Annual of Armenian linguistics

51 Pages·1983·23.167 MB·English

AssociIanttieornn adteiso nale
EtudAersm eniennes
Worhda cso mfer omJ oDWsre .ti eb ne trhgaa n te Awr meno­
logiscoaclih eabtsey e fno rmIetidsn. t enittsiop o rno pagate
PubliswhietSdhu bventfiroonm mattdeeraslw iintAghr mensicahno laTrhhAesI iEpiA.n ­
TheA GBUA leMxa noogiCaunl tuFruanld tentdous n istceh oflraoramslo lv etrh weo rlwdi,tt hh e
excepotfti hotene rrciotvoerbryye t dhN eo rAtmhe rican
sister-orSgAaSn.i zation
ISSN 0- 928 0701
Af imresett wianhsge ladtW assenaaro,n O Hcotlolbaenrd
18, a1n9wd8a 2as,t tenbdyDe rdA. .H ultg(aUaprpds ala),
PrintaetC dl evelSatnadtU en iversity
DrF..M awe(tB ruxeDlrVl..e sN)e,r s(eLsosnidPaornno )f,.
DrM..E .S to(nJee rusDarJl..e S m.WJ) e.,i ten(bLeerigd en).
As ecomnede thianbsge epnr opoast ewdo,- vdeanyt autr e
theen odAf u guisnLt e iden/Wassenaar.
Thowsies hmionrgie n formaareteni coonu rtaowg reitdto e
J. WJe.i tSe.n berg
UniveLresiidteyn .
DepartomfCe onmtp arLaitnigvuei stics
WitStien 2g5e2,l3 1B1G Leiden. Holland
Table of Contents
1 H. W. Bailey
Armenian azbn and pelem
5 Ji:irundur Hilmarsson
Armenian astuac "God"
17 J.R.Russell
Armenian * azavatem
23 G. B. Djahukian
On Etymological Doublets and Parallels of Armenian
35 N. A. Parnassian
The Development of the Grammatical Structure of Modern
Armenian
47 Robert Danko££
Evliya Chelebi of the Armenian Language of Sivas in 1650
57 Amalya Kachaturian
The Nature of Voiced Aspirated Stops and Affricates in Armenian
Dialects
63 Eric Hamp
On the Helleno-Armenian Shared Lexicon
Erastank
Note on "Armenian Surname Changes"
67 John A. C. Greppin
Hypercorrection in Armenian
73 The Interrelationship of Arm. hanum, henum, hinum "weave,
plait"
Book Notes
79 Jaan Puhvel. Analecta Indoeuropaea (Rudiger Schmitt)
83 Elishe. History of Vardan and the Armenian War (Rudiger Schmitt)
85 Zaven Arzoumanian. History of Lewand the Eminent Vardapet of
the Armenians. (Robert Hewson)
87 George A. Bournoutian. Eastern Armenia in the Last Decades of the
Persian Rule, 1807-1828. (J. A. C. Greppin)
88 Robert Gulbenkian. The Translation of the Four Gospels into Per
sian. (J. A. C. Greppin)
89 Societies and Languages of the Ancient Near East. (J. A. C. Greppin)
90 Classical Armenian Culture: Proceedings of the First Dr. H.
Markarian Conference on Armenian Culture. (J.A.C. Greppin)
92 Robert Godel. Linguistique armenienne: etudes diachroniques.
(J. A. C. Greppin)
93 Levon K. Khacherean (ed.). Arakcel Siwnecci, Yalags kcerakanutc
ean, hamarowt lucmunkc (J. A. C. Greppin)
94 Asot l.usencc Aresi barbafa (J. A.-C. Greppin)
Armenian azbn and pelem
H. W. BAILEY
Queens' College, Cambridge
The steady publication of eastern Iranian documents from the
pre-Turkish Central Asian region from Kashgharia to Kroraina (the
Taklamakan desert, the Tarim basin) has made known parts of the lost
north Iranian vocabulary. In this the language of ancient Gostana,
Hvatana (modern Khotan) of the Saka state (recorded in Chinese dy
nastic histories from the second century B.C. to the tenth centry A.D.)
has had a large share. The Iranian materials in Khotan-Saka docu
ments, so far as they were known to me in 1979, were gathered up in
my Dictionary of Khotan Saka. It is exclusively Iranian and stems
from a plan of twelve scholars meeting in Bonn (1938) to work for an
etymological dictionary of all Iranian. This is the only fruit so far of
that plan. The Dictionary is no simple list of words with etymologies,
but provides evidence for the meanings by quotation of bilingual and
parallel passages; and the etymological proposals are a supplement at
the end of each lemma. Reviewers, by misinterpretation and taking
advantage of the ambiguous use of "Saka" instead of the more accu
rate "eteo-Saka" have sadly misrepresented the aim of the book.
Inevitably words in this new Iranian material have information
on loan-words in early Armenian. Here are two Armenian words
which have so far remained unrecognized as Iranian.
