Archív Orientalni. 2013. About the vocalic system of Armenian words of substratic origin....

ORIENTAL ARCHIVE 81, 2013 • 1

About the Vocalic System of Armenian Words of Substratic Origin

Arnaud Fournet

1. Introduction

It is now well-known that present-day Armenian still contains a number of words that were already in use in Anatolia thousands of years ago, well before it began to be spoken there some 2,500 years ago and ultimately displaced pre-existing languages. Armenian belongs to the central branch of Indo-European languages, together with Greek, Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian, to cite the best attested languages. Phrygian is another potential member of the group. Before the arrival of Armenian, the autochthonous language in this area was Urartian, and its sister-language Hurrian, which was spoken more to its south-west, in Anatolia and neighbouring areas of Mesopotamia. As is often the case, the pre-existing language became extinct but this disappearance caused a number of substratic words to be transmitted to the newcomer. The challenge is therefore to retrieve them. In his book published in 1903 Meillet1 was well aware of this situation but complained: “On n’a malheureusement pas réussi jusqu’à présent à déterminer ce qui, parmi la masse considérable des mots arméniens dont l’étymologie est inconnue, provient de la langue des indigènes.” It is quite clear that when Meillet wrote this work, too little was known and understood to permit such an extensive etymological endeavour. Levon Mseriantz2 was the first to propose that some Armenian words were of Urartian origin. Following improvements in the understanding of Urartian inscriptions, steady progress has been ongoing in this chapter of Armenian lexicography. Apart from providing a critical compilation of potentially substratic lexemes, the present paper focuses on the vocalic system embedded in these words, for which a Hurro-Urartian origin seems quite certain.

2. Methodological approach

As a general rule, I do not presuppose that Hurro-Urartian, Kartvelian or any branch of Caucasic can be ascribed close genetic ties. To some extent, these issues are

1 A. Meillet, Esquisse d’une grammaire comparée de l’arménien classique, XIV. “It has unfortunately not been possible yet to determine what, among the considerable mass of Armenian words, comes from the language of the autochthonous people.”

2 L. Mseriantz, “Les éléments ourartiques dans la langue arménienne”, 128–29.

ArOr – Issue 81.2 ISSN 0044-8699 © 2013 Oriental Institute (ASCR), Prague

2 • ARNAUD FOURNET

irrelevant, as some of the words under survey are migratory words (wanderwörter), for which nothing may be clearly asserted as to their ultimate origin. In all cases these words should most appropriately not be part of genetic studies involving “Caucasic” languages, whatever structure or validity that rather intractable and controversial entity might have. The genetic relationship between Hurrian and Urartian was already considered proved by Gelb: “As to the Hurrian language it has been pointed out above that the nearest relative of Hurrian is Urartian. Beyond that we know nothing about the linguistic relationships of Hurrian.” 3 The oldest suggestion of this relationship certainly is due to Sayce,4 who compared the language of the Mittanni Letter with what he himself called “Vannic,” that is to say Urartian under his pen. I tend to think that among so-called “Caucasic” languages Nakh is the most promising place to look for Hurro-Urartian cognates. But this is only an aside and cannot be used in the general discussion of Armenian substratic words. Potential cognates between Hurro-Urartian and Nakh are mentioned when I believe it is sensible to do so.

A number of substratic words in Armenian have already been identified and discussed by prominent scholars, such as Diakonov or Greppin. These two scholars exchanged their views on this topic in numerous papers during the 1970s and 1980s. They can be used as a starting point in the compilation of substratic Armenian lexemes. A recent discussion of Armenian etymologies can be credited to Martirosyan.5 In the following pages I will add some new words to the list. According to our current knowledge fewer than 50 words can be assigned a substratic origin. It can be noted that this number is rather low and probably more remain to be discovered. In French, more than a hundred words, actually not far from two hundred, are usually attributed to Gaulish and it can be noted that Berber dialects in North Africa contain more than 80 words of Latin origin, as a result of the lasting presence of the Romans there.6 So the current number looks to be an underestimate, but this is probably due to the rather meagre remains of Urartian.

In general, we are compelled to compare Armenian with Hurrian because we lack actually attested Urartian comparanda. However, phonetic details often show that Urartian was the source in most cases. More often than not we have to admit the premise that lexemes attested in the better documented Hurrian language probably had counterparts in Urartian.

Besides, the transliteration used in this paper generally follows the principles of Hübschmann-Meillet-Benveniste, with the following emendations: aspiration is

3 I. J. Gelb, Hurrians and Subarians, 91. 4 A. H. Sayce, “The language of Mitanni,” 260–74.5 H. Martirosyan, Studies in Armenian Etymology with Special Emphasis on Dialects and

Culture. 6 A. Fournet, “Romains et Phéniciens en Afrique nord-saharienne, approche des adstrats

lexicaux en berbère.”

About the Vocalic System of Armenian Words of Substratic Origin • 3

noted by <h>, the affricates are noted ts, dz and dž instead of respectively <c>, <j> and <ǰ>, which I consider quite ambiguous or misleading.

3. Substratic lexemes

As regards the phonetic issues tackled in the paper, the lexemes can be sorted out according to their vowels:

- vowel */a/:

(1) Arm. agarak (a-stem) ‘landed property, estate, village.’ Already attested in the Armenian Bible. The word cannot be inherited nor stem from PIE *ağros ‘field,’ as it should have undergone satemization, according to Armenian sound laws. This item was compared with Hurrian awari ‘field, steppe’ by Greppin.7 The word also exists in Georgian agarakhi ‘cornfield, estate, village,’ and agara ‘estate, rural house,’ without the final velar formative. Additional data are from Nakh languages: Čečen, Inguš ārie ‘field, flat-lands.’ Another comparandum is Lak are ‘flat land.’ The long vowel ā of Nakh is an issue, as a preform containing *awa should presumably yield a rounded long vowel, but this difficulty can be overcome if the contraction had already occurred when the word was borrowed into Nakh from an external source (here, possibly Urartian). This phonetic point suggests that this item cannot be inherited in Hurrian, nor in Nakh.

