Open main menu

Wiktionary β

User talk:Vahagn Petrosyan

Wiktionary:Requested entries (Armenian)Edit

Thanks for being so quick at answering my requests there. Also, sorry for the bogus words: as I don't speak any Armenian, I generally use Google Translate, or go to a Wikipedia article and look for its Armenian equivalent (as I did for Սրբանային սեքս). Since Category:Requests for translations into Armenian is a bit cluttered and unwieldy, I prefer not to use it. --Barytonesis (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure. I'll try to cleanup Category:Requests for translations into Armenian. --Vahag (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I use Google translate to get a (very) rough idea of the meaning of texts in other languages: in other words I only translate into a language I know. I can see how it might be useful to provide leads for candidates in other languages to check by other means, but I would never trust the raw output as a source in its own right. The problem is that it uses statistical algorithms based on known translations (some of which are wrong due to the user correction feature), and doesn't have any of the knowledge of a fluent speaker, nor does it understand context, etc.
Wikipedias aren't all that much more reliable, because language is only incidental to their goal. For topics and terminology that aren't a widespread part of mainstream discourse, it's not uncommon for even native-language editors to have never learned the correct terms, and for those editors to just make up something so they can get on with writing their articles. I can't begin to tell you how much garbage I've deleted or reverted which was based on those two sources alone, and I'm not fluent enough in most languages to spot more than a fraction of those errors. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Very well said. --Vahag (talk) 09:22, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree; that's why I don't rely on it when I'm working in the main space. It seems less harmful here though, since I know it will be reviewed by a native speaker. But I'll try and be more rigorous from now on. --Barytonesis (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Vorziblix for adminEdit

Pings aren't working? User_talk:Vorziblix#Admin --Rerum scriptor (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Persian entriesEdit

Hey. As a recent editor of Persian terms, can you help me with the entries in Category:Tbot entries (Persian)? There's just 19 entries there that need checking. Thanks! --P5Nd2 (talk) 09:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

No, Wonderfool. Ask a native Persian speaker, such as User:ZxxZxxZ. --Vahag (talk) 11:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


Hi, I noticed that you are using {{bor}} without the notext=1 parameter. I want to notify you that the way this template works will change very shortly, following Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2017/November#Template:bor: Replace notext=1 with withtext=1. The sense of the parameters will be switched: whereas before you needed a parameter to suppress display of the text, in the new situation you'll need a parameter to include the text. The withtext=1 parameter is only temporary, to facilitate the transition to the new format. You can use it for now if you really want, but the goal is to get rid of it. —Rua (mew) 19:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, will keep that in mind. --Vahag (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Rv edit + translationEdit

Dalmo Pereira (talkcontribs) is back at it again, thought I'd let you know. Also, do you know how to translate cute in Armenian? In the sense of "pretty, huggable, cuddly" I mean. --Barytonesis (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. To this day I am scrubbing nonsensical translations from users like this added many years ago, because people can't patrol edits in small languages. I added some translations to cute, but none of them corresponds to the English concept exactly. Colloquially we usually temporarily code-switch to English for that word and say քյութ (kʿyutʿ). --Vahag (talk) 10:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

armenian on wiktionaryEdit

hello. do you have big plans for armenian on wiktionary (for example become the best english-armenian dictionary), or are you disenchanted. and how many entries do you think we should have to pretend at a good coverage. շնորհակալություն. --2A02:2788:A4:F44:F0BB:DC14:E2C1:420F 17:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

hello. i work just for fun, without a plan. don't care about the number of words. --Vahag (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


Your Armenian dictionary entries are the best I have found online. The biggest difficulty I've found in learning my mother tongue is the different forms Armenian words take on. This makes finding the definition of an inflected or compound word very difficult (or even the reverse, figuring out the inflection of a word), but not one here! Շատ շնորհակալ եմ for your contribution. It's helped my Armenian studies greatly. If you have a Patreon or something, I'd donate to it to continue your effort. Vahan010 (talk) 07:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, but I'm rich already. I even have a black servant. --Vahag (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
That's not a very funny joke, Vahagn. --Victar (talk) 13:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
It's not a joke. --Vahag (talk) 14:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Failed Login AttemptsEdit

Hi Vahagn,

Just wanted to say that I received a message from Wikipedia saying that someone has tried to log into my account multiple times. I'm pretty sure it wasn't me. Any way to find out who it was? An IP address? Just wanted to be reassured that everything is fine. Obviously my account is still fine, as I'm using it, but what if it happens again? (Arax (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC))

