The prehistory of the classical Armenian weak aorist Текст научной статьи по специальности «Языкознание и литературоведение»

DOI 10.30842/alp2306573714104

R. I. Kim

Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan

THE PREHISTORY OF THE CLASSICAL ARMENIAN WEAK AORIST

1. Introduction: strong and weak aorists

One of the defining features of Classical Armenian verb morphology is its two-stem system: almost every verb has two stems, present and aorist, from which all attested forms may be derived. The Proto-Indo-European origins of the various present and aorist formations and the relations between the two stems have been investigated by scholars such as Meillet, Godel, Klingenschmitt, and Kortlandt, but many questions remain1.

Whereas the present stems belong to a multitude of formal classes, the aorists are traditionally divided into two types, strong (unsuffixed) and weak (suffixed). Most of the former are associated with presents in -aneml-anim2.

11 thank Petr Kocharov and Hrach Martirosyan for inviting me to contribute to the proceedings of the St. Petersburg workshop on the Armenian aorist, which I was unfortunately unable to attend. Both of them, as well as Martin Gälis, Dariusz Piwowarczyk, Tim Felix Aufderheide, Heidi Kathleen Kim, Jared Klein, and Remy Viredaz, were also of invaluable help with numerous bibliographical references.

Versions of this paper were read at the 35th East Coast Indo-European Conference, University of Georgia on 7 June 2016 and the Seminar für Indogermanistik, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena on 28 June 2016. I am grateful to the audiences on those occasions for their comments, in particular Hans Henrich Hock, Jay Jasanoff, Jared Klein, Martin Kümmel, Sergio Neri, and to the editors of the present volume for numerous suggestions and corrections. — This research has been supported by grant no. GA17-19686S from the Czech Science Foundation.

2 I leave aside the two verbs in -nem, whose aorists are synchronically irregular: arnem 'make', aor. arari (arar) and dnem 'put', aor. edi (ed). Here and below, aorist forms are cited in the 1 sg., followed by the 3 sg. of active aorists in parentheses.

(1) Ik'anem 'leave' Ik'anim 'am left' usuc'anem 'teach' usanim 'learn'

lk'i (elik ■) lk'ay

usuc 'i (usoyc *)3 usay

There are also a significant number of strong aorists beside presents in -um (2) and -num (3). Two of the latter are formed to consonant-final roots, namely arnum 'take' andjernum 'become warm', while in the remainder root-final *i (in one instance, *u) has been weakened to [a].

(2) gelum 'twist' helum 'pour'

henum, hanum 'weave'

(3) arnum 'take' jernum 'become warm' aytnum 'swell' (< *ayti-nu-) erdnum 'fear' (< *erdu-nu-)

geli (egel) heli (ehef)

heni (ehen), hani (ehan)

ari (ar) jeray

ayteay (< *ayti-a-) erduay

The remainder belong to several minor types, including a few archaic verbs with synchronic root present in -eml-im beside root aorists (4), suppletive verbs (5), presents in -c'em and -(n)c'im with aorists in -eay (6); and the two presents in -nam (7).

(4) acem 'lead' aci (ac)

berem 'carry' beri (eber)

nstim 'sit' nstay

(5) ert'am 'go' c'ogay

smpem 'drink' arbi (arb)

unim 'have' kalay

utem 'eat' keray (eker)

(6) canac'em 'know' caneay

t'ak'c'im 'hide' t'ak'eay

erknc'im 'fear' erkeay

(7) darnam 'turn (intr.)' darjay

barnam 'lift, carry' barji (ebarj)

mp. 'am lifted, carried' barjay

3 Similarly for other causatives in -uc'anem, aor.

Although many verbs lack a clear etymology, and the origin of some of the person-number endings remains disputed, there is general agreement that the main sources of strong aorists are thematized PIE root aorists and, in a few cases, imperfects of PIE thematic presents: cf. elik' 'left' ^ *e-likw-e-t ^ PIE aor. *leykw- ~ *likw-'; eber 'carried' < PIE impf. *e-bher-e-t4.

In contrast, weak aorists are associated with unsuffixed presents in -em and -im, as well as presents in -am and six verbs in -num. Those to presents in -am take the suffix -ac'- (8), while the aorists of e.g. lnum 'fill' and zgenum 'put on (clothing), get dressed' have a bare -c'- following the root (9).5 Almost all weak aorists to presents in -em and -im are characterized by the suffix -eac' in final syllables alternating with -ec'- in pretonic position (10), e.g. sirem 'love', sirim 'am loved', aor. sirec'i (sireac *), mp. sirec'ay. A much smaller group (11), found with just four presents in -em, shows an invariant suffix -ac'-, e.g. asem 'say', aor. asac 'i (asac ')6.

(8) mnam 'remain' mnac 'i (mnac') yusam 'hope' yusac'ay luanam 'wash' luac 'i (luac *) mp. 'wash (myself), am washed' luac 'ay merjenam 'approach' merjec'ay

(< *merji-anam) (< *merji-ac'ay)

(9) lnum 'fill' lc 'i (elice) zgenum 'put on (clothing)' zgec 'ay snkenum 'make fall' snkec 'i (snkec *)

4 See e.g. [Meillet 1903a: 84-85, 1936: 113, 114-115; K. H. Schmidt 1980b: 42, 1985: 226-227; Schmitt 1981: 144-145; Djahukian 1982: 187-189; Viredaz 2015, § 1.2-3]. On the person-number endings, see among others [Barton 1965: 54-65, 1973-1974; Winter 1975; Jasanoff 1979; Kortlandt 1981; Klingenschmitt 1982: 12-31; Viredaz 2015, § 2 ff.].

5 That all of these roots end in a vowel was first seen by Meillet [1903a: 85-86, 1913: 103-104, 1936: 114-115]; cf. [Jensen 1959: 109-110, Szemerenyi 1966: 225]. See below, § 7 with fns. 69, 70.

6 For further synchronic details, see e.g. [Meillet 1903a: 85-86, 1913: 97-104, 1936: 115-116; Schmitt 1981: 144-152; Clackson 1994: 80-81].

(10) sirem 'love'

sirim 'am loved' t 'agaworem 'rule as king' erewim 'appear'

sirec 'i (sireac *) sirec 'ay

t 'agaworec 'i (t 'agaworeac ') erewec 'ay

(11) asem 'say'

asac 'i (asac *)

The origin of the weak aorist suffix is one of the perennial problems of Armenian historical linguistics, but the distribution of the suffix variants just described has often been overlooked in the scholarly literature. After surveying previous research (§ 2), I argue for the essential correctness of the analysis first proposed in 1956 by Karstien (§ 3), but modify his account after reexamining the treatment of PIE intervocalic *y in Armenian (§§ 4-5). The consequences for the relative chronology of pre-Armenian sound changes and the prehistory of Armenian presents in -am are considered in § 6. The wider connections and PIE origins of the weak aorist suffix are examined in § 7, and a tentative chronology of the evolution of the Armenian weak aorist and related categories is outlined in § 8.

The first scholar to discuss the origin of the Armenian weak aorists was Pedersen [1905: 212-213]. He compared the -a- of gitac' 'knew', asac ' 'said', and karac ' 'could' with the *-a- of OCS aor. bira 'took', zuva 'called', but thought that the majority type of sireac' 'loved' went back to *-esâ-, i.e. an s-aorist plus *-a-\ the stem-final -c '- he identified with the PIE inchoative suffix *-ske/o-. A generation later, Mariés [1930] derived pre-Arm. *-each- from a sequence *-is-a-ske/o- and compared the element *-is- with the -is- of Latin perfect 2 sg. -is-ti, 2 pi. -is-tis, inf. -is-se, etc. as well as the -is- of Old Indo-Aryan aorists such as abhar-is-am 'carried'. Mariès's interpretation was endorsed by Meillet [1933:128-129, 1936:115-116], Stang [1942: 76], Benveniste [1951: 20], Barton [1965: 70-74, 76-77], and Schindler [1966:77], but received criticism from Karstien [1956a: 223-224] and Godel [1965: 40] and is no longer accepted today. Aside from the lack of any extra-Latin evidence for the

2. Earlier analyses

antiquity of *-is--not to mention the continuing debate over the

prehistory of the Latin perfect in general7 — a preform *-is-a- offers no explanation for the handful of weak aorists in -ac'- to presents in -em, e.g. asac' 'said'. Pedersen's formulation too gives no indication as to why this small group should have a divergent source from the majority type8.

Karstien [1956a: 221-229; 1956b: 69-70, 95-99] compared the Armenian weak aorist formant with the OCS imperfects in 1 sg. -axu, 2, 3 sg. -ase, deriving both from a proximate preform *-a-ske/o-; along with a range of other (mostly lexical) isoglosses, he took this as evidence for a close prehistoric relationship between the two branches. Although Karstien's interpretation of the Slavic imperfect is not generally accepted (see below, fn. 77), he did take the important step of considering the aorists in -eac'- together with the small group in -ac'-; the details ofhis argument will be outlined below in § 3.

An entirely different interpretation was proposed by Godel [1969: 255-257, 1975: 128]. In contrast to previous researchers, he considered the diphthong ea of the weak aorist in -eac' to be analogical to the pretonic allomorph -ec'-, after the alternation ea ~ e known from e.g. matean 'book, manuscript' ~ gen. mateni or learn

1 Above all of the u/v-perfect; see the discussion and references in [Meiser 1998: 204-206, 2003: 220-237; Weiss 2011: 410-412].

8 The same criticism applies to Jasanoff s [1979: 133, fn. 2] analysis of the weak aorist as an old imperfect in *'-ske/o- built to "an aorist in *-isa- (> Arm. -ea-)" of unspecified origin. Jasanoff (p.c., 7 June 2016) now suggests that the Armenian weak aorist originated in sigmatic aorists in *-e-s- to derived presents in *-eye/o- (cf. the type of Gr. eqik^oa to qikew 'love'), to which was added *-a-, generalized from 3 pi. *-a-nt, mp. *-a-nto ^ *-ant, *-anto < PIE *-nt, *-nto\ hence *-e-s-a- > *-iha- > *-ea-. However, the PIE s-aorist has otherwise left no unambiguous reflexes in Armenian, and the small class of asac' remains unexplained. Moreover, the stem vowel -a-otherwise marks the mediopassive (see below, § 7 with fn. 61), and there is no reason why it should have been added to just this class of active forms. Even if the small group of medium tantum aorists in -eay (e.g. erkeay 'feared', ayteay 'swelled') goes back to *-i(h)a- < *-es-a- ^ aor. *-e-s-[Kortlandt 1995: 15-16, 1996a: 41 (2003: 108, 114-115)], I do not understand how these could have been "the only source for the type in -eac"' [Kortlandt 2001: 11 (2003: 131)]; cf. [Kortlandt 1996b: 57 (2003: 118)].

'mountain' ~ gen. lerin, adj. lernakan 'mountainous', and above all

from the participle in -eal---el- (e.g. sireal 'loved', gen. sireloyf.

The earlier situation would be preserved in snkenum 'make fall, throw down', aor. snkecwhich Godel takes to be an orthographic variant of snkec'. The original form of the suffix was therefore *-ec'-, which would continue pre-Armenian *-e-sk-e- and/or *-eie-sk-e-, directly comparable to Ionic imperfects such as eOekeaxe 'wanted', qiXeeoxe 'loved' to eOeXm, yiAem.

Godel's hypothesis was endorsed by Schmitt [1972: 17-18, 1981: 145], but has since been criticized by several scholars, including Klingenschmitt [1982: 136], Clackson [1994: 81-82], and Viredaz [2015, § 1.4.4]. These authors point out that e is otherwise quite stable within both nominal and verbal paradigms, e.g. berem 'carry', aor. beri, 3 sg. eber or tesanem 'see', aor. tesi, 3 sg. etes; there is no observable tendency in the classical or postclassical language to generalize the alternation of pretonic e ~ tonic eaw. Godel speculates that ea may have been introduced for tonic *e "in order to avoid uncommon endings, firstly in the imperative: grea instead of *gre", adding that "final -e never occurs except in the conjunction et'e, t'e 'that'" [Godel 1975: 128], cf. [Godel 1969: 256]. But this argument is circular, since the active imperative singular to polysyllabic weak aorist stems regularly shows apocope of *-c': next to *getac' > gita 'know!', *asac' > asa 'say!', there is no reason why speakers should have had any problem with *girec' > *gre 'write!', *serec' > *sire 'love!', etc.11

9 Godel may have been inspired by the remark of Mann [1968: 44]; cited in [Godel 1975:44] that "the 3rd. sing, form of -e- stems (-eac') contains a non-historical -a- of uncertain origin."

10 See already the critical remarks of Hübschmann [1877: 401]: "Wenn wir von sirel (aus ser-el) lieben im aorist gebildet finden 1. person: sireji, 2. p. sirejer, aber 3. p. sireaj, so müssen wir, um das ea der 3. p. zu erklären, annehmen, dass sireji aus sireaji, sirejer aus sireajer entstand. Denn dass sireaj nicht etwa aus sirej durch einfluss des accentes hervorging, beweisen die aoriste 3. p. ebek, eker, egit. Der accent steigert (im arm.) überhaupt keinen vocal, er erhält nur den bereits gesteigerten."

11 Stempel's hypothesis that the participial ending -eal goes back to *-el after the pattern of weak aorists in -eac' —ec'- (hence e.g. * sirel, gen.

As for the aorist of ankenum, the manuscript evidence rather points to snkêc' as the earlier form [Meillet 1903b: 500]12. Whatever the exact formal analysis of this verb, it cannot therefore be adduced as evidence for an invariant weak aorist suffix -ec'-13. The unique inflection of this verb has been attractively explained as an isolated survival of an iterative-causative with o-grade root, shifted to the aorist by the creation of a new transitive present in *-nu-: post-PIE *songw-éye/o- > *onkwéye- > *unkéye-> *unke-, 3 sg. *unke > *unkë ^ snkêc ' 14

*-eloy ^ inf. sirel, -eloy 'love' vs. ptcp. sireal, -eloy 'loved'; [Stempel 1983: 66-67]) sheds no light on the origin of the latter formation, and also does not explain how -eal became the marker of participles to all verbs, not just those in -eml-im (cf. [de Lamberterie 1985b: 130; Meyer 2014: 388]).

12 See [de Lamberterie 1982a: 26, fn. 18; Clackson 1994: 82, 216, fn. 91 withrefs.];pace [Klingenschmitt 1982: 249, fn. 6].

13 Meillet [1903b: 500-501] (cf. de Lamberterie apud [Klein 2007: 1082, fn. 39]) proposed that ankenum reflects *snki-nu- by lowering of *i > *e before *u in a following syllable; the presuffixal *snki- in turn is the regular reflex of pretonic *snkê-, However, the sound change in question is not entirely secure (cf. [Meillet 1894: 164-165], [Meillet 1900: 400] ("un changement assez énigmatique"), [Meillet 1903a: 32, 1936: 55; Grammont 1918: 247], [de Lamberterie 1978: 269 with fn. 137] ("phénomène (...) sans régularité"), [Klingenschmitt 1982:234-235,fn.7] (critical), [Clackson 1994:95 with 220,fn.47, 126-127, 1999-2000:33]; rejected by Olsen [1999:169 fn. 314]), and 3nke-nu- ~ 3nkê-c'- would be the only such intraparadigmatic alternation to survive in the entire verbal system.

14 See [Godel 1965: 26, 37, 1969: 256, 1970: 142-143, 1975: 128, 1982a: 10; Barton 1988; Viredaz 2003: 76,fn. 86; Klein 2007: 1074-1075 with fn. 30]. As Barton pointed out, the expected transitive pres. fankanem beside ankanim 'fall' would have been blocked by the already existing ankanem 'weave'. Kortlandt [1987: 51 (2003: 81)] objects that the sequence *-eye in the 3 sg. would have contracted to *e, not *ê (cf. PIE *tréyes > erek' 'three'), but a sound change of word-final *-e > *-ê would account for the vocalism and seems to have no exceptions. Viredaz [2008, § 4.2.3] proposes that ankêc ' continues *songw-éyeIo- + *--ske/o- directly, with a sound change of *-esk- > *-eyc'- (hence pre-Arm. *songw-eye-ske-t > *unkeyc' > snkêc'\ cf. *presgwu- > erêc ' 'elder'), but the reflex of *-ske/o- was probably suffixed at a relatively late date; see below, § 7.

