Papers by Hrach Martirosyan
2011-ին գրածս այս հոդվածը մեծ աղմուկ էր հարուցել սոցիալական տարբեր հարթակներում։ Այն հրապարակած կ... more 2011-ին գրածս այս հոդվածը մեծ աղմուկ էր հարուցել սոցիալական տարբեր հարթակներում։ Այն հրապարակած կայքը վաղուց արդեն չի գործում։ Ուստի վերահրապարակում եմ դրա մի քիչ վերամշակված տարբերակը։
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Վիպասանական հատվածներ. դասանյութ իմ դասընթացի համար
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Studies in Armenian Grammar and Lexicon: Proceedings of the Workshop on Armenian Linguistics, Würzburg, 4-5 April 2022 (ed. by Petr Kocharov & Daniel Kölligan). Dettelbach: Verlag J.H. Röll (Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft, Beiheft 35)։ 161-225. , 2024
The Armenian designations for sexual body parts have not been the subject of systematic research.... more The Armenian designations for sexual body parts have not been the subject of systematic research. This paper aims at filling this gap, by collecting all the available lexical entries and studying them synchronically and diachronically. The notorious complexity of this semantic domain is conditioned by the fact that even the principal terms originating directly from Proto-Indo-European and being still dominant in contemporary dialects, are mainly unattested in literary sources for obvious taboo reasons. One might even argue that the taboo is also responsible for the scarcity of modern research in this field. Besides, many of these designations are sound-symbolic, onomatopoeic, and nursery words, which makes the etymological assessment of them harder. Next to these mainly native entries, we have a few Iranian words or Armenian formations based on such loanwords, as well as a great number of younger forms including literary or dialectal euphemisms and recent borrowings.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Faits de Langues, 53(1), 2023
1a. Armenian is an Indo-European language. It is known to us from the fifth century CE onwards th... more 1a. Armenian is an Indo-European language. It is known to us from the fifth century CE onwards thanks to an unbroken literary tradition comprising three periods: Classical or Grabar (5th to 11th centuries), Middle (12th to 16th), and Modern (17th to 21st). Armenian is written in its own alphabet, which was created by Mesrop Maštocʻ and originally consisted of 36 original letters, to which ō and f were added at a later stage. One usually distinguishes around fifty or sixty modern Armenian dialects, several of which are now extinct.
1b. An inherited Indo-European musical accent developed into a dynamic accent in Classical Armenian, where it was fixed on the prehistoric penultimate syllable. This was followed by apocope of the posttonic vocalic elements (leaving the accent in final position) and by syncope in pretonic position, e.g. gen.sg. *sirtíyo > *sirtí > s(ə)rti ‘of the heart’. A similar generalization of accentuation on the penultima may be observed in Iranian.
The Classical Armenian nominal declension has two numbers, singular and plural. There are seven cases: nominative, accusative, genitive-dative, ablative, instrumental, locative. The vocative, the case of direct address, is a form used for calling out and attracting or maintaining the addressee’s attention. It is not represented in Classical Armenian as an independent case category. The PIE ending of the vocative, as with those of the nominative and accusative, has been lost in Armenian via apocope. I shall use the term vocative in the sense of an address form.
2. Although the Armenian vocative is usually identical to the nominative, it sometimes demonstrates distinctive features. At different stages of Armenian the vocative is often characterized by initial accentuation, cf. háyrik ‘o father’, máyrik ‘o mother’, Kárapet, etc.; in dialects: Hamšen háyr-i ‘o father’, máyri ‘o mother’; Polis háyrig ‘o father’; T‘iflis áxpɛr ‘o brother’, vúrt‘i ‘o son’; Akn hársnuk ‘o sister-in-law’; Moks xrółper ‘o uncle’, t‘ágävur ‘o king’, etc.
The vocative with initial accentuation may be considered an Indo-European inheritance, cf. Vedic Sanskrit voc. pítar vs. nom. pitā́, Greek ἄδελφε vs. ἀδελφός ‘brother’, δέσποτα vs. δεσπότης ‘master (of the house), lord’, πάτερ vs. πατήρ ‘father’, etc.
3. Accented vocative particles are used both in Classical Armenian and dialects, e.g. Grabar and dial. áy mard ‘o man’, Łarabaɫ / Artsakh áy k‘ir-a ‘o sister’; cf. the Young Avestan vocative particle āi, e.g. āi Miθra “O Miθra” in Yašt 10.42.
