1. Cf. R. Schmitt, “Zu den alten armenischen Monatsnamen”,
Annual of Armenian
Linguistics 6, 1985, pp. 91-100.
[back / zurück]
2. An extended version of my Oslo paper “Die altgeorgischen Monatsnamen”
(“Monatsnamen”) will be published in the “Proceedings” of the “3rd Caucasian
Colloquium” (to appear Oslo, 1987).
[back / zurück]
3. Cf. the two articles of M. Brosset J
e, “Calcul chronologique des Géorgiens, § 2:
Des mois” and “Extrait du manuscrit arménien no. 114 de la Bibliothèque royale,
relatif au calendrier géorgien”, in: (Nouveau) Journal Asiatique, Sér. 2, 10 = 21,
1832, pp. 171-175 and 526-532. For a later treatment cf. K.P. Patkanov, Neskol'ko
slov o nazvanijax drevnix armjanskix mesjacev, Sanktpeterburg 1871, pp. 35-43.
[back / zurück]
4. This holds not only for the article of R. Schmitt, but also for V. Bănăţeanu, “Le
calendrier arménien et les anciens noms des mois”, in: Studia et Acta Orientalia 10,
1980, pp. 33-46, who made use of parts of the material published by Brosset and
Patkanov only. Two extensive treatises have been completely ignored by Armenology
apparently because they appeared in Georgian journals and in the Georgian language:
P'. Ingoroq'va, “Jvel-kartuli c'armartuli k'alendari” (“The Old Georgian pagan
calendar”), in: Sakartvelos muzeumis moambe (“Messenger of the Museum of
Georgia”), 6, 1929-30, pp. 373-446 and 7, 1931-32, pp. 260-336, and K'. K'ek'elije,
“Jveli kartuli c'elic'adi” (“The Old Georgian year”), in: St'alinis saxelobis Tbilisis
Saxelmc'ipo Universit'et'is šromebi (“Working papers of the Tbilisi State University
by the name of Stalin”) 18, 1941, reprinted in the author's “Et'iudebi jveli kartuli
lit'erat'uris ist'oriidan” (“Studies in the history of Old Georgian literature”) 1, 1956,
pp. 99-124.
[back / zurück]
5. The first etymology was proposed by P. de Lagarde as early as 1866 (cf. his
“Gesammelte Abhandlungen”, Leipzig, p. 9), the second by J. Marquart in 1907 (cf.
his “Untersuchungen zur Geschichte von Eran” 2, Leipzig, p. 205). Cp. Schmitt, op.
cit., p. 94 sq.
[back / zurück]
6. Cf. de Lagarde, l.cit. and now Schmitt, l.cit.
[back / zurück]
7. Cf. e.g., K'ek'elije, op.cit., p. 101.
[back / zurück]
8. The equation was proposed for the first time by the Georgian prince Teimuraz
who prepared the material used by Brosset in his article in 1832; cf. Journal asiatique
... p. 171.
[back / zurück]
9. For the presumed Iranian etymologies cf. de Lagarde, op.cit., p. 9 and 163, resp.
and Schmitt, op.cit., p. 95.
[back / zurück]
10. The proposal of K'ek'elije (op.cit., p. 102),
kue- `downward, below' >
*
kueltoba- `those being below, in the underworld', has much in its favour. This could
be a calque on the Iranian
fravardigān, rendered νέκυια in Greek by the Byzantine
author Menander (cf. de Lagarde, op.cit., p. 161). - For details see “Monatsnamen”.
[back / zurück]
11. Cf. Schmitt, op.cit., p. 94 sq. In answer to Schmitt's question on
nawasardi,
“wie es bei den Armeniern zu dieser Namengebung gekommen sein mag”, we must
consider that it is not the Iranian month names but the festival calendar which is the
main basis of the Armenian month name list.
[back / zurück]
12. für Helmut Humbach, München 1986, p. 172.
[back / zurück]
13. That
fravardin is the first month while Armenian
hrotic` is the twelfth is
explained by the fact that the festival was located between the old and new year; cf.
also Schmitt, op.cit., p. 95 sq.
[back / zurück]
14. Cf. Schmitt. l.c., who notes the anomaly but does not offer any solution.
[back / zurück]
15. Cf. § 790 of Thomson's edition (Albany 1976, p. 328):
Gayr hasanēr i
Mrhakan meheann anowaneal ordwoyn Aramazday ... `He came to the temple of
Mihr, called the son of Aramazd'.
[back / zurück]
16. Cf. the critical edition by P. Inglisian of “Kiwrłi Erusałemac`woc` t`ułt` ar̄
Kostandios Kaysr. Usumnasirut`iun ew bnagir (sarunakut`iun)”, Handes Amsorya 79,
1965, pp. 1-16, § 4;
Zi yawowrsn sowrb yaynosik sowrb Pentēkostēni, i glowx
Ahakani ... `For in those holy days of the holy Pentecost, in the beginning of (the
month) Ahakani ...' (
i glowx Ahakani translates Νόνναις Μαίαις, cf. Patrologia
Graeca, t. 33, Parisiis 1892, 1169).
[back / zurück]
17. A Vienna manuscript of the X.-XI. century (noted as A), cf. Inglisian, op.cit.,
p. 2.
[back / zurück]
18. This type of word formation is a well known feature of Old Georgian.
[back / zurück]
19. In the martyrology of St. Philectimon.
[back / zurück]
20. E.g., 2 Mos. 40, 2 in the freshly edited “Mcxeta” bible. - The loss of word
internal
-h- is well known in Old Georgian.
