Հոդվածի ամբողջական հղումը՝ https://journals.bilpubgroup.com/index.php/fls/article/view/9112

(According to Syunik and Artsakh Dialects)

Abstract

 

The Syunik-Artsakh (Nagorno Karabagh) dialect area of Armenian preserves a rich vocabulary related to agriculture and vegetation, offering valuable insights for dialectology, Armenian language history, historical-comparative linguistics, and ethnography. This study aims to investigate the etymologies of several key dialectal terms from this thematic group, particularly those previously considered non-etymological or of uncertain origin, arguing for their Indo-European roots or native Armenian development. By examining the dialectal Armenian word tsütsün (ծո̈ւծո̈ւն), the opinion linking the base of the Armenian word tsets (ծեծ) ‘beating’ to the Indo-European root *g՛eg՛- is substantiated. The Syunik-Artsakh dialectal term hashan (հաշան) is tentatively proposed to derive from the verb form ash || hash (աշ || հաշ) meaning ‘to dry,’ which shows etymological similarities with the Indo-European base *khrs- ‘to burn, set fire to, heat.’ The pattern pĕ(u) (պը(ու)) < *b(e)u- is identified as basic to pĕṛōk (պըռօկ) ‘bud/sprout’ and related forms, where the elements -ṛ- (ռ) and -t- (տ) likely function as frequentative/intensive suffixes. The Turkic origin of the word jalagh (ջալաղ) ‘grafting’ is contested; while potential Indo-European connections (g’hel- or gel-) exist, phonetic issues with the latter and strong parallels with regional Turkic (calaq) suggest borrowing is more probable. *Crucially, the etymology of dögyün || dĕēgün (դօ̈գյո̈ւն || դըէգո̈ւն) ‘branch collar of a tree’ is established as deriving from the native Armenian adjective tokun (տոկուն) ‘resilient, firm’ (from the root tok (տոկ) < PIE *dewǝ-/dowǝ-), having undergone regular dialectal sound changes (t>d, fronting). The word K’lpel || kĕlpēl (քլպել || կըլպէլ) ‘to strip, pare, peel’ is linked to the PIE root *(s)kel- ‘tear, pick up, scratch, take out.’ Overall, the study highlights the significance of Syunik-Artsakh dialectal data for reconstructing Armenian lexical history and resolving complex etymologies.

Key words: Syunik-Artsakh (Karabakh) dialect area, Agriculture thematic group, Etymology, Indo-European origin․

 

1. Introduction

 

The dialects of Syunik and Artsakh belong to a common inter-dialect group, known in linguistic literature as the North-Eastern or Karabakh-Shamakhi inter-dialect group, or more recently, the Syunik-Artsakh dialects. The historical territory of these dialects includes the modern Republic of Armenia’s marzes of Syunik, Vayots Dzor, Gegharkunik, the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh, and the historical provinces of Utik, Artsakh, and Paytakaran. This dialect area, rich in archaic features, presents fertile ground for investigating unresolved issues in Armenian historical linguistics and etymology. One significant challenge lies in identifying the origins of dialectal words, particularly those related to traditional domains like agriculture, which may preserve ancient Indo-European lexicon or reflect complex histories of language contact and internal development. Many such terms lack clear etymologies or have been erroneously attributed to loan sources.

The primary goal of this paper is to examine the etymology of several such problematic agricultural and vegetation terms specific to or prominent in the Syunik-Artsakh dialects: tsants (ծանծ), hashan (հաշան), pĕṛōk (պըռօկ), jalagh (ջալաղ), dögyün (դօ̈գյո̈ւն), and k’lpēl (քլպել). By applying the historical-comparative method and analyzing dialect-specific phonological and semantic developments, this study aims to: 1) propose Indo-European origins or native Armenian etymologies for these terms, challenging previous assumptions where applicable, and 2) demonstrate the value of Syunik-Artsakh dialectal data in uncovering linguistic archaisms and refining Armenian etymological research.

 

2. Materials and methods

 

The material of this study is the words included in the lexical group “Agriculture, vegetation” of Syunik-Artsakh dialectal area, which have never been subjected to linguistic study or have been mentioned among the non-etymological words. With the help of the historical-comparative method, we have tried to examine and determine the etymology of those words which, according to our assumptions, have an Indo-European origin, but over time, due to external influences, they have undergone semantic changes. A significant proportion of these words have not been the subject of extensive linguistic examination, and thus, their potential Indo-European origin remains uncharted. A portion of these terms have until now been deemed non-etymological or of indeterminate derivation.

To analyze these terms, we employed the historical-comparative method, a widely used approach in etymological studies. This method involves the comparison of linguistic forms across different Indo-European languages to trace their development and transformation over time. A comprehensive collection of dialectal words related to agriculture was assembled from diverse sources, including field research, historical linguistic texts, and existing dialect dictionaries. Particular attention was given to words that exhibited phonetic and morphological structures suggesting Indo-European roots. The phonetic evolution of the selected words was then examined in comparison with reconstructed Proto-Indo-European roots. This included the identification of sound changes, vowel shifts, and consonantal transformations characteristic of Armenian dialectal developments. Words with potential Indo-European origins were analyzed for semantic shifts over time. This step involved comparing the meanings of the selected words with their cognates in other Indo-European languages, as well as assessing their functional roles in agricultural terminology. The geographic distribution and utilization of the selected vocabulary were mapped across various Syunik-Artsakh dialects to ascertain patterns of retention, innovation, or borrowing. The findings were cross-referenced with previous etymological studies, including those of Hrachia Acharyan^[1-4], Gevorg Jahukyan^[5], Carl Buck^[6] and other linguists specializing in Armenian dialectology and Indo-European linguistics.

Utilizing this methodological framework, the present study aims to provide a comprehensive linguistic analysis of agricultural terminology.

 

3․ Results

 

Although the dialect area has shrunk a lot today, the dialects of Syunik-Artsakh are considered active and developing. The dialect group has a rich vocabulary. With the help of synchronic and diachronic comparison, it is found that:

1. The dialects of Syunik and Artsakh have existed since the time when the Indo-European element was established in the historical area.^[7-8]
2. Dialects have had a harmonious development despite various external and internal influences.
3. From the qualitative and quantitative study of words of Indo-European origin (88 words) used in the field of agriculture, it turns out that the main occupation of people in Syunik-Artsakh territory from the prehistoric period was farming. In addition, unique terms have been preserved, which are evidence that the locals have long tried to recognize nature and ensure a high economic level.

 

4․ Discussion

 

The Syunik-Artsakh dialectal vocabulary contains numerous words of Indo-European descent related to agriculture and vegetation, attesting to the significant role of this field in the lives of the native population.

Several of these words require detailed lexical and etymological analysis. This study aims to address this gap by examining specific dialectal units such as tsants (ծանծ) ‘wheat husk/chaff,’ the term hashan (հաշան) (related to threshing/drying straw), pĕṛōk (պըռօկ) ‘bud/sprout,’ jalagh (ջալաղ) ‘graft(ing),’ and dögyün (դօ̈գյո̈ւն) ‘branch collar,’ utilizing the historical-comparative method.

