. For -in, see s.vv. Duin and Lsin.
Ormē, Ormi, a town with a fortress to the West of Lake Urmia, 22 km from its shore.
The Arabic sources have Urmija‘, Urmi‘ [Bittner 1896: 89Nr52], mentioned as a town
of Arminia [B. Harut‘yunyan 1989, 2: 34-35]. The lake (= Kaputan cov, Ṙezaye) is
named after the town (see Hewsen 1992: 266; HayTeɫBaṙ 5, 2001: 214-215).
●ETYM Orm-i, probably the original name of the fortress, can be derived from orm
‘wall; fence’ (q.v.), a native Armenian word from *sor-mo-, cf. Gr. ὅρμος m. ‘chain,
necklace, lace’, etc. For the ending -ē/-i compare K‘ark‘ē (q.v.).
There is geological evidence that the towns of Urmia, Maraɫa and even Tabriz
once lay on the shores of Lake Urmia [Hewsen 1992: 266]. One therefore is tempted
to think of a close association with Gr. ὅρμος ‘anchorage, roadstead, harbour’ (on
which, see s.v. orm ‘wall; fence’), which would imply that Ormi once was a harbour.
In view of its shallow waters (see HayTeɫBaṙ 5, 2001: 214b), however, Lake Urmia
was hardly navigable.
*J̌erm-: J̌erm, get J̌erm-a-y ‘river of J̌
erm’, the Bohtan-su, a tributary of the Tigris;
attested in Sebēos (7th cent.) Chapter 17 (Xač‘atryan/Eɫiazaryan 2005: 96L2f; Thomson 1999: 34-35): ew noc‘a haseal merj yamurn, anc‘in zgetovn, or koč‘i
J̌
ermay ənd kamurǰn, or anuaneal koč‘i Daniēli kamurǰ "When they had arrived
close to the fortress, they crossed the river called [river] of J̌
erm by the bridge which
is called the bridge of Daniel". The fortress mentioned here may be identified with
the impregnable fortress called Zrayl [Thomson 1999: 34224], J̌
ṙel [Eremyan 1963:
78b].
Found also in J̌
erm-a-jor, lit. valley of the river J̌
erm, attested in the 7th century
Armenian Geography, Ašxarhac‘oyc‘, in the context of the province of Mokk‘
(MovsXorenMaten 1865: 608L7; Soukry 1881: 32L6f; A. G. Abrahamyan 1944:
349L29; see also Hewsen 1992: 63; Eremyan 1963: 78b). The version of T‘ovmas
Kilikec‘i (14 th cent.) has reading variants J̌
erm-a-jor and J̌
er-a-jor [Anasyan 1967:
281L15]; see s.v. ǰer(m) ‘warm(th)’.
Further: J̌
ermay, a k‘aɫak‘agiwɫ probably in Mananaɫi (in the province of Barjr
Hayk‘); attested in Chapter 23 of the "History" of the 11th century author Aristakēs
Lastivertc‘i (see Yuzbašyan 1963: 129L19): i k‘aɫak‘agiwɫn or koč‘i J̌
ermay.
Note also J̌
ermuk, Kurd. Germav, a large thermal source in Sasun, the district of
Šatax (see Thierry 1992: 332); Sebastia Bori J̌
ermuk (Gabikean 1952: 671),
probably with bor ‘leprosy’; thus: a thermal source which cures the leprosy.
Further, see Hübschmann 1904: 464-465.
●ETYM Obviously from Arm. ǰerm ‘warm(th)’ < PIE *gw
er(-m)- (q.v.); see
Hübschmann 1904: 464-465; J̌
ihanyan 1991: 255. From the same PIE root are:
Γερμανία/Γερμαή < Thracian *germo- < IE *gwhermo- ‘warm’, Dacian Germi-sara,
both denoting places with thermal springs (Wagner 1984: 127-128), etc.; see also
Toporov PrJaz [e-h] 1979: 277-278.155
Saln-a-jor, vars. Saln-oy jor, San-o-jor : a district in the province of Aɫjnik‘,
according to Ašxarhac‘oyc‘ [MovsXorenMaten 1865: 607L-8; A. G. Abrahamyan
1944: 349L17]; in the long recension: Sal-a-jor [Soukry 1881: 31L1]. The second
member is jor ‘ravine’. The long recension also mentions Salnay lerink‘, mountains
of which the river K‘aɫirt‘ (= Batman-su) issues [Soukry 1881: 37]. Note also
Saln-apat (= Jor-a-vank‘), a monastery in the district of Tosp, East of Lake Van (for
ref., see Hübschmann 1904: 447).
See Hübschmann 1904: 314, 317, 465; Eremyan 1963: 79b; Hewsen 1992:
16257).
●ETYM Usually interpreted as containing an unknown *Salin or *Salun
[Hübschmann 1904: 465; Hewsen 1992: 16257].