Khotan-Saka ysba "reed" renders Buddhist Sanskrit vetra-. It is
a loan-word spa in Tibetan in the same medical text. First, as to
Khotan-Saka spelling, since this is still little studied, note that ys is a
2 H. W. Bailey Armenian azbn and pelem 3
digraph to express z, for which the Brahmi script had and still has no To connect these meanings "branch" (whence "branched") and
sign. Khotan-Saka had six sibilants s s s z ii (as in North-West Prakrit "bone," a meaning "excrescence" or "jutting part" may be the origin.
and modern Sipa). Thus ysba is a theme *zba- or, as an initial a-may Note a similar development of meaning in Khotan-Saja drkha- "ex
be lost, *azbd-. An initial a-can be lost even when it is the negative a crescence" and Ossetic drx "branch." A parallel to a monosyllabic
as in Kotan-Saka nd$ a- (*ndia-) "food of immortality," Zor. Pahl. Inda-European base with various suffix, see al<-"sharp" with suffixes
anos, Sogd, nws, which renders Bud. Sask.amrta-. -m-, -n-, -r-, -s-, and -t-in Porkorny's Dictionary; and add from Iranian
Armenian has azbn (gen. azbin, inst. azbamb, plur. azbounk< Khotan-Sala haska- "tusk," New Pers. ask, yask, Avestan asiira-, Os
"weaver's reed to separate threads"; in a compound azbnagol "magic setic dnsura, Sogd. 'ns'wr.
with a weaver's reed." There is also azb-occ "stick" with suffix -o-; and
* * *
in a compound azba-xumb "very close." There is no connection of
fered in Adjarians's HAB (who however rejects contact with Syriac A base *pel- "to be or make hollow" (and from "make holes,"
'zb-' *azb-d "hair of armpits"). "dig") is attested in Iranian Khotan-Saka pilirii- "hollow tube, clyster
These two words, Khotan-Saka and Armenian, may throw light pipe in medicine," where pi-may replace either pe- or pi-. The Mani
upon an Inda-European problem. There is an Inda-European mono chean Sogd. has pyl-yr "musical pipes." 2 The loan word passed to
Uigur Turk. bylwr, Kurd. bilur, bilwer, Mongol bilir, biler, modern
syllable *os- with two meanings "bone" and "twig, branch." It is
attested in Luwian hassa- "bone," Avestan ah- in the adjective bilar, Manchu pileri and Chinese pi-li (piet-liet). Armenian blul, not
in the dictionaries, will be the Kurd bilur. All these forms could have
anhaena- "of bone," and Khotan-Saka dhiipe "skeleton," and ~a
been *pelir or *pilir.
"bone." It occurs with suffixes. With-d- Greek has u~rn; from *oz-do
The one form which shows pe- is the Caucasian Lakk ppellit'u
"branch;" 1 from d passed to -t-Gothic asts, Old Engl. ost, and Armen.
"musical pipes," cited in the Atlas of musical instruments in Cyrillic
ost "branch" (Armen. o is Indo-Eur. *o). With -t- Hitt. hastai, Greek
script as pelyuti. Through G. Hewitt I learn from M. Job that this word
boi:fov "bone,"Avestan ast-, azd-, Khotan-Saka hastaa-, Ossetic dstdg
is isolated in eastern Caucasus. Lakk however is not altogether reli
(*astaka-). With velar suffixes occur Armen. oskr, gen. osker, adj.
able between -e-and-i- as can be seen in Lakk bil "spade" beside A var
oskerit, oskrelen, oskrout and oskra- in compounds. Gree!<o ocp't'.Jisc ;
bel, Lezgi pper, and Ossetic bel. The further difference in the ending
disputed: -p-can replace older -bh-, or g"h-, meaning "loin, lower part
t'-u also has difficulty. A suffix -u is found in loan-words as in elmu,
of back"; Celtic Welsh asgwrn "bone"; Zor. Pahl. azg, New Pers. aza
Arab. <ilm "science," and arcu "silver, money," Avar 'arac, Tabar
"branch," Armen. loan-word zag "kind, sort, people, race"; Greek
sarani ars, Andi arsi. The -t'- could be a different suffix in Iranian
ooxoc;" branch, vine branch with grapes," Avestan ascu "lower part of
-o-
*pelit- or possibly a replacement of -r- by and thence -t-.
leg," Ossetic dsgu, sgu "hip bone." The Khotan-Saka would then be
The base pel- "to hollow" is then older pai-1- and can be found
from os- with labial suffix *os-b(h)- and Armenian azb-o- with a- an
in verbal use in Armenian loan-word pelem "to hollow," and "dig,"
Iranian loan-word (contrasting with the o- of ost).
used in modern Armenian pelumn for "excavations." The -e-has been
Two names of trees can be brought in here, as named "branched"
taken over as -e-, as in the word den "religion," not as -e-with unac
(as Old Indian has made sdkhin- "branched" from sakhd- "branch"
cented -i-, and the -l is like that in polovat Zor. Pahl. pwl'pt *polavat,
and vitapin- from vitapa- "branch" for "tree"). These names are *os
New Pers. biilad, po lad "steel," or solar "chief," New Pers. sdldr.
en-o- in Latin ornus "wild mountain ash tree"; Celtic Welsh onnen,
Adjarian (HAB) proposed to connect with Old Indian bila
plur. onn and ynn "ash-tree"; Lit. uosis; Slavonic Russian jasenf.