 

4․1․ Etymology of several words of Indo-European origin

 

4․1․1. The tsants (ծանծ) word meaning ‘grain husk and crushed straw’ is derived by H. Acharyan from the root^[2] of the word tsets > tsetsel (ծեծ>ծեծել) ‘beating > beat’ by bringing evidence from the borrowed form in Georgian. G. Jahukyan accepts tsets > tsntsots’ (ծեծ > ծնծոց) ‘crush > beating’ possible transition, but he questions Indo-European correlation and does not consider a reliable parallel version of Georgian ĵenĵa «ծեծել» ‘beat, crush’, enĵi, «խծուծ»^[5] ‘remnants of hemp threads’. We compare all this with the dialectic word of tsütsün (ծո̈ւծո̈ւն) ‘blackberry bush, also rosehip, which is used as a side material to make fire by crushing (beating) it, or as a candle by prekeeping it in oil’^[9], and which is not mentioned in the dialect testimonies of the Armenian Scientific Dialectology. The Indo-European base of the word tsets (ծեծ) ‘beating’ *g՛eg՛- and the dialectal evidence (‘burn the stem by beating’, alternatively tsutsun anel ծո̈ւծո̈ւն անէլ ‘to beat, to crush’), to our mind, reinforce the opinion that the word tsants (ծանծ) (the husks of wheat and oaks) is related to Indo-European origin.

The concept of ‘beating or crushing wheat grains with a crushing tool’ is related to the expression hashan anel (հաշան անել) ‘lay the grain wheat,’ the examination of which is still ongoing despite ongoing debates and discussions about its origin. The word hashel (հաշել) ‘lay the grain wheat’ is quite old within the dialectal group and is attested in 19th-century Utik dialect wordstock as ashan-hashan (աշահ–հաշան)^[10].

The etymological issue was first explored by G. Jahukyan^[11-12] and A. Margaryan^[13] and was later expanded upon by V. Hambardzumyan^[14]. A. Margaryan, based on the core meaning of the concept, rejects the derivation of the word ashan (աշան) ‘lay the grain wheat’ from ‘autumn’. However, the authors ultimately leave the origin of ashan (աշան) unresolved.

In recent years, V. Hambardzumyan has been deeply engaged in the etymological study of this term. Synthesizing previous viewpoints and possible interpretations, he emphasizes the temporal aspect of the word’s origin. He proposes the Indo-European root *(e)s-en ‘harvest time, summer’ and establishes relevant parallels in Indo-European languages^[14].

4․1․2. We tentatively include the words ashan || hashan (աշան || հաշան) in the list of words with Indo-European origin, combining certain observations with existing studies. In our view, these insights will be useful in addressing the etymological issues surrounding this word.

We acknowledge that ashan (աշան) ‘dried straw’ may be derived from (h)ashan ((հ)աշան). However, its meaning does not stem from the commonly accepted definitions of ‘to wear out, to be exhausted, to be weakened, to become sick,’ as recorded in most dictionaries reflecting Old Armenian vocabulary. This interpretation is based on recent linguistic studies^[15]. Nor do we accept A. Margaryan’s claim that it originates from the ‘physical’ meaning of the root hash(-an) (հաշ(-ան))-‘exhaustion, weight loss, wearing out’^[13].

Instead, we propose that the meaning of the root ash- || hash- (աշ- || հաշ-) derives from the practice of spreading grain husks on the threshing floor-i.e., their intended purpose of being scattered, spread, and shattered. Naturally, the goal of this process is drying and burning, from which the notions of ‘exhaustion’ and related semantic developments could have emerged. These nuances are best expressed in original Armenian texts^[16].

Our hypothesis is based on the following factors:

1. a) Voice distinctions in the verb hashel (‘to dry straw, grass’):

Active: hashel (‘to dry straw’)

Neutral: ‘to exhaust, to wear out’

Passive: ‘to be exhausted, to be worn out’ (tsiwrēl (ծիւրուել))^[17].

1. b) Multiplicity of meanings.
2. c) Synonymic relationships, including:

mashel (մաշել) ‘wear out’

tsiwrēl (ծիւրել) ‘weaken’

tsiwrēts’uts’anel, halel (ծիւրեցուցանել, հալել) ‘melt’

vatnel (վատնել) ‘waste’

tkarats’uts’anel (տկարացուցանել) ‘sicken’^[17]

korusanel (կորուսանել) ‘lose’^[18].

1. d) Causal links between action and purpose-the concept of ashan || hashan (hashēl) (աշան || հաշան (հաշէլ)) and its entire set of related actions is ultimately aimed at drying and processing the material.

It can be argued that the most common meanings in Old Armenian followed those present in dialects, suggesting that semantic formation and expansion occurred through verb gender, metaphor, and other features characteristic of linguistic thought. Taking these factors into account, along with the structural analyses of our predecessors, we propose the following hypotheses:

The Old Armenian verb hashel (հաշել) ‘to dry’ and the dialectal form (h)ashel ((հ)աշել) may have originated from a single base meaning-‘to sprinkle, scatter, spread’ (շաղ տալ, ցրել, այսուայնկողմ սփռել).

The Old Armenian hashel (հաշել) ‘to dry’ and the dialectal (h)ashel ((հ)աշել) may be synonymous but of different origins, while the presence of h- (-հ-) suggests a common root.

There are lexical and semantic similarities between hashel (հաշել) ‘to dry’ and kha(r)shel (խա(ր)շել) ‘to boil.’ The phonetic changes involving kh (խ) and h (հ) remain controversial. For example, if we accept that the dialectal hashēl (հաշէլ) ‘to dry’ originates from the Indo-European root khrs- ‘to burn, to warm,’ with the loss of r (ր) and the transformation of kh > h (խ > հ), then hashel (հաշէլ) ‘to dry’ may have entered the Syunik-Artsakh (Karabakh) dialect through an alternative linguistic pathway. It must be acknowledged that this proposed phonetic development (khrs- > hash-) presents challenges, as the kh > h shift is not universally applied across the Syunik-Artsakh lexicon, and the loss of intervocalic r in this specific context would require further explanation or analogy within Armenian historical phonology. In this dialectal group, the change of kh > h (խ-հ) is primarily seen in words such as khaghōgh > havōgh (խաղօղ > հավօղ), khagh > hagh (խաղ > հաղ), khaghagh > haghagh (խաղաղ > հաղաղ), and khaghĕs > haghs (խաղըս > հաղս); however, this pattern does not extend to all words. The sporadic nature of this sound change suggests it might be conditioned by specific phonetic environments or represent lexical diffusion rather than a regular rule, making the direct derivation from khrs— tentative.

