ARMENIA AND IRAN iv. Iranian influences in Armenian Language

 

ARMENIA AND IRAN

iv. Iranian Influences in Armenian

i. General

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 Maštocʿ) 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, 1972: a b g d e z ê ə ṭʿ ž i l x c k h j ł č m y n š o čʿ p ǰ ṟ s v t r cʿ w pʿ kʿ ô f, and the digraph ow for [u].

  1. Historical background.

  2. History of the problem.

  3. Layers of Iranian borrowings.

  4. Classified list of selected loanwords.

  5. Linguistic analysis.

  6. Proper names.

1. Historical background. In ancient times the name “Armenia” designated the entire highland, which in spite of all political and historical changes in the course of time such as the temporary separation of certain districts or even the complete disintegration of the country, was defined by the Taurus mountains in the south, the upper Euphrates River in the west, the Caucasus mountains in the north, and Media Atropatene, the modern Azerbaijan in the east. In some parts of the area the Armenians constituted the majority of the population, in others only its upper classes, but they were everywhere the unifying element that maintained the culture and language of the whole region. Since these Armenian highlands had been subdued by Cyaxares about 600 B.C. and so had become part of the Median Empire, the conditions had been provided for the intensive influence of Iranian culture and customs on the Armenians and their language. Apart from interruptions of varying duration Armenian was to bear the yoke of the respective Iranian leading power for more than a thousand years, for after the Medes followed the Persian Achaemenids (550-330 B.C.; we find the first attestation of the name of the country in OPers. Armina “Armenia” in 520 B.C. (see above)), then Alexander and the Seleucids. The independence of Armenia from the Seleucids was not gained until 189 B.C.—by Artaxias and Zariadres.

The Armenian kingdom, whose power and size had been enlarged considerably in particular by king Tigranes I called the Great (ca. 94-54 B.C.), had become a bone of contention between the Parthians and the Roman Empire (see Chaumont, 1976) ever since L. Licinius Lucullus had marched against Tigranes during the third Mithridatian War and this king had submitted himself to Pompeius in 66 B.C. The Roman protectorate was followed by the rule of a younger line of the Parthian Arsacids (Arm. Aršakowni-kʿ) over Armenia from 53 (or 66) A.D. to 428 A.D., again except the short period of Roman occupation under Trajan. For the Parthian king Vologaeses I had in 53 A.D. simply placed on the Armenian throne his younger brother Tiridates (Trdat) I, who had been acknowledged by the Romans in the treaty of Rhandeia in 63 and who had finally been crowned by Emperor Nero himself in 66 A.D. For several centuries thereafter Armenia was ruled by a Parthian aristocracy, who exerted considerable influence. Indeed, the Parthian aristocracy was emulated by the Armenians, especially the upper classes, who necessarily had a command of both Parthian and Armenian, and who even tried to join through marriage with the new true masters of their country.

Though the Christianization of Armenia in the third century and its rise to Armenian official religion shortly after 300 A.D. 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 224 A.D.), until the Armenian apple of discord was finally divided between Romans and Sasanians in 387 A.D.: 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 428 A.D., and from then governed only by Sasanian margraves.

Even this brief sketch of the historical background shows that the relations between Armenia and Iran were often very strained, especially during the golden ages of Iran under the Achaemenid and Sasanian dynasties. Moreover, it shows that conditions favorable to a fruitful cultural interchange between Armenians and Iranians existed almost exclusively during the rule of the Arsacids over Armenia before the Christianization of Armenia. During that period the culture of the Parthian feudal aristocracy, being superior to that of the Armenians, exerted profound influence on them. Accordingly, most of the linguistic borrowings came into Armenian from the Northwest Iranian language of the Parthians in a way comparable to the overwhelming French influence on English after the Norman conquest. 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. stock. (For the political, social, cultural, and religious contacts between Iran, Armenia, and Georgia see most recently Lang, 1983.)

2. History of the problem. Armenian word forms are close to or even identical with Iranian and especially NPers. 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. 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. Müller, concluded that Armenian belongs to the Iranian group of languages. That opinion prevailed until 1875, when H. Hübschmann proved that Armenian is an independent branch of the IE. family of languages. The revolutionary element in Hübschmann’s procedure was that according to him Arm. words fully or largely agreeing with Ir. forms in phonetic shape were suspect of being loanwords and could therefore not safely be regarded as genuine Arm. words. It was due to this methodological principle, which only gradually gained universal acceptance, that Hübschmann became the significant pioneer in the study of Ir. borrowings in Armenian (see details in Schmitt, 1975). Still today we are indebted to the one volume that was published of his Armenische Grammatik (Hübschmann, 1897, pp. 9-259) for the most comprehensive compilation of those borrowings. It contains 686 items concerning Iranian loanwords, aside from the borrowings from NPers., and 217 names.

These lists represent a milestone in Armeno-Iranian scholarship and still today are of fundamental importance, but they are far from complete. Indeed, completion could not have been attained at that time since relatively little was then known about OIr. and even less about Mid. Ir. The subsequent investigation of these problems is accordingly closely connected with the advances made in Iranian studies that have to a large extent followed upon the well-known extensive archeological discoveries. In particular, the discovery of many new texts in several Mid. Ir. languages, and thus also the understanding of the vocabularies of those languages, has made it possible to recognize many more Arm. words as borrowings from Ir. and to define more exactly the material already known. Thus, Considine, 1979, p. 213, has called attention to the fact that Hübschmann was unable to provide Mid. Ir. evidence for more than forty percent of those words which he himself regarded as Ir. loanwords in Armenian. Of particular importance here are the new findings in the field of Ir. historical dialectology, which made it possible for the first time to discover the exact Ir. source language of the majority of those Arm. loanwords that came to Arm. from Southwest and Northwest Iranian. The first to prove that Parthian was the source of many Arm. borrowings was A. Meillet (see Meillet, 191 l/12). On that broader basis scholars like E. Benveniste, G. Bolognesi, and many others (see the articles cited in the select bibliography) have proved by means of Ir. evidence the Ir. origin of numerous Arm. words that had previously been unexplained or regarded as IE. heritage. The need for a comprehensive collection of the Ir. loanwords in Arm. 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. H. Ačaṟyan, Hayeren armatakan barāran (Armenian etymological dictionary) 4 vols., Erevan, 1971-1979 (first mimeographed edition 1926-1935), is unreliable as far as the Iranian evidence is concerned. As for the prospects of realizing such a project see Considine, 1979, pp. 2l4f.

