October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

A GRAMMATICAL SKETCH OF CLASSICAL ARMENIAN

RANKO MATASOVIĆ

Zagreb 2020.

[Type text] Page 1

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

FOREWORD

This publication is intended primarily for students of the course “Comparative

grammar of Indo-European languages”, which I have been teaching for more than a
decade in the University of Zagreb. It hopes to offer a reasonably compact overview
of the grammar of Classical Armenian and its position within the Indo-European
family of languages. It is neither a textbook nor a comprehensive grammar of the
language.

In Zagreb, October 2020

Ranko Matasović

[Type text] Page 2

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

INTRODUCTION
Armenian was considered to be an Iranian dialect until Heinrich Hübschmann proved
it to be a separate branch of IE languages in 1877. It does contain a lot of Iranian
loanwords, which help us reconstruct the prehistory of Armenian, since they shared
many developments of native Armenian words.1 The exact dialectal position of
Armenian is disputed; in 1924 Holger Pedersen noted the extraordinary number of
lexical correspondences that Armenian shares with Greek, and the thesis that Greek
was the closest relative of Armenian is known as the Graeco-Armenian hypothesis.2
However, a recent examination of this hypothesis by J. Clackson (1994) is sceptical.3

It is at present unclear how, when, and whence the Armenians entered their present-
day habitat south of the Caucasus. The name Armenia, known to the Greeks and
Romans, is of Iranian origin, and occurs on Dareios' stele at Behistun (Old Persian
Armina). Herodot (VII, 73) says that Armenians are ‘colonists of the Phrygians’
(Phrygôn ápoikoi), but there is very little archeological or linguistic evidence to either
confirm or refute this. Strabo, in the first century BC, claims that Armenians entered
their country from two directions: one group came with the Phrygians from Asia
Minor, while the other entered from Mesopotamia. The Armenian tradition regards
the Armenian people as the descendants of Haik, who was, in turn, a descendant of
Noah, who had allegedly settled in Armenia after the flood. In any case, there is no
trace of Armenians in Eastern Anatolia during the Hittite period, so they must have
entered their homeland after the collapse of the Hittite Empire (ca. 1150. BC). They
may have been one of the peoples that wandered in the Eastern Mediterranean during
that troublesome period. The name used by Armenians to refer to themselves, Hay-kc
(pl.), is of unclear origin. Some say it is none other than the name of the Hittites, since
Arm. Hay- can be regularly derived from a proto-form *hattya-. A different
etymology derives it from PIE *poti- ‘master’ (G pósis, Skt. pati- etc.).

The area where Armenians settled had been previously inhabited by speakers of
Urartean, a non-Indo-European language whose only relative is Hurrian, spoken in
Northern Iraq from ca. 2200 until ca. 1200 BC. While Urartean is mostly known from
short monumental public inscriptions, Hurrian is by far better attested because of the
large number of cuneiform inscriptions found in Mari, Boghaz-Köy, etc. There are
certainly some loanwords of Hurro-Urartean origin in Armenian,4 and it has been
1
Iranian loanwords in Armenian are mostly from Parthian, e.g. anapat “desert”, paštem “I worship”,
mah “death”, xrat “judgement”, kcen “hatred”, tap “heat”, hraman “order” (Parth. frm’n), ašxarh
“world, land” (Parth. xšahr), hreštak “angel, messenger” (Parth. fryštg), tcšnami ‘enemy’ (cf. Av.
dušmainiiu), dew ‘demon’ (Av. daēva-), etc. Iranian palatal *z (> Avestan z) is preserved in Iranian
loans in Armenian, while it gives d in Old Persian, cf. Arm. yazem “I worship” vs. OPers. yad- (Av.
yaz-). On Armenian words of Iranian origin see Schmitt 1983, Job 1993.
2
Note, e.g. the parallel word formation of Arm. jiwn “snow” and G khíōn (< *g’hyōm), or Arm. kin,
Gen. knoĵ “woman” vs. G gynḗ, gynaikós, or the development of prothetic vowels from laryngeals, or
the extension of the formant *-sk’- in the past tenses (in Greek, this last development is dialectal).
However, most of the Armenian-Greek correspondences in grammar are also shared by Indo-Iranian
and (often) Phrygian, e.g. the presence of the augment in the formation of past tenses (Matzinger
2005).
3
See also Solta 1960.
4
E.g. Arm. astem “I marry” < Hurrian ašte “wife”, Arm. hnjor “apple(-tree)” < Hurrian hinzuri, Arm.
cov “sea” < Urartean šuǝ, Arm. ułt “camel” < Hurrian uḷtu. There are also many Akkadian words which
were borrowed into Armenian through Hurro-Urartean, e.g. Arm. knikc “seal” < Hurrian < Akkadian
kanīku. Finally, let us mention a few probably Armenian loanwords from Hittite, e.g. Arm. išxan

[Type text] Page 3

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

argued that a Hurro-Urartean substratum influenced the structure of Armenian to a

large extent. For example, Hurrian and Urartean both had a rather complex system of
consonants and consonant clusters, a clearly agglutinative structure, a rich case
system and the lack of grammatical gender. On the other hand, Hurrian was an
ergative language with some typological features not found in Armenian (e.g. the
‘Suffixaufnahme’ and the exclusively suffixing word structure). The influence of the
substratum (or various substrata) on Armenian is undeniable, as a large portion of
Armenian vocabulary is of unknown origin, cf. e.g. hariwr ‘hundred’, zokcančc ‘wife's
mother’, azg ‘people’, etc.

Armenia was the first country in the world to adopt Christianity as the official religion
(traditionally in 301, but perhaps a decade later). However, it wasn't until 406 or 407
that the Armenian language was first written down. It was then that Mesrop (also
known as Maštocc, 361-440 A.D.) translated the Bible, starting with Solomon's
Proverbs. He also invented the Armenian alphabet. His model was certainly the Greek
alphabet, and some Armenian letters bear a resemblance to Greek originals, but there
are also letters invented by Mesrop. Most of the early literature in Armenian consists
of translations from Greek. Very important are the works of Pcawstos Biwzant
(Faustus of Byzantium), the author of Armenian history, originally written in Greek
and covering the history of Christian Armenia from 317 until 387. His work was
continued by Lazarus of Pharpi, who wrote the history of Armenia until 458. Most
translations from this period, however, are of religious books. Besides the 42 books of
the Old Testament (with some Apocrypha) and the 26 books of the New Testament
(without the Apocalypse, which was translated much later), the early translations into
Armenian include such various works as the exegetical homilies by John
Chrysostome, the speeches by Eusebius from Emesa, Apology of Christianity by
Aristides of Athens, speeches by Zenobs of Amida, several Martyrologies, etc.
Besides from Greek, there are several Classical Armenian translations from Syriac,
e.g. the translations of the Hymns St. Epcrem (who lived ca. 306-373).

The fifth century A.D. was the so-called ‘golden century’ (oskedar) of the Armenian
literature. The following original works in Classical Armenian were composed during
that period: Koriwn's biography of Holy Mesrop (‘The Life or Mashtots’, 5th century),
and ‘Against Heresies’ (Ełm ałandocc) of Eznik Kołbacci, composed between 441 and
448. In this treatise, preserved in a single manuscript from 1280, Eznik refutes
different forms of non-orthodox beliefs, both Christian (especially the dualistic heresy
of Marcionites) and non-Christian (Mazdaist beliefs and theories of Greek
philosophers). The authorship of the Life of Gregory the Illuminator (who baptized
the first Christian king of Armenia, Tiridates, in 314), also written in the 5th century,
is disputed, but it was traditionally attributed to Agat cangełos, the secretary of the
Armenian king Tiridates III. Mowsēs Xorenacci's ‘History of Armenia’ (Patmutciwn
Hayocc) used to be dated to the 5th century, but may be several centuries younger.
Mowsēs is considered to be the ‘father of history’ (patmahayr) by Armenians. In his
work, Mowsēs preserved several original Armenian oral traditions, including an
account of the birth of the god Vahagn, the romance between Artashes (Artašēs) and
princess Satenik (Satcenik), etc. Another important historian from the classical period
was Elishe (Ełišē), who wrote ‘History of Vardan and the Armenian War’ (about the

“prince” < Hitt. išha- “lord”, Arm. brut “potter” < Hitt. purut- “clay”, Arm. hskem “watch, abstain
from sleep” < Hitt. hušk- “tarry, wait”. See Diakonoff 1985, Greppin 2005.

[Type text] Page 4

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

war between the Christian Armenians against the Persians, who wanted to impose
Mazdaism on them).

From the sixth century, only a few works from the Neo-Platonist philosopher Dawit
Anhałtc (‘David the Invincible’) are preserved. These are actually Armenian
translations of his works originally written in Greek. The number of writers from the
seventh century is more abundant, e.g. the bishop-historian Sebeos, the poet Dawtak
Kertoł (the author of the first secular poem in Armenian, “The Elegy on the Death of
the Great Prince Jevansher”), and the polymath Anania Shirakatsi (Anania Širakacci),
the author of the first geographical treatise in Classical Armenian (Ašxarhaccoycc).

There are no original manuscripts from the earliest period of the Armenian language.
The most ancient manuscript, the Moscow Gospel, was copied in 887, and many
works written originally in the fifth century were subsequently interpolated and
substantially changed by recopying. There are some early inscriptions from the 5th
century, and the earliest ones seem to be the inscriptions from Nazareth, from the first
half of the 5th century (see below).5

An early inscription from Musrara (near Jerusalem) from the 6th century runs as
follows:

Vasn yišataki ew pcrkutcean amenayn Hayocc z-orocc z-anuans Tēr gitē “For the
memory and salvation of all Armenians whose names the Lord knows”.

There are also a few old inscriptions from Armenia proper, e.g. from the church of
Tekor.

The language of the fifth century is the basis of Classical Armenian, or Grabar (lit.
‘written’ language). To all appearances, Classical Armenian had no dialects, and most
Modern Armenian forms are easily derivable from it. It may have been some sort of

5
See Stone et alii 1996-7.

[Type text] Page 5

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

koiné which, like its Greek counterpart, replaced all other early dialects.6 Grabar
slowly evolved towards Middle Armenian (from the 11th century) and Modern
Armenian (from the 18th century), which exists in two variants, East Armenian (in
Armenia proper) and West Armenian (now used mostly by Armenian diaspora).
Cilician Armenian (11-14th centuries) was already characterized by many West
Armenian features (e.g. the change of Old Armenian tc > d and d > th), but the
Modern West Armenian language is chiefly based on the dialect of the Armenian
community in Constantinople. The East Armenian standard is based on the dialect of
Ararat. Both modern standard languages are heavily influenced by Classical
Armenian.

There are two excellent introductions to Classical Armenian for Indo-Europeanists,

Schmitt 1981 (in German) and Godel 1975 (in English). Meillet's brief comparative
grammar (1937, in French) is still useful, as well as Jensen's descriptive grammar
(1959). A more comprehensive grammar is Tumanjan's (1971). There are hardly any
modern comprehensive dictionaries in Western European languages, but now there is
the recently published etymological dictionary by Martirosyan (2009). R. Acharyan's
‘Etymological Root Dictionary of Armenian’ (in seven volumes, Erevan 1926-1935)
is in Armenian, and is now hard to get and largely obsolete. Many useful etymological
discussions can be found in Džaukjan's (1983) and Perixanian's (1999) monographs.
Standard Indo-Europeanist treatments of Armenian morphology include Olsen 1999
(on nominal morphology) and Klingenschmitt 1982 (verbal morphology). An
overview of the earlier 20th century literature on Armenian can be found in Schmitt
1974.

6
See Winter 1966. However, Martirosyan (2011: 689ff.) lists many words of dialectal origin that made
their way into the “standard” language (although there are no dialectal texts from the ancient period).
Moreover, some words preserved in contemporary Armenian dialects (and attested after the classical
period) display very archaic features, e.g. *kałcc “milk” (reconstructed on the basis of the contemporary
form in the Agulis dialect) preserves the liquid ł, while Classical Armenian katcn “milk” is further
removed from PIE *glk- “milk” (G gála, gálaktos, L lac, lactis).

[Type text] Page 6

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

THE ALPHABET
This is the Classical Armenian alphabet invnted by Maštocc, early in the 5th century
A. D. Its Armenian name is ‘Erkatagir’, or ‘Iron Alphabet’.

Note that the vowel [u] is written with a digraph <ou>, which betrays the influence
of the Greek orthography. Some linguists (e.g. Rüdiger Schmitt) transcribe this
digraph with Latin ow, rather than with u, as here. The letter <f> does not occur in the
texts from the classical period, and the letter <ō> is just an allograph of <o>, also a
later addition to the original alphabet. In the post-classical period, it represents the
reflex of classical –aw-. Initial e- is pronounced [ye-], but it is uncertain whether this
pronunciation goes back to the classical period. The fact that the name Yerusalem is
spelled <Erosałēm> shows that it probably does at least in some cases. The modern
pronunciation [vo-] for initial o- is certainly not old.

There are a few special punctuation marks: <:> corresponds to a full stop and <,> is a
comma, just as in our present orthography, while <̀> is a colon. The exlamation mark
<~> is usually written above the accented syllable of the stressed word in the
sentence, and the question mark <՞> is placed above the last syllable of the questioned
word. There are also many abbreviations in the Medieval manuscripts, the most
common of which are ac for astuac ‘god’, sb for surb ‘holy’, am for amenayn ‘whole,
all’, pt for patasxani ‘answer’, etc.

Although the order of letters partly follows the Greek model, the numerical values are
not the same as in Greek, since letters for phonemes without Greek counterparts (e.g.
ž, c, j) were randomly inserted, and this disrupted the original system. Thus, ա (ayb)
is ‘1’, բ (ben) is ‘2’, ժ (žē) is ‘10’, etc.

[Type text] Page 7

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

PHONOLOGY
The Armenian phonological system is much more complex (in terms of the number of
segments) than the phonological systems of most other early IE dialects. This may be
due to prehistoric language contacts with the languages of the Caucasus, where
phonological systems are notoriously complex. Of all the Caucasian language
families, Armenian shows the most affinities with Kartvelian, notably with Old
Georgian (Gippert 2005).

A) Consonants

stops:

voiceless aspirated voiced

p pc b
t tc d
k kc g

affricates:

voiceless aspirated voiced

c cc j
č čc ǰ

fricatives:

voiceless voiced
š ž
s z
h
x

resonants:

l ł m n r ṙ v (w before vowels) y

Note that the consonant transliterated as j is actually the affricate [dz]; likewise, Arm.
ǰ is [dž].

The original pronunciation of the Classical Armenian stops is unknown, and there is
considerable diversity in their reflexes among the modern dialects. It seems probable
that the phonemes transcribed here as voiceless stops were indeed voiceless, since
they correspond to Greek voiceless stops in loanwords, e.g. Arm. poṙnik ‘whore’ < G
pornḗ, Arm. kēt ‘whale’ < G kêtos. Voiced stops likewise correspond to Greek and
Iranian voiced stops, and aspirated stops generally correspond to Greek voiceless
aspirates (in loanwords), e.g. Arm. dar ‘slope’ < MIr. dar ‘valley’, Arm. črag ‘lamp’
< MIr. čirāg, Arm. tcem ‘diocese’ < G théma. In Modern Western Armenian (in most
dialects), voiced stops correspond to Classical Armenian (and Modern Eastern
Armenian) voiceless stops, so Classical Armenian name Petros ‘Peter’ is pronounced

[Type text] Page 8

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

[Bedros]. On the other hand, Modern Western Armenian voiceless stops (in some
dialects voiceless aspirated stops) correspond to Classical Armenian (and Modern
Eastern Armenian) voiced stops, so ban ‘word’ is pronounced [pan] or [phan]. Some
Eastern Armenian dialects spoken in the north (e.g. in Georgia) have glottalic stops
corresponding to Classical Armenian voiceless stops (so Petros is pronounced
[P’et’ros]), while the speakers of some central Modern Eastern Armenian dialects (in
Armenia) pronounce the voiced stops (corresponding to Classical Armenian voiced
stops) with “breathy voice”, i.e. as voiced aspirates (so they pronounce Classical
Armenian ban ‘word’ as [bhan].

Arm. v and w seem to be merely allographs in the classical period, although some
scholars think that v was originally a labiodental fricative, and w a bilabial glide. In
Middle Armenian both sounds merge as v. Arm. ł is velar (‘dark’) l (as in Polish ł),
and ṙ is an alveolar ‘strong’ r (as in Spanish, or perhaps a geminate). The vibrants ṙ
and r are partially in complementary distribution. As a rule, ṙ occurs before n, while r
is not permitted in this environment, hence the alternations of the type leaṙn
‘mountain’, Gen. lerin. However, in some environments, the opposition beween r and
ṙ is phonemic, cf. the pairs barkc ‘characters’ vs. baṙkc ‘words’, or kcar ‘stone’ vs.
-kcaṙ ‘four’. In traditional proununciation (established since the 11th century), ł is the
voiced counterpart of x (i.e., it is pronounced as [γ], but there are indications that it
was pronounced as a lateral resonant in the classical period (it is found in Greek
loanwords with Greek l, e.g. titłos < G títlos ‘title’, tałant ‘talent’ < G tálanton. In
Classical Armenian [ł] and [l] were clearly different phonemes, but there are few
minimal pairs, e.g. gol ‘to be’ vs. goł ‘thief’, or tal ‘give’ vs. tał ‘verse’. In some
words, both l and ł are attested, e.g. gayl and gaył ‘wolf’.

