User talk:Vahagn Petrosyan

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Hello Vahagn! May I wish you to make the above blue so as to finish up the following instances of a likely Eurasian w:Wanderwort?

KYPark (talk) 05:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Not you again and your crazy theories. --Vahag (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, anyway. Good money drives out bad, in this case. KYPark (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Proto-Germanic loanwords in Iranian[edit]

We know there were certainly contacts between Proto-Germanic and Iranian peoples, Germanicists freely talk about Proto-Germanic loanwords from Iranian in Wiktionary, like this one:þaz (Of course this word is clearly from a western Iranian language, compare Old Persian paθi but Ossetian fændag) but it seems you don't allow that Iranologists publish their works on this subject here, what is the reason? Mojshahmiri (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

This is a dictionary. We provide etymologies (and reconstruction entries as an extension of those) based on reliable sources where possible- we don't "publish" anyone's "works" here. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't see this rule in Terms of Use, if it really exists then you should remove more than 90 percent of etymologies of Persian words, will you do it? I can list them for you. -Mojshahmiri (talk) 07:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
@Mojshahmiri: you claim Proto-Germanic borrowing for Modern Persian and Middle Persian words. That is impossible chronologically and geographically. The situation is different for borrowings into Proto-Germanic from Eastern-Iranian-speaking nomads of the steppe. --Vahag (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
As I mentioned above most of Iranian borrowings into Proto-Germanic are from actually western Iranian languages, like Persian, not Eastern Iranian languages, like Scytho-Sarmatian, Modern/Middle Persian is a continuation of Old Persian. It is certainly possible both chronologically and geographically, my master's degree thesis was about this historical fact: -Mojshahmiri (talk) 07:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Mojshahmiri, seeing how you conduct yourself here, and in online forums, I think it's for the best that you choose a different community from Wiktionary. --Victar (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
What do you mean? Yes, I'm the founder and admin of one of the largest history communities on the web ( with more than 5,000 members (including 800 expert historians), just search for "history forum" in google to find the place of my website, has been used as reference in thousands wiki pages, like this one: Is it you reason that I should leave wiki? -Mojshahmiri (talk) 07:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I was referring to your unbecoming conduct in that forum, which mirrors what you have shown here on Wiktionary, but whilst on the topic of said forum, I find it full of nutbag conspiracy theorists and racial bigotry. No one should be citing that site for anything. --Victar (talk) 14:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Your words are familiar to me, aren't you one of members who were banned by me in AllEmpires forum? Do you want to avenge here?! -Mojshahmiri (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Haha, no, but it sounds like whoever that is, we would get along just fine. --Victar (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

կաղամախի Etymology[edit]