Later research has in many cases confirmed the Iranian origin of Arm. words which Hübschmann could only suspect on the basis of their sound of being of Iranian origin (see Bolognesi, 1966, pp. 575f.); ašxat “trouble, labor,” cf. Mid. Pers. axšādīh “trouble, pain;” bazmak “candle, lamp” from Parth. bazmag; ham(a)harz “adjutant, attendant” from Parth. hāmhirz; vin “lute” from Mid. Pers. win, etc. Moreover, a number of words that Hübschmann had regarded as inherited IE. words in Armenian, have in the meantime been identified, or at least claimed as Iranian loanwords (see Bolognesi, 1966, pp. 580f.; 1980, pp. 27f.), even if the last word has not yet been said in some cases: gan “beat, blows,” dag “pressing,” dêz “heap,” hasak “age,” ma(r)h “death,” mêg “mist,” mêz “urine,” yargem “I respect, honor,” sami-kʿ (plur.) “yoke,” sast “scolding,” sowg “sorrow, grief,” vasn “on account (of), because (of),” tar “distant.” Here the important point is that where the phonological development is parallel in both Parthian (or Iranian) and Armenian, it is not always possible to be certain whether a word is borrowed or inherited. The difficulty was already illustrated by Hübschmann (1897, pp. 16f., see most recently Schmitt, 1980, pp. 415f.), in his discussion of naw “ship.” Doubts may sometimes be removed by more detailed argumentation. Thus, Benveniste, 1957/58, pp. 60 and 60f. stressed that the morphological type represented by mêg and mêz is attested for the roots in question otherwise only in Indo-Iranian and is found very often in Irano-Armenian borrowings. In addition, he pointed out that gan appears in the phrase gan harkanel “to strike blows,” which belongs to legal terminology and that gan thus is part of a system. In all these cases the interpretation as a loanword accordingly gains much probability. Benveniste, 1964, p. 2 also introduced a dialectological argument by pointing to the improbability of the existence of isoglosses exclusive to Armenian and Indo-Iranian. Thus, a word like sowrb “pure, holy,” which corresponds exactly to Vedic śubhrá- “neat, smart,” but has no counterpart in other IE. languages, could be assumed to be a loanword from Iranian even if no Iranian evidence for such a word were found. However, in this case the Iranian evidence may be provided by Khotanese since, as R. E. Emmerick has pointed out, Khotanese suraa- “pure, clean” is probably to be derived from *subra-ka- rather than from *suxra-ka-. Similar problems arise in connection with a number of words that have been lost in Iranian and preserved only in Armenian (see Bolognesi, 1977, pp. 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. Nevertheless, there are cases where the rules of historical phonology allow not even the slightest doubt, as e.g. in the case of nirh “sleepiness” or parawand “fetter.” This fact is of course most important from the point of view of methodology and shows clearly that a residue of unsolved problems may always remain.

3. Layers of Iranian borrowings. That not all Arm. borrowings from Ir. belong to one and the same layer is to be expected a priori because of the long period of Ir.-Arm. interrelations, and is, as always in such cases, exemplified clearly by double borrowings like Arikʿ (ew Anarikʿ) “Aryans (and non-Aryans)” beside Eran (ew Aneran) “idem,” mogpet beside movpet as the title of the Zoroastrian high priests, or aspar “shield” beside sar-kʿ (plur.) “weapons.” The last two pairs can be explained as reflecting a Northwest-Ir. and a Southwest-Ir. dialect respectively. For mog- beside mov compare Man. Mid. Parth. muṛγ “bird” beside Man. Mid. Pers. murw. Clearly, these pairs result from borrowings from Parth. in the Arsacid and from Mid. Pers. in the Sasanian period respectively. Another explanation is required to account for Arm. Arikʿ beside Eran, since both Inscr. Mid. Pers. Ērān and Inscr. Parth. Aryān have an ending -ān which is not present in Arm. Arikʿ.

In general the Arm. forms of the loanwords indicate that they were borrowed after the OIr. period, although this does not mean that it is possible to date each borrowing precisely. However, the earliest influences upon the Arm. vocabulary, even though they are attested by only a few words, seem to belong to the time before Macedonian and Seleucid rule over Iran, i. e. chiefly to Achaemenid times, when Armenia was under Iranian domination but not yet thoroughly Iranianized (see Meillet, 1911/12, pp. 246f. = 1977, pp. 149f). It has been suggested that the first borrowing may have been that very form Ari-kʿ (-kʿ is the plural-marker), whose -ea-inflection Arikʿ, gen. Areacʿ, etc., is in accordance with that of the inherited IE. *--stems and so suggests that the Iranian word was borrowed at a time when it still had the ending -ya- intact, as in Old Pers. Ariya-, Av. Airiia- ṭʿšnami “enemy,” borrowed from OIr. *duš-manyu-, attested by Av. dušmainiiu- “hostile,” may also be one of the earliest borrowings (see most recently Schmitt, 1980, pp. 422f.). Early borrowing was assumed by Meillet (1911/12, p. 250 = 1977, p. 150) for Arm. partêz “garden,” which with its t from *d still shows the effect of the Arm. consonant shift. For other Ir. loanwords from before the Arm. consonant shift and the problems involved see especially de Lamberterie, 1978, pp. 246ff. In view of the important role played by “paradises” in Achaemenid Iran (note Gk. parádeisos, Hebrew pardēs and also Av. pairidaēza- “enclosure”), such a borrowing is in fact easily understandable, even though in view of the phonological difficulties presented by the word it may be preferable to regard it as an indirect borrowing. Finally, Arm. gowšak “informer, denouncer” from Old Pers. *gaušaka-, is a typical term of the Achaemenid administration attested only by Aram. gwšk.