More difficult to explain is the failure of the change *nK > *wK known from awc- 'anoint' < PIE *h2ngw- (Lat. ungud), awj 'snake' < PIE *cmg'hi—

3. Weak aorists in -ac' and -eac'

As noted in § 2, Karstien [1956a: 221 ff.] was the first to see that the origin of the weak aorists in -eac' had to be investigated in conjunction with the small group in -ac', namely gitac'i 'knew', asac'i 'said', karac'i 'could', mart'ac'i 'id.'. He pointed out that the great majority of Armenian presents in -em continue not PIE simple thematic presents in *-/o-, but secondary formations in *-eye/o-([Karstien 1956a: 222]), above all denominatives in *-e-ye/6- to thematic nominal bases, e.g. gorcem 'make, do', gnem 'buy' ^ gorc (o) 'work', gin (o) 'price'15. From such cases, -em was extended to nominal bases belonging to other inflectional classes, to become the default denominative (12) as well as factitive (13) present suffix in the language:

(12) sirem 'love' ^ ser (o) 'love'

bzskem 'heal' ^ bzisk (a) 'doctor'

t'agaworem 'rule as king' ^ t'agawor (a) 'king'

nsanakem 'denote, make clear' ^ nsanak (a) 'sign'

carayem 'serve' ^ car ay (i) 'servant'

anuanem 'name' ^ anun (n-stem, gen. anuan) 'name'

*ngwhey- 'water snake, serpent' (Lat. anguis, OHG unc) [Kim 2016b: 41 fn.6 with refs.]: it may have been operative in *HenKw-, but blocked after syllabic nasal in *snKw- [Winter 1962: 257-8], or restricted to *HnKw- [Woodhouse 2015: 269]; others take *gw to be generalized from PIE root aor. mp. *sengw— *sngw-' [Klingenschmitt 1982: 181-182], or question the traditional comparisonwithGoth. sigqan 'sink' [Ravn^s 1991: 41; Beekes2003: 204]. As for the third likely example of this change, awjik' 'collar' < post-PIE

*angwh-io-, I see no need to assume a historically related development in Gr. avx^v 'neck' beside Aeol. a^q^v (pace [Sowa 2006]; overlooked in [Kim 2016b: 45-46 fn. 18]); the resemblance of the Armenian and dialectal Greek forms may be explained through borrowing, from pre-Armenian into pre-Greek or perhaps from a third language into both (cf. [Pisani 1950b: 191-192 (1978: 284-285)], [Clackson 1994: 107-109; Beekes 2010: 174; EDAIL: 154; Woodhouse 2015: 268]).

15 Gorcem could also continue a PIE iterative *worg-eye/o- [Meillet 1936: 105], but the (near-)total absence of secure instances of this formation in Armenian rather speaks for a denominative [Klein 2007: 1082]; see below, fn. 16).

(13) srbem 'purify, make holy' ^ surb (o) 'pure, holy' azatem 'free' ^ azat (a) 'free'

manrem 'make small, break into pieces' ^ manr (u) 'small' hnazandim 'obey' ^ hnazand 'obedient'

Examples such as bzskem, nsanakem, and hnazandim show that the formation remained productive into the period of Parthian domination, i.e. at least until the immediate prehistory of the classical language16.

Although nowhere explicitly stated, Karstien took -ac'- to be the original aorist suffix associated with simple thematic presents in *-e/o-, he compared the a of this suffix with the *-a- of Balto-Slavic preterital stems, e.g. Lith. dirb-o 'worked', OCS pis-a 'wrote', as well as Latin er-a- 'was' and the imperfect suffix -ba-. These provided the model for the denominative presents: at a stage when the latter still ended in *-eye/o-, a corresponding aorist in *-eya- was created (so also tentatively Karstien 1956b: 97 "arm. gorceac = *uorg(ei?)a-ske-f ). In addition to the parallel of Slavic imperfects in -jaase (< *-jease) to presents in -iti, e.g. val'aase 'was rolling' to valiti 'roll', he also compared Latin subjunctives to second-conjugation presents: "vgl. gorces : gorceac = lat. mones : moneat, d.h. gorces und mones mit *-eye-, gorceac und moneat mit *-eya-" (222-223).

Karstien's main insight has since been adopted by several other researchers, although with varying accounts of the suffixal vocalism. Before advancing his own very different hypothesis (see above, § 2), Godel [1965: 39-41] followed Karstien's account of the weak aorist,

16 For further examples and discussion, see [Meillet 1903a:77, 1936: 105; Godel 1975: 123] and especially [Klingenschmitt 1982: 139-143]. A very few presents in -em may continue (post-)PIE iteratives in *R(o)-eyelo-, e.g. k'orem 'scratch' beside k'erem 'scratch off, peel off to PIE *(s)ker- 'cut off, scratch'; atog(an)em, orog(an)em 'water, irrigate' < *srow-eyelo- to PIE *srew- 'flow' ([Godel 1965: 26], but cf. [Klingenschmitt 1982: 204]); and perhaps lizem 'lick', if from *loygheyelo- (cf. Lith. laizyti, but probably from

*leyghelo- ^ PIE *leygh- ~ *ligh-'\ see below, fn. 74). See [Karstien 1956a: 222; Klingenschmitt 1982: 142, 209], [Solta 1984: 69] ("verhältnismäßig selten"), [Klein 2007: 1082, fn. 39] ("no clearly demonstrable instances in Classical Armenian of Indo-European causative-iteratives in o-grade root + -eyelo-").

observing that the suffix -ac '- appeared to be added directly to the PIE perfect stem *woyd- in git-ac'i 'knew' and positing an original alternation of -V-c'- vs. -C-ac'-. Similarly, de Lamberterie [1982a: 26-27, 33-35, 1992:270-271] analyzed gitac'- 'knew' and greac'- 'wrote' as respectively *gêt- and *gr-e- plus the suffix -ac'-, and argued that the other verbs with irregular aorists in -ac'- (as-'say', kar- 'be able') also go back to old perfects. K. H. Schmidt [1980b: 43-44] (cf. [1985:227]) explicitly derived gitac' and gorceac' from preforms *uoidasket and *uorgeiasket, respectively, with -eac' spreading from e-presents at the expense of "the older formation" -ac'11. Klein [2007: 1074-1075], like Karstien, assumes a pivotal role for the aorists in -ac'-: "perhaps on the model *woid-e-ti 'knows' (> gitë, refashioned from *woide, an old perfect): *woid-a-sk-e-t 'knew' (> gitac"), an original *worgey-e-ti 'makes, works, does' (> gorcë, denominative to gorc 'work') assumed an aorist stem *worgey-a-sk-e-t (> gorceac *)"; he also equates the -a- of Arm. -ac'-with Lat. impf. -a- and Slavic nonpresent *-a-. Finally, Viredaz [2015, § 1.4.3-4] also connects the aorist marker *-a- with the Latin imperfect and Balto-Slavic preterite and suggests "sous toutes réserves, que l'opposition apparue entre prés. *worg'eye- > gorce- et impf. *worg'ey-â- > aor. *gorcia- (+ -c'e-), d'où gorcem : gorceac', se soit étendue hors de son domaine d'origine."

A somewhat different approach was taken by Klingenschmitt [1982: 135-136, 286], who like de Lamberterie claimed that aorists in -ac '- were originally formed to presents in -e- of perfect origin, which inflected as 1 sg. *-a-mi, 3 *-e-ti ^ PIE pf. *-h2e, *-en. Before the

17 Cf. also [Stempel 1983: 63-64, 66], [Barton 1990-1991: 45] ("sireac' < *-e-i-ä-ske-t"). However, Schmidt takes the e of -eac' to be "the thematic vowel of e-presents" [K.H.Schmidtl980b:43], as also de Lamberterie [1982a: 26] and Clackson [1994:82]; correctly [Solta 1984:69] ("[d]em Element -a- kommt die bedeutungstragende Funktion für das Vergangenheitstempus zu (... ) [das] -e- von -eac- ist mit dem Reflex von *-eie der armen. Deverbativa und Denominativa [zu identifizieren]"). Schmidt's view that the suffix *-ach- spread from the a-presents also cannot be upheld; see § 7 below.

18 A connection between perfect origin and aorist in -ac 'i was already floated by Meillet [1892: 164], who compared asem 'say' with Ved. aha 'said': "l'aoriste asaci présente la même irrégularité que gitaci, aoriste de

thematic vowel -e- was generalized, the 1 sg. stem in *-a- served as the basis for the new weak aorist, according to the proportion *geita-mi 'know' : aor. *geita-c'- :: *kea-mi 'live' : aor. *kea-c'- and other presents in -a-. The pattern of pres. *-e- : aor. *-ac'- then served as a model for presents in -e- < *-ee- < PIE *-eye-, which acquired an aorist in *-eac'-, whence the attested -eac' ~ -ec'-. Clackson [1994: 82] (cf. [1999-2000: 32-33]) likewise thought that the aorist morpheme -ac'- was added directly to *get < PIE pf. *woyd- at a time when this and other "ancient perfects...would not have been incorporated into the -em class", whereas "[f[or the majority of verbs of the -em class, the morph -ac 'i is added to the stem -e-, as gre- from grem 'write', to give *greac'i > grec'i." Based on their distribution, he concluded that the markers -c'- < *-sk- and -ac'- < *-ask-originated in aorists to presents in -num and -am, -anam and spread from there to verbs in -em and -im (cf. also [Meyer 2014: 390]).

Klingenschmitt's explanation was criticized by Stempel [1983: 65-66] on the grounds that generalization of the 1 sg. stem vowel *-a- in the aorist, but not the present, is a priori unlikely; he also noted that gitem and the other three "Perfektopraterita" are an improbably small basis for the spread of the aorist suffix. Peters [1997: 209-10] further pointed out that remodeling of PIE *woyd— *wid-' to an athematic present *woyd-mi, *-si, *-ti would be unexpected given the complete disapperance of athematic inflection in Armenian19; direct thematization to *woyd-e- > *get-e- > gite- would be much more probable. Like Schmidt, Peters set up aorist preforms *uoid-a- and *uorgei-a- to present *uoid-e-ti and *uorgei-e-ti, but preferred to connect *-a- with the -q- ofHomeric Greek pluperfect yS-q 'knew'. We will return to the Indo-European background of the weak aorist suffix in § 7, but first we must consider some inner-Armenian problems which have remained largely overlooked.

gitem (autre présent tiré de parfait)." Kortlandt [1996a: 40 (2003: 114)], after mentioning "the major types in -em, -ec 'i and -am, -ac 'i", also states that "[t]he mixed type -em, -ac 'i seems to reflect the PIE. perfect." On the etymology of asem, see § 4.

19 In contrast to Slavic, where at least 'eat' and 'give' were available as models for PIE *woyd- ~ *wid-' ^ *woyd-mi, 3 sg. *-ti, 3 pl. *-nti > OCS vêmt, vêstu, vëdçtu {c,î.jamï,jastù,jadçtu 'eat', damt, dastu, dadçtu 'give').

4. Problems with the standard model

The hypotheses described in § 3 have the great advantage of providing an explanation for both the weak aorists in -ac'- and the far more numerous aorists in -eac' —ec'-, but they suffer from two weaknesses. First, none of them offers an adequate explanation for the peculiar distribution of the two formants -eac' and -ac', specifically the restriction of the latter to the four verbs asem 'say, tell, speak', gitem 'know', karem 'can', mart'em 'can'20. What unites these particular verbs, and why should their aorists differ from that of the overwhelming majority of presents in -em? In particular, is there sufficient support for the view that the weak aorist suffix -ac'- was originally proper to old perfects, as claimed by Klingenschmitt, de Lamberterie, and Clackson?

The main difficulty here is that only gitem has an absolutely secure PIE source, the remaining three verbs being etymologically "mehr oder weniger unklar" [Klingenschmitt 1982: 137]. All scholars agree that gitem < *get-' is a remodeling of the PIE perfect *woyd- ~ *wid-' known from e.g. 1 sg. Ved. veda, Gr. oida, Goth, wait < PIE *woyd-h2e21 That asem, karem, and mart'em have meanings commonly associated with reflexes of stative perfects in other Indo-European languages is suggestive, but hardly constitutes proof that they too go back to (post-)PIE reduplicated perfects of the familiar classical type (pace [Klingenschmitt op. cit.; Clackson 1994: 81, 82; Peters 1997: 209]). In particular, asem need not continue a (post-)PIE perfect *hie-hidg— *he-hig-' ([Klingenschmitt 1982: 138]; cf. Gr. av-mya 'command')22, but can simply reflect a PIE root present *hjeg-

20 A possible fifth verb of this type is merkem, aor. merkac'i 'undress', denominative to merk 'naked' (ultimately of PIE origin, cf. [HAB\ III, 308; EDAIL. 464-465]). But the fientive merkanam, aor. merkac'ay is also attested from an early date and could perhaps be the source of the aorist in -ac 'i, while the variant merkec 'i (merkeac ) could be the original aorist of merkem.

21 Cf. [Meillet 1903a: 83, 1936: 112; Schmitt 1981: 52, 54, 134] and the references in [EDAIL. 211].

22 This would require that *hje-hjdg- ~ *hje-h]g-' > *dg- ~ *eg-underwent analogical adjustment of ablaut to *og- ~ *ag-, followed by generalization of the plural vocalism and of the final consonant *[k] from

~ *hjg-' (cf. Gr. ^ 'said' < aor. *e-h1eg-t) which was independently thematized in Lat. aid 'say' ^ *h1g-ye/A-23. The irregular reflex of PIE was generalized from 2 sg. *h1eg-si, 3 sg. *h1eg-ti, 2 pi. *h1g-te, where the root-final stop was devoiced to *k > Arm. s, as already suggested by Brugmann [1913: 103]24.

As for karem and mart'em, the general consensus seems to be that these verbs are not inherited directly from PIE (neither is listed in EDAIL). De Lamberterie [1982a: 33-35] proposes to derive karem

2 sg. *[ok-tha] alone. The alternative connection with Ved. aha 'said' is "[l]autlich unmöglich" ([EWAial: 153] s.v. AH2; cf. GAv. pi. adarS).

23 Hackstein [1995: 332-334] (cf. Kümmel apud [LIV2: 256]) reconstructs PIE *h2eg- on the basis of Toch. B /aks-/, A äks- 'announce' < PToch. *aks- < *h2eg-s-e/o-, but Gr. r) can continue *e-h2eg-t only if the backformed presents Dor. tfti, Aeol. tfoi are Homericisms from "ein literarisch-episches Substrat" [Hackstein 1995: 333]. I therefore prefer to derive the Tocharian verb from a proximate preform *hjg-s-e/6- [Adams 1999:39, 2013:41], or perhaps rather from *h1g-sk!l6- with the reduction of *KsK > *Ks proposed by Couvreur [1947: 62-63] and Peyrot [2013: 515-524, 612]; the initial *a- must then reflect an analogical zero-grade. — Pisani's connection of asem with Ved. yäsas- 'fame' [1950b: 181 (1978: 273), 1952: 91-92, 1966: 228-229 (1978: 337-338)] is untenable; see [EWAia: II, 153 s.v.]

24 See also [IEW\ 290] s.v. eg- and the references in [EDAIL. 103, 118], to which add [G. Schmidt 1973: 58-61] and [Lmdeman 1974: 157] (as-< *3jg'-to(i)). There is thus no need to postulate a general change of pre-Arm. preconsonantal *c > s to explain this verb and es 'I' [Klingenschmitt 1982: 138];pace [Meillet 1892: 164, 1903a: 16, 34, 1936: 37, 57; Brugmann 1904: 506]; also unnecessary is the assumption of a root-final laryngeal in

3 sg. *(e)HgH-t > *acth > *ast [Hamp 1970: 230-231; Greppin 1983: 302]; see [G. Schmidt op. cit.] on PIE *dhugh2ter ^ *-ukt- > *-ukt- > dustr 'daughter', with laryngeal loss generalized from obi. *dhugh2tr-'. Rix (apud [Hackstein 1995: 334]) derives asem from PIE *h2g-yel6- with -s- for -c- after aor. 3 sg. *as < *h2eg-t [-kt], but there are to my knowledge no other examples of PIE *-yelo- present beside root aorist preserved in Armenian. — According to the standard view ([EDAIL. 103] with refs.), the expected reflex of PIE *g is preserved in ar-ac 'proverb', but the latter renders Gr. ktf^a 'what is received' in the Christian sense of 'burden, task (received by a prophet); prophecy' and is thus rather a deverbal noun to arnum 'take' [Klingenschmitt 1982:137-138,fn.2; Olsen 1999: 238,fn.56], both referring to [HAB I: 249].

from a dereduplicated PIE perfect *gwe-gw6rh2— *gwe-gwrh2-' to the otherwise unattested verbal root *gwerh2- underlying *gwrh2-ú-'heavy' (Ved. gurú-, Gr. fiapvq, Lat. gravis, Goth, kaúrus*). But as he admits (34), there is no formal basis for assuming a perfect preform; specifically, there is no trace of the o-grade that survives in gitem and in goy 'there is', which for that reason must continue PIE *wóyd- and *h2e-h2wós-, respectively. The semantic argument is also weak: in particular, the existence of the deverbal adjectives gitun 'learned', asun 'able to speak', c'mart'un 'incapable' and karol 'able' (35-45) reflects the synchronic stative value of these verbs, and does not require that they go back to PIE perfects. Klingenschmitt [1982: 138-139] entertains this possibility as well, comparing among others Gr. PpiOm 'am heavy (with)' < *gwriH-dte/o- (?)25, but prefers to take karem as denominative to kar 'power, strength, ability' (cf. kari 'very', tkar (a) 'weak', ankar, apikar 'powerless, impossible'), a loanword from Middle Iranian *kaSa- 'id.'.