Determining which khrs- derivative is primary in Armenian is difficult, as dialectal forms such as khasham || khashemnĕ || khashēvnĕ || khishēmnĕ || khashenmn (խաշամ || խաշեմնը || խաշէվնը || խիշէմնը || խաշենմն) exist. These can be compared to khazal (խազալ): “large drops of dew from yellow leaves falling on the ground” (“Դեղին տերևներից ցողի խոշոր կաթիլները մետաղի ծանրությամբ ընկան խազալի վրա”) ^[19], which appears in Old Armenian texts with the meaning ‘to suffer’ in both nominal and verbal forms. In the works of Syunik and Artsakh writers, khasham (խաշամ) is used nominally to mean ‘dry leaf, withered autumn foliage.’ While the literary examples vividly illustrate the meaning of khasham as brittle, dry, often fallen plant matter, establishing a direct etymological link to hashan solely based on this requires caution. However, the shared semantic field—referring specifically to dried-out, perhaps sun-baked or heat-affected vegetation (straw in the case of hashan, leaves in the case of khasham)—strengthens the possibility of a common conceptual, if not directly derivable phonetic, origin related to drying or withering.

Several examples from literary sources illustrate this usage:

“The bear attacks, the man and the bear wrestle, and a struggle for life and death begins on the fallen autumn khasham… The enraged bear throws the man off a cliff. Fortunately, Simon lands on a soft pile of khasham accumulated beneath the rock.” («Արջը վրա է հասնում, մարդ ու արջ գրկում են իրար և կյանքի ու մահվան կռիվ է սկսվում նոր թափված խաշամի մեջ։ …Գազազած արջը նրան շպրտում է քարափից ցած։ Բարեբախտաբար Սիմոնն ընկնում է ժայռի տակ կուտակված փափուկ խաշամի վրա»)^[20].

“From the hem of my shirt / And the sleeve / Worn, colorful, / Khashamanman like fallen leaves / Patches / The wind tears / Mixing them with the falling khasham from the trees… Khasham, what khasham, / Hot lavash / The cattle eat / And are never satisfied.” («Շապիկիս փեշքից / Ու թևքից կախված / Մաշված, գույնզգույն, / Խաշամանման / Կարկատանները / Պոկում է քամին, / Խառնում ծառերից / Թափվող խաշամին… Խաշամ, ինչ խաշամ, Թեժաթուխ լավաշ. / Տավարն ուտում է / Ու չի կշտանում»)^[21].

“…the autumn khasham rustles and crumbles under my feet…” («…Խշխշում է ու փշրվում / Խաշամն աշնան՝ ոտքերիս տակ…»)^[22].

Could these variations have evolved and acquired semantic nuances due to the kh (խ) to h (հ) transformation?

The semantic connotations of these words are most evident in etymological studies^[23] of kharshēl (խարշել) ‘to boil.’ This perspective is further supported by the related meanings of hash(an)ēl (հաշ(ան)էլ) ‘to dry’ and yĕēshnēl (յըէշնէլ) ‘to dry leaves, to mold and dry.’ Furthermore, the semantic link between the proposed core meaning of ‘drying/burning’ (potentially from khrs-) and the attested Old Armenian meanings like ‘to wear out, to be exhausted’ (hashil) can be understood through metaphorical extension. Intense drying, especially under the sun or heat (inherent in the khrs— root), leads to physical brittleness, fragility, and loss of substance in materials (like straw or leaves becoming khasham). This physical ‘wearing out’ or becoming weakened through drying/heating could plausibly be extended metaphorically to represent the weakening or exhaustion of living beings or resources, aligning with synonyms like mashel (‘wear out’) and tsiwrēl (‘weaken’). The very process associated with hashan anel (threshing and laying out grain/straw to dry) was laborious agricultural work performed under the sun, directly linking the action of ‘drying’ with physical ‘exhaustion’.

4.1.3. Pĕṝōk (պըռօկ) and its linguistic connections in the context of the PIE root *b(e)u-

In the Syunik-Artsakh dialects, the word pĕṝōk (պըռօկ) carries multiple meanings, including ‘sprout, bud, shoot,’ ‘fresh leaf of the mulberry tree used to feed silkworms,’ ‘measles,’ and ‘a bump with a red top.’ Expressions derived from this base include pĕṝōk k’ĕ/its’il (պըռօկ քը/իցիլ), pĕṝkēl (պըռկէլ), pĕṝōk-pĕṝōk (պըռօկ-պըռօկ), meaning ‘to bud, to blossom, blossomed/swollen.’

Parallels in structure and meaning can be observed with the Classical Armenian word busht (բուշտ) ‘bump,’ which H. Acharyan^[1] examined in detail. Dialectal data may support G. Jahukyan’s view^[5] that busht (բուշտ) corresponds to the Proto-Indo-European root *b(e)u- (or *b(h)(e)u-) ‘to swell, inflate,’ although the origin of the element -sht (-շտ) remains unidentified^[1].

The concepts expressed by the PIE root *b(e)u- are primarily reflected in various Armenian derivatives, such as the dialectal words pĕṝōsh (պըռօշ), pĕṝunk (պըռունկ), pĕṝōk (պըռօկ), pĕtōk (պըտօկ), which convey meanings like ‘brim, lip, edge, verge, top,’ preserving the notion of ‘swelling, rising’ (cf. also meanings like ‘to swell, grow, boast’). Both in bu(-sht) (բու(-շտ))^[26] and in these related words, the basic component appears as the Armenian reflex of the root *b(e)u-, considering the regular Armenian sound change b > p (բ > պ). For comparison, similar native Armenian formations include ptuk, ptkunk, ptkants (պտուկ, պտկունք, պտկանց) ‘tip, head’^[4].

The elements -ṛ- (-ռ-) and -t- (-տ-) present in these words (pĕṝōsh, pĕṝunk, pĕṝōk, pĕtōk) likely correspond to known Armenian suffixes or suffix-like elements expressing frequentative/iterative (-t-) and intensive/frequentative (-ṛ-) meanings (cf. kotṛtel (կոտրտել) ‘to break into pieces’, t’ṛvṛtal (թռվռտալ) ‘to flutter’; doġṛal (դողռալ) ‘to shiver intensely’, t’avalṛel (թավալռել) ‘to roll repeatedly’). In this context, they might emphasize the intensity or multiplicity of swelling or the state of being an edge/tip (e.g., multiple buds represented by pĕṝōk).

The word pӓsh (պա̈շ) ‘slope, steep mound’^[27], attested in the dialects of Goris, Gandzak, and Kazakh, also likely derives from the *b(e)u- root. A similar semantic development (‘swell’ > ‘hill, mound’) is observed in other IE languages, for example, Latin bucca (‘swollen, stuffed cheek,’ then ‘mouth’) [28], Greek βουνός (bounós, ‘hill, mound’)^[29], Swedish puk (‘tumor, abscess’). The Armenian dialectal word pӓsh (պա̈շ) is sometimes groundlessly compared to the Turkic loanword bash (բաշ) ‘head,’ but pӓsh never carries this meaning in Armenian dialects. Instead, the semantic developments of *b(e)u- are richly preserved precisely in the Syunik-Artsakh dialects. Compare also puz/sti (պուզ/ստի) ‘sharp edge’ and pӓsh (պա̈շ) ‘steep mound,’ both of which exhibit sound changes characteristic of Armenian: b > p (բ > պ) and s/z > sh (ս/զ > շ). Similar phonological changes are evident in Proto-Celtic *bek(k)o- (‘beak, snout’)^[30].