"hole" of uncertain origin; it could be an older *pila-.
From *os-k come Germanic Old Norse askr, Old Engl. resc, Old High
In Iranian pai-1- could alternate with pi- and so offer a connec
Germ. ask, with Alban. ah and Armen. hacri "ash"; Greek bsvTJ
tion with pi- of Latin pipa "pipe" whence various forms in western
"beech." From Inda-European, Cheremis has osko. With suffix -p
Europe. The base would then not be due to the peeping, piping of
there are Old High Germ. aspa, Old Engl. resp. Slavonic has Russian
birds. For Iranian -ai-1- in verbal and noun bases note the many words
osina "popular," Bulgar. osika. The word came also to Chuvash Turk
. in North Iranian Ossetic telun "wink," uelun, jelun "toss, turn," xelun
eves "ash" and Altaic apsak "poplar."
4 H. W. Bailey
creep," zelun "turn, attend upon (as a host)," zmelun "wind yarn,"
azgelun "dig," and nouns cela "the fern plant," sk'ela "fold; heel,"
k'ela "felly," zyela "branch torn off," mela "soot," and "the first
beard."
Finno-Ugrian also has a base pel-, rendered "to blow", pelan
"reed-pipe", possibly belonging here, since Iranian words are bor
rowed there.
FOOTNOTES
Armenian astuac "God"
1 The explanation of this Greek word by* o "on" and *sed-: *s d-"sit" gives no good
sense.
JORUNDUR HILMARSSON
. 'W. Sundermann and P. Zieme, Scholia dedicated to A. VonGabain Ural-Altaic
Society, 1981, 184-193 with facsimile. ' Vesturgotu 19
Reykjavik, Iceland
The Armenian word for "God," astuac, has not yet found a satis
factory explanation. In most etymological word-lists and dictionaries
this word is either not mentioned at all or it is brushed aside with an
observation that its origin is obscure or at least not Inda-European.
Thus one does not find any information on its formation or connec
tions in Bugge (1889), Hiibschmann (1895), Walde-Pokorny (1927-
32), Frisk (1944), Pokorny (1959), Bolognesi (1960), Solta (1960),
Meillet (1936, 1962, 1977), Deeters-Solta-Inglisian (1963), Mann
(1963, 1968), Djahukian (1967), Tumanian (1978).
Those who have ventured an etymology have mostly concen
trated on connections with obscure Greek or Anatolian place names,
personal names, or gods' names (e.g. Bugge 1897:13), none of which is
accepted as likely by Adjarian (1971:297-282, a work written in the
early twenties), who also rejected Pedersen's association (1906:243)
with hast "firm, solid," hastel "make firm, create." Adjarian himself
prefers Marr's derivation (1911:759-774) of astuac from the name of a
Thraco-Phrygian divinity ~a~a!;tot; (with several variants), cf. also
Kapancian (1940; 1956:246, 279-280, 290). However, there are ob
vious phonological problems involved in that interpretation, so that it
must be regarded as highly speculative. For other early explanations
of astuac, see Adjarian op.cit.
In 1953, Heu beck attempted to revive an old hypothesis of Bugge
from 1897 connecting Arm. astuac with the Pamphylian place name
6 Jorundur Hilmarsson Armenian astuac "God" 7
Aspendos which appears in inscriptions from the period 500-300 B.C. Later Pisani offered another solution to our problem word
in the form ECTtfeouui;w, ith numerous variants. In Heubeck's opin (1961:549-562, reprinted 1969:257-269). Without mentioning his pre
ion, this connection has been m'ade more plausible by the discovery of vious etymology, he now analyzed astuac as as + tuac. The second
a Hierogl.-Hittite-Phoenecian bilinguis that tells of a certain Asita member, -tuac, he regarded as an original action noun with the
wandas, the founder of the town Asitawandi whose name supposedly suffix -ac from the aorist stem tu- of the verb tam "I give." The first
corresponds exactly to the Pamphylian place name just mentioned. member, as-, he identified with Skt.arpsa- "portion, part," Av. a~6
The Phoenecian parallel gives reason to believe that Hierogl.-Hittite "part" which for semantic reasons he refused to tie up with Gk. 6yxoi;
Asitawandas had the meaning "blessed by God." Heu beck then pro "bulk, size, mass, body, sum." He therefore derived the Armenian and
poses that As(i)t(a)wa-1 ECTtfEa-nd Arm. astuac in some (undefined) Inda-Iranian forms from 1.-E.• anl<o-,w hose further etymological con
way derive from a common preform. However, these Anatolian and nections (having in his opinion nothing to do with Gk. tveyxevi and
Pamphylian names are isolated and rather unclear both phonologi Skt. asn6ti) are unknown.
cally and philologically. Their eventual relationship with astuac is Pisani's scruples as to the semantic linking of the words in ques
therefore still uncertain. In any case, the implicit common preform tion seem unnecessary. Gk. "6yxoi;" bulk, sum, mass, etc.," and Skt.