Congratulations on your diligent efforts to run the etymology to ground. I am not at all surprised that there might be disagreement as to species of Populus. I was surprised that Platanus was also in the running. The bark and leaf (two of the most readily observed characteristics) are very different in Platanus and Populus. It is hard to see how both types of trees could ever have been covered by they same term, unless the term was analogous to tree. DCDuring (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Both are riparian trees. In my experience it's not uncommon for borrowed terms to be applied to different trees at different times, and don't forget that there are multiple translations involved in the various sources as they come to us. As an illustration of what can happen: in the following, you'll notice that the correspondence between the species in the different languages is rather loose. Ancient Greek λεύκη (leúkē, white poplar) translates both Hebrew לבנה‎ (I think) and Hebrew תאשור‎. (Hebrew תאשור‎ is translated in Isaiah 60:13 as Ancient Greek κέδρος (kédros, cedar), and Hebrew לבנה‎ in Genesis 30:37 as Ancient Greek στυρακίνος (sturakínos) (from Ancient Greek στύραξ (stúrax, storax)). This kind of confusion is common in translations from the Hebrew scriptures because of the lack of contemporary sources and the centuries (perhaps millenia) between texts and their translations. Also, people were focusing on religious rather than botanical matters.
The Hosea passage cited in the entry:
ի ներքոյ կաղնեաց եւ կաղամախեաց եւ վարսաւոր ծառոց
i nerkʿoy kałneacʿ ew kałamaxeacʿ ew varsawor caṙocʿ
under oaks and white poplars and leafy trees
originally from
תַּ֣חַת אַלּ֧וֹן וְלִבְנֶ֛ה וְאֵלָ֖ה
under oak and [species uncertain] and terebinth
which is translated into Greek as
ὑποκάτω δρυὸς καὶ λεύκης καὶ δένδρου συσκιάζοντος
hupokátō druòs kaì leúkēs kaì déndrou suskiázontos
under oak and white poplar and [shady trees?]
which becomes Latin
subtus quercum et populum et terebinthum
under oak and poplar and terebinth
In English, the King James Version has
under oaks and poplars and elms
and New Revised Standard Version has
under oak, poplar, and terebinth
The Isaiah passage:
Եւ բղխեցուցից յանջուր երկրին զմայրն եւ զտօսախն, զմուրտն եւ զնոճն եւ զսօսն, զսարդն եւ զսարոյն եւ զկաղամախն, զգին եւ զփայտն իւղոյ։
Ew błxecʿucʿicʿ yanǰur erkrin zmayrn ew ztōsaxn, zmurtn ew znočn ew zsōsn, zsardn ew zsaroyn ew zkałamaxn, zgin ew zpʿaytn iwłoy.
I will produce in the dry land the cedar and box, the myrtle and cypress and plane, the cedar and cypress and white poplar, the juniper and the [literally olive wood].
אֶתֵּ֤ן בַּמִּדְבָּר֙ אֶ֣רֶז שִׁטָּ֔ה וַהֲדַ֖ס וְעֵ֣ץ שָׁ֑מֶן אָשִׂ֣ים בָּעֲרָבָ֗ה בְּר֛וֹשׁ תִּדְהָ֥ר וּתְאַשּׁ֖וּר יַחְדָּֽ
I will plant in the desert cedar, acacia and myrtle, [literally, oil tree], I will set on the desert plain pine, [uncertain- perhaps elm] and [uncertain] together
θήσω εἰς τὴν ἄνυδρον γῆν κέδρον καὶ πύξον καὶ μυρσίνην καὶ κυπάρισσον καὶ λεύκην
thḗsō eis tḕn ánudron gên kédron kaì púxon kaì mursínēn kaì kupárisson kaì leúkēn
I will plant in the dry land the cedar and box, the myrtle and cypress, and white poplar:
dabo in solitudine cedrum et spinam et myrtum et lignum olivae ponam in deserto abietem ulmum et buxum simul
I will plant in the wilderness cedar and thorn and myrtle and [literally olive wood], in the desert fir, elm and box at the same time
I will plant in the wilderness the cedar, the shittah tree, and the myrtle, and the oil tree; I will set in the desert the fir tree, and the pine, and the box tree together
I will put in the wilderness the cedar, the acacia, the myrtle, and the olive; I will set in the desert the cypress, the plane and the pine together

Chuck Entz (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

For Hebrew לבנה‎ see also Löw, Immanuel (1924) Die Flora der Juden[1] (in German), volume 3, Wien und Leipzig: R. Löwit, pages 338–339, and the chapter for the family; for Platanaceae Löw, Immanuel (1924) Die Flora der Juden[2] (in German), volume 3, Wien und Leipzig: R. Löwit, pages 65–67.
I have now created the Arabic word for the poplar حور‎. To the best I know nobody has hereunto recognized it as borrowed from Aramaic. @DCDuring Fay Freak (talk) 02:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
BTW the կաղամախի page and particularly with the Hebrew here shows again how the quotation templates need support for translated sources of quoted translations as laid out in Talk:kalsarikänni. We are in the fourth row with English already: Hebrew → Greek → Armenian → English. Fay Freak (talk) 03:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments, guys. I think in this case the whiteness of the bark and/or leaves is what unites the various trees.
{{Q}} should be expanded to handle several rows of translation. It should also have the ability to show the edition from which the text is quoted and should allow links to websites other than Wikisource. --Vahag (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Khatun خاتون[edit]

