Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Kim
Greco-Armenian
The persistence of a myth
Abstract: It has been generally held since the beginning of the 20th century that
Armenian is more closely related to Greek than to any other Indo-European branch.
A more recent minority opinion posits an especially close relationship between
Greek and Armenian, even going so far as to assume a period of Greco-Armenian
unity. Following upon recent publications, above all Clackson 1994, this paper
argues that the available evidence does not at all support this stronger hypothesis.
In contrast to the lexical innovations common to Greek and Armenian, the phono-
logical isoglosses shared by the two languages are extremely few and of an easily
repeatable nature. The morphological features claimed as shared innovations
may likewise represent independent developments and/or have parallels in other
Indo-European branches, whereas other features of verbal morphology rather ap-
pear to connect Armenian with Indo-Iranian or Balto-Slavic. These considerations
suggest that pre-Armenian belonged to a dialect continuum encompassing the
ancestors of Greek, Phrygian, and Indo-Iranian for some time after the breakup of
Proto-Indo-European, but made up a distinct speech community already by the
late 3rd millennium BC.
DOI 10.1515/if-2018-0009
and it is probably the most recent in time of the various ‘branches’ or subgroups of
the family.”3
Over the past few decades, however, there has emerged a tendency to interpret
Pedersen’s original hypothesis in terms of an especially close mutual relation-
ship between Armenian and Greek: thus already Bonfante (1937: 33) wrote that
“le grec et l’arménien forment parmi les langues indo-européennes un groupe
extrêmement serré.” In its strongest form, this version posits a “Greco-Armenian”
branch of the IE family, comparable to e.g. Indo-Iranian or Balto-Slavic. Hamp
(1976: 91) went so far as to declare that the time is not far off “when we should
speak of Helleno-Armenian,” and in the following years he repeatedly referred
to “Helleno-Armenian” innovations (see e.g. Hamp 1979: 4–5; 1983a; 1983b; 1989;
1992: 58). Greppin (1982) explicitly stated that “proto-Greek and proto-Armenian
were indeed one and the same language at a time somewhere before the second
millennium” (347), i.e. “proto-Greek and proto-Armenian must be directly taken
from the same immediate source” (352). On a more modest level, de Lamberterie
(1992: 239) declared the possibility of reconstructing “de véritables mots gréco-
arméniens d’une certaine ampleur.” Several computational models based mainly
on lexical isoglosses have also posited a Greco-Armenian node in the IE family tree,
including Ringe, Warnow & Taylor 2002 (but see below); Gray & Atkinson 2003:
437, Figure 1; and Rexová, Frynta & Zrzavý 2003.
As a result, scholars of IE historical linguistics often operate under the tacit as-
sumption that Armenian must have undergone the same developments observable
in Greek, and even posit Proto-Greco-Armenian preforms of apparently cognate
formations. Occasionally this assumption is made explicit: thus Barton (1990–1991:
45) defended his derivation of denominal stative a-presents (e.g. mnam ‘remain, am
left’) from *-h₁-ye- ← PIE *-eh₁- with the assertion that “[t]he extremely close dialect-
geographical connection between Greek and Armenian makes it highly probable
that innovations of early pre-Greek were shared by pre-Armenian.” Similarly, Klin-
genschmitt (1982: 136–137; cf. Peters 1997: 210) argued against a comparison of the
Armenian weak aorist in -(e)acʿ with ā-preterites in other IE languages, specifically
the Balto-Slavic preterite in *-ā- and the Italic imperfect *-ā- of Latin er-ā-, -bā- and
Oscan pl. fufans, “wegen des Fehlens entsprechender Bildungen in archaischen
Sprachen wie dem Indoiranischen und Griechischen.”4 Most recently, Jasanoff
(forthc. §12), in discussing the origins of the reduplicated (thematic) aorist, speaks
of “the typical Greco-Armenian introduction of ‘intensive’ reduplication … before
3 Interestingly, the pioneering lexicostatistical studies of the relationships among the IE branches
by Czekanowski (1927: 50–57; 1928: 46–52; cf. Mańczak 1987: 19) found that Armenian is most
closely related to Iranian and Indo-Aryan.
4 On the origin of the Armenian weak aorist, see Section 4 no. 4.
the zero grade of roots beginning with a laryngeal,” even though the lone Armenian
example is arar- ‘made’, corresponding to Gr. ἀραρε/ο- ‘joined, fit together’ < PIE
*h₂e-h₂r-e/o-.5
But is the tacit assumption of a period of Greco-Armenian unity justified, and
with it the methodological practice of looking to Greek in the first place to explain
unsolved problems of Armenian historical grammar? It seems to me that much
recent scholarship on Armenian historical-comparative linguistics has confused
or conflated two quite distinct hypotheses:
1. The prehistoric dialects ancestral to Armenian and to Greek were in close
enough geographical proximity and contact that they participated in a number
of innovations. In many cases, these isoglosses are shared with one or more
neighboring dialects, e.g. those ancestral to Phrygian or the even more poorly
attested IE languages of the ancient Balkans, or others which died out without
leaving any records of their existence.
2. The ancestors of Armenian and Greek formed a single speech community (natu-
rally with internal variation) for some time after the breakup of PIE. During that
period, they underwent a set of exclusive innovations not shared with other
IE languages. As a result, it is possible to reconstruct Proto-Greco-Armenian
preforms for linguistic material inherited by both Greek and Armenian, just as
one may reconstruct Proto-Indo-Iranian ancestors of cognate forms in Indo-
Aryan and Iranian, or Proto-Balto-Slavic ancestors of cognate forms in Baltic
and Slavic.
Note that even if hypothesis 2 is valid, it does not follow that one can automatically
assume the same prehistoric developments for Armenian as for Greek. By way of
comparison, most scholars today consider Balto-Slavic a valid subgroup of Indo-
European, yet the oldest attested stages of Slavic, Old Prussian, and the East Baltic
languages have gone their own way in multiple points, from phonology to verbal
morphology to the lexicon.6
These two hypotheses, which are naturally to be understood as lying on a
spectrum of possible historical relations, require very different thresholds of ev-
idence. For hypothesis 1, discovery of a sufficient number of lexical isoglosses,
i.e. lexical items specific to Greek and Armenian, would by itself suggest a neigh-
5 This tendency can even subliminally influence those arguing against it, as e.g. when Viredaz
(2015: §6.2.1), in a detailed elaboration of the parallel partial sigmatization of PIE root aorists in
Armenian and Slavic, accidentally refers to “innovations gréco-arméniennes.”
