Within the Indo-European language family to which they both belong, Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian shared in a number of innovations, such as the merger of Proto-Indo-European (PIE) plain velar and labiovelar stops and fronting of palatal stops (the satəm treatment, so called after Av. satəm ‘hundred’ < PIE *k̂m̥tóm); palatalization of *s after high vowels, dorsal stops, and *r (the “ruki rule”); generalization of *-V̄ in the nominative singular of animate n– and r-stem nouns; and several lexical items, e.g. *bheyH- ‘fear,’ *wik̂(w)o- ‘all.’These features suggest that the two branches were geographical neighbors and remained in contact until the ultimate breakup of the parent speech community.The subsequent migration of Iranian speakers to Central Asia and the Iranian Plateau severed most links with (Balto-)Slavic speakers, who remained to the north of the generally accepted Proto-Indo-European “homeland” in present-day Ukraine.
Modern Slavic languages abound in words of Persian origin (see for Russian the useful list in Pohl, and for Czech Blažek, 2016), but the great majority of these have been borrowed via Arabic or Turkish and often also West European languages such as French, Italian, and German: cf. Rus. arbúz, Ukr. (Ukrainian) harbúz, Pol. (Polish) (h)arbuz ‘watermelon’ < Turkic xarbuz < Pers. xarbuza; Rus. baklazhán, Pol. bakłażan ‘eggplant’ < Ott. Turk. bādlicān < Pers. bādenjān (ultimately from India); Rus., Ukr. maĭdán, BCSM (Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian/Montenegrin) mejdan, megdan ‘(large) square,’ Pol. majdan ‘square in a village, army camp, or fortress’ < Turk. meydan < Mid. Pers. mdy’n /maydān/ ‘middle’ (Pers. miān); Rus. neft’ ‘petroleum’ < Turk. neft < Pers. naft; Rus. pashá, BCSM paša ‘pasha’ < Turk. paşa < Pers. pādešāh ‘padishah’; Rus. shákhmaty, Pol. szachy ‘chess’ < Ger. Schach < Fr. échecs and/or It. (Italian) scacchi < Pers. šāh (māt) ‘the king (is dead).’Given the divergent historical and cultural contexts of the Slavic-speaking peoples, it is hardly surprising that some such loanwords entered Russian from Tatar or other Turkic languages, the Balkan Slavic languages from Ottoman Turkish, and the West Slavic languages from Western Europe: cf. Rus. bazár ‘bazaar’ < Turkic bazar vs. BCSM bazar < Turk. bazar vs. Pol., Cz. (Czech) bazar < Ger. Basar and/or Fr. bazar < Turk. bazar, all from Pers. bāzār (q.v.) ‘market’; Pol. karawana, Cz. karavana ‘caravan’ < Fr. caravane vs. BCSM karavan < Turk. kervan, both from Pers. kār(a)vān (see CARAVAN; borrowed directly or through French as Rus. karaván). Especially interesting cases are Rus. sákhar, Bulg. (Bulgarian) zákhar ‘sugar’ < Gk. záxarē (Ancient Gk. sákxar(on)) vs. BCSM šećer ‘sugar’ < Turk. şeker vs. Pol. cukier, Cz. cukr < Ger. Zucker < It. zucchero < Ar. sukkar, all ultimately from Pers. šakar (itself from Pāli sakkharā, cf. Skt. śarkarā ‘gravel; ground sugar’); and BCSM paradajz ‘tomato’ < Austrian Ger. Paradeis-apfel, lit. ‘apple of paradise,’ in which Paradeis goes back to Gk. parádeisos < OPers. pari-daiza- ‘walled enclosure’.
Direct contacts between Iranian– and Slavic-speaking peoples in pre-modern times were extremely limited, except in the case of those Iranians who occupied the steppes to the north of the Black Sea.The latter, known from the accounts of ancient Greek and Roman historians as the Scythians and Sarmatians (see SCYTHIANS), were the predecessors of the medieval Alans, groups of whom made their way all over Eurasia, from western Europe to China (see ALANS; ASII; see also Alemany). Following the invasions of Timur, their remnants sought refuge in the northern slopes of the west-central Caucasus, whence they gradually moved east and southwards. Their descendants are the Ossetes (see OSSETIC LANGUAGE); the great majority use varieties of the Iron dialect, which forms the basis for the literary language, but a minority in western Alania-North Ossetia speaks the generally more conservative Digor (q.v.).