4. Mostly in dialects, several words, particularly kinship terms and anthroponyms, take endings, one or a few of which may be regarded as relics of older vocative case endings, e.g.:
• Kesaria, Łarabaɫ / Artsakh, Loṙi, Ozim áɫǰ-i ‘o girl’;
• Van xars-á ‘o daughter-in-law’, xɛr-ɔ́ ‘o father’, nan-ɛ́ ‘o mother’;
• Łarabaɫ / Artsakh hä́s-i vs. nominative hárt‘nə ‘o daughter-in-law’;
• Hamšen háyr-i ‘o father’.
5. In the Armenian dialects of Syria, one finds a few kinship terms the vocatives of which are compounds with:
• ayr ‘man’ (Svedia däk‘rärɛ < *taygr-ayr-ē, with taygr ‘husband’s brother’),
• tikin ‘mistress, lady’ (daldə/igɛn or daldigayn < *tal-tikin, with tal ‘husband’s sister’).
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Խալդյան զորությամբ = Through Ḫaldi’s power: studies in honour of the 100th anniversary of the birth of Boris Piotrovsky. Yerevan: Academy Press, 2010
The Proto-Indo-European theonym *diēus ‘Sky God, Father Sky’ has not been independently preserved... more The Proto-Indo-European theonym *diēus ‘Sky God, Father Sky’ has not been independently preserved in Armenian. Armenian Tir (secondarily, Tiwr) was borrowed from Iranian Tīr and cannot be directly equated with Old Icelandic Týr, the final -r of which is due to rhotacism. The only possible way to connect Armenian Ti(w)r to the PIE theonym under discussion is to assume a blend of Proto-Armenian *Tiw ‘Heavenly Light, Sunny Day, Sunshine God, Thunder God’ and Iranian Tīr.
The connection of the Armenian word for ‘god’, astuac, with Σαβάζιος should be abandoned. The loss of the medial -t- in some dialects is certainly secondary. The tu-component of the word may be related to our *Tiw but probably through an Anatolian intermediate, though the exact source is not entirely clear (cf. Luw. Tiṷaz ‘Sun God’, Hitt. aššu- šiṷatt- ‘good day’, etc.).
According to my tentative etymologies, the theonym *Tiw may also be reflected in two Armenian words: ci-a-can ‘rainbow’, if from *t/či-acan ‘belt of the Sky/Thunder-god’ (or *t/či-a-can ‘the sign of the Sky/Thunder-god’), and Łarabaɫ tkɔ́ɫɛn ‘hazelnut’, if from *tu-kałin (cf. Gr. Διός βάλανος ‘chestnut’, literally “acorn of Zeus”).
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Iranisches Personennamenbuch V/3 (ed. by Rüdiger Schmitt, Heiner Eichner, Bert G. Fragner, and Ve... more Iranisches Personennamenbuch V/3 (ed. by Rüdiger Schmitt, Heiner Eichner, Bert G. Fragner, and Velizar Sadovski). Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, 2021 (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse; Sitzungsberichte 912. Iranische Onomastik 17).
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
BULLETIN OF THE INSTITUTE OF ORIENTAL STUDIES
There are a great number of Armenian compound personal names with the element šah ‘king’ of Irani... more There are a great number of Armenian compound personal names with the element šah ‘king’ of Iranian origin (Middle Persian and New Persian šāh ‘king’). It occurs: (1) in both masculine and feminine names; (2) with both native Armenian and foreign components; (3) either as the first or the second component; (4) often in doublet forms with a reversed order of the components. For instance: masculine Šah-amir and Amir-šah, Šah-paron and Paron-šah, Vahram-šah; feminine: Šah-xat‘un and Xat‘un-šah, Šah-tikin. Also note masc. Šah-aziz vs. fem. Aziz-šah, masc․ Sult‘an-šah vs. fem. Šah-sult‘an, masc. Melik‘-šah vs. fem. Šah-melē/ik‘ (the latter is sometimes masculine, cf. Middle Persian > Syriac Šāh-malīk, also masculine ). This paper aims to interpret two hapax legomena in which the component šah became synchronically unanalyzable due to phonological changes. In one of them, šah is the second member of the name (gen. Artamšin < *Artam-šah/y-in), whereas in the other it is the first one...