On the other hand the existence of ancient borrowings dating back as far as the time of the Median Empire, as assumed by Frye, 1969, pp. 84f. = 1976, pp. 155f. seems highly doubtful. Certainly, the proper name Pʿārnawaz (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, 1957/58 and 1964 and Bolognesi, 1960). 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, 1977, pp. 528ff.) 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:

a) Among the Arsacid loans there are words belonging to the basic vocabulary of everyday life in all its aspects including many adjectives, such as vat “bad,” veh “better,” and others denoting colors, even though adjectives are not usually borrowed as readily as substantives. On the other hand the Sasanian Mid. Pers. layer of loanwords contains mainly technical terms of the military and administration, of jurisdiction and trade, titles or professional designations, and names of all kinds. On the whole it can be said that the Sasanian Mid. Pers. loanwords were often borrowed into other neighboring languages, such as Syriac and Arabic, as well. b) The Arsacid loanwords are usually well attested both in the oldest texts (the Bible translation) and later throughout all literary genres, whereas the Sasanian loanwords are mostly isolated hapax legomena confined to certain authors and often occur in a typically Persian context. c) Only the Arsacid borrowings were still productive in Armenian so that new words, derivatives as well as compounds, could be formed from them. This difference, seen most clearly in those cases where both the Arsacid and Sasanian forms are attested in Armenian, obviously reflects the different relationships between the Armenians and Arsacid and Sasanian masters, namely peaceful co-existence under Arsacid rule, but stubborn resistance against the Sasanians, who had brought political and religious bondage to the land.

The bulk of the pre-Sasanian Arm. borrowings from Mid. Ir. languages, in particular all the Arsacid Parthian loans, can not be assigned to one single homogeneous stratum. This was proved definitively by Bolognesi, 1951, who was able to advance beyond the work of Hübschmann by postulating on the basis of different phonological representations (such as Arm. er- beside for Ir. r-, or Arm. oy beside o for Ir. ō) two successive phases in the development of Parthian, which he called (p. 162) rather inappropriately “paleopartico” and “neopartico” (“Old Parthian” and “New Parthian”). Though our knowledge of the Parth. language throughout the different periods of its history has been greatly enlarged as a result of the discovery of the Nisa ostraca, the Manichean texts from Turfan, and the Sasanian inscriptions, more precise dates within that long period of time cannot be determined. The majority of these Parthian loanwords were, however, undoubtedly borrowed in a “Late Old Parthian” or rather an “Early Middle Parthian” period.

Because little was known in his time about Mid. Ir. languages, in 1897 Hübschmann was rarely able to detect dialectal differences in the Ir. originals of Arm. loanwords. But already in 1911/12 Meillet clearly described the dialectological characteristics of the Northwest Ir. ( = NW), Parth. language within the Arm. borrowings as follows: 1. NW s in Arm. vnas “damage” beside Southwest Ir. ( = SW) h as in Man. Mid. Pers. wināh, NPers. gonāh; 2. NW z in Arm. yazem “I worship” (from Man. Parth. yaz-) beside SW d as in Old Pers. yad-; 3. NW ‘ (whence Arm. r) in Arm. xoyr “headgear, diadem” (from Man. Parth. xō’ “helmet”) beside SW y as in Man. Mid. Pers. xōy (from Old Pers. xauda-); 4. NW rd in Arm. vard “rose” (as also in the Aram. loanword wrdʾ) beside SW l as in Zoroastrian Mid. Pers. gul “flower;” 5. NW hr (whence Arm. rh or h) in Arm. parh/pah “guard” (from Man. Parth. pāhr) beside SW s as in Mid. Pers., NPers. pās; 6. NW b- in bar- “door” (attested in barapan “door-keeper”) from Man. Parth. bar beside SW d- as in Mid. Pers., NPers. dar. (N.B. Statements like “Arm. yazem from Man. Parth. yaz-,” as above, do not mean that the Arm. word can only be derived from the Manichean Parthian form, but that within Parthian the only or the best evidence is provided by the Manichean texts, which in some cases actually have forms showing later phonetic developments.)

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: 1. 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”); 2. NW ž in Arm. žaman-ak “time” (cf. Man. Parth. žamān, written, jmʾn) beside SW z as in Man. Mid. Pers. zamān; 3. NW g in Arm. mogpet “(Zoroastrian) high priest” (from Man. Parth. maγbed, written mgbyd) beside SW w as in NPers. mowbad or the borrowed Arm. movpet, Syr. mvpṭʾ; 4. NW nd in Arm. band “prison” (from Man. Parth band) beside SW nn as in Man. Mid. Pers. 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 - (which had at first remained unchanged) to (a)šx- as in ašxarh “land, world” from *xšahr from Proto-Iranian *xšaθra-. The latter feature proves that forms like Arm. šah “king” and šahanšah “king of kings” with their reduced initial š- from original - must be regarded as Sasanian borrowings from Mid. Pers. šāh, šāhān šāh (from OPers. xšāyaθiya-). Another significant Northwest-Ir. feature is the lack of contraction in cases like Man. Parth. zāwar (written zʾwr) “strength, power” (whence Arm. zawr “army”) beside Man. Mid. Pers. zōr.

On the other hand there are also words in Armenian that are marked by dialectological features characteristic of the Southwest-Ir. Mid. Pers. language (the above criteria in reverse order): 1. SW h in Arm. akah “knowing” (from Zor. Mid. Pers. ākāh, Man. Mid. Pers. āgāh) beside NW s as in Man. Parth. āgas; 2. SW d in Arm. dast- “hand” (attested in dastak “wrist,” dastakert “possession, property;” dastarāk “towel”) from Mid. Pers. dast beside NW z as in Av. zasta-; 3. SW y in Arm. dastiarak “teacher” (also with dast- as first element), cf. NPers. dastyār “assistant,” beside NW as in Man. Parth. dast’ār from Proto-Ir. *dasta-dāra-; 4. SW l (whence Arm. l or ł in Arm. sałar “leader, chief” (from Mid. Pers. sālār) beside NW rd as in Inscr. Mid. Pers. sardār (with historical writing); 5. SW d- in Arm. dar- (attested in darapan “door-keeper”) beside NW b- as in the other borrowings, bar-, barapan (see above); 6. SW s in Arm. sar-kʿ (plur.) “weapons” beside NW sp as in Arm. aspar “shield,” Mid Pers. spar, both borrowings from a Northwest-Ir. dialect.