The history of Slavic-Iranian linguistic contacts may therefore be divided for convenience into three periods: (1) the late centuries BCE and early centuries CE up to the migrations of the Slavs and dissolution of Proto-Slavic; (2) the medieval period up to the 14th century; and (3) from the late 18th century to the present, with the advance of the Russian Empire into the Caucasus and Central Asia and consequent direct contacts with speakers of Persian and other Iranian languages.During the first period, pre-Slavic speakers were open to the influences of Iranian-speaking tribes on the borders of the steppe, including the Scythians and Sarmatians of antiquity, and some may well have entered into Iranian-led steppe confederations.The linguistic results of contact from this time will thus be common to Slavic as a whole.In contrast, during the second period only East Slavic speakers living in the territory of present-day Ukraine and southern Russia would have been in contact with the Alans; any borrowings should thus be restricted to those languages.Finally, Slavic-Iranian contacts in the modern period involve primarily Russian and Persian; after the Bolshevik Revolution, Russian also exercised a profound influence on all the minority Iranian languages of the USSR, not least in the adoption of the Cyrillic script in the 1930s.
The study of the earliest linguistic and cultural contacts between Iranians and Slavs goes back to the early 20th century and has been masterfully summarized by Reczek (1985).The two principal opposing views were held by Rozwadowski, who believed that certain lexical isoglosses shared by Slavic and Iranian were evidence of contact between speakers of the two branches in antiquity, and Meillet (1926; cf. 1897, pp. 94-95; 1908, pp. 127-28), for whom such convergences resulted solely from the proximity of pre-Slavic and pre-Iranian in late Proto-Indo-European times.The eminent Slavist Max Vasmer adduced several examples of Iranianisms in Slavic in his pioneering research on Old Iranian in southern Russia (see Vasmer, 1913, pp. 3-8, and below).A useful list of Slavic-Iranian isoglosses, including more or less probable Iranian borrowings in Slavic, was furnished by Zaliznyak; see the updated list and discussion in Èdel’man, pp. 142-94. V. A. Abaev devoted many studies to contacts involving Ossetic and its North Iranian ancestors, including with Slavic and other Indo-European branches (Abaev, 1995; idem, 1965; the latter with much highly doubtful material).Benveniste (1967) rightly emphasized that different Slavic-Iranian lexical isoglosses require different explanations, from shared inheritance to borrowing to calques and semantic influence (see below).An attempt at periodization of Iranianisms in Slavic has been made by Blažek (2015), but the evidence is in most cases simply insufficient to determine their exact chronology or precise source from among the many Old and Early Middle Iranian dialects.
Several scholars have proposed more extravagant claims of Iranian lexical influence on Slavic, e.g. Trubachev, who interpreted several West Slavic, principally Polish forms as Iranianisms (see below), Gołąb (1973), who claimed an Iranian source for numerous Slavic forms with initial x- (including such semantically central verbs as *xotěti/*xŭtěti ‘want,’ *xovati ‘hide’), and Loma (2000, 2012), who suggested Scythian etymologies for a host of Slavic items, including ethnonyms and toponyms; but most of their etymological proposals are unsupported by actual data from Old and Middle Iranian languages and/or do not account for the formal peculiarities on the Slavic side and so amount to obscurum per obscurius (see the criticisms in Reczek, 1985 [1991], pp. 27-36, 41-47, 68-70).Matasović (p. 198) rightly cautions against “the tendency to regard all Slavic words which do not have an obvious derivation from PIE as Iranian loanwords,” even if his own attempts to explain away all Iranianisms in Slavic are not equally convincing.The belief in a special Iranian linguistic and cultural influence on Slavic has a long tradition in Poland, where it has been associated with the ideology of Sarmatianism, the belief in the Sarmatian origins of the Polish nobility (szlachta), which flourished in the 17th and 18th centuries and appealed to many nationalist intellectuals in the 19th and 20th centuries (see, e.g., Sulimirski)
The consensus within the current state of research holds that Iranian– and Slavic-speaking peoples came into contact in the second half of the first millennium BCE in the transition zone between steppe and forest to the north of the Black Sea.The Scythian language of these Iranians is known only fragmentarily, from names quoted by Herodotus and other ancient Greek authors and inscriptions from the northern coast of the Black Sea (see SCYTHIAN LANGUAGE); it has also left its trace in numerous place names, most famously the rivers Danube, Dniester, Dnieper, and Don (Ancient Gk. Tánais), all containing PIr. (Proto-Iranian) *dānu- ‘river’ (cf. Oss. don). The Scythians were dispersed westward by the arrival of the Sarmatians, who dominated the steppe in the last centuries BCE and early centuries CE. Commercial and military contacts between Iranians and Slavs intensified during this period, as successive waves of peoples moving westward from Asia pushed the Sarmatians and then the Alans west and north into the proximity of the Slavs’ home territory.