The pronunciation of h (a laryngeal fricative) was probably rather weak: it is lost after
the prefix z- (cf. harkanel / z-arkanel ‘strike’), and some early Armenian loanwords in
Georgian are attested without h- in that language, cf. Arm. hamboyr ‘kiss’ vs.
Georgian ambori, Arm. hum ‘raw’ vs. Georgian humi and umi.

A word cannot begin with an *r in Classical Armenian, as in most Caucasian

languages (and probably in PIE). A prothetic *e- is added in loanwords before r- and
whenever word-initial *r- would be the outcome of the regular sound change, e.g. in
Arm. erkar ‘quern’ < PIE *gwreh2wōn (Skt. grā́ van-, OCS žrьny, OIr. bró), cf. also
the homonym erkar ‘long’ < PIE *dweh2-ro- (G dērós ‘long lasting’, L dūro ‘to last’,
cf. also Arm. erek ‘evening’ < *h1regwo- (G érebos ‘Erebus, dark underworld’, Skt.
rájas- ‘dust, mist’).

Arm. cc is dissimilated to s before another cc in polysyllabic words, cf. Arm. sireacc

‘he loved’, sireccicc ‘I will love’ vs. sirescces ‘you will love’ (< *sirecccces).

B) Vowels:

i u
ē ә
e o
a

[Type text] Page 9

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

There are no quantitative oppositions in the vowel system; the vowel ē is a closed [ẹ],
originally a diphthong *ey. The vowel ǝ was probably non-phonemic. It is
consistently written only word-initially before consonant clusters, except those
involving s, z, š, ž, e.g. ǝmpem ‘I drink’, ǝłjam ‘I demand’ (but cf. also the
monosyllable ǝst ‘according to, until’); there are reasons to believe that ǝ was
pronounced in cases where it was not written, usually in complex consonant clusters,
e.g. skzbnakan ‘in the beginning’ was pronounced /ǝskǝzbǝnakan/. It was never
stressed. The pronunciation of /ǝ/ can be deduced from the aorist forms such as mnacc
‘he remained’ which do not begin with the ‘augment’ e-, characteristic of
monosyllabic 3sg. aorist forms such as e-ber ‘he carried’. This means that the
pronunciation of mnacc was bisyllabic, i.e. /mǝnacc/.

VOWEL ALTERNATIONS

Armenian has an extensive system of vowel alternations, only in part inherited from
PIE ablaut, but mostly innovative. The alternation was caused by strong dynamic
stress on the final syllable (penultimate syllable before the apocope of the final
vowels). Thus, in pretonic position i and u are lost, while ē > i, oy > u, ea > e; this
resulted in the reduction of vowels in the first syllable of disyllabic and polysyllabic
words, cp. Nom. sirt ‘heart’, Gen. srti, Nom. hur ‘fire’, Gen. hroy, Nom. dustr
‘daughter’, Gen. dster, Nom. mēg ‘fog’, Gen. migi, Nom. loys ‘light’, Gen. lusi, Nom.
leard ‘liver’, Gen. lerdi, aorist 3sg. tcagaworeacc ‘he ruled’, but 1sg. tcagaworecci.
The vowels a, e, o and the diphthongs ay, aw, ew and iw were not affected by vowel
reduction, cf. azg ‘people’, Gen. azgi, xot ‘grass’, Gen. xotoy, etc.

The vowel i is preserved when initial before a single consonant, e.g. iž ‘snake’, Gen.
iži, and when final before a single consonant, e.g. ji ‘horse’, Gen. jioy; initial u- is
preserved in monosyllables, e.g. us ‘shoulder’, Gen. usoy.

It is likely that the reduction of pretonic vowels is a late change in Armenian; it

affected most Iranian and Syriac loans and it occurred after many words were
borrowed from Armenian into Old Georgian, cf. Syriac īhūḍāyā ‘Jew’ >> Pre-Arm.
*Hureay >> Old Georgian Huriay (but Arm. Hreay, with the reduction of -u-).

The loss of the vowels *i and *u in initial syllables created several difficult consonant
clusters which have been compared typologically to Georgian.7

STRESS

The stress in Classical Armenian is always on the final syllable, as in French, e.g.
tcagawór ‘king’, erékc ‘three’. There are a few exceptions to this rule, chiefly in
interjections (e.g. aháwasik ‘see here!’) and deictic adverbs, e.g. áyspēs ‘this way,
thus’. In prehistoric Armenian the stress was presumably on the penultimate syllable,
but the final syllables were lost due to a general apocope, cf., e.g. PIE *mrtos ‘mortal’
(G brotós) > Arm. mard, PIE *penkwe ‘five’ (G pénte) > Arm. hing.

7
Cf. Solta 1963.

[Type text] Page 10

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

THE ORIGIN OF ARMENIAN VOCALISM

The following major phonological developments affected the Armenian vocalism:

PIE short vowels are preserved, as a rule:

PIE *e > Arm. e, cf. PIE *bheroh2 ‘I carry’ (L fero, G phérō) > Arm. berem, PIE
*g'erh2o- ‘old man’ (G gérōn, Ossetic zarond) > Arm. cer.

PIE *o > Arm. o, cf. PIE *pod- ‘foot’ (G Acc. póda) > Arm. otn, PIE *lowh3oh2 ‘I
bathe’ (L lavo, G loúomai, OIr. lóathar ‘basin’) > Arm. loganam.

PIE *a, *h2e > Arm. a, cf. PIE *h2eg'- ‘drive’ (L ago, Skt. ájāmi) > Arm. acem, PIE
*dapno- ‘sacrificial feast’ (L daps, G dapánē, ON tafn ‘victim’) > Arm. tawn ‘feast’.

Before nasals, mid-vowels are raised, i.e. *e > i and *o > u, cp. PIE *penkwe ‘five’ (G
pénte) > Arm. hing, PIE *seno- ‘old’ (G hénos, OIr. sen) > Arm. sin, PIE *ponth1-
‘path, bridge (through swamp)’ (OCS pątь ‘path’, L pōns ‘bridge’, G póntos ‘sea’,
pátos ‘path’) > Arm. hun ‘ford’, PIE *g'onu ‘knee’ (G góny, Skt. jānu-) > Arm. cunr.

Apparently, *e was also raised to i before the palatals š and ž, cf. Arm. iž ‘viper’ <
PIE *h1eg'hi- (G ékhis, Skt. áhi-), Arm. gišer ‘night’ < PIE *we(s)kwper- (L vesper,
OCS večerъ).

In some ill-understood cases, Arm. has a where other IE languages have e or o: Arm.
tasn ‘ten’ < *dek'm (L decem), Arm. garun ‘spring’ < PIE *wesr, *wesnos (G éar,
Russ. vesná), Arm. akn ‘eye’ < *h3ekw- (OCS oko, L oculus), Arm. ateam ‘I hate’ <
*h3ed- (L odium ‘hate’, OE atol ‘ugly’). Theoretically, it would be possible to derive
the word-initial a- from PIE *h3- before consonants (see below), e.g. Arm. akn from
PIE *h3kw-n-, but there is otherwise little justification in positing the zero-grade of the
root in such cases. In tasn ‘ten’ -a- can be explained by analogy with the teens, e.g.
metasan ‘11’, where -tasan developed from *-dk’mt-om.

PIE *i and *u are preserved, cf. PIE *mus- ‘fly’ (L musca, OCS mъšica) > Arm.
mun (< *mus-no-), PIE *k'ubhro- ‘brilliant’ (Skt. śubhrá-) > Arm. surb ‘holy’, PIE
*diwoh1 ‘during the day’ (Skt. divā, L diū) > Arm. tiv ‘day’, perhaps PIE *k'tin- ‘bird
of prey’ (G iktînos ‘a kite’) > Arm. ccin ‘bird of prey’ (this word is probably a
borrowing from some unknown source in Greek and Armenian).

PIE long vowels are generally shortened in Armenian:

PIE *ō, *eh3 > Arm. u: PIE *deh3rom ‘gift’ (OCS darъ) > Arm. tur, PIE *HoHmo-
‘raw’ (Skt. āmás, G ōmós, OIr. om) > Arm. hum, PIE *peh3lo- ‘foal’ (G pō̃los ‘foal’,
Eng. foal) > Arm. ul ‘kid’. PIE *dōm- ‘house’ (L domus, OCS domъ) > Arm. tun (the
development of word-final *-m > *-n shows that Armenian preserves the trace of the
PIE root-noun rather than the thematized *domo-).

PIE *ē, *eh1 > Arm. i: PIE *meh1 ‘not’ (prohibitive particle, G mḗ) > Arm. mi, PIE
*pleh1yo- ‘full’ (L plēnus) > Arm. li, PIE *wēsno- ‘price’ (L vēnum) > Arm. gin.

[Type text] Page 11

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

PIE *eh2 > Arm. a: PIE *bheh2mi ‘I say’ (G phēmí) > Arm. bam, PIE *meh2tēr
‘mother’ (L māter, OCS mati) > Arm. mayr.

PIE *uH (> *ū) is likewise shortened, as well as PIE *iH (> *ī), cf. PIE *muHs-
‘mouse’ (L mūs, OE mūs, OCS myšь) > Arm. mukn (with the same Arm. suffix as in
jukn ‘fish’ < *dhg'huH-, see below), PIE *puh2r- ‘fire’ (Hitt. pahhur, G pŷr) > Arm.
hur, PIE *gwhiHslo- ‘thread’ (L fīlum, Lith. gýsla, OCS žila ‘vein’) > Arm. ǰil.

As can be gathered from above, the PIE opposition of long and short vowels
disappeared in Armenian.

SYLLABIC RESONANTS AND LARYNGEALS

Syllabic *m, *n, *r, *l become am, an, ar, al, cp. PIE *mrtos ‘mortal’ (L mortuus
‘dead’) > Arm. mard ‘man’, PIE *gwlh2n- ‘acorn’ (G bálanos, L glāns, Lith. gilė) >
Arm. kałni ‘oak’, PIE *wiH-k'mti- ‘twenty’ (L vigintī) > Arm. kcsan.

It appears that laryngeals before consonants developed as prothetic vowels word-

initially, similarly as in Greek, cp. PIE *h1newn ‘nine’ (G ennéa, Skt. náva) > Arm.
inn, PIE *h1regwos ‘evening, darkness’ (G érebos, Skt. rájas- ‘mist, cloud’) > Arm.
erek ‘evening’, PIE *h3neyd- ‘curse’ (G óneidos ‘shame’) > Arm. anicanem ‘I curse’,
PIE *h2ster- ‘star’ (G astḗr, L stēlla, Germ. Stern) > Arm. astł, PIE *h2rewi- ‘sun,
sunshine’ (Skt. ravi- ‘sun, sun-god’, Hitt. harwanai- ‘to become bright’) > Arm. arew
‘sun’, PIE *h3nomn ‘name’ (G ónoma, Skt. nā́ ma) > Arm. anun, PIE *h3ner-yo-
‘dream’ (G óneiros) > Arm. anurǰ. It seems from the reliable examples (as the ones
above) that both *h2 and *h3 fell together as Arm. a-. This development of laryngeals
is similar to the one in Greek, but there we find different reflexes of *h 2 and *h3. The
initial vocalism of orcam ‘I vomit’ < PIE *h1rewg- (G ereúgō, Croat. rȉgati) is
irregular (we would expect *ercam). Likewise, instead of atamn ‘tooth’ < PIE *h1dōn
(from the root *h1ed- ‘to eat’, cf. L edo, Skt. ádmi, etc.) we would expect *etamn, but
initial a- in this word may be the result of vowel assimilation, as in G odoús ‘tooth’
instead of *edoús. Finally, the development seen in Arm. Gen. sg. of the 1st person
singular personal pronoun im and G Acc. sg. emé might point to a PIE oblique stem
*h1me (with regular *e > Arm. i before nasals), but it is also possible that initial *e- in
both Greek and Armenian is due to the analogy with the initial *e- in the nominative
(Arm. es, G egṓ < PIE *h1eg'oh2); note the absence of initial e- in the G clitic Dat. sg.
moi (vs. the stressed emoí) and Acc. me (vs. the stressed emé).

The development of laryngeals before syllabic resonants word-initially is unclear;8 we

find *HrC > arC in Arm. arcatc ‘silver’9 < *h2rg'nto- (L argentum, G árgyros) and in
aṙnum ‘I take’ < *h2r-new- (G árnymai) ‘gain, earn’, PIE *h2rtk'o- ‘bear’ (Hitt.
hartagga-, L ursus, G árktos) > Arm. arǰ, but the regular development of syllabic
resonants without the preceding laryngeal would also have yielded ar-. Although
Arm. orjikc ‘testicles’ is usually derived from *h3rg'h- (Alb. herdhe, OIr. uirge, G
órkhis), Hitt. arki- shows that the correct reconstruction is probably *h1org'hi-.

8
See Olsen 1985, Greppin 1988.
9
According to some linguists, this word is a loanword from Iranian, but in that case -c- is unexpected.

[Type text] Page 12

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

PIE *H > Arm. a in the syllabic position, cp. PIE *h2erh3trom ‘plow’ (G árotron, Skt.
́
áritra-) > Arm. arawr, PIE *bhh2ti- > Arm. bay ‘word’ (cf. G phḗ́m i ‘I say’, verbal
adjective phatós), PIE *ph2tēr ‘father’ (L pater, Skt. pitā) > Arm. hayr.

Thus, the most probable developments of laryngeals in the syllabic position are:

*h1C- > eC-

*h2C- > aC-
*h3C- > aC-
*CHC- > CaC-
*HRC- > aRC-

THE DEVELOPMENT OF PIE DIPHTHONGS

Most PIE diphthongs are preserved in Armenian. The Armenian diphthong aw

develops into o in the post-classical period.

PIE *ay, *h2ey > Arm. ay: *h2eyg'- ‘goat’ (G aíks, aigós) > Arm. ayc
PIE *ey, *h1ey > Arm. ē: PIE *(e-)dheyg'h- (Skt. dehī- ‘wall’) > Arm. e-dēz ‘he built’
PIE *oy, *h3ey > Arm. ē: PIE *dhoyg'hos ‘wall’ (G toîkhos) > Arm. dēz ‘wall’
PIE *ew, *h1ew > Arm. oy: PIE *lewk- ‘light’ (G leukós ‘white’) > Arm. loys ‘light’,
PIE *(s)kow- ‘look’ (OHG scouwōn, G koéō) > Arm. aorist e-ccoycc ‘showed’
PIE *ow, *h3ew > Arm. oy: PIE *bhowgo- ‘food’ (Skt. bhógas) > Arm. boyc
PIE *h2ew is perhaps reflected as aw in Arm. awtc ‘bed’, if it is related to G aûlis ‘tent
(for passing the night in)’, Russ. ulíca ‘street’.

The development in Arm. ayt ‘cheek’, aytumn ‘tumor’ is unclear, if these words are
derived from PIE *h3eyd- ‘swell’ (G oidáō, OHG eitar ‘poison’); we would expect
PIE *h3 > Arm. h- (see below), so perhaps the correct PIE reconstruction is *h 1oyd-,
and the development of PIE *oy to Arm. ē is limited to the position after consonants.

TABLE 1: PIE VOWELS IN ARMENIAN

PIE ARM special problems

developments
*a a
*h2e a, ha-
*e, *h1e e ➢ i before tasn ‘ten’
nasals
*o, *h3e o, ho- ➢ u before akn ‘eye’
nasals
*u u alternating with
zero
*i i alternating with
zero
*H a
*eh2 a

[Type text] Page 13

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

*ē, *eh1 i
*ō, *eh3 u
*iH i
*uH u
*r ar
*l al
*m am
*n an
*ay, *h2ey ay
*ey ē alternating with i
*oy, *h3ey ē alternating with i
*aw, *h2ew aw (?)
*ew, *h1ew oy alternating with u
*ow, *h3ew oy alternating with u

THE ORIGIN OF ARMENIAN CONSONANTS

Voiceless stops develop into aspirated stops, but *p develops to h or drops, i.e. PIE *p
> Arm. h, 0, PIE *t > Arm. tc, PIE *k and *kw > Arm. kc (and PIE * k' > Arm. s, on
which see below).

Arm. hun ‘ford, channel’ < *ponth2 - (L pōns ‘bridge’), PIE *podm ‘foot’ (Acc. sg., G
póda) > Arm. otn, PIE *prk'-n- > Arm. harsn ‘bride’ (L posco ‘ask’, OCS prositi),
PIE *ters- ‘dry’ > Arm. tcaršamim ‘I wither’ (L torreo ‘dry, roast’, OHG darra ‘stake
for drying fruit’), PIE *ptero- (G pterón ‘feather, wing’) > Arm. tcer ‘side’, PIE
*leykw- ‘leave’ > Arm. lkcanem (G leípō, L linquo).

After a vowel, PIE *p > w, cf. PIE *h1epi (G epí ‘at’) > Arm. ew ‘and’, PIE *swopno-
‘sleep’ (G hýpnos) > Arm. kcun. PIE *p is lost before *s in Arm. sut ‘false, lie’ <
*psewd- (G pseûdos), PIE *septm ‘seven’ (Skt. saptá, G heptá) > Arm. ewtcn. PIE *t
drops word-initially before *r (and then a prothetic e- develops, see below): PIE
*treyes > Arm. erekc ‘three’ (Skt. tráyas, G treĩs).