*astwa- would in Armenian perhaps yield *aska-, i.e., the cluster amsa- "part," represent two sides of the same coin. You may get only a
stw- would perhaps yield Arm. -sk- as seen in, e.g., oskr "bone" part of what is divided among many, but that part is also the sum of
<*ostwer much the same as -tw- yields Arm. -J..cc(-Meillet 1936:51; what you get, cf. the semantic sphere of the English word portion
Godel 1975:84; see also the following discussion). meaning "part, share" like Skt. amsa, but also "quantity," cf. Gk
More recently Melikishvili (1980:35-36) has argued for an Urar '6yxoi;. So, regardless of whether Gk. 'byxoi; and Skt. amsa- are to be
tean origin of Arm. astuac. Improving on the reading of a certain tied up with Skt. asn6ti "reach" or not, these words in all probability
Urartean text, he reads the words astiuzi (for previous reading astiu represent 1.-E •anl<o- and not •anl<a-. Pisani's Arm. as- "portion"
zi-). Judging by the context this word may well mean "God" or "the would therefore be excluded as an 1.-E. "Erbwort" in Armenian, but it
image of a God," cf. Melikishvili's translation of the sentence in ques could still be considered a borrowing from an Iranian source. As a
tion: "Argischti spricht: Ich erfuhr, dass man aus dem Lande Etiuni compound, however, as-tuac would be somewhat irregular inasmuch
den astiuzi der Stadt Ardini rauben wollte." As pointed out by Meli as the expected -a- connecting the two members is lacking. Pisani,
kishvili, it was common practice in antiquity for invaders to steal the citing Jensen (1959:27), points out that there are other such cases to be
native gods' images which deprived the invaded country of its gods' found, e.g. xrattu "counselor," unkndir "listener." Still, this lack con
assistance. However, this sole example carries little weight and the tradicts Pisani's assumption and so does the fact that •as is not found
word astiuzi (if, indeed, the improved reading is correct and justified) as a simplex in Armenian, whereas the compound xrattu corresponds
may very well have some quite different meaning. The connection of to the simplex xrat "counsel."
this word with Arm. astuac must therefore be considered somewhat For an 1.-E. etymology of Arm. astuac, I propose as a working
uncertain and even unlikely, because, as pointed out by Melikishvili, hypothesis that this word be understood as having originally had the
it is quite probable that the Urartean word for "God" was inu. meaning "creator, establisher." It is well known, especially in Christi
In an article on Armenian phonology (published in 1950 and anity, that God is quite commonly named thus, cf. Engl. creator,
then reprinted in 1978) Pisani hesitatingly proposes to derive astuac Germ. Schop/er, Icel. skapari, Lith. sutverejas, sutvertojas, sutvertajis
from 1.-E. •yagi-diw-ag- "sanctus deus" (1978:273 footnote 21). But a (from the verb sutverti "create"). Similarly in Sanskrit kartr- is used in
a
development of 1.-E.• y-to Arm. zero is uncertain and far from proven the meaning "creator of the world" (SBr.XIV, Ydjn.III, 69) and as
(cf. Arm. Jur :: Lith. jllra), intervocalic -w- might be expected to yield name of Siva (Pancat.) of whom it is also said that he is visva-kdraka
Arm. -g-(cf. taygr :: Lith. dieveds), and the word formation is unex "creator of all." The Vedic deity Prajdpati- is "lord of creatures, crea
pected, to point out but a few of the difficulties implied by that recon tor" and in Norse mythology 6~-inn is Alfo~r "father of all."
struction. Now, astuac with its three syllables has to be a compound. Bear
ing in mind the suggested meaning "creator, establisher" one might
8 Jorundur Hilmarsson Armenian astuac "God" 9
1975;176), rather speaks against such an assumption, as does the u
venture a first step toward a reasonable etymology by deriving its first
stem gen.sg. ending -u < x-uwe/oh usually identified with the gen.sg.
element, a-, from 1.-E. xsm-"together, with" (cf. Lith. sutvertojas from
ending -uvap in Sanskrit and -u(f)o<; in Greek, and especially vecc
SU- "together, with" and -tvertojas "who makes firm"). 1.-E. xs!TI
would regularly yield Arm. xam-and in our case only a-, because "six" from xuwecc < xhuwecc < xsuwel<:1s, a Sievers' variant of xswel<:s,
cf. xdwo and xduwo "two." For ccu and ju representing xskuwo-and
initial xs-before vowel would disappear as would the nasal before
xawio-respectively, cf. below.
following -s-, cf. Arm. am "year" : Skt. samd and Arm. mis, "meat" :
Skt. mdmsa-.