That the religious and cultural worldview of the Iranians influenced the early Slavs is demonstrated by Slavic lexical items with solid PIE etymologies, but whose meanings are otherwise restricted to Iranian (Jakobson; Kuryłowicz; Benveniste, 1967): PSl. (Proto-Slavic) *slava ‘word’ (OCSl. [Old Church Slavonic] slovo) < OIr. *sravah- ‘glory, renown; word’ (Av. sravah-; contrast Ved. (Vedic) śrávas-, Gk. kléos ‘glory’); *bagu ‘riches, richness; god’ (OCSl. bogŭ; cf. bog-atŭ ‘rich,’ u-bogŭ ‘poor’; later replaced in the sense “richness” by bogatĭstvo) < OIr. *baga- ‘fortune; god’ (Av. baga- ‘share, lot; god,’ Sogd. βɣ- ‘god’; contrast Ved. bhága- ‘abundance; allocation (with reference to gods)’); and probably also *dīvu ‘demon, evil spirit of wilderness’ (OCSl. divŭ; cf. Old Rus. díviĭ, BCSM divlji ‘wild,’ Cz. divý ‘wild, mad,’ Bulg. div ‘wild, feral’) < OIr. *daiva- (q.v.) ‘demon, daēvic being’ (Av. daēva-, OPers. daiva-; contrast Ved. devá-, Lith. diẽvas, Lat. deus, Old Irish día ‘god’) and *rāji ‘paradise’ (OCSl. rajĭ) < OIr. *rayi- ~ *rāy- ‘riches’ (YAv. acc. raēm, GAv. gen. rāiiō, cf. Ved. rayí-/rāy- ‘possession, riches’). Along with *bagu, PSl. *bažin-īcā ‘temple,’ later ‘non-Christian place of worship’ (OCSl. božĭnica; borrowed into Baltic, e.g. Lith. bažnýčia ‘church’), was apparently taken over from PIr. *bagina- (Sogd. βɣn-, Parth. *bagin > Arm. bagin ‘altar’; Reczek, 1987). The opposition of *bagu and *dīvu, and particularly the semantic depreciation of the latter from “god” to “demon,” suggest that the Iranians with whom the early Slavs came into contact adhered to a “primitive” version of Mazdaean dualism (Gołąb, 1975). However, despite the claims of Jakobson and others, no names of pagan Slavic deities may be definitively identified as Iranian borrowings.
