Early stages of dating a taurus man
historical dialectology, which made it possible for the first time to discover the exact Ir. However, in this case the Iranian evidence may be provided by Khotanese since, as R. 534ff.) because an argument often advanced is that since the model assumed is not attested in Iranian, the derivation from Iranian is based upon an argument ad silentio. interrelations, and is, as always in such cases, exemplified clearly by double borrowings like In general the Arm. It has been suggested that the first borrowing may have been that very form still shows the effect of the Arm. No attempt is made here to present a complete or even a comprehensive catalogue of the Iranian elements in Armenian. This fact often makes it easy to date the borrowings, especially if it is possible to obtain additional evidence from typical features of the historical phonology such as the characteristic Arm. In various studies (especially 1971), Nalbandyan has tried to distinguish between OIr. names, those from the Zoroastrian pantheon, and Scythian names), Mid. Nevertheless, there are cases where the rules of historical phonology allow not even the slightest doubt, as e.g. forms of the loanwords indicate that they were borrowed after the OIr. Note also that any such classification is to some extent arbitrary. elements in the common vocabulary, numerous as they are, seem nevertheless to be outnumbered by those pertaining to religion. Boccali, “Influenze della religione iranica sulla cultura armena,” -). However, such words were not at first recognized as borrowings, and as a result, in the mid-19th century experts both in Armenian and in Iranian, foremost among whom were Paul de Lagarde and F. reflecting the enormous progress that has been made since the turn of the century has become more and more pressing for both disciplines concerned, especially since H. Ačaṟyan, (Armenian etymological dictionary) 4 vols., Erevan, 1971-1979 (first mimeographed edition 1926-1935), is unreliable as far as the Iranian evidence is concerned. dialectological characteristics, as far as they are reflected in Arm. They shed light on the phonetic developments that took place in the Ir. They provide evidence relating to Ir., and especially Mid. As is well known, there are in the basically Southwest-Ir. elements, incorporated mainly in Arsacid times, and on the other hand also a certain number of Southwest-Ir. dialects from Sasanian times, as in the case of Man. In this respect the book by Bolognesi, 1960, where all the most important dialectological features reflected in Armenian are discussed in great detail, is in every way a model. 24 established a connection of this phenomenon with the Iranian southwest, Benveniste, 1964, p. A third position was adopted by Périkhanian, 1968, pp. Thus, the Parthians came into close contact with the Armenians only after having spread over Northwest Iran in the second half of the second century B. They thus contributed much to the extinction of the old “Median” or “Atropatenian” dialect spoken there, a dialect apparently closely related to their own language. Most obvious is the case of Indian or Aramaic/Syriac words. Such indirect borrowing of Greek words via Parthian often can not be established unambiguously (as e.g. 124, that these cases of coincidence between the Arm. stem classes are to be explained as restored from derivatives or compounds in which the stem vowel could have been readily preserved. 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. This process depended for its success on widespread bilingualism. influence have been brought to light only in recent times, mainly by Bolognesi (see Bolognesi, 1961; 1962a; 1966, pp. On the other hand, however, there are those names of Ir. studies as well, since they have become fully integrated within the Arm. The borrowing of personal names of foreign origin from other peoples is always conditioned by cultural matters and based upon something like an onomastic fashion.
The terminology involved is not connected with any particular religious ideas such as those of Zoroastrianism but reflects the religious notions current among the people at large as is revealed by the fact that in the Bible translation even the disciples of Christ and the angels were designated by two terms of Iranian provenance: ), and even numerals, adverbs, and other indeclinables, may be carried out in different ways.
In this area, especially in Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria, a Lower Paleolithic development closely paralleling that of Europe is indicated by the widespread distribution of hand axes of Abbevillian and Acheulean type.
Unfortunately, the majority of these finds are from open-air, unstratified sites that cannot be dated.