This analysis suggests that Armenian dialects, particularly the Syunik-Artsakh vernaculars, preserve a rich and layered evolution of the Proto-Indo-European root *b(e)u-, demonstrating how phonological transformations and morphological patterns have shaped a diverse set of meanings related to growth, swelling, and prominence.

 

4.2. Dialect Words of Indo-European Origin or Dialect Words Related to the Ancestral Old Armenian Vocabulary

 

4․2․1․ The Etymology of the word jalagh (ջալաղ)

1. Introduction: Meaning, Forms, and Distribution of the Word։ In the agricultural terminology of the Syunik-Artsakh dialects, the word jalagh (ջալաղ) is encountered, meaning ‘grafting’ (referring to the action and/or the material used for grafting, i.e., a scion or branch)^[36]. It also has phonetic variants such as jēlagh (ջէլաղ), jĕlagh (ջըլաղ), jälägh (ջա̈լաղ), and corresponding verbal forms jĕlĕghēl (ջըլղէլ), jĕlaghĕl (ջըլաղէլ). Notably, a word similar in form and meaning (calaq ‘grafting, plant grafting’) is also attested in neighboring Atrpatakan Turkic^[34], as well as calak (aşı) ‘grafting material’^[35]. The origin of the word remains uncertain and subject to discussion. The word with this meaning is absent from Middle Armenian data, although Avetikyan et al.^[16] mention the uncertain jalhank’ (ջալհանք) (‘pagan holiday’) and jalot (ջալոտ) (‘beating wand, knobstick, whip’), whose connection to the word under discussion is doubtful.
2. Loan Hypothesis (Turkic/Persian Sources)
3. a) The Most Plausible Parallel: As noted, the existence of the word calaq (‘grafting’) in Atrpatakan Turkic^[34] provides very strong evidence in favor of borrowing. The semantic and phonetic proximity, as well as the geographical adjacency (Syunik-Artsakh and Atrpatakan), make this hypothesis highly probable. It is possible that Armenian borrowed from Turkic, or (less likely) the reverse direction, or that it is a common regional (areal) word.
4. b) Other Turkic/Persian Parallels: Possible connections with other words have been discussed, but they are semantically or phonetically distant and less likely: Turkic çatlak (‘crack’)^[31], çalak || calak (‘branched tree’)^[32-33], the Persian loanword çalık || çalak (‘agile, restless’), Turkic çaluk (‘hit, blow’, cf. Arm. ch’alik (չալիկ) ‘cane’). Similarly, a connection with Persian čelik (چلیک, ‘barrel’) or Turkic çelik çomak is not justified for the meaning ‘grafting’.
5. c) H. Acharyan’s Viewpoint: Acharyan^[4] classified the word jal (ջալ) (‘piece of wood for burning’) as a Middle Armenian word, considering it a possible loanword from Turkic or Persian, based on the entry be՛le — jal (բէլէ — ջալ) (‘stick for a game’) in Byuzandatsi’s dictionary^[39]. However, the semantic connection between this word jal (ջալ) and jalagh (ջալաղ) (‘grafting’) is not clear.
6. Native Armenian / Indo-European Origin Hypotheses
7. a) PIE Root *g՛hel-: Jahukyan^[40] rejected a Turkic or Persian origin and proposed connecting the word to the Proto-Indo-European root *g՛hel- (‘to cut, chop’). The semantic connection could be justified as follows: the act of ‘cutting/chopping’ is essential in the grafting process (cutting the scion, making an incision on the stock). This hypothesis has no phonetic problems (as the development g՛h > j (գ՛հ > ջ) is possible in Armenian), but direct parallels confirming the development of a term for ‘grafting’ specifically from this root in Armenian or other IE languages are lacking. The connection of the game name Ch’ĕlĕngi (չըլընգի) to this root^[40] is also hypothetical.
8. b) PIE Root *gel-: A connection with the PIE root *gel- (‘to roll, condense, accumulate, connect’)^[29] has also been suggested.

• • Semantic justification: Certain parallels related to round formations or joining could support this hypothesis: Gk. ganglíon (γαγγλίον, ‘a ball that forms after grafting’), Lat. galla (‘gall-apple’), Alb. gogëlë (‘pellet, knob’)^[29]. In Armenian, the terms mayran (մայրան) (‘grafting spot, tree bend’) or mēran (մէրան) might also be related to this concept. The semantic link could be that grafting involves joining, connecting, and often leads to a thickening at the base of the branch.
  • Phonetic problem: The main and very serious obstacle for this hypothesis is the phonetic development. The sound change *g > ĵ (գ > ջ) for this root is not established as a regular sound law in Armenian. Although isolated cases exist (dialectal gil > jil (գիլ > ջիլ)), they do not provide sufficient basis to confirm the gel- > jalagh (ջալաղ) transition. The proposed reconstruction gǝl-(o)-lo- also remains hypothetical.

1. c) Connection with other Armenian words: The semantic connection of the words jlanal (ջլանալ) (‘to make thinner, reduce’^[37] or ‘to decrease, weaken’^[38]) with the word jalagh (ջալաղ) (‘grafting’) is unclear.

The etymology of the word jalagh (ջալաղ) remains uncertain. The comparison with Atrpatakan Turkic calaq (‘grafting’) provides strong evidence in favor of borrowing, considering the semantic, phonetic, and geographical proximity. On the other hand, hypotheses of native Indo-European origin, although possessing certain semantic justifications (especially Jahukyan’s proposed connection with *g՛hel- ‘to cut’, which has no phonetic issues), face either the lack of direct parallels (in the case of g’hel-) or serious phonetic obstacles (the improbability of the *gel- > jalagh (ջալաղ) transition). It is also possible that the word is originally Armenian (e.g., from g’hel-), but its external phonetic shape contributed to it being later perceived as a foreign loanword. Nevertheless, based on the currently available data, the loan hypothesis (specifically from Atrpatakan Turkic or as a common regional word) appears more probable than the hypotheses of Indo-European origin. Further comparative-historical and dialectological studies are needed for a definitive conclusion.

4․2․2. The Etymology of dögyün || dĕēgün (դօ̈գյո̈ւն || դըէգո̈ւն)

1. a) Origin from the Armenian root tok (տոկ): The best-substantiated and linguistically supported hypothesis connects the word dögyün (դöգյուն) to the native Armenian root tok (տոկ) (originating from the PIE root *dewǝ-/*dowǝ-, meaning ‘to endure, last long’) and the adjective tokun (տոկուն) derived from it.