6 The case of the Italic languages is especially instructive in this respect: despite forming a single
branch, Latino-Faliscan and the various Sabellic languages have diverged markedly in e.g. their
verbal system, most notoriously in the formation of the weak perfect.
sisting of the six lexical characters ‘day (= 24 hours)’, ‘husband’, ‘not’, ‘wind’,
‘grind’, and ‘young’. Furthermore, “the absence of any phonological or inflectional
character makes it qualitatively poorer” than for Italo-Celtic (103), leading them
to pronounce Greco-Armenian “by far the weakest of the larger subgroups our
methodology has found” (106). Of the six lexical items, the authors note that par-
allel development can be excluded only for ‘day’ and ‘not’, and even the latter
isogloss has been called into question, given the phonetic difficulties with the
classic etymology of Gr. οὐκ(ί), Arm. očʿ < PIE *(ne) h₂óyu kʷíd (Cowgill 1960; cf.
Clackson 1994: 158).9 That leaves only Gr. ἦμαρ ∼ Arm. awr ‘day’ as a (near-)word
equation10 — hardly sufficient grounds for setting up a subgroup comparable in
robustness to Italo-Celtic, let along Balto-Slavic or Indo-Iranian. The picture is
not appreciably altered even if one includes word equations without secure IE
etymologies or derivatives of PIE roots found exclusively in Greek and Armenian,
e.g. the oft cited Gr. κίων ∼ Arm. siwn ‘pillar’ or Gr. ἄλευρον ∼ Arm. alewr ‘flour’.11
My intention in the following pages is not to challenge hypothesis 1, which I
consider highly probable, but rather to argue that the phonological and morpho-
logical facts simply do not support hypothesis 2. Although Clackson has already
argued as much in his exemplary 1994 study (see above), I will build on his ar-
guments by considering additional forms of evidence. In particular, the relative
chronology of sound changes suggests that pre-Armenian and pre-Greek were
sufficiently divergent at an early stage that they could no longer be considered
as belonging to a common speech community (Section 2). With respect to mor-
phology, a reexamination of the data confirms Clackson’s view that those features
apparently shared with Greek may reflect parallel developments (Section 3). On the
basis of morphological features common to other neighboring IE branches, namely
Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic (Section 4), I conclude that the IE dialect(s) ances-
tral to Armenian went their own way already from a very early stage (Section 5);
9 Clackson has since proposed that očʿ originally meant ‘no one’ and goes back to o- (cf. o-kʿ
‘anyone’, o-mn ‘someone’) + negator *čʿ (cf. čʿ-ikʿ ‘nothing’). See Clackson 2005: 155–156, followed
by Martirosyan 2010: 531; Kim 2016: 45.
10 Arm. awr is traditionally derived from pre-Arm. *āmōr, standing in the same relationship
to pre-Gr. *āmr̥ as τέκμωρ to τέκμαρ ‘mark, goal’ (Meillet 1903: 32; 1936: 55; Schmitt 1981: 166);
note also the parallel of awr awowr ‘day by day’ and Myc. a-mo-ra-ma /amōr-amar/ (Dressler
1969). However, until the exact conditions for the lenition of *m > *w are determined, it cannot be
excluded that awr rather continues pre-Arm. *āmr̥ (Hamp 1983b: 7–8).
11 See respectively the discussions in Clackson 1994: 140–143, 90–95 (also on ἀλέω ∼ ałam ‘grind’,
ἀλετρίς ∼ aławri ‘woman who grinds corn’).
12 I should add that I am unconvinced by arguments for a closer relationship between Armenian
and certain Greek dialects, as suggested by Ritter & Sowa (2004) and argued by Sowa (2006) on the
basis of Arm. awjikʿ ‘collar’, Gr. αὐχήν ‘neck’ < post-PIE *angʷʰ-io-, *angʷʰ-en- beside Aeol. ἄμφην.
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 (Clackson 1994:
107–109; see Kim forthc. fn. 14 and the references listed there).
13 See Klingenschmitt 1970: 80, 86 no. 9; 1982: 105–106 fn. 27; Olsen 1985; 1989a; 1999: 762–764,
767–769; Clackson 1994: 33–36. For dissenting views, see Kortlandt 1987; Beekes 1988: 76–77; 2003:
185–187, 192–193 (*h₁/ ₂/ ₃C- > e/a/oC- but *CHC > CaC); Greppin 1989.
14 Other examples may reflect a typical “non-Greek” development of *iH, *uH > *ī, *ū, though
the details are far from clear, e.g. hangist ‘peace, quiet’ < *sm̥-kʷih₁- (Lat. quiēs), jowkn ‘fish’ <
*dʰĝʰuH- (Gr. ἰχθῦς). For additional examples and discussion, see Clackson 1994: 41–49; Olsen
1999: 770–773.
conflicting outcomes: cf. e.g. gar̄n ‘lamb’ < *wr̥ H-ēn vs. čanačʿem ‘know’ ← *canačʿ-
< PIE *ĝn̥ h₃-ské̂ /ó-, with respective reflexes aR vs. aRa.15
15 For additional examples and discussion, see Clackson 1994: 36–41; Olsen 1999: 775–778;
Woodhouse 2015.
16 The example usually cited for Armenian is kogi ‘butter’ < PIE *gʷow-yo- ‘pertaining to a cow’,
but it goes without saying that this noun could have been remodeled from the ancestor of kov
‘cow’ < *gʷow-.
17 This is technically a mixed retention/innovation, since PIE probably contrasted *-ḗn in hys-
terokinetic n-stems with *-ō < pre-PIE **-ōn in amphikinetic n-stems (Jasanoff 1989: 138 fn. 9; 2002:
34–35). The latter served as the model for the r-less nom.sg. of Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic, e.g.
Ved. svásā, Lith. sesuõ ‘sister’.
Of this last category, no. 5 may be left aside, as the majority Greek dialects also
have ρα, λα and the Aeolic dialects show a different vocalism in ορ/ρο, ολ/λο (cf.