With respect to mart 'em, the only conceivable etymology connects mart' 'possible, possibility' < PIE *magh-tro- to the root of Goth, mag, OCS mogg 'can' (Lidén apud [Holthausen 1927: 191]; cf. [IEW: 695; Klingenschmitt 1982: 139; de Lamberterie 1982a: 33])26. This in turn raises another difficulty: if karem and/or mart'em is of denominative origin, their weak aorist stems should have ended in *-eac'-, just like gorceac', sireac', etc. (§ 3). Klingenschmitt [op. cit.] must therefore assume that they analogically adopted -ac'- after a since disappeared verb for 'be able' of perfect origin, which is not impossible, but obviously cannot be proven27.

25 However, Beekes [2010:239] points out the difficulties in connecting fiapvg and the family of fipi, fipiapoQ 'strong', fipiQw, etc. and posits a "Pre-Greek origin" for the latter etymon.

26 Olsen [1999: 200, 846] argues instead for *magh-s-tro-, comparing the Gr. s-stem ptfx0^ 'means, remedy', but the latter has no equivalents outside Greek and need not be old.

27 In fact, mart'em need not be a denominative: given the frequency of the collocations mart' e + inf. 'it is possible (that)', oc' e mart' + inf. 'it is not possible (that)', speakers could easily have reanalyzed mart' e as an inflected verb mart'e, whence the full paradigm and also mart'i + inf. in the

In sum, while gitem goes back to the archaic PIE unreduplicated perfect *woyd- ~ *wid-', asem probably continues a root present, and karem and mart'em are not even securely assignable to the inherited lexicon of Armenian. Given this uncertainty, it is unlikely that the exceptional morphology of this small group can be motivated on etymological grounds.

The second problem with the hypothesis in § 3 is phonological, and concerns the treatment of intervocalic *y. All historical grammars of Armenian since Meillet [1903a: 29] have agreed that PIE *y, like PIE *s, was lost between vowels in the prehistory of the language, with resulting contraction of vowels in hiatus; the classic example is the nominative of 'three', erek' < PIE *treyes2i. After pre-Armenian presents in *-eye- had created aorists in *-eyac'-, the present suffix likewise contracted to *-e-, whence e.g. gorcem, sirem, and the other denominatives in -em29. Why then did the aorist suffix not contract to -ac'-, thereby falling together with that of asac'i 'said'? As the following examples demonstrate, (post-)PIE sequences *-VsV- underwent contraction, with *-esa- > *-eha-> -a- as in ar-iwn 'blood' and gar-un 'spring'30.

impersonal sense 'one can X'. On the distribution and usage of these con-

structions, see [de Lamberterie 1982a: 30-33].

28 Cf. already [Hübschmann 1883:77, 78] ("im Inlaut öfter geschwunden") and see [Meillet 1936: 52; Schmitt 1981:71, 73-74; Ravn^s 1991: 64; Beekes 2003: 162].

29 Cf. the formulation of [Karstien 1956a: 222]: "das im Präs. auf -eye- zurückzuführende -e- im Aor., vor dem nachfolgenden Imperf. -ä, [wird] als Fortsetzung von bloßem -ey- zu verstehen sein."

30 On these two forms in particular, see [Hübschmann 1897: 432-433] (garun), [Hübschmann 1899:44] (ariwn), [HAB 1:317] (ariwn), [Meillet 1936:38-39; Pisam 1951:63; Godel 1965:40] (garun), [Schindler 1966: 77, fn. 2; Normier 1980: 56 with fn. 54], [Schmitt 1981: 74, 76, 78; Hamp 1983: 8 with fn. 9; Stempel 1990: 50-51] {ariwn), [Ravn^s 1991: 27, 102; Kortlandt 1996b: 57 (2003: 118); Olsen 1999: 153, 156, 786] (garuri), [Olsen 1999: 490-491] (ariwn), [EDAIL: 138, 201]. Alternative hypotheses are unnecessary, including assimilation of *ehar > *ahar ([HAB: I, 524] *wehar- > *ga(h)ar- > garun, [Szemerenyi I960: 21; Djahukian 1990: 11]), prehistoric dialect differences (*ea > a in ar-, gar- vs. e in k'erb, jerb: [Winter 1966: 202]), lowering of *e > *a ([Clackson 1999-2000: 34-35]; cf. already [Pedersen 1906: 416]), laryngeal vocalization ([Kortlandt 2001;

a) PIE *h1ésh2r > *ehar ^ ar-iwn 'blood'.

b) PIE *wésr > *wehar ^ gar-un 'spring'.

c) PIE instr. *swésr-bhi, *ghésr-bhi > *k'eharbi, *jeharbi > *k'arb, *jarb ^ k'erb 'with/by the sister',jerb 'with/by the hand' (in jerb-a-kal 'prisoner' < *'taken by hand') after gen./dat./loc. k'erj'ern31.

The evidence of ariwn and garun suggests that pre-Armenian *-eyac '- should likewise have developed to *-eac '- > -ac '-. Why then did that sequence resist contraction and survive into the classical language as act. 3 sg. -eac alternating with pretonic *-eac '- > -ec '-?32

As far as I am aware, this problem has been acknowledged only by Godel [1965: 40], who speculated that the absence of contraction of *-e(y)a- > -a- could be "l'indice d'une formation relativement récente", comparing the contrast of Attic Greek xMovm 'they float' < *kkéfovm and koiovoi 'they make' < *Koiéjovm. Godel rightly rejects the alternative of analogical influence from the notoriously opaque

Beekes 2003: 160] PIE *h1esh2r > *ehar ^ ar-iwn; [Clackson 1999-2000: 35-37] *h1sh2r- > *ahar- > ar-), and generalization of *o from the oblique stem of an acrostatic PIE *h1esh2-r ~ *h1osh2-n- ^ *h1osh2r > *ohar ^ ar-iwn [Friedman 2002]. See also fn. 31 below.

31 See [Meillet 1903a: 58, 1936: 83; Hamp 1969: 17, 1983: 10; Schmitt 1981: 78] (pace 44, 73 [*-e(h)ar- > -er-]), [Ravn^s 1991: 27; Olsen 1999: 153; Klein 2007: 1058]; otherwise [Klmgenschmitt 1982: 99] with fn. 17 (PIE *swesr-bhi, ~*ghesr-bhi ^ *kherbi, *jerbi or *kehrbi, *jehrbi > k 'erb,jerb with generalized prevocalic allomorph from gen./dat./loc. PIE *swesr-, *ghesr- > *khehr-, *jehr-- for the latter option see also [Kortlandt 1996b: 57, 2001: 11 (2003: 118, 131)]), [Clackson 1999-2000: 29] *-esr- > *-ehar- > -er-, [Viredaz 2000] *ehr > *er before a consonant in pre-Armenian and pre-Greek. Pace [Clackson 1999-2000:29-31] and [Viredaz 2000:291-292], the archaic paradigm of k'oyr hardly excludes an analogical source for the vocalism of instr. k'erb; note that under most analyses, acc. k'oyr has simply been taken over from the nominative, replacing expected fk'or < *kehoran < PIE *swesorm (see below, fn. 48). See also fn. 35 on instr. harb, marb, elbarb.

32 I do not understand Clackson's claim that "the contraction of -eac' to -ec'- provides a further example of a contraction of *-e-a to -e-" [1999-2000:33]; see above, fns. 30, 31). As observed by him on the preceding page, the alternation of -eac' —ec'- in the weak aorist suffix is entirely regular and parallels that of neard 'sinew' ~ gen. nerdi, learn 'mountain' ~ gen. lerin, etc.

imperfect, i.e. restoration of *gorce-ach- after *gorce-i-; but such remodeling would not have worked in any case, at least not if one adopts the view of Karstien and others that the weak aorist suffixes -ac' and -eac' were originally associated respectively with simple thematic presents in PIE *-e/o- and denominatives in PIE *-e-ye/6-\ once the latter had fallen together with the former, their inflections would have become completely identical, and there would have been no basis for restoring *-e(y)a- in the aorist. The same objection applies to the suggestion of Clackson [1994: 216, fn. 97] that "the spread of -ac'- may have occurred at a later stage of the language."

5. The fate of PIE intervocalic *y in Armenian

In fact, the evidence for contraction of vowels across a hiatus resulting from loss of PIE *y is not nearly as robust as long assumed. A glance at the major reference works [Godel 1975: 75-76; Schmitt 1981: 73-74; Olsen 1999: 782-786; Beekes 2003: 160] reveals that most of the commonly cited cases do not involve loss of PIE *y, but rather of PIE *t 33. I have argued elsewhere that intervocalic *t did not in fact pass through a stage *[j], but instead was first lenited to *[S]; the subsequent development to *[j], *[w], or *[0] depending on the neighboring vowels has close parallels in other languages, including Faroese [Kim 2016a: 160-161]34. Forms such as the following thus never had *y at any point, and consequently are of no probative value for the treatment of (post-)PIE intervocalic *y.

a) PIE *ph2trbhi > *hadarfti > *haarp > instr. sg. harb 'with/by father' (sim. marb 'with/by mother', elbarb 'with/by brother')35.

33 Godel [1975: 81] explicitly operates with two stages of loss: "Intervocalic *-y- dropped very early (...) as did, centuries later, PA *-y- < PIE *-t-."

34 Overlooked in my discussion was [Ravn^s 1988] (esp. pp. 231-234), which agrees with his 1991 dissertation in all points.

35 The more complicated hypotheses of [Bolognesi 1949:36-37] (dissimilation of *hadarfii > *hafiarfii > *haarfii > harb), [Matzinger 2005: 118, 127-128, 130] (*haBarfii > *hafiarfii > *haarfii > harb with *d >

"in neutraler Umgebung"), and [Klingenschmitt 1982: 99] (PIE *ph2trbhi ^ *fa0r-bi > *farbi > harb with generalized prevocalic allomorph from e.g. gen. *fa0r-os) areunnecessary; see [Kim 2016a: 161 withfn. 48].

b) PIE *ph2teres > *hader- > *haer- ^ nom. pi. hark' 'fathers' (sim. mark' 'mothers', elbark' 'brothers').

c) PIE *kwetwores ^ *kwetores > *c'edor- > *c'eor- > c'ork'

'four'.

d) PIE *kwotero- 'which (of two)' ^ *oder- > *oer> or 'which'36.

Once such cases are set aside, there turn out to be very few

assured examples of PIE intervocalic *y in Armenian37. Aside from erek' 'three' < PIE *treyes, the only certain case seems in fact to be presents in -e- < *-eye- ^ PIE *-eye/o- themselves38. Viredaz [2001-2002: 3] and Beekes [2003: 162] cite i-stem nom. pi. -k' < *-ek' < PIE *-eyes, but it goes without saying that this ending, common to all noun inflection classes, need not have evolved by sound change alone39. Cowgill [I960] famously compared oc' 'not' with Gr. ovk(I) 'id.' and derived both from PIE *(ne) h2oyu kwid 'never', but the lack of parallels for contraction of *oyu > *ou > *o casts doubt on this etymology [Clackson 1994: 158].40 Finally, ji 'horse' has long been compared with Ved. haya-, but the vocalism

36 Cf. [Schmitt 1981:74, 123; Olsen 1999: 151-152, 783, 786, 806; Viredaz 2004-2005: 85, fn. 8]. On the problem of o- < *kwo- here and in o(v) 'who', or 'which', ur 'where', etc., cf. [Meillet 1936: 89-90; Viredaz op. cit.], and [Kolligan 2006:110-112] (phonological development) vs. [Bonfante & Gelb 1944: 183, fn. 72; Bonfante 1946:89; Pisani 1966:229 (1978: 337-338)] and the references in [EDAIL: 706] (generalization from PIE relative *Hyo-). — The ending of the genitive personal pronouns 1 pi. mer, 2 pl.jer is generally equated with that of Lat. nostri, vestri or Goth, unsar, izwar [Meillet 1927:2, 1936:92; Schmitt 1981:117; Djahukianl982: 147, 150; Weitenberg 1982: 115-116; Kortlandt 1984: 100 (2003: 47)], but whether these forms continue *metero-, *yetero- as claimed by Olsen (1999: 783, 786); cf. [Viredaz 2001-2002: 7, fn. 35] is far from certain.

37 Excluding of course sequences of the shape *-iyV- such as kogi 'butter', gini 'wine' < PIE *gwow-iyo- 'of a cow', *woy(hj)n-iyo- 'of the grapevine'. On the etymology of the latter, see [EDAIL. 214] with refs. and [Lipp 2015].

38 On the present conjugation in -am, see § 6 below.

39 See already the comments in [Meillet 1903a: 46, 1936: 70].

40 Clackson later proposed an original meaning 'no one' for oc' and analysis as o- (cf. o-k' 'anyone', o-mn 'someone') + negator *c' (cf. c'-ik' 'nothing'). See [Clackson2004-2005: 155-156;EDAIL. 531; Kim2016b: 45].

raises difficulties41; a derivation from substantivized PIE *ghi-to-'driven (on), set in motion' is therefore to be preferred (de Lamberterie apud [Olsen 1999: 40, 783; Viredaz 2005-2007: 6-8; de Lamberterie 2006: 213-223]).

Given the paucity of clear cases of intervocalic *y, and especially the absence of incontrovertible evidence for contraction in sequences such as *-eya- or *-eyo-, I propose that the weakening and loss of intervocalic *y was followed by contraction of like vowels only. In contrast, sequences of *e plus a back vowel were maintained, only later turning into falling diphthongs. This hypothesis creates no difficulties for the evolution of PIE denominatives in *-e-ye/o- (and iteratives in *-eye/o-), since the thematic vowel *-e- was generalized already in prehistoric times, hence *-eye- > -e- in gorcem, sirem, etc. It of course also provides a phonological explanation for the diphthong in the weak aorist suffix -eacwhich can continue a proximate sequence of nonlow vowel + *a in hiatus42.

The prehistory of weak aorists in -ac' and -eac' may now be understood as follows. At some stage in pre-Armenian, thematic presents in *-e/o- (or perhaps already leveled *-e-) acquired corresponding aorists in *-ach-43. This was true not only for the handful of simple thematic presents inherited from PIE, but also for the incomparably larger group of presents in *-eye/o- (or *-eye-).

(14) pres.*-e/o- (*-e-) aor. *-ach-

pres. *-eye/o- (*-eye-) aor. *-eyach-

41 Cf. [Hubschmann 1899: 45] (ji < *g1heyo- vs. haya- < *g heyo- or *g1hsyo-), [Pisani 1932: 27-28, n. 2] (ji < *gheyo- with i < *ey by sound change), [Godel 1975: 88-89,fn. 75] (ji < *gh3yo-), [Ravn^s 1988: 226] (< *gheyo- or *ghiyo-), [EDAIL: 433] (*ghei-o- > *je ^ ji after gen.ji-oy, etc.).

42 It has been suggested that *eya is reflected in the ea of keam 'live' < PIE *gweyh3- [Hamp 1976: 90-91; Klein 2007: 1074]; cf. Hom. fieo^ai < *gweyh3-e/o-), but the diphthong of this notoriously opaque verb could also continue a pre-Arm. sequence *iya in ^gih3-eh2r(yeIo-) (cf. [Brugmann 1913: 164] "*gwiia-mf \ [Meillet 1903a: 24, 81, 1936: 45, 110] "*gwiy-a-ye-"), ■*gwiyh3- ([Barton 1965:8] "g'iia-", [HarSarson 1993:210]), or *gwih3-hyela-[Barton 1990-1991: 45, fn. 58].