Standing beside these religious borrowings or calques are potential examples related to social organization: PSl. *mīru ‘world, peace’ (OCSl. mirŭ; Old Rus. mirŭ ‘village community’) < PIr. *miθra- (Humbach, pp. 124-25); PSl. *gaspadi ‘lord’ (OCSl. gospodĭ) < Mid. Pers. *guspad < OIr. *wić-pati- (with the Middle Persian change of word-initial *wi-) or Mid. Ir. *gas(t)pad < OIr. *gasti-pati- (Szemerényi, pp. 384-86, with preference for the former; but gospodĭ could have been remodeled after svobodĭ ‘free’).Additional items with likely Iranian sources are OCSl. čaša ‘potḗrion,’ Rus. chásha ‘drinking glass, bowl,’ etc. < Ir. *čaša(ka)- (to the root of Mod. Pers. čašidan ‘taste’; cf. Skt. caṣaka- ‘cup, wine glass,’ Arm. čašak ‘drinking vessel’); Rus. sobáka ‘dog’ (also attested outside East Slavic in Pol. (dial.), Kashubian sobaka ‘lecherous man’), which despite doubts can hardly be separated from Av. spaka- ‘doglike,’ Median spáka ‘female dog’ (Herodotus); PSl. taparu ‘ax’ (OCSl. toporŭ, Rus. topór) < Mid. Ir. *tapara- (Mid. Pers. tabrak, Pers. tabar, cf. Arm. tapar; perhaps metathesized from the notorious Wanderwort attested in Oss. færæt, Khot. paḍa, Toch. B peret, A porat, Turk. balta, etc.; see Abaev, 1995, I, p. 451); and, among words beginning with x-, *xarnā ‘food, sustenance’ (OCSl. xrana, Bulg. khrana, BCSM hrana) < OIr. *xwarnah- (Av. xvarənah- ‘food, drink’; Reczek, 1968), *xvaru ‘sick’ (Rus. khvóryĭ ‘sickly,’ Pol. chory ‘sick’) < OIr. *xwara- (Av. xvara- ‘wound’), and perhaps the name of the Croats, *xŭrvatŭ, if from OIr. *(fšu-)harwatar- ‘pastoralist’ (cf. Av. pasuš.hauruua- ‘watching over sheep’; Vasmer, 1953-58, III, p. 261). Two words of Iranian origin which have spread far and wide beyond Slavic are *xumeli ‘hops’ (OCSl. xŭmelĭ, Rus. khmel’, Pol. chmiel) < OIr. *hauma-aryaka- ‘Aryan soma’ (Oss. xwymællæg, Digor xumællæg ‘hops’; also borrowed into Germanic, Finno-Ugric, and Turkic; see Abaev, 1995, IV, pp. 261-62) and OCSl. sapogŭ ‘hypódēma,’ Rus. sapóg ‘boot’ < Mid. Ir. *sapaga- ‘hoof’ (cf. Av. safa-, Oss. sæftæg), the source of Mong. sab, Manchu sabu ‘shoe’ (Vasmer, 1953-58, II, pp. 578).
Other alleged semantic borrowings are much less convincing, e.g. PSl. *neba ‘heaven, sky’ (OCSl. nebo) < OIr. *nabah- (GAv. nabah-; contrast Ved. nábhas- ‘cloud, mist,’ Gk. néphos ‘cloud,’ but Epic Skt. nabhas-, Hitt. nēpiš- also ‘heaven, sky’); PSl. *pisātī ‘write’ (OCSl. pĭsati) < OIr. *(ni-)piš- ‘write (down)’ < PIE *peyk̂- ‘cut out, form by cutting’ (OPers. ni-pištanaiy ‘inscribe,’ Parth. nbys-, Sogd. np’ys, npys ‘write (down),’ but the same semantic development is also attested in Toch. B piṅkäṃ, A pikäṣ ‘writes, paints’ and Lith. piẽšti ‘draw, sketch’); *mēsta ‘place’ (OCSl. město; Pol. miasto, Cz. město ‘city’) < OIr. *maista- vel sim. (Av. miθ- ‘rest, dwell,’ Pashto mēšt ‘settled, residing’), or could reflect shared inheritances from late/dialectal PIE, e.g. PSl. *svę̄tu ‘holy’ (OCSl. svętǔ; also Baltic, cf. Lith. šveñtas) ~ Av. spəṇta- ‘id.,’ PSl. *sarmu ‘shame’ (OCSl. sramŭ) ~ Av. fšarəma- ‘id.’Even more uncertain is PSl. *suta ‘hundred’ (OCSl. sŭto, Rus., Pol., etc. sto) ~ PIr. *ćatam (Av. satəm), with its still unexplained *u for expected *sę̄ta < PIE *k̂m̥tóm.
On the grammatical level, there is the striking parallelism of OCSl. radi ‘because of, for the sake of’ with OPers. rādiy ‘id.’ (Mid. Pers. rāy, Pers. rā), both with genitive of the governed noun; the latter is unattested in Avestan and so may date from the dialectal period following the dissolution of Proto-Iranian.Less probative is the connection of PSl. *ku ‘toward’ (OCSl. kŭ, Rus. k, etc.) with Sogd. ku ‘id.’ adduced by Benveniste (1956), as both languages could well have independently developed the sense of direction or destination.Other features repeatedly adduced as evidence for contact are either shared retentions from dialectal PIE (e.g. the 1st sg. gen. personal pronoun *mene > OCSl. mene, Av. mana; cf. Lith. manę̃s, Ved. máma [with assimilation]) or parallel developments (e.g. the Iranian eżāfa (q.v.) and the Balto-Slavic definite adjective inflection, both formed with the Proto-Indo-European relative pronoun *Hyo-).