I had a bunch of those recently too. Equinox 16:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Arax. I don't know anything about that issue, sorry. --Vahag (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thanks! (Arax (talk) 20:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC))

'See there for more'Edit

This wording needs to be removed from all Persian entries, and you must stop using it, it's bloody awful. I know you won't mind my use of non-PC language. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC) Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Get me a native speaker to confirm that the wording is awkward, suggest an alternative and I will stop using the phrase. No one complained so far. --Vahag (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
This native is confused that anyone would be bothered by "see there for more".... — Z. [ קהת ] b"A. — 03:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. The phrase is meant to replace q.v., because we try to avoid abbreviations. "See X for more" is probably better, but then you would have to repeat X twice. --Vahag (talk) 11:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Should we have an entry for which see? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
It is probably a sum of parts. --Vahag (talk) 12:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
This native finds the phrase baffling and would never have understood it had it not been for this lil thread. — Z. [ קהת ] b"A. — 17:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
There are no Google Books instances that I can see of 'see there for more' without a following noun. It must be followed by a noun, as in: 'see there for more information', 'see there for more details', 'see there for more 'about this'. 'See there for further information' is better, or simply 'see:'. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
"More" is functioning here as a pronoun. I would find "more information" or "more details" to be unnecessary; it's obvious enough that this is what is meant. — Z. [ קהת ] b"A. — 17:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Hook (՚) creating links in Old Uyghur headersEdit

Hi Vahagn,

I am trying to add some Old Uyghur lemmas from VATEC which are transliterated with hooks for some types of vowels. This hook apparantly exists in Armenian as well. Please take a loot at ՚yčm՚k. How do we prevent it creating separate links rather than just itself as a whole in the header.

Category: Olg Uyghur also lists various scripts like: Brahmi, Manichaean, Syriac... But actually there seems to be more to it. Should we also add Latin now since I want to add transliterations in Latin alphabet and theres a serious work on it here? --Anylai (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Anylai. I don't know why that website uses our apostrophe. It looks like the apostrophe is meant to transliterate a like sounds. The right half ring (ʾ) symbol is much more appropriate for that and will not cause the linking problem you describe. You should replace the Armenian apostrophes with the right half ring.
Most of the texts on that website are written in the Old Uyghur alphabet, including Altun Yarok. Apparently, Old Uyghur is not in Unicode. In such cases we allow the Latin transliterations as the main etnry (e.g. Book Pahlavi, Tocharian). Therefore, I added Latn as an alternative. But in cases of Old Uyghur texts in the Sogdian and Old Turkic alphabets I think you should use the native scripts. --Vahag (talk) 11:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, it indeed seems that most of the works there are in Old Uyghur script. I actually treat the runic writing separately and cite whenever I can, since I already know how to write and read it. If you dig enough website lets you see which words in which line are written in which script and directs you there. I will totally consider original Sogdian texts in this case. Thank you --Anylai (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Reference naming systemEdit

Vahagn, do you have a system for naming reference templates. It seems a bit arbitrary, with {{R:ira:GIPh2}} and {{R:ps:EVP}}. --Victar (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I use either the author's name or the book's conventional abbreviation, if it is common. GIPh and EVP are the common ways to refer to these books. Remembering and typing the abbreviations is easier. --Vahag (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Do you have a source for book abbreviations? And in the case of {{R:ira:GIPh2}}, why include the volume number? Personally, I rather the author and date, which is how I normally find more books reserferenced. --Victar (talk) 07:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't have one source for the abbreviations. If you read literature you will notice that some works are much more commonly referred to as abbreviations. For example, HAB is never Ačaṙyan 1971–1979. GIPh too is almost never "Geiger / Ernst 1895–1901". See an example of references list in Cabolov. I probably used volume numbers in GIPh, because otherwise the syntax would have been to complicated for me. Feel free to merge them into one template. If you insist on standardizing the author + date format, I don't mind, but please keep the abbreviations as redirects. If I read GIPh in a text, I don't have to remember that it is Template:R:ira:Geiger-Ernst:1898–1901 in Wiktionary. --Vahag (talk) 10:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Refering to R:tut-pro:SDMEdit