1․ Semantic justification: This connection perfectly explains both meanings of the word. The core meaning of ‘firm, durable, resilient’, which is preserved in the adjectival usage (‘a firm, resilient, steadfast person’; e.g., tokun kamk’ (տոկուն կամք) ‘steadfast will’, tokun mard (տոկուն մարդ) ‘resilient person’), fully corresponds to the nominal meaning (‘the firm, hard part of a tree; trunk/base’). The semantic development from an adjective (general: ‘firm’) to a noun (specific: ‘name for the firm part’) is a common phenomenon in language evolution, resulting in the nominal meaning becoming primary, while the adjectival meaning was retained secondarily.

2․ Morphological basis: The assumption of the form tokun (տոկուն) is well-founded, as the suffix -un (-ուն) is a known adjective-forming suffix in Armenian (< PIE *-ono-), creating words that denote a quality or state (cf. imastun (իմաստուն) ‘wise’, zart’un (զարթուն) ‘awake’).

3․ Phonetic development:

1. t > d voicing: The key phonetic justification for this hypothesis is the t > d (տ > դ) shift. Extensive examples confirm that in the Goris dialect, the voicing of intervocalic t (տ) (t > d) (տ > դ) is a regular and widespread phenomenon (e.g., tun > dön (տուն > դöն), ōtar > ōdar (օտար > օդար), gitel > gidäl (գիտել > գիդա̈լ), katarel > kadarel (կատարել > կադարէլ), etc.). Therefore, the transformation of the hypothetical form tokun (տոկուն) into the d-initial (դ) form dögyün (դöգյուն) fully aligns with the phonological rules of the Goris dialect, provided the word was used in the appropriate phonetic environment (e.g., within a phrase where the t (տ) sound appears between vowels or next to a sonorant).
2. -un > -gyün/-ēgun fronting/palatalization: The change in the ending is also likely explainable through the internal rules of the dialect. It is probable that regressive fronting (assimilation) occurred: first, the u (ու) vowel in the final -un (-ուն) syllable was fronted, becoming ü (ո̈ւ). Subsequently, this fronted ü (ո̈ւ) vowel, following the rules of vowel harmony, influenced the preceding o (օ) vowel, also causing it to front to ö (ö). Thus, the phonetic development could have been: tokun (տոկուն) > *tokün (տոկո̈ւն) > *dokün (դոկո̈ւն) > dögün (դöգո̈ւն) (where intervocalic k > g (կ > գ) voicing is also assumed). Similar vowel changes and harmony phenomena are observed in other words in the Goris dialect (cf. šlor > šilör > šülör (շլոր > շիլöր > շո ̈ւլöր), khndzor > khindzör > khündzör (խնձոր > խինձö > խո ̈ւնձöր)).
3. b) Exclusion of other hypotheses:
4. Loan hypotheses: Proposed parallels with Turkic (düğüm ‘knot’)^[44-45] or Middle Persian (tāg ‘branch’)^[46] remain unsubstantiated, either due to semantic mismatch or the lack of evidence for such borrowing into Armenian. The existence of a well-founded explanation based on internal Armenian data makes external loan hypotheses less likely.
5. Other Indo-European roots: A connection with the PIE root *dhegwh- (‘to burn’), while perhaps superficially appealing, faces serious semantic problems. A connection with the PIE root *dou- (‘to penetrate’, cf. Arm. togor (տոգոր)) encounters a phonetic obstacle (regarding the expected initial t (տ))^[5], whereas the tokun > dögyün (տոկուն > դöգյուն) hypothesis fully explains the initial d (դ) based on the regular sound changes of the Goris dialect.

Synthesizing the dual semantics of the word dögyün || dĕēgün (դօ̈գյո̈ւն || դըէգո̈ւն), the function of the Armenian adjective-forming suffix -un (-ուն), and the regular nature of both the t > d (տ > դ) voicing and vowel harmony (fronting/palatalization) in the Goris dialect, it can be concluded with a high degree of probability that the word is a dialectal development of the Armenian adjective tokun (տոկուն) (from the root tok (տոկ)). It retained its original adjectival meaning (‘firm, resilient’) and developed a specialized nominal meaning (‘firm trunk/base of a branch’). Phonetically, the word underwent the regular voicing (t > d) (տ > դ) and fronting (o > ö (օ > ö), u > ü (ու > ո̈ւ)) characteristic of this dialect. This explanation currently stands as the most substantiated and comprehensive account of the word’s origin, leaving other hypotheses in significantly weaker positions. The phonetic mechanism of the ending change (-un > -gyün/-ēgun) (-ուն > -գյո̈ւն/-էգո̈ւն) is also plausibly explained by the internal patterns of the dialect, although it might warrant further refinement in future studies.

4․2․3. K’lpel Kĕlpēl (քլպել || կըլպէլ) means ‘to strip, to pare, to peel’. In the Goris dialect, it also signifies ‘to rob, to cut, to deprive of property’. This word is derived from k’ĕlĕvhan anēl (քըլըվհան անէլ), meaning ‘to tear’, which is related to the Indo-European root (s)kel- meaning ‘to tear, pick up, scratch, take out’^[47]. Similarly, the words *shĕghat’ (շըղաթ), meaning ‘slice, piece of watermelon, melon’, and ts’ilep (ցիլեպ), meaning ‘piece of wood’, can be compared to k’aghēl and k’ēgh (քաղէլ, քէղ) meaning ‘stick’.

 

5. Table of the thematic group “Agriculture, vegetation”

 

 