Armenian x develops from PIE *k+H, cp. Arm. ccax ‘branch’ < PIE *k'okHo- (OCS
soxa, OHG hōha ‘plow’), perhaps also xacanem ‘I bite’ < PIE *kh2ed- (with c <
*-dy-), cf. Skt. khā́ dati ‘chew, devour’. It is probable that x also develops from *gh
after *s, at least word-initially, cf. Arm. sxalem ‘stumble, fail’ < *sgwhal- or *sgwhh2el-
(G sphállō ‘bring down’, L fallo ‘deceive’, Skt. skhálati ‘stumbles’. Possibly tc
develops from *tH, if yałtc ‘large’ is from *plth2u- ‘broad’ (cf. G platýs, Skt. prthú-);
y- may be a petrified prefix.

Between vowels (including *a < H), PIE *t > y, cf. PIE *ph2tēr ‘father’ (L pater, G
patḗr) > Arm. hayr, PIE *plth2-ni- ‘broad’ (G plátanos) > Arm. layn ‘broad’. Before
word-medial *r, *t > w, cf. Arm. arawr ‘plow’ < PIE *h2erh3tro- (G árotron, OIr.
arathar). For the different outcomes of PIE *t cf. the opposition between Nom. hayr <
*ph2tēr and Gen. hawr < *ph2tr-os.

Voiceless stops are voiced after *r, *n, cf. PIE *mrto- ‘mortal’ (G ám-brotos
‘immortal’) > Arm. mard ‘man’, PIE *h2rti ‘now’ (G árti) > Arm. ard, PIE *dur-
[Type text] Page 14
 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

h2enHt- ‘door-post’ (Skt. ātā, L antae ‘square pilasters’) > Arm. dr-and ‘doorpost’,
PIE *h2erk-el- (G arkéō ‘I defend’, L arceo ‘I cover’) > Arm. argel ‘barrier’, PIE
*penkwe ‘five’ (G pénte, Skt. páñca) > Arm. hing, PIE *h1erk- ‘sing’ (Skt. arká-
‘light, magic song’, TochB yarke ‘worship’, Hitt. arku- ‘chant’) > Arm. erg ‘song’.

Voiced stops are devoiced, i.e. PIE *b > Arm. p, PIE *d > Arm. t, PIE *g > Arm. k:

Arm. hot ‘smell’ = L odor (< PIE *h3ed-), Arm. sirt ‘heart’ = L cor, cordis, G kardía,
kradía (< PIE *k'erd-), Arm. tam ‘I give’ = OCS damь, L do, dare (< PIE *deh3-),
Arm. stipem ‘I urge, compel’ = G steíbō ‘I tread, stamp on’ (PIE *steyb- or *steypH-,
cf. G stibarós ‘fastened, strong’), Arm. tesanem ‘see’ = L decet ‘it is proper’ (< PIE
*dek'-), Arm. kin ‘woman’ = G gynḗ, OCS žena (< PIE *gwen(e)h2).

Aspirated stops develop into voiced stops or affricates, i.e. PIE *bh > Arm. b, PIE
*dh > Arm. d, PIE *gh, *gwh > Arm. g, PIE * g'h > Arm. j:

Arm. berem ‘I bring’ < PIE *bher- (L fero, G phérō, OCS berą), Arm. dalar ‘green’ <
PIE *dhh2l- (G thalerós ‘flowery’, W dalen ‘leaf’), Arm di-kc ‘gods’ < *dheh1s-es (G
theós, L fasti ‘calender’), PIE *dhregh- ‘turn’ (G trokhós ‘wheel’, OIr. droch ‘wheel’)
> Arm. durgn ‘wheel’ (probably from the lengthened grade *d hrōgh- > Arm. *drug-
and metathesis), Arm. jeṙn ‘hand’ < PIE *g'hesr (G kheír), Arm. jukn ‘fish’ < PIE
*dhg'huH- (G ikhthýs, Lith. žuvìs).

Between vowels, PIE *bh > w, cf. the instr. ending –w < -V-bhi (G Hom. –phi), PIE
*h3bhel- ‘increase’ > Arm. awelum, G ophéllō. Likewise, PIE *dhy > Arm. ǰ, cf. Arm.
mēǰ (Gen. miǰoy) ‘middle’ < *medhyo- (Skt. mádhya-, G méssos); the vocalism in mēǰ
is unexplained (we would expect Arm. –e-).

PIE labiovelars are delabialized, i.e. PIE *kw > Arm. kc, PIE *gw > Arm. k, PIE *gwh
> Arm. g:

PIE *likwet ‘he left’ (aorist, G élipe) > Arm. elikc, PIE *gwenh2 ‘woman’ (OCS žena,
G gynḗ ́) > Arm. kin, PIE *gwōw- ‘cow’ (G boús, OIr. bó) > Arm. kov, PIE *gwhen-
‘strike’ (G theínō, Skt. hánti) > Arm. gan ‘a strike’. Before front vowels, PIE *gwh >
Arm. ǰ, cf. Arm. ǰerm ‘warm’ < PIE *gwhermo- (G thermós), see below.

PIE velars are preserved as velars kc, k, g:

PIE *ker- ‘scrap, cut’ (G keírō, Alb. qeth) > Arm. kcerem ‘scrap’, kcertcem ‘cut’, PIE
*gerh2no- ‘crane’ (G géranos, W garan) > Arm. kṙunk, PIE *greh3d- ‘hail’ (OCS
gradъ, Lith. grúodas, L grando) > Arm. karkut, PIE *h3moyghos ‘fog, cloud’ (Skt.
meghá-, OCS mьgla) > Arm. mēg (the absence of word-initial a- < *h3 is unexpected,
cf. G omíkhlē).

Armenian kc, g are palatalized before front vowels and *y, so that PIE *k > Arm. *kc
> čc, PIE *gh, *gwh > Arm. *g > ǰ:

PIE *gwhermos ‘warm’ (G thermós) > *germ- > Arm. ǰerm, PIE *kwetwores ‘four’ >
*keyor- > Arm. čcorkc, PIE *kyew- (Skt. cyávate ‘moves’) > Arm. čcogay ‘I went’.
Note that k < PIE *gw is not palatalized (cf., e.g., Arm. kin ‘woman’ < *gweneh2, OCS

[Type text] Page 15

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

žena). It appears that PIE *g, *gw > Arm. *k > c after u, cf. Arm. boyc ‘food’ <
*bhowgo- (Skt. bhóga- ‘pleasure’), luc ‘yoke’ < *(H)yugo- (G zygón, OCS igo).

PIE palatalized velars occur as fricatives or aspirates: PIE *k' > s, *g' > c, *g'h > j:

Arm. siwn ‘pillar’ < PIE *k'iHwon- (G kíōn), PIE *h2ek'- ‘sharp’ (L acus ‘needle’) >
Arm. asełn ‘needle’, Arm. cunr ‘knee’ < PIE *g'onu (G góny, L genu), Arm. canawtc
‘known person, relative’ < *g'enh3- ‘know’ (G gignṓskō, L cognōsco), PIE *g'heyōm
‘winter’ (L hiems, G khíōn) > Arm. jiwn, PIE *h2eng'hu- ‘narrow’ (L angustus, Goth.
aggwus) > Arm. anjuk, perhaps PIE *g'ho(H)l- ‘stick, pole’ (Skt. hala- ‘plough’, Lith.
žúolis ‘thick piece of wood’ > Arm. joł ‘log, bar, pole’. This word may also be related
with Arm. jałk ‘twig, branch’, with a velar suffix, cf. Lith. žalgà ‘long, thin stake’,
OHG galgo ‘stake’ < PIE *g'hol-gh- (perhaps formed by reduplication and de-
palatalization of the second velar?).

PIE *k' is lost before *l, cf. Arm. lu ‘famous’ < PIE *k'luto- (G klytós, L in-clutus,
Skt. śrutá-). In Arm. šun ‘dog’ (Gen. šan) < PIE *k'wōn (G kýōn, Skt. śvā, Lith. šuõ)
there must be some special development (*k'w > š?). The same development may be
attested in Arm. nšoyl ‘light’ if it is from *k'woyt-l-, cf. OCS světlo ‘light’, but this
etymology is disputed10. Likewise, Arm. ēš (Gen. išoy) ‘donkey’ can be from PIE
*h1ek'wo- ‘horse’ (L equus etc.), but the meanings do not match completely, and the
vocalism ē- is odd (it may be due to the lowering before the palatal š, but then i would
be expected).

Between vowels *g'h > z (Arm. lizanem ‘I lick’ < *leyg'h-, L lingo, OCS ližą), PIE
*h3meyg'h- ‘urinate’ (G omeíkhō, L mingo, Skt. méhati) > Arm. mizem, PIE
*h1eg'hi-n- ‘hedgehog’ > Arm. ozni (< *ozini), cf. G ekhînos, OCS ježь.

Armenian aspirates cc, pc and čc mostly develop from clusters:

PIE *sk' > Arm. cc, cf. PIE *prk'-sk'-e-ti ‘asks’ (Skt. pṛccháti, L poscit) > Arm. e-
harcc ‘asked’, PIE *sk'el(H)- ‘break’ (Lith. skélti, OIc. skilia) > Arm. ccelaw (aorist).

PIE *sp > Arm. pc, cf. PIE *spowd- ‘haste, zeal’ (G spoudḗ) > Arm. pcoytc ‘id.’
(probably from a participial pre-form *spowd-to-), PIE *spek'- ‘watch’ (G sképtomai,
L specio) > Arm. pcesay ‘bridegroom’ (< ‘the watcher, inspector (of the bride)’).

PIE *ks > Arm. čc, cf. PIE *kseh1ro- ‘dry’ (G ksērós) > Arm. čcir ‘dried fruit’.

The remaining Arm. fricatives are difficult to account for. The origin of the fricative
ž is largely obscure; it occurs in some nouns with non-transparent etymology, e.g. žit
‘curious, impetuous’ (sometimes compared with Lith. geidžiù, gei͂ sti ‘want’, OCS
žьdą ‘wait’ < PIE *gheydh-, which is hardly persuasive) and žmit, žmbit ‘smile’
(compared to OIc. gaman ‘joy’, which is not much to start with). Some words with ž
are Iranian loanwords, e.g. žamanak ‘time’ from Parth. žamān ‘time’. Words with the
affricate č also have few reliable PIE etymologies. In čanačcem ‘know’ the initial č- is
assimilated from c- (the root is can- know’ < PIE *g'nh3- (Skt. jñāna- ‘knowledge’,
etc.). Arm. čmlem ‘I press’ has been connected with OCS žьmą ‘press, squeeze’, OIc.

10
For a fuller treatment of the development of PIE gutturals in Armenian see Stempel 1994.

[Type text] Page 16

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

kumla ‘wound’ < PIE *gem-, but this would require a special phonetic development,
as the expected outcome of PIE *g- is Arm. k.

PIE *s

PIE *s is reflected as h in Anlaut, cp. Arm. hin ‘old’ < PIE *senos (OIr. sen); as with
the reflexes of *p, it seems that Arm. h- was very unstable, so it is lacking in some
cases, cf. PIE *sh2l- ‘salt’ (G háls, OCS solь) > Arm. ał, PIE *slh2-sk’- ‘pray’ (G
hiláskomai ‘I appease’)> Arm. ałačcem ‘I pray’. Some of these examples can be
explained by dialect borrowing, while other cases of the loss of h- may be generalized
forms of the roots occurring after prefixes, when –h- is regularly lost, cf. Arm. lezuat
‘with tongue cut off’ < *lezu-hat, yet ‘after’ < *i-het (cf. het ‘trace’).

PIE *s is lost between vowels: PIE *swesōr ‘sister’ (Skt. svásar-, L sōror, OCS
sestra) > Arm. kcoyr; note the development of *sw- > kc, but cf. also Arm. skesur
‘mother in law’ < *swek'uro- (G hekyrá, L socera, OCS svekry). It is preserved before
stops, cf. Arm. z-gest ‘clothes’ < *westu- (L vestis, Goth. wasti), Arm. nist ‘seat’ <
*(h2)nisdo- (OHG nest, L nīdus ‘nest’).

The clusters *rs and *sr both yield Arm. ṙ, cf. PIE *g'hesr ‘hand’ (G kheír, Hitt.
keššar) > Arm. jeṙn, PIE *h1orso- ‘arse’ (Hitt. ārra-, OE ears) > Arm. oṙ. In a few
instances we find Arm. rš from PIE *rs, which might imply that some sort of RUKI-
rule applied in Armenian as well as in Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic, cf. PIE *trs- ‘be
thirsty, be dry’ (L torreo, G térsomai ‘I become dry’) > Arm. tcaṙamim besides
tcaršamim ‘I wither’11, cf. also Arm. moši ‘bramble, blackberry bush’ ? < *mors- (G
móron ‘blackberry’, L mōrus). In veštasan ‘sixteen’ < *swek’s-dek’m- (L sēdecim)
RUKI rule apparently operated after * k'.

PIE *s is lost before *n and *l, cf. PIE *snewr ‘sinew, nerve’ (Skt. snāvan-, L nervus)
> Arm. neard, PIE *wesno-, *wēsno- ‘price’ (L vēnum, Skt. vasna-, OCS věno) >
Arm. gin (Gen. gnoy), PIE *gwhiHslo- ‘thread’ (L fīlum, Lith. gýsla, OCS žila ‘vein’)
> Arm. ǰil. It appears that the loss of *s before *n is posterior to the raising of *e to *i
before *n, cf. z-genum ‘put clothes on’ (rather than **zginum) < *wes-n- (Skt. váste
‘is dressed’, L vestis ‘clothes’).

It is unclear whether word-final *-s yields -kc (in the plural marker, see below), and
the correspondence of Arm. bok ‘barefoot’ and OCS bosъ, Lith. ba͂sas, OHG bar is
likewise uncertain (? PIE *bhoso-).

CONSONANTAL LARYNGEALS

Many linguists believe that PIE *h2 and *h3 are preserved as Armenian h- word-
initially, at least before *e, cf. Arm. haw ‘grandfather’ < *h2ewH- (L avus, Hitt.
huhhaš), Arm. han ‘grandmother’ < PIE *h2en(H)- (L anus, Hitt. anna), Arm. hacci
‘ash tree’ > *h3esk- (OIc. askr, L ornus), Arm. hat ‘grain’ < *h2ed- (L ador ‘spelt,

11
The different forms tcaṙamim and tcaršamim are sometimes attributed to different dialects of
Classical Armenian (it would be a rare trace of dialectal diversity in that language).

[Type text] Page 17

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

barley’, Hitt. hat- ‘become dry’), Arm. hot ‘odour’ < PIE *h3ed- (L odor, G ózō
‘smell’), Arm. hoviw ‘shepherd’ < *h3ewi-peh2- ‘sheep-grazer’ (L ovis ‘sheep’, OCS
ovьca), Arm. hum ‘raw’ < *HoHmo- (G ōmós). The lack of word-initial h in orb
‘orphan’ (cognate with L orbus ‘childless, orphaned’, OCS rabъ ‘slave’ and G
orphanós ‘orphan’) may be explained by positing PIE *h1orbho- (a reconstruction
supported by OIr. erbaid ‘entrusts’)12. A similar explanation might hold for Arm. ost
‘branch’ (Gen. ostoy) vs. G ózos, Goth. asts if these words come from *h1osdo-, but it
has also been suggested that both *h2 and *h3 are lost before PIE *o (while they
merge as h before *e).13 I doubt that Arm. oror ‘gull’ is at all related to G órnis ‘bird’
and Russ. orël ‘eagle’, which come from PIE *h3er-.14

In any case, even the most economical assumption that word-initial *h2 and *h3 before
vowels are preserved as h in Armenian, while *h1 is lost, leaves some problems
unaccounted for, as we would expect initial h- in Arm. acem < *h2eg’- (L ago, Skt.
ajāmi, etc.), Arm. aṙnum ‘take’ < *h2er- (G árnymai ‘receive’) and Arm. arawr
‘plough’ < *h2erh3-tro- (G árotron, L aratrum). However, h was an unstable
consonant in Armenian, and we already saw that it is lost in some instances where it
developed from PIE *s and *p, so one would also expect its occasional loss in words
where it had to develop from a laryngeal.

TABLE 2: PIE CONSONANTS IN ARMENIAN

PIE ARMENIAN SPECIAL
DEVELOPMENTS
*p h ➢ 0, w, pc
*t tc ➢ y, d
*k kc ➢ x, g, čc
*kw kc ➢ x, g, čc
*k' s ➢ š, 0
*b p
*d t
*g k ➢ c
*gw k ➢ c
*g' c
*bh b ➢ w
*dh d ➢ ǰ
*gh g ➢ ǰ
*gwh g ➢ ǰ
*g'h j ➢ z
*s h ➢ s, 0, *kc
*h1 0 ➢ e-
*h2 h ➢ a-, 0
*h3 h ➢ a-, 0

12
Hitt. harpzi ‘changes allegiance’ is probably unrelated, as the semantic difference is too great.
13
See Kortlandt 2003, Beekes 2003.
14
For a discussion of laryngeal reflexes in Armenian see Greppin 1988.