Myc. to-pe-za [torpeǰa] beside Att. τράπεζα < *kʷtr̥ -ped-ya), and there are Homeric
scansions indicating survival of *r̥ into Proto-Greek, most famously Il. 16.857, 22.363
ἀ̆νδρο̆ τῆ̄τᾰ κᾰ ὶ ἥ̄βη̄ ν for *[anr̩ tɛːta].19 Similarly, alleged Greek examples of the
first change in no. 19 are now understood as the result of Cowgill’s Law or other
einzelsprachlich rounding, e.g. κύκλος ‘circle’, γυνή ‘woman’, νύξ ‘night’,20 and the
second change of *-VwKʷ- > *-VwK̂- is in any case unique to Armenian (see below,
Section 2.3). Finally, the patterning of palatalization of labiovelars before front
vowels, by which Bonfante set so much stock, is hardly probative of a prehistoric
connection; not only do the first-millennium Greek dialects famously disagree on
the treatment of labiovelars, but Armenian does palatalize *kʷe in PIE *kʷetwóres →
*kʷetores > *čʰeðor- > *čʰeor- > čʿorkʿ ‘four’; furthermore, there is no incontrovertible
evidence against palatalization of *gʷ before front vowels, so that it may be that
all labiovelars were palatalized before front vowels in pre-Armenian.21
The remaining isoglosses from Bonfante’s list belong to the category of “easily
repeatable and/or phonologically trivial,” namely the assimilation of *-ln- > *-ll-
(no. 9) and reduction of clusters of *s + sonorant, for which secure examples are in
any case scarce; note that similar changes affecting word-internal *sR clusters are
found in a range of IE languages, including some which have otherwise preserved
18 I.e. the retention of affricate c, j as reflexes of PIE *ĝ, *ĝʰ, in contrast to Av. z, OCS z.
19 On the treatment of the PIE syllabic liquids in Greek, see now in detail van Beek 2013.
20 On Cowgill’s Law, see in particular Vine 1999.
21 See the discussion and references in Kim 2016: 40–44.
*s, e.g. Slavic, Germanic, or Italic.22 I conclude that none of Bonfante’s phonological
isoglosses involves a significant, distinctive innovation shared exclusively by Greek
and Armenian; and none of the scholarship since then has in my opinion discovered
an incontrovertible example of such.
The relative chronology of sound changes from PIE to Classical Armenian also does
not support the postulation of additional phonological innovations common to
Armenian and Greek, much less of a Proto-Greco-Armenian stage. If the dialects
ancestral to Greek and Armenian had enjoyed a period of relative unity for some
time after the breakup of PIE, the sound changes assignable to that stage should
be earlier than those specific to Armenian. However, the relative chronologies
proposed to date, e.g. by Ravnæs (1991) or Kortlandt (1980b), do not support
this hypothesis.
Ravnæs (1991: 173–182) divides pre-Armenian sound changes into five cate-
gories, along with a few of indeterminate date: “Changes occurring in dialectal IE
times” (1–2); “Changes occurring in the time of Armenian-Greek linguistic contact”
(3–13); “Changes taking place in Proto-Armenian prior to the introduction of Ira-
nian loan words” (14a–51); “Changes occurring after the introduction of Iranian
loan words” (52–57); and “Changes occurring after the Sasanian period and prior to
or during the Classical epoch” (58–63). Following the ruki-rule23 and word-internal
*ə > *∅, which he assigns to stage I, he lists the changes below under stage II:
3. PIE *-m > *-n;
4. development of prothetic vowels before PIE *r-;
5. development of prothetic vowels from PIE *HC-;
6. *nKʷ > *wKʷ;
7. *uKʷ > *uK´;
8. palatals to sibilants and affricates, i.e. PIE *ḱ, *ǵ, *ǵʰ > *t́ś (> *ś), *d́ź, *d́ʰź; PIE
*sḱ > *st́ś;
9. PIE *ḱw > *św > *š’w in ‘dog’;
22 For PIE *sm, cf. masc./neut.loc.sg. *tósmi > OCS tomĭ (Lith. tamè), → Goth. þamma (with
generalized Verner’s Law treatment *zm > *mm; Ringe 2017a: 166); for PIE *sl, cf. *gʷʰiHslo- > Lat.
fīlum ‘thread’, OCS žila ‘vein’ like Arm. ǰil, ǰił ‘sinew’ (vs. retention in Lith. gýsla ‘vein’).
23 N. B. that the ruki-rule is not shared with Greek, and is in any case questionable for Armenian
itself: as I hope to show elsewhere, apparent examples of -r < *[-ž] < *[-š] < *-is, *-us (including *-is,
*-us < *-ēs, *-ōs; see Winter 1975: 115–116; Olsen 1989b: 5–15 and already Pedersen 1905: 228–231)
may be explained otherwise.
10. *š’w > *š’y in ‘dog’ (note the contrast with “new *św” in no. 11!);
11. assimilation of *sw > *św in PIE *sweḱurā > *sweśurā > *śweśurā ‘stepmother’
(> Arm. skesowr);
12. (a) *ms, *ns > *ss;
(b) *rs > *rr > r̄ ;
13. *s > *h in certain positions.
It is immediately apparent that most of these changes are not shared by Greek,
namely nos. 6, 7, 8, and 9, as well as 12a (since *ns was retained word-internally as
well as in Auslaut into Proto-Greek) and 12b (ditto; cf. Gr. ὄρρος ∼ ὄρσος* ‘rump’).
Nos. 10 and 11 do not apply to Greek, since affrication of PIE palatal stops did not
take place there; and nos. 4 and 5 have already been discussed above. That leaves
nos. 3 and 13, respectively Bonfante’s isoglosses 23 and 11, which are phonologically
trivial and easily repeatable, therefore hardly probative of a close dialectal relation
between Greek and Armenian at an early post-PIE date.
Kortlandt’s relative chronology of approximately 21 sound changes (Kortlandt
1980b; see Beekes 2003: 207–211) agrees in general with that of Ravnæs, but wisely
avoids all periodicizing with respect to Greek. After the loss of aspiration in PIE
voiced aspirated stops (no. 1), the following distinctive combinatory changes in-
volving PIE stop + *w clusters and labiovelars are assigned to his change no. 2:
– the “rise of new labialized stops,” i.e. PIE *ḱw, *tw, *dw > *cʷ, *tʷ, *dʷ (> Arm.
š, kʿ, k, respectively in šown ‘dog’, kʿo ‘your’, mełk ‘soft’);24
– PIE *uK > *uK̂, i.e. merger of velar with palatal stops after *u, e.g. *lewkos (or
*lowkos) > *lewk-̂ > Arm. loys ‘light’;
– and finally, the “awcanem-rule” of *VnKʷ > *VwK̂ in PIE *h₂n̥ gʷ- > awc- ‘anoint’,
PIE *(a)ngʷʰi- > awj ‘snake’.25
These are succeeded in turn by assibilation of PIE *ḱ > *ś and of PIE *sk > *ć (no. 3),
the lexically restricted assimilation in *sweśurā > *śweśurā (> skesowr ‘stepmother’;
no. 4), lenition of PIE *s > *h (no. 5), depalatalization of *ś, *ć > *s, *c (> Arm. s, cʿ;
no. 6), and finally “[r]edistribution of labialization” (no. 7), by which *cʷ > *sʷ (> š
in šown ‘dog’) and *hw > *hʷ (> kʿ in kʿoyr ‘sister’).