As for Arm. agarak the velar formative -k(k)a is used for diminutives in Hurrian: tahi ‘man’ > tahak(k)a ‘young man.’ This formative also accounts for agarak being an a-stem. The sound change w > g is no issue in Armenian, as shown by *wīni > gini ‘wine,’ so the derivation of Arm. agarak and *agar from a substratic word *awar(ak), attested in Hurrian awari ‘field, steppe,’ is readily acceptable. Sumerian agar ‘meadow’ is not an acceptable comparandum, in spite of its striking phonetic similarity, because it is certainly borrowed from Semitic *‘ugaru, with the harmonic change v_a > a_a, frequent in Sumerian. As an ultimate source of the substratic word *awar(ak), better is Akkadian aburru ‘pasture, meadow,’ with a spirant b/w, as is frequently attested in Hurrian. I have proposed this etymology before.8

Another point is the word Arm. art ‘field,’ which has been proposed as stemming from either Hu. ardi or Ur. ardine ‘town.’ This is not possible on both phonetic and semantic grounds. Actually, it would seem that Akkadian aburru became (1) awari, awarakka from which Arm. agarak is derived, and (2) a contracted (and potentially more recent) *āri, from which Čečen, Inguš ārie ‘field, flat-lands,’ also Lak are ‘flat land’ and Arm. art ‘field’ are derived.

7 J. A. C. Greppin, “Some effects of the Hurro-Urartian people and their language upon the earliest Armenians,” 724.

8 A. Fournet, “About some features of loanwords in Hurrian,” 54.


(2) Arm. aguŕ ‘baked brick.’ The word can easily be compared with Akkadian agurru. The shape of the word (with ŕ [r:]) suggests an ancient loanword, as noted by Diakonov. In the realm of house-building, Hurrian has a word alipši ‘(unbaked) mud brick,’ quite certainly from Semitic as well: Akkadian libittu, with a prosthetic a- because initial l is not possible in Hurrian and a spirantized ti > ši. But the stem *agurr- is not attested in Hurro-Urartian. This meaning, ‘baked brick,’ is nevertheless typical of migratory words with Neolithic and late cultural backgrounds.

(3) Arm. analuth ‘deer.’ Although a connection with Indo-European words such as (Hesychius) ε’́ νελος ‘fawn, young of deer’ and the root *Hel-(ṇ)- ‘deer’ is certainly acceptable, it can be surmised that the Armenian word is tainted by Hurrian nali ‘deer,’ itself probably from Akkadian nali, especially as regards the vowels and the metathesis. The same ending exists in Arm. anth, anuth ‘armpit.’

(4) Arm. ananux ‘mint.’ Several Semitic languages, among them Akkadian and Ugaritic, have forms such as ananīhu, nanahu, nanihu. Diakonov proposed a substratic origin for that set of words. Although *ananih(h)i is attested in neither Hurrian nor Urartian, the shape of the word very much looks like a possible word in these two languages.

(5) Arm. aragil ‘stork.’ The word seems to be based on a root *araw-, which appears in a number of Armenian dialectal words, for herons, bustards, etc. The root *araw- can definitely be from Hurro-Urartian *ar- ‘bird’ plus the animal suffix *b/w. See the discussion under Arm. artsiv ‘eagle.’ A preform like *arawilli ‘some kind of bird’ can account for aragil. Note that aragil has l not ł, so the geminated ll is a better reconstruction.

(6) Arm. artsiv ‘eagle.’ The word also exists in Georgian artsivi, where it seems to be a direct borrowing from Armenian, and in Nakh *aerzū ‘eagle.’ It has been compared with the name of a horse attested in Urartian sources: Arṣibe, which may be glossed as ‘Eagle.’ This can always be debated as there is no actual instance of Ur. arṣibe directly meaning ‘eagle.’ An alternative is to analyze Arm. artsiv as being from an Indo-Iranian derivative of ‘mountain,’ from some preform *haṛğipyo. This was deemed phonetically dubious by Diakonov, with good reason. Anyway, in all cases, the claim that Arm. artsiv is of Hurro-Urartian substratic origin can be accepted only after artsiv or *artsibe is shown to be an acceptable word in Hurrian or Urartian. Otherwise the proposed substratic origin would only hang in the air. Attested Hurrian words include eradi ‘bird,’ which contains -adi, a formative for collective words, and eribuški ‘a golden eagle, representative of Teššub,’ attested in Kizzuwatna religious texts. Phonetic details are obscured by the fronting of vowel a to e, when followed by r, l, n and h in Hurrian, which happens in numerous words, be they native or borrowed. Both Hu. eradi and Hu. eribuški can derive from a root *ar-, which incidentally is also attested in PIE as *or-. In that respect, it is interesting