[Type text] Page 18

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

PIE RESONANTS AND GLIDES IN ARMENIAN

PIE resonants are generally preserved, i.e. PIE *m > Arm. m, PIE *n > Arm. n, PIE *r
> Arm. r, PIE *l > Arm. l and ł:

PIE *meg'h2- ‘big’ (Skt. máhi, G méga) > Arm. mec, PIE *(h2)ni-sdo- ‘nest’ (OHG
nest, L nīdus) > Arm. nist, PIE *snuso- ‘daughter-in-law’ (G nyós, L nurus, OHG
snur) > Arm. nu (Gen. nuoy), PIE *men- ‘wait, remain’ (G mímnō, L maneo) > Arm.
mnam, PIE *bher- ‘carry’ (L fero, G phérō) > Arm. berem, PIE *worg'o- ‘work’ (G
érgon, Germ. Werk) > Arm. gorc, PIE *peruti ‘last year’ (G pérysi, Skt. parut) >
Arm. heru ‘last year’, PIE *gwhiHslo- ‘thread’ (L fīlum, Lith. gýsla, OCS žila ‘vein’)
> Arm. ǰil, PIE *wleHr- ‘rope?’ (L lōrum, G eúlēra ‘reins’) > Arm. lar ‘cord’, PIE
*meli(t) ‘honey’ (G méli, L mel, mellis) > Arm. mełr.

The distribution of reflexes of *l, which yields l and ł, is still unclear.15 The reflex ł is
not found word-initially; in Arm. ełuk ‘poor’, if it is from PIE *lewg- ‘break’ (Skt.
rujáti ‘breaks’, perhaps L lūgeo ‘mourn’), e- is a prosthetic vowel. Before consonants
after vowels the regular reflex is ł: PIE *sh2l- ‘salt’ (L sal, G háls) > *sal-d- (with the
same suffix as in OHG salz) > Arm. ałt; after consonants and word-finally the regular
reflex seems also to be –ł, as there are several nouns whose stem ends in –ł (e.g. astł
‘star’ < *sterlā < PIE *h2stēr, cf. G astḗr), but none in –l (in o-stems such as ǰil
‘thread’ the –l became word-final after the apocope of the final vowel). Word-
medially between vowels we find both –ł- and –l-, but it seems that in some cases
-VlV- > -VłV- in the early history of Armenian.

In Arm. merk ‘naked’, if it comes from PIE *negwno- (Skt. nagná-, OCS nagъ, etc.),
and in Arm. magil ‘claw’, if it is from PIE *h3nogwh-il- (OHG nagal ‘nail’, G ónyks,
ónykhos, L unguis, OCS nogъtь), we seem to have the development *n > Arm. m
(perhaps by assimilation with the following labiovelar). Arm. ełungn ‘nail’ may be
from the same root, but the formal development is difficult to account for (?*nog-no-
> *logno- by dissimilation > *ełongno- > *ełungno- > ełungn).

PIE *r is regularly metathesized with the following voiced stop, cf. Arm. surb ‘holy’
< *k'ubhro- (Skt. śubhrás ‘shiny’), Arm. ałbewr ‘spring’ < *arbewr < *bhrewr (G
phréar), Arm. kcirtn ‘sweat’ < *swidro- (G hidrṓs, Latv. sviedri), Arm. merj ‘near’ <
PIE *meg'hri (G mékhri ‘until’), Arm. erkar ‘quern’ < PIE *gwreh2wōn (Skt. grā́ van-,
OCS žrьny, OIr. bró), Arm. ełbayr ‘brother’ < PIE *bhreh2tēr (L frāter, Skt. bhrā́ tā,
OCS bratrъ, Lith. brólis).16

Since Armenian does not allow word-initial *r, the prothetic vowel *e is added to the
Anlaut before *r, cf. also Arm. erēcc ‘old’ < *preysk'- (L prīscus ‘former’), Arm.
erewim ‘show, appear’ < *prep- (G prépō ‘appear’).

PIE*-m > -n (as in Greek), cf. PIE *dōm-, *dom- ‘house’ (L domus) > Arm. tun.

15
For a discussion of reflexes of PIE *l in Armenian see Džaukjan 1967: 233ff.
16
With Arm. ł < *r by dissimilation, as in ałbewr above.

[Type text] Page 19

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

Nasals are regularly lost before *s, cf. PIE *meh1mso- ‘meat’ (OCS męso) > Arm.
mis, PIE *meh1ns ‘month’ (L mēnsis) > Arm. amis, PIE *h2ōms ‘shoulder’ (L umerus
< *h2omes-o-, G ō̃mos) > Arm. us.

PIE *w is reflected as g in Armenian: PIE *(e)widet ‘he saw’ (aorist, G eîde) > Arm.
egit, PIE *wedōr ‘water’ (OCS voda, G hýdōr) > Arm. get ‘river’, PIE *wokw-
‘sound’ (L vōx, Skt. vácas-) > Arm. gočcem ‘I say’, PIE čcogay ‘I went’ < PIE *kyow-
(Skt. cyávate ‘moves’), PIE *deh2iwēr ‘brother-in-law’ (Skt. devár-, OCS děverь) >
Arm. taygr, PIE *welh2-men- (Lith. vìlna ‘wool’, L lāna ‘wool’, Hitt. hulana-) >
Arm. gełmn ‘wool’. In some rather unclear circumstances, *w is preserved as Arm. v,
w: Arm. haw ‘bird’ < PIE *h2ewi- (L avis, Skt. vi-), Arm. tiw ‘day’ < PIE *diw- (Ved.
instr. dívā ‘by day’, L diū ‘id.’), Arm. vaṙim ‘burn’ < PIE *werH- (Lith. vìrti ‘cook’,
OCS vrěti ‘boil’), Arm. hoviw ‘shepherd’ < *h3owi-peh2- (lit. ‘sheep-grazer’, cf. L
ovis ‘sheep’ and pāsco ‘graze’), Arm. naw ‘ship’ < *nāw- < PIE *neh2u- (L nāvis,
Skt. nau-). The rule for the double reflexes cannot be established,17 cf. the alternation
in Arm. arew ‘sun’ < PIE *Hrewi- (Skt. ravi- ‘sun’) vs. aregakn ‘sun’ (a compound
of areg- and akn ‘eye’, originally ‘eye of the sun’). Apparently, -w is regular only
word-finally.

The cluster *dw- is regularly reflected as Arm. erk-, cf. PIE *dwoh1 ‘two’ (L duo) >
Arm. erku, PIE *dweh2ro- ‘long’ (G dērós, Skt. dūrá-) > Arm. erkar. The
development was presumably from *dw- to *tg- > *tk- > *rk- > *erk-. This rule is
sometimes called ‘Meillet's law’ after Antoine Meillet who formulated it. PIE *tw-
yields kc, cf. PIE *twē ‘you’ (Acc., Skt. tvām) > Arm. kcez (with analogical short –e-
and a suffixed –z < *-g'hi), PIE *swesōr ‘sister’ (L soror, OCS sestra) > Arm. kcoyr.

PIE *y develops as Arm. ǰ word-initially, and after *r and *n, cp. Arm. ǰur ‘water’ <
PIE *yuHr - (Lith. jū́ ra ‘sea’). It drops between vowels, cp. Arm. erekc ‘three’ < PIE
*treyes (Skt. tráyas). In Arm. luc ‘yoke’ < PIE *yugo- (Skt. yugám, G zygón, etc.)
word initial l- is unexpected. Note, however, that maybe the same development can be
observed in Arm. leard, if it is from PIE *yekwrt (L iēcur, Skt. yakrt, etc.). Loss of
initial *y- is assumed in PIE *yo- ‘who, which’ (relative pronoun, cf. Skt. ya-, G ho)
> Arm. o-r ‘which’, o-v ‘who’ and in PIE *(H)york- ‘deer, roe’ (G zórks ‘gazelle,
roedeer’, W iwrch ‘roebuck’) > Arm. ors ‘hunt, animal for hunting’. It is unclear
whether the loss of *y- is conditioned (it may be regular only before *-o-).

TABLE 3: PIE RESONANTS AND GLIDES IN ARMENIAN

PIE ARMENIAN SPECIAL
DEVELOPMENTS
*m m ➢ -n, 0
*n n ➢ 0
*l l, ł
*r r, ṛ ➢ er-
*y ǰ ➢ 0
*w g ➢ w, v

17
It may be that, at least word-medially, PIE *w > Arm. g before the accented syllable and > w
elsewhere, but the PIE position of the accent is notoriously difficult to establish with any certainty.

[Type text] Page 20

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

ACCENT AND THE APOCOPE OF FINAL SYLLABLES

The accent is regularly on the last syllable of the word, i.e. the correct accentuation is
lizaném ‘I lick’, mardóy ‘of the man’. It is assumed that there was a strong
penultimate accent in Proto-Armenian, which caused the apocope of the final
syllables, which finally led to the oxytonesis we find in Classical Armenian. 18 All
final consonants were lost at the time of the apocope, except n, l, and r, cf. Arm. ewtcn
‘seven’ < *septm (G heptá, L septem), Arm. hayr ‘father’ < *ph2tēr (G patḗr, L
pater), Arm. astł < *h2stēr ‘star’ (G astḗr). The lost vowels are preserved in
compounds, cf. Arm. hngetasan ‘fifteen’ < *penkwe-dek'm (the final *-e of PIE
*penkwe is regularly lost in hing ‘five’).

18
For possible traces of the PIE accentuation in Classical Armenian cf. Olsen 1989.

[Type text] Page 21

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

MORPHOLOGY
Armenian has lost nearly all traces of PIE gender. Even pronouns have a single form
for male and female referents, as well as inanimates (but cf. the distinction between ov
‘who’ and zi ‘what’). Adjectives agree with their head nouns in case and number
when they are postponed, but polysyllabic adjectives do not agree when they are
preposed: čšmarit Astuac-oy ‘of the true God’, but Astuac-oy čšmarit-i (Genitive and
Dative). As a rule, the PIE adjectives in *-o-/-eh2- are inflected as Arm. o-stems, e.g.
Arm. ǰerm ‘warm’ < *gwhermo- (G thermós), hum ‘raw’ < *HoHmo- (G ōmós), etc.

Intensive adjectives are often formed by repetition or reduplication, cf. Arm. mec
‘big’ vs. mec mec ‘very big’, barjr ‘high’ vs. barjr-a-berjr ‘very high’.

NOUNS

Armenian nouns distinguish two numbers (the singular and the plural) and seven
cases, though many case-forms are syncretised. There are no traces of the dual and
(except for the existence of separate declension classes) of gender.

There are many nouns that have only the plural form (pluralia tantum), e.g. ereskc
‘face’, mełk ‘sin’, krawnkc ‘religion’, aławtckc ‘prayer’. There are remarkably many
nouns formed by reduplication (as in Georgian), cf. e.g. ker-a-kur ‘meal’ vs. ker
‘food’.

The more or less regular nouns are conventionally divided into four declension classes
(a, i, u, o) according to the vowel found in the oblique cases, cf. the following
examples (azg ‘people’, ban ‘word’, cov ‘sea’, beran ‘mouth’):

Singular

a i u o
Nom. azg ban cov beran
Acc. azg ban cov beran
Gen. azgi bani covu beranoy
Dat. azgi bani covu beranoy
Loc. azgi bani covu beran
Abl. azgē banē covē beranoy
Inst. azgaw baniw covu beranov

Plural

a i u o
Nom. azgkʿ bankʿ covkʿ berankʿ
Acc. azgs bans covs berans
Gen. azgacʿ banicʿ covucʿ beranocʿ
Dat. azgacʿ banicʿ covucʿ beranocʿ

[Type text] Page 22

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

Loc. azgs bans covs berans

Abl. azgacʿ banicʿ covucʿ beranocʿ
Inst. azgawkʿ baniwkʿ covukʿ beranovkʿ

The adduced vocalic stems correspond, more or less regularly, to the PIE vocalic
stems, namely the stems in *-eh2 > *-ā, the i-stems, the u-stems, and the o-stems (or
thematic stems). There are also some unexpected forms, mostly due to analogy. For
example, Genitive/Dative azg-i is innovative, while the old ending –ay is preserved in
proper names, e.g. Hayk-ay ‘Armenian’ (N sg. Hayk) and Titan-ay (N sg. Titan).

Some nouns with invariable stems end in the vowel -i, e.g. hogi ‘spirit’:

Singular:
N hogi
Acc. hogi
Gen. hogwoy
Dat. hogwoy
Loc. hogi
Abl. hogwoy
Inst. hogwov

Plural:
N hogikc
Acc. hogis
Gen. hogwocc
Dat. hogwocc
Loc. hogis
Abl. hogwocc
Inst. hogwovkc

Some nouns of this group have Loc. sg. in -woǰ, Abl. sg. in -woǰē and Gen./Dat./Abl.
pl. in -eacc, e.g. tełi ‘place’ (Gen. sg. tełwoy, Loc. sg. tełwoǰ, Gen. pl. tełeacc, etc.).
Adjectives derived from place-names with the suffix -acci are inflected according to
the same pattern, e.g. Kcorenacci ‘from Khoren’.

Besides the adduced types, Armenian also preserved some other IE declension types.
There are clear reflexes of PIE n-stems, e.g. Arm. gaṙn, Gen. gaṙin ‘lamb’ < *wrHēn
(G arḗn, arnós), r-stems, e.g. Arm. taygr ‘husband's brother’ < *deh2iwēr (G Hom.
daḗr, OCS děverь). They mostly have the same endings as the regular nouns, but in
the Genitive, Dative, and Locative singular they end in the stem consonant. The PIE
root-nouns have mostly become i-stems, as in many other languages, cf., e.g., Arm.
sirt ‘heart’, Gen. srt-i (i-stem) vs. L cor, cordis (root-noun) < PIE *k'ērd / Gen.
*k'rd-os. Let us compare the declensions of Arm. hayr ‘father’ (r-stem, G patḗr,
patrós) and atamn ‘tooth’ (n-stem, G odoús, ódontos):

Singular:
N hayr atamn
Acc. hayr atamn
Gen. hawr ataman

[Type text] Page 23

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

Dat. hawr ataman

Loc. hawr ataman
Abl. hawrē atamanē
Inst. harb atamamb

Plural:
N harkc atamunkc
Acc. hars atamuns
Gen. harcc atamancc
Dat. harcc atamancc
Loc. hars atamuns
Abl. harcc atamancc
Inst. harbkc atamambkc

Several n-stems show the stem consonant -n- in the oblique cases only, e.g. manuk
‘child’, Gen. manukan, ałĵik ‘maiden’, Gen. alĵikan.

A number of n-stems have the genitive in -in rather than -an, e.g. harsn ‘bride’;
abstract nouns in -t iwn form the genitive sg. in -ean, e.g. gerutciwn ‘imprisonment’:

Singular:
N harsn gerutciwn
Acc. harsn gerutciwn
Gen. harsin gerutcean
Dat. harsin gerutcean
Loc. harsin gerutcean
Abl. harsnē gerutcenē
Inst. harsamb gerutceamb

Plural:
N harsunkc gerutciwnkc
Acc. harsuns gerutciwns
Gen. harsancc gerutceancc
Dat. harsancc gerutceancc
Loc. harsuns gerutciwns
Abl. harsancc gerutceancc
Inst. harsambkc gerutceambkc

There are also many irregular nouns, and they cannot possibly all be adduced here.
We limit ourselves to some illustrative examples below (ayr ‘man’, kin ‘woman’, tēr
‘lord’, and tikin ‘lady’):

N Sg. ayr kin tēr tikin

Ac ayr kin tēr tikin
G aṙn knoǰ teaṙn tiknoǰ
D aṙn knoǰ teaṙn tiknoǰ
L aṙn knoǰ teaṙn tiknoǰ
Ab aṙnē knoǰē teaṙnē tiknoǰē

[Type text] Page 24

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

I aramb kanamb, knaw teramb tiknamb

N Pl. arkʿ kanaykʿ tearkʿ tiknaykʿ

Ac ars kanays tears tiknays
G arancʿ kanancʿ terancʿ tiknancʿ
D arancʿ kanancʿ terancʿ tiknancʿ
L ars kanays tears tiknays
Ab arancʿ kanancʿ terancʿ tiknancʿ
I arambkʿ kanambkʿ terambkʿ tiknambkʿ

Some ancient u-stems have a curious r-ending in the NAcc sg., e.g. barjr ‘high’, Gen.
barju, cunr ‘knee’, artawsr ‘tear’; it seems that this ending has spread from original
neuters, where it may represent a trace of the original heteroclita in r/n, but this is just
a speculation.

Let us look at the origin of the endings of the large class of nouns with the genitive in
–oy. These are from the PIE thematic masculines and neuters (e.g. L lupus, G lýkos,
OCS vlъkъ, etc.).

get ‘river’ < PIE *wed- (OCS voda)

sg.
NAcc. get
GD get-oy
Abl. get-oy
I get-ov
L get

It seems that this word was thematized in Proto-Armenian, so the N-Acc. form is
easily derivable from *wed-os (note that it was a heterocliton in PIE, cf. G hýdōr,
hýdatos); the GD ending –oy is from the thematic PIE Genitive singular ending *-o-
syo (Skt. –asya, G Hom. –oio and OL –osio in the ‘Lapis Satricanus’). This ending
was also extended to the Ablative, which means that the Ablative ending –ē found in
other stem classes is an innovation. It has been derived from *-tes and compared to
adverbial forms such as Skt. mukhatás ‘from the mouth’, L funditus (< *-tos) ‘from
the foundation, utterly’. The endingless locative may be the regular outcome of the
(apocopated) PIE ending *-o-y (> OCS –ě, e.g. vlъcě, L sg. of vlъkъ ‘wolf’). Some o-
stems have the L ending –oǰ on the analogy with the anomala such as kin ‘woman’, L
sg. knoǰ, cf. e.g. mard ‘man’, L sg. mardoǰ. That ending has also been derived from a
postposition *-dhyV, cf. Greek –thi in ouranóthi ‘in heaven’.