24 The last of these is contested, most scholars today preferring PIE *dw- > Arm. erk- as in PIE
dwō > erkow ‘two’, PIE *dwi- > *erki- in erknčʿim, aor. erkeay ‘fear’. The literature on this “Great
Armenian Puzzle” is vast; among recent treatments, see especially Viredaz 2003 and DeLisi 2013.
25 Kortlandt also proposes *VuK > *VKʷ in PIE *h₂ewg- > ačem ‘grow’ and *h₂óyu-kʷe > *oukʷe
> *okʷe > očʿ ‘not’, but these may be explained otherwise, by a conditioned loss of *w in ‘grow’
(Martirosyan 2010: 43) or a different preform for ‘not’ (see above, Section 1 with fn. 9).
Thus of the first seven changes reconstructed by Kortlandt for the prehistory
of Armenian, the only one shared by Greek is *s > *h, and this had already been
preceded by the loss of aspiration in PIE voiced aspirates and the specifically Arme-
nian consonant developments grouped under no. 2. Even if one insists on treating
the crosslinguistically unremarkable lenition of *s as an innovation common to
Greek and Armenian, Kortlandt’s relative chronology implies that it would have
to have spread over a prehistoric dialect continuum that was already diversified
enough to in effect encompass distinct languages.
The distinctive Armenian changes of *uK > *uK̂ and *VnKʷ > *VwK̂ have also
been discussed at length by Kümmel (2007: 319–327). On the basis of a broad
crosslinguistic database of consonant changes, he argues that a shift *uK > *uK̂
makes phonetic sense only if the PIE “labiovelars” were still the labial counterpart
of the “palatals” at the time, i.e. the latter were actually pure velars. The awcanem-
rule can then be understood as a leftward spreading or assimilation of rounding
from the labiovelar to the nasal and then to the vowel, producing a diphthong,
followed by a simple dissimilation:
*[VŋKʷ] > *[VŋʷKʷ] > *[VwŋʷKʷ] > *[VwŋʷK] > *[VwŋK] > *[VwK].
If valid, Kümmel’s argument constitutes further evidence that the speech variety
ancestral to Armenian was distinct not only from pre-Greek, but from all other
dialects already in late PIE times. The changes described above must date from a
very early period, before the PIE “palatals” [= velars] and “velars” [= postvelars]
were fronted in place of articulation, so that the rounding dissimilation of labiove-
lars in the environment of *u caused them to fall together with the former rather
than the latter. The restriction of such an idiosyncratic sequence of changes to
Armenian naturally does not preclude the possibility that other changes followed
which were shared with the dialects ancestral to Greek, but in that case they must
have been diffusing across a dialect continuum that was already differentiated to a
significant extent.
Here too, the value of these innovations for the Greco-Armenian hypothesis has
been challenged by Clackson (1994: 60–85), to which I would add the following
comments and updates:
1. The distribution of -oǰ in Armenian strongly suggests that the ending was
taken over from gen./dat./loc. mioǰ, knoǰ (to mi ‘one’, kin ‘woman’; cf. also gełǰ
to gewł ‘village’) as a useful unambiguous locative marker of wo- and ea/wo-
stems, e.g. ordwoǰ (beside ordi), tełwoǰ to ordi ‘son’, tełi ‘place’ (Clackson 1994:
60–64). There is thus no necessary connection with Gr. -οθι, and no need
to take -oǰ from pre-Arm. *-o-dʰy-V(-) or a prevocalic sandhi variant *-o-dʰy;
cf. the alternative derivation from an amphikinetic i-stem in gełǰ < PIE gen.
*-l-y-e/os, dat. *-l-y-ey (Klingenschmitt 1982: 154; Rasmussen 1985 [1987]: 31–34
[1999: 105–109]; Olsen 1999: 172), knoǰ < *kinoǰ ← *kinǰ < PIE gen. *gʷen-y-e/os,
dat. *gʷen-y-ey (Matzinger 2005b: 106–109).
2. Despite continuing debate over the original value of -φι in Greek (singular and
plural in Homeric vs. plural in Mycenaean), the majority view today seems to
be that Homeric forms such as ἶφι ‘by force’, ἠνορέηφι ‘with manhood’ reflect
the older situation. Recent rethinking of the evolution of the IE case system
(Jasanoff 2009; Melchert & Oettinger 2009) suggests that *-bʰi was an adverbial
marker that only became grammaticalized as a case ending after the departure
of Anatolian, in the dialects ancestral to Celtic, Italic, Greek, Armenian, and
Indo-Iranian. Within this group, Greek and Armenian are distinguished only
in employing the suffix in the singular, thereby ousting the inherited *-(e)h₁
(but cf. Balto-Slavic, where originally adverbial *-m(i) became the marker of
the instr.sg. outside the o-stems).
3. As Clackson points out (1994: 74–75), neither Gr. -ολης nor Arm. -oł is well
attested in the earliest texts (see for Armenian de Lamberterie 1982: 37–45),
and reflexes of deverbal adjectives in *-lo- with the meaning ‘habitually X-ing,
prone to X’ are known from other branches, e.g. Lat. bibulus, credulus. The
only possible common innovation of Greek and Armenian is the inflectional
class (ā-stem and a-stem, respectively), and this too can be an independent
development.
4. The status of the augment as a post-PIE innovation is not beyond debate, and
some scholars continue to allow the possibility that it existed in PIE and was
lost in the branches outside the “augment zone” (see e.g. Meier-Brügger 2010:
315–316).26 In any case, it is also present in Indo-Iranian and so would not be
exclusive to Greco-(Phrygio-)Armenian.
5. The productivity of nasal presents, mostly beside strong aorists (< PIE root
aorists), is certainly noteworthy, but the exact prehistory of Arm. presents
in ‑anem (-anim), -am, -(a)nam remains unclear in details; see Greppin 1973;
Hamp 1975; Klingenschmitt 1982: 84–127; and especially Kocharov 2008.27
Furthermore, Greek and Armenian are not the only IE branches to make
widespread use of nasal presents beside root aorists; they also enjoyed consid-
erable productivity in Indo-Iranian as well as Tocharian.
6. Despite repeated attempts to connect the weak aorist suffix with PIE s-aorists
(e.g. Klingenschmitt 1982: 286–287; Kortlandt 2003: 81, 108–109, 114–116), Arm.
-cʿ- must go back to PIE *-skê /o-. But if the original function of the suffix was
to form derived imperfectives, as in Hittite, the only actual innovation shared
by Armenian and Greek would be its restriction to the past. Note also that
the productive shape of the iterative suffix in Ionic is -εσκ-, with athematic
formations making up only a small minority of all tokens, e.g. ἵστασκε, στάσκε
‘was standing’. In contrast, Armenian has *-acʰ- in all but a few weak aorists,
and the exceptions (e.g. elicʿ ‘filled’, zgecʿaw ‘put on (clothing)’) are probably
late creations, rather than inherited (pace Karstien 1956: 227; Godel 1965: 37;
1975: 127; Clackson 1994: 82; see Kim forthc. and Section 4 no. 4 below).