Note also the following two points: 1. the adjective ṭʿšowaṟ “unfortunate, miserable” from an unattested Mid. Pers. *dušuvarr (contrast Man. Parth. dušfarr, Av. dušxᵛ arənah-) with the typically Pers. development of Proto-Ir. *hṷ- to old Pers. uv- as opposed to Med. f-, Av. xᵛ- (see Hübschmann, 1897, p. 155; Schmitt, 1980, p. 422); 2. the compounds with first element Proto-Ir. *pati-, whence Mid. Ir. pat-, pad-, but especially also Mid. Pers. pay-, as it is found e.g. in the Arm. borrowings payman “measure, statute,” etc., from Man. Mid. Pers. paymān (as opposed to Man. Parth. padmān) and paykʿar “fight, struggle” from Mid. Pers. paykār (Man. Mid. Pers. pahikār), NPers. peykār (as opposed to Man. Parth. padkār- “to fight”). The different Northwest- and Southwest-Ir. dialectological characteristics, as far as they are reflected in Arm. loanwords, have been studied most systematically by G. Bolognesi in his monograph Le fonti dialettali degli imprestiti iranici in armeno (Milan, 1960).

But the study of the Armenian loans from Iranian is of vital importance for solving problems of Old, Middle, and New Iranian linguistics, as well. 1. They help determine the exact phonetic shape of the (Middle) Iranian words, which in the Iranian texts is often obscured by the consonantal writing systems. The Arm. alphabet, however, is fully vocalized, though it does not show the original vowel quantity. 2. They enable us to establish the exact meaning of the Ir. words. 3. They shed light on the phonetic developments that took place in the Ir. languages and thus aid in reconstructing linguistic stages not known or not sufficiently known from the Ir. evidence itself. 4. They provide evidence relating to Ir., and especially Mid. Ir. dialectological problems. Finally, the Arm. language is also an important source for Ir. lexicology and lexicography as it contains many words, some of which survive right down to the present day, not attested in the Ir. languages themselves, e.g.: erašx “guarantee, security” from Proto-Ir. *raxši- (cognate with OInd. rakṣ “to protect;” see Benveniste, 1945, p. 71 ), hraparak “place” from Proto-Ir. *frapādaka- (compare the Syr. loanword hrpdq; see Benveniste, 1957/58, pp. 62f.), nirh “sleepiness” from Proto -Ir. *nidrā- (corresponding to Vedic nidrāˊ-; see Benveniste, 1964, p. 2), and parawand “fetter” from Proto-Ir. *pādabanda- (corresponding to OInd. pādabandha-; see Benveniste, 1957/58, pp. 63f.). 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. transmission is in parts very fragmentary, or on the whole be more complicated because of borrowings between different Iranian dialects. As is well known, there are in the basically Southwest-Ir. Persian language numerous Northwest-Ir. elements, incorporated mainly in Arsacid times, and on the other hand also a certain number of Southwest-Ir. (Persian) influences on the Northwest-Ir. dialects from Sasanian times, as in the case of Man. Parth. dast “hand” with SW (and common Middle and modern Iranian dast, etc.) d instead of NW z. 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. 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.

Among the many questions that have not yet received an answer are the following: 1. In addition to the adjective seaw, “black,” which is in accordance with Man. Parth. syāw, Av. siiāuua- and therefore is a Northwest-Ir. borrowing, Armenian has forms showing a change of *sḭ to š, namely šaw- in the proper names Šaw-asp and Šaw-arš comparable to Av. Siiāuuāspi- (patronymic to *Siiāuuāspa-) and Siiāuuaršan-. However, we do not know to which Iranian dialect that change of *sḭ to š is due. Thus, whereas Bolognesi, 1960, p. 24 established a connection of this phenomenon with the Iranian southwest, Benveniste, 1964, p. 3 objected strongly to that view and instead regarded these names as belonging to a particular epic tradition, which he considered to be Northeast-Ir. because of BSogd. šāw and especially Chor. šāuš (from Proto-Ir. *Syāvaršā), etc. A third position was adopted by Périkhanian, 1968, pp. 24f., who, arguing from analogous cases, thought of traditional Median names taken over by the Armenians from the “Middle Median” language of Northwest Iran, which, however, is not attested in an authentic source. 2. As the regular continuants of Proto-Ir. *d in originally intervocalic position (old Pers. d, old Av. d) we find Northwest-Ir. (Parth.) ‘ (Arm. r; see above), but Southwest-Ir. (Mid. Pers.) y. Apart from these regular developments, both these Ir. dialects also show forms with h from Proto-Ir. *d, which are to be attributed to a third dialect said to have been spoken in an area between the other two. However, the postulated intermediate dialect remains a rather vague entity. Such forms with h from Proto-Ir. *d are attested also in Armenian: e.g. zrah-kʿ (plur.) “cuirass” (with various derivatives) belonging to the likewise borrowed Aram. zardā (written zrdʾ), the younger Arm. form zreh, and Zor. Mid. Pers. zrēh, NPers. zereh (compare Young Av. zrāδa-); and srah “hall, (court)yard,” which is connected with JPers. srāh “outer court,” the Mandaic loanword srʾdq, and Zoroastrian Mid. Pers. srād or srāy, all deriving from Proto-Ir. *srāda-. In the case of such Armenian borrowings the immediate Ir. source dialect can not usually be determined since Parthian or Middle Persian with their (borrowed?) h- forms are potential candidates just as well as the postulated h- dialect itself. A particularly odd situation is to be observed in the case of the Armenian reflexes of Proto-Ir. *spāda- “army” Old Pers., Old Av. spāda-, Young Av. spāδa-), where we find side by side Arm. spah (as in Zor. Mid. Pers. spāh, NPers. sepāh), spay (with the genuine Mid. Pers. development), and *spar (from Parth. *spāδ, Man. Parth. ispāδ written ʿspʾd) implied by the compound sparapet “commander-in-chief,” a title which is to be compared with Inscr. Parth. (a)spāδpat, Mid. Pers. spāhpat, NPers. sepahbad, and the borrowed proper name Arm. Aspahapet (all from Proto-Ir. *spāda-pati-).