The instrumental singular ending –ov is probably from *-o-bhi, cf. G (Myc.) –pi,
Hom. –phi and OIr. D dual –aibn. The labial stop is preserved in other stem classes,
e.g. in aramb ‘with the man’ (from ayr ‘man’), cf. also instrumental pl. arambkc.
Other IE languages show the evidence of athematic I pl. ending *-bhis (> Skt. –bhiš,
OIr. D pl. -aib).

pl.

[Type text] Page 25

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

N get-kc
Acc. get-s
GD get-occ
Abl. get-occ
I get-ovkc
L get-s

The Nominative pl. ending –kc has not been explained satisfactorily. Some scholars
(e.g. Meillet and Godel) take the obvious course and derive it from PIE *-s, but the
sound development of word final *-s to *-kc is not universally accepted, though it may
be supported by the development of PIE *treyes ‘three’ (L trēs) > Arm. erekc, and
*kwetwores > Arm. čcorkc.19 Other linguists assume a pronominal particle added to the
bare stem, but the origin of that particle has never been explained. A recent hypothesis
derives the morpheme *-kc- from the agglutinated PIE *dwoh1 ‘two’; it would have
been originally a dual marker, subsequently replacing the inherited plural.20 It is worth
noting another possibility, although it is a mere speculation: the plural marker –kc can
be regularly derived from *-s-wes, with the ending of the u-stems *-w-es agglutinated
to the regular Nom. plural marker *-s (cf. the Vedic agglutinated Nom. pl. in –ās-as,
e.g. aśvāsas).

The accusative pl. ending –s is regularly derived from *Vns (cf. G dial. Apl. lýkons
‘wolves’), and the L pl. ending –s can be derived from PIE *-su (Skt. vrkešu) by
apocope. It would have been preserved originally in the consonant stems, and then
extended to other stems, since PIE *s is lost in Armenian between vowels.

The element –cc in the plural cases is unexplained. Some derive it from the possessive
PIE suffix *–sk'o-,21 which may have been first incorporated in the Genitive plural
form, and thence spread to the other cases. The instrumental pl. ending –ovkc looks
like the plural marker –kc agglutinated to the instrumental singular ending –o-v;
however, if PIE *-s yields –kc, this ending can be regularly derived from PIE *-bhis,
the instrumental pl. ending of athematic stems (Skt. –bhiš, OIr. D pl. –ib, etc.).

The accusative receives the so-called ‘nota accusativi’ z- when the noun is definite.
With indefinites, the use of this prefix is optional, cf. tan ptuł ‘they bear fruit’ (Mark
4.20) vs. tay z-ptuł ‘he bears the fruit’ (Matth. 13.23). This prefix is undoubtedly of
pronominal or prepositional origin, but the exact source is unknown.

The functions of the cases are similar to those in the other Indo-European languages.
The nominative is the case of the subject, but it is also used in addressing (as the
vocative in Latin or Greek). The accusative is the case of the direct object, and the
genitive (mostly syncretised witht the dative) expresses possession. In a participial
construction it can also be the case of the agent (or subject of transitive clauses). The
participle in –eal (the only participle in the language) takes nominative subjets with
intransitive verbs and genitive subjects with transitive verbs (see also below):

nocca tołeal vałvałaki z-gorci-s-n gnaccin zhet

19
I find it inherently improbable that –kc is here due to the analogy with the plural marker in nouns.
20
Cf. Nocentini 1994. See also de Lamberterie 1979.
21
Cf. the Slavic suffix –sk- which can also have the possessive meaning, e.g. in OCS otьčьskъ
“father’s”, from otьсь “father”.

[Type text] Page 26

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

3pl.Gen leave.part. immediately Acc-tool-Acc.pl.-art. walk.3pl.aor after

nora
3sg.Gen

“They immediately left their tools and followed him” (Mt. 4.20).

owrax leal ȇr jer

glad be.part. be.3sg.ipf. 2pl.Gen.

“You would be glad” (John. 14.28).

The dative is the case of the indirect object (usually expressing the semantic role of
recipient), but some transitive verbs take their direct object (their undergoer
argument) in the dative, e.g. yałtcem ‘win, conquer’, tirem ‘rule’, hnazandim ‘submit’,
etc.

The ablative case expresses separation from a source (as the Latin and Sanskrit
ablatives), but it can also express the partitive function, i.e. it expresses the whole
from which a part is subtracted:

mi omn i caṙay-icc-n nora

one of servant.gen.pl.-dem. he.gen
“One of his servants”

The instrumental case expresses the instrument, or means by which the action is
performed. It can also express certain adverbial meanings such as quantity and
manner of action. The locative case expresses the location where the action takes
place. It can also express the time of action.

PRONOUNS

Pronouns have seven cases, and fewer case-forms are syncretised than in nouns.

Here is the declension of the 1st person singular pronoun es < PIE *(h1)eg'- (L ego,
Skt. ahám, etc.), and the 2nd person sg. pronoun du < PIE *tuH (L tu, G sý, etc.):

Nom. sg. es du
Acc. z-is kcez
L y-is kcez
G im k co
D inj kcez
Abl. y-inēn kcēn
I inew kcew

The stem –i- in the oblique cases of the 1st person singular is analogical, but the exact
source of the analogy is unknown. The PIE stem *h1me- (G accusative emé) is
preserved in the genitive im. The ending -s in Acc. and L is probably analogical to
Nom. es (y- and z- are prefixes); the sound development *em-s > *ims > *ins > is

[Type text] Page 27

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

would be regular. The ending –j in the dative is is presumably the reflex of a particle
(PIE *–g'hi, *-g'hey, cf. e.g. Latin D mihī, and the particle –zi in Croat. dial. njoj-zi ‘to
her’ (D) and in the possessive nje-zi-n ‘her’). The sound development of Arm. du is
irregular (perhaps d < *t in unaccented monosyllables, cf. also the demonstrative da <
PIE *to-, OCS tъ, ta, to). The stem kce- in the oblique cases is from *twe- (cf. G
accusative sé < *twe, Skt. nominative tvám). The ending -ez in Acc., L and D is from
the same particle *–g'hi or *–g'he as in the D sg. of the 1st person sg. pronoun (inj),
with the regular development of *g'h > z between vowels.

There is a curious suppletion in the plural, where 1 pl. is formed from the stem me-
(cf. OCS my, Lith. me͂ s), perhaps from earlier *sme- < *usme-, or rather from *ne- (as
in L nōs ‘we’, with the change of *n- to m- by analogy with the 1st person plural
ending *-mes > Arm. -mkc). The 2nd person pl. is formed from the stems du- and je-:

1pl. ‘we’ 2pl. ‘you’

Nom. mekc dukc

Acc. mez jez
L mez jez
G mer jer
D mez jez
Abl. mēnǰ, mezēn jēnǰ, jezēn
I mewkc jewkc

The form of the 2pl. Nom. looks like the agglutinated stem of the 2sg. pronoun plus
the pluralizing -kc, but it is possible that it is actually from PIE *yuH- (Lith. jūs, Skt.
yūyam) with d- instead of ǰ- on the analogy with the 2sg. du-. The stem je- is
unexplained; a recent proposal (by Joshua Katz) traces it to PIE *us-we- > *swe- (W
chi) with the added particle *-g'hi (also in –z in the oblique cases, as well as in D sg.
inj). The postulated *swe-g'hi was then assimilated as *sg'he-ghi, hence Arm. jez. This
is slightly too complicated to be believed. The ending –r in the Gen. pl. is compared
with the Latin forms nostrum, vestrum, Goth. unsara, izwara.

The declension of the 3rd person pronoun is as follows:

sg. pl.
Nom. na nokca
Acc. z-na z-nosa
L i nma i nosa
G nora nocca
D nma nocca
Abl. i nmanē i noccanē
I novaw nokcawkc

The demonstrative pronoun system is quite complex. Armenian uses deictic suffixes
-s, -d, -n added to nouns and adjectives.22 They form a three-way deictic contrast,
22
See Greppin 1993. The demonstrative suffixes developed from PIE demonstrative pronouns (PIE
*so- , *to-, ? *no-); a similar system of postposed demonstratives existed in Old Georgian. For a
synchronic description of Old Armenian usage see Klein 1996.

[Type text] Page 28

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

similarly as in OCS tъ – ovъ – onъ. In the classical language these suffixes function
like postposed definite articles, similarly as in the Balkan languages (e.g. Bulgarian
žena-ta ‘the woman’).

There are also demonstrative adjectives ay-s, ay-d and ay-n, formed from a
demonstrative stem ay- and the same deictic suffixes which are added to the nouns.
This demonstrative adjective then inflects as follows: singular NAcc. ayn, G ayn-r,
DLAbl. ayn-m, Inst. ayn-u, plural: N ayn-kc, Acc. ayn-s G ayn-cc, D ayn-cc, L ayn-s,
Abl. ayncc, aynccanē, I aynukc. The demonstrative adjectives ays and ayd follow the
same pattern. When used in emphasis, this pronoun (as well as ayd, ays) has longer
forms with the suffix –ik added in some cases, e.g. G sg. ay-so-r-ik, D sg. ay-s-m-ik,
GDAbl. pl. ay-so-cc-ik, etc.

Finally, there are demonstrative pronouns and adjectives soyn, doyn, noyn ‘this/that
same’, which inflect in the following manner (the same pattern given for noyn is valid
for soyn and doyn as well):

sg. pl.

Nom. noyn nokcin, noynkc

Acc. noyn nosin, noyns
L nmin nosin, noyns
G nmin noccin, noccuncc
D nmin noccin, noccuncc
Abl. nmin noccin, noccuncc
I novin, novimb nokcimbkc, nokcumbkc

The suffix –s comes from the PIE demonstrative stem *k'i- (L –c in hic, Lith. šis ‘he’,
OCS sь) and the suffix –d is undoubtedly from PIE *to- (OCS tъ ‘that’, Skt. tad
‘that’). The suffix –n may be connected with OCS onъ ‘that one yonder, he’, Lith.
anàs, and Skt. ana-. The deictic suffixes/definite articles may be freely combined with
the independent demonstratives, but they must agree in the “deictic distance” (the
forms in –s- denote referents close to the speaker, the forms in –t- denote referents
close to the addressee, and the forms in –n- denote referents close to non-participants
in the speech act), e.g. ayr ‘man’, ayr-s ‘the man’, ayr-s ays ‘that man’.

Here is the declension of the possessive and possessive-reflexive pronouns:

im kʿo nora iwr mer jer nocʿa

'my' 'thy' 'his' 'his'(refl.) 'our' 'your' 'their'
(pl.)
Sg.
N im kʿo nora iwr mer jer nocʿa
Acc im kʿo nora iwr mer jer nocʿa
G imoy kʿoyoy, norayoy iwroy meroy jeroy nocʿayoy
kʿoy
D imum kʿum norayum iwrum merum jerum nocʿayum

[Type text] Page 29

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

L imum kʿum norayum iwrum merum jerum nocʿayum

Ab immē kʿumē norayoy iwrmē mermē jermē nocʿayoy
I imov kʿuov norayov iwrov merov jerov nocʿayov

Pl.
N imkʿ kʿoykʿ noraykʿ iwr merkʿ jerkʿnocʿaykʿ
Ac ims kʿoys norays iwr mers jers nocʿays
G imocʿ kʿoyocʿ, norayocʿ, iwrocʿ merocʿ jerocʿ
nocʿayocʿ,
kʿocʿ norayicʿ nocʿayicʿ
D imocʿ kʿoyocʿ norayocʿ, iwrocʿ merocʿ jerocʿ nocʿayocʿ,
norayicʿ nocʿayicʿ
L ims kʿoys norays iwrum mers jers nocʿays
Abl imocʿ kʿoyocʿ norayocʿ, iwrocʿ merocʿ jerocʿ nocʿayocʿ,
norayicʿ nocʿayicʿ
I imovkʿ kʿoyovkʿ norayovkʿ, iwrovkʿ merovkʿ jerovkʿ nocʿayovkʿ,
norayiwkʿ nocʿayiwkʿ

The possessive-reflexive pronoun is iwr ‘suus’, perhaps from *siwro- < PIE *swē-
wro-. It lacks the nominative and the accusative, and the remaining cases are:
Gen./Dat./Loc. iwr, Abl. iwrmē, Inst. iwrew, iwreamb, Nom. pl. iwreankc, Acc./Loc.
pl. iwreans, Gen./Dat./Abl. pl. iwreancc, Inst. pl. iwreambkc.

The interrogative pronouns are ov, o ‘who’ (Gen. sg. oyr, Dat./Loc. sg. um, Abl. sg.
umē) and zi, zinčc ‘what’ (Nom./Acc. zi, zinčc, Gen. ēr, Dat./Loc. im, him, Abl. imē,
Inst. iw).

The indefinite pronouns are omn ‘someone’, imn ‘something’, okc ‘someone’. These
forms consist of the stems o-, i- and the suffixes –mn and –kc, which are mostly added
to the inflected forms. Thus, for o-mn the Nom./Acc. is omn, Gen. sg. uru-mn,
Dat./Loc. ume-mn, etc.; for o-kc the Gen. sg. is urukc, Dat./Loc. umekc, but Abl. ume-
kc-ē.

The history of the interrogatives and indefinites is unclear. The vowel alternation
between -o- and –i- is reminiscent of the one in PIE *kwo- (OCS kъto ‘who’) and
*kwi- (OCS čьto), but the loss of word-initial *kw is difficult to account for (it is
generally agreed that z- in zi, zinčc is simply the nota accusativi). Possibly the
voiceless velar was lost in unstressed monosyllables, cf. the preserved kc < *kw in
Arm. kcani ‘how much’. The stems of the indefinites o-, i- are probably originally the
same stems as those of the interrogatives.

The relative pronoun is or ‘who, which’ (N-Acc. or, Gen. sg. oroy, Dat./Loc. sg.
orum, Abl. sg. ormē, Inst. sg. orov; Nom. pl. orkc, Acc./Loc. pl. ors, Gen./Dat./Abl.
pl. orocc, Inst. pl. orovkc). It may be derivable from the PIE relative pronoun stem
*yo- under the assumption that *y- was lost (perhaps in unstressed position before *o,
see above).

The reflexive construction is usually formed with anjn (Gen. sg. anjin) ‘person’ and
the reflexive possessive iwr ‘own, suus’:

[Type text] Page 30

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

yaytn-eacc z-anjn iwr

reveal-AOR.3SG ACC-person his.own
“He revealed himself”

There are two reciprocal pronouns, irears (acc. pl.) ‘each other’ and mimeans (acc.
pl.) ‘one another’:

zi sir-iccēkc z-mimean-s
so.that love-SUBJ.PRES.2PL ACC-one.another-ACC.PL
“So that you may love one another”

ADJECTIVES

Adjectives are morphologically not distinguished from nouns. We saw above that they
do not agree with the head noun in gender (since there is no gender), and case
agreement is rare and syntactically constrained. Generally, preposed adjectives in the
NP are unmarked for case and number, i.e. there is no agreement:

nor vima-w-kc
new stone-INST-PL
‘with new stones’

Postposed adjectives are usually marked for number and case:

išxan-acc imastu-acc
prince-GEN.PL wise-GEN.PL
‘of wise princes’

There is no synthetic comparative or superlative. The comparative is expressed

analytically with the adverbs kcan ‘more’, coaweli ‘more’, aṙawel ‘more’, ews ‘yet,
still, even’, and the superlative usually with the construction involving amenayn and
amenekcean ‘all, every’:

hzawragoyn kcan z-na

very.strong than acc-he
‘stronger than he’

or pcṙkcrik-n ē y-amenesean i jez

who small-DEF is of-all among you
‘whoever is the smallest among you’

Analytic comparative and superlative constructions predominate in the languages of

the Caucasus.

Intensive forms of adjectives can be formed with the suffix -a-goyn, e.g. imastun
‘wise’ vs. imastnagoyn ‘very wise’, bari ‘good’ vs. baregoyn ‘very good’.

[Type text] Page 31

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

NUMERALS

Here are the numerals from 1 to 10: mi, erku, erekc, čcorkc, hing, vecc, ewtcn, utc, inn,
tasn. Although this is not obvious at first sight, their forms are inherited from PIE
(*smi-yo-, *dwoh1, *treyes, *kwetwores, *penkwe, *(k's)wek's, *septm, *h3ek'toh1,
*newn, *dek'm).

The numerals from one to four are inflected according to the following pattern:

‘one’ ‘two’ ‘three’ ‘four’

N mi erku, erkukʿ erekʿ čʿorkʿ
Acc mi erkus eris čʿors
G mioy, mioǰ erkucʿ ericʿ čʿoricʿ
D mium, mioǰ erkucʿ ericʿ čʿoricʿ
L mium, mioǰ erkus eris čʿors
Abl mioy, mioǰē erkucʿ ericʿ čʿoricʿ
I miov erkukʿ eriwkʿ čʿoriwkʿ

The higher numerals are normally uninflected, but they take on the case endings of
the G, D, Abl. and I when they follow the noun in an NP, e.g. ayr hngacc ‘from the
five men’ (Abl.). Here are the numerals from 11 to 20:

11 - metasan (< *mi a tasan ‘one and ten’)

12 - erko-tasan
13 - erekc-tasan
14 - čcorekc-tasan
15 - hnge-tasan
16 - veš-tasan
17 - ewtcn ew tasn (‘seven and ten’)
18 - utc ew tasn
19 - inn ew tasn
20 - kcsan < (*dwi-dk’mtiH, cf. G eíkosi, L vigintī)

The tens are old compounds with the element *sun < *-k’omt-, e.g. eresun ‘30’ <
*eri-a-sun, kcarasun ‘40’, yisun ‘50’, vatcsun ‘60’, ewtcanasun ‘70’, utcsun ‘80’,
innsun ‘90’.