1	2	3	4	5	6
8.11. Farmer	—	—	—	8.11. Farmer	—
8.12. Field	1.	—	—	8.12. art	art
	2.	—	—	and	hand
	3.	—	—	harawunk’	—
8.13. Garden	—	—	—	8.13. Garden	—
	4.	—	—	aygi	—
	5.	—	—	8.131. khēch’	khēch’ak
8.14. Barn	—	—	—	8.14. Barn	—
8.15. Cultivate, Till	—	—	—	8.15. Cultivate	—
	6.	—	—	8.151. kori	kōri
	7.	—	?	aṛoganem	—
	8.	—	?	holosem	—
8.21. Plow (vb.; sb.)	9.	—	—	8.21. arawr	arōr
	10.	—	?	herk-em	hērkēl
8.212. Furrow	—	—	—	8.212. Furrow	—
	11.	—	?	dzlem	ts’lel
8.22. Dig	12.	—	—	8.22. peghem	—
	13.	—	?	p’orem	p’ōrēl
8.23. Spade	—	—	—	8.23. Spade	—
8.24. Shovel	14.	—	—	8.24. t’i	tē || ti
8.25. Hoe	15.	—	—	8.25. bir	pihĕr
8.26. Fork	16.	—	—	8.26. eghan	yēghan || yĕghōli
	17.	—	?	hetsanots’	—
8.27. Rake	—	—	—	8.27. Rake	—
8.28. Harrow	18.	D.	—	8.28. ts’ak’(an)	ts’ӓk’ӓn
8.31. Sow; Seed	19.	—	—	8.31. sermanem	sērmēl
	20.	—	—	serm(n)	sērm
8.32. Mow, Reap	21.	—	—	8.32. k’aghem	k’aghēl
	22.	D.	—	k’aghel	—
	23.	D.SA	—	k’lpel	k’ĕlĕpēl
	24.	—	—	8.321. at-ok’	—
	25.	D.SA	—	tṛuz	tĕṛōz
8.33. Sickle; Scythe	—	—	—	8.33. Sickle; Scythe	—
	26.	—	?	gerandi	kērandu
	27.	—	—	yeghan	yĕghōli
8.34. Thresh	28.	D.	—	8.34. maṛel	—
8.35. Threshing-Foor	29.	—	?	8.35. kam(n)	kamnĕ
	30.	—	?SA	hashan	ashan || hashan
	31.	—	—	mghegh	mĕghēhg
8.41. Crop, Harvest	32.	—	—	8.41. ber-k’	pērk’
	33.	—	—	ardiwn-k’	—
	34.	—	—	ptugh	ptōgh
	35.	—	—	era-(khayri)	—
	36.	—	—	8.411. bard	bard
	37.	—	—	berri	—
8.42. Grain	—	—	—	8.42. Grain	—
	38.	—	—	8.421. tsants	ts’ütsün
8.43. Wheat	—		—	8.43. Wheat	—
	39.	D.SA	—	dzavar	tsӓvӓr
	40.	D.SA	—	hachar	achӓr
	41.	D.SA	—	kut	kōt
	42.	D.SA	—	hatik	hatēg
	43.	D.SA	?	koriz	kōrindz
	44.	D.SA	—	koreak	kōrēk
	45.	—	—	8.431. korkot	kō/urkōt
8.44. Barley	46.	—	?	8.44. gari	kӓri
8.45. Rye	—	—	—	8.45 Rye	—
8.46. Oats	—	—	—	8.46 Oats	—
8.47. Maize, Corn	—	—	—	8.47. Maize, Corn	—
8.48. Rice	—	—	—	8.48. Rice	—
8.51. Grass	47.	—	—	8.51. dalar	tӓlӓr
	48.	D.SA	—	gēj	kēch
8.52. Hay	—	—	—	8.52. Hay	—
	49.	—	—	8.521. t’aṛam	t’aṛam
	50.	—	—	t’oṛom	t’ōṛōm
8.53. Plant	51.	—	—	8.53. boys	—
	52.	—	—	8.531. aluch	haluch/j
	53.	D.SA	?SA	zkeṛ	zĕkēṛ
	54.	—	—	bogh	pēk’i
	55.	D.SA	?SA	poli	pōli
	56.	—	?SA	gaghdzn	gaylik
	57.	—	—	geghdz	—
	58.	—	—	gindz	kindz
	59.	—	—	daghdz(n)	tӓghkhtsĕ
	60.	D.	—	t’al	t’al
	61.	—	—	t’aght’	—
	62.	D.	—	t’eluk	t’ēluk
	63.	—	—	mamuṛ	mamuṛnĕ
	64.	—	?	matategh	mĕtatēgh
	65.	—	?	matatuk	—
	66.	D.	—	moghk	—
	67.	—	—	awel	vülük
	68.	—	?	vosi	vēsi
	69.	—	?	tatask	—
	70.	—	—	ts’ak’i	ts’ӓk’i
	71.	—	—	k’agh	k’agh
	72.	—	—	k’egh	k’ēgh
8.54. Root	73.	—	—	8.54. arm(-at)	—
	74.	D.SA	?SA	takṛi	takṛi
	75.	D.	—	8.541. deghd	—
8.55. Branch	76.	—	?SA	8.55. ost	vōst-an
	77.	—	—	ogor	—
	78.	—	—	koghr	—
	79.	D.SA	?SA	dogun	dōgün || dĕēgün
	80.	—	—	8.551. argat	—
	81.	—	—	boghboj	pĕghpōj > pĕghpĕkhōtēl
	82.	D.	—	dghbik	—
	83.	—	—	tsil	tsil
	84.	D.SA	?SA	bogh	pōkh
	85.	—	?SA	tsiwgh	tsōgh
	86.	—	—	ĕndzuim	—
	87.	D.	?SA	mol	mō -ōsh-a-vart’
	88.	D.SA	?SA	tal	ta/ӓl
	89.	—	—	morj	—
	90.	D.	—	shiw	shēv
	91.	—	—	och	—
	92.	—	—	p(l)pluk	—
	93.	—	—	ptuk	put, ptkēl
	94.	—	—	jov	—
	95.	—	?SA	steghn	tsghan
	96.	D.	—	ts’ak’	ts’ӓk’
	97.	D.	—	ts’ṛuk	—
8.56. Leaf	98.	—	—	8.56. t’er	t’ēr
	99.	—	—	t’ert’	t’ērt’
	100.	D.	—	mogh	—
	101.	—	?	saghart’	—
8.57. Flower	102.	—	?	8.57. tsaghik	tsaghēg
8.58. Rose	—	—	—	8.58. Rose	—
8.60. Tree = 1.42	103.	—	—	8.60. tsaṛ	tsaṛ
	104.	—	?SA	8.601. mayran	—
	105.	D.SA	—	plkan	pĕlkan
	106.	D.SA	—	pṛkel	pĕṛkēl
	107.	D.SA	—	pṛok	pĕṛōk (tinil)
	108.	D.SA	?SA	jalagh	jalagh
	109.	D.SA	—	aṛnēl	aṛnēl
8.61. Oak	—	—	—	8.61. kaghin	kaghin
8.62. Beech	—	—	—	8.62. Beech	—
8.63. Birch	110.	—	—	8.63. Birch	—
8.64. Pine	111.	—	?SA	8.64. mayri	mayri
	112.	—	—	kueni	kēni
8.65. Fir	113.	—	—	8.65. eghewni	yēghēvni
	114.	—	?	8.651. barti	—
	115.	—	—	hats’i	hats’i
	116.	—	—	t’eghawsh	—
	117.	—	—	t’eghi	t’ēghi || t’ēghē
	118.	—	—	noch(i)	—
	119.	—	—	ts’akh	ts’akh || chakh
	120.	D.SA	?SA	buk’i	pük’i
8.66. Acorn	121.	—	—	8.66 kaghin	kaghi/ēn
	122.	D.SA	—	t-koghin	tĕkōghin
8.67. Vine	123.	—	—	8.67. ort’	—
	124.	—	—	t’in	t’ӓnӓg
	125.	D.SA	?SA	chit’	chit’
	126.	D.SA	?SA	k’nt’ern(ĕ)	k’ĕnt’ērn(ĕ)
8.68. Tobacco	—	—	—	8.68 Tobacco	—
8.69. Smoke (Tobacco)	—	—	—	8.69. Smoke (Tobacco)	—

Note.