One wonders whether we are dealing with PArm. *sal-n- ‘stone, rock’, on which
see s.v. sal. Note that this area is heavily mountainous, and the name of a
neighbouring district, namely Xoyt‘/Xut‘ (south of the province of Turuberan), also
contains an appellative meaning ‘rock, reef; hill’ (see s.v. xut‘/xoyt‘). Uncertain.
Sim, a famous mountain in Sasun. Commenting upon Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.8 (see
below), Hewsen (1988-89: 297) points out that Sim(-sar) “is precisely the name
given by the Armenians to the Taurus range where it bordered the plain of Muš on
the South separating it from Sanasunk‘, the later Sasun”. Nowadays it is called
Kurtik-daɫ [Eremyan 1963: 80b], Kuṙtək/Kurtək‘ (see Petoyan 1965: 363, also a
photo between pp. 26 and 27).
In Movsēs Xorenac‘i 1.6 (1913=1991: 26; transl Thomson 1978: 80-81), after
Xisut‘ra’s (= Noah) landing in Armenia, his son Sem went to spy out the land to the
northwest, reached a long mountain, lingered by the river for two months
(erklusneay awurs), and called the mountain after his name Sim.
The mountain plays a significant role also in the traditional story of inhabitation
of this area. This time it relates with Sanasar, one of the two sons of Senek‘erim who
killed his father Senek‘erim and fled to Armenia. In Movsēs Xorenac‘i 1.23
(1913=1991: 70), Sanasar dwelt yarewmtic‘ harawoy ašxarhis meroy “in the
Southwest of our land”; i smanē ačumn ew bazmaserut‘iwn leal, lc‘in zSimn
asac‘eal leaṙn “his descendants multiplied and propagated and filled the mountain
called Sim” (transl. Thomson 1978: 112).
Other attestations: Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.74 and 2.84 (1913=1991: 212L6f, 228L6):
Simn koč‘ec‘eal lerinn “the mountain called Sim”. In 2.8 (116L15f; transl. 143),
relating on Šarašan from the house of Sanasar (spelled as Sarasar – GSg
Sarasaray): zleaṙnn Tawros, or ew Sim “the Taurus Mountain, that is Sim”.
For the historico-traditional role of Sim, as well as for other attestaions of the
mountain-name, see Tomaschek 1896: 4-5; Hübschmann 1904: 310-311, 315-316.
●ETYM According to Łap‘anc‘yan (1945: 20-211), the mountain-name Sim originates
from Sem. Sin ‘Moon-god’. This is accepted by Petoyan (1965: 381-383, with
traditional stories around the mountain). However, this etymology is untenable.
Improbable are also the comparison with Arm. s/šeam ‘Pfosten, Schwelle’ (see
Tomaschek 1896: 5; Xač‘konc‘ 1899: 82b), and the ancient association with the
Biblical Sem (T‘ovmay Arcruni 1.1, 1985: 16L-4; Thomson 1985: 70).
I propose a derivation from PIE *k̂
ieh1mo-, cf. Skt. śyāmá- ‘black, dark-coloured’
(AV+), Av. Siiāmaka- m. name of a mountain (see Hintze 1994: 83-84, 457; cf. also
Arm. Simak), Lith. šėmas ̃ ‘blue-grey’, etc. Note also Skt. river-name Śyāmā, literally
meaning ‘black’ (see Pârvulescu 1989: 290). Mountain-names are frequently named
‘dark’ or ‘black’; see 4.6. Moreover, this etymology may be directly corroborated by
the other name of the mountain Sim, namely Sev-sar, lit. “Black-mountain” (see
Sasna cṙer 2/2, 1951: 870; Abeɫyan 1985: 22; A. Petrosyan 2002: 143-144 = 2002a:
155). Even if Sim/Kurtik and Sew-sar are not identical, they are at least closely
located and probably form neighbouring summits of the mountain-range Eastern
Tavros (see e.g. the map apud Petoyan 1954).
Tap‘e(a)r, GDSg Tap‘er-a-y, = Arm. tap‘-er ‘plains, plain places’ : ‘i siti piani’
[Hübschmann 1904: 388], attested in Geoponica (13th cent.) with koɫ-er and matner
(see s.v. matn2 ‘hill-side; slope’); appears as place-names (Tap‘-ear) in the districts
of Baɫk‘ and Arewik‘, both in the South of Siwnik‘, and both attested in Step‘anos
Orbelean (1250/60-1303/5) [Hübschmann 1904: 473].