The hundreds are formed by adding the suffix –(h)ariwr ‘100’ (from hariwr ‘100’) to
simple numerals from 1 to 10, e.g. erkeriwr ‘200’, erekchariwr ‘300’, čcorekchariwr
‘400’, etc. The word for ‘1000’ hazar is an Iranian loanword (MPers. hazār).

The ordinal numerals are formed by adding the suffix –rord (for numerals 1-4), or
-erord (for numerals higher than 5), e.g. erord ‘third’, veccerord ‘sixth’. The ordinal
aṙaǰin ‘first’ is derived from aṙaǰ ‘before’. There are also collective numerals formed
with the suffix -kcean, distributives formed by reduplication (mi mi ‘by one’), etc.

[Type text] Page 32

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

VERBS

The verbal system is significantly simplified, when compared to the reconstructed

PIE.23 Like the nominals, verbs have also lost the dual in Armenian. The optative was
also lost, so that only indicative, subjunctive, and imperative moods remain.
Subjunctive (especially aorist subjunctive) is also usually used instead of the future.

There are two aspects, present and aorist. Each Armenian verb has a present stem and
an aorist stem, the PIE perfect being lost with very few traces.

There are two diatheses, active and mediopassive. They are clearly distinguished in
the aorist, less so in the present tense. Many present tense forms can have both the
passive and the (medio-)passive interpretation, and only in the active presents in –e-
do we find a systematic opposition to the mediopassive presents in –i-, cf. berem ‘I
carry’ vs. berim ‘I am being carried’. The marker –i- in the present mediopassive is
certainly derived from the PIE ‘stative’ suffix *–eh1- (cf. L maneo, manēre ‘remain’,
or OCS bъděti ‘be awake’ < *bhudh-eh1- vs. the causative buditi < *bhowdh-eye-).

Armenian also has an imperfect, which is an isogloss it shares with Greek and Indo-
Iranian. Like Greek, Indo-Iranian, and Phrygian, it also has an augment, which is
added to the monosyllabic verb stems in the aorist (sometimes these forms are
continuants of the PIE imperfect), cf. Arm. e-ber, imperfect to berem ‘I bring’ (G
present phérō, imperfect é-pheron).

There are remarkably few traces of the PIE perfect, e.g. Arm. goy ‘there is’ < PIE
*h2wos-e (OE was, cf. also Hitt. huišzi ‘lives’ < PIE *h2wes-ti).

The following table shows which verbal categories are formed from the present and
the aorist stems:

present stem aorist stem

present indicative aorist indicative (active and
mediopassive)
imperfect
present subjunctive aorist subjunctive
present imperative (prohibitive) (aorist) imperative
infinitive
(some participles) participle

PRESENT

The present stem is used to form the indicative and subjunctive present, as well as the
imperative present, the imperfect and the infinitive. It is usual to divide the Armenian
verbs into five conjugations according to the stem vowel: 1. e-conjugation (type sirem

23
For Indo-Europeanists, the fundamental study of the Armenian verbal system is Klingenschmitt
1982, cf. also Jasanoff 1979.

[Type text] Page 33

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

‘I love’, 2. i-conjugation (type sirim ‘I am being loved’), 3. a-conjugation (type lam ‘I

cry’), 4. u-conjugation (type hełum ‘I pour’), and the very small o-conjugation
(ancient perfects, type gom ‘I am there’). The e-conjugation verbs are mostly PIE
thematic presents (berem ‘I carry’ < PIE *bher-e/o-, G phérō), but there are also some
denominals and causatives in *-eye- (Arm. gorcem ‘I work’ < *worg'eye-). This
group also includes some verbs with the complex suffix –an-e-; these verbs come
from PIE infixed presents, where the infix was metathesized and became a suffix
(Arm. lkcanem ‘I leave’ < PIE *li-n-kw-, L linquo, Arm. lizanem ‘I lick’, cf. L lingo).
The i-conjugation verbs includes the reflexes of PIE statives in *-eh1-, e.g. Arm. nstim
‘sit’ (cf. L sedeo, sedēre); some are built with the very productive present suffix –čci-,
e.g. Arm. hangčcim ‘I rest’. The a-verbs include deverbatives built with the suffix
*-eh2-, e.g. Arm. mnam ‘I remain’ (cf. L maneo, manēre, with the PIE stative suffix
*-eh1-), but also some old athematic presents, e.t. tam ‘I give’ < PIE *deh3- (OCS
damь); the u-verbs are often built with the suffix –nu- from PIE *-new-/-nu-, e.g.
Arm. z-genum ‘I dress’ < *wes-nu- (G hénnymi).

Indicative present active of sirem ‘I love’:

singular plural

1. sire-m sire-mkc
2. sire-s sirēkc < *sire-ykc
3. sirē < *sire-y sire-n

Indicative present of lam ‘I cry’:

1. la-m la-mkc
2. la-s la-ykc
3. la-y la-n

Indicative present of hayim ‘I look’:

1. hayi-m hayi-mkc
2. hayis hayi-kc
3. hayi hayi-n

Indicative present of argelum ‘I hinder’:

1. argelu-m argelu-mkc
2. argelu-s argelu-kc
3. argelu argelu-n

Some verbs can form their presents in more than one way. Particularly important is
the variation between e-presents and i-presents, where the latter are generally
intransitive and often formed as mediopassives to presents of other conjugations, cf.,
e.g. varem ‘I lead’ vs. varim ‘I am being led, I behave’, čanačcem ‘I know’ vs.
čanačcim ‘I am known’, or patmen ‘They tell’ vs. patmin ‘(Things) are told’. Some

[Type text] Page 34

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

verbs are deponents, in that they only have the mediopassive forms, e.g. erknčcim ‘I
fear’ (aor. erkeay, also with mediopassive morphology). Note that verbs with present
stems in -a- and -u- cannot express the mediopassive (they do not alternate with the -
i- verbs), hence a transitive verb such as kardam is actually ambiguous: it can mean
both ‘I call’ and ‘I am called’.

The origin of the present endings is only partially understood. In the 1st person sg. –m
is from PIE athematic *-mi (OCS jes-mь, Skt. ás-mi ‘I am’, etc.). The 2nd person sg.
–s is perhaps abstracted from the 2nd person sg. of the verb ‘to be’ (Arm. es), where it
is regular (from *h1es-si > Skt. ási), and the 3rd person singular can be from *–ti with
the regular development of *t > y between vowels. In the plural, the element –kc is
presumably the same plural marker as in the N pl. of nouns. In the 1st person pl. we
find –m < *-mes, *-mos (L –mus in legi-mus ‘we read’), in the 2nd person pl. the
element –y- may be from *-te- (L –tis in legi-tis), and in the 3rd person pl. the ending
–n is from PIE *-nti (Skt. bhára-nti, L feru-nt ‘they carry’). In e-verbs, this must be
analogical after the other present classes, since *e was regularly raised to i before *n
in Armenian (see above).

PRESENT SUBJUNCTIVE

The present subjunctive is formed agluttinatively, by adding the clearly segmentable

suffix -icc- to the present stem; this is followed by the suffixes -i-, -u- and -e- for
verbs with the present stem in -im, -um and -em; verbs with the present stem in -am
form subjunctive present in -icc-em, e.g. lam ‘cry’ has the subjunctive layccem (< *la-
icc-em). Unlike in the indicative, such verbs can also form the passive subjunctive in -
icc-im, e.g. ałam ‘grind’ has the active subjunctive ałayccem and passive subjunctive
ałayccim. The endings are basically the same as in the present indicative:

sirem ‘I love’

1. sir-icc-em sir-icc-emkc
2. sir-icc-es sir-icc-ēkc
3. sir-icc-ē sir-icc-en

xorhim ‘I think’

1. horxiccim horxiccimkc
2. horxiccis horxiccikc
3. horxicci horxiccin

tcołum ‘I leave’ (note that -u- + -icc- > -ucc-)

1. tcołuccum tcołuccumkc
2. tcołuccus tcołuccukc
3. tcołuccu tcołuccun

The present subjunctive is used to express a possible, or desired action, and it can also
express an order, especially in the 3rd person where the imperative form is lacking,

[Type text] Page 35

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

e.g. bericcē may be used to mean “let him bring”. The endings of the subjunctive have
the same origin as in the indicative present; they are agglutinated to the subjunctive
suffix. The suffix –icc- appears to be the agglutinated present subjunctive of em ‘to
be’ < PIE *h1es-; the element –cc- may be derived from PIE *-sk’-, but it is unclear
why this should have become a marker of the subjunctive. The present-stem suffix
*-sk’- has the inchoative function in a number of languages (cf. L senesco ‘to become
aged’, proficiscor ‘to set out, start’, etc.). It is at least conceivable that the subjunctive
function developed from the inchoative.

IMPERFECT

The imperfect is formed from the present stem by adding a distinctive set of endings.

sirem ‘I love’

1. sire-i sire-akc
2. sire-ir sire-ikc
3. sirēr < sire-yr sire-in

lam ‘I cry’

1. layi layakc
2. layir layikc
3. layr layin

tcołum ‘I leave’

1. tcołui tcołuakc
2. tcołuir tcołuikc
3. tcołuyr tcołuin

The origin of the imperfect endings is disputed. Some scholars derive the suffix –i-
from the PIE optative suffix *-yeh1-/ -ih1- (the type of Skt. syāt, OL siēt ‘may he be’),
and it has been proposed that the 3 sg. ending –yr- is originally the medial PIE ending
*-tor (cf. L amātur ‘is being loved’), but it is unclear why it should have ended up in
the imperfect paradigm. If PIE. *-swe yields Arm. –r, the 2nd person sg. ending could
be from PIE secondary *-s and a postposed particle *-we. This is, of course, just a
speculation.

Imperfective does not distinguish active and mediopassive (the distinction arises in
post-Classical Armenian).

IMPERATIVE PRESENT

There are special forms only in the 2nd person sg. and pl.:

2sg. sire-r ‘love!’ 2pl. sirēkc

[Type text] Page 36

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

2sg. la-r ‘cry!’ 2pl. la-ykc

The ending –r of the imperative present is unclear; Meillet saw it as a reflex of some
particle comparable to G rha. However, if PIE *-sw- yields Arm. –r- (which is far, far
from established fact), it is possible that the Armenian ending comes from PIE medial
imperative *-swe (cf. Skt. bhárasva, L sequere, see the Arm. imperfect paradigm for a
possible parallel sound development). The plural ending is the same as in the
indicative and may be from PIE *-te- with the added plural morpheme -kc.

The imperative present is only used in prohibitions; in positive imperative sentences

the imperative aorist is used (see below). There is also a special prohibitive negation,
Arm. mi < PIE *meh1 (Skt. mā, Alb. mos, etc.). The combination of a special
prohibitive verbal form and the special prohibitive negation is typical of Caucasian
languages, and in Armenian it is likely to be inherited from PIE.

AORIST

The aorist expresses not only the past tense, but also the perfective action (that the
action of the verb has been accomplished fully). The following categories are derived
from the aorist stem: indicative aorist, aorist subjunctive, aorist imperative and
mediopassive aorist.

There are two major types of aorist: the strong aorist (without the suffix) and the weak
aorist (with the suffix –cc-). The latter suffix has been derived from PIE *-sk'- (cf. the
Greek dialectal imperfects and aorists with iterative value in –esk-, e.g. Hom. ídeske
‘he was accustomed to see’ < *wid-e-sk'-e-t). However, as there are otherwise no
traces of the PIE sigmatic aorist in Armenian, it is at least possible that the weak
aorist suffix -cc- is the regular reflex of word-final *–s-t, where *-s- was the suffix of
the sigmatic aorist (as in G édeiksa ‘I showed’, L dīxī ‘I said’ < *deyk’-s-), and *-t
was the 3rd person sg. secondary (aorist) ending. The reflex –cc may have been re-
interpreted as a stem formant and extended to the other persons in the paradigm; note
that there is a typological parallel to this development in Old Irish, where the t-
preterite (the type bert ‘he carried’) was created in a similar manner from the sigmatic
aorist (by ‘Watkins’ law’). The problem with this explanation is, admittedly, that
there are no other known cases of the development of word-final *-st in Armenian
(word-medially *-st- remains in Armenian, as in Arm. z-gest ‘clothes’ < *westu-, cf.
L vestis, Goth. wasti).

The strong aorist stem generally corresponds to the thematic aorist found in other IE
languages, e.g. *likwe > G élipe ‘he left’ (Arm. e-likc). This formation was rare in PIE
itself, but it became productive in individual languages, such as Greek, Armenian and
Slavic. It developed from the PIE root aorist, which had been formed by adding the
aorist endings directly to the root, which had the full grade in the singular and the
zero-grade in the plural. In Armenian, either the zero-grade or the full grade was
generalized in the Aorist stem. The zero-grade of the root is preserved, e.g. in the
aorists e-barj ‘lifted up’ < *bhrg'h- (Skt. br̥hant- ‘high’), e-lu ‘heard’ < *k'luw- (Skt.
á-śro-t, with the full-grade), and the aforementioned e-likc ‘left’. The full-grade of the
root is preserved, e.g., in e-boyc ‘fed’ < *bhewg'- (Skt. bhójam, Injunctive 1sg.), e-gel
‘wound’ < *wel- (cf. L volvo ‘turn’).

[Type text] Page 37

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

It is difficult to predict the exact shape of the aorist stem from the present stem; here
are a few common combinations: 1. e-present (ber-em ‘I carry’) and strong root-aorist
(ber-i); a subtype of this set is the combination of the presents with the suffix -an- and
the strong root-aorist (e.g. lkc-an-em ‘I leave’ vs. aor. lkc-i); 2. e-present (as-em ‘I
say’) and aorist in –acc- (as-acc-i), 3. i-present (nst-im ‘I sit’ and strong aorist in -ay
(nst-ay), 4. a-present (ał-am ‘I grind’) and weak aorist in -acc- (ał-acc-i), 5. u-present
(zen-um ‘I sacrifice’) and strong (root) aorist (zen-i), 6. u-present (l-n-um ‘I fill’) and
weak aorist in –cci- (l-cci), etc.

The verb berem ‘I carry’ is inflected in the indicative aorist as follows:

sg. pl.
1. ber-i ber-akc
2. ber-er ber-ēkc
3. e-ber ber-in

This is the paradigm of sirem ‘I love’, which has the weak aorist:

1. sire-cc-i sire-ccakc
2. sire-cc-er sire-cc-ēkc
3. sirea-cc sire-cc-in

Besides the active aorist, there is also the (medio-)passive aorist which can be
formed from all verbs (not just the -im verbs, as in the present) by adding the special
set of endings:

sg. pl.
1. ber-ay ber-akc
2. ber-ar ber-aykc
3. ber-aw ber-an

sg. pl.
1. sirecc-ay sirecc-akc
2. sirecc-ar sirecc-aykc
3. sirecc-aw sirecc-an

Note that the 1. pl. form is the same in the active and passive paradigms.

This is the aorist of usanim ‘learn’; the verb loses the present-stem suffix in the aorist,
and th eendings are passive:

1. usay usakc
2. usar usaykc
3. usaw usan

The augment e- is added only to monosyllabic forms of the 3rd person singular.
Apparent counter-examples like gnacc ‘went’ had “schwa” between the initial
consonants, i.e. they were bisyllabic (the pronunciation was [gәnac]. The vowel-initial

[Type text] Page 38

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

monosyllabic aorists are not augmented (cf. ac ‘he drove’, aorist to acem ‘drive’) and
we do not find the augment in the ‘weak’ aorist. It is the same element found in G e-
and Skt. a- of (dialectal) PIE origin (PIE *h1e-), cf. G aorist élipe, Skt. a-ricat and
Arm. e-likc < *h1likwe.

Of all the endings of the Armenian aorist, only the 3rd person singular and plural are
reasonably clear; these are the PIE secondary endings, used in the PIE aorist and
imperfect, i.e. Arm. eber < *h1ebber-e-t (Skt. imperfect ábharat), Arm. berin <
*bherent (Skt. imperfect ábharan). The 2nd person sg. ending –er could, in principle,
be the same as the present imperative 2sg. ending, provided it comes from the PIE
middle imperative *-swe (see above). This is, however, a very bold speculation.

Here are the aorist paradigms of the irregular verbs gam ‘come’ tam ‘give’, dnem
‘put’, and linim ‘become’:

1 Sg. eki etu edi ełē

2 ekir etur edir ełer
3 ekn et ed ełew

1 Pl. ekakʿ tuakʿ edakʿ ełeakʿ

2 ekikʿ etukʿ edikʿ ełēkʿ
3 ekin etum edin ełen

AORIST SUBJUNCTIVE

The aorist subjunctive is formed, parallelly to the present subjunctive, by adding the
suffix -(i)cc- to the aorist stem:

sg. pl.
1. ber-icc ber-cc-ukc
2. ber-cc-es ber-ǰ-ikc
3. ber-cc-ē ber-cc-en

sg. pl.
1. sirecc-icc sires-ccukc
2. sires-cces sires-ǰikc
3. sires-ccē sires-ccen

The mediopassive forms of the aorist subjunctive have the mediopassive endings:

sg. pl.
1. beraycc berccukc
2. berccis berǰikc
3. bercci berccin

sg. pl.