Pr~ceeding from the same working hypothesis, a proposal that
2. xstuw-> xstu-. This development is in harmony with Eichner's
the element following a-reflects some form or derivate of the 1.-E.r oot
proposal, for which, however, he does not adduce any evidence di
xsteH,-"stand" would not seem very far-fetched. The first two ele
rectly, but judging by his discussion of other reflexes of I.E.- 'w in
ments of astuac would thus mean "placed together, standing together,
Armenian, he seems to be of the opinion that the u-stem gen.sg.
established, created." The root xsteH,-is represented in Armenian in
ending -u bears witness to this treatment, cf. kov "cow"< 'kowuh,
the verb stanarn, aor. stac<ay, "arise" which shows that 1.-E. xst(HJ
gen.sg. kovu• < kowuwe/oh (Eichner 1978:155). Considering, how
yielded Arm. st-. , .
ever, that -w was destined to be dropped in final position after accen
Gk. at'\Jcl) "erect, make stiff," Skt. sthund "pillar, Lith. stoveti tuated -u-anyway (cf. the u-stem inst.sg. ending -u < * -uw' < '-u-bhi-)
"stand," etc., show that 1.-E. •steH,- couid be extended by an
this example is worthless for determining the general outcome of the
apophonic u-suffix, cf. also Gk. m:ma (Attic), m:wLfCi nossos, Lesbos)
sequence •-uw-, for if -uw did not yield -u directly, but instead was
< xm:wfLa < •stowi(y)a "hall of pillars." It is also clear that u-stem
kept as such when accentuated and in final position after theapocope
adjectives could be derived from the zero grade of the root •steH,-, cf. of final syllables, it is difficult to see how -uw could develop into
Lith. atstus "standing far," Skt. su:,thu (adv.) "fine, pretty," anu:,thu,
anything but-uw (barring-ug) which in turn became u. This reasoning
anu:,thuyd "at once, presently." Thus from the primary root •steH,
applies, unless of course, the development seen in the inst.sg. ending
derivative forms such as •stow- and •stu- as well as •stHu- are ascer
is a consequence of that same sound law: "Proto-Armenian -uw- > -u
tainable. The question arises how these forms would be realized in
in all positions," to which one would then have to add: "whatever its
Armenian.
origin." If that were so, however, one would expect that this sound
The -w-of •stow-poses a problem. After •-6-becomes •-u-, further
law had applied in a case like alues "fox," cf. Gk. hAWJtl]I"; id." If x-op
development of the form •stuw- is somewhat uncertain. There appear
here became x-uw-that consequently was reduced to •-u-which was
to be four alternatives:
retained because of its hiatus position before a following accentuated
syllable, then the "thick" -l- is a riddle. In fact, the -l- shows that the
1. xstuw- > xstug-. According to a recent study by Eichner -u- once must have been consonantic, so that alues derives fro_m
(1978:144-162, esp. 150 ff.) the normal development of 1.-E. xw in xalwes-< xaJuwes-through syncope of the -u-in unaccentuated posi
Armenian is xg (through an intermediate stage xgw( Verstarkung der tion. Thus -uw- > -u-does not apply in the case of -w-from I.-E. labial
Hinterzungenhebung) ultimately yielding xg (Aufgabe der Lip occlusive, which makes the development of -uw- to -u in final accen
penrundung). To this sound law, however, there are some exceptions· tuated position predictable and the u-stem gen.sg. ending -u worth
conditioned by the phonetic environment. Thus > xw before Proto less for determining a general sound law uw to u.
Armenian xwa nd in the diphthongxiw (secondarily also xew).F urther Further examples in Eichner's article that imply a development
more, 1.-E. xw yields zero in the positions before tautosyllabic xr, uw > u appear to be c<u "roof" (p.153 with footnote 40) and ju "egg"
(p.146 footnote 17). Both, of course, are dubious, as indicated by
between two internal o-sounds and (as would apply in our case of
xstuw-) after Proto-Armenian xu. Indeed, there do not appear to be any Eichner, and do not yield absolute evidence. In the case of c<u (<
examples of a treatment -uw- > -ug-. On the contrary, a case like stuar xskuwo-?), gen.sg. c<uoy there is a by-form c<iw, gen. c<uoy.A n original
"thick" < xstuwar < xstow-(r-?J, cf. Skt. sthdvara- "thick, stable" (for a xskewo-would yield c<iw, gen. c<uoy (cf. patiw, gen. patuoy) and the
nom. form c<u might be analogical after the genitive, whereas ju is
different etymology of stuar [to Lith. stiprus "strong"], cf. Godel
10 Jorundur Hilmarsson
Armenian astuac "God" 11
etymologically unclear. If it were not for the initial j-, a derivation saying that the same would happen to a secondarily formed cluster
from •uyo- < •uwyo- < •owyo- (Eichner, p.146) might be applicable. If •stu representing syncopated •stuw-, cf. patiw, gen. pah.:oy (not
on the other hand the -y-through metathesis has yielded an initial j •pak<oy),a nd, of course, esp. stuar.