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Հայագիտական ուսումնասիրություններ․ պարբերագիր / Bulletin of Armenian Studies / Армянский гуманитарный вестник (Moscow / Yerevan) vol. 7. 80-94, 2021
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bridging times and spaces: papers in ancient Near Eastern, Mediterranean and Armenian Studies (ed. by Pavel S. Avetisyan and Yervand H. Grekyan). Oxford: Archaeopress: 293-306., 2017
Two circumstances unite the Armenian and Anatolian languages: (1) a common Indo-European origin, ... more Two circumstances unite the Armenian and Anatolian languages: (1) a common Indo-European origin, and (2) geographical proximity of their historical homelands, namely the central and western parts of the modern-day Turkey for Anatolian, and the Armenian Highlands (the Armenian plateau) for Armenian. In this paper we will be concerned with loanwords from Anatolian to Armenian, which would have been transferred mainly in the 2nd millennium BCE and possibly also in the early 1st millennium BCE.
It has been claimed that only isolated and only Luwian loanwords can be found in Armenian. However, a number of etymologies that suggest borrowing from Hittite are rejected too easily. Rather than give final decisions on the quantitative and qualitative characteristics of the Anatolian borrowings in Armenian, this paper merely aims to rework and supplement some of the relevant etymological material.
I conclude that (1) we are not yet ready for the final evaluation of the relevant material and clear-cut conclusions, and (2) the existence of Hittite loanwords in Armenian should not be excluded.
Keywords
Anatolian loanwords in Armenian, Armenian comparative linguistics, Armenian etymology, Armenian phonology, Presence of Armenian in the Armenian Highlands
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Komitas Museum-Institute Yearbook, vol. IV (ed. by Tatevik Shakhkulyan; Yerevan: Publication of Komitas Museum-Institute): 186-197, 2019
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bulletin of Armenian Studies / Армянский гуманитарный вестник (Moscow / Yerevan) vol. 5 [Proceedings of the IX International Conference on Armenian Linguistics. Institute for Linguistic Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg 7-9 November 2012]: 164-258, 2019
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Վիշապը հեքիաթի և իրականության սահմանին (խմբագիրներ՝ Արսեն Բոբոխյան, Ալեսանդրա Ջիլիբերտ, Պավոլ Հնիլա). Երևան, Հնագիտության և ազգագրության ինստիտուտի հրատարակչություն․ 474-479, 2019
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Armenian, Hittite, and Indo-European Studies: a Commemoration Volume for Jos J. S. Weitenberg (ed. by Bläsing U., Dum-Tragut J., van Lint T.M.). Peeters Publishers. (Hebrew University Armenian Studies; 15): 195-205., 2019
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Iran and the Caucasus 23, 2019
This paper aims to present seven Armenian personal names of Iranian origin from the Armenian hist... more This paper aims to present seven Armenian personal names of Iranian origin from the Armenian historical provinces of Siwnik' and Arc'ax: Dadi/Dadoy, Kohazat, Marhan, Mrha-pet, Niw-dast, Niw-Xosrov, and *Oyz/Uz. These names are scantily attested in literature (almost all of them being hapaxes) and are, therefore, little known to scholarship.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
The Arcruni house was one of the most important princely families of Armenia. Together with the G... more The Arcruni house was one of the most important princely families of Armenia. Together with the Gnuni, the Arcruni traditionally descend from the brothers Sanasar and Ardamozan/Adramelēkʻ, sons of Senekʻerim (Sennecherib of Assyria). Besides, these two princely families are considered to have Orontid (Eruanduni) origin. Both circumstances bring us closer to the epic motif of twins, Sanasar and Adramelēkʻ/Bałdasar on the one hand, Eruand and Eruaz on the other. The Indo-European and Armenian Divine Twins demonstrate a close association with the horse.