[Type text] Page 39

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

1. sireccaycc siresccukc
2. siresccis siresǰikc
3. sirescci siresccen

The aorist stem suffix –cc- becomes –s- before another –cc-, and this is usually
interpreted as dissimilation (see above); however, if Armenian weak aorist is actually
a development of PIE sigmatic aorist (see the preceding chapter), then it is possible
that –s- in the subjunctive of the weak aorist stems is actually an archaism.

The aorist subjunctive is used to express the future tense, but it can also express desire
or intention:

Astuac očc moṙascci z-uxt har-cc-n kco-cc

Lord not forget.3SG.AOR.SUBJ ACC.-covenant father-GEN.PL-DEF your-GEN
“Lord will not forget the covenant of your fathers”

harccicc inčc z-jez

ask.AOR.SUBJ.1SG something ACC-you
“I want to ask you something” (Lucas, XV, 23)

In the Armenian Bible translation, it is used as an equivalent of both Greek present

and aorist subjunctives.

In purpose clauses the subjunctive (both aorist and present subjunctive) is usually
introduced by the preposition zi ‘so that’:

mi datēkc, zi mi datisǰikc
not judge.2PL.IPV that not judge.2PL.PASS.SUBJ.AOR
“Do not judge lest you be judged”

AORIST IMPERATIVE

The aorist imperative has, like the present imperative, only the forms of the 2nd
person sg. and pl.

2sg. ber ‘carry’ sirea ‘love!’

2pl. berēkc sireccēkc

Occasionally one also finds mediopassive imperative forms such as ber-ir ‘may you
be carried’, but these are rare in the texts.

The aorist imperative is regularly used as the positive imperative (in prohibitions the
present imperative is used, see above). The form of the 2 sg. is inherited from the PIE
imperative, i.e. Arm. ber < PIE *bhere (G phére, Skt. bhára).

MEDIOPASSIVE AORIST

[Type text] Page 40

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

Most transitive verbs form a mediopassive aorist, while in the present only some have
the mediopassive forms (these are the i-conjugation verbs). The mediopassive aorist is
formed by adding a special set of endings to the aorist stem.

sg.
1. ber-ay sire-cc-ay
2. ber-ar sire-cc-ar
3. ber-aw sire-cc-aw

pl.
1. ber-akc sire-cc-akc
2. ber-aykc sire-cc-aykc
3. ber-an sire-cc-an

The endings of the mediopassive aorist are mostly unclear in terms of their origin.
The 1st person sg. may well be from PIE 1 sg. middle *-h2ey (Skt. –e in bhar-e, G.
-may in phéro-mai with secondary –m-). If so, the vowel –a- may be analogical in the
other endings in the paradigm. If –a- is originally a suffix, this formant may be
compared with the Baltic preterite suffix *-ā- < *eh2-, cf. Lith. buv-o ‘he was’,
buvome ‘we were’, liko ‘he left’, likome ‘we left’, etc.

IRREGULAR AND DEFECTIVE VERBS

The verb em ‘to be’ is defective. It forms the present and imperfect quite regularly,
but forms derived from the aorist stem do not exist. Instead of them, forms of linim
‘become’ are used. Similarly, goy ‘there is, are’ has only the present, and gog- ‘speak’
only the imperative (2sg. gog) and subjunctive (2sg. gogcces).

present imperfect
sg.
1. em ei
2. es eir
3. ē ēr

pl.
1. emkc eakc
2. ēkc eikc
3. en ein

Suppletive verbs include utem ‘I eat’ (< perf. *h1eh1od-, cf. L edo, G édomai <
*h1ed-), aor. keray (< *gwerh3-, cf. L voro, G bibrṓskō), əmpem ‘I drink’ (< *peh3-, cf.
OCS piti, L bibo), aor. arbi (< *srbh-, cf. L sorbeo ‘suck up’), gam ‘I come’, (<
*gheH-, cf. G kikhā́ nō ‘reach’, OHG gān ‘go’), aor. eki (< *gwem-, cf. L venio, G
baínō), ertcam ‘I go’, aor. čcogay (< *kyow-, cf. Skt. cyávate), unim ‘I have’ (< PIE
perf. *h1eh1op-n-, from the root *h1ep- ‘get’, cf. Hitt. ēpzi ‘takes’, L apiscor ‘reach’,
co-epī ‘begin’), aor. kalay. Arm. čanačcem ‘I know’ forms the aorist caneay, but both
are from the PIE *g'nh3- ‘know’ (G gignṓskō), with assimilation in the present stem
(čanačc- < *canačc-).

[Type text] Page 41

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

THE INFINITIVE

There is only one infinitive formed with the suffix -l added to the present stem, e.g.
sirem ‘love’: inf. sirel, hełum ‘pour’: inf. hełul.

The infinitive is used after certain verbs such as sksim ‘begin to’, tcołum ‘allow’,
kamim ‘wish’, karem ‘can, be able’, as well as after certain expressions such as law ē
‘it is good to’.

Infinitive can be in a subordinate clause and then it takes its subject in the dative:

očc kami-mkc tcagawor-el dma

not want-1PL.PRES rule-INF he.DAT
“We don’t want him to be king” (Luke 19.14)

A similar construction with infinitives taking dative subjects exists in Old Church
Slavic.

THE PARTICIPLE AND OTHER VERBAL ADJECTIVES

Armenian has only one participle, formed with the suffix –eal added to the aorist
stem. It makes no distinction between active or passive voice and generally has past
tense reference. For example asacʿeal may mean ‘having spoken’ or ‘having been
said’ and bereal means ‘having carried’. This participle is best interpreted as a verbal
adjective meaning, roughly ‘pertaining to the action denoted by the verb’.

The participle with the present of the verb ‘to be’ is used to form a kind of
periphrastic perfect, a construction expressing the action which started in the past, but
which is still relevant in the present, e.g. sireal em ‘I have loved’, sireal es ‘you have
loved’, sireal ē ‘he/she/it has loved’, etc.

In narration, participles can be used without the auxiliary em to express a past action:

z-ays-u žamank-aw miaban-eal Alan-kc

about-that-INST.SG time-INST.SG unify-PART Alan-NOM.PL
“The Alans were unified about that time”

The Armenian participle is also used in one typologically unusual periphrastic

construction with the present of the verb ‘to be’ (em), in which the Actor is expressed
in the genitive (or with the possessive pronoun), and the Undergoer in the Accusative
case:

gr-eal ē k co
write-PART is your
“You wrote”

gorc-eal ē kco z-gorc

[Type text] Page 42

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

work-PART is your ACC-work

“You did your work’, ‘Your work is done”

nocca ber-eal ē z-šiš-n

they.GEN.PL bring-PART is ACC-flask-ART
“They have brought the flask”

This construction is sometimes considered to have arisen under the influence of

Caucasian substratum (Solta 1963: 123), but it may also be interpreted as a syntactic
Iranianism (Old Persian has constructions with genitive subjects and predicative
participles).

The Armenian participle in –eal has been compared to Slavic participles in –lъ, used
in the formation of the periphrastic Slavic perfect (e.g. OCS neslъ jesmь ‘I have
carried’). It doubtlessly represents a parallel development of what may originally have
been a very productive way of forming deverbal adjectives.24

Other verbal adjectives include:

- the necessitative in -occ, formed from the infinitive, e.g. sirel-occ ‘who should be
loved’ (from sirem ‘love’). These adjectives are indeclinable and they are comparable
to Latin gerundive (amandus).
- the verbal adjectives in -i, which is also added to the infinitive, e.g. sireli ‘desirable’
(from sirel ‘to love’), ereweli ‘visible’, goveli ‘praisevorthy’. These adjectives are
declined like the nouns of the type tełi ‘place’ (Gen. sg. tełwoy).
- The adjectives in -oł, formed from the present stem, e.g. tesanoł ‘seeing’ (from
tesanem ‘see’), karoł ‘able’ (from karem ‘be able, can’).

THE CAUSATIVE

Like the other languages of the Caucasus, Classical Armenian has a productive
morphological pattern of causative formation. Causatives can be formed from both
transitive and intransitive verbs by adding the compound suffix –ucc-an- <
*-oy-sk’-an- to the aorist stem, cf., e.g. usanim ‘I learn’ vs. usuccanem ‘I teach’. In the
aorist, the morpheme -an- is lost, e.g. moloreccuccanem ‘I lead astray’ vs. aor.
moloreccucci. Word-finally, -ucc > -oycc, so the 3rd person sg. aor. is moloreccoycc, cf.
also usuccanem ‘I teach’, aor. 1sg. usucci, aor. 3sg. usoycc.

Here is the paradigm of usuccanem ‘teach’:

Present indicative

sg. pl.
1. usuccanem usuccanemkc
2. usuccanes usuccanekc
3. usuccanē usuccanen

24
See Stempel 1983.

[Type text] Page 43

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

Aorist indicative

sg. pl.
1. usucci usuccakc
2. usuccer usuccēkc
3. usoycc usuccin

A number of verbs with roots in –l- form the causative with the suffix –uzane-, e.g.
eluzanem ‘make exit, go away’, from elanem (aor. el) ‘go (away)’, pcluzanem ‘make
fall, throw down’ from pcl-am ‘fall’.

The origin of the causative formation is uncertain.25 Attempts to derive the causative
suffix –uz-/-ucc- from a compound PIE suffix *-ow-, to which *-sk'- or *-g'h- would
have been added, explain the form, but not the connection with the PIE incohative
*-sk'- or any other formant. An analogical formation within Armenian is possible, but
complicated: the idea is that the relationship between inherited mtanem ‘go in’ < PIE
*mud- and mucanem ‘lead in’ < PIE *mowd-eye- was parallel to usanim ‘learn’ < PIE
*h1uk- (cf. OCS učiti ‘learn’) and *ucc-an-e- < *h1owk-eye- ‘teach’, and that the form
usuccanem was made to restore the original shape of the root. From this verb (and a
handful of similar ones, such as busucanem ‘make grow’ (to busanim ‘grow’), the
formation would have spread to other verbs.

Besides the morphological causative, there is also a syntactic causative formed with
the verb tam ‘give’ and the infinitive:

et tan-el zna aṙ Herovdēs

give.AOR.3SG lead-INF him to Herod
“He had him brought to Herod / He sent him to Herod” (Luke 23.7)

IMPERSONAL CONSTRUCTION

The third person plural of verbs can be used to express an impersonal construction:

oč’ arkan-en gini nor i tik-s hin-s

not throw-3PL.PRES wine new into wineskin-ACC.PL old-ACC.PL
“One does not put new wine into old wineskins”

ADVERBS

Adverbs of manner are usually identical to the Instrumental case of a noun or

adjective, e.g. bun ‘nature’ vs. bunaw ‘absolutely, diwr ‘easy’ vs. diwraw ‘easily’;
some are formed by adding the suffix -pēs to the nominal stem, e.g. pcoytc ‘haste’ vs.
pcutcapēs ‘quickly’. Some adjectives can be used as adverbs without a change of
form, e.g. ułił ‘straight, directly’, cf. also aysawr ‘today’, lit. ‘this day (awr)’.

25
Cf. Meillet 1936: 116, Klingenschmitt 1982: 264ff.

[Type text] Page 44

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

Common adverbs of place are ast ‘here’ (equivalent to L hic), aydr ‘there’ (L istic)
and and ‘there’ (L illic).

ADPOSITIONS, CONJUNCTIONS AND PARTICLES

Most Armenian adpositions are prepositions, but a few may also be used as
postpositions (e.g. handerj ‘with’, which takes the genitive). Several adpositions have
different meanings depending on the cases they are used with. Here are the most
common ones (with the cases they govern):

+ Acc. + Loc. + Inst. + Abl.

ənd through, with under
along

aṙ to beside beside

z- (marks around concerning

def. object)

i to, into in out of

cc to, up to
əst on according to one after another

The following prepositions govern the genitive case and are derived from adverbs:

aṙaji ‘in front of, before’; nedkcoy ‘under, inside’; artakcoy ‘outside’; vasn
‘concerning’; het ‘with’; yet ‘after, following’; pcoxanak ‘instead of, for’.

The phrases i mēĵ ‘amidst’ and i veray ‘above’ function as circumpositions, i.e. they
encompass the governed noun, e.g. i hroy mēĵ ‘into the fire’ (hroy is the Gen. sg. of
hur ‘fire’).
In complex NPs with a noun modified by a demonstrative pronoun, the preposition is
regularly repeated before both constituents, e.g. Luke 2.1:

ənd awurs-n ənd aynosik

in days-ART in those
‘in those days’

The preposition i with the ablative is used to express the actor of a passive verb:

mkrte-in i nmanē
baptize-3PL.IPF i he.ABL
“They were baptized by him” (Matth. 3.6)

There are two negations: the default one, očc, cognate with G oúkhi < *(ne)...h2oyu
kwid ‘(not)...in a lifetime’ and probably Alb. as, ‘s. The other one is the prohibitive
negation mi < PIE *meh1 (G mē̍, Skt. mā, Alb. mos).

[Type text] Page 45

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

The most common conjunctions are:

ew ‘and’ (almost every sentence in the Biblical texts begins with this conjunction, cf.
G kaí)
kam ‘or’ (actually a form of the verb kamim ‘want’, cf. L vel from volo, velle ‘want’)
kcan ‘as, like’
zi ‘beause, so that’ (actually the definitive accusative form of the interrogative/relative
pronoun i-)
minčc(ew) ‘until, so that’
tce/etce ‘that’ (used for indirect speech and in dependent clauses), e.g.:

as-ein, etce du e-s ordi Astuc-oy

say-3SG.IPF that you be-2SG.PRES son.NOM.SG god-GEN.SG
“They said that you were the son of God” (Luc. 4.42)

očc kamēr etce okc gitas-cc-ē

not want.3SG.IPF that anyone know-AOR.SUBJ.3SG
“He did not want anyone to know”

Finally, etce means ‘if’, and is used in conditional clauses:

etce kamis, karoł es

if want.2sg.pres able be.2sg.pres
“If you wish, you can”

tes-ccukc etce gay Ełia pcrkel z-da

see-AOR.SUBJ.2PL if come Elias save.INF ACC.DEF-he
“Let us see if Elias comes to save him”

[Type text] Page 46

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

TEXTS

1. Vahagn's Birth

This poem from the pre-Christian period is preserved in Mowsēs Kcorenacci's

‘Armenian History’. It was reportedly recited by travelling bards (Arm. ergičc). The
hero Vahagn is none other than the pagan Indo-Aryan thunder god, Skt. Vr̥tra-han-
‘Vrtra-slayer’. This text is taken from Schmitt's handbook (1981) together with the
glosses.

Erknēr erkin, erknēr erkir

erknēr ew covn cirani;
erkn i covun unēr ew zkarmrikn ełegnik;
ǝnd ełegan pcoł cux elanēr,
ǝnd ełegan pcoł bocc elanēr;
ew i boccoyn vazēr xarteaš patanekik
na hur her unēr, bocc unēr mōrus,
ew ačckunkcn ein aregakunkc.

“The Sky was in labour, the Earth was in labour,

The purple sea was also in labour;
Labour caught also a small red reed in the sea.
Through the reed's tube came a smoke,
and from the reed's tube came a flame,
and from the flame a red-haired youth jumped.
He had fire as hair, flame as beard,
and his eyes were Suns.”

erknēr ‘was in labour’ 3sg. ipf. of erknem, denominative of erkn ‘birth labours’ < PIE
*h1edwōn (G odýnē, OIr. idu)

erkin ‘sky’ Nom. sg.

erkir ‘earth’ Nom. sg.

ew ‘also’ < PIE *h1epi- ‘on, at’ (G epí)

cov ‘sea’, -n ‘def. article’; word of probably Urartean origin (see above).

cirani ‘purple’

erkn ‘labour pains’, see erknēr above

i ‘in’ < PIE *en- ‘in’ (L in, G éni)

covu-n L sg. of cov ‘sea’ with suffixed article.

unēr ‘took’ 3sg. ipf. of unim ‘have, hold’

[Type text] Page 47

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

z-karmrik-n ‘red’ (Acc. sg.); Nom. sg. is karmrik, z- is the accusative prefix. This
word is a loanword from Iranian, cp. sogd. krm'yr ‘red’.

ełegnik ‘small reed’, diminutive of ełegn ‘reed’ (n-stem)

ǝnd ‘through’

pcoł ‘tube’

cux ‘smoke’

elanēr 3 sg. imperfect of elanem ‘come out’

bocc ‘fire’, etymologically often related to L focus, but the connection is difficult (L
focus is better derived from PIE *dhogwh-s ‘burning’, cf. OIr. daig ‘fire’, while a root
PIE *bhok- would be violating phonotactic constrains of PIE; moreover, such a root
would be reflected as *bokc- in Armenian).

vazēr 3 sg. imperfect of vazem ‘jump’ (an Iranian loanword, cf. Parthian wz- ‘run’)

xarteaš ‘red-haired’

patanekik diminutive of pataneak ‘youth, boy’

na ‘he’

hur ‘fire’ < PIE *peh2wr (G pŷr)

her ‘hair’

morus ‘beard’ (Acc. pl.); the word is often connected to Skt. śmáśru- ‘beard’ (< PIE
*smok'ru-), Alb. mjekrë, Lith. smakrà, OIr. smech, Hitt. zamankur, L māla ‘jaws’ (<
*makslā), but the developments of this PIE etymon are highly irregular.

ačckunkcn N pl. of akn ‘eye’ with suffixed demonstrative –n. From PIE *h3ekw- ‘eye’
(L oculus, etc.)

ein ‘they were’ (3 sg. imperfect of em), PIE *h1es- (L sum, esse, etc.)

aregakunkc N pl. to areg-akn ‘sun’, literally ‘sun-eye’ (cf. arew ‘sun’).