to note that Akkadian has araniš ‘like eagles’ but erû, arû ‘eagle.’ The fronting of vowel a to e, when followed by r, l, n and h, seems to be specifically Hurrian and remains to be properly exemplified in Urartian. The final labial of Arm. artsiv can be Hurro-Urartian: for example, Hu. šerrewi ‘lamb’ is another word with the same kind of labial endings, which Diakonov once considered to be of “Nostratic” dating, or in other words of a very ancient age. This “Nostratic” suffix *b(h) is used in numerous animal or plant names, from Old Indian to Arabic and beyond. So this suffix can account for the final consonant of Arm. artsiv. The remaining issue is the Armenian affricate ts. This can be accounted for as being the well attested intensive or augmentative suffix Hu. uš, with a phonotactic change which triggered the sibilant of <rš> to change to an affricate <rts>. This is also attested in Hurrian itself, for n in: manšu = manzu ‘P3Sg,’ for l in: itkal(u)ši = itkalzi. In other words, it is possible to explain Arm. artsiv ‘eagle’ as being from some unattested Urartian name *artsib, from an older *arušibi ‘some kind of great bird.’ Stress on the penultimate syllable is a feature of Urartian, which caused unstressed vowels to fall. In conclusion, Arm. artsiv ‘eagle’ can be accounted for with a substratic word like *arušibi ‘some kind of great bird,’ in that case, precisely, an ‘eagle.’

(7) Arm. asči ‘food.’ A hapax of the 6th century. It is interesting to note that Hurrian has a word ašuhi ‘meal, meal-time,’ with a root aš- *[az]. In addition, Caucasic Tsezian has a root *ac-̣ ‘to eat.’ This is possibly a substratic word.

(8) Arm. astem ‘to reveal one’s ancestry.’ A hapax attested in the 6th century. It has long been compared with Hurrian aste ‘woman, wife.’ The final e logically is a monophthongized -ai, which appears in Hurrian kinship words: attai ‘father.’ Further comparanda include Nakh Inguš sē ‘female animal,’ siesag ‘wife,’ Čečen stē ‘wife, female.’ The Hurrian word aste has been claimed to be Semitic and related to *atīta ‘wife’ but this is highly dubious, because Hurrian does not lose medial long vowels in Semitic borrowings.

(9) Arm. ayr (i-stem) ‘cave.’ A possibility is from the religious term: Hurrian abi < Sumerian abi ‘hole dug in the ground to reach the netherworld.’ A proto-form like *abiri with the same spirant b as in *abidi > Arm. ayt ‘cheek’ can account for Arm. ayr ‘cave.’ Cf. Arm. ayt ‘cheek.’

(10) Arm. ayt (i-stem) ‘cheek.’ This word has been compared with a PIE root *oid- ‘to swell.’ In my opinion, another possibility is to derive Arm. ayt from Hurrian abi ‘face,’ with a clearer semantic match than with PIE *oid- ‘to swell.’ The spirantization of b into y is attested in Hurrian itself: abi, awi, ai. A Hurro-Urartian proto-form like *ayidi can account for Arm. ayt ‘cheek.’ Cf. Arm. ayt ‘cave.’

(11) Arm. baxem ‘to beat (said of breast, wave, etc.), to knock (at a door), to strike.’ A connection with Hurrian *wah-, pah- ‘to destroy’ is fairly obvious. The


graphic alternation w/p in Hurrian is usually in relationship with Urartian word-initial b, as exemplified by Hurrian pabani, wabani = Urartean baban ‘mountain.’ This suggests that Urartean had a verb *bah ‘to strike, to destroy.’ The Hurrian word is attested in the Bilingual of Boğazköy: a-ar-ti-ma URUE-əb-la pa-hé-tab ‘the city of Ebla I [= Teššub] will strike / destroy.’ This word is also attested in Kartvelian: Laz and Mingrel bax- ‘to beat,’ which are most likely loanwords from Hurro-Urartian as well.

(12) Arm. bark ‘anger,’ barkanam ‘to be angry.’ Though PIE connections have been proposed, it can be noted that a root *paris attested in the Bilingual of Boğazköy: pa-ba-a-nə ha-a-ši-i-ma-i pa-a-ru iš-ta-nə-i-ta ‘the mountain on hearing [the deer’s curses] was angered / embittered in its heart.’

(13) Arm. darbin ‘blacksmith.’ The connection with Hurrian tabiri, tabrenni <ta-ab-re-e-en-ni> ‘blacksmith, metal-worker’ is obvious, even if it involves a metathesis in Armenian. The existence of an “Indo-European” root for Arm. darbin and Latin faber < supposedly *dhabh- does not hold, as it is more probable that both words are borrowings. Latin ferrum < *bhers- is itself a borrowing in relationship with West-Semitic *barzillu ‘iron.’ These metallurgical lexemes are migratory words of Anatolian origin.

(14) Arm. hatanem ‘to cut, divide,’ hat ‘piece.’ Hurrian had- ‘to kill’ is a good phonetic match though a semantically difficult one. The connection can only be accepted if Urartian had a cognate verb with a more general meaning ‘to cut,’ which Hurrian had specialized as ‘to kill.’ This is of course conjectural.

(15) Arm. kałamax ‘aspen.’ This has been compared with a gloss of Hesychius καλαμίνδαρ. From the Hurro-Urartian point of view, this word can be compared with Hurrian kalgi ‘weak,’ possibly referring to its leaves or the softness of its wood.

(16) Arm. maxr, (dial.) marx ‘pine.’ The comparison with Akkadian mehru ‘pine, conifer’ makes sense. Greppin9 mentions a supposedly Hurrian mahri, but this does not seem to be documented anywhere. In addition, this would mean that Akkadian displays the usual fronting of a > e of Hurrian, but Hurrian itself does not display it. This paradoxical situation tends to show that Hurrian *mahri does not exist. Connections with Nakh Inguš mixa, Čečen max ‘aspen’ are highly dubious, but Čečen baga ‘pine-tree’ is a possibility. Cf. Hurrian tahi ‘man’ ~ Nakh Inguš sag, Čečen stag ‘man’ with the same h ~ g correspondence between Hurrian and Nakh.



