Garshin.Ru Лексиконы

Пишите English

Грабарская лексика на букву A

Домой:	Рус	Анг	Ита	Исп	Эсп

Здесь приведён список древнеармянских слов на A (X из 947) с переводом на английский язык (см. лексику англичан).

Древнеармянский словарь, A

1. 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’.
2. 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’.
3. 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‘).
4. 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’.
5. 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.
6. 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];
7. 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.
8. 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.).
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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 -.
14. 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.
15. *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.
16. *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
17. 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’.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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
21. 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).
22. 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
23. 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.
24. 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’.
25. aloǰ ‘she-kid’ (Bible+).
26. 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’.
27. 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
28. 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.).
29. acu See also s.v.v. acu ‘garden-bed’, aṙac ‘proverb’, art ‘cornfield’.
30. 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.
31. 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
32. 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.
33. 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
34. 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
35. 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
36. 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;
37. 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
38. 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.).
39. 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.).
40. 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
41. 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.
42. 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.
43. 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
44. 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.
45. 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,
46. 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’.
47. 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
48. 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.
49. 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.
50. 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.
51. 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-.
52. 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.
53. 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‘).
54. 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’.
55. 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.
56. 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-.
57. 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’.
58. 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
59. 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.
60. 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-).
61. *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].
62. *aɫc- ‘salt’ in aɫc-eal ‘salted’ in Eusebius of Caesarea.
    ●ETYM Belongs with aɫt ‘salt’ (q.v.), see Hübschmann 1897: 414; HAB 1: 132a.
63. 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].
64. *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.
65. 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.
66. 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).
67. 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.
68. aɫtiwr ‘marsh-meadow, swamp’. See s.v. eɫtewr, eɫtiwr ‘id.’.
69. 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.
70. 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.
71. 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+).
72. 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’.
73. 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.
74. 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’.
75. 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.
76. 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.
77. 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.
78. 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.
79. 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.
80. *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).
81. 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.
82. 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).
83. 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.
84. 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
85. 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.).
86. 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.
87. 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.
88. 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’.
89. 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’.
90. ay-s ‘this’, etc. See s.v. *s(a/o)- ‘this’.
91. 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.
92. 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.
93. 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.
94. 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’.
95. 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.
96. 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
97. 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.
98. 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’.
99. 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-.
100. 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
101. *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‘.
102. 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’.
103. angɫ2 ‘handle of a pot or basket’.
     ●ETYM See s.v. angɫ1.
104. 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.
105. 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).
106. *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.
107. 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-.
108. 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.
109. 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’.
110. 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.
111. *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).
112. 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‘?
113. *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.
114. 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.
115. 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.
116. 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).
117. 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’.
118. 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.
119. 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.
120. 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).
121. 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.
122. 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’.
123. 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.
124. 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.
125. 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.
126. 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’.
127. 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’.
128. 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.
129. 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’.
130. 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’.
131. 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.
132. 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).
133. 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.
134. 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’
135. 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.).
136. *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’.
137. 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.
138. 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.
139. *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.
140. 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.
141. 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’.
142. 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.
143. 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).
144. 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.
145. *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.
146. 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.
147. 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.
148. 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.
149. 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.
150. 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.
151. 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.
152. 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.
153. 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’.
154. 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].
155. 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.
156. 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’.
157. 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).
158. 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.
159. 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‘.
160. 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.
161. *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).
162. 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.
163. 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.
164. 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
165. 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.
166. 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).
167. 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.)
168. 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.
169. *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.
170. arew, u-stem: GDPl arew-u ‘sun; sunlight; life’ (Bible+).
     ●DIAL Ubiquitous in the dialects [HAB 1: 313a].
     ●ETYM See s.v. *areg ‘sun’.
171. 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.
172. 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.
173. 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).
174. 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’.
175. 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.
176. 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.
177. 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.
178. 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.
179. 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-).
180. 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.
181. 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.
182. 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.).
183. 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.).
184. 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’
185. 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’.
186. 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).
187. 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.
188. 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).
189. 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.
190. 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
191. *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.
192. 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’.
193. *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).
194. 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.
195. 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).
196. *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.
197. 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.).

Древнеармянский словарь, B

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’).
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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].
5. 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’.
6. 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.
7. 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.’.
8. 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.
9. 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.).
10. 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’.
11. 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].
12. 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?
13. 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’.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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)
17. 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.’.
18. 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’.
19. 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.
20. -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’
21. 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’.
22. 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).
23. *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’.
24. 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.
25. *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.).
26. 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 .
27. *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.
28. 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.
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. 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’.
32. *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.
33. 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).
34. 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.
35. 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-.
36. *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.
37. 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.
38. 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).
39. 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.
40. *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’.
41. 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’.
42. 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).
43. 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’.
44. 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‘.
45. 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.
46. 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’.
47. 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’.
48. 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.
49. 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’.

Древнеармянский словарь, G

*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.
1. gaɫjn ‘a kind of convolvulus’ (Agat‘angeɫos, Yovhan Mandakuni, etc.).
   ●ETYM See s.v. geɫj ‘id.’.
2. 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’
3. 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.
4. 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).
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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
9. 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.
10. 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”.
11. 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(-).
12. *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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. *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.
16. 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).
17. 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).
18. 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.).
19. *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’.
20. 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‘)
21. 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-.
22. 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).
23. 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.
24. 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).
25. 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).
26. 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’.
27. 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’
28. 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.).
29. *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.
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. 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).
33. 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).
34. 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.
35. 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].
36. *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.
37. 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’.
38. 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.
39. 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.).
40. 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.
41. 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.
42. *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’.
43. *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.
44. 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)
45. 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
46. 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.
47. 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.
48. 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.
49. 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.
50. 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.

Древнеармянский словарь, D

*d(a/o)-, etc. See s.v. *s(a/o)- ‘this’.
1. 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.’.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. dalukn ‘jaundice’ (Bible+). See s.v. dalar ‘green, fresh’.
5. 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)
6. 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-.
7. 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.
8. dayl ‘colostrum, beestings’ (NHB and HAB, without specified references). For dialectal forms and an etymological discussion, see s.v. dal ‘colostrum, beestings’
9. 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.
10. 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’.
11. 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).
12. 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’.
13. 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’.
14. 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-.
15. *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.
16. *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.
17. 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.
18. 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’).
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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).
23. 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.
24. 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).

Древнеармянский словарь, E

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).
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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].
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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).
12. 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’.
13. 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).
14. 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.
15. 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.).
16. 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).
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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’).
20. 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’
21. 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.
22. 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).
23. 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’
24. 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’).
25. 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
26. 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.).
27. 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.
28. *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.
29. 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.).
30. 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’.
31. 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.

Древнеармянский словарь, Z

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
1. 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-.
2. 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.
3. 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).
4. 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’.
5. zgest ‘dress, garment, clothes’ See s.vv. zgenum ‘to put on clothes’ and aṙ-ag-ast ‘curtain’.
6. 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.
7. 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).
8. 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.)’.
9. Ē
10. 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.
11. 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).
12. *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’.

Древнеармянский словарь, Ə

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’).
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.

Древнеармянский словарь, T‘

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.
1. 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.
2. 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].
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. *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).
6. *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.
7. *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.
8. *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).
9. 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’
10. 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
11. t‘