Both etymologies look wrong and made-up. Khatun itself seems a Sogdian word.[3] So the Persian equivalent is a direct loanword from Sogdian not Turkish. Plus the Turkish one hatun is a Sogdian loanword too.[4][5] -- 05:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to deal with this. Please raise the issue at WT:ES. --Vahag (talk) 11:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

What do you think?[edit]

Please look through Special:Contributions/ and tell me what you think. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz, his edits are mostly bullshit, not to mention poorly formatted. I would revert all of them, even if some bits of information could have been salvaged. --Vahag (talk) 10:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
That's what I figured, but I wasn't sure enough to block him. That was Nemzag. I wanted to give him a chance, since he seemed to be trying very hard to tone down his eccentricities. I didn't want to let him know I recognized him until I was ready to block him because then he would stop trying. Now I've got some cleanup to do <sigh>... Chuck Entz (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Sadly, people don't change. --Vahag (talk) 14:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

աշուն (ašun)[edit]

Hey Vahagn, I've been putting together this PIE entry, and I've seen Old Armenian աշուն (ašun, autumn) sometimes cited as been related. Is there any credence to this, or is it just a superficial coincidence? --Victar (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@Victar, the appurtenance has been proposed many times, but I don't see how it can be explained phonologically. I added another reflex, which is phonologically sound. --Vahag (talk) 10:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Vahagn. I've been working on a new theory of an s-mobile root, which would unify it with the PII, Celtic and Hittite words for "harvest, crop". I'm surprised no one has suggested it before. --Victar (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Looks interesting, but I am not competent enough to comment on your theory. --Vahag (talk) 10:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, I curious if it gives some more wiggle room for աշուն (ašun). --Victar (talk) 15:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge, none of the derived forms listed in *(s)h₁es- can explain աշուն (ašun). --Vahag (talk) 10:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Vahagn, are you aware of any other Armenian words rooted in PIE *sHV-? --Victar (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Victar, perhaps հայթեմ (haytʿem). --Vahag (talk) 12:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


Could you please explain, why you reverted my edit? Soshial (talk) 08:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Were you aware that when you added all that stuff to the template, including the {{rfv-etymology}} and the category that goes with it, you were also adding it to the upwards of 2,000 entries that transclude it? Do you realize how silly it is to have warnings addressed to editors appear in the References section for dictionary users to read? Have you ever seen a footnote in a dictionary saying "don't use this footnote?" Chuck Entz (talk) 08:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
{{rfv-etymology}} should be used for questioning specific etymologies. --Vahag (talk) 10:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
What should we do to indicate that this etymologycal dictionary is not 100% trustable, Chuck Entz? Here's the proof. Soshial (talk) 10:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
What does Derksen's dictionary's review have to do with Karulis? --Vahag (talk) 11:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
@Soshial No dictionary is 100% trustable, and even those that are less trustable can be used. We aren’t supposed to follow dictionaries blindly, no warning is needed in the template or its documentation. Fay Freak (talk) 14:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Got it. Can we at least write this warning only in the template (noinclude)? — soshial 18:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
No. You can discuss the unreliability in the Discussion tab of Template:R:lv:LEV. By the way, you still have not explained why Karulis is unreliable. --Vahag (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Citing the article of Rick Derksen:
Karulis’ Latviešu etimoloģijas vārdnīca (1992) is in many respects the work of an amateur and hardly meets normal scholarly standards. It does, however, supply some references, mostly to Eastern European sources that are likely to pass unnoticed to Western scholars. A good etymological dictionary of Latvian is probably the main desideratum of Baltic etymology today.
Would be nice to get more opinions on the topic. I seriously think that we should put disclaimer at least in the template. — soshial 19:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Please use Template_talk:R:lv:LEV for this information. No one is checking my talk page for Latvian stuff. --Vahag (talk) 06:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


The Armenian calendar has twelve 30-day months. It begins on Navasard 1 which corresponds to August 11. This means that the sixth month would be sometime around January, not six days after the New Year. The month of Arats begins on January 8 of every year and ends 30 days afterward, on February 6. Arzashkun (talk) 02:07, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Arzashkun, the Armenian calendar was moving. See here, page 25, second paragraph and page 29, first paragraph. What you say is true for the classical period. I will update the entry to show this. --Vahag (talk) 08:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