(one rather expects J-!), one again has the situation that final -uw
becomes -u which does not necessitate Eichner's sound law, i.e.,
•owyo- > •uwyo- > •yuwo- > •juw > ju. To sum up this discussion: (1) •stuw- > •stug-is contradicted by
A better example would have been stuar < •stuwar < •stow-(r-?), stuar and vec<;( 2) •stuw- > •stu- is possible, but less likely than (3)
cf. Skt. sthavara-, with-u- retained in hiatus position, or vec<< •uwecc •stuw- > •stw-if one can judge by the previous consonantal character
< •huwecc < •suweh with a development of u-to v- in initial position of the -u-in alues <•alwes- < •aluwes-. However, a decision between
before a vowel. Neither word, however, is decisive, because both fit these two alternatives is irrelevant in our case as both would yield
also within the context of alternative three below. Armenian stu-; (4) •stuw- > •stw- > •sk-would show a sound change
that may have applied to an original cluster •stu-, but perhaps did not
operate any more in the period after the syncope of unaccentuated
3. •stuw- > •stw-. This alternative implies that -uw- in an accen
internal vowels, cf. stuar.
tuated position before a vowel was retained as such, until final sylla
1.-E.• sW-and •stHu- before vowel would either develop a glide,
bles were apocopated and -uw-, now in final position, became -u, cf.
in which case the same possibilities of further development as dis
the u-stem gen.sg. ending and possibly c<ua nd ju. On the other hand,
cussed in connection with •stow-V-> •stuw-V- present themselves, or
in an unaccentuated position before an accentuated vowel-uw- > -w
a glide might not develop (this applies especially to •stHu-), in which
through syncope of the -u-whereas the remaining -u-, originally con
case -u-would be retained because of its hiatus position in spite of the
sonantic, was in Classical Armenian realized as -u-cf. stuar < •stwar
following.accentuated syllable (cf. Meillet 1936:20-21).
< •stuwar or vecc < •wee<< •uwecc < •huwec<. Alas, there is no decid
Given the choice between •stow-, •sW-, and •stHu- as possible
ing between alternative two and three, because the end result is in
predecessors of (a)stu(ac), I think that •stHu- would be the likeliest
both cases the same. If, however, the development witnessed in alues
candidate, because it is actually attested as a nominal stem form in
(cf. above) has any bearing upon this problem, the decision must be in
Inda-European (cf. Lith. atstus, Skt. su~thu, anu~thu whereas the
favor of alternative three, because the -l- of alues shows that the -u
other two forms are not attested as nominal stems without further
once was consonantic, which fits within the context of alternative
extensions. Thus one might posit as the first part of the Armenian
three but not alternative two.
compound astuac an 1.-E. •s:rp-stHu-meaning "(that which is) put
A last consideration comes to mind leading on to the fourth
together, firm, solid, established, created," cf. Icel. samstre~ur "ho
conceivable alternative.
mogeneous, well fitted, solid."
The last component of astuac is probably identical with the
4. •stuw- > •sk- through the intermediate stage •stw- with -u suffix -ac whose original function is somewhat uncertain. In Classical
syncopated before accentuated syllable. In 1936 (p. 51), Meillet pro Armenian it serves two main functions: (a) it forms action nouns (o
posed to derive Arm. oskr "bone" from •ostwer implying that the stems) deverbatively, cf. ararac "creation, creature" from ai-nem "I
sequence •stw yielded •sk in Armenian. Although quite parallel with make, construct," aor. arari, harac "wound" from harkanem "I hit,"
the change •tw > k<t he development •stw > •sk (loss of aspiration after aor. hari; (b) it forms a few adjectives (a-stems) denominatively, cf.
sJ is far from certain. Actually oskr is the only example that can rea gt<ac "compassionate" from gut< "compassion," erkiwlac "reverent,
sonably be said to bear witness to this change (Meillet, lac.cit., and awesome" from erkiwl "awe, reverence," hogac "worried" from hog
Godel 1975:84 name no other), but this word may contain a guttural "worry." In both cases -ac, from a synchronic viewpoint, is simply a
suffix found also in Welsh asgwrn, Corn. ascorn "bone." Another suffix devoid of a lexical meaning that would allow decisive conclu
example sometimes drawn into the discussion, Arm. isk "really," is sions as to its original function(s). Neither does the fact that in modern
highly dubious, cf. Djahukian 1967: 29-230. Even if oskr shows the Armenian -ac has evolved to a past participle morpheme (Mann
correct and expected treatment of 1.-E. •stw in Armenian, there is no 1968:139-140) necessarily give any clue as to its origin, cf. Godel
12 Jorundur Hilmarsson Armenian a"stuac "God" 13
1975:57. Meillet (1962:181), on account of its adjectival function, samiija- "meeting, assembly." It is possible that this procedure also
finds it difficult to refrain from the conclusion that -ac is an ancient took place in Proto-Armenian, which would explain why the action
verbal (i.e. agent) noun from acem "I bring, handle." Thus -ac in its nouns in -ac are o-stems.