I can't figure out how to link to individual entries in R:tut-pro:SDM. For instance, if I want to add a reference the entry *bAd-rak for bayraq, I normally go to to the database and search for the meaning "flag", which makes the search engine return the result list for the term flag, but I can't "enter" the required entry itself, so I can link to it directly. The link to result list itself is terribly long, so I guess it shouldn't be linked to. How does one go about to get the short type of links like this one? Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, nemesis. The Starling database is a pain in the ass. You have to click on the "Altaic etymology", then back on "Turkic" and copy the url. But we should probably link the Proto-Altaic headword, not the Proto-Turkic. The print dictionary is organized around Proto-Altaic headwords. --Vahag (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. All ingenious is simple. Although not that simple, obviously. Now, may I be excused, I will go on an etymology-spree.Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Btw, I violently disagree with the proposition of linking to 'Proto-Altaic', even mentioning it actually, by addition of the waaay too polite "according to the controversial..." disclaimer. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I didn't mean linking the Proto-Altaic form in etymologies. I meant using the Proto-Altaic form as the headword in {{R:tut-pro:SDM}}, because after all we are referencing the print dictionary in which Proto-Altaic forms are the lemmas. --Vahag (talk) 10:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

A couple of old manuscripts in Armenian online with GallicaEdit

Hello, you probably know about this already but just in case you hadn't seen it: [1], [2] Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 12:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I will not forgive you for driving away User:Palaestrator verborum from the project just because you showed me some manuscripts. --Vahag (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Some questions about ArmenianEdit

Hey, thanks for adding original Armenian from Kirakos of Ganjak's manuscript, I have some random questions about Armenian, most also concerning Turkic. If any of them require doing research feel free to answer them vaguely or not at all:

  1. I remember from comparative IE that Armenian had lost pretonic short *u and *i, for how long did this process operate i.e. how old does it imply the word is?
  2. I see that ə is written in some of the words of the manuscript but isn't in, for example, զրո (zro). Is this the same diaphoneme?
    1. What is the source of this sound? Does it imply that original /u/ was reduced/syncopated in նըմու (nəmu) and սըմու (səmu) by a soundlaw akin to the one mentioned above?
  3. Does /a/ imply centrality or is it a general low vowel like in Semitic and Iranian languages. That is, does using /a/ for Proto-Mongolic *e imply something like [ə/ɜ/ɐ] or could it also be [æ/ɛ/e̞]?
    1. Do Armeno-Kipchak/Turkish loans have /a/ for Proto-Turkic *e ?
  4. I see that for some (but not all) words Mongolic lenis stops are represented with unvoiced and fortis with aspirated stops. An increasingly popular theory posits exactly this for Proto-Mongolic, but does Armenian show the same thing for Semitic, Iranian and most importantly Turkic stops?
  5. Why are e and o more rare than ē and ō (IIRC this is a quality and not a quantity contrast, right?), are they more marked, or does this imply something about Mongolic.
  6. Do x and ł necessarily imply fricatives (this would be surprising for Middle Mongol) or could they merely mark post-velars/uvulars?
    1. Is Turkic/Semitic q written with x?
  7. *söni and *konïn are represented as սոյնի (soyni) and ղոյնա (łoyna), is this a native umlaut/palatality transfer process or does it reflect (subphonemic) palatalization in MM?

Thanks a lot just for reading through this! Crom daba (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Crom daba: I'm not a linguist, so most of your questions are difficult for me. I will try to answer the ones I can.
Not writing /ə/ in the middle of words is an orthographical convention. Sometimes it is written to avoid ambiguity, e.g. when the metre is important or when transliterating foreign proper nouns. It's the same phoneme, whether written or not. Syncopated *u and *i are not the only sources of /ə/. Foreign /ə/-like sounds too can be taken over as /ə/, e.g. Turkish /ɯ/. It is also sometimes automatically inserted to break difficult consonant clusters.
In this list of Turkic and Mongolian borrowings attested in the Old Armenian literature, Armenian ա (a) almost always corresponds to Turkic a, but sometimes to ə, e or u.
Regarding the stops, note that Kirakos Gandzaketsi was writing in the Middle Armenian period, where stops had shifted from their Old Armenian qualities, depending on the position in the word and on region. His consonants probably reflect a pronunciation close to the modern Standard Western Armenian, so that e.g. պ (p) probably represents /b/ and բ (b) represents /pʰ/. Additionally, some writers employed historical orthography. The Mongolian word for "god" in Ganzaketsi's manuscripts is attested in the variants թանկրի (tʿankri), թանղրի (tʿanłri), թէնկրի (tʿēnkri), թընգրի (tʿəngri), թնգրի (tʿngri), թնկրի (tʿnkri).
By Gandzaketsi's time e is identical to ē and o is identical to ō. The distribution of variants reflects only orthographical conventions and preferences. Don't read anything into it.
In the same list of borrowings Turkic q is written either as խ (x), ղ (ł), sometimes ք (kʿ)․ Arabic q is borrowed as ղ (ł), կ (k) or խ (x).
Note also two other Mongolian borrowings outside Gandzaketsi: արքայուն (arkʿayun, Christian) < Mong. arkaun and նոյին (noyin, Mongol prince) < Mong. noyan.
Sorry for not being very helpful. --Vahag (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
That was pretty helpful. West Armenian pronunciation as you describe it does not seem like a good fit, orthographically voiced consonants are very unlikely to represent aspirates in this word list. I guess manuscripts show too much variation to be properly analyzed without some heavy comparative work. Crom daba (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Apostrophes in MacKenzie (1971) Pahlavi transliterationsEdit