Do you really think that շերեփուկ 'tadpole' is etymologically connected to շերեփ 'ladle' and not to *šerepʿ from IE root *serp- 'to creep' (here)? Edward Divanyan (talk) 08:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Edward Divanyan, it is obviously from շերեփ (šerepʿ), because of the tadpole's shape. PIE *serp- would yield Armenian *(հ)երբ- (*(h)erb-) or the like. --Vahag (talk) 15:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

reverting cited edits[edit]

Dear Vahagn, I was wondering if you'd mind explaining why you have reverted my sourced edits?MS 会話 13:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Because your source is either wrong or you misrepresent it. Proto-Iranian *ĵʰansás cannot give Persian غاز(ğâz). The Turkic origin of the latter is well-known and universally accepted. --Vahag (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Dear Vahagn, on what grounds have you implied this universal acceptance? How do you say it while Proto-Turkic:kāŕ is itself suggested to be an Indo-european borrowing (Take a look at the wiktionary page)? How do you say my source is wrong? please ask another persophone to verify the source and the author (Persian WP page:wikipedia:fa:منوچهر آریان‌پور کاشانی). I repeat the source: "Manouchehr Aryanpour Kashani, فرهنگ واژه‌های هندواروپایی زبان فارسی (The Indo-European roots of the Persian language), page 394". Looking forward to your reply, MS 会話 14:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
On the basis of the standard references listed at Proto-Turkic *kāŕ. Even if the Turkic word is itself an Indo-European borrowing, that does not change the immediate Turkic origin of Persian غاز(ğâz). --Vahag (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Please take a look at the source which clearly states that the origin of غاز‎ is PIE *ǵʰans or ask another person with Persian knowledge to verify. I won't edit for a week or so, but will revert your edits on that page afterwards. MS 会話 15:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
ĵʰ gives /z/ and /ns/ does not give /z/. Nothing fits the supposed Iranian or Indo-Iranian origin. No need to check sources when one knows a priori. Those sources troll you only and you shoot yourself in the leg by using them. Is it too inconvenient to use common sense? Fay Freak (talk) 15:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Dear Freak, really wondering how you say this while हंस (haṃsá) is also derived from the same root? Unfortunately, common sense would often be misleading in some cases. Besides, I said *ǵʰans not ĵʰansás. This source is clearly reliable, authored by a well-known, well-reputed linguist. All I want is that you ask a person with Persian knowledge to take a look at it. MS 会話 16:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Different notation, same result. It would still be a voiced alveolar fricative and not a voiced velar or uvular fricative. And giving excuses to dismiss your responsibility for own reasonable handling of source material is tawdry. That he is a reliable, a well-known, well-reputed linguist, is what you say. I can say the same about Theo Vennemann, and it would be true because he does not produce fakes as far as I know, but it does not mean I need to believe his derivations. And if something were to be spread by the Iranian Minister of Propaganda it would also be well-reputed, because the state ordained the reputation. Theologians are also well-reputed even when you know you shouldn’t take over their explanations. Fay Freak (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
This is clearly the funniest case I have ever come across in any of sister projects. I got a citable source in my hand but can't use it because a dilettante who sees no difference between "g" and "j" and believes "ĵʰ gives /z/ and /ns/" only, dismisses works of true academics, not just the one I mentioned, but even others who suggest the proto-Turkic term is also a derivative of the PIE root. Besides, the pronunciation of "غ" is not the same in Persian and Arabic. It's not fricative at all, it's a stop (⟨q⟩,⟨G⟩). Anyways, we made Vahagn's talk page messy enough, and this is apparently going nowhere. I won't edit for some days, but will revert edits on that page afterwards. MS 会話 08:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Indeed funny that you promote reconstructions but don’t even know how Classical Persian was pronounced. In the words of Wikipedia’s article just on Persian phonology: ”In Classical Persian, the uvular consonants غ‬‎ and ق‎‬ denoted the original Arabic phonemes, the fricative [ɣ] and the plosive [q], respectively.” Where it is continued about how this pronunciation has been preserved in Dari and Tajik. This case only shows that you should not deal with any reconstructions as you even fail to know the pronunciation of Persian itself. Fay Freak (talk) 10:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Who said I didn't know how classical Persian was pronounced? I just though you meant modern Persian in your previous comment, where غ and ق have the same pronunciation. However, what are we pursuing by these pronunciation exactly? Stop it here, dear classical Persian expert. MS 会話 10:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
If some term in Persian comes from Proto-Iranian, it very likely did not skip Classical Persian to enter modern Persian. What they are pursuing is a logical path from Proto-Iranian to Classical Persian to modern Persian, which they are not finding based on the construction you gave. There is the possibility that the academics you are talking about made a mistake. — [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 11:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ms96: Persian غاز(ğâz) cannot be regularly derived from PIE *ǵʰh₂éns, irrespective of what your source says. If you want to overturn the scholarly consensus on Turkic derivation of Persian غاز(ğâz) (for example, as reflected in the standard work of Doerfer), you have to start a discussion at WT:ES and convince others. --Vahag (talk) 11:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