To the second period of Slavic-Iranian contacts belong specifically East Slavic lexical items of Iranian origin.Their number is modest, but three likely examples are Old Rus. íreĭ (also výreĭ, výraĭ) ‘a southern land to which birds of passage migrate, a fabled magical realm’ < OIr. *a(i)rya- ‘Aryan’ (cf. Av. airiia-, OPers. ariya-; Vasmer, 1913, pp. 176-77; idem. 1924, pp. 367 [1971, pp. 6, 172]), Rus. mórda ‘snout’ < OIr. *mr̥da- ‘head’ (cf. Av. kamərəδa- ‘head (daēvic),’ Skt. mūrdhán- ‘head, peak’), and Rus. Church Slavonic xoměstorŭ ‘hamster’ < Mid. Ir. *hamēstar- (cf. Av. hamaēstar- ‘the one who throws to the ground’).Other candidates are Rus. step’ ‘steppe,’ cf. Oss. t’æp’æn ‘flat, level’ (< PIr. *(s)tap-; Bailey, p. 87; Trubachev, p. 39); Rus. khoróshiĭ ‘good,’ cf. Oss. xorz (Digor xwarz, Alanic [Tzetzes] xas /xwarz/); and Ukr. kháta ‘hut,’ if from OIr. *kata- ‘room, chamber’ (Av. kata-; Trubachev, pp. 41).In contrast, the West Slavic Iranianisms claimed by Trubachev and others, including such common verbs as Pol. patrzeć, patrzyć ‘look (at),’ Cz. patřit ‘belong’; Pol. (dial.) szatrzyć ‘know, remember,’ Cz. šetřit ‘save, spare’; Pol. dbać, Cz. dbát ‘take care’; and the all-important title Pol. pan, Cz. pán (Old Cz. hpán) < PSl. *gŭpanŭ < OIr. *gu-pāna- ‘cowherd’ (cf. Av. pəšu.pāna- ‘bridge-guarding,’ CSogd. xwšp’ny < *fšu-pāna-ka- ‘shepherd,’ but why *gu- for OIr. *gau- ‘cow’?) must be regarded as extremely uncertain (for alternative etymologies, see the respective entries in Rejzek, Boryś) and how such influence of an Iranian variety on the western dialects of Slavic could be interpreted in historical terms is also far from obvious.
The expansion of the Russian Empire into the Caucasus and Central Asia in the 19th century and increasing Russian influence in Persia brought speakers of Russian (and other East Slavic languages) into close contact with Iranian languages.Datable to this period are loanwords relating to the military as well as the media and everyday objects, e.g. Pers. ātriād ‘military unit,’ doroške ‘horse-drawn carriage,’ putin ‘army boot,’ qazzāq ‘Cossack,’ sāldāt ‘soldier’ < Rus. otryád, dorózhka, botínki (pl.), kazák, soldát; Pers. gerāvor ‘photogravure,’ keliše ‘cut’ < Rus. gravyúra, klishé (from French); Pers. estekān ‘teacup,’ lāmpā ‘lamp,’ šāpkā ‘hat,’ vān ‘bathtub’ < Rus. stakán, lámpa, shápka, vánna (Bashiri, pp. 109-16; see also Ṣādeqi).The 20th century saw the introduction of specifically Soviet Russian terminology into Persian, e.g. bolševik ‘Bolshevik,’ kālxoz ‘collective farm’ < Rus. bol’shevík, kolkhóz, and wholesale adoption of Russianisms, including many internationalisms of Greek, Latin, or West European origin, into Iranian languages of the USSR such as Ossetic or Tajik, e.g. Tajik biblioteka ‘library,’ bilet ‘ticket,’ brigada ‘brigade,’ duxtur ‘(medical) doctor,’ geolog ‘geologist,’ grammatika ‘grammar,’ kredit ‘credit, loan,’ matematika ‘mathematics,’ pasport ‘passport,’ radio ‘radio,’ roman ‘novel,’ šokolad ‘chocolate,’ vokzal ‘train station,’ plus the month names (see TAJIK ii. TAJIK PERSIAN; Bashiri, pp. 116-34). These loanwords were naturally adapted to the phonology of the recipient languages (for Tajik, see Gacek); but with the rapid growth of bilingualism in Russian, there was an increasing trend over time to adopt Russian phonotactics (e.g. Tajik professor [praˈfjesor], správka [ˈspravka] ‘reference, inquiry’) and accentual patterns (e.g. Oss. k(’)ommuníst ‘Communist’ and the Tajik items just mentioned). The rise of glasnost and end of the USSR have brought about the replacement of some of these borrowings by native equivalents in Tajik, e.g. kitobxona ‘library,’ šinosnoma ‘passport,’ but the great majority of Russianisms appear to be firmly established in the spoken as well as written language. Within contemporary Russian and other Slavic languages, the Iranian Revolution has doubtless raised the profile of Persian words such as ayatollá and chadór, not to mention the Persian-origin suffix -stan of newly independent or autonomous political entities such as Kazakh-stán, Tatar-stán.