43 On the sources of this suffix, see § 7.

Following the weakening and elision of intervocalic *y, these suffixes became:

(15) pres. *-e- aor. *-ach-pres. *-ee- aor. *-each-

whence by contraction of *ee > *e:

(16) pres. *-e- aor. *-ach-pres. *-e- aor. *-each-

At this point, the now merged class of presents in -em was associated with two aorist formations: a small group in *-ach- to erstwhile *-e/o- presents, and a much larger group in *-each- to derived presents in *-eye/o-. Not surprisingly, the former tended to be transferred to the latter, as child speakers took the far more common *-each- to be the default aorist formation to presents in -em. By the time of the earliest written documents, this process was almost complete, and the aorist suffix -ac'- was restricted to asem 'say', gitem 'know', karem 'am able', and mart'em 'am able'. It can hardly be a concidence that all four of these are high-frequency verbs with the most basic semantics; being in the core of the Classical Armenian lexicon, they would have been especially resistant to the morphological change just described44. This tendency continues into the postclassical period, where we find e.g. iptv. gitea 'know!' in Movses Xorenac'i (I, 11) for classical gita [Godel 1969:256]. The stems asac'-, gitac'-, and karac'- are retained in Cilician Armenian [Karst 1901: 319], but only the first of these survives in Modern Eastern Armenian (1 sg. asac'i, 2 asac'ir, etc.; iptv. asa, pi. asac'ek'), beside regularized asec'- (1 sg. asec 'i) and occasional as- (1 sg. asi)45.

6. Relative chronology and a-presents

The proposal in §5 that only like vowels were contracted following the elision of intervocalic *y has interesting consequences

44 Cf. [K. H. Schmidt 1980b: 43]: "The fact that the eac-aorist did not spread analogically to [these] verbs (... ) may be a result of the high text frequency of these verbs."

45 See [Dum-Tragut 2009: 230 with fn. 175, 282 with fn. 207].

for Armenian historical phonology and morphology. First, it implies that the loss of intervocalic *y was later than that of pre-Arm. *h < PIE *s, or of pre-Arm. *d < PIE *t. This runs counter to the widespread assumption that PIE *s and *y were lost at the same time, one that however seems to have no actual support in the recoverable relative chronology of pre-Armenian sound changes. For instance, Kortlandt [1980: 101 (2003: 29)]; cf. [Beekes 2003: 209] assigns loss of *h (< PIE *s) and *y to step 10 in his relative chronology of changes from PIE to Armenian, along with lenition of voiceless stops to fricatives, and offers the following commentary:

The loss of *h (from PIE *s) in various positions and its assimilation to a following *r can perhaps be dated to the same stage as the lenition.... The loss of intervocalic *h was probably posterior to the development of *5 into u, but anterior to the development of *eu into oy, cf. k'oyr 'sister', Skt. svasa. The loss of intervocalic *y must be dated to an earlier stage: it was posterior to the development of *e into i, but anterior to the loss of phonemic quantity because the long vowel was not preserved in erek', 'three', Skt. trayah46.

Ravn^s [1988: 231, 1991: 47, 106] likewise posits *e, *o > *i, *u, followed by loss of *-h- (< PIE *-s-) and *eu > *ou to account for PIE *swesor > k'oyr 'sister'; see respectively nos. 20a, 22a, and 41 in the relative chronology in [Ravn^s 1991: 173-81]47. The loss of intervocalic *-y-, "possibly also via *-h-, probably occurs at the same time" as that oi*-h- < PIE *-s- ([Ravn^s 1991: 175], step 22b).

However, as pointed out by Clackson [1994: 51, 53], a development *-eho- > *-ehu- > *-ew- > -oy- is hardly the only one possible for 'sister', especially given the continuing uncertainty over the regular outcome of inherited PIE *ew48. As for the dating ofloss of

46 The argument from 'sister' goes back at least to Meillet [1903a: 18, 1936: 39]; cf. also [Pisani 1951: 56-7 (1978: 297)].

47 Ravn^s assumes that "the loss of phonemic quantity [was] simultaneous with the loss of old *e and *o" ([1991: 68, fn. 1]; cf. nos. 20a and 20b on p. 175), but this is inherently implausible: surely first *e, *o were raised to *t, *u, and only later was contrastive length lost.

48 Other proposed scenarios in the literature include diphthongization in PIE *swesdr > *hweuhur > *kou(h)ur > k'oyr ([Klingenschmitt 1982: 153-154; Olsen 1999: 153]; cf. awr 'day' < (post-)PIE *amor or

intervocalic *y, Clackson observes that the sequence *ee in *treyes 'three' may have contracted to a long vowel distinct from the reflex of inherited PIE *e and merged instead with PIE *e; similarly for the sequence *oo in PIE *bhoso- 'bare' ^ *bohoko- > bok 'barefoot'.

More recently, Viredaz [2001-2002] proposes that contraction of sequences *VyV, *VwV, *VsVtook place before the assignment of stress to the penultimate: hence the i- and u-stem nom. pi. ending evolved regularly from PIE *'-eyes, *'-ewes > *'-eekh > *'-ekh > -k' (3), and strong aorists with apparent o-grade root would continue imperfects of PIE iteratives in *R(o)-eye/o-, e.g. eboyc 'nourished' < *ebowceye < PIE *e-bhowg-eye-t (4-5; cf. [de Lamberterie 1985a]). In contrast, the loss of intervocalic < PIE *t postdated the fixing of stress, so that word-final sequences *VdV developed to *VyV or *VwV rather than undergoing contraction. But the i- and u-stem nom. pi. -k' need not have arisen by sound change (see above, § 5); and pace Viredaz, strong aorists such as eboyc may well continue thematized root aorists as traditionally assumed, in this case *e-bhewg-e-t ^ PIE *e-bhewg-t49. As for intervocalic *d,

*amry, PIE *ew> *iw followed by contraction of *-ehu- > *-ew-\ or different developments of pre-Arm. *-eu- and *-e5- [Clackson 1994: 210,n. 77]. One cannot even entirely exclude the idea of Grammont [1918: 244] that k'oyr goes back to acc. *swesorm > *hwehor- > *k'or with -y- from elbcyr 'brother', hayr 'father', mayr 'mother', even if the latter do continue PIE nom. *bhreh2ter, *ph2ter, *meh2ter.

49 As Viredaz observes, most of his examples involve w-diphthongs, for which de Lamberterie [1982b: 81-82, 1992: 259, 1999] has argued for a regular development of PIE *ew > Arm. ew, iw (cf. already [Scheftelowitz 1905: 59]). Pace de Lamberterie, however, Arm. loys 'light' on semantic grounds is better taken from PIE *lewko- ^ *lewko- 'light, white' (Gr. Aevkoq), with substantivizing accent shift, than from *lowko- 'place with light, clearing' (Ved. loka-, OHG loh, Lat. lucus 'sacred grove', Lith. laukas 'open air, field'); see also the critical remarks of Ravn^s [1988: 227-228]. As long as the conditioning factors for the treatment of *ew remain unspecified, I prefer to derive strong aorists such as eboyc 'nourished', edez 'piled up' from *e-bhewg-e-t, *e-d1eygh-e-t ^ PIE aor. *e-bhewg-t, impf. *e-dheygh-t (cf. [Barton 1973-1974: 33-34]). The only verb in Viredaz's group that probably does contain an inherited *o is the defective gog 'so to say' < *h1wogwh-eyelo-(cf. Lat. voveo 'vow'; [HAB\ I, 570], [EDAIL. 221] with refs., though note the cautious remarks of [Klingenschmitt 1982: 275]; see also above, fn. 16).

although it is true that the best examples of contraction involve nonfmal syllables (§ 5), the general consensus holds that the fate of depends entirely on the quality of the neighboring vowels50.

Thus none of the arguments adduced by these authors is probative, and nothing stands in the way of the hypothesis that loss of intervocalic *h < PIE *s substantially predated that of PIE *y. The loss of < PIE *t was probably a relatively late development, but there is no evidence that it was later than that of PIE *y.

The discussion above is also of relevance to the prehistory of another Armenian verbal formation, the class of presents in -am represented by e.g. yusam 'hope' ^ yoys (o) 'hope', orsam 'hunt, chase; catch' ^ ors (o) 'hunt; catch'. These have long been equated with Greek presents in -am (e.g. ii^am 'honor, revere' ^ tz^ 'honor'), Latin first-conjugation presents in -a- (e.g. donare 'give (as a present), donate' ^ donum 'present'), Old Irish presents in *-a- (e.g. nertaid, nerta 'strengthen' ^ nert 'strength, power'), or Indo-Iranian presents in -ayasuch as Ved. yajnaya- 'worship (the gods), make sacrifice (to the gods)' yajna- 'worship, sacrifice', which have their origin in PIE denominatives in *-eh2-ye/o- to thematic nominal bases51. Under the traditional view, going back to Meillet [1903a: 29, 81, 1936: 52, 110], the pre-Armenian sequence *-aye/o- would have contracted to -a- at an early date. According to the view put forth here, however, pre-Arm. *-aye-would have remained unchanged at first except for the loss of distinctive vowel length, only later becoming *-ae- by loss of intervocalic *y. If this then underwent contraction to -a-, the contrast with that of *-eya- > *-ea-

to the diphthong *-ea- (> -ea---e-) would presumably be due to the

absence of rising diphthongs in the language52.

50 See the discussion and references in [Kim 2016a: 156-162].

51 Cf. [Meillet 1903a: 81-82, 1936: 110-111; Barton 1965: 39; Godel 1965:37, 1975:123; Schmittl981: 136; Klmgenschmittl982: 90-91; Clackson 1994: 80].

52 The respective weak aorists would presumably have been of the shape *-aya-, which would have contracted to *-a- in any case (§ 5). See below, § 7 with fn. 66.

However, it is generally agreed that Armenian a-presents also reflect various athematic formations53. Thus monosyllabic verbs of this class go back to PIE root presents (bam 'say' < PIE *bhék2- ~ *bhh2-') or reduplicated presents (gam 'come', kam 'stand', tam 'give' ^ PIE *ghe-ghéh1- ~ *ghe-g%-\ *gwe-gwéhr ~ *gwe-gwhr', *de-déh3- ~ *de-dh3-'f4; while presents in -na- originate in nasal-infixed presents to laryngeal-final roots, e.g. sparnam 'threaten', banam 'open', stanam 'get, acquire' < PIE *sphr-né-h1- ~ *sphr-n-h1-' 'kick', *bh-né-h2- ~ *bh-n-h2-' 'let shine', *st-né-h2— *st-n-h2-' 'stand (tr.)'55. In addition, PIE factitives in *-e-h2-, which are famously continued in Anatolian (e.g. Hitt. newahh- 'make new' < *néw-e-h2-), may have played a role in the prehistory of the productive fientive suffix -anam, e.g. hast-anam 'become strong', anmah-anam 'become immortal'56. Finally, Barton [1990-1991: 45-49]

53 As seen already by Meillet, who added a qualifier in the second edition of his historical grammar: "le -a- des dénominatifs en -a- (...) représente, au moins partiellement, *-âye-, cf. skr. -âya-" ([Meillet 1936: 52]; cf. [Meillet 1903a: 29]).

54 See [Klingenschmitt 1982: 84-89]; less likely tam < post-PIE *dh3-yél-- [Meillet 1903a: 100, 1936: 132-133; Barton 1990-1991: 45] or *dh3-mi, *-si, *-ti, backformed to root aor. *déh3— *dh3-' [Barton 1965: 5-6], [Godel 1965: 23, 1980: 16 with fn. 13], [de Lamberterie 1994: 143,fn. 12]; cf. [Solta 1984:68] "alte, reduplikationslose Formen"), as the aorist apparently generalized full-grade root at an early date: etu, 3 pl. etun < *e-d5-s- ^ *e-deh3- (see below, fn. 68). Lat. do, das, dat has been abstracted from compounds such as reddd, reddere 'give back' < *-deda- < PIE (*de-déh3- ~) *de-dh3-' [Leumann 1977: 527-528; Weiss 2011: 432-434], pace [HarÔarson 1993: 38; Meiser 1998: 188, 2003: 105-106]; cf. Vestmianthematized 3 sg. didet).

55 See e.g. [Meillet 1903a: 82, 1936: 111; Barton 1965: 11-14; Godel 1975: 124-125; Schmitt 1981: 137 Klingenschmitt 1982: 106-119].

56 These presents belonged to the h2e-conjugation in PIE, to judge from Hittite; they have fallen together with denominatives in *-eh2ryelo- and adopted thematic endings in most IE branches, including Armenian [Jasanoff 2003: 139-140]. The factitive function has been taken over by denominatives in -e-, e.g. srbem 'purify' ^ surb 'pure' (see above, § 3 with (13)), but the fientives in -anam recall the nasal-suffixed inchoative and intransitive presents of Germanic and Balto-Slavic (e.g. Goth. fullndn 'fill up, become full', Lith. (at-)bùsti 'wake up', pres. (at-)bunda, OCS vùz-bunçti 'id.', pres. vuz-bune), for which Gorbachov (2007) has reconstructed a PIE source with

proposed that verba affectuum denoting mental or emotional states such as mnam 'remain', hogam 'am troubled, care', yusam 'hope' correspond to statives in *-ehr in other IE languages, and derived suffixal -a- from post-PIE *-hi-ye/o-; the chronology of the presupposed contraction of pre-Arm. *-aye- > -a- would be the same as discussed above for denominatives in *-eh2-ye/o-57.

Thus there is no conclusive evidence either way from a-presents for the treatment of the pre-Armenian sequence *-aye-: either it contracted to *-a- and fell together with *-a- < *-eh2-, or it remained disyllabic and then was ousted by the reflexes of presents in *-e-h2-and/or athematic presents to roots ending in a laryngeal58. Even if contraction did take place, this would not contradict the hypothesis of late survival of intervocalic *y in the prehistory of Armenian.

7. The origin of the weak aorist suffix

We may now return to the PIE origins of the Armenian weak aorist. All scholars agree that the suffix *-ach- is in origin a sequence of *-a- and *-ch-, but the wider connections of these elements continue to provoke controversy, due to the complexities of Armenian historical phonology as well as continuing disagreement over the position of Armenian within the IE family.

We begin with the first element *-a-, both because it raises fewer formal problems (a must go back to pre-Arm. *a or *a, i.e. in PIE terms *a, *h2e or *eh2, *eh2e) and because its interpretation will affect that of *-ch-. K. H. Schmidt [1980b: 43-44] saw the origin of this vowel in the a-presents, but although the latter were admittedly a major class (including the productive subtype of fientives in -anam), there is no motivation for generalization to the even more numerous presents in

zero-grade root and stressed h2e-conjugation endings, e.g. *li-n-kw-e 'is left'. Kocharov [2011] traces the Armenian type back to PIE *-nH-e/o- (cf. Gr. -avw) and/or *-nH-yelo- (cf. Ved. grbhayati beside grbhnati 'seizes'), but the semantic correspondence is weak.

57 Under this view, the corresponding aorist in -ac'- would go back to post-PIE *-hj-ske- ([Barton 1990-1991:46]; cf. [Kocharov 2011:276]), or perhaps "*-h-ske-t ^ *-hj-i-a-ske-t > -ac', comparable to *-e-i-a-ske-t to pres. *-e-ie-ti (sireac': sire)" [Barton 1990-1991: 46-47, fn. 62].

58 See also [Klmgenschmitt 1982:91; Clackson 1994:91].

-em-, if anything, one would expect the pattern pres. *-a-: aor. *-a-ch- to lead speakers to create an aorist in *-e-ch- > f-ec'- to e-presents.

Klingenschmitt [1982: 135-136, 286]; see above, § 3) suggested that the *-a- of weak aorist *-ach- was generalized from 1 sg. *-a-mi in presents of perfect origin, but this is in my opinion highly unlikely for two reasons. First, there is no independent reason to suppose that a (stative) perfect such as PIE *woyd- ~ *wid-' 'know' would have tacked on present endings in this fashion (hence presumably 1 sg. *-a-mi, 2 *-ta-si, 3 *-e-ti, 3 pi. *-er-nti vel sim. ^ PIE pf. *-h2e, *-th2e, *-e, *-Sr). As discussed above in §3 ad fin., the most likely path for this verb was thematization to *woyd-e- > *get-e- > gite-, with the inflection of bere- 'carry' and other e-presents.59 Second, we have seen in §4 that none of the other presents in -em with a weak aorist in -ac'i, namely asem 'say', karem 'am able', and mart'em 'id.', can be traced back with certainty to a (post-)PIE perfect. Thus even if one accepts Klingenschmitt's interpretation of the -a- of gitac 'i, it strains credulity to think that this verb alone could have served as a model for the creation of the entire weak aorist.

Peters [1997] compares the -a- of the Armenian weak aorist suffix with -q- in the isolated and thus presumably archaic Homeric Greek pluperfect ffS-y 'knew'. But not only does this too assume 'know' as the sole starting point for the weak aorist, there is no evidence from non-Attic-Ionic dialects that this -q- goes back to Proto-Greek *-a-, and its wider connections remain controversial60. Most recently, Jasanoff takes -a- to be generalized from 3 pi. *-a-nt, mp. *-a-nto ^ *-ant, *-anto < PIE *-nt, *-nto along the lines of the "alphathematized" sigmatic aorist in Greek (see above, fn. 8), but -ais otherwise solely the marker of the mediopassive aorist stem in

59 Cf. Middle Iranian forms such as Sogd. pres. 1 sg. ptwyd'm [patwe:Sa:m] 'know' (< *pati-waid-), subj. 3 sg. nw'yS't [nwe:Sa:t] 'may invite' (< *ni-waid-, [Cheung 2007: 409]).