Привет, Вааг. Я опять добавил кучу новых запросов, которые я добавляю как переводы с английского на армянский, пока я о них помню. Я стараюсь выбирать наиболее существенные, на мой взгляд, слова. Похоже ты очень занят в последнее время, и наверное такой длинный список тебя только вгоняет в депрессию :) Скажи, если ты хочешь, чтоб я притормозил с новыми запросами. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Привет, Анатолий. Я вернулся в Армению. Теперь у меня больше времени для словаря. Смело добавляй запросы! --Vahag (talk) 10:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Спасибо. С возвращением! —Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 20:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Вааг, похоже качественных русско- или англо-армянских словарей не существует в природе. Так что, когда закончишь праздновать с коньяком, возвращайся к словарю :) --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Действительно, не существует. Наш словарь будет лучшим в мире :) --Vahag (talk) 11:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Western Armenian forms[edit]

Hi! I just have a quick thing to say. I think that there should be some inflection tables made for Western Armenian grammar, and for {\{hy-pron}} to be enabled for Standard Western Armenian too. I don't know how familiar you are with it, but there are enough inflectional differences between EA and WA (like EA արել եմ vs WA արած եմ, կ- vs պիտի, -ում vs կը, -ներ-ի vs -ներ-ու, խոսել vs խօսիլ (that's the big one), etc.) that Wiktionary honestly isn't that helpful for Western. I understand if it would be too much work to do, and I'll admit now that I won't be very helpful (արեւելահայ եմ, ոչ արեւմտահայերեն չգիտեմ), but it would be really nice if it could happen. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk). 07:24 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi! I too am a speaker of Eastern Armenian. Covering Western Armenian is my long-term goal, but I can't do it without a dedicated and competent native speaker to guide me through creating a pronunciation template and inflection tables. I have found that the textbook descriptions of the language are not reliable. --Vahag (talk) 12:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
The pronunciation of WA isn't that difficult, I know a speaker, and he taught me how to pronounce it. As for the grammar, that's my main reason for asking, but I'll go to church and see if anyone there knows of any good resources. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk). 14:13 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but Wiktionary has higher standards. Your friends' teachings aren't sufficient. Also, please refrain from calling the reformed orthography 'communist orthography' and from making other politically charged comments in the mainspace. --Vahag (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Meaning of *bannaną[edit]

Hi. Back in 2009 you added to the etymology of ban, tracing it to Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/bannaną, and you gave the meaning of that as "forbid, curse" ([6]). If you're sure about that meaning, can you please add it to Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/bannaną? That gives several meanings, but not "to forbid, curse". Thanks. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 09:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Eric Kvaalen: that was very long ago. I do not remember what sources I used. I am not sure about the meaning. --Vahag (talk) 10:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