In this paper I propose to interpret Arcruni as a patronymic in -uni of *Arcr-, a shortened form of an unattested composite name *Arcr-ēš ‘Having swift horse(s)’ (cf. Ved. R̥jrā́śva- and YAv. Ǝrəzrāspa-), which may have been the original name of one of the Divine Twins. In later periods, the name was replaced by (1) Eruand, an Iranian loan with the same original meaning ‘Having swift horse(s)’, and (2) Sanasar, taken from the Bible.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Acta linguistica Petropolitana: Труды Института лингвистических исследований XIV.1; Part 1: The Armenian and Indo-European preterite: forms and functions (ed. by A. Donabédian, N. Kazansky, P. Kocharov, H. Martirosyan; editor-in-chief E. Golovko). St. Petersburg., 2018
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Armenian folkloric texts allow for the reconstruction of the Abyssal Serpent (Andndayin Ōj), a hu... more Armenian folkloric texts allow for the reconstruction of the Abyssal Serpent (Andndayin Ōj), a huge black serpent (sev ōj) in Black Water (Sew ǰur) of the Abyss, at the abyssal tree (andndayin caṙ). This picture corresponds to data from Vedic and Eddic mythologies. Especially remarkable is the Rigvedic primordial Serpent of the Depths, Áhi- Budhnyà-, whose origin and abode is the dark bottom of the waters. We may hypothetically reconstruct a Proto-Armenian *Anwgwi- Bundiyo- > *Awji- Bundi- “Serpent of the Bottom / Depths” from Indo-European *h2(e)ngwhi- bhudhniyo- (note also Greek Πύθων and the formula Πυθώ ... ὄφις). The PIE word for ‘bottom’, *bhudhno , has survived in the Armenian an-dund-k‘ ‘abyss’, from the IE privative form *n̥ bhudhno ‘bottomless’. The exact etymological match to andund in Sanskrit is a budhná (cf. also Middle Pers. a bun ‘baseless, bottomless’), referring to the bottomless space in which Varuṇa holds the Cosmic tree. Proto-Armenian *Awji- Bundi- has subsequently been adjusted into *An-dund-ayin Awj in accordance with the historical development of its components. This mythonym should be added to the list of Armenian-(Greek-)Aryan mythical and poetic correspondences.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
Papers by Hrach Martirosyan
1b. An inherited Indo-European musical accent developed into a dynamic accent in Classical Armenian, where it was fixed on the prehistoric penultimate syllable. This was followed by apocope of the posttonic vocalic elements (leaving the accent in final position) and by syncope in pretonic position, e.g. gen.sg. *sirtíyo > *sirtí > s(ə)rti ‘of the heart’. A similar generalization of accentuation on the penultima may be observed in Iranian.
The Classical Armenian nominal declension has two numbers, singular and plural. There are seven cases: nominative, accusative, genitive-dative, ablative, instrumental, locative. The vocative, the case of direct address, is a form used for calling out and attracting or maintaining the addressee’s attention. It is not represented in Classical Armenian as an independent case category. The PIE ending of the vocative, as with those of the nominative and accusative, has been lost in Armenian via apocope. I shall use the term vocative in the sense of an address form.
2. Although the Armenian vocative is usually identical to the nominative, it sometimes demonstrates distinctive features. At different stages of Armenian the vocative is often characterized by initial accentuation, cf. háyrik ‘o father’, máyrik ‘o mother’, Kárapet, etc.; in dialects: Hamšen háyr-i ‘o father’, máyri ‘o mother’; Polis háyrig ‘o father’; T‘iflis áxpɛr ‘o brother’, vúrt‘i ‘o son’; Akn hársnuk ‘o sister-in-law’; Moks xrółper ‘o uncle’, t‘ágävur ‘o king’, etc.
The vocative with initial accentuation may be considered an Indo-European inheritance, cf. Vedic Sanskrit voc. pítar vs. nom. pitā́, Greek ἄδελφε vs. ἀδελφός ‘brother’, δέσποτα vs. δεσπότης ‘master (of the house), lord’, πάτερ vs. πατήρ ‘father’, etc.
3. Accented vocative particles are used both in Classical Armenian and dialects, e.g. Grabar and dial. áy mard ‘o man’, Łarabaɫ / Artsakh áy k‘ir-a ‘o sister’; cf. the Young Avestan vocative particle āi, e.g. āi Miθra “O Miθra” in Yašt 10.42.
