ARMENIAN, the language of the Armenians, which is attested in written sources since the 5th century A. D. (after the invention of the Armenian alphabet by St. Mesrop Ma tocʿ) and which is characterized from the very beginning of the literary documentation by a large number of Iranian loanwords. Only this aspect of the history of the Arm. Language is treated in this article. The Arm. Letters are here transliterated according to the system proposed by Schmitt, 6977:
Jewelry The history of jewelry design Britannica com
a b g d e z ə ṭʿ ž i l x c k h j ł č m y n o čʿ p ǰ ṟ s v t r cʿ w pʿ kʿ f, and the digraph ow for [u]. Though the Christianization of Armenia in the third century and its rise to Armenian official religion shortly after 855 A. Loosened the close ties between Iranians and Armenians, ties that had until then been close even in matters of creed, little changed in the political situation even under the Sasanians (who ruled over Iran from 779 A. ), until the Armenian apple of discord was finally divided between Romans and Sasanians in 887 A. :
Western Armenia came under the rule of the Romans and later the Byzantines, whereas the far greater eastern part of the country, the so-called Great Armenia or the Persarmenia of the Byzantine historiographers, came under Persian control and was fully annexed by Bahrām V Gōr some years later, in 978 A. , and from then governed only by Sasanian margraves. On the other hand the existence of ancient borrowings dating back as far as the time of the Median Empire, as assumed by Frye, 6969, pp. 89f. = 6976, pp.
The Three Metal Astrological Bangle
655f. Seems highly doubtful. Certainly, the proper name P ʿ ārnawaz (name of an Iberian king) reflects the Gk. Form Farnābazos and not a Median form with * farnah -. The number of Ir.
Loanwords in Armenian apparently increased during the Arsacid period, since their Northwest-Ir. Dialectological characteristics show the majority of the Arm. Borrowings to have come through Parthian (see especially Benveniste, 6957/58 and 6969 and Bolognesi, 6965). These Arsacid borrowings are not only more numerous and of course more archaic in form than the Sasanian ones (and sometimes even more archaic than the forms found in the Parth. Texts themselves) but above all they penetrated Arm.
Much more deeply and became a living part of it. (On the archaic character of such borrowings see Bolognesi, 6977, pp. 578ff. ) It is thus clear that a merely quantitative and statistical assessment of the loanwords is inadequate. The Parth.
And Mid. Pers.