60 Among other recent analyses, see [Jasanoff 1997:125,fn.20, 2003: 36, fn. 20; Katz 2006: 25-27] (backformed to opt. eiSetr) on the model of passive aorists, e.g. (¿)<pav^ 'appeared') and [Schrijver 1999] (comparing Middle Welshgwyd-y- < *weid-i- < *-e- and cognate forms in British Celtic).

Armenian61. In forms such as asac 'ay 'was said', sirec 'ay 'was loved', luac'ay 'washed (myself)' < *asa-ch-a-, *serea-ch-a-, *lua-ch-a-, the two a's surely have different sources.

In contrast, the traditional comparison with Balto-Slavic preterite *-a- and the Italic imperfect *-a- of Latin er-a-, -ba- and Oscan pi. fufans is both semantically and formally unproblematic62. These formations, along with others, have in the past been taken as evidence for a PIE preterite in *-eh2- (see e.g. [Jasanoff 1983]), but most scholars today agree that such a preterite marker did not exist in the protolanguage. The Latin imperfect has been derived from an optative *-e-h2- which ousted the reflexes of PIE *-o-yh1- in the famous a-subjunctive of Italic and Celtic [Trubetzkoy 1926; Benveniste 1951]. The shift from optative to repeated or habitual action in the past is a widespread occurrence, with parallels in Middle Iranian and Tocharian as well as modern IE languages (Benveniste op. cit.). Such a shift will also account for the Balto-Slavic preterite *-a-, e.g. Lith. dirbo 'worked', turejo 'had', OCS bira 'took', pisa 'wrote' (secondarily extended to the infinitive stem in Slavic, as in OCS birati, pisati)63. Whatever the ultimate origin of this *-a-, it bears

61 On the origin of aor. mp. -a- in 3 pl. *-a-nto ^ *-anto < PIE *-nto (i— *-énto) as well as root aorists to laryngeal-final roots (e.g. 3 sg. edaw 'was put', cnaw 'was born' < *edato, *cinato < PIE *(e-)dhh1-to, *genh1-to), see [Jasanoff 1979: 143; Klingenschmitt 1982: 9, 21; de Lamberterie 1982a: 42, fn. 64, 1982b: 82; Viredaz 2001-2002: 7; Kim 2016b: 39-40 with fn. 1].

62 First made by Pedersen [1905:212]; cf. [Mariés 1930:168] (unconvincingly argued pp. 171-172 to be a suffix originally marking "l'état"), [Karstien 1956a: 221; Perel'muter 1977: 97; Djahukian 1982: 190; Klein 2007: 1075; Viredaz 2015, § 1.4.3.]. I cannot follow the alternative comparison of the aor. mp. marker -a- with this *-a- [Godel 1965: 28, 1975: 121-2; Perel'muter 1977: 94; Lmdeman 1982: 40, 1985; Solta 1984: 64, 1990: 12-13], nor with supposedly "intransitive" Balto-Slavic *-a-[Stang 1942:75-76; Barton 1965:48-51; 1973-1974:29-30; Kocharov 2011: 275, fn. 7]. See the preceding footnote.

63 Numerous scholars have sought to connect the Armenian imperfect with the PIE athematic optative in (*-yéh1- ~) *-ih1-' [Kerns 1939: 21-30; Evangelisti 1955; Godel 1970: 150, 1975: 116-117; Winter 1975: 112-120; K. H. Schmidt 1980a: 5, 1980b: 46, 1985: 221], but the phonological and

emphasizing that its absence in Greek is not a valid argument against a comparison with the Italic imperfect and Balto-Slavic preterite, as some scholars have claimed64. On the contrary, given the evidence that pre-Armenian occupied a position in the dialect geography of late PIE intermediate between Greek and Balto-Slavic, it is entirely to be expected that the language would have undergone some innovations in common with the latter as well as the former65.

As seen in § 1, the few weak aorists associated with presents in -um simply add -c'- to the root, e.g. lc'i (elic *) 'filled' < *li-ch-. This suggests that weak aorists in -ac' to (historically) athematic presents in -am likewise added *-ch- to an earlier stem ending in *-a-, e.g. luanam 'wash', aor. lua-c'- [Godel 1965: 38]. As for denominatives such as yusam 'hope', which go back to PIE thematic presents in *-eh2-ye/o- (§ 6), their aorists would have been of the form *-ay-ach-, which would have regularly merged with the *-ach- of the previous type66. Thus, if we assume that *-ch- in all of these aorist stems is a later addition (see below), the forerunners of the weak aorist at a stage prior to the loss of intervocalic *y were formed according to a simple rule: thematic presents (17) replaced the thematic vowel with *-a-, while nasal presents in *-na- and *-nu- dropped the present-forming suffix, following the pattern inherited from PIE (18).

morphological obstacles are in my opinion prohibitive; cf. the alternative accounts of [Meillet 1936: 126-127; Jasanoff 1979: 137-141; Klmgenschmitt 1982: 14-17; Viredaz 2015, §§ 7-8].

64 E.g. [Klmgenschmitt 1982:136-137; Peters 1997:210]. On the perils of the Greco-Armenian hypothesis for this and other problems of Armenian historical morphology, see [Kim 2018: 261-263].

65 Thanks to H. H. Hock for helpful discussion on this point. For isoglosses shared by Armenian and (Balto-)Slavic (not all of equal value!), see [Karstien 1956a: 212-220] and especially [Saradzeva 1980, 1986]; cf. also the partial sigmatization of root aorists in both branches (see below, fn. 68 with refs.).

66 Pace [Barton 1965:75] (mnac'i < *mena-sk-\ [Godel 1965:38] (-ac'- < "imparfait" *-aye-ske- or "aoriste" *-a-ske-), [Godel 1969:254, 1975: 127] ("mnac'i 'I remained' < *mona(ye)-ske/o-"), [Solta 1987:632] (mnaci ,,ich blieb" < *mona-(je)-ske/o-").

(17) present aorist

*ase- 'say' *asa-

*sereye- 'love' *sereya-*yusaye- 'hope' *yusaya-

(18) present aorist *lua-na- 'wash' *lua-*li-nu- 'fill' *li-

The preceding discussion offers a new perspective on the distribution of weak and strong aorists in Classical Armenian, as well as the evolution of weak aorist morphology. Whereas presents in -anem (-anim) regularly take strong aorists, presents in -nam and -(n)um are associated with both strong and weak aorists. An examination of the latter two present types reveals that, whereas weak aorists are formed to verbal roots ending in a vowel (see above, fn. 5), strong aorists are restricted to roots ending in a consonant or high vowel.

present aorist

*darj-na- 'turn (intr.)' *darj-

*barj-na- 'lift, carry' *barj-

*lua-na- 'wash' *lua-ch-

*ba-na- 'open' *ba-ch-, etc

present aorist

*ar-nu- 'take' *ar-

*jer-nu- 'become warm' *jer-

*erdu-nu- 'fear' *erdu-

*ayti-nu- 'swell' *ayti-

*li-nu- 'fill' *li-ch-

*xi-nu- 'seal/stop up' *xi-ch-

*zge-nu- 'put on' h *zge-c -

*ye-nu- 'lean (upon)' *ye-ch-, etc.

61 Other u-presents may be added to this list if they continue pre-Arm.

*-nu-, e.g. helum 'pour', whose / may reflect pre-Arm. *ln in pres. *hel-nu- :

aor. *hel- [Pedersen 1906:354; Meillet 1916:178, 1936:48, 112; de

Lamberterie 1992: 274]; uncertain [Klingenschmitt 1982: 244-246; Solta

1974: lll,fn. 79, 1984: 72].

This pattern makes sense once it is recalled that the aorist has completely generalized vowel-initial allomorphs of the person-number endings: although the details remain unclear, those of the active ultimately go back to the PIE thematic vowel *-e-, whereas all the mediopassive endings begin with -a-6i. Once this had happened, speakers generalized *-ch- as a hiatus filler after aorist stems ending in a nonhigh vowel *-a- or *-e-, to avoid contraction with the endings: hence act. *lua-e/i-, *ba-e/i- ^ *luach-e/i-, *bach-e/i- > luac'i 'washed', bac'i 'opened'; *unke-e/i- ^ *unkech-e/i- > ankec'i 'made fall, threw down' (3 sg. *unke ^ *unkec' > snkec', see §2 ad fin.); and mp. *lua-a-, *zge-a-, *ye-a- ^ *lua-ch-a-, *zge-ch-a-, *ye-ch-a- > luac'ay 'washed (myself)', zgec'ay 'put on', yec 'ay 'leaned (upon)'.69 Medium tantum aorists to stems ending in a high vowel posed no problem, e.g. *erdu-a- 'feared', *ayti-a- 'swelled'; but the active aorists to *li-nu- 'fill', *xi-nu- 'seal/stop up' would have been the ill-formed *li-e/i-, *xi-e/i-, which were therefore remade to *lich-e/i-, *xich-e/i- > lc 'i (elic'), xc 'i (exic *)70. Forms such as lc 'i are thus not the

68 The only exceptions are edi (ed) 'put' and etu (et) 'gave', which go back to (at least partly) sigmatized PIE root aorists ([Bonfante 1942; Barton 1965: 47-48, 1989: 146-147]; see now [Viredaz 2015]), and elew (1 sg. ele) 'became', which continues post-PIE *e-kwl-e-to (cf. Gr. eeXeto 'has become, is'; [Lindeman 1973-1974:48-49; Klmgenschmitt 1982:280-281; Klein 2007: 1075]). Klingenschmitt writes the aorist stems as e.g. act. arb(e)-'drank', -ec'(e)- vs. mp. kal(a)- 'held', -ec'(a)-, but I have eschewed that practice here in order to avoid confusion with pre-Arm. weak aorist stems in *-a-. On the origin of aorist middle -a-, see fn. 61.

69 Note that *zge- 'put on (clothing)' < PIE *wes- would have become vowel-final only after loss of intervocalic *h < *s, which made the aorist *zgeh-a- ill-formed. Pace de Lamberterie [1985b: 130], astuac-a-zgeac' 'clothed in God' (first attested in Agathangelos) is no proof that the aorist stem zgec'- goes back to *zgeac'-; the former could simply be a backformation with ahistorical vocalism, much like e.g. ump 'drink' ^ smpem 'drink' [Praust 1996: 188-189].

70 3nt'ernum 'read', aor. ant'erc'ay, usually given beside lc'i, xc'i, ankec 'i, zgec 'ay, andyec 'ay as a sixth example of this type, probably does not belong here. Szemerenyi's derivation from *sndi-harc'-, a caique of Iranian *pati-prsca- (cf. OP pati-p(a)rs-, Parthian pdfwrs- 'read'; [Szemerenyi 1966: 223-225; de Lamberterie 1994: 146]), does account for the shape of aor.

source of the weak aorist marker *-ch-, as sometimes claimed, much less go back to PIE *e-pleh1-ske/o-71, but are in fact relatively late innovations on the model of the hundreds of weak aorists in *(-a)-ch-.

We are left with strong and weak aorists to unsuffixed presents in -em (-im). The list below is exhaustive:72

*ber-e- 'carry' *ber-

*ac-e- 'lead' *ac-

*han-e- 'pull out' *han-

*nist-e- 'sit (down)' *nist-

*get-e- 'know' *get-a-

*as-e- 'say' *as-a-

*kar-e- 'be able' *kar-a-

*marth-e- 'be able' *marth-a-

The crucial difference between the two groups is that the verbs

in (22) were defective at the relevant stage of pre-Armenian, while those in (21) inherited aorist stems from the protolanguage. In the case of berem and acem, PIE *bher- and *h2eg- were almost certainly praesentia tantum, the aorist being supplied by other roots73, but

subj. snt'erc'c'i (not f-sc'-) but runs up against phonetic difficulties [Klingenschmitt 1982:251-252; Praust 1996: 190]. Kocharov [2017] instead connects the root with Hitt. tarna- 'let go', Toch. B /tarka-/ (pres. /tarkana-/), A tarka- (pres. tarna-) 'let go, release; utter', OCS trug- (pres. -trugnQti) 'let go, expel; utter' < PIE *terK(H')-, which is semantically satisfactory but would require the root-final -c'- to be generalized from a sigmatic aorist *terK-s-.

71 So among others [Karstien 1956a: 227, 1956b: 96, 97; Godel 1965: 37, 1975: 127; Watkins 1973: 71, fn. 21; Clackson 1994: 82].

12 A few other poorly attested aorists may be assigned to the type of berem, aor. berk zgacim 'dress myself (beside zgacnum), aor. zgacay, helusem 'nail, fasten', aor. helusi (heloys); hiwsem 'plait, braid' (postclassical also hiwsum), aor. hiwsi (beside hiwsec'i).

73 Cf. GAv. baraiti, aor. nqsat, Gr. yepoj, aor. tfveyKov/tfveyKa.', Lat. fero, pf. tuli. Ved. aor. abhar, Olr. pret. birt, bert, and Goth. pret. bar are independent post-PIE creations ([LIV2\ 76-77; Jasanoff 2012: 132]). — The alternative derivation of acem from PIE *h2g-es- ([Kortlandt 1983: 14, 1996b: 56 (2003: 44, 118); Beekes 2003: 175, 182]; cf. Lat. gero 'carry') is

Armenian generalized the present stem by extending the inherited imperfect to aorist function: hence 3 sg. eber 'carried', ac 'led' < PIE *e-bher-e-t, *h2eg-e-t. The same is true of nstim 'sit (down)' ^ *niste-< PIE *ni-si-sd-e/o-, whose aor. 3 sg. nstaw < *nistaw continues PIE impf. *ni-si-sd-e-to with regularized "alphathematic" inflection74.

In contrast, gitem 'know' goes back to PIE pf. *woyd— *wid-' and thus originally lacked an aorist; similarly for asem 'say', which judging from reflexes in the daughter languages appears to have had a defective paradigm in the protolanguage. Like derived presents in *-ye/o-,

motivated entirely by the belief that PIE *h2e- > Arm. ha-; see the critical remarks in [Clackson 2004-2005: 155; EDAIL: 16].

74 In cases such as aor. harc 'i (eharc") 'asked', dizi (edez) 'piled up' < impf. *prske/o-, *dheygh-e/o- (^ PIE *dheygh- ~ *dhigh-'), the inherited imperfect was shifted to aorist function by the creation of a new characterized present stem, respectively harc'anem, dizanem. That cases such as berem, aor. beri were unstable and/or disfavored is suggested by lizem 'lick', aor. lizec'i beside lizanem and lezum/lizum 'id.', aor. lizi, which Klingenschmitt [1982: 208-210]; cf. [LIV2: 404, n. 2] explains as reformations of an earlier pres. *lizem, aor. *lizi, with the present stem continuing *leyghelo- ^ PIE

*leygh— *ligh-' (Ved. redhi, pi. rihanti, thematized in Gr. Xsixrn; praesens tantuml).

The etymology of the fourth verb, hanem 'pull/draw out, remove', remains contested: it has been connected with Hitt. sanh- 'seek, look for', Ved. sanoti 'win, gain', Gr. avvw 'effect, accomplish', OHG sinnan 'strive after' < PIE *senh2- 'attain, catch' [Meillet 1897:26, 1910-1911:245; Hubschmann 1899: 48; HAB: III, 33-34; Barton 1965: 26; de Lamberterie 1985a: 207]; Lith.pinM, inf.p/nti 'weave', OCS -ping, inf. -p§ti 'stretch' (e.g. ras-p§ti 'crucify'), Goth, spinnan 'spin', etc. < PIE *(s)penH- 'pull, stretch' ([Klingenschmitt 1982: 131-132]; but probably the source of henum 'weave', aor. hani only, cf. [LIV2: 578-579] s.v. *(s)penh1-); Hitt. han- 'draw (liquids)' < PIE *h2en- [Kapantsyan 1931-1933: 96, 1956: 372-373; Puhvel 1991: 77; Kloekhorst 2008: 282; EDAIL: 389 with refs.]; and even Arm. hun 'ford' ([Olsen 1985: 11, fn. 13] "denominative verb derived from the zero grade"). Most probable in my opinion is a connection with Gr. onaw 'draw (out)' [Klingenschmitt 1982: 132; LIV2: 575], which along with Ved. -pipite 'moves', Hitt. pipp(a)- 'id.' may be derived from a PIE root *(s)peh2- 'in (heftige) Bewegung setzen' [Garcia Ramon 2011]. The Armenian verb would in that case reflect a secondary nasal-suffixed present: PIE *(s)pi-(s)peh2— *(s)pi-(s)ph2-', aor. *(s)peh2- ~ *(s)ph2-' ^ *pa-ne-, *pa- ^ hanem, aor. hani.

these verbs thus had to create entirely new aorists. For this purpose, they did not resort to the imperfect inherited from PIE as in the case of berem, acem, and nstim, perhaps because the formation had already been completely eliminated, as it was in most other IE branches. Instead, speakers formed a new past of repeated and habitual action with the originally optative suffix *-a- (< PIE *-e-h2-), as described above: hence *woyd-a- 'knew, would know', *ak-a- 'was saying, would say', and similarly *worg-ey-a- 'loved, would love', *wesn-ey-a- 'bought, would buy' to the derived presents *worg-eye-, *wesn-eye-.