2. The birth of Jesus (Lucas' Gospel 2, 1-20)

Ew ełew ǝnd awursn ǝnd aynosik el hraman yAwgostos kayserē ašxarhagir aṙnel ǝnd
amenayn tiezers. Ays aṙaǰin ašxarhagir ełew i dataworutcean Asorwocc Kiwreneay.
Ew ertcayin amenekcean mtanel yašxarhagir yiwrakcančciwr kcałakci. El ew Yovsēpc i
Galilēē i kcałakcē Nazaretcē i Hrēastan, i kcałakc Dawtci or kočci Betcłeēm, vasn
lineloy nora i tanē ew yazgē Dawtci., mtanel yašxarhagir Maremaw handerj zor
xōsealn ēr nma, ew ēr yłi. Ew ełew i hasaneln nocca andr, lccan awurkc cnaneloy
nora. Ew cnaw zordin iwr zandranik, ew pateacc i xanjarurs ew ed zna i msur, zi očc

[Type text] Page 48

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

goyr nocca teli yiǰavanin. Ew hoviwkc ēin i tełwoǰn yaynmik bacotceagkc, orkc pahēin
zpahpanutc – iwns gišeroy hōticc iwreancc. Ew hreštak Teaṙn ereweccaw nocca, ew
pcaṙkc Teaṙn cageccin aṙ nosa, ew erkean erkiwł mec. Ew asē ccnosa hreštakn: ‘Mi
erknčcikc, zi ahawasik awetaranem jez uraxutciwn mec, or ełicci amenayn
žołovrdeann, zi cnaw jez ays-or Pcrkičc, or ē Oceal Tēr, i kcałakci Dawtci. Ew ays
nšanak jez, gtaniccēkc manuk pateal i xanjarurs ew edeal i msur. Ew yanakarcaki
ełew ǝnd hreštakin ǝnd aynmik bazmutíwn zōracc erknaworacc, or ōrhnēin zAstowac
ew asēin: ‘Pcaṙkc i barjuns Astucoy, ew yerkir xałałutciwn, i mardik hačutíwn.’ Ew
ełew ibrew veraccan i noccanē hreštakkcn yerkins, asen ccmimeans hoviwkcn: ‘Ekaykx
ertciccukc minčcew ccBetcłeēm, ew tesccukc zinčc ē bans ays or ełew, zor Tēr eccoycc
mez.’ Ew ekin pcutcanaki, ew gtin zMariam ew zYusēpc ew zmanukn edeal i msur. Ew
canean vasn banin, or asaccaw nocca zmankanēn. Ew amenekcin or lsēin, zarmanayin
vasn baniccn zor xōseccan ǝnd nosa hoviwkcn. Ew Mariam zamenayn zbans zaysosik
pahēr, ew xelamut linēr i srti iwrum. Ew darjan hoviwkcn, pcaṙawor aṙnēin zAstowac
vasn asmenayni zor lowan ew tesin, orpēs patmeccaw nocca.

Vocabulary:

ew ‘and’; linim ‘become’; ənd ‘in, to’; awr ‘day’; ayn ‘that’; elanem ‘go out’; hraman
‘order’; Awgostos ‘August’; kaysr ‘Caesar’; ašxarhagir ‘census’; aṙnem ‘make, do’;
amenayn ‘all’; tiezerkc (pl. tantum) ‘world’; ays ‘this’; aṙaǰin ‘first’; i ‘in’;
dataworutciwn ‘office of a governor’; Asori ‘Syrian’; Kiwrenios ‘Cyrenius’; ertcam
‘go’; amenekcean ‘all’; mtanem ‘go in’; iwrakcančciwr ‘every’; kcałakc ‘town’;
Yovsēpc ‘Joseph’; Galilea ‘Galilee’; Nazaretc ‘Nazareth’; Hrēastan ‘Judea’; Dawitc
‘David’; or ‘who, which’; kočcem ‘call’; Betcłeēm ‘Bethlehem’; vasn ‘because of, for’;
linel ‘being’; na ‘he, she, it’; tun ‘house’; azg ‘people’; Mariam ‘Mary’; handerj
‘together with’; xawsim ‘speak, say’; em ‘be’; yłi ‘pregnant’; hasanem ‘come, meet’;
andr ‘(towards) there’; lnum ‘become full’; cnanim ‘give birth to’; ordi ‘son’; iwr
‘self’; andranik ‘firstborn’; patem ‘cover’; xanjarur ‘nappies’; dnem ‘put, place’; na
‘he, she, it’; msur ‘crib’; zi ‘for’; očc ‘not’; gom ‘be, exist’; tełi ‘place’; iǰavani ‘inn’;
hoviw ‘shepherd’; baccōtceag ‘sleeping outside’; pahem ‘protect’, pahpanutciwn
‘night-watch’; gišer ‘evening, night’; hawt ‘flock’; hreštak ‘angel’; Tēr ‘lord’; erewim
‘appear’; pcaṙkc ‘splendor’; cagem ‘come into being’; aṙ ‘around’; erknčcim ‘fear’;
erkiwł ‘fear’; mec ‘great’; asem ‘say’; cc- ‘to’; mi ‘not!’ ahawasik ‘behold!’;
awetaranem ‘preach, announce’; dukc ‘you (pl.)’; uraxutciwn ‘gladness, joy’; žołovurd
‘people’; aysōr ‘today’; Pcrkičc ‘saviour’; awcanem ‘smear’; nšanak ‘sign, miracle’;
gtanem ‘find’; manuk ‘child’; patem ‘cover, envelop’; yankarcaki ‘suddenly’;
bazmutciwn ‘large quantity, plentitude’; zawr ‘army’; erknawor ‘heavenly’; awrhnem
‘bless’; Astowac ‘God’; barjr ‘high’; erkir ‘earth’; hałałutciwn ‘peace’; mardik
‘humanity, people’; hačutciwn ‘prosperity’; ibrew ‘as’; veranam ‘rise, go up’; mimean
‘each other’; gam ‘come’; minčcew ‘until’; tesanem ‘see’; zinčc ‘what’; ban ‘word’;
ccuccanem ‘show, demonstrate’; mekc ‘we’; pcutcanaki ‘hurriedly’; gtanem ‘find’;
čanačcem ‘recognize’; lsem ‘hear’; xelamut ‘clever’; sirt ‘heart’; daṙnam ‘return’;
pcaṙawor ‘glorious’; orpēs ‘how, as’; patmem ‘tell, relate’.

[Type text] Page 49

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

3. The story of Parandzem (Pcawstos Biwzant, IV, 98-99).

[Type text] Page 50

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

4. The Origin of Evil (Eznik Kołbacci, I. 12)

Ard ew zayn ews harccanen etcē čcar inčc čckayr aṙaǰi usti ōjn zor Satanay kočcēkc
imaccaw zhangamans čcarin. Asemkc etcē Satanay čcar zstunccaneln mardoyn
Astucoy imaccaw vasn oroy zmardn yayn yōžareccoycc. Orpēs yoržam iccē okc
urukc tcšnami ew tcagucceal ztcšnamukciwnn gałt kamicci inasel ew čcgiticcē
zhangamans vnasakarutcean ew šurǰ ekeal yajicci hnars xndrel.

Vocabulary:

Ard ‘accordingly’, ew ‘and’, ayn ‘this’, ews ‘also’, harccanem ‘ask’, kam ‘go,
exist’, čc- ‘negative prefix’, aṙaǰi ‘before’, usti ‘whence’, awj ‘snake’, or ‘who,
which’, Satanay ‘Satan’, kočcem ‘call’, imanam ‘learn’, hangamankc (pl.)
‘characteristics’, asem ‘say’, stunccanem ‘disobey’, mard ‘man’, Astuac ‘god’,
vasn ‘for, because of’, yawžarem ‘persuade’, orpēs ‘just as’, yoržam ‘when’, em
‘be’, okc ‘someone’, tcšnami ‘enemy’, tcaguccanem ‘hide’, tcšnamukciwn ‘enmity’,
gałt ‘secretly’, kamim ‘wish’, inasem ‘harm’, gitem ‘know’, vnasakarutciwn
‘harm’, šurǰ ‘about, around’, gam ‘go’, yajim ‘wander’, hnarkc (pl.) ‘means’,
xndrem ‘search’.

[Type text] Page 51

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

5. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adjarian, H. Classification des dialectes arméniens, H. Champion, Paris 1909.

Beekes, R. S. P. ‘Historical phonology of Classical Armenian’, in: F. Kortlandt,

Armeniaca. Comparative notes. Caravan Books, Ann Arbor 2003: 133-211.

Clackson, J. The linguistic relationship between Armenian and Greek, Blackwell,

Oxford 1994.

Cohen, P. S. “Some Hittite and Armenian Reduplications and their (P)IE

Ramifications”, Indo-European Linguistics 2/2014: 24-41.

Diakonoff. I. M. ‘Hurro-Urartian borrowings in Old Armenian’, Journal of the

Americal Oriental Society, 105.4/1985: 597-603.

Džaukjan, G. B. Očerki po istorii dopis'mennogo perioda armjanskogo jazyka,

Izdatel'stvo Akademii nauk Armjanskoj SSR, Erevan 1967.

Džaukjan, G. B. et alii Očerki po sravnitel'noj leksikologii armjanskogo jazyka,

Izdatel'stvo AN Armjanskoj SSR, Erevan 1983.

Gippert, J. ‘Das Armenische – eine indogermanische Sprache im kaukasischen

Areal’, in: G. Meiser & O. Hackstein, eds. Sprachkontakt und Sprachwandel,
Reichert, Wiesbaden 2005: 139-160.

Godel, R. An introduction to the study of classical Armenian, Reichert, Wiesbaden

1975.

Greppin, J. A. C. ‘The Origin of Armenian nasal suffix verbs’, Zeitschrift für

vergleichende Sprachforschung 87/1973: 190—198.

Greppin, J. A. C. ‘Laryngeal residue in Armenian’, in: A. Bammesberger (ed.), Die

Laryngaltheorie und die Rekonstruktion des indogermanischen Laut- und
Formenlehre, Winter, Heidelberg 1988: 179-194.

Greppin, J. A. C. ‘The particles -s, -d, and -n in classical and middle Armenian‘,
Historische Sprachforschung, 106(2), 1993: 285-87.

Greppin, J. A. C. ‘Hittite loanwords in Armenian’, in: M. Mayrhofer et al. (eds.)

Lautgeschichte und Etymologie, Reichert, Wiesbaden 1980:203-207.

Jasanoff, J. H. ‘Notes on the Armenian Personal Endings’, Zeitschrift für

vergleichende Sprachforschung 93/1979: 133-149.

Jensen, H. Altarmenische Grammatik, Winter, Heidelberg 1959.

Jensen, H. Altarmenische Chrestomathie, Winter, Heidelberg 1964.

[Type text] Page 52

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

Job, M. Iranica Armeno-Iberica. Studien zu den iranischen Lehnwortern im

Armenischen und Georgischen, ÖAW, Vienna 1993.

Klein, J. On personal deixis in Classical Armenian, J. H. Röll, Dettelbach 1996.

Klingenschmitt, G. Das alt-armenische Verbum, Reichert, Wiesbaden 1982.

Kortlandt, F. ‘On the relative chronology of Armenian sound changes’, in: First
International Conference on Armenian Linguistics, Caravan Books, Delmar,
NY 1980: 97-106.

Kortlandt, F. ‘Notes on Armenian historical phonology IV’, in: Studia Caucasica

6/1985: 9-11.

Kortlandt, F. Armeniaca: Comparative Notes, Caravan Books, Ann Arbor 2003.

Lamberterie, C. de ‘Armeniaca I-VIII: études lexicales’, BSL 73/1978: 243-285.

Lamberterie, C. de ‘Le signe du pluriel en armenien classique’ BSL 74, 1979, 319-
332.

Lamberterie, C. de ‘Introduction à l'arménien classique’, LALIES 10/1992: 234-289.

Martirosyan, H. Etymological Dictionary of the Armenian Inherited Lexicon, Brill,

Leiden 2009.

Matzinger, J. ‘Phrygisch und Armenisch’, in: G. Meiser & O. Hackstein, eds.

Sprachkontakt und Sprachwandel, Reichert, Wiesbaden 2005: 375-394.

Matzinger, J. Untersuchungen zum altarmenischen Nomen. Die Flexion des Nomens.

MSS Beiheft 22, Röll, Dettelbach 2005.

Meillet, A. Esquisse d'une grammaire comparée de l'arménien classique,

Mekhitaristes, Wien 1936.

Meillet, A. Altarmenisches Elementarbuch, Winter, Heidelberg 1980 (reprint of the

1912 edition).

Nocentini, A. ‘L'origine du morphème de pluriel en arménien classique’, Bulletin de

la Société de linguistique de Paris 89/1994: 161-192.

Olsen, B. A. ‘On the development of Indo-European prothetic vowels in Classical

Armenian’, Révue des études armeniennes 19/1985: 5-17.

Olsen, B. A. ‘A trace of Indo-European accent in Armenian’, Historische

Sprachforschung 102/1989: 220-240.

Olsen, B. A. The Noun in Biblical Armenian. Origin and Word Formation – with
special emphasis on the Indo-European Heritage, de Gruyter, Berlin 1999.

Perixanian, A. Materialy k ètimologičeskomu slovarju armjanskogo jazyka,

Izdatel'stvo Armjanskoj AN, Erevan 1993.
[Type text] Page 53
 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

Pisowicz, Andrzej, Le développement du consonantisme arménien, PWN, Wrócław

1976.

Schmidt, K. H. ‘Kartvelisch und Armenisch’, Historische Sprachforschung, 105(2),

1992: 287-306.

Schmitt, R. ‘Die Erforschung des Klassisch-Armenischen seit Meillet (1936)’,

Kratylos 17, 1974, 1-68.

Schmitt, R. Grammatik des Klassisch-Armenischen mit Sprachvergleichenden

Erläuterungen, IBS, Innsbruck 1981.

Schmitt, R. ‘Iranisches Lehngut im Armenischen’, Révue des études armeniennes

17/1983: 73-112.

Solta, G. R. Die Stellung des Armenischen im Kreise der indogermanischen

Sprachen, Vienna 1960.

Solta, G. R. ‘Die Armenische Sprache’ in: Handbuch der Orientalistik, I, 7, Brill,

Leiden 1963: 80-131.

Stempel, R. Die infiniten Verbalformen des Armenischen, Frankfurt/Main 1983.

Stempel, R. ‘Zur Vertretung der drei indogermanischen Gutturalreihen im

Armenischen’, Historische Sprachforschung 107/1994: 298-309.

Stone, M. E., Th. van Lint and J. Nazarian, ‘Further Armenian Inscriptions from
Nazareth’, Revue des Etudes Arméniennes 26/1996-7, 321-337.

Thumb, A. ‘Die griechischen Lehnwörtern im Armenischen’, Byzantinische

Zeitschrift. Volume 9, Issue 2/1900: 388–452.

Tumanjan, E. G. Drevnearmjanskij jazyk, Nauka, Moskva 1971.

Winter, W. ‘Traces of early dialectal diversity in Old Armenian’, in: Ancient Indo-
European Dialects, ed. by H. Birnbaum and J. Puhvel, UC Press, Berkeley and
LA 1966: 201-212.

[Type text] Page 54

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

APPENDIX1 : HISTORICAL MAP OF ARMENIA

[Type text] Page 55

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

APPENDIX 2: ARMENIAN DIALECTS

[Type text] Page 56

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

APPENDIX 3: LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

A) Languages

Alb. = Albanian

Arm. = Armenian

Av. = Avestan

Croat. = Croatian

G = Greek

Goth. = Gothic

Hitt. = Hittite

Hom. = Homeric

L = Latin

Latv. = Latvian

Lith. = Lithuanian

MIr. = Middle Iranian

Myc. = Mycenaean

OCS = Old Church Slavic

OE = Old English

OHG = Old High German

OIc. = Old Icelandic

OIr. = Old Irish

ON = Old Nordic

OPr. = Old Prussian

Parth. = Parthian

PIE = Proto-Indo-European

Russ. = Russian

Skt. = Sanskrit

Toch. B = Tocharian B

[Type text] Page 57

 October 31, 2009 [MATASOVIĆ, ARMENIAN]

W = Welsh

B) Grammatical terms

Abl. = Ablative

Acc. = Accusative

Aor. = Aorist

Art. = Article

D = Dative

Def. = Definite

Gen. = Genitive

Inf. = Infinitive

Inst. = Instrumental

Ipf. = Imperfect

Ipv. = Imperative

Loc. = Locative

Nom. = Nominative

Part. = Participle

Pass. = (Medio-)passive

Pf. = perfect

Pl. = Plural

Pres. = Present

Sg. = Singular

Subj. = Subjunctive

[Type text] Page 58