• Column 1: Provides the serial number (e.g., 8.11–8.69) for each semantic entry within the table. The entries represent terms belonging to the “Agriculture, vegetation” thematic group, largely following C. Buck’s framework^[6], and focusing on items potentially of Indo-European origin relevant to Armenian. This framework remains a valuable resource for comparative linguistics and has been elaborated upon by projects such as the one at the University of Texas at Austin (Liberal Arts).
• Column 2: Specifies the semantic concept (e.g., “Field,” “Garden”) corresponding to the Buck [6] category, sometimes repeating the item number from Column 1.
• Column 3: Indicates dialectal status or attestation within Armenian.

• • D.: Denotes that the word or form is considered dialectal within Armenian in general (not limited to the Syunik-Artsakh dialects).
  • D.SA: Denotes that the word or form is specifically attested within, or particularly relevant to, the Syunik-Artsakh (S.-A.) dialect group.
  • -: (Used in this column) Signifies that the corresponding term in Column 5 is generally considered Standard or Classical Armenian, not primarily dialectal in the sense marked by D. or D.SA.

• Column 4: Indicates uncertainty regarding the etymology or classification (particularly as Indo-European) of the term in Armenian.

• • ?: Denotes that the origin or the proposed interpretation of the word is considered questionable or uncertain for Armenian in general.
  • ?SA: Denotes that the uncertainty relates specifically to the Syunik-Artsakh (S.-A.) dialectal form presented in Column 6 or its suggested etymology.
  • -: Indicates that no specific uncertainty regarding etymology or classification is marked for this entry in this column.

• Column 5: Presents the corresponding Standard Armenian or Classical Armenian (Grabar) form for the concept, often including the classification number (e.g., 8.12., potentially following classifications used by scholars like G. Jahukyan^[48]), intended for comparison. The symbol “-” indicates that a standard/classical form for this specific concept is either unattested or not considered relevant/available for comparison in this context.

• Column 6: Presents the Syunik-Artsakh (S.-A.) dialectal form(s) corresponding to the concept, representing variants or the primary attested unit, rendered in a dialectal transcription. The symbol “-” indicates the absence of an attested or relevant S.-A. dialectal form for this specific entry in the table.

• The divisions indicated in bold lines in the table (for example 8.11-8.15) indicate the sub-areas of the thematic group.
• The text in light color means that these units are completely absent in Armenian․

 

6. Conclusions

 

• Instead of the 45 Indo-European words identified by Carl Buck, our research indicates the existence of 126 such words within the thematic group “Agriculture, vegetation” in Armenian. Furthermore, our analysis of the Syunik-Artsakh dialects reveals 88 words of Indo-European origin related to agriculture, constituting approximately 69% of the agricultural vocabulary in these dialects. We propose that terms like tsants (grain husk and crushed straw), hashan (to lay the grain wheat), pṛok (sprout, bud, shoot), päsh (slope, steep mound), jalagh (vaccine, grafting), and dēgün (branch collar of a tree), in addition to k’lpēl, are also of Indo-European origin. While these words may have undergone semantic and phonetic changes over time due to linguistic contact, they retain identifiable Indo-European features.

 

• Statisticsս

A numbered unit	According to C. Buck	Dialectical		Controversial		According to G. Jahukyan	Syunik and Artsakh
		in Armenian	S.-A.[1]	in Armenian	S.-A.

 

8.1.	5	0	0	1	0	8	4
8.2.	9	1	0	4	0	10	8
8.3	5	2	2	2	1	13	10
8.4.	8	0	6	2	0	15	12
8.5.	8	10	7	6	11	56	36
8.6.	10	9	0	1	6	24	18
Total	45	22	15	16	18	126	88

 

Reference

 