If the above analysis of the Armenian strong and weak aorists is correct, where did the *-ch- of the weak aorist marker *-a-ch- come from, and how did it spread? Despite repeated attempts, the absence of secure examples for obstruent + *s > -c'- remains an obstacle to connecting Arm. -c'- with the PIE s-aorist75. The only real possibility is to derive -c'- from the PIE verbal suffix *-ske/o-, which famously fulfills several functions: in addition to building presents to aoristic roots in the protolanguage (e.g. PIE *prske/6- < **prk-ske/A- 'ask', *gwm-ske/A- 'step, go') and inchoatives in -esco to Latin statives in -eo (e.g. albesco 'become white', senesco 'become old' to albeo 'am white', seneo 'am old'), it productively forms derived imperfectives in Hittite (e.g. azzikki/a-, anniski/a- to ed-lad- 'eat', aniya- 'work, treat; carry out, perform')76 and iterative imperfects in Ionic Greek (e.g. exeoKe 'had, held', piMeaKe 'loved', Sooke 'gave')77. The latter have

75 So [Pisani 1950a: 529 (1959b: 105), 1951: 66-67 (1978: 308-309); Klingenschmitt 1982:286-287; Kortlandt 1987:51, 1995:15-16, 1996a: 40-43 (2003:81, 108-109, 114-116)]; see the critical remarks in [Clackson 1994: 82-83; Viredaz 2015, § 1.4.2.]. See also fn. 77 below.

I should add that I am also not convinced by the various proposals put forth in the literature to derive the weak aorist and the subjunctive from a single source. On the prehistory of the Armenian subjunctive, see e.g. [Klingenschmitt 1982: 32-44; Lühr 1994] (with discussion of earlier hypotheses).

16 See [Melchert 1998; Hoffner andMelchert 2008: 318-323].

77 Cf. [Meillet 1903a: 85-86, 1936: 115; Pedersen 1905:207], [Pisani 1959a: 177] ("sostituzione di forme in -sk- a quelle sigmatiche dell'aoristo"), [Solta 1963: 118; Barton 1965: 74-75, 1990-1991: 47, fn. 63; Godel 1965: 37, 1969, 1975:127; Watkinsl 969:57; Perel'muterl977:97; K.H.Schmidt 1980b: 45-46; Schmitt 1981:145; Djahukianl982: 190-191; Stempel

long been compared with the Armenian weak aorist suffix, no doubt under the influence of the widespread belief in an especially close relationship between Armenian and Greek, although Clackson [1994: 75-83] argues that the two formations are parallel but independent elaborations: note that Greek has generalized -eax- as the productive iterative formant, in contrast to Armenian *-ach-, and that the few Armenian weak aorists to monosyllabic stems take the augment in the active 3 sg., e.g. ebac' 'opened', ekac' 'stood', elic' 'filled', whereas the augment is regularly lacking in the Ionic iterative78. Even if one prefers to interpret these facts in terms of contact and diffusion, Armenian must have gone farther than any variety of ancient Greek in generalizing *-ske/o- from marking iterative-intensive imperfects to all imperfects, then in shifting these imperfects to aorist function79.

1983:62-63; de Lambertene 1992:270-271, 2005-2007:51; Klein 2007:1075; Meyer 2014:389-390; Viredaz 2015, § 1.4.2]; for additional references, see [Clackson 1994:215,n. 77]. On the Ionic type itself, see [Schwyzer 1939: 710-712]. The functional identity of Arm. aor. -c'- < *-sk-and the *-s- of the classical sigmatic aorist does parallel other instances of *-s-beside *-sk- in IE verbal morphology [Watkins 1973: 70-1; Solta 1963: 118, 1984: 73-74, 1987: 632-634, 1990: 12 with refs.; Klein 2007: 1073, 1075], but this by itself tells us nothing about the path of grammaticalization of the suffix in Armenian.

The Slavic imperfect probably does not belong here, pace Karstien [1956a: 220 ff.], who derived OCS 1 sg. -axu, 3 -ase from *-a-ske/o- and compared the Armenian weak aorist in *-ach-. Despite the criticism of Godel [1970: 149], the problem here is not so much semantic as formal: there are no good parallels for the alleged metathesis of PIE sk > *ks > Proto-Slavic *x. On the prehistory of the Slavic imperfect, see e.g. [Sadnik I960] (followed by [Aitzetmuller 1991: 188-191]), [Vaillant 1966: 66-68; Kortlandt 1986].

78 However, Clackson's third reason for rejecting a historical connection between the Greek and Armenian formations, the supposed full-grade root of elic' 'filled' < *pleh1-skelo- vs. the zero-grade of Sooke 'gave', ataoKe 'stood', napEfiaoKE 'went beside' < *dh3-sk!l6-, *sth2-skel6-, *gwh2-sk'U- [Clackson 1994: 82-3], is not valid, as elic' is an Armenian-internal innovation (see above).

19 The first step does however find an interesting parallel in the modern Greek dialects of northern Greece (Thessaly, Macedonia, Thrace),

8. From PIE to Armenian: the evolution of the weak aorist

On the basis of the analysis in § 7, we may reconstruct the following sequence of prehistoric morphological developments for Armenian, taking as examples *bher-e- 'carry', *woyd-e- 'know', and *worg-eye- 'work, make'80. In the first stage (a), thematic (including thematized) presents contrasted an unmarked imperfect, of PIE origin, and an iterative imperfect, characterized by the suffix *-sk!/o-. Next (b), the imperfect *ebheret spread to the aorist, eliminating whatever suppletive stem the language had inherited. At this point, derived present stems such as *worgeye- did not yet have grammaticalized aorists, continuing the situation in the protolanguage. Then, for reasons which can no longer be identified, *worgeyet 'was making' was replaced by originally optative *worgeyat; to this new default imperfect was created a corresponding iterative imperfect with the suffix *-sk-, hence *worgeyasket (c). The new imperfect was extended to aorist function, becoming the functional equivalent of *ebheret 'carried'. The same replacement may have affected the imperfect of 'carry' as well, producing *(e)bherat and iterative *bherasket; the aorist, however, remained unaltered. As for 'know', following its regularization as a thematic present *woydeti (b), it too acquired an iterative imperfect *woydasket and unmarked imperfect *woydat, the latter also serving as aorist.

(a) (b) (c)

Present *bhereti > *bhereti > *bhereti

Iter. impf. *bheresket > *bheresket ^ *bherasket (?)

Imperfect *ebheret > *ebheret ^ *(e)bherat (?)

Aorist [*h1nek-] ^ *ebheret > *ebheret

Cyprus, and Cappadocia, which attest similar-looking formations in -(i)okov ([Hatzidakis 1892: 416-417; Thumb 1910: 146 § 214.6 (1964: 153)]; cf. [Schwyzer 1939: 712]). Despite undeniable contact between Greek and Armenian speakers (e.g. in the Pontos region) since ancient times, I do not believe that this should be seen as anything more than coincidence; note in particular that Pontic Greek has unexpectedly grammaticalized -OKOv/uai as a passive suffix in e.g. p.vpioKovp.ai, Kpvqxov^ai to p.vpiÇrn 'paint', Kpvqzm 'hide' [Hatzidakis 1892: 416-7; Thumb 1910: 126, § 199.4 (1964: 133)].

80 See the brief chronology of K. H. Schmidt [1980b: 46], which however does not account for the contrast between the aorists of berem and gitem.

Present [*woyd-

Iter. impf. —

Imperfect —

Aorist —

*wid-

*woydeti

> *woydeti ^ *woydasket ^ *woydat ^ *woydat

Present Iter. impf. Imperfect Aorist

*worgeyeti

*worgeyesket

*worgeyet

> *worgeyeti

> *worgeyesket

> *worgeyet

*worgeyeti *worgeyasket *worgeyat *worgeyat

After these developments, the contrast between the two past imperfective categories was lost; most probably, the unmarked imperfect and the iterative imperfect in *-ch- remained in competition for some time (d)81. The imperfects of 'carry', 'know', and 'work' thus became *berache ~ *bera, *getache ~ *geta, and *gorceyache ~ *gorceya, respectively. In 'know' and the majority type of 'work', where the imperfect and aorist were identical, the aorist naturally also took on the variants *gorceyache ~ *gorceya. Finally (e), the variation in the aorist was resolved in favor of the longer forms in *-ach-, *-eyach- > -ac'-, -eac' —ec'-, whereas the imperfect was replaced once again by the attested formation in -i/y- (e.g. gorcei, 3 sg. gorcer 'used to make, was making').

(c) (d) (e)

Present *bereyi > * :bereyi > bere

Iter. impf. *berache (?) — *berache ~ —

Imperfect *bera (?) *bera (?) ^ berer

Aorist *ebere > * 'ebere > eber

Present *geteyi > * 'geteyi > gite

Iter. impf. *getache — *getache ~ —

Imperfect *geta *geta ^ giter

Aorist *geta *getache ~ *geta > gitac'

81 For the sake of simplicity, I have assumed the relevant sound changes at stage (c), i.e. the Armenian consonant shift, monophthongization of diphthongs, *-sk- > *-ch-, *w- > *g-, and lenition of intervocalic *t and loss of word-final *-t. On the other hand, apocope of final syllables and loss of intervocalic *y are assigned to stage (e).

Present Iter. impf. Imperfect Aorist

*gorceyeyi *gorceyache *gorceya *gorceya

*gorceyeyi

*gorceyache ■

h

*gorceyac e ■

> gorce

*gorceya ^ gorcer *gorceya > gorceac'

As a final step, the now highly productive weak aorist marker *-ch- was extended to root aorists ending in a vowel when they acquired regular (alpha)thematic inflection: hence PIE *plehr > *li-^ *li-ch-e/a- in lc'i 'filled', Ic'ay 'was filled' and PIE *wes- ^ *zge(h)- ^ *zge-ch-a- in zgec'ay 'put on (clothing)', leaving only the relics edi (ed) 'put', etu (et) 'gave'.

9. Conclusion

The analysis proposed here not only accounts satisfactorily for the attested distribution of weak aorists in -ac' and -eac', but also provides a plausible sequence of steps for the functional shift of PIE *-ske/o- > Arm. -c'- from marking iterative imperfects to derived aorist stems. Late retention of intervocalic *y, unlike *s, explains the lack of contraction in impf. > aor. *-ey-a-ch- (to denominative and other derived presents in *-eye/o-), which only later became the diphthong *-ea-ch- and then -eac' —ec'-. The first element of the suffix *-a-ch-may be compared with the Latin imperfect and Balto-Slavic preterite in *-a- and traced back to a PIE optative in *-eh2-. The expansion of *-ske/o- > *-ch- in the imperfect > aorist was parallel to but independent of the Ionic type exeaxe, yiXeeoxe and led to the complete disappearance of the erstwhile imperfects in plain *-a-, leaving as the sole trace of the PIE imperfect such shifted aorists as 3 sg. eber 'carried', nstaw 'sat (down)', eharc' 'asked'.

Bibliography

Adams 1999 — D. Q. Adams. A Dictionary of Tocharian B. Amsterdam — Atlanta: Rodopi, 1999.

Adams 2013 — D. Q. Adams. A Dictionary of Tocharian B. Revised and greatly enlarged. Amsterdam — New York: Rodopi, 2013.

Aitzetmüller 1991 — R. Aitzetmüller. Altbulgarische Grammatik als Einführung in die slavische Sprachwissenschaft. 2., verbesserte und erweiterte Auflage. Freiburg i. Br.: Weiher, 1991.

Barton 1965 — Ch. Barton. A Re-examination of the Historical Morphology of the Old Armenian Verb with a Classification of Stems from the

Point of View of Comparative Indo-European Linguistics. Doctoral dissertation. New York: New York University, 1965.

Barton 1973-1974 — Ch. Barton. The Armenian strong aorist// Revue des Etudes Arménienes, nouvelle série 10, 1973-1974. P. 27-38.

Barton 1988 — Ch. Barton. PIE *sengu- II Y. Arbeitman (ed.). A Linguistic Happening in Memory of Ben Schwartz: Studies in Anatolian, Italic, and other Indo-European Languages. Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters, 1988. P. 463-74.

Bartonl989— Ch.Barton. PIE. *mer-, Arm. meranim 'die'// Indogermanische Forschungen 94, 1989. P. 135-157.

Barton 1990-1991 — Ch. Barton. On the denominal a-statives of Armenian II Revue des Etudes Arméniennes, nouvelle série 22, 1990-1991. P. 29-52.

Beekes 2003 — R. S. P. Beekes. Historical phonology of Classical Armenian//Kortlandt2003: 133-211.

Beekes2010— R.S.P.Beekes. Etymological Dictionary of Greek. Leiden — Boston: Brill, 2010.

Benvenistel951— E.Benveniste. Prétérit et optatif en indo-européen// Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique 47, 1951. P. 11-20.

Bolognesi 1949— G. Bolognesi. Sulla flessione nominale armena di hayr "padre" mayr "madré" eXbayr "fratello" Il Atti del Sodalizio GlottologicoMilanese 1.2, 1949. P. 35-40.

Bonfante 1942— G. Bonfante. The Armenian aorist// Journal of the American Oriental Society 62/2, 1942. P. 102-105.

Bonfante 1946— G.Bonfante. Armenians and Phrygians// Armenian Quarterly 1, 1946. P. 82-97.

Bonfante, Gelb 1944— G.Bonfante, I.J.Gelb. The position of "Hieroglyphic Hittite" among the Indo-European languages II Journal of the American Oriental Society 64.4, 1944. P. 169-190.

Brugmannl904— K.Brugmann. Etymologische Miszellen// Indogermanische Forschungen 16, 1904. P. 491-509.

Brugmann 1913 — K. Brugmann. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. Zweite Bearbeitung. Zweiter Band: Lehre von den Wortformen und ihrem Gebrauch. Dritter Teil, Erste Lieferung. Straßburg: Trübner, 1913.

Cheung 2007 — J. Cheung. Etymological Dictionary of the Iranian Verb. Leiden — Boston: Brill, 2007.

Clacksonl994— J.Clackson. The Linguistic Relationship between Armenian and Greek. Oxford — Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1994.

Clackson 1999-2000 — J. Clackson. Arm. ariwn 'blood' II Annual of Armenian Linguistics 20, 1999-2000. P. 27-45.

Clackson 2004-2005 — J. Clackson. Review of Kortlandt 2003 II Annual of Armenian Linguistics 24-25, 2004-2005. P. 153-158.

Couvreur 1947 — W. Couvreur. Hoofdzaken van de tochaarse klank- en vormleer. Leuven: Philologische Studien, 1947.

Cowgill I960 — W. Cowgill. Greek ou and Armenian oc'II Language 36: 3, I960. P. 347-50. (Reprinted in Cowgill 2006, 99-101.)

Cowgill 2006 — W. Cowgill. The Collected Writings of Warren Cowgill. Edited with an Introduction by Jared Klein, with contributions by other former colleagues and students. Ann Arbor — New York: Beech Stave, 2006. P. 99-101.

Djahukian 1982 — Г. Б. Джаукян. Сравнительная грамматика армянского языка. Ереван: Изд-во АН АССР, 1982. [G. В. Dzhaukian. Srav-nitel'naia grammatika armianskogo iazyka [Comparative grammar of Armenian], Yerevan: Izdatel'stvo AN ASSR, 1982].

Djahukian 1990— G.B.Djahukian. Combinatory vowel changes in Armenian II Annual of Armenian Linguistics 11, 1990. P. 1-16.

Dum-Tragut 2009 — J. Dum-Tragut. Armenian (Modern Eastern Armenian). Amsterdam — Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2009.

EDAIL — H. К Martirosyan. Etymological Dictionary of the Armenian Inherited Lexicon. Leiden — Boston: Brill, 2010.

Evangelisti 1955 — E. Evangelisti. L'imperfetto armeno e l'uso preteritale dell'ottativo indoeuropeo. Arona: Paideia, 1955. (Reprinted in Evangelisti 1990: 69-92.)

Evangelistil990— E.Evangelisti. Scritti tocarici e altri studi. Brescia: Paideia, 1990.