The confusion described above is compounded by additional factors. 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.C. 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. This “Middle Median” dialect (see above), whose country bordered on that of Armenian, is virtually unknown. Périkhanian (1966, especially pp. 21f. n. 7; 1968, especially pp. 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.C.) from Zangezowr. Her main shibboleths “Mid. Med.” hr from Proto-Ir. *θr and “Mid. Med.” prothetic vowel before initial sp- and xš- (whence Arm. šx) rested chiefly upon one single piece of evidence, namely the proper name Axšahrsart (written as Aram. ʿḥštrsrt) containing “Mid. Med.” *axšahr as first element (by contrast with Parth. xšahr “country, empire”). Moreover, Périkhanian considered that many of the Northwest-Ir. loanwords in Armenian that are usually regarded as being from Parthian, are to be attributed in fact to an older stratum, a “Middle Median,” layer, although these words presented none of those peculiarly Med. characteristics of which a limited number can be established for the Old Iranian period (see Périkhanian herself, 1966, p. 21 n. 7). This line of approach had been anticipated by W. B. Henning, who in 1963 had assigned those words containing the group nj instead of Parth. (like Arm. brinj “rice” beside NPers. berenǰ or Arm. ganj “treasure” as Man. Mid. Pers. ganz beside Man. Parth. gazn, NPers. ganǰ) to Median. This approach appears to be correct in principle but it is difficult to work out the details because of the scanty evidence available for the older Iranian dialects.

Similar problems are presented by the connections between Armenian and East Iranian languages, which have been remarked on repeatedly since Gauthiot 1916. Most striking is the fact that a number of words known only from Sogdian were borrowed into Armenian (see Bolognesi, 1966, pp. 574f. n. 18): e.g. margarê “magician, sorcerer” (like BSogd. mārkarē rather than Man. Parth. mārēgar), kari “very” (like BSogd. kʾ’y), baw “enough” (like BSogd. βāw “satiety”). Since there were never direct connections between Armenians and Sogdians it is impossible to envisage Sogdian loanwords in Armenian. The most likely explanation seems to be Henning’s proposal (1958, p. 93) that we have to do here with elements of the so-called “Parnian” language, the virtually unknown language of the East Iranian conquerors of Parthia, which was brought to Parthia by the Parni but abandoned in favor of Parthian after it had been enriched by East Iranian elements. 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.

That Parthian played the part of such an intermediary must be assumed also in other instances. Most obvious is the case of Indian or Aramaic/Syriac words. Of Indian provenance are e.g. Arm. kapik “ape” (as Zor. Mid. Pers. kabīg, NPers. kabī from OInd. kapi-, šakʿar “sugar” (as Mid. Pers., NPers. šakar) from Niya Prakrit śakara, or vagr “tiger” from Niya Prakrit vyagra. On the other hand the plant name bowcin “verbascum,” which corresponds to Syr. būṣīnā from Mid. Pers. būčīnā, appears to be an indirect Ir. borrowing in Armenian by way of Syriac (see Hübschmann, 1897, p. 301) because of its -c- (suitable to Syr. ) instead of -č- (corresponding to Ir. č). 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. 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. Such indirect borrowing of Greek words via Parthian often can not be established unambiguously (as e.g. also in the case of Hrōm/Hrōvm, the name of Rome and Byzantium), but occasionally such an intermediate stage is revealed by phonological criteria, as when Greek , i.e. [d] becomes Parth. , i.e. [] in intervocalic position and is replaced by Arm. r: Arm. lampar (with variants lambar and łampar/łambar) “torch” from Gk. lampás, stem lampád- (in contrast to the hapax legomenon Arm. lambat-kʿ (plur.), which was later borrowed directly from Gk. lampádes), or Arm. kałapar “model, form, pattern” from Gk. kalopódion “(shoe) last, model.” Certainty can be obtained also where one and the same word was borrowed twice; once directly from Greek in a form corresponding to the Greek original, and a second time indirectly, after passing through Parthian and attested in another form similar to that known in Iranian. Thus, we find side by side the learned “book word” drakʿmê “drachm” borrowed directly from Gk. drachmḗ and the more commonly used dram (attested already in the Bible translation) from Man. Mid. Pers. drahm, NPers. deram (with the Ir. change of xm to hm and m), or yakinṭʿ “jacinth (stone)” from Gk. hyákinthos, and yakownṭʿ, which is closer to Parth. yākund.

Armenian played a similar role in connection with the neighboring languages in the north, especially Georgian. Many Ir. loanwords occur in Old Georgian literature from the fifth century A.D. onwards although the Ir. loanwords in Georgian are nowhere nearly as important as those in Armenian. They were borrowed either directly from Ir. languages or dialects, as seems to have been the case in Arsacid times, or by way of Armenian, as can sometimes be proved on phonological grounds. Clear evidence is afforded by the typical Arm. r for Ir. *d or Parth. : Georgian ambori “kiss” from Arm. hamboyr “kiss, affection, love” from Parth. *hambō’ (compare Man. Parth. ambōyād “he kissed”); Georgian xoiri “headgear” from Arm. xoyr “headgear, diadem” (see above) from Man. Parth. xō’ “helmet;” Georgian čʾešmaritʾi “true” from Arm. čšmarit “true” from Mid. Pers. čašmdīd “evident, apparent (lit. seen with (one’s own) eyes);” the Georgian proper name Bagratʾi from Arm. Bagrat (beside Bagarat) from Ir. *Bagadāta “given by god(s).” But equally certain are some borrowings from Ir. into Georgian without the intervention of Arm., mainly when Arm. has borrowed from a different source. Such are: Georgian pʿarmani “permit, license” from Parth., Mid. Pers. framān as opposed to Arm. hraman “order;” Georgian pʿarsaxi “parasang” from Parth. *frasax (implied by the Syr. loanword prsḥʾ) as opposed to Arm. hrasax, or, because of the absence of metathesis, Georgian pʾitʾiaxši “governor, viceroy” as opposed to Arm. bdeašx “idem.” Thus M. Andronikʾašvili was justified in warning against the overready assumption of Arm. mediation in the case of Georgian borrowings from Ir.: see her book Narkʾvevehi iranul-kartuli enobrivi urliertobidan (Studies in Iranian-Georgian linguistic contacts) I, Tbilisi, 1966.