Hi Vahag, do you have something like Central Kurdish بِزۆز(bizoz, непосе́дливый) in (Old) Armenian, or somthing ?--Calak (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Calak, I do not know a similar word, but why are you glossing it as непосе́дливый (neposédlivyj, restless)? Kurdoev translates Central Kurdish بِزۆز(bizoz) as "moth". Cabolov compares it to Armenian բզեզ (bzez, bug). If the meaning "restless" is correct, compare the same semantic development in Armenian ցեց (cʿecʿ, moth; restless person). --Vahag (talk) 07:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
No, It just means "restless" in Central Kurdish (and has only bizoz form). Well you are righ about semantic shift. We have also similar compound, Northern Kurdish fisos (ermine, stoat, Mustela erminea.) (from fis (fart), it is also an onomatopoeic word).--Calak (talk) 08:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


Hello Vahagn, I would like to inquire why did you revert my edits on the word վրան? BoghosBoghossian (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@BoghosBoghossian, your etymology was patently incorrect. The Iranian origin is impeccable and universally accepted. Note the references I have now added to վրան (vran). Ačaṙyan and your 1925 source could not solve the etymology correctly, because the Parthian form was not known back then. --Vahag (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Help needed[edit]

Hi Vahak, jan. Would you be interested in creating an Armenian course on Duolingo?

Also, do you know the name of the old Armenian dragon slayer, equivalent to Beowulf, prior to the name Vahagn being introduced via Parthian? If I remember correctly, the name was of Luwian origin. Reventi (talk) 07:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, @Reventi. I would not be interested in contributing to Duolingo. I am busy. Also, I never liked that program.
As far as I know, the Armenian name of the native deity that was syncretized with Zoroastrian Verethragna to create Vahagn has been lost. You may be thinking of Tork Angegh, whose name is sometimes connected with Luwian Tarḫunz. See here, footnote 3 for references. --Vahag (talk) 10:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


Why would you revert the edit on աղուէս, when the word is related ἀλώπηξ? If the PIE word *h₂lōpeh₂s were to be reconstructed it would render *ałwes, thus cementing the relationship between the Armenian word and its potential PIE word. In addition, I added the word 'potentially' in the beginning of the sentence just to leave the etymology of աղուէս open to being a wanderword. BoghosBoghossian (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@BoghosBoghossian, I reverted you because PIR *h₂lōpeh₂s would not yield աղուէս (ałuēs). The ս (s) requires PIE *. --Vahag (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Origin of պիտի[edit]

Hello Vahagn,

Seeing that you are actively editing and contributing to the Armenian words in Wiktionary, I would like to address a certain eccentricity that I have encountered with the word պիտի (piti). The page on պէտ (pēt) indicates that the noun is of Iranian origin, while does no reference to the origin of պիտի as a participle. Should I assume that both the noun and the participle are of Iranian origin? However, on the page of պիտի it is included that տի is a contraction of պիտի, but the origin of տի is of PIE origin, would this indicate that the noun is of Iranian origin while the participle is of PIE origin? In addition, what makes me doubt the proposition that both the noun and the participle are of variant origins, is the fact that the definition of the contraction տի refers to "age, years, time of life", which puts a deviation between the sense of the contraction and its alternative form (պիտի) which makes me doubt their common origin.

պիտի (piti) is from Old Armenian պիտի (piti, one must, it is necessary), a conjugated form of the verb պիտիմ (pitim), from the noun պէտ (pēt), which is of Iranian origin. See Ačaṙyan for more, from page 132. Old Armenian տի (ti, age, years, time of lime) is a homonym of the contracted տի (ti) and has nothing to do with պիտի (piti). --Vahag (talk) 11:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


What can you tell me about your comment?hmm...--ჯეო/მიქაელ (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC) If you think Churchkhela is armenian, bravo! Khachapuri is georgian! Churchkhela is georgian! If you like your opinion I say nothing, but why are yout thief? You have culture and why you want to become thief of our culture? How is Georgia your land stoled by us?! Do you know something about civilization of Colchis? You are troll, I think 2 yers old knows history and geography better, than you! Your country stoled our territory, Lore is Georgia, god knows it, god can see everything! If you are atheist that's not my problem, good bye then!--ჯეო/მიქაელ (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