(17) Arm. salor, (dial. East) šlor ‘plum.’ This can be compared with Akkadian šallūru ‘plum,’ which the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary considers a foreign word. This item cannot be explicitly proved to be Hurro-Urartian but the variant form of the Akkadian giššennūru displays the fronting a > e expectable in Hurrian phonetics. A protoform like Hurro-Urartian *šalunuri, with two divergent assimilations, is possible. The plain l of Armenian seems to originate in a geminated ll.

(18) Arm. san ‘kettle.’ The comparison with Urartian šani ‘pot, vessel, kettle’ is all the clearer as this word seems to be isolated and has few comparanda. Laroche mentions a metal object šanni. The shibilant of Urartian šani is only graphic: it stands for *[sani].

(19) Arm. tarma-dzur ‘(water) spring.’ Obviously borrowed from Hurro-Urartian tarman(l)i.

(20) Arm. tawsax ‘boxtree.’ From the Hurro-Urartian point of view, this word can be compared with Hurrian tabš- ‘low,’ possibly referring to the slow growth of this tree. A preform would be *tawšahi ‘low tree.’ Cf. Arm. theławš ‘oak, pine’ < preform *telawuši ‘highest tree.’

(21) Arm. tsaŕ ‘tree.’ This item is doubtless of Hurro-Urartian origin but the phonetic and graphic details require some developments. Urartian giš ṣare ‘orchard’ looks like the source. It has been claimed that ṣare had an emphatic initial. But this is in my opinion false and stems from an insufficient study and description of Akkadian dialectal and graphemic differences. Urartian ṣare is written in neo-assyrian cuneiform and ṣare quite certainly stands for [tsarə], with an affricate and no emphatic. Additional comparanda are Subarian sarme ‘forest,’ Hurrian šahri ‘orchard, garden’ and Sumerian SAR ‘garden,’ also a measure of 36 m2. Proto-Semitic had lateral fricatives but these sounds were lost in Akkadian and Mesopotamian dialects with the passage of time. It would appear that the plain lateral fricative *ś was changed into two different reflexes: one dialect, possibly Babylonian, fused *ś and *š but another, possibly Assyrian, changed *ś to *ts. This explains that the initial of Hurrian is not the same as that of Urartian, and hence that of Armenian. This divergent change is supported by other examples: Hurrian pis- ‘to rejoice,’ precisely written with a set of signs that are used for lateral fricatives in (Old) Akkadian, but Urartian piṣ-. Both words are temporally and dialectally separated borrowings, ultimately from Semitic *piś. Another example is the name of the bar-tender near the sea in the Epic of Gilgameš: Hurrian Šiduri, with a plain sibilant, but Hittite Ziduri, with an affricate. A survey of these words is sketched in Fournet (2011).10 It can also be observed that Hurrian šahri seems to be archaic

10 A. Fournet, “About some features of loanwords in Hurrian,” 55–56.


and contains a laryngeal. The whole picture is that the ultimate source of these words was pronounced *śahri, and later *śarri. Incidentally, the transliteration of Hurrian pis- as being *pic- à la Diakonov is adopted by several Hurritologists but this is a complete dialectal anachronism. The claim made by Diakonov to have “detected unwritten affricates” in Hurrian is to be firmly rejected. It is, in addition, quite certain that none of these words, *piś- (Semitic) or *śahr (Sumerian), are of Caucasic origin.

(22) Arm. tsaŕay ‘slave.’ The substratic origin was rejected by Greppin because of “unresolved phonological problems.”11 But the comparison between Arm. tsaŕay ‘slave’ and Hurrian šarri ‘booty, captives’ follows the same lines as that between Arm. tsaŕ ‘tree,’ Urartian giš ṣare and Hurrian šahri ‘orchard.’ These “unresolved phonological problems” stem from Akkadian dialectal phonological issues, that unfortunately have hardly been described so far. For that matter people have failed to see that Nuzi and Lullu share the same root *luś-, with different dialectal reflexes. Arm. tsaŕay ‘slave’ seems to originate in a preform *śarrati.

(23) Arm. xarxalem ‘to destroy.’ Quite obviously related to Ur. harhar-š- ‘to destroy.’ Not attested in Hurrian.

(24) Arm. zarawš ‘germander.’ The suffix awš corresponds to the Hurrian intensive superlative which is also attested in the word teławš. Boğazköy cuneiform texts list a plant šararmi, of which little is known apart from it being a plant with the determinative: SAR = garden. The closest match in Nakh, if I might add, is *zˁ ar ‘wattle-fence.’ It is not easy to establish whether all these words can really be assembled into a valid etymological entry.

- vowel */ā/:

(25) Arm. anag ‘tin.’ This interesting word was discussed by Diakonov.12 He compared Arm. anag ‘tin’ with Sumerian AN-NA, NAG-GA and also with Old Indian nāga with the same meaning ‘tin, lead.’ He made the suggestion that the origin of the word was to be found in the Harappan language and that Hurrian must have been an intermediary stop on the (north)westward journey of that word. Additional comparanda are Semitic words with a voiceless velar: Akkadian an(n)aku, etc. In my opinion, Diakonov inverted the whole picture. The connections of this set of words cannot be seriously doubted. But the origin of these words is Hurrian itself: nakk- is ‘to cast, melt (a metal),’ a verb that was not known when Diakonov wrote his paper in 1985, but is attested in the Hurro-Hittite Bilingual of Boğazköy. Old Sumerian


12 I. M. Diakonov, “Hurro-Urartian Borrowings in Old Armenian”, 598–99.


created a compound with the native AN and borrowed nakk(a), which accounts for the migratory word *a(n)naku of Semitic. Later Sumerian shifted voiceless k to g, hence (a)nagga. Old Indian bears testimony to the fact that the vowel must have been long at some point, hence nāga. The Later Sumerian form anagg(a) accounts for the substratic *anag, from which the Armenian word is descended.