[back / zurück]
21. Loan translations are not at issue here.
[back / zurück]
22. Again the martyrology of St. Philectimon.
[back / zurück]
23. Cf. Schmitt, op.cit., p. 94.
[back / zurück]
24. Schmitt refers to
ti-kin himself (l.cit.). As for the relative chronology of
apocopy and syncopy, cf., e.g., the same author's “Grammatik des
Klassisch-Armenischen mit sprachvergleichenden Erläuterungen”, Innsbruck 1981, p.
37sq. (§ II.2.7./8.).
[back / zurück]
25. Cf.Patkanov, op.cit., p. 39.
[back / zurück]
26. t'irisk'nisa- occurs in two martyrologies, one of which has the variant reading
t'iris k'ninisa- (the martyrology of St. Thalele contained in the Georgian ms. of the
Bodleian library, f. 118v, cf. P. Peeters, Analecta Bollandiana 31, 1912, p. 308). For
*t'irisdinisay we have only one attestation in Old Georgian reading
t'irisdidi and one
attestation in an XVIII. century manuscript colophon reading
t'irisdeni. The lexicon
of Sulxan-Saba Orbeliani presents the forms
t'irisk'nisa and
t'irisdeni. For the
Armenian tradition cf. below.
[back / zurück]
27. Cf. the edition Tiflis 1901, p. 273.
[back / zurück]
28. For this festival cf., e.g., M. Boyce, “On the calendar of Zoroastrian feasts”,
BSOAS 33, 1970, p. 534 sqq.
[back / zurück]
29. Cf. A.G. Abrahamyan, Hovhannes Imastaseri matenagrut`yunə, Erevan 1956, p.
74.
[back / zurück]
30. Cf. A.G. Abrahamyan, Anania Širakac`u matenagrut`yunə, Erevan 1944, p. 119.
[back / zurück]
31. This is f. 56 of the Matenadaran ms. no. 1999, which shows some further
pecularities, too. E.g., it is the only ms. to give the correct first letter of both the
names
surc'q'nisay and
tibisay.
[back / zurück]
32. Cf. § 778 of Agathangelos's history in Thomson's edition. According to
Thomson (p. 483), the form
Tiur found in other editions “has no manuscript
authority”; for the god's actual name in Armenian cf. below.
[back / zurück]
33. The reinterpretation of *
dini as a singular form is clear because the plural
genitive would have been *
di-ta, not *
dinisa.
[back / zurück]
34. The variant readings quoted above show how both names influenced each other:
t'irisdidi contains
didi `great'; and
t'irisk'ninisa-, k'nini `small'. Note that in 1932 P'.
Ingoroq'va still maintained the proposal of Brosset a hundred years before, that
t'irisdeni (sic) means “the running of water' and is to be connected with
t'irili
`weeping' (op cit., 2, p. 331 sq.).
[back / zurück]
35. The reconstruction of
-ria- seems to be supported by the Jewish Talmud, too,
where a ”Median“ feast is mentioned under the name of
Turyaskai or
Triaski; cf.
S.H. Taqizadeh, ”The Iranian Festivals Adopted by the Christians and Condemned by
the Jews“, BSOAS 10, 1939-42, p. 637. The
-s-, however, might rather be due to a
mutilation; cp. the form of the
mihrakan feast given as
Muharneki or
Moharneki (ib.).
[back / zurück]
36. This assumption would well fit with the Middle Iranian attestations of the god's
name as a first member of compounds with the regular spelling <try->; cf. the
examples offered by W.B. Henning in A.D.H, Bivar, ”A Rosette phiale Inscribed in
Aramaic“, BSOAS 24, 1961, p. 191. The original name of the god was supposed as
”
Tîrî oder etwa
Tîria“ by Th. Nöldeke, ”Persische Studien 1“, Wien (SBAW, 116)
1888. p. 420.
[back / zurück]
37. For the borrowing of Iranian
-iya- stems into Armenian words in
-i cf. E.
Benveniste, ”Les nominatifs armeniens en -i“, REA 10. 1930, p. 82 sq. with
examples such as
ari-k' from *
ariya-.
[back / zurück]
38. This would be the normal construction of Old Armenian; cf. H. Jensen,
Altarmenische Grammatik, Heidelberg 1959, § 427. Note the difference in Georgian
”
t'iris dinisa; perhaps the form
tri was reinterpreted as a genitive (
-i!) at the time of
the borrowing into Georgian. The same reinterpretation might have led to the
restitution of a form
Tiur as a nominative in the older editions of Agathangelos's
history; cf. note 32 above.
[back / zurück]
39. The analogical influence might have struck
mehekani more thoroughly than
ahekani as the later forms
meheki and
ahki show, the latter of which seems to
represent the Middle Armenian development of *
ahaka-ni, not
ahekani.
[back / zurück]
40. I do not see why Hubschmann (AG. p. 194) regards
mrhakan as a “spätere
Neubildung” as well as
mihrakan. The metathesis of *
-hr- to
-rh- points to a
borrowing in Arsacid times, cp. Hübschmann's own doublet
asxarh/sahr (op.cit., p.
13).
[back / zurück]
41. Cf. Hübschmann, op.cit., p. 194.
[back / zurück]
42. Cf. the collection in Hübschmann. op.cit., p.52 sq.
[back / zurück]
43. Annales, 12, 10.
[back / zurück]
44. Cp. the variant reading
mehrak'nisa- appearing in Georgian as, e.g., 1 Esra 6,
15 in the so called Ošk'i-Bible (dated AD 978). These readings are not decisive,
however, because there may be an influence of an Armenian model containing
mehekani itself.
[back / zurück]
45. My thanks are due to G. Klingenschmitt for a thorough discussion of the
problems dealt with above.
[back / zurück]