4. Mostly in dialects, several words, particularly kinship terms and anthroponyms, take endings, one or a few of which may be regarded as relics of older vocative case endings, e.g.:
• Kesaria, Łarabaɫ / Artsakh, Loṙi, Ozim áɫǰ-i ‘o girl’;
• Van xars-á ‘o daughter-in-law’, xɛr-ɔ́ ‘o father’, nan-ɛ́ ‘o mother’;
• Łarabaɫ / Artsakh hä́s-i vs. nominative hárt‘nə ‘o daughter-in-law’;
• Hamšen háyr-i ‘o father’.
5. In the Armenian dialects of Syria, one finds a few kinship terms the vocatives of which are compounds with:
• ayr ‘man’ (Svedia däk‘rärɛ < *taygr-ayr-ē, with taygr ‘husband’s brother’),
• tikin ‘mistress, lady’ (daldə/igɛn or daldigayn < *tal-tikin, with tal ‘husband’s sister’).
The connection of the Armenian word for ‘god’, astuac, with Σαβάζιος should be abandoned. The loss of the medial -t- in some dialects is certainly secondary. The tu-component of the word may be related to our *Tiw but probably through an Anatolian intermediate, though the exact source is not entirely clear (cf. Luw. Tiṷaz ‘Sun God’, Hitt. aššu- šiṷatt- ‘good day’, etc.).
According to my tentative etymologies, the theonym *Tiw may also be reflected in two Armenian words: ci-a-can ‘rainbow’, if from *t/či-acan ‘belt of the Sky/Thunder-god’ (or *t/či-a-can ‘the sign of the Sky/Thunder-god’), and Łarabaɫ tkɔ́ɫɛn ‘hazelnut’, if from *tu-kałin (cf. Gr. Διός βάλανος ‘chestnut’, literally “acorn of Zeus”).
It has been claimed that only isolated and only Luwian loanwords can be found in Armenian. However, a number of etymologies that suggest borrowing from Hittite are rejected too easily. Rather than give final decisions on the quantitative and qualitative characteristics of the Anatolian borrowings in Armenian, this paper merely aims to rework and supplement some of the relevant etymological material.
I conclude that (1) we are not yet ready for the final evaluation of the relevant material and clear-cut conclusions, and (2) the existence of Hittite loanwords in Armenian should not be excluded.
Keywords
Anatolian loanwords in Armenian, Armenian comparative linguistics, Armenian etymology, Armenian phonology, Presence of Armenian in the Armenian Highlands
In this paper I propose to interpret Arcruni as a patronymic in -uni of *Arcr-, a shortened form of an unattested composite name *Arcr-ēš ‘Having swift horse(s)’ (cf. Ved. R̥jrā́śva- and YAv. Ǝrəzrāspa-), which may have been the original name of one of the Divine Twins. In later periods, the name was replaced by (1) Eruand, an Iranian loan with the same original meaning ‘Having swift horse(s)’, and (2) Sanasar, taken from the Bible.
1b. An inherited Indo-European musical accent developed into a dynamic accent in Classical Armenian, where it was fixed on the prehistoric penultimate syllable. This was followed by apocope of the posttonic vocalic elements (leaving the accent in final position) and by syncope in pretonic position, e.g. gen.sg. *sirtíyo > *sirtí > s(ə)rti ‘of the heart’. A similar generalization of accentuation on the penultima may be observed in Iranian.
The Classical Armenian nominal declension has two numbers, singular and plural. There are seven cases: nominative, accusative, genitive-dative, ablative, instrumental, locative. The vocative, the case of direct address, is a form used for calling out and attracting or maintaining the addressee’s attention. It is not represented in Classical Armenian as an independent case category. The PIE ending of the vocative, as with those of the nominative and accusative, has been lost in Armenian via apocope. I shall use the term vocative in the sense of an address form.
2. Although the Armenian vocative is usually identical to the nominative, it sometimes demonstrates distinctive features. At different stages of Armenian the vocative is often characterized by initial accentuation, cf. háyrik ‘o father’, máyrik ‘o mother’, Kárapet, etc.; in dialects: Hamšen háyr-i ‘o father’, máyri ‘o mother’; Polis háyrig ‘o father’; T‘iflis áxpɛr ‘o brother’, vúrt‘i ‘o son’; Akn hársnuk ‘o sister-in-law’; Moks xrółper ‘o uncle’, t‘ágävur ‘o king’, etc.