In P‘awstos Buzand 3.12 and 4.55 (1883=1984: 26L-9f, 146L10; transl. Garsoïan
1989: 82, 175): i daštn yayn koys getoyn Tap‘ern kamrǰi, <...>, anc‘eal ənd kamurǰn
Tap‘eray, mteal i k‘aɫak‘n mec yArtašat : “in the plain on the other side of the river
at the bridge of Tap‘er. <...>, they crossed the bridge of Tap‘er, entered the great city of Artašat”; ew anc‘uc‘in əst Tap‘ern kamurǰ, <...>, asen zōragluxk‘n Parsic‘
c‘Zuit‘ erēc‘ k‘aɫak‘in Artašatu.
This bridge is called Tap‘er-akan in Agat‘angeɫos § 33 (1909=1980: 23L6; transl.
Thomson 1976: 49): i Tap‘erakan kamrǰac‘n getavēž aṙnēin znosa : “from the
bridge of Tap‘er they cast them into the river”. Here, the bridge is mentioned next to
the bridge of Artašat and must be identical or close to it. Note that in the beginning
of the same paragraph 33 (p. 22L16) more than one bridges are mentioned at the gate
of the city of Artašat (i xels kamrǰac‘n aṙ druns Artašat k‘aɫak‘i), although Thomson
(1976: 49) took it as a singular
Tuaracatap‘, a district in the province of Turuberan. Attested in Ašxarhac‘oyc‘ (7th
cent.) [Soukry 1881: 31; Eremyan 1963: 107a]; in the short recension: Tuaracatap‘
[MovsXorenMaten 1865: 607], corrupted variants: Muracatap‘, Markatap‘ [A. G.
Abrahamyan 1944: 349L21]. On the attestation in Aristakēs Lastivertc‘i, see below.
●ETYM Clearly composed as tuarac + -a- + tap‘ ‘plain, land’. The word tuarac (see
s.v. tuar ‘cattle’) means ‘pasturing’ (Eusebius of Caesarea: i tuaraci) and ‘pasturer,
herdsman’ (in a homily of / ascribed to Eɫišē), cf. also tuarac-akan ‘herdsman’
(Bible+) [NHB 2: 890bc]. The place-name has been explained in NHB (2: 890c) as
“a plain place of pasturing” (teɫi arōti tap‘arak). Hübschmann (1904: 476), however,
departs from the meaning ‘herdsman’ (‘Hirt’) and interprets the place-name as
‘Hirtenebene’ (for the component tap‘, see ibid. 388). The same view is reflected in
V. Xačatrjan 1980: 111. Note that only the meaning ‘herdsman’ is present in the
dialects (see Ačaṙean 1913: 1019b). For ‘pasturer’ > ‘pasturing’, see also s.v.
hawran. Note dial. tavar-a-tap‘ ‘gathering place of cattle’ (see Mkrtumjan 1974:
73b).
Ačaṙyan (HAB 4: 424a) points out that tuarac-a-tap‘ ‘place for cattle pasturing’
also (underlining mine – HM) appears as a place-name. In fact, there seems to exist
no attestation for this compounded appellative. NHB (2: 860c, 890c) cites one
illustration found in Aristakēs Lastivertc‘i 16 (11th cent.): i tuaracoy tap‘, and refers
to the place-name Tuarac-a-tap‘. It seems that both NHB and HAB take tuaracoy
tap‘ of Lastivertc‘i as an appellative. However, a closer look at the passage shows
that we are dealing with the same place-name Tuarac-a-tap‘, as is correctly
understood by Yuzbašyan. The passage reads as follows: <...>, xaɫay iǰanē i
Tuaracoy Tap‘, ew anti iǰanē yəndarjak daštn Basenoy aṙ anaṙ amroc‘awn or koč‘i
Awnik : “<...> направился к Туарац’ой Тап‘у. Оттуда он спустился к широкой
долине Басеана и [подошел] к неприступной крепости по названию Авник ̣ ”
[Yuzbašyan 1963: 89L20f, 158b; 1968: 101, 16618].
The place-name is obviously reflected in Urart. Ṭuaraṣini ḫubi, see Kapancjan,
ibid.; Eremyan 1963: 86; Arutjunjan 1965: 195-197; V. Xačatrjan 1980: 111;
Diakonoff/Kashkai 1981: 87; J̌
ahukyan 1985a: 369; 1987: 430, 443; 1988: 155.
Instead of tap‘, here we find Urart. ḫubi, somehow related with Arm. hovit ‘valley’,
which is very prodactive in place-names (see J̌
ahukyan 1985a: 370; 1987: 434,
442-443).
That a district-name is based on the idea of pasturing is natural, cf. e.g. Kog-ovit
(q.v.). Moreover, as we can see from an Urartian inscription, Ṭuaraṣini ḫubi must
have had a considerable quantity of cattle and flock [Arutjunjan 1965: 196-197].
K‘ark‘ē, gen. K‘ark‘eay, a mountain in the province of Turuberan, in the districts of
Tarōn and Palunik‘, on the river Euphrates-Aracani (Agat‘angeɫos, Zenob Glak,
Yovhan Mamikonean).