1. Acharyan, H., 1971. Hayeren Armatakan Baṛaran [Armenian Root Dictionary] (volumes 1-4), 1. Yerevani hamalsarani hratarakch’ut’yun: Yerevan, Armenia. pp. 1-698.
2. Acharyan, H., 1973. Hayeren Armatakan Baṛaran [Armenian Root Dictionary] (volumes 1-4), 2. Yerevani hamalsarani hratarakch’ut’yun: Yerevan, Armenia. pp. 1-688
3. Acharyan, H., 1977. Hayeren Armatakan Baṛaran [Armenian Root Dictionary] (volumes 1-4), 3. Yerevani hamalsarani hratarakch’ut’yun: Yerevan, Armenia. pp. 1-637.
4. Acharyan, H., 1979. Hayeren Armatakan Baṛaran [Armenian Root Dictionary] (volumes 1-4), 4. Yerevani hamalsarani hratarakch’ut’yun: Yerevan, Armenia. pp. 1-676.
5. Jahukyan, G., Hayeren Stugabanakan Baṛaran [Armenian Etymological Dictionary]. Asoghik: Yerevan, Armenia. pp. 5-820.
6. Buck, C., 1988. A Dictionary of selected synonyms in the principal Indo-European languages (A contribution to the history of ideas). University of Chicago press: Chicago & London, pp. 1-1515.
7. Kumunts, M., Margaryan, I., Khachatryan H., et al., 2024. The Historical Development of the Place Name in Armenian (Etymology of ‘Harzhis’ Sacred Area). Forum for Linguistic Studies. 6(6), 43–53. https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v6i6.7184.
8. Kumunts, M., Margaryan I., Nersisyan L., 2023. Semantic and Formal Image of Concepts Related to ‘Sensory Perceptions’ Preserved from the Indo-European Language in the Dialect Area. Wisdom. 25 (1), 189-202. https://doi.org/10.24234/wisdom.v25i1.959.
9. Sargsyan, A., 2013. Gharabaghi barbaṛi baṛaran [Dictionary of the Karabakh dialect]. Edit Print: Yerevan, Armenia. pp. 5-845.
10. Barkhutaryants, M., 1893. Aghuanits’ yerkir ev drats’ik’ [The Land of Aluank and the Neighbours]. Printing house. M. Sharadze: Tiflis, Georgia. pp. 1-305.
11. Jahukyan, G., 1993․ Stugabanut’yunner [Etymologies]․ Bulletin of Yerevan University․ No. 2 (80), 22-30․
12. Jahukyan, G., 1994. Ditoghut’yun mi ditoghut’yan aṛtiv [Observation on a Observation]. Bulletin of Yerevan University. No. 2 (83), 75-76.
13. Margaryan, A., 1994. “Ashan” baṛi ayl stugabanakan p’ordz [Another Etymological Experiment of the Word “Ashan”]. Bulletin of Yerevan University. No. 2 (83), 72-74․
14. Hambardzumyan, V., 2014. Armenian and Indo–European, Essays on Comparative Lexicology of the Armenian Language (Comparative-typological Variability). NAS RA: Yerevan, Armenia. pp. 3-184.
15. Khachatryan, L., 2016․ Grabari usumnakan baṛaran [Grabar (Old Armenian) Educational Dictionary]. St. Lazarus: Venice, Italy. 3-448.
16. Avetikean, G., Surmelean, Kh., Augerean, M., 1981. Nor baṛgirk’ haykazean lezui [New Dictionary of the Armenian Language] (volumes 1-2), 2. Yerevan University։ Yerevan, Armenia. pp. 5-1070․
17. Ghazaryan, R., 2000. Grabari baṛaran [Grabar (Old Armenian) Dictionary] (volumes 1-2), Vol. 1. Yerevan University: Yerevan, Armenia. pp. 5-318.
18. Ghazaryan, S., 2006. Grabari homanishneri baṛaran [Grabar Dictionary of Synonyms]. Yerevan University: Yerevan (Antelias, Lebanon). 3-701.
19. Bakunts, A., 1986. Erker [Works]. Soviet Writer: Yerevan, Armenia. pp. 3-672․
20. Ananyan, , 2015․ Patmvatsk’ner [Stories]․ Edit Print։ Yerevan, Armenia․ pp. 3-206․
21. Sahyan, H., 2011. Yerker [Works] (volumes 1-4), 1. Voskan Yerevantsi: Yerevan, Armenia. pp. 3-416.
22. Hakobyan, V., 1969․ Meghediner [Melodies]. Azərnəşr: Baku, Azerbaijan․ 3-41․
23. Bediryan, P., 1956. Stugabanakan verlutsut’yunner [Etymological analyzes]. Bulletin of Social Sciences. No. 7, 39-48․
24. Galstyan, A., Galstyan, S., Hovsepyan. K., et al., (eds.), 2016. Nor baṛer [New words], Part B (Language Institute after H. Acharyan, NAS RA). Asoghik: Yerevan, Armenia. pp. 4-184.
25. Nar-Dos, 1989. Erkeri zoghovatsu [Collection of works] (volumes 1-4), Vol. 1. Soviet writer: Yerevan, Armenia. pp. 5-684.
26. Martirosyan, H., 2010. Etymological dictionary of the Armenian inherited lexicon, Vol. 8. Brill: Leiden, pp. 3-951.
27. Sargsyan, A., Hovhannisyan, L., Sargsyan, N., et al., (eds.), 2008. Hayots’ lezvi barbaṛayin baṛaran [Dialect Dictionary of the Armenian Language] (volumes 1-7), 5 (Language Institute after H. Acharyan, NAS RA)․ Science։ Yerevan, Armenia․
28. Vaan, M., 2008․ Etymological dictionary of Latin and the other Italic languages, Vol. 7. Brill: Leiden, pp. 1-825.
29. Pokorny, J., Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, Vol. 2 (II Auflage). Francke Verlag: Bern, Switzerland. pp. 349-770.
30. Matasovic, R., 2009. Etymological dictionary of proto-Celtic, Vol. 9. Brill: Leiden, pp. 1-458.
31. Gülensoy, T., 1988․ Kütahya ve yöresi ağızları: inceleme-metinler-sözlük [Dialects of Kütahya and its region: review-texts-dictionary]․ Türk dil kurumu։ Ankara, Turkey․ 1-257.
32. TS, 1996. Tarama sözlüğü [Browse dictionary], 2nd ed. Türk Dili Kurumu Yayınları: Ankara, Turkey. pp. 747-1381.
33. TDK, Great Turkish Dictionary, https://sozluk.gov.tr/ (cited 21 March 2024).
34. Orujov, A. (eds.), 2006. Azərbaycan dilinin izahlı lüğəti [Explanatory dictionary of the Azerbaijani language] (volumes 1-4). Vol. 1. Şərq-qərb: Baku, Azerbaijan․ 7-744.
35. Karakurt, D., Aktarma sözlüğü [Transfer dictionary]. Deniz Karakurt։ Türkiye, pp. 1-380. https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=UENBDwAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&hl=tr&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false (cited 21 March 2024).
36. Acharyan, H., 1913. Hayerēn gawaṛakan baṛaran [Armenian Provincial Dictionary] (Eminian Ethnographic Collection). Vol. T, Oriental Languages of Lazarian Seminary: Tbilissi, Georgia. pp. 1-
37. Ghazaryan, R., Avetisyan, H., 2007. Norahayt baṛerĕ grabarum [Newly found words in Old Armenian]. YSU: Yerevan, Armenia, pp. 3-107․
38. Hovhannisyan, L., 2010. Grabari bar’aran: Nor haykazyan baṛaranum ch’vkayvats [Grabar Dictionary: Word not evidenced in the New Haykazyan Dictionary]. Edit Print: Yerevan, Armenia, pp. 4-293.
39. Buzandatsi, N., 1884. Baṛgirk’ I gaghierēn lezwe I hayerēn [Dictionary in the Ghalghian language in Armenian]. Tp. A. Y. Boyajian: Constantinople, Turkey. pp. 1-1298․
40. Jahukyan, G., 1967. Ocherki po istorii dopismennogo perioda armyanskogo yazika [Essays on the history of the pre-literate period of the Armenian language]. Academy of Sciences of the Armenian SSR: Yerevan, Armenia. pp. 5-383.
41. Lubotsky, A., 2007. Etymological dictionary of the Iranian verb, V 2. Brill: Leiden, Netherlands. pp. 1-418.
42. Sargsyan, A., Hovhannisyan, L., Sargsyan, N., et al., (eds.), 2001. Hayots’ lezvi barbaṛayin baṛaran [Dialect Dictionary of the Armenian Language] (volumes 1-7), 1 (Language Institute after H. Acharyan, NAS RA)․ Science։ Yerevan, Armenia․ pp. 1-427.
43. Margaryan, A., 1975. Gorisi barbaṛĕ [The dialect of Goris]. Yerevan University: Yerevan. pp. 3-565.
44. Nasilov D., Kormushin I., Dybo A., et al., (eds.), 2016. Drevnotyurskii slovar [Old Turkic Dictionary], 2nd ed. Gylym Baspasy: Astana, Kazakhstan․ 1-708․
45. Nadelyaev, V., Nasilov D., Tenishev E., et al., (eds.), 1969. Drevnotyurskii slovar [Old Turkic Dictionary]. Science: Leningrad, Russia. pp. 1-676․
46. Mackenzie, D., 1986. A concise pahlavi dictionary. Oxford university: New York, Toronto, London. USA. pp. 1-236.
47. Jahukyan, G., 1972. Hay barbaṛagitut’yan neratsut’yun [Introduction to Armenian Dialectology]. Academy of Sciences of the Armenian SSR: Yerevan, Armenia. pp. 5-347․
48. Jahukyan, G., 1987. Hayots’ lezvi patmut’yun: Nakhagrayin zhamanakashrjan [History of the Armenian Language: Pre-literary Period], H. Acharyan Institute of Language of the Academy of Sciences of the Armenian SSR: Yerevan, Armenia. 748 pages.

[1] Syunik and Artsakh.