function as an adjectival suffix may derive from 1.-E. x-ago~ (cf. Gk. Thus (a) adjectival -ac inflects as an a-stem in Armenian due to
&.yo~" leader," m:gai;riyo~" army-leader," Skt. aj6.-"driver") with lat~r an analogical transfer from the a-declension where it originally be
integration into the a-stem declension as seems to have been a com longed, representing 1.-E. •agos which itself might be a thematized
mon procedure in (Proto-)Armenian in the case of adjectives, cf. za root noun; (b) -ac in quality of an action noun suffix inflects as an a
wrawor (a-stem) "mighty" from zawr "might" with the suffix (-a)-wor stern in Armenian and may represent an 1.-E. action noun (root noun)
< x-bhoros, cf. Gk. -cpogo~. Lat. -fer. Most adjectival suffixes men later thematized.
tioned by Jensen (1959:37-47 J, are a-stems such as e.g. -ol (-awl), -ice, Among the action nouns in -ac, such as ararac "creation, crea-
-uc0 -u, -kat, -ak, -awor, -ord, -akan, -at. -ac, -akar. -elen. -eren, • ture," haruac "blow," etc., one also finds hastuac "creation, crea
,
-aren, -el, etc., whereas only -un and the local or temporal adjec'tives ture." This word then, can be classified as an action noun
in -ayin, -ayn, and -in follow the a-stem pattern. Whatever the reasons corresponding to the agent noun astuac. (For a discussion of the h :
for this distribution, adjectival -ac belongs quite naturally as an a zero alternation see Jerejian [1953:146-151] who is inclined to believe
stern within the context of Armenian. that the forms with h- as opposed to zero are positively characterized
On the other hand -ac functioning as an action noun would by an additional semantic feature such as specificity, intensity or [as
optimally derive from •-ageH except for the fact that it is an o-stem. A in the case of hastuac: astuac] result. However, it is also conceivable
2,
secondary transfer from the a-stems might have taken place, although that the h- of hastuac is due to the influence of the verb hastem
there does not seem to be any immediate reason for this (a-stem de "create" cognate with Icel. fastur, Germ. fest etc.)
clension is not especially characteristic for action nouns in Armenian One question still remains unanswered. Why wasn't astuac
as the a-stem declension is for adjectives). Indeed, one searches in ( < •sip-stHu-agas) transferred to the a-declension along with the ad
vain for reflexes of an action noun •ageH in other Inda-European jectives in -ac? Astuac, as well as the adjectives, represents an original
2
languages; dialectal Greek'ayfJ (Chios) "transport' is attested late (Bac agent noun •-agos and its development might have been expected to
chylides) and is isolated in Greek and therefore probably secondarily run along parallel lines. The answer may be that at the time of the
formed. flexional shift from o- to a-declension, the suffix -ac had already
However, Inda-European probably knew a root noun •ag become an empty suffix. The adjectives in -ac were transferred to the
functioning (a) as an action noun, cf. Skt. 6.je "to drive" (inf.) = Lat. a-flexion because they were adjectives and not on account of their
agi (passive inf.), Lat. ambages (in the singular only abl. ambiige) original function as agent nouns. On the other hand astuac was no
"going around, winding," ind ages "surrounding and driving of game" longer understood as an agent noun "one who creates, brings order,"
(with a secondary long vowel in the root, cf. Watkins 1962:20), and (b) but simply as a substantive "God" and therefore continued to follow
as an adjective or agent noun, cf. Skt. prtandj- (prtanii-6.j-) -"rushing the declensional pattern of the other substantives in -ac although they
to or in battle," Lat. remex, gen. -igis, "rower". This latter type is found were fundamentally action nouns and abstracts.
thematized in e.g. Skt. prtanaja- "hero," Lat. prodigus "extravagant," This assumption may hold true in spite of such a conspicuous
Gk. m:gmriyo~ "army-leader." It is conceivable that also the simplex counterexample as the suffix- (a)wor ( < •-bhoros), which inflects as
•agas, yielding Gk. ayo~S. kt: aj6-, and Arm. -ac (adjectival suffix), an a-stem in both its functions, i.e., as adjective and as substantive
originally was a root noun turning thematic only in late Indo (agent noun). For this may be due to the fact that-(a)wor is not a mere
European. In any case, the later transfer of adjectival -ac to the a empty suffix (as -ac) but on the contrary has a very marked semantic
declension seems to follow a certain pattern in Armenian as indicated content: "carrying, occupying oneself with whatever the first part of
above. the compound signifies." The meaning of the adjectives and the sub
But also the action noun •ag-seems to have suffered late themati stantives in -(a)wor is so evidently close that they were not separated
zation, at least in Indian, cf. Skt. aja-"drove, group (of Maruts; AV)," when the shift to the a-declension occurred, cf. t0agawo.r "king, i.e.,
14 Jorundur Hilmarsson Armenian astuac "God" 15
who carries a crown" to tcag "crown," marmnawor "bodily, i.e., hav Kerestedjian, B.
ing a body" to marmin "body," pcafowor "glorious" to pcafkc "glory." 1969 Etude philologique et lexicographique, Amsterdam.