Thus none of the morphological features adduced as evidence for a special re-
lationship between Greek and Armenian can be demonstrated to be exclusive
innovations. One may nevertheless agree with the conclusion of Martirosyan (2013:
92) that “the cumulative strength of these morphological (and a few phonological)
features and a great number of such lexical agreements gives additional weight
26 The problem is naturally bound up with the source of the augment, for which numerous
hypotheses exist. I continue to find attractive the proposal of Delfs (2006; cf. Ringe 2017a: 30) that
it originated as an evidential particle, which would explain its restriction to past indicative forms.
27 On factitives in -anam, see also Section 4 no. 2 below.
The agreement between Armenian and Balto-Slavic on the last three points (specif-
ically with Slavic on no. 3) raises the possibility that these two branches were in
contact in early post-PIE times. This hypothesis is far from new — cf. the lists of
possible Armenian-Slavic lexical isoglosses adduced by Karstien (1956: 212–220)
and Saradževa (1980; 1986), and recall the conclusion of Hübschmann (1877: 39)
that “[d]as armenische steht im kreise der arisch-slavo-lett. sprachen zwischen
iranisch und slavolettisch”30 — but has long been downplayed in comparison
with the connections with Greek and Indo-Iranian, which as seen above are of a
largely lexical nature. To be sure, the likely prehistoric route of migration of the
pre-Armenians from the Balkans across Asia Minor to the Armenian highlands and
southern Caucasus rather disfavors any recent direct interaction with the speakers
28 See e.g. Gorbachov (2007), who reconstructs a PIE formation with zero-grade root and stressed
h₂e-conjugation endings, e.g. *li-n-kʷ-é ‘is left’.
29 See also Stempel (2000: 519–520), although he confuses these formations in *-ā- with ā-
intensives of the type of Lat. cēlāre ‘hide, conceal’, Gr. νωμάω ‘deal out, distribute’, which were
rather one of the sources of Armenian present stems in -a-.
30 Similarly Meillet 1896: 149 (“la situation dialectale de l’arménien est intermédiaire entre l’indo-
iranien, le letto-slave et le grec”); Pedersen 1924: 225 (“… daß das Arm. unter den lebendigen idg.
Sprachzweigen etwa nach drei Seiten hin nähere verwandtschaftliche Beziehungen hat: w[estlich]
zum Griech., ö[stlich] zum Indisch-Iran., n[ördlich] zum Slavisch-Balt.”).
of Proto-Balto-Slavic, which would have to have taken place while the speakers
of pre-Armenian were still located to the north and west of the Black Sea. Never-
theless, given the generally accepted importance of morphological innovations
in determining subgrouping, the existence of these isoglosses could well point to
a closer affinity between Armenian and Balto-Slavic than emerges from cladistic
studies based exclusively or primarily on lexicostatistics.
… that Armenian, Greek, (Phrygian) and Indo-Iranian were dialectally close to each other.
Within this hypothetical dialect group, Proto-Armenian was situated between Proto-Greek
(to the west) and Proto-Indo-Iranian (to the east). The Indo-Iranians then moved eastwards,
while the Proto-Armenians and Proto-Greeks remained in a common geographical region
for a long period and developed numerous shared innovations. At a later stage, together
or independently, they borrowed a large number of words from the Mediterranean/Pontic
31 Cf. for Proto-Balto-Slavic *gálwā́ ‘head’, *gwai(g)zdā́ ‘star’, *rankā́ ‘hand’, *wárnā́ ‘crow’,
*wainikas ‘wreath’, *źeimā́ ‘winter’, etc.
substrate language(s), mostly cultural and agricultural words, as well as animal and plant
designations.
32 Some of these could however represent retentions rather than common innovations; see
Schmitt 1967: 259–260 with refs.
could have been shared with any of the neighboring dialects with which Armenian
was in contact, from Balto-Slavic and (Indo-)Iranian to Greek and Phrygian, there
is insufficient evidence at present to demonstrate any such shared innovations.
The great majority of features that together make Armenian so distinct within
the Indo-European family are best understood as developments internal to the
language itself, the outcome of independent and often idiosyncratic processes of
language change operating over millennia.
Acknowledgment: I thank Götz Keydana and Paul Widmer for organizing the suc-
cessful and thought-provoking workshop on Indo-European subgrouping in Göt-
tingen, and my colleagues for their stimulating comments and discussions on
this topic, including Petr Kocharov, Daniel Kölligan, Martin Kümmel, Reiner Lipp,
Hrach Martirosyan, Birgit Anette Olsen, Dariusz Piwowarczyk, and Wojciech Sowa.
The research for this paper has been supported by grant no. GA17-19686S from the
Czech Science Foundation, whose generosity is hereby gratefully acknowledged.
Bibliography
Barton, Charles R. (1989). “PIE. *mer-, Arm. mer̄anim ‘die’”. In: Indogermanische Forschungen
94, 135–157.
Barton, Charles R. (1990–1991). “On the denominal a-statives of Armenian”. In: Revue des Études
Arméniennes N. S. 22, 29–52.
van Beek, Lucien (2013). The Development of the Proto-Indo-European Syllabic Liquids in Greek.
PhD thesis. Leiden University.
Beekes, Robert S. P. (1988). “Laryngeal developments. A survey”. In: Die Laryngaltheorie
und die Rekonstruktion des indogermanischen Laut- und Formensystems. Ed. by Alfred
Bammesberger. Heidelberg: Winter, 59–106.
Beekes, Robert S. P. (2003). “Historical phonology of Classical Armenian. A survey”. In: Kortlandt,
Frederik H. H. Armeniaca. Comparative Notes. With an appendix on the historical phonology
of Classical Armenian by Robert S. P. Beekes. Ann Arbor: Caravan, 133–211.
Bonfante, Giuliano (1937). “Les isoglosses gréco-arméniennes”. In: Mélanges linguistiques
offerts à M. Holger Pedersen à l’occasion de son soixante-dixième anniversaire, 7 avril 1937.
København: Levin & Munksgaard, 15–33.
Bonfante, Giuliano (1942). “The Armenian aorist”. In: Journal of the American Oriental Society
62.2, 102–105.
Bonfante, Giuliano (1982). “The place of Armenian among the Indo-European languages”. In:
Annali dell’Istituto Orientale di Napoli 4, 151–169.
Clackson, James (1994). The Linguistic Relationship between Armenian and Greek. Oxford &
Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Clackson, James (2004). “Classical Armenian”. In: The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s
Ancient Languages. Ed. by Roger D. Woodard. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
922–942.