After the fall of the Sasanian empire in the middle of the seventh century A.D. the Armenians came for a long period under the influence of Islamic masters (Arabs, Saljuqs, Mongols, and Ottomans), but that foreign rule did not greatly affect Armenian culture and language since the Armenians remained firmly Christian. We accordingly find only a few loanwords, especially among technical and learned vocabulary, from Arabic and New Persian (see Hübschmann 1897, pp. 14f. and 259-280). In general they are limited to later, specialized or technical literature that has in many cases been translated from the donor languages. In part they are distinguished by showing the changes of the second Arm. consonant shift, as in the case of Arm. gos “drum” from NPers. kōs or satap “rue” from NPers. sadāb. That is why Hübschmann (1897, p. 15) assigned these borrowings to the period after the eleventh century. In other cases a more exact chronological classification is difficult or impossible because of the lack of decisive evidence. However, Hübschmann was in error in thinking that Arm. z must have been from “NPers.” z from “Mid. Pers.” č, e.g. in the case of ṭʿazem “I run” from NPers. tāzam according to Hübschmann, 1897, p. 265, since it is now known from the phonetically more exact writings of the Man. Mid. Pers. Turfan texts that the development of č to z is much older and occurred during the Middle Persian period. To this group of loanwords belong also the arabicized forms so characteristic of NPers. e.g. the names of orange and lemon, Arm. nārinǰ from NPers. nārang, arabicized nāranǰ (from OInd. nāraṅga- “orange tree”) and Arm. patrinǰ from NPers. bādrang, arabicized *bādranǰ (not attested) from Zor. Mid. Pers. wādrang.

4. 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.

a) Government, administration, social order, and law. Direct evidence of the Arsacid and Sasanian rule over Armenia is provided by those loanwords that can be classified under this heading. Examples: azat “free, noble” from Parth., Mid. Pers. āzād; azd “information” from Parth., Mid. Pers. azd “known;” ambox “crowd, people” from Parth. *ambōx (cf. NPers. anbūh); ašxarh “world, country” from Parth., Mid. Pers. šahr; aparankʿ (plur.) “house, palace” from Parth. apa’an; awan “village” from Mid. Pers. āwahan, Old Pers. āvahana-; awrên (-kʿ) “law, right, custom” from Parth. aβ’ēn; band “prison” from Parth., Mid. Pers. band; gah “throne” from Parth., Mid. Pers. gāh; ganj “treasure” from Mid. Pers. ganz/ganǰ, Parth. gazn; dašt “field, plain” from Parth., Mid. Pers. dašt; dastakert “village, estate” from Parth., Mid. Pers. dast(a)gird; dat “justice, verdict” from Mid. Pers. dād, Old Pers. dāta-; dar-a-pan “doorkeeper,” loan translation on the basis of Mid. Pers. darbān; diwan “chancellery” from Mid. Pers. dēwān (cf. NPers. dīvān); dpir “scribe, secretary” from Parth., Mid. Pers., dibīr; ṭʿag “crown” from Mid. Pers. tāg (cf. the loanwords, Syr. tāγā, Arab. tāǰ; išxan “prince, ruler” from Ir. *xšāna- (cf. Sogd. axšāwan “king”); hazarapet “chiliarch, manager” from Parth. hazārpat (Mid. Pers. hazāruft; from proto-Ir. *hazahrapati-); hramayem “I order” from Parth., Mid. Pers. framāy-; hraman “order” from Parth., Mid. Pers. framān; hramatar “ruler” from Parth., Mid. Pers. framādār; hrovartak “letter, decree” from Parth., Mid. Pers. frawardag; marz “frontier, province” from Parth., Mid. Pers. marz; mowrh-ak “(sealed) deed” from Parth., Mid. Pers. muhr “seal;” namak “letter, writing” from Mid. Pers. nāmag (cf. NPers. nāma); nždeh “foreigner” from Ir. *niždahyu- (cf. Parth. izdeh, Mid. Pers. uzdeh “exiled, foreign”); šahap “satrap, governor” from Parth., Mid. Pers. šahrab; šên “village” from Parth. *šēn (cf. Av. -šaiiana-); owxt “pact, treaty” from Parth. *uxt (cf. Av. -uxti-); payman “condition, stipulation” from Mid. Pers. paymān (cf. Parth. padmān); partêz “garden” from OIr. *paridaiza- (cf. Av. pairidaēza-, Gk. parádeisos; see section 3 above); pet “chief” from Parth., Mid. Pers. -bed; psak “crown, diadem” from Parth., Mid. Pers. pusag (cf. Av. pusā-); rām “common people” from Parth., Mid. Pers. ram “herd, flock;” spas “service” from Parth. ispas- (cf. ispasag “servant,” etc.); vkay “witness” from Parth. *wikāy (cf. Mid Pers. gugāy, Av. vīkaiia-); včiṟ “decision, judgment” from Mid. Pers. wizīr.