(26) Arm. art ‘field.’ Apparently, this word cannot be explained in acceptable ways with reference to Indo-European material and it has been proposed that it stems from either Hu. ardi or Ur. ardine ‘town.’ This is not possible for semantic reasons. Actually, it would seem that Akkadian aburru became (1) awari, awarakka, from which Arm. agarak is derived, and (2) a contracted (and potentially more recent) *āri, from which Čečen, Inguš ārie ‘field, flat-lands,’ also Lak are ‘flat land’ and Arm. art ‘field’ are derived. This, in my opinion, is much more acceptable than the derivation from Hu. ardi or Ur. ardine ‘town.’

(27) Arm. xałoł ‘vine.’ Diakonov mentions a form <ha-lu-le>13 in Nuzi, another attestation has plene writing for both vowels: haluli <ha-a-lu-u-li>, which tends to show that this is likely to not be an inherited word in Hurrian, even though the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary assumes haluli to be Hurrian. In all cases the final l certainly is not a Hurro-Urartian plural marker. It can also be noted that this word has a phonetic similarity with the Greek χάλις (m.) ‘unmixed wine.’

- vowel */e/:

(28) Arm. ezr (r-stem) ‘shore, edge (of ravine, cloth).’ The received connection is with Baltic words: Lithuanian ežiẽ ‘border, frontier,’ Latvian eža ‘boundary(-strip)’ < *H1eğ(h). A comparison with Hurrian eše *[eze] ‘earth, ground’ is an acceptable assumption. Arm. ezr ‘shore, edge (of ravine)’ would derive from a preform *ešari ‘shore, dry ground’ as opposed to water. Hurrian eše ‘earth, ground’ can be compared with Nakh Inguš yost, Batsbi yobst ‘earth’ and, with a different vowel, with Inguš yist ‘edge, brim, shore,’ Čečen xiyist ‘riverbank, shore’ [xi- means ‘water’]. These latter words are semantically close to Arm. ezr, though with a different suffix.

(29) Arm. geł (o-stem) ‘beauty, (good) look.’ A comparison with Hurrian *kel- ‘good shape, good health’ is possible. That the initial velar was originally voiced in Hurrian is shown by the reduplicated form keligel- < *gel-i-gel-. Devoicing of initial consonants is compulsory in Hurrian, but not in Urartian. That Arm. geł is an o-stem is nevertheless a hindrance, as Hurro-Urartian substratic words seem to be primarily i-stems.

13 Ibid., 600.


(30) Arm. mełex (o/i-stem) ‘handle of axe.’ Hurrian malladi ‘chopping board’ shows that Hurro-Urartian may have had a verb *mal- ‘to chop.’ As was already noted, mełex seems to bear a Hurro-Urartian -ihi. The vowel of mełex can be explained as the fronting of an older a in Late Hurrian: *melihi.

(31) Arm. pełem ‘to dig.’ This has been repeatedly compared with Hu. pilli and Ur. pile <pi-(i)-le> ‘canal.’ The proposal was rejected by Diakonov on phonological grounds. This is indeed probable as the long [ī] of Ur. pile <pi-(i)-le> ‘canal’ should normally not become [e] in Armenian, but [i]. In any case, there exists an even better and more straightforward proposal: Hu. pa(h)[...] = Sumerian mu-un-bal ‘he dug, he laid the foundations.’ A preform such as *pa(h)il- with a commonplace Hurro-Urartian suffix can readily become Arm. pełem ‘to dig.’ This may be an instance of the long [ē], as the vowel results from a contracted *a(h)i.

(32) Arm. theławš ‘oak, pine,’ thełi ‘elm-tree.’ A suffixal variant exists in Georgian thela, thelamuši ‘elm-tree.’ Satisfactory etymologies for these words within IE limits do not seem to exist. Hurrian tali ‘tree, wood’ looks like an obvious possibility with a fronted variant *teli. It is unclear whether Hurrian tali ‘tree, wood’ is from the same root as the adjective talmi, telami ‘high.’ The morphology of Arm. theławš ~ Hu. telawuši ‘highest, biggest’ and Georgian thelamuši ~ Hu. telamuši ‘highest, biggest’ is so strikingly Hurrian that these words are most certainly of substratic origin. The suffix -uši is an intensive or superlative suffix in Hurrian: Teššub uruKummeniwi talawuši ebri ‘Teššub, you immense lord of Kumme’ (KBo 32.15 Vo 4.14). To this origin one may also assign Arm. thłkhi ‘maple’ with an Armenian suffix -khi for trees. The word Arm. theławš is the second instance of the suffix awš with zarawš ‘germander,’ which would suggest that this latter word is also of Hurro-Urartian origin. It can be noted that neither the Arm. theławš nor zarawš seem to bear stress on the previously penultimate vowel of the suffix *awuši.

- vowel */i/:

(6bis) Arm. arciv, archui ‘eagle.’ See above (6).

(13bis) Arm. darbin ‘blacksmith.’ See above (13).