In Agat‘angeɫos § 809 (1909=1980: 421-422; transl. Thomson 1976: 347), the
temple of Vahagn is said to be situated i snars lerinn K‘ark‘eay "on the summit of
the mountain K‘ark‘ē", at the site called Yaštišat. In The History of Tarōn by
Yovhan Mamikonean, the mountain-name is found in nominative-allative K‘ark‘ē,
ablative i K‘ark‘ēoy (see A. Abrahamyan 1941: 109L4, 200L6, 232L3).
For the site (Y)aštišat, the mountain K‘ark‘ē and the shrines on its slopes, as well
as on the famous monastery St. Karapet, see Hübschmann 1904: 370-371, 400-401;
Lusararean 1912: 142 (spelled as K‘arkē); Thomson 1976: 489-490. The mountain
was also called Bazm-a-sar, lit. ‘multiple mountain’ (N. Sargisean 1864: 225, 228-
229). K‘ark‘ē probably was a very important cult centre in the cuneiform stage as
well (cf. Hmayakyan 1990a: 160-161). For the problem of the origin of this cult
centre, see also Martoyan 2004. On the religious importance of Aštišat, see also s.v.
place-name *Hac‘eak-k‘.
●ETYM The identification with the Urartian mountain-/land-name ŠADÛ/KURGurqu
(for references and a discussion, see N. Arutjunjan 2001: 506-507; further see
J
̌ahukyan 1988: 153-154) is formally uncertain.
The comparison of Arm. K‘ark‘- with the onomastic element Kark-/Krak- (cf.
Krakov), Hitt. Karkii̯a-, etc. (A. Petrosyan 2002: 153-154; 2004: 214) seems quite
plausible. The onomastic element Kark-/Krak- referring to the Carpathian
Mountains has been discussed within a mythological context and in relation with
OEngl. hearg ‘heathen temple, altar, sanctuary, idol’, etc. (see Ivanov/Toporov
1974: 175-177), cf. OHG. harug referring to an area in the open for cult practice,
OIc. harg probably originally referring to clumps of stones in a locality for cult
practice, etc. (Markey 1972: 367-370).
The Germanic etymon is also found in place-names; the proto-form may be
reconstructed as *kar-k-u- or *kar-ko- (Markey ibid.; Boutkan p.c. 1999). Further,
note the Illyrian mountain-names Κερκέτιον ὄρος (mons Cercetius, Cercetii),
Κερκίνη, cf. Pruss. Kercus, etc. (see Krahe 1955: 85; Toporov 1964: 55; cf.
Neroznak 1974: 47-48; Toporov PrJaz [i-k] 1980: 323).
The etymon *kar-k- *‘stony rise (where cultic rites were practised)’ is probably
related with Welsh carrog ‘stony river’ < *karrākā, Oir. carrac ‘cliff’, carn ‘stone
grave’, etc.; also forms reflecting *kar-ant- (see Pokorny 1959: 531-532; Markey
1972: 370; cf. Krahe 1955: 118; Vennemann 1994: 226, Tabelle I). Arm. k‘ar
‘stone’ seems to belong here too (HAB 4: 558-559). The Armenian appellative
*k‘ar-k‘- may be identical with Germ. *kar-k-. The sequence *-rk- normally yields
Arm. -rg-. In this particular case, the voicing did not take place because the word is
formed (or has been re-interpreted) as a broken reduplication, cf. PIE *n̥bh
ro- >
ampro-p ‘thunder’, *pter- > t‘er-t‘ vs. t‘er ‘leaf’ (see s.v.v.); alternatively, we may
posit substratum *kh
ar-kh.It has been suggested that OEngl. hearg as a heathen temple is identified with hell
(Markey 1972: 367). This is reminiscent of the Armenian duṙn džoxoc‘ ‘gate to hell’
in the cult centre on the mountain K‘arkē, the shrine of St. Karapet the Baptist (on
which see Srvanjtyanc‘ 2, 1982: 93-95). Conclusion
The Armenian K‘ark‘ē, the name of a mountain of a considerable religious
importance, reflects substratum *kar-k- ‘stony rise (where cultic rites were
practised)’, itself a derivative of *kar- > Arm. k‘ar ‘stone’. Particularly impressive is
the Germanic cognate, *karko/u- *‘stony rise (where cultic rites were practised)’.
Typologically compare Arm. Erēz, the name of a village where the famous temple of
the goddess Anahit was located, probably derived from erēz ‘stony place, pile of
stones’ (Hübschmann 1904: 425 hesitantly, not specifying the semantic motivation).
For the ending -ē, cf. Ormē, a town with a fortress west of Lake Urmia, probably
from orm ‘wall, fence’ (q.v.).