b) War, battle, and armament. ašteay “lance” from Parth. *aršti- (cf. Old Pers. ṛšti-, Av. aršti-); aspar “shield” from Parth., Mid. Pers. ispar; awar “booty” from Parth. āwār; gownd “troops” from Parth., Mid. Pers. gund; dašnak “dagger” from Mid. Pers. dašnag (cf. NPers. dašna); drawš “banner, flag, standard” from Parth., Mid. Pers. drafš; zangapan “greaves” from proto-Ir. *zanga-pāna- (cf. Mid. Pers. zang “shank”); zawr “army” from Parth. zāwar “power, strength” (cf. Mid. Pers. zōr); zên “weapon, armament” from Parth., Mid. Pers. zēn; zrah-kʿ (plur.) “cuirass” from Parth. *zrad (cf. the Aramaic loanword zardā; see section 3 above); ṭʿšnami “enemy” from OIr. *dušmanyu- (cf. Av. dušmainiiu-, Parth., Mid. Pers. dušmen); hên “army of marauders” from Mid. Pers. hēn (cf. Old Pers. hainā-); jerb-a-kal “prisoner” (lit. “held with the hands”), loan translation based on Parth., Mid. Pers. dast-graw; nizak “lance, spear” from Parth., Mid. Pers. nēzag; pah(ak) “guard” from Parth., Mid. Pers. pāhr(ag) “guard;” paterazm “war, battle, fight” from Parth. pādrazm; rāzm “battle” from Parth., Mid. Pers. razm; saławart “helmet” from Parth. *sārwart (cf. the Syr. loanword sanvartā, Mid. Pers. sārwār); sałar “general, leader” from Parth., Mid. Pres. sālār “leader;” spah, spay “army” from Mid. Pers. spāh (cf. Parth. ispāδ); spar-a-pet “army leader,” loan translation based on Parth. spāδ-pat (cf. Mid. Pers. spāh-bed); têg “lance” from Parth. *tēg (cf. Mid. Pers. tēx, NPers. tīγ “sword, edge”).

c) Equitation and horses. In this sphere, Ir. influence was very strong, although the word for horse itself, ji, is not Iranian. Examples: axōr “stable” from Parth., Mid. Pers. āxwarr (cf. NPers. āxor); aspastan “stable (for horses)” from Mid. Pers. aspastān (cf. Av. aspo@stāna-); asp-a-rês “horse race, racecourse,” loan translation based on Mid. Pers. asp-rēs; aspet “knight” from *aspapet from Parth., Mid. Pers. asppat; smb-ak “hoof” from Mid. Pers. sumb (cf. NPers. sonb, Arab. loanword sonbak). In particular several of the numerous color terms borrowed from Iranian may have been taken over in connection with their use as epithets of horses: ašxêt “reddish, sorrel horse” from Mid. Pers. šēd (cf. Av. xšaēta-); erašx “reddish(-brown), sorrel horse” from Parth. *raxš (cf. NPers. raxš “red”); karmir “red” from Mid. Pers. karmīr (cf. the Hebrew loanword karmīl; čartowk “grey (horse)” from Parth. *čartuk (cf. NPers. čarda “dun horse”); čermak “white horse” from Parth. *čarmak (cf. NPers. čarma); seaw “black” from Parth. syāw (cf. Mid. Pers. syā); spitak “white” from Mid. Pers. spēdag (cf. Parth. ispēd).

d) Trade and economy. ambar, hambar “storehouse” from Mid. Pers. hambār (cf. NPers. anbār); anapak “unmixed, pure (wine)” from Parth. *anāpak (cf. Av. anāpa- “without water”); anoyš “sweet(-scented)” from Parth. *anōš (cf. anōšēn); ardow, a measure of capacity (“artabe”) from Parth. *ardab (cf. the loanwords Gk. artábē, Aram. ardab); aržān “worthy, proper,” aržê “it is worth” from Parth. aržān, Mid. Pers. arzān, arz; aroyr “brass” from Parth. *ro’ (cf. Mid. Pers. rōy “copper, brass”); baž “tribute, duty” from Parth. bāz, Mid. Pers. bāǰ (cf. Old Pers. bāǰi-); biwr “ten thousand” from Parth., Mid. Pers. bēwar; graw “pledge, security” from Mid. Pers. graw, (cf. NPers. gerow); griw, a grain measure, from Parth., Mid. Pers. grīw; ṭʿakoyk “vessel, jar” from Mid. Pers. takōk (cf. NPers. takūk); ṭʿošak “provisions, wages” from Mid. Pers. tōšag (cf. NPers. tūša); kapič, a grain measure, from Mid. Pers. kabīz (cf NPers. kavīz and the Gk. loanword kapíthē); kndrowk “frankincense” from Mid. Pers. kundur (cf. NPers. kondor); kowž “pitcher, jug” from Parth. *kūž (cf. the Ar. loanword kūz); hazar “thousand” from Parth., Mid. Pers. hazār; hark “tribute, duty, service” from Mid. Pers. harg (cf. the Ar. loanword xarǰ; mar, a liquid measure, from Parth. mar; naw “ship” from Parth., Mid. Pers. nāw; nawt “naphtha” from Mid. Pers. naft (cf. the Gk. loanword náphtha); vačār “trade, market” from Parth. wāžār (in the derivative wāžārgān “dealer, merchant,” cf. Mid. Pers. wāzār).

e) Handicrafts, techniques, and workmanship. goyn “color” from Mid. Pers. gōn (cf. NPers. gūn); žir “active, busy, clever” from Parth. žīr, Mid. Pers. zīr; črag “lamp” from Parth., Mid. Pers. čarāγ; nkar “painting, picture” from Mid. Pers. nigār (cf. Parth., Mid. Pers. nigār- “to draw, paint”); šiš “bottle” from Parth. *šīš (cf. the Syr. loanword šīšā, Mid. Pers. šīšag); patker “image, portrait” from Parth., Mid. Pers. patkar; patowhan “window” from proto-Ir. *patifrānā-; varagoyr “curtain” from Parth. bar(a)γō’; vran “tent” from Parth. wi’ān, Mid. Pers. wiyān; taxtak “tablet, board, plank” from Mid. Pers. taxtag (cf. NPers. taxta); taławar “tent, hut” from Parth. talawār; tašem “I cut, hew” from Mid. Pers. tāš- (cf. Av. taš-); tašt “cup, bowl” from Mid. Pers. tašt (cf. Av. tašta-); tapak “frying-pan” from Mid. Pers. tābag (cf. NPers. tāba); tapar “hatchet, axe” from Mid. Pers. tabar (cf. NPers. tabar); kʿandak “chisel, carving” from Parth. *kandak (cf. Mid. Pers. kan- “to dig”).