Bibliography
V. I. Abaev, Skifo-evropeĭskie izoglossy na styke Vostoka i Zapada (Scythian-European Isoglosses at the Junction of East and West), Moscow, 1965.
Idem, Istoriko-ètimologicheskiĭ slovar’ osetinskogo yazyka (Historical-Etymological Dictionary of Ossetic), 4 vols., Moscow and Leningrad, 1958-89; repr. with index, Moscow, 1995.
Agustí Alemany, Sources on the Alans: A Critical Compilation, Leiden, 2000.
H. W. Bailey, “Arya IV,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 26/1, 1963, pp. 69-91.
Iraj Bashiri, “Russian Loanwords in Persian and Tajiki Languages,” in Persian Studies in North America: Studies in Honor of Mohammad Ali JazayeryBethesda, Md., 1994, pp. 109-39.
Émile Benveniste, “Une corrélation slavo-iranienne,” in M. Woltner and H. Bräuer, eds., Festschrift für Max Vasmer zum 70. Geburtstag am 28. Februar 1956, Wiesbaden, 1956, pp. 70-73.
Idem, “Les relations lexicales slavo-iraniennes,” in To Honor Roman Jakobson, The Hague, 1967, pp. 197-202.
Václav Blažek, “Irano-Slavica — k khronologii starykh iranskikh zaimstvovaniĭ v slavyanskikh yazykakh” (Irano-Slavica — towards a chronology of Old Iranian borrowings in the Slavic languages), in Trudy Instituta russkogo yazyka im. V. V. Vinogradova IV: Ètimologiya, Moscow, 2015, pp. 70-100.
Idem, “Íránismy v českém lexiku” (Iranianisms in the Czech lexicon), in Nový encyklopedický slovník češtiny; online at www.czechency.org/slovnik/ÍRÁNISMY V ČESKÉM LEXIKU (accessed 15 May 2018).
Wiesław Boryś, Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego (Etymological Dictionary of the Polish Language), Krakow, 2008.
D. I. Èdel’man, Iranskie i slavyanskie yazyki: istoricheskie otnosheniya (Iranian and Slavic Languages: Historical Relations), Moscow, 2002.
Tomasz Gacek, “Some Remarks on the Pronunciation of Russian Loanwords in Tajik,” Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis 2012, pp. 353-61.
Zbigniew Gołąb, “The Initial x- in Common Slavic: A Contribution to Prehistorical Slavic-Iranian Contacts,” in L. Matejka, ed., American Contributions to the Seventh International Congress of Slavists I: Linguistics and Poetics, The Hague, 1973, pp. 129-56.
Idem, “Linguistic Traces of Primitive Religious Dualism in Slavic,” in For Wiktor Weintraub: Essays in Polish Literature, Language, and History Presented on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, The Hague and Paris, 1975, pp. 151-59.
Helmut Humbach, “Skythische Sprachdenkmäler in griechischer Schrift,” in II. Fachtagung für Indogermanische und Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Innsbruck, 10.-15. Oktober 1961. Vorträge und Veranstaltungen, Innsbruck, 1962, pp. 123-28.
Roman Jakobson, “Slavic Mythology,” in Funk and Wagnall’s Standard Dictionary of Folklore, Mythology and Legend II, New York, 1950, pp. 1025-28.