EWAia — M. Mayrhofer. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen. 3 Bände. Heidelberg: Winter, 1986-2001.

Friedman 2002 — J. Friedman. IE "blood" and related matters II Paper read at the 14th UCLA Indo-European Conference, University of California, Los Angeles, 8-9 November, 2002. (http://www.pies.ucla.edu/WeCIEC/Friedman_J_2002.pdf)

GarciaRamön 2011— J.L.Garcia Ramön. Idg. *(s)peh2- 'in (heftige) Bewegung setzen, ziehen': Ved. pa 3, heth. pipp(a)---' und gr. anäa, arm. hanem II Krisch, Lindner (eds.) 2011: 134-148.

Godel 1965 — R. Godel. Les origines de la conjugaison arménienne II Revue des Etudes Arméniennes, nouvelle série 2, 1965. P. 22-41. (Reprinted m Godel 1982b, 19-38.)

Godel 1969 — R. Godel. Les aoristes arméniens en -c '- Il Studia Classica et Orientalia Antonino Pagliaro Oblata. Vol. 2. Rome: G. Bardi, 1969. P. 253-258. (Reprmtedm Godel 1982b, 39-44.)

Godell970— R.Godel. Diachronic Armenian// Th.A.Sebeok (ed.). Linguistics in South West Asia and North Africa. The Hague: Mouton, 1970. P. 139-159.

Godel 1975 — R.Godel. An Introduction to the Study of Classical Armenian. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1975.

Godel 1980— R. Godel. Sur quelques subjonctifs arméniens// Revue des Etudes Arméniennes, nouvelle série 14, 1980. P. 11-20. (Reprinted in Godel 1982b, 81-90.)

Godell982a— R.Godel. La position de l'arménien dans l'étude comparative des langues indo-européennes II Godel 1982b. P. 7-14.

Godell982b— R.Godel. Linguistique arménienne: études diachroniques. Vaduz: Fondation des Frères Ghoukassiantz; Paris: Librairie H. Samuélian, 1982.

Gorbachov 2007 — Y. Gorbachov. Indo-European Origins of the Nasal Inchoative Class in Germanic, Baltic and Slavic. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, 2007.

Grammontl918— M. Grammont. Notes de phonétique générale. VI. Arménien classique II Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique 20, 1918. P. 213-259.

Greppin 1983 — J. A. C. Greppin. An Etymological Dictionary of the Indo-European Components of Armenian// Bazmavêp 141, 1983. P. 1-4, 235-323.

Greppin (ed.) 1980 — J. A. C. Greppin (ed.) First International Conference on Armenian Linguistics: Proceedings, the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 11-14 July 1979. Delmar, NY: Caravan Books, 1980.

HAB— Hr. Acaryan. Hayeren armatakan bararan. 2 ed., 4 vols. Yerevan: Yerevan University Press, 1971-1979.

Hacksteinl995 — O.Hackstein. Untersuchungen zu den sigmatischen Präsensstammbildungen des Tocharischen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995.

Hamp 1969 — E. P. Hamp. Armenian harb, hars, harc'H Revue des Etudes Arméniennes, nouvelle série 6, 1969. P. 15-17.

Hamp 1970 — E. P. Hamp. Sanskrit duhita, Armenian dustr, and IE internal schwa// Journal of the American Oriental Society 90/2, 1970. P. 228-31.

Hamp 1976 — E. P. Hamp. *gweiHo- "live" II A. Morpurgo Davies, W. Meid (eds.). Studies in Greek, Italic, and Indo-European Linguistics Offered to Leonard R. Palmer on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, June 5, 1976. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität innsbruck, 1976. P. 87-91.

Hamp 1983 — E.P.Hamp. Philologica varia// Revue des Études Arméniennes, nouvelle série 17, 1983. P. 5-12.

Haröarson 1993 — J. A. Haröarson. Studien zum urindogermanischen Wurzelaorist und dessen Vertretung im Indoiranischen und Griechischen. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck, 1993.

Hatzidakisl892— G.N.Hatzidakis. Einführung in die neugriechische Grammatik. Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1892. (Reprinted 1977, Hildesheim — New York: Olms.)

Hoffner, Melchert 2008 — H. A. Hoffner, Jr., H. C. Melchert. A Grammar of the Hittite Language. Part 1: Reference Grammar. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2008.

Holthausenl927— F.Holthausen. Grammatisches Allerlei// Indogermanische Forschungen 44, 1927. P. 191-192.

Hübschmannl877— H.Hübschmann. Armeniaca// Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 23/4, 1877. P. 400-7. (Reprinted in Hübschmann 1976: 77-84.)

Hübschmann 1883 — H. Hübschmann. Armenische Studien. I. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.

Hübschmann 1897— H.Hübschmann. Armenische Grammatik. I. Theil: Armenische Etymologie. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1897.

Hübschmann 1899 — H. Hübschmann. Selbstanzeige von H. Hübschmann, Armenische Grammatik. I. Teil: Armenische Etymologie. II. Abteilung: Die syrischen und griechischen Lehnwörter im Altarmenischen und die echtarmensichen Wörter II Anzeiger für indogermanische Sprach- und Altertumskunde. Beiblatt zu den Indogermanischen Forschungen 8, 1899. P. 41-50. (Reprinted in Hübschmann 1976: 325-334.)

Hübschmann 1976— R.Schmitt (ed.). Heinrich Hübschmann. Kleine Schriftenzum Armenischen. Hildesheim — New York: Olms, 1976.

IEW— J. Pokorny. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Bern: Francke, 1959.

Jasanoff 1979 — J. H. Jasanoff. Notes on the Armenian personal endings II Zeitschriftfürvergleichende Sprachforschung93, 1979.P. 133-149.

Jasanoffl983 — J.H.Jasanoff. The IE "ä-preterite" and related forms// Indogermanische Forschungen 88, 1983. P. 54-83.

Jasanoff 1997 — J. H. Jasanoff. Gathic Avestan ciköitaras II Lubotsky (ed.) 1997: 119-130.

Jasanoff 2003 — J. H. Jasanoff. Hittite and the Indo-European Verb. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.

Jasanoff2012— J.H.Jasanoff. Long-vowel preterites in Indo-European// H. C. Melchert (ed.). The Indo-European Verb: Proceedings of the

Meeting of the Indogermanische Gesellschaft, University of California, Los Angeles, 13-15 September 2010. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2012.P. 127-135.

Jensen 1959 — H. Jensen. Altarmenische Grammatik. Heidelberg: Winter, 1959.

Kapantsyan 1931-1933 — Fp. А. Капанцян. Chetto-Armeniaca. Сравнительно-лингвистическое исследование, выявляющее до 200 общих слов и форм. Эривань: Еосиздат ССРА, 1931-1933. [Gr.A. Kapantsian. Chetto-Armeniaca. Sravnitel'no-lingvisticheskoe issledovanie, vyiavlia-iushchee do 200 obshchikh slov i form. [Chetto-Armeniaca. Comparative linguistic research identifying up to 200 common words and forms]. Yerevan: Gosizdat SSRA, 1931-1933].

Kapantsyan 1956— Fp. А. Капанщн. Историко-лингвистические работы к начальной истории армян. Древняя Малая Азия. Ереван: Изд-во АН АССР, 1956. [Gr. А. Kapantsian. Istoriko-lingvisticheskie raboty k nachal'noi istorii armian. Drevniaia Malaia Aziia [Historical linguistic works on the early history of Armenians. Ancient Asia Minor], Yerevan: Izdatel'stvo AN ASSR, 1956].

Karst 1901 — J. Karst. Historische Grammatik des Kilikisch-Armenischen. Straßburg: Trübner, 1901.

Karstien 1956a— H. Karstien. Das slavische Imperfekt und der armenische -ac'e- Aorist. M. Woltner, H. Bräuer (ed.). Festschrift für Max Vasmer zum 70. Geburtstag am 28. Februar 1956. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1956. P. 211-229.

Karstien 1956b — H. Karstien. Das slav. Imperfekt und seine idg. Verwandten II Zeitschrift fur slavische Philologie 25/1, 1956. P. 67-112.

Katz 2006 — J.T. Katz. The origin of the Greek pluperfect II Die Sprache 461, 2006. P. 1-37.

Kerns 1939 — J. A. Kerns. The imperfect in Armenian and Irish II Language 15/1, 1939. P. 20-33.

Kim2016a— R.I.Kim. Studies in Armenian historical phonology (I): Aspiration and spirantization of PIE voiceless stops II A. M. Byrd, J. DeLisi, M. Wenthe (eds.). Tavet Tat Satyam: Studies in Honor of Jared Klein on the Occasion ofHis Seventieth Birthday. Ann Arbor — New York: Beech Stave, 2016. P. 151-167.

Kim 2016b — R. I. Kim. Studies in Armenian historical phonology (II): early raising of mid vowels in Auslaut II Indogermanische Forschungen 121. P. 39-51.

Kim2018— R.I.Kim. Greco-Armenian: the persistence of a myth// IndogermanischeForschungen 123. P. 247-271.

Klein 2007 — J. Klein. Classical Armenian morphology II A. S. Kaye (ed.). Morphologies of Asia and Africa. 2 vols. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007. P. 1051-1086.

Klingenschmittl982— G. Klingenschmitt. Das altarmenische Verbum. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1982.

Kloekhorst 2008 — A. Kloekhorst. Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon. Leiden — Boston: Brill, 2008.

Kocharov2011— P. Kocharov. On ana-presents of Armenian// Krisch, Lindner (eds.) 2011: 271-278.

Kocharov 2017— P. Kocharov. The etymology of Armenian ant'ernul 'to read' II B. S. S. Hansen, A. Hyllested, A. R. J0rgensen, G. Kroonen, J. H. Larsson, B. N. Whitehead, Th. Olander, T. S0borg (eds.). Usque ad Radices. Indo-European Studies in Honour of Birgit Anette Olsen. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 2017. P. 401-413.

Kolligan 2006 — D. Kolligan. Armenian o(v) II Oxford University Working PapersinLinguistics,Philology&Phonetics 11,2006.P. 110-121.

Kortlandt 1980 — F. H. H. Kortlandt. On the relative chronology of Armenian sound changes II Greppin (ed.) 1980: 97-106. (Reprinted in Kortlandt 2003: 26-33.)

Kortlandt 1981 — F.H. H. Kortlandt. On the Armenian personal endings II Annual of Armenian Linguistics 2, 1981. P. 29-34. (Reprinted in Kortlandt 2003: 34-38.)

Kortlandt 1983 — F. H. H. Kortlandt. Notes on Armenian historical phonology III: h- II Studia Caucasica 5, 1983. P. 9-16. (Reprinted in Kortlandt 2003: 39-44.)

Kortlandt 1984 — F. H. H. Kortlandt. Proto-Armenian case endings II Международный Симпозиум по армянскому языкознанию: Доклады. Ереван: Изд-во АНаук АССР. [Mezhdunarodnyi Simpozium ро аг-mianskomu iazykoznaniiu: Doklady. Yerevan: Izdatel'stvo AN ASSR], (Reprinted in Kortlandt 2003: 45-51.)

Kortlandt 1986 — F. H. H. Kortlandt. The origin of the Slavic imperfect// R. Olesch, H. Rothe (eds.). Festschrift fur Herbert Brauer zum 65. Geburtstag am 14. April 1986. Koln: Bohlau, 1986. P. 253-258.

Kortlandt 1987 — F. H. H. Kortlandt. Notes on Armenian historical phonology V II Studia Caucasica 7, 1987. P. 61-65. (Reprinted in Kortlandt 2003: 75-78.)

Kortlandt 1995 — F. H. H. Kortlandt. The sigmatic forms of the Armenian verb// Annual of Armenian Linguistics 16, 1995. P. 13-17. (Reprinted in Kortlandt 2003: 107-109.)

Kortlandt 1996a — F. H. H. Kortlandt. The Proto-Armenian verbal system II D. Sakayan (ed.). Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Armenian Linguistics, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada,

May 1-5, 1995. Delmar, NY: Caravan Books, 1996. P. 35-43. (Reprinted in Kortlandt 2003: 110-116.) Kortlandtl996b— F.H. H.Kortlandt. Arm. calr 'laughter'// Annual of Armenian Linguistics 17, 1996. P. 55-9. (Reprinted in Kortlandt 2003: 117-119.)

Kortlandt2001 — F.H.H.Kortlandt. Arm. ariwn 'blood'// Annual of Armenian Linguistics 21, 2001. P. 11-12. (Reprinted in Kortlandt 2003: 131-132.)

Kortlandt 2003 — F. H. H. Kortlandt. Armeniaca. Comparative Notes. With an appendix on the historical phonology of Classical Armenian by Robert S. P. Beekes. AnnArbor: CaravanBooks, 2003. Krisch, Lindner (eds.) 2011 — Th. Krisch, Th. Lindner (eds.) unter redaktioneller Mitarbeit von M. Crombach und S. Niederreiter. Indogermanistik und Linguistik im Dialog. Akten der XIII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 21. bis 27. September 2008 in Salzburg. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2011. deLamberteriel978— Ch.de Lamberterie. Armeniaca I-VIII: études lexicales II Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique 73, 1978. P. 243-285. deLamberterie 1982a— Ch. de Lamberterie. Poids et force: reconstruction d'une racine indo-européenne II Revue des Etudes Arméniennes, nouvelle série 16, 1982. P. 21-55. deLamberteriel982b— Ch.de Lamberterie. Review of Schmitt 1981//

Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique 77/2, 1982. P. 80-84. deLamberterie 1985a— Ch.de Lamberterie. Grammaire de l'arménien classique II Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes. 4e section, sciences historiques et philologiques. Livret 2: Rapports sur les conférences des années 1981-1982 et 1982-1983. Paris: École Pratique des Hautes Études, 1985. P. 207-208. deLamberterie 1985b— Ch.de Lamberterie. Review of Stempel 1983 //

Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique 80/2, 1985. P. 129-132. deLamberterie 1992— Ch.de Lamberterie. Introduction à l'arménien

classique II LAUES 10, 1992. P. 234-289. deLamberterie 1994— Ch.de Lamberterie. L'arménien// F.Bader (ed.).

Langues indo-européennes. Paris: CNRS Éditions, 1994. P. 139-165. deLamberterie 1999— Ch. de Lamberterie. Diphtongues indo-européennes en arménien// Paper read at the Sixième Colloque international de linguistique arménienne, INALCO / Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, Paris, 5-9 July, 1999. de Lamberterie 2005-2007 — Ch. de Lamberterie. L'augment dans le texte arménien de l'Évangile II Revue des Études Arméniennes, nouvelle série 30, 2005-2007. P. 31-57.

de Lamberterie 2006 — Ch. de Lamberterie. Traces de la langue poétique indo-européenne dans le lexique arménien// G.-J. Pinault, D. Petit (éd.). La langue poétique indo-européenne. Actes du Colloque de travail de la Société des Etudes Indo-Européennes (Indogermanische Gesellschaft/Society for Indo-European Studies), Paris, 22-24 octobre 2003. Leuven — Paris: Peeters, 2006. 213-234.

Leumann 1977— M. Leumann. Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre. Neuausgabe, 5. Auflage. München: Beck, 1977.

Lindeman 1973-1974 — F. O. Lindeman. Note sur l'origine du verbe linim, aoriste elë en arménien classique II Revue des Etudes Arméniennes, nouvelle série 10, 1973-1974. P. 47-50.

Lindemanl974— F.O.Lindeman. Note sur latin aiö II Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique 69, 1974. P. 155-157.

Lindeman 1982 — F. O. Lindeman. The Triple Representation of Schwa in Greek and Some Related Problems of Indo-European Phonology. Oslo — Bergen — Troms0: Universitetsforlaget, 1982.

Lindemanl985 — Armenian cnaw II Annual of Armenian Linguistics 6, 1985. P. 63-65.

Lipp 2015 — R. Lipp. The word for wine in Anatolian, Greek, Armenian, Italic, Etruscan, Semitic and its Indo-European origin II Paper read at the conference "Hrozny and Hittite: The First Hundred Years," Prague, 1 l-14November 2015.

LlV — H. Rix et al. (eds.). Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben: Die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen. Unter Leitung von H. Rix und der Mitarbeit vieler anderer, bearbeitet von M. Kümmel, Th. Zehnder, R. Lipp, B. Schirmer. Zweite, erweiterte und verbesserte Auflage bearbeitet von M. Kümmel und H. Rix. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2001.

Lubotsky (ed.) 1997 — A. Lubotsky (ed.). Sound Law and Analogy: Papers in Honor of Robert S.P. Beekes on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday. Amsterdam — Atlanta: Rodopi, 1997.

Lühr 1994— R.Lühr. Zum Konjunktivmorphem -ic'- im Armenischen// J. E. Rasmussen (ed.). In honorem Holger Pedersen: Kolloquium der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 25. bis 28. März 1993 in Kopenhagen. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1994. P. 259-273.