(33) Arm. thiv ‘number.’ The connection with Hurro-Urartian tiwe ‘word’ was rejected by Greppin because of the (slight) semantic mismatch. But this is a bit harsh as it is not unusual typologically that ‘to read’ and ‘to count’ are the same verb: for example Uralic Mokša has luwəms ‘to read’ but lufks ‘number’ from the same root. So the connection is fairly acceptable.

(34) Arm. tsits ‘bosom.’ An obvious borrowing from the Hurrian zizzi *[tsitsi] ‘breast, nipple.’ Quite surprisingly, it has remained unnoticed so far. There is no


reason to reject the connection because these words have some kind of onomatopoeic look.

- vowel */ī/:

(35) Arm. knikh ‘seal.’ Ultimately from the Akkadian kanīku through unknown stages.

(36) Arm. gini ‘wine.’ Hittite wiyana has been reconstructed as *wiH1no by Beekes. It is quite possible that Arm. gini ‘wine’ is a substratic word of Anatolian origin and not a migratory word.

- vowel /o/ < *[ō]:

(37) Arm. phox ‘to (ex)change.’ Ultimately from the Akkadian pūhu with a long vowel, which is also documented in Hurrian puh-ugari ‘(mutual) exchange.’ There is no reason to reject this item on semantic grounds as Greppin once did. The phonetic and semantic match is perfect. The long vowel of *pūh was pronounced with *[ō].

(17bis) Arm. salor, (dial. East) šlor ‘plum.’ See above (17). The long vowel of *šallūru was pronounced with *[ō]. Gemination explains Arm. l instead of ł, which is usual in these substratic words.

(38) Arm. sur ‘sword.’ Obviously related to the Hu. šawri ‘weapon, spear’ and Ur. šur ‘sword.’ The contracted vowel in Ur. šur ‘sword’ was logically long and probably *[ō].

(39) Arm. tsov ‘sea.’ From the Ur. ṣue *[tsōwə]. Kartvelian *zoγv ‘sea, lake’ shows that there used to be an internal laryngeal and the vowel must have been long. The Hurrian for ‘sea’ is kiyaše so this item is probably not a genuine Hurro-Urartian word. The initial consonant of Ur. ṣue versus Kartvelian *zoγv is also an issue.

(27bis) Arm. xałoł ‘vine.’ See above (27).

(40) Arm. xndzor ‘apple.’ Obviously related to the Hurrian hinzuri, itself from some source related to Akkadian hašhūru, šahšūru ‘apple.’ The long vowel of hinzuri *[xindzūri] was pronounced with *[ō]. Caucasic connections proposed for the Hurrian hinzuri are worthless.

- vowel */u/:

(2bis) Arm. aguŕ ‘baked brick.’ See above (2). The short u was pronounced *[u].


(41) Arm. erastan-kh ‘buttocks.’ Connections with PIE *proǩto are difficult because the word does not have initial aspiration, as expected from *p. Interferences with Arm. eran-kh ‘thigh, loins’ have been suggested. If such interferences are accepted then Hurrian uruni ‘back(side), buttock’ is a possibility: a preform *urašt- ‘most distant back part,’ with intensive suffix -ašt *[ast], with interferences with Arm. eran-kh ‘thigh, loins’ can account for Arm. erastan-kh ‘buttocks.’

(42) Arm. krukn ‘heel.’ Seems to be a compound of Ur. qure ‘foot’ and -ukn that exists in Arm. armukn ‘elbow’ as well. Kartvelian Laz ḳur ‘heel’ belongs here as well. It is unclear to what extent Hu. ugri ‘foot’ is really a cognate of Ur. qure ‘foot.’ Wilhelm once explained Ur. qure ‘foot’ as a graphic problem because there was supposedly no sign to write uk so scribes used ku instead. This assumes that Ur. qure ‘foot’ stands in fact for *ukre. But if this tentative explanation were correct, neither Laz ḳur nor Arm. krukn ‘heel’ should exist. It is also unclear which relationship Nakh *kog ‘foot’ shares with either Hu. ugri ‘foot’ or Ur. qure ‘foot.’

(43) Arm. kut ‘grain.’ The proposed connection with Hurrian kade ‘grain, barley’ is difficult because Hu. a cannot become or correspond with Arm. u. Greek κοδoμεύς ‘barley-roaster’ has a back-vowel and is a better possibility. Some migratory word such as *kod, kud ‘barley’ might well have existed, from which the Armenian is derived.

(44) Arm. nuŕn (Gén.) nŕan ‘pomegranate.’ Obviously a substratic word. There are plenty of comparanda: Sumerian nurma, Hurrian nurandi. Akkadian forms: nurmū, lurmū, lurīnu are interesting as they indicate an alternation between n and l. It seems that (classical) Hurrian no longer accepted initial l because it fused initial l with n. This is indicated by the archaic attestation of Nubadig as Lubadag in the Lion of Urkeš. So, this is quite possibly a genuine Hurro-Urartian word. In addition, this plant precisely originates from this area of the world.

(45) Arm. thurtsem ‘to burn bricks or pots of clay to make them stiff.’ It can be noted that Hurrian tari means ‘fire’ but there is no attestation of a verb *tur- ‘to burn’ in Hurrian. Cf. aguŕ ‘baked brick.’