Mann, S.E.
1963 Armenian and Inda-European (Historical Phonology), London.
1968 An Armenian Historical Grammar in Latin Characters (Morphology,
Etymology, Old Texts), London.
FOOTNOTE Marr, N.J.
1911 "Bog i:a~attrn; u Armjan," Izvestija Akademii Nuuk, VI.Serie, No. 10, p.
759-774.
1 Proposed by G. Klingenschmitt and J. Schindler as reported by R. Schmitt 1980:419 Mayrhofer, M.
footnote 25a. For a different solution, see Hamp 1978:85, who assumes a special sandhi
1963 Kurzgefasstes etymologisches Wiirterbuch des Altindischen, Band II D-M,
development of 1.-E.x sw to Arm. v.
Heidelberg.
Meillet, A.
REFERENCES 1913 Altarmenisches Elementarbuch, Heidelberg.
1936 Esquisse d'une grammaire comparee de l'armenien classique, Vienne.
1962 Etudes de linguistique et de philologie armeniennes I., Lisbonne.
Adjarian, H. 1977 Etudes de Jinguistique et de philoJogie armeniennes II, Lou vain.
1971 Hayeren armatakan bararan, Yerevan. Melikishvili, G. ( = Melikischwili)
Bolognesi, G. 1980 "Urartu und <las siidliche Transkaukasien," Georgica Jena/fblisi, p.35-36.
1960 Le fonti dialettali degli imprestiti iranici in armeno, Milano. Pedersen, H.
Bugge, S. 1906 "Zur Akzentlehre," Zeitschrift fiir vergJeichende Sprachforschung 39,
1889 Beitrage zu etymologischen Erlauterungen der armenischen Sprache, p.232-254.
Christiania. Pisani, V.
1897 Lykische Studien I, Christiania. 1969 "Der Gott als "Verteiler" und armenisch ASTUAC," Lingue e Culture, p.257-
Deeters, G. -Solta, G.R. -lnglisian, V. 269. Brescia. Previously published in Handes Amsorya 75 1961, p.549-562.
1963 Armenisch und Kaukasische Sprachen, Handbuch der Orientalistik, Erste 1978 "Studi sulla fonetica dell'armeno," Mantissa, p.255-317, Brescia.
Abeteilung, Siebenter Band, Leiden/Ki:iln. Previously published in Ricerche Linguistiche I 1950, p.165-193; II 1951,
Dervischjan, G.B. p.47-74.
1877 Armeniaca I. Das Altarmenische, Wien. Pokorny,}.
Djahukian, G.B. ( = Dzaukjan) 1959 Indogermanisches etymoJogisches Wiirterbuch, Bern.
1967 Ocerki po istorii dopis'mennogo perioda arrnanskogo jazyka, Erevan. Scardigli, P.G.
Eichner,H. 1961 "Aspekte der armenischen Etymologie," Handes Amsorya 75, p.641-656.
1978 "Die urindogermanische Wurzel xH,reu- 'hell machen"'. Die Sprache 24, Schmitt, R.
p.144-162. 1972 "Die Erforschung des Klassisch-Armenischen seit Meillet (1936)." Kratylos
Frisk,H. 17, p.1-68.
1966 Etyma Armeniaca, Gi:iteborg. Solta, G.R.
Godel, R. 1960 Die SteJJung des Armenischen im Kreise der indogermanischen Sprachen,
1975 An Introduction to the Study of Classical Armenian, Wiesbaden. Wien.
Hamp.E.P. Tumanan, E.G.
1978 "Indo-European '6,"' Linguistic and literary studies. In honor of Archibald 1978 Struktura indoevropejskix imjen v armjanskom jazyke, Moskva.
A. Hill, Vol. 3, Historical and comparative linguistics, Ed. M.A. Jazayery, Walde, A. -Pokorny, J.
E.G. Polome and W. Winter, The Hague/Paris/New York, p. 81-90. 1930 VergJeichendes Wiirterbuch der indogermanischen Sprachen, Berlin/
Heubeck,A. Leipzig.
1953 M A.HIEN60:r Beitrage zur Namenforschung 4, p.122-125. Watkins,C.
Hiibschmann, H. 1962 Inda-European Origins of the Celtic Verb. I. The Sigmatic Aorist, Dublin.
1895 Armenische Grammatik, Etymologie, Leipzig.
Jensen, H.
1959 Altarmenische Grammatik, Heidelberg.
Jerejian, A.V.
1953 "The H-Zero Alternation in Classical Armenian," Word 9, p.146-151.
Kapancian, G.
1940 Xettskie bogi u armjan, Yerevan.
1956 Istoriko-Jingvisticeskie raboty, K nacal'noj istorii armjan. Drevnaja
malaja Azija. Yerevan.