Etymological Dictionary of the Armenian Inherited Lexicon Online

INTRODUCTION

This work aims at providing a description of the Indo‑European lexical stock of Armenian, with systematic inclusion of new data.

As an Indo-European language, Armenian has been the subject of etymological research for over a hundred years. There are many valuable systematic handbooks, studies and surveys on comparative Armenian linguistics: Hübschmann 1897; Meillet 1936; AčaṙHLPatm 1-2, 1940-51; Solta 1960; Godel 1975; Schmitt 1972‑74; 1981; J̌ahukyan 1972; 1982; 1987; de Lamberterie 1992; 1997; Clackson 1994; Olsen 1999; Kortlandt 2003; Beekes 2003.

All of these works, with the exception of Ačaṙyan’s fundamental studies (see below, and 1.1) and J̌ahukyan 1972 and 1987, mostly concentrate on Classical Armenian, touching only sporadically upon the dialects. With respect to the comparative historical evaluation of several dialectal features, the series of papers by Kortlandt and Weitenberg is particularly important. Middle Armenian is extensively studied in Karst 1901 (ModArm. transl.: 2002) and “Aknarkner miǰin grakan hayereni patmut‘yan”, vols. 1 and 2, Yerevan: University Press, 1972‑1975 (see in particular H. Muradyan 1972 and M. Muradyan 1982).

The present study intends to incorporate the lexical, phonological and morphological material of the Armenian dialects into the etymological treatment of the Indo‑European lexicon. In this respect it is completely new.

The lexical stock relies heavily upon Ačaṙyan’s etymological dictionary (HAB). No serious etymological or dialectological investigation can be undertaken without recurring to HAB. Unfortunately, the latter work was written in Armenian and is therefore inaccessible for many students of Indo‑European linguistics.

It should be borne in mind that, in the new publication of HAB (vols. 1‑4, 1971‑1979), numerous misprints and omissions are present, many of which were corrected in HAB‑Add 1982. Nevertheless, these corrections sometimes escape the attention of scholars. For an example, see s.v. garšapar ‘heel’.

Non‑literary data taken from Armenian dialects have largely remained outside the scope of Indo‑European etymological studies. First of all, this concerns data scattered in Armenian dialectological literature, particularly in Ačaṙyan’s HAB, as well as in numerous descriptions of individual dialects by various authors. Furthermore, there is a considerable number of dialectal words in folklore texts and anthropological descriptions, which are almost never provided with indices. That literature, written mostly in Armenian, remains largely unavailable or inaccessible to scholars outside Armenia.

Apart from (potentially old) dialectal words, which are not attested in Classical or Middle Armenian sources, there are many ClArm. words considered to be absent in dialects. In such cases, the newly found dialectal data frequently provide us with invaluable clues for establishing the semantics, the phonological shape, the morphological features and the geographical distribution of the words.

The present study comprises two basic parts. The first part represents the (alphabetically ordered) lexical corpus with philological and etymological discussion. The second one lists phonological, morphological and lexico‑semantic features resulting from the first part and outlines new prospects. Whenever the philological data taken from literature are insufficient (for instance, when dealing with words with uncertain status and/or unspecified semantics), I consult the material obtained during my field work (August and September 2003) with indispensable systematic assistance of my wife, Satenik Gharagyozyan, in areas where some of the important Armenian dialects, such as Łarabaɫ, Goris, Ararat/ Loṙi,Van/Diadin, Sasun, etc., are still spoken properly.    

Another essential bearing of my research into the field of Armenian etymology is the systematic inclusion of cultural data.