4. The semantic fields of substratic lexemes

We can sort these lexemes of substratic origin in the Hurro-Urartian family as regards their semantic fields:

- world: agarak ‘landed property, estate, village,’ art ‘field,’ ayr ‘cave,’ ezr ‘shore, edge (of ravine, cloth),’ tarma-dzur ‘(water) spring,’ tsov ‘sea,’

- fauna: (uncertain) analuth ‘deer,’ aragil ‘stork,’ artsiv ‘eagle,’ - flora: ananux ‘mint,’ kałamax ‘aspen,’ kut ‘grain,’ maxr, (dial.) marx ‘pine,’


nuŕn ‘pomegranate,’ salor, (dial. East) šlor ‘plum,’ tawsax ‘boxtree,’ theławš ‘oak, pine,’ thełi ‘elm-tree,’ tsaŕ ‘tree,’ zarawš ‘germander,’ xałoł ‘vine,’ xndzor ‘apple,’

- technical words: aguŕ ‘baked brick,’ anag ‘tin,’ baxem ‘to beat, knock, strike,’ darbin ‘blacksmith,’ (uncertain) hatanem ‘to cut, divide,’ knikh ‘seal,’ mełex ‘handle of axe,’ pełem ‘to dig,’ phox ‘to (ex)change,’ san ‘kettle,’ sur ‘sword,’ thiv ‘number,’ thurtsem ‘to burn bricks or pots of clay to make them stiff,’ xarxalem ‘to destroy,’

- mankind: astem ‘to reveal one’s ancestry,’ (uncertain) bark ‘angry,’ barkanam ‘to be angry,’ tsaŕay ‘slave,’ (uncertain) geł ‘beauty, (good) look,’

- body parts: ayt ‘cheek,’ (uncertain) erastan-kh ‘buttocks,’ krukn ‘heel,’ tsits ‘bosom.’

Because of their vocalism the following words are most likely Hurrian: mełex ‘handle of axe,’ theławš ‘oak, pine,’ thełi ‘elm-tree.’ The word zarawš ‘germander’ is also unlikely to be Urartian because it logically did not have penultimate stress: *zaráwuši as in *teláwuši.

5. The phonological system of substratic lexemes

Now that we have identified a set of about 40 words that have likely or certain substratic origin in the Hurro-Urartian family, the next challenge is to determine what these Armenian lexemes teach us about the intrinsic phonological system of these languages. Nearly all the words were originally stressed on the penultimate syllable. There are two conspicuous exceptions: (32) Arm. theławš and (24) Arm. zarawš. According to Wilhelm14 “Urartian seems to have a stress accent on the penultimate syllable – at least in certain cases, defined by unknown conditions.” This is inferred from graphic alternations such as: gu-nu-še > gu-nu-ši-(i)-ni, pi-ṣu-(ú)-še > pi-ṣu-ši-ni, ṣu-e > ṣu-i-ni. Whenever the final short final <e> becomes penultimate, it surfaces as a (long) <i-(i)>. As regards penultimate stress in Proto-Armenian, the very first lines written by Meillet in 1903 can be cited:

“C’est à l’accent qu’est dû le changement essentiel d’aspect des mots indo-européens sur le sol arménien; c’est donc par l’étude de l’accent que doit commencer la phonétique comparée de l’arménien.

Un accent d’intensité, sans doute fort, s’est fixé en arménien à une date notablement antérieure à l’époque historique, sur l’avant-dernière syllabe du mot indo-européen.” 15

14 G. Wilhelm, “Urartian,” 109. 15 A. Meillet, Esquisse d’une grammaire comparée de l’arménien classique, 1. “Stress is the

primary cause of the modified look of Indo-European words on the Armenian ground. The historical phonology of Armenian must therefore begin with a study of prosody. A presumably strong stress was applied in (Proto-) Armenian on the penultimate syllable of the Indo-European words at some dating, significantly earlier than the historical period.”


It is therefore quite certain that the prosodic features of Urartian account for the accentual modifications that Armenian underwent when compared with Greek. Another issue is the number of vowel phonemes. Cuneiform signs can distinguish between four vowels: a, e, i, u. In addition, many signs, some of very high frequency such as nv, lv, rv, are ambiguous and can stand for e or i. It has nevertheless been claimed that Hurrian and Urartian would have had five phonemic vowels, both short and long, i.e., ten units. For example, this is the point of view described by Wilhelm.16 The substratic lexemes very seriously conflict with such a rich inventory. Armenian can indicate no contrast between /a/ and /ā/, both of which become [a]. It is probable that Arm. anag was originally *an(n)āg. As the second syllable is of Hurrian origin, this would suggest that Hurrian nakk- was itself long *[nāk-]. Items with /e/ display a conditioned fronting of a when followed by l. Two other items originate in yodized vowels: Hurrian eše *[eze] < *yobsi, and *pel < *pa(h)il-. There is no genuine example of a phonemic /e/ in Proto-Hurro-Urartian in the available substratic words, apart from Arm. geł, which is an uncertain item. Nearly all items with [e] can be accounted for with conditioning by a following l, r, h, and yodization of */a/. Even more interestingly, the substratic words indicate a complete complementary distribution between short [u] and long [ō]. The long allophone was more open than the short one. This was not the case with [i] and [ī], which both become Arm. [i].

In conclusion, the available substratic words can be handled with only six units in Proto-Hurro-Urartian: /a/, /ā/, /i/, /ī/, /u/ and /ū/. They provide no basis for two additional proto-phonemes *e and *o plus length as some theories of Hurro-Urartian would contend.

ReferencesAndré-Salvini, Béatrice and Mirjo Salvini. ‘Un nouveau vocabulaire trilingue sumérien-

akkadien-hourrite de Ras Shamra”. In Studies on the civilization and culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians, edited by D. Owen and G. Wilhelm. vol. 9. Bethesda (1998): 3–40.

Bush, Frederic William. A Grammar of the Hurrian Language. Ph.D. dissertation, Brandeis University, Department of Mediterranean Studies, 1964.