The vocative with initial accentuation may be considered an Indo-European inheritance, cf. Vedic Sanskrit voc. pítar vs. nom. pitā́, Greek ἄδελφε vs. ἀδελφός ‘brother’, δέσποτα vs. δεσπότης ‘master (of the house), lord’, πάτερ vs. πατήρ ‘father’, etc.
3. Accented vocative particles are used both in Classical Armenian and dialects, e.g. Grabar and dial. áy mard ‘o man’, Łarabaɫ / Artsakh áy k‘ir-a ‘o sister’; cf. the Young Avestan vocative particle āi, e.g. āi Miθra “O Miθra” in Yašt 10.42.
4. Mostly in dialects, several words, particularly kinship terms and anthroponyms, take endings, one or a few of which may be regarded as relics of older vocative case endings, e.g.:
• Kesaria, Łarabaɫ / Artsakh, Loṙi, Ozim áɫǰ-i ‘o girl’;
• Van xars-á ‘o daughter-in-law’, xɛr-ɔ́ ‘o father’, nan-ɛ́ ‘o mother’;
• Łarabaɫ / Artsakh hä́s-i vs. nominative hárt‘nə ‘o daughter-in-law’;
• Hamšen háyr-i ‘o father’.
5. In the Armenian dialects of Syria, one finds a few kinship terms the vocatives of which are compounds with:
• ayr ‘man’ (Svedia däk‘rärɛ < *taygr-ayr-ē, with taygr ‘husband’s brother’),
• tikin ‘mistress, lady’ (daldə/igɛn or daldigayn < *tal-tikin, with tal ‘husband’s sister’).
The connection of the Armenian word for ‘god’, astuac, with Σαβάζιος should be abandoned. The loss of the medial -t- in some dialects is certainly secondary. The tu-component of the word may be related to our *Tiw but probably through an Anatolian intermediate, though the exact source is not entirely clear (cf. Luw. Tiṷaz ‘Sun God’, Hitt. aššu- šiṷatt- ‘good day’, etc.).
According to my tentative etymologies, the theonym *Tiw may also be reflected in two Armenian words: ci-a-can ‘rainbow’, if from *t/či-acan ‘belt of the Sky/Thunder-god’ (or *t/či-a-can ‘the sign of the Sky/Thunder-god’), and Łarabaɫ tkɔ́ɫɛn ‘hazelnut’, if from *tu-kałin (cf. Gr. Διός βάλανος ‘chestnut’, literally “acorn of Zeus”).
It has been claimed that only isolated and only Luwian loanwords can be found in Armenian. However, a number of etymologies that suggest borrowing from Hittite are rejected too easily. Rather than give final decisions on the quantitative and qualitative characteristics of the Anatolian borrowings in Armenian, this paper merely aims to rework and supplement some of the relevant etymological material.
I conclude that (1) we are not yet ready for the final evaluation of the relevant material and clear-cut conclusions, and (2) the existence of Hittite loanwords in Armenian should not be excluded.
Keywords
Anatolian loanwords in Armenian, Armenian comparative linguistics, Armenian etymology, Armenian phonology, Presence of Armenian in the Armenian Highlands
In this paper I propose to interpret Arcruni as a patronymic in -uni of *Arcr-, a shortened form of an unattested composite name *Arcr-ēš ‘Having swift horse(s)’ (cf. Ved. R̥jrā́śva- and YAv. Ǝrəzrāspa-), which may have been the original name of one of the Divine Twins. In later periods, the name was replaced by (1) Eruand, an Iranian loan with the same original meaning ‘Having swift horse(s)’, and (2) Sanasar, taken from the Bible.
Azerbaijan is trying to justify its appetite on an academic level by proposing ridiculous etymologies of place names, such as Zangezur (Zəngəzur), a younger name of the Syunik Province of Greater Armenia (Մեծ Հայք) allegedly based on a Turkic ethnonym Zangi․ Such interpretations, sometimes intertwined with outrageous declarations that Zangezur is a native Azerbaijani or Albanian territory, are reflected not only in aggressive video reports made immediately after the 2020 war, but also in toponymical studies and dictionaries from previous decades. This approach is totally baseless. Moreover, its point of departure is pseudoscientific because it is based on a denial of everything that is Armenian.
In this paper I shall demonstrate that Zangezur is a secondary form based on Jagejor [d͡zagɛd͡zoɾ], which is attested in old Armenian literary sources and is obviously an Armenian compound placename.