No, you stoled khachapuri from us! I proved it, but Zionist lobby reverted my provings! --Vahag (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
OK I am not talking to thiefs, killers and etc. bye!--ჯეო/მიქაელ (talk) 07:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


You seem to have used to the wrong letter for "k" (maybe also for "y"). I suppose you used the Arabic letters, which don't necessarily look different in all positions, but put the word in a wrong position in lists. It should be moved to کابین‎. Thank you. 22:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Moved. Only the first letter was incorrect -> Arabic ك to Persian ک. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

PIE *s> Arm. h[edit]

It is known that PIE *s could render in Armenian h and this sound shift is also seen in Iranian (Mallory, J. P., Douglas Q. Adams. Oxford UP, 2006). As well as *sm̥- (<*sem) renders an Armenian հան in հանգչիմ while also PIE *sem- renders the Iranian համ- and հան-. Based on these suppositions, if the sound shift *s> Arm. h is accepted shouldn't the համ- and հան- be derived from Armenian rather than Iranian? and if not, why should there be an etymological difference between the հան- in հանգչիմ and the հան- in հանուր if the sound change is the same and the PIE root is *sem- in both cases?

(I am asking here because I did not find any other platform that would answer my questions, I am asking these questions out of curiosity and the hope of learning more. I wish that the responses to my questions would be respectful and contain constructive criticism.) —This unsigned comment was added by BoghosBoghossian (talkcontribs) at 06:24, 12 June 2019.

@BoghosBoghossian, the contamination of Iranian համ- (ham-) / հան- (han-) with native prefixes as in հանգչիմ (hangčʿim) and ամուսին (amusin) is recognized. See the reference I just added to համ- (ham-). See HAB III, 19a on why the Iranian origin is preferable. I do not know which prefix հանուր (hanur) contains. --Vahag (talk) 11:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


If PIE *ḱ>Arm. s, how does *h₁éḱwos change to էշ, with *ḱ>š? BoghosBoghossian (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

When followed by a *-w-, PIE * yield š, as in էշ (ēš) and շուն (šun). See Martirosyan 2010, page 718 with extensive references. --Vahag (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Old Armenian հրա- (hra-)[edit]

Was Old Armenian հրա- (hra-) productive? If not, it shouldn't be on PIr. *fra-. --{{victar|talk}} 20:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Fay Freak, it wasn't productive. The PIr. page is a convenient place to dump all the related terms. For ասպ- (asp-) I have used հասբ (hasb), even though it is very obscure. For ատր- (atr-) I have created a separate entry because it is (supposedly) found in a few native compounds. Where would հրա- (hra-) words go? --Vahag (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
@Victar, but perhaps we need separate sections for mere reflexes. Fay Freak (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Where they go, I don't know (probably nowhere), but regardless, there is not the place. Adding it there is like adding Punjabi ਟੈਲੀ- (ṭaelī-) to Greek τῆλε (têle) because of ਟੈਲੀਫ਼ੋਨ (ṭaelīfon, telephone) or Uyghur كوم-(kom-) to Latin con- because of كومپيۇتېر(kompyutër, computer). --{{victar|talk}} 15:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
That's a silly comparison. Iranian should thank on its knees for every piece of evidence Old Armenian supplies. To quote Iranica: "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...".
Perhaps in this particular case the evidence is not that important. It points to Northwest Iranian fra-, which is already known from Iranian itself. --Vahag (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Remind me to send a thank you card to Old Armenian, but still, no. --{{victar|talk}} 18:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
“Productive” is a kinda fictitious concept. There are those suffixes that are transferred to other words by analogy or contamination but are “not really productive”, For example the Turkic -lVk (as in mezarlık (graveyard)) appears in Serbo-Croatian as -лук consistently even though the vowel varies in Turkish according to the vowel before, and in Bulgarian as -лък. It can be added for fun and slang purposes, so we have an entry -лук, but it is not normal as a suffix. Productive when only occasional? Productive when relying on analogy? Productive when only contaminating? And this state of things we only know because Serbo-Croatian is a current language with accessible large corpora: maybe we do not have that much of a grip of Old Armenian to know what was productive or what is just there – do the reflexes become less interesting because of it?
The general idea is to add only content that is interesting for which reason soever, and Vahagn has shewn you his reasons. Your Punjabi and Uyghur examples are convenient strawmen. As uncertainty about productivity grows the farther into the past we look, the more we value every material. Your concern is more about bad imitation, that people lack the common sense not to add extremely irrelevant content, wanting to stop them from doing so by a clear reference line. Well, we can of course ignore the treatment of these descendants for this reason, for there are, all the coming years, hundreds of other interesting things Vahagn can also add and people should add and which do not bear the danger to be wrongly imitated. Fay Freak (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the quintessential Palaestrator verborum rant, as always, but you're wrong, @Fay Freak, and it illustrates your complete lack of knowledge on the subject. All the examples given by Vahagn are whole borrowing into Old Armenian and show no signs whatsoever of the productive use of հրա- (hra-) as a prefix, be it "fun", "slang", or otherwise. If Vahagn wishes to contend that with any evidence, I'm all ears, but barring that, my Punjabi and Uyghur comparisons are apt. Vahagn isn't even trying to dispute that though -- his counterpoint is that is OArm can sheds light on vowel quality of prefixes, but at best, they should be pronunciation footnotes on the Parthian and Middle Persian entries, and don't belong in the descendants section. --{{victar|talk}} 07:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