Catsanicos, Jean. “L’apport de la bilingue Ḫattuša à la lexicologie hourrite.” In Amurru 1, edited by Jean-Marie Durand. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1996: 197–296.

de Martino, Stefano. Die mantischen Texte. Corpus der hurritischen Sprachdenkmäler. I. Abteilung, Texte aus Boğazköy, 7. Roma: Bonsignori, 1992.

Diakonov, Igor Mikhailovich. A comparative survey of the Hurrian and Urartean languages. Moscow: Nauka, 1957.

—. Peredneazijatskij sbornik, vol. I. Moscow: Nauka, 1961. —. Jazyki drevnej perednej Aziji. Moscow: Nauka, 1967. —. Hurritisch und Urartäisch. München: R. Kitzinger, 1971. —. “Hurro-Urartian Borrowings in Old Armenian.” Journal of the American Oriental Society,

vol. 105.4 (1985).

16 G. Wilhelm, “Hurrian,” 85 and 108.


—. and Sergej Andrejovich Starostin. Hurro-Urartian as an Eastern Caucasian Language. München: R. Kitzinger, 1986.

Dietrich, Manfried, and Walter Mayer. Der hurritische Brief des Dušratta von Mittanni an Amenḫotep III. Text-Grammatik- Kopie. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2010.

Fournet, Arnaud. “About the Mitanni Aryan Gods.” JIES 38, 1–2 (2010): 26–40.—. “About some features of Hurrian loanwords.” Aramazd VI. 1 (2011a): 43–59.—. “The Kassite Language In a Comparative Perspective with Hurrian and Urartian.” The

Macro-Comparative Journal Vol. 2.1. (2011b). —. “About the Hurrian word for ‘god’ eni.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 71.1 (2012). —. “La question des mots et noms mittanni-aryens, légués par les Indo-Iraniens du Mittanni.”

Res Antiquae 9 (2012). —. “Eléments de morphologie et syntaxe de la langue hourrite, Destinés à l’étude des textes

mittanniens et anatolo-hittites.” Babelao 2 (2012). —. A Manual of Hurrian. Lille: TheBookEdition, 2013.—. A Glossary of Hurrian and Kassite. Lille: TheBookEdition, 2013.Friedrich, Johannes. Kleinasiatische Sprachdenkmäler. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1932. Friedrich, Johannes. “Churritisch.” In Altkleinasiatische, edited by B. Spuler. Leiden: E. J. Brill,

1969: 1–30.—. “Urartäisch”. In Altkleinasiatische, edited by B. Spuler. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1969: 31–53.Gelb, Ignace J. Hurrians and Subarians. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1944. Giorgieri Mauro. “Schizzo grammaticale della Lingua Hurrica.” La civiltà dei Hurriti. La Parola

del Passato, Vol. 55. Napoli: G. Macchiaroli, 2000: 171–277. Gragg, Gene. “Hurrian and Urartian.” In The International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, edited

by William J. Frawley, 2nd edition. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, vol. 2, 2003: 254–56.

Greppin, J. A. C. “Some effects of the Hurro-Urartian people and their language upon the earliest Armenians.” Journal of the American Oriental Society, 111.4 (1991).

Hačikian, Levon Margareta. Hurritskij i Urartskij Jazyki. Erevan: Akademija Nauk Armjanskoj SSR, Institut Vostokovedenija, 1985.

Laroche, Emmanuel. Glossaire de la langue hourrite (= Revue Hittite et Asianique, 34/35.) Paris: Éditions Klincksieck, 1980.

Martirosyan, H. Studies in Armenian Etymology with Special Emphasis on Dialects and Culture. Ph.D. Dissertation, Leiden, February 2008.

Meillet, Antoine. Esquisse d’une grammaire comparée de l’arménien classique. Vienne: Imprimerie des PP. Mékhitharistes, 1903.

Melikišvili, Georgi A. Die urartäische Sprache. Translated from Russian by Karl Sdrembek. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1971.

Mseriantz, L. “Les éléments ourartiques dans la langue arménienne.” Verhandlungen des XIII. internationalen orientialisten Kongresses, Leiden, (1904).

Neu, Erich. Das hurritische Epos der Freilassung. StBo 32. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1996. Sayce, Archibald. “The language of Mitanni.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische

Archäologie, 5 (1890): 260–74. Schneider, Thomas. “Kassitisch und Hurro-Urartäisch, Ein Diskussionsbeitrag zu möglichen

lexikalischen Isoglossen”. Altorientalische Forschungen, 30 (2003): 372–81.Speiser, Ephraim A. Introduction to Hurrian. (= Annual of the American Schools of Oriental

Research, 20.) New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 1941.Wegner, Ilse. Hurritisch: eine Einführung. 2nd edition. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz Verlag, 2007. Wilhelm, Gernot. Grundzüge der Geschichte und Kultur der Hurriter. Darmstadt:

Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. 1982.


—. The Hurrians. Translated by Jennifer Barnes, with a chapter by Diana L. Stein. Warminster: Aris and Philips, 1989.

—. “L’état actuel et les perspectives des études hourrites.” Amurru 1, edited by Jean-Marie Durand. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1996: 175–87.

—. “Hurrian.” In The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Languages, edited by Roger D. Woodard, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008: 81–104.

—. “Urartian.” In The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Languages, edited by Roger D. Woodard, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008: 105–23.

Archív Orientalni. 2013. About the vocalic system of Armenian words of substratic origin....

Documents

Transcript of Archív Orientalni. 2013. About the vocalic system of Armenian words of substratic origin....