Title: Urartian-Armenian (Vocabulary and Historical-Comparative Grammar)

Author: Sargis Ayvasyan

Language: Armenian , 2008 , by Yerevan State Univ Press, 400 p. ISBN 978-5-8084-0989-7

CONCLUSION REMARK

The comparison of Urartian and Classical Armenian languages shows, that the large portion of the
currently acceptable and comprehensible portion of Urartian lexicon has its parallel in Armenian. In addition,
the majority of common words (roots) are native Armenian, have Indo-European origin. Many of these words
represented in their oldest sense and/or form. Moreover, not only roots, but also most word formational
suffixes are common with Armenian. They are also mainly native and have Indo-European origin. On the
other hand, greater part of word formational suffixes, that form the oldest layer of the Armenian, has its
parallel in the Urartian. It is important, that some differences, observed in the all material, have strictly
regular character and are consonant with Preclassical Armenian language picture reconstructed by the
comparative grammar or the other methods. In case we take into consideration the above mentioned natural
changes in Armenian and possible dialect difference, the calculation shows, that 65% of roots and 85-90% of
word formational suffixes of comprehensible Urartian lexicon are common with Armenian. That is, these two
languages, particularly in the frames of known monotype texts, are consisted of common roots and word
formational affixes.

These commonalities are notable not only in the quantitative, but also in qualitative sense, because they
refer to such usually unchangeable and not loaned elements of every language as pronouns, verbs,
conjunctions and subsidiary words (Urartian numerals are indicated in the form of ideograms which make it
impossible to compare them with Armenian). As an example, could be mentioned the main verbal stems,
demonstrative and other pronouns, pronominal adverbs, almost all conjunctions, particles, etc. The diffe-
rences are more notable in the case of inclinational suffixes (case, verbal endings). But in these cases
commonalities are also substantial, especially in the reliably defined grammatical forms. Moreover, it is
referred not only to the general typical similarities of the case and verbal morphology, but to the concrete
morphemes as well, for example, nominative, genitive and dative markers, past perfect forms of indicative
mood (in particular, intransitive verbs) and verbs of imperative mood, and so on (there is not reliable evi-
dence for Urartian present tense forms of the verbs). More tangible differences are stipulated by the ergative
structure of Urartian in contrast Armenian (in this sense Urartian is similar to Hurrian) and, as a result, of
some differences in the case and verbal morphology.

Despite these differences, not only particular words and phrases, but the whole sentences in Urartian
and even entire inscriptions are read in understandable Armenian and comprehended with no difficulties and
without special clarifications.

At the same time, if we speak about the existence of common Indo-European language which has existed
5-6 thousand years before us, then 2,5-2,8 thousand year old Armenian should be distinguished from
contemporary Armenian and ought to be located roughly in the middle of modern Armenian and Indo-
European common language, certainly with its Indo-European component. It is noticeable, that in the
common part of Urartian and Armenian languages prevail just Indo-European elements. Thus, summarizing
all above mentioned facts, we come to the some core conclusions:

a) Armenian element by its volume and quality is the base of Urartian and could not be the result of
the borrowing and interactions. At the same time, it is not clear the position between Urartian and
Classical Armenian. Most likely, the differences between them are conditioned not only by the temporal
factor (Urartian cuneiform texts are 1000-1300 years older than Classical Armenian early texts), but also by
the areal reason. In favor of this speak facts on historical-geographical formation and extension of Urartian
Kingdom, according to which, at the beginning the territory of Urartu has been located at south-eastern part
of Major Hayk. It is possible, that it has coincided with the Armenian Korchayk region. In this aspect, it is
important the historical data which mentioned complexity and crooked character of the dialect of this region.
b) There is some stratum of Hurrian (especially, of old Hurrian) both in Urartian lexicon and some
grammatical elements, which none the less concede to Armenian. Most of these commonalities, many of
which have Indo-European origin, are present in Armenian. Taking into consideration all these facts, it is less
likely that Urartian and Hurrian are cognate languages, although it is not excluded. It is more plausible, that
Hurrian-Urartian commonalities are result of interactions and remote cognate link of these two languages. It
is not excluded, that, to some extent, they have areal nature. For clarification of this question it would be
useful to do comprehensive research of Hurrian-Armenian linguistic commonalities which are not, as
mentioned, few and not limited only with word roots.

Link to Book: http://booksfromarmenia.com/item.php?item_id=246