The formulation “From the root *գէտ- (*gēt-, “to know”), from Proto-Indo-European *wóyde.” is misleading since the final *-e of the PIE 3sg perfect does not lead to *գէտ-. The Old Armenian root reflects the PIE root shape of the perfect form alone. Fortecis (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

If the reason is to be consistent with the PIE entry, “from the root of *wóyd-e” would probably be a suitable compromise although there is no special reason to cite this PIE verb by its 3sg form. Fortecis (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Fortecis: we link to lemmas. For PIE we have chosen 3rd person singular indicative as the lemma. --Vahag (talk) 07:50, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Liking to lemmas is ok, but there are still ways to avoid inaccurate formulations. The root գէտ- as such does not go back to the cited 3sg form. This is a matter of linguistic accuracy and not a technical choice. —This unsigned comment was added by User:Fortecis (talkcontribs).
@Fortecis: you don't understand. It is a dictionary convention to say lemma A derives from lemma B, even if the cited forms do not come from each other. So, բերեմ (berem) is derived from *bʰéreti, even though the precise reflex of the latter is բերէ (berē). --Vahag (talk) 09:43, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
@Fortecis: And it is not inaccurate thus. If we write բերեմ (berem) we mean “բերէ and its whole paradigm”, if we write կալ (kal) then we mean “also its oblique stem կալո- (kalo-)”. This what you have to understand as this is what dictionaries do. Fay Freak (talk) 10:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Sure, derivation on the level of lexical items is fine. What bothers me is when we get to the morphological level “From the ROOT *գէտ-...” and then back to the lexical level “from Proto-Indo-European *wóyde.” It gives the impression that we are still on the morphological level as we derive *gēt- from *woyde. Within the descriptive model that you describe it should have been “From the VERB *gēt-“ (or however else one would like to represent this Proto-Armenian lexical item, e.g. *gētet). —This unsigned comment was added by User:Fortecis (talkcontribs).
This is a very minor issue, but I made the change so you can move on. --Vahag (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! I very much appreciate it.

جاجیگ(cacıg) and ճաճըխ (čačəx)[edit]

Any thoughts on the etymology of Ottoman Turkish جاجیگ(cacıg, an herb; tzatziki)? --{{victar|talk}} 06:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The Armenian is certainly borrowed from Turkish. I think the ultimate origin is indeed Iranian, from the same source as ժաժիկ (žažik). --Vahag (talk) 08:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Vahagn, much appreciated. In any of your sources, so you have an etymology for Armenian կոկան (kokan, blackthorn)? --{{victar|talk}} 17:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
It's a Turkic borrowing. --Vahag (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Source? Cognates? Nevermind, found them. Thanks again. --{{victar|talk}} 19:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)