Hey, Vahagn, I noticed you added ʾwstykʾn' with the final apostrophe found in MacKenzie (1971). I've always assumed they had nothing to do with the word itself, but I never understood their meaning. They have no phonetic value, as illustrated in his phonetic transcriptions, they only appear in Pahlavi, not Manichaean, and they're only found at the end of words. Do you have any further knowledge in this? --Victar (talk) 05:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Pinging @AryamanA, माधवपंडित --Victar (talk) 18:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
See WT:PAL TR, that's the transliteration of waw (in Book Pahlavi) or yodh (in Inscriptional Pahlavi) when they are used at the end of the word. If you mean what is the purpose of this letter, at least in some cases it is intentionally added simply to mark a word ending. But there are much archaistic traditions in Pahlavi scripts (Inscriptional Pahlavi and Book Pahlavi), such as using k, t, d instead of g, d, y, respectively, which clearly shows transition from the earlier form of Middle Persian. If I'm not mistaken, it may be also an archaism, reflecting the older /a/ as the final syllable which was omitted in Middle Persian, which may have been transformed to /ə/ before its disappearance. In fact, I remember one book which did transliterate that final letter in early Pahlavi inscriptions, as ə. The fact you mentioned that it is not used in Mannichaean, in which there is no archaism unlike that of Book Pahlavi, may support this idea. --Z 18:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
This seems to be a pretty compelling explanation to me. But should we bother having it at all if it's an archaism? I've noticed, for example, Cheung's dictionary doesn't have it at all. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 19:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I think we should certainly keep it because it is part of the word. Although I want to add that it is often referred to as "word ending", actually, but we are not sure, it may be more than just word ending, it may be part of the word's actual spelling. --Z 19:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
@ZxxZxxZ, AryamanA: It seems very similar to the free variation we see in Middle English. For example, verbs ending can be spelled, -en, -n, -ne, -enn, -enne, -∅, etc., but we've decided to standardize it to -en. If this and no phonetic value and is employed arbitrarily, I think we should either a) standardize it where etymologically appropriate, or b) omit it all together, which is what Cheung seems to have done. --Victar (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
@Victar: I have no opinion on this. --Vahag (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

hamaharz, hamharzEdit

Hi Vahagn. Can you create theses entries in Armenian? It seems that they are Parthian loanwords but I am not sure about further etymology. Thanks.--Calak (talk) 09:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

համհարզ (hamharz, coincidence)? — [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 10:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure. It is cognate with Parthian hāmhirz 'attendant, bodyguard' and MP. hamahl, hamāl 'equal, peer; comrade'. Check here.--Calak (talk) 12:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
See համհարզ (hamharz) and 𐫍𐫀𐫖𐫍𐫏𐫡𐫉 (hʾmhyrz). Google's translation as ‘coincidence’ is incorrect. --Vahag (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Now there's something that doesn't surprise me. — [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 18:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

"intuition" in ArmenianEdit

Hello. Do you vouch for this translation? I'm suspicious. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Of course it's wrong. I'm still cleaning up after that moron IP. --Vahag (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
More dubious translations: diff, diff, (talk). --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for catching these. --Vahag (talk) 08:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
diff, (talk) --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I hate the guts of this stupud Turkish IP. --Vahag (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I feel you. There's also (talk), but I believe you've already taken care of these edits. No way to track all these IPs and clean it up all in one swoop? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't know. --Vahag (talk) 21:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Armenian MP borrowingEdit