Clackson, James (2005). Rev. of Kortlandt 2003. In: Annual of Armenian Linguistics 24–25, 153–
158.
Cowgill, Warren (1960). “Greek ou and Armenian očʿ”. In: Language 36.3, 347–350.
Czekanowski, Jan (1927). Wstęp do historii Słowian. Perspektywy antropologiczne, etnograficzne,
prehistoryczne i językoznawcze. [Introduction to the History of the Slavs. Anthropological,
Ethnographic, Prehistoric, and Linguistic Perspectives]. Lwów: Jakubowski. Repr. Poznań:
Instytut Zachodni, 1957.
Czekanowski, Jan (1928). “Na marginesie recenzji p. K. Moszyńskiego o książce Wstęp do historii
Słowian”. [“Marginalia to K. Moszyński’s review of the book Introduction to the History of
the Slavs”]. In: Lud 27, 41–56.
Delfs, Lauren C. (2006). “Evidence for the origin of the augment”. Paper read at the 25th East
Coast Indo-European Conference, The Ohio State University, 19–22 June 2006.
DeLisi, Jessica (2013). “Feature metathesis and the change of PIE *du̯ to Classical Armenian ‑rk‑”.
In: Diachronica 30.4, 469–491.
Djahukian, Geworg B. (1980). “The position of Armenian in the Indo-European languages”. In:
First International Conference on Armenian Linguistics. Proceedings, the University of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 11–14 July 1979. Ed. by John A. C. Greppin. Delmar, NY: Caravan,
3–16.
Djahukian, Geworg B. (1982). Сравнительная грамматика армянского языка. [Comparative
Grammar of Armenian]. Ереван: Издательство AH Армянской ССР.
Dressler, Wolfgang (1969). “Altarmenisch awr awur ‘Tag für Tag’”. In: Revue des Études Arméni-
ennes N. S. 6, 19–21.
Falileyev, Alexander & Petr Kocharov (2012). “Celtic, Armenian, and eastern Indo-European
languages. Comments on a recent hypothesis”. In: Ireland and Armenia. Studies in Lan-
guage, History and Narrative. Ed. by Maxim Fomin, Alvard Jivanyan & Séamus Mac Mathúna.
Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man, 65–84.
Godel, Robert (1965). “Les origines de la conjugaison arménienne”. In: Revue des Études
Arméniennes N. S. 2, 22–41.
Godel, Robert (1975). An Introduction to the Study of Classical Armenian. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Gorbachov, Yaroslav (2007). Indo-European Origins of the Nasal Inchoative Class in Germanic,
Baltic and Slavic. PhD thesis. Harvard University.
Gray, Russell D. & Quentin D. Atkinson (2003). “Language-tree divergence times support the
Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin”. In: Nature 426 (27 Nov 2003), 435–439.
Greppin, John A. C. (1973). “The origin of Armenian nasal suffix verbs”. In: Zeitschrift für verglei-
chende Sprachforschung 87.2, 190–198.
Greppin, John A. C. (1981). “Concerning the reply of Kerns and Schwartz to Austin”. In: Bono
Homini Donum. Essays in Historical Linguistics in Memory of J. Alexander Kerns. Ed. by
Yoël L. Arbeitman & Allan R. Bomhard. Vol. 1. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 119–126.
Greppin, John A. C. (1982). “Arm. tʿ – Gk. πτ-”. In: Journal of Indo-European Studies 10.3–4,
347–354.
Greppin, John A. C. (1989). “A rejoinder to Birgit Olsen on the sole color of the laryngeal in
Armenian being a”. In: Revue des Études Arméniennes N. S. 21, 477–480.
Hamp, Eric P. (1975). “On the nasal presents of Armenian”. In: Zeitschrift für vergleichende
Sprachforschung 89.1, 100–109.
Hamp, Eric P. (1976). “*gʷeiHo - ‘live’”. In: Studies in Greek, Italic, and Indo-European Linguistics
Offered to Leonard R. Palmer on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday, June 5, 1976. Ed. by
Anna Morpurgo Davies & Wolfgang Meid. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, 87–91.
Hamp, Eric P. (1979). “Indo-European *gʷen-Ha ”. In: Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprach-
forschung 93.1, 1–7.
Hamp, Eric P. (1983a). “On the Helleno-Armenian shared lexicon”. In: Annual of Armenian
Linguistics 4, 63–64.
Hamp, Eric P. (1983b). “Philologica varia”. In: Revue des Études Arméniennes N. S. 17, 5–12.
Hamp, Eric P. (1989). “Two Armenian etymologies”. In: Revue des Études Arméniennes N. S. 21,
25–27.
Hamp, Eric P. (1992). “On subgrouping and Armenian”. In: Annual of Armenian Linguistics 13,
55–61.
Holst, Jan Henrik (2009). Armenische Studien. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Hübschmann, Heinrich (1877). “Ueber die stellung des armenischen im kreise der indogerman-
ischen sprachen”. In: Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 23.1, 5–49. Repr. in
Hübschmann 1976, 1–45.
Hübschmann, Heinrich (1976). Kleine Schriften zum Armenischen. Ed. by Rüdiger Schmitt.
Hildesheim & New York: Olms.
Jasanoff, Jay H. (1989). “Old Irish bé ‘woman’”. In: Ériu 40, 135–141.
Jasanoff, Jay H. (2002). “The nom.sg. of Germanic n-stems”. In: Verba et Litterae. Explorations in
Germanic Languages and German Literature (Festschrift for Albert L. Lloyd). Ed. by Alfred R.
Wedel & Hans-Jörg Busch. Newark, DE: Linguatext, 31–46.
Jasanoff, Jay H. (2009). “*-bhi, *-bhis, *-ōis. Following the trail of the PIE instrumental plural”. In:
Internal Reconstruction in Indo-European. Methods, Results, and Problems. Section papers
from the XVI International Conference on Historical Linguistics, University of Copenhagen,
11th–15th August, 2003. Ed. by Jens E. Rasmussen & Thomas Olander. København: Museum
Tusculanum, 137–149.
Jasanoff, Jay H. (forthc.). “The prehistory of the IE perfect. A contribution to the theory of the
h₂e-conjugation”.
Karstien, Hans (1956). “Das slavische Imperfekt und der armenische -acʿe- Aorist”. In: Festschrift
für Max Vasmer zum 70. Geburtstag am 28. Februar 1956. Ed. by Margarete Woltner &
Herbert Bräuer. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 211–229.
Kim, Ronald I. (2016). “Studies in Armenian historical phonology (II). Early raising of mid vowels
in Auslaut”. In: Indogermanische Forschungen 121, 39–51.
