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:Best Rated Senior dating sites
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. 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. Materials can not be compared on an equal basis. They must be examined more closely and the following points must be taken into account: Subsequent research in the field of Ir. Dialectology has increased the number of these distinctive features substantially. Some special features reflected in the Arm. Material and characteristic of the Northwest-Ir. Dialect group, which is on the whole the more conservative one, are the following: 6. NW sp in Arm. Asp- horse (attested in some compounds) from Parth. Asp (compare Av. Aspa -) beside SW s as in Old Pers. Asa -, Mid.
Pers as - (in aswār horseman ) 7. NW ž in Arm. Žaman-ak time (cf. Man. Parth. Žamān, written, jmʾn ) beside SW z as in Man. Mid. Zamān 8. NW g in Arm. Mogpet (Zoroastrian) high priest (from Man. Ma bed, written mgbyd ) beside SW w as in NPers. Mowbad or the borrowed Arm. Movpet, Syr. Mvpṭʾ 9. NW nd in Arm. Band prison (from Man. Parth band ) beside SW nn as in Man. Bann. Characteristic features of the Arm. Borrowings from Northwest-Ir. Dialects are, in addition, the metatheses of hr to rh (see above) and of the initial group x - (which had at first remained unchanged) to (a) x - as in a xarh land, world from * x ahr from Proto-Iranian * x a ra -. The latter feature proves that forms like Arm. Ah king and ahan ah king of kings with their reduced initial - from original x - must be regarded as Sasanian borrowings from Mid. Āh, āhān āh (from OPers. X āya iya -). Another significant Northwest-Ir. Feature is the lack of contraction in cases like Man. Zāwar (written zʾwr ) strength, power (whence Arm. Zawr army ) beside Man. Zōr. 9. Classified list of selected loanwords: a brief analysis of the loanwords with respect to their cultural context. This analysis is restricted to a semantic classification of the most important and best attested Ir. Loanwords, namely those found in the Bible translation. No attempt is made here to present a complete or even a comprehensive catalogue of the Iranian elements in Armenian. Note also that any such classification is to some extent arbitrary. The order followed is that of the Armenian alphabet. H) Family and society. Apaharzan divorce from Ir.
The Three Metal Astrological Bangle
* apa-harzana - (cf. OInd. Apa-sarjana - abandonment ) aspanǰakan hospitable from Parth. Ispinǰ, Mid. Aspinǰ hospitality, inn bazmim I sit down (to dinner) from Parth. , Mid. Bazm meal, feast bži k physician, doctor from Parth. Bize k kap n-kʿ (plur. ) price (of prostitution) from Mid. Kābēn dowry (cf. NPers. Kābīn ) harazat legitimate, related brother from Parth. * ha azat (cf. Av. Ha ō. Zāta -) parāw old woman from Parth. * parnāw (cf. The Syr. Loanword parnu, NPers. Pārāw ) tohm family, tribe, line from Mid. Tōhm, Parth. Tōxm kʿ n hate, revenge from Parth. Kēn. 5. Linguistic analysis. A linguistic analysis of these Iranian elements in Armenian, which we see touch all parts of speech, from substantives to adjectives, verbs (trans. - em, intr. - im ), and even numerals, adverbs, and other indeclinables, may be carried out in different ways. On the one hand the phonetic shape of the Armenian words sheds light on the sounds the Iranian words must have had at the time when they came into Armenian, and on the other hand, one may also observe their adaptation and their morphological and/or lexical integration into Armenian. Phonology. Some Arm. Phonemes, chiefly p and č, but also, ž, and x, appear only exceptionally in words inherited from IE. But commonly in Ir. Loanwords. This means that the words containing those phonemes can be assumed to be loanwords even if the original Ir. Forms are not directly attested. Likewise characteristic of Iranian loanwords are special final consonant combinations, in particular - zd, - zm, - xt, - nd, - nj, - x, - k, - t, - sp, - st, - rd, - rz, - rk, - rh, and - rt. A list of the phonetic correspondences between Armenian and the Ir. Source languages must contain at least the following (for parts of the consonant system see also the list in R. Godel, An Introduction to the Study of Classical Armenian, Wiesbaden, 6975, p.
96): Morphology. Here, it must be stressed, the Ir. Influence is limited to the formation of words while the morphology in the narrower sense of the word (that is, the formation of case forms, etc. ) shows no Ir. Influence at all. A certain peculiarity is noticeable, however, with regard to the integration of the Ir. Loanwords into the various classes of the Arm. Noun declension. It is possible to distinguish three groups: 6. Those instances where the Arm. Stem class matches the original OIr. One, (e. G. Arm. Xrat wisdom, u -stem, from Mid. Ir. * xrat from OIr. * xratu -, u -stem) 7. Those cases where there is a difference (e. Dat justice, i -stem, from Mid. * dāt from OIr. * dāta -, a -stem) 8. Cases characterized by the co-existence of different types caused by the fact that the nom. -acc. Sing. Forms have no ending (e. Mog (Zoroastrian) priest, u - or a -stem, from Mid. * mog from OIr. * magu -, u -stem). A chronological dilemma is brought about by treating as morphologically late such group 7 forms which phonological criteria prove to be archaic borrowings. The only way out of the dilemma seems to be the one proposed by Bolognesi, 6959, p. 679, that these cases of coincidence between the Arm. And the Ir. Stem classes are to be explained as restored from derivatives or compounds in which the stem vowel could have been readily preserved. That means that Arm. Borrowed those forms when their final syllables had already been shortened in Ir. , that is, in their typically Mid. Form, and that the loss of the final syllables seen in the Arm.
Borrowings from Ir. (when compared with the OIr. Or even Indo-Ir. Data) has nothing to do with the Arm. Law of final syllables. - astan in nouns denoting places, especially in names of countries: asp-astan stable of horses (from morphology asp horse ) dar-astan garden (from dar tree ) ay-astan Armenia (from Hay Armenian ) Xuž-astan Susiana Asorestan Syria (from Asori Syrian ), etc. from Ir. *- stāna -, cf. Stān (Parth. Xūžistān ). - aran in nouns denoting places: ganj-aran treasury (from ganj treasure ) zoh-aran sacrificial altar (from zoh sacrifice ) place name Bag-aran from Ir. * dāna - receptacle, cf. - ān (Old Pers. Daivadāna - temple of daivas ). - ar n in adjectives and adverbs denoting languages: yown-ar n Greek (from Yoyn Greek ) asorar n Syriac (from Asori ), etc. From Ir. *- ādayana - manner, way, cf. * ā ēn, NPers. Āyīn norm, manner (cf. Leroy, 969). - kar doing, making: awgt-a-kar profitable (from awgowt profit ) vnas-a-kar hurtful (from vnas damage ), etc. *- kara -/- kāra, cf. - gar /- gār (Old Pers. Zūrakara - evildoer, Mid. Wināhgār sinner ). - kert made, done: dast-a-kert building, village (lit. Handmade from dast hand ) jeṟ-a-kert manufacture (from jeṟn hand ) place name Tigran-a-kert (lit. Founded by Tigran ), etc. *- kṛta made, done, cf. - kirt, - gird (Old Pers. Du kṛta ill-done, Parth. Yazdegird made by god, also as a proper name). - ow(r)hi in feminines, starting from a single loanword, ṭʿag-ow(r)hi queen from Ir. * tāga-bṛ ryā (fem. To ṭʿag-a-wor king, lit.
Bearing the crown ), where - ow(r)hi, no longer understood, became isolated by separating ṭʿag crown and having thus become independent was finally generalized (cf. Benveniste, 6995, p. 79).