Mannl968— S.E.Mann. An Armenian Historical Grammar in Latin Characters. Morphology, Etymology, Old Texts. London: Luzac & Co., 1968.

Mariés 1930 — L. Mariés. Sur la formation de l'aoriste et des subjonctifs en -C- en arménien// Revue des Etudes Arméniennes 10/2, 1930. P. 167-182.

Matzinger 2005 — J. Matzinger. Untersuchungen zum altarmenischen Nomen. Die Flexion des Substantivs. Dettelbach: J.H. Röll, 2005.

Meillet 1892 — A. Meillet. Notes de phonétique // Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique 7, 1892. P. 161-167. (Partially reprinted in Meillet 1977: 3-7.)

Meillet 1894 — A. Meillet. Notes arméniennes // Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique 8, 1894. P. 153-165. (ReprintedmMeillet 1977: 8-20.)

Meillet 1897 — A. Meillet. De indo-europaea radice *men- "mente agitare". Lutetiae-Parisiorum: E. Bouillon, 1897.

Meilletl900— A.Meillet. Etymologies arméniennes// Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique 11, 390-401. (Reprinted in Meillet 1977: 57-68.)

Meilletl903a— A.Meillet. Esquisse d'une grammaire comparée de l'arménien classique. 1 éd. Vienne: Imprimerie des PP. Mékhitharistes, 1903.

Meillet 1903b — A. Meillet. Observations sur la graphie de quelques anciens manuscrits de l'Evangile arménien// Journal Asiatique 10/2. P. 487-507. (ReprintedmMeillet 1977: 301-321.)

Meillet 1910-1911 — A. Meillet. Deux notes sur des formes verbales indoeuropéennes II Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique 16. P. 239-246.

Meillet 1913 — A. Meillet. Altarmenisches Elementarbuch. Heidelberg: Winter, 1913.

Meillet 1916 — A. Meillet. Latin pluit et arménien helum II Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique 19, 1916. P. 178-180. (Reprinted in Meillet 1977: 162-164.)

Meillet 1927 — A. Meillet. À propos de l'interrogatif et relatif or II Revue des Etudes Arméniennes 7/1, 1927. P. 1-3. (Reprinted in Meillet 1977: 240-242.)

Meillet 1933 — A. Meillet. Sur le type lat. ëgî, êgistï/l Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique 34, 1933. P. 127-130.

Meillet 1936 — A. Meillet. Esquisse d'une grammaire comparée de l'arménien classique. 2 éd. Vienne: Imprimerie des PP. Mékhitharistes, 1936.

Meillet 1977 — A. Meillet. Etudes de linguistique et de philologie arméniennes. Tome 2: Etudes linguistiques, avec un avant-propos de Michel Lejeune, augmentées d'une bibliographie avec un index linguistique et analytique par M. Mokri. Louvain: Imprimerie Orientaliste, 1977.

Meiser 1998 — G. Meiser. Historische Laut- und Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache. Darmstadt: WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft, 1998.

Meiser 2003 — G. Meiser. Veni Vidi Vici. Die Vorgeschichte des lateinischen Perfektsystems. München: Beck, 2003.

Melchert 1998— H.C.Melchert. Aspects of verbal aspect in Hittite// S. Alp, A. Süel (eds.). Uluslararasi Hititoloji Kongresi Bildirleri. Acts of the Illrd International Congress of Hittitology, Çorum, September 16-22, 1996. Ankara: UyumAjans, 1998. P. 413-418.

Meyer2014— R.Meyer. Remodelling the historical morphology of the Classical Armenian -eal participle// BanberMatenadarani 21, 2014. P. 385-398.

Normierl980— R. Normier. Nochmals zu *sor-ll Indogermanische Forschungen 85, 1980. P. 43-80.

Olsen 1985 — В. A. Olsen. On the development of Indo-European prothetic vowels in Classical Armenian II Revue des Études Arméniennes, nouvelle série 19. P. 5-17.

Olsen 1999 — В. A. Olsen. The Noun in Biblical Armenian. Origin and WordFormation, with Special Emphasis on the Indo-European Heritage. Berlin — New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1999. (Reprinted 2010.)

Pedersenl905 — H.Pedersen. Zur armenischen Sprachgeschichte// Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 38/2. P. 194-240. (Reprinted in Pedersen 1982: 56-102.)

Pedersenl906— H.Pedersen. Armenisch und die nachbarsprachen// Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 39/3. P. 334-485. (Reprmtedm Pedersen 1982: 112-263.)

Pedersen 1982— R. Schmitt (ed.). HolgerPedersen. Kleine Schriften zum Armenischen. Hildesheim — New York: Olms, 1982.

Perel'muter 1977 — И. А. Перельмутер. Общеиндоевропейский и греческий глагол. Видовременные и залоговые категории. Л.: Наука, 1977. [I. A. Perel'muter. Obshcheindoevropeiskii i grecheskii glagol. Vidovre-mennye i zalogovye kategorii [Proto-Indo-European and Greek verb. Categories of tense, aspect and voice]. Leningrad: Nauka, 1977].

Peters 1997 — M. Peters. Der armenische Flexionstyp gitem, gitac'i und das ion.-att. Plusquamperfekt // Lubotsky (ed.) 1997: 209-217.

Peyrot2013— M.Peyrot. The Tocharian Subjunctive: A Study in Syntax and Verbal Stem Formation. Leiden — Boston: Brill, 2013.

Pisani 1932 — V. Pisani. Zum armenischen Personalpronomen II Indogermanische Forschungen 50, 1932. P. 23-32. (Reprinted in Pisani 1978: 357-366.)

Pisanil950a— V.Pisani. L'albanais et les autres langues indoeuropéennes Il Annuaire de l'Institut de Philologie et d'Histoire Orientales et Slaves 10, 1950. P. 519-538. (Reprinted m Pisani 1959b: 96-114.)

Pisani 1950b— V.Pisani. Studi sulla fonetica dell'armeno (I)// Ricerche Linguistiche 1, 1950. P. 165-193. (Reprinted m Pisani 1978: 255-286.)

Pisani 1951— V.Pisani. Studi sulla fonética dell'armeno (II)// Ricerche Linguistiche 2, 1951. P. 47-74. (Reprinted in Pisani 1978: 286-317.)

Pisani 1952 — V. Pisani. Note linguistiche // Rivista degli Studi Orientali 27, 1952. P. 88-92.

Pisani 1959a — V. Pisani. Obiter scripta//Paideia 14/3, 1959. P. 168-181.

Pisani 1959b— V. Pisani. Saggi di lingüistica storica: scritti scelti. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier, 1959.

Pisanil966— V.Pisani. Armenische Miszellen// Die Sprache 12, 1966. P. 227-236. (Reprinted in Pisani 1978: 335-348.)

Pisani 1978 — V. Pisani. Mantissa. Brescia: Paideia, 1978.

Praustl996— K.Praust. Armenisch эшрвш "trinke"// Die Sprache 38, 1996. P. 184-200.

Puhvell991— J.Puhvel. Hittite Etymological Dictionary. Vol. 3: Words beginning with H. Berlin — New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1991.

Ravn^s 1988— E.Ravn^s. The prehistory of Armenian ё and oy II F. Thordarson (ed.). Studia Caucasologica I: Proceedings of the Third Caucasian Colloquium, Oslo, July 1986. Oslo: Norwegian University Press, 1988. P. 225-238.

Ravn^s 1991 — E.Ravn^s. The Chronology of the Sound Changes from Proto-Indo-European to Classical Armenian. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oslo, 1991.

Sadnik I960— L. Sadnik. Das slavische Imperfekt (Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung des urslavischen Verbalsystems) II Die Welt der Slaven 5, I960. P. 19-30.

Saradzeva 1980— Л. А. Сараджева. Армяно-славянские лексико-граммати-ческие параллели. Ереван: Изд-во АН АССР, 1980. [L. A. Saradzheva. Armiano-slavianskie leksiko-grammaticheskie paralleli [Armenian-Slavic lexicogrammatical parallels], Yerevan: Izdatel'stvo AN ASSR, 1980].

Saradzeva 1986 — Л. А. Сараджева. Армяно-славянские лексико-семан-тические параллели (сравнительно-историческое исследование генетически общей лексики). Ереван: Изд-во АН АССР, 1986. [L. A. Saradzheva. Armiano-slavianskie leksiko-semanticheskie paralleli (sravnitel'no-istoricheskoe isledovanie geneticheski obshchei leksiki) [Armenian-Slavic semantic parallels (comparative historical studies of the inherited common lexicon)]. Yerevan: Izdatel'stvo AN ASSR, 1986].

Scheftelowitz 1905— J. Scheftelowitz. Zur altarmenischen lautgeschichte (Fortsetzung) II Beiträge zur Kunde der indogermanischen Sprachen 29, 1905. 13-71.

Schindler 1966 — J. Schindler. Hethitisch lissi "Leber" II Die Sprache 12/1, 1966. P. 77-78.

G. Schmidt 1973 — G. Schmidt. Die iranischen Wörter für "Tochter" und "Vater" und die Reflexe des interkonsonantischen H (a) in den idg. Sprachen// Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 87/1. P. 36-83.

K. H. Schmidt 1980a— K. H. Schmidt. Altarmenische Miszellen// Annual of ArmenianLinguistics 1, 1980. P. 1-5.

K. H. Schmidt 1980b— K.H.Schmidt. Armenian and Indo-European// Greppin (ed.) 1980: 35-58.

K. H. Schmidt 1985 — K.H.Schmidt. Die indogermanischen Grundlagen des altarmenischen Verbums II Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 98/2, 1985. P. 214-237.

Schmittl972— R.Schmitt. Die Erforschung des Klassisch-Armenischen seit Meillet (1936) //Kratylos 17, 1972. P. 1-68.

Schmitt 1981 — R. Schmitt. Grammatik des Klassisch-Armenischen mit sprachvergleichenden Erläuterungen. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck, 1981. (2., durchgesehene Auflage. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität Innsbruck, 2007.)

Schrijver 1999 — P. Schrijver. Griechisch fiSq 'wußte' //Historische Sprachforschung 112/2, 1999. P. 264-272.'

Schwyzer 1939 — E. Schwyzer. Griechische Grammatik auf der Grundlage von Karl Brugmanns Griechischer Grammatik. Erster Band: Allgemeiner Teil, Lautlehre, Wortbildung, Flexion. München: Beck, 1939.

Solta 1963 — G. R. Solta. Die armenische Sprache II B. Spuler (ed.), Handbuch der Orientalistik. Erste Abteilung: Der nahe und der mittlere Osten. Siebenter Band: Armenisch und kaukasische Sprachen. Leiden — Köln: Brill, 1963. P. 80-128.

Solta 1974 — G. R. Solta. Zum Problem labialer Wurzelerweiterungen, bzw. labialer Suffixe in den indogermanischen Sprachen II Indogermanische Forschungen 79, 1974. P. 92-151.

Solta 1984 — G. R. Solta. Review of Klingenschmitt 1982 II Kratylos 29, 1984. P. 59-74.

Solta 1987 — G. R. Solta. Einige Bemerkungen zu den sigmatischen Formen im Altarmenischen II Handes Amsorya 101, 1987. P. 629-638.

Soltal990— G.R. Solta. Die Stellung des Armenischen im Kreise der indogermanischen Sprachen. Ein Überblick II E. M. Ruprechtsberger (ed.). Armenien: Frühzeit bis 1. Jahrtausend. Sprache, Kunst und Geschichte. Linz: Stadtmuseum Linz, 1990. P. 7-18.

Sowa 2006 — W. Sowa. Greckie av/^v, apqiqv i ormianskie awjik' II A. Krasnowolska, K. Maciuszak, B. M^karska (eds.). In the Orient Where the Gracious Light... Satura Orientalis in honorem Andrzej Pisowicz. Krakow: Ksi^garnia Akademicka, 2006. P. 173-177.

Stangl942— Ch.Stang. Das slavische und baltische Verbum. Oslo: Dybwad, 1942.

Stempel 1983 — R. Stempel. Die infiniten Verbalformen des Armenischen. Frankfurt am Main — Bern — New York: Peter Lang, 1983.

Stempel 1990 — R. Stempel. Die Entwicklung von auslautendem *m und das Problem sekundärer n-Stämme im Armenischen II Indogermanische Forschungen 95, 1990. P. 38-62.

Szemerényi I960 — O. Szemerényi. Studies in the Indo-European System of Numerals. Heidelberg: Winter, I960.

Szemerényil966— O.Szemerényi. Iranica II// Die Sprache 12, 1966. P. 190-226. (Reprintedin Szemerényi 1991: 1855-1891.)

Szemerényi 1991 — O. Szemerényi. Scripta Minora: Selected Essays in Indo-European, Greek, and Latin. Volume IV: Indo-European Languages Other than Latin and Greek. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck, 1991.

Thumbl910— A.Thumb. Handbuch der neugriechischen Volkssprache. Grammatik, Texte, Glossar. Zweite, verbesserte und erweiterte Auflage. Straßburg: Trübner, 1910.

Thumb 1964— A. Thumb. A Handbook of the Modern Greek Language. Grammar, Texts, Glossary. Tr. from the second improved and enlarged German edition by S. Angus. Chicago: Argonaut, 1964.

Trubetzkoy 1926— N.Trubetzkoy. Gedanken über den lateinischen aKonjunktiv II Festschrift für Universitäts-Professor Hofrat Dr. Paul Kretschmer: Beiträge zur griechischen und lateinischen Sprachforschung. Wien — Leipzig — New York: Deutscher Verlag für Jugend und Volk, 1926. P. 267-274.

Vaillant 1966 — A. Vaillant. Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Tome III: Le verbe. Paris: Klincksieck, 1966.

Viredaz 2000 —R. Viredaz. k'erbjerb,xspm II Historische Sprachforschung 113, 2000. P. 290-307.

Viredaz2001-2002— R.Viredaz. Contractions et place de l'accent en ancien arménien II Revue des Etudes Arméniennes, nouvelle série 28, 2001-2002. P. 1-11.

Viredaz 2003 — R. Viredaz. The Great Armenian Puzzle is not thorny II Annual of Armenian Linguistics 22-23, 2003. P. 59-81.

Viredaz 2004-2005 — R. Viredaz. Notes on Armenian historical phonology III Annual of Armenian Linguistics 24-25, 2004-2005. P. 85-103.

Viredaz 2005-2007— R.Viredaz. Notes d'étymologie arménienne I// Revue des Etudes Arméniennes, nouvelle série 30, 2005-2007. P. 1-14.

Viredaz2008— R.Viredaz. erêc': deux problèmes de phonétique historique Il Paper read at the 11e Conférence Générale de l'Association

Internationale des Études Arméniennes, Paris, 9-12 September 2008. (http://aiea2008paris.free.fr/papers/Viredaz.pdf)

Viredaz 2015 — R. Viredaz. Les désinences arméniennes de prétérit singulier actif II Handout of the paper presented at the Armenian Aorist Workshop, St. Petersburg, 14 May 2015.

Watkins 1969 — C. Watkins. Indogermanische Grammatik. Band III, Teil 1: Geschichte der indogermanischen Verbalflexion. Heidelberg: Winter, 1969.

Watkins 1973 — C. Watkins. Hittite and Indo-European studies: the denominative statives in -ë- II Transactions of the Philological Society, 1971. Oxford, Blackwell, 1973. P. 51-93.

Weiss2011— M.Weiss. Outline of the Historical and Comparative Grammar of Latin. Second, corrected printing. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave, 2011.

Weitenberg 1982 — J. J. S. Weitenberg. Remarks on the pronominal genitive in Classical Armenian II Revue des Études Arméniennes, nouvelle série 17, 1982. P. 113-121.

Winter 1962 — W. Winter. Problems of Armenian phonology III II Language 38/3/1. P. 254-262. (Reprinted m Winter 2005: II, 554-562.)

Winterl966— W. Winter. Traces of early dialectal diversity in Old Armenian// H.Birnbaum, J.Puhvel (eds.). Ancient Indo-European Dialects. Berkeley — Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1966. P. 201-211. (Reprinted in Winter 2005: II, 579-589.)

Winter 1975— W. Winter. Die Personalendungen des Imperfekts und Aorists im Armenischen II Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 89/1, 1975. P. 110-122.

Winter2005— O. Hackstein (ed.). WernerWinter. Kleine Schriften — Selected Writings. Festgabe aus Anlass des 80. Geburtstags. 2 Bände. Bremen: Hempen, 2005.

Woodhouse 2015 — R. Woodhouse. Some observations on the putative dual reflexes of PIE *CRHC in Greek and Armenian, Francis' Law and Greek av/^v 'neck, etc.' II Studia Etymologica Cracoviensia 20, 2015. P. 257-272.