f) Costume, jewelry, and ornament. aparanǰan “bracelet” from Parth. *aparanǰan (cf. NPers. abranǰan); bowrwaṟ “scent bottle, censer” from Parth. *bō’warn (cf. Sogd. βwḍβrn); gês “hair” from Mid. Pers. gēs (cf. Av. gaēsa-); dipak “brocade” from Mid. Pers. dēbāg (cf. NPers. dībā); erang “color, dye” from Mid. Pers. rang (cf. NPers. rang); xoyr “headgear, diadem” from Parth. xōδ “helmet,” Mid. Pers. xōy (cf. Old Pers. xauda “cap”); kerp- “form, shape, appearance” from Mid. Pers. kirb (cf. Av. kəhrp-); mahik “crescent, lunette, crescent-shaped ornament” from Parth. *māhīk (cf. Parth., Mid. Pers. māh “moon”); šapik “shirt” from Mid. Pers. šabīg “(Mazdean’s ritual) undershirt” (cf. NPers. šabī “nightshirt”); patmowčna “garment, dress” from Parth. padmōžan, Mid. Pers. paymōžan; paregawtkʿ “cloth, coat” from OIr. *parigauda- (cf. Gk. paragṓdas = khitōžn parà Párthois; see R. Schmitt, Glotta 49, 1971, pp. 107-10); vars “hair” from Mid. Pers. wars (cf. Av. varəsa-).

g) Nature and food. bown “root, stock, foundation” from Parth., Mid. Pers. bun; gomêš “buffalo” from Mid. Pers. gāwmēš (cf. NPers. (v)mīš; xortik-kʿ (plur.) “food, dish” from Mid. Pers. xwardīg (cf. Av. xᵛarəti-); čarak “pasture, food” from Parth., Mid. Pers. čarag; čarp “grease, fat, oil” from Parth. *čarp (cf. Mid. Pers., NPers. čarb “fatty, oily”); marax “locust” from Parth. *ma’ax (cf. Av. ma’axa-, NPers. malax, but Mid. Pers. mayg); marg “meadow” from Parth. maṛγ (cf. Av. marəγā-); nkan “bread, loaf” from proto-Ir. *nikāna- “ash bread” (lit. “(bread) dug in (ash);” cf. Mid. Pers. nigān “buried”); rōčik “sustenance, daily bread” from Mid. Pers. rōzīg (cf. NPers. rūzī “idem,” lit. “daily (bread)”); rōt “river” from Parth., Mid. Pers. rōd (cf. Old Pers. rautah-); vard “rose“ from Parth. *ward (cf. Mid. Pers. gul, Av. varəδa-, Aram. loanword wrdʾ); vêm “stone, rock” from Parth., Mid. Pers. wēm; tap “heat” from Mid. Pers. tab “fever” (cf. NPers. tab “idem”); tawṭʿ “heat” from Parth. *taft (cf. NPers. taft); pʿowt “rottenness; rotten, spoiled” from Parth. *pūt (cf. Av. pūiti- “rottenness,” Mid. Pers. pūdag “foul, rotten”).

h) Family and society. apaharzan “divorce” from Ir. *apa-harzana- (cf. OInd. apa-sarjana- “abandonment”); aspanǰakan “hospitable” from Parth. ispinǰ, Mid. Pers. aspinǰ “hospitality, inn;” bazmim “I sit down (to dinner)” from Parth., Mid. Pers. bazm “meal, feast;” bžišk “physician, doctor” from Parth., Mid. Pers. bizešk; kapên-kʿ (plur.) “price (of prostitution)” from Mid. Pers. kābēn “dowry” (cf. NPers. kābīn); harazat “legitimate, related brother” from Parth. *ha’azat (cf. Av. haδō.zāta-); parāw “old woman” from Parth. *parnāw (cf. the Syr. loanword parnuš, NPers. pārāw); tohm “family, tribe, line” from Mid. Pers. tōhm, Parth. tōxm; kʿên “hate, revenge” from Parth., Mid. Pers. kēn.

i) Man, his body and qualities. axt “illness, disease” from Parth. *axt (cf. Av. axti-); ah “fear” from Parth. *āh (cf. Av. āiθti- “fear”); andam “member, limb” from Parth., Mid. Pers. handām; bazowk “arm” from Mid. Pers. bāzūg (cf. Av. bāzu-, NPers. bāzū); daštan “menses, menstruation” from Mid. Pers. daštān (cf. Av. daxšta-); eran-kʿ (plur.) “loins, hip, thigh” from Mid. Pers. rān (cf. Av. rāna-); xrat “wisdom, reason, admonition” from Parth., Mid. Pers. xrad; kam “desire, will” from Parth., Mid. Pers. kām; koyr “blind” from Mid. Pers. kōr (cf. NPers. kūr); kowšt “belly, flank, side” from Parth. *kušt (cf. NPers. košt); čakat “forehead” from Mid. Pers. čagād “peak, summit” (cf. NPers. čakād); mah, marh “death” from Parth. *marh (cf. Parth. murd, Av. mərəθiiu- and see in detail Bolognesi, 1960, pp. 17-19); oyž “force, strength” from Parth. *ōž, Mid. Pers. ōz (cf. Av. aoǰah-); owš “mind, sense, intelligence” from Parth. (cf. Av. uši-, Mid. Pers. ōš; veh “superior, better, good, high” from Mid. Pers. weh (cf. Old Pers. vahyah-, camparative); vzowrk “great” from Parth., Mid. Pers. wuzurg (cf. Old Pers. vazṛka-).

j) Everyday life. ahok “fault, blame” from Mid. Pers. āhōg (cf. NPers. āhū); apastan “refuge” from Mid. Pers. abestān; arāt “abundant, rich, liberal” from Parth., Mid. Pers. rād; dep-kʿ (plur.) “accident, case” from Parth., Mid. Pers. dēb “fate, fortune;” džowar “difficult” from Mid. Pers. dušwār (cf. NPers. došvār); dsrov “blamed” from Mid. Pers. dusraw; zowr “futile, vain, false” from Parth., Mid. Pers. zūr; ṭʿšowaṟ “unfortunate, miserable” from OIr. *duš(h)uvarna- (see section 3 above, cf. Parth. dušfarr, Av. dušxᵛarənah-); žaman-ak “time, age” from Parth. žamān, Mid. Pers. zamān(ag); xortak-em “I break into small pieces” from Mid. Pers. xurdag “small” (cf. NPers. xord