Kim, Ronald I. (forthc.). “The prehistory of the Classical Armenian weak aorist”. In: The Arme-
nian and Indo-European Preterite. Forms and Functions. Ed. by N. Kazansky et al. Sankt-
Peterburg: Nauka.
Klingenschmitt, Gert (1970). “Griechisch ῑ̔λάσκεσθαι”. In: Münchener Studien zur Sprachwis-
senschaft 28, 75–88.
Klingenschmitt, Gert (1982). Das altarmenische Verbum. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Klingenschmitt, Gert (1994). “Die Verwandtschaftsverhältnisse der indogermanischen Sprachen”.
In: In honorem Holger Pedersen. Kolloquium der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 25. bis
28. März 1993 in Kopenhagen. Ed. by Jens E. Rasmussen. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 235–251.
Kocharov, Petr (2008). Отражение индоевропейских назальных презенсов в древнеармянском
языке. [The Reflexes of Indo-European Nasal Presents in Old Armenian]. PhD thesis. Saint
Petersburg University.
Kocharov, Petr (2011). “On ana-presents of Armenian”. In: Indogermanistik und Linguistik im
Dialog. Akten der XIII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 21. bis 27.
September 2008 in Salzburg. Ed. by Thomas Krisch & Thomas Lindner. Wiesbaden: Reichert,
271–278.
Kortlandt, Frederik H. H. (1980a). “Albanian and Armenian”. In: Zeitschrift für vergleichende
Sprachforschung 94.1–2, 243–251. Repr. in Kortlandt 2003, 13–19.
Kortlandt, Frederik H. H. (1980b). “On the relative chronology of Armenian sound changes”.
In: First International Conference on Armenian Linguistics. Proceedings, the University of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 11–14 July 1979. Ed. by John A. C. Greppin. Delmar, NY: Caravan,
97–106. Repr. in Kortlandt 2003, 26–33.
Kortlandt, Frederik H. H. (1986). “Armenian and Albanian”. In: La place de l’arménien dans les
langues indo-européennes. Ed. by M. Leroy & F. Mawet. Louvain: Peeters, 38–47. Repr. in
Kortlandt 2003, 68–74.
Kortlandt, Frederik H. H. (1987). “Notes on Armenian historical phonology V”. In: Studia Cauca-
sica 7, 61–65. Repr. in Kortlandt 2003, 75–78.
Kortlandt, Frederik H. H. (2003). Armeniaca. Comparative Notes. With an appendix on the
historical phonology of Classical Armenian by Robert S. P. Beekes. Ann Arbor: Caravan.
Kümmel, Martin J. (2007). Konsonantenwandel. Bausteine zu einer Typologie des Lautwandels
und ihre Konsequenzen für die vergleichende Rekonstruktion. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
de Lamberterie, Charles (1982). “Poids et force. Reconstruction d’une racine indo-européenne”.
In: Revue des Études Arméniennes N. S. 16, 21–55.
de Lamberterie, Charles (1986). “Deux isoglosses entre l’arménien et l’indo-iranien”. In: La place
de l’arménien dans les langues indo-européennes. Ed. by M. Leroy & F. Mawet. Louvain:
Peeters, 48–61.
de Lamberterie, Charles (1992). “Introduction à l’arménien classique”. In: LALIES 10. Actes des
sessions de linguistique et de littérature (Aussois, 29 août – 3 septembre 1988 / 28 août – 2
septembre 1989). Ed. by Jean Lallot. Paris: Sorbonne Nouvelle, 234–289.
de Lamberterie, Charles (1994). “L’arménien”. In: Langues indo-européennes. Ed. by Françoise
Bader. Paris: CNRS, 139–165.
de Lamberterie, Charles (2011). “Grammaire comparée des langues indo-européennes”. In:
Annuaire de l’École Pratique des Hautes Études, Section des Sciences Historiques et
Philologiques 141, 364–368.
de Lamberterie, Charles (2012). “L’arménien et l’indo-européen balkanique”. In: IXth International
Conference on Armenian Linguistics. Abstracts. Sankt-Peterburg: Nestor-Istoriya, 109–111.
de Lamberterie, Charles (2013). “Grec, phrygien, arménien. Des anciens aux modernes”. In:
Journal des Savants janvier-juin 2013, 3–69.
Leskien, August (1876). Die Declination im Slavisch-Litauischen und Germanischen. Leipzig:
Hirzel.
Makaev, È. (1967). “Армяно-индоевропейские лексические изоглоссы и ареальная
лингвистика”. [“Armenian-Indo-European lexical isoglosses and areal linguistics”]. In:
Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 20.5–6,
449–464.
Mańczak, Witold (1987). “The relationship of Armenian to Greek and Persian”. In: Annual of
Armenian Linguistics 8, 19–28.
Martirosyan, Hrach K. (2010). Etymological Dictionary of the Armenian Inherited Lexicon. Leiden
& Boston: Brill.
Martirosyan, Hrach K. (2013). “The place of Armenian in the Indo-European language family. The
relationship with Greek and Indo-Iranian”. In: Journal of Language Relationship / Вопросы
языкового родства 10, 85–138.
Matzinger, Joachim (2005a). “Phrygisch und Armenisch”. In: Sprachkontakt und Sprachwandel.
Akten der XI. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, 17.–23. September 2000,
Halle an der Saale. Ed. by Gerhard Meiser & Olav Hackstein. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 375–394.
Matzinger, Joachim (2005b). Untersuchungen zum altarmenischen Nomen. Die Flexion des
Substantivs. Dettelbach: Röll.
Matzinger, Joachim (2012). “‘Zwischensprachen’. Areallinguistische Bemerkungen aus dem
Bereich des Balkanindogermanischen”. In: Iranistische und indogermanistische Beiträge
in memoriam Jochem Schindler (1944–1994). Ed. by Velizar Sadovski & David Stifter. Wien:
Akademie der Wissenschaften, 137–159.
Meier-Brügger, Michael (2010). Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft. 9., durchgesehene und
ergänzte Auflage. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter.
Meillet, Antoine (1896). “Varia. V. Position dialectale de l’arménien”. In: Mémoires de la Société
de Linguistique 9, 149–155.
Meillet, Antoine (1903). Esquisse d’une grammaire comparée de l’arménien classique. Vienne:
Imprimerie des PP. Mékhitharistes.
Meillet, Antoine (1925). “Remarques sur l’étymologie de quelques mots grecs. À propos de
ἐρύκω, τμήγω, νήχω”. In: Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique 26.1–2, 1–22. Repr. in
Meillet 1977, 215–220.
Meillet, Antoine (1927). “De la prothèse vocalique en grec et en arménien”. In: Bulletin de la
Société de Linguistique 27, 129–135. Repr. in Meillet 1977, 233–239.