Hey Vahagn, I notice you seem to have an aversion to deriving Old Armenian entries directly from Middle Persian, i.e. բժիշկ (bžišk). Is this just a throwback to old entries, or is there some other reason? Thanks. --Victar (talk) 03:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Victar. The most numerous and oldest layer of Iranian borrowings in Armenian is from Middle North West Iranian, not Middle South West Iranian. See the short summary in Olsen. Supposedly there are also a few borrowings from Old Iranian and East Iranian languages. Distinguishing between these is one of the main problems of Armenian linguistics. See especially {{R:xcl:Bolognesi}} and {{R:xcl:Schmitt:1983}}. Some sources blithely derived everything from Middle Persian either because they are outdated, from a time when the differences between various Iranian dialects were not fully understood (e.g. Ačaṙean calls both Middle Persian and Parthian "Pahlavi"), or they are lazy. We should not claim a Middle Persian origin unless there are specific phonological grounds to do so. --Vahag (talk) 11:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I believe Middle Persian basically replaced Parthian by the the time Old Armenian rolled around, so if borrowed from NW Iranian, wouldn't it have been from Median? --Victar (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Old Armenian didn't roll around in the 5th century. It began to be written in that century after the discovery of the Armenian script and revealed the borrowings that it had been collecting in the previous centuries, especially from Parthian during the Parthian empire (3rd century BC – 3rd century AD) and then Middle Persian during the Sassanian Empire. But note that the Parthian Arsacid dynasty of Armenia continued to rule until the 5th century, when in Iran the Parthians had long been overthrown. The Iranian influence diminsihed greatly after we adopted Christianity in the early 4th century AD. Middle Persian did not have the same chance to influence Armenian as did Parthian.
But note that according to the linguist Anahit Périkhanian, many of the Parthian loanwords should rather be attributed to an older "Middle Median" stratum. This hypothetical language is the successor of traditional Median, which remained in contact with Armenian until Parthian displaced it by the 2nd century BC. Since this language is not attested, her view is not widely shared. But if Yarshater is right that the modern Tatic languages of Northwestern Iran are the direct descendants of Median, then it makes sense to assume an unattested Middle Median language.
Note also the controversy around the given names Old Armenian Շաւարշ (Šawarš) and Շաւասպ (Šawasp), the š- of which cannot be explained by the Middle Persian or Parthian descendants of *ĉyaHwáh, but which is present in the Eastern Iranian descendants.
All these complexities mean that the safest way to handle the Armenian borrowings is the formula "An Iranian borrowing; compare this and that". --Vahag (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I see, so you're saying that the Iranian borrowings are actually older than Old Armenian. Could that be called proto-Armenian or pre-Old Armenian? Would older borrowing differ in any way than later ones, i.e. undergo any Old Armenian phonetic changes?
It definitely makes sense that many words actually came from Median, given the historical interaction, and some sort of Middle Mendian form seems plausible. Kermanic languages are also thought to be descended from Median.
I don't see the problem with Old Armenian Շաւարշ (Šawarš) and Շաւասպ (Šawasp). Why not just say they're from NE Iranian than? --Victar (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
It would be simply called "Old Armenian". A language's history does not begin with its first attestation. Very few borrowings supposedly happened in the Proto-Armenian stage, because they underwent the Armenian consonant shift, e.g. պարտէզ (partēz), արծաթ (arcatʿ).
Eastern Iranian borrowings are hard to explain geographically. One theory is that the Parni brought traces of an Eastern Iranian language with them. Another possible source are the invading Scythians who destroyed Urartu and settled the territory in Armenia later called Շակաշէն (Šakašēn, Sacasena, literally the land of Sakas). --Vahag (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, my question is do any Median-period borrowing exhibit archaic features not found in attested Old Armenian? The Scythians were well traveled, so I have no problem reconciling Old Armenian Շաւարշ (Šawarš) and Շաւասպ (Šawasp) as Scynthian borrowings. --Victar (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The supposed telltales of Median borrowings in Armenian are the words with -նձ- (-nj-) instead of -նջ- (-nǰ-), as in բրինձ (brinj), պղինձ (płinj), գանձ (ganj), the words with -հ- (-h-) for intervolcalic Iranian *d, as in զրահ (zrah), սրահ (srah), Ասպահան (Aspahan), words with a prothetic vowel before initial sp- and - , as in աշխարհ (ašxarh), ասպար (aspar). --Vahag (talk) 13:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Vahagn Petrosyan".