Jerzy Kuryłowicz, “Irańsko-słowiańskie stosunki językowe” (Iranian-Slavic linguistic relations), in W. Kowalenko et al., eds., Słownik starożytności słowiańskich II: F–K, Wrocław, 1964, pp. 291-92.
Aleksandar Loma, “Skythische Lehnwörter im Slavischen: Versuch einer Problemstellung,” Studia Etymologica Brunensia 1, 2000, pp. 333-50.
Idem, “K probleme ranneslavyanskikh iranizmov” (On the problem of Early Slavic Iranianisms), Ètimologiya 2009-11 (sic!), Moscow, 2012, pp. 189-201.
Ranko Matasović, “Iranian Loanwords in Proto-Slavic: A Fresh Look,” in L. van Beek et al., eds., Farnah: Indo-Iranian and Indo-European Studies in Honor of Sasha Lubotsky, Ann Arbor, 2018, 198-208.
Antoine Meillet, Recherches sur l’emploi du génitif-accusatif en vieux-slave, Paris, 1897.
Idem, Les dialectes indo-européens, Paris, 1908.
Idem, “Le vocabulaire slave et le vocabulaire indo-iranien,” Revue des Études Slaves 6, 1926, pp. 165-74.
Heinz-Dieter Pohl, “Slova iranskogo proiskhozhdeniya v russkom yazyke” (Words of Iranian origin in the Russian language), Russian Linguistics 2/1-2, 1975, pp. 81-90.
Józef Reczek, “Iranische Entlehnungen im Urslavischen. 1. Ursl. *xorna und avestisches xvarənah-,” Folia Orientalia 9, 1968, pp. 85-94.
Idem, Najstarsze słowiańsko-irańskie stosunki językowe (The Oldest Slavic-Iranian Linguistic Relations), Krakow, 1985; repr. in Reczek 1991, pp. 9-90.
Idem, “Slavisches *bož ь nica und iranisches *bagina-,” in Slawistyczne studia językoznawcze. Księga pamiątkowa na 70-lecie Franciszka Sławskiego (= Folia Orientalia 24), Wrocław, 1987, pp. 289-92; Polish translation repr. in Reczek 1991, pp. 91-94.
Idem, Polszczyzna i inne języki w perspektywie porównawczej (Polish and Other Languages in Comparative Perspective), Wrocław, 1991.
Jiří Rejzek, Český etymologický slovník (Czech Etymological Dictionary), Voznice, 2001.
Jan Rozwadowski, “Stosunki leksykalne między językami słowiańskiemi a irańskiemi” (Lexical relations between Slavic and Iranian languages), Rocznik Orientalistyczny 1, 1914-15, pp. 95-110.
ʿAli-Ašraf Ṣādeqi, “Kalamāt-e rusi dar zabān-e fārsi va tāriḵča-ye vorud-e ānhā” (Russian words in Persian and the history of their influx), Majalla-ye Zabānšenāsi 20/2, 2005, pp. 3-46.
Tadeusz Sulimirski, “Sarmatians in the Polish past,” The Polish Review 9/1, 1964, pp. 13-66.
Oswald Szemerényi, Syncope in Greek and Indo-European and the Nature of Indo-European Accent, Naples, 1964.
O. N. Trubachev, “Iz slavyano-iranskikh leksicheskikh otnosheniĭ” (On Slavic-Iranian lexical relations), in Ètimologiya 1965, Moscow, 1967, pp. 1-81.
Max Vasmer, “Kritisches und Antikritisches zur neuen slavischen Etymologie,” Rocznik Slawistyczny 6, 1913, pp. 172-213; repr. in Vasmer 1971, pp. 3-30.
Idem, “Iranisches aus Südrussland,” in Streitberg-Festgabe, Leipzig, 1924, pp. 367-75; repr. in Vasmer 1971, pp. 171-78.
Idem, Russisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, 3 vols., Heidelberg, 1953-58.
Idem, Schriften zur slavischen Altertumskunde und Namenkunde I, Berlin, 1971.
A. A. Zaliznyak, “Problemy slavyano-iranskikh yazykovykh otnosheniĭ drevneĭshego perioda” (Problems of Slavic-Iranian linguistic relations in the ancient period), Voprosy Slavyanskogo Yazykoznaniya 6, 1962, pp. 28-45.