Meillet, Antoine (1936). Esquisse d’une grammaire comparée de l’arménien classique. Seconde
édition entièrement remaniée. Vienne: Imprimerie des PP. Mékhitharistes.
Meillet, Antoine (1977). Études de linguistique et de philologie arméniennes. Vol. 2: Études
linguistiques. Louvain: Imprimerie Orientaliste.
Melchert, H. Craig & Norbert Oettinger (2009). “Ablativ und Instrumental im Hethitischen und
Indogermanischen. Ein Beitrag zur relativen Chronologie”. In: Incontri Linguistici 32, 53–73.
Morani, Moreno (2001). “Armeno e altre lingue indeuropee. Alcune riflessioni”. In: Cinquant’anni
di ricerche linguistiche. Problemi, risultati e prospettive per il terzo millennio. Atti del IX
Convegno internazionale di linguisti. Ed. by R. B. Finazzi & P. Tornaghi. Alessandria: Edizioni
Dell’Orso, 417–430.
Olsen, Birgit A. (1985). “On the development of Indo-European prothetic vowels in Classical
Armenian”. In: Revue des Études Arméniennes N. S. 19, 5–17.
Olsen, Birgit A. (1989a). “A surrejoinder to J. A. C. Greppin’s remarks on prothetic vowels in
Armenian”. In: Revue des Études Arméniennes N. S. 21, 481–483.
Olsen, Birgit A. (1989b). “Three notes on Armenian historical phonology”. In: Annual of Armenian
Linguistics 10, 5–25.
Olsen, Birgit A. (1999). The Noun in Biblical Armenian. Origin and Word-Formation, with Special
Emphasis on the Indo-European Heritage. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter.
Pedersen, Holger (1905). “Zur armenischen sprachgeschichte”. In: Zeitschrift für vergleichende
Sprachforschung 38.2, 194–240. Repr. in Pedersen 1982, 56–102.
Pedersen, Holger (1906). “Armenisch und die nachbarsprachen”. In: Zeitschrift für vergleichende
Sprachforschung 39.3, 334–485. Repr. in Pedersen 1982, 112–263.
Pedersen, Holger (1924). “Armenier. B. Sprache”. In: Reallexikon der Vorgeschichte. Ed. by Max
Ebert. Vol. 1. Berlin: de Gruyter, 219–226. Repr. in Pedersen 1982, 302–309.
Pedersen, Holger (1982). Kleine Schriften zum Armenischen. Ed. by Rüdiger Schmitt. Hildesheim
& New York: Olms.
Peters, Martin (1997). “Der armenische Flexionstyp gitem, gitacʿi und das ion.-att. Plusquamper-
fekt”. In: Sound Law and Analogy. Papers in Honor of Robert S. P. Beekes on the Occasion of
his 60th Birthday. Ed. by Alexander Lubotsky. Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi, 209–217.
Porzig, Walter (1954). Die Gliederung des indogermanischen Sprachgebiets. Heidelberg: Winter.
Rasmussen, Jens E. (1985 [1987]). “Miscellaneous morphological problems in Indo-European
languages I–II”. In: Lingua Posnaniensis 28, 27–62. Repr. in Rasmussen 1999, 100–145.
Rasmussen, Jens E., ed. (1999). Selected Papers on Indo-European Linguistics. With a Section on
Comparative Eskimo Linguistics. København: Museum Tusculanum.
Ravnæs, Erling (1991). The Chronology of the Sound Changes from Proto-Indo-European to
Classical Armenian. PhD thesis. University of Oslo.
Rexová, Kateřina, Daniel Frynta & Jan Zrzavý (2003). “Cladistic analysis of languages. Indo-
European classification based on lexicostatistical data”. In: Cladistics 19.2, 120–127.
Ringe, Don (2017a). From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic. 2nd ed. New York & Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Ringe, Don (2017b). “Indo-European dialectology”. In: Handbook of Comparative and Historical
Indo-European Linguistics. Ed. by Jared Klein et al. Vol. 1. Berlin: de Gruyter, 62–75.
Ringe, Don & Joseph F. Eska (2013). Historical Linguistics. Toward a Twenty-First Century Reinte-
gration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ringe, Don, Tandy Warnow & Ann Taylor (2002). “Indo-European and computational cladistics”.
In: Transactions of the Philological Society 100.1, 59–129.
Ritter, Ralf-Peter & Wojciech Sowa (2004). “Greek-Armenian isoglosses and the Ancient Greek
dialects”. In: Proceedings of the 24th Annual Meeting of the Department of Linguistics,
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 9–11 May 2003. Ed. by Marianna Margariti-Rogka,
Georgios Papanastasiou & Nikos Liosis. Thessaloniki: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki,
645–656.
Saradževa, L. A. (1980). Армянo-славянские лексико-грамматические параллели. [Armenian-
Slavic Lexical-Grammatical Parallels]. Ереван: Издательство AH Армянской ССР.
Saradževa, L. A. (1986). Армянo-славянские лексико-семантические параллели (сравнительно-
историческое исследование генетически общей лексики). [Armenian-Slavic Lexical-
Grammatical Parallels (Comparative-Historical Investigation of Genetically Common
Lexicon)]. Ереван: Издательство AH Армянской ССР.
Schmidt, Karl Horst (1980). “Armenian and Indo-European”. In: First International Conference on
Armenian Linguistics. Proceedings, the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 11–14 July
1979. Ed. by John A. C. Greppin. Delmar, NY: Caravan, 35–58.
Schmidt, Karl Horst (1985). “Die indogermanischen Grundlagen des altarmenischen Verbums”.
In: Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 98.2, 214–237.
Schmidt, Karl Horst (1987). “The Indo-European background of the Classical Armenian noun
declension”. In: Annual of Armenian Linguistics 8, 35–47.
Schmidt, Karl Horst (1988). “On Armenian phonology and Indo-European reconstruction”. In:
Languages and Cultures. Studies in Honor of Edgar C. Polomé. Ed. by Mohammad Ali
Jazayery & Werner Winter. Berlin, New York & Amsterdam: de Gruyter, 601–610.
Schmidt, Karl Horst (2007). “Armenian and Celtic. Towards a new classification of early Indo-
European dialects”. In: Bulletin of the Georgian Academy of Sciences 175.1, 199–203.
Schmidt, Karl Horst (2012). “Armenian and Celtic. Towards a new classification of early Indo-
European dialects”. In: Ireland and Armenia. Studies in Language, History and Narrative.
Ed. by Maxim Fomin, Alvard Jivanyan & Séamus Mac Mathúna. Washington, DC: Institute for
the Study of Man, 51–63. Revised version of Schmidt 2007.