Furthermore, it should be emphasized that these borrowings were not limited to the vocabulary but also involve derivational suffixes, phraseology, and all kinds of names, and that they are from the beginning of the Armenian literary tradition inextricably mixed with the inherited vocabulary of IE. (For the political, social, cultural, and religious contacts between Iran, Armenia, and Georgia see most recently Lang, 1983.) 2. Armenian word forms are close to or even identical with Iranian and especially NPers. languages themselves, e.g.: -; see Benveniste, 1957/58, pp. In every investigation of these questions one must bear in mind, however, that individual cases either may not be so clearcut on the Iranian side because the Ir. 25-29) thought she had found the key to its characterization in older Aramaic inscriptions from the region, particularly in that of King Artašês/Artaxias (189-160 B. characteristics of which a limited number can be established for the Old Iranian period (see Périkhanian herself, 1966, p. Most striking is the fact that a number of words known only from Sogdian were borrowed into Armenian (see Bolognesi, 1966, pp. No definitive proof has been found but it is plausible to assume that the words in question may have been East Iranian words that entered Armenian via Parthian. But matters are clearest in the case of some borrowings from Greek, in particular with the older ones, which were taken over in the period before the complete Christianization of Armenia. Formerly it was thought that the borrowings in the first group go back to a period when the original final syllables had not yet disappeared. Such an assumption would entail that the so-called (older) Arm. A chronological dilemma is brought about by treating as morphologically late such group 2 forms which phonological criteria prove to be archaic borrowings. Such words or compositional elements are partly also in independent use in Arm., as is the case with - “lord, chief.” The extremely large number of these formations (collected, classified, and interpreted in detail by Leroy, 1960 and Benveniste, 1961 ) is clear evidence of the profound influence of the Arsacid and Sasanian feudal aristocracy and military on Armenia. suffixes that were true suffixes from the beginning and have gained great vitality and productivity in Arm. Conclusive evidence of the strong influence of the foreign Iranian culture and languages on Armenia and Armenian is also afforded by the loan translations, of which a steadily increasing number has been identified. On the one hand we find a great many names of Arsacid or Sasanian kings and queens, princes and princesses, generals and notables of various kinds which refer exclusively to Iran proper and to Iranian matters but just happen to occur in Armenian texts and are therefore virtually on the same level as the Ir. Schmitt, “Iranische Namenschichten und Namentypen bei altarmenischen Historikern,” , N.
forms in so many cases that the particular connection between the two languages could not escape the notice of scholars even at the beginning of modern Armenological studies. transmission is in parts very fragmentary, or on the whole be more complicated because of borrowings between different Iranian dialects. This complication of the Iranian situation calls for a more comprehensive view in order to assess the Armenian borrowings, which means that one must take into account all available data rather than discuss specific criteria in isolation. The confusion described above is compounded by additional factors. That Parthian played the part of such an intermediary must be assumed also in other instances. Even the general historical situation would lead us to expect that Greek words would have come to Armenia through the Parthian empire since Greek was the cultural language of the Parthians, who were Hellenized to some extent at least in their upper classes. This view seems to have been first expounded by Meillet, 1911/12, p. 149, and it was repeated subsequently in several manuals although it was never based on a close investigation of the problem, relying mainly on certain cases of agreement between Arm. “Law of final syllables,” according to which the vowel of the originally final syllable of a word and this syllable itself disappear, would have operated only in the Arsacid period at roughly the same time as the analogous phenomenon in Western Mid. It is true that a number of such correspondences are found but they can not be considered apart from the many seemingly archaic borrowings whose antiquity is guaranteed by phonological features (e.g. The only way out of the dilemma seems to be the one proposed by Bolognesi, 1954, p. Prefixes that are of frequent occurrence and thus often allow a borrowing to be identified by way of cumulative evidence are: -: no longer productive in Arm. are, among many others, the following: --formations so characteristic of some of the younger Ir. Many phrases composed only of Armenian words were in fact modeled on Iranian expressions. It is of course much more difficult to detect instances of loan translation than loanwords so that there remains much scope for future research in this field. In Armenian literature we find from the very beginning in the fifth century A. a very large number of Iranian proper names, especially personal names. collateral tradition in Greek, Aramaic, Elamite sources, etc. Leroy, “Emprunts iraniens dans la composition nominale en arménien classique,” ibid., pp.
Hand-ax industries of Abbevilleo-Acheulean type are missing in southern and eastern Asia, together with the intimately associated prepared striking-platform–tortoise-core, or Levallois, technique.